G/AG/W/231  
 
17 March 2023  
(23-1975) Page: 1/51 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 27 -28 MARCH 20231 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of noon 
on 15 March 2023 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/65.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  
 
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/231  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.1   Argentina's measures against  drought  (SIM 797)  ................................ ...........................  7 
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 104049)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.2   China's programme to increase grain production ( SIM 798)  ................................ .............  7 
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104009)  ................................ .......................  7 
1.3   Egypt's subsidy policies (SIM 799)  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
1.3.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 104142)  ................................ ................................  7 
1.4   Japan's support system for milk (SIM 800)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104099)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.5   Japan's  structural transition programme for rice (SIM 801)  ................................ ..............  8 
1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104100)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.6   Mexico's export restriction on white corn  (SIM 802)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 104055)  ................................ ................................ . 9 
1.6.2   Question by European Union, United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia, 
Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 104038)  ................................ ................................ ........................  9 
1.6.3   Question by United Kingdom, United States of Ameri ca, Paraguay, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
104004)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  9 
1.7   Morocco's export ban on certain vegetables (SIM 803)  ................................ ....................  9 
1.7.1   Question by Switzerland, United Kingdom, European Union (AG -IMS ID 104056)  .............  9 
1.8   Norway's food security policy (SIM 804)  ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104039)  ................................ ......................  10 
1.9   Pakistan's wheat policies  (SIM 805)  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
1.9.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104040)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.9.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104041)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.9.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104042)  ................................ ..........  11 
1.10   Philippines' calculation methodology for SSG trigger prices   (SIM 806)  ...........................  11 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104060)  ................................ ........  11 
1.11   South Africa's import measures  on poultry meat (SIM 807)  ................................ ...........  12 
1.11.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104005)  ................  12 
1.12   Tajikistan's export ban on onions and other vegetables (SIM 808)  ................................ . 12 
1.12.1    Question by Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 104070)  ................................ .. 12 
1.13   Türkiye's export ban on onions and potatoes  (SIM 809)  ................................ ................  13 
1.13.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 104071)  ................................ ..........................  13 
1.14   United Kingdom's  banking and financial restrictions  (SIM 810)  ................................ ...... 13 
1.14.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 104141)  ................................ ................  13 
1.15   U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (SIM 811)  ................................ ................................ ....... 13 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104043)  ................................ ....................  13 
1.15.2    Question by India (AG -IMS I D 104102)  ................................ ................................ ... 14 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .........  14 G/AG/W/231  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16   Argentina's export restrictions  (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ ... 14 
1.16.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union, Switzerland (AG -
IMS ID 104001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  14 
1.17   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  ........................  14 
1.17.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104057, 104118, 104119, 104121, 104122, 
104120, 104124, 104123)  ................................ ................................ ................................  14 
1.18   Australia,  Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in excess of 
the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ .......................  15 
1.18.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104058, 104125, 104126, 104127, 104128)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 
1.19   Canada's dairy policies (SIM 18)  ................................ ................................ ...............  15 
1.19.1    Question by I ndia (AG -IMS ID 104098)  ................................ ................................ ... 15 
1.20   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  ................................ ......................  15 
1.20.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104129, 104130, 104131, 104132, 104133, 
104134)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  15 
1.21   Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  ................................ ............................  15 
1.21.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 
104002)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  15 
1.22   China's cotton policies  (SIM 647)  ................................ ................................ ..............  15 
1.22.1    Question by United Stat es of America, European Union (AG -IMS ID 104050)  ................  15 
1.23   China's swine support  (SIM 776)  ................................ ................................ ...............  16 
1.23.1    Question by United States of America, European Union, Canada (AG -IMS ID 104051)  .... 16 
1.24   China's grain subsidies  (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104034)  ................................ ....................  16 
1.25   Italy's "local content"  requirement  (SIM 742)  ................................ ..............................  16 
1.25.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 104161)  ................................ ................................ .. 16 
1.26   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558) ................................ ...... 17 
1.26.1    Question by Brazil, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 104061)  ................................ ....................  17 
1.26.2    Question by India, Pa raguay (AG -IMS ID 104096)  ................................ ....................  17 
1.26.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104097)  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.26.4    Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 104053)  ................................ .............................  17 
1.27   European Union's rescheduling of its domestic support and export subsidy 
commitments  (SIM 275)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 
1.27.1    Question by Canada, Paraguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104052)  ................................ ... 18 
1.28   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  (SIM 778)  ........  18 
1.28.1    Question by  Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104135, 104136, 104137)  ......................  18 
1.29   European Union, Norway, Iceland – Prohibitions on access to ports (SIM 782)  .................  18 
1.29.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104138, 104139, 104140)  ......................  18 
1.30   India's other support for rice  (SIM 743)  ................................ ................................ ..... 18 
1.30.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Thailand, European Union, Australia (AG -
IMS ID 104020)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  18 
1.31   India's price support  (SIM 753)  ................................ ................................ .................  19 G/AG/W/231  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.31.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, Australia (AG -IMS ID 
104032)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  19 
1.32   India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ...........  19 
1.32.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104031)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  19 
1.32.2    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104026)  ................................ ................................ .................  20 
1.32.3    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104027)  ................................ ................................ .................  20 
1.32.4    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Ukraine, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104021)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
1.32.5    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Ukraine, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104022)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
1.32.6    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104023)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
1.32.7    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104024)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
1.32.8    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104025)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  22 
1.32.9    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104028)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  23 
1.32.10    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104029)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  23 
1.32.11    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104030)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  24 
1.33   India's export restriction measures on rice  (SIM 767)  ................................ ...................  24 
1.33.1    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 104033)  ................................ .................  24 
1.34   India's export restrictions  (SIM 306)  ................................ ................................ ..........  25 
1.34.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Ukraine, European Union, 
Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 104003)  ................................ ................................ .........  25 
1.35   Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions (SIM 724)  ................................ .......................  25 
1.35.1    Question by European Union; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Chinese Taipei (AG -IMS ID 
104035)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  25 
1.35.2    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 104080)  ................................ ................................ .. 25 
1.35.3    Question by United States of America, European Union, Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
104037)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  26 
1.36   Philippines' implementation  of tariff quotas  (SIM 17)  ................................ ....................  26 
1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104063)  ................................ ........  26 
1.36.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104064)  ................................ ........  27 
1.36.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104062)  ................................ ........  28 
1.36.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104065)  ................................ ........  28 
1.36.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104066)  ................................ ........  28 
1.37   Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits (SIM  655) ...... 29 
1.37.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104067)  ................................ ........  29 
1.37.2    Question by United St ates of America (AG -IMS ID 104068)  ................................ ........  29 G/AG/W/231  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.37.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104069)  ................................ ........  29 
1.38   Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  ................................ .............................  29 
1.38.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104101)  ................................ ................................ ... 29 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNE CTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  30 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ...............  30 
2.1.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/81)  ................................ ................................ .............  30 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  .....................  31 
2.2.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/150)  ................................ ................................ .....................  31 
2.2.2   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/119)  ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
2.2.3   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/221)  ................................ ................................ ..........  31 
2.3   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ...... 31 
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/217, G/AG/N/TPKM/218, G/AG/N/TPKM/220)  ..................  31 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUP PORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  32 
2.4.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ .........................  32 
2.4.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/62, G/AG/N/CHN/63, G/AG/N/CHN/64, G/AG/N/CHN/65)  ...............  32 
2.4.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/88)  ................................ ................................ ...................  38 
2.4.4   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/70)  ................................ ................................ ....................  39 
2.4.5   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/17)  ................................ ................................ ....................  40 
2.4.6   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/19)  ................................ ................................ ....................  40 
2.4.7   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/56)  ................................ ................................ .......................  40 
2.4.8   Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/11 - G/AG/N/MNG/23)  ................................ ...........................  41 
2.4.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/122)  ................................ ................................ ....................  41 
2.4.10    Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1, G/AG/N/PAK/20/Corr.1)  ................................ ........  43 
2.4.11    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/36)  ................................ ................................ ...................  43 
2.4.12    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/24)  ................................ ............................  43 
2.4.13    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/122)  ................................ ................................ ..............  44 
2.4.14    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/122, G/AG/N/CHE/114)  ................................ ....................  45 
2.4.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166)  ................................ ...........................  45 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ..........  46 
2.5.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/66, G/AG/N/CHN/67)  ................................ ................................  46 
2.5.2   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/39)  ................................ ................................ .....................  49 
2.5.3   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/40)  ................................ ................................ ...................  49 
2.5.4   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/18)  ................................ ................................ ...........  49 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ....... 50 
2.6.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/87)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  50 
2.7   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECI SION (TABLE NF:1)  .......................  50 
2.7.1   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/167)  ................................ .............................  50 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  50 
3.1   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  50 
4   DEFERRED REPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 G/AG/W/231  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 ............  50 
4.1.1   South Africa's poultry TRQ administration (SIM 788)  ................................ ...................  50 
 
 
  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Argentina's measures against  drought  (SIM 797)  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 104049 ) 
Australia notes Argentina is currently suffering one of the worst droughts in its history. Drought has 
had devastating impacts on Australia and Austral ians throughout the years, including on our farmers, 
and we convey our sympathy and concern to the Argentine delegation during this difficult period.  
With that in mind, Australia kindly asks that Argentina update the Committee on Agriculture on the 
measure s it has put in place (or is considering) to combat/mitigate the impacts of this drought on 
its agricultural system, and to ensure Argentina can continue to service critical agricultural demand 
globally.  
1.2  China's programme to increase grain production  (SIM 798)   
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104009 ) 
China unveiled its "No. 1 central document" for 2023 on 13 February, outlining nine tasks in 
comprehensiv ely promoting rural vitalization this year.  
Ensuring food security has remained the number one priority task in central 
document number one since 2021 (food self -sufficiency rate was 76.8% 
in 2020 and is actually expected to drop to 65% by 2035, according to Du Ying, 
former deputy head of the National Development and Reform Commission). 
According to the document,  China will relaunch a program to boost grain 
production by 50 million tonnes . Beijing started a programme in 2009 to increase 
the grain harvest by  the same amount, and achieved it in 2012 when total output was 
almost 590 million tonnes. Since 2015 grain harvest has plateaued at around 650 million 
tonnes , the objective now is to reach (without a set deadline) 700 million tonnes . The 
amended seed law,  which came into effect almost a year ago and is directed to improve 
quality and diversity of seeds, also supports the food security objective for higher yields 
and solving the problem of having to feed 20% of the world 's population with just 7% 
of its ara ble land.  
a. Could China provide more details concerning the programme aimed to boost grain 
production by 50 million tonnes ?  
b. What type of incentives China intends to use to increase the production?  
c. Could China  clarify whether they intend to use sustainable  agricultural practices to increase 
the production?  
1.3  Egypt's subsidy policies  (SIM 799)  
1.3.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 104142 ) 
Egypt's most recent notification was received in November 2017. Since then, Members have been 
unable to review Egypt's compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture. Egypt 
is therefore requested to provide the following information:  
a. Is Egypt currently providing  price support subsidies? If so, please indicate:  
i. Since when;  
ii. For which products;  
iii. The administered price; and  
iv. The value of subsidized production for each product.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 8 - 
 
  b. Is Egypt currently implementing public stockholding programmes for food security 
purposes? If so, please indicate:  
i. Since when;  
ii. Under what category (paragraph 4 of Annex 2 or AMS);  
iii. For which products;  
iv. The ad ministered price; and  
v. The value of subsidized production for each product.  
c. Until 2016, Egypt was providing subsidies under Article 6.2. Is Egypt still providing this 
type of subsidy? If so, please indicate:  
i. The total annual amount for 2017 onwards;  
ii. The eli gibility criteria; and  
iii. How many producers benefit.  
 
