Trade Policy Note Final-rev08 - Development

developing countries with a few notable exceptions , such as India and the most
competitive southern hemisphere exporters (e.g. Argentina and Brazil). 44 For the net
food importing developing countries (NFIDCs), taken as a group, imports represent
35 per cent of calorie intake. Paradoxically, those countries most dependent on
agricultural exports witness higher levels of malnutrition. 45
National trade policies must be designed to reflect the complexities of the agricultural
sector in most developing countries. Some countries have been very successful in the
export of widely traded agricultural commodities. However, in ma ny cases small scale
farmers have not benefited, production of export crops has resulted in the
displacement of small scale farmers and exacerbated their plight by contributing to
environmental degradation posing an overall threat to food security. Large segments
of the population are small scale farmers whose livelihood can be suddenly eroded by
imports of cheap, often subsidized imports. Countries have adopted both “offens ive”
and “defensive” strategies. On the one hand, they have pursued improved access to
markets, and on the other hand, have sought to ensure protection of vulnerable
segments of their populations. 46
Developing counties are seeking an international regime that reflects these
complexities, as well as the varying, often conflicting interests of different developing
countries. They are seeking better market access and the reduction of subsidization by
the developed countries, for example through the elimination of export subsidies, the
drastic reduction in amber box commitments, capping and phasing out ”blue box”
limits , and imposing some meaningful disciplines on “green box” subsidies. Many
argue that the reduction of agricultural support in OECD countries would be the most
significant pro-poor result of the Doha Round. The refusal of the United States to
accept limits on its total trade distorting subsidization (amber plus blue box plus de
minimis), which are lower than its actual levels of subsidization, has been given as the
main reason behind the suspension of the multilateral negotiations in July 2006. 47 The
resumed negotiations are aimed at achieving a breakthrough on subsidies combined
with liberalization of tariffs and tariff quotas and agreement on Special Products and a
Special Safeguard Mechanism (see below).
Other areas of the international trade regime, which can affect the interests of small
farmers, include notably sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations, liberalization
of distribution services (see Section 6) and intellectual property rights.
44 See Stiglitz and Charlton, op. cit., pp 217-234, notably table AI.3.
45 Pal, op. cit.
46
See for example Rahman, Abdul Aziz, “Trade in Agriculture, Food Security and Human
Development: Country Case Study for Malaysia”, UNDP Asia Trade Initiative on Trade and Human
Development, Phase 1, technical support document (Hanoi: 2003) (available at
www.undprcc.lk/Publications/Publications.asp?C=4).
47 See the statement by the EC Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fisher Boel, following the
suspension of the WTO Doha Round negotiations: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/fischerboel/doha/index_en.htm#2407.
The United States, on the other hand, claims that the proposals of the
G33 on SP would effectively block meaningful access to their markets for US agricultural exports.
35