JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
21 December  2023 
(23-8757) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN GREEN BOX SUPPORT  
SUBMISSION BY THE CAIRNS GROUP  
Revision  
The following submission , dated 20 December  2023, is being circulated at the request of the 
Cairns  Group .1 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE  
1.1.  This paper investigates the long -term trends in domestic support provided under Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (the Green Box) between 2000 and 2019. It captures how Green Box 
use has changed over time, how support is dis tributed across different categories, and which WTO 
Members notify support under this provision. It is based on data provided in DS:1 notifications of 
WTO Members. This paper aims to help improve WTO Members ' understanding of the use of the 
Green Box, and to inform related discussions in both the Committee on Agriculture and the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session.  
2  KEY FINDINGS  
Green Box support is equal to three times that of all other types of domestic support combined.  
2.1.  In 2019, Green Box support accounted for 75.6% of total domestic support notified to the 
WTO. In comparison, Current Total Aggregate Measure of Support (CTAMS) accounted for 11. 0%, 
de minimis  6.6%, Article 6.2 support 4.9% and Blue Box (Article 6.5) support 1.9% ( Figure 1). 
Green Box support more than doubled from 2000 -2019, outpacing growth in any other domestic 
support category.  
2.2.  From 2000 to 2019, total Green Box support  (as measured in 2019  US dollars) increased by 
117% (from USD  213 billion to USD  461 billion), in comparison to an increase in support through 
de minimis support of 4 9.9% (from USD  26.7 billion to USD  40.0 billion) and under Article 6.2 of 
2.8% (USD  29.2 b illion to USD  30.0 billion). There was a decrease of CTAMS of 38.6% (from 
USD 110 billion to USD  67.3 billion) and Blue Box support of 63.1% ( from USD  31.8 billion to 
USD 11.7 billion)  (Figure 2).2 
Over 90% of Green Box support is provided by five Members.  
2.3.  In 2019, China provided the largest amount of Green Box support, accounting fo r 38.3% of 
total Green Box support (USD  177 billion), followed by the U nited States (US) (30. 0%, USD  138 
billion), the European Union (EU) (16. 6%, USD  76.7 billion)3, India (6.6%, USD  30.3 billion) and 
 
1 Indonesia, Pakistan  and South Africa are still consulting .  
2 At the time of publication, 60 Members had submitted domestic support notifications for 2019, while 
74 Members had submitted domestic support notifications for 2000 . 
3 The United Kingdom is included as part of the EU in this paper.  JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Japan ( 3.9%, USD  18.2 billion) ( Figure 1). Together these five  Members accounted for 95. 5% of 
total Green Box support.4 
Support for over half of the Green Box support categories is dominated by either one or two 
Members.  
2.4.  The types of measures supported by different WTO Members under Annex 2 varies significantly. 
Over half of Green Box support categories, however, are dominated by one or two of the five 
Members noted in paragraph 2.3 above ( Figure 5). 
Four of the top five providers of Green Box support focus spending on a single category of support.  
2.5.  Four of the top five providers of Green Box s upport provide a significantly larger amount of 
support for one specific category, rather than allocating support more equally across different 
categories. In comparison, China allocates support more equally across several different categories.  
Domestic su pport notifications.  
2.6.  A significant number of errors were picked up in the WTO 's Agriculture Information 
Management System (AgIMS) database: some of the values that were extracted from AgIMS were 
different to the values reported in Members ' DS:1 notificatio ns; for some Members, different 
currencies were recorded in AgIMS to those reported in the DS:1 notifications or different units of 
currency were recorded in AgIMS to those used in DS:1 notifications; in some cases, amendments 
made by revisions, addenda or  corrigenda have not been reflected in AgIMS. Since the original 
drafting of this paper the database has been reformed to now contain domestic support data both 
in the originally notified currencies as well as in equivalent USD to facilitate comparison.  
3  DEFINITIONS  
3.1.  The term "Green Box " support refers to domestic support measures listed under Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) , which are exempt from reduction commitments. These 
measures are required to meet the requirement that they have no, or a t most minimal, 
trade-distorting effects or effects on production. Accordingly, all Green Box measures for which 
exemptions are claimed are required to conform to the following basic criteria:  
a. the support in question shall be provided through a publicly funded  government 
programme (including government revenue foregone) not involving transfers from 
consumers and,  
b. the support in question shall not have the effect of providing price support to producers.  
3.2.  Annex 2 identifies a range of additional policy -specific criteria for four broad categories of Green 
Box support – general services, public stockholding for food security purposes (PSH), domestic food 
aid and direct payments to producers.  
3.3.  The general services category is further divided into sev en sub -categories under paragraph 2 
of Annex  2: research, pest and disease control, training services, extension and advisory services, 
inspection services, marketing and promotion services and infrastructural services.  
3.4.  General services that do not fit int o a clearly defined category according to Annex 2, 
paragraphs  2(a) through (g) or have components of more than one category, for example research 
and extension and advisory services, are categori zed as "other general services ". 
  
