No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The European Model of Agriculture and World Trade: Reconfiguring Domestic Support
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Extract
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.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2003
References
1 OECD, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2000 (OECD 2000), Table III, 29. For these purposes the ‘producer support estimate’ is defined as ‘an indicator of the annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm-gate level, arising from policy measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on farm production or income’: ibid, 20. See also, eg, Kennedy, KC, ‘Reforming Farm Trade in the Next Round of WTO Multilateral Trade Negotiations’ (2001) 35 Journal of World Trade 1061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 OECD, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2000, Table III, 62.
3 See, eg, ABARE, ‘Multilateral Trade Negotiations: What is Required to Reform Domestic Agricultural Support Through the WTO?’ [2000] 3 ABARE Current Issues 1–7Google Scholar.
4 See, eg, Scott, J, ‘Tragic Triumph: Agricultural Trade, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Uruguay Round’ in Emiliou, N and O’Keefe, D (eds), The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round (John Wiley 1996), 165 Google Scholar.
5 IP/00/295, WTO Farm Negotiations: ‘EU Constructive but Firm ‘, Franz Fischler Says, Brussels, 24 March 2000.
6 (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm, visited on 3 June 1998), para 1. See also, eg, European Commission, Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union, COM(1997)2000, Part One, III, 2: the proposed measures would ‘enhance the Union’s negotiating stance in the New Round’.
7 (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm, visited on 3 June 1998), para 1.
8 [1958] JO p 281. The Stresa Conference was convened under Art 43(1) of the EEC Treaty (now Art 37(1) EC) to ‘evolve the broad lines of a common agricultural policy’ through comparison of the agricultural policies of Member States.
9 European Commission, The Development and Future of the CAP: Reflections Paper of the Commission, COM(91)100, 9–10.
10 See, eg, Pisani, E, Pour une Agriculture Marchande et Ménagère (Éditions de l’Aube 1994)Google Scholar.
11 (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm, visited on 3 June 1998), para 3.
12 COM(2002)394, 5.
13 Ibid, 2. See also, eg, Commissioner Fischler, Speech/02/342, Presentation of the CAP Mid-term Review at the Agricultural Council, Brussels, 15 July 2002: ‘The European model of agriculture is identical with the goals of Agenda 2000. The Commission continue to believe in this model’.
14 COM(2002)394, 11.
15 (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm, visited on 3 June 1998), para 3.
16 Directions for Future Farm Policy: The Role of Government in Support of Production Agriculture—Report to the President and Congress (Washington, DC 2001), xv and xvi. See also, eg, United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century (Washington, DC 2001); and Coulthard, RA, ‘The Changing Landscape of America’s Farmland: A Comparative Look at Policies which Help to Determine the Portrait of Our Land—Are There Lessons that We Can Learn from the EU?’ (2002) 6 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 261 Google Scholar.
17 See, eg, Hamilton, ND, ‘Reaping What We have Sown: Public Policy Consequences of Agricultural Industrialization and the Legal Implications of a Changing Production System’ (1997) 45 Drake Law Review 289 Google Scholar.
18 See, eg, Bohman, M et al, The Use and Abuse of Multifunctionality (Economic Research Service/USDA, Washington, DC 1999)Google Scholar (www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wto/PDF/multifunc1119.pdf, visited on 23 January 2001).
19 Speech/01/10, The CAP after Agenda 2000: The Achievements and Challenges, Berlin, 18 January 2001.
20 For a useful summary of the progress of the Agenda 2000 reforms to the Berlin Summit, see, eg, Ackrill, R, The Common Agricultural Policy (Sheffield Academic Press 2000)Google Scholar, Tables 4.1–4.3. See also, eg, Galloway, D, ‘ Agenda 2000—Packaging the Deal’ (1999) 37 Journal of Common Market Studies Annual Review 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ackrill, RW, ‘CAP Reform 1999: A Crisis in the Making?’ (2000) 38 Journal of Common Market Studies 343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 European Commission, Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Union, COM(1997)2000, Part One, III, 4.
22 Opinion No 10/98 of the European Court of Auditors on Certain Proposals for Regulations within the Agenda 2000 Framework, OJ 1998 C 401/1, para 20.
23 Council Regulation (EEC) 1766/92, OJ 1992 L 181/21, Art 3(1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1253/1999, OJ 1999 L160/18.
24 Council Regulation (EC) 1251/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/1, Art 4.
25 OJ 1999 L 160/113.
26 For the direct support schemes to which cross-compliance and the discretion to modulate applied, see the Annex to the 1999 Horizontal Regulation.
27 For the implementing legislation in England, see the Common Agricultural Policy Support Schemes (Modulation) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 3127). Following the Foot-and-Mouth epidemic, the Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended an increase to 10% from 2004 and that, if substantial Common Agricultural Policy reform was not delivered in 2006–2007, the Government should give serious consideration to a further increase to the maximum of 20%: Farming and Food—a Sustainable Future (Policy Commission on Farming and Food 2002), 77.
28 Speech/01/165, Food Quality, Östersund, 10 April 2001 (France and the United Kingdom were joined by Portugal).
29 Agra-Europe Weekly, No 2004, 24 May 2002, at N/1.
30 OJ 1999 L 160/80.
31 Ibid, Art 23(2).
32 For the provisions governing inclusion within less-favoured areas, see ibid, Arts 17–20 (these provisions reflecting concern over land abandonment). See, generally, eg, Dax, T and Hellegers, P, ‘Policies for Less Favoured Areas’ in Brouwer, F and Lowe, P (eds), CAP Regimes and the European Countryside (CABI Publishing 2000), 179 Google Scholar.
33 Council Regulation (EC) 950/97, OJ 1997 L 142/1, Arts 17–19.
34 OJ 1999 L 160/80, Art 13.
35 The restrictions in question were to be the result of implementation of limitations on agricultural use based on Community environmental protection rules: ibid, Art 16(1).
36 European Commission, Bulletin of the European Union, 3–1999, at I.12.
37 COM(2002)394, 9.
38 It may be noted that the various reviews envisaged were brought together into a single package. In particular, the review of the milk quota system was initiated earlier than required by Council Regulation (EC) 1256/1999, OJ 1999 L 160/73, Art 3 (setting 2003 as the date for conducting a mid-term review).
39 See, generally, eg McMahon, JA, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy: From Quantity to Quality?’ (2002) 53 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 9 Google Scholar.
40 On the Community law implications of ‘higher standards’, see, in particular, Dougan, M, ‘Minimum Harmonization and the Internal Market’ (2000) 37 Common Market Law Review 853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Respectively, COM(99)719; and OJ 2002 L 31/1.
42 See, eg, Speech/01/301, Quality Production: The New Challenge of the Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels, 21 June 2001.
43 Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, OJ 1991 L 198/1, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1804/1999, OJ 1999 L 221/1.
44 See, eg, Case C–87/97 Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister and Bracharz [1999] ECR I–1301 (Cambozola); Joined Cases C–289/96, C–293/96 and C–299/96 Denmark v Commission [1999] ECR I–1541 (Feta); and Case C–108/01 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v Asda Stores Ltd, 20 May 2003 (Parma ham).
45 See, generally, eg, Camm, T and Bowles, D, ‘Animal Welfare and the Treaty of Rome—a Legal Analysis of the Protocol on Animal Welfare and Welfare Standards in the European Union’ (2000) 12 Journal of Environmental Law 197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 OJ 1999 L 203/53.
47 Similar unhurried implementation could be found in the case of legislation to improve the welfare of pigs, with stalls for sows not to be prohibited altogether until 1 January 2013: Council Directive 2001/88/EC, OJ 2001 L 316/1. See also, eg, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food News Release 30/01, Morley Welcomes Proposals for EU Sow Stall Ban, 29 January 2001.
48 Case C–189/01 [2001] ECR I–5689. See also Spaventa, E, (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 1159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Case C–189/01 [2001] ECR I–5689, para 73.
50 COM(2002)394, 3.
51 Speech/03/326, ‘The New, Reformed Agricultural Policy ‘, Luxembourg, 26 June 2003.
52 The Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy had proposed a 5% reduction: COM(2002)394, 13–14.
53 OJ 2003 L 270/1.
54 See, eg, COM(2002)394, 19 and 20; and see post.
55 The direct support schemes initially covered by the single farm payment are set out in Annex VI to the 2003 Horizontal Regulation. As and when they are reformed, other direct support schemes will be included.
