외교부

아래 내용은 WTO 사무국에서 발간한 2014 WTO Annual Report중에서 농업협상 부분입니다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture
In 2013, the agriculture negotiations focused on issues proposed for agreement at the Bali Ministerial Conference. This followed a 2011 decision to concentrate on Doha Round topics where progress was most likely to be made. The subjects that would eventually be agreed in Bali in December came from groups of members. At the Conference, ministers issued four decisions and one declaration on agriculture. These were on subsidies used for rural development and poverty alleviation, public
stockholding for food security, how to avoid turning a particular type of quota into a trade barrier, export
subsidies in the broadest sense, and cotton.

Negotiators began the year discussing technical issues and sharing information on the proposal on public stockholding. Over the weeks and months the negotiations under Chair John Adank drew on the information as delegations’ differences in negotiating positions narrowed and the proposals evolved.

Towards the end of the year, Director-General Roberto Azevêdo held a series of consultations on the outstanding issues under each agricultural proposal, in parallel with talks on other topics for what would become the “Bali Package”. As a result, several difficult, sensitive points were settled. Draft agriculture
texts were circulated on 25 November, a week before the Bali Ministerial Conference began. In Bali, discussions mainly focused on public stockholding for food security. Intensive consultations finally produced an agreement on all agricultural issues under discussion.

Food security and subsidy limits
In late 2012, the G-33, a developing-country group of food importers seeking flexibility to support their farmers, had proposed that developing countries’ governments should be able to buy food for stockholding from poor farmers – and for food security – at supported prices, without being constrained by subsidy limits.

WTO members all agreed that food security is important, particularly in poorer countries. Those that had reservations about the proposal were concerned that without any disciplines the food that is stocked and later released under these programmes could depress prices and affect the farmers’ incomes and food security in other countries. Much of the negotiation was about the disciplines that would be applied
.
The year 2013 began with a series of technical meetings in the “Special Session” of the Agriculture Committee — where the negotiations take place — based on replies to a questionnaire circulated by the Chair. The aim was for members to understand the challenges some developing countries face in staying within their farm subsidy limits under the Agriculture Agreement (strictly speaking, these are ceilings on “trade-distorting domestic support”) when operating their public stockholding and food security programmes. It was also an opportunity to get to know how these programmes are constructed.

From the spring, the Chair moved on to explore and identify where members’ views might converge on the proposal. Compromise was achieved by agreeing on two steps: members would focus on a possible interim mechanism, leaving until later negotiations on a permanent solution.

Therefore, in Bali, ministers agreed to protect the programmes temporarily. Provided other conditions are also met, members have promised not to challenge breaches of domestic support commitments resulting from developing countries’ public stockholding programmes for food security. Any developing
country using this decision must supply relevant information and avoid distorting trade or causing adverse effects on other countries’ food security. The interim solution will remain in force until a permanent one is agreed. A work programme will aim to produce a permanent solution in four years.

Development and poverty reduction
The G-33 proposed clarifying the rules to ensure that government subsidies could be allowed without any limits when they are for land use, land reform, water management, rural livelihood security and other purposes related to development and reducing poverty. Originally initiated by the African Group
— some of whose members are in the G-33 — the proposal would add these programmes to the list of “general services” as examples of support policies that are considered to cause little or no trade distortion (“Green Box” domestic support) and allowed without limits. This proposal was uncontroversial.

Export subsidies and related policies
The third issue was about export subsidies and a range of measures with equivalent effects — international food aid, export credits, export credit guarantees and insurance programmes and
agricultural state trading enterprises (STEs). Together, they are described as “export competition” issues.

In the first half of the year, the WTO Secretariat circulated a background document on the subject, drawing on notifications by WTO members and information collected through a questionnaire. The Secretariat also circulated a document on export prohibitions and restrictions.

Subsequently, the G-20, a broad agricultural coalition of developing countries, circulated a proposal for ministers to agree in Bali. The proposal sought commitments to start cutting export subsidies as a first step towards the previously agreed objective of eliminating them eventually. It was also proposed to limit the maximum repayment term for export financing programmes. However, no consensus could be reached on the proposal in this form because some countries said they could only make legally
binding commitments on export subsidies (and related policies) as part of a complete Doha Round package. The compromise agreed in Bali was a strong political statement that governments
will ensure all forms of export subsidies are kept low and a commitment to enhance transparency and improve monitoring.

Tariff quota administration
WTO members continued to see the proposal on “tariff rate quota administration”, circulated by the G-20 in October 2012, as another that could realistically be agreed in Bali. Under tariff rate quotas (TRQs or simply “tariff quotas”), imports within an agreed quota are charged lower duties than those outside, where the duties can be high.

Some countries are concerned that the methods governments use to share these quotas among traders (“TRQ administration”) can become an additional trade barrier. Evidence of this, they say, is when parts or all of the quotas are not used (they are “under-filled”). On the other hand, importing countries often say the underfill is caused by supply and demand conditions in the market (for example, bad harvests in supplying countries or when cheaper local produce is available in the importing country).

The G-20 proposal described new steps for monitoring administration methods when tariff quotas are persistently under-filled. The Bali ministerial decision sets out a monitoring process within the Committee on Agriculture that combines consultations with the quick provision of information about under-filled quotas. The Bali decision says that if a quota is persistently under-filled – and information sharing and
consultations prove fruitless – the importing government would have to apply one of a prescribed set of methods for administering quotas aimed at removing impediments.

Cotton
In Bali, ministers agreed that twice a year, WTO members would discuss developments in cotton related to trade – particularly in market access, domestic support (subsidies) and export competition (subsidies and policies that are equivalent to subsidies). These dedicated discussions on cotton would take
place in the context of the agriculture negotiations, with the aim of increasing transparency and strengthening monitoring.

The decision resulted from substantial preparatory work involving several key delegations, conducted by the agricultural negotiations’ Chair who also presides over the Cotton Sub-Committee. It was based on a proposal presented by the co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton —Burkina Faso, Benin, Mali and Chad (the Cotton Four or C-4).