The Wto Agreement On Agriculture



-December 18, 2020-

The Wto Agreement On Agriculture

Mike Burroughs

In the run-up to the 1986 GATT Ministerial Conference in Punta del Este, Uruguay, agricultural lobbies in industrialized countries have vehemently opposed agricultural trade-offs. In this context, the idea of excluding "trade-neutral" production and subsidies from WTO commitments was first proposed in 1987 by the United States and soon replicated by the EU. [2] By guaranteeing continued support to farmers, it has also neutralized the opposition. In exchange for the integration of agriculture into WTO disciplines and the obligation to reduce trade-distorting subsidies in the future, developed countries could maintain subsidies that result in "no more than minimal trade distortion" in order to achieve different public policy objectives. [1] On the eve of the Uruguay Round negotiations, it became increasingly clear that the causes of confusion in global agriculture went beyond the problems of access to imports, which were the traditional focus of the GATT negotiations. To reach the root causes of the problems, disciplines were considered essential for all agricultural trade measures, including national agricultural policy and agricultural export subsidies. In addition, clearer rules on health and plant health measures were deemed necessary, both in their own legislation and in avoiding the circumvention of stricter rules on access to imports through unjustified and protectionist application of food security, as well as animal and plant health measures. In view of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), signed in Geneva in 1947, and the world trade organization (WTO) agreement signed in Marrakech in 1994 (OJ L 1994, p. The European Union and its Member States act in accordance with Article 207 (Common Trade Policy) and Articles 217 and 218 (International Agreements) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (5.2.2).

The member transparency toolkit contains information on notification formats and a reporting manual, as well as links to members` lists with commitments and other resources to support member transparency in the agricultural sector. The agricultural negotiations under the Uruguay Round were not easy, as the broad scope of the negotiations and their political sensitivity inevitably took a long time to reach agreement on the new rules and it took a great deal of technical work to create solid means to formalize commitments in policy areas beyond the scope of previous GATT practice. The agreement on agriculture and the agreement on the application of health and plant health measures were negotiated in parallel and a decision on the possible negative impacts of the reform programme on the least developed developing countries and net food-importing developing countries was also part of the overall outcome. The reform of the 2003 CAP, which decoupled most of the existing direct aid, and the sectoral reforms that followed led to the deferral of most aid under the amber box and the blue box to the green box (61.6 billion euros in 2016/2017, see table below). Aid under the "amber box" (AMS) has fallen sharply, from EUR 81 billion at the beginning of the period of the agreement to EUR 6.9 billion between 2016 and 2017, even with successive waves of expansion.


SHARE THE ARTICLE
click below to share with friends and social networks
Facebook Twitter Tumblr Stumbleupon Reddit Email







DISCUSS THE ARTICLE
Leave a comment and participate in the discussion.
Social links powered by Ecreative Internet Marketing