Item 2 On the question of deliverables for UK the following items must be on table at MC 14: clear political direction on reform and a clear path to outcome at MC15; delivering the plurilateral agreements on E-Commerce and the Investment Facilitation for Development; maintaining the E-Commerce moratorium and a recommitment to achieving a well functioning Dispute Settlement system accessible to all Members. The UK als...
Item 2 On the question of deliverables for UK the following items must be on table at MC 14: clear political direction on reform and a clear path to outcome at MC15; delivering the plurilateral agreements on E-Commerce and the Investment Facilitation for Development; maintaining the E-Commerce moratorium and a recommitment to achieving a well functioning Dispute Settlement system accessible to all Members. The UK also welcomes efforts underway across the CTD and elsewhere to find a set workable development outcomes. These are the UK priorities but we recognise everyone will want to see value in MC14 and have something that reflects their most critical priorities. The UK stands ready to work with all Members in this regard. To that extent, progress will only really be possible if Members engage in good faith, and don’t block out comms across files, especially on items that cause them no material harm. As other Members have said, the overwhelming priority for the UK is the reform agenda. To that extent, the UK thanks and strongly supports the work and report of Reform Facilitator, and the aim to develop a work plan between MC14 and MC15 as a basis for Ministerial Decision at MC14. We also support the idea of including clear checkpoints between MC14 and MC15. As you know the UK has not been a strong proponent of an outcome document, but if we are going to proceed, we would welcome it being very short, with early clear deadlines, and far in advance of MC14 to determine if we have consensus around it. Item 8 We note that consensus has not been reached and is unlikely to be reached on this topic. On the current version of the proposal the UK views this is an important issue that we remain committed and open to working with Members to finding a solution between now and then MC14. We note the idea contained in the report the Chairperson of the LDC sub committee to explore a process oriented outcome and LDC graduation that is establishing in focus session on obviously graduation with a view to examine particular challenges of graduating and graduated LDCs. Item 9 We welcome the constructive approach that had been taken by the G90 grouping and the focus on moving technical discussions to technical committees. We note that consensus has not been reached, and we would appreciate further discussions in the New Year with a view to finding a solution before MC14. We support technical aspects of the implementation and operation of the SPS and TBT Agreements being considered in technical committees. We would also encourage the G90 to engage with activity that is underway in the SPS and TBT to progress related matters, following the report and recommendations for the 6th review from the SPS agreement under the 10th triennial review of SDT agreement. Item 10 Thank you Chair, the UK believes this is a crucial means of direct investment and we align ourselves with this statement of the co-conveners. There is currently a 4 trillion investment gap, funding gap, to achieve the SDGs. Governments are not going to be able to fill this gap, and it is important that we enable the private sector to do so. The IFDA is a crucial means of doing so and OECD analysis suggests that the investment it will generate will increase global GDP by up to 1% - with that amount being skewed heavily towards developing countries. This is not abstract, this is real jobs, this is real money. This is money that is life changing and lifesaving. When we hold back this agreement, we should reflect on the real-world impacts that this will have on people. We believe the agreement is ripe for ministerial action, and we welcome Egypt as the 128th member of the IFDA. This does not mean that we all need to agree now, we recognise that some Members continue to have concerns, and we have noted the new communication from India setting out their longstanding concerns which will be covered under the agenda item 19. Between now and MC14 we stand ready to continue our dialogue with all countries. We recently had a very constructive dialogue with Türkiye in Ankara where we heard their concerns loud and clear, and we will continue to follow up bilaterally. However, we are clear that this is now a political decision for our ministers at MC14. In practice for the UK this means ensuring IFDA is on the MC14 agenda, a ministerial facilitator is appointed with a separate, and a dedicated IFDA event at the conference in the programme. Thank you. Item 11 Thank you Chair. The UK welcomes the Philippines joining the ECA as its 72nd participant. We think this clearly demonstrates the continued strong interest in this agreement and we look forward to further Members joining in due course. We believe the ECA, together with the IFDA, is a clear demonstration of the positive use of flexibilities of the WTO’s negotiating function. It is an agreement fully in line with WTO rules and procedures with strong support from a significant number of Members, representing all corners of the world, and