OECD: AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND MARKETS GROUP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 PARIS 000348 SIPDIS FROM USOECD STATE FOR EUR/ERA USDA FOR FAS/DHANKE/ACOFFING/JLAGOS STATE PASS USTR FOR ASTEPHENS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV OECD SUBJECT: OECD: AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND MARKETS GROUP SUCCEEDS IN CLEARING STUDIES FOR PUBLICATION ¶1. SUMMARY: The 39th Session of the Working Group on Agricultural Policies and Markets (APM) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) met at OECD Headquarters in Paris 3-4 November ¶2005. The meeting proceeded smoothly even though it had a large work agenda. The Secretariat exhibited increasingly less patience as delegations continued to request more time to review documents. Nevertheless, all of the papers proposed for declassification either were declassified immediately or are expected to be through written procedure. Such approvals included the "Decoupling-Policy Implications" paper, which received only minor edits from most delegations. The "Policy- Related Transactions Costs and Policy Choice" report was subject to a lot of debate from Norway, Japan, and Korea, sparking contention with the Secretariat, which wanted immediate declassification. The Secretariat's attitude worsened during the discussion over the biofuels paper, and subsequently became abrasive when Poland asked for more review time, with the Secretariat later lashing out at New Zealand's constructive comments on the private standards paper. Members gave other documents, such as "Changes in Retailing Buying Behavior," "Policies that Affect Land Mobility," "The Role of Compensation in Policy Reform," and "Evaluating the Degree of Jointness" the most negative reviews, with many delegates questioning the overall methodologies, case studies, and other elements of these papers. The remaining studies received reactions ranging from general enthusiasm to little to no interest. The meeting ended on an upswing with a positive reaction to the roll-out in Brasilia of the report on Brazil's agricultural policies. END SUMMARY. ¶2. Both the draft agenda for the current session (AGR/CA/APM/A[2005]2) and the draft summary record of the previous APM meeting (AGR/CA/APM/M[2005]1) were approved. -------------- Agricultural Policy Reform -------------- ¶3. Decoupling-Policy Implications (For Declassification) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]22): The Secretariat noted changes made from the previous (Spring 2003) draft of this paper, explaining that it had modified the background and methodology as well as some of the conclusions for Asia. Generally, most of the delegates, who responded with technical comments, including the United States, France, the EC, and Denmark, were quite pleased with the progress of the paper and supported its declassification on the assumption that the Secretariat would incorporate each delegate's edits. Japan, however, had significant concerns with paragraphs 38 and 39 that were not resolved after a brief exchange with the Secretariat. Japan agreed to have a bilateral with the Secretariat so that a decision could be made on declassification by November 4. The document was declassified on this date. ¶4. Policy-Related Transaction Costs and Policy Choice: Main Report (For Declassification) (AGR/CA/APM[2003]REV2): This report got a lukewarm reception, with many delegations expressing their disapproval of the draft for not having incorporated many of their previous suggestions. Japan had the most considerable complaints. Its main concern was that it did not want dead-weight losses to be added to transfer losses, and asked for these categories to be analyzed separately. Norway and Korea also were not ready for declassification, although only Norway offered to provide written comments. However, these three delegations did not garner much support from other participants, such as Canada, the EC, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Spain, and Germany, who each thought that the methodology was sound and pushed for declassification. The United States had no comments. Because of the pressure from other delegations, Japan noted that it wanted its recommendations incorporated since it was unclear what the Secretariat intended to do with the work in the future. Japan's statement prompted the EC and Switzerland to chime in that they wanted more transparency from the Secretariat so that delegates have a better idea of future plans for the paper. In the end, the Secretariat stated that it aimed to work with delegates to address their concerns; however, it had no more resources/funding to continue the project, which already had been delayed many times since some countries provided scant information to the author. Japan, Norway, and Korea agreed to forward their written comments to the Secretariat by the end of November. The final product would be placed on the Agriculture Directorate's restricted website (Delegates Corner),with declassification by written procedure planned for early December. ¶5. Adjustment Options and Strategies in the Context of Agricultural Policy Reform and Trade Liberalization (For Declassification) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]18/REV1): The Secretariat grew increasingly frustrated during the SIPDIS discussion of this paper when two Members requested additional time for review. France's comments were mainly editorial, though others were more empirical, such as a request for further elaboration of the Australian pork industry. Japan had written comments that it offered to give to the Secretariat. Canada expressed the most dissatisfaction with the project, noting that the Irish example was a poor one, because Ireland had never truly revamped its agricultural policy, and that the methodology used in analyzing Canada's agriculture in paragraph 21 was incorrect. The United States agreed with Canada and said that some of the paragraphs should be sharpened, but did not oppose declassification. The Secretariat was very surprised by Canada's response since it was the only delegation that had a serious problem with the document; Canada and Japan said they would have bilaterals with the