2019 Volume 21 Pages 44-49
The negotiation on agriculture in the Uruguay Round of the GATT (UR) created commitments on reduction of trade-distorting payments in three dimensions : domestic support, market access and export competition. The outcome of the UR was synthesized into the WTO agreements, and all of the member countries were required to accept the agreements as a whole without any exceptions. On the other hand, they also contained special and differential treatment (S&D) of developing countries. The levels of reduction of tariffs after tariffication, aggregated measurement of support (AMS) and values of export subsidies and amounts of their targets were kept at two-thirds of the regular requirements. Trends in world agricultural trade from 1995 to 2000 showed an increase in export amount, especially the amount of soybeans and primary commodities such as coffee, cocoa beans and palm oil. However, export values of almost all major products decreased except for soybeans and poultry. These changes, caused mainly by decreases in price, seem to express the trade expansion effects of market liberalization by WTO agreements without remarkable gain of developing countries exporting agricultural commodities. Therefore, the discontent of these countries surged, and they strongly requested to set the new negotiations as a “development agenda”. World agricultural export expanded in both value and amount in the 2000s, and prices of major produce skyrocketed in 2007 and 2008. Then the prices plunged into a dive in 2009 but quickly recovered in 2010. The exports of cereals and soybeans have remained at high levels, meat exports have increased steadily, and primary commodity prices have fluctuated sharply. The exporters of cereals, soybeans and meat have benefited little from the more liberalized market. On the other hand, the exporters of primary commodities and the net food importers still face fragile situations. The negotiation on agriculture in the Doha Development Agenda should pay more attention to the interests of these fragile countries in order to be more effective as a “development agenda.”
