Livestock & WTO

8/13/2019 Livestock & WTO

1/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1 9 9 9 , 1 8 ( 2 ), 4 4 0 - 4 5 7

Th e e c o n o m i c i m p l i c a t i o n s o f g r e a t e r g l o b a l t r a d ei n l i v e s t o c k a n d l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t sL e s l i e (1 ) & M . U p t o n ( 2 )

( 1 ) V e t e r i n a r y E p i d e m i o l o g y a n d E c o n o m i c s U n i t , D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f R e a d i n g , E a r l e y G a t e ,P . O . B o x 2 3 6 , R e a d i n g R G B 6 A T , U n i t e d K i n g d o m( 2 ) D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l a n d F o o d E c o n o m i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f R e a d i n g , E a r l e y G a t e , P .O . B o x 2 3 7 ,R e a d i n g R G 6 6 A R , U n i t e d K i n g d o m

S u m m a r yT h e U r u g u a y R o u n d o f t h e G e n e r a l A g r e e m e n t o n Ta r i f f s a n d T r a d e ( G A T T )e s t a b l i s h e d t h e W o r l d Tr a d e O r g a n i z a t i o n t o s u p e r v i s e t h e r e d u c t i o n o f b a r r i e r s t o ,a n d l i b e r a l i s a t i o n o f , w o r l d t r a d e . T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s a n i t a r y a n d p h y t o s a n i t a r ym e a s u r e s w i l l b e s t a n d a r d i s e d t o a v o i d u s e f o r p r o t e c t i o n i s t p u r p o s e s b yc o u n t r i e s o r r e g i o n a l t r a d e b l o c k s . H a r m o n i s a t i o n o f a n i m a l d i s e a s e c o n t r o lm e a s u r e s w i t h i n r e g i o n a l b l o c k s i s e s s e n t i a l i f b e n e f i t s t o f r e e r t r a d e a r e t o o c c u r ,b u t t h i s h a r m o n i s a t i o n m u s t b e b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t p o t e n t i a l d i s e a s e r i s k s a n d c o s t sa s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i s e a s e o u t b r e a k s . W o r l d t r a d e i n l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t s i sc o n c e n t r a t e d a m o n g d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s , a l t h o u g h d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s a r er e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y a t h i r d o f p o u l t r y m e a t i m p o r t s a n d e x p o r t s . D e s p i t el i b e r a l i s a t i o n , t h e s h a r e o f g l o b a l t r a d e b y d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s i s u n l i k e l y t oi n c r e a s e g r e a t l y i n t h e s h o r t t e r m . T h e b e n e f i t s o f t r a d e a n d o f f r e e r t r a d e a r ee m p h a s i s e d . E x a m p l e s a r e g i v e n o f t h e i m p a c t s o f t r a d e b a r r i e r s o n d e v e l o p i n gc o u n t r i e s a n d o f t h e h a r m o n i s a t i o n o f E u r o p e a n U n i o n a n i m a l h e a l t h s t a n d a r d s .E c o n o m i c i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r e o f g r e a t e r g l o b a l t r a d e a r e a s s e s s e d .K e y w o r d sD e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s - G e n e r a l A g r e e m e n t o n T a r i f f s a n d T r a d e - I n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e -M e a t - S a n i t a r y a n d p h y t o s a n i t a r y r e g u l a t i o n s - W o r l d Tr a d e O r g a n i z a t i o n .

I n t r o d u c t i o nThe Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tar i f fs andTr ade ( G ATT) , wh i c h e s t ab l i s h e d t h e Wo r l d Tr adeOrganizat ion (W T O ), has helped in formal is ing internat ionalpressures for t rade l iberal i sat ion through the reduct ion oftariffs (taxes on traded goods) and quantitative constraints onmarket access and the reduct ion of compet i t ion fromsubsidised exports . In th is contex t , technical regulat ions , suchas animal heal th and sani tary contro ls on imports are seen asnon-tar i f f barr iers , which may hinder the abi l i ty of countr ies ,in par t icular low income countr ies (LICs) , to take advantageof the more l iberal t rade environment . These technicalregulat ions should therefore be subjected to careful scrut inyto assess whether they are just i f ied.

At the same t ime, the integrat ion of groups of nat ions in freetrade areas or common markets , requires the harmonisat ionof veter inary and animal heal th contro l measu res amo ng th em e m b e r s . In b o t h t h e s e de v e l o p m e n t s , t h e e c o n o m i c ga i n sfrom freer t rade must be set against the potent ial costs o frelaxing contro ls on animal diseases , and of heal th and safetym e as u r e s .

In th is paper the above i ssues are explo red in greater depth , asfollows:- the h is tor ical back grou nd to the pressures for freer t rade,and the growth of regional t rade blocks are out l ined- the benef i ts o f free t rade to both potent ial importers andpotent ial expor ters are examined


2/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 18 ( 2 ) 4 4 1

- the costs o f restr icting t rade are com pare d with the benef i tsof contro l l ing animal disease- the analysis i s i l lustrated with som e case-study exam ples .

P r e s s u r e s f o r t r a d e l i b e r a l i s a t i o nWi t h t h e de v e l o p m e n t o f i m p r o v e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o f a l lkinds, recent decades have seen rapid growth of in ternat ionaltrade. It is estimated that the total value of world trade is, as at1 9 9 8 , equivalent to roughly one s ixth of the aggregate incomeof the wor ld; we al l l ive and work in a global economy (11) .However , the growth of in ternat ional t rade has sufferedset -backs , such as the great economic depress ion of the1930s . The ef fects o f th is cr is is were probably exacerbated bythe fact that governments of the major t rading nat ionsadopted pol ic ies of protect ionism; these countr ies restr ictedimports as a means of protect ing their a i l ing domest icindustr ies . Such pol ic ies , a imed at promot ing greatersel f -suff ic iency, were cont inued dur ing World War I I .Among the lessons learned was that removal of t rade barr iersis l ikely to encourage economic recovery and growth. To th isend the GATT was establ ished in 1947, wi th the object ive ofl iberal i s ing t rade between the 23 countr ies which were par tyto the agreement . S ince then, the volume of wor ld t rade hasincreased 16-fo ld, far more rapidly than aggregate income;wh i l e m e m b e r s h i p o f G ATT ( n o w r e p l ac e d b y t h e W T O ) h asr isen to 132, wi th 30 other countr ies wai t ing to jo in ,i n c l u di n g Ru s s i a an d C h i n a . Th e m e m b e r n a t i o n s a r eresponsible for over 9 0 % of wor ld t rade (3 ) . Over a ser ies of' rounds ' o f negot iat ion , tar i ffs have been red uced from 4 0 %b y v a l u e i n 1 9 47 , t o l e s s t h an 4 % i n 1 9 9 8 ( 1 1 ) .The growth of t rade in agr icul tural products has al lowed agreater divers i ty of diets throughout the wor ld and theestabl ishm ent of in ternat ional agr icul tural process ingindustr ies . Trade in l ivestock products was largely l imited tocross border movements of animals , unt i l the development ofrefrigerated t ransport in the 18 90 s . This lead to the creat ion ofmajor l ivestock t rading routes from the New World of theAmericas , Austral ia and New Zealand to the Old World ofwestern Europe. More recent pat terns of l ivestock t rade arediscussed below.Pr ice support for agr icul ture ; including l ivestock, has longb e e n t h e n o r m i n t h e h i gh i n c o m e e c o n o m i e s , a l th o u gh s o m ecountr ies , notably New Zealand and Austral ia , haveab an do n e d t h e p r ac t i c e . In t h i s c o n t e x t , t h e C o m m o nAgricul tural Pol icy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) hasbecome notor ious for creat ing 'mountains ' o f surplusp r o du c e . M e an wh i l e , m an y de v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s , b e f o r e an dafter inde pen den ce, taxed agr icul tural expor ts to f inance thegeneral economic development of the country. Over the1 9 70s an d e ar l y 1 9 8 0s m an y o f t h e s e c o u n t r i e s u s e d d i r e c ttaxes on agr icul ture , including l ivestock, and levied tar i f fs onexports , whi ls t o thers taxed exports indirecdy, through the

exchange rate , by maintain ing an overvalued domest iccurrency. The lat ter resul ts in foreign exchange beingar t if i c ial ly chea p, and impo rts and exports being u ndervalue d.In ef fect , th is means that agr icul tural and other exportproducers are effectively taxed by receiving an artificially lowprice , in the local currency conver ted at the off ic ial exchangerate . S imi lar ly, the pr ices of domest ic food crops are taxed inthe sense that they are depressed by compet i t ion fromartificially cheap imports. This is i l lustrated later in the casestudy of l ivestock t rade in Wes t Afr ica .These sets o f condi t ions , whereby some countr ies subsidiseagr icul ture , whi le o thers do not , provide scope for the formergroup to export surplus produce at a pr ice below the cost o fproduct ion in those countr ies where agr icul ture i s notprotected. This pract ice , known as 'dumping' , provides unfaircompet i t ion and a dis incent ive to domest ic producers .In the latest round of GATT negot iat ions , known as ' theUr u gu ay Ro u n d ' ( 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 9 4 ) , n e go t i a t i o n s we r e e x t e n de d t ocover the problems of protect ionism in the agr icul tural andtext i le industr ies . Under the Agreement on Agr icul ture , whichwas s ign e d i n Ap r il 1 9 9 4 , m e m b e r c o u n t r i e s we r e c o m m i t t e d ,b y t h e ye ar 20 00 , t o :- improve access to imports through the removal ofnon-tar i f f barr iers such as quotas (possibly replacing themwith tariffs), the reduction of tariff levels and the agreement ofan upp er l imit or 'bou nd' on tar i ff levels- reduc e export subsidies by at least 3 6 % (a mea sure l inkedwi t h t h e ' an ti - du m p i n g c o de ' o f G AT T)- reduc e aggregate mea sures of support for do mes t icagr icul tural prod ucers by at least 20 % .Th e s e a r e t h e m ai n c o m m i t m e n t s wh i c h we r e agr e e d , b u tthere are many detai led exemption c lauses and modif icat ions .In particular , less str ingent rules are to apply to developingc o u n t r i e s , wh i c h h av e u n t i l 2004 t o c o m p l e t eimplementat ion . Fur thermore, there i s a ' safeguard c lause 'which al lows any country to apply import restr ict ions orsuspend tar i f f concess ions i f products are imported in suchquant i t ies and under such condi t ions that they may causesevere harm to domest ic producers . However , there i sspeculat ion as to the extent that LICs wi l l be able to benef i tfrom these changes in market access given the s t r ingency oftechnical regulat ions .An agreement was also reached on the associated appl icat ionof sani tary and phytosani tary measures to provide aframework for s tandardisat ion and mutual recogni t ion of foodcontrol and quarant ine regulat ions and inspect ionprocedures . These procedures wi l l be based on internat ionals t an dar ds r e c o m m e n de d b y t h e Fo o d an d Agr i c u l t u r eOrganizat ion (FAO)/World Heal th Organizat ion CodexAlimentar ius Commission , on food safety, by the Off iceInternat ional des Epizoot ies (OIE) , on animal heal th , and bythe Internat ional Plant Protect ion Convent ion , on plant heal th


