|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov25/10)
WTO: Brazil drives South American demands for agricultural reform Geneva, 24 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Brazil, along with several other South American countries, seemingly warned on 21 November that they cannot conceive of any positive outcome at the upcoming World Trade Organization's 14th ministerial conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, in March next year without progress on agriculture, according to people familiar with the development. At a meeting convened on 21 November by the chair of the Doha agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Ali Sarfraz Hussain of Pakistan, Brazil's trade envoy, Ambassador Guilherme Patriota, delivered a dire warning that Brasilia's core priority is agricultural reform at the WTO. He subtly cautioned the WTO's Director-General, Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, the facilitator overseeing the discussions on the reform of the WTO, not to sideline this crucial issue, said people familiar with the Brazilian statement. The Brazilian trade envoy, who was apparently the first to speak, conveyed a message in no uncertain terms that agriculture must take precedence over all other issues, especially with the fast-approaching deadline for MC14, said people familiar with the development. The DG, who also chairs the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), appears to have urged members to submit their proposals on agriculture and other issues by 12 December. She appears to be upping the ante alongside the facilitator on WTO reform, Ambassador Olberg, and the WTO General Council (GC) chair, Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia, said several trade envoys who asked not to be quoted. The so-called WTO reforms being pushed by this "triumvirate" - the DG, the reform facilitator and the GC chair - are centered on changing the consensus-based decision-making principle, introducing "differentiation" among developing countries for availing of self-designated special and differential treatment (S&DT), and "leveling the playing field", said trade envoys who asked not to be identified. However, the most important reform - that of the WTO's dispute settlement system - has been pushed to the proverbial back burner without any serious negotiations, especially when compared to the discussions on the more controversial WTO reforms, said envoys who preferred not to be quoted. At the meeting on 21 November, several South American countries joined Brazil in conveying their concerns that agriculture is not being given sufficient importance, said envoys who spoke on background basis. Although no substantive issues were discussed, Brazil, supported by several other South American countries, made it very clear that without agriculture, there can be no reform, said farm negotiators who asked not to be quoted. India raised the issue of "PS to PSH," referring to the permanent solution (PS) for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, which has remained unresolved since 2015, said trade envoys who asked not to be identified. In its intervention on PSH, the US is understood to have said it found that only one member (India) has been using the Bali interim "peace clause", which has allegedly led to significant market distortions. The US seemingly made it clear that it will not accept anything that goes against its reform goals, insisting that it does not want to address public stockholding or other farm issues like cotton subsidies. The US also said the divergences among members appear to be very clear, said farm negotiators who asked not to be quoted. Meanwhile, Australia informed members that it would introduce the Cairns-African Group proposal, even though privately, African countries appear to have turned their backs on the joint proposal, said a negotiator who asked not to be quoted. Several farm-exporting countries also raised the issue of market access, but it received a rather "frosty" response from the European Union, said negotiators who asked not to be identified. AGRICULTURE MEETING As members gather for a meeting of the WTO's regular Committee on Agriculture (CoA) on 24 November, several countries are being severely criticized for their recent farm policies. The 41-page agenda for the CoA meeting, as contained in document G/AG/W/258, includes: (1) Matters relevant to the implementation of commitments; (2) Points raised in connection with individual notifications; (3) Overdue notifications; and (4) Deferred replies. India has raised the largest number of questions, while also coming under scrutiny for its own farm policies. US FARM POLICIES Several members severely questioned the US farm policies, including Washington's move to distribute revenues collected from its controversial reciprocal tariffs. The United Kingdom and Australia, for example, sought details on "media reporting that the United States intends to use USD 10 billion or more in tariff revenues in aid to US farmers, primarily to mitigate a reduction in soybean purchases." They asked the US to provide further details on any related support directed at US soybean farmers and indicate whether any other commodities may be in line for this potential support. In a similar vein, Canada quizzed the US on its "rapid, large-scale injections of new funding as well as ad-hoc financial aid to producers, including in the context of the United States' unjust tariff measures and the resulting market losses for its agriculture industry." Canada said that according to its analysis of public announcements made by the US Administration, the US "is providing upwards of USD 30 billion in new ad-hoc funding under the American Relief Act (ARA) of 2025, providing direct payments to producers throughout 2025 to address economic and disaster-related losses." "Measures under the ARA of 2025 include USD 10 billion for the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) and USD 16 billion for the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP), among others." Furthermore, it said, "the Congressional Budget Office and American Farm Bureau Federation estimate that, with the passing of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" (OBBB) Act on 4 July 2025, the US farm safety net (commodity programmes and crop insurance) and agriculture-focused spending will permanently increase by USD 65.6 billion over the next 10 years. Of that total, USD 59 billion will be directed toward core farm safety net enhancements, including as a result of updates to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC), Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) and crop insurance." In addition, according to Canada, "announcements have also included: (1) renewed elements of the Farm Bill, with USD 8 billion in support; (2) additional farm aid packages potentially representing upwards of USD 12 billion, including for soybean, sorghum and meat producers; and (3) in October, a USDA plan for American Ranchers and Consumers to "fortify the American beef industry," including increased premium subsidies under Risk Management Agency programmes, reduced inspection fees, and further access to grants and grazing on federal lands." Canada asked the US: a. Given that the United States of America has announced several funding and assistance initiatives directed at its agriculture sector in the past ten months, could the United States of America provide: i. the details of each new US government funding initiative in favour of US agriculture producers that has been announced since January 2025, including: (1) programme goals and details, including the scope of product or commodity coverage; (2) total funding in monetary terms; and (3) implementation periods (i.e., start and end dates)? ii. an assessment of the total increase in spending over and above the current baseline of support for each of the 2025, 2026 and 2027 fiscal years? iii. the estimated grand total for the domestic support that will be provided to US farmers for each of the 2025, 2026 and 2027 fiscal years? iv. For the additional farm aid packages (USD 12 billion), in addition to soybean, sorghum and meat producers, does the United States of America anticipate that other producers will be covered? If so, which ones? Canada noted that "with the announced substantial reductions in funding (~ USD 185 billion) for the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the expected increase in Amber Box spending discussed above, the United States of America appears to be effecting a considerable shift in its domestic support spending away from Green Box measures towards Amber Box measures." Canada said, "considering the amounts at play, we expect that this will substantially increase market distortions and global levels of trade-distorting support, representing a step back in the process to reform global agriculture trade." b. Could the United States of America elaborate as to how it will manage its levels of production- and trade- distorting domestic support to ensure that it complies with its WTO commitments? c. Could the United States of America explain how this approach fits within the process to reform global agriculture trade and commitments in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture? Meanwhile, referring to US funding for specialty crop producers, the EU said that "the US Department of Agriculture recently announced it is awarding $8.3 million in funding to help 11 US recipients address trade barriers and expand international market access for US specialty crops." The EU sought to know more details about the funding mechanism. Regarding US block grant funding, India noted that "the US has initiated a new program "Block grant funding" as a part of the $30 billion disaster assistance relief effort authorized by the American Relief Act, 2025. USDA is working with 14 different states to develop and implement block grants to address the unique disaster recovery needs for each state." In this context, India asked the US to provide the following information: (a) The objectives and the operational guidelines of this programme; (b) A list of states which have block grant agreements and the criteria to determine state eligibility for the grant; ( c) The budget of the programme and a state-wise breakdown of expenditure; (d) How the support will be notified in the DS:1 notification. +
|
||
