JOB/AG/144  
 
25 September 2018  
(18-5927) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Agriculture , Special Session  
Sub-Committee on Cotton  Original: English  
 
THE SITUATION IN COT TON 
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
The following communication, dated 18 September 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the  United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States submitted JOB/AG/135/Corr.1 to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 
May 2018 that called on Members to work together to identify the challenges farmers face today 
that limit their ability to thrive and opportunities for trade liberalization to address the se challenges. 
In that submission, the United States itself identified six challenges facing farmers and three broad 
thematic areas where the WTO could potentially focus its future wor k to address these challenges. 
That submission addressed the whole agric ultural sector, and its points apply to cotton just as to 
other commodities. We call upon other Members to likewise identify challenges that face their 
farmers – including their cotton farmers.  
2.  In June 2018, the WTO Agriculture and Commodities Division and  the Institute for Training and 
Technical Cooperation organized the Symposium on the Agriculture Policy Landscape to discuss the 
relationship between trade and agriculture. All of the presenters emphasized the need for rules -
based trade, as well as more tr ade, to improve global welfare, help producers, and address the 
challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world population.  
3.  As part of the seminar, specific discussions on cotton were held. These highlighted the importance 
of market -oriented trade as a means to improving cotton farmers ' welfare globally.  Experts also 
noted a number of issues that constrain cotton farmers ' welfare, including policies that promote 
competition from the synthetic fibre market, non -tariff barriers, and the need to develop glo bal value 
chains and investment in the cotton sector.  
4.  In the context of both the U S May 2018 submission and the discussions at the June 2018 
Symposium, the United States, as a first step in engaging in more detailed discussions, submitted 
JOB/AG/141 in Ju ly 2018 to catalogue data and discuss various tariff implementation issues. This 
paper identified six areas within the area of market access for further analysis and discussion by 
Members: (i) bound versus applied tariffs, (ii) complex tariffs, (iii) high tariffs (e.g., tariff peaks), 
(iv) issues with TRQs, (v) agricultural safeguards (SSGs), and (vi) regional/preferential trade 
agreements.   
OVERVIEW  
5.  In order for Members to have productive discussions to address the challenges facing agricultural 
trade tod ay, an understanding of the current state of Members' trade policies, including with respect 
to cotton, is needed. The United States is therefore putting forth in this paper a compilation of 
cotton -specific data on market access, domestic support, and expo rt competition to facilitate 
discussions.  
6.  The United States examined FAO data for cotton production and reviewed official trade statistics 
for cotton imports and exports to determine which WTO Members are most involved in cotton 
production and trade. These Members are: Argentina, Australia, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chad, JOB/AG/144  
 
- 2 - 
 
  China, Cote d 'Ivoire, Egypt, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, 
Mali, Mexico, Pakistan, Chinese Taipei , Thailand, Turkey, and the United States.  
7.  For each of these Members, the United States reviewed tariff, domestic support, and export 
competition data found in Members' WTO submissions and WTO World Tariff Profiles. However, due 
to a lack of transparency by some Members, the United States has sought a lternative sources of 
information to complement official WTO information. Data from the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development 's (OECD 'S) Producer Support Estimate (PSE) and the International 
Cotton Advisory Committee 's support estimates hav e also been compiled. The United States calls on 
all Members to recommit to meeting their transparency obligations, including by bringing their WTO 
notifications up to date.  
8.  The United States also invites other Members to contribute to discussions with res pect to cotton 
by providing their views.  
MARKET ACCESS  
9.  In 2016, cott on accounted for approximately USD 9.2 billion of global imports. With total global 
agricultural imports in 2016 reaching USD 815.2 billion, cotton thus represented approximately 
1.13% of the total.1 For the same year, developing country Members, on average, had an applied 
tariff rate slightly higher than the average for developed  country Members: 3.9 % versus 0.5 %. 
(Figure 1 – see also Figure A.1 in the Appendix) . The level of "water " was more pronounced for 
developing  country Members than for developed  country Members, with an average bound rate of 
51% for developing  country Members and an average bound rate of 2.4 % for developed  country 
Members. Among the largest cotton producers and  traders (as noted in paragraph 6), the average 
applied rate for cotton was 3.8 % and the average bound rate was 28.6 %. Both the average applied 
and average bound rates were the lowest of any major product group for these Members – and well 
below the overal l average agricultural tariff rates for these Members.2 
Figure 1: Bound Versus Applied Tariffs  
  
                                                
1 Data is based on 2016 IHS GTA import figures (accessed 27  July 2018).   
2 Based on the product groupings defined as part of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) 
categories. These groupings were first defined in the Tokyo Round and were adapted for the Harmonized 
System in the Uruguay Round.  0255075100125150175200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200Applied Rate
Bound Rate
Developing Developed Bound = Applied"Water " 
or Tariff 
OverhangJOB/AG/144  
 
- 3 - 
 
  10.  Only 16 Members applied cotton tariffs at the bound level. Approximately 31 % of all Members, 
46 in total, had "water " in their cotton tariffs that exceeded t he average "water " for all WTO 
Members ' cotton tariffs. Three Members (Lesotho, Bangladesh and Nigeria), had water exceeding 
125 percentage points. China had the highest applied rate (18 %), followed by Zambia, Tajikistan, 
and Tonga (all 15 %) (Figure A.1) .  
11.  In regards to tariff rate quotas (TRQs), four Members have TRQs in their bound schedule: China, 
Colombia, South Africa, and the United States. China, the world 's largest cotton importer 3, has an 
in-quota rate of 1% for its 894,000 metric ton quota. The out -of-quota rate is 40 %. Colombia 's in-
quota and out -of-quota bound rates are 80 % and 90 %, respectively; South Africa 's were 12 % and 
60%, respectively. The United States has several cotton -specific TRQs with in -quota  bound rates 
ranging from duty -free to USD 0.044 per kilogram (kg). Out -of-quota bound rates range from duty 
free to USD 0.369/kg. On a discretionary basis, China applies an out -of-quota duty rate lower than 
its out -of-quota bound rate. Colombia does not a pply its TRQ and instead has a 5% applied MFN 
duty rate. Likewise, South Africa does not apply its TRQ and instead applies different MFN rates for 
different types of cotton, regardless of quantity.  
DOMESTIC SUPPORT  
12.  Among the major cotton producers and traders, eight notified domestic su pport at some time 
since 2001 (s ee Table 1): the United States, India, China, Brazil, Australia, Turkey, Mexico, and 
European Union. India and Brazil notified market price support for cotton during this time period, 
while the United States, China, Turkey, Mexico, and European Union notified other types of product -
specific AMS. The European Union, through 2005, calculated an Equivalent Measurement of Support 
(EMS) for cotton. Since then the EU has notified product -specific blue box support. Australia notified 
only product -specific green box payments.   
13.  Comparisons of levels of support notified by Members are complicated by some Members ' lack 
of transparency. Among all WTO Members, 826 DS:1 notifications were outstanding as o f May 2018 
(GAG/GEN/81/Rev.31). Among the major cotton producers and traders, Benin and Kazakhstan have 
never notified and Cote d 'Ivoire submitted a DS:1 for only for one year. Turkey last notified for 
2004; China last notified for 2010; Malaysia, Indonesi a, Pakistan, and Korea last notified for 2011; 
and Chinese Taipei  last notified for 2012. The limited available notified data, viewed on its own, 
would suggest a decline in total cotton -specific domestic support by the major producers and traders 
over the period from 2001 to 2016. However, the apparent downward trend is due to (i) the lack of 
notified data in more recent years (fewer notifications means less overall notified support, regardless 
of whether support levels are actually declining) and (ii) generally declining levels of support notified 
by the United States and European Union ( see Figure 2).  
Figure 2: WTO Notified Cotton -Specific Domestic Support4 
                                                
