• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTO to Scrap Ag Export Subsidies

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    WTO to Scrap Ag Export Subsidies

    NEWS
    WTO to Scrap Ag Export Subsidies
    WTO Deal to Scrap Agricultural Export Subsidies Could Level Field for Some
    Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:27 PM CST
    HONG KONG (Dow Jones) -- A deal to scrap subsidies for agricultural exports could level the playing field for farmers who don't currently benefit from much government help, while raising the stakes for producers elsewhere who do.

    The World Trade Organization agreed at a meeting in Nairobi on Saturday to eliminate some $15 billion of subsidies on exported produce from milk to sugar and rice.

    Farmers from countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada, who get relatively limited help from their governments, cheered the move, which should make their produce more competitive in global markets.

    Yet those farmers who receive more generous subsidies--a costly practice often criticized for manipulating prices--could lose their edge. Some of the biggest beneficiaries have been both in developed and developing countries including Switzerland, India and Thailand.

    "The decision tackles the issue once and for all," said Director-General Roberto Azevêdo in a speech following the decision. "It removes the distortions that these subsidies cause in agriculture markets."

    The agreement requires developed countries to eliminate subsidies starting Jan. 1, with the exception of some dairy, pork and processed products. Developing countries have until the end of 2018.

    Export subsidies include any form of financial aid or support given by a government to a firm involved in exporting agricultural products. Opponents of subsidies say farmers in countries without them trade at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. The issue had been on the WTO's list of unfinished business: An agreement in 2005 to end all agricultural export subsidies by 2013 never came to fruition.

    Farmers in Australia and New Zealand are among the least subsidized in the world, according to a 2014 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, which measures domestic and export subsidies along with a number of tariffs. New Zealand farmer subsidies equate to just 1% of revenue, and those are 2.3% in Australia. That compares with 57% in Switzerland.

    "For decades, export subsidies have threatened the livelihoods of Australian farmers," said Andrew Robb, Australia's Minister for Trade and Investment. "[Subsidies'] abolition will permanently remove a long-standing source of distortion in global agricultural markets."

    However, analysts say the extent of the benefit is hard to quantify. Global export subsidies have fallen in recent years, so the financial impact could be limited. Rather, the fact that new subsidies won't be implemented is the clearest sign of progress, they say.

    "Much of this is simply a promise not to do something that most countries stopped some time ago," said Tobin Gorey, director of agri-strategy at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

    The news comes when India, the world's second largest sugar producer, is planning to release a mountain of the sweetener onto world markets. To reduce huge stockpiles amassed after five years of bumper crops, New Delhi has offered to give refiners a bonus for every ton of sugar they export. If they release the proposed 4 million tons of sugar onto the market, prices could fall by 15%, according to some traders.

    Sugar prices hit seven-year lows in August before recovering in recent months.

    Thailand, once the world's largest rice exporter, is another country that has supported its farmers with billions of dollars in subsidies. Thai farmers accumulated huge stocks of the grain after embarking on a plan to jack up rural incomes and boost spending by buying rice from farmers at up to double market prices. The program fell apart in early 2014 after incurring paper losses of some $15 billion. Much of the grain left unsold in government warehouses is now being sold in global markets.

    For Switzerland, the agreement requires an end to subsidies for processed agricultural products, such as chocolate exports, over a five-year period. However, in a statement released by the Swiss government after the WTO's decision, officials said they would consider alternatives to continue to support the sector.

    To be a sure, a number of other support measures remain in place to support local agriculture, including tariffs, quotas and domestic subsidies.

    "This package was not comprehensive, and leaves some important issues to be worked on further," Todd McClay, New Zealand's trade minister said.

    (BAS)

    #2
    BTW,

    CNCP Lawyers finally have released the Writ of Execution [Dec 16 was deregistered and this showed up yesterday] on my families farm land... found out in AB they were not legally allowed to put that Writ on my Home quarter in the first place [in case they go after you in the future]. Strange how lawyers miss the fine print...

