JOB/AG/157  
19 June 2019 
(19-4181) Page: 1/26 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
INTERACTION BETWEEN PILLARS OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE: THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOMESTIC SUPPORT AND MARKET ACCESS  
COMMUNICATION FROM PARAGUAY  
The following communication , dated  14 June 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Paraguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  THE AGRICULTURAL REFORM PROCESS  
1.1.  Article  20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) recogni zes the substantial and progressive 
reduction of support and protection  as an objective of agricultural trade reform . The agricultural 
negotiation s have made only modest progress  since the end of the Uruguay Round , with the 
exception of the export competition pillar . Agricultural markets continue to be  the most protected 
and distorted markets, and their liberalization is this Organization's great outstanding debt . 
1.2.  This communication presents statistical data and analys es that seek to show how the main 
tools of the market access and domestic support pillars are used to compleme nt the agricultural 
policies of Members . 
1.3.  The concept of  "overall level of distortion and protection ", which encompasses tariffs, quotas, 
agricultural safeguards, and domestic support provided for specific products or product categories , 
is introduced to show how  these variables  interact . 
2  METHODOLOGY  
2.1.  In order to highlight  the interaction between the domestic support and market access pillars, 
the study focuses on Members that provide amber box product -specific domestic support .1 This 
paper presents the  levels of domestic support actually provide d under this category , not those that 
may potentially be provided within the limits of the commitments undertaken by Members . 
2.2.  For the Members  considered , the following variables will be examined  in addition to 
product-specific domestic support : bound tariffs, applied tariffs, percentage of non -ad valorem  tariff 
lines, percentage of tariff lines subject to tariff quotas2, percentage of tariff lines subject to  special 
agricultural safeguard (SSG) duties and whether o r not the Member has used the latter  tool for the 
products and product groups selected . This information is presented first by product group, in 
accordance with the definition and methodology set out in the World Tariff Profiles (WTP) report, 
and then at t he four -digit HS code level .3 
                                                
1 This is because product -specific domestic support is the variable that allows for the cross -linkage of 
data between pillars, making it possible to see how these pillars interact and complement each other.  
2 Most notifications do not provide explanations r egarding the non -opening of tariff quotas, and for this 
reason information regarding quota size has not been included. Similarly, non -ad valorem  tariffs make it 
difficult to include ad valorem  equivalents for the purposes of comparing in -quota tariffs with  out-of-quota 
tariffs.  
3 The chapters and codes concerned are listed in Annex 1. The tariffs have been averaged.  JOB/AG/157  
- 2 - 
  2.3.  The products and product groups for this study were selected on the basis of  information 
provided in document JOB/AG/150, "Analysis and observations on product specific support", and 
document G/AG/W/123, "Review of the list of significant exporters".  
2.4.  Information on domestic support was taken from the database that Canada made available  to 
the Membership in 2018 and from notifications submitted by WTO Members . 
2.5.  Data concerning  tariffs, quotas  and SSG duties  was provided by the WTO Secretariat through 
the Integrated Data Base (IDB) and taken  from the WTP report (2012) . Data on the us e of 
safeguards  was taken  from Members ' notifications . Bound and applied tariffs are presented in 
average ad valorem  equivalents, while quotas, safeguard duties and non -ad valor em tariffs are 
presented in terms of percentage of tariff line s. 
2.6.  All disbursement data is presented in  million s of US dollars (USD) and conversions were made 
using the exchange rate information that is available from the above -mentioned Canadian  database  
and provided  in Annex 3 . Information concerning p roduction value was taken from the same 
database . Information on exports was taken from documents G/AG/W/32/Rev.14 and 
G/AG/W/32/Rev.14/Corr.1 .4 
2.7.  Data regarding the GDP of each Member was taken from the World Bank database and , where  
a Member's information was not available  in that database , from the Member's  official websites . The 
categories of "developing " and "developed " Member are as declared by each Member before the 
Organization . 
2.8.  Due to the signific ant delay that exists in terms of DS:1 notifications, the year chosen for the 
comparison is 2011, as it is the last year in which almost all the Members that provide significant 
levels of domestic support submitted a notification .5 
2.9.  However, in order to pro vide a more up -to-date picture, more recent information is included 
based on the latest notification from each Member according to document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.34 of 
15 February  2019. This information is provided  in Annex 2. 
Limita tions 
 
2.10.   Given the  disparit ies in the methodology used for notifications , the information presented 
below has the following limitations : 
- Some notifications submitted by Members are by fiscal year and others by calendar year . 
- The information on product -specific domestic supp ort provided by some Members is difficult 
to identify, as it encompasses  different tariff lines  or categories . In such cases, all the support 
applicable to a product has been considered and note has been taken as to whether the 
amount in question would als o encompass other tariff lines . 
- Although product -specific domestic support tends to be  the rule rather than the exception, 
patterns of such support in various Members can vary significantly from one year to the 
next. 
- Some Members do not yet have bound tari ffs for certain products . 
- Statistical data on applied tariffs for 2011 is not available for all the Members under 
consideration . 
- The charts include only amber box product support and not blue box product -specific 
support . 
                                                
4 Members' participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products – Article 18.5 of 
the AoA.  
5 Significant levels of domest ic support are considered to be those exceeding USD 1,000 million. Some 
Members have submitted new notifications since the beginning of the technical work related to this document, 
which bases its updated notification information on document G/AG/GEN/86/Re v.34 of 15 February 2019 on 
compliance with notification obligations.  JOB/AG/157  
- 3 - 
  3  MAIN OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS  
General trends  
 
- Members use several of the tools at their disposal to design their agricultural policies and 
protect their sensitive products or product groups . Some Members choose one tool over 
another, but , in general , the Members considered tend to select a combination of tools . 
- Both developing and developed Members, as well as importers and exporters, provide 
domestic support , have tariff peaks in their schedules  of commitments , and apply 
safeguards , quotas or non -ad valorem  tariffs . However , non -ad valorem  tariffs are used 
mainly  by developed Members . Agricultural safeguards are applied by few Members but for 
several of the products or product groups under consideration . 
- 88% of product -specific domestic support is provided by only five Members, some developed 
and some developing . Product -specific domestic support represents a significant percentage 
of the support provided by the Members considered and in some cases  constitutes 100% or 
almost 100 % of their amber box support . 
- There is, in  most of the cases observed, a substantial difference between applied and bound 
tariffs, which , on the whole , generates a considerable amount of water . Average bound tariffs  
for the 27 Members considered were 50 %, while average applied rates were 19.2 %. The 
highest average bound tariff for agricultural products was 132.7 % and the highest average 
applied rate 55.8%. 
- Of the 27 Members considered, 18 have non -ad valorem  bound tariffs, some for 100 % of 
their tariff lines ; 22 Members have tariff quotas and 17 ha ve agricultural safeguard duties 
for the products or product groups under consideration . 
- The tariff lines for which quotas were established are usually accompanied by agricultural 
safeguard duties . This means that openness comes with  an additional level of protection, 
even though this protection  might not always be triggered . 
- Several Members use other types of available support that do fall within  the amber box .6 
This support is often equal to or greater than the support provided under  the amber box . 
Products and groups of products considered  
 
