G/AG/W/ 226 
 
11 November 2022  
(22-8468) Page: 1/45 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 21 -22 NOVEMBER 20221  
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of noon 
on 9 November 2022 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/62.  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
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/ 226 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.1   Argentina's  currency controls and import licensing rules (SIM 768)  ................................ ... 7 
1.1.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103012)  ................................ ...........  7 
1.2   Argentina's  foreign exchange regime to facilitate soy exports (SIM 769)  ............................  7 
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103041)  ................................ .......................  7 
1.2.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103013)  ................................ ...........  7 
1.3   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related ser vices (SIM 770)  .........................  7 
1.3.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103078, 103079, 103080, 103081,  
103082, 103083, 103084, 103085 ) ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
1.4   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties  
in excess of the bound rates applied on ag ricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ ....... 8 
1.4.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103061, 103062, 103063, 103064, 103065)  . 8 
1.5   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.5.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103070, 103069, 103071,  
103072 103073, 103074)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 
1.6   China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ ................  9 
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103087)  ................................ ................................ . 9 
1.7   China's recent agricultural policy modifications (SIM 774)  ................................ ................  9 
1.7.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103004)  ................................ ................................ ..... 9 
1.8   China's pork reserve programme  (SIM 775)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.8.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103015)  ................  9 
1.8.2   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103016)  ...............  10 
1.8.3   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103017)  ...............  10 
1.9   China's swine support (SIM 776)  ................................ ................................ ................  11 
1.9.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103014)  ...... 11 
1.10   China's Export Restrict ions on corn starch (SIM 777)  ................................ ...................  11 
1.10.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103042)  ................................ ....................  11 
1.10.2    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS ID 103051)  ........................  11 
1.11   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport (SIM 778)  ........  12 
1.11.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103075, 103076, 103077)  .......................  12 
1.12   EU's Temporary Framework for State Aid (SIM 779)  ................................ ....................  12 
1.12.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103089)  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
1.13   EU's Blue Box programmes (SIM 780)  ................................ ................................ ....... 13 
1.13.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103136)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.14   France - "European Food and Agricultural Resilience Mission" initiative (SIM 781)  ............  13 
1.14.1    Question by Brazil, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 103005)  ................................ ....................  13 
1.15   European Union, Norway, Iceland  – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  .................  13 
1.15.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103066, 103067, 103068)  .......................  13 
1.16   India's dairy subsidies  (SIM 783)  ................................ ................................ ..............  14 G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103090)  ................................ ..............................  14 
1.17   India's food security policies (SIM 784)  ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America, Japan, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 103027)  ...............  14 
1.18   Republic of Korea 's tariff policies (SIM 785)  ................................ ................................  15 
1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103095)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 103124)  ................................ ........................  15 
1.19   Mexico's ban on exports  of agricultural products (SIM 786)  ................................ ...........  15 
1.19.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103043)  ................................ ....................  15 
1.19.2    Question by Switzerland ( AG-IMS ID 103097)  ................................ ..........................  15 
1.19.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103030)  ................................ ........  16 
1.20   Morocco's export restriction of chickpea (Licence exportation pois chiches) (SIM 787)  ....... 16 
1.20.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103044)  ................................ ....................  16 
1.21   South Africa's poultry TRQ administration (SIM 788)  ................................ ....................  16 
1.21.1    Question by Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 1030 45) ................................ ..............................  16 
1.22   Türkiye's stone fruit support  (SIM 789)  ................................ ................................ ...... 17 
1.22.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103098)  ................................ ..............................  17 
1.23   U.S. Inflation Reduction Act  2022 (SIM 790)  ................................ ...............................  17 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103100)  ................................ ..............................  17 
1.24   U.S. expanded insurance coverage  for soybean and  grain sorghum (SIM 791)  .................  17 
1.24.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103002)  ................................ ................................ .. 17 
1.25   U.S. corn support (SIM 792)  ................................ ................................ .....................  18 
1.25.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 103049)  ................................ ................................ .. 18 
1.26   U.S. fertilizers (SIM 793)  ................................ ................................ .........................  18 
1.26.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103053)  ................................ ....................  18 
1.27   U.S. biofuel infrastructure grants  (SIM 794)  ................................ ...............................  18 
1.27.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103055)  ................................ ....................  18 
1.28   U.S. Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production  (SIM 795)  ................................ .........  19 
1.28.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103138)  ................................ ................................ ... 19 
1.29   U.S. Farm Bill 2023 (SIM 796)  ................................ ................................ ..................  19 
1.29.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103139)  ................................ ................................ ... 19 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RA ISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .........  19 
1.30   Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ ... 19 
1.30.1    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand (AG -IMS ID  103048)  ..... 19 
1.31   Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ .............................  19 
1.31.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 103130)  ................................ ........................  19 
1.32   Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  ................................ ............................  20 
1.32.1    Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 103086)  ................................ ....................  20 
1.33   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions (SIM 512)  ...........................  20 
1.33.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103135)  ................................ ................................ ... 20 
1.34   China's cotton reserves pur chasing system (SIM 295)  ................................ ..................  21 G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103019)  ................................ ........  21 
1.34.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103020)  ................................ ........  21 
1.34.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103021)  ................................ ........  21 
1.34.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103022)  ................................ ........  21 
1.35   China's Cotton Poli cies (SIM 647)  ................................ ................................ ..............  21 
1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103018)  ................................ ........  21 
1.36   Ecuador's new milk law (SIM 766)  ................................ ................................ .............  22 
1.36.1    Question by United States of America, New Zealand, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103023)  ...... 22 
1.37   Egypt's Export Prohibitions on Agricultural Products (SIM 597)  ................................ ...... 22 
1.37.1    Question by Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 103088)  ................................ .. 22 
1.38   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558) ................................ ...... 23 
1.38.1    Question by Brazil,  Argentina, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 103006)  ................................ .... 23 
1.39   India's export restrictions on  wheat (SIM 744)  ................................ ............................  23 
1.39.1    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 103060)  ......................  23 
1.40   India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ...........  23 
1.40.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103025)  ................................ ................................ ..............  23 
1.40.2    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Ukraine,  
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103026)  ................................ .....................  24 
1.41   India's other support for rice (SIM 743)  ................................ ................................ ..... 24 
1.41.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103029)  ................................ ................................ ..............  24 
1.42   India's price support  (SIM 753)  ................................ ................................ .................  24 
1.42.1    Question by United States of America, Paragua y, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103024)  ...........  24 
1.43   India's export restriction on sugar (SIM 420)  ................................ ..............................  25 
1.43.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103091)  ................................ ..............................  25 
1.44   India's export restrictions on wheat (SIM 744)  ................................ ............................  25 
1.44.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103092)  ................................ ..............................  25 
1.45   India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  ................................ ...................  26 
1.45.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, United  Kingdom, 
Paraguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103028)  ................................ ................................ ............  26 
1.46   Indonesia's stockholding programmes (SIM 326)  ................................ .........................  26 
1.46.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 103093)  ................................ ................................  26 
1.47   Japan's stockpiles of skim milk powder (S IM 754) ................................ ........................  27 
1.47.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103094)  ................................ ..............................  27 
1.48   Malaysia's chicken and egg subsidies and export restrictions for chicken (SIM 745)  ..........  27 
1.48.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103096)  ................................ ..............................  27 
1.49   Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  ................................ .............................  27 
1.49.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103137)  ................................ ................................ ... 27 
1.50   Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultur al products (SIM 729)  ................................ ..... 28 
1.50.1    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 103054)  ..... 28 
1.51   Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  ................................ ................................ ...........  28 G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.51.1    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103031)  ................  28 
1.52   U.S. American Rescue Plan Act (SIM 689)  ................................ ................................ .. 29 
1.52.1    Question by Aus tralia (AG -IMS ID 103099)  ................................ ..............................  29 
1.53   United States' soybean programmes (SIM 387)  ................................ ...........................  29 
1.53.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 103046)  ................................ ................................ .. 29 
1.53.2    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 103047)  ................................ ................................ .. 29 
1.54   U.S. funding for enviro nmental action (SIM 763)  ................................ .........................  30 
1.54.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 103107)  ................................ ........................  30 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  30 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  .....................  30 
2.1.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/57)  ................................ ................................ .........................  30 
2.1.2   Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/65, G/AG/N/ISL/66)  ................................ ................................ . 31 
2.1.3   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/54, G/AG/N/MYS/55)  ................................ .............................  31 
2.1.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/162)  ................................ .............................  31 
2.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  32 
2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129, G/AG/N/AUS/129/Rev.1)  ................................ ................  32 
2.2.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/142)  ................................ ................................ ...................  32 
2.2.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/151)  ................................ ................................ .....................  32 
2.2.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/79)  ................................ ................................ .............  33 
2.2.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/28, G/AG/N/GEO/25) ................................ ..............................  33 
2.2.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/277)  ................................ ................................ ........................  34 
2.2.7   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/53)  ................................ ................................ .....................  34 
2.2.8   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/55, G/AG/N/MEX/56)  ................................ ...............................  35 
2.2.9   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/132)  ................................ ................................ ..............  37 
2.2.10    Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1, G/AG/N/PAK/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/PAK/19/Corr.1)  ....... 37 
2.2.11    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/34)  ................................ ................................ ...................  37 
2.2.12    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/85)  ................................ ................................ .................  37 
2.2.13    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/37)  ................................ ................................ ..... 37 
2.2.14    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  ................................ ................................ .........  38 
2.2.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  ................................ ...........................  38 
2.2.16    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166)  ................................ ...........................  39 
2.3   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ..........  43 
2.3.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/68)  ................................ ................................ .........................  43 
2.3.2   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/14)  ................................ ................................ ...........  43 
2.4   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............  44 
2.4.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/77/Rev .2) ................................ ................................ .... 44 
2.4.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ............  45 
2.5   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .......................  45 
2.5.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/269)  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
2.5.2   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/36/Rev.1)  ................................ ..............................  45 G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
3.1   Uruguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  45 
 
 
  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Argentina's  currency controls and import licensing rules  (SIM 768)  
1.1.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103012 ) 
Argentina 's currency controls and import licensing rules have made it more difficult for farmers to 
import crucial inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and agricultural machinery.  At a time when world 
grain and oilseed stocks are low and prices are elevated, does Argentina have a plan to eliminate 
these measures to allow farmers to  meet global demand for food?  
 
1.2  Argentina's  foreign exchange regime to facilitate soy exports  (SIM 769)  
1.2.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103041 ) 
Argentin a's has announced in September a special exchange rate for the country 's soy producers in 
a bid to incentivise exports, shore up central bank reserves and avoid a currency devaluation. 
Exporters of soy, the country 's top commodity, will be able to sell dol lars from their shipments 
abroad at a rate of 200 pesos per dollar, more lucrative than the official rate of 139 per dollar.  
 
a. Could Argentina provide more descriptive information on the justifications for such a 
measure and the application of the new excha nge rate for soy exports, including as of 
when it will become applicable?  
b. Has Argentina noted any recent change of trade patterns for soy in the region?  
c. How does this measure affect Argentina 's commitments in relation to export subsidies?  
1.2.2   Question by Uni ted States of America (AG -IMS ID 103013 ) 
In September 2022, Argentine Minister of Economy Sergio Massa announced a special foreign 
exchange regime to facilit ate soy exports. The measure allows soy farmers to receive a preferential 
exchange rate of 200 pesos per U.S. dollar – compared to the official rate of 142 pesos per U.S.  dollar 
– until the end of September.  
a. Please provide additional information on the ru les that applied to this programme and its 
payment mechanism to producers.  
b. Please explain how this measure complies with WTO rules, in particularly export subsidy 
and export subsidy circumvention rules.  
1.3  Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, N ew Zealand, United Kingdom, 
Unites States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
1.3.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103078 , 103079 , 103080 , 103081 , 
103082 , 103083 , 103084 , 103085 ) 
The following restrictive measures have been introduced against the Russia n Federation  with severe 
negative effects on domestic agricultural  production cycle and the global food security:   
a. Prohibitions to provide technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to 
certain goods, including agriculture goods, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those 
goods.  
b. Prohibitions to provide financing or financial assistance related to certain goods, including 
agriculture goods, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those goods.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 8 - 
 