3/18

4 4 2 Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1 8 ( 2 )

and quarantine. However , the agreement does a l low countr ies'to set technical regulations above international standards,sub jec t to spec i f ied condit ions, without obl igat ion tocompensate foreign suppliers for the assoc ia ted addit ionalcomp liance cos ts ' (9 ) . How ever , to restr ic t t rade, for examp le,on animal heal th grounds, countr ies wil l have to show that areal difference exists in animal health status between the twocountr ies , and that trade of the prod uct pres ents a s ignif icantr isk of introducing exot ic disease. Despite theseimprovements, these restr ic t ions may impose a considerableburden on exporters , even though domest ic and foreignsuppliers must ab ide by the same technica l regulat ions.The W T O was establ ished, under the F inal Act of the UruguayRound, to replace GATT and to strengthen the inst i tut ionalframework for the supervision and implementat ion of theagreed measures, out l ined above. The a im is that memberswil l set t le trade differences mult i la teral ly within the W TO ,rather than unilaterally or within smaller trading groups.

T h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n a n d o t h e rt r a d i n g b l o c k sW orld trade in agr icultura l products has be en great ly a ffec tedby the formation and expansion of regional trading b locks.These range in c loseness of integrat ion, from the free tradearea to the economic union, as fol lows:- a free trade area has no trade barr iers between me mb erstates, which remain independently responsib le for traderela t ionships with the rest of the world- a custom s union has no internal trade barr iers , but has amutually agreed set of tariffs and trade arrangements with therest of the world- a com mo n market , l ike a custom s unio n, but has freedomof m ovem ent o f fa c t or s o f pr od uc t i on b et w een m em b ercountr ies- an econ om ic union has even c loser mon etary , f isca l , soc ia land legal integration.An example of the first type of trading block is the NorthA m er i c a n F r ee T r a d e A g r eem ent (N A F T A ) form ed i n 1 99 4 b ythe inc lusion of Mexico in the ex ist ing Canada-United Statesof Am erica (USA) trade agreement . A typica l custom s union isthe Preferent ia l Trade Area of Eastern and Southern Afr icanCount r i es . B ot h t he Cent r a l A m er i c a n Com m on M a r k et a ndthe East Afr ican Community had adopted some features of acommon market unt i l pol i t ica l d i fferences among memberstates caused the break up of the assoc ia t ions, a l though theEast Afr ican Community is short ly due to be relaunched. TheEuropean Common Market became the EU after ra t i f ica t ion ofthe Maastr icht Treaty in 1993 .

The overa l l impact of the formation of such trading b locks onworld trade is mixed. Freer trade among member sta tes isc lear ly promoted. However , where high tar i f f and non-tar i f fbarr iers are imposed on imports from other countr ies , as inthe case of the EU, trade is restr ic ted. One of the basicpr inc iples adopted by GAT T and the W T O is that in tradethere should be no ' favoured nat ion sta tus ' . Thus, no countrymay give preference to or discr iminate against any othercountry . S imilar ly , imported products should not be treatedless favourably than similar domest ic products . Theimposit ion of trade barr iers on non-member countr ies c lear lycontravenes this pr inc iple.

In recent years, the num ber of regional integrat ion agreem entshas rapidly increased, and more than 150 such agreementshave been not i f ied to GATT/WTO over the last 50 years.A pa r t f r om N A F T A , t he S out her n Cone Com m on M a r k et(M E R C OS U R ) ha s b een es t a b l i shed i n t he A m er i c a s , w hi l e t heCa r i b b ea n Com m uni t y (CA R I COM ) ser ves f i f t een i s l a nd s i nthe Caribbean region. In Asia , severa l agreements ex ist : theAssoc iat ion for South-East Asian countr ies (ASEAN), the AsiaPa c i f i c E c onom i c Cooper a t i on (A PE C) a nd t he S out h A s i a nAssoc iat ion for Regional Coopera t ion (SAAR C). Exam plesfrom Afr ica inc lude the Centra l Afr ican Customs andE c onom i c U ni on (U D E A C) , t he Com m on M a r k et for E a s t er na nd S out her n A fr i c a (COM E S A ) , t he E c onom i c Com m uni t yof We st A fr ic a n S ta t es (E CO W A S ) a nd t he S out her n A fr i ca nD e v e l o p m e n t C o m m u n i t y ( S A D C ) .

Except for the EU, regional integrat ion has not generated ahigh proport ion of tota l t rade for member countr ies . Of theexamples l isted above, only ASEAN has consistent ly shownt r ad e b et w een m e m b e r c ount r i es ex c eed i ng 1 0 % of to t a l tr a d efor the association. In some cases, political or intra-regionalconfl ic ts have made the l iberat ion of intra-regional tradediff icult . However , problems a lso ar ise in cases whereneighbouring countr ies within a region have a s imilar set ofland, labour and capita l resources and use similartechnologies, so the countr ies a l l tend to spec ia l ise in similarproducts . Trade is most l ikely to occur , and provides greatestmutual benefi ts between countr ies with different patterns ofcomparat ive advantage.

The EU has succeeded in ra ising trade within the communityto over 60 % of a ll trade, and in achieving rapid growth ofagr icultura l product ion. This has been achieved by imposingquotas and taxes (var iable import levies) on imports to thecommunity , and by subsidising exports . These pol ic ies havera ised food pr ices to EU consumers, c reated budgetaryproblems for the community and, i t i s argued, encouragedover-intensive levels of agr icultura l product ion, withc onseq uent i a l envi r onm ent a l pr ob l em s . Wor l d m a r k et pr i c esfor agr icultura l commodit ies have been depressed and


4/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epi z. 1 8 ( 2 ) 4 4 3

destabi l ised by EU pol ic ies , while many non-EU producersha ve b een d eni ed a c c ess t o E ur opea n m a r k et s (1 , 2 2 ) . R ec entreforms have reduced the levels of protec t ion for EUpr od uc er s .T he L om A g r eem ent ( f i r s t s i g ned i n 197 5 a nd r enew ed onfour occasions) , a l lows for spec ia l , ' favoured nat ions'agreements with former colonies of the Afr ican, Car ibbeanand Pac i f ic (ACP) group. Certa in commodity exports area l lowed to enter the EU witho ut tar i f fs , a l thoug h are genera l lysub jec t to quotas. Spec ia l arrangements ex ist for agr icultura lproducts , such as sugar and beef (Protocol 7 ) , which are a lsoproduced within the EU and are therefore governed by theCAP.Ot her L om pr ovi s i ons i nc l ud e t he E ur opea n D evel opm entFund which provides a id to ACP countr ies , and thestabi l isa t ion of export earnings (STABEX) scheme. Under thelat ter scheme, f loor and cei l ing pr ices are agreed for cotton,cocoa , groundnuts, coffee and sisa l , in regular negotia t ions.Exporters are compensated, with cash or credit , when theexport pr ice fa l ls below the agreed f loor . Funds are recoveredfrom the CAP exporters , when the export pr ice r ises above theceiling.Over t he m i d -1990 s , t he A CP c ount r i es suppl i ed 12 % ofagr icultura l goods imported by the EU. However , theseagricultura l exports accounted for over 40% of the tota l ACPexports to the EU.

G l o b a l t r a d e i n l i v e s t o c kp r o d u c t sAlthough ini t ia l ly , most world trade and exports from thedeveloping world consisted of agr icultura l products , theseproducts have steadi ly dec l ined as a proport ion of the tota l .Many of the LICs which were largely dependent onagricultura l exports , now rely more heavi ly on exports of oi l ,o t her m i ner a ls or m a nufa c t ur ed g oo d s (2 4 ) . T h i s t end enc y i sto be expected, part ly because human food requirements arel imited. Thus, ' the income elast ic i ty of demand' for food (thepercentage change in food purchases for a 1% change inincome) is genera l ly wel l below unity . In addit ion, synthet icsubst i tutes have been found or are emerging for many othernon-food agr icultura l products , such as f ibres. Thesetendencies have been diagnosed as potent ia l causes ofdec l ining term s of trade for agr icultura l p roduc ers.Livestock products , by comparison with staple food crops, arerela t ive luxuries. The value per tonne is much greater than forstaple food crops, while the average consumption per personin the high income countr ies is severa l t imes higher than inthe LICs (Table I ) .

T ab l e IP e r c a p i t a c o n s u m p t i o n o f l i ve s t o c k p r o d u c t s ( k g/ y e a r) i n 1 9 96 ( 1 0 )C o u n t r y M e a t M i l kD e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s i n A f r i c a 1 2 . 1 8 3 3 . 2 2D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s i n A s i a 2 2 . 5 6 3 4 . 6 8A l l d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s 2 3 . 9 2 4 2 . 3 7A l l d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s 7 5 . 7 8 1 9 6 . 6 4

The income elast ic i t ies of demand for meat , dairy productsand eggs are genera l ly c lose to unity . This m eans that grow th,or dec l ine, of income s has a substant ia l effec t on the q uanti t iesdemanded. As populat ions and per capita incomes have r isenin many parts of the world , so too has the demand forl i ves t oc k pr od uc e . Wor l d pr od uc t i on ha s ex pa nd ed a t asuff ic ient ra te to ra ise average consumption per capita , exceptpossib ly in the case of milk (2 , 21) . However , growth inproduct ion has not occurred equal ly across countr ies orpr od uc t s . P i g a nd poul t r y pr od uc t i on ha s ex pa nd ed m uc hmore rapidly than ruminant product ion, as discussed in moredeta i l below. At the same t ime, trade in pig and poultry meathas grown faster than product ion of these commodit ies .In fac t , only a small proport ion of the l ivestock product ion ofthe world is marketed internat ional ly . For example, worldb eef ex por t s in 1 99 6 w er e 1 . 6 7 m i l li on t onnes (10 ) ,a ppr ox i m a t e l y 3 % of w or l d b eef pr od uc t i on (5 2 . 8 m i l l i ont o n n e s ) . This may be expla ined by the high costs oftransport ing l ivestock and animal products from one countryto another , except through cross-border trade. General ly ,animal products must be frozen to permit intercontinenta ltransport . Furthermore, ex ist ing heal th and hygieneregulat ions l imit the extent of t rade. The importat ion of feedgrains and oi lseeds to ra ise pigs and poultry dom est ica l ly maybe cheaper than the importat ion of the equivalent quanti ty ofmeat . Nonetheless , t rade in these products great ly exceeds thetrade in bovine meat as a percentage of tota l prod uct ion (7 .5 %for pig meat [of 79.4 mil l ion tonnes produced annual ly] and1 4 % for poultry meat [of 56 m il l ion tonnes p rodu cedannual ly]) .

