Search

Developing members at the WTO face a shrinkage in policy space for supporting their agricultural sector due to the limited room available under the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Contrastingly, most developed members can provide high levels of product-specific support without breaching their commitments on account of their support entitlements. For some of these members, the so-called ‘Blue Box’ under the AoA, plays a pivotal role in expanding the policy space with respect to domestic support to agricultural products. Though a lot of scholarship has discussed and examined other support provisions under the AoA, the ‘Blue Box’ remains relatively shrouded in mystery. Testimony to this is the fact that although the Blue Box has found use amongst developed members, no developing member, except for China in 2016, has ever used the Blue Box to support their producers. Given the impasse in the Doha Round of negotiations and limited flexibilities available under the AoA, this paper examines the feasibility and compatibility Blue Box measures with developing members’ socio-economic situation. Findings of this paper bring to fore the variations in member practice and the operational flexibilities available in implementing Blue Box programmes to support agriculture. JEL: F13, F14, F17, Q17

In the agriculture negotiations, developing members remain concerned about the inherent inequities in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which allows developed members to provide huge product-speci...

The article presents the stages of formation and development of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, its structure and content of the main sections. It has been established that agriculture is one of the strategic and vulnerable sectors of the economy of any state, the development of which determines the level of national economic and food security. It is determined that the adopted document establishes a system of rules and obligations of countries in relation to agricultural policy measures related to the regulation of market access, domestic support, and export competition. The current trends in the development of the agri-food sector of Belarus in terms of agricultural production, food security, foreign trade are justified. The features of the implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in the conditions of the republic, taking into account external and internal factors of industry competitiveness, are highlighted. At the country level, directions for the development of agricultural trade policy, improvement of support measures that do not fall under obligations to limit in accordance with international requirements of the World Trade Organization, and ensure competitive advantages in foreign agricultural markets are proposed. It was noted that promising areas and criteria for the effective functioning of the agri-food sector should take into account national priorities, provide measures and mechanisms for the development of competitive and environmentally friendly production of agricultural products, expand market infrastructure, create favorable organizational and economic conditions for the functioning of the industry, and form its scientific and innovative potential. The issues disclosed in the article are of interest in developing a set of measures to increase the efficiency of foreign trade in the context of expanding the country’s participation in international and regional trade and economic integration, justifying mechanisms for improving agricultural regulation, and developing a system for promoting agri-food products on the domestic and foreign markets.

Trading grain and other agricultural items have been the trend in many nations of the world. In previous times, the exchange system that existed for exchange in items was the structure for trade in goods. Gradually, this gave an approach to economic merchants from all over the world, and trade in agricultural products gave strong economic advantages. The SPS Agreement under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) defined the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Guidelines as steps taken to ensure human, animal or vegetation or well-being from hazards associated with imported agricultural goods. Technical barriers to trade are legislation and interventions to supervise the supply of goods to the national market, which have as their main objective the correction of market wasteful aspects arising from externalities related to the production, distribution and consumption of those goods. This paper focuses on historical study of Indian foreign health and phytosanitary measures and Trade Barrier Treaties (TBT).

International audience; The legal framework for agricultural trade is marked by a complex dialectic that opposes commercial and non-commercial considerations, such as food security and environment. Although the reform of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture is still not complete, the last decades reveal a substantial normative production around the concept of food security which can bring changes to the WTO and contribute to a transition to sustainable food systems.; L’encadrement juridique du commerce agricole est marqué par une dialectique complexe qui oppose considérations commerciales et non commerciales comme la sécurité alimentaire et l’environnement. Bien que la réforme de l’accord sur l’agriculture de l’OMC ne soit pas achevée, les dernières décennies révèlent une production normative substantielle autour du concept de sécurité alimentaire qui peut amener des changements à l’OMC et contribuer à une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables.