 
4 This is an approximate figure that does not take into account a number of large Green Box providers 
that have not provided domestic support notifications for 2019.  JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.5.  There are eight categories  of direct payments: decoupled income support, income insurance 
and income safety -net programmes, payments for relief from natural disasters, structural 
adjustment assistance provided through producer retirement programmes, structural adjustment 
assistance  provided through resource retirement programmes, structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids, environmental programmes and regional assistance programmes.  
3.6.  Direct payments that to not fit into a clearly defined category in Annex 2, pa ragraphs 6 through 
13 of the AoA but conform to the criteria in Annex 2, paragraph 1 and paragraph 6(b) through (e), 
are categori zed as "other direct payments ". 
4  METHODOLOGY  
4.1.  The analysis presented in this paper uses the data contained in Members ' domestic s upport 
notifications (DS:1 notifications) from 2000 to 2019. This data was sourced from A GIMS and the 
WTO's Documents Online , as at 1 October  2023.  
4.2.  All values have been converted to 2019 US dollars through a two -stage approach: (i) they have 
been deflated to 2019 values in the national currency of the reporting Member using deflators 
provided by the International Monetary Fund, unless otherwise noted5; (ii) they were subsequently 
converted to US dollars.6  
4.3.  A series of 2019 snapshots are used to compare re lative amounts of Green Box support 
provided by Members in that year. The year 2019 was selected because it is the most recent year 
available for which a significant majority of the largest Green Box providers have provided DS:1 
notifications. As of 1 October 2023, 60 countries had provided DS:1 notifications for 2019, 
representing 85. 6% of global agricultural output7, compared with 4 8 for 2020, 3 3 for 2021 and 
14 for 2022.8,9 
5  COMPARISON OF GREEN BOX SUPPORT WITH OTHER TYPES OF DOMESTIC SUPPO RT 
5.1.  In 2019, total notified domestic support equated to USD 610 billion. Green Box support 
accounted for the largest share (75.6%), followed by CTAMS (11. 0%), de minimis  (6.6%), 
Article  6.2 support (4.9%) and Blue Box support (1.9%) ( Figure 1).  
5.2.  Of the total notified Green Box support (USD  461 billion), China was the largest provider 
(38.3%, USD  177 billion), followed by the US (30. 0%, USD  138 billion), t he EU (16. 6%, USD  76.7 
billion), India (6.6%, USD  30.3 billion) and Japan ( 3.9%, USD  18.2 billion) ( Figure 1). Together , 
these five  Members accounted for 95. 5% of total Green Box support.  
5.3.  In 2019, the total value of Green Box support provided by WTO Members was equal to 11.1% 
of the total global val ue of agricultural production (VoP) for that year. In comparison, CTAMS was 
equal to 1.6%, de minimis  1.0%, Article 6.2 0.7%, and Blue Box 0. 3%.10 
 
