|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Apr23/01) Geneva, 30 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — India has apparently exposed the “double standards” adopted by nine farm- exporting countries including the United States, Canada, Thailand, the European Union, Australia, Uruguay, and Paraguay among others on issues pertaining to New Delhi’s public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security at a meeting of the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture (CoA) on 27-28 March, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Apparently, the nine farm-exporting countries engaged in a “naming and shaming” exercise against India over the oral replies that it had provided during the consultations held with it, said people, who preferred not to be identified. The farm-exporting countries seemed rather unnerved over India’s refusal to provide written answers to oral replies given by New Delhi during the consultations on India’s public stockholding programs under paragraph 6 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on public stockholding (WT/L/913). The farm-exporting countries apparently attempted to corner India in several ways at the CoA meeting, said participants familiar with the discussions. As reported in SUNS #9752 dated 29 March 2023, surprisingly, some of these very same countries had refused to provide written answers to the questions raised by India and South Africa during the consultations on the schedules of specific commitments submitted by 35 members of the controversial plurilateral Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on domestic regulation in services. Meanwhile, as regards public stockholding, according to paragraph 6 of the Bali “peace clause” of December 2013, “a developing Member benefiting from this Decision shall upon request hold consultations with other Members on the operation of its public stockholding programmes notified under paragraph 3.a.” Paragraph 3.a. of the Bali “peace clause” states: “A developing Member benefiting from this Decision must have notified the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the Member’s Bound Total AMS or the de minimis level) as result of its programmes mentioned above.” India had informed the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture that it has exceeded its de minimis commitment twice for rice during 2018-19 and 2019-20. At the CoA meetings on 27 and 28 March, the farm exporters raised a series of questions on India’s additional support for rice, and its price support and PSH programs among others, under the CoA’s review process, especially the review of notifications. Subsequently, the nine farm-exporting countries seem to have pressed ahead with identical questions against India, this time under the implementation of ministerial outcomes. Apparently, each member of the food exporting bloc individually raised one question each with the same chapeau, said people who were familiar with the questions. The questions on PSH, for example, revealed what India had said during the confidential consultations. THREE QUESTIONS The first question posed to India is as follows: “In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held under that process, is submitted for the full Committee: In notification G/AG/N/IND/27, it is noted that the information on the Current Total AMS in Table DS:1, public stockholding for food security purposes in Supporting Table DS:1, product specific AMS for rice in Supporting Table DS:4, market price support for rice in Supporting Table DS:5, and all data for MY 2020/21 in the Statistical Appendix includes a footnote “Based on the available provisional data”. However, the value of production data provided in footnote 2 of Supporting Table DS:4 does not include any reference to provisional data. In response to AG-IMS ID 101087, India noted that the data for Value of Production is provisional data and would be updated only if there is “any significant difference” in the final data. Please indicate, of all notified data in Table DS:1, Supporting Table DS:1, Supporting Table DS:4, Supporting Table DS:5, and the Statistical Appendix, which is provisional data and which is final data. a. Please indicate when any relevant final data will be notified.” The second question posed by another member says: “In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held under that process, is submitted for the full Committee: Recognizing unique and unforeseen challenges in 2020 and 2021, it is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to India’s most recent Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the government of India increased by over USD 3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more than 7 million tonnes, the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million tonnes, and the quantity released for open-market sales doubled, increasing by almost 800,000 tonnes. It is noted that annual purchases, quantities released to beneficiaries, and open-market sales increased in MY 2020/21. b. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind the 7 million tonnes increase in annual purchases of rice under India’s public stockholding programme in MY 2019/20? India remains the world’s largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, India’s number one export position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice as much rice, by value, than its second closest competitor. Noting the also sizable increase in open-market sales, there are concerns about the impact government stock releases have on India’s export position, directly or indirectly. c. In response to AG-IMS ID 97049, India stated “open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc.”. We thank India for this overview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested information on price methodology for open-market sales of food grains from public stocks noting that the URL provided by India at the 98th CoA directs to an inaccessible webpage. d. What steps is India taking to ensure that open-market sales from government stocks are not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to export markets to sell their products?” The third question says: “In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held under that process, is submitted for the full Committee: In AG-IMS ID 101038, WTO Members had requested India’s annual quantitative figures for current, historical, and pre-determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010, to which India replied that such information was already duly noted in its domestic support notifications. In that same question, WTO Members also inquired if India publishes summaries of consultative meetings between the government and the Food Corporation of India (FCI), which are held to assess the availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum Support Prices (MSP) in order to meet the food security requirements of citizens, to which India replied that such information could also be found in its domestic support notifications. Please recreate the requested information here as it was not obvious where such information could be found in India’s domestic support notifications.” Not only did each country with the same chapeau read out different questions for which India answered during the confidential consultations, but also apparently attempted to “name and shame” India that it is not forthcoming with full answers, said people, who asked not to be quoted. In response to around nine questions, India seems to have provided the same answer at the meeting: “we have taken note of the question.” The United States said it is disappointed with the answer provided by India, while Costa Rica suggested that India’s reply to the questions raises systemic issues. Uruguay read out a long six-page statement chronicling when each question was posed, said people, who asked not to be quoted. INDIA RAISES THREE POINTS With the alleged “double standards” being adopted by the nine farm-exporting countries ostensibly on transparency grounds, India said that for the sake of transparency: (1) Some of these countries, who committed breaches in their domestic support programs, must provide clear data and answers, which they failed to do till now; (2) If countries are raising systemic issues about not providing written answers to the questions raised in the consultations, how is it that some of these very same countries also refused to provide written answers to the questions raised in the JSI services domestic regulation consultations; and (3) It drew attention to how the farm-exporting countries blocked an outcome on the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security at the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires in December 2017, and at the 12th ministerial conference (MC12) in Geneva in June last year. The CoA meeting also witnessed sharp exchanges on the EU’s proposal concerning deforestation, China’s alleged failure to inform the CoA of its subsidy notifications, and the domestic support provided by the US, said participants, who asked not to be quoted. Meanwhile, in a separate meeting of the CoA on 29 March, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) presented its findings on the need to implement food security programs as well as the differences in the implementation of these programs. In a similar vein, the World Food Programme (WFP), for the first time, presented data on the procurement of its food products from different countries. Interestingly, in the face of a considerable dip in the supply of wheat due to the drought in Canada, Australia, and Argentina, members praised India for supplying 3 million tonnes of wheat to the international market. +
|
||