d. What do the following programmes comprise?  
i. Sustainable transformation for agricultural resilience in upper Egypt ; 
ii. Promoting resilience in desert environments ; 
iii. Sustainable agriculture investments and livel ihoods project . 
Please indicate the types of support granted, the number of beneficiaries, the eligibility criteria, the 
products benefiting from the support, and programme classification in accordance with Agreement 
on Agriculture criteria for each of the programmes. In addition, where appropriate, identify the 
DS:2 table submitted for each of the programmes, especially considering that they all began several 
years ago.  
e. The sustainable agriculture investments and livelihoods programme launched in 2014 d oes 
not seem to be included in notification G/AG/ N/EGY/3 , which covers, inter alia, the years 
2014, 2015 and 2016. Does Egypt plan to issue a corrigendum to the notification to reflect 
the existence of this programme?  
1.4  Japan's support system for milk  (SIM 800)  
1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104099 ) 
It is noticed that, under the support system for milk that was modified in 2018, the MAFF continues 
to set the upper lim it of the amount of raw milk for compensation payments; every producer of raw 
milk for processed products is eligible for this payment. With a view to ensuring the stable 
continuation of raw milk collection in disadvantaged areas, designated milk collectio n operators are 
eligible for adjustment payments. The compensation payment uniform unit price was JPY 8.26/kg of 
milk in FY2022 (same in FY2021). The adjustment payment for raw milk collection in the same year 
was JPY  2.59/kg of milk (same in FY2021). Unde r this scheme, JPY 35.8 billion was paid to dairy 
farmers in FY2020.  
Japan is requested to kindly explain under which supporting table the above mentioned support 
measure for milk has been notified in the latest DS:1 notification for the fiscal year 2020 -21.  
1.5  Japan's  structural transition programme for rice  (SIM 801)  
1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104100 ) 
India observes that the Subsidy Programme for Structural Transition of Field Crops which was 
introduced in FY2017 and ended in FY2020, aimed to support farmers in large -scale non -rice-paddy 
areas facing challenges in addressing labour shortages and risk of damage caused by plant pests 
and diseases. The budget fo r the subsidy in FY2020 was JPY 3 billion. The subsidy was first allocated 
by the MAFF to prefectural governments, and then prefectural governments provided the allocated 
subsidies to each recipient farmer group. Japan is requested to provide the response to the following 
questions:  
a. How does this structural transition programme assist in catering to labour shortages?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. Under the above -mentioned  Subsidy Programme, how much amount of the allotted budget 
was used by the farmers separately for addressing the labo ur shortages and for addressing 
pest diseases, respectively?  
1.6  Mexico's export restriction on white corn  (SIM 802)  
1.6.1   Question by Australia  (AG-IMS ID 104055 ) 
Australia notes that the Mexican Government announced in January 2023 a temporary 50% tax on 
white corn exports, and that according to the published information, the levy will be in force 
until June 30.  
Australia asks that Mexico indicate : 
a. what other policy o ptions, if any, it has considered for responding to food price inflation – 
have the cost/benefits of any other policy options been considered?  
b. Whether it anticipates this levy will be extended past 30 June 2023  
c. What frameworks are in place to assess the e ffectiveness of this policy in line with its 
stated objectives.  
1.6.2   Question by European Union, United States of America, United Kingdom, Australia , 
Switzerland  (AG-IMS ID 104038 ) 
The Mexican Government announced in January 2023 a temporary 50% tax on white corn exports, 
arguing it is necessary  for the grain to remain in the country to guarantee supply and price stability.  
According to the published information, the levy will be in force until 30 June.  
a. Could Mexico explain what would be the impact of the measure on the imports of white 
corn in the country?  
b. Could Mexico provide more information concerning the quantities of th e export and the 
destination countries?  
1.6.3   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Paraguay , Switzerland  (AG-
IMS ID 104004 ) 
The United Kingdom understands that Mexico has introduced an export tariff on white corn.  
Could Mexico please explain what consideration it has given to the potential effects of this measure 
on importing Members ' food security in accordance with Article 12.1(a)  of the Agreement on 
Agriculture ?  
Additionally, could Mexico indicate whether it plans to notify this measure to the Committee on 
Agriculture th rough an ER:1 table?  
1.7  Morocco's export ban on certain vegetables  (SIM 803)  
1.7.1   Question by Switzerland , United Kingdom , European Union  (AG-IMS ID 104056 ) 
Switzerl and understands that Morocco has introduced an export ban on certain vegetables such as 
onions and potatoes.  
a. Can Morocco confirm which products and importing Members are affected by this measure 
and for how long?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. Can Morocco please clarify how they compl y with Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and in particular, if due consideration has been given to the effects of such an 
export ban on importing Members' food security?  
c. When does Morocco intend to submit the corresponding notification to the Comm ittee on 
Agriculture?  
1.8  Norway's food security  policy  (SIM 804)  
1.8.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 104039 ) 
From 2021 to 2023, Norway doubled its financial s upport to food initiatives, following up on its new 
food security strategy launched on 29 November 2022:  
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/Food -security-strategy/id2948780/#Part2  
Moreover, in 2022, Norway doubled its financial contributions to food security (from NOK  815 
(EUR 74.5) million to NOK 1660 million (EUR 152 million). For 2023, Norway has maintained this 
level allocating NOK 1652 billion (E UR 151 million) to food security, fish and agriculture to follow up 
on the government 's new food security strategy, "Combining forces against hunger – a policy to 
improve food self -sufficiency " (the Strategy) published on 29 November 2022. Large funds going 
through other development initiatives also support food security, either directly or indirectly.  
a. Since the Strategy aims to support local and regional small -scale producers of food, local 
job creation and access to nutritious food in these areas, could Norway provide more 
details how these support initiatives will be implemented: what are the criteria to receive 
support; types of support etc.?  
b. How does this initiative fit with the need to ref orm Agricultural policy towards more 
resilient and sustainable agriculture to meet the new global challenges?  
c. According to the Strategy, Norway pursues food security through humanitarian aid (for 
example short -term hunger relief) and through support to de veloping countries ' efforts to 
building their own agricultural systems (medium -term to long -term).  
d.  Could Norway provide information on the form of the humanitarian aid: in -kind or cash?  
1.9  Pakistan's wheat  policies  (SIM 805)  
1.9.1   Question  by United States of Ame rica (AG -IMS ID 104040 ) 
In January 2023 the Auditor General of Pakistan published a report on wheat in the province of 
Punjab during the years 2021 and 2022, Food Security in the Punjab Province . The report states 
Punjab cultivates approximately three -quarters of wheat in Pakistan and that the support prices 
notified b y the government stabilize the price of wheat in the open market by acting as a baseline 
figure. Further, the report notes that "in Pakistan, public sector funded cash flows involve devolving 
of an inalienable role for the Federal and the Provincial Govern ments to steer as a monopoly, the 
entire cycle of wheat. " Additionally, the wheat programme is described in the report as 
"unsustainable " to the point that that some of the costs are being transferred to consumers in the 
release price (page 88).  
Has Pakis tan done any research to determine how consumer prices would change without 
government management of the wheat market?  If so, please share your findings.   
(Report available here:  
https://agp.gov.pk/SiteImage/Policy/Food%20Security%20in%20the%20Province%20of%20Punja
b.pdf) 
1.9.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104041 ) 
On page 53 of the Auditor General of Pakistan 's report  on wheat in Punjab, a section titled "Subsidy 
on Crop Insurance " explains that the government paid crop insurance premiums between 2018 and G/AG/W/231  
 
- 11 - 
 
  2022 and that crop insurance was provided for free up to 5 acres and the government paid 50 % of 
premiums above five acres.  Pakistan has not notified crop insurance in its Table DS:1 notifications 
to the WTO.  
a. Please explain why this measure has not been includ ed in Pakistan 's domestic support 
notification.  
b. How does Punjab determine the amount of insurance payments? Is it based on income, 
volume of production, prices, factors of production, or some other criteria?  
c. If payments are determined using income, what base period does Punjab use to determine 
losses?  
d. What percentage of base period average gross income or the equivalent in net income 
terms must a Punjab farmer 's loss exceed to be eligible for a claim?  
e. What is the maximum percentage of the Punjab farm er's income loss that can be covered 
by this crop insurance?  
Report available here:  
https://agp.gov.pk/SiteImage/Policy/Food%20Security%20in%20the%2 0Province%20of%20Punja
b.pdf.  
1.9.3   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 104042 ) 
Page xii of the Auditor General of Pakistan 's report  (available  here:  
https://agp.gov.pk/SiteImage/Policy/Food% 20Security%20in%20the%20Province%20of%20Punja
b.pdf) on wheat in Punjab states, "The Government of Punjab announces subsidy incentives on 
various wheat inputs to support the farmers in the wheat cultivation process. This includes subsidy 
on seed, fertilizer s, weedicides and implements. "  
Pakistan has not notified any seed, weedicide, or implement subsidies or product -specific wheat 
subsidies for fertilizers in its Table DS:1 notifications to the WTO and has only notified non -product 
specific subsidies for fertilizer, electricity, and agric ulture credit.  
a. Please explain why these measures do not appear to be notified.  
b. For the notified non -product specific measures, please detail the eligibility requirements 
of each, including what commodities are eligible.   
1.10  Philippines'  calculation  methodolo gy for SSG trigger prices   (SIM 806)  
1.10.1   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 104060 ) 
The United States thanks the Philippines for its response to AG-IMS ID 102040  in September  2022 
regarding the calculation methodology used by the Philippin es for its price -based special safeguard 
(SSG) trigger prices for various poultry products. As part of the question, the United States had 
requested all necessary data (e.g., the volume of imports (in kilograms)) used to derive the SSG 
trigger prices for t ariff item numbers 0207.14.10, 0207.14.99, and 0207.11.00.  According to UN 
COMTRADE statistics sourced from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines for the years 
1986-88, it appears that the SSG trigger prices notified for poultry in G/AG/N/PHL/27  were 
miscalculated.    
During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 0114, Poultry, dead and edible offal, fresh, chilled or frozen:   
1986: 74,979 kg/ USD 182,721  
1987: 90,251 kg /USD  174,593  
1988: 95,689 kg /USD 220,574  
  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 12 - 
 
  During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 01181, Poultry liver fresh, chilled, frozen, salted or in brine:  
1986: 1,229 kg /USD 25,447  
1987: 1,187 kg /USD 23,865  
1988: 199 kg /USD 4,461  
  
During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 0149, Meat and edible offal, prepared, preserved, n.e.s.; fish extracts:  
1986: 8,804 kg /USD 63,010  
1987: 171,112 kg /USD 189,971  
1988: 228,308 kg /USD 236,470  
The Philippine central bank reports the following average exchange rates from Philippine pesos (PHP) 
to U.S. dollars (USD):  
1986: 20.3857  
1987: 21.5677  
1988:  21.0948  
https://www.bsp.gov.ph/SitePages/Statistics/ExchangeRate.aspx  
  
SITC to HS concordance would indic ate SITC 0114 should be used as the corresponding reference 
classification for 0207.11.20, 0207.12.20, 0207.13.20, and 0207.14.92; SITC 01181 should be used 
for 0207.14.12; and SITC 0149 should be used for 1602.32.10.   
In attempting to verify the Philippi nes' data in G/AG/N/PHL/27 , the United S tates encountered 
inconsistencies with official statistics accessed via UN COMTRADE.  
a. The United States requests the Philippines confirm that the data it submitted by the 
National Statistics Office of the Philippines to UN COMTRADE are the official statist ics of 
the Philippines.  
b. If so, please explain the inconsistencies with the data notified in G/AG/N/PHL/27 . 
c. If not, please provide the source information as requested that was used in 
G/AG/N/PHL/27  and confirm such data are the official statistics of the Philippines.  
1.11  South Africa's import  measures  on poultry meat  (SIM 807)  
1.11.1   Question by United  Kingdom , United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104005 ) 
The United Kingdom notes that South Africa have maintained several measures that cons train the 
imports of poultry meat, including safeguards and anti -dumping duties. We understand that in 
August  2022, South Africa suspended anti -dumping duties on poultry for several countries.  
Could South Africa please provide further information on the c riteria for these suspensions?   
1.12  Tajikistan's export ban on onions and other vegetables  (SIM 808)  
1.12.1   Question by Switzerland , United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 104070 ) 
According to media reports the Government of Tajikistan introduced a temporary export ban on 
onions and other vegetables.  
a. Can Tajikistan confirm which products are affected by this measure and for how long?  
b. Can Tajikistan please clarify how they comply with  Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and in particular, if due consideration has been given to the effects of such an 
export ban on importing Members' food security?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. When does Tajikistan intend to submit the corresponding notification to the Committ ee on 
Agriculture?  
1.13  Türkiye's  export ban on onions and potatoes  (SIM 809)  
1.13.1   Question by Switzerland  (AG-IMS ID 104071 ) 
According to media reports, Türkiye has i ntroduced an export ban on onions and potatoes in 
November.  
a. Can Türkiye confirm which products are affected by this measure and for how long?  
b. Can Türkiye please clarify how they comply with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and in particular, if  due consideration has been given to the effects of such an export ban 
on importing Members' food security?  
c. When does Türkiye intend to submit the corresponding notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
1.14  United Kingdom's  banking and financial restrictio ns (SIM 810)  
1.14.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID 104141 ) 
FINANCIAL AND BANKING RESTRICTIONS (ASSET FREEZE) LEADING TO THE BARRIERS FOR 
RUSSIAN GRAIN EX PORTS  
Throughout the last year and the beginning of this year the U nited Kingdom (UK)  amended its Russia 
(Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 855 expanding the so called "sanctions list " with a 
number of Russian companies including major Russian ban ks. The measures i.e. asset freeze  are 
imposed in particular on  "Rosselkhozbank" JSC.  About 80% of Russian agro  exporters benefit from 
the banking services provided by this bank to handle trans -border payments. The number of Russian 
companies targeted by the UK is increasing continuously.  
As a consequence of these measures the UK trade association GAFTA which suppo rts the traders 
providing arbitration refused to accept claims from Russian exporters of grain. The official website 
of GAFTA stated that its decision is "due to the …  financial and banking sanctions which have been 
imposed on the Russia n Federation  (and w hich are very likely to change at short notice), and 
therefore GAFTA  is unable to accept payment from, or on behalf of, any entity based in the Russia n 
Federation  at this time ". 
Such decision precludes introducing the reference to GAFTA arbitrage to the co ntracts where Russian 
company is one of the parties. That bears additional risks for the importers of the Russian grain and 
leads to increased expenses or inability to make a deal.  
As a result of discriminatory regulations and the decisions made we see inc reased volatility in the 
agricultural market  and growing threat of global food insecurity.  
We expect the Member concerned to explain how and when they are willing to ensure effective 
elimination of the above mentioned restrictions in respect of agricultura l products.   
1.15  U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  (SIM 811)  
1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 104043 ) 
According to the published information from October 2022 (Visit: farmers.gov/inflation -reduction -
investments), Section 22006 of the IRA provided USD 3.1 billion for USDA to provide relief for 
distressed borrowers with certain Farm Service Agency (FSA) direct and/or guaranteed loans and to 
expedite assistance for those whose agricultural operations are at financial risk. USDA is 
implementing this provisio n with the goals of keeping borrowers farming, removing obstacles that G/AG/W/231  
 
- 14 - 
 
  currently prevent many borrowers from returning to their land, and improving the way that USDA 
approaches borrowing and loan servicing in the long -term.  
Moreover, the second section (22 007) provides support for underserved farmers and ran chers. It 
provides USD 2.2 billion until 2031 in financial assistance for farmers who have experienced 
discrimination in USDA 's farm lending programmes (smaller farmers, ethnic communities, e.g. 
indigeno us and farmers of colour etc.). With this programme, USDA recognizes that it has not done 
enough historically to ensure all US farmers have equal access to its programs and services. A public 
consultation on the programmes was launched in October and close d Mid November. The results are 
not yet known.   
a. Could US clarify how this support will be reflected in the DS:1 notification?  
There has been a steep increase in trade distorting support since 2018/19 for key commodities 
(notably maize and soybeans) which has pushed the overall total US AMS very quickly close to its 
AMS limits.  
b. Based  on the available published information, the measures described in section 22006 
but also in 22007 do not seem to fit in the Green Box. How does the US intend to meet its 
AMS limits with these new measures?  
1.15.2   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 104102 ) 
Under section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act, 3.1 billion USD is provided to USDA for providing 
relief to distressed borrowers with certain Farm Service Agency (FS A) direct and guaranteed loans 
and to expedite assistance for those whose agricultural operations are at financial risk. Further, 
section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act also provides 2.2 billion USD for financial assistance of 
farmers who have experi enced discrimination in USDA 's farm lending programmes. In this context, 
USA is requested to provide the following information:  
a. How are the farmer identified for availing the relief under  section 22006 and for availing 
assistance under section 22007? If a  farmer is eligible under both the sections, would he 
be provide d relief/assistance separately?  
b. How and where would the above mentioned relief/assistance provisions  be notified in the 
DS notifications?  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSL Y 
1.16  Argentina's export  restrictions  (SIM 710)  
1.16.1   Question  by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union , 
Switzerland  (AG-IMS ID 104001 ) 
The United K ingdom appreciates the information Argentina has previously provided regarding their 
export restrictive measures, but we remain concerned that an ER:1 notification is still outstanding. 
We would again remind Argentina of the importance of adhering to their  obligation under 
Article  12(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Please could Argentina explain the delay in providing this notification to the Committee and provide 
an update on when we can expect to receive it?   
1.17  Australia, Canada, European Union, Icelan d, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
Unites States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
1.17.1   Question by Russian  Federation (AG -IMS ID s 104057 , 104118 , 104119 , 104121 , 
104122 , 104120 , 104124 , 104123 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so ou r question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.18  Australia,  Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound  rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  
1.18.1   Question by Russian  Federation (AG -IMS IDs 104058 , 104125 , 104126 , 104127 , 
104128 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course.  
1.19  Canada's dairy policies  (SIM 18)  
1.19.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 104098 ) 
Canada supports the dairy farmers by implementing the supply management system having  three 
pillars viz., production quota, price support, and tariffs.  
Canada is requested to provide details on the following, in this regard:  
a. How is it ensured that the farmers do not overproduce or under produce given their 
production quota?  
b. How is overproduction/underproduction handled in the supply management system?  
c. How is the minimum price guaranteed to supply managed farmers fixed under the supply 
management system?  
1.20  Canada, European Union , Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  
1.20.1   Question by Russia n Federation (AG -IMS ID s 104129 , 104130 , 104131 , 104132 , 
104133 , 104134 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course.  
1.21  Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  
1.21.1   Question by United  Kingdom, United States of America, Australia , Paraguay  (AG-
IMS ID 104002 ) 
In follow -up to AG -IMS ID 103086 , the United Kingdom would once again like to reiterate its interest 
in the outcome of Canada 's Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of T ariff 
Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products. Given the potential implications for trading 
partners, and that this matter has been on the agenda of the CoA Review Process since 2019, the 
United Kingdom would reiterate its request for clarit y on the timeframe for the review's release.  
1.22  China's cotton policies  (SIM 647)  
1.22.1   Question by United States  of America, European Union (AG -IMS ID 104050 ) 
We not ed that China has only given a general website in Mandarin Chinese in response to AG -
IMS ID 103022  and in light of the support for cotton notified in G/AG/N/CHN/62 - G/AG/N/CHN/ 65, 
the United States repeats the question:  
In AG -IMS ID 102033 , China stated that the amount of cotton purchased by the government is 
determined by factors including optimizing  the structure of the cotton reserve and replenishing the 
cotton reserve. China also stated that the highest auction price is determined according to the 
domestic spot price of cotton.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 16 - 
 
