Agriculture is the biggest stumbling block for the negotiators of the FTAA and the WTO, in a process which, according to various experts of different tendencies, has arrived at a critical deadlock provoked by contradictions involving all the actors and factors of the issue. Although all parties recognise that this is a highly strategic matter, with the way in which events are unfolding almost no one believes that the negotiations will be concluded in-line with the planned time frame. The differences between countries with different sized economies, those between companies of varying sizes and multiple interests and the heterogeneity of world agriculture, are more visible every day, at the same time as significant differences among the major powers are also becoming apparent. In the case of the FTAA, the state of the official document (1), tarnished by some seven thousand square brackets (2), speaks for itself about the pre-eminence of differences, to which can be added the increasing subjugation to the decisions taken in the framework of the WTO, where agriculture is also a sensitive matter. In the recent meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee, held in El Salvador on July 11, the demarcation of a Brazilian position, and thus of Mercosur, reawakened the hopes of a possible re-composition of power relations, marked since the beginning of the process by US hegemony, whose conditions of power enable it to manage state policies which it plays out at the same time in scenarios of the FTAA, the WTO, and of the multilateral and bilateral relations which it manages. In fact, after NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Chile and an imminent signing with Central America, the signing of bilateral agreements is increasingly gaining popularity: several countries have entered the competition to "win favour" to gain access to the US market on the strength of concessions which are not restricted to trade, but which imply submission to geopolitical and military designs of the country from the north. Scenarios According to Ecuadorian civil servant Manuel Chiriboga (3), the possible breakthrough in the deadlock in negotiations regarding the FTAA could come about through four possible scenarios: the first is the signing of an agreement outside the negotiating tables between the US and Brazil (or Mercosur) regarding certain conflicting matters, such as farming, intellectual property, services, investment and government procurement; the second is the prolongation of negotiations for two or more years with the expectation of resolving critical matters within the framework of the WTO; the third implies simply holding bilateral negotiations between the US and each country or group, increasing the vulnerability of small countries; and the fourth (recently revealed by President Lula) would comprise of working simultaneously and in coordination within the FTAA, the WTO, and the multilateral and bilateral negotiations, which would win time in order to develop a regional position. In the case of the WTO, one of the main, critical points lies in the disagreements regarding the theme of agricultural subsidies, where the US, which heavily subsidises agriculture, paradoxically supports the reduction of subsidies by the European Union. Meanwhile, both speak with one voice about the fact that the other countries, that is to say the rest of the world, should eliminate them completely. This is also a matter of disagreement within the framework of the FTAA, since while the US maintains the position that this matter must be resolved within the framework of the WTO, countries of the region maintain that these should be part of the hemispheric documentation, which should consider implementing special measures for countries with small- scale economies. Part of this confusion lies in the actual conceptualisation of the subsidies for exports, whose new broader definition – in debate – extends its reach to cover the so-called food aid, as well as the differences between instruments and methodologies used for the measurement of volume of these and of the product tariffs, in addition to the biased interpretation and application of the regulations regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In the FTAA, with different overtones, the four sections regarding agriculture comprise part of the deadlock: access to markets; measures not related to tariffs; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; and export subsidies. In the theme related to market access, for example, where negotiations have to do with the aim of achieving a timetable of tariff reduction to 0%, which would be applied to all goods, one of the disagreements is the definition of a process which would allow small economies to move towards this objective preserving the interests of their nationals. Even as regards measures that are not related to tariffs there are problems of definition, as what for some is a part of this area, is for others considered an element of the barriers to free trade. With respect to sanitary and phytosanitary measures – for the protection of human, plant and animal health – there are countries that consider it a double edged sword which could be used as a pretext for prohibiting their products. However, the most prickly debate concerns the matter of subsidies for exports where, in addition to the said conceptual problems, there are differences between those who support their unconditional elimination and those who believe they should be introduced to achieve greater equality in conditions between countries. At the same time, there are parties who maintain that this matter should simply be transferred to the WTO for various reasons, including the fact that it would also cover products from countries that are not part of the FTAA. Similar differences are expressed in the themes regarding export credit, insurance programs, internal and food aid, which, for some parties, constitute disguised forms of subsidy and which, therefore, should be part of the WTO negotiations. Illusion Important interrelated themes, such as environmental themes, are not considered directly by either the FTAA or the WTO and the synchrony of these instruments with other previous instruments, such as human rights, has not been defined either. What is more, the tendency to approach the liberalisation of trade as one end in itself is noticeable, with the theory that the market would regulate everything, including social relations in the country and throughout all spheres, as agriculture is directly related to way of life and consumer patterns. Likewise, the claim that poor countries could make incursions into the market in conditions of equality and thus improve their competitivity is an illusion: the facts prove that these countries, which lack resources, subsidies and technology, principally support themselves through small-scale agriculture, it is the transnationals bloc that increasingly holds the export market; hogging the best land and access to water; almost completely holding the monopoly on seeds and the management of genetic materials and technology; controlling distribution routes and commercialisation, and imposing its regulations regarding the quality of products. A total of 60% of the products that are dispatched in supermarkets in the biggest cities in South America, for example, are provided by no more than five large transnational companies. According to data supplied by the WTO, the European Union and the US hold 51.8% of agricultural exports worldwide, 81.4% of which is to just 15 countries: the most significant in Latin America are: Brazil, with 3.4%; Argentina, with 2.2%, Mexico, with 1.7% and Chile, with 1.3%. As concerns imports, the European Union and the US comprise 51.2% of the total, while in Latin America the most noteworthy is Mexico with 2.2%. On a world level, the importance of other essentially agricultural countries in this area is virtually unnoticeable: moreover, the countries in the Equatorial zone, located between the tropics, which have the greatest quantity of farmers, are classed rather as a market where incursions are increasingly made by transnationals products. With these and other unresolved issues on the table few are expecting conclusive results in the upcoming ministerial meetings, such as that of the WTO to be held in Cancun (Mexico) next September and that of the FTAA in Miami (US) in November. Furthermore, in the words of Uruguayan government negotiator William Ehlers (5), important political engagements are needed, especially by the US, in order to reach a consensus regarding these scenarios, as without agriculture there will be no FTAA. And who knows, the fruit may drop under its own weight, as countries which at one moment confused integration with unconditional adhesion to unequal normative frameworks might draw a fresh breath in the light of new proposals of regional integration with more solidarity. (Translation by ALAI) Notes: 1) Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Américas, Second draft of the Acuerdo, Chapter: Agricultura, www.ftaa- alca.org/ftaadraft02/spa/draft_s.asp 2) Regarding the brackets used when negotiating official documents to denote the fact that the agreement is pending 3) Paper presented during the Seminar "Los retos para el Ecuador en las negociaciones sobre la liberalización agrícola en el ALCA", Quito, Ecuador, 14 to 16 July, 2003, organised by CORDES 4) The major proportion of agricultural subsidies is in the European Union, totalling 100,668 million dollars; the US 65,113 million and Japan 30,114 million (figures WTO/98). However, US calculations do not include meat products and therefore omit areas of pastureland. In addition, the new US agriculture law states that subsidies planned for the period 2003 – 2009 will be 80% greater than during the period 1996 – 2002. 5) Idem 2