A day ahead of the mini-ministerial meeting at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) headquarters here, a key alliance of developing countries on agriculture?the G-33?reaffirmed their unity during a meeting here on Sunday and said only a substantial reduction of the trade distorting farm subsidies of the developed nations would ensure a positive outcome of the Doha Round talks.
Pointing out that the deepening global food crisis is posing a major threat to peace across the globe, the alliance of developing countries with defensive interests in agriculture said the Doha Round negotiations would have a development-oriented outcome only if the rich countries effectively address the major distortions in farm trade caused due to their huge subsidies and market access barriers.
The global food crisis has touched alarming levels, the G-33 said, adding that it was the poor people in these developing countries who have been affected the most.
The G-33 has insisted that the developed countries must not only substantially reduce their subsidies from the current applied levels, but also ensure that they do not indulge in masking their subsidies in one form or the other.
Developed countries have been facing allegations of resorting to box-shifting?that is re-categorising their subsidies to make it permissible as per the WTO norms.
For instance, it has been alleged that the rich nations take out their subsidies from the amber box that is not permissible as per WTO norms and place it in the permissible ?green box?. Green box subsidies include those given for infrastructure development, public stockholding for food security, direct income support, crop insurance and income safety net and are therefore allowed as they do not influence immediate production decisions.
The developing countries have demanded the US to cut their ?trade-distorting? farm subsidies from $55 billion to around $13-16 billion. They have also asked the European Union to bring down their agricultural subsidies that is worth billions of dollars.
Emerging out of the meeting of the G-33 ministers and senior officials, Indonesia?s Trade Minister Mari Pangestu said ?our bottom lines will not change. Ensuring the livelihood of millions of farmers is the key and ensuring that we have the right level of safeguard and protection from surge of imports and price decline, especially in today?s situation of uncertainty.??
India, on its part, had initially demanded that around 20% of the total agricultural tariff lines needs to be placed under special products (SPs or farm products that are subjected to minimum or no duty cuts) in order to adequately protect the livelihood of the country?s subsistence farmers.
However, the revised draft on agriculture says, ?There shall be 10-18% of tariff lines available for self-designation as SPs. Up to 6% of the lines may have no cut. The overall average cut shall, in any case, be 10-14%.?
?We started with 20% in SPs. Let us now see what more we can get,? commerce secretary G K Pillai said.
India and Indonesia said that special safeguard mechanism (SSM) was also not negotiable and should be simple and easily operational. Currently, SSM available to protect the poor farm sector in developing countries continues to be weaker than a similar mechanism available to rich countries, experts said.
?This is a development round and if we don?t get what we know are our bottom lines in SP and SSMs, then it is not a development round,? Pangestu said, adding that ?it is not fair to ask the developing countries to be flexible. The developed countries also have to be flexible and actually should be more forthcoming because this is a development round.?
On industrial goods negotiations too, differences between developing and developed countries persist.
?We think developing countries are contributing more than developed countries. We are satisfying their needs by making (tariff) cuts, but they are not (reciprocating)? said William Contreras, Venezuela?s minister for light industries and trade, Venezuela.