Workshop on the WTO Agricultural Negotiations; Geneva; 17-20 March 2001

Outline and Overview - IGO; NGOs

The WTO and how it functions

Agenda for agricultural negotiations

Transnational Corporations

Perspectives of representatives

Summary and Final Thoughts

The WTO and how it functions; an internal view

The WTO is run by governments (140) + observers(those wishing to join).

The representatives of the EU speak, the individual EU member states are represented but do not speak.

The secretariat doesn't speak but is there to help the chairman etc. with preparation. They are inter-national civil servants. For agriculture there are 10 of whom 4 are for SPS only.

Formal meetings - reading prepared statements or open comment. Take decisions.

Informal meetings - many less important decisions made.

Ideas are channelled into the WTO through governments. Informal exchanges with the secretariat. There is no protocol for NGOs, they have to talk to other government representatives.
The WTO is trying to modernise/improve procedures.
Working for transparency - but it depends on individual countries. There are also some restricted documents, and there is still room for improvement.

The WTO is preparing for a new round of agricultural talks and is looking to prepare a compromise agenda/situation.
Many small countries are not represented - how can the WTO keep them informed?

Meetings to:- discuss negotiating proposals; a stock-taking excercise and decision on the second phase of talks; regular work meeting, looking at implimentations of committments since Uruguay. (Governments provide information) Want to see committments fulfilled before new round decided.
Then decide what will happen at Qatar. Clear mandate to talk etc, with no time scale.

What is WTOs relationship to other groups (in agriculture) in other organisations?

WFO :- Marrakesh, food aid. No expertise in WTO so rely on others for input. Once a year (November) they are invited to make a submission.Can observe only at other meetings. WTO is policy related, WFO is development orientated.

FAO:- invites WTO, IMF etc to meetings.

TNCs :- are there concerns within WTO?, is there any monitoring?

There have been references from developing countries but not in agriculture so far, altough it may come up.

What is the balance of WTO composition?

Germans x3, Swedish x2, New Zealand, Morroccan, Senegalhese, American x2, Portugese, Italian. Many Dutch and Irish in leading positions.

What about sustainable development?

Dealt with chiefly in the environment committee rather than in agriculture ( often served though the same rep.). It is an 'objective' but the WTO deals in 'instruments'.

What is the relationship of the UN/WTO?

GATT was part of UN; in 1996/7 WTO left the UN system. It is closer to the IMF and the World Bank. Links to the UN. UN decision making is seen as too US orientated - taking place in New York, without consideration of the world situation. Also economic decision to separate off. (1 man - 1 vote in UN; 1 dollar - 1 vote in WTO??? [ed.]). WTO is removed from UN rules and now has its own rules.

Questions raised

Q:- Should agriculture be closer linked in voting to its importance in a country, or to population?

A:- No way!!!!

Q:- How is the chairman elected?

A:- Chosen among the ambassadors and negotiators. A compromise candidate for agriculture. Brazil was not acceptable to the EU, Thailand holds the chair from the end of March.

Q:_ How often are meetings held and how many of the 140 attend?

A:- Four meetings, March, June, September, November. Extra meetings if needed (such as to prepare for and attend Qatar. Number attending not known.

Q:- What is the criteria for joining the WTO?

A:- By negotiation; currently Armenia is negotiating entry - but for them agricultural policy is a problem (due to US attitude); China wants to join as a developing nation - but again agriculture is a problem; also Lithuania. Influenced also by IMF and internal policies.

Nations can join the WTO, and can also leave (no-one has so far). [If the system harms national interests politicians should be able to resign or re-negotiate terms.]

Agenda for agricultural negotiations:
Agriculture and Trade

Excerpts of the WTO Agriculture Committee, Chair Ambassador Apiradi Tantraporn of Thailand's note to WTO Members of the Agriculture Committee.

11 June 2001
The chair's note states: The annotated agenda and the suggestions it contains are not intended to preclude or limit discussion of any trade and non-trade issues or options which members consider to be relevant in relation to any of the topics listed for in-depth work at this meeting.

23-27 July 2001:
a) Export Subsidies b) Export Credits c) State trading enterprises d) Export restrictions e) Food Security f) Food Safety (see annotated agenda below)

Issues for in-depth work at the September and December 2001 Informal Special Session Meetings:

24-26 September 2001:
a) rural development b) geographical indications c) Green Box d) Blue Box e) Special agricultural safeguard

3-5 December 2001:
a) Environment b) Trade Preferences c) Food Aid d) Consumer Information and labelling 3) Sectoral Initiatives

Each of the above meetings are to be followed by meetings of the regular committee and of the formal Special Session, respectively, some adjustment of the time allocated for these meetings within each of the weeks concerned may prove to be necessary. The main features of the in-depth work at the May, July and September informal Special Session meeting on 28 September 2001, and a similar report on the 3-5 December informal meeting will be made to the formal Special Session meeting on 7 December 2001.
As Members are aware, the in-depth work of the Second phase of negotiations covers all issues and options for policy reform set out in Members' proposals, with further elaboration as appropriate.

