GENEVA (B)--U.S. senior agriculture negotiator Greg Frazier June 29 described recent U.S. global farm reform proposals as "comprehensive, bold and reform-oriented," and setting "a benchmark for goals." Frazier denied the proposal is directed at undermining the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy and emphasized that U.S. proposals should thoroughly overhaul global farm sector spending through talks at the World Trade Organization.
Frazier denied suggestions that the U.S. proposal (see story BHDZQXS) is a direct attack on the EU's system of subsidies, most of which would have to disappear under the U.S.' proposed model.
It is "unfair," to accuse the U.S. of targeting the EU, said Frazier. "This is not an attack on Europe nor is it an attack on anyone else.
"We are here to lay out a clear, convincing and provocative start, we have genuine concerns," he added.
The two days of negotiations on agriculture started June 29 and continued June 30 at the WTO in Geneva, when U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary August Schumacher attended.
Washington's most radical negotiating suggestion would set a ceiling on government spending deemed "non-exempt" from reduction commitments under a newly
proposed two-tier subsidy classification system.
The ceiling formula, dubbed "proportionate commitment," would limit government spending to a fixed percentage of each country's total agricultural production, explained Frazier.
In addition, the U.S. proposal calls for a phased end to export subsidies, arguing that they unfairly allow those countries with the deepest pockets to support farmers to the detriment of developing countries and export-oriented farm economies.
"Farmers ought to be competing against farmers, not against treasuries," said Frazier, adding "farmers in developing countries ought not to be competing against export subsidies."
U.S. officials also denied that the proposal is designed only to impact the rest of the world, leaving the U.S. free to continue its own farm spending programs.
Export credits, operated by the U.S., are not the same as export subsidies and therefore would not be subject to the same elimination goal say U.S. officials.
And, unlike export subsidies, they add, a distinction for credit designed to provide food aid needs to be made.
Asked whether there can be real progress on agricultural talks without launching a new round of global trade talks, as demanded by the EU, Frazier told journalists, "we're not losing time."
"We are making progress on agriculture outside a new round. Work done on the built-in agenda (covering negotiations on commercial services and agriculture which have already started) is work that would be required under a new round," Frazier said.
"There is general recognition that export credits are a different kind of animal," said another U.S. official.
The U.S. has already committed itself to discussing export credits at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, he added. A decision was scheduled for the end of this year, but few expect agreement so soon.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.