Abstract
Governments intervene in the agricultural sector for a number of reasons, including the desire to provide adequate food for the population, to achieve self-sufficiency and to promote rural welfare. Concerns of this sort are not present in any other trade sector. Although at least in theory the GATT covered trade in agricultural products, the Contracting Parties were unwilling to subject their domestic agricultural policies to the same disciplines as industrial products. As a result, distortions, in the form of high tariff and non-tariff barriers, characterized the international market for agricultural goods. In addition, many developed countries, in particular the United States and the European Community (“EC”),1 have given huge amounts of support to their farmers, and surplus production generated by this support has been disposed of on the international market with the help of subsidies.
Although the reference to the European Community is only legally correct since the Treaty of Maastricht (1993), it is used throughout this chapter for the sake of convenience.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For a discussion of the Havana Charter, see Claire Wilcox, A Charter for World Trade (1949), and Richard Gardner, Sterling Dollar Diplomacy in the Current Perspective (1980).
SeeRobert Hudec, The Gatt Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy 15(1975).
BISD 5th Supp. 26 and 87 (1957). The reports of this Committee appear at BISD 7th Supp. 42 (1959), 8th Supp. 76 (1960) and 10th Supp. 83 (1962).
For discussion of UNCTAD efforts to promote international commodity trade, see for example, Kabir Khan, The Law and Organization of International Commodity Agreements (1982).
BISD 3rd Supp. 32 and 141(1955). Prior to thewaiver, the GATT had authorised the Netherlands to retaliate against the United States with respect to Section 22 restrictions on dairy products. See Decision of the Contracting Parties, United States—Import Restrictions on Dairy Products, Complaints by the Netherlands and Denmark, BISD 1st Supp. 32, 62–64 (1953) and BISD 2nd Supp. 16 (1954).
BISD 3rd Supp. 141. A document attached to the deliberations of the Working Party noted the dates on which initial controls were to be imposed on the import of manufactured dairy products (July 1, 1953), oats (December 23, 1953), rye (April 1, 1954) and barley (October 1, 1954).
Thorald K. Warley, Western Trade in Agricultural Products, in International Economic Relations of the Western World 1959–71, Volume 1, Politics and Trade 287, 347 (Andrew Shonfield ed. 1976).
As part of the decision it was recognised that: “The United States will remove or relax each restriction permitted under this waiver as soon as it finds that the circumstances requiring such restriction no longer exist or have changed so as no longer to require its imposition in its existing form.” Supra note 7, p. 34 (¶ 5 of the decision). Section 22 restrictions were still in place at the end of the Uruguay Round. For further discussion of the waiver see George Welch, United States Agricultural Import Quotas and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1 Florida Int’l L.J. 209 (1986).
BISD 8th Supp. 173, 177 (1960): “Governments of other countries were under constant pressure from their producers to follow protectionist policies and even small progress towards the removal by the United States of restrictions would be an encouragement to other countries to take similar action.”
BISD 6th Supp. 71, 88 (1958).
For example, the United States filed complaints against import restrictions maintained by France. French Import Restrictions, BISD 11th Supp. 55 (1963). The complaint resulted in a partial liberalization in 1962, which was completed in 1972. A Panel was also requested by both the United States and the EC to establish the level of compensation for the United States arising out of the withdrawal of tariff concessions by the EC on poultry. US/EEC Negotiation on Poultry, BISD 12th Supp. 65 (1964). On the latter see Herman Walker, Dispute Settlement: The Chicken War, 58 American Journal of International Law 671 (1964).
In the case of the common organisation of the market in cereals, for example, a threshold price was established so that the price of an imported product would be equal to that of the target price, which was the price it was hoped that producers would be able to obtain on the internal market. In essence the variable levy covers the difference between the world price and the internal Community price, ensuring that imports could never undercut domestic products. For further discussion see Thomas Grennes, Economic Interdependence. and the Variability of Tariffs, 14 J. World Trade Law 242 (1980); Gary Sampson and Richard Snape, Effects of the EEC’s Variable Import Levies, 88 J. Pol. Econ. 1026 (1980).