  c. Prohibitions to provide insurance and reinsurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export 
of those goods.  
d. Application of financial restrictions on Russian Agriculture Bank assets, as well as 
prohibitions to deal with their assets.  
To our regret, we have to acknowledge that for the most part, these are the developing, includi ng 
net-food-importing developing countries and the least -developed countries, that pay the highest 
price for such restrictive measures.  
Could Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Norway, Japan, New Zealand, the 
United  Kingdom and the United Stat es, please, clarify how the application of such measures 
contributes to global food security. In particular, whether they believe that the observed disruptions 
in the supply chains of goods and services related to the production and distribution of agricul tural 
products, including wheat and fertilizers, and increased volatility in the global agricultural market 
should be considered as useful contributions to food security.   
1.4   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods  (SIM 771)  
1.4.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103061 , 103062 , 103063 , 103064 , 
103065 ) 
In 2022, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have 
introduced import tariffs on agricultural products in excess of their bound rates violating a number 
of their bound rate commitments.  
Such an apparent violation of the WTO commitments contributed to deteriorations in the agricultural 
markets.  
We expect information from mentioned Members about the timing of elimination of the 
inconsistencies as part of their contributions to world food security and on compl iance with tariff 
commitments.  
1.5  Canada, European Union, Iceland, Norway, New Zealand , Japan – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  
1.5.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103070 , 103069 , 103071 , 103072  
103073 , 103074 ) 
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited the sale, supply, transfer or export of goods 
which, according to the Council Regulation № 833/2014, could contribute to the enhancement of the 
Russian Federations ' industrial capacities. Such goods, in pa rticular, include tractors, track -laying 
tractors and road tractors for semi -trailers, etc., which are used in the agricultural sector.  
Similar trade restrictions were undertaken by Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014), Norway 
(Decision  No. 1076), New Zealand (Regulation SL 2022/74), Canada (Regulation SOR/2014 -58) and 
Japan (Cabinet of Ministers Decision of 7 June 2022 on Measures Concerning the Situation 
in Ukraine).  
As one of the major suppliers of agricultural products, including critical foodstuffs and gra ins, in 
particular wheat, the Russian Federation ensures food security of a large number of countries, 
net-food importing developing countries included. However, the trade prohibitions and restrictions 
applied on agricultural machinery including spare part s already now has a negative impact on 
Russia 's agricultural output, which, in turn, will progressively contribute to the food crisis and 
jeopardize global food security in the long run.  
In this regard, we would like to find out how the application of such  measures correlates with the 
declared objective to mitigate the food security concerns.   G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.6  China's grain subsidies  (SIM 773)  
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103087 ) 
Australia notes recent media reports 
(https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202209/07/WS6317eab3a310fd2b29e765a5.html ) that "China 
has pledged to provide grain farm ers with subsidies totalling  10 billion yuan (USD 1.44  billion) from 
its central government budget to ease the impact of the rising prices of farm supplies and to boost 
farmers ' incentives to keep producing food.  
This year, the central government has alrea dy allocated 40 billion yuan in subsidies to grain 
farmers in three outlays, according to the Ministry of Finance. " 
Australia asks that China:  
a. outline the eligibility criteria for farmers receiving this subsidy ; and 
b. note how these measures will be classified in the context of notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture.  
1.7  China's recent agricultural policy modifications  (SIM 774)  
1.7.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103004 ) 
According to information available online, the period covered in China's latest notifications 
(2011 -2016) seems to represent the end of an agricultural policy cycle.  
For instance, according to a publication from the World Bank Group (Learni ng from Experience: 
Insights from China's Progress in Disaster Risk Management, available at 
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34090 ), China has put in place a large rura l 
insurance programmes, which, since 2014, has led to an insure d area coverage of more than 80% 
of its agricultural land. However, expenditures related to the government 's financial participation in 
such programs are not discernible in China`s notification . 
Recently the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic of China announced a 
new stimulus package, which includes, among others, a focus on stabilizing grain production, 
expanding soybean and oilseed production, and firming up sup plies of seeds, and attaches 
importance to the role of finance and insurance in supporting agriculture, would have been launched 
(http://www.moa.gov.cn/xw/zwdt/202206/t20220610_6402 176.htm ). 
In light of the above, could China inform:  
a. when it would be submitting its new DS:1 and, if applicable, DS:2 notifications;  
b. details of its rural insurance and in which supporting table it will be notified;  
c. if it would be open to make a descriptiv e presentation on its agricultural policies in the 
meantime.  
1.8  China's pork reserve programme  (SIM 775)  
1.8.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103015 ) 
Media reports on China 's purchases of pork for public stocks suggest the Chinese government 
announced purchases of pork for national reserves in June 2021 in order to support prices, and, at 
the time, the Chinese National Development an d Reform Commission had issued a level 1 warning 
on low hog farmer profits based on its monitoring of the hog -to-grain price ratio. Further, media 
reports indicated in early March that China undertook its first round of 2022 hog reserve purchases 
in an att empt to raise prices after a post -Lunar New Year slump.   G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 10 - 
 
  a. Please explain what factors are used to determine when to purchase pork for the central 
reserve.  
b. Please provide a copy of the measures that govern the hog price monitoring system and 
reserve purchase s.  
c. Does the National Development and Reform Commission 's price monitoring system 
provide a price floor for pork?  
d. Please explain how reserve purchase prices are determined for pork.  
e. Please provide data on the quantities of pork purchased and the purchase p rices for all 
reserve procurement instances in the last three years.  
1.8.2   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103016 ) 
On 6 Septembe r 2022 the State Council of the People 's Republic of China reported on its website 
that Chinese authorities would release pork from central reserves on 8 September.  The notice 
indicated that the action was being taken because "public holidays such as the M id-Autumn Festival 
and the National Day Holiday are around the corner. " In AG -IMS ID 92047, China stated that release 
of pork reserves would be made when there is a serious natural disaster, accident, or unexpected 
public sanitary events, etc.   
On 22 September 2022 the State Council of the People 's Republic of China reported on its website 
that two releases of reserve pork had already taken place in September, one on 8 September and 
one on 18 September.  The notice also reported that a third release of pork would take place that 
week.  The National Pork Reserve website reported a fourth release of pork planned for 
30 September.  News sources reported expectations that the amount of reserve pork released 
in September 2022 would reach 200,000 tonnes, the hig hest for any month on record.  
a. Please provide an update on what factors are used to determine when to release pork onto 
the domestic market.  
b. Please provide data on the quantities of pork released and the sale prices for the 
September 2022 releases, and any  other releases of pork since 2012.  
1.8.3   Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103017 ) 
On 16 September 2022 China News Service report ed that the sale price of pork reserves in China 
nationally and in all regions was less than the domestic market price.  
For example: on 9 September 2022 Heilongjiang News reported that the Harbin Municipal 
Government began a reserve pork release on 8 September.  The report indicated that Harbin would 
release 500 tonnes of reserve pork in two batches, one from 8 September through 13, and the other 
from 25 September through 30, to correspond with local holidays.  The article also stated : "the retail 
price of the stocked pork at the delivery point is unified at 12 yuan/half kilogram, which is more 
than 10% lower than the average retail price of the same grade pork in the domestic market.  
Residents are limited to 10 kilograms of reserve meat ". 
a. Please explain how reserve sale prices are determined for pork.  
b. Please explain how the sale price is determined when reserve pork is released at the 
municipal level in China.  
c. Please share with the Committee the price of reserve pork released in Harbin in 
September  2022.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.9  China's swine support  (SIM 776)  
1.9.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Brazil, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103014 ) 
It is understood that China implements va rious measures to support pork production in China beyond 
the "subsidy for breeding productive sows ", the only pork -related measure notified by China in its 
last domestic support notification for 2016.   
According to various Chinese media reports, it is est imated 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 inc reased swine insurance coverage.  In addition, various Chinese 
media reports also indicate that several provinces, including 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.  
1.10  China's Export Restrictions on corn starch  (SIM 777)  
1.10.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103042 ) 
Customs data show China 's corn starch exports fell to just 900 ton nes in August from more than 
40,000  tonnes in July and 23,240 ton nes a year earlier.  
The government has asked companies to suspend shipments to stabilize corn prices and contain 
inflation risks, according to an analyst at the Beijing Orient Agribusiness Consultan t Co. 
In this regard and in the absence of any official notification on Export restrictions, could China 
provide more information on:  
a. Duration of the measure – since when the measure has been in force? What is the 
envisaged end date of the measure?  
b. Could C hina provide more descriptive and detailed information on the nature of the 
measure?  
c. When does China intend to submit official notification to the WTO on export restriction of 
the staples concerned by the measure?  
d. What is the expected impact on the exports  of corn starch in the Region?  
1.10.2   Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS ID 103051 ) 
The United Kingdom understands that China has introduced an export restriction on corn starch. 
Could China please explain what consideration it has given to the effects of this measure on importing 
Members ' food security in accordance with Article 12.1(a)? Additionally, could China please provide 
an update on when it plans to notify this measure through the required ER:1 table?   G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.11  European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  (SIM 778)  
1.11.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 103075 , 103076 , 103077 ) 
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited for any road transport undertaking established 
in the Russian Federation to transport goods by road within the territory of the EU, including in 
transit (Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision 
No. 1076) and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  
Application of such measures only creates impediments for trade and impo ses conditions that can 
negatively affect the stability of global agricultural market.  
At the same time, according to the above -mentioned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland may authorize the transport of goods by a road transport undertaking 
established in the Russian Federation  if the competent authorities have determined that such 
transport is necessary for the purchase, import or transport of agricultural and food products, 
including wheat and fertilizers whose import, purchase  and transport is allowed under the 
Regulation.  
In our view, the above -mentioned provisions of the regulations can be interpreted ambiguously, and 
are inherently discretionary. Such situation can lead to overcompliance, which, in turn, results in 
non-application of the exemptions and de-facto restrictions  in respect of agricultural products.  
In this regard, we would be grateful if the EU, Norway and Iceland could clarify the following:  
a. Can the competent authorities withhold authorizations for the transport of goods by a road 
transport undertaking established in the Russian Federation  even if such transport is 
necessary for the purchase, import or transport of agricultural and food products, including 
wheat and fertilizers, given the wording used in the Regu lation?  
b. What is the procedure for obtaining such an authorization? And what regulations govern 
this procedure?  
c. How many authorizations have been issued under this Regulation to date?  
d. Is there an approved form of such an authorization?  
1.12  EU's Temporary Frame work for State Aid  (SIM 779)  
1.12.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103089 ) 
According to information available online, on 28 October, the European Commission announce d the 
extension of the EU's Temporary Framework for state aid, which was supposed to have been 
terminated by 30 June 2022.  
Sources:  https://competition -policy.ec.europa.eu/state -aid/coronavirus/temporary -framework_en ; 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_4622 > 
In light of the above, Brazil would appreciate if the EU could provide the following clarifications:  
a. Is this programme the same that was originally adopted upon the outbreak of the  
COVID -19 pandemic?  
b. Has the programme been operating under the same rules regarding eligibility and 
maximum payments since its adoption?  
c. How should Members expect to identify such state  aid in future DS:1 notifications by 
the EU? G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.13  EU's Blue Box programmes  (SIM 780)  
1.13.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103136 ) 
EU plans to implement a new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) at the start of 2023. In the past, 
the EU implemented Blue Box programmes to support the farmers. As per the domestic support 
notification for the marketing year 2019 -20, the EU provided the Blue  Box support based on fixed 
area and yields; and livestock payments were made on a fixed number of heads.  
a. It is requested to provide information about the level of support to various crops and 
livestock under this production limiting programme for the mar keting years 2020 -21 and 
2021-22. 
b. Does the EU intend to implement the Blue Box programmes under the new Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP)?  
1.14  France - "European  Food and Agricultural Resilience Mission" initiative  (SIM 781)  
1.14.1   Question by Brazil, Paraguay  (AG-IMS ID 103005 ) 
Brazil would like to consult France on the "European Food and Agricultural Resilience Mission" (FARM) 
initiative. In a recent Communiqué issued b y the Presidency of the Republic 
(https://franceintheus.org/spip.php?article10921 ), it was explained that:  
" (.) The private sector is encouraged to collaborate with WFP by providing food commodities, supply 
chain solutions, and agricultural inputs at favorable costs to ensure that WFP operations are 
sustained and able to reach countries and people most in need . To this end, WFP has started 
discussions with the Global Business for Food Security (GFS) coalition."  
Furthermore, in document G/AG/GEN/205, circulated by the WFP to the last CoA meeting, it is 
explained that:  
"3.3. The principle underpinning the initiat ive is global solidarity - a multisectoral response 
mechanism where countries with surpluses of cereals avail these surpluses to deficit countries."  
Taking into account the food aid rules in the AoA and in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competi tion, could France provide further information:  
a. on the proposition that sales to the WFP should occur at favorable costs and whether and 
to what extent will European governments be involved with such sales at favorable costs?  
b. on the nature of the stocks th at it intends to export through the initiative.  
1.15  European Union, Norway , Iceland – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)   
1.15.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID 103066 , 103067 , 103068 ) 
On 16 April 2022, the Eu ropean Union has prohibited access to ports in the EU territory to any vessel 
registered under the flag of the Russian Federation, as well as to vessels that have changed their 
Russian flag or their registration to the flag or register of any other State a fter 24 February 2022 
(Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision No. 1076) 
and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  
At the same time, according to the mentioned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Icelan d may authorize a vessel to access a port under such conditions as they deem 
appropriate, after having determined that the access is necessary for the purchase, import or 
transport of agricultural and food products, including wheat and fertilizers whose im port, purchase 
and transport is allowed under the Regulation.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 14 - 
 
