The “fragility” of the World Trade Organization’s ‘Bali package’ was brought into the open at the weekend meeting in Sydney, Australia, of trade ministers from the world’s 20 major economies (G20).

The Bali package is a trade agreement resulting from the 9th Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Bali, Indonesia, in December last year, and forms part of the Doha Development Round, which started in 2001.

The G20 group of countries includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.“… the Bali package is not just about trade facilitation and it also includes other issues ... That was the premise on which the developing countries agreed to trade facilitation and it has to be self-balancing” – South African trade minister Rob Davies

During the Sydney meeting, India and South Africa challenged the industrialised countries present to come clean on implementation of the issues concerning the poor countries in agriculture and development, according to participants present at the two-day meeting.

Ahead of the G20 leaders meeting in Brisbane, Australia, in mid-November, Sydney hosted the trade ministerial meeting to discuss implementation of the Bali package, particularly the trade facilitation agreement (TFA). The TFA has been at the heart of the industrialised countries’ trade agenda since 1996.

More importantly, Australia, as host of the November meeting, has decided to prepare the ground for pursuing the new trade agenda based on global value chains in which trade facilitation and services related to finance, information, telecommunications, and logistics play a main role.

“I said the Bali package is not just about trade facilitation and it also includes other issues,” South Africa’s trade minister Rob Davies told IPS Monday. “That was the premise on which the developing countries agreed to trade facilitation and it has to be self-balancing.”

Davies said that “the issue is that while South Africa doesn’t need any assistance, many developing and poor countries have to make investments and implement new procedures [because of the TFA]. What was there in the [TF] agreement is a series of best endeavour provisions in terms of technical and financial support together with best endeavour undertakings in terms of issues pertaining to least developed countries in agriculture and so on.”

Over the last few months, several industrialised countries, including the United States, have said that they can address issues in the Bali package concerning the poor countries as part of the Doha Single Undertaking, which implies that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The specific issues that concern the interests of the least-developed countries include elimination of cotton subsidies and unimpeded market access for cotton exported by the African countries, preferential rules of origin for the poorest countries to export industrial products to the rich countries, and preferential treatment to services and services suppliers of least developed countries, among others.

“Even if there is an early harvest there has to be an outcome on other issues in the Bali package,” the South African minister argued.

There is lot of concern at the G20 meeting that if the trade facilitation protocol is not implemented by the end of this month, the WTO would be undermined.

“What we said from South Africa is to commit on the delivery of the outcomes in the Bali package,” Davies told IPS. “And a number of developing countries present at the meeting agreed with our formulation that there has to be substantial delivery of the outcomes in the Bali package.”

At the Sydney meeting, the industrialised countries pushed hard for a common stand on the protocol for implementing the Trade Facilitation Agreement by July 31. The TF protocol is a prerequisite for implementing the trade facilitation agreement by the end of July 2015.

The United States also cautioned that if there is no outcome by the end of this month, the post-Bali package would face problems. “Talking about post-Bali agenda while failing to implement the TFA isn’t just putting the cart before the horse, it’s slaughtering the horse,” U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman tweeted from Sydney.

The industrialised countries offered assurances that they would address the other issues in the Bali package, including public distribution programmes for food security, raised by developing countries. But they were not prepared to wait for any delay in the implementation of the TF agreement.

Over the last four months, the developing and poorest countries have realised that their issues in the Bali package are being given short shrift while all the energies are singularly focused on implementing the trade facilitation agreement.

The African countries are the first to point out the glaring mismatch between implementation of the TFA on the one hand and lack of any concerted effort to address other issues in the Bali package on the other. The African Union has suggested implementing the TFA on a provisional basis until all other issues in the Doha Development Agenda are implemented.

The industrialised countries mounted unprecedented pressure and issued dire threats to the African countries to back off from their stand on the provisional agreement. At the AU leaders meeting in Malibu, Equatorial Guinea, last month, African countries were forces to retract from their position on the provisional agreement.

However, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Uganda insisted on a clear linkage between the TFA and the Doha agenda.

India is fighting hard, along with other developing countries in the G33 coalition of developing countries on trade and economic issues, for a permanent solution to exempt public distribution programmes for food security from WTO rules in agriculture.

New Delhi has found out over the last six months that the industrialised countries are not only creating hurdles for finding a simple and effective solution for public distribution programmes but continue to raise extraneous issues that are well outside the purview of the mandate to arrive at an agreement on food security.

India announced on July 2 that it will not join consensus unless all issues concerning agriculture and development are addressed along with the TF protocol.

India’s new trade minister Nirmala Sitaraman, along with South Africa, made it clear in Sydney that they could only join consensus on the protocol once they have complete confidence that the remaining issues in the Bali package are fully addressed.

Against this backdrop, the G20 trade ministers on Saturday failed to bridge their differences arising from their colliding trade agendas.