See for example, Uruguay’s complaint against fifteen developed countries, which was later amended to include a request for a ruling on the GATT compatibility of the variable levy system and the CAP, BISD 11th Supp. 95 (1963) and follow-up reports, BISD 13th Supp. 35 and 45 (1965). The Panel concluded that the issue of the legality of the CAP has not been properly raised and that it was “not appropriate” to rule on the legality of the variable levy system.
GATT, Secretariat Trends in International Trade (1958).
Id. at 87.
Id. at 102.
Id. at 67–68.
The mandate of Committee II was to assemble data on the use of non-tariff barriers by the Contracting Parties to support domestic agricultural incomes; to examine the effects of these measures on international trade in agricultural products; to consider the adequacy of the GATT rules on non-tariff barriers to trade; and to suggest procedures for further consultation between all Contracting Parties on agricultural policy. BISD 8th Supp. 121 (1960). The mandate of Committee I was to examine tariff reductions and that of Committee III to look at other barriers to trade. BISD 7th Supp. 27 (1959).
BISD 10th Supp. 135 (1962).
BISD 12th Supp. 36 (1964).
See for further discussion, Warley, supra Thorald K. Warley, Western Trade in Agricultural Products, in International Economic Relations of the Western World 1959–71, Volume 1, Politics and Trade 287, 347 (Andrew Shonfield ed. 1976) note 9, and Gian Carlo Casadio, Transatlantic Trade: USA-EEC Confrontation in the Gatt Negotiations (1973), Chapter 6. Both authors also discuss the previous (1961) EC proposal.
One commentator has observed that “... what ensured that Mansholt II would meet with violent opposition from the exporters was that the Community proposed that the montant de soutien be used not as a basis for further negotiations but as a substitute for them.” John Evans, The Kennedy Round in American Trade Policy 210 (1972).
Warley, supra Thorald K. Warley, Western Trade in Agricultural Products, in International Economic Relations of the Western World 1959–71, Volume 1, Politics and Trade (Andrew Shonfield ed. 1976) note 9, at 377.
BISD 15th Supp. 67 (1968). The terms of reference of the Committee were: “to examine the problems in the agricultural sector and to explore the opportunities for making progress in the attainment of the objectives of the General Agreement in the agricultural field. The examination would cover all agricultural products important in international trade. This examination should prepare the way for subsequent consideration of positive solutions which could be mutually accepted by all Contracting Parties concerned.”
See, e.g., Report of the Agriculture Committee, BISD 17th Supp. 110 (1970).
BISD 20th Supp. 19, para. 3(b) (1974).
Agreements were concluded, for example, on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Anti-Dumping, Government Procurement, Technical Barriers to Trade, Customs Valuation and Import Licensing, see BISD 26th Supp. (1980). The agreements were plurilateral rather than multilateral, i.e., they were only binding on those Contracting Parties who chose to sign them.
For a discussion of the mandate and its impact on the negotiation see, e.g., Stuart Harris, EEC Trade Relations with the USA in Agricultural Products (1977).
BISD 26th Supp. 84 (Arrangement on Bovine Meat) and 91 (International Dairy Agreement) (1980).
Id, at 8 (Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade) and 69 (Subsidies).
For a more extensive discussion of this provision see Melaku Desta, The Law of International Trade in Agricultural Products (2002), Chapter 2.
Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), Japan—Restrictions on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products, BISD 35th Supp. 163 (1987).
Id., ¶¶ 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.3. See also, Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), US—Prohibition of Imports of Tuna from Canada, BISD 29th Supp. 91 (1983).
Japan-Agricultural Products, supra note 36, ¶ 5.1.3.4. However, the Interpretative note to Article XI permits restrictions on “the same products when in an early stage of processing and still perishable, which compete directly with the fresh product and if freely imported would tend to make the restriction on the fresh product ineffective.”
Id., para. 5.1.3.5. See also the Working Party Report on Quantitative Restrictions, BISD 3rd Supp. 190.
Previous panel reports dealing with Article XI:2 include Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), Canada—Import Quotas on Eggs, BISD 23rd Supp. 91 (1977); Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), EC—Programme on Minimum Import Prices, Licences and Surety Deposits for Certain Processed Fruits and Vegetables, BISD 25th Supp. 68 (1979); and Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), EC—Restrictions on Imports of Apples from Chile, BISD 27th Supp. 98 (1981).
