IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrwp/14601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WTO Constraints on U.S. and EU Domestic Support in Agriculture: Assessing the October 2005 Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Brink, Lars

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/14601
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Brink, Lars, 2005. "WTO 2004 Agriculture Framework: Disciplines on Distorting Domestic Support," Working Papers 14587, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Giovanni Anania, 2007. "Multilateral trade negotiations, preferential trade agreements and European Union’s agricultural policies," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 3, July.
    2. Jean-Pierre Butault & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2006. "WTO Contstaints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU 25 Agriculture," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp171, IIIS.
    3. Martin, William J. & Anderson, Kym, 2008. "Agricultural trade reform under the Doha Agenda: some key issues," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(1), March.
    4. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.

    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: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). 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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.