G/AG/W/237  
 
16 June 2023  
(23-4129) Page: 1/57 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 27 -28 JUNE 20231  
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
14 June 2023 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/67.  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
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 or obligations under the WTO.  Questions cosponsored via the AG -
IMS as of 2 p.m. on 16 June are already reflected accordingly in  this document .  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.1   Australia's SPS measure on dairy imports (SIM 812)  ................................ ........................  7 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105094)  ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
1.2   Australia's new support schemes in Victoria  (SIM 813)  ................................ .....................  7 
1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105093)  ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
1.3   Brazil's  price support mechanisms (SIM 814)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.3.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105095)  ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
1.4   Brazil - "Feed Brazil"  Programme  (SIM 815)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.4.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105096)  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.5   Brazil - Price Guarantee Programme for Family Farming (PGPAF) (SIM 816)  .......................  8 
1.5.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105097)  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.6   Brazil's Food Purchase Programme (PAA)  (SIM 817)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.6.1    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, China (AG -IMS 
ID 105009)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
1.7   China's support to beef cattle sector  (SIM 818)  ................................ ...............................  8 
1.7.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105025)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.8   China's wheat support  (SIM 819) ................................ ................................ ...................  9 
1.8.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105026)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.9   China's purchase policy of grains and oils  (SIM 820)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.9.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105030)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.10   China's environmental programmes  (SIM 821)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.10.1    Question by Canada, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 105027)  ................................ ..........  9 
1.11   China's Blue Box support  (SIM 822)  ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
1.11.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105028)  ................................ ................................ .10 
1.12   China's food aid (SIM 823)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 105031)  ................................ ..................... 10 
1.13   Democratic Republic of Congo - import -limiting  price measures  (SIM 824)  ....................... 10 
1.13.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105002)  ................................ ......... 10 
1.14   Spain's agricultural support (SIM 825)  ................................ ................................ ........ 11 
1.14.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 105033)  ................................ ................................ ....11 
1.15   EU's Young Farmers Scheme  (SIM 826)  ................................ ................................ .......11 
1.15.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105098)  ................................ ................................ ....11 
1.16   India's subsidy for fertilizers  (SIM 827)  ................................ ................................ .......11 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America,  Paraguay, Australia  (AG-IMS ID 105003) ............ 11 
1.17   Nicaragua - information about import quotas (SIM 828)  ................................ ................ 12 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105004)  ................................ ......... 12 
1.17.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105005)  ................................ ......... 12 
1.18   Paraguay - Improved Family and Indigenous Production in the Department of Eastern 
Paraguay (PROMAFI) programme (SIM 829)  ................................ ................................ .......... 12 G/AG/W/237  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105102)  ................................ ................................ ....12 
1.19   Switzerland's support to milk and milk products  (SIM 830)  ................................ ............ 12 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS I D 105164)  ................................ ......................... 12 
1.20   Switzerland's decoupled income support (SIM 831)  ................................ ....................... 12 
1.20.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 105165)  ................................ ......................... 12 
1.21   Thailand's palm oil  price guarantee scheme (SIM 832)  ................................ .................. 13 
1.21.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 1051 01) ................................ ................................ ....13 
1.22   Türkiye's increased import tariffs (SIM 833)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.22.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 105090)  ................................ ..................... 13 
1.23   Türkiye's export licensing requirement  (SIM 834)  ................................ ......................... 13 
1.23.1    Question by Switzerland, European Union, Japan (AG -IMS ID 105018)  ......................... 13 
1.24   U.S. export devel opment programmes  (SIM 835)  ................................ ......................... 14 
1.24.1    Question by India, China (AG -IMS ID 105107)  ................................ ........................... 14 
1.25   U.S. Resilient Food System Infrastructure (RFSI) Program (SIM 836)  .............................. 14 
1.25.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105105)  ................................ ................................ ....14 
1.26   U.S. support to  organic producers (SIM 837) ................................ ................................ 14 
1.26.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105106)  ................................ ................................ ....14 
1.27   Uruguay's insurance subsidy (SIM 838)  ................................ ................................ .......15 
1.27.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105111)  ................................ ................................ ....15 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .......... 15 
1.28   Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ .....15 
1.28.1    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, Australia , 
Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105008)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .15 
1.29   Canada's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  ................................ ............................ 16 
1.29.1    Question by Australia, United Kingdom, China (AG -IMS ID 105023)  ............................. 16 
1.29.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 105024)  ................................ ................................ ....16 
1.30   China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ ............... 16 
1.30.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105029)  ................................ ................................ .16 
1.31   China's cotton reserves purchasing system (SIM 295)  ................................ ................... 16 
1.31.1    Question by United States of America, Australia  (AG-IMS ID 105001)  .......................... 16 
1.32   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  ................................ ......17 
1.32.1    Question by Brazil, China (AG -IMS ID 105034)  ................................ .......................... 17 
1.32.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105100)  ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.33   European Union's coupled payments (SIM 522)  ................................ ............................ 17 
1.33.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105099)  ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.34   India's export restrictions (SIM 306)  ................................ ................................ ........... 18 
1.34.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 105022)  ................................ ......................... 18 
1.34.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 105020)  ................................ ............................... 18 
1.34.3    Question by Canada, United Kingdom, Japan (AG -IMS ID 105021)  ............................... 18 
1.34.4    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, United States of America, 
Australia , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105007)  ................................ ................................ ................... 18 G/AG/W/237  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.35   Japan -US Trade Agreement  (SIM 564)  ................................ ................................ ........ 19 
1.35.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS IDs 105035, 105036)  ................................ ...................... 19 
1.36   Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  ................................ ............................... 20 
1.36.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105103)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.37   United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  ................................ .......20 
1.37.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 105162)  ................................ ................. 20 
1.38   UK's SSG entitlements (SIM 761)  ................................ ................................ ............... 20 
1.38.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105104)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.39   U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (SIM 811)  ................................ ................................ ........ 20 
1.39.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105108)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.39.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 105120)  ................................ ......................... 21 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  21 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 21 
2.1.1    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/132)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 21 
2.2.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/157)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 21 
2.2.2    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/90)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 
2.2.3    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/67)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 
2.2.4    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/168)  ................................ .............................. 22 
2.3   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TAB LES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .......23 
2.3.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/223)  ................................ ................................ ........... 23 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 23 
2.4.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/142)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 23 
2.4.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63, G/AG/N/BRA/69, G/AG/N/BRA/74)  ................................ .......... 24 
2.4.3    China (G/AG/N/CHN/62, G/AG/N/CHN/63, G/AG/N/CHN/64, G/AG/N/CHN/65)  ................ 26 
2.4.4    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/76)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 27 
2.4.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/13, G/AG/N/IND/15, G/AG/N/IND/18, G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/25, G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/27, G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/29)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 27 
2.4.6    Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/60, G/AG/N/NIC/61, G/AG/N/NIC/62)  ................................ .....37 
2.4.7    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/66)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 
2.4.8    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY /34, G/AG/N/PRY/36)  ................................ .............................. 38 
2.4.9    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
2.4.10    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  ................................ ................................ ........... 39 
2.4.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166) ................................ ............................. 39 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  ................................ ..40 
2.5.1    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/18)  ................................ ................................ ............ 40 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ..41 
2.6.1    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/77)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 41 
2.6.2    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/90, G/AG/N/KOR/91)  ................................ ................ 41 
2.7   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 42 G/AG/W/237  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.7.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/156)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 42 
2.7.2    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/167)  ................................ .............................. 42 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  43 
3.1   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 43 
3.2   Uruguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 44 
4   DEFERRED R EPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 
4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6............. 44 
4.1.1    Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ ............. 44 
4.1.2    Australia, Canada, European Un ion, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Unites 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  ......................... 45 
4.1.3    Australia,  Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in excess 
of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ ..................... 46 
4.1.4    Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  ................................ ........................ 46 
4.1.5    Côte d'Ivoire - Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ ......................... 46 
4.1.6    European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  (SIM 778)  .......47 
4.1.7    European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  ................. 47 
4.1.8    Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas (SIM 17)  ................................ .................... 48 
4.1.9    Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanit ary Import Clearance (SPSIC) Permits (SIM  655) ......49 
4.1.10    South Africa's import measures on poultry meat (SIM 807)  ................................ ......... 50 
4.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  .............................. 50 
4.2.1    SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ....50 
5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  51 
5.1   Argentina  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 51 
5.2   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 51 
5.3   Dominican Republic  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....52 
5.4   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 
5.5   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53 
5.6   Ghana  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 53 
5.7   Guyana  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 54 
5.8   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 54 
5.9   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 55 
5.10   Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 55 
5.11   Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 55 
5.12   Korea, Republic of ................................ ................................ ................................ .....56 
5.13   Malaysia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 56 
5.14   Norway ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
5.15   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 56 
5.16   Türkiye  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
5.17   United Kingdom  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 56 
5.18   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ........................... 57 G/AG/W/237  
 
- 6 - 
 
  5.19   Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 57 
 
  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Australia's SPS measure on dairy imports  (SIM 812)  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105094 ) 
Australia has recently notified that it plans to impose an SPS measure in 2024 to restrict the import 
of dairy products (G/SPS/N/AUS/561 ). In this regard, Indi a seeks the following clarifications:  
a. Can Australia identify the countries which might possibly be affected by the measure?  
b. How does Australia propose to ensure that this measure takes into account the objective 
of minimizing  negative trade effects?  
c. How Au stralia proposes to ensure that the measure will not be more trade restrictive than 
required to achieve an appropriate level of protection?  
d. Given that Australia has a very competitive dairy industry, how would Australia ensure 
that the measure, when enforc ed, will not create a disguised restriction to trade?  
1.2  Australia's new support schemes in Victoria  (SIM 813)  
1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105093 ) 
Australia ha s enacted several new schemes to financially support farmers from Victoria affected by 
the storms and floods occurring from October 2022 -January 2023 
(https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/farm -management/emergency -management/floods/flood -and-
storm -recovery -support -for-farmers ). India expects these very recent schemes will further increase 
Australia 's spending under non-product specific Amber -Box. India would like to know:  
a. when would Australia be notifying these measures and other similar ones under the 
Amber -box adopted between 2019 -2020 and 2021 -22?  
b. Whether Australia has plans to reduce non -product specific spending under the Amber 
box, and reframe such natural disaster support policies to cover them under the Green 
box? 
1.3  Brazil's  price support mechanisms  (SIM 814)  
1.3.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105095 ) 
The Brazilian Government implements several price support mechanisms, including direct 
government purchases (AGF). The AGF allows producers and cooperatives to sell their products to 
the state -owned National  Food Supply Agency (CONAB) at a guaranteed minimum price so as to 
support farmer 's income stability and form public stocks.  
In this context, India requests Brazil to provide details on the following:  
a. What is the eligibility criterion prescribed to receive  support under the above -mentioned 
scheme?  
b. What are the commodities covered under the programme, and what are the factors 
considered while fixing the minimum prices for the products?  
c. How much quantity of stocks is eligible to be sold to the government, and  how is it disposed 
of? 
d. How will this support be notified in the Domestic Support notification?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 8 - 
 
  e. How much is the budget allocation for the direct government purchases of crops?  
1.4  Brazil - "Feed Brazil " Programme  (SIM 815)  
1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105096 ) 
On 9 February 2022, Programme "Feed Brazil " replaced "Program of acquisition of agricultural 
products from family farming ". The 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. What is the budget allocation of the aforementioned programme for the year 2023?  
b. Does Brazil intend  to continue this programme in the upcoming years?  
c. Are there any other categories of farmers eligible to sell products under this scheme other 
than Family Farming? If yes, please elaborate on their eligibility criteria.  
d. How are the stocks procured under "Feed Brazil " distributed?  
1.5  Brazil - Price Guarantee Programme for Family Farming (PGPAF)  (SIM 816)  
1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105097 ) 
A minimum price is set for 49 products through programme "indexation " as per the "Price Guarantee 
Programme for Family Farming " (PGPAF), for the family farmers who take credit under the 
Programme to Strengthen Household Agriculture (PRONAF). The budget allocation for this scheme  
in the year 2022 was BRL 0.2 billion.   
In this regard, India would like to know the following:  
a. What is the mechanism to set the minimum price as per the programme "indexation "? 
b. How is "Family Farming " defined under this programme?  
c. How many family farms ha ve benefitted under this programme?  
1.6  Brazil 's Food Purchase Programme (PAA)  (SIM 817)  
1.6.1   Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, China (AG -IMS 
ID 105009 ) 
We note the reintroduction of Brazil 's Food Purchase Programme (PAA) in March 2023 and look 
forward to receiving further information about these measures. In particular, could Brazil please 
explain how the reintroduction of the PAA will interact with the continued application of Brazil 's other 
domestic support measures, particularly the Rural Credit programmes highlighted in Brazil 's recent 
present ation to the Committee on Agriculture Working Group?  
1.7  China's support to beef cattle sector  (SIM 818)  
1.7.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105025 ) 
According to China 's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs website, on 13 March 2023, the Province 
of Jilin announced ten key policy measures that would promote the development of its beef cattle 
sector through the supply chain 
(http://www.moa.gov.cn/xw/qg/202303/t20230313_6422936.htm ).  
Canada understands that the objective of the program is to reach 10 million cattle, a total output 
value of RMB 250 billion (approximately USD 37 billion), and a st raw feed usage of 24 million tonnes  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 9 - 
 
  by 2025. As part of the measures announced, subsidies are also provided to expand provincial 
slaughtering and processing capacity (e.g., preferential loan rates, direct payments, funding for a 
new breeding innovation cen tre). 
a. Could China provide information on each of the ten (10) key policy measures including 
respective eligibility criteria, implementation period, and estimated total cost?  
b. Could China provide a copy or link to the legislation or regulation implementing t hese 
measures?  
c. Are these measures jointly funded by China 's central and provincial governments? If so, 
what would be the cost -sharing ratio?  
d. In addition to measures announced for the Province of Jilin, are there are other existing 
or planned provincial pro grams for beef cattle? If so, please provide the eligibility criteria, 
implementation period and estimated costs of these programs as well.  
1.8  China's wheat support  (SIM 819)  
1.8.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105026 ) 
China 's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs reported on 27 April 2023 
(http://www.moa.gov.cn/xw/zwdt/202304/t20230427_6426 453.htm ) regarding a new subsidy to 
support wheat production in 22 provinces, to ensure stable and bumper summer harvest. The 
amount is budgeted for RMB 1.6 billion (approximately USD 235 million) for products such as 
insecticides, fungicides, and plant gr owth regulators to help increase grain yield.  
a. What is the implementation period for the subsidies?  
b. What are eligibility criteria for wheat producers to receive payments?  
c. Are there different criteria between wheat production regions?  
1.9  China's purchase polic y of grains and oils  (SIM 820)  
1.9.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105030 ) 
China 's State Council announced on 28 April 2023 a policy for the purchase of wheat, ind ica rice, 
rapeseed, and other grains and oils for the 2023 summer season 
(http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2023 -04/29/content_5753758.htm ) in accordance with 
the 2023 No.  1 Central Document. One of the objectives is to initiate timely minimum purchase price 
in eligible areas.  
a. Could China provide additional information as to how minimum purchase prices would 
apply to domestic rapeseed production?  
b. Could China elaborate on ho w prices and purchase quantities will be set and 
communicated? What are the eligibility criteria to receive minimum purchase prices?  
1.10  China's environmental programmes  (SIM 821)  
1.10.1   Question by Canada, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 105027 ) 
Canada would like to follow up on China 's response to AG -IMS ID 104054 , regarding environmental 
programs:  
a. Could China submit a Table DS:2 notification providing information as to how "returning  
cultivated land to forests and grazing land to grassland " meets the general criteria and 
each policy criteria of paragraph 10 (a) through (d) of Annex 2 due to 
reclassification/modification of this existing program from paragraph 12 of Annex 2?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. Could Chin a provide a breakout of expenditures for individual environmental measures 
notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 in each of the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 
(e.g., agricultural ecological environment protection, conservation of agricultural 
resources and forest resources, land management, prevention and control of 
desertification, as well as forest ecological benefits compensation)?  
1.11  China's Blue Box support  (SIM 822)  
1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 105028 ) 
China provided a response to AG-IMS ID 104105  for newly notified measures for "rice in husk 
(G/AG/N/CHN/66) " and "corn and soybeans ( G/AG/N/CHN/67 )." Canada would like to follow up with 
additional questions to better understand how these two measures meet the criteria defined und er 
Article 6.5.  
China described that these programs fix subsidies according to sown areas in base period or 85% of 
the base level of production. However, an essential policy requirement under Article 6.5 is that the 
programs must be "production -limiting " in nature.  
a. Could China indicate where in the domestic legislations "Caijian [2020] No.41 " 
(http://jjs.mof.gov.cn/tongzhigonggao/202304/t20230423_3880465.htm ) and "Caijian 
[2020] No.84 " (http://jjs.mof.gov.cn/tongzhigonggao/202304/t20230423_3880466.htm ) 
stipulate specifically any production -limiting requirements as part of payment eligibility 
under Article 6.5?  
b. Could China elaborate on how these "production -limiting " programs would work in 
conjunction with the 2023 No.1 Central Document agricultural policy priorities?  
c. Are the reference or base periods of production changed or update d?  
1.12  China's food aid  (SIM 823)  
1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 105031 ) 
The WFP reports on China ' ongoing cooperation with the World Food Programme  to provide food 
assistance to the people of Afghanistan through the Global  Development and South -South 
Cooperation Fund" as of 2022.  
For 2023, the contribution from the Government of the People 's Republic of  China towards its 
emergency response in Afghanistan is supposed to enable WFP  to provide life -saving food assistance 
to nearly 70,000 food -insecure people in  areas struck by acute food insecurity.  
a. Was this food aid provided since  2022 in cash or in kind?  
b. Is China planning to report this  food aid to the WTO in accordance with the applicable 
notification obligations?  
1.13   Democratic Republic of Congo - import -limiting  price measures  (SIM 824)  
1.13.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105002 ) 
Order number 25923 regarding blocking prices of basic food products, agro -pastoral and fishery 
inputs and agricultural equipment, dated 15 December 2022, from the Ministry of Commerce, Supply 
and Consumer Affairs appears to detail implementation of an artificial price which would limit imports 
and protect the Republic of Congo 's domestic market.  
a. Please explain why this measure has not been notified to the World Trade Organization 
(WTO Committee on Agriculture).  
b. Please inform when this measure is expected to be enforced.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 11 - 
 
  c. As displayed in the annex of Order 25923, how were the retail and wholesale prices 
determined for frozen beef, pork meat, poultry and seafood?  
d. As mentioned in Article 1 of Order 25923, please detail what the re view process of prices 
will entail every six months?  
1.14  Spain's agricultural support  (SIM 825)  
1.14.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 105033 ) 
Spain recently approved, through Royal Decree -Law 4/2023 of 11 May 2023, a package of support 
measures  for the agricultural and livestock sectors, in the  context of tackling the effects of drought 
in the  country. The announced disbursement reaches 2.19  billion euros, div ided among insurance 
premium  payments, direct payments and infrastructure services.  
Acknowledging the effects of climate change on  agriculture in different regions, the European Union  
is asked to:  
a. How will Members be able to identify such support in  future  EU notifications? Is it part of 
existing  programs or are they new domestic support measures?  
b. How the EU expects to classify the different forms  of support provided for in Royal 
Decree -Law 4/2023?  More specifically, do insurance premium payments  comply wit h 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the AoA?  
1.15  EU's Young Farmers Scheme  (SIM 826)  
1.15.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105098 ) 
India notes that the EU continued to implement The Young Farmers Scheme until 2020 and, during 
the transition period, provided additional payments to f armers aged 40 or below who were setting 
up an agricultural holding for the first time (or have recently set up).  
In this regard, can the EU elaborate on the following:  
a. Please indicate the total number of beneficiaries and their per -farmer average size of  
landholdings.  
b. Under the scheme, which EU member  State s had the highest number of beneficiaries in 
2022?  
c. Can a beneficiary avail of the scheme multiple times before attaining the age of 40?  
d. What are the "additional eligibility " criteria relating to certain  skills and training 
implemented by the seven -member States and two regions for providing payments to 
farmers?  
e. How does the EU plan to support its young farmers under the new CAP?  
1.16  India's subsidy for fertilizers  (SIM 827)  
1.16.1   Question by United States of Ameri ca, Paraguay , Australia  (AG-IMS ID 105003 ) 
According to media sources, in April 2022, the prices paid by Indian farmers for two key fertilizers 
(urea and di -ammonium phosphate ) were significantly lower than for farmers in other countries.  
According to the reports the government subsidized the price of urea to farmers at a rate of 
approximately 90 % and for di -ammonium phosphate at a rate of approximately two -thirds. 
For 2021/22, please indicate the subsidy rates for key fertilizers, such as urea and di -ammonium 
phosphate, paid for by the government.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.17  Nicaragua - information about import quotas  (SIM 828)  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105004 ) 
In the past, the Nicaraguan Ministry of Industry, Development and Commerce (MIFIC) publicly 
published  information on WTO and CAFTA -DR import quotas availability and utilization in 
newspapers; however, this information no longer appears to be publicly available.  
How is the Nicaraguan Government communicating information about import quotas (both 
CAFTA -DR and WTO) availability and utilization to the public? Please provide to the Committee the 
relevant webpages or sources.   
1.17.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105005 ) 
On 1 January 2023, the CAFTA -DR rice and chicken leg quarter import quota became unlimited.  
a. How is Nicaragua 's Ministry of Development, Industry and Trade (MIFIC) communicating 
these changes on the import quotas to the public?   
b. Please pr ovide the relevant webpages or sources to the WTO Committee on Agriculture.   
1.18  Paraguay - Improved  Family and Indigenous Production in the Department of 
Eastern Paraguay (PROMAFI) programme  (SIM 829)  
1.18.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105102 ) 
As per International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a Project for Improved Family and 
Indigenous Production in the Department of Eastern Paraguay (PROMAFI) has been co ntinued 
since 2015. One of the objectives of the project is related to enhancing productivity by providing 
cash transfers to support the development of business plans, engaging in climate change adaptation 
activities and developing community development pl ans. The project will contribute to the country's 
weather station network, set up a climate information service where smallholder farmers can receive 
alerts via text messages, and provide technical support to participating rural organisations to take 
up climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.   
In this context, India requests Paraguay to provide the following details:  
a. Is this Project notified under the latest DS:1 Notification of Paraguay ( G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) or 
in any previous notification?  
b. If yes, under which category? If not, please specify the reason for not including it.  
1.19  Switzerland's support  to milk and milk products  (SIM 830)  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 105164 ) 
Following question AG -IMS ID 104093 , New Zealand would welcome further insight into how the 
product specific support is used for milk and milk products. What objectives is Switzerland seeking 
to achieve in offering this support, and how is the support for milk and milk products assessed to 
ensure that trade -distortions are minimal?  
1.20  Switzerland's decoupled income support  (SIM 831)  
1.20.1   Question by New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 105165 ) 
Following question AG-IMS-ID 104094 , New Zealand would welcome additional details from 
Switzerland regarding the t ypes of arable crops and animal species that are selected to receive 
contributions under this programme?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.21  Thailand's palm oil  price guarantee scheme  (SIM 832)  
1.21.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105101 ) 
In the absence of the DS:1 notifications by Thailand since the calendar year 2017, the required 
information is not available for the Committee to monitor and for Members to analyse the measures 
adopted by Thailand.  While India prefers to rely on the information provided by the Members in its 
notifications and not rely on the media reports, since Thailand has not provided the 
DS:1 notifications, we are compelled to refer to the media reports. As per media reports,  Thailand 's 
Cabinet approved a 7.66 -billion -baht budget for the 2021 -2022 season for palm oil under the 
state-sponsored price guarantee scheme. Under this, the guaranteed price for fresh palm nuts is set 
at 4 baht per kilogram, for a limit of 25 ra i per family.  
In this regard, India would like to know the following:  
a. What is the eligibility criteria prescribed to receive support under the "state-sponsored 
price guarantee scheme " for palm oil farmers?  
b. How is the administered price determined?  
c. How man y Farmers have  benefited  under this scheme?  
d. How much quantity of palm oil is eligible to be sold to the government, and how is it 
disposed of?  
e. Does Thailand intend to continue supporting the Palm oil Farmers under this scheme 
for 2023? If yes, what is the  estimated budget allocation?  
f. How will this support be notified in the Domestic Support notification?  
g. Has a similar programme been implemented in the past? If yes, please share the 
programme details.  
1.22  Türkiye's increased  import tariffs  (SIM 833)  
1.22.1   Question by  European  Union (AG -IMS ID 105090 ) 
According to a Presidential Decree dated 24 April 2023 ( Layout 1 (resmigazete.gov.tr) ), Türkiye 
raised its import tariffs on wheat, rye, oat, barley and maize from zero to 130 % as of 1  May 2023. 
The European Union notes that these tariffs increases are now set to the upper bound limit.  
a. Could Türkiye explain the domestic circumstances and policy rationale behind such a steep 
increase in the import tariffs for the aforementioned cereals?  
b. Could Türkiye indicate how long it expects these tariffs to remains at the higher rate?  
c. Does Türkiye en visage further tariff increases on other agricultural products in the short 
and medium term?  
1.23  Türkiye's export licensing requirement  (SIM 834)  
1.23.1   Question by Switzerland , European Union , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105018 ) 
Switzerland understands that Türkiye introduced a new non -automatic licensing requirement for the 
export of meat and edible offal of poultry. It seems that the decision was taken through an 
amendment of the Communiqué (No. 2006/7) on goods that are subject to export licensing 
requirements. Can Türkiye please provide information on the following questions:  
a. What are the reasons for Türkiye to introduce a non-automatic licensing requirement for 
the export of meat and edible offal of poultry?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 14 - 
 
  b. What are the requirements to obtain the export licences?  
c. For which agricultural goods is there currently an export licensing requirement?  
d. What procedures must exporters  of goods subject to an export licensing requirement 
follow?  
e. When will the licensing requirements for the export of a certain agricultural good be phased 
out?  
f. What are the criteria for a certain agricultural good to be subject to export licensing 
requirem ents?  
1.24  U.S. export development programmes  (SIM 835)  
1.24.1   Question by India, China (AG -IMS ID 105107 ) 
As per the United States Dairy Export Council (USDEC), "A new study shows that two export 
development programs from the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- the Market Access Program (MAP) 
and Foreign Market Development (FMD) -- working in tandem with ag industry groups, contributed 
USD 45 billion annually to the nation al economy from 2002 to 2019. " 
"Combined, these funding sources have enabled USDEC to be a catalyst for U.S. dairy exports, 
helping U.S. dairy suppliers achieve record sales of USD 7.75 billion in 2021. " 
In this context, the US is requested to provide furt her information on the following:  
a. How have both these programmes been notified?  
b. Do these programmes have a component of export subsidies? If yes, how is it in 
compliance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN (15)/45)?  
c. What are the differences between Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market 
Development (FMD)?  
1.25  U.S. Resilient Food System Infrastructure (RFSI) Program  (SIM 836)  
1.25.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105105 ) 
In a recent press release, the US has announced an infrastructure grant under the "Resilient Food 
System Infrastructure (RFSI) Program ". We understand that the State Department of Agriculture 
will work in partnership with U SDA to make competitive subaward investments in middle of the 
supply chain infrastructure to domestic food and farm businesses and other eligible entities by 
expanding capacity for the aggregation, processing, manufacturing, storing, transporting, 
wholesal ing, and distribution of locally and regionally produced food products.  
India seeks the following information:  
a. What are the criteria for entities to be eligible for this grant?  
b. What are the foodstuffs covered under this program?  
c. How would this support be notified in the DS:1 notification?  
1.26  U.S. support to  organic producers  (SIM 837)  
1.26.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105106 ) 
As per a recent press release (Release No.0106.23), the USDA is taking additional steps as part of 
its commitment to strengthen the market for domestically grown organic goods, and to support G/AG/W/237  
 
- 15 - 
 
  producers seeking organic certification. For instance, Organic Market Development Grant  (OMDG)  
Program, USDA 's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will issue up to USD 75 million in competitive 
grants like infrastructure investments in organic processing.  
Could the US provide clarification on the following:  
a. Is there any cap for assistance provide d to the eligible producers? If yes, please provide 
the information.  
b. How would this program be captured in the Domestic Support notification?   
1.27  Uruguay's insurance  subsidy  (SIM 838)  
1.27.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105111 ) 
As per the website of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries, for agricultural productions, 
a set of insurance coverage is offered with a premium subsidy through an agreement betwe en the 
Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP) (Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries) 
and the Banco de Seguros del Estado (BSE), Uruguay state -owned insurance company. The subsidy 
is assigned in a differentiated manner according to the productive size of the establishment; the 
smaller the size, the higher the percentage of subsidy.  
In this context, India requests Uruguay to provide the following details:  
a. Provisions under the specific agreement between MGAP and BSE?  
b. When was the said scheme implemented?  
c. The eligibility criteria to take advantage of this scheme.  
d. Which crops are covered under this scheme?  
e. Under which measure type of DS:1 notification is Uru guay planning to notify this scheme?   
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.28  Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  
1.28.1   Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America , 
Australia , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105008 ) 
While we appreciate the information that Argentina previously shared on their export restriction 
measures through the 101st and 102nd Committee on Agriculture Review Processes, we request that 
Argentina provides this Committee with clarity regarding the following:   
a. Could Argentina please explain what barriers they face to providing the required 
ER:1 notification to this Committee and when we can expect its submission?  
b. We note Argentina 's indication that 'balance volumes ensure trading partners are aware 
in advance of the quantity that they may purchase in Argentina ', but would request an 
explanation as to how trading partners can receive this information, given no noti fication 
has been provided to this Committee?  
c. Noting that the restrictions have been in force since December 2021, could Argentina 
please explain: (i) how the measure is consistent with Paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT 
1994, which specifies that expor t prohibitions or restrictions should be temporarily  applied 
and (ii) when it anticipates lifting these restrictions?  
d. Additionally, Argentina has confirmed in their previous responses that exports of the 
products concerned have reached 'historic levels '. In this context, could Argentina please G/AG/W/237  
 
- 16 - 
 
  provide more information about the 'critical shortage ' these restrictions are aiming to 
address, in line with Article XI of GATT 1994?  
1.29  Canada 's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  
1.29.1   Question by Australia, United Kingdom, China (AG -IMS ID 105023 ) 
In follow -up to AG -IMS ID 104002 , Australia would like to again express our interest in the outcome 
of Canada 's review  of the allocation and administration of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry 
and Egg Products.   
Australia asks that Canada provide the Membership with an update on the status of the review?  
1.29.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 105024 ) 
The Canadian Parliament has put forward Bill C -282 (according to  
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44 -1/c-282), which establishes restrictions on the Canadian 
Government's trade negotiating powers, in order to perpetuate the present volumes and 
out-of-quota tariffs for tariff -rate quotas (TRQs) on dairy, poultry and eggs.  
Given the rapid advancement of this leg islative proposal, Canada is kindly requested to comment on 
the latest developments regarding the passing of the bill, particularly with regard to the continuation 
of the WTO agricultural reform towards the removal of trade barriers, notably in the Agreeme nt on 
Agriculture, Article 20.  
1.30  China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  
1.30.1   Question by Canada  (AG-IMS ID 105029 ) 
China 's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs repo rted on 17 April 2023 that the State Council, in 
consideration of agricultural market price trend and production pattern, has allocated RMB  10 billion 
(approximately USD 1.48 billion) as a one -time subsidy payment to grain farmers involved in spring 
produc tion ( http://www.moa.gov.cn/xw/zwdt/202304/t20230417_6425424.htm ). 
a. Which specific crops are covered under this program?  
b. What were the price and production factors taken into conside ration for the need of such 
ad hoc  financial support?  
c. What are the factors that determine the amount of payment each grain farmer would 
receive?  
1.31  China's cotton reserves purchasing system (SIM 295)  
1.31.1   Question by United States  of America , Australia  (AG-IMS ID 105001 ) 
In AG-IMS IDs 103022  and 104050 , China stated that the amount  of cotton purchased by the 
government is determined by factors including optimizing the structure of the cotton reserve and 
replenishing the cotton reserve. China also stated that the highest auction price is determined 
according to the domestic support p rice of cotton. In response to AG-IMS ID 104050, China provided 
the following formula:  
Maximum bid price (equivalent to standard grade 3128B) = cotton spot price index of the previous 
working day in  the domestic market  
Domestic spot price index of cotton =[China cotton price index (3128B) + National cotton price index 
(3128B)]÷2.  
Please provide the sources that the Government of China draws from for the China cotton price index 
(3128B) and the National cotton price index (3128B) which are used to calculate  the maximum bid 
price.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.32  EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  
1.32.1   Question by Brazil, China (AG -IMS ID 105034 ) 
Brazil would like to refer to question AG -IMS ID  104061  related to EU regulation on antideforestation.  
In response to the referred question, EU stated that  its regulation does not create obligations for 
other  countries, but only for "EU operators and traders".  However, all seven products listed in the 
regulation  are vastly produced in developing countries (some of  them, as coffee, are barely produced 
in the EU ) and the regulation impacts imports of such products, which  have to comply with the EU 
legislation regardless of  national laws.  
In the light of the above, could the EU provide  information on the follow ing: 
a. Are there policies and programs that provide  financial support for EU producers/farmers 
to comply  with similar obligations that have been included in  the deforestation law? For 
instance, how much does the  EU disburse to compensate its farmers from not  being  able 
to expand their arable land or for having to adopt  traceability technologies?  
i. In this regard, could the EU clarify its limitations on land use in private properties 
(how much of the property needs to be set aside for  environmental purposes).  
b. Will the EU implement mechanisms to cover the costs  of adaptation in traceability, due 
diligence and  others?  
i. Still, with the approval of the regulation by the  European Council last May, without 
amendments to the  points of concern  expressed in this Committee and in a  variety of 
formats elsewhere, could the EU clarify  whether there is still room in its 
implementation for  matching the regulation with sufficient funds to  support developing 
countries in this endeavor or to  cover losses due to trade deviation, in l ine with  SDG17 
and Art. 9 of the Paris Agreement, and other  commitments on the matter?  
1.32.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105100 ) 
India seeks details from European  Union on its proposed "Deforestation regulation " to prevent 
deforestation and forest degradation associated with commodities and products placed on or 
exported from the EU market.  
In this regard, can the EU further elaborate on the following:  
a. Considerin g the policy directly affects the trade in agricultural goods and also Micro, Small, 
and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), how does the EU ensure that developing countries ' 
trade interests are protected, given that many developing countries are exporters of 
agricultural goods?  
b. Does the EU consider the capacity challenges faced by farmers and MSMEs of developing 
countries in complying with the deforestation regulation in order?  
1.33  European Union's coupled payments (SIM 522)  
1.33.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 105099 ) 
Under Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) scheme, a production limiting scheme applying annual 
payments based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals , member States are 
allowed to allocate a maximum percentage (13%) of their national ceiling to this scheme. India 
notes that Malta was granted a derogation from this maximum percentage ceiling.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 18 - 
 
