FAS Online logo Return to the FAS Home page
FAS Logo II

WTO Listening Session
St. Paul, Minnesota
June 7, 1999

Speaker: Secretary Ben Brancel
Wisconsin Department of Ag Trade and Consumer Protection

index.gif (4318 bytes)
last.gif (4226 bytes)
next.gif (4261 bytes)
SECRETARY BRANCEL:

Good morning to the USDA and to the Trade Representatives and to the State Department. Commissioner Hugoson, we appreciate your effort and interest in ag exports and imports and putting this conference today. I am Ben Brancel. I’m the Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Ag Trade and Consumer Protection and I represent 70,000 farm families. And we want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on international trade. Agriculture is a vital important part of our economy in Wisconsin. The agricultural industry generates $40 billion each year and makes up over 20 percent of our $185 billion economy. And more than half of the people and about one-third of our state workforce are employed in agriculture or agriculture related jobs. And in 1998 Wisconsin exported nearly $1.3 billion worth of agricultural goods and more than 32,000 jobs are tied to agricultural exports. The opportunity to export our diverse, world-class agriculture products in an open, global market with unfettered access is an essential element to our continued economic growth. Through ongoing efforts to ensure open-market access and remove exclusionary trade barriers, the Federal Government must be an integral part in the World Trade Organization negotiations as both parties work toward meaningful, balanced and mutual beneficial trade agreements. There are numerous issues that could be brought before this panel today, but I have chosen to concentrate my comments on three of the most pertinent to Wisconsin’s agriculture products. The upcoming WTO negotiations will put agriculture trade concerns in the forefront for the first time and provide us with a forum to discuss real efforts to reduce inequitable tariffs and open new markets, eliminate exclusionary export subsidies and better define sanitary or phytosanitary regulations imposed by foreign governments. Tariffs need to be more uniform. Inordinately high tariffs imposed by foreign governments raise costs to U.S. exports, effectively shutting Wisconsin and other U.S. producers out of the market. Following the Uruguay Round, developed countries cut their tariffs by 36 percent on an average. However, tariffs on U.S. products remain too high, greater than 50 percent on average compared to less than five percent for imports into the U.S. Wisconsin and American dairy products are particularly hard hit especially in the European Union, Canada and Japan. These are three of the major markets for U.S. dairy and other agriculture products. However, WTO comments -- commitments allow them to impose tariffs in excess of 200 percent on cheese and butter, two products that are produced in Wisconsin with the highest quality and account for 95 percent of our milk production. We ship 85 percent of our dairy beyond our border and had dairy exports of $229 million in 1998 alone. Yes, the U.S. does have its own tariffs on imported dairy products but not to this protectionistic extent. We know that we must provide some access to our market in order to receive access to foreign markets, but that give and take has to be a two-way street. All member countries need to participate in tariff reduction measures, particularly those in markets protected by exclusionary practices. Any changes to the current system must take steps to reduce disproportionately high tariffs, as well as provide new market access for Wisconsin and U.S. dairy and agricultural products. U.S. agriculture producers and farmers are increasingly looking for overseas markets to expand sales opportunities. In the past 15 years, high-value products have seen export sales surplus domestic sales by increasing margins. Export value of U.S. consumer foods has risen to an estimated 16 percent annually, about three times faster than the rate of domestic food sales. However, the continued success of this industry is dependent upon trading in a global market that exercises free trade practices -- fair trade practices on a level competitive field, elimination of exclusionary export subsidies. Plain and simple, our Wisconsin and U.S. agriculture producers cannot competitively compete in foreign markets against subsidized products. Wisconsin accounts for four to six percent of the world’s market share for dairy products. Australia, New Zealand and the European Union account for between 35 and 40 percent of the world trade in dairy products. The EU maintains this market share due to its overly generous export subsidies. Under current WTO agreements, the European Union will be allowed to spend more than $8 billion for export subsidies in the year 2000 while the United States is limited to less than $600 million. This inequity leaves the playing field severely skewed towards the EU. To compete fairly in a global market, a level playing field needs to be created and strictly maintained. The use of export subsidies, a common practice around the globe, will continue to keep world dairy prices at an artificially low rate, and it’s a much lower rate than the domestic Wisconsin and U.S. prices, severely limiting our ability and our producers’ ability to gain meaningful expansion in dairy exports. If these subsidies are not limited, our dairy industry will continue to suffer and fight an uphill battle as a result of the WTO authorized practice. The global demand for agricultural products continue to increase, but so does the competition with foreign market suppliers. Excessive subsidies put our producers at a competitive disadvantage. For Wisconsin and U.S. suppliers to compete successfully in the greater market, we need to have fair trade practices with unencumbered access to grow -- a growing global market. Better defined sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. The WTO needs to monitor these issues so that countries cannot mask protectionistic actions under the guise of health concerns. All phytosanitary agreements should be backed by sound scientific studies, not political expediency. I have many comments in this area, but I’m going to reserve those because I believe there are other agricultural organizations that will touch in a much more eloquent way on this issue, but it is vitally important to our Wisconsin producers. Thank you for this opportunity.


Last modified: Friday, November 18, 2005