SEE
ALSO:
press
releases
WTO
news
Mike
Moore's speeches
Renato
Ruggiero's speeches, 1995-99
FIND OUT MORE:
WTO
website’s agriculture pages
|
Unfilled
quotas: questions about notifications back to top
This meeting reviewed 39 notifications. As usual, most
questions were about details, reflecting bilateral or
technical interests, and in many cases they were seeking
clarification.
One group of notifications generated discussions that
have more general implications. These were the documents
in which governments told fellow WTO members how much
they had imported in the relevant years under their
commitments on
tariff
rate quotas
and other quotas. Up for discussion at this meeting were
notifications from Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/21), Japan
(G/AG/N/JPN/58) and Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/27).
As in previous meetings, the discussion on this subject
reflected more general concerns that some member
governments have expressed about the possibility that
trade can be affected by the way the quotas are
administered. Several countries asked why quotas, in one
case for a range of products, were unfilled. These
included skimmed milk powder, various whey products,
butter and butteroil, and groundnuts.
The reply was that the quotas were not filled because of
market conditions. Among the reasons stated were fewer
babies and children and increased breast-feeding (for
milk products), a decline in livestock (some whey
products used as feed), oversupply of domestic production
(butter and butteroil), and consumers’ diversifying
diets combined with competition from other types of nuts
(groundnuts). The replying country also repeated that it
was conforming fully with its commitments and with WTO
agreements.
The questioning countries said that they doubted whether
market conditions were the cause when for a single
country so many quotas were unfilled. They expressed
concern about the way the quotas are administered
including monopolies given to state-owned importers. Some
suggested the importing country should remove these
barriers in order to test whether the low import volumes
really are caused by market conditions.
Export
credits: implementation, negotiations and the OECD back to top
Background: Government-supported export
credits are seen as a way of circumventing export subsidy
commitments because interest rates and repayment terms
can be easier than under normal commercial conditions. In
addition to discussions in the Agriculture Committee, the
question is also part of broader discussions on
“implementation” in the General
Council.
Article 10.2 of the Agriculture Agreement says
“Members undertake to work toward the development of
internationally agreed disciplines to govern the
provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or
insurance programmes and, after agreement on such
disciplines, to provide export credits, export credit
guarantees or insurance programmes only in conformity
therewith.”
Negotiations on an OECD understanding on agricultural
export credits, which includes Argentina as well as OECD
members, were taking place in Paris at the same time as
the WTO Agriculture Committee’s meeting. The current
deadline in the OECD for agreement is by the end of this
year.
The discussion: Mercosur circulated a
copy of its 16 May 2000 proposal on export credit
disciplines for the regional agreement, the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
Brazil, speaking on the group’s behalf, said the
group is not submitting this document as a proposal for
the WTO, simply sharing information. However, Brazil did
highlight three points:
(1) the text is general, and not tailored to specific
products, countries or regions, but it attempts a better
definition export credits for agricultural products, and
it tries to define “official resources” so that
they can be monitored even when they are offered under
“market terms”.
(2) the terms and conditions are compatible with
international practices for agricultural products and are
not biased towards countries with large surplus resources
(3) there is no derogation for “special market
circumstances” or “matching practices”
— “a highly questionable practice very common
in the OECD for industrial products,” Brazil said.
Malaysia, Columbia, Chile, Thailand, Egypt, and Brazil
said that they supported the OECD talks but stressed that
the outcome cannot be forced on WTO members. They,
together with the EU, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
Mexico and Hungary said they consider WTO disciplines on
export credit to be part of implementing the present
agreement and the Uruguay Round — “and not at
all an early harvest of the new WTO negotiations on
agriculture,” the EU said.
Japan agreed that this is an implementation issue in the
WTO, but said it is realistic to wait and see the outcome
in the OECD and then discuss the subject further in the
WTO agriculture negotiations.
The US expressed hope that this “difficult”
subject can be settled soon.
Mauritius and Egypt stressed the need to take the
concerns of least-developed countries and net
food-importing developing countries into account.
Presiding, committee vice-chairperson Yoichi Suzuki said
he would report back to the General Council for its
7–8 December 2000 meeting with a summary of these
discussions.
Least-developed
and net food-importing developing countries back to top
The Secretariat has circulated a revised report on the
latest situation related to the Marrakesh decision on the
possible negative effect of the agriculture reform
programme on least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries G/AG/W/42/Rev.3 (still restricted
for the time being). Additional information was provided
by several observers organizations including the World
Bank, IMF, OECD, FAO and International Grains Council.
Egypt, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago,
Cuba and Mauritius said the decision has been ineffective
and several called for more specific commitments to deal
with problems. They, the EU and Switzerland expressed
concern about figures that show that food aid has
increased at times when world food prices are low and
declined when prices have risen. This shows that aid has
also been used to offload surpluses and not to deal with
emergencies, they said.
Other
business back to top
Chile, supported by New Zealand and Mexico, expressed
concern about new US legislation (the Agriculture
Appropriations Act for fiscal 2001) which includes the
creation of a marketing board for avocado, including a
possible levy (25 cents per pound) on sales in the US.
These countries said the new board could present an
additional barrier to trade and questioned whether it
would serve the interests of all avocado suppliers.
The US said regulations to implement the provision are
still being drafted and welcomed comments from supplying
countries.
The next meeting is scheduled for 27–28 March 2001. |
NOTE:
This summary has been written by the WTO
Secretariat to help public understanding about
developments in the Agriculture Committee. Unlike the
meeting’s minutes,
it is not an official record.
How
to search for and download official documents
To
search for documents referred to here, go to the WTO on-line
document database.
Insert
the codes indicated in the “document symbol”
window of the search engine.
|
