G/AG/W/141
2 March 2015
(15-1189)  Page: 1/5
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English
 
 TRENDS IN DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CAIRNS GROUP1 
The following communication, received on 25 Februa ry 2015, is being circulated at the request of 
the Cairns Group. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  The Committee on Agriculture is effective in reviewing individual domestic support 
notifications submitted by Members. However, this  process is not designed to capture broad policy 
trends and their evolution over time. Observation an d analysis of policy trends can help to better 
inform the review process and aid Members in developing effective questions that reflect current 
developments in global agricultural trade and the policies of Members. 
1.2.  Various data sets maintained by the WTO Secretariat and available online through the 
Members' Transparency Toolkit contain much of the information required to observe agriculture 
policy trends.
2 However, due to the comprehensive and expansive nature of these data sets, the 
Cairns Group identified a need to extract certain key elements and present them in a format that is more easily accessible to Members. To this end, the annex to this paper presents domestic support 
data from 2001 to 2013 for the top ten global trad ers of agriculture products (sum of exports and 
imports). This sample is designed to focus on Members that have the largest impact on world 
trade, but by no means presents a complete pict ure. Numerous important exporters and importers 
are not covered by the sample, including several Members with AMS commitments. Further studies 
could add value by expanding or otherwise modifyin g the sample or focusing on specific products. 
1.3.  Achieving reform of agricultural policies in accordance with the Doha Round Mandate remains 
our ultimate goal. However, the aim of this paper is not to track progress toward this goal or judge 
policy developments among Members. The trends in domestic support reported below may reflect 
policy changes, fluctuations in international prices or various other factors. The summary of findings below does not take account of these factors and is solely intended to provide a factual reflection of available domestic support data. 
1.4.  Additionally, while the country sample of th e top ten global traders of agriculture products 
includes a number of large users of domestic suppo rt, the paper is not designed to demonstrate a 
relationship between these two variables. Estab lishing causality or even a correlation between 
domestic support levels and trade flows would re quire much more detailed analysis. The paper is 
also not intended to reflect the impacts of long term or historical high levels of domestic support on agriculture trade patterns. 
2  METHODOLOGY 
2.1.  The data set presented in the Annex to this  paper focuses on the top ten global traders of 
agriculture products in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. The ranking is 
                                               
1 Argentina does not support this pa per. Indonesia and the Philippines ar e still completing their domestic 
clearance processes in capitals. 
2 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm . G/AG/W/141 
 
