G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
15 July 2020  
(20-4848) Page: 1/98 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  OF 28 JULY 20201 
Revision  
This revision compiles : (1) questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 10 March  2020 
as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/41  and as included  in G/AG/W/205 (AG -IMS ID 93001  to 
AG-IMS ID 93180) ; and (2) additional questions received by the extended  deadline of 10 July  20202 
(AG-IMS ID 93181  to AG-IMS ID 93311) .  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 As specified in the Secretariat's email communication dated 25 June 2020.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  10 
1.1   Brazil – Public Stockholding programmes  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93182)  ................................ .......................  10 
1.2   Brazil's subsidized loans  ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93044)  ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
1.3   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement ................................ ........................  10 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  ................................ ................................ . 10 
1.3.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  ................................ ................................ ... 11 
1.4   United States of America - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  .............................  11 
1.4.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  ................................ ................................ . 11 
1.4.2    Questi on by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93080)  ................................ ................................ ... 12 
1.4.3    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93082)  ................................ ................................ .. 13 
1.5   China's agricultural insurance  ................................ ................................ .....................  13 
1.5.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.6   China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
1.6.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.7   China's stimulus package for corn  ................................ ................................ ...............  14 
1.7.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
1.8   Colombia's coffee price stabilization fund  ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
1.8.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93006)  ................................ ..........  14 
1.9   Colombia's sugar fund  ................................ ................................ ...............................  14 
1.9.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93183)  ................................ .......................  14 
1.10   Egypt's import license regime  ................................ ................................ ...................  15 
1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054) ................................ ................................ .... 15 
1.11   Egypt's ban on sugar imports  ................................ ................................ ...................  15 
1.11.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.12   EU "From farm to fork" ("F2F") strategy  ................................ ................................ .... 15 
1.12.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93127)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.13   The EU's deforestation and fore st degradation strategy  ................................ ...............  15 
1.13.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.14   EU- Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  ................................ .............  16 
1.14.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93143)  ................................ ..............................  16 
1.15   EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ......................  16 
1.15.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93057)  ................................ .........................  16 
1.15.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93059)  ................................ ..............................  17 
1.15.3    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93238)  ................................ ..............................  17 
1.15.4    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93300) and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93301)  ..............  17 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16   EU's production subsidies res ulted from implementation of SPS measures  .....................  18 
1.16.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060)  ................................ ..............................  18 
1.16.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93239)  ................................ ..............................  19 
1.17   Italy's support to wine producers  ................................ ................................ ..............  19 
1.17.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93225) ................................ ................................ .... 19 
1.18   France - Bpifrance Assurance Export  ................................ ................................ .........  20 
1.18.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93226) ................................ ................................ .... 20 
1.19   European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................  20 
1.19.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93231)  ................................ ................................ ... 20 
1.20   Japan - Supplementary budget to address impact of new trade deal  .............................  20 
1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93069)  ................................ ...............................  20 
1.21   Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  ................................ .... 21 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  ................................ ................................ . 21 
1.22   Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  ................................ ................................ ...........  21 
1.22.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93071)  ................................ ................................ . 21 
1.23   United States of America - Japan -US Trade Agreement ................................ ................  21 
1.23.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93081)  ................................ ................................ . 21 
1.24   Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  ................................  21 
1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  ................................ .....................  21 
1.24.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  ................................ .........................  22 
1.25   Russian Federation - Subsidies to "certification of agricultural products in foreign 
markets"  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  22 
1.25.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  ................................ .....................  22 
1.26   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - New system for issuing import licenses  ...............................  22 
1.26.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074) ................................ ................................ .... 22 
1.27   Sri Lanka - Suspension of importation of processed agricultural products  .......................  23 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93258)  ................................ ........  23 
1.28   Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  ................................ ................................ ... 23 
1.28.1    Question by A ustralia (AG -IMS ID 93053)  ................................ ...............................  23 
1.29   Thailand's "licence" charge on eggs  ................................ ................................ ...........  24 
1.29.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93075)  ................................ .........................  24 
1.30   Thailand's sugar support  ................................ ................................ ..........................  24 
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93203)  ................................ ...............................  24 
1.30.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227) ................................ ................................ .... 24 
1.31   United Kingdom - Policy update resulted from Brexit  ................................ ...................  25 
1.31.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  ................................ ................................ . 25 
1.32   U.S. domestic support policies and notifications  ................................ ..........................  25 
1.32.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  ................................ ................................ .... 25 
1.33   US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  ................  26 
1.33.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93187)  ................................ .....................  26 
1.34   US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  ................................ ......................  26 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  ................................ .....................  26 
1.35   U.S. insurance programmes  ................................ ................................ .....................  27 
1.35.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.36   Viet Nam - Potential tariff reductions on certain agricultural products  ............................  27 
1.36.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.37   Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ................................  27 
1.37.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.38   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ..........  28 
1.38.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93048)  ................................ .........................  28 
1.38.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93184)  ................................ .........................  28 
1.38.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  ................................ ........  28 
1.38.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93003)  ................................ ........  28 
1.38.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93247)  ................................ ........  28 
1.39   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ........................  29 
1.39.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  ................................ ........  29 
1.39.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  ................................ ........  29 
1.40   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ..........  30 
1.40.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93045)  ................................ ...............................  30 
1.40.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93046)  ................................ .........................  30 
1.41   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessio ns ................................ .........  30 
1.41.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93047)  ................................ .........................  30 
1.42   Canada's agriculture support package  ................................ ................................ ....... 31 
1.42.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93241)  ................................ ................................ .... 31 
1.43   China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 31 
1.43.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248)  ................................ ........  31 
1.44   China's state trading enterprises  ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
1.44.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9 3249)  ................................ ........  31 
1.45   Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  ................................ ..............................  32 
1.45.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  ................................ ........  32 
1.46   Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  ................................ ....................  32 
1.46.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93192)  ................................ ................................ ... 32 
1.47   The EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ ......................  32 
1.47.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93055) ................................ ................................ .... 32 
1.48   EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ ........................  33 
1.48.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93242)  ................................ ................................ .... 33 
1.48.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93243)  ................................ ................................ .... 33 
1.49   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  33 
1.49.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  ................................ .....................  33 
1.50   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  34 
1.50.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  ................................ ...............................  34 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.50.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  ................................ ................................ . 34 
1.50.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  ................................ ................................ . 35 
1.50.4    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93283)  ................................ ................................ . 35 
1.50.5    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  ................................ .................  36 
1.50.6    Question by Russian Federation (A G-IMS ID 93229)  ................................ .................  36 
1.50.7    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250)  ................................ ........  37 
1.51   India's export subsidies/export credits ................................ ................................ ....... 37 
1.51.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  ................................ ........  37 
1.52   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ . 37 
1.52.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  ................................ ........  37 
1.53   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ ..................  38 
1.53.1    Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 93009)  ................................ ........  38 
1.54   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ......................  38 
1.54.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  ................................ ...............................  38 
1.54.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  ................................ ........  38 
1.55   India's wheat policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  39 
1.55.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  ................................ ........  39 
1.56   India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 39 
1.56.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  ................................ ........  39 
1.56.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255)  ................................ ........  39 
1.57   India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ...................  39 
1.57.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  ................................ ........  39 
1.57.2    Question by United States o f America (AG -IMS ID 93254)  ................................ ........  40 
1.58   India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ................  40 
1.58.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  ................................ ........  40 
1.58.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93251)  ................................ ........  40 
1.58.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93252)  ................................ ........  40 
1.58.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253)  ................................ ........  40 
1.59   India - National Dairy Plan P hase I  ................................ ................................ ............  41 
1.59.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256)  ................................ ........  41 
1.60   Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ .............................  41 
1.60.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  ................................ .........................  41 
1.61   Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ ..........................  41 
1.61.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93259) ................................ ................................ .... 41 
1.62   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .... 42 
1.62.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  ................................ .................  42 
1.62.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191)  ................................ .................  42 
1.63   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ ........  43 
1.63.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  ................................ ........  43 
1.64   Oman's Table DS:2 notification  ................................ ................................ .................  43 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.64.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93257)  ................................ ........  43 
1.65   Russia's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .........................  43 
1.65.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  ................................ .....................  43 
1.66   Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ..............  43 
1.66.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  ................................ ................................ ... 43 
1.67   Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  ................................ ................................ ..........  43 
1.67.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93019)  ................................ ........  43 
1.67.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93021)  ................................ ........  44 
1.68   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ ............................  44 
1.68.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93018)  ................................ ........  44 
1.69   Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  ................................ ..........................  45 
1.69.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93193)  ................................ ................................ ... 45 
1.70   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  ............  45 
1.70.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93076)  ................................ ...............................  45 
1.71   U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ . 45 
1.71.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93079)  ................................ ...............................  45 
1.71.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93084)  ................................ ................................ . 46 
1.71.3    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  ................................ ..............................  46 
1.71.4    Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93086)  ................................ ................................ .. 47 
1.71.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93087)  ................................ .........................  47 
1.72   U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ................................  48 
1.72.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  ................................ ................................ . 48 
1.72.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  ................................ ................................ . 48 
1.72.3    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93232)  ................................ ................................ ... 48 
1.72.4    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  ................................ ................................ .... 49 
1.72.5    Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  ................................ ................................ .. 49 
1.72.6    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240)  ................................ ..............................  50 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTI FICATIONS  ...................  50 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) ................................  50 
2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/55)  ................................ ................................ .........................  50 
2.1.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/247)  ................................ ................................ ........................  50 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 51 
2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/56)  ................................ ................................ .........................  51 
2.2.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/137)  ................................ ................................ .....................  51 
2.2.3    Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  51 
2.2.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  ................................ ................................ .........................  52 
2.2.5    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/57)  ................................ ................................ .............  52 
2.2.6    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ ........................  54 
2.2.7    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  ................................ ................................ ...................  54 
2.2.8    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72, G/AG/N/KOR/73)  .....................  54 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.2.9    Morocco (G/AG/N/MA R/48, G/AG/N/MAR/48/Corr.1 G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, 
G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52)  ................................ ................................ ....................  55 
2.2.10    Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/54)  ................................ ................................ ..................  56 
2.2.11    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/110)  ................................ ................................ ..................  56 
2.2.12    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/55)  ................................ ................................ ....................  56 
2.2.13    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  ................................ ................................ .... 57 
2.2.14    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/98)  ................................ ................................ ...............  57 
2.2.15    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/191)  ................................ ................................ ....... 57 
2.2.16    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/35)  ................................ ................................ ....................  57 
2.2.17    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28)  ................................ .................  58 
2.2.18    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29)  ................................ .................  58 
2.2.19    Venez uela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)  ........................  58 
2.2.20    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10, G/AG/N/VNM/11, G/AG/N/VNM/12)  ........  58 
2.3   Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ..................  59 
2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/251)  ................................ ................................ ........................  59 
2.3.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  ................................ ................................ .........  59 
2.3.3    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/183)  ................................ ................................ .........  59 
2.3.4    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/185, G/AG/N/TPKM/187)  ................................ .............  59 
2.3.5    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  ................................ ............................  60 
2.4   Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  60 
2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  ................................ ..........................  60 
2.4.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  ................................ ................................ ...................  61 
2.4.3    Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 - G/AG/N/BOL/26)  ...............................  61 
2.4.4    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ................................ .........................  62 
2.4.5    Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19)  ................................ .......................  63 
2.4.6    Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  ................................ ................................ ..................  64 
2.4.7    Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  ................................ ................................ ..................  64 
2.4.8    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  ................................ ................................ .....................  64 
2.4.9    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/69)  ................................ ................................ ....................  66 
2.4.10    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61)  ................................ ................................ ...........  66 
2.4.11    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  ................................ ....................  68 
2.4.12    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  ................................ ................................ ....................  69 
2.4.13    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/19)  ................................ ................................ ....................  69 
2.4.14    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  ................................ ................................ ................  69 
2.4.15    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ........................  70 
2.4.16    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67)  ................................ ................................ ..................  77 
2.4.17    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/74)  ................................ ................................ ........................  78 
2.4.18    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60/CORR.1  - G/AG/N/KOR/63/ CORR.1)  ...................  79 
2.4.19    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, G/AG/N/KOR/63)  ....................  79 
2.4.20    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ .....................  79 
2.4.21    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/108, G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.1 and G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.2)  .... 80 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.4.22    Panama (G /AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ....................  80 
2.4.23    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/AG/N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69) ................................ . 81 
2.4.24    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  ................................ ...........................  81 
2.4.25    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  ................................ ................................ .................  81 
2.4.26    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  ................................ ................................ ....... 82 
2.4.27    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ .....................  82 
2.4.28    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36  - G/AG/N/TUR/39)  ................................ ............................  83 
2.4.29    United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  ................................ .........  87 
2.4.30    Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  ................................ .............................  87 
2.5   New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ............  88 
2.5.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  88 
2.5.2   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ............  88 
2.6   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ .............  89 
2.6.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42) ................................ .. 89 
2.6.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/54)  ................................ ................................ .........................  89 
2.6.3    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135)  ................................ ................................ .....................  90 
2.6.4    Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/46, G/AG/N/MAR/46/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/44, 
G/AG/N/MAR/44/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  ................................ ................................ ..........  90 
2.6.5    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/40, G/AG/N/TUR/41, G/AG/N/TUR/42, G/AG/N/TUR/43)  ..............  90 
2.7   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ...........  91 
2.7.1    Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  ................................ ................................ ....................  91 
2.8   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .....................  91 
2.8.1    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/75)  ................................ ..............  91 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES  TO QUESTIONS ON NOT IFICATIONS  ................................ .........  91 
3.1   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  91 
3.1.1    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10, G/AG/N/BHR/11,  
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  91 
3.1.2    Singapore (G/AG/N/SG P/32)  ................................ ................................ ...................  92 
3.1.3    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ .......................  93 
3.2   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ...........  94 
3.2.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ ............  94 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ .......................  94 
4.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  94 
4.1.2    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  95 
4.1.3    European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 95 
4.1.4    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  95 
4.1.5    Kenya  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  96 
4.1.6    Korea, Republic of ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 96 
4.1.7    Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  96 
4.1.8    South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  96 
4.1.9    United States of America  ................................ ................................ ........................  96 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  97 
5.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  97 
5.1.2    Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  97 
5.1.3    Myanmar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  97 
5.1.4    Russian Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ . 98 
5.1.5    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  98 
5.1.6    Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  98 
 
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil – Public Stockholding programmes  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93182)  
During the special COVID -19 meeting on 18 June, in one of its interventions Brazil indicated that it 
has used Public Stockholding programmes in relation to COVID -19.  
 
a. Can Brazil explain in detail the operation of such programmes, notably the products 
concerned and the amount of expenditure.  
b. Would Brazil consider including such programmes in an ad hoc rep ort on its COVID -19 
measures?   
1.2  Brazil's subsidized loans  
1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93044)  
As per the FAO, Brazil's Agriculture Ministry plans to increase funds available to finance the farm 
sector through subsidized loans in 2018 -19 noting that a declin e in inflation has allowed the 
Government to boost funding in a country that already is the world's largest exporter of staples like 
soybeans and coffee. [Source: http://www.fao .org/in -action/agronoticias/detail/en/c/1116679/ ]  
 
In this regard, response to the following is requested:  
  
a. Whether this information has been notified in Brazil's domestic support notification for 
year 2018 which has been recently submitted with the WTO?  
b. If not, how much has been spent under this initiative till now? India requests Brazil to 
elucidate the provision under the Agreement on Agriculture under which the programme 
is intended to be notified?  
c. What are the eligibility criteria for availing su ch loans?  
1.3  China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of 
America and the People's Republic of China. This is a positive st ep forward in resolving existing trade 
tensions and will provide a greater level of certainty to help lift global economic confidence during 
what is a challenging time.  
 
With respect to the commitments made by China under the Agreement in relation to agriculture, we 
welcome China's assurances that it will implement the measures in a fully WTO -consistent and 
non-discriminatory manner. We appreciate this with respect to the provisions that concern this 
Committee, but also with respect to the provisions concer ning other agriculture -related aspects of 
the WTO Agreement, for example on the SPS commitments in the US -China Agreement.   
 
We would welcome if China can provide further advice on how it plans to do this, for example:  
 
a. Is China planning on changes to appl ied MFN tariffs to facilitate the purchase and import 
of at least USD 80 billion in agricultural goods over the next two years?  
b. Does China intend on reallocating unused or returned wheat, rice and corn TRQ amounts 
pursuant to a particular mechanism?  
i. For ex ample, the mechanism established under Annex A of the Bali Ministerial Decision 
on tariff -rate quota (TRQ) Administration.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  c. We would further welcome China advise the Membership on how it plans to implement the 
obligations of Chapter 6, Article 6.2: Trade Op portunities, paragraph  5, whereby 
"…purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial considerations…".  
1.3.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States 
of America a nd the Government of the People's Republic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural Products for the minimum purchase of 
agricultural goods by the People's Republic of China. Chapter 6, Trade in Food a nd Agricultural 
Products —paragraph 1 b. "For the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less 
than $12.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into 
China from the United States in calendar year 20 20, and no less than $19.5 billion above the 
corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States 
in calendar year 2021."  
  
a. Could China provide the value of 2017 imports from the United States for the following 
commodities:  
i. beef;  
ii. pork;  
iii. wheat ;  
iv. canola ;  
v. soybeans .  
b. Could China elaborate if there is a commitment to purchase specific volumes of particular 
agricultural products?  
c. Could China please elaborate if private companies, state -owned enterprises or state 
trading enterprises will be given direction to purchase sp ecific volumes of a given 
commodity in order to meet these value targets?  
d. What role will the Government of the People's Republic of China play in potentially 
"matching" US exporters of agricultural products identified in Annex 6.1 with importers in 
China?   
e. Paragraph 5  "The Parties acknowledge that purchases will be made at market prices based 
on commercial considerations and that market conditions, particularly in the case of 
agricultural goods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year." Could 
China elaborate how "commercial considerations" will be taken into account when there is 
a defined value commitment for the purchase of agricultural goods from the United  States?  
f. Could China elaborate as to how it ensures that these new purchase requ irements will not 
displace existing commercial relationships?  
1.4  United States  of America - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.4.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United Stat es of 
America and the People's Republic of China. This is a positive step forward in resolving existing trade 
tensions and will provide a greater level of certainty to help lift global economic confidence during 
what is a challenging time.  
 
With respect to  Chapter 6, Article 6.2, Section 1 (b), whereby China ensures that: "For the category 
of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less than $12.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 
baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the Unite d States in calendar year 2020, 
and no less than $19.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and 
imported into China from the United States in calendar year 2021".  
 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Can the US please respond to the following questions with respe ct to these commitments:  
 
a. Can the US please provide the 2017 baseline amount for each agricultural good used to 
measure China's compliance with this commitment?  
b. Can the US provide further disaggregated information on the amounts China is expected 
to purcha se for each agricultural good under Annex 6.1?  
c. Can the US explain how the implementation of this Agreement will support 
market -orientation in both the US and Chinese market s, and in the global trading system 
more broadly? and  
d. Can the US reassure the WTO Membership that the Agreement will not unduly impact 
other Members or markets?  
1.4.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93080)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the People's R epublic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural Products for the minimum purchase of 
agricultural goods by the People's Republic of China. Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural 
Products Paragraph 1 b. "For the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less than 
$12.5 billion above the corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China 
from the United States in calendar year 2020, and no less than $19.5 billion above the corresponding 
2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States in calendar 
year 2021."  
  
a. There are reports that the "2017 baseline amount" is USD 24 billion. Could the 
United  States share its analysis on the marke t conditions that would support increasing its 
agricultural exports by 52% to US D 36.5 billion over a three -year period?  
b. Could the United States provide the value of 2017 exports to China for the following 
commodities:  
i. beef;  
ii. pork;  
iii. wheat;  
iv. canola;  
v. soybeans.  
c. There have been reports that this Agreement includes a commitment by China to purchase 
specific volumes of particular agricultural products. Could the United States share the 
specific quantities by value or volume for the following produc ts:  
i. beef;  
ii. pork;  
iii. wheat;  
iv. canola;  
v. soybeans.  
d. What role will the United States play in potentially "matching" US exporters of agricultural 
products identified in Annex 6.1 with importers in China?  
e. Paragraph 5: "The Parties acknowledge that purchases will be made at market prices 
based on commercial considerations and that market conditions, particularly in the case 
of agricultural goods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year." Could 
the United States elaborate how "commercial considerat ions" will be taken into account 
when there is a defined value commitment for the purchase of US agricultural goods?  
f. Could the United States elaborate as to how it ensures that these new purchase 
requirements will not displace existing commercial relation ships?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.4.3   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93082)  
As widely reported , the United States and China recently signed a "phase one" trade accord. 
Noteworthy in this bilateral arrangement, among other things, are commitments to reduce or 
withdraw punitive tariffs a s well as obligations to purchase set monetary amounts of goods. China 
agrees to import an additional $200 billion worth of U.S. goods and services during the next two 
years, including agricultural products. Ukraine strongly supports the WTO as a rules -based 
institution. A key characteristic of the WTO's rules -based system is to enable fair trade opportunities 
for all Members to compete in an open and transparent system. A core WTO discipline is the 
most-favoured nation principle. Provisions of Article XXIV  GATT also provide Members additional 
bilateral trade opportunities. A review of the WTO's Regional Trade Agreements database indicates 
that no such arrangement exists between China and the United States.  
  
a. Could the US provide information on which agricu ltural products are covered by the phase 
one accord and amount of targeted purchases for these products?  
b. Could the US also kindly elaborate on how the US views the very concrete and preferential 
phase one purchase obligations fit within the WTO's rules -based system?  
1.5  China's agricultural insurance  
1.5.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  
In October 2019, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Banking 
and Insurance Regulatory Commission and State Administration of Forestry and Grassland released 
a document called "Guiding options on accelerating the quality of development of agricultural 
insurance". Canada understands that the document aims to promote and standardize the 
development of agricultural insurance.  
  
a. Could China prov ide an update on the development of agricultural insurance products?  
b. Would agricultural insurance cover livestock and crops?  
c. Will the cost of premiums be shared between Government(s) and producers? If so, what 
will be the respective contributions?  
d. Will the agricultural insurance products be actuarially sound i.e., will the premiums cover 
the cost of indemnities?  
1.6  China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  
1.6.1   Question by Cana da (AG -IMS ID 93052)  
On 18 February 2020, China announced that it will allow importers to apply for exemptions to the 
retaliatory tariffs imposed against the United States on 697 product lines including farm products 
such as soybeans, pork and beef. The ex emption will have to undergo an approval process and would 
only be effective for one year. Importers could apply for the tariff exemptions starting 2 March 2020.  
  
a. Could China indicate if there is a limit on the number of entities that are eligible for th is 
exemption and if so how many?  
b. Could China confirm if both State -Owned Enterprises and private companies can apply for 
these tariff exemptions?  
c. Could China provide an estimate as to the value of this exemption?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.7  China's stimulus package for corn  
1.7.1   Questi on by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  
It has come to Brazil's attention, that, on 15 April 2020,  China has launched a stimulus package to 
overturn a recent  reduction trend on corn -planted area.  
 
Nonetheless, on December 2018, China has submitted  notification G/AG /N/CHN/49 (Table DS:2) 
regarding its "Corn  Producer Subsidy System", under Article 6, paragraph 5 (a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 
In the light of the above, could China provide the following  information on:  
 
a. The termination of the "Corn Producer Subs idy System" on  2018, as per G/AG/N/CHN/49, 
and on its substitution by  another corn -specific policy.  
b. The evolution of corn planted area and on the value of  corn production since 2014 (the 
base year for the "Corn  Producer Subsidy System").  
c. The legislation th at established the stimulus package launched last April (if possible, could 
China provide a copy  of said legislation?).  
d. The stimulus package budget and if it relies on  price-support, direct payments or other 
forms of subsidies.  
1.8  Colombia's coffee price stab ilization fund  
1.8.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93006)  
The United States notes a new programme, the Coffee Price Stabilization Fund signed into law 
in July 2019, which provides subsidies to coffee growers when the price of coffee falls below 
production costs.  
  
