Committee on Agriculture

public stockholding for food security purposes

Note from the Secretariat

As announced in the Chair's fax of 19 January 2015 convening a dedicated session on the issue of Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes, the Secretariat is sending to all delegations this compilation of the proposals and related documents that have been circulated to date in the context of the Special Session's discussions since the submission of the original G-33 proposal in November 2012. The aim is to assist delegations in refreshing their understanding of the proposals and of the work that has been done so far.

 

All replies received to the questionnaire on public stockholding for food security purposes and food aid programmes of 20 December 2012 that served as a basis for the technical process in the first quarter of 2013 are available on the Members' website under "Committee on Agriculture (Special Session)".

 

The following documents are contained in the current compilation:

 

G-33 Proposal on Some Elements of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 for Early Agreement to Address Food Security Issues	JOB/AG/22, 13 November 2012
Opening Remarks by Chair (containing the report on the technical process related to the G-33 proposal), Informal Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, 27 March 2013	JOB/AG/23, 28 March 2013
G-33 Non Paper	JOB/AG/25, 3 October 2013
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013	WT/MIN(13)/38-WT/L/913, 11 December 2013
G-33 Proposed Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes	JOB/AG/27, 17 July 2014
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, General Council Decision of 27 November 2014	WT/L/939, 28 November 2014

 

 

_______________

 

 

 

JOB/AG/22                                                                                                    13 November 2012

 

 

Committee on Agriculture

Special Session

 

g-33 Proposal on Some Elements of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 for Early

Agreement to Address Food Security Issues

1.                  Ministers had agreed at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001 that "special and differential treatment for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the schedules of concessions and commitments and as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development".^[1]

2.                  At the Eighth Ministerial Conference (MC8), Ministers expressed their readiness, "to advance negotiations, where progress can be achieved, including focusing on the elements of the Doha Declaration that allow Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking".

3.                  With a view to advance negotiations so as to achieve at least some outcomes in agriculture, which lies at the heart of the Doha Development Agenda, it is proposed to focus on one of the elements of the Doha Ministerial Declaration (DMD) which is of importance to developing countries, viz. food security.

4.                  Food security is defined by the World Food Summit at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as, "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life".^[2]

5.                  Significant progress has already achieved in the Doha Round negotiations which recognize the serious concerns of food security in developing countries. This has assumed the character of a global concern in the past few years with a need for urgent action. Accordingly, it is proposed that some of the elements in the Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture Text (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4) relating to food security are taken up for a decision in accordance with paragraph 47 of the DMD.

6.                  Accordingly, without prejudice to the overall conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations based on the single undertaking and noting that there are other elements in the Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture Text^[3] which can also partially address food security, it is proposed that a decision be taken to include the following elements of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as part of the Ministerial Declaration at the Ninth Ministerial Conference:

A.                  To amend Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as follows^[4]:

(i)         To add new subparagraph (h) to the existing paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture:

(h)        policies and services related to farmer settlement, land reform programmes, rural development and rural livelihood security in developing country Members, such as provision of infrastructural services, land rehabilitation, soil conservation and resource management, drought management and flood control, rural employment programmes, nutritional food security, issuance of property titles and settlement programmes, to promote rural development and poverty alleviation.

(ii)        To modify the existing footnote 5 of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture^[5] as follows:

                        For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Annex, governmental stockholding programmes for food security purposes in developing countries whose operation is transparent and conducted in accordance with officially published objective criteria or guidelines shall be considered to be in conformity with the provisions of this paragraph, including programmes under which stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes are acquired and released at administered prices, provided that the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price is accounted for in the AMS. However, acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members with the objective of supporting low-income or resource-poor producers shall not be required to be accounted for in the AMS.

 

(iii)        To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture^[6] as follows:

                        For the purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Annex, the acquisition of foodstuffs at subsidised prices when procured generally from low-income or resource-poor producers in developing countries with the objective of fighting hunger and rural poverty, as well as the provision of foodstuffs at subsidised prices with the objective of meeting food requirements of urban and rural poor in developing countries on a regular basis at reasonable prices shall be considered to be in conformity with the provisions of this paragraph. This is understood to mean, inter alia, that where such programmes referred to in this footnote and paragraph 4 above, including those in relation to lowering prices to more reasonable levels, involve also the arrangements referred to in footnote 5 to paragraph 3, there is no requirement for the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price to be accounted for in the AMS.

