Brussels, 04/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - No leaks of information regarding last Friday's meeting in Brussels between European negotiators, Commissioners Peter Mandelson (trade) and Mariann Fischer-Boel (agriculture) and their US counterparts, Representative for Trade Susan Schwab, and Secretary of State for Agriculture Mike Johanns. Neither was there any news about the following day's meeting in London between Schwab and the head of Brazilian diplomacy, Celso Amorim. Is this a sign that the G4 trade powers (Union, USA, Brazil and India) are close to the much awaited compromise on liberalisation in agricultural trade and manufactured products (NAMA)? Or does it constitute the subterfuge betraying the absence of convergence between the major actors in the round? The synchronisation of the multilateral discussions in Geneva, where the presidents of the agricultural and NAMA negotiating committees, Crawford Falconer and Don Stephenson, are planning on presenting a revised draft compromise on modalities at the beginning of July, and the increasing bilateral and plurilateral contacts between G4 members at senior official and ministerial levels would, however, suggest the first hypothesis.
Speaking at the WTO centre in Geneva, Mr Falconer said that the 30 May last was slightly more positive but was not sufficiently so for suggesting that an agreement could be found for the discussions begun at the end of May, between the twenty key countries on the main agricultural questions. Noting the signs of flexibility, despite them still not having any exact figures on market access, the WTO agricultural mediator particularly welcomed constructive discussions on certain aspects of food aid, state controlled commercial companies, and special products that developing countries would be able to select for partial or total exemption from opening up their markets. Mr Falconer also welcomed signs of movement from exporting countries with regard to their demands on reductions in agricultural customs duties. He explained that an 85% reduction in these duties for certain members was not on the cards. The New Zealand ambassador to the WTO also reported significant progress on food aid, a chapter on which measures for an agreement may be proposed. He also indicated that positions were shifting to greater realism on export funding. On the other hand, he had not seen any breakthrough on domestic support. Mr Falconer is expected to present a revised draft on modalities in the second half of June (an adaptation of what he submitted in 2006).
The meagre progress achieved at the WTO HQ already clearly demonstrates that the shape of an agreement has still not been defined. Urged to reduce their domestic subsidies, the US is now prepared to revise their demands on agricultural market access downwards. The country's room for manoeuvre, however, is a narrow one: the main agricultural organisations did not hesitate in calling Ms Schwab to order last week, by repeating to her the fact that reductions in domestic internal subsidies could only be justified if they were accompanied by a significant net benefit (Ed: in terms of export capacity) to US farmers. Targeted to a large extent by US and Cairns group (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) demands on market access, Asian countries headed by South Korea, Japan, Norway and Switzerland) are seeking to protect their farming production as much as possible against further openings up of the market. The US and the Union are seeking greater market openings in new industrial and services markets in emerging and developing countries, while the latter want to limit their concessions on NAMA as much as possible out of fear of opening the door too widely to Chinese exports.
Although a week of discussions is opening on NAMA this Monday in Geneva, some negotiators from the G4 (probably not Mr Mandelson) may attend bilateral G8 meetings in Heiligendamm, where they will be accompanying their leaders who, no doubt, will be expressing their political wishes and commitments for getting Doha negotiations concluded. The German meeting is just another step because all attention will already be focused on the G4 ministerial on 19-22 June at a place that has still not been decided, but which could be in Potsdam (Germany). Mr Amorim, the head Brazilian negotiator, described this meeting last Friday as “decisive for the future of the round…decisive because we don't have much time and because I think things have moved forward”. (eh)