56 The 2003 Horizontal Regulation, OJ 2003 L 270/1, Arts 72–78.
57 Ibid, Art 71.
58 Ibid, Art 66.
59 The statutory management requirements are set out in ibid, Annex III.
60 For the Community framework, see ibid, Annex IV.
61 COM(2002)394, 21.
62 See, eg, Court of Auditors, Special Report No 14/2000 on Greening the CAP, para 18 and Table 4 (relating to environmental protection requirements on land set-aside).
63 COM(2003)23, 10; and MEMO/03/18, Outcome of the Agri/Fisheries Council of 27/28 January 2003, Brussels, 29 January 2003.
64 COM(2002)394, 23.
65 See, eg, MEMO/02/198, Commission Publishes Indicative Figures on the Distribution of Direct Farm Aid, Brussels, 1 October 2002. See also Agra-Europe Weekly, No 2017, 23 August 2002, A/1–2.
66 COM(2003)23, 12.
67 A matter of some interest is that the United States Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 imposed a 360,000 Dollar limitation on payments.
68 As from the 2007 budget, an adjustment in direct payments will be triggered when forecasts indicate that the ceiling for Common Agricultural Policy market-related expenditure and direct payments will be exceeded, allowing for a margin of 300 million Euros and before the applica tion of modulation: the 2003 Horizontal Regulation, OJ 2003 L 270/1, Art 11.
69 Ibid, Arts 10 and 12.
70 IP/03/898, EU Fundamentally Reforms its Farm Policy to Accomplish Sustainable Farming in Europe, Luxembourg, 26 June 2003.
71 Implementation of both these chapters by Member States is voluntary, although it had been proposed that in the case of the former it be compulsory.
72 The Rural Development Regulation, OJ 1999 L 160/80, Art 23(2), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1783/2003, OJ 2003 L 270/70.
73 COM(2002)394, 7.
74 See, eg, Commissioner Fischler, Speech/02/342, Presentation of the CAP Mid-term Review at the Agricultural Council, Brussels, 15 July 2002: and Speech/02/412, Adjusting the CAP to Better Meet its Objectives, Brussels, 20 September 2002.
75 See, generally, eg, Cahill, SA, ‘Calculating the Rate of Decoupling for Crops under the CAP/Oilseeds Reform’ (1997) 48 Journal of Agricultural Economics 349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and OECD, Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview (OECD 2001)Google Scholar. For compatibility with URAA criteria of domestic support following the Mid-term Review, see post.
76 On property rights implications see, eg, Rodgers, CP, ‘Agenda 2000, Land Use, and the Environment: Towards a Theory of ‘Environmental’ Property Rights?’ in Holder, J and Harrison, C (eds), Law and Geography (Oxford University Press 2003), 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 Speech/02/342, Presentation of the CAP Mid-term Review at the Agricultural Council, Brussels, 15 July 2002.
78 COM(2002)394, 2.
79 EC Measures concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (1998), WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R.
80 On the URAA, see, eg, Scott, J, ‘GATT and Community Law: Rethinking the “Regulatory Gap”’ in Shaw, J and More, G (eds), New Legal Dynamics of European Union (Clarendon Press 1995), 147 Google Scholar; Epstein, PJ, ‘Beyond Policy Community: French Agriculture and the GATT’ (1997) 4 Journal of European Public Policy 355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ingersent, KA, Rayner, AJ and Hine, RC (eds), Agriculture and the Uruguay Round (Macmillan 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim; Scott, J, ‘Tragic Triumph: Agricultural Trade, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Uruguay Round’, in Emiliou, N and O’Keefe, D (eds), The European Union and World Trade Law: After the GATT Uruguay Round (John Wiley 1996), 165 Google Scholar; Josling, TE, Tangermann, S and Warley, TK, Agriculture in the GATT (Macmillan 1996), 175–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Coleman, WD and Tangermann, S, ‘The 1992 CAP Reform, the Uruguay Round and the Commission: Conceptualizing Linked Policy Games’ (1999) 37 Journal of Common Market Studies 385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 Art 1(a). For the detailed provisions governing the calculation of the AMS, see Annex 3.
82 By way of example, the United States has an established pattern of domestic food aid (Annex 2, para 4).
83 COM(2003)23, 4.
84 For developing countries the threshold was 10%.
85 This exemption was achieved by excluding blue box domestic support from the calculation of the Current Total AMS: Arts 1(h) and 6(5)(b).
