W

ith the ninth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Meeting entering its third day without any definitive deals in sight, people have begun speculating on the possible outcome, especially on the hottest issues of food security and trade facilitation. The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) chief executive Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz talked with The Jakarta Post'€™s Tassia Sipahutar on the issues and other important topics of the post-Bali agenda.

Question: Are you optimistic that deals will be made in Bali?

Answer: I don'€™t think there has been any surprises yet and there is still a possibility of a deal.

In a message delivered by [Indian Commerce and Industry] Minister Anand Sharma yesterday [Wednesday], for me it'€™s clear that when he spoke about food security being non-negotiable, he was talking in general terms, about the concept of food security as a political concern of every nation.

It'€™s a sovereign concern and is non-negotiable.

That'€™s something that no country, no WTO member, would disagree with.

What he was also saying was that when it comes to trade distortions and the use of certain specific schemes, like the policies that have been enacted in India recently, we must find in the WTO a solution that will be satisfactory for everybody.

So, it means that he'€™s open to negotiating that solution.

I said in the beginning that there hasn'€™t been any surprise, but it'€™s still something that people are puzzled about.

What they find difficult to understand is how two weeks ago in Geneva, they seemed to have an agreement on these issues, and at the last minute, it turned out to be such a controversy.

The explanation for that is in the political nature of the issue itself, but that doesn'€™t mean that it cannot be resolved.

What about the talks on trade facilitation?

If we had a resolution on the food security issue, trade facilitation should be ready to be agreed.

Is that the easier part of the talks?

I think it is. We'€™re at a point where they'€™re ready to go.

There are a few issues that remain, but they'€™re ready to go.

The complication is whether holding that trade facilitation agreement hostage to resolving other issues, namely the food security issue, may risk ending up in some countries reopening some of the questions in the trade facilitation agreement that have already been settled.

If that starts happening, because we operate in the WTO under this rule that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, we would be in a situation where everybody starts going back to open up questions that have been closed.

What are the most important issues to be discussed post-Bali?

Some of the most immediate issues in the post-Bali Package have to do with ensuring that the advances in regional trade integration can be multilateralized.

There are other issues that are sort of sitting on the side that would be important for the trade system to start working on.

Some of them have to do with food security.

There are also issues that I consider are of great urgency, for instance, addressing climate change by liberalizing and coming up with a set of disciplines in the field of sustainable energy technologies.

Renewable energies, if their use was scaled up, could make a very big difference in the question of greenhouse gas emissions.

But right now the markets for renewable energies are all distorted by tariffs, non-tariff measures and policies that are discriminatory, that affect competitiveness.

The whole policy environment is leading to a situation where the renewable energy solutions become more expensive than they should be.

Will we see more regional trade agreements (RTAs) in the future?

Yes. Whether there is an agreement here in Bali or not, countries are going to continue to pursue certain issues and certain interests through regional trade agreements.

If there is no agreement in Bali, there'€™s more of an impetus, an incentive if you like, for countries to go down that road.

If there is an agreement in Bali, there may be less of an incentive, but it'€™s not going to go away.

The reason why countries are pursuing certain issues in regional trade agreements is not only because they can'€™t make the deals in the WTO because of a single undertaking.

It'€™s because countries have chosen to go deeper in their integration with other countries.

Going deeper means going into areas that are not covered by the WTO and also beyond the minimum [level] that the WTO provides.

They also want to start addressing irritants or wrinkles in their bilateral or regional trade and economic integration that initially were not dealt with in the WTO.

Is there a downside to having more RTAs, like overlapping regulations?

Yes. We have 350 or so RTAs today, but I think we'€™re going into a situation of consolidation.

We'€™re going to see more aggregation and more harmonization between the RTAs and parts of the RTAs.