EU farming subsidies likely to continue
The future of farming subsidies for the EU is still in the balance even though their efficiency has been brought into question recently (see related article ). But, with support from large farming markets like France, subsidies are likely to remain. Farming subsidies have also been at the center of the climate change debate (see related article) and, therefore, some EU countries are trying label subsidies under environmental schemes even though they are not.
France pressing for farm subsidies after 2013
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/01/04/108898/france-pressing-for-farm-subsidies-after-2013.html
FarmersWeekly, UK
January 4, 2008
Momentum is beginning to build within the European Parliament that the European Union should continue to give financial support to agriculture after the current arrangements end in 2013.
Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference on 3 January, Conservative MEP for the south west and current chair of the European Parliament's agricultural committee, Neil Parish expressed confidence that support was likely to continue after 2013.
"There will be a payment after 2013, it will be a lesser one and it will probably be spread too thinly," he told delegates.
France is understood to be taking the lead on the issue with strong support from the new member states.
The €40bn currently allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy budget is likely to be the starting point for negotiations with France likely to argue for it to continue in something close to its currant form.
However, Germany, as the primary funder of the CAP, is likely to argue that any arrangements should be based on co-financing principles which would reduce its burden.
The UK is likely to object to any continuation of support payments and insist that any future payments are directed only at environmental schemes.
Furthermore, unless any co-financing arrangements are made compulsory it is unlikely that UK farmers would receive anything more than minimum available.
For more on the Oxford Farming Conference visit the FWi landing page by clicking here
Showing posts with label stalled doha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stalled doha. Show all posts
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
India, Brazil Slam New Attempts by EU & US to Secure Green Trade Barriers at Doha
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04357213.htm
India, Brazil slam new WTO Doha proposals
04 Dec 2007
Reuters
By Jonathan Lynn
India and Brazil criticised two new sets of proposals in the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Tuesday, signalling that wide gaps in the negotiations remain despite recent progress.
The two developing countries, who play a major role in the talks, said that a U.S.-EU proposal to free up trade in environmental goods was little more than a disguised attempt to boost sales of goods of rich nations.
They also said a negotiating text on "rules" -- anti-dumping, subsidies and fisheries subsidies -- was a step backwards that excessively accommodated U.S. concerns.
India also expressed alarm that the key agriculture talks were tilting too much towards the needs of rich countries and were ignoring the requirements of the sub-continent's millions of subsistence farmers.
India has been committed to the Doha talks, launched six years ago and now aiming for conclusion next year, said India's WTO ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia.
"But if, God forbid, a time comes when that price of engagement is unpayable by us, then we will have to stand up and say that," he told Reuters.
NO BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION
The United States and the European Union launched a proposal in the long-running Doha talks last Friday to counter climate change by eliminating tariffs on 43 climate-friendly goods and setting up a wider agreement on environmental goods and services for developed and advanced developing countries.
"We don't think it's a basis for negotiation on environmental products," said Brazil's top trade negotiator, Roberto Azevedo. "Brazil is deeply disappointed with the proposal. We find the proposal modest, we find it biased and we find it protectionist," he told a briefing. Azevedo noted that the U.S.-EU proposal made no reference to biofuels, of which Brazil is a major producer, or the technologies to produce them, and said the list was geared to U.S.-EU products. "Anything that they don't produce is not on the list," he said.
Bhatia said India could support proposals to free up trade in goods whose sole use was countering climate change, such as solar panels or windmills, but the list could be extended over time to new models of cars or refrigerators that were more energy-efficient, and that was unacceptable.
"Their list is a disguised effort at getting market access through other means and does not satisfy the mandate for environment," he said.
Both Brazil and India expressed dismay at the rules proposal that met U.S. concerns by allowing a controversial method of calculating anti-dumping duties called zeroing. This would allow the abuse of trade remedies to foster protectionism, they said.
Washington had said it was disappointed at last Friday's proposals, but added they were a basis for negotiation.