The developing countries, particularly India, want firm commitment that there is a permanent solution on public distribution programmes for food security along with all other issues concerning development, an Indian official told IPS.

By Martin Khor
GENEVA, Oct 1 2013 (IPS)

A fight taking place in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations towards the Bali Ministerial Conference shows how the rules on agriculture allow developed countries to continue to shell out huge subsidies while penalising farmers in developing countries.

Food security is one of the key issues now being negotiated at the WTO as part of its preparations for the Bali Conference in December. For developing countries, food security and the livelihood and incomes of small farmers are top priorities.

Reducing and eventually eliminating hunger worldwide is one of the key Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by governments at the United Nations. In the present negotiations in New York on formulating Sustainable Development Goals in the U.N., food security, nutrition and agriculture make up one of the key clusters of issues.

Against this background, there is a remarkable discussion now taking place at the WTO as part of the preparations for Bali. Developing countries grouped under the G33 are asking that their governments be allowed to buy food from their small farmers and stock the food without this being limited by the WTO’s rules on agricultural subsidies. Some governments plan to provide food to poor households free or at subsidised rates.

Martin Khor

However their proposal is facing resistance, mainly from some major developed countries, especially the United States, whose official position is that such a move would “create a massive new loophole for potentially unlimited trade-distorting subsidies”.

This clash is an outstanding example of how the agriculture rules of the WTO favour rich countries while punishing developing countries, including their poorest people.

It is well known that the greatest distortions in the trading system lie in agriculture. This is because the rich countries asked for and obtained a waiver in the 1950s from the liberalisation rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the WTO.

They were allowed to give huge subsidies to their farm owners, and to have very high tariffs. This was at the expense of developing countries, which have a comparative advantage in agriculture.

When the WTO was set up, it had a new agriculture agreement that basically allowed this strong farm protection to continue. The rich countries were obliged only to reduce their “trade-distorting subsidies” by 20 percent but could change the nature of their subsidies and put them into a “Green Box” containing subsidies that are termed “non trade-distorting or minimally trade-distorting”.

There is no limit to the Green Box subsidies. And several studies have shown that many of the Green Box subsidies are in fact trade-distorting as well.

With this shifting around, the rich world’s agricultural subsidies have been maintained, or have actually soared. For instance, WTO data show that total domestic support in the U.S. grew from 61 billion dollars in 1995 to 130 billion dollars in 2010.

A broader measure of farm protection, known as total support estimate, which is used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, shows that the agriculture subsidies of the developed country members climbed from 350 billion dollars in 1996 to 406 billion dollars in 2011.

The effects of continuing developed-country subsidies have been devastating to developing countries. Food products selling at below production costs are still flooding into the poorer countries, often eating into small farmers’ incomes and livelihoods. Ironically most developing countries are in a situation where they are not allowed to have the same huge subsidies.

The reason is that the agriculture rules say that all countries have to cut their trade-distorting subsidies. So if a developing country has not granted subsidies before, it is not allowed to give any, except for a small minimal amount (10 percent of total production value) known as “de minimis” support. Most developing countries had no, or few, subsidies when they joined the WTO due to lack of funds.

This is where the present WTO controversy comes in. The developing countries under the G33 are asking that food bought from poor farmers and stocked by the government should be considered part of the Green Box without conditions.

The present rule sets an unfair condition. Even if governmental stockholding programmes for food security purposes in developing countries are placed under the Green Box, there is a provision that the ‘subsidy’ element in such a national purchase scheme should be accounted for in the country’s AMS (aggregate measure of
support), which is the main category of subsidies considered to be trade-distorting, and which for most developing countries is limited to de minimis amount.

Other Green Box subsidies, including those that developed countries mostly use, do not carry such a condition.

The unfairness of this condition is worsened by the way the subsidy element is calculated in the Agriculture Agreement, as the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price.

The problem is that the acquisition price is the current price level, while the ‘external reference price’ is defined as the average world price level in 1986-1988 (during a period when the Uruguay Round that led to the WTO was being negotiated).

Since 1986-1988, global and local prices of food items have increased tremendously. The 1986-1988 price is thus obsolete and much too low to be used to determine whether a developing-country government is subsidising its farmers.

Countries that are in danger of exceeding its AMS or de minimis maximum level include India. Its parliament has just passed a food bill that entitles the poor (two-thirds of the population) to obtain food from a government scheme that buys the food from small farmers.

But the estimated 20 billion dollars the government will spend annually may exceed the allowed AMS and de minimis levels, because India was not a big subsidiser before the WTO rules came into force.

Other developing countries that provide subsidies to their farmers and consumers, such as China, Indonesia and Thailand, may also one day find themselves the targets of complaints.

For rich countries that are paying a total of 407 billion dollars a year in subsidies to disallow poor countries from subsidising their small farmers is really an especially bad form of discrimination and hypocrisy.

Whether this controversy can be settled fairly before the WTO’s Bali Ministerial Conference remains to be seen.
(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: