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

TARGETS, AMBITIONS

MODALITIES Precise numbers and formulas for commitments

"SCHEDULES" Fixing commitment that were agreed and surveiliance

DOHA MINISTERIAL 2001 DECLARATION

2000BERLIN AGENDA BUDGET - enlargementDIRECT PAYMENTS vs PRICE SUPPORT

CANCUN2003

FAILURESEATTLE MINISTERIAL 1999FAILURE

2003LUXEMBOURGCAP reformDecoupling

GENF 2004,July agreement, EC

conditional willingness to

abolish ES

HONG-KONG (december 2005)

Partial agreement that confirms willingness to move forward

2007 New Budget for 2007-2013

Time

2006

July - modalitiesFAILURE

2007 ECProposals for “health 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;

Relative value of trade deficit, data of 1995-1998, %

-100,0

-80,0

-60,0

-40,0

-20,0

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

Arg

entin

a

New

-Zea

land

Aus

tral

ia

Hun

gary

Bra

zil

Indi

a

US

A

Can

ada EU

Pol

and

Est

onia

Cze

ch R

ep.

Sw

itzer

land

Nor

way

Kor

ea

Japa

n

G-10

G-33

ACP

LDCs

Cairns Group

G-20

EU G-27

G–90

Recent new

African Group

ChadBurkina FasoBurundi  Togo

Central African RepDjibouti    DR Congo

Mali   Gambia   Guinea  Guinea Bissau    Lesotho   

Malawi  Mauritania  NigerSierra Leone    Rwanda   

BeninMadagascar

SenegalUgandaZambiaTanzania

BelizeBarbadosAntigua/BarbudaDominican RepGrenada    GuyanaSt Vincent/GrenadinesTrinidad/TobagoJamaica   Suriname

St Kitts/Nevis     St Lucia

GabonGhana

Namibia

    Honduras MongoliaNicaragua

          Panama     Peru  Sri Lanka   Turkey

NigeriaZimbabwe

BotswanaCameroon

CongoCôte d’Ivoire

KenyaMozambique

EgyptTunisia Morocco

AngolaSwaziland

Mauritius

R Korea

Iceland  Israel  Japan   Liechtenstein  Norway

SwitzerlandCh Taipei

AustriaBelgium     Cyprus

Czech R Bulgaria DenmarkEstonia Finland   France

Germany Greece Hungary Ireland       Italy      LatviaLithuania        LuxembourgMalta Netherlands Poland Portugal  Romania Slovakia

Slovenia   SpainSweden  UK

Mexico

IndiaChinaVenezuela

DominicaFiji

Papua New Guinea

IndonesiaPakistanPhilippines

Cuba

Haiti

ArmeniaFY Rep Macedonia

Australia Canada Colombia

Costa Rica Guatemala

  Malaysia  N Zealand

ChileBrazil

BoliviaUruguay

 Thailand Paraguay

Argentina

BangladeshCambodia

Maldives  MyanmarNepal

Hong Kong, ChSaudi Arabia

El SalvadorMacao, ChSingapore

Kyrgyz RQatar

UAEBruneiKuwait

BahrainEcuador

AlbaniaCroatiaGeorgiaJordan

MoldovaOman

USG–1

S Africa

Solomon Islands

GDP by subsectors in 2004. (%)

2,6

1,7

19,3

76,4

Agriculture and hunting

Forestry and fisheries

processing industry

Services

Main subjectc for AG negociatrions

• Export Subsidies – “all types of Export Subsidies scrapped by 2013”

• Domestic Support

• Market Access

Different MA formulas

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tariff l ines

Ap

plie

d t

arif

fs(a

d v

alor

eam

an

d s

pec

ific

, %)

Current tariffs

EU

US a

G20

Complications for EC: short termEstonian view

• Substance and tactics:– EC CAP reform has been implemented, but this has been taken “as

granted” in WTO– Competitors for us, are increasing support to agriculture (incl US);– Potential problems with “green 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 “pay” more; – Increasing pressure through WTO DSB: sugar, bananas etc.;– CAP reform will slow down: old- vs. new MS “situation 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 “contribute” 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