Thompson ACE dept sem 012607

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

By: sangeethaiyer87 (124 month(s) ago)

its was really different view point

Presentation Transcript

A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE DOHA ROUND OF WTO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS: 

A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE DOHA ROUND OF WTO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS Robert L. Thompson ACE Department Seminar January 26, 2007

World Trade Organization: 

World Trade Organization Hosts meetings/negotiations (“rounds”) of its members to set the rules of the road on international trade Its Secretariat, in Geneva, organizes a dispute settlement process to resolve differences among members over whether these rules are being broken Dispute settlement panels & an appellate body interpret agreements and build up a body of case law (necessary when wording is fuzzy) WTO cannot force any country to change its policies, but it can authorize the victims of violations to collect compensation via import duties on the violator’s exports

GATT Rounds of International Trade Negotiations: 

GATT Rounds of International Trade Negotiations 1947 Geneva 1949 Annency 1951 Torquay 1960-61 Geneva (“Dillon Round”) 1964-67 Geneva (“Kennedy Round”) 1973-79 Geneva (“Tokyo Round”) 1986-94 Geneva (“Uruguay Round”)

Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture: Accomplishments: 

Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture: Accomplishments Increased minimum market access as % of consumption Bound and reduced export subsidies (value & volume) Acknowledged that domestic supports linked to production of specific commodities can distort trade and capped those that do Converted all non-tariff barriers to tariffs and reduced them Required scientific basis for all sanitary & phyto-sanitary (SPS) barriers to trade Created a more iron-clad dispute settlement system. Negotiations on agriculture and services would resume by a date certain

Domestic Supports Categorized by Degree of Trade Distortion: 

Domestic Supports Categorized by Degree of Trade Distortion “Green box” = non-trade-distorting support: investments in public goods and decoupled income transfers (no cap) “Blue box” = trade-distorting, but production-inducing effect offset by prod’n controls or set-asides (no cap) “Amber box” = trade-distorting, i.e. linked to production of specific commodities Trade-distorting support allowed up to 5% (de minimis) each of aggregate value of all ag production and of production of individual commodities Beyond that, the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) was capped in each country.

The Brazil Cotton Case: 

The Brazil Cotton Case

The WTO Cotton Case: Brazil’s Allegations: 

The WTO Cotton Case: Brazil’s Allegations U.S. policies in 2002 Farm Bill stimulated larger production and exports of cotton than would otherwise have been the case. This depressed the world price of cotton, reducing the earning potential of Brazilian cotton growers. The U.S. cotton program violates the Uruguay Round Ag Agreement (of which the U.S. was a principal author). The U.S. should change those policies or pay compensation.

WTO Cotton Decision: 

WTO Cotton Decision Marketing loans, LDPs, and counter-cyclical payments have induced larger production and exports that “suppressed” world price of cotton. U.S. direct payments are not decoupled (“green box”) since recipients are precluded from growing fruits and vegetables on land receiving payments. Export credit guarantees and “step 2” payments are banned export subsidies.

More Cases Possible: 

More Cases Possible Canada corn already Uruguay rice Dairy?

The Doha Development Agenda: 

The Doha Development Agenda

Doha Round Ag Negotiations: Progression: 

Doha Round Ag Negotiations: Progression Missed deadline for restarting ag negotiations 1999 -- Seattle fiasco 2001 -- Doha Ministerial declaration Individual country/region proposals, but no real negotiations (posturing; talking past one another) 2003 -- Cancun Ministerial, the original deadline for completion, failed; G-20 became 3rd force July 31, 2004 -- Framework Agreement Oct. 10, 2005 -- U.S. Proposal Dec. 2005 – Hong Kong Ministerial 2007? -- Completion of Doha Round

Why the Development Focus in the Doha Round?: 

Why the Development Focus in the Doha Round? It’s in our economic self-interest: They are the only potential growth markets for agricultural products, but only if and when they can afford to eat meat, fruits, vegetables; edible oils. Trade is a more powerful engine of growth than aid. Persistent poverty can have adverse geopolitical effects (Doha was 2 months after 9/11) and cause illegal immigration With half the world’s population living on less than $2 per day, it’s the right thing to do. Developing countries are now the majority of WTO members; there will be no agreement until they perceive something of value in it to them (unlike the past).

