Topicality

08 ADI Topicality AFF/NEG

Hingstman page 1 of 53

TOPICALITY AFF/NEG DEFINITION INDEX – Hingstman 18 TOPICALITY AFF/NEG DEFINITION INDEX – Hingstman 18.........................................................................1 Definitions of “United States federal government” 1/1...........................................................................................3 Definitions of “Should” 1/1.....................................................................................................................................4 Substantially reduce requires a large net reduction in agricultural support 1/2 ......................................................5 Substantially reduce requires a large net reduction in agricultural support 2/2.......................................................6 Plan is substantial reduction in agricultural support 1/1..........................................................................................7 Definitions of “Substantially” 1/1............................................................................................................................9 Definitions of “reduce” 1/1....................................................................................................................................10 Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 1/4...............................................................................................11 Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 2/4...............................................................................................12 Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 3/4...............................................................................................13 Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 4/4...............................................................................................14 Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “At Least” 1/2........................................................................................15 Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “At Least” 2/2........................................................................................16 Primary Definitions of “Eliminating” as “Removing” 1/1....................................................................................17 Secondary Definitions of “Eliminating” as “Omitting” 1/1..................................................................................18 Dictionary/Legal Interpretations of “Nearly” 1/1..................................................................................................19 Dictionary/Legal Interpretations of “All” 1/1........................................................................................................20 Most Contextual Usage of “Nearly All Domestic Subsidies” – New Zealand example 1/2.................................21 Most Contextual Usage of “Nearly All Domestic Subsidies” – New Zealand example 2/2.................................22 Superstrict Contextual Usages of “Nearly All Subsidies” 1/1...............................................................................23 Strict Contextual Usage of Nearly All 1/1.............................................................................................................24 Broader Contextual Usage of Nearly All 1/1.........................................................................................................25 Minimum Threshold to Meet “Nearly All” Standard 1/1......................................................................................26 Definitions for “The” 1/1.......................................................................................................................................27 Non-Export [Broad] Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 1/2...................................................................................28 Non-Export Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 2/2.................................................................................................29 Non-Export Definition of Domestic Subsidies Better for Debate 1/1...................................................................30 Specific Categories of Domestic Subsidies Definitions 1/1..................................................................................31 Trade Distortion Definitions of Domestic Subsidies Better for Debate 1/1..........................................................32 Trade Distortion Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 1/1.........................................................................................33 Definitions of Export Subsidies 1/1.......................................................................................................................34 Clear Definition of “Domestic Subsidy” Key to Policy Analysis 1/1...................................................................35 Definitions of Subsidy 1/2.....................................................................................................................................36 Definitions of Subsidy 2/2.....................................................................................................................................37 Overly Narrow Definitions of Subsidies Bad for Debate 1/1................................................................................38 Overly Broad Definitions of “Subsidies” Bad for Debate 1/1...............................................................................39 Incentives are not Subsidies 1/1.............................................................................................................................40 Specific Incentives that are not Subsidies 1/1........................................................................................................41 Specific Incentives that are Domestic Subsidies 1/1.............................................................................................42 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Biofuels 1/1..............................................................................................43 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 1/2.................................44 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 2/2.................................45 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Corn 1/1....................................................................................................46

1

08 ADI Topicality AFF/NEG

Hingstman page 2 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Cotton 1/1.................................................................................................47 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Dairy 1/1...................................................................................................48 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Fisheries 1/2.............................................................................................49 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Fisheries 2/2.............................................................................................50 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Rice 1/1....................................................................................................51 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Soybeans 1/1............................................................................................52 Definitions of Sugar Subsidies 1/1........................................................................................................................53 Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Wheat.......................................................................................................54 Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “And/or”................................................................................................55

2

08 ADI Topicality AFF/NEG—US federal government definitions

Hingstman page 2 of 53

Definitions of “United States federal government” 1/1 1. “United States federal government” is a federal republic Britannica Online Encyclopedia, 2006, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Federal+Government&ct= The government of the United States, established by the Constitution, is a federal republic of 50 states, a few territories and some protectorates. The national government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The head of the executive branch is the President of the United States. The legislative branch consists of the United States Congress, while the Supreme Court of the United States is the head of the judicial branch. The federal legal system is based on statutory law, while most state and territorial law is based on English common law, with the exception of Louisiana and Puerto Rico. The United States accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations of the federal republic.

2. “United States federal government” is a union of states The Columbia Encyclopedia 2001, Sixth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/65/fe/federalg.html The United States federal government of a union of states in which sovereignty is divided between a central authority and component state authorities.

3. “United States federal government” is a combination of agencies Encarta World Online Encyclopedia, 2006, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500781/United_States_(Government).html United States Government, the combination of federal, state, and local laws, bodies, and agencies that is responsible for carrying out the operations of the United States. The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington, D.C.

4. “United States federal government” is a national government Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary A federation of states especially when forming a nation in a usually specified territory

5. “United States federal government” is a governing system Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary The United States federal government is the area in a governing system concerned with areas that affect the entire nation, such as defense, international relations, taxation, and trade.

3

08 ADI Topicality AFF/NEG Should definitions

Hingstman page 3 of 53

Definitions of “Should” 1/1 1. “Should” is used to express actions Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note. 2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon. 3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I. 4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

2. “Should” is used in more than one tense Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Usage Note: Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should. ·Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should've.

3. “Should” is used as a function to express obligations Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency

4. “Should” is used to predict Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected

5. “Should” is used to show Ammer in 2000, Christine, renowned linguist and author of 20 popular reference books, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should a) Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b) Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c) The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d) Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.

6. “Should” is to express consequences Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Used in auxiliary function to express condition

4

08 ADI Topicality NEG—Substantially quantitative

Hingstman 1NC shell page 5

of 53

Substantially reduce requires a large net reduction in agricultural support 1/2 A.  INTERPRETATION.  Substantially means more than a minor reduction.  Courts have interpreted  “substantially” in connection with an increase or decrease as requiring a large percentage reduction (greater than  50%) Words and Phrases, 1987 (vol 40, 1987 Pocket Part, p. 266) SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRS ITS VALUE. What constitutes defect in article which “substantially impairs its value,” within Uniform Commercial Code provision entitling buyer to revoke acceptance for such defect, is factual determination to be made by the trier of fact, and although term may not be susceptible to being precisely defined, it connotes more than mere minor, easily repairable defects in goods. Schumaker v. Ivers, 238 N.W.2d. 284, 288, 90 S.D. 75.

Words and Phrases, 2004 (vol. 40, 2004 Pocket Part, pp. 492-493) Ex-husband’s 74% increase in net income since 1977 constituted a “substantial increase” in income for purposes of determining whether child support order should be modified. Scott v. Scott, Minnesota Court of appeals, 252 N.W.2d 62, 64.

B.  VIOLATION.  The plan is only a minor reduction in the size or importance of existing U.S.  agricultural support.  Total US agricultural support was $32.663 billion in 2007. U.S. Producer Support Estimate, Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries at a Glance, 2008,  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/51/40909127.pdf Producer Support Estimate is the best indication of total agricultural support.   OECD in 2006 http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2006doc.nsf/ENGDATCORPLOOK/NT000093DE/$FILE/JT03229858.PDF The analysis is based on OECD quantitative tools and approaches utilised in the annual Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural  Policies in OECD Countries and in making projections for the sugar market in the annual OECD­FAO Agricultural Outlook  assessments. The former uses the PSE methodology to calculate the implications of policy changes in the sugar sector for the  measure of total (all commodity) agricultural support in the European Union.

The plan only slightly reduces total agricultural support (insert appropriate card from the commodity  subsidy T blocks)

5

08 ADI Topicality NEG—Substantially quantitative

Hingstman 1NC shell page 6

of 53

Substantially reduce requires a large net reduction in agricultural support 2/2 C. BETTER INTERPRETATION (choose one or more) ____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits by allowing hundreds of cases dealing with tiny reductions in agricultural support. Negatives will not be prepared with relevant positions and evidence against every microscopic reduction, especially with such big areas as trade, environment, relations, and health in the topic. ____ Better Clash and Ground. Affirmatives and negatives should debate about whether keeping agricultural support in place is a better approach than substantially reducing it. Our interpretation preserves this necessary disad and counterplan ground for links and impacts. ____ Communication. They moot the word “substantially” by their tiny reduction. The topic could have said just “reduce.” Mooting words leads to misunderstanding, which blocks good communication. Good communication is needed for education from debate. ____ Bright Line Standard. Compare the affirmative to the total amount of agricultural support and if it is greater than 50%, it meets the violation. By defining substantial as noticeable, they make it impossible for the judge to make an objective determination of jurisdiction. D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education and jurisdiction.

6

ADI 08 Topicality AFF AT: Substantially quantitative

Hingstman 2AC shell page 7

of 53

Plan is substantial reduction in agricultural support 1/1 _____ 1. COUNTERINTERPRETATION. “Substantial” means of considerable value or importance. Court interpretations support our position. Words and Phrases, 1990 (Pocket Part, p. 212). [Substantial] Important, essential, amount or extent. Considerable in importance, values, degree, amount or extent. Hepple v. State, 358 A.2d 283, 286, 31 Maryland Appeals 525.

_____ 2. WE MEET THE COUNTERINTERPRETATION. Our case evidence says that the domestic subsidies are a major factor in trade relations with other countries. _____ 3. “AT LEAST” CLAUSE SUPPORTS OUR INTERPRETATION. The plan meets the minimum requirement of the topic by eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies. ______3. SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE CHANGE DEFINITIONS ARE ARBITRARY. Legal definitions in Words and Phrases go from less than 1% to 90%! The term “substantial” is designed to give flexibility in contextual interpretations. We deserve leeway because topicality is an all-or-nothing issue. David Mellinkoff, Law Professor UCLA, 1992 (Mellinkoff’s Dictionary of American Legal Usage, p. 626). Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of prevision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial’s flexibility. A place for discretion.

_____ 4.  THEY OVERLIMIT.  They hurt education because only a very few people advocate huge unilateral  cuts in farm subsidies.  We would be debating one case for the whole year, which denies breadth of issue  education. ______5.  AVOID REPETITIVE DEBATES.  Every debate will be the same – do the benefits of free trade  outweigh all of the transition problems?  This will stifle diversity of argumentation.  Our interpretation allows  for more interesting discussions of the finer points of changing subsidies for individual commodities. _____ 6.  ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY AND DEPTH OF ANALYSIS.  Affirmatives should be encouraged to  look into the details of trade policy.  This leads into in­depth and creative discussions  _____ 7.  OTHER WORDS CHECK ABUSE.  We still have to make important cuts in agricultural subsidies.  The issues are similar enough across the commodities to allow for negative preparation and clash.

7

ADI 08 Topicality AFF AT: Substantially quantitative

Hingstman 2AC shell page 8

of 53 _____ 8.  LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE.  We read cards talking about how we should end domestic  subsidies for agricultural products.  This is sufficient notice for the negative ­­ they can Google the words and  find our cards. _____ 9.  THEY HAVE NO BRIGHT LINE.  Their specification of a percentage threshold is arbitrary.  We deal  with considerable and important issues, as our case evidence illustrates.  

8

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG Substantially definitions

Hingstman page 9 of 53

Definitions of “Substantially” 1/1 ____“Substantially” means to large extent Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary To a great extent or degree

____“Substantially” means to make stronger Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary In a strong substantial way

____“Substantially” means to have importance Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent

____“Substantially” is not imaginary Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary True or real; not imaginary

_____“Substantially” means ample Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Ample; sustaining

_____“Substantially” means to relate to Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Of, relating to, or having substance; material

9

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Reduce Definitions

Hingstman page 10 of 53

Definitions of “reduce” 1/1 1.  Reduce means to lessen in quantity Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2008 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/recycle/rgloss.htm reduce: to lessen in amount, number or other quantity.

