By Roberto Azevêdo
GENEVA, Dec 11 2015 (IPS)

The Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is now just a few days away, from 15 to 18 December in Nairobi.

This is the first time that the WTO has held a Ministerial Conference in Africa­ and therefore expectations are high that it should deliver for Africa ­ and for all developing countries, particularly the least-developed.

This work is happening mainly through two processes.

The first process is that of the negotiations group. Members are working through these groups on a range of specific issues. However, despite intensive efforts on all of the core issues of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) of world trade negotiations, started in November 2001, I must report that little progress has been made. Gaps between members’ positions remain huge.

This means we haven’t been able to advance in many of the major DDA issues such as agricultural domestic support, for example, or any aspect of market access ­ whether agricultural, non-agricultural, or services.

Nevertheless, a general sense has emerged that consensus might be achievable on some issues ­if, and only if, we work very hard on all of them.

This includes a package of measures for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), which could contain a number of possible elements, such as further steps on Duty-Free and Quota-Free (DFQF), services, cotton and rules of origin.

Another issue which we may be able to harvest is a possible agreement on export competition in agriculture, which may include steps on export subsidies, export credits, the role of state trading enterprises and food aid, for example. Any achievements here would be especially important for developing and least-developed countries.

We are also working on issues such as special safeguard mechanisms and public stockholding for food security purposes, though progress is lacking here as well.

Indeed, at present, nothing is guaranteed. There is still a long way to go, significant gaps still to bridge, and little time remaining.

So, that’s the first process. The second is focused on drafting a Ministerial Declaration. There has been intensive work going on here as well.

In this regard, a majority of delegations made reference to a “Bali-like” Ministerial Declaration (December 2013) in three parts. The first part would have the introductory language, focusing on the importance of the multilateral trading system, the second part would cover the Nairobi deliverables, and the third part would look to the future work of the WTO after Nairobi.

There has been some progress. Clearly, however, we will need to take a different approach for the most contentious issues.

This process on the declaration shows the importance of Nairobi ­ but it also underlines the fact that our work will not end there.

The conversation about the future of the DDA is surely just as important as any deliverables that we will achieve in Nairobi.

The DDA has seen slow progress since its launch in 2001 and when negotiations are slow in the WTO, countries will explore other avenues such as regional trade agreements.

These initiatives are positive, but the WTO must advance as well.

The risk of doing everything in regional forums is that most of the time developing countries and LDCs will be left out of the conversation.

It is only at the multilateral level where all voices are heard, and where the biggest development issues can be properly addressed.

This brings the spotlight back to the WTO, and to our capacity to negotiate.

Nevertheless, I think we cannot disregard important commonalities when thinking the way ahead.

For instance, I think all members agree that:

– We want to deliver in Nairobi.
– Whatever we deliver will not be enough to formally and consensually conclude the Doha Round.
– And members are willing to keep the big Doha issues on the table, agriculture being the most pre-eminent of these.

This discussion on how we move forward will be vitally important for the future of the WTO.

So there is a lot at stake, in terms of the potential deliverables ­ and in terms of what success, or failure, would mean for the future of the multilateral trading system.

Nairobi will be a very important moment in many ways. And I should say that there could be a number of other positive outcomes there.

Ministers of the 162 country members will be asked to approve the membership of Liberia and Afghanistan, for example ­ which will deliver a big boost for growth and development in those two countries.

It is also possible that the deal to expand the Information Technology Agreement will be finalized, which will deliver more economic growth around the world.

And we may see some further progress on the Environmental Goods Agreement.

In addition, we hope to see a strong vote of support for the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) at their pledging conference which will be held on the eve of the ministerial. Indeed, the EIF provides essential support for LDCs, and so this will be another important outcome from the Ministerial Conference.

In conclusion, we have a lot on the table ­ but a lot of work is still required to achieve successful outcomes in Nairobi.

So how do we take forward the outstanding Doha issues after Nairobi? Opinions are quite divergent on this point.

Some members argue that we must keep working on Doha because it is vital for development ­ and that while Doha is not concluded we must not divert our focus to discuss anything else.

Others argue that after years of limited success under the Doha architecture, it is unlikely that this framework could yield any further progress, especially on the more difficult issues.

Therefore, these countries are reluctant to continue engaging in negotiations under this current framework.

These members also believe that for the Organization to function properly, it has to evolve and address whatever new issues members want to talk about. For these members, it is critical that the WTO addresses new concerns; otherwise it risks losing its relevance.

Obviously, it is difficult to reconcile these views.

(End)

Excerpt:

African countries are coming under strong pressure from the United States and the European Union to reverse the decision adopted by their trade ministers to implement the World Trade Organization’s trade facilitation agreement on a “provisional” basis.

At last week’s summit of African Union leaders in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, “there was unprecedented [U.S. and European Union] pressure and bulldozing to change the decision reached by the African trade ministers on April 27 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to implement the trade facilitation (TF) agreement on a provisional basis under paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration,” Ambassador Nelson Ndirangu, director for economics and external trade in the Kenyan Foreign Ministry, told IPS.

“This pressure comes only when the issues and interests of rich countries are involved but not when the concerns of the poorest countries are to be addressed,” Ambassador Ndirangu said.“This pressure [on African countries] comes only when the issues and interests of rich countries are involved but not when the concerns of the poorest countries are to be addressed … Clearly, there are double-standards” – Ambassador Nelson Ndirangu, director for economics and external trade in the Kenyan Foreign Ministry

“Clearly, there are double-standards,” the senior Kenyan trade official added, lamenting the pressure and arm-twisting that was applied on African countries for definitive implementation of the agreement.

