1 / 40

Our objectives:

Trade Remedy Actions in NAFTA for Agriculture & Agri-food Industries : Increasing? Alternatives? Linda Young, John Wainio and Karl Meilke. Our objectives:. Examine the economic rationale for administered protection Does it hold in NAFTA? Evaluate data on the use of AD/CVD

benedict-levine
Télécharger la présentation

Our objectives:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trade Remedy Actions in NAFTA for Agriculture & Agri-food Industries: Increasing? Alternatives?Linda Young, John Wainio and Karl Meilke

  2. Our objectives: • Examine the economic rationale for administered protection • Does it hold in NAFTA? • Evaluate data on the use of AD/CVD • Propose changes to current procedures • Broaden the options-new ideas

  3. Economic Rationale: • AD actions make little economic sense, particularly within an FTA • Protectionist actions rewarding rent-seeking behavior • Punish firms for behavior in foreign markets that is considered normal for domestic firms • Expensive to initiate and defend, but… • CVD actions are different • Economic efficiency losses associated with both

  4. AD/CVD Cases Initiated by NAFTA Countries1/1/1984 - 6/30/2001

  5. AD/CVD Case Outcomes1/1/1984 - 6/30/2001

  6. Active AD/CVD Measures As of 6/30/2001

  7. . • As traditional trade barriers are lowered, the use of trade remedy law rises.

  8. Trade Liberalization Has Not Resulted in More AD/CVD Investigations Pre-CUSFTA Post-CUSFTA Pre-NAFTA Post-NAFTA

  9. NAFTA Partners Target Each Other’s Imports Less Than Those of Other Countries 1989 - 1999

  10. NAFTA Countries Are Far More Likely to be the Target in Cases Investigating Agricultural Trade1989 - 1999

  11. Is Agricultural Trade Overrepresented in AD/CVD Cases? (1989 - 1999)

  12. Even in Agriculture, the Three Countries Target Partner’s Trade Less Than Others 1989 - 1999

  13. Active AD/CVD Measures Within NAFTA As of 6/30/2001 United States United States Mexico Canada Mexico Canada

  14. Malt beverages (220300)Initiation - 1991 Duty - 1991 Revoked - 1994

  15. Tomato paste (200290)Initiation - 1992 No injury finding - 1993

  16. Cauliflower (070410)Initiation - 1992 No injury finding - 1993

  17. Lettuce (070511)Initiation - 1992 AD duty in effect

  18. Refined Sugar (1701 & 1702)Initiation - 1995 AD duty in effect

  19. Apples (080810)Initiation - 1994 Duty - 1995 Revoked - 2000

  20. What do we want to achieve? • Reduce incidence, retaliation, costs • Maintain transparency • Maintain ability to protect producers • Cognizant of the goals of FTA; • And…

  21. One more criterion • The extent to which changes assist producers in considering their domestic market to be tri-national • Why? • Rules have changed quickly • Paradigms and institutions have not kept pace

  22. Trinational Market (almost) • However, producers still largely identify with the national market • Slow to develop bi or tri-national commodity groups • Such institutions may increase gains to producers through cooperation in market development, research, joint work on SPS, lowering costs of crossing the border, other joint efforts

  23. Options for Change: Tweaks • Increase the difficulty of requirements to impose duties or change criteria for the level of the duty • Increase the de minimis level • Increase the level of negligible imports • Restrict the duty to address injury only • Change the calculation of duties to account for practices in the domestic industry.

  24. Options for Change: Tweaks (con’t) • Provision requiring evaluation of the impact of duties on the general interest of the FTA

  25. Consultations • Not required for AD/CVD • Important component of dispute resolution systems of NAFTA and WTO • Involve: • Clarification of legal basis of dispute • Discussion on why policy undertaken • Options for resolution explored

  26. How Successful are Consultations? • WTO considered 51 cases (July 2001) with completed panel reports • 37 cases resolved in consultations, 7 more before completed panel reports • Thought required to adopt within NAFTA AD/CVD • Scope of parties included

  27. Eliminate AD Suits Entirely • Australia and New Zealand have • Canada and Chile have • Also working on eliminating CVD • Why? Trans-Tasman market: • Hamper efficient allocation of resources • Rationale no longer exists • Detrimental to commercial relationships

  28. Introduce Alternative Dispute Resolution • ADR: processes usually involve a third party neutral • Why change a system? Does the current system produce: • Acceptable and durable outcomes? • Are the costs acceptable? • Impact on relationships-does it matter? • Disputant involved in the resolution?

  29. Factors Leading to AD/CVD Suits-More than rents • Import surge • Change in industry structure • Low prices • Misinformation • Different policies and marketing institutions • Leadership bid AD/CVD process Duty or not

  30. Tensions underlying are not alleviated! Treat one symptom, low prices (maybe) Causes of dispute largely unalleviated Causes of dispute Reoccurrence!

  31. Characteristics of Dispute Resolution Systems • Assessment of resolution options • Identification of issues and development of agenda of issues • Fact finding • Collaborative problem solving • Settlement

  32. AD and CVD processes:Are not dispute resolution systems! • ‘Administrative review’ • No choice of resolution options to participants • Does not considered broad interests • Access to other NAFTA markets • Avoidance of a counter-suit • General de-escalation of use of trade-remedies

  33. AD/CVD are not dispute resolution systems (con’t) • Regulatory and policy harmonization • Trade liberalization generally • Unified domestic industry • Fact finding rigid, not participatory • No problem solving – duties or not • Settlement- trade tension still exists

  34. Good Offices • When a third party works to correct misunderstandings and fear, and increase communication • Used by the WTO and the UN • Good Offices might be useful within NAFTA

  35. Mandatory Facilitated Dialogue • Proposal: complainants engage in a dialogue, facilitated by a neutral, before the suit can be investigated by national protection agencies • Purpose: • In general a type of mediation to explore interests, issues and options, less geared toward settlement

  36. Mandatory Facilitated Dialogue • Specifically, to engage the complainant in a wide-ranging discussion on the consequences, costs and benefits widely defined, of pursuing the suit

  37. Costs and Benefits • Will the defending industry retaliate? • Is the domestic industry unified? Costs of proceeding? • Gains from cooperation – how affected? • Correct misinformation through joint data collection

  38. It could happen… • If one NAFTA industry is selling below the costs of production then likely all are • … might be discussed during the facilitated dialogue

  39. Need to think further a field • Tensions from economic integration inappropriately channeled into AD/CDV • NAFTA needs processes for industry groups for managing those tensions • An array could include good offices, faciliated dialogue, mediation offered by the NAFTA secretariate

  40. What is Possible • Economists have long been disenchanted with AD/CVD processes- • Political opposition to eliminating them is fierce • Leaving them in place may make it possible to put more effective measures of dispute resolution up front

More Related