Bhatia said the proposals on banning most fisheries subsidies, welcomed by environmental groups, would cause India difficulty as it tries to improve the living conditions of its fishermen, among the poorest people in the country.
The proposals do give some leeway to developing countries to support fishermen, but he said the conditions, such as setting up approved fisheries management schemes, were too onerous.
Senior Indian Commerce Department official Jayant Dasgupta said a disproportionate effort in the WTO's key agriculture talks was going into shielding the commercial interests of the relatively small number of farmers in rich countries.
At the same time poor countries were being squeezed on proposals to protect the livelihoods of subsistence farmers making up the majority of the population -- 65 percent in India's case.
India needed to shield such people, often living on less than $1 a day, from market fluctuations, and encourage them to stay on the land to ensure food security for the country.
India, Brazil slam new WTO Doha proposals
04 Dec 2007
Reuters
By Jonathan Lynn
India and Brazil criticised two new sets of proposals in the Doha round of trade talks at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Tuesday, signalling that wide gaps in the negotiations remain despite recent progress.
The two developing countries, who play a major role in the talks, said that a U.S.-EU proposal to free up trade in environmental goods was little more than a disguised attempt to boost sales of goods of rich nations.
They also said a negotiating text on "rules" -- anti-dumping, subsidies and fisheries subsidies -- was a step backwards that excessively accommodated U.S. concerns.
India also expressed alarm that the key agriculture talks were tilting too much towards the needs of rich countries and were ignoring the requirements of the sub-continent's millions of subsistence farmers.
India has been committed to the Doha talks, launched six years ago and now aiming for conclusion next year, said India's WTO ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia.
"But if, God forbid, a time comes when that price of engagement is unpayable by us, then we will have to stand up and say that," he told Reuters.
NO BASIS FOR NEGOTIATION
The United States and the European Union launched a proposal in the long-running Doha talks last Friday to counter climate change by eliminating tariffs on 43 climate-friendly goods and setting up a wider agreement on environmental goods and services for developed and advanced developing countries.
"We don't think it's a basis for negotiation on environmental products," said Brazil's top trade negotiator, Roberto Azevedo. "Brazil is deeply disappointed with the proposal. We find the proposal modest, we find it biased and we find it protectionist," he told a briefing. Azevedo noted that the U.S.-EU proposal made no reference to biofuels, of which Brazil is a major producer, or the technologies to produce them, and said the list was geared to U.S.-EU products. "Anything that they don't produce is not on the list," he said.
Bhatia said India could support proposals to free up trade in goods whose sole use was countering climate change, such as solar panels or windmills, but the list could be extended over time to new models of cars or refrigerators that were more energy-efficient, and that was unacceptable.
"Their list is a disguised effort at getting market access through other means and does not satisfy the mandate for environment," he said.
Both Brazil and India expressed dismay at the rules proposal that met U.S. concerns by allowing a controversial method of calculating anti-dumping duties called zeroing. This would allow the abuse of trade remedies to foster protectionism, they said.
Washington had said it was disappointed at last Friday's proposals, but added they were a basis for negotiation.
Bhatia said the proposals on banning most fisheries subsidies, welcomed by environmental groups, would cause India difficulty as it tries to improve the living conditions of its fishermen, among the poorest people in the country.
The proposals do give some leeway to developing countries to support fishermen, but he said the conditions, such as setting up approved fisheries management schemes, were too onerous.
Senior Indian Commerce Department official Jayant Dasgupta said a disproportionate effort in the WTO's key agriculture talks was going into shielding the commercial interests of the relatively small number of farmers in rich countries.
At the same time poor countries were being squeezed on proposals to protect the livelihoods of subsistence farmers making up the majority of the population -- 65 percent in India's case.
India needed to shield such people, often living on less than $1 a day, from market fluctuations, and encourage them to stay on the land to ensure food security for the country.