El incremento por parte del Gobierno Colombiano a los aranceles en la importación de productos agrícolas originarios de Estados Unidos de América, está circunscrito al marco regulatorio comprendido en el Acuerdo de Promoción Comercial suscrito entre Colombia y los Estados Unidos de América, así como a la normativa de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, dentro de la que se resalta el Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura. Es por esto por lo que, de presentarse la situación en la que el gobierno nacional colombiano decida incrementar los aranceles a la importación de productos agrícolas originarios de USA, se deben llevar a cabo diferentes procedimientos con el fin de negociar nuevamente estos convenios internacionales para no entrar en el vasto campo de la violación de normas internacionales., The increase in tariffs on the importation of agricultural products originating in the United States of America is limited to the regulatory framework included in the Trade Promotion Agreement signed between Colombia and the United States of America, as well as the regulations of the World Trade Organization, within the guidelines of the Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore, if the situation arises in which the Colombian national government decides to increase import tariffs on agricultural products originating in the United States, different procedures must be carried out to renegotiate these international agreements in order to prevent violations of such international conventions.

NAFTA agricultural chapter and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture are external influences to the Mexican agricultural reform, conceived as a historical process in constant transformation, that shapes the terms of the sectoral economic operation in a liberalization and commercial opening context. The work claims that there is clearly an influence of the external trade policy on the domestic agricultural policy and on its outcomes in the institutional framework, that forms the model of sectoral regulation. The methodology reviews three central aspects negotiated in the “access to markets”, “producer support” and “export subsidies” agreements and analyzes the scope for state intervention and the decisions made on each one of them for the 1994-2012 period. The conclusions show that these two agreements complement each other and that there are matters that provide the Mexican State a wide scope for intervention that has not been used sufficiently to promote sectoral development policies. The current international food order is briefly analyzed taking up the theorists of the International Political Economy (Gilpin, 1987; McMichael, 2009; Polanyi, 1957; Gray, 2000).

Trade on Agriculture has been reformed since January 1995. It was a resultof Uruguay Round and staed on Agreement on Agriculture. However, its implementations have given negative aspects to developing countries. It was caused by the malfunction of specific protection mechanism. Besides, special and differential treatment, created by developed countries, is not implemented effectively. Accordingly, sector on Agriculture has been being negotiated since the Doha Round in 2001.

Achieving food security remains a challenge for many low- and middle-income countries, including Indonesia. The aim of this study was to assess the policy space to implement food security policy in Indonesia under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The policy space for developing countries to implement administered prices for agricultural commodities is significantly circumscribed by the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) under the WTO regime. In particular, the procurement of foodgrains at administered prices is considered “trade distorting support” and limited under the amber box. This study describes the food security policy context in Indonesia, compares existing food procurement expenditure to Indonesia’s commitments within the AoA, and evaluates the implications of different options proposed regarding public stockholding for food security purposes at the WTO. Administered prices and public procurement form part of Indonesia’s long-term commitment to food security policy, and aim to stabilize food prices for producers and consumers. Indonesia’s procurement of rice has been rising as a percentage of value of production (VoP). It is still under the de minimis limit (10%), but the applicable permissible limit on procurement has declined by nearly half, in terms of volume. This indicates that the policy space for providing product specific support is declining, as inflation is not accounted for under the AoA method of calculation. Of the different options that have been tabled to take into account inflation, using the Wholesale Price Index as a deflator increases the policy space the most. The peace clause deliberations at the WTO are of critical importance to the Government of Indonesia, as their policy space becomes increasingly constrained. In the near future, Indonesia may need to invoke the peace clause to restrain other countries from challenging its food security program.

