DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing EU Free Trade Agreements : Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing EU Free Trade Agreements : Agriculture InInNo. 6ABriefBrief- July 2004 Comparing EU free trade agreements Agriculture Bettina Rudloff and Johannes Simons, Institute of Agricultural Policy, University of Bonn, Germany The aim of this InBrief series is to provide a synthesis of various chapters of the ten free trade agreements (FTAs) recently concluded by the European Union with developing countries, as well as other relevant trade agreements when appropriate. Each InBrief offers a detailed and schematic overview of a specific set of trade and trade-related provisions in these agreements. Agriculture has always been a sensitive area decreasing import prices. Furthermore, The problem of protecting specific designa- in international trade liberalisation due to its certain defined quantities (tariff rate tions of origin (geographical indications,or importance for national food security and quotas,or ‘TRQs’) that are subject to lower ‘GIs’) is covered by the Agreement on Trade- rural development and its dependence on tariffs or no tariffs can be established in Related Aspects of Intellectual Property nature. Within the World Trade Organization, addition to tariff reduction to achieve mini- Rights (TRIPS). To regulate rights to use GIs a crucial step for integrating agriculture into mum market access . for wines and spirits, the intention is to the worldwide liberalisation process was establish a multilateral system of notifica- made with the conclusion of the Uruguay Measures to reduce trade-distorting domes- tion and registration and to extend GI pro- Round. The free trade agreements between tic support are classified as red, amber, blue tection to products other than wines and the European Union and its respective trading or green box, with the degree of trade spirits. Contentious points of discussion are partners reinforce that process on a bilateral distortion decreasing from red to green and geographical names that are used as basis. These agreements may entail signifi- reduction commitments declining accor- generic and common terms connoting a cant economic consequences, in particular for dingly. Total trade-distorting support (the production technique in some countries but developing countries. aggregate measure of support, or ‘AMS’) used as GIs in other countries (e.g. cheddar must be reduced. Minimal (de minimis) cheese, port wine). support is not included in the calculation of AMS. The Agreement on Sanitary and Agriculture in the WTO Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures specifies The peace clause defined an exceptional general exemptions from free trade com- The World Trade Organization Agreement on role for agricultural subsidies until 31 mitments (GATT, Art. XX) associated with Agriculture (AoA) as part of the Uruguay December 2003. Even if agricultural sub- human, animal or plant life or health. It Round Agreement Act defines binding steps sidies (e.g. export subsidies) do not conform covers rules for establishing non-tariff in the agricultural liberalisation process to the provisions of the Agreement on barriers recognising a twofold objective: (1) with respect to market access, export com- Subsidies and Countervailing Measures they granting sovereignty of WTO members to petition and domestic support (see Box 1). are non-actionable if they conform to the provide the level of health protection they provisions of the AoA. Special and deem appropriate and (2) preventing dis- Market access shall be improved by convert- differential treatment (SDT) for developing guised restrictions on international trade.1 ing non-tariff measures into tariffs (tariffi- countries refers to lower reduction provi- Non-tariff SPS-related barriers must be con- cation) and by tariff reduction. To inhibit a sions and longer implementation periods sistent with international standards or surge of imports, some countries can apply allowed for such countries to realise com- based on a scientific risk assessment. the special safeguard clause for defined mitments. Least developed countries (LDCs) products. This clause allows additional tar- are not required to undertake reduction The Doha Declaration reaffirmed the process iffs to be triggered by either extraordinarily commitments. of reducing trade restrictions and distortions increasing import quantities or by unusually in world agricultural markets and the princi- European Centre for Development Policy Management Centre européen de gestion des politiques de développement Page 2 Comparing EU free trade agreements July 2004 InBrief 6A ple of special and differential treatment for (1) Tariff concessions concern either com- defined for agriculture.2 Safeguards can be developing countries. Developing-country plete or partial tariff reductions. For those applied to both imports and exports. needs, including food security and rural products charged with both ad valorem and - Imports: Similar