EU Statement at the Formal Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) meeting focused on the Agriculture Negotiations and informal Heads of Delegation (HoDs) meeting, 10 October 2024

PRINT

EU Statement at the Formal Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) meeting focused on the Agriculture Negotiations and informal Heads of Delegation (HoDs) meeting, 10 October 2024

10.10.2024 EU mission to the WTO in Geneva - Press and information team

Statement delivered by Ambassador João Aguiar Machado

• We would like to thank you, Director-General, for your reflections as well as the CoASS Chair for his report following the CoASS meeting of 18 September.
• We can all agree that there is an urgent need to resume the agriculture negotiations after the lack of results at MC13 and the missed opportunity at the July General Council meeting.
• The European Union, based on a formal endorsement by Member States, was ready to adopt the comprehensive text we had on the table in July. It addressed all the agricultural issues providing guidance for the way forward, while duly taking into account existing mandates. Unfortunately, we did not manage to converge to drive ahead the much-needed agricultural reform.
• So, now, under your guidance, DG, and that of the CoASS Chair, we are being asked to give fresh impetus to the negotiations. There is a clear call from all actors involved in trade & agriculture, to update the WTO rulebook in a way that closely aligns with today's realities. There is a clear need to take fully into account in our discussions the contemporary challenges, including food insecurity, climate change, environment, and sustainable agriculture. We strongly believe that these cross-cutting issues should be the lenses through which we continue the agricultural negotiations.
• On the options proposed by the CoASS Chair for the way forward in the agriculture negotiations, we must be pragmatic.
• First, there is nothing that precludes different configurations of groups from continuing to discuss specific negotiating issues, as suggested by the proponents; in other words option 1 is not really an option.
• Second, based on our experience from MC12, we are concerned that a thematic process would bring Members quickly back to their usual positions and pull us further apart. More than thematic groups' facilitator-led processes we need to create the necessary space for Members to talk about policies and interests to improve the overall understanding. We should rather discuss issues which connect us all, also by using - when needed - external expertise, including from other international organisations. Such expertise could be of paramount value for our discussions. You mentioned, DG, the meeting in FAO. As another example, in two weeks' time the EU and the US are organising with the OECD in Paris an event on sustainable agricultural productivity, which will be about addressing food systems challenges. This type of event and discussions would also be needed in Geneva with participation of external speakers and international organisations. We need new ideas but also discussions on measurability of what certain policy choices would mean. Such exchanges could allow the Geneva-based delegates to have better-informed discussions and negotiations later on within CoASS.
• Third, we all know where the difficulty lies when it comes to the agricultural negotiations. A workable solution to public stockholding within the context of reductions to trade distorting support is the path forward. It is clear this would need to be part of the full picture of agricultural reform which takes into account all interests. The food security and sustainability considerations should be core concerns across the board and across all issues.
• Thank you.