“What the US has done is deceptive and misleading”, delegate of a small
country to the WTO, denouncing the public relations spin that the US and
EU had made huge concessions.
In informal conversations with African and Caribbean delegates to the WTO,
many countries have expressed anger at the public relations spin of the
United States and EU, portraying their offers as huge concessions. And
they have reason to be. The current WTO defined "trade distorting
subsidies" provided by the United States amount to about $21.5 billion.
With the implementation of the US proposal, the US would still be able to
provide up to about $23 billion in “trade-distorting” supports. (Note that
these figures do not include the $51 billion US provides in the unlimited
“Green Box”, and the cotton panel has already established that certain
payments in this box are trade-distorting.)
What the US is offering is basically the maintenance of the status quo.
Yet for that, they are demanding ridiculous cuts in market access, up to
80-90% cuts for tariffs above 60%. African and Caribbean countries such
as Barbados, Kenya, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Mauritius (to name only
a few) would, for example, have to cut a 100% tariff down to 10 or 20%. To
top it all, even the small amounts that developing countries provide in
supports have been proposed by the US to be cut!
The EU is playing a similar game. The “cuts” they have “offered” amount to
paper cuts. In fact, even after undertaking these “cuts”, the EU would
still be able to provide up to 15 billion in “trade distorting” domestic
supports above their current applied levels. This is because with the CAP
reform, 80-90 per cent of their subsidies are already being shifted into
the currently unlimited “Green Box”. (As with the US cotton case, EU
subsidies housed in the Green Box have been ruled by the WTO sugar panel
as having significant components that are „trade distorting"). EU
subsidies to farmers in total, is in the range of 90 billion. This will
remain unchanged with the EU “offer”.
Two instruments that have allowed this “deception” to take place are: The sacrosanct Green Box, where the bulk of subsidies will be housed, has been left untouched in these proposals. The US wants an expansion of the Blue Box which will allow them to announce cuts in the Amber Box, but shift a large portion of those reduced subsidies —around 5 billion— into the New Blue Box.
The result? Whilst export subsidies are said to be on the way out, hidden
export subsidies have taken their place, and dumping in developing country
markets continue. Small wonder that African and Caribbean delegates are
incensed that these cosmetic “concessions” have been given so much fanfare
at the WTO and in the press in the past week. Swirling all around them at
the WTO is talk by the prominent players that “progress has been made”.
These are some comments heard in the corridors made by the Africans and
Caribbean delegates, gravely concerned by these developments:
"There seems to be this notion of progress. But I don’‚t think in reality
that progress is there. I don’t think developing countries should be
rushing into contributing to the process. The picture is being portrayed
that we are moving. Everybody should come on board to move. We should say,
’There is no movement’. US seems content that the proposal has increased
momentum, that if not for their proposal, nothing would have moved. They
are expecting us to congratulate them. But there is nothing to
congratulate about".
An African delegate, worried about the demands placed on them regarding
market access cuts said,
"What is worrying is that the level of ambition (in market access / tariff
cuts) is rising from the US and EU. I don’‚t know if this is where some
developing countries want to head. Those who feel it should go down should
come in and say something. We are not seeing commensurate levels of
ambition rising in export subsidies or domestic supports. We have no
justification to raise levels in market access."
Many delegates have also expressed concern that whilst the market access
talks have accelerated, discussion on the defensive instruments for
developing countries (Special and Differential treatment - S&D) have not:
"The prominent players are arguing that we need to knock together the main
components, then deal with S&D (referring to the Special Products and
Safeguard Mechanisms) because they don’t know what the commitments by
developing countries will be. But that is dangerous. Given the time
factor, we will be rushed into S&D components, but not really get what we
are looking for. We need to have these commitments addressed in parallel,
otherwise, the results would be detrimental".
The African delegates have also underlined that they want cotton and
commodities - two key concerns of theirs - to be addressed, yet there has
been no progress in these areas. One delegate also expressed great
concern, indigence and anger that the Chair of Agriculture had suggested
to those who had put forward a paper on commodities, that this issue could
be deferred till after Hong Kong.
An African delegate characterized the events as a "„backward movement, not
a forward movement“. A Caribbean delegate underlined,”I’m disappointed in
what is being sold as ’concessions’", and an LDC African country,
referring to the date of 2010 given by the US regarding the elimination of
export subsidies, wondered why we should be content with five more years
of export subsidization. "We should ask for the immediate removal of
export subsidies", he said with indignance, referring to the farmers at
home that have lost their livelihoods as a result these supports.