TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr14/03)
22 April 2014
Third World Network
 
Agriculture: Differing views on how WTO talks should continue
Published in SUNS #7778 dated 4 April 2014
 
Geneva, 3 Apr (Kanaga Raja) -- An informal open-ended meeting of the Special Session of the WTO Agriculture Committee on 28 March saw a difference of view among Members on whether the December 2008 draft modalities text (or Rev. 4 text) should continue to be the basis for the next phase in the negotiations.
 
According to trade officials, the Chair of the Special Session, Ambassador John Adank of New Zealand, called on Members to avoid a "sterile" debate about what is the best starting point for continuing the negotiations, and to focus instead on the nature of the issues that need to be settled and whether they can be resolved.
 
Before the informal meeting, the Chair had asked Members three questions in order to kick off the planning on how to proceed in the talks.
 
The three questions were:
 
(1) What do Members consider to be the desirable and doable aims for ongoing discussions and negotiations in relation to the three inter-related pillars of agriculture?
 
(2) What contributions do Members consider they, and other Members, need to make to this end?
 
(3) What new information do Members wish to bring forward, or would encourage others to bring forward, to update earlier discussions about policy settings and developments that may be relevant to the negotiations?
 
According to trade officials, most delegations said that they are still considering their answers to those three questions. Some Members, however, made some preliminary points.
 
Ambassador Adank concluded that Members have not yet reached a stage where negotiators are providing thoughts that could produce an outcome.
 
According to trade officials, there were differences of view among Members as to the starting point of the next phase of the negotiations, basically on whether to use the December 2008 draft modalities text as the basis.
 
A large number of Members (mainly developing countries) stressed that the Rev. 4 text should be the basis for negotiating the rest of the Doha Round in agriculture.
 
They pointed out that the Rev. 4 text was the result of years of negotiations reflecting a balance of interests with large parts being ‘stable' and that substantial changes to the text would undermine the negotiations by unravelling a potential deal.
 
Members arguing that the Rev. 4 text should be the basis for the negotiations included the G-20, the Cotton-4, the G-33 and the LDC (Least Developed Countries) group, and various Members within these groups.
 
According to trade officials, a few Members disagreed.
 
According to trade officials, the US said that the Rev. 4 text was not an agreed text in 2008, and that it has considerable doubts picking up the Rev. 4 text in light of new data and analysis of that data. Otherwise, it has an open mind (about how to proceed).
 
According to the US, one clear element that applies across the Doha Development Agenda is that all Members need to make contributions. These can be high, medium or low for any Member, but it must be balanced, it added.
 
It further said that Members should look at the latest situation and how the Agriculture Agreement has been applied, and that they should be up-to-date in their notifications.
 
Otherwise, it would be difficult to discuss this, the US said, adding that Members need new information, and that they cannot negotiate based on old information.
 
The US stressed that market access is central including South-South trade. There is also need to look at bound and applied tariffs and to consider flexibilities such as special products and the special safeguard mechanism.
 
Domestic support and export competition also need to be looked at, said the US.
 
According to trade officials, the EU said that it accepts that the draft text will be a reference document but that some parts of an eventual agreement will be closer to the draft than others.
 
The EU also said that the world has changed greatly since the Doha Development Agenda was launched, and that the significant changes in trade patterns need to be noted.
 
Norway observed that the draft text is ambitious and that this is reflected in the numerous carve-outs. It suggested that Members should discuss how ambitious the deal should be, in order to answer the Chair's question on what is ‘doable'.
 
In an apparent reference to the US position, trade officials said that India asked what the basis of the work would be if the draft text was not used.
 
Would previous agreements such as the 2004 ‘framework' agreement (an outline agreement that eventually developed into the 2008 draft modalities) also be dropped, or even the original mandate from Doha, it further asked.
 
According to trade officials, several Members highlighted the need for transparency, in some cases meaning that the talks should be inclusive, transparent and bottom-up, while for others, this meant Members providing up-to-date information on their agricultural trade programmes, which is an obligation under the present Agreement on Agriculture.
 
Ambassador Adank noted that Members are already slipping behind schedule on a new obligation to share information.
 
According to trade officials, Ministers had pledged at the Bali Ministerial Conference to keep export subsidies (and measures with similar effects) at low levels and to work towards eliminating them completely, and that information should be provided so that they can monitor the situation, a task that is being undertaken in the regular Agriculture Committee.
 
The Chair pointed out that the deadline for replying to a questionnaire (on export competition) that was circulated by the Secretariat was 28 March, the day of the informal meeting, and that by then only seven Members had replied.
 
According to trade officials, some Members said that although the work should cover all three pillars of agriculture (market access, domestic support, export subsidies and related policies), priority should be given to export subsidies, as this was stated in the Bali Ministerial declaration.
 
The Chair said that he would reflect on what Members had said and that he will consult with Director-General Roberto Azevedo, in his capacity as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee, which is holding its next meeting on 7 April.
 
According to trade officials, the Chair urged Members to discuss these issues among themselves as well.
 
Ambassador Adank had earlier reported on his consultations at a General Council meeting in mid-March.
 
