THE PARALLEL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: WITH THE EU AND AT THE WTO

1. Ecowas Regional Workshop on Agriculture and Food Security Conakry, 8-9 April 2002 UNCTAD THE PARALLEL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS:WITH THE EU AND AT THE WTO Manuela Tortora Trade Negotiations and Commercial Diplomacy UNCTAD WEB/CDP/PPT/37

2. 2 parallel negotiations,1 single preparatory process... ...focused on the following questions:

3. are the interests of the ACP countries the same in both negotiations? • can the ACP objectives be achieved in both negotiations? • the gains and the costs involved by one of the negotiations will become precedents for the other one? • can the ACP countries identify their interests and objectives? TO WHAT EXTENT:

4. DOHA WORK PROGRAMME: Modalities for the negotiations on agriculture (ongoing) Identification of S&D mandatory provisions in all the WTO agreements by July 2002 Mid-2003: decision on the Singapore issues at the 5th Ministerial Conference Jan.1st 2005: “single undertaking” COTONOU MANDATES: “Geographical configuration” defined by Sept.2002 Assessment of non-LDCs situation by 2004 Assessment of the negotiations by 2006 Conclusion of the negotiations by Jan. 2008 COMPARISON OF THE 2 NEGOTIATING PROCESSES

5. THE MAIN QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE 2 NEGOTIATIONS: 1.-The concept of S&D 2.-How to prepare both agriculture negotiations 3.-The “geographical configuration” 4.-Other issues

6. 1.-The concept of S&D should be consolidated in both negotiations by: • Sustained political support to the concept at the WTO so as to defend the notion of preferential regimes in the multilateral rules

7. The concept of S&D should be consolidated in both negotiations by: • Identify the S&D provisions required in each one of the WTO agreements, in particular: • in agriculture • market acces for the non-agricultural products • rules for the regional trade agreements • specific provisions for the LDCs

8. The concept of S&D should be consolidated in both negotiations by: • Operationalise the S&D “intentions” contained in the Cotonou text (in particular in art.34.4) so as to ensure that the S&D level of future ACP/EU agreements should not be less than the one established at the WTO, and that different levels of development will be recognised.

9. What needs to be defined so as to materialise the S&D provisions at the WTO and in the ACP/EU negotiations: • The transitional periods • The product coverage • The tariff dismantling (timetable and modalities) • The “compensatory” measures to address the supply capacity constraints and transfer of technology • The technical assistance • The degree of reciprocity and preferences entailed in the ACP/EU regime

10. 2.-How to prepare both agriculture negotiations: • Consider the overall EU position in agriculture negotiations: the EU will not have a different position as compared to the one taken at the WTO. • The modalities of the negotiations as they are being discussed at the WTO will certainly be a basic reference at the ACP/EU level.

11. 3.-The question of the “geographical configuration” for the ACP/EU negotiations: • The ACP countries need to decide before Sept. 2002 if they will negotiate individually or at the subregional level. • A “framework agreement” prepared by the ACP countries could be envisaged, with bilateral or subregional annexes

12. 4.-Other issues • The support that the EU could provide to the ACP countries • The Commodity Protocols