Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:31:37.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China ‒ Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers: One Policy, Multiple Parameters Imply Modest Discipline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2021

Dukgeun Ahn  and
David Orden
Dukgeun Ahn*
Affiliation:
Seoul National University, Korea
David Orden
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper assesses key issues in the dispute over the United States’ claim that for certain grains China exceeded its limits on domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) during 2012–2015. The panel first determined that the base years for the reference price in calculating China's market price support were 1996–1998, rather than 1986–1988 as stipulated in the AoA, and that production in the geographic regions where the support programs operated, not the smaller quantities purchased at administered prices, constituted eligible production. The panel then found China had exceeded its limits in each of the four years for wheat, Indica rice, and Japonica rice. The possibility was left open that a government can determine eligible production by setting maximum purchases at support prices in its regulatory framework. China used this option to claim that its programs for 2020 implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. We argue that use of outdated fixed external reference prices to measure the price gap and to define eligible production by limits on purchases, distance calculation under the AoA from economic support measurement. The measurement issues compound the discord among Members over levels of agricultural support.

Keywords

Agreement on agricultureWTO US, China disputemarket price supportfixed external reference priceeligible productionwheatriceIndia

JEL classification

F53: International Agreements and Observance • International Organizations Q17: Agriculture in International Trade Q18: Agricultural Policy • Food Policy K33: International Law
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 20 , Special Issue 4: WTO Case Law , October 2021 , pp. 389 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Brink, L. and Orden, D. (2020) ‘Taking Stock and Looking Forward on Domestic Support under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture’, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (IATRC), Commissioned Paper 23, April.Google Scholar
DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) (2020) ‘India − Measures Concerning Sugar and Sugarcane (DS580)’, Australia's First Written Submission, 16 January.Google Scholar
Diaz-Bonilla, E. (2017) ‘Food Security Stocks and the WTO Legal Framework’, in Bouët, A. and Laborde Debucquet, D. (eds.), Agriculture, Development, and the Global Trading System: 2000–2015. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), pp. 285–324.Google Scholar
Glauber, J. and Lester, S. (2021) ‘China–Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products (DS517)’, World Trade Review, this issue.Google Scholar
Matthews, A. (2015 ) ‘Food Security, Developing Countries and Multilateral Trade Rules’, Background Paper Prepared for the State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015–16, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission) (2019) ‘Notice on Announcing the Minimum Procurement Price for Rice for 2020 (Fa Gai Jia Ge [2020] No.290) and the Notice on Improving the Rice Minimum Procurement Price Policy (Guo Liang Liang [2020] No.41), 28 February’ (translation by Economic Research Service, USDA).Google Scholar
NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission, along with the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the Agricultural Development Bank) (2020) Notice on Announcing the Minimum Procurement Price for Wheat for 2020 (Fa Gai Jia Ge [2019] No. 1617) and the Notice on Improving the Wheat Minimum Procurement Price Policy (Guo Liang Liang [2019] No. 284), 12 October (translation by Economic Research Service, USDA).Google Scholar
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2019) Country Data, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation. http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/agricultural-policy-monitoring-and-evaluation/Google Scholar
Orden, D., Xie, C., Chen, B., Brink, L., and Zulauf, C. (2019) ‘WTO Dispute Panel Report on China's Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Certain Agricultural Products’, Farmdoc Daily 9(84), 1–5.Google Scholar
USTR (United States Trade Representative) (2017) ‘China – Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers (DS511)’, First Written Submission of the United States of America, 19 September.Google Scholar