G/AG/W/206  
 
8 June 2020  
(20-4081) Page: 1/23 
Committee on Agriculture   
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE SPECIAL  MEETING O F 18 JUNE 20201 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by  2 June 2020 for 
consideration under agenda item 2 of WTO/AIR/AG/ 43 on the Review Process on COVID -19 and 
agricultural trade -related matters relevant to the implementation of commitments under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: A RTICLE  18.6 ... 5 
1.1   Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ ..................  5 
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94 034) ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.1.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94048)  ................................ ........................  5 
1.1.3   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 94033)  ................................ ................................ .. 6 
1.1.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94049)  ................................ ...........  6 
1.2   Cambodia's prohibition of rice exports  ................................ ................................ .........  6 
1.2.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94002)  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.3   Canada's agriculture support package  ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94001)  ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.4   Canada's dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94003)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.4.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94004)  ................................ ............................  7 
1.5   Canada - Farm Credit Canada  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94053)  ................................ ...........  7 
1.6   China's measures to ensure agricultural inputs supplies  ................................ .................  8 
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94054)  ................................ ...........  8 
1.7   Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  ................................ .......................  8 
1.7.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94005)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.7.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94006) ................................ ..............................  8 
1.8   El Salvador's export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ .... 8 
1.8.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94007)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.9   EU's private storage aid  ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94008)  ................................ ................................ . 9 
1.10   EU's aid to the potato sector  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94009)  ................................ ................................  9 
1.11   EU- Czech guarantee scheme  ................................ ................................ .................  10 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94010)  ................................ ..............................  10 
1.12   EU's support measures in response to Covid -19 ................................ ........................  10 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94011)  ................................ ..............................  10 
1.12.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94042)  ................................ ................................ .. 10 
1.12.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94035) ................................ ................................  11 
1.12.4    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94012)  ................................ ........................  11 
1.12.5    Question by United States of America (A G-IMS ID 94055)  ................................ ........  11 
1.12.6    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94056)  ................................ ........  11 
1.13   Romania's export prohibition on agricultural products ................................ .................  12 
1.13.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94041)  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
1.13.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94013)  ................................ ..........................  12 
1.14   Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ ... 12 G/AG/W/206  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.14.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94014)  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
1.15   India's COV ID-19 stimulus package  ................................ ................................ .........  13 
1.15.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94036) ................................ ................................  13 
1.16   Japan's beef support  ................................ ................................ .............................  13 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94015)  ................................ ..............................  13 
1.16.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94058)  ................................ ........  13 
1.17   Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ ........................  13 
1.17.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94044)  ................................ ................................ .. 13 
1.17.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94037) ................................ ................................  14 
1.17.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94057)  ................................ ........  14 
1.18   Japan's transportation support  ................................ ................................ ................  15 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94059)  ................................ ........  15 
1.19   Kazakhstan's ex port prohibition measures on certain food products  ..............................  15 
1.19.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94016)  ................................ ................................ .. 15 
1.19.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94017)  ................................ ..........................  15 
1.20   Myanmar's export quota on rice  ................................ ................................ ..............  15 
1.20.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94018)  ................................ ................................ .. 15 
1.21   New Zealand's International AirFreight Capacity Scheme  ................................ ............  16 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94038) ................................ ................................  16 
1.21.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94050)  ................................ ....................  16 
1.21.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94051)  ................................ ........  16 
1.22   Russian Federation's export quota  ................................ ................................ ...........  17 
1.22.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94043)  ................................ ................................ .. 17 
1.22.2    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94019)  ................................ ................................ .. 17 
1.22.3    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94020)  ................................ ..........................  17 
1.23   Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ .............  18 
1.23.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94021)  ................................ ................................ .. 18 
1.24   Turkey's Treasury -backed loans  ................................ ................................ ..............  18 
1.24.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94022)  ................................ ..............................  18 
1.25   Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  ................................ .........................  18 
1.25.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94023)  ................................ ................................ .. 18 
1.25.2    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94024)  ................................ ..........................  18 
1.26   U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ...............................  19 
1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94025)  ................................ ..............................  19 
1.26.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94045)  ................................ ................................ .. 19 
1.26.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94039) ................................ ................................  19 
1.26.4    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94052)  ................................ ....................  20 
1.26.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94026)  ................................ ........................  20 
1.27   US - Paycheck Protection Program  ................................ ................................ ...........  20 
1.27.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94047)  ................................ ....................  20 G/AG/W/206  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.28   Viet Nam's export restriction measures on rice  ................................ ..........................  21 
1.28.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94046)  ................................ ................................ .. 21 
1.28.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID  94040) ................................ ................................  21 
1.28.3    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94027)  ................................ ................................ .. 21 
1.28.4    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94028)  ................................ ..........................  22 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ...................  22 
2.1   Export prohibitions and restrict ions (Table ER:1)  ................................ .........................  22 
2.1.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ ...........  22 
2.1.2   North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/26)  ................................ ................................ ....... 22 
2.1.3   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/107 and G/AG/N/THA/107/Add.1)  ................................ ..........  23 
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/37)  ................................ ................................ ....................  23 
 
  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1  Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94034)  
Australia announced the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), an AUD 110 million  
programme that provides government assistance "by meeting a portion of the airfreight costs " of 
the export of high -value agriculture and fisheries productions. Ac cording to the relevant Australian 
government factsheet v4.0 on the IFAM 
(https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/10562/covid -19-relief-and-recovery -
fund.pdf.aspx ): "exporters will need to make a financial contribution towards the cost of their freight " 
and "this cost may be more than pre -COVID airfreight rates ". Furthermore on an Australian 
government website ( https://www.agriculture.gov.au/coronavirus/export/air -freight#air -freight -
service -providers ) it is stated that: "[The IFAM] will operate until ordinary commercial markets 
return, or for six months, whichever is earlier ".  
 
