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 Contstaints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU 25 Agriculture

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Jean-Pierre Butault
Jean-Christophe Bureau

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

Abstract

The most recent EU notifications to the World Trade Organization regarding domestic support refer to the EU-15, i.e. before significant reforms of the direct payments as well as the reforms of the Mediterranean products, hops, sugar, etc. that took place after 2003. We estimate the actual level of domestic support, as measured by the WTO Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS), given the 2004 EU enlargement and the recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). We then compare the different proposals for a new discipline on domestic support that were recently issued under the Doha Development Round and we assess the constraints imposed on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The EU proposal prior to the 2005 Hong Kong WTO ministerial meeting was that the EU would cut its present AMS and Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS) ceilings by 70% in either case. We find that such a cut mainly consolidates under the WTO the significant changes made to EU domestic support policies since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. However, there are some downside risks for the EU and much depends on the further negotiations on the details of the disciplines to be agreed (e.g. the base period for the OTDS reference). In addition, a 70% cut leave no freedom for counting some potentially controversial subsidies against the AMS if needed. Accession of Bulgarian and Romania will make the constraints more binding. The ability to meet the domestic support discipline of the EU offer relies on the assumption that its market access component will lead to a significant reduction in the remaining AMS (particularly important in the case of fruits and vegetables). Overall, the EU proposal regarding a cut in the AMS is binding, even though it requires rather minor and sectoral changes to the CAP. Proposals that beyond the EU ‘Hong Kong’ offer require reforming some common market organizations, but could be dealt with if the EU implemented a significant reform of the fruits and vegetables sector, that might give a larger degree of freedom regarding the AMS ceiling.

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://www.tcd.ie/iiis/documents/discussion/pdfs/iiisdp171.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by IIIS in its series The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series with number iiisdp171.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 02 Aug 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:iis:dispap:iiisdp171

Note: Length:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 01
Phone: 00 353 1 896 3888
Fax: 00 353 1 896 3939
Web page: http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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.:
  1. Daniel A. Sumner, 2005. "Production and Trade Effects of Farm Subsidies: Discussion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1229-1230, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Hart, Chad E. & Beghin, John C., 2006. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Staff General Research Papers 12510, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Other versions:
  3. Alan Swinbank, 2005. "Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press for the Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 551-561, December.
  4. Gohin, Alexandre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Discipline and the CAP: the Constraints on the EU Sugar Sector," Working Papers 18872, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements. [Downloadable!]
  5. Kym Anderson & Will Martin, 2005. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," The World Economy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 28(9), pages 1301-1327, 09. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. 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!]
  7. Chantal Le Mouel, 2004. "Impacts of alternative agricultural income support schemes on multiple policy goals," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press for the Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 125-148, June.
Full references

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. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Want to help out with this project? Look for volunteer opportunities.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


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.