Annex 2 To The Wto Agreement On Agriculture

Veröffentlicht am

96 European Commission, COM (2011) 627, preamble (37) and art. 5. You will find another political agreement on these reforms in the European Commission, MEMO/13/621, “CAP Reform – A Statement of the Main Elements,” Brussels, 26 June 2013. Measures in this category include expenditures (or spending abandonments) for programs that provide services or benefits to agriculture or the rural community. They must not include direct payments to producers or processors. These programs, which include the following list, but are not limited to the following list: meet the general criteria set out in paragraph 1 and meet the specific conditions described below: (a) the eligibility of these payments is determined by a loss of income that only takes into account farm incomes above 30% of average gross income or equivalent in net income (excluding identical or similar plans) in the previous three years or an average of three years on the basis of the previous five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest positions. Any manufacturer that fulfils this requirement can receive payments. 131 WTO, Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(05)/DEC, 22 December 2005, para. 6; However, an agreement in Hong Kong did not rule out continuing negotiations on details (for example.

B value and volume commitments): see z.B. “Paper Challenge” of April 30, 2007 paragraph 55, accessed May 7, 2013. (d) these products are marked with the ST 5 symbol of section I-B of the protocol attached to the Marrakech Protocol attached to the Marrakech Protocol, as they are subject to special treatment on factors related to non-trade-related issues, such as food security and environmental protection; and two. Members commit to working on the development of internationally agreed disciplines to regulate the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programs and to provide export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programs only in accordance with these disciplines. 109 There is a political agreement on this issue within the European Commission, MEMO/13/621 (n 96); For the old proposed regulation, see European Commission, COM (2011) 625, Art 29-33. It is significant that this “greening” is considered “beyond conditionality”: ibid., explanatory statement, 7-8 62 European Communities – Customs Classification of certain computer equipment (5 June 1998) WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB and WT/DS68/AB/R, para. 84 (repeatedly in the context of agricultural trade in Canada- Dairy import and export measures (October 13, 1999) WT/DS103/AB/R and WT/DS113/AB/R, point 131). On the other hand, the terms of the GATT cannot be used as a basis for dispute resolution procedures, but can be used for interpretive purposes: see p.B. European Communities-Export Subsidies on Sugar (15 October 2004) WT/DS265/R, paragraph 7.350 (where the panel states that “[GATT`s terms] are not a covered agreement and therefore cannot provide WTO rights and obligations to members. Nevertheless, they could be important for the interpretation of the Agreement on Agriculture, including the schedules of members.

43 On the other hand, it should be noted that for FAO purposes, “agriculture” covers both fishing and forestry: see in general Young, MA, “Fragmentation or interaction: The WTO, Fisheries Subsidies, and International Law” (2009) 8 World Trade Review 477CrosRefGogleo ScholarPubMed.