1

Inter-Agency "Data Day"18-19 May 2009at WTO

Geneva, 18th May 2009

United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Ralf PetersDITC

UNCTAD, Geneva

2

Agriculture Trade Issues

“Three Pillars”

Domestic Support• OTDS and

AMS

• de minimis

• Blue box

• Green Box

Market Access• Bound tariffs

Applied tariffsTRQ

• Preferences

• SeP, SP and SSM

Export Subsidies

• Scheduled

• Export credits

• STEs

• Food aid

• Non-tariff measures such as TBT and SPS

• Production, employment and income

• Food security and rural livelihoods

3

Examples for important analytical questions (1)

Using one or two data bases, no modelling

• What will be the changes in bound and, hence, applied tariffs

resulting from new commitments from the Doha round?• What are the changes in quotas? • What will be the Product-Specific AMS Limits?

4

Examples for important analytical questions (2)

Combining more data sets and modelling

1. What is the impact of trade policy changes on exports, imports

and welfare?

2. Is domestic support trade distorting?

3. What is the impact of preference erosion on beneficiaries?

4. How do market access and market entry conditions differ?

5. How do changes in food prices affect rural poverty?

6. Is food security linked to self-sufficiency?

7. What is the impact of investments in agricultural production in

developing countries?

5

Example 1:AMS product specific caps

0

400

800

1200

1600

Base AMS New ceiling

Two different provisions

6

Supporting Table DS:4

Current total AMS for product x: 1,049

Example 1:AMS product specific caps

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

G/AG/N/country/number 17 March ....

(…)

Committee on Agriculture Original: English

NOTIFICATION

http://docsonline.wto.org/

7

Example 2: Illustrative list of indicators Example 2: Illustrative list of indicators for designation of SPfor designation of SP

1 Whether product is staple or part of the basic food basket 6 % women producers

1 % contribution to Caloric intake 6 % of production in disadvantaged regions

2 Domestic production as % of domestic consumption

7 % of value of production from the product

3 Domestic 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 farmers 10 % of income spent on the product

6 % of resource poor farmers 11 AMS or blue box subsidies and exported

6 % of subsistence farmers 12 Productivity per worker of the product

6 % vulnerable communities 12 Productivity per hectare of the product

8

Example 2: SP Indicators: Contribution to caloric

intake• 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

9

http://faostat.fao.org

10

Example 2: SP Indicators:Contribution to caloric intake

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

Country 10 % threshold 5 % threshold Country 10 % threshold 5 % thresholdA 2.0% 5.0% Q 3.0% 4.0%B 3.0% 4.0% R 3.9% 5.9%C 2.6% 3.4% S 0.9% 4.6%D 3.3% 9.9% T 1.8% 4.4%E 2.9% 4.9% U 1.7% 4.3%F 1.8% 3.6% V 2.7% 4.4%G 0.9% 3.6% W 3.7% 4.9%H 2.7% 4.5% X 2.9% 5.8%I 1.0% 5.2% Y 2.6% 4.3%J 2.0% 4.9% Z 2.7% 4.4%K 1.8% 6.3% AA 0.9% 4.5%L 2.0% 4.0% AB 1.9% 3.9%M 2.5% 3.4% AC 3.3% 4.4%N 3.8% 5.8% AD 1.9% 3.8%O 2.9% 4.8% AE 3.6% 7.1%P 1.9% 5.8% AF 1.8% 3.5%

11

Example 3: Possible Change in World Prices from Doha Round

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

%

Liv

esto

ckB

ovin

e m

eat

Sh

eep

mea

tP

ig m

eat

Pou

ltry

Milk

, con

c.B

utt

erC

hee

seH

ides

& s

kin

sW

hea

tR

ice

Bar

ley

Mai

zeS

orgh

um

Su

gar,

raw

Su

gar,

ref

ined

Cof

fee,

gre

enC

offe

e, p

roc.

Coc

oa b

ean

sC

ocoa

, pro

c.T

obac

co le

aves

Oils

eed

s, t

emp

.O

ilsee

ds,

tro

p.

Veg

etab

le o

ilsP

uls

esT

omat

oes

Roo

ts &

tu

ber

sA

pp

les

Cit

rus

fru

its

Ban

anas

Oth

er t

rop

ical

fru

its

Tea

Cot

ton

Ave

rage

Source: ATPSM simulation

12

Data for agricultural tradeData SourceTrade flows UN Comtrade, USDA, Models such as GTAP,

ATPSM, WTO IDB

Production FAO, USDA, national statisticsConsumption National statistics,

USDA (International Food Consumption Patterns)

Market accessApplied tariffs Wits, UNCTAD Trains, ITC MAcMap, WTO IDBBound tariffs Wits, WTO CTSTariff rate quota AMAD, Wits

Domestic SupportAmber box, blue box, green box WTO notifications, USDA ERS

Export Subsidies WTO notifications, USDA ERSDistortions to agric. incentives World BankFood security, nutrition FAOElasticities GTAP, Wits SMART, FAO, USDASocial indicators World Bank WDI, ILOCommodity specific information e.g. ICO, IGC, UNCTAD InfocommCompetition in export markets ICT Market Access MapHousehold and community surveysIFPRI, World Bank

13

Data Sources

http://comtrade.un.org/http://docsonline.wto.org/http://econ.worldbank.org/http://faostat.fao.org/http://wits.worldbank.org/witsweb/http://www.amad.org/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/http://www.gtap.org/http://www.ifpri.org/data/data_menu.asphttp://www.macmap.org/http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/indexen.htmhttp://www.worldbank.org/datahttp://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/Statis_e.htm