  a. Please provide the formula that the Government of China uses to determi ne the highest 
auction price from the domestic spot price of cotton.  
b. Please provide  the sources that the Government of China uses to identify the domestic 
spot price of cotton.  
1.23  China's swine support  (SIM 776)  
1.23.1   Question by United  States of America, European Union, Canada (AG -IMS ID 
104051 ) 
China has not responded to part a, b, or c of AG -IMS ID 103014  and taking note that China has not 
notified any support for pork in its most recent Ta ble DS:1 notifications for calendar years 2017 
through 2020, the United States repeats the question:  
It is understood that China implements various measures to support pork production in China beyond 
the "subsidy for breeding productive sows ", the only por k-related measure notified by China in its 
last domestic support notification for 2016.  
According to various Chinese media reports, it is estimated that China 's central government 
reportedly paid national support measures to the swine industry of RMB  6.9 billion 
(USD 998.8  million) in 2019, of which RMB 814 million was paid as a culling subsidy, as part of a 
preferential loan policy, and as increased swine insurance coverage.  
In addition, various Chinese media reports also indicate that several provinces, i ncluding Sichuan, 
Hubei, Guangdong, and Jiangsu, have also undertaken their own pork -related support measures.  
Combined with national support, it is estimated based on various Chinese media reports that China 
provided at least RMB 10,860 million (US D 1,572  million) in support in 2019.  
For each support measure  provided to the swine industry between 2019 and 2021 by the central 
government or sub -national level government, please provide:  
a. the name of the measure;  
b. a copy of or link to the regulation or legislation implementing the measure; and  
c. the expenditures under the measure for each year - 2019, 2020, and 2021.  
1.24  China's grain subsidies  (SIM 773)  
1.24.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 104034 ) 
According to information from Chinese media, the central government continued to raise the 
minimum purchase price of wheat and rice and maintained grai n subsidy policies in 2022 
(https://english.news.cn/20221213/9ba6f3cc7bd541f59f551ee9751b3b5e/c.html ). 
Taking that information into account, will China be able to hono ur its total AMS commitment 
during  2021 - 2022 and beyond?  
1.25  Italy's " local  content"  requirement  (SIM 742)  
1.25.1   Question  by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 104161 ) 
In the absence  of an answer to question AG -IMS ID 101017  since the 101st CoA meeting, could the 
European Union and Italy confirm the local content policy in the "Norme per la valorizzazione e la 
promozione dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari a chilometro zero e di quelli provenienti da filiera corta" 
and explain how the legislation complies with GATT Article I II? G/AG/W/231  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.26  EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  
1.26.1   Question by Brazil, Paraguay  (AG-IMS ID 104061 ) 
In its response to question AG-IMS-ID 103006 , regarding the proposed legislation on 
antideforestation, the E uropean Union  stated that i t could not precise how the country benchmarking 
system would coexist with the CBDR principle and how the EU legislation would assess risk in 
countries which have all but eliminated their native vegetation and forests, since these criteria would 
be further  developed.  
Albeit not adopted, this piece of legislation has been approved by the European Parliament last 
December. In this regard, could the EU elaborate on how can the proposed extraterritorial ruling be 
compatible with UNFCCC and ensuing agreements o nce it neglects historic deforestation to cling to 
the present  picture, as well as ignores all development  disparities by imposing a burdensome 
certification scheme, with no connection to the logic of nationally determined contributions (NDCs).  
1.26.2   Question by India , Paraguay  (AG-IMS ID 104096 ) 
With reference to EU 's response in AG -IMS ID 100071  on its proposed regulation on deforestation 
free products, EU justifies its measure under subparagraphs of the GATT Article XX.  
The European Union  is requested to provide details of  how the measure in question is justified under 
Article XX sub -paragraphs: XX (a) Protection of public morals, XX (b) Protection of human, animal 
or plant life or health and XX(g) conservation of exhaustible natural resourc es? 
1.26.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 104097 ) 
India raises its concerns about the "Benchmarking systems " adopted by the E uropean Union  under 
its Deforestation Reg ulation, which would categorize the exporter countries into high -risk and low 
risk based on certain conditions. One of the conditions is "the nationally determined 
contribution  (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change covers 
emiss ions and removals from agriculture, forestry, and land use which ensures that emissions from 
deforestation and forest degradation are accounted towards the country's commitment to reduce or 
limit greenhouse gas emissions as specified in the NDC ". 
In light of the above, the EU is requested to explain the following:  
a. How would the NDC criteria be applied to the countries that do not have sector 
specific  NDCs?  
b. What is the rationale for setting 2020 as year of benchmarking?  
1.26.4   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 104053 ) 
Indonesia has been closely following the unfolding development of the EU's Deforestation and Forest 
Degradation policy. In this regard, Indonesia took not e that the EU has adopted Amendments 
No. 995/2010 on 13 September 2022 and followed by the principal agreement reached between 
European Parliament, European Council, and European Commission on 6 December 2022 to pass 
the EU regulation on deforestation -free/Due diligence. This recently passed regulation imposes a set 
of rules affecting sales of a wide range of commodities presumably  associated with deforestation 
and forest degradation.  
Through this regulation, products such as cattle, cocoa, palm oil and its derivatives, soya, wood, 
leather, chocolate, furniture, rubber, charcoal, and printed products, will be subject to a mandatory 
due diligence mechanism to discover the origin of these products. Furthermore, business operators 
will be required to present  any relevant documentation to reveal the products origin, including the 
satellite images, GPS coordinates, and production time, before entering the EU 's market. We have 
also been aware that this mechanism will require the production of this products to co mply with 
human rights and the effort to protect indigenous people.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Failure to perform such obligation and unsuccessful attempt to provide this set of extensive 
documents and evidence will directly conduce the inability of th ese products to enter the EU ma rket. 
Following our interests to the EU 's regulation at issue, Indonesia would appreciate any further 
information from the EU, particularly on the following matters:  
a. While the definition of deforestation could have broad scope and understanding, would the 
EU provide its interpretation on deforestation, particularly in the context of this policy? 
Furthermore, could the EU please provide the methodology to determine whet her a 
product be deforestation -free? 
b. Could the EU further elaborate the scientific evidence of using the deforestation -free policy 
as the only approach to achieve its climate -related goal, rather than applying a less trade 
restrictive approach to achieve t he same objective?  
c. Since this regulation set strict traceability requirements linking the commodities to the 
farmland where they were produced, how does the EU ensure that this rule would not 
generate an unnecessary barrier to trade?  
d. Regarding the country 's benchmarking system, how does the EU set out the criteria for 
low, standard and high -risk country set out in the policy?  
e. As this policy will impact the agricultur al small and medium enterprises (SMEs), have the 
capacity challenges faced by MSMEs in compl ying with this regulation been taken into 
account?  
1.27  European  Union's rescheduling of its domestic support and export subsidy 
comm itments (SIM 275)  
1.27.1   Question by Canada, Paraguay , Australia  (AG-IMS ID 104052 ) 
Canada would appreciate an update from the European Union regarding the amendment to its 
domestic support commitment to reflect the reduction in its Final Bound Total AMS commitment that 
is identical to that notified by the United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/ GBR/11 ) as part of its withdraw al from 
the European Union.   
1.28  European  Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  (SIM 778)  
1.28.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID s 104135 , 104136 , 104137 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course.  
1.29  European Union , Norway, Iceland – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  
1.29.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID s 104138 , 104139 , 104140 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remain s valid and we await a response in due course.  
1.30  India's other support for rice  (SIM 743)  
1.30.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 104020 ) 
In response to AG IMS ID 103029 , India did not clarify, as requested, that it had consulted with 
state governments regarding sub -national rice programmes, but it did confirm no other rice support 
had been provided for rice.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 19 - 
 
  According to the Punjab Directorate of Information and Public Relations, a subsidy of up to  50% for 
paddy transplanting machinery was announced in January 2019.  
According to the Punjab Directorate of Information and Public Relations, a subsidy of up to 50 % for 
machinery was announced in May 2020.  
The announcement indicated that the subsidy required cultivation of maize or rice for equipment 
that is specific to only one of those commodities.  
The eligible machinery includes "direct seeding of rice machines with or without spray attachments ", 
"paddy nursery sowing machines ", "paddy tran splanting machines and equipment used for maize 
sowing, threshing and drying. " 
a. How much subsidy was provided in 2020 in Punjab for rice machinery?  
b. How much subsidy was provided in 2020 in Punjab for maize machinery?  
c. In April 2022, the Punjab government announced a Rs. 1,500 per acre subsidy to farmers 
for direct seeding of rice.  
Please provide further details regarding this subsidy.  
1.31  India's price support  (SIM 753) 
1.31.1   Question by United  States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, Australia (AG -
IMS ID 104032 ) 
In India 's response to AG -IMS ID 103024 , India does not indicate there was a policy change prior 
to 1995 -1996. 
Please confirm there was no change in policy prior to this date with regards to the minimum 
support price of the identified commodities.  
1.32  India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104031 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
In notification G/AG/N/IND/27 , it is noted that that the information on the Current Total AMS in 
Table DS:1, public stockholding for food security purposes in Supporti ng Table DS:1, product specific 
AMS for rice in Supporting Table DS:4, market price support for rice in Supporting Table DS:5, and 
all data for MY 2020/21 in the Statistical Appendix includes a footnote 'Based on the available 
provisional data '. 
However, t he value of production data provided in footnote 2 of Supporting Table DS: 4 does not 
include any reference to provisional data.  
In response to AG -IMS ID 101087 , India noted that the data for Value of Production is provisional 
data and would be up dated only if there is "any significant difference " in the final data.  
Please indicate, of all notified data in Table DS:1, Supporting Table DS:1, Supporting Table DS:4, 
Supporting Table DS:5, and the Statistical Appendix, which is provisional data and whi ch is final 
data.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 20 - 
 
  a. Please indicate when any relevant final data will be notified.  
1.32.2   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, 
European Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104026 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013 . 
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
Recognizing unique and unforeseen challenges in 2020 and 2021, it is noted that between 
MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to India's most recent 
Table  DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the government of India increased 
by over USD 3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by mo re than 7 million 
tonnes , the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million tonnes , and the 
quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 800,000 tonnes . It is noted 
that annual purchases, quantities released to beneficiaries, and open -market sales increased in 
MY 2020/21.  
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning beh ind 
the 7 million tonnes increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
programme in MY 2019/20?  
India remains the world's largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, India's number one export position 
grew substantially; India now expo rts more than twice as much rice, by value, than its second closest 
competitor. Noting the also sizeable increase in open -market sales, there are concerns about the 
impact government stock releases have on India 's export position, directly or indirectly.  
b. In response to AG -IMS ID 97049 , India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc. ". We thank India 
for this overview , but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains fro m public stocks 
noting that the URL provided by India at the 98th COA directs to an inaccessible webpage.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which m ust then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
1.32.3   Question  by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, 
European Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104027 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
In AG-IMS ID 101038 , WTO Members had requested India's annual quantitative figures for current, 
historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010, to which India replied th at 
such information was already duly noted in its domestic support notifications.   
In that same question, WTO Members also inquired if India publishes summaries of consultative 
meetings between the government and the Food Corporation of India (FCI), which are held to assess 
the availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum Support Prices (MSP) in order to meet 
the food security requirements of citizens, to which India replied that such information could also be 
found in its domestic support noti fications.   G/AG/W/231  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Please recreate the requested information here as it was not obvious where such information could 
be found in India's domestic support notifications.  
1.32.4   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Ukraine, Thailand, European 
Union, Austr alia ( AG-IMS ID 104021 ) 
In India 's response to AG IMS ID 103025  (see hyperlink for question details), India stated 1) the 
requested data is being compiled and 2) a few states that announced bonuses for a crop may not 
have actually implemented those  bonuses.  
a. Please provide an update on this data compilation process, including when the request 
was made to states and the timeframe for states to respond to the request.  
b. Please provide  examples of state bonus announcements that were made, but not 
implemented, that informed India 's response in AG -IMS ID 103025 . 
1.32.5   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Ukraine, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia  (AG-IMS ID 104022 ) 
In India's response to AG IMS ID 103026 , India stated that a response to the request for data  on 
current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010 had already been 
provided in reply to AG -IMS 102019 . 
However, the response to  AG IMS ID 10201 9 does not provide any specific data on the quantitative 
levels of wheat and rice stocks by year.  
Please confirm India does not set a pre -determined numerical quantity for rice and wheat stocks.  
1.32.6   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thail and, European 
Union, Australia  (AG-IMS ID 104023 ) 
In September 2022, a number of WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate 
the consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial 
Decision of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for th e full Committee:  
We note with concern that India has exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice production and that it 
has submitted an annex to the notification pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision. We therefore 
request that India provide clarification  on the following points:  
a. Please explain why these public stockholding programmes could not be implemented in a 
manner consistent with India 's commitments?  
b. Why was this annex not submitted in previous years, as required under paragraph  3(c) of 
the Bali Dec ision, given that it concerns a programme in existence since 2013, according 
to information provided by India in the Annex to notification G/AG/N/IND/18 ? 
c. Is India considering reviewing its notifications to amend the total amount of eligible 
production, and not only the production actually purch ased, in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and existing jurisprudence in this area?  
1.32.7   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104024 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December  2013.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 22 - 
 
