Least Developed Countries

Revision to draft fisheries subsidies text presented by Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules at November 2 informal open-ended meeting

In late June, the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules presented to the negotiating group a draft consolidated text in a room document, that was not made publicly available. RD/TN/RL/126. In two posts in June, I reviewed developments and the elements of the draft consolidated text based on its publication by Washington Trade Daily on June 26. See June 29, 2020, Update on fisheries subsidies draft consolidated text from June 25, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/06/29/update-on-fisheries-subsidies-draft-consolidated-text-from-june-25/; June 27, 2020, Chair of Rules Negotiating Group releases draft consolidated fisheries subsidies text at informal meeting on June 25, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/06/27/chair-of-rules-negotiating-group-releases-draft-consolidated-fisheries-subsidies-text-at-informal-meeting-on-june-25/

The latest round of informal open-ended meetings of the Negotiating Group on Rules (Fisheries Subsidies) occurred this week on November 2-4. On the first day, November 2, the Chair of the Negotiating Group speaking to heads of delegation, presented a revised draft consolidated text. RD/TN/RL/126/Rev. 1. This document has similarly not been released to the public, but was posted in the November 3, 2020 issue of Washington Trade Daily. Reference in this post to the contents of either version of the draft text or the presentation of text itself is based on my review of the documents as printed in the Washington Trade Daily issues noted.

The WTO Secretariat released a press release on November 2 entitled “Fisheries subsidies negotiations chair introduces revised draft consolidated text”. Within the body of the press release was a link to “Excerpts from the peaking notes of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules, Ambassador Santiago Wills”. Both documents are embedded below.

WTO-_-2020-News-items-Fisheries-subsidies-negotiations-chair-introduces-revised-draft-consolidated-text

WTO-_-Excerpts-from-the-speaking-notes-of-the-Chair-of-the-Negotiating-Group-on-Rules-Ambassador-Santiago-Wills

The June draft consolidated text contained ten articles. The first revision released on November 2nd contained eleven (adding Article 11, Final Provisions” and modifying the title of Article 8 to delete “and/or surveillance” leaving “Notification and transparency”).

The articles in the revised draft consolidated text are:

  1. Scope;
  2. Definitions;
  3. Prohibition on subsidies to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (“IUU fishing”);
  4. Prohibition on subsidies concerning overfished stocks;
  5. Prohibition on subsidies concerning overcapacity and overfishing;
  6. Specific provisions for LDC members;
  7. Technical assistance and capacity building;
  8. Notification and transparency;
  9. Institutional arrangements;
  10. Dispute settlement;
  11. Final provisions.

The negotiations have always been limited to marine wild capture fishing and don’t cover aquaculture or inland waters. Article 1 is consistent with the intended reach of any agreement. There has been no change to the text of Article 1. Footnote 1 has been modified from “For greater certainty, this excludes aquaculture and inland fisheries” to read “For greater certainty, aquaculture and inland fisheries are excluded from the scope of this [Instrument].”

Article 2, definitions, has been expanded from just three — “fishing”, “fishing related activities” and “vessel” to five in the revised draft by adding a definition for “fish” [“means all species of living marine resources, whether processed or not”] and for “operator” [“means the owner of the vessel, or any person on board, who is in charge of or directs or controls the vessel”]. “Operator” had previously been defined as part of footnote 2 to Art. 3.1

Prohibiting subsidies on IUU fishing is a critical part of the UN sustainable development goal 14.6. Article 3 lays out the prohibition and how the actions of a fishing vessel are determined to be “illegal, unreported or unregulated”. Various Members (coastal, flag State, port State, subsidizing) or regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements (Art. 3.2) can make such findings where the result is “based on positive evidence and follows due process” (Art. 3.3(b)). Most provisions in Article 3 remain unchanged. However, Art. 3.3 is broken into parts in the revised draft. Revised Art. 3.4 deletes the second sentence from the June draft (“The subsidizing Member may refrain from implementing the prohibition under paragraph 3.1 in case of a minor infraction.”), Articles 3.5 and 3.6 from the June draft are Articles 3.6 ad 3.5 in the revised draft. Article 3.3 from the June draft is reproduced below followed by the revised draft:

Art. 3.3 from RD/TN/RL/126 (June 25, 2020)

“3.3 A determination[6] under paragraph 3.2 refers to the final finding by a Member that a vessel [or operator] engaged in IUU fishing, or the final listing of a vessel [or operator] by an RFMO/A as a vessel [or operator] engaged in IUU fishing. [Determinations under subparagraphs 3.2[(a), 3.2(c), and 3.2(e)] shall be based on positive evidence; follow fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory procedures,] including prompt notification to the flag State [or subsidizing Member], if known, through appropriate channels, of the initiation of investigation, [and an opportunity to the flag State or subsidizing Member to provide information to be taken into account in the determination]; [and be in accordance with relevant international law.]”

Art. 3.3 from RD/TN/RL/126/Rev. 1 (November 2, 2020)

“3.3 (a) A determination[6] under paragraph 3.2 refers to the final finding by a Member and/or the final listing by an RFMO/A that a vessel [or operator] has engaged in IUU fishing.
“(b) [The prohibition under paragraph 3.1 shall apply where the determination under subparagraphs 3.2[(a), 3.2(c), and 3.2(e)] is based on positive evidence and follows due process, [in accordance with relevant international law]].
“(c) [If the flag State [or subsidizing Member] is known, a Member shall promptly notify the flag State [or subsidizing Member] of the initiation of an IUU investigation [, and provide an opportunity to the flag State [or subsidizing Member] to provide information to be taken into account in the
determination.]]”

Footnotes to Article 3 are basically unchanged in the revised draft text.

Articles 4 and 5 address the other core objective of UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, prohibiting subsidies on overfished stocks, overcapacity and overfishing. Both articles contain exceptions or special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries (LDCs). Depending on whether advanced developing countries waive such provisions, there will be problems for some Members (including the U.S.) in having such exceptions or S&D provisions included in the text. Specifically, LDCs are exempted from the prohibitions of Art. 5.1 “for fishing or fishing related activities” (revised Art. 5.7(a)) and developing countries “for fishing or fishing related activities at sea within their territorial sea” (revised Art. 5.7(b)). The draft consolidated text attempts to cover some developing and LDC countries despite the above two exceptions where certain criteria are met (revised Art. 5.7(c)). It is assumed that Korea, Singapore and Brazil consistent with their prior statements that they would forego special and differential treatment in future agreements would not be eligible for the exceptions or S&D contained in the draft agreement if the final agreement contains such provisions.

There are no changes for Article 4 between the June draft and the revised draft released on November 2. For Article 5, Article 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of the June draft text are now in 5.1.1 and 5.2. Other than renumbering (e.g., old Art. 5.2 is revised Art. 5.3, etc.), the rest of Article 5 is substantively unchanged. The June Art. 5.1.1.-5.1.3 and the November revised 5.1.1 and 5.2 are copied below.

Art. 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3 from RD/TN/RL/126 (June 25, 2020)

“5.1.1 A subsidy contributes to overcapacity or overfishing if it reduces capital costs or operating costs of fishing or fishing related activities at sea regarding a stock that is being fished at a rate of fishing or with a measure of fishing capacity that is greater than would allow the stock to be maintained at a sustainable level.[11]

“5.1.2 For the purposes of this Article:
“(a) capital costs include costs of construction, acquisition, modernization, renovation or upgrading of vessels, purchase of machines and equipment for fishing vessels (including fishing gear and engine, fish-processing machinery, fish-finding technology, refrigerators, or machine for sorting or
cleaning fish); and
“(b) operating costs include costs of fuel, ice, bait, personnel, social charges, insurance, and gear; subsidies that reduce operating costs include, inter alia, income support of vessels or operators or the workers they employ, payments based on the price of fish caught, subsidies for at-sea support, and subsidies to cover operating losses of vessels or fishing or fishing related activities.

“5.1.3 Notwithstanding paragraph 5.1, a Member may grant or maintain the subsidies set out in paragraph 5.1 if the subsidizing Member can demonstrate that it has other policies in place that [effectively ensure] the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries are maintained at a sustainable level.”

Art. 5.1.1 and 5.2 from RD/TN/RL/126/Rev. 1 (November 2, 2020)

“5.1.1 For the purpose of paragraph 5.1, subsidies that contribute to overcapacity or overfishing [include]:
“(a) subsidies to construction, acquisition, modernisation, renovation or upgrading of vessels;
“(b) subsidies to the purchase of machines and equipment for vessels (including fishing gear and engine, fish-processing machinery, fish-finding technology, refrigerators, or machinery for sorting or cleaning fish);
“(c) subsidies to the purchase/costs of fuel, ice, or bait;
“(d) subsidies to costs of personnel, social charges, or insurance;
“(e) income support of vessels or operators or the workers they employ;
“(f) price support of fish caught;
“(g) subsidies to at-sea support; and
“(h) subsidies covering operating losses of vessels or fishing or fishing related activities.

“5.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 5.1, a Member may grant or maintain subsidies referred to in paragraph 5.1 if it demonstrates that measures are implemented to maintain the stock or stocks in the relevant fishery or fisheries at a biologically sustainable level.[11]”

Article 6 has two subparts, one giving LDCs a transition period once a country is no longer an LDC and the other having Members “exercise due restraint in raising matters involving an LDC Member”. There are no changes in the revised draft from the June draft.

Article 7 calls on developed country Members and such developing country Members who indicate being in a position to do so to “provide targeted technical assistance and capacity building assistance” to developing countries and LDCs. There are no changes to the revised draft from the June original draft text.

As noted in my June posts, Articles 8-10 had not been fleshed out in the June draft consolidated text. The November 2 revised draft consolidated text has elements of each of these Articles as well as some material on the new Article 11, Final Provisions. The text is copied below.

“ARTICLE 8: NOTIFICATION AND TRANSPARENCY

“8.1 In order to strengthen and enhance notifications of fisheries subsidies, and to enable more effective surveillance of the implementation of fisheries subsidies commitments, each Member shall [, to the extent possible,] provide the following information as part of its regular notification of fisheries subsidies under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement[15]:
“(a) [PLACEHOLDER – LIST OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO BE NOTIFIED]

“8.2 Each Member shall notify [the relevant SCM body/the Committee established under paragraph 9.1] in writing on an annual basis of:
“(a) any list of vessels and operators that it has determined as having been engaged in IUU fishing; and
“(b) where applicable, a list of its fisheries access agreements in force with another government or governmental authority, and such notification shall consist of the titles of the agreements and a list of their parties.

“8.3 A Member may request additional information from the notifying Member regarding the notifications and information provided under paragraphs 1 and 2. The notifying Member shall respond to that request as quickly as possible in writing and in a comprehensive manner. If a Member considers that a notification or information under paragraphs 1 and 2 has not been provided, the Member may bring the matter to the attention of such other Member or to the [Committee].

“ARTICLE 9: [INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS]

“[9.1 There is hereby established a [COMMITTEE NAME] composed of representatives from each of the Members. The Committee shall elect its own Chair and shall meet not less than twice a year and otherwise as envisaged by relevant provisions of this [Instrument] at the request of any Member. The Committee shall carry out responsibilities as assigned to it under this [Instrument] or by the Members and it shall afford Members the opportunity of consulting on any matter relating to the operation of this [Instrument] or the furtherance of its objectives. The WTO Secretariat shall act as the secretariat to the Committee.]*

“9.2 Each Member shall, within one year of the date of entry into force of this [Instrument], inform the [Committee] of measures in existence or taken to ensure the implementation and administration of this [Instrument], including the steps taken to implement prohibitions set out in Articles [3, 4 and 5]. Each Member shall also inform the [Committee] of any changes to such measures thereafter. The [Committee] shall review annually the implementation and operation of this [Instrument], taking into account the objectives thereof.

“9.3 Each Member shall, within one year of the date of entry into force of this [Instrument], provide to the [Committee] a description of its fisheries regime with references to its laws, regulations and administrative procedures relevant to this [Instrument], and promptly inform the [Committee] of any modifications thereafter. A Member may meet this obligation by providing to the [Committee] an up-to-date [URL][electronic link] to the Member’s or other appropriate official web page that sets out this information.

“[9.4 The Committee shall examine [frequency] all information provided pursuant to Articles 3 and 8 and this Article.]

“9.5 The [Committee] shall maintain close contact with the relevant international organizations in the field of fisheries management, especially with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and relevant RFMO/As.

“9.6 Not later than [X] after the date of entry into force of this [Instrument] and periodically thereafter, the [Committee] shall review the operation of this [Instrument] with a view to making all necessary modifications to improve the operation of this [Instrument], taking into account the objectives thereof.

“ARTICLE 10: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

“[The provisions of Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994 as elaborated and applied by the Dispute Settlement Understanding, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures shall apply to consultations, the settlement of disputes, and remedies under this [Instrument], except as otherwise specifically provided herein.]

“ARTICLE 11: FINAL PROVISIONS

“11.1 Except as provided in Articles [3 and 4], nothing in this [Instrument] shall prevent a Member from granting a subsidy for [natural] disaster relief, provided that the subsidy is:
“(a) limited to the relief of a particular [natural] disaster;
“(b) limited to the affected geographic area;
“(c) time-limited; and
“(d) in the case of reconstruction subsidies, limited to restoring the affected area, the affected fishery, and/or the affected fleet up to [a sustainable level of fishing and/or fishing capacity as established through a scientific-based assessment of the status of the fishery and in no case beyond] its pre-disaster level.

“11.2 (a) This [Instrument], including any findings, recommendations, and awards with respect to this [Instrument], shall have no legal implications regarding territoriality or delimitation of maritime jurisdiction.
“(b) A panel established pursuant to [Article 10 of this Instrument] shall not entertain any claim that would require it to address any issues of territoriality or delimitation of maritime jurisdiction that is contested by a party or a third party.”

Conclusion

It is obviously useful to have progress being made on a draft text, even if it is simply a draft from the Chair of the Negotiating Group. The Chair’s comments at the start of the meeting which are presented above show that the WTO Members remain far from an agreed deal. There remain some important “placeholders” in the draft text as well. In the end, it will be up to Members to decide if they can get past their differences and achieve an agreement that is meaningful in fact and will help the world move towards sustainable development in the handling of the global fish supplies.

Update on fisheries subsidies draft consolidated text from June 25

In my last post, I reviewed the fact that a draft consolidated text on fisheries subsidies had been pulled together by the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules (fisheries subsidies) and distributed to members at a meeting on June 25. See Chair of Rules Negotiating Group releases draft consolidated fisheries subsidies text at informal meeting on June 25, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2020/06/27/chair-of-rules-negotiating-group-releases-draft-consolidated-fisheries-subsidies-text-at-informal-meeting-on-june-25/

While the document (RD/TN/RL/126) was released as a “room document” and hence not publicly available, a copy of the draft consolidated text was published on June 26 by Washington Trade Daily (pages 2-7 of its June 26th edition). As the Washington Trade Daily article reviews, the Chair has made specific (as is often done on these types of texts but particularly on this draft), nothing is viewed as agreed to regardless of whether text is bracketed or not.

The draft consolidated text has ten articles, although the last three are placeholder titles only awaiting further work. The articles are:

  1. Scope;
  2. Definitions;
  3. Prohibition on subsidies to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (“IUU fishing”);
  4. Prohibition on subsidies concerning overfished stocks;
  5. Prohibition on subsidies concerning overcapacity and overfishing;
  6. Specific provisions for LDC members;
  7. Technical assistance and capacity building;
  8. Notification, transparency and/or surveillance;
  9. Institutional arrangements;
  10. Dispute settlement.

The negotiations have always been limited to marine wild capture fishing and don’t cover aquaculture. Article 1 is consistent with the intended reach of any agreement.

Article 2, definitions, has just three — “fishing”, “fishing related activities” and “vessel”.

Prohibiting subsidies on IUU fishing is a critical part of the UN sustainable development goal 14.6. Article 3 lays out the prohibition and how the actions of a fishing vessel are determined to be “illegal, unreported or unregulated”. Various Members (coastal, flag State, port State, subsidizing) or regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements (Art. 3.2) can make such findings “based on positive evidence; follow fair, transparent , and non-discriminatory procedures” (Art. 3.3).

Articles 4 and 5 address the other core objective of UN Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, prohibiting subsidies on overfished stocks, overcapacity and overfishing. Both articles contain exceptions or special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries (LDCs). Depending on whether advanced developing countries waive such provisions, there will be problems for some Members (including the U.S.) in having such exceptions or S&D provisions included in the text. Specifically, LDCs are exempted from the prohibitions of Art. 5.1 “for fishing or fishing related activities at sea” (Art. 5.6(a)) and developing countries “for fishing or fishing related activities at sea within their territorial sea” (Art. 5.6(b)). The draft consolidated text attempts to cover some developing and LDC countries despite the above two exceptions where certain criteria are met (Art. 5.6(c)). It is assumed that Korea, Singapore and Brazil consistent with their prior statements that they would forego special and differential treatment in future agreements would not be eligible for the exceptions or S&D contained in the draft agreement if the final agreement contains such provisions.

There may also be concerns for some Members with what is and isn’t included within the terms capital costs (Art. 5.1.2.(a)) and operating costs (Art. 5.1.2.(b)) as some may feel the terms cover too much while others may view the terms as permitting significant subsidization to continue.

Art. 5.2 lays out some limitations on subsidies for fishing and fishing related activities beyond a Member’s jurisdiction and will also likely be the subject of close scrutiny as being either too limited or too broad depending on Member views.

Article 6 has two subparts, one giving LDCs a transition period once a country is no longer an LDC and the other having Members “exercise due restraint in raising matters involving an LDC Member”.

Article 7 calls on developed country Members and such developing country Members who indicate being in a position to do so to “provide targeted technical assistance and capacity building assistance” to developing countries and LDCs.

As noted, Articles 8-10 have not been fleshed out in the draft consolidated text.

The next meeting on fisheries subsidies is the July 21st open-ended informal meeting of the negotiating group. The efforts of the Chair and his facilitators to explore options on various key issues and to develop this draft consolidated text are a welcome step in trying to get the fisheries negotiations back on track and over the finish line consistent with Ministers’ decision from the 11th Ministerial Conference and the deadline within the UN Sustainable Development Goals. If an agreement is to be reached before the end of the year, there is an urgent need for Members to step forward and find agreed text. Let’s hope for progress next month.

Update on food security amidst COVID-19 pandemic

On May 1, I reviewed the challenges being faced in the United States and Canada because of the large number of meat and poultry processing plants that had large numbers of workers who had tested positive for COVID-19 with facilities closing temporarily as a result. In the United States, President Trump issued an Executive Order to require the meat processing plants to remain open, but it is unclear whether steps taken by the plants will provide adequate protection to the workers to get sufficient workers back in the plants or to restore prior production levels. Indeed, the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka has indicated many changes in meat processing plants are needed to protect workers including increased supplies of personal protective gear, daily testing and more. See https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/coronavirus-meat-plant-workers-afl-cio-richard-trumka-1

Shortages of meat and poultry products start to appear in the United States

The concern about short-term shortages of meat and poultry products in the United States is starting to play out as news reports indicate that several hundred Wendy’s fast food facilities ran out of hamburger on May 5 and several retail operators have limited what customers can buy of meat and poultry products — Costco and Kroger, with more grocery chains and some other fast food operators noting concerns about availability as well. See May 5, 2020, New York Times, A Wendy’s With No Burgers as Meat Production Is Hit, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/business/coronavirus-meat-shortages.html.

