G/AG/W/208  
 
19 November 2020  
(20-8315) Page: 1/32 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON  
30 NOVEMBER AND 1 DECEMBER 20201 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline 
of 16 November 2020 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/46.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
  
 
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/208  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.1   Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  ................................ ..................  6 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID  96021)  ................................ ................................ .........  6 
1.2   China's cotton policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96045)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.2.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96044)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.3   China's responses to Canada's questions  ................................ ................................ ........  7 
1.3.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96075)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.4   Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
1.4.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96046)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.5   Egypt – Sugar import ban/restrictions  ................................ ................................ ............  8 
1.5.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96047)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.6   India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96053)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.6.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96055)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.6.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96013)  ................................ .............  9 
1.7   India's export prohibition on onions  ................................ ................................ .............. 10 
1.7.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96054)  ................................ ................................ .......10 
1.8   Nigeria's border closures  ................................ ................................ ............................. 10 
1.8.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96014)  ................................ ............ 10 
1.9   Philippines - Market Access Vo lume (MAV) utilization for corn  ................................ .......... 10 
1.9.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96016)  ................................ ............ 10 
1.10   Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  ..................... 10 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96015)  ................................ .......... 10 
1.11   Russian Federation - support for exported agricultural products  ................................ ......11 
1.11.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96060)  ................................ ....................... 11 
1.12   Russian Federation – draft resolution on export duties  ................................ ................... 12 
1.12.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96017)  ................................ .......... 12 
1.13   Russian Federation's export restrictions  ................................ ................................ .......12 
1.13.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96018)  ................................ .......... 12 
1.14   Sri Lanka – temporary suspensions and restrictions on imports of products  ..................... 12 
1.14.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96020)  ................................ .......... 12 
1.15   U.S. domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ............ 13 
1.15.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96080)  ................................ ................................ ...13 
1.15.2    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 96031)  ................................ ................................ .....13 
1.15.3    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96063)  ................................ ....................... 13 
1.15.4    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96064)  ................................ ....................... 14 
1.15.5    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96025)  ................................ ................................ ......14 G/AG/W/208  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.15.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96065)  ................................ ........................... 14 
1.15.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96066)  ................................ ........................... 14 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ ........  15 
1.16   Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ .................. 15 
1.16.1    Question by India (AG -IMS I D 96022)  ................................ ................................ ......15 
1.17   Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ ............. 16 
1.17.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96040)  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.17.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96004)  ................................ .......... 16 
1.17.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96005)  ................................ .......... 16 
1.17.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96011)  ................................ .......... 17 
1.18   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ............ 17 
1.18.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96023)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96041)  ................................ ........................... 17 
1.18.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96012)  ................................ .......... 17 
1.19   Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96042)  ................................ ........................... 17 
1.20   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ ........................ 18 
1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96043)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.21   EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ .......................... 18 
1.21.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96048)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.21.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96027)  ................................ ................................ ......19 
1.22   European Union – Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .............. 19 
1.22.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96049)  ................................ ........................... 19 
1.23   United Kingdom – Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .............. 20 
1.23.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96062)  ................................ ........................... 20 
1.24   EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 
1.24.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 96007)  ................................ ................................ 20 
1.25   Honduras – Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ .....20 
1.25.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96050)  ................................ ................................ .....20 
1.26   India -Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ ......... 20 
1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96051)  ................................ ................................ .20 
1.27   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 
1.27.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96052)  ................................ ................................ .21 
1.27.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96076)  ................................ ................................ ...22 
1.27.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96056)  ................................ ................... 22 
1.28   India's PM -KISAN income guarantee scheme  ................................ ................................ 23 
1.28.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96077)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.29   India's transparency with Green Box measures  ................................ ............................. 23 
1.29.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96078)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.30   Indonesia – Import permission for rice  ................................ ................................ ........ 23 G/AG/W/208  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.30.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96057)  ................................ ................................ .....23 
1.31   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ......23 
1.31.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96058)  ................................ ................... 23 
1.32   Nigeria's DS notifications  ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 
1.32.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96059)  ................................ ................................ .24 
1.33   Russian Federation's export quota  ................................ ................................ .............. 24 
1.33.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96036)  ................................ ................................ ......24 
1.34   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ .............. 24 
1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96019)  ................................ .......... 24 
1.35   Tajikistan's export prohibiti ons on certain food products  ................................ ................ 25 
1.35.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96061)  ................................ ................................ .....25 
1.36   U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ................................ ..25 
1.36.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96026)  ................................ ................................ ......25 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  25 
2.1   Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments ( table MA:2)  ................................ .....25 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/138)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 
2.1.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 
2.1.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/77)  ................................ ................................ ......... 26 
2.1.4    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/103)  ................................ ................................ ................. 26 
2.1.5    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/112)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
2.2   Domestic Support commitments (table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 27 
2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52, G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ................................ ...27 
2.2.2    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/37 - G/AG/N/DOM/43)  ................................ ............ 27 
2.2.3    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 
2.2.4    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/80)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 
2.2.5    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 29 
2.2.6    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/15)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 
2.2.7    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/37 – G/AG/N/TUR/38)  ................................ ............................... 29 
2.2.8    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/48 – G/AG/N/TUR/50)  ................................ ............................... 29 
2.3   New or modified Domestic Support measures (table DS:2)  ................................ .............. 30 
2.3.1    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/122)  ................................ ................................ ............... 30 
2.4   Export subsidies notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) ................................ ............. 30 
2.4.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/60)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ..........  30 
3.1   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 30 
3.1.1    Russian Federation (G/AG/N /RUS/29)  ................................ ................................ ........ 30 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  31 
4.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 31 
4.2   European Uni on ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 31 
5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  32 G/AG/W/208  
 
- 5 - 
 
  5.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 
5.2   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 32 
5.3   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 
 
  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS  
1.1  Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96021)  
The Australian government has introduced a package of reforms for the Australian agricultural sector 
in October 2020, as part of the Economic Recovery Plan from the COVID -19 recession and to rebuild 
the economy. The Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package is worth over $328.4 million 
over four years from 2020 -21. In this regard, Australia is requested to provide the following details:  
 
a. Can Australia explain how the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package is 
compatible with Australia's WTO obligations on agricultural export subsidies as set out in 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. How are the funds available under the scheme distributed?  
c. Are exporters eligible to receive funds under the package directly?  
d. Could Australia elaborate upon the product coverage and eligibi lity criteria for receiving 
support under this programme?  
e. Could Australia please advise how it will ensure that these measures do not negatively 
impact global markets?  
f. When and how does Australia propose to notify its export subsidies to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
g. How is the Australian Government ensuring that this four -year package is "Temporary, 
Transparent, Targeted and Proportionate " to mitigate the adverse impact of COVID -19? 
1.2  China's cotton policies  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96045)  
Australia has become increasingly  concerned about recent widespread reports that China has 
directed its businesses to stop or limit purchases and imports of Australian cotton.  
 
For example, the South China Morning Post2 and Wall Street Journal3 reported on 16 Oct ober that 
the Chinese National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) had told Chinese millers to stop 
or limit purchases and imports of Australian cotton.  
 
It is claimed that Chinese businesses that do not stop purchases and imports from Australia risk 
losing access to imports of cotton under existing or future cotton tariff -rate quota s (TRQs). This 
includes China 's WTO cotton TRQ of 894,000 tonnes with an in -quota rate of 1% and a prohibitive 
out- of-quota tariff of 4 0%. 
 
These reports are particularly concerning given China 's major role in the global cotton market. China 
was the largest importer of cotton in 2019, while Australia was the third largest exporter in 2019. 
Therefore, the potential disruption to the global cotton market and other cotton prod ucers, exporters 
and importers, is significant.  
 
Australia has not seen any official directive from the NDRC or other Chinese authorities. However,  if 
such directives have been issued directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, Australia believes 
such directives would appear to be inconsistent with China 's WTO obligations, in particular 
 
2 Australia’s US$750 million cotton trade with China targeted, with mills ‘discouraged’ from purchases  – 
South China Morning Po st, 16 October 2020 . 
3 China’s Economic Squeeze on Australia Extends to Cotton  – Wall Street Journal, 16 October 2020 . G/AG/W/208  
 
- 7 - 
 
  paragraph  116 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China to the WTO. This 
assertion would be supported by the accepted findings of the panel in DS5 17: China – Tariff Rate 
Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products , whereby paragraph 116 was found to be operative with 
respect to China 's administration of its TRQs for agricultural products.  
 
