JOB/AG/143  
 
27 September 2018  
(18-5972) Page: 1/12 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English   
 
TRENDS IN GLOBAL TRA DE-DISTORTING SUPPOR T  
SUBMISSION BY AUSTRALIA, ARGENTINA, CANADA, CHILE,  
COLOMBIA, NEW ZEALAND, PERU AN D VIET NAM  
The following submission , dated 17 September 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
aforementioned Members.  
 
_______________  
 
1  TRENDS IN GLOBAL TRA DE-DISTORTING SUPPOR T 
1.1.  The smooth functioning of our agricultural markets and the full participation  of all WTO 
Members in the normal growth of agricul tural trade is essential to ensure farmer livelihoods and 
ongoing global food security.  
1.2.  Evidence put forward at the recent WTO Agriculture Symposium (11 -15 June  2018), and in the 
paper from  Canada and some Cairns Group members (JOB/AG/138), clearly demonst rates the 
continuing problem of excessive usage of trade -distorting domestic support in global commodity 
markets, and some of the impacts it can have on trade and production.  
1.3.  This paper provides further details on some of the glob al trends in the usage of  trade -distorting 
domestic support, and specifically provides data on the share of the top providers of trade -distorting 
support overall, and in product -specific and non -product -specific support.   
1.4.  We use notified data made by WTO Members, converted to US dollars for ease of comparison 
using IMF data. In an effort to overcome some of the problems encountered with missing notification 
data, we have included 2010 in our reference periods – the last year when all major Members notified 
– through to 2014. This provides us a good basis for discussions, but missing, incomplete, and 
inaccurate domestic support notifications are a limitation in any analysis. We encourage Members 
to fully comply with their notification obligations.   
2  TOTAL GLOBAL TRADE -DISTORTING SUPP ORT BY MEMBERS  
2.1.  From the data presented in JOB/AG/138, it is clear that the global use of trade -distorting 
support persists at significant levels. That paper highlights that from 2001 to 2010 the major 
Members ' contributions to global trade -distorting support (as notified under Article 6) stayed level 
at around US D 100 billion.  
2.2.  Further analysis shows that there has been little change in the share of the major Members ' 
contributions to global trade -distorting support. Table 1 below shows the contribution  of the top ten 
suppliers of trade -distorting support in 2001, at the commencement of the Doha Round, and from 
2010 to 2014. We can see from the table that the top ten suppliers consistently account for around 
90% of notified global trade -distorting suppor t, which was worth USD  113 billion in 2010.  
2.3.  However, we can also see significant changes in the contribution that some individual major 
Members make to global trade -distorting support. Figures 1 and 2, below, show that the 
European  Union's contribution to trade -distorting support has diminished greatly since 2001. The 
United States' share also decreased significantly to 2010, but has increased since that time. While 
other Major Members  – India, China and Brazil – have expanded their share of global trade -distorting 
support.   
  JOB/AG/143  
 
- 2 - Table 1 : Total Article 6 support of top ten provide rs of Article 6 support in 2010  (USD million ) 
Member  2001 % of  
Total 2010 % of 
 Total 2011 % of  
Total 2012 % of 
 Total 2013 % of  
Total 2014 % of  
Total 
India  8,254  8% 33,892  30% 28,502  29% 27,568  29% 25,257  29% 27,880  32% 
China  306 0% 18,171  16%    
   
   
   
European Union  57,098  53% 14,522  13% 15,059  16% 13,377  14% 14,182  16% 15,139  17% 
Japan  6,500  6% 11,111  10% 11,413  12% 12,059  13% 9,835  11% 8,513  10% 
United States  21,537  20% 10,113  9% 14,398  15% 14,749  16% 14,268  16% 13,592  16% 
Brazil  1,307  1% 5,131  5% 5,381  6% 3,648  4% 3,500  4% 4,545  5% 
Canada  1,988  2% 3,018  3% 3,099  3% 2,987  3% 2,664  3% 1,938  2% 
Mexico  1,218  1% 2,592  2% 2,741  3% 2,058  2% 2,337  3% 2,220  3% 
Norway  2,006  2% 2,367  2% 2,616  3% 2,669  3% 2,572  3% 2,424  3% 
Switzerland  1,634  2% 2,344  2% 2,669  3% 2,353  2% 2,755  3% 1,492  2% 
Subtotal  101,848  95% 103,260  91% 85,880  89% 81,467  86% 77,369  88% 77,743 89% 
Total Art icle 6 Support  107,578    113,342   
96,741    94,581    88,165    86,800    
 JOB/AG/143  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Figure 1 : Global Article 6 Support - 2001  
 