Unti l a few years ago, bovine meat ( inc luding beef and veal)represented the largest component of world meat trade interms of bo th absolute qua nti ty ( in metr ic ton nes) and value.H ow ever , b e t w een 1986 a nd 1996 , b ovi ne m ea t t r a d edec l ined in rela t ive terms, growing by 3 % annu al ly while tota lt r ad e i n m ea t s inc r ea sed b y over 5 % . Wor l d w i d e pr od uc t i onstagnated, with 0 .4% growth. Quanti t ies of ovine meat(m ut t on a nd l a m b ) pr od uc ed (7 . 3 m i l l i on m et r i c t onnes) a ndtraded (approximately 1.2 mil l ion tonnes) , are much smallerthan those of beef , and have dec l ined by 0 . 39 % annu al ly overt he per i od 1986 -1996 , a l t houg h pr od uc t i on ha s g r ow n b y asimilar percentage. Pig meat product ion worldwide isgrowing by a lmost 2% per year , t rade in pig meat is growingb y 5 . 4 % a nnua l l y . T ot a l w or l d poul t r y m ea t pr od uc t i on ha sgrown rapidly , by more than 5 .5% annual ly , over the per iod


5/18


1986-1996 . However , t rade in poultry meat has grown by anastonishing 12 .6% per year over the same per iod.

The world market for beef, and to a lesser extent for othermeats, tends to be divided between developed countr ieswhich require meat cuts differentiated by quality (qualitytable meat and manufactur ing meat) and developingcountries where the trade is mainly in whole carcasses. Pricesdiffer between forequarters destined for manufacture andhindquarters destined directly for the table (as roasts, etc.) .Prices differ for fresh and chilled meat as compared withfrozen meat (G . Davies and J . Lesl ie , unp ublishe d data) .Historically, the best sales prices are for quality cuts sold in theE U . As a result, it is more profitable to trade in cuts, as thesecan be sold to di fferent buyers according to market demandand prices, in such a way as to maximise profit . Trade inwhole carcasses, does not offer the same opportunity .Table I I shows that the major i ty of meat trade occurs b etw eendeveloped countr ies ; between 77 % and 9 3 % of meat forexport or ig inates in developed countr ies and the bulk ofbovine and pig meat is imported by developed countr ies .However , a higher proport ion of poultry meat is imported bydeveloping countr ies and sheep-meat imports are moreevenly divided between developed and developing countr ies .T ab l e I IW o r l d m e a t t ra d e i n 1 9 9 7 , e x c l u d i n g l i ve a n i m a l s ( 1 0 )( P e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l g i v e n i n b r a c k e t s )

C o m m o d i t y E x p o r t s ( t o n n e s x 103 I m p o r t s ( t o n n e s x 103)W o r l d t o t a l

B o v i n e m e a t 6 ,946 ( 3 3 ) 6,880S h e e p m e a t 8 5 5 ( 4 ) 8 5 5P i g m e a t 6 , 0 5 1 ( 2 8 ) 5 , 7 8 9P o u l t r y m e a t 7,002 ( 3 3 ) 6 ,266

D e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e sB o v i n e m e a t 1 , 2 4 1 ( 1 8 ) 1 , 5 9 6 ( 2 3 )S h e e p m e a t 5 7 I 7 ) 2 7 6 ( 3 2 )P i g m e a t 4 8 1 ( 8 ) 5 2 1 ( 9 )P o u l t r y m e a t 1 , 6 1 7 ( 2 3 ) 2 , 3 5 3 ( 3 8 )

D e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e sB o v i n e m e a t 5 , 7 0 5 ( 8 2 ) 5 , 2 8 4 ( 7 7 )S h e e p m e a t 7 9 8 ( 9 3 ) 5 7 9 ( 6 8 )P i g m e a t 5 , 5 7 1 ( 9 2 ) 5 , 2 6 7 ( 9 1 )P o u l t r y m e a t 5 , 3 8 4 ( 7 7 ) 3 , 9 1 3 ( 6 3 )

These general patterns of trade are further demonstrated bycountry trade patterns, which are summarised in theAppendix Tables A to E . The ten most important exportersand importers of bovine meat ( in 1996) are l isted in Table A.Austra l ia and New Zealand are major exporters in the Pac i f icZone , where the USA, Canada and Sou th East Asian countr iessuch as Japa n and Korea are major importers . Unti l 19 88 , theJapanese domest ic market was protec ted by import quotasa n d a 2 5 % a dvalorum tari ff . S ince then, markets have bec om e

more l ibera l , beef quotas have been expanded and in 1991were replaced by a tar i f f of 70%, which was reduced to 50%i n 19 93 a nd w i ll b e r ed uc ed t o 3 8 . 5 % b y 2 0 0 1 (6 ) . S om e b ee ftrade flows back from the USA and Canada to the Far Easterncountr ies . Recent ly , beef from North America has beenexported to the Russian Federation. Several large exporters aremembers of the EU. As a trading b lock , the EU accounts fornear ly 36 % of the tota l world expo rts . Howev er , severa l of themajor importers of bovine meat are a lso members of the EU,which suggests that much of the trade occurs betweenmember countr ies . However , Western Europe is a lso involvedin the so-ca l led Atlant ic Trade, with imports from SouthAmerica, and exports to the Middle East and Africa, as well aswith the former Union of Soc ia l ist Soviet Republ ics (USSR).The relat ive impo rtance of Europe as a bee f exporter is largelydue to the pr ice support pol ic ies and the surpluses in theintervention stocks.The world market for ovine meat is dominated by NewZealand and Austra l ia , the two main producers, whichtogether produce near ly 70 % of world exports . M uch o f thistrade is absorbed in the Near East , where sheep meat hasrel ig ious signif icance, and Sou th E ast Asia (see Table B) .While worldwide pig meat product ion is growing by a lmost2% per year, the growth in trade is largely confined to thenorthern hemisphere, s ince consumption in Afr ica and Lat inAmerica is low, and largely provided by dom est ic produ ct ion.Australia and New Zealand are largely self-sufficient. Majorexporters and importers are l isted in Table C. Denmark is thelargest exporter , muc h of the meat going to Japa n, C hina orother parts of the Far East. China also exports substantialquanti t ies of pig meat to the Russian Federat ion and othercountr ies of South-East Asia . Although the USA imports porkfrom Canada, both these countr ies are net exporters , much ofthe produce going to Japan.

Tota l world poultry meat product ion has grown rapidly , bym or e t ha n 5 . 5 % a nnua l l y ; d ur i ng t he per i od 1989-1999 , b uttrade has grown by an astonishing 12 .6% per year over thesame period. This reflects the fact that the price of chicken isfalling relative to other meats, as well as the widespread beliefthat white meats are heal thier than red meats , in addit ion,poultry are readi ly processed into frozen convenience foods.Major exporters and importers are l isted in Table D.The USA is the largest exporter of poultry meat , a loneaccounting for over a third of world trade. Much of theAme rican export produ ct ion is sold in Jap an an d oth ercountr ies of the Far East. This trade grew rapidly in the 19 80 s,part ly assisted by the Export Enhancement Programme, aform of government assistance a imed at st imulat ing Americanagricultura l exports . Other notable exporters inc lude Brazi l ,France, and Thai land. The Russian Federat ion, Japan andChina are a lone responsib le for 4 0 % of world imp orts .


6/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epi z. 1 8 ( 2 ) 4 4 5

The sta t ist ics for dairy products are combined with those foreggs, a l though the la t ter account for only a small proport ionof the tota l . For most exporters and importers , eggs in shel lrepresent roughly 1 % of the tota l. Exception s are theNether lands where eggs represent 16 .4% of tota l dairypr od uc t a nd eg g ex por t s , a nd Ger m a ny , w her e eg g s m a k e u p1 7 . 5 % of the broader category of imports . Trade in dairyproducts an d eggs exceeds that for al l ca tegories of meat , bo thin quanti ty and value. Between 1986 and 1996 , t rade hasg r ow n b y 3 . 4 % a nnua l l y .Most of the major exporters and importers of dairy products ,g iven in Table E , are mem bers of the EU . Thus , a great deal ofthe trade in dairy products takes place between EU members.However , s ignif icant amounts are exported to a l l parts of theworld, part icular ly to Lat in America and to the former USSR.Austra l ia and New Zealand are important exporters of dairyproducts , part icular ly butter , most ly supplying South EastAsian countr ies , a l though som e is sold in the United K ingdom(UK) and other EU countr ies , and in Lat in America . The USAexports mainly to Mexico.The EU has, in the past , exported substant ia l quanti t ies ofdr ied skimmed milk powder and butter-oi l to India and someACP countr ies . In some cases this was supplied as food a id ,while in India , the imports have contr ibuted to the supply ofmilk through 'Operat ion Flood' . However , some of this tradeis seen as a means of disposal of embarrassing surpluses, andtherefore as a form o f 'dum ping ' .Trade opportunit ies for the developing world wil l depend onthe abi l i ty of these countr ies to penetrate and compete forslow-growing higher-value markets in developed countr ies ,or to supply higher volumes of meat and animals to low andm i d d l e i nc om e c ount r i es suc h a s S out h A fr i c a w her e t hemarkets are of low value but are expanding more rapidly .