See Report of the GATT Panels (adopted), European Economic Communities—Restrictions on Imports of Dessert Apples, complaints by Chile, BISD 36th Supp. 93 (1990) and the United States, BISD 36th Supp. 135 (1990). It is noteworthy that a previous complaint about the EC regime on the import of apples had found it to be consistent with Article XI:2(c). See Report of the GATT Panel, EEC Restrictions on Imports of Apples From Chile, supra note 40 at ¶ 4.10.
See Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), France—Assistance to Exports of Wheat and Wheat Flour, Complaint by Australia, BISD 7th Supp. 46 (1959), for a discussion of this issue.
BISD 26th Supp. 69 (1980). For discussion see Patrick Low, Definition of Export Subsidies in GATT, 16 JWTL 375 (1982), and Belayneh Seyoum, Export Subsidies under the MTN, 18 JWTL 512 (1984).
Reports of the GATT panels (adopted), European Communities—Refunds on Exports of Sugar, complaint by Australia, BISD 26th Supp. 290 (1980); complaint by Brazil, BISD 27th Supp. 69 (1981). As the findings of both Panels are identical, further references relate only to the Australian complaint. For further discussion, see Ian Smith, GATT: EEC Export Refunds Dispute, 15 JWTL 95 (1981); Colin Phegan, GATT Article XVI:3: Export Subsidies and ‘Equitable Shares’, 16 JWTL 251 (1982).
BISD 26th Supp. at 318. The EC’s market share had increased by seventy-five percent during the period 1976–78. Such an increase, it was argued, could not have happened without the use of export subsidies given that the support price of sugar within the EC was well above that of the world market. Despite this the Panel could not find a causal connection between the increased EC exports and the reduced exports of the complainants.
Id, at 319.
See Jeffrey Estabrook, European Community Resistance to the Enforcement of GATT Panel Decisions on Sugar Export Subsidies, 15 Cornell Int’l L.J. 397 (1982).
BISD 28th Supp. 80 (1982) and 29th Supp. 82 (1983).
For a discussion of an Argentinean complaint against the EC sugar regime, see J. Kodwo Bentil, Attempts to Liberalize International Trade in Agriculture and the Problem of the External Aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community, 17 Case Western Reserve J. Int’l. L. 335 (1985).
Report of the GATT Panel (unadopted), European Economic Community, Subsidies on Export of Wheat Flour, SCM/42 (1983), The filing of the case constituted a “breach” of the implied understanding between the United States and the EC reached during the Tokyo Round that the former would not use the Subsidies Code to attack the CAP. see Robert Hudec, ‘Transcending the Ostensible’: Some Reflections on the Nature of Litigation between Governments, 72 Minn. L Rev. 101 (1987), for discussion of this understanding.
The response of the United States was to sell at less than half the market price, thus eliminating the EC from the world’s largest market for wheat flour, Egypt. See Marsha Echols, Just Friends: The US-EEC Agricultural Export Subsidies Stand-off, Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 119 (1983).
For discussion of the complaints see Massimo Coccia, Settlement of Disputes in GATT under the Subsidies Code: Two Panel Reports on EEC Export Subsidies, 16 Georgia J Int’l and Comp L 1 (1986); Phegan supra note 44.
Report of the GATT Panel (unadopted), European Economic Community—Subsidies on Exports of Pasta Products, SCM/43 (19 May 1983). Adoption of the report was blocked by the EC, see BISD 30th Supp. 39, 42.
See OJ 1989 L 275/36 and GATT Focus No. 38, p. 1.
Trade Policies for a Better Future 40 (1985).
BISD 29th Supp. 16–17 (1983), see also Reports of the Committee, BISD 30th Supp. 100 (1984) and 31st Supp. 10 and 209 (1985).
Robert Hudec, Enforcing International Trade Law 336 (1993).
Id, p. 332.
BISD 33rd Supp. 19, 24 (1987)
The one area where there was little difference between the Contracting Parties was recognition of the need for special and differential treatment for developing countries, in the form of longer implementation periods and other concessions. The April 1989 mid-termreview document stated that special and differential treatment should be “an integral element” of the negotiations. It agreed that government assistance measures aimed at agricultural and rural development were an integral part of the development programs of developing countries and that a method should be found to alleviate the possible negative effects of the reform process on net food-importing developing countries. GATT Focus No. 61 (May 1989).
For a discussion of the progress of negotiations see John Breen, Agriculture, in The Gatt Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986–94) (Terence Stewart, ed., 1993 and 1999) Vol. I at 125–254 and Vol. IV at 1–179. See also Bernard Hoekman, Agriculture and the Uruguay Round, 23 JWTL 83 (1989), for discussion of the original negotiating positions of the various parties.
Report of the GATT Panel (adopted), EEC–Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal-feed Proteins, BISD 37th Supp. 86 (1991). The Panel concluded that the subsidy payments to EC processors for processing EC-produced oilseeds violated Article III:4 and that they nullified or impaired earlier tariff concessions on oilseeds.
GATT Newsletter Focus No. 69 (May 1989), pp. 4–5.
GATT Newsletter Focus No. 72 (July 1990), p. 12.
See Report of the GATT Panel, Follow up on the Panel Report “European Economic Community—Payments and Subsidies Paid to Processors and Producers of Oilseeds and Related Animal-Feed Proteins,” BISD 39th Supp.91 (1993).
See documents from Council meetings of 19 June (C/M/257), 29 September (C/M/259) and 4–5 November 1992 (C/M/260).
Footnote 1 to Article 4.2 states that these measures include “quantitative import restrictions, variable import levies, minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures maintained through statetrading enterprises, voluntary export restraints, and similar border measures other than ordinary customs duties....” As for the scope of this provision, see Report of the GATT Panel, Chile—Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/R, ¶¶ 7.17–7.102 (2002).
Modalities for the Establishment of Specific Binding Commitments under the Reform Programme, MTN.GNG/MA/W/24 (1993).
See Merlindo Ingco, Tariffication in the Uruguay Round: How much Liberalisation?, 19(4) The World Economy 425 (1996).
See Kym Anderson, Erwidodo and Merlinda Ingco, Integrating Agriculture into theWTO: The Next Phase, paper presented to the WTO/World Bank Conference on Developing Countries in the Millennium Round (Geneva, 20–21 September 1999, pp. 8–9).
See Alan Swinbank, CAP Reform and the WTO: Compatibility and Developments, 26 European Review of Agricultural Economics 389, 396–99 (1999).
Supra note 71, ¶ 14.
This provision requires that the allocation of quotas should seek to achieve a distribution of trade in the product “approaching as closely as possible” the shares that Members would have in the absence of restrictions. On the interpretation of this provision see Report of the Appellate Body and Report of the Panel, European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R and WT/DS27/R (1997).
In the case of bound tariffs, the reduction was to be from the bound rate, in the case of unbound tariffs, from the rate in effect on September 1986. Modalities Agreement, supra note 71, ¶ 3.
SeeTimothy Josling, Stefan Tangermann and Thorald Warley, Agriculture in the GATT 192(1996), for criticisms of the EC approach to trigger prices.
It has been pointed out that a breach of Article XI:1 necessarily constitutes a breach of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Report of Panel, Korea-Measures Affecting Imported of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/R and WT/DS169/R (2000), ¶ 7.62.
Korea—Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS161/AB/R and WT/DS169/AB/R (2000). While not directly relevant to the Agreement on Agriculture, a series of Appellate Body and panel decisions involving agricultural products has produced a greater understanding of the scope of the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT Article XIX. For further discussion, see Chapter 18 of this book. The decisions are: Report of the Appellate Body, Korea—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R (1999); Report of the Appellate Body, United States—Quotas on the Import of Wheat Gluten from the EC, WT/DS166/AB/R (2000); Report of the Appellate Body, United States—Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R and WT/DS178/AB/R (2001); and Report of the WTO Panel, Chile—Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/R (2002).
EC—Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS69/AB/R and Report of the Panel, WT/DS69/R (1998). A bilateral agreement between the EC and Brazil concluded during the Uruguay Round established a duty-free global annual tariff-rate quota for frozen poultry meat. The agreement was one of the results of a GATT Panel report in EC—Oilseeds, supra note 63, and it was implemented by EEC Regulation 774/94 (OJ 1994 L 91/1) and Regulation 1431/94 (OJ 1994 L 156/9). In the resulting Uruguay Round Schedule the EC reserved the right to introduce an additional duty on out-of-quota imports of poultry if the conditions of Article 5 were satisfied, see Regulation 3290/94 (OJ 1994 L 349/105) amending the regulation establishing the common organisation of the market in poultry (Regulation 2775/75 (OJ 1975 L 282/77) and Regulation 1484/95 (OJ 1994 L 145/47) on the detailed rules for the application of the safeguard mechanism.
