WTO Doha round
Andres Oopkaup
Estonian Government policy at glance
Extremely liberal Total and fast privatisation Low or non existent support level Modest rural support including some for agriculture ? Emphases on green box type support ? FTA-s ? Little support for marketing ? ? ? ?
Estonian trade conditions before joining EU
? Competitiveness, comparative advantage
± price level (farm gate, inputs) ± quality and product range ± structures (primary, processing, trade)
? Outside conditions
± tariffs (economical and political) ± non tariff measures (hygiene and technical requirements)
OECD-s view to global trade development.
? Significant reduction of import tariffs ? Abolition of export subsidies ? Abolition of trade distorting domestic support (amber box) ? Direct payments - fully decoupled
WISH to CHANGE TRADING ENVIRONMENT; URA commitment
MODALITIES
TARGETS, AMBITIONS Precise numbers and formulas for commitments
"SCHEDULES" Fixing commitment that were agreed and surveiliance
SEATTLE MINISTERIAL 1999 FAILURE
DOHA MINISTERIAL 2001 DECLARATION
CANCUN 2003 FAILURE
HONG-KONG (december 2005) Partial agreement that confirms willingness to move forward
2006
July modalities FAILURE
Time
2007 New Budget for 2007-2013 2003 LUXEMBOURG CAP reform Decoupling
2000 BERLIN AGENDA
BUDGET enlargement DIRECT PAYMENTS vs PRICE SUPPORT
GENF 2004, July agreement, EC conditional willingness to abolish ES
2007 EC Proposals for ³health check´
MODALITIES
To be agreed by 2008
Topic¶s to be negotiated (single undertaking)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? Agriculture (MA, ES, DS); Non-agricultural products trade (NAMA); Trade in services; Rules (incl fisheries); Development agenda (package); Trade and Environment; Trade simplification;
-100,0
100,0
-80,0
-60,0
N ew-Zealand A ustralia H ung ary B razil In dia U SA C anada EU Poland Estonia C zech Re p. Switz erland N orway K orea Japan
-40,0
A rgentina
-20,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
0,0
Relative value of trade deficit, data of 1995-1998, %
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech R Bulgaria Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK
Armenia FY Rep Macedonia
G±90
US G±1
LDCs
Bangladesh Cambodia Chad Maldives Burkina Faso Myanmar Burundi Togo Nepal Central African Rep Djibouti DR Congo Mali Gambia Guinea Guinea Bissau Lesotho Malawi Mauritania Niger Sierra Leone Rwanda Gabon Ghana Haiti Namibia Benin Madagascar Senegal Uganda Botswana Tanzania Zambia Cameroon Cuba Congo Côte d¶Ivoire Kenya Mozambique Nigeria Zimbabwe Mauritius Angola Swaziland Egypt Tunisia Morocco
Albania Croatia Georgia Jordan Moldova Oman
ACP
Recent new
EU G-27 G-20
Mexico
Solomon Islands
India China Venezuela Indonesia Pakistan Philippines
Chile Brazil Bolivia Uruguay Australia Thailand Canada Paraguay Colombia Argentina Costa Rica Guatemala Malaysia N Zealand
Hong Kong, Ch Saudi Arabia El Salvador Macao, Ch Singapore Kyrgyz R Dominica Qatar Fiji UAE Papua New Guinea Brunei Kuwait Belize Bahrain Barbados Ecuador Antigua/Barbuda Dominican Rep Grenada Guyana G-33 St Vincent/Grenadines Trinidad/Tobago Honduras Jamaica Suriname Mongolia St Kitts/Nevis Nicaragua St Lucia Panama Peru Sri Lanka Turkey R Korea Iceland Israel Japan Liechtenstein Norway G-10 Switzerland Ch Taipei
Cairns Group
S Africa
African Group
GDP by subsectors in 2004. (% )
2,6 1,7 19,3 Agriculture and hunting Forestry and fisheries processing industry Services
76,4
Main subjectc for AG negociatrions
? Export Subsidies ± ³all types of Export Subsidies scrapped by 2013´ ? Domestic Support ? Market Access
Different MA formulas
250
Applied tariffs(ad valoream and specific, %)
200
Current tariffs
150
100
EU
50
G20 US
a
0 Tariff line s
Complications for EC: short term
Estonian view
? Substance and tactics:
