THE IMPACT OF TRADE LIBERALIZATION 45
Pacific group of states). The reforms also included reducing the intervention price by 36 percent, introduction of a voluntary buyout scheme for produc- tion quotas, and a disallowance of exports of nonquota sugar in order to reduce domestic production and bring export subsidies within the WTO limits (Elbehri, Umstaetter, and Kelch 2008).
Japan uses a specific tariff to limit sugar imports and protect its farmers. The support given to Japanese farmers is roughly US$400 million, and Japan maintains one of the highest AVEs, 190 percent.
As of 2008, the United States continued to maintain a tariff rate quota of 1.3 million tons, restricting imports enough to make domestic prices twice as high as the international price. Forty-two countries are given quotas to export sugar to the United States, but U.S. imports are only a fraction of what the United States would import without import restrictions. The AVE tariff for the United States averaged 54 percent in 2004 (see Table 2.8). Many developing countries also have high levels of protection for local farmers. China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey all have high tariff barriers that protect domestic farmers from import competition. A few countries also maintain production quotas or consumer subsidies, but these measures are less common. Egypt and Morocco are two of the few countries that have programs to subsidize sugar for consumers. The MENA countries’ AVE tariffs range between 4 and 46 percent for semiprocessed sugar, below the global average. On the other hand, nonprocessed sugar is protected at a much higher rate, especially in Tunisia (see Table 2.8).
Cotton
Cotton prices slid from a peak in 2003 until 2005, but they have steadily rebounded since then, in spite of continued government support for cotton growers that has been estimated at around US$5 billion worldwide by the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC 2006). The long-term trend is affected by competition with synthetic fibers, which increased their share of the textile fiber market from 48 percent in 1995 to 55 percent in 1999. In addition, the global recession of 2001–02 depressed cotton prices further, because textile demand is more income elastic than is the demand for grains (Minot and Daniels 2005).
Of the five largest exporters of cotton, two are net importers, China and Korea. The EU25 supplies 60 percent of world exports, followed by Japan and the United States, which contribute 11 and 4 percent of cotton exports, respectively. In the MENA region, Egypt is the largest producer and consumer but a net exporter.
Eight countries offered direct income and price support to cotton growers. Between 2004/05 and 2005/06, assistance to production decreased in the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252