 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated |
A division of Georgia Farm Bureau | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WTO SAYS BRAZIL CAN RETALIATE IN COTTON DISPUTE WITH U.S. -- An arbitration panel of the World Trade Organization in Geneva ruled this week that Brazil can retaliate against U.S. trade in response to past American failures to stop trade-distorting practices in a seven-year dispute over cotton subsidies.
 While the ruling was in Brazil's favor, it was significantly less than requested, and it prohibited imposition of higher tariffs on U.S. intellectual property and services unless it meets certain thresholds. The amount Brazil may impose will change from year to year but amounts to $294.7 million for the fiscal year 2006, the arbitrators ruled.Memphis-based National Cotton Council Chairman Jay Hardwick said in a statement that he was pleased that the permitted countermeasures were "far less than requested" by Brazil and did not impose a penalty for a now-disbanded U.S. subsidy program. He and NCC president Mark Lange said the ruling was based on circumstances in 2005 that have changed considerably with the adoption of the 2008 Farm Bill and other decisions relating to the domestic cotton industry. Brazil argued that certain elements of last year's Farm Bill, including assistance to U.S. textile mills using U.S. cotton, has in fact negated the effect of the abolition of certain U.S. subsidies. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's spokesman, Carol Guthrie, said that the U.S. was "disappointed with the outcome of the dispute, (but) pleased that the arbitrators awarded Brazil far below the amount of countermeasures it asked for." In addition, Guthrie said the U.S. was pleased that Brazil didn't win an unlimited right to retaliate against intellectual property and services imports and that Brazil did not win a one-time $350 million penalty it sought against the U.S. regarding the disbanded Step 2 cotton program. The Cotton Council said the WTO should look to current trade-distorting subsidies in other countries that have resulted in a significant reduction in U.S. cotton production since the initial WTO ruling. Hardwick said today's domestic cotton programs are not harming the world market. "It is time for this ruling to be updated so the WTO can start focusing on the increasing subsidization of cotton by China and India," added Lange. "The difference between the Panel's award and Brazil's original request shows the unrealistic nature of Brazil's claim, but even this amount fails to take into consideration the impact of U.S. cotton program changes made since 2005. "U.S. cotton production in 2008 declined 45 percent; Brazil, China and India production increased more than 20 percent," Lange continued. "The increased cotton production in Brazil, China and India has ensured that world cotton prices could not rebound." The dispute over U.S. upland cotton trade centered on the Step 2 program, an export subsidy program, and other American "price-contingent subsidies" that the WTO found significantly suppressed world cotton prices and harmed Third World farmers. Congress abolished Step 2 in 2006. Brazil's case originated in September 2002 and was later joined by third-party countries, such as Chad and Benin in Africa. The U.S. lost the subsidies issues in the case in 2004, appealed certain issues in 2005 and lost again. In 2006, Brazil complained that the U.S. had not complied with aspects of the ruling and sought authorization to impose more than $1 billion a year in trade countermeasures, including trade in non-agricultural goods. In its request for a compliance panel, Brazil noted the U.S. was required to do away with the Step 2 program by July 1, 2005, but that Congress did not abolish it for another 13 months. Brazil sought to impose the countermeasures for the period of noncompliance, but the arbitrator said in today's ruling that the U.S. was in compliance by the time the panel was established. Today's 152-page ruling determined the extent to which Brazil can impose import restrictions on the U.S. using a complex formula based on Brazilian imports of various categories of U.S. goods. The ruling indicates that Brazil and the U.S. disagree on the amount of goods the U.S. imports into Brazil, but both agree it has been more than $15.3 billion annually in recent years.
SEN. CHAMBLISS ISSUES STATEMENT ON WTO DECISION AGAINST U.S. COTTON -- U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Republican Member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, issued the following statement after the World Trade Organization (WTO) announced a formal decision in the Brazil, United States cotton case.