Secretariat to resolve the issues. All delegations agreed to declassify the paper contingent on the incorporation of Japan's and Canada's comments. The final product will be placed on Delegates Corner, with declassification by written procedure planned for early December. ¶6. OECD Agricultural Policies 2006: At a Glance (For Information and Guidance) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]23): For the most part, the delegations received this paper very well. France noted it would like the creation of a box to compare the data of different developing countries. Switzerland also had a very positive reaction and was pleased with the second revision. The EC favorably reviewed the report and noted that France had a good point about adding a box since it would help the reader better visualize different developing nations. Although the Secretariat at first questioned the value- added of the box, it finally agreed to incorporate it. ¶7. Improving Indicators of Support for Agricultural Policy Evaluation (For Information and Guidance) (AGR/CA/APM/RD[2005]3): The Secretariat began the discussion by mentioning that it plans to have a second meeting of experts on this issue in 2006. The outcome will be discussed at the May 2006 APM, where it will be determined if it is possible to start collecting data from OECD members for a new Producer Support Estimate (PSE) analysis. During the October 2006 meeting, Members will decide whether to use the collected information for reports prepared in 2007. The Secretariat apologized for the late arrival of the SIPDIS paper, explaining that many expert comments did not arrive until the last day of the deadline and expressing regret that many experts did not respond. It further stated that a clear explanation will be available to delegates on PSE changes and the formula will be provided, so that OECD members can test the PSE and provide feedback. -------------- Clarifying Global Market Impacts -------------- ¶8. Agricultural Market Impacts of Future Growth in the Production of Biofuels (For Declassification and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]24): Most countries supported this study, with only slight reservations coming from Germany and the United States, which noted that Members had only agreed at the April APM meeting to having a scoping paper prepared. The Nordic countries were generally quite pleased with the document. Conversely, Netherlands wanted to know the Secretariat's intentions for projects based on this SIPDIS analysis before it would agree to declassification. Canada and France offered similar sentiments. Japan asked for annexes that would provide figures and data. The EC ended the round by remarking that the data on Poland contradicted other Polish studies. Immediately, Poland responded by saying it was not informed of the inconsistency and wanted to talk with its experts at home before it could agree to declassification. The Secretariat welcomed almost all of the comments, but SIPDIS consequently lashed out at Poland, saying that that it wanted the paper to be declassified and was "tired of playing cat and mouse games" with all the delegations. Poland remained firm and continued to ask for more time to review the document. At one point, Canada requested that the Polish piece be pulled out of the study in order to advance the issue. In the end, Poland agreed to send written comments to the Secretariat within 7-10 days. The paper, with tracked changes, would be posted on Delegates Corner for declassification under the written procedure by late November. -------------- Analyzing Developments in the Food Economy -------------- ¶9. Changes in Retail Buying Behavior and the Impacts on Structure and Returns on Agriculture (For Discussion and Guidance and Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]25): Most delegations gave lukewarm support to the study and thought it had the potential to add value to existing scholarship, although many found limitations in its scope. For example, Slovakia questioned the fundamental methodology since it focused on only a few nations. Canada similarly thought that the study was too narrow and complicated. France agreed and critiqued some of the case studies. The United States offered a few technical comments to clarify distribution channels available to farmers and asked for a more geographic discussion of markets. The Secretariat concurred and promised to incorporate all SIPDIS the delegates' comments. ¶10. Private Standards and Developing Country Access to Global Supply Chains (For Discussion) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]26; AGR/CA/APM[2005]27; AGR/CA/APM[2005]28): Many delegations warmly supported this work and encouraged further studies on the subject. However, there were solid critiques from Mexico, France, and New Zealand. Mexico stated that the study should not only focus on the benefits of meeting private standards, but also show the difficulties, poking briefly at the UK for having asked Mexico to have emergency exits in its avocado fields. France agreed in principle that the paper needs to improve its approach and also recommended it distinguish between public and private standards. Likewise, New Zealand asserted that the work should focus on factors that are important for developing countries, and also made some solid points on the applicability of the questionnaire used in the study, which asked general questions and did not seem to delve into specific issues. The Secretariat responded, in what some considered an unduly harsh manner, that: 1) Mexico needs to be more specific; 2) it had addressed the differences between public and private standards; and 3) the questionnaire is sound and does not need to be narrowed. ¶11. Analysis of Price Transmission along the Food Chain (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]29): The Secretariat said that it would keep this document unclassified as a working paper, meaning it will be available publicly. The methods suggests in the paper would be used to complete other studies, such as one to be completed in May 2006 on retail buying behavior, which will focus on the policy implications of price transmission based on a number of case studies. Most delegations