Agricultural Negotiations Research Articles

Promoting Food Security through the Multilateral Trading System: Assessing the WTO’s Efforts, Identifying its Gaps, and Exploring the Way Forward

The Covid-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine have unveiled the vulnerabilities of global food systems, resulting in food shortages, price spikes, and worsening food security. The World Trade Organization can play a key role in addressing these challenges through its developed body of rules. Its regulatory framework on agriculture, however, is affected by shortcomings and asymmetries that pose challenges to the long-term achievement of secure and sustainable food systems. Despite extensive negotiations among countries in the Committee on Agriculture ahead of the 12th Ministerial Conference, few concrete proposals were made to reform trade rules on agriculture. Additionally, the 12th Ministerial Conference itself failed to produce satisfactory results with respect to food security. The ongoing stalemate in agricultural negotiations since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic indicates the need for a new, holistic approach to address food security at the World Trade Organization, particularly in preparation for the upcoming 13th Ministerial Conference in 2024. This approach should be informed by equity considerations and grounded in the notion of sustainable development and the human right to food. While a comprehensive reform of the Agreement on Agriculture informed by this approach is the ultimate goal, it is unlikely to occur in the short- to medium-term due to disagreement among countries on how to reform the three pillars of the Agreement. Therefore, an incremental approach could be adopted by prioritising issues for which short- to medium-term reforms are more likely to garner consensus, such as sustainable agricultural production, and by employing soft law instruments. The latter favour a flexible approach and promote cooperation and trust among countries.

Promoting food security through public stockholding – Indian perspective and challenges at the WTO

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the applicable legal framework, various concerns regarding the price support methodology and the merits and pitfalls of the Bali peace clause that currently shields India’s public stockholding (PSH) policy, to provide suggestions on moving forward in the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations.Design/methodology/approachAt the WTO, PSH for food security is considered a trade-distorting price support measure when food stocks are purchased from farmers at administered prices instead of market prices. The price support is measured by a specific methodology stipulated under the Agreement on Agriculture. India is concerned that the price support methodology overestimates the actual support provided to the farmers and makes India susceptible to violating the WTO law.FindingsThe paper explains the domestic implications for India arising due to the applicable WTO law. Given the centrality of India’s PSH programmes in ensuring food security, India must seek more clarity on the interpretation of Article 18.4 of the AoA and the ambiguous provisions of the Bali peace clause.Originality/valueThe paper provides a timely and updated analysis of the contentious issue of PSH for food security, exclusively from the Indian perspective, highlighting the persisting challenges for India in WTO agriculture negotiations. This is timely as many WTO members have raised serious concerns about India’s market price support policies recently and this analysis informs the reader about the underlying issues.

Backdoor Bargaining: How the European Union Navigates the Food Aid Regime Complex

Scholars have long observed that states play off overlapping international institutions against one another in an effort to advance their policy objectives. This article identifies a strategy utilized by the EU in response to regime complexity that I term “backdoor bargaining.” Unlike forum-shopping, regime-shifting, and competitive-regime creation strategies, which states use to move multilateral negotiations to an institution that they expect will produce a more favorable outcome, backdoor bargaining involves a state using negotiations within one institution to gain an advantage in negotiations taking place at another distinct institution in a regime complex. I demonstrate the plausibility of backdoor bargaining by showing that the EU used the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention as a strategy to gain bargaining leverage in the agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organization. The article also offers insights into the potential consequences of international regime complexity for the EU as a global actor and the coherence of its foreign policies.

Agricultural Domestic Support Reforms at the wto: An Assessment of the Proportional Reduction Approach

Abstract Domestic support reforms remain an unresolved and contentious issue in the wto agricultural negotiations. There are proposals to halve the current global trade-distorting domestic support entitlements by 2030, where members would have to undertake reductions proportionate to their existing domestic support entitlements. This study critically examines the implications of the proportional reduction approach on the policy space of 164 wto members to support their farmers. The results show that this approach fails to address the issues and concerns of developing members regarding domestic support reforms, and these members would be required to undertake higher reduction commitments than their developed counterparts. Additionally, the per-farmer entitlement for developed members would remain massive under this approach. Contrary to general belief, the least developed countries would lose half of their flexibility to support their farmers. Further, the proposed approach would dilute the existing special and differential treatment for developing, and least developed, members.

Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agriculture: Implications for Developing Members at the World Trade Organization

Abstract With rising levels of food and livelihood insecurity among poor farmers, many developing members at the World Trade Organization (WTO) are demanding a special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for shielding their agriculture from import surges and price declines. Similar to special agricultural safeguards (SSGs) which are available only to some members, SSM seeks to provide flexibility to developing members to breach the bound tariff in special cases of import surges and price dips. In this context, this study identifies the agricultural products facing import surges in eight selected developing members. The study evaluates the policy space available to selected members in terms of tariff overhang under their existing schedules as well as proposed tariff reductions under agriculture negotiations. Besides this, it critically scrutinizes various issues such as cross-check conditions, triggers and remedies in order to highlight the sensitivities of developing members in accessibility, effectiveness, and other technical aspects of SSM.

Revisiting domestic support to agriculture at the WTO: Ensuring a level playing field

In the agriculture negotiations, developing members remain concerned about the inherent inequities in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which allows developed members to provide huge product-specific support without breaching their commitments. As a result, developed members enjoy artificial competitiveness, which leads to an adverse impact on farm income and livelihood security for poor farmers. Further, developing members have been increasingly finding difficulties in implementing support measures due to the constraining provisions of the AoA. From the developing members’ perspective, the elimination of trade-distorting entitlement for developed members along with special and differential treatment for themselves are the key demands in domestic support negotiations. However, some developed members have tried to build a narrative depicting developing members as major providers of trade-distorting support. This study brings out the fallacies of this narrative by highlighting the asymmetries and inequities in the trade-distorting entitlement of 8 developed and 12 developing members based on their socio-economic conditions. Results show that per farmer Amber box entitlement for developing members under the AoA is a mere fraction of the entitlement enjoyed by the developed members. This study provides a different dimension to the on-going agriculture negotiations to make trade rules development-oriented and inclusive for all.

Heroes of the developing world? Emerging powers in WTO agriculture negotiations and dispute settlement

ABSTRACT Agriculture has been a key issue of North-South struggle at the WTO. Emerging powers like China, India and Brazil have portrayed themselves as leaders of the Global South, crusading to make the trading system fairer for developing countries. This article analyzes three cases – the cotton dispute, subsidies and public stockholding – that have been at the center of WTO negotiations and dispute settlement on agriculture since the collapse of the Doha Round. While presenting themselves as champions of the developing world, I show that the emerging powers have been advancing their own interests, often at the expense of other developing countries..

Relative gains and the Common Agricultural Policy: the French government’s decision to reject the Blair House Agreement and block the completion of the Uruguay Round in 1993

CESAA 19th ANNUAL EUROPE ESSAY COMPETITION 2011 - Undergraduate winner: Dan Norrie (Monash University)The French government’s rejection of the Blair House Agreement in 1993 enabled France to resist agricultural reform and achieve relative gains over other European Union States. The existence of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) allows France to extract the economic surplus of European Union (EU) members through taxes and subsidies, which artificially improve the competitiveness of French agriculture. France took advantage of the EU principle of consensus by adopting a strategy of non-compliance to agricultural negotiations, positioning it to directly influence EU Commission policy. This allowed France to benefit from EU bargaining power in the Uruguay Round, and ensure greater concessions from States driving agricultural reform. The reinstatement of veto power in the EU Community has made future agricultural reform more difficult, allowing France to continue to realise welfare gains at the expense of other EU members. The paper adopts a literature review to analyse French national interest and the costs and benefits of foreign policy strategies.

Special Safeguard Mechanism for Agriculture: Implications for Developing Members at the WTO

With rising levels of food and livelihood insecurity among poor farmers, many developing members at the WTO are demanding special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for shielding their agriculture from import surges and price declines. Most of developing members do not have any trade instrument under the WTO to address it except by increasing the applied tariff to bound level. Similar to special agricultural safeguards (SSGs) which is available only to few members, SSM seeks to provide flexibility to developing members to breach the bound tariff in special cases of import surges and price dips in order to minimize its adverse impact. In this context, this study identifies the agricultural products facing import surges in selected developing members namely Ghana, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. The uniqueness of this study is derived from the fact that it also evaluates the policy space available to selected members on these tariff lines in terms of tariff overhang under their existing schedules as well as proposed tariff reductions under agriculture negotiations. Beside this, it critically scrutinizes various issues such as cross-check conditions, triggers and remedies in order to highlight the sensitivities of developing members in accessibility, effectiveness, and other technical aspects of this mechanism. The study identifies some of the provisions contained in the most recent version of the negotiating texts which could render the SSM an ineffective policy instrument and difficult to operationalise.

