The Impact of a New WTO Agricultural Agreement ... - Tufts University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

33 We now consider the welfare effects for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. The full results are given in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix A, while Tables 4 and 5 summarize the effects of a 50% removal or a complete removal of OECD agricultural subsidies. For each of the cereals, the analysis indicates that most countries experience a net welfare loss. This is not surprising, given that most African countries are net importers of these cereals. Table 4: Net Welfare Effects Summary – MAIZE – 2001 Country Maize net effect (1000$) 100% 50% Effect of Full Removal as % GDP NET MZ. EXPORTERS: Burkina Faso 903.2 370.2 0.04% Uganda 3819.7 1011.9 0.07% Cote D’Ivoire -2001.3 -1128.2 -0.02% South Africa -12683.0 -8152.3 -0.01% NET MZ. IMPORTERS: Angola -2641.3 -1352.3 -0.03% Botswana -1456.2 -673.6 -0.03% Cameroon 3049.3 1149.2 0.04% Cape Verde -978.5 -457.8 -0.17% Chad -29.4 -34.7 0.00% Djibouti -3.5 -1.6 0.00% Gabon -123.8 -74.9 0.00% Kenya -4043.5 -2683.8 -0.04% Lesotho -7333.6 -3415.3 -0.92% Malawi -4442.4 -2848.0 -0.25% Mali -596.1 -316.4 -0.02% Mauritius -708.3 -326.1 -0.02% Mozambique -4475.6 -2450.1 -0.13% Namibia -1516.5 -703.8 -0.05% Niger -176.8 -81.9 -0.01% Rwanda -2007.6 -991.1 -0.12% Sao Tome & Principe -37.9 -18.9 -0.08% Senegal -750.7 -373.3 -0.02% Sierra Leone -1032.5 -488.2 -0.14% Sudan -131.1 -62.5 0.00% Swaziland -1011.6 -492.5 0.00% Zambia -23367.7 -11064.6 -0.64% Zimbabwe -9878.4 -12481.4 -0.11% CHANGE IN STATUS: -0.03%
34 Benin 1886.9 364.0 0.08% Burundi -8.2 -59.3 0.00% Central African Rep. 57.9 10.1 0.01% Dem. Rep. Congo -630.5 -630.8 -0.01% Ethiopia 4578.7 449.6 0.07% Gambia 34.3 6.8 0.01% Ghana 869.9 125.6 0.02% Guinea -290.1 -457.0 -0.01% Madagascar 127.5 -10.7 0.00% Mauritania -7.5 -7.9 0.00% Tanzania 47.9 -1510.4 0.00% Togo -73.5 -168.5 -0.01% Sub-Saharan Africa Total: -67061.8 -50030.5 -- Mean: -1719.5 -1282.8 -0.06 Median: -290.1 -326.1 -0.01 Greatest Loss: -23367.7 -12481.4 -0.92 Greatest Gain: 4578.7 1149.2 0.08 Maize: In the case of maize, the average result was a welfare loss of about $1.7 million with a 100% OECD subsidy removal, and a loss of about $1.2 million with a 50% removal. Thirty-one of the 39 countries experience losses and eight see a net benefit. The most surprising results are the net losses for South Africa and Cote d’Ivoire (each of which was a net exporter of maize in 2001, according to FAOSTAT), while Ethiopia and Cameroon, net importers of maize, experience positive effects. In fact, these results may be due to erroneous data. In general the results are mostly as expected, with importers losing, exporters gaining, and status-changers either gaining or losing. In every country, the loss or gain was less than 1% of its GDP. The largest negative effect, $23.4 million, was in Zambia. This represents .6% of Zambia’s GDP. As a percentage of GDP, Guinea sees the most significant loss, just under 1% of its GDP. The most positive effect was in Ethiopia, but the amount was only .08% of its GDP The combined effect for Africa as a whole was a $67.1 million loss.
Page 1 and 2: The Impact of a New WTO Agricultura
Page 3 and 4: The Impact of a New WTO Agricultura
Page 5 and 6: 2 INTRODUCTION “The rural poor, g
Page 7 and 8: 4 in agriculture, the welfare of fa
Page 9 and 10: 6 1. Background on the WTO and Dome
Page 11 and 12: 8 Of the three types of domestic su
Page 13 and 14: 10 for differences between internat
Page 15 and 16: 12 the G-20 suggests stricter adjus
Page 17 and 18: 14 Africa. They are important to th
Page 19 and 20: 16 subsidy removal. The range of es
Page 21 and 22: 18 However, these studies ignore mu
Page 23 and 24: 20 reside in rural areas where prim
Page 25 and 26: 22 country will be W. 5 Thus P is t
Page 27 and 28: 24 In a net-importing country, the
Page 29 and 30: 26 found that low-income countries
Page 31 and 32: 28 P KEY: W* W d a c b D S T S F D:
Page 33 and 34: 30 FAO questionnaires. The FAO also
Page 35: 32 consumed, QC 0 , was 429.7 thous
Page 39 and 40: Central African Rep. -765.0 -319.9
Page 41 and 42: 38 positive effects decrease. One c
Page 43 and 44: 40 but not in 2001. However, these
Page 45 and 46: 42 Most important, the net welfare
Page 47 and 48: 44 consumers, as well as producers,
Page 49 and 50: 46 the rural population report that
Page 51 and 52: 48 17 The HICES provides the measur
Page 53 and 54: 50 Adult Equivalent Scale: 16 Male
Page 55 and 56: 52 Since only 12% of rural househol
Page 57 and 58: 54 missing all cereals values. We c
Page 59 and 60: 56 and sellers of cereals in urban
Page 61 and 62: 58 However, when we consider only t
Page 63 and 64: 60 MT, is produced domestically. 24
Page 65 and 66: 62 information. The high marketing
Page 67 and 68: 64 It is also important to note tha
Page 69 and 70: 66 Bibliography ActionAid. 2002.
Page 71 and 72: 68 Food and Agriculture Organizatio
Page 73 and 74: 70 Data Sources FAOSTAT, 2003-2004,
Page 75 and 76: 72 Net Welfare Effect of a 100% or
Page 77 and 78: 74 Net Welfare Effect of a 100% or
Page 79 and 80: Table 3: Net Welfare Effect of a 10
Page 81 and 82: 78 APPENDIX B: Household Data Table
Page 83 and 84: 80 Table 8. Household Expenditure p
Page 85 and 86: Table 12. Households Participating
Page 87 and 88:
84 Table 13. Net Buyers and Sellers
Page 89:
Table 15. Net Buyers and Sellers of
show all

The Impact of a New WTO Agricultural Agreement ... - Tufts University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?