T h e b e n e f i t s a n d c o s t s o f t r a d eThe internat ional enthusiasm and pressure for tradel ibera l isat ion stem from the supposed advantages of trade toall participants. These advantages are il lustrated by the theoryof Comparat ive Advantage, or ig inal ly formulated by theEngl ish pol i t ic ian and economist , David Ricardo in 1817 (19) .He argued that i f two countr ies (or regions, or cont inents) areconsidered, each with different rela t ive costs of product ion ofdifferent commodit ies , then both countr ies wil l ga in fromtrade, even if one has an 'absolute advantage' over the other,i .e . lower costs of product ion for a l l commodit ies .This is i l lustrated by the simp le hypothe t ica l examp le g iven inTable I I I . According to the f igures presented here, Europe hasan 'absolute advantage' over Latin America, in thatproduct ivi ty per worker is higher in both meat product ionand motor car manufacture. This implies that unit costs (a tleast for labour) are lower in Europe. However , while Europe

T ab l e I I IC o m p a r a t i ve a d v a n t a g e a n d t h e b e n e f i t s f ro m t r a d eI . P r o d u c t i o n p e r w o r k e r i n E u r o p e a n d La t i n A m e r i c a

C o n t i n e n t M e a t ( t o n n e s ) M o t o r c a r s T o n n e s o f m e a t / c a rE u r o p e 1 5 4 3 . 7 5L a t i n A m e r i c a 1 0 2 5 .0

I I . E f f e c t s o f t r a n s f e r r i n g s i x E u r o p e a n w o r k e r s i n t o m o t o r c a rp r o d u c t i o n a n d t e n L a t i n A m e r i c a n w o r k e r s i n t o m e a t p r o d u c t i o n

C o n t i n e n t M e a t ( t o n n e s ) M o t o r c a r sE u ro p e - 9 0 + 2 4L a t i n A m e r i c a + 1 0 0 - 2 0T o t a l p r o d u c t i o n + 1 0 + 4

I I I . Tr a d e o c c u r s w i t h E u r o p e s e l l i n g 2 2 m o t o r c a r s f o r a p r i c e o f4 .5 t o n n e s o f m e a t e a c h

C o n t i n e n t M e a t ( t o n n e s ) M o t o r c a r sE u ro p e + 9 ( = - 9 0 + 9 9 ) + 2 ( = + 2 4 - 2 2 )L a t i n A m e r i c a + 1 ( = + 1 0 0 - 9 9 ) + 2 ( = - 2 0 + 2 2 )

also has a 'comparat ive advantage' in manufactur ing motorcars , Latin America has a 'comparative advantage' in meatproduct ion. This may be expressed in terms of 'opportunitycost', which is the cost of producing an item in terms of theal ternat ives foregone. Thus , the opportunity cost of producinga motor car in Europe is only 3 .75 tonnes of meat , while inLatin America it is 5 tonnes of meat. By the same token, theopportunity cost of meat product ion, in terms of motor carsforegone, is lower in Lat in America than in Europe (0 .2 carsr a t her t ha n 0 . 2 6 7 ) .I f each country moves resources into producing thecommodity for which i t has a comparat ive advantage, tota loutput of bo th com mo dit ies can be increased (see Sect ion I I ofTable I I I ) . In the absence of trade, however , Europe maysuffer a shortage of meat and Lat in America a shortage ofmotor cars . This problem can be overcome through trade,which then a l lows both trading partners to have more of bothcommodit ies (see Sect ion I I I of Table I I I ) . In this example, i tappears that Europe ben efi ts ra ther mo re from the trade, s incei t ga ins an extra 9 tonnes of meat , whereas Lat in Americagains only one addit ional tonne. However , this depends uponthe rela t ive world pr ices of meat and m oto r cars , or the ' termsof trade' for the producers of these commodit ies . Mutualbenefits can be obtained, in this example, for any price ratio ofcars to meat between 3 .75 and 5 .0 . This theoret ica l analysisleads to the general conclusion that free trade leads toincreases in product ion and incomes for a l l part ic ipants.Differences in comparat ive advantage between countr iesdepend upon the avai lab le resources of land, labour andcapita l and the avai lab le technology. Where some countr ies


7/18


have surplus , unuse d land or unem ployed labour , they have acomparat ive advantage in the product ion of land-using orlabour- intensive products . The s i tuat ion has been descr ibedas one of a 'vent for surplus', where unused resources can beemployed in producing commodit ies for expon. Thus, t radecan lead to the reduct ion of unemployment , and through thetransfer of new technology between t rading par tners , to ashr inking of in ternat ional di fferences between wages andother factor incomes.Other advantages of trade are associated with the potentialexpansion of markets , and the associated lower ing ofproduct ion and market ing costs due to 'economies of scale ' .At the same t ime, t rade widens the var iety of productsavailable to consum ers . Th e develop ment of a country i s a idedthrough trade, due to the enhanced growth in product iv i tythat resul ts f rom improving technology and expandingresources with specialisation.However , the promot ion of unfet tered free t rade has alwayshad some opposi t ion . In par t icular , emphasis has been placedon the dangers to LICs of exploitation by richer countries ortransnat ional companies . This , together with the predicteddecline in the terms of trade for agricultural products, ledmany LICs to adopt import subst i tut ion s t rategies . This of tenrequired protect ion of the ' in fant industr ies ' against cheapimports from overseas . Wil l iams et al. provide a widerdiscussion of the impl icat ions of nat ional economic pol icy ontrade, protect ion and the impl icat ions for the l ivestock sector( 2 7 ) . Trade may ref lect 'unequal exchange ' where foreigncapi tal i s ts move into LICs to benef i t f rom the low wages , bysell ing at low prices and expatriating profits. At present, sometransnat ional companies are moving not only to benef i t f romlower wages but also from rapidly expanding urban markets ,par t icular ly in the case of per ishable products such as dairyand egg products. In certain areas, such as Tanzania, i t isprof i table to establ ish plants to reconst i tute cheaperpowdered mi lk imports , given the problems and costs indeveloping the emergent smal lholder dairy sector . This i sposing a di lemma for LICs which are faced with the need toincrease low cost food for expanding urban areas , and at thesame t ime to provide income and employment for rural areas .Dependency theor is ts have argued that comparat iveadvantage is not determined by 'natural differences' in relativefactor endowments but by 'negot iated di f ferences ' in wagerates and technologies imposed by co lonial i sm and unequalexchange in the past . Thus, in ternat ional t rade i s seen as acause of 'underdevelopment ' . However , the cr i t i c i sm real lyappl ies to t rade which is unequal and subject to restr ict ions ,rather than to free trade.Con cerns that t rade l iberali sat ion may have adverse ef fects onthe environment are also growing. Firs t , a ser ies of nat ionallaws, a imed at protect ing the environment or the heal th ofh u m an s , an i m al s o r p l an t s, h ave b e e n c h a l l e n ged b y W TO

set t lement t r ibunals . An example i s the long-standing EU banon beef t reated with growth hormones, l ike that produced inthe USA, which is current ly under review by the WTO.Seco nd, there are conc erns that the W T O rules ma yundermine internat ional agreements to protect the globalenvironm ent , know n as mult i lateral environmen talagreements or MEAs.Th e r u l e s o f t h e W T O ( Ar t ic l e XX o f th e G A TT ) do a l l o wcountr ies to impose t rade restr ict ions 'necessary to protecthuman, animal or p lant l i fe or heal th . . . (or ) re lat ing to theconservat ion of exhaust ible natural resources i f suc h m easuresare made ef fect ive in con junct ion with restr ict ions ondo m e s t i c p r o du c t i o n o r c o n s u m p t i o n ' . Ho we v e r , wh e t h e rrestr ict ions real ly are necessary for heal th or environmentalreasons, or wh ether they are basical ly protect ionist in intent oref fect i s le f t open to debate . I t i s argued that the EU banon hormone t reated beef i s essent ial ly of a protect ionistnature (3) .

Th e curren t W T O a rrangem ents for dispute set t leme nt are farstronger than those of the GATT. I f one government bel ievesanothe r i s b lock ing impo rts in breach of W T O rules , i t canrequest talks. If these talks fail then a panel of trade officialsmay be asked to adjudicate and i f these off ic ials f ind that therules have been bro ken th en the offender is required to ame ndits laws and pract ices to conform w ith the W T O rules .Appeals are possible , but once a f inal decis ion has beenr e ac h e d , i t c an b e r e v e r se d o n l y b y a c o n s e n s u s o f W T Om e m b e r s . Th e r e i s n o p o w e r o f v e t o b y i n d i v idu a l m e m b e r s o fthe organisation.

Th e W T O is c lear ly able to quest ion , an d force theam e n dm e n t o f l aws p as s e d b y s o v e r e i gn go v e r n m e n t s . Th i sunderstandably gives cause for concern to those who feel thatenvironm ental dam age or greater dangers to heal th wi l l resul tfrom freer t rade. Howeve r , the W T O is i t se l f the resul t o f anagreement between sovereign nat ions , a imed at therat ional isat ion and regulat ion of f ree t rade in the commoninterest o f a l l me mb ers . D i f f icul t quest ions rem ain regardingthe total social costs and benef i ts o f par t icular t raderestr ict ions imposed for environmental or heal th reasons. Themore speci f ic case of animal heal th and hygiene regulat ions ,which is most re levant to t rade in l ivestock products , wi l l bedescr ibed next .

S a n i t a r y a n d t e c h n i c a l b a r r i e rsa f f e c t i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r a d e i nl i v e s t o c k a n d m e a tTechnical regulat ions re lat ing to qual i ty character is t ics ,condi t ions for product presentat ion or descr ipt ion(e .g. label l ing, packaging and informat ion) and speci f icat ionso n c o n s i gn m e n t p r o c e du r e s ( t e s t i n g , i n s p e c t i o n an d


8/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1 8 ( 2 ) 4 4 7

quarant ine) may be contained in s tandards approved by arecognised body. Su ch standard s re lat ing to animal heal th andfood hygiene are probably the most ser ious constraint on theexpansion of in ternat ional t rade in mea t , par t icular ly betw eenexporters in LICs and high income country importers (17) .These technical requirements are of ten imposed in order toprotect human, l ivestock and plant heal th , the environment ,wi ldl i fe , or nat ional secur i ty. The FAO repor ts that a Uni tedNat i o n s C o n f e r e n c e o n Tr ade an d D e v e l o p m e n t ( UNC TAD )database on t rade contro l measures , has 3 ,959 records ofnon-tar i f f me asures , 3 0 % o f wh ich re late to heal th and safetyissues and which would af fect t rade in meat and l ivestockproducts (9) .

