WTO and Trade in Agriculture

Agenda of Human Rights

Increased Agricultural Imports

1995-96 cost of food import

doubled for Brazil
Is it just production deficit that increases
Cost oforfood
Imports? WTOimport increased
and rigged rules of
50-100%
trade for Bangladesh,
play a role??
Morocco, Pakistan, Peru
 AoA and Food Exporters
commodity prices are lower than at any
Countries
point intotally
the 150 years they have been
dependent onkeeping records. lower export
commodity revenues
exports

Negative impact lower capacity

on food security to import food

further pushing global food prices down

Economist
even lower.
Faulty Assumptions & AoA

The agreement presumes that the

fewerThis
Itthe
The
trade
Itignores
ignores barriers,
the
dietary
assumption
AoA rules
the
importance
preferences
ignores
also
easier
of-
the
ignore
it is
many
to meet agriculture
question of the
demandof forin
primaryproviding
food
purchasing sources
at a
powerof price
fair
important
livelihoods
calories for - ecological
an estimated
people across the
- considerations.
millions
for of people
producers. do not
planet percent
seventy
haveofenough of With
are not sold
moneythe the
in global
world's
to of
spread
markets
THREAD industrial
inshatters
fact, much
population models
of the food
the illusions…..
depends on
access
sold in
the food
agriculture,
world
theyisdiversity
genetic
markets
need on
destined
growing and selling food for
is on the
for market.
declining
animal trend.
feed.
their livelihood.
WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture

Domestic Export
Support Competition

Market
Access
 Market Access Reality
In the first year of the agreement, there were
tariff peaks at very high rates in the United
States (e.g., sugar 244%, peanuts 174%); the
EEC (beef 213%, wheat 168%).
According to the agreement, developed
countries needed to reduce their tariffs by
only 36 per cent on average to the end of
2000, and thus the rates for some products
remain prohibitively high…..
 Export competition Reality
• The agreement committed developed
countries to reduce the budget outlay
for export subsidy by 36 per cent and
the total quantity of exports covered by
the subsidies by 21 per cent.

• Thus, even in the year 2000 the level of

export subsidies was allowed as high
as 64 per cent of the base level.
 Demystifying the boxes
Decoupled
By income
being price support
distorting, and
the Blue
direct
Box ispayments were distorting
the most trade to make super
profits This
aspect by buying
of W.T.O. cheap
destroys
Yet the commodities
not small
only have
from Box
Blue farmers.
farmers in thenot
measures North
beenand
reduced, they the
haveSouth.
expanded.
 Who wins? How?
• Industrial farming wipes out small
producers but generates agribusiness
profits both through selling costly
inputs to farmers and buying cheap
produce from them.
• This negative system cannot survive
without subsidies.
• Blue Box subsidies ensure that big
farmers get the bulk of direct payments
since these are related to land or
livestock owned.
 EU and Agriculture Subsidy
• The W.T.O has legalized the increase in
subsidies through the creation of blue and
green boxes.
The Thus explicit
developed nationssubsidies
are for
cereals in EU decreased
playing by 60% from 2.2
a deadly box-game
billion eurothe
which in 1999
smalltofarmers
6883 million
of theeuro in
1999. However
LDCs total subsidies
and developing increased
countries
by 36% when we add
are witnessing atthe
the2.1 billion
costs of euro
in direct payments allowed under Act 6.5 
livelihood!!!
of AoA which the group of 23 wanted
deleted at Cancun.
 Dumping
Secret of US Rice Export
• Estimation projects a stable level of support for
the US rice sector of close to $1.2bn a year
until 2007.
• The value of rice produced, which in 2002 was
$844m.
• These excessive levels of support allow large
US companies to dump rice on international
markets.
• US exported ‘paddy’ rice to Central America 18-
20 per cent lower than its cost of production.
 Cotton & Agriculture Subsidy
In 2001, the 25,000 US cotton growers received
roughly $3.9 billion in subsidy payments, for
producing a cotton crop that was worth only US$ 3
billion at world market prices.

One Arkansas cotton grower received US $ 6

million, equal to the combined annual earnings of
25,000 cotton farmers in Mali.

The U.S farm bill has increased subsidies by $ 82

billion. With these subsidies, the U.S has doubled
cotton exports and destroyed the livelihoods and
incomes of 250 million African cotton farmers.
 Cotton in Cancun:
Forbidden for Africa!!!

With the revised draft: WTO attempted to

state that the West African farmers
should stop growing cotton and asks the
World Bank and IMF to assist them to
diversify their crops.
 Bank-Fund and then WTO
Before
Thus,
The
BeforeWTO the
small creation
farmersof
theAgreement
creation the
inon
of WTO,
theAgriculture,
the South
WTO,
many
were
to a great
many developing
forcedextent, countries
to compete
developing locked-in
countries reduced
withthe
reduced
tariff
tariff protections
Northern-based
degree and
and subsidies
of liberalization
protections transnational
existent
subsidies to
food
in
to
farmers
farmersthe in
companies
both in order
South to
thatand
order to abide
benefited by
the North,
abide from
by
conditionality
protection
without attached
addressing
conditionality by their to
to loans
loans of
governments.
attachedsuch of
WB
WB andand IMF.
imbalances. IMF.
WTO and The Emerging Threats

AOA

WTO

TRIPS SPS
 WTO and The Emerging Threats
• Loss of market access
• Bio-piracy
• Loss of farmers’ rights AOA

• Elimination of small
farmers
WTO
• Promotion of GMO
• Decline of women’s TRIPS SPS

role in agriculture
• Loss of livelihood
 Agro-trade fails in Poverty reduction

Food is primarily for Poor access to the

Local consumption Markets of the
Only 10 percent is Bigger economies
Internationally By small farmers
Traded.

Honduran-
Arrozazo: rice scandal
Reveals food import
Reduces local
production
 Agro-trade fails in Poverty reduction
2 TNCs;
Only few benefits for trade in food
Cargill and ADM
In 1986 85-90%as a handful of companies
of agro- Controlled
dominate international75%
Trade was controlled of global
trade in trade
By five companies agriculture in
cereal

40% of global coffee

trade is controlled by
four companies