AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE WTO no. Cancun BASICS Series Paper 2

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy WTO Agreement on Agriculture Basics

Sophia Murphy, Director of Trade Programs

2003

Table of Contents 2105 First Ave S Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 Introduction 2 USA What Happened at Doha? 3 www.iatp.org Pillars of AoA 4

Other Issues 7

Government Negotiation Positions 8

Sources 14

Table of Contents World Trade Organization 1 Introduction interests. This white paper provides some history of the AoA, describes the various Many consider the Agreement on sections of the agreement, spells out the Agriculture (AoA) to be the centerpiece different negotiating positions of WTO of negotiations within the World Trade member countries, and presents the state Organization (WTO). Agriculture is of current negotiations. essential to the development of most countries in the world. It plays a vital History role in ensuring , creating livelihoods, generating foreign exchange The General Agreement on Tariffs and and determining the allocation of Trade (GATT) Round natural resources. Yet the dominant Agreements, which includes the interest within the AoA is to maximize Agreement on Agriculture, came into market access and increase the volume effect on January 1, 1995. With the of commodity flows. This agenda has signing of the AoA, done little to protect the multiple roles international agricultural trade was put that agriculture plays in development under much stronger GATT disciplines, and has been much criticized by including capped and reduced export countries around the world. subsidies, import barriers and domestic support. At the fourth WTO , held in Doha, Qatar in The implementation period was five November 2001, governments committed years (by 2000) for developed countries themselves to a “development” round, and nine (by 2004) for developing pledging to address countries. Least Developed Countries needs that have not been addressed—and (LDCs) were not subject to reduction in some cases have intensified—under commitments. However, LDCs did WTO trade rules. Governments agreed commit themselves to not increasing to reach new trade rules for agriculture by export subsidies or domestic support in March 31, 2003, but because intense the future, and they did bind their tariffs differences remain, this deadline passed – meaning that they could lower but no without agreement. The next longer raise their tariffs above a given opportunity for progress on the AoA is ceiling. The AoA contained a provision the fifth Ministerial Conference, to renew negotiations for further reform scheduled for Cancun, Mexico, on starting in 2000. This process included a September 10–14, 2003. review of the implementation experience, which took place over a The AoA has many different series of meetings in 2000 and 2001. components. Nearly every country is part of a negotiating group with specific

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Introduction 2 Developed, Developing and Least–Developing Countries

The WTO does not have its own currently 49 countries on the LDC formal rules for determining list. LDCs are a sub–set of the developed, developing and least broader category of developing categories. For countries. Developed and developing LDCs, they follow the UN countries are self–selected—although determination, which considers a considerable pressure is put on newly bundle of criteria including per acceding members to chose capita Gross National Product, developed, not developing country, human assets (health, nutrition and status. For example, many of the education levels) and economic newly independent former Soviet vulnerability (size of economy and its States of Asia are considered diversity). LDCs have populations developed despite their economic below 75 million people. There are vulnerability.

What Happened at Doha? fair and market–oriented trading system through a programme of fundamental At the Doha Ministerial, Member States reform encompassing strengthened rules chose to link the completion of revised and specific commitments on support and rules for agriculture to reaching protection in order to correct and agreement on other areas (such as prevent restrictions and distortions in services, investment and intellectual world agricultural markets.” Then, property) included in the Doha Agenda. governments committed themselves to This so–called “single undertaking” “comprehensive negotiations aimed at: means a series of agreements will be substantial improvements in market signed as a package – countries cannot access; reductions of, with a view to pick and choose which agreements they phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; like. Countries hoped to secure an early and substantial reductions in agreement on agriculture to act as an trade–distorting domestic support.” incentive to make progress in other areas. The agriculture negotiations would then In Doha, many developing countries wait for negotiations in other areas to loudly argued that the AoA had not catch up, leading to the signing of a benefited them, and had actually made single undertaking on January 1, 2005. situations worse for some countries. A 1999 study by the UN Food and The mandate outlined for agriculture in Agriculture Organization (FAO) Doha encompasses several objectives. reviewed 14 country case studies that first, the original objective, taken from assessed changes in agricultural trade the Uruguay Round Agreement on since the AoA went into effect. The Agriculture, is reprised: “to establish a FAO study found that food import surges

Doha Review World Trade Organization 3 were hurting local farmers and the wider assistance and preference by developed agricultural sector, which undermined countries. Governments promised in the local economy’s capacity to provide Doha to make SDT “operationally food security, employment, economic effective.” The also growth and poverty reduction. obliges member states “to effectively take account of their [developing country] Many of the benefits widely predicted for development needs, including food developing countries with the security and rural development.” implementation of the AoA failed to materialize. Where subsidies were However, the proposals now on the table reduced or eliminated, production levels for the revised AoA fall far short of the did not go down. Most developed concrete changes developing countries country spending on domestic programs were hoping for, and the implementation was not significantly reduced. World of SDT continues to be controversial prices for agricultural commodities within the WTO. Many developed decreased overall, but at the same time countries continue to deny the were more volatile, making budgetary fundamentally different needs and planning difficult for food importers. problems that confront agriculture in Public stockholding was cut, reducing developing countries. transparency in the market. Now the largest holders of grain are private trading Pillars of AoA companies, a small number of whom dominate global grain markets. With the The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) decrease in public stockholding in has three so–called ‘pillars’: market developed countries, food sales at access, domestic support and export subsidized prices to developing countries subsidies. In short, the commitments in decreased. In 1998, the FAO estimated the agreement require WTO member that the reduction in public stockholding states to increase market access, and to resulted in an average 20 percent price reduce both domestic support and export increase for net food importing subsidy expenditures. The AoA also developing countries. includes references to non–trade concerns, listed as food security, the In Doha, WTO member governments environment and special and differential attempted to respond to these problems treatment for developing countries. by reaffirming their commitment to Special and Differential Treatment Domestic Support (SDT) – providing assistance for developing countries by allowing longer The stated overall objective of the implementation periods, less stringent domestic support disciplines was to reduce disciplines, occasional exemption from the amount of money going into the rules altogether, and obligations of production that was destined for export.

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Pillars of AoA 4 This area is complex and led to a series of policy reforms of 1996 (the so–called debates on which programs were “Freedom to Farm” legislation). The legitimate for domestic objectives versus primary users of the Blue Box are now those that had a significant effect on trade the , Japan, and by artificially increasing production levels . A few developing countries (which crowds out potential imports) or have blue box programs. facilitating the export of under–priced exports– (which generates ). In Green Box: The Green Box allows the end, a number of domestic support payments linked to environmental categories were introduced, and ascribed programs, pest and disease control, various colors as described below. infrastructure development, and domestic food aid. It also includes direct payments Amber Box: This includes producer to producers if those payments are linked payments and other domestic subsidies to a fixed, historic base period (called that governments have to reduce but not decoupled payments because they are not eliminate. These expenditures are linked to current production). calculated in an Aggregate Measure of Government payments to income Support (AMS), which is a cash insurance and emergency programs are equivalent of all the programs subject to also included in the Green Box. reduction. All government spending on agriculture is presumed to be in the De Minimis: De minimis is a threshold for amber box, unless it fits the criteria for spending on domestic support that is one of the other boxes (blue or green – exempt from AMS calculations. De see below). The AoA required amber box minimis levels for developed countries reductions of 20 percent from developed were set in the AoA at 5 percent of the countries over five years and 13.3 percent total value of production of all agricultural from developing countries over nine production, with an additional 5 percent years. The baseline for measuring of total value on a per crop basis. reduction commitments was set by using Developing countries and LDCs were the average expenditures over granted 10 percent for both general and 1986–1988, years when spending was crop specific support. Programs that cost particularly high in both the European less than the de minimis threshold are Union and the . exempt from reduction.

Blue Box: The Blue Box allows countries The two biggest spenders on domestic unlimited spending for direct payments support are the U.S. and the 15–country to farms if the payments are linked to European Union. Many elements of the production–limiting programs with fixed controversial 2002 U.S. Farm Bill fit baseline levels. The U.S. abandoned the under the Green Box, although they still programs that it categorized under the include some $18 billion in Amber Box Blue Box in its domestic agricultural programs. The U.S. also has a number of

