WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell wouldn’t go into details of what ministers said. There will be a press conference this evening.
He said there was were some broadly encouraging statements, and some continued disagreement on the draft
5/11
What he told us about the process is interesting.
When he briefed at about 13:00 Geneva time, over 50 ministers had spoken out of a total of 108 on the list.
Because the meeting is virtual, the order of speakers was by time zone, starting with West Pacific states …
6/11
… and ending up eventually with the Americas.
Rockwell also said this is the first time so many ministers were speaking on the subject. Not even the last proper Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires saw that.
But then …
7/11
But then, the ministers in Buenos Aires did not have a proper text to discuss. Now, there is much more detail on the table ⬇️
PURPOSE: not a breakthrough, but new political direction towards consensus.
• … ministers speak by time zone. Some may go to bed before others speak. Plus, long on-line meetings are notorious for participants dropping out when they have said their bit
So not much hope they are listening to each other. And …
9/11
… ministers are given 3-minute slots each
• This is a formal plenary meeting. It’s unlikely ministers will reveal their negotiating hands fully, if at all
“Countries do not negotiate in meetings of the full membership, even behind closed doors.”
• If the ministers were meeting in person, they would huddle in smaller groups, and even participate in organised small group meetings. There are no such arrangements today.
So the chances that they will really listen to each other's concerns are limited.
It's unclear how much of a breakthrough this is. Members have already worked on the chair's text, enough for him to produce a revision.
This meeting has confirmed politically that all members are on board.
Wills said he's now optimistic that agreement can be reached.
2/6
But the text itself reflects fundamental differences over
• special treatment for developing countries (eg China)
• whether countries can offset limits on harmful subsidies with funds to support sustainable stocks
• fuel subsidies when not specifically for fishing
3/6
Some developing country ministers slammed the draft on special treatment (see eg India and reuters' report, both ⬆️)
But asked repeatedly about this, @NOIweala insisted ministers were unified—on the need for special treatment, without damaging sustainable fish stocks
4/6
Holding the meeting online has also limited what ministers can achieve (see⬆️).
With the prospect that the Nov 30 to Dec 3 Ministerial Conference might have to be held online, amid similar constraints, the DG and chair are determined to try to conclude the talks before then
5/6
The talks began in 2001, in a package called the Doha Round. They are now a stand-alone subject.
"20 years is long enough, and if we continue for another 20 years, there won't be any fish left" @WillsSantiago said.
I can take defeat. Boy have I supported defeated teams in my time. I did wonder whether it was a good idea to give penalty-taking to players who had just come on and had hardly touched the ball.
And yet I remind myself:
1/7
I remind myself:
• England were never actually defeated in any match. Only on penalties
• Last night, England didn’t play well for most of the 2nd half. In the semis, Spain lost on penalties to Italy but kept Italy pretty quiet during the match. England couldn’t do that
2/7
I remind myself:
• Italy deserved to win the tournament. They were the best team overall from start to finish, and on balance better last night.
• England were probably second best in the tournament, although they had a poor game against Scotland and faded last night.
3/7
For example "What happens when the Swiss certificate is checked in an EU/EFTA country where you are not considered to be completely protected until 14 days after the vaccination?"
If the UK does this, its companies will not automatically be able to bid for procurement contracts abroad—in the EU, US, Japan, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc
OPTION ONE: Make a loud noise about this to win votes, but don’t actually do it. Britain would not violate the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)
This is not an original thought. Politicians do it everywhere