Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations



1. Introduction

The Fourth WTO Ministerial Declaration launched the so-called Doha Development Round
of multilateral trade negotiations in 2001. It reaffirmed that “special and differential treatment
for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations on
agriculture”. Special and differential (S&D) treatment for developing countries has been a
principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since the 1960s and to date
has taken two main forms: the granting of preferential access to developed country markets
and exemption from disciplines applying to the protection of domestic industries under
particular conditions. Preferential market access was justified as a means to encourage export
diversification by developing countries in order to escape the ongoing decline in their terms of
trade. Exemptions from the disciplines on the use of protective measures were justified by
arguments that the trade policies appropriate to developing countries are different to those
required in developed countries, that the developed countries themselves used selective
protection in earlier periods, and thus that the policy disciplines which apply to the latter
should not apply to the former. The meaning of S&D treatment changed during the Uruguay
Round. Developing countries (apart from the least developed countries) were expected to
assume the general obligations of membership. Instead, the focus shifted to one of responding
to the special adjustment difficulties in developing countries which might stem from their
implementation of WTO decisions (Whalley, 1999). This included a lower level of
obligations and longer implementation periods, as well as technical assistance for capacity
building.

When disciplines on trade-distorting agricultural policies were included in the Uruguay
Round Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), the principle of S&D treatment also applied to the
treatment of developing countries under that Agreement. However, developing countries have
argued that the Agreement represents a very unbalanced and skewed set of obligations. They
argue that changes to WTO rules are necessary if they are to have the flexibility to implement
specific policies to address their food security, rural development and poverty alleviation
concerns. The exemptions and rule changes to the AoA sought by a number of developing
countries have become known as the Development Box
.

This paper examines the case for a Development Box within the AoA and the particular
instruments or exemptions it should contain. The paper begins by describing the current S&D
treatment allowed to developing countries in the Agreement and the use they have made of it.
The range of proposals put forward by developing countries (and by development NGOs in
developed countries) is summarised, and the S&D provisions in the August 2004 Framework
Agreement for Establishing Modalities in Agriculture (WT/GC/W/535) are outlined. The
reasons why developing countries want special and differential treatment under the AoA are
discussed. Some of the main proposals in the Development Box are then reviewed in the light
of the justifications presented by its proponents. Noting that developing countries’ negotiating
capacity is limited and the reality that it is necessary to prioritise policy options, the paper
concludes by assessing the adequacy of the S&D provisions in the Framework Agreement in
the light of the arguments presented.

2. Special and differential treatment provisions in the AoA

Special and differential treatment is provided for developing countries in three main ways
under the AoA. First, there are lower reduction percentages and longer implementation
periods for the main commitments entered into. Second, there is greater flexibility in the use
of certain policy instruments such as investment subsidies and export subsidies. Third, special
commitments were entered into for net food-importing developing countries and least
developed countries, known as the
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Linking Indigenous Social Capital to a Global Economy
3. The name is absent
4. Top-Down Mass Analysis of Protein Tyrosine Nitration: Comparison of Electron Capture Dissociation with “Slow-Heating” Tandem Mass Spectrometry Methods
5. Errors in recorded security prices and the turn-of-the year effect
6. Estimation of marginal abatement costs for undesirable outputs in India's power generation sector: An output distance function approach.
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. National urban policy responses in the European Union: Towards a European urban policy?
10. Determinants of U.S. Textile and Apparel Import Trade
11. DISCUSSION: ASSESSING STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN THE DEMAND FOR FOOD COMMODITIES
12. The name is absent
13. The name is absent
14. Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4
15. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN TENNESSEE ON WATER USE AND CONTROL - AGRICULTURAL PHASES
16. Improving Business Cycle Forecasts’ Accuracy - What Can We Learn from Past Errors?
17. The name is absent
18. Education and Development: The Issues and the Evidence
19. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
20. The name is absent