|
Use these
links to download audio files or to listen to what he said in the
meeting.
This meeting
This was an informal agriculture
negotiations meeting of the full membership, officially an “Informal
Open-Ended Special Session” of the Agriculture Committee.
The chairperson refers to a number of issues that are explained
here, including what “the text” is and says, and a “jargon
buster”. He refers in particular to two issues.
One is a compromise proposal from a “group of six
delegations” for estimating domestic consumption to be used as a
basis for expanding tariff quotas on
sensitive products. These are Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU,
Japan and the US (which speaks on the group’s behalf). They are part
of the “Friends of the Chair”, which Ambassador Falconer asked to
develop a method for dealing with this technical question. Other
Friends of the Chair are: Argentina, New Zealand, Norway,
Switzerland and Uruguay.
Another issue is “Room
E”, also part of the “multilateral process”. Ultimately, the
current phase of the negotiations is about “modalities”, explained
here.
Transcripts
Chairperson Crawford Falconer's opening statement
What I would like to do is I'd like to start by giving you a sense of where my own mind is turning to in terms of process and then I'd like to hear whether you have an allergic reaction to that or whether you can hold your noses and go along with whatever it is that I say. Or whether you even grudgingly agree with what I say. But anyway I want to just share that with you initially then we can come back after we've had a discussion of whatever you want to talk about and conclude accordingly. Let me do what I normally do and give you as best a sense I can of what I am aware of has been going on.
Sensitive products. As you know, we've had a discussion in Room D about sensitive products and that is a discussion which follows various other formats that were pursued by the members of the G6 [six countries working on domestic consumption estimates for tariff-quotas — Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, the US] with the rest of you, because I know that it had been very clear that a number of you felt you needed more explanation, more dialogue with the members of the six countries concerned, and I think there's been a real effort on a part of the six to meet those requests in the sense of having those discussions, and indeed, I recall there was a even suggestion that there be what was called a workshop and that — I don't know whether what occurred could be described as a workshop, but it was at least a pretty practically oriented discussion to try and elaborate what some of the more obscure parts of that document actually meant. I believe that was on-going and even continued as late as this morning.
I certainly chaired a meeting yesterday afternoon within the old Room E format which took place in Room D, just to confuse everybody. We had what I would consider to be a reasonably engaged discussion on that. The way I kind of summed up that discussion yesterday was roughly along the following lines, which I can share with the rest of you. I felt that there clearly wasn't unanimity in that room on the approach that was put forward by the G6. On the other hand, I did not think from apart from two or three members, which is a pretty big “apart”, there was not a wholesale rejection of that approach. But there were — apart from those members who really did not like it at all and did not like to process that had given rise to it — there were other members who had certain things that they had problems with and we discussed those.
If you went through the things that appeared to be more problematic among the members my sense of what those were, were that in the area of fruits and vegetables there was a certain concern that on fruits and vegetables the approach — in the view of fruits and vegetables exporters — would diminish the level of ambition as compared to what they would have thought was ideal under the circumstances. I think quite a lot of the comments were on that matter. There were a number of members who were worried about the sub-allocation [splitting some tariff quotas, instead of setting a single quota for a whole product category] which is an enduring concern of tariff quotas in terms of the outcome. The usual suspects were obsessed with cheese, made their concerns about cheese known. That was again not something new to those of you who have been participating in the discussions here in the past.
Where I thought there was probably a more widespread concern than the particular issue-specific concerns that certain members have, was really over what the status of [Attachment] A would be which is the list of [potential] sensitive products. Largely developing country members but not entirely were a little bit anxious and wanted to make their views known about the scope that they would have to put other products or other tariff line descriptions under the product categories into such a list because they felt that having not been part or not a central part of the process that gave rise to that list, that their particular concerns weren't taken in account because they had a different tariff profile, or indeed that they might have some product categories that they felt should be sensitive which were not the product categories that the “six” in their dialogue with some members had come up with.
I wouldn't say that was a widespread … I didn't get the sense that there were pages and pages of things that those members had in mind, but there was such significant items as “red beans” that I recall that were mentioned among a few other things. I think that the discussions are a little bit on-going on that. I think that is something that does need some further reflection. But again it is an open question as to whether that can be accommodated in some way or not without disrupting the whole structure of what is an [Attachment] A as far as the members who have produced that are concerned.
So in the light of that I could only conclude that it is not at this point in time unanimity or consensus on that approach to sensitive products. On the other hand, there are more than one or two members who are reasonably comfortable with it and that it has a lot of strong support in a few members that count fairly well. But there are a few members who count equally given the sovereign quality of states before public international law who feel a bit differently about it. So surprise-surprise we have got slightly different views about the status of that document. Just as we have got different views about the status of nearly every other proposal that has ever appeared in this exercise from the day we have started until this point in time.
Having said that, I do not think that that is a document that we can ignore or pretend has not happened or somehow wished away. Indeed, I did not really think that apart from one or two members that was the view more widely. So that is my sense of where that discussion on sensitives went and I believe that those that are involved in that discussion are continuing that and are open to continuing that.