  In this regard, the EU is requested to provide details of the following:  
a. Why was Malta granted a derogation under the VCS, resulting in an increase of the national 
envelope to 57.2%, as compared to the maximum (13%) of the national ceiling under this 
scheme?  
b. How long will Malta have access to this der ogation?  
c. What products are covered under the VCS scheme availed by Malta?  
1.34  India's export restrictions  (SIM 306)  
1.34.1   Question by New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 105022 ) 
New Zealand is following up on others ' questions raised in regard to the status of India 's export 
restrictions on wheat and rice. Could India please clarify when they plan to lift these restrictions, 
and further outline when they will be notified to the comm ittee via an ER:1 notification?  
1.34.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 105020 ) 
This question is a follow up to AG -IMS ID 102092  (102th Committee on Agriculture), a question 
posed by Australia to India regarding export restrictions on wheat. India responded (refer 
AG-IMS ID 101019 ) that conditions of implementation on export restrictions have been issued by 
the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DFGT) sin ce May 2022 and in subsequent DGFT notices.   
Australia notes that the length of the restriction has not been indicated in DGFT notices. Considering 
this, Australia asks that India indicate how long it intends for the restriction to remain place?   
1.34.3   Question by Canada, United Kingdom , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105021 ) 
Canada notes that India continues to enforce its export prohibition on wheat. This export prohibition, 
notified via the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry Trade Notice No. 06/2022 -2, has now 
been in place since May 2022.  
In this context, Canada also  notes that India 's agriculture Ministry recently forecasted a record 
harvest of 112 million tonnes  of wheat for 2023 
(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/indias -wheat -output -set-to-
touch -a-new-record -of-112-74-mn-ton-in-2022-23-govt-data/articleshow/100506811.cms ). 
Canada would also like to remin d India of its commitment to periodically review the relevance of its 
export prohibition for wheat, as stated in its response to AG -IMS ID 104003 , as well as the 
commitments made in the Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity.  
Could India elaborate on whether:  
a. the impact on global wheat prices as well as on the foo d security of other Members was 
taken into account in the decision to impose an export prohibition on wheat; and  
b. India intends to review its decision in the face of the potentially favourable wheat output 
that it is poised to experience?   
1.34.4   Question by Unit ed Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, United States of 
America , Australia , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 105007 ) 
In follow up to AG-IMS ID 104003 , we request further clarity on India 's export restrictions on wheat 
and broken rice.  
a. We note that the restrict ions on wheat were first introduced over a year ago,  in May 2022. 
Could India  please explain how these measures are consistent with Paragraph 2(a) of G/AG/W/237  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Article XI of GATT 1994, which specifies that export prohibitions or restrictions should be 
temporarily ap plied?  
b. When does India plan to lift these restrictions?  
c. India first stated at the 101st CoA meeting in June 2022 that the relevant notification would 
be provided in 'due course '. As a notification has still not been submitted, we would like 
to understand what is preventing India from notifying the measure and when we should 
expect the required ER:1 notification to be submitted?  
1.35  Japan -US Trade Agreement  (SIM 564)  
1.35.1   Question by Brazil  (AG-IMS ID s 105035 , 105036 ) 
On 7 October 2019 the United States and Japan signed a  trade agreement. Some of tariff preferen ces 
provided  by Japan to some food and agricultural products  from the US included in the agreement 
are: 
- immediate tariff elimination (almonds,  blueberries,  cranberries, walnuts, sweet corn, 
lactose, milk  albumin, grain sorghum, food supplements,  broccoli,  and prunes);  
- staged tariff elimination (processed pork,  beef offal, frozen poultry, wine, frozen potatoes,  
oranges,  fresh cherries, cheese and whey, ethanol, egg  products, and tomato paste) ; 
- Tariff reduction (fresh and frozen beef and  pork) ; 
- TRQs (wheat and wheat products, malt, glucose,  fructose, corn and potato starch, and 
inulin - all wheat and barley imports, Japan will provide the  same  reduction to its wheat 
and barley  "mark -up" as  provided to CP -TPP suppliers).  
Tariff preferences provided by  the US in the  agreement  for agricultural imports from Japan are:  
- tariff elimination or reduction on 42 tariff  lines (certain perennial plants and cut flowers,  
persimmons,  green tea, chewing gum, and soy sauce).  
Although the preferential market access seem s to be significant (according to the USTR, "When  
the agreement is implemented by Japan, American  farmers  and ranchers will have the same 
advantage as  CP-TPP countries selling into the Japanese  market"), some  analyses indicates that the 
Agreement covers a  relatively small share of bilateral trade  between the  United States and Japan 
(i.e., approximately 5%  of total US goods imports from Japan, and less than  18% of Japan's total 
goods imports from the United  States).  
Brazil notes that, the agreement is not listed  in WTO's PTA data base.  
Therefore, Brazil 's preliminary assessment is  that the  agreement does not seems to have led to the  
creation  of a customs union or a free -trade area in the  terms  of GATT Article XXIV, specially 
paragraph s 8 (a) (i) and (b). 
In the light of the above, Brazil would  appreciate if  Japan and the U nited States could:  
a. Share with the Committee its understanding of  the agreement;  
b. Provide a listing of the preferential access  each one has provided in the agreement in 
comparison  with its MFN tariffs and concessions.  
c. Confirm the understanding that, under GATT  Article I  (General Most -Favoured -Nation 
Treatment) all of  the preferential access is "accorded  immediately and  unconditionally to 
the like product originating  in or  destined for the territories of all other  
contracting  parties." G/AG/W/237  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.36  Thailand's  Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  
1.36.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 105103 ) 
In September 2022,  Thailand's Rice Policy and Management Committee agreed to extend the period 
for the rice -pledging scheme for another year.   
As a fol low-up to previous questions AG -IMS ID s 103137  and 104101 , Thailand is requested to 
provide the following information:  
a. How many farmers have benefited  from the rice -pledging scheme  over the implementation 
years?  
b. How much quantity of rice is currently in stock under the rice -pledging scheme?  
c. What is the mechanism to dispose of the rice stock accumulated under the rice -pledging 
scheme?  
d. Does Thailand intend to extend the Rice Pledgin g scheme for the year 2023 -24?  
e. Would Thailand provide the details of its yearly Rice exports from the calendar year  2016 
onwards till date?  
1.37  United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  
1.37.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID 105162 ) 
The Russian Federation is examining the amendment to General Licence – Transactions related to 
agricultural commodities including the provision of insurance and  other services 
(INT/2022/2349952) as of 6 June 2023. Could the United Kingdom please confirm that this 
regulation lifts any restrictions imposed earlier on collaboration of Russian exporters and GAFTA?  
1.38  UK's SSG entitlements (SIM 761)  
1.38.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 105104 ) 
India thanks the U nited Kingdom  for their response in AG -IMS ID 102095 , where the U nited Kingdom  
stated, "any trigger prices will be determined in accordanc e with Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture ". 
India seeks further clarification on the use of trigger price by the U nited Kingdom . Will the U nited 
Kingdom  use the average 1986 -88 reference price or a recent average reference price?  
1.39  U.S. Inflation Redu ction Act (SIM 811)  
1.39.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 105108 ) 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced an additional USD 130 million automatic 
financial assistance for qualifying farm loan program borrowers who are facing financial risk. The 
announcement is part of the USD 3.1 billion to help distressed farm loan borrowers that were 
provided through Section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).  
India seeks clarification on the following:  
a. What kinds of distress does the support seek to address?  
b. How would this additional support be categorised in the Domestic Support notification?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.39.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 105120 ) 
To follow up on the EU 's question AG -IMS ID 104043 , New Zealand would welcome an indication of 
how the US intends to notify these measures (described in sections 22006 and 22007) while meeting 
its AMS limit?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL  NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  ADMIN ISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/ THA/132)  
AG-IMS ID 105154 : Question by European  Union - Transparency issues  
The E uropean Union would like to thank Thailand for submitting its MA:1 contained in document 
G/AG/N/THA/132  and would like to seek fur ther clarification on some of the notified changes.  
a. As regards THAQ001 (Milk and cream, not concentrated, nor containing added sugar or 
other matters (including flavoured milk)) the European Union would appreciate a 
clarification on the following question s: under point (b) it is indicated that import 
certificates are required, whereas under point (ii) -(iii) it is indicated that the quota will be 
allocated pro rata on first come, first served basis. Could Thailand clarify the method of 
management of this ta riff rate quota? Could Thailand also share with the Membership the 
relevant legislation for the administration of this quota?  
b. As regards THAQ002 (Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or their 
sweetening matter, in powder, granules or othe r solid forms, or a fat content, by weight, 
not exceeding 1.5%) the European Union notes the change in the type of juristic persons 
to which the quota may be allocated. Could Thailand explain the rationale behind these 
changes? Could Thailand also share wi th the Membership the relevant legislation for the 
administration of this quota?  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   Canada (G/AG/N/ CAN/157)  
AG-IMS ID 105126 : Question by Paraguay  - Tariff quota fill  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CAN/157 , the CANQ004 (beef and vea l) tariff quota has a fill rate 
of only 40.7%. Can Canada please explain the reasons for the underfill of the tariff quota and clarify 
if it is considering modifying its administration method to improve the fill rate, in accordance with 
the Bali Decision o n tariff quotas?  
2.2.2   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/90)  
AG-IMS ID 105127 : Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada would like to thank Costa Rica for its recent MA:2 notification ( G/AG/N/CRI/90 ) covering the 
calendar year 2022.   
Other than for CRIQ010, could Costa Rica provide an overview of the considerations behind the 
consistently low fill rates of its TRQs?   
AG-IMS ID 105150 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/CRI/90 , of the open tariff quotas, only CRIQ010 (butter and other 
fats and oils derived from milk) has a fill rate of over 65% (77.4%). In view of the fact  that all other 
open tariff quotas report very low fill rates, can Costa Rica:  
a. Explain the reasons for the very low fill rates of these tariff quotas?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Indicate whether it is considering or has considered modifying the tariff quota 
administration method to improve these fill rates?  
2.2.3   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/67)  
AG-IMS ID 105158 : Question  by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the in -quota fill rate for many products listed in Panama's recent MA:2 notification 
covering the calendar year 2022 ( G/AG/N/PAN/67 ) remain low. This trend has been observed over 
time in Panama 's MA:2 notification, including in G/AG/N/PAN/60  and G/AG/N/PAN/59 , mainly for 
TRQ ID PANQ003 (Meat of fowls – of fat content  
Could Panama provide an overview of the reasons behind the low fill rates for the TRQs mentioned 
above?   
AG-IMS ID 105153 : Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union thanks Panama for submitting its 2022 calendar year MA:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/PAN/67 ). The European Union notes that several tariff rate quotas covering poultry, dairy 
products, beans and tomatoes hav e a zero fill rate. This has been the case for several years in a 
row.  
a. Could Panama explain the specific reasons for the underfill of each of these TRQs?  
b. Could Panama inform the Membership what it is doing to increase utilisation of these 
underfilled tari ff quotas as per the Bali Ministerial Decision on Tariff Rate Quota 
Administration? Is Panama considering a change in the method of management of these 
tariff rate quotas?   
The European Union has asked a similar question (AG -IMS ID 101005 ) previously and notes that 
Panama has not provided a response. The European Union would appreciate if Pan ama could take 
this occasion to provide the Membership with a response to both questions.  
2.2.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/168)  
AG-IMS ID 105159 : Question  by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the in -quota fill rate for many products listed in Unites States'  recent MA:2 
notification covering the calendar year 2022 ( G/AG/N/USA/168 ) are notably low. For example, fill 
rates are under 1% for USAQ046 (Animal feed), USAQ036 (Chocolate) and USAQ023 (Cheese).  
Could the United States provide an overview of the considerations behind the low fill rates of 
the TRQs listed above?   
AG-IMS ID 105161 : Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
Switzerland thanks the United States of America for its notification on import under tariff 
quotas  (MA:2). We note the low fill rate of 48.5% of TRQ USAQ024 concerning "Swiss and 
Emmentaler cheese with eye formation ". Switzerland would like to ask for additional information 
concerning  USAQ024.  
a. What are the reasons for the reduction in the fill rate from 64.3% in 2018 to 48.5% 
in 2022?  
b. The quota is subdivided into several country specific quotas. Can the US provide the fill 
rates of the country -specific allocations for 2022?  
c. In its repl y to AG -IMS ID 102001 , the US mentioned that full utilization is promoted 
through globaliz ation. Is there a yearly deadline by which the quotas will be globalized? If 
yes, what is the deadline?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 23 - 
 
  d. Is it the country holding the country -specific allocation that is asking for globalization of 
its country -specific allocation or is it the US that reque sts a country to globalize its 
country -specific allocation?  
e. Is the process of globalization initiated anew every year?  
f. We note that some country -specific allocations have been fully globalized. Does the US 
also provide for the possibility of globalizing a country -specific allocation to a lesser 
percentage extent? Could such an option facilitate further globalization?  
g. Is the US planning any changes to its globalization mechanism in order to further improve 
the fill rates in light of paragraph 9 of the Bali Decision?  
h. Furthermore, the US mentioned in its reply to AG -IMS ID 102001  that it administe rs a 
surrender and reallocation process for unused portions. Can the US provide more 
information on the functioning of this surrender and reallocation process?  
AG-IMS ID 105155 : Question by United Kingdom - Tariff quota fill  
We thank the United States for their submission of G/AG/N/USA/168 . We note that utilisation of 
USAQ001 (beef) was just over 50% in 2022.  Can the United States e xplain what factors have 
contributed to the gradual decline in utilisation of this quota since 2014 when utilisation was at 94%. 
Has the United States considered whether a review of the administrative arrangements for this quota 
could increase utilisation?  
2.3  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL  SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/223)  
AG-IMS ID 105128 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada would like to thank Chinese Taipei for their MA:5 notification. Canada notes that Chinese 
Taipei invoked the special agriculture safeguard (SSG) for different items, on multiple occasions 
throughout calendar year 2022.   
However, Canada also notes that Chinese Taipei has not provided an MA:4 notification for "Chicken 
Legs and Wings " and "Other Chicken Cuts ", despite having invoked price -trigger based SSG 
measures for both of these products.   
Could Chinese Taipei advise if it will provide the Committee with the relevant MA:4 notification for 
all items in the categories mentioned above?   
For products for which a price -based SSG was invoked, could Chinese Taipei provide a description 
of the product,  the tariff item number, trigger price, date of application as well as information related 
to Annex 1 of the MA:4 notification including the information required for the calculation of the 
trigger price.  
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.4.1   Australia  (G/AG/N/AUS/142)  
AG-IMS ID 105110 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Tab le DS:2)  
Based on Supporting Table DS:9 in Australia 's latest notification ( G/AG/N/AUS/142 ) for the 
FY2018 -19, India notes that Australia notified the Victoria Farm Business Assistance and Farm 
Support fund, a program not notified for the previous financial year, 2017 -18 
(G/AG/N/AUS/129/Rev .1). India has the following questions with  respect to this program:  
a. When and why was the program started?  
b. Is the said program still in force?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 24 - 
 
  c. For the said program, Australia has stated that 'While certain components of the measure 
are directed towards the dairy industry, the program as a whole is  non-product -specific '. 
Which components of the measure are dairy specific?  
d. India notes the guidelines Agriculture Victoria published in 2019 outlining eligibility criteria 
for the program ( https://www.ruralfinance.com.au/uploads//grant_files/fba -
guidelines.pdf ). The criteria make a differentiation between dairy and non -dairy farmers 
in North and North East Victoria even though both categories have the same entitlement 
of AUD 2,500. What is the rationale behind such differentiation?   
e. In the Agriculture Victoria Guidelines mentioned above, it is also stated that Farm Business 
Assistance program had an allocation of 5.6 million AUD. What amount of this budget was 
spent on supporting only dairy farmers in North and Northeast  Victoria (inc luding young 
dairy farmers) in 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 105109 : Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
India notes that there has been a marked increase in Australia 's non -product specific Amber box 
support, from 2017 -18 to 2018 -19. The total spending under Supporting Table DS:9 has increased 
from 233.78 million AUD in 2017 -18 to 350.14 million AU D in 2018 -19, with Australia notifying 
12 additional measures under  Supporting Table DS:9. In this regard, India would like to seek 
clarification on the following:  
a. India notes that Australia had notified the Australian Capital Territory Freight Subsidy in 
the 2017 -18 notification and an ACT Transport Subsidy under the 2018 -19 notification. 
India noted that in round 1 of the ACT Transport subsidy scheme, as notified in 
G/AG/N/AUS/142 , the maximum amount to be provided under the scheme for transport 
subsidy was 20,000 AUD per applicant. However, i n round 2 of the scheme, the maximum 
amount to be provided as a subsidy to an applicant increased to AUD 40,000. Why has 
there been this marked increase in spending under this scheme?  What are the products 
covered it?  
b. What are the causes behind the genera l increase in non -product -specific Amber -box 
spending in 2018 -19? 
c. What are the reasons for Australia 's non -notification of Domestic Support for financial 
years 2019 -20 and 2020 -21?  
2.4.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63, G/AG/N/BRA/69, G/AG/N/BRA/74)  
AG-IMS ID 105129 : Question by China  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China noticed that the budgeta ry outlays of Brazil 's insurance programmes (notified in 
G/AG/N/BRA/63 , G/AG/N/BRA/69 , G/AG/N/BRA/74 , Supporting Table DS:9) increased dramatically 
in FY2019 -2020, which was 547 million USD, almost tripled compared with FY2018 -2019. Could 
Brazil provide further information as follows:  
a. The type of crops or species of livestock eligible under  the insurance programmes.  
b. The details of the budget outlay. Is t hat the premium subsidy provided by the government?  
c. Reasons for the programmes to be categorized as non -product -specific measures.  
AG-IMS ID 105072 : Question by Japan, United Kingdom - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Japan welcomes Brazil 's DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) for A gricultural Year (AY) 2021.  
a. "Implementation of food and nutritional security in health ", which  is notified under "Green 
Box, 4. Domestic Food Aid " in the AY2021 Notification (G/AG/N/BRA/74) was notified 
under "Green Box, 3. Public stockholding for food security purposes " in the AY2019 and G/AG/W/237  
 