2. Reduce has multiple meanings Dictionary.com Unabridged in 2008 (v 1.1). Retrieved August 01, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reduce Re·duce –verb (used with object) 1. to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds. 2. to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce the speed of a car. 3. to bring down to a lower rank, dignity, etc.: a sergeant reduced to a corporal 4. to treat analytically, as a complex idea. 5. to lower in price. 6. to bring to a certain state, condition, arrangement, etc.: to reduce glass to powder. 7. to bring under control or authority.

WordNet® 3.0 in 2008 Retrieved August 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reduce Reduce verb 1. cut down on; make a reduction in; "reduce your daily fat intake"; "The employer wants to cut back health benefits" 2. make less complex; "reduce a problem to a single question" 3. bring to humbler or weaker state or condition; "He reduced the population to slavery" 4. simplify the form of a mathematical equation of expression by substituting one term for another 5. lower in grade or rank or force somebody into an undignified situation; "She reduced her niece to a servant" 6. be the essential element; "The proposal boils down to a compromise" 7. reduce in size; reduce physically; "Hot water will shrink the sweater"; "Can you shrink this image?" 8. lessen and make more modest; "reduce one's standard of living" 9. make smaller; "reduce an image" [ant: blow up] 10. to remove oxygen from a compound, or cause to react with hydrogen or form a hydride, or to undergo an increase in the number of electrons [syn: deoxidize] [ant: oxidate] 11. narrow or limit; "reduce the influx of foreigners" 12. put down by force or intimidation; "The government quashes any attempt of an uprising"; "China keeps down her dissidents very efficiently"; "The rich landowners subjugated the peasants working the land" 13. undergo meiosis; "The cells reduce" 14. reposition (a broken bone after surgery) back to its normal site 15. destress and thus weaken a sound when pronouncing it 16. reduce in scope while retaining essential elements; "The manuscript must be shortened" 17. be cooked until very little liquid is left; "The sauce should reduce to one cup" [syn: boil down] 18. cook until very little liquid is left; "The cook reduced the sauce by boiling it for a long time" 19. lessen the strength or flavor of a solution or mixture; "cut bourbon" [syn: dilute] 20. take off weight [ant: gain]

10

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Agricultural Support Definitions

Hingstman page 11 of 53

Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 1/4 ____ AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT INCLUDES PRODUCER AND CONSUMER PAYMENTS AND TARIFF + NON-TARIFF BARRIERS. Herrmann in 2006 Michael, Economic Affairs Officer with the Division on Globalization and Development Strategies, UNCTAD, http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/research-papers/2006/en_GB/rp2006-141 Agricultural support takes two principle forms: it can be provided in the form of payments, including producer and consumer subsidies, or in form of border measures, including tariff and non-tariff barriers. Tariff barriers are associated with relatively high average tariff rates, relatively high tariff peaks, and tariff escalations. By contrast, non-tariff barriers include import quotas, but also overly complex rules of origin and overly stringent sanitary, phytosanitary and technical product standards. As many non-tariff barriers are difficult to quantify they are not captured in measures of total aggregate support. Figure 1 provides an overview of the development of agricultural support in the OECD countries. In 2001 OECD countries provided support to their own agricultural sector of about US$311 billion. At the same time, the OECD countries provided development assistance to all LDCs of only US$12 billion—an amount equivalent to about two-weeks’ worth of domestic agricultural support.8 The most important form of support is producer support which can be broken down into two types, namely market price support, which includes import restrictions, and payments, which include actual subsidies paid to producers. Over the years trade liberalization has led to a decrease in market price support, resulting in a shift towards direct payments. But despite this shift border measures remain the most important mean of agricultural protection in advanced countries, and the elimination of these border measures therefore remains the most important mean to promote agricultural development in developing countries (Hoekman, Ng and Olareaga 2002; Tokarick 2003).

____ AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT INCLUDES IMPORT TARIFFS & EXPORT SUBSIDIES (MARKET PRICE SUPPORT), PRODUCTION SUBSIDIES, AND INPUT SUBSIDIES. Tokarich in 2005 (Stephen, Senior Economist in the IMF’s Research. Department, The World Economy, April, pp. 574-575. This paper focuses on four types of agricultural support: import tariffs, export subsidies, production subsidies and input subsidies. Following the OECD (2002), import tariffs and export subsidies are referred to as ‘market price support’, as they affect both the price paid by consumers and the price received by producers of the supported commodity. Governments in OECD countries also provide support to agricultural producers through direct income payments that are not directly linked to prices or output. These payments are designed to supplement the income of agricultural producers and require government expenditure. It is difficult to assess, however, how this type of support affects markets, as it may not alter marginal production decisions. However, research suggests (OECD, 2001) that agricultural support policies that are directed toward supporting the income of farmers through transfers have a smaller distortionary impact on trade and welfare than policies that affect prices directly.

11

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Agricultural Support Defs

Hingstman page 12 of 53

Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 2/4 _____ AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT INCLUDES TARIFFS AND RESTRICTIONS, EXPORT SUBSIDIES, AND DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES de Gorter, et al, in 2003 Harry, Merlinda Ingco & Laura Ignacio, staff, International Trade Division, World Bank, Trade Note 7, September 10, http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ WDSP/IB/2005/04/06/000090341_20050406104103/ Rendered/PDF/319070tradenote7domesticsupport.pdf The Structure of Domestic Support. Support to agricultural producers can be provided through (1) border measures which raise domestic prices and are thus financed by consumers (import tariffs and restrictions), (2) export subsidies, and (3) government subsidies to farmers that are financed by taxpayers

____ AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT INCLUDES TARIFFS, EXPORT SUBSIDIES, AND DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES Park and Jensen in 2007 Jong Hee and Nathan, PhD candidate and assistant professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, American Journal of Political Science, p. 315 note 1. Although agricultural support is a more general term than agricultural protection or agricultural subsidies, we use these terms interchangeably in this article. Agricultural support, agricultural protection, or agricultural subsidies usually consist of tariffs, domestic price support, and export subsidies targeting the agricultural sector.

12

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Agricultural Support Defs

Hingstman page 13 of 53

Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 3/4 _____ OECD INTERPRETATION. AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT IS THE MONETARY VALUE OF GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS FOR DIRECT FARM SUBSIDIES, FOOD SUBSIDIES, GENERAL SERVICES SUPPORT – IMPORT TARIFF RECEIPTS. OECD Observer in 2004 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Policy Brief, June, p. 2 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/8/32035391.pdf In public discussion, words such as support, subsidy, assistance, and aid to producers are often used interchangeably to describe the transfers provided to farmers or the agricultural sector as a whole, which result from government policies that raise farmers’ revenues or reduce their costs. The OECD uses the neutral term “support” to estimate the monetary value of transfers resulting from agricultural policies – whatever the intended objectives of those policies. The OECD produces several indicators of agricultural support. The most important and central one is the Producer Support Estimate (PSE), which shows the annual monetary transfers to farmers from policy measures that: • maintain domestic prices for farm goods at levels higher (and occasionally lower) than those at the country’s border (market price support); • provide payments to farmers, based on criteria such as the quantity of a commodity produced, the amount of inputs used, the number of animals kept, the area farmed, or the revenue or income received by farmers (budgetary payments). The key point is that contrary to popular opinion, support not only comprises budgetary payments that appear in government accounts, but also the price gap for farm goods between domestic and world markets, as measured at a country’s border. In fact, the latter constitutes the lion’s share of support in most countries. The OECD indicators of support are described in Box 1, while Box 2 briefly compares the OECD’s PSE with the World Trade Organization’s Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) used in multilateral trade negotiations. The focus of this Brief is the PSE. Box 1. Other OECD Indicators of Support Consumer Support Estimate (CSE) is the annual monetary transfers to consumers from policy measures that: – maintain domestic prices paid by first consumers (measured at the farm gate) at levels higher (and sometimes lower) than those on world markets at the country’s border, which is an implicit tax on consumers as it is the mirror image of market price support to farmers; and – provide subsidies to keep prices of commodities consumed by certain groups in the economy lower than would otherwise be the case, such as cheap food for poor people, public institutions and some processors. In general the CSE is negative because the implicit tax on consumers from market price support more than offsets consumer food subsidies. General Services Support Estimate (GSSE) is the annual monetary transfers to agriculture but not to individual producers that: – provide budgetary-financed expenditures for the provision of such services as research, development, training, inspection, marketing and promotion. Total Support Estimate (TSE) is the overall monetary cost of the transfers in a country from policy measures calculated by: – adding the PSE, the taxpayer cost of consumption subsidies and the provision of general services, and subtracting import tariff receipts. Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) is the ratio between producer and border prices. Nominal Assistance Coefficient (NAC) is the ratio between farm receipts (including support) and those generated in the market without support. Box 2. PSE and AMS The purpose of the PSE is to monitor and evaluate progress in agricultural policy reform, whereas the AMS is the basis for a legal commitment to reduce domestic support in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The PSE and AMS are closely related, but there are important differences. The PSE covers all transfers to farmers from agricultural policies, whereas the AMS covers only domestic policies deemed to have the greatest production and trade effects (amber box), and excludes trade policies that are covered under the WTO market access and export subsidy disciplines. The AMS also excludes production-limiting policies (blue box), those policies deemed non or least trade distorting (green box) and certain trade distorting policies (e.g. input subsidies) when the level of domestic support is smaller than a specified de minimis level. Market price support in the PSE is measured at the farm gate level using actual producer and reference (border) prices for commodities in a given year, whereas in the AMS market price support is calculated by the difference between annual prices fixed by policy makers (administered prices) and world prices in the base period (1986-88).

13

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Agricultural Support Defs

Hingstman page 14 of 53

Contextual Definitions of Agricultural Support 4/4 _____ WTO INTERPRETATION. Agricultural support involves market access, export subsidies, and domestic support Hart and Beghin in 2004 Chad E., research scientist with the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development & U.S. policy & insurance analyst, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University, and John, professor of economics, Iowa State University, Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization, http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/04bp43.pdf] The Uruguay Round negotiations established the “three pillars” of agricultural support: market access, export subsidies, and domestic support. The market access provisions required, among other things, tariffication; that is, all non-tariff trade barriers had to be replaced by tariffs and bounds were set upon those tariffs. The export subsidy provisions established maximum ceilings on the trade quantity and budgetary expenditures for export subsidies and implemented reductions in those ceilings over time. The domestic support provisions outlined various types of support, classified them by their apparent trade effects, and limited those programs deemed the most trade-distorting.

_____ WTO INTERPRETATION. All forms of agricultural support are substitutable for each other. Roberts 03 Ivan, Economist in the Prices, Wages and Labour Market section of. the Economic Analysis Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Three Pillars of Agricultural Support and Their Impact on WTO Reforms, www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/trade/trade_03/er03_wtoreform.pdf, p. 3 The division of agricultural support into three discrete groups of measures — market access, domestic support and export measures — in the present WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides a means of making negotiations more manageable. It also ensures that all forms of assistance are accounted for in at least one group. However, in reality, much agricultural support is provided through the interaction of market access, domestic support and export subsidy measures. Market access limitations and, in some conditions, export subsidies are widely used to underpin internal domestic support prices. Under such conditions measures affecting any one of these three discrete groups will affect the others — none of the three is independent of the others. In the final analysis, all support is domestic support in the sense that it is provided to assist a country’s farmers. As well as the three groups of measures being used in interdependent ways, they are substitutable for each other. For example, increased domestic support, such as through subsidies, can be readily used as a substitute for assistance to producers through internal market price support that previously depended on market access barriers and/or export subsidies. That is, market access barriers and/or export subsidies can be reduced but support to producers can be maintained at previous levels by substituting with additional domestic subsidies.

14

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – At Least Definitions

Hingstman page 15 of 53

Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “At Least” 1/2 ____ “At Least” means the smallest or lowest degree Corpus Juris in 1932 Volume 5, p. 1438. AT LEAST. An adverbial phrase meaning at the lowest estimate, at the smallest concession or claim, in the smallest or lowest degree; at the smallest number.

