1st March 2002
African countries and the Agreement on Agriculture: What scope for sustainable development?
This paper seeks to introduce new perspectives into the debate on the liberalization of trade in agriculture. One of the great achievements of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations was to bring agricultural policies under much greater multilateral disciplines through the new World Trade Organization. The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture led to the conversion of non-tariff barriers to agricultural imports into bound tariffs, which are scheduled for phased reductions between 1995 and 2000, as are farm production and export subsidies. Developing countries have an extra four years to phase in their reduction commitments.
It is hoped that this paper will contribute to informing African policy makers about the full implications of implementing the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and its impacts on their respective economies. It outlines and analyses the existing African Group negotiating proposals and suggests measures that African countries could take in the pursuit of their sustainable development objectives.
Needless to say, and as the paper well shows, agriculture is the core of many African economies. It accounts for a large percentage of the gross domestic product in most countries in the region. In addition, the sector employs more than 60 percent of the labor force, represents a major source of foreign exchange, supplies the bulk of basic food requirements and provides subsistence and income for a large percentage of the rural African population. One will therefore understand the serious implications that any debate on this sector will have, and why developing countries, and particularly African countries, need to monitor the issues very closely. It is hoped that this paper will make that process easier.
This paper seeks to pose and answer a number of very pertinent questions with regard to the possible effects resulting from the implementation of the commitments by African countries under WTO Agreement on Agriculture, as well as commitments under related agreements such as the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade commitments. It also addresses how such implementation may enhance or limit the scope to address food security and sustainable development policies in the region. The paper makes a detailed examination of commitments made in the areas of market access, domestic support and export subsidies, while keeping in mind that this three-pillar approach to trade in agriculture might not be the most suitable framework in addressing the specificities of the sector.
The Doha Declaration has paved the way for WTO Members to continue negotiations in the broader context of a new round. A great deal of work remains to be done and research efforts in this area need to be stepped up. The negotiations cover a very broad sweep. There are deep implications of each of the negotiation issues and individual country positions, on food security and on the development concerns of African countries. Paragraph 13 of the Doha Declaration for instance opens the way for substantial reductions of exports subsidies and domestic support, while paragraph 14 reinforces the special and differential treatment aspect although not explicitly referring to the ‘development box’ issue. In responses to the concept of a development box, most Members agree that special and differential treatment has a high priority in the post-Doha agenda and that it is an integral part of the agriculture negotiations. However, some Members point out that the Ministerial Declaration puts special and differential treatment within the overall objective of achieving a fair and market-orientated agricultural trading system, so that all Members should participate in the reform program.
Whichever way the negotiations unfold, the stakes are high. Food security, other human development aspirations and sustainable development policy objectives and concerns must be addressed comprehensively. Policy formulation on this, and indeed all fronts, should involve those that will feel the repercussions of the policy choices. We have worked with the author toward this objective with stakeholders in dialogues in Africa and Geneva and look forward to the opportunity to further contribute to the capacity pool by continuing to bring to the table the sustainable development perspectives of those that would otherwise have little chance of being heard.