IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/dpaper/358.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Preferences in the EU Sugar Sector: Winners and Losers

Author

Listed:
  • Kerkelä, Leena
  • Huan-Niemi, Ellen

Abstract

The ongoing trade negotiations, unilateral trade concessions and obligations under the WTO are pushing the EU sugar regime to undertake reforms. These reforms will alter the positions of developing countries in the global sugar markets. This paper will describe the trade preferences granted to developing countries under the EU sugar regime. Sugar imports into the EU from the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are expected to be totally liberalised from year 2009 onwards because of the 'Everything But Arms' (EBA) concession. During the transition period until year 2009, the EBA concession is gradually granting quota preferences and partial duty-free access to sugar imports from the LDCs. Simultaneously, the temporary import quotas (Special Preferential Sugar) given to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are assumed to be decreasing during the transition period. Within this background, a complete unilateral liberalisation of the EU sugar sector is simulated to depict the winners and losers in the global sugar markets if no preferences are governing the imports of sugar into the EU. The supply responses, which strongly affect the outcomes, are dependent on both the nature of substitution for sugar as well as on the efficiency of sugar production in different countries. The multi-region general equilibrium framework (GTAP) is used for this analysis. The results show that small concessions will not threaten the EU internal market, but total liberalisation of sugar imports from the LDCs will be a major threat to the EU sugar regime. The current regime limits sugar imports from all developing countries or some efficient producers, if the cost data is a right estimate of the potential supply response from developing countries. The LDCs will be the winners under the EBA concession supported by the current regime, but a few efficient sugar producers will be the winners if the current regime is entirely liberalised.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerkelä, Leena & Huan-Niemi, Ellen, 2005. "Trade Preferences in the EU Sugar Sector: Winners and Losers," Discussion Papers 358, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:fer:dpaper:358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/148337
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hertel, Thomas & Hummels, David & Ivanic, Maros & Keeney, Roman, 2007. "How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 611-635, July.
    2. Skully, David W., 2001. "Economics of Tariff-Rate Quota Administration," Technical Bulletins 184332, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Dominique van der Mensbrugghe & John C. Beghin & Don Mitchell, 2003. "Modeling Tariff Rate Quotas in a Global Context: The Case of Sugar Markets in OECD Countries," Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Publications (archive only) 03-wp343, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. S¯ren E. Frandsen & Hans G. Jensen & Wusheng Yu & Aage Walter-J¯rgensen, 2003. "Reform of EU sugar policy: price cuts versus quota reductions," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(1), pages 1-26, March.
    5. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Niemi, Jyrki S., 2003. "The Impact of Preferential, Regional and Multilateral Trade Agreements: A Case Study of the EU Sugar Regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 25134, European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes (ENARPRI).
    6. Skully, David W., 2001. "Economics Of Tariff-Rate Quota Administration," Technical Bulletins 33576, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Elbehri, Aziz & Pearson, Ken, 2000. "Implementing Bilateral Tariff Rate Quotas In Gtap Using Gempack," Technical Papers 28715, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Devadoss, Stephen & Kropf, Jurgen, 1996. "Impacts of trade liberalizations under the Uruguay round on the world sugar market," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 83-96, November.
    9. Poonyth, Daneswar & Westhoff, Patrick & Womack, Abner & Adams, Gary, 2000. "Impacts of WTO restrictions on subsidized EU sugar exports," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 233-245, April.
    10. Ellen Huan-Niemi & Jyrki Niemi, 2003. "The impact of preferential, regional and multilateral trade agreements: a case study of the EU sugar regime," ENARPRI Working Papers 001, ENARPRI (European Network of Agricultural and Rural Policy Research Institutes).
    11. Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "EU Preferential Trade Arrangements and Developing Countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(10), pages 1415-1432, November.
    12. Arvind Panagariya, 2000. "Preferential Trade Liberalization: The Traditional Theory and New Developments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 287-331, June.
    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. Nolte, Stephan, 2006. "The application of spatial models in the analysis of bilateral trade flows: An alternative to the Armington approach for the world sugar market," Working Paper Series 10288, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Elobeid, Amani, 2009. "How Would A Trade Deal on Sugar Affect Exporting and Importing Countries?," WTO Doha Round 320140, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
    3. Laaksonen, Kalle & Maki-Franti, Petri & Virolainen, Meri, 2007. "Mauritius and Jamaica as Case Studies of the Lome Sugar Protocol," Working Papers 18855, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    4. Chaplin, Hannah & Matthews, Alan, 2006. "Coping with the Fallout for Preference-receiving Countries from EU Sugar Reform," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17.