thought the work had merit and only criticized the highly technical language it used, asking for a glossary and explanations in the "common tongue." Members also wanted to know what an unclassified "working paper" meant. The United States had a few comments on the methodology, which the Secretariat explained in detail. -------------- Linking Policy Goals and Instruments -------------- ¶12. The Six-Commodity PEM model: Preliminary Results (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]30): An experts' meeting on this paper is planned for Spring 2006. The Secretariat asked whether OECD Members would be able to provide more national data. The United States gave the Secretariat some written comments after the meeting. A few delegations, such as France and Canada, questioned the numbers used in the model, with only France, Canada, the EC, and the Czech Republic committing to send experts to the upcoming meeting. The Secretariat explained that many of the numbers used in the model are merely placeholders for those to be settled on during the experts' meeting. ¶13. Scoping Paper on Information Deficiencies and Agricultural Policies (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]31): Japan was the only country that explicitly praised the project. France and Australia also supported the work, although less enthusiastically, asking for clarification on a few grammatical and logistical issues. The United States and Canada were the only delegations that expressed reservations, saying that the project was low on the priority list, especially since the proposal did not do a good job in defining its objectives and prioritizing its components, which seemed to be overly focused on environmental issues. The Secretariat was hopeful that it would be able to work with the United States and Canada to make the study more attractive and plans to take a broader approach than just the environment. ¶14. Policy Design Characteristics for Effective Targeting: Preliminary Report (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]32): The Secretariat asked the delegations to provide their SIPDIS experiences with targeting policy and any advice that could help better the scholarship. Most countries showed interest in the work, requesting further clarification on many of the piece's theoretical points. For instance, the EC wanted the paper to use more empirical methodologies. Other delegations, such as France, New Zealand, Denmark, and Australia, had more questions on modeling techniques, definitions, expected conclusions, having a more geographical focus, and the necessity of defining targeting from income assistance. The United States questioned the lack of direction, since part of the piece had a more general theme while other sections were more specific. The Secretariat agreed to incorporate most of the SIPDIS suggestions. -------------- Overcoming Constraints to Reform -------------- ¶15. Policies that Affect Land Mobility and Land/Quota Values: Project Proposal (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]33): Most delegations had an initial negative reaction to the paper and wondered what its purpose was. However, many were helpful in giving direction to the Secretariat. The United States suggested doing a literature review to better focus the study and ensure it does not produce any inaccurate or misleading results. Delegations, including France, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, supported the U.S. proposal, stressing that the work's use of the PEM and GTAPEM models were not useful in understanding land mobility and quota values. The Secretariat agreed to come back with a literature review in the revision and, after, to seek further ideas from Members. ¶16. The Role of Compensation in Policy Reform: Project Proposal (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]34): At the onset, the Secretariat was particularly enthusiastic about the study and eager to hear comments from the delegations. The reaction from most members was generally more quizzical than negative in nature. For example, many delegates wanted more information, since there was neither discussion of methods of research nor a description of which case studies would be used. Canada and Australia did not particularly like the paper's definition of subsidy as a fundamental right and said the Secretariat should characterize subsidy as a privilege. Although the Secretariat agreed with most of the comments provided SIPDIS by other delegates, it strongly disagreed with Canada and Australia on terminology, though ultimately consented to redraft the paper with new language. -------------- Agriculture Sustainability -------------- ¶17. Evaluating the Degree of Jointness: Project Proposal (For Discussion and Guidance on Further Work) (AGR/CA/APM[2005]35): Most of the delegations supported the proposed work's going forward, but reaction generally was mixed. Several, including Norway, the Netherlands, France, Australia, Japan, Korea, and the EC, requested that the document have more empirical examples. Canada offered the most scathing criticism, questioning whether there was any value to the study. The United States and New Zealand took more moderate positions, with New Zealand requesting more rigorous analysis, and the United States asking for a scoping paper to be drafted. The Secretariat easily agreed to add more empirical analysis and will have a synthesis report by the May 2007 APM. Moreover, it plans to organize a workshop from November 13 to December 1, 2006 to review three papers that provide policy advice within the theme of jointness. ¶18. Other Business: The Secretariat gave an update on past and future OECD activities. The Global Forum (which took place in early December 2005) was to have participation from five ambassadors, five or six Agricultural Secretaries/Under-Secretaries, and five or six high level officials from nonmember economies. The study on Brazil's agricultural policies had been released in-country and received an enthusiastic reaction from the government and the local press. The workshop on policy coherence for agriculture and rural development policies in Slovakia went very well, and focused on agricultural and rural development policy. REID