国际贸易外文翻译-美国欧洲农产品贸易的技术性贸易壁垒

PAGEPAGE36中文3680字外文文献译文资料来源：Silvia Weyerbrock.Technical Trade Barriers in US/EuropeAgriculturalTrad[D]NewarUniversityofDelaware200．作者：SilviaWeyerbrock美国/欧洲农产品贸易的技术性贸易壁垒摘要技术性贸易壁垒严重影响了美国/欧洲的农产品贸易。一项1996年美国农5789955易。本文为个案研究提供了一个背景，并对技术性贸易壁垒的未来作用下了定论。由于贸易规则的变更，更高的食品安全和食品质量的需求以及欧盟的东欧国家，我们希望美国/欧洲的技术性贸易壁垒能够在将来得到发展。什么是技术性贸易壁垒？美国/性贸易壁垒没有统一的定义。研究人员建议把定义建立在意图，经济影响，工具使用的基础之上。Thornsbury（1997年DeRemer（1997年）国内市场上销售的法规和标准,并且这些法规和标准的表面目的是为了纠正与罗伯茨和DeRemer，1997）的奖励措施。除了技术法规，罗伯茨和DeRemer强调，表明符合外国法规可能成为一个技术性贸易壁垒。技术性贸易壁垒有别于其他贸易壁垒的原因在于它可以产生经济效率。而的规则是有难度的（DeReme，1997。为了遏制近年来盛行的技术性贸易壁垒，关贸总协定的成员国组织了关于动植物卫生检疫措施协议（SPS）和技术性贸易壁垒协议（TBT）的谈判，作为乌拉圭回合谈判的一部分（19941994b大大加强了对技术性贸易壁垒使用的国际规则。所有世贸组织的成员国都受到了这些协议的制约。该协议规定，动植物卫生检疫措施和技术措施，不应成为变相的贸易壁垒或以武断或歧视性的方式被使用。他们应该只被适用于必要的（年b）为基础。各国被鼓励使用由国际科学组织制定的国际标准，诸如食品规范委员会，国际兽疫局OI）和国际植物保护公约IPP的理由是科学或一个非歧视性的更低水平的风险的话，他们可能保持比国际标准更为严格的标准。在协调统一的情况下，世贸组织的成员国被鼓励运用等效和谈判的原则，例如，兽医等效协议。等效意味着相同的健康保障水平可以由（世界贸易组织，1994b）决定。美国/欧洲的贸易壁垒概览在一项美国科学家联合会，美国农业部监管机构和美国贸易组织的调查中，DeRemer（1997年）1996月美国农产品出口的贸易壁垒。这些壁垒包括市场准入壁垒，市场拓展壁垒和市场保留壁垒。市场准入壁垒，包括进口禁令；市场扩大壁垒有限，但并不排除美国的出口；市场保留壁垒是目前正在考虑的措施，一旦获得通过则很可能DeRemer特别是美国的影响，也不包括美国的壁垒对欧盟进口的影响。该调查发现了欧洲的57个贸易壁垒并对美国的农产品出口产生了估计有价值89955万美元的贸易影响。其中的6个贸易壁垒产生了一个估计有超过5000万美元/人的个人贸易影响（2。这些壁垒共计占所有估计贸易影响61.812DeRemer（1997）23条美国/500万的贸易影响。考虑到产品包含贸易壁垒，调查显示，许多壁垒影响美国出口至欧洲的动物产品贸易（247730万美元，占所有欧洲壁垒估计贸易影响的53％。相比之下，在世界上的所有其10730万美元。此外，出口加工食品1（DeReme1997美国农业部调查报告是关于技术贸易壁垒影响美国农产品出口的最全面的调查。它通过详细说明这些壁垒是如何遍布的来为技术性贸易壁垒找到光明。但是，其结果应被仔细解释为几个原因：这项调查涵盖市场保留壁垒（即正在审议的壁垒确定的。最后，出于保密的原因，罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997）体的问题。由于缺乏信息，因此很难评估各种估计的可靠性。21996年美国农业部调查报告中发现的欧洲的技术性贸易贸易壁垒数量(贸易壁垒数量(百万美元)估计的贸易影响(ETI)ETI大于5000万美元6555.81ETI在5万美元和4999万美元之间23307.73ETI小于5万美元3836.01共计57899.55按估计的贸易影响：续表按估计的贸易影响：按产品种类*：所以产品00.00水果和蔬菜00.00谷类和饲料谷类7108.81动物产品牛肉7157.80猪肉568.50牛肉和猪肉150.00所有动物产品2201.00其他产品待加工产品13112.91种子225.00林木类476.00鱼类21.00共计*43*801.12*注意事项：只有当（1）提供超过10个贸易壁垒，或者（2）估计的贸易影响超过5000万美元时，产品种类的信息可供提供。Thornsbury等人（1997年；罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997年。具体措施本节会提出近期具体的美国/欧洲农业贸易的技术性贸易壁垒。除了研究欧洲壁垒对美国进口的影响，我们也会探讨美国壁垒对欧洲进口的影响。我们明确普遍存在这种壁垒的领域，并试图概略估计它们的贸易影响。我们的调查没有提供关于美国/欧洲贸易的技术壁垒的系统证据。这需要一个详细的评估，它关于许多标准和法规以及一个关于许多国家出口的全面的格拉欧洲（报刊名于美国贸易和投资的壁垒的欧盟委员会报告。我们省略了这些出版物没有提及的贸易壁垒，可能有许多技术性贸易壁垒与合格评定和执行方面相关。（1998年美国在论文上引发的欧盟荷尔蒙争端以外，关于美国/欧洲的技术性贸易壁垒对价格和社会福利的影响的定量的经济研究仍处于莫衷一是的状态。有时，新闻和其他来源确定存在威胁或存在壁垒的贸表3节选的美国/欧洲技术性贸易壁垒的近似的贸易影响贸易壁垒贸易壁垒近似的贸易影响（百万美元)美国的技术性贸易壁垒美国的技术性贸易壁垒针对欧盟牛肉和羊肉的壁垒针对各种农药的壁垒(德萊尼修正案)(威胁)欧盟出口酒到美国(1995年)欧盟出口橄榄油到美国(1994/95年)a针对西班牙猪肉制品的壁垒21,01570,000西班牙出口红肉到美国(1995年)b欧盟的技术性贸易壁垒0.4针对美国标准参考样品的欧盟壁垒14,000(最大威胁但是有可能有许多例外)针对美国激素处理牛肉的欧盟壁垒针对美国新鲜肉类和禽类的欧盟壁垒(威胁)针对美国禽类的欧盟壁垒10010054针对转基因生物的欧盟壁垒美国谷物出口到欧盟(1995年针对波兰乳制品的欧盟壁垒433EC60东欧的技术性贸易壁垒针对美国禽肉的东欧可能壁垒c针对美国激素处理牛肉的保加利亚壁垒1602.5俄罗斯的技术性贸易壁垒针对美国禽肉的俄罗斯壁垒(威胁但并没有被实施)840在1994到1995的出口都受到了贸易壁垒的影响。数据适用于所有红肉但猪肉除外。199716000万美元。DeRemer6的重大现实问题。其他问题可能会被同时解决。外文文献原文MaterialSource:SilviaWeyerbrock.TechnicalTradeBarriersinUS/EuropeAgriculturalTrade[D].Newark：UniversityofDelaware，2000．