Ministers fail to agree on farm trade reform

MINISTERS from more than 20 countries wrapped up divisive WTO talks yesterday, after failing to find a degree of common ground on key issues of agricultural trade reform and poor countries’ access to life-saving drugs.

How far and how quickly to tear down barriers to world farm trade was a key topic of the discussions, which showed countries were still widely split on the issue.

"A broad range of different views was expressed as to what levels of ambition or balance we should be seeking to achieve," Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, who chaired the meeting, told a news conference.

But Mr Kawaguchi also said that the latest informal discussions, on everything from import duties to generic drugs, would help push forward trade liberalisation negotiations which were launched in Doha, Qatar, back in November 2001.

"We had some very intensive discussions and I am of the opinion we have contributed to keeping and strengthening the momentum of the round," Kawaguchi said.

The Tokyo talks were meant to give ministers a chance to take stock of progress to date, as the clock ticked towards a March 31 deadline to agree on such controversial farm issues as targets for tariff cuts.

Failure to meet the March 31 deadline would reduce the chances of the overall set of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on agriculture, services, manufactured goods and other sectors being wrapped up by the target date of January, 2005.

At the meeting, several differences came to the fore over a plan released earlier by the WTO's chief agricultural mediator, Stuart Harbinson.

Harbinson's plan had proposed cutting the highest import tariffs on farm goods but not imposing ceilings on those duties.

The plan pleased neither of the two main camps in the talks: the United States and other big exporters that want a more aggressive liberalisation, and the more protectionist Japan and EU, which want less drastic change.

The two sides could not come to an agreement on whether the plan could form the basis for negotiations, so the blueprint had to be sent back to the drawing board.

Such differences were underscored by comments which were made by various ministers after the conclusion of the talks.