EC—Poultry Products, supra note 87, ¶ 146. According to the Appellate Body “to read the inclusion of customs duties into the definition of the c.i.f. import price in Article 5.1(b) would require us to read words into the text of that provision that simply are not there.” Having reversed the Panel’s interpretation of Article 5.1, the Appellate Body went on to make a finding on the consistency of the implementing EC Regulation with Article 5.5. The relevant issue was whether this provision allowed an importing Member to offer a choice to the importer between the use of the c.i.f. price, as provided in Article 5.5, and another method of calculation. It concluded that there is no language that permits any method other than that set out in the schedule in Article 5.5 as a basis for the calculation of additional duties. (¶ 165). Although Article 3.1 of Regulation 1484/95 used this method, the fact that it was only available at the request of the importer and if the price so established was higher than the applicable representative price meant that the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 5.5. The Appellate Body also concluded (¶ 170) that the alternative method of calculation, the representative price, was inconsistent with Article 5.5.
Modalities Agreement, supra note 71, ¶ 8.
On this point, at a meeting of the Agriculture Committee on June 28–29, 2001, Argentina requested the EC to supply data on its direct payment supports in 1992 for specific cereals under its “blue box” programs. The EC response was that a breakdown for individual cereals was not available because the payments were made on fixed areas and yields. Argentina reserved the right to raise this issue again in the Agriculture Committee, and is considering possible further steps. (G/AG/R/27, ¶¶ 2–16). See Swinbank, supra Alan Swinbank, CAP Reform and the WTO: Compatibility and Developments, 26 European Review of Agricultural Economics (1999) note 74, at 410; Joseph McMahon, The Common Agricultural Policy: From Quantity to Quality 53 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 9, 22 (2002).
Korean Beef, supra note 86.
Supra note 71, Annex 8.
On the development of food aid under the Agreement, see G/AG/NG/S/3. See also Melaku Desta, Food Security and International Trade Law 35 Journal of World Trade 449 (2001).
Canada—Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS103/AB/R and WT/DS113/AB/R; Report of the Panel, WT/DS103/R and WT/DS113/R (1999). The case also involved a challenge with respect to Canadian tariff-rate quotas on imports of milk and cream. This aspect of the case did not involve an interpretation of the Agreement on Agriculture, but rather Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body held that Canada’s restriction of access to its tariff-rate quota on fluid milk to consumer packaged milk was consistent with its obligations under Article II:1(b), but that its limiting such access to entries valued at less than C$20 was inconsistent.
Id., Report of the Appellate Body at ¶ 102.
Id., at ¶ 92.
Id., ¶¶ 113, 122.
Canada-Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products-Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, Report of the Panel, WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW (2001).
Id., Report of the Appellate Body at ¶ 81.
Id. at ¶ 84.
Id., at ¶ 103.
Id. at ¶ 117.
Report of the WTO Panel, Canada-Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products-Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States, WT/DS103/RW2, WT/DS113/RW2 (2002), ¶ 5.89.
Id. at ¶ 5.134.
Report of the Appellate Body, United States-Tax Treatment of “Foreign Sales Corporations”, WT/DS108/AB/R (2000).
Id, ¶¶ 131–132.
Supra, n. 117, ¶ 150.
Under United States law, for example, a countervailing duty investigation must be initiated upon the filing of a petition in proper form, and the government has no discretion to exercise “due restraint”. The due restraint provision may simply mean that Members agree not to self-initiate investigations as opposed to initiating upon a petition filed on behalf of a domestic industry. If so, it is a fairly meaningless concession because it is extremely rare for governments to self-initiate countervailing duty investigations. The United States has only self-initiated one countervailing duty investigation, Certain Softwood Lumber From Canada, 57 Fed. Reg. 22570 (1992). A GATT Panel held that the initiation was not inconsistent with Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Report of the GATT panel (adopted) United States—Measures Affecting Imports of Softwood Lumber From Canada, BISD 40th Supp. 358 (1994).
