Abstract
If a WTO case could be chosen to prove how trade patterns can be shifted as a result of a dispute settlement decision, that case would be DS 266 European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar. Before the dispute, the EC was the world’s largest sugar exporter, even with extremely high production costs. Brazil, Australia, and Thailand were more competitive sugar producers, but their sugar exports were unfairly displaced in third markets by cheap-subsidized EU sugar. The international trade of sugar used to be one of the most protected in the world. Brazil, a low-cost producer and competitive exporter of agricultural goods, faced multiple tariff and nontariff barriers to export the commodity, especially, from the European Union. The EU built its sugar subsidies regime in the late 1960s, combining several tools to support the production and export of sugar, such as high tariffs, a price support system, and export subsidies. To try to erode this protectionist framework, the Brazilian government and the sugar industry decided to take the issue to the dispute settlement mechanism of the Word Trade Organization (WTO). The outcome of this WTO dispute made international sugar trade more equitable and based on competitive advantage. Along with the cotton case, the results of the sugar dispute also advanced Brazil’s leadership at the WTO Doha Round negotiations, especially regarding agricultural subsidies. By revamping the agricultural subsidy policies of the two major superpowers through a legal—and legitimate—tool, Brazil also gained support from NGOs and the general public, drawing attention to the importance of nonsubsidized agricultural trade to promote the well-being of farmers, rural cities, and workers in developing countries. Although it could be argued that the Doha Round is now dead, the Nairobi decision to prohibit export subsidies of agricultural products could be also traced back to the sugar dispute learning curve experience. Unlike the cotton litigation, which lasted longer, the dispute over the European sugar subsidies is a salutary example of rapid use of the multilateral dispute settlement system with effective implementation of the recommendations. Today, the EC imports an average of 3.25 million tons of sugar per year, and the complainant countries had significantly increased their world exports in both volume and value. In addition to building a strong legal case, the team of diplomats, lawyers, and private sector representatives involved in the construction of the dispute also had to work on a strong enlightenment campaign with the media, civil society (NGOs), and representatives of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, with preferential access to the European market. It was a victory won inside and outside the WTO DSB with a strong partnership between the government and the private sector.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CAMEX or the Brazilian Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Prior to the Cancun WTO Ministerial Conference, in September 2003, Brazil led a developing countries’ coalition (G-20) focused on the liberalization of trade in agriculture, especially pressing for ambitious subsidies reform in developed countries. G-20 Members were: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
- 2.
Netherlands Economic Institute (NEI), Evaluation of the common organization of the market in the sugar sector, 2000, p. 113.
- 3.
EC Council Regulation No. 1260/2001.
- 4.
Schedule CXL: European Communities, Section II, Part IV Agricultural Products.
- 5.
EC–Bananas, where the AB cited the case US–Sugar Headnote, under GATT.
- 6.
The author of this Article was the Brazilian representative to such meetings.
- 7.
“Brazil’s production is forecast to rise 1.1 million tons to a record 40.2 million. Exports are projected up 1.1 million tons to a record 29.6 million on greater exportable supplies and despite China’s safeguard measure to limit sugar imports from Brazil.” USDA September 2017 Sugar Report at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/sugar-world-markets-and-trade.
References
Aquino C (2005) O Regime de Açúcar das Comunidades Europeias e seus efeitos sobre o setor açucareiro brasileiro. IRBR
Aquino C (2010) e outros O Contencioso entre Brasil e Comunidades Europeias sobre Subsídios ao Açúcar (DS 266), in O Brasil e o Contencioso na OMC – Série GVLAW, Solução de Controvérsias, Tomo I, capítulo 2, Ed. Saraiva
Aquino C (2013) Solucionar controvérsias com resultados concretos: o caso dos subsídios do açúcar contra as CE. FUNAG
Canada – Measures affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (WT/DS103/33 e WT/DS113/33)
EC Court of Auditors, Special Report No. 20/2000, February 2001
EC Notifications to the WTO: G/AG/R/15 e G/AG/R/17
EC Regulations N° 318/2006; N° 769/2006; and N° 967/2006
European Commission (2004) The Common Organisation of the Market In Sugar, Agriculture Directorate-General, p 11
F.O. Licht International, World Sugar Yearbook 2001, 2003, 2005
Netherlands Economic Institute (NEI) (2000) Evaluation of the common organization of the market in the sugar sector
Oxfam International (2002) The Great EU Sugar Scam. How Europe’s Sugar Regime is devastating livelihoods in the developing world
Regulamento (CE) 1785/81, JOCE L 177 de 1° de julho de 1981
Regulamento N° 1260/2001 do conselho Europeu e Regulamento N° 65/82 da Comissão Europeia
Schedule CXL: European Communities, Section II, Part IV Agricultural Products
USDA September 2017 Sugar Report at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/sugar-world-markets-and-trade
WTO Reports: European Communities-Export Subsidies on Sugar (WT/DS266/R e WT/DS266/AB/R)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aquino Bonomo, C.S. (2019). Reshaping International Trade with the WTO Dispute Settlement: The Sugar Case (DS 265/266/283). In: do Amaral Júnior, A., de Oliveira Sá Pires, L.M., Lucena Carneiro, C. (eds) The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03262-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03263-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)