± EC CAP reform has been implemented, but this has been taken ³as granted´ in WTO ± Competitors for us, are increasing support to agriculture (incl US); ± Potential problems with ³green box´; ? Some of WTO MS¶s do not agree with EC internal challenges: environment, animal welfare, etc; ± Dilemma on sensitive products; EC positions have to be adjusted but balance between MS¶s ± politically extremely sensitive! ± EC member states have offensive and defensive;
? Agriculture is not the only subject for EC: balance between AG and NAMA and other negotiation subjects;
± industrial products and services, ± rules; ± environment (incl trade in environmental goods);
DDA development: possible implications in case of negative results
? Globally: DDA negotiations will continue in XX years;
± Multilateral trading environment in crisis (incl the whole WTO); ± Increase in bilateral trade development (back in local and regional preference system); ± Increase of protective attitude in trade; ± Development will slow down; ± New tensions in regional trade;
? For EC and Estonia: internal reforms will not contribute to negotiating power;
± ± ± ± EC farmers will have to ³pay´ more; Increasing pressure through WTO DSB: sugar, bananas etc.; CAP reform will slow down: old- vs. new MS ³situation is remaining; EC internal competitive trade environment is getting worse;
DDA development: possible implications in case of positive results ? Globally:
± ± ± ± Multilateral vs. bilateral; Global (single) rules; Development: increase in trade and incomes; Increase in some food products price: i.e. milk, sugar;
? EC and Estonia:
± EC farmer will ³contribute´ but other¶s are in similar conditions; ± Opportunities in trade to third countries markets will increase; ± Pressure to develop flexible internal agricultural policy across the EC; ± No need administratively regulate trade;
New challenges!?
? Bio- energy and trade in energyproducts ? General food shortage ± need for different policies
doc_794949687.ppt
Andres Oopkaup
Estonian Government policy at glance
Extremely liberal Total and fast privatisation Low or non existent support level Modest rural support including some for agriculture ? Emphases on green box type support ? FTA-s ? Little support for marketing ? ? ? ?
Estonian trade conditions before joining EU
? Competitiveness, comparative advantage
± price level (farm gate, inputs) ± quality and product range ± structures (primary, processing, trade)
? Outside conditions
± tariffs (economical and political) ± non tariff measures (hygiene and technical requirements)
OECD-s view to global trade development.
? Significant reduction of import tariffs ? Abolition of export subsidies ? Abolition of trade distorting domestic support (amber box) ? Direct payments - fully decoupled
WISH to CHANGE TRADING ENVIRONMENT; URA commitment
MODALITIES
TARGETS, AMBITIONS Precise numbers and formulas for commitments
"SCHEDULES" Fixing commitment that were agreed and surveiliance
SEATTLE MINISTERIAL 1999 FAILURE
DOHA MINISTERIAL 2001 DECLARATION
CANCUN 2003 FAILURE
HONG-KONG (december 2005) Partial agreement that confirms willingness to move forward
2006
July modalities FAILURE
Time
2007 New Budget for 2007-2013 2003 LUXEMBOURG CAP reform Decoupling
2000 BERLIN AGENDA
BUDGET enlargement DIRECT PAYMENTS vs PRICE SUPPORT
GENF 2004, July agreement, EC conditional willingness to abolish ES
2007 EC Proposals for ³health check´
MODALITIES
To be agreed by 2008
Topic¶s to be negotiated (single undertaking)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? Agriculture (MA, ES, DS); Non-agricultural products trade (NAMA); Trade in services; Rules (incl fisheries); Development agenda (package); Trade and Environment; Trade simplification;
-100,0
100,0
-80,0
-60,0
N ew-Zealand A ustralia H ung ary B razil In dia U SA C anada EU Poland Estonia C zech Re p. Switz erland N orway K orea Japan
-40,0
A rgentina