- Dairy is the most protected product group, with average applied and bound tariffs exceeding 
200% and 400 %, respectively . USD  11,800 million  in product -specific domestic support was 
provided for dairy products in 2011 . Several Members also use a high percentage of 
non-ad valorem  tariffs  for all or almost all dairy tariff lines, quotas  for more than 50 % of 
these lines  and safeguards  for all or over 90% of them. Some Members have also used the 
agricultural safeguard for this group of products . 
- Dairy products are followed by animal products and cereals as the second and third most 
protected product groups . Cereals also receive support from the lar gest number of Members, 
with 21 out of 27 Members providing support for this product group . 
- Following the same pattern, the most protected product is milk , with bound tariffs exceeding  
400% and applied tariffs exceeding  250%. Close to  USD 4,900 million  in product -specific 
support was provided for milk in 2011 . Almost all Members that provide support for milk also 
have a non -ad valorem  tariff level of  between 85 % and 100%, quotas for between 50 % and 
100% of their tariff lines, and safeguards that are equivalent to or higher than the ir quota 
levels per tariff line . Two of  the Members that provide product -specific support to milk  have 
used safeguards  to protect their markets from imports of this product . 
- Milk is followed by beef and pork, with high levels of protection and specific domestic support . 
Beef was also subject to the activation of agricultural safeguards by two of the Members that 
provide specific support to this product . 
- Rice and soybeans also rec eive substantial levels of protection and support from some 
Members, with average bound and applied tariffs of 245 % and 487 % or similar, respectively . 
                                                
6 In this document, for instance, the footnotes indicate cases in which a Member has provided 
product -specific support under the blue box, but not under the amber box.  JOB/AG/157  
- 4 - 
  However, many  Members that provide product -specific support for soybeans have bound 
and applied tariffs a t 0%. 
Conclusions  
 
- Given the large number of policy tools, incentives and protecti ve measures available, 
Members should be able to continue to address the needs of  their sensitive sectors while 
undertaking substantial reforms, in accordance  with the objective pursued by Article 20 of 
the AoA , which is  to substantially and progressively reduce support and protection . 
- The principle of proportionality should guide the reforms and negotiations, and Members 
that contribute most to the protection and distortion of trade in agricultural products should 
also contribute more to its liberalization . 
4  DATA ANALYSIS  
General trends  
 
Domestic support  
Chart 1 : Domestic support (2011)  – Members providing product -specific domestic 
support  
 
 
 
4.1.  A total of 27 Members , 8 developed and 19 developing , provided about USD 54 ,000 million in 
product -specific domestic support in 2011, with 88% of that amount coming from only  5 Members : 
the United States (27%), the European Union (24%), China (21%), India (9%) and Japan (7%).  
27%
24% 21%9%7%2%2% 1%1% 1%1% 1%Domestic support spending (2011)
Countries that provide product specific support
United States
European Union
China
India
Japan
Brazil
Republic of Korea
Mexico
Switzerland
Canada
Norway
Viet Nam
Ukraine
Australia
Chinese Taipei
Pakistan
Philippines
Peru
Argentina
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Colombia
Jordan
Costa Rica
Iceland
Tunisia
BarbadosJOB/AG/157  
- 5 - 
  4.2.  Of the remaining 12%, 7 Members  accounted for  9%: Brazil (2%), the Republic of Korea (2%), 
Mexico (1%), Switzerland (1%), Canada (1%), Norway (1%) and Viet Nam  (1%). The other 
15 Members  accounted for  only 3% of the total  domestic support provided . Of the 10 Members  
providing the  most support, 5 are developed7 and 5 developing .8  
4.3.  Product -specific support accounted for  slightly more than 10% of all domestic support provid ed 
and close to 65% of all amber box support provided by the 27 Members  selected during  that period.  
4.4.  The concentration of amber box product -specific domestic support varie d from Member  to 
Member , but for most (20 out of 27) it accounted for  more than 50% of the support provided. 
Product -specific support made up 100% of amber box support for 7 Members  (Argentina, Barbados, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Iceland, Philippines and Switzerland)  and between aro und 90% and 100% of 
amber box support for six others  (the European  Union , India, Israel, Mexico, Norway and the 
United  States ). 
Chart  2: Relationship between amber box spending and product -specific support (2011)  
 
Market access  
 
4.5.  By looking at the average bound tariffs, we can see that 5 Members  (Barbados, Iceland, India, 
Norway and Tunisia ) have average bound agricultural tariffs that are higher than  100%. These  are 
substantially higher than their average applied tariffs, giving them considerable  policy space.  
4.6.  Nine Members  have average bound tariffs below 20%: Australia, Canada, China,  
the European  Union , Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, the United States and Viet Nam . Of 
those 9, 5 are part of the Group of Article XII Members . 
4.7.  Only 3 Members  have average applied tariffs above 40%: Norway, the Republic of Korea and 
Switzerland. Another 5 (Iceland, India, Japan, Mexico and Tunisia ) have average applied tariffs 
above 20% or 30%. Norway has the highest average applied tariffs (55.8%) . 11 Members  apply 
tariffs at or close to the level of their average bound tariffs: Australia, Canada, China, 
the European  Union , Japan9, Jordan, the Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, 
the United  States  and Viet Nam .10 
                                                
7 Canada, the Euro pean Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United States.  
8 Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the Republic of Korea . 
9 Japan 's average  applied  tariffs were slightly above its bound levels.  
10 Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
United States
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Tunisia
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamRelacion entre el gasto de caja ambar y la ayuda por producto 
(2011)
Product-specific domestic support Amber boxJOB/AG/157  
- 6 - 
  Chart 3 : Average tariff levels for agricultural producers (2011)  
 
Chart 4 : Other tools (2011)  
 
