Brussels, 09/02/2001 (Agence Europe) - The "quid-pro-quo" proposed by the Union in negotiations over agriculture were well received by a certain number of countries traditionally hostile to the European approach, whereas there was scepticism with signs of defiance on the part of the developing world (see EUROPE of 7 February, p.9). But, although the Fifteen's approach no longer raises outcries, Japan's, also based on the multi-purpose nature of agriculture, ran into a wall of indignation and incomprehension, earlier in the week in Geneva, at the extraordinary session of the Agricultural Committee of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
According to diplomatic sources in Geneva, the Union's proposal, backed by close countries fires of the multi-purpose nature of farming (Central and Eastern Europe, Switzerland, Norway, Korea, Japan, Mauritius, Israel), was qualified as being "constructive" by those in favour of total liberalization, headed by the United States and the Cairns group. With some of its 18 partners, Australia even acquiesced to the European approach to non-commercial concerns, given the reference made - a detail that reassures - to targeted and transparent measures with a minimum impact on trade. Uruguay's comment, on behalf of Mercosur, as well as Chile and Bolivia was also positive. Likewise for the United States that regarded the proposal as being serious, proof of the active engagement of the Europeans in negotiations, despite their lack of ambitions over tariffs, subsidies and internal support mechanisms (the "blue box" of aid linked to programmes limiting production), as well as the peace clause and the specific safeguard clause for agriculture. As many obstacles to free trade that the United States and the Cairns group want nothing to do with. In addition, for Washington, the trade system is not the appropriate place to spell out the precautionary principle, rules governing labeling, the protection of geographic indications, nor to contribute to food safety in general. The idea of clarifying the management of tariff quotas was, for its part, well received be all and sundry.
The developing countries nevertheless remain sceptical. Some are scathing at European requirements regarding the well-being of animals whereas, the point out, hunger still affects 800 million people in the world. With Pakistan and India, most of them continue to detect neo-protectionist ambitions behind the "quid-pro-quo" claimed by the Europeans. Indeed, it all seems to them to tend towards a single goal: preserve internal export subsidies, whereas these countries expect the richer ones to further open up their markets - attacking notably tariff peaks and rises - and that they let them protect their own borders. The European negotiator nevertheless warned: "We can envisage cases where a developing country with a particularly fragile agricultural sector needs time to adapt to trade liberalization, but we warn against the idea that developing countries in general should choose to remain outside agricultural liberalization. It is in these countries that demand for food will most increase". An opinion that a certain number of industrialised countries shared, including the United States and the Cairns group.
But even more so than the Union's proposal, among the 17 contributions presented in the session out of a total of 35, it is the Japanese proposal that was the most criticised, both in the number of criticisms and their ferocity. It's a "bad joke", said the representatives of Paraguay and Uruguay, citing "irrational, egoistic" requests, "to be ignored". The document is "disappointing", said the Americans, whereas other accused Tokyo of wanting to backstep (when it proposes reviewing tariff quotas, creating a new class of special safeguards for perishable goods) and, more so, the lack of an serious intent, genuine commitment, given the lack of any reference to reductions in tariff and internal protection which these negotiations are aimed at. The tone is not justified and criticisms excessive, replied the Union, Switzerland, Korea and Israel. The Japanese ambassador considered that there had been misunderstanding, explaining that the details, the precision lacking in Tokyo's plan, were deliberatly left out for the second phase of negotiations.
This second phase, following the year of positioning that is ending, will begin in the spring. An informal meeting has been set for 22 and 23 March, to handle the preparations, in time for an assessment of the situation scheduled a long while back for 26 to 28 March. The new phase, that several countries want to limit to a year, should enable the 140 to negotiate the different issues raised (export subsidies, internal support mechanisms, market access, non-commercial considerations, special and differentiated treatment, status of small insular States, etc.) in view to moving towards a compromise in the following phase. Several countries shared the feelings of the Europeans that a broader round was essential to push these negotiations forward, negotiations void of an binding deadline.
Presentation of European Parliament plenary session (from 12 to 18 February 2001)