{ "id": "R45305", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45305", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 599498, "date": "2019-06-04T00:00:00", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T18:58:10.388156", "title": "Agriculture in the WTO: Rules and Limits on U.S. Domestic Support", "summary": "Omnibus U.S. farm legislation\u2014referred to as the farm bill\u2014has typically been renewed every five or six years. Farm revenue support programs have been a part of U.S. farm bills since the 1930s. Each successive farm bill usually involves some modification or replacement of existing farm programs. A key question likely to be asked of every new farm proposal or program is how it will affect U.S. commitments under the World Trade Organization\u2019s (WTO\u2019s) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). \nThe United States is currently committed, under the AoA, to spend no more than $19.1 billion annually on those domestic farm support programs most likely to distort trade\u2014referred to as amber box programs and measured by the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS). The AoA spells out the rules for countries to determine whether their policies\u2014for any given year\u2014are potentially trade distorting and how to calculate the costs.\nThe most recent U.S. notification to the WTO of domestic support outlays (made on October 31, 2018) is for the 2016 crop year. To date, the United States has never exceeded its $19.1 billion amber box spending limit. However, this has been achieved in some years (1999, 2000, and 2001) through judicious use of the de minimis exclusion described below. \nAn additional consideration for WTO compliance\u2014the SCM rules governing adverse market effects resulting from a farm program\u2014comes into play when a domestic farm policy effect spills over into international markets. The SCM details rules for determining when a subsidy is \u201cprohibited\u201d (e.g., certain export- and import-substitution subsidies) and when it is \u201cactionable\u201d (e.g., certain domestic support policies that incentivize overproduction and result in significant market distortion\u2014whether as lower market prices or altered trade patterns). Because the United States is a major producer, consumer, exporter, and/or importer of most major agricultural commodities, the SCM is relevant for most major U.S. agricultural products. As a result, if a particular U.S. farm program is deemed to result in market distortion that adversely affects other WTO members\u2014even if it is within agreed-upon AoA spending limits\u2014then that program may be subject to challenge under the WTO dispute settlement procedures.\nDesigning farm programs that comply with WTO rules can avoid potential trade disputes. Based on AoA and SCM rules, U.S. domestic agricultural support can be evaluated against five specific successive questions to determine how it is classified under the WTO rules, whether total support is within WTO limits, and whether a specific program fully complies with WTO rules:\nCan a program\u2019s support outlays be excluded from the AMS total by being placed in the green box of minimally distorting programs?\nCan a program\u2019s support outlays be excluded from the AMS total by being placed in the blue box of production-limiting programs?\nIf amber, will support be less than 5% of production value (either product-specific or non-product-specific) thus qualifying for the de minimis exclusion?\nDoes the total, remaining annual AMS exceed the $19.1 billion amber box limit?\nEven if a program is found to be fully compliant with the AoA rules and limits, does its support result in price or trade distortion in international markets? If so, then it may be subject to challenge under SCM rules.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45305", "sha1": "6be3064eb2ab502298c2d567aacbcc0a55e623f5", "filename": "files/20190604_R45305_6be3064eb2ab502298c2d567aacbcc0a55e623f5.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190604_R45305_images_1e231d4b266d8b5d40e2827d490ca1cc1214158e.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190604_R45305_images_0b7b00c8c53e84d505f2c4ece796d37c8b353a6d.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190604_R45305_images_1cc9185eee82ac443252c64098bbbf5d408fcaea.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45305", "sha1": "63013e94bca207405310dbdea67c6879daa51056", "filename": "files/20190604_R45305_63013e94bca207405310dbdea67c6879daa51056.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4829, "name": "Agricultural Trade & Food Aid" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4919, "name": "Farm Support" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 584642, "date": "2018-09-06T00:00:00", "retrieved": "2018-09-07T13:51:39.127048", "title": "Agriculture in the WTO: Rules and Limits on U.S. Domestic Support", "summary": "Omnibus U.S. farm legislation\u2014referred to as the farm bill\u2014has typically been renewed every five or six years. Farm income and commodity price support programs have been a part of U.S. farm bills since the 1930s. Each successive farm bill usually involves some modification or replacement of existing farm programs. A key question likely to be asked of every new farm proposal or program is how it will affect U.S. commitments under the World Trade Organization\u2019s (WTO\u2019s) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). \nThe United States is currently committed, under the AoA, to spend no more than $19.1 billion annually on those domestic farm support programs most likely to distort trade\u2014referred to as amber box programs and measured by the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS). The AoA spells out the rules for countries to determine whether their policies\u2014for any given year\u2014are potentially trade distorting and how to calculate the costs.\nThe most recent U.S. notification to the WTO of domestic support outlays (made on May 1, 2018) is for the 2015 crop year. To date, the United States has never exceeded its $19.1 billion amber box spending limit. However, this has been achieved in some years (1999, 2000, and 2001) through judicious use of the de minimis exclusion described below. \nAn additional consideration for WTO compliance\u2014the SCM rules governing adverse market effects resulting from a farm program\u2014comes into play when a domestic farm policy effect spills over into international markets. The SCM details rules for determining when a subsidy is \u201cprohibited\u201d (e.g., certain export- and import-substitution subsidies) and when it is \u201cactionable\u201d (e.g., certain domestic support policies that incentivize overproduction and result in significant market distortion\u2014whether as lower market prices or altered trade patterns). Because the United States is a major producer, consumer, exporter, and/or importer of most major agricultural commodities, the SCM is relevant for most major U.S. agricultural products. As a result, if a particular U.S. farm program is deemed to result in market distortion that adversely affects other WTO members\u2014even if it is within agreed-upon AoA spending limits\u2014then that program may be subject to challenge under the WTO dispute settlement procedures.\nDesigning farm programs that comply with WTO rules can avoid potential trade disputes. Based on AoA and SCM rules, U.S. domestic agricultural support can be evaluated against five specific successive questions to determine how it is classified under the WTO rules, whether total support is within WTO limits, and whether a specific program fully complies with WTO rules:\nCan a program\u2019s support outlays be excluded from the AMS total by being placed in the green box of minimally distorting programs?\nCan a program\u2019s support outlays be excluded from the AMS total by being placed in the blue box of production-limiting programs?\nIf amber, will support be less than 5% of production value (either product-specific or non-product-specific) thus qualifying for the de minimis exclusion?\nDoes the total, remaining annual AMS exceed the $19.1 billion amber box limit?\nEven if a program is found to be fully compliant with the AoA rules and limits, does its support result in price or trade distortion in international markets? If so, then it may be subject to challenge under SCM rules.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45305", "sha1": "24080c7dc6cc10b2ce7067eda10d7dba331f55ae", "filename": "files/20180906_R45305_24080c7dc6cc10b2ce7067eda10d7dba331f55ae.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/2.png": "files/20180906_R45305_images_2c849822850e94169f58b2ed86643ead4543b4be.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180906_R45305_images_dea214a1a12b96bab66827e2117b6680a3c1413e.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45305_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180906_R45305_images_a26813bff149ad10cd522213df6845e73bad46b2.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45305", "sha1": "f0bb822e41478cd16dab3f4e57b63587299d4806", "filename": "files/20180906_R45305_f0bb822e41478cd16dab3f4e57b63587299d4806.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy" ] }