Seafood safety: economics of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) programmes

Seventy percent of the world's catch of fish and fishery products is consumed as food. Fish and shellfish products represent 15.6 percent of animal protein supply and 5.6 percent of total protein supply on a worldwide basis. Developing countries account for almost 50 percent of global fish exports. Seafood-borne disease or illness outbreaks affect consumers both physically and financially, and create regulatory problems for both importing and exporting countries. Seafood safety as a commodity cannot be purchased in the marketplace and government intervenes to regulate the safety and quality of seafood. Theoretical issues and data limitations create problems in estimating what consumers will pay for seafood safety and quality. The costs and benefits of seafood safety must be considered at all levels, including the fishers, fish farmers, input suppliers to fishing, processing and trade, seafood processors, seafood distributors, consumers and government. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programmes are being implemented on a worldwide basis for seafood. Studies have been completed to estimate the cost of HACCP in various shrimp, fish and shellfish plants in the United States, and are underway for some seafood plants in the United Kingdom, Canada and Africa. Major developments within the last two decades have created a set of complex trading situations for seafood. Current events indicate that seafood safety and quality can be used as non-tariff barriers to free trade. Research priorities necessary to estimate the economic value and impacts of achieving safer seafood are outlined at the consumer, seafood production and processing, trade and government levels. An extensive list of references on the economics of seafood safety and quality is presented. (PDF contains 56 pages; captured from html.)

Análisis de las barreras no arancelarias ante la disminución de aranceles. Una aproximación a las relaciones comerciales entre Colombia y Estados Unidos (1990 - 2011).

Estados Unidos junto a Japón y algunos Estados europeos han incentivado e impulsado al resto de los Estados a que abran sus fronteras y se inserten en el modelo de liberalización comercial. Estos países, en particular Estados Unidos promueven este modelo por medio de las relaciones comerciales que establece con otros Estados. Al establecer esta clase de relaciones, especialmente con Estados menos desarrollados, el país norteamericano busca mejorar su posición y obtener beneficios en detrimento de la otra parte por medio de la imposición de condiciones para maximizar sus beneficios y ganancias. La necesidad del gobierno estadounidense de mantener e incrementar su credibilidad ante sus ciudadanos y al mismo tiempo incentivar a los demás países para que abran sus fronteras se expresa en una incongruencia entre el discurso defensor del libre comercio y las estrategias proteccionistas como las barreras no arancelarias que pone en marcha y cuyo propósito es no perder espacio en el sistema internacional ni ver menoscabada su influencia sobre los demás Estados. Sin embargo, el establecimiento de medidas proteccionistas afecta las posiciones comerciales de países como Colombia en tanto que estas medidas ponen en desventaja a sus productos.

On the long run effects of barriers to trade

We study the macroeconomic effects of international trade policy by integrating a Hecksher-Ohlin trade model into an optimal-growth framework. The model predicts that a more open economy will have higher factor productivity. Furthermore, there is a "selective development trap," an additional steady state with low income, to which countries may or may not converge, depending on policy. Income at the development trap falls as trade barriers increase. Hence, cross-country differences in barriers to trade may help explain the dispersion of per-capita income observed across countries. The effects are quantified and we show that protectionism can explain a relevant fraction of TFP and long-run income differentials across countries.

Os impactos de barreiras não tarifárias no comércio internacional de produtos brasileiros

O avanço da tecnologia e o acesso fácil e rápido das pessoas à informação e a produtos estão contribuindo para o aumento da competição comercial entre empresas e até mesmo entre países. Contudo, é necessário criar controles e medidas para garantir a qualidade de produtos e serviços domésticos e importados para a população, sem que se comprometa o equilíbrio de mercado competitivo. Assim, o presente trabalho avalia os impactos de Barreiras Não Tarifárias utilizadas pelos importadores de produtos brasileiros sobre as exportações brasileiras no ano de 2013, em particular o uso dos tipos de barreiras técnicas e sanitárias. O uso desse tipo de instrumento tem aumentado desde que foi criado e assim, com a diminuição global de tarifas alfandegárias, tem recebido mais atenção por parte de Instituições e formuladores de políticas econômicas e comerciais. Encontrou-se que é significativo o impacto desse tipo de medida sobre os produtos brasileiros exportados de um modo geral, bem como por tipo de medida. Controlado por outros fatores, o impacto da medida é positivo, que sugere um aumento nas exportações. Esse mesmo impacto foi observado na medida do tipo técnica; todavia, foi observado o oposto na medida do tipo sanitária, o que sugere que esse tipo de medida contribui para a redução das exportações brasileiras.

Barreiras regulatórias: um novo desafio para a governança da OMC

Over the last decades, there is an increasing concern around what should be the role played by the World Trade Organization before the proliferation of preferential and plurilateral trade agreements (PTAs). Moreover, the expansion of the trade agenda through issues not encompassed by the WTO agreements, such as sustainability and global value chains led to a process of fragmentation of international trade law, strengthening the false idea that there would be a complete antagonism between preferentialism and multilateralism. As tariff preferences have diminished in importance, non-tariff measures as domestic regulation have become relatively more significant as determinants of market access and the conditions of competition. Given this equation, and regarding the importance to safeguard the progress achieved by the multilateral trade system, the present article seeks to elucidate some points considered relevant to the regulatory barriers subject and, therefore, address the role that can be attributed to the WTO as a key to effective governance of trade regulatory cooperation

Multilateral rules on competition policy: an overview of the debate

Includes bibliography

Latin American South-South integration and cooperation: from a regional public goods perspective

Includes bibliography

Estimating the effects of United States food safety and agricultural health standards on agro-food exports from Latin America and the Caribbean

Includes bibliography

Comercio internacional y desempeño económico: indicadores seleccionados para economías pequeñas

Incluye anexos

United States-Latin America and the Caribbean trade developments, 2002

This document provides an overview of the most relevant developments in United States trade policy relating to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2002. U.S. policy continued to promote trade liberalization through advancing negotiations on multiple fronts- globally (WTO), regionally (FTAA) and bilaterally or sub regionally- with a view that the various negotiations are mutually reinforcing and seek to create a constructive competition for liberalization" among trade partners. The passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) included in the Trade Act of August 2002 enhanced the U.S. Administration's ability to negotiate trade agreements. It provided an impetus to conclude bilateral negotiations with Chile as well as to advance a number of trade agreements currently under negotiation, including negotiations toward the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and bilateral negotiations with Central America. The Trade Act also renewed the Generalized System of Preferences, extended the Caribbean Trade Partnership Act by liberalizing apparel provisions and augmented the Andean Trade Preference Act, increasing the list of duty free products. On the multilateral front, in partial fulfillment of the Doha mandate, the U.S. tabled in 2002 two comprehensive proposals for the reduction of trade barriers on agricultural and non-agricultural goods. Along with these trade liberalizing proposals, the U.S. Administration imposed temporary safeguard measures on key steel products to provide relief to the sectors of the steel industry that have been most affected by import surges. In addition, the U.S. Congress passed the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act that substantially increased U.S. domestic farm subsidies to shield domestic farm producers from competition from subsidized products from abroad."

The Impact of Regulatory Heterogeneity on Agri-food Trade

We estimate the impact of regulatory heterogeneity on agri-food trade using a gravity analysis that relies on detailed data on non-tariff measures (NTMs) collected by the NTM-Impact project. The data cover a broad range of import requirements for agricultural and food products for the EU and nine of its major trade partners. We find that trade is significantly reduced when importing countries have stricter maximum residue limits (MRLs) for plant products than exporting countries. For most other measures, due to their qualitative nature, we were unable to infer whether the importer has stricter standards relative to the exporter, and we do not find a robust relationship between these measures and trade. Our findings suggest that, at least for some import standards, harmonising regulations will increase trade. We also conclude that tariff reductions remain an effective means to increase trade even when NTMs abound.

Market Access in Switzerland and in the European Union for Agricultural Products from Least Developed Countries

The introduction of the so-called “duty free quota free” treatment (DFQF) for all products from least developed countries (LDCs), in particular by the European Communities (EC) and by Switzerland, raised expectations of increased agricultural exports for these 49 countries. Despite the high tariff differential LDCs now enjoy over their competitors, especially for agricultural products and particularly in Switzerland, the results until 2007 are dismal: with the exception of sugar exports to the EC, LDCs have not been able to substantially increase their agricultural exports to Europe. This study analyses the result-ing tariff situation and the remaining non-tariff barriers. In many instances it is not cus-toms duties but the sanitary and phytosanitary barriers which turn out to be the single most important hurdle preventing trade. For instance, almost no LDC-based company can supply animal-based products. Similarly, certain private standards set by proces-sors and retailers prevent imports, particularly from LDCs, far more effectively than tar-iffs. Several gateways into this “European cordon sanitaire” are proposed. Only if offered in the context of a package of various carefully coordinated measures, DFQF could yet have a real impact on trade from LDCs. As it stands, this treatment constitutes only a nice-to-have but still largely ineffective instrument of trade development.

TTIP and Climate Change – How real are Race to the Bottom Concerns?

This paper examines concerns about the impact that TTIP could have on existing and future climate policies and laws from the inclusion of provisions on investment protection including investor-to-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the reduction of non-tariff barriers and the introduction of rules for trade in energy and raw materials. It argues that from an environmental perspective, ISDS should not necessarily be seen as a regime that goes against the defence of the environment or prevention of climate change. Although it might be used to challenge policies of an EU home State that increase levels of environmental protection, it can also be used to contest changes in an EU home State’s environmental policies that would reduce the protection of the environment, if foreign investment is affected. To a large extent, this also holds true for other areas of TTIP negotiations. While the achievement of a balance between rules that promote trade and those that maintain policy space for governments to respond to environmental concerns has to be closely monitored, benefits for climate could be seized from harmonisation of carbon laws at the level of the strictest regulations of two parties, provisions that promote trade in low carbon technologies and renewable energy and bilateral cooperation on climate change.

Geographical simulation analysis for logistics enhancement in Asia

This paper presents a simulation of the reduction of several components in trade cost for Asia and examines its impact on the economy. Our simulation model based on the new economic geography embraces seven sectors, including manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, and 1,715 regions in 18 countries/economies in Asia, in addition to the two economies of the US and the European Union. The geographical course of transactions among regions is modeled as determined based on firms’ modal choice. The model also includes estimates of some border cost measures such as tariff rates, non-tariff barriers, other border clearance costs, transshipment costs and so on. Our simulation analysis for Asia includes several scenarios involving the improvement/development of routes and the reduction of the above-mentioned border cost. We have shown that the contribution of physical and non-physical infrastructure improvements conducted together is larger than the sum of the contribution by each when conducted independently.

Spillover effects of TTIP on BRICS economies : a dynamic GVC-based CGE model

This paper uses a GVC (Global Value Chain)-based CGE model to assess the impact of TTIP between the U.S. and the EU on their main trading partners who are mainly engaged at the low end in the division system of global value chains, such as BRICS countries. The simulation results indicate that in general the TTIP would positively impact global trade and economies due to the reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers. With great increases in the US–EU bilateral trade, significant economic gains for the U.S. and the EU can be expected. For most BRICS countries, the aggregate exports and GDP suffer small negative impacts from the TTIP, except Brazil, but the inter-country trade within BRICS economies increases due to the substitution effect between the US–EU trade and the imports from BRICS countries when the TTIP commences.