a. Could Australia provide more precision on how it will determine the level of government 
assistance for each quantity of agricultural goods exported? Please provide a detailed 
formula, and any element specific to the type of agricultural product exported.  
b. How will the financial contribution of exporters will be calculated?  
c. Australian government factsheet v4.0 mentioned that the financial contribution towards 
the cost of the flight "may" be more than pre -COVID air freight rates. Could Australia give 
more precision as to whether it is possible under this program that the financial 
contribution of exporters could be less than pre -COVID airfreight rates?  
d. Please indicate what "ordinary commercial markets return " means,  and how the 
government of Australia plans to determine when the ordinary commercial markets have 
returned?  
1.1.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94048)  
Australia has implemented a programme called the International Freight Assistance Mechanism 
(IFAM). Ac cording to the relevant Australian government factsheet v3.0 on the IFAM 
(https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/10562/covid -19-relief-and-recovery -
fund.pdf.aspx ) the IFAM is an AUD 110 million  "scheme designed to assist Australian agricultural 
and fisheries producers to export their premium produce to priority markets ". The factsheet states: 
"by meeting a portion of the airfreight costs, the government is helping ensure Australian exporters 
can recover and adapt quickly when the COVID -19 crisis begins to abate ". According to the factsheet, 
eligible products include:  
• seafood (including lobsters) ;  
• premium red meat (including beef, lamb and pork) ; 
• dairy (such as fresh milk and yoghurt) ;  
• horticulture (such as premium fruits and packaged salad or vegetables  
This appears therefore to be an aid provided to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural 
products, namely the costs of international transport and freight. As such, it appears to be an export 
subsidy as defined in Article 9 .1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture which covers "the provision of 
subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural products (other than widely 
available export promotion and advisory services) including handling, upgrading and other 
processing costs, and the costs of international transport and freight ". For developed WTO Members 
such as Australia, paragraph 6 of the Nairobi Ministeri al Decision of 19  December  2015 
(WTO  document WT/MIN(13)/40) provides for the elimination of export subsidies as of the date of 
adoption of that Decision.  
  
a. Can Australia explain how the IFAM respects its WTO obligations on agricultural export 
subsidies a s set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. Will Australia immediately terminate any prohibited agricultural export subsidies?  
1.1.3   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 94033)  
In April 2020, Australian government announced the e stablishment of a AUD 1 billion COVID -19 
Relief and Recover Fund to support the export sectors affected by the economic impacts of 
the COVID -19 Epidemic. Under the mentioned Fund, the Australian government will allocate 
AUD 110 million to help the agricult ure and seafood export sectors by creating a new freight 
assistance mechanism in order to recommence the Australian local shipments to other countries.  
 
In this regard, Thailand would like to request further details from Australia regarding the 
above -mentioned measure and how it complies with Australia 's export subsidies commitment 
schedule.  
 
1.1.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94049)  
In response to the impact the reduction in commercial flights is having on exports of Australian 
agriculture a nd seafood products, the government announced a AUD 110 million programme to help 
exporters get their products to markets.  
  
Please elaborate on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates are 
determined for agricultural exporte rs and whether any of the funds can be received by exporters 
directly.  
1.2  Cambodia's prohibition of rice exports  
1.2.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94002)  
a. Japan recognizes that Cambodia introduced export prohibition on rice on 5  April 2020 but 
finds that the requi red notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Cambodia could provide the reason behind.  Japan would also appreciate it if Cambodia 
could explai n how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members ' food security, as required in Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Cambodia could explain how the measure met the conditions 
requir ed in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, and ii) criticalness of the shortage. Japan would also appreciate it if 
Cambodia could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibition on rice, rather 
than arranging quota which reflects the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
1.3  Canada's agriculture support package  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94001)  
Australia notes that Canada 's federal government announced a CAD  252 million support packa ge for 
farmers and agri -businesses on 5 May.  
  
a. Noting the Canadian Prime Minister described the measures as an "initial investment ", 
does this mean Canada is considering further support measures? Noting the support 
package is reported to include CAD  50 million for a Surplus Food Purchase Program to 
redistribute surplus commodity inventories to foods banks.  
b. Can Canada confirm if the intention is to purchase surplus food in Canada for the purpose 
of domestic food aid?  
c. Can Canada please outline the com modities which will be eligible for the Surplus Food 
Purchase Program and provide any other relevant details of the programme?  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.4  Canada's dairy policies  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94003)  
Australia notes the Canadian Dairy Commission's borrowing limit has been increased to 
CAD 500 million ( from CAD 300 million) to  fund the purchase and storage of surplus butter and 
cheese from farmers and processors during the pandemic.  
 
a. Will the butter and cheese temporarily stored using this additional funding be exported?  
b. Can Canada confirm if there is a time limit on the 'temporary ' storage of butter and cheese?  
c. Australia notes this measure requires legislative change, could Canada p lease provide an 
update on the required changes?  
1.4.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94004)  
An amendment to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act has undergone its first reading. If the 
legislation is passed, the Canadian Dairy Commission  (CDC) will have its b udget almost doubled to 
CAD 500 million which will be used to finance increased volumes of butter to be placed in storage 
and expand the product range available for purchase to include cheese to be placed in storage. 
Media reporting suggests this is a perm anent increase to the budget, and not just a temporary 
measure to recover from the effects of COVID -19. The funding allows the CDC to buy surplus butter 
and cheese, store it until demand increases, and then sell it back to processors who will distribute it  
to market. We appreciate that these measures have been put in place to support the agriculture 
sector during a time of crisis, and we respect the need of countries to support agribusiness during 
these difficult times. We would be interested in the followi ng:  
 
a. Can Canada confirm that the amendment to the legislation and corresponding increase to 
the budget means that the policy allowing the CDC to buy surplus butter and cheese, store 
product, and sell it back to processors is a permanent measure?  
b. Alternat ively, if the policy is intended to be temporary while Canada recovers from the 
effects of COVID -19, can Canada confirm the timeframe for how long the CDC will be 
entitled to buy surplus butter and cheese, store product, and sell it back to processors?  
c. Can Canada confirm the stored butter and cheese is sold back to processors at the same 
price as it was bought from them, regardless of how the market has changed in the 
intervening period?  
d. Can Canada confirm the maximum amount of time the CDC will store the  butter and cheese 
it has purchased?  
e. How will Canada ensure that the release of any dairy stocks will not be placed on the global 
market and therefore constitute a de facto export subsidy?  
1.5  Canada - Farm Credit Canada  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 94053)  
In late March 2020, Canada announced Farm Credit Canada  (FCC) can extend up to CAD 5 billion of 
additional loans to agricultural and food businesses. According to FCC, these funds can be used to 
1) defer principal and interest payments up  to six months for existing loans or defer principal 
payments up to 12 months and 2) provide access to a 24 -month credit line of up to 500,000  CAD 
(at "prime plus 1 percent ").  
  
