Ideational change in the WTO and its impacts on EU agricultural policy institutions and the CAP

This paper argues that the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) introduced the market liberal paradigm as the ideational underpinning of the new farm trade regime. Though the immediate consequences in terms of limitations on agricultural support and protection were very modest, the Agreement did impact on the way in which domestic farm policy evolves. It forced EU agricultural policy makers to consider the agricultural negotiations when reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The new paradigm in global farm trade resulted in a process of institutional layering in which concerns raised in the World Trade Organization (WTO) were gradually incorporated in EU agricultural institutions. This has resulted in gradual reform of the CAP in which policy instruments have been changed in order to make the CAP more WTO compatible. The underlying paradigm, the state-assisted paradigm, has been sustained though it has been rephrased by introducing the concept of multifunctionality.

Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy

Progress in the Doha Round is assessed against the changes to the common agricultural policy (CAP) brought about by the Fischler reforms of 2003-2004, and that proposed for sugar. An elimination of export subsidies could place EU exports of processed foods at a competitive disadvantage because of high sugar and milk prices. Provided the single payment scheme falls within the green box, the likely new limits on domestic support should not be problematic for the post-Fischler CAP. However, an ambitious market access package could open up EU markets and bring pressure for further reform. If there is no Doha agreement, existing provisions will continue to apply, but without the protection of the Peace Clause; and increased litigation is likely. Further CAP reform is to be expected.

Like products, animal welfare and the WTO

Consumers are increasingly seeking credence characteristics in the goods they buy and some production processes such as organic or animal welfare friendly systems can be successfully embedded in them. However when ethical considerations are involved, voluntary labeling may not be enough and in such cases a political response emerges such as a ban on unacceptable production as well as the consumption of the 'like products' in question, to confirm the credibility of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The EU's Export Refunds on Processed Foods: Legitimate in the WTO?

Export subsidies on processed foods are an important trade policy instrument for the European Union. GATT Article XVI legitimised the use of export subsidies on primary agricultural products, under certain circumstances, but forbade the use of export subsidies on non-primary products. However it was never satisfactorily resolved whether export subsidies could be paid on the primary agricultural products incorporated into processed products, such as pasta. The Uruguay Round Agreements, and particularly the Agreement on Agriculture (the URAA), apparently legitimised the EU’s practice of paying export subsidies on incorporated agricultural products, at least while the Peace Clause was in force. With the demise of the Peace Clause the question arises whether GATT Article XVI has any residual force, given that the range of primary agricultural products exempted by Article XVI from the ban on export subsidies is narrower than the list of agricultural products covered by the URAA.

Potential WTO challenges to the CAP

Since the early 1990s the EU's CAP has undergone considerable change with, first, a switch from market price support to direct payments in 1992 and, second, a further decoupling of support with the creation of the single payment scheme in 2003. Nonetheless, whether the current Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations is successfully completed or not, the CAP will come under renewed scrutiny, as a result either of negotiated reductions in support or of litigation through the WTO's dispute settlement process. This article discusses CAP market price and income support in the context of these likely WTO constraints.

EU Policies on Bioenergy and their Potential Clash with the WTO

The paper outlines EU policy on bioenergy, including biofuels, in the context of its policy initiatives to promote renewable energy to combat greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The EU's Member States are responsible for implementing EU policy: thus, the UK's Renewables Obligation on electricity suppliers and its Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation and road-fuel tax rebates are examined. It is unlikely that EU policy is in conflict with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture or that on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, but its provisions on environmental sustainability criteria could be problematic.

The 2003 CAP Reform: Accommodating WTO Pressures

In 2003, the EU agreed a major reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Its centrepiece was a new Single Payment Scheme (SPS). Policy concerns at the time involved the budget, EU enlargement to the East, the WTO negotiations, and a perception (articulated by Commissioner Fischler) that there should be a shift of budget funds from CAP's Pillar 1 (price and income support) to Pillar 2 (rural development). We outline these concerns, conclude that the WTO was the main driving force of the reforms, set out the key parameters of the new support scheme, and outline some thoughts on the durability of the reformed CAP in the face of continued internal and external pressures.

European Union: Shadow WTO agricultural domestic support notifications

The notification of the level of domestic support to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is intended to reflect compliance with obligations entered into at the time of the Uruguay Round. WTO members have often been slow to provide notification of domestic support levels. This makes the process of notification less useful as an indicator of the degree to which changes in policy have or have not benefited the trade system as a whole and exporting countries in particular. The notification of domestic support in the E.U. illustrates the value of a measure that reflects current policies and can therefore act as a basis for negotiation of further disciplines where these are necessary. The E.U. has made major changes in its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) over the period since 1992 when the MacSharry reforms were implemented. Payments originally notified in the blue box (related to supply control) have over time been changed until in their present form they are unrelated to current production or price levels, and hence can satisfy the criteria for the green box. The E.U. has therefore much more latitude in trade talks to agree to reductions in the allowable trade-distorting support. This paper reproduced the E.U. notifications relating to 2003/04 and extends these with official statistics to the year 2006/07. It then projects forward the components of domestic support until the year 2013/14, based on forecasts of future production and estimates of policy parameters. The impact of a successful Doha Round is simulated, showing that the constraints envisaged in the WTO draft modalities document of May 19, 2008, would be binding by the year 2013, at about the time the next budget cycle in the E.U. starts. Without the Doha Round constraints, further reform might still happen for domestic reasons, but the framework provided by the WTO for domestic policy spending would be less relevant. In that case, much could hinge on the legitimacy of the Single Farm Payment system under the current rules governing the green box.