Michael Cardwell

Agriculture and international trade: law, policy and the WTO.

The Uruguay Round Agreement on agriculture and domestic support farm subsidies and agricultural trade policy - the case of US support programmes TRIPS and the protection of intellectual property in biotechnology in the United States TRIPS, biotechnology and the public domain - what role will world trade law play? regulating GM products in the EU - risk, precaution and international trade international trade in genetically altered agricultural products - impact of the bio-safety protocol environmental policy and reform of European agricultural law reforming United States environmental regulations for agriculture - impediments and opportunities. (Part contents.)

Renegotiation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Accommodating the New Big Issues

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture was designed to maximize trade flows at a time of surplus agricultural production. It required Members to open markets and to reduce domestic and export subsidies. Proposals for reform in the Doha Round negotiations largely adopt the same pattern. Yet, as surplus is replaced by shortage, Members are increasingly concerned about food security and the impact of agriculture on climate change. And contemporary agricultural policies crystallize around ‘sustainable intensification’, where domestic production is promoted, but not at the expense of future production. This article suggests that, although both the Agreement on Agriculture and the Doha Round proposals do provide some scope for measures to address this new policy paradigm, there are instances where they may work actively against it.

Contemporary problems of climate change and the TBT Agreement: Moving beyond eco-labelling

A relatively new frontier for legal and policy analysis, technical barriers to trade (TBT’s) have become more common as traditional border barriers have been reduced. This comprehensive Handbook comprises original essays by eminent trade scholars exploring the implications of the WTO’s TBT Agreement.

European Union Agricultural Policy and Practice: The New Challenge of Climate Change

Climate change has been identified as a new challenge for EU agricultural policy which must be addressed as a matter of priority. The importance of climate-friendly agricultural practices in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions already receives some recognition under the current legislative framework; and the proposed regulations for the period 2014–2020, issued in October 2011, indicate that this importance will be considerably enhanced. Such practices will be examined with specific reference to: cross-compliance obligations attached to direct payments to farmers (under Pillar I of the CAP); more targeted rural development measures (under Pillar II of the CAP); and sustainability criteria in respect of feedstock for biofuels and bioliquids, as laid down by the Renewable Energy Directive. In addition, the article will consider two broader issues which each present an obstacle to any regulation in this area. The first issue is the inherent difficulty in creating a regime that is sensitive to the complexities and uncertainties which pervade the climate change debate, yet, at the same time, can be effective in practice. A second issue is the further inherent difficulty of finding in this context the appropriate balance between measures implemented under respectively Pillar I and Pillar II of the CAP, both Pillars having their apparent strengths and weaknesses.

Public Rights of Way and Level Playing Fields: Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Comments on the European Court of Justice decision in R. (on the application of Horvath) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (C-428/07) on the requirements for maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

The Release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment: Public Concerns and Regulatory Responses

Public concern about the health and environmental implications of genetically modified organisms has not been allayed. This concern has been reflected in, for example, consumer choice and the reluctance of juries to convict those protesting against field trials. Two aspects of the response by the Community legislature may be examined: first, increasing recourse to the precautionary principle; and, secondly, the proposed regime to address environmental liability. The adequacy of such measures is, however, to be judged against the background of calls at the highest level for an entrepreneurial Community to participate more fully in the biotechnology revolution.

Stretching the Boundaries of Multifunctionality? An Evolving Common Agricultural Policy within the World Trade Legal Order

Agriculture has been the unruly horse of the GATT/WTO system for a long time and efforts to halter it are still ongoing. This Research Handbook focuses on aspects of agricultural production and trade policy that are recognized for their importance but are often kept out of the limelight, such as the implication of national and international agricultural production and trade policies on national food security, global climate change, and biotechnology. It provides a summary of the state of the WTO agriculture negotiations as well as the relevant jurisprudence, but also, and uniquely, it focuses on the new and emerging issues of agricultural trade law and policy that are rarely addressed in the existing literature.

The European Model of Agriculture and World Trade: Reconfiguring Domestic Support

The level of support to agricultural producers in the Community has remained high notwithstanding the commitments imposed under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (‘URAA’). Thus, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD’), the ‘producer support estimate’ for the period 1986–1988 amounted to 44 per cent of gross farm receipts and the proportion rose marginally to 45 per cent in 1998. It may also be noted that, while the proportion in the case of the United States was approximately half that of the Community, the figure for 1998 was likewise not dissimilar from that for the period 1986–1988 (respectively 22 and 25 per cent). As a result, Cairns Group countries have felt able to direct strong criticism against the two great exporters of agricultural produce. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.

Blurred Legal Characteristics work in Favour of a Competitive Dairy Industry in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom the imposition of milk quotas has given rise to many novel issues of law. As in other Member States, these difficulties may in part be attributed to the distinctive national context in which the Community rules were implemented. For example, agricultural tenancies have traditionally been subject to statutory regulation, which provided inter alia that outgoing tenants should receive compensation for improvements; and inclusion of milk quotas within this statutory framework has prompted specific and complex legislation. By contrast, the relative absence of a written constitution has limited the extent to which milk quotas may be protected in national law by any ‘right to property’. Perhaps most importantly, however, United Kingdom agriculture has in recent years become increasingly characterised by a willingness to embrace market forces. This tendency may be illustrated by such developments as the deregulation of the tenanted sector under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’) and by the liberal approach adopted towards Common Agricultural policy, reforms under Agenda 2000 1 . In the case of milk quotas themselves, it may therefore be regarded as no coincidence that they were swiftly treated as a tradeable commodity. Thus, by the second year of the milk quota system (1985/86), some 386 million litres were permanently transferred; 2 and there were temporary transfers of quota prior even to express sanction by Community regulation. 3 The development of this trade may be regarded as the most distinctive characteristic of the operation of the milk quota system in the United Kingdom. Indeed, as confirmed before the House of Commons Agriculture Committee, the Government has deliberately implemented the transfer provisions in as flexible a manner as possible with the objective of securing an efficient dairy industry. 4 Farmers seeking to commence or increase production have been able to acquire quota to meeting their requirements, while farmers seeking to reduce or discontinue milk production have been able to turn their quota to account. 5 Further, maximum and efficient use of the national guaranteed total quantity has prevailed over other, more ‘social’ considerations, such as special provision for new entrants to the dairy industry.