WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals
Proposals on domestic support were submitted in the WTO agriculture negotiations by the USA, the EU, and the G-20 in October 2005, based on the 2004 Framework agreement. This paper pays attention to the de minimis rules and the resulting de minimis allowances and projects future (2014) distorting support for the USA and the EU-15. It calculates the constraints resulting from projected values of production combined with the U.S., EU and G-20 proposals and compares their effectiveness in constraining components of distorting support and the projected future applied support. The de minimis rules make a difference in estimating how much distorting support can be provided in the future. Under the U.S. proposal the Overall commitment does not constrain either the USA or the EU. Under the EU and especially the G-20 proposals the Overall commitment constrains distorting support to be less than the sum of the cap on blue and the maximum usable components. This maximum is smaller than the sum of the commitment on Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) and the de minimis allowances. The U.S. proposal constrains only one component (Current Total AMS) and this only for the EU. The EU proposal does not constrain projected future applied support in either the USA or the EU. The G-20 proposal constrains the future Current Total AMS for both the USA and the EU. The G-20 proposal constrains projected future Overall distorting support for the EU but not for the USA.
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.:
- Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support," Working Papers 14587, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
- Chad E. Hart & Bruce A. Babcock, 2005. "Loan Deficiency Payments versus Countercyclical Payments: Do We Need Both for a Price Safety Net?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-bp44, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Daniel A. Sumner, 2003.
"Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations,"
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 99-122, 03.
- Sumner, Daniel A., 2003. "Implications of the US Farm Bill of 2002 for agricultural trade and trade negotiations," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), March.
- Bruce A. Babcock & Chad E. Hart, 2005. "How Much "Safety" Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-bp48, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14601. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.