Comments on: Ensuring Japan’s food security through free trade not tariffs http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/10/ensuring-japans-food-security-through-free-trade-not-tariffs/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:23:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Colin Hallhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/10/ensuring-japans-food-security-through-free-trade-not-tariffs/comment-page-1/#comment-157755 Colin Hall Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:05:49 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10487#comment-157755 Fair Trade will (IMHO) be the saviour of food production and consumption in the years to come. I remember discussing the concept of world food production organisation way back in the 1970's. We just need to come together and grow to our countries strengths and then sell on a world common market, which would be price controlled with producers and consumers in mind and not the greed of the markets. Time has come, can the human race stand up to the challenge ? Fair Trade will (IMHO) be the saviour of food production and consumption in the years to come. I remember discussing the concept of world food production organisation way back in the 1970′s. We just need to come together and grow to our countries strengths and then sell on a world common market, which would be price controlled with producers and consumers in mind and not the greed of the markets.

Time has come, can the human race stand up to the challenge ?

]]> By: Brett Williamshttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/10/ensuring-japans-food-security-through-free-trade-not-tariffs/comment-page-1/#comment-102932 Brett Williams Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:56:18 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10487#comment-102932 Excellent analysis indeed. One point is missing which is: what can the rest of the world do to help? The answer is that in the WTO negotiations, the rest of the world should reject the concept of sensitive products. If a harmonization tariff cutting formula were applied to all countries and all products (with no exceptions for "sensitive products"), then Japan would have to make a substantial cut in the tariff on rice. Japan has been one of the leading proponents of the multifunctionality argument: that the achievement of other objectives through farming is a justification for import barriers. That the Japanese government is itself now introducing subsidies like the income support system shows that the Japanese multifunctionality argument is nonsense - they can achieve any other objective linked to farming by paying subsidies. They do not need to import barriers. With lower tariffs, if Japan wanted to use subsidies to gaurantee a price, then the major part of the cost of that guarantee would fall onto Japanese taxpayers. Internal political pressures would then be likely to reduce those subsidies. The December 2008 draft WTO text allowed members to exclude 4% of customs lines from the harmonizing tariff cut. Currently, Japan is holding out for 8%. The rest of the WTO Membership could help guide Japan into a sensible reform by saying no to the increase to 8%. It would be good to reduce the 4% to zero (and remove the other category for exemptions, "special products") so that all WTO Members had to reduce tariffs on their most protected products. Otherwise, even if Japan did become a potential exporter of rice, it would find that many other markets are closed to rice imports. Excellent analysis indeed.
One point is missing which is: what can the rest of the world do to help? The answer is that in the WTO negotiations, the rest of the world should reject the concept of sensitive products. If a harmonization tariff cutting formula were applied to all countries and all products (with no exceptions for “sensitive products”), then Japan would have to make a substantial cut in the tariff on rice.
Japan has been one of the leading proponents of the multifunctionality argument: that the achievement of other objectives through farming is a justification for import barriers. That the Japanese government is itself now introducing subsidies like the income support system shows that the Japanese multifunctionality argument is nonsense – they can achieve any other objective linked to farming by paying subsidies. They do not need to import barriers.

With lower tariffs, if Japan wanted to use subsidies to gaurantee a price, then the major part of the cost of that guarantee would fall onto Japanese taxpayers. Internal political pressures would then be likely to reduce those subsidies.
The December 2008 draft WTO text allowed members to exclude 4% of customs lines from the harmonizing tariff cut. Currently, Japan is holding out for 8%.
The rest of the WTO Membership could help guide Japan into a sensible reform by saying no to the increase to 8%. It would be good to reduce the 4% to zero (and remove the other category for exemptions, “special products”) so that all WTO Members had to reduce tariffs on their most protected products. Otherwise, even if Japan did become a potential exporter of rice, it would find that many other markets are closed to rice imports.

]]> By: Andrew Elekhttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/10/ensuring-japans-food-security-through-free-trade-not-tariffs/comment-page-1/#comment-101890 Andrew Elek Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:44:59 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10487#comment-101890 This is an excellent analysis. I will recommend it to my students. This is an excellent analysis.
I will recommend it to my students.

]]>