This was one of over 20 issues that were the subject of questions from delegations on how fellow-members are implementing their commitments on market access, domestic support and export subsidies under the Agriculture Agreement.

Among them were: Indonesia’s import regulations; Egypt’s and India’s import and export restrictions on cotton; Switzerland’s and Canada’s dairy policies; several countries’ domestic support, including China and India; and Argentina’s repeated concern about trade being impeded by non-tariff measures such for as food safety and animal and plant health, and product standards in general.

The committee, which consists of all WTO members, also added Antigua and Barbuda and El Salvador to the WTO list of net-food importing developing countries, whose situation requires particular monitoring as agricultural trade is reformed.

And it heard an update from the Philippines on its negotiations on special treatment for rice. The present agreement, with its 350,000 tonnes (milled rice basis) “minimum market access” (document WT/LET/562) expires at the end of June and the Philippines is negotiating with major suppliers to extend this, with the aim of securing a decision in the General Council in July. (See documents G/AG/W/91 and G/C/W/665.)

Chairperson Jonas Skei reported that his consultations on a possible update of the list of “significant exporters”, a technical question for monitoring the use of export subsidies, are still inconclusive after more than two years.

At the end of the meeting, Chairperson Jonas Skei said the committee sent its “thanks and appreciation” to Clemens Boonekamp, who retired as the Agriculture Division’s director at the end of February.

Some details

The “regular” Agriculture Committee’s task is to monitor how governments are implementing their obligations under the agreement and discuss issues that arise. Its meetings are separate from the current negotiations (www.wto.org/agnegs) which take place in separate “special sessions”.

Since the last meeting, 62 new notifications were received, delegates were told. Some of the questions were about these, some followed up on queries in previous meetings.

The questions members ask each other in the review of notifications, and their replies, come under one of the committee’s key responsibilities of overseeing how countries are complying with their commitments on subsidies and market access. Members can and do also ask about agricultural measures that have not yet been notified or have not been notified at all.

The questions and answers can be found here when they have been processed and derestricted after a few weeks.

Domestic support, trade barriers and other policies

Costa Rica continues to exceed its committed ceiling for trade-distorting domestic support (AMS or “aggregate measurement of support”). AMS is the type of domestic support that distorts trade the most, by raising prices in the country and stimulating production. It’s sometimes called “Amber Box” support.

The Amber Box support, all of it going to rice, totalled $109.7m in 2010 despite an agreed ceiling of $15.95m, according to the latest information Costa Rica supplied to the WTO (document G/AG/N/CRI/34 of 11 June 2011).

The US, Pakistan, Australia and Japan said they remain concerned about the breach, and Costa Rica’s inability to provide any updates of information more recent than January 2011, or to say when it will be able to comply with its commitments. Pakistan, supported by the others, said Costa Rica should at least elaborate on how inflation and other factors have affected the value of the support, and the implications under a provision of the Agriculture Agreement that deals with inflation.

This is Article 18.4, which says “In the review process Members shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments.” ()

When it was first questioned about the breach in September 2010, Costa Rica said the high levels were caused by its domestic support policies responding to rising world prices and increased production in the country. Its committed “Amber Box” ceiling is fixed in US dollars and actual support amounts in notifications are also converted into US dollars show whether or not it is complying.

Indonesia was questioned about import permits and import restrictions on some food products. Among the detailed points raised was Indonesia’s recent decision to restrict imports of fruit and vegetables to four ports. Indonesia explained the reasoning behind the regulations, some dealing with food safety and animal and plant health. It said Jakarta’s seaport was closed to some imports because it was overloaded although the airport remains open.

The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU and Brazil said the restriction on ports and other measures had an impact on exports to Indonesia, although some agreed that regulations are needed to deal with health and other standards.

Domestic support. Once again, the longest questions and answers were about information that some members submitted recently on their domestic support. Many were to clarify how particular programmes work, such as those categorized as “Green Box” (not or minimally trade distorting, and therefore without limits), or how calculations were made, such as “Amber Box” support, which does distort trade and has limits.

Several were follow-up questions such as those on China’s, India’s and Canada’s notifications, discussed in the previous meeting.  Some were on new information. Other countries questioned on domestic support included Albania, Bahrain, Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Rep. of Korea and Nigeria. Tonga even received praise from the EU for its notification.

Standards as trade barriers. Argentina again complained that a number of countries are using health and other technical standards as new barriers to trade. In this meeting, the EU, Switzerland and the US said these standards are necessary but should be implemented through good regulatory systems. Members should be active in the committees dealing with them: sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS, www.wto.org/sps) and technical barriers to trade (TBT, www.wto.org/tbt).

Want more?

See:

• Members’ compliance with notification obligations, G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.9 (17 pages)

Significant exporters

Chairperson Jonas Skei reported that his consultations on a possible update of the list of “significant exporters” are still inconclusive after more than two years. The list contributes to transparency, requiring the listed countries to provide information so that the committee can monitor the use of export subsidies. But it is “obsolete”, Mr Skei observed.

Cuba and has asked to be removed because it is no longer a major exporter of sugar and Zimbabwe has made a similar request on tobacco. Pakistan had proposed adding ethyl alcohol to the list of products. However, members’ positions differ on the products to be listed, which guided the creation of export subsidy commitments in the 1986–94 Uruguay round, and what the legal implications of such a change might be (see earlier news story and documents G/AG/W/76 and G/AG/W/76/Add.1).

Chairperson: Mr Jonas Skei (Norway)

NEXT MEETINGS

(Could be changed)

2012

• 20–21 June
• 20–21 September
• 14–15 November