 “I have mixed feelings regarding the World Trade Organization Arbitration Panel. While I am pleased the size of the award is less than requested by Brazil, the complexity of the decision with regard to the export credit and cotton programs does not seem to be rooted in the Uruguay Round Agriculture Agreement. The panel report may make it harder to reach an amicable resolution with Brazil in this case and because of the complexity of the Arbitration panel's decision will certainly complicate negotiations in the Doha Round.“Most troubling to me is that the panel ignored changes Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) previously made to the export credit and cotton programs administratively and in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the 2008 farm bill to specifically address earlier concerns of the dispute settlement body. In 2005, USDA implemented a risk-based fee structure to GSM-102 and in the farm bill, Congress repealed authority for the Supplier Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP), the GSM-103 intermediate credit guarantee, and the 1% cap on loan origination fees for the GSM-102 program. In addition, Congress repealed the Step 2 program four years ago while making significant reforms to the cotton program in the 2008 farm bill. “Since 2005, U.S. production of upland cotton has decreased by 45% and U.S. share of the export market has dropped by almost 20%. To assume that the U.S. cotton program is causing serious prejudice to Brazilian farmers is not only factually incorrect but defies common sense. In addition, U.S. government data on our export credit programs clearly illustrates that GSM-102 is not an export subsidy, but is in fact providing a net return to the federal government. “In the coming weeks and months, there will be renewed calls by Brazil, our trading partners and critics at home to make additional changes to the export credit and commodity programs. Calls to do so are premature and would signal the wrong course of action. The U.S. Trade Representative should carefully examine what options are available within the WTO in light of the report. I will be meeting with Ambassador Kirk in the coming days to discuss options including requesting a compliance panel or an entirely new panel to demonstrate the U.S. has complied with the original decision. I look forward to the conversation and working with my colleagues in the Senate and Congress on the appropriate response to this decision.”
 AGRICULTURE TOURISM SIGN PROGRAM BEGINS IN GEORGIA -- The Georgia Department of Agriculture's Agritourism program is up and running.Signage for "agricultural tourist attractions" is now being seen on roads throughout Georgia. Any agricultural-based business providing onsite attractions for tourists may apply to the Department for an "Agricultural Tourist Attraction" designation. Once approved, the Department coordinates with the State Department of Transportation to place directional signs along roads in the direct proximity of the attraction. This program provides unique opportunities for tourists to enjoy Georgia's resources as well as provide an impact on Georgia's economy. For more information, please check the Department's website at <http://www.agr.georgia.gov> or e-mail Julie Daughtrey, Area Market Coordinator, at <agritourism@agr.georgia.com> Facilities wishing to be recognized by the Department as an “agricultural tourist attraction” need to submit an application to the Department and pay a one-time application fee of up to $250 depending on the type of agricultural tourist attraction. Directional signage is an additional charge determined by the Georgia Department of Transportation. The owner of a business applying for an “Agricultural Tourist Attraction” must certify that the activity allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment and/or educational purposes, to view or enjoy agriculturally related activities. The Agritourism program allows for signage throughout the state.  Forestry professionals who are interested in the jobs should visit www.gatrees.org/Recovery/Index.cfm or call 1-800-GA-TREES for applications. The federal funds have been allocated to five forestry programs. The Enhanced Fuels Management and Community Wildfire Protection Plan will receive $3.59 million to pay landowners and hire foresters to create a wildfire-resistant buffer surrounding the Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge. The Stewardship Revisit for Prescribed Fire program will receive $2.24 million to hire foresters to visit Georgia landowners with forest stewardship plans to evaluate the use of prescribed burning. The Dixon State Forest has been allocated $377,000 to cover site preparation, tree planting and the purchase of longleaf seedlings to rehabilitate 19,000 acres in this state forest that burned in 2007. The Cogongrass and Invasive Plant Eradication will receive $1.8 million to give landowners incentive payments to eradicate this invasive weed and hire GFC workers to oversee the project. Georgia is also included in a five-state Regional Longleaf Pine Restoration Initiative and Fuel Reduction project allocated $1.7 million to plant trees.