Figure 2 : Global Article 6 Support - 2010  
 
  India China
European Union 
Japan United States of 
America Brazil Canada MexicoNorway Switzerland 
Rest of 
World
India 
China
European Union Japan United States of 
America Brazil Canada MexicoNorway Switzerland 
Rest of WorldJOB/AG/143  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3  TOTAL GLOBAL TRADE -DISTORTING SUPPORT BY CATEGORY OF SUPPORT  
3.1.  The shape  of global trade -distorting support has also altered since 2001 in terms of which 
provisions of Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture Members notify their support under.   
3.2.  Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4 show that in  2001 over half of all trade -distorting support was 
provided as product -specific (p-s) support under AMS entitlements . By 2010 this situation had 
changed markedly, with product -specific support under AMS entitlements  down to 24%  of all 
support, while produ ct-specific support using de minimis  had grown to 14 %. This is discussed further 
below.  Support under Article 6.2 had also risen dramatically to 34 % of all trade -distorting support, 
and non -product -specific  (non-p-s) de minimis  had climbed to 21 %. These tr ends continued through 
to 2014. We need to consider whether these changes have led to improvements to the agricultural 
support landscape, and if so, how do we capture this progress?  
3.3.  Support under Article 6.5 (B lue Box) also dropped from 21 % of all trade -distorting support in 
2001 to 8 % in 2010, and stayed  around  that level to 2014.   
3.4.  Finally, little usage has been made of AMS to support non -product -specific program mes, likely 
because most non -product -specific programs can easily be fitted into the large ov erall de minimis  
entitlements of Members.   
  JOB/AG/143  
 
- 5 - Table 2: Global Trade -Distorting support by category, 2001 , 2010 -2014  (USD million)  
Support  2001 % of  
Total 2010 % of 
Total 2011 % of 
Total 2012 % of 
Total 2013 % of 
Total 2014 % of  
Total 
Article 6.2 9,581  9% 38,095  34% 31,622  33% 27,875  29% 26,260  30% 29,973  35% 
p-s AMS  62,125  58% 27,125  24% 30,774  32% 28,687  30% 27,196  31% 22,269  26% 
p-s de minimis  2,043  2% 15,503  14% 13,404  14% 15,079  16% 14,482  16% 10,857  13% 
Non-p-s AMS  1,994  2% 0  0% 0  0% 5,718  6% 0  0% 1,091  1% 
Non-p-s de minimis  8,918  8% 23,930  21% 14,031  15% 10,902  12% 14,245  16% 17,338  20% 
Blue Box  22,918  21% 8,689  8% 6,909  7% 6,319  7% 5,983  7% 5,360  6% 
Grand Total  107,578    113,342    96,741    94,581    88,165    86,888    
 JOB/AG/143  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Figure 3 : Global Article 6 Support by Category, 2001  
 
 
Figure 4 : Global Article 6 Support by Category, 2010  
 
 Art.6.2
p-s AMSp-s de minimisNon-p-s AMSNon-p-s de minimisBlue Box
Art.6.2
p-s AMSp-s de minimisNon-p-s AMSNon-p-s de minimisBlue BoxJOB/AG/143  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  GLOBAL PRODUCT -SPECIFIC SUPPORT  
4.1.  As noted in JOB/AG/83 by some members of the Cairns Group, product -specific concentrations 
and levels of trade -distorting domestic support persist as one of the most trade -distorting examples 
of domestic support.  Product -specific support has a negative impact on the revenues  farmers in the 
world receive  and has the effect of displacing imports, depressing world prices, and even distorting 
export markets. Product -specific concentrations of trade -distorting domestic support stop markets 
from operating efficiently.  
4.2.  Table 3 below shows the top ten  providers of overall product -specific support (AMS + de 
minimis ) based on support provided in 2010.  Overall product -specific support declined somewhat 
since 2001 – though more recent notified data is needed to assess whether this decline has continued 
or reversed in more recent years. Again, the contribution of major Members to global product -
specific support remains high at  around 90% of all product -specific support.  
4.3.  Tables 4 and 5 disaggregate the product -specific data into product -specific support notified 
under AMS entitlements, and support notified as de minimis . Support notified under AMS 
entitlements declined since 200 1 – most notably due to significant reductions in the product -specific 
support provided under AMS entitlements from the European  Union and to a lesser extent the 
United States. De minimis  support, in contrast, has increased since 2001, notably from the 
United States, China,  India and the E uropean Union. However, in spite of these large increases in 
de minimis  support since 2001, notified de minimis  support was still worth around half of notified 
AMS product -specific support in 2014.  
  
