TY - JOUR
AU - Jillian, Wate,
AB - Summary Despite the growing rates of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases, globally, public health attention has only relatively recently turned to the links between trade agreements and the nutritional risks associated with it. Specific trade agreements appear to have played an influential role in the volume and types of foods entering different countries, yet there is currently no systematic and objective monitoring of trade agreements for their impacts on food environments. Recently, INFORMAS was set up to monitor and benchmark food environments, government policies and private sector actions within countries and globally. One of its projects/modules focuses on trade policy and in particular the food-related aspects of trade agreements. This paper describes the INFORMAS trade protocol, an approach to collecting food-related information about four domains of trade: trade in goods; trade in services and foreign direct investment; domestic supports, and policy space. Specifically, the protocol is tested in Fiji. The development and testing of this protocol in Fiji represents the first effort to set out a framework and process for objectively monitoring trade agreements and their impacts on national food supply and the wider food environment. It has shown that entry into WTO trade agreements contributed to the nutrition transition in Fiji through the increased availability of imported foods with varying nutritional quality. We observed an increase in imports of both healthy and less healthy foods. The application of the monitoring protocol also highlights challenges for data collection associated with each trade domain that should be considered for future data collection and analysis in other low and middle income countries. trade agreements, monitoring, food environments, non-communicable diseases INTRODUCTION The growing rates of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs), globally, has focused attention on the global food system and the nutritional quality of national food environments (Swinburn et al., 2011; Vandevijvere and Swinburn, 2014). Over the past half century, in developed countries, and increasingly in developing countries, foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt are more available, affordable and physically accessible than ever before (Swinburn et al., 2004; Baker and Friel, 2014). As a consequence, greater consumption of these foods has been associated with an increased risk of obesity and diet-related NCDs (WHO, 2003; Swinburn et al., 2004; Webster et al., 2010). There have been three important changes in global food systems during this time: (1) the opening of domestic markets to international food trade, leading to large increases in volumes of trade in agricultural inputs and food products, (2) the increased entry of transnational food companies (TFCs) and greater foreign direct investment (FDI) in the primary production, food processing, and retail sectors of these markets and (3) intensified global food marketing and promotion (Hawkes, 2006; Rayner et al., 2007). A key aspect of trade liberalization is the negotiation of international trade and investment agreements, hereafter collectively referred to as trade agreements. Public health attention has relatively recently turned to the links between trade agreements, food environments, diets and health (Hawkes et al., 2005; Rayner et al., 2007; Friel et al., 2015). Not only has the volume of agricultural and food products traded internationally increased exponentially in the past few decades, but the composition of food has also altered. Volumes of trade in traditional cereals have declined relative to higher-value products such as seafood, meat and dairy products, high-value fruits and vegetables, and processed foodstuffs (Rae and Josling, 2003). Additionally, reductions in barriers to investment have seen an expansion of highly processed food markets in countries worldwide, including in Central America (Hawkes and Thow, 2008; Thow and Hawkes, 2009) and in some Asian countries (Hawkes, 2005; WTO, 2007; Sirikeratikul and Vasquez, 2011; Friel et al., 2013). Studies in some of the Pacific Island countries suggest that trade and investment liberalization has contributed to the nutrition transition in the Pacific (Thow and Snowdon, 2010; Legge et al., 2011; Snowdon et al., 2011; Thow et al., 2011). This shift in agricultural production and investment by food manufacturers and retailers has had major effects on the local availability, nutritional quality, price and desirability of less healthy relative to healthy foods (Friel and Baker, 2009; Hawkes et al., 2009; Khoury et al., 2014). These food system and trade issues are on the world policy stage. The Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), an inter-governmental meeting on nutrition jointly organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) took place in November 2014 and, among other things, discussed issues of policy coherence between trade and nutrition (UNSCN, 2015). In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development launched seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including Goal 2–ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030. The SDGs highlight trade as an important implementation mechanism for a number of the goals including Goal 2. Yet even with the influential role that specific trade agreements appear to have played in the volume and types of foods entering different regions and countries, and the global political attention to these issues, there is currently no systematic and objective monitoring of trade agreements for their impacts on food environments, and hence no data with which to inform the development of effective, coherent trade and health policy approaches to ensure the provision and consumption of a nutritious diet and reduce the global burden of obesity and diet-related NCDs. Recently, the International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) was set up to monitor and benchmark food environments, government policies and private sector actions within countries and globally (Swinburn et al., 2013). Through its monitoring activities, INFORMAS seeks to strengthen the accountability of both public and private sectors actions with regards to food environments, and to support advocacy efforts among researchers, civil society groups and other public sector actors. One of the INFORMAS projects/modules focuses on trade policy and in particular the food-related aspects of trade agreements. It is one of twelve INFORMAS projects/modules. As part of this module, a proposed approach for monitoring the impact of trade agreements on food environments and obesity/NCD risks has been previously published in a concept paper (Friel et al., 2013). The current paper outlines a detailed monitoring protocol based on this concept paper, and describes the pilot-testing of the protocol in Fiji. The protocol is intended to be conducted as part of comprehensive monitoring of national food environments, government policies and actions (Swinburn et al., 2013). The monitoring approach recommends a step-wise approach comprising quantifiable ‘minimal’, ‘expanded’ and ‘optimal’ measurement indicators to data collection and analysis which are tailored to national priorities, capacity and resources. The protocol has been developed through an iterative process of feasibility testing of this step-wise approach using Fiji as an example. The second half of the paper describes the testing of the protocol in Fiji and highlights some of the data and institutional challenges to monitoring trade and food environments. Fiji was chosen as a pilot country given the recent interest by the health ministry in trade policy and NCDs (Legge et al., 2011), and because it is also piloting a number of the other INFORMAS modules (Sacks et al., 2015), thus eventually enabling a whole of food environment assessment. PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aim of the INFORMAS Trade project is to collate food-related trade data associated with ratified trade agreements in different countries. The subsequent objectives are to help inform the development of effective health policy approaches to mitigate any nutrition risks arising from the agreements, and also to support efforts to improve the healthfulness of future trade agreements. This will be done by collecting food-related information about four domains of trade: trade in goods; trade in services and FDI; domestic supports, and policy space, in a standardized format in different countries. The main objectives will be: To track changes over time in the food-related outcome measures associated with each trade domain by country To compare the changes in food related outcome measures associated with each trade domain between countries METHODS This project will comprise of assessments of trade agreements in multiple countries around the world. In developing this protocol, we have used the overarching INFORMAS ‘trade and investment step-wise monitoring framework’ and focused on the ‘minimal’ approach (Friel et al., 2013). The same basic methodology will be used in each country to enable robust comparisons, but it is understood that different countries will be at different stages of negotiating and ratifying trade agreements and that the pursuit of the study goals will not always happen at the same time or for the same agreements. Countries to be included The goal is to include a broad geographic range of countries. There will be no restriction on the number of countries that can participate in the trade project although in practice this will be determined by available data, resources and capacity. In this paper Fiji is the test country for the protocol. Trade agreements to be included A trade agreement will be defined as a tax, tariff and trade pact that often includes investment guarantees. In addition, our definition of trade agreement in this paper is inclusive of both trade and investment agreements. At a minimum, countries will undertake a desktop review to map and record all trade agreements that they have ratified. For each agreement, the form (multilateral, bilateral, regional, or bilateral investment treaty), the partner countries and length of time since ratification should be listed. Within each agreement, it is important to identify all commitments that have implications for food within those agreements. Selection of the commitments/provisions will be guided by the indicators outlined in Table 1. Table 1 Minimal step-wise approach for monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on national food environments Domain Indicators 1. Trade in goods 1.1. Total food import volumes 1.2. Focus food category import volumes 1.3. Rate of change in total food import volumes 1.4. Rate of change in focus food category import volumes 1.5. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories 1.6. Tariff-rate quotas for focus food categories 1.7. Tariff differential (if any) between healthy and less healthy focus food categories 2. Trade in services and foreign direct investment 2.1 Type and country of origin of all foreign-owned TFCs operating in country 2.2 FDI investment in food production, processing, retail and advertising sectors (monetary value) 2.3 Rate of change in total inward FDI in food and related sectors (including communications and advertising) 3. Domestic protections and supports 3.1 Contextual analysis of provisions in trade agreement relating to domestic protections and supports (e.g. agricultural safeguards, special treatment of agricultural products, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, agricultural supports and export subsidies and promotion). 3.2 Focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods before the implementation of relevant agreements and assess their changes over time 3.3 Total domestic production of selected focus foods 3.4 Rate of change of selected focus foods between the proportions of food supply that is exported and that which is available for local consumption 4. Policy space Provisions in text which may constrain the types of domestic policy that governments can/might introduce, including government procurement, regulation of food marketing, composition, labelling and dispute settlement mechanisms Domain Indicators 1. Trade in goods 1.1. Total food import volumes 1.2. Focus food category import volumes 1.3. Rate of change in total food import volumes 1.4. Rate of change in focus food category import volumes 1.5. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories 1.6. Tariff-rate quotas for focus food categories 1.7. Tariff differential (if any) between healthy and less healthy focus food categories 2. Trade in services and foreign direct investment 2.1 Type and country of origin of all foreign-owned TFCs operating in country 2.2 FDI investment in food production, processing, retail and advertising sectors (monetary value) 2.3 Rate of change in total inward FDI in food and related sectors (including communications and advertising) 3. Domestic protections and supports 3.1 Contextual analysis of provisions in trade agreement relating to domestic protections and supports (e.g. agricultural safeguards, special treatment of agricultural products, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, agricultural supports and export subsidies and promotion). 3.2 Focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods before the implementation of relevant agreements and assess their changes over time 3.3 Total domestic production of selected focus foods 3.4 Rate of change of selected focus foods between the proportions of food supply that is exported and that which is available for local consumption 4. Policy space Provisions in text which may constrain the types of domestic policy that governments can/might introduce, including government procurement, regulation of food marketing, composition, labelling and dispute settlement mechanisms Adapted from Friel et al. (2013, p. 130). Table 1 Minimal step-wise approach for monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on national food environments Domain Indicators 1. Trade in goods 1.1. Total food import volumes 1.2. Focus food category import volumes 1.3. Rate of change in total food import volumes 1.4. Rate of change in focus food category import volumes 1.5. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories 1.6. Tariff-rate quotas for focus food categories 1.7. Tariff differential (if any) between healthy and less healthy focus food categories 2. Trade in services and foreign direct investment 2.1 Type and country of origin of all foreign-owned TFCs operating in country 2.2 FDI investment in food production, processing, retail and advertising sectors (monetary value) 2.3 Rate of change in total inward FDI in food and related sectors (including communications and advertising) 3. Domestic protections and supports 3.1 Contextual analysis of provisions in trade agreement relating to domestic protections and supports (e.g. agricultural safeguards, special treatment of agricultural products, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, agricultural supports and export subsidies and promotion). 3.2 Focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods before the implementation of relevant agreements and assess their changes over time 3.3 Total domestic production of selected focus foods 3.4 Rate of change of selected focus foods between the proportions of food supply that is exported and that which is available for local consumption 4. Policy space Provisions in text which may constrain the types of domestic policy that governments can/might introduce, including government procurement, regulation of food marketing, composition, labelling and dispute settlement mechanisms Domain Indicators 1. Trade in goods 1.1. Total food import volumes 1.2. Focus food category import volumes 1.3. Rate of change in total food import volumes 1.4. Rate of change in focus food category import volumes 1.5. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories 1.6. Tariff-rate quotas for focus food categories 1.7. Tariff differential (if any) between healthy and less healthy focus food categories 2. Trade in services and foreign direct investment 2.1 Type and country of origin of all foreign-owned TFCs operating in country 2.2 FDI investment in food production, processing, retail and advertising sectors (monetary value) 2.3 Rate of change in total inward FDI in food and related sectors (including communications and advertising) 3. Domestic protections and supports 3.1 Contextual analysis of provisions in trade agreement relating to domestic protections and supports (e.g. agricultural safeguards, special treatment of agricultural products, anti-dumping and countervailing measures, agricultural supports and export subsidies and promotion). 3.2 Focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods before the implementation of relevant agreements and assess their changes over time 3.3 Total domestic production of selected focus foods 3.4 Rate of change of selected focus foods between the proportions of food supply that is exported and that which is available for local consumption 4. Policy space Provisions in text which may constrain the types of domestic policy that governments can/might introduce, including government procurement, regulation of food marketing, composition, labelling and dispute settlement mechanisms Adapted from Friel et al. (2013, p. 130). Food-related trade data to be collected Trade agreement negotiations are a lengthy process that starts long before the sign-off or ratification of trade agreements. Countries should document and analyse the trend in food-related trade indicators before and after ratification of the trade agreement. A 10 year window either side of ratification is proposed but this timeframe should be considered within each country. There are four domains in the framework for which data are needed (Table 1). The goal is to capture and document as much information as possible for each listed indicator, although in practice the availability of data and resources will determine the indicators to focus on. Focus foods Focus foods should be identified and classified as ‘healthy’ or ‘less healthy’ based on the suggested focus food categories identified in Box 1. Box 1: ‘Focus’ food categories Healthy food categories Less healthy food categories Fresh fruits Fresh vegetables, including staple root crops Pulses, nuts and seeds Staple whole-grain cereals Edible oils & spreads (including hydrogenated oils used as an ingredient in processed foods) Fatty meat products (e.g. turkey tails, mutton-flaps, processed meats) High-fat, processed dairy products (e.g. processed cheese, ice cream) Energy-dense beverages (e.g. carbonated soft drinks) Sugars and other caloric sweeteners (incl. HFCS) Savoury ready-to-eat snacks and meals (e.g. potato chips, French fries, instant noodles) Sweet snacks (e.g. biscuits, pastries, confectionary) Sweet, packaged breakfast cereals Healthy food categories Less healthy food categories Fresh fruits Fresh vegetables, including staple root crops Pulses, nuts and seeds Staple whole-grain cereals Edible oils & spreads (including hydrogenated oils used as an ingredient in processed foods) Fatty meat products (e.g. turkey tails, mutton-flaps, processed meats) High-fat, processed dairy products (e.g. processed cheese, ice cream) Energy-dense beverages (e.g. carbonated soft drinks) Sugars and other caloric sweeteners (incl. HFCS) Savoury ready-to-eat snacks and meals (e.g. potato chips, French fries, instant noodles) Sweet snacks (e.g. biscuits, pastries, confectionary) Sweet, packaged breakfast cereals From Friel et al. (2013, p. 129). Box 1: ‘Focus’ food categories Healthy food categories Less healthy food categories Fresh fruits Fresh vegetables, including staple root crops Pulses, nuts and seeds Staple whole-grain cereals Edible oils & spreads (including hydrogenated oils used as an ingredient in processed foods) Fatty meat products (e.g. turkey tails, mutton-flaps, processed meats) High-fat, processed