- 25 - 
 
  AY2020 Notifications. Please provide the information on the content of this measure and 
whether there were policy changes in between AY2020 and AY2021.  
b. The Payment for "Program of acquisition of agricultural products " under "3. Public 
stockholding for food security purposes " has increased by more than 5 times from 
USD 5,504,000 in AY2020 to US D 34,034,000 in AY2021. Please explain the reason for 
this increase. Is it because crops subject to the program w ere expanded, and/or stock 
amount of some crops was increased?  
AG-IMS ID 105130 : Question  by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/BRA/74 , Canada notes that, under paragraphs 3 'public 
stockholding for food security purposes, ' 'maintenance and management ' decreased substantially, 
from USD 12.7 million in Calendar Year (CY) 2020 to US D 22,000 in CY2021. At the same time, 
expenses under the 'Program of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming, ' under 
public stockholding for food security purposes, substantially increased, from USD 5.5 million in 
CY2020 to USD 34 million in CY2021. In addition, Brazil notified USD 10.9 million in acquisitions 
under the same program under '4. domestic food aid ' in CY2021, where none were notified in 
CY2020. This brings expenses under the 'Program for acquisition of agricultural products fro m family 
farming ' to a total of 44.9 million in CY2021.  
Furthermore, Canada understands from G/AG/N/BRA/68  as well as Brazil 's answer to AG -IMS ID s 
100035 , 100117  and 100119  that that the 'Program for acquisition of agricultural products from 
family farming ' is now 'Feed Brazil ', and that the main difference between the two programs is the 
maximum annual payments to eligible small farmers, family farmers, and agricultural cooperatives.   
a. Could Brazil elaborate on the factors that led to such an increase in ac quisitions under the 
'Program for acquisition of agricultural products from family farming '? Will the same factors 
apply under 'Feed Brazil?   
b. Have maximum annual payments to eligible small farmers, family farmers, and agricultural 
cooperatives been increas ed? If so, how does this support Brazil 's food security 
objectives?   
c. Could Brazil explain how expenses in public stock maintenance and management where 
almost eliminated while acquisitions have increased? Have these stocks been released to 
export markets?   
Could Brazil provide a rationale for notifying expenses for the 'Program for acquisition of agricultural 
products from family farming ' under domestic food aid? How does this relate to public stockholding 
programs? Will Brazil also notify acquisitions under the 'Feed Brazil ' program as domestic food aid?  
AG-IMS ID 105055 : Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In G/AG/N/BRA/74 , Brazil lists 34.1 million USD in Supporting Table DS:1, line 3, Public stockholding 
for food security purposes. In Brazil 's 2022 Trade Policy Review, Brazil stated that government 
purchases occur through "Federal Government Acquisitions" (AGF) and through "Option 
Contracts"  (COV) when market prices are below the minimum price of the products 
(see WT/TPR/M/432/Add.1  page 87).  
a. During calendar year 2021, did market prices fall below the minimum price of the products 
subject to the program, triggering government purchases?  
b. What were the trigger prices for 2021?  
c. If purchases were triggered, what quantity of each product did Brazil procure in 2021?  
AG-IMS ID 105138 : Question by European Union - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment /Development Programmes)  
The European Union notes that Brazilian support for "Development Programmes " in Supporting 
Table  DS:2 has continuously decreased from approximately 1 875 million USD in Agricultural G/AG/W/237  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Year 2013/2014 to approximately 10 million USD in Agricultural Year 2020/2021. Is Brazil in the 
process of terminating this kind of support?  
AG-IMS ID 105011 : Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America - 
Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / Development Programmes)  
We thank Brazil for its submission of G/AG/N/BRA/74 . We note that Brazil 's spending under 
Article  6.2 has decreased substantially. Could Brazil explain how their approach to domestic support 
measures has evolved to reduce reliance on support through the development box?  
AG-IMS ID 105135 : Question by Australia - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Australia thanks Brazil for the submission of its DS:1 notification for 2020 -21 (G/AG/N/BRA/74 ). 
Australia notes that of the USD 10 million provided in development program spending (under 
paragraph 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture), over 85% of this support is in the form  of 
investment subsidies generally available to agriculture.  
Australia asks whether Brazil's practice of greater use of investment subsidies than input subsidies 
is informed by a view on their relative impact towards improving rural livelihoods, accelerati ng rural 
transformation and increasing agricultural productivity.   
AG-IMS ID 105136 : Quest ion by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notes that there is no Supporting Table DS:6 in G/AG/N/BRA/74 .  
 
Could Brazil elaborate on the eligibility criteria for Agricultural Products' Sale Option Private 
Premium  (PEPRO) for oranges and any changes thereof, in light of the fact that  Brazil is not notifying 
any support for oranges for agricultural year 2020/2021?   
2.4.3   China (G/AG/N/CHN/62, G/AG/N/CHN/63, G/AG/N/CHN/64, G/AG/N/CHN/65)  
AG-IMS ID 105056 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In AG-IMS ID 104045 , Members noted that China 's National Food and Strategic Reserves 
Administration Notice # 218 on gra in sales policy ( http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/zfxxgk/2020 -
11/14/content_262371.shtml ) instructs local grain administrative departments to keep invoices and 
GPS tracking infor mation for vehicles to prove that grain has been shipped (page 5).  In its response 
to AG-IMS ID 104045, China noted that measures in the Notice on the Supervision of the Sale of 
Policy -based Grain Stock (Guoliangzhifa (2019) No. 218) are aimed at strengthe ning the supervision 
of the sale of stored grain and food safety. Members asked: were any exports made from China 's 
rice stocks in the years 2018 through 2022? But China did not answer that question.  
Were any exports made from China 's rice stocks in the ye ars 2018 through 2022?  
AG-IMS ID 105058 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Transparency i ssues (including Table DS:2)  
In AG -IMS ID 104019  Members asked about provincial and sub -provincial agricultural support 
payment amounts in China in 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHN/65 ). China replied that the central Government 
formulates all domestic support policies for agriculture and the local governments shall comply with 
and implement such policies. P olicies are different from payment amounts.  
a. Please confirm no sub -national entity provided agricultural support payments in China 
in 2020.  
b. Please explain what steps the central Government takes to ensure sub -national entities 
implement policies in a manner  consistent with policy criteria set by the central 
Government.   
c. Has the central Government of China ever identified an instance of a sub -national entity 
not implementing a policy consistent with policy criteria and if so, please explain.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105057 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay, Japan , Australia, 
Thailand  - Public stock holding for food security purposes  
In AG -IMSID 104017  Members asked about China 's predetermined targets for the volume of stocks 
accumulated for each crop covered under the public stockholding program. China responded that its 
public stockholding program expenditures are not appropriated according to crop varieties and data 
based on crops is not available.  
a. For 2017 through 2020, please provide China 's pre-determined target fo r the overall total 
volume of stocks to be accumulated under the public stockholding program.  
b. For 2017 through 2020, please provide the overall total volume of stocks accumulated 
under the public stockholding program.  
2.4.4   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/7 6) 
AG-IMS ID 105125 : Question by Australia - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Austr alia thanks Colombia for the submission of its DS:1 notification for 2020 ( G/AG/N/COL/76 ). 
Australia notes that of the USD  567 million provided in development program spending (under 
Article  6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture), over 90% of this support is in the form of investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture.  
Australia asks whether Colombia's practice of greater use of investment subsidies than input 
subsidies is informed by a view on their relative impact towards improving rural livelihoods, 
accelerating rural tran sformation and increasing agricultural productivity.  
2.4.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/13, G/AG/N/IND/15, G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25, G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/27,  
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/29)  
AG-IMS ID 105119 : Question by European Union  - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In DS:1 notifications: G/AG/N/ IND/13 , G/AG/N/IND/15 , G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25 , 
G/AG/N/IND/27  and G/AG/N/IND/29 , India appears to reflect only volumes actually purchased 
pursuant to the MPS progr amme. This is contrary to the MPS calculation methodology required by 
AoA Annex 3, paragraph 8 (the calculation to be based on all production eligible for the price, 
whether or not actually procured by a Member's government at that price).  
a. Does India cons ider finally to align its methodology for the calculation of the MPS with the 
methodology required by AoA Annex 3, paragraph  8? 
b. Could India provide the total rice production eligible for the price support and not only the 
volumes actually purchased/procure d?  
c. India has not notified total value of production (VoP) for any commodity in its domestic 
support notifications for the years since 2014/15. Could India provide this information?  
AG-IMS ID 105038 : Question by United States of America, Brazil, Japan , Paraguay , 
Australia, Thailand  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/27 , G/AG/N/IND/29  
According to the Government of India 's Expenditure Budget for 2022 -23, and 2023 -24, the 
2020-2021 "Total – Food Subsidy " was 541 ,330.14 crore rupees or approximately US D 73 billion 
and 288 ,968.54 crore rupees or approximately USD 39 billion for 2021 -2022.  
In G/AG/N/IND/27 (2020/2021) and G/AG/N/IND/29 (2021/2022) India has notified 
USD 29.2 billion for 2020/21 and US D 28 billion for 2021/22 under Annex 2, paragraph 3 "Public 
stockholding for food security purposes. " According to the India Department of Food and Public 
Distribution, the foo d subsidy is "the difference between the economic cost of food grains and their G/AG/W/237  
 
- 28 - 
 
  sales realization at Central Issue Prices fixed for the Targeted Public Distribution System and other 
welfare schemes... [and] … also goes towards meeting the carrying cost of buffer stock. " It is further 
understood that some subsidized sales of state -owned grain are used for other purposes such as 
feed and ethanol blending and for sale to private traders.  Given that the notified value under 
Annex  2, paragraph 3 includes those e xpenditures also covered by Annex 2, paragraph 4 (domestic 
food aid):  
a. Please provide additional details with regards to what the notified value under Annex 2, 
paragraph 3 includes and excludes as compared to "Total – Food Subsidy. " 
b. Please explain why the amounts in India 's Government expenditure records are so much 
higher than those notified under Annex 2, paragraph 3.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of which of India 's domestic food aid programs are reported 
in which line items of the DS:1 notification, as req uested previously in AG-IMS IDs 99010 , 
98042 , 97056 , 97055 , 93278 , and 93267. 
AG-IMS ID 105137 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank India for its recent domestic support notification ( G/AG/N/IND/29 ).  
Upon reviewing India 's Domestic Support Table DS:1, Canada notes that programs under Annex 2, 
paragraph 3 (public stockholding) and Annex 2, paragraph 4 (Domestic food aid) appear to have 
been merged tog ether under one single expense. Furthermore, Supporting Table DS:1 does not 
provide the names and descriptions of the measures in column 2.   
Canada understands that the format of the supporting tables in the domestic support notification 
were designed to h elp Members better distinguish and understand other Members ' domestic support 
policies and measures. This approach supports transparency and consistency across the 
Membership. Several Members have questioned India regarding the lack of breakdown by 
expendi tures under the Supporting Table DS:1 in the past (e.g., in AG -IMS ID 99007 , 99010  or 
98042 ).  
Could India provide separate expenditures under paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the names and 
descriptions of the measures that are attached to in its Supporting Table DS:1?  
AG-IMS ID 105139 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table  DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/IND/29 , Canada notes that India continues to omit  column 4 (Value of production) and 
column 5 (Support as a % of value of production) from its Supporting Table DS:4, despite several 
calls by Members for India to include these values, including most recently by the European Union 
at the June 2022 Committe e on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 101007 ).  
As Canada and other Members have requested in the past, could India provide the values for 'value 
of production ' and 'support as a percentage of value of production ' that it should provide for each of 
the relevant rows in its supporting table DS:4, in the same way other Members do in support of 
transparen cy, a key WTO principle?   
Can India commit to providing these values in future DS:1 notifications, again, in support of 
transparency and consistency among the Membership?  
AG-IMS ID 105141 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
Could India please provide value of production data for the products included in Supporting 
Table  DS:4?  
AG-IMS ID 105074: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Rice (Market Price Support, Public Stockholding, Domestic Food Aid) - G/AG/N/IND/29  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 29 - 
 
  India subsidizes USD 7.5 billion of Market Price Support (AMS) for rice. In addition, USD 28 billion 
is notified under "3. Public stockholding for food security purposes and 4. Domestic food aid" (Green 
Box) which includes the support for rice, wheat, coarse grains and pulses. This was previously 
notified as "3. Public stockpiles " 
 Japan also notes a new des cription added to the paragraph 3 of ANNEX attached to G/AG/N/IND/29 , 
'…nutritional support for children, and  pregnant and lactating mothers, and the manner of allocation 
and distribution across the country. '  
a. Could India provide the values of "3. Public stockpiles " and "4. Domestic food aid " 
respectively?  
b. Would 'nutritional support for children, and pregnant and lactating mothers, and the 
manner of allocation and distribution across the country ' fall under "Domestic food 
aid"? Japan would like to know what other supports India is implementing a s "domestic 
food aid ". 
AG-IMS ID 105142 : Question  by New Zealand - Transparency issues (in cluding 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
 