There i s growing conc ern a bout food safety resul t ing from thefollowing:- food- related i l lness, e.g. Salmonella Enter i t idis infect ion- res idues in food from var ious sources including agr icul turalchemicals and ant ibiot ics- l imited exper ience with innovat ions in food product ionand process ing, e .g . use of hormones or i r radiat ion of foods- speculat ion that cer tain diseases (e .g . bov ine sp ongi formencephalopathy) , as yet not recognised as t ransmiss ible toh u m an s , m ay b e c o m e s o .These types of regulat ions are not new. The EU wi l l onlyimport meat under Protocol 7 o f the Lom convent ion andthis must come from herds free of foot and mouth disease(FMD), tuberculosis , brucel los is and other diseases whichhave been eradicated within the Union. The domest ic meatmarket i s o f ten suppl ied from animals s laughtered the sameday, witho ut the us e of refr igerat ion (G . Davies and J . L esl ie ,unpubl ished data) . Meat for expor t would have to come fromanimals s laughtered and handled in EU inspected faci l i t iesspeci f ical ly constructed for th is t rade, which meet s t r ingentfood hygiene and sani tary cond i t ions , whi ls t the mea t must beinspected by EU approved veter inar ians . ACP countr ieswishing to take advantage of a Lom export quota must set updisease-free l ivestock product ion and s laughter ing systems athigh cost . Trade from Kenya, Madagascar and Swazi land, forexample , was repor tedly constrained in recent years by a lacko f EU - ap p r o v e d s lau gh t e r h o u s e s ( 1 1 ) . C o n s t r u c t i o n an drunning of suc h faci l it ies i s proble ma t ic , par t icular ly so w herethe volume of throughput i s extremely var iable and rarelyreaches plant capaci ty. This i s especial ly t rue of beef p lants ,par t icular ly those depending on l ivestock raised in ar id andsemi-ar id areas . This helps to explain why the bulk of expor tsfrom these areas are transported as l ivestock rather thanm e at ( 9 ) .

As par t o f a move towards a more targeted r isk managementapproach, new procedures , such as the appl icat ion of 'hazardanalysis cr i t i cal contro l point ' are becoming integrated intonat ional and internat ional t raded food standards , e .g . par t o ftotal qual i ty contro l in ISO ( Internat ional S tandardisat ion

Organizat ion) 9000. However , the costs o f implement ingthese new procedures wi l l add to the costs o f meat . The costsof implement ing new safety s tandards are s imi lar for al lplants, and as a result , the costs per tonne of meat in smaller ,lower throughput plants are l ikely to be h igher , making themless comp et i t ive .Th e analysis o f the ful l costs and benef i ts o f suc h regulat ions i sh ighly compl icated. Not only are many l ivestock species andmany types of disease r isks involved, but also thearrangements are appl ied to groups of countr ies . Thediscussion may be s impl i f ied by consider ing the impacts of as ingle cat t le disease on just two countr ies , 'A' a potent ialimporter (with disease contro ls) , and 'B ' a potent ial expor ter(but without disease contro l ) . Therefore , i t i s assumed thatinitially no trade occurs, although the price of beef is higher inCountry A than in Country B.I f imports from Country B were al lowed by Country A,despite the inadequate disease control in the former, the priceat which beef i s t raded would set t le at a level between theprevious nat ional pr ices . Thus, the pr ice of beef in Country Bwould r ise . This would benef i t cat t le producers in thatcountry, and might increase employment prospects in thecat t le industry, but consumers would face the prospect o fhaving to pay more for beef . Nonetheless , economic theorysuggests that the gains to producers w ould outwe igh the co ststo consumers , so there would be a net wel fare gain .The situation in Country A is more difficult to predict . Ifdisease incidence does not increase as a resul t o f the imports ,or if the disease has a negligible impact on domesticproduct ion , then beef producers would s imply suffer a fal l inpr ice resul t ing from the compet i t ion from cheap imports .However , the gains to consumers from cheaper beef wouldoutweigh the losses to producers .I f , on the other hand, a disease outbreak occurs fo l lowing theimportat ion of beef , domest ic cat t le product ion wi l l fa l l ,and/or the costs of production will r ise. As a result , theincomes of cat t le producers wi l l be squeezed between thefall ing beef price and the r ising costs due to the disease. Inpract ice , the government may meet some of these costs , forinstance by compensat ing cat t le producers for disease losses .Regardless of who pays, the total cost to society, in Country A,is now l ikely to outweigh the gains to consumers from lowerbeef pr ices .S i n c e t h e e c o n o m i c o u t c o m e o f a l l o wi n g i m p o r t s de p e n dsupon whether a disease outbreak results, r isk analysis isneed ed to assess the overall costs and benef i ts . The calculat ionof the probabi l i ty of a disease outbreak is fa i r ly compl icated,depending as i t does on whether the imported product i sinfected, whether the infect ive agent survives commodityhandl ing, t reatment and t ransport , whether the commodity i sexposed to suscept ible animals or man, whether the agent i s


9/18

4 4 8 Rev. sci. tech. O ff. int. Epiz. 1 8 ( 2 )

exposed to a portal of entry and is transmissible, whether theagent induces infect ion and whether the infect ion inducesdisease . The extent of the damage must in turn depend uponthe scale of the importation, the rate of spread of the disease,the probabi l i ty of detect ion and the methods of t reatmentavailable (1 6) .Quant i tat ive r i sk assessment , as out l ined by Mor ley (16) andothers, does not alone provide an evaluation of the case forexcluding imports . This ful l analysis may be at tempted interms of the 'expected mon ey value ' (EM V), est imated as thesum o f prod ucts of all possib le financial outc om es m ultipliedby their respective probabilit ies.E M V = EP iXiwherePi = probability of the ith outcomeXi = ith financial out com e.The fo l lowing condi t ions should be noted:- the calculat ion of expected mo ney value ma y require mo resophist icated tools (such as dynamic programming, or MonteCar lo s imulat ion) than ordinary cost -benef i t analysis- full acc oun t should be take n of the effects on prices o fal lowing impo rts and of disease outbreaks- no accoun t is taken of the costs and benef i ts exper ienced byother countr ies .This analysis , based so le ly on economic costs and benef i ts ,takes no account of r isk aversion (i .e. public will ingness toforego income, on average, in order to avoid risk) on the partof the people of Coun try A, nor of the subject ive sat is fact ionsthat might be der ived from a disease-free environment . 'Af igure which denotes an acceptable business r i sk to theentrepreneur ma y be qui te unacceptab le to the representat ivesof the establ ished l ivestock industr ies ' (1 4) . This area is one ofpossible conf l ic t wi th the WT O assessors . How ever , aneconomic assessment should provide a s tar t ing point fornegotiations.

Country B may also wish to review its policies regardinganimal disease contro l and hygiene, to improve the heal th andproductivity of the domestic cattle industry as well as to meetthe requirements of potent ial beef importers . The benef i ts tolocal beef producers , o f contro l l ing disease , may be smal lerthan in Country A if , for instance, domestic cattle carry a highlevel of genetic resistance, or if the level of production peranimal is inherently lower and the costs of the disease are thusreduced. Nonetheless , the prospect o f increasing exportearnings from sales of beef may be sufficient to swing theeconomic balance in favour of in troducing heal th and hygienecontrols. Again, elements of r isk are involved and the effects ofincreased t rade on domest ic pr ices should be taken intoaccount in assess ing the economic ef fects o f the changes .

The harmonisat ion of animal disease contro l measures , wi th ina regional trade block or free trade area, is clearly essential i fa l l t rade barr iers are to be rem oved . In so far as some m em be rstates may previously have imposed restr ict ions on importsfrom other members , the calculat ions might be s imi lar tothose discussed above. In other instances , di f ferent methodsof contro l have been used by di f ferent member s tates , so aconsensus must be reached on the best method of contro l forgeneral adopt ion . Here , assessment i s again needed of therisks of disease outbreaks occurring under the different healthregimes, in order to evaluate the al ternat ives . A good exam plerelates to the choice of a FM D co ntrol s t rategy for the EU (5 ) .

T h e c a s e o f U r u g u a yEarnings from meat expor ts by developing countr ies in 1993am o u n t e d t o o v e r U S $ 5 , 0 00 m i l li o n , wi t h a f u r th e r U S $ 2 , 00 0mil l ion from l ivestock exports . (9 ) . Twenty-nine low ormiddle income countr ies are ident i f ied by the FAO asaccou nt ing for over 9 0 % of mea t expor ts from developingcountr ies (9) . However , the developing countr ies as a wholeac c o u n t e d f o r o n l y 28 % o f g lo b a l m e at e x p o r t s in 1 9 9 4 ,c o m p ar e d w i t h t h e ir s h ar e in wo r l d p r o du c t i o n o f 47 % . S o m eof the reasons for th is have already been discussed.The case studies that follow look at the situation of three of thetwenty-nine countr ies ment ioned above. The three examplesof Uruguay, Botswana, and West Afr ica are used to i l lustratechangin g l ivestock t rade and the inf luence th is t rade exer ts o nt h e e c o n o m i e s o f t h e c o u n t r ie s ( 2 0 ) .Livestock and l ivestock t rade are v i tal components of thenat ional agr icul tural product o f the countr ies in quest ion , andin Uruguay a nd N iger in par t icular , generate s igni f icant ex por tearnings . Each of the three regions have natural condi t ionsoffer ing comparat ive advantages in l ivestock product ion andspecial i sat ion . The market and export condi t ions andopportuni t ies of each are very di f ferent , thus cha nges in wor ldtrade and animal health and hygiene regulations will affecteach differently.C h a n g e s i n d i s e a s e s t a t u s : p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t o nc u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e l i ve s t o c k t ra d e e x p a n s i o nIn 1996, Uruguay was the f i r s t member of the countr ies in the'agreement of the Plate Basin ' to be recognised by the OIE asan FMD-free country without vaccinat ion . (The 'agreement ofthe Plate Basin' is a regional agreement originally developedbetween Argent ina, Uruguay, Brazi l and Paraguay withobject ives to contro l and eradicate FM D. ) Recogni t ion ofFMD-free s tatus has provided immediate and longer termopportuni t ies for t rade. Uruguay w as immed iately able to takeup a 20 ,0 0 0 tonne co untry quota for the export o f bee f to theUSA and to negot iate for addi t ional quotas and sales toFMD-free markets (previously the USA quota had not beenful f i l led as Uruguay was unable to meet the animal heal thregulat ion relat ing to FMD freedom) (13) .