3 Data is based on 2016 IHS GTA import figures (accessed 27  July 2018).   
4 Figure 2: Chart reflects only support indicated in notifications submitted to date. See paragraph 13 on 
number of outstanding notifications.  0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0USD BillionsJOB/AG/144  
 
- 4 - 
 
  14.  Sources of information on agricultural support other than WTO notifications are not directly 
compa rable to WTO -notified domestic support because they rely on more recently available data 
and because they may not calculate domestic support in the manner provided for in the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture. However, such alternate measures can be useful in i llustrating trends in 
support. This document considers two such measures: the OECD 's Producer Support Estimate (PSE)5 
and the level of direct assistance provided by governments to the cotton sector6, as measured by 
the International Cotton Advisory Committ ee. Neither measure purports to apply the methodology 
of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture when calculating domestic support. Accordingly, these 
measures do not speak to whether Members are meeting their WTO domestic support commitments.   
15.  The OECD 's Producer Support Estimate (PSE) can provide a useful comparison across a number 
of Members for a recent time period. A total of four OECD Members (Australia, Israel, Turkey, and 
United States) have cotton -specific PSEs. In addition, the OECD calculated cot ton-specific PSEs for 
three non -OECD Members : Brazil, China, and Kazakhstan  (see Table 2) . The total of the cotton -
specific PSE 's for these countries ranged from USD 2.3 billion in 2004 to USD 12.1 billio n in 2010 
(see Figure 3). With the exception of 2001  and 2004, China and Brazil together accounted each year 
for 52 -92% of the PSE provided to cotton. In general, China 's share significantly exceeded Brazil 's. 
China 's PSE ranged from negative USD 787 million in 2001 to a high of USD 10.9 billion in 2010. 
China's PSE for cotton for 2017 was USD 10 billion. The US cotton -specific PSE has tre nded 
downwards, from a high of USD 3.3 billion in 2001 to USD 712 million in 2017.  
Figure 3: OECD Cotton -Specific PSE  
Source: OECD Producer and Con sumer Support Estimate D atabase.  
16.  The level of direct assistance provided by governments to the cotton sector, as measured by 
the International Cotton Advisory Committee, constitutes another useful metric for comparison 
purposes. As with the OECD PSE, total direct assistance provi ded by all countries trended upwards 
from 2001 through 2016, with large annual fluctuations ( see Table 3) . From 2000/01 through 
2009/10, total direct assistance provided collectively by all measured coun tries generally ranged 
between USD 3 billion and USD 6 billion ( see Figure 4). Total support ranged from approximately 
USD 5 billion to USD 11 billion from 2012/13 through 2016/2017. The trend in the overall figures 
closely follows the trend in the China -specific figures. Since 2012/13, China 's assistance accounted 
for approximately 75 % of all direct assistance reported; China 's direct assistance ranged from 
USD 3 billion to USD 8 billion during the period since 2012/13. Conversely, US  direct assistance 
ranged from USD 1 billion to USD 3 billion from 2000/0 1 to 2008/09 and has since ranged from 
USD 320 million to USD 861million – with the exception of USD 1.2 billion in 2015/16. Like China 's 
direct assistance, Turkey 's direct assistance trended upwards, with assistance ranging from 
                                                
5 More information on the OECD 's PSE calculations and data can be found at: 
http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural -policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm  
6 ICAC's level of direct assistance provided by govern ments to the cotton sector is based on data 
provided by Member governments or ICAC Secretariat calculations.  -1135791113
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017USD Billions
China United States Turkey Brazil Australia Kazakhstan IsraelJOB/AG/144  
 
