IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/tragwp/18879.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WTO Constraints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU-25 Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Butault, Jean-Pierre
  • Bureau, Jean-Christophe

Abstract

The most recent EU notifications to the World Trade Organization regarding domestic support refer to the EU-15, i.e. before significant reforms of the direct payments as well as reforms of the Mediterranean products, hops, sugar, etc. that took place after 2003. We estimate the actual level of domestic support, as measured by WTO Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS), given the 2004 EU enlargement and the recent reforms of the Common agricultural policy. We then compare the different proposals for a new discipline on domestic support that were recently issued under the Doha Development Round and we assess the constraints imposed on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The EU proposal prior to the 2005 Hong Kong WTO ministerial meeting involved that the EU would cut the AMS and the Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS) ceilings w by 70% in either case. We find that such a cut mainly consolidates under the WTO the significant changes made to EU domestic support policies since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. However, there are some downside risks for the EU and much depends on the further negotiations on the details of the disciplines to be agreed (e.g. the base period for the OTDS reference). In addition, a 70% cut would have no freedom left for counting some potentially controversial subsidies against the AMS if needed. Accession of Bulgarian and Romania will make the constraints more binding. The ability to meet the domestic support discipline of the EU offer relies on the assumption that the market access component of the EU offer will lead to a significant reduction in the remaining AMS (particularly important in the case of fruits and vegetables). Overall, the EU proposal regarding a cut in the AMS is binding, even though it requires rather minor and sectoral changes to the CAP. Proposals that beyond the EU 'Hong Kong' offer require reforming some Common market organizations, but could be dealt with if the EU implemented a significant reform of the fruits and vegetables sector, that might give a larger degree of freedom regarding the AMS ceiling.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:tragwp:18879
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.18879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/18879/files/wp060011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.18879?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blandford, David, 2005. "Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round," Trade Issues Papers 14571, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. Daniel A. Sumner, 2005. "Production and Trade Effects of Farm Subsidies: Discussion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1229-1230.
    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), pages 1-24.
    4. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    5. Alan Swinbank, 2005. "Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 551-561, December.
    6. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Jean-Paul Chavas & Matthew T. Holt, 1990. "Acreage Decisions Under Risk: The Case of Corn and Soybeans," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 529-538.
    8. 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.
    9. Chantal Le Mouel, 2004. "Impacts of alternative agricultural income support schemes on multiple policy goals," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 125-148, June.
    10. Gohin, Alexandre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Discipline and the CAP: the Constraints on the EU Sugar Sector," Working Papers 18872, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    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. Jean-Christophe J.-C. Bureau & Alexandre Gohin & Sébastien Jean, 2007. "The CAP and WTO negotiation [La PAC et la négociation OMC]," Post-Print hal-02821142, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1735 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Anania, Giovanni, 2007. "Multilateral Negotiations, Preferential Trade Agreements and the CAP. What's Ahead?," Working Papers 7283, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    2. Bureau, Jean-Christophe & Jean, Sebastien & Matthews, Alan, 2006. "The Consequences of Agricultural Trade Liberalization for Developing Countries," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25471, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. 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.
    4. Philippidis, George & Hubbard, Lionel J. & Renwick, Alan W., 2006. "A CGE Analysis of the Harbinson Proposal: Outcomes for the EU25," Working Papers 45992, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    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.
    6. Chad E. Hart & John C. Beghin, 2004. "Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 04-bp43, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2009. "How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-24, April.
    8. Bhaskar, Arathi & Beghin, John C., 2007. "How Coupled are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of Coupling Mechanisms and the Evidence," Working Papers 7347, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Ahearn, Mary Clare & Collender, Robert N. & Diao, Xinshen & Harrington, David H. & Hoppe, Robert A. & Korb, Penelope J. & Makki, Shiva S. & Morehart, Mitchell J. & Roberts, Michael J. & Roe, Terry L. , 2004. "Decoupled Payments In A Changing Policy Setting," Agricultural Economic Reports 33981, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889, December.
    11. Isermeyer, F. & Deblitz, C. & Hemme, T. & Pleßmann, F., 2005. "A link between the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN) and global equilibrium models," Conference papers 331341, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 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), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Demirdöğen, Alper & Olhan, Emine & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2016. "Food vs. fiber: An analysis of agricultural support policy in Turkey," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-8.
    14. Keith Walsh & Martina Brockmeier & Alan Matthews, 2005. "Implications of Domestic Support Disciplines for Further Agricultural Trade Liberalization," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp99, IIIS.
    15. Moro, Daniele & Sckokai, Paolo, 2013. "The impact of decoupled payments on farm choices: Conceptual and methodological challenges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 28-38.
    16. Kristinn Hermannsson & Patrizio Lecca, 2016. "Human Capital in Economic Development: From Labour Productivity to Macroeconomic Impact," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(1), pages 24-36, March.
    17. Sébastien Jean & David Laborde & Will Martin, 2008. "Choosing Sensitive Agricultural Products in Trade Negotiations," Working Papers 2008-18, CEPII research center.
    18. Kym Anderson, 2011. "Scope for world trade reform to ease Asian poverty and inequality," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia, chapter 11, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    19. Li, Chenguang & Sexton, Richard J., 2009. "Impacts of Retailers’ Pricing Strategies for Produce Commodities on Farmer Welfare," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Arne Melchior, 2006. "The Most and the Least Favoured Nations: Norway's Trade Policy in Perspective," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(10), pages 1329-1346, October.

    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:tragwp:18879. 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: http://tradeag.vitamib.com/ .

    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.