South stress on food security, S&D, LDC issues for Bali

Developing-country members of the WTO have pinpointed food security and development issues as key elements to be addressed in the outcome of the trade body’s Ministerial Conference in Bali this December.

by Kanaga Raja

GENEVA: Developing countries, at an informal meeting of the WTO Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) on 3 June, stressed the importance of any potential package for the WTO’s ninth Ministerial Conference (MC9) in Bali this December having at its core the issue of food security, and least developed country (LDC) and development issues.

They also underlined that more progress was needed on Section II of the draft consolidated negotiating text on trade facilitation (on special and differential treatment – S&D – provisions for developing-country and LDC members), and that the developed countries needed to demonstrate more flexibility on this front.

Developing countries voiced these views in their statements at the informal TNC meeting following a report by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy in his capacity as TNC Chair.

In his report, Lamy urged WTO members to make substantive advances before the end of July if they are to have any chance of successfully delivering at Bali and preparing a post-Bali roadmap.

He said that the purpose of the TNC meeting was to report back to the membership on his recent consultations and contacts and to continue the review of progress on the three Bali potential deliverables of trade facilitation, agriculture and S&D/LDC issues.

At the last meeting (in April), said Lamy, “we collectively faced up to the reality that the pace of the substantive engagement to successfully deliver in Bali was wanting. In realization of the heavy responsibility that confronted us all, not only for Bali, but also for the future of the DDA [Doha Development Agenda] and the WTO’s negotiating function, we all committed to a set of prescriptions – changing course; urgently engaging substantively; seeking necessary political will and flexibility from capitals and displaying mutual trust and realism.”

Since the April meeting, the continuous intensive process in negotiating groups has started to bear some incremental progress, Lamy maintained, but on the negotiating mode, “we are yet to see the kind of flexibilities that are needed in an endgame negotiation.”

“We all know that process, however good, is not enough to deliver. It is substantive engagement that holds the key. And here time is turning against us. We are entering the red zone,” he warned.

Lamy gave his assessment of the state of play on the three areas for Bali deliverables.

On agriculture, he said that intensive consultations have continued on the proposal by the G33 developing-country grouping concerning public stockholding for food security and domestic food aid, on the basis of the four questions posed by the chair of the agriculture negotiations to facilitate the search for convergence.

According to the TNC Chair, some progress has been made on elements of political convergence which have begun to surface such as willingness to work on declaration/communique language that would recognize in general terms that the policies and programmes mentioned in the first part of the G33 proposal could fall within the scope of “General Services” of Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, together with a political message on the role of public stockholding in developing countries.

On the amendment or interpretation of existing agriculture disciplines, Lamy said that the views on this issue span a range of different options, none of which is the subject of any consensus at this stage. The main concerns expressed regarding an amendment or interpretation have been: (i) the infeasibility of the “one-solution-fits-all” approach given the differences in the situations the proponents find themselves in, and (ii) the complexity of the issue which many see as only resolvable as part of a much broader agricultural negotiation, which cannot happen in the short time left before Bali.

According to Lamy, some members have indicated an openness to consider a mechanism/process that might provide for some additional flexibility for specific members on the basis that this would be time-limited, non-automatic, and create no or minimal trade or production distortions. Such flexibility should not be at the expense of economic reforms and transparency – notably through timely notifications – would be an important element in monitoring any flexibility. Some members also stressed that whatever the temporary solution, it should be an operational one and should not be a substitute for a broader solution.

So, said Lamy, “on the key outstanding issues raised by the proposal, we have made progress towards framing the debate appropriately. This is just at conceptual stage and let me stress that obviously none of this is agreed or even accepted as the possible avenue to solve this matter.”

On this point, what is needed is to explore further a possible landing strip working out the specifics. This will be the focus of the chair’s continuing consultations.

On the proposal by the G20 (another developing-country grouping) on export competition, Lamy said that the preliminary and varying reactions to this proposal indicate that a more in-depth exchange of views to seek to identify the way forward is urgently required and the chair of the agriculture negotiations will be working in this direction.

Further to the discussions held over the (separate) G20 proposal on tariff rate quota (TRQ) administration, “it seems to be in a reasonably good shape.”

Trade facilitation

On trade facilitation, Lamy reported that further progress has been made on improving the draft trade facilitation agreement through negotiations conducted by the four Friends of the Chair. This allowed members at the negotiating group meeting on 24 May to eliminate a further batch of square brackets (which indicate lack of agreement) from the text. It also produced convergence on other parts of the text that can hopefully be turned into consensus during the new phase of negotiations by the Friends of the Chair that has just begun.