Key Players in Doha Round Agricultural Negotiations: 

Key Players in Doha Round Agricultural Negotiations United States European Union (now EU-27!) G-20 (Brazil, India, China, S. Africa+) G-10 (Japan, Korea, Norway, Switzerland+) Various groupings of developing countries (with heterogeneous interests) Cairns Group

“G-20” Members : 

“G-20” Members Argentina Bolivia Brazil (chair) Chile China Cuba Egypt Guatemala India Indonesia Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Paraguay Philippines South Africa Tanzania Thailand Uruguay Venezuela Zimbabwe

Developing Country Concerns: 

Developing Country Concerns OECD countries tend to be most protectionist in products in which low income countries have a comparative advantage at this stage in their development E.g., textiles, footwear, sugar, rice; cotton. OECD ag subsidies induce larger production and exports of their most subsidized commodities, driving down the world market price from which developing country farmers get their entire incomes E.g. sugar, rice, cotton, and peanuts

Overall Domestic Support: 

Overall Domestic Support Present (URAA): Categorizes all support policies in one of three boxes, with amber box total (AMS) and 2 de minimis categories each capped. No cap on “overall” domestic support. U.S. proposed (October 10, 2005): Cap blue box, product-specific/non-product specific de minimis at 2.5% of value of production of the commodity/national output (i.e. reduce each by half). Cap sum of amber box + blue box + product-specific de minimis + non-product-specific de minimis policies, and reduce this total by 75% for EU (less for countries with lower total subsidies, e.g. US 53%). Hong Kong Ministerial: Cuts in overall support to be at least equal to sum of cuts in amber, blue, and the two de minimis categories.

Amber Box: 

Amber Box Framework Agreement said “Substantial reduction in trade-distorting support from bound levels” U.S. proposed Full phase out over 15 years: 60% in first 5 years; rest in last 5 years, with higher/lower % reductions in countries where higher/lower AMS (e.g. 83% in EU). Product-specific caps at 1999-2001 levels Hong Kong: Categorize countries in 3 bands, with highest to be cut the most. EU in highest band; US and Japan in second. Size of cut in each band yet to be negotiated.

Blue Box: 

Blue Box Present: Trade-distorting policies that have measures that offset their production-inducing effect, e.g. set-aside or quota on production or sales. No cap at present. Framework Agreement: Broaden to include “direct payments that do not require production,” e.g. counter-cyclical payments [no link to current production, but per unit payment is based on current market price; therefore, not green box]. U.S. proposal: Redefine blue box as above and cap at 2.5% of total value of all national ag production (including non-program crops). No mention in Hong Kong declaration.

Green Box: 

Green Box Present: No cap. Doha Round is about shifting as much support as possible from amber to green box payments. Brazil cotton case affirmed that direct payments are “green” only if there are no constraints whatsoever on what can be grown on land receiving payments. U.S. must either delete fruit & vegetable exclusion or include direct payments in amber box Hong Kong: No mention of a cap or of tightening definition of “minimally trade-distorting.”

Market Access: 

Market Access The most difficult pillar on which the least Is agreed Framework Agreement said: Substantial increase in market access though tariff cuts or tariff rate quota (TRQ) expansion But make cuts from bound rates. Categorize all tariffs into “bands,” each with a different reduction formula; highest tariffs to be cut the most. Allow each country to designate an “appropriate number” of (politically) “sensitive products” on which smaller cuts can be made. Increase tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) on “sensitive products” on which tariffs are cut less than formula would otherwise require. Allow developing countries to make smaller cuts over a longer period, designate some products as “special” for reasons of food security or rural livelihoods, and to use a “special safeguard” against import surges.