- 5 - 
 
  USD 22 million to  USD 196 million from 2000/02 through 2006/07 and direct assistance ranging 
between USD 302 million and USD 488 million from 2010/11 through 2016/17.  
17.  The ICAC also measures direct assistance on a per -pound basis. Its analysis sho ws that average 
assistance was USD 0.11 per pound (lb) in 2016/17 (s ee Table 3.1). The highest p er-pound rates 
were for Spain (USD 0.55/lb) and Greece ( USD 0.43/lb), followed by China ( USD 0.30/lb), and 
Turkey (USD 0.23/lb). Senegal 's assistance averaged at USD 0.13/lb. Other Members providi ng 
direct assistance, including the United States, Colombia, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Cote d 'Ivoire, all 
provided assistance in a range of USD 0.05-0.07/lb.  
Figure  4: ICAC Direct Assistance to the Cotton Sector  
Source: ICAC Production  and Trade Policies Affecting the Cotton Industry, various years.  
EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
18.  Among the major cotton producers and traders identified and analysed in this submission, no 
Member has notified the use of export subsidies for cotton for years since 2006. For years prior to 
2006, only the United States and India noti fied the use of such measures (s ee Table 4). However, 
as with domestic support, transparency surrounding export subsidies remains an issue, with a 
number of major cotton producers and traders having not notified th e WTO of their use or non -use 
of export subsidies. It should also be noted that the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition 
eliminated the use of export subsidies for cotton for all Members as of  1 January 2017.  
CONCLUSION  
19.  In order for Members to have produ ctive discussions to address the challenges facing cotton 
farmers, an understanding of the current state of Members' trade policies is needed. Transparency 
by Members with regards to their notifications on market access, domestic support, and export 
subsid ies is the best way to begin engagement. Further, United States continues to encourage other 
Members to come forward with the challenges their farmers face in order to help define the objectives 
of negotiations going forward.  
20.  In addition to greater transparency, Members need to improve their understandings of the 
factors affecting cotton trade over the last decade and going forward in order to most effectively 
define a negotiating context. This includes factors unique to cotton markets that are not present for 
other commodity markets – such as competition from synthetic produc ts.024681012USD Billions 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 6 - Table 1 : Cotton Sector Support as WTO Notified by Members  
In US D millions*  
 
* Zero's indicate that a WTO domestic support notification was made, but did not indicate cotton specific support; dashes indic ate no domestic support notification 
was provided that year.  
1. China figures have been converted from "milli on RMB yuan" or "hundred million RMB yuan" to USD millions using the USDA ERS Nominal Annual Average Exchange Rates 
dataset.  
2. Brazil figures were notified in US D 1,000 and have been adjusted to US D Millions.  
3. Pakistan notifies support to seed cotton, b ut notes that there has been "no operation by public sector agencies on procurement prices" in that sector.  
4. Australia 's figures have been converted from AUD millions to USD millions using the USDA ERS Nominal Annual Average Exchange Rates data set. 
5. Australia notified green box support to cotton under the description, "Research into improvements in cotton production".  
6. Benin has not provided any domestic support notifications to date.  
7. Mexico 's figures have been converted from constant 1991 million Pesos to USD millions using the USDA ERS Annual Average Exchange Rate dataset.  
8. The EU figures have been converted from Euro millions to USD millions using the USDA ERS Annual Average Exchange Rate dataset . 
9. Kazakhstan has not provided any domestic support notifications to the WTO since acceding in 2015.   
Member Support Classification 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
United States Product-Specific AMS 2,810.11 1,186.79 434.91    2,238.42 1,620.70 1,365.18 207.91    1,383.48 368.44    400.85    894.43    636.13    573.53    956.41    853.10    -
  Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
India Product-Specific AMS (-) 147.30 (-) 94.01 (-) 140.62 (-) 150.28 (-) 68.99 (-) 49.39 (-) 6.64 243.14 6.95 0 0.27 143.76 1.41 305.09 17.97 0
  Market Price Support (-) 147.30 (-) 94.01 (-) 140.62 (-) 150.28 (-) 68.99 (-) 49.39 (-) 6.64 243.14 6.95 0 0.27 143.76 1.41 305.09 17.97 0
China1Product-Specific AMS 216.26    145.66    124.92    117.66    134.28    110.41    538.86    398.16    732.94    439.72    - - - - - -
  Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -
Brazil2Product-Specific AMS 27.73 18.07 27.43 44.32 82.71 341.81 325.13 0 269.02 0 0 0 0 62.72 - -
  Market Price Support (-) 0.35 0 0 0 0.32 0.19 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
Pakistan3Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
  Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
Australia4Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
Green Box spending53.73 3.96 3.09 3.18 3.75 3.45 2.62 2.05 2.34 5.20 9.83 11.93 7.47 6.97 - -
Mali Product-Specific AMS - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
Burkina Faso Product-Specific AMS 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - - -
Chad Product-Specific AMS - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -
Benin6Product-Specific AMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Turkey Product-Specific AMS 0 85.72 107.87 145.64 - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mexico7Product-Specific AMS 0.46 21.60 7.98 26.17 44.79 19.68 44.99 13.95 42.14 11.58 16.61 8.39 6.49 6.91 9.99 6.82
  Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EU8Product-Specific EMS 711.40 688.25 868.36 900.71 919.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
  Market Price Support - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Product-Specific Blue Box 0 0 0 0 0 319.27 338.75 317.72 307.98 327.53 341.70 311.32 307.77 323.72 270.50 -
Argentina Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -
Cote d'Ivoire Product-Specific AMS - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - -
Egypt Product-Specific AMS - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kazakhstan9Product-Specific AMS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Malaysia Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
Indonesia Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
Thailand Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - 0 0 0
Korea Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - -
Chinese Taipei Product-Specific AMS - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
Japan Product-Specific AMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 7 - Table 2 : OECD Producer Support Estimate Totals for the Cotton Sector  
In US D millions  
 