Pillars of AoA World Trade Organization 5 programs that fit within the de minimis countries that converted non– limits. The European Union continues to measures into tariffs when they agreed to rely on the amber, blue and, increasingly, the AoA. Each crop that was ‘tarrified’ the green box. Most of its programs are could be protected through the above the de minimis threshold. The application of a special safeguard. These boxes are beside the point for most are tariffs that provide temporary developing countries – they do not have protection against sudden import surges the money to provide high levels of or falls in world prices. Countries could domestic support for their farmers. elect to tariffy or to declare a general ceiling for tariffs across all their imports – Market Access but not both. It was mainly developed countries that tariffied and thereby The AoA required developed countries gained the right to use the SSG. Only 21 to reduce their tariffs by an average of 36 developing countries have access to the percent, with a minimum per tariff line SSG provision. Although imperfect, the reduction (covering a specific product) of SSG does offer one of the simplest 15 percent, over five years. Developing mechanisms for a country to defend its countries were required to reduce their producers from import surges. A number tariffs by 24 percent overall, with a 10 of developing countries have proposed percent per tariff line minimum, over the creation of a variation on the nine years. LDCs were exempt from tariff existing SSG for developing countries reductions, but either had to convert only. These proposals are now on the non–tariff barriers to tariffs—a process negotiating table. called tariffication—or bind their tariffs, so that in the future no increase would be Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs): TRQs create allowed from the ceiling set. Non–tariff a tariff band between duty–free access barriers include such measures as volume and the high tariffs that resulted from controls, which are necessary in tariffication to ensure that a minimum supply–management schemes where level of import access is established. governments seek to limit the quantity of Thus, if the tariff that resulted from imports available on the domestic market tariffication was 150 percent, a TRQ was to stabilize domestic prices. All countries created to ensure at least five percent of were allowed to choose tariffication, domestic demand could be met by which allows countries to utilize a special imports through a much reduced tariff safeguard (see below). level.Export Subsidies

The Market Access provisions include The AoA required developed countries two important elements: to reduce their spending by 35 percent over five years in value Special Safeguards (SSG): SSGs are a terms, with a reduction of at least 21 measure made available to those percent in the volume of products

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Pillars of AoA 6 subsidized. The baseline used for ability to enforce the anti–dumping reductions was set at an average over the provisions of the WTO. If allowed to 1986 to 1990 period. The reduction expire, countries will be able to commitments were taken on a product challenge export subsidies and high specific basis (a country could not reduce levels of domestic support, even if they one product subsidy level by a large are within the limits set by the AoA. margin to protect another product with a much smaller reduction). Developing Non–Trade Concerns (NTCs): Listed in countries were to cut their export the preamble to the AoA, non–trade subsidies by 24 percent in value terms concerns include food security, rural and 14 percent by volume over nine development and environmental years. LDCs were exempt from any protection. The European Union has obligation in this area. added animal welfare and eco–labeling as NTCs they wish to protect in the next Other Issues iteration of the agreement. Policies that protect NTCs are generally covered The : The Peace Clause, also under the green box—if accepted by all known as the Due Restraint Clause, the WTO members, they would be overrides the WTO Agreement on exempt from reduction commitments. Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which is the reference agreement in the Special and Differential Treatment (SDT): WTO system specifying which subsidies As the GATT evolved through several governments are permitted to use. In rounds from its inception in 1947, and as effect, the Peace Clause prohibits a growing number of developing countries from protecting their markets countries became signatories to the against exporters that subsidise their agreement, member states established the agriculture, so long as the subsidies are principle that developing countries ought within the obligations undertaken in the to be granted greater flexibility than AoA. That is, so long as exporting developed countries. SDT is formal countries conform to export subsidy and recognition of the disadvantages domestic support rules, importing developing countries face in the world countries cannot impose protective trading system. In agriculture, developing measures against their products, even countries are seeking a number of SDT when those imports are priced below fair measures, including a new special market prices (a practice known as safeguard, access to simpler anti–dumping dumping). The Peace Clause is due to provisions to protect themselves from expire in December 2003, which should dumped production in world markets, pressure the EU and others that rely and the right to retain tariffs on crops of heavily on export subsidies to reach a particular interest to food security and new agreement on agriculture. The rural livelihoods. Peace Clause undermines countries’