New Zealand notes  that Ind ia is no longer notifying  waiving of agricultural loan  in their Green Box. 
Would India be able to offer more information regarding why agricultural loans are no longer being 
waived? Further, can India give some insight into the mechanisms behind this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 105143 : Question by New Zealand  - Transparency issues (including Tabl e 
DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
New Zealand notes  that the Current Total AMS for Rice has increased significantly (by 
USD 600 million) between the marketing years 01/10/20 -30/09/21 and 01/10/21 -30/09/22. Would 
India be able to offer additional insight into the reasons why such a significant increase in P roduct 
Specific Support was given to rice in the period 01/10/21 -30/09/22?   
AG-IMS ID 1051 51: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
a. India has reported for the fourth consecutive time that it is above the de minimis  levels, 
this time reaching USD  7.5 billion in subsidies, which represents an increase of USD  600 
million since the previous noti fication. We note with concern that, since the first reported 
breach, subsidies above the de minimis  levels have been steadily increasing, despite 
the end of the COVID -19 pandemic. Can India please explain the reasons for such 
progressive increases and the  reason for the increase of USD  600 million in subsidies 
for rice in its last notification?  
b. We also note with concern that India appears to be implementing a system of reverse 
reforms, with increases in the types of Article  6 domestic support and a decreas e in 
Annex  2 subsidies, leading to an increase rather than a reduction in trade -distorting 
policies. For example, there has been a decrease in green box subsidies of USD  3 billion, 
but an increase of USD  2 billion under Article 6.2, an increase of approxim ately 
USD 1.4 billion in price support for products such as rice, wheat and pulses, and an 
increase of USD  500 million in amber box non -product -specific support.  Can India 
please explain the reasons why its agricultural policy is increasingly implementing trade -
distorting subsidies, while at time same, reducing those subsidies that are considered 
to be non - or minimally distorting?  
c. Can India please explain:  
i. The reasons that led to the reduction of general subsidies from USD  3.1 billion to 
USD 2.7 billion?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 30 - 
 
  ii. The reduction of subsidies for public stockholding for food security purposes under 
Annex 2 by USD  1.2 billion, while recording an increase of USD  600 million in 
public stockholding the same purpose as an amber box measure?  
iii. The reasons why  Article  6.2 subsidies increased by almost USD  2 billion?  
iv. The reasons for increases in price support subsidies for pulses, rice and wheat?  
v. The reasons why non -product -specific AMS increased by USD  500 million?  
AG-IMS ID 105010 : Question by United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, United States of America , 
Australia  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank India for its submission of G/AG/N/IND/29 . We note that data on the Value of Production 
(VoP) has not been included in Supporting Table DS:4. We are interested in seeing India 's VoP data, 
due to the centrality of this information to understandin g Members ' AMS and de minimis  calculations. 
We therefore request that the value of production data is provided for the following products:  
• Coarse grains, including breakdowns for maize, barley, millet, and sorghum ; 
• Cotton ; 
• Groundnut  in shell ; 
• Pulses, incl uding breakdowns for ahrar/tur, gram, urad, moong, and lentils ; 
• Rapeseed/Mustard ; 
• Rice; 
• Sunflower  in seed ; 
• Soybeans ; 
• Wheat . 
AG-IMS ID 105012 : Question  by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America , 
Australia  - Transparen cy issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank India for its submission of G/AG/N/IND/29 . We note that, from the years 2017/2018 
and 2021/2022, India has reported declining levels of investment under its General Services 
provisions. Under the CoA Work Programme discussions, many Members have recogni zed the 
importance of utilizing General Services provisions, available under Annex 2, paragraph 2 of the 
Agreement of Agriculture, as a minimally trade distortive route to achieving domestic policy 
objectives on agricultural productivity and resilience. We  are therefore interested in understanding 
the policy rationale and drivers  for this decline relative to increases in other forms of support. Can 
India confirm what measures it is putting in place to ensure that future support minimises adverse 
impacts on trade?  
AG-IMS ID 105040 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thaila nd 
- Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
It is understood that various state governments provide expenditures for agricultural subsidies.  
For example, the State of Punjab approved a wheat seed subsidy in 2020/21, which provided 
certified wheat seeds a 50 % subsidy; reported expenditures under this program were Rs.  18.5 crore 
for 2020/21. The expenditures data on various measures notified throughout Supporting Tables 1, 
2, and 9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 are aggregates at the national level without any breakdown for domestic 
support expenditures made by various state governments.   
a. Please confirm whether the measures notified in Supporting Tables 1, 2, and 9 of 
G/AG/N/IND/29 include both central government and state government expenditures.  
b. If they do include state government expenditures, please provide the breakdown of central 
government and state government expenditures where both are accounted for.  
c. If not, please explain why state level expenditures are excluded.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105121 : Question by European Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
a. In the corrigenda submitted by India, t he opening balance of stocks for Marketing Years 
2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, 2020/2021 has 
decreased substantially as compared to the original notifications. What are the reasons for 
this change?  
b. Also, in the corrigend a, annual releases under the programme has increased from 
30.4 million tonnes in the original notification to 50.7 million tonnes in Marketing Year 
2019/2020. What are the reasons behind this substantial change?  
AG-IMS ID 105122 : Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia thanks India for its corrigendum no tification to domestic support notifications 
G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25  and G/AG/N/IND/2 7 for marketing years 2018 -29, 20 19-20 and 
2020-21 respectively. Australia requests clarification from India on the following points:  
a. Could India please clarify the reason for the large difference between opening balances of 
stocks in the Statistical Appendix (Rice) in the corrigendum and the values previously 
notified in the original DS:1 notifications? Australia notes that the opening value originally 
notified for 2016 -17 has nearly halved from a value of 28.811 million MT in the original 
DS notification to 15.88 million Tonnes  in the corrigendum.  
b. Could India please clarify how the opening and closing stocks listed in the Statistical 
Appendix (Rice) were estimated?  
c. Could India please provide further information on its Open Market Sale Scheme 
(Domestic), including how compliance from bidders to not undertake exports is regulated?  
AG-IMS ID 105124 : Question by Brazil - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Brazil notes that, in India 's DS:1 notification for marketing y ear 2021 -22 (G/AG/N/IND/29 ), the 
object ives of programs for rice that were notified under the Bali Ministerial Decision on PSH are the 
following:  
- Provide farmers remunerative prices;  
- Maintain a public distribution system to ensure provision of food and nutritional security in 
human life cycle a pproach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at 
affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity; and  
- Maintain satisfactory level of operational and buffer stocks of foodgrains and stability of 
prices to ensure national food secu rity. 
a. In the light of the above, Brazil would ask India, if possible, to break down the numbers 
between acquisition targets and actual purchases for each of the objectives.  
b. earing in mind the root objective of promoting food security, could India distingui sh outlays  
intended to directly affect the nutrition of its population from those, from instance, of 
objective "a", which seems to constitute income support via agriculture subsidy?  
c. c Could India define its satisfactory levels of operation and buffer stock s? 
AG-IMS ID 105075 : Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
ANNEX paragraph 2  and 4, G/AG/N/IND/29  
Japan appreciates  that India updated its DS:1 notification ANNEX as Corrigenda, and would like to 
ask a few questions as the update of Annex seems to go beyond simple modification of figures.  
a. Regarding paragraph 2 -f-1, "ensuring Minimum Support Price (MSP) to the farmers" is 
changed to "provide farmers remunerative  prices".  Could India illustrate what the 
definition of "remunerative" is?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 32 - 
 
  b. Regarding paragraph 2 -f-2, "throughout the year" and "during the year " are changed to 
"in human life cycle approach". What is the intentio n of referring to the "human life cycle 
approach " in this context?  
c. Regarding paragraph 2 -f-2, in what aspects "quality food" is different from "available 
foodgrains " as previously stated.  Is it sometheing or other than "traditional staple food 
crops " stated in the Bali interim solution?  
AG-IMS ID 105076 : Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Statistical Appendix (Rice) in ANNEX, G/AG/N/IND/29  
Japan understands that the downward revision  of "annual releases under the programme (quantity)" 
makes stocktaking losses of 14 million tonnes , calculated from "theoretical" end -year stock in 
FY2019, be revised to 1.76 million tonnes , which is close to the average loss amount in previous 
years.  
This "annual releases" in FY2019, 2020, 2021, has increased  dramatically since FY2018 and reaches 
62 million tonnes  in FY2021, which is twice as many as the amount, compared to the period before 
the pandemic.  Japan would like to know the main factors of this increase of whether the government 
has increased the programme 's target coverage of 75% of rural and 50% of urban population, or 
increased the amount that individual beneficiaries receive.  
AG-IMS ID 105152 : Question by Paraguay - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
G/AG/N/IND/29  
With regard to the annex on public stockholding for food security purposes, we note that there  has 
been an increase in the annual purchase prices but not in the volume, as well as an increase in the 
quantity granted to beneficiaries despite the reduction of purchases in volume. Can India please 
explain the reasons for:  
i. The increase in the quantity released to beneficiaries from 46.2 to 62.5  million ton nes.  
ii. The increase in the purchase prices from 377 to 390 USD/ton ne. We note at this point 
that these prices are even higher than those granted by India in the context of the 
COVID -19 pandemic . 
AG-IMS ID 105045 : Question by United States of America , Australia  - Public stockholding 
for food security purposes  
In G/AG/N/IN D/29, India states "Except for item (j.), the data in the table is reported using 
Marketing Year (October to September).  The data in item (j.) is reported using the Financial Year 
(April to March). " Item (j.) is the value of total production.  
Please provid e the data used to calculate the value of total production from 2016 -17 
through  2021-22. 
AG-IMS ID 105043 : Question by United States of America, Brazil, Paraguay , Australia  - 
Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In G/AG/N/IND/29 , the statistical appendix includes "o. Total exports (value) " and "p. Total exports 
(quantity). " For each year in the table, 2019 -20 through 2021 -22, India has reported zero exports, 
despite being the world 's largest rice exporter. The final note at the bottom of the statistical appendix 
reads, "For items (m.), (n.), (o.), and (p.) only exports from and import for public stockholding have 
been considered. " 
However, it is noted that on page 9, part 2. c. of G/AG/N/IND/29 India identifies the National 
Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India (NAFED) as one of the implementing agencies for the 
progra ms identified in 2.a, which includes foodgrains procurement under the Minimum Support 
Price (MSP) and the welfare schemes related to foodgrains.  
According to NAFED 's Annual Report for 2021 -22, "NAFED is a State Trading Enterprise (STE) as per 
Foreign Trad e Policy of Govt of India. " During the Fiscal Year 2021 -22, NAFED operated "on behalf G/AG/W/237  
 
- 33 - 
 
  of Food Corporation of India and the State Governments under De -centralized Procurement scheme 
for procurement of Wheat and Paddy at MSP. " The report also notes wheat and  paddy procurement 
by NAFED occurred during each of the previous four years as well (e.g., 2017 -18 through 2020 -21).  
Further NAFED 's Annual Report covering 2021 -22 states that NAFED made efforts "for obtaining 
business from overseas countries under G2G initiatives " [G2G is government to government] and 
goes on to state that "A contract was executed between NAFED and DG (Food), Ministry of Food, 
Govt. of Bangladesh for shipment of 150000 MT (+/ -10%) Indian Non -basmati Rice to Chattogram 
& Mongla ports of Bangladesh under G2G arrangements. Against the contract, a quantity of 
123229.73 MT valuing total USD 50.23 Million was shipped during FY2021 -22 through bulk vessels 
and barges. Shipment of balance quantity is in progress. The contract is valued at 65.29 
Million. " Further, NAFED 's website (here: https://www.nafed -
india.com/Documents/Newsletters/Newsletter -Volume -XIII_OCT_21 -MAR_22.pdf ) also states that  
NAFED held discussions on G2G exports, including of rice, for the purpose of "...strengthening of 
trade relations and generation of new G to G business for export of agri commodities. "  
The Annual Report goes on to also note that paddy exports have occurr ed in 2018 -19, 2019 -20, 
and 2020-21, as well.  
In addition, it is also reported by NAFED  that an additional 10,000 MT of rice and 200MT of wheat 
were exported for humanitarian purposes by NAFED.  
a. Please explain why India did not report the above identified quantities of paddy and wheat 
procured at MSP and exported by NAFED in the Statistical A ppendix of G/AG/N/IND/29 
and previous notifications.  
b. Please provide data on any other exports procured at MSP and exported in the marketing 
years 2016 -17 through 2021 -22. 
AG-IMS ID 105044 : Question by United States of America, Japan, Paraguay , Australia, 
Thailand  - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In G/AG/N/IND/29 , India states "Theoretically, Opening balance of stocks  + Annual purchases under 
the programme – Annual releases under the programme – Total exports + Total Imports – Open 
market sale (Domestic) = End -year stocks.  Any difference in the stock is mainly because of 
conversion of unmilled paddy into rice and losse s during transportation and due to loss of moisture. " 
These discrepancies in stock amounts were 1.76 million tonnes  in 2019/20, 1.77 million tonnes  in 
2020/21, and 2.65 million tonnes  in 2021/22.  As a point of reference, 2.65 million tonnes  is enough 
rice that if it were exported by one Member, that Member would have been a top five rice exporter 
in 2021/22.  
a. Given the significant size of these discrepancies, please provide additional details on the 
quantities of discrepancies caused by conversion factors as  compared to those caused by 
transportation and those due to loss of moisture.  
We note that India also states in its notification that the total imports and the total exports are 
only those from public stockholding that have been considered.   
b. Please  provid e the total quantity and value of Indian imports and exports for each year 
from 2016 -17 through 2021 -22 so that Members are able to quantify the difference in the 
opening balance of stocks and end -year stocks that are caused by "the conversion of 
unmilled paddy into rice and losses during transportation and due to loss of moisture. " 
c. Please  explain why India has only considered data related to public stockholding in 
items  (m.), (n.), (o.), and (p.) of the statistical appendix in G/AG/N/IND/29.   
AG-IMS ID 105046 : Question by United  States of America, Paraguay , Australi a, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
The Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  all contain the same list of names of laws and rules in item 2. d. "Relevant 
laws and regulations. " Two of the names on the list are "Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana  Yojana G/AG/W/237  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Rules, 2022 " and "Integrated Nutrition Support Programme – Saksham Anganwadi and 
Poshan  (2.0), Rules, 2022. " 
a. Were these two sets of rules in effect at the time of the implementation of the stockholding 
program covered in G/AG/N/IND/18  (2018 -2019), G/AG/N/IND/25  (2019/2020), and 
G/AG/N/IND/27  (2020 -2021)?  
b. If those rules were not in effect at t hose times, why were they included in the corrigenda?  
c. How did India 's stockholding program change with the implementation of these two sets 
of rules?  
d. Specifically, did the implementation of these two sets of rules require procurement of 
additional quantities of various foodstuffs? If so, please explain.  
AG-IMS ID 105047 : Ques tion by United States of America , Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/29 , and also in the annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 , item 2. c., under "Agency in charge of 
implementation " the following entities are  listed: the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India; Food Corporation of 
India (FCI); National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India (NAFED); and State governments 
and their agencies.  
Please provide a list of all state agencies involved in implementation of the program.  
AG-IMS ID 105048 : Question by United States  of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Item 2. d. "Relevant laws and regulations " of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Cor r.1 lists names of laws and 
rules.  
Please provide copies or specific URLs/weblinks to all of these laws and rules.  
AG-IMS ID 105049 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Item 2. f. "Officially published objective criteria or guidelines, " of the Annexes that appear in 
G/AG/N/I ND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND /25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  
includes three main objectives, but no information on where those objectives might be published.  
Item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29, G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr .1 includes three similar objectives, but also a 
fourth that is not covered in the more recent Annexes: "to maintain stability in foodgrains prices 
throughout the country during the year ".  
a. Please provide the original legal and official document that speci fies the identified 
objectives.  
b. Please explain why "to maintain stability in foodgrains prices throughout the country 
during the year " was removed from the objectives.  
AG-IMS ID 105050 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
The Statistical Appendices submitted in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr .1 apply only to rice. Further, data in the "f. 
Purchase prices " row do not appear to take into account bonuses that States provide over and above 
the Minimum Support Price.  
a. Please provide Statistical Appendix information on the other traditional staple food crops 
covered under the programme.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 35 - 
 
  b. Please provide relevant St ate and Union Territory bonuses for each year.  
c. Please provide URLs/weblinks to all of the data sources used to compile the Statistical 
Appendices in G/AG/N/IND/29, G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1.  
AG-IMS ID 105051 : Question by United States of America, Paraguay , Australia, Thailand  
- Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25 , and G/AG/N/IND/27  
mentions that "Relevant laws and regulations " includes various State legislations/orders. However, 
item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1, 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  does not contain reference to States.  
Please provide a complete list identifying all "State le gislations/orders " that are relevant to the 
stockholding program, as well as copies of those documents or specific URLs/weblinks.  
AG-IMS ID 105041 : Question by United States of America, Brazil, Japan, Paraguay , 
Australia  - Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG/N/IND/29 , India notified more than US D 32 billion in outlays for input subsidies, an increase 
of approximately US D 7 billion in the notified outlays for the previous year, which itself was a 
significant increase compared to the previous year as noted by several Members in AG -IMS 
ID 101006 . G/AG/N/IND/29, Supporting Table DS:2 has no information to identify the various 
measures implemented by India that have been a ggregated under "input subsidies. " In India 's most 
recent previous response in this Committee regarding this matter, India provided a breakdown of 
expenditures for fertilizer, irrigation, and power.  Further, there does not appear to be any 
information on t he input subsidies extended by various state governments.  It is understood that 
other input subsidies, such as for agricultural implements and machinery, have been provided.   
a. What are the reasons for this increase in support under "input subsidies availabl e to low -
income or resource -poor producers " in Marketing Year 2021/2022?  
b. Please explain if in Marketing Year 2021/22 input subsidies were provided by the central 
or state governments for other inputs besides fertilizer, irrigation, and power, such as for 
seeds, chemicals, machinery, etc.  
c. Please provide the breakdown of the subsidy expenditures on fertilizer, irrigation, power, 
and any other input subsidies to the agriculture sector in Marketing Year 2021/22 with the 
published source of information.   
d. Please provide information on the value of input subsidies on a crop -wise basis for paddy, 
wheat, and other agricultural commodities.   
e. Please confirm whether the aggregate value notified in Supporting Table DS:2 and in the 
responses to (a -c) includes financial su pport provided by various state governments.  
AG-IMS ID 105140 : Question by European Union , Australia  - Market price support  
The European Union note s that India, in contrast to previous Marketing Years, do not notify market 
price support for "Soyabean Yellow " in Supporting Table DS:5 for Marketing Year 2021/2022 
(G/AG/N/IND/29 ). Has India permanently cea sed using Market Price Support for that product?  
AG-IMS ID 105073 : Question by Japan - Market price support  
Soybean Yellow, Cotton (Market Price Support)  
According to G/AG/N/IND/29 , Supporting Table DS: 5, the eligible production of Market  Price 
Support for cotton in MY2021 is only 20 tonnes , which was 1.56 million tonnes  in the previous year. 
Also, Market Price Support for Soybean Yellow seems to disappear for MY2021.  
a. Does India consider and notify actual quantities procured under the MSP program as "the 
eligible production " of cotton and soybean yellow?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 36 - 
 
  b. Regarding the soybean yellow, is the procurement volume just zero in MY2021 or has the 
program itself been terminated?  
AG-IMS ID 105039 : Question by United States of America, Brazil, Paraguay , Australia, 
Thailand  - Market price support  
In G/AG/N/IND/29 , India states that "stocks under the program are acquired and released in order 
to meet the domestic food security needs of India 's poor and vulnerable population, and not to 
distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other members. "  
However, India raised its allocation of free food grains under food security programs from 
5 kg/month/person to 10 kg/month/person from April 2020 through December 2022. This has 
resulted in highly depressed domestic prices and making Indian rice highly competitive against rice 
from other origins. This has led to free government rice leaking into the open market and/or replaced 
the rice normally bought by Indian consumers to supplement their food needs over and above the 
normal allocation of 5 kg/month/person. Trade sources report that Indian non -basmati rice exports 
have been boosted due to highly competitive prices, alleging that some of the rice has been shipped 
even below the governm ent's MSP (after conversion from paddy rice to milled rice).   
G/AG/N/IND/29 further states, "For these reasons, the breach of the de minimis  limits for rice is 
covered under the peace clause set out in the Bali Ministerial… "  
It is noted that in 2019/20, 2 020/21, and 2021/22 India increased the Minimum Support Price for 
paddy in each year according to the India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.  This increase 
occurred despite record rice exports, which more than doubled in 2020/21 compared to 2019 /20 
and increased further in 2021/22 according to the India Ministry of Commerce and Industry.  Further, 
India's year -to-date rice exports are exceeding those for 2021/22, indicating that India could again 
exceed the record exports of the previous two years . Further, India 's notified domestic support for 
rice also increased over the period, exceeding its permitted trade -distorting support limits in all three 
years.  
Given this situation in which Indian rice exports have increased substantially over the last f ew years, 
please explain why India continued to increase the Minimum Support Price for rice in each year.   
AG-IMS ID 105123 : Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks India for the submission of its DS:1 notification for 2021 -22 (G/AG/N/IND/29 ). 
Australia notes that India 's Supporting Table DS:5 outlines market price support schemes for seven 
commodity groups (coarse cereal, cotton, groundnut, pulses, rice, sunflower, and wheat), for which 
the 'eligible production ' varies from 20 tonnes (cotton) to 58.94 million tonnes (ric e).  
a. Australia asks that India describe the restrictions in place that govern the eligibility of 
Indian farmers of coarse cereal, cotton, groundnut, pulses, rice, sunflower, and wheat for 
market price support.   
b. Australia notes that the notified eligible pr oduction of these commodity groups in 
marketing year 2021 -22 has changed substantially from the previous year. Australia asks 
India to elaborate on how and why the restrictions in place that restrict the eligibility of 
Indian farmers for market price suppo rt have changed over the past year.  
AG-IMS ID 105042 : Question by United  States of America , Paraguay , Australia  - Non-
product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 , India has provided limited information about the 
insurance premium and interest subsidies extended to various crops/products, and also does not 
appear to include information on any state -specific measure s. For example, it is understood the 
states of Bihar, Punjab, and West Bengal have their own state crop insurance programs, which are 
funded by the states and not the central government.  
a. Please confirm what schemes are included under the measure notified as "insurance 
premium subsidy " and provide a breakdown of expenditures for each.  For example, does 
"insurance premium subsidy " include the following crop insurance schemes: Pradhan G/AG/W/237  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Unified Package 
Insurance Scheme, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, National Crop Insurance 
Program?  
b. Please confirm what Indian states implement crop insurance schemes in addition to or 
separate  from the national crop insurance program and provide links to the operational 
guidelines for each.  
c. Please confirm whether the notified value for crop insurance includes these state -level 
measures and if not, why.  
d. Please identify what crops and products ar e eligible for the national insurance premium 
and interest subsidies.  
e. Please explain why India notifies insurance premiums as non -product specific given that 
at least some of the insurance schemes have varying premiums rates for different eligible 
crops. F or example, under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium rate 
for wheat is the lesser of 1.5% or the actuarial rate, while that for bajra and oilseeds is 
the lesser of 3.5% or the actuarial rate, and horticultural crops are the actuarial r ate.  
2.4.6   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/ 60, G/AG/N/NIC/61, G/AG/N/NIC/62)  
AG-IMS ID 105144 : Question b y Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada thanks Nicaragua for its DS:1 notifications. Canada notes that, while Nicaragua mentions 
paragraph (ii) of G/AG/2  and provides program descriptions in Supporting Table DS:1, page 22 of 
G/AG/2 provides that measures con tained in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture should be 
notified as a Table DS:2.   
Could Nicaragua provide information on the programs for which domestic support has been notified 
in Supporting Table DS:1 in a Table DS:2, as per related information req uirements on page 23?  
2.4.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/66)  
AG-IMS ID 105160 : Question  by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada would like to thank Panama for its recent domestic support notification and responses on 
the AG -IMS portal. Between the calendar year 2021 and 2022, Canada notes that the current total 
AMS notified by Panama h as increased by 9.5%, or 5,878,366.07 PAB.  
Could Panama elaborate on measures or approaches it might be considering that would help bring 
its current total AMS back to zero?  
AG-IMS ID 105156 : Question by Paraguay, United States of America, United Kingdom - 
Scheduled commitment level  
With regard to notification G/AG/N/PAN/66 , Panama has reported being above its authorized de 
minimis  levels by PAB  61.4 million, equivalent to 22% of the value of production for rice in Panama. 
Since 2017, Panama has consistently reported being above its authorized de minimis  levels at levels 
above 20% of the value of production, with a spike of up to 33 % of the value of production in 2020.  
Although the current notification represents 22% of the value of production, in absolute monetary 
terms, it also represents an increase of PAB  20 million since the first time Panama reported subsidies 
above its author ized levels, at PAB  41 million, which at the time represented 24% of the value of 
production. The market price support incentive increases production and the value of production, 
which is why, despite the increase in subsidies in absolute terms, we have a situation where there 
is a reduction in relative terms. It is worrying to see the continuation of this trend in Panama's 
agricultural policies, which has been ongoing and on the rise for more than five years now.  
While we appreciate Panama's commitment to  transparency in the reporting of the subsidies granted, 
can Panama indicate what actions it is considering to reduce rice subsidies, with a view to complying 
with its WTO commitments?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 38 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105157 : Question by Thailand  - Scheduled commitment level  
Thailand thanks Panama for its submission of DS:1 notification. Thailand noticed that Panama 
notified the Product -Specific Support for rice at PAB 61.47 million in 2022, which is accounted for 
22.29% of the VOP. Thailand also took note from the notification that this support was to maintain 
the sustainability of rice production during the COVID -19 pandemic and the Black Sea conflict  
Please indicate what steps for Panama to implement the rice support scheme to comply with the 
WTO commitment.   
2.4.8   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/34, G/AG/N/PRY/36)  
AG-IMS ID 105114 : Question by India  - Domestic food aid  
As per the DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/PRY/36 ), measures "Project to improve campesina and 
indigenous family farming " and "Project to improve campesina and indigenous family farming in the 
Eastern Region " have been listed under Green Box measures 'domestic food aid '. In this context, 
India requests Paraguay to provide the following details:  
a. How the "Project to improve campesin a and indigenous family farming " differs from the 
"Project to improve campesina and indigenous family farming in the Eastern Region "? 
b. The eligibility criteria for getting benefits under the above -mentioned Projects.  
c. Is a farmer eligible to take benefits under both Projects?  
d. How much support is being provided under both Projects?  
e. Do the Projects fulfill  the criteria of paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of AoA? If yes, then how?  
AG-IMS ID 105115 : Question by India - Classification of measures  
India, vide AG -IMS ID 103143 , had sought a clarification from Paraguay on its notified scheme 
"Improving market integration of the eastern region (PIMA)" under Annex 2 para 4. Paraguay had 
clarifi ed, "The delegation of Paraguay wishes to thank the delegation of India for its question. As a 
result of this question, we have identified an error in the way the measure was originally classified, 
and this has been corrected. Corrigendum for notification G/AG/N/PRY/34  and the sub sequent 
notification, G/AG/N/PRY/36, have already been submitted to the Secretariat. Notification DS:2 
corresponding to this measure has also been submitted for circulation. " 
Further, India notes that Paraguay 's DS:2 Notification related to the Agricultura l Market Integration 
Project (PIMA) dated 23 November 2022 states that "The project beneficiaries are small and 
medium -sized agricultural producers and indigenous communities that belong to associations or 
committees and that produce cash and subsistence c rops with limited access to the market and 
value chains ". The DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) of Paraguay for the calendar year 2021 also 
notified 'Project to improve market integration in the Eastern Region (PIMA) ' under the same 
measure "Domestic Food aid " with 14.37 million USD.  
In this context, India again requests Paraguay to explain:  
How does this measure comply with provisions under para 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA?  
2.4.9   Thailand (G/AG/N/ THA/85)  
AG-IMS ID 105117 : Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
India notes the expenditure incur red by Thailand for stockholding of cereals as notified under 
Supporting Table DS:7, G/AG/N/THA/85  (Calendar Year 2016) was 1,655.21 million Baht. In this 
context, India requests  Thailand to provide details on the following:  
a. Under which scheme are the cereals procured by the government? Please provide details 
on the working of the scheme.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 39 - 
 
  b. What grains are covered under the scheme?  
c. What is the mechanism for the procurement of cereals? Whether they are procured at 
administered price or market price? How many farmers have benefited  under this scheme 
if procured at an administered price?  
d. Did the stockholding of cereals continue in the subsequent years after the 2016 
notification? If yes, provide the details of budget all ocation from 2016 -2022.  
2.4.10   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 105118 : Question by India  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India repeats its question under AG -IMS ID  102107  part (d) as the UK did not provide a reason 
behind using different exchange rates in their Domestic Support notification DS:1 G/AG/N/GBR/11 .  
We thank the United Kingdom for submitting its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/GBR/11. In part (d), the 
administered price and the external ref erence prices in the Supporting Table DS:5  have been 
redenominated using the exchange rate that prevailed on 31 December 2020, 1 Euro = 0.89903. 
This is in contrast with the UK 's communication via document no. G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1 , where 
the currency components of the schedule of c oncessions were redenominated using the average 
exchange rate of 2015 -19, 1 Euro = 0.83687 GBP.   
Could the UK explain the rationale behind using different exchange rates in the Schedule and DS:1 
notification?   
2.4.11   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166)  
AG-IMS ID 105146 : Question by Australia - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia  thanks the United States for its earlier response to AG -IMS ID 103120  and follow -up 
response to AG -IMS ID 104106  regarding support notified under 2(g) infrastructural services.  
In its response, the US noted "that agreement specifies the payment of administrative and operating 
costs and the sharing of underwriting risk to support that delivery and servicing activity. "  
Australia asks whether the full budgetary impact and value of the US government taking a share of 
underwriting risk, as indicated in the US 's response, is reflected as Amber Box domestic support?  
AG-IMS ID 105145 : Question by Australia - General  services: infrastructural services  
Australia thanks the United States for its earlier re sponse to AG -IMS ID 103120  and follow -up 
response to AG -IMS ID 104106  regarding support notified under 2(g) infrastructural services.   
Australia notes that the US responded tha t this program "meets the general criterial of Annex 2, 
paragraph 1 " and that "in addition, the outlays meet the general criteria in paragraph 2 ".  
Australia however had asked that the US "explain how underwriting gains provided to insurance 
companies unde r the Standard Reinsurance Agreement program is considered the 'provision or 
construction of capital works' " as under paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2. This is the second time Australia 
has posed this question.   
AG-IMS ID 105116 : Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India thanks the United States for submitting their Domestic Support (DS:1) 
notification  (G/AG/N/USA/166 ). Would the United States provide the reason behind the reduction in 
environmental programmes support from US D 6,019 million in 2019 ( G/AG/N/USA/157 ) to 
USD 4,513 million in 2020 (G/AG/N/USA/166)?   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 40 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105147 : Question by China - Non-product -specific AMS  
The US notified the premium subsidies of Whole -Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) in Supporting 
Table DS:9 a nd explained that WFRP insures revenue of the entire farm rather than an individual 
crop. Could the US further clarify the insurance programme as follows:  
a. Does the revenue insured by WFRP only cover the revenue of crops?  
b. How to determine the revenue of the farm insured by WFRP? Is that the sum of the 
revenues of each crop?  
c. What is the substantial difference between WFRP and other income support measures?   
d. What is the impact of WFRP to trade?  
AG-IMS ID 105017 : Question  by New Zealand, China - Classification of measures  
New Zealand appreciates the United States ' previous answers to many questions regarding this 
topic. The reason for our continued interest is because our understanding of the PLC and ARC -CO 
programmes is that farmers in the United States receive payments when prices (PLC) or revenues 
(ARC-CO) for a specified list of crops fall below the specified benchmarks for each crop. Further, the 
programmes are elective, meaning that farmers can choose which programme they are enrolled in.  
a. Is our interpretation of these programmes correct?  
b. Given that there is a specific list of crops, and the threshold for prices or revenues are set 
on a per -crop basis, could the United States please offer more context as to why it doesn 't 
consider these programmes to be product specific?  
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASUR ES (TABLE DS:2)  
2.5.1   United Kingdom  (G/AG/N/GBR/18)  
AG-IMS ID 105148 : Question by Australia  - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks the United Kingdom (UK) for its DS:2 notification dated 28 February 2023 
(G/AG/N/GBR/18 ) regarding the  Small Grants programs for Agricultural Diversification, Efficiency 
and Horticultural Developm ent. 
Australia notes the requirement in Annex 2, paragraph 11(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) 
that eligibility for structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids be "in response 
to objectively demonstrated structural disadvantag es."  
Could the UK please clarify what the eligibility criteria is for the Small Grants programs for 
Agricultural Diversification, Efficiency and Horticultural Development in terms of the types of 
structural disadvantages that agricultural producers in Wal es must face to receive these grants?  
AG-IMS ID 105149 : Question  by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks the United Kingd om (UK) for its DS:2 notification dated 28 February 2023 
(G/AG/N/GBR/18 ). 
Page 4 of the Nutrient Management Investment Scheme: guidance document states that:  
The Nutrient Management Investment scheme is a capital grant scheme available to farmers 
in Wales to improve the economic and environmental performance of their farm businesses.   
The objectives are to support investments which enhance on -farm nutrient management, 
protect, and enhance water, soil and air quality, improve on -farm resource efficiencies, 
technical performance, and th e use of technology to improve management decisions.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 41 - 
 