Paragraph 116 states that:  
 
"…upon accession, China would ensur e that TRQs were administered on a transparent, 
predictable, uniform, fair and non -discriminatory basis using clearly specified 
timeframes, administrative procedures and requirements that would provide effective 
import opportunities; that would reflect con sumer preferences and end -user demand; 
and that would not inhibit the filling of each TRQ.  China would apply TRQs fully in 
accordance with WTO rules and principles and with the provisions set out in China's 
Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods… " 
Australia is taking these reports seriously following concerns raised by Australian cotton exporters, 
disruption to cotton imports from Australia, and the reports having been substantiated by some 
Chinese importers. Therefore, we kindly request China res pond to the following questions with 
respect to these reports:  
 
a. Has the NDRC or any other Chinese authority directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially 
instructed Chinese millers, businesses and State -Owned Enterprises to stop or limit 
purchases and imports of Australian cotton, or cotton from any other WTO Member? 
i. If yes, has China published a notice of these measures domestically, and notified them 
to the WTO? If so, please provide copies of the relevant documentation.  
b. Can China provide assurances to Australian cotton exporters and Chinese cotton importers 
that consignments of Australian cotton will be issued import licenses under existing and 
future TRQs, and cleared by the relevant Chinese customs officials consistent with China 's 
WTO obligations?  
1.2.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96044)  
Australia notes recent reports by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service on 19 May4 2020 that on 
26 March 2020, China 's NRDC published a notice stating that the target price -based subsidy for 
cotton will continue through 2023. The programme was originally established in 2017 and was 
planned to expire in 2020.  
 
a. Can China provide details on the target price -based cotton su bsidy that will be in effect 
until 2023, including whether this support is being provide within the limits of China 's 
Amber Box de minimis  entitlement?  
b. How does this cotton subsidy compare to the terminated cotton programme that China 
notified in its most recent DS:1 notification for 2016 that was in breach of China 's 
de minimis  support limit for cotton (worth 21.32% of the value of cotton production 
compared to China 8.5% limit)?  
1.3  China's responses to Canada's questions  
1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96075)  
As of 12 November 2020, China has not yet posted any of its answers of the 95th CoA meeting on 
the AGIMS. Canada would like to ask China if its answers to the 95th CoA meeting could be posted 
prior to the 96th CoA meeting, especially in regard to Canada 's question number AG-IMS ID  95143.  
 
4 Commodity Intelligence Report - China Cotton  – USDA Foreign Agricultural Service – 19 May 2020.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.4  Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits  
1.4.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96046)  
Côte d'Ivoire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419  (3) of the 
Code général des impôts5. This tax di scriminates between imported products and local products.  
How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  
 
How does it respects the following WTO commitments:  
 
• Article II:1(b) , GATT (Schedules of Concessions) ; 
• Article III:2, first s entence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation) . 
1.5  Egypt – Sugar import ban/restrictions  
1.5.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96047)  
By Decree No 259/2000 of 4 June, Egypt implemented a three -month  prohibition  on the import of 
white sugar, subject to certain exceptions.  By Decree 420/2020  of 3 September,  Egypt extended  
this import  ban on sugar for another three months until 3 December 2020.  
  
The EU has already raised  the issue in the Committee on Import Licensing meeting of 9  October 
2020. Based on the information provided by Egypt, the EU understands that the measures are 
supposed to be temporary in nature and  regularly reviewed. Moreover, we understand from Egypt 
that the measure has been imposed in order to deal with the problem of the temporary surplus that 
has apparently accumulated due to a sharp decline in sugar prices (by 30%).  
  
a. Could Egypt inform the m embership about the quantities that created the temporary 
surplus? Could it give an update on the sugar market situation today?  
b. Could Egypt inform the membership if it intends to further extend the import restrictions 
on white sugar and raw sugar?  
c. Could Eg ypt explain how the import restrictions on white sugar and raw sugar respect its 
commitments under Article XI GATT on the General Elimination of Quantitative 
Restrictions?  
1.6  India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  
1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96053)  
Several press reports suggest that the dairy company owning the Amul brand will be granted export 
subsidies for skimmed milk powder. A report from Dairy Industry Newsletter of 3 November states:  
 
"Gujarat Co -op Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), who  own the Amul brand, were 
ordered to purchase milk from private producers unable to sell it due to India 's 
COVID -19 lockdown. In return their 18 member unions are being offered USD 680/t in 
export subsidies by the Government. During lockdown Amul procured 
35,000 -40,000  litres of additional milk every day, which has led to excess SMP stocks 
estimated at 90,000  t. The export subsidy will be provided by the state Government 
from November, continuing for 6  mths to April 2021. Amul managing director RS Sodhi 
said they planned to export 50,000  t of milk powder this year, up from 12,000t last 
year." 
a. Can India confirm that Amul is being paid a subsidy of US D 680 per tonne of SMP that is 
exported?  
 
5 http://www.dgi.cgici.com/indexs.htm . G/AG/W/208  
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. Can India indicate the quantity subsidized? Is there a maximum quanti ty for this subsidy? 
Or will all 90,000 tonnes referred to in the press be exported with this subsidy?  
c. How has the level of subsidy has been calculated? Which elements or criteria were used?  
d. According to the press report this export subsidy is granted due  to an internal support 
measure for the dairy sector in India. The subsidy would thus not appear to fall within the 
exceptions for developing countries in Article 9:4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. How is 
this export subsidy justified in relation to Indi a's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
e. Paragraph  1 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision (WT/MIN(15), WT/L/980) reads: "Members  
reaffirm  their commitment, pursuant to the 2013  Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, to exercise utmos t restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export 
subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect. " How does this export subsidy 
respect this provision?    
1.6.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96055)  
New Zealand understands that the stat e government of Gujarat will be providing up to 50 rupees/KG 
in subsidies to export 50,000 tonnes of skim milk powder over the period of 
01/11/2020  - 30/04/2021. New Zealand is concerned that this will provide an export subsidy to 
Indian skim milk producers and significantly impact the world supply of skim milk powder.  
 
a. At Bali and Nairobi, as part of the historic outcome supported by all Members, India 
committed to exercising utmost restraint with regard to all forms of export subsidies.  Can 
India indicate how the provision of these new export subsidies fits with their commitment 
to utmost restraint?   
b. The Nairobi Decision commits all Members not to raise export subsidies above the previous 
five-year average on a product basis. Do India 's new export subsidies for milk in Gujarat 
mean that export subsidies for skim milk powder now exceed the previous five -year 
average of export subsidies provided to milk powder in India?   
c. The Nairobi Decision requires Members to ensure that export subsidies have at mos t 
minimal trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede the exports of another 
Member. What measures has India taken to ensure that its export subsidies for milk 
powder do not have a trade distorting effect?   
1.6.3   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 96013)  
The United States understands that the Gujarat Government introduced Resolution 
No. SDS/1020  20/960/Kh  to provide export subsidies for skim milk powder (SMP), in effect from 
1 November 2020 to 30 April 2021.  The resolution indicates the Gujarat Government will provide 
total assistance of Rs 150 crores (US D 20 million) for a six -month period. The export sub sidy will 
entail Rs 50 per kilogram of SMP exported by the milk cooperatives if the FOB price is Rs 180.  The 
total amount of SMP that can be exported under the scheme is 50,000 metric tonnes.  
 
a. Please confirm this export subsidy is currently in effect.  If so, please further explain how 
these measures are being implemented and provide any eligibility criteria.  
b. Please provide the measure authorizing and administering these export subsidies. If not 
available now, when will these documents be made available?  
c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture including export subsidies commitments in Article 9.   G/AG/W/208  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.7  India's export prohibition on onions  
1.7.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96054)  
a. Japan notes  that India introduced  export prohibition on all varieties of onion on 
14 September 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 India could provide the reason why. Japan would 
also appreciate it if India 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 India could explain how the measure met the conditions 
required in Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortages and iii)  temporality of the 
imposition. Japan would also appreciate it if India could provide the reason why it resorted 
to the export prohibitions on the products rather than an export quota which would allow 
a certain amount of exports.  
1.8  Nigeria's border closures  
1.8.1   Question by United Sta tes of America (AG -IMS ID 96014)  
On 14 October 2019, the Government of Nigeria closed its land borders to all trade. At the time, 
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari stated that the border closures are temporary measures to 
prevent smuggling, especially ri ce smuggling.  On 24 September 2020, Nigeria 's Vice President Yemi 
Osinbajo stated that the Government was planning to reopen the borders soon.  However, the 
borders are still closed to all trade as of early November 2020, and no further plans for reopening 
have been announced.  
 
a. When will the borders be reopened?   
b. What criteria will the Government of Nigeria use to decide when to reopen the borders?  
1.9  Philippines - Market Access Volume (MAV) utilization for corn  
1.9.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9 6016)  
According to the 31  January  2020 Philippines DA Office of the Secretariat Market Access 
Volume  (MAV) Management Committee Summary of 2019 MAV Utilization report, the percentage of 
the MAV utilized for corn was 56.06 %. According to G/AG/N/PHL/56, G/AG /N/PHL/55, 
G/AG/N/PHL/54, and G/AG/N/PHL/47, the fill rates for corn were the following:  
 
Calendar Year  Fill-rate 
2013 6% 
2014 85% 
2015 70% 
2016 10.2%  
2017 78.5%  
2018 87.3%  
 
Please explain the reasons for the low fill -rates for corn for 2013, 201 5, 2016, 2017, and 2019.  
1.10  Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96015)  
According to a 14 November 2019 Philippine Department of Agriculture  (DA) press release entitled 
"Dar: T ighter food safety requirements slow down rice import in October " 
(https://www.da.gov.ph/dar -tighter -food-safety -requirements -slow-down -rice-import -in-october/ ), 
DA Secretary William Dar stated that the Philippines will implement strict measures for the issuance 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance  (SPSIC) permits, particularly during the Philippine G/AG/W/208  
 
- 11 - 
 
  rice harvest season to protect domestic p roducers from further influx of cheaper rice imports.  
According to the DA Bureau of Plant Industry publication of "SPSIC Issued and Volume Applied per 
month (as of September 4, 2020) " 
(http://bpi.da.gov.ph/bpi/images/WEB%20NEWS%20ARTICLE/2020/SEPT/PQS/SPSIC%20Issued
%20and%20Volume% 20Applied%20per%20%20month%20%28Sept%204%29.pdf ), from 
September to October 2019, no SPSIC permits were issued for rice. The timeframe coincided with 
SPSIC issuance delays for U.S. fresh fruits and vegetables.  Also, in September 2020, the United 
States rec eived reports of SPSIC application rejections for whole chickens. In addition, in 
October  2020, it was reported that there were SPSIC application rejections for feed wheat.  
 