A key issue in the foundation and subsequent evolution of the decisions on agricultural trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO) was the question of price and income support to agriculture. It is generally believed that income support, as opposed to price support, is less trade-distorting, which is also reflected in their classification under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Price support is classified under the trade-distorting Amber box, whereas income support is covered by the provisions of the Green box that are considered as minimally trade-distorting. Most developing countries, however, tend to resort to price-support policies due to budgetary constraints and fiscal concerns. Any redistributive policies like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program though found to be highly effective in bringing up wages and rural income are often critiqued domestically by neoliberals for the financial burden they allegedly place on the exchequer. This study seeks to engage with a particular aspect of critique of price-support policies that claim that income-support policies extended to farmers in developed countries do not distort prices and output. Though this proposition may be valid in a partial equilibrium perfectly competitive model, it is not necessarily valid in an oligopoly or a general equilibrium framework or a Keynesian/Kaleckian macroeconomic setting. Thus, this study makes a modest attempt to demonstrate that income-support measures, like price-support measures are also trade-distorting.

Liberalisation of Indian agriculture under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and free trade agreements (FTAs) has always been a sensitive issue due to the crucial role played by the sector in economic development, GDP growth and employment. This chapter provides an overview of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and the issues faced by the Indian agriculture sector under its different pillars. In particular, it examines issues of critical importance for India, such as market price support, import surges, food security and special and differential treatment (S&DT) at the WTO, while also providing insights from negotiations. The chapter also deals with agriculture-specific issues in India’s FTAs, providing a broad view of its commitments and assessing trade performance of Indian agriculture over the years. It concludes by stressing the need to level the playing field in agricultural trade at the multilateral and regional level for Indian farmers.

Fisheries subsidies negotiations have been a protracted issue ever since the launch of the Doha Development Agenda in 2001. Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have intensified their efforts to conclude the negotiations by the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in 2021. At present, significant divergences exist between developed and developing countries in the WTO on the formulation of disciplines on fisheries subsidies. This chapter will discuss the key contentious issues of the various fisheries subsidies proposals, including the recent Chair’s text of July 2020. The chapter discusses the major imbalances, including the lack of policy space for development, the imposition of stringent management measures, compromising the rights of developing countries in UNCLOS and the low ambition of special and differential treatment. The chapter further discusses how the existing proposals benefit the market access agenda of the developed economies. It also cautions that a similar scenario of the imbalance experienced by developing countries in the Agreement on Agriculture will be repeated in the existing fisheries subsidies negotiations if the contentious issues remain unresolved in the final agreement. The paper also provides a strategic way forward in relation to a balanced special and differential treatment for member’s consideration.

Apesar do grande esforço da comunidade internacional, a falta de segurança alimentar persiste e piorou nos últimos anos. Entre os múltiplos elementos que podem afetar a segurança alimentar, o comércio na agricultura desempenha um papel significativo em termos positivos e negativos. Considerando a segurança alimentar no sistema multilateral de comércio, uma das questões mais importantes é o próprio conceito de segurança alimentar adotado pelas partes negociadoras. Esse conceito corresponde à definição mais utilizada a nível internacional, ou seja, a definição da FAO? O fórum da Organização Mundial do Comércio apresentou uma noção clara e consistente de segurança alimentar? Este artigo discute o conceito de segurança alimentar proveniente do sistema legal da OMC, examinando as regras do Acordo sobre Agricultura relevante e levando em conta o atual processo de reforma.

Disciplining domestic support to agriculture remains an unfinished agenda in the WTO negotiations due to the different views and positions of members. Developing members have been consistently demanding an effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) for themselves, along with a substantial reduction in the trade-distorting support entitlement of developed members. However, members have failed to reach a consensus on different aspects, especially coverage and approaches to determine an overall trade-distorting support (OTDS) limit. In this context, this study quantifies and critically examines the implications of various proposals on the policy space to provide trade-distorting support based on floating and fixed reference period models. It estimates trade-distorting entitlements of 9 developed and 16 developing members under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) as well as the selected proposals for the years 2020 and 2030. These entitlements have been computed in monetary limits, percentage of the value of production, and on per farmer basis. Results show that many proposals have failed to deliver the effective S&DT, as developing members generally have to undertake higher cuts than developed members, highlighting the asymmetries in negotiations. The study will be useful for members to take an informed position in the agriculture negotiations on domestic support.