    Comment


      #3
      You are you own best lawyer and now you can just ask Suri for advice. It's just as good. I think someone on here told you that a couple of months ago.

      Comment


        #4
        Now you can sue their arses off. No judge would look too kindly on that type of intimidation when their high priced lawyers knew or should have known the law. Go for the jugular.

        Comment


          #5
          Sumdumguy

          Maybe that's where Tom's lawyers seen the action in the first place.

          The railways lawyers making a mistake to exploit.

          Comment


            #6
            Most Canadian farmers receive lots of government help. Things like supply management, agri stability, and the big one: subsidied interest rates. Bank of Canada is going to steal from savers again in the new year to prop up the faltering Canadian economy. Too much debt means interest rates should rise, not fall, normally.

            Comment


              #7
              Yep it can be amazing how dumb they can act when time means money for them. It's a good thing not all lawyers are cut of this same cloth.

              Comment


                #8
                It is arse backwards, isn't it?

                Way too much household debt so reduce interest rates so they qualify for more loans - make any sense to anybody?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ajl

                  What subsidized interest rates?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I HAVE learned that a smart person stays as far away from judges as possible.

                    And courts are for city people... common law and common sense is for country folks... work hard... and die broke... cause we leave this world... if we are blessed... with the same things as we entered it... hopefully a loving, faithful; family that cares for each other...that would do for neighbours as they would have others do for them!

                    Merry Christmas... Have a wonderful 2016!

                    Keep your stick on the ice... say a prayer... from time to time... and shooting the puck is needed to score a goal! Grin!~!!!!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      only subsidy we get here in oz is a diesel fuel rebate. Currently diesel for ag use is $1.26 we claim some road tax on fuel as its not used on roads and its 34 cents a litre.

                      That's it.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        We certainly do not pay market rates of interest. It is asinine to think that with the super high debts out there that current rates are market rates. Central bank money printing moves wealth from savers to borrowers. Hence subsidized interest rates. Australian farmers benefit from this too.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          "NEWS
                          WTO Remains a Work in Progress
                          Victory on Export Subsidies Reflects Glacial Pace and Death of Doha Talks

                          Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor
                          Tue Dec 22, 2015 03:53 PM CST
                          OMAHA (DTN) -- While there was some praise about the actions taken in the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference announcements over the weekend in Nairobi, Kenya, the end result of the WTO talks is that the now-infamous Doha round talks have died after 14 years of fits and starts.


                          The U.S. and others wanted transportation and market subsidies to end immediately, but they ended up with a five-year phase-out in developing countries. (DTN photo by Elaine Shein)
                          To hang its hat on an item, trade officials touted that after 20 years of talks, the group was able to achieve an end to agricultural export subsidies sometime in the next two to six years. The WTO called the ag-export agreement, "the most significant outcome on agriculture" since the WTO came together in 1995.

                          For U.S. farmers, phasing out export subsidies by some competitors should be considered a significant win, said Dave Salmonsen, senior director for congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation. Elimination of export subsidies has been at the top of the agenda in the Doha talks for several years. The U.S. doesn't use export subsidies, nor does the European Union for the most part. Dealing with exports will allow WTO negotiators to finally move on to other agricultural issues such as levels of domestic support and market access, where little ground has been gained since 2008.

                          "It's very trade-distorting when a government buys a product at one level and then subsidizes it for export so it can be competitive," Salmonsen said. "That's really about the most trade-distorting thing you can do."

                          The language in the agreement lays out the ground rules for developing countries to end export subsidies by 2018, though there are caveats that could allow some developing countries to continue with such subsidies through 2022. The agreement also limits the terms of financing for export credit, for instance. The U.S. already falls in line with where the WTO countries agreed to land in that regard.

                          "What was agreed to there was in line with what we are trying to do in our farm bill in regards to payment terms -- 18 months for payments and in terms of fees," Salmonsen said.