“But the progress that is being made is still not enough to provide assurance that we are on track to produce a good result for MC9. What is needed now is more signals of flexibility of the kind displayed at the Senior Officials’ meeting in May,” said Lamy. He added that the key issue is how to build consensus, especially on those areas which require a higher level of political intervention such as customs cooperation and transit, as well as on other issues such as pre-shipment inspection, customs brokers and consularization fees.

There is also the issue of Section II (of the draft trade facilitation agreement), which provides flexibility for developing countries to implement the binding disciplines in Section I, Lamy pointed out. He said that these flexibilities are about developing countries scheduling commitments under categories A, B and C, according to their ability to implement them, coupled with technical assistance based on needs assessments.

“The key now is to synergize both parts of the agreement so that the flexibilities in Section II are used constructively to move the substantive disciplines in Section I,” said Lamy. The previous week’s negotiations, he added, showed that the key in this area is not so much whether assistance is available, which it is, but rather finding a way to better link needs with available assistance.

“Members need to invest now in making the breakthroughs that we need to see before the end of July. No one can seriously expect that the many areas of disagreement that still exist in the text can be left until the autumn and can then be sorted out in time for Bali. We need to start removing less conflictual brackets now.”

In his view, there are three ways of removing brackets: agreement on substance, agreement to disagree, and papering over disagreement with ambiguous or with best-endeavour language. “Experience of GATT/WTO negotiations pleads, I believe, broadly, for the first two options.”

On S&D, the TNC Chair said that in the two meetings held so far on the monitoring mechanism and the Cancun agreement-specific proposals, positive advances have been made which could potentially translate into concrete progress in the coming weeks. Further such consultations are planned.

“We need to show similar progress in the six agreement-specific proposals, relating to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement and the Import Licensing Procedures Agreement to present a credible development package to Ministers in Bali.”

On LDC issues, Lamy noted that the LDC Group submitted their proposal on an LDC package for Bali which was circulated to delegations on 31 May. The package that the LDCs are proposing to form part of a Bali outcome includes essentially four areas: implementation of the Hong Kong DFQF (duty-free quota- free) decision; preferential rules of origin; cotton; and operationalization of the LDC services waiver.

Lamy said that this was the thrust of the message he had delivered to ministers in the previous week, both at a small gathering of trade ministers hosted by the Australian minister on the margins of the annual OECD ministerial meeting in Paris and during the bilateral meetings that he held.

In Paris, he said he had asked two questions of ministers: (i) whether they were all ready to ensure that by the end of July, the contours of landing zones would be in sight; and (ii) whether in particular the so-called “majors” were ready to be more flexible in their positions by moving more to the middle and not simply asking others to move where they were.

According to Lamy, the ministers expressed concern that the negotiations were not on a path that provided confidence of success in Bali. Ministers acknowledged that not making progress in Bali would have damaging implications for the future of the Doha Round and the credibility of the multilateral trading system. Therefore, something significant, substantive and credible had to be done as a building block for work after Bali to pursue the DDA.

Ministers acknowledged that holding up progress in one area over demands in another was not a productive approach. In order to unblock this situation, ministers instructed their negotiators in Geneva to test various options and explore landing zones in a more focused, intensified manner on a “without prejudice” basis in all three areas, added Lamy.

Double standards

A number of delegations spoke following the report by the TNC Chair.

According to trade diplomats, while the US, the EU and other developed countries wanted a trade facilitation agreement with new mandatory obligations on members to be signed and sealed at Bali, they were not willing to engage in any serious negotiations on issues of importance to developing countries, arguing somewhat speciously that the food security and other issues, though already part of the 2008 draft agriculture modalities text and thus before them for five years, would involve changes to the Agreement on Agriculture and thus the balance of rights and obligations in the WTO rules.

In fact, one Third World diplomat noted, under the guise of the trade facilitation agreement, what is being sought to be done are changes and interpretations of Articles V, VIII and X  of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the imposition of procedures and practices of some major developed countries on others. There was an element of facetiousness in the argument that since developing countries were already voluntarily undertaking trade facilitation measures, the demandeurs (the US and the EU) need not pay a price for what would in any event fall into their lap in 5-10 years. This was a double standard to advance the neo-mercantilist greed of the transnational corporations.