This paper reviews the domestic support rules of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and evaluates the space they generate for different members to provide different kinds and levels of support subject to and exempt from limits. Economic analysis of support is reviewed, focused on direct payments to producers and market price support (MPS) measured in the AoA compared to economic price support. A global overview presents the major changes in members’ domestic support as revealed by their notifications to the WTO Committee on Agriculture (CoA) for 1995-2016, complemented by selected subsequent information. Key results are a shift toward less-distorting support (recent support in the United States since 2018 one exception), concentration of support among a small number of members, and the rise of China and India as top support providers, along with the European Union, the United States and Japan. The paper summarizes discussion within the CoA over the notified information and other questions about members’ domestic support. It examines the measurement of MPS for wheat and rice in the recent dispute China ‒ Agricultural Producers and for several products for India, including in three ongoing disputes India ‒ Measures Concerning Sugar and Sugarcane. Our assessments highlight the problematic aspects of the AoA measurement. China’s MPS, when measured in line with the dispute settlement ruling, can be accommodated within its limits while hardly constraining its economic support. Conversely, some measurements of India’s MPS are far greater than the economic support provided. Such divergences underlie contention about the consequences of applying the AoA rules. An alternative is considered that more closely tracks economic support by using lagged international border prices as a reference price. Members continue to debate domestic support options. Whether progress can be made is uncertain as they hold fast to longstanding positions on such issues as the rules and limits applying to domestic support as a whole, to cotton support and to the consequences of acquisition at administered prices of public stocks for food security purposes. New policy priorities have gained prominence, most notably climate change, but related also to productivity growth, biosecurity, water management and biodiversity. Governments have the option to address these and other priorities through green box support exempt from limit. More explicit green box specifications might clarify what support policies in the area of mitigating climate change would qualify for exemption. The paper concludes by assessing how the diverse pressures for change affect the potential of the AoA to contribute to a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system. We summarize the major problematic aspects of the AoA and from these insights suggest options to improve and strengthen the WTO rules and commitments on domestic support.

This paper assesses key issues in the dispute over the United States’ claim that for certain grains China exceeded its limits on domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) during 2012-2015. The panel first determined that the base years for the reference price in calculating China’s market price support were 1996-1998, rather than 1986-1988 as stipulated in the AoA, and that production in the geographic regions where the support programs operated, not the smaller quantities purchased at administered prices, constituted eligible production. The panel then found China exceeded its limits in each of the four years for wheat, Indica rice and Japonica rice. The possibility was left open that a government can determine eligible production by setting maximum purchases at support prices in its regulatory framework. China used this option to claim that its programs for 2020 implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. We argue that use of outdated fixed external reference prices to measure the price gap, and defining eligible production by limits on purchases, distance calculation under the AoA from economic support measurement. The measurement issues compound the discord among Members over levels of agricultural support.

In the agriculture negotiations, developing members remain concerned about the inherent inequities in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which allows developed members to provide huge trade-distorting support without breaching their commitments. As a result of these flexibilities, developed members enjoy artificial competitiveness in international trade, which subsequently leads to an adverse impact on farm income and livelihood security for millions of farmers in third world countries. Further, developing members have been increasingly finding it difficult to implement domestic support measures due to the constraining provisions of the AoA. From the developing members' perspective, the elimination of trade-distorting entitlement for developed members along with special and differential treatment for themselves are the key demands in domestic support negotiations. However, some developed members have tried to build a narrative to depict developing members as major providers of trade-distorting support. This study has made a modest attempt to bring out the fallacy of this narrative by highlighting the asymmetries and inequities in trade-distorting entitlement of 8 developed and 12 developing members based on their socio-economic conditions. Results show that per farmer Amber box entitlement for developing members under the AoA is a mere fraction of the entitlement enjoyed by the developed members. This study provides a different dimension to the ongoing agriculture negotiations to make trade rules development-oriented and inclusive for all. More specifically, this study examine the following pertinent questions (1) whether the relevance of AMS entitlement for developed members has declined, and if so, why are developing members still asking for AMS elimination; (2) in case the socio-economic conditions of the developing members are considered, whether the narrative that developing members have the huge policy space under the de minimis limit will stand; (3) if policy space under the de minimis limit has increased, then why are the developing members complaining about the constraining provisions of the AoA; (4) In case the number of farmers is considered, what will be the entitlement of the members under the amber box for achieving a level playing field. The study seeks to explore answers to these intriguing questions by examining and evaluating the policy space under the Amber box for 20 selected members; 8 developed members namely Australia, Canada, European Union (EU), Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, and 12 developing members namely Bangladesh, Brazil, India, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey in 2020 and 2030.