                          The U.S. Wheat Associates praised the terms reached on export subsidies as well. "While authorized subsidies are rarely used anymore, agreeing to eliminate them is no small matter," the wheat association stated. "For example, while the European Union, collectively the world's largest wheat producer, no longer uses export subsidies it still has standby authority to do so. Other countries are using unauthorized export subsidies and should be challenged to prevent continued violations of current disciplines. Certainly, eliminating export subsidy authority at once for developed countries and by the end of 2018 for developing countries is a major step forward for world wheat trade."

                          The U.S. Trade Representative's Office spotlighted that the agreement means the eventual end of Canadian dairy export subsidies and subsidies for Indian sugar exports.

                          The talks and tone of the WTO's final Nairobi Ministerial Declaration recognized that there was no consensus to continue sticking with the Doha development agenda after 14 years of talks. Major global powers, including the U.S., "believe new approaches are necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes in multilateral negotiations."

                          U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman declared that global trade talks have now reached a turning point in the World Trade Organization's evolution. He also indicated that countries would not have to be shackled to the ground rules used under the Doha talks.

                          "In the midst of feverish work this week on the Nairobi Package, members engaged in honest and focused conversations on the limitations of the Doha Development Agenda framework. While opinions remain divided among the WTO membership, it is clear that the road to a new era for the WTO began in Nairobi."

                          Though competing export subsidies could go away, the U.S. Wheat Associates was among those who complained that the Nairobi talks ended up allowing processing and transportation subsidies for agricultural products to continue until the end of 2022. Some countries, notably India, help subsidize trucking to move products to market. It makes a product a lot easier to export if the government is going to cover the transportation costs. The U.S. and others wanted these transportation and market subsidies to end immediately, but they ended up with a five-year phase-out in developing countries. Under some circumstances, a country can continue paying such subsidies for as long as eight years.

                          House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, highlighted the long phase-out time of transportation and marketing subsidies in a statement expressing frustration over the glacial pace of reforms.

                          "We need to ensure that these kinds of export subsidies are no longer permitted to harm U.S. farmers and ranchers," Conaway said. "The agreement reached in Nairobi at least assigns a definitive date to ending these subsidies. But, the success of this aspect of the agreement will ultimately be measured by its rigorous and full enforcement."

                          Conaway also complained that the WTO did not do anything to recognize problems created in the global cotton trade because of domestic policies in China and India.

                          National Cotton Council Chairman Sledge Taylor noted there were further attempts in Nairobi to seek more concessions from the U.S. on cotton, but the U.S. resisted such attempts.

                          "While the overall outcome of the Ministerial is generally positive, there continues to be unwarranted pressure and focus on U.S. cotton policy by some WTO members," Taylor stated. Taylor added, "Over the past decade, U.S. cotton farmers have experienced a decline in their safety net, while the surge in Asian polyester production has reshaped global fiber markets."

                          Salmonsen pointed out there remain a lot of overlapping issues, though, as major agricultural exporters such Brazil and India continue receiving the designation as "developing" countries for agricultural despite being global export powers.

                          "For some U.N. definitions they may still be developing, but they are just as good of competitors for agricultural international trade markets as we are," Salmonsen said.

                          What's the real gain for U.S. farmers? "It's still a work in progress," Salmonsen said. "This is trying to end something that was sitting like a weight on WTO. This effort was really a push by the U.S. and others to take some of that weight off so they could be an effective negotiating body again related to these ag issues."

                          Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

                          Follow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

                          (ES/AG)

                          © Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            ajl,

                            money lent out in the currency of a nation... to citizens of that nation... should not be charged interest... as long as it is actually repaid to the treasury of that nation.

                            The currency within a nation is owned by the people of that nation...

                            income earned should come from producing actual goods/trade and commerce... not from being an agent of usery... which decreases money supply... and stifles the domestic economy.

                            Where does money supply come from... to pay interest? From new loans! And so on... and on...it goes... in a circle.

                            How else is it possible... that QE can work!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              An interesting chart on subsidies by country might challenge some perceptions.

                              http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-14/malcolm-turnbull-correct-on-farmers-subsidies/5252596

                              Subsidies shown as percentage of gross farm receipts. US around 7%, Canada around 14%, the EU around 19.5% by my interpretation.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...