THIS NEWS ITEM IS DESIGNED TO HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WTO. WHILE EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THE
CONTENTS ARE ACCURATE, IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS’
POSITIONS. THE OFFICIAL RECORD IS IN THE MEETING’S MINUTES
> news archives
> Supachai Panitchpakdi’s speeches
> Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi’s report
(Word format, 16 pages; 139KB)
> Background explanations of many of the technical terms mentioned here
> Agriculture negotiations
including various texts
“Harbinson Text” version TN/AG/10
> The “July 2004
package” page (including the 1 August framework i.e. Annex A of the
> Groups in
Chair’s summary back to top
Overall: Chairperson Groser took as his starting point, the items that have
already been acquired (the “acquis”) in the negotiations, i.e. the 2001 Doha
Declaration, which is the mandate for the negotiations, and the 1 August
2004 agreed framework (Annex A of the General Council decision). (He has
repeatedly stressed this to re-assure members that the importance of issue
agreed in those two documents has not been reduced, even if they do not
feature strongly in recent consultations or in his current assessment.)
Mr Groser also stressed that progress on agriculture has to be made on all
three “pillars” (domestic support, export subsidies and other aspects of
export competition, and market access), and that it can only be made step by
step, with simultaneous movement on “identifiable packages of issues”.
The stalled negotiations could restart after the summer break with political
decisions that would enable a successful ministerial conference in Hong Kong
in December, he went on. These decisions are easier to identify now, but
they are difficult, he said.
The biggest problems remain in market access, followed by some issues in
domestic support, Mr Groser said. Export competition has progressed
furthest, but with some outstanding issues, he reported.
Market access: The overall challenge in market access is to striking a
balance between working on sets of issues that need to settled
simultaneously, without making the “fatal mistake” of trying to negotiate
everything at the same time, he said.
He paid tribute to the G-20 (list below) for providing an attempt at a
compromise in the group’s recent comprehensive proposal on market access. He
said he had used this as the starting point for his recent discussions and
that members had found it to be a “constructive initiative to map out the
middle ground” even though some had reservations about some of the details.
(The proposal, discussed at the recent mini-ministerial conference in Dalian,
China, envisages five tiers in the tariff reduction formula, fixed
percentage reductions for tariffs within each tier with higher cuts in
higher tiers, maximum final tariffs (“caps”), flexibility through a limited
number of designated “sensitive products”, milder treatment for developing
countries, and a number of other details.)
One of the remaining differences, he said, is whether flexibility should be
built into the formula (i.e. the percentage cuts in each tier would be
averages with some variation allowed around each average), or whether
flexibility should only be handled through designating “sensitive products”
(available to all countries). This is related to the debated question of
expanding tariff quotas since products given flexibility via the formula
would avoid the quota expansion envisaged for “sensitive” products, he
pointed out. At the same time members should bear in mind that without some
“constrained flexibility” in the formula, some countries would find it more
difficult to accept ambitious percentage reductions, he cautioned.
Mr Groser also warned that delays in sorting out these problems would delay
progress on related sets of issues: indicators to use as criteria for
developing countries to designate “special products” (available only to
developing countries), “fullest liberalization” for tropical products, the
treatment of countries that recently joined the WTO, and the erosion of
preferences. He expressed “strong concern” that these and other issues
cannot be set aside for too long, and cannot be settled with a last minute
Domestic support: On domestic support, recent consultations have shown that
two decisions are now required, Mr Groser said.
One is the tiers for reducing Amber Box support (domestic support of the
kind that distorts trade the most) in the three largest subsidizers. Mr
Groser declined to elaborate. Mr Groser said no more discussion is needed,
only a decision.
The other required decision is on disciplines for the Blue Box (similar to
the Amber Box but with some constraints aimed at reducing distortion), to
reinforce the Blue Box’s objective as a half-way house to help reforming
countries move away from distorting support.
Mr Groser also urged countries that heavily use Green Box supports to
examine sympathetically concerns from other countries that these supports
might not always meet the criteria of being at most minimally distorting. At
the same time, developing countries should also be heard when they call for
additional payments to be categorized as “Green”. Political impetus could
help negotiators find middle ground on this, he said.
Export subsidies/competition: On export subsidies, Mr Groser said
negotiators need swift agreement on some “building blocks” that will allow
exporting state trading enterprises and food aid (which can have subsidy
components) to be disciplined in parallel with pure export subsidies.
Required for exporting state traders are new disciplines on “subsidies,
government financing, and underwriting of losses”; on food aid, he regretted
lack of progress on some issues that concern developing countries such as
how to define genuine emergency food aid, as a step towards defining
disciplines on commercial displacement (i.e. when food aid replaces
Cotton sub-committee: Mr Groser welcomed more focused efforts by donor
countries on the development track (essentially development assistance of
various kinds), but sharp price declines remain an acute concern for poor
producing countries that depend on world markets, he said. On the trade
side, proponent countries (the West Africans and their allies) recognize
that progress is needed on the three pillars in the agriculture
negotiations, he said.
Discussion: A long list of countries comment on the agriculture talks and
the negotiations in general. Broadly they expressed disappointment in the
lack of progress, but said they were determined to try to agree on full
modalities by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. Several repeated their
positions on the issues.
Chairmanship back to top
In the General Council on 29 July 2005, chairperson Amina Mohamed announced
Ambassador Falconer as the consensus candidate to be the new chairperson of
the agriculture negotiations (the Special Sessions of the Agriculture
Committee) and the Cotton Sub-Committee from 1 August. She said that Mr
Groser had told her he would step aside when a consensus successor is found
in order to avoid “slippage” in the negotiations. Mr Groser, the previous
New Zealand ambassador, has announced he is running for Parliament in his
The terms of the chairs of the negotiating groups have been running from one
ministerial conference to the next. The current terms expire in December at
the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. They can be renewed.