Trade Negotiations Head to Brazil

Agricultural trade talks last week at the World Trade Organisation reflected an attitude of compromise but differences remain quite marked, said a negotiator from a developing country.

by: Gustavo Capdevila on: 7th Jun, 04

In this context, the meeting of trade ministers to start Jun. 13 in Brazil takes on vital importance.
The next talks on farm trade will take place in Geneva at the end of the month, but the chairman of the WTO agriculture committee's special session, Tim Groser, of New Zealand, is confident the climate for negotiations will improve after the ministerial meet in Sao Paulo.

The Brazilian metropolis will host the 11th session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Jun. 13-18.

A high-ranking WTO source expressed enthusiasm about the talks because the 147 members of the multilateral system have shown ”an attitude of commitment” for reaching an agreement that should be finalised by the end of July.

That is the deadline for reaching a framework agreement on farm trade talks that would allow progress on the rest of the issues under the Doha Round, the trade liberalisation programme launched at the November 2001 ministerial meet in the Qatari capital.

A failure in the already troubled agricultural negotiations would end hopes for reaching an understanding by the end of 2004 on the rest of the Doha agenda, which includes industrial tariffs, trade in services and special and differentiated treatment for poor countries, among others.

The UNCTAD meet will allow the ministers in attendance to discuss separately the specific items also in relation to development.

Luiz Felipe de Seixas Correa, Brazil's representative to the international institutions in Geneva, anticipated that one of these meetings would bring together the Group of Five interested parties.

That group comprises the countries that serve as leaders of the different negotiating blocs within the WTO: United States, European Union, Brazil and India -- representing the Group of 20 developing countries, and Australia, which coordinates the Cairns Group.

The Five Parties will gather next weekend before the inauguration of the UNCTAD XI. Also meeting in Sao Paulo will be the G20, a group created just before the resounding failure of a WTO ministerial meet in the Mexican city of Cancún last September. The 19 members of the group are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Tanzania, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

In this weeks farm trade debates in Geneva, the participants discussed a document presented by the G20 on market access, focussing on the tariffs and quotas that obstruct imports of agricultural products.

The G20's proposal took on increasing importance and guided the week's discussions, said Argentine negotiator Alfredo Chiaradía. With that contribution, the bloc of developing countries proved that ”it has a great deal of manoeuvring room” in the negotiations, he told IPS.

On the other two farm trade issues -- export subsidies and domestic supports -- not much progress was made, say negotiating sources.

The United States and European Union, the two agricultural trade superpowers, which also lead the way in farm export subsidies, have said they are willing to eliminate that form of protectionism, but they differ in how they would go about doing so.

Difficulties arise when it comes to identifying the parallels between the different forms of subsidies, which include such modalities as credits, guarantees and insurance for exports, as well as food aid for foreign countries.

As for domestic support, industrialised countries aim to include new forms of assistance in the regime created by the farm trade agreement of the Uruguay Round, dating to 1995, to continue their protectionism.

Those efforts will ensured that many other countries ”will have great difficulties in advancing” in negotiations on domestic support for farmers, said Chiaradía.

In the negotiations this week there was also active participation by two other blocs, the G10, made up of farm importing countries with a high level of protectionism, the G33, which comprises farm importing developing countries.

The G10, which calls for support of rural multi-functionality -- protecting landscape and rural traditions -- includes Bulgaria, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan.

The G33 is seeking farm trade accords that take into consideration certain ”special products” that are vital to the economies of the group's members.

The group is made up of Barbados, Botswana, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauricio, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, who will also attend the UNCTAD XI sessions, urged the member countries not to squander this opportunity to achieve a compromise in the few weeks remaining.

Supachai, a Thai diplomat, said the positive disposition of many governments has increased the outlook for success, but, he warned, there is still quite a long way to go.

article from www.globalecho.org

 

Here's an interesting perspective on last year's talks in Cancun:

http://www.global-poverty.org/PolicyAdvocacy/pahome2.5.nsf/allarticles/0B24E249501ECE6C88256E4600836260?OpenDocument

 

I don't find that very convincing. It is simply an ode to state economic planning. Yes Korea was interventionist, but so was India, which went nowhere. Does World Vision want a repressive military government trying to protect and support a highly concentrated economy run by a few powerful families controlling vast industrial empires? Because's that's Korea. Is this the new anti-globalisation strategy?

In fact very little of the story explained why these investment rules were needed to deal with foreign investors specifically. If the country has rules against pollution, why does it need special rules against foreigners polluting?

 

Pointbreak,

There's a link at the bottom of the article that leads to a page with a more comprehensive report on the subject. I need to finish reading it before I can comment on it. You might want to check it out, too.

 

I did, most of my comments were meant to relate to story in that link.

Looking forward to your reply.

 

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same 124-page document:

http://www.global-poverty.org/pahome2.0.nsf/6b9cc825455bcb7788256a730065d026/a2bfd95ac464af4488256d970046beb1/$FILE/Risky%20Development.pdf

It's going to take me a while to get through, with my schedule these days.

 

Oops, same document but i just read the summary.

 

You state

The group is made up of Barbados, Botswana, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauricio, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

and that the negotiator was from a developing country. What you are talking about is is precisely the kind of Globalisation and Poverty Free Essay that people need to read more of.
Free World Trade Essay

She summarized the issue for most of the West. 'The resettlement of Southeast Asians by the Western world is a fantastic theory. A lot of people can make wonderful careers for themselves by talking about it, writing about it, singing about it, and doing whatever else they do to give people neat little ways of dealing with their guilt. But when you start talking about bringing a bunch of people out of the jungle who don't know so much as what to do with a toilet, certainly they don't know how to use toilet paper, just think about it. Then you stick them into our home, to eat off of our dishes, to rub disease-filled noses with our little boys-well, that's where all that cool theory comes to a screeching halt.'

Now that's just the sort of articulate speech I was looking for. Obviously my conscience had jumped the gun a bit when I came up with this idea about taking a family into our home. How much easier it would be to just go on the stump, to preach about the obligation of the church to meet this need, and to point out the hypocrisy of the clergy. I was already gaining some notoriety as a social critic, why not develop that. The public seems to get some mysterious enjoyment out of having guilt trips laid on them. In any case, I am certainly not going to bring any refugee family into my home without Nancy's 100 percent support. She's going to be the one who gets stuck with most of the work.