CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • Non-CGIAR communities
    • Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) - archive
    • CTA Agritrade
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • Non-CGIAR communities
    • Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) - archive
    • CTA Agritrade
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    EU response to the Harbinson paper

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Date Issued
    2003
    Language
    en
    Type
    News Item
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    CTA. 2003. EU response to the Harbinson paper. Agritrade, March 2003. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/52930
    External link to download this item: http://agritrade.cta.int/Back-issues/Agriculture-monthly-news-update/2003/March-2003
    Abstract/Description
    The EU was less than enthusiastic about the first draft of the Harbinson paper,...
    Notes
    The EU was less than enthusiastic about the first draft of the Harbinson paper, complaining that the burden of change was shared unevenly and that little attention had been paid to major EU concerns about non-trade issues and the 'de minimus' loophole. It also expressed concerns over the failure to deal fully with export credits and the abuse of food aid, whilst wanting a complete phasing-out of export refunds within nine years. In addition the EU also maintained that the draft paper failed to address the issue of preference erosion for traditional preferred developing country suppliers. Commissioner Fischler also rejected the idea that 'amber' and 'blue' box measures were equally trade distorting. In a joint statement the French trade and agriculture ministers maintained that any new trade opportunities generated under the proposed approach would primarily benefit the existing major food exporters and would not benefit developing countries. The French ministers also expressed concern that the proposed approach would undermine the basic concept of 'community preferences' on which the CAP has always been based. Overall, Commissioner Fischler has for some time now been of the view that no agreement would be reached by the March 31st 2003 deadline.
    Subjects
    MARKETING; TRADE;
    Regions
    ACP; Africa; Caribbean; Oceania
    Organizations Affiliated to the Authors
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Collections
    • CTA Agritrade [1158]

    Show Statistical Information


    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback