Global Sugar Alliance members are active participants in processes to improve the world sugar trading environment. Members works closely together to ensure the fair and equal treatment of sugar in the WTO negotiations on agriculture.
Published: 28/11/1999 Source: Seattle, USA Abstract: Domestic sugar policies in the United States, European Union and Japan and elsewhere are imposing an enormous cost impost on the world?s efficient sugar producers and users alike.
Domestic sugar policies in the United States, European Union and Japan and elsewhere are imposing an enormous cost impost on the world’s efficient sugar producers and users alike. The sugar policy regimes in each of these countries have changed little in response to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and must be the initial focus of reform. For example, since the Uruguay Round was completed:
Japan, while reducing domestic tariffs to meet their commitments, have increased non-tariff barriers (including levies and surcharges) to maintain domestic price supports
The EU has rolled forward domestic subsidy credits established in years of high world prices for payment to producers in low price years
The US administers its TRQ market access obligations in a manner which enables systematic quota shortfalls to go unchecked.
Sugar producers of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Nicaragua, Panama and Thailand call for real liberalisation of sugar trade within the rule-based WTO system.
The GATT and the WTO have been instrumental in enhancing world trade and through this means, raising living standards worldwide. This has created more jobs and higher incomes in many countries. The introduction of a rules-based trading system has been a source of certainty for trade in many goods and services. In the agriculture sector trading arrangements for some commodities has improved markedly as a result of the Uruguay round agreement. For others such as sugar the disciplines imposed were disappointing.
Sugar policies escaped significant changes in the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. This reflected the ability for individual member countries to aggregate their commitments for reform of agricultural policy, across the sector at large.
The benefits of global reform of agricultural trade policies, including those for sugar, will not be achieved if countries are able to ignore their own commitments.
Major economies must more readily acknowledge the global benefits of agricultural trade reform and, conversely, the harm protection causes, especially to developing countries. For much of the developing world, agriculture is the key potential driver for growth and employment. But high levels of protection in industrialised economies reduces the viability of agriculture in developing countries, limits access for their exports and detracts from global food security. Special and differential treatment for developing countries should be an integral part of the negotiations in order to fully take into account the development and food security concerns of developing countries.
Commitment to opening markets
Following our discussions in Seattle this week, and in pursuit of the sustainable growth and development of our industry worldwide, we will continue an international campaign to demand as an outcome from the round of negotiations an agriculture agreement which includes meaningful reform of sugar trade policies.
The objective for the future is a world in which the trade in sugar flows freely. To achieve this outcome we seek a commitment from the WTO Ministers to:
Substantially increase market access by dismantling tariff and non-tariff barriers
Introduce rules governing tariff-rate quota administration to ensure that real access is provided for all quota import volumes
Eliminate all export subsidies
Eliminate all trade distorting domestic support
Achieve an agreement which applies negotiated disciplines on a commodity-by-commodity basis to eliminate trade-distorting domestic support
Improve special and differential treatment for developing countries
Consider multifunctionality issues, including environment, separately from trade issues.
The negotiations provide a chance to move the sugar industry off traditional forms of support and to expose it to market disciplines. There are no compelling reasons why sugar policies should not be subject to rigorous trade disciplines. We believe that securing market-oriented sugar policies globally will provide greater market certainty by linking production decisions to market signals and encourage increased innovation, productivity and efficiency in the world sweetener industry.
It is important that these policy objectives are not thwarted by the “multifunctional” non-trade policy objectives of some countries. The protectionist non-trade agenda threatens trade reform and imposes high costs on efficient agricultural producers in developing countries. Where policies are required to pursue non-trade objectives such as environmental amenity, they should be targeted, transparent and direct non-trade distorting measures.
We urge all WTO Ministers to commit to securing the benefits that will flow from free and open trade for all agricultural commodities, including sugar, on a sector-by-sector specific basis.