  There is no settled procedure or conditions for obtaining such authorization. There is no form of 
proof of such authorization , and n o information on the number of permits issued.  
Such artificial  logistical barriers, as well as non -transparent and ambiguous regulations are 
destabilizing global agricultural markets and have even more severe consequences for the global 
food security. For instance, according to the last estimations of the WTO, fertil izer prices rose 60% 
year-on-year in August. Meanwhile, imposing prohibitions on logistical capabilities of one of the 
major suppliers of fertilizers, will only consolidate this upward trend, which, in turn, will lead to food 
insecurity and debt distress i n developing countries.  
We expect Members concerned to explain how they are willing to ensure effective elimination of the 
above mentioned restrictions  in respect of agricultural products. Currently their exemptions to 
regulations are not working.   
1.16  India's  dairy subsidies  (SIM 783)  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103090 ) 
Australia notes public reporting ( https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/subsidy -for-
dairy-farmers -societies -minister/article65775341.ece  and https://www.business -
standard.com/article/economy -policy/milk -scheme -benefits -more-than-800-000-producers -in-
rajasthan -official -122102001163_1.html ) that dairy f armers across multiple Indian states will be 
receiving or have already received payments per litre of milk produced; subsidies in the form of 
cows to farms; and payments per acre to promote fodder grass cultivation. Payments have also 
been made to state -level dairy cooperatives.  
Australia asks that India provide information on the measures, including:  
a. the different payments available to dairy farmers at the national and state levels,  
b. the intended duration of these payment programmes,  
c. eligibility and calcula tion of payments for each of the agents identified, and  
d. the allocated budget for the programmes.  
1.17  India's food security  policies  (SIM 784)  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America , Japan, Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 103027 ) 
In AG-IMS ID 102025 , India did not respond to part b. or part c., and gave the same non -working 
website link in response to part d., and also responded to part a. by saying that factors such as the 
cost of cultivation/production, changes in input prices, input/output price parity, inter -crop price 
parity, effects on the cost of living, effects on gen eral price level, and parity between prices paid and 
prices received by farmers, have resulted in the change in applied administered price over the years.  
a. Which of these factors changed between the period 2018 -2019 and the period 2020 -2021, 
and how did any  such change cause the government to change the applied administered 
prices?  
b. We ask part b. again: What policies or reforms is India implementing or considering to 
achieve its food security objectives in a manner consistent with WTO rules?  
c. We ask part c. a gain: Please explain the steady increase in open market sales of public 
stocks between 2018 and 2021.  
d. The link provided ( http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 ) times out without ever loading 
and gives the  error "This site can 't be reached. " Please provide a working link to the 
information or provide the requested information directly in written response to this 
question.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.18  Republic of Korea 's tariff policies  (SIM 785)  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103095 ) 
Australia notes Korea 's decision to apply zero tariff quotas for a number of agricultural commodities 
until the end of 2022, including beef (chilled and fro zen), chicken, powdered milk (whole and skim), 
green onions, coffee beans (green and roasted), refined spirits, manioc chip s, and pork belly.  
In relation to these quotas, Australia asks that the Republic of Korea:  
a. provide an update on how much of this yea r's quota has been filled for each commodity  
b. advise whether these quotas apply to all tariff lines for each commodity and  
c. advise whether this measure has been successful in reducing prices.  
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 103124 ) 
New Zealand notes Korea 's measures to combat avian influenza and inflationary pressur e by 
introducing a zero -tariff policy on eggs, and a reduction in tariff rates from 30% to 0% on other 
imported fruits. New Zealand would welcome more details on how effective these trade -liberalizing 
measures were in achieving Korea 's goals.  
1.19  Mexico's ban on exports  of agricultural  products  (SIM 786)  
1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103043 ) 
The Mexican President announced trade -related measures affecting a number of agrifood products, 
in another attempt to curb inflation. These include lifting red tape related to SPS requirements, 
eliminating import tariffs, and an outright export ban on a number of staple foods . The measures 
were designed with the country 's major food producers and retailers ' consent, and will be enforced 
once the official legal instrument is published in the Official Gazette. Initial reactions are not positive, 
arguing the measures run the risk of being WTO -incompatible, discriminatory to wards SMEs and 
counterproductive (in reducing prices).  
Halting exports of popular foods  such as beans, white corn and sardines are amongst the 
measures which aim to reduce by February 2023 their price as it stands today by 8% (3% only for 
corn flour).  
Could Mexico provide more information:  
a. What will be the duration of the measure?  
b. When does Mexico intend to submit official notification to the WTO on export restriction of 
the staples concerned by the measure?  
c. Could this measure possibly impact the World Food Programme humanitarian purchases 
(if such)?  
d. What is Mexico 's latest production forecast for those staples?  
1.19.2   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 1030 97)  
Switzerland understands that Mexico has announced the Opening Agreement against Inflation and 
Scarcity (APECIC) on 3 October 2022. This agreement included a ban on Mexico 's exports of, 
amongst others, white corn, beans and sardines until February 2023 . However, the decree 
implementing the APECIC that was published in the Official Federal Gazette on 19  October  2022 
does not contain such an export ban. Could Mexico please clarify whether export bans were 
implemented according to the earlier announcement or whether it has refrained from imposing the G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 16 - 
 
  export restrictions? Switzerland is interested in any further information that Mexico can provide on 
its export restriction policy.  
1.19.3   Question by United States of America  (AG-IMS ID 103030 ) 
On 3 October 2022, the Office of the President of Mexico announced the Opening Agreement against 
Inflation and Scarcity (APECIC) between the government of Mexico and fifteen priv ate companies, 
aimed at combatting food price inflation. The agreement extends through February 2023 and pledges 
to reduce the prices of 24 basic goods (mostly food items) by 8%. Provisions include a ban on 
Mexico 's exports of white corn, beans, sardines, and some food packaging materials. The 
United  States is concerned about this measure and submits the following questions:  
a. Please explain the reasoning for instituting these export restrictions.  
b. How did Mexico determine the agricultural products for which  it will restrict exports?  
c. How does Mexico plan to implement these export restrictions?  
d. Does Mexico plan to notify its export restrictions to the WTO Committee on Agriculture?  
1.20  Morocco's export restriction of chickpea (Licence exportation pois chiches)  
(SIM  787)  
1.20.1   Question by European Union  (AG-IMS ID 103044 ) 
With circular N 6368/311, the export of chickpea was banned until 27 June 2022. The measure has 
been exte nded without end date (permanent character) as published in Official Journal n  2256-22 
of 25.08.2022.  
a. Could Morocco provide more information on the expected impact on the exports of 
chickpea?  
b. What is Morocco 's latest production forecast for chickpea?  
c. When does Morocco intend to submit official notification to the WTO on export restriction 
measure?  
1.21  South Africa's poultry TRQ administration  (SIM 788)  
1.21.1   Question by Uruguay (AG -IMS ID 103045 ) 
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 201 7-2020 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 elaboratin g 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 eq ual 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, could South Africa indicate its 
maximum in -quota tariff rates for the relevant products?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 17 - 
 
  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 020714  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 Economic Empowerment (BEE) status of the applicants, i.e. eligibility 
of companies un der 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?  
1.22  Türkiye's stone fruit supp ort (SIM 789)  
1.22.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103098 ) 
Australia understands that Türkiye  has approved measures to support its stone fruit industry, which 
include payments to producers.  
Australia asks that Türkiye provide information on the measures, including  
a. the policy objectives of the support ; 
b. the different components of the support prog ramme ; 
c. eligibility and calculation of payments ; and  
d. the allocated budget for the programme?  
1.23  U.S. Inflation  Reduction Act  2022  (SIM 790)  
1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103100 ) 
Australia notes that a public release 
(https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ag_reconciliation_one -pager.pdf ) on the US 
Inflati on Reduction Act  2022 states that USD 14  billion will be provided to lower costs for families 
including farmers and support good -paying, clean energy jobs in rural communities.  
Australia asks that the United States:  
a. elaborate on how the Inflation Reduction  Act 2022 will lower costs for families ; 
b. outline the eligibility requirements for farmers to receive this support ; and 
c. outline how the United States intends to report notifiable expenditure relating to support 
provided to farmers under this Act to the Comm ittee on Agriculture.  
1.24  U.S. expanded insurance  coverage  for soybean and  grain sorghum  (SIM 791)  
1.24.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 103002 ) 
According to information available online, the United States has approved a plan to expand soybean 
and grain sorghum double -cropping insurance coverage in hundreds of additional counties for 2023, G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 18 - 
 
  as part of the administration`s effort to boost US agricult ural production to help counter food price 
volatility linked to supply chain disruptions and the conflict in Ukraine (source: 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2022/07/12/usda -makes -it-easier -american -farmers -
grow-food-ease-burdens ). 
Brazil notes that the US has provided support above the " de minimis " for both sorghum and 
soybeans, mainly because it notifies their expendi tures under crop insurance premium subsidy as 
product -specific (G/AG/N/USA/157 and G/AG/N/USA/166).  
Therefore, Brazil would appreciate it if the US could explain to Members how it envisions that the 
"Double Cropping - Expanded Insurance Coverage" will affe ct its compliance to domestic support 
entitlements.  
1.25  U.S. corn support  (SIM 792)  
1.25.1   Question by China  (AG-IMS ID 103049 ) 
According to the US domestic support not ifications, during 2018 -2021, product -specific AMS for corn 
were: 2 .2 billion dollars, 2 .1 billion dollars, 4 .6 billion dollars and 4 .9 billion dollars. In marketing 
year 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, Crop Insurance subsidy and CFAP specialty crop subsidy const itute 
a 50-50 split of corn subsidies, as a result, subsid ies for  corn doubled  in 2020 and 2021.  
The US ranks top for corn production and export ; the data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that  
in 2021, corn export s of the US r ose by 34.6% compared to those in 2020.  
a. Please explain in the case of rising export, why the US government believed that corn 
producers were in a position to receive higher subsidies.  
b. Please clarify different policy targets of Crop Insurance subsidy and CFAP subsidy.  
c. Could the US provide data on domestic consumption of corn during the last 10 years?  
1.26  U.S. fertilizers  (SIM 793)  
1.26.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103053 ) 
The US Biden -Harris Administration made USD 500 million available to increase innovative 
American -made fertilizer production.  
a. Could the US provide more details on the criter ia to benefit from financing under 
"Innovative American -Made Fertilizer Production "? 
b. What type of measures are available under this programme?  
c. Who are the targeted beneficiaries?  
1.27  U.S. biofuel infrastructure  grants  (SIM 794)  
1.27.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 103055 ) 
USDA announced in August  2022 a USD 100 million  biofuel Infrastructure grants.   
a. Can the US indicate how it intends to notify this subsidy in its DS:1 notification?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.28  U.S. Urban Agriculture and Innovative  Production  (SIM 795)  
1.28.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103138 ) 
Recently, the US invested USD 14.2 million in Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production  (UAIP) 
efforts. The UAIP provides support through two types of grants: planning projects and 
implementation projects.  
a. What is the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries under this measure?  
b. What type of produce/ products are covered under this support?  
c. How and when will this programme be notified under the domestic support notification?  
1.29  U.S. Farm Bill 2023  (SIM 796)  
1.29.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103139 ) 
It is understood that the US would implement the new Farm Bill to support its farmers and 
agriculture. In the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, the US implemented various programs 
including the p rice loss coverage (PLC). In this context, the US is requested to provide the following 
information:  
a. Whether the US intends to implement the PLC in the forthcoming Farm Bill 2023?  
b. Whether the product coverage under the programme would be expanded?  
c. How the  reference prices for various agricultural products under the PLC would be 
determined?  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.30  Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  
1.30.1   Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand (AG-IMS 
ID 103048 ) 
The United Kingdom thanks Argentina for their response to AG -IMS ID 102076 and understands the 
challenges they are facing  including high i nflation and extreme weather events. Nevertheless, we 
would remind Argentina of their obligations under Article 12.1(b) and the importance of transparency 
to facilitate reliable information for importers in order to keep prices down and prevent pre -emptive  
restrictions. Could Argentina therefore provide an update on when they plan to notify this export 
restriction to the Committee on Agriculture through the required Table ER:1? 
1.31  Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  
1.31.1   Question by New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 103130 ) 
New Zealand continues to raise questions around Canada's milk classes, due to the continued 
clarification needed with regards to answers provided in Canada's responses in AG -IMS ID 102073, 
AG-IMS ID 101013, AG -IMS ID 100064 and AG -IMS ID 99098.  
Canada 's answer to AG -IMS ID 102073 states that New Zealand 's calculation of the CDC published 
cost of production for milk protein is inaccurate.  
New Zealand believes it has calculated the cost of production accurately but welcomes Canada 's 
review in more detail.  The cost of production (COP) for solids non fat (SNF) is calculated as follows: 
first, the cost of production of SNF per hl is established b y calculating 57% of the total COP of $84.57 
per one standard hl of milk (as per the table in page 5 of the  CDC Cost of Production study dated 
October 2022 which allocates 57% of the total COP to SNF and 43% to Butterfat), which comes to G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 20 - 
 