Source:  OECD Producer and Consumer Support Estimate database, available at:  
 http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural -policies/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm  (notes reproduced verbatim from OECD) . 
 
Notes: 
1. For Israel, the database starts in 1995. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the rele vant Israeli au thorities. The use of such data 
by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.  
2. Note EU -28 data corresponds to the following: EU15 for 1995 -2003; EU25 for 2004 -2006; EU27 for 2007 -2013; and EU28 from 2014.  
3. The OECD TOTAL includes Australia, Canada, Ch ile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States and the European 
Union countries which are also OECD member countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ge rmany, Gre ece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom). The OECD total include s all its member countries for all available 
years whenever data availability permits.  
4. The OTHER ECONOMIES TOTAL includes Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and Viet Nam. Indonesia is not 
included in the 2018 edition of the dat abase.  
5. The total for ALL COUNTRIES includes OECD members as we ll as non -members; it sums up information from OECD countries and from OTHER ECONOMIES. The countries 
are, respectively, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan,  Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, N ew Zealand, 
Norway, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United States and Viet Nam.  
  
Country or Group 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
OECD (USD) 3,513 1,800 960 2,557 2,092 2,161 848 1,847 582 690 1,289 1,212 1,073 1,376 1,367 1,029 1,156
Australia (USD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Israel (USD) 7 -2 0 -6 1 -6 4 9 1 4 3 -6 -1 -4 -4 2 5
Turkey (USD) 195 93 116 157 341 396 637 525 329 346 474 627 545 491 519 509 439
United States (USD) 3,311 1,709 844 2,406 1,750 1,772 207 1,313 252 339 813 591 529 889 852 518 712
OTHER ECONOMIES (USD) -768 1,983 4,641 -285 4,315 4,358 6,352 2,079 7,031 11,409 4,013 6,682 9,412 3,411 6,806 9,159 10,327
Brazil (USD) 40 43 114 48 23 141 475 487 303 469 1,574 40 35 156 29 113 234
China (USD) -787 1,913 4,471 -290 4,281 4,193 5,841 1,550 6,719 10,874 2,453 6,613 9,350 3,255 6,765 9,049 10,084
Kazakhstan (USD) -21 27 56 -44 10 25 35 42 9 66 -14 29 26 0 13 -3 9
ALL COUNTRIES (USD) 2,745 3,783 5,601 2,271 6,407 6,519 7,199 3,925 7,614 12,099 5,302 7,895 10,485 4,787 8,173 10,188 11,483 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 8 - Table 3 : International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) Published Cotton Production and Government Domestic Support Data  
 
Source:  ICAC, "Production and Trade Policies Affecting the Cotton Industry", various years, available at : https://files.icac.org/pubdetail.php?id=P0000041 . 
 