In March 2019, the Philippines converted its rice quantitative restriction into t ariff measures.  The 
end of the rice quantitative restriction should have created opportunities for WTO Members to export 
rice to the Philippines; however, the SPSIC applications have been rejected.  Under Article  4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, Members  shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the 
kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties, including quantitative 
import restrictions and discretionary import licensing.  
  
a. Please explain what law, regulati on, and/or policy directives govern administration of the 
SPSIC  permits.  
b. Are there published criteria for issuing or rejecting SPSIC permit applications?  If so, please 
provide it.   
c. Please explain what regulatory purpose SPSIC permits serve.  
d. What role does domestic production and prices of agricultural products have in the decision 
to issue or deny SPSIC permits for certain commodities?  
e. From September to October 2019, please explain why the Philippines did not issue any 
SPSIC  permits for rice?  
f. During the sa me time period, why were SPSIC permit issuances for U.S. fresh fruits and 
vegetables delayed?  
g. Beginning in September 2020, why has the Philippines rejected whole chicken 
SPSIC  permit applications?  
h. Beginning in October 2020, why has the Philippines rejected  feed wheat and corn 
SPSIC  permit applications?  
1.11  Russian Federation - support for exported agricultural products  
1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 96060)  
Decree 1665 of 12 October 2020 was adopted, amending Decree No 1816 from 25  December  2019 
"On state  support of organizations in order to compensate for part of the costs associated with 
certification of products of the agro -industrial complex in foreign markets". According to this decree, 
agricultural producers who export directly or via intermediaries can receive state support to part of 
the certification costs for exported agricultural products.  
 
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain how much money is budgeted for this measure and 
the eligibility criteria?  
b. How does this measure, which grants support to t he export of agricultural products, 
respect Russia 's export subsidy commitments?  
c. Paragraph  1 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision (WT/MIN(15), WT/L/980) reads: "Members  
reaffirm  their commitment, pursuant to the 2013  Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export 
subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect. " How does this export subsidy 
respect this provision?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.12  Russian Federation – draft resolution on export dut ies  
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96017)  
The Russian Federation has published a draft resolution of the Ministry of Economic Development 
"On Amending the Rates of Export Customs Duties for Goods Exported from the Russian Federation 
outside of the States Parties to Agreements on the Customs Union ". The resolution would raise the 
export duty on Sunflower seeds from 6.5 % but no less than 9.75  EUR per 1000  kg, to 20 % but no 
less than 80  EUR per 1000  kg for the period from 1 February to 31 Aug ust 2021. This resolution was 
circulated for public comment from 11 -25 August 2020.  
  
The United States reminds the Russian Federation that in its Working Party Report, 
(WT/ACC/RUS/70  – WT/MIN(11)/2), Para. 637 notes that the Russia n Federation  undertook bilateral 
tariff negotiations on export duties with some Members.  These concessions and commitments are 
contained in Part V of the Schedule, which formed Annex 1 to the Protocol of Accession.   
  
a. Please provide an update on whether this resolutio n is still under consideration.  
b. If so, please explain the purpose of this increase.  
1.13  Russian Federation 's export restrictions  
1.13.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96018)  
The United States notes that the Government of the Russian Federation implem ented three separate 
unnotified export restrictions between April and August of 2020.  
 
• 1 April  – 30 June 2020: Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) export quota of 7  million ton nes 
for wheat, meslin, barley, rye and corn exports to non -EAEU countries.  
• 12 April – 30 June 2020: EAEU export ban on sunflower seeds, soybeans, rice, buckwheat, 
onions, garlic, turnips, millet, cereals, crude flour, and cereal pellets.  
• 1 – 30 August 2020: EAEU requirement of an export permit for the export of sunflower 
seeds.  
The Unit ed State is concerned by the Russian Federation 's lack of transparency, having not notified 
these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture.   
 
a. Please confirm that these export restrictions have expired.  
b. Please explain the purpose of these export  restrictions.  
c. When will the Russian Federation notify these measures to the Committee?  
1.14  Sri Lanka - temporary suspensions and restrictions on imports of products  
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96020)  
Since March 2020, Sri Lanka has impose d temporary suspensions on imports of products and 
restrictions on terms of payment for imported products, purportedly due to concerns related to 
COVID -19. We understand that on 16 July 2020, the Department of Import and Export Control of 
Sri Lanka made re visions to these temporary import controls.  
  
a. Please provide the reasons for the temporary suspension of imports and restricted 
payment terms for the imported products.  
b. Please specify the types of agricultural products currently subject to import controls and 
provide details on how the import controls are administered.  Also, please specify the 
expected implementation period for such controls.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.15  U.S. domestic support programmes  
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96080)  
The United States Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on 21  October  2020 
(https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46577 ) which examined the ad hoc  payments 
under the Market Facilitation Program  of 2018 and 2019, as well as the two Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Programs from 2020, against the United States ' annual WTO domestic support 
commitment.   
 
The report concluded that the United States is likely to be in compliance with WTO spending limits 
for 2018 but  could exceed the annual U.S. spending limit of $19.1 billion in both 2019 and 2020.   
 
a. Could the United States provide any confirmation that it would meet its domestic support 
annual limit for the year 2018, as claimed by the CRS report?  
b. Could th e United States confirm the CRS report claims that it could exceed its domestic 
support commitment for both 2019 and 2020?  
c. Does the United States still intend to meet its domestic support commitments for 
years  2019 and 2020?  
d. Could the United States inform the Committee on how it intends to classify the 2018 
and 2019 spending under the Market Facilitation program?  
e. Could the United States inform the Committee on how it intends to classify the two 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Programs?  
1.15.2   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 96031)  
According to the report  "Outlook for Compliance with WTO Commitments, 2018 to 2020 " issued by 
the Congressional Research Service of the United States ( https://crsreports. 
congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46577 ), the United  States ha s made a combined 23.1  billion dollars 
of subsidies to farmers through the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Programs. In addition to that, 
the 2020 Coronavirus Food Assistance Program directly targets the market prices of the agricultural 
products that have already benefitted f rom the MFP, making up the losses of farmers with payments 
at carefully designed rates. These programmes, although said to be ad -hoc payments, obviously 
constitute constant supports for farmers, which provide them with the expectation for secured farm 
income and thus has influenced and will continue to influence their decisions. The report estimates 
that the Unites States is very likely to exceed its Final Bound AMS commitment in 2019 and 2020 
by providing Current Total AMS of 30.2 and 27.4 billion dollars respectively.  
 
a. Could the United States verify the results of these estimations?  
b. The CRS report estimates that in 2019 the value of output for all agricultural production 
activities was 370.6 billion and 5% of which would be 18.5 billion. Could the United  States 
confirm the accuracy of such estimates? If not, please provide the value of production 
for 2019.  
c. How does the United States plan to provide Amber Box support to farmers for 2021 and 
beyond, in order to handle any unexpected circumstance?  
1.15.3   Question b y European Union (AG -IMS ID 96063)  
The U nited States has implemented a range of support programmes for the agricultural sector during 
2018, 2019 and 2020, such as the 2018 MFP, 2019 MFP, 2020 CFAP -1 and CFAP -2 and 2020 PPP 
(Payment Protection Program). For  all of these programmes payments have begun and, for many, 
the execution of payments has ended.  
 
According to G/AG/2, a DS:2 notification must be submitted within 30 days of adoption of new or 
modified Blue and Green Box measures. No DS:2 notifications ha ve been submitted by the US for G/AG/W/208  
 
- 14 - 
 
  any of these programmes referred to above. May the membership thus assume that none of these 
programmes will be notified as Green or Blue Box, and that all expenditure under them will be 
notified as Amber Box?  
1.15.4   Question by E uropean Union (AG -IMS ID 96064)  
On 21 October, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a report on "US Farm Support: 
Outlook for compliance with WTO commitments 2018 to 2020 ". 
 