  $48.20  hl ; second , because the sample milk composition is 9.026 kg/hl of SNF, $48.20 is divided 
by 9.026  kg to obtain the COP per kg for SNF which is $5.34 kg. Alternatively, standard milk 
composition of 8.9177 kg/hl could be used, resulting in the COP per kg for SNF which  is $5.40 kg. 
Irrespective of the use of sample or standard milk composition, setting milk class 4(a) for 
October  2022 at CAD 3.8549/kg for protein and other solids remains substantially below the cost of 
production for milk protein.  
a. Can Canada please conf irm that Class 4(a) is set below the cost of production for milk 
proteins?  
b. Can Canada please explain how the benefit to exporters resulting from Class 4(a) pricing 
is materially different from the benefit to exporters under the Commercial Export Milk 
schem e above?  
Regarding the Canadian value -added protein products onto the world market, New Zealand would 
appreciate if Canada could fully respond to the question in AG -IMS ID 102073.  
c. Of Canada's total production of value -added milk protein products including  milk protein 
concentrates, infant formula, skim milk powder (SMP) and SMP blends, (specifically 
including HS 0404.90, HS 0402.10, HS 1901.10, HS 1901.90 and 3504.00 respectively) 
what percentage was accounted for by domestic Canadian demand as compared to  exports 
annually since 2019?  
d. What are the reasons for the growth in exports under these tariff lines (in particular their 
dairy component), given the supply managed system?  
New Zealand would particularly appreciate detailed information that includes all forms of milk protein 
products. The product coverage in Canada 's previous replies, as well as the data from Statistics 
Canada on the supply and disposition of milk products, does not take into account the higher 
percentage protein products being exported t hrough SMP blends.  
1.32  Canada's review of the TRQ system (SIM 536)  
1.32.1   Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 103086 ) 
In follow -up to AG -IMS ID s 99110, 100065, 101016  and 102090, the United Kingdom would like to 
reiterate its interest in the results of Canada 's Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and 
Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products. The United Kingdom 
would once again request clarity from Canada on the timeframe for the review 's release.   
1.33  Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions (SIM 512)  
1.33.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103135 ) 
In 2019, Canada announced a Dairy Direct Programme with the objective to support dairy producers 
as a result of market access commitments made under the international trade agreements, namely 
the Canada –European Union Comprehensive Econ omic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the 
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). As informed by 
Canada in its reply to AG -IMS ID 100040, under the programme CAD 937 million is being provided 
as direct payments to dairy  producers, where CAD 469 million is given for the years 2021 -22 and 
CAD 468 million for 2022 -23. 
a. What are the specific measures taken under this programme?  
b. What are the criteria for dairy producers to be eligible to get this support?  
c. How and when would Canada notify this at the WTO under the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.34  China's cotton  reserves purchasing system (SIM 295)  
1.34.1   Question by United States of America  (AG-IMS ID 103019 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102033, China indicated that the cotton purchases were made for central cotton 
reserves, and not made under an extension of the measure entitled "Deepening the Target Price 
Policy Reform of Cotton. " In response to a requ est for the regulation that governs the release of 
government - or state -owned stocks of cotton, China instructed interested parties to refer to the 
circulars issued by China National Food and Strategic Reserve Administration or China Cotton 
Reserve Corpora tion. 
Please provide copies or website links to the circulars issued by the China National Food and Strategic 
Reserve Administration or China Cotton Reserve Corporation that govern the release of government - 
or state -owned stocks of cotton.  
1.34.2   Question by Uni ted States of America  (AG-IMS ID 103020 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102033, the United States asked whether there are any limits placed on the maximum 
quantity of cotton t hat the government of China may purchase for the cotton reserve.  China 
responded that the maximum amount purchased by the government shall not exceed the reserve 
scale.  
Please clarify, what is the "reserve scale "? 
1.34.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103021 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102033, China stated that reserve cotton was purchased in 2019 at market prices.  
Please provide the quantities and prices for eac h of the 2019 purchases of reserve cotton.  
1.34.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103022 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102033, China stated that the amount of cotto n 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 cott on. 
a. Please provide the formula that the government of China uses to determine 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.  
1.35  China's Cotton Policies (SIM 647)  
1.35.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 103018 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102034, China provided the following table of the volume i n millions of tonnes of 
cotton production for both Xinjiang and for China, nationally, for each of the years from 2012 
to 2021.  
Year  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  
China  Nationwide  6.61  6.28 6.30 5.91 5.34 5.65 6.10 5.89 5.91 5.73 
Xinjiang Uygur 
Autonomous 
Region  3.88 3.94 4.15 4.19 4.08 4.57 5.11 5.00 5.16 5.13 
In AG -IMS ID 102035, China asked that the United States clarify part d. of the question. Here, we 
seek to clarify.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 22 - 
 
  In G/AG/N/CHN/48, which notified the "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton " 
measure, China stated "According to Article 6, par agraph 5 (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
such payments are made based on 85% or less of the base level production. ("Blue Box" measure) 
The amount of subsidized cotton is subject to a limit, which is 85% of the average cotton production 
in the base pe riod (2012 -2014). " The average of the China nationwide cotton production figures 
provided above for 2012 through 2014 is 6.40 million tons. 85% of the average nationwide cotton 
production from 2012 to 2014 would be 5.44 million tonnes.  
The average of the X injiang cotton production figures provided above for 2012 through 2014 is 
3.99 million tonnes.  85% of the average Xinjiang cotton production from 2012 to 2014 would be 
3.39 million ton nes. 
If the limit had been set based on Xinjiang production, rather than  nationwide production, the limit 
would have been much smaller. A limit of 5.44 million tonnes is 136% of Xinjiang 's average cotton 
production from 2012 to 2014.  
Please explain why China chose to use nationwide production figures to set the limit instead of 
Xinjiang production figures, given that the programme only operates in Xinjiang.  
1.36  Ecuador's new milk law (SIM 766)  
1.36.1   Question by United States of America, New Zealand, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103023 ) 
At the previous Committee on Agriculture meeting, the United States added AG -IMS ID 102131 to 
the agenda due to serious concerns related to Ecuador 's "Organic Law to Promote the Production, 
Marketing, Industrialization, Consumption, and Fixation of the Price of Milk and its Derivatives" that 
bans the importation of powdered milk for ten years, as of the date of registration.  
Registered on 17 August  2022,  the law is a comprehensive regulatory law on milk products in 
Ecuador.  
The law includes regulations on all aspects of milk production, processing, and sale.  
Concerning the ban of powdered milk, the law reads (translated): "It is prohibited the importation  
of milk powder for the next ten years while the conditions are created so that the industry can 
compete in better conditions. " 
Noting that Ecuador has not yet provided a substantive response to AG -IMS ID 102131, the 
United  States resubmits and expands its  questions as follows:  
a. How will Ecuador implement this ban on imports of powdered milk?  
b. Please explain how this import ban complies with Ecuador 's WTO commitments and 
obligations.   
c. What steps is Ecuador taking in implementing this law to ensure that Ecua dor remains 
compliant with its WTO obligations?  
1.37  Egypt's Export Prohibitions on Agricultural Products (SIM 597)  
1.37.1   Question by Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 103088 ) 
Switzerland welcomes the decision that Egypt lifted its ban on the export of staple goods such as 
wheat, flour, fava beans, vegetable oils, corn, lentils and pasta in September. However, we have 
noted that the ban on rice export was extended i n order to meet local market needs. Could Egypt 
please  
a. clarify how this measure is in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 23 - 
 
  b. Provide information on the measures taken to ensure due consideration to the effects of 
such an export ban on  importing Members' food security, in accordance with Article 12(a) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture . 
c. Give an update on when it intends to submit the corresponding notification?  
1.38  EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  
1.38.1   Question by Brazil , Argentina, Paraguay  (AG-IMS ID 103006 ) 
Brazil thanks the EU for its replies to questions AG -IMS IDs 100071 and 101033.  
Taking into account the explanation provided regarding the country benchmarking system the EU is 
adopting, Brazil would like to consult on the following:  
a. since one of the criteria of the benchmarking system relates to a Multilateral Environmental 
Agreement (MEA) - a country's "na tionally determined contributions (NDCs) to the 
UNFCCC" -, how does the EU follow the principle of common but differentiated 
responsibilities and respective capabilities, set out in the same Convention and its Paris 
Agreement?  
b. How does the EU assess risk i n countries which have all but eliminated their native 
vegetation and forests through their development process?  
c. Does the EU intend to adopt legislation, as a criterion to define market access conditions, 
to oblige countries to reforest their territory to bring forest cover levels to levels similar to 
those found in the Members that will be most affected by the current legislation?  
1.39  India's export restrictions on  wheat (SIM 744)  
1.39.1   Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland , Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 103060 ) 
The United Kingdom thanks India for their response to AG -IMS ID s 102012 and 102021 but notes 
that the required ER:1 table, notifying the Committee on Agriculture of India 's export restriction on 
wheat, is still outstanding. We would therefore like to remind India of their obligations under 
Article  12.1(b) of the Agreem ent on Agriculture and request an update on when the required 
ER:1 table will be provided to this Committee.   
1.40  India's public stockpiling (SIM 525) 
1.40.1   Question by United States of America , Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS I D 103025 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102018 several Members asked India about information on state bonuses provided in 
addition to the Indian central government 's minimum support prices.  In response, India stated "The 
information would be provided when available " but did not respond to parts b(i), b(ii), or b(iii) of 
the question. Given that no information has been provided since the last Committee meeting, we 
therefore ask  the following questions:  
a. Please provide an update on if the information on state bonuses is available.  
b. If the information is not available, please provide a time estimate for when the information 
will be available.  
c. If the information is not available, p lease provide an update including:  
i. when the request was made to the State governments;  
ii. the time frame which India gave State governments to respond; and  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 24 - 
 
  iii. whether any preliminary information has been collected.   
1.40.2   Question by United  States of America, Canada,  Japan, Thailand, Ukraine, Brazil, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103026 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102019, the Members asked for India to show where annual quantitative levels of 
current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks since 2010 can be 
found.  India's response discusses notified procurement levels, which is not the same as current, 
historical, and pre -determined levels o f wheat and rice stocks.  
Further, India went on to state that the government procures food grains to provide food security 
to 75% of the rural and 50 % of the urban population.   
However, the share of the population receiving subsidized food grains does not answer the question 
asked.  
Also in AG -IMS ID 102019, India stated that it believes summaries of consultative meetings between 
the government and the Food Corporation of India (FCI) held to assess the availability of wheat and 
rice for procurement at Minim um Support Prices (MSP) constitute information that is beyond the 
remit of CoA and AoA notification requirements. Members have requested this information as it was 
India that stated in AG -IMS ID 87156 that the government of India decides target levels for wheat 
and paddy/rice procurement based on this information. India also referred generally to the 
Department of Food and Public Distribution homepage, but not to any specific location for the 
requested information, which Members have been unable to identify . 
a. Please provide current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice stocks 
since 2010.   
b. If unable to provide the quantitative levels for each, please confirm that India does not 
maintain predetermined targets for the quantity and procurement of wheat and rice 
annually.  
1.41  India's other support for rice (SIM 743)  
1.41.1   Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103029 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102020, several Members sought clarity with regards to India 's response to AG -IMS 
ID 101037, which states "After consulting with relevant Ministries/Departments, it was found that 
no support other than that for t he PSH purposes has been provided for rice. " India re -stated this 
statement without any further clarification than that 'other support for rice ' does not include the 
state bonuses.  
Please confirm whether India has consulted with state governments to confir m whether there are 
any additional sub -national rice support measures (other than state bonuses) and if there are any 
other state -level support measures that are not notified.  
1.42  India's price support  (SIM 753)  
1.42.1   Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia (AG -IMS ID 103024 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 102017, WTO Members (the United States, Australia, and Paraguay) asked what policy 
change occurred prior to 1995 -96 that necessitated a change in how India notifies support for 
commodities including barley, maize, millet, sorghum, gram (chickpeas), arhar/tur (pigeon peas), 
urad (black matpe), moong (mung beans), and lentils, which resulted in India 's subsequent 
consistent notification of price supports on an aggregate basis. The Members also asked for India to 
provide the level of procurement for the following commodities for the notification period 2020/21 
in G/AG/N/IND/27: jowar, bajra, maize, tur, moong, urad, barl ey, gram, and masur.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 25 - 
 
  In addition, the Members asked for India to provide the value of production for each of the following 
commodities for the notification period 2020/21 in G/AG/N/IND/27: jowar, bajra, maize, tur, moong, 
urad, barley, gram, and masur.  
India provided a few sentences of reasoning related to why India has notified various pulses on an 
aggregated basis, but did not provide information on any policy change that occurred prior 
to 1995-1996.  
India did not provide any levels of procureme nt for any of the commodities requested.  
India provided aggregated value of production for pulses and coarse cereals, but did not provide 
value of production for any of the individual commodities requested.  
Thus, we resubmit all three questions:  
a. Please exp lain what policy change occurred prior to 1995 -96 that necessitated a change 
in how India notifies support for these commodities, which resulted in India 's subsequent 
consistent notification of price supports on an aggregate basis.  
b. Please provide the level  of procurement for the following commodities for the notification 
period 2020/21 in G/AG/N/IND/27: jowar, bajra, maize, tur, moong, urad, barley, gram, 
and masur.  
c. Please provide the value of production for each of the following commodities for the 
notific ation period 2020/21 in G/AG/N/IND/27: jowar, bajra, maize, tur, moong, urad, 
barley, gram, and masur.  
1.43  India's export restriction  on sugar (SIM 420)  
1.43.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103091 ) 
Australia notes India 's Directorate General of Foreign Trade has extended for one year India 's export 
restrictions on sugar, which were set to expire on 31 October (Public notice no 40/2015 -20). 
In relation to these export restrictions, Australia asks that India:  
a. confirm when these export restrictions will be permanently lifted ; and 
b. indicate when they intend on notifying these export restrictions to the Committee on 
Agriculture through the required Table ER:1 notification?  
1.44  India's export restrictions on  wheat (SIM 744)  
1.44.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 103092 ) 
Australia asked India a follow -up question at 102 nd CoA (AG -IMS ID 102092) on export restrictions 
on wheat. As this was not answered, it is asked again.  
Australia thanks India for its response to its previous question on India 's announcement of export 
restrictions on wheat (AG -IMS ID 101019). In its respo nse, India answered that the conditions of its 
implementation of the export restriction is notified in Notification 13 May 2022, issued by the 
Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and subsequent DGFT notices. Australia notes the 
length of the restri ction has not been indicated in DGFT notices.  
In light of this, Australia asks that India indicate how long it intends for the restriction to remain 
place.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 26 - 
 