- 2 - 
 
  based on total trade turnover (i.e. the sum of im ports and exports) measured in United States 
dollars (USD), using United Nations Comtrade data with product coverage from the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. According to th ese parameters the top ten global traders of 
agriculture products in 2012 were the United States, the European Union, China, Brazil, Canada, 
Japan, India, the Russian Federation, Indonesia and Australia. The Annex to this paper shows 
levels of green box support (Annex 2 of the AoA) , "special and differential treatment" support 
(Article 6.2 of the AoA), blue box support (A rticle 6.5 of the AoA) and amber box support 
(including product specific and non-product spec ific support) from 2001 (the launch of the Doha 
Round) to 2012 for each of these Members.
3 Various summary tabs are also included to facilitate 
comparisons across Members and over time. Domestic support data is sourced from the Members' Transparency Toolkit and complemented by recent DS:1 notifications. More detailed 
methodological notes, including all data  sources, can be found in the Annex. 
3  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1  Summary by Country 
3.1.  The United States ' (US) level of current total aggreg ate measurement of support (CTAMS) 
declined dramatically from 2001 to 2011 from 14.5 billion (7.2% of value of production (VOP)) to 
4.7 billion (1.2% of VOP), and then rebounded to 6.9 billion (1.7% of VOP) in 2012.
4 This was 
accompanied by a commensurate increase in green box support from 50.7 billion (25.3% of VOP) 
in 2001 to 127.4 billion (32.1% of VOP) in 2012. The US did not use any blue box support during the sample period. Total support (sum of all other types including AMS that are de minimis ) 
increased from 72.2 billion to 139.6 billion. Rela tive to VOP total support remained relatively 
stable, hovering between 34.1% and 39.7% (except for 2007).  
3.2.  The European Union 's level of CTAMS also declined dramatically over the sample period 
(2001 to 2010) from 35.3 billion (13.5% of the valu e of agriculture production (VOP)) to 6.5 billion 
(2.0% of VOP). This was accompanied by a commensurate increase in green box support from 
18.5 billion (7.1% of VOP) to 88.7 billion (20. 8% of VOP). Blue box support decreased from 
21.3 billion (8.2% of VOP) to 4.1 billion (1% of VOP). Total support increased from 75.9 billion 
(29.1% of VOP) to 103.1 billion (24.2% of VOP).
5  
3.3.  China  has a NIL AMS commitment and does not have recourse to Article 6.2. Green box 
support more than doubled during the sample period from 30.6 billion to 86 billion. However, relative to VOP, levels of green box support remained fairly constant between 8.7% and 11.7%. 
Total support increased from 30.9 billion in 2001 to  99.8 billion in 2008. Relative to VOP, total 
support remained relatively stable, hovering between 9.7% and 13.6%. 
3.4.  Brazil 's reported level of CTAMS increased from 0 in 2001 to 520 million in 2008 and then 
dropped back to zero by 2013. From 2001 to 2013 the ratio of CTAMS to VOP remained below 1%. 
Green box support increased from 1.5 billion to 6.2 billion, fluctuating between roughly 1.7% and 
4.8% of VOP. Similarly, "special and differential treatment" support (Article 6.2) increased from 
332 million to 1.1 billion, fluctuating between 0. 7% and 1.6% of VOP. Total support increased 
from 2.8 billion in 2001 to 9.7 billion in 2012. Relati ve to VOP, total support remained relatively 
stable, fluctuating between 4.5% and 9.8%. 
3.5.  Canada 's reported levels of CTAMS decreased from 1.9 billion (8.3% of VOP) in 2001 to 
513 million in 2011 (1.0% of VOP), although it fluc tuated up and down in the intervening years. 
Green box support more than doubled in absolute terms from 1.1 billion to 2.7 billion, but fluctuated between 5.0% and 12% of VOP. Total support increased from 3.1 billion in 2001 to 
5.7 billion in 2011. Relative to VOP, total support fluctuated between 11.5% and 22.1%. 
                                               