According to trade officials, in the interventions at the TNC meeting, Morocco (on behalf of the African Group) said that there were some signs of hope, and that it saw an urgent need to press ahead. The credibility of the WTO as a forum for negotiations was at stake, and 40 days (to the end of July) was not much time. Some members are showing indications of flexibility and it hoped that these flexibilities will be translated soon into progress on the ground, it added.

On trade facilitation, it said that this is something on which there must be agreement in Bali and that it sees this as something that can stimulate the world economy, but members must be careful that they do not prejudge any outcomes. While some square brackets have been removed from the draft negotiating text, not enough has been removed. There needs to be an adequate amount of progress in Section II of the draft text and more flexibility needs to be seen on this front from the industrial countries, it said.

On agriculture, the African Group said that the question of food security was extremely important as well, and this should be a part of the Bali package. Also, the development issues must be at the core of any agreement, and any Bali package must include duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access for LDC products and cotton. Also of importance is the extension of the transition period for LDCs under the TRIPS Agreement.

LDC proposal

Nepal (on behalf of the LDCs) referred to the LDC proposal submitted on 31 May, saying that while most developed countries have already come forward and are now offering 100% DFQF, there are still some that do not. Rules of origin are inextricably linked to the whole question of market access and there is a need for greater simplicity on that issue, it added.

[The LDC submission proposes a decision on the implementation of the DFQF decision taken by members at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005, adoption of simple and flexible preferential rules of origin criteria to further enhance exports from LDCs, a submission in the area of cotton, covering both trade and development assistance aspects, and a submission on the operationalization of the LDC services waiver. (A footnote in the LDC proposal notes that two LDC members had expressed reservation on the proposed draft decision on implementation of DFQF.)]

On the services waiver for LDCs, Nepal said that even though it was agreed in principle at the Ministerial Conference in 2011 to extend this waiver, this has still not been operationalized, and it would like to see a “signalling conference” whereby governments could indicate those areas where they could extend preferential treatment to LDC services providers.

It also said that the S&D monitoring mechanism and the agreement-specific proposals are of great importance to the LDCs, as is the question of LDC accessions (to the WTO). It further called for the extension of the transition period for LDCs under the TRIPS Agreement. Without a package that would address LDC interests, it will be impossible to have a credible Bali outcome, which is essential for the credibility of the WTO, Nepal stressed.

Indonesia (on behalf of the G33) referred to the G33 proposal on food security and said that it would like something “meaningful, operational and useable” by all developing-country members. The G33 hopes to address some of the concerns of those who have a problem with this proposal as it is currently drafted. It said that it is prepared to show flexibility, and expressed hope that others can also show flexibility so that there can be an outcome in Bali. It is critical to ensure food security in developing countries and there is a need to deliver on this issue and on the rest of the development dimension in Bali and beyond.

Australia (on behalf of the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters) said that agreement on the issues of transparency in TRQ administration, food security and export competition should be possible at Bali if pragmatic and flexible positions are put forward. A solution should be able to be found for all these issues, and there is a need to intensify efforts to bring about convergence.

Speaking for itself, Australia underscored the need for a balanced package in Bali across these three issues, as well as the need for a substantive outcome. Something less than that would not be good for the credibility of the system. An agreement lacking substance cannot be put forward without expecting that the post-Bali work will be adversely affected, it added.

There are trade-offs between agriculture and trade facilitation, it said, adding that it thought that this would be something that should be able to be agreed. It welcomed the LDC proposal. What needs to be done is to start testing possible solutions and to identify the landing zones, and there is a need to move as quickly as possible, it added.

It said that progress on trade facilitation is not going fast enough, and there is a need for some engagement on this issue very soon. It was impressed by the fact that in Paris, it was widely acknowledged that food security is an important issue and this could be a way to find some kind of solution.

Oman (on behalf of the Arab Group) said that in order for any package to be credible, the development dimension must be included. It is also important that the accession of Yemen to the WTO be completed as soon as possible. In July, a discussion should begin on the post-Bali process, which is as important as any Bali package, it added.

Brazil (on behalf of the G20) said that the G20’s proposal on export competition should not be seen as a surprise, in that this was something that was included in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration (of 2005). The deadline for elimination of agricultural export subsidies was meant to be 2013 and that was why it was important to get something this year.