  1.45  India's export  restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  
1.45.1   Question by United States of America , Canada,  Japan, Switzerland, 
United  Kingdom, Paraguay, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103028 ) 
On 8 September 2022, India announced an export ban on broken rice, as well as exp ort restrictions 
on rough, semi -, and wholly -milled rice.  It is also noted that these export restrictions have not been 
notified to the Committee on Agriculture.  As the world 's largest and growing exporter of rice – 
accounting for more than 40 % of global r ice exports – these restrictions during a period of already 
increased market and price volatility will contribute to and exacerbate market volatility and 
contribute to increased food insecurity.  It has been reported in the media that India 's restrictions 
could result in a decrease of 16 -17 million tonnes of rice from being exported this year.  
Beyond this global impact, the effects will likely be felt most strongly by developing and African 
countries. Nine out of the top ten export markets for Indian rice we re developing countries, which 
have grown to depend on imported Indian rice, now affected by these export restrictions.  The most 
significant impact of this export ban and restrictions may occur in West and Central Africa, areas 
that were already experienci ng a major food crisis.  According to the Economic Community of West 
African States (ECOWAS), West and Central Africa rely on imported rice to cover 40 % of local 
demand, despite increases in local production in recent years.  In several ECOWAS countries, ric e is 
a major or main staple crop, and a majority of imports were from India prior to the restrictions.   
In 2007, when India imposed a rice export ban, the result was increased food inflation, which 
contributed to Asian rice prices increasing by almost 80 %, according to news sources, creating a 
food security issue in many countries that relied on rice as a staple.  
 
a. When will these export restrictions and bans be lifted?  If there is no set date, please 
explain what factors will be used to end these measures.  
b. When will India notify these export restrictions/bans to this Committee?  
c. At the September 2022 meeting of this Committee, India responded to the European Union 
that developing countries ' food security was not at risk due to these export restricti ons. 
Given India 's primary export markets are developing countries, a number of these 
countries primarily import rice from India, and the export ban and export restriction 
directly limits the types of rice imported by these Members from India, please expla in how 
developing countries ' food security is not at risk.  
d. With numerous countries around the globe experiencing unprecedented food security 
issues, please explain why India has decided to implement these export restrictions on 
rice. 
e. Please confirm whether  the World Food Program is exempt from the export duty and the 
export ban imposed by India. We note that neither notification by the Directorate General 
of Foreign Trade of India directly provides such an exemption and the ban only provides 
an exemption un til 15 September  for a limited number of circumstances relating to exports 
that began before the date of the announcement.  
1.46  Indonesia's stockholding programmes (SIM 326)  
1.46.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 103093 ) 
According to media reports, authorities in Indonesia have been seeking to build up adequate reserves 
of various staple foods to ensure price stability at a time of soaring inflation (Source: 
https://www.world -grain.com/articles/17664 -indonesia -building -rice-stocks -amid-inflation ). Under 
a new presidential regulation, which took effect 24 October 2022, the  Indonesia National Food 
Agency (Bapanas) with the help of state -owned enterprises plans to secure stocks of 11 staple foods, 
such as rice, corn, soybeans, shallots, chili, sugar for household, cooking oil, as well as some meat 
and fish.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Could Indonesia p lease explain:  
a. What criteria is Bapanas using to determine the volume of the reserves of each staple food 
product?  
b. Will the stocks of staple foods be procured from the domestic and international markets 
based on market prices?  
1.47  Japan's stockpiles of skim m ilk powder (SIM 754)  
1.47.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103094 ) 
Australia thanks Japan for its response to Australia 's question (AG -IMS ID 102093). Australia w ould 
like to request further details on Japan 's efforts to decrease its skim milk powder stockpiles.  
In relation to Japan 's efforts, Australia asks that Japan:  
a. indicate the target weight goal for its skim milk powder stockpile and whether a timeframe 
has b een set to achieve that goal ; 
b. indicate whether alternative options are being considered if the target weight goal is not 
achieved ; 
c. indicate whether the scheme may be extended beyond September 2023 ; 
d. indicate whether exports of Japanese skim milk powder are being directed at particular 
countries ; and 
e. note any anticipated long -term impacts this might have on skim milk powder imports to 
Japan.  
1.48  Malaysia's chicken and egg subsidies and export restrictions for chicken (SIM 745)  
1.48.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103096 ) 
Australia understands that Malaysia has extended production  subsidies for chicken and egg 
producers until the end of 2022.  
Can Malaysia provide information on whether export restrictions for chicken will remain in place until 
the end of 2022? Can Malaysia give an update on when it intends to submit the correspond ing 
Domestic Support notification?  
1.49  Thailand's Paddy  Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  
1.49.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 103137 ) 
It is known that Thailand's Rice Policy an d 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 -23 rice crops. The Committee also agreed to extend the period for the 
rice pledging s cheme 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 are the eligibility criteria prescribed 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?  
d. What quantity of rice is eligible to be sold to the government?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 28 - 
 
  e. How much quantity of rice is currently in stoc k under the rice pledging scheme?  
f. What is the mechanism to dispose of the rice stock accumulated under the rice pledging 
scheme?  
g. How will this support be notified in the domestic support notification?  
1.50  Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.50.1   Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland , Japan, New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 
103054 ) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID s 101042 and 102029, the United Kingdom would like to reiterate its 
concern with the lack of transparency around Türkiye 's export restrictions and would appreciate a 
response to the following questions:  
a. firstly, could Türkiye please confirm that these measu res will expire on the 
31 December  2022?  
b. Regardless of the temporary nature of these measures, the United Kingdom would like to 
reiterate the importance of compliance with Article 12.1(b) in order to ensure transparency 
and support predictable trade.  Could  Türkiye therefore confirm when they will be notifying 
these restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture through the required ER:1 table?   
1.51  Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  
1.51.1   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Australia (AG -IMS ID 103031 ) 
The United States remains concerned with Türkiye 's reimbursement of freight costs for certain 
exports and resubmits AG -IMS ID 100014, which has not yet received a  response in AG -IMS. 
The United States understands that the Turkish Ministry of Industry and Trade reimburses freight 
costs for certain agricultural products exported from Türkiye beginning in 2016, as reported by 
various exporter associations and trade co nsulting firms, such as here: 
(https://igeme.com.tr/ihracat -tasimalarina -navlun -destegi/ ). The Turkish Ministry of Industry and 
Trade's KUSGEM agency describes the purpose of the mea sure as intended to "increase both the 
export level of enterprises and the export level to the specified countries by support in the freight 
expenses in the exports…" (translated from: 
https://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/site/tr/ulusaldestekler/destekkategorileri/13/pazara -giris). 
a. Please provide a copy of or link to the legal measures authorizing the reimbursement of 
freight costs for certain exports, specifically a 2016 decision entitled "İhraç Taşımalarına 
Navlun Desteği Sağlanması Hakkında Karar" (Decision on Freight Support for Exports) and 
subsequent implementing measures.  
b. What products are eligible to receive freight support?  
c. What are the eligible destinations?  
d. How is the freight support determined? How much may an exporter receive per shipment?  
e. Please confirm the years, and periods within each year, that Türkiye has autho rized such 
freight support since 2016, including for 2022 and beyond, if applicable.  
f. Please provide quantities of goods receiving support by tariff code (at least the 4 -digit 
level) and the total amount of reimbursement and amount of reimbursement per tari ff 
code. In addition, please identify the quantities and total amount of reimbursement for 
goods exported to the United States, including for dry milled corn products (HS 1104.23).  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 29 - 
 
  g. Noting the apparent contingency on export performance and understanding the se 
measures were introduced following the 2015 Nairobi Decision on Export Competition and 
may still be authorized to provide support, please explain how these measures comply 
with Türkiye 's export subsidy scheduled commitments and its commitments under the  
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.   
1.52  U.S. American Rescue  Plan Act  (SIM 689)  
1.52.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 103099 ) 
Australia notes that the USDA has announced ( https://www.usda.gov/media/press -
releases/2022/08/22/usda -invest -300-million -new-organic -transition -initiative ) that it is making 
USD 300 million of American Rescue Plan Act  funding available for an Organic Transition Initiative. 
Austr alia understands that the initiative will include direct support through financial assistance and 
crop insurance assistance to producers, as well as market development projects.  
How does the US intend to classify these payments in the context of notificat ions to the Committee 
on Agriculture?  
1.53  United States' soybean programmes (SIM 387)  
1.53.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 103046 ) 
China notices that in marketing year 2 018/2019, the US provides nearly USD  8.5 billion 
product -specific AMS for soybeans, compared with around 1 .6 billion dollars in previous years.  
According to the US soybean quality annual reports and the U.S. Census Bureau, every year the 
US exports are aro und half volume of its soybean production.  
a. Please explain reasons for raising soybean subsidy in 2018/2019.  
b. Could the US provide data on domestic consumption of soybean during last 10 years?  
c. In case of declining export, how did the US government deal with domestic production 
surplus?  
d. Please clarify  the difference between the US subsidies for soybean and a subsidy for 
export . 
1.53.2   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 103047 ) 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, after a short decrease in 2018, the export value of soybeans 
experienced a strong increase in 2019 2020 and 2021, the USDA website reported that "In 2021, 
the value of U.S. soybean exports to the world reached a new record at USD 27.4 billion, up 7 % 
from the prior year 's record. " However, in 2021, the US still raised its product -specific AMS for 
soybeans from 1 .9 billion dollars to 2 .3 billion dollars, compared to 2020.  
 
a. Please explain the reason.  
b. Please explain how subsidies for soybeans are determined, e.g. what factors are used to 
determine when to raise the amount of subsidies?  
c. Please evaluate the influence that US soybean subsidies have on the international market 
during last 10 years.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 30 - 
 
  1.54  U.S. funding for environmental action (SIM 763)  
1.54.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 103107 ) 
Following question AG -IMS ID 102102, New Zealand is seeking further information on the Inflation 
Reduction Act ahead of a DS:2 notification.  
Can the United States outline:  
a. How the implementing agency is planning  to measure the climate impact of this 
investment at the farm and sector level.  
b. Whether the funds will be reallocated should they not have the desired impact?  
c. How the tax credits to help rural communities transition away from fossil fuels will be 
implement ed? 
d. How payments will be limited to the extra costs or loss of income for the agricultural 
producer in deploying climate -smart practices.  
2  POINTS  RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2 ) 
2.1.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/57)  
AG-IMS ID 103101: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks China for submitting its MA:2 notification for calendar year 2021 (G/AG/N/CHN/57).  
Australia notes that the tariff rate quota (TRQ) for short and medium gr ain rice (CHNQ003) had a 
fill rate of just 8.9% in 2021, well below the 65% fill rate threshold. This follows a 54.7% fill rate 
reported in 2020 (reflecting China reporting the combined usage of both its rice quotas against the 
same quota line) and 10% fil l rate in 2019.  
Australia notes  that it previously asked questions relating to low fill rates for China 's TRQ in AG -IMS 
ID 93090 at the 93rd CoA and in AG -IMS ID  97123 at the 97th CoA with respect to underfills in 
calendar years 2018 and 2019. China 's response to these questions was that their 
TRQ administration is in line with the obligations of WTO Members.   
Australia asks that China provide additional details on how the TRQ for short and medium grain rice 
(CHNQ003) is administered and reasons for w hy the TRQ remains significantly underfilled.  
AG-IMS ID 103102: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the People's Republic of China for submitting 
notification G/AG/N/CHN/57. We note the low fill rate  for quota CHNQ003, 8.9%, corresponding to 
short and medium grain rice. Could you please indicate:  
 
a. The reasons for the low fill rate of this tariff quota?  
b. Whether there are plans to modify the TRQ  administration mechanism in line with the 
Bali Decision for a better TRQ fill rate?  
AG-IMS ID 103103: Question by Thailand - Other  
Thailand appreciates the submission on Market Access Notification of Calendar Year 2021 by China.  
With respect to TQ ID CHNQ 003 (Rice, short and medium grain) and CHNQ004 (Rice, long grain) 
under G/AG/N/CHN/57, China has only reported total import of short, medium and long grain rice. 
Would China be able to provide more specific information on the import of rice flours under TQ  ID 
CHNQ003 and CHNQ004?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.1.2   Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/65, G/AG/N/ISL/66)  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of Iceland for submitting notifications 
G/AG/N/ISL/65 and G/AG/N/ISL/66.  We note the low fill rate for the following tariff quotas:  
 
• ISLQ057 : 0.4% in both years, corresponding to other prepared or preserved meat, meat 
offal or blood ; 
• ISLQ082 : 0% and 0.3%, corresponding to meat and edible offal of sheep ; 
• ISQL085 : 0% in both years, corresponding to meat and edible offal of horses ; 
• ISQL088 : 0% and 9 .4%, corresponding to butter . 
Could you please indicate:  
 
a. The reasons for the low fill rate of th ese tariff quota s? 
b. Whether there are  plans to modify the TRQ administration mechanism in line with the Bali 
Decision for a better TRQ fill rate?  
AG-IMS ID 1031 05: Question  by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
In G/AG/N/ISL/66,  New Zealand notes the low fill rate for Iceland 's butter TRQ (ISLQ088) at 9.4% 
in marketing year 2021 -22. New Zealand also notes that the fill rate for this quota has remained 
below 15% over  the past three marketing years. Could Iceland please explain:  
a. the reasons for underfill of this quota, including historically; and  
b. confirm how Iceland administers its TRQ for butter, and whether Iceland plans to change 
the TRQ administration scheme, to increase fill rates?  
2.1.3   Malaysia  (G/AG/N/MYS/54, G/AG/N/MYS/55)  
AG-IMS ID 103003: Question  by Brazil  
Malaysia reported on its latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calendar year 2017 and 2018, the 
following fill rates for tariff -rate quotas:  
 
• MYSQ002 (Meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen) : 0%/0%;  
• MYSQ007 (Meat and edible offal of poultry, of heading 0105 fresh, chilled or 
frozen) : 0%/0,1%.  
 