Can Colombia please provide:  
a. The measure and any other relevant implementing regulations ; and  
b. A description of how the measure operates including:  
i. eligibility criteria;  
ii. how support prices and production costs are determined;  
iii. whether there are limits on the quantity of product receiving the subsidy;  
iv. whether there are mechanisms in place to reduce production costs; and  
v. any other information on how th e programme operates.  
1.9  Colombia's sugar fund  
1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93183)  
Colombia – Sugar Fund  
Colombia has established a sugar fund, which grants support for sugar exported from Colombia.  
For the three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, can Colombia indicate:  
 
a. Total production of sugar ; 
b. Total quantity exported, and how much benefited  from subsidies from the sugar fund ; 
c. Total payments made from the sugar fund for the export of sugar ; G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  d. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid in to the fund from sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.   
1.10  Egypt's import license regime  
1.10.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  
a. Is the import of agriculture goods, such as poultry meat, live animals and corned -beef, 
subject to an import license regime?  
b. If positive, could Egypt provide details on the administration of this import license regime 
(criteria for granting the license; e conomic agents who can request; existence of import 
limits, among others)?  
c. Are decisions on the granting of licenses made available to the public?  
1.11  Egypt's ban on sugar imports  
1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  
On June 4 Egypt announced a ban on  all imports of sugar. Can Egypt explain how it sees this measure 
respecting the requirements of the GATT Article XI :2(c).   
1.12  EU "From farm to fork" ("F2F") strategy  
1.12.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93127)  
On 17 February 2020, the European Commission publish ed a communication concerning its "Farm 
to Fork" ("F2F") strategy. In that document, it stated the following: "The strategy will set out relevant 
ambitions and actions to stimulate sustainable food production and to create new business models 
for food prod ucers to thrive in a sustainable food system. The strategy will include measures to 
significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides, as well as the use of fertilizers and 
antibiotics. These actions will go hand in hand with actions seeking an improvement of animal 
welfare. The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy will be instrumental in 
implementing the Farm to Fork Strategy. The Common Agriculture Policy funded National Strategic 
Plans will have to reflect the ambition of  the Green Deal."  
 
a. How will food security and the effective control of pests and diseases be guaranteed 
worldwide if the EU proceeds to substantially reduce the use of pesticides in third 
countries? Are there any alternative methods authorized in the EU t hat are affordable for 
farmers?  
b. How does the EU plan to reduce the use of pesticides? By eliminating a number of 
authorized substances? If so, how does the EU reconcile this objective with the fact that 
good agricultural practices recommend the rotation a nd combining of agrochemicals, 
precisely to ensure soil sustainability? How does the EU expect to encourage this type of 
crop practice if it is constantly eliminating substances that form part of the farmer's 
"toolbox"?  
c. How can the EU guarantee that activ e substances already freely circulating in the market 
(generic products) will remain in the system, if leading producers do not have the 
economic incentive to conduct and submit the scientific studies requested by the EU to 
ensure the safety of the active substances? This is particularly relevant in the EU, where 
the precautionary principle is applied when there is a lack of information due to the 
absence of studies. We ask the same question in relation to minor crops.  
1.13  The EU's deforestation and forest degr adation strategy  
1.13.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  
On 5 February 2020, the European Commission announced an impact assessment for the strategy 
"Deforestation and forest degradation – reducing the impact of products placed on the EU market". G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  In the doc ument concerned, the EU stated the following: "There are many drivers of deforestation, 
but the expansion of agriculture is the most important one. Some studies estimate that 80% of 
global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, a phenomenon whi ch has roots in the global 
demand for products such as palm oil, soya and beef."  
a. The community authorities recognize that there are many reasons for deforestation and 
that these reasons are based on very different realities depending on the country in whi ch 
the phenomenon takes place. In Colombia, 75% of deforestation is linked to unlawful 
activities or practices (illicit crops, illegal mining activities, land grabbing). Will the EU take 
into account these situations in order to avoid unfairly punishing co untries like Colombia 
that face specific situations? In other words, how does the EU plan to ensure that "the 
innocent do not pay for the sins of the guilty" and that each country receives appropriate 
technical assistance and support? "There is a market an d regulatory failure reflected in 
the lack of level playing field between companies that act responsibly towards 
deforestation and those who do not; and information asymmetries, derived from the lack 
of common standards and reliable information in the hand s of consumers. The EU already 
has in place measures related to fighting deforestation, such as the Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan to tackle illegal logging and the 
Renewable Energy Directive which includes EU sustainabilit y criteria for biofuels and 
bioliquids. However, while the EU FLEGT Action Plan tackles illegal logging, it does not 
address deforestation caused by agricultural expansion. The recast Renewable Energy 
Directive for the period post 2020 extends the obligati on to fulfil the EU sustainability 
criteria from biofuels to all bioenergy end uses (including heating/cooling and electricity), 
but it only covers raw material used for bioenergy production." (a) The RED II and the 
Delegated Act on biofuels completely exc lude, for the fulfilment of the renewable energy 
target, biofuels that are produced using sustainable palm oil, as this raw material is 
considered to pose a high risk of indirect land use change (ILUC). How does the EU plan 
to encourage the production of s ustainable palm oil, if it does not allow member States to 
consider this product to be renewable energy?  
b. The additional costs that new measures could generate for European entrepreneurs and 
consumers are clear. However, no reference is made to the cost of  traceability and 
transparency for farmers, since it is mistakenly assumed that this cost will be transmitted 
to other actors in the chain. How does the EU plan to ensure that these additional 
requirements to test the sustainability of agricultural product s will not be assumed by the 
weakest actors in the chain, namely third country farmers? Are there any plans to take 
into account the special situation of farmers in post conflict zones or in areas marked by 
the production of illicit crops who are trying to  move ahead with new activities?  
1.14  EU- Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  
1.14.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93143)  
"Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism": in a communication published on 4 March 2020, 
the EU stated that in addition to general public consultation, dialogue with third countries would take 
place through the WTO and other channels.  
a. Could the EU please elabo rate on the way in which it will conduct consultations with third 
countries, whether it plans to submit notifications to the multilateral bodies on time, and 
how it will ensure that our comments are properly taken into account?  
1.15  EU's environmental policies  
1.15.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93057)  
New Zealand welcomes the EU's focus on reducing the environmental impact and climate effects of 
its agricultural production in the next CAP. New Zealand also notes that a key feature of the 
current  CAP reform is t he introduction of national strategic plans.  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  a. How does the EU propose to ensure that the devolution of CAP responsibilities to member 
States does not result in an increase of trade distorting AMS and Blue Box Support, 
particularly in light of their envir onmental impacts of these forms of support?  
b. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  
1.15.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93059)  
European Union – Green Deal:  
 
On 11 December 2019, the European Union made an announcement on the European Green Deal. 
The Green Deal is an ambitious programme which, according to the European Union, aims to 
transform the EU into a fully sustainable economy, creating a change in the EU's social and economic 
model, while providing the economic resources required for a fair transition, and which will turn the 
EU into a carbon -free economy by 2050.  
 
As a consequence of the Green Deal and to prevent potential "carbon leakage", the EU is reportedly 
considering a "carbon border adjustment mechanism ", which is viewed by many as a future de facto 
import tax. In view of this situation, could the EU:  
 
a. Confirm its plan to introduce this "adjustment mechanism";  
b. Explain how the mechanism would be consistent with the EU's WTO commitments and 
obligations, i ncluding national treatment;  
c. State whether there are plans to provide "carbon credit" for products from countries whose 
carbon footprint is lower than that of EU countries;  
d. Provide further information on the EU strategies which will be developed as part of the 
Green Deal, and which will have implications for the EU's agricultural production; and  
e. Provide further information on the implications of the "Just Transition Fund" for European 
agriculture, specifically with regard to the subsidies to be granted, the types of 
programmes and the amounts awarded.  
1.15.3   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93238)  
EU: Carbon adjustment tax  
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question as a follow -up to the EU's reply to question AG-
IMS ID 93059. We thank the EU for referring us to the replies provided concerning this matter within 
the framework of its trade policy review process. These replies do not, however, cover all our 
questions and we therefore request the EU to provide replies to  the following questions:  
a. Which selected sectors may be subject to a carbon tax? More specifically, do they include 
the agricultural sector?  
b. Is the EU planning to establish "carbon credit" for products from Members with lower 
carbon emissions than the EU ?  
c. How will the "Just Transition Fund" work for European agriculture, in particular with regard 
to (1) subsidies granted, (2) types of programmes and (3)  amounts disbursed?  
1.15.4   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93300) and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93 301) 
a. On 11 Decembe r 2019, the European Union (EU) launched the European Green Deal.3 
Colombia and Paraguay note that, in order to meet the objectives of the Deal, the EU has 
adopted a number of strategies – including the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork Strategies – 
 
3 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities -2019-2024/european -green -deal_en . G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  that provi de for, inter alia , the granting of direct payments to agricultural producers who 
deliver on the green ambition.4 
Colombia and Paraguay also note that these direct payments will be granted within the 
framework of a new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021-2027 based on conditionality, 
i.e. compliance with climate/environment -related requirements in order to receive direct 
payments.5 Furthermore, provision is made for the adoption of "eco -schemes" that seek 
to recompense farmers who voluntarily implemen t certain agricultural practices.6 
In regard to this matter:  
i. In what amounts would these direct payments be granted?  
ii. What are the requirements for accessing these direct payments?  
iii. How many agricultural producers will benefit from these direct payments?  
iv. When would these direct payments enter into effect?  
v. According to the Farm to Fork Strategy, in 2017, CAP subsidies, with the exception of 
investment support, represented 57% of net farm income in the EU.7 With the 
introduction of these additional direct payme nts, by how much will the subsidized 
percentage of net farm income in the EU increase?  
vi. Does the EU consider the subsidization of around two thirds of net farm income in the 
EU to reflect "sustainable" agriculture?  
vii. How do these direct payments differ from t he "greening payments"8 already provided 
by the EU under Regulation (EU) No.  1307/2013, Delegated Regulation 
(EU) No. 639/2014, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No.  641/2014? Will they apply 
alternatively or cumulatively?  
b. Please confirm that these direct p ayments would fall into the amber box within the 
meaning of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
1.16  EU's production subsidies resulted from implementation of SPS measures  
1.16.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060)  
European Union – Production subsi dies for the implementation of EU  SPS measures for the 
elimination of the use of certain plant protection products:  
 
Following the announcement on the prohibition of the use of several plant protection products in the 
European Union as a consequence of th e implementation of SPS measures, European producers from 
various EU member States, such as France, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands, have protested 
against the measures in view of the repercussions that they would have for agricultural production. 
 
4 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally -friendly f ood system, pages 8, 11. See 
also: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, Bringing nature back into our live s, page 7.  
5 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally -friendly food system, pages 8, 11. See 
also: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTE E OF THE REGIONS, EU Biodiversity 
Strategy for 2030, Bringing nature back into our lives, page 7, and 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap -post-2020-
environ -benefits -simplification_en.pdf , page 5.  
6 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally -friendly food system, pages 10 -11. 
See also: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -fisheries/key_policies/documents /cap-post-
2020-environ -benefits -simplification_en.pdf . 
7 A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally -friendly food system, footnote 23.  
8 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food -farming -fisheries/key -policies/common -agricultural -
policy/income -support/greening_en . G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  In response to these protests, several European politicians have announced the introduction of new 
subsidies to assist farmers. A recently introduced subsidy to compensate farmers for the loss of 
plant protection products was announced on 16  January in Luxemb ourg. In order to better 
understand the purpose and scope of these subsidies, and their compliance with the Agreement on 
Agriculture, Paraguay requests the European Union to provide information on:  
 
a. the number of EU  members that have already officially announced the establishment of 
this type of programme;  
b. The quantity, scope of application and amounts planned for these new subsidy 
programmes for producers;  
c. The configuration of these new programmes within the framework of the new Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP); and  
d. The expectations for the official notification of these programmes: date of notification and 
box in which they will be notified.  
1.16.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93239)  
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question followin g the EU's reply to 
question  AG-IMS ID 93060.  
 
We thank the EU for its partial reply to our question. According to press reports published in January, 
592 of the 1,005 agricultural producers in Luxembourg have voluntarily signed up to receive 
subsidies to stop using glyphosate. We note that, in accordance with the individual notification 
(DS:2  G/AG/N/EU/35), in the reply given to our original question, payments for rural development 
include agri -environment payments and that the exact content o f these measures is decided by 
member States and regions.  
 
It is also our understanding, from this notification, that the EU considers all these measures to come 
under the Green Box and that it views them as consistent with paragraph 12 of Annex  12 of the  
Agreement on Agriculture. In the case of Luxembourg and the rural development programme, 
priority  4, we note that according to the website indicated by the EU in its reply, the most recent 
version of this programme involves costs totalling EUR 110.121.138 . Unfortunately, we have been 
unable to find document 20/01/2020 C(2020) 361 final on the EU website and would be grateful if 
the EU could provide us with a copy of the document or a hyperlink that would enable us to access 
it. In this light, we request th e EU to : 
 
a. indicate the total amount to be received by producers as a subsidy for no longer using this 
plant protection product, disaggregated by producer and product affected ; and  
b. we reiterate our question as to whether any other EU member has introduced or is planning 
to introduce similar subsidies to help its farmers, as, according to press reports, this type 
of assistance has been promised to European farmers in other countries, following protests 
by European producers in late 2019 and early 2020.  
1.17  Italy 's support to wine producers  
1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93225)  
On 19 May, Italy has announced, within the framework of its "Decreto Rilancio" that the amount of 
100 million euros has been set aside for the year 2020, to be allocated to wine -growing ente rprises 
that commit themselves to the voluntary reduction of the production of grapes destined for wines 
with denomination of origin and geographical indication through the practice of the partial green 
harvest to be carried out in the current campaign.  
  
Since the reduction in the production of grapes destined for winemaking cannot be less than 15 % 
compared to the average value of the quantities produced in the last five years, it could be 
understood that the program was crafted to be compatible with Artic le 6.5 of the AoA. Nonetheless, 
the UE has not submitted a DS:2 notification so far.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
    
Could the EU inform if it plans to notify Italy's domestic support program for the wine sector as a 
blue box programme?  
 
1.18  France - Bpifrance Assurance Export  
1.18.1   Question by  Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93226)  
The French Government has announced that for SMEs and  mid-tier companies, and for the entire 
duration of the  COVID -19 pandemic, Bpifrance Assurance Export can now cover its insurees (credit 
institutions) for up to 90% of issued an d declared guarantee commitments (export guarantee 
insurance)  or pre -financing that has been set up (pre -financing  guarantee) compared to 80% 
previously. For other  businesses, insurees may be covered for up to 70% as against  50% in the 
past. 
 
Since Bpifrance Assurance  Export was mentioned on France's  last answer to the Export Competition 
questionnaire  (G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.2), could France/the EU clarify if:  
 
a. These new conditions apply to agricultural products  exports;  
b. The program is still self -financing and covers its  long-term operating costs and losses.  
1.19  European Union's sugar policies  
1.19.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93231)  
In its reform of the sugar sector since 2006, a temporary scheme was established to restructure the 
sugar industry. In 2015, a vo luntary coupled support for sugar beet was further introduced. 
Paragraph 11 . (d) of the Annex 2 of the AoA requires that structural adjustment assistance "shall be 
given only for the period of time necessary for the realization of the investment in respect  of which 
they are provided ". According to the notification of the EU (G/AG/N/EEC/65), the Separate Sugar 
Payment and Restructuring scheme would last four years and terminated in 2010. However, both 
measures have been implemented longer than the planned ti meframe, with the Restructuring 
scheme still effective in EU 's latest notification (G/AG/N/EU/61).  
 
a. Could the EU explain the rationale for extending the two schemes?  
b. What's the impact of the voluntary coupled support on the income of beet growers, 
comparin g with the former minimum support price? It would be highly appreciated if the 
EU could provide further information on this important reform.  
1.20  Japan - Supplementary budget to address impact of new trade deal  
1.20.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93069)  
Australia understands the Japanese Government plans on securing around 355  billion yen in 
the FY2019 Supplementary Budget for measures to support and protect its agricultural sector from 
the impact of the Japan -United States Trade Agreement signed in Octob er 2019.  
a. Can Japan provide detailed information on the types of support measures it is planning to 
implement through this additional budgetary expenditure? Including , if these will be new 
measures, or expansion of existing measures?  
b. How will Japan ensure that these measures do not negatively impact third countries'  
exports to Japan, either directly or indirectly?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.21  Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  
On 20 December 2019, the Government of Japan a nnounced that as of 1 April 2020, it will no longer 
apply its beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG) to imported products from 
WTO Members. Japan will retain its WTO pork special safeguard (SSG). It is Canada's understanding 
that the eliminat ion of these safeguards in April would result in Japan's non -economic partnership 
agreement (EPA) trading partners being able to export beef and pork products to Japan with fewer 
volume -based safeguards whereas Japan's EPA's partners, including Canada, con tinue to be subject 
to volume based safeguards under their respective trade agreements for a number of years before 
they are eliminated.  
 
Could Japan explain why non -EPA members are being treated more favourably than its EPA partners 
including Canada, wit h the elimination of the WTO beef (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG) before the 
beef and pork safeguards in some of Japan's EPAs?  
 
1.22  Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  
1.22.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93071)  
On 7 October 2019, Japan and the United States signed the United States  — Japan Trade Agreement. 
At the time, reports indicated that there would be further negotiations to achieve a comprehensive 
agreement to address outstanding tariff and non -tariff issues.  
a. What are the timelines for the second round of neg otiations between Japan and the 
United  States?  
b. Would the scope of this second round include additional commitments on agriculture such 
as purchase commitments?  
1.23  United States of America - Japan -US Trade Agreement  
1.23.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93081)  
On 7  October  2019, the Japan and the United States signed the United States  - Japan Trade 
Agreement. At the time, reports indicated that there would be further negotiations to achieve a 
comprehensive agreement to address outstanding tariff and non -tariff issue s.  
a. What are the timelines for the second round of negotiations between Japan and the 
United  States?  
b. Would the scope of this second round include additional commitments on agriculture such 
as purchase commitments?  
1.24  Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange rest rictions for dairy imports  
1.24.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  
This restriction was published on 11 February. Its effect is a clear restriction on the import of dairy 
products into Nigeria.  
 
How does Nigeria explain that this measure is not rest ricting imports and that it respects the 
following commitments:  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (Market Access) ; 
• Article III:4 GATT (National Treatment) ; 
• Article X GATT (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations) ; and  
• Article XI GAT T (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions).  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.24.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  
Nigeria recently restricted access to foreign currency for the importation of dairy products. Nigeria 
has provided exemptions to a select few dairy companies on  the condition, New  Zealand 
understands, that they "backward integrate"; i.e. set up production or engage in dairy development 
activities locally.  
  
Can Nigeria please explain how this measure is consistent with its WTO obligations?  
 
1.25  Russia n Federation  - Subsidies to "certification of agricultural products in foreign 
markets " 
1.25.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  
The new Decree of the Governmen t of the Russian Federation of 25 December  2019 N ° 1816 (as 
amended on 13 May 2020) "On state support of organizations in order to compensate for part of the 
costs associated with the certification of agricultural products in foreign markets" appears to be  an 
export subsidy, falling under Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
The "certification of agricultural products in foreign markets " seems to cover the following: 
assessment of conformity of agri -food products with requirements of foreign mar kets, veterinary 
and phytosanitary measures, transportation, storage, testing and disposal of test samples, 
assessment of  conformity of products with the requirements, contained in the foreign trade contract 
for the supply of agricultural products to foreign markets (hereinafter - the contract), including 
during voluntary certification for obtaining Halal and Kosher certificates. The provision of certificate 
of costs incurred to meet the requirements of external markets appears necessary to obtain the aid. 
 
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain how it ensures that this new subsidy does not 
compensate for costs incurred as part of and during the process of selling a product to 
foreign markets and is not an illegal export subsidy?  
b. Can the Russia n Federation  explain how the decree in question complies with the 
requirements of Articles 8  - 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture?   
1.26  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of  - New system for issuing import licenses  
1.26.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074)  
On 27 January 2020, the Saudi Government adopted a new system for issuing import licenses, 
without prior consultations with interested parties or granting an adaptation period on the new 
measure. The new system requires local importers to file with the Saudi Government, six months in 
advance, "import plans". These plans must include detailed information about the exporter. The 
measure puts at risk not only trade flows, given that most agricultural goods are traded on a monthly 
basis, according to supply and demand conditions, but also busi ness confidentiality terms, since the 
new measure would make it necessary to disclose to the importer sensitive information, such as 
production capacity. Furthermore, although it creates a series of new requirements, the criteria for 
approving import plans  seem to lack transparency.  
  
a. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provide an English version of the "Amendment of 
Import Licensing Procedures and Guide" notified through document (G/LIC/N/2/SAU/2)?  
b. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain how the new proc edure complies with:  
i. Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture (determining that access to Members' 
markets can only be regulated through customs duties, rendering prohibited, among 
others, the establishment of quantitative restrictions and discretionary import licensing 
regimes);  
ii. Article XI, 2 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (establishing exceptions 
to the general obligation to eliminate quantitative restrictions on imports and to 
regulate market access only through customs duties, even if operated through quotas 
or licenses);  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  iii. Article 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Members should 
ensure that administrative procedures used to implement import licensing regimes do 
not distort trade and that the rules applicable to  the import licensing procedure will be 
neutral and that the procedures will be fair and equitable).  
1.27  Sri Lanka - Suspension of importation of processed agricultural products  
1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93258)  
From 16 April to  15 July 2020, Sri Lanka suspended the importation of a large number of processed 
agricultural products, with the aim to prevent a rapid depreciation of the Sri Lankan Rupee.  Some 
of the products include bread, pasta, non -alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverag es, oils, rice, and 
confectionary products.  However, in the same regulation, the Government of Sri Lanka announced 
that it will facilitate importation of other agricultural products, including dairy products, dried 
vegetables, wheat, palm oil, sunflower se ed, and cane sugar.  
 
a. How does the Government of Sri Lanka expect to prevent the depreciation of the 
Sri Lankan Rupee by banning imports of some products while encouraging others?  
b. Why were those specific products banned? How did Sri Lanka determine to ban  those 
specific products?  
c. What steps will Sri Lanka take to ensure this intervention has minimal trade distortions in 
the international market?  
1.28  Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  
1.28.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93053)  
Australia refers to Chinese Taip ei's administration of its simultaneous buy -and-sell (SBS) 'private' 
tender system under its WTO tariff -rate quota for rice imports.  
  
Australia understands through bilateral consultations that Chinese Taipei implements a floor price 
under this SBS tender which includes three factors:  
• the rice export price ; 
• fees and charges associated with transportation and port clearance; and  
• the price of imported rice in Chinese Taipei.   
With respect to the administration of the SBS system, Australia requests Chinese  Taipei provide 
answers to the following questions with respect to the floor price:  
a. Are there any laws, regulations, or other ordinances governing the way in which the floor 
price is determined?  
b. Which agencies, private enterprises or entities are responsible  for setting and 
administering the floor price?  
c. Which agencies, private enterprises or entities are engaged in commercial transactions 
under the SBS tender (i.e. who is the buyer in Chinese Taipei)?  
d. What are the policy reasons for including the price of i mported rice in the floor price?  
e. What are the fees and charges associated with transportation and port clearance? (please 
provide a detailed breakdown of each component, including the policy rationale for their 
inclusion and an explanation of how each refl ects the actual costs of services rendered)  
f. Are there any other factors beyond factors 1 to 3 that are included in the floor price?  
g. Is the floor price and its factors the same for all parties bidding in an SBS tender?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  h. Is an equivalent floor price also appl ied to rice produced in Chinese Taipei?  
i. If so, please provide details about this and how it is calculated.  
1.29  Thailand's "licence" charge on eggs  
1.29.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93075)  
Thailand's Department of Livestock Development imposes a 25 Baht (USD 0.80) per chick/hatching 
egg "licence" charge on day old chicks/hatching eggs shipments transiting through or entering into 
Thailand. These fees appear highly disproportionate to the act ual cost of regulating commercial 
shipments which can contain upwards of 20,000 birds each and are effectively functioning as an 
unjustified tariff barrier. This matter was first raised with Thailand nearly two years ago and despite 
assurances that the cha rges would be reviewed, no action appears to have occurred.  
  
