FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES NEEDED TO PROVIDE BASIS FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
Historical archive
Published under: Bondevik's 2nd Government
Publisher: Ministry of Agriculture
Norwegian Minister of Agricultureon Chairman Harbinson's revised agriculture paper:
Press release | Date: 19/03/2003 | Last updated: 23/10/2006
Press release
Date: 19.03.2003
Norwegian Minister of Agricultureon
Chairman Harbinson’s revised agriculture paper:
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES NEEDED TO PROVIDE BASIS FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
- Harbinsons revised paper contains only relatively few and minor changes compared with the first version presented to us in February. Several of these changes are unfortunately in the wrong direction. Our fundamental objection to this proposal therefore remains, says Mr. Lars Sponheim, Norway’s Minister of Agriculture.
- Put into effect, the proposal, in particular its provisions on tariff reductions, would have dramatic consequences for Norwegian agriculture. This is not what we were prepared for when we entered into this reform process. In our view, the draft simply lacks the basic characteristics of a compromise with which all Members can live, and it does not take non-trade concerns into consideration, such as food security, environmental and cultural concerns and the viability of rural areas, as foreseen by the Doha mandate, says Mr. Sponheim.
- We need a proposal that allows all Members, irrespective of production conditions and competitiveness, to address their non-trade concerns through a certain degree of domestic agricultural production. This is what we need. And this is what the proposal lacks. A tariff harmonisation formula is simply not appropriate because it does not take into account the differences in production conditions. Moreover, it will result in a substantial erosion of the market preferences enjoyed by the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries. An unmodified Uruguay Round formula is the only way forward. Resulting from 8 years of difficult negotiations, this formula is by definition a compromise, states Norway’s agriculture minister.
- Surprisingly, insufficient collective guidance is referred to in Harbinson’s revised version as the main reason why a significant modification of the first draft turned out to be an impossible task. However, at the last negotiating meeting, a list of 75 Members in favour of the Uruguay Round formula was presented. Although this is probably one of the clearest messages ever sent in these negotiations, it was totally ignored in the revised version. This is to me a mystery, says Mr. Sponheim.
- Being so close to 31 March, and so far from a new agreement, may cause a sense of dejection and despair. Nevertheless, we believe we need to firmly stand by the mandate laid down in Doha and work in a purposeful and determined way towards our goal of carving out a compromise.
- Having said this, far more realism is needed. Unless the beneficiaries of agricultural reform acknowledge that a future deal will necesarily have to be acceptable to all those who foot the bill, I see no solution in reach. It would be sad if this opportunity to reform is being missed simply because the relatively few who called for, and largely would have benefitted from, reform requested the impossible and did not make do with the possible, underlines Mr. Sponheim.
Read Stuart Harbinson's revised agriculture paper
Contact persons:
Sverre Kvakkestad, Deputy Director General, phone ++
47 22 24 92 04
Jostein Lindland, Senior Adviser, phone ++ 47 47 40 06 32
