Abstract
On the face of it, many developing countries, even least developed ones, seem to be doing just fine in terms of agricultural production and trade expansion. This paper cannot answer the question whether the present multilateral rules framework strengthens or imperils resource-poor countries and farmers. Instead, it describes a ‘reform programme’ which is far from being completed, and it shows where the ‘development promises’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) remain unfulfilled. Based on the experiences with the Uruguay Round, it argues that even the completion of the Doha Development Round is likely to fail to address some specific concerns of net food-importing developing countries (NFIDC) and resource-poor farmers. A number of additional specific commitments by developed and emerging economies are required to fulfil the promise “to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system”.
Research for this paper, and editing, was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under a grant to the National Centre of Competence in Research on Trade Regulation, based at the World Trade Institute of the University of Berne, Switzerland.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Häberli (2012), p. 76.
- 2.
UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. New York, 1 July 2015, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201%29.pdf (last accessed 16 July 2015).
- 3.
As quoted by Desta (2016), Section 8.
- 4.
As quoted by Desta (2016), Section 9.
- 5.
Desta (2016), Section 10.
- 6.
Häberli C (2014) After Bali: WTO Rules Applying to Public Food Reserves. FAO Commodity and Trade. Policy Research Working Paper No. 46, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2556233 (last accessed on 9 September 2015).
- 7.
AoA Annex 2 (‘Green Box’), paragraph 1.
- 8.
WTO Committee on Agriculture, Trends in Domestic Support. Communication from the Cairns Group. (Document G/AG/W/141 dated 2 March 2015), with a summary by the WTO Secretariat, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/agcom_04mar15_e.htm (last accessed on 8 July 2015).
- 9.
Summary by the WTO Secretariat downloaded, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news15_e/agcom_04mar15_e.htm (last accessed on 8 July 2015).
- 10.
Häberli (2015), chapter 20.
- 11.
Häberli and Smith (2014).
- 12.
WTO, Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture, Document TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4, dated 6 December 2008, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/agchairtxt_dec08_a_e.pdf (last accessed on 9 September 2015).
- 13.
OTDS adds up Amber Box support, de minimis expenditures and Blue Box support. The so-called de minimis expenditures allow for farm support of 5 % or less in the case of developed countries and 10 % or less for developing countries, compared with the total value of the product or products supported. Blue Box support is linked to production, but subject to production limits, and therefore minimally trade-distorting.
- 14.
Heri and Häberli (2011).
- 15.
In 2013, 8 developing countries were among the 15 leading exporters of agricultural products. (EU = 1; see Table II.14 in WTO International Trade Statistics 2014, Merchandise trade, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2014_e/its14_merch_trade_product_e.htm (last accessed on 16 July 2015)) Also see Anderson K and Strutt A (2011) Asia’s Changing Role in World Trade: Prospects for South-South Trade Growth to 2030, Asian Development Bank, ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 264, http://adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2011/Economics-WP264.pdf (last accessed on 9 September 2015); and European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Monitoring Agri-trade Policy, Agricultural Trade in 2013: EU Gains in Commodity Exports, June 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/map/index_en.htm (last accessed on 13 July 2015).
- 16.
Increase in volume and percentage, 2024 relative to 2012–2014. OECD/FAO (2015), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, OECD Agriculture Statistics (database), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr-outl-data-en, (last accessed on 13 July 2015). See also Table II.15 in WTO International Trade Statistics 2014, Merchandise trade, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2014_e/its14_merch_trade_product_e.htm (last accessed on 13 July 2015).
- 17.
Grant and Boys (2012), p. 2.
- 18.
Evenett and Fritz (2015).
- 19.
AoA Preamble, Recital 6.
- 20.
Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (Enabling Clause), GATT Doc L/4903, Decision of 28 November 1979, paras 1 and 2(a).
- 21.
WTO, Information on the Utilization of Special and Differential Treatment Provisions. The last document in this series is WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1/Add.4 dated 7 February 2002.
- 22.
For a proposal to stabilise preferential tariffs in order to increase its efficiency, see Bartels and Häberli (2010).
- 23.
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries. Document G/AG/5/Rev. 10 dated 23 March 2012 lists 32 developing countries, and all LDC, as possible beneficiaries of the Marrakesh Decision.
- 24.
Document WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev. 1 dated 21 September 2001 has 57 pages of SDT measures. On the implementation of the NFIDC Decision it notes that the World Bank considered that “the impact of the Uruguay Round on food prices was small and that it did not consider it necessary to establish a special UR adjustment facility.”
- 25.
Howse and Teitel (2009), p. 48.
- 26.
Häberli (2013).
- 27.
It may also be noted that the Committee on Agriculture, until a few years ago, had received very few “counter-notifications” under AoA Article 18.6.
- 28.
Cf. WTO Agriculture Information Management System and the ‘Transparency Toolkit’, http://agims.wto.org/ (last accessed on 15 July 2015).
References
Bartels L, Häberli C (2010) Binding tariff preferences for developing countries under article II GATT. J Int Econ Law 13(4):969–995. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgq051
Desta MG (2016) Trade in agricultural products: should developing countries give up on the WTO promise for a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system? A historical and theoretical analysis. In: Bungenberg M, Hermann C, Krajewski M, Terhechte J (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 67–102
Evenett S, Fritz J (2015) Crisis-era trade distortions cut LDC export growth by 5.5 % per annum. In: Hoekman B (ed) The global trade slowdown: a new normal?. Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). CEPR Press, London, pp 267–278. http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/Global%20Trade%20Slowdown_nocover.pdf (last accessed 9 September 2015)
Grant J, Boys K (2012) Agricultural trade and the GATT/WTO: does membership make a difference? Am J Agric Econ 94(1):1–24. doi:10.1093/ajae/aar087
Häberli C (2012) Do WTO rules secure or impair the right to food? In: Desta MG, McMahon J (eds) Research handbook on international agricultural trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, US, pp 70–103
Häberli C (2013) God, the WTO—and hunger. In: Nadakavukaren Schefer K (ed) Poverty and the international economic law system: duties to the poor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79–106, 10.1017/CBO9781139507097.010
Häberli C (2015) The story of community preference for food security. In: McMahon J, Cardwell M (eds) Research handbook on EU agriculture law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, US, pp 437–462
Häberli C, Smith F (2014) Food security and agri-foreign direct investment in weak states: finding the governance gap to avoid “land grab”. Modern Law Rev 77(2):189–222. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12062
Heri S, Häberli C (2011) Can the World Trade Organization ensure that food aid is genuine? Dev World Rev Trade Comp 1(1):1–70
Howse R, Teitel R (2009) Beyond the divide: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights and the World Trade Organization. In: Joseph S, Kindley D, Waincymer J (eds) The World Trade Organization and human rights. interdisciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 39–68. doi:10.4337/9781781953044.00007
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Häberli, C. (2016). Agricultural Trade: How Bad Is the WTO for Development?. In: Bungenberg, M., Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29214-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29215-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)