all levels of development. The economic significance of this agreement cannot be underestimated. A number of colleagues have referenced the OECD WTO research, so I won’t repeat that, but I will highlight two things. One, as others have said, the benefits are skewed to favour low and lower-middle income countries - particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The second is that the agreement has no known material negative impacts on non-participants. Indeed, it is estimated to benefit those participants. In summary, to contribute to real-world growth, and to show this organisation is still relevant to the world that we live in, the UK remains fully committed to seeking Annex 4 incorporation. We call on all Members to support the bringing of this agreement into effect as soon as possible for the benefit of all. Item 14 This intervention will serve for both the LDC and the African group (item 14 and item 24) agenda items. The UK would like to thank both groups for their submissions. We appreciate the emphasis on advancing agriculture reform however with clear divergences remaining it is important to focus on outcomes that are balanced and achievable. In advance of MC12 the UK led work to develop a Food Security statement which was supported by around 60 WTO members and recognised the critical global challenges on food security. This became a big part of the MC12 Food Security Declaration, an important milestone which has helped to refocus work in the agriculture negotiations. Global Food insecurity has worsened since MC12 and we have to do more in the WTO to address this. To this end, the UK has been championing work on export restrictions and prohibitions. It is clear these measures can, and have, exacerbated global food crises and make trade less reliable. Enhancing disciplines on these measures would be a meaningful contribution this organisation can make towards this issue. We welcome the focus on food security of several proposals submitted by the African Group, the LDC as well as Jamaica. We are committed to working towards a consensus seeking text. Item 15 The UK welcomes these proposals and looks forward to engaging. The UK is also open to the General Council playing a guiding role and facilitating a structured discussion in this area which recognises the shifting landscape and the diverse priorities amongst Members. Item 18 We very much recognise the importance of this issue particularly to developing and least developing countries. The UK has actively participated in the discussion on remittances in the CTFA since MC13 and we thank Morocco for their proposal. At present we are not yet fully clear on whether the aim of the proposal is to agree the substantive ideas that it contains which has been mentioned before are topics that are already considered in other multilateral fora or whether the aim is to get ministerial support for further discussions as has been mentioned in discussions, we have been part of. We would need to have further clarity on this first before we are able to consider if this should be taken to Ministers. At this stage, we cannot support taking proposals to Ministers, but we look forward to continuing discussions to get further clarity. Item 19 The UK aligns with the statement made by the co-coordinators. We have read India’s paper. We note these are concerns that have been raised before. We note that the UK has responded to them both verbally and in writing before. We would note that the coordinators have done so as well. But there’s a phrase in Tamil which my Mum always tells me which is “you should never let anyone say, ‘if only you had said’”. As my good friend the Indian PR will know. So, I will repeat if that’s okay. First concerning the Doha ministerial mandate, the IFDA was launched plurilaterally, not multilaterally, thereby overriding any previous decision. Secondly, the scope of the IFDA is different. As we’ve made clear before, the IFDA does not cover market access, investment protection, and investor state dispute settlement. On India’s second and third arguments relating to the core foundational principles of the WTO and the requirements of article 10.9 of Marrakesh Agreement, we would note WTO’s Members’ right to request the incorporation of plural agreement into the WTO rule book is recognised in article 10.9 of WTO agreement. Fourth, regarding the relationship between trade and investment and whether IFDA constitutes a trade agreement, we would note investment plays a key role in trade flows. There are large amounts of trade in services are cross border flows and investment and count as investment through mode 3. The WTO therefore already substantially covers investments through GATS and we already have the TRIMS agreement which sets a clear precedent. Fifth, on the marginalisation of mandated issues and the diversion of limited WTO resources, we would note we have a clear ministerial mandate on the IFD from MC11. It is a priority for developing Members who have led negotiations themselves to tackle the issues of economic development that they face in their own countries. The IFDA has the support of 128 out of 166 Members more than three-quarters of the membership almost 90 of those are developing countries. Chair this is something that the organisation has to agree to it is if we can’t agree to this. I really don’t know what we are able to agree to.
Speech Brief