Restarting the Doha Round
Dr. Franz Fischler
EU
Agriculture,
Rural Development and
Fisheries Commissioner
European Institute
Washington, DC, 19 February 2004
Ladies and gentlemen,
I welcome the
opportunity that the
European Institute provides me with to discuss with you today the state
of play of the
Doha Round. This is timely because, as the on-again, off-again phase in
the negotiations of the
Doha Round seem to be moving back to an "on again"
stage, we cannot let 2004 pass without any progress.
As the new
Chair of the General Council and the other
WTO Committees are now smoothly confirmed, we are ready to move into the
next crucial stage and to test the ground on where we are and what the real
flexibility of the different parties is individually. That will prepare us
for the crunch moment, getting together all those responsible for the
outcome of the negotiations to really test what they are willing to give and
take.
But before we
arrive there, we need to measure the effort we are ready to put into the
negotiations against what we all committed ourselves to in the first place:
the Doha Declaration. Re-opening a discussion on the Doha agenda has seemed
totally counterproductive. Because sooner or later, the overall balance of
an agreement will depend not just on what individual WTO partners are asking
for but also what they are willing to contribute. And the more balanced and
consistent the overall package, the better the chances are for a successful
outcome.
The European Commission will be doing everything in its power to achieve
this. In the past months we have launched a whole range of diplomatic
initiatives, to explain to the developing countries in particular that there
is real substance to Europe's offer.
These
activities were not aimed only at explaining our position in
trade issues, but at improving our co-operation on
development issues, as our latest initiative on agricultural
commodity dependency and on
cotton indicates.
We have also
welcomed the latest initiative from US side, which shows that the United
States are clearly interested in reviving the negotiations and so
contributing to moving the blocked talks forward. But since this later
initiative, or rather its public interpretation, gives often the impression
that a phasing out of EU export subsidies is the only precondition for
successful negotiations, let me clarify from the start which preconditions I
see for the re-launching of the agriculture negotiations.
The first
precondition I see relates exactly to export subsidies. Most parties say
that export subsidies need to be abolished. We have said, and tabled a
proposal months ago to that effect, that export subsidies on products which
are of interest the developing countries should be abolished.
But what export
subsidies are we talking about? The EU measures of supporting exports have a
trade-distorting impact on trade, and we have never said the contrary. But
these have been disciplined already in the previous Round, which failed to
discipline, despite specific commitments to the contrary in the Agreement on
Agriculture, other forms of export support.
Therefore
we insist that when we talk about export subsidies, we should talk about
all forms of export competition, not just Europe's.
This is after all the clear Doha
mandate; explicit in the inclusion of all forms of support for exports, less
clear is the timetable for making reductions and whether complete
elimination is the aim.
The Doha mandate is also about
export credits and surplus disposal in the guise of "food aid," used mainly
by the US. It is about export monopolies, whether Canadian, Australian or
from New Zealand, an area where the absence of any disciplines allows both
US and Canada to claim victory in the recent dispute on the Canadian Wheat
Board. It is also about other, less discussed forms of export distortion, as
the impact of the differential export tax in Argentina on its soybean trade
indicates.
The second precondition relates to
disciplines on domestic support. When it comes to internal farm support, the
Doha Declaration also makes it clear that priority has to go to disciplining
most those policies which distort trade the most.
It is high time, too, that there was
general recognition that the whole purpose of the WTO is not to do away with
farm policies. Its long-term objective is to do so with support aid which
has a negative impact on international trade, which squeezes prices or harms
the developing countries.
Equally, though, schemes to
remunerate other services provided by agriculture, and which have no impact
or minimal on trade, should be left alone. Attacking such measures in the
context of the WTO talks, this type of debate does not help the developing
countries one iota.
It is extremely cynical to suggest
that the EU just has to sacrifice its farmers and paradise will descend on
the Developing World. This is why I insist that, when it comes to reducing
domestic support, the negotiations should aim to implement the Doha mandate
properly.
And this mandate clearly reflects
what the WTO was set to promote in agriculture; our goal must remain to
discipline the most trade-distorting farm policies and force reforms where
necessary.
It was never our goal to penalise
reform by introducing a higher degree of reduction for those policies that
explicitly facilitate reform, neither was it meant to rubber-stamp
exemptions for some of the most trade or environmentally distorting
subsidies when used by the most advanced developing countries.
In addition to these preconditions,
I think that a successful re-launching of the Doha Round requires a closer
look into the developing countries, especially the poorest among them.
If the poorest countries are to
benefit from trade liberalisation, they need to be given considerably more
market opportunities and help in meeting international production standards.
And at this point I would like to enlarge on what the EU is offering the
developing countries.
Among the many critical issues which
we have to address if we want to win the developing countries to our side,
market access is certainly a difficult one, along with other commitments on
internal support and subsidies. This is where separate and differential
treatment comes in. Because the real issue we have to face in this Round is
not a theoretical debate about trade preferences. We should derive concrete
conclusions about the impact of such preferences based on specific analysis.
But the pertinent issue for the Doha Round is elsewhere; it in the impact
that preference erosion will have on many developing countries.
And the solution to this problem
does only require that we rethink development measures, but that we also
consider specific trade measures within the next Agreement.
On internal support, it remains our
priority to ensure that schemes promoting the viability of rural communities
or food security for developing countries as a weapon against poverty should
be accepted.
On market access, particularly
increased access for developing country products, we continue to insist that
the industrial countries and the wealthiest developing countries should be
conceding wide-ranging trade preferences to the real developing countries
and especially the least developed developing countries.
We are also calling for stable and
predictable preferences, because such dependability is a precondition for
further investment and the development of the food and agriculture sector in
developing countries.
Although we must continue to press
for clarification of these critical development issues, I believe that the
proposals currently under debate in the WTO show very well that separate and
differential treatment is a major topic and that there is scope for helping
the developing countries in this way.
To end with, I would like to say a
few words about cotton, which proved to be such a sensitive issue in Cancún.
There appears to be an emerging consensus in Geneva to treat the
trade-related issues concerning cotton, such as market access and the level
and form of subsidies, in the context of the agricultural negotiations.
The financial and technical
assistance issues, on the other hand, should be addressed through the
appropriate international forums outside the WTO, either as part of
bilateral development co-operation or through international bodies like the
World Bank.
Which brings me to the remaining
question of, where now? Given that the
DDA [Doha Development Agenda] has started, stopped, started and stopped again, do we still believe
that we can get the talks off the ground?
We have to, out of our commitment to
the poorer countries, out of our commitment to our citizens and out of the
commitment that we signed onto in Doha to create a fairer platform for world
trade.
As Sir Winston Churchill said, “A
pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the
opportunity in every difficulty.” We cannot afford to be pessimistic at this
stage, or to talk about the what ifs. We need to invest all our energies
into getting the talks back on track.
In this respect there have been, and
there will continue to be concerted diplomatic efforts. For its part, the EU
remains fully committed to the Development Agenda and our offer remains
firmly on the table. If others start to match our efforts and our proposals,
then we can begin talking business.
Having secured a fair deal for EU
farmers and a fair market return for EU consumers in last summer’s
CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] reform agreement, it remains a priority for us to achieve the same in the
international negotiations.
Thank you.
Commissioner Fischler on
Farm Reforms;
on a
Healthy Food Supply.
