Blue Box Agreement On Agriculture

Almost all domestic support measures, considered (with a few exceptions) as a distortion of production and trade, are included in the amber box defined in Article 6 of the agricultural agreement as all domestic aid, with the exception of aid in the blue and green boxes. These include price support measures or subsidies directly related to production volumes. “This has allowed rich countries to maintain or increase their very high subsidies by moving from one kind of subsidy to another,” Said Third World Network. That is why, after the Uruguay Round, subsidies have increased overall in OECD countries, rather than falling, despite the obvious promise to reduce subsidies in the North. In addition, Martin Khor argued that subsidies to green and blue boxes can also distort trade – because “protection is better camouflaged, but the effect is the same.” [7] The blue box includes all aid payments that are not subject to the Amber Box Reduction Agreement, as these are direct payments under a production limitation program. The CAP is also affected by land concessions granted to several multilateral and bilateral agreements under several multilateral and bilateral agreements, as well as unilateral exemptions granted under the Generalized Preference System (GSP). These preferential agreements explain the high level of EU agricultural imports from developing countries (3.2.10, Table VI). While the “green box” is roughly translated into a “Go” green signal and amber could be considered a warning light, there is no red box. Instead, the WTO has invented a “blue box” used for what the organization considers production restraint programs. As a result, the trade agreement calls on 30 WTO members, including the United States, to commit to reducing their domestic aid distorting trade that falls into the amber box.

In the absence of these obligations, WTO members are required to maintain their bernstein-box aid between 5 and 10% of their production value. 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. Agricultural subsidies that fall into the WTO`s green box are policies that are not constrained by the trade agreement because they are not considered trade-distorting.