|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May26/18) Geneva, 26 May (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Ahead of the World Trade Organization's Committee on Agriculture meeting on 27 May, the United States appears to have grabbed the lion's share of questions quizzing many countries on their agriculture policies, even as it remains opposed to relaunching the stalled Doha agriculture negotiations at every ministerial conference, said people familiar with the development. At the recently failed WTO's 14th ministerial conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, the US reportedly blocked a comprehensive outcome document aimed at jump-starting the agriculture negotiations despite demands from several members of the Cairns Group of farm-exporting countries, according to participants at MC14 who preferred not to be identified. Yet, ahead of the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) starting on 27 May, the US sharply questioned many countries about their agriculture policies and allegedly inconsistent notifications. On 28 May, the US trade envoy Ambassador Joseph Barloon is scheduled to deliver his opening remarks at an event hosted by the US rice lobby on the margins of the CoA meeting. The event, titled "Private Sector Insights on Global Rice Market Stability", seeks to address "how trade policies and market dynamics influence global rice supply chains from private sector perspectives, aiming to foster dialogue on improving predictability and resilience in rice trade." Although several representatives from Cote d'Ivoire, USA Rice, India, Paraguayan Chamber of Rice Industries and Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan are expected to offer their insights into the global rice trade, the seemingly hidden motive is to "name and shame" India for its rice policies, as well as its exports of rice, said people familiar with the event. According to an 80-page document (G/AG/W/261) containing a compilation of questions for the CoA meeting, reviewed by the SUNS, the US posed several questions to members and also faced several questions from them. For instance, Canada (AG-IMS ID 115046) sought to know from the US regarding Washington's Farmer Bridge Assistance Program - worth USD 12 billion in payments ending on 17 April - and requested a commodity- specific breakdown of the USD 12 billion in payments. India (AG-IMS ID 115228) also asked the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to clarify the opening of enrollment in the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program (the "FBA Program"). Under this program, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is to make available USD 11 billion in one-time bridge payments to producers of specified row crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, on a per- acre basis. India requested the US to provide the following information: a. the total budgetary outlay under the FBA Program for the relevant year, disaggregated by commodity; b. the methodology applied by USDA to derive the per-acre payment rates announced for each eligible commodity; c. how the US intends to notify the FBA Program in its DS:1 notification? On the issue of the EU's deforestation regulation (EUDR) raised by the US, New Zealand, and Canada (AG-IMS ID 115018), New Zealand specifically posed the following questions to the EU: a. Can the European Union explain the rationale for proposing amendments that reduce compliance burdens on EU producers while maintaining significantly higher compliance obligations for exporters from third countries? b. How does the European Union intend to address the disproportionate impact on trading partners who have raised longstanding concerns about the regulation's trade-restrictive approach? c. Will the European Union consider further adjustments, including through the review, to ensure that the regulation does not create unnecessary barriers for sustainably managed forestry and agricultural products from low- or negligible-risk countries such as New Zealand? On the US current and bound AMS (Aggregate Measurement of Support) levels (SIM 1025), Canada sought to know about the implementation of the US One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Effective reference price levels for the 2026 marketing year have reached close to USD 10.71/bushel (bu) for soybeans, USD 6.35/bu for wheat, and USD 4.42/bu for corn. Canada alleged that the higher effective reference prices are expected to trigger more frequent and substantial subsidy payments to US producers of these commodities. Given this substantial increase in projected outlays, Canada asked the US to elaborate on the measures it has taken, or will take, to ensure that these new reference prices do not result in the US's current total aggregate measurement of support (CTAMS) levels for 2026 exceeding USD 19.1 billion - i.e., its annual domestic support limit - as well as a preliminary calculation of the Aggregate Measurement of Support for the 2025 and 2026 marketing years. The EU also posed the same question to the US. On the US Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) (SIM 1011), estimated to cost USD 16 billion, Canada said that as this program provides liquidity for losses dating back to 2023, could the US explain how: a. such retroactive, high-coverage payments do not provide an ongoing financial incentive that distorts US agriculture production and global market prices? b. The continued shift in spending from the Green Box back to the Amber Box fits within Members' shared objective of continuing the reform of global agriculture trade, including by reducing levels of production- and trade-distorting support? Regarding the US's Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs (SIM 415), India noted that, under the rule published on 12 January 2026, the US amended the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage-County (ARC-CO) programs to implement changes made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including revising the effective reference price calculation and allocating up to 30 million additional base acres. India