 

_______________

 

 

JOB/AG/23                                                                                                            28 March 2013

 

Committee on Agriculture

Special Session

 

 

INFORMAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

SPECIAL SESSION

27 March 2013

Opening Remarks by Chair

1  As mentioned in the invitation fax, the purpose of today's meeting is to update Members about recent consultations on the G-33 proposal introduced at our 16 November informal meeting (JOB/AG/22) and allow delegations an opportunity to exchange further views on this proposal or any other issues.

 

2  But before commencing our discussion of the G-33 proposal, a few brief comments, by way of update, of other issues under consideration in the committee under the market access and export competition pillars. First, regarding the G20 proposal for an understanding on TRQ Administration, the consultations I held have highlighted that Members continue to see this as a useful one to explore for possible decision in Bali, even though there are some sensitivities that members do not yet seem in a position to settle in relation to some aspects of the proposal. We shall need to return to the proposal in due course. Second, regarding the request for studies on the export competition pillar as well as on export restrictions, I am glad to inform you that the Secretariat has finalized its studies on export competition (TN/AG/S/27) and export restrictions (TN/AG/S/28). Both studies were circulated to the Members on 21 March 2013. Members who would still wish to send additional information or who have specific comments are invited to contact the Secretariat before 15 April. Changes, if required, will then be incorporated in a revised version of the documents.

 

·             Now, coming to today's main theme, that is, the G-33 proposal, I would like to give you a more detailed report on the work that has taken place in this area.

·             As you recall, on 15 February I launched the technical process related to the G-33 proposal. Subsequently, I asked Mr. Jonas Skei (Norway) to lead the process which he kindly accepted to do. Therefore, my today's report to you is based on the report I received from Jonas.

·             Based on the report by Jonas, my understanding is that the technical process was successful in delivering active participation of Members and for a constructive atmosphere in which these meetings took place. I would like to thank all delegations for their valuable contribution to this process.

·             To summarise the factual details. The technical process lasted for almost 4 weeks (20 February-15 March) during which 9 technical meetings took place. It was based on the replies received to the questionnaire on public stockholding for food security purposes and food aid programmes I sent out on 20 December 2012.

·             During this process, 28 Members replied the questionnaire, and 8 sets of written questions were circulated to the Members. Among those questions were generic ones addressed to all and specific ones addressed to individual Members. Specific questions were addressed to 15 Members. These were (in alphabetical order): Australia, Brazil, China, EU, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, and Saudi Arabia. Written replies were provided by the European Union, Israel, Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland. Six Members - Pakistan, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, and the Philippines made a presentation of their public stockholding and/or food aid policies.

·             In addition, several Members have informed the Secretariat that they are still in the process of preparing their replies to the questionnaire. Therefore, during the last technical meeting it was agreed that Members would continue submitting their replies -whether to the questionnaire or to the written questions addressed to them - as well as their questions concerning those replies to the Secretariat who would then circulate them to all Members.

·             In the last session on 15 March, while it was felt that some more technical work might be necessary, Members showed willingness to move on and start discussing the substance, meaning the proposal itself. In its statement the G-33 highlighted the need for "further technical guidance" from CoA SS should Members wish to continue with the technical process.

·             Now, some words on the proposal itself.

·             It was generally felt by the proponents that their policy space has been reduced by increasing market prices and therefore - higher administered prices. As result, the AMS limit is considered to be much more constraining now than it was when the Uruguay Round was concluded. However, the proponents find themselves in different situations regarding whether the risk of breaking their bindings is imminent or future.

·             Proponents consider that public stockholding for food security is the most suitable policy instrument at their disposal to address the food security issue given their current level of economic development. It is therefore felt that the current rules prevent them from adequately taking care of the food security of their populations. The main limitation is reported to stem from the AMS calculation methodology that in their views does not adequately reflect the economic value of subsidies.

·             The AMS constraint steps in for programmes under which public stocks are acquired at administered prices. Proponents consider that administered prices are necessary for following reasons:

1.       to guarantee that the government would be able to buy when competing with private sector;

2.       to stimulate production in order to guarantee adequate availability of food;

3.       to ensure adequate remuneration for some segments of farmers; and/or

4.       to shield farmers from effects of price volatility.

