Suchergebnisse

In the Doha Round of negotiations on agriculture it has been decided that all developing and least developed Member countries of the WTO will have access to a Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM). This means that developing countries will now have the option to temporarily impose higher tariff rates on the import of an agricultural product if there is either a surge in its import volumes or a sharp dip in its import prices. However, the exact mechanisms of the implementation of SSMs have not been spelt out. It is also not clear what legal provisions the Member countries will have to follow to use this safeguard mechanism. This paper takes a detailed look at the SSM and analyzes its usefulness for developing countries. It also explores how the concept of a special agricultural safeguard has evolved in the present round of negotiations and what are the country positions on SSMs in the Doha Round. The paper then proposes a price-trigger-based SSM instrument which is consistent with the goals spelt out in the Doha Development Agenda and satisfies most of the desired features of a safeguard instrument.

BACKGROUND: In Tanzania, strong tobacco control measures that would lead to a reduction in prevalence (consumption) have so far not been implemented due to concern about possible economic effects on gross domestic product and employment. The aim of this study is to analyse the economic effects of reducing tobacco consumption in Tanzania. METHODS: The study uses computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling to arrive at the effects of decreasing tobacco prevalence. A full-fledged global CGE model was developed, including comprehensive details on tobacco and tobacco products/sectors using the Global Trade Analysis Program-Environment model and database. RESULTS: The results indicate that a 30% reduction in prevalence could lead to employment losses of about 20.8% in tobacco and 7.8% in the tobacco products sector. However, when compensated by increases in other sectors the overall decline in employment is only 0.5%. The decline in the economy as a whole is negligible at −0.3%. CONCLUSION: Initially, some assistance from the Tanzanian government may be needed for the displaced workers from the tobacco sector as a result of the decline in smoking prevalence. However, these results should be taken as a lower bound since the economic burden of diseases caused by tobacco may be far higher than the sectoral losses. The results do not include the health benefits of lower smoking prevalence. In addition, the revenues from higher taxes, as part of measures to decrease prevalence, would provide more fiscal space that can be used to finance assistance for displaced tobacco farmers and workers.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was the first instance of countries adhering to take a collective action against global warming. More than 190 countries came forward and submitted their contributions in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, reflective of their ability and capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as each country set its own targets and actions. For some countries, it meant a significant decline in their emissions by 2030, while others, like China, the United States, and India, decided on a more gradual phasing out extending beyond 2030. This paper estimates the economic impacts of implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement in terms of its implications for welfare, gross domestic product, investments, and trade for major countries and regions. It uses a computable general equilibrium framework to model global, regional, and country impacts. The analysis suggests that the economic impacts will be mostly felt in the European Union if the Paris Agreement is fully implemented. The European Union is likely to suffer a welfare loss of 1.0 to 1.5 percent by 2030. Among non-European countries, Australia, New Zealand, and Mexico will also be affected, with an expected welfare loss of about 1.5 percent. Some of the major emitters, such as China and India, will experience minimal impacts to their welfare, and the United States will experience a welfare loss of only about 0.7 by 2030. The sectoral analysis of production and trade suggests a significant loss to fossil fuel–based sectors, while clean energy sectors can experience significant gains.