In his report to the General Council, the Chair said that since the Trade Negotiations Committee met on 6 February, he had held a series of consultations with individual delegations, group delegations and group representatives.
 
These consultations have been aimed at developing a better understanding of how Members see the way forward for the unfinished business in the mandated negotiations on agriculture, he added.
 
"This is the beginning of a process that I would expect to intensify in coming weeks as delegations deepen their engagement aimed at identifying paths to greater convergence on these issues that have not been the subject of active discussion, in many cases, for a number of years."
 
Ambassador Adank said that the consultations have highlighted a range of views from Members.
 
He said that there is broad recognition of the interconnected nature of the "core issues" of agriculture, NAMA (non-agricultural market access) and services which many Members have said should now be the focus of efforts. There is also a strong recognition of the particular importance of agriculture within this mix.
 
A number of delegations highlighted that agriculture was fundamental and central to the development dimension of the WTO, as well as to food security concerns, and emphasised the importance of continuing the ongoing reform process in agriculture commenced in the Uruguay Round. All of these aspects necessitated that it be accorded appropriate priority.
 
According to the Chair, while some Members indicated that they were not "demandeurs" on agriculture, and did not consider agriculture a priority, these Members also recognised that it would be difficult to make progress on other issues without agriculture being accorded appropriate attention.
 
Most Members acknowledged the interrelationship of the three pillars of agriculture - market access, domestic support and export competition - and the need for a balanced approach among them.
 
"While some Members place greater emphasis or priority on one or other of these three pillars, there is broad recognition that achieving progress across all three will be important and necessary to arrive at final outcomes across the agriculture negotiations."
 
Ambassador Adank underlined that among the three pillars, Export Competition is recognised as an important priority for a large group of Members, as evidenced by the pre-Bali discussions and the Ministerial Declaration adopted in Bali. Many Members consider that this issue has been extensively discussed with clear landing zones identified now for several years.
 
"Many Members highlighted the importance they attached to the draft modalities (document TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4 and associated documents as referred to in TN/AG/26 of 21 April 2011) as a basis for further discussions and negotiations on agriculture," said the Chair.
 
These Members noted that although this document had never been agreed, it had built on earlier Ministerial guidance, was well known in their capitals and reflected a range of discussions and compromises that had been made in the course of negotiations up to December 2008.
 
Some other Members have, in contrast, placed emphasis on the need for further discussions not to be constrained by the draft modalities.
 
They recall that the draft modalities have never been agreed and have stressed the importance of remaining open to new creative approaches to unresolved issues, as emphasised at MC8 (eighth Ministerial Conference in Geneva in 2011) and MC9 (ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali in 2013), as well as ensuring that the discussions take account of more recent developments or trends in agricultural trade and policies.
 
According to the Chair, ensuring that further discussions are assisted by appropriate updated data and information on Member policies was highlighted by some Members.
 
While this was not presented as a precondition to deepening engagement on substantive issues, it was suggested that appropriate information and experience sharing would greatly assist engagement and could help to build confidence.
 
"A number of delegations and groups took the opportunity to highlight their particular sensitivities and priorities within the negotiations. I received no indication that positions here had undergone any fundamental change from the last time discussions were active across the agriculture negotiations as a whole."
 
The Chair further reported that most delegations highlighted the importance of "balance" and "appropriate ambition" in any results that were to be agreed.
 
"But it is clear that there are a range of views as to what these elements amount to in terms of the different contributions Members or groups of Members should be expected to make."
 
He said that some Members suggested that the architecture of draft options considered in the past was complex in some cases, with ambition in areas like market access being undermined by the application of an extensive range of exceptions and flexibilities. The point was also made that if success is to be achieved everyone will need to contribute rather than just expecting additional contributions from others.
 
"The need to ensure a coherent approach between the work within the Regular Committee on Agriculture to implement Bali outcomes and the ongoing work within the Special Session was also commented on. This was particularly so in regard to the work programme in the Regular Committee on a ‘permanent solution' to the public stockholding as well as the discussions and examination process in the Regular Committee on developments in Export Competition," he added.
 
The Chair observed that this summary of views highlights the general, and in many cases rather tentative, views that have tended to feature in the consultative process up to the present.
 
This reflects not only the early stage of renewed engagement with Members on "unfinished business" within agriculture but also the fact that it is clear that many Members do not yet have definitive views on a range of issues to which they are now turning their minds after a gap of some years.
 
In a number of cases, said Ambassador Adank, Members underlined that they also want to know more about the positions that others may bring to the table before finalising their views.
 
"This too is understandable, and I hope it is a positive indication that Members are concerned to take an open rather than a closed approach to the discussions," he said.
 
"That said, developing greater clarity among Members on the substance of the issues within the agriculture pillar that remain to be resolved will need to be accorded greater priority if we are to make any progress. This will require deepened engagement from delegations in the period ahead in a variety of configurations," he added.
 
"I believe that all of these discussions can be advanced without prejudice to the positions that various Members have in regard to the draft modalities document. The essential task remains to find through an honest, frank and pragmatic exchange of views how we can unlock progress, rather than remain at an impasse on issues that a large majority of Members continue to regard as fundamental," the Chair concluded in his report to the General Council meeting of 14 March.