to the AoA, safeguard development, shall be taken into account in specific duties, a partial reduction is often measures can be triggered based on quan- all negotiations and agreements (Art. 13 of achieved by simply abandoning the ad val- tity or price. For instance, the EU can make the Doha Declaration). orem component. concessions for certain fruits and vegeta- - For the EU, specification of the tariff reduc- bles by lowering the entry price.3 tion is usually related to WTO MFN rates. - Exports: Shortage clauses similar to GATT - For the EU’s trading partners, a tariff reduc- Art. XI define criteria for possible export Agriculture in EU Free Trade tion normally refers to actually applied tar- restrictions, such as a decrease of domestic Agreements iffs. These applied tariffs may be lower food availability. than the maximum (bound) tariffs agreed Similar to WTO provisions, in recent EU free in the WTO. Some FTAs do not specify the (4) Specific rules of origin for agricultural trade agreements (FTAs) with developing tariff reduction itself but rather the final products ensure the exclusive application of countries agricultural liberalisation is still duty that is charged on imports from the preferences only to FTA members.4 limited compared to that of industrial prod- EU. - Criteria are defined for determining ucts. For agricultural produce, the general whether a product is ‘wholly obtained’, i.e. aim of free trade is subject to numerous (2) Tariff rate quota concessions are tariff if plant products are harvested and ani- exceptions, and any advanced concessions reductions for defined quantities of certain mals are born and raised completely are strictly defined for single products and products. In order to tailor them to the indi- within one partner country. countries. In the seven Mediterranean (MED) vidual needs of the parties, there are sea- - For processed products, the ‘import content agreements and the FTAs concluded with sonal limitations of favoured imports and rule’ defines ratios for the value of South Africa, Mexico and Chile, the follow- adjustments of quantities by a fixed annual imported inputs that are tolerated within ing six instruments are applied, separately growth rate or by a rate to be decided flexi- ‘originating’ products. In most EU FTAs, this or in combination, to achieve trade prefer- bly based on an annual review. ratio is set at below 10% of the ex-works ences for the countries concerned beyond price.5 For some processed agricultural the provisions of WTO most-favoured-nation (3) Safeguard clauses can be common for all products thresholds larger than the stan- (MFN) status. products, or special safeguards may be dard 10% apply. Working and processing, such as transporting, sorting and classify- ing, packaging, affixing marks, labels or logos, mixing products, and slaughter of Box 1 Key elements in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) animals, are considered insufficient for conferring originating status to products Market access (Art. 4) with imported content. •Tariffication of trade barriers - Bilateral cumulation allows the contracting •"Binding" tariffs countries to cumulate origin. This encour- •Tariff reductions (reference period 1986–88): ages bilateral trade in intermediate prod- - on average, 36% for developed countries over 6 years (24% for developing countries over ucts between the EU and the contracting 10 years) partner. - by product, 15% for developed countries (10% for developing countries) - Regarding GIs, since a multinational •Special safeguard clause allows additional tariffs system of notification still is under nego- •Tariff rate quotas ensure minimum marketaccess tiation at the WTO level, just a few provi- sions on protecting certain GIs are found Export competition (Art. 8-9) within some FTAs. •Reduction in value and outlays of exportsubsidies:36% and 21% for developed countries (24% and 14% for developing countries) (reference period 1986–90) (5) Options for flexible adjustments to a partner’s market access are offered by two Domestic support (Art. 6 and Annex 2) clauses: •Reduction commitments according to degree of trade distortion (reference period 1986–88) - The review clause commits the parties to •"Traffic light" boxes (red,amber,blue and green) distinguish between differenttypes of examine in Association Committees domestic support further opportunities to enhance liberali- •AMS reduction by 20% for developed countries (13% for developing countries) sation in agricultural products, taking into •De minimis clause exempts minimal supportfrom reduction account the sensitivities of trade in agriculture and domestic agricultural Implementation period policies. •Developed countries 1995–2000,developing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Policy Commitments Made Under the Agreement on Agriculture
