Negotiations on Draft Agricultural proposal to begin from September 3

He said this at the end of the informal meeting on 24 July which heard initial reactions of WTO members to the text on draft modalities that Falconer issued on 17 July.
Falconer told the meeting that he detected a desire to negotiate, based on his text, and described the present climate as a significant moment, if not a turning point in the negotiations. He said that he will hold negotiations meetings in the two weeks beginning 3 September, with no "artificial deadlines" set but with the aim of drafting further revisions.

He commented that his draft had "done 90% of its job". He told members that they will have to compromise and change their positions if the negotiations are to progress.
Speaking to the media, Falconer said that he would be happy if there is a text-based discussion in September. Asked about the apparent difference in reception by the WTO members to his draft and the NAMA draft of Ambassador Don Stephenson of Canada, Falconer said that the drafts should not be compared at all.

Trade officials said that the 51 speakers at the meeting welcomed the Falconer draft but that they all registered their reservations and dissatisfaction with some parts of the text.
Several diplomats who were at the meeting said privately that, judging by the statements, the different delegations appeared to be entrenched in their previous positions, and there was "no movement." At the same time most delegations felt that there was enough in the Falconer draft for it to be used in the further negotiations, even if no one was satisfied with it.

Briefing journalists on the United States' position, Joe Glauber, the US special envoy on agriculture negotiations, said that the text shows progress but there is more to do. The US saw "great disparity" between the pillars with a lot of work done on domestic support and export competition but a significant lack of details in market access. He said that in September this gap in market access in particular has to be filled up.

On the text's figures for the limits to overall trade distorting support (OTDS), Glauber said that the proposed levels for the US would amount to real reductions, since in five of the past eight years, it has exceeded the upper end of the proposed new limits. He reiterated that the US was willing to move on OTDS but this would have to be commensurate with the offers of others on market access. Although he specifically mentioned the US’s rigid position on not lowering the OTDS limits as demanded by the G20, the African Group and others. However, the US, he said, is ready to negotiate with the G33 on the special products and technical indicators.

The EC could accept the text as a working basis for negotiations but registered some concerns, and in some cases the proposals overstepped some of its fundamental "red lines." Among the concerns it raised were the arrangements on tariff rate quota expansion for sensitive products, the designation of sensitive products (which is not covered in the text), and the need of the EC for continuing the special safeguard (SSG) for limited products. On the ranges of cuts proposed, the EC said that for market access, the upper parts of the ranges are out of the question, and this is also the case for the OTDS cut in the top tier.

The EC also needs to ensure that policies falling under the Green Box can be maintained. There is need to leave flexibility to allow newcomers to benefit from Green Box payments. The EC also insisted on full parallelism on export competition and seems satisfied about the elimination of monopoly powers of state trading enterprises that is laid down in the text.

The EC also said that there would be no agreement on agricultural and NAMA modalities without an agreement on geographical indicators (extension and negotiation of a register).

The African Group, represented by Uganda, said that the draft was a work in progress, the level of specificity differs between different elements, and the issues given less specificity were of great importance to the group and must be fully addressed in the next draft. The process can move forward only if it is based on full modalities addressing the development dimension.

Although the African group’s position differs in relation to OTDS, Market access, special safeguards mechanism (SSM) and proposals relating to cotton, it welcomed the language on commodities but asked that all elements of the Group's proposal including clarification of Article XXXVIII of GATT 1994 be included. It expressed its dissatisfaction as the paper is lacking in indicating how the duty-free and quota-free market access for LDCs would be operationalised and was concerned that there has been a regression on this issue.

Nigeria, represented by Ambassador Yonov Agah, said that firstly, the document does not contain the same detail in all its sections. It also does not make specific recommendations in many areas, including Special Products, Special Safeguard Mechanism, long-standing preferences, tariff escalation, tariff simplification and commodities. Second, it noted that the majority of the key figures proposed for cuts in domestic support, tariffs, and export competition appear as ranges. While some delegations have already indicated their unwillingness to support a final Doha Round agreement that would reflect these ranges, its concern is more fundamental. Nigeria implied that they result in an imbalance between developed and developing countries. It also expressed its concern over the Green Box proposals.

Apart from these countries, China, Phillipines, Venezuela also expressed their concerns on almost all these issues. Currently all are awaiting the negotiations to begin in September.

Resource: TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues
Released on: 27 July 2007
For details visit: www.twnside.org.sg