  JOB/AG/143  
 
- 8 - Table 3: Overall  Product -Specific Support  (AMS + de minimis ) top ten providers of product -specific support  in 2010  (USD million ) 
 
2001 % of 
Total 2010 % of 
Total 2011 % of 
Total 2012 % of 
Total 2013 % of 
Total 2014 % of 
Total 
European Union  35,403  55% 9,466  22% 9,959  23% 8,827  20% 9,369  22% 10,013  30% 
United States  14,709  23% 9,230  22% 12,616  29% 14,440  33% 13,995  34% 8,059  24% 
Japan  5,585  9% 6,867  16% 7,205  16% 7,905  18% 6,302  15% 5,845  18% 
China  216  0% 3,745  9%    
   
   
   
Switzerland  1,634  3% 2,344  5% 2,669  6% 2,353  5% 2,755  7% 402 1% 
India  -  0% 2,282  5% 2,765  6% 2,973  7% 2,050  5% 2,678  8% 
Norway  1,187  2% 1,616  4% 1,791  4% 1,831  4% 1,714  4% 1,587  5% 
Mexico  822  1% 1,307  3% 1,387  3% 858  2% 1,071  3% 937  3% 
Brazil  236  0% 951  2% 795  2% 244  1% 321  1% 400  1% 
Canada  643  1% 842  2% 881  2% 968  2% 728  2% 676  2% 
Sub-total 60,434  94% 38,649  91% 40,069  91% 40,398  92% 38,304  92% 30,597   90% 
Global Total  64,168   
42,628   
44,178   
43,766   
41,678   
33,126   
 
   
  JOB/AG/143  
 
- 9 - Table 4: Product -specific AMS, top 10 providers in 2010  (USD million ) 
 
2001 % of  
Total 2010 % of 
Total 2011 % of  
Total 2012 % of  
Total 2013 % of 
Total 2014 % of 
Total 
European Union  35,171  57% 8,555  32% 9,526  31% 7,563  26% 7,962  29% 8,856  40% 
Japan  5,486  9% 6,572  24% 7,005  23% 7,631  27% 6,079  22% 5,669  25% 
United States  14,482  23% 5,161  19% 7,067  23% 6,860  24% 6,892  25% 3,810  17% 
Switzerland  1,634  3% 2,344  9% 2,669  9% 2,353  8% 2,748  10% 391  2% 
Norway  1,187  2% 1,597  6% 1,758  6% 1,800  6% 1,679  6% 1,551  7% 
Israel  259  0% 531  2% 628  2% 581  2% 690  3% 661  3% 
Canada  491  1% 478  2% 528  2% 837  3% 485  2% 532  2% 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom 
of    0% 410  2% 99  0.3%    0%   0%   0% 
Mexico  520  1% 379  1% 386  1% 187  1% 354  1% 115  1% 
Ukraine     
275  1% 281  1% 262  1%    
   
Subtotal  59,230  95% 26,302  97% 29,947  97% 28,074  98% 26,889  99% 21,585 97% 
Global Total  62,125   
27,125   
30,774   
28,687   
27,196   
22,269   
Table 5: Product -specific de minimis support, top ten providers in 2010  (USD million ) 
 
2001 % of  
Total 2010 % of 
Total 2011 % of  
Total 2012 % of  
Total 2013 % of 
Total 2014 % of 
Total 
United States  227  11% 4,069  26% 5,549  41% 7,580  50% 7,103  49% 4,249  39% 
China  216  11% 3,745  24%    
   
   
   
India   -  0% 2,282  15% 2,765  21% 2,973  20% 2,050  14% 2,678  25% 
Mexico  302  15% 928  6% 1,001  7% 670  4% 716  5% 822  8% 
European Union   232  11% 911  6% 433  3% 1,264  8% 1,407  10% 1,157  11% 
Brazil   236  12% 682  4% 582  4% 237  2% 321  2% 400  4% 
Pakistan   -   
609  4% 647  5%    
   