Can Thailand please provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove these fees, and the expected dates for revised charges to be implemented?  
 
1.30  Thailand's sugar support  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93203)  
Australia understands Thailand has approved measures to support its sugar industry, which has been 
impacted by the disruptions caused by COVID -19. We understand the support package is valued at 
THB 10 billion  (approx. USD  320 million).  
a. Can Thailand provide information on this support package, including details on:  
• the different parts of this support package?;  
• the policy objectives of each part?; and  
• how payments for each part are calculated?  
1.30.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227)  
According to media reports, Thailand has approved over 10  billion baht (over USD  300 million) in 
subsidies to  sugarcane farmers  (https://www.reuters.com/article/us -thailand -sugar/thailand -
approves -300-million -aid-for-drought -stricken -sugarcane -farmers -idUSKBN23G28H ). 
 
Thailand's most recent WTO DS:1 notification of domestic support commitments (G/AG/N/THA/85, 
6 October  2017)  applicable to calendar years 2014 -2016, reported a product -specific sugarcane 
subsidy of 450 million baht per year. Although Thailand's notification did not report its value of 
production, the new subsidies appea r to exceed the  sugarcane product -specific " de minimis ". 
 
The recently announced program is more than 20 times larger than the last domestic support 
program notified by Thailand  and more than half of Thailand's Total AMS commitment level.  
 
In the light of the above, could Thailand provide the following information:  
 
a. Copies of the applicable measures granting and administering the subsidies, including 
Cabinet Resolutions and any other legal or regulatory instruments.  
b. An estimation of when Thailand plans to submit a new WTO domestic support 
commitment  (DS:1) notification.  
c. An estimation of when Thailand plans to notify the new sugar subsidies to the WTO.  
d. Confirmation that the 450 million bath Government subsidy  has continued after 2016.  
e. Updated data on the val ue of its annual sugarcane  production for 2017, 2018, and  2019.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  f. Would Thailand explain the eligibility criteria for the  aforementioned program, especially 
regarding the following:  
i. Is the program exclusive for sugarcane producers or is it  generally availabl e for 
farmers?  
ii. Is the payment contingent upon the cultivation of  sugarcane?  
iii. Is the program related with the acquisition of inputs and  production factors by 
farmers? If so, how does that affect  the payment?  
iv. Are there any sugarcane producers that are not ent itled to apply for the subsidy?  
g. Since drought has been mentioned as a justification for  the announced domestic support, 
is there an obligation for  farmers to prove production losses as a condition for  payment of 
the subsidy? If positive, how much as a perc entage of expected production must these 
losses be?  
1.31  United Kingdom - Policy update resulted from Brexit  
1.31.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  
Canada understands that the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed a Withdrawal 
Agreement that establish es a transition period that is set to end 31  December  2020, unless 
extended. Previously, producers in the United Kingdom have benefited from the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP). In a February 2020 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
issued a policy update called Farming for the Future: policy and progress update for England. The 
policy update indicates that England will move away from the EU CAP and established its own 
agriculture policy framework. ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the -future -for-food-
farming -and-the-environment -policy -statement -2020).  
a. Could the UK indicate when CAP will no longer app ly in the England, Scotland, Wales and 
Northern Ireland?  
b. The February 2020 policy update indicates that England will phase out EU CAP direct 
payments over seven  years from 2021 to 2027. Could the UK indicate if similar phase -out 
of direct payments will oc cur in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  
c. Could the UK indicate if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will provide similar policy 
updates on their respective agriculture policy frameworks? And if so, what are the 
timelines?  
1.32  U.S. domestic support pol icies and notifications  
1.32.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  
a. As per a Congressional Research Service report, 
(https://www.everycrsreport.co m/reports/R45940.html#_Toc21341718, accessed on 2 
March 2020 ), the USDA planned to make MFP payments for year 2019 trade assistance 
program under a different formulation that avoids identifying payments with a specific 
crop i.e. shifting product specific s upport to non -product specific support. India requests 
the United States to kindly confirm this.  
b. The United States has notified its DS:1 notification up to marketing year 2016. In this 
regard, India requests the United States the following:  
i. When is the Uni ted States planning to file DS:1 notifications for years post 2016?  
ii. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  c. The United States on 28 February 2020 announced that it intends to make available up to 
USD 100 million in competitive grants for activities designed to expand the sale and use 
of renewable fuels through the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program ( available 
at https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2020/02/28/secretary -perdue -directs -
usda-fleet-increase -biofuels -usage ). The factsheet for the Higher Blends Infrastructure 
Incentive Program, mentions that "U.S. farmers are producing record amounts of 
feedstocks for renewable fuels. However, lower commodity prices, paired with this record 
production, have caused uncertain times for U.S. feedstocks producers". In this light, 
the US is requested to answer : 
i. Whether this programme will in any way benefit the farmers p roducing feedstocks such 
as corn and soybean for renewable fuels.  
ii. How is the US intending to notify this programme under domestic support 
notifications.?  
1.33  US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  
1.33.1   Question by European Uni on (AG -IMS ID 93187)  
The EU understand that for every litre of pure alcohol exported to the US from the US Virgin Islands 
or Puerto Rico, the producers receive 50% of the excise taxes on that product, as well as excise tax 
on any rum from other sources exp orted to the US. This is equivalent to a subsidy of about 
USD 3 per litre. According to data available to the EU unaged rum costs about USD 1 – 1.50 per litre 
to produce in these countries.  
 
a. Can the US explain how this scheme works in practice including th e origin of alcohol, 
eligible products, exact amount of excise duty exemptions per product, the estimated 
annual amount in question and the final beneficiaries of this scheme.  
b. Can the US give statistical information about quantities exported to the US ben efiting  from 
this scheme for the years 2014 to 2019.  
c. Can the US explain how is it ensures that products being exported (from Puerto Rico and 
the US Virgin Islands) to other parts of the world than the US does not benefiting  directly 
or indirectly from thi s scheme?  
d. Has this subsidy been included in the recent DS:1 notifications from the US?  
1.34  US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  
1.34.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  
US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  
 
According to a study from Kansa s State University published in Applied Economic Perspectives and 
Policy  (2020) volume 42, number 2, pp. 205 –226 by Joseph P. Janzen and Nathan P. Hendricks: Are 
Farmers Made Whole by Trade Aid? ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aepp.13045 ) 
many farmers and sectors received more in compensation than their actual losses. In the case of 
cotton the study shows an overcompensation of 33 times the actual loss.  
 
During th e Special COVID -19 meeting the US several times underlined that all its support measures 
would respect its WTO commitments, without however indicating how or when it would submit its 
outstanding DS:1 notifications.  
a. Does the US agree with the results prese nted in this study? If not, can the US explain 
what in the study it disagrees with.  
b. Has the US calculated the real losses of farmers compared to the compensation payments 
through MFP 1 and MFP 2? What are the results of any such calculations?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  c. How will the US ensure that similar overcompensation will not take place in future given 
it clearly influences farmers ' production  decisions in both the short and long term?   
1.35  U.S. insurance programmes  
1.35.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  
On 9 June 2020, the USDA Risk Management Agency announced changes to the Livestock Risk 
Protection  (LRP) insurance program for feeder cattle, fed cattle and swine starting this summer with 
the 2021 crop year. Changes include moving premium deadlines to the end of the endorsement 
period and increasing premium subsidies to assist producers. https://rma.usda.gov/en/ News -
Room/Press/Press -Releases/2020 -News/USDA -Announces -Improvements -to-the-Livestock -Risk-
Protection -Insurance -Program -This-Summer  
 
a. Could the US indicate what will be the new subsidy rate under the LRP program following 
these changes?  
b. Are these changes te mporary and if so, when is the expected end date?  
c. In the last months, did the U.S. also increase the subsidy level for other insurance program 
or do they have the intention to increase the subsidy level for other insurance program? 
If so, by how much?  
1.36  Viet Nam - Potential tariff reductions on certain agricultural products  
1.36.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  
According to media reports, Viet  Nam is considering decreasing import tariffs on some agricultural 
products. Viet  Nam's motivation for possible ta riff reductions on chicken, processed chicken meat, 
almonds, grapes, wheat, pork, and potatoes, however is not entirely clear. On the one side such 
action follows bilateral discussions with the United States and appears to have the objective of 
reducing Vi et Nam's agricultural bilateral trade surplus. A review of the WTO's Regional Trade 
Agreements database indicates that no such agreement exists between Viet  Nam and the United 
States. On the other side, the Vietnamese Ministry also noted the potential tari ff cuts on these 
agricultural products are in line with the first-year reductions foreseen under the Comprehensive 
and Progressive Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Ukraine understands that the CPTPP has entered 
into force for 7 countries and that ratific ation for 4 other countries is in their respective process. 
Ukraine also understands that the United States is not a signatory to CPTPP, and would not benefit 
if the tariff reductions were taken in line with Vietnam's CPTTP commitments.  
  
a. Could Viet  Nam c onfirm their intention to cut import tariffs on certain agricultural 
products?  
b. Could Viet  Nam also provide more background to the potential basis for such tariff 
reductions on these agricultural products, in particular, will this be limited based on a 
Regional Trade Agreement, might the possible tariff reductions be based on most -favoured 
nation conditions?  
1.37  Brazil's wheat quota  
1.37.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  
Canada appreciates Brazil's response to its question during the 30 October  2019 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 92046) relating to the implementation of its 750,000 metric tonnes duty -free tariff rate 
quota  (TRQ) for wheat. Brazil indicated in its response in October that the executive branch of 
Brazil's Foreign Trade Chamber (CAMEX) approved the establishment  of the wheat TRQ, but that it 
needed a CAMEX resolution and a Presidential Decree revoking Decree No.  1.892/96. Could Brazil 
provide an update its internal process to make this wheat TRQ operational?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  1.38  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.38.1   Question by New Ze aland (AG -IMS ID 93048)  
New Zealand understands the ratification process for the Canada -United States -Mexico  (CUSMA) 
agreement is now underway. Can Canada advise what steps it is taking to eliminate milk classes  6 
and 7, including their associated milk cla ss prices, within six months of this preferential trade 
agreement entering into force?  
 
 
1.38.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93184)  
New Zealand has previously expressed interest in this committee in Canada 's milk classes  6 and  7 
and their consistency with the Agriculture Agreement.  We understand that, as a result of the 
Canada -United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) entering into force on 1 July 2020, Canada is 
moving to eliminate these milk classes.  Can Canada please advise how it will ensure the eliminatio n 
of milk classes 6 and 7 within the specified timelines?  
 
1.38.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  
In AG -IMS ID 92002, regarding data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales, Canada stated 
that it "has been working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as transparent as 
possible."  
a. Please confirm if data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales will be made 
publicly available once verifications to ensure accuracy are complete.  
b. If so, please provide an update on when and where this information will become available.  
1.38.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93003)  
In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada stated:  
  
"Federal authority for the marketing of dairy products is delegated to provincial milk m arketing 
boards or provincial agencies for interprovincial and export trade of dairy products pursuant to the 
Canadian Dairy Commission Act and the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.  This would also include 
the power in respect of pricing.  Provincial boa rds and agencies are also delegated provincial authority 
for pricing based on provincial legislation and statute.  Under the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, these entities coordinate the exercise of 
their delegated federal and provincial authorities.  Although responsibilities vary from province to 
province, boards and agencies generally license producers, allocate milk quotas, and establish or 
negotiate the prices or accounting values charged to processors , according to the milk's end use."  
  
a. Please confirm that the setting of milk class prices, and determination of which products 
are eligible for each milk class price, are the exercise of federal and provincial authority.  
According to media reports, Canad a's Agriculture Minister Bibeau in February publicly commented 
on Canadian Government compensation for dairy farmers affected by the Canada -EU Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership, adding that, "The compensation for the new -NAFTA  will come soon as well."   
b. Please elaborate on the anticipated timeline and method for the compensation related to 
the U.S. -Mexico -Canada Agreement.  
1.38.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93 247)  
Milk Class Pricing Transparency  
  
In AG -IMS ID 93002, Canada stated that "Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release 
of any data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales, " and "Once completed, information will 
be provided in  a more relevant format. " G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  a. Has Canada developed a timeline to provide this data?  
b. Could Canada describe the format that the data will take when released?  
1.39  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.39.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  
Canada has not yet responded to the following questions posed by the United States  in 
AG-IMS ID 92003, AG-IMS ID 91137, AG -IMS ID 90040, AG -IMS ID 85012, AG -IMS ID 86034, 
AG-IMS ID 87016, AG -IMS ID 88096, and AG -IMS ID 89021 regarding wine.  As such, 
the United  States repeats  its previous questions.  
  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are continuously 
available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines category".  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and of f of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, wha t is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have been 
distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits the 
operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a w inery that operates a wine boutique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?   
c. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002, which specifies different retail price  parameters and 
size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag 
in box wine?  (http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) 
d. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to four stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores, whi le Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
1.39.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  
According to the 6 June 2019 public backgrounder issue d by Ontario 
(https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-fairness -for-beer-and-
wine-consumers.html : 
 
"Eight y-seven grocers will be selected to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and wine under 
unrestricted authorizations."  
 
"And for the 35 existing grocers that have restricted authorizations, most of their initial restrictions 
will be lifted and they will b e able to expand their assortments to a larger selection of wine starting 
in October 2019."  
  
a. Have 87 additional grocers been authorized to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and 
wine under unrestricted authorizations?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. For the 35 grocers referred to in  the backgrounder, what restrictions have been lifted?  
1.40  Canada's review of the TRQ system  
1.40.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93045)  
Australia refers to Canada's Comprehensive Review of Tariff Rate Quotas and thanks Canada for 
confirming subsequently that the  second phase of the Review is underway and that the final policies 
for each TRQ should be published in September of this year.  
 
Australia appreciates the opportunity to engage in the second phase of the Review and will direct 
substantive questions on the policy options developed by Canada through the Review process. 
However,  Australia would like to raise some high -level questions with respect to Canada's policy 
options as detailed on the Government of Canada website : https://www.international.gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/instructions.aspx?lang=eng . 
 
a. What was the methodology for establishing the specific options detailed on the 
Governme nt of Canada's website?  
b. How is Canada planning on making its final policy decisions, for example:  
i. Will the final policy decision be made based on majority vote/support for a particular 
policy option?  
c. Where a final policy option further protects Canada's supply managed sectors, does 
Canada plan on implementing other liberalising trade policy changes as offsets to ensure 
the overall effect of the new policies are in line with the long -term objective enshrined in 
the Agreement on Agriculture for sub stantial progressive reductions in agricultural support 
and protection?  
1.40.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93046)  
New Zealand acknowledges that Canada is currently undertaking Phase  II of its comprehensive 
review of the allocation and administration of tar iff rate quotas for supply -managed products. Noting 
that some of Canada's TRQs suffer from chronic underfill, such as dry whey and powdered buttermilk, 
can Canada advise how the current consultation process will remove restrictive measures, and 
enable 100 % quota fill?  
 
1.41  Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
1.41.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93047)  
New Zealand refers to Canada's responses to similar questions asked at the October 2019 Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS 92075) . Since there i s a consistent lag in Canada's notifications, its response 
last time that the CAD  345 million paid directly to dairy farmers based on the size of their production 
quotas, would "be notified as appropriate in Canada's 2019 Domestic Support notification" rai ses 
the concern for New Zealand that this and other, similar payments can be made with a lack of 
transparency. In 2019, Canada submitted notifications for the 2016 year. On this basis Members will 
have to wait at least three years to see how this trade - and production -distorting support is notified, 
and review it accordingly.  
  
a. Can Canada provide an indication of how it intends to notify the CAD  345 million in direct 
payments to dairy farmers based on the size of their production quotas? i.e. whether it 
will be notified in due course as AMS.  
b. Can Canada confirm that the compensation packages paid in  2019 to farmers and 
producers in supply -managed sectors impacted by trade agreements was a one -time 
payment, or does Canada expect to make similar compensatory payments in  2020?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  1.42  Canada's agriculture support package  
1.42.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93241)  
The Prime Minister of Canada, H.E. Mr. Justin Trudeau has announced a CAD  252 million federal 
programme to support Canadian farmers during the COVID -19 pandemic. Under the programme, 
the Government plans to create a CAD  77.5 million Emergency Fund to allow food producers to 
access personal protective equipment (PPE), a CAD  125 m illion programme to help support the beef 
and pork producers adapt to the crisis due to the pandemic, and a price -support surplus food 
purchase programme of CAD  50 million, aimed at redistributing existing and unsold inventories, 
including products such as  potatoes and poultry to local food organizations who are serving 
vulnerable Canadians.  
 
India requests Canada to provide more details regarding the following points:  
 
a. Is there any update on the product list identified by Canada in their response to the 
question asked by Australia in question ID 94001?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria to qualify as a beneficiary under the programme?  
c. What is the payment mechanism to be used to assist beneficiary 
organizations/producers/processors?  
d. Who would undertake the  procurement and distribution aspects under the Surplus Food 
Purchase programme?  
e. How does Canada plan to notify this programme in its agricultural notifications?  
1.43  China's rice policies  
1.43.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248)  
In China's response to the U.S. question AGIMS -ID 91133, China notes that "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the document including "the trading announcement" is published on 
the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Fina nce, the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration.   
  
a. Please provide links to these announcements specifically related to the recent rice 
auctions.  
b. Do the auction procedures have any requirements related to exportation of the rice?  
c. Of the recent ly auctioned rice, what quantities remained in China and what quantities have 
been exported?  
The United States repeats its questions in AGIMS -ID 91133:  
 
d. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice?  
e. Are other STEs exporting rice?  
1.44  China's state trading enterpris es 
1.44.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93249)  
In response to China 's answer to AG-IMS-ID 91115, the United States provides the link to a 
Bloomberg news article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019 -05-07/china -is-said-to-
plan-overhaul -of-state-agriculture -giants ). Based on the linked article, the United States 
understands that the Government of China plans to tran sfer the trading assets of Sinograin, which 
includes its stockpiles and oilseed crushing capacity, to COFCO Corporation.  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a. Please explain the rationale behind its restructuring of assets for its agricultural state 
trading enterprises.  
In reference to #11 5 on page 192 of G/C/W/701 dated 14 August 2014:  
 
b. Please provide an overview of operations of the China Grain Reserves Corp. (Sinograin).   
c. Please explain the differences in grain activities or roles carried out between Sinograin 
and COFCO.  
d. Please explain w hether or not Sinograin can influence through their purchases or sales the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  
1.45  Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  
1.45.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91138, 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.  
  
a. Please provide the legislation and/or decisions that made this export subsidy available, 
including an explanation of eligibility criteria and how payment rates are determined for 
the export of agricultural products.  
b. Please explain how the settlement agreem ents reached on export subsidies with 
agricultural companies impacts the provision of support under this measure.  
1.46  Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  
1.46.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93192)  
At the Committee on Agriculture meeting held on 18 Ju ne 2020, Japan asked Egypt to provide the 
reason why required notification concerning its export prohibitions on leguminous vegetables and 
products thereof had not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement of Agriculture. 
In Egypt 's response  to the said question, Egypt explained that it would be exempt from the 
notification requirement as Egypt is a net importer of the food stuffs concerned. However, according 
to the statistical data such as FAOSTAT, Japan recognizes that Egypt is a net expor ter of the foodstuff 
concerned. Japan would appreciate if Egypt could provide the clarification by providing such data as 
to well support that Egypt is a net importer of the foodstuff concerned.  
1.47  The EU's coupled payments  
1.47.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93055 ) 
Brazil understands that the Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation (EU)  2017/2393 has 
introduced a significant relaxation of the conditions that member States need to meet to gain 
approval for their voluntary coupled support (VCS) schemes, which shou ld lead to the deletion of 
paragraph 5 of Article 52 of Regulation 1307/2013 (Regulation 1307/2013 was notified in 2017 - 
G/AG/N/EU/35).  
 
a. Does the EU intend to provide a DS:2 notification regarding the Omnibus Agricultural 
Provisions Regulation (EU) 2017/ 2393?  
b. Could the EU explain the impact of the Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation on its 
blue box domestic support programmes? ' G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  1.48  EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
1.48.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93242)  
In the wake of the COVID -19 pandemic, the European Union has promised to support the economy 
of its members by increasing the temporary state -aid limit to a maximum of EUR 100,000 per farmer 
and EUR 800,000 for food processing and marketing companies, under the Temporary Framework 
for state -aid Measures.  
  
In this context, India requests the European Union to provide the following details:  
 
a. How many European Union members have availed of this increased flexibility that is being 
provided in terms of the state aid rules?  
b. On the basis of what factors has the maximum state -aid per beneficiary been determined?  
1.48.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93243)  
Pursuant to the European Union 's Ad-hoc Report on measures taken during the COVID -19 pandemic 
(G/AG/GEN/159), India notes that the Netherlands in stituted the 'compensation for damages caused 
by COVID -19 outbreak to horticulture, floriculture and potato sectors ' amounting to €650 million.  
  
With regards to this, India requests the European Union to provide the following information:  
a. What is the nature of these payments and how will they be notified under the AoA?  
b. Please provide the details regarding eligibility for receiving these payments,  the method 
of calculation of damages for farmers and traders and the ceiling limit for damages (if 
any)?  
India notes that a few European Union members such as Belgium, Denmark, France, and the 
Netherlands have instituted export financing schemes. The Euro pean Union, in their ad -hoc report 
in document G/AG/GEN/159, states that these schemes are general and non -agriculture specific.  
 
The document further mentions that 'all agriculture -specific or agricultural part of general schemes 
are required to respect the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. '.  
  
With regards to these schemes, India requests the European Union to respond to the following:  
c. Please provide details regarding the export financing measures being adopted by these 
EU members.  
d. What is the estimated expenditure/outlay for these measures?  
e. What are the eligibility requirements under these export financing schemes?  
f. How will these schemes be notified under the Agreement on Agriculture?  
g. How is it proposed to comply with the statemen t included in the above document regarding 
respecting the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. Have any further 
guidelines been issued in this context?  
1.49  India's sugar policies  
1.49.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  
Follow -up question to  AG-IMS ID 92007:  
 
a. Can India indicate for the five years 2011 to 2015 prior to the Nairobi Ministerial meeting 
the following:  
• Total export of sugar from India per year;  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  • Quantity of this which had received export subsidy (federal or state) and the amount 
spend on these subsid ies annually 2011 to 2015.  
b. Can India explain how it sees the increasing subsidy level and increasing quantity of sugar 
exports to be subsidised to be in line with Nairobi Ministerial Decision paragraphs 9, 10 
and 11 ? In particular how does India see the 2019/20 export programme as respecting 
paragraph 10: Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond the average 
level of the past five years on a product basis" ? 
1.50  India's pulses policies  
1.50.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  
Australia's concerns with respect to India's trade -restricting measures on pulses are very well known 
to Members.  Australia has raised its concerns in this and every other relevant Committee for over 
two years, with a particular foc us on the quantitative restrictions (QRs) set on a range of 
pulses.  Unfortunately, India continues to implement these measures, which are having a detrimental 
impact on the global pulses market, including producers in developed and developing countries, wi th 
traders and with consumers.  
 
Australia was disappointed that in addition to the continued extension of these measures – which 
cannot be considered 'temporary' given they have been in place for over two years – India has 
recently implemented even more tr ade-restrictive measures.   
 
