Ranging from decisions to enhance global food security to a holistic pandemic response, the Geneva Package has served as a decisive victory for the multilateral trading order and will help rejuvenate a moribund WTO.
Most importantly, for India, this is perhaps the first time since at least Bali ministerial in 2013 that the government has been unconditionally pleased with the outcomes of a Ministerial Conference, according to statements by Ayush Goal, India’s trade etc. minister. Such jubilant is well-earned. India maintained an offensive yet constructive negotiating stance at MC12, which translated into leadership and not mere obstructionism. This is something, we had cautioned earlier in these columns, and are therefore very pleased with such a pragmatic and constructive approach.
Overall, MC12 was nobody’s loss and a win for everyone, especially the WTO. Not only did Minister not go back “empty-handed”, in the words of the WTO D-G, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, they also showed that “strategic competition” could indeed co-exist with “strategic cooperation”. This is a powerful message for our troubled times. Compromise by Members allowed for breaking gridlocks on long-held positions, incremental progress on various issues, and considerable momentum for taking forward the various negotiation modalities.
Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies
The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (Agreement) has garnered mixed reactions. While it marks the revitalization of the negotiating function of the Organization, it is also only a partial bargain, with many contentious issues such as the scope of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) as well as treatment of subsidies leading to overcapacity or overfishing being pushed for the next Ministerial Conference. Nonetheless, sealing the deal as an early harvest agreement of sorts was a very pragmatic call, and has probably saved the WTO from crossing an institutional tipping point.
For now, the Agreement prohibits subsidies for fishing or fishing related activities concerning overfished stocks or leading to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Agreement also prohibits subsidization of fishing and related activities "outside" of the jurisdiction of a coastal Member.
Importantly, the demand made by India and several other developing countries for the extension of fishing limits to 200 nautical miles has been accepted. Consequently, for developing and least developed countries, "all of the" aforementioned subsidies when provided within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) shall be exempt from the Agreement’s disciplines for a grace period of two years.
However, going forward, developing countries will probably try to secure a permanent exemption or a longer grace period for certain subsidies provided to low income, resource-poor and livelihood fishing or fishing related activities, within their EEZ. Such exemptions will be required to balance the objective of sustainability with concerns of livelihood and employment.
In fact, as far as sustainability is concerned, the Agreement has ramifications far beyond marine lives. This is the first multilateral agreement at the WTO which directly links trade with sustainable development. This will probably translate into positive momentum for ongoing urilateral negotiations under the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions framework.
Could it also shift the WTO’s Overton window on sustainability? If the WTO is to be the multilateral watchdog of both trade and certain sustainability regimes, then this could imply that non-discriminatory carbon border measures, duly protected by SDT provisions, may also be received more warmly, despite their impacts on production patterns and trade
You must be logged in to post a comment.