SA’s chief trade negotiator says balance for global trade deal still lacks
Thématique :
sud afrique
The revised negotiating texts in agriculture and industrial goods trade, released by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) last week, showed some improvement in nonagricultural market access (Nama) talks, South Africa’s chief trade negotiator Xavier Carim said, but again stressed that agriculture negotiations required more work.
Discussing the newly released modalities texts ahead of the crucial July 21 meeting, Carim said that there were a few minor changes of particular relevance to South Africa in the Nama text.
However, “the balance is not there yet for an agreement”, said Carim, who is the DDG of International Trade and Economic Development at the Department of Trade and Industry.
“But if there is significant clarity on agriculture, there is a chance that Nama could be settled, but that requires, first and foremost, that the developed countries make the appropriate concessions in agriculture,” he told Engineering News Online this week.
WTO agriculture and Nama modalities texts, or ‘blueprints’, would inform the crucial continuation of the Doha round of trade talks, set for the week of July 21, in Geneva, where ministers and representatives would meet.
South Africa would be represented in Geneva by Trade and Industry Minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, as well as Agriculture and Land Affairs Minister Lulu Xingwana, accompanied by the trade negotiations team, and representatives from South African business and labour.
The fact that developing countries were being asked to make firm Nama commitments before they had any clarity on the outcomes of the agriculture negotiations, has been a sticking point in the negotiations.
The release of the modalities showed the difference in pace of the negotiations, compared with the Nama negotiations – which had been summarised and presented in about four pages – the agricultural modalities were presented as a lengthy and technical 116-page document.
Agriculture has always been understood to be the driving force and would set the level of ambition of the negotiations.
“We have been concerned that there has been all this focus on Nama, but the problem is that in the agricultural text, there are still a number of very critical outstanding issues to be decided. So it is only once those have been decided, then we could discuss what we could do in Nama,” Carim added.
The modalities were drawn from WTO member governments’ positions over many months of the negotiations, and were not proposals or opinions of what would be “good” for world agricultural and nonagricultural trade, but what might be accepted by all sides in the negotiations, the WTO said.
Members intended to move to a new phase where these and some other areas of the Doha Round could be negotiated in comparison with each other with the hope that agreement could be reached in these negotiations, which began in 2001.
The negotiations faced immense pressure, as it was felt that it was now, or not for another number of years, that an agreement would be reached. This was largely because countries such as the US and India were expected to undergo changes in government in 2009, where leaders would perhaps not prioritise the trade negotiations.
As well as reaching agreement within each subject, members also wanted to negotiate an acceptable balance between the depths of cuts (the ‘level of ambition’) in agricultural and nonagricultural tariffs and agricultural subsidies as well as the size of cuts that were desired in each area.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR SA
Carim indicated that there had been a few minor changes, the most important for South Africa was that the WTO Chair had “taken the bracket out of the provision for South Africa, so the proposal has been agreed, but, what is still to be negotiated is the precise percentage of flexibility”.
For Nama, South Africa could have as much as 16% of tariff lines covered by the flexibility provision, which would be more than the 10% provided for other countries. “It is a recognition that South Africa is particular, and we have a peculiar tariff structure, which means that we take a disproportionate number of cuts on applied rates, and this is an attempt to moderate that,” Carim said.
Another important change for South Africa was that the WTO has taken into account that the country was part of a customs union, so Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland were all seen to be part of the same customs union, he said.
“Our concern would remain with the fact that they still have the anti-concentration provision,” stated Carim.
He explained that the idea was that if countries had flexibility, they could apply it to certain sectors, for example if a country’s sensitivities were in clothing, the full range of flexibilities could not be used to cover the whole sector.
“But it doesn’t say up to what percentage you could. So those things are still to be negotiated. That would be a problem for us because there are certain sectors where we would need to have significant coverage, such as clothing and textiles, some automotive tariff lines, and a few others. So we see that as a limitation on the flexibility that we don’t agree with, and there is quite a strong opposition to that provision from a number of developing countries,” explained Carim.
Discussing the newly released modalities texts ahead of the crucial July 21 meeting, Carim said that there were a few minor changes of particular relevance to South Africa in the Nama text.
However, “the balance is not there yet for an agreement”, said Carim, who is the DDG of International Trade and Economic Development at the Department of Trade and Industry.
“But if there is significant clarity on agriculture, there is a chance that Nama could be settled, but that requires, first and foremost, that the developed countries make the appropriate concessions in agriculture,” he told Engineering News Online this week.
WTO agriculture and Nama modalities texts, or ‘blueprints’, would inform the crucial continuation of the Doha round of trade talks, set for the week of July 21, in Geneva, where ministers and representatives would meet.
South Africa would be represented in Geneva by Trade and Industry Minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, as well as Agriculture and Land Affairs Minister Lulu Xingwana, accompanied by the trade negotiations team, and representatives from South African business and labour.
The fact that developing countries were being asked to make firm Nama commitments before they had any clarity on the outcomes of the agriculture negotiations, has been a sticking point in the negotiations.
The release of the modalities showed the difference in pace of the negotiations, compared with the Nama negotiations – which had been summarised and presented in about four pages – the agricultural modalities were presented as a lengthy and technical 116-page document.
Agriculture has always been understood to be the driving force and would set the level of ambition of the negotiations.
“We have been concerned that there has been all this focus on Nama, but the problem is that in the agricultural text, there are still a number of very critical outstanding issues to be decided. So it is only once those have been decided, then we could discuss what we could do in Nama,” Carim added.
The modalities were drawn from WTO member governments’ positions over many months of the negotiations, and were not proposals or opinions of what would be “good” for world agricultural and nonagricultural trade, but what might be accepted by all sides in the negotiations, the WTO said.
Members intended to move to a new phase where these and some other areas of the Doha Round could be negotiated in comparison with each other with the hope that agreement could be reached in these negotiations, which began in 2001.
The negotiations faced immense pressure, as it was felt that it was now, or not for another number of years, that an agreement would be reached. This was largely because countries such as the US and India were expected to undergo changes in government in 2009, where leaders would perhaps not prioritise the trade negotiations.
As well as reaching agreement within each subject, members also wanted to negotiate an acceptable balance between the depths of cuts (the ‘level of ambition’) in agricultural and nonagricultural tariffs and agricultural subsidies as well as the size of cuts that were desired in each area.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR SA
Carim indicated that there had been a few minor changes, the most important for South Africa was that the WTO Chair had “taken the bracket out of the provision for South Africa, so the proposal has been agreed, but, what is still to be negotiated is the precise percentage of flexibility”.
For Nama, South Africa could have as much as 16% of tariff lines covered by the flexibility provision, which would be more than the 10% provided for other countries. “It is a recognition that South Africa is particular, and we have a peculiar tariff structure, which means that we take a disproportionate number of cuts on applied rates, and this is an attempt to moderate that,” Carim said.
Another important change for South Africa was that the WTO has taken into account that the country was part of a customs union, so Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland were all seen to be part of the same customs union, he said.
“Our concern would remain with the fact that they still have the anti-concentration provision,” stated Carim.
He explained that the idea was that if countries had flexibility, they could apply it to certain sectors, for example if a country’s sensitivities were in clothing, the full range of flexibilities could not be used to cover the whole sector.
“But it doesn’t say up to what percentage you could. So those things are still to be negotiated. That would be a problem for us because there are certain sectors where we would need to have significant coverage, such as clothing and textiles, some automotive tariff lines, and a few others. So we see that as a limitation on the flexibility that we don’t agree with, and there is quite a strong opposition to that provision from a number of developing countries,” explained Carim.
