Pressure on EU for farm subsidy concessions
Facing a midnight deadline, pressure mounted today on the European Union to make concessions on the politically sensitive subject of farm export subsidies so as to clear the way for new talks on freeing up more global commerce.
Senior US negotiators at the World Trade Organisation summit in Qatar said ‘‘very, very substantial progress’’ had been made over four days of talks.
Agreements were close on reconciling prickly issues of access to patented drugs for poor countries as well as including a mandate to tighten anti-dumping rules, which Washington had resisted.
‘‘It’s definitely very doable ... provided everybody keeps our eyes on the big picture,’’ one US official said.
A second failure to reach agreement among the 142 WTO members - after the tear-gas soaked disaster in Seattle - could cripple the global trading system at a time of recession or near-recession in the world economy.
But just like the 1999 session, agriculture has proven to be one of the most difficult topics.
The EU, and especially France, was essentially alone after Japan, South Korea and Norway agreed to a proposed text calling for the eventual ‘‘phasing out’’ of farm export subsidies.
France, which benefits the most from the EU’s farm budget, has a strong farmers lobby and presidential elections just six months away.
US and other trade negotiators suggested the EU might be able to pressure France to agree to talks on a phase out of subsidies if gains could be made in other areas of importance to Europe, such as environmental issues related to trade, or opening talks on competition policy and protecting investment.
But a revised draft for the final text circulating today dropped negotiations on competition and investment, which developing countries had vehemently opposed. They said it was ‘‘extremely premature’’ for them to try to tackle such issues.
Many also fear environmental rules would be used as a cover to keep goods from poor countries with lower standards out of the EU.
Developing countries appear to have prevailed in keeping stronger language on the relationship between trade and labour standards out of the final text. The draft agreement simply recognises that the International Labour Organisation ‘‘provides the appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue’’ on this issue. The EU had wanted a role for the WTO.
EU officials didn’t show up for a scheduled press briefing and could not be reached for comment, reflecting the harried pace of negotiations as the deadline neared.
Other areas of disagreement remained, including with India over greater market access for textiles from developing countries.
Indian Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran has called that a potential deal-breaker. But a senior US negotiator said African countries as well as Pakistan had recognised that it could not move further without action by Congress to change laws.
‘‘We’re not refusing to negotiate textiles,’’ he said. ‘‘What we’re saying is we can’t do any more unilaterally.’’
A group of African, Caribbean and Pacific island countries also indicated an unwillingness to sign on to a fresh round of trade talks unless a separate dispute they have at the WTO is resolved.
That involves getting a waiver from the WTO for an agreement they have with the EU granting preferential market access for agricultural products, mainly bananas.
Even though it only sets out the issues to be discussed and doesn’t commit countries to open any of their markets further at this stage, the final draft is still considered crucially important because it will serve as the ‘‘road map’’ for the talks