    Order Code RL32916 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Agriculture in the WTO: Policy Commitments Made Under the Agreement on Agriculture May 12, 2005 Randy Schnepf Specialist in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Agriculture in the WTO: Policy Commitments Made Under the Agreement on Agriculture Summary The Uruguay Round (UR) of multilateral trade negotiations, completed in 1994, represented the first significant step toward reforming international agricultural trade. Under the UR negotiations, domestic policies and trade policies were viewed as interconnected. As a result, WTO member countries committed to disciplines in agricultural support in three broad areas — domestic agricultural support programs, export subsidies, and market access — often referred to as the three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture (AA). In addition, members also agreed to provisions concerning the handling of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, dispute settlement procedures, and the continuation of the reform process. Under the auspices of the UR’s AA, WTO member countries agreed to limit and reduce the most distortive domestic support subsidies — referred to as amber box subsidies and measured by the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) index. Several types of indirect subsidies were identified as causing minimal distortion to agricultural production and trade, and were provided exemptions — green box, blue box, de minimis, and special treatment — from WTO disciplines. Export subsidies were capped and subject to reductions in both value and volume. In addition, members agreed to improve market access for internationally traded agricultural products by converting non-tariff trade barriers (NTBs) into tariffs (a process called tariffication); binding existing tariffs at January 1, 1995, levels; and reducing tariffs from bound levels with the all-product average tariff being reduced faster than tariffs for individual products.
    [Show full text]
  • Differentiation Between Developing Countries in the WTO
    Differentiation between Developing Countries in the WTO Report 2004:14 E Foto: Mats Pettersson Differentiation between Developing Countries in the WTO Swedish Board of Agriculture International Affairs Division June 2004 Authors: Jonas Kasteng Arne Karlsson Carina Lindberg Contents PROLOGUE.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Purpose of the study............................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Limitations of the study ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Background to the discussion on differentiation................................................................................ 10 1.4 Present differentiation between developing countries in the WTO.................................................... 12 1.5 Relevance of present differentiation between developing countries in the WTO .............................. 13 1.6 Outline of the new differentiation initiative......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture at the Uruguay Round: the European Union´S Hindering Position Towards Trade Liberalization
    ISA-FLACSO Joint Conference Buenos Aires, July 24th, 2014 Agriculture at the Uruguay Round: the European Union´s hindering position towards trade liberalization Patricia Nasser de Carvalho Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) [email protected] 1 Abstract The European Union started acting as unified trading actor in GATT negotiations in the 1960s and in the same decade launched it´s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) that since then helped hindering a multilateral trade agreement on agriculture. The Uruguay Round, which started in 1986, prolonged for an agriculture dispute, was finished in 1994 with an agreement to reduce non-tariff barriers to agriculture imports and tariffs were scheduled for phased reductions. In this context, this article proposals are to a) discuss the European Union's position on negotiations that led to the Uruguay Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) including the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and the Dispute Settlement Agreement (which in theory should improve the process of resolving trade conflicts) b) show that although those agreements were set to ensure a more harmonic trade negotiations to liberalize trade on agriculture, the European Union did not change it's essence protectionist agriculture policy, since CAP continued hindering an agreement with concrete results towards liberalization on agriculture. The aim is to show that although all these agreements, high price levels, barriers to foreign trade and pressure under the common budget persisted and deepened in the European agriculture market after the URAA. 1. Introduction The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU), one of the most important symbols and paradigmatic policies of the European regional integration process and that could best fulfill the aim of building a unified image of Europe, had completed fifty years in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States: Agricultural
    Countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States: Agricultural policy issues in the context of the World Trade Organization Countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States: Agricultural policy issues in the context of the World Trade Organization Lars Brink FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, ROME 2014 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. E-ISBN 978-92-5-108449-6 (PDF) © FAO, 2014 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Wto Agreement on Agriculture on Food Security in Developing Countries
    135 EAAE Seminar Challenges for the Global Agricultural Trade Regime after Doha THE IMPACT OF THE WTO AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE ON FOOD SECURITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Jelena Birovljev University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Economics in Subotica, Serbia [email protected] Biljana Ćetković University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Economics in Subotica, Serbia [email protected] Abstract: Free trade has become a modern-day creed, accepted by both wealthy industrialized countries and many governments of developing countries as the generator of economic growth, development and employment. However, free trade has also been condemned by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in developing countries as the tool through which the economic dominance of wealthy, developed countries is institutionalized and maintained. Agriculture has been one of the most controversial issues in the multilateral trade negotiations for the past fifty years. The aim of this article is to examine food security implications of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. It discusses the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which is systematically favoring agricultural producers in industrialized countries at the expense of farmers in developing countries, and explores ways in which the Agreement may be modified to achieve a more equal chance for success for both parties. The article also deals with the extent to which realization of the Agreement’s stated objective – the establishment of a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system—is likely to advance food security in developing countries. The first section defines food security, discusses the relationship between trade and food security, and analyzes the impact of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture on food security in developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • World Trade Organization Here in Doha, Qatar
    WORLD TRADE WT/MIN(01)/ST/96 11 November 2001 ORGANIZATION (01-5674) MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE Original: English Fourth Session Doha, 9 - 13 November 2001 LITHUANIA Statement by H.E. Mr Evaldas Ignatavicius Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs I am glad to have this opportunity to address you on behalf of Lithuania at the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization here in Doha, Qatar. It is my pleasure and duty to present you our thoughts and share our opinion on the agenda and objectives of this conference. This Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha is very important to us, since it is the first Ministerial Conference where my country participates as a fully fledged Member of the WTO. After a complex accession process we are happy to be in the WTO "club" and to have this opportunity to participate in the discussion on global trade issues. It strengthens our feeling that we are a part of the integrated world economy, able to enjoy benefits and fulfil obligations arising thereof. The current situation in the world places a huge responsibility on the WTO, as a global Organization. It is WTO that can help us to restore confidence in the future of global economy. We believe that launching a new WTO negotiations round would strongly contribute to that. Since a success of a new round is very important to the world community, we must be very cautious. Failure of Seattle must be taken into account, and mistakes that contributed to the failure must not be repeated. We live in a diverse world, a world where numerous interests struggle.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture in the World Trade Organization—Introduction
