in agricultural or food imports. The problem may become more acute if margins between
applied and bound tariffs shrink as part of the overall liberalisation of a new Round. The issue
is therefore whether developing countries should be given access to a new safeguard
instrument designed to allow them to protect themselves against import surges or periods of
unduly low world prices.
Minimum access commitments
Those countries that undertook tariffication were required to offer minimum access
commitments in the AoA. Only 14 developing countries made these commitments. They
include Brazil, Costa Rica, Columbia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico,
Morocco, Panama, the Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia and Venezuela.2 Minimum access
commitments do not appear to have caused problems for domestic market management in
developing countries to date. Tariff rate quotas (TRQs) were generally established for two
categories of agricultural commodities: non-tradables and politically sensitive staples. TRQs
are frequently reported for meat, dairy products, sugar, cereals and oilseeds. In the case of
cereals and oilseeds, TRQs may have substituted for state-trading enterprises as a way of
controlling imports. TRQ in-quota rates are only specified for two countries, but this is
consistent with other evidence from the remaining countries that TRQs as originally
envisaged are rarely being implemented. In over half the cases in which TRQs are reportedly
being used, applied tariffs are being utilised. Applied tariffs are often low, and in many cases
below the commitments for in-quota tariffs. Fill rates are low, but this does not seem to be
due to institutional or licensing arrangements that might maintain protection. In many of the
cases where low fill rates are observed, imports are on or above trend after 1994.
Export subsidies
Very few developing countries provide direct or indirect subsidies on agricultural exports so
there is limited implementation experience on which to draw. There is some reported use by
developing countries of the S&D treatment in Article 9.4, especially for high-value, low-
weight products like cut flowers, fresh fruit and vegetables (Matthews, 2003).
Domestic subsidies
Commitments on domestic support (Total Aggregate Measurement of Support or Total AMS)
in the AoA were made overwhelmingly by developed countries. 96 of the 118 developing
countries did not report AMS subsidies in their schedules and thus have no reduction
commitments (their support measures fall, by default, under one or more of the exempted
categories (Green Box, Article 6.2 or de minimis AMS). There are just 13 developing
countries with Total AMS reduction commitments.
Product-specific support (PS-AMS). Product-specific support in developing countries
generally reflects market price support (as direct payments coupled to production are rarely
used while input subsidies are rarely product-specific and thus fall under the NPS-AMS).
Sharma (2002) notes the trend away from price support policies in developing countries, so
that product specific AMS is becoming relevant for fewer commodities now than in 1986-88
or even 1995. These policy changes are not due to the AoA but reflect the trend in policy
reforms in most developing countries since the mid-1990s.
For those countries with reduction commitments, the experience is mixed as regards whether
their commitments were binding or not. There are some countries where actual support levels
are high relative to committed levels, e.g. Thailand PS-AMS is now close to 100%, but for
most countries with commitments AMS levels average around 25-30% of the ceiling limits.
2 The information in this paragraph is based on Abbott and Morse, 1999.