Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-055"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20040113.4.2-055"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, I just want to make a few comments of an agricultural nature in relation to what my fellow-Commissioner Mr Lamy has already said. You have heard about the steps that the Commission has taken to relaunch the negotiations, and I am sure you were disappointed to learn that the members of the WTO, as long ago as December, were unable to resume negotiations on the development agenda. What went on in the run-up to the Geneva meeting on 15 December gave me the impression that this failure had to do, among other things, with the nature of the proceedings. The WTO members did not negotiate directly with one another, but everything was done through the mediation of the chairman of the WTO’s General Council, and this way of going about things was certainly not particularly conducive to agreement. I became all the more convinced of this when, shortly afterwards, in the margins of the FAO Conference in Rome, I met many ministers who also regretted the absence of any direct contact, which they said they would have expected. I have come to the conclusion that, if there is to be agreement, there is in any case an absolute need for more dialogue and for more intensive efforts among the members of the WTO. As Mr Lamy has already said, we will, for our part, be doing everything possible to ensure that 2004 is not a wasted year. We will be playing a particularly active part in this. As regards the subject matter of the negotiations, I have to say that we cannot accept any and every framework for negotiation modalities at any price. We see it as a fundamental condition that such a framework should reflect the spirit and content of the Doha Declaration. Among other things, one primary requirement is that there should be tighter restrictions on ‘amber box’ measures than on ‘blue box’ measures, which distort trade to a lesser extent. Secondly, when considering export competition, all forms of export subsidy must be tackled in parallel. You will be aware that we have gone on the offensive in the debate about export subsidies, by proposing that all forms of export subsidy for a range of products important to developing countries be allowed to expire. We are still waiting for a response to this offer. At the same time, we cannot but note the continuing lack of willingness to make comparable commitments in respect of other forms of export subsidy; as far as I am aware, for example, the Canadian Wheat Board was compensated for its latest losses by the Canadian Government. Another example is Argentina, which uses differentiated export duties on soya beans and soya bean flour as a means of indirectly subsidising the building of its largest soya mill. The USA continues to use supplies of food aid as a means of reducing its surpluses. From the very outset, we have made it plain that all measures to deal with export competition must be dealt with simultaneously and that they must all exercise discipline to the same degree. This is something on which we will continue to work."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph