Agriculture still remains to be a contentious issue as Geneva gets ready to host the mini-ministerial for reviving the multilateral trade negotiations. In agriculture, both the offensive and defensive interests are likely to come to the fore with equal vigour

From the side of the developing countries, Brazil has made clear that that the developed nation’s heavy subsidies and high tariff barriers for agriculture products the biggest obstacle to an agreement on the Doha round. India and other developing countries would also join Brazil in demanding a drastic cut in developed countries’ trade-distorting farm subsidies, particularly asking US to reduce its subsidies from $ 55 billion to $13billion.

Brazil and India are member of G-20 group of developing countries. Though US has indicated that it is prepared some reduction in its subsidy, TomHarkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry joined by his colleague Saxby Chambliss and 15 other members of the panel have cautioned the US trade representative Susan Schwab saying ” reduction in trade-distorting domestic support must be accompanied by real market access gains that are compatible in magnitude and will provide net gains for US agriculture. Anything less will not receive our support.?

They further said ? The provisions of the most recent text on sensitive products, special products (SPs), the proposed new special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and exceptions for recently acceded members do not inspire much confidence that a balanced agreement can be reached Twice before, the US rightly rejected an unbalanced framework agreement and opted instead to continue discussions towards achieving a comprehensive result that will generate new trade flows. Neither US agriculture nor individual commodities should have to shoulder an unfair burden of the negotiations. If you are presented with an unbalanced text, we urge you to reject it in favour of continued negotiations.?

The US senators call for real market access gains that are compatible in magnitude to cause net gains to US agriculture clashes with the interests of the developing countries which are eager to protect their food and livelihood security.

The group of developing countries led by G-33 is interested in self-designation of SPs based on select indicators, which would not be subjected to tariff cuts.

G-33 has also demanded a strong and effective SSM to prevent any possible surge in cheap imports.

The revised farm draft released on July 10 by the chair, Crawford Falconer has not emphasized much on drastic cuts in farm subsidies and tariffs of the developed countries. It has suggested a very complicated SSM for developing countries, practically making its application difficult and ineffective, while the developed countries continue to invoke special safeguard (SSG) clause. India which is a member of G-33, has demanded at least 20% of the farm tariff lines to be designated as SPs. The Indian commerce minister, Kamal Nath has threatened that he may walk out if the deal fails to protect small and marginal farmers and infant industries

The revised NAMA draft released by Don Stephenson has sought to take away the flexibilities to industries in the developing countries with the introduction of ‘anti-concentration’ clause

Like the May draft, It has linked tariff reduction coefficients with flexibilities. India has demanded that flexibilities have to be treated on stand-alone basis and there should be no trade-off between flexibilities and tariff reduction coefficients.

The proposal for negotiations in remanufactured goods finds place in the revised draft indicating convergence on this issue, which is far from reality. In the earlier draft, the issue was under the square brackets reflecting lack of consensus on the subject.

The controversial coefficient ranges for developed and developing countries for cutting tariffs through a “Swiss formula” still remains in the May text as also the percentages of tariff lines that can have flexibilities from the full tariff cuts, according to a “sliding scale”.

The revised NAMA draft has also attempted to create a division in the unity of the developing countries by proposing additional flexibilities to some. Also the farm draft has proposed relaxation for least developing countries (LDCs), small vulnerable economies and ‘other developing countries’?this may possible divide the unity amongst the developing countries, if not tackled effectively

The mini-ministerial will also be faced with demands from many diverse groups. Cotton producers ? Benin, Burikina Faso, Chad, Mali ? are seeking cuts in US subsidies. The Cairns group, primarily of farm exporters, are seeking radical reforms in both developing and developed markets. G-10, representing food importers like Iceland, Japan, Israel, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan is stressing the importance of non-trade issues in agriculture like environment and community development. These countries have high tariffs. Banana war between the Latin American producers and European Union has remained unresolved On the issue of 12 tropical products there is a tug-of-war between Latin American countries and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) producers over the reduction in tariff.