For example, in December 2019, India announced that the 150,000 tonne s QR on peas would be 
subject to additional restrictions, whereby imports would need to meet a minimum import price of 
Rs 200/kg and would only be allowed thro ugh one specific port (Kolkata sea port).  Additionally, while 
India expanded the QR on Urad (black gram beans) from 150,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes, the 
additional tonnage (250,000 tonnes) would be limited to Indian millers and refiners and applications 
to import under the QR could only be submitted between 20 December and 31  December  2019 
(12 days), with imports having to occur by no later that 31 March 2020.  
 
With respect to India's QRs on pulses and these additional measures:  
 
a. Can India explain why it r estricted pea imports to only one specific port?  
b. Can India provide a justification for the minimum import price for peas?  
c. Can India explain why it restricted the additional imports of Urad to Indian millers and 
refiners?  
d. Can India explain why it gave such a limited period for applications to be submitted for 
Urad?  
e. Can India explain how the additional measures identified are consistent with India's 
WTO obligations and the WTO basis for the measures?  
f. Can India provide advice on the amount of imports for each QR during the current quota 
year?  
g. Can India confirm whether it will continue to apply the QRs on pulses after 31  March  2020 
(i.e. for the fiscal year 2020/21 commencing on 1 April)?  
1.50.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  
On 18 December 20 19, the Government o f India notified an amendment to its import policy for dried 
peas under HS code 0713 1000 (Gazette of India No. 37/2015 -2020). According to this amendment, 
in addition to the quantitative restriction of 150,000 MT already in place, imports of dried peas wi ll 
be subject to a minimum import price of Rs. 200/CIF (Cost, Insurance & Freight) per kg and imports 
will only be allowed through Kolkata seaport. Indian importers have reported that this minimum G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times the pric e imported dried peas have traditionally 
been traded (around Rs. 30 to 35 per Kg).  
  
a. Could India provide more information as to why it amended its quantitative restriction 
policy to include a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detail ed information as to how this minimum import price works? 
Especially please provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the minimum import price is being applied.  
c. Could India explain how it det ermined the level of this minimum import price, and why it 
was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
e.  Could India explain how a minimum import pric e requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI?  
f. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI?  
g. Please indicate whether the quota will be maintained after 31 March 2020, and please 
indicate whether the minimum import price and the single port of entry requirements will 
also be maintained after 31 March 2020.  
1.50.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  
On 2 8 March 2020, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India notified Notification No. 
S.O.1225  (E) which extended its quantitative restriction for dried peas under HS code 071310 for 
the fiscal year 2020 -21. The notice specifies that the quantitative rest riction for dried peas are set 
at 150,000 MT for the 2020 -21 fiscal year, and that the import policy conditions such as Minimum 
Import Price (MIP) of Rs.200/ and a port restriction through Kolkata sea port only for all peas. 
Imported dried peas have tradit ionally been traded on India 's domestic market at Rs. 30 to 35 per 
kg so this minimum import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times higher than market prices.   
 
a. Could India provide more information as to why it has put and place and continues to 
apply a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detailed information as to how this minimum import price works? In 
particular provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the mini mum import price is being applied at the port of 
entry.  
c. Could India explain how it has determined the level of this minimum import price, and why 
it was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with A rticle 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
e. Could India explain how a minimum import price requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article XI?  
f. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI? 
1.50.4   Question by Canada (A G-IMS ID 93283)  
On 16 April 2020, India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a trade notice (S.O.  1260(E)) 
in the Gazette of India which fixed the quantity of peas by type that can be imported under the 
quantitative restriction for fiscal year 2020 -2021 ( 1 April 2020, to 31 March 2021) previously G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  announced in trade notice S.O.1225 (E).  Of the 150,000 metric ton nes (MT) announced, 75,000  MT 
is allocated to green peas, and 75,000 MT to "other " peas. The quota for yellow peas is explicitly set 
to 0 MT, w hich effectively bans its importation for this fiscal year.  
 
a. Could India explain its rationale to ban the import of yellow peas for fiscal year 2020?  
b. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this import ba n? 
c. Could India indicate when it will inform, and in which relevant committee it will provide 
the relevant provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements it believes supports this import 
ban of yellow peas?  
1.50.5   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  
In March  2019 India issued a notification establishing a new quota of 150 000 MT for the period 
from 1 April 2019 until 31 March 2020. However, according to the Trade notice No.  32/2019 -2020 
after seven  months of this quota application India completely prohibited the import of pulses to its 
territory from 31  October  2019. According to Notification No.  38/2015 -2020 dated 
1s of January  2020 in addition to quantitative restrictions for peas remained in force India have 
introduced minimum import price requirement for y ellow and green peas. Ports of entry for yellow 
and green peas are also limited to only one seaport Kolkata.  
 
a. Could India provide the reasons for tightening restrictive policy in relation to imports of 
pulses?  
b. Could India describe the administration of y ellow peas import? Could India clarify how the 
minimum import price on yellow peas is applied?  
c. Could India explain how quantitative restrictions, import prohibition, recently introduced 
minimum import prices requirement and limitation of ports of entry fo r pulses to only one 
port are consistent with the WTO rules, including Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.50.6   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93229)  
In March 2020, India established new import quota on yellow peas with volume of 150  thousand 
tonnes allowed for import up to 31 March 2021. This quota is subdivided by three sub -quotas: 
75 000 tonnes for green peas, other types of peas – 75 000 ton nes, while allowed volume for import 
of yellow peas equals zero. Could India please clarify whether zero for sub -quota volume means that 
import of yellow peas is prohibited even under the quota in question? If yes, what are the reasons 
behind the introduction of import prohibition on yellow peas? How do these import prohibition and 
restrictions c orrelate with Article  4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Article  XI of 
the GATT?  
a. In January 2020, India introduced minimum import price requirement for peas (200  Rs/kg 
and above). What are the reasons and the purpose of introducing minimum import price 
requirement in addition to existing quantitative restrictions? What is the methodology for 
the minimum import price calculation? Please, provide the dynamic of domestic prices for 
yellow peas since April 2019. In what way is the introduction o f minimum import price 
consistent with Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Number of ports of import for peas were also limited to only one (seaport Kolkata). What 
are the reasons and goals for introducing restrictions on ports of entry? Why i s it necessary 
to import peas exactly through the port of Kolkata? How does it comply with India 's 
WTO commitments? How does restricting ports of entry correlate with Article 4.2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. When in April 2018 quotas were introduce d, India announced that this measure was 
temporary. However, two years later, import restrictions not only continue to operate, but G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  have been expanded. What are the estimated time frames during which restrictive 
measures (quotas, minimum import price, rest riction on ports of entry) will be in force?  
1.50.7   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92008, India stated that its quantitative restrictions on mung beans, peas, 
black gram lentils, and pigeon peas are temporary, yet India again notified quantitative restrictions 
on these products in March 2020 that will be in effect through March 2021. By the end of this latest 
extension, these quantitative restrictions will have been in place for three years.   
  
India states the meas ures will be further extended or removed based on "market situation. " Please 
describe what market situation is necessary for the permanent removal of these restrictions.  
1.51  India's export subsidies/export credits  
1.51.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS I D 93007)  
India stated in AG -IMS ID 89045 that the Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit (IES) "is in the nature of working capital support, which is WTO compatible."   
 
The United States notes that Reserve Bank of India's  (RBI) notices refer to IES as being an export 
credit program and not a working capital support program.  However, the United States also notes 
in RBI notices  DBR.Dir.BC.No  62/04.02.001/2015 -16 dated 4 December  2015 and 
DCBR.CO.SCB.Cir.No  1/13.05.000/2015 -16 dated 11 February 2016 explain a procedure for Indian 
banks to pass on the benefit of IES by reducing the interest rate charged to the eligible exporters 
upfront.  The notice s also describe how banks submit claims to RBI for reimbursement.   
 
a. Please explai n in detail why India does not believe IES is an interest rate support 
programme as covered under paragraph 13 (a) direct financing support of the Nairobi 
Decision.  
b. Please explain how RBI's premiums are charged and how RBI's financial 
contribution/claims are recovered under the IES.  
Per DBR.  Dir. BC. No 09/04.02.001/2018 -19 dated 29 November  2018 and 
DBR. Dir. BC. No 22/04.02.001/2018 -19 dated 11 January 2019, the United States notes that 
India's IES rate of interest equalization has increased from 3 % to 5% for Micro, Small & Medium 
Enterprises  (MSME), and that since 2019 the scheme has expanded to allow large 
merchant/corporate exporters to participate at an interest equalization rate of 3 %.  
 
c. Please explain the reasoning for increasing the export fin ancing support and allowing large 
merchants to participate in the IES.  
The United States understands that since inception in 2015 to July 2018, the RBI has spent 
₹4,829  crore ( USD 679 million) on the export support scheme for all eligible manufacture and 
agricultural products. The notice instructs RBI to keep records and send a monthly report to India's 
Dept. of Commerce and Directorate of General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) indicating reimbursements 
made, on both a commodity and bank basis.  
  
d. Please provide th e total agricultural product -specific export support spent under the 
scheme and the total value of agricultural products benefited up to the present day.  
1.52  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.52.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  
India Export Subsidies / Export Credits  
  
As a response to AG -IMS ID 89026, India stated that MSMEs exporting dairy products are eligible 
for exports under the IES based on RBI's list of allowable agricultural products (see list per annex 
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/NT322AN120216_1.pdf ). G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
   
Please confirm or clarify if the list is inclusive of all agricultural products covered under the scheme 
or please provide  an up -to-date annex.  
 
1.53  India's support to rice exports  
1.53.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93009)  
Export Subsidies and Transparency  
  
The United States understands that India has decided not to withdraw prohibited export subsidies 
as recommende d by a WTO panel on October 2019 and that MEIS for non -Basmati rice, and other 
products, will possibly be extended beyond 31 March 2020.  
 
a. Please explain if this export subsidy scheme still includes agricultural products and whether 
the export subsidy benef its were increased in 2019 and/or in 2020.  
b. Please provide India's Government notices for the extensions and increases in  2019 
and 2020 if applicable.  
c.  Does India provide any other forms of export subsidies to non -Basmati rice? If so, please 
describe thos e programmes.  
1.54  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.54.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  
Australia refers to its questions to India at 91th CoA (AG -IMS ID 91006) and 92th CoA 
(AG-IMS ID 92095) with respect to its Transport and Marketing Assi stance (TMA) scheme.  
 
Australia acknowledges that as per Paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition, developing country Members shall continue to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture until th e end of 2023. Article 9.4 of the AoA allows developing 
country Members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1 (d) & (e).   
 
However, Paragraphs 9 through 11 establish clear obligations on India with respect to the 
implementation of export subsidies.   
 
Australia therefore requests India provide specific details on:  
a. The average level of export subsidies provided for those products covered by the TMA for 
the past five years?  
b. What steps and assessment India have undertaken in the development of the TMA to 
ensure it is consistent with paragraph  11 of the Nairobi Decision and has at most, a 
minimal trade distorting effect on other Members?  
If it is the case that India does not believe Paragraphs  9 through 11 apply to it, Australia wo uld 
further request India:  
c. Explain under what grounds it has made the decision to not apply the commitments and 
provisions of Paragraphs  9 through 11 of the Nairobi Decision in the development of the 
TMA scheme?  
1.54.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  
Noting the introduction of the Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme by India in 
March  2019, India has stated in response to AG -IMS ID 92095 that the measure complies with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition regardin g Article 9.4 export subsidies.  The 
measure covers a wide variety of products and lists eligible export destinations including West Africa, 
South America, ASEAN, Oceana, and several other regions.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  a. Given the broad scope of this measure, how does India analy ze this programme in the 
context of paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, regarding not 
raising the level of export subsidy use, and paragraph 11 of the Decision, regarding having 
at most minimal trade distorting effects and not d isplacing or impeding the exports of 
another Member?  
b. Can exporters benefit from the IES for agricultural products through at least March  2020 
and from TMA (or other export subsidy measures) for the same agricultural products?  
c. If products do benefit concurr ently from these measures, please describe what steps are 
taken by India to ensure that the export does not benefit from the measures in excess of 
what is permitted under Article 9.4.  
1.55  India's wheat policies  
1.55.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9 3013)  
It is the understanding of the United States from press articles that India has recently sought to 
export wheat to other Governments through tenders for purchase.   
 
a. Is this process stipulated in any Government measures?  If so, please provide those 
measures.  
b. What is India's process for determining a price at which India sells stock to foreign entities?  
c. What steps does India take to ensure that exports of stocks do not distort trade?  
1.56  India - Dairy Loans  
1.56.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93 011)  
In AG -IMS ID 92011, India responded to some, but not all, of the U.S. questions regarding "soft 
loans" administered by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB).  To follow up on some of 
those unanswered questions:  
a. Is export performance a requirement  for cooperatives to receive an NDDB loan?  
b. Is there a grace period for these loans?  
1.56.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255)  
The United States thanks India for its response to AG -IMS ID 92011 and seeks further clarification 
on whether these l oans under the "Supporting Dairy Cooperatives and Farmer  Producer 
Organizations engaged in dairy activities" scheme are contingent  upon export performance as this 
was not addressed in India 's response to part b  of the question.  
1.57  India's short -term crop loans  
1.57.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 91147, India referred the United States to  http://agricoop.nic.in/  with 
regards to information regarding the Interest Subvention Scheme.  
a. Please provide data, direct responses, or a more specific website location regarding how 
the measure is implemented, including the value of loans covered in 2016/17 
and 2017/18.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domes tic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  1.57.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93254)  
The United States  resubmits AG -IMS ID 92010, as India has not provided a written response . 
 
In response to AG-IMS-ID 91147, India referred the United States to http://agricoop.nic.in/ .  
 
a. Please provide data or a more specific website location  for the value of loans covered by 
the measures in 2016/17.  
b. Please confirm whether this mea sure is notified  by India in its domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on  what basis?  
1.58  India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.58.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009, India stated with regards to sale of its wheat stocks that "[f]or 
price stabilization, some wheat may also be released for sale in domestic market with the stipulation 
that the same would not be used for exports."  
a. Is the process stipulated in any Government measure?  If so, please provide those 
measures.   
b. Per India's response to AG -IMS 92009, how does India ensure that wheat stocks released 
for sale in the domestic market are not exported?  
1.58.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93251)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding state  bonuses, India  responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season  2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  However, Madhya 
Pradesh announced a bonus  for both marketing years 2017/18 and 2018/19.  The Minister of 
Agriculture  in Madhya Pradesh  is quoted stating "This means the state will pay Rs. 2,000  per quintal 
for acquisition of wheat. " This was greater than the  announced MSP of Rs. 1,840 per quintal.  
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the  announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the  current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India  states and territories as 
well as for other commodities.  
1.58.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93252)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92009 regarding a request for current,  historical and pre -determined 
targets levels of wheat since 2010, India did not  provide the quantitative levels of each, but rather 
indicated only that  "procurement of wheat is done based on t he assessment made with regard to 
the requirements under various food security programs. "  
a. Please provide the annual quantitative levels for  current, historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat since 2010.  
b. Please indicate any report, publication or website that  contains the assessments 
referenced in India 's previous response.  
1.58.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253)  
In response to AG -IMS ID  92009 regarding steps taken to ensure record stockpiles of wheat do not 
impact  global markets and do not distort markets, India stated that "some wheat may  also be 
released for sale in domestic market in the stipulation that the same  would not be used for exports. " 
 
Please indicate what the specific stipulation states  and where this sti pulation can be found in any 
regulation or other  official Government document related to governing the sales of public  stocks in 
the domestic market.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  1.59  India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
1.59.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256)  
The United Sta tes notes that in response to AG -IMS ID 88107 and 92012, India stated it will submit 
a Table DS:2 notification on its NDP I measure in due course, however, India has not notified this 
measure in G/AG/N/IND/19 nor is the measure identified in G/AG/N/IND/18.   
 
a. When will India be making a Table DS:2 notification for this measure?  
b. Within Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/18, the NDP I has not been identified.  Please 
confirm the measure is included in the Table DS:1 notification.  
c. If the measure is included, pl ease indicate the monetary value of NDP I in 2018/19 and 
under which measure type this measure is notified.  
d. Please provide details of what measures will be implemented following the conclusion of 
Phase  I. Please confirm whether India plans to submit any ap plicable DS:2 notifications 
for those measures and whether India will identify such measures specifically within 
Supporting Table DS:1.  
1.60  Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  
1.60.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  
New Zealand would like to acknowled ge the steps that have been taken by Indonesia towards 
compliance to date in the WT/DS/477.  
 
a. Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove outstanding issues within measures 1 -17, an explanation of the steps that need 
to be taken to remove the outstanding issues, and the expected dates for the complet ion 
of those steps. In particular, can Indonesia provide these details in respect of the following 
measures:  
• Limited application windows and validity periods ; 
• Import restrictions based on cold storage capacity ; 
• Domestic sufficiency legislation . 
b. Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to 
remove measure 18, an explanation of the steps that need to be taken to remove 
measure  18, and the expected dates for the completion of those steps.  
1.61  Japan's support package  
1.61.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93259)  
While thanking Japan for the explanations provided to  question AG-IMS ID 94044 during the last 
CoA Meeting, Brazil would  appreciate if Japan could give more information on the  allocation of the 
First Complementary Budg et Law, approved  on 30 April 2020.  
 
It has come to Brazil's attention that some of the resources  (approximately JPY  14.7 billion) will 
reportedly be  allocated towards stimulating the export of agricultural  products. Apparently, those 
subsidies aim at expan ding Japanese exports of agricultural products and at gaining  "market share" 
in foreign markets that are considered promising.  
 
As far as Brazil knows, the policy includes, among others, subsidies designed at improving the frozen 
food production infrastruc ture for export, including the acquisition or  modernization of 
low-temperature production line and  conservation equipment; and subsidies to promote the 
export  of rice and rice -based processed products, including  improvements in storage infrastructure.  
 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Taking into account that these subsidies could be understood  as falling within the scope of 
AoA's  Article 9, could  Japan provide further details on the export promotion  portion of the economic 
measures adopted by Japan to cope  with the COVID -19 pandemic?  
 
1.62  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.62.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  
Follow up to questions AG-IMS ID 87094, AG-IMS ID 88104, AG-IMS ID 90027, AG-IMS ID 91011 
and AG-IMS ID 92098:  
 
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for im portation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. In August 2019 the Government of Mongolia issued a new 
Resolution describing the system of importation of agricultural products under quota regime. 
Mongolia did not open the  quotas for import of wheat flour and liquid milk for 2020. However, 
Mongolia did not exclude these products from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime 
either. The Russian Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia regard ing its quota 
regime, in particular:  
 
a. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural 
products subject to quota regime? When?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future?  
c. Please confirm that Mongolia will not appl y quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk. 
1.62.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS ID 91011, 
AG-IMS ID 92098 and AG -IMS ID 93072:  
 
In 2013 Mongolia est ablished a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. Mongolia did not open quotas for import of these two products 
for 2020, while stated that there were no quantitative restrictions for th e following products at all.  
 
However, Mongolia did not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime. According to the current information, Mongolian competent authorities do 
not issue permits for the import of the following products referring to the fact that there are no 
quotas allocated for these two products. Thus, the absence of import permits made the importation 
of wheat flour and liquid milk in fact impossible.  
 
The Russian Federation is seekin g further clarification from Mongolia regarding its restrictions, in 
particular:  
a. Does the fact that there are no quotas for wheat flour and liquid milk in 2020 mean that 
import of the following products is prohibited? How does this fact correspond to the 
previous statements of Mongolia that no quotas are being imposed on these products 
following the recommendations of the National Food Safety Council?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural 
products subject t o quota regime? When?  
c. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future?  
d. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions are consistent with Article XI of the 
GATT  1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricultur e. G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
  1.63  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
1.63.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  
The United States notes that Nigeria continues to maintain import prohibitions on several agricultural 
products (see https://customs.gov.ng/?page_id=3075 ), including frozen poultry, beef, and pork 
from all countries.   
  
a. Please provide the measure or implementing regulations for these prohibitions and specify 
on what basis these imports  prohibited?  
b. Can Nigeria explain why import bans are still in place, especially given that Nigeria stated 
in AG -IMS ID 48012 from March of 2007 that many of the restrictions were temporary?  
1.64  Oman's Table DS:2 notification  
1.64.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93257)  
In response to A G-IMS ID 92028, the United States would like to thank Oman for their thorough 
responses. As a follow up, the United States would like to inquire if Oman will be submitting a 
Table  DS:2 notification for the programs  it has outlined across its Table DS:1 notifications, noting 
the difference between a Supporting Table DS:2 within the Table DS:1 notification, and the separate 
Table  DS:2 notification where Members are required to give detail on new domestic support 
progr ams.  
1.65  Russia's export subsidies  
1.65.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 92044.  
 
The EU is concerned about the recent amendment of Article  78 to the Russian Budget Code 
(amendment by Federal law Nº 330 -ФЗ of 1 October 2019), which appears to allow for subsidies for 
alcoholic products intended for export. In the answer to the EU question No AG -IMS ID 92044 
(Committee on Agriculture, 30.10.2019) on the subject the Russia n Federation  stated that "… the 
Budget Code of the R ussian Federation does not provide for any forms of exports subsidies".  
Could the Russia n Federation  further elaborate on that answer in light of the explicit link between 
eligible subsidies and export destination of alcoholic beverages in the amended Art icle 78 of the 
Budget Code?  
1.66  Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
1.66.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  
Japan would appreciate it if Tajikistan could explain how export prohibitions on certain food products 
including wheat, wheat flour a nd vegetable introduced by the Member on 25  April 2020 meet the 
conditions required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measu re. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Tajikistan could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
1.67  Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)   
1.67.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93019)  
Turkey's response to AG -IMS ID 90064 provides no information on the reasoning behind Turkey's 
consideration of a state -owned enterprise as fully autonomous, nor does it explain the reasoning for 
not notifying wheat purchases at prices referred to by TMO and published on its website as 
"intervention purchasing prices". Article 4 of the relevant measure indicates that its objective is, G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  among other things, "...to prevent abnormal increases or decreases i n the price of grain products to 
the determinant of producers…".  Therefore, we would like to reiterate the questions and request a 
more detailed response.  
  
a. Please clarify how the board maintains full autonomy while being a state -owned enterprise 
with 100%  public ownership.  
b. Please explain the rationale for Turkey's judgment that TMO's announcement and 
implementation of prices for commodities does not qualify as the setting of an an applied 
administered price, as stated in response to EU question No.  44 and referenced 
in AG-IMS ID 90064.   
1.67.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93021)  
According to TMO's website, TMO has been charged with helping to control food inflation by buying 
and selling commodities more actively than in previous years with short ened tender periods. It has 
also been charged with additional oversight as to the price of domestic purchases, "in order to carry 
out market regulation more rapidly and actively, to reduce the cost to our country by providing 
products at a more affordable price than the world markets offer in short -term price options, and to 
provide an opportunity for effective and timely intervention in accordance with international trade 
conditions" .  
  
a. Please provide the relevant legislation or implementing regulation th at gives TMO the 
authority to undertake these activities?  
b. Does TMO receive funding from the Government of Turkey to implement these programs?  
If so, please describe the manner in which funding is provided and the amount of funding 
provided since 2002.  
c. How does Turkey plan to notify these TMO activities to the WTO COA and STE Working 
Party?  
1.68  Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.68.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93018)  
In AG -IMS ID 90009 to Turkey, the EU cited 2013 purchase prices of wheat being higher than 
domestic sales prices. The EU requested more information on these transactions and asked when 
the price suppor t for wheat was going to be notified by Turkey. Turkey replied with "TMO determines 
independent policies within the framework of profitability and efficiency principles, regarding the 
products that fall within its scope. In this sense, Turkey would like to  repeat the answers given in 
the previous committee meetings and its last TPR" .  
  
In AG -IMS ID 90064, the United States asked Turkey to clarify how the board maintains full 
autonomy while being a state -owned enterprise with 100% public ownership. It also asked Turkey 
how TMO's announcement and implementation of prices for commodities does not qualify it as 
providing market price support when it is a 100% state -owned enterprise. Turkey referred to their 
response to AG -IMS ID 90009, which simply references T MO's framework of profitability and 
efficiency principles.  
  
