The abolition of tariffs on agricultural products under NAFTA was completed on January 1, 2008. Most non-tariff barriers in agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico have been converted to either tariffs or TRQs. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico`s tariffs on U.S. products averaged about 11%. Tariffs on some agricultural products were higher. B as Mexican tariffs on fruits and vegetables, which averaged about 20% before NAFTA. Tobacco, cheese, evaporated milk, grapes, corn, dry beans, poultry, barley/malt, animal fats, potatoes and eggs subject to import authorization requirements in Mexico that covered a value of 25% of the value of U.S. agricultural exports.9 Mexico also applied certain "official import prices," an arbitrary customs assessment system that increased customs assessments. In the United States, USDA10-managed import quality requirements have affected imports of certain Mexican products such as tomatoes, onions, avocados, grapefruits, oranges, olives and table grapes. As the partners of the free trade agreement attempt to resolve disputes without resorting to dispute resolution through consultations, mediation and negotiations, the U.S. Free Trade Agreement, including NAFTA, contains a formal dispute settlement mechanism (Chapter 20).
These mechanisms are rarely used because business obesity is transferred to WTO dispute settlement. Three cases were decided under the NAFTA settlement. If nafta were renegotiated to include provisions not included in the WTO agreement, dispute settlement could be used more widely under NAFTA. Some argue that the TPP could be a model for any revision of NAFTA rules. The TPP provided for dispute resolution and included additional disciplines. These included transparency, cooperation and alternative mechanisms (such as consultations), formal consultations and panel controls within specific timeframes, the composition of working groups, the functioning and integrity of working groups, private rights of action and panel reports.154 TPP also reviewed the implementation of the panel`s report to maximize compliance with agreed commitments. It also encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for private commercial disputes. In addition to tariffs and quotas, NAFTA has looked at SPS measures and other types of non-tariff barriers that may limit agricultural trade. NAFTA requires that SPS measures be scientifically sound, non-discriminatory and transparent and minimize trade. USDA reports also show how U.S. agricultural exports to its NAFTA partners have increased as a share of total U.S. trade, often causing changes in trade with other U.S.
trading partners. As part of the 20-year retrospective analysis of THE impact of NAFTA on U.S. agricultural sectors (27 USDA), the USDA reports that U.S. agricultural exports to NAFTA countries accounted for 20% of the total value of agricultural exports in 1991-93 and increased to 28% in 2010-12. Exports to China and Hong Kong increased even more strongly over the same period, from 3% to 18%. In contrast, U.S. agricultural exports to other U.S. trading partners increased slightly and exports to the rest of the world increased from about 77% to 54% of the value of U.S. exports. The USDA analysis also shows that U.S. agricultural imports are now more supplied by their NAFTA partners: Canada and Mexico accounted for 27% of the total value of U.S. agricultural imports in 1991-93 and rose to 36% in 2010-12.
According to the USDA, the value of agricultural imports from China and Hong Kong increased slightly from 2% to 4% of the total value, while agricultural imports of