Note:  A dash ( -) indicates that ICAC  did not report any data for that country for that year and category . 
 
1. Income and price support programs only. Credit and other assistance not included.  
2. In 2005/06 and 2006/07, ICAC categorized China 's assistance as "Level of Assistance Provided by G overnments to the Cotton Sector Through Border Protection".  
3. Starting with the 2015 report which covers 2013/14, ICAC began titling the assistance calculations as "Total Level of Assista nce Provided by Governments to the Cotton 
Sector" . 
4. Preliminary da ta. 
  
Country 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
USA 1,020 3,001 1,941 1,021 2,411 3,175 3,221 888 3,092 451 320 819 563 454 861 1,163 531
China2 1,900 1,196 1,850 1,303 1,087 1,853 1,499 684 1,949 1,981 331 3,053 5,794 5,149 8,220 5,491 3,279
Greece 537 735 718 761 822 712 234 265 271 260 277 266 262 274 238 208 204
Turkey 106 59 57 22 115 165 196 429 227 260 302 428 488 449 452 320 351
Spain 179 245 239 233 226 196 85 93 90 93 93 89 87 91 72 68 66
Brazil 44 10 - - - 105 290 337 191 99 - - - 0 102 - -
Mexico 14 18 7 6 24 36 38 8 - - - - - - - - -
Colombia - 9 - - 21 20 20 10 25 22 9 29 21 24 5 3 1
Egypt 23 23 33 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
India - 500 - - - - - 0 331 - - - - 0 631 51 0
Pakistan - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - -
Benin - 20 - - 34 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mali - 14 - - - - - - - - 20 38 36 26 26 32 35
Burkina Faso - - - - - - - - - - 6 10 80 30 30 30 32
Côte d'Ivoire - 8 - - - - - - - - 20 14 14 14 14 14 15
Senegal - - - - - - - - - - 4 4 6 2 2 2 2
Argentina - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All Countries 3,822 4,913 4,845 3,354 4,741 6,262 5,583 2,713 6,184 3,166 1,380 4,749 7,351 6,513 10,653 7,382 4,515Level of Direct Assistance Provided by Governments to the Cotton Sector Through Production Programs1 
Assistance to Production (US$ Millions) 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 9 - Table 3.1:  International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) Published Cotton Production and Government Domestic Support Data   
 
Source:  ICAC, "Production and Trade Policies Affecting the Cotton Industry", various years, available at : https://files.icac.org/pubdetail.php?id=P0000041 . 
 
Note:  A dash ( -) indicates that ICAC did not report any data for that country for that year and category . 
 
1. Income and price support programs only. Credit and other assistance not included.  
2. In 2005/06 and 2006/07, ICAC categorized China 's assistance as "Level of Assistance Provided by Governments to the Cotton Sector Through Border Protection".  
3. Starting with the 2015 report which covers 2013/14, ICAC b egan titling the assistance calculations as "Total Level of Assistance Provided by Governments to the Cotton 
Sector" . 
4. Preliminary data . 
  