As the EU indicated in AG -IMS ID 90009, there are instances where TMO is procuring wheat for more 
than it is selling it.   
  
Please explain how sales at a price lower than the procurement price c omports with the "profitability 
and efficiency principles", as Turkey cited.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  1.69  Turkey - Prior export authorization/registration  
1.69.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93193)  
Japan recognizes that Turkey continues implementing prior export authorization/registration on  
fresh lemons introduced on 7 April 2020, but finds that required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement of Agriculture so far. 
Japan would appreciate if Turkey could provide the reason  behind.  
1.70  United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.70.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93076)  
Australia is pleased that the EU and the UK reached agreement on the Withdrawal Agreement and 
Brexit subsequently occurred on 3 1 January 2020.  The UK Government appears committed to not 
extend the transition period, meaning that the splitting of current EU WTO tariff -rate quotas  (TRQs) 
will be implemented on 1 January 2021.   
  
Australia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged  in Article XXVIII negotiations with affected 
WTO Members, including Australia. We have remained constructive during these negotiations and 
have continued to offer Australia's own quota usage data to support both the UK and EU throughout 
this process.  
  
The continued Brexit uncertainty has created significant commercial disruption for Australian 
businesses currently holding licenses to export agricultural products into the EU under existing 
EU WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia previously raised conce rns in the lead up to a possible 
no-deal Brexit that the UK and EU were proposing two conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway 
through a quota year (i.e. potentially splitting a EU28 calendar year quota between the EU27 and 
UK with two months remaining) . These same issues will again arise at the end of the transition 
period, a situation that Australia would like to avoid.  
  
For a number of Australia's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approaches would have 
resulted in an EU27 and UK CSQ th at, when added together, will be less than Australia's current 
EU28 entitlement.  
  
a. Could the UK confirm whether it will take the same approach to splitting quotas at the end 
of the transition period as had been proposed in the lead up to a possible no-deal Brexit?  
b. Could the UK please provide an explanation for the different approach it had previously 
proposed to take from the EU?  
c. How would the UK have ensured that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota 
year does not leave quota holders wor se off (i.e. that newly split TRQs/CSQs add up to 
current EU28 entitlements)?  
d. In the event that the proposed splits leave TRQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how would the UK 
have treated agricultural products (exported under licence) which were currently on route 
and arrive after the end of the transition period? Would the UK have allowed these products 
to arrive without paying the associated out -of-quota rates?  
1.71  U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  
1.71.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93079)  
At the 92nd Committee on Agriculture meeting, in response to Australia's question AG -IMS ID 92102 
that queried if any plans were in place or being developed to manage the end of the US' farmer 
Trade Aid Package for 2019, the delegate from the United States advised that there were no plans 
beyond the 2019 programme.   
  
Since that advice, Australia has noted commentary from the U.S. President that indicates the US is 
considering further packages to provide aid for farmers that may be negatively impacted by any G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  trade deal that the US has negotiated, is negotiating or that it is preparing to negotiate. This could 
reasonably be extended to possible deals with, inter alia : the EU, India, Kenya, the UK, and also the 
next phase of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the US and China.  
  
a. Can the United States confirm if additional farmer Trade Aid Packages are now under 
development, planned or being considered?  
i. Can the United States provide detail on any possible packages, including whether they 
would be similar to the 2018 or 2019 Packag es? 
b. Can the United States confirm what trade deals (either signed, under negotiation, or 
contemplated ) would be considered in the establishment of possible further trade aid 
packages?  
1.71.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93084)  
According to the USDA, a higher pro portion (approximately 30%) of net farm income is expected to 
come from federal assistance programmes in 2019.  
  
a. Could the United States discuss how the next Farm Bill could be structured in order to 
address producer expectations and reliance on these cur rent payments? USDA forecasts 
USD 139 billion in exports in fiscal year 2020, up USD 4 billion from 2019 numbers. That's 
significantly lower than the expectation that China would purchase USD 40 billion in 
agricultural products from the U.S. or USD 36 bill ion higher than USDA projections. 
Additionally, the CORVID -19 outbreak is slowing global economic activity. On 
21 February  2020, President Trump suggested that he might again push for new trade aid 
for farmers. On 4 March 2020, House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Rep. Mike 
Conaway of Texas said that another round of Market Facilitation Program payments would 
be vital to the survival of producers affected by trade disruptions if agricultural exports do 
not increase soon.  
b. Could the United States confi rm the possibility of an additional trade aid package for 
U.S. farmers in 2020?  
c. Could the United States elaborate as to how an additional aid package would be distributed 
geographically and among commodity sectors? H.R. 2157, the Additional Supplemental 
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019, was signed into law by President Trump, 
requiring a change to the first round of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) assistance 
provided in 2018. Producers previously deemed ineligible for MFP in 2018 because th ey 
had an average adjusted gross income (AGI) level higher than $900,000 limit may now 
be eligible for 2018 MFP benefits.  
d. Could the United States indicate the amount of these retroactive payments to previously 
ineligible producers now eligible for MFP pay ments in 2018?  
e. Could the United States indicate under which notification year will these retroactive 
payments will be notified?  
1.71.3   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  
How are the trade assistance programmes for agricultural producers and exporters affect ed by 
disputes with China being implemented, given that the USDA (United States Department of 
Agriculture) has repeatedly announced increases in the aid and assistance budgets for these 
producers?  
It is important to understand what amounts have been alloc ated, to which products, and for which 
specific activities, and, in particular, how this support is consistent with multilateral commitments.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  1.71.4   Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93086)  
According to recent news, the United States is increasing the aid package for its farmers, which was 
created to mitigate the effects of tariffs on certain products for 2018 and 2019. In light of the above, 
we request the United States to provide informatio n on:  
 
a. the total amount of subsidies granted to producers as part of these compensation 
measures;  
b. the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries;  
c. the main products for which the support is granted;  
d. the manner in which the United States will notify these su bsidies in the DS:1 notification, 
and when the notification for 2018 will be issued.  
e. Whether this support is the last round of payments or whether funds have been allocated 
for future payments, given that the purpose of the support is to mitigate the effe cts of 
specific circumstances; and 6. the producer states that benefited most from the payments.  
1.71.5   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93087)  
New Zealand refers to its question at the October Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 92082). 
The US advised at the t ime that the data was not yet available to answer New Zealand's question. 
As such, New Zealand again asks:  
  
a. How many producers have signed up for USDA Market Facilitation Program  (MFP) 
payments so far, i.e. since 29 July 2019?  
MFP payments are to be mad e in up to three tranches, with the first payments starting in 
mid-late August. As a result of the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster 
Relief Act of 2019, producers previously ineligible for MFP in 2018 may now be eligible for 
2018 MFP bene fits.  
b. Are these benefits funded out of the USD 12 billion (originally applied in 2018/19)?  
c. Can the US confirm how many producers have signed up for these retrospective payments 
from the 2018 MFP, during the parallel signup period (29 July to 6 December 2 019)?  
In February 2020, the USDA released a press statement confirming that the third and final 
tranche of payments were being made to farmers.  
d. Can the US confirm that the third tranche of payments are included in the overall 
USD 14.5 billion authorised u nder the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act 
for use in direct support for producers?  
This statement appears to be at odds with an announcement from President Trump stating 
"if our formally targeted farmers need additional aid until such time a s the trade deals 
with China, Mexico Canada, and others fully kick in, that aid will be provided by the federal 
Government…"  
e. Can the US confirm that the third tranche of payments announced by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, is the final paymen t in the 2019/20 package of direct support 
to farmers?  
f. Can the US advise the total amount of funding required for ongoing direct payments to 
farmers impacted by trade deals that are yet to be implemented? And confirm when this 
additional package of suppor t will be notified to the WTO?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 48 - 
 
  1.72  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.72.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  
As part of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, Secretary Perdue  announced on 17 April that 
USDA is exercising authority under the Families Fi rst Coronavirus Response Act to purchase and 
distribute agricultural products to those in need. Through this program, USDA 's Agricultural 
Marketing Service  (AMS) is partnering with national, regional and local suppliers to purchase up to 
USD 3 billion in f resh produce, dairy and meat products. The program will allow the purchase of 
USD 461 million in fresh fruits and vegetables, USD 317 million in dairy products, USD 258 million 
in meat products and USD 175 million in a combination box of fresh produce, dai ry or meat products. 
Suppliers will package these products totalling USD 1.2 billion into family -sized boxes, then transport 
them to food banks, community and faith -based organizations, and other non -profits serving 
Americans in need from 15 May through 30 June 2020.  
 
On 4 June 2020, some U.S. news outlet reported that the USDA was paying as much as twice the 
average retail price for milk purchases through the food box program. 
https://www.thebullvine.com/news/to -buy-wholesale -milk-for-its-food-boxes -usda-is-paying -well-
above -retail-prices/   
  
 
a. Could the U.S. confirm whether USDA is buying commodities at prices higher than the 
average market pr ice? 
b. Will the U.S. release the average price paid for commodities purchased through the food 
box program or the average per -unit prices indicated in the food box contracts awarded?  
1.72.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  
On 12 May 2020, the United States anno unced the USD 19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), which will provide USD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers. In the 
CFAP Cost -Benefit Analysis released on May 14, 2020, the USDA indicated that approximately 
USD 637 million is available to producers of commodities identified through the Notice of Funding 
Availability released on 22 May 2020.  
a. Could the U.S. confirm if the amount of USD 637 million being considered for other 
commodities is included in the original C FAP announcement? Is the amount of USD 637 
still the amount being considered?  
b. Since multiple commodity groups in the U.S. have asked for additional support through 
the CFAP or other programs, is the U.S. considering additional direct payments for the 
U.S. agriculture sector? If so, to what commodity groups?  
c. Under the CFAP, what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor the funds flowing out 
through the USDA and the CCC, keeping in mind that producer self -certification of the 
farm data is needed to calcul ate losses?   
d. How is USDA addressing the possibility that this may create an incentive to over -report 
losses?  
1.72.3   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93232)  
The US announced the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a 19 billion dollars program 
that provides fin ancial supports to those affected by the COVID -19 pandemic, including farmers and 
ranchers. While the title of this new program is different from the trade mitigation programs of  2018 
and 2019, the structure of the programs appear s to be quite similar, whi ch all cover non -specialty 
crops, animal products, specialty crops and so on. The CFAP uses the fund of the Coronavirus Aid, 
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES ACT), a temporary and new emergency appropriation.  
 
The payment rates are calculated base d on price declines and payments are coupled to the 
production or inventory of each agricultural product.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 49 - 
 
   
According to statistics released by the USDA, a total of 365,262 applicants have received about 
5.36 billion dollars as of 9 July. Cattle, milk, cor n, hogs, soybeans, upland cotton and wheat are 
among the commodities that received most supports.  
 
a. Could the US share with Members its evaluation on the impact of CFAP on the international 
agricultural market?  
b. Is there any linkage between the CFAP and the Trade Mitigation Programs of 2018 
and 2019? If not, will the US provide any new agricultural trade aid package in 2020?  
c. How does the US intend to notify CFAP, especially the direct payment program? How could 
the US ensure its compliance with the WTO rules ? 
1.72.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  
The United States recently decided to roll out a plan to promise the purchase of USD 3 billion worth 
of dairy, meat and fruits and vegetable produce from farmers under the "Farmers to Family Food 
Box" scheme, in order to help farmers during the Corona virus pandemic as part of the USD 19 billion 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. The products procured would be used to provide pre -
approved boxes of fresh produce, dairy and meat to food banks and other non -profit organi zations, 
as a part of the Agricultural Marketing Services.  
(Source:  https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/usda -purchase -3-billion -agricultural -commodities -
issuesolicitations -interested ).  
 
The United States announced that it had already completed the first round of purchases at 
USD 1.2 billion on 30 June 2020, and that it plans to spend USD 1.47 billion in the second round of 
purchases through July and August 2020.  
(Source : https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box)  
 
In this context, India requests the United States to provide the following information:  
 
a. Details regarding the actual procurement of fresh produce, dairy and meat products, as 
well as the actual expenditure on the procurement of each of these commodities.  
b. Details regarding the manner in which such procurement is being made, along with the 
procurement prices.  
c. How is this scheme different in operation from the general scheme under the Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) distribution programmes, such as the emergency food assistance 
programme? Also, please specify the exclusion criteria, if any, unde r both these schemes.  
d. How does the United States plan to notify this measure under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.72.5   Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  
With regard to the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP):  
  
Can the United States provide a breakdown  of the following:  
  
a. Payments made under the CARES Act  to compensate for losses due to the disappearance 
of normal marketing channels:  
• Amount per product ; 
• Number of producers that have benefitted ; 
• Main states that have benefitted . 
b. Payments made by the CCC to compensate for losses due to market disruptions:  
• Amount per product ; 
• Number of producers that have benefitted ; G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 50 - 
 
  • Main states that have benefitted . 
c. With regard to payments made by the CCC, are market disruptions understood to be price 
declines, or are ther e other types?  
d. With regard to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program,  what criteria were used to 
choose which producers' products should be purchased and distributed under the 
Program?  
e. With regard to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, USD 3 billion has been 
budgeted, but there is talk of significant delays in implementation.  
i. What is the amount currently spent by the USDA on this Program?  
ii. Is the goal of distributing the USD 3 billion expected to be met on time? If not, will the 
surplus be re -appropriated by Congress or can the USDA use it for other payments to 
producers?  
1.72.6   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240)  
On 17  April, the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, announced that the Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program  (CFAP) had been set up. T his is a programme designed to provide critical 
assistance to US farmers, totalling USD  19 billion. It was indicated that the CFAP would provide 
USD 16 billion indirect aid, based on losses in the marketing year 2020 caused by COVID -19, and 
USD 3 billion f or the purchase of food as food aid. Furthermore, the USDA will provide additional 
funds for the purchase and distribution of food as food aid. The Republic of Paraguay would like to 
have greater clarity on this Program and would thus like to ask the Unite d States for:  
 
a. Confirmation of whether this type of direct aid can be considered as market price 
support  (MPS);  
b. Eligibility criteria to receive such aid;  
c. Products covered by this Program;  
d. If it is foreseen to pursue the Program beyond the 2020 marketin g year;  
e. When the corresponding DS:1 notification is expected to be submitted and if the possibility 
of submitting a partial notification is being considered.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/55)  
AG-IMS ID 93088: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Brazil's implementation of a  750,000 metric tonne s tariff rate quota for wheat 
with a zero in -quota duty.   
  
Can Brazil advise t he current fill rate of the quota, and whether this information is publicly available 
for interested traders?  
 
2.1.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/247)  
AG-IMS ID 93089: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes Japan's submission of a MA:1 notification regarding the opening of a number 
of TRQs. Can Japan confirm:  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 51 - 
 
  a. The policy rationale for the implementation of each of the TRQs;  
b. The date that each TRQ was first opened?  
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/56)  
AG-IMS ID 93020: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
Brazil indicates in the footnote that imports of common wheat reached 6,817,138 metric tonnes 
in 2018.  
a. At what duty rates did these imports take place?  
b. What were the origins of these imports?  
2.2.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/137)  
AG-IMS ID 93306: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks Canada for submitting its market access (M A:2) notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/137)  for marketing year 2017/18, quota year 2017/18, and calendar year 2018.  
 
It appears there is an error in reporting on the Milk and Dairy Products: Cheese tariff quota. In 
table MA:2, the access quantity is reported as 20, 411.866 tonnes, but that is incorrect, the correct 
access quantity is 20,411,866 tonnes. The in -quota imports reported for this tariff quota are 
20,146  tonnes, and the fill rate is reported as 98.7 %. If the in -quota quantity imported were actually 
20,146 t onnes, then the fill rate was very low.  Please clarify the correct figures for Milk and Dairy 
Products: Cheese tariff quota in Table MA: 2.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93304: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks Canada for submi tting its market access (MA:2) notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/137)  for marketing year 2017/18, quota year 2017/18, and calendar year 2018.  The 
United States would like to note its concern regarding the consistently low fill rates for several of 
Canada 's tariff -rate quotas (TRQ), which continue in the most recent notification.  In particular, 
concentrated/condensed milk/cream, yogurt, and powdered buttermilk, for which the fill rate of each 
product has remained below 65% for at least the past four years.  In additio n, the fill rates for yogurt 
and powdered buttermilk decreased from 2017 to 2018; in the case of powdered buttermilk, the 
decrease in fill rate was quite significant. The United States notes Canada 's response to NZ question 
AGIMS ID 91017 on tariff rate qu ota administration, including for dairy products. In response to that 
question, Canada stated, "In May 2019, Global Affairs Canada launched a comprehensive review of 
TRQ administration and allocation of supply -managed tariff rate quotas. " and "Consultation  results 
will inform recommendations for longer -term allocation and administration policies. " 
a. Phase II of Canada 's comprehensive review of TRQ administration was halted on 
1 May 2020.When will Canada 's review recommence?  
b. Based on the information gained fro m Canada 's comprehensive review of 
TRQ administration so far, does Canada have any plans to revise its policies for 
administration of dairy tariff -rate quotas?  
2.2.3   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93307: Question by United States of America - Transparency issue s 
Chile notes that importers filled 0% of its Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) CHLQ001 in the 2019 calendar 
year (G/AG/N/CHL/64) but does not list the fill rate for 2018 in its submission.   
 
Was the TRQ opened in 2018 and, if so, what was the fill rate?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 52 - 
 
  2.2.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  
AG-IMS ID 93090: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks China for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/CHN/50). Australia 
notes a number of tariff quotas had a fill rate of less than 65% (wheat: 32.2%, corn : 39.3%, 
rice 57.8%).  
a. Can China explain if it is considering changes to the administration of the TRQs for wheat, 
corn and rice to improve the TRQ fill rates?  
b. If so, can China please provide details of the possible changes, including the timelines for 
such changes?  
AG-IMS ID 93091: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
China 's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to calendar year 2018, demonstrates that the fill -rate for 
tariff-rate quota CHNQ002 ("corn") decreased during the past years, coming from 72 % in 2012 
(G/AG/N/CHN/26) to 39,3% in 2018.  
  
a. Could China provide data on market circumstances that could explain such reduction of 
the volume of imports under TRQ CHNQ002?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. What are the procedures and criteria f or granting import licenses for corn?  
d. What is the share of state -owned enterprises in the total of Chinese corn imports?  
AG-IMS ID 93092: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
TRQs for wheat (CHNQ001), corn (CHNQ002) and rice (CHNQ003, CHNQ00 4) are filled by less 
than 60%. Share of state -trading enterprises (STEs) in TRQ for wheat which has the lowest fill -in 
rate (32,2%) is 90%; share of STEs in TRQ for corn (fill -in rate : 39,3%) is 60%; share of STEs 
in TRQ for rice (fill -in rate : 57,8%) is 40%. During the period from 2013 to 2018 in 2014, 2015 
and 2018 fill -in rates of TRQ for wheat were lower than 36%. In comparison with fill -in rate in 2017, 
in 2018 fill -in rate of wheat TRQ decreased by more than 10%. Since 2015 to 2018 fill -in rate of  TRQ 
for corn declined from 65% to 39%. In 2018 in comparison with the data of 2017 fill -in rate of TRQ 
for rice declined from 75,7% to 57,8%.  
  
a. Could China please provide explanations for instantly low fill -in rate of TRQ for wheat and 
declines in fill -in rates of TRQs for wheat, corn and rice?  
b. Could China please explain direct correlation between the low fill -in rate and the share of 
state trading enterprises in imports under TRQs?  
2.2.5   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/57)  
AG-IMS ID 93094: Question by Brazil - Transp arency issues  
a. Could the European Union provide data on the "apportionment" of imports under the TRQs 
listed in document G/AG/N/EU/57 between the EU -27 and the United Kingdom during 
marketing year  2018/2019?  
b. Does the field "in -quota imports during period" indicate all imports of goods under the 
tariff lines included in the TRQs?  
c. Why were some of the EU TRQs not included in the notification? Specifically, would the 
European Union have data on in -quota imports for EECQ026 and EECQ028?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 53 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93093: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting its MA:2 for marketing year 2018/2019 (G/AG/N/EU/57). 
Australia notes a number of tariff quotas did not record any fill (0%) or less than 65% fill rate.  
a. Can the EU explain the reasons for the significant underfill of some of its tariff quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can the EU explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or r estrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Did the EU consider using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93095: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand welcomes the European Union's notification concerning i mports under tariff rate quotas 
during the marketing year 2018/2019. New Zealand notes that a significant number of the 
TRQ quotas have very low fill rates, particularly in regard to  dairy products.  
 
Could the EU please provide an explanation of the circu mstance such as market conditions or other 
factors which lead to the low fill rates of these quotas. Additionally, has the EU considered removing 
in quota tariffs?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93061: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks t he European Union for the submission of the notification contained 
in document G/AG/N/EU/57 concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) during the 
marketing year 2018/2019. It notes with concern that several tariff quotas have very low tariff fill 
rates.  
 
In this regard, Paraguay requests the European Union to provide further information on:  
 
a. The reasons for the under -fill of the following tariff quotas:  
• EECQ011: tariff fill rate of 1.6% ; 
• ECCQ015: tariff fill rate of 2.4% ; 
• ECCQ017: tariff fill ra te of 2.2% ; 
• ECCQ018: tariff fill rate of 3.9% ; 
• ECCQ022: tariff fill rate of 50.6% ; 
• ECCQ022: tariff fill rate of 0% ; 
• ECCQ066: tariff fill rate of 1.6% ; 
• ECCQ089: tariff fill rate of 27.3% ; 
• ECCQ091: tariff fill rate of 31% . 
b. It also wishes to know whether the European Union is taking appropriate steps to ensure 
the effective utilization of these quotas.  
AG-IMS ID 93237: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay is submitting this question following the EU's reply to 
question  AG-IMS 93061.  
 
In this respect, we wish to point out that the question does not refer to the EU's policy regarding 
the administration of quotas in general, as in the question posed within the TPR context, but to a 
specific notification subject to this rev iew process in which quotas of interest have been identified.  
  
Furthermore, by the date of the EU's reply to this question from Paraguay, i.e. 24  March  2020, and 
by the date of the submission of this follow -up question, Paraguay had still not received the  EU's 
replies to the questions submitted to it as part of its TPR process. It should be noted that these 
replies were not circulated to the Membership until May and  are currently being examined by our 
authorities. We therefore request once again that the E U provide further information on:  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 54 - 
 
  a. The reasons for the low fill rate in respect of the following quotas: EECQ011 (1.6%), 
EECQ015 (2.4%), EECQ017 (2.2%), EECQ018 (3.9%), EECQ066 (1.6%), 
EECQ089  (27.3%) and EECQ091 (31.2%);  
b. Whether the EU is taking the nece ssary steps to ensure the effective utilization of these 
quotas and whether it could provide examples of the steps it is taking.  
AG-IMS ID 93096: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation thanks the European Union for its MA:2 notification concerning import 
under  TRQs. The Russian Federation noticed that 15 of 60 TRQs under which volumes were imported 
during 2018 -2019 marketing year (EECQ001, EECQ002, EECQ003, EECQ013, EECQ014, EECQ019, 
EECQ021, EECQ023, EECQ027, EECQ030, E ECQ035, EECQ036, EECQ037, EECQ097, EECQ111) had 
zero or almost zero fill -in rate.  
 
Could European Union provide the reasons for the absence of import under mentioned TRQs?  
 
