WTO Doha trade negotiations between
Speaking to journalists after the meeting EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the stalemate “placed a major question mark†over the possibility of a successful conclusion to the Doha Round. He said the flexibility shown by the EU had not been matched by others.
The focus of
Mandelson said that the EU remained committed to a successful outcome and said that the failure to reach agreement in
While briefing journalists after the meeting, Mandelson said, “on the big numbers – the triangle of domestic support in agriculture, agricultural market access, non-agricultural market access – we have not, as I already said, reached convergence. But I firmly believe we have constructed a landing range in agriculture which is fair and forthcoming to developing countries and takes to the limit what the EU can do. We have moved, moved, and moved again in the last year or so in different parts of the agricultural negotiation and as I and Commissioner Fischer Boel have made clear we had a final move left in us to reach a balanced, equitable, ambitious conclusion.
“But we cannot negotiate with ourselves. We were asked to put our last best agriculture offer on the table in the knowledge that this would not attract anything in return within the scope of our negotiation mandate and within the concept of proportional effort by all G4 members.
“This is a development round. The developing countries should make less effort and receive more than the developed countries. In the case of the poorest they should only receive from a successful trade round,†he added.
Asked wheteher the process will now move back to
“We would not be able to bring this round or this negotiation to a full stop at this meeting. We would however be able to influence whether it concluded in the future. I wish we had been in a position to make a greater and more decisive contribution to finishing this round successfully. But it is not the end of the Doha Round. As we have always said and planned for, it will now go back to Geneva. But it will go to
Asked about his mention of “further flexibilityâ€, Mandelson explained that what he said was that, “we were ready to make our last move in agriculture but the opportunity for us to do so did not arise, because it became clear during our discussions that the response that would be offered in industrial goods was not enough to negotiate on.
Pressed by journalists to elaborate on what had been asked from the emerging economies that created such a problem, Mandelson said, “I think the effort that we were asking of the advanced developing countries was not unreasonable. We were asking them to cut only one in two industrial tariffs by an average of 1.3 percentage points. Remember, these are economies that for all of their development challenges are growing fast and are competitive in many sectors – for example automotive, textiles and aircraft. In the case of most of these countries what is envisaged is just continuing the liberalisation they themselves have undertaken over the last decade. It would have involved one further step – not a leap – down a road they are already travelling. I think that was a proportionate, indeed modest ask, and I am sorry it did not evoke a more positive response.â€
Â
— BACKGROUND
Â
What was the EU offering in agriculture?
Â
·       The EU has offered to cut trade distorting farm subsidies by 70% – the Uruguay Round agreed farm subsidy cuts of 20%. The EU was also ready to eliminate all export subsidies if others did the same.
·       The EU has signalled that it could cut its tariffs for agricultural goods by around 50%. The Uruguay Round cut farm tariffs by 36%.
·       Where the Uruguay Round used an average cut in a way that enabled negotiators to shelter high tariffs by hiding behind their average cut the EU has offered a system of ‘bands’ that would ensure that the highest tariffs would be cut the most – by 60%.
·       The EU has estimated that its market access offer would create new market access for 760000 tonnes of beef annually – which is about the same as Argentina, one of the world’s largest beef exporters, currently exports. And this is even if beef is nominated as a sensitive product.
·       The EU has estimated that the market access it has signalled would have reduced its exports of sugar by 5 million tonnes, of fresh milk by 8 million tonnes. EU poultry exports would fall by a quarter. As the EU withdraws from these global markets it creates new markets for others.
·       An agreement based on these numbers would have outstripped any previous multilateral trade round by a long way. In January 2007, the Carniegie Endowment called the EU proposal: “by far the largest liberalisation of farm trade in history”. See http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Polaski_final_formatted.pdf
·       Director General of the WTO Pascal Lamy said in 2006 that this package represented a “quantum leap” from the results of the Uruguay Round. He quoted an agricultural negotiator in Geneva who had worked on the Uruguay negotiations: “if anyone had told me at the time of the Uruguay Round that there would be a deal coming a few years later that would eliminate all export subsidies, that would slash harmful domestic support by 60-70%, and cut tariffs by half, I would have signed off immediately”.
Â
What was the EU asking from emerging economies on industrial goods?
Â
We have not asked for full reciprocity but a proportional effort. We have offered flexibilities that would allow sensitive products and sectors to be shielded from any liberalisation. This is precisely the policy space emerging economies have been demanding.
For
