Agreement on Agriculture
The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization. It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO on 1 January 1995.
History
Origins
The idea of replacing agricultural price support with direct payments to farmers decoupled from production dates back to the late 1950s, when the twelfth session of the
The 1958 Haberler Report stressed the importance of minimising the effect of agriculture subsidies on competitiveness and recommended replacing price support with direct supplementary payments not linked with production, anticipating discussion on green box
Historical context
By the 1980s, government payments to agricultural producers in industrialised countries had caused large crop surpluses, which were unloaded on the world market by means of export
In leading up to the 1986
Three pillars
The Agreement on Agriculture consists of three pillars — domestic support, market access, and export subsidies.
Domestic support
The first pillar of the Agreement on Agriculture is "domestic support". AoA divides domestic support into two categories: trade-distorting and non-trade-distorting (or minimally trade-distorting). The WTO Agreement on Agriculture negotiated in the
The Agreement on Agriculture's domestic support system currently allows
Market access
Market access refers to the reduction of tariff (or non-tariff) barriers to trade by WTO members. The 1995 Agreement on Agriculture consists of tariff reductions of:
- 36% average reduction — developed countries— with a minimum of 15% per-tariff line reduction in next six years.
- 24% average reduction — developing countries— with a minimum of 10% per-tariff line reduction in next ten years.
Export subsidies
Criticism
The Agreement has been criticised by
The Agreement was criticised by
A 2009 book by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) showed how green box subsidies distorted trade, affecting developing country farmers and harming the environment. While some green box payments only had a minor effect on production and trade, others have a significant impact.
Third World Network stated, "This has allowed the rich countries to maintain or raise their very high subsidies by switching from one kind of subsidy to another...This is why after the Uruguay Round the total amount of subsidies in OECD countries have gone up instead of going down, despite the apparent promise that Northern subsidies will be reduced." Moreover, Martin Khor argued that the green and blue box subsidies can be just as trade-distorting — as "the protection is better disguised, but the effect is the same".[7]
At the 2005 WTO meeting in Hong Kong, countries agreed to eliminate export subsidy and equivalent payments by 2013. However, Oxfam argued that EU export subsidies comprise for only 3.5% of its overall agricultural support. United States, removed export subsidies for cotton which only covers 10% of overall spending.
on 18 July 2017 India and China jointly submitted a proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) calling for the elimination — by developed countries — of the most trade-distorting form of farm subsidies, known in WTO parlance as Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) or 'Amber Box' support as a prerequisite for consideration of other reforms in domestic support negotiations. [9]
Mechanisms for developing countries
During the Doha negotiations,
Special Safeguard Mechanism
A Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) would allow developing countries to impose additional safety measures in the event of an abnormal surge in imports or the entry of unusually cheap imports.[10] Debates have arisen around this question, some negotiating parties claiming that SSM could be repeatedly and excessively invoked, distorting trade. In turn, the G33 bloc of developing countries, a major SSM proponent, has argued that breaches of bound tariffs should not be ruled out if the SSM is to be an effective remedy. A 2010 study by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development simulated the consequences of SSM on global trade for both developed and developing countries.[10]
Special Products
At 2005
See also
- Agricultural policy of the United States
- Cairns Group
- Common Agricultural Policy
- Dumping (pricing policy)
- Peace Clause
- UN Sustainable Development Goals
References
- ^ a b c d e Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box Archived 2 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine, ICTSD, September 2009.
- ^ ISBN 978-0521519694.
- ^ "Agriculture Negotiations: Background Fact Sheet", World Trade Organization.
- ^ "Fine words - now we need action". The Guardian. 15 November 2005.
- ^ "WTO | Understanding the WTO - Agriculture: Fairer markets for farmers".
- ISBN 978-0521519694.
- ^ TWN Statement on Agriculture at the UN ECOSOC High-Level Session" Archived December 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine TWN, July 2003
- ^ "WTO agreement a betrayal of development promises" Archived September 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Oxfam December 2005
- ^ Srinivas, Vasudeva. "India,China Join Hand in WTO for Amber Box". No. Online. ABC Live. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
- ^ ISSN 1817-356X.
- ^ International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and Food and Agriculture Organization, "Indicators for the Selection of Agricultural Special Products: Some Empirical Evidence", ICTSD Information Note Number 1. July 1, 2007.
External links
- Text of the Agreement on Agriculture: html(1), html(2), doc, pdf
- Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Agreement on Agriculture Basics 2003.
- Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping, Feb 2005.
- Devinder Sharma, The Indian Experience of Liberalisation of Agriculture, Aug 17, 2005.
- Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals Archived 2 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine, ICTSD, September 2009.
- World Trade Organization and Agriculture: Selective Bibliography Archived 27 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine, prepared by Hugo H.R. van Hamel, Peace Palace Library
- International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Simulations on the Special Safeguard Mechanism: a look at the December 2008 Draft Agricultural Modalities Archived 3 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine, April 2010, by Raul Montemayor, Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc. (FFFCI)
- Agritrade[1] website for ACP-EU agriculture and fisheries trade issues.
- Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals by Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz, Christophe Bellmann, Jonathan Hepburn, September 2009.
- WTO Negotiations on Agriculture and Developing Countries by Anwarul Hoda and Ashok Gulati, (2007) Johns Hopkins University Press