Other Issues World Trade Organization 7 Government Negotiating Positions value of agricultural production over five years. In other words, to eliminate In the year after the Doha Ministerial, all AMS down to the de minimis level. WTO Members met four times to For the U.S., this would create a negotiate a new Agreement on threshold of some $10 billion, given the Agriculture. The following section current value of its agricultural sector. outlines the positions put forward by various countries and country groups. Summaries of the WTO Agricultural The U.S. proposal also proposed to Negotiations are available in a include production–limiting payments Secretariat note entitled “WTO (those now categorized in the Blue box) Agriculture Negotiations,” published on in the AMS reduction commitments. the WTO web site. More detailed This proposal, with the call to eliminate information is available at export subsidies, primarily targets the http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agri European Union. Developing countries c_e/negoti_e.htm. The following criticize the U.S. proposal for not analysis focuses on the countries and addressing U.S. food aid policy, which is country groupings that are active on used to off–load surplus production. The agriculture. The analysis highlights the U.S. has also called for the elimination of main features of the negotiating the Special Safeguard (described above) proposals and the response they have and allowing developing countries to elicited as of May 2003. protect certain products from more substantial tariff reduction by United States self–designating them as products necessary for food security. The U.S. released its proposal for the WTO agriculture negotiations in July Hanging over the AoA negotiations is 2002. the 2002 U.S. Farm Bill. The bill does not include any reduction in export The main elements of the proposal are: subsidies or domestic support. The 2002 Bill features counter–cyclical payments to • to eliminate export subsidies over five farmers enrolled in program crops. These years; are payments that rise as market prices fall, in an attempt to ensure a minimum • to reduce tariffs on agricultural price for farmers. Most view these products over five years such that no payments as trade distorting because they tariff will exceed 25 percent after the interfere with the market signal to grow phase–in period; and, less as prices fall. At a minimum, the Farm Bill violates the spirit of the AoA, • to reduce “trade distorting” domestic which is to reduce government support to support to five percent of the total agriculture.

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Government Positions 8 The much of the burden of proof of injury, required under the GATT Agreement As of March 2003, the Cairns Group of on Subsidies and Countervailing agricultural exporting countries had 17 Measures. Instead, the proposed rules members: , Australia, Bolivia, would allow the presumption of subsidy Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa where a developed country had utilized Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, export subsidies or certain kinds of New Zealand, Paraguay, the , domestic support. , Thailand and Uruguay. While the membership has changed over • On domestic support, the Cairns time, the Cairns Group has consistently Group proposed the elimination of all represented a mix of developed and amber box spending over five years for developing countries that identify their developed and nine years for primary interest in agricultural trade developing countries. Developed negotiations as increasing market access countries would be required to cut for their exports. amber box spending by half in the first year. Blue Box spending would be The Cairns proposal on the AoA includes: eliminated immediately. The de minimis provision would be eliminated • A reduction of all developed country over time for developed countries, but tariffs to 25 percent or less and an retained for developing countries. expansion of developed country tariff Some suggestions were also made to quotas to 20 percent of domestic tighten the criteria for the Green Box, consumption. The Group proposed the to ensure it is not abused. Canada elimination of the SSG for developed again did not sign this proposal. countries. Developing countries were granted lower tariff reductions (a The European Union maximum of 50 percent reduction on tariffs of 250 percent or less) and The European Commission (which longer implementation periods. speaks for the EU in trade negotiations) Canada, Malaysia and Indonesia did was unable to present an agreed position not sign on to this proposal. from its members until January of 2003, long past the deadline agreed by • Led by the Philippines and Argentina, governments to submit proposals. This the Cairns Group endorsed a proposal reticence reflects the internal political to address dumping which suggests that differences among EU member states on a new special and differential provision how to reform the Common Agricultural be developed granting developing Policy (CAP). A recent agreement countries access to temporary between and France has made countervailing duties against subsidized it unlikely that there will be any agricultural products from developed significant reduction in the use of export countries. The measure would relieve subsidies before 2007. The EU has just

Government Positions World Trade Organization 9 welcomed 10 new members into the only ham from Parma could be called Union, including , which has Parma ham); and more farmers than all existing EU members combined. The EU cannot • strong precautionary measures to guide afford to leave the CAP unreformed in food safety rules, and the right to these circumstances. However, the WTO provide financial incentives for farmers process is not likely to be the main driver to implement stringent animal welfare of reform. regulations. The United States and the Cairns Group have vigorously rejected The EU proposal indicates how little these proposals. reform they are ready for. It includes: Like–Minded Group • a proposal to cut export subsidies by 45 percent, but on average rather than per The group of developing countries that product line; identifies itself as the Like–Minded Group in agriculture define their shared interest • a proposal to cut AMS (amber box) as seeking more liberalized agricultural levels by 55 percent. However, its sectors in developed countries while gradual shift of payments to the Green seeking additional protection for Box means this will not require themselves. Member countries include significant change in current policy; Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, • on tariffs, a straight 36 percent , Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uganda reduction from existing tariff levels and Zimbabwe. India occasionally joins (The EU does not support the U.S. call submissions from this group. to “harmonize” tariffs by cutting higher tariffs more than lower tariffs); The heart of the Like Minded Group (LMG) proposals have been grouped into • for developing countries, duty–free and what is called the Development Box. quota–free access for all farm exports The Development Box (DB) was first from LDCs, as well as zero tariff access for proposed at the WTO agricultural talks at least 50 percent of developed country in 2000. The LMG was concerned that imports from developing countries. The the liberalization of agricultural trade was EU proposed a “food security box” that jeopardizing their food security and the included measures for rural development livelihoods of their producers, especially and to protect food security crops small farmers, who are among the most through a special safeguard; vulnerable sectors in their populations. The governments who proposed the DB • New “Non–Trade Concerns” include wanted to create exceptions to the trade geographical indicators (GI) regarding rules for countries with scarce resources food products (so that only wine from and significant food security concerns. could be called porto, and

