Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:44:00.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transparency and timeliness: the monitoring of agricultural policies in the WTO using OECD data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

TIM JOSLING  and
KLAUS MITTENZWEI
TIM JOSLING*
Affiliation:
FSI, Stanford University
KLAUS MITTENZWEI
Affiliation:
NILF, Oslo
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transparency in the multilateral trade system is fundamental. Monitoring the compliance of WTO members with their obligations is an important part of that transparency, and timeliness in the notification of compliance is crucial. In the case of domestic support to agriculture, the notifications of compliance with obligations has been slow and opaque. But another database exists that could both illuminate the extent to which policy instruments are correctly notified and provide a convenient way to ensure timely ‘pre-notifications’ in the event that delays occur in the future. This note shows how the OECD database can be used, for example, to shed light on the extent to which payments to producers that require production as a matter of eligibility are presently notified to the WTO as having no effect on production. We also demonstrate the feasibility of using OECD data to construct ‘pre-notifications’ by calculating the (as yet un-notified) domestic support notifications for the EU for the years 2009/10 and 2010/11.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 533 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Tim Josling and Klaus Mittenzwei 2013 

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

Abler, D. and Blandford, D. (2007), ‘Getting out of the Box: Transitioning Out of Direct Payments’, available at http://cnas.tamu.edu/SessIIBPaperAblerBlandford.pdf.Google Scholar
Brink, L. (2009), ‘WTO Constraints on Domestic Support in Agriculture: Past and Future’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Brink, L. (2011), ‘The WTO Disciplines on Domestic Support’, in Orden, D., Blandford, D., and Josling, T. (eds.), WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support: Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins-Williams, T. and Wolfe, R. (2010), ‘Transparency as a Trade Policy Tool: The WTO's Cloudy Windows’, World Trade Review, 9(4): 551–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (1973), Agricultural Protection: Domestic Policy and International Trade, C 73/LIM/9, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (1975), Agricultural Protection and Stabilization Policies: A Framework for Measuring in the Context of Agricultural Adjustment, C 75/LIM/2, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Kerr, W. A. (2008), ‘Trade Agreements: The Important Role of Transparency’, Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 9(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
OECD (1982), ‘Minutes of the Council at Ministerial Level as adopted on 10–11 May 1982, C(82)58 (Final), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
OECD (1988), Monitoring and Outlook of Agricultural Policies, Markets and Trade, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
OECD (2010), OECD's Producer Support Estimate and Related Indicators of Agricultural Support: Concepts, Calculations, Interpretation and Use (The PSE Manual), Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
OECD (2010), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a Glance, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
OECD (2011), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2011: OECD Countries and Emerging Economies, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Orden, D., Blandford, D., and Josling, T. (2011), ‘The Difficult Task of Disciplining Domestic Support’, in Orden, D., Blandford, D., and Josling, T. (ed.), WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support: Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orden, D., Blandford, D., and Josling, T. (eds.) (2011), WTO Disciplines on Agricultural Support: Seeking a Fair Basis for Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1994), ‘Agreement on Agriculture’, Part of Annex 1A ‘Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods’ of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh Declaration of 15 April, Marrakesh.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995), ‘Notification Requirements and Formats’, G/AG/2, World Trade Organization, Geneva, 30 June.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2004), United States – Subsidies on Upload Cotton, Report of the Panel, WT/DS267/R.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2008), ‘Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture’, TN/AG/W/4/Rev. 4, World Trade Organization, Geneva, December.Google Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012), ‘Trade and Public Policies: A Closer look at Non-tariff Measures in the 21st Century’, World Trade Report, Geneva.Google Scholar