2.2.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 93204: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Japan for the submission of its MA:2 for 2018. Australia notes that Japan notified a 
fill rate of less than 65% for nine of its quotas.  
  
a.     Can Japan explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b.     For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS 
measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c.     Has Japan considered usi ng the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
2.2.7   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  
AG-IMS ID 93205: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Kazakhstan for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Kazakhstan 
notified a fill rate of less than 65 % for two of its three quotas.  
 
a. Can Kazakhstan explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrict ive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Kazakhstan considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93189: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Could Kazakhstan explain the reason for the low fill rate of the TRQ for fresh, chilled and frozen 
beef?  
2.2.8   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72, G/AG/N/KOR/73)  
AG-IMS ID 93097: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Years 2016, 2017  
and 2018 (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72 and G/AG/N/KOR/73). Australia notes a number of 
tariff quotas had a fill rate of less than 65% (in 2018 potatoes:  49.1%, onions:  0%, citrus  
fruits: 36.7%).  
a. Can the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the signi ficant underfill of some of its 
tariff quotas?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 55 - 
 
  b. For each underfilled quota, can the Republic of Korea explain whether the under -fill was 
due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?    
c. Did the Republi c of Korea consider using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the 
Bali Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93098: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Korea 's most recent MA:2 notifications indicated a steep decline on the fill rate of TRQs 
KORQ020  (onions) and K ORQ021 (garlic), from 99.5% and 100% respectively during calendar year 
2016 to  0% during calendar year 2018.  
a. Could the Republic of Korea provide data on market circumstances that could explain such 
a reduction of the volume of imports under TRQs KORQ020 a nd KORQ021?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
AG-IMS ID 93099: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
During three consecutive years (2016 -2018) several TRQs were zero filled or about to be zero -filled: 
KORQ001 (cattle and buffalo: pure bred breeding animals) ; KORQ002 (swine: pure bred breeding) ; 
KORQ012 (bird's eggs ; not in shell/not dried) ; KORQ014 (powder of bones) ; KORQ015 (silkworm 
eggs) ; KORQ016 (fruit trees) ; KORQ017 (mulberry trees) ; KORQ018 (seed potatoes) ; 
KORQ026  (sweet potatoes) ; KORQ044 (foxtail millet) ; KORQ055 (ginseng) ; KORQ063 (oil -cake and 
other residues of sesamum seeds) ; KORQ066 (silk -worm cocoons suitable for reeling).  
  
Could the Republic of Korea please indicate the reasons for zero fill -in rate of men tioned TRQs?  
2.2.9   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/48,  G/AG/N/MAR/48/Corr.1  G/AG/N/MAR/49, 
G/AG/N/MAR/50, G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52)  
AG-IMS ID 93100: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation thanks Morocco for its MA:2 notifications (G/AG/N/MAR/48, 
G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52). The Russian Federation 
noticed that during the period from 2013 to 2017 TRQ for sheep meat (MARQ002) were zero fil led 
or about to be zero filled. Could Morocco please indicate the reasons for such low fill -in rates?  
AG-IMS ID 93101: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Morocco's latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calendar years 2013 to 2017, indicate that 
tariff-rate quota MARQ003 ("white meat") has had a very low fill rate, ranging from 6.4% in 2017 
to 30% in 2013.  
  
a. Could Morocco provide data on market circumstances that could explain such reduced 
volume of imports under TRQ MARQ003?  
b. Are imports taking pl ace outside the TRQ?  
c. Has there been any change in the administration method or the establishment of new non -
tariff requirements for the imports of products under TRQ MARQ003?  
d. Which economic operators are entitled to apply for an import license for white meat?  
e. Is Morocco considering updating its TRQ administration method in order to allow economic 
operators to seize the commercial opportunities deriving from TRQ MARQ003?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 56 - 
 
  2.2.10   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93206: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Nicaragua for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Nicaragua 
recorded a fill rate of 55.8% for milk.  
 
a. Can Nicaragua explain the reasons for that underfilled quota?  
b. Was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS mea sures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Nicaragua considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
2.2.11   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/110)  
AG-IMS ID 93207: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Norway for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Norway 
recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for ten of those TRQs opened.  
 
a. Can Norway explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled q uota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Norway considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93181: Question by New Zealan d - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand welcomes Norway 's notification (G/AG/N/NOR/104) concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2019.  
 
New Zealand notes that a number of a number of tariff rate quotas are consistently under filled 
particularly NORQ229 – butter, butter and other fats and oils derived from milk.  
 
a. Can Norway please advise whether the under fill is due to market circumstances or other 
causes?  
b. For those quotas that are significantly and consistently under filled,  can Norway explain 
what steps it is taking to ensure that quotas are not under filled and any consideration it 
has given to moving to a tariff only regime?  
2.2.12   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/55)  
AG-IMS ID 93208: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Panama for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Panama 
recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for ten of those TRQs opened.  
 
a. Can Panama explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the und erfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Panama considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 57 - 
 
  2.2.13   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  
AG-IMS ID 93209: Ques tion by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Russia n Federation  for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that 
the Russia n Federation  recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for all quotas.  
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain the reasons for the underfill of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has the Russia n Federation  considered using the TRQ u nderfill mechanism as outlined by 
the Bali Decision?  
2.2.14   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/98)  
AG-IMS ID 93062: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Switzerland for the submission of the notification contained in 
document G/AG/N/CHE/9 8 concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for the calendar 
year 2018. Paraguay requests Switzerland to provide further information on the reasons for the 
under -fill of tariff quotas CHEQ026 (tariff fill rate of 58.5%) and CHEQ028 (tariff fill r ate of 45.7%).  
 
2.2.15   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/191)  
AG-IMS ID 93214: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Chinese Taipei for the submission of its MA:2 for reporting period 2019.  Australia 
notes that Chinese Taipei recorded no or little quota fill for a number of products, including bananas 
and mangoes.  
a. Can Chinese Taipei explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the produ ct, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Chinese Taipei considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
2.2.16   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/35)  
AG-IMS ID 93102: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Ukraine's latest MA:2 notifi cation, pertaining to calendar year 2019, indicate that there have not 
been any imports under TRQ UKRQ001 ("raw cane sugar", tariff line 1701.11), even though there is 
no indication on the notification that it was not opened.  
a. Could Ukraine provide data on  market circumstances that could explain the absence of 
applications under TRQ UKRQ001?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. What are the criteria for the State Reserve Agency of Ukraine and the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food of Ukraine to app rove the issue of a license (ref. G/AG/N/UKR/34)?  
AG-IMS ID 93103: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Ukraine bound Raw Cane Sugar (HS  170111) as TRQ product, which import quota is 
267,800  tonnes/year. However, in 2019, the fill rate of in -quota quan tity is 0%. Could Ukraine please 
elaborate the reason?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.2.17   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 93104: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealand refers to Venezuela's response to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 75033). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela advised that 
it would submit its 2013 MA:2 notification for the 16 remaining products within a few days of the 
meeting. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not yet submitted 
its MA:2 notification for the remaining 16 products for the 2013 year. Can the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela please confirm when  this notification will be submitted?  
 
2.2.18   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29)  
AG-IMS ID 93105: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
a. The Russian Federation took note that TRQ for cheese (VENQ010) in 2016 was fully 
filled (100%) whi le in 2017 fill -in rate of the same TRQ dropped to 0%. Could the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please indicate the reasons for such a significant decline?  
b. Several TRQs in 2016 -2017 were zero filled: VENQ020 (wheat), VENQ034 (palm nuts and 
kernels), VEN Q043 (other oils), VENQ046 (coconut oil), VENQ047 (other vegetable fats 
and oils). Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicate the reasons for the absence 
of imports under mentioned TRQs?  
c. Russian Federation noticed that in 2016 fill -in rate of TRQ  for animal or vegetable fats and 
oils was 21,8% while in 2017 fill -in rate decreased to zero percent. Could Venezuela please 
provide the reason for this decline?  
2.2.19   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 93106: Question by  New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealand refers to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 75032). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela advised that it intended to 
bring its notifications up to date as soon as possible. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela has still not submitted MA:2 notifications for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Additionally, 
New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not submitted MA:2 notific ations 
for 2014 and 2015.  
Can the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please advise when it expects to provide these 
notifications?  
2.2.20   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10, G/AG/N/VNM/11, 
G/AG/N/VNM/12)  
AG-IMS ID 93210: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fi ll 
Australia thanks Viet  Nam for the submission of its MA:2s  for reporting years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 
2019.  Australia notes that Viet  Nam recorded a fill rate of 0 for eggs in each period, and a downward 
trend in quota fill for sugar.  
a. Can Viet Nam provide further information on the 0% fill rate for eggs, including whether 
it was due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Can Viet  Nam provide information on the downward trend on in -quota sugar impor ts? G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/251)  
AG-IMS ID 93211: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Japan for the submission of its MA:5 for 2019.  Australia notes that Japan invoked 
price based or volume based SSG action during the period for all of the products listed.  
 
a. Can Japan provide information on the volume of imports at which the SSG action was 
invoked for each of the products?  
b. Can Japan provide domestic consumption statistics for the same reporting period for each 
of the products?  
c. For the volume -based SSG on butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy 
spreads, can Japan confirm the SSG was in -place for the entire reporting period? 
(the MA:5 is for the period 01/04/2019 -31/03/2020, with the SSG being in place 
from 01/01/2019 to 31/03/2020).  
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  
AG-IMS ID 93022: Question by United States of America - Link with TRQ commitments  
On 27 September 2019, Chinese Taipei notified a volume -based special safeguard for fresh milk.   
  
Chinese Taipei's imports of fresh milk have increased significantly over the years and annually fill 
the tariff -rate quota (TRQ) within only a matter of months suggesting the growth in domestic 
production remains unable  to meet the demand.  Has Chinese Taipei considered reviewing its 
TRQ administration and SSG policies?  
 
2.3.3   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/183)  
AG-IMS ID 93023: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
On 4 November 2019, Chinese Taipei notified a volume -based special safeguard on chicken legs and 
wings.  It is noted that during the relevant preceding years period (2015 -17), both imports and 
domestic consumption declined.  However, the percent decrease in imports was nearly double the 
percent decrea se in consumption.   
  
a. Please describe what factors contributed to the decrease in domestic consumption and 
also any factors contributing to changes in domestic production during this period.  
b. Has Chinese Taipei considered reviewing its SSG policies to ensur e its consumers have 
access to sufficient quantities of affordable chicken legs and wings?  
2.3.4   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/185, G/AG/N/TPKM/187)  
AG-IMS ID 93107: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
According to Chinese Taipei's latest MA:3 notifications , notifying that the Trigger Volume of Garlic 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/185) and Other Milk Products (G/AG/N/TPKM/187) are 20,436.3  tonnes and 
13,564.8  tonnes respectively. In this regard, Thailand would like to seek more clarifications as 
follows : 
a. In MA:3 notification s of Garlic and Other Milk Products, Chinese Taipei used 125% as base 
trigger level to calculate trigger volumes. However, Article 5.4 and footnote 3 of AoA allows 
using 125% (Article 5.4 (a)) if the domestic consumption were not taken into account. 
Thaila nd views that Chinese Taipei already has domestic consumption on both 
notifications. Could Chinese Taipei clarify why the domestic consumption is not taken into 
account?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 60 - 
 
  b. Article 5.7 stated that Members shall give notice in advance as may be practicable and  in 
any 10 day of implementation. Thailand would like to seek clarification for the delay of 
submissions.  
2.3.5   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  
AG-IMS ID 93190: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU welcomes the US finally notifying i ts SSG use for 2016. The US had recourse to the SSG on 
no less than 55 tariff lines. When does the US intend to notify its outstanding notifications 
subsequent years?   
AG-IMS ID 93194: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
a. New Zealand notes that special safeguards have been applied to a small volume of many 
tariff line products, including (but not limited to) the following.  
− 04015025 : 34 kgs; 
− 04021050 : 36 kgs; 
− 04051020 : 4 kgs; 
− 04062033 : 8 kgs; 
− 04062039 : 4 kgs. 
Can the US:   
i. explain why price -based special safeguard measures were invoked in these instances, 
for such small quantities of products?  
ii. Advise when corresponding MA:4 notifications will be submitted, identifying the trigger 
price applicable in each case?  
iii. Advise how much additional duty wa s payable on these 5 tariff lines?  
b. New Zealand notes that the US imported 47,140  tonnes of boneless frozen beef 
(HS 0202.30.80) in 2015 and applied a price -based safeguard on 72  kgs of product. 
However, in 2016 the US only imported 15,318 tonnes (68% less product than the 
previous year) and yet applied a price -based safeguard on 11,670  kgs of product.  
Can the US:  
i. provide more detail on the trigger price and additional duty payable for HS  0202.30.80 
in calendar year 2016 and in calendar year 2015?  
ii. Confirm if an MA:4 notification will be submitted for HS 0202.30.80, and when?  
2.4  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  
AG-IMS ID 93109: Question by India - General services: training services  
India requests Argentina to r espond to Canada's question AG -IMS ID 92052 seeking the reasons for 
increase in the amount notified under "Special Fund for Tobacco" from 1992  Pesos 240,703,683  to 
1992 Pesos 379,331,941 in the Green Box, that is, approximately 58% rise, as per notification 
documents G/AG/N/ARG/44 and G/AG/N/ARG/45 for years 2015 -16 to 2016 -17. 
AG-IMS ID 93108: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada in its question AG -IMS ID 92054 sought information about Argentina's "Belgrano Agricultural 
Stimulus Plan" which remains unanswered. In this context, India requests Argentina to answer the 
following:  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 61 - 
 
  In its 2016/2017 domestic support DS:1 notification document G/AG/N/ARG/45, Argentina notified 
the "Belgrano Agricultural Stimulus Pl an" for the first time under product -specific domestic support 
for soya.  
a. What type of interventions are covered under the plan?  
b. What is the eligibility criteria of getting support?  
c. Is this plan only restricted to soya or are there any other products covere d? 
2.4.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  
AG-IMS ID 93110: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Australian Government has in place a programme called the Fuel Tax Credits  (FTC) that is 
available to its agriculture sector. However,  it app ears that Australia has not notified this support in 
its most recent domestic support notification (G/AG/N/AUS/129) or any previous domestic support 
notification.  
  
a. Could Australia please explain why it has not notified this programme in its domestic 
support notification?  
b. Could Australia explain why this support provided to its agricultural producers does not 
constitute revenue forgone, an input subsidy or any another type of domestic support that 
benefits Australian agricultural producers?  
2.4.3   Bolivia, Plur inational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 - G/AG/N/BOL/26)  
AG-IMS ID 93111: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Plurinational State of Bolivia for its DS:1 notifications for the Calendar 
Years  2006-2018, in which  it confirms no domestic support was provided for any of these years.  
 
Australia thanks the Plurinational State of Bolivia for updating its compliance with its WTO Domestic 
Support notification obligations.  
  
On Bolivia's Ministry of Rural Development and  Land website - https://www.ruralytierras.gob.bo/ , 
the financial accounts report for calendar year 2018 indicates that around 612,827,012 Bolivianos 
(approximately USD  89 million), was expended through Government investments or transfers. There 
has also been media reporting that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is providing agricultural subsidies 
to diversify production away from quinoa.  
 
Can the Plurinational State of Bolivia explain why the expenditure detailed and reported in its official 
Government websites has not been included in Bolivia's Domestic Support notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 93025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In its notifications for 2006 -2018, the Plurinational State of Bolivia reports that no domestic support 
measures exist. For each of the following programme, please confirm whether any or all of these 
measures were in place between 2006 -2018, their current status, and whether/when the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia will notify the measures.   
  
a. CRIAR: Provides technical assistance and vouchers that partially cover the cost of 
agricultural technology such as irrigation, greenhouses, or storage units, among others, 
targeting small landholder farmers.  
b. Agricultural Innovation and Services Project: T he project innovation in agriculture and 
forestry and research, technical assistance, and seed certification activities, benefitting 
small -scale commercial seed producers.  
c. Catastrophe Insurance Subsidy Program: The insurance programme covers ten 
commoditie s and compensates farmers for losses.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 62 - 
 
  2.4.4   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93029: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:6 & DS:7  
  
Brazil stated in its response to AG -IMS ID 87014 that "there is  no new forecast for new 
PEP/PEPRO  auctions for the 2017/2018 crop" outside of rice and maize, and in AG -IMS ID 91165 
stated "market conditions do not indicate the need to use these mechanisms for any crop" in 2019.  
  
Are any PEP or PEPRO auctions expected for agricultural commodities in 2 020?  
AG-IMS ID 93112: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia thanks Brazil for the submission of its DS:1 for Agricultural year 2017 -2018.  Australia is 
interested in the Program of acquisition of agricultural prod ucts from family farming, listed under 
Public Stockholding for food security purposes in Supporting Table DS:1.  
  
Can Brazil provide more information on this programme, including:  
a. Are the agricultural products purchased at market rates?  
b. How are the product s sold and/or distributed following their purchase and storage?  
AG-IMS ID 93028: Question by United States of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment / Development Programmes)  
Supporting Table DS:2  
  
Brazil's notified expenditures in ST/D S:2 decreased significantly between 2014/15 and 2017/18, 
mainly due to the reduction of input subsidy expenditures through the National Program to 
Strengthen Family Farming (PRONAF) program, and the 90 % drop in spending on investment credits 
since the last  notification in 2016/2017.  
  
Please explain the reason for the drop in  expenditures for each of the identified measures, 
i.e. PRONAF and investment credits.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93026: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resour ce-poor producers  
Debt rescheduling – Supporting table DS:2  
 
Brazil has indicated USD 28  million as input subsidy for debt rescheduling under PRONAF 
and PROCERA.  
a. Can Brazil explain how it sees debt rescheduling as fulfilling the criteria of being an input 
subsidy for low -income resource -poor producers?  
b. Can Brazil indicate the proportion of the outstanding loans benefitted from this 
rescheduling?   
AG-IMS ID 93027: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Debt rescheduling – Supporting tabl e DS:9  
 
Brazil indicates an amount of USD 957  million as debt rescheduling.  
 
a. What was the overall total debt that benefitted from this subsidy?  
b. What has been the average rescheduled programme interest rate during the reporting 
period?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 63 - 
 
  c. What has been the a verage subsidy rate (expressed as percentage points of interest per 
year) for the debt benefitting from this subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 93030: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9  
  
In ST/DS:9, Brazil has notified a line for production and marketing credit expenditures [described 
as an Implicit subsidy based on the difference between the interest rate of each of the following 
programmes and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest r ate for 
the overnight interbank loans collateralized by Government bonds): Constitutional Funds (FNO, FNE 
and FCO), Pronamp (Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer Support Program), and Rural Savings and 
Mandatory Resources at controlled interest rates] in eac h of the previous three years, with outlays 
totalling  more than USD 650 million each year. However, that line was not included in Brazil's 2018 
DS:1 notification.  
  
Please explain the reason for the exclusion of expenditures on non -product specific produc tion and 
marketing credits.  
 
2.4.5   Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93213: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The EU appreciates the effort Burkina Faso has made in submitting its Domestic Support notification 
for 2015 and 2017. The notifications indicate: Burkina Faso did not apply any domestic support 
measures in the calendar year 2017 ". 
 
Taking into account the importance of the cotton sector in the country and the efforts Burkina  Faso 
is making to improve the sector, the EU wonders whether these efforts are made without any 
Government support, whether Green Box, Article 6.2 subsidies or otherwise.  
 
a. Can Burkina Faso confirm that it does not provide any domestic support for the cotton 
sector?  
AG-IMS ID 93212: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Burkina Faso for the submission of DS:1s for 2015 and 2017 confirming that no 
domestic support was provided during these reporting periods. Australia notes FAO  reporting 
(http://www.fao.org/3/i3760e/i3760e.pdf ) indicates Burkina Faso began re -investing government 
funding in its agricultural sector following the 2007/08 food crisis.  This reportedly included i nput 
subsidies, price -setting mechanisms and irrigation infrastructure.   
a. Noting the DS:1 response for 2015 and 2017, can Burkina Faso confirm that no support 
covered by the Agreement on Agriculture was provided during these reporting periods, for 
example u nder Article 6.2?  
AG-IMS ID 93260: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Burkina Faso 's notification states that its Government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricultural sector.  However, it is the Uni ted States ' understanding that Burkina Faso has provided 
financial support to cotton companies to purchase and distribute fertilizer at subsidized rates for 
targeted commodities.  As a result, studies have shown that subsidized fertilizer is approximately 
one-quarter cheaper than those purchased at market prices.  It is also understood that seeds, 
pesticides, and equipment may also be subsidized.  The United States also understands the 
Government of Burkina Faso provides funding for agricultural  research.  
a. Please confirm whether Burkina Faso provided such input subsidies during the period 
covered by these notifications, CY 2015 and CY 2017.  
b. If so, what was the basis for not notifying these measures and will Burkina Faso be 
submitting a revised no tification?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 64 - 
 
  c. Please confirm no other domestic support was provided to the agricultural sector in 
CY 2015 or CY 2017, such as public funding for agricultural research.  
2.4.6   Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93288: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments f or relief from 
natural disasters  
In its 2018 notification, Cambodia introduced a new programme classified under paragraph  8 of the 
Annex 2 of the AoA described as "Expenditure on the provisions of agricultural inputs, equipment 
and pest and disease control  to agricultural producers for relief from natural disaster in accordance 
with Annex II: 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture ". 
 
a. Could Cambodia provide the name of the measure and general information as to how this 
measure works, who is eligible and what are the eligibility criteria to receive a payment 
under this measure?  
b. Could Cambodia explain how this measure complies with the specific criteria of 
paragraph  8 of the Annex 2 of the AoA?   
2.4.7   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 93031: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Cameroon indicates that no support is granted towards agricultural production. The notification 
indicates that support is provided under the environmental protection programme through the 
Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable Devel opment.  
a. Can Cameroon elaborate more in details of what types of programmes are implemented, 
and who are the beneficiaries, along with eligibility criteria.   
b. How much was spent  on these programmes in 2018?  
c. Would Cameroon consider including the amounts paid  out under such programmes in the 
supporting table DS:1 in the future?  
AG-IMS ID 93032: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Cameroon's notification states that its Government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricultural sector.  However, Cameroon's notification also states that its Government provides 
assistance to the agricultural sector through the Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and 
Sustainable Development's environmental protection progra mme.   
  
Please elaborate on what the assistance to the agricultural sector is with regards to environmental 
protection programme.  
 
2.4.8   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  
AG-IMS ID 93113: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
According to Ag riculture and Agri -Food Canada, Growing Forward 2 concluded in 2018. As Canada 
reports its domestic support with a significant time lag, can Canada confirm that this is the case, 
and that we can anticipate no further domestic support measures under "growin g forward 2" to be 
notified after 2018?  
AG-IMS ID 93035: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 65 - 
 
  "Note 2" to "Supporting Tables DS:5" indicates that "eligible production" of skim milk powder  equals 
total production (102,953 t onnes ) less product sales for further processing and animal feed under 
Special Classes 5a, b, and c (11,840 t onnes ) and 4m (69,964 t onnes ) less total exports 
(23.687  tonnes ), plus that portion of exports that had received  the support price (0 t onne).  
  
a. Is SMP produced in Ontario using components priced under Class  6, which was 
implemented in April 2016, also excluded from eligible production in the same manner as 
is done for SMP product sales under Special Classes 5 a, b,  and c and 4m?  
b. If so, how much SMP was produced in Ontario in 2016 under Class 6 and was excluded 
from eligible production?  
c. The United States notes that Canada continues to exclude butter and skim milk powder 
for further processing under Classes 4m (powde r) and 5 a, b, and c and for exports from 
eligible production. Following up on AG -IMS ID 83079, what measure specifically excludes 
butter and skim milk powder for further processing and exports from receiving the price?  
AG-IMS ID 93114: Question by New Ze aland - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In 2016, total product -specific AMS for beef increased from CAD  20.3 million to CAD 64.3 million – 
mainly as a result of CAD  37.6 million (increased from CAD  0.7 million in calendar year 2015) listed 
under "assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles".  
 
Can Canada confirm if this increase is the result of a one -off event, and what that event was? Or if 
Members can expect to see similar large increases in product -specific AMS in future notifications?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93033: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
  
Support was provided for several commodities under the measures "Provincial Programs", "Hog 
Industry Loan Loss Reserve Program (HILLRP)", "Ontario Marketin g and Vineyard Improvement 
program", and "Nova Scotia Vineyard Quality Enhancement" notified in column  5 "Other product 
specific support (with calculation details)", however, no calculation details are provided.  
  
