DDA 농업협상 시나리오별 영향분석 및 국내대책 방향

Abstract

2001년에 출범한 DDA 협상이 7년이 흘렀지만 2008년도에도 타결되지 못하고 해를 넘기게 되었다. 2008년도에는 세부원칙 수정안이 4차례나 제시되었고, 7월에 열린 소규모 각료회의에서는 잠정타협안까지 나왔으나 막판에 결렬되는 등 어느 해 보다 많은 진전이 있었다.

DDA협상은 타결되지 않았지만 농업부문에서는 사실상 관세와 보조금의 감축률, 그리고 민감품목과 특별품목의 개수와 조건 등은 확정되어 협상의 윤곽은 거의 드러난 상태이다. 따라서 앞으로 남은 과제는 잔여쟁점에 대한 협상에 최선을 다하고 국내적으로는 이행계획서를 준비해야 할 때이다.

이 연구에서는 가장 최근에 제시된 세부원칙 수정안에 따라 어떤 품목을 특별품목 혹은 민감품목으로 선정하는 것이 좋을지 시나리오별로 나누어 분석을 하고, 그에 따른 영향을 계량적으로 추정하였다. 아울러 DDA에서의 국내보조 감축약속에 따른 이행계획서 작성방안과 국내 보조정책의 발전방향을 제시하였으며, 주요국과의 양자협상 전략도 포함하였다.

The purpose of this study is threefold: first, to review all the process undergoing in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO); second, to draft a country schedule based on the 4th revised modalities in 2008; and third, to evaluate the probable impacts of the DDA on the domestic agriculture.

This study consists of eight chapters. Chapter one is an introduction. Chapter two reviews all the negotiation process from the beginning to the end of the DDA meeting in 2008. The modalities of the DDA consist of three parts: Domestic Support, Market Access, and Export Competition. Chapters three and four investigate the issues in Market Access. One of the key issues in the DDA for Korea is concerned with the question of how much it is possible for the country to sustain its status as a developing country. Chapter 5 explains why the status issue of Korea is so important in the DDA and suggests what we have to do to maintain the developing country status. Chapter 6 suggests a plausible Country Schedule (CS) based on the 4th revised draft modalities. Chapter 7 evaluates probable impacts of the DDA on the domestic agricultural market and Chapter 8 suggests guidelines on how to expend domestic support after reaching an agreement in the DDA.

The DDA was started in 2001 and has been put forward for eight years, but it has failed to bring about an agreement among the member countries of the WTO. Although the DDA failed to reach a multi-consensus agreement in 2008, four revised draft modalities were suggested. The member countries of the WTO have agreed on many parts of the modalities, which made it almost possible to reach an agreement. But there were big differences in the attitudes of major countries that have more say on several issues including Sensitive Products (SeP), Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) creation, and Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM). Especially the U.S.A, India, and China failed to make a concession each other on the issues mentioned above; as a result, WTO member countries failed to reach an agreement in the DDA. However, there are urgent needs to reach an agreement within the boundary of the WTO rule. If we fail to reach an agreement, people may question the reasons for the existence of the WTO. Although the attempt to reach an agreement failed in 2008, it is plausible to reach an agreement in the DDA sooner or later. It is very important to review and apply all the terms in the revised draft for modalities to the Korean agricultural market situation, and prepare a proposal for domestic policies for the days after an agreement is reached in the DDA.

The DDA is composed of three parts: Domestic Support, Market Access, and Export Competition. The major elements of Domestic Support are Overall Trade-Distorting Domestic Support (OTDS), Final-bound Total Aggregate Measure of Support, Product-specific AMS Limits, De Minimis, Blue Box, Green Box, and Domestic Support on Cotton.

In the Uruguay Round (UR), the domestic support is classified into two categories; one category is Green Box that is exempted from the reduction and the other is composed of AMS, De Minimis, and Blue Box that are under the limits of their use. One characteristic of the DDA is that the OTDS, which is the sum of AMS, De Minimis, and Blue Box, should be reduced following the tiered reduction formula as a whole. In addition, AMS, De Minimis, and Blue Box also should be reduced separately and simultaneously.

Market Access is categorized into seven parts: Tiered Formula, Sensitive Products, Other Issues, Special and Differential Treatment (SDT), Least-Developed Countries, Cotton Market Access, and Small Vulnerable Economies. Unlike the UR, there are many benefits to the developing countries in Market Access. Developing countries can adopt longer implementation periods and less tariff reduction rates. For example, developing countries can select their major agricultural products as Special Products (SP) as well as Sensitive Products (SeP).

This study considers three scenarios because the future status of Korea is not yet determined. The first two scenarios are designed under the premise of Korea being a developing country. In one scenario, Korea can use full options while only partial options are offered in the other scenario according to the 4th revised draft. In the third scenario, Korea is recognized as a developed country. In each scenario, we suggest what is the best choice for the Korean agricultural market when we select agricultural products as Special Products, Sensitive Products or general products.

One of the important questions in the DDA is that how Korea can sustain the developing country status. This issue is very important because the DDA offers a SDT and Korea, as a developing country recognized by other WTO member countries, can use beneficial options in Domestic Support and Market Access. As a result, the country can reduce the potential damage that can be incurred by the modalities of the DDA. Hence, we examine major agricultural products of the countries that have much interest in the status of Korea in the DDA and suggest guidelines on how to deal with those countries in the upcoming meetings.

In Domestic Support, the current variable direct payment for rice that has been regarded as an AMS could be converted to Blue Box with some modification. If then, we can have more space and flexibility when we use domestic support for other agricultural products.

Researchers: Joo-Ho Song, Sang-Gon Jeon, Young-Soo Cho, Dae-Seob Lee, Tae-Hun Kim, Bae-Sung Kim, Yong-Kwang Shin, Duk Huh, Sang-Min Lee, You-Seon Shin, Dae-Hee Chung Research period: 2008. 6. - 2009. 1. E-mail address: jhsong@krei.re.kr