Brussels, 08/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - The examination of the recent communication from the president of the agricultural negotiating committee at the WTO, Crawford Falconer (EUROPE 9417 and 9420) has given rise to intense discussions on Monday in Geneva. Despite the criticism addressed to him, Mr Falconer, welcomed the fact that the position of the members was, “broadly within the ranges” of his reference document for obtaining a compromise on modalities for the liberalisation of agricultural trade. Addressing the press, the agricultural trade mediator, who had promised a revised text for 14 May, added, not without humour, that, “I would have been in trouble if anyone had liked it”.
Criticism came especially from developing countries. Therefore, “the friends of special products” countries from the G33 considered that Mr Falconer's document, which sought to revitalise agricultural negotiations while the G4 (Union, USA, Brazil and India) strove to find a compromise for the current stalled Doha Round, stated that this, “does not provide a good starting point because of a severe imbalance in the treatment of developed and developing countries”. The limit proposed by Falconer for the special products list particularly came in for criticism (sensitive products for developing countries): whereas the G33 wants the special products to represent at least 20% of tariff lines. Mr Falconer suggests that there is a compromise on the number of them to around 5% and 8%. The G33 insisted that, “the imbalance would only perpetuate the existing structural flaws and distortions in agricultural trade”.
Called on to reduce their domestic subsidies to below a ceiling of $19bn a year, the US is said to be concerned by what they perceive as a “lack of proper balance” in a document they regard as being too focused on the 1st pillar of the agricultural chapter. The US delegation commented that, “While we recognise the need to make a further contribution in this pillar, there are limits as to what's realistic”.
While welcoming Mr Falconer's document, emerging G20 countries challenged his definition of the “centre of gravity” for internal US subsidies. With regard to the New Zealand proposal that judged the centre of gravity to be, “certainly below $19bn and somewhere above the very low teens between $13bn and $15bn a year: Ed), the G20 explained that the very low teens are the “only centre of gravity possible”. Falconer acknowledged on Monday that the US position continued to be the focus of all the delegations' attention, “There is not only one delegation which would like the US to do a lot more on domestic support”.
During a telephone conversation on Monday, the Japanese minister for agriculture, Toshikatsu Matsuoka and the Indian minister for trade, Kamal Nath, also agreed that Mr Falconer's proposals were “imbalanced” on the 3rd pillar (market access). Although Mr Falconer suggested a reduction in the list of sensitive products for rich countries to 5% of tariff lines, Japan intends to keep the list at 10-15% of sensitive products (the Union is calling for 8% and the US want to limit it to 1%). The G33 and India want the special products list to go well beyond the 8% of tariff lines. (eh)