dairy products (e.g. processed cheese, ice cream) Energy-dense beverages (e.g. carbonated soft drinks) Sugars and other caloric sweeteners (incl. HFCS) Savoury ready-to-eat snacks and meals (e.g. potato chips, French fries, instant noodles) Sweet snacks (e.g. biscuits, pastries, confectionary) Sweet, packaged breakfast cereals Healthy food categories Less healthy food categories Fresh fruits Fresh vegetables, including staple root crops Pulses, nuts and seeds Staple whole-grain cereals Edible oils & spreads (including hydrogenated oils used as an ingredient in processed foods) Fatty meat products (e.g. turkey tails, mutton-flaps, processed meats) High-fat, processed dairy products (e.g. processed cheese, ice cream) Energy-dense beverages (e.g. carbonated soft drinks) Sugars and other caloric sweeteners (incl. HFCS) Savoury ready-to-eat snacks and meals (e.g. potato chips, French fries, instant noodles) Sweet snacks (e.g. biscuits, pastries, confectionary) Sweet, packaged breakfast cereals From Friel et al. (2013, p. 129). Domain 1: trade in goods For domain 1, the type of data that should be collected includes total food import volumes, focus food category import volumes and actual and bound tariff rates for selected focus foods. Total food import volumes The total food import volume per year for each trade agreement should be monitored in each partner country. Following this, the rate of change in total food import volumes can be calculated for the specific time periods selected for monitoring. The quantity of measurement to use is the kilogram (kg) and in cases where another unit of measurement has been used, these should be converted to kg. The Harmonized System Code (HS) classification system is an internationally standardized system of names and numbers to classify traded products. This should be used as the primary classification system for the collection and compilation of food data. Focus food category import volumes To collect information on focus food import volumes, foods must be classified as ‘healthy’ or ‘less healthy’. At a minimum, the selected food categories should be guided by the suggested focus food categories outlined in Box 1. Information within country should be used to inform the selection of contextually relevant focus foods e.g. nutrition survey data or household purchasing data. Following this, the rate of change in focus food import volumes can be calculated for the specific time periods selected for monitoring. For each selected focus food, the country of origin is understood as the partner country for imports. Assessing the country of origin of each focus food and determining which trade agreements cover the importation of the selected foods is more difficult and time-consuming. At a minimum, focus food data may only reflect imports with major trading partners to a specific agreement. Much of the information relating to total and focus food import volumes can be collected from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics (UN Comtrade) database (comtrade.un.org). Where the UNCOMTRADE database is not able to provide this information, countries should consult their National Statistics Office (NSO). Depending upon the type of data available at the country level, i.e. hand-coded data or electronic records, countries should collect data that has reasonable quality. It is recommended that countries carry out discussions on this with their NSO before deciding on the years to monitor food import volumes. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories Tariffs are either levied on an ad-valorem basis (percentage of value) or on a specific basis (e.g. by weight or volume). Tariff schedules will vary between countries depending on the trade agreements that countries are party to. Careful consideration will need to be adhered to with assumptions about which tariff rate is actually applied to a particular import. In the case of preferential tariff rates that an agreement member country benefits from under preferential trade agreements, these will differ between partners and agreements. Given that specific reductions vary widely across countries, for a ‘minimum’ level of assessment, countries may only choose to review secondary tariff information for unilateral preferential tariff treatment, as tariff reductions in some countries are not directly associated with trade agreements. Under the multilateral trading system, Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff rates will apply in the assessment of actual and bound rates for WTO member countries. An actual/applied tariff rate is a custom duty (tax) applied on imported goods at the border. Bound tariff rates are enforceable and are the highest rate that a WTO member country can charge on imports without attracting an appeal for compensation by the affected country. Much of the information relating to MFN rates can be downloaded from the WTO Tariff Download Facility (http://tariffdata.wto.org/). For some countries, tariff data may be limited in this database and alternative data sources need to be pursued including the National Statistics Office of the country or a National Customs Office (NCO) if there is one. Domain 2: trade in services and foreign direct investment (FDI) The type and country of origin of foreign-owned transnational food corporations (TFCs) operating in-country should be documented. Much of this data can be collected through the International Trade Centre (ITC) database (http://tariffdata.wto.org/). Countries should consult their Investment Promotion Agencies (IPA) for further assistance as all foreign-owned businesses register with their partner-country IPA and provide their product information to them. Countries are also encouraged to obtain the monetary value of FDI investment in food production, processing, retail and advertising sectors. In countries where FDI investment values for the mentioned are not available, and where resource is available, data may be obtained directly from the source. Domain 3: domestic protections and support While food trade policies involving non-tariff barriers such as subsidies and quotas can be important for supporting local food and agricultural sectors, securing foreign exchange through exported products, contributing to national food supplies and generating rural employment; the impact on nutrition can be ‘tangential, non-existent or even negative if the local food environment is not supplied with foods of high nutritional value and information that supports enhanced dietary choice’ (Beddington et al., 2014). It is important therefore to assess the domestic policy and regulations that involve restrictions on traded food products given their implications for market access and regulating food exports and imports. Analyses of this domain will initially focus on trade commitments countries have made relating to export and import subsidies, anti-dumping actions, and countervailing measures and safeguards from imports. There should be tabulations that summarize the provisions in text relating to these. In addition to these tabulations, countries should also undertake a contextual analysis at baseline to identify domestic policies governed by these provisions that have a direct impact on food production and trade. Where data exists, countries will focus on trade-related subsidy provisions. Data collection could focus on subsidies for selected products that are provided to local food producers including tax breaks and funding grants. In selecting products for assessment, countries should base their selection on previously documented secondary information concerning growing or susceptible export industries during the negotiation phase of relevant trade and investment agreements. Given the main focus of trade-related subsidy provisions on exported products, it would be optimal for countries to assess changes in actual production and export volumes (of selected focus foods or more broadly where possible) before the ratification of relevant agreements and their trend changes over time. For a ‘minimum’ level of assessment, countries may choose to focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods before the implementation of relevant agreements and assess their changes over time. At a minimum, it is recommended that countries also collect data on the total domestic production of selected focus foods, and assess the rate of change between the proportions of food supply that is exported and that which is available for local consumption. Domain 4: policy space The scope of provisions that will be sought in this domain are indicated in Table 1. In particular, the presence of provisions that will have the potential to restrict domestic policy making and implementation of regulations should be identified and tabulated. These may include market access restrictions, FDI regulations, informative product labelling including intellectual property rights, marketing restrictions, and food composition. At the same time, it will be important for countries to identify the scope of specific domestic policies pursued by their governments that effectively protect policy space for public health nutrition. For some countries, very limited information may be available for this domain. At a minimum level, it is suggested that countries document issues of concern that may arise from relevant agreements which they are party to, which may prohibit them from using safeguard measures and domestic policy options that pertain to improved public health nutrition. For more advanced assessments in the expanded and optimal approaches, countries may choose to assess changes in domestic policy, regulations and guidelines relating to public health nutrition. DATA RELIABILITY Countries should be aware of the coverage and limitations of the data before extraction. If countries are using UN Comtrade data, countries should understand how the data are collected and the limitations that come with using the database by browsing through related information provided via their website. During data collection, countries are encouraged