WTO Rules on Domestic Support for Agriculture and Food Safety: Institutional Adaptation and Institutional Transformation in the Governance of the Bioeconomy

  • Alexia HerwigEmail author
  • Yuliang Pang
Part of the Palgrave Advances in Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies book series (PABEP)


This chapter outlines the rules of the WTO on agricultural trade and food safety. It also illustrates the impact these rules of the WTO had on the European Union’s (EU) Common Agricultural Policy. Particular emphasis is given to the impact of these policies on the bioeconomy. We conclude that, despite many reforms, little has changed on the substance. Most policies do not deliver or respond to public goods. However, we conclude that at least under the new rules communication between importers and exporters is facilitated how to positively contribute to the bioeconomy.


  1. Anania, G., and M.R.P. d’Andrea. 2012. The Common Agricultural Policy After 2013. Intereconomics 47 (6): 316–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deardorff, A. 2014. Terms of Trade: Glossary of International Economics. 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Díaz-Bonilla, E., and J. Hepburn. 2016. Export Competition Issues After Nairobi: The Recent World Trade Organization Agreements and Their Implications for Developing Countries. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01557.Google Scholar
  4. European Parliament. n.d. WTO Agreement on Agriculture|EU Fact Sheets|European Parliament. Accessed 23 Sept 2018.
  5. European Parliament and Council. 2002. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002: Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing the European Food Safety Authority and Laying Down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety. Official Journal of the European Communities 31: 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2013. Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013; on Accounting Rules on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals Resulting from Activities Relating to Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry and on Information Concerning Actions Relating to Those Activities. Official Journal of the European Union 165: 80–97.Google Scholar
  7. Healy, S., R. Pearce, and M. Stockbridge. 1998. The Implications of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture for Developing Countries. Training Materials for Agricultural Planning, 41. Rome, FAO.Google Scholar
  8. Horn, H., and P.C. Mavroidis. 2007. The American Law Institute Reporters Studies on WTO Law: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies on WTO Case Law: Legal and Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Josling, T., L. Zhao, J. Cercelen, and K. Artha. 2006. Implications of WTO Litigation for the WTO Agricultural Negotiations. IPC Issue Brief 19.Google Scholar
  10. Latvia Presidency of the Council of the European Union. 2015. Submission by Latvia and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and Its Member States.Google Scholar
  11. McMahon, J. 2016. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. McMahon, J.A., and M.G. Desta. 2012. Research Handbook on the WTO Agriculture Agreement: New and Emerging Issues in International Agricultural Trade Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meléndez-Ortiz, R., C. Bellmann, and J. Hepburn. 2009. Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box: Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD. 2002. Alternative Liberalization Scenarios and Their Impacts on Quota Rent and Tariff Revenues in Selected OECD Agricultural Markets. Paris: OECD. COM/AGR/TD/WP(2002)23/FINAL.Google Scholar
  15. Orden, D., D. Blandford, and T. Josling. 2001. WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support: Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Potter, C., and K. Thomson. 2011. Agricultural Multifunctionality and Europe’s New Land Debate. In EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas, ed. A. Oskam, G. Meester, and H. Silvis, 213. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2016. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty-First Session, Held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1Google Scholar
  19. World Trade Organization. 1998a. EC Measures Concerning Meat and Products (Hormones). WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1998b. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2008a. United States—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO). WT/DS320/AB/RGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2008b. Canada—Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC-Hormones Dispute. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO). WT/DS321/AB/RGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2019. WTO Analytical Index Agreement on Agriculture – Annex 2.Google Scholar
  24. ———. n.d. Glossary—A Guide to ‘WTO Speak’. Accessed 23 Sept 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Governance GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations