This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Brink, Lars

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The July 2004 Agriculture Framework is the basis for negotiations of modalities in agriculture in the WTO. The significant new ideas on domestic support include an Overall Reduction applying to the sum of Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (Total AMS), de minimis AMSs, and blue box payments (i.e., all non-green support), tiered harmonizing reductions of overall distorting support and Total AMS, caps on product-specific AMSs, cap on and criteria for blue box payments, lower de minimis, and review of green box criteria. This paper assesses how several of these provisions might constrain the future (2014) distorting domestic support of USA, EU, Japan, Canada, Brazil, and China. Future support is projected, paying particular attention to U.S. and EU support. The analysis uses a hypothetical 90-80-70-60 reduction scenario to estimate the remaining entitlements to support and calculates the cuts the six Members can accommodate without affecting projected future support. It also estimates the maximum support that can be used within the commitments, considering that simply summing the Total AMS commitment and all de minimis allowances overestimates the amount of support that can be provided (a product's AMS can not at the same time be de minimis and counted in Current Total AMS). The six Members can accommodate large cuts in commitments on overall distorting support and Total AMS. A cut of 75 percent would not bite into the U.S. future support and a 79 percent cut would not constrain future EU-15 support. Large cuts would not force the other four Members to reduce support from what they have notified or provided in recent years. Large cuts will prevent reversals of support reductions. Harmonizing tiered cuts can effectively address the support entitlements of the large subsidizers. Altogether the provisions of the 2004 Framework allow for substantial reductions in distorting support, and the Overall Reduction can be particularly effective. The reduction scenario examined for the six Members reduces their combined usable entitlements to all distorting support by about half (from $301 bill. in the base period to $148 bill. in 2014) when applied to Total AMS, de minimis, and blue entitlement separately. Applying also the Overall Reduction reduces the combined usable entitlements by a further $84 bill., bringing their allowed distorting support down to $65 bill. However, this requires that Members agree to sizeable percentage cuts in the commitments on Overall Reduction and on Total AMS.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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/14587
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Working Papers with number 14587.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14587

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://iatrcweb.org/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: Agricultural and Food Policy; International Relations/Trade;

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)
  1. Barichello, Richard & Cranfield, John & Meilke, Karl, 2007. "Options for Supply Management in Canada with Trade Liberalization," Commissioned Papers 6124, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network. [Downloadable!]
  2. Blandford, David, 2005. "Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round," Trade Policy Issues Papers 14571, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. [Downloadable!]
  3. Rude, James & Meilke, Karl D., 2006. "Canadian Agriculture and the Doha Development Agenda: The Challenges," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1). [Downloadable!]
  4. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals," Working Papers 14601, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium. [Downloadable!]
  5. Rude, James & Meilke, Karl, 2005. "Canadian Agriculture and the Doha Development Agenda: The Challenges," Working Papers 24157, Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network. [Downloadable!]
  6. Blandford, David, 2005. "Imposing WTO disciplines on domestic support: an assessment of the Doha Round Approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(9). [Downloadable!]
  7. Mane, Ranjit & Wailes, Eric, 2006. "Impacts of trade liberalization in rice: assessing alternative proposals," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21188, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? No RePEc service, like IDEAS, charges for the use or the display of bibliographic data.

This page was last updated on 2010-1-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.