A Quantitative Analysis of Proposals on Domestic Support in WTO Agriculture Negotiations: Need for Reaffirming the Development Agenda

Disciplining domestic support to agriculture remains an unfinished agenda in the WTO negotiations due to the different views and positions of members. Developing members have been consistently demanding an effective special and differential treatment (S&DT) for themselves, along with a substantial reduction in the trade-distorting support entitlement of developed members. However, members have failed to reach a consensus on different aspects, especially coverage and approaches to determine an overall trade-distorting support (OTDS) limit. In this context, this study quantifies and critically examines the implications of various proposals on the policy space to provide trade-distorting support based on floating and fixed reference period models. It estimates trade-distorting entitlements of 9 developed and 16 developing members under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) as well as the selected proposals for the years 2020 and 2030. These entitlements have been computed in monetary limits, percentage of the value of production, and on per farmer basis. Results show that many proposals have failed to deliver the effective S&DT, as developing members generally have to undertake higher cuts than developed members, highlighting the asymmetries in negotiations. The study will be useful for members to take an informed position in the agriculture negotiations on domestic support.

Revisiting Domestic Support Negotiations at the WTO: Ensuring a Level Playing Field

In the agriculture negotiations, developing members remain concerned about the inherent inequities in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which allows developed members to provide huge trade-distorting support without breaching their commitments. As a result of these flexibilities, developed members enjoy artificial competitiveness in international trade, which subsequently leads to an adverse impact on farm income and livelihood security for millions of farmers in third world countries. Further, developing members have been increasingly finding it difficult to implement domestic support measures due to the constraining provisions of the AoA. From the developing members' perspective, the elimination of trade-distorting entitlement for developed members along with special and differential treatment for themselves are the key demands in domestic support negotiations. However, some developed members have tried to build a narrative to depict developing members as major providers of trade-distorting support. This study has made a modest attempt to bring out the fallacy of this narrative by highlighting the asymmetries and inequities in trade-distorting entitlement of 8 developed and 12 developing members based on their socio-economic conditions. Results show that per farmer Amber box entitlement for developing members under the AoA is a mere fraction of the entitlement enjoyed by the developed members. This study provides a different dimension to the ongoing agriculture negotiations to make trade rules development-oriented and inclusive for all. More specifically, this study examine the following pertinent questions (1) whether the relevance of AMS entitlement for developed members has declined, and if so, why are developing members still asking for AMS elimination; (2) in case the socio-economic conditions of the developing members are considered, whether the narrative that developing members have the huge policy space under the de minimis limit will stand; (3) if policy space under the de minimis limit has increased, then why are the developing members complaining about the constraining provisions of the AoA; (4) In case the number of farmers is considered, what will be the entitlement of the members under the amber box for achieving a level playing field. The study seeks to explore answers to these intriguing questions by examining and evaluating the policy space under the Amber box for 20 selected members; 8 developed members namely Australia, Canada, European Union (EU), Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, and 12 developing members namely Bangladesh, Brazil, India, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey in 2020 and 2030.

WTO 체제의 구조적 위기와 한국의 신 다자협상 대응 방향 (Structural Paralysis of the WTO Multilateral Trading System and New Negotiation Strategies for Korea)

WTO 체제의 구조적 위기와 한국의 신 다자협상 대응 방향 (Structural Paralysis of the WTO Multilateral Trading System and New Negotiation Strategies for Korea)

Agriculture negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Agriculture and food in the United Nations Framework Convention on Agriculture (1992) and related legal instruments, including the Paris Agreement (2015). With initial discussions during climate negotiations from 2004 to 2011, issues related to agriculture were discussed from 2012 to 2017 in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), which is one of the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC. The first substantive outcome and the decision of the Conference of Parties (COP) was made at the 23rd COP (Decision 4/CP.23) held in Bonn, Germany in November 2017. The decision SBSTA and Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) to jointly address issues related to agriculture. Further, it officially acknowledged the significance of the agriculture sector in adapting to and mitigating climate change through the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA). The KJWA road map has been developed with the final reporting to be taken place in COP 26 in Glasgow, United Kingdom in 2020. This paper provides the major events that have taken place during the agriculture negotiations to-date under the UNFCCC.