    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. Huan-Niemi, Ellen & Kerkela, Leena, 2005. "Reform in the EU Sugar Regime: Impact on the Global Sugar Markets," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24733, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Brockmeier, Martina & Sommer, Ulrich & Thomsen, Karin, 2005. "Sugar Policies: An Invincible Bastion for Modelers?," 89th Seminar, February 2-5, 2005, Parma, Italy 232588, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Jafari, Yaghoob & Britz, Wolfgang & Guimbard, Houssein & Beckman, Jayson, 2021. "Properly capturing tariff rate quotas for trade policy analysis in computable general equilibrium models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. Michael J. Ferrantino, 2006. "Quantifying the Trade and Economic Effects of Non-Tariff Measures," OECD Trade Policy Papers 28, OECD Publishing.
    5. 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.
    6. Oyewumi, Olubukola Ayodeju, 2005. "Modeling tariff rate quotas in the South African livestock industry," Master's Degree Theses 28064, University of the Free State, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    7. Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2007. "Politique Commerciale, Qualité et Environnement: une Application aux Négociations Commerciales entre l’Union Européenne et le Mercosur," MPRA Paper 12640, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Alexandre Gohin & J.C. Bureau, 2005. "Sugar market liberalization : modeling the EU supply of "C" sugar," Post-Print hal-01937090, HAL.
    9. Gouel, Christophe & Mitaritonna, Cristina & Ramos, Maria Priscila, 2011. "Sensitive products in the Doha negotiations: The case of European and Japanese market access," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 2395-2403.
    10. Elbehri, Aziz & Umstaetter, Johannes & Kelch, David R., 2008. "The EU Sugar Policy Regime and Implications of Reform," Economic Research Report 56457, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Marcel ADENÄUER & Kamel LOUHICHI & Bruno HENRY DE FRAHAN & Heinz Peter WITZKE., 2010. "Impact of the "Everything but Arms" Initiative on the EU Sugar Sub-Sector," EcoMod2004 330600001, EcoMod.
    12. Gohin, Alexandre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "Bridging Micro- and Macro-Analyses of the EU Sugar Program: Methods and Insights," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25799, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Döbeling, Tatjana & Pelikan, Janine, 2021. "The Market Dynamics of Tariff Rate Quotas in the Case of Ceta," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315282, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Zhai, Fan, 2006. "Preferential Trade Agreements in Asia: Alternative Scenarios of "Hub and Spoke"," Conference papers 331509, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. van Berkum, Siemen & Roza, Pim & van Tongeren, Frank W., 2005. "Impacts of the EU sugar policy reforms on developing countries," Report Series 29139, Wageningen University and Research Center, Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
    16. Koen Dillen & Matty Demont & Eric Tollens, 2008. "European Sugar Policy Reform and Agricultural Innovation," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 533-553, December.
    17. John C. Beghin & Barbara El Osta & Jay R. Cherlow & Samarendu Mohanty, 2003. "The Cost Of The U.S. Sugar Program Revisited," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(1), pages 106-116, January.
    18. Svatoš, M. & Maitah, Mansoor & Belova, Anna, 2013. "World Sugar Market – Basic Development Trends and Tendencies," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Unknown, 2007. "Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2007," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 3(1).
    20. Amani Elobeid & John Beghin, 2006. "Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 23-48, March.

    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:fer:dpaper:358. 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: Anita Niskanen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vatttfi.html .

    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.