____ “At Least” means not less than. Words & Phrases in 2007 Volume 4B, page 35 Ky. 1954. There is no distinction between the phrases “at least” and “not less than,” when used in connection with publication of a notice of a thing to be done, each phrase meaning that the prescribed amount of publication is a mandatory minimum – City of Oliver Hill v. Howard, 273 S.W.2d 387—Time 15.

____ “At Least” does not mean “substantially equal.” Words & Phrases in 2007 Volume 4B, page 35 Ky. 1968. “At least” means a minimum of and must at least be equal, something substantially equal is not enough. Hall v. Dawson, 429 S.W.3d 366—Social S17.

____ “At Least” implies more than a minimum. Court interpretations confirm this. Corpus Juris in 1932 Volume 5, p. 1438 note 78 “While they [the words “at least”] express that the width of the passage shall not be less than a given measure in any event, they distinctly imply that it may be more.” Roberts v. Wilcock, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 464, 470. To same effect In re Hoffmann, 14 WklyNC (Pa.) 563, 565.

____ “At Least” applies the minimum standard to the whole. In this topic it would apply to “eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies” Court interpretations confirm this. Corpus Juris in 1932 Volume 5, p. 1438 note 79 “There is no ambiguity in the expression, ‘a fence at least five feet high;” it means that the fence should be of that height throughout; the words “at least” are emphatical and expressive of its minimum, and is applied to it as a whole and to every part.” Polk v. Lane, 4 Yerg. (Tenn) 36, 38.

15

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – At Least Definitions

Hingstman page 16 of 53

Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “At Least” 2/2 _____ “At Least” does not add certainty to “eliminating nearly all domestic subsidies.” It only indicates that “eliminating nearly all domestic subsidies” is a minimum standard for substantially reducing agricultural subsidies. Corpus Juris in 1932 Volume 5, p. 1438 note 80 “They [the words “at least”] import uncertainty; and it is obvious on which side the uncertainty lies. The words ‘fully, or not less than’ would have the same effect, as they would express that the grantee should have eight feet certain, and more if more should be indispensable, but eight at all events, whether indispensable or not. Roberts v. Wilcock, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 464, 470.

____”At Least” can be a term of emphasis rather than a minimum Dictionary.com Unabridged in 2008 “at least." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Aug. 2008. . 6. a. b.

at least, at the lowest estimate or figure: The repairs will cost at least $100. at any rate; in any case: You didn't get a good grade, but at least you passed the course.

____ Even as a term of emphasis, “at least” expresses a minimum Words & Phrases in 2007 Volume 4B, page 36 NJ.Super.L. 1951. The phrase "at least", as used in statute requiring that candidate's name shall be filed "at least" a specified number of days prior to election, is an adverbial phrase meaning at the lowest estimate, at the smallest concession or claim, in the smallest or lowest degree, at the smallest number, and is sometimes used in the sense of "clearly", and it is a phrase of emphasis, expressive of a minimum, and implies possibility of more. NJ.S.A. 40:75-3.-Barron v. Green, 80 A.2d 586,13 N.J.Super. 483.-Time 8.

16

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Eliminating Definitions

Hingstman page 17 of 53

Primary Definitions of “Eliminating” as “Removing” 1/1 ___ “Eliminating” means removing or getting rid of Dictionary.com Unabridged in 2008 "eliminating." (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Aug. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eliminating>. e·lim·i·nate –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, e-lim-i·nat·ing. 1. to remove or get rid of, esp. as being in some way undesirable: to eliminate risks; to eliminate hunger. 2. to omit, esp. as being unimportant or irrelevant; leave out: I have eliminated all statistical tables, which are of interest only to the specialist. 3. to remove from further consideration or competition, esp. by defeating in a contest. 4. to eradicate or kill: to eliminate the enemy. 5. Physiology. to void or expel from an organism. 6. Mathematics. to remove (a quantity) from an equation by elimination.

American Heritage Dictionary in 2004 "eliminating." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Aug. 2008. . e·lim·i·nate tr.v. e·lim·i·nat·ed, e·lim·i·nat·ing, e·lim·i·nates 1. To get rid of; remove: an effort to eliminate homelessness; eliminated his enemies. 2. a. To leave out or omit from consideration; reject. b. To remove from consideration by defeating, as in a contest. 3. Mathematics To remove (an unknown quantity) by combining equations. 4. Physiology To excrete (bodily wastes).

Oxford English Dictionary in 1989 2nd edition, accessed online database, August 1, 2008 Eliminating, ppl. a. That eliminates Eliminates, v 3. a. Phys. To expel from the body; esp. to get rid of (waste matter, foreign substances, etc.) from the tissues by excretion. To disengage, expel (a constituent) from a compound.

b. Chem.

4. gen. To expel, exclude, remove, get rid of. Used both with reference to material and non-material objects. b. fig. To ignore, treat as non-existent, set aside as irrelevant (certain elements of a question or concept).

17

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Eliminating Definitions

Hingstman page 18 of 53

Secondary Definitions of “Eliminating” as “Omitting” 1/1 ___ “Eliminating” means omitting as being unimportant or irrelevant, leaving out Dictionary.com Unabridged in 2008 "eliminating." (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Aug. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eliminating>. e·lim·i·nate –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, e-lim-i·nat·ing. 1. to remove or get rid of, esp. as being in some way undesirable: to eliminate risks; to eliminate hunger. 2. to omit, esp. as being unimportant or irrelevant; leave out: I have eliminated all statistical tables, which are of interest only to the specialist. 3. to remove from further consideration or competition, esp. by defeating in a contest. 4. to eradicate or kill: to eliminate the enemy. 5. Physiology. to void or expel from an organism. 6. Mathematics. to remove (a quantity) from an equation by elimination.

American Heritage Dictionary in 2004 "eliminating." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Aug. 2008. . e·lim·i·nate tr.v. e·lim·i·nat·ed, e·lim·i·nat·ing, e·lim·i·nates 1. To get rid of; remove: an effort to eliminate homelessness; eliminated his enemies. 2. a. To leave out or omit from consideration; reject. b. To remove from consideration by defeating, as in a contest. 3. Mathematics To remove (an unknown quantity) by combining equations. 4. Physiology To excrete (bodily wastes).

_____ “Eliminating” means ignoring, treating as non-existent, or setting aside as irrelevant, some parts of a question or concept. Oxford English Dictionary in 1989 2nd edition, accessed online database, August 1, 2008 Eliminating, ppl. a. That eliminates Eliminates, v 3. a. Phys. To expel from the body; esp. to get rid of (waste matter, foreign substances, etc.) from the tissues by excretion. To disengage, expel (a constituent) from a compound.

b. Chem.

4. gen. To expel, exclude, remove, get rid of. Used both with reference to material and non-material objects. b. fig. To ignore, treat as non-existent, set aside as irrelevant (certain elements of a question or concept).

18

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 19 of 53

Dictionary/Legal Interpretations of “Nearly” 1/1 _____ “Nearly” means almost or within a little Corpus Juris in 1932 Volume 45, p. 579 NEARLY. A term purely relative in its meaning [Cogswell v. Bull, 29 Cal. 320, 325] defined as almost, within a little [Webster D.]

_____ “Nearly” does not specify how much less than “all” subsidies must be eliminated. Court interpretations support that not even 51% is guaranteed. Words and Phrases in 2003 Volume 28, p. 153 Cal. 1870. In an action against the directors of a corporation, an averment in the complaint that the board is composed “nearly,” if not entirely, of the same persons who committed the wrong complained of, lacks sufficient precision to present an issuable fact, the court remarking that the term “nearly” is purely relative, and does not define with accuracy how many of the defendants are members of the present board of directors, and is not equivalent to an averment that the defendants compose even a majority of the present board. Cogswell v. Bull, 39 Cal. 320.

_____ “Nearly” is equivalent in meaning to “substantially” Words and Phrases in 2003 Volume 28, p. 154 Wash. 1968. Words “substantially,” “about,” “essentially” and “nearly” are employed to modify terms intended to be close approximations and, as such, their existence in writing does not make the writing too indefinite to evidence a contract.

____ “Nearly” means close approximation to or almost Oxford English Dictionary in 1989 2nd edition, accessed online database, August 1, 2008 Nearly adv. 6. a. With close approximation or near approach (to some state or condition, etc.). b. Almost, all but, virtually. c. In negative contexts with not: (not) anything like, (not) by a long way.

Dictionary.com Unabridged in 2008 "nearly." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 01 Aug., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nearly>. near·ly–adverb 1. all but; almost: nearly dead with cold. 2. with close approximation: a nearly perfect likeness. 3. with close agreement or resemblance: a plan nearly like our own. 4. with close kinship, interest, or connection; intimately: nearly associated in business; two women nearly related.

19

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 20 of 53

Dictionary/Legal Interpretations of “All” 1/1 _____ “All” means the totality of Corpus Juris Secundum in 1973 Volume 3A, p. 243 It has been said that the word “all” is a term of such uniform use and well understood meaning that it seems unnecessary to define it. It is a very comprehensive word, and perhaps the most comprehensive and all inclusive word to be found in the English language. There is a totality about it that few words possess.

_____ “All” is relative to particular classes of commodities covered by the plan. Corpus Juris Secundum in 1973 Volume 3A, p. 243 “All” does not necessarily mean absolutely all, but is frequently used to signify all of a particular class, being used in this respect as a word ejusdem generic; and it may be, and has been used in the sense of relatively or substantially all; and it is sometimes intended to include merely that remaining not otherwise disposed of or provided for.

_____ “All” should be defined reasonably in the context of the domestic subsidies Corpus Juris Secundum in 1973 Volume 3A, p. 243 As commonly used, and even when more or less technically used, as in legal documents, statutes, and the like, it has been said that the word [all] is a general rather than a universal term, and it is used in one sense or the other according to the demands of sound reason, and so applying generally this “rule of reason,” the generality of the word is frequently restricted by the context; and sometimes limited by the subject matter.

_____ “All” means every one, or the whole number of particulars Words and Phrases in 2007 Volume 3, p. 254 Ga. App. 1909. “All” means every one, or the whole number of particulars. Heitman v. Commercial Bank of Savannah, 65 S.E. 590, 6 Ga. App. 554.

_____ “All” means the entire number of individual parts without exception Oxford English Dictionary in 1989 2nd edition, accessed online database, August 1, 2008 All A. adj. 2. With n. pl. The entire number of; the individual components of, without exception. (All precedes the n. or defining adj.; rarely, in poetry, follows the n.). c. with a pers. or rel. pron.

20

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 21 of 53

Most Contextual Usage of “Nearly All Domestic Subsidies” – New Zealand example 1/2 _____ NEW ZEALAND REMOVED “NEARLY ALL” AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES STARTING IN 1984 Brooks in 2003 Carl, staff writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Region Focus, Winter http:// www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/region_focus/winter_2003/feature3_sidebar3.cfm, The Agriculture Bill's Bountiful Harvest: A Free Market for New Zealand Farmers In 1984, the New Zealand economy was sputtering, and the incoming Labour government was faced with a series of tough spending decisions, not the least of which involved farm policy. At the time, the average New Zealand sheep and beef farm received almost 40 percent of its gross income from government payments. The government removed nearly all the subsidies that year and offered farmers leaving the industry a one-time "exit grant" equal to about two-thirds of previous annual income.

World Bank in 2004 Agriculture Investment Sourcebook http://www-esd.worldbank.org/ais/index.cfm?Page=mdisp&m=1&p=0 Box 1.6 New Zealand: benefits of unsubsidized agriculture: an OECD example Protection and subsidies often constrain growth and competitiveness of the agricultural sector. During the mid 1980s, producer support in New Zealand accounted for about 40 percent of farmer income. The fiscal unsustainability of these subsidies, loss of preferential access to British markets, and spiraling inflation pressured the government to abandon most support payments. Deregulation was rapid (nearly all subsidies were removed in 1984) and substantial (almost 30 different subsidies and export incentives were removed and no industry continued to receive preferential treatment). Around one percent of New Zealand's farmers exited agriculture (with the help of a one-time exit grant valued at approximately one-third of annual income).

