IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Implementation Of The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture And Issues For The Next Round Of Agricultural Negotiations

Listed author(s):
  • Tangermann, Stefan
  • Honma, Masayoshi
  • Josling, Timothy E.
  • Lee, Jaeok
  • MacLaren, Donald
  • McClatchy, Don
  • Miner, William M.
  • Pursell, Garry
  • Sumner, Daniel A.
  • Valdes, Alberto

Contact for this paper: Stefan Tangermann, Institute of Agricultural Economics, University of Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany. Among the many new achievements made in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, the ambitious and wide-ranging Agreement on Agriculture (The Agreement) was a significant departure from the way agriculture had traditionally been treated in the international trading order. Completely new rules and commitments were established in the areas of market access, export competition and domestic support. While it was generally agreed that the nature of these new WTO provisions for agriculture pointed in an appropriate direction and held promise for the longer run process of reforming the multilateral trading regime for agriculture, it was also clear that the quantitative parameters agreed for the current implementation period of the Agreement were not yet very demanding in most cases. Moreover, right from the start observers and analysts agreed that the actual impact of the new disciplines for agricultural policies and trade agreed at Marrakesh in 1994 would very much depend on the way in which they were going to be implemented in practice. Would the new commitments countries had accepted require or induce changes in their policies? Was access to markets really going to be improved? Were the new elements of managed trade, resulting from the host of new tariff rate quotas, going to have negative impacts on trading relations? Would the new constraints on export subsidization turn out to be binding? Could the new provisions on domestic support, and in particular existence of the "green box" be expected to influence national decision making on the instrumentation of agricultural policies? Would countries try to find loopholes in the Agreement which might allow them to escape the constraining effects of some of the new disciplines? Did one have to expect that the frequency of trade disputes in agriculture might further increase? And would the new WTO rules for dispute settlement be able to deal with such trade frictions more successfully? Was the newly established WTO Committee on Agriculture going to be a useful forum for settling any disagreements at an early stage, and for making sure that the reform process in agriculture was kept on track? The current six-year implementation period under the Agreement (lasting until the year 2000, with four more years for developing countries to implement their reduction commitments) is now approaching its mid-term. It is still too early for a final assessment of how effective the Agreement has been. However, interesting and important insights can already been gained from the way governments have so far implemented the new rules and commitments. An assessment of the experience made in the first half of the implementation period should be useful for the remainder of the implementation process. Moreover, the time is ripe for a stock-taking as governments begin to prepare for the next round of agricultural negotiations, on the "continuation of the reform process", scheduled under the Agreement to be initiated in 1999. Such a mid-term assessment of how the Agreement is being implemented, and of the resulting issues for the next round of negotiations, is exactly what the present paper tries to achieve. The main part of the paper consists of chapters 2 to 9, looking into the way the Agreement is being implemented by major countries and country groups (USA, European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Korea, South Asia, Latin America). Chapter 10 provides a brief overview of that country experience and reviews developments in Geneva, in the Committee on Agriculture and in the settlement of agricultural disputes. On the basis of all that analysis, chapter 11 then discusses issues for the next round of agricultural negotiations. Chapter 12, finally, draws conclusions regarding the future of agricultural trade liberalization.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Commissioned Papers with number 14618.

in new window

Date of creation: 1997
Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrcp:14618
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Orden, David & Paarlberg, Robert L. & Roe, Terry L., 1996. "A Farm Bill for Booming Commodity Markets," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 11(2).
  2. Tanner, Carolyn, 1996. "Agricultural Trade Liberalisation And The Uruguay Round," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(01), April.
  3. Stefan Tangermann, 1996. "Implementation Of The Uruguay Round Agreement On Agriculture: Issues And Prospects," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1-4), pages 315-337.
  4. Valdes, A, 1996. "Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policy in Latin America during Major Policy Reform," World Bank - Discussion Papers 349, World Bank.
  5. Vousden,Neil, 1990. "The Economics of Trade Protection," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521346696, October.
  6. Josling, Timothy E., 1993. "Agriculture in a World of Trading Blocs," 1993 Conference (37th), February 9-11, 1993, Sydney, Australia 147398, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  7. Josling, Timothy E., 1993. "Agriculture In A World Of Trading Blocs," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 37(03), December.
  8. Swinbank, Alan & Ritson, Christopher, 1995. "The impact of the GATT agreement on EU fruit and vegetable policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 339-357, August.
  9. Sumner, Daniel A., 1995. "Farm Programs And Related Policy In The United States," Understanding Canada\United States Grain Disputes; Proceedings of the 1st Canada\U.S. Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshop - 1995 16742, Farm Foundation, Agricultural and Food Policy Systems Information Workshops.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iatrcp:14618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.