 
4.8.  Of the 27 Members considered, 18  have non -ad valorem  tariffs in their schedules. A total of 
9 Members  (Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Tunisia and Viet Nam), 
all developing countries , have 100% of their tariffs bound in  ad valorem  terms . Seven  Members 
(Australia, India, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan , Philippines  and Ukraine ) hav e close to 100% bound in  
ad valorem  terms , and Mexico, the Republic of Korea , Saudi Arabia and Chinese  Taipei  have close 
to 90% bound in  ad valorem  terms . Canada and Japan have over  80% of all tariff lines defined in 
ad valorem  terms , and Iceland over 75%.  Switzerland has the most non-ad valorem  bound tariffs  
(77.3%), followed by Norway (65.6%), the United States (40.2%) and the European  Union (32%).  
4.9.  With respect to tariff quotas , only 5 of the 27  Members had no tariff quotas recorded for the 
products and product groups considered : Argentina, Jordan, Pakistan, Peru and Saudi Arabia, all 
developing country Members . Australia, Brazil, India and Ukraine have quota s for fewer  than 1% of 
tariff lines. Ch ina, Mexico, Tunisia , the United States  and Viet Nam  have quota s for up to 5% of tariff 
lines, while Barbados, Canada, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, the Philippines and Chinese Taipei have 
quota s for between 5% and 10% of tariff lines. The following Members h ave quotas for more than 
10% of tariff lines : Colombia (23%), the European Union (11.3%) , Iceland (35.4%), 
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
United States
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Tunisia
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamNivel arancelario promedio para productos agricolas (2011)
Average applied tariff Average bound tariff
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Chinese Taipei
Colombia
Costa Rica
European Union
Iceland
India
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Tunisia
Ukraine
United States
Viet NamPercentage of Tariff Lines
Non AV tariffs Tariff quotas Special safeguardsAverage tariffs  JOB/AG/157  
- 7 - 
  Norway  (30.4%), the Republic of Korea  (13.7%)  and Switzerland (17.5%). Of these 6 Members , 
4 are developed and 2 developing.  
4.10.   Finally, with respect to safeguards , 17 Members  have agricultural safeguard duties . The chart  
shows that , in most cases , these  follow the same pattern as the tariff quotas  in terms of  the 
percentage s of tariff lines  protected . However, for several Members, they represen t percentages 
significantly higher than  those  corresponding to the tariff quotas; these Members include  Barbados 
(16.9%), the European Union (23.9%) , Mexico (33.2%), Norway (46.4%)  and Switzerland (36.8%). 
Other Members also have a high percentage of tarif f lines  protected by safeguards , but there that 
percentage is  closer to the percentage corresponding to the tariff quotas; these Members include  
Colombia (28.4%) and Iceland (40.1%). The Philippines also has safeguard duties for more than 
10% of tariff lin es. Ten Members  have no safeguard duties : Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Brazil, China, 
India, Jordan, Pakistan, Peru, Ukraine and Viet Nam . The 9 remaining Members  have safeguard  
duties for fewer  than 10% of tariff lines  for the products or product groups consi dered . 
Chart 5 : Overall level of distortion and protection – Agricultural products (2011)  
 
 
Level s of protection and distortion by product group  (categories from the World Tariff 
Profile s report ) 
Chart 6 : Animal products (2011)  
 
 
4.11.   Animal products received a total of around  USD 10 ,000 million in 2011 . Seventeen  of the 
27 Members  provided product -specific support for animal products , with  Japan providing the most , 
at over  USD 6,000 million  in total , followed by Switzerland , which provided more than  
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%
02000400060008000100001200014000
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
United States
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Tunisia
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamUSD millionNivel globral de proteccion de productos agricolas (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Special safeguards (% of TLs) Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs)
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%400%
01000200030004000500060007000USD millionProductos animales
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 8 - 
  USD 1,500 million . Canada, China and Norway11 also provided substantial levels of support, 
spending  over USD  500 million. Except for China, these are all developed country Members . Israel, 
Mexico , Saudi  Arabia, the United States and Viet Nam provided support of more than  
USD 100 million.  
4.12.   The average b ound tariff w as 72% and the average applied tariff 37.1 8% for the Members  
that provide support to this product group. Of th ose Members , Norway and Switzerland have average 
bound and applied ta riffs above 150%. In fact, Norway has the highest average bound rate among 
all the Members considered,  at 351.4%. Iceland and Israel are the only other Members  with average 
bound levels above 100%, at 343% and 115.3%, respectively. Australia and the United  States are 
the only Members  that had average applied  tariffs of around  0% for animal products in 2011.  
4.13.   Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have non-ad valorem  tariffs for around  90% of tariff lines 
and, of the remaining Members,  only the European Union has non-ad valorem  bound tariffs for more 
than 50% of tariff lines .12 Seven  Members have only ad valorem  bound tariffs . 
4.14.   Iceland, Japan and Switzerland are the Members  with the most tariff quotas , corresponding 
to over 50% of tariff lines. The y, along with the European Union , Mexico and Norway , are also the 
Members that  have agricultural safeguard duties  on over  50% of tariff lines .13 The European Union14 
and the United States and were the only Members  to provide  product -specific support for animal 
products and trigger  safeguards for this type of product in 2011 .15 Seven  Members have neither 
tariff quotas nor safeguard duties for these products.  
Chart 7 : Dairy products (2011)  
 
 
4.15.   Dairy products received close to USD 12,000 m illion in 2011 . Eleven  of the 27 Members  
provided product -specific support for dairy products , with the European Union provid ing the most,  
at over  USD 5,600 million  overall , followed by the United States at over USD 3,200 million . Canada, 
Norway16 and Switzerland also provided substantial levels of support, spending  over USD 500 million. 
These  are all developed country Members . Iceland, Israel and Japan provided support of more than  
USD 100 million.  
                                                
11 Norway also provided another USD 500 million in blue box support for animal products.  
12 The European Union notified negative number s for its amber box domestic  support for animal 
products in 2011. However, it provided over USD 2,700 million in blue box support  for this type of product . 
13 Iceland has safeguards  on 100% of tariff lines  and Norway on 90.7% . 
14 The European Union also provided USD 176 million in export subsidies for th is type of product 
in 2011.  
15 Of the Members considered , the Philippines and Chinese Taipei also used agricultural subsidies  for th is 
type of product but did not provide product -specific domestic support.  
16 Norway also provided blue box support of around  USD 85 million and export subsidies of 
USD 25 million.  
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%400%450%500%
0500100015002000250030003500USD millionProductos lacteos (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 9 - 
  4.16.   The average b ound tariff w as 164.5% and the avera ge applied tariff 84% for the Members  
considered that provide support for this product group. Of th ose Members , Iceland and Norway have 
the highest average bound tariffs  at above 400% and 300%, respectively. They are followed by 
Canada , with a bound rate o f above 200%. Other Members  with average bound tariffs above 100% 
are Israel, Japan, Switzerland and Tunisia.   
4.17.   Of th ose Members , Canada has the highest average applied tariff level  at 246.8%. Of the 
others , Iceland, Japan and Switzerland are the only ones with average applied levels  above 100%.  
4.18.   Canada, the European Union , Iceland, Norway  and Switzerland have non-ad valorem  tariffs 
on 100% or close to 100% of their tariff lines and , of the remaining Members,  only Japan and the 
United States have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs for more than 50% of the ir tariff lines. 
Three  Members have  100% of their tariff lines for this product group bound in  ad valorem  terms .  
4.19.   Norway and Switzerland have the most tariff quotas , covering close to 100% of tariff lines. 
They are followed by Canada with more than 70%, Japan with more than 50% and Tunisia and the 
United States with more than 40%. The European Union, Mexico and Iceland have quota s for more 
than 30% of tariff lines. O nly 1 Member  has no tariff quotas f or dairy products.   
4.20.   Iceland, Mexico and Norway have agricultural safeguard duties  on 100% of their tariff lines, 
while Canada, the European Union and Switzerland have safeguard duties  on around  95% of tariff 
lines. Japan (57.2%), the United States (50%) and Tunisia (40.4%) also have agricultural safeguard 
duties  for this type of product. Japan and the United States made use of  these safeguards .17 
Chart 8 : Cereals and other preparations (2011)  
 