   
Korea, Republic of   137  7% 552  4% 710  5%    
   
   
Viet Nam      
370  2% 516  4% 572  4% 777  5%    
Canada   152  7% 364  2% 354  3% 131  1% 243  2% 144  1% 
Subtotal  1,501  73% 14,512  94% 12,556  94% 13,426  89% 12,617  87% 9,450  87% 
Global Total  2,043   
15,502   
13,403   
15,079   
14,482   
10,096   JOB/AG/143  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5  GLOBAL NON-PRODUCT -SPECIFIC SUPPORT  
5.1.  Table 6 below shows overall non -product -specific support (AMS + de minimis ) by major 
Members providing this form of support. Non -product -specific support increased greatly from 2001 
to 2010 on the bac k of increases from China, and to a lesser extent Brazil, Canada, and Ukraine. 
From 2011 to 2014 non -product -specific support has remained at significant levels, and usage has 
increased or remained level for most major Members. Like other forms of support,  the major 
Members ' share of global non -product -specific support has been high at 89 % in 2001 and 97 % in 
2010, though this share seems to have fallen since 2010.  
5.2.  Table s 7 and 8 disaggregate non -product -specific data between that provided under AMS 
entitlem ents and that under de minimis  entitlements. The tables show that non -product -specific 
support is overwhelmingly notified by Members under de minimis  entitlements, with only two 
Members notifying this under their AMS entitlements in the time period covered  – the Russian 
Federation in 2012 and Switzerland in 2014.   
  JOB/AG/143  
 
- 11 - Table 6 : Overall  Non-Product -specific  support, converted to USD million, top ten providers in 2010  
Member  2001 % of  
Total 2010 % of  
Total 2011 % of  
Total 2012 % of  
Total 2013 % of  
Total 2014 % of  
Total 
China  90  1% 14,426  60%    
   
   
   
Brazil  740  7% 2,528  11% 2,847  20% 2,364  14% 2,110  15% 2,270  12% 
Canada  1,345  12% 2,176  9% 2,218  16% 2,019  12% 1,936  14% 1,262  7% 
Ukraine    0% 1,037  4% 1,541  11% 1,494  9%   0%   0% 
European Union  512  5% 922  4% 960  7% 1,019  6% 1,261  9% 1,287  7% 
United States  6,828  63% 883  4% 1,782  13% 309  2% 272  2% 5,533  30% 
Japan  165  2% 748  3% 2,288  16% 2,210  13% 1,935  14% 1,963  11% 
Pakistan  -   
215  1% 571  4%    
   
   
Viet Nam     
201  1% 212  2% 202  1% 202  1%    
Chinese Taipei    0% 195  1% 241  2% 229  1%    
   
Subtotal  9,681  89% 23,33 2 97% 12,65 8  90% 9,845  59% 7,717  54% 12,315  67% 
Global Total 10,91 2  
23,930   
14,031   
16,62 1   
14,24 5   
18,34 2   
 
Table 7: Non-Product -specific support, de minimis , converted to USD million, top ten providers in 2010  
Member  2001 % of 
Total 2010 % of 
Total 2011 % of 
Total 2012 % of 
Total 2013 % of 
Total 2014 % of 
Total 
China  90  1% 14,426  60%                 
Brazil  740  8% 2,528  11% 2,846  20% 2,364  22% 2,110  15% 2,270  13% 
Canada   -  
2,176  9% 2,218  16% 2,019  19% 1,936  14% 1,262  7% 
Ukraine   -  
1,036  4% 1,541 11% 1,494  14%    
   
European Union   512  6% 922  4% 960  7% 1,019  9% 1,261  9% 1,287  7% 
United States  6,828  77% 883  4% 1,782  13% 309  3% 272  2% 5,533  32% 
Japan   165  2% 748  3% 2,288 16% 2,210  20% 1,935  14% 1,963  11% 
Pakistan   -  
215  1% 571  4%    
   
   
Viet Nam    -  
200  1% 211  2% 202  2% 202  1%    
Chinese Taipei    0  
195  1% 241  2% 229  2%    
   
Subtotal  8,335  93% 23,33 2  97% 12,65 8  90% 9,845  90% 7,717  54% 12,315  71% 
Global Total  8,918   
23,930   
14,031   
10,902   
14,24 5   
17,338   
 JOB/AG/143  
 
- 12 - 
  - 12 - Table 8 : Non-Product -specific AMS,  all notified since  2001  (USD million ) 
Member  2001 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 
Canada   1,345            
Hungary   290            
Czech Republic   142            
Slovak Republic  134            
Poland   69            
Slovenia   7            
Norway   4            
Costa Rica  3            
Russian Federation         5,718      
Switzerland             1,091  
Global Total  1,994      5,718    1,091 
 
 
__________