Brazil would appreciate if Malaysia could provide the following information:  
 
a. data on market circumsta nces that would explain the low volume of imports under the 
aforementioned TRQs;  
b. updates on policy developments that would explain the relatively low volume of imports 
under the aforementioned TRQs;  
c. volume of imports taking place outside the TRQ.  
2.1.4   United St ates of America  (G/AG/N/USA/162)  
AG-IMS ID 103001: Question  by Brazil, Argentina - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil is thankful for the information provided by the United States in its reply to question AG -IMS 
ID 101047, including the indication of the website con taining up -to-date data on quota fill status.  
Brazil notices that there seems to be a sustained underfill of country -specific quota shares for the 
past few years.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 32 - 
 
  In this regard, and taking into account the experience related to the administration of the U .S. Raw 
Sugar Tariff -Rate Quota, Brazil would like to consult if the US is considering any action to improve 
fill rates, such as a surrender and reallocation process for unused portions, an alternative that was 
mentioned in the U.S. answer to question AG -IMS ID 102001.  
2.2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129, G/AG/N/AUS/129/Rev.1)  
AG-IMS ID 103140: Question by India  - Non-product -specific AMS  
India thanks Australia for issuing the modified DS:1 (G/AG/N/AUS/129/Rev.1) for the fina ncial 
year 2017/18. In footnote 17 regarding the Queensland (QLD) Exceptional Disaster Assistance 
Scheme: "Category C Community Recovery package, cash grants of up to AUD 25,000 to assist with 
repair work due to major flooding. Category B concessional loan s and freight subsidies to assist with 
recovery activities". In this context India requests Australia for providing the following information:  
a. Kindly provide the details about the nature of repair works eligible for receiving assistance 
under Queensland (Q LD) Exceptional Disaster Assistance Scheme.  
b. Further, kindly provide the difference in nature of Category C Community Recovery 
package and Category B concessional loans and freight subsidies to assist with recovery 
activities.  
2.2.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS /142)  
AG-IMS ID 103032: Question  by United States of America - Other product -
specific  AMS/EMS  
In G/AG/N/AUS/142 Australia notified AUD 2.668 million for the Dairy Recovery Concessional Loans 
Scheme, down from AUD 3.2397 million in in 2017/18 in G/AG/N/AUS/ 129/Rev.1.  
Australia notes that, though the scheme stopped taking applications at the end of October  2016, 
businesses will continue to benefit over the 10 -year loan terms.  According to a February  2021 
independent review of Australia 's Regional Investment Corporation, Australia had announced up to 
AUD 555 million in Dairy Recovery Concessional Loans 
(https://www.awe.gov.au/site s/default/files/documents/independent -review -of-the-regional -
investment -corporation.docx ). 
Please explain how Australia calculates the level of notified support for each year under this scheme.  
2.2.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/151)  
AG-IMS ID 103106: Question  by India - Market price support  
India thanks Canada for submitting their DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/151) for the calendar 
year 2018. India observes that Canada provides market price support of CAD 655 million for Butter, 
as reported under the supportin g table DS:5.  
 
a. Canada is requested to provide the value of production of Butter for the year 2018.  
b. Canada is requested to elaborate on the factors considered in determination of the applied 
administered price for Butter and skim milk powder.  
c. As per suppo rting table DS:5, the eligible production for skim milk powder is indicated as 
zero. Could Canada provide the reasons behind the zero level of eligible production for 
skim milk powder in 2018.  
d. Please provide the eligible production for skim milk powder fo r the year 2019 to 2021. 
(The Notifications for 2019 to 2021 are still not filed by Canada as asked in the subsequent 
question below).  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 33 - 
 
  e. When will Canada submit the outstanding DS:1 notification for the calendar years 2019, 
2020, 2021?  
2.2.4   European Union (G/AG/N /EU/79)  
AG-IMS ID 103108: Question by Australia  - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia asked the EU a question at 102nd COA (AG-IMS ID 102123). As this was not answered, it 
is asked again.  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting its 2019 -20 marketing ye ar DS:1 notification G/AG/N/EU/79. 
Australia notes an increase in spending shown in Supporting Table DS:6 of EUR 320  million between 
marketing year 2019 -20 and marketing year 2018 -19. This is across a range of commodities, 
including milk, beef, sheep, pig,  fruit, and vegetables. The EU has listed the type of measure as a 
national aid 'covid measure '. 
a. Could the EU please elaborate on the reasons for variation in the levels of support reported 
in this table?  
b. Could the EU please indicate whether it expects fur ther increases to this level of support 
and whether similar variations are expected for other commodities listed in Supporting 
Table DS:6?  
Australia would appreciate the EU updating the Membership as to whether this information is 
available, and if so, pro viding it in AG -IMS. 
2.2.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/28, G/AG/N/GEO/25)  
AG-IMS ID 103034: Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States remains concerned with some of the information in Georgia 's domestic support 
notifications.    
At the September 2022 WTO Committee on Agriculture, the United States asked Georgia a question 
about its 2020 Table DS:1 notification in AG -IMS ID 102043, which has not been answered. The 
United States is resubmitting the question again, noting that we also have similar concerns with 
Georgia 's 2021 DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/GEO/28), and as such, request that Georgia also respond 
with regards to revising both Table DS:1 notifications for 2020 and 2021 to account for the noted 
discrep ancies.  
From AG-IMS 102043 : In Georgia 's January 2022 Trade Policy Review (TPR) the Secretariat reported 
that Georgia 's Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture provided 243.5 million Georgian 
lari (GEL) in subsidies to the agricultural sector in 2020 (WT/TPR/S/420/Rev.1 page 102).  
 
In Georgia 's 2020 Table DS:1 domestic support notification (G/AG/N /GEO/25) the total notified 
domestic support was GEL 150.9 million.  
There also appeared to be other discrepancies noted in the TPR with regards to measures that appear 
to have not been included in Georgia 's domestic support notifications and a lack of requ ired 
Table  DS:2 notifications.  
In responses to questions raised by Members, Georgia informed Members that it would submit the 
respective notifications in the first half of 2022.  
a. Please provide an update on the status of Georgia submitting revised Table  DS:1 
notification to account for noted discrepancies.  
b. Please provide an update on the status of submitting the required Table DS:2 notifications 
for any new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction commitments.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 103033: Question by United States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services  
In G/AG/N/GEO/28 for calendar year 2021, Georgia notified in Supporting Table DS:1 the measure 
"Modernization of Amelioration System. " 
This measure was not notified in Georgia 's domesti c support notifications for calendar years 2017 
through 2020, but did appear in notifications for calendar years 2015 and 2016.   
a. Please confirm whether the measure notified in 2021 is the same as the measure last 
notified in 2016.  
b. If the same, what was the  reason for the measure not being notified from 2017 to 2020?  
2.2.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/277)  
AG-IMS ID 103141: Question by India  - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/JPN/277) of Japan for the Fiscal Year 2020/2021, Supporti ng 
Table  DS:1 (Measures exempt from the reduction commitment - "Green Box"), Japan has notified a 
measure "Public stockholding for food security purposes" with 18 billion JPY as support. In this 
regard, India requests Japan to:  
a. Provide details of this meas ure. 
b. Provide information at what price the foodstuffs are acquired and released? How are these 
prices determined?  
c. Provide information about the quantity of acquired and released stocks during 2019 -20 
and 2020-21. 
2.2.7   Malaysia (G/ AG/N/MYS/53)  
AG-IMS ID 103035: Question  by United States of America, Australia - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/MYS/53 for 2015, Malaysia notified two rice -specific domestic support measures: Paddy 
Price Subsidy Income Support ( MYR 497 million) in Supporting Table DS:1 and the fertilizer subsidy 
scheme for rice ( MYR 465 million) in Supporting Table DS:2.  However, Malaysia 's Ministry of Finance 
government expenditure report for 2016 includes estimated expenditures on rice support for the 
year 2015 in  section B/P21 (found on pages 257 and 258 here:  
https://www.mof.gov.my/portal/arkib/expenditure/2016/b21_2.pdf ), which includes other support 
for rice. The other measures inclu de the Incentive to Increase Rice Yield ( MYR 20 million), the Paddy 
Production Incentive ( MYR 563 million), the Certified Paddy Seed Subsidy ( MYR 85 million), the 
Subsidy for Fertilizer for Hill Paddy ( MYR 70 million), and Price Rice Subsidy ( MYR 528 milli on). 
a. Please confirm the budgetary expenditures for each of the identified measures for  2015 
and confirm whether each measure is included in G/AG/N/MYS/53 and if so, where.  
b. If not, please explain why Malaysia has not included the measure in its domestic sup port 
notification.  
c. Noting that 2015 was more than six years ago, please provide an update on Malaysia 's 
plans to bring its domestic support notifications up to date.  
AG-IMS ID 103036: Question by United States of America, Australia - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/MYS/53, Malaysia notified Paddy Price Subsidy Income Support ( MYR 497 million) in 
Supporting Table DS:1.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 35 - 
 
  In response to AG -IMS ID 91185, Malaysia noted that payments are "based on the context of poverty 
redressal and upliftme nt of the socio -economic well -being of paddy farmers ". 
Further, Malaysia did not specifically confirm that payments were not tied to the type or volume of 
current production, noting only which farmers were eligible to receive payment.  According to the 
Malaysian Parliament website ( here), the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industries is described as 
subsidizing "agricultural output " through the Skim Subsidi Harga Padi (SSHP), the Malay name for 
the Paddy Price Subsidy Income Support scheme.  
Media reports indicate that the SSHP in 2021 was allocated MYR 1.53 billion, a substantial increase 
over the notified level of support in 2015.  
Further, the Parliament website indicates that eligible producers in 2021 will receive MYR 360 per 
metric ton ne in 2019, indicating payments are not decouple d income support.  
a. Please confirm that the SSHP is the same measure as the Paddy Price Subsidy Income 
Support measure notified by Malaysia in G/AG/N/MYS/53.  
b. Please explain how the actual value of payments are determined for eligible producers for 
the Paddy  Price Subsidy Income Support measure notified in 2015, including whether 
support was based on the quantity of output sold or produced by eligible producers and 
the payment rate per unit of output.  
c. Please indicate whether there has been any change in the p rogramme since 2015 as 
compared to the SSHP measure described by the Malaysian Parliament website for 2021.  
2.2.8   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/55, G/AG/N/MEX/56)  
AG-IMS ID 103109: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Mexico f or submitting its 2020 DS:1 notification G/AG/N/MEX/56. Mexico has 
notified that under the Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices, eligible rice production increased 
to 165,900 tonnes in 2020 from 53,000 tonnes in 2019.  
Australia asks that Mexico indica te what proportion of eligible rice production is being exported.  
AG-IMS ID 103110: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada thanks Mexico for its 2020 DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/MEX/56).  
Canada is seeking further information r elated to the Supporting Table DS:1.  
a. Could Mexico provide additional information on the types of projects that fall under the 
heading "2(g) Infrastructural services "?  
b. Could Mexico provide additional information on the types of programs or activities that 
are covered under a measure called "Production for welfare " notified under "Structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids "?  
AG-IMS ID 103112: Question by Japan - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan would like to thank Mexico for its submission of DS:1 notification for MY2020 
(G/AG/N/MEX/56). We also appreciate that Canada raised a question regarding expenditures re lated 
to fertilizers at the 100th COA, and Mexico 's detailed description of in -kind support programme on 
fertilizers. (AG -IMS ID  100099)  
According to an article (20/07/2022) on the website Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 
of the Netherlands , the Mexican President Lopez Obrador announced an ambitious investment plan 
to reactiv ate national fertilizers production. Furthermore, the Mexican government is tackling the 
price inflation with several policies : 1) New investments in fertilizer plants; 2) Expansion of free 
fertilizer handout programme; 3) Duty -free fertilizer imports; 4) Organic fertilizers.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Mexico 's most recent DS:1 notification shows that the expenditure on fertilizer increased by 
MXN 64.2 million to MXN 186.9  million in CY2020.  Could Mexico break down this fertilizer subsidy 
for 2020 and provide an outline?  
AG-IMS ID 103113: Question  by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
New Zealand notes Mexico has not provided full information in Supporting Table DS:1.  
New Zealand  would appreciate further information regarding the name and description  of the 
domestic support measures notified, in Supporting Table DS:1 including: 2(a); 2(b); 2(e); 2(g); 4; 
and 11.   
AG-IMS ID 103037 : Question by United States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
G/AG/N/MEX/56, covering calendar year 2020, contains a measure called "Agriculture, Livestock, 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Promotion Programme " valued at 96.4 million Mexican 1991 pesos.  
G/AG/N/MEX/55, covering calendar year 2019, contained the "Agriculture Promotion Programme " 
valued at 99.9 million Mexican 1991 pesos, and the "Livestock Promotion Programme " valued at 
5.7 million Mexican 1991 pesos.   
a. Please indicate whether the "Agriculture Promotion Programme " and the "Livestock 
Promotion Programme " were merged into the "Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, and 
Aquaculture Promotion Programme " between 2019 and 2020.  
b. If so, please explain the changes that were made to the programme as a result of the 
merger.  
c. Please indicate whether the notified budgeta ry outlays represent only funding provided to 
agricultural commodities and livestock or also includes non -agricultural commodities, such 
as fish.  
AG-IMS ID 103039: Question by United  States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance pro vided through investment aids  
Mexico's notification G/AG/N/MEX/55 contained "Rural Development Programme " and "Cooperation 
Programme, " both of which do not appear in G/AG/N/MEX/56.  
  