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Government Positions 10 Specific proposals include: and considers some level of domestic food production in all countries to be an • the creation of a simpler special essential component of food security. safeguard for developing countries only; The core support for multifunctional • a proposal that would allow agriculture comes from Japan, South developing countries to raise tariffs on Korea, Norway and Switzerland. The EU food security crops where experience associates itself with this group, although had shown the existing tariff binding to there are divisions among member be too low; countries as to the usefulness, validity and application of multifunctional • a joint proposal, submitted by seven agriculture. members of the group in November, 2002, suggesting that if production of a Japan’s comprehensive proposal of crop is below an UN FAO determined November 2002 would leave significant world average for national production, leeway to countries to determine which and if exports of that crop are less than products to liberalize and how. The 3.25 percent of world trade in that crop proposal leaves domestic support at the for five years or more consecutively, levels reached under the existing AoA then domestic support for that crop and seeks to raise market access barriers should not be included in reduction on rice. commitments; and Former Eastern Bloc and Soviet States • a proposal to exclude from domestic The former Eastern Bloc and Soviet support restrictions for money spent on States have made only a limited number transporting staple foods to food deficit of proposals. They largely reflect two, areas within the country. sometimes overlapping, concerns. The Friends of Multifunctionality first concern is from the states that hope to accede to the European Union. This Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) group is careful to reflect EU interests in describes an approach to agriculture that their statements. The second is from goes beyond production–related measures those who recently acceded to the WTO. to consider the broader benefits to society The WTO accession process famously provided by the sector. For example, requires much deeper liberalization than providing payments to farmers for existing WTO rules, which leaves new managing water quality, soil erosion, members in a much–weakened habitats for particular species or other negotiating position. Newly acceded services that the market does not countries, with support from recognize or reward but that have a clear (another new member) proposed that public value. The MFA framework they be credited for their accession provides a rationale for such payments, commitments and thus avoid further

Government Positions World Trade Organization 11 tariff cuts for themselves in the new center that provides LDCs with help in round of agreements. All of these using the WTO’s trade dispute system, countries want to increase market access but much remains to be done. for their exports. Many of them depend on agriculture for a significant share of The Harbinson Draft their foreign exchange earnings. On February 12th, 2003, the Chairman Least Developed Countries of the agricultural negotiations at the WTO, Stuart Harbinson, considered the While Least Developed Countries (LDCs) proposals put forward by countries and are singled out as a group in the AoA for released a first draft of what a new AoA special treatment, they do not work as a might look like. Governments were group in any formal sense. Their exemption under no obligation to accept the from a number of disciplines under the proposal as a basis for negotiations, but it AoA, as well as their institutional has considerable weight in the next steps weaknesses, leads larger countries to ignore for negotiators. them in the negotiations. A number of LDCs cannot afford to maintain a mission In summary, the Harbinson draft in Geneva. They have very limited proposes: domestic capacity to develop and pursue a trade policy agenda. They are subject to • the elimination of export subsidies over intense bilateral pressures because of their ten years; dependence on foreign aid. They are of limited trade interest because their people • a 60 percent reduction in domestic are relatively few and poor, reducing the support classified as amber box over interest of traders in their domestic five years; markets, and their production is too limited to create problems in world markets. • either moving the blue box into the amber box, so that it would have to be On the other hand, LDCs are very much reduced, or introducing a cap on blue affected by international trade policies. box spending and then imposing a 50 They often depend on only one or two percent reduction over five years; exports for their foreign exchange • cutting high tariffs by a larger revenues, and their export markets are percentage than low tariffs, through a usually heavily concentrated. Thus, they series of three bands. Tariffs over 90 have an important stake in the outcome percent would be cut by an average of of the negotiations, yet very little 60 percent with a 45 percent minimum bargaining power to ensure an outcome per tariff line. Tariffs between 15 and favourable to their interests. Competing 90 percent would be cut by an average interests complicate solidarity even across of 50 percent and a minimum of 35 LDCs countries. There is now a legal percent per tariff line. Tariffs lower