pressed the US to clarify whether these 2026 changes affect the manner in which PLC and ARC-CO are notified in its DS:1 notification, and whether the US continues to consider that such support remains appropriately notified as non-product-specific support. On the US Green Box outlays, according to India, the US's domestic support notification indicates a marked decline in Green Box outlays, from USD 216,215.30 million in 2021 to USD 178,194.80 million in 2023, alongside a significant increase in AMS, from USD 3,842.26 million in 2021 to USD 9,082.23 million in 2023. In light of these developments, India asked the US to provide: a. the reasons underlying these changes, including whether any specific domestic support measures were reclassified during this period; and b. whether the observed decline in Green Box support and increase in AMS reflect any broader policy shift. In a similar vein, the EU posed questions on product-specific AMS (aggregate measurement of support indicating the most trade-distorting Amber Box support), while India asked the US about its non-product-specific AMS. On the US export competition measures, the EU and Canada asked about the shifting of the implementation of international food aid to different bureaus within the Department of State and the USDA. The two countries pointed out that in early 2026, the USDA announced that international assistance programs, including Food for Peace, must now procure 100% US-origin commodities. The EU and Canada sought to know how the US ensures that monetized food aid (where donated commodities are sold in recipient markets) does not displace local production or commercial imports, in accordance with Article 10.4 of the AoA (Agreement on Agriculture). QUESTIONS TO CHINA The US quizzed China on its explanation in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.22/Add.2 that "SINOSURE does not disaggregate agricultural product coverage" concerning its export financing measures. Washington pressed Beijing to provide HS-level or product-level breakdowns of insured agricultural exports, and if China does not have this information, it must explain what it is doing to collect it. The EU and the US have asked China how it ensures that its food aid is in line with the applicable provisions of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Further, the US also asked China whether it provided emergency food aid on an in-kind basis to several countries in 2023 and nearly 30 countries in 2024, while not providing any data on quantities or values as required in the questionnaire. On China's state-trading enterprises (STEs), the US said that China maintains that "State-trading enterprises enjoy exclusive rights in the exportation of rice, corn, tobacco and cotton." The US asked China to provide information on export prices and/or export values for rice, corn, cotton, and tobacco exported by its STEs. QUESTIONS TO INDIA Canada and the US raised questions about specific implementation matters (SIMs) regarding India's wheat export and stockholding policies (SIM 744). Canada specifically asked about India's exports of wheat and requested elaboration on the main elements and considerations of the decision-making process that resulted in the decision announced on 13 February 2026. Citing media reports, the US pressed India on the increase in the wheat export quota and asked whether New Delhi has only notified a temporary export control measure by amending the export policy of wheat from "free" to "prohibited" - not a wheat export quota. The US asked: When will India provide a new or updated export restriction notification to reflect the end date of India's export ban on the listed HS codes for wheat and sugar? When will India lift its export restrictions on wheat? On India's price support scheme, the US asked India to clarify measures taken by its federal states such as Andhra Pradesh and Bengal. Regarding India's rice stocks and support (SIM 525), the US said that in January, February, and March of 2026, approximately 11-14% of all rice released from public stocks by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in each month was for use in ethanol production. Given that India's public stocks far exceed its own targets, the US asked India to explain how New Delhi can claim that its price support for rice should be exempt from WTO limits on grounds of food security, and how that can be reconciled with current realities. On the issue of India's public stockpiling (SIM 525), the US alleged that India provided a non-response by repeating the previous answer and offering no new information. The US also quizzed India about its export restrictions, among other issues. As previously reported, India once again notified the Committee on Agriculture that "it has exceeded the de minimis limit" for rice for the marketing year 2024-2025 pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. The notification comes ahead of the Committee's scheduled meeting on 27 May. Significantly, the notification (G/AG/N/IND/40) submitted by India on 24 April suggests that India appears to have included several new items - such as cotton, groundnuts, pulses, rapeseed oil, yellow soybean, and sunflower - in addition to rice and wheat, under the Bali decision. Amid attempts by the US, Australia, Paraguay, and Ukraine to "name and shame" India over New Delhi's alleged breaches of its de minimis commitments, a major American rice lobby is hosting an event on the margins of the CoA meeting. That event is expected to highlight the alleged threat posed by India in the international rice market through its provision of billions of dollars in subsidies in recent years, said analysts who asked not to be identified. Strangely, the repeated efforts by the US and even Australia "to embarrass" India come at a time when bilateral free trade agreement negotiations between Washington and New Delhi are in the final stages. According to several media reports, India is likely to agree to sweeping commitments to reduce both tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to seemingly appease subsidy-driven US farmers, said analysts. +
|
||