5 Source: https://ww w.imf.org/external/datamapper/PCPIPCH@WEO/OEMDC , accessed 19 April 2023 . 
6 Source: Exchange Rates incl. Effective Ex. Rates - IMF Data . 
7 Source: FAOSTAT  - this statistic is an approximation because the FAO 's statistics database does not 
include 2019 agricultural production data for all Members included in this analysis.  
8 Cuba was not included in this analysis because it was not possible to obtain inflation data or exchange 
rates for Cuba for the period analys ed (2000 -2019). 
9 Agreement on Agriculture Notifications by agreement - Notification Portal (wto.org) . 
10 FAOSTAT  - these statistics are approximations because the FAO 's statistics database does not include 
2019 agricultural production data for all WTO Members. Equally, at the time of publication not all Members had 
submitted DS:1 notifications for 2019.  JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Figure 1: Total Domestic Support, 201911  
 
 
5.4.  From 2010 to 201912, there were increases in total annual Green Box support (from 
USD 442 billion to USD  461 billion), CTAMS (from USD  31.0 billion to USD  67.3 billion), and Blue  Box 
support (from USD 9.65 billion to USD  11.7 billion). There were decreases for de minimis  
(from  USD 58.5 billion to USD  40.0 billion) and Article 6.2 support (from USD  65.0 billion to 
USD 30.0 billion) ( Figure 2). 
 
11 The percent ages displayed in this chart next to each Member refer to that Member 's contribution to 
total Green Box support. These percentages do not  relate to other types of domestic support i.e. CTAMS, de 
minimis , Article 6.2 or Blue Box. This is a slightly amended graph from that of JOB/AG/ 253 in that it captures 
both CTAMS provided through FBTAMS entitlements and CTAMS provided by Members without FBTAMS.  
12 The period 2010 to 2019 is used to report changes in domestic support levels because this period is 
more relevant to current trends than the 2000 -2010 period. The entire 2000 -2019 period is displayed in the 
graphs to illustrate the context that has led to current trends.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Figure 2: Comparison of Green Box support with other types of support, 2000 -2019  
 
5.5.  Of the total Green Box support notified from 2010 to 2019, support decreased in the US (from 
USD 139 billion to USD  138 billion), the EU (from USD  102 billion to USD  76.7 billion), India (from 
USD 33.4 billion to USD  30.3 billion) and Japan (from USD  18.3 billion to USD  18.2 billion). It 
increased in China (from USD  98.8 billion to USD  177 billion ) (Figure 3).  
Figure 3: Cross country comparison of total Green Box domestic support 2000 -2019  
 
  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  6  CROSS CATEGORY ANALYSIS OF T OTAL GREEN BOX SUPPORT  
6.1.  In 2019, total notified Green Box support equated to USD  461 billion. The largest categories 
were domestic food aid, which accounted for the largest share (27.1%), followed by infrastructural 
services (13.8%), decoupled income suppor t (12.8%), other general services13 (9.9%), 
environmental programmes (8. 1%) and PSH for food security purposes (7.4%) ( Figure 4). 
Figure 4: Share of support allocated to different categories of Green Box domestic 
support, 2019  
 
 
6.2.  The types of measures supported by different WTO Members under Annex 2 varies significantly. 
However, o ver half of Green Box support categories are dominated by one or two of the five largest 
providers of Green Box support ( Figure 5). 
 
13 "Other general services " refers to programmes that are general serv ices but do not fit into a clearly 
defined category according to the AoA, Annex 2, paragraphs 2(a) through (g) or have components of more 
than one category, for example research and extension and advisory services.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 5: Categories of Green Box support by Member, 2019  
 
* Sub-category of general services.  
  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  6.3.  From 2010 to 2019, total annual Green Box support increased by 4.8% for domestic food aid 
(from USD  119 billion to USD  125 billion), by 5 7.5% for infrastructural services (from 
USD 40.4 billion to USD  63.7 billion) and by 55.5% for other general services (from USD  29.4 billion 
to USD  45.7 billion). It decreased by 8.5% for decoupled income support (from USD  64.7 billion to 
USD 59.2 billion) , by 6.9% for environmental programmes ( from USD  40.2 billion to 
USD 37.4 billion)  and by 16.9% for PSH for food security purposes (from USD  41.1 billion to 
USD 34.1 billion)  (Figure 6).  
Figure 6: Cross category comparison of total Green Box domestic support 2000 -2019  
 
