This
regular meeting of the Agriculture Committee (not the negotiations) lasted
less than two hours, almost certainly a record in the committee’s almost 13
years of existence.
Once again, the longest questions and answers were
about clarifying domestic support programmes under the Green Box, which do
not distort trade or cause minimal distortion and are therefore allowed
without restriction. This time, the programmes of Brazil, Mexico and
Switzerland featured.
China replied to questions from the US on
value-added tax rebates and tariff quota administration under its annual
transitional review (required for a period under its membership agreement).
And although the committee’s “regular” meetings
are separate from the current negotiations, an agenda item on an issue that
is also in the negotiations provided an opportunity for Cuba to continue to
press for a 720-day repayment period for export credits offered to
least-developed and net-food-importing developing countries.
These are some details of the discussions:
Notifications and review, and related questions
back to top
1. Notifications backlog
A rising number of members are behindhand in
notifying their export subsidies, domestic support and market access
measures (including tariff quotas and special safeguards). Data compiled up
to the previous day (25 September) and circulated in the meeting show that
78 members — over half of the membership — still have not supplied some or
all of the required information for 1995-2001.
Among those allowed distorting domestic supports
above minimal “de minimis” levels, a number have not notified their spending
for 2002 or earlier, including Argentina, Norway, and the US. Canada has not
notified for 2003 and after, the EU for 2004 and after, and Japan, Republic
of Korea and Switzerland for 2005 and after.
Chairperson Valéria Csukasi of Uruguay reminded
members that the notifications are important for monitoring their
commitments and for the current negotiations. Australia agreed and
complained particularly about late notifications from the three biggest
suppliers of domestic support, the EU, Japan and the US.
(Up-to-date information on domestic support is
needed for members to calculate accurately what the effect of proposed cuts
would be on actual current payments as distinct from the bound ceilings. It
is also needed for calculating levels to be used as the base for some
reductions.)
Of the 39 notifications received since March, 16 were about domestic support, 10 about tariff quotas, seven about export
subsidies, and five about special safeguards.
2. Canada’s domestic programmes for milk
New Zealand said it is concerned that latest
developments in Canada’s complex supply management policy, which includes
“special milk classes” and a number of other tools, could impede New
Zealand’s exports and undermine Canada’s commitments in the WTO. It reminded
Canada that the Special Milk Classes Scheme was the subject of a WTO dispute
(cases DS103 and
DS113 brought by the US and New Zealand in 1997, which were not resolved until 2003.).
Replying to New Zealand’s detailed questions,
Canada explained a number of points and insisted that none of the special
milk subsidies concerned (i.e. except for “special milk class 5(d)”)
constitute subsidies under the WTO’s Agriculture Agreement. The national and
provincial bodies administering the programmes work with the national
government to ensure the programmes are consistent with Canada’s commitments
in the WTO, Canada said.
3. Brazil’s domestic support
Once again, the numerous types of programmes
allowed without limit under the Green Box, provided an opportunity for
lengthy questions and answers, this time those of Brazil (and also Mexico).
Australia, the EU and the US sought numerous clarifications on a number of
programmes, including why support for some products was not notified.
Brazil replied in some detail. It explained that
where figures for individual products were not supplied this was because the
programmes were available more generally and not specifically for those
products, or because for other reasons (budget constraints or eligibility
criteria) the money was not spent.
(Mexico also clarified its programmes in response
to questions from Canada and Australia, and Switzerland replying to
Australian questions.)
4. Other issues
Among the other “notification and review” topics
raised were (details will be available when
the minutes
are issued; the relevant notifications can be found from
links to searches
for documents):
EU DOMESTIC SUPPORT PAID BY MEMBER STATES’
GOVERNMENTS — Australia wanted the EU to provide information on these; the
EU said the aggregate figures are included in its nofications and that the
EU reports as “a single entity”.
CANADIAN CHEESE: Australia asked Canada for
more information on how its new “compositional standards” for cheese would
increase producers’ revenue. Canada said the requirement to have a higher
milk content would shift milk use from lower-value products to
higher-value cheese, the increase amounting to almost 5m hectolitres.
CHINA’S DEPOSITS FOR EXPORTS: Australia asked whether
domestically-produced goods are also subject to the deposits. China said
the deposits only apply to imported goods that are in bond.
REP.KOREA’S EXPORT SUBSIDIES (under provisions for packing and transport
allowed for developing countries): Australia wanted to know if the support
provided in 2005 continued after that. Rep.Korea said 28.9bn was paid in
2005 and 2006.
US’s REGULATION ON PRICE REPORTING. New Zealand wanted to know if the
regulation supplied the information needed to safeguard domestic
producers. The US said the regulation is still being considered, along
with comments (including New Zealand’s), and handed over the latest
60-page draft.
SUGAR QUOTAS: Thailand wanted to know how Chile and the US shared out
their quotas among supplying countries. They said the shares were based on
shares supplied in earlier years.
TUNISIA’S TARIFF QUOTAS (i.e. low duties on quantities within the
quotas, higher duties on quantities outside): The US repeated its concerns
about a lack of transparency in the way Tunisia administers quotas on some
products. Canada also queried low fill rates in Tunisia’s milk powder
imports.
CHINESE TAIPEI’S TARIFF QUOTAS: Thailand wanted to know why Chinese
Taipei had not imported bananas, mango and shaddocks (pomelo) within its
quotas — Chinese Taipei attributed this to phytosanitary issues and
Thailand said it would raise the question in the Sanitary/Phytosanitary
Measures Committee.
AUSTRALIA’S TARIFF QUOTAS: The Philippines sought (and obtained) details
of Australia’s tariff quotas for tobacco, including a change in the
definition of the reporting year.
SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS: Australia and Thailand asked about Japan’s
safeguards and Thailand asked about Chinese Taipei’s. Japan and Chinese
Taipei supplied details.
China’s transitional review
back to top
The only questions came from the United States.
They dealt with: value added tax exemptions for some commodities produced
and sold by farmers in China and whether the exemptions comply with the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Subsidies Agreement;
exemptions on agricultural inputs; value added tax rebates on exports; and
complaints about lack of transparency in administering tariff quotas on
products such as cotton (see
document G/AG/W/68).
China replied that exemptions from the
13%-value-added-tax on agricultural products only apply to products made and
sold by farmers, not to companies, and that it believes the practice
complies with GATT and the Subsidies Agreement. It declined to comment on
tax exemptions on industrial products in this committee, and said
information on its quotas, such as for cotton, are on government websites.
The US responded that the main problem concerning
transparency for cotton is how quantities outside the 894,000-tonne quota
are handled.
The transitional reviews were agreed as part of
China’s membership agreement, for a period and for a number of subjects.
Implementation issues
back to top
Ministers at the 2001 Doha conference identified
three “implementation” issues for agriculture: export credit and other
financing programmes; the concerns of net-food-importing developing and
least-developed countries; and tariff quota administration.
These overlap with some of the issues in the
agriculture negotiations, and Cuba reminded members that it has proposed a
720-day reimbursement period for net-food-importing countries as an
exception to the normal 180 days agreed to ensure export credit is on
commercial terms.
Argentina reiterated its view that export credit
is part of implementing the present Agriculture Agreement and not a new
negotiating issue. It called for the issue to remain on the regular
committee’s agenda.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Valéria Csukasi (Uruguay)
Next
back to top
Regular committee meetings in 2008 (subject to
change):
Tuesday 18, Wednesday 19 March 2008
(Possibly) Tuesday 24, Wednesday 25 June 2008
Wednesday 17, Thursday 18 September
Wednesday 26, Thursday 27 November
|
