Some potential working resolutions
From Steve -
1. Basic: The USFG should substantially reduce its agriculture support through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
2. Solve the "foreign agriculture" problem: The USFG should substantially reduce its support for domestic agriculture through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
3. Prevents non-production affirmatives: The USFG should substantially reduce its support for domestic production through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
--
From Sue
4. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Total Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
5. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
6. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more of the following crops:
7. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
8. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
9. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate trade barriers, including domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
10. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, through at least domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
From Seth:
11. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
12. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its support for domestic agriculture, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
From Cameron
13. Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its trade barriers, including elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, for one or more of the following:
1. Basic: The USFG should substantially reduce its agriculture support through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
2. Solve the "foreign agriculture" problem: The USFG should substantially reduce its support for domestic agriculture through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
3. Prevents non-production affirmatives: The USFG should substantially reduce its support for domestic production through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
--
From Sue
4. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Total Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
5. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
6. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more of the following crops:
7. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
8. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
9. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate trade barriers, including domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
10. The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, through at least domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
From Seth:
11. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
12. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its support for domestic agriculture, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
From Cameron
13. Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its trade barriers, including elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, for one or more of the following:
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Total Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more of the following crops:
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate market access barriers, export subsidies, and/or domestic subsidies on one or more commodity crops.
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce or eliminate trade barriers, including domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, through at least domestic subsidies, on one or more of the following crops:
Reply to this
Force the aff to do at least subsidies--
Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its domestic agricultural support, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its support for domestic agriculture, including eliminating all or nearly all price supports [or whatever our subsidies term of art is], for one or more of the following:
Reply to this
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its trade barriers, including elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, for one or more of the following:
Reply to this
respectfully, can someone on the committee explain the point of the double--reduce and then eliminate?
Basic: The USFG should substantially reduce its agriculture support through elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
Basic: The USFG should eliminate all or nearly all agricultural domestic support, export subsidies and/or market access barriers for: biofuels, corn, cotton, fisheries, livestock, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat
Reply to this
A few comments:
1. I find Steve’s proposals a little problematic as I read them to require elimination (or nearly all) of support for all the commodities listed. While lumping some makes sense, I’m not sure how lumping corn and fish, for example, works. Does anyone other than an extreme libertarian advocate such a policy?
2. I think Seth is generally on to something with his demand for “domestic ‘x’”. If the AFF has the ability to only reduce export subsidies, is there much difference between the plan and current proposals the US has made already? In fact the WTO’s AoA is already much tougher on export subsidies than on domo and market access barriers.
3. While I think forcing more than export subsidy reduction is critical, I also think restricting to domestic support is insufficient. Market access barriers are pretty important as an area and I think necessary for an AFF to be able to solve many of the harms (if an AFF wants to be bigger).
4. I understand the desire to control US production. My question: how could an AFF reduce ag support and not reduce support for domo production? Is this an effort to control “sanitary and phytosanitary” affs (and potentially others?). If so, that probably makes sense to me.
Jim
Reply to this
Jim (Hanson),
The difference is that agricultural support is more than just subsidies and one could reduce ag support without reducing subsidies. So the elimination of subsidies as part of the decrease in ag support guarantees some neg ground.
Think of it like the sanctions topic. You could do any constructive engagement as long as it including reducing sanctions.
Reply to this
Jason Russell mentioned another possible wording option that I think achieves most of the benefits of Seth's wordings and also allows a bit more flexibility:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support including the elimination of its subsidies for one or more of the following
or, perhaps:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support including elimination of its subsidies for the domestic production of one or more of the following:
Both of these wording options seem pretty solid. They seem to capture most of the benefits of prior wordings while allowing a bit more affirmative flexibility. Admittedly my AFF research hasn't been nearly extensive, but I think there's a huge looming difficulty in having CPs that may solve most of the AFF while avoiding almost all discussion of subsidies. Certainly something to consider.
Reply to this
I'm not sure the current modifications solve the benefits to the resolutions posted above.
Russell's resolutions REQUIRE a cut in subs while also allowing a decrease in other forms of domestic support.
The newly amended resolutions ("decrease domestic support") ALLOWS a cut in subs but doesn't mandate it.
I think letting the AFF decrease any type of domestic support might be allowing too much.
I apologize for getting this in late, I've tried to communicate this to people sitting in the meeting but was unsuccessful in clearly communicating it.
Reply to this
Sorry about that last comment, missed the transition to the discussion of resolution #2. The current listing of resolution #1 is excellent.
Reply to this
Not sure who/what the 2nd Brian post responds to...anyhow...
Yes, letting the AFF decrease any type of domestic support might be too much if we are talking about a resolution that allows the AFF to reduce support to a commodity from 1 of the 3 forms of support/pillars. I think my above post suggests that larger plan actions should have to occur.
My concern is that I think the resolution should be written to allow for big affs that eliminate most/all "agricultural support" - if the resolution is limited to "domestic support" then critical areas that the AFF needs to really solve many advantages might be lost as "domestic support" is subset of agricultural support:
Anderson 05
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/239054-1126812419270/WhyMarketAccess.pdf
Limiting trade-distorting domestic support to farmers and phasing out
agricultural export subsidies are important and necessary disciplines. However, the
potential income gains from abolishing these measures are much smaller than those from
eliminating tariffs. Bank research has shown that over 90 percent of the cost of global
agricultural distortions (including agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers) is due to
tariffs. Why? First, the widely-cited $280 billion of OECD agricultural support in 2004
is derived primarily from tariffs and export subsidies. The resulting market price support
(MPS) accounts for $168bn, or 60 percent of the total. Second, the OECD estimates of
support refer only to support to farmers (primary agriculture), and there is a great deal of
support to food processing covered under the Agreement on Agriculture – virtually all of
which is provided by tariffs. Third, trade measures are doubly costly – distorting both
production and consumption – potentially roughly doubling the costs per dollar of
support to producers. Fourth, almost all of the agricultural support outside the OECD is
provided through border measures. Fifth, the rates of protection provided by tariffs tend
to vary more than those provided by subsidies. Since the costs of any distortion rise with
the square of its rate, this variability raises the cost of providing support. Sixth, the costs
of domestic support are reduced to some degree by decoupling from production. Even
without taking decoupling into account, World Bank research finds that domestic support
accounted for only 5 percent of the global welfare cost of agricultural distortions in 2001.
Reply to this
To Jim--sorry for the confusion, I was trying to repsond to things on the webcast as they happened. I did that here because I was having trouble communicating my thoughts directly to people in the room who could voice them. I think the committee's amendment resolved my concern--'all or nearly all' resolves my concern. My concern was that affs could do things like cut crop insurance, etc. and still claim to 'substantially reduce domestic support.' However, since subsidies obviously represent the bulk of current domestic support, I think 'all or nearly all' is enough to resolve my concerns.
Sorry for any confusion in the interim, thank you to whoever voiced these concerns at the meeting.
Reply to this
Steve's wordings, as stated above, would force the elimination of support for every one of the items after the colon. That's why you need "one or more of the following".
Reply to this
Re Sue's wordings; it seems like the term "market access barrier" can mean anything. Removing a market access barrier to a particular crop could involve INCREASING subsidies for that crop, so as to increase its access to the market.
Reply to this
These seem workable:
(Sue) The United States federal government should significantly reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, for one or more of the following crops:
(mine) The United States federal government should substantially reduce its tariffs or domestic subsidies on one or more of the following:
(notice in the second one I got rid of "domestic support" since that seems to be redundant with "its trade barriers" ((its being the operative term)))
Reply to this