10/18

Rev. sci. teck Off. int. Epiz. 1 8 ( 2 ) 4 4 9

The direct benefits of the change in disease status can be seenin the increase in foreign exchange revenue from bothincreased volume and/or bet ter expor t pr ices , and in theintangible benefits of early market access to the internationalFMD-free meat market ( the importance of ef fect ive market ingand the establ ishment of markets before other largerproducers such as Argentina and Brasil are able to enter thesemarkets are important for future market maintenance) . Theest imat ion of t rade benef i ts i s complex as the pr ices receivedvary great ly between markets and are af fected by the type ofcut , qual i ty speci f icat ions , t ransport costs , marke t a greem ents(spot buying or forward contracts) and local supply anddemand condi t ions . In countr ies or regions in which t rade i sl imited by pol ic ies o ther than sani tary agreements (e .g . theE U ) , t rade re lated changes are l imited but , given W T Oagreements , can be expected to grow with t ime (18) .The potent ial long-term trade impact on the country wi l ldepend on the compet i t iveness of the sector and i t s expor ts ,both internat ional ly , and compared speci f ical ly with largerneighbours Argent ina and Brazi l . The four components whichare important in consider ing l ikely sector impact are asfollows:- opp ortun ities to imp rove the value of trade- scope for improved compet i t iveness of the process ing/trading sector (spare capaci ty, lower process ing costs , marketdevelopment act iv i t ies)- incent ives for producers and the ef fect on investment ,product iv i ty, and long- (and shor t - ) term supply and thedistr ibut ion o f the benef i ts between large and smal l p roduce rs- opportuni ty costs for domest ic consumers (changes indomest ic beef market : quant i ty , qual i ty and pr ice and theimpact on beef subst i tutes) .The i ssues and main points are summarised in Figure 1 .

O p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i m p r o v e t h e v a l u e o f l i v e s t o c ke x p o r t sIn the f i r s t s ix months of 1996, Uruguay had exported a to talof 11 2, 65 6 tonnes of bovine me at and meat products to thev a lu e o f U S $ 1 9 5 , 30 6 . In t h e s am e p e r io d o f 1 9 9 5 t h e sef igu re s we re 8 2 , 71 1 t o n n e s wo r t h US $1 62 , 55 2 ( p r ic e scalculated at 1996 values) , an increase of 36% and 20%respectively, in part accounted for by the export of chil led andfrozen meat to the USA.In 1995, Uruguay had a country quota to supply the EU with6,500 tonnes of h igh qual i ty cuts . The change in animalheal th s tatus provided the opportuni ty to supply a widerrange of lower value products to the EU, including lamb andbeef with bone, manufactur ing meat and offal .Also important to Uruguay in improving the value of expor tswas the additional flexibil ity that an expanded market canoffer to exporters wishing to increase the total return percarcass , and the scope offered to widen the markets servedand reduce dependence on any one market . Market s tabi l i tywas, and sti l l is , very much influenced by the irregularpurchases of meat and live animals by Brazil .O p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i m p r o v e t h e c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s o f t h ep r o c e s s i n g i n d u s t r yUruguay is in a good posi t ion to take advantage of changes indemand for processed meat in other areas of the wor ld. Thecountry has low process ing costs compared with NewZealand, the USA and Austral ia .Increases in the volume of expor ts and improved export and'farm gate ' pr ices are important to maintain and improve thefinancial viabil ity of farms, abattoirs and processing plants.This in turn , would generate fur ther benef i ts throughincreased employment in the l ivestock industry and relatedservices.

e : e l a s t i c i t yFig .I m p a c t s o n l i v e s t o c k s e c t o r s t a k e h o l d e r s fr o m a n i m a l h e a l t hi m p r o v e m e n t

In 1995, 34 abat to irs were in use in Uruguay. The sevenlargest p lants hand led 4 9 % of bovine through put in 1 99 4,whi le the medium plants handled 43%. Al though th isprovided conditions for competit ion, i t also resulted inconsiderable under -used s laughterhouse capaci ty. Of the totals laughterhouse capaci ty, 6 1 % could be used for expor tpurposes , howeve r only 3 5 % was used in 1 99 6. This resul tedin higher operating costs and lower profitabil ity. The potentialexport opportuni t ies and the opt imism of the sector arefactors in attracting new sources of capital into the sector. Thisis important if the sector is to continue to meet theincreasingly s t r ingent s tandards (e .g . ISO 9000) of h igh valueexport markets .B e n e f i t s t o p r o d u c e r s a n d c o n s u m e r sNational herd off take and exports both increased before andafter the change in disease status, due to herd rebuilding afterthe 1988 drought . I f expor ts are to cont inue to increase(without a loss of consumer wel fare in terms of increased


11/18


domest ic pr ices and reduced domest ic supply) , then off takemust cont inue to increase .In the longer term, producer returns can only be improved i foutput and l ivestock product iv ity are improved. Considerablescope exis ts to improve l ivestock product iv i ty, and can beexpected to occur, provided the benefits from trade arerelayed through the markets as prod ucer incent ives . As in anysituation where a variety of production and farm systemsexists, the impact of these changes will differ between groups.

T h e L o m A g r e e m e n t a n d t h eb e e f p r o t o c o l : t h e c a s e o fB o t s w a n aBotswana and West Afr ican countr ies such as Niger havecontrasting l ivestock service infrastructures and access tomarkets .Cattle is the third largest export category for Botswana aftermining and tour ism. The importance and impact , on theeconomy as a whole , o f the cat t le industry i s much greaterthan almost any of the other sectors making up the economy,according to analysis by Townsend and others (23) (based ona general equi l ibr ium framework, using a social account ingmatrix). The cattle sector is particularly important as a sourceof income in rural communit ies , which in Botswana is wherethe greatest poverty exists. A decline in cattle exports wouldnot only af fect rural incomes and purchasing power butwould also impact on the animal feeds and the meat and meatprodu cts industr ies . An increase of 1 mi l lion Botswan a P ula( BW P ) ( BW P 1 = US $ 4 . 6 , a s a t 09 . 03 . 9 9 ) i n c a t tl e o u t p u t isestimated to generate an increase in national gross output ofBWP8.89 . (A BWP1 mil l ion increase in output in the miningindustry would only generate a BWP5.39 increase in nat ionalgross output) .Botswana benef i ts under the Lom IV Agreement (ef fect ivefrom 1990) under which cer tain ACP countr ies have specialaccess to EU beef markets unt i l the year 2000. Al l ACPexport ing countr ies only pay 8 % o f the import levy. Al thoughBotswana is not declared free of FM D, the EU appl ies a'minimu m r isk ' pol icy (countr ies such as Me xico , Japa n, U SAand Korea apply zero r isk pol ic ies , import ing only cooked orcanned m eat from countr ies without s tatus of FM D freedom ).Under th is minimum r isk pol icy, deboned frozen meatprocessed by inspected and recog nised s laughter faci li t ies andsourced from speci f ic areas with def ined and enforced heal thcontro ls i s accepted for impo rt to the EU .Although the not ion of r i sk adopted by EU importers and i t sconsequences for market access are not in contravent ion ofthe GATT rules , as members are ' . . .not prevented in adopt ingmeasures necessary to protect human animal or p lant l i fe or

health', minimum risk (as opposed to zero risk) doescontravene the M FN (mos t favoured nat ion s tatus)requireme nts of the W T O . Unde r these requirem ents , the EUshould offer other countries the same terms as it offers tos u p p l i e r s u n de r t h e Lo m C o n v e n t i o n . 'Th e 1 9 9 4 Ur u gu ayRound Agreement on SPS [sani tary and phytosani tary]measures represents a ma jor break through in th is respect as i tin troduces the obl igat ion for countr ies to base these measures[of 'minimum' r i sk] on scient i f ic pr inciples , and encouragesthem to adhere to internat ional ly agreed standards and makesprovis ion for pest and disease free areas , wh ich imp lies theacceptance of f reedom from a zone rather than an ent i recountry ' (9) .Botswan a has a long history of t rade with the UK a nd the E U,and from 19 90 to 19 95 has ful fi l led 70 % of i t s EU impo rtquota, wi th shipments averaging 13,600 tonnes . I t has beenthe most re l iable of the ACP suppl iers in terms of annualcont inui ty of sh ipments , wi th few disrupt ions (e .g . due todisease) . Without the Lom Agreement , Botswana beefexports would be reduced in value by possibly 50%. Averagepr ices in March 1996, to supply frozen hindquarters to theEU, we r e BWP 1 2 , 700 p e r t o n n e f r e e o n r a i l ( f .o .r . ) . Th ealternative was to supply these to South Africa at an average ofB W P7 ,3 70 p er tonne f .o . r . How ever , pr ice di f ferent ials forlower qual i ty forequar ters were smal ler , at approxim ately 5 % .Botswana may be able to explore new markets such as Russiaor the Middle East, and is well situated to supply theincreasing demands from the South Afr ican market , but mightface increasing compet i t ion from countr ies which areexpanding l ivestock product ion , including Lat in Amer ica andthe EU. Unl ike Uruguay, Botswana does not have FMD-freestatus , and thus would not be able to take advantage ofchanges in mark et access af fected by the W T O , unless thedisease s tatus of expor ts can be dem onstrated scient if ical ly .

E u r o p e a n U n i o n r e s t i t u t i o n s f o rm e a t e x p o r t s a n d t h e i m p a c t o nl i ve s t o c k t ra d e i n W e s t A f r i c aHistor ical ly , the Sahel ian countr ies , such as Burkina Faso andNiger , suppl ied the coastal areas of W est A fr ica , includingGhana, Niger ia , and Cte d ' Ivoire . The Sahel ian countr iessuppl ied surplus beef to the coastal countr ies in compet i t ionwith frozen beef imports from South Amer ica and Europe.