A landmark achievement of the Uruguay Round, and notably, the Agreement on Agriculture, was the full inclusion of agriculture in multilateral rules and disciplines. Since the birth of World Trade Organization (WTO), a significant number of member countries have used the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) for resolving the disputes in agriculture. The DSM has played an important role not only for those parties involved in the disputes, but also by helping member countries to better understand the WTO rules, and therefore help guide them in developing domestic policies and trade policies that are consistent with WTO requirements. This paper examines trade disputes involving the Agreement on Agriculture since the WTO was formed in 1995 through December 2019. It analyzes who brought the disputes and against whom disputes were brought, and provides details on the natures of the disputes, the duration of disputes, and, the outcome of those disputes.

This paper assesses key issues in the dispute over the United States’ claim that for certain grains China exceeded its limits on domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) during 2012–2015. The panel first determined that the base years for the reference price in calculating China's market price support were 1996–1998, rather than 1986–1988 as stipulated in the AoA, and that production in the geographic regions where the support programs operated, not the smaller quantities purchased at administered prices, constituted eligible production. The panel then found China had exceeded its limits in each of the four years for wheat, Indica rice, and Japonica rice. The possibility was left open that a government can determine eligible production by setting maximum purchases at support prices in its regulatory framework. China used this option to claim that its programs for 2020 implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. We argue that use of outdated fixed external reference prices to measure the price gap and to define eligible production by limits on purchases, distance calculation under the AoA from economic support measurement. The measurement issues compound the discord among Members over levels of agricultural support.

With rising levels of food and livelihood insecurity among poor farmers, many developing members at the WTO are demanding special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for shielding their agriculture from import surges and price declines. Most of developing members do not have any trade instrument under the WTO to address it except by increasing the applied tariff to bound level. Similar to special agricultural safeguards (SSGs) which is available only to few members, SSM seeks to provide flexibility to developing members to breach the bound tariff in special cases of import surges and price dips in order to minimize its adverse impact. In this context, this study identifies the agricultural products facing import surges in selected developing members namely Ghana, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. The uniqueness of this study is derived from the fact that it also evaluates the policy space available to selected members on these tariff lines in terms of tariff overhang under their existing schedules as well as proposed tariff reductions under agriculture negotiations. Beside this, it critically scrutinizes various issues such as cross-check conditions, triggers and remedies in order to highlight the sensitivities of developing members in accessibility, effectiveness, and other technical aspects of this mechanism. The study identifies some of the provisions contained in the most recent version of the negotiating texts which could render the SSM an ineffective policy instrument and difficult to operationalise.

