China - Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers

2021 ◽  
pp. 3297-3618
2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 77-103
Author(s):  
Michael Cardwell

The level of support to agricultural producers in the Community has remained high notwithstanding the commitments imposed under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (‘URAA’). Thus, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD’), the ‘producer support estimate’ for the period 1986–1988 amounted to 44 per cent of gross farm receipts and the proportion rose marginally to 45 per cent in 1998. It may also be noted that, while the proportion in the case of the United States was approximately half that of the Community, the figure for 1998 was likewise not dissimilar from that for the period 1986–1988 (respectively 22 and 25 per cent). As a result, Cairns Group countries have felt able to direct strong criticism against the two great exporters of agricultural produce. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 77-103
Author(s):  
Michael Cardwell

The level of support to agricultural producers in the Community has remained high notwithstanding the commitments imposed under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (‘URAA’). Thus, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘OECD’), the ‘producer support estimate’ for the period 1986–1988 amounted to 44 per cent of gross farm receipts and the proportion rose marginally to 45 per cent in 1998. It may also be noted that, while the proportion in the case of the United States was approximately half that of the Community, the figure for 1998 was likewise not dissimilar from that for the period 1986–1988 (respectively 22 and 25 per cent). As a result, Cairns Group countries have felt able to direct strong criticism against the two great exporters of agricultural produce. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-532
Author(s):  
Marcus Sohlberg ◽  
Ariane Yvon

The dispute concerns certain market price support measures by China to domestic agricultural producers of wheat, Indica rice, Japonica rice, and corn, which the United States (US) claimed were inconsistent with China's obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Specifically, the US considered that China utilized market price measures in the period 2012–2015 to support farmer incomes and increase production of the said agricultural products, but that this support was in excess of China's WTO commitments. At the outset, the Panel found that the support measures for Chinese corn producers had expired, and that there were no factors weighing in favor of making findings on this expired measure. So, no findings were made with respect to this claim.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dukgeun Ahn ◽  
David Orden

Abstract This paper assesses key issues in the dispute over the United States’ claim that for certain grains China exceeded its limits on domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) during 2012–2015. The panel first determined that the base years for the reference price in calculating China's market price support were 1996–1998, rather than 1986–1988 as stipulated in the AoA, and that production in the geographic regions where the support programs operated, not the smaller quantities purchased at administered prices, constituted eligible production. The panel then found China had exceeded its limits in each of the four years for wheat, Indica rice, and Japonica rice. The possibility was left open that a government can determine eligible production by setting maximum purchases at support prices in its regulatory framework. China used this option to claim that its programs for 2020 implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. We argue that use of outdated fixed external reference prices to measure the price gap and to define eligible production by limits on purchases, distance calculation under the AoA from economic support measurement. The measurement issues compound the discord among Members over levels of agricultural support.


EDIS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary C. Bammer ◽  
Josh Campbell ◽  
Chase B. Kimmel ◽  
James D.. Ellis ◽  
Jaret C. Daniels

The establishment of native wildflower plantings in Florida can benefit agricultural producers as well as native pollinators and other beneficial insects (predators and parasitoids). The plantings do this by:  providing forage and nesting sites for bees, butterflies, and other pollinators, increasing wild bee numbers possibly across the farm, and increasing natural enemies of insect pests (that also depend on forage and nesting sites). This document discusses choosing the right mix of native plant species to benefit many pollinator species, as well as proper site selection, planting practices, and weed control techniques. Wildflower plots should be practical to manage, maximize benefits to wildlife, and fit into the overall management practices of the property. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document