Please provide calculation details for pa yments made under each of these programs so that Members 
may understand how the reported values were derived.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93115: Question by New Zealand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Spending under AgriInsurance increased from CAD  894 million in 2015, to CAD  1,038.3  million 
in 2016. The amount appears to represent the premiums cost -shared by Federal and Provincial 
Governments. Can Canada explain what caused the significant increase in premiums, and if we can 
expect similar increases in future notifications?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93034: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
  
Canada notified negative support under "Other product specific support (with calculation details)" 
for pork under the "Provincial Programs" measure without any associated fees/levies reported. This 
support was deducted from Total AMS.  
  
a. Please explain how  this measure is implemented, including the basis for notifying negative 
values of support in column 5.   
b. Please specify the province in question, and the nature and amount of each levy or fee on 
producers that forms the basis for the claim of negative dome stic support.   
c. Please also provide a copy of all legal instruments related to the programme.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 66 - 
 
  2.4.9   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/69)  
AG-IMS ID 93037: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The footnote in Colombia's DS:4 states "the calculation of value of production corresponds to the 
revised methodology from base year 2015 and Central Product Classification (CPC)" for cotton and 
rice. The VoP for cotton nearly doubled between 2015 and 2016.  
  
Please explain the difference betw een the previous and current methodology for calculating VoP, the 
basis for changing the methodology and what the 2016 VoP for cotton and rice would be when 
applying the 2015 methodology.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93038: Question by United States of America - Transparenc y issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States understands, from a Government of Colombia website, that in 2015 the 
Agricultural Bank of Colombia introduced an agricultural insurance programme for rice, cotton, corn, 
and potatoes with the goal of expand ing to additional products.  Further, the insurance programme 
is understood to be subsidized by the Colombian Government at a rate of 60 % - 80%. 
  
a. Please provide the measure as well as an explanation of how this measure is implemented.  
b. Please clarify whether the measure is notified in Colombia's most recent domestic support 
notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93036: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Colombia has notified "direct support for producers" for rice for the first time in 2016.  Please provide 
the measure and explain how this measure is implemented.  
2.4.10   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61)  
AG-IMS ID 93219: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:4, value of production for some products has not been 
provided.   
 
a. Can the European Union provide values of production for those products that were listed 
as part of th eir current total AMS, particularly for butter and skim milk powder?  
b. If the VoP is not available for those products, can the EU explain its decision to notify these 
products in its current total AMS?  
AG-IMS ID 93215: Question by Australia - General servic es: marketing and promotion 
services  
Australia thanks the European Union for the submission of its DS:1 for implementation year 2017.  
 
Australia notes that EU expenditure on marketing and promotion services increased by 
EUR 304.7  million Euros from the 201 6 implementation year.  
  
 
a. Can the EU provide further details on the program mes funded through this support?  
b. and details on the significant increase in funding?  
AG-IMS ID 93289: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provide d through investment aids  
In G/AG/N/EU/61 the European Union notified a total of EUR 6,240 million in domestic support under 
paragraph  11 structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids for the marking G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 67 - 
 
  year 2017 -2018. This represents an i ncrease of approximately EUR 2,380  million compared to the 
last notification covering marketing year 2016 -2017.  
 
Could the European Union provide additional information on the conditions that led to this significant 
increase in spending?   
AG-IMS ID 93216: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia notes that EU expenditure on Environmental Services increased by almost two billion Euros 
(EUR 1,939.2 million) from 2016 to 2017.  
a. Can the European Union pro vide a disaggregation of the specific programs funded under 
these Environmental Services?  
b. Can the European Union explain what led to the significant increase in reported funding 
under Environmental Services?  
c. Can the European Union explain what specific pro grammes "created conditions of fair 
competition " and how they do so?  
AG-IMS ID 93217: Question by Australia - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Australia notes that EU Blue Box payments include "Aid for bananas (Title III, Regulation 247/2006) " 
totalling 278.9 million Euros . 
a. Can the European Union provide further information on how these Blue Box payments 
align with and implement Title III, Regulation 247/2006? and  
b. Can the European Union provide disaggregated data on the programmes funded, including 
their location, through this "aid for bananas " measure?  
AG-IMS ID 93218: Question by Australia - Livestock payments made on a fixed number 
of head  
Australia notes that EU Blue Box payments include "Livestock payments made on a fixed number of 
head", includi ng almost 1,676.1 million on Beef, EUR 580.8 million on Sheep and Goat Meat, and 
EUR 921.2 million on Dairy and Milk Products.  
 
a. Can the European Union confirm that these payments are made on number of head of the 
relevant livestock? and  
b. Can the European Union provide disaggregated head count for each type of animal funded 
through this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 93261: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
The United States thanks the EU for  submitting its domestic support notification for marketing 
year 2017/2018 and seeks further information on measures in supporting table DS:6. In marketing 
year MY  2015/16 and MY  2016/17 the EU notified EUR 52.4 million in aid for sheep and 
EUR 10.1 millio n for sheep and goat meat, respectively.  For both years, the support was provided 
by Extraordinary support measures from Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/1853 providing for 
temporary exceptional aid to farmers in the livestock sector noting the EU 's response to 
AG-IMS ID 88078.  In MY 2017/18, notified outlays for sheep was EUR 50 million  
and the support was provided by National aid.  
a. lease describe the evolution of sheep and goat policy since 2015/16, including whether 
support for goats was only provide d in MY 2016/17.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 68 - 
 
  b. Please describe how the national aid for MY 2017/18 is implemented and the reason for 
increase in support in 2017/18 after the temporary exceptional aid measures were 
discontinued.  
AG-IMS ID 93262: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
In marketing year MY  2015/16 and MY 2016/17 the EU notified EUR 2.1 million in aid for Other 
Livestock (rabbit, reindeer and eggs).  For both years, the support was provided by Extraordinary 
support measures from Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/1853 providing for temporary 
exceptional aid to farmers in the livestock sector noting the EU 's response to AG -IMS ID 88078.  
In MY 2017/18, notified outlays for Other Livestock (livestock, rabbit, reindeer and eggs) was 
EUR 63.7 million and the support was provided by National aid.  
  
a. Please describe the evolution of the category of "Other Livestock " since 2015/16, including 
what livestock are included in MY 2017/18 support noting that the notified s upport lists 
livestock in addition to rabbit, reindeer, and eggs.  
b. Please describe how the national aid for MY 2017/18 is implemented and the reason for 
the significant (approximately 3,000 %) increase in support in 2017/18 after the temporary 
exceptional ai d measures were discontinued.  
2.4.11   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  
AG-IMS ID 93302: Question by Colombia and AG-IMS ID 93303: Question by Paraguay - 
Classification of measures  
In notifications G/AG/N/EU/61 (page 4) and G/AG/N/EU/55 (page 4), under t he category 
"Environmental programmes", the EU includes "support and protection of organic production by 
creating conditions of fair competition".  
 
In this regard:  
 
a. Which specific measures does "support and protection of organic production by creating 
conditions of fair competition" refer to exactly? Please indicate the regulations that reflect 
these measures.  
b. What is the basis for notifying such support as an "environmental programme" under 
Annex  2, paragraph 12, of the Agreement on Agricultur e? 
c. In the document " COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the 
document  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE 
COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No.  1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection 
products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No.  396/2005 on maximum residue levels 
of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final} " (available in English only), the Commission notes 
the following:  
Pesticides policy is not sufficiently consistent with EU climate policy. While the 
EU's climate policy aims to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, no such 
considerations are made when approving or not approving active substances. This 
relates most prominently to herbicides as their use may reduce the need for 
mechanical tillage. Tillage releases carbo n emissions both through the use of 
machinery and by releasing carbon stored in the soil.9 
In this respect, the Commission  recognises that organic farming may have an adverse 
impact in terms of carbon emissions, and that it may therefore not be suitable fo r 
 
9 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document  REPORT FROM THE 
COMMISSION TO THE EURO PEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 
on maximum residue levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}, page 87.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 69 - 
 
  protecting the environment. Why were measures that may not be suited to protecting 
the environment (organic farming) notified under the category "Environmental 
programmes" of Annex 2, paragraph 12, of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.4.12   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93117: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes that in its 2018 DS:1 notification, Georgia notified a new programme titled 
"Elaboration and Management of Environmental Protection and Agriculture Development Policy" 
under pa ragraph 2 (a) research, Annex 2.  
  
a. Could Georgia please advise when it expects to submit a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of activities that are eligible under this programme?  
2.4.13   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93118: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
Canada notes that in its 2016 DS:1 notification, Georgia no tified for the first time a programme titled 
"Agro Sector Support/Development" under paragraph 2 (g) Infrastructural services, Annex 2.  
  
a. Could Georgia please advise when it expects to submit a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate  on the types of infrastructural services that are eligible under this 
programme?  
2.4.14   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93264: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Emergency response following the 
eruption of the Fuego volcano " as a payment for relief from natural disasters.  
a. Please describe how the measure is implemented and how payment rates are determined.  
b. How does this measure comply wi th Annex 2 paragraph 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and when will Guatemala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  
AG-IMS ID 93265: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters  
In calendar year  2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Coffee Trust Fund " for the first time 
to assist in addressing rust fungus disease.  However, the United States understands the Coffee Trust 
Fund was created in 2001 and is administered by the Rural Development Ban k and supervised by 
the Ministry of Agriculture.  The United States further understands the fund provides for 
1) non-reimbursable funds for inputs and assistance to coffee production, 2) low interest loans for 
producers, and 3) public transfers of up to USD  100 million.  
a. Please confirm whether the Coffee Trust Fund was funded by the Government of 
Guatemala prior to 2018.  
b. Please provide further details on how the Coffee Trust Fund is implemented, including the 
types of support provided via the fund in calendar  year 2018.  
c. How does the Coffee Trust Fund comply with Annex 2 paragraph of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and when will Guatemala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 70 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93263: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala no longer notified agricultural input subsidies in Supporting 
Table  DS:2.  
 
Please confirm the measures notified in 2017 are no longer operational.  
2.4.15   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93228: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Through its latest DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/IND/18), dated 31 March 2020, India notified that it 
has exceeded the "de minimis " level for rice for the marketing year 2018 -2019. India also claimed 
that its public stockholding programs for food security purposes (covering rice and a number of other 
commodities) have been consistently reported in its Table DS:1 notifications since 19 95 and that its 
program is consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5  and 6 of Annex  2 
to the AoA. For these reasons, the breach of the "de minimis " limits for rice is covered by the peace 
clause set out in the Bali Ministerial  Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
(WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  
  
Brazil appreciates India 's efforts in complying with its transparency notification obligations and asks 
if India could provide comme nts on the following questions:  
  
a. How does India understand that it has complied with the additional transparency 
obligations provided for in the Bali Decision so that it can invoke the Peace Clause therein?  
b. Why the PSH program template provided for in the  Bali Decision was not submitted in 
previous notifications?  
c. When did rice public stockholding begin? What are the criteria and rules for the formation 
of rice stocks? In which regulation are they defined?  
d. How is the recently announced rise on the Minimum S upport Price for rice from 
INR 18,15  to 18,68 related to the PSH policy?  
e. When will information on other domestic support policies for rice be provided (footnote  3 
from DS: ST 5)?  
f. Does India intend to provide data related to PSH programs for wheat, coarse g rains and 
pulses in the format of the statistical appendix of the Bali Decision for the period between 
2013 and 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 93291: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As part of its 2018/2019 domestic support notification, I ndia notified the relevant statistical 
information described in the Statistical Appendix of the Annex of the Bali ministerial decision. Canada 
noted some discrepancies between the rice stock variations and the quantities purchased and 
released (under the p rogram and open market sale). Canada calculated this discrepancy of 
3.427  million  of tonnes for 2016 -2017, 3.211 millions of tonnes for 2017 -2018 and of 9.733  millions 
of tonnes for 2018 -2019.  
 
Could India provide an explanation of these discrepancies? Ple ase include detailed information of 
what happened to these stocks, notably how they were disposed, through which channel, at what 
price, and if they were exported.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93274: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Tabl e DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to the Opening and Ending Balance of Stocks (a. and i.) 
notified by India:  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 71 - 
 
  a. Please provide the source of these statistics and please confirm whether the values include 
private stocks.  
b. If private stocks are included, please provide a breakdown of public and private stocks.  
AG-IMS ID 93275: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to "Annual Releases under the programme" in lin e (e.) of 
the table notified by India:  
 
Please provide the source of these statistics.  
AG-IMS ID 93277: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
With regards to all statistics in the Statistical Appendix of India's DS:1 Notification, please confirm 
all data is on a marketing year basis.  If any statistics are not, please identify which ones and what 
yearly basis is used.  
AG-IMS ID 93268: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Tab le DS:2)  
As noted in the statistical annex for rice, open market sales are made from the stocks accumulated 
in reference to the expenditures notified by India as the "allocation for distribution and buffer stock. " 
a. Please confirm whether open market sales f or all commodities are sold from the public 
stocks at the same price as they are procured, which is the applied administered price 
noted in Supporting Table DS:5.  
b. Please provide the expenditure or revenue forgone from open market sales if the 
procurement a nd sales prices are not the same.  
AG-IMS ID 93273: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Statistical Appendix  
 
India announced a Market Support Price  for unmilled paddy rice, therefore it should be notifying all 
statistics in the Annex, along with rice market price support in ST DS:5, on an unmilled basis rather 
than a milled basis.  However, India notified its statistics on a milled basis.  
 
What is the basis for providing the statistical annex on a milled basis ra ther than on the basis of the 
product supported?  
AG-IMS ID 93195: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Japan would appreciate if India could provide the value of production data for each of the 
agricultural products listed in Supp orting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/IND/18 including Coarse 
cereal, Cotton, Groundnut, Pulses, Rapeseed/Mustard, Soyabean Yellow, Sunflower and 
Wheat, as well as the total value of India agricultural production. This is for us to make 
sure the value of support for  each commodity is under de minimis  threshold.   
b. Japan would appreciate if India could provide a clarification to explain why the value of 
support for wheat is  negative  ( -30.53m USD) in Supporting Tables DS:4 and  DS:5 of 
G/AG/N/IND/18.  
AG-IMS ID 93266: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
While we thank India for providing a timely notification for Table DS:1 for reporting period 2018/19, 
the notification, in particular Supporting Table DS:1, lacks any detail of transparency beyond broad 
levels of support by classification type.  We take note that India has identified 11 exempt from 
reduction measures in its first ever Table DS:2 notification.  However, none of these measures appear G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 72 - 
 
  to be discernable in an yway in Table DS:1 with the exception of the Public Distribution System and 
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana  (PMFBY) and that is only because the values notified in 
Table  DS:2, an ad hoc non -annual notification, could be manually matched with values notifi ed 
in Table DS:1.  
  
a. India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in 
Supporting Table DS:1.  
b. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value of each of India 's exempt measures.  
c. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the Supporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
d. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is requir ed in a Supporting Table DS:1 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notification  up to date with required information.  
AG-IMS ID 93267: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
The United States understands that the Public Distribution System accounts for the largest share of 
stocks released from public stocks; however , India operates a number of nutritional/welfare 
programs that provide domestic food aid.  Other distribution schemes under the National Food 
Security Act include the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, and the Midday Meal 
Scheme.  Further, food is  distributed from public stocks under several other schemes not subject to 
the National Food Security Act.  
Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need " for each of these measures and confirm whether all are notified 
in the aggregated value notified by India.  
AG-IMS ID 93278: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
India has notified USD 17.2 billion for the "allocation for distribution and buffer sto ck". According to 
G/AG/N/IND/19, this value represented the "Public Distribution System, National Food Security 
Act, 2013. " Further, G/AG/N/IND/19 states outlays are covered by both paragraph  3 and  4 of 
Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Please provi de a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks 
of products " under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
b. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of 
products " under paragraph 3 of Anne x 2 of the AoA.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic 
food aid to sections of the population in need " under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
AG-IMS ID 93294: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupl ed income support  
In its last notification, India notified a program me called Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman 
Nidhi (PM-KISAN) under paragraph 6 of the Annex 2 of the AoA.  
a. Could India clarify who is eligible for this program me and what are the criteria that 
determined eligibility for a payment?  
b. Could India indicate if payment levels are determined by income of producers and if so, 
what is the defined and fixed base period used to define eligibility?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 73 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93234: Question by Paraguay and AG-IMS ID 93235: Qu estion by Canada - 
Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. In 
Table  DS:2 of the notification, India reports a subsidy of USD 24.1 billion in reference to Article  6.2, 
indicating that it provides "other input subsidies" amounting to that value. Could India please provide 
information on:  
a. the types of inputs subsidized,  
i. whether such inputs are limited to those indicated in the fo otnote or whether others 
are also included ; and  
ii. the disaggregated value of the subsidy per type of input;  
b. eligibility criteria and whether the subsidies are available exclusively or "in general" for 
low-income and resource -poor farmers;  
c. whether India is planning reforms to reduce its farmers' dependence on this type of 
subsidy, in respect of which we note an increase of approximately USD 2  billion between 
the notification covering the marketing year 2017 -2018 (G/AG/N/IND/15) and notification 
G/AG /N/IND/18; in this regard, could India explain the reasons for this considerable 
increase from one marketing year to the next?  
AG-IMS ID 93276: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In Sup porting Table DS:2, India listed "Other input subsidies" as the name and description of more 
than USD  24 billion in support based on data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, 
Ministry of Chemicals and Chemistry, Ministry of Power, and Min istry of Statistics and Program 
Implementation.  The footnote to this table indicates this includes subsidies for irrigation, fertilizers, 
and electricity.  
  
India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in Supporting 
Table DS:2.  
a. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:2 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value of each of India's exempt measures.  
b. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the Supporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
c. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is required in a Supporting Table DS:2 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:2 fo r the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notification up to date with required information.  
AG-IMS ID 93281: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
As Members have asked with previous notifications, could India please provide a breakdown of 
expenditures on irrigation, fertilizers and electricity notified under Supporting Table DS:2. For each 
monetary value, please a lso identify:  
a. the published data sources from which the monetary values provided are sourced, and  
b. the name of each scheme or schemes (e.g., measures) that contribute to the value 
provided.  
 G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 74 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93220: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia thanks India for its DS:1 notification for marketing year 2018 -19 (G/AG/N/IND/18).  
Australia notes that India provided product -specific domestic support for a rice in excess of India 's 
product -specific de minimis  commitments.  Australia understands th at India asserts that the breach 
is covered by the peace clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes (WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  Australia would 
like to ask the followi ng questions:  
a. What was the total production of rice (in both value and volume) in marketing 
year 2018-19? 
b. What is the eligibility criteria to receive the minimum support price?  
c. And what is the minimum price support available to all rice growers?  
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks shall 
correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security". For the period covered by the 
notification, could India provide:    
d. The pre -determined targets, when these were established, and under which legislation; 
and; an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a sole 
focus on food security?  
AG-IMS ID 93290: Question by Canada - Market price support  
In its 2018/2019 domestic  support notification, India reported support for rice in excess of its 
de minimis  level for rice. By doing so, India breached is WTO domestic support commitment to limit 
its support for rice at 10% of its value of production.  
 
Please indicate what concre te steps India is taking to rectify the situation and fulfil its WTO domestic 
support commitment for rice in the future.   
AG-IMS ID 93198: Question by European Union - Market price support  
a. STOCKS AND RELEASE  
Based on the figures in notification in the stat istical annex the EU has drawn up the following balance 
sheet for the rice public stockholding programme.  
 
Mio. t.    2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 
opening stocks  a 28,811  29,784  30,043  
Annual purchase  b 38,110  38,130  44,330  
Total availability  c=a+b  66,921  67,914  74,373  
Annual releases  d 33,52  34,2 34,4 
open market sales  e 0,190  0,460  0,850  
Total release  f=e+d  33,71  34,66  35,25  
Total availability - total release  g=c-f 33,211  33,254  39,123  
End stocks IND/18  h 29,784  30,043  29,390  
          
Discrepancy  i=g-h 3,427  3,211  9,733  
 
Can India explain in detail the discrepancies in this table? Where have these quantities of rice gone? 
Notably, the discrepancy for 2018 -19 is 25% of total annual purchases which seems extremely large.  
  
b. TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 75 - 
 
  India claims that no impo rts to or exports from public stocks occurred.   
 
However, in order to examine compliance with paragraph 4 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, it is 
necessary to examine import and export figures for the entire production of India for each year 
concerned.   
 
Can India indicate the total quantities and value of rice imported and respectively exported for each 
year concerned.  
 
c. RESPECT OF PARAGRAPHS 3C AND 3D OF THE BALI MINISTERIAL DECISION   
"Paragraph 3c of the Bali Ministerial Decision requires the Member to provide on an annual basis, 
additional information by completing the template contained in the Annex, for each public 
stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes " 
In point 2b of the Annex India indicates that its public st ockholding programmes cover rice, 
wheat, coarse grains and pulses. However, the statistical Annex only includes rice.  Can India 
submit the required statistical annex for wheat, coarse grains and pulses.   
d. SUPPORT OTHER THAN PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR RICE  
In footnote 3 in Supporting table  5 India indicates that "Other support for rice, that is, other 
than public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently ". However, this 
information is necessary to verify whether India has respected p aragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial 
Decision which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes other 
than public stockholding.  
i. Can India indicate what types of support are concerned  
ii. Can India indicate when this notification will b e submitted.  
iii. Will this notification also include revisions of prior notifications (for instance for  2014 
and subsequent years) to include this type of support for the years in question?   
AG-IMS ID 93233: Question by Paraguay and AG-IMS ID 93236: Question b y Canada - 
Market price support  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. We note 
with concern that India has exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice production and that it has 
submitted an annex to the notif ication pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision. We therefore request 
that India provide clarification on the following points:  
 
a. Could India please explain why these PSH programmes could not be included under the 
Green Box, like the USD 17.2  billion worth of PSH measures already notified as such in 
the same notification?  
b. Why was this annex not submitted in previous years, as requir ed under paragraph 3(c) of 
the Bali Decision, given that it concerns a programme in existence since 2013, according 
to information provided by India in the Annex to notification G/AG/N/IND/18?  
c. Could India please provide information on the volume and notif ication of stocks, in 
accordance with paragraph 3(b);  
d. What steps has India taken to ensure that purchased stocks subsequently sold in the 
domestic market (approximately 850,000  tonnes, according to the figures notified) are 
not later exported?  
e. How does I ndia consider itself to have met the requirements of paragraph 3(a) of the Bali 
Decision by submitting a notification covering the period 2018 -2019?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 76 - 
 
  f. Is India considering reviewing its notifications to amend the total amount of eligible 
production, and not  only the production actually purchased, in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and existing jurisprudence in this area?  
AG-IMS ID 93311: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
Thailand appreciates India 's notification to the Committee on Agr iculture. In this regard, Thailand 
seeks clarification on the notification of public stock holding for food security purposes as follows;  
a. Thailand notes that the Bali Decision requires a developing Member benefiting from this 
Decision to notify the Committ ee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of 
exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the 
Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis  level) as result of such programmes.  
Could India please clarify whether such notification has been submitted to the COA prior to the 
implementation?  
 
b. Could India provide further details on how purchase prices and release prices on public 
stock holding for food security purposes for rice were determined?  
AG-IMS ID 93271 : Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 the methodology for calculating Market Price Support is same as previous 
notifications, despite concerns raised by various Members over a number of years, including but not 
limited to aggregation of applied administered prices across separately supported products and the 
inclusion of sub -national support.   
a. For each product for which India announced a Minimum Support Price (MSP) for marketing 
year 2018/19, please identify the corresponding MSP.  
b. If applied administered prices in Supporting Table DS:5 do not include additional bonuses 
above the MSP that certain states may provide, please specify the values of any bonuses 
provided by each state and to which products bonuses ap plied during marketing 
year 2018/19.  
AG-IMS ID 93272: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
India has notified in footnote 3 of Supporting Table DS:5 that "other support for rice " will be notified 
subsequently.  When will this support be notified in a revised Table DS:1 notification?  
AG-IMS ID 93293: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In its last notification, India classified the measure called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana  (PMFBY) 
as Green Box un der paragraph 8 of the annex 2 of the AoA. In its DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/IND/19) 
India explained that:  
 
"Provisions are consistent with criteria in Annex 2, paragraph 8, as the Government subsidies are 
on premium of agricultural insurance for production loss exceeding 30% of the average of yield of 
past years. " 
a. Could India indicate what is the period used to calculate average past yield under this 
program me? More specifically, what is the methodology on the number of "past years " 
used to calcul ate the average reference period yield?  
b. Could India explain how it meets the base period requirement to calculate the average 
production level, as defined by Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)?  
A program described as Insurance premium subsidy is also reported for in supporting table DS:9 for 
Government subsidies on premiums of agricultural insurance for production loss not exceeding 
30% of the average of production.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 77 - 
 
  c. Could India indicate if the support reported is part of the same insurance program of the 
one reported under Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)?  
d. Please indicate how the two support programs are related and how they interact with each 
other.  
2.4.16   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67)  
AG-IMS ID 93039: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States notes two measures notified in ST/DS:1 for 2018 under Public stockholding for 
food security purposes that were not notified in Indonesia's notification for 2017: the "Storage and 
maintenance costs" and "Reserve fund for government to purchase  foodstuff at market prices" 
programs.  
  
a. Please confirm the effective date of the new measures.  
b. Please confirm whether a DS:2 notification will be submitted.  
c.  Please confirm what foodstuffs are purchased for the reserve fund at market prices.  
AG-IMS ID 93 040: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In ST/DS:1 Indonesia notified a new measure for 2018, "Cash -based food aid for Poor and Low 
Income Society (BPNT)", that was not included in its 2017 notification.  
  
a. Please confirm this is a new measure. If so, please confirm whether a DS:2 notification 
will be submitted.  
b. Does BPNT replace some or all of the in -kind food aid provided under "Rice for Poor and 
Low-Income Society (RASTRA)" with cash -based food aid to consum ers or does it 
supplement food aid provided by RASTRA?  
AG-IMS ID 93119: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States would like to repeat parts of question 2 for Indonesia from AG -IMS ID 89041, for 
which we only received pa rtial responses:  
  
a. In response to question 2a which asked "Supporting Tables DS:5 in Indonesia's 
notifications are notified on a calendar year basis rather than marketing year.  Please 
confirm the dates for which the applied administered price is applicable.", Indonesia 
respo nded that the date of the applied administered price is in accordance with the 
applicable regulation. Please provide a copy of the applicable regulation and confirm 
whether the dates contained in the applicable regulation are based on calendar year or 
marketing year.  
b. The US reiterates question 2d ("Please explain how the procurement target quantity is 
determined and when.") as no response was received.  
c. The US reiterates 2e ("Please confirm whether the applied price and the eligible production 
notified are on a milled basis or paddy basis.") as no response was received.  
AG-IMS ID 93041: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
It is noted that the eligible production quantity for MPS for rice i n 2018 is nearly 10 times larger 
than in 2017 quantity, resulting in an 800% increase in market price support.  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Please explain the reason behind the significant change in the quantity of eligible production and 
whether eligible production was notified as  the procured quantity, as noted by Indonesia in response 
to AG -IMS ID 89041.  
 
