Order Code RL33144
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
WTO Doha Round:
The Agricultural Negotiations
Updated September 12, 2006
Charles E. Hanrahan and Randy Schnepf
Senior Specialist and Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

WTO Doha Round: The Agricultural Negotiations
Summary
On July 24, 2006, the WTO’s Director General announced the indefinite
suspension of further negotiations in the Doha Development Agenda or Doha Round
of multilateral trade negotiations. The principal cause of the suspension was that a
core group of WTO member countries — the United States, the European Union
(EU), Brazil, India, Australia, and Japan — known as the G-6 had reached an impasse
over specific methods to achieve the broad aims of the round for agricultural trade:
substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies, elimination of export
subsidies, and substantially increased market access for agricultural products.
The WTO is unique among the various fora of international trade negotiations
in that it brings together its entire 149-country membership to negotiate a common set
of rules to govern international trade in agricultural products, industrial goods, and
services. Agreement across such a large assemblage of participating nations and range
of issues contributes significantly to consistency and harmonization of trade rules
across countries. Regarding agriculture, because policy reform is addressed across
three broadly inclusive fronts — export competition, domestic support, and market
access — WTO negotiations provide a framework for give and take to help foster
mutual agreement. As a result, the Doha Round represents an unusual opportunity for
addressing most policy-induced distortions in international agricultural markets.
Doha Round negotiators were operating under a deadline effectively imposed by
the expiration of U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which permits the President
to negotiate trade deals and present them to Congress for expedited consideration. To
meet congressional notification requirements under TPA, an agreement would have
to have been completed by the end of 2006. That now appears unlikely. TPA expires
on June 30, 2007, and most trade experts and officials think that the authority would
not be renewed.
As a result of the suspension of the negotiations, a major source of pressure for
U.S. farm policy change will have dissipated. The current farm bill expires in 2007,
and many were looking to a Doha Round agreement to require changes in U.S. farm
subsidies to make them more compatible with world trade rules. The option of
extending the current farm law appears strengthened by the indefinite suspension of
the Doha talks. The United States must still meet obligations under existing WTO
agricultural agreements, which limit trade-distorting spending to $19.1 billion
annually. Some trade analysts think that, now that the Round has been suspended,
there could be an increase in litigation by WTO member countries that allege they are
harmed by U.S. farm subsidies.
This report assesses the current status of agricultural negotiations in the Doha
Round; traces the developments leading up to the December 2005 Hong Kong
Ministerial; examines the major agricultural negotiating proposals; discusses the
potential effects of a successful Doha Round agreement on global trade, income, U.S.
farm policy, and U.S. agriculture; and provides background on the WTO, the Doha
Round, the key negotiating groups, and a chronology of key events relevant to the
agricultural negotiations. The report will be updated.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Status: The Indefinite Suspension of Doha Round Negotiations . . . . . . . 1
The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Incremental Progress on Agriculture in the Hong Kong Declaration . . . . . . 4
Export Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Domestic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Market Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Agriculture, NAMA, and LDCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Agricultural Negotiating Developments Preceding the Hong Kong Ministerial . . 6
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Comparison of Major Agricultural Negotiating Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The U.S. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The EU Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The G-20 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The G-10 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The G-33 Proposal for Special Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Cotton Issue: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Role of Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Negotiating Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Role of Congress: Trade Promotion Authority and the Farm Bill . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Background on the Doha Round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Agricultural Negotiations: Doha to Cancun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
July 2004 Framework Agreement for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Pillar 1 — Export Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
What Was Agreed to in the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Export Competition Issues to Be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Pillar 2 — Domestic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
What Was Agreed to in the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Domestic Support Issues to Be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Pillar 3 — Market Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
What Was Agreed to in the Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Market Access Issues to Be Resolved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Potential Effects of a Successful Doha Round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Global Trade and GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
U.S. Farm Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Export Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Domestic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Market Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Potential Economic Impact on U.S. Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Under the Uncompensated Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Under the Compensated Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

---

Under Both Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Proposals for Domestic Policy Reform:
U.S., G-20, EU, and G-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2. Doha Round Negotiations Market Access Proposals:
G-10, G-20, EU, and U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 3. U.S. Domestic Spending Limits and Outlays:
Current Status, Framework Agreement, and U.S. Reform Proposal . . . . . . 16
Table 4. Summary of FAPRI Analysis of U.S. Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix Table 1. Chronology of Key Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix Table 2. Key Players in the WTO DDA Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix Table 3. Key Terms From the WTO Agreement on Agriculture
and the DDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

---

WTO Doha Round:
The Agricultural Negotiations
Introduction
This report discusses the indefinitely suspended World Trade Organization
(WTO) multilateral trade negotiations — the so-called Doha Round or the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA). The focus initially is on the implications for future
trade negotiations and the next U.S. farm bill of the suspension of negotiations in July
2006. The report discusses the agreements reached at the December 13-18, 2005,
Hong Kong Ministerial meeting and reviews the agricultural negotiating developments
that occurred in the second half of 2005 leading up to the Ministerial. Briefly
discussed also are the role of the U.S. Congress; the major negotiating issues and
proposals at play in the Doha Round; the historical development of agricultural trade
negotiations since the Uruguay Round; and the potential economic benefits estimated
to ensue from a successful trade agreement according to several recent studies.
Current Status: The Indefinite Suspension
of Doha Round Negotiations
On July 24, 2006, the Director General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, announced the
indefinite suspension of further negotiations in the Doha Development Agenda or
Doha Round. The principal cause of the suspension was that a core group of WTO
member countries — the United States, the European Union (EU), Brazil, India,
Australia, and Japan — known as the G-6 had reached an impasse over specific
methods to achieve the broad aims of the round for agricultural trade: substantial
reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies, elimination of export subsidies, and
substantially increased market access for agricultural products. The United States
maintained that it had made an ambitious offer of reductions in trade supporting
domestic support (discussed below) that had not been matched by agricultural tariff
reductions by the EU or by market opening for agricultural and industrial products by
Brazil and India, both large developing countries. The EU and Brazil argued that the
U.S. offer on domestic support did not go far enough in reducing trade-distorting
support and would in fact leave the United States in a position to spend more on such
subsidies than under the current WTO (Uruguay Round) Agreement on Agriculture.
Doha Round negotiators were operating under a deadline effectively imposed by
the expiration of U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which permits the President
to negotiate trade deals and present them to Congress for an up or down vote without
amendment. To meet congressional notification requirements under TPA legislation,
an agreement would have to have been completed by the end of 2006. TPA expires
on June 30, 2007, and most trade experts and officials think that the authority would

---

CRS-2
not be renewed. Some, however, think that Congress might extend TPA temporarily
if a Doha Round agreement seemed imminent, as was the case in 1994 for the
Uruguay Round Multilateral Trade Agreements.
A number of agreements had already been reached in the Doha Round
agricultural negotiations, but they are contingent on a comprehensive agreement in the
single undertaking (“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”) that is the round
and will now be put on hold. Those include an agreement by the EU to eliminate its
agricultural export subsidies by the end of 2013 and an agreement by developed
countries to extend duty and quota free access to 97% of the exports of the least
developed countries. The agreement at Hong Kong to provide early and ambitious
subsidy reduction for cotton also is dependent on there being a comprehensive Doha
round agreement. The WTO will continue to provide aid for trade funds to help
developing countries participate more fully in the world trade system. Aid for trade
discussions were conducted outside the framework of Doha Round negotiations.
As a result of the suspension of the negotiations, a major source of pressure for
U.S. farm policy change will have dissipated. The current farm bill (P.L.107-171)
expires in 2007, and many were looking to a Doha Round agreement on curbing trade-
distorting domestic support to require changes in U.S. farm subsidies to make them
more compatible with world trade rules. The option of extending the current farm law
appears strengthened by the indefinite suspension of the Doha talks. Legislation (H.R.
4332, H.R. 4775, and S. 2696) already had been introduced in the 109th Congress to
extend the 2002 farm bill by one year.
The United States must still meet obligations under existing WTO agricultural
agreements, which limit its trade-distorting spending to $19.1 billion annually. Some
trade analysts think that there could be an increase in litigation by WTO member
countries that allege they are harmed by U.S. farm subsidies.1 The expiration of the
“peace clause” (Article 13 of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture)
means that WTO member countries are no longer bound by an agreement to refrain
from challenging each other’s agricultural subsidy programs so long as commitments
under the agreement are being met. Brazil’s successful challenges of U.S. cotton
subsidies and EU sugar subsidies in WTO dispute settlement are cited as illustrations
of the possible kinds of legal actions that WTO members might take.2
Another consequence of the suspension of Doha Round negotiations is that the
United States may pursue more aggressively bilateral and regional free trade
1 For discussions of the potential for WTO legal challenges to U.S. farm subsidies, see
“When the Peace Clause Ends: The Vulnerability of EC and US Agricultural Subsidies to
WTO Legal Challenges,” by Richard H. Steinberg and Timothy Josling, Journal of
International Economic Law, vol. 6, No. 2 (July 2003), available at [http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=413883]; and “Why the EU and the USA must reform their
subsidies, or pay the price,” Oxfam Briefing Paper 81, November 2005, available at
[http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/briefingpapers/bp81_truth].
2 For an analysis of the Brazil-U.S. cotton dispute, see CRS Report RL32571, Background
on the U.S.-Brazil WTO Cotton Subsidy Dispute, by Randy Schnepf; and CRS Report
RS22187, U.S. Agricultural Policy Response to WTO Cotton Decision, by Randy Schnepf.

