|
WTO missed April deadline: Intense negotiations to conclude Agriculture- NAMA modalities by end June |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 17 May 2006 |
Given the outcome of the 6th WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong, the year 2006 is very crucial for concluding the Doha Development Round by end of this year. The WTO was supposed to complete the modalities in Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Non-Agricultural Market Agreement (NAMA) by end of April 2006. However on 24th April, it was formally confirmed by the WTO that it missed its April-end deadline for completion of modalities in Agriculture and NAMA and that the Mini Ministerial, planned for early May, was called off. The next most important date in the WTO negotiation schedule is 28th-29th July when the General Council is scheduled to be held in Geneva. The WTO secretariat will make every effort to finish negotiations in Agriculture and NAMA by then for the institutional survival of WTO.
Immediately after Hong Kong, Mr. Pascal Lamy tried very hard to push through a deal at several meetings outside Geneva among 'influential members' and also visited leaders of developing countries like India and Brazil to get their support. He also planned a mini Ministerial at the end of April-early May, to lead the critical decisions by a handful of ministers to finalize modalities. However the WTO members were not ready to agree to modalities on agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) by April 30. Besides lack of political will and lack of agreement among key members for finalization of modalities, Mr. Lamy plan also faced a serious setback when on April 18, USTR Mr. Rob Portman was moved to the post of Budget Director, and his deputy, Ms. Susan Schwab was promoted to take his place. This move at a time when WTO negotiation was quite crucial indicated that US does not see any strategic advancement in the on going WTO talks. Trade Ministers from the African Union at a meeting in Nairobi, made it clear that they would not accept a package where issues of importance to Africa have been left out. For them any WTO modalities in agriculture and NAMA must be "all-inclusive" and they would not accept "partial modalities" that leaves out issues of concern to African countries, which include the tariff reduction formula, special products, special safeguard mechanism (SSM), preference erosion, cotton and commodities. Meanwhile the G33 also wrote a letter to WTO Director General protesting their exclusion from the main negotiations and demanding for an all-inclusive and transparent process of negotiation, which involves the full participation of all members.
The contentious issues in Agriculture negotiations, which is yet to be
resolved include the formula for overall reductions in domestic
support, criteria for the blue box, the approach to tariff cuts and the
criteria and limits on sensitive products. Other important issues where
there is some sign of convergence include new criteria for the green
box; disciplines on state trading enterprises (STEs), food aid, and
export credits; and the terms for special products (SP) and the Special
Safeguard Mechanism (SSM).
In NAMA, the focal point of negotiations revolved around the fixing of
the formula for reducing industrial tariffs, the flexibilities to be
granted to developing countries and the treatment of unbound tariffs.
Other issues in NAMA where there is some sort of agreement include the
treatment of preferences, flexibilities for small and vulnerable
economies in particular, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and negotiations on
specific sectors.
Interestingly, Commerce Minister of India, Mr. Kamal Nath has put a
question mark on the very nature of this "development round" and called
for "no deal is better than a bad deal'. Addressing to media on 25th
April at the WTO in Geneva, he said that there is still not adequate
recognition that the current WTO talks are a "Development Round", and
this has been demonstrated by negotiations still continuing on certain
cardinal principles that are not up for negotiations. He also said that
one cannot have a global trade deal that is against the cardinal
principles and mandate of the Doha Round, which is "no negotiations on
subsistence, no negotiations on de-stabilization and
de-industrialization, which goes against the very concept of a
Development Round." "I have always said that 'no deal is better than a
bad deal'," Nath said. (SUNS, 26th April 2006) |