-20,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
0,0
Relative value of trade deficit, data of 1995-1998, %
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech R Bulgaria Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK
Armenia FY Rep Macedonia
G±90
US G±1
LDCs
Bangladesh Cambodia Chad Maldives Burkina Faso Myanmar Burundi Togo Nepal Central African Rep Djibouti DR Congo Mali Gambia Guinea Guinea Bissau Lesotho Malawi Mauritania Niger Sierra Leone Rwanda Gabon Ghana Haiti Namibia Benin Madagascar Senegal Uganda Botswana Tanzania Zambia Cameroon Cuba Congo Côte d¶Ivoire Kenya Mozambique Nigeria Zimbabwe Mauritius Angola Swaziland Egypt Tunisia Morocco
Albania Croatia Georgia Jordan Moldova Oman
ACP
Recent new
EU G-27 G-20
Mexico
Solomon Islands
India China Venezuela Indonesia Pakistan Philippines
Chile Brazil Bolivia Uruguay Australia Thailand Canada Paraguay Colombia Argentina Costa Rica Guatemala Malaysia N Zealand
Hong Kong, Ch Saudi Arabia El Salvador Macao, Ch Singapore Kyrgyz R Dominica Qatar Fiji UAE Papua New Guinea Brunei Kuwait Belize Bahrain Barbados Ecuador Antigua/Barbuda Dominican Rep Grenada Guyana G-33 St Vincent/Grenadines Trinidad/Tobago Honduras Jamaica Suriname Mongolia St Kitts/Nevis Nicaragua St Lucia Panama Peru Sri Lanka Turkey R Korea Iceland Israel Japan Liechtenstein Norway G-10 Switzerland Ch Taipei
Cairns Group
S Africa
African Group
GDP by subsectors in 2004. (% )
2,6 1,7 19,3 Agriculture and hunting Forestry and fisheries processing industry Services
76,4
Main subjectc for AG negociatrions
? Export Subsidies ± ³all types of Export Subsidies scrapped by 2013´ ? Domestic Support ? Market Access
Different MA formulas
250
Applied tariffs(ad valoream and specific, %)
200
Current tariffs
150
100
EU
50
G20 US
a
0 Tariff line s
Complications for EC: short term
Estonian view
? Substance and tactics:
± EC CAP reform has been implemented, but this has been taken ³as granted´ in WTO ± Competitors for us, are increasing support to agriculture (incl US); ± Potential problems with ³green box´; ? Some of WTO MS¶s do not agree with EC internal challenges: environment, animal welfare, etc; ± Dilemma on sensitive products; EC positions have to be adjusted but balance between MS¶s ± politically extremely sensitive! ± EC member states have offensive and defensive;
? Agriculture is not the only subject for EC: balance between AG and NAMA and other negotiation subjects;
± industrial products and services, ± rules; ± environment (incl trade in environmental goods);
DDA development: possible implications in case of negative results
? Globally: DDA negotiations will continue in XX years;
± Multilateral trading environment in crisis (incl the whole WTO); ± Increase in bilateral trade development (back in local and regional preference system); ± Increase of protective attitude in trade; ± Development will slow down; ± New tensions in regional trade;
? For EC and Estonia: internal reforms will not contribute to negotiating power;
± ± ± ± EC farmers will have to ³pay´ more; Increasing pressure through WTO DSB: sugar, bananas etc.; CAP reform will slow down: old- vs. new MS ³situation is remaining; EC internal competitive trade environment is getting worse;
DDA development: possible implications in case of positive results ? Globally:
± ± ± ± Multilateral vs. bilateral; Global (single) rules; Development: increase in trade and incomes; Increase in some food products price: i.e. milk, sugar;
? EC and Estonia:
± EC farmer will ³contribute´ but other¶s are in similar conditions; ± Opportunities in trade to third countries markets will increase; ± Pressure to develop flexible internal agricultural policy across the EC; ± No need administratively regulate trade;
New challenges!?
? Bio- energy and trade in energyproducts ? General food shortage ± need for different policies
doc_794949687.ppt