  For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
As noted in various questions submitted by WTO Members, India 's responses in its Annex pursuan t 
to the Bali Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 on public stockholding for food security purposes  
were either brief and general, without the level of specificity needed to understand the 
programme(s) or did not provide the information required by a given data element at all.  
In several Committee on Agriculture questions, including AG -IMS IDs 95101 , 97134 , 97044 , 97046 , 
97047 , 97048 , 95086 , 95087 , and 95088 , Members followed up, including on various specific data 
elements, and India continued to fail to provide the required information.   
Please provide ALL required information requested by Members:  
 "2. Details of the programme sufficient to identify food security objective and scale of the 
programme, including: "  
a. "c. Agency in charge of implementation, "  
b. "d. Relevant laws and regulations, " 
c. "e. Date of commencement of the programme, " and  
d. "f. Officially published objective criteria or guidelines. " 
1.32.8   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104025 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provide d India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversa tion held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
As noted in AG -IMS IDs 101012 , 98056 , 98068  and 93291 , India 's 2018/19, 2019/20, and 2020/21 
domestic support notifications, India notified the relevant statistical information described in the 
Statistical Appendix of the An nex of the Bali Ministerial Decision. WTO Members noted some 
discrepancies between the rice stock variations and the quantities purchased and released (under 
the program and open market sale). Several Members calculated this discrepancy of 3.427  million 
tonnes for 2016/17, 3.211 million tonnes for 2017/18, 9.733 million tonnes for 2018/19, 14  million 
tonnes for 2019/20, and 6.92 million tonnes for 2020/21.   
It is noted in response to AG -IMS ID 101012 , that India states that all data was converted to milled 
rice despite support being for paddy.  
India also noted that "The difference in figures is b ecause of damage due to various factors, including 
moisture and transportation. " 
Please further elaborate on the reason for discrepancies and provide data indicating how much rice 
was damaged due to various factors.  
a. Please include detailed information of w hat happened to these stocks, notably how they 
were disposed, through which channel, at what price, and if they were exported.  
WTO Members have also identified what appear to be omissions in India 's Statistical Appendices:  
• Only rice is covered in the Stati stical Appendix and it excludes any information on wheat, 
coarse grains, or pulses, which are identified in the Annex as other traditional staple food 
crops covered under the public stockholding program [AG -IMS ID s 93198 , 97001 ]; 
• No trade data, as required in the Statistical Appendix data elements m, n, o, and p, a re 
provided [ AG-IMS IDs 95090 , 97050 ]; and  
• No data or information on state bonuses is included in the Statistical Appendices [AG -IMS 
ID 95030 ] G/AG/W/231  
 
- 23 - 
 
  b. Please provide the omitted data.  
WTO Members have also identified inconsistencies in the way India reports information in its 
Statistical Appendices.  India announces a market support price for un -milled paddy rice, but the 
information in the Statistical Appendices is on milled rice [ AG-IMS ID 93273 ].  
c. Please provide  information to correct these inconsistencies.  
1.32.9   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104028 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
In a number of quest ions posed in the Committee on Agriculture, including AG -IMS ID s 101028 , 
100006 , 99005 , 98099 , 97010 , 97012 , 97060 , 95032 , 93271 , 93251 , 92009  WTO Members 
requested information regarding state bonuses provided, in addition to the minimum support price 
provided for both wheat and rice. The information has been reque sted repeatedly in this Committee 
and India repeatedly responded the information would be provided in "due course ". WTO Members 
have provided India with both official state government announcements and reports in the media. 
In June 2022, we were pleased to  hear from India in AG-IMS ID 101028  that "The government has 
sought the information from t he State governments and will inform the COA as soon as it is 
available. " However, India has not explained the reason for the delay in providing this information 
or if this is the relevant support that India has referenced but not notified in its recent do mestic 
support notifications as 'other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food 
security purposes, will be notified subsequently.  
a. Is India in a position to provide the requested information?  
b. If not, is the information published i n the Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices Price  
(Available here:  https://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ ) Policy Reports an accurate representation of 
India's procurement intentions for any given marketing season?  
c. If not, please confirm when the request was sent to the State governments and what 
deadline was set for the Indian Government to receive responses.  
d. If not, please provide an update on what issues India is experiencing that have prevented 
it from providing this longstanding requested information in a timely manner.  
1.32.10   Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104029 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Ministerial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, t he following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
In G/AG/N/IND/18  India notified Market Price Support for rice (in millions USD): 5,004.97 with the 
footnote, "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockho lding for food security purposes, 
will be notified subsequently. " This footnote is also contained in G/AG/N/IND/25  and 
G/AG/N/IND/27 .  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 24 - 
 
  In June 2022, India stated "After consulting the relevant Ministries/Departments no support other 
than that for the PSH purposes has been provided for rice " in AG-IMS IDs 101037 , 101050 , 
and 101080 . 
a. Please confirm whether this is in relation to central schemes/measures only or State 
schemes measures as well.  
b. Has the Indian Government consulted state governments to determine whether any 
measures may exist at the subnational level?  
1.32.11   Question  by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 104030 ) 
In September 2022, several WTO Members provided India with several questions to facilitate the 
consultation process under the Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes Minist erial Decision 
of 7 December 2013.  
For transparency purposes, the following question, which represents part of the conversation held 
under that process, is submitted for the full Committee:  
Please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/19 , G/AG/N/IND/25  and 
G/AG/N/IND/27 :  
a. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accu mulation of stocks of products " 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the holding of stocks of products " under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to sections 
of the population in need " under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
d. We take note that India has stated in response to AG -IMS ID 99010  that public data on 
public stockholding for food security purposes has been notified.  However, the information 
being requested once again was not provided by India.  
1.33  India's export restriction measures on rice  (SIM 767)  
1.33.1   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia , Switzerland, United Kingdom  (AG-IMS ID 104033 ) 
Based on responses by India in this Committee, it is understood that India is extending its export 
ban on broken rice and the export duty of 20 % on white rice in order to control domestic Indian 
prices for rice.  
These export restrictions will force buyers,  especially in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to pay 
higher prices for rice given India 's significant role in global rice markets.   
A senior Indian Government official was cited in the media stating, "Rice exports didn 't slow down 
despite the 20 % export  duty, and that 's why we believe that there is no reason to reduce or scrap 
the duty. " It is noted that a substantial share of India 's exports is destined for developing countries, 
including least developed and net food importing developing countries that rely on rice imports for 
food security.  
Why does India continue to hold the position, despite its own recognition that the export restriction 
did not slow down exports, that this is an appropriate policy option to address domestic market 
concerns when it d istorts global markets and places a tax on foreign consumers, particularly 
vulnerable consumers in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.34  India's export restrictions  (SIM 306)  
1.34.1   Question by United  Kingdom, United States of America, Ukraine, European Union, 
Austr alia, Switzerland  (AG-IMS ID 104003 ) 
The United Kingdom would appreciate clarity on the status of India 's export restrictions on wheat 
and rice. In particula r:  
a. When does India plan to lift these restrictions?  
b. When will India be notifying these restrictions to the committee through the required ER:1 
table?   
1.35  Indonesia's palm oil export restrictions (SIM 724)  
1.35.1   Question by European  Union ; Japan ; Korea, Republic o f; Chinese Taipei   
(AG-IMS ID 104035 ) 
Indonesia introduced export restriction on palm oil on 24 January 2022, without providing the 
required notification. Indonesia lifted its ban on crude palm oil, refined palm oil, and other related 
products, which was issued on 27  April 2022 in Decree No. 2 2 of 2022 "Temporary Export Ban on 
Crude Palm Oil, Refined, Bleached and Deodorized Palm Oil, Refined, Bleached and Deodorized Palm 
Olein, and Used Cooking Oil ". 
According to recent information in the media, Indonesia plans to impose new measures to reduce  
the export of palm oil.  
Since Indonesia is one of the major suppliers of palm oil, any disruption on the supply side with the 
demand remaining the same is definitely going to have an impact.  
a. How long will the restriction continue? When does Indonesia inte nd to notify the measure?  
b. Could Indonesia clarify the aim of the measure?   
1.35.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 104080 ) 
Japan recognizes that Indonesia has introduce d export restriction on palm oil  in January this year 
according to the following articles, 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.   
 
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/12/30/indonesia -to-tighten -palm-oil-exports -from-
january -1  
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/india -seen-coping -with-indonesia -curbs -palm-oil-
exports -2023-02-13/  
https://gro -intelligence.com/insights/indonesia -again -clamps -down -on-palm-oil-exports -to-
control -domestic -prices  
a. Could Indonesia provide the contents and duration of the export restriction measure if it 
really introduced the measure ?  
b. Could Indonesia 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 ?  
c. Could Indonesia answer when Indonesia would submit an ER:1 notification, as required in 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture ?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 26 - 
 
  1.35.3   Question by United States of America, European Union, Australia , Switzerlan d 
(AG-IMS ID 104037 )  
Indonesia enacted a Domestic Market Obligation (DMO) policy in January 2022 along with new export 
requirements (Ministry of Trade Regul ation No. 2/2022), which requires exporters to submit, among 
other documents, an Export Plan and a Domestic Distribution Plan.  The DMO policy requires 
exporters of palm oil products to sell 20 % of their total export volume domestically.  These 
requirements restrict the export of palm oil products.  Several media reports indicate Indonesia has 
further restricted palm oil exports as of February 2023 when a majority of the DMO export permits 
were suspended.  
a. Please explain the Domes tic Market Obligation policy an d what is required of an exporter 
to export palm oil products.  
b. Please confirm whether Indonesia has suspended any previously granted export permits.   
c. Are any new export permits being granted, and if not, when will export permit issuance 
resume?  
d. Could Indon esia please explain what consideration it has given to the potential effects of 
this measure on importing Members ' food security in accordance with Article 12.1(a)?  
e. Could Indonesia indicate whether it plans to notify this measure to the CoA through an 
ER:1 table?  
1.36  Philippines' implementation  of tariff quotas  (SIM 17)  
1.36.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104063 ) 
The United States seeks further clarity with regards to how the Philippines administers its tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) for corn.  
In AG -IMS ID 102039 , the Philippines stated it was reviewing its Table MA:2 notificati ons and would 
provide responses to the United States ' questions, but they have not yet been provided.  Therefore, 
the United States repeats the question:  
WTO Notification G/AG/N/PHL/82  indicates in 2021, Philippine in -quota corn imports totalled  
216,940  metric tonnes. According to the Philippine s Statistics Authority, in 2021, the Philippines 
imported a total of 459,581 metric tonnes of corn under Harmonized System (HS) heading 1005; 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) accounted for 439,278 metric tonnes or 96 % of 
total imported corn. Similar trends are also seen for calendar year 2019 and 2020 when reviewing 
G/AG/N/PHL/70/Corr.2  and G/AG/N/PHL/79 . 
It is noted that ASEAN members, including the Philippines, undertook not to introduce Tariff -Rate 
Quotas (TRQs) on the importation of any goods originating in other ASEAN member states under 
Article 20 of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, and the Philippines' ASEAN schedule has a tariff 
of 5%. This compares to the MFN in -quota rate of 35 % and out -quota rate of 50 %. This 
disadvantages the MFN trading partners of the Philippines who do not have access to the lo wer in -
quota tariff because the MFN in -quota volume is filled by trading partners with preferential tariff 
treatment. The United States also notes that other ASEAN members exclude preferential imports 
from other ASEAN members in the calculation of their WT O tariff -rate quota fill.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Total Imports under 1005.90.90.100 for calendar year 2019  
 Philippines Bureau of Customs  G/AG/N/PHL/70/Corr.2  
ASEAN  89,569,439    
MFN 130,792,236    
Total Imports  220,361,675  134,270,000  
Scheduled TRQ Quantity  216,940,000  216,940,000  
Total Imports under 1005.90.90.100 for calendar year 2020  
 Philippines Bureau of Customs  G/AG/N/PHL/79  
ASEAN  274,449,176    
MFN 122,142,865    
Total Imports  396,592,041  216,940,000  
In-Quota Quantity  216,940,000  216,940,000  
Total Imports under 1005.90.90.100 for calendar year 2021  
 Philippines Bureau of Customs  G/AG/N/PHL/82  
ASEAN  156,369,546    
MFN 843,775    
Total Imports  157,213,321  216,940,000  
In-Quota Quantity  216,940,000  216,940,000  
a. Please confirm the total quantity of corn that was imported in 2019, 2020, and 2021 at a 
preferential rate, and the total quantity imported at the MFN rate during that same time 
period.  
b. Please confirm that the Philippines counts corn imports from regional  trade agreements 
such as ASEAN, as part of its WTO tariff rate quota fill rates.  
c. Please confirm whether the Philippines includes imports of popcorn (1005.90.10) and seed 
corn (1005.10.00) as part of its in -quota volume fill.  
d. Please provide any other information that may help this Committee understand how the 
Philippines counts and notifies imports related to its TRQs.  
1.36.2   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104064 ) 
The United States seeks further clarity on how the Philippines administers its tariff rate 
quotas  (TRQs).  
Pursuant to domestic legislation, the Philippines Department of Agriculture is mandated to implement 
a Minimum Access Volume (MAV) mechanism for selected agricultural products taking into account 
its WTO commitments.  
According to both domestic regulations and the Philippines ' Table MA:1 notification to the WTO, 
import licenses are required in order to access the in -quota quantities of the Philippines ' TRQs.  
The Philippines Department of Agriculture 's Administrative Order 52 (2000) amended the Rules and 
Regulations for the Implementation of the Agricultural MAV, which allows existing licensees to retain 
their quota allocations without importing, as long as they buy locally -produced commodities. This 
can result in quota allocations that are unused and not reallocated during the tariff quota year.  
Further, it is noted that Order 52 (2000) repeals the requirement of Administrative Order 1 of 1998 
that any unused quota allocations (i.e., "MAV quantity ") should be made available on a first -come, 
first-serve basis.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 28 - 
 
  a. Please explain how this is consistent with the Philippines ' WTO commitments (including 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which prohibits the use of agriculture -specific 
non-tariff measures) and how this comports with the minimum market access rights of 
WTO Members?  
b. Please confirm th at purchases of locally -produced commodities by quota holders are not 
counted against the WTO TRQ.  
c. Please clarify how the reallocation process operates for quota allocations not filled, 
including those allocations not used due to the quota holder making do mestic purchases.  
1.36.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104062 ) 
In G/AG/N/PHL/70/Corr.2 , the Philippines notified in -quota imports of 134.27 thousand metric 
tonnes  (MT) for PHLQ012 for c orn for calendar year 2019, which has an in -quota quantity of 216.94 
thousand MT.  According to Philippines Bureau of Customs reports, the Philippines permitted 220.36 
thousand MT for calendar year 2019 under HS 1005.90.90.100, of which 89.57 thousand metri c 
tonnes  (MT) originated from ASEAN countries with the remainder quantity of 130.79 thousand MT 
entering under the MFN rate.  
a. Please explain the discrepancy in the notified import quantity (134.27 thousand MT) from 
those published by the Philippines Bureau  of Customs (130.79 thousand MT).  
b. Please confirm whether the import statistics in the Philippines ' Table MA:2 notifications are 
on a calendar year basis (Jan -Dec), as described, or a tariff quota year basis (Feb -Jan), 
as described in the Philippines ' Table  MA:1 notifications and domestic rules regarding tariff 
rate quotas.  
1.36.4   Question by United  States of America (AG -IMS ID 104065 ) 
According to Philippines Bureau of Customs reports, the Philippines imported 220.36 thousand metric 
tonnes  (MT) of corn in calendar year 2019 under HS 1005.90.91.100, of which 89.57 thousand MT 
originated from ASEAN countries. HS 1005.90.91.100 is the in -quota tariff line for the WTO MFN  
TRQ for corn (PHLQ012).  
The United States is concerned that ASEAN imports are filling the WTO MFN TRQ.  
a. Please confirm whether ASEAN imports are counted against the Philippines ' WTO TRQ.  
b. Please confirm that ASEAN imports do not require an import license, while non -ASEAN 
imports do require an import license to access the MFN TRQ for corn (PHLQ012).  
1.36.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104066 ) 
In G/AG/N/PHL/70/Corr.2 , the Philippines notified in -quota imports for Horses (0101), Cattle (0102), 
Live swine (0103), Live goat (0104), Live poultry (0105), Beef (0201), Pork (0203), Goat meat 
(0204), Poultry meat (0207), Potatoes (0701), Coffee (0901), Corn (1005), Rice (1006), and Sugar 
(1701). Considering that import licenses were only issued for Pork (0203), Poultry (0207), Corn 
(1005), Potatoes (1701), Coffee beans (0901) and Coffee extracts (2101):  
a. Please explain how the Phili ppines recorded in -quota imports and fill rates above zero for 
commodities for which it did not issue import licenses; and  
b. Please confirm import statistics for calendar year 2019 and provide a link to the source 
data.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 29 - 
 