to carry out consultations with knowledgeable users of the data to determine the accuracy and completeness of data for the precise interval periods in which monitoring should begin. A major inconsistency relates to how data is captured and reported where volumes reported for food categories in some years are more detailed and made available in several commodity classifications. For other years, aggregates are only provided under major classifications. For example, datasets may only report major classifications such as ‘livestock’, ‘animal oils and fats’ and ‘beverages and tobacco’. From such classifications, it is difficult to determine the range of food commodities falling under these headings that should be included for analysis. Other common inconsistences that can be evident include missing data in some commodity classifications, different commodity classifications for different time periods, country of origin for food imports are not listed, and the different units of measurement used. TESTING THE PROTOCOL: FIJIAN CASE STUDY This section of the paper outlines the collection of ‘minimal’ data in Fiji and provides an overview of challenges identified for monitoring in Fiji, which may also be relevant in other countries, with respect to indicator selection, data sources and the representativeness of data. An adapted version of the INFORMAS trade and investment step-wise framework was used because of the limited information available and other data limitations that were encountered during data collection. Piloting of the protocol and analysis of the data was conducted between April 2014 and June 2015. Trade agreements that were included The first step involved a desktop review to map and record Fiji’s commitments to existing trade agreements that have implications for Fiji’s national food environment under the four domains previously discussed. Relevant agreements that have been ratified by Fiji (outlined in Table 2) include the (i) World Trade Organisation Agreements (General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Agreement on Agriculture, WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures), (ii) South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA), (iii) Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA), (iv) Cotonou Agreement and (v) Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA). Table 2 Key Fijian ratified trade agreements General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) WTO agreement governing services trade. Requires member countries to provide national treatment to foreign service providers in those service industries that they have agreed to liberalize under GAT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Multilateral FTA first signed in 1947 between 23 countries. Superceded by the WTO in 1995. Updated GATT (1994) is now one of the WTO’s agreements TRIPS WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which stipulates minimum standards of intellectual property protection Cotonou Agreement Partnership agreement between the European Union and 79 developing countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific region, governing development, political, economic and trade cooperation. Cotonou replaced the Lomé Convention first signed in 1976 and renegotiated and updated three times (1981-1985; 1986-1990; 1990-1999). Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA) Preferential FTA among the MSG countries (Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands & PNG) governing trade. South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) Non-reciprocal regional trade agreement designed to allow Pacific Island countries tariff-free access for many of their exports into the Australian and New Zealand markets. Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Regional FTA governing trade in goods among Pacific Island countries. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) WTO agreement governing services trade. Requires member countries to provide national treatment to foreign service providers in those service industries that they have agreed to liberalize under GAT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Multilateral FTA first signed in 1947 between 23 countries. Superceded by the WTO in 1995. Updated GATT (1994) is now one of the WTO’s agreements TRIPS WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which stipulates minimum standards of intellectual property protection Cotonou Agreement Partnership agreement between the European Union and 79 developing countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific region, governing development, political, economic and trade cooperation. Cotonou replaced the Lomé Convention first signed in 1976 and renegotiated and updated three times (1981-1985; 1986-1990; 1990-1999). Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA) Preferential FTA among the MSG countries (Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands & PNG) governing trade. South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) Non-reciprocal regional trade agreement designed to allow Pacific Island countries tariff-free access for many of their exports into the Australian and New Zealand markets. Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Regional FTA governing trade in goods among Pacific Island countries. Adapted from: Friel et al. (2013); WTO Online database (www.wto.org); Pacific Islands Forum website (www.forumsec.org); and the MSG Secretariat Online database (www.msgsec.info). Table 2 Key Fijian ratified trade agreements General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) WTO agreement governing services trade. Requires member countries to provide national treatment to foreign service providers in those service industries that they have agreed to liberalize under GAT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Multilateral FTA first signed in 1947 between 23 countries. Superceded by the WTO in 1995. Updated GATT (1994) is now one of the WTO’s agreements TRIPS WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which stipulates minimum standards of intellectual property protection Cotonou Agreement Partnership agreement between the European Union and 79 developing countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific region, governing development, political, economic and trade cooperation. Cotonou replaced the Lomé Convention first signed in 1976 and renegotiated and updated three times (1981-1985; 1986-1990; 1990-1999). Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA) Preferential FTA among the MSG countries (Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands & PNG) governing trade. South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) Non-reciprocal regional trade agreement designed to allow Pacific Island countries tariff-free access for many of their exports into the Australian and New Zealand markets. Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Regional FTA governing trade in goods among Pacific Island countries. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) WTO agreement governing services trade. Requires member countries to provide national treatment to foreign service providers in those service industries that they have agreed to liberalize under GAT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Multilateral FTA first signed in 1947 between 23 countries. Superceded by the WTO in 1995. Updated GATT (1994) is now one of the WTO’s agreements TRIPS WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which stipulates minimum standards of intellectual property protection Cotonou Agreement Partnership agreement between the European Union and 79 developing countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific region, governing development, political, economic and trade cooperation. Cotonou replaced the Lomé Convention first signed in 1976 and renegotiated and updated three times (1981-1985; 1986-1990; 1990-1999). Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA) Preferential FTA among the MSG countries (Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands & PNG) governing trade. South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) Non-reciprocal regional trade agreement designed to allow Pacific Island countries tariff-free access for many of their exports into the Australian and New Zealand markets. Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Regional FTA governing trade in goods among Pacific Island countries. Adapted from: Friel et al. (2013); WTO Online database (www.wto.org); Pacific Islands Forum website (www.forumsec.org); and the MSG Secretariat Online database (www.msgsec.info). Information about each agreement was collected from various sources. For the food and agriculture-related World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade agreements, these were collected from the WTO online database (www.wto.org). The scope of the review for the WTO Agreements identified general rules that apply to Fiji as a WTO member and specific commitments listed as ‘schedules of specific commitments’, which reflect specific tariff concessions for the goods schedule (GATT), the specified level of market access and national treatment for the services schedule (GATS) and other commitments that Fiji has given in the context of trade negotiations. Fiji’s schedule of trade in goods concessions (GATT) are annexed to the Marrakesh Protocol to the GATT 1994 and can be accessed at www.wto.org>trade topics ≥ goods ≥ good schedules. For its schedule of specific commitments in GATS, these can be accessed at www.wto/org> trade topics ≥ services ≥ services schedules. Other regional agreements including the Pacific Islands Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) were collected from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (www.forumsec.org), the UNCTAD database of international agreements (www.investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org) and European Commission (ec.europa.eu) online databases respectively. The Melanesian Spearhead Group Trade Agreement (MSGTA) was collected from the MSG Secretariat online database (www.msgsec.info). Each agreement was catalogued according to form i.e. multilateral, regional or bilateral, and the date of ratification of each agreement was recorded. Details of the agreement texts, their exact wording and the scope of key food and agriculture related provisions were also catalogued (see Appendix 1 for full details). Food-related trade data Domain 1: Trade in goods In this pilot study, data were collected for WTO agreements i.e. food import volumes coming to Fiji through all partner countries that are parties to GATS, GATT and TRIPS. Fiji entered the WTO in 1996. Data was collected for the period 1980-2013, with data points at 1980, 1990, 1995 1996, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013. Total food import volumes Food import data were collected from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBOS) and the Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority (FRCA). Annual trade data from 1977 to 1981 were available only in hard copy and these were requested from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBOS). Annual trade data from 1982 to 1989 was not readily available and accessing this data involved archival research in the FBOS Library. Annual trade data from 1990 to 1999 were available in hard copy from FBOS but these datasets only include major trading partners not every country in the WTO. For the years 2000 to 2004 annual trade data were available in electronic records at the request of FBOS and some additional data were pursued via the UN Comtrade database. In 2014, FRCA implemented the Automated System of Customs Data (ASYCUDA) which captures and implements all international standards for trade data. This system contains data dating back to 2005 and it is recommended that annual trade data from 2005 onwards be collected through the ASYCUDA system. To obtain data through the ASYCUDA system, a letter of request was sent to the Chief Executive Officer of FRCA. Once permission was granted, raw data were accessed for analysis. The data were selected by food import categories as defined by FBOS and the specific classification codes used to classify these food items. Prior to the year 2000, Fiji was using the Standard International Classification Code (SITC) for the classification of goods, and has since then switched to the Harmonized System Code (HS) of classification. All food products with SITC classifications were matched accordingly to the corresponding HS classifications using the most current version of the HS classification. Data include volumes for animal products, vegetable products, prepared foodstuffs, miscellaneous food preparations, non-alcoholic beverages, and animal or vegetable oils and fats. These food categories excluded variations of products used for pharmaceuticals, animal feeds, live animals, and flower cuttings and seeds not listed as edible. As part of the data collection and verification process, data collected from the UN Comtrade database reflected aggregates of food categories with non-food categories. Therefore, the data had to be filtered. The data was transferred to a spreadsheet and grouped by its classification code and by country. The values for the different food categories were then summed up and tabulated separately for every year. Figure 1 above provides a schematic overview of the data collection process. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide A simplified flow chart for annual food import data collection. Fig. 1 View largeDownload slide A simplified flow chart for annual food import data collection. Focus food category import volumes In determining which ‘less healthy’ foods (see Table 3) to monitor for Fiji, the decision was based on the ‘Store Survey’, undertaken in 2013 by the Pacific Research Centre for the Prevention of Obesity and Non-Communicable Diseases (C-POND) based in Fiji. The Store Survey has a database of 6041 foods and drinks with their nutrient composition collected from five Pacific island countries including Fiji (Snowdon et al., 2013). For the purposes of the INFORMAS trade project, product selection was based on the number of varieties of that product represented in the Fiji part of the dataset in the survey, with the logic being that the number of varieties is an indication of purchasing patterns and the consumers’ demand for that type of product in the market. Although old, the report of the most recent version of the Fiji National Nutrition Survey (NNS) 2004 was used to validate the selected products by identifying those products most consumed. Table 3 Selected healthy and less healthy focus foods in Fiji Healthy foods Less healthy foods Focus food category Food product Focus food category Food product Fresh Fruits Citrus (oranges, mandarins, including tangerines, grapefruit and lemons) Fresh apples Fresh grapes Edible oils and spreads Palm Oil Corn Oil Hydrogenated fats (Lard, dripping, fats and oil) Margarine Butter Fresh vegetables Fresh tomatoes Garlic Onion Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables Cauliflowers and broccoli Other cabbages and cauliflowers Cabbage lettuce Other lettuce, other vegetables Carrots and turnips Potatoes Celery (Beetroot, Radish) Fatty meat products Chicken nuggets/patties Beef patties Canned foods (excluding fish) Pulses, nuts and seeds Dried leguminous vegetables, split, lentils, chickpeas and kidney beans High processed dairy products Processed cheese Fruit based/flavoured yoghurt Ice-cream and edible ices Staple whole-grain cereals Rice (brown or white) Rolled oats; oat meal Healthy breakfast cereals Energy-dense beverages Cordial juices (e.g. Cordial concentrate, tang, via fresh powder, soft drink concentrate, Just Juice, Fruit drinks, Fruitace, Fromase, Nutri-C) Sugar-sweetened, carbonated drinks Electrolyte drinks (e.g. Powerade, Gatorade, Red Bull, Mother, V-Drink) Sugar & other caloric sweeteners Raw sugar/White Sugar/Refined/Manufactured, Sugar sachets, icing sugar, caster sugar Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals Snack packs, corn chips, potato chips etc. Noodles (Flavoured, Instant) Confectionary Sweet snacks Sweet biscuits Sweet packaged breakfast cereals Highly processed & sugar sweetened (Coco Pops, Choco Puffs, Fruit flavoured, milo ball, fruit loops etc.) Healthy foods Less healthy foods Focus food category Food product Focus food category Food product Fresh Fruits Citrus (oranges, mandarins, including tangerines, grapefruit and lemons) Fresh apples Fresh grapes Edible oils and spreads Palm Oil Corn Oil Hydrogenated fats (Lard, dripping, fats and oil) Margarine Butter Fresh vegetables Fresh tomatoes Garlic Onion Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables Cauliflowers and broccoli Other cabbages and cauliflowers Cabbage lettuce Other lettuce, other vegetables Carrots and turnips Potatoes Celery (Beetroot, Radish) Fatty meat products Chicken nuggets/patties Beef patties Canned foods (excluding fish) Pulses, nuts and seeds Dried leguminous vegetables, split, lentils, chickpeas and kidney beans High processed dairy products Processed cheese Fruit based/flavoured yoghurt Ice-cream and edible ices Staple whole-grain cereals Rice (brown or white) Rolled oats; oat meal Healthy breakfast cereals Energy-dense beverages Cordial juices (e.g. Cordial concentrate, tang, via fresh powder, soft drink concentrate, Just Juice, Fruit drinks, Fruitace, Fromase, Nutri-C) Sugar-sweetened, carbonated drinks Electrolyte drinks (e.g. Powerade, Gatorade, Red Bull, Mother, V-Drink) Sugar & other caloric sweeteners Raw sugar/White Sugar/Refined/Manufactured, Sugar sachets, icing sugar, caster sugar Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals Snack packs, corn chips, potato chips etc. Noodles (Flavoured, Instant) Confectionary Sweet snacks Sweet biscuits Sweet packaged breakfast cereals Highly processed & sugar sweetened (Coco Pops, Choco Puffs, Fruit flavoured, milo ball, fruit loops etc.) Table 3 Selected healthy and less healthy focus foods in Fiji Healthy foods Less healthy foods Focus food category Food product Focus food category Food product Fresh Fruits Citrus (oranges, mandarins, including tangerines, grapefruit and lemons) Fresh apples Fresh grapes Edible oils and spreads Palm Oil Corn Oil Hydrogenated fats (Lard, dripping, fats and oil) Margarine Butter Fresh vegetables Fresh tomatoes Garlic Onion Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables Cauliflowers and broccoli Other cabbages and cauliflowers Cabbage lettuce Other lettuce, other vegetables Carrots and turnips Potatoes Celery (Beetroot, Radish) Fatty meat products Chicken nuggets/patties Beef patties Canned foods (excluding fish) Pulses, nuts and seeds Dried leguminous vegetables, split, lentils, chickpeas and kidney beans High processed dairy products Processed cheese Fruit based/flavoured yoghurt Ice-cream and edible ices Staple whole-grain cereals Rice (brown or white) Rolled oats; oat meal Healthy breakfast cereals Energy-dense beverages Cordial juices (e.g. Cordial concentrate, tang, via fresh powder, soft drink concentrate, Just Juice, Fruit drinks, Fruitace, Fromase, Nutri-C) Sugar-sweetened, carbonated drinks Electrolyte drinks (e.g. Powerade, Gatorade, Red Bull, Mother, V-Drink) Sugar & other caloric sweeteners Raw sugar/White Sugar/Refined/Manufactured, Sugar sachets, icing sugar, caster sugar Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals Snack packs, corn chips, potato chips etc. Noodles (Flavoured, Instant) Confectionary Sweet snacks Sweet biscuits Sweet packaged breakfast cereals Highly processed & sugar sweetened (Coco Pops, Choco Puffs, Fruit flavoured, milo ball, fruit loops etc.) Healthy foods Less healthy foods Focus food category Food product Focus food category Food product Fresh Fruits Citrus (oranges, mandarins, including tangerines, grapefruit and lemons) Fresh apples Fresh grapes Edible oils and spreads Palm Oil Corn Oil Hydrogenated fats (Lard, dripping, fats and oil) Margarine Butter Fresh vegetables Fresh tomatoes Garlic Onion Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables Cauliflowers and broccoli Other cabbages and cauliflowers Cabbage lettuce Other lettuce, other vegetables Carrots and turnips Potatoes Celery (Beetroot, Radish) Fatty meat products Chicken nuggets/patties Beef patties Canned foods (excluding fish) Pulses, nuts and seeds Dried leguminous vegetables, split, lentils, chickpeas and kidney beans High processed dairy products Processed cheese Fruit based/flavoured yoghurt Ice-cream and edible ices Staple whole-grain cereals Rice (brown or white) Rolled oats; oat meal Healthy breakfast cereals Energy-dense beverages Cordial juices (e.g. Cordial concentrate, tang, via fresh powder, soft drink concentrate, Just Juice, Fruit drinks, Fruitace, Fromase, Nutri-C) Sugar-sweetened, carbonated drinks Electrolyte drinks (e.g. Powerade, Gatorade, Red Bull, Mother, V-Drink) Sugar & other caloric sweeteners Raw sugar/White Sugar/Refined/Manufactured, Sugar sachets, icing sugar, caster sugar Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals Snack packs, corn chips, potato chips etc. Noodles (Flavoured, Instant) Confectionary Sweet snacks Sweet biscuits Sweet packaged breakfast cereals Highly processed & sugar sweetened (Coco Pops, Choco Puffs, Fruit flavoured, milo ball, fruit loops etc.) The Store Survey was not used for the selection of ‘healthy’ foods as the survey only captured data on packaged foods such as canned, dried and pickled fruits and frozen vegetables. The selection of ‘healthy’ foods (see Table 3), was guided by information provided in the NNS Reports reflecting dietary-intake patterns and the most common fresh fruits and vegetables found in a Fijian and Indo-Fijian diet (these being the major ethnic groups). A number of green, orange-yellow and red ‘healthy’ fruits and vegetables with net weight consistently exceeding 10,000 kg per annum between 1980 and 2013 were selected for monitoring purposes. The volume of imports of highly-processed, energy-dense and/or high fat foods increased between 1990 to 1996, with further marked increases from 2000 to 2010 (see Table 4). In 1989, the removal of import licensing controls on 34 food items including white rice, meat products, snack foods, non-alcoholic beverages (including energy-dense beverages) and sugar opened up the Fiji market for increased imports of these between 1990 and 1996. Table 4 Volume of select less healthy focus food imports to Fiji, over the selected years from major WTO importing countries Import Volume (Qty in tonnes) Less healthy focus food 1980 1990 1995 1996 2000 2005 2010 2013 Edible oils and spreads 1883 1429 3965 2729 2368 18659 39529 23197 Fatty meat products 25 5 10 20 77 256 658 512 High-fat/processed dairy products 74 85 89 131 860 1751 1190 6976 Energy-dense beverages 299 210 2022 3708 398 3773 7090 11977 Sugar & other caloric sweeteners 309 655 14745 46915 2097 16322 31219 61840 Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals n/s n/s n/s n/s 236 733 1047 3041 Sweet snacks 647 542 790 1114 1366 3867 4762 5497 Sweet packaged breakfast cereals 121 n/s n/s 59 272 429 362 338 White rice 2030 72854 302454 67757 1105 29394 109096 98763 Import Volume (Qty in tonnes) Less healthy focus food 1980 1990 1995 1996 2000 2005 2010 2013 Edible oils and spreads 1883 1429 3965 2729 2368 18659 39529 23197 Fatty meat products 25 5 10 20 77 256 658 512 High-fat/processed dairy products 74 85 89 131 860 1751 1190 6976 Energy-dense beverages 299 210 2022 3708 398 3773 7090 11977 Sugar & other caloric sweeteners 309 655 14745 46915 2097 16322 31219 61840 Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals n/s n/s n/s n/s 236 733 1047 3041 Sweet snacks 647 542 790 1114 1366 3867 4762 5497 Sweet packaged breakfast cereals 121 n/s n/s 59 272 429 362 338 White rice 2030 72854 302454 67757 1105 29394 109096 98763 Data collected for chicken nuggets/beef patties and canned foods were not available between 1980 and 1996. Data on soft drinks was not available in the 1990 to 2000 data sets. Data on energy drinks was not available in the 1980 to 2000 data sets. Data for savoury ready-to-eat snacks & meals were not specified (n/s) in the 1980 to 1996 data. Data for sweet packaged breakfast cereals were not specified (n/s) in the 1990 and 1995 data. All reported data in Table 4 have been rounded off to the nearest thousand and reported in tonnes. Source: Data extracted from Fiji Bureau of Statistics (1980, 1990, 1996 and 2000); Fiji Revenue Customs Authority ASYCUDA (2010) (FRCA, 2015). Table 4 Volume of select less healthy focus food imports to Fiji, over the selected years from major WTO importing countries Import Volume (Qty in tonnes) Less healthy focus food 1980 1990 1995 1996 2000 2005 2010 2013 Edible oils and spreads 1883 1429 3965 2729 2368 18659 39529 23197 Fatty meat products 25 5 10 20 77 256 658 512 High-fat/processed dairy products 74 85 89 131 860 1751 1190 6976 Energy-dense beverages 299 210 2022 3708 398 3773 7090 11977 Sugar & other caloric sweeteners 309 655 14745 46915 2097 16322 31219 61840 Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals n/s n/s n/s n/s 236 733 1047 3041 Sweet snacks 647 542 790 1114 1366 3867 4762 5497 Sweet packaged breakfast cereals 121 n/s n/s 59 272 429 362 338 White rice 2030 72854 302454 67757 1105 29394 109096 98763 Import Volume (Qty in tonnes) Less healthy focus food 1980 1990 1995 1996 2000 2005 2010 2013 Edible oils and spreads 1883 1429 3965 2729 2368 18659 39529 23197 Fatty meat products 25 5 10 20 77 256 658 512 High-fat/processed dairy products 74 85 89 131 860 1751 1190 6976 Energy-dense beverages 299 210 2022 3708 398 3773 7090 11977 Sugar & other caloric sweeteners 309 655 14745 46915 2097 16322 31219 61840 Savoury ready to eat snacks & meals n/s n/s n/s n/s 236 733 1047 3041 Sweet snacks 647 542 790 1114 1366 3867 4762 5497 Sweet packaged breakfast cereals 121 n/s n/s 59 272 429 362 338 White rice 2030 72854 302454 67757 1105 29394 109096 98763 Data collected for chicken nuggets/beef patties and canned foods were not available between 1980 and 1996. Data on soft drinks was not available in the 1990 to 2000 data sets. Data on energy drinks was not available in the 1980 to 2000 data sets. Data for savoury ready-to-eat snacks & meals were not specified (n/s) in the 1980 to 1996 data. Data for sweet packaged breakfast cereals were not specified (n/s) in the 1990 and 1995 data. All reported data in Table 4 have been rounded off to the nearest thousand and reported in tonnes. Source: Data extracted from Fiji Bureau of Statistics (1980, 1990, 1996 and 2000); Fiji Revenue Customs Authority ASYCUDA (2010) (FRCA, 2015). Accessing data To access data for each selected focus food, the Harmonized System (HS) codes for each specific food were identified and sent to FBOS and FRCA for verification and extraction. Due to limited resources, these institutions were not able to verify the HS Codes nor could they extract the required datasets. One of the authors of this paper manually identified the HS codes tagged for each selected food through the pdf copies of data provided by FBOS, had a face-to-face meeting with a FBOS representative to further discuss these classifications, and mined through the raw datasets provided by FRCA to verify the HS codes tagged to selected focus foods. In many instances, the FRCA datasets showed that specific HS codes were mis-assigned, and therefore the descriptors had to be used to recode items. A raw version of dataset was needed for this purpose. Data management Data provided in hard copy or PDF files were retyped and transferred onto the excel sheets. Data were then filtered to extract the relevant food products that were selected for monitoring. Where possible, countries are encouraged to source raw trade data in excel format. During data collection, careful consideration had to be paid to how the raw data was captured and recorded given that HS coding assigned to foods often depend on who is coding it and different products tend to be categorized differently. Even at the most detailed level of product classification, product groups in trade nomenclatures did not necessarily reflect trade names and contained a wide range of products. Actual and bound tariff rates for focus food categories The WTO Tariff Download Facility (http://tariffdata.wto.org/) provides comprehensive information on applied and bound tariffs, including information for Fiji for the years 2006 to 2013. Fiji Budget Summaries and WTO Trade Update Reports were consulted for the applied and bound tariff rates of preceding years. As a result of WTO accession, the implementation of tariff bands has also contributed to the volume of imported foods entering Fiji. The reported import data in Table 4 illustrates the impact of tariff rates on the import volume of selected less healthy foods. For instance, over the period 1990 and 2010 tariff on edible oils and spreads decreased from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. This has marked a huge increase in the import volume of these from 1429 tonnes in 1990 to 39,529 tonnes in 2010. Likewise, in 1996, a protective tariff for white rice was set at 40 per cent and this directly corresponded to a decline in rice imports in 1996 and in 2000 as reflected in Table 4. After 2000, the applied tariff on white rice was reduced from 40 per cent to 15 per cent and there has been an increase in white rice imports from 1,105 tonnes in 2000 to 109,096 tonnes in 2010. For meat products entering Fiji, the relapses in tariff levels between 1990 and 1996 have directly contributed to the increase in meat imports from 5 tonnes to 10 tonnes. Meat imports have continued to increase since. Between 2005 and 2010, there has been an increase in chicken nuggets and beef patties largely contributing to the increase in fatty meat products from 256 tonnes to 658 tonnes. This increase can be attributed to the increase in fast food restaurants through foreign direct investment (FDI) established in Fiji from 1996 onwards. FDI data was collected in Domain 2 (see page 8). For energy-dense beverages, relapses in tariff levels have also depicted a similar trend on its import volumes from 1980 to 2013. Although applied tariffs on other selected healthy foods including ice-cream and edible ices, savoury ready-to-eat snacks, sweet snacks and sweet packaged breakfast cereals have increased, total food imports in these categories have also increased from 2000 to 2010. Domain 2: Trade in services and foreign direct investment (FDI) Limited data were available for this indicator and collected through the International Trade Centre (ITC) database (http://www.intracen.org/). For the TFCs that were recorded, these were uploaded from the ITC database and tabulated on an excel sheet. Investment Fiji, the government’s statutory agency responsible for the promotion, marketing and facilitation of exports and investment for Fiji, were also consulted. However, there were no data on investment by food corporations available from this source. The TFCs currently operating in Fiji may have to be approached directly for this information, but this was not possible within the constraints of the pilot. Domain 3: Domestic protections and support In accordance with Articles 18.