Brussels / Geneva, 01/04/2003 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels, Washington and Geneva, the failure of 145 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to comply with the 31 March deadline when they hoped they would come to an agreement on the modalities for farm talks is officially described as "very disappointing". They show the same manifest determination not to over-dramatise this further setback in the Doha process, even though it is indeed "very serious", as Stuart Harbinson, former Hong Kong Ambassador responsible for conducting negotiations on this terrain so full of pitfalls and strategic for almost everyone, said on Monday (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.8).
After the fashion of the Europeans, who responded through the voice of Franz Fischler (see below), the US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, thought that they could take the process forward all the more as "it is not the first time that a venue has been missed, and it will not be the last". From Bangkok, where he ended a mini-trip in South East Asia, Pascal Lamy had said several hours earlier that he would not be surprised if they were to settle 90% of what was negotiated that day. He went on to recall that the talks would end when all the issues on the programme have been resolved, and there are many of them apart from agriculture. There was the same tone in Geneva where Mr Harbinson, who is seeking to keep pressure up, calls on negotiators to redouble their effort, not only in this sector but also in all the others, by the ministerial conference of Cancún in September.
He said that his discussions with ministers and other high trade officials have somewhat encouraged him regarding the existence of such a commitment. This was emphasised by WTO Director General Supachaï Panichpakdi who also stressed how important it is to continue work on the framework for future reform of farm trade and to support the general dynamic of things, mainly services, the reduction of industrial customs duties, trade and the environment, and reform of WTO rules. He recalled that Doha negotiations are a unique commitment in which no element will be approved until all are approved. Significant progress in some areas often encourages negotiators to overcome their different opinions, even on the most politically sensitive issues, he added.
There are many sensitive issues in these negotiations. From the European point of view, it is mainly a question of the "three pillars" of future reform, as well as the taking into account of non-trade concerns and the protection of geographic descriptions whose strengthening would be a guarantee of continued CAP and European agriculture in their essential functions.
In the positions that it defends on these key issues, the Union met allies that also face the offensive conducted by Cairns and the United States with a view to opening foreign markets as far as possible while seeking to safeguard the competitiveness instruments for their own products. We give below a schematic view of the talks on several of these questions:
1. Market access: This negotiation covers not only tariff reductions but also quotas. Two major groups can be seen in customs duties: those (nearly 70 countries, including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, India, ACP, Switzerland and Norway) which, like the EU, defend the traditional approach of the Uruguay Round (the developed countries must agree to substantial reductions for each category of product over a given time, less long for developing countries) and those which, with Cairns, recommend harmonisation downward (the highest duties plunge), including the United States, China and most developing countries that cannot give themselves the luxury of subsidising their farming. They all agree in saying that the suggestion made by Mr Harbinson, which summarises their respective approaches, is not satisfactory as they are too or not ambitious enough. In this debate, the ACP countries seek to keep the preferential margin that the EU reserves for their exports, to which the developing countries at this stage are firmly opposed. On the other side of the debate, there are quotas, the double question that is raised (should they be extended or should one reduce customs duties in the context of quotas), the Europeans and the Japanese (for rice) replying "no", against everyone.
2. Export competition. The same camps clash over the project to reduce export subsidies with a view to gradually phasing them out. In other words, should one now already negotiate their abolition, fixing the deadline for dismantlement (Cairns), or should one limit significant reductions in the context of the Doha Agenda?
Mr Fischler: a "disappointing" text
During a press conference in London, Mr Fischler regretted that the members of the WTO were unable to comply with the deadline of 31 March, even though this does not mean the "end of the world".
"Other WTO meetings have been missed in the past", he pointed out, before insisting on the importance of agreeing on efforts for "breathing a new dynamic into negotiations". Mr Fischler described the text proposed by Geneva as "disappointing" and that, "I think that the opening cold allow our American colleagues to spend USD 7.4 billion in subsidies that generate distortion to competition in the minimal rule. This is the same for the document that compromises preferential access which the weakest and most vulnerable countries depend".
3. Internal support, the third pillar of future reform. The "battle is on the elimination or circumscription of the "blue box", summarised one diplomat. Cairns simply wants to get rid of aid linked to price and quantity 'leaving land fallow, milk quotas etc.) for which public spending is for the moment not limited. "The EU has replied that this is out side the mandate and which also wants to maintain this box, with no limit, while the US would be pleased with substantial reductions out of three (for developed countries) and five years (developing countries). The same goes for the "amber box", which resembles support measures that have a distortionary effect on production and trade and whose Cairns export powers seek its elimination, the same as does the USA and developing countries, including India (for reasons already mentioned earlier, with regard to limited resources that now rarely allow these counties to reach the 10M ceiling agreed for their internal subsidies). The EU maintains that this is impossible, arguing that the transition of European aid from one box to another is essential but alongside Japan are the "most isolated as on the other cornerstones of the negotiations. Mr Harbinson tried his best to breakthrough, not with elimination but with reducing this kind of aid. As for the "Green box" for aid without any controversies (or limited at any rate) on trade, certain Cairns countries (not Canada, which has a specific position on internal aid, Bette that of the interests of Quebec and the great plains producers and the developing world that wants to reduce it (transferring certain elements, notably direct aid to producers, which according to them, constitute an incentive to produce and have only a minimum effect on trade, toward the amber category which is the most binding), while the European on the contrary demand its extension (more flexible eligibility criteria), in the name of multifunctionality of agriculture (environmental protection, animal welfare etc. In other words, non trade, which has not been sufficiently discussed at this stage for proposing something, indicate the WTO.
In the context of geographical indications of agro-food products, essential for the Europeans, which put much store on the quality of their products for export, Cairns want, with others, to transfer the debate to the negotiations on the TRIPs. In the chapter on ADD, protection could be negotiated for specific products, such as Roquefort but in the framework of TRIPS, the basis is much larger, the protection generic, explained one European source