  1.37  Philippines - Sanitary  and Phytosanit ary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits 
(SIM  655)  
1.37.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104067 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102037 , the Philippines indicated that a new domestic administration had taken over 
leadership of the Department of Agriculture and the capital authorities could possibly review this 
SPSIC measure.  
Please provide any updates regarding this measure.   
1.37.2   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 104068 ) 
The United States notes Section 5 of Republic Act No. 11203 or the "Rice Tariffication Law " (RTL) 
which provides that "failure on the part of the BPI to release the SPSIC without informing the rice 
importer of any error, deficiency, omission, or additional documentary requirement shall mean 
automatic approval of the SPSIC applied for within seven (7) days after submission of the complete 
requirements. " This provision aligns with Republic Act. No. 11032 or the "Ease of Doing Business 
and Efficient Delivery of Government Services Act. " 
a. Please explain how the Philippines Burea u of Customs tracks the status of such automatic 
approvals so as not to delay the release of shipments that have met SPSIC requirements 
via this process.  
b. The United States also asks the Philippines the status of implementing a similar automatic 
approval pr ocess for all commodities that require SPSICs  
1.37.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 104069 ) 
The United States would remind the Philippines it previously stated in the Committee on Import 
Licensing that "All applicants are informed of the reaso n in the event of disapproval of SPSIC 
application " (see G/LIC/Q/PHL/5 ). 
However, this does not seem to be the case.    
Please explain why applicants are not being informed of the reason in the event of disapproval of 
the SPSIC application.  
Also, explain what steps the Philippines is  taking to ensure that applicants are informed of the reason 
in the event of disapproval of the SPSIC application.  
1.38  Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  
1.38.1   Question by India ( AG-IMS ID 104101 ) 
With respect to AG -IMS ID 103137 , a response from Thailand is awaited. Therefore, India would like 
to repeat the request for information in A G-IMS ID 103137 . 
It is known that Thailand's Rice Policy and Management Committee has approved a budget 
amounting to about 150 billion baht, to guarantee the income of more than 4.6 million rice farming 
households for their 2022/2023 rice crops. The Commit tee also agreed to extend the period for the 
rice pledging scheme for another year. In this context, Thailand is requested to provide the following 
information:  
a. Details of the working of the rice pledging scheme?  
b. What is the eligibility criteria prescrib ed to receive support under farmer's rice income 
guarantee scheme, as approved by Thailand's Rice Policy and Management Committee?  
c. Under the rice pledging scheme, how is the administered price determined?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 30 - 
 
  d. What quantity of rice is eligible to be sold to t he government?  
e. How much quantity of rice is currently in stock under the rice pledging scheme?  
f. What is the  mechanism to dispose of the rice stock accumulated under the rice pledging 
scheme?  
i. How will this support be notified in the domestic support notif ication?  
ii. When does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 notification as the latest 
submitted so far pertains to the calendar years 2014 to 2016 ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ) dated 
6th October 2017.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/81 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104036: Question by Paraguay , Brazil - Transparency issues  
We thank the EU for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/81 and we note that once again the EU has 
excluded the United Kingdom from its erga omnes  tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). In this regard, we 
request the EU to provid e information on the steps being taken to confirm the United Kingdom's 
exclusion from the EU's erga omnes  quotas in its schedule of commitments. Could the EU please 
confirm that it is not submitting only one annual MA: 1 table for that purpose.  
AG-IMS ID 1 04072: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
Thailand thanks the European Union for submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/81  informing the 
EU administration of tariff quotas for calendar year 2023.  
Thailand noticed from the notification that the EU has not implemented the new quota quantities for 
(1) Paddy rice, (2) Semi -milled or wholly milled rice, (3) Broken rice, (4) Food Preparations and 
(5) Shrimp and Prawn, Prepared or preserved.  
However, the United Kingdom has already implemented new quotas for these TRQ products.  
This caused the WTO Members to receive lower quota quantities from the EU and the UK than  prior 
to BREXIT.  
Furthermore,  Thailand is aware that, in accordance with  Article XVXIII of the GATT 1994,  the EU 
and the UK are currently consulting with other WTO Members regarding the al location of their TRQ. 
Could the EU provide further clarification on how the EU intends to implement the new quota 
allocation for these TRQ products to ensure that the WTO Members receive an equivalent amount of 
quotas to those received before to BREXIT?  
AG-IMS ID 104059: Question by Canada - Country -specific allocation  
In its 2023 MA:1 notification, the European Union (EU) notes that the EU -Q041, Cheddar – country 
specific allocation: Canada "is no longer opened as Canada benefits from better access through its 
CETA FTA with the EU ". 
a. Canada notes that in its notifications for 2018/19 and 2019/20, the EU only indicated that 
imports under EU -Q041 were not reported as Canada benefits from better access under 
the CETA. Could the EU please explain what cha nged that required the closure of this TRQ?  
b. The volume set out in the EU -Q041 is part of a broader agreement with specific certification 
requirements and subject to eligibility requirements that may be different from the CETA. 
Canada has concerns with the potential market access impact resulting from the closure 
of this TRQ.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/150 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104103: Question by India - Transparency issues  
With respect to Canada 's MA:2 ( G/AG/N/CAN/150 ) notification for the calendar year 2021, Marketing 
Year 2020/2021 and Qu ota Year 2020/2021, it  has reported fill rates for a number of dairy products. 
However, for fluid milk, a footnote is provided. In this regard, Canada is requested to provide the 
following details:   
a. How many times was the General Import Permit for import o f fluid milk invoked 
during  2020-21?  
b. What was the total import of fluid milk during the notification period?  
2.2.2   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/119 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104074: Question  by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada thanks Switzerland for its latest MA:2 notification.  
Could Switzerland explain the reason fo r the low use of the tariff quota CHEQ003 (live swine) which 
has a fill rate of 2%?  
2.2.3   Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TPKM/221 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104044: Question  by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We thank Chinese Taipei for submitting the aforementioned notification on tariff quota fill. We note 
that quota CHTQ017 for shaddocks has a fill rate of 0%. Could you please indicate the reasons for 
the quota's zero fill rate and whether you have considere d modifying its administration method in 
accordance with the Bali Decision in order to allow a better fill rate.  
AG-IMS ID 104073 : Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand thanks Chinese Taipei for submitting its recent MA:2 notification G/AG/N/TPKM/221 . 
Thailand observes that Chinese Taipei has reported a 0.4% fill rate for betel nuts (TQ ID CHTQ013).   
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide an explanation of the reason this quota has not been filled?  
b. Could Chines e Taipei provide an explanation of its plan to improve the utilization of unfilled 
tariff quotas in accordance with the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.3  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei ( G/AG/N/TPKM/217 , G/AG/N/TPKM/218 , G/AG/N/TPKM/220 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104143: Question  by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We note that Chinese Taipei has subm itted three volume -based special safeguard notifications to be 
applied from 10 January to 31 December 2023 for tariff item 07129050. This item corresponds to 
quota CHTQ011 which, according to notification G/AG/N/TPKM/221 , had a fill rate of 0% for the 
period from 1 January to 31 December 2022. Could you please indicate the reasons behind the 
sudden change in imports that led from a fill rate of 0% for the quota in one year to the application 
of volume -based safeguards just 10 days into the following year.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1 ) 
2.4.1   China ( G/AG/N/CHN/47 ) 
AG-IMS ID 10405 4: Question by Canada , Australia  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Annex 2, Para.10 & Para 12  
 
In response to questions raised at the 98th CoA meeting (AG -IMS ID 98013 ), regarding its 
environmental programs ( G/AG/N/CHN/47 ) China indicated that it would reclassify "retiring farmland 
to forest or grass " from the environmental programs  of Annex 2 para.12 to resource retirement  of 
Annex 2 para.10. As a result, Canada notes a significant increase from CNY  3.9 billion in 2016 to an 
average annual expenditure of CNY  30 billion over 2017 - 2020.  
a. Could China submit a Table DS:2 notification providing information  as to how "returning 
cultiva ted land to forests and grazing land to grassland " meets the general criteria and 
each policy criteria of paragraph 10 (a) through (d) of Annex 2?  
Canada notes the total expenditures reported under environmental programs of Annex  2 
paragraph  12 have not d ecreased due to reclassifications of some components (AG -IMS ID 98013).  
b. Could China submit  a Table DS:2 notification if new environmental measures were included 
in each year 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020?  
AG-IMS ID 104015: Question by United States of Americ a, Canada, Australia - 
Transparency issues (including Table  DS:2)  
In China 's Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/CHN/47 ), China notified that it ex ceeded its domestic 
support limits for calendar year 2016 and stated in footnote b of Table DS:1, "Measures that resulted 
in level of support in column 3 were all terminated " in reference to measures notified above the de 
minimis  level for corn, soybeans, and cotton.  
China has notified that subsequent domestic support measures for these commodities were 
introduced as production limiting "Blue Box " measures as noted in its Table DS:2 notifications for 
the measures "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton " (G/AG/N/CHN/48 ), 
"Implementation Notice of the Ministry of Finance on Establishing Corn Producer Subsidy System ", 
and "Notice of Improving the Polices of Corn and Soybean Pro ducers Subsidies " (G/AG/N/CHN/67 ). 
China Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates production data show that from 2015/2016 
through 2019/2020 China 's production of corn, cotton, and soybeans have increased by 16 %, 18%, 
and 56 %, respectively.  
a. Please confirm China 's official production statistics for corn, cotton, and soybeans 
from 2016 through 2020.  
b. Please clarify how these measures are production -limiting if production has risen since the 
termination of the Amber Box support measures that had exceeded China 's domestic 
support limits?  
2.4.2   China ( G/AG/N/CHN/62 , G/AG/N/CHN/63 , G/AG/N/CHN/64 , G/AG/N/CHN/65 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104010: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The European Union notes that China exceeded its total AMS commitment in calendar years 
2017-2019. Due to China 's practice of notifying domestic support for several (in this case four) years 
at the same time, it has not been possible for other WTO Members to properly review China 's support 
policies as close in time to when they were applied as would have been desirable.  
a. How come China did not find it possible to notify domestic support annually for the 
2017-2020 period, rather than for all four years at the  same time?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 33 - 
 
  b. Did the data for 2017, 2018 and 2019 become available simultaneously with that for 2020?  
c. Would China consider notifying domestic support annually for the post 2020 period?  
AG-IMS ID 104011: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (inc luding 
Table  DS:2)  
Support for local authorities  
Regarding all of the notifications, the E uropean Union (EU)  would like to know if China includes 
support for local authorities. More specifically, under this heading, does China include, for example, 
support  granted by local authorities to the pig industry following the outbreak of African Swine Fever 
in 2018?  
If so, the EU would like to know under which category this support was included. The EU considers 
it useful to recall that inclusion of this type of su pport in the Green Box is conditional on payments 
"compensate[ing] for not more than the total cost of replacing such losses".  
AG-IMS ID 104145: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CHN/63 , could the People's Republi c of China please:  
 
a. Disaggregate, by product, the expenditure on public stockholding for food security 
purposes in the amount of CNY 1,286 hundred million, notified under paragraph 3 of Annex 
2. 
b. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 998 hundred mi llion in 2017 to 
CNY 1,152  hundred million under environmental programmes notified under paragraph 12 
of Annex 2.  
c. Indicate the reasons that led to an increase instead of a reduction in the support as a 
percentage of value of soybean production, rising from  15% in 2017 to 19% of value of 
production (VOP).  
AG-IMS ID 104146: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CHN/64 , could the People's Republi c of China please:  
a. Disaggregate, by product, the expenditure on public stockholding for food security 
purposes in the amount of CNY 1,034 hundred million, notified under paragraph  3 of 
Annex  2. 
b. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 1,152 hundred m illion in 2018 to 
CNY 1,301  hundred million under environmental programmes notified under paragraph  12 
of Annex 2.  
c. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 880 hundred million in 2018 to 
CNY 1,061  hundred million under regional assistance programmes notified under 
paragraph 13 of Annex 2.  
d. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 106 hundred million in 2018 to 
CNY 181 hundred million in Blue Box payments for the cotton price subsidy.  
e. Indicate the reasons that led to an increase instead of a reduc tion in the support as a 
percentage of VOP for soybean production, rising from 19% in 2018 to 21.5% of VOP.  
AG-IMS ID 104147: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CHN/65 , could the People's Republic of China please:  
a. Disaggregate, b y product, the expenditure on public stockholding for food security 
purposes in the amount of CNY 994 hundred million, notified under paragraph 3 of G/AG/W/231  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Annex  2, and indicate the reasons for the reduction in that expenditure, given that 2020 
was the first year  of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
b. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 1,293 hundred million in 2019 to 
CNY 1,700  hundred million under decoupled income support notified under paragraph 8 of 
Annex 2.  
c. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 1,061 hundred million in 2019 to 
CNY 1,269  hundred million under regional assistance programmes notified under 
paragraph 13 of Annex 2.  
AG-IMS ID 104148: Question by Paraguay , Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CHN/65 , could the People's Republic of China please: 
(co-sponsored by Brazil)  
a. Explain the compatibility of granting both Blue Box and Amber Box subsidies to rice in 
husk producers, given that the objectives of these measures are contradictory; the 
minimum purchase price seeks to inc entivize production, while programmes that make 
payments on 85% or less of the base level of production should help to disincentivize it.  
b. Indicate the soybean VOP for 2020, bearing in mind that in 2019, with a subsidy of 
hundreds of millions of CNY, it wa s 21% of VOP and above the de minimis  entitlements, 
and the value of the Blue Box programme is higher, reaching a total of 
CNY 207 hundred  million. What are the reasons for the policy changes, moving from a 
policy of stimulating soybean production to progr ammes that seek to reduce that 
production?  
c. Indicate the reasons for the increase from CNY 181 hundred million in 2019 to 
CNY 312 hundred million in Blue Box payments for the cotton price subsidy.  
AG-IMS ID 104045: Question by United States of America, Euro pean Union, Australia - 
Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In 2019, China 's National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration issued Notice # 218 on grain 
sales policy ( http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/zfxxgk/2020 -11/14/content_262371.shtml ). The notice 
mentions that there is a historic problem of grain accumulation (page 2) and lays out policies for the 
proper disposal of those stocks, including instructing local grain administrative departments to keep 
invoices and GPS tracking information for vehicles to prove the grain has been shipped (page 5). 
China Customs Statistics data show the value and volume of milled rice exports at the highest levels 
in 2019, a significant increase over the previous two years.  
China 's Exports of Milled Rice (data accessed 23 January 2023)  
Export 
Destination  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  
World 
(USD  value)  596,163,814  887,429,043  1,058,957,630  916,280,868  1,035,657,902  1,033,704,240  
WTO 
Developing 
Members 
(USD value)  532,867,827  729,896,227  856,101,848  734,800,650  849,455,650  817,756,514  
World  
(MT volume)  1,195,755  2,089,298  2,747,499  2,304,274  2,447,886  2,214,594  
WTO 
Developing 
Members  
(MT volume)  1,095,803  1,782,380  2,280,696  1,842,923  1,999,783  1,771,287  
The below table demonstrates that comparing World Bank Commodities Price Data for annual 
average prices of rice from Thailand and Vietnam to average prices of rice from China (constructed G/AG/W/231  
 