---

CRS-3
agreements (FTAs). Currently, the United States is negotiating nine FTAs.
Agreements with larger economies will be particularly attractive to U.S. agricultural
interests. The U.S. Trade Representative has indicated that in the near term priority
will be given to negotiating FTAs with such larger U.S. trading partners as Korea,
Malaysia, and Thailand.3 TPA procedures also will apply to legislation to implement
bilateral FTAs, lending some urgency to the completion of ongoing negotiations in
time to meet TPA deadlines for congressional notification. Congress also could
choose to extend TPA for bilateral trade agreements.
Restarting negotiations before the expiration of TPA seems unlikely, but some
WTO member countries have been holding discussions with trading partners to
explore the possibility of completing the Doha Round. The U.S. Trade Representative
has held bilateral discussions with Australia, Brazil, China, the EU, India, and Japan
where resuming the Round has been a topic for discussion. No agreements, however,
that would break the negotiating impasse on agriculture have been announced.
Members of the G-20 developing country negotiating group, led by Brazil and India,
have called for resumption of the negotiations, but make no specific proposals for
breaking the current deadlock.4 The Cairns Group5 of agricultural exporting countries
(both developed and developing) are expected to call for resumption of the Round at
their September 20-22, 2006, meeting in Australia.
The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration
On December 18, 2005, in Hong Kong, WTO member countries reached
agreement on a broad outline of negotiating objectives for liberalizing global trade in
agriculture, manufactures, and services in the Doha Round of multilateral trade
negotiations.6 However, only limited progress was made in reaching agreement on
precise numerical formulas or targets (termed “modalities”) for liberalizing
agricultural trade, the original aim of the Hong Kong (HK) Ministerial.
The Hong Kong agreement set new deadlines for completing the Round in 2006
(see Appendix Table 1). None of these deadlines were met prior to the July 2006
announcement that the negotiations had been suspended indefinitely. According to
the HK agreement, modalities for cutting tariffs on agricultural products, eliminating
export subsidies, and cutting trade-distorting domestic support would be agreed to by
3 Statement of U.S. Trade Representative, Susan C., Schwab, at her joint press conference
with Malaysian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Datuk Rafidah Aziz, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, August 25, 2006, viewed on August 30, 2006, at [http://www.insidetrade.com/
secure/pdf9/wto2006_5220.pdf.]
4 “G_20 meeting Unlikely to Provide Breakthrough for Doha Round,” Inside U.S. Trade,
Sept. 8, 2006; available at [http://www.insidetrade.com/secure/dsply_nl_txt.asp?f=wto2002.
ask&dh=61120272&q=]
5 Information about the Cairns Group is available at [http://www.cairnsgroup.org/].
6 The declaration of the WTO’s Sixth Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, hereafter
referred to as the Hong Kong (HK) declaration is available at [http://www.wto.org/english/
thewto_e/ minist_e/min05_e/final_text_e.pdf].

---

CRS-4
April 30, 2006. Based on these modalities, member countries would then submit
comprehensive draft schedules by July 31, 2006. The Doha Round would be
concluded in 2006. Completing negotiations by year-end would allow enough time
to submit an agreement to Congress before the expiration of the President’s TPA
authority in mid-2007.
Incremental Progress on Agriculture
in the Hong Kong Declaration
The Hong Kong (HK) declaration (adopted on December 18, 2005) deals with
all three pillars of the agricultural negotiations — export competition, domestic
support, and market access — and also with the controversial issue of the nature and
pace of reform of trade-distorting cotton subsidies in the United States and other
developed countries. Most progress was made in negotiations on the export
competition pillar with an agreement on a specific end date for the elimination of
export subsidies, but difficult negotiations remained on establishing new disciplines
for other forms of export competition. Detailed negotiations were not carried out for
domestic support and market access.
As throughout the Doha agricultural negotiations, market access, and especially
how to deal with access for import-sensitive products, remains the thorniest issue, not
least because of EU intransigence on this pillar. Some agreement was reached on how
to deal with export subsidies and market access for cotton, but this issue still pits the
United States, which argues for handling the reduction of trade-distorting support for
cotton within the domestic support pillar, against the cotton-producing African
countries who insist on an early harvest of reductions in cotton support.
Export Competition. The most concrete outcome of the Hong Kong
Ministerial was an agreement to eliminate agricultural export subsidies by the end of
2013. The European Union (EU), the largest user of export subsidies, had opposed
setting an end date, maintaining that WTO members needed to determine first how
other forms of subsidized export competition — export credit programs, insurance,
export activities of State Trading Enterprises (STEs), and food aid — would be
disciplined. The United States and Brazil, among others, had been demanding an end
to such export subsides by 2010 to be followed by negotiations on other forms of
export completion. As a compromise, the HK declaration calls for the parallel
elimination of all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on measures with
equivalent effect by the end of 2013. The end date will be confirmed, however, only
after the completion of modalities for the elimination of all forms of export subsidies.
With respect to other forms of export competition, the HK declaration included
the following.
! Export credit programs should be “self-financing, reflecting market
consistency, and of a sufficiently short duration so as not to
effectively circumvent real commercially-oriented discipline;”
! On exporting STEs, disciplines will be such that their “monopoly
powers cannot be exercised in any way that would circumvent the

---

CRS-5
direct disciplines on STEs on export subsidies, government financing,
and the underwriting of losses.”
! On food aid, a “safe box” will be established for “bona fide” food aid
“to ensure there will be no impediment to dealing with emergency
situations.” However, disciplines will be established on in-kind food
aid, monetization, and re-exports to prevent loopholes for continuing
export subsidization leading to elimination or displacement of
commercial sales by food aid.
Domestic Support. On trade-distorting domestic support, WTO members
agreed to three bands for reductions, with the percentages for reducing support in each
band to be decided during the modalities negotiations. The EU would be in the
highest band and be subject to the largest reduction commitments, while Japan and the
United States would be in the middle band. (The U.S. proposal would have subjected
Japan to a higher percentage cut of its domestic support.) All other WTO members,
including developing countries, would be in the bottom band.
The HK declaration states further that “the overall reduction in trade-distorting
domestic support will still need to be made even if the sum of the reductions in the
three categories of trade-distorting support — amber box, blue box, and de minimis
— would otherwise be less than the overall reduction requirement.7 (This appears
intended at ensuring that the United States does not engage in box shifting to maintain
its current spending levels.)
Market Access. The HK declaration calls for four bands for structuring tariff
cuts, with the relevant band thresholds and within-band reduction percentages to be
worked out during modalities negotiations. The treatment of sensitive products (those
to be exempted from formula tariff reductions) was also left to modalities
negotiations. A preliminary draft of the declaration would have required WTO
member countries to ensure that, for sensitive products, the greater the deviation from
agreed tariff reduction formulas, the greater would be the increase in tariff rate quotas.
The extent to which tariff rate quotas for sensitive products are expanded remains a
key determinant of the market access gains that would result from the Round.
The HK declaration also ensured that developing countries would have two
privileges not otherwise available to developed countries: (1) the right to self-
designate a number of tariff lines to be treated as special products (with lower cuts in
tariffs) based on certain criteria — food security, livelihood security, and rural
development; and (2) the ability to impose a special safeguard mechanism (SSG) on
imports based on both import quantity and price triggers.8
Cotton. On cotton, the HK declaration reaffirms the commitment (made in the
July 2004 framework agreement discussed below) to ensure an explicit decision on
7 See Appendix Table 3 for definitions of these terms.
8 SSGs are presently available to all WTO members (not just developing countries) that have
them listed in their country schedules. See CRS Report RL32916 Agriculture in the WTO:
Policy Commitments Made Under the Agreement on Agriculture.

---

CRS-6
cotton “within the agriculture negotiations and through the Sub-Committee on Cotton
expeditiously and specifically.” The HK declaration calls for developed countries to
eliminate all forms of export subsidies on cotton in 2006. This coincides with the
United States’s elimination of its Step 2 program for cotton by August 1, 2006, as
contained in the pending 2006 budget reconciliation act (S. 1932, Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005). Step 2, which compensates U.S. millers and exporters for using high-
priced American cotton, was declared in violation of WTO rules in the Brazil-U.S.
cotton case.9
On cotton market access, the HK declaration calls on developed countries to give
duty and quota free access to cotton exports from least-developed countries (LDCs)
from the beginning of the implementation of a Doha Round agreement. Not agreed
to, but certain to be revisited during the modalities negotiations in 2006, was a
provision that “trade-distorting domestic subsidies for cotton should be reduced more
ambitiously than under whatever general formula is agreed and that it should be
implemented over a shorter period of time” than for other commodities.
Agriculture, NAMA, and LDCs. Two other provisions in the HK declaration
touch on agriculture. One is a provision in the declaration calling for balance between
agricultural and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) modalities. The HK
declaration recognizes that it is important to advance the development objectives of
the Round through enhanced market access for developing countries in both
agriculture and NAMA. As a result, the HK declaration calls for a “complementary
high level of ambition” in market access for both these components of the round.
Second, in a departure from special and differential treatment, the HK declaration
calls for all developed countries, and developing countries in a position to do so, to
provide duty-free and quota-free market access for products originating from LDCs,
with some exceptions, by 2008 or no later than the beginning of the implementation
period.
Agricultural Negotiating Developments
Preceding the Hong Kong Ministerial
Overview
On October 10, 2005, the United States offered a detailed proposal with specific
modalities (i.e., schedules, formulas, and other criteria for implementing tariff and
subsidy reduction rates and other aspects of the reform) for the adoption of new
disciplines on the three major agricultural reform pillars — export competition,
domestic support, and market access — in the ongoing round of WTO multilateral
trade negotiations. The U.S. proposal appeared to break a negotiations log-jam as it
was followed closely in mid-October, by separate proposals for agricultural modalities
from three other major negotiating participants — the EU, the G-20 developing
countries, and the G-10, a group of mainly developed countries that are net importers
of agricultural products. These negotiating proposals revealed that wide differences
9 See CRS Report RS22187, U.S. Agricultural Policy Response to the WTO Cotton Decision.

---

CRS-7
exist, especially between the United States and the EU, in the modalities proposed for
market access, the most difficult issue encountered by negotiators. (The proposals are
examined below. See the Appendix Tables 1-3 at the end of this report for a
schedule of key events, a description of the various negotiating groups, and a brief list
of key WTO terms.)
As part of its oversight and consultation with the Administration on the Doha
Round agriculture negotiations, Chairmen of both House and Senate Agriculture
Committees have expressed their views on the kind of WTO agricultural agreement
that would garner their support.10 According to the chairmen, the four principles that
should guide any WTO agreement are:
! Substantial improvement in real market access.
! Greater harmonization in trade-distorting domestic support.
! Elimination of export subsidies; and
! Greater certainty and predictability regarding WTO litigation.
Negotiations on the agricultural modalities in U.S. and other country proposals
continued in preparation for the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial during November and
December, but as the meeting approached, the negotiations appeared to have reached
another impasse. The United States, the G-20, and the CAIRNS group called for the
EU to improve and resubmit its offer on market access because it was not as extensive
as its current reform proposals for domestic support and export competition, and thus
provided insufficient bargaining room. The EU (with at least partial backing from the
G-10 and India) claimed that it was unable to improve its market access offer without
some formal proposals from other countries on reform in the non-agricultural trade
sectors — primarily services and industrial goods.
With the prospect of little movement at Hong Kong under prevailing
circumstances (e.g., limited time to bridge U.S.-EU-developing country differences
and internal EU-country disagreements over the nature of the EU’s offer), news
reports surfaced about scaled-back ambitions for the Hong Kong Ministerial.11 In the
draft ministerial declaration for the Hong Kong meeting, the WTO Director General
Pascal Lamy suggested that, rather than agreeing on modalities, trade ministers set
deadlines for establishing modalities and agreeing to schedules of concessions, both
before the end of 2006.12
10 Letter to the Honorable Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative, Oct. 6, 2005, from
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, and Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture.
11 “A Less Ambitious Hong Kong Conference,” Washington Trade Daily, vol. 14, no. 222,
Nov. 9, 2005.
12 The draft ministerial text is available at [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/
min05_e/draft_text_e.htm].