Tropical products and preferences. From the other consultations that I have had on the other issues I have the sense that on tropical products and preferences [ie, products with preferences] there is on-going intensive discussions, dialogue, negotiations, whatever clichés you want to use. People are hard at work on those issues and I will not speak in detail on behalf of the delegations involved and they will want to convey their own sense to you.
My impression from having talked with them is that those discussions have not yet reached fruition. Probably not surprising because it is largely but not entirely a question of tariff line-by-tariff line discussion on a wide range of products in an attempt to get clarity on what that list of products would be or those lists of products would be. But it is certainly true that that work is proceeding and they will say to me that it is being constructive. So I think that that is something which is on-going. It hasn't reached an outcome at this particular point in time and it probably will not reach an outcome for some days ahead. So that's so much for the recent discussions on sensitives, tropicals and preferences for the moment.
Next draft. As you will recall — I'm not going to repeat it all now — it has been some at least three months since I gave you the last revision of the text. In the interim since that last revision of the text we have had — I have not added up the number of hours, can never remember what the number of hours would be that we have been engaged in discussions in Room E or in here or anywhere else, they tend to merge into my nightmares so I am not quite sure which were my waking hours and which were my sleeping hours when I think about it — we have had long and lengthy discussions on that and on a number of those issues that we have had in the Room E format and in this informal open-ended format [ie, open to all members], it is pretty clear that there has been progress. Things have been clarified, options have been sharpened, some things have even been almost agreed in that format. I think that the discussions on a number of those issues have probably gone as far as they can for the time being.
So the question on my mind is, what in operational terms should we be doing next? My feeling is that after that period of — I think it is over three months since the last revision and in the light of the discussions we have had — that I think it would be timely and sensible for me to do another revision of the document. To update you on where the output of those discussions would lead in my view of the chair textually. Nothing unusual in that, that is what we have been doing since the tabling of the document back in July of last year. I think the moment is pretty well past for being overdue in doing an update.
So I do feel that the time is upon us or upon me to produce for you a revised document that will, as in all the previous documents, exist as the version at this point in time that reflects where I believe you are at this point in time. And I stress that — where you are at this point in time.
In saying that it is time to do a revision, it is not a revision which departs from the format I have had up until now, which is that it reflects where you are. I am not going to invent things, not going to imagine things, not going to provide my best guess, not going to be biased or try to insert things at various people's requests — despite the constant stream of ministerial phone calls that I have been getting over the last week or 10 days seeking that I should do that. They all cancel each other out, I can assure you. So those of you who are starting to look embarrassed and looking at your shoes: it is OK, somebody's been pushing from the other side. So I think that is the fair thing to do so that you can see concretely where you are right now. And I think that will be helpful to the process, so that you can see where you are.
The only … well not the only, but the predominant concern that I have had about that is that I am acutely conscious that in the area of tropical products and preference erosion there is a process actively underway which has not reached fruition. In saying that I think it is time for me to do a revision, the reason why over the last couple of weeks we have held off doing that has been because there was a wish for that process to get underway and a desire to capture it. But of course as time goes by, it is less and less possible to continue to extend things and I have a feeling now that one will need to proceed with a revision whether or not those discussions have reached what I would call a definitive outcome.
If they reach a definitive outcome in the forthcoming week, so much the better. I have in mind a time frame for producing a revision that will enable me to take that positive outcome into account. So I have in mind that I want to do a revision and have it with you by the end of next week or the beginning of the following week. If our tropicals and preferences colleagues are in a position to have reached an agreement with their main exporting markets concerned prior to that then I will find a way to incorporate that into the document as faithfully as I can. If it still has not happened by that point in time or it has only got half way or whatever, that is OK, because I will do then what I have done in the past which is I will ensure that on those issues the text or the revised text will protect and reflect the positions that those members have had.
As you know, I have already got a document on the table which in respect of tropicals and preferences does reflect rather distant positions from each other, which I do not believe are actually where people are at this point in time. I think they are actually much closer but they are not quite textually at the point at which that can be expressed. But unless and until that point is reached then I am quite happy to maintain in my next revision, if I need to, materially the position you have in the existing document for those issues, so that nobody's position is undermined at all.
So no case of partial modalities, no, I am not doing that in a revision. It will be just simply that it will reflect where members are at a particular point in time. Indeed for those issues it is no different than it is for a number of other issues and while I have not, and you will not see what I have in mind to put in the document until I produce it, it is pretty clear to me that in any number of issues, whether it is special products, SSM [special safeguard mechanism for developing countries], OTDS [overall trade-distorting domestic support], any acronym you want to name inside that document, there are going to be differences in positions in my next revision which will be reflected, because there is not a single agreement that you have reached on number of those issues to this point in time.
While some of them might register some progress over the last time, I can assure you now, or I can lament in front of you that the next revision will not have a single definitive solution to everything that remains outstanding in agriculture, because you simply have not got to that point yet. So while I am emphasizing tropicals and preferences because they are issues that are indeed alive and going somewhere at this time, they are structurally speaking not the different situation from a number of other issues. So I have briefly consulted with a number of those members concerned and I think having touched base with them and they can speak for themselves later, that there is an understanding there that there is a fair way to proceed in the circumstances, provided that that kind of reassurance is there, that one would be able to, in a next revision, reflect as much progress as there has been made on issues where that progress has been made. Then we can use that to move and further advance our process.
