|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov24/11) Geneva, 14 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States along with other farm-exporting countries appear to be preparing the ground to “name and shame” China and India at an upcoming meeting of the World Trade Organization’s Committee on Agriculture (CoA) on 25 November over their alleged subsidy violations involving several farm products, said people familiar with the development. Despite stymying the Doha agriculture negotiations over the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security in developing countries since 2015, the US does not seem to miss an opportunity to target India over its alleged subsidies to rice and wheat, said people familiar with the negotiations. On 7 November, the US along with Argentina, Australia, Canada and Ukraine issued a counter-notification (G/AG/W/250) on “certain measures of India providing market price support to rice and wheat”, alleging that “India provides market price support for rice and wheat vastly in excess of what it has reported to the WTO”. The five countries pointed out that “India’s apparent MPS (market price support) for rice appears to have been over 87% of VoP (value of production during the period 2021-22 and 2022-23) in each of the two covered years for which India has notified data. Its apparent MPS for wheat appears to have ranged between 67-75% of VoP over the two covered years.” The calculation of the MPS based on a three-year average price during the period 1986-88 has all along been a source of vastly exaggerated subsidy calculation for developing countries like India, which has experienced massive price inflation as well as currency devaluation due to global macroeconomic volatilities. The interim agreement for public stockholding programs for food security in developing countries adopted at the WTO’s nine ministerial conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2013, has exempted these programs from legal challenge under certain conditions until a permanent solution is agreed by WTO members. For the past several years, India and other members of the Group of 33 (G33) developing countries have tabled several negotiating proposals, including revisiting the fixed external reference price used in the calculation of market price support, given rising food inflation and volatile currency movements, said people familiar with the development. Instead of finding a constructive agreement on several elements, the US and its farm-exporting allies have continuously adopted “stonewalling” tactics on one ground or the other, said people familiar with the development. In the absence of any forward movement on reaching an agreement on the permanent solution for PSH, the US and its allies have repeatedly resorted to “naming and shaming” tactics, particularly targeting India as being responsible for alleged distortions in the global market for grains, especially rice, said people familiar with the development. The US is also aware that if it raises a trade dispute against India at the WTO over its alleged subsidy programs for grains, the outcome will remain voided on account of the Appellate Body remaining paralysed since 2019, said people familiar with the development. “So, it has now become a ritual to raise the issue to “name and shame” India at every CoA meeting,” said a person who asked not to be identified. The US and several other farm-exporting countries and even farm-defensive countries seem to have specifically targeted China over its alleged failure to notify its subsidy programs or its seemingly excessive AMS support for several farm products, said people familiar with the discussions. There are about close to 20 questions raised against China, while India has also been subjected to severe questioning by the US, according to document G/AG/W/204/Rev.14. Meanwhile, an interesting feature of the upcoming meeting of the Committee on Agriculture on 25 November involves thematic sessions on transfer of technology, and innovation and agriculture technologies. To recall, the African Group’s proposal on “The Role of Transfer of Technology in Resilience Building: Agriculture”, highlights “the significant role technology transfer can play in building agricultural resilience to face food security crises and confronting climate change through the adoption of sustainable agriculture and food production systems.” The African Group’s proposal sought structured discussion “on how to make technology transfer more relevant to building agricultural resilience in the face of recurring food security challenges that disproportionately affect import-dependent developing and least developed countries, most of which are in the African continent.” During the discussion at the last meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in September, several members acknowledged that “agriculture technologies have the potential to significantly enhance agricultural productivity, for instance, by enhancing crop yields through better mechanization, improved varieties, or more efficient irrigation and water management systems.” +
|
||