The CRS report states that US may not respect its WTO commitments on  domestic support in 2020.  
  
a. Table 1 of the CRS reports include s a categorisation of the different support programmes 
during 2018 to 2020. Can the US confirm that the categorisation between Product 
Specific  (PS) and Non -Product Specific (NPS) support is co rrect and will be reflect ed in the 
future DS:1 notifications by the US?  
b. If the answer to the previous question is no, can the US indicate which programmes are 
wrongly categorised by the CRS, why, and in which category they will be notified in 
future  DS:1 notification from the US?  
c. What measures has the US taken to ensure that it will respect its WTO commitments 
concerning domestic support in 2020?  
1.15.5   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96025)  
India looks forward to receiving the US domestic support notification s for the marketing years 
2018 onwards. In light of the recently released Coronavirus Food Assistance Programme  (CFAP), 
and previous rounds of Market Facilitation Programme  (MFP) payments, can the US please outline 
how it plans to notify these domestic sup port outlays, and whether it expects these notifications to 
exceed its agricultural AMS entitlements?  
1.15.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96065)  
New Zealand refers the U nited States to the statement on Responding to the COVID -19 Pandemic 
with Open and Predi ctable Trade in Agricultural and Food Products, which Canada circulated 
previously at the Committee on Agriculture, and which both New Zealand and the US have 
cosponsored. New Zealand would like to remind the US that the statement commits parties to 
ensuri ng that "emergency measures related to agriculture and agri -food products designed to tackle 
COVID -19 must be targeted, proportionate, transparent, [and] temporary".  
 
a. Can the US outline how it is ensuring that sectors eligible for CFAP payments are still 
experiencing material harm resulting from COVID -19 that is proportionate to the outlays 
the USDA is providing?  
b. Can the US confirm that CFAP payments will remain 'ad hoc' support measures, that 
appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that expenditure i s only taking place in 
instances where material harm to US sectors attributable to COVID -19 can be proved, and 
in accordance with the principles set out in G/AG/30/Rev.2.?  
c. Can the US outline whether it intends to alter its Farm Bill to account for the more  regular 
use of ad hoc  payment programmes like MFP and CFAP and the ongoing need for the  US 
to abide by its WTO obligations for domestic support expenditure?  
d. Can the US explain how ad hoc  payments, including the MFP and CFAP, will be provided 
in a manner consistent with its WTO AMS cap?  
1.15.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96066)  
New Zealand thanks the U nited States for its response to our previous question on CFAP at the 95th 
Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 95075), where the US assured Members that MFP and CFAP 
measures "will be notified consistent with WTO rules ". New Zealand notes that as of 8 November G/AG/W/208  
 
- 15 - 
 
  the US had approved more than US D 9.5 billion in payments to producers in the second round of 
the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  (CFAP), of an allo cated US D 14 billion. This is in addition 
to a first round of CFAP which delivered almost US D 10.4 billion to producers and Market Facilitation 
Payments of US D 14 billion through 2019 and 2020.  
 
New Zealand awaits the U.S. formal notification of these pro grammes to this Committee but notes 
the strong likelihood that when added to existing programmes under the US Farm Bill these 
payments are likely to see the US exceed their AMS limits of US D 19.1 billion. To aid transparency:  
 
a. Can the US please outline how the remainder of the amount available under round two 
of CFAP (if any) will be allocated once applications close on 11 December 2020?  
b. Can the US please outline whether the MFP and CFAP payments will be notified as product 
specific or non -produc t specific support?  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.16  Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
1.16.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96022)  
India thanks Australia for its response to AG -IMS ID 95008 on additional AUD  241.9 million to 
continue the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), for international freight routes and 
flights operating until the end of the year. In October 2020, the Australian Government committed 
a further AUD  317.1 million to extend IFAM until the middl e of 2021.  
 
As has earlier been mentioned in Question AG-IMS ID 95008, the IFAM appears 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 t o 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 servic es) 
including handling, upgrading and other processing costs, and the costs of international transport 
and freight". In addition, Australia is the first WTO Member among the 16 Members with export 
subsidy entitlements in their schedules of commitments to t ake the step of modifying their 
schedules. Australia has informed the WTO Membership that the IFAM is a temporary measure. India 
requests Australia to answer the following questions with respect to this measure:  
 
a. Can Australia explain how the IFAM and its subsequent extension meets its 
WTO obligations on agricultural export subsidies as set out in the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision?  
b. Has the extension of the IFAM scheme in October 2020 broadened the product coverage 
under t he scheme?  
c. Could Australia please advise how it will ensure that these measures do not negatively 
impact global agricultural markets?  
d. Can Australia explain how these funds are distributed, noting specifically how freight rates 
are determined for agricultur al exporters and whether any funds can be received by 
exporters directly?  
e. Australia in its response to Question AG-IMS ID 95008 stated that it will cease 
IFAM assistance on specific routes once the markets re -adjust. Can Australia explain the 
mechanism bei ng used to analyse the market situation? What thresholds have been 
identified by Australia in this regard?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.17  Canada's new milk ingredient class  
1.17.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96040)  
New Zealand has previously expressed concern about Canada 's formerly uti lised milk classes 6 and  7 
and their consistency with the Agreement on Agriculture. Under CUSMA, Canada eliminated Class  7, 
but has since instituted a new Class 4(a) which appears to have many of the same characteristics 
and impacts.  
 
a. How does milk Class 4 (a) conform with Canada 's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. In what way(s) can Canada reassure other Members that any export of Class 4(a) protein 
products would not be a means to circumvent Canada 's WTO obligations due to its pricing 
below t he cost of production, payment upon export, and financing by virtue of government 
action?  
1.17.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96004)  
The United States thanks Canada for its response to AG -IMS ID 95005.  As Canada noted, in 
AG-IMS ID 80025, milk prices are set in the Province of Ontario; however, the milk prices, the class 
system, and Ontario regulations seem to have changed since then.  In AG -IMS ID 86033, Canada 
commented on the National Ingredient Strategy and certain milk classes, including cla ss 7 and 4m. 
For example, in AG -IMS ID 86033, Canada stated, "Utilization is no longer declared in any province 
(other than for retroactive audit adjustments), and permits are no longer issued for milk class 4m ". 
However, in June 2020, Canada began publish ing prices for 4m on milkingredients.ca. Other changes 
to the operation of various classes may have also occurred. In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada mentions 
that it is the work of the Canadian Dairy Commission to commission studies on processor margins 
as needed , but the Canadian Dairy Commission website ( https://cdc -ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -
management/how -is-the-price-of-milk-set-in-canada/ ) does not seem to have announced any 
processor margins, other than for skim milk powder in class 4a. In AG -IMS ID 91132, 
AG-IMS ID 92002, and AG-IMS ID  93003, Canada commented that federal and provincial authorities 
work together on milk marketing and  noted that certain powers were not defined.  However, changes 
have occurred in Canadian milk class pricing in the past few months.  The United States is seeki ng 
additional detail and requests:  
  
a. Please provide the name and website for each of the provincial boards and agencies 
exercising authority over milk class pricing.  Also, please provide any websites reporting 
prices, as well as any information regarding h ow milk class prices are calculated and 
applied.   
b. In AG -IMS ID 8701, Canada stated, "Under the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, these entities [provincial boards 
and agencies] coordinate the exercise of t heir delegated federal and provincial 
authorities. " Are there new federal -provincial agreements?   
c. Please explain how each federal -provincial agreement is implemented.  
d. Please provide a website for each agreement with the text of that agreement.   
1.17.3   Question b y United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96005)  
Canada 's milk class prices are now listed by Western Milk Pooling Agreement, Quebec/Ontario, Nova 
Scotia/New Brunswick, and Newfoundland/Prince Edward Island 
(https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/dairy -statistics -and-market -information/the -dairy-processing -
sector/canadian -milk-class-prices/?id=1592939370980 ) instead of by individual province.  
  
Please describe the reasons for this change and the effects this change is expected to have on 
Canada 's milk class pricing, including for the pricing of dairy exports and authority of provincial 
boards and agencies over milk class pricing.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.17.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96011)  
Regarding Canada 's Milk Pricing, Canada 's milk price class 7 no longer appears in the Harmonized 
Milk Classification System ( https://cdc -ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -management/harmonized -
system -of-milk-classification/ ) nor in Canadian Milk Class Prices 
(https://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/eng/dairy -statistics -and-market -information/the -dairy-processing -
sector/canadian -milk-class-prices/?id=1592939370980 ).  
  