What criteria must agricultural and food businesses satisfy to qualify?  
 G/AG/W/206  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.6  China's measures to ensure agricultural inputs supplies  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94054)  
The United States understands that China is taking steps to ensure supplies of agricultural inputs 
needed for production are available to producers, including through delivery of inputs by the Ministry 
of Industry and Information Technology and National Supply and Marketing Corporation in Hubei, 
connecting producers to fertilizer companies in Beijing through the Municipal Agricultural and Ru ral 
Bureau, and local government is bulk purchasing inputs for distribution.  
  
a. Please describe how these different efforts are implemented.  
b. Please identify any financial benefit, direct or indirect, that is provided to agricultural 
producers, including th rough the distribution of inputs at lower costs.  
1.7  Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  
1.7.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94005)  
a. Japan recognizes that Egypt introduced export prohibitions on leguminous vegetables and 
products thereof (with the exc eption of peanuts, fresh or chilled peas, etc.) on 
28 March  2020, and appreciate the measure was notified to the Committee on Market 
Access on 14  April 2020, but also finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made. J apan would appreciate it if Egypt could provide the reason 
behind.  Japan would also appreciate it if Egypt could explain how it has given due 
consideration to the effects of the measure on importing Members ' food security, as 
required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Egypt could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of leguminous vegetables and products thereof, i i) criticalness of the 
shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure. Japan would also appreciate it if Egypt 
could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, rather 
than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
1.7.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94006)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Egypt has 
introduced export prohibitions on several agricultural products.  
 
a. Can Egypt please give an update  on whether the export prohibitions will be terminated at 
the end of June 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Egypt submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful  for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
 
1.8  El Salvador's export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
1.8.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94007)  
Japan would appreciate it if El Salvador could explain how export prohibitions on dried leguminou s 
vegetables introduced by the Member on 26  March  2020 meet the conditions required in Article  XI 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely i)  essentiality of the products, and 
ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also appreciate i t if El Salvador could provide the reason 
why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect 
the situation of domestic supply and demand.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.9  EU's private storage aid  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94008)  
Australia understands that the European Union (EU), in response to the COVID -19 crisis, has granted 
private storage aid for dairy (skimmed milk powder, butter, cheese) and meat (beef, sheep and goat 
meat) products. It appears the scheme allows the temporar y withdrawal of products from the market 
for a minimum of 2 to 3 months (90 days), and a maximum period of 5 to 6 months (180 days).  
  
a. What volumes have been applied for, and have been successful in securing private storage 
aid?  
b. Is the EU considering exp anding private storage aid to other commodities? If so, which 
commodities?  
c. Australia understands the scheme opened from 7  May 2020, when will applications for the 
scheme close?  
d. What is the total estimated budgetary cost for the private storage aid?  
e. The amount of aid is fixed as follows: (i) EUR 5.11 per tonne of storage for fixed storage 
costs; (ii) EUR 0.13 per tonne per day of contractual storage. How does this compare with 
commercial rates?  
f. Given the global pandemic is likely to cause deflated demand beyond 6 months, is the  EU 
considering extending the scheme beyond the current maximum of 180 days?  
g. Once the private storage period has ended, are there any limitations on how the stock is 
sold?  
h. What practical steps is the EU taking to ensure that goods currently receiving private 
storage aid do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other 
WTO Members?  
i. How will the EU notify this measure to the WTO?  
1.10  EU's aid to the potato sector  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94009)  
As per European Union (EU) Regulation 2020/593, the EU production of potatoes amounts to 
approximately 52 million ton nes, of which 19.5 million tonnes correspond to potatoes for processing. 
Exports of frozen potatoes and, in particular, frozen chips, are particularly significant under normal 
market conditions: 64 % of frozen potatoes exported worldwide come from the EU a nd the value of 
exports of frozen chips from the EU to third countries was estimated at EUR 1.85 billion in 2019.  
  
Australia understands that due to the current pandemic of COVID -19 there has been a sharp drop 
in demand for potatoes for processing, which has had a severe impact on the market. Australia 
understands there are still large volumes of potatoes for processing in storage from the 2019 
campaign. It is reported that the EU Commission, in response to the COVID -19 crisis, has allowed 
the potato secto r temporary exemptions for certain EU competition rules. In addition, a number of 
member States are compensating companies in the potato sectors for the loss of revenue or 
additional costs related to collapse in demand, for example, the Netherlands will al located EUR 50 
million to compensate potato growers affected by the outbreak.  
  
a. Is the EU considering private storage aid for the potato sector?  
b. What practical steps is the EU taking to ensure future exports of processed potato products 
do not distort tr ade or adversely affect the food security of other WTO Members?  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.11  EU- Czech guarantee scheme  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94010)  
Australia understands the European Commission has approved an approximately EUR 5.2 billion 
(CZK 142 billion) Czech guarante e scheme for large companies with export activities affected 
by COVID -19.  
 
a. Are companies required to continue to export to be eligible for the scheme?  
b. What percentage of companies that have applied for the scheme so far are involved in the 
primary agricu ltural sector?  
c. How will the scheme be classified under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.12  EU's support  measures in response to Covid -19 
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94011)  
Australia notes the European Commission has introduced a number of measures in r esponse to 
COVID -19, including proposed support of up to EUR 5,000 per farmer and EUR 50,000 per small 
agri-business from remaining unspent rural development funds under the Common Agricultural 
Policy Pillar  II (estimated between EUR 6 – 17 billion) to ass ist in offsetting the effect of COVID -19 
on farm businesses. Australia notes that payments under Pillar 2 of the CAP are generally notified 
as 'Green Box'.  
 