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 and Article 32.6 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Fiji has endorsed an anti-dumping and countervailing legislation, the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act of 1998. Fiji also has a Fair Trading Decree that is yet to be modified to include anti-dumping measures and other WTO-consistent provisions. For this domain, the initial focus was on mapping Fiji’s commitments to relevant WTO related agreements previously mentioned. The scope and coverage of all general rules that apply to Fiji relating to food-related domestic protections and support were collected from the WTO online database (www.wto.org/) under the specific food and agriculture related trade agreements as follows: GATT 1994, as set out in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, relevant clauses under Articles IV-XIX were included. These covered measures on unfair trade practices pertaining to dumping and export subsidies, quantitative restrictions and emergency safeguard measures; Agreement on Agriculture – Articles 3(1,2,3), 8 and 10(1,2,3,4) on export subsidies, and Article 5 on special safeguard provisions; Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures – Articles 3.1, 10, 17.1, 17.2, 18.5, 19.1, 19.3 21.1 and 27.4 to 27.6. These covered rules on price undertakings for subsidized imports, provisional measures pertaining to export/import subsidies and regulations on countervailing duties; Articles XV (I) in GATS recognising trade-distortive effects that may emerge from subsidies. In terms of monitoring trend changes in export subsidies and associated volumes, the selection of key exported products should be guided by previously documented secondary information concerning growing or susceptible export industries before the implementation of relevant agreements. As previously mentioned, for a ‘minimum’ level of assessment, countries may choose to focus on a minimum of ten key exported focus foods. To access data for each exported focus food selected, the Harmonized System (HS) code for each specific food should be identified and sent to the relevant institutions for verification and extraction. In the case of Fiji, this data would be sourced from the FBOS and FRCA while data prior to the 1980s may be sourced from the Legislative Council Papers in the National Archives of Fiji. Schedules of specific commitments on domestic support and export subsidies on agricultural products Fiji’s schedule of specific commitments pertaining to domain 3 were identified as being in Part IV of its goods schedule annexed to the Marrakesh Protocol to the GATT 1994 (accessed at www.wto.org>trade topics>goods>good schedules). Notification documents from Fiji were also consulted to take account of schedule changes and modifications that have taken place over time. Domain 4: Policy space In the case of Fiji, there was very little information available and an expectation of very limited activity in domain 4 relating to the impacts of trade agreements on domestic policy space. There is no data on government procurement available nor are there schedules of specific commitments for Fiji in this space as Fiji is not a party to the WTO Agreements on Government Procurement (GPA). In terms of FDI, Fiji has no bilateral investment treaties, with exception of its agreement to an Investment Promotion and Protection Framework Agreement with the European Union in 2005. Under the WTO Agreements on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), there is no information available to indicate Fiji’s commitments and notifications to the WTO regarding the rectification and/or implementation of TRIMS that are consistent with the Agreements on TRIMS. Hence, the scope of domain 4 only covers the general rules that apply to Fiji relating to the protection of policy space. In selecting the relevant provisions, the focus was on specific articles covering government procurement and enforcement, transparency, dispute settlement and government regulation of food-marketing, composition and labelling. The provisions outlined below are the ones identified as relating to influence on domestic policies. These were collected from the WTO online database and are those that Fiji observes as a WTO member: GATT 1994, as set out in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, relevant clauses under Articles XX-XXIII were included. These covered measures on unfair trade practices pertaining to dumping and provisions on consultations and dispute settlement. Agreement on Agriculture – Article 19; Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) – Articles 7, 8, 11(1) and 11(2); Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) – Articles 6, 8(1), 41(1), 56, 57, 64(1), 64(2) and 69; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement – Articles 14(1), 14(2) and 14(4); Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures – Articles 6 and 7.3; Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures – Articles 25.1, 13.1, 27.4, 30 and 32.6; and Articles III(1), III(3), III(4), III bis, XIII(1), XIII(2), XXIII(1), XXIII(2) and XXIII(3) in GATS. DISCUSSION The development of this protocol and its testing in Fiji represents the first effort to set out a framework and process for objectively monitoring trade agreements and their impacts on national food supply and the wider food environment. The analysis presented in this paper shows that Fiji’s entry into WTO trade agreements contributed to the nutrition transition in Fiji through the increased availability of imported foods with varying nutritional quality. There was an increase in imports of fresh fruits and vegetables and whole-grain refined cereals. However we also observed an increase in less healthy foods including fats and oils; meat; processed dairy products; energy-dense beverages; and processed and packaged foods. It is anticipated that regular systematic collation and analysis of such data will support countries in their efforts to assess the impacts of existing, and trade agreements under negotiation, on food environments at the country level. In particular, the outcome measures associated with each trade domain will assist countries in identifying the appropriate trade and non-trade policy measures to counter any adverse diet-related health effects and maximize the positive effects of future trade agreements on the healthiness of food environments, and, ultimately contribute to improving diets and reducing the burden of obesity and NCDs. A primary objective of the INFORMAS Trade project is to use the standard protocol in multiple countries over time to enable robust monitoring and comparisons on the impacts of trade and investment agreements on food environments. Since doing the pilot work in Fiji, New Zealand, Thailand and Canada have started a similar analysis using this approach, and it is expected that Mexico, Chile and Guatemala will initiate the trade analysis in 2017. The pilot work using food-related trade data from Fiji provides a number of important insights that should be considered in future data collection and analysis. While this protocol has approached data collection through a minimal step-wise framework, there are still a number of resource, availability and quality challenges to be expected in the compilation of the data. In order to test the monitoring framework, the adapted version only targeted some of the indicators in the ‘minimal’ approach based on the availability of data and resources from the pilot study. There are individual country differences that will determine how a country applies the overarching framework and the level of assessment to apply. Within the level of assessments that countries select, the scope of data collection for every indicator will also depend on the availability of data and resources. There is a significant amount of work involved in collecting and collating data on total food import and focus food category import volumes, requiring a substantial amount of data mining and use of complementary data sources. Data provided by NSOs and other relevant government departments may not be user-friendly. For example, many of the older data sets may be in hard copies or pdf copies and these need to be retyped and transferred onto excel sheets. Adjustments to the raw data sets should be made accordingly where classifications of foods, partner countries, the volume of the products and quantity of measurement are not consistent and in some cases missing. Although the pilot-testing in Fiji involved the use of the ‘minimal’ approach, not all of the data were available. For instance, in Domain 1, limited data is available on actual and bound tariff rates for certain years. Due to this, the calculation of tariff-rate quotas for focus food categories and the calculation of tariff-differentials between healthy and less healthy focus food categories is lacking. Similarly in Domain 