_____ NEW ZEALAND “NEARLY ALL” BY CATEGORY. One category of environmental s was left in place New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Information Services in 1996 New Zealand paper for the OECD Seminar on Environmental Benefits of A Sustainable Agriculture: Issues and Policies : Helsinki, 10-13 September 1996, www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/resourcemanagement/environmental-effects-of-removing-subsidies/agref003.htm In early 1984 the Government announced the ending of output price assistance for agricultural products. Subsequently, fertiliser and other input subsidies were abolished as were investment and land development concessions. In addition, tax concessions for farmers were withdrawn. Free government services for farmers were eliminated. Producer Boards had their access to concessionary Reserve Bank funding withdrawn: they now have no access to taxpayer funds. Starting in 1987, central government subsidies for soil conservation, flood control and drainage schemes were substantially eliminated, although some transfer payments generated at a local authority level continue to contribute to funding.

21

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 22 of 53

Most Contextual Usage of “Nearly All Domestic Subsidies” – New Zealand example 2/2 _____ NEW ZEALAND “REMOVES NEARLY ALL SUBSIDIES” QUANTITATIVELY. Only 4% of Production Subsidy Equivalents remained, down from 24% New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Information Services in 1996 New Zealand paper for the OECD Seminar on Environmental Benefits of A Sustainable Agriculture: Issues and Policies : Helsinki, 10-13 September 1996, www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/resourcemanagement/environmental-effects-of-removing-subsidies/agref003.htm Figure 1 shows assistance to New Zealand pastoral agriculture over the past fifteen years, in terms of Producer Subsidy Equivalents (PSEs). The figure shows the continuing decline from an average PSE of 24 per cent in 1979-86 to 4 per cent in 1995. The Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) shows even more clearly the decline in real assistance. The result is that New Zealand farmers are again fully exposed to world market forces. This is in marked contrast to most other developed countries. Figure 2 shows the low level of assistance to New Zealand agriculture compared to other OECD member countries.

22

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 23 of 53

Superstrict Contextual Usages of “Nearly All Subsidies” 1/1 _____ REMOVING “NEARLY ALL” SUBSIDIES MEANS ALL BUT ONE. The Jordan energy subsidy example proves this, and distinguishes removal of “all subsidies” The Economist Intelligence Unit in 2008 Jordan Economy: Subsidies Off, February 25, http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache: xlPNAkqIZP4J:www.zawya.com/countries/jo/macrowatch.cfm%3Feiusection%3DSUBSIDIES %2520OFF+%22nearly+all+subsidies%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari On February 7th the government removed nearly all subsidies on fuel products and announced the new prices that went into effect the following day. Petrol prices rose by 3-33%, kerosene and diesel prices rose by 76.1% to 555 fils (US$0.78) per litre, while the price of heavy oil for electric power stations jumped by a painful 110.9% to JD348 (US$491) per tonne. The government maintained a subsidy element for 4.5-kg gas cylinders, which are used for both cooking and domestic heating, increasing the price by 52.9% to JD6.5 until the end of the winter season on March 31st. The price will then be increased once again in line with international prices. Increases in bus and taxi fares were also announced with the increases averaging 23%. The price of fuel products will now be set on a monthly basis in line with developments in international market prices. The government will also remove all fodder subsidies starting from April 1st, but it has established a JD20m (US$28.2m) fund to support small scale livestock farmers.

_____ “NEARLY ALL” MEANS WITH 1 OR 2 EXCEPTIONS. This is ordinary scholarly usage. Rodgers and Cooper in 2006 Brian, trainer and supervisor of Masters Program and Mick, Professor of Counselling, Strathclyde University www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/counsunit/docs/art_QTA.doc Drawing on the work of psychotherapy researchers Robert Elliott, Clara Hill and colleagues, the following scheme has been proposed for the write up of qualitative thematic analysis when describing the ‘weighting’ of codes or categories (i.e. the number of interviews that the code/category appeared in). The intention is to use ‘plain English’ terms to describe the frequency of occurrence. For example the term ‘around half’ is used to describe 50% plus or minus one interview, and ‘nearly all’ is used to describe 100% minus one or two interviews.

23

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 24 of 53

Strict Contextual Usage of Nearly All 1/1 ____ “NEARLY ALL” REASONABLY MEANS 95% OF DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES. Government document usages support this interpretation. US Offices of Human Resources Management in 2004 Manual of Job Related Thinking Skills, p. 58, http:// www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/careers/study_guides/guides_supervisory/promotion_guide/manual.ctt/manual.pdf The first premise is the same for both the deductive and inductive columns. It is a statement that relates the two sets of “first-line supervisors in the agency” and “people who have taken the basic supervisory course.” It states that 95% of first-line supervisors in the agency have taken the course. You can see that this statement is not quite a universal statement, but it has more information than a statement using the vague quantifier “some.” We have drawn two deductive conclusions from this premise. In saying that “Nearly all first-line supervisors in the agency have taken the basic supervisory course,” we are simply replacing the quantity “95%” with the expression “nearly all.” Assuming that 95% meets our definition of “nearly all,” we are essentially restating the same information as the original premise. The second conclusion, “Some people who have taken the basic course in supervisory skills are first-line supervisors in the agency,” is a valid conclusion from the statement “Of all first-line supervisors in the agency, 95% have taken the basic supervisory course.” (See Section II.A.5.) Clearly, these conclusions are deductive; that is, they must be true if the premise is true.

_____ “NEARLY ALL” REASONABLY MEANS 83% OF DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES. IMF voting procedure usage supports the interpretation. Greater than “many” or “most”; 20 out of 24. Chelsky in 2008 Jeff, Senior Economist in the European Department of the IMFSummarizing the Views of the IMF Executive Board, March, http://www.ieo-imf.org/eval/complete/pdf/05212008/CG_background6.pdf, p. 13 Twenty-five years ago, after executive directors pressed for greater clarity on the methods used to summarize their views, the Secretary clarified the specific definitions of individual code words in a 1983 statement to the Board.24 Despite this, the meaning of the code words remains clouded by a number of factors, providing scope for discretion in characterizing the degree of support for a particular position. First, as confirmed during several Board discussions, these words are intended to reflect both the number and voting share of directors supporting a particular view, although there was little if any guidance on which factor should dominate. Second, the meaning of code words could change depending on the required majority for a particular decision, implying that the same code word could have different meanings within a single SU25. Third, not all speakers take unequivocal or unconditional positions, and indications of flexibility (or reference to a diversity of views within a single constituency), could conceivably place a speaker in more than one group. Fourth, the list of code words is not exhaustive. For example, reference to “several” directors frequently appears in SUs but has not been defined. Finally, there is some overlap between the definitions with “a number” and “some” both referring to support by six directors. 24“A few” = 2 to 4 directors; “some” = 5 to 6 directors; “a number” = 6 to 9 directors; “many” = 10 to 15 directors; “most” = 15 or more directors, “nearly all” = about 20 directors, and “the view is held that” = the view of the United States. ( See “The Definition of Code Words: Statement by the Secretary,” Executive Board Meeting 83/11, extract from EBM 83/11, January 12, 1983 on the Eighth General Review of Quotas–Draft Report to the Interim Committee. When the definitions were assigned, there were 22 directors on the Board. The size of the Board has since increased to 24 directors.) 25 For example, according to the Secretary’s 1983 statement, “while “many” may perhaps be appropriate to describe the sense of the meeting on a matter requiring only a simple majority of views expressed, it would not suffice for an issue requiring a majority of 85 percent of the voting power of the Fund”.

24

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 25 of 53

Broader Contextual Usage of Nearly All 1/1 _____ “NEARLY ALL” AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES IS 70%. 2002 Farm Bill contextual usages support this interpretation. Riedl in 2005 Brian, fellow in federal budgetary affairs, Heritage Foundation, October 27, http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm899a.cfm?renderforprint=1 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) increased farm subsidy payments by 80 percent. Turning their backs on the 1996 “Freedom to Farm” reforms designed to bring the free market to agriculture, lawmakers expanded existing farm subsidy programs and created new ones. The distribution of these subsidies is woefully unequal: Nearly all subsidies go to growers of just six crops—wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, rice, and peanuts. The remaining 73 percent of farmers specializing in livestock, fruits, vegetables, and other crops are locked out of most subsidies. Among the farmers who receive subsidies because they grow the “right” crops, nearly 70 percent of farm subsidies are distributed to just 10 percent of the subsidy recipients. Subsidizing large agribusinesses that grow certain crops while excluding many family farmers who grow other crops has earned farm subsidies the title “America’s largest corporate welfare program.”[1]

25

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Nearly All Definitions

Hingstman page 26 of 53

Minimum Threshold to Meet “Nearly All” Standard 1/1 _____ LESS THAN 60% DOES NOT REASONABLY MEAN “NEARLY ALL.” Government education law supports this interpretation. Associated Press in 1998 State & Local Wire, October 12, L/N Proposition 227, which passed with 61 percent of the vote in June, sought to scrap bilingual education by dictating that limitedEnglish speakers be put in a one-year immersion program taught "nearly all" in English. Parents were allowed to ask that their children be put back in bilingual education after 30 days if they were over 10, already spoke English or had "special needs." The law took effect Aug. 2, but some schools have kept bilingual education alive by interpreting the phrase "nearly all" to mean anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of instruction can be in a second language.

Ritter in 1998 John, USA Today staff writer, July 31, p. 3A, L/N The 227 mandate to teach "overwhelmingly" or "nearly all" in English is being interpreted differently from district to district. Habermehl believes 80% English, 20% native language puts a program in compliance. Fresno will allow up to a third of instruction to be in a native language. Draft regulations don't dictate the percentage. But Ron Unz, the Palo Alto millionaire who sponsored 227, says "nearly all" means 95% to 98%. "Fifty-one percent in English is not a reasonable interpretation of 'nearly all,' " he says. "There may end up being lawsuits."

_____ 60% IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE “NEARLY ALL.” Contextual usages of “not nearly all” support this interpretation Media Matters for America in 2008 Progressive research and information service, http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070013 Allen wrote, "Then there's Clinton's nearly all-female staff, chosen for loyalty rather than, say, brains or political savvy." In fact, Clinton's staff is not "nearly all-female." According to an October 24, 2007, comparison of presidential campaign staffs on The Huffington Post, the Clinton campaign was described as "balanced, but favor[ing] women." The website reported that of the "Top 20 paid staff" in Clinton's campaign, 12 were women, and of the 14 "senior staff," eight were women.

____ 66% IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE “NEARLY ALL.” Contextual usages of “not nearly all” support this interpretation, as well as defining “most” in opposition to “nearly all” Peripatetic in 2008 Long time contributor to English wikipedia, interested in literature, history, politics, Bangladesh and Bengali culture, June 29 Ah okay I looked it up and yes, most countries with Muslim majorities do not recognize Israel as an independent state. However, "most" is not nearly "all". Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Azerbaijan, BosniaHerzegovina, Albania, Egypt, Jordan, Eritrea, Qatar, and Senegal are all Muslim-majority (or near-majority) countries that recognize Israel's sovereignty. With 15 out of 44 (?) Muslim countries recognizing Israel, I think this is significant and it shouldn't be overlooked by the sweeping statement in the article. Here's the reference [1] - [15 out of 44 is 34%].

26

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – “The” Interpretationspage 27 of 53

Hingstman

Definitions for “The” 1/1 1. “The” is used to modify generic nouns Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary a -- Used as a function word before a singular noun to indicate that the noun is to be understood generically b -- used as a function word before a singular substantive adjective to indicate an abstract idea .

2. “The” is used to denote specific persons or things Ammer in 2000, Christine, renowned linguist & author of 20 popular reference bks, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th ed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things

3. “The” is used as a present participle Ammer in 2000, Christine, renowned linguist & author of 20 popular reference bks, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th ed. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the Used before a present participle, signifying the action in the abstract

4. “The” is used to indicate as a function Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 a -- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance b -- used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class c-- used as a function word before a noun denoting time to indicate reference to what is present or immediate or is under consideration.