---

CRS-8
Comparison of Major Agricultural Negotiating Proposals
The four major DDA negotiating proposals for agricultural modalities are from
the United States, EU, G-20, and the G-10. Each proposal (described below) varies
in terms of its degree of specificity for each of the three negotiating pillars. Tables
1 and 2 summarize domestic policy reforms and market access reforms, respectively,
under each of the negotiating proposals.
Export competition negotiations were facilitated by the EU’s July 2005 pledge
to end export subsidies (conditioned on parallel treatment of other forms of export
subsidies). Domestic support disciplines hinge primarily on commitments by three
countries: the United States, the EU, and Japan. In contrast, market access has been
the most difficult issue, especially for the EU and the G-10, but also for the G-20. The
EU’s latest offer on market access (October 27, 2005) — average tariff cuts of 35%-
60% coupled with extensive protection for “sensitive products” — falls short of the
“level of ambition” of the G-20 proposal which proposes tariff cuts of 45%-75% and
limited protection for “sensitive products.”
The U.S. Proposal. The U.S. modalities proposal of October 10, 2005, is
credited with unblocking stalled modalities negotiations. It addressed domestic
support and market access with specifics for the first time, and put the EU on the
defensive especially on market access. It proposes a three-stage reform: five years
of substantial reductions in trade-distorting support and tariffs, followed by a five-year
pause; then five more years to phase-in total elimination of all remaining trade-
distorting domestic measures and import tariffs.
Export Competition.
! Eliminate all agricultural export subsidies.
! Establish disciplines for export credit guarantees, STEs, and food aid.
Domestic Support.
! Cut the U.S. amber box bound by 60% based on 1999-2001 period.
! Reduce the EU and Japanese amber box bounds by 83%.
! Reduce overall level of trade-distorting support by 75% for EU, and
by 53% for the United States and Japan.
! Cap blue box spending at 2.5% of value of production.
! Cut de minimis exemptions to 2.5% of value of production (for both
total and for specific products).
! Maintain green box criteria without caps.
! Establish a new peace clause to protect domestic supports against
WTO litigation.
Market Access.
! Cut highest tariffs by 90%; cut other tariffs in a range of 55%-90%.
! Cap the maximum agricultural tariff at 75%.
! Limit sensitive products to 1% of tariff lines.
! Expand TRQs: i.e., larger quotas with lower tariffs.
! SDT for developing countries (TBD), but cap maximum developing
country agricultural tariff at 100%.

---

CRS-9
Conditions. U.S. domestic support commitments are conditioned on
“ambitious” market access proposals especially from the EU and the G-20.
The EU Proposal. Under pressure from France and 12 other EU countries (but
not a qualified majority) not to improve its offers, the EU made a new market access
proposal on October 27 and provided additional detail on its proposal for domestic
support, export competition, and Geographical Indications (GIs are place names
associated with particular products). The EU’s “level of ambition” in market access
does not reach that of the G-20 or the United States. A major criticism of the EU’s
agricultural proposal is that its market access offer does not provide an inducement
for developing countries like Brazil, Thailand, or other G-20 members to make
concessions in non-agricultural market access or services. The United States and G-
20 countries continue to pressure the EU to offer further concessions on agricultural
market access.
Export Competition.
! Eliminate all agricultural export subsidies, contingent on “parallel”
disciplines for export credits, food aid, and STEs by 2012.
! Establish a “short-term self-financing principle” for credits: programs
must demonstrate that they charge adequate premiums to ensure self-
financing.
! STEs: eliminate price-pooling, anti-trust immunity, direct and
indirect preferential financing, and preferential transport services; and
eliminate single-desk selling.
! Food Aid: phase out food aid that leads to commercial displacement
but maintain commitments to adequate food aid levels; move
gradually to untied and in-cash food aid; permit in-kind food aid only
in exceptional, emergency situations under agreed criteria.
Domestic Support.
! Reduce the EU’s amber box ceiling by 70% (in line with already
established EU spending limits); reduce the U.S. amber box ceiling
by 60%.
! Base amber box product-specific caps on the Uruguay Round
implementation period of 1986-88.
! Reduce the de minimis exemptions ceiling by 80% of the
Framework’s proposed 5% cap (i.e., establish a cap of 1% of the
value of total production).
! Blue box: freeze the existing price difference between linked price
support prices and limit the price gap to a percentage of the base price
difference.
! Reduce overall trade-distorting support in three bands: 70% (EU),
60% (U.S.), and 50% (rest-of-world).
! Maintain the green box without limits.
Market Access.
! Reduce the highest tariffs by 60%; cut other tariffs in a range of 35%-
60%.

---

CRS-10
! Reduce the number of sensitive products to 8% of tariff lines (given
the EU’s approximately 2,200 tariff lines this would result in about
176 protected tariff lines for the EU).
! Apply both tariff cuts and expanded TRQs to sensitive products.
! Cap the maximum agricultural tariff for developed countries at 100%
(but with no cap for sensitive products).
Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSG).
! Keep the SSG available for both developed and developing countries.
Specifically, the EU wants the SSG to be available for beef, poultry,
butter, fruits and vegetables, and sugar.
Geographical Indications (GIs).
! Extend protection available to wines and spirits under Article 23 of
TRIPS to all products, while leaving existing trademarks unaffected.
! Establish a multilateral system of notification and registration of GIs,
open to all products, with legal effect in all Member countries not
having lodged a reservation to the registration.
! Use of well-known GIs on a short list should be prohibited, again
subject to existing trademark rights.
Special & Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries.
! Establish higher tariff bands, lower tariff cuts, and a maximum tariff
of 150% for developing countries.
! No tariff cuts for the 32 WTO-member LDCs.
Conditions.
! NAMA: agreement before Hong Kong on a progressive formula that
cuts into applied tariffs for manufactured products.
! Services: agreement at Hong Kong to establish mandatory country
targets for services trade liberalization.
! Rules: Negotiate before the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting a list of
issues to be resolved including antidumping.
! Development: prepare for Hong Kong a Trade Related Assistance
package for developing countries and extend tariff and quota free
access to all LDCs no later than the conclusion of the DDA.
The G-20 Proposal. The G-20 proposal on market access reflects differences
between Brazil, an agricultural exporter, and India, an agricultural importer.

Export Competition.
! Eliminate all forms of export subsidies over five-year period.
! New food aid disciplines should not compromise emergency
humanitarian assistance.
Domestic Support.
! Cut the bound for overall trade-distorting domestic support in three
bands: >$60 billion, 80%; $10-$60 billion, 75%; and $0-$10 billion,
70%.

---

CRS-11
! Cut the amber box ceiling in three bands: >$25 billion, 80%; $15-
$25 billion, 70%; and $0-$15 billion, $60%.
! Reduce de minimis exemption allowances so as to meet the cut in the
overall bound.
! Address the cotton issues no later than the Hong Kong Ministerial
meeting.
Market Access.
! Cut developed country tariffs by 45%-75%; cut developing country
tariffs by 25%-40%.
! Cap the developed country maximum agricultural tariff at 100%,
developing country maximum tariff at 150%.
! Limit the number of sensitive products; compensate for designation
as sensitive with a combination of tariff cuts and expanded TRQs.
! Maintain Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSG) for developing
countries; eliminate SSG for developed countries.
! Address issue of preference erosion for developing countries with
expanded access for LDCs and trade capacity building.
! Special & Differential Treatment (SDT): exempt LDCs from
reduction commitments.
The G-10 Proposal. The G-10 is a group of mainly developed, net-
agricultural importing countries led by Japan, Norway, and Switzerland. The G-10
has tabled proposals on market access and domestic support, but not on export
competition. The G-10 takes a relatively “defensive” posture on market access that
calls for lower tariff reductions and a larger number of sensitive products than do
other proposals.
Market Access.
! Reduce agricultural tariffs by 27% to 45% for most products.
! The number of sensitive products would be 10% of tariff lines with
linear cuts within tiers, 15% of tariff lines would have flexibility for
within-tier adjustments.
! There would be no cap on the highest agricultural tariff allowed.
Domestic Support.
! Reduce the amber box ceiling by 80% for support >$25 billion; by
70% for support in the $15-$25 billion range; and by 60% for support
<$15 billion.
! Reduce the overall support ceiling by 80% for support >$60 billion;
75% for $10-$60 billion; and 70% for support <$10 billion.
! Blue box and de minimis spending are not addressed.
The G-33 Proposal for Special Products. The G-33 is an alliance of 42
developing countries including larger countries like China and India, but also least-
developed countries like Benin and Zambia. The G-33 calls for the following.

---

CRS-12
! 20% of tariff lines of developing countries to be designated as Special
Products (those deemed essential for food security, rural
development, and other factors).
! 50% of the tariff lines so designated would be exempt from any tariff
reduction commitment.
! An additional 15% of designated tariff lines would be exempted from
tariff reductions if there are “special circumstances” (e.g., low bound
tariffs, high ceiling bindings, high proportion of low income or
resource poor producers.
! A further 25% of designated special products would be subject only
to a 5% reduction in bound tariff rates while the remaining tariff lines
would be subject to cuts no greater than 10%.