·             It is generally considered by the proponents that when helping farmers for the above-mentioned reasons, the final beneficiaries of these policies are the consumers. Hence this policy tool allows addressing two elements of the food security that are availability and access to food.

·             Therefore, proponents said they considered it essential to be able to use policies that contain at least some "Market Price Support characteristics" in order to achieve food security both for poor producers and consumers.

·             Based on the information provided and presentations made, several questions/concerns were raised by other Members during different meetings.

·             First, concerns were raised about the lack of in-built policy constraints and of adequate targeting of some programmes to limit the potential distortiveness of the measure. It was notably felt that in some cases procurement would be allowed to continue even when stocks were enough to achieve the stated policy objectives. In addition, in some cases the procurement does not benefit only low income and resource-poor farmers, but also larger producers.

·             Second, while in certain cases the procurement was constrained by factors such as lack of adequate quantity, lack of sufficient storage, or producers unwillingness to sell, it was questioned whether these de facto constraints could justify the lack of de jure constraints.

·             Third, it was also questioned whether the existing rules would allow to reach the current objectives by - among other - optimizing the use of AMS through better targeting. It was also inquired whether the objectives could not be reached by market forces and if not, what the factors were preventing market forces doing their job.

·             Members were also interested about the future plans for those policies and potential reforms. One of the main questions was whether policies were evolving in a direction where the policy space was only of a temporary concern. Another related issue was whether the current and/or future disciplines actually encourage this policy direction.

·             Finally, the last but not least question raised was about the systemic impact of loosening the AoA disciplines in general, and the Green Box disciplines in particular.

·             At the end of the process, Members did not close the door for further technical work while showing their willingness to take the process to the next level. The G-33 stated however that should Members wish to continue technical discussions, further guidance would be needed from CoA (SS).

·             Building on the knowledge acquired from the technical meetings, I held informal consultations over the last ten days with different groupings of Members to seek further feedback from delegations on the proposal itself. As this implied some matching of our new knowledge about the existing policies with different elements of the proposal, raising therefore both technical and political questions, I considered that these discussions would be most efficiently handled through an integrated (i.e. Ambassador plus 1) process.

·             My take from these consultations is that there is a willingness to engage on the proposal to explore where convergence may be found. I thank delegations for their constructive participation and encourage them to continue in this spirit. This will be necessary because we are not yet close to agreement - in fact the substantive discussion of the proposal is only beginning. My intention is therefore to continue with these consultations in different formats, seeking to identify areas where some convergence might be found and build incrementally out from there. Following this meeting I will also want to take account of the further comments made by members on the G33 proposal – and I would encourage members to me very clear with me as well as to each other on their various perspectives, objectives, concerns and questions.

·             While not excluding further technical work should Members wish to do so, I consider we have reached the stage where involvement at the ambassadorial level is essential. I will be in touch with delegations as necessary and as usual I am always available for any of you who wish to meet with me. I will report on our process so far to the Chair of the TNC in advance of the TNC meeting scheduled for 11 April, and I will convene another meeting of the Special Session before long to maintain transparency.

 

_______________

 

 

G‑33 NON PAPER^[7]

The following non‑paper, submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the G‑33 is being circulated for consideration by Members.

 

_______________

 

 

The G‑33 had submitted a proposal (Job/AG/22 dated 30 November, 2012) to deal with Food Security concerns of Developing Countries. The proposal envisages that a decision be taken to include certain elements of WTO document TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as part of the Ministerial Declaration at the Ninth Ministerial Conference. The proposal involves amendment to Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture on the basis of the following three elements:

 

i.        To add to new sub‑paragraph (h) to the existing Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture with a view to include certain policies and services designed to promote rural development and poverty alleviation adopted in developing countries in the Green Box.

ii.       To modify the existing footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture so as to provide that acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members with objective of supporting low‑income or resource‑poor producers shall not be required to be accounted for in the AMS.

iii.     To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture with a view to reinforce and supplement the proposed modification to footnote 5 and also strengthen the existing footnote 5 and 6 further so also as to cover the programmes designed to lowering prices to more reasonable levels.

The G‑33 reiterates its proposal contained in Job/AG/22 dated 30 November 2012 and requests that a decision be taken in the forthcoming Ministerial Conference, as suggested in this proposal.