2, no monetary data is readily available for FDI investment in transnational food corporations. In Domain 3, the schedules of specific commitments pertaining to agricultural subsidies has yet to be updated. For domain 4, there is very limited information available given that very little activity happens in this space in Fiji and data on government procurement is not available. Where the ‘minimal’ approach requires the collection of food data coming from all trade agreements that countries are parties to, the inherent data limitations and inconsistencies may limit countries to focus on one specific trade agreement at a time and only concentrate on its major trading partners when collecting focus food data. In terms of the indicators for tariff and FDI data listed as 1.7, 1.8, 2.3 and 2.4 in Table 1, these should be shifted to the ‘expanded’ approach. When deciding on which years to collect and monitor data, it is important to consider the years that will be assessed and whether data should capture the actions that took place prior to the sign-off on trade agreements being the preparation years or after the ratification and/or sign-off on agreements and the implementation phase, or both. The data issues that were experienced in Fiji raise some important implications for other low income countries wishing to monitor the impact of trade agreements on food environments and ultimately health. Focusing on the trade agreements that represent the large trade flows is an effective and efficient strategy. In Fiji we tried to monitor a large number of healthy and less healthy focus food items, which proved very time consuming and identified limited reliable data. Given the likely limitations of data records in other low income countries, it would make sense to identify a small number of food items that contribute to population dietary intake/nutritional status - tracker foods - and focus on these for monitoring purposes. CONCLUSION If the impact of trade agreements on national food environments and diet-related health outcomes is not carefully monitored, the proliferation and expanding nature of trade agreements may quietly exacerbate the global burden of diet-related NCDs. Using the step-wise ‘minimal’ approach (Friel et al., 2013) to assess the impacts of trade agreements on food environments, this proposed protocol is a first step towards providing systematic and routine evidence which can help inform the development of effective health policy approaches to mitigate any nutrition risks arising from the agreements, and also to support efforts to improve the healthfulness of future trade agreements. The protocol highlights challenges for data collection and further work is needed to support increased data collection and availability. This affords an opportunity of working more closely with agencies with trade-related data and information to support improved data collection. REFERENCES Baker P. , Friel S. ( 2014 ) Processed foods and the nutrition transition: evidence from Asia . Obesity Reviews , 15 , 564 – 577 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Beddington J. , Kufuor J. , Adesina A. , da Silva J. G. , Hossain M. , Karuku J. et al. ( 2014 ) How can Agriculture and Food System Policies improve Nutrition? Technical Brief. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London. FRCA, Fiji Revenue & Customs Authority . ( 2015 ) Automated System for Customs Data (ASYCUDA). Friel S. et al. ( 2013 ) Monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on food environments . Obesity Reviews , 14 , 120 – 134 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Friel S. , Gleeson D. , Thow A. M. , Labonte R. , Stuckler D. , Kay A. ( 2013 ) A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement . Globalization and Health , doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-46. Friel S. , Baker P. I. ( 2009 ) Equity, food security and health equity in the Asia Pacific region . Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 18 , 620 – 632 . Google Scholar PubMed Friel S. , Hattersley L. , Townsend R. ( 2015 ) Trade policy and public health . Annual Review of Public Health , 36 , 325 – 344 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Hawkes C. ( 2005 ) The role of foreign direct investment in the nutrition transition . Public Health Nutrition , 8 , 357 – 365 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Hawkes C. ( 2006 ) Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases . Globalization and Health , 2 , doi:10.1186/1744-8603-2-4. Hawkes C. , Chopra M. , Friel S. ( 2009 ) Globalization, trade and the nutrition transition. In Labonte R. , Schrecker T. , Packer C. , Runnels V. (eds), Globalization and Health: Pathways, Evidence and Policy . Routledge , New York . Hawkes C. , Chopra M. , Friel S. , Lang T. , Thow A. ( 2005 ) Globalization, Food and Nutrition Transitions. Retrieved from Geneva. Hawkes C. , Thow A. M. ( 2008 ) Implications of the central America-Dominican republic-free trade agreement for the nutrition transition in Central America . Rev Panam Salud Publica , 24 , 345 – 360 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Khoury C. , Bjorkman A. , Dempewolf H. , Ramirez-Villegas J. , Guarino L. , Jarvis A. et al. ( 2014 ) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security . PNAS early edition, 111 , 4001 – 4006 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Legge D. , Gleeson D. , Snowdon W. ( 2011 ). Trade agreements and non-communicable diseases in the Pacific islands. Paper presented at the Pacific NCD Forum 2011. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/nmh/events/2013/trade_agreement.pdf Rae A. , Josling T. ( 2003 ) Processed food trade and developing countries: protection and trade liberalization . Food Policy , 28 , 147 – 166 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Rayner G. , Hawkes C. , Lang T. , Bello W. ( 2007 ) Trade liberalization and the diet transition: a public health response . Health Promotion International , 21 , 67 – 74 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Sacks G. , Mialon M. , Vandevijvere S. , Trevena H. , Snowdon W. , Crino M. et al. ( 2015 ) Comparison of food industry policies and commitments on marketing to children and product (re)formulation in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji . Critical Public Health , 25 , 299 – 319 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Sirikeratikul S. , Vasquez O. ( 2011 ) Thai FDA’s New Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) Labeling. Retrieved from Washington DC. Snowdon W. , Moodie M. , Schultz J. , Swinburn B. ( 2011 ) Modelling of potential food policy interventions in Fiji and Tonga and their impacts on noncommunicable disease mortality . Food Policy , 36 , 597 – 605 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Snowdon W. , Raj A. , Reeve E. , Guerrero R. , Fesaitu J. , Cateine K. et al. ( 2013 ) Processed foods available in the Pacific Islands . Globalisation and Health , 9 , 1 – 7 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Swinburn B. , Caterson I. , Seidell J. , James W. ( 2004 ) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and obesity . Public Health Nutrition , 7 , 123 – 146 . Google Scholar PubMed Swinburn B. , Sacks G. , Hall K. D. , McPherson K. , Finegood D. T. , Moodie M. et al. ( 2011 ) The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments . The Lancet , 378 , 804 – 814 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Swinburn B. , Sacks G. , Vandevijvere S. , Kumanyika S. , Lobstein T. , Neal B. … INFORMAS . ( 2013 ) INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/non-communicable diseases Research, Monitoring and Action SUpport): overview and key principles . Obesity Reviews , 14 , 1 – 12 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Thow A. , Heywood P. , Schultz J. , Quested C. , Jan S. , Colagiurie S. ( 2011 ) Trade and the nutrition transition: strengthening policy for health in the Pacific . Ecology of Food and Nutrition , 50 , 18 – 42 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Thow A. , Snowdon W. ( 2010 ) The effect of trade and trade policy on diet and health in the Pacific Islands. In Hawkes C. , Blouin C. , Henson S. , Drager N. , Dube L. (eds), Trade, Food, Diet and Health: Perspectives and Policy Options , pp. 147 – 168 . Wiley Blackwell Publications , Chichester, England . Thow A. M. , Hawkes C. ( 2009 ) The implications of trade liberalization for diet and health: a case study from Central America . Globalization and Health , 5 , 5. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed UNSCN . ( 2015 ) Enhancing Coherence between Trade Policy and Nutrition Action: implementing the Framework for Action of the Second International Conference on Nutrition. Retrieved from Rome. Vandevijvere S. , Swinburn B. ( 2014 ) Towards global benchmarking of food environments and policies to reduce obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases: design and methods for nation-wide surveys . BMJ Open , 4 , doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005339 Webster J. , Dunford E. , Neal B. ( 2010 ) A systematic survey of the sodium contents of processed foods . American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 91 , 413 – 420 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WHO . ( 2003 ) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. Retrieved from Geneva: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/download/en/ WTO . ( 2007 ) Minutes of the meeting of 21 March 2007, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. Retrieved from Geneva: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/january/tradoc_137571.pdf © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Protocol to monitor trade agreement food-related aspects: the Fiji case study
JF - Health Promotion International
DO - 10.1093/heapro/dax020
DA - 2018-10-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/protocol-to-monitor-trade-agreement-food-related-aspects-the-fiji-case-BbRLSSNtSE
SP - 887
VL - 33
IS - 5
DP - DeepDyve
ER -