Malaysia's Industrialization from 1950

Just another WordPress site

Wto Agreement On Agriculture Green Box

Export subsidies are the third pillar. The 1995 agricultural agreement required industrialized countries to reduce export subsidies by at least 36% (in value terms) or by 21% (by volume) over a six-year value. For developing countries, the agreement called for reductions of 24% (in value) and 14% (in volume) over ten years. The WTO Information Office says opponents of the blue box want it removed because payments are only partially decoupled from production, or they want an agreement to reduce the use of these subsidies. “Others say that the blue box is an important tool to support and reform agriculture and achieve certain “non-commercial” objectives, and argue that it should not be restricted because it distorts trade less than other types of support.” The first pillar of the agricultural agreement is “domestic support.” AoA divides domestic support into two categories: distorting trade and not distorting trade (or having a low level of trade distortion). The WTO agricultural agreement negotiated in the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) provides for the classification of subsidies by “boxes” according to the consequences of production and trade: bernstein (most directly related to the level of production), blue (production limitation programmes that still distort trade) and green (minimum distortion). [3] While payments in the amber box were to be reduced, those in the green box were released from the discount obligations. Detailed rules for green box payments are contained in Schedule 2 of the AOA. However, all must meet the basic requirement of paragraph 1 in order not to create more than a minimal distortion of trade or production, and they must be provided by a state-funded programme, which does not involve consumer transfer or price support to producers. [1] With regard to agriculture, all domestic support measures that are considered (with a few exceptions) as a distortion of production and trade fall into the amber box. The total value of these measures must be reduced.

Various proposals address the extent to which these subsidies should be further reduced and whether limits should be set for certain products rather than having overall limits. These green box subsidies should be funded by the state, not by lowering higher prices for consumers, and they should not include price support. They are generally programs that are not targeted at specific products and may include direct income support for farmers disconnected from current production levels and/or prices, reports the World Trade Organization`s Information and Media Relations Department. To qualify, green box subsidies must not distort trade or, at most, lead to minimal distortions (paragraph 1). They should be funded by the state (not by higher prices for consumers) and should not include price support. To qualify for the green box, the WTO states that a subsidy must not distort trade or, at most, lead to minimal distortion. For now, the blue box is a permanent provision of the agreement. Some countries want it removed because payments are only partially decoupled from production, or they propose commitments to reduce the use of these subsidies.

Others argue that the blue box is an important tool to support and reform agriculture and achieve certain non-trade objectives, and argue that it should not be limited because it distorts trade less than other types of support (see non-trade concerns). The EU says it is ready to negotiate further cuts to amber-box aid as long as the blue and green box concepts are maintained. The agreement has been criticized by NGOs that categorize subsidies into trade-distorting national subsidies (the “amber box”) that need to be reduced, not trade-distorting subsidies (blue and green boxes) that can escape discipline and therefore be increased. While effective agricultural exporters are pushing members of the

Posted in Uncategorized.

Add a comment

 

Comments are closed.