Position of Latvia with respect to draft Doha Work Program, circulated by the WTO General Council on 16/07/2004 – a framework document for the further progress of multilateral trade negotiations
Considering the fact that a further development of the multilateral trade system and the progress of the DDA negotiations are one of the external trade policy priorities of Latvia, we are ready to find the best efficient solution in order to reach the aims of the negotiations. Therefore we in general support the adoption of the draft Doha Work Program and consider it to be an acceptable basis for the further negotiations.
Taking into account the importance of Trade facilitation in the multilateral trade, we particularly appreciate the enclosure of this Singapore Issue in the Program, as well as, having regard to our special interests in the market access for non-agricultural goods and the market access for services, we welcome both Annexes B (on non-agricultural goods) and C (on trade in services) of the Program.
Similarly, we regard that the draft Program prior to the final adoption by the General Council could be improved in the following areas:
With regard to specific issues, Latvia emphasizes the following:
Trade in agricultural goods
Considering the fact that the draft Program so far does not envisage a proper balance in the negotiations on commitments in local support, export competition and market access, we regard that in order to ensure a constructive development of negotiations, it is advisable to provide for the aforementioned balance between these pillars of agricultural negotiations already at the current stage of negotiations.
Additionally we note that it is worthwhile to simplify the wording of the Program in order to avoid the misinterpretation.
We believe that in the Program the following must be provided:
- domestic support – to include the agreement concerning the reduction of "amber box" support[1], having regard to the special and differential treatment (SDT) towards developing and least developed countries, as well as the reduction of "blue box" support, in the same time maintaining the criteria for "green box" support in the current wording. We emphasize that the harmonization of domestic support must be referred similarly to the more advanced developing countries, as in these countries there exists a number of considerable trade distorting forms of domestic support.
- Export competition – to provide for an agreement on gradual reduction of export subsidies on condition that, at the same time, a similar reduction of other export support forms - export credits, credit guarantee programs, granting of export monopoly rights to state trading enterprises and their subsidizing, commercializing of food aid programs - is ensured.
- Market access – the adoption of a tiered formula is to be supported on condition that EU interests with respect to sensitive products are addressed. It is necessary to include an agreement, which would increase the access to the markets of advanced developing countries. That would bring benefit to less advanced developing countries as well as would facilitate the mutual trade between the developing countries in general.
Trade in non-agricultural goods (NAMA)
Having regard to the fact that Latvia is particularly interested in the negotiations on the market access of non-agricultural goods, we highly welcome the Annex to the Program. Latvia supports that the principles and guidelines included in the Annex should not be essentially modified, so as to diminish the result of the market access (text should not lose the current level of ambitions).
Trade in services
Having regard to the fact that the negotiations on the market access for trade in services is the second key priority for Latvia (parallel to NAMA negotiations) in the activation of the DDA negotiations, we likewise highly welcome the enclosure of Annex on trade in services in the Program. We stress, however, that at this stage a precise date for the submission of improved offers on market access for trade in services must be set.
Singapore Issues
Considering the importance of the issue in the multilateral trade, we particularly welcome the offer to launch negotiations on Trade facilitation within the framework of the DDA negotiations.
Trade and development
We support the current wording contained in the Program as a good basis for the further negotiations.
Considering the effective mandate, we emphasize the need to parallelly activate the negotiations on trade and development, geographical indications, WTO rules and regional trade agreements.
[1] For convenience and to avoid legally complicated terms, forms of agricultural support are divided in "boxes" and named after the traffic lights.
"Green box" subsidies does little harm to trade, therefore their application is not limited (e.g., state support for research, veterinary or plant protection measures, infrastructure, general rural support, etc.)
"Amber box" support is trade distorting measures of domestic support, as they grant obvious preferences to domestic producers (e.g. guaranteed high intervention price, additional payments to price or the amount of production thus compensating the expenses etc.) The amount of these measures is limited to each WTO Member by a definite and individual standard.
"Red box" term is rarely used, now these measures are known as export subsidies.
"Blue box" was introduced at the end of the previous [Uruguay] round of negotiations, by elaborating provisions for domestic subsidies, which do not fully compensate the reduction of income for the producer in the case if the latter is obliged to reduce the amount of production. As it is considered that such payments are less trade distorting, then their amount is not limited. In the scale of the distorting impact "blue box" is found between the "amber" and "green". Within the current negotiations the conditional definition of a "box" is being expanded with disconnecting the payment from the necessity of production.