Please identify all the specific milk class 7 products and ingredients that have been reclassified. Also, 
please provide the specific classes into which each of those specific products and ingredients have 
been reclassified .  
1.18  Canada's review of the TRQ system  
1.18.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96023)  
Canada "temporarily suspended " its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II " in May 2020.  India wishes to know 
the expected timeframe when Canada plans to resume its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation 
and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II?  
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96041)  
New Zealand not es the communication that was sent to tariff rate quota allocation holders on 
20 October 2020.  In that message Canada advised that Global Affairs Canada would waive, on an 
exceptional basis, the under -utilisation penalty for all 2020 calendar year TRQs und er the WTO and 
some specified preferential trade agreements.  The exception means eligible allocation holders will 
not have their initial allocation(s) for the 2021 calendar year TRQs adjusted by any potential under -
utilisation penalties.  
 
a. What other steps is Canada taking to address TRQ underfill and ensure TRQs are filled in 
the 2020 and 2021 calendar years?  
b. Has Canada considered the option of reallocation of unused TRQs to importers or exporters 
who would be more interested in using the quota?  If not, why  not, given that current 
TRQ holders have not performed?  
c. Can Canada confirm that the waiving of under -utilisation penalties is a one -off measure, 
not to be repeated in subsequent years?  
1.18.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96012)  
Canada "tempora rily suspended " its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II " in May 2020.  
  
When will Canada resume its "Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of Tariff 
Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products – Phase II "? 
1.19  Canada 's Dairy Direct Payment Program  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96042)  
New Zealand acknowledges and appreciates Canada 's indication that it will notify the 
CAD 345 million paid to farmers through Canada 's Dairy Direct Payment Program in accordance with 
its WTO domestic support obligations.  
  
a. Does Canada intend to notify their Dairy Direct Payment Program as a Green Box 
programme, and if so, what reassurance can C anada provide that the Dairy Direct Payment 
Program is minimally trade - and production -distorting?  
b. Or, as part of its AMS entitlement?   G/AG/W/208  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.20  China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.20.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96043)  
Australia would like to follow -up with China with respect to question AG-IMS ID 95044 submitted at 
the last CoA regarding Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the 
United States.  
 
Australia kindly requests China provide a written  response to that question:  
 
In relation to Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the United States, 
China has reportedly imported around USD 10 billion worth of US  agricultural products (based on 
Chinese import data) in the first  six months since entry into force of Agreement. China 's monthly 
targets for agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three 
months reaching well under half of their targets, and in the second three months only slig htly above 
half of their monthly target. At this rate, Members can reasonably expect Chinese purchases of 
US agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark and  fall well under the target 
under the Agreement.  
 
Given this situation, Aust ralia requests China provide answers to the following questions:  
 
a. Can China advise if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?  
i. and if all measures implemented to facilitate these purchases have been  applied on an 
MFN basis where relevant?  
ii. and if so, describe the method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can China provide a disaggregated break down for purchases in the first six months of the 
Agreement for each agricultural product listed in Anne x 6.1 of the Agreement?  
c. Can China provide the current TRQ fill rates for wheat, rice and corn since 1 January 2020?  
i. and whether the TRQs will be filled or have high utilization levels in the remaining six 
months of 2020 to meet the purchase targets?  
d. Has C hina changed or introduced new measures to facilitate purchases of US agricultural 
products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including:  
i. Advising Chinese SOEs to purchase increased volumes of US agricultural products?  
ii. Reducing applied tariffs for certain products?  
iii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iv. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?  
e. Is China planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of 
US agricultura l products to meet the purchase targets under the Agreement?  
1.21  EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96048)  
Australia notes reports that the EU is set to provide an additional EUR 8 billion support package for 
farmers  and rural communities as part of the economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis.  
The Commission had proposed to release the funding between 2022 and 2024, but now around 30% 
of the EUR 8.07 billion aid will become available in 2021, and the remaining 70% would be released 
in 2022. We understand that 37% of this support will be provided via a number of measures for 
organic farming, environment and climate -related actions and animal welfare and at least 55% of G/AG/W/208  
 
- 19 - 
 
  the funding will support young farmers ' start-ups and on -farm investments that contribute to a 
resilient, sustainable and digital recovery.   
 
Australia shares the objectives of supporting economies during the pandemic and the associated 
recovery, and the goal of a sustainable and well -functioning global agri -food system – including via 
Green box measures. However, the injection of significant fu nding over a short period of time may 
have a distortive effect on global markets and impact third parties and their recovery.  
 
With that in mind, can the EU provide more details about:  
 
a. The proposed spending and explain how it will ensure the measures und er the EUR 8 billion 
support package, including those for organic farmers, will ensure the support is targeted, 
proportionate, temporary and does not disrupt global trade and supply chains?  
b. If the support is expected to be Green box, can the EU explain ho w it will ensure these 
measures have no, or at most minimal trade -distorting effects or effects on production?  
1.21.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96027)  
During the COVID -19 pandemic, the European Union has taken measures to support food producers 
in the form of:  a) direct support to farmers and rural areas; b ) flexibility under the CAP; and 
c) exceptional market measures.  
 
The EU has mentioned that it intends to increase state aid to farmers and food -processing 
companies, as direct support, up to EUR 100,000 per farm and EUR 800,000 per food -processing 
company. This amount can be topped up by 'de minimis ' aid. This type of national support specific 
to the agricultural sector can be granted without prior approval from the Commission and  has a 
ceiling of EUR 20,000 (and EUR 25,000 in specific cases).  
  
In view of the above, could the European Union please elaborate on the following:  
 
a. Has this policy been put into operation?  
b. What is the meaning of 'de minimis ' aid? What kinds of support does it encompass?  
c. In what cases could the EUR 100,000 payment be additionally topped up by de-minimis  
aid? 
d. What are the specific cases in which the de-minimis  ceiling can be EUR 25,000 instead 
of EUR 20,000?  
e. Whether such support has been notified at WTO in any of the notificati ons? If yes, please 
provide details. If no, by when will the support be notified?  
f. Is the European Union considering this as a temporary measure or is it likely to continue?  
1.22  European Union - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.22.1   Ques tion by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96049)  
With less than two months now before the end of the UK transition period, we ask the EU to provide 
updated information to WTO Members on how it intends to address the concerns that other 
WTO Members have raised regardi ng the substantial reduction in quantity and quality of access 
the EU has proposed to apply to 130 of its 142 current bound tariff rate quotas (including 23 quotas 
for which the EU has proposed cut backs of more than 50%)?  
 
We also ask the EU to provide up dated advice on the actions it intends to take to ensure other 
WTO Members will retain full access to its MFN quotas, as intended when these quotas were 
negotiated, and that this access is not 'crowded out ' by UK -EU trade?  
  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.23  United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.23.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 96062)  
With less than two months now before the end of the UK transition period, we ask the UK to provide 
updated information to WTO Members on how it intends to address the concerns that other 
WTO Members have raised regarding the major reduction in quantity and quality of access the UK 
has proposed to apply to its 142 current bound tariff rate quotas, under which all but 5 of these 
quotas would be substantiall y cut back and 55 of these quotas would disappear entirely?  
 
We also ask the UK to provide updated advice on the actions it intends to take to ensure other 
WTO Members will retain full access to its MFN quotas, as intended when these quotas were 
negotiated , and that this access is not 'crowded out ' by EU -UK trade?  
 
Can the UK please advise when and how it proposes to engage with other WTO Members on the 
claim it has indicated it wishes to make to establish a new, large, entitlement to trade distorting 
dome stic support?  
 
Can the UK please explain its domestic policy reasons for wanting to claim the special agricultural 
safeguard on 685 agricultural products and the ability to apply an 'entry price system ' to agricultural 
products in its draft WTO schedule, w hen the UK 's applied MFN tariff schedule published in May 
indicates that the UK intends to reduce its applied tariffs on a number of these products and to do 
away with 'minimum entry prices '?  
1.24  EU's environmental policies  
1.24.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 960 07) 
This question is presented again, as question AG -IMS ID 95098 remains unanswered.  
 
We would like to know whether the EU could confirm that subsidies to compensate for the non ‑use 
of certain pesticide s have not been introduced and that there are no pla ns to introduce such subsidies 
in any of the 26 other EU Members in the near future.  
1.25  Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
1.25.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96050)  
a. Japan notes  that Honduras introduced export prohibition on dried legumino us vegetables 
on 26 March 2020, and finds that the said measure is still maintained with no date of 
termination available. Japan would appreciate if Honduras could provide the reason 
behind. Japan would also appreciate if Honduras could provide the prospec t under what 
condition the measure could be withdrawn.  
b. Japan noted a response from Honduras to our question at the COA held in June, which 
states that Honduras introduced the measure because of the risk of critical shortage of 
legumes. Japan would apprecia te if Honduras could provide the updated situation of the 
domestic supply and demand of legumes.  
1.26  India -Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  
1.26.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96051)  
Australia would like to follow -up with India with respect to question AG-IMS ID 95055 submitted at 
the last CoA with respect to the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF).  
 