As noted in the earlier post, there are adequate upstream supplies (cattle, pigs, chickens) in the United States and Canada but a short-term reduction in processing capacity, with the result of large numbers of animals being killed without being processed. There are, however, also reportedly large supplies of frozen meat products available. Id.

The European Union has a temporary surplus of beef and some other products

At the same time, the European Union has experienced shifts in demand as restaurants have been closed in many countries as governments have sought to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Similar shifts in demand have occurred in the United States and many other countries. Shifts in demand (including declines in demand for some products) in the EU have resulted in excess supplies of many agricultural products, including beef, sheep and goat meat products. The EU’s response has been in part to permit temporary waiver from EU competition law to permit certain agricultural producers to coordinate production and to stockpile some excess product. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_788.

Coronavirus__Commission_adopts_package_of_measures_to_further_support_the_agri-food_sector-1

To the extent that there are short-term shortages in the United States, Canada or other countries because of the COVID-19 infections at processing plants, governments could work with trading partners facing surpluses to reduce retail price volatility. This is undoubtedly complicated for some suppliers (e.g., Australia to the U.S.) because of higher costs of air cargo shipments with the huge reduction in commercial flights. The issue will also be politically sensitive because of the challenges facing U.S. ranchers and farmers already.

Efforts by some WTO Members to reduce food security concerns

There are eighteen countries or territories that have active or inactive export restraints on some food products. Twelve of these are active and affect 9.9% of the global trade in agricultural goods subject to export restraints. See, IFPRI’s Food Export Restrictions Tracker, https://public.tableau.com/profile/laborde6680#!/vizhome/ExportRestrictionsTracker/FoodExportRestrictionsTracker?publish=yes.

Because the COVID-19 pandemic is a health crisis, and there is no current significant global shortage of agricultural products in fact, many WTO members are working together to keep agricultural markets open to prevent concerns about food security.

For example, on April 22, 2020, Canada submitted a statement on its own behalf and that of 22 other WTO members (including the EU and the US) which contained the following “commitments”:

“1.6. To help ensure well-functioning global agriculture and agri-food supply chains in response to this crisis we therefore are committed:

“a. To ensure that supply chains remain open and connected so that international markets can continue to function in supporting the movement of agricultural products and agriculture inputs, which plays an instrumental role in avoiding food shortages and ensuring global food security.

“b. To exercise restraint in establishing domestic food stocks of agricultural products that are traditionally exported so as to avoid disruptions or distortions in international trade.

“c. Not to impose agriculture export restrictions and refrain from implementing unjustified trade barriers on agriculture and agri-food products and key agricultural production inputs.

“d. That emergency measures related to agriculture and agri-food products designed to tackle COVID-19 must be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary, and not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption to global supply chains for agriculture and agri-food products. Any such measures are to be consistent with WTO rules.

“e. To inform the WTO as soon as practicable of any trade related COVID-19 measures affecting agriculture and agri-food products, including providing scientific evidence in accordance with WTO agreements if necessary, to ensure transparency and predictability. Members should be given opportunities to review new measures.

“f. To ensure that updated and accurate information on levels of food production, consumption and stocks, as well as on food prices is widely available, including through existing international mechanisms.

“g. To support the efforts of the WTO and other international organizations in analysing the impacts of COVID-19 on global agriculture and agri-food trade and production.

“h. To engage in a dialogue to improve our preparedness and responsiveness to regional or international pandemics, including multilateral coordination to limit unjustified agriculture export restrictions, in particular at the WTO.”

RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WITH OPEN AND PREDICTABLE TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTS,
STATEMENT FROM: AUSTRALIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; COSTA RICA; EUROPEAN UNION; HONG KONG, CHINA; JAPAN; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; MALAWI; MEXICO; NEW ZEALAND; PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; AND URUGUAY, WT/GC/208, G/AG/30 (22 April 2020)(Emphasis added).

