WTO Farm Trade Talks Enter New Stretch
The race to make progress on farm trade negotiations ahead of the year-end WTO ministerial conference entered a new stretch today, as the chair announced the start of ambassador-level talks on issues that members believe could be agreed at the December meeting in Bali, Indonesia.
A proposal to ease farm subsidy rules on food stockholding purchases in developing countries will take centre stage, trade sources said, following several weeks of technical talks among delegates on how such schemes currently function in practice. (See Bridges Weekly, 6 March 2013) The proposal was first tabled by the G-33 group of developing countries with large populations of smallholder farmers.
However, negotiators were also believed to be putting the finishing touches on a new proposal on export subsidies and related measures, led by the G-20 developing country coalition that favours reform of developed country agriculture. Trade sources said that technical talks on the submission were continuing within the group this afternoon, ahead of Thursday meeting among heads of delegation that is due to approve the final version.
Food stockholding: members ready to begin talking
The chair of the farm trade talks, New Zealand ambassador John Adank, told negotiators today that a new phase of talks would now start matching "knowledge about the existing policies with different elements of the proposal." The ambassador-level meetings would therefore raise both technical and political questions, he said.
"The substantive discussion of the proposal is only beginning," warned the chair, who told officials that WTO members were "not yet close to agreement."
Trade sources told Bridges that the chair was expected to report back on any progress in the consultations at the next meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), scheduled for two weeks' time. The TNC is tasked with the overall Doha discussions.
A number of developed countries have expressed concerns that the proposal could effectively allow countries to provide unlimited amounts of market price support to be included in the WTO's "green box" - where farm subsidies are exempt from any cap or ceiling on the grounds that they cause no more than minimal trade distortion.
Some of those speaking at Wednesday morning's negotiating meeting favoured first examining whether existing rules would still allow WTO members to achieve their food security goals.
Developing countries have also said they are worried that the G-33 proposal could potentially undermine their own poor producers if subsidised food stockpiles end up being released onto world markets, or if their own exporters are no longer able to sell to countries operating the schemes. Some G-33 members are amongst those voicing concerns about how any new proposal should be crafted.
However, another G-33 trade official told Bridges they were still keen to see other groups table counter-proposals.
"Solutions could be from either side - from anybody," said the source.
Export competition: new proposal imminent
With the new G-20 proposal still being finalised, details remained sketchy as Bridges went to press. However, sources familiar with the submission said that it was aimed at galvanising further action without over-reaching the limits of what is achievable in the current political context.
The new proposal was therefore aimed at a "standstill and reduction, while pending the implementation of modalities on export competition," said one official, in a reference to the cuts to export subsidies and similar measures outlined in the draft Doha deal.
Along with the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters, the G-20 have continued to emphasise their desire to see progress in 2013 on export competition, in the wake of a decision by trade ministers to eliminate export subsidies and disciplines-related measures at the global trade body's conference in Hong Kong over seven years ago.
The EU - which has historically made heavy use of export subsidies - has indicated it is unwilling to eliminate this form of trade-distorting support in the absence of wider progress in the WTO's Doha Round. The US, which has used tools such as export credits and subsidised food aid to similar effect, is also opposed, trade sources said.
The move follows the release last week of a WTO study looking at the use of export competition measures, itself prompted by a proposal for new analysis on the topic that was put forward by the G-20 last October. (See Bridges Weekly, 3 October 2012).The study is available online as document number TN/AG/S/27, along with another new study on export prohibitions and restrictions, available as TN/AG/S/28.
Members are also still expected to discuss a separate G-20 proposal on easing the administration of import quotas, trade sources said, although it was unclear when these discussions would take place. Japan, Korea, and the Dominican Republic expressed concerns about the G-20 proposal at the Wednesday morning meeting.
A small package or a big one?
Some trade officials expressed concern that progress on a possible Bali deal on trade facilitation - widely seen as the motor for the recently reinvigorated talks - was not moving fast enough to galvanise action in other areas, including agriculture.
"There's huge divergence among members," the source said, who cautioned that a more comprehensive package might actually be easier to achieve than the relatively low-ambition topics currently under discussion.
"A small package is much more difficult than a single undertaking," the source wryly observed. Many trade observers have argued that a small package of measures is more manageable in the current political climate than the more comprehensive set of agreements envisaged under Doha.
In contrast, a developing country official warned that negotiators may again risk overloading the set of topics on which decisions would be required at Bali.
"The attempt to put more issues on the agenda... we've seen that at MC8 and MC7," sighed the delegate, using negotiators' short-hand for the WTO ministerial conferences held in 2011 and 2008, respectively.