The Implications of WTO-Accession for Ukrainian Agricultural Policy

  • Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel
  • Sergiy Zorya


The current focus of attention regarding the WTO in Ukraine is understandably on Ukraine’s stated intention to join the WTO, the ongoing negotiations with the Working Party, and the resulting conditions under which Ukraine could be accepted as a member. While we will deal with the agricultural dimension of these questions in this paper, it is important to recognise that the on-going Doha Round of WTO negotiations could also have important implications for agriculture in Ukraine. Ukraine is currently negotiating with the WTO on the basis of agricultural provisions established under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) in 1993. It may be that the result of the Doha Round shifts some of the URAA parameters, creating the need for further adjustment in Ukraine beyond that which would be the result of a successful completion of Ukraine’s membership negotiations. Both processes — Ukraine’s membership negotiations and the Doha Round — are uncertain as regards both outcome and timing. Hence, at the moment, it is only possible to engage in more or less informed speculation.


Agricultural Policy Uruguay Round Export Subsidy Doha Round Domestic Support 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agra Europe (2002): First draft WTO accord in December. Agra Europe London, November 29, p. EP/8.Google Scholar
  2. Agra Europe (2002): Peace Clause Expiry Could Lead to Policy Challenge. Agra Europe London, November 29, p. EP/12.Google Scholar
  3. von Cramon-Taubadel, S. (1999): Der Markt filr Zucker in der Ukraine: Gestem, Heute und Morgen. In: von Cramon-Taubadel, S. and L. Striewe (eds.): Die Transformation der Landwirtschaft in der Ukraine — Ein weites Feld. Kiel, Vauk, pp. 88–104.Google Scholar
  4. von Cramon-Taubadel, S. (2002): Germany’s Nitrofen Scandal and Food Safety in Ukraine. German Advisory Group, Paper No. S4, Kyiv.Google Scholar
  5. von Cramon-Taubadel, S. and S. Zorya (2001): WTO Accession and Agricultural Policy in Ukraine. In: von Cramon-Taubadel, S., S. Zorya, and L. Striewe (eds.): Policies and Agricultural Development in Ukraine. Aachen, Shaker, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
  6. Gaisford, J.; Kerr, W.: Chapter in this volume.Google Scholar
  7. Josling, T. (2002): Can One Make the SPS Agreement Work for Small Economies? Paper presented as the Lewis-Beckford Memorial Lecture to the meeting of the Caribbean Agricultural Economics Society, Grenada, July.Google Scholar
  8. OECD (2000 ): Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2000. Paris.Google Scholar
  9. Schuler, P.: Chapter in this volume.Google Scholar
  10. Tangermann, S. (2002): Agrarmärkte und Agrarpolitik der USA und der EU: Konvergenz oder Divergenz? Lecture presented on the occasion of the academic celebration of 100th anniversar y of Arthur Hanau’s birth, Göttingen, December 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel
    • 1
  • Sergiy Zorya
    • 1
  1. 1.Georg-August University in GöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations