Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite these substantial efforts, considerable institutional reforms are
stll needed. There are a number of laws and rules that treat domestc and
foregn companes and ndvduals dfferently; these need to be changed
to allow China to fulfil its legal obligations under its Protocol of Accession
to the WTO. It could be an even greater challenge to buld the naton's
capacty for effectve mplementaton of the amended and new laws.
Agrcultural trade reforms
Changes n tarff polcy are more straghtforward and smpler than non-tarff
policy reforms. China followed its tariff reduction schedule specified in
the protocol on the first day of 2002. The average tariff rate was reduced
from 15.3 per cent in 2001 to 12 per cent. For agricultural products, the
tariff reduction was from 21 per cent to 15.8 per cent. China has also
mplemented ts three years of transton for progressvely lberalsng
the scope and availability of trading rights for agricultural products, as
dscussed n the prevous secton.
Compared with the trend in tariff reduction in the past decade, the tariff
changes necessary under Chna's WTO accesson should present relatvely
few problems. Significant reforms of non-tariff measures are, however,
required—particularly state trading. China agreed to and did phase out
restrictions on trading rights for all products except those under TRQ trade
regimes; here, a more gradual approach to phasing out the state-trading
regimes has been adopted (Table 2.4). Three years after accession, the
prvate sector has come to domnate the trade of almost all agrcultural
products. There are, however, provisions to maintain state involvement in
three commodities: wheat, maize and tobacco.
Techncal barrers to trade (TBT) and santary and phytosantary (SPS)
measures, as well as institutional arrangements to fulfil the agreement
on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), are the other
mportant ssues that Chna has to deal wth. The agreements on TBT and
SPS focus on usng nternatonally accepted standards to govern the use
of standards as protectonst devces. Ths rules-based approach can be
valuable in improving policy formulation, but is likely to require investment
n strengthenng standards-related nsttutons. Comprehensve adopton of