 
7  ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL CATEGORIES OF GREEN BOX SUPPORT  
7.1.  This section provides an analysis of the top six  categories of Green Box domestic support – 
domestic food aid, decoupled income support, infrastructural services, other general services, 
environmental programmes and PSH for food security purposes.  
Domestic food aid  
7.2.  Between 2010 and 2019, domestic food aid increased from USD  119 billion to USD  125 billion. 
Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in the US (from USD  111 billion 
to USD  120 billion) and the EU (from USD  1.09 billion to USD  1.65 billion). It decreased in Indonesia 
(from USD  2.51 billion to USD  1.72 bill ion), Brazil (from USD  2.88 billion to USD  1.00 billion) and 
South Africa (from USD  763 million in 2010 to USD  640 million in 2014)14 (Figure 7). In 2019, 96.4% 
of domestic food aid was provided by the US.  
 
14 At the time of publication, South Afric a's most recent DS:1 notification was submitted for 2014.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Figure 7: Cross country comparison of Green Box support for domestic food aid, 2000 -
2019  
 
 
Infrastructu ral services  
7.3.  Between 2010 and 2019, support for infrastructural services increased from USD  40.4 billion 
to USD  63.7 billion. Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in China 
(from USD  20.9 billion to USD  48.0 billion), Japa n (from USD  5.07 billion to USD  7.49 billion) and 
India (from USD  557 million to USD  856 million). It decreased in the Republic of Korea (from 
USD 3.56 billion in 2010 to USD  2.89 billion in 2018)15 and the EU (from USD  3.46 billion to 
USD 1.26 billion) (Figure 8). In 2019, 75.4% of infrastructural services was provided by China.  
Figure 8: Cross country  comparison of Green Box support for infrastructural services 
2000 -2019  
 
 
  
 
15 At the time of publication, the Republic of Korea 's most recent DS:1 notification was submitted 
for 2018.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Decoupled income support  
7.4.  Between 2010 and 2019, decoupled income support decreased from USD  64.7 billion to 
USD 59.2 billion. Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in China 
(from USD  3.02 to USD  18.8 billion) and the Republic of Korea (from USD  986 million in 2010 to 
USD 1.25 billion in 2018).16 It decreased in the EU from USD  49.3 billion to USD  33.0 billion), the 
US (from USD  6.86 billion  to USD  0.00) and Switzerland (from USD  1.66 billion to USD  109 million)  
(Figure 9). In 2019, two Members accounted for the majority of decoupled inco me support: the EU 
(55.8%) and China (31.7%).  
Figure 9: Cross country comparison of Green Box support for decoupled income support 
2000 -2019  
 
Other general services17 
7.5.  Between 2010 and 2019 support for other general services increased from USD  29.4 billion to 
USD 45.7 billion. Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in China 
(from USD  8.75 billion to USD  39.2 billion). It decreased in the US (from USD  11.7 billion to 
USD 3.28 billion), Japan (from USD  4.24 billion to USD  2.30 billion), the EU (from USD  2.19 billion 
to USD  146 million) and Brazil (from USD  733 million to USD  57.9 million)  (Figure 10). In 2019, 
85.7% of other general services was provided by China.  
Figure 10: Cross country comparison of Green Box support for other general services 
2000 -2019  
 
  
 