Author:SilviaWeyerbrockTechnicalTradeBarriersinUS/EuropeAgriculturalTradeAbstractTechnicalbarriersstronglyaffectUS/Europeanagriculturalandfoodtrade.A1996USDAsurveyidentifies57questionableEuropeanregulationsaffectingUSagriculturalexportswithanestimatedtradeimpactof$899.55million.ThisarticleidentifiesEuropeanandUStechnicalregulationsthatimpedebilateraltrade.Thearticleprovidesabackgroundforcasestudiesanddrawsconclusionsregardingthefutureroleoftechnicalbarriers.WeexpectthattechnicalbarriersinUS/Europewillproliferateinthefuturebecauseofchangesin traderules,higherdemandforfoodsafetyandvariousfoodqualityattributes,andEUmembershipofEasternEuropeancountries.WhatisaTechnicalBarriertoTrade?US/Europeagriculturaltradeisstronglyaffectedbytechnicalbarrierstotrade.Asmentionedabovethereisnocommonlyagreedupondefinitionoftechnicalbarrierstotrade.Researchershaveproposeddefinitionsbasedonintent,economicimpact,andinstrumentsused.InthissurveywefollowadefinitionproposedbyThornsburyetal.(1997)andRobertsandDeRemer(1997).Theydefinetechnicalbarriersas“internationallydivergentregulationsandstandardsgoverningthesaleofproductsinnationalmarkets which have as their prima facie objective the correction of inefficiencies stemming from externalities associated with the distribution,andconsumptionoftheseproducts.”Thisdefinitionincludesstandardsofidentity,measure,andquality,andSPS,globalcommons,andpackagingmeasures.It,however,excludesincentivemeasuressuchassubsidiesandtaxes(Roberts&DeRemer,1997).Inadditiontothetechnicalregulations,RobertsandDeRemerstressthatdemonstratingconformitytoaforeignregulationcanbeatechnicalbarrier.Technicaltradebarriersdifferfrommanyothertradebarriersbecausetheycanbeeconomicallyefficient.Moreover,SPSregulationsarenot“mostfavorednation,”i.e.,differenttradingpartnersmayneedtocomplywithdifferentconditionsforgainingaccessto,animportingcountry’smarket.Consequently,designingeffectiverulesforsuchmeasuresisdifficult(Roberts&DeRemer,1997).Tostemtheproliferationoftechnicalbarriersinrecentyears,GATTmembersnegotiatedAgreementsonSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasures(SPS)andTechnicalBarrierstoTrade(TBT)aspartoftheUruguayRoundAgreement(WorldTradeOrganization, 1994a, 1994b). These agreements considerably strengtheninternationalrulesontheuseoftechnicalbarriers.AllWTOmembersarenowsubjectto these agreements. Theagreements specifythat SPS andtechnicalmeasuresshouldnotbeusedasdisguisedtradebarriersorinanarbitraryordiscriminatorymanner.Theyshouldonlybeappliedtotheextentnecessaryandmustbebasedonscientificprinciplesandonriskassessment(WorldTradeOrganization, 1994a, 1994b). Countries are encouraged to use