The WTO, Agricultural Trade Reform and the Environment: Nitrogen and Agro-chemical Indicators for the OECD
AbstractThe WTO Ministerial Statement of November 2001 mandates work on those situations where reduction of trade restrictions would benefit both trade and the environment. To contribute to such research, we use a modified version of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to estimate for OECD countries' changes in two environmental indicators resulting from simulated trade reforms: the impact on regional nitrogen balances, and associated changes in intensity of agro-chemical use. The trade reforms simulated lead to slightly improved nitrogen balances at the aggregate OECD level, with more ambitious trade reform resulting in a larger aggregate improvement. Most regions with a high initial per hectare nitrogen surplus are expected to experience some improvement in this environmental indicator at the national level. Cropping becomes less intensive in agro-chemical use in Western Europe and Northeast Asia, but more intensive in other OECD countries.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade in its journal Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy.
Volume (Year): 08 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Suite 820, 410 22nd Street East, Saskatoon SK, S7K 5T6
Phone: (306) 244-4800
Fax: (306) 244-7839
Web page: http://www.esteycentre.com/
More information through EDIRC
agriculture; agro-chemicals; nitrogen balance; general equilibrium modelling; trade liberalisation; International Relations/Trade;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Allan Rae & Anna Strutt, 2001. "Livestock production and the environment: Some impacts of growth and trade liberalisation," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 176-194.
- Y. Surry, 1990. "Econometric Modelling Of The European Community Compound Feed Sector: An Application To France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 404-421.
- Karl Meilke & Rakhal Sarker & Danny Roy, 1998. "The Potential for Increased Trade in Milk and Dairy Products between Canada and the United States under Trade Liberalization," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 46(2), pages 149-169, 07.
- Markus Lips & Peter Rieder, 2005. "Abolition of Raw Milk Quota in the European Union: A CGE Analysis at the Member Country Level," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 1-17.
- W. Jill Harrison & K.R. Pearson, 1994.
"Computing Solutions for Large General Equilibrium Models Using GEMPACK,"
Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers
ip-64, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
- Harrison, W Jill & Pearson, K R, 1996. "Computing Solutions for Large General Equilibrium Models Using GEMPACK," Computational Economics, Society for Computational Economics, Society for Computational Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 83-127, May.
- Anna Strutt & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Will Trade Liberalization Harm the Environment? The Case of Indonesia to 2020," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 203-232, November.
- S¯ren E. Frandsen & Hans G. Jensen & Wusheng Yu & Aage Walter-J¯rgensen, 2003. "Reform of EU sugar policy: price cuts versus quota reductions," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 1-26, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.