Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:04:54.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Reframing sustainable agriculture

from PART II - Reforming specific areas of trade regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2011

By
Philipp Aerni ,
Christian Häberli  and
Baris Karapinar
Edited by
Thomas Cottier  and
Panagiotis Delimatsis
Philipp Aerni
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
Christian Häberli
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
Baris Karapinar
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
Thomas Cottier
Affiliation:
World Trade Institute
Panagiotis Delimatsis
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

KEY MESSAGES

∙ ‘Sustainability’ and ‘non-trade concerns’ in agriculture are political terms used for different production and trade policies.

∙ WTO rules and disciplines provide ample policy space for pursuing sustainable agricultural policies, but they must be improved to avoid protectionist misuse.

∙ The sustainability challenges in least developed countries (LDCs) are high non-tariff trade barriers and lack of investment in agriculture.

Introduction

The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) was arguably one the most significant General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) achievements of the 1986–1994 Uruguay Round. It came into effect with the successful establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995. Yet, while the AoA managed to bring agriculture within the disciplines of the multilateral trading system, Members took advantage of the wide policy space available and exploited many loopholes in the agreement to ensure that they could continue with their highly protectionist policies. While global average tariffs have progressively fallen from above 40 per cent to below 4 per cent during the GATT period, the trend in agriculture seems to be the reverse in many areas. The level of effective protection against the flow of agricultural trade has been rising. Even though a fundamental principle of the AoA was the decoupling of support to the farming sector from production decisions, it did not prohibit market price support and other trade-distortive forms of support.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Prospects of International Trade Regulation
From Fragmentation to Coherence
 , pp. 169 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adaman, F., The Political Economy of the Environment in Turkey (1997) New Perspectives on Turkey 17, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adaman, F. and Arsel, M. (eds.), Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? (Ashgate, 2005).Google Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘Public Acceptance of Transgenic Rice and its Potential Impact on Rice Markets in Southeast Asian Countries’, PhD Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETHZurich, Switzerland (1999).
Aerni, P., ‘Mobilizing Science and Technology for Development: The Case of the Cassava Biotechnology Network (CBN)’ (2006) AgBioForum 9(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘The Welfare Costs of not being part of the Knowledge Economy: Why Rural Development needs more Creative Policy Strategies’ (2006) ATDF Journal 3(4):27–43.Google Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘The Principal-Agent Problem in International Development Assistance and its Impact on Local Entrepreneurship in Africa: Time for New Approaches’ (2006) ATDF Journal 3(2), 27–33.Google Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘Agricultural Biotechnology and its Contribution to the Knowledge Economy’ (2007) Adv. Biochem. Engin./Biotechnol. 107, 69–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Aerni, P., ‘Agriculture in Turkey: Structural Change, Sustainability and EU Compatibility’ (2007) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance Ecology 6(4/5), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘Exploring the Linkages of Commerce, Higher Education and Human Development: A Historical Review’ (2007) ATDF Journal 4(2), 35–48.Google Scholar
Aerni, P., ‘What is Sustainable Agriculture? Empirical Evidence of Diverging Views in Switzerland and New Zealand’ (2009) Ecological Economics 68 (6), 1872–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerni, P. and Bernauer, T., ‘Stakeholder Attitudes towards GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa: The Issue of Public Trust’ (2006) World Development 34(3), 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerni, P., Rae, A. and Lehmann, B., ‘Nostalgia vs. Pragmatism? How Attitudes and Interests Shape the Term Sustainable Agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand’ (2009) Food Policy 34(2), 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akder, H., ‘Policy Formation in the Process of Implementing Agricultural Reform in Turkey’ (2007) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 6 (4/5), 514–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U., ‘Living Your Own Life in a Runaway World: Individualization, Globalization and Politics’, in Hutton, W. and Giddens, A. (eds.), On The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism (Jonathan Cape, 2000).Google Scholar