The TF agreement was concluded at the WTO’s ninth ministerial conference in Bali, Indonesia, last year.  It was taken out of the Doha Development Agenda as a low-hanging fruit ready for consummation.  More importantly, the agreement was a payment to the United States and the European Union to return to the Doha negotiating table.

The ambitious TF agreement is aimed at harmonising customs rules and regulations as followed in the industrialised countries. It ensures unimpeded market access for companies such as Apple, General Electric, Caterpillar, Pfizer, Samsung, Sony, Ericsson, Nokia, Hyundai, Toyota and Lenovo in developing and poor countries.

Former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy has suggested that the TF agreement would reduce tariffs by 10 percent in the poorest countries.

In return for the agreement, developing and least-developed countries were promised several best endeavour outcomes in the Bali package on agriculture and development. They include general services (such as land rehabilitation, soil conservation and resource management, drought management and flood control), public stockholding for food security, an understanding on tariff rate quota administration, export subsidies, and phasing out of trade-distorting cotton subsidies (provided largely by the United States) in agriculture.

The non-binding developmental outcomes include preferential rules of origin for the export of industrial goods by the poorest countries, a special waiver to help services suppliers in the poorest countries, duty-free and quota-free market access for least developed countries (LDCs), and a monitoring mechanism for special and differential treatment flexibilities.

African countries were unhappy with the Bali package because they said it lacked balance and was tilted heavily in favour of the TF agreement forced by the industrialised countries on the poor nations.

The Bali outcomes, said African Union Trade Commissioner Fatima Acyl, “were not the most optimal decisions in terms of African interests … We have to reflect and learn from the lessons of Bali on how we can ensure that our interests and priorities are adequately addressed in the post-Bali negotiations.”

The African ministers in Malabo directed their negotiators to propose language on the Protocol of Amendment – the legal instrument that will bring the TF agreement into force at the WTO – that the TF agreement will be provisionally implemented and in completion of the entire Doha Round of negotiation.

African countries justify their proposal on the basis of paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration which enables WTO members to implement agreement either on a provisional or definitive basis.

The African position on the TF agreement was not acceptable to the rich countries. In a furious response, the industrialised countries adopted a belligerent approach involving threats to terminate preferential access. The United States, for example, threatened African countries that it would terminate the preferential access provided under the Africa Growth Opportunities Act (AGOA) programme if they did not reverse their decision on the TF, said a senior African trade official from Southern Africa.

The WTO has also joined the wave of protests launched by the industrialised countries against the African decision for deciding to implement the TF on a provisional basis. “I am aware that there are concerns about actions on the part of some delegations [African countries] which could compromise what was negotiated in Bali last December,” WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo said, at a meeting of the informal trade negotiations committee on June 25.

The African decision, according to Azevedo, “would not only compromise the Trade Facilitation Agreement – including the technical assistance element. All of the Bali decisions – every single one of them – would be compromised,” he said.

The United States agreed with Azevedo’s assessment of the potential danger of unravelling the TF agreement, and the European Union’s trade envoy to the WTO, Ambassador Angelos Pangratis, said that “the credibility of the negotiating function of this organisation is once again at stake” because of the African decision.

The United States and the European Union stepped up their pressure by sending security officials to Malabo to oversee the debate, said another African official.  He called it an “unprecedented power game rarely witnessed at an African heads of nations meeting.”

In the face of the strong-arm tactics, several African countries such as Nigeria and Mauritius refused to join the ministerial consensus to implement the TF agreement on a provisional basis.  Several other African countries subsequently retracted their support for the declaration agreed to in April.

In a nutshell, African Union leaders were forced to change their course by adopting a new decision which “reaffirms commitment to the Doha Development Agenda and to its rapid completion in accordance with its development objectives.”

The African Union “also reaffirms its commitment to all the decisions the Ministers took in Bali which are an important stepping stone towards the conclusion of the Doha Round …  To this end, leaders acknowledge that the Trade Facilitation Agreement is an integral part of the process.”

Regarding capacity-building assistance to developing countries to help them implement the binding TF commitments, African Union countries still want to see up-front delivery of assistance.  The new decision states that African Union leaders “reiterate in this regard that assistance and support for capacity-building should be provided as envisaged in the Trade Facilitation Agreement in a predictable manner so as to enable African economies to acquire the necessary capacity for the implementation of the agreement.”

The decision taken by the African leaders is clearly aimed at implementing the TF decision, but there is no clarity yet on how to implement the decision, said Ndirangu. “We never said we will not implement the TF agreement but we don’t know how to implement this agreement,” he added.

In an attempt to ensure that the rich countries do not walk away with their prized jewel in the Doha crown by not addressing the remaining developmental issues,  several countries – South Africa, India, Uganda, Tanzania, Solomon Islands and Zimbabwe – demanded Wednesday that there has to be a clear linkage between the implementation of the TF agreement and the rest of the Doha Development Agenda on the basis of the Single Undertaking, which stipulates that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed!

More than 180 days after the Bali meeting, there is no measurable progress on the issues raised by the poor countries. But the TF agreement is on course for final implementation by the end of 2015.