IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iatrwp/14598.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

U.S. Environmental Programs and Green Box Provisions under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Blandford, David

Abstract

This paper focuses on the compatibility of U.S. agri-environmental programs with the Green Box provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). If a new WTO agreement is concluded under the current Doha round of negotiations, it is likely that the amount of payments that can be provided to farmers under the Amber and Blue box categories will be reduced. As a result, greater attention will be directed to the use of the Green Box, which is unlikely to be subject to such a requirement. Payments under the Green Box are supposed to generate no or minimal distortions in production or trade. Those made under environmental programs are restricted to providing compensation for the additional costs incurred or income foregone in meeting program standards or conditions. Payments that are designed to provide incentives for producers to participate in environmental programs are not covered and appear potentially subject to legal challenge. More generally, a recent WTO panel ruling appears to imply that a strict interpretation of decoupling will be applied to Green Box payments. Income support payments that can be shown to be linked to production or land use decisions also appear potentially subject to challenge. These two factors imply that it may be difficult to design WTO-compatible programs that result in the appropriate supply of environmental attributes, when that supply is linked to the volume of agricultural production or land use. If Green Box payments are to be used to achieve environmental objectives, current criteria will have to be modified. The difficulty is how to achieve this without the risk that environmental programs will become the preferred mechanism for providing production and trade distorting subsidies to farmers. Several modifications to existing Green Box criteria may help to avoid this. These include requirements for transparency, explicit (measurable) program criteria, and limits on incentive payments. Enhanced monitoring and surveillance could help to minimize abuse. These changes would impose some constraints on the design of environmental programs in the United States and other countries. However, the clarification of Green Box criteria would be in the long-term interests of those who would like to see the further development of agri-environmental programs, while limiting the potential for international trade distortions.

Suggested Citation

  • Blandford, David, 2006. "U.S. Environmental Programs and Green Box Provisions under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture," Working Papers 14598, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14598
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.14598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/14598/files/wp060001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.14598?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blandford, David, 2005. "Disciplines on Domestic Support in the Doha Round," Trade Issues Papers 14571, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    2. David Blandford & Richard N. Boisvert & Linda Fulponi, 2003. "Nontrade Concerns: Reconciling Domestic Policy Objectives with Freer Trade in Agricultural Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 668-673.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hill, Berkeley & Blandford, David, 2007. "Taxation Concessions As Instruments Of Agricultural Policy," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7976, Agricultural Economics Society.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. GAIGNE, Carl & LAROCHE DUPRAZ, Cathie & MATTHEWS, Alan, 2015. "Thirty years of European research on international trade in food and agricultural products," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    2. Glebe, Thilo W., 2011. "Welfare economics of agricultural trade liberalisation and strategic environmental policy," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(2).
    3. Glebe, Thilo W. & Salhofer, Klaus, 2006. "Enlargement of Trade Blocs: National Welfare Effects If Trade Is Liberalized," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25529, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Casamatta, Georges & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2011. "Optimal taxation with joint production of agriculture and rural amenities," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 544-553, September.
    5. Blandford, David & Boisvert, Richard N., 2004. "U.S. Policy for Agricultural Adjustment," IAPRAP\IATRC Summer Symposium, Adjusting to Domestic and International Agricultural Reform in Industrial Countries, June 6-7, 2004, Philadelphia, PA, 15771, International Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment Project (IAPRAP).
    6. Glebe, Thilo W., 2009. "Enlargement of the European Union: A movement towards the optimal trade bloc size?," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-10.
    7. Glebe, Thilo & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2007. "Agricultural multifunctionality and trade liberalisation," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 82.
    8. Pelikan, J. & Brockmeier, M., 2009. "Wohlfahrtswirkungen einer Handelsliberalisierung: Welchen Einfluss hat die Zollaggregation auf die Modellergebnisse?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 44, March.
    9. Thilo W. Glebe & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2008. "Assessing the production and welfare effects of agri-environmental policy: a conceptual analysis," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 1(1), pages 75-92.
    10. Chang, Hung-Hao & Boisvert, Richard N. & Blandford, David, 2005. "Achieving Environmental Objectives Under Reduced Domestic Agricultural Support and Trade Liberalization: An Empirical Application to Taiwan," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 16-31, April.
    11. Zhao, Jing & Miller, J. Isaac & Binfield, Julian & Thompson, Wyatt, 2022. "Modeling and Forecasting Agricultural Commodity Support in the Developing Countries," Commissioned Papers 321785, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    12. Benner, Eckhard, 2005. "Grenzen einer umwelt- und qualitätsorientierten Gestaltung der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    13. Butault, Jean-Pierre & Bureau, Jean-Christophe, 2006. "WTO Constraints and the CAP: Domestic Support in EU-25 Agriculture," Working Papers 18879, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    14. Zhang, Ying & Chen, Shuai, 2021. "Wood trade responses to ecological rehabilitation program: Evidence from China's new logging ban in natural forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Abler, David G., 2004. "Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-10, April.
    16. Glebe, T., 2006. "Agricultural multifunctionality: a case against trade liberalisation?," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 41, March.
    17. Frank, Joshua, 2008. "Is there an "animal welfare Kuznets curve"?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 478-491, June.
    18. Thilo Glebe & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2007. "Agricultural multifunctionality and trade liberalisation," Post-Print hal-01201147, HAL.
    19. Thilo Glebe & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2007. "Agricultural multifunctionality and trade liberalisation," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 82, pages 57-73.
    20. Moon, Wanki & Kuethe, Todd H. & Kraft, Steven E. & Esseks, J. Dixon, 2005. "Public Preferences for Multifunctionality of Agriculture: National Survey of Registered Voters," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19430, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iatrwp:14598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iatrcea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.