- 35 - 
 
  from China Custom s Statistics data) shows that China 's exports of milled rice experienced a relative 
decline in 2018 and remained relatively low through 2022.  
Annual Average Prices for Milled Rice, 2017 -22 
 2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  
Rice, Thailand 5%  398.9  420.7  418 496.8  458.3  436.8  
Rice, Thailand 25%  384.7  408.1  410.4  481.8  448.3  429.7  
Rice, Thailand A1  379.9  401.1  393.5  474.6  436.1  417.7  
Rice, Vietnam 5%  363.2  406.1  251.9  428 446.3  404.5  
China Unit Value  415.0  368.3  344.0  328.5  345.6  384.9  
Source:  Word Bank Commodities Price Data and China Customs Statistics.  
Taking a few destination countries for rice as examples, we see that in 2017, India and Thailand 
were the #1 and #2 exporters of milled rice to Egypt, but in 2018 they were overtaken for the #1 
spot by China, which stayed at #1 through 2022. In 2017 China was not exporting milled rice to 
Papua New Guinea, but it entered the market in 2018 with low unit values and secured the #1 
exporter slot from 2019 onwards. In 2017, China's unit value for exports of milled rice to Sierra 
Leone was between the unit values for Pakistan and India's exports, but then in 2018 China's unit 
value fell, undercutting those competitors, and remained low though 2022.  
Milled Rice Exports to Egypt, in U.S. dollars per ton ne, 2017-22 
Exporter  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  
China  423 301.07  297.03  289.03  320.52  338.58  
India 466.4  606.18  432.98  757.07  750.08  605.25  
Thailand  473.91  501.62  509.94  595.19  565.59  549.15  
Source:  China Customs Statistics, Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, Ministry of Finance Thailand,  
and UN Comtrade . 
Milled Rice Exports to Papau New Guinea, in U.S. dollars per ton ne, 2017 -22 
Exporter  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  
China  0 393 360.2  360.88  369.71  394.13  
Thailand  623.14  611.51  727.58  691.51  595.91  614.01  
India 1340.4  2337.68  580.42  368.9  371.94  351.94  
Source:  China Customs Statistics, Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, Ministry of Finance Thailand, 
and UN Comtrade . 
Milled Rice Exports to Sierra Leone, in U.S. dollars per ton ne, 2017 -22 
Exporter  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  
China  346.7  300.66  314.3  282.58  288.71  307.21  
Pakistan  330.1  338.1  381.77  356.44  465.69  No data  
India 366.3  393.88  377.36  371.41  364.5  354.47  
Source:  China  Customs Statistics, Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, Ministry of Finance Thailand, 
and UN Comtrade . 
a. Were any exports made from China 's rice stocks in the years 2018 through 2022?  
b. Please explain China 's process for releasing stocks.  
c. What steps did the Chinese Government take to combat illegal sales of rice released from 
stocks?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 36 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 104019: Question  by United States of America, Canada, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China's Table DS:1 notification for calendar year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHN/65 ) includes 1.25 trillion yuan 
in Green Box support, 89.8 billion yuan in Blue Box support, and 62.7 billion yuan in Amber Box 
support.  
a. Do these amounts include provincial and sub -provincial support and payments?  
b. If so, can China please provide a breakdown between provincial and national producer 
support for soy and rice in particular?  
c. If not, pleas e confirm no sub -national support was provided.  
AG-IMS ID 104012: Question by European Union - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
Green Box support  
 
Regarding Green Box support,  amounts under three headings increased significantly in 2020 
compared with 2017.  
• Support unde r General services for infrastructural services (+33%),  
• Payments [under Regional assistance programmes] for disadvantaged regions 
(almost  +100%)  
• Payments under environmental programmes  
The EU would like to request further information from China about th e new projects, zoning or 
support schemes that would justify these increases.  
AG-IMS ID 104077: Question by New Zealand - General services: infrastructural services  
New Zealand notes that China has increased their spending on infrastructural services in th e Green 
Box by approximately CNY 866.21 hundred million between 2017 and 2020. We would welcome 
details from China on what factors led to the increase in expenditure, as well as what activities the 
new programmes introduced in this time period involved.  
AG-IMS ID 104006: Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European 
Union - Direct payments: payments under regional assistance programmes  
The United Kingdom thanks China for the submission of G/AG/N/CHN/65 . We note the increase in 
support notified under Measure Type 13: 'Regional As sistance Programmes ' from 2017 -2020. In 
relation to Paragraph 13(a), could China please provide detail of the 'neutral and objective criteria 
clearly spelt out in law or regulation ' used to define 'disadvantaged regions '? 
AG-IMS ID 104144: Question  by Para guay - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
We thank the People's Republic of China for submitting this and the other notifications for which 
Members have been waiting for years in order to complete the monitoring and transparency exercise 
that i s part of the work of this Committee, particularly as China is one of the Members that grants 
the largest amount of domestic support in this Organization and that, in 2016, was in violation of its 
subsidy entitlements. We note with concern that this entitl ement was exceeded again in 2017 by 
CNY 2,405 hundred million, a breach that continued in 2018 in the amount of 
CNY 2,081  hundred  million. We also note the high cost of the Green Box policies of the People's 
Republic of China, exceeding CNY 10,000 hundred million. In this regard, could the People's Republic 
of China please disaggregate, by product, the expenditure on public stockholding for food security 
purposes in the amount of CNY 1,286 hundred million, notified under paragraph 3 of the Annex.  
AG-IMS ID 104017: Question  by United States of America, Canada, Thailand, European 
Union, Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1 of China 's Table DS:1 notification for calendar year 2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/65 ), China notified budgetary outlays of 99.4 billion Chinese yuan (approximately 
USD 14.4 billion) on public stockholding for food security purposes, specifically expenditures (or 
revenue foregone) in relation to the accumulation and holding of stocks of products.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 37 - 
 
  a. Please provide data on the amount of expenditures for each of the benefited crops covered 
by the measure from 2017 through 2020.  
b. For 2017 through 2020, please provide the corresponding predetermined targets for the 
volume of stocks accumulated for each crop covered by the measure.  
c. For 2017 through 2020, please provide the volume of stocks accumulated for each crop 
procured und er the measure.  
AG-IMS ID 104014: Question by European Union - Payments based on 85 per cent or 
less of the base level of production  
China has doubled its Blue Box support for cotton in Calendar year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHN/65 ), as 
reported in Supporting Table DS:3 – from 161.92 hundred million CNY in  2019 to 312.07 hundred 
million CNY in 2020.  
a. Could China share the base level of production, which corresponds to the notified amounts?  
b. Did China include this support in the reply to the cotton questionnaire?  
AG-IMS ID 104075 : Question by Japan - Market p rice support  
Japan welcomes that China submitted its DS:1 notifications for the period of CY2017 -2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/62 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 63, G/AG/N/CHN/ 64, G/AG/N/CHN/ 65) and DS:2 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CHN/66 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 67) respectively.  
Regarding the market price support for rice (MPP: Minimum Pu rchase Price), Japan would like to ask 
the following questions :  
a. What is the reason behind the MPP  for rice in 2017, 2018, 2019 were  budgeted  several 
times more (over CNY 100 billion each year) than  before 2016?   
b. Producer subsidies (rice in husk ) have been newly notified since  2018. Could China explain 
the direct payment scheme in detail,  which seems to have been shifted from MPS?   
AG-IMS ID 104076: Question by Japan - Market price support: Eligible production  
Japan welcomes that China submitted its DS :1 notifications for the period of CY2017 -2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/62 , G/AG/N/CHN/63 , G/AG/N/CHN/64 , G/AG/N/CHN/65 ) and DS:2 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CHN/66 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 67) respectively.   
Regarding t he Quantity of Eligible Production (QEP) to calculate the MMP for rice, it is footnoted 
"total production  of major producing regions" in the CY 2017, 2018 and 2019 notifications, however 
it is changed to "maximum procurement amount " in the CY2020 notificat ion.  
This change has significantly lowered the amount of support for rice to 1/3 of the previous year 's 
level, under de minimis  limit of 8.5% of total production as a result.   
a. How is the level of "maximum procurement amount" defined? What indicators are 
considered?   
b. Please provide a legal framework (i.e. relevant regulatory framework, relevant measures) 
that defines the "maximum procurement amount ".  
c. According to the circulated panel report on DS511 in 2019, it is agreed that the ratio of 
total production of Indica rice and Japonica rice production is 2:1. Could China indicate 
the basis of how "maximum procurement amount" is set at the ratio 2:3 ?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 38 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 104081: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia notes that China 's latest DS:1 notification covering calendar year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHN/65 ), 
Supporting Table DS:5 lists eligible production for wheat of 3,700 ten thousand tonnes (37 million 
tonnes) as the 'maximum procurement amount '.  
Australia asks that China provide additional information abou t dates for when each year 's maximum 
procurement amounts are set by Government, and how and when these maximum procurement 
amounts are communicated to farmers.  
AG-IMS ID 104013 : Question by European Union, Canada, United States of America, 
Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
G/AG/N/CHN/65 , issued on 14 December 2022 – Supporting table DS:5  
 
In Supporting table DS:5 for Calendar year 2020, for the first time China uses the maximum 
procurement amount  as eligible production for the purposes of calculating the total market price 
support. In a foot note to the table, China provided the following clarification: ''The eligible 
production is the maximum procurement amount, i.e. 20 million tonnes for Indica rice in husk, 30 
million tonnes for Japonica rice in husk and 37 million tonnes for wheat. '' Until 2020 Calendar year, 
China has used the total production of major producing regions as eligible production.  
a. Could China provide the legal references (legal ac ts) where the limits for rice and wheat 
have been fixed in relation to calendar year 2020?  
b. Could China explain how their administration is participating in the procurement scheme, 
i.e. how they are buying the rice and the wheat?  
c. Could China provide the q uantities bought in reality for the two products in question?  
AG-IMS ID 104016: Question by United States of America, Thailand, European Union, 
Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In China 's Table DS:1 notification for calendar year 2019 ( G/AG/N/CHN/64 ), China notified 
CNY 186.85 hundred million in producer subsidies for rice in husk as product specific Amber Box 
support.  
In China 's Table DS:1 notification for calendar year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHN/65 ), China notified 
CNY 186.85 hundred million in subsidies for rice in husk as blue box support.   
a. Please explain in detail how rice in husk producer subsidies, notified in Supporting 
Table  DS:6, were implemented, including how payments were determined.  
b. Please explain how the 2019 measure differs from the measure in 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 104007: Question by United Kingdom, Brazil, Thailand, European Union - 
Classification of measures  
The United Kingdom thanks China for their recent domestic support notifications. We note that Blue 
Box support for rice and soybean significantly increased between 2019 and 2020. We appreciate the 
information China has provided in G/AG/N/CHN/66  and G/AG/N/CHN/67 . We note that subsidies for 
soybean and rice husk products were previously reported in Supporting Table DS:4. Could China 
please explain the reasoning for the change of classification of these measures?   
2.4.3   Costa Rica ( G/AG/N/CRI/88 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104149: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Under paragraph 12 of Annex 2, Costa Rica notifies an environmental programme entitled 
"Recognition of the environmental benefits of organic farming by micro, small and medium -sized 
organic producers: Financial incentive granted to micro, small and medium -sized organic producers 
for the environmental benefits resulting from their activities". Could Costa Rica please:  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 39 - 
 
  a. Clarify which state programme producers are complying with.  
b. Explain how the additional cost or loss of income associated with complying with this 
programme is calculated so that the programme can be classified as an environmental 
program me in accordance with the requirements set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2.  
c. Given that the description of the programme refers to incentives for this type of production 
and not compensation for complying with a programme, could Costa Rica please provide 
further information regarding the characteristics of this type of production that make the 
programme eligible for consideration as an environmental programme, in terms of the 
efficient use of natural resources and techniques such as harrowing and other solutions of 
a non -chemical nature that could nevertheless have an adverse impact on the 
environment.  
AG-IMS ID 104151: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
With regard to the "Programme providing payment for environmental services in agroforestry 
systems", also notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2, could Costa Rica please explain why 
payments for environmental services are considered agricultural subsidies . 
2.4.4   Indonesia ( G/AG/N/IDN/70 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104078: Question  by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank Indonesia for its recent domestic support notification for the CY2021. 
Canada notes that in Supporting Table DS:1, measure defined under paragraph 4  – Rice for Poor 
and Low Incom e Society  –, Indonesia has for the first time in 10 years notified no expenditure under 
this programme.   
Could Indonesia advise if the programme has been terminated?   
AG-IMS ID 104150: Question by Paraguay , Brazil  - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2) 
We thank Indonesia for submitting its domestic support commitments for 2021. Could Indonesia 
please explain:  
With regard to paragraph 2 of Annex 2:  
a. Why subsidies for rice field expansion are included in the Green Box and not classified as 
product -specif ic support falling within the Amber Box? Please provide details of the 
programme and explain how it meets the criteria set forth in paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2.  
b. The difference between this infrastructure programme and the programmes for facilities 
and infra structure to encourage agricultural and rural development notified under Art. 6.2, 
with a monetary value of IDR 2,019, 738 million.  
AG-IMS ID 104152: Question by Paraguay, United Kingdom - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
With regard to parag raph 3 of Annex 2, could Indonesia please:  
a. Explain the increase in public stockholding for food security purposes to 
IDR 3,771,187  million in 2021 from IDR  1,242,663  million in 2020.  
b. Indicate whether there was any change in the design and administration of  the 
programmes between 2020 and 2021.  
c. Indicate the total beneficiaries, reserve stocks and the predetermined targets, including 
existing legislation where they may be found.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 40 - 
 
