Determinación de concentración de metales

The GATT Agreement on Agriculture'^* aims to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system. The Agreement thus provides for commitments in the area of market access, domestic support and export competition. In the area of market access, non-tariff border measures are replaced by tariffs that provides substantially the same level of protection. Tariffs resulting from this " tariffication " process, as well as other tariffs on agricultural products, are to be reduced by an average 36% in the case of developed countries and 24% in the case of developing countries, with minimum reductions for each tariff line being required. Reductions are to be undertaken over six years in the case of developed and over ten years in the case of developing countries. Least-developed countries are not required to reduce their tariffs.

The Agreement applies the Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (Total AMS) to regulate domestic subsidy. According to Article 1 of the Agreement, AMS means the annual level of support, expressed in monetary terms, provided for an agricultural product in favour of the producers of the basic agricultural product or non-product-specific support provided in favour of agricultural producers in general. The Total AMS covers all support provided on either a product-specific or non-product-specific basis that qualifies for exemption and is to be reduced by 20% (13.3% for developing countries with no reduction for least-developed countries) during the implementation period. Article 7 also provides the " green box " policies to exclude some domestic support measures, that have a minimal impact on trade, from reduction commitments. Such policies include general government services, for example in the areas of research, disease control, infrastructure and food security. It also includes direct payments to producers, certain income support, structural adjustment assistance, direct payments under environmental programmes and under regional assistance programmes. However, the legitimation of some domestic support under the green-box policies will become a controversial issue. Deciding whether a domestic subsidy is allowed by GATT will be difficult. At its worst, domestic subsidy can be used as a substitute for export subsidy or other protective purposes.'*^

According to Article 9, members of the WTO are required to reduce the value of

^*GATT. MTN/FA O -AlA-3.

mainly direct export subsidies to a level 36% below the 1986-90 base period level over the six-year implementation period, and the quantity of subsided exports by 21% over the same period. In the case of developing countries, the reductions are two-thirds those of developed countries over a ten-year period (with no reductions applying to the least- developed countries) and subject to certain conditions, there are no commitments on subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural products or internal transport and freight charges on export shipments. Agricultural subsidies have increased since the 1990-94 period. Reduction commitments based on the 1986-90 base will bring very limited contribution.'^^ For instance, the EC budget expenditure on the CAP had increased from 25,992 million ECU in 1990 to 36,417 million ECU in 1992, which represented a 38.37% growth in two years period.'^ In addition, export subsidies may still be replaced by other substitutes such as domestic subsidies for protective purposes. Article 9 calls for the 21% export volume curbs to be made evenly, at about 3.5% a year, over the six years. But, the Agreement on Agriculture does not indicate how to implement that commitments. It then opens to discretionary powers of WTO members. Some members may want to be able to shift the cuts to the end of the timetable, in the hope they will not have to be made at all.'^^ To avoid controversy, it will be more meaningful to fix an annual cut rate over the implementation period, such as the case in the Agreement on Textile and Clothing for MF A phase-out.

Overall, the Agreement provides a framework for the long-term reform of agricultural trade and domestic policies over the years to come. Article 17 of the Agreement also sets up a Committee on Agriculture that will monitor the implementation of commitments. It makes a decisive move towards the objective of increased market orientation in agricultural trade. The rules governing agricultural trade are strengthened which will lead to improved predictability and stability for importing and exporting countries alike.

^^F.T. * Gatt jigsaw starts to fall into place ’, December 6 ,1 9 9 3 , p J .

^ E C Commission. Our Farming Future. (1993), at 23.

c . The Common Agricultural Policy 1. Objectives of the CAP

The bases of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are to be found in Articles 38 and 39 of the EEC Treaty. Article 38 lays down the basic framework for the introduction of a common market in agricultural products and provides for the further introduction of a common agricultural policy. The main objectives of the CAP, as defined in Article 39, are to increase agricultural productivity, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilize markets, and to ensure that supplies are available to consumers at reasonable prices. These objectives may not all be simultaneously and fully attained."^^ In many cases, the simultaneous pursuit of all these objectives may inevitably lead to conflicts. In Balkan v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. the ECJ held that the EC institutions are allowed to decide the priority of Article 39 objectives in order to satisfy the demands of economic factors or conditions.'*^ Deciding on the priority of objectives often involves a complicated decision-making procedure. The ranking of the objectives in particular situations is, therefore, usually a result of compromise between Member States and the EC institutions.'**

In general, the EC has recognized the priority of the interests of producers over those of consumers. The Commission has described the CAP as ‘ a system of support of farmers’ income mainly through the support of market prices ’.'*^ The Court has also confirmed that the price structure is directed primarily at the income of the producers rather than of others in the food c h a i n . T h e priority of the support of farmer’s incomes over other considerations is sometimes based on a social goal. For instance. Directive 75/268^* recognizes the need to provide farmers with a minimum standard of living. It is based on the considerations . not only for economic reasons but also in order

^^Case 5/67, Beus v Hauptzollamt München, [1968] ECR 83 at 98.

^^Case 5/73, Balkan-Import-Expoit vHauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof, [1973] ECR 1091 at 1112.

'**Case 29/77, Roquette v France, [1977] ECR 1835 at 1844.

COM (80) 800 final (1980), at 3.

^**Case 2/75, Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle Getreide v Mackprang, [1975] ECR 607 at 616.

to maintain a social fabric in rural areas, which will preserve the environment and maintain the balance of land use/^

The CAP, according to Article 38:1, shall extend to trade in agricultural products. Article 38:2 provides that ‘ Save as otherwise provided in Article 39 to 46, the rules laid down for the establishment of the common market shall apply to agricultural products It follows from this provision that the CAP has precedence, in case of any discrepancy, over the other rules relating to the establishment of the common market.^^ This confirmed that the CAP has precedence over other EC policy areas. The EC must give more favourable consideration to the implementation of the CAP even under international commitments undertaken by the EC i t s e l f . T h e aim of CAP is to achieve not only self- sufficiency but also a proper balance in its trade with the rest of the world. In line with the Common Commercial Policy (CCP), the CAP has profound effects on world markets in agricultural products.^^