Australia kindly requests India provide a written response to that question.  
Question text for reference:  
 
On 9 August, Prime Minister Modi announced an Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF) which is a 
medium -long term debt financing facility for investment projects for post -harvest management G/AG/W/208  
 
- 21 - 
 
  infrastructure and community farming assets, including to enable the  agriculture sector to be 
competitive with global levels. The scheme guidelines for the AIF note that eligible projects include 
providing supply chain infrastructure for 'clusters of crops including export clusters '.  
  
Could India please provide further details of how financing will be provided for the projects, 
including:  
 
a. What crops fall within the definition of 'export cluster '? 
1.27  India's pulses policies  
1.27.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96052)  
Australia would like to a gain raise its concerns with India 's trade restrictive measures on pulses and 
its insufficient responses to Australia 's questions at the 95th Committee on Agriculture.  
 
A number of the measures in question, notably the quantitative restrictions (QRs) appe ar to be WTO  
inconsistent and despite India 's claims they are 'temporary ', they have been in place for more than 
three years.  
 
India's response to Australia 's questions at the last CoA was to refer to India 's responses in other 
Committees; and that the mea sures had been implemented under Article XX (General Exceptions) 
of the GATT 1994. Australia has heard and considered carefully what India has said in other 
Committees.  
 
India's response in the Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods was that it 
understood quantitative restrictions (QRs) were never required to be tariffied under the Uruguay 
Round negotiations, hence the prohibition of QRs in Article 4.2 of the AoA does not apply.  
 
Australia reminds India that Article 4.2 of the AoA st ates: "Members shall not maintain, resort to, or 
revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary customs 
duties [footnote 1], except as otherwise provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5 ". Footnote one says 
"These mea sures include quantitative import restrictions ". 
 
From Australia 's perspective, it is clear and unambiguous that Article 4 of the AoA disciplines 
quantitative restrictions. In addition, India is continuing to claim these measures are implemented 
under Arti cle XX (General Exceptions) of the GATT 1994. However, India has not provided a specific 
reason for all of the measures and how they have been implemented, for example restrictions on 
landing ports and on what entities may import under the QRs.  
 
With this in mind, Australia requests India respond to the following questions:  
 
a. Can India please explain what it believes is the purpose and drafting of footnote 1, if it 
were not to strictly capture QRs under Article 4.2?  
i. Does India believe its QRs are not capture d by Article 4.2 of the AoA?  
b. Under what specific provision of the GATT 1994 or other relevant WTO agreements does 
India justify:  
i. the restriction of pea imports to only one specific port?  
ii. the minimum import price for peas?  
iii. the restriction of additional impo rts of Urad to only Indian millers and refiners?  
iv. such a limited period for applications to be submitted for Urad imports?  
c. Can India explain how each measure in question b) conforms to the specific provision of 
the AoA and Article XX of the GATT 1994?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.27.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96076)  
In reply to question AG-IMS ID 95056, where Canada addressed questions in regard to India 
WTO justification of India 's quantitative restrictions for dried peas, India referred Canada to the 
minutes of the meetings of the June 2020 Council for Trade in Goods for its answers. In the minutes 
of this committee, India noted that quantitative restric tions, minimum import prices, and 
discretionary import licensing procedures such as limiting imports to one single port of entry, can 
be justified by arguing that Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture did not envisage the 
tariffication of temporary o r short -term measures and that consequently, Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture should not extend to GATT 1994 Article XI:2(c).  
 
In regard to the legal justification raised, could India specify:  
 
a. On what grounds does India claim that Article 4.2 o f the Agreement on Agriculture did not 
envisage the tariffication of temporary or short -term measures?  
b. What is India 's definition of temporary or short -term measures? After which period of time 
does a measure stop to be temporary or short -term?  
c. Could India  explain how the situation is different in the WTO case Indonesia -Import 
Licensing Regime (DS477), where the appellate body report ruled that "Members cannot 
maintain quantitative import restrictions on agricultural products that satisfy the 
requirements o f Article XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994 without violating Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. "? 
1.27.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96056)  
As a follow -up to  India's answer to the question AG -IMS ID 95057, could India clarify the following 
issues:  
 
a. Please, confirm that the share of yellow peas in total quota for peas is zero for the current 
year, and thus import of yellow peas is prohibited.  
b. Bearing in mind the application of zero quota for the importation of yellow peas for the 
current year, pleas e clarify the reasons for using in 2020 stricter policy measures for the 
importation of this product.  
c. Which other trade measures were considered by India with regard to the importation of 
yellow peas in order to ensure that de facto  import ban would not create disguised 
restriction on international trade?  
d. The Russia n Federation  is looking forward to receiving further clarification with regard to 
minimum price requirement for imported peas introduced by India. Could India, please, 
clarify the reasoning behind the requirement to import peas at not less than 200  Rs. per 
kilo. Could India provide the detailed explanation of how the price of 200  Rs per kilo was 
calculated.  
e. India has also restricted the number of ports through which peas c ould be imported into 
India. Could India, please, clarify the rationale why yellow peas could be imported only 
through the seaport of Kolkata?  
f. In the answer to question AG -IMS ID 95057 India stated that quantitative restrictions on 
import of pulses were ta ken in exercise of Article XX GATT 1994. Could India please provide 
detailed clarification in which way restricting import of pulses and prohibiting import of 
yellow peas fall under the paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Article XX GATT (protection of 
public mo rals and protection of human life and health)?  
g. Could India, please, specify its plans to eliminate quantitative restrictions and prohibitions 
on importation of yellow peas.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.28  India's PM -KISAN income guarantee scheme  
1.28.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96077)  
In India's reply to question AG-IMS ID  95084, India noted that Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman 
Nidhi (PM-KISAN) payments levels are not determined by the income of producers.  
 
a. Could India explain how payment levels are determined for each producer?  
b. What are the factors that influence the level of payment for each producer?  
c. Are all beneficiaries of this programme receiving the same amount?  
1.29  India's transparency with Green Box measures   
1.29.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 96078)  
India's reply to question AG-IMS ID 95083 d id not directly address Canada 's question regarding the 
conformity the programme called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana  (PMFBY) with paragraph  8, 
Annex 2 of the  AoA. 
 
a. Could India clearly indicate whether the programme called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima 
Yojana (PMFBY) meets the base period criteria of  paragraph 8 (a), Annex 2 which requires 
the reference average production level to be set using the preceding three -year period or 
a three -year average based on the preceding five -year period, excluding the highe st and 
the lowest entry?  
b. If this programme does not meet the reference period criteria, could India indicate why 
this programme was reported under India 's supporting table DS:1 as a Green Box 
measure?  
1.30  Indonesia - Import permission for rice  
1.30.1   Question by Japa n (AG -IMS ID 96057)  
Japan would like to raise a follow up question concerning import licensing on rice, which was raised 
at the COA in September as well as Import Licensing Committee in October.  
  
In the COA meeting, Indonesia stated that the issue is a B  to B matter, but according to our 
understanding, the Minister of Commerce has not issued license to the submitted application without 
any reason. In Japan 's view this issue involves a national authority.  
 
While Indonesia also responded that the Ministry o f Commerce had issued import licenses for several 
occasions to the import of Japonica rice, as far as we understand, licenses have been issued for the 
imports of Japonica rice from other countries, but not from Japan.  We would like to request Indonesia 
to give us clear explanation on the reason, or to issue the license as soon as possible. The lack of 
transparency continues hindering the trade significantly.  
  
In addition, the provided explanation (i.e. procedural delay is due to the COVID -19 situation) doe s 
not seem convincing, as some of the applications have been not dealt with for almost a year now.  
  
Japan would appreciate if Indonesia could solve this issue as soon as possible, and at least provide 
us with some  prospect ive on  when and how the situation  in question could be solved.  
1.31  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.31.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 96058)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS ID 91011, 
AG-IMS ID 92098, AG -IMS 93072 and AG -IMS ID 95 060:  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 24 - 
 
  In 2020 Mongolia did not open quotas for importation of liquid milk and wheat flour and stated that 
there were no quantitative restrictions for the following products for 2020. However, Mongolia did 
not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the li st of agricultural products subject to quota regime, 
which means that the quotas may be imposed in future.  
 
Referring to  Mongolia 's answer to the question AG -IMS ID 93072, we highlight the fact that Mongolia 
stated that import quotas were applied only bef ore the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products 
would come into force. Nevertheless, after the Law came into effect the quota regime was not 
eliminated but  remains in force even now.  
 
In light of  this the Russian Federation expects to receive the following information from Mongolia:  
 
a. When will Mongolia exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for  importation of these products in future 
(in 2021 and further)?  
c. Please confirm that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk. 
1.32  Nigeria's DS notifications  
1.32.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 96059)  
Australia would like to fo llow up on its questions to Nigeria, AG-IMS IDs 95062 and 93131 
and 92117, with respect to its DS notifications for the period 2012 -16 (G/AG/N/NGA/17), in which 
it notified that it did not provide domestic support during this period. No response has been r eceived.  
 
