Brussels, 25/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - A week after the compromise texts on the modalities for the liberalisation of agricultural trade, and on industrial goods (NAMA) drawn up by Crawford Falconer and Don Stephenson (see EUROPE 9470 and 9471) were circulated, and the day after discussion in the WTO agriculture negotiations committee, chaired by Mr Falconer, members are agreed on at least one point: the proposed compromise forms a sound basis for discussion, but all feel that it contains serious imbalances that will have to be corrected.
The EU is due to give its official reaction at the trade negotiations committee on Thursday 26 July. Most member states warned the European Commission on Sunday evening, at a dinner of trade ministers, that there would have to be a re-balancing of demands and concessions in each of the compromise texts. Indeed, over and above the 15 or so agricultural member states led by France and Ireland, countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic also expressed their concern at the compromise texts. Austria, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands felt that, as they stood, the Falconer-Stephenson proposals went beyond the negotiating mandate granted by the Council to Commissioners Peter Mandelson (Trade) and Mariann Fischer Boel (Agriculture). “Countries like Denmark and the Netherlands realise that their agriculture could suffer badly as a result of the proposed limit on sensitive products,” a diplomat told EUROPE. The Czech Republic is highlighting how little is to be gained in terms of access to the industrial market as a result of a tariff reduction limited to coefficients within the range of 19 to 23 for developing countries, when the wealthy countries are calling on emerging countries to reduce duties to a coefficient of 15 (compared with a coefficient of 10 for themselves). Portugal, which is currently chairing the Council of the EU, said, however, on behalf of the EU27, that the proposed compromise was a “basis” for future negotiation even though, on this basis, agreement remained far off.
Led by South Korea, Japan, Norway and Switzerland, the net agricultural importing countries of the G10 also agreed that the proposed Falconer-Stephenson compromise formed an “interesting, but very imbalanced, basis for discussion”. At the agriculture negotiations committee on Tuesday, the G10 underlined that, as it stood, the Falconer proposal “would impose a disproportionate burden” on their farmers. The text was “sufficiently good not to be rejected but sufficiently deficient not to be adopted”, was how Switzerland, which chairs the G10, put it. Last week, Japan said that it felt some proposals were “too harsh” and that the percentage of sensitive products decided on was “insufficient”.
The Americans believe the proposed Falconer-Stephenson compromise is an improvement on last year's proposal, but is still unacceptable in some areas. A lot of work had been done on export subsidies and domestic support, compared with market access, where some important sections were lacking, a US negotiator said in Geneva on Tuesday, noting that, while the United States was prepared to make concessions on domestic support, a reduction in the region of $13 billion, as proposed, was “out of the question”. Last week, Washington also said it was against the concessions called for on cotton.
Led by Australia and Canada, the agricultural exporters of the Cairns Group said on Tuesday that the proposed Falconer compromise did not go far enough on access to the agriculture market, or on domestic support which distorted trade. Like the EU and the US, Australia and Canada also felt the proposals on tariff reductions on industrial goods for advanced developing countries were insufficient.
The G20 group of emerging countries, of which Brazil and India are the most active spokespersons, also welcomed the proposed Falconer-Stephenson compromise, which, they said, was “a good starting point for further negotiations in September”. There were, however, a number of gaps to be filled, they said in a press release published on Tuesday. The differing levels of detail made it difficult to assess the general balance of the text, just as with the proposals for reductions in customs duties on industrial products, the G20 said, but the group was satisfied with some of the progress made, though it insisted on real cuts in agricultural subsidies being made by the US and the EU.
Following the meeting on Tuesday, Mr Falconer told press that he had “detected a desire to negotiate, based on (his) text”. He described the present climate as “a significant moment if not a turning point in the negotiations”. Further agriculture negotiation committee talks are scheduled for the two weeks after 3 September. (eh)