They say that in the corridors of the headquarters of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva in recent weeks there have been feverish huddles, officials who walk around with their laptops and who work up to fourteen hours a day to get to prepare a minimum text. Everything is ready for the XII summit of trade ministers from 126 countries that starts today after almost five years of the previous one, which ended in a semi-fiasco in Buenos Aires.
This time there are reasonable grounds for optimism. For the first time in more than 20 years, an agreement should be reached to eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies from the fishing sector. For example, this means putting an end to economic aid for the fuel of the boats of the large fishing fleets that sail long voyages through the oceans practicing intensive fishing. At the same time, it is intended to preserve the most artisanal and sustainable activity.
It is estimated that 33% of the fishing population suffers from overfishing, when two decades ago we were at 20%. The goal of eliminating subsidies is to preserve the biosphere. But developing countries or countries with a tradition of large fleets – such as Russia, Japan and South Korea – negotiate the longest terms for the end of aid to come into force. Some ask for a seven-year moratorium and others, like India, up to 25. There is also a debate about setting up a fund with economic resources to promote the modernization of ships and the protection of the marine territory.
This is what often happens in the WTO: when there are difficulties for an agreement, added time and money are put on the table. Although fishing may seem like an economic sector of limited scope, a success of this multilateral negotiation is key, because it would show that this international forum is still capable of reaching agreements through consensus, after years of frustrations and failures.
The other issue on which positions seem to have been unblocked thanks to the impulse of the general director, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, is the thorny issue of vaccines. Initially, the proposal of the less advanced and vaccine-producing economies – such as India and South Africa – sought to obtain a derogation from the intellectual property rights held by Western pharmaceutical companies. Not just patents, but copyrights and trade secrets.
Finally, it seems that flexibility and exceptions will now be limited to covid vaccines, because the United States and Europe defend that without exclusive rights it would not be possible to investigate or invest in this complex and essential sector. There are fringes that have been left up in the air, in particular as to when it will be possible to extend this liberalization of exclusivity rights also to ancillary elements, such as diagnostic tests.
In any case, Western countries have managed to set a condition that the countries that would benefit from intellectual property-free vaccines would not have to represent more than 10% of world exports. It is a message addressed to China, which sells much more than this percentage, because the most industrialized countries do not want the Chinese to have access to their cutting-edge technology – such as messenger RNA – for geostrategic reasons.
To this must be added that the powerful Swiss lobby is annoyed at having been excluded from the negotiations between the blocs of countries and threatens to blow up the progress. However, Switzerland filters some optimism.
In contrast, the positions of the member states remain far apart on agricultural issues. The question is how to guarantee food security and how to prevent states from blocking access to food provided for in the United Nations World Food Program by stopping exports or blocking shipments. WTO sources recall that, since the Russian aggression against Ukraine began, some twenty countries have applied restrictions on the exit of food from their own markets.
And this year will also be a summit marked by war. Formally, trade sanctions have a legal aspect in accordance with WTO rules, which provide that member states adopt barriers to free trade or introduce restrictions for reasons of national security.
But the Russians consider that this body should not be the headquarters for resolving political issues and they defend their position. There is a curious element to consider: there is no way to kick a member out of the WTO. On the other hand, if a state is the one that wants to leave, it is enough for it to notify it. Moscow, for the moment, is castled and continues to be part of the organization.
Those who have been in the WTO for a long time remember how Russia’s accession process in 2012 was one of the most difficult in memory, because the country had to modify the legal structure that it had inherited from the Soviet system.
Thus, in the meetings between the different delegations, the Russians are prevented from coming into direct contact with members of blocs considered by them as hostile. Although each side blames the other for inflation and the problems of food shortages, for now the discussions within the WTO continue. And there are texts already prepared by officials who are only waiting for the approval of the ministers. Will the signatures arrive this week?