internationalstandardsdevelopedbyinternationalscientificorganizationssuchastheCodexAlimentariusCommission,theInternationalOfficeofEpizootics(OIE),andtheInternationalPlantProtectionConvention(IPPC).Countries,however,maymaintainstandardsthatarestricterthaninternationalstandards,iftheyarejustifiedbyscienceorbyanondiscriminatorylowerlevelofrisk.Intheabsenceofharmonization,WTOmembersareencouragedtoapplytheprincipleofequivalencyandnegotiate,forexample,veterinaryequivalenceagreements.Equivalencyimpliesthatthesamelevelofhealthprotectioncanbeachievedbydifferentmethods(WorldTradeOrganization,1994b).Regulationsandstandardsshouldbeconsideredequivalentifonecountrycanshowthatitsmeasures—albeitdifferent—meettheothercountry’slegitimateobjectives.Equivalenceagreementsallowproductstobetradedwithminimalcustomschecks.Ifeachsiderecognizestheotherparty’splantinspectionprocedures,visitsofinspectorstoforeignproductionandprocessingfacilitiesbecomeunnecessary.AnothernovelfeatureoftheSPSagreement,theprincipleofregionalization,suggeststhatdiseaseorpest-freestatusshouldbeconsideredontheregionalratherthanthecountrylevel.Ifacountrycandemonstratethatanareaofitscountryis,andislikelytoremain,diseaseorpest-freethanimportingcountriesshouldnotplacerestrictionsongoodsfromthisarea.Finally,countriescannoteasilyrejectapaneldecisionbasedonthenewlyestablisheddisputesettlementmechanismanylonger.TechnicalRegulationsinUS/EuropeTradeOverviewInasurveyofFASattaches,USDAregulatoryagencies,andUStradeorganizations,RobertsandDeRemer(1997)identifyquestionableregulationsintheEU,EasternEurope,andtheFSUthataffectedUSagriculturalexportsinJune1996.Suchbarriersincludemarketaccess,marketexpansion,andmarketretentionbarriers.Marketaccessbarriersincludeimportbans;marketexpansionbarrierslimitbutdonot preclude US exports; and market retention barriers are measures underconsideration,whichmayadverselyaffectUSexports,ifenacted.RobertsandDeRemeraskedtheattachesandtradeorganizationstoestimatethetradeimpactofsuchbarriersintermsofthevalueofcurrentUSexportrevenuethatisthreatenedandcouldbepotentiallylost.PleasenotethatthesurveyonlycoversquestionablemeasuresaffectingUSexportstocountriescoveredbyoverseasFASoffices.ItdoesneithercoverquestionableEuropeanmeasuresaffectingcountriesotherthantheUSnorUSmeasuresaffectingEuropeanimports.Thesurveyfinds57questionablemeasuresinEuropewithanestimatedtradeimpactonUSagriculturalandfoodexportsof$899.55million.Sixofthesequestionablemeasureshaveanestimatedindividualtradeimpactofmorethan$50millioneach(Table2).Togetherthesebarriersaccountfor61.8%ofthetotalestimatedtradeimpact.Surveyrespondentsidentifiedonly12othermeasuresworldwide with such a largeimpact. Roberts and DeRemer (1997) find regulationsinUS/Europetradewithanestimatedtradeimpactofmorethanmillion.Consideringtheproductcoverageofquestionablemeasures,thesurveyshowsthatmanybarriersaffectingUSexportstoEuropeaffecttradeinanimalproducts(Table2).Theestimatedtradeimpact ofallbarriersonanimal productsismillionandaccountsfor53%ofestimatedtotaltradeimpactsofallEuropeanbarriers.Bycomparison,inallothercountriesoftheworldonly$107.3millionexportsofanimalproductsaresubjectedtoquestionablebarriers.Moreover,exportsofprocessedfoodsandgrainsexceeding$100millionrespectivelyareaffectedbyquestionablebarriers(Roberts&DeRemer,1997).TheUSDAsurveyisthefirstcomprehensivesurveyoftechnicaltradebarriersaffectingUSagriculturalexports.IthasshedthelightonTBTsbydetailinghowpervasivesuchbarriersare