a. Could the EU please provide an update on the approval of this measure?  
b. Has the EU placed limitations around how the unspent rural development money can be 
provided to limit the impacts on trade and third country markets?  
c. Do EU member States have the discretion to decide how the support is provided ? Does it 
have to be in the for m of a single payment or could it be in the form of other types of 
market measures?  
d. Given the possible flexibility on how the payments will be delivered, how will the EU classify 
these payments under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.12.2   Question by Brazil ( AG-IMS ID 94042)  
In April, the European Commission relaxed rules for member States to use resources from the 
European Structural and Investment Funds  (ESIF), including the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development  (EAFRD), which is traditionally not ified as a Green Box programme. According 
to information publicly available in the press, it seems that this flexibility is what has allowed the 
announcement of large programmes by member States, such as the launch by the Austrian 
government of a EUR 38 bi llion economic aid package for its farmers. The European Commission has 
also announced aid programmes for the private storage of dairy products (skimmed milk powder, 
butter and cheese) and meat (beef, sheep and goat). At the same time, France and Italy hav e 
adopted unilateral measures to support the dairy markets in their own countries, despite 
CAP regulations that state that all support must be adopted at EU level. In view of this, the EU could 
explain:  
 
a.  
i. What measures are underway to ensure that the increased flexibility afforded to 
member States does not change the pattern of recent EU DS:1 notifications?  
ii. In the case of resources traditionally notified as Green or Blue box, such as those from 
the EAFRD, is there any obligation that national program mes maintain the 
characteristics established in Annex 2 of the AoA and/or Article 6.5?  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 11 - 
 
  b.  
i. How does the EU ensure the consistency between national and EC  authorized 
programmes supporting private stockholding?  
ii. Have rules for stock release, such as an export ban, been defined?  
c. Could the EU provide further details on the policies that are included in the Austrian 
programme to support the agricultural sector, whose announced value is EUR 38 billion?  
1.12.3   Question by Cana da (AG -IMS ID 94035)  
On 4 May 2020, the European Commission adopted a package of exceptional measures to further 
support the agricultural sector most affected by the COVID -19 virus. One of the measures is 
temporary framework for state aid where a farmer ca n benefit from a maximum of EUR 100,000 per 
farm and where food processing or marketing companies can benefit from a maximum of 
EUR 800,000 per company.  
a. Could the European  Union clarify if this temporary aid is in the form of a grant or a loan 
that will b e repaid at a future date?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria for these three entities to access this state aid? The package 
of exceptional measures also includes private storage aids for dairy (skim milk powder, 
butter and cheese) and meat (beef, sheep an d goat meat). The storage aid will withdraw 
these products from the market for a minimum of two to three  months and a maximum 
of five to six months.  
c. Could the European Union indicate what conditions will determine the release of these 
products back onto t he market and will there be limits on the volume that is released at 
any one time?  
1.12.4   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94012)  
We note the EU has introduced Private Storage Aid  (PSA) for both meat and dairy, state aid subsidies 
for the agriculture sector to talling more than EUR 1 billion, flexibility in national support programmes, 
and derogations from competition rules for some sectors. We appreciate the measures have been 
put in place to support the agriculture sector during a time of crisis, and we respec t the need of 
countries to support agribusiness during these difficult times. Can the EU please advise how they 
will ensure that these measures do not negatively impact global markets?  
1.12.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94055)  
On 22 April 202 0, the European Commission launched a support package including 1) private aid 
storage for the dairy and meat, fruit and vegetable sectors to temporarily withdraw products from 
markets to help increase prices, 2) flexibility in the implementation for marke t support programs for 
wine, fruits and vegetables, olive oil, apiculture, and the EU 's school scheme for milk, fruit and 
vegetables, and 3) exception derogation from EU competition rules for the milk, flowers, and 
potatoes sectors.   
Please provide additio nal details for the actions taken under the support package, including specific 
actions taken with regards to the three areas previously discussed, and how any new measures or 
increased flexibilities are being implemented.  
1.12.6   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94056)  
The European Commission under the State Aid Temporary Framework adopted on 19  March  2020, 
as amended on 3 April and 8 May 2020, is allowed to enable member States to use the full flexibility 
foreseen under State aid rules to suppo rt the economy in the context of the coronavirus 
outbreak.  This could allow direct grants, equity injections, selective tax advantages and advance G/AG/W/206  
 
