Mar 4, 1992

URUGUAY ROUND PROCESS MISSES ANOTHER DEADLINE.

GENEVA, MARCH 2 (CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) – Uruguay Round negotiators appear to have missed another target date this week, casting more doubts on their ability to conclude the negotiations by 15 April.

In terms of the Dunkel package (the draft Final Act proposed by him on 20 December, and the timetable for negotiations for market access in goods set in January at the first meeting of the market access negotiating group (under track one of the Dunkel process), participating countries were due to have submitted by 1 March "complete national schedules of concessions and commitments on all products".

Thereafter during March, the market access negotiating group was to have conducted an analysis and assessment of the schedules for a final balancing of concessions.

In terms of the market access, it had been agreed that it would be global in that tariff concessions and schedules would involve industrial products, textiles and clothing and agriculture.

In terms of the Dunkel package on agriculture, the formula approach presented there provides for conversion of all quantitative and other restrictions into tariffs and for cuts in these tariffs according to the agreed formula.

However, at a meeting of the market access group last week, when an assessment was made of the state of the negotiations, the majors indicated they would not be able to keep to the deadline.

The European Community, Japan, South Korea and several Europeans are unwilling or unable to deaf with the agriculture tariffs pending their demand for changes in the agriculture text.

The EC Agriculture Ministers have been meeting in Brussels but reportedly were still deadlocked on Monday night on their stance over the agriculture proposals in the Dunkel package and what changes they want or need.

Some of them including France, Britain, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium want the renegotiations of the agriculture package in relation to the volume ceiling on exports, while several of the other EC members want renegotiations so as to put into the "green box" of permissible government support, the proposed compensation to the EC farmers in lieu of the current support to them.

EC sources have indicated that they would probably file by end of this week, "data" on agriculture but not their "offers" for commitments.

The U.S. on the other hand would appear to have indicated that they would file their "offers" for commitments on agriculture, according to the Dunkel package, but would be unable to file their offers on tariffs in industrial products, pending the outcome of their zero-zero option negotiations.

Under this, the U.S. has been seeking cutting tariffs to zero across sectors, but have had mixed results and yet to be concluded one way or another.

The U.S. is apparently arguing that filing the tariff "offers" would mean giving up their zero option.

Japan, South Korea and some of the other Europeans (like Nordics) have indicated that without changes in the agriculture package they would be unable to file their "offers" on agriculture.

Several of the other players have stressed the "global" aspect of the market access negotiations and said that without knowing the picture in agriculture, they would be unable to put forward their "offers" in industrial products.

Apart from these, the market access negotiations also involve the tariff cuts in textiles and clothing. While the non-tariff restrictions on this trade is governed by the Multifibre Agreement, which under the Dunkel package is to be phased out over 10 years, the tariffs, pretty high in some cases like the U.S., are to be dealt with in the global market access negotiations.

In terms of negotiations for initial commitments in services, participating countries are due to present by 7 March their requests for specific derogations from the most-favoured-nation treatment rule.

But there is doubt whether this deadline could be met either.

The so-called track three, or scrutiny of the various texts for legal and internal consistency, participants say, has also become complicated with several participants trying to use this to reopen substantive issues - including the nature of the Multilateral Trade Organisation and the agreement for it and its relationship with the various Uruguay Round agreements.

Officially, GATT sources still speak of countries filing their schedules over the next few days, and the process of analysis and assessment being carried out in time to meet the 31 March deadline by when the final national schedules are to be readied and filed.

However, the talk of completing all this and concluding the Round by mid-April is proving less and less credible - particularly in the light of the U.S. electoral campaign and the preoccupations.