---

CRS-13
Table 1. Comparison of Proposals for Domestic Policy Reform: U.S., G-20, EU, and G-10
Developing
Highest Tier
2nd Tier
3rd Tier
Countries
LDCs
U.S. Proposala
EU, Japan
U.S.
Other Developed
Amber Box Cuts
83%
60%
37%
n.s.
n.s.
— De Minimis cuts
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
n.s.
n.s.
— Blue Box Ceiling
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
n.s.
n.s.
Overall Ceiling Cuts
75% (53% Japan)
53%
31%
n.s.
n.s.
G-20 Proposal
EU, Japan
U.S.
Other Developed
Amber Box Cutsb
80%
70%
60%
n.s.
n.s.
Overall Ceiling Cutsb
80%
75%
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
EU Proposal
EU (Japan?)
U.S. (Japan?)
Other Developed
Amber Box Cutsc
70%
60%
50%
n.s.
No cuts
Overall Ceiling Cuts
70%
60%
50%
n.s.
No cuts
— De Minimis cuts
Bound at 1% of TVP
Bound at 1% of TVP
Bound at 1% of TVP
n.s.
No cuts
— Blue Box Ceiling
Bound at 5% of TVP
Bound at 5% of TVP
Bound at 5% of TVP
n.s.
No cuts
G-10 Proposal
EU, Japan ($25 +)
U.S. ($15 - $25)
Other Developed ($0 - $15)
Amber Box Cuts
80%
70%
60%
n.s.
n.s.
Source: Assembled by CRS from various news releases of the USTR and World Trade Online.
n.s. = not specified
a. The U.S. proposes different value ranges for amber box and overall ceilings; however, the within-tier country composition remains unchanged under the different ranges: 1st tier:
EU and Japan; 2nd tier: U.S.; 3rd tier: rest-of-world.
b. The G-20 is also calling for product-specific caps both in the overall AMS and the Blue Box.
c. The EU also proposes commodity-specific amber box spending limits.

---

CRS-14
Table 2. Doha Round Negotiations Market Access Proposals: G-10, G-20, EU, and U.S.
Developed Countries
G-10
G-20
EU
United States a
Tiers % and Within-Tier Cuts
Tiers %
Linear flexibility
Tiers %
Linear
Tiers %
Linear
Tiers %
Progressive
35%
1
0 # 20
27%
32% ± 7%
0 # 20
45%
0 # 30
0 # 20
55-65%
(20%-45%)b
2
> 20 # 50
31%
36% ± 8%
> 20 # 50
55%
> 30 # 60
45%
> 20 # 40
65-75%
3
> 50 # 70
37%
42% ± 9%
> 50 # 70
65%
> 60 # 90
50%
> 40 # 60
75-85%
4
> 70
45%
50% ± 10%
> 70
75%
> 90
60%c
> 60
85-90%
Tariff Cap %
No Cap
100%
100% (no cap for sens. prod.)
75%
Estimated Average Tariff Cut
25-30%
54%
46% (39%)d
75%
Sensitive Products
15% w/linear cuts;
1% of total tariff lines and
8% of tariff linee
1% of total tariff lines
10% w/flex cuts
subject to capping
Sensitive Products & TRQs
Minimum access level =
Small TRQ expansion on
Expanded TRQs
6% of annual domestic
small # of productsg
cons in base period.f
Special Products
Not defined
Not defined
Not defined
Not defined
Special Safeguard Mechanism
Limited to developing
Available for all members for
(SSM)
countries
selected commodities
Geographical Indicators (GIs)
Extend TRIPS, Art.23 to all
Existing trademark laws
productsh
are sufficient.
Developing Countries
G-10
G-20
EU
United States a
Special & Differential Treatment
More flexibility on sensitive
2/3 treatment in tiers ;
Higher thresholds for top tiers;
Slightly smaller cuts and
(SDT)
products.
# 2/3 treatment in cuts
2/3 lower in cuts
longer phase-in periods
Tiers %
Linear
flexibility
Tiers %
Linear
Tiers %
Linear
Tiers %
Progressive
1
0 # 30
27%
32% ± 7%
0 # 30
< 30%
0 # 30
25% (10-40%)b
0 # 20
TBD
2
> 30 # 70
31%
36% ± 8%
> 30 # 80
< 40%
> 30 # 80
30%
> 20 # 40
TBD
3
> 70 # 100
37%
42% ± 9%
> 80 # 130
< 50%
> 80 # 130
35%
> 40 # 60
TBD
4
> 100
45%
50% ± 10%
> 130
< 60%
> 130
40%
> 60
TBD
Tariff Cap %
No Cap
150%
150%
100%
Sensitive Products
Not defined
1.5% of total tariff lines
Not defined
Not defined
Least-Developed Countries
G-10
G-20
EU
United States a
LDC Treatment
Not defined
Same as EU plus
All developed countries should
Not defined
exemption from tariff
allow full duty-free access for
reduction commitments.
EBA.

---

CRS-15
Source: Assembled by CRS from USTR, EC, and World Trade Online news releases. Data are as of October 28, 2005.
a. The U.S. has proposed applying the set of tiered tariff cuts described below during the 1st five-year period of implementation; to be followed by a period of stability during the next
(2nd) five years; then totally eliminating tariffs during the 3rd five-year period. This same reduction-stability-elimination sequence would be applied to trade-distorting domestic
support as well.
b. The EU proposes additional FLEXIBILITY be given for tariff cuts within the lowest tier (0-30%) such that the tier’s overall average cut of 35% (25% for developing countries)
is still respected, but that within tier cuts may vary between 20% to 45% (10% to 40%).
c. The EU has expressed a willingness to consider 70% cuts for the top tier of tariffs.
d. The EU estimates the average tariff cut, according to its proposed tier/tariff reduction formula, would be 46% across all tariff lines. However, USTR suggests that a more accurate
estimate would be 39%. Since the average tariff cut across all tariff lines must also consider the level of protection provided by TRQs for sensitive products, it would appear
that the EU’s estimated average tariff cut of 46% grossly overstates the true average as it apparently ignores the large degree of protection provided by allowing 8% of tariff
lines to hide behind TRQs. (See next footnote.)
e. The EU has approximately 2,200 8-digit tariff lines. An 8% limit on sensitive products would imply a maximum of about 176 sensitive products to be subject to TRQs with expanded
market access. The EU currently has 300 to 400 tariff lines covered by TRQs under the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU suggests that such a large number of sensitive
products is necessary to achieve both protection for its agricultural sector while allowing for substantial tariff cuts across unprotected tariff line items. Furthermore, the EU states
that its sensitive products, although numerous, would be structured to allow for “substantial increases in market access that would nonetheless still be lower than that granted
by the result of the full tariff cut.”
f. The G-20 proposes that no new tariff-rate quotas (apart from existing TRQs agreed to under the Uruguay Round’s Agreement on Agriculture) be created for products designated
as sensitive, and it calls for a maximum deviation from the tariff reduction formula of 30%. It said existing TRQs on developed country sensitive products should at least be
expanded so that a minimum access level is increased to a level equivalent to 6% of annual domestic consumption.
g. The EU proposal calls for the possibility of new TRQs. In addition it recommends a TRQ formula linking the quota increase to the level of tariff reduction, proposing that the quota
increase is:
[(Normal tariff cut) - (applied cut)] / [(import price) + (ad valorem for that tariff line)] * (0.8). At the same stage there should be a minimum tariff reduction in each of the bands
of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively.
h. EU proposes that GIs receive the same protection as a trade mark in line with protection currently available for wine and spirits under Article 23 of TRIPS agreement. For products
with existing trade mark protection that would otherwise be invalidated by GI protection elsewhere, Article 24 of TRIPS would be adjusted such that existing trade marks would
not be affected. The EU considers this a major concession.
Definitions:
EBA = Everything But Arms (i.e., all products except weaponry and munitions).
TBD = To Be Determined.
TRQ = Tariff Rate Quota. This involves a quota level (TBD) within which all imports enter duty-free or subject to a minimal tariff duty (TBD). All over-quota imports
are subject to a higher (often prohibitive) duty (TBD). Greater market access (or greater TRQ) is achieved by raising the quota level and reducing the over-quota
tariff rate.

---

CRS-16
Table 3. U.S. Domestic Spending Limits and Outlays:
Current Status, Framework Agreement, and U.S. Reform Proposal
Current Outlays
Current
Framework
U.S.
1995-2001a
2005b
WTO Limits
Proposal
Proposal
US$
US$
US$
Category
US$ Billion
Status
Billion
Status
Billion
Status
Billion
Total Overall
Unbound
20% initial cut; further cuts
Bound and subject to cuts that
Ceiling
$16.3
$19.1
(due to blue
—
implemented gradually. Final
~$45.4
vary based on level of domestic
~$23
box)
total cut TBD
support (Table 3).
Amber box
Separate
20% initial cut; further cuts
Tiered; subject to substantial
(Bound AMS)
Bound for
implemented gradually; with
cuts during 1st five years; stable
$11.0
$12.7
$19.1
$15.4c
$7.6
each country
product-specific AMS caps
for 2nd five years; then
TBD.
eliminated in 3rd five-years.d
Blue box
$ 1.0
$ 0.0
Unbound
—
Bound TBD but < 5% of TVP
~$10
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
~$5
De Minimis:
Bound at 5%
Bound TBD but < 5% of TVP
Bound at 2.5% of TVP
$ 4.2
$ 6.2
~$10
~$10
~$5
aggregate
of TVP
De Minimis:
Bound at 5%
Bound TBD but < 5% of SCVP
Bound at 2.5% of SCVP
commodity
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
of SCVP
~$10
~$10
~$5
specific
Green Box
$49.9
—
Unbound
—
Unbound
—
Unbound
—
Source: Assembled by CRS from news releases of various sources. For a detailed description of U.S. domestic spending by category for both commitments and actual outlay
notifications, see CRS Report RL30612, Agriculture in the WTO: Member Spending on Domestic Support, by Randy Schnepf.
a. Average for 1995-2001 period for which official WTO notification data is available.
b. Estimate for 2005 period based on CRS calculations from various USDA projections.
c. Reflects only the 20% initial cut.
d. The three five-year period phase out would apply to all trade-distorting domestic support and tariffs (including safeguard mechanisms).
Definitions:
AMS — Aggregate Measure of (trade-distorting domestic) Support as defined in the Agreement on Agriculture.
TBD — To Be Determined.
TVP — Total Value of agricultural Production for all commodities.
SCVP — Total Value of agricultural Production for a Specific Commodity.

