The WTO negotiations on the touchy question of agriculture have hit a new snag as groupings of developing countries have come forward to demand that the issues of central importance to them be addressed in any agreements reached.

In a letter addressed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) authorities, the Group of 33 (G33) stressed that it would be difficult to agree on a text where the issues of Special Products and Special Safeguards Measures are not given the same level of specificity as other agricultural market access issues.

The G33 was formed by developing nations in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia for the specific purpose of demanding greater flexibility in the trade of certain agricultural products that are vital for their rural economies, known as Special Products.

The multilateral trade system administered by the WTO includes an Agreement on Safeguards, the term used for special import restrictions implemented on an emergency basis in certain situations, such as in the case of an unforeseen increase in imports of specific goods that could harm domestic industry.

But the Agreement on Agriculture, another WTO treaty, also establishes so-called Special Safeguards Provisions. The developing nations are determined to maintain this scheme in the agricultural sector and to exclude the industrialised countries from using it.

The G33 coordinator, Gusmardi Bustami of Indonesia, stressed that the bloc "places great importance on the centrality of Special and Differential Treatment (SDT)," a prerogative that the system grants to developed countries given their unequal position with regard to the wealthy nations.

The G33 is insistent that this Special and Differential Treatment be incorporated in all WTO agreements.

The bloc is "increasingly concerned that SDT issues have not been given the full attention that they deserve," Bustami noted in the letter addressed to WTO General Council chairwoman Amina C. Mohamed of Kenya, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy of France, and the chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, Crawford Falconer of New Zealand.

At the same time, however, Bustami recognised that up until now, much of the negotiation on market access, one of the three pillars of agricultural talks, had focussed on the tariff reduction formula, because it is a core issue. The other two pillars are export subsidies and domestic support.

Until the demands put forward this week by the G33 and the ACP, another group of developing countries made up of African, Caribbean and Pacific nations, it had been assumed that disagreement in the agricultural sphere was limited to diverging views on the matter of tariff reductions.

In general terms, the Group of 20 (G20) developing nations coordinated by Brazil and India, the Cairns Group of industrialised and developing agricultural exporting countries, and the United States have all adopted an offensive stance in favour of sharp cuts in import tariffs, which deprive their products of free access to markets.

Other blocs of nations take a more defensive position when it comes to opening up their agricultural markets, above all the Group of 10, coordinated by Switzerland and encompassing Japan, Norway, South Korea and Taiwan, among others, followed by the 25-member European Union (EU).

At the moment, the rest of the world is waiting for the EU to improve upon its latest tariff reduction offer, put forward last week, which left almost everyone dissatisfied. Up until now, it was assumed that a concession from Europe was what was needed to break the current stalemate in agricultural negotiations.

Pushing the negotiations forward is the goal behind the meeting next Monday in London of ministers from the "five interested parties" or FIPs, made up of Australia, Brazil, the United States, India and the European Union, who have now assumed responsibility for guiding the talks.

In accordance with the WTO calendar, the Doha Round launched in the Qatari capital in December 2001 to expand trade liberalisation was to be given a decisive boost at the sixth WTO Ministerial Conference taking place this Dec. 13-18 in Hong Kong.

The most optimistic forecasts predicted that this meeting would lead to the goal of concluding the Doha Round by late 2006, six months before the expiration of the authorisation granted by the U.S. Congress to its government to adopt international trade agreements without the need for specific legislative approval.

Political analysts believe that it will be very difficult for the George W. Bush administration to secure the renewal of this congressional authorisation when it elapses in July 2007.

Against that backdrop, the demands put forward by the G33 have shaken up the process from its very roots, as Bustami also questioned another essential aspect, that of the "transparent and inclusive" nature of negotiations.

The G33 coordinator further stressed that the group is committed to negotiations in which "all regional and issue-specific coalitions are adequately represented."

"We strongly believe that inputs for the text to be presented to Ministers should come from an open and multilateral consultation," stated Bustami, alluding to the negotiations to be carried out among the limited group of the five interested parties.

For its part, the ACP bloc declared last week that it "is not willing to accept a fait accompli in the negotiations."

The group expects to be closely involved in all consultations, especially those related to the formula for tariff reductions and other aspects of the market access pillar, it stressed.

"The African and Caribbean delegates have been very angry, which is why they have put out their own proposal," said Aileen Kwa, an activist from the Bangkok-based non-governmental organisation Focus on the Global South.

Negotiators from these nations prefer to speak as a bloc, keeping a low individual profile, noted Kwa. "If they make a lot of noise, then they get calls from Washington. That is the political reality."