Let me comment on that with a couple of other important provisos derived from those consultations that I have had principally with the tropicals and preferences members. In saying that I feel that they are comfortable with that approach, they have stressed and this is indeed my own thinking on the matter — and I don't have any reason to believe that any of the rest of you feel any different — they want to keep on working on those issues, in order to reach consensus, and as I say I don't envisage releasing this draft before the end of next week or early the following week.
After the next draft. As is always the case, you all need a period of reflection after the release of these texts. It is one of those ironies that I have mentioned it before … I mean, I am quite certain that within five minutes of when the text is actually released every single one of you has already reached a judgement on it because you have gone straight to the paragraphs that you care most about. But your official version is that you need a week at least, in order to understand what the text means for you. But that is one of those fictions that diplomatically I probably should not mention though I know that is the way it goes. So I expect it will take you about a week to come to the conclusion that you have already reached to, in five minutes. But so be it. So that gives at least two weeks on that issue, and indeed on other issues work can continue.
Because as I say let's not get hung up on the fetishism of the text it will be a revised text, but it is no more and no less than I would call a register of where you have got to among yourselves and what matters is where you are getting to among yourselves and that process is clearly on-going. So that would enable, on those issues and on others, work to continue. And here I think is a very crucial additional point: that is on the assumption that when those texts are out, when you have had your period of reflection, that you come back to this negotiating group and respond to them in this negotiating group.
And that point was made very clear to me by the tropicals and preferences members in particular, that it was on the assumption that we are going to do that that they would be comfortable with this process. I said to them that, of course, I as the Chair — hey it is my only job so I have a vested interest in it — I am perfectly happy to give them that assurance and I have no reason to believe that there is any member of this group who feels any differently and they can find it out for themselves this afternoon. I think that is a very reasonable expectation on their part and I think for all of you from what I have heard in the past that is your expectation.
So I see that as being no problem and I think it will be very healthy that you do that. After all when I do the next revision I will make all your lives miserable. It is only fair that you should have your opportunity to make my life miserable for at least one day thereafter in order to respond to it. So I think if we work on that basis, and on that assumption, I think we could have our way clear to advance the process.
Now when you have the revised text you may deeply regret that I have gone ahead and done that. I hope you regret it but not deeply, because if you regret it that is a good sign and provided it is too deep a regret. I think it is important for the process that we get that out on the table and that you then have something to react to. As far as I am concerned in saying that I think it is time to do a revised, further revised text, I am not saying that it's the final revised text. I don't see it that way. It is the next revision from your chair. And as I have already foreshadowed to you by definition, I already know that it is not the final text. And you will have, as always, total control over what you want to do with it, if anything, after you have got it. It will undoubtedly need to be further changed.
Whether you decide to change it technically under the ambit of this negotiating group or otherwise, this is kind of beside the point as long as you — and you do — have the control over that process, that it seems to me is fine. Because there is no question: it will not be a finished work and it will have to be finished subsequently in some shape or form somewhere, somehow. But hopefully it will be a closer to finished product than the one you presently have. I think the only way in which we can make progress genuinely in a multilateral process is by having discussions, producing the revised draft that tries to capture those discussions, reacting to that revised draft in order to refine it and so we go. I think that momentum is upon us now where we need to capitalize on the areas where we have made progress, that we protect the integrity of members' positions where there is less progress made, so that in reaction to a further revision you can go on and finish the job subsequently.
Beyond that I could comment on some of the more specific issues that are within it but I do not really see the point in doing so, because I would only be going over the same old ground, whether it is on OTDS [overall trade-distorting domestic support], AMS [“aggregate measurement of support” sometimes known as the Amber Box — a category of domestic support and a component of OTDS], on tariff escalation. We have covered all of that and unless I hear anything new this afternoon from you I assume that what I will put in the revised document in those areas will be along the lines of what I have frankly foreshadowed to you directly in Room E and in this informal process in the meantime. So I don't think that should be any major surprises for any of you in that document. And as I say it is not some kind of take it or leave it document. It will be, in my view, the next instalment and you can decide whether and when there is another one afterwards. That is up to you.
Now that is what I propose to do. As always in saying that is what I propose to do, I am more than happy now to listen to all of your views. But as is customary with me in this process, I will listen to all of your views and then I will just do what I want to do anyway.
(The chairperson invites speakers.)
Chairperson Crawford Falconer's closing statement
I don't have anything to add to this. I've taken note of what you've all said. I think you know where the areas of difference are, and various options that you have. In the light of what I've heard, I will proceed as I indicated initially. So thanks very much. I guess based on the clear message I got, that you want to come back to the negotiating group. You'll have the misfortune to be here with me, probably in about a couple of weeks time, to react to the revised draft. So thanks very much.
|
