Conflicting interests? : the Norwegian dilemma in the agricultural negotiations in GATT's Uruguay round 1986-1994

Abstract

The subject of this thesis is the eighth round of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade negotiations (GATT). The round is called the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN), and lasted from 1986 to 1994. Important issues to developing countries such as agriculture and textiles were included in the negotiation. The results of the negotiations were that an agreement on tariff reductions was reached, new issues were included and GATT was institutionalised through the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

This study focuses on Norwegian agricultural policy and the developing countries in the Uruguay Round. How did Norway combine the goal of protecting national agricultural interests with the developing countries’ demands in the Uruguay Round? A Norwegian dilemma have been identified between these aspects, and the Norwegian Cabinet tried to solve this dilemma with a dualism in the Norwegian position, trying to establish a position that considered both the demands of the developing countries, and the Norwegian agricultural interests. Other areas important to developing countries such as textiles, tropical products and areas where Norway and the developing countries shared interests, were also underlined in an attempt to solve this dilemma.

Due to the liberalisations and economic growth in many of the developing countries it was important for the industrialised countries to include these countries in the world trading system. However, the developing countries expressed disappointment when the Final Agreement was reached. The countries meant that the given concessions were limited and the developing countries had expected deeper cuts in subsidies and more market access. The literature identifies both negative and positive consequences for the developing countries by the agreement. Some countries and regions benefited while Africa was regarded as the continent that might loose as a result of the agreement.

The Norwegian Cabinet underlined that protecting the agricultural sector was its main priority in the negotiations, however, it was stated that the quantitative restrictions on agriculture and textiles were in conflict with increased import from the developing countries. I have called this view the acceptance of incompatible interests perspective. By this acceptance the Cabinet stated that there existed a conflict between the interests of the developing countries and Norway in the field of agriculture. In the first phase of the negotiations, a united Storting refuted this conflict’s existence and argued that the Norwegian system was not a hindrance to increased import from developing countries, mainly due to the fact that Norway and developing countries had interests in different products. This perspective I have called the none interest conflict perspective.

Even though the Cabinet acknowledged that a conflict existed between Norwegian agricultural interests and the demands of the developing countries, the Cabinet stated that preferences to developing countries should be given in line with the Norwegian national goals in agricultural policy. This is a strong indication that it was the Norwegian agricultural interests that was the first priority. However, when realising that a new position had to be established, and by acknowledging the acceptance of tariffications, it may also be argued that Norway gave important concessions also to developing countries.