  d. Indicate the reasons for the reduction in government purchases by more than half in 2021 
compared to 2020.  
e. Indicate the reasons behind the increase from IDR  118,886  million in 2020 to 
IDR 3,182,187  million in 2021.  
AG-IMS ID 104018 : Question by European Union - Domestic food aid  
Indonesia has forwarded its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IDN/70  on 10 January 2023 covering Cal endar 
year 2021.  
In supporting table DS:1, Indonesia reported under Domestic food aid, only Cash -based food aid for 
Poor and Low -Income Society (BPNT).  
What are the criteria used for this support?  
AG-IMS ID 104153: Question by Paraguay - Domestic food aid 
With regard to paragraph 4 of Annex 2, could Indonesia indicate the reasons why the aid notified in 
the form of rice for poor and low -income society is IDR 0.  
2.4.5   Mauritius ( G/AG/N/MUS/17 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104079: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Un ited States thanks Mauritius for its Table DS:1 notification. As raised during the 101st 
Committee on Agriculture meeting in June 2022 in AG -IMS ID 101067 , the United States noted that 
Mauritius introduced several new sugar -related domestic support measures in its financial year 
2020-2021, including a "money grant " notified in Supporting Table DS:6 and "Sugar Service 
Providing Institutions " notified in Supporting Table DS:1. The United States thanks Mauritius for its 
replies to all its respective questions.  
Mauritius noted in its answer that during its financial year 2020 -2021 it guaranteed the price of 
Mauritian Rupee (MUR) 25 ,000 per tonne of sugar produced by sugar cane planters and further 
stated the action "is not a recurrent measure and was explicitly put in place as a result of the 
significant downfall in world sugar price. "  
Please explain why price supports were provide d again in financial year 2021 -2022.  
2.4.6   Mauritius ( G/AG/N/MUS/19 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104082: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Mauritius notified  investment subsidies generally available to agriculture in Supporting Table DS:2  
for the financial year 2021/2022 ( G/AG/N/MUS/19 ). Canada notes that subsidiz ed loans disbursed 
through the Development Bank of Mauritius  have not been reported since 2013 ( G/AG/N/MUS/3 ).  
a. Could Mauritius clarify if there are  new investment programmes?  
b. Could Mauritius provide additional information on the types of projects covered by these 
investment subsidies?   
2.4.7   Mexico  (G/AG/N/MEX/56 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104086: Ques tion by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
New Zealand thanks Mexico for their answer to AG -IMS ID 103113 , and we are seeking more 
information on some of the measures outlined in Mexico 's answer.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 41 - 
 
  a. Can Mexico provide more information regarding the goals of the "Agriculture, livestoc k, 
fisheries, and aquaculture promotion programme "? 
b. Could Mexico outline where additional information about its domestic support policies can 
be found?  
2.4.8   Mongolia  (G/AG/N/MNG/11 - G/AG/N/MNG/23 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104083 : Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
Mongolia's recently submitted Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/MNG/11 ) for calendar year 2007 lists 
the "Green Revolution " national programme under "public stockholding for food sec urity purposes. " 
However, a measure by the same name was notified in Mongolia 's Table DS:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/MNG/7 ), which describes the measure as pertaining to a) training and advisory services 
and b) marketing and promotion services.   
a. Please explain the discrepancies between the Table DS:1 and Table DS:2 notifications.  
b. If Mongolia confirms the Table DS:1 notification is accurate in classifying the measure as 
public stockholding, please explain.  
AG-IMS ID 104085: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including  Table DS:2)  
The United States recognizes and appreciates Mongolia 's efforts to come up to date with Table DS:1 
notifications to the Committee on Agriculture. (Notifications G/AG/ N/MNG/11  - G/AG/N/MNG/ 23). 
Mongolia 's recently -submitted notifications for calendar years 2008 through 2013 and 2016 
through  2021 list six different measures (Third Crop rehabilitation campaign, Fourth crop sustainable 
developmen t habilitation campaign, Mongolian livestock, Food safety security, Meat and dairy 
reserve, Crop supporting fund) as public stockholding for food security purposes measures under 
the Green Box in Supporting Table DS:1.  
These measures were notified for the first time in these notifications.   
a. When will Mongolia submit Table DS:2 notifications describing these measures?  
b. Please confirm each of these measures are currently notified as public stockholding for 
food security measures under the green box.   
c. Noting on ly the name of the measure was notified, please provide a description of each 
measure so that this Committee may better understand these measures and their 
classification.  As part of the descriptions, please confirm each of these measures involves 
governme nt procurement of agricultural products, what agricultural products are covered, 
and whether purchases were done at market prices or a set announced price by the 
government.  
2.4.9   Norway  (G/AG/N/NOR/122 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104154: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disast ers 
With regard to paragraph 8 of Annex 2, could Norway indicate which natural disasters occurred in 
Norway that justify the increase from NOK 74.5 million in 2020 to NOK  95.4 million in 2021?  
AG-IMS ID 104155: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through producer retirement programmes  
With regard to paragraph 9 of Annex 2, how many producers benefited from the NOK  68.5 million 
in 2021 to be able to retire? What percentage  of production do these re tirements represent?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 42 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 104156: Question by Paraguay , Brazil  - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
With regard to paragraph 12 of Annex 2, could Norway please reply to the following questions 
(co-sponsored by Brazil):  
a. Norway  offers programmes for organic production under advisory services 
(paragraph  2(d)), marketing services (paragraph 2(f)) and environmental programmes 
(paragraph 12).  
- Could Norway please explain the different types of support it provides for organic 
productio n and how each of these types of support meets the requirements of the various 
paragraphs of Annex 2 under which they are being notified?  
- In follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 100083, could Norway please provide a copy of the 
legislation establishing the organic production requirements?  
- What products are subsidized and what is the volume of subsidized production?  
- How many producers benefit?  
- What practices are subsidized?  
- Please indicate the DS:2 table corresponding to the organic production subsidies notified 
under paragraph 12 of Annex 2.  
b. We also note that Norway notifies the payment of taxes on pesticide usage for producers 
as negative support under non -product -specific  AMS. Why did it decide to notify these 
taxes as Amber Box, but organic production subsidies as Green Box?  
c. The amount  notified for the national environmental programme increased from 
NOK 4,516.1  million in 2020 to NOK 4610.8 million in 2021. What are the r easons for this 
increase?  
d. The amount notified for the national environmental programme increased from 
NOK 718.7  million in 2020 to NOK 748.7 million in 2021. What are the reasons for this 
increase and which regions benefited?  
e. What is the environmental obj ective of protecting the agricultural landscapes and cultural 
heritage covered by the national and regional environmental programmes?  
f. What is the difference between the protection of agricultural landscapes and cultural 
heritage under the national and regi onal environmental programmes and the "Particularly 
valuable agricultural landscapes, including in World Heritage Areas", which are notified as 
a fourth sub -section under paragraph 12 of Annex 2? Could Norway please indicate the 
DS:2 table corresponding to  that sub -section?  
AG-IMS ID 104157: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
With regard to paragraph 12 of Annex 2, could Norway please reply to the following questions:  
a. In follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 100083, with regard to paragraph 14 and the support 
notified for the vacation and replacement  scheme that is considered as Green Box by 
Norway, and considering that paragraph 14 does not expressly permit payment for inputs 
or the use of production factors, that paragraph 13 of Annex 3 clearly refers to input 
subsidies as other non -exempt measures and that labour is a key factor in production, 
how is Norway's vacation and replacement scheme consistent with Green Box criteria and 
what justification can Norway provide for not classifying this scheme as non -product -
specific AMS?  
b. With regard to the AMS , MPS increased from NOK 5,299 million in 2020 to 
NOK 5,879  million in 2021. What are the reasons for this increase?  
c. What are the reasons for the increase in subsidy prices for wheat, barley, oats, rye, 
oilseeds and milk? The price for cereals in particula r has reached a record high due to an 
increase in world prices.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 104046: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The European Union notes a sharp decrease in Norway 's current total AMS for pork from 
NOK 2 486.3  million in calendar year 2020 to NOK 1 334.17 million in calendar year 2021. This 
decrease seems to mainly be attributable to a decrease in eligible production of pork in the 
calculation of market price support from 123.3 million kilograms in calendar year 20 20 to 63  million 
kilograms in calendar year 2021. According to footnote 7 to Supporting Table DS:5 the eligible 
production of pork in Norway 's calculation of market price support is defined as follows both for 
calendar year 2020 and calendar year 2021:  
"Eligible production of pork includes deliveries to slaughterhouse, direct sales and on 
farm consumption. Sows and boars used for breeding are not eligible for the applied 
administered price. " 
Could Norway please explain the dramatic fall in eligible producti on of pork between calendar 
year 2020 and 2021?  
2.4.10   Pakistan ( G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/PAK/20/Corr.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104088: Question  by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/PAK/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/PAK/19/Corr.1 , and 
G/AG/N/PAK/20/Corr.1  Pakistan has updated the notified values for "Public stockholding f or food 
security purposes " for each of the marketing years 2012/2013 through 2015/2016. In each case the 
reported figure went from zero to over USD 100 million, with the highest year being 2015/2016 at 
USD 148.3 million.  
a. Do these amounts include governmen t expenditures on accumulation and release of public 
stocks, or only expenditures on storage?  
b. If only storage, please provide the annual expenditures related to the accumulation and 
release of public stocks.  
2.4.11   Paraguay ( G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104095: Question  by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG/N/PRY/36 , the monetary value of the measure titled "Project to restore family farming 
production systems " for calendar year 2021 increased significantly to USD 21.7 million from 
USD 7.8 million in the 2020 notification.  
What accounts for the sharp increase in support for this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 104091: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
In G/AG/N/PRY/36  covering calendar year 2021, in Supporting Table DS:1, Paraguay notified the 
measu re "Agricultural census and surveys " under "2 (c). Training services. " In the 2020 notification 
(G/AG/N/PRY/34) the measure named "Agricultural census and surveys " is notified under "2 (h) 
Other general services. "  
Please explain the change in the classification of this measure to training services.  
2.4.12   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of ( G/AG/N/SAU/24 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104089: Question  by New Zealand - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
New Zealand would welcome more details regarding Saudi Arabia 's public stockholding  (PSH) 
programmes ' mechanis ms. Can Saudi Arabia provide a description of how the programme(s) 
operates?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 104092: Question by New Zealand - Market price support  
New Zealand notes that calendar year 2019 was the first time since 2015 that MPS for wheat has 
been notified. Can the Kindgom of Saudi Arabia give an idea of why MPS was used in 2019, and 
further give an explanation as to why support is exceeding de minimis ? 
2.4.13   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/122 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104093: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that Switzerland 's latest DS:1 notification, covering calendar year 2021, details 
Amber Box domestic support for a range of commodities. This includes support that is as high as 
285% of the value of production (wool), in addition to support across a range of commodities that 
is several times above the de minimis  entitlement (tobacco, oilseeds, soya beans, other grain 
legumes, sugar beet, milk and milk products).  
Australia asks how Switzerland assesses alternative policies including other, less production and 
trade-distorting forms of domestic support. Is legislation assessed on the basis of impact to trade 
and competitiveness.  
AG-IMS ID 104094 : Question by New Zealand - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
New Zealand would welcome additional information regarding what s upport activities are comprised 
under what Switzerland notifies as "payment for services provided in the general interest (protection 
and maintenance of the countryside, safeguarding of the viability of rural areas) ", under Supporting 
Table DS:1, 6. Decoup led income support.  
AG-IMS ID 104158: Question by Para guay , Brazil  - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Regarding the programmes notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2, could Switzerland please 
explain:  
a. The difference between "Organic farming payments", which amount to CHF 66.8 million, 
and "Payments for special ecological services", which include organic farming and amount 
to CHF  26.2 million.  
b. What are the environmental objectives of animal welfare programmes and landscape 
quality payments ? 
c. How is the product -specific support granted under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 under the 
following  programmes consistent with the criteria of Annex 2?: "Payments for the 
extensive farming of cereals, sunflowers, high -protein peas, field beans an d colza"; 
"Payments for pasture -based milk and meat production"; "Payments for two -phase low -
nitrogen swine feeding"; and "Payments for the reduction of plant protection products in 
sugar beet growing, viticulture and fruit -farming".  
d. Please indicate the a mounts granted, disaggregated by product for programmes covering 
multiple crops.  
e. What volume of production, disaggregated by product, benefits from each of these subsidy 
programmes?  
f. How many farmers benefit from these programmes?  
g. Beyond the products covered by each programme, how do the programmes "Payments for 
the extensive farming of cereals, sunflowers, high -protein peas, field beans and colza" and 
"Payments for the reduction of plant protection products in sugar beet growing, viticulture 
and fruit -farming" differ in terms of design and objectives?  
h. As well  as organic production subsidies, sugar beet receives subsidies under the crop 
premium scheme as Amber Box MPS, amounting to 38.34% of the value of production. G/AG/W/231  
 
- 45 - 
 
  Could Switzerland please con firm the method used to produce the sugar beet that benefits 
from Amber Box subsidies?  
AG-IMS ID 104008: Question  by United Kingdom, Paraguay - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The United Kingdom thanks Switzerland for their recent submission of G/AG/N/CHE/122 . We note 
that whilst keeping within its total AMS commitment level, Switzerland 's product specific domestic 
support for Milk and Milk Products is 17.65% of their value of production (VoP), increasing from 
16.66% VoP notified in G/AG/N/CHE/114 .  
Could Switzerland please explain the reasons for this increase? Additionally, c ould Switzerland please 
share how they minimise the trade -distorting impacts of this support?  
2.4.14   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/122 , G/AG/N/CHE/114 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104087: Question  by New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
New Zealand thanks Switzerland for their previous answer to question AG -IMS ID 101082 . We note 
that product specific AMS for milk and milk products in Switzerland 's most recent notification 
(G/AG/N/CHE/122 ) has increased by approximately 10 CHF million over Switzerland 's previous DS:1 
notification ( G/AG/N/CHE/114 ).  
a. Can Switzerland offer additional information as to why this increase took place through 
the calendar year?  
b. To repeat question AG -IMS ID 101082 , has Switzerland carried out any analysis regarding 
the potential trade distorting impacts of this support that they are able to share?  
2.4.15   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/166 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104090: Question by Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS :2) 
Australia notes that the United States Supporting Table DS:4 listed product specific AMS for 
'livestock ' under the Livestock forage disaster assistance program  and reported it as de minimis . 
Publicly available information ( https://www.disasterassistance.gov/get -assistance/forms -of-
assistance/5801#:~:text=The%20Livestock% 20Forage%20Disaster%20Program,due%20to%20a
%20qualifying%20drought ) indicates that "the livestock that would normally graze your land may 
include: Beef and Dairy cattle; Beefalo, Buffalo, Bison; Deer, Elk, Reindeer; Alpacas, Llamas, Emus; 
and Equine, Goats,  Sheep. "  
Australia asks whether the US : 
a. is able to apportion its 'livestock ' AMS so that it is reported on a product -specific basis.  
b. Sees any risk of it, in effect, exceeding its product -specific de minimis  cap such as for 
dairy.  
c. Sees any risk that it m ay be under -reporting its product -specific AMS, such as for beef 
cattle and calves, sheep and lambs.  
AG-IMS ID 104104: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that the United States Supporting Table DS:4 listed pr oduct specific AMS for 'hay 
and forage ' and reported it as de minimis . 
Australia asks whether : 
a. the support provided for hay and forage could be considered an input subsidy, therefore 
and constitute product -specific support for livestock.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 46 - 
 