5. “The” is used before a comparative Heinle’s Newbury House Dictionary, 2003, Monroe Publishing House, http://nhd.heinle.com/Definition.aspx?word=the 1. Because of that. Used before a comparative 2. To that extent; by that much 3. Beyond any other

27

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 28 of 53

Non-Export [Broad] Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 1/2 _____ ANY NON-EXPORT-RELATED GOVERNMENT BENEFITS CONFERRED ON A PRODUCT OR ENTERPRISE. . SICE Dictionary of Trade Terms in 2007 http://www.sice.oas.org/dictionary/SACD_e.asp Domestic Subsidy. Any act, practice, or measure other than an export subsidy by which a government confers a benefit upon a product and/or enterprise. See “subsidy”, page 42. Subsidy. An export subsidy is a benefit conferred on a firm by the government that is contingent on exports. A domestic subsidy is a benefit not directly linked to exports.

____ DIRECT, CONSERVATION AND DISASTER PAYMENTS ARE DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES. Presbyterian Church of the USA, 2005 http://www.pcusa.org/trade/downloads/subsidies.pdf, August 15, Farm Subsidies: Support for Farmers or Catalysts of Poverty, Different Types of Subsidies: There are two main categories of subsidies given to farmers: export subsidies and domestic subsidies. 1. Export Subsidies: Export subsidies are payments given by the government to farmers so that they will sell their product abroad. Export credits ensure that those who want to export their goods will have the credit necessary to do so. Problems with export subsidies and credits: Export subsidies and credits make it easy and profitable for farmers to sell their goods abroad. But, farmers in other countries often do not have the same support from their government, which means that export subsidies and credits in the U.S. can lead to agricultural “dumping.” Dumping is when a business from one country sells agricultural goods to another country at a price that is lower than what it actually cost to produce the product. Dumping makes it difficult for farmers in the Global South to compete, even in their local markets, which perpetuates poverty for many small farmers in the Global South. 2. Domestic Subsidies: Another form of farm support is domestic subsidies. These subsidies are given by the government to encourage a producer to grow more of a certain crop, assist farmers who are not making a profit, promote environmental protection, and respond to the needs of farmers when natural disasters occur. Different types of domestic subsidies include: Farm Payments: These are usually cash payments or special loans made directly to participating producers. These payments are generally given only to the producers of certain commodities including corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, upland cotton, and oilseeds. Farm payments given to support the production of certain commodities totaled over $11 billion in 2003 (www.ewg.org). Conservation Payments: There are also agricultural subsidy payments made to farmers for environmental and conservation purposes. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP) are two primary programs in this category. The CSP provides money to farmers who engage in sustainable agricultural practices. Since agriculture is one of the most heavily polluting sectors of the economy, this program is aimed at protecting environmental resources. In 2003, the U.S. spent just over $2 billion on conservation payments to farmers (www.ewg.org). Disaster Payments: Disaster payments are made to crop producers when either planting is prevented or crop yields are abnormally low because of problematic weather conditions. Funding for disaster payments totaled $2 billion in 2003 (www.ewg.org).

28

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 29 of 53

Non-Export Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 2/2 _____ WTO DEFINITION. SUBSIDY NOT CONTINGENT ON EXPORT PERFORMANCE. American Consumers for Affordable Homes in 2008 http://www.acah.org/Subsidy.htm, What is a Subsidy? Ø Under the Subsidies Agreement of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) (to which the U.S. is a party), a subsidy is a financial contribution from a government or a public body which confers a benefit upon a targeted group or company. Ø Where a government provides goods or services, a benefit is conferred if the authority does not receive adequate remuneration for the provision of such goods or services. Factors considered in determining what is fair remuneration include price, quality, availability, marketability, and transportation. Ø “Domestic” subsidies (those not contingent on export performance) are only illegal if they are “specific” to a particular industry or group of industries. Ø Where an illegal subsidy is found to cause injury, the injured country may apply a countervailing duty (“CVD”) to offset the subsidy.

Enviro-Tech Financial Export Glossary in 2002 http://www.etfinancial.com/export_glossary.htm Subsidy. GATT does not directly define subsidies. The U.S. regards a subsidy as a bounty or grant paid for the manufacture, production, or export of an article. Export subsidies are contingent on exports; domestic subsidies are conferred on production without reference to exports. While governments sometimes make outright payments to firms; subsidies usually take a less direct form (R&D support, tax breaks, loans on preferential terms, and provision of raw materials at below-market prices).

29

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 30 of 53

Non-Export Definition of Domestic Subsidies Better for Debate 1/1 _____ CONTEXTUALLY MORE ACCURATE. Specificity definitions only apply to countervailable domestic subsidies in US tariff law. “Domestic subsidies” in this topic are not specified to punish other governments but to recognize US government action. Chief Judge Nies in 1991 Majority Opinion, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, PPG Industries v. US, 928 F.2d 1568, http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/928/928.F2d.1568.88-1175.html As interpreted by the ITA, the broad term "domestic subsidy" is limited by the language of section 1677(5)(B) in that such subsidy is countervailable only if provided by the foreign government to a "specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries." In the ITA's view, this limitation in the statute would be made superfluous by an interpretation that every domestic subsidy on imported goods which confers a competitive advantage vis-a-vis U.S. competitors is a countervailable "bounty or grant."

_____ TRADE DISTORTING SUBSIDIES ARE ONLY A SUBSET OF DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES. WTO interpretations prove that. Zaidi in 2005 Hussain H., freelance contributor, June 27, Dawn (Pakistan) http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/27/ebr8.htm As for domestic support or subsidies, it is agreed that they should not adversely affect export competition or market access. Domestic subsidies are further classified into subsidies, which distort trade and those, which do not. The subsidies, which have the effect of distorting trade have to be reduced, while subsidies which do not have such effect are declared exempt from reduction. The latter type of subsidies is also called Green-box subsidies. The fundamental condition for subsidies to qualify for the Green-box is that they have little trade distorting or production or price related effect. Such subsidies include public service programmes - food security, research and training, advisory, inspection, infrastructure and marketing services-as well as certain types of direct payments subject to the condition that they do not affect the type or volume of production. These include income support and insurance measures, and payments made under environmental, regional assistance and natural disaster relief programmes.

30

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 31 of 53

Specific Categories of Domestic Subsidies Definitions 1/1 _____ GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL AID, TAX EXEMPTIONS OR REBATES, PREFERENTIAL CREDIT, AND PREFERENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING Grimwade in 1996 Nigel, Principal Lecturer in Economics and Head of the Economics Division at South Bank University Business School, International Trade Policy: A Contemporary Analysis, p. 129 Domestic subsidies are in some respects a more complex issue since their purpose is often not a distortion of trade. In addition to financial aid granted to a particular producer or industry, they include total or partial tax exemption, remission of tax, provision of credit on special terms, and preferential treatment in the provision of public infrastructure. Although the primary intention may not be to restrict trade, either exports or imports may be indirectly affected. If the producer or industry which is subsidized exports part of its output, the subsidy will enable it to export at a lower price than would otherwise be possible. Foreign producers may therefore regard such a subsidy as a form of “unfair” competition. Alternatively, if the producer or industry being subsidized sells all of its output domestically but is competing with imports from abroad, the subsidy may enable it to undercut foreign exporters. In this case, the effect is similar to a tariff in discriminating against foreign-produced goods. The GATT Treaty contained no provisions to control domestic subsidies. However, in recent decades, countries have become increasingly concerned about the trade-distorting effects of these measures. The concern was greatest in countries which adopted more laissez-faire policies. They argued that their producers were at an increasing disadvantage when competing with imports coming from countries where governments adopted more interventionist measures. There was a sense in which, as tariffs were gradually lowered, the impact of such measures on trade was more strongly felt. It may also have been the case that growing government intervention in industry in the 1960s and 1970s meant that subsidies played a more trade-distorting role than in earlier years. More recently, however, mounting deficits have caused governments to reduce the overall level of subsidies to industry, although more careful targeting of subsidies has been an accompanying factor (Ford and Suyker, 1989).

31

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 32 of 53

Trade Distortion Definitions of Domestic Subsidies Better for Debate 1/1 ____ NON-EXPORT DEFINITIONS BAD FOR POLICY COMPARISON. They may overstate economic effects. Trade distortion (narrower) definitions are better. Lehmann in 1987 Christoph, Fulbright scholar at University of Texas School of Law. 22 Texas International Law Journal, pp. 55-56 When is a benefit a "domestic subsidy" and, therefore, subject to countervailing duties? The term may be defined to include benefits to an enterprise or industry granted irrespective of export destination.6 This definition, however, does not address the nature of "subsidies" per se and merely characterizes a "domestic subsidy" as "any subsidy other than [an] export subsidy.'" Beyond this very general definition, it is difficult to find any agreement on the meaning of the term. Certain practices of government support undoubtedly constitute subsidies. These include direct financial infusions, government loans on favorable terms, or loan guarantees. Consider, however, the question of the countervailability of a tax exemption. The payment of taxes is the logical inverse of receiving direct financial aid. A tax exemption, therefore, produces the same economic effect as a direct grant.8 By the same token, measures designed to improve the infrastructure of a particular region or the country as a whole, such as the construction of new highways, harbors or airports, may benefit the industries using them and thus implicate international competition. This paper surveys United States countervailing duty law and the factors distinguishing countervailable aid from noncountervailable aid. This exercise reveals that the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Court of International Trade (CIT) define the term "subsidy" differently. Under the rather uncertain legal regime that has developed, practices are often countervailed when they in fact produce no adverse effect on international trade. The paper argues that the basis of the definition of the term "subsidy" should be a trade-distortion test.

32

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 33 of 53

Trade Distortion Definitions of Domestic Subsidy 1/1 _____U.S. TARIFF ACT CVD INTERPRETATION. Subsidies are targeted to specific enterprises or industries and give them a noncompetitive advantage in the market. Includes preferential capital, loans, loan guarantees, goods, services, funds or forgiven debts, and assumption of production or distribution costs. Trebilcock and Howse in 1999 Michael J., University Professor and Robert, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, The Regulations of International Trade, pp. 207-208 Domestic Subsidies: the Specificity Test International rules are more lenient with respect to subsidies not targeted specifically at exports. The hostility to pure export subsidies probably reflects the view that most legitimate domestic policy rationales for subsidies would not differentiate between production intended for domestic consumption and production intended for export. In addition, export subsidies raise concerns over the prospect of mutually destructive international export subsidy wars. However, in the countervailing duty provisions of the Tokyo and Uruguay Subsidies Codes there is no differentiation between domestic or export subsidies. In the USA, practices that cannot be characterized as export subsidies are countervailable if they fall within the definition of domestic subsidies in §1677(5) of the Tariff Act. Countervailable domestic subsidies are defined as subsidies targeted to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries. In addition, the subsidies must provide some opportunity or advantage to the targeted producers that would not otherwise be available to them in the marketplace. The wording of this definition has given rise to the Specificity Test for the assessment of the countervailability of domestic subsidies. This test has developed over time into one that investigates not only de jure but also de facto specificity. Under this test, where either the purpose or the effect of a government programme is to benefit a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, the DC will find that a countervailable benefit has been conferred. Included in this definition are forms of assistance such as capital, loans or loan guarantees on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations, goods or services at preferential rates, funds or forgiven debts to cover operating losses, and the assumption of costs or expenses of manufacture, production or distribution.

