Brussels, 05/02/2001 (Agence Europe) - In Geneva on Monday, the EU presented a comprehensive proposal for agricultural negotiations within the World Trade Organisation (WTO). True to itself, the EU says it is prepared to pursue its efforts at the gradual reduction of sectoral support and protection, remains firm on the "non-commercial considerations", and wants everyone, including the developing countries, to emerge with a positive outcome from negotiations that are to begin in earnest next month, following one year of positioning. The document, which is a precise synthesis of an already well-known approach (Agenda 2000, stances taken in Seattle then Geneva), is one of the contributions put to the multilateral agricultural committee, meeting in extraordinary session until Wednesday.
This proposal is comprehensive in all the meanings of the term, sources in Brussels are quick to point out. Firstly, because it covers all the elements targeted by Article 20 of the Multilateral Agreement on agriculture (further reductions to support and protection, account taken of non-commercial considerations, need for special and differentiated treatment for developing countries). At the same time, it is "balanced and fair", so that, in the long-run, "all parties have the feeling of having won, and not lost, something in ongoing negotiations". Finally the Union sets what it is prepared to do to liberalise agricultural trade and what it expects from its partners.
The approach is intended to be constructive, a demonstration of the "total" commitment of Europeans to negotiate a "balanced agreement", without for that - and without refraining from mentioning it - losing sight of the fact that the 140 have no pre-set, binding deadline to push forward and end the talks. "To be crowned with success, the trade negotiations must procure a benefit for all parties, and we are convinced that our proposal will allow for this to be achieved", stressed Commissioner Franz Fischler. The Commissioner for the CAP recalled that with the mad "cow crisis", the Union found itself confronted with the feeling that "agriculture is much more than a simple industry" and that it deserves "appropriate treatment within the WTO". "Farming is also defined in terms of environmental protection, consumer protection and food safety. That is why we are solidly behind defending these non-commercial considerations", he said.
BHe then added that, for the remainder, the EU had, "with Agenda 2000, shown the firmness of (its) commitment to continue down the path of decoupled support, provoking less distortions in trade."
In summary the Union is proposing:
For access to the market, to take on the formula used for the Uruguay Round, involving an average global reduction of consolidated duties and a minimum reduction according to tariff lines. "This approach allows to take into account the particular situation of specific sectors without excluding anything before hand," underlined Mr Fischler. The aim is also to improve the management of tariff quotas (rules on application to ensure that the quotas are fulfilled and reinforce legal security). Finally the Union is proposing to maintain an instrument similar to the present agricultural safeguard clause and, with regards to quality products, to reinforce their legal protection (geographic indications, names of origin), to better inform the consumers through labelling, and to monitor the fairness of competition.
For export competition, to carry out new reductions in export refunds on condition that other forms of aid towards exports, susceptible of damaging competition (subsidies export credits, abusive use of food aid and practices of commercial state companies), are also regulated.
For internal support, to enforce rules facilitating the continuation of the reform process. Further reduction could be negotiate for as much as the structure stemming from the Uruguay Round - the notion of "blue box" (payments linked to production limitation programmes) and of "green box" (measures that do not have or have very little effect on production and on trade) - is maintained, say the Europeans. They also propose reserving a specific discipline for certain subsidies, currently included in the "yellow box" (compensation for market price variations), which boosts export results, such as the American "loan deficiency payments".
To tackle non-commercial issues in order to meet society's broader interests, concerns and expectations: i) the recognition of the specific nature of agriculture as a provider of public interest goods, and of its multifunctional role, whether in developed or in developing countries. The reform process will no doubt seem more acceptable to all parties if it meets their non-trade concerns, it is felt in Brussels. ii) the inclusion in the agreement on agriculture of the measures that contribute to environmental protection, the dynamism of rural areas and the fight against poverty; iii) account taken of consumers' expectations in food safety matters through appropriate measures, including recourse to the precautionary principle for which the conditions and modalities of application must be clarified by the WTO; iv) trade liberalisation must not compromise efforts to improve animal welfare and compensation granted for respect of more rigorous standards must be excluded from the reduction commitments.
To grant real "special and differentiated" treatment of developing countries in this negotiation. The Union, which is already the largest outlet for agricultural exports from these countries, emphasises its own approach based on non-mutual trade preference, which would be translated by the granting of "significant" preferences, not only by the developed countries but also by the richest LDCs, and through the strengthening of aid to sustainable development in all its forms, including in terms of flexibility in the implementation of existing commitments.
The other contributions to the special session of the Agriculture Committee, the last before the planned assessment scheduled for next 28 and 29 March, came, among others, from: Argentine (technical proposal on "legitimate" non-commercial concerns) and, with Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Columbia (over state commercial companies), Cairns group (export restrictions, taxes), Canada (internal support), India (food safety, market access, internal support, export competition), Caricom (market access), some small States in insular development (common position on the issue), Swaziland (market access under the special and differentiated treatment of small LDCs).