MAJOR CIGARETTE MAKERS SUE OVER NEW TOBACCO LAW -- Two of the three largest U.S. tobacco companies filed suit this week to block marketing restrictions in a law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco, claiming the provisions violate their right to free speech.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of Camel cigarettes, and Lorillard Inc., which sells the Newport menthol brand, filed the federal lawsuit with several other tobacco companies.It is the first major challenge of the legislation passed and enacted in June, and a lawyer for tobacco consumers doubted the lawsuit will be successful. The tobacco makers claim provisions of the law "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers," Martin L. Holton III, senior vice president and general counsel for Reynolds, said in a statement. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA authority over tobacco for the first time and lets the agency reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also must put large graphic warnings over any carton images. The companies say in their lawsuit that the law, which takes full effect in three years, prohibits them from using "color lettering, trademarks, logos or any other imagery in most advertisements, including virtually all point-of-sale and direct-mail advertisements." The complaint also says the law prohibits tobacco companies from "making truthful statements about their products in scientific, public policy and political debates." The tobacco makers say the new mandated health warnings for cigarettes would relegate the companies' branding to the bottom half of the cigarette packaging, making it "difficult, if not impossible, to see." The lawsuit doesn't challenge the decision to give the FDA authority over tobacco products, and Reynolds spokesman David Howard said the company opposes only portions of the law. Joining in the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Bowling Green, Ky., are: National Tobacco Co., Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc., and Kentucky-based Commonwealth Brands, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group PLC. "We believe that many of the provisions within the Act violate our constitutional rights and are not reasonably related to the goal of reducing youth access to tobacco products," Jonathan Cox, president and chief executive of Commonwealth Brands said in a statement. Lorillard did not immediately comment on the lawsuit. FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The tobacco makers name the FDA, the government and individual officials as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks to put portions of the law on hold while the case is heard. Ultimately, they want the marketing provisions stripped from the law. "My expectation is that this lawsuit will be ultimately unsuccessful," said Ed Sweda, a lawyer for the Tobacco Products Liability Project in Boston, pointing to previous laws limiting cigarette advertising and marketing that have been in place for more than 40 years. The law doesn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, publicize those ingredients and prohibit certain marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children. Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of the nation's largest tobacco maker, Philip Morris USA, supported the bill, saying the company backs tough but fair regulation. Altria's chief rivals — No. 2 Reynolds American Inc., parent company of R.J. Reynolds, and No. 3 Lorillard, both based in North Carolina — opposed the bill, saying FDA restrictions on new products would lock in Altria's share of the market. Altria's brands include Marlboro, which held a 41.2 percent share of the U.S. cigarette market in the second quarter, according to data from Information Resources Inc. Altria spokesman David Sylvia said the company has not yet reviewed the lawsuit and would not comment.
"The Obama Administration is committed to working with all sectors of the dairy industry to develop changes to the dairy pricing system to avoid the boom and bust cycle behind the crisis facing many dairy farmers this year," said Vilsack. "The input provided by the members of this committee will play an important role in building a more stable market for dairy producers for years to come." Earlier this month, Secretary Vilsack promised to move forward with establishment of a charter creating the committee for two years. Once appointed, the committee will review the issues of farm milk price volatility, and dairy farmer profitability. The committee will also offer suggestions and ideas on how USDA can best address these issues to meet the dairy industry's needs. USDA is establishing the committee under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint up to 15 representatives of the dairy industry to serve in an advisory capacity on the Committee. Representatives will include: producers and producer organizations, processors and processor organizations, handlers, consumers, academia, retailers, and state agencies involved in organic and non-organic dairy at the local, regional, national and international levels. Written nominations must be received on or before September 28, and should be sent to Judith Lindsay, secretary to Brandon Willis, Deputy Administrator, Farm Service Agency, Farm Programs, USDA Room 3612-S, Stop 0501, Washington, D.C. 20250-0501; faxed to (202) 720-4726; or e-mailed to:judith.lindsay@wdc.usda.gov . Advisory committee members will elect the chairperson and vice-chairperson who will each serve a two-year term. As Deputy Administrator of the FSA Farm Programs, Willis will serve as the committee's executive secretary.
