Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-03T18:35:13.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
Jesús Antón
Edited by
Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz ,
Christophe Bellmann  and
Jonathan Hepburn
Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Christophe Bellmann
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Jonathan Hepburn
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Get access

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 Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
 , pp. 137 - 238
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abler, D. (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
Adams, G., Westhoff, P., Willott, B. 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
Antón, J. (2006), “Modeling Production Response to ‘More Decoupled’ Payments”, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development 2(1): 109–26.Google Scholar
Antón, J. and LeMouel, C. (2004), “Do Counter-Cyclical Payments in the 2002 US Farm Act Create Incentives to Produce?”, Agricultural Economics 31: 277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antón, J. and Sckokai, P. (2006), “The Challenge of Decoupling Agricultural Support”, Eurochoices 5(3): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arfini, F. (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 Arfini, Filippo, Monte Universitá Parma.Google Scholar
Benjamin, C. and Houée, M. (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
Burfisher, M., Robinson, S. and Thierfelder, K. (2000), “North American Farm Programs and WTO”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 768–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, S. (1997), “Calculating the Rate of Decoupling for Crops under CAP/Oilseeds Reform”, Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 349–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, B. (2005), “Dynamic Econometric Models of Canadian Crop Investment and Production under Risk Aversion and Uncertainty”, OECD Papers 5(11): 426.Google Scholar
Dewbre, J., Antón, J. and Thompson, W. (2001), “The Transfer Efficiency and Trade Effects of Direct Payments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 1204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Economic Research Service (ERS/USDA), “WTO Agricultural Trade Policy Commitments Database”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/db/wto.Google Scholar
,Economic Research Service (ERS/USDA) (2004), “Decoupled Payments in a Changing Policy Setting”, Agricultural Economic Report No. 838, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
,EU Commission (2003), “Rural Development in the European Union”, fact sheet.Google Scholar
,EU Commission (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
,EU Commission (2006b), “The Rural Development Policy 2007–2013”, fact sheet.Google Scholar
Gohin, A. (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
Goodwin, B. K. and Mishra, A. (2005), “Are Decoupled Payments Really Decoupled?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5): 1200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. K., Mishra, A. and Ortalo-Magné, F. (2003), “What's Wrong with Our Models of Agricultural Land Values?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 744–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennessy, D. (1998), “The Production Effects of Agricultural Income Support Policies under Uncertainty”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennessy, T. and Thorne, F. S. (2005), “How Decoupled Are Decoupled Payments? The Evidence from Ireland”, Eurochoices 4(3): 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, N., Lubowsky, R. N. and Roberts, M. J. (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
,Ministry of Agriculture, 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
Moro, D. and Sckokai, P. (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
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001a), Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001b), Market Effects of Crop Support Measures, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (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
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005b), “The Challenge of Decoupling Agricultural Support”, http//www.oecd. org/agriculture/decoupling/, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006a), “Decoupling: Policy Implications”, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006b), “Agricultural Policies in OECD countries” and previous editions, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 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
Roberts, M. J., Kirwan, B. and Hopkins, J. (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
Rude, J. (2000), Green Box Criteria: A Theoretical Assessment, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.Google Scholar
Sckokai, P. and Antón, J. (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
Steinberg, R. H. and Josling, T. (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
,UNCTAD Indian Team (2006), “Green Box Subsidies: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment”, September.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2000), “Green Box Measures”, background paper by the Secretariat, G/AG/NG/S2, 19 April 2000.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2002a), “Members' Usage of Domestic Support Categories, Export Subsidies and Export Credits”, TN/AG/S/1, 5 March 2002.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2002b), “Domestic Support: Background Paper by the Secretariat”, TN/AG/S4, 20 March 2002.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2004), “Green Box Measures: Note by the Secretariat”, TN/AG/S/10, 8 November 2004.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2006a), “World Trade Report 2006”.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2006b), “Agricultural Negotiations. Agricultural Domestic Support Simulations”, JOB (06) 151, 22 May 2006.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×