 

However, the G‑33 notes that even after a decision is taken, as suggested in the G‑33 proposal, the prescribed procedure for amending the Agreement on Agriculture will have to be gone through. Experience shows that this process may take a long time. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the developing countries' need for Food Security is adequately responded to by the WTO, in the interregnum, i.e. till the Agreement on Agriculture is amended, as proposed by the G‑33.

 

In this connection, the G‑33 proposes that a supplementary decision to the decision proposed earlier by the G‑33 be taken in the forthcoming Ninth Ministerial Conference on the basis of the following options:

 

Option A: Understanding on "Governmental Stockholding Programmes for Food Security Purposes" as Defined in Footnote 5 of Paragraph 3 of Annex 2 ("Green Box") of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).

 

Option B: Decision Pursuant to Article 18.4

 

Option C: Peace Clause

 

It may be pointed out that the three options indicated above will not involve any amendment to the Agreement on Agriculture and can be implemented on the basis of a Ministerial decision. Therefore, these options will safeguard the Food Security needs of developing countries till the Agreement on Agriculture is amended as proposed by the G‑33.

 

The details of the three options are as follows:

 

OPTION A: UNDERSTANDING ON "GOVERNMENTAL STOCKHOLDING PROGRAMMES FOR FOOD SECURITY PURPOSES" AS DEFINED IN FOOTNOTE 5 OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ANNEX 2 ("GREEN BOX") OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE (AOA)

Members,

 

        Reaffirm the critical importance of "public stockholding programmes" in securing and ensuring food security in developing countries;

 

        Note the "public stockholding for food security purposes" under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA or the procurement and disposal at "market prices" remains a key policy objective and challenge for the majority of developing countries;

 

        Note further that any substantive deviation from the disciplines under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 in the conduct of public stockholding by a Member is to be accounted for in its Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS).

 

        Recall that footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA in the Uruguay Round was meant to provide special and differential treatment (S&DT) flexibility for developing country Members involving purchases and sales of stocks of foodstuffs at "administered prices" subject to additional disciplines. Specifically, footnote 5 provides that:

 

"For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Annex, governmental stockholding programmes for food security purposes in developing countries whose operation is transparent and conducted in accordance with officially published objective criteria or guidelines shall be considered to be in conformity with the provisions of this paragraph, including programmes under which stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes are acquired and released at administered prices, provided that the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price is accounted for in the AMS."

        Note that unlike in the market price support (AMS) calculation under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3 which is "the gap between a fixed external reference price and the applied administered price multiplied by the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied administered price", footnote 5 of Annex 2 refers to an undefined "external reference price" while the former specifically refer to the "fixed" external reference price which is the average1986‑88 price in the Uruguay Round or as defined in the accession agreement of a Member.

 

        Note further that there have been debates as to whether the S&DT flexibility under footnote 5 of Annex 2 follows the MPS calculation under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3. There is also ambiguity as to whether any substantive deviation from paragraph 3 of Annex 2 in the conduct of public stockholding constitutes MPS mechanism in the context of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3;

 

        Recognise that footnote 5 above cannot be interpreted or construed as a form of "reverse‑S&DT" or as an additional requirement for developing countries on top of the generally applicable disciplines on "public stockholding for food security purposes" in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA;

 

        Recognise further the need to address the above ambiguity and provide certainty in the implementation of the S&DT flexibility under footnote 5 so as not to compromise the food security concerns of developing countries,

 

Hereby agree that:

 

2.             For purposes of footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the AoA, the "external reference price" shall be understood to mean differently from or less prescriptive than the specified "fixed external reference price" in the calculation of AMS under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3.

3.             That the "external reference price" above shall be expressed or derived from either or of the following:

a.      "a three‑year average [FOB or CIF price^[8]] based on the preceding five‑year period, excluding the highest or the lowest entry" or "Olympic average" [the same formulation as under paragraph 7(a) of Annex 2]; or

b.     Last‑year's average producer/farm‑gate price in the 1‑3 largest suppliers of a foodstuff in the country.