The l ivestock t rade of West Afr ica draws on animals mainlysourced from pastoral i s ts and smal lholder sedentary mixedfarmers. These farmers sell their animals to purchase cereals,pay school fees , taxes and medical costs (25) . Commonlyanimals are used as a form of precautionary savings or aninsurance against crop failure. The existent trade routes areeff ic ient (25) , i . e . producers receive between 76% and 82% of


12/18

Rev. sci. tech. Of f. int. Epiz. 18 (2 ) 4 5 1

the retail price of the animals . This h ighl ights the potent iall ink and impact that retai l market pr ices can have on ruralp r o du c e r i n c o m e s . Th i s is especial ly t rue in t i m e s ofentit lement failuresandfamine. M arket pr ices ,as shown later ,ca nbe affectedby EU imports .Livestock pr icesarede t e n n i n e dby avarietyof forces affectingb o t h s u p p l y and d e m a n d for l i v e s t o c k . D e m an d is s t ronglyinf luenced by u r b a n d e m a n d , in turn affected by the locale c o n o m i e s , and m o s t n o t ab l y by c h an ge s in pr imaryc o m m o di t y c yc l e s(e.g. oil and metals) (7).Supplyis affectedb o t hbydr o u gh tand byma rket p r ices .In the 1 9 8 0 s , m e a t and l ivestock markets were distor ted bythe following:- the overvalued CFA (Communaut f inancire africainefranc exchange rate, used in the f r an c o p h o n e zo n e of We s tAfrica- heavy subsidieson beef expor ts from Europe.Market dis tor t ions were reducedin 1994w h e nthe CFAfrancwas devalued by 5 0 and as a r e s u l t , i m p o r t s b e c am erelat ively more cost ly compared with local goods. The EUsubsidy or export rest i tut ion was also progress ively reduceddue to r e du c t i o n s in EU producer pr ices and a resultingdecreasein intervent ion stocks .Table IV s h o ws the effect of the devaluat ion and alsoil lustrates the e x t e n t of the EU export subsidy, and theimpl icat ionsforretail price s(25).

Ta b l e IVCosts o f Eu r o p e a n U n i o n m e a t a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s i n t h e e xp o r t t o r e t a i lc h a i n ( 25 )

C o s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n

P u r c h a s e p r i c e ( E u r o p e )E u r o p e a n U n i o n s u b s i d yf . o . b . E u r o p eF r e i g h tT ra n s i t / s a n i t a r y i n s p e c t i o nP r o f it m a r g i n e x p o r t e rc.i .f . W e s t A f r i c aI m p o r t t a x e sG e n e r a l c o s t sP r o f i t m a r g i n i m p o r t e rI m p o r t l e v yW h o l e s a l e p r i c e W e s t A f r i c aG e n e r a l c o s t s / p r o f i t m a r g i nR e t a i l p r i c e

f . o . b . :f r e e on h o a r dCFA : Communaut financire africainec.i.f. : c u s t o m s i n s u r a n c e an d f r e i g h t

C o s t (CFA f r a n c s ) C o s t ( C F A f r a n c s )p r i o r t od e v a l u a t i o n

( 1 9 9 3 )

p o s td e v a l u a t i o n

( 1 9 9 4 )6 0 8 1,2165 4 1 9 8 3

6 7 2 3 36 7 1 3 34 0 4 01 7 3 0

1 9 1 4 3 66 7 9 07 0 7 02 0 3 6

1 0 0 5 04 4 8 6 8 2

8 0 1 2 05 2 8 8 0 2

The pr ice increase for impo rted frozen EU b e e f wasac c o m p an i e d by a large drop in these imports , which werereplaced by an increase in Sahel ian imports . Withoutcompet i t ion from lower-pr iced products , the fresh meatpr ices increased by 1 5 % - 2 0 % to b e t w e e n 850 CFA and9 0 0 CFA per kg. This pr ice increase would, in turn , be fedb a c kto Sahel ian producers(4).T h e EU p r o du c t i o n has o u t s t r i p p e d c o n s u m p t i o n andde m an d s i n c e 199 6, and hasnecess i tated fur ther intervent ionb u yi n gdue to thein c r e as ed n u m b e rofEU m e m b e r c o u n t r i es ,the re latively h igh p roducer pr ices/income sup portinspiteoft h e G ATT agr e e m e n tand the reduct ion in b e e f c o n s u m p t i o n(seen in b o t h the long and s h o r t t e r m ) .The extent to wh i c hthis meatcan be disposedof onwo r l d m ar ke t sand theextentt o wh i c h it can re-enter and distort this particular WestAfr ican market remainsto be seen, givenW TO agreed l imitso n thesaleofmea t with export subsidies (subsidised exportsare agreed to be no m o r e t h an 8 1 7 , 0 0 0 t o n n e s [a 29de c r e as e c o m p ar e d wi t h 1 9 9 5 ] ) .

R e g i o n a l i s a t i o n , f r e e t r a d e anda n i m a l h e a l t hIthaslong been recog nised that ma ny t ransboun dary diseasescan only effectively be tackled on a regional basis e.g. thePan-Afr ican Rinderpest Campaign inA fr ica ,or the Southernc o n e agr e e m e n t in S o u t h Am e r i c a for FMD eradicat ion . Ahigh proport ion of l ivestock t rade occurs in l ive animalsacross nat ional boundar ies , and is often illegal and/oru n r e c o r de d . C o u n t r i e s are wise to recognise th is in diseasesurvei l lance work, for e x am p l e , c h an ge s in relative l ivestockpr icesinUr u gu ayand in pigsandb e e fin Brazil shouldact asan ear ly warningtos t rengthen or increase surveil lance.The benef i ts of regional isat ion in t e r m s of trade andh ar m o n i s a t i o n of animal heal th s tandardsare as follows:- theincrease in intra regional t rade compared with importsfrom other t rade blocks (e.g.developed countr ies)- mo re ef fic ient resource al locat ion and bet ter product iv i tywithina region accord ingto comparat ive advantages .Itc o u l dbe argued that better disease status is a form of comparat iveadvantage- the de v e l o p m e n t of larger 'disease free areas' reducingpotential disease r isks(e.g. in thecaseof the EU andS o u t h e r nc o n e c o u n t r i e s ) and reducing regional disease contro l costs(e.g. r inderpest controlinAfrica,and FMDcontro lin the EU).Ho we v e r , the EU s ingle market agreementof 1993 has hadmixed resul ts .It has al lowed animalsto be t ransported morewidely without intermediary animal heal th checks , whichcanreduce t ransact ion costs , contr ibut ing to more comp et i t ivem ar ke t s ,and can arguably reduce theper iodoftransit ofliveanimals . Never theless , the s ingle market may e n c o u r age a


13/18

4 5 2 Rev. sci. teck Off. int. Epiz.. 1 8 (2 1

wider distr ibution of animals and could widen the area ofepidemic disease r isks (e.g. classical swine fever andNewcast le d isease) .S ince 1 97 5, N orthern Ire land has maintained a s tatus offreedom from Newcast le disease without vaccinat ion . S ince1993, five major poultry diseases (infectious laryngotracheitis,mycoplasmosis , avian rhinotrachei t i s , Marek's disease andNewcast le disease) have been re- introduced: less demandinganimal health controls associated with the free market arethought to have contr ibuted .However , feas ible vaccinat ion regimes now exist to contro lthe diseases, and the costs of preventive control are potentiallymuch lower than previously. The benefits to trade of adisease-free status (without vaccination) are small , given thesmal l numbers of countr ies in th is posi t ion . For example , therecent outbreak of Newcast le disease in Northern Ire landprompted the Province to alter the disease policy in practice toone of disease freedom with vaccination, this i l lustrates thechanges in control costs, and changed attitudes to diseasefreedom resul t ing from changes in wor ld t rade requirements .The poul try sector in Northern Ire land is most ly concernedwith h igh value products such as parent eggs and chicks , andthe process ing of poul try meat in to ' f resh ' and 'convenience 'value-added products which is a ided by the re lat iveadvantages held by the region, of lower labour costs andproximity to UK supermarkets which are the major marketoutlet for processed poultry goods in Europe.In 1973, an outbreak of Newcast le disease cost 3 .5 mi l l ion(at 1997 pr ices) to contro l ; an equivalent hypothet icaloutbreak in 1997, taking account of changes in the industrystructure would cost 2 .3 mi l l ion to contro l (12) . The contro lcosts ( including compensat ion payments) were est imated tobe 7 6 % and 5 8 % respect ively of the to tal sector costs . Sectorcosts would also include the costs to producers and to theindustry for increased storage and process ing costs , the lostproduct ion and lost t rade and export markets (but do notinclude l inkages with other sectors or multiplier effects). Inother words, costs o ther than for disease contro l have be com emore significant as the industry structure, and relative priceshave changed over t ime. At present , costs o ther than diseasecontro l costs would account for >42% of to tal costs .

In comparison, the costs of annual vaccination againstNewcastle disease have fallen dramatically in real terms. Aprevent ive vaccinat ion pol icy in 1973 would have cost3 8 9 , 3 40 p e r ye ar ( 1 9 7 3 p r i c e s) o r 2 , 7 44 , 8 47 i n fl a te d to19 97 pnc es . In 1 99 7, a s imi lar pol icy would have cost 5 4 8 , 0 8 8 ( 1 2 ) .In 1996, poul try and eggs provided 7% of gross agr icul turaloutput of Northern Ire land (4 .9% of gross domest ic product )and the agr icul ture sector employed 40,000 or 6% of the

workforce . Poul try farm employment accounted for 900 jobs ,and a fur ther 4 , 60 0 job s were provided by approximately 10 0f i rms concerned with the process ing of poul try or packingand grading of eggs . This was equivalent to 2 0 % o f thoseemployed in the food and dr inks process ing sector of theProvince and three t imes the number employed in the shipbui lding industry, t radi t ional ly a major employer . The totaldisease ef fect on the whole poul try sector and associatedindustries may be greater than the direct disease effects. Thisis in par t due to the decrease in the num bers of produ cers andthe increase in the importance of process ing and the'value-added' component and i t s wider impact on re latedindustr ies , employment and 'knock on ' ef fect re lated to thepurchasing power of employees .

