ECOWAS Regional Workshop
on Agriculture Negotiations and food security
Conakry, 8-10 April 2002
UNCTAD
THE DOHA WORK PROGRAMME:
THE UNCTAD PERSPECTIVE
Manuela Tortora
Trade Negotiations and
Commercial Diplomacy Branch
UNCTAD
1
The context: from Seattle to Doha
What changed:
• the increasing role of the
developing countries and
the LDCs in shaping the
trade agenda
• the relevance of the
implementation issues
• the negotiations on the
“built-in agenda” since
2000
• the international context
What has not changed:
• the role of the
agriculture in the
negotiations
• the role of the
developing countries
and the LDCs in the
world trade
2
The main features of the
Doha Work Programme:
• A “revival” of the S&D issues
• Very broad agenda, more ambitious than the
Uruguay Round
• A “single undertaking” at the end of the process
• Decisions on the four “Singapore issues”
(investment, competition, government
procurement, and trade facilitation) to be taken
at the 5th Ministerial Conference (Mid-2003)
• Tight negotiating deadlines
3
Is it a “development agenda”?
It could become one, IF:
the implementation issues raised by the
developing countries are addressed;
the S&D provisions are clarified and the
development concerns taken into account;
in agriculture trade, the imbalances are
corrected;
effective assistance is provided to enhance
the negotiating capacity of the developing
4
countries.
The negotiating mandates in the overall
Doha Work Programme:
The Doha Ministerial Declaration sets the
objectives of the negotiators
but look also at :
Para.6 of the Preamble of the Declaration
(“precautionary principle” with other
words)
the Decision on the Implementation Issues
the Outstanding Implementation Issues
5
The place of agriculture in the overall Doha
Work Programme:
The mandates on agriculture should be seen
in parallel with:
implementation issues (in particular SPS)
geographical indications (TRIPS)
rules of origin
WTO rules on regional agreements (ACP)
review of the S&D provisions and the work
on the “small economies”
6
The current and medium term international
context of the negotiations:
Signs of economic recovery in the United
States (not yet in the EU, not in Japan)
“Steel war” between the United States and the
EU
New trade instruments in the United States
implying tough positions on agriculture trade
No visible changes in the EU position (the
Common Agriculture Policy has its own pace)
Divisions among the developing countries
regarding the agriculture negotiations
7
The position of the United States in the
negotiations on agriculture:
2 new instruments are being discussed
at the US Congress these days:
the new Farm Bill ,
that
sets
the
US
the “Trade
agriculture policy,
Promotion
through 2 drafts:
Authority” (fast
• the “Farm Security
Act” of the House,
track autorisation)
and
sets the
• the “Agriculture,
objectives of the US
Conservation and
Rural Enhancement
trade negotiators
Act” of the Senate.
8
The current situation of these 2 bills:
The “Trade Promotion
Authority” is still
being discussed
The Congress is now
finalising the merger
of the 2 draft bills
into one, that should
be approved by midApril 2002, with a
maximum budget of
US$ 73.5 billion in
the next 10 years
9
6 main objectives set for the US trade
negotiators in the
Trade Promotion Authority in agriculture:
1.-Obtain reduction of subsidies and tariffs in
particular for the items where the US tariffs
are low;
2.-Seek “reasonable” transition periods for the
imports that are “sensitive” for the US
producers;
3.-Achieve the reduction or elimination of
subsidies that affect market access
opportunities for the US products.
10
6 main objectives set for the US trade
negotiators in the
Trade Promotion Authority in agriculture:
4.-Seek the elimination of the state-trading
enterprises;
5.-Seek an end to unnecessarily restrictive
rules for the administration of quotas;
6.-Preserve non-trade distorting programmes
that support American farms and rural
communities.
11
Great similarities in the 2 draft farmbills:
• Both texts increase the direct payments to the
US farmers
• Both texts provide for renewing or increasing
the amounts allocated to trade promotion,
international food aid and subsidies to US
farmers
• Both texts provide for compensatory payments
in case of market prices falling below certain
levels
• Both texts authorise the Secretary of
Agriculture to adjust payments to ensure
12
compliance with the WTO obligations
Key differences between the 2 draft bills:
• They provide for different loan rates;
• They set different target prices to
determine the compensatory payments;
• They set different amounts for the fixed
payments to the farmers.
13
An example of the subsidies provided by
these draft bills:
• The maximum fixed payment that a farmer
can receive is raised from US$ 40.000 to 50.000
per year;
• If market prices fall below the “target prices”,
the payment can be raised up to US$ 150.000.
Today, 36% of the US farms receive fixed
payments, but in some States the share is up to
70% of the farms;
The average farmer receives US$ 5.830 per year,
while the large corporations accumulate
payments up to US$ 500.000.
14
The position of the US Executive:
• Expressed its reservations on both drafts
because they are not in compliance with
the US obligations in the WTO.
• Considers that it will be difficult to
monitor the level of domestic support,
and very difficult to reduce it if so
decided in the negotiations.
15
The negotiating objectives of
the US Executive:
• Focus on the markets of the middle-income
developing countries, where there is more
spending on the import of agriculture items;
• In the LDCs, the food shortages provide
opportunities for US food aid in case of
surplus in the US market;
• Lower tariffs and elimination of export
subsidies, particularly in the EU;
• Eliminate regulations on biotechnology.
16
Some conclusions:what can be expected?
• The negotiations on agriculture will be
difficult, with probably last-minute
arrangements between the US and the EU,
and possible trade-offs in other areas (as
usual…);
• Negative political climate because of the
steel war and the domestic agriculture
policies of the US and the EU;
• Very limited time available in the timetable
as approved last week.
17