ࡱ> GIH@ (bjbjFF "8,,   8"$F =2ffffffff=======)?R{Af= 2ff22= ff=nnn2 f f=n2=nn5D <fZ uaFU8 :<4==0=n<XAB"Ah< A <fhn`T~fff== d ϲʹ Public Symposium Session on Trade in Agriculture 25 May 2004 Moderator: Larry Elliot Speakers: H.E. Miguel Santiago Campos, Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, and Food, Argentina Carlo Trojan, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the European Communities Jack Wilkinson, President, International Federation of Agricultural Producers Joachim von Braun, Director-General, International Food Policy Research Institute, US Ignasi Carreras, Executive Director, Intermon OXFAM Summary of session: In his opening remarks, Larry Elliot underlined the key role that agriculture plays in the current round of negotiations. Highlighting that prospects looked brighter than they did in the aftermath of Cancun for progress in agriculture negotiations, he asked the speakers to focus their interventions on how to resolve those issues that possibly stand in the way. Ambassador Trojan referred in his comments to the letter of EC Commissioners Franz Fishler and Pascal Lamy to ϲʹ Members dated 9 May. He emphasized the EC's commitment to reaching agreement on a text of framework modalities by July and concluding the DDA within a reasonable time. The EC was ready to move on all three pillars of Market Access, Domestic Support, and Export Competition. Market Access was the most difficult pillar for finding common ground. The proposed Blended Formula was capable of striking a balance among different approaches and sensitivities but the EC remained open to viable alternatives. S&D would be a built-in component of any approach, offering lower reduction commitments, slower implementation periods, and possibilities for special safeguard mechanisms for developing countries. LDCs and other weak and vulnerable Members would not be expected to undertake additional commitments. In terms of domestic support, the EC was ready to make significant reductions in the Amber Box and Blue Box and eliminate de minimus for developed countries, while maintaining the Green Box, as long as others matched their ambitions. The EC was also willing to work towards the elimination of export subsidies, as long as there was parallelism on all forms of export competition, including in areas such as export credits, state trading enterprises and food aid. Non-trade concerns also needed to be reflected in the overall package. The active role played by the G-20 was a positive development. Reaching agreement on a framework in the summer required flexibility from all sides. Failure to do so would have serious consequences beyond 2004. Jack Wilkinson said that his Federation represents 600 milion farm families around the world, with varying concerns and interests. For small countries, the rules-based multilateral system was the only viable alternative. IFAP's concern was not free trade for its own sake but increasing farm incomes, which required complementary policies, such as in meeting standards of import markets. They were also concerned about multinational companies paying below the actual cost for agricultural produce in developing countries. In the trade negotiations, export subsidies needed to be eliminated along with some reductions in most trade-distorting domestic subsidies and real improvements in market access and tariff escalation. The World Bank had provided some estimates on the gains from elimination of subsidies. What was important was to ensure that such benefits accrued to all, including small farmers and LDCs and not only large commercial farms. Otherwise, the Doha Development Agenda would not do justice to its title. Miguel Santiago Campos said that in the area of agriculture, the Uruguay Round had only provided partial results. Given the big role of agriculture in the Argentinean economy, their objective was to attain sustainable development through trade. Argentina recognized the right of each country to help poor farmers and ensure food security, however, in reality subsidies in developed countries mainly benefited privileged farmers and companies rather than those most in need. Developing countries and LDCs were bearing the cost of these policies and any delays in the negotiation process were hurting them further. Any formula to be followed needed to grant flexibility to developing countries and LDCs and favour those which depend on agriculture for their survival. In market access, the biggest reductions needed to be in tariff peaks. They welcomed the proposal of the EC in export subsidies. Distortive subsidies, not only in Amber Box but also the Blue Box, which functioned like a second Amber box, needed to be reduced while abuse of the Green Box needed to be avoided. He also called for tackling the issue of fisheries subsidies, which also benefited a small group at the cost of a large world population. Joachim van Braun emphasized five points which were crucial for the agriculture negotiations to work for the poor. First, developed countries needed to reduce their support in the agriculture sector as well as their border protection. The current system provided S&D treatment for the rich and reduced incomes of developing countries. Second, developing countries needed to open their own markets, which would enhance the overall gains from trade liberalization. The share of south-south trade in agricultural trade was about a third. At the same time, targeted assistance was necessary to ease the re-distributional impact of changes in agricultural policy. Third, having a hollow deal on agriculture would be worse than having