IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

  • Brink, Lars

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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://purl.umn.edu/14601
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium in its series Working Papers with number 14601.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14601
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://iatrcweb.org/

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  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. 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.
  4. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.