See also WT/DS167/1, United States-Countervailing Duty Investigation with Respect to Live Cattle From Canada, a Canadian request for consultations concerning the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the United States, made on 22 December 1998, with respect to live cattle from Canada. Canada contended that initiation of the investigation was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as well as obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The matter was dropped after the investigation resulted in a negative determination.
For further discussion, see Didier Chambovey, How the Expiry of the Peace Clause (Article 13 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture) Might Alter Disciplines on Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Framework, 36 J. WORLD TRADE 305 (2002).
The decision is reproduced in The Legal Texts: Theresults of Theuruguayround Ofmultilateral Trade Negotiations (1999) at 392.
On the issue of trade performance of developing countries, see WTO Secretariat Study, G/AG/NG/S/6 and Rev.1—Agricultural Trade Performance of Developing Countries 1990–1999.
G/AG/NG/W/15, U.S. Proposal for Comprehensive Long-Term Agricultural Trade Reform. See also, G/AG/NG/W/32, Statement by the United States to the Second Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.
See G/AG/NG/W/58, U.S. Proposal for Tariff Rate Quota Reform. The proposal refers to various background papers prepared by the Secretariat. On tariff rate quotas, see various background papers of the WTO Secretariat, G/AG/NG/S/7, 8, 8/Rev.1, and 20.
The Cairns group now includes Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Uruguay. See G/AG/NG/W/54, Cairns Group Negotiating Proposal—Market Access, and statement by Australia on the proposal, G/AG/NG/W/60, in which it is noted that the average tariff on agricultural products is more than eight times higher than the average tariff on industrial products. See also, e.g., G/AG/NG/W/12, WTO Negotiations on Agriculture Market Access—A Negotiating Proposal by Canada, and a statement by Canada in support of the Cairns Group proposal, G/AG/NG/W/23.
G/AG/NG/W/91, ¶¶ 14–15 and G/AG/NG/W/116, Statement by Japan to the Fifth Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. See also, an earlier statement by Japan to the Second Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, G/AG/NG/W/27.
Id, para. 9. Other Members support this approach, see G/AG/NG/W/98, Korea—Proposal for WTO Negotiations on Agriculture, ¶ 3 and G/AG/NG/W/101, Norway—WTO Agriculture Negotiations, ¶ 12.
G/AG/NG/W/90, EC Comprehensive Negotiating Proposal, ¶ 3. See also, G/AG/NG/W/18, Communication from the EC—Food Quality—Improvement in Market Access and EC “non-paper” submitted to the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture Informal Meeting, 24–26 September 2001, available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/wto/officdoc/geogr_en.htm.
G/AG/NG/W/40, Statement by Australia, introducing the Cairns Group proposal on domestic support to the Third Special Session of the Committée on Agriculture. See also, G/AG/NG/W/13, Proposal by Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Pakistan, Haiti, Nicaragua, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and El Salvador on Green Box Subsidies, which offers statistics on support levels in the OECD countries.
G/AG/NG/W/16. See also G/AG/NG/W/15, supra note 137 and G/AG/NG/W/49, Statement by the United States on Domestic Support Reform to the Third Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.
Supra note 142, ¶ 10.
Japan, supra note 140, ¶¶ 17–22 and Korea, supra note 141, ¶¶ 20–23. This approach is supported by a number of European countries, see for example, G/AG/NG/W/103, Proposal by Poland, which suggests that every Member should have the right to introduce and maintain Blue Box payments.
See G/AG/11 in which the Committee on Agriculture discusses the implementation of Article 10.2. See also OECD Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries (2001) in which the OECD reports that U.S. export credits in 1998 totalled $3.93 billion at the end of 1998. The equivalent figure for the EC was $1.25 billion.
EC Comprehensive Negotiating Proposal, supra note 142, ¶ 1.
See Bridges Monthly May 2004 No. 5, p. 7 and June 2004 No 6, p. 2, available at www.ictsd.org.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002, signed on 13 May, 2002.
For details of the outcome of the review, see Regulation 1782/2003 (2003), OJ270/1. It is worth compating the outcome with the Commission Communication that launched the mid-term review, COM (2002) 394 Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McMahon, J.A. (2005). The Agreement on Agriculture. In: Macrory, P.F.J., Appleton, A.E., Plummer, M.G. (eds) The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-22688-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-22688-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-22685-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-22688-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)