33

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 34 of 53

Definitions of Export Subsidies 1/1 ____ WTO INTERPRETATION. Direct subsidies conditioned on export activity; export bonuses; and transportation charges favoring exporters. Trebilcock and Howse in 1999 Michael J is University Professor and Robert is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto., The Regulations of International Trade, pp. 206-207 Export subsidies As reflected in Track I of the Tokyo Round Code and the definition of prohibited subsidies in the Uruguay Round Agreement, export subsidies are considered the most objectionable form of government assistance. An export aubsidy can be defined as government programmes or practices that increase the profitability of export sales without similarly increasing the profitability of domestic sales. The US legislation has no explicit definition of this concept, and instead refers in §1677(5)(A) to the illustrative list of export subsidies found in the Tokyo Round Subsidies Code (largely reproduced in Annex I to the Uruguay Round Agreement), Some examples of the enumerated practices are • the provision by governments of direct subsidies to a firm or an industry contingent upon export performance; • currency retention schemes or any similar practices that involve a bonus on exports, and • internal transport and freight charges on export shipments provided or mandated by governments, on terms more favourable than for domestic shipments. The DC has the authority to find that practices not on the list are exports subsidies. Even with the benefit of the list, it is often difficult to identify export subsidies. Because export subsidies will generally result in assessment of larger duties than would be applicable to domestic subsidies, the determination of whether a subsidy is an export or a domestic subsidy is important.

34

ADI 08 Topicality NEG – Domestic Subsidy Interpretations

Hingstman page 35 of 53

Clear Definition of “Domestic Subsidy” Key to Policy Analysis 1/1 ____ INTERNATIONAL TRADE IMPACTS REQUIRE CLEAR DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC SUBSIDY. WTO Negotiating Group on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties in 1988 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/history/urscm/10.pdf, November 22 meeting notes The representative of Brazil introduced his delegation's proposal on issues to be taken up in the negotiations. He said that this proposal aimed at achieving such objectives as better protection of exporters against ill-founded complaints and investigations, elimination of existing ambiguities in the Subsidies Code, limitations on abusive imposition of countervailing measures and strengthening of special and differential treatment of developing countries. It dealt in particular with such issues as industry affected, like product, sufficient evidence, threat of injury, cumulation, review of countervailing measures. According to this proposal the negotiations on subsidy disciplines should be restricted to those subsidies which were directed to increase exports and therefore a clear definition of "domestic subsidy" was indispensable. The use of subsidies should not be condemned but they should be used in such a way as to avoid their adverse effects on other countries.

35

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 36 of 53

Definitions of Subsidy 1/2 _____ WTO SCM AGREEMENT -- FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION BY A GOVERNMENT WHICH CONFERS A BENEFIT World Trade Organization in 2008 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/subs_e.htm#Subsidies, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Overview Definition of subsidy Unlike the Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, the WTO SCM Agreement contains a definition of the term “subsidy”. The definition contains three basic elements: (i) a financial contribution (ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (iii) which confers a benefit. All three of these elements must be satisfied in order for a subsidy to exist. The concept of “financial contribution” was included in the SCM Agreement only after a protracted negotiation. Some Members argued that there could be no subsidy unless there was a charge on the public account. Other Members considered that forms of government intervention that did not involve an expense to the government nevertheless distorted competition and should thus be considered to be subsidies. The SCM Agreement basically adopted the former approach. The Agreement requires a financial contribution and contains a list of the types of measures that represent a financial contribution, e.g., grants, loans, equity infusions, loan guarantees, fiscal incentives, the provision of goods or services, the purchase of goods. In order for a financial contribution to be a subsidy, it must be made by or at the direction of a government or any public body within the territory of a Member. Thus, the SCM Agreement applies not only to measures of national governments, but also to measures of sub-national governments and of such public bodies as state-owned companies. A financial contribution by a government is not a subsidy unless it confers a “benefit.” In many cases, as in the case of a cash grant, the existence of a benefit and its valuation will be clear. In some cases, however, the issue of benefit will be more complex. For example, when does a loan, an equity infusion or the purchase by a government of a good confer a benefit? Although the SCM Agreement does not provide complete guidance on these issues, the Appellate Body has ruled (Canada – Aircraft) that the existence of a benefit is to be determined by comparison with the market-place (i.e., on the basis of what the recipient could have received in the market). In the context of countervailing duties, Article 14 of the SCM Agreement provides some guidance with respect to determining whether certain types of measures confer a benefit. the context of multilateral disciplines, however, the issue of the meaning of “benefit” is not fully resolved.

___ GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS NOT EXCHANGED FOR GOODS OR SERVICES. Rose in 2002 Morgan, Ph.D. candidate in economics at Washington University in St. Louis, with research interests in industrial organization, corporate governance and economic history January 7,, http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Teachers/subsidies.html Subsidies are payments from a government for which it receives no goods or services in return. They are usually provided under the auspices of support for a specific group of people or industry that is seen to be in need of assistance. A subsidy usually consists of a fixed payment to a firm for every unit it sells. While in the past, American farm subsidies have coincided with price supports (federal guarantees of minimum prices for farmers' crops) and supply controls (payments for acreage that farmers kept out of productive use), since 1996 farm subsidies mainly have taken the form of fixed payments.

36

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 37 of 53

Definitions of Subsidy 2/2 ____ FARM SUBSIDIES ARE PRICE SUPPORTS, INCOME SUPPORTS OR DIRECT PAYMENTS. The benefits are divided between consumers, farmers, and landlords. A Dictionary of Economics in 2002 “Farm Subsidies,” John Black, ed. Oxford Reference Online. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t19.e1162 farm subsidies Subsidies to farmers. These may take the form of price support payments, to increase farm incomes per unit of output, or direct payments to farmers, for example as compensation for taking land out of cultivation. Such subsidies are designed to increase farm incomes, and slow down the tendency in modern economies for farmers to leave the land. Whether such subsidies are called food or farm subsidies, the benefits are divided between consumers, farmers and landlords.

37

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 38 of 53

Overly Narrow Definitions of Subsidies Bad for Debate 1/1 ____ EXCLUDING TARIFFS AND TAX CONCESSIONS BAD FOR DEBATE. They affect PICs, solvency and political disad ground on the negative and trade advantage ground on the affirmative. World Trade Organization in 2006 World Trade Report 2006, http://www.wto.org-english-res_e-booksp_e-anrep_e-world_trade_report06_e.pdf, p. 47 Although the term “subsidy” is widely used in economics, it is rarely defined. Often it is used as an antonym to a tax, i.e. a government transfer of money to an entity in the private sector. this seems, for instance, to be the case in the oxford online dictionary2 where a subsidy is defined as: “a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low”.3 But many would argue that tax concessions are also a form of subsidization. Indeed, for the relevant recipients it may not make much difference whether they are made better off by receiving money or through the reduction of their tax bill. Both forms of “assistance” also represent financial transfers by the government. Border protection, e.g. tariffs, on the other hand does not result in any such financial transfer from the government, and instead results in fiscal revenue. Yet it could be argued that the imposition of a tariff represents a form of subsidization for the import-competing sectors that are thereby protected from foreign competition. To define subsidies in terms of government transfers or fiscal expenditure is thus not necessarily complete.

____ EXCLUDING SUBSIDIES THAT INDIRECTLY BENEFIT FARMERS BAD FOR DEBATE. They affect circumvention arguments and economic/political disad ground on the negative and critical ground on the affirmative. World Trade Organization in 2006 World Trade Report 2006, http://www.wto.org-english-res_e-booksp_e-anrep_e-world_trade_report06_e.pdf, p. 4748 An alternative approach is to consider that a “subsidy” arises any time a government programme benefits private actors. The main difficulty with this approach is that recipients of, for instance, a cash transfer or a tax concession, are not necessarily the ultimate beneficiaries of the policy. for example, housing allowances, such as the German “eigenheimzulage,” consist in transfers or tax concessions to consumers who build a house. In their ultimate effect, however, they are not unlike direct payments to construction companies. Similarly, the main beneficiaries of subsidized intermediate goods may not be the recipients of the subsidies, but rather downstream firms utilizing these products as inputs in their own production. Such indirect effects may or may not be intended by the government. The more specifically designed a programme, the more likely it is that the intended beneficiary (objective) and the actual beneficiary (effect) coincide. But it is not necessarily easy to design well targeted programs. The literature provides numerous examples of subsidy programmes that have unintended side effects. Adams (2000), for instance, examines the possibility that owing to improper targeting of inferior goods in the case of food subsidies to assist the poor, part may be leaked to high-income people, where they free up funds for other uses. Devarajan and Swaroop (1998) illustrate how official development assistance (oda), even though targeted at a specific project, may indirectly finance other activities in cases where the government would have implemented the relevant project anyway and oda has the effect of releasing government resources that can be spent elsewhere.

38

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 39 of 53

Overly Broad Definitions of “Subsidies” Bad for Debate 1/1 _____ “ANY GOVERNMENT SPENDING” INTERPRETATION OVERLIMITS CASE INNOVATION. Too much PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan) and disad ground on the negative Trebilcock and Howse in 1999 Michael J is University Professor and Robert is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto., The Regulations of International Trade, p. 206 Subsidies According to the Tariff Act, a countervailing duty will be imposed on imported goods when it is found that the country is directly or indirectly subsidizing the manufacture, production, or exportation of goods imported into the USA. The application of this provision depends on the meaning given to the word “subsidy.” Defined broadly, the term could include everything from the provision of basic infrastructure to government-financed education and regional development programmes. Such a definition would effectively undermine liberal trade since virtually every product would benefit from these kinds of government assistance and hence could be subject to a countervailing duty. The US legislation begins its definition in §1677(5) by making clear that the term “subsidy” has the same meaning as the phrase “bounty or grant” and includes but is not limited to export subsidies and domestic subsidies.

39

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 40 of 53

Incentives are not Subsidies 1/1 ____ INCENTIVES ARE CONDITIONAL; SUBSIDIES ARE NOT. The test is whether the activity will continue at the same level after payments are discontinued. United Nations Environment Programme in 2006 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, August, www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/ cop-08/official/cop-08-27-add1-en.doc Positive incentives for biodiversity can be distinguished from subsidies in that a subsidy requires a financial contribution to the beneficiary; whereas a positive incentive may not necessarily take the form of a financial contribution to the beneficiary. A subsidy may also convey an economic rent to the recipient; whereas a positive incentive is just sufficient to correct for a market failure. A positive incentive can also be distinguished from an “environmental cross-compliance” measure, since the positive incentive is being used solely for correctly for market failure — it does not form part of a payment for unrelated goods or services.

International Fund for Agricultural Development in 2007 http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/prj/region/pf/lesotho/s013leae.htm Lesotho: Soil and Water Conservation and Agroforestry Programme, February 20 In the context of conservation activities incentives should be distinguished from subsidies. Incentives are measures to motivate or stimulate an individual to act in a certain way/adopt a certain practice. A subsidy is a payment (in cash or kind) provided to reduce the cost/raise the returns of an activity. Subsidies are often used, as in the case of SWaCAP, to reduce the cost of a number of conservation activities for the farmers. When subsidies were discontinued practices too were discontinued. Incentives on the other hand relate to the direct benefit resulting from practicing a specific activity (increment in production in the case of conservation). If this benefit is sustainable so will be the practice. Subsidies can be construed as incentives if production increases from conservation are delayed for some time, due to the nature of the activity, and farmers have no means to bear the loss incurred over this period. In such a case, the subsidy should be categorically related to losses incurred and phased out over time in proportion to production increase/decrease in losses.

____ INCENTIVES ARE DISTINCT IN PURPOSE. Incentives spur innovation, while subsidies level competitive playing fields. Nathanson in 2006 Scott, national field organizer for environmental activist group at the Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.hybridcenter.org/best-of-the-blog/best-blog-consumer-hybrid-incentive.html, May 22 The rub on both of these issues is the fact that those automakers complaining about unfair treatment are treating advanced technology incentives as if they were automaker subsidies—they are not. Subsidies are usually put in place to help level a particular playing field. The point of incentives is not to level the playing field, but to move the entire playing field as far forward as possible. To penalize consumers looking to do their part to reduce oil use and global warming pollution by denying them tax credits on the best available technologies, or to penalize states that use their discretion to set higher limits on their HOV waiver to promote higher fuel economy while managing the total number of applicants to reasonable levels undercuts the whole point of both of these programs.

