U.S. Producers Urge AGOA, GSP Eligibility Overhaul

Congressional lawmakers should overhaul African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the General System of Preferences (GSP) eligibility criteria to punish countries that put up trade barriers against U.S. products, said a group of U.S. domestic producers in two joint letters to Congress. Numerous beneficiary countries are implementing “blatantly protectionist” barriers that are in “flagrant violation of international obligations,” such as World Trade Organization agreements.

The U.S. producers “urge Congress to establish clearer eligibility requirements that would revoke GSP privileges partially or fully from nations that fail to accord U.S. products treatment consistent with international rules,” said the letter focused on GSP (here). The producers also expressed opposition to long-term or permanent AGOA renewal, due to the absence of incentives in the law for beneficiaries to have reciprocal trade policies, according to the letter focused on AGOA (here). The trade barriers are costing U.S. export sales and domestic jobs, said the producers.

The American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, Animal Health Institute, Corn Refiners Association, National Chicken Council, National Confectioners Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, North American Equipment Dealers Association, North American Meat Association, Northwest Horticultural Council, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council and the USA Rice Federation endorsed the letters. According to the joint letters, the following barriers continue unabated, all of which are included in the U.S. Trade Representative annual reports on foreign trade barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary measures (the following is excerpted verbatim):

South Africa

• Antidumping (AD) duties have been in place on imports of frozen bone-in chicken pieces from the United States for 12 years. Before imposing AD duties, South Africa imported approximately $10 million to $24 million of chicken meat from the United States annually; however, the imposition of AD duties has effectively priced U.S. exports of chicken meat to South Africa out of the market and allowed other countries such as Brazil to gain market share. AD duties have been extended until 2017.
• In June 2010, South Africa opened its market to U.S. deboned beef from cattle of all ages but continues to ban the importation of all other beef cuts and beef products, as well as other U.S. ruminant animals and products. The United States continues to urge South Africa to open its market fully to U.S. beef and beef products based on science, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines and the United States risk status.
• South Africa enforces harsh import restrictions on U.S. pork related to what its government says are concerns about Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), pseudo rabies (PRV) and trichinae. Despite scientific proof, including reference to OIE standards, provided to the South African government that U.S. pork is completely safe and poses a negligible risk of transmission of PRRS, PRV and trichinae, South Africa has insisted on enforcing very costly and burdensome mitigation requirements. Earlier this year, South African officials broke off discussions with the U.S. government on a new export certificate for pork, which U.S. officials had hoped would allow for improved access into the South African market. Instead, South Africa forced the United States to use a new and highly onerous generic export certificate, which effectively bans U.S. pork by demanding new non-science-based requirements related to PRRS, PRV, trichinae and other sanitary and technical barriers -- guarantees that the United States government cannot provide.

Ethiopia

• Ethiopia maintains a biosafety law that imposes unduly burdensome documentation and testing requirements for agricultural biotechnology products and that restricts the use of U.S. agricultural commodities derived from biotech. The restrictions include but are not limited to: requiring the applicant to use a qualified expert to undertake the risk assessment for each transaction; prohibiting the use of “may contain modified organisms” language for traded living modified organisms in shipments intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing; and requiring a signed statement for all imports by the head of the competent national authority of the country of export to the effect that the competent national authority takes full responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided in the import application.

Nigeria

• Nigeria uses non-tariff measures to achieve “self-sufficiency” in certain commodities. The government supplemented its 2012 increase in wheat import tariffs with a policy requiring flour millers to substitute up to 40 percent of wheat flour produced in the country with cassava flour by 2015. The government continues to ban certain imports, citing the need to protect local industries. The list of prohibited imports currently includes: bird’s eggs; cocoa butter, powder, and cakes; pork; beef; live birds; frozen poultry; refined vegetable oil and fats; cassava; bottled water; spaghetti; noodles; fruit juice in retail packs; and nonalcoholic beverages (excluding energy drinks).

Kenya

• On November 21, 2012, the Kenyan Ministry of Public Health ordered public health officials to remove all foods, feed and seeds derived from agricultural biotechnology from the market and to enforce a ban on agricultural biotechnology food and feed imports.

South African Development Community

• The 15 members of the SADC (Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), with the exception of South Africa, have banned the importation of agricultural biotechnology products since 2005. Pursuant to this ban, importers of agricultural products must present documents certifying that their goods do not include agricultural biotechnology products. However, there are limited exceptions to the ban. For example, grain from agricultural biotechnology-derived varieties can be imported for food aid, but it must be milled or sterilized so as to render the grain incapable of germinating after arriving in the country. In addition, products of agricultural biotechnology imported for scientific research may be allowed but are subject to regulations and controls to be established by the various SADC Member States

The producers noted the U.S. suspended Argentina from the GSP program in 2012 (here). Particular emphasis should also be placed on the more advanced countries involved, such as South Africa. The GSP legislation introduced in the House and Senate in July did not include amendments (see 13111808).