---

CRS-17
The Cotton Issue: Background
Among the unresolved issues going into the Hong Kong Ministerial was the so-
called African Cotton Initiative. Four least-developed African countries — Benin,
Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali — proposed (May 2003) a sectoral initiative for cotton
that would entail the complete elimination of export subsidies and trade-distorting
domestic support by all WTO members.13 Although not specifically mentioned in the
Doha Round negotiating mandate, cotton was identified as a key to a successful
conclusion of the Doha Round following the Cancun Ministerial in September 2003.
A preliminary agreement on a “framework” for the Doha Round negotiations reached
in July 2004 (see detailed discussion below) also recognized the importance of cotton
for certain developing countries and stated that cotton will be “addressed
ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically” within the agriculture negotiations.14
In addition, the Framework called for the establishment of a “Cotton” Sub-
Committee (established on November 19, 2004) to deal with the initiative.
Going into the Hong Kong meeting, there were two main proposals for dealing
with the trade-related aspects of the sectoral initiative on cotton.15 One was a revised
proposal from the African group and the second was an EU proposal. Both called for
decisions to be made at the Hong Kong Ministerial. The African proposal called for
export subsidies on cotton to be eliminated by the end of 2005. Trade-distorting
domestic support would be completely eliminated by January 1, 2009, with 80%
eliminated by the end of 2006 and 10% each in 2007 and 2008. The market access
aspects of the initiative would be addressed by duty-free and quota-free access for
cotton and cotton products from least-developed countries. An emergency fund
would be established to deal with depressed international prices. Additionally, this
proposal called for technical and financial assistance for the cotton sector in African
countries.
The EU proposal called for the Hong Kong Ministerial to endorse more
ambitious and faster commitments on cotton than for agriculture as a whole. The EU
provided details of its proposal for cotton, but without assigning numerical targets,
which is consistent with its position that Hong Kong should not be about deciding
numbers (i.e., actual modalities). For export subsidies, the EU proposed an earlier
end date for elimination. As to market access, the EU indicated its willingness to
eliminate all duties, quotas and other quantitative restrictions on imports from all
countries. For domestic support, the EU would eliminate all trade-distorting
13 For a detailed discussion of the initiative, see CRS Report RS21712, The African Cotton
Initiative and WTO Agriculture Negotiations, by Charles E. Hanrahan. The original
proposal, WTO Negotiations on Agriculture, Poverty Reduction: Sectoral Initiative in
Favour of Cotton: Joint proposal by Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali, Committee on
Agriculture, Special Session, TN/AG/GEN/4, May 16, 2003, was revised in WTO, General
Council, Poverty Reduction: Sectoral Initiative on Cotton: Wording of Paragraph 27 of the
Revised Draft Cancun Ministerial Text: Communication from Benin, WT/GC/W/516,
October 7, 2003. These documents can be retrieved from [http://www.wto.org].
14 Paragraph 1(b) of the July Framework agreement addresses the cotton issue.
15 These two proposals are reviewed at the WTO website at [http://www.wto.org/english/
news_e/news05_e/cotton_18nov05_e.htm].

---

CRS-18
subsidies for cotton. The EU indicated that all its cotton commitments “will already
be in place, as far as the EU is concerned, from 2006.”
The U.S. position on the cotton initiative has been that cotton should be dealt
with as an integral part of the agriculture negotiations. Thus cotton subsidy
reductions or market access commitments would be made as part of an overall
agreement on agriculture. A more ambitious result for cotton, then, would depend
on the underlying agriculture agreement. According to the WTO summary of the
cotton subcommittee meeting in which the initiative was discussed most recently, the
U.S. Deputy Trade Representative indicated that the United States agreed that the
outcome for cotton should be “more than the average” (i.e., the general outcome for
agriculture).16
Role of Developing Countries
The active participation of developing countries in the Doha Round
distinguishes it from previous multilateral trade rounds held under the auspices of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the WTO.
During the Uruguay Round, an agreement between the United States and the EU on
agricultural issues at Blair House in 1992 paved the way for a successful conclusion
of this last GATT round. However, a U.S.-EU joint proposal on agriculture during
the 2003 Cancun Ministerial meeting was greeted with strong opposition from a
group of developing countries.17 This group, led by Brazil, India, and China, known
as the G-20, has remained together since Cancun and is playing a key role in the
Doha agricultural negotiations. The G-20 was first among the major players in the
Doha Round to offer a proposal on agricultural modalities in advance of the Hong
Kong meeting, and its proposal became a benchmark for evaluating other, developed
country proposals.
Not only the more advanced developing countries like the G-20 members, but
also the least developed countries (LDCs) are participating actively in the Doha
negotiations. The African Cotton Initiative (discussed above) is an example of the
LDCs attempting to use multilateral trade negotiations to accomplish their policy
objectives. The LDCs also were instrumental in blocking an overall agreement at
Cancun when they rejected an EU proposal to enlarge the negotiating agenda to
include discussion of the so-called “Singapore issues” of trade facilitation,
competition policy, investment, and transparency in government procurement.
Subsequent agreement to limit negotiations of Singapore issues to just one — trade
facilitation — was a victory for the LDCs.
16 The African and EU proposals for a sectoral initiative on cotton as well as the U.S.
reaction are also discussed in “U.S. Links Cotton-Specific Moves on Overall Agriculture
Deal,” Inside U.S. Trade, November 18, 2005.
17 See CRS Report RL32053, Agriculture in the WTO, by Charles E. Hanrahan.

---

CRS-19
Other Negotiating Issues
A number of other issues are on the agenda of the Doha Round.18 These include
negotiations to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in industrial products
(referred to as non-agricultural market access or NAMA negotiations), liberalization
of trade in the services sector, reviews of anti-dumping and countervailing duty
measures and dispute settlement procedures, a number of specific issues of interest
to developing countries (for example, access to patented medicines, implementation
of existing WTO agreements, and changes in special and differential treatment
provisions), and trade facilitation (which refers generally to harmonizing and
streamlining customs procedures among WTO members).
Role of Congress: Trade Promotion
Authority and the Farm Bill
If DDA negotiations result in a trade agreement, then Congress would
presumably take up legislation to implement it under trade promotion authority
(TPA), or fast-track, procedures (Title XXI of P.L. 107-210). Under fast-track, if the
President meets the trade negotiating objectives established in the legislation and
satisfies consultation and notification requirements in P.L. 107-210, then Congress
would consider legislation to implement a trade agreement with limited debate, no
amendments, and with an up-or-down vote. However, unless it is extended by
Congress TPA only covers trade agreements signed by July 1, 2007. As such, TPA
expiration is the effective deadline for U.S. participation in the Doha Round and for
congressional consideration of implementing legislation. That time frame also
coincides with the expiration of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) on September 30,
2007. Farm bill changes may be needed to meet U.S. commitments in a final DDA
agreement on agriculture.
Background on the Doha Round
Agricultural Negotiations: Doha to Cancun
The previous round of multilateral trade negotiations — the Uruguay Round —
which spanned 1988 to 1994 was the first international trade agreement to include
agricultural policy reform. The Uruguay Round’s Agreement on Agriculture (AA)
was the first multilateral agreement dedicated entirely to agriculture. The AAs
implementation period lasted six years (1995-2000) for developed countries and 10
years (1995-2004) for developing countries. Article 20 of the AA included a
provision for the continuation of the agricultural policy reform process.
At the WTO’s Fourth Ministerial Conference (held in Doha, Qatar, on
November 9-14, 2001), WTO member countries agreed to launch a new round of
18 See CRS Report RL32060, World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha
Development Agenda, for an overview of Doha Round negotiating issues.

---

CRS-20
multilateral trade negotiations, including negotiations on agricultural trade
liberalization.19 This new round, because it emphasized integrating developing
countries into the world trading system, was called the Doha Development Agenda
(DDA). The new round incorporates agriculture into a comprehensive framework
that includes negotiations on industrial tariffs, services, anti-dumping and
countervailing duty measures (referred to as rules), dispute settlement, and other
trade issues.
The Doha Ministerial (DM) Declaration mandate for agriculture called for
comprehensive negotiations aimed at substantial improvements in market access;
reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and
substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. These topics — domestic
support, export subsidies, and market access — have become known as the three
pillars of the agricultural negotiations. The DM declaration also provided that
special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries would be an
integral part of all elements of the negotiations. The DM declaration took note of
non-trade concerns reflected in negotiating proposals of various member countries
and confirmed that they would be taken into account in the negotiations. March 31,
2003 was set as the deadline for reaching agreement on “modalities” (targets,
formulas, timetables, etc.) for achieving the mandated objectives, but that deadline
was missed. During the rest of 2003, negotiations on modalities continued in
preparation for the fifth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cancun, Mexico
September 10-14, 2003.
While the United States and the EU reached agreement on a broad framework
for negotiating agricultural trade liberalization before the Cancun meeting, a group
of developing countries, the G-20 which includes Brazil, China, India, and South
Africa, among others, made a counter-proposal. The G-20 proposal emphasized
agricultural subsidy and tariff reduction for developed countries with fewer demands
on developing countries. The Chairman of the Cancun ministerial circulated a draft
declaration at the meeting that attempted to reconcile differences between developed
(especially the United States and the EU) and developing countries (especially the G-
20) on the agricultural issues. Neither the proposals made by the United States and
the EU, the G-20, nor the Chairman’s draft declaration proposed specific modalities
(formulas, targets, or timetables) for reducing tariffs and trade-distorting support and
for phasing out export subsidies.
The Cancun Ministerial Conference thus failed to reconcile differences on
agricultural issues as well as differences between developed and developing countries
over expanding the negotiating agenda to include such issues as competition and
investment policy. The Cancun Ministerial ended without an agreement on
modalities or a framework for continuing multilateral negotiations on agricultural
trade liberalization. The inconclusive end of the Cancun ministerial largely
eliminated the prospect that the DDA would conclude by its scheduled end date,
January 1, 2005.
19 The Doha Ministerial Declaration launching the DDA negotiations is at [http://www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm#dohadeclaration]. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
Doha declaration set out the agricultural negotiating mandate.