40

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 41 of 53

Specific Incentives that are not Subsidies 1/1 ____WTO EXCLUDES EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, POLITICAL STABILITY, PRODUCT STANDARDS, SERVICE AND CUSTOMS IMPROVEMENTS. Haywood and Ouya in 2001 Robert C. Director, World Economic Processing Zones Association & Maria, Director, Legal Services Division, EPZA Kenya, Sept 25, http://www.wepza.org/article6.html, ECONOMIC PROCESSING ZONE INCENTIVES AND THE WTO AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES The WTO is a rule-based trading system. Countries have to pay careful attention to what the rules say, and what they don't say. Most printed pages have about 95% white space and 5% ink. With the WTO Agreements, countries need to learn to operate in the white space. Countries need to look at their development programs and create subsidies that meet policy objectives that are non-specific. That is, perhaps, the easiest course of action. Secondly, countries need to create and promote incentives that are not subsidies. There are a lot of these - education, infrastructure, political stability, standards labs, efficiency of service, and clean customs are but a few examples. All those are incentives that are not subsidies.

_____ USDA POLLUTION CONTROL INCENTIVES ARE NOT SUBSIDIES. Ribaudo et al in 1999 Marc O. Ribaudo, Richard D. Horan, and Mark E. Smith. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 782. November, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer782/aer782fm.pdf Economic incentive-based instruments include performance incentives (taxes on runoff or ambient water quality), design incentives (taxes or subsidies on inputs and technology), and market-based approaches such as point/nonpoint trading (allowing different sources to trade abatement allowances). Ideally, incentives are directed at an aspect of the pollution process (the instrument base) that is closest to the water quality problem, such as ambient water quality or runoff into a stream (e.g., a runoff tax or subsidy). However, because nonpoint-source discharges cannot be observed, runoff-based instruments are currently infeasible. In this report, we show that the most practical incentivebased instruments are design incentives (including expected runoff incentives that use runoff models), and market-based approaches (also based on design elements). Incentive policies have generally not been applied to agricultural nonpoint-source pollution. Cost-shares and other financial incentives offered by USDA are not subsidies in the traditional sense, in that they are only offered over the short term.

41

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 42 of 53

Specific Incentives that are Domestic Subsidies 1/1 _____ WTO CONSIDERS AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS TO BE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES. Trade-distorting effects don’t distinguish subsidies. Zaidi in 2005 Hussain H., freelance contributor, June 27, Dawn (Pakistan) http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/27/ebr8.htm As for domestic support or subsidies, it is agreed that they should not adversely affect export competition or market access. Domestic subsidies are further classified into subsidies, which distort trade and those, which do not. The subsidies, which have the effect of distorting trade have to be reduced, while subsidies which do not have such effect are declared exempt from reduction. The latter type of subsidies is also called Green-box subsidies. The fundamental condition for subsidies to qualify for the Green-box is that they have little trade distorting or production or price related effect. Such subsidies include public service programmes - food security, research and training, advisory, inspection, infrastructure and marketing services-as well as certain types of direct payments subject to the condition that they do not affect the type or volume of production. These include income support and insurance measures, and payments made under environmental, regional assistance and natural disaster relief programmes.

42

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 43 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Biofuels 1/1 _____ 2008 FARM BILL BIOFUEL SUBSIDIES. Farm Policy Facts July 21, 2008 No Slim Pickins for Farmers, http://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/ ne_No_Slim_Pickins_forFarmers.cfm The farm bill that just became law makes one of the biggest federal energy investments that the Heartland has ever seen. That bill provides more than $1 billion in mandatory funding for energy development and includes authorization for even more funding in the future. Some of the bill’s highlights: $225 million for grants and loan guarantees for renewable and efficiency projects; $320 million in loans for biorefineries, loans that will foster new technologies for new fuel sources like cellulosic ethanol; $300 million to producers to support and expand new biofuels beyond traditional corn ethanol; and Investments in studies to help foster energy production.

43

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 44 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 1/2 ____ DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUBSIDIES Gurian-Sherman in 2008 Doug, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program, http:// www.uscusa.org-assets-documents-food_and_environment-CAFOs-Uncovered.pdf, p. 29 The price consumers pay for animal products at the grocery store does not reflect all of the costs society as a whole pays for these products. One of the important ways these costs are masked is through the provision of subsidies to CAFOs. Some subsidies may go directly to CAFOs; others (so-called indirect or implicit subsidies) go to other parts of the economy and are then passed on to CAFOs. These indirect subsidies may easily go unnoticed by the general public, but are just as important to CAFOs in facilitating their operation and growth. Where subsidies go to CAFOs preferentially over other production systems, they provide an especially important advantage. In this chapter, several types of subsidies that have been given to the CAFO industry are examined. One particularly substantial indirect subsidy has been payments made to commodity crop growers, largely for corn and soybeans, which is passed on to the CAFO industry in the form of artificially low feed grain prices. These low prices have largely been the result of the elimination of grain supply controls that were intended to keep prices at a reasonable level. This and other changes in federal farm legislation have allowed the price of feed grains to drop below the cost of production in many years. In response, lawmakers have compensated grain growers for most of the difference between their cost of production and low market prices. Such indirect crop subsidies have amounted to a windfall of several billion dollars per year for the CAFO industry. The second type of subsidy examined in this report is direct payments made to the CAFO industry through the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides about $100 million per year to CAFOs to reduce some of the environmental damage they cause. EQIP subsidies, like commodity crop subsidies, are ultimately paid for by taxpayers, and could become increasingly important as pressure is applied to the industry to clean up its practices. ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Gurian-Sherman in 2008 Doug, Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists Food and Environment Program, pp. 37, 39, http:// www.uscusa.org-assets-documents-food_and_environment-CAFOs-Uncovered.pdf At the national level, perhaps the largest single direct subsidy to CAFOs is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), originally intended to help small and medium-sized livestock farms address pollution issues. . . . For 2007, the total EQIP disbursement was projected to be $1.3 billion (NRCS 2003). If 60 percent of this amount went to animal agriculture, and 64 percent of that went to confined operations, and 25 percent of confinement funds went to CAFOs, then the expected CAFO subsidy would have been $125 million in 2007. (The uncertainties in these calculations due to a lack of public data show that better national accounting of CAFO fund distribution based on operation type, size, and use is needed.) 44

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 45 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 2/2 Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=eqip, EQIP - Regular in U.S. EQIP - Regular payments in United States totaled $636 million from 1995-2006. EQIP - Regular by year, U.S. Total Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

EQIP - Regular $0 $0 $6,816,843 $63,253,912 $85,791,731 $89,372,147 $92,819,811 $68,161,453 $73,957,120 $155,694,223 $-450 $0 $635,866,790

45

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 46 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Corn 1/1 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn, Corn Subsidies in U.S. Corn Subsidies in United States totaled $56.2 billion from 1995-2006. Corn Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year Corn Subsidies 1995 $2,723,846,939 1996 $1,861,475,819 1997 $2,694,553,005 1998 $4,826,101,164 1999 $7,238,282,386 2000 $7,722,105,815 2001 $5,483,720,758 2002 $1,981,339,791 2003 $2,812,727,118 2004 $4,506,577,294 2005 $9,399,338,468 2006 $4,920,813,719 Total $56,170,875,257 Programs included in corn subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Production Flexibility - Corn $16,292,963,413 Loan Deficiency - Corn $13,494,857,563 Direct Payment - Corn $8,807,823,536 Market Loss Assistance - Corn $8,549,516,887 Counter Cyclical Payment - Corn $5,381,622,107 Market Gains Farm - Corn $1,466,193,416 Advance Deficiency - Corn $931,928,457 Deficiency - Corn $917,077,214 Commodity Certificates - Corn $174,194,337 Market Gains Warehouse - Corn $147,999,377 Farm Storage - Corn $13,833,964 Warehouse Storage - Corn $5,108,043 Loan Def. Refund - Corn $0 Loan Def. Payment - Non PFC - Corn $0 Loan Def. Refund - Corn $0 Denied Market Gain - Corn $-1,272 Diversion - Corn $-3,318 Diversion - Corn $-10,346 Mkt. Loss Asst. Refund - Corn $-26,272 Direct Payment Violation - Corn $-134,090 Loan Def. Refund - Corn $-645,639 Loan Def. Refund - Corn $-778,136 Prod. Flex. Refund - Corn $-1,991,992 Loan Def. Refund - Corn $-8,647,615

46

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 47 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Cotton 1/1 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=cotton, Cotton Subsidies in U.S. Cotton Subsidies in United States totaled $21.3 billion from 1995-2006. Cotton Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Cotton Subsidies $29,744,234 $647,484,806 $595,074,058 $1,163,052,658 $1,721,488,862 $1,852,207,942 $3,070,700,379 $1,758,053,164 $2,334,354,522 $1,972,956,134 $3,488,937,049 $2,695,808,452 $21,329,862,262

Programs included in cotton subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Counter Cyclical Payment - Cotton $4,694,934,693 Commodity Certificates - Coop Cotton $4,319,961,441 Production Flexibility - Upland Cotton $4,031,013,323 Direct Payment - Upland Cotton $2,628,051,966 Loan Deficiency - Upland Cotton $2,398,647,544 Market Loss Assistance - Upland Cotton $2,064,677,514 Commodity Certificates - Cotton $918,564,129 Market Gains Warehouse - Upland Cotton $357,976,605 Advance Deficiency - Upland Cotton $97,791,215 Step 2 Cotton - Extra Long Staple $0 Step 2 Cotton - Upland Cotton $0 Storage Credit Program - Cotton $0 Loan Def. Refund - Upland Cotton $0 Loan Def. Payment - Non PFC - Cotton $0 Loan Def. Refund - Upland Cotton $0 Denied Market Gain - Upland Cotton $0 Mkt. Loss Asst. Refund - Upland Cotton $-3,709 Direct Payment Violation - Upland Cotton $-11,464 Advance Deficiency - ELS Cotton $-40,983 Loan Def. Refund - Upland Cotton $-62,071 Denied Market Gain - Upland Cotton $-117,321 Prod. Flex. Refund - Upland Cotton $-308,154 Loan Def. Refund - Cotton $-394,720 Loan Def. Refund - Cotton $-536,980 Deficiency - Elscotton $-3,837,459 Deficiency - Upcotton $-176,443,306

47

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 48 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Dairy 1/1 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=dairy, Dairy Program Subsidies in U.S. Dairy Program Subsidies in United States totaled $3.6 billion from 1995-2006. Dairy Program Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Dairy Program Subsidies $73,019,975 $82,292,739 $16,741,822 $9,285,369 $199,025,251 $666,542,507 $118,391,201 $848,966,377 $891,689,720 $206,160,460 $16,753,488 $431,488,034 $3,560,356,847

Programs included in dairy program subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Milk Income Loss Contract Payment $1,830,350,959 Market Loss Assistance - Dairy $990,743,945 Milk Income Loss Transitional Payment $555,990,950 Milk Marketing Fees $171,578,059 Dairy Disaster Assistance $9,010,510 Dairy Indemnity $2,688,883 Milk Diversion Program $-366 Dairy Termination Program $-5,997

48

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 49 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Fisheries 1/2 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Lash in 2006 Jonathan, President of the World Resources Institute, Destructive Fishing Subsidies, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1985, June 30 The United States spends nearly a billion dollars on fishing industry subsidies each year, including a $150 million tax rebate on diesel fuel for fishing ships. Fisheries Centre Research Report in 2006 University of British Columbia, www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports/report14_6.pdf Country

2000 HDI

2000 LV ($)

United States 0.94 4,546,673,000

Good Subsidies 936,600,000

Bad

Ugly

Subsidies

Subsidies

92,210,000

29,900,000

Total amount 1,058,710,000

The information herein is a summary of subsidy support programs reported from 1995 to 2005, the information is reported by fishery subsidy types, as summarized below. A. ‘Good subsidies’ A.1 Fisheries management programs and services; A.2 Fishery research and development. B. ‘Bad subsidies’ B.1 Boat construction renewal and modernization programs; B.2 Fishery development projects and support services; B.3 Fishing port construction and renovation programs; B.4 Marketing support, processing and storage infrastructure programs; B.5 Tax exemption programs; B.6 Foreign access agreements. C. ‘Ugly subsidies’ C.1 Fisher assistance programs; C.2 Vessel buyback programs, and; C.3 Rural fisheries community development programs C.4 Others.