16 At the time of publication, the Republic of Korea 's most recent DS:1 notification was submitted for 
2018.  
17 "Other general services " refers to programmes that are general services but do not fit into a clearly 
defined category according to the AoA, Annex 2, paragraphs 2(a) through (g) or have components of more 
than one category, for example research and extension and advisory services.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Environmental programmes  
7.6.  From 2010 to 2019, support for environmental programmes decreased from USD  40.2 billion 
to USD  37.4 billion. Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in China 
(from USD  16.7 billion to USD  18.8 billion), the US (from USD  5.66 billion to USD  4.25 billion), Japan 
(from USD  3.09 billion to USD  3.25 billion) and Switzerland (from USD 576 million to USD  1.25 
billion).  It decreased in the EU (from USD  10.8 billion to USD  8.91 billion)  (Figure 11). In 2019, two 
Members accounted for the majority of environmental programmes : China (50.3 %) and the EU 
(23.8%). 
Figure 11: Cross country comparison of Green Box support for environmental 
programmes 2000 -2019  
 
PSH for food security  purposes  
7.7.  From 2010 to 2019, support for PSH for food security purposes decreased from USD  41.1 billion 
to USD  34.1 billion. Among the top five providers of this type of support, its use increased in China 
(from USD  14.2 billion to USD  15.0 billion) and the Republic of Korea (from USD  193 million in 2010 
to USD  325 million in 2018) .18 It decreased in India (from USD  23.7 billion to USD  18.7 billion), 
Brazil (from USD  1.09 billion to USD  63.4 million) and Japan (from USD  273 million to USD  141 
million) (Figure 12). In 2019, two Members accounted for the majority of PSH for food security 
purposes : India (54.7% ) and China (43.8% ). 
Figure 12: Cross country comparison of Green Box support for PSH for food security 
purposes 2000 -2019  
 
 
 
18 At the time of publication, the Republic of Korea 's most recent DS:1 notification was submitted for 
2018.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  8  ANALYSIS OF THE TOP FIVE USERS OF GREEN BOX SUPPORT  
8.1.  Below follows an in -depth analysis of Green Box support of the top five users of Green Box 
domestic support over the 2000 -2019 period.   
China  
8.2.  Between 2000 and 2019, China 's largest share of  Green Box support was provided for 
infrastructural services ( Figure 13), with this category representing 27.2% of China 's Green Box 
support in 2019 . This support was allocated to agricultura l comprehensive development 
programmes, flood control projects, drainage and irrigation facilities, rural roads, rural power grids, 
small scale watering facilities on farmland, soil and water conservation.  
8.3.  There was also significant support for other gener al services, mainly allocated to agricultural 
administration, operating supports related to buildings, facilities and salaries, external exchanges 
and cooperation, subsidies on comprehensive financial resources for agriculture, agricultural 
administrative and services agencies, and pensions to retired employees of these government 
agencies.   
8.4.  There were peaks in regional assistance programmes in 2016 (outlays on aid and assistance in 
disadvantaged regions), infrastructural services from 2017 -2019 (see paragr aph 8.2 above), other 
general services in 2007 -08 (see 8.3) and decoupled income support from 2016 -2019 (direct 
payments to farmers).   
Figure 13: China Green and Amber Box support, 2000 -2019  
 
 
United States  
8.5.  Between 2000 and 2019, the US ' largest share of Green Box support was provided for domestic 
food aid ( Figure 14), with this category representing 8 7.0% of US Green Box support in 2019. The 
majority of this support was allocated to the Food and Nutrition Service 's Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly Food Stamp Program – low-income people receive financial 
assistance to help purchas e nutritious food) and Child Nutrition Programmes.  
  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.6.  There was consistent spending on other general services over the same period, with a 
significant decrease in spending in 2016 (the largest amount of support was allocated to state 
programmes for agriculture). In 2016, the reporting methodology for program mes categori zed as 
"general services " changed, resulting in a number of programs that were previously categori zed as 
other general services being reported as different categories, such as infrastr ucture services, pest 
and disease control and research, among others.  
8.7.  Since 2002, there has also been consistent support allocated to environmental programmes. 
The environmental program mes allocated the highest amounts of support were the Conservation 
Reserve Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program (EQIP).   
Figure 14: US Green and Amber Box support, 2000 -2019  
 
