COMMON NEGOTIATING BASIS ELUDES TROPICAL PRODUCTS NEGOTIATORS.

Jul 8, 1988

COMMON NEGOTIATING BASIS ELUDES TROPICAL PRODUCTS NEGOTIATORS.

GENEVA, JULY 6 (IFDA/CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) -- Prospects for successful negotiations for "concrete results and their early implementation" in the Uruguay round MTNS in the area of tropical products, remain bleak at this point of time, according to third world participants in the negotiations.

Several participants gave this assessment in the light of last week’s meeting of the Uruguay round GATT Negotiating Group on Tropical Products.

The group, sources said, had merely adopted a procedural decision that appeared over the serious differences between the third world and industrial nations and among third world nations themselves (such as Asian, another group of Asian and Latins, and the ACP countries), to enable resumption of further consultations and negotiations in mid-September.

One of the key negotiators said that unless third world countries, and particularly the main producer/exporters of tropical products get together, reach a common understanding, and negotiate as a group, each of them would be picked out singly by the major industrialised countries and concessions extracted from them in the tropical products or other areas.

The tropical products issue has been on GATT agenda since the early 1960’s, when a Ministerial work programme for achieving fullest liberalisation of trade in this sector of interest to third world countries was adopted.

But little progress has been made on the issue since then in GATT – the subject being shunted from one work programme to the next MTNS and back again to a new work programme.

Even the specific priority assigned to it in the Tokyo round produced little results.

At Punta del Este the third world countries had sought high priority for the subject, and despite the compromises reached by some of them with the major industrial economies on the issue of new themes and launching of the new round, they did not secure the priority they had hoped for.

Nevertheless, the Punta del Este declaration which called for "fullest liberalisation" of trade in tropical products, including in their processed and semi-processed forms and covering both tariff and non-tariff barriers, singles out negotiations in this sector as calling for "special attention, including the timing of the negotiations and the implementation of the results".

As a general principle, the Punta del Este declaration envisages the GATT MTN in goods as a single undertaking, but provides that agreements reached at an early stage could be implemented on a provisional or definitive basis.

The negotiating plan adopted in February 1987 had envisaged that agreement would be reached in the initial phase (which ended in December 1987) on techniques and modalities as a common basis for negotiations.

Negotiators failed to establish a common negotiating basis, and procedures were adopted in January to carry forward the efforts.

After several further meetings, and two rounds of multilateral consultations, the negotiating group agreed last week on another procedural decision.

As a result consultations and negotiations covering all seven product groups (commonly identifies in GATT as covering the tropical products group) are to take place from September to early November.

The negotiating group itself is to meet for two days in the week of September 19 and end of October or early November.

Meanwhile, participants have been "invited" to deposit with the secretariat their initial offers. Participants who had already submitted such offers and proposals, including general approaches (to negotiations) and/or specific requests, it was decided "may" elaborate on them, without prejudice to the positions of other participants.

The depositing of initial offers by mid-September, it was further agreed, would not preclude their modification nor the tabling of offers subsequent to the mid-September date.

A number of third world countries, according to participants, expressed their disappointment at the failure to establish a common negotiating basis.

For its part, the U.S. maintained its position, and among other things made clear that results could be envisaged in tropical products only if there were similar results in agriculture.

As in agriculture, the U.S. has called for phasing out of all domestic support measures in the area of tropical products also.

The European Communities stressed that unless third world countries also made "contributions" for liberalisation of this trade, there could be no progress.

Japan, in its paper (which was welcomed by the third world countries) moved away from its original stand against any general approach and favouring only negotiations on the basis of requests and offers, and has now envisaged a general approach.

But its general formula approach excluded a number of products such rice, starch, groundnuts, vegetable oils, ginger, tea, and food preparations containing these material, and tobacco.

Negotiations on these, Japan said, should be pursued in other appropriate negotiating groups such as that on agriculture.

India and Sri Lanka were among those, which expressed disappointment at the a priori exclusions in the Japanese proposals.

On the overall situation, a number of third world countries reportedly spoke expressing concern at failure to achieve a common negotiating basis.

Sri Lanka, which has been coordinating for a number of third world countries, hoped that whatever consultations and negotiations are held between September and November, they would comprehensive, the issue had been before GATT for over 20 years, and unless there was a comprehensive approach "we may have to come back for another round", the Sri Lankan delegate reportedly remarked.

India reportedly noted that many third world countries had seen the Punta del Este declaration, as demonstration of political will on the part of industrial countries to implement their long-standing promises in this sector. The outcome in the group so far had come as a disappointment, with the group still far away from a common negotiating basis.

Cote D’Ivoire insisted that whatever liberalisation was achieved it should safeguard the preferences enjoyed in the Community by the ACP states, members of the Lome agreement.