Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- 7 An analysis of EU, US and Japanese green box spending
- 8 Green box subsidies and trade-distorting support: is there a cumulative impact?
- 9 The distributional structure of green box subsidies in the European Union and France
- 10 The distributional structure of US green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
7 - An analysis of EU, US and Japanese green box spending
from PART II - The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Overview
- PART I The recent evolution of agricultural trade policy reform
- PART II The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies
- 7 An analysis of EU, US and Japanese green box spending
- 8 Green box subsidies and trade-distorting support: is there a cumulative impact?
- 9 The distributional structure of green box subsidies in the European Union and France
- 10 The distributional structure of US green box subsidies
- PART III Green box subsidies and developing countries
- PART IV Green box subsidies and the environment
- PART V Looking forward: how can change take place?
- Appendix: Text of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (“the green box”)
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
The URAA has provided a framework to discipline support for agricultural production. The domestic support pillar of the URAA has created a set of rules for individual members to classify and notify domestic support measures and an open mutual review process. The peace clause, which prevented members from using the Dispute Settlement Process to challenge agricultural measures that do not comply with WTO provisions, expired at the beginning of 2004.
The URAA framework is a legal structure derived from a complex negotiation process and oriented to discipline support through rules that need to be respected and applied. It is not meant to be an economic or analytical framework that takes into account all kinds of economic linkages, and it cannot be interpreted as a tool for the analysis of support. The notification process to the WTO has generated a database of support to agriculture in all member countries, which is classified according to specific criteria in various boxes and sub-boxes. This is particularly the case of the green box, which lists a series of payment types that are oriented to a briefly defined objective and have to conform to some general and specific provisions in Annex 2 of the URAA.
The purpose of this chapter is to look with some detail at the agricultural domestic support notifications to the WTO by the three main providers of support to agriculture: the EU, the US and Japan, which are called “the Trio” in this chapter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green BoxEnsuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 137 - 238Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
(2004), A Review of Empirical Studies of the Acreage and Production Response to US Production Flexibility Contract Payments under the FAIR Act and related Payments under Supplementary Legislation, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2001), “Direct Payments, Safety Nets and Supply Response: Do ‘Decoupled’ Payments Affect US Crop Area? Preliminary Evidence from 1997–2000”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 1190–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006), “Modeling Production Response to ‘More Decoupled’ Payments”, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 2(1): 109–26.Google Scholar
and (2004), “Do Counter-Cyclical Payments in the 2002 US Farm Act Create Incentives to Produce?”, Agricultural Economics 31: 277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006), “The Challenge of Decoupling Agricultural Support”, Eurochoices 5(3): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) (2005), “Modelling Agricultural Policies: State of the Art and New Challenges” in Proceedings of the 89th European Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, edited by , Monte Universitá Parma.Google Scholar
and (2005), The Impact on Yields of Moving from Price Support to Area Payments: a Study of the 1992 Cap Reform, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
, and (2000), “North American Farm Programs and WTO”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 768–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997), “Calculating the Rate of Decoupling for Crops under CAP/Oilseeds Reform”, Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 349–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005), “Dynamic Econometric Models of Canadian Crop Investment and Production under Risk Aversion and Uncertainty”, OECD Papers 5(11): 426.Google Scholar
, and (2001), “The Transfer Efficiency and Trade Effects of Direct Payments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 1204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “WTO Agricultural Trade Policy Commitments Database”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/db/wto.Google Scholar
(2004), “Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting”, Agricultural Economic Report No. 838, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
(2003), “Rural Development in the European Union”, fact sheet.Google Scholar
(2006a), “Does the ‘Trade Talk’ Match the ‘Trade Walk’? Exploding the Myths Surrounding World Trade”, MAP: Monitoring Agri-Trade Policy No. 30–06, December.Google Scholar
(2006b), “The Rural Development Policy 2007–2013”, fact sheet.Google Scholar
(2005), “Assessing the Impacts of the 2003 CAP Mid Term Review: How Sensitive Are They to the Assumed Production Responsiveness to Agenda 2000 Direct Payments?”, Contributed Paper to the Eighth Conference of Global Economic Analysis, Lübeck, June.Google Scholar
and (2005), “Are Decoupled Payments Really Decoupled?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5): 1200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003), “What's Wrong with Our Models of Agricultural Land Values?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 744–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998), “The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies under Uncertainty”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005), “How Decoupled Are Decoupled Payments? The Evidence from Ireland”, Eurochoices 4(3): 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005), “Farm-Level Production Effects from Participation in Government Commodity Programs: Did the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act Make a Difference?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1211–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, “Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan 2005” (and previous editions), http://www.maff.go.jp/e/pdf/fy2005_rep.pdf, http://www.maff. go.jp/e/annual_report/past.html and http://www.maff.go.jp/e/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
and (1999), “Modelling the CAP Arable Crop Regime in Italy: Degree of Decoupling and Impact of Agenda 2000”, Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales 53: 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005a), OECD Papers Special Issue on Decoupling Agricultural Support, Vol. 5, No. 11, http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=1433320/cl=29/nw=1/rpsv/cw/vhosts/oecdjournals/16091914/v5n11/contp1-1.htm.Google Scholar
(2005b), “The Challenge of Decoupling Agricultural Support”, http//www.oecd. org/agriculture/decoupling/, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
(2006a), “Decoupling: Policy Implications”, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
(2006b), “Agricultural Policies in OECD countries” and previous editions, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Producer and Consumer Support estimates (PSE), OECD Database 1985–2005, http//www.oecd.org/document/55/0,3343,en_2649_33727_36956855_1_1_1_1,00.html.Google Scholar
, and (2003), “The Incidence of Government Program Payments on Agricultural Land Rents: The Challenges of Identification”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 762–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000), Green Box Criteria: A Theoretical Assessment, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.Google Scholar
and (2005). “The Degree of Decoupling of Area Payments for Arable Crops in the European Union”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1220–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003), “When the Peace Clause Ends: The Vulnerability of EC and US Agricultural Subsidies to WTO Challenge”, Journal of International Economic Law 6(2): 369–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006), “Green Box Subsidies: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment”, September.Google Scholar
(2000), “Green Box Measures”, background paper by the Secretariat, G/AG/NG/S2, 19 April 2000.Google Scholar
(2002a), “Members' Usage of Domestic Support Categories, Export Subsidies and Export Credits”, TN/AG/S/1, 5 March 2002.Google Scholar
(2002b), “Domestic Support: Background Paper by the Secretariat”, TN/AG/S4, 20 March 2002.Google Scholar
(2004), “Green Box Measures: Note by the Secretariat”, TN/AG/S/10, 8 November 2004.Google Scholar
(2006a), “World Trade Report 2006”.Google Scholar
(2006b), “Agricultural Negotiations. Agricultural Domestic Support Simulations”, JOB (06) 151, 22 May 2006.Google Scholar