Domestic Support Measures Research Articles

Economic interdependencies and sectoral impacts: An input-output analysis of the Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture sector amidst COVID-19

This study investigates the economic interdependencies and changes in the economic structure of the Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture sector during the COVID-19 pandemic through input-output analysis. Utilizing data from 2019 to 2021, I characterize the inter-industry structure of the sector relative to the Norwegian economy by using a Leontief, Ghosh models and the hypothetical extraction method that allow to calculate measures of inter-industry linkages. It is found that fisheries and aquaculture is key for the Norwegian economy as it has strong Hirschman-Rasmussen Indexes (HRI) for backward and forward linkages. Additionally, the sector has a relatively low dependence on imported inputs, and the structure of such imports did not change significantly between 2019 and 2021. A deeper analysis of the fisheries and aquaculture backward and forward linkages, reveals that the sector is highly connected to the food products, beverages, and tobacco industries, with stable dependency levels even amid the pandemic. The findings indicate that the fisheries and aquaculture sector maintained a stable industry structure despite COVID-19, partly due to its ability to adapt to changing global supply chain dynamics and domestic support measures. This research provides insights that may be helpful for policymakers aiming to enhance sectoral resilience and develop targeted economic recovery strategies in the face of future crises.

WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Worsening India’s Agrarian Crisis

India’s accession to the WTO in 1995 brought a new set of challenges for its agriculture. Most of the policies supporting agriculture, especially price support and input subsidies, labelled by the agreement on agriculture (AoA) as domestic support measures, were under the scanner. The price support measure that India uses, namely, the minimum support price (MSP) provided to most of the major crops now faces a problem as the methodology of calculating the extent of subsidies on account of MSP is working against India. Further, the AoA prevents India from using export subsidies since it was not using this instrument in the past. But the agreement allows the advanced countries that were using export subsidies to continue using this instrument, albeit at a lower level. Equally problematic for India is the fact that AoA rules are constraining the implementation of the National Food Security Act, which provides subsidised foodgrains to the disadvantaged sections. JEL codes: F13, Q17, Q18

Liberalising the EU sugar market: what are the effects on third countries?*

This paper examines the consequences of a liberalisation of the EU sugar policy on Australia and other third countries. Four scenarios are simulated showing the trade and production effects of a gradual phasing‐out of EU domestic support measures and EU import tariffs using two partial equilibrium models linked to each other. Compared with previous work, tariff rate quotas are represented in great detail, going beyond the classical single‐origin, single‐destination approach. Furthermore, supply functions of EU sugar processors are calibrated based on empirical data on production costs to overcome the problem of non‐observed production costs due to the existence quota rents. Results suggest that, in particular, sugar production in Balkan countries is adversely affected by a liberalisation of the EU sugar regime. Moreover, the simulation shows that preferential LDC‐ACP exporters, among them Fiji and Papua New Guinea, are displaced from the EU market leading to a decline in production. An elimination of EU import tariffs benefits in particular the Ukraine and the world's largest sugar producers, such as Australia, all with currently only limited preferential market access to the EU. During periods of low global sugar prices, these countries even increase sugar production, if the EU sugar market is completely liberalised.

How can an emergency department be strengthened against apandemic?

The emergency department (ED) is one of the crucial parts of the hospital infrastructure during all phases of the pandemic. The ED plays an important part in detecting an increasing number of new contagious diseases, which could potentially lead to an epidemic or pandemic.During a pandemic, the ED's main task is to detect infected individuals. These patients then need to be isolated and an adequate treatment is required. The ED must be prepared in order to perform well in such a situation. One major part for readiness is communication in an open manner to all partners within the department, as well as with emergency medical services and other departments of the hospital.The ED must be restructured to withstand the rising number of infected patients. These patients must be separated from other critically ill patients. Strategies for a diagnostic workup depending on the kind of infection have to be put in place. Pathways for the outpatient and inpatient management must be defined to avoid overcrowding in the ED. Depending on the number of patients, escalation and de-escalation strategies have to be set up within the hospital.Over the whole course of the pandemic, all staff members are the key resources for the ED and the entire hospital. The ED can only cope with a pandemic situation if staff are working together as a whole. This implies several important steps to get the staff prepared: Recurring, open conversations about fears, problems, and successes are critical for staff morale. Training must be continually provided, and protection strategies implemented. In the chronic phase of the pandemic the focus should shift more towards strategies on how to create possibilities for recuperation, domestic support measures, and mental health care for staff.

