Agreement On Agriculture Articles

The deal has been criticized by civil society groups for reducing tariff protection for smallholder farmers, an important source of income in developing countries, while allowing rich countries to continue subsidizing domestic agriculture. The 1958 Haberler Report stressed the importance of minimising the impact of agricultural subsidies on competitiveness and recommended replacing price support with additional non-production direct payments and anticipated the debate on green box subsidies. But it is only recently that this change has become at the heart of the reform of the global agricultural system. [1] The 2003 CAP reform, which decoupled most of the existing direct aid, and the subsequent sectoral reforms resulted in the postponement of most of the aid under the yellow box and the blue box in the green box (€61.6 billion). EUR in 2016/2017, see table below). Aid granted under the “Amber Box” (AMS or Aggregate Measurement of Support) decreased sharply, from EUR 81 billion at the beginning of the contractual period to EUR 6.9 billion over the period 2016-2017, even with successive waves of enlargement. The European Union is thus largely respecting the commitments made in Marrakesh (€72.38 billion per year) for the AMS. In addition, the “Blue Box” reached €4.6 billion during the same registration period. On the eve of the GATT Ministerial Conference held in Punta del Este, Uruguay in 1986, the agricultural lobbies of the industrialized countries strongly opposed the agricultural compromises. In this context, the idea of excluding “trade-neutral” production and subsidies from WTO commitments was first proposed by the US in 1987 and reiterated shortly thereafter by the EU. [2] By ensuring continued support for farmers, it has also neutralised resistance. In exchange for the inclusion of agriculture in WTO disciplines and a commitment to reduce trade-distorting subsidies in the future, industrialized countries would be allowed to maintain subsidies that “cause no more than minimal trade distortions” in order to achieve various public policy objectives.

[1] The CAP is also affected by concessions for agriculture granted to a large number of countries under several multilateral and bilateral agreements, as well as unilateral derogations granted under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). These preferential agreements explain the high level of EU agricultural imports from developing countries (3.2.10, Table VI). These agreements include a degree of flexibility in implementation by both developing countries, WTO members (special and differential treatment) and least developed countries (LDCs) and net food-importing developing countries (specific provisions). National agricultural support schemes are governed by the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which entered into force in 1995 and was negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994). The long-term objective of the AoA is to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and to initiate a reform process by negotiating commitments on assistance and protection and establishing stronger and more operationally effective rules and disciplines. . . .

Dit bericht werd geplaatst in Geen categorie door Marc . Bookmark de permalink .

Reacties zijn gesloten.