Have these two measures been terminated? If not, please provide an update  on their status  
AG-IMS ID 103038: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/MEX/56 contains an "electric power subsidy " in Supporting Table DS:2.  A note on the 
table indicates that fun ds were spent on electricity charges for agricultural use.  
a. Does the Mexican government provide funding for electricity charges for uses other than 
agriculture?  
b. If so, does the Mexican government use one programme for funding all electricity 
programmes, or is there a separate programme specifically to fund electricity for 
agriculture?  
c. How did the Mexican government determine what electricity charges are for agricultural 
use for the purposes of notifying this electric power subsidy?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.2.9   New Zealand  (G/AG/N/NZL/132)  
AG-IMS ID 103142: Question by India  - General services: pest and disease control  
In DS:1 notification of New Zealand for the Financial Year 2020/2021, it has been noted that one of 
the programme titled as "Biosecurity Incursion Response a nd Long Term Pest Management" notified 
under Green Box measure "2(b) Pest and disease control" shows a sharp increase of 47.85% from 
NZD 48.29 million to NZD 71.4 million when compared with the previous DS:1 notification.   
New Zealand is requested to desc ribe the factors responsible for this growth and also provide a 
detailed description of "Biosecurity Incursion Response and Long Term Pest Management."  
2.2.10   Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/17/Corr.1, G/AG/N/PAK/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/PAK/19/Corr.1)  
AG-IMS ID 103114: Question b y European Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
Pakistan has submitted corrigendum to the DS:1 notifications in relation to MY  2012-2013 
(G/AG/N/PAK/17/corr.1); MY  2013-2014 (G/AG/N/PAK/18/corr.1); MY  2014-2015 
(G/AG/N/PAK/19/corr.1) and MY 2015-2016 (G/AG/N/PAK/20/corr.1).  
a. Could Pakistan provide more information on the Public stockholding measures included in 
the corrigendum of the notifications (as listed above)?  
b. Could Pakistan provide the quantities of the wheat concerned?  
c. Could Pakis tan confirm whether the measure concerned only wheat or other agricultural 
products as well?  
2.2.11   Paraguay (G/AG/N/ PRY/34)  
AG-IMS ID 103143: Question by India - Domestic food aid  
In DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/PRY/34) of Paraguay for the calendar year 2020, Suppo rting 
Table  DS:1 (Measures exempt from the reduction commitment - "Green Box"), Paraguay has notified 
a new scheme "Improving market integration of the eastern region (PIMA)" under measure 
"Domestic Food aid" with 14.43 million USD. In this context, India requests Par aguay:  
a. to elaborate upon the Scheme for improving market integration?  
b. How does this measure comply with provisions under para 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA?  
2.2.12   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/85)  
AG-IMS ID 103115: Question by Japan - Input subsidies available to low -incom e or 
resource -poor producers  
Japan would appreciate if Philippines could reply to our question raised at the last COA meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 102015) on Philippines ' DS:1 notification G/AG/N/PHL/85.  
Regarding Philippines ' Development Programme (b) Provision of access to farm inputs, Japan notices 
that the increase of the support is more than double (CY2020: PHP 5,593,702 thousand to 
CY2021:  PHP 14,188,318 thousand). Could Philippines please explain the reason behind and 
illustrate the details of the support?  
2.2.13   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/37)  
AG-IMS ID 103007: Question by Brazil  - Direct payments: other  
Brazil would appreciate it if the Russian Federation could provide further details on the nature of the 
"subsidies to legal entities for forming, holding, insuring of intervention fund, for loan servicing, and G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 38 - 
 
  relevant measures" that it has been notifying under Supporting Table DS:1 (Measures exempt from 
the reduction commitment - "Green Box"), as "other direct payment".  
AG-IMS ID 103117 : Question by Thailand - Direct payments: other  
Thailand appreciates the notification concerning domestic support commitme nts of 
Russian  Federation. Under Supporting table DS1, the Russia n Federation  notified measures under 
the other direct payment as "Subsidies to legal entities for forming, holding, insuring of intervention 
fund, for loan servicing, and relevant measures " at federal and sub -federal level.  
Thailand would like to seek clarification from Russian Federation on the above -mentioned projects. 
What are the functions and roles of the legal entities? Please, provide an example as it will be helpful 
in understanding a bove mentioned legal entities.  
AG-IMS ID 103116: Question by Paraguay  - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the Russian Federation for submitting 
notification G/AG/N/RUS/37 concerning its domestic support. We note a substantial increase in 
product -specific subsidies granted to flax and hemp, from 13% of value of production in 2019 
to 38.7% of value of production in 2020. Could you please provide:  
 
a. the reasons for such an increase and the programmes that have be en implemented that 
may have caused it?  
b. Disaggregated data on flax and hemp subsidies, if available?  
c. The m ain export destinations of Russian hemp?  
2.2.14   United Kingdom  (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 103050: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
In United Kingdom 's reply to India 's question AG -IMS ID 102107, the United Kingdom explained that 
the eligible productions for butter, skimmed milk powder and common wheat were reported as zero 
in Supporting Table DS:5 because "prices have rema ined significantly higher than the applied 
administered price throughout the reporting period and no applications for support were received 
during the reporting period ". 
Is it a correct interpretation that the United Kingdom applies administered prices for  all three 
mentioned commodities and still reports eligible production as zero? If so, can the United  Kingdom 
explain how that is compatible with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.2.15   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/157)  
AG-IMS ID 10 3118: Question by Canada  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In G/AG/N/USA/157 Supporting Table DS:1 General notes, it is mentioned that "Wages 
and salaries and administrative expenses were excluded except where such outlays reflect 
the level of s ervice provided to agriculture ".  
Could the United States elaborate on how it determines which wages and salaries and 
administrative expenses reflect the level of service provided to agriculture?  
b. In G/AG/N/USA/157  Supporting Table DS:4, the United States reports the  Current Total 
Aggregate Measurement  of Support (CTAMS)  for beef cattle and calves, sheep and lambs 
and livestock. In notes (2) of the same table, the U.S. indicates: "Livestock category 
includes all species eligible for Livestock Forage Program (LFP), Livestock Indemnity 
Program (LIP), and Emergency Assistance for Livestock Program (ELAP) program cattle & 
calves, sheep & lambs, poultry, swine, goats, llamas, alpacas, emus, deer, elk, reindeer, 
and equine. Value of production does not incl ude reindeer, for which data are not 
reported. "  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 39 - 
 
  Can the United States explain why support provided under the LFP, LIP and 
ELAP programmes for cattle, calves, sheep and lambs is not reported under their 
respective categories?  
c. Can the United  States clarify why it has decided to report the support provided by the 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) 1 and CFAP 2 as a single programme even 
though both programmes covered different commodities and used different calculation 
formulas?  
AG-IMS ID 103119: Ques tion by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In G/AG/N/USA/157 Supporting Table DS:6, the United States reported support provided to the 
dairy sector through the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program. In December 2021, the 
United  States retroactively modi fied the DMC regulations as follows:  
 
These changes were made retroactive to January 2020 and increase both the likelihood and the size 
of potential payments under the program. Can the United States clarify if these retroactive payments 
were reported in the G/AG/N/USA/166 since they are associated with production in 2020 and 2021?  
 
a. Premium alfalfa hay is now being used instead of blended alfalfa hay in the feed cost 
calculation which is then used to determine the National average margin for ea ch month, 
and; 
b. The supplemental DMC provision allows producers to update their annual milk production 
history to levels produced in 2019 instead of the baselines created in 2011, 2012, or 2013.  
2.2.16   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166)  
AG-IMS ID 103122: Q uestion by Australia - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the United States for submitting its 2020 -21 DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/166.  
Australia notes that the US has reported substantial year -on-year product specific AMS growth  for 
barley (158% growth), buckwheat (374% growth), millet (173% growth), oats (232% growth), rye 
(446% growth), and safflower (209% growth) – predominantly due to payments made under the 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). The US has also reported  an increase in the proportion 
of support relative to the value of production of these products.  
Australia asks that the United States indicate the reason for these increases and the main export 
markets for these products for the year to which this notifi cation refers.  
AG-IMS ID 103131 : Question by New Zealand, Paraguay - Annex 2 (Green Box)  
New Zealand commends the US on a decreased AMS expenditure from USD  18,247  million 
in 2019-20 to USD  15,984  million in 2020 -21 (decrease of USD 2,263 million). However , 
New Zealand notes that US Annex 2 spending has significantly increased over this period from 
USD 139,220 to USD 188,735.958 mill (increase of USD 49,515.958 million).  
 
Could the US please:  
a. explain the reasons for this significant increase;  
b. indicate th e policies in place to ensure such a significant increase in spend is in compliant 
with the chapeau of Annex 2 and has no, or at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or 
effects on production;  
c. advise if this is the result of a change in policy, and if th e US intends to continue to increase 
support under Annex 2?   
AG-IMS ID 103120 : Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services  
Australia thanks the United States for submitting its 2020 -21 DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/166.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 40 - 
 
