Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Wie wirken gemeldete SPS-Maßnahmen? Ein Gravitationsmodell des EU-Rindfleischhandels

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kramb, Marc Christopher
  • Herrmann, Roland

Abstract

Im Regelwerk des „General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade“ (GATT) werden seit langer Zeit nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse bei gleichem Außenschutz als wesentlich problematischere handelspolitische Instrumente angesehen als tarifäre Handelshemmnisse. Ein bedeutender Grund ist, dass die Handelswirkungen von nichttarifären Handelshemmnissen weniger transparent sind als die von Zöllen. Somit war folgerichtig, dass im Rahmen der Agrarhandelsliberalisierung in der Uruguay-Runde des GATT die Tarifizierung, d. h. die Umwandlung von nichttarifären Handelsbeschränkungen in Zölle, festgelegt wurde. Die OECD hat dennoch mehrfach gefolgert, dass nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse in der Folge dieses Beschlusses im Agrarsektor abgenommen haben. Diese Folgerung ist allerdings sehr problematisch. Zollkontingente, die seit 1994 in erheblichem Maße zugenommen haben, werden trotz ihrer quotenähnlichen Wirkungen formalrechtlich als tarifäre und nicht als nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse aufgefasst. Außerdem zeigen die Meldungen von Maßnahmen unter dem neuen SPS-Abkommen, dass sanitäre und phytosanitäre Maßnahmen (SPS-Maßnahmen) als Handelsbeschränkungen deutlich zunehmen. Zu den Wirkungen dieser SPS-Maßnahmen liegen noch sehr wenige empirische Untersuchungen vor. In diesem Beitrag werden Meldungen über SPS-Maßnahmen bei der WTO herangezogen, um Handelswirkungen von sanitären und phytosanitären Handelsbeschränkungen zu messen. Die WTO-Datenbank der SPS-Meldungen wird erläutert. Es wird dann ein Gravitationsmodell verwendet, um für das Beispiel des EU-Rindfleischhandels zu untersuchen, wie im Zeitraum Januar 1995 bis Juni 2001 die im Zusammenhang mit BSE eingeführten SPS-Maßnahmen von Nicht-EU-Mitgliedern gegenüber der EU den bilateralen Handel beeinflusst haben. 31 potenziell betroffene Produktgruppen werden unterschieden, und mit einem Fixed-Effects-Ansatz werden die Paneldaten ausgewertet. Es zeigt sich, dass SPS-Maßnahmen im Zusammenhang mit BSE die Rindfleischexporte der EU in den wichtigsten Produktkategorien reduziert haben. Sie wirkten allerdings nicht wie ein Handelsverbot – der prozentuale Erlösrückgang lag unter 100 % und betrug z. B. 49 % bei lebenden Rindern, 74 % bei frischem und gekühltem Fleisch und 86 % bei gefrorenem Fleisch. Da in einer ganzen Reihe von Produktgruppen die Exporte von Rindern, Rindfleisch und verwandten Produkten um deutlich weniger als 100 % sanken, ist offenbar der beantragte SPS-Handelseingriff deutlich stärker als die vom Importland umgesetzte Handelsbeschränkung. In künftigen Studien zum SPS-Abkommen muss daher zwischen SPS-Meldungen und SPS-Maßnahmen unterschieden werden. For decades, nontariff trade barriers (NTBs) have been regarded as more problematic policy instruments than tariffs in international trade negotiations. This is due to the fact that trade impacts of nontariff trade barriers are less transparent than those of tariffs. Tariffication of nontariff agricultural trade barriers was finally decided under the Uruguay Round of GATT. Although the OECD concluded that a reduction of NTBs took place after 1994, this finding can be challenged. First, tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) are not counted as NTBs by law although they cause effects similar to those of quotas. The number of TRQs has increased strongly after the Uruguay Round. Second, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, i.e. SPS measures, have become more important as notifications under the SPS Agreement do show. There are only few empirical studies available which analyze the effects of these SPS measures. WTO Notifications under the SPS Agreement are utilized in this contribution for measuring trade impacts of sanitary and phytosanitary trade barriers. We explain the WTO data base on SPS notifications. Then, a gravitation model is applied to the EU beef trade in the period January 1995 to June 2001. It is investigated how SPS measures, introduced by non-EU countries in the context of BSE, affected bilateral trade with the EU. We distinguish between 31 product groups which might be affected, and a fixed-effects model is used for analyzing the panel data. We elaborate that SPS measures related to BSE reduced EU beef export revenues in the major product categories significantly. The NTBs did not reduce exports to zero, however, as might have been expected. The percentage reduction of export revenues was 49 % for live cattle, 74 % for fresh and cooled beef and 86 % for frozen beef. For most other product groups, the percentage decline in sales was significant but lower in percentage terms. Apparently, SPS notifications indicate that bilateral trade is restricted but it does not definitely show that the notified measures by the importing country are actually implemented and for which time period. It seems very important in future analyses of the SPS measures to distinguish carefully between SPS notifications and SPS measures.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/134428
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics in its journal German Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Volume (Year): 58 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages:

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:134428

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Philippstr. 13, 10115 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30 2093 6305
Fax: +49 (0)30 2093 6497
Web page: http://www.gjae-online.de/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: SPS-Maßnahmen; SPS-Meldungen; Gravitationsmodell; EU-Rind-fleischexporte; BSE; WTO; Nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse; SPS measures; SPS notifications; gravitation model; EU beef exports; bovine spongiform encephalopathy; non tariff trade barriers; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; International Relations/Trade; Livestock Production/Industries;

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Neal H. Hooker & Julie A. Caswell, 1999. "A Framework for Evaluating Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade Related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 234-246.
  2. Alessandro Olper & Valentina Raimondi, 2008. "Explaining National Border Effects in the QUAD Food Trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 436-462, 09.
  3. Halvorsen, Robert & Palmquist, Raymond, 1980. "The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 474-75, June.
  4. Carolyn L. Evans, 2003. "The Economic Significance of National Border Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1291-1312, September.
  5. Swann, Peter & Temple, Paul & Shurmer, Mark, 1996. "Standards and Trade Performance: The UK Experience," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(438), pages 1297-1313, September.
  6. Koo, Won W. & Karemera, David & Taylor, Richard, 1994. "A gravity model analysis of meat trade policies," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 81-88, January.
  7. Howard J. Wall, 1999. "Using the gravity model to estimate the costs of protection," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 33-40.
  8. Tsunehiro Otsuki & John S. Wilson, 2001. "What price precaution? European harmonisation of aflatoxin regulations and African groundnut exports," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 263-284, October.
  9. Alan Swinbank, 1999. "The role of the WTO and the international agencies in SPS standard setting," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 323-333.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:134428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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.