The deadline for eliminating all forms of trade-distorting export competition in agriculture would be missed, it noted, adding that therefore it has shown a great deal of flexibility by putting forward this proposal, which calls for a portion of the subsidies to be cut as a downpayment. Its proposal addresses export subsidies and export financing and this is fundamentally less ambitious than the final fourth revision of the draft agriculture modalities text. The objective is to send a strong signal from Bali that this is an important downpayment, and then the issues of state trading enterprises and food aid can be tackled.

Noting that the issue applies to the 15 developed countries that subsidize their exports and not the 10 developing countries that do, Brazil said that in any event the developed countries have subsidies that are five times higher than those of the developing countries. It is working on language that would deal with cuts for developing countries and their subsidization of agricultural exports. Referring to countries that lay down a red line on this issue ahead of any discussion, it said that this does not seem to be a credible way forward. It was pleased with the reception that was given to the G20’s TRQ administration proposal.

On behalf of itself, Brazil said that there is a need for a balanced package in Bali that includes trade facilitation, agriculture and the development/LDC issues. It is important that there is balance between Sections I (on commitments) and II (on S&D) of the draft negotiating text on trade facilitation. On export subsidies, it said that it cannot let 2013 pass in silence on this question. It also welcomed the LDC proposal.

Disappointed

Brunei (on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations – ASEAN) said that it is disappointed that substantial progress has remained elusive. There is a need for a credible package before August, and convergence needs to be seen well before the Bali conference.

Benin (on behalf of the Cotton-4 grouping) agreed with the African and LDC Group statements, and said that it will soon be putting forward its proposal and is currently engaged with its partners in discussion. There needs to be progress on cotton, and this is a key subject for the work. It is also looking for a balanced approach. It did not think that a package can be done in Bali without something on cotton.

The EU said that “Bali is widely seen in fact as our last chance to salvage the DDA. If we fail, it will then be extremely challenging to bring the negotiating function of the WTO back on track ... This is not the time for tactical games; we need to negotiate in goodwill and with the common objective of making substantial progress so that texts, with the necessary level of technical maturity in the three negotiation pillars, can actually be put forward to Ministers as soon as possible.”

Regarding the specific negotiating areas, the EU said that a lot remains to be done and “we have little time to do it”. It noted that in the recent meeting of the negotiating group on trade facilitation, members were not able to make the progress that they would have liked to see, although removing a little more than 50 brackets could be considered a start. “We should however not fool ourselves into thinking that minor drafting changes can replace a serious negotiation on the key issues in the text. A serious engagement has so far been lacking. I hope this will change in the coming days and few weeks.”

Resolving Section II remains a priority and it is clear that there will not be any trade facilitation agreement without a proper Section II, said the EU. However, it added that there cannot be an agreement either without a robust and properly ambitious Section I (on commitments) – otherwise, the trade facilitation negotiations would not make sense and the agreement would not bring about the expected benefits.

“The overall impasse that we have witnessed during these last weeks seems to be directly associated with the difficulty to define the pace of progress between trade facilitation and the G33 proposal. It is clear that both of these issues will need to be resolved, if MC9 is to be a success.”

The EU said it remains concerned by the situation and particularly by the decision of some members to add what it said is one more difficult element to the puzzle, which is very seriously overloading the boat to Bali and could easily sink it. The G20 proposal on export competition comes at a very bad time and it is extraordinarily unbalanced in a way that is difficult to comprehend, it added. It however remains ready to explore ways of emphasizing at MC9 the importance of addressing export competition issues in the broader framework of agriculture negotiations.

Regarding the S&D issues, the EU said that there is a need to make sure that these issues can be resolved quickly once the political will is found to complete a package for MC9. On the LDC issues, it noted that the LDCs have circulated a new paper outlining a few possible requests for deliverables for MC9. It welcomed it and said that it is ready to start the necessary discussions quickly.

According to the EU, the core message on the current situation is very clear: the Bali package consisting of the already agreed three pillars (trade facilitation, agriculture and S&D/LDC issues) remains possible. However, time is short and significant progress is needed in all areas in the next weeks, in fact by the end of July.

Uruguay supported the G20 and Cairns Group statements.

Below expectations

China, associating itself with the statements of the G20, the G33 and the Asian Group of developing members, and supporting the intervention of the LDC Group, said, “Members’ collective sense is that the limited progress achieved in all three pillars was far below our expectation for a successful Bali ministerial and we have only eight weeks left before the summer break. Bearing this in mind, we have no choice but to redouble our efforts to push forward the negotiations. Everyone must engage and demonstrate flexibilities.”

