IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrtp/14571.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round

Author

Listed:
  • Blandford, David

Abstract

The elements of a new agreement relating to domestic support for agriculture are set out in the WTO Framework document of July 2004. This introduces the concept of the Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS), which is to be disciplined and subject to reduction. In addition, some of the individual components of the OTDS will be subject to minimum required reductions and other elements will be capped. The caps and reduction percentages will define each country's future "entitlement" to Amber and Blue Box support. A base period OTDS will be calculated as the sum of the current bound Total Aggregate Measure of Support (TAMS), resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreement, plus an allowance for product specific and non-product specific de minimis, plus an additional allowance for Blue Box support. The latter three elements will be defined as a percentage of the total value of agricultural production in the base period. There will also be caps on the product specific AMS. Information from the Framework document and the Harbinson modalities are combined with data from notifications to the WTO to examine the implications of the overall reductions in the OTDS and its components for a selection of countries -- Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United States. Detailed analysis reveals that the new approach has the potential to increase significantly the constraints on support entitlements for WTO countries. The implications of the new rules are complex, and may create new opportunities for strategic behavior on the part of individual countries. The likelihood that the approach will actually constrain domestic support policies in WTO countries will vary considerably, depending on a country's future composition of support and how this will relate to support entitlement at the end of the implementation period. The analysis indicates that significant reduction percentages of 60 percent or more in the permitted OTDS and the Total AMS binding will be required to create the need for significant reform of existing agricultural policies in many countries. In addition, the rules for calculating the AMS may need to be strengthened in order to prevent countries from making strategic changes in domestic policies that would allow them to avoid effective reductions in that component of support. Many developed countries have increased the use of Green Box payments in recent years. The Framework proposes a tightening of the rules for inclusion. Changes in some income support measures will be required as a result of the Cotton Case ruling in the WTO, but important issues relate to the eligibility of other support measures and environmental payments. A formal WTO review process would seem to be desirable in order to determine whether any particular payment actually qualifies for inclusion in the Green Box. Developing countries will face less stringent restrictions and reduction requirements for domestic support in a new agreement, and will have a longer period in which to phase in reductions in their support entitlements. Whether all developing countries should be treated equally in this regard is an important question. Large middle income developing countries that wish to increase the support they provide to agriculture will have some flexibility to do so under the new rules, and this could create problems for the trading system in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Blandford, David, 2005. "Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round," Trade Issues Papers 14571, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14571
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14571/files/ip050001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14571?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support," Working Papers 14587, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2001. "Establishing Domestic Support Commitments Through A Harmonization Formula," Working Papers 14613, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Blandford, David, 2001. "Are Disciplines Required on Domestic Support?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Butault, Jean-Pierre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Constraints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU-25 Agriculture," Working Papers 18879, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    2. Zhao, Jing & Miller, J. Isaac & Binfield, Julian & Thompson, Wyatt, 2022. "Modeling and Forecasting Agricultural Commodity Support in the Developing Countries," Commissioned Papers 321785, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Pelikan, J. & Brockmeier, M., 2009. "Wohlfahrtswirkungen einer Handelsliberalisierung: Welchen Einfluss hat die Zollaggregation auf die Modellergebnisse?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    4. Blandford, David, 2006. "U.S. Environmental Programs and Green Box Provisions under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," Working Papers 14598, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Brockmeier, Martina & Pelikan, Janine, 2008. "Agricultural market access: A moving target in the WTO negotiations?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 250-259, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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(09), pages 1-24.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2007. "Classifying, Measuring and Analyzing WTO Domestic Support in Agriculture: Some Conceptual Distinctions," Working Papers 14581, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Lars Brink, 2009. "WTO Constraints on Domestic Support in Agriculture: Past and Future," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Mane, Ranjit & Wailes, Eric J., 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).
    5. Anonymous & Meilke, Karl D. & Knutson, Ronald D. & Ochoa, Rene F. & Rude, James, 2006. "Achieving NAFTA Plus," 2006 NAAMIC Workshop III: Achieving NAFTA Plus 163871, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    6. Salhofer, Klaus & Streicher, Gerhard, 2005. "Production Effects of Agri-environmental "Green Box" Payments: Empirical Results from the EU," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24494, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Swinbank, Alan & Tranter, Richard B., 2005. "Decoupling EU Farm Support: Does the New Single Payment Scheme Fit within the Green Box?," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15.
    8. 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), pages 1-17.
    9. 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.
    10. Brink, Lars, 2004. "Assessing The 2002 Proposals Of The United States, Canada And The Cairns Group For The Wto Discipline On Domestic Support," Working Papers 14583, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    11. Karl Meilke & James Rude & Steven Zahniser, 2008. "Is ‘NAFTA Plus’ an Option in the North American Agrifood Sector?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 925-946, July.
    12. Bredahl, Maury E. & Prestegard, Sjur Spildo & Nersten, Nils Kristian, 2002. "Multifunctionality: Concepts and Applications to the WTO Negotiations on Agriculture," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24970, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Barichello, Richard R. & Cranfield, John & Meilke, Karl D., "undated". "Options for Supply Management in Canada with Trade Liberalization," 2006 NAAMIC Workshop III: Achieving NAFTA Plus 163876, North American Agrifood Market Integration Consortium (NAAMIC).
    14. Blandford, David & Boisvert, Richard N., 2002. "Non-Trade Concerns And Domestic/International Policy Choice," Working Papers 14615, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    15. Blandford, David & Boisvert, Richard N., 2002. "Multifunctional Agriculture and Domestic/International Policy Choice," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 3(1), pages 1-13.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iatrtp:14571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iatrcea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.