Braun, J. and Diaz-Bonilla, E., ‘Globalization of Agriculture and Food: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Implications’, in Braun, J. and Diaz-Bonilla, E. (eds.), Globalization of Food and Agriculture and the Poor (Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Bürgi, E., ‘Towards a New Balance of Trade in Agriculture’, NCCR Working Paper No. 2009/17 (World Trade Institute, Bern, 2009).
Cabanilla, L. and Rodriguez, U. E., ‘The Food Versus Fuel Issue: Case of the Philippines’ (2008) ATDF Journal 5 (1/2), 68–74.Google Scholar
Cakmak, E. and Akder, H., DTÖ ve AB'deki Gelişmeler Işığında 21. Yüzyılda Türkiye Tarımı' (In the Light of Developments at the WTO and the EU Turkish Agriculture in the 21st Century), Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD), Publication No. T/2005–06/397 (Istanbul, 2005).Google Scholar
Chern, W. S., Rickertsen, N., Tsuboi, N. and Fu, T.-T., ‘Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multiple-Country Assessment’ (2002) AgBioForum 5(3), 105–112.Google Scholar
Collier, P., The Bottom Billion (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Cottier, T. and Oesch, M., International Trade Regulation. Law and Policy in the WTO, the European Union and Switzerland (London: Cameron May, 2005), p. 552.Google Scholar
Davidson, A., ‘Dirt Cheap Soil’ (2007) Nature 447, 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregori, T. R., The Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate (John Wiley, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutter, O., ‘Address by the UN Rapporteur on the Human Right to Food’, High-Level Conference on Food Security (Rome 3–5 June 2008).
Desta, M. G., The Law of International Agricultural Trade Products (Kluwer Law International, 2002).Google Scholar
Diaz-Bonilla, E., ‘Globalisation of Agriculture and the Food Crises: Then and Now’, in Karapinar, B. and Häberli, C. (eds.), Food Crises and the WTO (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Diaz-Bonilla, E., Thomas, M., Robinson, S. and Cattaneo, A., ‘Food Security and Trade Negotiations in the World Trade Organization: A Cluster Analysis of Country Groups’ International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (TMD Discussion Paper No. 59, 2000).
El Benni, N. and Réviron, S., ‘Geographical Indications: Review of Seven Case-studies Worldwide’ NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper 2009/15, March 2009.
,Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ‘The Breakdown of the Doha Round Negotiations: What Does It Mean for Dealing with Soaring Food Prices?’, Economic and Social Perspectives Policy Brief 3, Rome, 2008.
Francioni, F., Environment Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Gehne, K., ‘Nachhaltigkeit als Rechtsprinzip’, PhD Thesis, University of Zurich (2009).
George, C. and Kirkpatrick, C. (eds.), Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development: European Perspectives and Experience (Edward Elgar, 2006).Google Scholar
George, C. and Kirkpatrick, C., ‘Trade and Development: Assessing the Impact of Trade Liberalisation on Sustainable Development’ (2004) Journal of World Trade 38(3), 441–469.Google Scholar
Häberli, C., ‘La Suisse dans les nouvelles négociations agricoles de l'OMC’, in Annuaire Suisse-Tiers Monde, Institut universitaire d'études du développement (IUED), Geneva, 2001.Google Scholar
Häberli, C., ‘Market Access in Switzerland and in the European Union for Agricultural Products from Least Developed Countries’, NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper 2008/5, July 2008.
Häberli, C., ‘Food Security and WTO Rules’, in Karapinar, B. and Häberli, C. (eds.), Food Crises and the WTO (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Heri, S. and Häberli, C., ‘Can the World Trade Organization Ensure that Food Aid is Genuine?’, NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper 2009/19, May 2009.
Hu, W., ‘Household Land Tenure Reform in China: Its Impact on Farming Land Use and Agroenvironment’ (1997) Land Use Policy 14(3), 75–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), ‘Rural Poverty Report: The Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty’ (IFAD, Rome 2001), available at www.ifad.org/poverty/ (accessed November 2008).
Jones, W. and Elasri, W., ‘Rising Food Prices: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses’ in Karapinar, B. and Häberli, C. (eds.). Food Crises and the WTO (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Karapinar, B., ‘Managing Rural Transformation in Turkey 1980–2004: Case Studies from Three Regions’ (2007) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 6 (4/5), 483–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karapinar, B., ‘“Sustainability” in Chinese Agriculture: Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Policy Trade-offs' (2009), NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper 2009/43, University of Bern.
Karapinar, B., ‘Food Crises and the WTO’, in Karapinar, B. and Häberli, C. (eds.), Food Crises and the WTO (Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karapinar, B., ‘“Sustainability” in Agriculture: Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Turkey', in Karapinar, B., Adaman, F. and Ozertan, G. (eds.). Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank's Strategy (Nova Science Publishers, 2010).Google Scholar
Karapinar, B. and Temmerman, M., ‘Benefiting from Biotechnology: Pro-poor IPRs and Public Private Partnerships’ (2008) Biotechnology Law Report 27(3), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karapinar, B., Adaman, F., and Ozertan, G., (eds.), Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank's Strategy (Nova Science Publishers, 2010).Google Scholar
Karapinar, B. and Temmerman, M., ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Promoting New Technologies in Turkish Agriculture’, in Karapinar, B., Adaman, F. and Ozertan, G. (eds.), Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank's Strategy (Nova Science Publishers, 2010).Google Scholar
Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R. and Gilissen, N., ‘Agri-environment Schemes Do Not Effectively Protect Biodiversity in Dutch Agricultural Landscapes’ (2001) Nature, 423, 723–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P., The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J. Y., ‘Agricultural Development and Reform in China’, in Eicher, C. K. and Staatz, C. M. (eds.), International Agricultural Development (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
,Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), ‘Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand: An Overview’ (MAF, 2003). Available at www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/ rural-nz/overview/nzoverview004.htm (accessed October 2007).
,Nature Biotechnology Editorial, ‘Off the Rails’ (2008) Nature Biotechnology 26(3), 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), ‘Producer and Consumer Support Estimate (PSE-CSE) Database 1986–2005’ (OECD, 2006), available at: www.oecd.org (accessed June 2006).
Ozertan, G. and Aerni, P., ‘GM Cotton and its Possible Contribution to Environmental Sustainability and Rural Development in Turkey’ (2007) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 6(4/5), 552–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paarlberg, R., Starved for Science (Harvard University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T., Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (Springer, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prestegard, S. S., ‘Multifunctional Agriculture, Non-Trade Concerns and the Design of Policy Instruments: Applications to the WTO Agricultural Negotiations’ (2002) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4(3/4), 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rausser, G. C., Simon, L. and Ameden, H., ‘Public– private Alliances in Biotechnology: Can they Narrow the Knowledge Gaps between Rich and Poor?’ (2000) Food Policy 25, 499.Google Scholar
Rich, S., Gupta, A. and the Honey Bee Network, World Changing (21 March 2007), available at www.worldchanging.com/archives/006333.html (accessed November 2008).
Romer, P., ‘New Goods, Old Theory, and the Welfare Costs of Trade Restrictions’ (1994) Journal of Development Economics 43, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruttan, V. W., ‘The Design of Sustainable Systems of Agricultural Production’, in Eicher, C. K and Staatz, J. M. (eds.), International Agricultural Development (Johns Hopkins University Press 1998).Google Scholar
Senti, R., WTO – System und Funktionsweise der Welthandelsordnung (Schulthess, 2000), p. 257.
Simpson, J. R., ‘Adoption of Non-trade Concerns in WTO Agricultural Trade Negotiations: Integration of Human Rights in Resolution of the Conflicts’ (2005) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4(3/4), 193–202.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. R., ‘Japan's Non-Trade Concerns: Legitimate or Protectionist?’ (2005) International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4(3/4), 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielman, D. J., Hartwich, F. and Grebmer, K., ‘Sharing Science, Building Bridges, and Enhancing Impact: Public–Private Partnerships in the CGIAR’, International Food Policy Research Institute, Discussion Paper 00708, Washington, DC (2007).
Southgate, D., Graham, D. and Tweeten, L., The World Food Economy (Blackwell, 2007).Google Scholar
,State Planning Organisation, Statistics 2008, availiable at www.dpt.gov.tr/ (accessed January 2009).
Stokstad, E., ‘Duelling Visions for a Hungry World’ (2008) Science 319, 1474–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist, ‘A Bigger World: A Special Report on Globalisation’ (20 September 2008).
Thro, A. M., Taylor, N., Raemaker, K., Puonti-Kaerlas, J., Schöpke, C. et al., ‘Maintaining the Cassava Biotechnology Network’ (1998) Nature Biotechnology 16, 428–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Cassman, G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S., ‘Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices’ (2002) Nature 418, 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,World Bank, ‘Turkey Joint Poverty Assessment Report’, vol. 1: Main Report, Report No. 29619-TU (2005).
,World Trade Organization, Note by the Secretariat, ‘Information on the Utilisation of Special and Differential Treatment Provisions’ (document WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1/Add.4 dated 7 February 2002).
,World Trade Organization, Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, ‘Report to the Trade Negotiations Committee by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture’, Ambassador Crawford Falconer (JOB(08)/95 dated 11 August 2008).
,World Trade Organization, Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, ‘Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture’, TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3, 10 July 2008.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×