 
4.21.   Cereals and other preparations received more than USD 16 ,000 million in 2011 . Twenty -one 
of the 27  Members  provided support for this type of product, with the United States providing the 
most, at over  USD 4,400 million . It was followed by China, the European Union and India , with over 
USD 2,000 million  in domestic support .18 Mexico, Pakistan and the Republic of Korea  also provided 
significant levels of support , spending  over USD 500 million. Of these Members , 2 are developed 
                                                
17 Of the 27 Members considered , Chinese Taipei also used agricultural safeguards  for dairy products  in 
2011, although it did not provide product -specific support  for this category . 
18 Japan provided around  USD 50 million in amber box support but over USD 1,900 million  in blue box 
support for this type of product . 
0%50%100%150%200%250%
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000USD millionCerelaes y otras preparaciones (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 10 - 
  and 5 developing. Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Norway19, Switzerland , Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam  
also provided support of over USD 100 million.   
4.22.   The average b ound tariff w as 60.62% and  the average applied tariff 52.36% for the Members 
considered  that provide sup port for this product group. Of th ose Members , Norway has the highest 
average bound tariffs, at over  200% . It is  followed by India, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea and 
Tunisia, with bound tariffs above 100% .20 The Republic of Korea has the highest average a pplied 
tariff level, at 134.4%. Of the remaining Members , only Japan (68.3%)  and Norway (68.3%) have 
average applied levels above 50%.   
4.23.   Switzerland has the most bound  non-ad valorem  tariff lines , at over  90%. It is  followed by 
Norway with over 85% and the European Union with around  80%. Of the remaining Members , only 
Canada, Japan and the United States have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs for more than 40% of tariff 
lines. Nine Members  have only  ad valorem  bound tariff s. 
4.24.   Canada, Norway and the Republic of Korea have the most tariff quotas , covering between 
35% and 40% of tariff lines . They are  followed by China and the European Union, with between 20% 
and 25% of tariff lines. Five Members  do not have quotas  for this pro duct group .  
4.25.   Of these Members, Norway and Switzerland have the most agricultural safeguards , 
corresponding to  around 70% of tariff lines. The European Union is the only other Member  with 
safeguard duties  on more than 50% of tariff lines. Eight Members  have no safeguard duties . No 
Member  invoked this type of  safeguard for cereals and other preparations  in 2011 . 
Chart  9: Oilseeds, fats and oils  (2011)  
 
 
4.26.   Oilseeds, fats and oils received around  USD 1,800 million in 2011 . Six of the 27 Members  
provided su pport for this type of product , with  the United States providing the most , at over  
USD 1,700 million . No other Member  provided more than USD 100 million in product -specific support 
for this type of product.21 
4.27.   The average b ound tariff  was 43.66% and the average applied tariff 21% for the Members 
considered  that provide support for this product  group . Of th ose Members , Norway has the highest 
average bound tariffs, at over  92%. It is followed by Switzerland, with average bound tariffs of 72%, 
                                                
19 Norway also provide s USD 211.25 million in blue box support  for "crops ", without specifying  the type 
of product.  
20 The Republic of Korea's averag e bound tariff for cereals was above 160%.  
21 The European Union provided blue box support of USD 65.28 million. However, both its  average 
bound and applied tariffs are below 10%, approximately 6% of its bound tariff lines are defined in 
non-ad valorem  terms, it has no quotas and it has safeguards on around 6% of tariff lines.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
0200400600800100012001400160018002000
Canada United States Mexico Norway Republic of Korea SwitzerlandUSD millionOleaginosas, grasas y aceites
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 11 - 
  and Mexico and the Republic of Korea , with bound tariffs of over  44%. The Republic of Korea has 
the highest average applied tariff  level, at  37%, followed by Norway at 35.1% . 
4.28.   All th ese Members  have non -ad valorem  tariffs for this type of product. Switzer land has the 
most bound non-ad valorem  tariff lines , at close to 90% . It is  followed by Norway and the 
United  States  with 58% and 50%, respectively. All the other Members  have non -ad valorem  tariffs 
for fewer  than 10% of their tariff lines.  
4.29.   Norway has the most  tariff quotas , covering 45% of its tariff lines. Three  other Members  also 
have quota s, but they correspond to fewer than 10% of tariff lines.  Only 1  Member  does not have 
quotas for this type of product . 
4.30.   Switzerland has the most agricultural safeguard duties , corresponding to  around 80% of tariff 
lines. It is  followed by Mexico and Norway with around  43%. The remaining 3 Members  all have 
agricultural safeguard duties , but the y cover fewer  than 7% of tariff  lines. No Member  invoked this 
type of safeguard for oilseeds, fats and oils in 2011.  
Chart 10 : Sugars and  confectionery  (2011)  
 