  Australis notes that the US has reported that expenditure under the "Risk Management Agency 
(RMA): Underwriting gains to insurers – Underwriting gains provided  to insurance companies under 
the Standard Reinsurance Agreement program " has increased by almost USD  1 billion, from 
USD 583 million in marketing year 2019 -20 to USD 1,517 million in marketing year 2020 -21. 
Australia notes that the US has responded to que stions by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 101054 and 100108) 
that "the agreement specifies the payment of administrative and operating costs and the sharing of 
underwriting risk to support that delivery and servicing activity. "  
Australia asks that the US:  
a. indicate if this will permit the USDA RMA to increase the provision of crop insurance, and  
b. outline its assessment of whether an increase in the provision of crop insurance would 
have no or at most minimal effects on production . 
AG-IMS ID 103121: Question by Australia  - Domestic food aid  
Australia thanks the United States of America (US) for its submission of DS:1 notification 
G/AG/N/USA/166. Australia seeks further clarification from the US on its Table DS:1 and Supporting 
Tables. 
Expenditure for domestic food aid increased significantly between 2019 -20 and 2020 -21 
(G/AG/N/USA/157), mainly due to an increase in expenditure on the Food & Nutrition Service 's 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) of USD 48.8  billion.  
Australia asks that the United States explain the reason for this increase.   
AG-IMS ID 103009 : Question by Brazil, Paraguay - Domestic food aid  
According to G/AG/N/USA/166, expenditures under "Food & Nutrition Service (FNS): Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)" have increased more than 50% from 2019/2020 
to 2020/2021. Could the US provide any clarification on the causes of this increase, such as changes 
in the number of beneficiaries, volume or prices of the food purchased?  
AG-IMS ID 103126: Quest ion by Japan - Domestic food aid  
Japan would like to thank the US for its submission of DS:1 notification for MY2020 
(G/AG/N/USA/166).  
We note 40% increase of subsidies for "domestic food aid, " which accounts for 90% of "Green Box ", 
from USD 85.6 billion i n MY2019 to USD 134.5  billion in MY2020.  
The USD 48.8 billion  increase (57% up) in "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) " is 
more than remarkable above all.  Could the US please outline the eligibility criteria related to 
nutritional objectives of SNAP, in accordance with paragraph 4, Annex 2 of AOA?  
AG-IMS ID 103132: Question by New Zealand - Domestic food aid  
New Zealand acknowledges the impact of COVID -19 on food affordability over the period covered 
by G/AG/N/USA/166. New  Zealand notes the US  has significantly increased support from the 
previous marketing year (USD 49,633 million) under Annex 2 (4) Domestic food aid (increase from 
USD 120,315 million (2019 -20) to USD 169,948 million (2020 -21)). Could the US please provide 
the policy rationale for such a significant increase in support?  
New Zealand is particularly interested in the Milk Donation Reimbursement Program notified under 
Annex 2 (4). New  Zealand is of the understanding that the purpose of the Milk Donation 
Reimbursement Program is to  allow "eligible dairy organisations to partner with non -profit 
organizations that distribute food to low -income individuals " (taken from the USDA website: Milk 
Donation Reimbursement Program | Agricultural Marketing Service (usda.gov) ), and then the eligible 
dairy organisations receive limited reimbursements relating to these donations. According to the 
USDA website, these reimbursements are only open to domestic processors. Does the United States 
have any plans to expand this programme to international dairy processors?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 41 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 103056: Question by European  Union - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
The European Union notes a decrease in notified support under Environmental Programmes from  
USD 6,019 million in Marketing Year 2019/2020 to USD 4,513 million in Marketing Year 2020/2021.  
What are the reasons for this decrease in support?  
AG-IMS ID 103052: Question by European Union - Current Total AMS (Amber Box)  
Amber Box Support - Overall Current Total AMS plus de minimis  support . 
The EU notes, that since the 2017 DS:1 notification the overall support within the Amber Box 
support, the figures were:  
2017 USD 12.6 billion  of which Current Total AMS  USD 4.0 billion  
2018 USD 23.4 billion   USD 13.1 billion  
2019 USD 36.0 billion   USD 18.2 billion  and 
2020 USD 37.7 billion   USD 16.0 billion.  
In fact , the amount in the current notification is the highest since before the year 2000. The US  AMS 
commitment is USD 19.1 billion. Total De minimis  support (Product Specific and Non -Product Specific 
is USD 20.8 billion. So , the US support under de minimis  is higher than the actual AMS limit of 
USD 19.1 billion, which is fully within the 5% de minimis  limit – NPS arriving at 4.3% of VoP.  
The EU would like to ask the US the following question:  
Does the US see this trend of Amber Box support to be in line with the aim of the reform in the 
Agreement on Agriculture "to provide for substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support?  
AG-IMS ID 103133 : Question by New Zealand - Current Total AMS (Amber Box)  
New Zealand notes that applications for the CFAP closed on 12  October 2021. Will the United States ' 
next DS:1 notification reflect decreased levels of assistance, considering the CFAP currently accounts 
for 67.6% of the U.S. total AMS?  
AG-IMS ID 103010: Question  by Brazil - Market price support: Eligible production  
In G/AG/N/USA/166, Supporting Table D S:5, the US has informed that eligible production for sugar 
during market -year 2020 -2021 was 8.376 billion tonnes, which represented an increase of almost 
1 billion eligible tonnes in comparison to marketing -year 2019 -2020. Additionally, the value of the 
US sugar production grew around 36% on a year -to-year basis.  
In light of the above, could the US provide an update on recent developments of its sugar policies 
that could explain the growth in eligible production and in value of production?  
AG-IMS ID 103123 : Question  by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks the United States for submitting its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/166. Australia 
seeks further clarification from the US on its Table DS:1 and Supporting Tables.  
Over several years, including 2020 -21, the US has reported direct payments issued under the Market 
Facilitation Program (MFP) and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). Specifically in 
relation to Supporting Table DS:6:  
• in 2020 -21 the US reported direct payments unde r MFP of roughly USD 23 billion and 
under CFAP of USD 24 billion ; 
• in 2019 -20 the US reported direct payments under MFP of roughly USD 26 billion and 
under CFAP of USD 26 billion ; 
• in 2018 -19 the US reported direct payments under MFP of roughly USD 19 billion.  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 42 - 
 
  Based on the MFP information, direct payments to producers spiked sharply between 2018 -19 
and 2019-20 and fell slightly in 2020 -21. The case is similar for CFAP.  
a. Does the US expect these decreases to continue, based on market conditions?  
b. Does th e decrease in the spending from these programs mean they have achieved their 
policy objectives?   
AG-IMS ID 103125: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks the US for its submission of DS:1 notification G/AG/N/USA/166. Austra lia seeks 
further clarification from the US on its Table DS:1 and Supporting Tables.  
Australia also notes that cherries, cranberries, dairy, ginseng, grapes/raisins, hogs and pigs, and 
tree nuts have not BEEN  receiving direct MFP payments since 2018 -19. 
Could the US please indicate the reason why these products are no longer receiving direct payments?  
AG-IMS ID 103144: Question  by New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
New Zealand notes the US has notified a significant increase in product -specific AM S for sheep and 
lamb from the previous marketing year. Could the US please provide further information on the 
policy developments that led to the increased product -specific outlay?  
AG-IMS ID 103057 : Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
What are the reasons for the large increase in support under the Coronavirus Food Assistance  
Program (CFAP) in Supporting Table DS:9 in Marketing Year 2020/2021 as compared to the 
Marketing Year before?  
AG-IMS ID 103008: Question  by Brazil - Classification of  measures  
Brazil notices that the US has once again notified  operating costs related to the federal crop 
insurance as "infrastructural services" subsidies.   
Taking note of the answers provided to questions AG -IMS ID s 100108 and 10154, Brazil would like 
to consult the US if it has given further consideration on the possibility of notifying such outlays in 
another category of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
AG-IMS ID 103134: Question by New Zealand - Classification of measures  
New Zealand notes that there has been a significant increase in the level of spending 
(USD  1,927.807  million) under the PLC between the marketing years 2019 -2020 and 2020 -2021, 
and a smaller, albeit still significant increase in spend (USD 297.797 million) under the 
ARC-CO programme. Can the US offer more information on the reasons behind the increases in 
spending under each programme?  
New Zealand appreciates the information the US has previously provided on PLC and ARC -CO.  
However, New  Zealand reiterates question AG -IMS ID 100109 (a nd numerous other Member 's 
questions) on the U.S. justification for notifying these payments as Non -Product -Specific AMS when 
a farmer 's eligibility to receive payments under these programmes is based on whether they have 
produced a specific type of crop. Can the US please explain how PLC and ARC -CO payments comply 
with the requirement for non -product -specific support to be provided in favour of agricultural 
producers in general?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 43 - 
 
  2.3  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT  MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.3.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/ BRA/68)  
AG-IMS ID 103145: Question by India - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per the DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/BRA/68) submitted on 9 February 2022, Programme "Feed 
Brazil" replaces "Program of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming". Th e 
Programme "Feed Brazil" is intended to promote food security and nutritional actions and building 
stocks. In this context, India requests Brazil to provide the following details:  
a. How does "Feed Brazil" differ from "Program of acquisition of agricultural products from 
family farming"?  
b. What are the agricultural products covered under the programme?  
c. At what price does the "Feed Brazil" programme procure from farmers? How this price is 
determined?  
d. What is the eligibility criteria for farmers to be covered un der this programme?  
2.3.2   United Kingdom  (G/AG/N/GBR/14)  
AG-IMS ID 103011: Question by Brazil , Paraguay - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Brazil appreciates the United Kingdom's transparency in relation to its new Green Box programmes. 
Overall, the pr ogrammes descriptions are clear. Nonetheless, Brazil has some specific questions, as 
follows:  
a. In what regards the "Environmental Land Management: Sustainable Farming 
Incentive  (SFI)", the UK has explained that farmers are required to choose land -based 
actions in order to be entitled for the benefits arising from the SFI. Could the UK provide 
a listing, or at least some examples, of such land -based actions?  
b. In what regards the "Landscape Recovery (LR)" Project Development Phase (PDP)", the  UK 
has claimed tha t it meets the policy -specific criteria set out in Annex 2, paragraph  11. 
Could the UK indicate what "structural disadvantages" the programme seeks to remedy?  
c. In what regards the "National Test Programme (NTP) Scotland", the UK listed, as an 
example of a l oss of income, a producer participating in a survey. Could the UK further 
elaborate on this circumstance and why it could lead to loss of income?  
AG-IMS ID 103059: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In most cases the UK  indicates that the measures notified fulfill Green Box criteria and in particular 
"Annex 2 Para 1 ". 
However, could the UK for every single measure notified please indicate how it intends to notify in 
the DS:1  notification the different measures according to paragraphs 2 (preferably separately point  a 
to g) to 12 of the Annex 2.  
AG-IMS ID 103146 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks the UK for submitting its DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/GBR /14) on 24 August 2022, under 
which UK has mentioned about a "Lump Sum Exit Scheme". From the notification, it is found that 
the period of application of this measure is from April 2022 to September 2022.  
a. India requests the UK to inform whether the Scheme  still continues or has been 
terminated?  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 44 - 
 
  b. What is the actual amount disbursed under the Scheme during the period April to 
September 2022?  
c. Under the heading "Detailed Description of Measure With Reference To Criteria", it is 
written that  "Recipients must h ave transferred their agricultural land in England (with 
limited exceptions for up to 5 hectares of that land and for any land planted with trees 
under certain woodland creation schemes)".  India requests the UK to kindly share details 
of the "certain woodl and creation schemes".  
AG-IMS ID 103040: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/GBR/14 the United Kingdom provided a Table DS:2 notification for the Sustainable 
Farming Incentive (SFI).  The notification indicates the measure is to help maintain food production 
while "Farmers will be incentivized to produce public goods by meeting standards relating to water 
quality, biodiversity, animal health and welfare standards, climate change mitigation. "  
a. Please pro vide additional details with regards to the SFI standards, how they were 
developed and whether the United Kingdom has developed metrics to determine the 
effectiveness of the standards in delivering positive environmental benefits.  
b. Please provide some examp les of the kinds of environmental benefits this measure is 
designed to produce and how producers will be incentivized to continue the practices 
beyond the lifecycle of the initiative.  
AG-IMS ID 103127: Question  by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks the United Kingdom for its submission of DS:2 notification G/AG/N/GBR/4 on 
6 April 2021. The DS:2 submission states that this measure is not subject to reduction commitments 
as it is consistent with Blue Box criteria according to Article 6.5 of the AoA.  
Australia notes public reporting that the programme aims to create a domestically produced source 
of protein for animal feed ( https://www.farminguk.com/news/ni -protein -crops -scheme -payments -
extended -until-end-of-2023_61105.html ) in place of imported soya and other protein 
(https://www.daera -ni.gov.uk/consultations/daera -consultation -proposal -introduce -protein -crops -
payment -pilot-scheme -2021). 
Australia seeks clarification on the Coupled Support for Protein Crops programme and its notification 
as a programme consistent with Article 6.5 of the AoA.  
Australia asks that the UK explain how this measure limits production. In this regard, Australia notes 
that this measure is targeted at producers that grow protein crops; that the total area eligible for 
payment under the pilot scheme of this measure is capped at 1,000 hectares (ha); and that in 2020, 
only 153 ha of protein crops were grown in Northern Ireland. Australia 's understanding is that these 
factors combined suggest the measure would tend to increa se, rather than limit, the production of 
protein crops.  
2.4  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS  (TABLE ER:1)  
2.4.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/77/Rev.2)  
AG-IMS ID 103147: Question by Paraguay  - Timely notification  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of t he European  Union for submitting notification 
G/AG/N/EU/77/Rev.2. We note again with concern the considerable delay in notifying the measure, 
which was already extended from 15  July, for a second time, and was not notified until more than 
two months later.  
Paraguay has already expressed its concerns regarding this notification, its delay and the continuous 
renewal of the measure at the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in June. We regret that the 
scenario both for renewal and for the delay continues t o recur. In this regard, we request the EU to 
report on:  G/AG/W/ 226 
 
- 45 - 
 
  a. The reasons for the notification's further delay.  
b. Whether the measure will be extended again.  
2.4.2   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/52/Add.1)  
AG-IMS ID 103058: Question by United  Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan - Importing 
Members' food security  
The United Kingdom would like to thank Malaysia for its response to AG -IMS ID 102047 and 102008.  
The United Kingdom understands that Malaysia is planning to ease their export restriction on li ve 
commercial broiler chickens in phases but that restrictions will be retained on round chickens, 
chicken cuts and day -old chickens. The United Kingdom would therefore welcome an update on the 
analysis that has been undertaken on how these continued restr ictions will impact the food security 
of importing Members and when they will be fully lifted.   
2.5  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT  OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.5.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/269)  
AG-IMS ID 103128: Question by Australia - NFIDC  
Australia thanks Japan for its food aid support to LDCs and NFIDCs and the transparency provided 
regarding this support over 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. Australia notes Japan 's breakdown of 
in-kind commodities shipped, and other technical and financial supp ort given, including 
in G/AG/N/JPN/269.  
Australia asks that Japan indicate whether it is considering aligning its food aid support with other 
OECD DAC peers via the provision of cash rather than in -kind support and in line with the Food 
Assistance Convent ion. 
2.5.2   Russian Federation  (G/AG/N/RUS/36/Rev.1)  
AG-IMS ID 103129: Question by Australia  - NFIDC  
Australia thanks the Russian Federation for submitting its revised 2021 notification 
G/AG/N/RUS/36/Rev.1.  
Australia requests that the Russia n Federation : 
a. provide further details as to its reported disbursements through the WFP. We note the 
source of data was not attributed to a specific WFP publication.  
b. Provide further details of its food aid and any provision of technical assistance, and note 
the sparse details in cluded in Russia 's notification.  
c. Indicate whether it has any further plans for the coming financial year to support the  WFP 
to distribute food to LDCs and NFIDCs.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Uruguay  
AG-IMS ID 103111: Question  by India  
The last DS:1 notification  (G/AG/N/URY/63) issued by Uruguay is for the calendar year 2016. 
Uruguay may kindly update the Committee by when the pending notifications would be issued.  
 
 
__________