 
European Union 
8.8.  Between 2000 and 2019, the EU 's largest share of Gre en Box support was provided for 
decoupled income support ( Figure 15), with this category representing 43 .0% of the EU 's Green Box 
support in 2019. The majority of this support was allocated to the Single Payment Scheme and 
supplementary aid, Separate Sugar Payment, Separate Fruit and Vegetables Payment, decoupled 
Complementary National Direct Payments, Basic Payments Scheme and Small Farmers Scheme – 
before 2005 support for this category was listed as "agri-monetary aid ".  
8.9.  The EU also provided consistent levels of support for structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids (aid for farm modernization, young farmers, purchase of machinery , 
equipment, animals, buildings and plantations, among others measures), environmental 
program mes (protection of the environment and preservation of the country side and aid for 
environmentally sensitive areas, among other measures) and regional assistance programmes 
(specific measures for the benefit of certain disadvantaged areas, other outermost regions, less -
favoured areas and mountainous areas).  
8.10.  There was an increase in support allocated to other direct payments in 2004 (single area 
payment s cheme (SAPS), including for young farmers payment, redistributive payments, payments 
for areas with natural constraints, Small Famers Scheme and greening payment and Transitional 
National Aid), with a gradual increase until 2014 and then remaining relative ly consistent up to 2019.  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Figure 15: EU Green and Amber Box support, 2000 -2019  
 
 
India  
8.11.  Between 2000 and 2019, India 's largest share of Green Box support was provided for PSH for 
food security purposes  (Figure 16), with this category representing 61.7% of India 's Green Box 
support in 2019. This support was directed towards allocation for distribution and buffer stock.  
8.12.  There were peaks in spending for structural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids in 2007 -10 (the majority of support was allocated to the provision of loans at 
concessional rates and debt waivers), 2014 and 2017 (waiving off agricultural loans) and decoupled 
income support in 2018 -19 (Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN) – a scheme that aims 
to supplement the financial needs of small and marginal farmers).  
Figure 16: India Green and Amber Box support, 2000 -2019  
 
 
  
JOB/AG/253/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Japan  
8.13.  Between 2000 and 2019, Japan 's largest share of Green Box support was provided for 
infrastructural services ( Figure 17), with this category repres enting 41.2% of Japan 's Green Box 
support in 2019. The majority of this support was allocated to infrastructural services for the 
agricultural sector and rural areas, including the construction of irrigation/drainage facilities and 
rural roads, land consol idation, electricity reticulation, market and port facilities, and infrastructural 
works associated with environmental programmes, among other measures).  
8.14.  There was also consistent spending on other general services across the same period, with 
the largest amount of support allocated to personnel expenses for government officials.  
8.15.  There was a gradual increase in spending on environmental programmes across entire period 
with the largest amount of this support allocated to payments for maintaining paddy fields  in 
environmentally good condition through growing any plants other than rice or other appropriate 
management.   
Figure 17: Japan Green and Amber Box support, 2000 -2019  
 
 
9  CONCLUSION  
9.1.  It is critical that domestic agricultural policies are designed in a way that enables Members to 
address increasing global challenges to agricultural production and trade – including helping to driv e 
more sustainable, productive and climate -resilient agric ultural sectors – while minimi zing negative 
impacts and distortions to international  agricultural  markets.  
9.2.  The Green Box aims to ensure Members have sufficient policy space to pursue a broad range 
of objectives by exempting such support measures from redu ction commitments on the condition 
they meet the fundamental requirement of having no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects 
or effects on production. As this paper demonstrates, the use of the Green Box forms a significant 
component of total notifi ed domestic support , though largely concentrated in a small number of 
categories and Members,  and its use has grown over time. Further examination of support provided 
under the Green Box may help clarify the types of programmes and policies that meet the c riteria 
of the Green Box and inform discussions on the effectiveness of such measures on agricultural 
production and trade, and the experience of Members in using or seeking to use Green Box support 
to meet their agricultural policy objectives.   
__________