 
4.31.   Sugars and confectionery received more than USD 2 ,500 million in 2011. Nine of the 
27 Members  provided support for this type of product , with t he United States provid ing the most, at 
over USD  1,400 million. China provided more than USD 600 million of product -specific support for 
this type of product, while Japan and Ukraine provided more than USD 100 million of support . Of 
these 4 Members , 2 are developed and 2 developing.  
4.32.   The average b ound tariff w as 40.2% and the average applied tariff 20.4% for the Members  
considered that provide support for this product group. Barbados has the highest bound tar iffs, at 
over 100% . It is  followed by Japan and Chinese Taipei , with bound tariffs of around  50%. The 
European Union has the highest applied tariff  level,  at 29%, followed by Japan and China at 28% 
and 27%, respectively.  
4.33.   Five of these Members  have non-ad valorem  tariffs for th is type of product. Of th ose 5, 4 are 
developed and 1 is developing. Switzerland and the European Union have the most bound 
non-ad valorem  tariff lines , at around  96%. They are  followed by Japan and the United States with 
56% and 52%,  respectively. Four Members have  100% of their tariff lines for this product group 
bound in ad valorem  terms.  
4.34.   Five Members  have tariff quotas . Of those 5, 2  are developed and 3 developing. The 
European  Union has the most tariff quotas , with 31.3% of lines covered, followed by Barbados with 
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
02004006008001000120014001600
Barbados Brazil China United States Japan Switzerland Chinese Taipei Ukraine European
UnionUSD millionAzucar y articulos de confiteria (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 12 - 
  29%, and  China and the United States with 25% and 24%, respectively. Four Members have no 
tariff quotas . 
4.35.   Five Members  have agricultural safeguard  duties. Of those 5, 3 are  developed and 
2 developing. The European Union has the most agricultural safeguard  duties, corresponding to 
around 84% of tariff lines, followed by Switzerland with around 48%. The 3 remaining Members  all 
have agricultural safeguard duties , but the y correspond to  fewer  than 30% of tariff lines in the case 
of Barbados, 24% in the case of the United States and 6% in the case of Chinese Taipei. 
Four Members  have no agricultural safeguard duties  for this product group . Both the European Union 
and the United States invoked this type of  safeguard in 2011.  
Chart 11 : Cotton (2011)  
 
 
4.36.   Cotton received more than USD 4 ,100 million in 2011. Six of the 27 Members  provided  support 
for this type of product , with  China provid ing the most, at over USD 2 ,900 million. The United States 
provided more than  USD 500 million  in support  and India more than  USD 100 million. No other 
Member  provided more than USD 100 million in product -specific support for this type of product .22 
Five of the 6 Members that provide suppor t are developing country Members . 
4.37.   The average b ound tariff w as 47% and the average applied tariff 7.16% for the Members  
considered that provide support for this product  group. Of th ose Members , India has the highest 
bound tariffs, at over  110%, followed by  Colombia, with bound tariffs above 75% and Mexico with 
average bound tariffs of around  40%. China is the Member  with the highest applied tariff level, at 
15%, followed by India at 12%. The European Union has both average applied and bound tariffs of 
0% fo r cotton and Mexico applied 0% tariffs for this product in 2011.  
4.38.   Only the United States has non-ad valorem  bound tariffs for cotton, which cover 28.3% of 
tariff lines. Colombia and the United States are the only Members  with safeguard duties , which cover 
around  23% of tariff lines.  
4.39.   Three  of the 6  Members  providing support have tariff quotas  for this type of product. China 
has the most quotas , at 40%, followed by Colombia and the United States , at 20% and 23%, 
respectively.  
4.40.   No Member  invoked  agricultu ral safeguards  for cotton in 2011.  
                                                
22 The European Union provided blue box support of over USD 100 million for cotton and has quotas  and 
agricultural safeguards  for 20% of the tariff lines for this product . 
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
0500100015002000250030003500
China Colombia United States India Mexico PeruUSD millionAlgodon (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 13 - 
  Levels of protection and distortion by product (4 -digit HS tariff lines)  
 
Chart 12 : Beef (2011)  
 
 
4.41.   Thirteen  Members  provided product -specific support for beef, for a total of over 
USD 4,000 million.23 Of th ose Members , 6 are developed and 7 developing , and 7 are  major 
exporters of th e product. Japan provided the most  support for this product, at more than 
USD 2,500 million, followed by Switzerland  at USD 930 million. Of the  remaining  Members , only 
Mexico and Can ada provided support of more than USD 100 million .24 
4.42.   The average b ound tariff w as 85.46% and the average applied tariff 58.38% for the Members  
that provided product -specific support for this type of product. Norway has the highest average 
bound tariffs,  at over  340%, followed by Switzerland with average bound tariffs of 275%. Israel is 
the only other Member  with average bound tariffs above 100% , and Japan and the European Union  
the only ones with  average bound tariffs  above 50% and 70%, respectively. These 3 Members  also 
have non-ad valorem  tariffs on 100% of their tariff lines for beef. Among the Members providing 
product -specific support for beef, the United States is the only other one with  non-ad valorem  tariffs 
on the product.  
4.43.   Switzerland has the hig hest average applied tariff , at over  265%, followed by Norway at over  
215%. The European Union (72%) is the only other Member  with average applied tariffs above 50%.  
4.44.   Norway has substantial water in its tariffs, while the tariffs applied by  the European Uni on, 
Japan  and Switzerland and are very close to their bindings .25 
4.45.   Seven  Members,  2 developing and 5 developed , have tariff quotas. Five of those Members 
have quotas  on 100% of their tariff lines: Canada, the European Union, Israel, the Republic of Korea 
and Switzerland. Norway has quotas  on 50% of its tariff lines and the United States on 33%.  
4.46.   Six of these Members, 5  of which are developed and 1 developing , have agricul tural safeguard 
duties . Canada, the European Union , Israel, Norway  and Switzerland have safeguard duties  on 100% 
                                                
23 The European Union notified negative numbers for its amber box domestic support for meat products 
for 2011 . However, it provided USD 1,600 million in blue box support. Iceland and Norway also provided 
blue box support for this type of product , spending US D 100 million and USD 5 million , respectively. Iceland 
also has average bound tariffs above 300% and average applied tariffs above 125%. 100% of its tariff lines are 
defined in non -ad valorem terms, covered by quotas and protected by safeguards . 
24 Several Members  provide additional  support for  what they refer to as  "livestock ", which can also 
include cattle. However, the cattle cannot be distinguished from other types of livestock on the basis of the 
information provided in the notification.  
25 Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%400%
050010001500200025003000Carne de vacuno (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 14 - 
  of their tariff lines, and the United States on 33%. The European Union and the United States 
triggered  these safeguards in 2011 .26 
Chart 13 : Pork (2011)  
 
