Medidas propuestas para la tarea doblado de malla

Page 114, Paragraph 4.9

The EU has further restricted direct payments linked to production to suckler cows, sheep and goats, and cotton.

21. What is the EU's policy rationale for limiting these payments to these specific commodities? EU reply: As far as the suckler cow and sheep and goat premia are concerned, the reason is a need to maintain a minimum level of agricultural production in certain regions, in particular those where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. In relation to cotton, it was deemed necessary to provide support linked to the cultivation of cotton through a crop specific per hectare payment at the time when the sector was integrated into the Single Payment Scheme. The payment ensures against risk of disruption to production in the cotton producing regions and it is maintained in accordance with objectives set out in Protocol No 4 on cotton attached to the 1979 Act of Accession of Greece. These payments are based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.

22. Does the EU anticipate further reducing the number of commodities to which direct payments linked to production are available?

EU reply: The vast majority of direct payments are decoupled from production. In the CAP for the period 2014-2020 it will be possible for the EU Member States to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for coupled support in certain sectors and regions where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental and/or social reasons. The legislation will contain a list of sectors which may receive coupled support. Applying coupled support will be optional for Member States and limited to an appropriate level. Payments will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.

Page 122, Paragraph 4.34

Australia welcomes the reforms the EU has undertaken in recent years in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy. Nevertheless, Australia notes that support (regardless of how it is categorised under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture) is still considerable in both absolute and relative terms. This is particularly the case given that – as the Secretariat notes – at least some of the reduction in the OECD Producer Support Estimate is due to the increase in international prices.

23. How does the EU justify such substantial levels of support?

EU reply: The CAP has three main aims: viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources, and a balanced development of the EU's territory which is home to 500 million Europeans. All 28 EU Member States share these objectives, none of which can be attained without providing financial support to farming and rural areas, and to farmers in return for delivering public goods. Indeed the CAP ensures the European people a dependable and plentiful supply of high-quality food, as well as a healthy environment and exceptional landscapes. The EU is pleased that the CAP reform process undertaken over the last two decades in a WTO-consistent fashion is acknowledged.

24. Does the EU plan to reduce the level of support provided under future CAP programs? EU reply: There will be a significant net decrease in spending under the CAP for the period 2014-2020 in comparison to the period 2007-2013.

25. At its previous TPR the EU indicated that it was carrying out a study on the structural effects of direct support. Has this study been publicly released? If so, what were its findings?

EU reply: The European Commission is conducting an evaluation of the structural effects of direct support under the CAP. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the effects of direct support schemes on farm structures. The Commission plans to publish the evaluation report by the end of 2013.

26. Can the EU advise on which elements of the 2014-20 CAP reforms are expected to reduce support to EU farmers?

EU reply: As mentioned in the reply to question 24, there will be a significant net decrease in global CAP spending in comparison to the period 2007-2013 which will apply to both pillars of the CAP which encompass direct payments, market measures, and rural development programmes. These decreases will be applied in differentiated ways to ensure that support for priority objectives remains sufficient and more effective, through a better targeting of instruments.

4.1.3.2 Export subsidies Page 118, Paragraph 4.23

27. Australia would support the abolition of all EU export refunds for agricultural products. We note the use of export subsidies has declined however export refunds continue to apply to a number of agricultural products. Is the EC committed to abolishing all its export refunds? EU reply: On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all forms of export subsidies, together with the agreed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed only upon the completion of the modalities".

4.1.3.3 Market access Page 118, Table 4.7

Australia applauds the reduction in some export refunds for certain agricultural products, e.g. fruit and vegetables; milk and milk products; and non-Annex I products (prepared food containing eggs). However, we also note that refunds increased substantially for beef and veal from 2010-2011.

28. Can the EU explain why refunds have increased for beef and veal?

EU reply: Export refund rates for beef and veal were unchanged in the 2010/11 marketing year. Any change in refund uptake was driven by market developments leading to a change in quantities exported.

29. Does the EU have a plan on how it will reform its export refunds in order to bring them into compliance with the goals established under the Doha Agriculture modalities to eliminate export subsidies by 2013? If so, can the EU outline this plan?

EU reply: Export refund rates for beef and veal were unchanged in the 2010/11 marketing year. Any change in refund uptake was driven by market developments leading to a change in quantities exported.

30. Does the EU agree that export subsidies, like other trade distortions, can increase commodity price volatility?

EU reply: Price volatility results from a wide range of complex sources such as for example weather conditions that affect harvest.

Page 119, Paragraph 4.25

31. Australia notes that agricultural products entering the EU continue to face high tariffs. Could the EU confirm whether the reduction in the average applied AVE tariff on agricultural products from 18.6 per cent in 2006 to 14.8 per cent in 2013, is a result of world price fluctuations or tariff reform?

EU reply: World price fluctuations are a likely explanation, but this would depend on the detailed methodology used by the WTO Secretariat to produce these figures.

32. Australia also notes that seasonal duties apply to some products, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables. What is the EU's rationale for imposing such duties?

EU reply: Seasonal tariff lines for fruit and vegetables are contained in the EU's schedule resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreement.

Page 119, Paragraph 4.29

33. Australia notes that the level of fill of tariff rate quotas continues to be low for a range of agricultural products. Does the EU consider the high number of tariff quotas not utilized an indication that these quotas are not commercially meaningful?

EU reply: No. Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive domestic production.

4.3 SERVICES