 |
| farmers |
US, EU, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Pakistan effectively rejected a
draft decision aimed at exempting programmes for supporting millions of
resource-poor farmers from any subsidy limit.
India is unlikely to secure a permanent solution for public
stockholding programmes for food security at the World Trade
Organization’s Nairobi ministerial next month, after the US, the
European Union (EU), Australia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Pakistan
effectively rejected a draft decision aimed at exempting programmes for
supporting millions of resource-poor farmers from any subsidy limits.
On Wednesday, the US, the EU, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay and
Pakistan said the draft ministerial decision for a permanent solution
being tabled by India along with its allies in the G-33 farm coalition
would distort global farm trade because of exemptions for such
programmes from subsidy discipline.
The G-33 farm coalition led by Indonesia, in which China, India, the
Philippines, Korea, Turkey, Kenya and 40 other countries are members,
has demanded two deliverables at the Nairobi ministerial beginning on
December 15—a special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for protecting poor
farmers from sudden surges in imports of farm products supplied by
heavily-subsidized countries and exemption from subsidy reduction
commitments for public stockholding programmes.
The US, the EU, Australia, and Brazil blocked the G-33’s SSM proposal
on Tuesday. But, on the permanent solution for public stockholding
programmes, the US, the EU, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay and Pakistan
adopted a different strategy
On Wednesday, the chair for Doha agriculture negotiations Vangelis
Vitalis convened a closed-door meeting to discuss the G-33 draft
ministerial decision on the permanent solution. Participants invited to
the meeting included the US, the EU, Australia, Brazil, Paraguay,
Indonesia, China, India, the Philippines and Nigeria.
Indonesia explained the central features of the four-page draft
decision, which calls for amending the WTO’s agreement on agriculture by
inserting a new annex six to cover the domestic subsidies underpinning
the public stockholding for food security purposes.
The decision says programmes for the acquisition of foodstuff at
administered prices by developing and poorest countries “with the
objective of supporting low-income or resource-poor producers,” and for
subsequent distribution at subsidized prices with the objective of
meeting food security requirements shall be exempted from subsidy
reduction commitments.
Some countries, said India, spoke about “unintended consequences” but
have not given any suggestions on how they can be addressed, according
to participants familiar with the meeting.
India asked the opponents whether they are rejecting the G-33
proposal for a permanent solution on the ground that the interim
solution is adequate and doesn’t require a change, said a participant,
who asked not to be quoted.
In response, the EU said: “We are not rejecting the G-33 proposal but
in the current form it cannot be accepted,” the person said.
Australia expressed serious doubts about the draft decision and
whether it would properly address the “unintended consequences” such as
the leakages from public stocks into the international market. The G-33
proposal, Australia said, will create another “green box”, implying
another major exemption for programmes that do not have to be accounted
for in subsidy reduction commitments.
The EU maintained that it wants to engage constructively in finding a
permament solution. But the real deadline for finding the permanent
solution is the eleventh ministerial conference in end-2017, and not the
Nairobi ministerial, the EU argued.
At the Bali ministerial, trade ministers set a deadline for finding
the permanent solution by end-2017, at the eleventh ministerial meeting
while members at the General Council had mandated concerted efforts to
resolve this issues by 31 December.
The EU suggested that the General Council’s decision last year is
less important than what ministers had decided at the Bali ministerial
meeting in 2013. Further, the best option for the G-33 countries is to
start implementing the interim solution as worked out at the Bali
ministerial in December, 2013, instead of pressing for a permanent
solution, the EU maintained.
The US said it remains committed to public stockholding discussion
but the latest G-33 proposal doesn’t change the substance of retaining
such programmes in the green box, according to participants familiar
with the meeting.
More pointedly, the US said that “amending the AoA [agreement on agriculture] is not the right way.”
Pakistan supported the EU by saying that the Bali decision struck the
right balance and that the public stockholding programmes will lead to
unsustainable production as well as undermine reform of global farm
trade.
Brazil said it is seriously concerned about the “unintended
consequences” which the proponents have not addressed in the draft
decision. Paraguay said the G-33 proposal calls for a huge carve out by
exempting food security programmes from subsidy discipline.
China asked the opponents to engage constructively by suggesting what
needs to be done if there is a problem of placing the public
distribution programmes in the green box disciplines which are exempted
from reduction commitments.
India dismissed the concerns raised by Australia, the EU, Australia
and Brazil saying that those talking about farm trade reforms are silent
about the huge subsidies provided by a few major industrialized
countries. India challenged the EU’s interpretation of last year’s
general council decision to arrive at a permanent solution by the tenth
ministerial meeting. It said the General Council decision last year
during the inter-ministerial conferences is hierarchically on the same
footing as decisions taken by trade ministers.
Posts