 
4.47.   Eleven  of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for pork, for a total of around  
USD 5 ,800 million. Of th ose Members , 6 are developed and 5 developing, and 8 are major exporters 
of the product. Japan provided the most support for pork, at more than USD 3 ,900 million, followed 
by Switzerland at just over USD 500 million. Of the remaining Members, China, Norway and Viet Nam 
provided support of over  USD 100 million.  
4.48.   The average b ound tarif f for pork was 73% and the average applied tariff 59.81% for the 
Members  that provide support for the product . Of those Members, Norway has the highest average 
bound tariffs, at over  370%, followed by Switzerland with bound tariffs of 152%. No other Member  
has bound tariffs above 100%. Norway and Switzerland also have the highest average applied tariff  
levels at 330% and 152% , respectively. It should be noted  that Japan 's average  applied tariffs (71%) 
exceeded its  bound tariffs  (29%) in 2011 .27 No other Member  applie s tariffs higher than  25%. Of 
the Members considered , only Canada has 0% average bound and applied tariffs  for pork.  
4.49.   Argentina, Mexico and Norway have substantial water in their tariffs . The average applied 
tariffs of the other Membe rs are very close to their average bound tariffs . 
4.50.   Of these Members , 5 – all developed country  Members – have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs. 
Norway and Switzerland  have 100% of their tariff lines defined in ad valorem  terms, followed by the 
European Union wi th 67% and Japan and the United States with 33%.  
4.51.   Three  Members , all developed, have tariff quotas:  Switzerland has quotas  for 100% of its 
tariff lines, the European Union for just over 65% and Norway for around  33%.  
4.52.   Only Switzerland and the European Union28 have safeguard duties  on these products , in the 
same percentages as for quotas . Neither of these Members  used the agricu ltural safeguard for this 
product in 2011 .29 
                                                
26 The European Union also provided USD 23 million in export subsidies.  
27 Viet Nam 's average applied tariff (23.5%) was also higher than  its average bound tariff (20%).  
28 The European Union also prov ided USD 42.78 million in export subsidies.  
29 Of the 27 Members  considered , Chinese Taipei used the agricultural safeguard  for pork.  
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%400%
050010001500200025003000350040004500
Argentina Canada China United States Japan Mexico Norway Switzerland Ukraine European
UnionViet NamPork
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 15 - 
  Chart 14 : Milk (2011)  
 
 
4.53.   Eleven  of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for milk, for a total of 
USD 4,900 million. Of th ose Members , 7 are developed and 4 developing , and 6  are major exporters 
of th e product. The European Union provided the most support for the product, at almost 
USD 1,800 million. Canada, Norway and Switzerland30 provided support of over USD 500 million. Of 
the remaining  Members , Iceland31, Israel, Japan and the United States provided support of more 
than USD 100 million.  
4.54.   The average b ound tariff w as 174.3 5% and the average applied tariff 98.91% for the Members  
that provide product -specific support for milk . Of those Members, Iceland has the highest averag e 
bound tariffs, at around  490%, followed by Norway at 303% , and Canada and Switzerland at 251% 
and 246%, respectively. Israel, Japan and Tunisia have bound tariffs above  100% .32 
4.55.   Canada and Switzerland also have the highest average applied tariff  levels, at 251% and 
247% , respectively. Of the remaining  Members , only Iceland and Japan have average applied tariffs 
above  150%. It should be noted  that Japan applied tariffs (197%) higher than  its bound tariffs  
(156%) in 2011. No other Member  applies tariffs above  100%, but the European Union and Norway 
apply  tariffs between 50% and 60%. Iceland, Mexico, Norway and Tunisia have substantial water, 
while the tariffs applied by the  other Members  are very close to their bound tariffs . 
4.56.   Eight of these Members , 7 developed and 1 developing , have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs. 
100% of bound tariffs are non-ad valorem  for 5 Members : Canada, the European Union, Iceland, 
Norway and Switzerland. 87% of Japan's and the United States' tariff lines , and 50% of Mexico 's, 
are non-ad valorem . 
4.57.   Nine Members, 6  developed and 3 developing , have tariff quotas . The European Union, Norway 
and Switzerland have quotas  for 100% of their tariff lines, Japan for just over 85%, Mexico and 
Tunisia for 60%, the United States for 50%, and Canada and Israel for 40%.  
4.58.   Eight Members, 6  developed and 2 developing , have safeguard duties  for this product. 
Five Members  have safeguard duties  on 100% of the tariff lines  for dairy products : Canada33, the 
European Union, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland. The  safeguard duties of the  United States and 
Japan correspond to their tariff quotas, covering 50% and 87%  of tariff lines , respectively. Tunisia  
has safeguard duties on 40% of  tariff lines. Both  Japan  and the United States made use of the  
agricultural safeguard for this product in 2011 .34 
                                                
30 Switzerland 's domestic support  notification uses the description "milk and milk products ". 
31 Iceland also provided USD 5 million in blue box domestic support  for dairy products and meat . 
32 Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
33 Canada provide d export subsidies of USD 54 million  for this product . 
34 Of the 27 Members  considered in this study , Chinese Taipei also made use of agricultural safeguards  
for milk, although it does  not provide product -specific support.  
0%100%200%300%400%500%600%
0200400600800100012001400160018002000
Argentina Canada United States Iceland Israel Japan Mexico Norway Switzerland Tunisia European
UnionMilk
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 16 - 
  Chart 15 : Wheat (2011)  
 
 
4.59.   Fifteen  of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for wheat, for a total of around  
USD 6,000 million. Of th ose Members , 5 are developed and 10 developing , and 9  are major e xporters 
of the product. The European Union provided the most support for the product, at more than 
USD 2,600 million, followed by the United States at more than USD 1 ,100 million. China and Pakistan 
provided support of over USD 500 million. Of the remaining Members, India, Mexico35 and 
Switzerland provided support of over  USD 100 million.  
4.60.   The average b ound tariff w as 89.64% and the average applied tariff 28% for the Members  
that provided support for this product. Norway has the highest  average bound and applied tariffs, 
at 347% and 111%, respectively. Israel, Pakistan and Switzerland have bound levels above 100%, 
followed by India and Tunisia with tariffs of 90% or higher . Of the remaining  Members , Brazil, 
Canada, China and Mexico have bound tariffs over 50%. China and Canada have average applied 
tariffs above 60%, while Mexico and Switzerland have applied tariffs of around  50%. All Members  
except Canada and China  have substant ial water between the ir bound and applied tariffs .36 Jordan  
has 0% average bound and applied  tariffs for wheat and Saudi Arabia applied 0% tariffs in 2011.  
4.61.   Five of these Members,  4 developed and 1 developing , have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs.  
100% of the bound tariffs  of 2 Members,  Mexico and Norway , are non-ad valorem . They are followed 
by Switzerland, the European Union and the United States, where 92%, 83% and 75% of tariff lines, 
respectively, are non-ad valorem . 
4.62.   Eight Membe rs, 4 developed and 4 developing , have tariff quotas  for this product. 
Six Members  have quota s for 100% of the ir tariff lines: Canada, China, Israel, Mexico, Norway and 
Tunisia. The European Union  has quotas for  67% of tariff lines and Switzerland for fewer than 20%.  
4.63.   Seven  Members,  4 developed and 3 developing , have safeguard duties  for wheat,. Canada, 
Israel, Mexico, Norway and Tunisia have safeguard duties  on 100% of tariff lines, Switzerland on 
just over 90% and the European Union on 84%. None of these Members  made use of the agricultural 
safeguard for this product in 2011.  
                                                
