|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Feb24/03) Geneva, 31 Jan (D. Ravi Kanth) — Many countries on 30 January lent support to the draft negotiating text issued by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations on 27 January, saying that it can be a basis for advancing the negotiations in search of an outcome at the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) beginning on 26 February in Abu Dhabi. At a meeting of the Doha agriculture negotiating body, many members, including Brazil and the United States, seemed to have said that the draft text issued by the chair, Ambassador Alparslan Acarsoy of Turkiye, can be a basis for the negotiations, said people who asked not to be quoted. Members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, including Brazil, which demanded high ambition on domestic support, commented that there is overwhelming support for the draft text as evidenced by members’ comments, said people who asked not to be quoted. Several interesting developments marked the proceedings, particularly the call by a large number of developing and least-developed countries for concluding an outcome on the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security. In another interesting development at the meeting, Brazil and the US, in separate interventions, seemed to have upped the ante on domestic support and market access, said people who asked not to be quoted. The US, which seems to have opposed the permanent solution on PSH over the last several months, remained silent on this issue. Without naming the US, India appears to have subtly criticized one member who allegedly took inconsistent positions on the permanent solution on PSH, suggesting that its former trade envoy and US Trade Representative (from the Democratic Party) had agreed on the Bali interim solution on PSH reached at the WTO’s ninth ministerial conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013, and later reinforced with explicit language that PSH will be treated as a stand-alone issue, said people who asked not to be quoted. At the meeting, trade envoys and coordinators of the G33 group of developing countries led by Indonesia, the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group, the Africa Group, Djibouti, India, Indonesia, and South Africa among others rallied behind their MC12 proposal (Job/Ag/229). However, India, along with other developing countries, is willing to engage on that proposal as well as any new proposals, including a “miraculous” proposal that was tabled by Brazil on food security and PSH, said people who asked not to be quoted. The opponents of the permanent solution on PSH, however, did not mention the issue even after a large majority of developing countries stood behind the MC12 proposal, said people who asked not to be quoted. The chair, in his draft text, provided two options on PSH. They include: 29. [Pursuant to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members adopt a permanent solution as set out in Annex … to this Decision]. OR 29. [Pursuant to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(15)/44-WT/L/979), Members undertake to pursue and intensify negotiations on PSH in dedicated sessions of the CoA-SS and make all concerted efforts to agree and adopt a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes by MC14. The permanent solution shall be available to all developing country Members.] DOMESTIC SUPPORT & MARKET ACCESS Brazil, which had spearheaded the G20 group of developing countries at the WTO’s 5th ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico in 2003 against the US and the European Union positions on domestic support, seemed to have raised both the issues of domestic support and market access at the meeting, said people who asked not to be quoted. Brazil’s demand was also echoed by the US on domestic support, in nuanced terms, said people familiar with the discussions. The US trade envoy, Ambassador Maria Luisa Pagan, raised the bar in the Doha agriculture negotiations by seeking “parity” between farm domestic support, in which the US is one of the biggest spenders, and market access, said people familiar with the discussions. Noting that some members said there were no discussions on market access, the US said that it is neither true nor valid as the issue has figured prominently in the negotiations, including detailed papers on market access, as well as various other proposals that are on the table, said people familiar with the discussions. Ambassador Pagan also indicated that if domestic support is to be included then there has to be parity with market access. The US is understood to have said that if the ambition on domestic support is low then the same would follow on market access, said people familiar with the discussions. For the US, said one negotiator, it is a strategic argument as the level of ambition in market access would not be high because of the resistance from major industrialized countries like the EU, Japan, and the G10 group of farm-defensive countries, said people who asked not to be quoted. Brazil, which spoke before India and the US, emphasized the need for a clear and ambitious work program on domestic support. Brazil also spoke about bringing market access into the negotiations along with domestic support, a stand that was also echoed by other Cairns Group members like Australia, said people familiar with the discussions. Setting a seemingly low level of ambition on domestic support is a priority for the US and China, which remain opposed to including the “green box” and “blue box” subsidies, said people familiar with the discussions. However, the EU, Japan, and the G10 countries seem to have pushed back against the demands on market access and domestic support at the meeting, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The chair’s draft text has proposed the following language on domestic support and market access: DOMESTIC SUPPORT 9. Members commit to pursue and intensify negotiations on domestic support to reduce substantially and progressively [all forms of] trade-distorting domestic support in an equitable manner and also improve disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. Modalities shall be agreed and adopted by MC14 and they should reflect different treatment depending on the effects of the support provided. 10. Members’ contributions to the reduction effort should [be fair and equitable and] take into account, inter alia, their global market participation, their status as either importers or exporters, the needs of developing Members as well as the need to encourage a shift towards less trade-distorting forms of domestic support. 11. Members shall consider addressing [all forms of] trade-distorting domestic support, in particular those concentrated in specific products. The needs of low-income or resource-poor farmers in developing countries shall be taken into account in these negotiations. 12. [Recognizing the importance of the domestic support measures that meet the fundamental requirement that they have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production in the reform process and in assisting Members to address contemporary challenges, such as food security, rural livelihood security and environmental protection, Members may consider reviewing and adapting the relevant criteria of Annex 2 and related transparency requirements, as necessary, to ensure they remain fit for purpose and enable Members to effectively address these challenges.] MARKET ACCESS 13. Members commit to pursue and intensify the negotiations on agricultural market access to improve substantially and progressively market access opportunities for all Members and strengthen disciplines in accordance with the reform objective in the AoA, within a reasonable timeframe to be agreed by Members. [Modalities shall be agreed and adopted by MC14/Members agree to work towards achieving modalities by MC14.] 14. These negotiations may address tariff reductions and other elements such as tariff simplification, tariff escalation, high tariffs and tariff peaks, transparency in changes of applied tariffs, tariff rate quotas, and special agricultural safeguards, and take into account the interests of both importing and exporting Members. Technical discussions on relevant market access elements shall support these negotiations, as necessary, to facilitate effective participation by all Members and a common understanding on the elements to be addressed in negotiations. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS At the meeting, Russia raised “a red flag” against export restrictions as mentioned in the chair’s draft text. Russia made it known that it would oppose any language or proposal on export restrictions to be included in the agriculture work program. Argentina, India, and South Africa among others joined Russia in conveying their opposition to export restrictions as mentioned in the draft text. The chair has proposed the following language on export restrictions: 1. Members agree as part of the negotiations to continue the discussions on enhancing transparency and predictability of export prohibitions and restrictions [and to work towards achieving tangible outcomes by MC14]. 2. To this end, Members agree to explore ways in the CoA to review and update the ER:1 notification format specified in G/AG/2 with a view to facilitating timely access to clear and relevant information by Members having a substantial interest as an importer, while minimizing administrative burdens on notifying Members. Members shall take due account of the capacity constraints of developing country Members. 3. Members also agree to explore ways to improve the implementation of Article 12 of the AoA. These discussions may include but are not limited to elements such as clarifying relevant terms in Article 12 of the AoA and Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994; considering the role of evidence and data in instituting an export prohibition or restriction; improving information- and experience-sharing at the CoA; and improving the implementation of disciplines on export prohibitions and restrictions. The real battle is expected to begin from 2 February when members negotiate paragraph-by-paragraph, wherein the deep divergences and unbridgeable differences are expected to come into the open, said people, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
