IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrwp/14587.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support

Author

Listed:
  • Brink, Lars

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support," Working Papers 14587, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/14587
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James, Sallie & Anderson, Kym, 1998. "On the need for more economic assessment of quarantine/SPS policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), December.
    2. Roberts, Donna & Orden, David, 1995. "Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972-1995," 1995: Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Conference, December 1995, Tucson, Arizona 50709, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. Krupnick, Alan & Toman, Michael & Kopp, Raymond, 1997. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform: An Assessment of the Science and Art," Discussion Papers dp-97-19, Resources For the Future.
    4. Thornsbury, Suzanne & Roberts, Donna & DeRemer, Kate & Orden, David, 1997. "A First Step in Understanding Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade," 1997 Conference, August 10-16, 1997, Sacramento, California 197066, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Thompson, Paul B., 1996. "Food Labels and the Ethics of Consent," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 11(1).
    6. Powell, Mark, 1997. "Science in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Dispute Resolution," Discussion Papers dp-97-50, Resources For the Future.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    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. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Blandford, David, 2005. "Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round," Trade Policy Issues Papers 14571, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.

    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:iatrwp:14587. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iatrcea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.