110th Congressional Majority Adopts EU Position: Supports US Presidential Candidates With Anti-Liberal Trade Protectionist Agenda
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40856
CHALLENGES 2007-2008: U.S. Election Fever May Delay Doha Talks
Analysis by Aileen Kwa
IPS News
GENEVA, Jan 21 (IPS) -
A busy negotiating schedule is lined up for this year at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The question remains whether negotiators will have to continue passing the time as the powers-that-be in Washington are consumed by pre-election politics, or if the technical solutions which they have been working on could, in fact, lead to a conclusion of the Doha Development Round.
The chairs of the negotiations on agricultural and industrial products are expected to release another round of draft texts at the end of January. This will be followed by intense text-based negotiations.
If things go according to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy’s Plan A, modalities (new rules and commitments) for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are to be concluded by March or April.
There could even be what an African delegate termed a ‘‘medium-sized’’ ministerial meeting to endorse the modalities at this time, with a fully fledged ministerial meeting at the end of 2008 to conclude the Round.
There are varying opinions as to the likelihood of Plan A materializing. As 2007 slipped away and the U.S. entered both a recession and an even fiercer stage of partisan pre-election frenzy, it seems unlikely that Washington is in any mood to liberalise trade.
Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, based in Washington, told IPS that ‘‘there is no appetite for a Doha Round here. The only Doha deal that could possibly break this mood would have to be something so lopsidedly pro-U.S. big corporations that it would not be a feasible outcome.
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP ARE ACTIVISTS THAT WISH FOR AMERICA TO ADOPT EUROPEAN NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS] **
‘‘That is, if there was some sudden windfall pile of trade goodies to harvest without the U.S. having to give much, then that would get things moving here. We’re heading into a recession and trade is increasingly politically toxic, given our 800 billion dollar trade deficit and its effect in slowing our growth by two percentage points’’, she added.
[WHAT MS. WALLACH IS REFERRING TO IS PROTECTIONISM]
Referring to the increasingly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Wallach observed, ‘‘the Democratic presidential candidates are all trying to ‘out anti-NAFTA’ each other. Remarkably, even half of the Republican presidential candidates are anti-NAFTA and anti-WTO.’’
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP SUPPORT ANTI-LIBERAL TRADE RHETORIC BECAUSE IT PROMOTES EUROPEAN & WTO DIRECTOR PACAL LAMY'S EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE MORE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE & CULTURAL PREFERENCE EXCEPTIONS TO LIBERAL TRADE INTO THE WTO AGREEMENTS]**
See "Polluting the Future of the WTO", at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/PollutingtheFuture.pdf
Then there is the issue of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by the U.S. Congress to the U.S. president to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject but not amend. President George W. Bush’s administration requires the TPA to conclude the Round.
According to Wallach, ‘‘Bush has a 5 percent chance of getting a Doha-only TPA. If there had been a broader window of opportunity, that was shut down at the end of last year when Bush vetoed or threatened to veto every single Democratic priority initiative passed by Congress.’’
According to a WTO negotiator from West Africa, ‘‘I have not seen any sign or commitment that 2008 is a definitive date. It is an aspiration, but I won’t be surprised if it will go to 2009. And if it does, the election in the U.S. would be over and they would be able to test the waters.’’
He said that within the Group of 33 (or G33, a coalition of developing countries which has been calling for the protection of food security and rural livelihoods), ‘‘we have criticized ourselves for being too flexible, and the flexibility should not be one-sided. We are waiting for reciprocity from the developed countries.
‘‘At the end of the day, we will have a blame game. Developed countries will ask for more liberalisation in NAMA and services and they will blame developing countries for not showing signs of flexibility. Developing countries will say that our interests have not been taken seriously,’ he added.
From his point of view, the U.S. and the EU are now very obviously working closely together, and ‘‘just from seeing that, I think that there will be no movement on their side.’’
