On Wednesday 13 September, the first meeting of the committee for agricultural talks at the WTO was held after the summer break. This showed the persistence of big differences on the agricultural dossier – with less than three months to go before the 11th ministerial conference in Buenos Aires (10-13 November). Member countries are hoping to finalise a decision in Buenos Aires on domestic support and on public food stocks.
Several delegations are concerned that the member countries are "still very far from convergence on nearly all the subjects in the agricultural negotiations", according to a source in Geneva.
As the host country for the Buenos Aires conference, Argentina is concerned that members are still not able to identify the priority questions.
On behalf of the G33 developing countries, Indonesia is concerned that some of proposals that were tabled before the summer break (see EUROPE 11803) seemed to try to establish a link between the question of domestic support and that of public stockholding for food security purposes – a mechanism that the G33 countries want in order to enable them to stock agricultural products while exceeding the limits set by the WTO for domestic support. The G33 reaffirms that the mandate to find a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security purposes is distinct and on an independent track, Indonesia states.
The chair of the agricultural talks, Kenya's Ambassador to the WTO, Stephen Karau, reaffirmed that "many delegations" consider an outcome on domestic support as a "priority" for the Buenos Aires conference. He gave assurances that he did not see any major difference when it comes to the level of ambition, but that there are significant gaps on how to achieve this ambition.
The EU and Brazil defended their joint proposal that was presented in July on limiting trade-distorting subsidies in proportion to the size of each country's agricultural production (see EUROPE 11831). They said that their proposal aimed to find a well-calibrated balance, including a substantial development dimension and excluding the least developed countries from the new disciplines.
On the link between public stockholding and domestic support, the EU said it recognised the mandate to find a permanent solution to the problem of public stockholding, but it thought this issue was an integral part of the domestic support programme. Addressing both issues together is the best strategic approach for reaching an agreement in Buenos Aires, the EU stated.
The EU and Brazil also commented on other domestic support proposals on the table, saying that China and India's proposal on the prior removal of margins of flexibility, which are currently enjoyed by developed countries, would maintain inequality between members.
By contrast, the EU thought that setting fixed ceilings for domestic support, as proposed by Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Paraguay, was more transparent and enabled a better comparison between countries.
Australia and New Zealand were encouraged by the proposal from the EU and Brazil, and Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Canada and Mexico also supported it.
On behalf of the net agricultural importing countries of the G10, Switzerland highlighted that the limits proposed for domestic support based on the value of production penalised small agricultural producers. Japan and Norway expressed similar concerns.
India pointed out the "asymmetry" in the current rules on agricultural trade, noting that subsidies in developing countries are minor compared with what farmers receive in developed countries, and that therefore it did not support an overall limit for domestic support. India added that it strongly opposed linking public stockholding with domestic support as outlined in the EU-Brazil proposal.
The USA repeated that it remains "deeply sceptical" about the possibility of really finding the way to make progress in Buenos Aires as these issues have remained unsolved for many years. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)