Agriculture Agreement

The Haberler report of 1958 stressed the importance of minimizing the impact of agricultural subsidies on competitiveness and recommended replacing price support with additional non-production-related direct payments, and expected discussions to be ongoing on green box subsidies. But it is only recently that this change has become 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 sectoral reforms that followed, resulted in the deferral of most aid under the amber box and the blue box to the green box (61.6 billion euros in 2016/2017, see table below). Aid under the “amber box” (AMS) has fallen sharply, from EUR 81 billion at the beginning of the period of the agreement to EUR 6.9 billion between 2016 and 2017, even with successive waves of expansion. The European Union thus largely respects the commitments made in Marrakech (72.38 billion euros per year) for the AMS. In addition, the “blue box” reached 4.6 billion euros during the same notification period. Domestic support regimes for agriculture are governed by the agriculture agreement, which came into force in 1995 and was negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994). The long-term goal of the AoA is to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system and to initiate a reform process through negotiations on promised commitments and safeguards and by defining more effective and operationally effective rules and disciplines. Agriculture is therefore special, because the sector has its own agreement, the provisions of which are given priority. The member transparency toolkit contains information on notification formats and a reporting manual, as well as links to members` lists with commitments and other resources to support member transparency in the agricultural sector. Export subsidies are the third pillar. The 1995 agricultural agreement required industrialized countries to reduce export subsidies by at least 36% (in value terms) or by 21% (by volume) over a six-year value.

For developing countries, the agreement called for reductions of 24% (in value) and 14% (in volume) over ten years. These agreements provide some flexibility in implementation by developing countries as well as for WTO members (special and differentiated treatment) and least developed countries (LDCs) and net food-importing developing countries (special provisions). (2) In accordance with the Mid-Term Review Agreement, which provides that direct or indirect public aid to promote agricultural and rural development is an integral part of developing country development programmes, investment subsidies generally available to agriculture in developing countries, and subsidies for agricultural inputs, which are generally available to low-income or low-income producers in developing countries, are exempt from commitments to reduce land-use aid on the national territory that would otherwise apply to such measures, as well as national aid to producers in developing countries, which are in place to diversify resources in developing countries. National aid meeting the criteria set out in this paragraph should not be taken into account in the calculation of the current AMS of the total number of Member States. WTO Information on Agriculture, Including WTO Members` Communications Video: How to Introduce AGIMS into Agricultural Trade at the WTO Links to the Agricultural Section of the WTO`s “Understanding the WTO” Guide WTO members made important decisions on agriculture at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015.

Posted in Uncategorized
Powered by Wordpress ‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎© Design by Milena 2020