Η κυβÎÏνηση Ομπάμα φαίνεται να επιδιώκει μια Ïυθμιστική Ï€ÏοσÎγγιση για την αντιμετώπιση μιας απόφασης του ΠΟΕ ότι οι Η.Î .Α.. επισήμανση χώÏας Ï€ÏοÎλευσης (ΔΡΟΣΕΡΟΣ) law for meat discriminates against hogs and cattle imported from Canada and Mexico. Meat retailers are required to put labels on cuts of beef, pork and ground meat or to post signs in display cases that list the origin. Οι ΗΠΑ. Îχασε Îναν ÎοÎμβÏιο 2011 Απόφαση του ΠΟΕ για υπόθεση που ασκήθηκε από τον Καναδά και το Μεξικό, σÏμφωνα με την οποία η COOL επιβάÏυνε την τήÏηση αÏχείων στους συσκευαστÎÏ‚ κÏÎατος που αγόÏαζαν ζώα από Καναδά και Μεξικό.
At the heart of the case is a simple principle known as ‘national treatment’ under the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. The laws of a country must treat imported products the same way as domestic products are treated so they are not disadvantaged in the marketplace. The issue is not about labeling laws; the federal government has the right to require labels stating sources of origin. It is the market impact of the law on imported products that is in question.
Ένας διαιτητής για το ÏŒÏγανο επίλυσης διαφοÏών του ΠΟΕ αποφάσισε τον ΔεκÎμβÏιο 4 of last year on a request by Canada and Mexico for a ‘reasonable period of time’ that the U.S. has to establish how it will comply with the ruling. The WTO Appellate Body had ruled on June 29 επί Ï€Ïοσφυγής του ÎοεμβÏίου 2011 απόφαση κατά των Η.Î .Α. νόμος, but had not set a date for compliance. The Dispute Settlement Body officially accepted the ruling on July 23. The general guideline is that the time needed for compliance should not exceed 15 μήνες. Canada had requested a compliance date of late January and Mexico a March date. Οι ΗΠΑ. ζητείται 15 μήνες. The arbitrator chose May 23, δÎκα μήνες μετά την αποδοχή της απόφασης.
The WTO process is indifferent to a legislative correction or a regulatory one as long as the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the impacted countries. The COOL law was legislated in the 2002 και 2008 farm bills and went into effect in March 2009. Attempts were made last year in the House and Senate to pass a new farm bill, but changes in COOL to address the WTO ruling were not part of the bills or the general debate. A new farm bill is not likely to be enacted by the May 23 deadline for action and there is no other legislation that is expected to move before then to attach COOL changes. A regulatory solution appears to be the default option. If the U.S. δεν συμμοÏφώνεται μÎχÏι τον Μάιο 23, Ο Καναδάς και το Μεξικό ενδÎχεται να ξεκινήσουν διαδικασίες για να λάβουν αντίποινα κατά των Η.Î .Α.
ΟÏισμÎνοι ηγÎτες της καναδικής κτηνοτÏοφίας Îχουν Ï€Ïοτείνει ότι οι Η.Î .Α. αλλάξτε τον νόμο COOL για να επιτÏÎψετε σε όλα τα ζωντανά ζώα που σφάζονται στις Η.Î .Α. to be eligible for a U.S.-origin label. That is not going to happen. Under current law, ότι το κÏÎας φÎÏει ετικÎτα Ï€Ïοϊόντος των Η.Î .Α. και τον Καναδά και υπόκεινται σε δαπάνες συμμόÏφωσης που οδηγοÏν στα αναφεÏόμενα χαμÎνα εισοδήματα για τους ΚαναδοÏÏ‚ παÏαγωγοÏÏ‚.
Î¡ÏŒÏ„Î¶ÎµÏ Î¤Î¶ÏŒÎ½ÏƒÎ¿Î½, ο Ï€ÏόεδÏος των Η.Î .Α. Εθνική Ένωση ΑγÏοτών (NFU) και υποστηÏικτής του ισχÏοντος νόμου COOL, είπε ÎœÎσα στις Η.Î .Α. ΕμποÏικÎÏ‚ συναλλαγÎÏ‚ his organization believes USDA can adjust its labeling regulations and be in compliance with the WTO ruling. His organization will provide specific recommendation for regulatory changes.