What impact are subsidies and trade barriers abroad having on Australasian and Brazilian agriculture?*

This paper provides new estimates of the extent and economic effects of agricultural policies that provide domestic support or import protection to farmers in countries that compete in the global marketplace with unsubsidised farmers. Analyses earlier this century found that import market access barriers accounted for more than 90 per cent of the global welfare cost of all assistance to farmers, with domestic support measures providing as little as 5 per cent. Since then the share contributed by domestic support has grown greatly in some high‐income and emerging economies, thanks to policy re‐instrumentation. Using the latest version of the GTAP model and database of the global economy, this paper estimates the economic effects of direct farmer subsidies, and of the producer subsidy and consumer tax equivalents of farm trade policies, on farmers in three lightly assisting countries. The estimates adjusted for country size suggest the effects on agricultural exports, net farm income and national economic welfare of such policies are far more adverse for Australia, Brazil and especially New Zealand than for the rest of the world, and that domestic supports abroad are much more important contributors to those losses now than they were at the start of this century.

SUBSIDIES TO THE INDIAN SUGAR SECTOR: IN COHERENCE WITH INDIA’S WTO OBLIGATIONS?

Recently, Brazil ,Australia and Guatemala have each filed individual requests for Consultation with India at the WTO challenging the domestic support measures and export subsidies provided by India to producers of sugarcane and sugar. The countries claim that these measures are inconsistent with India’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994. Thailand, Costa Rica and European Union have also filed requests to join the Consultations5 filed by Brazil, Australia and Guatemala against India. The reason that these countries have approached the WTO against policy incentives given by the Indian government to the sugar industry is that these countries are some of the largest sugar producers of the world6and they fear that India’s sugar exports would lead to a reduction of global prices and thus leading to losses for them.

WTO Negotiations: The Unfinished Doha Development Agenda and the Emergence of New Topics

This article focuses on the state of progress of negotiations at the World Trade Organization. Since 2001, WTO Members have been working towards the conclusion of the Doha Development Round. While negotiations have been stagnant for a long time, the arrival of Roberto Azevêdo has brought a new impetus to the discussions and led to the adoption of the Bali Package in 2013, making it possible to close the debates on about 10% of the subjects. Unfortunately, the post-Bali discussions were less positive since, although they produced interesting results in some areas, they did not produce satisfactory results on one of the most important multilateral trade issues, namely domestic support measures for agriculture. Even more problematically, the Nairobi ministerial noted a new difficulty, namely a lack of consensus on the very content of future negotiations. In this context, the ministers met in Buenos Aires in 2017 without a clear agenda. With an American administration not very inclined to multilateralism, and a group of countries ready to block any progress that is not favourable to developing countries, this Ministerial was a dead end. However, the Buenos Aires Ministerial was marked by the creation of three informal working groups. In parallel, many Members enthusiastically joined an initiative of the International Trade Centre on the empowerment of women in trade, suggesting that a new theme may have emerged at the WTO. The Nur-Soultan Ministerial Conference in June 2020 will determine whether Members are ready for a redefinition of the Negotiating Agenda. WTO Ministerial Conference, Doha Round, Plurilateral initiatives, WTO à la carte, Negociation Agenda, Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference, Gender

Developing Countries and Domestic Support Measures in Agriculture: Walking a Tightrope

Supporting the domestic agriculture sector is a vital concern for most developing countries. Of late, developing countries’ agricultural subsidies are increasingly falling under scrutiny at various WTO fora, including the Dispute Settlement Body and the Committee on Agriculture. The recent WTO panel ruling in China – Agricultural Producers and the multiple challenges against India’s support measures on sugar and cane sugar are illustrations of this trend. It is a potential tinderbox and is bound to push the WTO dispute settlement system to another political crisis if these measures are seriously pursued. The fault lines of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) are glaringly visible and the dubious economic basis for agriculture subsidy disciplines are likely to be vigorously contested. Maintaining essential agriculture support programme is a matter of life and death for several developing countries. In that context, the article is an attempt to formulate a few suggestions which can be helpful for the developing countries to design their agriculture policies in a manner that is consistent with the WTO legal framework and, in particular, the AoA. The article provides some practical suggestions for designing programmes which can take advantage of the limited flexibilities provided under the AoA for the calculation of Aggregate Measurement of Support and Market Price Support. On the whole, a carefully crafted agriculture subsidy policy can help the WTO Members to maintain essential public stockholding or other income or price support programmes. Market Price Support, Developing countries, Domestic Support, Policy Space, Agricultural Subsidy, Quantity of eligible production, Korea – Beef, China – Agricultural Producers, Amber Box support, Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes

Revisiting Domestic Support Negotiations at the WTO: Ensuring a Level Playing Field

