TRADE POLICY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT MEETING
Geneva, 6 -- 8 October 2015
WINNERS AND LOSERS
ACP AND THE DOHA ROUND
Session-2
Mr. David VANZETTI
Visiting Fellow
Crawford School of Public Policy
Australian National University
Winners and losers
ACP and the Doha Round
David Vanzetti
Australian National University
Trade Policy and Sustainable Development Meeting
UNCTAD, Geneva, 6-8th October 2015
Can Doha be revived?
• Unresolved since 2008
• Much is agreed
• Obstacles remain
• Renewed interest, new proposals
2
Trading environment changed
• Rising prices
• Food security
• Domestic support
• Public stockholding
• RTAs
• Emerging markets
3
Look at two proposals
• Rev 4 Draft Modalities
• Paraguay proposal
• average cut 54% with minimum of 20%.
• 5% SP with cut of 10%
• DVG 36/15%, 12% SP
Assess impact on ACP countries
4
Average cut not cut in average
• Tariff cuts are unweighted
• To get 54% average, cut 42.5% by
100%
• Remainder by 20%
• Larger cut could be on low tariffs
Little better than minimum.
Tariff peaks untouched.
Request and offer difficult to quantify.
5
Global general equilibrium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GTAP
Version 9, base 2011
Bilateral trade and tariffs
Includes preferential tariffs (needed for FTAs) from TASTE
Whole economy
Includes resource (land, labour, capital) constraints
Limitation - each country: one region, one household
6
TASTE
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aggregates tariffs weighted by bilateral trade
Contains bilateral bound and applied tariffs and trade
5052 HS6 commodities x 236 regions
186,835,304 records
Aggregate to 30 sectors x 32 regions
Generate tariff cuts for GTAP
7
Sectoral coverage
Agriculture Industrial
Rice
Wheat
Vegetables, fruit, nuts
Sugar
Plant fibres
Other crops
Forestry & fishing
Resources
Beef and veal
Pork and poultry
Dairy products
Food products nec
Services
Beverages & tobacco
Transport and comm.
Textiles
Business services
Wearing apparel
Other services
Leather
Electronics
Petroleum, coal products
Motor vehicle & trans equip
Wood & paper products
Chemical, rubber & plastics
Machinery and equipment nec
Mineral products nec
Manufactures
8
Regions
Non-ACP
EU_27
USA
JPN
KOR
ODV
CHINA
IND
ASEAN
XAS
LAM
MENA
RoW
European Union 27
USA
Japan
Korea
Other developed
China & HK
India
Asia
Other Asia
Latin America
Middle East and North
Africa
Rest of World
ACP
WA
CA
EA
SA
CRB
PAC
WA
West Africa
Central Africa
East Africa
Southern Africa
Caribbean
Pacific
West Africa
9
Bound vs applied
West Africa
140
120
100
80
%
60
40
20
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit &
nut
Sugar
Plant fibres Other crops Beef & veal
Applied
Source: GTAP v9
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
10
Bound vs applied
Central Africa
•
80
70
60
50
% 40
30
20
10
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit
& nut
Sugar
Plant
fibres
Applied
Other
crops
Beef &
veal
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
11
Bound vs applied
East Africa
120
•
100
80
%
60
40
20
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit &
nut
Sugar
Plant fibres
Applied
Other
crops
Beef & veal
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
12
Bound vs applied
Southern Africa
120
•
100
80
%
60
40
20
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit &
nut
Sugar
Plant fibres
Applied
Other
crops
Beef &
veal
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
13
Bound vs applied
Caribbean
90
•
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit &
nut
Sugar
Plant fibres
Applied
Other
crops
Beef &
veal
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
14
Bound vs applied
Pacific
70
•
60
50
40
%
30
20
10
0
Rice
Wheat
Veg, fruit &
nut
Sugar
Plant fibres Other cropsBeef & veal
Applied
Pork &
poultry
Dairy
products
Food
products
nec
Bev. &
tobacco
Bound
15
Tariffs facing ACP ag exports
2008
2011
2014
%
%
%
Bound
55.4
65.2
32.2
MFN
13.3
13.9
10.1
9.7
8.7
4.0
•
Preferential
Source: WTO IDB via WITS.
16
ACP applied tariffs
under alternative proposals
16
14
12
10
% 8
6
4
2
0
Source: Calculations with TASTE.
Base
Rev. 4
Paraguay
Applied tariffs facing ACP
18
16
14
12
10
%
8
6
4
2
0
Source: Calculations with TASTE.
Base
Rev. 4
Paraguay
Applied tariffs facing ACP
exports to EU
Preference erosion.
8
7
6
5
%4
3
2
1
0
Source: Calculations with TASTE.
Base
Rev. 4
Paraguay
Welfare impacts
600
500
400
300
200
$m 100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
Source: GTAP simulations.
Rev 4
PF
Implications for ACP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preference erosion a problem
Rising prices of temperate product imports
Less ambitious outcome would suit
Not much difference between Rev. 4 and PF
But PF not harmonising, not transparent
NAMA also important. Less ambitious favours ACP
Export subsidies not significant for ACP
ACP favoured by loose interpretation of domestic
support rules.
• ACP should support Doha not RTAs.
21
Limitations
• Would tariff cuts be implemented as
modelled here?
• NTBs, AD ignored
• Ignore R&O approach
• Aggregation into six ACP groups from 77.
• Static not dynamic.
22
The End
23