    United States Department of Agriculture AGRICULTURE Economic Research IN THE WTO Service WRS-98-4 December 1998 Situation and Outlook Series Report Coordinator Mary Anne Normile (202) 694-5162 Contents Authors Karen Z. Ackerman Summary . .3 Kevin J. Brosch Gene Hasha Agriculture in the World Trade Organization—Introduction . .5 David R. Kelch Market Access Issues . .6 Susan Leetmaa Domestic Support Commitments: Peter Liapis APreliminary Evaluation . .14 Mary Lisa Madell Frederick J. Nelson Export Subsidy Commitments: Few Are Binding Yet, But Donna Roberts Some Members Try To Evade Them . .21 Randall Schnepf Implementation of the WTO Agreement on the Application Mark Simone of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures . .27 David Skully Constanza Valdes Biotechnology in Agriculture Confronts Agreements John Wainio in the WTO . .34 C. Edwin Young Improvements in WTO Dispute Settlement . .36 Two of 32 Applicants forWTO Membership Successfully Technical Editor Complete Accession Negotiations . .41 Diane Decker State Trading Enterprises in World Agricultural Trade . .43 Production/Design Developing Countries’Issues in the WTO Related Wynnice Pointer-Napper to Agriculture . .48 Victor Phillips, Jr. Glossary of Agricultural Trade and WTO Terms . .53 Approved by the World List of Tables and Figures . .55 Agricultural Outlook Board. Summary released December 9, 1998. Summary and full report may be accessed elec- tronically via the ERS website at http://www.econ.ag.gov. Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend sincere thanks to Nicole Ballenger,
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement on Agriculture Summary
    Agreement On Agriculture Summary Upward and protrusile Davis never organizes his prematurity! Coy Emory usually chisel some reprimand or unshackles habitably. Sometimes insurrectionary Conan headline her sphenoid evilly, but randomized Herb bitter somewhat or imbruing collectively. Many of agreement on Data lane the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service for Michigan counties. China Domestic trip for Agricultural Producers DFAT. Permanent trade agreement on agriculture summary, can be renewed interest in summary available. In intellectual rights concerns lead off from thailand its agriculture agreement, yields and grow oilseed rape which is huge tariff liberalisation efforts to finish because of local currency. General stance on Tariffs and Trade GATT set of multilateral trade. Assessing the benefits of sewage trade facilitation agreement for. As domestic support to promote capacity resulting in summary, agreement on agriculture summary available. All commodities, but is particular, road will expect from the agreement. Classifying and Measuring Agricultural Support Identifying. WRI and WWF and attended by foreign Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Bilateral or a greater detail available to follow up on government agricultural agreement on agriculture summary papers, tax relief following their ability to become a rather more. Did say with limited negotiating table of agreement on agriculture summary review with international political economy, primarily on exports but major crops but also offered by excluding china, do not encourage china. Under article 20 of court Agreement on Agriculture to their stated intention to address unresolved issues on the agricultural trade would This business brief is. There are natural habitats in summary papers, agreement on agriculture summary review strategy for? Neither its work less an implicit policy, just suspicious in the mustard or just immediately the warehouse way.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full Report
    POLICY BRIEF INDUSTRIAL SUBSIDIES AS A MAJOR POLICY RESPONSE SINCE THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISES: CONSEQUENCES AND REMEDIES Task Force 1 TRADE, INVESTMENT AND GROWTH Authors PETER DRAPER, ANDREAS FREYTAG, HENRY GAO, NAOISE MCDONAGH, SIMON EVENETT TASK FORCE 1. TRADE, INVESTMENT AND GROWTH 17 موجز السياسة اﻹعانات الصناعية بصفتها ًاستجابة رئيسية للسياسات منذ اﻷزمات المالية العالمية: العواقب والعﻻجات فريق العمل اﻷول التجارة واﻻستثمار والنمو المؤلفون بيتر درابر، أندرياس فريتاغ، هنري غاو، نايوزي ماكدونا، سيمون إيفينيت ABSTRACT The World Trade Organization (WTO) is at an impasse regarding the resolution of tensions surrounding the issue of subsidies. The weak implementation and surveil- lance of WTO disciplines is attributable to the lack of notifications by WTO members. Currently, major members are developing plurilateral initiatives to deal with the per- ceived unfair application of subsidies, which leads to market distortions, overcapacity, and unfair competition. Are these steps an attempt at broad reform or a self-serving agenda aimed at certain other members? This policy brief explores the major issues around subsidies, and identifies a plurilateral path forward if a broad—than mem- ber-targeted—reform agenda is to be followed. It proposes procedural steps that the Group of Twenty (G20) members can follow to address the subsidies problem and, thus, provides a set of substantive options to guide the proposed deliberations. كمــا هــو الحــال مــع قضايــا أخــرى، وصلــت منظمــة التجــارة العالميــة إلــى طريــق مســدود فــي مــا ّيتعلــق بحــل التوتــر الــذي يحيــط قضيــة اﻹعانــات. هــذا وإنــه ﻻ توجــد إخطــارات مــن جانــب اﻷعضــاء فــي الغالــب، وذلــك يضعــف عمليــات تنفيــذ ضوابــط منظمــة التجــارة العالميــة ومراقبتهــا. يحــرز أعضــاء منظمــة التجــارة العالميــة الرئيســيون حاليًــا ًتقدمــا فــي المبــادرات الجماعيــة للتعامــل مــع التطبيــق غيــر العــادل الملمــوس لﻹعانــات، والــذي يــؤدي إلــى انحرافــات فــي الســوق، وقــدرة إنتاجيــة مفرطــة، ومنافســة غيــر عادلــة.
