• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month


Extracts from this document...


WHY CANNOT U.S. AND EU REACH AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE (DOHA ROUND)? Introduction Agriculture and production of food began about 10,000 years ago. Hence, the world population could not have grown without the agricultural revolution. Without the development of agriculture, the modern and urban society would not have developed. Agriculture is defined as the utilization of natural resource systems to produce commodities which maintain life, including food, fiber, forest products, horticultural crops, and their related services. Meanwhile, global trading has been a part of the world since the 1940s. As trade between countries began to grow so did the need for some sort of international commerce. In 1948, the International Trade Organization (ITO) was established, but fell through and triggered the creation of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT was created through several negotiations, known as rounds. For many years, GATT's policies held strong and offered many countries the international support they needed to remain prosperous in global trade. Though, as time went on, certain trade policies established by GATT were being undermined by countries in order for them to continue conducting business. GATT's rules and regulations were becoming obsolete in the rapid changing global economy. By the early 1980s the General Agreement was clearly no longer relevant to the realities of world trade as it had been in the 1940s. For a start, world trade had become far more complex and important than 40 years before: the globalization of the world economy was underway, trade in services - not covered by GATT rules - was of major interest to more and more countries, and international investment had expanded"1. Agriculture is at the heart of the new "Doha Round" of multilateral trade negotiations that were launched by the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its ministerial conference in November 2001. The Doha round of WTO negotiations began in November 2001. The purpose was to agree on the Doha Development Agenda, and from there negotiate opening agricultural and manufacturing markets. ...read more.


for achieving those objectives during the next phase of negotiations now underway. U.S. Proposal -- WTO Agriculture Negotiations The United States proposes ambitious results in all three pillars of the agriculture negotiations: export competition, market access, and domestic support. The U.S. proposal is contingent on comprehensive reform in all pillars and meaningful commitments by all members, except the least developed countries. Special and differential treatment and other provisions of the July 2004 Framework will be developed in the negotiations to complement the elements below. Timing * Two stage process: initial stage of significant reductions in tariffs and trade-distorting domestic support, and elimination of export subsidies, followed by a second stage of reductions culminating in the full elimination of remaining tariffs and trade-distorting domestic support. * First Stage: tariff and subsidy reductions would be phased-in over 5 years. * Interlude: reductions pause for five year period for review of effects of first stage reforms. * Second Stage: Unless Members agree to change course, further tariff and trade-distorting domestic support reductions would begin after the interlude, culminating in the total elimination of remaining measures after a 5 year phase-in period, which include safeguard mechanisms to assist transitional adjustment. Domestic support In agriculture, the most controversial is the expansion of the Blue Box exemption on domestic support reduction which would give developed countries, particularly the US, the flexibility to transfer its amber box trade-distorting subsidies to the blue box. * Amber Box: 60% reduction in the total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) for the United States. * AMS cuts will be based on harmonization principle agreed to in the July 2004 Framework, requiring the deeper cuts by the larger subsidizers. Cuts will be based on the following parameters12: Bound AMS level (billion U.S. dollars) Reduction $25 - 83% $12 - $25 60% $0 - $12 37% * This provides for a more equitable balance by reducing the disparity in allowed AMS between the United States and the EU from a ratio of 4:1 to a ratio of 2:1. ...read more.


This is especially true where support is counter-cyclical, or inversely related to market price trends. Conclusion To conclude, the question is raising again: who are the 'winners' and 'losers' and who benefits from these policies? According to the research by Oxfam the distribution of subsidies among farmers in both Europe and the US is more unequal than the distribution of income in Brazil, one of the world's most unequal countries in terms of income. The biggest 25 percent of EU subsidy recipients receive more than 60 percent of all subsidies. In the U.S. 60 percent of farmers get no support at all, while the biggest 7 percent account for 50 percent of government payments. The large slice of subsidies directed toward sugar and dairy producers makes up part of this distorted picture. To make matters worse, most of the benefits generated through agricultural support do not even reach producers: the supports are capitalized into higher land values and higher input prices. According to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) estimates only 25 percent of price supports end up as net income gain for farmers18. The system results in unfair distribution and is highly inefficient. In the long run it provides false signals to the incoming generation of farmers and contributes to loss in equity for many. Furthermore, it contributes to disarray in world agriculture and to poverty worldwide. In short, whoever wins from the farm subsidy bonanza in rich countries, it is the developing countries that lose in aggregate. So, small farmers in developing countries suffer on several counts from rich-country farm policies. Northern production subsidies lower prices for farm produce. Unable to compete against subsidized competition, the world's poorest farmers are often pushed out of international and even domestic markets. The upshot is an agricultural trading system in which success depends less on comparative advantage than on comparative access to subsidies. Small farmers are efficient, innovative, and potentially competitive, and creatively combine farming with off-farm work. But the world's poorest farmers cannot compete against the world's richest treasuries, nor should they have to. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Production - Location & Change section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Production - Location & Change essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    This project is about the farming in the Bahamas. Areas we are going to ...

    3 star(s)

    Poor land preparation: Thus creates poor distribution of irrigation water, increases soil water loss through evaporation, reduces machinery efficiency in the field and disking soil that is to wet which increases compaction. Explain the value/ significance of modern technology for food production, e.g.

  2. Plantation agriculture

    As plantation agriculture is highly specialized. People highly rely on monoculture to earn a living. When the price of cash crops falls drastically or there is a sudden of crop failure, the income of farmers will fall as well. As a result, the earning of farmers tend to be unstable and badly affected the national income of Papua New Guinea.

  1. The controversy and the future of Common Agricultural Policy of European Union

    Thanks to the investment in technology, there was a growth in productivity of farms, decrease in people employed in agriculture, rapid urbanization and therefore prosperity in other sectors of economy. Statistics show that "the workforce employed in agriculture declined from 11.3% in 1973 to 9.4% in 1980 and only 5.7% in the whole of the EU in 1992."

  2. Discuss the Advantages and Disadvantages of the use of Fertilisers and Pesticides in Agriculture

    Scientists are constantly striving towards the new production of a new 'ideal' pesticide; as prevention is better than treatment, due to high costs. This pesticide must be: effective at low dosage; harmless to humans and domestic animals; without adverse affects on the crops themselves; harmless to beneficial organisms i.e.

  1. The Role and Importance of Agriculture In the Carribean. Organisations involved in its ...

    Employment in agriculture ranges from unskilled workers to highly trained professionals such as an agronomist or an agricultural engineer. Also, agriculture offers direct employment for example a broiler farm or an extension officer. There is also indirect employment in down streams.

  2. Major innovations in agriculture have always proved to be controversial. With reference to recent ...

    However the policy has led to enormous amount of food surplus and put on a burden on EU taxpayers as by 1970 CAP's agricultural subsidies accounted for more than 75% of the entire EU budget.

  1. In what ways are banks in developing countries different from banks in financially developed ...

    Many of them have either been closed down or are practically bankrupt, especially in Africa and Latin America. However, there are also positive case-studies of agricultural development banks in LDCs. One more or less successful example is the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, which has been in the vanguard of the microfinance movement.

  2. To what extent do the sources agree that Russian Government Policy on agriculture consistently ...

    soviet government, which could have been used as propaganda, to remove Khrushchev from power as they were released the same time that he was removed or to hide the true statistics.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work