86 See, generally, eg, Coleman, WD and Tangermann, S, ‘The 1992 CAP Reform, the Uruguay Round and the Commission: Conceptualizing Linked Policy Games’ (1999) 37 Journal of Common Market Studies 385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
87 European Commission, The Agricultural Situation in the European Union: 1998 Report (Brussels: Luxembourg, 1999), 150.
88 For discussion of the current round of agriculture negotiations under the umbrella of the WTO, see, eg, Josling, T and Tangermann, S, ‘Implementation of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Developments for the Next Round of Negotiations’ (1999) 26 European Review of Agricultural Economics 371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Swinbank, A, ‘CAP Reform and the WTO: Compatability and Developments’ (1999) 26 European Review of Agricultural Economics 389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McNiel, DE, ‘Furthering the Reforms of Agricultural Policies in the Millennium Round’ (2000) 9 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 41 Google Scholar; Usher, JA, EC Agricultural Law 2nd edn (Oxford University Press 2001), 6079Google Scholar; McMahon, JA (ed), Trade and Agriculture: Negotiating a New Agreement? (Cameron May 2001)Google Scholar, passim; Rude, J, ‘Under the Green Box: The WTO and Farm Subsidiesș (2001) 35 Journal of World Trade 1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, KC, ‘Reforming Farm Trade in the Next Round of WTO Multilateral Trade Negotiations’ (2001) 35 Journal of World Trade 1061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Landau, A, ‘The Agricultural Negotiations in the WTO: The Same Old Story?’ (2001) 39 Journal of Common Market Studies 913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Beierle, T, ‘Agricultural Trade Liberalization—Uruguay, Doha, and Beyond’ (2002) 36 Journal of World Trade 1089 Google Scholar.
89 Speech/03/77, Reaction to Chairman Harbinson’s Draft Modalities Paper on Agriculture, Brussels, 13 February 2003.
90 European Commission, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002, 2.
91 Speech/01/10, The CAP after Agenda 2000: The Achievements and Challenges, Berlin, 18 January 2001.
92 G/AG/NG/W/90, 14 December 2000.
93 Ibid.
94 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/1, 14 November 2001, para 13.
95 European Commission, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002, 5–6. See also European Commission, EU Agriculture and the WTO: Doha Development Agenda—Cancún—September 2003: info (Brussels 2003), para 2.3.
96 (http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/actual.htm, visited on 3 October 2002). The Cairns Group has consistently argued for major reductions in amber box domestic support and, indeed, its eventual elimination: see, eg, Cairns Group Negotiating Proposal: Domestic Support, G/AG/NG/W/35, 22 September 2000.
97 TN/AG/W/1, 17 February 2003, paras 45 and 50. These suggestions were retained in the revised version of the first draft modalities issued on 18 March 2003: TN/AG/W/1/Rev 1, paras 46 and 51.
98 IP/03/1160, EC and US Propose a Framework for a Joint Approach on Agricultural Questions in WTO, Brussels, 13 August 2003.
99 G/AG/NG/W/90, 14 December 2000.
100 OECD, A Matrix Approach to Evaluating Policy: Preliminary Findings from PEM Pilot Studies of Crop Policy in the EU, the US, Canada and Mexico, COM/AGR/CA/TD/TC(99)117 (OECD 2000), 6 (cited in European Communities Proposal: The Blue Box and Other Support Measures to Agriculture, G/AG/NG/W/17, 28 June 2000).
101 European Communities Proposal: The Blue Box and Other Support Measures to Agriculture, G/AG/NG/W/17, 28 June 2000.
102 European Commission, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002, 6.
103 US Proposal for Global Agricultural Trade Reform (http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/wto/ actual.htm, visited on 3 October 2002). For an earlier example of such an approach, see, eg, Proposal for Comprehensive Long-term Agricultural Trade Reform: Submission from the United States, G/AG/NG/W/15, 23 June 2000.
104 See, eg, Cairns Group Negotiating Proposal: Domestic Support, G/AG/NG/W/35, 22 September 2000.
105 TN/AG/W/1, 17 February 2003, para 43. Only minor amendments were made in the revised version of the first draft modalities issued on 18 March 2003: TN/AG/W/1/Rev 1, para 44.
106 Speech/02/342, Presentation of the CAP Mid-term Review at the Agricultural Council, Brussels, 15 July 2002.
107 Sixth Report from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee: The Implications for UK Agriculture and EU Agricultural Policy of Trade Liberalisation and the WTO Round (Session 1999–2000), HC 246–I, para 51.
