 |
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | November 2007 
North America, EU Officials Discuss WTO Differences
 Truth About Trade & Technology
go to original
 |  | We believe it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.
- Jean-Michael Lemetayer |  | |
Consideration of sustainable agriculture issues under the scope of world trade talks brought sharp disagreement last week at the 33rd North American and European Union Agricultural Conference in the Czech Republic.
On one side of the aisle, EU officials suggested that environmental and animal welfare requirements be standardized worldwide.
Noel Devisch, president of the Belgian Boerenbond (farmers union), said EU restrictions in those two areas raise the cost of production for European farmers compared to countries where requirements aren’t as strict.
“Food is too important to leave to free trade,” Devisch said. “We should have fair trade, instead of free trade, that takes into account the conditions in each country.”
Representatives from the U.S. and Canada strongly disagreed, saying the WTO is designed to address economic factors such as trade-distorting farm subsidies and market access barriers.
“The idea of adding constraints to the WTO, I don’t think that is the path to take,” said Laurent Pellerin, president of Canada’s Union des Producteurs Agricoles.
AFBF position
Sustainability issues should be addressed under the WTO’s “Green Box” spending, which is not considered trade distorting, noted American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman.
“The WTO is about maintaining trade, moving goods across borders,” he said. “We would adamantly oppose moving environmental issues into trade discussions.”
But, Michael Hornborg of Finland, vice president of the EU’s Committee of Professional Agriculture Organizations (COPA), insisted international rules on sustainability should – and would – be dealt with under the WTO.
“If we just have free trade, there’s no way to have sustainable development,” he said. “There is no way for EU farmers to compete on a fair basis if we have to provide all these additional benefits while our competitors do not.”
Deal far off
The issue of sustainability wasn’t the only area of disagreement among the nearly 200 farm officials gathered in Prague for the conference.
The trade meeting is held every other year, alternating between North American and European host cities. Canada will host the next summit in 2009.
In fact, one of the few areas of consensus was that a WTO draft proposed by Crawford Falconer, chairman of the agricultural negotiations, is unacceptable.
“The Falconer report is unworkable,” said COPA President Jean-Michael Lemetayer of France. The ideas proposed in the report, he said, would result in a 25 percent cut in EU farm income.
He cited several problems with the Falconer text, including that it doesn’t address geographical concerns, doesn’t reflect new biofuels markets and ignores food safety and food security.
Trade agreements
He said the EU prefers to negotiate on a multi-lateral basis like the WTO as opposed to one-on-one bilateral agreements, but wouldn’t accept a deal that it doesn’t like.
“We believe it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement,” Lemetayer said.
Roman Gomez Vaillard with Mexico’s Responsible Comision Productos Hortofruticolas said Mexican farmers also prefer multi-lateral negotiations, but would continue to work on bilateral deals to improve market access in the absence of a WTO deal.
Clear guidelines are also needed to assure that WTO Green Box payments are truly not trade distorting, he said.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture President Bob Friesen said the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has increased trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, is a good model for a WTO pact.
He said the U.S. needs to lower subsidies it pays to its farmers, while the EU must slash its import tariffs.
“I’m getting the sense that a lot of countries don’t have the appetite to sign a Doha agreement,” Friesen said. He shared Vaillard’s concerns about countries shifting too many payments into the Green Box, suggesting a cap be established for Green Box spending.
Concrete language
Friesen and Stallman each expressed concern that language in current WTO proposals allows too much leeway in designating “sensitive” products as a means to restrict competition from imports.
“We’re a long way from getting an acceptable WTO agreement,” Stallman said. “What we give up in domestic support, we must gain in market access.”
He said the U.S. will continue to work toward a WTO compromise, but in the meantime bilateral trade deals will continue to be an important tool.
“The problem we have with the WTO is many of the countries are not interested in trade. They’re interested in other priorities,” he said. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us