In the agriculture negotiations, developing members remain concerned about the inherent inequities in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which allows developed members to provide huge trade-distorting support without breaching their commitments. As a result of these flexibilities, developed members enjoy artificial competitiveness in international trade, which subsequently leads to an adverse impact on farm income and livelihood security for millions of farmers in third world countries. Further, developing members have been increasingly finding it difficult to implement domestic support measures due to the constraining provisions of the AoA. From the developing members' perspective, the elimination of trade-distorting entitlement for developed members along with special and differential treatment for themselves are the key demands in domestic support negotiations. However, some developed members have tried to build a narrative to depict developing members as major providers of trade-distorting support. This study has made a modest attempt to bring out the fallacy of this narrative by highlighting the asymmetries and inequities in trade-distorting entitlement of 8 developed and 12 developing members based on their socio-economic conditions. Results show that per farmer Amber box entitlement for developing members under the AoA is a mere fraction of the entitlement enjoyed by the developed members. This study provides a different dimension to the ongoing agriculture negotiations to make trade rules development-oriented and inclusive for all. More specifically, this study examine the following pertinent questions (1) whether the relevance of AMS entitlement for developed members has declined, and if so, why are developing members still asking for AMS elimination; (2) in case the socio-economic conditions of the developing members are considered, whether the narrative that developing members have the huge policy space under the de minimis limit will stand; (3) if policy space under the de minimis limit has increased, then why are the developing members complaining about the constraining provisions of the AoA; (4) In case the number of farmers is considered, what will be the entitlement of the members under the amber box for achieving a level playing field. The study seeks to explore answers to these intriguing questions by examining and evaluating the policy space under the Amber box for 20 selected members; 8 developed members namely Australia, Canada, European Union (EU), Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, and 12 developing members namely Bangladesh, Brazil, India, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey in 2020 and 2030.

Domestic Support Measures for Olive Farmers: Case of the Municipalities of Birine and Benhar Wilaya of Djelfa

The Olive Producer Support Estimate Approach in two communes of Djelfa has been applied to explain the economic parameters favoring the state of Internal Support Measures (ISM). Following a 4-month survey involving 150 individuals, the SPSS model processed the data by calculating the Market Price Support (MPS), the Nominal Support Coefficient (NSC) and the NPC (Nominal Protection Coefficient). The distribution of MSI in favor of these producers was mainly favored by one of the factors of production, the agricultural area, which spread rapidly to the detriment of productivity. The total SPM (96324438457 DA) (100 DA, Algerian Dinar = 1.16 Euro) and the NSC were strongly correlated with it, which showed that there is a strong effect of the area on the distribution of the ISM. For yield, there was a significant negative relationship with the NPC (-223.2 to -1.80). The only payments for acreage could not encourage intensification or increase in productivity will be the best precept to be observed by policy makers.

Sustainable entrepreneurship: agrarian policy in South Korea

This paper focuses on the issues of sustainable entrepreneurship using an example of South Korea (also known as the Republic of Korea). Mainly, it is tackling the problem of preserving the vulnerable agricultural sector and its social structure according to South Korean general course for increasing the openness of the economy. We build upon the historical approach, economic and comparative analysis in order to classify and formulate the features of the South Korean agrarian model. Moreover, we analyze how this model is applied for the stages of the state agricultural policy, including the foreign trade component, domestic support measures for agriculture. Our results reveal the importance of the gradualness and flexibility of the transition to a market efficiency model with the active use of non-market methods and the preservation of selective protection of the domestic market from commodity imports. It becomes apparent that following the FAO approaches to the concept of food security, South Korea uses the policy of combining self-sufficiency and imports, increasingly diversifying the structure of consumed food products.

Trade policy responses to food price crisis and implications for existing domestic support measures: the case of China in 2008

AbstractMany national governments around the world applied export restrictions in order to achieve domestic market stabilization during the 2007/8 world food price crisis. However, current literature says little about how these export restrictions interact with existing domestic support measures in jointly determining domestic market outcomes. This paper analyzes this interaction by providing a quantitative assessment on how increased spending on agricultural domestic support in China offset the negative effects on grain production caused by the country's export restrictions and how these two types of measures jointly moderated rises of domestic grain prices. In particular, domestic and trade measures on key agricultural inputs such as fertilizers are shown to contribute significantly to expand grain outputs and reduce domestic market prices. While the short-term goal in stabilizing domestic grain prices was achieved through these measures, large fiscal and efficiency costs were incurred, especially considering how the short-term export restrictions seemingly necessitated the extra spending on input-based domestic subsidies. We also demonstrate that the costs to China and the rest of the world of these complicated policy interventions may be partially avoidable with a simpler and less distorting instrument.

