Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.9.1-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as Mrs McNally said during the previous debate, agriculture was one of the make or break issues at the Doha negotiations mentioned recently in another context. Mr Fischler and I will both attend the informal WTO mini-ministerial meeting in Tokyo at the weekend, and agriculture is one of the issues on the agenda. We are pleased the Council of Ministers recently approved the Union’s negotiating position. It was unfortunate, however, that approval was only possible after heated debate and several delays. Nonetheless, the fact that Council has approved this position will strengthen our own hand considerably at the forthcoming discussions.
In conclusion I would like to say, Mr President, that these proposals aim to allay the concerns of three main interested parties. As regards our trading partners, notably the developing countries, on this occasion we are proposing a quite different and special treatment of the latter. We hope the European agricultural sector will be reassured that we shall continue to fight for support to allow them to continue to provide the services it renders to society. We shall also strive to protect our quality products by defending our designations of origin. We have the interests of consumers in Europe and elsewhere very much at heart, and trust that the WTO will not raise too many objections to the implementation of rules on health and information. To summarise, our proposals on agriculture do reflect most of the concerns informing our approach throughout this round of negotiations. These are development and opening up the markets to benefit mainly the developing countries, all to be governed by rules designed for the benefit of our society and the international community as a whole.
Let me now say a few words on the main features of the modalities of agriculture negotiations, as they are known in negotiating jargon. These modalities will figure prominently between now and the end of March. Firstly, I should like to shed some light on the meaning of the term modalities. It might seem a fairly uncontroversial term, but it is in fact a key element of negotiations, because what is referred to as an agreement on modalities is actually an agreement on rules and figures. To give you an example, these rules may relate to subsidies. They can lay down which subsidies are permitted and which are not. Such rules may also relate to import procedures. As for the figures, they are intended mainly to achieve a reduction in tariffs and a reduction in subsidies. This is what is at issue in the current phase to be concluded by 31 March. Of course, there is more to agriculture negotiations than this. Nonetheless, it is a very important element of such negotiations.
Consequently, Mr Franz Fischler and I have always made it our business to ensure the Union pulls its weight in negotiations on agriculture. The proposals we have put on the table bear witness to this. They demonstrate that the European Union is in a position to negotiate on agriculture further to the reform of its common agricultural policy. At the same time, however, the Union is determined to negotiate so as to ensure that development becomes the driving force behind bilateral negotiations. The proposals we placed on the table testify to our commitment, our mandate and our ambition. At Doha, we committed ourselves to negotiating on the whole agriculture chapter. This includes opening up of markets, the reduction of export subsidies and domestic support, mainstreaming non-trade concerns and making a strong commitment to development. Our mandate does not permit us to pre-empt aspects of the reform of the common agricultural policy on which no decision has yet been reached. We are bound to operate strictly within the framework of previous reforms and particularly the most recent of these, under Agenda 2000. It is worth emphasising lastly that we wish to be fully involved in these negotiations, particularly where the interests of the most vulnerable countries are at stake. We hope to play a leading role in the negotiations. Contrary to statements made from both ends of the spectrum, ours is actually a middle–of–the–road position. It is in stark contrast to the positions of extremists of both sorts. We trust our position will enable us to facilitate agreement on all aspects of the agricultural negotiations.
I would now like to share with you some of the details of the content of the proposals. Firstly, with regard to access to the markets, we are proposing a 36% overall reduction in customs duties, with a 15% minimum reduction per line. This reduction is based on the method applied during the previous round. It has been tried and tested. In our view, it is the only viable method given the time constraints we are up against. Our formula differs radically from the so-called ‘Swiss’ formula put forward by several other countries in that it allows wider margins for developing countries. Clearly, this is vital to the negotiations in question. It is worth mentioning that the adjective ‘Swiss’ is somewhat misleading, as Switzerland itself denies any responsibility for the formula attributed to it. We have proposed detailed and ambitious provisions for developing countries. These include zero rating for a minimum 50% of exports of agricultural products from developing to developed countries. Another proposal is for duty and quota-free access for all products originating from less developed countries and destined to industrialised and emerging countries. This amounts to extending the scope of our ‘everything but arms’ initiative. The issue of phased tariffs for products of particular interest to developing countries will be raised for the first time.
Our approach to export subsidies is in the same vein. As a first step, we propose a 45% average reduction of the budget envelopes for export refunds. Further, we are prepared to progressively do away with all export refunds for certain products. Allow me to emphasise that point again. We propose gradually to eliminate export refunds for products of particular interest to developing countries.
It must be made quite clear that obviously, this twin proposal can only be implemented if the other parties involved also restrict comparable export subsidies. I am referring to certain types of export credits and to what could in some cases be termed the abuse of food aid. I also have in mind the activities of state enterprises based in countries that actually enjoy a more liberal reputation, activities amounting at times to unfair practice. The Commission’s stance on this issue is unequivocal. We are not prepared to be the only member of the WTO to make concessions on agriculture issues. The effort we are prepared to make must be matched by all other parties supporting exports. We trust also that all industrialised countries will play their part in opening up markets.
In addition, we are proposing to retain the current arrangements for internal support, as far as the yellow, blue and green box system is concerned. It does not make sense to tamper with a system that has proved sensible and is capable of responding to needs as they arise. On the other hand, we are proposing a 55% reduction of the internal support causing the most distortion in international trade, namely what is in the orange or yellow boxes. Further, we wish to introduce some new provisions. There are a number of loopholes in the current system of ceilings for the boxes, and these are being exploited to the point of abuse by several countries. I have in mind in particular variable aid of the deficiency payments type and our request to delete the
clause for developed countries. In our view, its scope has been too broad.
Another of our proposals involves integrating the expectations of developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, hence our proposals on market access. Another significant proposal, for which we are indebted to various non-governmental organisations is the notion of a so-called food security box. This would involve putting in place a special safety net mechanism for the most sensitive products in specific developing countries.
Lastly, I should like to comment on other issues to be negotiated, over and above those strictly related to trade. We aim to request clarification or updating of rules in areas such as environmental protection, rural development, animal welfare, consumer information, the precautionary principle and the protection of designations of origin. As you will appreciate therefore, these broader issues are high on the European agenda."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples