Agri group scores ‘fear mongering’ on alleged WTO sanctions on PH
MANILA, Philippines—The agriculture-industry alliance Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (Sinag) has scored former agriculture department officials and self-styled trade experts for sowing fear of possible retaliatory trade sanctions should the Philippines continue to impose quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice.
Sinag researchers said the Philippines has 22 previous and existing dispute settlement cases at the World Trade Organization (WTO) but no sanctions were ever imposed against the country even if it was found in alleged violation of certain WTO commitments.
“It is clear that ‘fear mongering’ only serves the interest of smugglers who continue to insist on permit-less importations,” the group stressed in a statement.
“If we follow the assumptions of so-called trade experts, there would have been global trade chaos given the number of cases filed by WTO-member complainants against each other. More than the Philippines, trade sanctions and penalties should have long been imposed on the US and EU since both of them – including our major trading partners – have hundreds of dispute cases between them,” SINAG Chairperson Rosendo So said.
The agriculture alliance issued the statement amid desperate attempts by smugglers – through trade liberalization advocates – to sow fears of imaginary sanctions should the Philippine government maintain quantitative restrictions on rice imports.
“But imposing sanctions is not how the WTO operates. Under WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the first option is for disputing countries to settle their concerns among themselves. The operative process is therefore consultations between the governments concerned, and even when the case has progressed to other stages, consultations and mediation remain the principal option,” So stressed.
Citing the case filed by the US against the Philippines on April 1, 1997 (WTO-DS 74) for allegedly violating several provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture, Agreement on Import Licensing and Trade Related Investment Measures, So said the US and Philippines opted for a mutually agreed solution to the dispute.
“Trade sanctions are never imposed at the first instance. Under WTO rules, the losing defendant should instead bring its domestic policy in line with the ruling, So stressed.
Sinag has long asserted that rice QRs remain in effect since no WTO member country opposed the country’s “Request for a Waiver relating to Special Treatment for Rice” during the last three WTO General Council Meetings dated 25 March 2013, 11 July 2013 and 18 October 2013.
“WTO observer groups contacted by SINAG in Geneva, Switzerland are surprised over national discussions of possible WTO sanctions. For them, it is not anymore a question whether there can be a continuation of the special treatment on rice for the country (paragraph 8 of Annex 5 of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture); but rather the conditions under which this would take place (paragraph 9 of the same Annex),” asserts Jayson Cainglet, SINAG Executive Director.
Citing Peter Lunenborg of the Geneva-based inter-governmental body South Centre, Cainglet said it is highly unlikely for any country to file a case on Philippine QRs because: 1) Most WTO Members interested in supplying Philippines with rice have agreed on country-specific quotas, and the EU supports the Philippines’ special treatment for rice at least until 2017; 2) the costs involved in starting a dispute settlement and; 3) the fact that the country has only asked for special treatment until 2017 so there will be limited benefits if an opponent wins the case.
“Even assuming that a WTO member-country sues the Philippines and our QRs are to be found in violation of WTO rules, we only need to lift the quantitative restrictions on rice. However, the accreditation of importers and regulation of import permits remain,” Cainglet stressed.
“Regulation of import permits and importer accreditation are being done across all agricultural commodities and by all WTO member countries for food safety and public health security concerns,” he added.
He explained that QRs are only on the volume of imports allowed; import permits are part of government’s regulatory functions to ensure that only accredited importers that passed the stringent sanitary and phytosanitary requirements are allowed to bring agricultural commodities that are safe, non-toxic, properly labeled and correctly packaged.
According to Sinag, more than lost revenues for government, rice and agricultural commodity smuggling highlight the shameful massive loss of livelihoods of millions of Filipino farmers and the institutional failure of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) in exercising its safety and quarantine functions. “With or without QRs, the BOC must now strictly enforce the ‘Quarantine First’ policy before customs and revenue collection,” the group stressed.
RELATED STORY
PH faces WTO sanctions for rice importation policy
