Wide variety of agricultural proposals tabled in WTO in quest for ‘early harvest’
27 January 2013
In a WTO report in November, the chair of the WTO Doha Round agricultural negotiations said that arrangements for managing quotas for lower tariff imports are indicative of what can concretely be achieved under any ‘early harvest’ (aspects in the negotiations that could be agreed before a full agreement on all points). This followed the tabling of proposals by different groups and informal consultations on the various proposals submitted.
The G20 is seeking ‘early agreement on tighter disciplines for administering tariff-rate quotas’. Current procedures are often seen as too cumbersome and inhibiting of effective market access. Current proposals involve ‘sharing information and monitoring how well quotas are used’. If quotas are under-filled, governments would have to ‘apply one of a prescribed set of methods for administering quotas’.
The G20 has also requested that the WTO secretariat ‘compile information on the use of tariff quotas and on export competition’. For Brazil, the request to compile information on export support measures includes information on the export effects of domestic support measures for cotton deployed in the US and EU.
The G10 group, meanwhile, has requested a WTO Secretariat paper on export restrictions.
The G33 for its part has requested consideration to be given to special treatment for ‘domestic support disciplines in order to enhance food security by supporting poor farmers’. This proposal seeks new ‘green box’ provisions that would allow developing country governments greater scope to purchase commodities from small farmers at favourable prices for subsequent stockpiling.
However, some members called for careful consideration of the various proposals, with particular concerns being expressed over the G33 proposals. While it is felt that the G20 proposals could garner consensus support, the G33 proposals, according to reports by ICTSD, are ‘seen as a slightly different beast’. ICTSD reports concerns that the G33 proposals run counter to ‘reforms aimed at moving towards less trade-distorting forms of farm support’. It is feared that the proposal could ‘open up the way to market price support in the green box’. Particular concerns arise from the absence of definitions of low-income and resource-poor farmers, with some remarks suggesting the definition could, for example, encompass 98% of farm holdings in India.
More generally, concerns have been expressed that early agreement in some areas could ‘upset the balance built up in the current overall drafts in agriculture and the Doha Round as a whole’.
In terms of future steps, it was reported that the WTO Secretariat is to ‘compile factual information on tariff quotas, export competition and export prohibitions and restrictions’.
Editorial comment
The underlying aim of the current proposals is to try to secure some movement in the agricultural negotiations in the run-up to the WTO Ninth Ministerial meeting to be held in Bali in December 2013. However ICTSD reports that some delegates have argued that the G33 proposal could potentially ‘de-rail the whole build-up’ to the Bali WTO Ministerial, by opening up the ‘green box’ to price support measures.
The debate around the G33 proposals, however, cannot be entirely divorced from the ongoing processes of agricultural policy reform in the EU and the US (see Agritrade article ‘Developing country impact ignored in major OECD agricultural reforms’, forthcoming). If the EU and US governments, through current reform measures, are seen as being unresponsive to developing country concerns over the underlying trade-distorting nature of the comprehensive systems of farm support, this could well lead to large developing countries insisting on similar rights and privileges designed with their administrative capacity constraints in mind.
From an ACP perspective, given the ACP’s duty-free, quota-free access to the EU market, the debate on improving management of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) may serve to intensify competition in some specific market components. Some ACP governments may, however, gain from improvements in TRQ management for non-EU markets.
Tighter disciplines on export restrictions could also serve to constrain the policy space of some ACP governments that use export restrictions on primary products to promote local value-added processing (e.g. the Kenyan and Tanzanian governments’ use of export taxes in the hides and skins, and cashew nut sectors).