---

CRS-21
July 2004 Framework Agreement for Agriculture
On July 31, 2004, WTO member countries reached an agreement on a work
program for completing the DDA negotiations. The July 31 work program includes
annexes that lay out negotiating frameworks for agriculture and other DDA issues.20
The agricultural framework (referred throughout this report as the Framework) set
the stage for negotiations to determine modalities (i.e., the specific targets, formulas,
timetables, etc.), for curbing trade-distorting domestic support, reducing trade
barriers and eliminating export subsidies. Negotiators set for themselves a deadline
of July 2005 for completing a first draft of the agricultural modalities, another
deadline that was subsequently missed. The following three subsections describe
what was agreed to in the July 31 Framework, and the issues that remained to be
negotiated for each of the three negotiating pillars.
Pillar 1 — Export Competition
Although 36 WTO members are permitted to use export subsidies as listed in
their country schedules, only 24 countries have actually used export subsidies. Most
countries with permissible export subsidies have used them very sparingly. During
the 1995-2001 period for which WTO notification data are available, the EU
accounted for nearly 90% of all export subsidies used by WTO members.21
What Was Agreed to in the Framework. Under the Framework, WTO
members agreed to establish detailed modalities ensuring the parallel elimination of
all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent
effect by a credible end date. The following will be eliminated by the end date to be
determined (TBD):
1. Export subsidies.
2. Export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programs with repayment
periods beyond 180 days.
3. Terms and conditions — e.g., interest payments, minimum interest rates,
minimum premium requirements, and any other subsidy elements — relating to
export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programs with repayment
periods of 180 days or less which are not in accordance with disciplines TBD.
20 See CRS Report RS21905, Agriculture in the WTO Doha Round: The Framework
Agreement and Next Steps, by Charles E. Hanrahan. The framework agreement known as
the Doha Work Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on August 1, 2004
is at [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/ddadraft_31jul04_e.pdf].
21 USDA, Economic Research Service, WTO Agricultural Trade Policy Commitments
Database, WTO Export Subsidy Notifications, “Total export subsidies by country,
1995-2001” available at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/db/Wto/ExportSubsidy_database/
Default.asp?ERSTab=2].

---

CRS-22
4. Trade distorting practices of exporting State Trading Enterprises (STEs)
including elimination of export subsidies they receive and government financing
and underwriting of losses.
5. Provision of food aid not in conformity with disciplines TBD.
6.
Developing countries will benefit from longer implementation periods TBD for
eliminating all forms of export subsidies.
Export Competition Issues to Be Resolved.
1. Schedule for eliminating export subsidies.
2. Nature of “parallel treatment” of export credit programs.
3. Rules for exporting STEs.
4. New disciplines for food aid to prevent commercial displacement.
5. An assessment of whether and to what extend food aid should be provided in
grant form.
6. A review of the role of international organizations in providing food aid.
Pillar 2 — Domestic Support
Only 35 out of 149 members have notified use of trade-distorting domestic
subsidies in their country schedules. During the 1995-2001 period for which
notification data are available, three countries — the EU, the United States, and
Japan — accounted for 91% of all domestic subsidies used by WTO members.22
What Was Agreed to in the Framework.
1. General Concepts
a. Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for substantial reductions in trade-
distorting domestic support.
b. Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) remains an
integral
component of domestic support: developing countries to be given smaller
cuts with a longer implementation period and continued access to AA,
Article 6.2 — special exemptions for investment and input subsidies.
c. There will be a strong element of harmonization in the reductions made
by Developed Members. A tiered, progressive formula TBD will be used
for implementing all reductions.
2. Amber Box — Current bounds are detailed in country schedules.
22 See Appendix Table 4 of RL30612 as listed in Information Sources below.

---

CRS-23
a. Substantial reductions (TBD) from bound levels.
b. Limits (TBD) will be placed on supports for specific products in order to
avoid shifting support between different products.
3. De Minimis exemptions — The current bound for non-product-specific
support is 5% of the total value of agricultural production (TVP); for product-
specific support it is 5% of the value of production for each specific product
(PVP). Developing countries are bound at 10% for both measures.
a. Substantial reductions, TBD, that take into account SDT.
4. Blue Box — Currently unbound; includes only production limiting direct
payments.
a. “Members recognize the role of the Blue Box in promoting agricultural
reforms.”
b. To be bound at no more than 5% of TVP (or PVP for individual products)
during an historical period TBD.
c. Will be expanded to include direct payments that do not require production
under certain conditions (e.g., U.S. counter-cyclical payments (CCP)).
d. Criteria TBD will be added to ensure that blue box payments are less trade
distorting than AMS measures.
5. Overall Ceiling for Trade-Distorting Domestic Support — The sum of
amber box, blue box, and de minimis is currently unbound.
a. Substantial reductions (TBD) including an initial 20% cut enacted in the
first year, with further cuts to be negotiated.
b. If the sum of bound ceilings for amber box, de minimis, and blue box is
still above the Overall Ceiling, then additional cuts in at least one of them
must be made to comply with the Overall Ceiling commitment.
6. Green Box — Criteria will be reviewed and clarified to ensure that Green Box
measures have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects on production.
Domestic Support Issues to Be Resolved.
1. Formula for reductions in bounds for Overall and Amber Box:
-Levels and number of tiers.
-Rate and formula for within-tier cuts encompassing greater harmonization.
-Levels for individual commodity limits within the amber box.
2. Blue box disciplines:
-Formula for establishing bound levels as a share of production value.
-Base period against which to measure bounds.
3. De Minimis disciplines:
-Formula for establishing bound levels as a share of production value.
-Base period against which to measure bounds.

---

CRS-24
Pillar 3 — Market Access
All countries have market access barriers, whereas only some have export
subsidies or Amber or Blue Box domestic support. Therefore, the range of interest
in market access reform is more complex and is proving more difficult to achieve.
What Was Agreed to in the Framework.
1.
All members must improve market access substantially for all products.
2.
The Framework gives no tariff reduction formula, but provides direction:
a. All members except LDCs must improve market access.
b. Tiered and progressive: larger within-tier cuts for higher tiers.
c. Reductions to be made from “bound” rate, not (generally lower)
applied rate.
d. Special & Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries:
i.
Smaller formula commitments in tariff reductions.
ii.
Greater access to and treatment of sensitive products.
iii. A longer implementation period.
iv. Designation of a number of products as Special Products, eligible
for more flexible tariff treatment, based on criteria of food
security, livelihood security, and rural development need.
e.
Sensitive Products:
i.
Principle of substantial improvement in market access TBD.
ii.
Appropriate number of permissible sensitive products TBD.
Market Access Issues to Be Resolved.
1.
Harmonized tariff reduction scheme:
a.
Levels and number of tariff tiers.
b.
Rate and formula for within-tier tariff cuts.
c.
Tariff caps, i.e., a bound maximum tariff rate.
2. Parameters
governing
Sensitive Products:
a.
Limit on sensitive products (how many and what treatment?).
b.
Tariff rate quota (TRQ) formula for linking quota to reduced tariff via:
(1) MFN-based tariff quota expansion required of all sensitive
products;
(2) within and over-quota tariff reductions.
c. Improved administration of TRQs.
d. Reducing or eliminating tariff escalation associated with increasing
stages of value-added products.
3. Exact nature of SDT for developing countries:
a. Lesser commitments; longer implementation period; greater flexibility
for sensitive products
b. Special products (i.e., related to food or livelihood security, or rural
development) given additional flexibility.

---

CRS-25
c. Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSG) — to deal with surges in imports
or falling prices — are to be available for developing countries. Their
status is TBD with respect to developed countries.
d. Special treatment of agricultural product alternatives to illicit narcotic
crops.
e. Erosion of trade preferences when the WTO agreement supercedes
bilateral or regional trade agreements.
4. Treatment of Least-Developed Countries (LDCs): should LDCs be given a
“free” round with no new market access commitments TBD?
5. Geographical Indications (GIs): will GIs be a part of any final agreement
and, if so, how will they be defined and implemented?
Potential Effects of a Successful Doha Round
The economic and policy implications of trade liberalization are briefly reviewed
at three levels: analysis of global trade and income effects; existing U.S. policy
context; and analysis of U.S. domestic agricultural income and policy effects.
In estimating the economic benefits to the U.S. and world from a new round of
trade liberalization, two points must be kept in mind. First, based on the current
proposals for reforming the domestic and trade policy of WTO members, any
agreement from the Doha Round will institute only a “partial” liberalization, i.e., it
will allow countries to maintain some policies (whether domestic subsidies or border
measures) that continue to distort agricultural trade. Second, current proposals deal
with setting limits on aggregate spending categories. If adopted, each individual
member country will ultimately decide how to implement their domestic policies so
as to achieve the aggregate spending limits agreed to under a new trade agreement.
Global Trade and GDP
According to the several recent economic analyses of the potential economic
benefits from global trade liberalization, the following common conclusions
emerge.23
! Policies that distort agricultural trade account for roughly two-thirds
of all policies that distort trade in goods of any kind.
! Of policies that distort world agricultural trade, tariffs and tariff-rate
quotas are by far the most costly — accounting for 80% to 90% of
the cost — with domestic support and export subsidies comprising
the remainder.
23 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined several economic studies of global
trade liberalization completed during the 2001 to 2005 period and have summarized the
results in its report, The Effects of Liberalizing World Agricultural Trade: A Survey, Dec.
2005; available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6909/12-01-TradeLib.pdf].

---

CRS-26
! A significant gap between bound and applied tariff rates for most
products in most countries suggests that substantial tariff cuts in
bound rates (those affected by Doha Round negotiations) will have
to be realized before applied rates are actually lowered.
! Similarly, a significant gap between bound and actual domestic
spending levels suggests that substantial cuts in bound domestic
spending limits (those affected by Doha Round negotiations) will
have to be realized before actual spending levels are lowered.
! Much of the eventual market access gains will be determined by the
treatment of sensitive products, i.e., their number and the extent to
which they are exempted from reform.
A 2005 World Bank study to measure the effects of a partial trade liberalization
(using cuts to tariff and subsidy bounds similar to those contained in the G-20
proposal, but with no special treatment for “sensitive” or “special” products) found
that such reform would produce annual welfare benefits to the world (in 2001
dollars) of $74.5 billion once fully implemented.24 This compares with a potential
annual benefit of $182 billion under full trade liberalization and suggests both the
potential economic importance of a successful Doha Round as well as the extent of
remaining policy reform needed to achieve full liberalization.
However, the World Bank study also found that if developed countries are
allowed to select 2% of their tariff lines (4% for developing countries) as sensitive
products and provide them with special TRQ protection that includes very high
above-quota tariffs, then annual economic benefits from trade liberalization would
fall to $17.7 billion.25 In other words, nearly 80% of the potential economic gains
would be eliminated. The same study also found that a substantial portion of the
potential economic benefits could be preserved, even with a 2% sensitive product
threshold, if above-quota tariffs are capped at 200%. Under this scenario the annual
economic benefits from trade liberalization are estimated at $44.3 billion.
U.S. Farm Policy Implications
Current Doha reform proposals suggest that substantial changes will be needed
for several phases of existing U.S. agricultural policies. These are briefly reviewed
below.
Export Competition. The United States uses export subsidies and export
credit guarantees to support some of its commodity exports, and is a major donor of
international food aid. As a result, changes in these programs will have some
impacts on U.S. commodity markets and trade policy.
Elimination of Export Subsidies. Although the United States has the
second-largest level of permissible export subsidies under current WTO limits, it
24 Ibid., p. 9.
25 Ibid., p. 10.