 

_______________

 

 

OPTION B (DECISION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18.4 OF AOA)

Elements of the draft decision

Article 18.4 of the AoA requires WTO Members to give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments. However, what could constitute excessive rates of inflation has not been elaborated in the AoA. Further, the Agreement does not specify the outcome after Members have given due consideration to "the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments".

 

a.      Defining excessive rates of inflation

An annual increase of inflation at the rate of X % can be considered to be normal inflation. Any rate of inflation in excess of X % can be considered to be the threshold of excessive rates inflation.

 

b.     Who determines the rates of inflation

Rates of inflation as determined by the national authorities would be considered relevant for the Decision.

 

c.      Outcome of the due consideration

i.        For any year, using the actual rate of inflation an index would be determined, taking 1986‑88 as the base period. In parallel, for each year a comparator index for the normal level of inflation would be determined using X % as the rate of inflation on 1986‑88 as the base period.

ii.       A country would be considered to have faced excessive rate of inflation in a particular year, if the index based on the actual rate of inflation (with base year 1986‑88) exceeds the comparator index for the normal rate of inflation (with base year 1986‑88) for the particular year.

iii.     For a given year, the difference between the indices for the actual rate of inflation and the comparator normal rate of inflation would be calculated.

iv.     The country would have the flexibility to reduce the administered prices at which foodstuffs are acquired or released by a factor based to the difference between the indices for the actual rate of inflation and the comparator normal rate of inflation.

v.      The obligations under paragraphs 3 and 4 and footnotes 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture will apply to the reduced administered price.

Illustration

To give an example of how this would work, let us assume that the normal inflation is 4%.

 

Year (I)	Index for Comparator Normal rate of inflation using 4% rate (II)	Index for Actual level of inflation (III)	Difference between the Index for Actual rate of inflation and Comparator Index for Normal rate of inflation (III)‑(II) = (IV)	Actual Administered Price (V)	Reduced Administered Price after due consideration of excessive rates of inflation* (VI)
1986‑88	100	100	0
1989	104	104	0
1990	108	107	‑1
1991	112	112	0
1992	117	120	3
1993	122	125	3
1994	127	133	6
1995	132	145	13	3,800	3,363
1996	137	150	13	5,350	4,735
1997	142	160	18	5,100	4,322
1998	148	165	17	5,500	4,701
1999	154	176	22	5,800	4,754
2000	160	178	18	6,100	5,169
2001	167	201	34	6,200	4,627
2002	173	220	47	6,200	4,218
2003	180	231	51	6,300	4,172
2004	187	245	58	6,400	4,051
2005	195	255	60	7,000	4,375
2006	203	269	66	8,500	5,120
2007	211	288	77	10,000	5,650
2008	219	301	82	10,800	5,934
2009	228	318	90	11,000	5,789
2010	237	327	90	11,700	6,158
2011	246	340	94	12,850	6,624

*Reduced Administered Price = Actual Administered price X 100/ (100+(Index for Actual Inflation – Index for Comparator Normal Inflation))

 

To elaborate further, assume that in a particular year the actual index of inflation is 300 and the index for comparator normal inflation is 200, then the excess inflation is 100. This would imply that the administered price would be reduced by 50%.

 

Explanation

1.  This alternative seeks to define what would constitute excessive rates of inflation and how developing countries can reduce the administered price for acquisition and release of stocks of foodstuffs undertaken with the objective of meeting food requirements of urban and rural poor. It may be noted that the administered prices would be reduced not to the full extent of inflation, but only to the extent of inflation beyond the normal rate of inflation (which has been assumed in the illustration as 4% per year). The table below provides details of CPI as available on World Bank website. In this data CPI is determined using 2005 as the base period. This has been used to convert the data with 1986‑88 as the base period.

 

