This article examines whether the special treatment granted to development-oriented agricultural domestic support under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture affects the application of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. It focuses on investment and agricultural input subsidies and asks how qualification under Article 6.2 interacts with specificity and the rules on prohibited and actionable subsidies. The study applies doctrinal treaty interpretation, analysis of WTO dispute-settlement reports and comparison of the eligibility requirements in Article 6.2 with the specificity rules in Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. The analysis shows that Article 6.2 exempts qualifying measures from domestic-support reduction commitments and excludes them from Current Total AMS, but does not confer general immunity from wider WTO subsidy disciplines. Qualification under Article 6.2 does not, by itself, establish specificity; the assessment depends on the programme‘s legal scope, eligible beneficiaries, relevant jurisdiction, eligibility criteria and operation in practice. The article further argues that the requirement that investment subsidies be “generally available to agriculture” should not automatically be understood as requiring exclusive availability to the agricultural sector. It also demonstrates that the expiry of Article 13 at the end of 2003 removed conditional protection against certain actionable-subsidy proceedings and countervailing action, while Article 13(b) did not extend to prohibited-subsidy claims. The principal practical risks arise from domestic-content conditions and countervailing investigations involving subsidised agricultural products. The findings are relevant to developing-country Members and acceding economies designing agricultural support programmes.