18th March 2008
The need for Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanisms for agriculture in the WTO:
The 1 August Decision introduced two new ‘pegs’ on which to hang Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries in agriculture. They are ‘Special Products’ (SP) and a ‘Special Safeguard Mechanism’ (SSM). But the Decision provides no detail on their scope and use – other than that they appear to be limited to market access commitments. This is left for further negotiations.
If they are to avoid being out manoeuvred as they were in the Uruguay Round (where they largely failed, for example, to take advantage of the possibilities to register possible AMS & SSGs), developing countries need to work out how SP and SSM might support their food security and rural livelihood policies. This is harder than it sounds. Thinking (and policy) on food security has developed a great deal in the past decade; the WTO debates have been left behind. For WTO rules to be framed in a way that is relevant to current concepts of food security, countries need to undertake baseline situation analysis and also scenario analysis to identify how trade rule changes might impact on household food security.
For a full list of ICTSD publications on special products and the special safeguard mechanism, please click here.
Only then will they be in a position either to add detail in further Doha negotiations to the bare concepts set out in the 1 August Decision or to ensure that their own Doha schedules are appropriately framed to be hung on the SDT pegs. It requires trade negotiators and food security specialists to communicate! Analysis is required in three main areas to show how food security and household vulnerability might be affected by the direct and indirect effects of WTO rule change. They are: surges in subsidised food imports, increased competition for products that are especially important for the rural economy, and the effects of tariff cuts on government expenditure in support of household food security.