Chinese Taipei’s special safeguard, new Canadian rules for cheese and Indian sugar subsidies were among recent measures discussed in the (regular) Agriculture Committee on 18 March 2008.

The committee’s regular meetings deal with implementing the results of the previous negotiations, and not the current talks. However, the negotiations entered the discussion briefly when some members linked what they described as the “dysfunctional” use of the current Special Safeguard (SSG) with some proposed methods for triggering the new “special safeguard mechanism” (SSM) for developing countries.
This meeting was the shortest on record for this committee. At one hour and a quarter, it was around 40 minutes shorter than the previous record set in September 2007. One reason for the efficiency is the use of written questions and answers posted on a website that members can access.
Chinese Taipei’s special safeguards

Here, the questions and answers had broader implications for the system as a whole, they were not just about how a particular government is using the measure.

In written questions, Australia said Chinese Taipei’s notifications on the safeguard (listed below) show how “dysfunctional” it can be. For example, the formulas for triggering the safeguard’s tariff increase (spelt out in Art.5 of the Agriculture Agreement) combined with a recent history of zero imports for one type of fruit allow the “volume trigger” to be zero. The fruit are shaddocks, a member of the same citrus family as grapefruits.

Since the trigger level is zero, “any imports … no matter how minor, activate the trigger”, Australia said. Other examples show the safeguard being triggered when the cause has been declining domestic demand and not surges in imports, it went on.

Australia — supported by Thailand, Argentina, New Zealand, Paraguay and Costa Rica — questioned whether raising protection through additional import duties in these cases is “plausible” in these cases. It argued that the examples show that the proposed new Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries should be designed carefully in the current negotiations in order to avoid “perverse outcomes”.

Chinese Taipei said its approach fully conforms with the Agriculture Agreement. There were no imports of shaddocks for three years because of food safety and plant health reasons, Chinese Taipei said, not because of trade measures. Chinese Taipei argued that the new Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developing countries is a separate issue. Cuba agreed and said it should not be discussed in these regular committee meetings.

In agriculture, the Special Safeguard — SSG — allows countries to raise tariffs temporarily to protect their producers against import surges or price falls. Unlike the regular GATT safeguard, this one can be triggered automatically because it does not require proof of injury. Only products whose non-tariff barriers were converted to tariffs are eligible.