News and Analysis • Volume 10 • Number 7 • November 2006
Ag Talks Resume, Scope Uncertain
Informal negotiating sessions have resumed in the WTO Committee on Agriculture, but any breakthroughs will depend on movement at the political level.
Crawford Falconer, who chairs the agriculture negotiations, convened the first informal meeting on 10 November at his own initiative as the ambassador of New Zealand. He described the occasion as a ‘transparency forum’ intended to provide information about recent smaller group meetings to the WTO membership at large. Representatives of several groupings reported on their activities since the suspension of formal negotiations in July, but no significant shifts in their positions were apparent.
Following the green light given to the Chairs of all negotiating groups to resume technical work on 16 November (see page 2), the Committee on Agriculture was to hold another informal session on 20 November. Such meetings are not expected to lead to any breakthroughs, but are meant to prepare the terrain for when – and if – political signals of renewed flexibility appear. There is no formal agenda, but some sources talking to Bridges have speculated that the committee could work on the market access flexibilities (‘sensitive’ and ‘special’ products, and the special safeguard mechanism) available to Members under the July 2004 Framework Agreement.
Possible US Flexibility Reported
It has been widely reported in the media that the US, in the ‘quiet diplomacy’ talks outside the WTO, has indicated a conditional willingness to consider a further US$5 billion reduction in its overall trade-distorting domestic agricultural support. According to some sources, this could be achieved through the US giving up the existing, but largely unused, right to grant product-specific de minimis support up to US$4.6 billion a year. The Office of the US Trade Representative has, however, categorically denied having signalled a readiness to reduce its current official offer of US$22.4 billion to US$17 billion “or any other number.”
Updated Notifications Requested
Meeting earlier in a regular (non-negotiating) session, several countries expressed concern over the fact that many of the major players in the Doha Round negotiations – including Argentina, Canada, the EU, Norway, Switzerland and South Korea – had not notified their agricultural subsidies to the WTO since 2001. Japan’s latest notification dates from 2002. Chair Christian Häberli stressed the importance of timely notifications, and urged Members to catch up with their obligations. In particular, he said that the failure to notify created an imbalance between Members since negotiators were obliged to base their calculations on information outside the WTO. Such information was likely to be less reliable and not equally available to all countries, he said. Without up-to-date information on domestic support, negotiators cannot accurately assess the effect of proposed subsidy cuts on actual spending.
Brazil recognised that compiling the required information was difficult, but noted that if it – a developing country – had been able to do so, developed countries should as well. The EU and Canada said they would provide updated notifications shortly.
In the context of the annual review of the special situation affecting net food-importing developing countries, the World Bank – citing recent research – said that agricultural trade liberalisation could help keep the price of food staples of the poor at affordable levels, but warned that the objective could be undermined “through the potential for the sensitive and special products to create significant exemptions.” Cuba and the Philippines objected, and said they would raise the issue at a future meeting after examining the statement.