    [Show full text]
  • I South African Agriculture in the World Economy
    Agrekon, Vol 35, No 2 (December 1996) Swart Agreko11, Vol 35, No 2 (December 1996) Swart ISOUTH AFRICAN AGRICULTURE IN THE WORLD ECONOMY restrictions and distortions . so as to reduce the Apart from the well-known customs unions and free I uncertainty, imbalances and instability in world trade agreements (FTA's), such as the European Union, agricultural markets". NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and P.J.A. Swart Mercosur, important other developments in this field Agric11/t11ral Co1111sellor in Geneva, Switzerland l11is Jed to an agreement on agriculture and a nwnber of include EU enlargement and EU initiatives to explicit commitments by members regarding domestic restructure its relationship with Mediterranean countries support, market access and export subsidies in to allow for freer trade; and greater coherence in each of INTRODUCTION THE DOMESTIC REVOLUTION agriculture. the Asian continent, the Pacific Rim and the Americas. South African agriculture has in recent years not only The last approximately fifteen years have seen South In the agricultural field the relevant agreement and South Africa is also investigating the possible value of a witnessed a rapidly changing international trading African agricultural marketing policy move onto a commitments by members are a first step in a process free trade agreement with the EU and has recently environment, but it has also experienced a dramatic course which almost inevitably would bring it to the which is due, according to the so-called built-in agenda initialled its agreement to a SADC (Southern African change in the way the marketing of its products is doorstep of the elusive and unattainable free market.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy in the Shadow of the WTO
    DIIS POLICY BRIEF Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy in the Shadow of the WTO April 2012 The WTO farm trade regime, aiming at creating a liberal trading system, has had an important impact on the evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) over the last two decades. The recent reform proposal for the post-2013 CAP seems less influenced by the WTO than the previous reforms. Prof. Carsten Daugbjerg, [email protected] Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen Introduction Agricultural trade became fully integrated into nego- POLICY RECOMMENDatioNS tiations on trade liberalisation in the Uruguay Round • Ensure that the post-2013 CAP reform commencing under the General Agreement on Tariffs and is compatible with expected Doha Round Trade (GATT) in 1986 and has been the cause of much Agreement on Agriculture discontent ever since – every major setback in the GATT and World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rounds has • Avoid using the same policy instrument been caused by lack of progress in agricultural trade ne- to support farm incomes and to deliver gotiations. environmental services. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has often been a source of conflict between the EU and its trade partners, first within the GATT, and then the WTO. In the Doha Round agriculture was again a sticking point, resulting in setbacks and delays. The position of the EU is Agricultural exceptionalism pivotal because the CAP sets limits for agricultural trade Since the early 1990s the major driving force behind CAP liberalisation, blocking progress across the full compass of reforms has been developments in the WTO trade nego- the WTO agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • How Might China Protect Its Agricultural Sector?
    How Might China Protect Its Agricultural Sector? Cheng Fang, Francis Tuan, and Funing Zhong China has insulated its domestic food markets from support for infrastructure and research also aided the foreign competition and world price fluctuations by agricultural sector. maintaining tight control on agricultural trade. As China opens its agriculture to foreign competition after Still, not all commodities in China are subsidized. World Trade Organization (WTO) accession, will it Some commodities have prices below international protect its farmers? levels (negative protection). Rice, a staple food and a source of modest export revenues, is the most notable Urban Subsidies Give Way to Farm Aid example. Some argue that overvaluation of the Chinese currency in the years after the 1998 Asian financial From the 1950s through the 1970s, Chinese farmers crisis (when the central government resisted pressure were effectively taxed rather than subsidized. Under to devalue) hurt farmers by reducing the effective cost the centralized government procurement system, of products from competing countries. Finally, there farmers were paid low prices for mandatory sales of have been concerns that central government subsidies commodities to the government. After rural reforms have been absorbed by the bureaucratic grain began in 1978, the government raised procurement marketing system or offset by rising local taxes and prices to stimulate grain production while continuing fees assessed on farmers. Data on local taxes and fees to sell grain to urban consumers at subsidized retail are scarce, but estimates indicate that local agricultural prices. China’s official statistical reports indicate that taxes and fees amount to 25 percent of farmers’ net spending on price subsidies (mostly grain crops and income.
    [Show full text]