On agriculture, it is clear that the G33 proposal on food security is a gateway issue for the Bali package, it said, adding that it is pleased to note that the Paris ministerial meeting shed some light on the possible path towards its solution. It called upon all members, major developed stakeholders in particular, to be pragmatic and creative in working together with the G33 for a landing zone acceptable to all so that the legitimate concerns of the G33 will be somehow accommodated. It also remained open to discussing both the proposals of the G20.

It believed that trade facilitation is another important component of the Bali package. While it was encouraged at the square brackets that were removed recently, it was concerned that there are still more than 500 brackets left, and with this slow pace, “we will not be able to clinch the deal by MC9. We hope that the text-based negotiation on trade facilitation could progress at an expedited pace and substantially reduce brackets in the next few weeks.”

On development, for China, a modest outcome encompassing the S&D monitoring mechanism and Cancun agreement-specific proposals, among others, is absolutely doable. It also welcomed the LDC proposal and remained constantly supportive of the LDCs’ legitimate concerns.

It said that as its ministerial representative had stated in Paris, “despite the challenges in front of us, China does not believe that there is a ‘Plan B’ for this organization, and actually we have no route of retreat. We all know what is at stake here: the negotiating function of this organization, the confidence of the outside world in this system and, most importantly, the interests of each and every [one] of us, particularly the weak ones.”

South Africa referred to its Trade Minister Rob Davies’ attendance at the Paris meeting, saying that he had reaffirmed South Africa’s commitment to working for a small package of deliverables in Bali. He, however, cautioned that there is still insufficient progress on the three pillars.

On trade facilitation, South Africa said that whilst there are still about 550 brackets left in the draft text, Minister Davies believed that a deal is doable. The issue at stake, however, is the level of ambition of the text. He argued that there are still a number of provisions that do not belong to the text and many where the proponents are seeking a level of ambition that is inappropriate. He argued that there are still areas where some members are simply seeking to impose their system of customs administration on others without any consideration of what is systemically appropriate.

South Africa said it has worked hard over the past 19 years to modernize its customs and made many reforms that will enable it to comply with a relatively high level of ambition. However, most of its neighbours in Africa will require a significant calibration of the level of ambition in Section I to allow all to participate in the new disciplines. Furthermore, whilst South Africa sees some real value in a trade facilitation agreement, it recognizes that the benefits of such an agreement are not even.

It noted that Minister Davies therefore had emphasized the need for balance within and between all three pillars. It stressed that agriculture must remain a core element of the package for Bali, noting that there are currently three proposals on the table. Of these, the most harmful to developing countries and the greatest distortion in trade remains that of export subsidies. “And what is more, we all agreed to eliminate export subsidies this year – 2013 – in Hong Kong in December 2005. The G20 proposal does not call for the full implementation of this promise but only a step forward. This is the least we can do,” said South Africa.

It further underlined that development and the LDC pillar is a litmus test for the multilateral trading system. “We cannot return from Bali without any meaningful delivery to the poorest members of this organization.”

It also said that Bali is clearly not the end of the road. “In Bali, we will need to put in place the conditions for the full implementation of the Doha Development Mandate and put this institution back on the tracks of multilateralism – fairness, balanced rules, inclusiveness and its development orientation. This is our ambition for Bali.”

Horizontal process

According to trade officials, Korea said that members are behind in terms of the Bali process. There is a need to begin a horizontal process of looking across the issues, it said, adding that time is of the essence.

Colombia said that members are facing an impasse that needs to be got around. The biggest players should sit down very soon and start talking about these issues horizontally.

Japan said that there is a need to abandon “hostage-taking” and to redouble efforts and accelerate the negotiations in trade facilitation to clean up the text. Real commitment should start to be shown to the negotiations.

Bangladesh, supporting the LDC statement, said that there was broad convergence at the Paris ministerial meeting on the LDC issues. It said that these issues are not new and that they come from the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. It also called for the LDC accession process to be intensified.

Argentina said it endorsed the G20 and Cairns Group statements. It said that it had shown flexibility on Section I of the trade facilitation negotiations, adding that it needs to see developed countries showing flexibility on Section II. Discussions on Sections I and II should take place at the same time. On development issues, it is willing to support anything that will help integration into the global trading system.