The Preferential Trade Conundrum and the Multilateral Market Access Negotiations in Agriculture

Regional trade agreements have increasingly become important as a medium for effecting trade liberalization. The trend is not expected to recede. There is not to suggest that multilateral trading system under the WTO has to be relegated. Regional trade agreements may be a good avenue to pursue market access reforms, but they do have an obvious limitation in making a foray into rule-making. They rely rather heavily on multilateral trade rules and on the expectation that these fundamental trade rules are implemented so as to build upon them within the preferential setting. This is evident when one looks at the treatment of subsidies, regulatory measures, safeguards and other trade remedy instruments within these regional trade agreements. This article examines the situation of exports and imports in ten major agricultural trading countries or territories to assess the share of preferential trade in the overall trade profile. While the situation varies across the group, a significant share of trade continues to originate in or destined for countries under (MFN) Most-favoured Nation terms. In a number of regional trade agreements, including those involving the ten major countries, various sensitive agricultural sectors like dairy, meats, sugar, cereals have either been exempted from tariff elimination or preferential tariff treatment has been offered through a minor reduction in high MFN tariffs or tariff rate quotas. Tariff reforms for a number of such sensitive agriculture sectors have proven to be difficult partly because of the linkage between tariff policies and governmental internal policies and subsidies granted to such sensitive sectors. This linkage hinders commitments on tariff liberalization for the relevant sensitive sectors, especially in a preferential setting where domestic subsidy reforms might not be feasible. In order to exploit the synergy between regional trade agreements and the multilateral trading system and negotiations, it has been suggested in this article to consider reforms of sensitive agricultural sectors within the multilateral negotiations where both tariff liberalization and subsidy reforms may be pursued together.

Evaluation of the Impact of Various Doha Round Conclusion Scenarios at the WTO Agricultural Negotiation

This paper evaluates the impacts of various scenarios proposed in the context of the WTO Doha Round agricultural negotiations and a new scenario that considers differential treatment for developing countries. The objective of this paper is to contribute to find the desired consensus among WTO members to facilitate trade and avoid trade wars. We used the Agricultural Trade Policy Simulation Model (ATPSM) to measure impacts and use the ADAMS model to measure the equity of the various scenarios. We considered seven negotiating scenarios (1) Uruguay Round Agreement, (2) C4 country proposal, (3) EU proposal, (4) USA proposal, (6) our proposal and (7) full liberalization of trade. The results showed that our proposal increases the cotton producers’ price by 10.8%, better than the C4 countries proposal (9.0%) and USA proposals (6.1%). Our proposal for agricultural agreements increases the world price (8.1%), the consumer’s price (7.4%) and the volume of exports (2.3%), certainly to a lesser degree than that of the C4 countries proposal but more than the USA proposal. In terms of the equity criterion, it is as favorable as the other scenarios compared to the status quo of the Uruguay Round. Our proposal presents the elements for a compromise to conclude the Doha Round, with benefits for developing countries and the introduction of a new mechanism of international solidarity.

International Posturing amidst Domestic Neglect: India's Agricultural Policy Examined

AbstractIndia has actively tried to shape the WTO agricultural negotiations by submitting detailed proposals, building coalitions, and even taking hard stands (veto) at critical junctures. However, this aggressive posturing presents a sharp contrast with India's domestic agricultural space, where the situation highlights policy neglect, manifesting in agrarian distress and farmer suicides. This paper analyzes contradictions between India's internationally espoused negotiating positions and its domestic policy goals. It argues that India's core focus has been to preserve status quo in the domestic food markets, driven by the political need to provide food-based consumption subsidies and manage an assured price and supply protection to its vulnerable consumers. As a result, India's interests are divergent from most of its developing country coalition partners in the G-20 as well as the G-33 groups. Our discussion has significant implications for both the domestic policy, as well as the sustainability of India's strategy in global agricultural trade negotiations.

The Paradox of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition: Lessons for the Future

The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition was lauded as WTO ’ s most significant outcome on agriculture negotiations. However, despite the Decision ’ s requirement that WTO developed country Members immediately eliminate their export subsidies, only Australia has revised its schedule of commitments, scrapping all its export subsidy entitlements. This article therefore analyses the relationship of the Nairobi Decision with the existing obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture; the legal value of the Decision; the challenges in identifying the nature of the Decision; and, whether and how it could have been drafted in a better way to facilitate its implementation.

