After a long wait, the United States finally notified the other members of the World Trade Organization of its spending on agricultural programs today. Although timely notification is supposedly a key requirement (and benefit) of the WTO, the U.S. had left members in the dark as to the true nature and extent of its farm subsidies since 2004, and that notification covered only the years up to 2001.


Today’s notification asserts that U.S. spending on so‐​called “Amber‐​box” domestic support (that which is linked to production and/​or prices of agricultural commodities, and thus is the most market‐​distorting) was well below its limit of $19.1 billion in every year between 2002–2005 (the period covered by the latest notification). However, sources tell me that the administration admitted in a telephone press conference today that direct payments were classified as “green box” (spending which is at most minimally trade‐​distorting and therefore not subject to reduction commitments) in their calculations, in direct contravention of a 2005 WTO Appellate Body ruling on U.S. Cotton programs, which stated (at para. 342) “[P]roduction flexibility contract payments and direct payments … are not green box measures exempt from the reduction commitments by virtue of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.” (my emphasis)


Seems pretty clear to me.


In other words, if direct payments are properly classified as amber box measures, the United States’ spending might look very different, and may not be below the legal ceiling after all, especially in years 2004 and 2005 (see more here). Members of Congress currently writing a new farm bill might want to keep the threat of WTO litigation (including pending challenges by Canada and Brazil) in mind.