Το NFU βοηθά επίσης τους γεÏουσιαστÎÏ‚ Mike Enzi (WY-R) και ο Jon Tester (ΜΤ-Δ) κυκλοφοÏήσει Îνα σχÎδιο επιστολής στις Η.Î .Α. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. While the authors disagree with the WTO ruling, πιστεÏουν ότι η διοίκηση Ï€ÏÎπει να υιοθετήσει Ï„Ïεις κÏίσιμες αÏχÎÏ‚ ως απάντηση σε αυτό. These are a regulatory fix, παÏÎχοντας στους καταναλωτÎÏ‚ ακÏιβείς πληÏοφοÏίες σχετικά με την Ï€ÏοÎλευση όλου του κÏÎατος, και συνεÏγασία με τους ενδιαφεÏόμενους για νÎους κανονισμοÏÏ‚. These are good principles, but do not provide the kinds of specific actions the Canadians and Mexicans expect. Canadian industry officials are already complaining that they see little effort on regulatory changes.
The Canadian are preparing for retaliation. The Canadian Pork Council has an analysis that shows accumulated direct costs of COOL to Canadians at $2 δισεκατομμÏÏιο, συν Îνα επιπλÎον $442 εκατομμÏÏια σε μειωμÎνες αποστολÎÏ‚ χοιÏÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï ÎºÏÎατος και κατασταλτικÎÏ‚ τιμÎÏ‚ για τους χοίÏους Ï„Ïοφοδοσίας. Compensation rights are estimated at $500 εκατομμÏÏια ευÏÏŽ ετησίως. Any actual retaliation would be determined by the WTO, όχι οι καναδοί παÏαγωγοί.
ΥπάÏχουν και άλλοι παÏάγοντες εκτός από το COOL που επηÏÎασαν τη μετακίνηση των γουÏουνιών σφαγής και των χοίÏων Ï„Ïοφοδοσίας στις Η.Î .Α.. Canadian hog inventories declined by over 20 τοις εκατό από 2006 Ï€Ïος το 2011 after expanding rapidly the previous ten years. The value of the Canadian dollar has also become much stronger and achieved parity with the U.S. dollar after being undervalued for years. Iowa State Economist Dermot Hayes says that Asia has become a much larger market for pork meat and has led Canadian pig producer to feed pigs at home rather than ship them to the U.S. A WTO analysis would sort out all of these issues to arrive at an appropriate compensation amount.
Ο ΠΟΕ δεν μποÏεί να αναγκάσει τις Η.Î .Α. Congress to change the COOL law. The Dispute Settlement Body has already ruled the regulations are not consistent with U.S. commitments to the WTO. The USDA has three options. It can comply by changing regulations as suggested by the Canadians. If that requires a change in law, the Congress would need to decide to make that change. USDA could negotiate with the Canadians for some alternative compliance that would address their concerns while being less burdensome for the U.S. The third option is to take no action and have Canadian and Mexican governments return to the WTO Appellate Body to establish the level of compensation. That could be tariffs on U.S. χοιÏινό Ï€Ïοϊόν, other food products or general goods and services. These would continue indefinitely if the regulations are not changed.
The best options are to fully comply with the ruling under the current COOL law or change the law and then the regulations. Simply paying compensation is meant to only be used when the losing country believes that the ruling is clearly wrong or complying would place an inordinate burden on the country. The goal of the WTO dispute settlement process is to work out differences, να μην τους αφήσουμε να μείνουν στη θÎση τους.
Είναι στις Η.Î .Α. government’s best interest to find a solution as it expects other countries to do so when they lose cases. A regulatory solution without a change in the law is the best option. If that cannot be achieved, τότε μια αλλαγή του νόμου είναι το καλÏτεÏο αποτÎλεσμα.
Ο Ross Korves είναι Αναλυτής Οικονομικής Πολιτικής με Αλήθεια για το ΕμπόÏιο & Τεχνολογία (www.truthabouttrade.org). Ακολουθησε μας: @TruthAboutTrade στο Twitter | Αλήθεια για το εμπόÏιο & Τεχνολογία στο Facebook.