- 12 - 
 
  payments of up to EUR 100,000 to a company active in the primary agricultural sector. Member 
States can also give, up to the nominal value of EUR 100,000 per company, zero -interest loans or 
guarantees on loans covering 100% of the risk in the primary agriculture sector.  
a. Please specify what EU member States have taken advantage of this increased flexibility 
to dat e. 
b. What are the requirements or criteria for companies to be eligible?  
c. Is there a maximum cap on the programme in terms of spending?  
1.13  Romania's export prohibition  on agricultural products   
1.13.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94041)  
a. Japan recognizes that Romania introduced export prohibition on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour, barley, corn, rice and soybeans on 10 April 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture  has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Japan would appreciate it if 
Romania could provide the reason behind.   Japan would also appreciate it if Romania could 
explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members’ food sec urity, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Romania could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) 
essentiality of the p roducts, and ii) criticalness of the shortages.   Japan would also 
appreciate it if Romania could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions 
on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
1.13.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94013)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Romania has 
introduced an export ban on several agricultural products.  
a. Can Romania please give an update on whether the export ban was terminated by  
16 April 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Romania submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important  for our importers.  
1.14  Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
1.14.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94014)  
Japan would appreciate it if Honduras could explain how export prohibitions on dried leguminous 
vegetables introduced by the Member on 26 March 2020 meets the conditions required in Article  XI 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely i)  essentiality of the products, 
ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure. Japan would also appreciate it 
if Hondu ras could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, 
rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.15  India's COVID -19 stimulus package  
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94036)  
On 12 M ay 2020, Prime Minister Modi announced a COVID -19 stimulus package for India which 
includes measures to assist the agriculture and agri -food sector. Canada understands that the 
package will include funds to upgrade agricultural infrastructure such as cold chains, post -harvest 
storage, etc.  
a. Could India elaborate on which types of organizations or entities would be eligible for this 
support?  
b. Will the support be in the form of grants or repayable loans? As part of the stimulus 
package, it is reported there will be a new legal framework for risk mitigation for farmers 
which would include mechanisms to enable farmers to engage with processors, la rge 
retailers or wholesalers of agricultural products.  
c. Could India elaborate as to the expected timeline for the development of this framework? 
The stimulus package proposes to amend the Essential Commodities Act which regulates 
the production, supply and  distribution of a number of commodities to ensure a domestic 
supply for consumers. The proposal is to deregulate a number of agricultural products 
such as edible oils, oilseeds, pulses, onions and potatoes and that stock limits will only be 
allowed in exc eptional circumstances.  
d. Could India elaborate on the expected timeline for the amendment to the Essential 
Commodities Act?  
1.16  Japan's beef support  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94015)  
Australia notes that based on reporting, falling wagyu beef prices sin ce 2019 have triggered 
increased support payments under the Beef Livestock Stabilization Program, also known as 
Beef Marukin.  
a. Are the payments under the programme related to reduced demand due to COVID -19?  
b. Can Japan outline the type and value of the supp ort that producers participating in the 
Beef Marukin program me can receive?  
1.16.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94058)  
On 13 April 2020, Japan 's state trading enterprise Agriculture and Livestock Industries Corporation 
announced 50 billion yen  (USD 460 million) to stimulate consumption of domestic beef including 
through a 1,000 yen ( USD 9.29)  per kilogram incentive payment in fiscal year 2020 for wholesalers 
to distribute wagyu beef at a significant discount.  This measure does not apply to impo rted beef.  
a. What is the policy rationale for stimulating demand for consumption of only domestically 
produced, high quality beef rather than all beef production, regardless of origin?  
b. What measures will be taken to ensure that this program does not negative ly affect 
imports?  
1.17  Japan's support package  
1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94044)  
In April, Japan announced a stimulus package for the agricultural sector worth JPY  108.2  trillion. 
Considering that Japan 's AMS is JPY  3.9 trillion, could Japan:  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 14 - 
 
  a. Provide detai ls on the types of policies that are included in the support package, and 
explain whether it is a multi -annual package or specific support in response to the 
pandemic that will be given without prejudice to traditional agricultural policy;  
b. Indicate which s ectors were most affected by the COVID -19 pandemic and then will be 
entitled to greater support from the government;  
c. Explain how the budget allocation of JPY 108.2 trillion is compatible with Japan 's AMS.  
1.17.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94037)  
As part of th e Government of Japan 's COVID -19 emergency economic package, the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries  (MAFF) is expected to receive a 545  billion yen (US D 5 billion) 
supplementary budget to support the food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries s ector. Under the Sales 
Promotion of Domestic Product there is a 140 billion yen (US D 1.3 billion) to support promotional 
sales activities for domestically produced agriculture, forestry and fisheries products.  
a. Could Japan elaborate on what are the criteri a eligibility to receive this support and which 
domestic product are eligible?  
Under Export Promotion and Production Improvement there is a 3.50 billion yen 
(USD 32.4 million) program available to processed food manufacturers and food service 
providers to  switch from using imported inputs to domestic products.  
b. Could Japan elaborate on the rationale to disadvantage imported inputs which historically 
have benefited the Japanese food industry?  
c. Could Japan elaborate on how the 2 billion yen (US D 18.5 million) program called 
Transportation for Perishables will suppo rt the export of perishable products?  
i. Which products are eligible for this support?  
1.17.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94057)  
In the Japan Fiscal Year 2020 Supplementary Budget, Japan has introduced several different 
measures that incentiviz e the use of domestic product over imported products for entities that are 
engaged in export activities but may also sell their product domestically.  These include:  
• A 3.5 billion yen (US D 32 million) program to incentivize processed food manufacturers 
and food service providers who make products for export to replace imported ingredients 
with domestic ingredients.   
• A 2.39 billion yen (US D 22 million) programe to support food manufactures who build 
production lines and purchase refrigerators and labeling mac hines to increase retail sales 
and exports of domestic products.  
• A 5 billion yen ( USD 46 million)  programme to incentivize dairy processors to replace 
imported ingredients with domestic milk powder by paying processors the price difference 
between domesti c and imported products.   
For each measure:  
a. Please explain how these measures are implemented.  
b. What are the specific criteria an entity must meet to qualify for funding?  
c. Please confirm whether an entity must export, regardless of domestic sales, in order  to 
benefit from any of these measures.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 15 - 
 
  d. May an eligible food manufacture benefit from more than one measure?  
1.18  Japan's transportation support  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94059)  
In the Japan Fiscal Year 2020 Supplementary Budget, there is a 2 billion  yen ( USD 18.5 million)  
programme to secure transportation for exports of perishables in response to the decreased number 
of international flights. Please elaborate on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how 
freight rates are determined for agricultural exporter s and whether any of the funds can be received 
by exporters directly.  
1.19  Kazakhstan's export  prohibition measures  on certain food products  
1.19.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94016)  
a. Japan recognizes that Kazakhstan introduced export quotas on certain food products  
including wheat and meslin, and wheat flour, as well as export prohibitions on certain food 
products including buckwheat and white sugar on 2 April 2020, but finds that the required 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accorda nce with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Japan would appreciate it if Kazakhstan could 
provide the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Kazakhstan could explain how 
it has given due consideration to the effects of the measures on im porting Members ' food 
security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Kazakhstan could explain how the measures met the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): na mely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kazakhstan could explain how it determined the concrete amount of the 
export quotas (i.e., 250 thousand ton nes for wheat and 150 thousand ton nes for wheat 
flour in May). Japan would further appreciate it if Kazakhstan could provide the reason 
why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products (e.g., buckwheat and white 
sugar), rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of dome stic supply and 
demand.  
1.19.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94017)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Kazakhstan has 
introduced an export ban on several agricultural products.  
a. Can Kazakhstan please give an update on whether the export ban will be terminated on 
1 September 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Kazakhstan submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful f or such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as  this information is very 
important for our importers.  
1.20  Myanmar's export quota on rice  
1.20.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94018)  
a. Japan recognizes that Myanmar introduced export quota on rice on 1  May 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee  on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Myanmar could provide the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Myanmar could G/AG/W/206  
 
