|
||
TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept07/13) 26 September 2007
Analysts
and trade diplomats have been reflecting on an apparently new offer
by the On
19 September afternoon, the The US clarified this was conditional on other WTO members accepting the ranges of figures proposed in the Chair's paper in other areas such as tariff reduction. Reactions
were guarded and cautious to this The report below was published in the SUNS (South North Development Monitor) on 21 Sept 2007 and is reproduced here with permission of the SUNS. Any reproduction or recirculation requires the prior permission of the SUNS (sunstwn@bluewin.ch). With
best wishes Cautious reactions to US move on domestic support Published in SUNS #6328 dated 21 September 2007 By
Martin Khor (TWN), Analysts
and trade diplomats have been reflecting on an apparently new offer
by the On
19 September afternoon, at a Room E agriculture meeting at the WTO,
involving 36 delegations, the The
chief Speaking to journalists after the meeting, Falconer confirmed that the US had stated that it could work within the parameters of his draft text for reduction in domestic support, but that the US had also clarified that this was provided that the parameters of the Chair's text on other issues were also acceptable (to other members). The OTDS is the total of various types of "trade-distorting" domestic support - the amber box (aggregate measure of support), the blue box and the de minimis support, that is provided by a country. In
the calculations for recent years, the counter-cyclical payments of
the The
actual figures in dollars in the The
range is below the $23 billion that the At
a press conference in Potsdam, after the meeting ended abruptly in failure,
the Commerce Minister of India (one of the G4 members), Kamal Nath,
had said that the US figure was not enough, since its actual level of
OTDS in 2006 was below $11 billion. Nath indicated that the maximum
OTDS for the The
G20 in its formal proposals had asked that the OTDS for the Falconer's 17 July modalities paper does not actually spell out the numbers in terms of dollars, but uses reductions in percentage terms. It
states that the base level of the OTDS shall be reduced in accordance
with a tiered formula involving three categories of countries. Category
(b) relates to the At
a press briefing in July, Falconer elaborated that this reduction range
meant that the This is why the diplomats at the WTO, as well as Falconer, take the US statement at the Room E meeting to mean that the US is now offering $13-16.4 billion as its bound OTDS level. The Falconer paper also proposed that WTO members in Category (a) such as the European Union (with a base level of OTDS greater than $60 billion) commit to reduce its OTDS cap by 75 to 85 per cent. This is taken to mean that the OTDS cap for the EU as proposed (by the Chair) to be in the range of Euro 16.5-27.6 billion. The
EU had earlier said that it could undertake a reduction rate ten percentage
points higher than the At
the Room E meeting, after the The
EU reportedly said that was still its view, but it expressed skepticism
that the Falconer
told journalists that the When
reminded that the Delegates
from developing countries had cautious and mixed immediate reactions
to the Most
of them also wanted clarification as to whether the The Ambassador of an African country played down the significance of the US move, saying it was not yet concrete, and especially that it was not clear whether the US was talking about committing at the upper end ($16.4 billion) or lower end ($13 billion) of the range. "But even more, when it says that this is conditional on others making concessions elsewhere, what does it mean?" he asked. "Do the other countries have to give in to its demands, some of them extreme, such as on special products or special safeguard mechanism (in agriculture) or in NAMA?" A
senior agriculture official of an Asian country said it was not clear
what was the basis of the Chakravarthi
Raghavan, veteran analyst of WTO issues and negotiations, said that
it was significant that the "This
shows the folly of 'negotiating' with the Raghavan
added that in substance the "Substantially,
so long as the green box category of subsidies is not disciplined and
capped, it would not matter what the "And
more so when at the end, the [The "peace clause" in the Agreement on Agriculture exempted WTO members from being taken to a dispute settlement panel if they were in violation of certain aspects of disciplines relating to agricultural subsidies. The peace clause has expired, thus opening members to dispute procedures. [However,
it is believed that the Other
analysts also downplayed the significance of the Room E move of the
Bloomberg
also quoted Philip Whyte, senior research fellow at the Centre for European
Reform: "The
|