Following the conclusion of the 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) last month, it is time for WTO members to reflect, revive and revitalize agricultural negotiations to address the real international trade issues facing agriculture today. Although agriculture has always been covered by the GATT, before the WTO there were several important differences in the rules that applied to primary agricultural products compared to industrial products. The GATT 1947 allowed countries to use export subsidies for primary agricultural products, while export subsidies for industrial products were prohibited. The only condition was that agricultural export subsidies should not be used to cover more than a fair share of world exports of the product concerned (Article XVI(3) of the GATT). GATT rules also allowed countries to use import restrictions (e.g. import quotas) under certain conditions, particularly where such restrictions were necessary to enforce measures to effectively limit domestic production (GATT Article XI(2)(c)). This derogation was also subject to the condition that a minimum proportion of imports in relation to domestic production be maintained. Export subsidies are the third pillar. The 1995 Agreement on Agriculture required industrialized countries to reduce export subsidies by at least 36% (by value) or 21% (by volume) within six years. For developing countries, the agreement provided for reductions of 24 per cent (in value) and 14 per cent (in volume) over a ten-year period. The Member Transparency Toolkit includes information on notification formats and a manual on reporting obligations, as well as links to member engagement lists and other resources to support member transparency in agriculture.
Noting that commitments under the reform agenda should be made equitably among all Members, taking into account non-trade concerns, including food security and the need to protect the environment; Recalling that special and differential treatment of developing countries is an integral part of the negotiations, and taking into account the possible negative impact of the implementation of the Reform Agenda on least developed and net food-importing developing countries, the 2003 CAP Reform, which decoupled most existing direct aid, and the subsequent sectoral reforms resulted in the transfer of most of the support from the Yellow and Blue Categories to the Green Box (EUR 61.6 billion in 2016/2017, see table below). Amber Box (AMS) aid fell sharply from €81 billion at the beginning of the agreement period to €6.9 billion in 2016-2017, despite successive waves of enlargement. This means that the European Union is largely respecting the commitments made in Marrakesh (€72.38 billion per year) for the AMS. In addition, the “blue box” reached €4.6 billion during the same reference period. WTO members took important decisions on agriculture at the 2015 WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. These include the obligation to eliminate agricultural export subsidies, as well as decisions on public stocks for food security reasons, a special protection mechanism for developing countries and cotton trade rules. In the run-up to the 1986 GATT Ministerial Conference in Punta del Este, Uruguay, the agricultural lobbies of the industrialized countries opposed agriculture without compromise. In this context, the idea of exempting “trade-neutral” production and subsidies from WTO obligations was first proposed by the US in 1987 and quickly repeated by the EU. [2] By guaranteeing continued support to farmers, it has also neutralised the opposition. In exchange for including agriculture in WTO disciplines and committing to reduce trade-distorting subsidies in the future, developed countries are likely to maintain subsidies that cause “only minimal trade distortions” in order to achieve various policy objectives. [1] For products whose non-tariff restrictions have been converted into tariffs, governments may take special emergency measures (special safeguards) to prevent rapidly falling prices or increased imports from harming their farmers. However, the agreement specifies when and how these emergency measures can be taken (e.g.B.
they cannot be used for imports under a tariff quota). For domestic support policy, subject to reduction commitments, total support granted in 1986-88, as measured by the total level of support (Total AmS), should be reduced by 20% in industrialized countries (13.3% in developing countries). Reduction commitments refer to the total amount of aid and not to individual raw materials. Policies equivalent to domestic support under product-specific and non-product-specific categories, i.e. less than 5 per cent of the value of production for industrialized countries and less than 10 per cent for developing countries, are also excluded from any reduction commitment. Policies that have little or no trade-distorting effect on production are excluded from any reduction obligation (“green box” – Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture www.wto.org. The list of excluded Green Box policies includes policies that provide services or benefits to agriculture or the rural community, public stocks for food security purposes, national food aid and certain decoupled payments to producers, including direct payments to programmes limiting production, provided certain conditions are met. WTO information on agriculture, including notifications from WTO members Video: How to use agIMS This includes tariff prices, tariff reduction and access. Tariff classification means that all non-tariff barriers to trade such as quotas, variable levies, minimum import prices, discretionary licensing, state trade measures, voluntary restraint agreements, etc. must be abolished and converted into an equivalent tariff. Ordinary tariffs, including those resulting from their classification, should be reduced by an average of 36 %, with the minimum reduction rate for each tariff item being at least 15 % over a period of 6 years. Developing countries have had to reduce their tariffs by 24 per cent in 10 years.
Developing countries that maintained quantitative restrictions due to balance of payments problems were allowed to offer maximum liabilities instead of tariffs. The Agreement on Agriculture prohibits agricultural export subsidies unless such subsidies are included in a Schedule of Commitments by Members. If listed, the agreement requires WTO members to reduce both the amount of money they spend on export subsidies and the amounts of exports that receive subsidies. On the basis of the 1986-90 averages, industrialized countries agreed to reduce the value of export subsidies by 36% over the six years from 1995 onwards (24% over 10 years for developing countries). Developed countries have also agreed to reduce the volume of subsidized exports by 21 per cent over the six years (14 per cent over 10 years for developing countries). The least developed countries do not need to make cuts. At the 2013 WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia, ministers also agreed on a range of agriculture-related issues. The GATT 1947 originally applied to agriculture, but it was incomplete, and the signatory States (or “Contracting Parties”) excluded this sector from the scope of the principles set out in the General Agreement. During the period 1947-1994, Members were allowed to benefit from export subsidies on primary agricultural products and to impose import restrictions under certain conditions, so that major agricultural raw materials faced trade barriers to an unusual extent in other product sectors.
The road to a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system has therefore been long and difficult; And the negotiations were finally concluded in the Uruguay Round. Agriculture enjoys a special status in wto trade agreements and arrangements (signed in 1994 and entered into force on 1 January 1995), as the sector has a specific agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, whose provisions prevail. In addition, certain provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) also concern agricultural production and trade. The same applies to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) with regard to the protection of geographical indications. In addition, the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture are complemented by the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and technical assistance mechanisms. The CAP is also affected by agricultural concessions granted to a large number of countries under several multilateral and bilateral agreements and by unilateral derogations under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). .