Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:16:30.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Green box subsidies and trade-distorting support: is there a cumulative impact?

from PART II - The focus, extent and economic impact of green box subsidies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2010

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Christophe Bellmann
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Jonathan Hepburn
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and now in the World Trade Organization (WTO), members have been constructing a set of rules and regulations to limit trade policies and other policies with equivalent effects – that is, policies that favour local production instead of the purchase of imported products.

GATT rules first put limits on subsidies for industrial products, and then prohibited them. For agricultural products, limits appeared for the first time in the Uruguay Round. Because agricultural subsidies were limited but not prohibited, agriculture was incorporated into the multilateral rules in a privileged way.

In the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) approved during the Uruguay Round, agricultural subsidies were classified into different “boxes” according to their influence on producers' decisions.

Since 1994, the terms “amber”, “blue” and “green” have been used to describe the different kinds of support. The original idea was to repeat the colours of traffic lights – red for prohibited subsidies, yellow for limited subsidies and green for permitted subsidies – but a softer treatment prevailed.

The amber box includes measures related to production level or selling price; these payments are limited rather than prohibited, and a compromise for reducing them was agreed. The AoA also created a special category of amber box measures excluded from the reduction commitments because of their low level: de minimis payments. The blue box includes direct payments – like those included in the amber box – but “under production-limiting programmes” and was not subject to reduction commitments.

Type
Chapter
Information
Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
, pp. 239 - 257
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antón, J. (2001), Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Antón, J., Junker, F. and Giner, C. (2005), Decoupling: Illustrating Some Open Questions on the Production Impact of Different Policy Instruments, AGR/CA/APM(2005)11/FINAL, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Berthelot, J. (2008), The Huge lies in the US notifications of its agricultural trade distorting domestic support from 2002 to 2005, Solidarité (http://solidarite.asso.fr), 3 January.Google Scholar
Blandford, D. and Josling, T. (2007), “Should the Green Box Be Modified?” IPC discussion paper, International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
,Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest (2007a), “After Long Delay, US Notifies 2002–2005 AG Subsidies to WTO”, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 11(34): 5–7.Google Scholar
,Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest (2007b), “Ag. Negotiators haggle over base periods for green box payments”, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 11(36): 7–8.Google Scholar
Brink, L. (2007), Classifying, “Measuring and Analyzing WTO Domestic Support in Agriculture: Some Conceptual Distinctions”, working paper #07–02, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, http://www.iatrcweb.org.Google Scholar
,CFDA (2007), The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Bio-energy Program, 10.078, https://cfda.symplicity.com/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=79df727490db89b0bb42ccadff467bb3.Google Scholar
,Economic Research Service – USDA (2007a), “Briefing Rooms. Farm and Commodity Policy: Questions and Answers”.Google Scholar
,Economic Research Service – USDA (2007b), “Briefing Rooms. Corn: Policy”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/policy.htm.Google Scholar
,Farm Service Agency – USDA (2007), “CCC Budget Essentials”, FY 2006 CCC Actuals, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=about&subject=landing&topic=bap-bu-cc.Google Scholar
,Group of developing countries seeking reform of developed country agriculture (2005), Review and Clarification of Green Box Criteria, G-20/DS/Greenbox, Final 02/06/05.Google Scholar
,Inside US Trade (2007), “U.S. WTO Notification Shows Glimpses of U.S. Defense in New Trade Cases”, Inside US Trade 25(40): 3–4.Google Scholar
Monke, J. (2006), “Farm Commodity Programs: Direct Payments, Counter-cyclical Payments, and Marketing Loans”, CRS report for Congress, RL 33271, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Denton, TX, USA.Google Scholar
,Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001), Market Effects of Crop Support Measures, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
,Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005), Decoupling: Policy Implications, AGR/CA/APM(2005)22/FINAL, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Pérez Llana, C., Chaves, M. and Galperín, C. (2007), “Desarrollo de los biocombustibles: ¿cuál es el lugar de la política comercial?”, Revista del CEI 9: 81–99.Google Scholar
Taheripour, F. and Tyner, W. (2007), “Ethanol Subsidies: Who Gets the Benefits?”, Presented at Bio-Fuels, Food and Feed Tradeoffs Conference, St Louis, MO, 12–13 April.Google Scholar
Womach, J. and Schnepf, R. (2007), “Measuring Equity in Farm Support Levels”, CRS report for Congress, RL 34053, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Denton, TX, USA.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2006a), G-20 Comments on the Chair Reference Paper on Green Box, Job (06)/145, Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, 16 May, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2006b), Agriculture Negotiations: Agriculture Domestic Support Simulations, Committee on Agriculture, Special Session, JOB (06)/151, 22 May, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2007a), Notification, Committee on Agriculture, G/AG/N/USA/60, 8 October, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2007b), United States – subsidies and other domestic support for corn and other agricultural products. Request for consultations by Canada, WT/DS357/1, 11 January, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2007c), United States – subsidies and other domestic support for corn and other agricultural products. Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada, WT/DS357/11, 8 June, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2007d), United States – domestic support and export credit guarantees for agricultural products. Request for consultations by Brazil, WT/DS365/1, 17 July, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2007e), Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture, TN/AG/W/4 and Corr.1, 1 August, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2008), Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture, TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3, 10 July, World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×