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
1.33  Russian Federation's export quota  
1.33.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96036)  
India repeats question ID 95012, the response to which is awaited from the Russian Federation:  
 
"The Russian Federation imposed grain export quotas in response to the COVID -19 
pandemic. There are reports of such quotas being made permanent. How does the 
Russian Federation assess the effect of such quotas in relation to the world food 
demand? " 
1.34  Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 96019)  
The United States notes reports of the Russian Federation 's plans to implement a permanent grain 
export quota  referred to by the European Union in AG -IMS ID 95067, for which the 
Russian  Federation has not provided a response. The United States would be concerned by such a 
permanent export restriction.  
 
a. Please provide an update on the status of this measure and wh ether it has been 
implemented.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 25 - 
 
  b. Please provide an explanation of how this measure complies with Article XI of GATT and 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
1.35  Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
1.35.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 96061)  
Japan notes  that Tajikistan introduced export prohibition on varieties of agricultural products 
on 25 April 2020  and finds that the said measure is still maintained with no date of termination 
available. Japan would appreciate if Tajikistan could provide the rea son why. Japan would also 
appreciate if Tajikistan could provide some  prospect ive on  under what condition the measure could 
be withdrawn.  
1.36  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.36.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 96026)  
The United States in September 2020 annou nced the Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  2 (CFAP  2) under which up to USD 14 billion in additional support would be provided to 
agricultural producers who continue to face market disruptions and associated costs because of 
COVID -19. As on 26 October 20 20 more than USD 7 billion has been paid under CFAP 2. India 
understands that the CFAP 2 supports eligible producers of several commodities, including many 
that were ineligible under the previous Coronavirus Food Assistance Programme (CFAP 1).  
 
a. In this re gard, India requests the United States to provide the list of additional crops that 
have been made eligible for payments under the CFAP 2.   
b. Given the significant outlays involved in CFAP 2, it is important to consider the distorting 
impact these programmes  may have on the global agricultural system and markets. 
The United States is requested to share any evaluation of the impact of the 
CFAP programmes on the international markets.  
c. Could the United States elaborate on its plans to reduce the dependency of i ts farmers on 
Government payments and provide details on how this support will respect its 
WTO domestic support commitments?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments (table MA:2)  
2.1.1   Canada (G/A G/N/CAN/138)  
AG-IMS ID 96067: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Canada for its MA:2 notification during the marketing year 2018/2019, calendar 
year 2019 and quota year 2018/2019.  
 
Canada has reported nil or close to nil fill rates  for a number of dairy products, including fluid 
milk (0%), Concentrated/Condensed Milk/Cream (0%), powdered buttermilk (0%)  and dry 
whey  (8.7%).  
 
a. Can Canada provide data on market circumstances that has led to the significant under -fill 
for these quotas  
i. As part of this data, can Canada provide an indication of the difference between 
domestic and world prices for these dairy products?  
b. Will the TRQ review currently be undertaken address this chronic underfill?  
i. Can Canada please provide an update on the statu s of this review?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Canada has reported a 22.6% fill rate for Barley.  
 
c. Could Canada break down the country of origin of its barley imports?  
d. Can Canada explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the existence 
of SPS measures, or restrict ive tariff quota administration?  
2.1.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 96032: Question by China - Tariff quota fill  
China thanks Japan for its reply to  question AG -IMS ID 95078.  
  
It is noted from the reply that in recent years there is a gap between the domestic demand of 
peanut/groundnut (around 96 thousand tonnes) and the total supply (including domestic production 
and import, although calculated on calendar year and fiscal year basis respectively). Could Japan 
provide the reason for such gap?  
2.1.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/77)  
AG-IMS ID 96068: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Korea 's notification (G/AG/N/KOR/77) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
 
a. Can the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the significant under -fill for other milk 
and cream (KORQ009), natural honey (KORQ 013) and  onions (KORQ020)?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can the Republic of Korea  explain whether the under -fill 
was due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically u nderfilled, has the Republic of Korea  
considered moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
c. Can the Republic of Korea  explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled 
tariff quotas, as per the objective of the Bali Decision on T RQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 96006: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We would like to thank the Republic of Korea for the submission of this MA:2 notification and would 
kindly request the Republic of Korea  to explain:  
 
a. the reasons behind the low fi ll rate of KOR042 (13.6%)  
b. if there is any consideration of implementing the Bali Decision to ensure that this TRQ can 
enjoy a higher fill rate.  
2.1.4   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/103)  
AG-IMS ID 96069: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Swit zerland 's notification (G/AG/N/CHE/103) concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
 
a. Can Switzerland explain the reasons for the under -fill for: CHEQ003; CHEQ017; CHEQ020; 
CHEQ022; CHEQ027; and CHEQ028, all of which r ecorded less than 65% fill rate?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can Switzerland explain whether the under -fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive 
tariff quota administration?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 27 - 
 
  b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Switzerland considered 
moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
c. Can Switzerland explain if it is doing anything to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff 
quotas?  
2.1.5   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/112)  
AG-IMS ID 96070: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand indicated in its MA:2 notification for 2019 that the maize and tobacco TRQs have not been 
used at all in 2019. Could Thailand explain the reasons for which both the maize (THAQ011) and t he 
unmanufactured tobacco  (THAQ022) TRQs have not been used at all?   
2.2  Domestic Support commitments (table DS:1)  
2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52, G/AG/N/BRA/58)  
AG-IMS ID 96029: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In its DS:1 notification for 2017, Brazil has  notified support amounting to USD  650,476.2  thousand 
as non -product specific Production and Marketing Credit. The footnote to Supporting table  DS:9 
explains this as implicit subsidies based on the difference between interest rate of each of the 
following programmes and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest 
rate for the overnight inter -bank loans collateralized by Government bonds): Constitutional Funds 
(FNO, FNE and FCO), Pronamp (Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer Supp ort Program), and Rural 
Savings and Mandatory Resources at controlled interest rates.  
 
Source: G/AG/N/BRA/52 & G/AG/N/BRA/58 . 
 
In contrast, in its notification of 2018, Brazil has not notified any such support.  
 
a. Why has Brazil not notified the Production  and Marketing Credit support for 2018?  
b. What is the eligibility criteria of receiving the production and marketing credit?  
2.2.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/37 - G/AG/N/DOM/43)  
AG-IMS ID 96038: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(inclu ding Table DS:2)  
In reporting years 2014 and 2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/38 and G/AG/N/DOM/43), the Dominican Republic 
notified domestic support for production and marketing of fruit plants, including strengthening 
producers ' associations, cooperatives and clusters t hat produce and export fruit.  
 
a. Was this programme available during 2015 -2018? If so, please explain why it was not 
notified in those years. If not, did the measure implement a new programme or modify 
the 2015 measure?  
b. Please explain the eligibility crite ria for producers ' associations, cooperatives, and/or 
clusters to receive support under this mechanism.  
c. Please explain if the support is contingent on export.  
AG-IMS ID 96034: Question by United States of America - General services /other  
In reporting years 2013 -2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/37 - G/AG/N/DOM/43), the Dominican Republic has 
notified domestic support for the promotion of rice production. Expenditures between reporting years 
2018 and 2019 more than doubled.   
 
What was the reason for the signifi cant increase in expenditures?  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 96037: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
In AG -IMS ID 67021, the Dominican Republic stated the "pignoración " programme was notified with 
the title "Promotion of rice production " and con firmed this measure included insurance and storage 
costs for producers, among other aspects with regards to reporting years 2009 -2011 
(G/AG/N/DOM/20). Beginning with reporting years 2013 -2019 
(G/AG/N/DOM/37  - G/AG/N/DOM/43), the Dominican Republic notified  domestic support under 
ST/DS:9 for the first time, including a measure for "Storage, insurance and financial costs subsidy " 
relating to the "pignoración " programme in ST/DS:9.  
 
a. Please confirm if the line for "Storage, insurance and financial costs subsid y" in ST/DS:9 
is inclusive of the components of the "pignoración " program mentioned 
in AG-IMS ID 67021.  
b. If so, it is also noted that the expenditures between 2012 and 2013 increased under 
"Promotion of rice production. " Please explain what contributed to this increase in 
expenditures.  
c. For the support notified under "Storage, insurance, and financial costs su bsidy" in 
ST/DS:9, what products are eligible to benefit from this measure?  
2.2.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 96009: Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
This question is a follow up to India's answer to AG-IMS ID 95100, that we considered was not 
answered. As such we would kindly request again India to please confirm:  
 
a. Whether Article 6.2 subsidies are also provided to medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers;  
b. The number of medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers in India and how many hectares these 
farms cover;  
c. The main branches of production in which these medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers are 
engaged, even if these subsidies are not commodity specific.  
AG-IMS ID 96008: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
This question is being submitted as follow ‑up to India's answer to question AG ‑IMS ID 95101. In the 
document "Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS(D)" provided by India through 
a weblink in its written reply, we note the following require ment: "an undertaking on a stamp paper 
of Rs 100/ ‑ that wheat/rice will be used domestically and not exported by the bidder". Could India 
please explain:  
 
a. What this procedure specifically involves;  
b. If this is the only requirement laid down to prevent re ‑exportation;  
c. If a follow ‑up and monitoring mechanism is in place and whether it is possible to provide 
details on how it functions;  
d. If penalties are provided for should it be discovered that stocks have been re ‑exported.  
2.2.4   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/80)  
AG-IMS ID 96039: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
The United States notes Israel has exceeded its total AMS commitment level again in its 2019 
table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/ISR/80). The United States remains concerned with the mult i-year 
notification of support exceeding its commitment.   
  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Please provide an update on the reform process; does Israel expect negotiations on the reform 
process of the dairy sector to resume at a certain point in time?   
2.2.5   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  
AG-IMS ID 96 033: Question by China - Payments based on 8 5% or less of the base level 
of production  
Referring to the question AG -IMS 95093, China would like to thank Japan for the reply to the question 
by Brazil during the Trade Policy Review of Japan regarding the imp lementation of its production -
limiting programmes for rice (Question No. 21). From the statistics on Japan 's rice production, it 
seems that the planting area and the production of rice have been declining for the last 20 years.  
 