- 16 - 
 
  explain how it has given due consideratio n to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members ' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Myanmar could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, ii) criticalness of the shortage, and iii) temporality of the measure. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Myanmar could explain how it determined the concrete 
amount of the export quota (i.e.,  150 thousand ton nes monthly)  
1.21  New Zealand's International AirFreight Capacity Scheme  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94038)  
New Zealand announced the International Air Freight Scheme, a $330 million  program me that 
provides government assistance to carriers o n key routes for high -value exports (particularly 
seafood, meat, horticulture). According to a New Zealand document named "Request for proposals 
for International Air Freight Capacity ", this "financial support would be provided to enable the 
supplier to ma ke available agreed levels of international air freight capacity on international air 
routes agreed with the Ministry, offered to the market at prices determined in accordance with an 
agreed pricing methodology and designed to keep airfreight affordable fo r those end users ". 
New Zealand 's International Air Freight Scheme Q&As document states: "[New Zealand 's] intention 
is to exit the scheme once the international airfreight market stabilizes according to agreed criteria. "  
a. Could New  Zealand provide more det ails on how much of this subsidy for Air Freight 
Capacity is intended to reduce airfreight costs for the export for agricultural goods?  
b. Will the government of New  Zealand make public a record of the level of assistance it 
provided by agricultural product under this scheme?  
c. How do exporter airfreight costs compare to pre -COVID -19 levels?  
d. Could New  Zealand provide more information on the pricing methodology in its 
agreements with carriers? Are there specific subsidies by weight determined for 
agricultural goods, and if so, could the government of New  Zealand provide information 
on the average specific subsidy by weight by agricultural products, or the general range 
of the level of subsidy by weight by agricultural products in its agreements?  
e. Could New  Zealand provide details on the "agreed criteria " for it to exit the scheme once 
the international airfreight market stabilizes?  
1.21.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94050)  
New Zealand has introduced the International Airfreight Capacity scheme  (IAFC), by whi ch it 
support s the export of New Zealand's  product by air to export destinations.  
a. Can New  Zealand explain more in detail how much the New  Zealand government is 
spending on this programme, and the basis on which the subsidy level has been 
calculated?  
b. Can New Zealand explain whether and how this support scheme complies with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on export competition.  
1.21.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 94051)  
The Government of New  Zealand announced as part of its COV ID-19 support package, 
$200.7  million  to implement a financial support scheme to ensure that critical air freight capacity is 
maintained, despite the reduction in international passenger flights brought about by 
COVID -19. Reports indicate New Zealand wants  to ensure service continuity on key routes for critical 
imports (particularly medicines, medical supplies and agricultural or other production machinery) 
and high value exports (particularly seafood, meat, horticulture).  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Please elaborate on how these fund s are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates are 
determined for agricultural exporters and whether any of the funds can be received by exporters 
directly.  
1.22  Russian Federation's export quota  
1.22.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94043)  
On 1 April, the Russian  Federation  government introduced a quota of 7  million tonnes for exports of 
wheat, rye, barley and corn, the main cereals produced by the country, in order to guard against 
the possibility of a cereal shortage. This quota will be in force until  30 June, but experts predicted 
that the quota would be fully filled in May. In view of that, could the Russia n Federation :  
a. Indicate when it will notify this measure to the CoA and whether consultations with Russian  
Federation's  main wheat export destinat ions have been made before adopting the 
restriction?  
b. Share the criteria adopted to define the volume of seven  million tonnes;  
c. Explain the reason for preferring quantitative restrictions instead of adopting temporary 
tariff duties on out -of-the-quota expor ts?  
d. Present  updated information, at product level, about the fulfilment of this quota?  
e. Inform about the possibility of this quota being extended after 30th June and about the 
current national levels of wheat production and stock?  
1.22.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94019)  
a. Japan recognizes that Russian Federation introduced export quotas on wheat and meslin, 
rye, barley and maize on 1  April 2020, but finds that the required notification to the 
Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if Russian Federation could provide 
the reason behind. Japan would also appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how 
it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on imp orting Members ' food 
security, as required in Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): 
namely i)  essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would 
also appreciate it if Russian Federation could explain how it determined the concrete 
amount of the export quotas (i.e., seven million ton nes for wheat from Ap ril to June 2020).  
1.22.3   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94020)  
According to the WTO  monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, the 
Russian  Federation has introduced a temporary export quota on several agricultural products.  
a. Can the Russian Fed eration please give an update on whether the export quotas will be 
terminated at the end of June 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will the Russian federation submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in 
accordance with Article 12 of the  Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for net food im porting countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.23  Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
1.23.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94021)  
Japan would appreciate it if Tajikistan could explain how export prohibitions on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour and vegetable introduced by the Member on 25  April 2020 meet the 
conditions required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure.  
Japan would also appreciate it if Tajikistan could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect t he situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
1.24  Turkey's Treasury -backed loans  
1.24.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94022)  
Australia understands that on 28 April 2020, the Turkish Government announced farmers' payments 
of Treasury -backed loans due in May and June will be postponed for six months as part of a response 
of COVID -19. 
a. What was the original eligibility criteria to access the Treasury -backed loans?  
b. What commodities were covered by the eligibility criteria?  
c. What is the interest rate of the Treasury -backed loans compared to the current commercial 
rates?  
1.25  Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  
1.25.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94023)  
a. Japan recognizes that Turkey introduced prior export authorization/regis tration on fresh 
lemons on 7 April 2020 but  finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article  12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could provide the reason b ehind. Japan 
would also appreciate it if Turkey could explain how it has given due consideration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members ' food security, as required in Article  12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Turk ey could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of fresh lemons, ii)  criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the 
measure.  
1.25.2   Question by Switz erland (AG -IMS ID 94024)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Turkey has 
introduced a prior export authorization on certain agricultural products.  
a. Can Turkey please give an update on whether the prior export author ization was 
terminated by 2  May 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Turkey hand in an additional notification to the Committee on Agriculture in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture? It is useful for such measures 
to be noti fied to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that ER notifications remain 
a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are especially vital for 
net food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very i mportant for 
our importers.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.26  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.26.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 94025)  
On 17 April, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a US D 19 billion Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program, including US D 16 billion in di rect support to farmers and ranchers. Australia 
welcomes the United States ' transparency in regard to the programme, noting that the full list of 
eligible commodities and how payments will be calculated is publically available. We also appreciate 
the publi c realise of the cost -benefit analysis. Australia has the following questions regarding the 
programne:  
a. When will the United States notify this package to the WTO?  
b. How will the U SD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers be classified under 
the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How do the payments under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program compare to the 
payments the United States provided under the 2018 and 2019 programmes, which were 
to compensate producers adversely affected by retaliatory t ariffs imposed by WTO 
Members facing unilateral trade actions by the United States?  
1.26.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94045)  
On 19 May, the United States Department of Agriculture  (USDA) presented details of Coronavirus 
Food Assistance Program  (CFAP), whose announced budget is US D 16 billion. Through the 
programme, one can receive direct payments of up to $250,000  per eligible producer. The USDA 
has defined that the eligible crops will be those whose prices have fallen by at least 5% since January. 
Could the U S provide additional information on:  
a.  
i. What price index was used to calculate the price drop?  
ii. Has the US considered to use the prices in the first half of 2019 as a benchmark for 
eligibility, considering that commodity prices in the international market fluctuate 
according to the harvest period?  
iii. What was the price drop in cotton, sugar, soy, corn,  beef and pork?  
b.  
i. How does this support programme differ from recent "Trade Aid Programs ", 
considering that 2019 "Trade Aid Programs" budget was also US D 16 billion?  
ii. Specifically, are their eligibility and due maximum compensation requirements similar?  
c. Are there any estimates as to the sectors that will benefit most from the programme?  
1.26.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94039)  
On 12 May 2020, the United States announced th e USD 19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), which will provide USD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers.   
a. Will the USDA release the methodology used to calculate the loss incurred by 
U.S. producers and the associated paymen t calculations as was done under the Market 
Facilitation Program in 2018 and 2019?  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 20 - 
 