Committee on Agriculture (Special Session):
Work Programme for the Second Phase of the Negotiations for Continuing the Reform Process Under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (G/AG/NG/7)

Annotated Agenda:

• 1) Export Subsidies:
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of Export Subsidies might cover, inter alia:
  a. Modalities for further commitments to reduce or eliminate export subsidies;
  b. Anti-circumvention provisions (Article 10), including additional or more specific disciplines with respect to practices not listed in Article 9.1
  c. Special and differential treatment

• 2) Export Credits:
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of Export Credits might cover, inter alia:
  a. Rules and disciplines to govern the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insuance programmes;
  b. Special and differential treatment, including with respect to Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries.

• 3) State Trading Enterprises:
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of State Trading Enterprises might cover, inter alia:
  a. More operationally effective rules and disciplines with respect to such enterprises in relation to market access opportunities;
  b. More operationally effective rules and disciplines with respect to such enterprises inthe area of export competition;
  c. Special and differential treatment.

• 4) Export Restrictions:
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of Export Restrictions might cover, inter alia:
  a. Quantitative export restrictions (Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture);
  b. Export duties, taxes and other charges on or in connection with exports;
  c. Special and differential treatment.

• 5) Food Security
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of Food Security might cover, inter alia:
  a. Developing Country Concerns;
  b. Domestic support measures and food security;
  c. Import measures and food security;
  d. Export measures and food security;
  e. Food aid;
  f. Food Security stocks.

• 6) Food Safety:
  It is suggested that work in-depth on the issues and options for policy reform in the area of Food Safety might cover, inter alia,
  precautionary considerations and consumer concerns (emphasis added).

Press release from IATP

Transnational Corporations

New Report Finds Flaws in WTO Agriculture Agreement

Minneapolis - The current global agriculture trade agreement will not succeed in helping farmers and broad-based economic development until it addresses market power by transnational corporations, finds a new report released today by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The report, 'Managing the Invisible Hand: Markets, Farmers and International Trade', is by the Institute's Trade Director Sophia Murphy. The report was produced by IATP for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. The full report and executive summary can be viewed at: www.tradeobservatory.org.

The report examines the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, which is the primary trade agreement governing global agricultural trade. Between now and March 31, 2003, governments will draft revisions to the current agriculture trade rules. Government delegates at the WTO will discuss issues such as export subsidies, market access, domestic support programs, food security, and special treatment for developing countries.

The report examines the weaknesses in the Agreement on Agriculture and argues that the agreement itself, whose structure is reflected in the negotiations, is fundamentally flawed.

The Agreement ignores:

• the inelastic nature of demand in agriculture;
• the relatively inelastic nature of supply in agriculture;
• the political and economic weakness of most farmers;
• the vertical integration of the agricultural system;
• the fact that countries do not trade;
• farmers do not trade;
• transnational agri-business trades.

"Until multilateral trade rules take account of the concentration of market power in transnational agricultural trade, they cannot manage an open and fair trading system," Murphy writes in the report. "Agricultural trade rules need to take into account the rapidity of change in the whole agricultural sector, from seed production to food processing to retailing.

These rules must allow countries, particularly developing countries, the flexibility to block dumped agricultural products, protect food security and preserve the livelihoods of low-income farmers."

The paper proposes several revisions to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture including:

• 1. Investigating and publishing the scale and scope of transnational agri-business activities in member states;
• 2. Evaluating the sources of market distortion, public and private, and discussing how best to address them;
• 3. Creating a WTO working group to discuss competition issues specifically related to agriculture.

Murphy will present the paper at the "World Trade Organization Symposium: The Doha Development Agenda and Beyond," being held from April 29-May 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. IATP is one of half a dozen Non-Governmental Organizations sponsoring an April 30th workshop in Geneva titled: "Dumping and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture: The Food Security Implications."

Sophia Murphy is the director of IATP's Trade and Agriculture Program, which focuses on multilateral institutions and food security. She is a former Policy Officer at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, and Policy Officer at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation in Ottawa. She is a graduate of Oxford University and the London School of Economics. She has written frequently on food and trade issues and has spoken to many international panels on these topics - most recently at the United Nations Financing for Development meeting in Monterrey, Mexico.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.

Ben Lilliston,Communications Coordinator,
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Avenue South
Minneapolis,
MN 55404-2505