a. Could Japan elaborate on t he impact of such decline on the income of farmers?  
b. If the income was negatively affected by the policy change, how did the Japanese 
Government respond in order to stabilize the farmers ' income?  
c. Is the direct payment made by MAFF to farmers who produce c rops other than table rice 
in the paddy field part of the scheme for stabilizing the farmers ' income? If that is the 
case, could Japan provide the payment rate(s) of the direct payment as well as the 
relationship between the payment rate(s) and the change of famers ' income?  
2.2.6   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/15)  
AG-IMS ID 96072: Question by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks Mauritius for the submission of its DS:1 for FY2019.  
 
With respect to Supporting Table DS:1, Mauritius notified MUR 22,500,000  for 'slaughtering of 
animals ' under 2(b). Pest and disease control.  
 
Can Mauritius confirm that the expenditure was for the slaughter of animals subject to pests and or 
diseases, including providing details of the specific pests and diseases, and not for the production of 
commercial agricultural goods?  
2.2.7   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/37  - G/AG/N/TUR/38)  
AG-IMS ID 96010: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The following questions are being submitted in follow ‑up to the answers provided by the delegation 
of Turkey to the questions contained in AG ‑IMS ID 95104.  
 
a. How does Turkey describe its environmental subsidies relating to "biological combat 
support: payment to reduce the use of pesticides"? Which products does this subsidy 
cover?  
b. Turkey claims that it does not export soya beans because the category contained  in 
document G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 is for "oilseeds", which covers more than soya beans. Could 
Turkey please indicate which oilseeds it exports?  
c. We reiterate the question on the provision of specific information relating to the policy 
changes or measures to be implemented so as to ensure that Turkey does not exceed its 
de minimis  levels in soya bean production subsidies.   
2.2.8   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/48  - G/AG/N/TUR/50 ) 
AG-IMS ID 96079: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Turkey has done considerable work to submit recent annual domestic support 
notifications.  G/AG/W/208  
 
- 30 - 
 
  In the most recent notifications submitted for years 2014, 2015 and 20 16, Canada notes that Turkey 
has exceeded its annual domestic support limit due to market price support provided for a small 
number of products including cotton, soybeans, rapeseed and safflower.  
 
Could Turkey indicate how it will bring its domestic suppor t back into compliance with its WTO 
commitment?   
2.3  New or modified Domestic Support measures (table DS:2)  
2.3.1   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/122)  
AG-IMS ID 96030: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In New Zealand 's recent DS:2 notification i n document G/AG/N/NZL/122, which concerns new or 
modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction, New Zealand notified a measure 
named "COVID -19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) Foundational Package ". New Zealand is 
requested to elaborate on the following:  
 
a. Who will be the beneficiaries under the package?  
b. What is the criteria for the beneficiaries to apply for funds under the programme?  
2.4  Export subsidies notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.4.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/60)  
AG-IMS ID 96071: Question by European Union - Product coverage/scheduled 
commitments  
The EU notes that Brazil 's ES:1 notification for 2019 continues to include export subsidy 
commitments both for amounts and quantities.  
 
According to paragraph  7 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision WT /MIN(15)/45 - WT/L/980, developing 
countries should have eliminated their export subsidy commitments by the end of 2018. Brazil was 
one of the co -sponsors of the proposal which led to that decision.  
 
a. Will Brazil submit a correction to the ES:1 to reflect t he Nairobi Ministerial decision?  
b. Will Brazil submit a modification to its schedule to eliminate its export subsidy 
commitments?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.1.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 96073: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow -up with the Russian Federation with respect to question 
AG-IMS ID 95095 from the 95th Committee on Agriculture, which does no t have a written response 
in the AGIMS:  
 
Australia thanks the Russian Federation for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2018. With 
respect to its Support Table DS:4 and DS:6, Australia notes that the Russian Federation has notified 
product -specif ic Amber Box support to its grape industry totalling USD  27.4 million, approximately 
7.38% of the value of production of grapes. While this exceeds Russia's de minimis , Australia 
acknowledges this is within Russia's final bound total AMS.   
 
Australia notes the Russian Federation recently implemented Federal Law No 468 -FZ - "On Viticulture 
and Winemaking in the Russian Federation". The Russian Federation informed Members at the 
Council for Trade in Goods that this measure was aimed at developi ng winemaking in the Russian G/AG/W/208  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Federation and would be applicable to both domestically produced and imported wines. With this in 
mind, Australia would like to know if the Russian Federation expects to continue to provide support 
– in excess of de minimis  limits– for grapes (and therefore indirectly for wine) in future years? If 
such support continues in conjunction with the requirements of the new Federal Law, Australia is 
concerned wine makers in other countries would be disadvantaged and displaced in the 
Russian market.   
 
With this in mind, can the Russian Federation provide further detail on the production subsidies 
provided to grape producers at both the federal and sub -federal level, including:  
 
a. Full names of the programmes;  
b. Their objectives;  
c. Details on the funding provided; and  
d. Eligibility criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 96074: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia would like to follow -up with the Russian Federation with respect to 
question  AG- IMS ID 95096 from CoA 95, which does not yet have a written response in the AGIMS:  
 
With respect to its Supporting Table DS:9, Australia notes the budgetary outlay for the 'Federal 
Subsidies of Interest Rate on Short Term Credits and Investment' has decreased by over 
USD 450 million compared to 2017.  
 
a. Can the Russian Federation provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program(s) are counted in this measure? and  
ii. why funding decreased by more than 40% between 2017 and 2018?  
Australia also notes the value of support under the 'Federa l Other Credit Support Interest Rate 
Subsidies Program' has increased by over USD 300 million year -on-year. 
 
b. Can the Russian Federation provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program(s) are counted in this measure?  
ii. what interest rates and terms are attached to this programme, and what eligibility 
criteria are involved? and  
iii. why has the value of support of this measure increased by more than 260% 
between  2017 and 2 018? 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
4.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 96024: Question by India  
With reference to the response provided by Australia for question ID - 95017, we request Australia 
to provide an update on its Domestic support DS:1 notification for the year 2018 -19. 
4.2  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 96028: Question by India   
The EU is yet to submit its DS:1 notification for the marketing year 2018 -19, well past the deadline 
of 30 September 2019 by when they should have notified this information according to the deadlines G/AG/W/208  
 
- 32 - 
 
  mandated in document G/AG/2. India requests the EU to inform Members on when they intend to 
submit their DS: 1 notification for the marketing year 2018 -19. 
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 96002: Question by European Union  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 9 5132 - India Sugar subsidies and ES:1 notification  
  
In its reply to question AG -IMS ID 95132, India indicated that subsidy paid "will be submitted in 
India's ES:1 notification ". The EU notes that the latest Indian ES:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/9 dates 
back to 30 July 2012 covering the years 2004 -05 to 2009 -10.  
 
a. When does India intend to submit the notifications for years later than 2009 -10? 
b. When can members expect the notification referred to in the reply AGIMS ID 95132, to be 
submitted?  
5.2  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 96003: Question by Chile  
Chile notes that exports by Zespri in terms of quantity have increased considerably during the 
years  2018-2019 (G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.4), reaching a maximum compared with the data on 
previous notifications. We also note that,  at the same time, export destinations reported in the last 
three years have decreased since Zespri 's last notification (G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.4). In this 
context, we appreciate  if New Zealand could provide an explanation as to why there is an increase 
of exports, but fewer destinations for it? Could these other destinations be supplied by Zespri, but 
the origin of these exports be other than New Zealand?  
5.3  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 96035: Question by China  
China thanks the United States for the detailed reply to Question AG -IMS 95141.  
 
Referring to the reply mentioned above, it would be appreciated if the United States could provide 
a needs assessment report on the products (such as sorghum) provided throug h non -emergency 
food aid, including the reason(s) for providing the type of food product(s) concerned, as well as the 
methodology for determining the volume of the aid that is necessary for achieving the objectives.  
 
__________