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r eThe many changes associated with the Uruguay Round, andthe increase in regional trading groups make it particularlydi f f icul t to predict future outcomes. Fur thermore, thedevelopment of t rade i s s t rongly inf luenced by other aspectsof economic and pol i t i cal change. I f current t rends cont inue,the total wor ld t rade in l ivestock p roducts m ay be exp ected toincrease s teadi ly, a l though with the emphasis sh i f t ing awayfrom beef and sheep meat to p igs and even more to poul try.However , i f a wor ldwide s lump should occur , to tal wor ldtrade in l ivestock products could dimnish .In addi t ion to these broad tendencies , i t i s predicted that t radeliberalisation and the reduction of barriers, will furtherexpand trade in aggregate, and specifically in l ivestockproducts . This should be associated with r is ing average wor ldpr ices , for agr icul tural and l ivestock products , which wi l lbenef i t expor ters , but which wi l l disadvantage net foodimporters . One set o f est imates suggests that whereas h ighincome countr ies belonging to the Organizat ion for EconomicCo-operat ion and Development (OECD) wi l l benef i t annual lyb y $1 41 . 8 b i l li o n f r o m t h e ye ar 200 2 , Af r i c an an dMediterranean countr ies wi l l suffer losses . Among LICs,China i s expected to benef i t great ly but most o thers wi l lreceive only modest gains (15) .Trade l iberalisation is also expected to cause the prices ofcoarse, animal feed grains to r ise. This will reduce theprofitabil ity of grain-fed intensive pig and poultry production,and may s low the rate of expansion in South East Asia . Theremay be scope for increased exports from low-cost producingcountr ies l ike the USA and some EU members . The terms oft rade may shi f t towards grass land-fed ruminant meat andmilk, so these products may regain some of the t rade lost topig and poul try meat .The Sani taiy and Phytosani tary Agreement al lows import ingcountr ies to be chal lenged b y suppl iers seeking access to theirmarkets. However, i t may sti l l be difficult for LIC suppliers tofulfi l the legitimate regulations of an importer and even more


14/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 1 8 ( 2 ) 4 5 3

to challenge rules that appear to be unjustified through thedispute set t lement body of the W T O . Thu s, a l though theUruguay Round wi l l extend and harmonise internat ional lyagreed sanitary and animal health rules, and will expand theaccess for meat expor ters to foreign countr ies , manydeveloping countr ies may st i l l be excluded. Trade in meatmay sti l l be restricted to countries that can afford relativelyhigh levels of internal animal health and sanitary standardsand the capaci ty to demonstrate that these measures areadequate to potent ial importers (8) .The regional dis t r ibut ion of t rade may change. Consumptionof meat and dairy products in the h igh income OECDcountr ies i s s tagnant or growing very s lowly. Growth in

demand must depend on growth of populat ion and incomesin the developing world, particularly Asia and Latin America,and the so-cal led t ransi t ion economies of Eastern Europe andthe former USSR. Whi le there are some grounds for hope ofrecovery and economic expansion in the lat ter group ofcountries and in parts of Africa, there are increasing fears ofthe co l lapse of some of the fast -growing economies of SouthEast Asia and possibly Brazil . The future expansion of worldtrade in l ivestock products is therefore highly unpredictable.

L e s c o n s q u e n c e s c o n o m i q u e s d e l ' a c c r o i s s e m e n t d e s c h a n g e sm o n d i a u x d ' a n i m a u x e t d e p r o d u i t s d ' o r i g i n e a n i m a l eL e s l i e M . U p t o n

R s u m L e s n g o c i a t i o n s d u c y c l e d U r u g u a y d e l A c c o r d g n r a l s u r l e s t a r i f s d o u a n i e r se t le c o m m e r c e ( G A T T ) o n t c r l O r g a n i s a t i o n m o n d i a l e d u c o m m e r c e ( O M C ) a f i nd e s u p e r v i s e r la l e v e d e s b a r r i r e s e t l a l i b r a l i s a t i o n d e s c h a n g e si n t e r n a t i o n a u x . L a p p l i c a t i o n d e m e s u r e s s a n i t a i r e s e t p h y t o s a n i t a i r e s s e r an o r m a l i s e a f i n d v i t e r q u e c e s m e s u r e s n e s o i e n t u t i l i s e s d e s f i n sp r o t e c t i o n n i s t e s p a r d e s p a y s o u d e s b l o c s c o m m e r c i a u x r g i o n a u x .L h a r m o n i s a t i o n d e s m e s u r e s d e l u t t e c o n t r e l e s m a l a d i e s a n i m a l e s a u s e i n d e sb l o c s r g i o n a u x e s t e s s e n t i e l l e p o u r q u e l a l i b r a l i s a t i o n d e s c h a n g e s p o r t e s e sf r u i t s , m a i s u n e t e l l e h a r m o n i s a t i o n d o i t t e n i r c o m p t e d e s r i s q u e s s a n i t a i r e sp o t e n t i e l s e t d u c o t d e s m a l a d i e s a n i m a l e s . L e s c h a n g e s m o n d i a u x d e p r o d u i t sd o r i g i n e a n i m a l e s e f f e c t u e n t e s s e n t i e l l e m e n t e n t r e p a y s d v e l o p p s , b i e n q u el e s p a y s e n d v e l o p p e m e n t r e p r s e n t e n t e n v i r o n u n t i e r s d e s i m p o r t a t i o n s e te x p o r t a t i o n s d e v i a n d e d e vo l a i l l e . M a l g r l a l i b r a l i s a t i o n , la p a r t d e s p a y s e nd v e l o p p e m e n t d a n s l e c o m m e r c e m o n d i a l n e d e v r a i t g u r e a u g m e n t e r c o u r tt e r m e . L e s a u t e u r s m e t t e n t l a c c e n t s u r l e s a v a n t a g e s d u c o m m e r c e e t d e l al i b r a l i s a t i o n d e s c h a n g e s . I l s d o n n e n t d e s e x e m p l e s d e l i m p a c t d e s b a r r i r e sc o m m e r c i a l e s s u r l e s p a y s e n d v e l o p p e m e n t e t d e l h a r m o n i s a t i o n d e s n o r m e sz o o s a n i t a i r e s a u s e i n d e l U n i o n e u r o p e n n e . Il s v a l u e n t e n f i n l e s c o n s q u e n c e s c o n o m i q u e s d u n e a u g m e n t a t i o n d u c o m m e r c e g l o b a l d a n s l e f u t u r .

M o t s - c l sA c c o r d g n r a l s u r l e s t a r i f s d o u a n i e r s e t l e c o m m e r c e - c h a n g e s i n t e r n a t i o n a u x -O r g a n i s a t i o n m o n d i a l e d u c o m m e r c e - P a ys e n d v e l o p p e m e n t - R g l e m e n t a t i o ns a n i t a i r e e t p h y t o s a n i t a i r e - V i a n d e .


15/18

Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. 18 (2)

R e p e r c u s i o n e s e c o n m i c a s del c r e c i e n t e c o m e r c i o m u n d i a l deg a n a d o y p r o d u c t o s p e c u a r i o sJ . Les l ie M . U pto nResumenL a R o n d a U r u g u a y d e l A c u e r d o G e n e r a l s o b r e A r a n c e l e s A d u a n e r o s y C o m e r c i o( G A T T ) i n s t i t u y l a O r g a n i z a c i n M u n d i a l d e l C o m e r c i o c o n e l o b j e t i v o d es u p e r v i s a r l a r e d u c c i n d e b a r r e r a s n o a r a n c e l a r i a s y l a l i b e r a l i z a c i n d e lc o m e r c i o a e s c a l a m u n d i a l . P a r a e v i t a r q u e a l g n p a s o b l o q u e r e g i o n a l s e s i r v ad e m e d i d a s s a n i t a r i a s y f i t o s a n i t a r i a s c o n f i n e s p r o t e c c i o n i s t a s , e s t p r e v i s t oe s t a n d a r i z a r l a a p l i c a c i n d e t a l e s m e d i d a s . P a r a q u e l a m a y o r l i b e r t a d d ec o m e r c i o d s u s f r u t o s , e s e s e n c i a l a r m o n i z a r l a s m e d i d a s d e c o n t r o l z o o s a n i t a r i oq u e s e a p l i c a n d e n t r o d e l o s d i s t i n t o s b l o q u e s r e g i o n a l e s , a u n q u e d e b e n h a l l a r s ef r m u l a s d e a r m o n i z a c i n q u e m i n i m i c e n l o s r i e s g o s s a n i t a r i o s y l os c o s t e s d ee v e n t u a l e s b r o t e s d e e n f e r m e d a d . El c o m e r c i o m u n d i a l d e p r o d u c t o s g a n a d e r o ss e c o n c e n t r a b s i c a m e n t e e n p a s e s d e s a r r o l l a d o s , a u n q u e l o s p a s e s e nd e s a r r o l l o d a n c u e n t a a p r o x i m a d a m e n t e d e u n t e r c i o d e l a s i m p o r t a c i o n e s ye x p o r t a c i o n e s d e c a r n e a v c o l a . A p e s a r d e l a l i b e r a l i z a c i n , e s i m p r o b a b l e q u e ac o r t o p l a zo a u m e n t e d e f o r m a s e n s i b l e l a p r o p o r c i n d e t r a n s a c c i o n e sc o m e r c i a l e s c o r r e s p o n d i e n t e s a p a s e s e n d e s a r r o l l o . L o s a u t o r e s h a c e nh i n c a p i e n l a s v e n t a j a s d e l c o m e r c i o y s u l i b e r a l i z a c i n . T a m b i n o f r e c e ne j e m p l o s d e l a i n f l u e n c i a d e l a s b a r r e r a s a l c o m e r c i o s o b r e l a e c o n o m a d e p a s e se n d e s a r r o l l o , y de la a r m o n i z a c i n n o r m a t i v a e n l a U n i n E u r o p e a e n m a t e r i a d es a n i d a d a n i m a l . P o r l t i m o e v a l a n l a s c o n s e c u e n c i a s e c o n m i c a s d e li n c r e m e n t o d e l c o m e r c i o g l o b a l e n e l f u t u r o .

Palabras c laveA c u e r d o G e n e r a l s o b r e A r a n c e l e s A d u a n e r o s y C o m e r c i o- C a r n e- C o m e r c i o i n t e r n a c i o n a l- O r g a n i za c i n M u n d i a l del C o m e r c i o - P a s e s en d e s a r r o l l o - R e g l a m e n t o s a n i t a r i o yf i t o s a n i t a r i o .


16/18

Rev. sci. te k Off. int. Epiz. 1 8

Documents

Livestock & WTO