Agricultural Negotiations at the WTO
EU representative:
Agriculture has been included in the WTO since the Uruguay Round - which is seen as beneficial. There is a move towards subsidy changes, reforms in the EU agricultural policy - CAP 2000.
Rural policy:- lower markets required; - direct income support (Blue + Green Boxes).
Follow on from Marrakesh:- liberalisation.
Domestic policies are decided in the light of background negotiations.
Agriculture is part of the 'built in' negotiations.
The EU is looking for a comprehensive new round in November, in the interests of the whole WTO membership. Over-all agreement will be easier if it is part of the wider negotiations. There can be trade-offs in agriculture (defensive interests) with other trade interests.
Looking for:-
- liberalisation of our export markets.
- sustainable development as a whole (plus the precautionary principle) to be taken on board. {There is a greater need for this following Seattle.}
How is it possible to integrate new EU members, with different structures to those in the EU at present?
The 'Peace Clause' is due to expire in 2003 - we need to settle subsidies for poorer farmers before then.
Need for balance with agriculture between trade concerns, domestic support and non-trade concerns. (The multi-functional role of agriculture; land, food safety, animal welfare, rural communities and social concerns.) There is an adverse effect overall when farmers withdraw. The role of farmers in maintaining the social tissue of society has to be considered and we have to find ways to support it without distorting trade.
'Export refunds' are paralleled in the US and Canada, 'export credits' etc..
Domestic support is to be lower but the character of an area needs to be protected.
Food safety is of primary concern. There is consumer concern over the processing of food and animal welfare.
Developing countries needs should be met - by special differentiation. There is the Norwegian initiative and also 'trade in everything but arms' which has a strong lobby group. The EU is taking the middle ground, open to negotiation while preserving the social models in Europe. This next round should be easier than the Uruguay round as it will be building on an existing system.
Questions:
Is there an EU model? How can we discuss a new round when domestic policy is not certain? How can we keep farmers on the land?
- CAP set cereal prices too high in the 1960s and set the scene for cheap feed and BSE. Lower cereal prices allows natural feed for cattle etc.
- Need to re-establish ratios between different products.(eg population : pigs, ratios:- Netherlands pop x1:pigs x2; Denmark pop x1:pigs x3) Overproduction is a problem.
- Food scares:- BSE,Foot and Mouth etc; need one system for all members in order to maintain the system. (Netherlands stopped FMD vaccination) Many problems are man made.
Does CAP deliver multi-functionality? What further reforms are necessary? How does that relate to the WTO?
The US doesn't support the precautionary principle, but then applies it on meat imports during the FMD crisis. Who controls the right use of the precautionary principle?
- If support is not trade distorting it is not part of the WTO discussions (eg maintaing the countryside)
How can developing countries support their social concerns, how can technical assistance be provided?
- We shouldn't neglect the health etc. of developing countries.
Labelling schemes - how can they be implemented without conflicting with WTO rules?
- Organic/other processes can be shown to give consumer choice. Increase the farmers share of payment by the use of co-operatives.
TNCs distort markets - and the Green Box aids them. There is a need for open government. There are problems of intelligibilty. | 