However, not all negotiators share his prognosis for 2008. An East African negotiator underscored that ground has been covered on some technical issues. ‘‘The possibility of a conclusion looks positive, not completely, but more positive than before.’’ (END/2008)
CHALLENGES 2007-2008: U.S. Election Fever May Delay Doha Talks
Analysis by Aileen Kwa
IPS News
GENEVA, Jan 21 (IPS) -
A busy negotiating schedule is lined up for this year at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The question remains whether negotiators will have to continue passing the time as the powers-that-be in Washington are consumed by pre-election politics, or if the technical solutions which they have been working on could, in fact, lead to a conclusion of the Doha Development Round.
The chairs of the negotiations on agricultural and industrial products are expected to release another round of draft texts at the end of January. This will be followed by intense text-based negotiations.
If things go according to WTO Director General Pascal Lamy’s Plan A, modalities (new rules and commitments) for agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are to be concluded by March or April.
There could even be what an African delegate termed a ‘‘medium-sized’’ ministerial meeting to endorse the modalities at this time, with a fully fledged ministerial meeting at the end of 2008 to conclude the Round.
There are varying opinions as to the likelihood of Plan A materializing. As 2007 slipped away and the U.S. entered both a recession and an even fiercer stage of partisan pre-election frenzy, it seems unlikely that Washington is in any mood to liberalise trade.
Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, based in Washington, told IPS that ‘‘there is no appetite for a Doha Round here. The only Doha deal that could possibly break this mood would have to be something so lopsidedly pro-U.S. big corporations that it would not be a feasible outcome.
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP ARE ACTIVISTS THAT WISH FOR AMERICA TO ADOPT EUROPEAN NON-SCIENCE & NON-ECONOMICS PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS] **
‘‘That is, if there was some sudden windfall pile of trade goodies to harvest without the U.S. having to give much, then that would get things moving here. We’re heading into a recession and trade is increasingly politically toxic, given our 800 billion dollar trade deficit and its effect in slowing our growth by two percentage points’’, she added.
[WHAT MS. WALLACH IS REFERRING TO IS PROTECTIONISM]
Referring to the increasingly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Wallach observed, ‘‘the Democratic presidential candidates are all trying to ‘out anti-NAFTA’ each other. Remarkably, even half of the Republican presidential candidates are anti-NAFTA and anti-WTO.’’
[MS. WALLACH AND HER GROUP SUPPORT ANTI-LIBERAL TRADE RHETORIC BECAUSE IT PROMOTES EUROPEAN & WTO DIRECTOR PACAL LAMY'S EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE MORE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE & CULTURAL PREFERENCE EXCEPTIONS TO LIBERAL TRADE INTO THE WTO AGREEMENTS]**
See "Polluting the Future of the WTO", at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/PollutingtheFuture.pdf
Then there is the issue of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the authority granted by the U.S. Congress to the U.S. president to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject but not amend. President George W. Bush’s administration requires the TPA to conclude the Round.
According to Wallach, ‘‘Bush has a 5 percent chance of getting a Doha-only TPA. If there had been a broader window of opportunity, that was shut down at the end of last year when Bush vetoed or threatened to veto every single Democratic priority initiative passed by Congress.’’
According to a WTO negotiator from West Africa, ‘‘I have not seen any sign or commitment that 2008 is a definitive date. It is an aspiration, but I won’t be surprised if it will go to 2009. And if it does, the election in the U.S. would be over and they would be able to test the waters.’’
He said that within the Group of 33 (or G33, a coalition of developing countries which has been calling for the protection of food security and rural livelihoods), ‘‘we have criticized ourselves for being too flexible, and the flexibility should not be one-sided. We are waiting for reciprocity from the developed countries.
‘‘At the end of the day, we will have a blame game. Developed countries will ask for more liberalisation in NAMA and services and they will blame developing countries for not showing signs of flexibility. Developing countries will say that our interests have not been taken seriously,’ he added.
From his point of view, the U.S. and the EU are now very obviously working closely together, and ‘‘just from seeing that, I think that there will be no movement on their side.’’
However, not all negotiators share his prognosis for 2008. An East African negotiator underscored that ground has been covered on some technical issues. ‘‘The possibility of a conclusion looks positive, not completely, but more positive than before.’’ (END/2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
