頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 農產品關稅減讓模式之研究=A Survey on Tariff Concessions Models of Agricultural Products in WTO Negotiations |
---|---|
作者 | 姚蕾; Yao, Lei; |
期刊 | WTO研究 |
出版日期 | 20080000 |
卷期 | 9 2008[民97] |
頁次 | 頁141-165 |
分類號 | 558.6 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 關稅; 減讓模式; 降稅效率; Tariff; Reduction approach; Reduction efficiency; |
中文摘要 | 農產品貿易是多邊貿易體系中不可分割的一部分。WTO農業協議以及各成員國對削減農產品出口補貼、國內支持、及進口關稅的承諾,是農產品貿易改革過程中重要的第一步。烏拉圭回合協定建立起規則框架,並著手對保護及導致貿易扭曲的支持進行削減。《農業協議》第20條要求成員國就在1999年底或2000初繼續改革一事開始談判。2001年11月的《多哈部長宣言》確立了新的談判使命,鑒於成員國政府之間的觀點和利益存在較大差異,談判進展較為艱難。 在WTO貿易談判中,主要的議題包括進一步大幅度地削減關稅、國內支持和出口補貼。關稅減讓談判是農產品國際貿易談判中的重點,減讓的模式更是各國談判的重中之重。目前,WTO成員國只能通過關稅對農產品的進行保護。烏拉圭回合談判結束後,所有的非關稅壁壘均被取消或換算為關稅。在某些情況下,換算後的關稅等值過高,造成無力進口。於是出現了一種關稅配額體系,以維持目前的進口准入水準和提供最低的市場准入機會。這一體系對配額內進口徵收低關稅,而對超過配額的進口徵收較高關稅。自從烏拉圭回合以來,關稅談判基本集中在兩個方面:配額以外的高關稅(有些成員一再要求大幅度削減高關稅)及配額本身(其規模、管理方法及配額內關稅)。目前的談判正在對如何削減配額外關稅進行激烈的討論。 各成員國在關稅談判中紛紛提出對本國有利的關稅減讓模式。總體來說,提出了六種關稅減讓方法,分別是烏拉圭公式、協調公式、直線減稅法、瑞士公式、“ 雞尾酒 ”減讓模式以及Harbinson減讓公式。本文針對所提出的關稅減讓模式、方法進行分析和比較,研究其降稅的特點。結果表明,這六種公式可以分為三組,一組以瑞士公式、雞尾酒模式等為代表,瑞士公式或其他類似公式可以削減突出的高關稅(“關稅高峰 ”),同時縮小製成品與原材料的關稅差距(“關稅升級”)。另一組以烏拉圭回合模式為代表,它是1986—1994年烏拉圭回合談判確定的減讓公式,即對所有產品都實施平均減讓,同時在保證達到最低減讓的情況下,允許出現一定的波動幅度。但是,該方法不能明顯改善市場准入,也無法解決 “關稅高峰” 及“關稅升級”問題。最後一組是以哈賓森模式為代表,它是“烏拉圭回合模式”與“瑞士公式”兩種方法折衷的結果,是分層使用“烏拉圭回合模式”,即對高水準的稅率進行大幅度的減讓,同時也保證了靈活性。這一方法也可用於部分削減關稅高峰和關稅升級。 本文在瞭解各關稅減讓模式的特點後,以“降稅效率”為評價指標對我國的農產品關稅進行了減讓模擬效果評價和國際比較,結果顯示在談判中我國支援採用瑞士公式進行關稅減讓是相對有利的。 在WTO市場准入談判中,由於關稅化的政策實施,使關稅成為唯一保護國內農產品的合法手段,所以關稅減讓談判也就成為農產品貿易談判的重要部分。各成員國都基於自身的利益提出了許多關稅減讓的公式或模式,本文將主要對各減讓模式的特點和效果做一深入和系統地分析。 |
英文摘要 | Agriculture trade is now firmly within the multilateral trading system. The WTO Agriculture Agreement, signed by the WTO members committing to reduce export subsidies, domestic support and import duties on agricultural products, is a significant first step towards reforming agricultural trade. The Uruguay Round agreement set up a framework of rules and started reductions in protection and trade-distorting support. Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement committed members to start negotiations on continuing the reform at the end of 1999 (or beginning of 2000). The November 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration sets a new negotiation mandate. The negotiations are difficult because of the wide range of views and interests among member governments. Further substantial reductions in tariffs, domestic support and export subsidies are prominent issues in the WTO negotiations. Tariff bargaining is the important part of the produce international trade negotiation and the most important is the approach of tariff reduction. Nowadays, among WTO members, agricultural products are protected only by tariffs. All non-tariff barriers had to be eliminated or converted to tariffs as a result of the Uruguay Round. In some cases, the calculated equivalent tariffs — like the original measures that were subject to tariff — were too high to allow any real opportunity for imports. So a system of tariff-rate quotas was created to maintain existing import access levels, and to provide minimum access opportunities. This means lower tariffs within the quotas, and higher rates for quantities outside the quotas. The discussion since the Uruguay Round has focused broadly on two issues: the high levels of tariffs outside the quotas (with some countries pressing for larger cuts on the higher tariffs), and the quotas themselves — their size, the way they have been administered, and the tariffs charged on imports within the quotas. How the reductions of tariffs outside the quotas will be handled in the present negotiations is hotly debated. All the member countries hand in their proposals about the reduction approach. Six proposals have emerged for tariff reductions in general. They are Uruguay formula, harmonizing formula, beeline reduction formula, Swiss formula, cocktail approach and Harbinson approach. This paper analyses and compares the approaches in order to get characters of the tariff reduction formulas. The result indicates that reduction approaches could be divided into three groups. One group includes Swiss formula and cocktail approach, and so on. Swiss formula or something similar is needed in order to deal with extra high tariffs (tariff peaks) and to narrow the gaps between tariffs on finished products and raw materials (tariff escalation). Another group includes Uruguay Round formula. The formula was decided upon in 1986-94 Uruguay Round negotiations which used an average reduction over all products, allowing some variation for individual products, provided a minimum reduction. But it could produce insignificant improvement in market access and would not deal with tariff peaks and escalation. The third group indicates Harbinson approach. This approach proposes a compromise between the Uruguay Round approach and Swiss formula. It envisages a Uruguay Round approach that is applied in bands with steeper cuts at higher levels, but with flexibility in actual cuts can vary around the averages so long as they are above the minimums set for each product (tariff line). This approach is also intended to go someway towards reducing tariff peaks and tariff escalation. After finding out characters of the tariff reduction formulas, the paper analyses the effect of tariff reduction and compares the international effect with the index — reduction efficiency. As a result, for China the better tariff reduction formula is Swiss formula. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。