no deal. Fourth, the issue of standards needed to be addressed since standards, including those set by private companies, were having a large role in determining trade opportunities. Fifth, development assistance and finance needed to accompany trade liberalization to facilitate trade opportunities of low-income farmers. To categorize countries simply as developed and developing was not useful. Differentiation in terms of applicable trade rules and development assistance needed to be based on per-capita income. Still, trade liberalization was only one tool for addressing the well-being of poor farmers. Ignasi Carreras's comments mainly focused on the link between trade in agricultural products and world poverty. The conditions of the poor were affected not only by international trade but also domestic agricultural policies and development programmes such as those of Oxfam's. Current international trade rules allowed developed countries to maintain their protectionist measures and their hidden dumping practices, which had a negative impact on developing countries. As an example, he described the sugar sector in the EC. To make international trade "fair", Oxfam put forth a number of specific proposals. Export subsidies, export credit subsidies and commercial use of food aid needed to be prohibited. In this regard, he invited the EC to proceed with its offer of elimination of export subsidies even if other developed countries did not respond to its call for parallelism. ϲʹ's support indicators needed to be redefined such that subsidised products could not be exported. Full market access needed to be provided to LDCs and low-income countries. Food security crops needed to be exempt from reductions in tariffs and special safeguards mechanisms needed to be available for all developing countries. He called for a rapid resolution of the problematic issues as the poor could not wait. A large number of questions were raised from the floor, mainly from non-governmental organizations. The issues addressed included the reform of the CAP, the impact of the US presidential elections on negotiations, rural poverty, whether eliminating subsidies would really benefit farmers in poor countries, the Peace Claude, special situation of LDCs, supply-side constraints, tariff-rate quotas, geographical indications, organic foods, the rule of law, and the relationship between trade and environment. The Moderator concluded that the discussions had covered a wider range of issues than trade negotiations in agriculture but that it had been a worthwhile exercise. He underlined the importance of moving negotiations to the multilateral level from the bilateral or regional fora. Despite the difficulties identified, all speakers considered that agreement on a framework by July was within reach. !6]^   % O w x y  8 ` k l m n      . 0 D P W  7:s.ⱹhVsh1h?Wh/?hhc:Mh,wdhOhVsh,wd>*h{0^hphVsh6>* h:>*h.h+h6h:h:>*h:h.h:5>*?DE]^h a  m n  &%gd: & FPgd:gd^$a$gd.((.?@!57aTtuwJzRWg78NO𮧠 hZ h?WhZ hZ hs hZ hhZ h>* h-;hVsho hfh-;h.h= h-;h-;h-;hVs>*h:hh+9h1hVshOh/?hc:M:OY 6>FJQbZbm|    : R S } !!!!!"?"D"c"m"n"q"ûh0%hhyMh\h=h3hh3>*e>*S*h:h[hZ hZ h;~_ hZ hs=q"y"""""""#####$1$4$Y$|$$$$&%'%%%%%%%%% &&&&&"'#''',(4(<(n((((((hyj^ h^hyMhOuh+9h~zh:h.hh\hyMh0%h0&%'%"'#'((((gd^ . A!"#$%6J@J Normal$ a$CJ_HmH sH tH P@"P H Heading 1$$ & F6@&5;KH aJF@2F H Heading 2$$ & F6@&:F@BF H Heading 3$$ & F6@&5B@RB H Heading 4$$ & F6@&F@F H Heading 5$$ & F6@&666  Heading 6 @&66  Heading 7 @&DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List :B@: H Body Text  & F6DP@D H Body Text 2 & F6 DQ@"D H Body Text 3 & F6 DO2D H Body Text 4 & F6 >+B>  Endnote Text$a$CJ@&@Q@ Footnote ReferenceH*B@bB Footnote Text `CJ: : Index 1#^`#6!r6  Index Heading:0:  List Bullet  & F;T6T  List Bullet 2  & F< 0^`0X8X  List Bullet 4# & F> p0^p`0@1@  List Number & FD hT:T  List Number 2  & F@ 0^`0<Z<  Plain Text CJOJQJ6J@6 Subtitle $@&a$D,D Table of Authorities D#D Table of Figures ! 6>@"6 Title"$a$ 5;KH4O24 Title 2#$a$>*4OB4 Title 3$$a$6@OR@ Title Country%$a$;6.6  TOA Heading&5Z@Z TOC 10'$ p# 0<<]^`0a$5;X@X TOC 20($ p# 0<<]^`0a$:\@\ TOC 33)$ p#@J0<<]^`0a$5T@T TOC 40*$ p# 0<<]^`0a$X@X TOC 50+$ p# 0<<]^`0a$6PP TOC 6(,$ p# <<]^a$CJPP TOC 7(-$ p# L<<]^La$CJPP TOC 8(.$ p# )<<]^)a$CJPP TOC 9(/$ p# <<]^a$CJh$h Envelope Address!0@ &+D/^@ CJOJQJBOB Quotation1]^PO"P Quotation Double2]^TO2T Footnote Quotation3]^CJ4 @B4 Footer 4 C#:@R: Header5$ C#a$ 8 DE]^hamn  &'"# @0@@0x@0@0x@0x@0@0@P 0@P 0@P 0x@P 0@P 0@0x@0@0@0@0x@0 @0x@0 @0x@0@0 @0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0P\>0 .Oq"(&%(( !ԕ ! !\ ! !ܗ !!\!!ܘ!8}}  C  8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region 2004255DayMonthYear     hkkn- 3  5 9  ^h  | d} (̠~4tlv<@2rHN\ >S(<447 v&`'zdv]<  >%9p&'+c2'(&#Q@ hB/d? E 8'I UnI ^[ ]c ^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0()h^`.0^`0()p0p^p`0()^`()p@ ^p`()h^`o(0^`0o(()p0p^p`0o(()p0p^p`0o(-0^`0o(()0^`0o(()0^`0o(-p0p^p`0o(()@ 0@ ^@ `0o(()h^`o(. 0^`0OJQJo(-^`.^`.^`.^`()^`()^`.0^`0()0^`0()7i7^7`i- 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH() 0^`0o(hH() ^`o(hH. 0^`0o(hH() p0p^p`0o(hH() p0p^p`0o(hH- hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.P222247 22222 >%~~}}||222247 22222 >%~}|222247 22222 >%<'z&'+&'+&'+&'+8'I]c E^[UnI#Q@hB         /.o Z &)e0%*2-;Q9Mc:MyM{0^yj^;~_,wdOuO1~z::=6Vs?W.5=@ABCDEFJL DocumentSummaryInformation8pCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp|  ϲʹ;  ϲʹ Public Symposium Title0H<DLT(_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_PreviousAdHocReviewCycleID  5WTO Public Symposium 2004 - website material -mail 1Bernard.Kuiten@wto.orgKuiten, Bernard!Z