  b. Can the United States provide details on the impact of announcing the CFAP programme 
before the growing season and sending those payments to producers in the middle of the 
planting season? What is the impact on producers' planting decisions?  
c. As of 5 February 2020, the USDA ERS forecasted that Federal Government Direct Farm 
Program Payments would reach close to USD 15 billion in 2020. With the funding under 
the CFAP, are dir ect farm payments expected to reach over USD 30 billion in 2020, or 
over 30% of net farm income? https://www.ers.usda.gov/data -products/farm -income -
and-wealth -statistics/data -files-us-and-state-level-farm-income -and-wealth -statistics/   
d. After providing direct payments close to USD 9 billion in 2018, close to USD 14 billion in 
2019 and in announcing USD 16 billion in 2020, are there concerns that U.S. producers 
will become dependent on government support?  
1.26.4   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94052)  
The US has introduced a range of support measures in relation to the Covid -19, of which the most 
important are  the Cares act and the CFAP.  
Given the very large sums spent on these programmes, can the US inform Members as to how it 
intends to notify them? Which of these payments will be Amber Box, which will be product specific 
or non -product specific and in which  year of the DS:1 notification will expenditure fall.  
1.26.5   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 94026)  
On 17 April 2020, the US Department of Agriculture launched the Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), providing US D 16 billion in direct support to farme rs and ranchers and US D 3 billion 
for government purchase and distribution of surplus production. Livestock (US D 9.6 billion), row 
crop (US D 3.9 billion) and speciality crop producers (US D 2.1 billion) have received the bulk of direct 
support payments. Fun ding for the programme draws on the US D 9.5 billion of funds made available 
under the CARES Act and a further US D 6 billion of borrowing headroom still available for 2019 -2020 
from the Commodity Credit Corporation. US industry continues to lobby for furthe r assistance to 
support domestic producers, including increased direct support, expanded food purchase 
programmes and a request to reinstate international food aid by the dairy sector. We appreciate 
these measures have been put in place to support the agri culture sector during a time of crisis and 
we respect the need for countries to support agricultural sectors during these difficult times. We 
would be interested in the following:  
a. Can the US confirm under what category of AoA Article 6 this support will be  notified?  
b. Does the US expect to increase its AMS relative to previous years to account for the 
additional funding?  
c. Does the US expect to increase its Blue Box outlays to account for the additional funding?  
d. Does the US foresee further direct support being  made available to producers?  
e. Is the US considering reinstating international food aid for the dairy sector or other 
sectors?  
1.27  US - Paycheck Protection Program  
1.27.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 94047)  
Under the "Paycheck  Protection Program ", loans will be fully forgiven if the funds are used for payroll 
costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. Loan payments will also be deferred for six months. 
No collateral or personal guarantees are required. Neither the gover nment nor lenders will charge 
small businesses any fees. This loan has a maturity of two years and an interest rate of 1%.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 21 - 
 
