Summary: May 3, 2005: Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture and Rural Development, Speaking Points on WTO Agricultural Negotiations, Meeting with FIPs (Paris)
Today's FIPs (Five Interested Parties: EU, USA, Australia, India and Brazil) meeting will address 2 different issues
- Substance of the agricultural negotiations
- Configuration of the FIPs
Substance of the agricultural negotiations
Here we should build upon what was said in the steering group meeting:
My first point here is that it is not giving the full picture when it is said that exporting countries had made a number of concessions in the AVE discussion.
The EU also has contributed to the discussion actively: I also remind you that the EU has given up its own method for the calculation of AVEs, which was based on the IDB import value filtered only by TRQs. The EU has instead accepted the method currently applied and proposed by exporters. However, it is not very useful to reflect now on the contributions each party has made to the process. Let us focus on how we can move the agricultural negotiations forward.
As was mentioned over lunch, we have two possibilities: either we try to solve the AVE issue on a standalone basis, or we try to find a solution in a broader context. In the discussion overt lunch, there was no unanimous position on this. For me it is clear that we should move in a broader context.
What does that mean in concrete terms?
We have been thinking about a so-called 3 times - 3 approach. For each pillar, we foresee three categories of products: a three-band approach both in market access and domestic support and a three-stage approach for the phasing out of subsidies in export competition. This should adequately reflect the sensitiveness of the various Members of the WTO.
On domestic support, we have gone a long way in translating our reform into concrete and ambitious commitments now contained in the framework agreement. We are now willing to go beyond that and propose a three-band approach with reductions to be fixed at the appropriate moment both for the Amber box and the overall domestic support. All developed countries should contribute in an equitable way. We also think that the de minimis levels should be substantially reduced for developed
countries.
The new blue box definition could enable Members to exempt from reduction commitments some of the most trade-distorting measures, such as counter-cyclical payments.
As to the green box, we are fully committed to the review and clarification exercise with a view to guarantee the genuine nature of these measures.
In the area of export competition, we wish to re-call our major contribution made to the agreement on the agreed framework in July 2004 by putting the elimination of all export subsidies on the table. We foresee a phasing out of refunds in three stages based on the schedule agreed at the Uruguay Round. In stage I, we would have products for immediate elimination. In stage II, products for elimination over medium-term. An in stage III, products for elimination over long-term.
We recognise that in the area of export competition food aid is a particularly sensitive issue. However, it is our understanding that the obligation to eliminate commercial displacement effects through the provision of food aid provides a good opportunity to improve the effectiveness of donor policies in this area with clear benefits for Developing Countries (shift towards more efficient and less trade distorting untied and cash-based food aid).
We also need that at the "end-point" governments should withdraw all statutory and regulatory privileges by which State Trading Enterprises distort international agricultural trade in stages to be determined.
As expected, market access has proven to be the most difficult area of negotiations. We should now move on and fold the outstanding issues on AVEs into a whole. According to us, the harmonizing tiered formula should be based on three bands. Within each band the reduction formula should be a Uruguay Round formula. Each Member should be entitled to designate an appropriate number of sensitive products based on its level of sensitivity. For such products, TRQs will have to be
expanded.
And we cannot ignore how improving market access also means better protection of Geographical Indications. Our requests both in the TRIPs context and in the Agriculture negotiations need to be seriously addressed if we want to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Configuration of the FIPs
Let me come now to one very important point: the FIPs configuration.
The FIPs has proved to be useful in the run-up to the Framework Agreement. However, it is now time to re-think the composition of this group. In March, when this process was reactivated, we had already indicated the need to enlarge the group to make it more representative, but the other participants strongly resisted this idea.
The recent events demonstrate even more the need to overhaul the group to better reflect the broader interests involved.
We will therefore suggest including a Member of the G10 as well as a Member of the G33 and one of the G-90 to represent the interests of Developing countries. I think this will ensure a re-balancing of the various groupings present in the WTO and thus facilitate the decision-making process in the phase of the negotiations.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page