|
The agriculture text circulated by the Chair, Ambassador Falconer, on July 17, 2007 (see earlier report ‘WTO circulates revised blueprints of agriculture, NAMA texts' ) has been better received by most WTO members than Chair Don Stephenson's NAMA text, in the ongoing Doha round of WTO trade talks.
Several developing countries have been extremely critical of the NAMA text which they say would force them to make tariff cuts that were disproportionate both to the demands made of industrialised nations and to the farm subsidy reform on offer in the agriculture paper.
Argentina and Venezuela said they would simply not accept the NAMA text as a basis for further talks.
India can accept the recent WTO draft on agriculture “as a basis for further talks”, but proposals on industrial goods were “fundamentally flawed and essentially biased”, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Rahul Khullar, said at a seminar on the WTO organised by the CII.
On the other hand, rich countries such as the US, the EU, Canada and New Zealand were generally more favourable in their remarks at a July 25 meeting of the NAMA negotiating committee, though they argued that the text's parameters for tariff cuts let developing countries off lightly.
Some developing nations, including Mexico, Malaysia, and Costa Rica, said that Stephenson's paper struck an appropriate balance.
Many of the divisions in the debate hinge on the interpretation of the mandate for “less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments” by developing countries, reports the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
According to this report, South Africa, speaking on behalf of the NAMA-11, said that the Chair's text, with its 10-15 point gap in coefficients for the two groups of countries, would “turn the concept of less than full reciprocity on its head” and require developing countries to contribute more to the Round than industrialised ones. The text “precludes any real negotiation” instead of prompting it, the group contended, noting that its own bargaining position had been “largely excluded”.
The US and EU want coefficients of 10 and 15 (instead of the 8 and 9 prescribed), arguing that the “less than full reciprocity” mandate would be fulfilled by allowing developing countries to maintain a higher future tariff ceiling through the modestly higher coefficient. They insist that a NAMA agreement must bite into applied tariff rates to create “new trade flows” or “real market access”.
Members will work on these texts and give their official views in September when the WTO recess ends.
August 3, 2007
|
