The U.S. Agriculture Coalition for WTO Reform supports reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and improved U.S. engagement. The U.S. food and agriculture sector supports 40 million American jobs and contributes $7 trillion to the U.S. economy. The people who work in this sector depend on vibrant international institutions like the WTO and robust commercial diplomacy. Trade supports critical income for American farmers of all sizes, as well as the small businesses and economic viability of the rural communities where they live. WTO reform is needed; reform that leads to a market liberalizing agenda for agriculture and a better functioning institution. This will help improve global agricultural sustainability and food security, and the opportunities created through market reforms support U.S. rural communities and workers, and provide good-paying jobs across the United States.
The Coalition includes leading U.S. agricultural organizations representing farmers, businesses, and workers with an objective to specify mutual and realistic priorities for agricultural reforms at the WTO that will yield long-term benefits for U.S. producers and agribusinesses.
For more information, contact: Ben Conner, email@example.com.
- Almond Board of California
- American Seed Trade Association
- American Soybean Association
- Corn Refiners Association
- CropLife America
- International Dairy Foods Association
- National Milk Producers Federation
- National Pork Producers Council
- U.S. Dairy Export Council
- U.S. Grains Council
- U.S. Soybean Export Council
- U.S. Wheat Associates
- USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
- USA Rice
- Inside U.S. Trade: Ag coalition: U.S. should prioritize food security, transparency at MC13
- Politico: Farm groups press Biden administration to make WTO market access proposal
- Politico: Farm groups press Tai to reinvigorate WTO ag trade talks
- Inside U.S. Trade: U.S. ag industry groups to Tai: WTO negotiations need ‘a fresh start’
- Politico: Farm Groups Urge Trade Negotiators Not to Cave on India’s Demands
- AgriPulse: Opinion: Agricultural trade and WTO reform at MC12
- August 2021 CRS Report on Agriculture in MC12
- Hagstrom Report: New Ag Trade Coalition Focuses on WTO Reform
- AgriPulse: US agriculture lays out priorities for WTO reform
- Inside U.S. Trade: Wolff: Agriculture must be ‘centerpiece’ of WTO agenda
- USA Rice Daily: USA Rice Leads in Efforts Encouraging Reforms to WTO Agriculture Provisions
- Inside U.S. Trade: U.S., EU, Canada, Japan unveil ag transparency proposal for MC12
- Letter to USTR Tai and Secretary Vilsack on WTO Ag Negotiating Agenda (November 7, 2023)
- Letter to USTR Tai on Resetting WTO Agriculture Negotiations (November 8, 2022)
- Letter to USTR Tai on Agriculture and Dispute Settlement Reform (September 20, 2022)
- Letter to Biden Admin on MC12 Food Security Concerns (June 2, 2022)
- Letter to the Administration on Agriculture Talks Ahead of MC12 (November 19, 2021)
- Letter Signed by 34 Agricultural Organizations and Companies to USTR Tai and Secretary Vilsack Calling for the U.S. to Lead in WTO Reforms for Agriculture (July 23, 2021)
Coalition’s Priorities for WTO Reform
For WTO reform, the coalition supports outcomes that align with the following key principles:
- Support a restoration of a binding dispute settlement system that enables effective trade enforcement. Dispute settlement must be an effective deterrent to protectionist measures.
- Support a proactive agriculture negotiating agenda for MC-13, with short-term goals while laying the groundwork for a more ambitious long-term effort to reform the agricultural trading system toward further market-based and sustainable trade liberalization, reduced distortions, and enhanced transparency.
- Any negotiation on any element of agricultural domestic support must be tied to enhancing market access for U.S. food and agricultural exports at a commensurate level.
- Any outcome on agricultural domestic support and market access must require that significant developing country agriculture exporters meet the same level of ambition as developed countries and establish a graduation process for developing countries.
- On specific issues:
- Public Stockholding (PSH): Oppose the use of market price supports (MPS) as a policy to implement PSH programs and a permanent solution that weakens commitments on trade-distorting support or is not consistent with Article 20 long-term objectives. Any negotiations to change current rules on PSH and MPS must be part of comprehensive trade liberalizing negotiations, including market access.
- Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM): Oppose negotiations or outcomes allowing increased use of SSM; negotiations on SSM should be part of comprehensive, trade-liberalizing market access negotiations.
- Domestic Support: Support negotiating on domestic support only if market access negotiations have a commensurate level of ambition and are reflective of the current global situation on agricultural domestic support in both developed and developing countries.
- Market Access: The trade-distorting potential of high market access barriers, particularly in developing countries, remains a major impediment to predictable trading relationships. An ambitious agricultural market access agenda should be part of any post-MC13 work plan for agriculture that includes negotiations on domestic support.
- Export Restrictions: Support disciplines to improve transparency of and eliminate or minimize export restrictions, but oppose new disciplines exchanged for trade-distorting outcomes on PSH or SSM.
- Export Competition: Oppose expanding government-to-government sales or any other policies that encourage the international disposal of commodities in surplus due to price supports.
- Support a science-based and data-driven approach to any negotiations, embracing innovation and sustainability, and preventing disguised restrictions on trade.
- Support outcomes that provide for improved transparency and notifications of WTO member policies and measures related to agriculture as foundational to future agriculture negotiations.
- Oppose trading off for non-agriculture outcomes any agriculture outcomes that are inconsistent with the objectives in Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture – including new special safeguard mechanisms or a permanent exception on MPS tied to public stockholding.