The world trade organisation (WTO) has liberalised trade considerably, but there are instances of imbalance and systemic issues persisting although we celebrate two-decade of the existence of this regulatory body. This paper provides insights into how there is a lack of disciplining of WTO compatible non-tariff measures at the multilateral level. It has led to members stretching the use of permissible provisions (Articles 5 and 7) under the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, allowing for deviation from international standards and not notifying with HS codes. All these actions, particularly over the last two decades, have increased the level of protection of their domestic industry under pressure from tariff liberalisation and correspondingly led to a rise in protectionism. Especially when the restrictions put on the imports, they are not adequately notified to the WTO. Information asymmetry (of various forms like – the WTO notifications without trade linkage, non-standardised approach to market access, non-codex MRL standards etc.,) is one of the biggest challenges to overcome when it comes to addressing the menace of non-tariff measure created mainly by the SPS and TBT measures. This paper attempts to bring to the forefront some of the imbalances in the global trading arena that have co-existed along with the WTO led tariff alone liberalisation efforts since 1995. To do this, we have analysed ten players in the global arena, considering various strategic consideration for India. In the paper, we have attempted to bridge this by providing what exactly is the level of requirements across ten countries in terms of active ingredients MRL standards. To elaborate on this issue, we have done the mapping of maximum residual limits (MRL) standards on active ingredients as provided by the Global MRL Database for ten countries alongside Codex standards (international). An analysis of the stringency test performed to quantify a comparison MRL standards scenario vis-a-vis the Codex standards for ten countries. The paper highlights the growing importance of MRL standards on active ingredients in determining global players in agricultural exports. This paper also analyses the MRL standards faced by top 33 agricultural products of India in nine markets. Further, there is an attempt to analyse the interface of tariff liberalisation (MFN) with MRL-based SPS standards, which are dominantly present “behind the border”.

This article examines efforts by member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to modify international trade laws to further accommodate public food stockholding for food security programmes operated by developing countries. While WTO members have negotiated a temporary Peace Clause to minimise the threat of a trade dispute for countries whose public food stockholding violates their international trade commitments, negotiations to modify existing WTO law have been fraught with political discord. I argue that states are using the WTO’s negotiating function to address perceived conflicts between international trade law and national food security goals rather than pursuing a solution through legal adjudication. The case of public food stockholding reveals important dynamics about the WTO-food security relationship that are overlooked by approaches primarily concerned with supra-national constraints on national policy and the fragmentation of international law.

This paper aims to analyze how developing countries can take full advantage of international trade arrangements and apply the principles and rules of special and differential treatment in the WTO rules of international trade in the context of agricultural sector. This research applied normative legal research as a method that refers to legal norms to understand the application of legal norms to present facts, changing circumstances. This method is also purposively to offer potential solutions to resolve concrete societal issues in order to understand the application of legal norms. The purpose includes to analyze the WTO agricultural agreement by showing the importance of special and different treatment in the context of international trade. This study revealed that there have been a number of special and differential treatment arrangements under Agreement on Agriculture set out in a number of articles. The existence of arrangements concerning special and differential treatment in Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is expected to provide benefits between all participating countries. The provision provides the obligation for developed countries to pay full attention to the special needs and different conditions of developing countries. This rule includes the recognition of the existing differentiation among WTO members and treatment for all developing member countries. The AoA is implemented by giving more emphasis on agricultural sector, and giving rural development priorities as a main basis for agriculture.

The variable import levy for corn imports in the European Union aims to support European producers by insulating domestic prices from low international prices. Such price-insulating policies have been associated with an increase in global market volatility. Eliminating these distortions has been one of the key issues in international negotiations on agricultural trade liberalization, e.g., the commitment of WTO member states to follow the principle of tariffication as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Nevertheless, the Blair House Agreement effectively allowed the EU to maintain a variable import levy regime for grain imports, although the magnitude of this levy is substantially smaller than in the past. Notwithstanding that this policy has been a cornerstone of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, empirical evidence on the magnitude of its effects on price volatility is largely missing. This paper employs a multivariate asymmetric volatility model to assess these effects on domestic and foreign corn markets, using Argentina – a large exporter of corn – as an example. In line with the relevant theoretical literature, we find empirical evidence for the 2002–2017 period that the variable import levy reduced corn price volatility in the EU market, while significantly increasing volatility to the same extent in Argentina. In a distorted sense, the import levy of the EU has thus been a success, as its variable application rate has stabilized prices in the EU domestic market. However, our results show that this policy has merely shifted price volatility abroad since it has led to increases in price volatility in Argentina. A less distortionary policy to target the problems of agricultural price volatility should shift its focus away from direct price interventions. For instance, domestic policies that improve farmers’ ability to cope with price-related risks would avoid the negative effects of domestic price stabilization in foreign countries.