ROUNDTABLE ON AGRICULTURE

This roundtable included the following participants: Dr. Isidro Soloaga of the Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Mr. Concepción Colotla of the non-governmental organization Unión Campesina “Zapata Vive” and Dr. Marcos Jank of the Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brazil. The contributions of the participating public also enriched the roundtable.

Three core problems in the FTAA negotiations were identified:

-The problem of access to markets, which still contain many protectionist elements, especially for sensitive products, due to high tariff levels.

-The problem of subsidies, especially those of the United States, which distort the international price of agricultural goods and create predatory competition. Subsidies could be maintained in the FTAA, but safeguards would be needed.

In light of these problems, bilateral agreements, not the FTAA, are the way to achieve greater benefits.

A speech was given that reflected a standpoint that was totally against the FTAA on the grounds that the United States is maintaining an imperialist approach, a position that Mexico should adopt as well. Political considerations have clearly been overtaken by economics.

Tariff protection is the main protectionist measure used. Protectionist measures can take the form of subsidies or tariffs, which, when applied, determine the difference in the impact of trade liberalization on national economies that are moving towards integration. It is quicker to reduce tariffs in underdeveloped countries, which is why it would be better to negotiate tariffs in the FTAA and not subsidies. The lowering of subsidies protects producers and supply, which is why negotiating subsidies in the FTAA is not convenient. Subsidies should be negotiated in the WTO because they are systemic, whilst tariffs are not.

An economic model based on economic efficiency but not on social efficiency leads to people being excluded, which converts the unemployed into a new branch of the economy. Under this model, agriculture is not subject to disciplines, therefore, because it is a natural and non-profitable branch of activity. The FTAA today does not have compensation funds to correct the differentiating impact of the negative balance in agriculture that is produced by free trade, as occurred with NAFTA. Complementariness is still not recognized in the FTAA.

If the United States establishes the rules in tariff matters for sanitary and phytosanitary measures, these will continue to be used to protect production interests as they are under NAFTA. At the moment, compensation funds are being set up in the FTAA based on the compensation of capacities, and these will end up as exclusion funds. We therefore need to look inwards and address the situation of national and local production.