A Study on the Priority and Evaluation Criteria of Domestic Support Measures according to FTA

A Study on the Priority and Evaluation Criteria of Domestic Support Measures according to FTA

Food Security and Agricultural Trade Liberalization

Many Sub-Saharan African countries are highly dependent on the agricultural sector for the livelihood of the population. Agriculture is source of livelihood for 64 percent of the population in the region; the sector contributes about one-fifth of total gross domestic product, and about 12 per cent of the total export earnings for the region. These countries are gifted with abundant land, labor and natural resources indicating existence of comparative advantage in the agriculture sector. With the existence of comparative advantage, one can reasonably expect the continent to be able to feed its citizens. However, food security is of particular concern to many Sub-Saharan African countries and a daily problem for large parts of the population. Many of the countries which faced recurrent food shortage for the period 1998-2002 are found in Sub-Saharan Africa.Food security of a country is affected by different factors; one of which is international trade policy. Trade policy reform resulting from the WTO negotiations involves a combination of the three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture: tariff, domestic support measures and export subsidies. Each of these pillars have one way or another an implication on food security. Lowering of tariff in agricultural products would lead to an increase in import and declining of price of imported goods thereby enhancing food security. However, for a continent like Africa, where more than 64% of the population depends on the sector, the negative consequences could out weigh. The rules on domestic support and export subsidy also have an impact on food security in that their removal will increase the price of food in the world market there by increasing the import bills of food importing countries and decreasing the amount of food supply to food deficit countries in the form of food aid. The removal of support, however, is beneficial in the long run as it would enhance competitiveness of agricultural products from African countries. In light of the fact that trade policy plays a great role in the food security of countries, the issue deserving consideration is the effect of the WTO agricultural trade liberalization on food security and the available mechanisms for addressing the issue.The article examines the food security implications of the WTO agreement on Agriculture. It asserts that the Agreement on Agriculture favors agricultural producers of the developed countries at the cost of producers in developing countries, including Africa. The article will also address the extent to which the realization of the objectives of the Agreement on Agriculture will promote food security in food insecure African countries. Accordingly, the next section will define food security and look into the state of food (in)security in Sub-Saharan African countries as well as the causes for food insecurity. The third chapter touches upon the three pillars of the AoA and their implementation and will also discuss their relationship with food security. The fourth section will highlight the state of affairs in the current negotiation and indicate the reforms necessary to be undertaken under the current round of negotiation which aims towards enhancing food security in the region. The paper will finalize by making some concluding remarks.Presented at the SIEL 2010 Conference in Barcelona.

Non-Trade Concerns and Agriculture in a Post-Doha Environment: Thinking outside the Green Box

International agricultural trade regulation is once again at the heart of the Doha Development Round's collapse. Even if a deal had been reached on the basis of the Draft Modalities on Agriculture, it is not clear that a fundamental problem would be resolved: the relationship between trade and non-trade concerns, crucially the protection of the environment. Currently, members can use domestic support measures for non-trade objectives, but only if they do not impinge significantly on free trade in agricultural products; an ethos reiterated in the Draft Modalities. However, if the ultimate goal of the Agreement on Agriculture is to reduce agriculture support and protection over time so that distortions to the market are removed, it is difficult to reconcile this goal whilst the Agreement simultaneously allows members to use trade-distorting measures to support non-trade objectives. Even if one accepts that the Agreement on Agriculture's goal is freer trade and not free trade per se, this inconsistency is not removed, as a decision still needs to be made regarding what level of ‘protection’ is acceptable at any given time during the operation of the existing rules. Despite suggested changes to the levels of protection in the Draft Modalities, there seems no indication what this acceptable level might be. Until a decision is made to this effect, a conflict exists within the Agreement and the current tension between members will remain. This article argues that the problem is not the existence of a balance between removing trade barriers whilst protecting non-trade concerns, but rather the theoretical approach driving conclusions about how that balance should be achieved. In addition to moving towards a general commitment to the reduction in agricultural support measures, the Agreement on Agriculture also emphasises the need to achieve a ‘ fair and market-oriented trading system’ ‘having regard to non-trade concerns’. Current thinking assumes that fairness is achieved by interpreting rules on the basis of an economic efficiency rationale (free trade): this approach is not inevitable, however, but only reflects contemporary views of trade rules' purpose and how they should be interpreted in the light of that purpose. As our views of trade rules' purpose changes, so the theoretical underpinnings driving the rules' interpretation evolve. This article proposes such an evolution.