IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Preferences in the EU Sugar Sector: Winners and Losers

Author

Listed:
  • Kerkelä, Leena
  • Huan-Niemi, Ellen

Abstract

The ongoing trade negotiations, unilateral trade concessions and obligations under the WTO are pushing the EU sugar regime to undertake reforms. These reforms will alter the positions of developing countries in the global sugar markets. This paper will describe the trade preferences granted to developing countries under the EU sugar regime. Sugar imports into the EU from the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are expected to be totally liberalised from year 2009 onwards because of the “Everything But Arms” (EBA) concession. During the transition period until year 2009, the EBA concession is gradually granting quota preferences and partial duty-free access to sugar imports from the LDCs. Simultaneously, the temporary import quotas (Special Preferential Sugar) given to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are assumed to be decreasing during the transition period. Within this background, a complete unilateral liberalisation of the EU sugar sector is simulated to depict the winners and losers in the global sugar markets if no preferences are governing the imports of sugar into the EU. The supply responses, which strongly affect the outcomes, are dependent on both the nature of substitution for sugar as well as on the efficiency of sugar production in different countries. The multi-region general equilibrium framework (GTAP) is used for this analysis. The results show that small concessions will not threaten the EU internal market, but total liberalisation of sugar imports from the LDCs will be a major threat to the EU sugar regime. The current regime limits sugar imports from all developing countries or some efficient producers, if the cost data is a right estimate of the potential supply response from developing countries. The LDCs will be the winners under the EBA concession supported by the current regime, but a few efficient sugar producers will be the winners if the current regime is entirely liberalised.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerkelä, Leena & Huan-Niemi, Ellen, 2005. "Trade Preferences in the EU Sugar Sector: Winners and Losers," Conference papers 331326, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331326/files/1842.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muthukumara Mani, 1996. "Environmental tariffs on polluting imports," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(4), pages 391-411, June.
    2. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    3. John Beghin & Michel Potier, 1997. "Effects of Trade Liberalisation on the Environment in the Manufacturing Sector," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 435-456, July.
    4. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(3), pages 755-787.
    5. Brock,W.A. & Taylor,M.S., 2003. "Economic growth and the environment : matching the stylized facts," Working papers 16, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    6. Batra, Ravi & Beladi, Hamid & Frasca, Ralph, 1998. "Environmental pollution and world trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 171-182, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. William Brock & M. Taylor, 2010. "The Green Solow model," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-153, June.
    2. Cunha, Barbara & Mani, Muthukumara, 2011. "DR-CAFTA and the environment," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5826, The World Bank.
    3. Fernández-Amador, Octavio & Francois, Joseph F. & Tomberger, Patrick, 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions and international trade at the turn of the millennium," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 14-26.
    4. Müller-Fürstenberger, Georg & Schumacher, Ingmar, 2017. "The consequences of a one-sided externality in a dynamic, two-agent framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 310-322.
    5. Muhammad Shahbaz & Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad & Mantu Kumar Mahalik & Perry Sadorsky, 2018. "How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(13), pages 1479-1494, March.
    6. Yang, Yuting, 2022. "Electricity interconnection with intermittent renewables," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    7. Maurizio Lisciandra & Carlo Migliardo, 2017. "An Empirical Study of the Impact of Corruption on Environmental Performance: Evidence from Panel Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 297-318, October.
    8. Ajayi, Patricia & Ogunrinola, Adedeji, 2020. "Growth, Trade Openness and Environmental Degradation in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 100713, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bartz, Sherry & Kelly, David L., 2008. "Economic growth and the environment: Theory and facts," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-149, May.
    10. Martinsson, Gustav & Sajtos, László & Strömberg, Per & Thomann, Christian, 2022. "Carbon Pricing and Firm-Level CO2 Abatement: Evidence from a Quarter of a Century-Long Panel," Misum Working Paper Series 2022-10, Stockholm School of Economics, Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets (Misum).
    11. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2019. "Trade in Environmental Goods and Air Pollution: A Mediation Analysis to Estimate Total, Direct and Indirect Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1125-1162, November.
    12. Subhayu Bandyopadhyay & Sumon Bhaumik & Howard J. Wall, 2013. "Biofuel Subsidies and International Trade," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 181-199, July.
    13. Nancy H. Chau & Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2013. "Trade Restrictiveness and Pollution," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(1), pages 25-52, February.
    14. Nan, Shijing & Huo, Yuchen & You, Wanhai & Guo, Yawei, 2022. "Globalization spatial spillover effects and carbon emissions: What is the role of economic complexity?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Judith M. Dean & Mary E. Lovely, 2010. "Trade Growth, Production Fragmentation, and China's Environment," NBER Chapters, in: China's Growing Role in World Trade, pages 429-469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Baek, Jungho & Cho, Yongsung & Koo, Won W., 2009. "The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2255-2264, June.
    17. Geoffroy Dolphin & Michael G. Pollitt, 2018. "International spillovers and carbon pricing Policies," Working Papers EPRG 1802, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    18. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2018. "The impact of trade in environmental goods on pollution: what are we learning from the transition economies’ experience?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(4), pages 785-827, October.
    19. Brock, William A. & Taylor, M. Scott, 2005. "Economic Growth and the Environment: A Review of Theory and Empirics," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 28, pages 1749-1821, Elsevier.
    20. Bartz, Sherry & Kelly, David L., 2008. "Economic growth and the environment: Theory and facts," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-149, May.

    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:pugtwp:331326. 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/gtpurus.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.