Noting that agriculture issues have always lagged behind, it said that both it and the G20 are prepared to be flexible. It is also prepared to be flexible on export competition, despite some having said that the introduction of the G20 proposal might jeopardize the Bali outcome. What would really jeopardize the credibility of the organization, it stressed, is if 2013 were to slip by without something being done on the question of export competition.

According to trade officials, the US said that one of the themes of the Paris ministerial meeting was that members should not delude themselves into questioning whether or not there would be trade facilitation. Most members are already doing this autonomously, bilaterally or regionally. The only question is whether the WTO will contribute to this and whether it will be done multilaterally. To do it in this way (multilaterally) is more efficient, and it also means that members would be able to marshal multilateral resources to help with technical assistance contributions, it added.

There were a number of interesting proposals that have come forward, to clear away what the US viewed as the “underbrush”. It was concerned that some brackets have been reintroduced in the draft trade facilitation text, saying this was a step backwards. It had seen the least progress on some issues like customs cooperation and transit.

It was of the view that agriculture is an issue that is appropriate to be taken up and that this has already been given an enhanced place in the negotiations, in a way that non-agricultural market access (NAMA) and services are not.

The US said it is prepared to deal with things that are doable, and that is why it is prepared to engage on the G20’s TRQ administration proposal. But there are other issues that would fundamentally disturb the balance of the single undertaking, and this is the problem with the G20’s export competition proposal. It would cut into the balance in the Agreement on Agriculture and would affect those negotiations. It would also have an impact and cause disequilibrium vis-a-vis the NAMA and services negotiations, said the US.

On the G33’s food stockholding proposal, it said that it would be the same thing here too. It would not be balanced as it was initially proposed, but the US had seen some helpful indications in Paris as to how this particular provision could be addressed.

It thanked the LDC Group for its proposal, saying that it has always seen the issue of DFQF as an element of the single undertaking, a broader Doha outcome. It said it is also trying to discern what the degree of support within the LDC Group is for this proposal because it is not a consensus proposal. The US claimed that many African countries have said that DFQF being offered to Asian LDCs would have a devastating impact on sub-Saharan Africa’s textile and clothing industry.

Limited time

According to trade officials, India, in supporting the G20, G33 and LDC statements, said that time is limited. It pointed to the need for progress in the three areas as well as the need to work on all pillars. The message from the Paris ministerial meeting was that members need to intensify work across all these areas of negotiations. Members need to get down to negotiating solutions without prejudice or they will never get there by Bali. One possible solution would be to go to a horizontal process soon, and this can be in very small groups and be done in a modest manner, but people need to sit down and start talking horizontally.

India also said that without getting Bali right, the post-Bali process will be lacking in any real meaning, and to defer these issues post-Bali would be an admission of failure.

Switzerland said that it is prepared to engage on the LDC proposal. It sees engagement on the G33 proposal and the fact that there is an acknowledgement of the importance of food security across the membership. It however does not see a rewriting of the Agreement on Agriculture in time for Bali.

According to trade officials, Haiti expressed surprise at the DFQF proposal from the LDC Group, saying that there was not a consensus on this. It was impossible for Haiti to support this proposal in its current state. It would see its textile and clothing industry wiped out.

Canada said that time is remarkably short. On trade facilitation, it said this is a development issue and there are studies which show that an agreement along the lines of what is being suggested in the WTO could add 15% to the GDP of developing countries. Moreover, agriculture and development issues are also developmental in nature, so the overall package is a development package, it added.

Mauritius, supporting the African Group and G33 statements, said that any proposal that erodes preferences will be considered by it to be a red line.

Paraguay supported a trade facilitation deal as a landlocked country.

Egypt supported the African Group, Arab Group, Cotton-4 and LDC statements. It said that the trade facilitation negotiations are unbalanced with too much emphasis being placed on Section I of the draft negotiating text.

Barbados supported the African Group statement.

Cuba said that the picture that is emerging is not very encouraging, adding that agriculture must be part of a Bali package. On trade facilitation, it is concerned when people say that Section II will only be applicable if binding commitments are seen in Section I. Any attempt to subsidize Section II in this way will lead to failure in Bali, it cautioned.

Lesotho, while endorsing the other elements of the LDC proposal, said that it could not join the consensus on DFQF.

Tanzania supported the LDC statement.

Jamaica (on behalf of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group) said that it wanted a deal across the three pillars. It was important to find an ambitious result on agriculture in Bali, it added. (SUNS7597/7599)   

  Third World Economics, Issue No. 547, 16-30 Jun 2013, pp 2-7