.However,itsresultsshouldbeinterpretedcarefullyforseveralreasons.Theexpertsconsultedarelikelytobebiased:thegoalofFASattachesandtradeorganizationsistopromoteUSagriculturalexports.TheregulatoryagenciesusedtovettheirestimatesarelikelytotaketheUSstanceonissuessuchasthescientificjustificationandconformityofvariousmeasureswiththenewtradeagreements.SomeexpertsmayhavebeenawarethattheUSmayconsiderinitiatingdisputesettlementproceduresbasedontheirreports.Thesurveycoversmarketretentionbarriers(i.e.,barriersunderconsideration)whoseadoptionandimplementationareuncertain.Finally,forconfidentialityreasons,RobertsandDeRemer(1997)couldnotidentifyspecificissues.Lackingthisinformation,itisdifficulttoassessreliabilityofvariousestimates.NumberofBarriers(millionNumberofBarriers(million$)EstimatedTradeImpact(ETI)Byestimatedtradeimpact:Byproductcategory*:AnimalproductsETIlargerthan$50million6555.81ETIbetween$5millionand$49.99million23307.73ETIsmallerthan$5million3836.01Total57899.55Allproducts00.00Fruitsandvegetables00.00GrainsandfeedGrains7108.81ContinuedBeef7157.80Pork568.50Beefandpork150.00Allanimalproducts2201.00OtherproductsFurtherprocessedproducts13112.91Seeds225.00Forestry476.00Fish21.00Total*43*801.12*Note:Informationforproductcategoriesonlygivenif(1)morethan10barriersapply,or(2)iftheETIexceeds$50million.Source:Thornsburyetal.(1997);RobertsandDeRemer(1997).SpecificMeasuresThis section identifies recent and current specific technical barriers US/Europeagriculturaltrade.InadditiontostudyingEuropeanbarriersonUSimports,wealsoexploreUS barriersonEuropeanimports.Weidentifysectorsinwhichsuchbarriersareprevalentandattempttoapproximatetheirtradeimpact.OursurveydoesnotprovidesystematicevidenceontechnicalbarriersinUS/Europetrade.Thisrequiresadetailedassessmentofmanystandardsandregulationsandacomprehensivesurveyofexportersinmanycountries.Instead,ourstudyisbasedoninformationfoundinresearchpapers,newspapers,andindustryandagencypublicationssuchasAgra-Europe,documentsoftheUSForeignAgriculturalService,andaEuropeanCommissionReportonUSBarrierstoTradeandInvestment.Weomitquestionablemeasuresnotmentionedinsuchpublicationsand,possibly,manyTBTsrelatedtoconformityassessmentandenforcement.Inthisarticle,weattempttoapproximatethetradeimpactofvariousTBTs.Unfortunately,withtheexceptionofPeterson,Paggi,andHenry’spaper(1998)otheUS/EUhormonedispute,quantitativeeconomicstudiesonthepriceandwelfareeffectsofTBTsinUS/Europetradeareunavailableatthispoint.Occasionally,newsandothersourcesidentifythetradeimpactofthreatenedorexistingbarriers.Ifnodataareavailable,weapproximatethemaximumpossibleimpactof,forexample,animportban,bygivinginformationonthetradevolumebeforetheban.Note,however,thatthisestimateislikelytobeanoverstatement.Importbansarefrequently linked to specific production and processing techniques. If a USprocessingfirmfollowsEUguidelines,itmaystillbeabletodobusinesswiththeEU.TradeBarrierApproximateTradeImpact(inmillion$)UStechnicalbarriersBanonEUbeef&sheepTradeBarrierApproximateTradeImpact(inmillion$)UStechnical