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Government Positions 12 than or equal to 15 percent would be States and Cairns Group have expressed cut by 40 percent with a minimum per the most satisfaction with the text, line of 25 percent; although they say they want deeper and faster liberalization (the U.S. is careful to • small tightening of the conditions for exclude its use of decoupled payments programs to be eligible for green box and other domestic support tools from status; further reductions). The European Union, Japan and other Friends of • tightening of disciplines on the use of Multifunctionality have been the most export credits; vocal in their disappointment. • an outright ban on single–desk selling, Despite loud objections by the most which would close down export state powerful of WTO members, it is likely trading enterprises such as the that the Harbinson text will be on the Canadian Wheat Board; table in Cancun, although perhaps in a • significant tightening of the conditions new draft version. under which food aid can be included in the green box; The Harbinson text revives a frequent criticism of the WTO in general and the • adding payments for environmental AoA in particular: that the rules support and animal welfare programs to the more powerful member countries at the green box, in recognition of the expense of developing countries. The European Union’s proposal; Harbinson text includes a sharp emphasis on increasing market access among all • a new Special Safeguard (SSG) for members without any concession to developing countries that restricts the rebalancing measures that would allow SSG to a list of so–called “strategic developing countries to protect products” (a proxy for food security themselves from the continued use of crops, defined to take account of export subsidies and trade–distorting livelihood and rural development domestic support in developed countries. concerns). Strategic products would Nor does the text mention the Peace also not be subject to the same degree Clause, which is due to expire in of tariff cuts, although a minimum five December 2003 and is sure to provide a percent cut would be required on every major bargaining chip for developing tariff line. This proposal also included countries throughout the negotiations. higher spending limits for domestic support aimed at agricultural What stands out most about Harbinson’s development in developing countries. proposal is that there is no mention of the two most damaging effects of current Initial responses from governments have agriculture trade rules – agriculture not been warm. Overall, the United dumping and market concentration.

Government Positions World Trade Organization 13 Harbinson ignored the proposal from the Sources: Cairns Group to make it easier for countries to impose immediate sanctions World Trade Organization: www.wto.org in the case of dumping. The impact of GATT – Agreement on Agriculture: agricultural dumping from the U.S. and http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14–ag.pdf the EU on developing countries has been WTO Legal Documents: well documented as the most harmful http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm Doha Declaration and Negotiations: effect of current WTO agriculture trade http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm rules. Associated with dumping is the WTO Agriculture negotiations: growing market concentration within http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negoti_e. htm agriculture trade by fewer multinational Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development corporations. This increasing level of (OECD) on Uruguay Round and Agriculture: concentration is distorting the market http://www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,,EN–home–141–nodi rectorate–no–no–no–24,00.html and having an impact on global prices. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Remarkably, the agricultural trade rules WTO/Uruguay Round and Agriculture: for the world have no antitrust http://www.fao.org/trade/index.asp?lang=en enforcement measures. U.S. proposal for AoA negotiations: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/as European Commission proposal for AoA negotiations: Cancun will provide yet another http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/wto/of opportunity for these and other issues to ficdoc/index_en.htm U.S. Farm Bill 2002: be raised at the negotiating table. How http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/ negotiators deal with the needs of European Union’s Common Agriculture Policy: developing countries, agriculture http://europa.eu.int/pol/agr/index_en.htm U.S. Dumping on World Agricultural Markets: dumping, and market concentration will Can Trade Rules Help Farmers?, Institute for go a long way towards measuring the Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2003. state of the negotiations. http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library/uploadedfiles/ United_States_Dumping_on_World_Agricultural_Ma .pdf Managing the Invisible Hand: Markets, Farmers and International Trade. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2002. http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library/uploadedfiles/ Managing_the_Invisible_Hand_2.pdf Development Box Proposals: http://www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/library/index.cfm ?c_id=42 Additional Resources: www.tradeobservatory.org

Agreement on Agriculture Basics Sources 14 Many consider the Agreement on Agriculture to be the centerpiece of

negotiations within the World Trade Organization. The dominant interest

within the Agriculture Agreement is to maximize market access and increase

the volume of commodity flows. This agenda has done little to protect the

multiple roles that agriculture plays in development and has been criticized by

countries around the world.

It is now

up to

governments

to act.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

WTO Cancun Series Paper Number 2 2105 first Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture Basics www.tradeobservatory.org