35 Mexico provided export subsidies of just over USD  6 million in 2011.  
36 Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%350%400%
050010001500200025003000USD millionTrigo (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 17 - 
  Chart 16 : Maize (2011)  
 
 
4.64.   Ten of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for maize, for a total of around  
USD 5,000 million.37 Of th ose Members , 2 are developed and 8 developing , and 5  are major 
exporters of th e product. The United States provided  the most support for the product, at more than 
USD 2 ,900 million, followed by China at more than USD 1 ,100 million. Brazil and the Philippines 
provided support of over USD 100 million.  
4.65.   The average b ound tariff w as 36% and the average applied tariff 11.9% for the Members  that 
provided support for this product. Mexico has the highest bound tariffs , at 84%, followed by Ind ia 
at 65% and the Philippines at 50%. The remaining  Members  all have bound tariffs below 50%. India 
has the highest average applied tariff at 50%. All the Members  except China, the United States and 
Viet Nam  have substantial water between their bound and a pplied  tariffs .38 Chinese Taipei has 0%  
average bound and applied tariffs for maize .39 
4.66.   Only 3 Members,  2 developed and 1 developing , have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs. 
Switzerland has the most non-ad valorem  bound tariffs , which account for 90% of its tariff lines. It 
is followed by the United States and Mexico , where they account for 50% and 30% of tariff lines, 
respectively . 
4.67.   Five of the se Members,  1 developed and 4 developing , have tariff quotas  for th is product. 
Two Members, China and the Philippines , have quotas  for 100% of tariff lines. India's quotas  cover 
50% of tariff lines and those of Mexico and Switzerland cover 10%.  
4.68.   Three  Members, 1  developed and 2 developing , have safeguard duties  for this product: 
Mexico, the Philippines and Switzerland . All 3 protect  100% of the tariff lines for maize  with 
safeguard duties . None of these Members  made use of the agricultural safeguard for this product in 
2011.  
                                                
37 The domestic support  notification s from India and Israel  for product -specific support also include 
coarse grains  other than maize . 
38 Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
39 The United States is also very close to 0%, with 0.1% average b ound and applied tariffs.  
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
0500100015002000250030003500
Brazil China Chinese
TaipeiIndia Israel Mexico Philippines Switzerland United
StatesViet NamUSD millionMaiz (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff
Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs)
Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 18 - 
  Chart 17 : Rice (2011)  
 
 
4.69.   Eleven  of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for rice, for a total of  around  
USD 5,300 million.40 Of th ose Members , 1 is developed and 10 are  developing , and 6  are major 
exporters of th e product. India provided the most support for this product, at over USD 2 ,600 million, 
followed by China at over USD 1 ,200 million. The Republic of Korea provided support of over 
USD 500 million and Brazil, Costa Rica, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam  of over USD 100 million.  
4.70.   The average b ound tariff w as 60.3% and the average applied tariff 46% for the Members  that 
provided support for this product. Chinese Taipei has the highest average bound tariffs at 245%, 
followed by India at 78%, and Brazil and China with bound tariffs of  55% and 51%, respectively. All 
the remaining  Membe rs have bound tariffs below 50%. Chinese Taipei also applies the highest tariffs, 
at 252%, with its average  applied  tariffs higher than  its bound tariffs. China and India also have  
average bound  tariffs above 60% , and China 's average  applied tariffs also e xceeded its bound tariffs  
(65%). All Members  except China, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam  have substantial water between 
their bound and applied tariffs.41 
4.71.   Four Members,  1 developed and 3 developing , have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs. The 
Philippines , the Republic of Korea and Chinese  Taipei  have non-ad valorem  tariffs  on 100% of tariff 
lines, and the United States on 88%.  
4.72.   Five Members, all developing,  have tariff quotas  for this product: China, Costa  Rica, the 
Philippines , Republic of Kore a and Chinese Taipei . All have quotas  for 100% of tariff lines.   
4.73.   Two Members, Costa Rica and Chinese Taipei, both developing, have safeguard duties for this 
product and protect 100% of the tariff lines for rice with them. Neither Member made use of the 
agricultural safeguard for this product in 2011.  
                                                
40 The European Union provided USD 212 million in blue box support for rice, and Japan USD 1 ,921 
million. Japan 's average bound tariff for rice  is 455% and it applied an average tariff of 503% in 2011. 100% 
of its tariff lines for rice are non-ad valorem , and it has quotas and agricultural safeguards on 100% of th ose 
tariff lines. The European Union’s applied and bound tariffs are below 50% , but 97 .2% of the tariff lines  for rice 
are bound  in non-ad valorem  terms  and there are quotas on  100% of them and agricultural safeguards on 
97.3%. 
41 The Republic of Korea and the Philippines do not have bound tariffs for rice in their schedules  of 
commitments  although they applied tariffs of 5% and 0%, respectively.  
Applied tariff data is not available for Israel for 2011.  
0%50%100%150%200%250%300%
050010001500200025003000USD millionArroz (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff
Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs)
Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 19 - 
  Chart 18 : Soybeans  (2011)  
 
 
4.74.   Seven  of 27 Members  provided product -specific support for soybeans, for a total of around  
USD 2,200 million.42 Of th ose Members , 4 are developed and 3 developing , and 4 are major 
exporters of th e product. The United States provided the most support for the product, at over 
USD 1,600 million, followed by China at over  USD 500 million. No other Member  provided support 
above USD 100 million .43  
4.75.   The average b ound tariff w as 99.42% and the average applied tariff 77.7% for the Members  
that provided support for this product . The Republic of Korea has the highest average bound and 
applied tariffs at 487% . For bound tariffs, it is followed by Norway at 103.5% and Switzerland at 
70%. All the remaining  Members  have bound tariffs below 35%. Norway has the second highest 
average applied tariffs, at around 40%. The remaining Members  have applied tariffs that are 0% or 
below 10% .44 Mexico, Norway and Switzerland have substantial water be tween their bound and 
applied tariffs.  
4.76.   Of these Members , only 3, 2 developed and 1 developing , have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs. 
The Republic of Korea and Switzerland have non-ad valorem  tariffs for 100% of tariff lines, followed 
by Norway with 50%.   
4.77.   Two Members,  1 developing and 1 developed , have tariff quotas for this product . Norway has 
quotas for  50% of tariff lines and the Republic of Korea for 5%. The se 2 Members  also have 
agricultural safeguard duties  on 50% and 100%, respectively , of the tariff lines  for soybeans . Neither  
of these Members  used the agricultural safeguard for this product in 2011.  
                                                