  The Nutrient Management Investment scheme supports infrastructure and capital 
investments in equipment and machinery that have been identified to address the impact of 
on-farm pollution, offering clear and quantifiable benefits to your farm business and the wider 
environment.  
This program appears to have both environmental and economic improvement aspects. Could the 
UK please clarify how the aspects of the program that improve economic performance, on -farm 
resource efficiencies, technical performance and use technology to improve management decisions 
contribute to improved environmental and/or conservation outcomes?  
2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.6.1   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/77)  
AG-IMS ID 105063 : Question by United  States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States th anks Colombia for its ES:1 notification G/AG/N/COL/77 . We recall information 
published about the Sugar Price Stabilization Fund (Fondo de Estabilización de Precios del Azúcar 
(FEPA) in Spanish). Public information about this program is no longer available online and we do 
not see this fund incl uded in Colombia 's notification.  
a. Please confirm if FEPA is still in place.  
b. If so, the United States would appreciate additional details about the fund and how it 
functions.  
c. Please provide a copy of or link to the documentation implementing FEPA or disco ntinuing 
FEPA, if the measure is no longer in place.   
2.6.2   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/90, G/AG/N/KOR/91)  
AG-IMS ID 105134 : Question by Australia - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Australia t hanks the Republic of Korea (RoK) for its ES :1 notifications ( G/AG/N/KOR/90 , 
G/AG/N/KOR/91 ) for CY2020 and 2021 which document ongoing support for exports outlaid under 
Article 9.1 (d) and/or (e).   
The main mode of support effectively reduces the cost of exporting across a range of Korean products 
but foremos t vegetables (2020 - KW 20.34  bn, 2021 - KW 16.71  bn), fruits (2020 - KW 6.57 bn, 
2021 – KW 6.3 bn), livestock (2020 - KW 4.43 bn, 2021 – KW 3.3 bn) and processed foods (2020 – 
KW 3.25 bn, 2021 – KW 3.05 bn).  
Australia notes that there have been some reduc tions in support between CY 's 2020 and 2021. 
Australia asks the ROK:   
a. Given that 2023 will see the end of flexibilities available for developing country Members 
under Article 9.1 (d) and (e), what actions is the ROK taking to ensure the orderly removal 
of these supports between now and December?  
b. Does the ROK envisage problems in meeting this deadline? If yes, how does the ROK 
intend to overcome these challenges?   
c. Australia would be gr ateful if ROK could also provide HS codes for the products listed.  
AG-IMS ID 105133 : Question by Thailand - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Thailand appreciates the Republic of Korea for submitting the ES:1 notification concerning the export 
subsidies on various groups of products such as fruits, flowers, kimchi, and vegetables. Thailand 
notices that there is certain amount on export subsidy t hrough cost reduction measures provided to 
fruits and vegetables around 6.3 billion KRW and 16.71 billion KRW respectively. Could the Republic 
of Korea specify what type of fruits and vegetables are benefiting from this subsidy scheme?   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.7  NOTIFICATIONS IN TH E CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.7.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/156)  
AG-IMS ID 105132 : Que stion by European  Union - Quantity and concessionality of food 
aid 
In the latest NF:1 notification for calendar year 2021, Canada reported in point 1.  Quantity of food 
aid provided to Least – Developed and Net Food – Importing Developing Countries the following:  
As a signatory to the 2013 Food Assistance Convention (FAC), Canada established a minimum annual 
food assistance level of CAD 250 million. Total food assistance reported under the FAC exceeded 
that target, with more than 517.6 million disbursed.  Approximately CAD 376 million went to LDCs 
and NFIDCs.  
Food assistance incorporates a mix of tools, including provision of eligible products, cash, vouchers, 
nutritional interventions, and livelihood protection in emergency and early recovery situations.  
Consistent with FAC Requirements, all of Canada's food assistance is expressed in value terms.  
In reply to the ECQ, document G/AG/W/125/Rev.18/Add.3 , Canada has reported the following:  
All Canadian food assistance is in fully grant form and cash -based.  
All Canadian food assistance i s in fully grant form and cash -based.  
In 2021, Canada exceeded its CAD 250 million minimum annual contribution commitment under the 
Food Assistance Convention, and provided more than CAD  500 million in food assistance.  
a. Could Canada confirm that the amounts  of food aid reported in NF:1 and in their reply to 
the ECQ are the same?  
b. Could Canada explain what was the form of the food aid – cash, in -kind, vouchers etc., 
since this information differs in the two notifications?   
2.7.2   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/ 167)  
AG-IMS ID 105131 : Question by European Union - NFIDC  
a. In point 1 of  G/AG/N/USA/167  Quantity of food aid provided to Least – Developed and Net 
Food – Importing Developing Countries  , the US has notified a total of  2,208,521 tonne s 
food aid. 
In their ES: 3 notification  G/AG/N/USA/161  (2020 -2021) for the same reporting period, the US has 
notified  2,082,220 tonnes of food aid to all destinations.  
i. Could the US explain the difference in the reported quantities in the two notifications?  
ii. Is this the only in -kind food aid for 2020 -2021?   
b. In point 3 Technical and Financial assistance under paragraph 3 (III) of the decision  of 
G/AG/N/USA/167 , the US has reported the f ollowing:  
Financial Assistance and Funding for Technical Assistance for Developing countries:   
a. U.S. Department of State assistance to agriculture:  USD 848,309,000;  
b. Millennium Challenge Corporation (Total: USD 72,040,000);  
c. U.S. Department of Agriculture Pro grams:  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 43 - 
 
  • Borlaug Fellowship Program (Total: USD 2,608,663) ; 
• Cochran Fellowship Program (Total: USD 4,723,234) ; 
• Emerging Markets Program (Total: USD 5,112,244) . 
d. U.S. contributions to multilateral organizations with an agricultural emphasis:  
WFP: USD 3,189,976 ,946 – only a small fraction of this amount goes toward agriculture 
development.  
e. Value of food assistance used in development programs (Total: USD 821,603,822).  
i. Could the US provide the amounts of the aid which went towards agriculture 
development [from paragraphs a) to e)]?  
ii.  Could  the US provide more details on the form of aid related to agriculture – in kind 
or cash [paragraphs a) to e)?   
c. In paragraph f)  Value of food  assistance used in development program s (Total: 
USD 821,603,822)  of the same notification, US has stated that:  
This figure represents the U.S. dollar value of the commodities donated under Title II, 
Food for Progress and Food for Education food aid progra ms, some of which was 
monetized.  When food aid is monetized, or sold locally, it produces funds that may be used for 
local agricultural development programs and to cover local administrative costs for the program. 
Typically, the proceeds are used for water  management/irrigation programs, farm credit, agricultural 
infrastructure, health programs, or to purchase local foods that will provide a nutritionally complete 
diet to recipients.  
i. Could the US provide more details on the amount of the food aid which was monetized?  
ii. Could the US provide the final amount of food aid based on the figures reported in 
NF:1 notification related to agriculture, in the form cash?   
d. In reply to the ECQ, Food aid section  G/AG/W/125/Rev.18/Add.3 , US has reported 
2,018,172  tonnes of food aid.  
Could the US confi rm that the difference is due to the reporting period (1 October 2021 – 
30 September 2022 )?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 105113 : Question by India  
For effective monitoring and functioning of the Committee on Agri culture, transparent information 
on the measures adopted by Members is essential; in the absence of notification by the Members, 
this function is adversely affected. As a developing country, Thailand is required to notify their 
Domestic Support notificatio n within one year.  However, Thailand has failed to submit its DS:1 
notifications for the calendar year 2017 onwards.  The last submitted notification pertains to the 
calendar years 2014 to 2016 ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ) dated 6th October 2017. In  this regard:  
a. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2017, which has been pending for five years?  
b. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2018, which has been pending for four years?  
c. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2019, which has been pending for three years?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 44 - 
 
  d. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2020, which has been pending for two years?  
e. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2021, which has been pending for more than a year?  
3.2  Uruguay  
AG-IMS ID 105112 : Question  by India  
For effective monitoring and functioning of the Commi ttee on Agriculture, transparent information 
on the measures adopted by Members is essential; in the absence of notification by the Members, 
this function is adversely affected. As a developing country, Uruguay is required to notify their 
Domestic Support notification within one year.  However, Uruguay has failed to submit its DS:1 
notifications for the calendar year 2017 onwards.  In the absence of the DS:1 notifications by 
Uruguay for the calendar year 2017 onwards, the required information is not available  for the 
Committee to monitor and the Members to analyse the measures adopted by Uruguay.  
India, vide AG -IMS ID 103111 , had asked Uruguay that "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 ". However, Uruguay failed to provide any reply.  
India again raises the same question and requests Uruguay to apprise and update the Committee:  
a. when does Uruguay plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the calendar year 2017, which 
has been pending for fiv e years?  
b. When does Uruguay plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the calendar year 2018, which 
has been pending for four years?  
c. When does Uruguay plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the calendar year 2019, which 
has been pending for three years?  
d. When does Uruguay plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the calendar year 2020, which 
has been pending for two years?  
e. When does Uruguay plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the calendar year 2021, which 
has been pending for more than a year?  
4  DEFERRED REPL IES 
4.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
4.1.1   Angola's import policies  (SIM 660)  
4.1.1.1   Question by European Union  (AG-IMS ID 105019 ) 
The European Union  would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID 100058 . 
On 14 Janua ry 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, 
which provides new import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods. Thi s Presidential Decree 
seeks to support domestic production and economic development by restricting importers' access to 
imports, including through an import licensing system that appears to prioritize the use of domestic 
production, similar to an import su bstitution policy. Given the potential impacts on EU's exports to 
Angola of agricultural products covered by Presidential Decree 23/19, the EU would appreciate if 
Angola could provide clarifications on the following points:  
a. Could Angola provide additional information on the agricultural products covered by the 
scope of Presidential Decree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, G/AG/W/237  
 
- 45 - 
 
  as well as a list of specific goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the D ecree?  
b. Could Angola explain how the restrictions are implemented, and notably if licenses are 
used to manage these restrictions?  
c. Could Angola elaborate on the process importers and wholesalers have to follow to be 
eligible for an import licence, including on the specific steps required?  
d. Could Angola provide additional clarifications on the quantitative restrictions laid down by 
Article 11 of the Decree, especially on how the assessment of the existence of internal 
capacity for import substitution is conducted?  
Angola previously indicated that cancellation of the Decree will depend on the achievement of its 
objectives . 
e. Could Angola elaborate on the methodology and process for the assessment of the 
achievement of those objectives?  
4.1.2   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
Unites States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
4.1.2.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs  105166 , 105168 , 105171 , 105175 , 
105179 , 105181 , 105187 , 105189 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
The following restrictive measures have been introduced against the Russian Feder ation 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 sa le, 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.  
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, including 
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, Japan, New Zealand, the United  Kingdom and 
the United States, 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 a nd distribution of agricultural products, including 
wheat and fertilizers, and increased volatility in the global agricultural market should be considered 
as useful contributions to food security.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 46 - 
 
  4.1.3   Australia,  Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United Sta tes - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  
4.1.3.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs  105167 , 105169 , 105182 , 105188 , 
105190 ) 
The Russian Federation  did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
In 2022, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have 
introduced import tariffs on agric ultural 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 a bout the timing of elimination of the 
inconsistencies as part of their contributions to world food security and on compliance with tariff 
commitments.  
4.1.4   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan , New Zealand, Norway  – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  
4.1.4.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs  10517 0, 105172 ,  105176 ,  105180 , 
105183 , 105184 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due c ourse:  
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 particular, 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 foodst uffs and grains, 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 includin g spare parts 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 applica tion of such measures correlates with the 
declared objective to mitigate the food security concerns.   
4.1.5   Côte d'Ivoire - Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  
4.1.5.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 105032 ) 
The E uropean Union  wants to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID  96046 . 
Côte d'Ivoire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
Code général des impôts1. This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
a. How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 47 - 
 
  b. How does it respect the following WTO commitments:  
• Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
• Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation).  
http://www.dgi.cgici.com/indexs.htm  
4.1.6   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport  (SIM 
778)  
4.1.6.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs  105173 , 105177 , 105185 )  
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
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 im pediments for trade and imposes 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 o f 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 fertili zers 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 au thorities 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 Regulation?  
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?  
4.1.7   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  
4.1.7.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS IDs  105174 , 105178 , 105186  ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 16 Apr il 2022, the European 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 an y other State after 24 February 2022 
(Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision No. 1076) 
and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 48 - 
 
  At the same time, according to the mentioned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland 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 ferti lizers whose import, purchase 
and transport is allowed under the Regulation.  
There is no settled procedure or conditions for obtaining such authorization. There is no form of 
proof of such authorization, and no 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, fertilizer 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 in 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 wo rking.   
4.1.8   Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas (SIM 17)  
4.1.8.1   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 105006 ) 
Seeing as AG -IMS ID 104066  remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate its 
interest in the Philippines ' imports  under tariff quotas.  
In G/AG/N/PHL/70/Corr.2, the Philippines notified in -quota imports for Horses (0101), Cattle (0102), 
Live swine (0103), Live goat (0104), Live poultry (0105), Beef (0201), Pork (0203), Goat 
meat (0204), Poultry meat (0207), Potatoes (0701), Coffee (0901), Corn (1005), Rice (1006), and 
Sugar (1701). Considering that import licenses were only issued for Pork (0203), Poultry (0207), 
Corn (1005), Potatoes (1701), Coffee beans (0901) and Coffee extracts (2101):  
a. Please explain how the Philippines recorded in -quota imports and fill rates above zero for 
commodities for which it did not issue import licenses; and  
b. Please confirm import statistics for calendar year 2019 and provide a link to the source 
data.  
4.1.8.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105013 ) 
Seeing as AG -IMS ID 104064  remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate its 
interest in how the Philippines administers its tariff rate quotas (TRQs).  
The United States thanks the Ph ilippines for its revised tables on corn fill rates and for excluding 
imports entering the Philippines under preferential trade agreements from its MFN tariff -quota fill 
rate calculation. However, the United States still seeks further clarity on how the Ph ilippines 
administers its TRQs. Pursuant to domestic legislation, the Philippines Department of Agriculture is 
mandated to implement a Minimum Access Volume (MAV) mechanism for selected agricultural 
products taking into account its WTO commitments. Accordi ng to both domestic regulations and the 
Philippines ' Table MA:1 notification to the WTO, import licenses are required in order to access the 
in-quota quantities of the Philippines ' TRQs.  
The Philippines Department of Agriculture 's Administrative Order 52 (2000) amended the Rules and 
Regulations for the Implementation of the Agricultural MAV, which allows existing licensees to retain 
their quota allocations without importing, as long as they buy locally produced commodities. This 
can result in quota allocat ions that are unused and not reallocated during the tariff quota year. 
Further, it is noted that Order 52 (2000) repeals the requirement of Administrative Order 1 of 1998 
that any unused quota allocations (i.e., "MAV quantity ") should be made available on a first -come, 
first-serve basis.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 49 - 
 
  a. Please explain how this is consistent with the Philippines ' WTO commitments (including 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which prohibits the use of agriculture -specific 
non-tariff measures) and how this comports with the minimum market access rights of 
WTO Members?  
b. Please confirm that purchases of local ly produced commodities by quota holders are not 
counted against the WTO TRQ.  
c. Please clarify how the reallocation process operates for quota allocations not filled, 
including those allocations not used due to the quota holder making domestic purchases.  
4.1.9   Philippines - Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) Permits 
(SIM  655)  
4.1.9.1   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 105014 ) 
Seeing as AG-IMS ID 104067 remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate it: in 
AG-IMS ID 102037 , the Philippines indicated that a new domestic administration had taken over 
leadership of the Department of Agriculture and the capital authorities could possibly review the 
SPSIC measure.  
Please provide any updates regarding this measure.   
4.1.9.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105015 ) 
Seeing as AG -IMS ID 104068  remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate its 
interest in the Philippines ' "Rice Tariffication Law " (RTL).  
The United States notes Section 5 of Republic Act No. 11203 or the "Rice Tariffication Law " (RTL) 
which provides that "failure o n the part of the BPI to release the SPSIC without informing the rice 
importer of any error, deficiency, omission, or additional documentary requirement shall mean 
automatic approval of the SPSIC applied for within seven (7) days after submission of the co mplete 
requirements. " This provision aligns with Republic Act. No. 11032 or the "Ease of Doing Business 
and Efficient Delivery of Government Services Act. " 
a. Please explain how the Philippines Bureau of Customs tracks the status of such automatic 
approvals s o as not to delay the release of shipments that have met SPSIC requirements 
via this process.  
b. The United States also asks the Philippines the status of implementing a similar automatic 
approval process for all commodities that require SPSICs.   
4.1.9.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 105016 ) 
Seeing as AG -IMS ID 104069  remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate its 
interest in the Phi lippines ' disapproval of certain SPSIC applications.  
The United States would remind the Philippines it previously stated in the Committee on Import 
Licensing that "All applicants are informed of the reason in the event of disapproval of SPSIC 
application " (see G/LIC/Q/PHL/5 ). However, this doe s not seem to be the case.   
a. Please explain why applicants are not being informed of the reason in the event of 
disapproval of the SPSIC application.  
b. Also, explain what steps the Philippines is taking to ensure that applicants are informed of 
the reason in  the event of disapproval of the SPSIC application.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 50 - 
 
  4.1.10   South Africa's  import measures on poultry meat (SIM 807)  
4.1.10.1   Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 105037 ) 
As we have not yet received a reply from South Africa to AG -IMS ID 104005 , we would like to  repeat 
the question: we note that South Africa have maintained several measures that constrain the imports 
of poultry meat, including safeguards and anti -dumping duties. We understand that in August 2022, 
South Africa suspended anti -dumping duties on poul try for several countries. Could South Africa 
please provide further information on the criteria for these suspensions?   
4.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL  NOTIFICATIONS  
4.2.1   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL  SAFEGUARD S (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
4.2.1.1   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL /27)  
AG-IMS ID 105054 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Seeing a s AG-IMS ID 104060  remains unanswered, the United States would like to reiterate its 
interest in the calculation methodology used by the Philippines for its price -based special 
safeguard  (SSG) trigger prices for poultry products.  
The United States still requests additional data regarding the Philippines ' response to AG -IMS 
ID 102040  in September 2022 regarding the calculation methodology used for price -based special 
safeguard (SSG) trigger prices for various poultry products. As part of the question, the United 
States had requested all necessary data (e.g., the volume of imports (in kilograms)) used to  derive 
the SSG trigger prices for tariff item numbers 0207.14.10, 0207.14.99, and 0207.11.00. According 
to UN COMTRADE statistics sourced from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines for the years 
1986-88, it appears that the SSG trigger prices notified for poultry in G/AG/N/PHL/27 were 
miscalculated.   
During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 0114, Poultry, dead and edible offal, fresh, chilled or frozen:   
1986: 74,979 kg / USD 182,721 
1987: 90,251 kg / USD 174,593  
1988: 95,689 kg / USD 220,574  
During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 01181, Poultry liver fresh, chilled, frozen, salted or in brine:  
1986: 1,229 kg / USD 25,447  
1987: 1,187 kg / USD 23,865  
1988: 199 kg / USD 4,461  
During the reference period, the Philippines reported to UN COMTRADE the following import figures 
for SITC 0149, Meat and edible offal, prepared, preserved, n.e.s.; fish extracts:  
1986: 8,804 k g / USD 63,010  
1987: 171,112 kg / USD 189,971  
1988: 228,308 kg / USD 236,470  
The Philippine central bank reports the following average exchange rates from Philippine pesos (PHP) 
to U.S. dollars (USD):  
1986: 20.3857  
1987: 21.5677  
1988: 21.0948  
https://www.bsp.gov.ph/SitePages/Statistics/ExchangeRate.aspx  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 51 - 
 