108 G/AG/NG/W/90, 14 December 2000.
109 European Commission, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002, 6.
110 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/1, 14 November 2001, para 13. The inclusion of these words was treated as a positive outcome by the Community: see, eg, IP/01/1584, ‘New WTO Round Slap in the Face for Isolationism’, Says EU Farm Commissioner Fischler, Doha, 14 November 2001; but arguably marked no advance on the position under the URAA.
111 Speech/01/148, Trends in Agricultural Policy: Opportunities for a Closer Transatlantic Relationship, Brussels, 29 March 2001. See also, eg, OECD, Written Comments on the Document ‘Multifunctionality: A Framework for Policy Analysis’ [AGR/CA(98)9], AGR/CA/RD(99)1 (OECD 1999), paras 240–241.
112 See, eg, ABARE, ‘“Multifunctionality”: A Pretext for Protection?’ [1999] 3 ABARE Current Issues 1–6.
113 G/AG/NG/W/19, 28 June 2000.
114 See, eg, European Communities Proposal: Animal Welfare and Trade in Agriculture, G/AG/NG/W/19, 28 June 2000; EC Comprehensive Negotiating Proposal, G/AG/NG/W/90, 14 December 2000; Green Box: Non-paper from the European Communities, 6865, 24 September 2001; and European Commission, The EC’s Proposal for Modalities in the WTO Agriculture Negotiations, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002, 7.
115 TN/AG/W/1, 17 February 2003, para 40 and attachment 7. This suggestion survived, in slightly amended form, into the revised version of the first draft modalities issued on 18 March 2003: TN/AG/W/1/Rev 1, para 41 and attachment 8.
116 Respectively, OJ 2003 L 270/1, Arts 3–4 and Annex III; and OJ 1999 L 160/80, Arts 22–24, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1783/2003, OJ 2003 L 270/70.
117 COM(2002)394, 19.
118 European Commission, Ref 625/02, Brussels, 16 December 2002.
119 Speech/02/339, The Mid-term Review: Towards a Policy that Pleases Everybody, Wageningen, 12 July 2002.
120 For early use of this expression, see Centre for World Food Studies, Amsterdam and Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague, The CAP-reform Proposal of the Mid-term Review: Decoupling with Strings Attached, one of the four external impact analyses published by the European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture (Mid-term Review: External Impact Analyses, Brussels, 2003).
121 See post.
122 (http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg06/ag2000/agprop/mot_en.htm, visited on 3 June 1998), para 1.
123 On the approach to be adopted by the Community institutions where the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy conflict, see, eg, Case C–311/90 Hierl v Hauptzollamt Regensburg: ‘The Court has held that in pursuing the objectives of the common agricultural policy the Community institutions must secure the permanent harmonization made necessary by any conflicts between those objectives taken individually and, where necessary, give any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made …’: [1992] ECR I–2061, para 13.
124 See, eg, COM(2002)394, 20.
125 Ibid, 27.
126 Centre for World Food Studies, Amsterdam and Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague, The CAP-reform Proposal of the Mid-term Review: Decoupling with Strings Attached (European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture, Mid-term Review: External Impact Analyses, Brussels, 2003), 61. It may also be noted that the OECD in Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview distinguishes between a policy measure that is ‘effectively fully decoupled’ and a policy measure that is ‘fully decoupled’. The former requires that production (or trade) should not differ from the level that would have occurred in the absence of the measure. The latter, more restrictively, requires that the equilibrium level of production (or trade) be the same as without the measure and that the quantity adjustment due to any outside shock also be unaltered. As a result, it is accepted by the OECD that ‘it seems difficult to contend that any policy measure can be entirely production or trade neutral’ Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview (OECD 2001), 5.
127 There must also, however, be observance of the fundamental requirement that such support has, at most, minimal trade-distorting effects or effects on production.
128 COM(2002)394, Table 1.
129 United States Department of Agriculture Transcript, Release No 207.02, Foreign Press Center Briefing with JB Penn, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services on the 2002 Farm Bill and the Implications for World Trade, 22 May 2002. See also, eg, MEMO/02/94, Questions and Answers: US Farm Bill, Brussels, 15 May 2002 (Farm Bill expenditure calculated at 180 billion Dollars over 10 years).
130 IP/00/295, WTO Farm Negotiations: ‘EU Constructive but Firm’, Franz Fischler Says, Brussels, 24 March 2000.