Negotiating Agriculture in the World Trade Organization: Food Security as a Non-Trade Concern

Food security is an important issue in the current international agenda, for the 2007-2008 economic crisis contributed to the rise in food prices, increasing their volatility. As a complex topic, the efforts to assuring food security cannot be restricted to national initiatives, demanding rather a comprehensive global policy, involving all the interested actors. In this regard, WTO has a shared responsibility in the fight against hunger and in the promotion of the right to food. Trade is one of the many elements related to food security, and it may be a relevant tool in fostering sustainable practices to achieve such goal. Agriculture negotiations in the WTO are aimed at guaranteeing stable and rule-oriented markets, with the liberalization of the agricultural sector and the elimination of distortive practices. Food security is a non-trade concern that must be taken into consideration in the reform talks of the Agreement on Agriculture. The main question on this matter is whether food security should be sought in WTO through the adoption of trade policies, which requires strengthening the discipline on the use of restrictive measures, or through the enhancement of liberalization and cooperation in multiple levels.

Indonesian Interests in The Agricultural Negotiations Under The Doha Development Agenda: an Analysis of the "July 2004 Package"

Indonesian Sejak Agenda Pembangunan Doha WTO dirumuskan terjadi perkembangan arah liberalisasi pedagangan. Di negara-negara OECD, keinginan untuk mengurangi bantuan domestik tampaknya agak lamban dan sejumlah negara berkembang agak enggan membuka pasarnya. Pada “paket Juli 2004” sejumlah negara anggota menyetujui adanya pengecualian perubahan pada beberapa produk, produk khas (special product) bagi negara berkembang dan produk peka (sensitive product) pada negara maju. Dengan memilih ‘paket Juli 2004’ sebagai titik awal, makalah ini mencoba menganalisis kepentingan Indonesian dalam perundingan pertanian dalam Agenda Pembangunan Doha. Penelitian ini menggunakan model ekonomi perdagangan dan produksi (pangkalan data dan analisis GTAP) untuk mengidentifikasi kemungkinan dampak skenario liberalisasi global yang realistis dalam semangat ‘paket Juli 2004’ pada perekonomian Indonesia. Pada keadaan perdagangan yang sudah berlangsung agak liberal di Indonesia saat ini dampak menyeluruh yang diharapkan pada pendapatan nasional, perdagangan dan produksi bernilai positif, tetapi terbatas. Untuk Indonesian liberalisasi global pertanian menjanjikan prospek yang positif untuk minyak sayuran dan produk ternak. Diduga terjadi pengaruh negatif dalam upaya melindungi sektor beras dan gula, yang akan dapat dikelola dengan biaya lumayan dengan menentukan beras sebagai produk khas. Skema pelarangan impor atau kuota terbatas akan menimbulkan penurunan tingkat kesejahteraan secara nyata. English Ever since the WTO Doha Development Agenda was formulated, there has been mixed development in the direction of global trade liberalization. The ambitions on reforming domestic support in OECD countries seem to be moderate, at best, and a number of developing countries are less inclined to open their markets through improved access. Under ‘July 2004 package’ members now agree on far reaching exemptions from reforms in individual products (special products for developing countries and sensitive products for developed countries). Taking the ‘July 2004 package’ as a starting point, this paper tries to assess Indonesian interests in the agricultural negotiations under the WTO Doha Development Agenda. This study uses a large-scale economic model of trade and production (GTAP data base and analysis) to identify the possible impact of a realistic global liberalization scenario in the spirit of the ‘July 2004 package’ on the Indonesian economy. Given the prevailing quite liberal trade regime in Indonesia the expected overall impacts on national income, trade and production are positive, but rather limited. For Indonesian agriculture global liberalization offers positive prospects for vegetable oils and for animal products. There are small adverse effects on the protected rice and sugar sectors, which can be managed at modest costs by designating rice as special product (SP). An import ban or restrictive quota regime would entail significant welfare losses.

Agriculture and Its Discontents: Coalitional Politics at the wto with Special Reference to India’s Food Security Interests

The demise of the Doha round of trade negotiations is often attributed to deadlocks in agricultural negotiations between the developed and the developing world. Why has agriculture been so difficult to negotiate? This article explains North-South agricultural negotiations through the lens of coalition politics, especially the shift from bloc to issue-based diplomacy from the developing world. We argue against the proposition in the negotiation literature that multiple coalitions at the international level allow negotiators room to maneuver. Our study shows that bloc coalitions in fact allowed for compromise more than issue-based coalitions in agriculture, which are often supported by strong domestic constituencies. Empirically, the article focuses on the Uruguay Round when the North and South struck an agreement on agriculture and the Doha Round, which remains deadlocked. The article also provides an in-depth case study of India’s agricultural interests and its food security program in the context of thewto.