208-1

On May 5, 2020, Switzerland submitted a statement from 42 WTO members pledging not to impose export restraints and to refrain from unjustified trade barriers on agricultural trade.

“1.5. We also stress the necessity of maintaining agriculture supply chains and preserving Members’ food security. We, therefore, pledge to not impose export restrictions and to refrain from implementing unjustified trade barriers on agricultural and food products in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

STATEMENT ON COVID-19 AND THE MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM BY MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WTO FROM AFGHANISTAN; AUSTRALIA; BARBADOS; BENIN; CAMBODIA; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; COSTA RICA; ECUADOR; EL SALVADOR; GUATEMALA; GUYANA; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; ISRAEL; JAMAICA; JAPAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; THE STATE OF KUWAIT; LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MONTENEGRO; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NIGERIA; NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PERU; SAINT LUCIA; KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA; SINGAPORE; SOLOMON ISLANDS; SWITZERLAND; UKRAINE; UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; UNITED KINGDOM AND URUGUAY, WT/GC/212 (5 May 2020).

Brazil, the EU, Malawi, Paraguay, Qatar, Taiwan and the United States were part of the April 22 statement but not the May 5 statement. The two together cover 75 WTO members (counting the 27 members of the EU).

Missing from either of these statements are important WTO Members who are also important agricultural producers — Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and Vietnam. Some of these Members have export restraints on some agricultural products in place now (e.g., Russia and Vietnam) and others imposed such restraints back in 2007-2008 (e.g., China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia).

There has also been a joint statement from the LDC countries urging the importance of keeping markets open both for medical supplies and food products. See SECURING LDCS EMERGENCY ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL MEDICAL AND FOOD PRODUCTS TO COMBAT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
COMMUNICATION BY CHAD ON BEHALF OF THE LDC GROUP, WT/GC/211 (4 May 2011) . There are currently 36 LDCs who are members of the WTO. Seven of the 36 were part of the April 22 or May 5 statements (Malawi on the April 22 statement; Afghanistan, Benin, Cambodia, Madagascar, Nepal, and the Solomon Islands on the May 5 statement). Adding the 29 LDCs not already counted in the April 22 and May 5 statements, brings the total number of WTO Members advocating for maintaining open markets for agricultural trade to 104.

211

There have also been statements provided by the ASEAN countries and by APEC on COVID-19 supplied to the WTO, although any commitments on trade in agricultural goods are limited. ASEAN DECLARATION AND STATEMENTS ON COVID-19, WT/GC/210 (1 May 2020); Statement on COVID-19 by APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (05 May 2020), https://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Sectoral-Ministerial-Meetings/Trade/2020_trade

210

Statement-on-COVID-19-by-APEC-Ministers-Responsible-for-Trade

Conclusion

The world is better prepared to deal with a future wave of export restraints on agricultural products than it was in 2007-2008 with an improved understanding of production and supplies around the world and with notification systems and with groups tracking government actions. Fortunately, 2020 does not present a situation of acute food shortages of core products although lockdowns, stay at home orders and the collapse of air travel and reduction in ship traffic creates potential challenges for both production and distribution of food articles.

While there have been a number of countries who have imposed export restraints and others that are imposing some barriers (including increased tariffs), a major group of countries and territories involved in international trade in agriculture has committed either not to impose export restraints or to do so only under limited circumstances and only temporarily.

The temporary shortage of meat and poultry products occurring in the United States will receive a fair amount of press attention. With frozen meat supplies reportedly plentiful in the U.S. and with efforts to get temporarily closed processing plants back on line (dependent on ability of processors to improve protection for workers), hopefully concerns about U.S. and Canadian meat supplies will dissipate in the coming weeks.

It is also the case that other major meat producing countries may have significant surpluses which could alleviate shortage issues if they continue for a period of time, if policy makers are willing to work together to address the short-term needs.

So hopefully COVID-19 does not also become a food security crisis in 2020.