---

CRS-27
uses only a very small share of its allowable level.26 Milk and milk products are the
principal beneficiaries of U.S. export subsidies.
Reform of Agricultural Export Credit Guarantees. The United States is
the world’s leading user of export credit guarantees.27 In FY2004, nearly $3.7 billion
worth of U.S. agricultural exports (out of a total of $62.4 billion) were facilitated
with agricultural export credit guarantees. Current Doha reform proposals would
likely reduce the effectiveness of traditional export credit guarantees at supporting
U.S. commodity exports into price-competitive markets. However, on-going U.S.
changes in its export credit guarantee program, made in response to a WTO dispute
settlement ruling against certain features of the U.S. cotton program,28 are likely to
bring them into compliance with Doha reform proposals, thereby necessitating little
if any further changes.
Changes in Food Aid Programs. The United States is among the world’s
leading food aid donors. In FY2004, nearly $2.2 billion worth of U.S. agricultural
exports (out of a total of $62.4 billion) were made under some form of U.S. food aid
program (including PL480, Food-For-Peace, and McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education and Child Nutrition Program). Since most of U.S. food aid is in the
form of commodity donations rather than cash, U.S. food aid donations will likely
be reduced to the extent that reforms to food aid limit or restrict the donation of
actual commodities.29
Domestic Support. The United States together with the EU and Japan account
for nearly 90% of global agricultural domestic support subsidies.30 As a result, these
three countries are most likely to bear the brunt of the economic consequences
associated with new disciplines on domestic support. Table 1 contains information
on U.S. domestic support and various Doha Round reform proposals.
Reductions to Bound Level of Amber Box Spending. Under the U.S.
proposal for reform of domestic support (Table 3), the U.S. amber box ceiling would
be lowered by 60% to approximately $7.6 billion. This compares with current amber
box spending in FY2005 of an estimated $12.7 billion and an amber box ceiling of
$19.1 billion. As a result, U.S. domestic support programs would require some
redesign (with likely box shifting) to be able to meet such a lower ceiling. Although
there are many ways that such changes could be achieved, a likely candidate would
26 See footnote 12 for source.
27 For more information, see CRS Report RL32278, Trends in U.S. Agricultural Export
Credit Guarantee Programs and P.L. 480, Title I, FY1992-2002; and USDA, Foreign
Agricultural Service, Export Programs at [http://www.fas.usda.gov/exportprograms.asp].
28 For more information, see CRS Report RL32014, WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S.
Compliance in Pending Cases; and CRS Report RS22187, U.S. Agricultural Policy
Response to WTO Cotton Decision.
29 For more information, see CRS Report RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid
Programs.
30 For more information, see CRS Report RL30612, Agriculture in the WTO: Member
Spending on Domestic Support.

---

CRS-28
include shifting away from market-distorting programs such as loan deficiency
payments (LDP) or marketing loan gains (MLG) and towards greater use of green
box programs such as decoupled direct payments, conservations payments, or rural
infrastructure development.
Tightening of De Minimis Bounds. Under the U.S. proposal for reform of
domestic support (Table 4), the de minimis exemptions, both non-product specific
and product specific, would be bound at 2.5% of the value of relevant production
(i.e., either aggregate or commodity specific). For non-product specific de minimis,
this would result in a ceiling of about $5 billion, compared with estimated
exemptions of $6.2 billion in FY2005. However, shifting the counter-cyclical
payments (CCP) to the blue box (see below) would bring spending under the de
minimis exemptions back into line with their proposed commitments.31
Establishment of Bound on Blue Box. Under both the framework
agreement and the U.S. proposal for reform of domestic support, CCPs would be
eligible for the blue box. The U.S. proposal also recommends establishing a blue box
ceiling of 2.5% of the total value of national agricultural production (TVP). For the
United States, 2.5% of TVP would be approximately $5 billion. The U.S. currently
has no spending in the blue box, however, CCP outlays are estimated at $4.2 billion
in FY2005.32
Market Access. There is substantial potential for U.S. agricultural exports to
expand under an international system of improved market access based on lower
tariffs and increased quotas. In contrast, further reductions in tariff levels are
unlikely to produce significant increases in imports for most U.S. agricultural
commodities since U.S. agricultural tariffs are already very low relative to most other
nations and relatively few commodities receive tariff-rate quota (TRQ) protection.
Dairy products, beef, and sugar are three of the major U.S. beneficiaries of TRQ
protection. Each of these products are likely to continue to receive protection as
“sensitive” products under a new DDA agreement (although no specific information
concerning the identification of sensitive products has yet been made by the United
States or any other negotiating country). Expanded quota levels would likely result
in increased imports for each of these commodities.
The U.S. proposal does not provide any specificity regarding the administration
of TRQs; however, the G-20 proposal recommends that minimum access quotas be
set at 6% of domestic consumption for some undefined base period. Australia
recommended a higher access quota level of 8-10% of domestic consumption.
31 The CCP program was first authorized under the 2002 farm bill. U.S. notification to the
WTO of its domestic spending is complete through 2001. As a result, the U.S. has not yet
notified CCP spending as pertaining to a specific box. However, its design and operation
suggest that CCP spending would qualify as a non-product specific AMS outlay.
32 See CRS Report RS21970, The Farm Economy.

---

CRS-29
Potential Economic Impact on U.S. Agriculture
In response to a request by the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
Senator Chambliss, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)
analyzed the potential impacts on U.S. agriculture of the U.S. proposal (see Tables
1-3 for details of the U.S. proposal).33 Under the U.S. proposal, the amber box
(AMS) annual limit falls to $7.6 billion (representing a 60% cut from the previous
$19.1 billion limit). To achieve this lower spending limit, FAPRI had to make
specific assumptions about U.S. farm policy reform (see Table 4).34 In particular,
loan rates for grain, oilseed, and cotton, and the dairy support price were reduced by
11%; sugar loan rates were reduced by 16% (to avoid excessive stock accumulation);
and CCP payments were redirected from the amber box to the redefined blue box.
For all non-sensitive products, tariff reductions are made in accordance with the tiers
described in Table 2. In addition, for each designated sensitive product TRQs were
increased by 7.5% of the 1999-2001 level of domestic consumption. Finally, export
subsidies are eliminated by 2010.
In addition to the above program changes, two scenarios were evaluated: an
“uncompensated” scenario where all target prices were reduced by 7%; and a
“compensated” scenario where instead of lowering target prices, direct payment rates
were increased by 7%. CCP payments equal the target price minus the per unit direct
payment rate minus the higher of the loan rate or the market price. Thus, both of
these scenarios have the effect of lowering CCP payments by 7%. The difference is
that in the “compensated” scenario government outlays are increased to offset the
lower CCP payment. Replacing non-product specific CCP payments with decoupled
direct payments represents shifting from the capped blue box to the unlimited green
box. A summary of the net effect of these changes is presented in Table 4 and are
described briefly below.
Under the Uncompensated Scenario. Annual net government outlays are
reduced by 22.5% but net farm income is still up by $1.3 billion (2.4%) as increases
in prices resulting from increased exports offsets at least some of the reduction in
payments. Rice producers experience a sharp jump (5.7%) in combined market
returns plus government payments. However, returns plus payments remain below
baseline levels for corn, soybeans, and cotton.
Under the Compensated Scenario. Annual net farm income is up by $3.4
billion (6.5%) as the increase in direct payments further offsets reductions in CCPs
33 FAPRI, Potential Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of the U.S. October 2005 WTO Proposal,
FAPRI-UMC Report #16-05, Dec. 15, 2005, hereafter referred to as FAPRI (2005);
available at [http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2005/FAPRI_UMC_
Report_16_05.pdf]. The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)
conducted supporting analysis of the effects on global markets in U.S. Proposal for WTO
Agricultural Negotiations: Its Impact on U.S. and World Agriculture, CARD Working Paper
05-WP 417, Dec. 2005, hereafter referred to as CARD (2005); available at
[http://www.card.iastate.edu/ publications/DBS/PDFFiles/05wp417.pdf].
34 The program changes were selected so as to restrict violation of WTO limits to less than
5% of the stochastic outcomes from 500 simulations runs. See FAPRI (2005) for details.

---

CRS-30
and loan benefits. For rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans, average estimated returns plus
payments exceed the baseline levels. Of the five major program crops, only for
cotton do returns plus payments remain below baseline levels.
Under Both Scenarios. Crop and livestock receipts are up by about $2 billion
and $4.2 billion, respectively. Livestock receipts increase in response to higher
prices for cattle, hogs, poultry, and milk, due to increased U.S. meat and poultry
exports. Higher crop receipts result from both increased feed demand and exports.
Key drivers behind the higher international commodity prices and higher U.S.
exports include the following.35
! Removal of export subsidies raises prices in the international wheat,
barley, rice, sugar, beef, and dairy markets.
! Expansion of TRQs, in general, increase trade in those protected
commodities by exposing highly protected markets to lower
international prices.
! Tariff reductions, in general, raise the demand for traded products,
while reductions of domestic support reduce competition from more
inefficient producers.
! Expansion of rice TRQs in Japan and South Korea, in particular,
push international rice prices higher by 8% on average.
! Tariff reductions and the removal of the Special Safeguard
Mechanism in Japan raise both demand and prices for pork and beef.
In the FAPRI study, U.S. farm real estate values experience small, but significant
changes. Under the uncompensated scenario, average U.S. farm land values decline
by 1.4% as the reduction in government payments (-22.5%) more than offsets higher
market returns. Factors other than net market returns and payments affect land
values, but changes in profitability play an important role and (in the uncompensated
scenario) translate into lower projected future revenue streams to the land. Under the
compensated scenario, farm real estate values increase by 1.7% as slightly lower
projected government payments (-1.8%) are more than offset by expected market
returns suggesting improved long-run returns to the land.
35 For more details see CARD (2005).

