Brussels, 21/01/2003 (Agence Europe) - Renewed agricultural negotiations in Geneva on Wednesday marks the beginning of a particularly delicate but crucial stage in the new round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Its 147 members focusing on a sector that is as sensitive an issue in the North of the planet as it is in the South, have only two and a half months - the March 31 deadline - for finding ground for agreement on the modalities (the objectives that were selected) of the commitments that they will make in 2005. But as Stuart Harbinson, Honk Kong Ambassador pointed out in a recapitulative note intended to assist trade partners "build bridges" between themselves, there is still a "huge chasm" for them to fill if they are going to succeed, including the fundamental aspects of the programmed reform. In other words, Geneva is the place where I will be opportune to pass from bargaining positions to that of making concessions.
Stuart Harbinson, who is in charge of these negotiations, has illustrated the many technical questions, as well as the other "major differences that remain in relation to interpretation and the degree of ambition that implicitly results from the wording of the Doha Declaration". This is all highlighted in his summary of the situation, described in a 147-page document that delegates are invited to comment upon this week for the first time. Mr Harbinson explains that time is running out and that now is the time to take the necessary political and operational decisions and make a major effort at finding consensus and flexibility in order to be able to establish the modalities in the necessary time limit. He also calls for the participants to "immediately" do more than just re-affirm their well-known national positions and not simply identify the option that corresponds to their position but rather reflect in a creative way on the possibilities for convergence. An initial compromise text will be put forward in the next few weeks, which will serve as a basis for negotiations during the next session programmed for 24-28 February. In the meantime, a mini-Ministerial summit will be held that will bring together around thirty participants from the trade round (including the Union, United States, Cairns leaders and the different tendencies from the developing world and economies etc.), which could create a political breakthrough on the main contentious issues. As well as the fundamental issues (market access, quotas, export subsidies and internal support), there are pending issues, notably: the means for taking into account (and to what extent) other non-trade considerations (i.e. multi-functionality) brought up by the Europeans, their strategic allies and developing countries, several of which have specified that their consideration are "fundamentally different to those of the developed countries", according to Mr Harbinson. The Ambassador referred to food safety, means of subsistence, the fight against poverty, rural development, environmental protection and non-toxicity in animal feed and animal welfare; provisions on special and differentiated treatment that also divides developing countries, despite the exemption for the least advanced among them reduction commitments almost appear to have been agreed; special modalities, indeed the flexibility requested by the small island developing countries, as well as the "vulnerable" developing countries, net importers of food products, the group of economies in transition and those that were recently admitted to the WTO; the link that some of them make between their will to go forward and the taking into account of their goals in other more strategic areas. Despite all this, Mr Harbinson points out that the work carried out since January 1999 has already enabled significant progress to be achieved on certain issues, such as the administration of quota tariffs and export loans, while on other issues "the emergence of a consensus" is already clear in certain areas.
EU proposals should not expected to be focus of real debate at Geneva
Widely criticised by the farming lobby and humanitarian NGOs in Europe, the proposals for reform of the Union presented last month will perhaps avoid the wrath of the USA, Cairn and other critics of the Common Agricultural Policy this week in Geneva. Sources close to the discussions observed that, "the problem is that the document was submitted late" and the European did not appear to be really against hearing the detailed commentaries from their trade partners. It is in fact likely that Stuart Harbinson cuts short this intervention because of the lack of time and avoids the session (in which he was hoping for guidelines for preparing an initial draft compromise) does not drift towards confrontation instead of the hoped for rapprochement. But from Washington to Canberra, the critics have already got their voices heard in the press. "Too little, too late" is the view of Australia, where the Union is suspected of not having respected the Doha mandate, notably the gradual elimination of export subsidies (all of them, according to Australia) and the reduction in support measures which distort trade.
"Disappointing", "insufficient", "superficial" are some of the words used to initially describe the reaction of the South African authorities. New Zealand was of the opinion that the proposal would not only not deliver expected reforms or relieve the non-trade concerns but would also erect new trade barriers. While Ottawa's reaction was positive but far from enthusiastic, Washington said that the European proposal did not appear to have produced any fundamental reform of world trade for agricultural products. US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick said that the US was now hoping for the European Commission to look for changes to the CAP in the next few months in order to allow for more substantial reductions in customs duties and subsidies in the framework of Doha negotiations. Mr Zoellick will be travelling to certain European capitals to highlight the need to get more ambitious reforms of the CAP.
In the context of the NGOs, Oxfam was clearly disappointed: European proposals initially "appear to offer significant reform…but leave unchanged the great majority of subsidies that ruin the lives of the most poor. It is absurd that farmers in the poorest countries have to wait until 2013 until the Union reduces half of its export subsidies". The USA and EU are not credible in the same way: the lowest prices associated with direct decoupling are simply the new dumping recipe - is the opinion of the European Farmers Co-ordination (EFC), while the Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the EU thinks that the Commission went too far and could reduce the room for manoeuvre for European farmers while "strongly" criticising the figures that have been put forward.
Initial reactions from Member States
The draft EU position for agriculture in the WTO trade round of negotiations provoked a variety of different reactions from Member States at their Special Agricultural Committee (SAC) on 13 January. Six Member States (Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark and Finland) were quite pleased with the strategy outlined by the Commission, while other such as France and Belgium believed that the paper did not give the EU enough room for manoeuvre. France, Spain and Ireland believed that the EU was running the risk of "paying twice" at Geneva for market access (36% reduction in customs duties proposed in the Commission document and technical adjustments to make at the WTO in order to take into account of Community enlargement). Italy, Portugal, France and Finland (and to a lesser extent Austria, Spain and Ireland) considered that the 55% drop in market support aid as too high and would create distortion in competitiveness (WTO orange box). These countries, as well as Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg have requested that the blue box be maintained. Austria, Belgium and France opposed the getting rid of wheat export refunds. Portugal was quite positive about this project but thought that this ought to be the EU objective in WTO negotiations and not a starting point. Portugal criticised the provisions for developing countries. Finland though that the 45% reduction in export subsidies was too high at this stage.
E15 Agriculture Ministers will not know the state of preparations for the Community's position until their meeting on 27 January.