Year	China	India	Indonesia	Malaysia	Mexico	Philippines	Singapore	Sri Lanka	Thailand	USA	France
1986‑88	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
1989	135	112	115	105	216	118	104	124	109	109	106
1990	139	123	124	107	273	133	107	151	115	115	110
1991	144	140	136	112	335	158	111	169	122	120	114
1992	153	156	146	117	387	171	113	189	127	123	116
1993	176	166	160	122	425	183	116	211	131	127	119
1994	218	183	174	126	455	199	120	229	138	130	121
1995	255	202	190	130	614	212	122	246	146	134	123
1996	276	220	205	135	825	228	123	286	154	138	125
1997	284	235	218	139	995	241	126	313	163	141	127
1998	282	267	346	146	1,153	263	125	342	176	143	128
1999	278	279	416	150	1,345	278	125	358	176	146	128
2000	278	290	432	152	1,472	289	127	380	179	151	130
2001	280	301	482	154	1,566	305	128	434	182	156	133
2002	278	314	539	157	1,645	313	128	476	183	158	135
2003	282	326	574	159	1,719	320	129	506	187	162	138
2004	292	338	610	161	1,800	336	131	544	192	166	141
2005	298	353	674	166	1,872	358	131	607	201	172	143
2006	302	374	762	172	1,940	377	133	668	210	177	146
2007	317	398	811	175	2,017	388	135	774	215	182	148
2008	335	431	890	185	2,120	420	144	949	226	189	152
2009	333	478	933	186	2,232	438	145	982	224	188	152
2010	344	536	981	189	2,325	455	149	1043	232	192	155
2011	362	583	1034	195	2,404	476	157	1113	240	198	158
2012	372	638	1078	198	2,503	491	164	1189	248	202	161

 

OPTION C (PEACE CLAUSE)

Decision on Acquisition and Release of Foodstuffs by Developing Countries for Food Security Purposes

Ministers

 

Recognizing the state of the developing countries and the continued challenges being faced by them and the need to ensure their effective participation in the world trading system:

 

Recognizing that developing countries require flexibility for addressing the food security needs of their population in a manner that is consistent with their development priorities;

 

1.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (GATT 1994), the Agreement on Agriculture, in respect of acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members and its subsequent release at administered prices, undertaken with the objective of meeting food requirements of urban and rural poor in developing countries (the "measure"), decide the following:

 

a.      The measure shall be exempt from actions based on Article XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994; Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 4 and 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes; Part III of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures involving domestic market of the Member seeking the exemption.

b.     Such an exemption shall be valid for a period till a final mechanism is established to address the food security concern of the developing countries under Doha development agenda.

2.  Agree that the follow‑up to this Decision shall be monitored, as appropriate, by the Committee on Agriculture.

 

_______________

 

 

PUBLIC stockholding for food security purposes

MInisterial decision of 7 December 2013

        The Ministerial Conference,

 

Having regard to paragraph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization;

 

Decides as follows:

 

1.  Members agree to put in place an interim mechanism as set out below, and to negotiate on an agreement for a permanent solution^[9], for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes for adoption by the 11^th Ministerial Conference.

2.  In the interim, until a permanent solution is found, and provided that the conditions set out below are met, Members shall refrain from challenging through the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, compliance of a developing Member with its obligations under Articles 6.3 and 7.2 (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in relation to support provided for traditional staple food crops^[10] in pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food security purposes existing as of the date of this Decision, that are consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5&6 of Annex 2 to the AoA when the developing Member complies with the terms of this Decision.^[11]

NOTIFICATION AND TRANSPARENCY

3.  A developing Member benefiting from this Decision must:

a.      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;

b.     have fulfilled and continue to fulfil its domestic support notification requirements under the AoA in accordance with document G/AG/2 of 30 June 1995, as specified in the Annex;

c.      have provided, and continue to provide on an annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained in the Annex, for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes; and

d.     provide any additional relevant statistical information described in the Statistical Appendix to the Annex as soon as possible after it becomes available, as well as  any information updating or correcting any information earlier submitted.

ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION/SAFEGUARDS

4.  Any developing Member seeking coverage of programmes under paragraph 2 shall ensure that stocks procured under such programmes do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other Members.

5.  This Decision shall not be used in a manner that results in an increase of the support subject to the Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis limits provided under programmes other than those notified under paragraph 3.a.

CONSULTATIONS

6.  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.

MONITORING

7.  The Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the information submitted under this Decision.

WORK PROGRAMME

8.  Members agree to establish a work programme to be undertaken in the Committee on Agriculture to pursue this issue with the aim of making recommendations for a permanent solution. This work programme shall take into account Members’ existing and future submissions.

9.  In the context of the broader post-Bali agenda, Members commit to the work programme mentioned in the previous paragraph with the aim of concluding it no later than the 11^th Ministerial Conference.

10.  The General Council shall report to the 10^th Ministerial Conference for an evaluation of the operation of this Decision, particularly on the progress made on the work programme.