---

CRS-31
Table 4. Summary of FAPRI Analysis of U.S. Proposal
Absolute Changes
Percent Changes
Base-
Uncomp-
Comp-
Uncomp-
Comp-
linea
ensatedb
ensatedc
ensatedb
ensatedc
Policy change:
Loan rates
-11%
-11%
Sugar loan rates
-16%
-16%
Milk support price
-11%
-11%
Target prices (TP)
-7%
-7%
Direct payment rates
0%
7%*TPd
WTO Indicators
$ billion
AMS limit
19.1
7.6
7.6
-60%
-60%
Product-Specific AMS
9.4
4.7
4.7
-50%
-50%
Blue box limit
9.5
4.8
4.8
-50%
-50%
CCPs
3.1
1.5
1.5
-50%
-50%
Net Govt Outlays
16.5
12.5
16.0
-24%
-3%
Crop Returns +
$ per acre
Govt payments
Corn
424
418
434
-1.3%
2.4%
Soybeans
254
247
257
-2.5%
1.5%
Wheat
177
179
187
0.8%
5.1%
Upland Cotton
582
545
571
-6.3%
-1.8%
Rice
768
812
841
5.7%
9.5%
Farm Income
$ billion
Crop Receipts
125.1
127.1
127.1
1.6%
1.6%
Livestock Receipts
112.2
116.4
116.4
3.8%
3.7%
Govt payments
16.7
12.9
16.4
-22.5%
-1.8%
Production Costs
237.7
239.1
240.5
0.6%
1.2%
Net Farm Income
53.1
54.4
56.5
2.4%
6.5%
Source: Abridged from Table 1 of FAPRI (2005). The reported data for all categories represent
averages for the three-year period, 2012-2014, where all program reforms have been fully
implemented.
a. Baseline assumes the elimination of the Step 2 program for cotton, but no other program reforms.
b. The uncompensated scenario assumes program reforms commensurate with the U.S. proposal
including a 7% cut in all target prices to achieve a reduction in CCP outlays.
c. The compensated scenario is similar to the uncompensated but uses a 7% increase in per-unit direct
payments, instead of a 7% cut in target prices, to achieve a reduction in CCP outlays.
d. Direct payment rates are increased by 7% of the target price for each commodity.

---

CRS-32
Information Sources
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL32060, World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha
Development Agenda, by Ian F. Fergusson.
CRS Report RS21905, Agriculture in the WTO Doha Round: The Framework
Agreement and Next Steps, by Charles E. Hanrahan.
CRS Report RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs, by Charles E.
Hanrahan.
CRS Report RL32278, Trends in U.S. Agricultural Export Credit Guarantee
Programs and P.L. 480, Title I, FY1992-2002, by Carol Canada.
CRS Report RL32916, Agriculture in the WTO: Policy Commitments Made Under
the Agreement on Agriculture, by Randy Schnepf.
CRS Report RL30612, Agriculture in the WTO: Member Spending on Domestic
Support, by Randy Schnepf.
CRS Report RS20840, Agriculture in the WTO: Limits on Domestic Support, by
Randy Schnepf.
CRS Report RS21569, Geographical Indications and WTO Negotiations, by Charles
E. Hanrahan.
CRS Report RS21712, The African Cotton Initiative and WTO Agriculture
Negotiations, by Charles E. Hanrahan.
Other Sources
Anderson, Kym, and Will Martin, Eds., Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha
Development Agenda, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan and the World Bank, 2006);
available at [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/TRADE/
0,,contentMDK:20517767~menuPK:207652~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~the
SitePK:239071,00.html].
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), The Effects of Liberalizing World Agricultural
Trade: A Survey, Dec. 2005; available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/
doc6909/12-01-TradeLib.pdf].
European Commission, Agriculture, International Trade Relations,
[http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/external/wto/index_en.htm].
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), Potential Impacts on U.S.
Agriculture of the U.S. October 2005 WTO Proposal, FAPRI-UMC Report #16-05,

---

CRS-33
Dec. 15, 2005; available at [http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/
2005/FAPRI_UMC_Report_16_05.pdf].
FAPRI, U.S. Proposal for WTO Agricultural Negotiations: Its Impact on U.S. and
World Agriculture, CARD Working Paper 05-WP 417, December 2005; available at
[http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/05wp417.pdf].
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Online information on U.S. trade
negotiations and agreements, available at [http://www.ustr.gov/].
Polaski, Sandra, Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing
Countries, Carnegie Endowment Report, March 2006. [http://www.
carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18083&prog=zgp
&proj=zted].
USDA, FAS, International Trade Policy Division, Online information on U.S. trade
negotiations and agreements, [http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/tradepolicy.asp].
USDA, ERS, World Trade Organization Briefing Room, [http://www.ers.usda.gov/
briefing/WTO/].
WTO, Agriculture Negotiations: Backgrounder: The Issues and Where We Are Now,
[http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd00_contents_e.htm].

---

CRS-34
Appendix Table 1. Chronology of Key Events
Dates
Key Events
1986-1994
Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
1994
Uruguay Round culminated in the establishment of the World
Trade Organization (WTO). The Agreement on Agriculture
was one of 29 legal texts underwriting the WTO and its
administration of rules governing international trade.
Nov. 9-13, 2001
Current Doha Development Agenda (DDA) or Doha Round of
multilateral negotiations was initiated in Doha, Qatar.
July 31, 2004
WTO Doha Round negotiations produce an interim guideline
document, the Framework Agreement, to solidify existing
commitments and to guide negotiations of details for final
agricultural agreement.
Jan. 1, 2005
Current Doha Round of multilateral negotiations was scheduled
to end, but several 2003 and 2004 deadlines were missed. As
a result, DDA negotiations continue with no formal schedule,
but subject to several looming deadlines.
Summer 2005
USDA initiates farm bill listening sessions around the country.
Oct. 10-14, 2005
Series of position papers released by major negotiations
participants including the U.S., EU, G-10, and G-20.
Oct. 27, 2005
EU released updated proposal in response to concerns about the
inadequacy of its first proposal’s market access offerings.
Dec. 13-18, 2005
WTO Hong Kong Ministerial.
July
24,
2006
Indefinite Suspension of Doha
Development
Agenda
Negotiations
July 1, 2007
U.S. Trade Promotion Authority expires.
Sept. 30, 2007
2002 farm bill expires.
Source: Compiled by CRS from various sources.

---

CRS-35
Appendix Table 2. Key Players in the WTO DDA Negotiations
Group
Members
Big Two
U.S. and EU.
Big Three
U.S., EU, and Japan.
New Quad
U.S., EU, India, and Brazil.
C-4
The group of 4 African cotton-producing countries — Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad,
and Mali — that have proposed a sectoral Doha Round initiative for cotton.
FIPS
Five Interested Parties: U.S., EU, Brazil, India, and Australia.
FIPS Plus
FIPS plus Argentina, Canada, Switz., Japan, China, and Malaysia.
G-5
Group of Five: U.S., EU, Japan, India, and Brazil.
G-6
G-5 plus Australia.
G-7
A group of 7 nations — U.S., Japan, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy
— whose finance ministers and/or Heads of State meet to discuss political and
economic developments.
G-8
G-7 plus Russia.
(G-8)+5
G-8 plus 5 countries — Brazil, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa — with
major emerging economies.
G-10
Group of 10 developed, net importing countries that subsidize domestic
agriculture: Bulgaria, Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Liechtenstein,
Mauritius, Norway, Switzerland, and Chinese Taipei.
G-20
Group of some 20+ major developing countries whose members vary but
essentially includes Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Venezuela.
G-33
Group of 33 (now expanded to 42) developing countries otherwise called the
“friends of special products” including China, Turkey, Indonesia, India, Pakistan,
plus some African, Caribbean, South American, and Asian countries.
G-90
Group of Least-Developed Countries (LDCs).
Cairns Group
Members are generally free-market oriented and supportive of increased trade
liberalization. Members include Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada,
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Paraguay, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay.
LDCs
The WTO recognizes as least-developed countries (LDCs) those countries which
have been designated as such by the United Nations. There are currently 50 LDCs
on the U.N. list, 32 of which to date have become WTO members. A complete
listing is available at [http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/
org7_e.htm].
Note: For more information, see the WTO trade negotiations background report, WTO Agriculture
Negotiations: The Issues, and Where We Are Now, “Key to Groups,” Dec. 1, 2004, pp. 83-84;
available at [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ agnegs_bkgrnd_e.doc].

---

CRS-36
Appendix Table 3. Key Terms From
the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the DDA
1. The Agreement on Agriculture (AA)
Text of agricultural policy reform commitments agreed to under the Uruguay
Round (1986-1994) of WTO multilateral trade negotiations.
2. The Three Pillars of agricultural policy reform
a. Export competition
i. Export
subsidies
ii. Export credit
iii. Food Aid
iv. State Trading Enterprises
b. Domestic Support
i. Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS): summary measure of a
country’s total level of trade-distorting domestic subsidies.
ii. Amber box: non-exempt trade-distorting subsidies; individual
members’ amber box bounds are listed in their country schedules.
iii. Blue box: production-limited subsidies; unbound.
iv. De Minimis-non-product specific: bound <5% of total production.
value.
v. De Minimis-product specific: bound <5% of specific prod. value.
vi. Green Box: minimally distorting subsidies; unbound.
c. Market Access
i. Bound and Applied Tariffs
ii. Sensitive Products Treatment
iii. Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) administration
iv. Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSMs)
3. Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries
a. Smaller commitments and longer implementation periods
b. Other flexibilities and privileges
4. Least-Developing Countries
a. Free Round: no new commitments
5. WTO Framework Agreement (referred to as the “Framework”)
a. The Framework provided agreement on a general framework for reform
within each of the three main “pillars” of agricultural trade with details to
be worked out in subsequent negotiations.
b. The Framework touched on several “non-pillar” issues: including cotton
subsidies and geographical indications.
Source: For detailed definitions see “CRS Reports” listed in Information Sources, above.

---