  SITC to HS concordance would indicate SITC 01 14 should be used as the corresponding reference 
classification for 0207.11.20, 0207.12.20, 0207.13.20, and 0207.14.92; SITC 01181 should be used 
for 0207.14.12; and SITC 0149 should be used for 1602.32.10.  
In attempting to verify the Philippines ' data in G/AG/N/PHL/27 , the United States encountered 
inconsistencies with official statistics accessed via UN COMTRADE.  
The United States requests the Philippines confirm that the data it submitted by the National 
Statistics Office of the Philippines to UN COMTRADE are the official  statistics of the Philippines.  
a. If so, please explain the inconsistencies with the data notified in G/AG/N/PHL/27.  
b. If not, please provide the source information as requested that was used in 
G/AG/N/PHL/27 and confirm such data are the official statistics of the Philippines.  
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1  Argentina  
AG-IMS ID 105059 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Argentina has not  provided a response on its export credit programmes 
in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for calendar years 2021 and 2022.  
Please provide responses for years 2021 and 2022.  
5.2  China  
AG-IMS ID 105078 : Question by Canada  
State Trading Enterprises  
Canada thanks China for its completion of the ECQ  questionnaire. Regarding China 's response for 
state trading enterprises, the summary table for China shows that for tobacco, the total export 
quantities are the same than the average procurement price for the year 2018, 2019 and 2020. 
Also, the quantities  exported by the STE are the same than the average representative domestic 
sales for the same years.  
Could China advise if this is factually correct? If not, could China provide a corrigendum of its 
ECQ questionnaire?  
In addition, could China provide the same data for the years 2021 and 2022?  
AG-IMS ID 105079 : Question by European  Union  
Expor t subsidies  
 
The EU notes that Chinas ' reply to the 2022 ECQ does not contain information of Export subsidies. 
Such information was also not provided in previous years.  
Can China confirm that it does not provide export subsidies including those under Artic le 9.4 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 105080 : Question by European  Union  
Food aid  
 
The latest reply of China to the Food Aid section of the Export Competition Questionnaire dates 
from 2021 and provides information on 2019 and 2020. However, the recent announcements from 
the WFP suggest that China was a significant food aid dono r in 2022. Will China be complementing 
its reply to the ECQ for 2022 with the relevant food aid data?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 52 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105062 : Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG-IMS IDs 102055  and 100026 , while China answered that "SINOSURE does not 
disaggregate agricultural products, " based on our request for China to provide data as required by 
question #8 in the export competition questionnaire (ECQ), China has not answered our 
question.  Therefore, we would like to restate our question.  
a. Please explain what steps are being taken by Chi na and/or SINOSURE (whether in the area 
of digital technology  or regulatory/policy actions) to correct this data gap and allow China 
to be able to provide the value of "Programme use by product or product group " as required 
by the ECQ going forward.   
AG-IMS ID 105065 : Question by United States  of America  
The United States notes that in th e Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) circulated on 
17 January  2023, China did not notify data for the Export -Import Bank of China 's (CEXIM) and the 
Agricultural Development Bank of China 's (ADBC) export financing programmes for the years 
of 2021 and 20 22.  
a. Please confirm whether there was utilization of the CEXIM 's and ADBC 's export financing 
programmes for years 2021 and 2022.  If so, please provide data updates 
(i.e., questions  #3 to #8 in the ECQ).  
b. In addition, please confirm the data (i.e., questions #3 to #8 in the ECQ) for CEXIM 's 
and ADBC 's export financing programmes for years 2019 and 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 105069 : Question by United States  of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 102056 , the United States notes China has not answered the ECQ 
questions on Food Aid, but also recognizes that China is taking steps and doing its due diligence by 
conveying this request to the compete nt authorities in capital to gather a response.  However, the 
United States would like to restate the following questions:  
a. Please clarify and confirm that China did not provide bilateral food aid of any kind in 
years  2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.  
b. If bilatera l food aid was provided by means of cash transfers, vouchers, or locally and 
regionally procured food, please provide the total value of food aid for years 2019, 2020, 
2021 and 2022.  
5.3  Dominican  Republic  
AG-IMS ID 105081 : Question by Canada  
Export Finance  
 
Canada thanks the Dominican Republic for providing information on Banco de Desarrollo y 
Exportaciones (BANDEX) programs and terms. Canada notes that maximum repayment terms per 
programs range between 1 and 15 years.  
In light of the Nairobi Decision on Expo rt Competition and commitments related to maximum 
repayment terms, could the Dominican Republic confirm whether these terms are available for 
programs supporting exports of agriculture products (e.g., credits, guarantees)? If not, what are the 
conditions f or agriculture products?  
5.4  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 105066 : Question  by United States of America , Aus tralia  
This question is a follow up to AG -IMS IDs 100027 , 93042 and 91138  to which no responses from 
Egypt have yet been received.   G/AG/W/237  
 
- 53 - 
 
  The United States has seen press reports that the Government of Egypt settled judicial cases for 
overdue export subsidies administered by the Egyptian Export Development Fund (ESF) to promote 
several economic sectors, including agricultural companies.  According to press reports, we 
understand the government has already disbursed some EGP 31 billion of exporters ' arrears, 
benefiting 3,000 export companies.   
a. Please confirm whether any export subsidies arrears with agricultural export companies 
or other agricultural beneficiaries were disbursed.   
b. If so, please confirm the amount of export subsidy arrears that were disbursed and e xplain 
how disbursement rates were determined.  
5.5  European  Union  
AG-IMS ID 105082 : Question b y Canada  
Export Finance  
 
In the European Union 's response to the 2023 Export Competition Questionnaire (17 January 2023), 
Canada notes that information required to monitor the implementation of the 2015 Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition 's commitments on export financing (e.g., regarding annual average premium 
rates/fees per program, annual average repayment periods per program, export destination or 
program use by product or product group, including values) appears to be omitted 
(e.g.,  Czech Republic, Portugal), 'not held ' (e.g., Croatia) or incomplete (e.g., Denmark, France, 
Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovak Republic).  
What measures will the European Union put in place to ensure that this information is collected and 
reported by all of its member States?  
AG-IMS ID 105067 : Question by United States  of America  
The United States takes positive notice that i n recent years EU member States and ECAs are able to 
disclose total values in export credit programs for "programme use by product or product group " 
and other areas of the ECQ, which had not previously been available in years after the adoption of 
the Nair obi Decision.  
Given this positive step and recognizing that other Members continue to express difficulty with 
collecting the required information for the ECQ, could the EU please share with the Committee its 
experience in requiring its member States and E CAs to gather the aforementioned data as required 
by the Nairobi Decision.  What steps did the EU and/or member States take over time, whether in 
the area of digital technology and/or regulatory/policy action(s)?  
5.6  Ghana  
AG-IMS ID 105068 : Question by United States of America  
This is a follow up to AG -IMS ID 102059  in the WTO Committee on Agriculture, to which no response 
from Ghana has yet been received.   
The United States notes that  during Ghana 's 2022 Trade Policy Review, Ghana confirmed that the 
Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) is the only enterprise that has and/or exercises import or export 
special rights or privileges for the export of raw cocoa beans.  Ghana has not yet notified COCOBOD 
to the WTO as a state trading enterprise (STE) under Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and has also not 
reported it in the Export Competition Questionnaire 's (ECQ) STE section in the WTO Committee on 
Agriculture.   
Since COCOBOD is a state -owned enterpr ise having monopoly rights over the export of all cocoa 
beans from Ghana, and Ghana is one of the world's largest exporters of cocoa beans (42% of total 
export value in 2021), the United States requests the following information:  
a. Please explain what steps Ghana is taking to fulfill its STE and ECQ notification 
requirements.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 54 - 
 
  b. If Ghana is not able to meet its transparency obligations, please explain what steps Ghana 
is taking to provide updated responses or what technical assistance or capacity building 
Ghana may require, if any, from WTO Members or the WTO Secretariat to fulfil these 
obligations.  
5.7  Guyana  
AG-IMS ID 105071 : Question by United  States of America  
In its Trade Policy Review response to the United States ( WT/TPR/M/422/Add.1 , page 50 ) Guyana 
explained why it has not notified GuySuCo to the WTO Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, 
or to the WTO Committee on Agriculture in its 2021 Export Credit Questionnaire (ECQ), as required 
by the Nairobi Decision.   
Guyana stated that "due to  capacity constraints Guyana has been faced with challenges related to 
filing most of the notifications as required over the years " and that "The Government is considering 
building necessary capacity, including enhanced resources, and training specifically  dedicated to 
managing the notifications, in the said areas where Guyana has been deficient. " 
a. Please explain what steps Guyana is taking to fulfill its STE and ECQ notification 
requirements.  
b. If Guyana is not able to meet its transparency obligations, plea se explain what steps 
Guyana is taking to provide updated responses or what technical assistance or capacity 
building Guyana may require, if any, from WTO Members or the WTO Secretariat to fulfil 
these obligations.  
5.8  India  
AG-IMS ID 105083 : Question by Canada  
State Trading Enterprises  
  
According to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federati on of India (NAFED) annual report 
2021-2022, page 32, "NAFED is a State Trading Enterprise (STE) as per Foreign Trade Policy of Govt 
of India, " and "NAFED  bagged a prestigious order for export of Rice to Bangladesh, " described as a 
shipment of 150,000 MT of Indian non -basmati rice to the Chattogam and Mongla ports of 
Bangladesh under a government -to-government agreement.  
As such, Canada notes that NAFED app ears to be an Agriculture STE engaged in exports of 
agriculture products. Canada also notes that India has not provided the required information related 
to this entity in its latest response to the Export Competition Questionnaire, which appears to date 
back to 2021.  
Could India provide the information on its agricultural exporting State Trading Enterprises (STEs), 
including NAFED, in the context of the annual Export Competition Questionnaire, as stipulated in the 
Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision o n Export Competition?  
Could India provide: (a) an enumeration of India 's STEs; and for each of the STEs, including NAFED: 
(b) the identification of state trading enterprises (name); (c) a description of products affected 
(including tariff item number(s) encompassed in product description); (d) the reason and purpose 
of the STE; (e) the reason or purpose for establishing and/or maintaining an STE; (f) a summary of 
the legal basis for granting the relevant exclusive or special rights or privileges , including legal 
provisions and summary of statutory or constitutional powers; (g) a description of the functioning 
of the STE; (h) a summary statement providing an overview of the operations of the STE; and, (i)  a 
specification of exclusive or special ri ghts or privileges enjoyed by the state trading enterprise?  
Could India also provide information related to its agriculture exporting STEs, including NAFED, 
regarding their: (a) exports (value/volume); (b) export prices; and (c) export destination?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 55 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 105052 : Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG-IMS IDs 102027  and 100028  on export credits, please provide the total value 
of "cotton " covered under the ECGC Credit risk insurance program for 2020 -21 and 2021 -22. 
AG-IMS ID 105053 : Question by United States of America, Brazil  
The United States notes that India has not provided response s on its food assistance programmes 
in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for calendar years 2021 and 2022.  
Please provide these updates for years 2021 and 2022.  
5.9  Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 105084 : Question  by Canada  
Export Finance  
 
Further to the United States ' question to Indonesia at the 102nd meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 102060 ), could Indonesia provide inform ation related to its export financing 
programs for the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, including on repayment terms for agriculture 
exports covered by Indonesia 's export financing?  
AG-IMS ID 105061 : Question by United States of America  
This question is a follow up to AG -IMS ID 102060  to which no written response from Indonesia has 
yet been received.   
The United States notes that Indonesia has not provided data updates of its expor t credit 
programmes in the required Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for years 2019, 2020, 2021 
and 2022.  
a. Please provide these updates for years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.  
b. If unable to provide, please explain why not and what steps is Indonesia taki ng to respond 
to the ECQ.  
5.10  Japan  
AG-IMS ID 105064 : Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID s 88090  and 87055 , the United States asked Japan to provide data on 
export credits as required by questions #4 average premium rates, #6 average annual repayment 
term, and #8 Programme use by product o r product group.  In response, Japan stated that "the date 
of the average premium rates and annual average repayment period by programme is not available 
because the IT system is not built to extract such data. A re -modelling of the system is not planned. "  
Several years have passed and the United States looks forward to following up on this matter by 
restating the following question.  
Please explain what steps are being taken by Japan (whether in the area of digital technology or 
regulatory/ policy  action(s))  to correct these data gaps and to provide the required information going 
forward.  
5.11  Kazakhstan  
AG-IMS ID 105070 : Question  by United States of America  
The United States notes that Kazakhstan has not provided responses on its export credit 
programmes in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ ) for calendar years 2021 and 2022.  
Please provide these updates for years 2021 and 2022.  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 56 - 
 
  5.12  Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 105085 : Question by Canada  
Export Finance  
 
Further to the United States ' question to the Republic of Korea at the 102nd meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 102061 ), and in light of the Republic of Korea 's 17 January 2023 response 
to the Export Competition Questionnaire, could the Republic of Korea pr ovide an update on its plans 
to work with the Korean Trade Insurance Corporation to provide information specific to agriculture 
products and product groups program usage, terms and conditions?  
5.13  Malaysia  
AG-IMS ID 105077 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Malaysia has not provided responses on its export credit pro grammes 
in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022.  
Please provide responses for years 2020, 2021 and 2022.  
5.14  Norway  
AG-IMS ID 105086 : Question by European Union  
Food aid  
 
It is not clear from Norway reply to the ECQ whether in 2022 it has provided food aid in either cash 
or in-kind form; Can Norway pro vide the relevant data?  
5.15  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 105087 : Question  by Australia  
Australia thanks Thailand for its 2020, 2021 and 2022 notific ations on sugar exports 
(G/AG/N/THA/126 , G/AG/N/THA/ 127, G/AG/N/THA/ 128) – for which Thailand is a significant 
export er.  
Australia notes that Thailand has reported fluctuations in sugar export levels over the three reporting 
years (2020 to 2022) and enquires as to the conditions contributing to these variations in total 
volumes of sugar exports?  
5.16  Türkiye  
AG-IMS ID 105088 : Question by European  Union  
Food aid  
 
Turkiye notified within the ECQ  food aid in kind. The E uropean Union  notes however, that this aid 
was not reported neither through the ES:3 Notification, nor the NF:1.  
a. Will Turkiye be providing the needed notifications?  
b. What were the destinations of Turkiye 's food aid in 2022?  
5.17  United K ingdom  
AG-IMS ID 105089 : Question  by European Union  
United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/19 ) 
In its notification, the U nited Kingdom indicates that the majority of food aid provided by the United 
Kingdom to Ukraine was procured regionally. Are those regionally procured food items included in 
Table ES:3?  G/AG/W/237  
 
- 57 - 
 
  5.18  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 105091 : Question by European Union  
Food aid  
 
The E uropean Union  notes that the U nited States  continued to provide food aid in kind in 2022 of a 
significant amount of 1.2 billion USD.  
Paragraph 24 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition in the section relating to Food Aid states: 
"Members shall refrain from providing in -kind international food where this would be reasona bly 
foreseen to cause an adverse effect on local or regional production of the same or substitute 
products. In addition, Members shall ensure that international food aid does not unduly impact 
established, functioning commercial markets of agricultural pro ducts ." 
a. Within the current context of acute food insecurity is the US considering providing food 
aid in cash rather than in kind?  
b. How does US ensure that requirements of the abovementioned paragraph 24 are complied 
with?  
AG-IMS ID 105092 : Question  by European Union  
Food aid – monetisation  
 
The E uropean Union  notes that monetisation of US food aid was permitted in 2022.  
Paragraph 27 of Nairobi Decision on Export Competition in the section relating to Food Aid states: 
"Members shall monetize international food aid only where there is a demonstrable need for 
monetisation for the purpose of transport and delivery of the food assistance, or the monetisation 
of international food aid is used to redress short and/or long term food deficit requirements or 
insufficient agricultural production situations which give ris e to chronic hunger and malnutrition in 
least-developed and net food -importing developing countries. " 
a. Within the current context of acute food insecurity is the US considering non -recurring to 
monetisation of its food aid?  
b. How does  the U nited States  ensure  that requirements of the abovementioned paragraph 
27 are complied with?  
5.19  Viet Nam  
AG-IMS ID 105060 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Viet Nam has not provided responses on its export credit programmes 
in the WTO Committee on Agriculture Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) for calendar 
year 2021 and 2022.  
a. Please provide a response for years 2021 and 2022.  
b. If Viet Nam is not able to provide responses,  please explain what steps Viet Nam is taking 
to provide updated responses or what technical assistance or capacity building Viet  Nam 
may require, if any, from WTO Members or the WTO Secretariat to fulfil these obligations.  
 
 
__________