1. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Agriculture – Specific issues Data Day at the WTO

2. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE TARIFFS

3.  Agricultural trade is still dampen by tariff and non tariff barriers Agricultural tariffs 7 times higher than Non Ag. Combinations of border and non border measures  Lack of transparency of many measures Complex instruments Weak notifications  Data sources: AMAD, IDB, MAcMap, MAcMapHS6, WTO notifications, National sources… Overview

4.  Numerous changes across time Between years Inside a given year  Seasonal protection Challenge for the analysis: Calendar year versus Crop year  Endogeneity of tariff to price level Target domestic price Tariff variation

5. Illustration 2: Tariff volatility, the case of Wheat (EU)

6.  Specific tariffs: 45% of agricultural protection OECD countries But… Reference price and ad valorem in developing countries  From price to unit value Product heterogeneity  Different concepts of unit value Official = Negotiation  Accessibility to information Effective distortions = Economic impacts  Tariffs and Unit values: endogeneity problems  Lack of robustness of bilateral unit values Unit value and preferences: who gets the rents?  Exchange rate, unit values and mechanical on AVE Specific tariffs, Unit values and AVE

7. Illustration 1: unit value heterogeneity the case of Sugar (HS170111)

8.  Entry prices, additional duties…  Tariff rate quotas: tariffs, quantity, fill rates… WTO and preferential Bound and applied level Multilateral and allocated Allocation method  What’s happen really on the field? Need of a transparent database on licenses Discretionary behavior  New quota Assessing the real level of protection, rents etc.  New research initiatives More complex tools

9. CountriesInside rate applied MacMapHS6 solution Outside rate applied South Africa12.615.118.0 Canada5.715.917.3 China10.611.125.9 South Korea23.836.855 United States3.88.99.9 Japan20.028.231.6 Panama13.115.817,7 Switzerland30.153.283.6 European Union16.121.324.2 All countries with TRQ 14.718.822.0 Illustration 3: The role of TRQ in measuring protection Laborde (2008)

10. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE DOMESTIC SUPPORT

11. Subsidies  Domestic support Notifications, box and coupling instruments When notifications are not available: researchers come with their own: Improving WTO Transparency, Shadow Domestic Support Notifications Measurement Issues, IFPRI Measurement of support: PSE of OECD  Export subsidies Ad valorem / specific: level of subsidies and level of world prices Export Credit, Food Aid Public monopoly

12. 12 Illustration 4: AMS – product specific cap Two different provisions

13. 13 Supporting Table DS:4 Current total AMS for product x: 1,049 W ORLD T RADE O RGANIZATION G/AG/N/country/number 17 March.... (…) Committee on Agriculture Original: English NOTIFICATION http://docsonline.wto.org/ Illustration 4: AMS – product specific cap

14. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE OTHER INDICATORS

15. 15 1Whether product is staple or part of the basic food basket 6% women producers 1% contribution to Caloric intake6% of production in disadvantaged regions 2Domestic production as % of domestic consumption 7% of value of production from the product 3Domestic consumption as % of total world exports 7% of agriculture income of households from the product 3% exported by the largest exporting country 8% of product processed 4% domestic production on small land holdings 8% of value addition to the product 4% of small land holdings producing the product 9% of customs tariff revenue 5% of population/labour force employed in the production 10% of food expenditure on the product 6% low income farmers10% of income spent on the product 6% of resource poor farmers11AMS or blue box subsidies and exported 6% of subsistence farmers12Productivity per worker of the product 6% vulnerable communities12Productivity per hectare of the product Illustration 5: Special products

16. 16 FAO provides data on the caloric intake in kcal by product Data is available for 124 products at the level of the FAO classification Example: Apples, Maize, Potatoes, Wheat, Sugar cane There is no easy one-to-one match with the HS classification used in WTO: but a (complex) concordance table exists Calculate share of contribution to total caloric intake for each product If this share is higher than [10 %] the product contributes significantly to caloric intake AND is thus a candidate for SP Illustration 5: Special products – Contributions to calories intake

17. 17 Share of products that each contributes at least 10 per cent (5 per cent) to the total caloric intake; Based on products for which data are available; Data source: FAOstat Illustration 5: Special products – Contributions to calories intake

18. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE MEASURING IMPACTS

19. 19 Illustration 6: Possible Change in World Prices from Doha Round Source: ATPSM simulation, UNCTAD

20. Beyond agriculture  Agriculture, Poverty and Hunger  Agriculture, Redistribution and Stabilization  Agriculture and Climate Change  Agriculture and Energy: Biofuels

21. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE DATA SOURCES

22. 22 Data for agricultural trade

23. 23 Data Sources