Country 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/0622006/0722007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/1432014/15 2015/16 2016/174
USA 12 31 23 12 22 28 31 10 50 8 4 11 7 7 11 19 6
China2 20 10 17 12 8 14 9 4 10 11 2 19 36 34 57 48 30
Greece 58 77 87 104 96 75 33 42 51 55 70 43 48 42 39 43 43
Turkey 5 3 3 1 6 9 12 31 23 31 30 26 26 27 27 23 23
Spain 86 104 108 108 93 81 85 103 241 196 98 67 61 84 44 53 55
Brazil 2 1 - - - 5 9 10 7 4 - - - 0 3 - -
Mexico 9 9 7 4 8 12 12 3 - - - - - - - - -
Colombia - 16 - - 18 20 21 12 31 37 11 32 45 40 9 10 7
Egypt 5 3 5 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
India - 8 - - - - - - 3 - - - - 0 4 0.4 0
Pakistan - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - -
Benin - 5 - - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mali - 3 - - - - - - - - 9 9 8.6 6.4 5 7 6
Burkina Faso - - - - - - - - - - 0 2.6 14 5 5 6 5
Côte d'Ivoire - 2 - - - - - - - - 15 6 4 4 3 5 5
Senegal - - - - - - - - - - 3 3 20 8 10 12 13
Argentina - 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All Countries 16 17 21 15 16 25 11 8 14 11 5 17 26 15 21 18 11Avg Assistance/Pound Produced (US cents) 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 10 - Table 4: Cotton Sector Export Subsidies as WT O Notified by Members  
In US D millions* 
 
* Zero's indicate that a WTO domestic support notification was made, but did not indicate cotton specific support; dashes indicate no domestic support not ification was 
provided that year . 
1. Benin has not provided any Export Subsidy notifications . 
2. Turkey has not provided any Export  Subsidy notifications since 2001, which covered 2000 CY. For 2000, Turkey notified just over US D 27 million in export subsidies, 
none of which were provided to cotton . 
3. GR-Greece, ES -Spain, PT -Portugal . 
4. Egypt has not provided any Export Subsidy notif ications.   
Member Support Classification 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
United States Product Specific ES 00 203.595 276.500 266.944 9.353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- -
India Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0.089 1.21 0 0 0 0- - - - - - - -
China Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0- - -
Brazil Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
Pakistan Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - - - -
Australia Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
Mali Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burkina Faso Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - - -
Chad Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
Benin1Product Specific ES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Turkey2Product Specific ES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mexico Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
EU (GR, ES, PT)3Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
Argentina Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - -
Cote d'Ivoire Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - - -
Egypt4Product Specific ES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kazakhstan Product Specific ES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0-
Malaysia Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
Indonesia Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- -
Thailand Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - -
Korea Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- - - -
Chinese Taipei Product Specific ES - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Japan Product Specific ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
  JOB/AG/144  
 
- 11 - APPENDIX  
Figure A.1: Cotton Tariffs of All WTO Members   Applied and Bound Rates, 2016  
 
__________  
050100150200250
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Nigeria
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
India
Malawi
Zimbabwe
Antigua and Barbuda
Barbados
Belize
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Ghana
Cameroon
Chad
Rwanda
Solomon Islands
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
Israel
Colombia
Tunisia
Benin
Eswatini
Gabon
Mali
Namibia
South Africa
Angola
Brazil
Botswana
Niger
Sri Lanka
WTO Developing Country Members
Costa Rica
Cuba
All WTO Members
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Djibouti
El Salvador
Fiji
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Nicaragua
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Mexico
Indonesia
Nepal
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Dominican Republic
Paraguay
The Gambia
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Central African Republic
Congo
Madagascar
Maldives
Peru
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Myanmar
Chile
Mauritania
Yemen
China
Morocco
Afghanistan
Brunei Darussalam
Haiti
Suriname
Tajikistan
Tonga
Mongolia
Ecuador
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Liberia, Republic of
Qatar
Samoa
United Arab Emirates
Viet Nam
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Oman
Pakistan
Honduras
Papua New Guinea
Turkey
Kyrgyz Republic
Panama
Philippines
Singapore
Georgia
Jordan
Lao People's Democratic Republic
WTO Developed Country Members
Cambodia
Albania
Cabo Verde
Egypt
United States of America
Thailand
Malaysia
Iceland
Korea, Republic of
Ukraine
Australia
Canada
Chinese Taipei
European Union
Hong Kong, China
Japan
Kazakhstan
Macao, China
Moldova, Republic of
Montenegro
New Zealand
Norway
Russian Federation
Seychelles
Switzerland
The FYR of MacedoniaPercent
Average Applied Average Bound