WTO Ministerial Section • Volume 2 • Number 19 • 25th May 1998

Agriculture

Do More

See also

ICTSD’s 20 May workshop on “Trade, Agriculture and Sustainable Development” looked at the social, economic and environmental effects of implementation of the WTO Agriculture Agreement, the work of the Committee on Agriculture and prospects for and views on upcoming negotiations. An official from the WTO Agriculture Division, and representatives from the Resource Centre for Peoples Development (Philipines), the Protestant Farmers Association (Germany) and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands, made presentations and served as resource persons to the meeting. The WTO Agriculture Committee has embarked on an informal “analysis and information exchange process” between governments. The work of the Committee has helped clarify which domestic agricultural policies belong to which of three “boxes”: green (acceptable), yellow (borderline), and red (in violation of GATT). In addition, policies have also been placed in a blue box for measures that might normally be in the yellow box but are allowed as an exception. Participants observed that there is a need for clear definition of “blue box policies”, which might be allowed in support of smaller economies or for environmental protection.

At a workshop held over the previous weekend, NGOs had identified food security, sustainable development, a more just trade regime and more justice in international agriculture as key issues (see also report in Weekly Trade News Digest No.18). The workshop recommendations included creating a global food security net for exchange of information and ideas; moving on labelling and standard setting; responding to the WTO’s “boxes system” by improving the sustainable development box so that subsidies can be used for environmental aims; creating a “bread box” for low- income food deficit countries; and revising the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures for better monitoring of the Codex Alimentarius.

The workshop debated whether taking parts of agriculture out of the WTO would or would not be the answer to the problem; how bringing down barriers in developed countries is key, and the opportunities for developing countries and importing countries in the next round. It was mentioned that some developing and Cairns group countries fear that — due to internal EU difficulties in agreeing on opening up agriculture trade — any EU proposal to come before the WTO would be non- negotiable. One NGO participant pointed out that in terms of environmental protection, the EU might be in a position to serve as “environmental good guy” and counterbalance the Cairns group and the USA.
A group of US agriculture groups – including the US Dairy Foods Association, the Pork Producers Council, the National Farmers’ Alliance and the American Sugar Alliance – held a meeting on 19 May, during which they expressed their support for the WTO and, in particular, for speeding up agriculture trade liberalisation.