{ "id": "RL32916", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32916", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 304008, "date": "2005-05-12", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:44:54.136029", "title": "Agriculture in the WTO: Policy Commitments Made Under the Agreement on Agriculture", "summary": "The Uruguay Round (UR) of multilateral trade negotiations, completed in 1994, represented the\nfirst\nsignificant step toward reforming international agricultural trade. Under the UR negotiations,\ndomestic policies and trade policies were viewed as interconnected. As a result, WTO member\ncountries committed to disciplines in agricultural support in three broad areas -- domestic\nagricultural support programs, export subsidies, and market access -- often referred to as the three\npillars of the Agreement on Agriculture (AA). In addition, members also agreed to provisions\nconcerning the handling of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, dispute settlement procedures, and\nthe continuation of the reform process. \n Under the auspices of the UR's AA, WTO member countries agreed to limit and reduce the\nmost distortive domestic support subsidies -- referred to as amber box subsidies and measured by\nthe Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) index. Several types of indirect subsidies were identified\nas causing minimal distortion to agricultural production and trade, and were provided exemptions\n-- green box, blue box, de minimis , and special treatment -- from WTO disciplines. \nExport subsidies\nwere capped and subject to reductions in both value and volume. In addition, members agreed to\nimprove market access for internationally traded agricultural products by converting non-tariff trade\nbarriers (NTBs) into tariffs (a process called tariffication); binding existing tariffs at January 1, 1995,\nlevels; and reducing tariffs from bound levels with the all-product average tariff being reduced faster\nthan tariffs for individual products. These subsidy and tariff reductions occurred during a six-year\nimplementation period, 1995-2000. Those countries that had used NTBs to restrict imports\nsubmitted to a form of tariffication that included quotas and special safeguards offering extra\nprotection from surges in imports for politically sensitive products. Each country's specific\ncommitments are listed in its schedule of concessions.\n The AA also recognized the special needs of developing and least-developed countries and\nprovided them with greater flexibility in implementing their policy commitments -- referred to as\nSpecial and Differential Treatment. In general, the rates of reduction applied to tariffs and subsidies\nfor developing countries were lower than the rates used by developed countries. In addition, their\nreduction commitments were implemented over an extended period of time, generally a 10-year\nperiod (1994-2004). Least-developed countries (as defined by the United Nations) were exempt\nfrom all reduction commitments, but were required to bind tariffs and domestic support at base-year\nlevels. \n To provide for monitoring and compliance of WTO policy commitments, each WTO member\ncountry was expected to routinely submit notification reports on the implementation of its various\ncommitments. The WTO's Committee on Agriculture was assigned the duty of reviewing progress\nin the implementation of individual member commitments based on member notifications. \n This report will be updated as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32916", "sha1": "d854d49b3a7c9723b74168173a5c863fabfa9083", "filename": "files/20050512_RL32916_d854d49b3a7c9723b74168173a5c863fabfa9083.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050512_RL32916_d854d49b3a7c9723b74168173a5c863fabfa9083.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy", "Foreign Affairs" ] }