Market Access (cont’d.): 

Market Access (cont’d.) U.S. proposal would Reduce tariffs by 55-90% (highest tariffs cut the most) Cap tariffs at 75% in high income countries (a little higher cap elsewhere) Limit “sensitive products” to less than 1% of tariff lines “with full compensation” via TRQ expansion Allow “developing countries” Special Safeguard and Special Products Internationally competitive developing countries must provide meaningful increase in access to their markets Hong Kong: Define 4 bands, but thresholds and cuts to be negotiated Developing countries: Special Safeguard to have both quantity & price triggers. Self designate Special Products

Export Subsidies: 

Export Subsidies Present: Cap on volume and value of export subsidies on agricultural policies. U.S. proposed elimination of all direct agricultural export subsidies by 2010; EU called for cash-only food aid. WTO Cotton Case mandated that the U.S. must eliminate subsidy component in export credits and export credit guarantees Hong Kong: Eliminate direct export subsidies by 2013. Export credit programs to be self-financing; term less than 180 days. Food aid: discipline to preclude commercial displacement Discipline mode of operation of state-trading enterprises (STEs) to preclude indirect subsidization of exports; nothing on eliminating monopoly state traders.

US Proposal Misunderstood by Many American Farmers: 

US Proposal Misunderstood by Many American Farmers Very little real reduction in domestic support has been offered The proposed 60% cut is from the cap on, not actual, trade-distorting payments An “overall” reduction commitment is from a very high number, so reduction percent would have to be very large to have any impact on the actual farm program payments they receive. Any real cut in trade-distorting support can be made up fully via larger green box payments.

Status of WTO Negotiations: 

Status of WTO Negotiations Negotiations suspended in summer 2006; “restarted” after U.S. election; too late? Three key disagreements: U.S. demands significant increases in market access. E.U. & developing countries demand larger reductions in U.S. trade-distorting ag supports Brazil and India are asked to offer more market access for services and non-ag manufactured goods Main issues: depth of real cuts in tariffs and in trade-distorting domestic support and how many exceptions Issue: Would it be easier to write farm bill before or after Doha Round is completed?

Current Ag Trade Negotiations: What Is Possible?: 

Current Ag Trade Negotiations: What Is Possible? Much has already been agreed: Eliminate all ag export subsidies Reduce trade-distorting domestic subsidies (highest the most, but exceptions possible) Redefine blue box to include counter-cyclical payments Reduce tariffs (highest the most, but exceptions allowed if increase tariff-rate quota) Give the least developed countries open access to high income country markets for most goods. The issue is NOT to get rid of ag subsidies, but to replace those linked to production of specific commodities. Any disciplining of green box supports won’t come until the next round of WTO trade negotiations.

Ethanol Has Changed the Markets, but Negotiators Haven’t Noticed: 

Ethanol Has Changed the Markets, but Negotiators Haven’t Noticed Expansion of the ethanol industry has driven up the price of corn, other grains and oilseeds, so the expected impact of present U.S. crop support programs will be negligible in the next few years. U.S. corn exports could go to zero! Animal agriculture and low-income net-food-importing countries, which have to pay more for grain and oilseeds, likely to complain, as will ethanol exporters.

Prospects for Doha Round: 

Prospects for Doha Round U.S. farm organizations say they will support a Doha Round Agreement that significantly reduces trade-distorting domestic subsidies only if the Agreement includes significant increases in market access. They put too much emphasis on increasing access into shrinking markets of the past and not enough on growing the total size of the world market. Protecting current farm program structure with commodity-specific benefits If the Doha Round fails now, it will not be completed during the Bush Presidency.

Remember: 

Remember The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture will continue to set the rules of the road for international agricultural trade until some future round of negotiations changes them. If this round fails or is delayed, expect more cases to be filed with WTO against U.S. commodity programs. (No Peace Clause) The U.S. risks losing marketing loans, LDPs and CCPs though litigation and get nothing for giving them up. If we give them up in the round, we get something for giving them up. The round is not so much about reducing farm subsidies as it is about moving them from trade-distorting to non-trade-distorting mechanisms. The big potential payoff is faster economic growth in LDCs and, in turn, larger world demand for ag products.

authorStream Live Help