  b. The US is able to apportion its 'hay and forage ' AMS so that it is reported on a product -
specific basis.  
AG-IMS ID 104106: Question  by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the United States for its response to AG -IMS ID 103120  regarding support notified 
under 2(g) infrastructural services. Under paragraph 2(g), Annex II, the Agreement on Agriculture 
specifies that "in all cases the expenditure shall  be directed to the provision or construction of capital 
works only, and shall exclude the subsidized provision of on -farm facilities other than for the 
reticulation of generally available public utilities.  It shall not include subsidies to inputs or opera ting 
costs, or preferential user charges. " 
Australia notes that the US Government Accountability Office (GAO, accessed 
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao -23-106228 ) explains that in order to implemen t the crop 
insurance programme "USDA partners with private insurance companies, which sell and service 
insurance policies to farmers. The federal government's crop insurance costs include (1) subsidies 
to pay for part of a farmer's crop insurance premium ( over 60 % in recent years) and 
(2) compensation to the insurance companies for selling and servicing crop insurance policies. " 
Australia understands that the US reports domestic support under (1) as amber box support, but 
not support under (2) 'compensation  to the insurance companies for selling and servicing crop 
insurance policies '. 
a. Australia asks that the US explain how underwriting gains provided to insurance companies 
under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement program is considered the 'provision or 
const ruction of capital works '. 
b. Noting GAO 's characterisation of payments as 'compensation to the insurance companies 
for selling and servicing crop insurance policies ', Australia asks whether the cost of this 
compensation is borne by the United States Governme nt or through the policy premiums 
paid by farmers?  
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED  DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.5.1   China ( G/AG/N/CHN/66 , G/AG/N/CHN/67 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104159: Question  by Paraguay - Payments based on 85 per cent or less of 
the base level of production  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CHN/66 , could the People's Republic of China please indicate:  
a. Heavy metal contaminated areas that would receive the subsidies granted.  
b. The level of production affected, i.e., the effective reduction on the base level of 
production.  
c. The number of beneficiaries and the eligibility criteria.  
AG-IMS ID 104108: Question by United Sta tes of America, Canada, Australia - Payments 
based on 85 per cent or less of the base level of production  
In G/AG/N/CHN/66 , China indicates that the notified "subsidies of rice in husk " payment amount is 
subject to a limit calculated according to 85 % of the average annual production during the base 
period (2016 -2018).  
Please share what the figure is in metric tonnes  that corresponds to 85% of the average annual 
production of paddy rice.  
AG-IMS ID 104109: Question by Japan  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan welcomes that China su bmitted its DS:1 notifications for the period of CY2017 -2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/62 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 63, G/AG/N/CHN/ 64, G/AG/N/CHN/ 65) and DS:2 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CHN/66 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 67) respectively.    G/AG/W/231  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Assuming that G/AG/N/CHN/66  is submitted in accordance with the fact that  subsidies for rice in 
husk (direct payments), which have been notified since CY2018 notification, is now classified under 
the Blue Box in the CY2020 notification. Japan would like to ask the following questions :  
  
a. Could China provide us with an URL if the legislation reference of (2) Caijian  [2020] No.84  
is publicly available?   
CNY 18,685 hundred million of subsidies for rice in husk  is classified under the Blue Box  
in 2020 and the same amount of CNY  18,685 hundred million  Producer Subsidies (rice in 
husk) were notified under Amber Box in 2018 and 2019.  
b. Do the subsidies cover both indica and japonica rice? What is the eligible region and other 
requirements to receive the subsidies?   
c. Could China explain the re asonable assumption for adopting 2016 to 2018 as the base 
period for the calculation of the annual production according to Article 6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture as stated in (3) of the notification?  
AG-IMS ID 104110 : Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan welcomes that China submitted its DS:1 notifications for the period of CY2017 -2020 
(G/AG/N/CHN/62 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 63, G/AG/N/CHN/ 64, G/AG/N/CHN/ 65) and DS:2 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CHN/66 , G/AG/N/CHN/ 67) respectively.  
Direct payments to soybean producers, which were changed from "Target Price " to "Producer 
Subsidies " in 2017 and were notified under Amber Box in the 2017 -2019 DS:1 notifications, is now 
classified under Blue Box in the 2020 DS:1 notificatio n.  
Has there been a change in "Soybean producer subsidies " notified in DS:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/CHN/67 ) from the previous subsidies for soybeans? What are the significant changes?   
AG-IMS ID 104105: Question by Canada , Australia  - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
China submitted two Table DS:2 notifica tions for "rice in husk ( G/AG/N/CHN/66 )" and "corn and 
soybeans ( G/AG/N/CHN/67 )" under the Article 6.5 "Blue Box " criteria. Canada would like to seek 
clarification.   
According to the 2023 No.1 Central Document released by the State Council 
(http://www.gov.cn/z hengce/2023 -02/13/content_5741370.htm ), it outlines policy priorities to 
increase domestic grain production and guaranteed food production capacity (e.g., rapeseed, 
soybean, wheat, corn, rice) through various domestic support measures.   
Could China explain  how policy objectives for corn, soybeans, and rice outlined in the 2023 No.1 
Central Document meet the production -limiting  requirement under Article 6.5?  
AG-IMS ID 104047: Question by European Union - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
Direct support to rice and soya bean farmers  
 
Since 2020, China has been notifying its direct support for rice and soybean farmers  in the Blue 
Box. The French authorities would like China to supplement its presentation of these mechanisms 
by specifying the detailed calculation of the maximum surface area that can be the subject of a 
subsidy .2 
Since 2020, the notification has stated that price support for wheat and rice  was reviewed and 
a cap on purchased quantities was introduced.  
a. Can China provide specific details about how the new system works?  
 
2 Notifications of support data 66 and 67 (G/AG/CHN/66 and G/AG/CHN/67).  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 48 - 
 
  b. Can it confirm that once the maximum quantities are reached, support mechanisms no 
longer apply?  
AG-IMS ID 104111: Question  by United States of America, Canada - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/CHN/67  China notified the measure "Soybean producer subsidies " based on domesti c 
legislation titled "Notice of Improving the Policies of Corn and Soybean Producers Subsidies (Caijian 
[2020] No.41). "  
c. Please explain why and how this "Soybean producer subsidy " measure improves policies 
for corn subsidies as noted in the title of the me asure.  
d. Is there a relation between this measure and "Corn producer subsidies ", which are both 
notified in Supporting Table DS:3 of G/AG/N/CHN/65 ? If so, please explain.  
AG-IMS ID 104160: Question by Paraguay , Brazil  - Payments based on fixed areas or 
yields  
With regard to notification  G/AG/N/CHN/67 , could the People's Republic of China please indicate:  
a. The reasons for including soybean production, previously subject to price support 
programmes.  
b. The hyperlink to  the web page where the whole measure can be found (Caijian [2020] 
No. 41). 
c. The level of production affected, i.e., the effective reduction on the base level of 
production.  
d. The number of beneficiaries and the eligibility criteria.  
e. The reasons why the legis lation refers to two products, one of which was already covered 
by a previous programme.  
f. The differences between the programme covered by this notification and the previous Blue 
Box programme for corn.  
g. The DS:2 notification where the specific characteristi cs of the previous programme for 
corn can be found.  
AG-IMS ID 104116: Question by United States of America, Canada - Payments based on 
fixed areas or yields  
In G/AG/N/CHN/67  China indicates that the notified "Soybean producer subsidies " payment amount 
is subject to a limit calculated according to soybean sown areas and fixed yield in the base 
period  (2019) in Northeast China.  
a. Please share what is meant by "Northeast China " – does this include certain provinces or 
parts of provinces?  
b. Please share data on sown area and fixed yield in the base per iod used to determine the 
limit and what the limit is.  
c. Please describe how payments are calculated, including how the payment rates are 
determined.  
AG-IMS ID 104117 : Question by United States of America, Canada - Article 6.5 (Blue 
Box)  
On 14 December 2022 China submitted two Table DS:2 notifications, one reporting "Soybean 
producer subsidies " announced in domestic legislation titled, "Notice of Improving Policies of Corn G/AG/W/231  
 
- 49 - 
 
  and Soybean Producers Subsidies (Caijian [2020] No.41) " and the other reporting paddy rice 
subsidies announced in domestic legislation titled, "Notice of Adjusting and Improving the Policy of 
Subsidies of Rice in Husk (Caijian [2020] No.84). "  
Please provide copies of or website links to the identified measures.  
2.5.2   Paraguay ( G/AG/N/P RY/39 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104115 : Question by Canada , Australia  - General services: marketing and 
promotion services  
In G/AG/N/PRY/39 , Paraguay notified that the Agricultural Market Integration Project (PIMA) aims 
to improve the integration of producers in the eastern region into agricultural markets.  The activities 
would cover the entire value chain with the objective of bringing diverse and high -quality products 
onto the market.   
a. Could Paraguay indicate if this funding is directed at industry associations/organizations 
community groups or if it's directed at producers or processors?   
b. Could Paraguay elaborate on the types of activities that would be covered to support the 
export of agricultural products?  And which products would be exported?  
c. Could Paraguay provide additional information as to how the Wor ld Bank 's environmental 
or social policy objectives interplay with PIMA eligibility criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 2 
(f) "marketing and promotional services "? 
2.5.3   Singapore ( G/AG/N/SGP/40 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104114: Question  by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through i nvestment aids  
Australia notes that Singapore 's latest DS:2 notification lists a new programme, the Agri -Food 
Cluster Transformation.  
Australia asks that Singapore provide information on how the Agri -Food Cluster Transformation is in 
conformity with subpa ragraphs (a) - (f) of paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 104113: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
In G/AG/N/SGP/40  Singapore reported information on the Agri -Food Cluster Tra nsformation  (ACT) 
Fund. This programme appears on Singapore 's Table DS:1 notification for the first time for calendar 
year 2021 ( G/AG/N/SGP/39 ).  
What eligibility criteri a must applicants meet to take advantage of this programme?  
2.5.4   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/18 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104048: Question by European Union - Classification of measures  
On what basis are the beneficiaries of "Small Grants - Agricultural Diversification ", "Small Grants – 
Efficiency " and "Horticult ure Development " considered to be suffering from "objectively 
demonstrated structural disadvantages " in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 50 - 
 
  2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.6.1   Israel ( G/AG/N/ISR/87 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104112: Question  by Aust ralia - Quantity of total exports  
Australia thanks Israel for its latest ES:1 notification which states that no export subsidies have been 
provided since 2018. Australia also notes that Israel continues to report large volumes of exports 
for a range of com modities (non -citrus fruit, citrus, fresh vegetables, fresh cut flowers).  
Australia asks Israel for additional information about how production in these industries has adjusted 
to the removal of export subsidies and how it has maintained strong export per formance post -
implementation of its commitments under the Nairobi Decision.  
2.7  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT  OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.7.1   United States of America  (G/AG/N/USA/167 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104084: Question by Switzerland - Quantity and concessionality of food aid  
Switzerland thanks the US for its latest NF:1 notification. According to information contained therein, 
the U.S. dollar value of the commodities donated under Title II, Food for Progress and Food for 
Education food aid programmes, amounted to USD 821,603,8 22 in Fiscal Year 2020/2021. A part of 
that amount was monetized.  
a. What is the rationale behind monetizing food aid? Can the US please share information on 
its local or regional market analysis that was completed before monetization occurred?  
b. In their answ er to Switzerland at the TPR, the US informed that the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) is currently not implementing programmes that 
include the monetization of food aid. Is our understanding correct that, therefore, no 
amount of the US f ood assistance under Title II is currently being monetized?  
c. Does the US have plans to continuously reduce or eliminate monetization?  
3  OVERDUE  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 104107: Question  by Paraguay, United States of America  
Egypt's most recent notification (G/AG/N/EGY/3), which covers various years, was submitted in 
November 2017. Since then, the Committee on Agriculture has been unable to review the subsidies 
provided by Egypt. Could Egypt please:  
a. Explain the reasons for this delay.  
b. Provide an update on the status of its notifications for the last five years and indicate when 
Members could expect to receive them for review.  
4  DEFERRED REPLIES  
4.1  MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
4.1.1   South Africa's poultry  TRQ administrat ion (SIM 788)  
4.1.1.1   Question by Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 104162 ) 
Uruguay would like to resubmit the questions in AG -IMS ID 103045  - SIM 788: South Africa 's poultry 
TRQ administration, which wer e presented in the 103rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture to 
the delegation of South Africa, given that no replies have been provided so far.  G/AG/W/231  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Uruguay notes that, while of these some questions may refer to South Africa 's MA:2 notifications, 
others re fer more broadly to the implementation of South Africa 's commitments under the reform 
programme in the area of market access. Therefore, Uruguay invites South Africa to provide replies 
to these questions during  the 104th  meeting of the Committee on Agricul ture: 
Uruguay would like to ask the following questions regarding South Africa's TRQ for meat and edible 
offal of poultry (ZAFQ005), which according to South Africa's most recent MA:2 notifications has  not 
been opened in the years 2017 -2020 given that "the MFN applied rates for the corresponding tariff 
lines were below the in -quota tariff rate ". 
a. Is this a fully erga omnes  TRQ, or are there any country -specific allocations?  
b. We understand that South Africa is in the process of elaborating its MA:2 for 2021 ; 
however, we would like to ask if this TRQ has been opened in the years 2021 and 2022. 
In other words, is this TRQ currently functional?  
c. According  to South Africa 's WTO Schedule, we understand that maximum in -quota tariff 
rates would equal 20% of the MFN bound rates, which vary from 82% (for HS 0207.11, 
0207.12 and 0207.14) to 37% (for HS 0207.13). This would mean that maximum in -quota 
tariff rates would equal 16,4% and 7,4% ad valorem (i.e. 20% of the bound rates). Is this 
understanding correct? If not, c ould South Africa indicate its maximum in -quota tariff rates 
for the relevant products?  
d. Which have been the applied MFN rates for the relevant products, and in particular tariff 
lines 020714 91, 020714 93, 020714 95, 020714 96, 020714 97, 020714 98 and 020 714 
99, in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022?  
e. Paragraph 3.19 of Annex 4 (South Africa) of the last WTO Secretariat's TPR report for 
SACU (2015) says that TRQs  for agricultural products "are administered through import 
licences issued by the Department of Agriculture on a quarterly or bi -annual basis and 
applicants need to register with SARS and the DTI. The licence allocation system takes 
into account: Black Ec onomic Empowerment (BEE) status of the applicants, i.e. eligibility 
of companies under the Broad -Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (Act No. 53 of 
2003); the market share of applicants, derived from historical data for the past three 
years; the number of  applicants; and the quota available. Out -of-quota imports are subject 
to the SACU CET, while lower (reduced) tariff rates apply to in -quota imports". Could South 
Africa confirm whether this information is still accurate, and whether it is applicable 
to ZAFQ005?  
f. Are there any other TRQs for the import of poultry meat to South Africa, in addition to the 
aforementioned ZAFQ005?  
 
__________