49

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 50 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Fisheries 2/2 _____ CATEGORIES OF POSSIBLE SUBSIDIES United Nations Environmental Programme in 2004 www.unep.ch/etb/publications/fishierSubsidiesEnvironment/AnaResImpFishSubs.pdf Analyzing the Resource of Impact of Fishery Subsidies, p. 5-6 In recent years, a great deal of effort in various forums has been put into defining subsidies and developing frameworks for categorizing subsidies, resulting in a wide variety of definitions and classification frameworks. This variety is primarily a response to the various objectives pursued in the studies as well as the different perspectives taken by the studies’ authors. In the present study, a pragmatic approach is taken to the definition and classification of subsidies. This paper does not attempt to propose either a new definition of fisheries subsidies or a classification system that should be used in international legal or negotiating processes. Rather, the focus in this study is on analysing the effects of different types of subsidies, irrespective of how they might be viewed in the international legal context. The definition of a “subsidy” can be the

subject of extensive technical and political debate. From an economist’s perspective, a subsidy may be any net economic benefit given by a government to a private enterprise. Not all government interventions that provide such a benefit are clearly covered in the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement, however. This study does not limit the analysis to those subsidies that would clearly qualify under the SCM. It analyzes the forms of government support that have been most widely used and which have been most prominently discussed in the discourse on reforming fisheries subsidies. The study does not, therefore, analyze the full range of “implicit” subsidies that occur as a result of government inaction (such as non-collection of resource rents). While it may be argued that these are indeed subsidies, most of them are peripheral to the main focus of policy discussion at this stage. Moreover, they are perhaps better examined in the context of the overall management of fisheries rather than under the more specific topic of fisheries subsidies. A study commissioned by UNEP (Porter, 2002), provides a review of the various classification schemes that have been employed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the United States. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2000) provides a less detailed scheme that employs broader categories. Categories of subsidies in one categorization scheme often overlap with those used in other schemes. Overlaps occur because some categories are defined by the intended effect of the subsidy, whereas others are based on the form of the subsidy. This study employs a composite list of subsidy categories that encompasses the categories used in previous schemes. It groups subsidies by their objective, rather than by the form of the subsidy. Thus all subsidies that have the same economic effect (i.e., direct funds towards the same objective) are grouped together under one heading, regardless of the form of the subsidy. For example, soft loans, tax preferences, insurance and other risk-reducing programmes, as well as grants for vessel modernization or new vessels, are grouped together as subsidies that channel resources into capital investment in the fishing industry. Price supports and other programmes that contribute to the income of both vessel owners and fishermen, but do not channel the money into any particular kind of investment, are also grouped together, as well as all social or income assistance to fishermen.

2. Categories of Fisheries Subsidies The subsidy categories employed in this analysis are: • Fisheries infrastructure; • Management services and research; • Subsidies for access to foreign countries’ waters; • Decommissioning of vessels and license retirement; • Subsidies to capital costs; • Subsidies to variable costs; • Income support and unemployment insurance; and • Price support subsidies.

50

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 51 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Rice 1/1 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=rice, Rice Subsidies in U.S. Rice Subsidies in United States totaled $11.0 billion from 1995-2006. USDA has not provided recipient detail for rice cooperatives. Rice Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year Rice Subsidies 1995 $832,463,286 1996 $646,388,442 1997 $454,981,763 1998 $735,147,910 1999 $1,120,320,870 2000 $1,525,323,870 2001 $1,390,854,985 2002 $1,150,906,967 2003 $1,475,317,665 2004 $647,349,693 2005 $534,374,479 2006 $530,430,782 Total $11,043,795,298 Programs included in rice subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Production Flexibility - Rice $2,953,294,339 Direct Payment - Rice $1,801,591,509 Market Loss Assistance - Rice $1,562,421,735 Loan Deficiency - Rice $1,399,643,149 Commodity Certificates - Rice $945,135,871 Deficiency - Rice $662,753,329 Counter Cyclical Payment - Rice $542,461,765 Market Gains Warehouse – Rice $459,479,218 Market Gains Farm - Rice $419,831,863 Advance Deficiency - Rice $296,372,225 Loan Deficiency - Special Rice $5,286,262 Mkt. Loss Asst. Refund - Rice $0 Loan Def. Refund - Rice $0 Loan Def. Payment - Non PFC - Rice $0 Loan Def. Refund - Rice $0 Loan Def. - Permitted Entity - Rice $0 Direct Payment Violation - Rice $-505 Rice Marketing Expense Payments $-3,802 Loan Def. Refund - Rice $-7,012 Denied Market Gain - Rice $-17,677 Denied Market Gain - Rice $-113,908 Prod. Flex. Refund - Rice $-418,066 Loan Def. Refund - Rice $-715,559 Loan Def. Refund - Rice $-3,134,026

51

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 52 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Soybeans 1/1 ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soybean, Soybean Subsidies in U.S. Soybean Subsidies in United States totaled $14.2 billion from 1995-2006. Soybean Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Soybean Subsidies $241 $0 $0 $480,126,119 $2,490,877,291 $3,003,939,376 $4,307,339,757 $670,836,288 $1,141,506,239 $913,622,392 $588,606,840 $642,848,198 $14,239,702,740

Programs included in soybean subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Loan Deficiency - Soybeans Direct Payment - Soybeans Oilseed Program - Soybean Market Gains Farm - Soybeans Market Gains Warehouse - Soybeans Commodity Certificates - Soybeans Counter Cyclical Payment - Soybeans Loan Def. Refund - Soybean Loan Def. Refund - Soybeans Denied Market Gain - Soybean Direct Payment Violation - Soybeans Loan Def. Refund - Soybean Loan Def. Refund - Soybean Loan Def. Refund - Soybean

$8,791,849,946 $2,979,544,727 $1,314,513,267 $927,915,436 $190,948,721 $53,150,099 $1,552,624 $0 $0 $-2,632 $-67,764 $-523,354 $-902,076 $-18,276,256

52

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – Subsidy Definitions

Hingstman page 53 of 53

Definitions of Sugar Subsidies 1/1 ___ _TOTAL DOMESTIC SUBSIDIES FOR SUGAR PRODUCTION Progressive Policy Institute in 2005 Trade Fact of the Week, April 20, http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=253294 Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter this week asserted that additional sugar imports from Central America and the Dominican Republic under the proposed 'CAFTA' agreement would "flood the U.S. market and devastate the Louisiana sugar industry as domestic sugar is displaced by highly subsidized foreign imports." Central America's sugar industry is not subsidized. At $1.2 billion annually, the U.S. sugar subsidy program is equal to nearly a third of Nicaraguan GDP. The United States uses 10 million tons of sugar a year, of which about 1.25 million metric tons is imported. (Before the sugar subsidy program's enlargement in the 1980s, the United States was importing about 3 million tons a year.) Should the CAFTA pass, the 0.3 million tons of annual sugar imports from the six countries involved would rise to 0.45 million, implying total import growth from 1.25 to 1.45 million.

____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR BEETS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=sugarbeet, Sugarbeet Subsidies in U.S. Sugar Beet Subsidies in United States totaled $242 million from 1995-2006. Sugar Beet Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Sugar Beet Subsidies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104,520,665 $44,124,510 $44,288,049 $48,301,887 $804,477 $15,891 $8,526 $242,064,005

Programs included in sugar beet subsidies Program Total Payments1995-2006 Sugar Beet Diversion Program $192,933,223 Sugar Beet Disaster Program $49,130,781

53

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – And/or Definitions

Hingstman page 54 of 53

Definitions of Domestic Subsidies for Wheat ____ AMOUNT OF US GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS Environmental Working Group in 2008 http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=wheat, Wheat Subsidies in U.S. Wheat Subsidies in United States totaled $22.1 billion from 1995-2006. Wheat Subsidies by year, U.S. Total Year Wheat Subsidies 1995 $587,079,488 1996 $1,672,182,732 1997 $1,411,333,311 1998 $2,763,619,969 1999 $3,695,893,750 2000 $3,652,629,030 2001 $2,483,578,458 2002 $975,308,509 2003 $1,372,937,961 2004 $1,215,554,219 2005 $1,120,760,803 2006 $1,100,688,102 Total $22,051,566,200 Programs included in wheat subsidies Program Total Payments 1995-2006 Production Flexibility - Wheat $9,632,997,799 Market Loss Assistance - Wheat $4,855,451,175 Direct Payment – Wheat $4,760,673,276 Loan Deficiency - Wheat $2,451,912,947 Advance Deficiency - Wheat $604,649,083 Market Gains Farm - Wheat $116,489,484 Market Gains Warehouse - Wheat $56,409,888 Karnal Bunt - Compensation $35,473,132 Hard Winter Wheat Incentive Payment $17,299,977 Commodity Certificates - Wheat $15,412,063 LDP-like Grazing Payments - Wheat $9,778,189 Karnal Bunt - Eradication $1,020,420 Counter Cyclical Payment - Wheat $578,881 Loan Def. Refund - Wheat $0 Loan Def. Refund - Wheat $0 Loan Def. Payment - Non PFC - Wheat $0 Denied Market Gain - Wheat $-794 Deficiency - Winter Wheat $-1,317 Mkt. Loss Asst. Refund – Wheat $-25,134 Direct Payment Violation - Wheat $-51,687 Loan Def. Refund - Wheat $-62,709 Farm Storage - Wheat $-139,788 Loan Def. Refund - Wheat $-362,181 Prod. Flex. Refund - Wheat $-869,424 Loan Def. Refund - Wheat $-3,864,477 Deficiency - Wheat $-501,203,785

54

ADI 08 Topicality AFF/NEG – And/or Definitions

Hingstman page 55 of 53

Definitions and Legal Interpretations of “And/or” ____ And/or means one or the other or both Words and Phrases in 2007 Volume 3A, page 220 C.A.1 (Mass.) 1981. Words “and/or,” for contract purposes, commonly mean the one or the other or both. Local Division 589 Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Com. of Mass., 666 F.2d 618, certiorari denied Local Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union AFL-CIO v. Massa¬chusetts, 102 S.C!. 2928, 457 U.S. 1117, 73 L.Ed.2d 1329.-Contracts 159.

____ “And/or” denotes that items joined by it can be taken as alternatives or together Oxford English Dictionary in 2008 Draft Revision, June, Online Edition, accessed August 1, 2008 f. and/or (also and or): a formula denoting that the items joined by it can be taken either together or as alternatives. Cf. either/or at EITHER adv. 3c.

_____ “And/or” has significance in law and policy. It allows the use of both “and” and “or” interchangeably for a group of terms Ballentine’s Law Dictionary in 1969 3d. ed, p. 73 In statutes, however, the use of the expression “and/or” has been considered to have a significance, the view being that the intention of the legislature in using the expression is that the word “and” and the word “or” are to be construed as used interchangeably. 50 Am Jurisprudence 1st Statutes.

_____ “And/or” has no definite meaning. It is a monstrosity of language. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary in 1969 3d. ed, p. 73 [And/or is] something of a monstrosity in the English language, used by draftsmen out of an overabundance of caution. So indefinite as to render an administrative order inoperative or unenforceable for lack of certainty. 2 Am Jurisprudence 2d Administrative Law § 462.

Words and Phrases in 2007 Volume 3A, p. 222 Mo. 1940. The symbol “and/or” in city ordinances is meaningless. City of Washington v. Washington Oil Co, 145 S.W.2d 366, 346 Mo. 1183—Municipal Corporations 120.

55