  a. Can the US indicate how much had been lent under this programme by 31  May to farmers, 
and the expected total for farmers by the end o f programme on 30  June.  
b. What share of total loans does the US expect to be forgiven?  
c. Could the US indicate the level of interest subsidy on these loans?  
d. How does the US intent to notify this programme in its DS:1 notification and in which 
year?  
1.28  Viet Nam's export restriction  measures  on rice  
1.28.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 94046)  
Viet Nam is the third largest world rice exporter. According to FAO's "Food Price Monitoring and 
Analysis " (FPMA), the signing of new contracts for rice exports was suspended on  25 March  2020. 
On 10 April, the ban on rice exports was replaced by monthly export quotas, which were set at 
400,000  tonnes for the April -May period. On 22 April, the quota for April was subsequently increased 
by 100,000  tonnes. The following week, the full  resumption of exports was announced. Also, 
according to information obtained from the FPMA, Viet  Nam would have declared that it could export 
up to 6.7  million ton nes of rice this year; however, the competent authorities would continue to 
monitor the situ ation of rice supply and demand to enable immediate action if necessary. In light of 
the above, could Viet  Nam: 
a. Present the reasons why it could not notify these export restrictive measures to the WTO?  
b. Share the quantitative criteria it used for establish ing the export ban followed by the 
export quota?  
c. Explain why it prefer establishing quantitative restrictions instead of introducing temporary 
export taxes?  
d. Inform the current levels of rice production and stocks and whether there is any indication 
of fut ure export restrictions to be adopted in the upcoming months?  
1.28.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 94040)  
On 24 March 2020, the government of Viet  Nam imposed an export ban on rice 
(Decision  No. 1106/QD -BCT). On 10 April 2020, Viet Nam lifted the ban with a quot a of 400,000  MT 
for the month of April  2020. On 22  April 2020, Viet  Nam increased the threshold for this export 
quota to 500,000  tonnes from 400,000  tonnes. On 28  April 2020, Viet Nam's Prime Minister 
announced the lifting of the export quota as of 1 May 2020. To date, Viet Nam has not notified these 
measures as per the obligations under Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Can Viet Nam explain the purpose of these measures?  
b. Will these export restrictions be notified to the Committee on Agriculture?  
c.  Does Viet Nam anticipate a need to reintroduce export restrictions on other agricultural 
goods in the future?  
1.28.3   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 94027)  
a. Japan recognizes that Viet  Nam introduced export quota on rice on 11  April 2020, but finds 
that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Viet Nam could provide the reason behind.  Japan would also appreciate it if Viet  Nam could 
explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members ' food security, as required in Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/206  
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Japan would appreci ate it if Viet  Nam could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of rice, and ii) criticalness of the shortage. Japan would also appreciate it if 
Viet Nam co uld explain how it determined the concrete amount of the export quota 
(i.e., 0.5 million ton nes in April) . 
1.28.4   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 94028)  
According to the WTO monitoring of COVID -19 trade and trade -related measures, Viet  Nam has 
introduced an ex port quota on rice.  
a. Can Viet  Nam please give an update on whether the export quota was terminated on 
1 May 2020 as indicated in the WTO reporting?  
b. Will Viet  Nam submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
It is useful for such measures to be notified to the WTO, not only for transparency but also so that 
ER notifications remain a reliable and important source of information. These notifications are 
especially vital for n et food importing countries such as Switzerland, as this information is very 
important for our importers.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.1.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 9 4029: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Kyrgyz Republic introduced export prohibitions on certain food 
products including wheat and meslin, wheat flour, rice, and sugar on 22 March 2020, and 
appreciates the measure was notified to the Committee on A griculture on 31 March 2020. 
Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why the notification 
was not made before the measure was taken while "prior notification " is required in Article 
12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would al so 
appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of 
domestic supply and demand.  
2.1.2   North Macedonia  (G/AG/N/MKD/26)  
AG-IMS ID 94031 : Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Republic of North Macedonia  introduced export prohibitions on 
wheat and meslin, and wheat flour on 20  March  2020, and appreciates the measure was 
notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 2  April 2020.  Japan would appreciate it if 
Republic of North Macedonia  could provide the reason why the notification was not made 
before the measure was taken while "prior notification " is required in Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it  if Republic of North Macedonia could explain how the measure 
met the conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  (GATT): namely i)  essentiality of the products, and ii)  criticalness of the shortages. 
Japan would also apprec iate it if Republic of North Macedonia  could provide the reason G/AG/W/206  
 
- 23 - 
 
  why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas 
which reflect the situation of domestic supply and demand.  
2.1.3   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/107  and G/AG/N/THA/107 /Add.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 94030: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Thailand introduced export prohibitions on bird eggs of fowls of the 
species Gallus  Domesticus  on 26  March  2020, and appreciates the measure was notified 
to the Committee on Agriculture on 30  March  2020. Japan would appreciate it if Thailand 
could provide the reason why the notification was not made before the measure was taken 
while "prior notification " is required in Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan 
would also appreciate it if Thailand could explain how it has given due consideration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members ' food security, as required in Article  12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Thailand could explain how the measure m et the conditions 
required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of bird eggs, and ii)  criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Thailand could provide the reason why it resorted to th e export prohibitions 
on bird eggs, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic supply 
and demand.  
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/37)  
AG-IMS ID 94032: Question by Japan  
a. Japan recognizes that Ukraine introduced export quota on wheat on 30 Mar ch 2020, but 
finds that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in 
accordance with Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan would appreciate it if 
Ukraine could provide the reason behind. Japan also recognizes t hat Ukraine introduced 
export prohibition on buckwheat grain on 9  April 2020, and appreciates the measure was 
notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 14  April2020 . Japan would appreciate it if 
Ukraine could provide the reason why the notification was n ot made before the measure 
was taken while "prior notification " is required in Article  12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Japan would also appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how it has given due 
consideration to the effects of the measure on importing  Members ' food security, as 
required in Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how the measures meet the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii)  criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Ukraine could explain how it determined the concrete amount of the export 
quotas (i.e., 20.2 million ton nes for wheat for 2019/20 fiscal year).  Japan would further 
appreciate it if Ukraine could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibition 
on buckwheat grain, rather than arranging quota which reflects the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
 
__________