3 References to specific notifications and use of th e data therein do not constitute an endorsement of 
the reporting practices of the WTO Members in question and are without prejudice to the positions of Cairns 
Group Members on various methodological question s discussed in the Committee on Agriculture. 
4 Monetary values for all Members are provided in USD as reported in relevant notifications. Where 
applicable, conversion from other currencies is based on IMF average annual real exchange rates. See annexed 
Excel file for details. 
5 During the sample period the European Un ion expanded from 15 to 27 member States. G/AG/W/141 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.6.  Japan 's reported level of CTAMS decreased from 6.1 billion (7.5% of VOP) in 2001 to 
3.3 billion (4.9% of VOP) in 2007, and then increa sed steadily to 6.4 billion in 2012 (7% of VOP). 
Green box support followed a similar pattern, decreasing from 23.4 billion (28.7% of VOP) in 2001 to 15.1 billion (22.2% of VOP) in 2007, and then gradually rebounding to 19.9 billion in 2012 
(21.5% of VOP). After reaching a low of 213 million in 2009, blue box support increased sharply to 
3.1 billion in 2010 (3.7% of VOP) and then fell to around 1.6 billion in each of 2011 and 2012 
(1.8% of VOP). Total support decreased from 30. 7 billion in 2001 to 19.6 billion in 2007 and then 
steadily increased to 30.3 billion in 2012. However, relative to VOP, total support decreased from 
37.6% in 2001 to around 32.8% in 2012. 
3.7.  India  has a NIL AMS commitment. Its levels of product specific trade-distorting domestic 
support increased steadily from 2001 to 2010, with the former shifting from negative to positive in 
2007. "Special and differential treatment" support (A rticle 6.2) increased sharply from 8.3 billion 
(8.1% of VOP) to 31.6 billion (13.7% of VOP). Gr een box support increased by nearly fivefold in 
absolute terms from 4 billion to 19.5 billion and increased from 4.2% to 8.4% of VOP. Total 
support increased quite dramatically from 12.3 bi llion in 2001 to 53.2 billion in 2010. Relative to 
VOP, total support increased from 13.0% to 23.1%. 
3.8.  The Russian Federation 's CTAMS increased from 2.9 billion in 2001 to 5.5 billion in 2009, 
but relative to VOP decreased from 8.8% to 6.9%  of VOP. Green box support displayed a similar 
trend increasing from 1.1 billion to 2.2 billion and generally staying between 2.4% and 3.6% of 
VOP. Similarly, total support increased from 4.2 billion in 2001 to 7.8 billion in 2009, but 
decreased from 12.7 % to 9.8% of VOP. 
3.9.  Indonesia  has a NIL AMS commitment. It is currently working to fill in certain gaps in its 
domestic support notifications relating to AMS, including providing information on its public stockholding programs. Green box support increased from 241 million (1.1% of VOP) in 2001 to 
3.6 billion (2.9% of VOP) in 2011. Levels of "special and differential treatment" support 
(Article 6.2) increased from 0 to 1.9 billion, ranging from 0 to 2.7% of VOP, but appear to be on an upward trend. Total support increased from 241 million in 2001 to 5.4 billion in 2010, from 
1.1% to 4.4% of VOP. 
3.10.  Australia 's level of CTAMS decreased from 158 million (0.7% of VOP) in 2001 to 0 in 2010. 
Over the same period, green box support increase d from 722 million to 1.8 billion, ranging from 
3.2% to 7.1% of VOP. Total of support increa sed from 887 million in 2001 to 1.8 billion in 2010. 
Relative to VOP, total support fluctuated between 3.9% and 7.8%. 
3.2  Summary by Support Type 3.11.  In absolute terms, the total support  levels of all Members in the sample increased from 
2001 to 2012, growing more rapidly in developing countries but starting from a much lower base. 
A similar trend can be seen when looking at tota l support as a percentage of VOP. Total support 
levels relative to VOP remained relatively stable in developed countries while they increased in 
developing countries. However, it should be underlined that in the last year reported, the average 
level of total support relative to VOP was 19.3% in developed countries and 12.4% in developing countries. 
3.12.  The CTAMS  has declined in most (but not all) developed countries, in some cases very 
significantly. This has created a considerable amount of overhang between the Final Bound Total 
AMS (FBTAMS) and CTAMS for some Members. Among developing countries, only Brazil has a FBTAMS AMS and CTAMS has remained low. Reported AMS levels have increased steadily in India 
and China, but remain below de minimis . 
3.13.  Among the three Members in the sample eligible to report certain input and investment 
subsidies under Article 6.2 , this type of support seems to be emerging as an increasingly 
favoured policy tool. Article 6.2 support has grown ve ry rapidly, at least tripling in all cases, and 
also accounting for a growing proportion of VOP. G/AG/W/141 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.14.  Only the EU and Japan reported blue box support . In the EU's case, support levels 
declined significantly and now accounts for less than 1% of VOP. In Japan's case, support levels declined gradually from 2001 to 2009 and then began to increase dramatically, far exceeding 
earlier levels in 2010, 2011 and 2012. 
3.15.  In most (but again not all) developed co untries, reductions in AMS have been accompanied 
by significant increases in green box  support. Among these countries, green box support now 
accounts for an average of 14.2% of VOP in the last  year reported. Although it started from lower 
levels, green box support also increased among de veloping countries and accounts for an average 
of 7% of VOP in the last year reported. 
4  COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 4.1.  Even among the top ten global traders of agriculture products the lack of complete and 
timely notifications hampers Members' ability to  observe current trends in domestic support. 
Despite recent efforts from some Members, lack of compliance with notification obligations remains a serious impediment to the review process in the Committee on Agriculture. The Cairns Group 
strongly urges all Members to re-double their e fforts to meet all notification requirements. 
5  CONCLUSION 5.1.  The continual evolution of domestic support  trends within and across Members highlights the 
need for a dynamic and robust review process under the Committee on Agriculture based on 
timely and complete notifications. The Cairns Group reaffirms its commitment to this process 
5.2.  While recognizing that negotiations fall under the purview of the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Session, the Cairns Group underscores that the significant reductions in CTAMS since 2001 
suggest that, from a policy perspective, fulfilling the Doha Round Mandate on agricultural domestic 
support should be easier to achieve than in previous years. This objective remains as relevant as ever as it would ensure that recent reductions of support are not reversed and inject a new 
impetus for reform into the multilateral system. G/AG/W/141 
 
- 5 - 
 
  ANNEX 
A spreadsheet1, including data on domestic support, is available in electronic format (Microsoft 
Excel) from Documents On-line . 
 
__________  
                                               
1 In English only.