42 The European Union provided USD 60 million in blue box domestic support. It has 0% bound tariffs, 
and it does not have  non-ad valorem  tariffs, quotas  or safeguards  for this product.  
43 The product -specific domestic support notifications f rom Norway and Switzerland include other 
oilseeds . 
44 Canada, the European Union and the United States have average bound and applied tariffs of 0% for 
soybeans.  
0%100%200%300%400%500%600%
020040060080010001200140016001800
Canada China United States Mexico Norway Republic of Korea SwitzerlandUSD millionSoja (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff
Product-specific support Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs)
Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 20 - 
  Chart 19 : Sugar (2011)  
 
 
4.78.   Six of the 27 Members  provided product -specific support for sugar, for a total of ar ound 
USD 2,500 million. Of th ose Members , 3 are developed and 3 developing , and 2 are major exporters 
of th e product. The United States provided the most support for this product, at over 
USD 1,400 million, followed by China at over USD 500 million. Japan and Ukraine provided support 
of over USD 100 million.   
4.79.   The average b ound tariff w as 73.5% and the average applied tariff 38.16% for the Members  
that provided support for this product. Chinese Taipei has the highest average bound tar iffs at 143%, 
followed by Japan at 122%. China, the European Union and Ukraine have bound tariffs at or around  
50%. China and Ukraine have the highest applied tariffs, at 50%, followed by the European Union , 
which,  at 49%, appl ies a tariff slightly higher than its bound rate. Japan and Chinese Taipei have 
substantial water between their bound and applied  tariffs, while the other Members  apply their bound 
tariff levels  or are very close to them . 
4.80.   Three  of these Members  have non-ad valorem  bound tariffs: the E uropean  Union , Japan  and 
the United States  all developed country Members . The European Union and Japan have 
non-ad valorem  tariffs for 100% of tariff lines, followed by the United States with almost 90%.  
4.81.   Five Members,  3 developing and 2 developed , have tariff quotas  for this product. China, 
the European Union and Chinese  Taipei have quotas for  100% of the  tariff lines  for sug ar. The 
United  States and Ukraine have quotas for  44% and 40%, respectively.   
4.82.   Three  Members,  2 developed and 1 developing , have agricultural safeguard duties . 
Chinese  Taipei and the European Union have agricultural safeguard duties  on 100% of the tariff li nes 
for sugar , and the United States on 44%. The European Union and the United States made use of 
the agricultural safeguard for this product in 2011.  
  
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%160%
02004006008001000120014001600
China United States Japan Chinese Taipei Ukraine European UnionUSD millionAzucar (2011)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product-specific support
Non-AV tariffs (% of TLs) Tariff quotas (% of TLs) Special safeguards (% of TLs)JOB/AG/157  
- 21 - 
  ANNEX 1  
Table 1: Tariff lines corresponding to product groups  
Product group  Definition of group  
(SA 2007)  
Animal products  Chapters 01, 02 and 1601-02 
Dairy products  0401-06 
Cereals and preparations  0407-10, 1101 -04, 1107 -09, Chapter  19, 
2102-06, 2209, Chapter  10 
Oilseeds, fats and oils  1201-08, Chapter  15 (except 15041, 150420), 
2304-06, 3823  
Sugars  and confectionery  Chapter  17 
Cotton  5201-5203 
 
Table  2: Products by tariff line  
Product  4-digit tariff line  
Wheat  1001 
Maize 1005 
Rice 1006 
Soybeans  1201 
Beef 0201 and 0202 
Pork 0203 
Milk 0402 
Sugar  1701 
 
Additional data  
Chart  1: GDP in US D billion (2011)  
 
 
020004000600080001000012000140001600018000
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
United States
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Tunisia
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamPIB en miles de millones de USD (2011)JOB/AG/157  
- 22 - 
  Chart  2: Value of agricultural production  (2011)  
 
 
  
020000040000060000080000010000001200000
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
United States
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Mexico
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Tunisia
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamValor de la Produccion (2011)JOB/AG/157  
- 23 - 
  ANNEX 2 
TRENDS UNDER MEMBERS ' MOST RECENT  
 NOTIFICATIONS THROUG H 2018 
Chart  1: Overall level of protection and distortion – Agricultural products (notifications 
through 2018)  
 
 
Chart  2: Domestic support  (notifications through 2018 ) – Members providing 
product -specific domestic support  
 
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%140%160%
0500010000150002000025000USD millionInformacion disponible por miembro (2017)
Average bound tariff Average applied tariff Product specific support
Non AV tariffs (% of TL) TRQs (% of TL) SSGs (% of TL)
40%
24%14%8%4%1%1%1%
1%1%1%
1%1%1%
China
United States
European Union
India
Japan
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Brazil
Thailand
Switzerland
Mexico
Canada
Viet Nam
Norway
Ukraine
Turkey
Chinese Taipei
Pakistan
Philippines
Australia
Morocco
Israel
Argentina
Colombia
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Panama
Iceland
Montenegro
Lao PDR
AlbaniaJOB/AG/157  
- 24 - 
  Chart  3: Relationship between amber box spend ing and product -specific support  
(2018  notifications ) 
 
 
Chart  4: Value of agricultural production (2018)  
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Chinese Taipei
Colombia
European Union
Iceland
India
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Lao PDR
Mexico
Montenegro
Morocco
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Switzerland
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United States
Viet NamRelacion entre la ayuda por producto especifico y la 
caja ambar (notif. al 2018)
Product specific support Amber box
02000004000006000008000001000000120000014000001600000
Albania
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
United States
Russian Federation
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Laos PDR
Morocco
Mexico
Montenegro
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
Turkey
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamVOPJOB/AG/157  
- 25 - 
  Chart  5: GDP in USD billion (2018)  
 
0500010000150002000025000
Albania
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
United States
Russian Federation
Philippines
India
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Laos PDR
Morocco
Mexico
Montenegro
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Republic of Korea
Switzerland
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
Turkey
Ukraine
European Union
Viet NamPIBJOB/AG/157  
- 26 - 
  ANNEX 3 
EXCHANGE RATES USED FOR CONVERSION INTO USD (2011)  
Member  Exchange rate  
Saudi Arabia  3.75 
Argentina  1.00 
Barbados  2.00 
Brazil 1.67 
Canad a 0.99 
China  7.78 
Colombia  4.11 
Costa Rica  505.66 
United States  1.00 
Philippines  43.31 
Iceland  115.95 
India 46.67 
Israel  3.58 
Japan 79.81 
Jordan  0.71 
Mexico 12.4245 
Norway 5.60 
Pakist an 86.34 
Peru 2.75 
Republic of Korea 1,108.29 
Switzerland  0.89 
Chinese Taipei  29.47 
Tunisia  1.41 
Ukraine  7.97 
European Union  0.72 
Viet Nam  20,509.75 
 
__________  
                                                
45 The deflator indicated in Mexico's notification has been used.