 

_______________

 
ANNEX

Template

 

[Developing Member's name]

 

General information

1.   Factual information confirming that DS:1 notifications and relevant supporting tables for the preceding 5 years are up-to-date (e.g. date and document details)

2.   Details of the programme sufficient to identify food security objective and scale of the programme, including:

a.   Name of the programme

b.   Traditional staple food crop(s) covered

c. Agency in charge of implementation

d.   Relevant laws and regulations

e.   Date of commencement of the programme

f.  Officially published objective criteria or guidelines

3.   Practical description of how the programme operates, including:

a.   Provisions relating to the purchase of stocks, including the way the administered acquisition price is determined

b.   Provisions related to volume and accumulation of stocks, including any provisions related to pre-determined targets and quantitative limits

c. Provisions related to the release of stocks, including the determination of the release price and targeting (eligibility to receive procured stocks)

4.   A description of any measures aimed at minimising production or trade distortive effects of the programme

5.   Statistical information (as per the Statistical Appendix below)

6.   Any other information considered relevant, including website references

 

Statistical Appendix (per crop) (data for the latest three years)

	Unit	[Year 1]	[Year 2]	[Year 3]
[Name of the crop]
a.    Opening balance of stocks
b.    Annual purchases under the programme (value)
c.    Annual purchases under the programme (quantity)
d.    Annual releases under the programme (value)
e.    Annual releases under the programme (quantity)
f.      Purchase prices
g.    Release prices
h.    End-year stocks
i.      Total production (quantity)
j.      Total production (value)
k.    Information on population benefiting from the release of this crop and quantities released:
-        Estimated number of beneficiaries at national level and, if possible, at sub-national level
-        Quantity released to the beneficiaries at the national level and, if possible, at the sub-national level
-        Other
l.      In the case of government aid to private storage, statistics on the support granted and any updated statistics
m. Total imports (value)
n.    Total imports (quantity)
o.    Total exports (value)
p.    Total exports (quantity)

 

 

_______________

 

 

G‑33 Proposed Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding
for Food Security Purposes^[12]

The following non‑paper, submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the G‑33 is being circulated for consideration by Members.

 

_______________

 

 

1.          We recall the Decision entitled "Public stockholding for Food Security Purposes" of the 9th Ministerial Conference (MC) at Bali in December 2013 as reflected in the document WT/MIN(13)/38, WT/L/913.

2.          Special attention is invited to paragraphs 8-10 of the above Decision. The same are reproduced below:

"8. Members agree to establish a work programme to be undertaken in the Committee on Agriculture to pursue this issue with the aim of making recommendations for a permanent solution. This work programme shall take into account Members' existing and future submissions.

9. In the context of the broader post-Bali agenda, Members commit to the work programme mentioned in the previous paragraph with the aim of concluding it no later than the 11th Ministerial Conference.

10. The General Council shall report to the 10th Ministerial Conference for an evaluation of the operation of this Decision, particularly on the progress made on the work programme."

3.          Members may recall that the G‑33 had submitted a proposal (JOB/AG/22 dated 30 November 2012) to deal with some specific concerns on food security in developing countries. The proposal involved amendments to Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture on the basis of the following three elements:

4.      To add new sub-paragraph (h) to the existing Paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture with a view to include certain policies and services designed to promote rural development and poverty alleviation adopted in developing countries.^[13]

5.      To modify the existing footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture so as to provide that acquisition of stocks of foodstuffs by developing country Members with objective of supporting low-income or resource-poor producers shall not be required to be accounted for in the AMS.

6.      To modify the existing footnote 5 and 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture with a view to reinforce and supplement the proposed modification to footnote 5 and also strengthen the existing footnote 5 and 6 further so as also to cover the programmes designed to lowering prices to more reasonable levels.

4.     Finally, the G‑33 reiterates its proposal under items (ii) and (iii) above of JOB/AG/22 dated 30 November 2012, and requests other Members to make submissions, if they so desire, to facilitate discussions on these issues. The Group also urges the Members to start early on the work programme with the aim of arriving at a "permanent solution" no later than the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference.

 

_______________

 

 

	WT/L/939
	28 November 2014
(14-6939)		Page: 1/2
General Council

---