Month: August 2013

Posted on

The Doha Round Bali ‘mini-package’ in agriculture

In the previous post, I discussed the process leading up to the forthcoming Bali Ministerial Conference of the WTO and the prospects for progress on a Doha Round ‘mini-package’. This ‘mini-package’ is planned to consist of three components: trade facilitation, some development/LDC issues and some agricultural elements (with the possibility of including other elements such as the dispute settlement review and the Information Technology Agreement if progress allows). In this post I discuss the issues being negotiated as part of the agricultural strand of this package.
The agricultural consultations have focused around three proposals tabled so far:
• a G-20 non paper which proposes an understanding on tariff rate quota (TRQ) administration provisions. This proposal envisages tighter disciplines for administering tariff-rate quotas, and how to deal with the possibility that the methods used might impede trade.
• a G-33 proposal on some elements of the draft modalities text on agriculture for early agreement to address food security issues.… Read the rest

Posted on

Prospects for a Doha Round mini-package at Bali this year

With Brussels and national capitals closed for the month of August so little happening on the CAP front, it is timely for a stock-taking of the state of play in the multilateral trade negotiations.
In December later this year, the WTO at its 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia will make yet another effort to salvage some concrete deliverables from the tortuous Doha Round negotiations. The negotiations have proceeded in fits and starts, but with more fits than starts, since the cancellation of what should have been the 7th Ministerial Conference (MC) in Geneva in December 2008 following the failure to agree on revised modalities documents.
The Doha Round negotiations were revitalised in early 2011 following strong political guidance by the leaders of the G20 at the Seoul Summit in November 2010. The objective was to reach outlines of a comprehensive package by the summer, and to finalise the agreement by the end of the year.… Read the rest

Posted on

Intervention arrangements in the new CAP

Growing price volatility on agricultural markets has renewed focus on the role of market support instruments. In successive CAP reforms, the role of market instruments has changed from essentially determining the market price received by producers to providing a market safety net. Intervention prices are set at low levels which ensure that they are only used in times of real crisis.

The graph below illustrates the extent of support price reductions which have taken place for different sectors. These price cuts allowed the drastic decrease of public stocks in the EU between the early 1990s and recent years, which has in turn reduced the budget pressure stemming from overproduction.


However, intervention measures have not been abolished. The available market measures were used in the dairy market from January 2009 to beginning 2010 to limit the drop in EU prices. The purchase of public stocks provided a buffer to mitigate the downward path of prices, although their accumulation also had the effect of delaying the pace of price recovery to some extent.… Read the rest

Posted on

CAP reform implementation consultations begin

The most defining characteristic of the political agreement reached on CAP reform in June 2013 in hindsight may not be the greening of Pillar 1 payments or the move towards greater ‘fairness’ in the CAP as a result of external and internal convergence, but rather the re-nationalisation of some aspects of agricultural policy with the devolution of much greater flexibility to member states in how the new CAP can be implemented.
This flexibility may be seen as a consequence of trying to manage a single CAP in an increasingly heterogeneous agricultural landscape in Europe following successive enlargements to an EU of 28 member countries. Or it might be seen as the price of reaching agreement on a complex political package in which each member state had particular political interests to defend, leading to a self-service menu of CAP reform options.
Flexibility in implementing the CAP can be a desirable feature if it results in a better alignment of agricultural policy with the needs of individual countries and regions – this has been the traditional argument behind the menu approach which is now a well-established feature of Pillar 2.… Read the rest