USDA AWARDS GEORGIA $1.8 MILLION TO REPAIR DAMAGED FARMLAND -- The USDA has allocated about $1.8 million in Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) funds to repair Georgia farmland damaged by natural disasters that occurred in 2008 and 2009. The money will be used to remove debris, restore fences, grade and shape land, and repair conservation structures damaged by floods, hurricanes, storms and tornadoes.
Georgia counties designated to receive ECP funds, the amount and damaging disaster are as follows: Coweta - $42,000 for a tornado in February; Baker - $9,000 for hurricane damage sustained August 2008; Cook, Grady, Lee, Mitchell, Randolph, Tift and Worth - $460,000 for flood damage sustained from March 26 to April 13; Franklin and Putnam - $165,000 for a tornado in April; Taylor - $5,000 for tornado damage in February; Baker, Coffee, Colquitt, Sumter, Thomas and Turner - $484,000 for flood damage sustained from March 26 to April 13; Ben Hill, Early and Irwin - $350,000 for flood damage sustained from March 27 to April 14; Hancock - $62,000 for tornado damage in April; Ben Hill - $21,000 for a tornado in April; Berrien - $26,000 for flood damage sustained March 27 to April 2; Brooks - $77,000 for flood damage sustained March 26 to April 2; Lee - $42,000 for tornado damage in March; Pierce - $29,000 for flood damage from April 1 to June 9 and Houston - $77,000 for storm damage in June. For a farm to be eligible to receive ECP funds, the natural disaster must have created conservation problems that if untreated, would: impair or endanger the land; materially affect the land’s productive capacity; represent unusual damage that, except for wind erosion, is not likely to recur in the same area and be so costly to repair that federal assistance is required to return the land to productive agricultural use. FSA county committees determine land eligibility based on on-site inspections of damage.
 The Georgia meeting will be held Oct. 6, 2009 from 5 - 7 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn, Albany, Ga. (229) 888-1590.Topics to be discussed at the public meetings include provisions dealing with cropping history requirements, crop rotation practices, contract incentives, program enrollment terms and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) enrollment authority of 32 million acres established for the remainder of the 2008 Farm Bill. "These workshops will be important to receive feedback about how we can make the Conservation Reserve Program more effective for producers as well as increase the environmental benefits of the program," said Farm Service Agency Administrator Jonathan Coppess. USDA will consider each comment received at the public meetings and during the comment period when preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This statement will help USDA decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental benefits and potential impacts associated with implementing various changes to CRP consistent with the 2008 Farm Bill. CRP is a voluntary program that supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive agricultural land. In return, CCC provides participants with rental payments and cost share assistance under contracts extending from 10 to 15 years. CRP is a CCC program administered by the FSA with the support of other federal and local agencies.
CONTINUED SCATTERED SHOWERS IN GEORGIA -- Scattered showers continued to provide assistance to farmers, in some areas of the State, according to the USDA, NASS, Georgia Field Office.
 Daily average high temperatures were in the high 80’s. Average lows ranged from the upper 60’s to low 70’s. Soil moisture conditions were rated at 4% very short, 27% short, 61% adequate, and 8% surplus.The scattered rains helped to replenish soil moisture; however, some areas were still short. There have been reports of army worms in pasture, hay fields and cotton. Growers were still waiting for corn to dry naturally, to avoid paying high drying costs. Other activities included spraying crop fields and pastures, feeding livestock and cutting hay between storms. County Extension Agents reported an average of 5.3 days suitable for fieldwork. FOR THE DETAILED CROP REPORT FROM THE STATISTICS SERVICE, CLICK HERE.
The Georgia Farm Bureau, Inc./dba Georgia Farm Radio Network, does not necessarily agree with nor endorse any of the information contained in the above news stories. The page is merely a digest of what is being said about Agricluture in the media as compiled in the Georgia Farm Radio Network / Clear Channel Networks newsroom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