2.4.17   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/74)  
AG-IMS ID 93120: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes that Israel has reported domestic support in excess of its annual commitments for 
the 2018 calendar year. Australia notes that Israel has exceeded its domestic support for the 
calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017. Australia apprec iates Israel's commitment to 
transparency and the information provided in the notification G/AG/N/ISR/74 for 2018.  
  
a. Could Israel provide an update on the concrete steps it is taking,  and the progress made 
with respect to the additional reforms in its dai ry and egg sectors so that Israel is in 
compliance with its WTO obligations in the future?  
b. Does Israel expect to be notifying a further breach for the calendar year 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 93122: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that fo r 2018 Israel has notified domestic support over its annual commitment and 
that the amount reported is an increase of USD 18.5 million above the amount notified in 2017 when 
Israel also exceeded its domestic support commitment. Canada appreciates the trans parency and 
the information provided in its domestic support notification G/AG/N/ISR/74 and in previous 
notifications when it exceeded its commitment (G/AG/N/ISR/66 for 2017 and G/AG/N/ISR/55 for 
the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014). In Israel's response t o Canada's questions AG -IMS 91102, 
Israel indicated that it was taking specific steps to comply with it its WTO domestic support 
commitment. Could Israel provide an update on the additional reforms under discussion in the dairy 
and egg sectors which will b ring Israel's Current Total AMS back to its annual commitment?  
AG-IMS ID 93123: Question by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
The EU is disappointed to see a further increase in the overshoot of Israel's AMS commitments 
in 2018. The increase of $19 million in current Total AMS to $631  million leads to an overshoot in 
the year 2018 of $62  million or 11% of Israel's AMS commitment. Further, this increase is not only 
due to increased production of eggs and milk, but also due to increased administere d support prices 
for the two products in question. The EU is disappointed to see a WTO Member taking decisions that 
lead to an even greater overshoot of its WTO commitments.  
 
a. Can Israel explain the reasoning for the increased administered support prices f or eggs 
and milk that has led to this greater overshoot of its AMS commitments? Was respect of 
Israel's AMS commitment part of the decision -making process leading up to the increase 
in administered prices?  
b. Can Israel explain what measures will be taken to ensure that Israel will respect its WTO 
obligations?  
AG-IMS ID 93124: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
The United States welcomes Israel's transparency on the issue of breaching its Total 
AMS commitment level in 2018. Israel has noted that AMS is expected to fall below Israel's 
commitment level. The United States remains concerned with the multi -year breach of 
commitments.  
  
Please provide an update on the reform process.  
AG-IMS ID 93121: Quest ion by Brazil - Market price support  
First of all, Brazil would like to congratulate Israel for including an explanatory note "background 
and adjustments in policy" in its latest DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/ISR/74). Considering this 
information:  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 79 - 
 
   
Could Isra el provide comparative data on the international price of feed that it has been using to 
define its administered prices for milk and eggs in recent years?  
AG-IMS ID 93125: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Following up on AG -IMS I D 90066, it is still unclear as to how total quality improvement for milk are 
determined using the protein, fat and water coefficients provided.  
  
Is there a formula Israel is able to provide that would allow  the US  to verify these calculations?   
AG-IMS I D 93126: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
Please explain the reason for the increase behind "growers support" for flowers, which accounts for 
most of the 27% increase in support for flowers.  
 
2.4.18   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60/CORR.1  - G/AG/N/KOR/6 3/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 93130: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the corrigendum to Korea's domestic support notifications the value of production values was 
modified for several products.  For example, the value of production for a number of products in 2012 
increased significantly, such as white radish, sweet potatoes, red pepper, potato, pear, onion, green 
onion, etc.  Meanwhile, there was a significant decre ase in the value of production for ginseng and 
small downward adjustments for several other commodities.  The total value of production remains 
unchanged.   
  
Please explain how value of production is determined and the reason for these significant changes.  
2.4.19   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, G/AG/N/KOR/63)  
AG-IMS ID 93129: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea (ROK)  for submitting a number of corrigenda to its 
DS:1 notification s for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.  With respect to Korea's 
original  DS:1 for 2015 - G/AG/N/KOR/63, Australia would be grateful if the ROK can respond to the 
following questions:  
  
a. In the ROK's Supporting Table DS:1, under Decoupled income support, the ROK notifies a 
fixed payment scheme for paddy fields. Can the ROK provide details of this programme, 
including eligibility criteria and how the payments are calculated?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:2, the ROK notifies payments under Article 6 .2 measures. Can the 
ROK provide further details on this expenditure, including what sectors and products were 
aided through these investment subsidies and details of the investment subsidies 
provided?  
2.4.20   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93131: Question by A ustralia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow -up with Nigeria with respect to question AG -IMS ID 90034 that Australia 
asked at the 90th CoA and question AG-IMS ID 92117 that Australia asked at the 92nd CoA: Nigeria's 
domestic support notifications for the period 2012 to 2016 (G/AG/N/NGA/17) notified that it did not 
provide domestic support during this period.  
  
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 80 - 
 
  b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets ?  
2.4.21   Norway ( G/AG/N/NOR/108, G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.1  and 
G/AG/N/NOR/108/C orr.2) 
AG-IMS ID 93063: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Norway for the submission of the second corrigendum  of the 
notification contained in document G/AG/N/NOR/108 concerning domestic support commitments  
(Table DS:1) for the calendar year 2018.  
 
We note that the value of NOK 3,066.5 million has been corrected to NOK 3,889 million for the 
National Environmenta l Programme. Could Norway please explain this difference of over NOK 800 
million and give the reasons for the miscalculation of the amount disbursed for this programme in 
the original notification?  
AG-IMS ID 93132: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia thanks Norway for the submission of DS:1 for Calendar year 2018 - G/AG/N/NOR/108 – 
and its corrigenda.   
  
With respect to Supporting Table DS:1 – Green Box measures – Can Norway provide additional 
informati on on the 'Subsidy to organic production', including whether there is a requirement for 
producers to engage in (apply for/use?) the programme, and how the subsidy is calculated?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93134: Question by New Zealand - Direct payments: other  
New Zealand  welcomes Norway's Domestic Support notification for calendar year 2018. New Zealand 
notes that Norway has notified 1,259.6 NOK million for a "vacation and replacement scheme".  
 
Can Norway please clarify the criteria that determines the value of payments under this scheme and 
explain the consistency of this scheme with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93133: Question by European Union - Classification of measures  
The European Union notes that Norway's Amber Box support for beef has incr eased from 
132.2  million NOK in 2017 to 409 million NOK in 2018. This relatively large increase could be 
explained by a change of classification of the measure "quality incentive programme for beef" from 
blue box support (Supporting Table DS:3) to amber box support (Supporting Table DS:6).  
 
What changes have been made to the quality incentive programme between 2017 and 2018 that 
leads to this change of classification?  
 
2.4.22   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93221: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Panama for the submission of its DS:1 for 2019.  Australia notes Panama is reporting 
a breach of de minimis  for support provided to rice during this reporting period.   
 
Can Panama explain what caused this breach a nd how it has worked to prevent a similar breach in 
the subsequent reporting periods?  
AG-IMS ID 93295: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Panama has exceeded its annual domestic support commitment for a third 
consecutive year  by PAB  41.7 million in 2017, by PAB  54.3 million in 2018 and by PAB  22,5 million 
in 2019, as a result of Panama exceeding its product specific de minimis  for rice.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 81 - 
 
    
At the 92nd session of the Regular Committee on Agriculture, Canada questioned Panama on what 
actions it would be taking to ensure compliance with its domestic support commitments (question 
AG-IMS ID 92062). Panama did not clarify what steps it would take. Canada would like to reiterate 
its question to Panama.  
 
What steps will Panama take to c ome back into compliance with its domestic support commitment?  
AG-IMS ID 93196: Question by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
Again the notification from Panama shows an overshoot of its de minimis  limit for rice and so a 
failure to respect its W TO commitments.  
a. Can Panama explain the reason behind the decrease in eligible production from 
328 628 tonnes to 135 815 tonnes?  
b. Which measures has Panama taken to ensure that it will respect its commitments in the 
future?  
2.4.23   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/AG /N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69)  
AG-IMS ID 93135: Question by New Zealand - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
New Zealand thanks the Philippines for its Domestic Support notifications for calendar 
years  2016-2018. New Zealand seeks clarification from the Philippines regarding payments for relief 
from natural disasters - crop insurance. From 2012 to 2015 the monetary value of crop insurance 
was consistent at PHP 1,183,771 thousand each year. This amount increased in calendar year 2016  
to PHP  1,600,000 thousand, increased again in 2017 to PHP 2,500,000, and again in 2018 to 
PHP 3,500,000. Can the Philippines explain why the value of crop insurance remains the same for 
the three -year period 2012 -2015, and why it increased nearly 200% bet ween 2015 and 2018?  
2.4.24   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93136: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In the Methodological Note point 4 it is indicated that the support price for common wheat since  2004 
has been 1000 SAR/t. However,  in Supporting Table 4 no administered price is mentioned,  and no 
eligible production indicated.  
 
Can the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain whether any common wheat has benefitted from the 
1000 SAR/t support price and if so , for what quantity?  
2.4.25   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  
AG-IMS ID 93269: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States takes note that Singapore has introduced its first notified domestic support 
measures. According to Singapore Food Agency 's (SFA) website, in order to buffer from supply 
disruptions, Singapore aims to produce 30% of its nutritional needs by 2030 by implementing its 
"30 by 30" Food Production Target.  Through funding and technology transfer, SFA assists  local 
farmers transfer and adopt technology to increase and intensify their output.  The United States 
understands that the Basic Capability Upgrading (BCU) scheme for example co -funds up to 50 % of 
the cost of purchasing equipment and other qualifying cost s. Similarly, the Productivity 
Enhancement Standard (PES) scheme provides up to 30 -70% of the cost of purchasing equipment 
and other qualifying costs.  
a. Please describe how all notified measures comply with relevant exemption criteria set out 
in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 82 - 
 
  b. Will Singapore be submitting a Table DS:2 notification providing full information on how 
the measure meets specific eligibility criteria?  
2.4.26   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  
AG-IMS ID 93116: Question by Australia - De minimis  
Australia thanks Chinese Taipei for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2016 (G/AG/N/TPKM/181). 
Australia notes that Chinese Taipei provided product -specific domestic support for a number of 
products in excess of product -specific de minimis  commitments, b ut within i ts Total AMS 
commitment level.   
  
Australia understands this support is provided under the "Adjusting the Cultivation System and 
Revitalizing Fallow Land Program", which looks to support rice farmers move away from rice 
production. This Program appears to have operated (including under different names) for a decade 
or more. Despite this Program, Chinese Taipei's eligible production of rice appears to have grown 
significantly. Based on Chinese Taipei's DS:1 from reporting period 2006, eligible ric e production in 
2006 totalled 245,660 tonnes. In the most recently submitted DS:1 from Chinese Taipei for the 
reporting period 2016, eligible rice production appears to have reached almost 400,000 tonnes.  
a. Can Chinese Taipei provide more detail on the purpo se and objective of this Program? and  
b. Can Chinese Taipei explain if the Program is achieving its purpose and objective?  
2.4.27   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93137: Question by Brazil - Excessive rates of inflation  
Tunisia has stated, in its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2018 (G/AG/N/TUN/58), that it has used 
the reference prices of the reference period and adjusted them to take account of inflation and 
exchange rate movements. Brazil recognizes that developing countries may be vulnerable to higher 
domestic inflation rates and currency volatility that renders its fixed external reference price  (FERP) 
values in domestic currency outdated. Nonetheless, Members, to fulfill their notification obligations, 
have to abide by the terms of their domest ic support commitments. Article 18, paragraph 4 of 
the AoA, establishes that "In the review process Members shall give due consideration to the 
influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support 
commitme nts." Thus, it is the review work in the Committee on Agriculture that has to be carried 
out taking into account excessive general increases in prices.  
  
a. Would Tunisia consider submitting its DS tables concurrently on both an unadjusted and 
an inflation -adjusted basis, as suggested previously by WTO Secretariat (G/AG/W/45)?  
b. Could Tunisia provide data on its domestic inflation rate for recent years?  
AG-IMS ID 93138: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada notes that Tunisia has unilaterally  adjusted its fixed external reference price for inflation. 
Canada notes that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, it is the responsibility of the 
Committee during the review process, and not of Tunisia, to give consideration to excessive ra tes of 
inflation. In response to question AG -IMS ID 82022, Tunisia provided its Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support between 2002 and 2015 without any adjustments to its fixed external 
reference prices.  
  
a. a. Could Tunisia please update this tabl e by including the Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 without any changes to its 
external reference prices?   
Canada notes that a written response is outstanding for the question AG -IMS ID 91105 regarding 
G/AG/ N/TUN/56. It is copied below for reference:  
  
b. In response to question AG ‑IMS ID 82022, Tunisia provided its current total aggregate 
measurement of support level between 2002 and 2015 without any changes to its external 
reference prices. Could Tunisia plea se update this table by including the current total G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 83 - 
 
  aggregate measurement of support for the years 2016 and 2017 without any changes to 
its external reference prices?  
c. Canada wishes to remind Tunisia that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  
it is the responsibility of the Membership as a whole, and not of Tunisia, to give 
consideration to excessive rates of inflation. In response to question AG ‑IMS ID  82048 
from Canada, Tunisia stated as follows: "Regarding the steps to be taken to address t his 
situation so that the external reference prices will no longer be adjusted in the future, the 
investigations under way will identify alternative options for notifying support and the 
steps to be taken".  
d. Could Tunisia please provide an update on its in vestigations under way to identify 
alternative options for notifying support and the steps to be taken?  
e. Could Tunisia please indicate when it will notify its domestic support without adjustments 
to its external reference prices?  
2.4.28   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36  - G/AG/N/TUR/39)  
AG-IMS ID 93154: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Turkey for the submission of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/36 concerning domestic support commitments (Tabl e DS:1) for the year 2010. We 
would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:2: ( i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a) which amount to USD 550,775,029; ( ii) the type of support 
provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the development 
of animal husbandry; and ( iii) the manner in which Turkey considers that the support to 
promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling u nder Article 
6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Supporting Table DS:4: ( i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; ( ii) the reasons for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for sunflower; ( iii) Turkey's current levels of subsidies for these products; 
(iv) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish Government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  
c. Supporting Table DS:9: ( i) the reasons for which su pport is provided for diesel; ( ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; ( iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
Government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
AG-IMS ID 93178: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Paraguay thanks Turkey for the submission of the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/37 concernin g domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) for the calendar 
year 2011. We would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: ( i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green Box 
subsidies and which total USD  60,500,000; ( ii) the functioning, characteristics and 
purpose of the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  
b. Supporting Table DS:2: ( i) the total amount  of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a)  which amount to USD 686,832,130; ( ii) the reasons for the 
increase of more than USD  130,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; ( iii) the type 
of support provided in the conte xt of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; ( iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that the 
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the A greement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 84 - 
 
  c. Supporting Table DS:4: ( i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; ( ii) the reasons for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the signi ficant increase in the support 
provided for this product in one year; ( iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; 
(iv) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish Government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  
d. Supporting Table DS:9: ( i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; ( ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; ( iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
Government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
AG-IMS ID 93156: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Republic of Panama thanks Turkey for the submission of  the notification contained in document 
G/AG/N/TUR/38 concerning domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) for the calendar 
year 2012. We would like further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: ( i) the total amount of support for each of the three type s of 
support notified under point 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green Box 
subsidies and which total USD 69,219,553; ( ii) the functioning, characteristics and purpose 
of the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  
b. Supporting Table DS:2: ( i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a) which amount to USD 907,867,165; ( ii) the reasons for the 
increase of more than USD 220,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; ( iii) the type 
of support provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; ( iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that the 
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies  as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Supporting Table DS:4: ( i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; ( ii) the reasons for which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the significant increase in the support 
provided for this product in one year; ( iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; 
(iv) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish Government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  
d. Supporting Table DS:9: ( i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; ( ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; ( iii) plans or programmes implemented by the Turkish 
Government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
AG-IMS ID 93157: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey – G/AG/N/TUR/39: The Republic of Paraguay thanks Turkey for the submission of the 
notification contained in document G/AG/N/TUR/39 concerning domestic support commitments 
(Table DS:1) for the calendar year 2013. We wish to have further information on:  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section 12, "Environmental programmes", which are Green Box 
subsidies and which total USD 73,656,316; (ii)  the functioning, characteristics and 
purpose of  the disbursements made under the biological combat support programme.  
b. Supporting Table DS:2: (i) the total amount of support for each of the three types of 
support notified in section (a)  which amount to USD 1,047,159,664; (ii) the reasons for 
the increa se of more than USD 130,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; (iii) the 
type of support provided in the context of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; (iv) the manner in which Turkey considers that the 
support to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices qualifies as falling 
under Article 6.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 85 - 
 
  c. Supporting Table DS:4: (i) the percentages for support in relation to the value of 
production; (ii) the reasons f or which Turkey has exceeded its product -specific domestic 
support limits for soybeans, and the reasons for the increase in these subsidies from  2012 
to 2013; (iii) Turkey's current subsidy levels for this product; (iv) plans or programmes 
implemented by t he Turkish Government to bring its subsidy levels into line with its 
WTO commitments and obligations.  
d. Supporting Table DS:9: (i) the reasons for which support is provided for diesel; (ii) the 
continuity of this type of subsidy; (iii)  plans or programmes i mplemented by the Turkish 
Government to reduce or eliminate this type of support, taking into account the adverse 
effects of fossil fuel subsidies on the environment and the fight against climate change.  
AG-IMS ID 93148: Question by United States of Americ a - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)   
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
The United States notes a number of changes in measures notified in 
G/AG/N/TUR/36 - G/AG/N/TUR/ 39 as compared to Turkey's last notification G/AG/N/TUR/20.  
  
a. Research expenditures increased substantially in 2013 as compared to 2008.  Please 
provide an explanation for this increase.  In addition, please confirm whether any new 
measures were introduced or old measured modified that contributed to the change in 
support.  
b. In 2010 Turkey introduced a decoupled income support and a structural adjustment 
measure for hazelnuts.  Please provide information on how the measure was implemented.  
c. For each of the above identified new or modified measures, as well as any other relevant 
exem pt measures, please indicate when this Committee can expect a 
Table  DS:2 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93064: Question by United States of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture  
Supporting Table DS:2, G/AG/N/TUR/36  
 
Turkey notified in vestment subsidies of more than USD $1 billion in 2013.  This value is increased 
substantially from USD 500 billion in 2009.  Further, the notification describes investment subsidies 
and includes the following description "Support given to increase usage of hybrid seed and certified 
seed and seedling."   
a. Please explain the reason behind the significant increase in expenditures between 2009 
and 2013.  
b. Please explain how support for use of hybrid and certified seed/seedlings is implemented, 
including how eligibil ity for the support is determined and how payment rates are 
determined.   
c. Please clarify why this measure is not classified as an input subsidy.  
AG-IMS ID 93145: Question by United States of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture  
The ST/DS:2 describes investment subsidies and includes the following description "Support given 
to promote organic agriculture and good agricultural practices" . 
 
a. Please explain how this support is implemented, including how payment rates are 
determined.  
b. Please clarify why this measure is notified as an investment subsidy under Article 6.2.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 86 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93147: Question by Japan - De minimis  
According to the Turkey's notification concerning the domestic support commitments (Table DS1 
and the relevant supporting  tables), most product specific subsidies are below the de minimis  level. 
At the same time, some product subsidies exceed the de minimis  level and the notification shows 
the support for such products as the current total AMS. Japan would like to ask how Tu rkey 
rationalize this situation in terms of consistency with the Agreement of Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 93153: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of their DS:1 notifications for the calendar years 2010 -13. 
Australia notes that Turkey has reported domestic support in excess of its annual commitment for 
each of these calendar years. Australia notes that Turkey also previously notified it exceeded its 
domestic support for the calendar years 2005, 2007, and 20 09. 
  
a. Does Turkey expect to be notifying further breaches of its WTO commitments in 
notifications for its remaining overdue DS:1 notifications?  
b. Could Turkey advise if it has reformed those programmes that resulted in the recorded 
breaches? If so, could Turkey provide the relevant details for each programme?  
c. Could Turkey provide an update on its preparations to submit domestic support 
notifications for 2014 and onwards?   
AG-IMS ID 93150: Question by Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
According to n otifications G/AG/N/TUR/36 -39, Turkey has provided domestic support in excess of 
its "de minimis " for cotton, sunflower, rapeseed, safflower, leading to a Current Total AMS that 
breaches its commitments.  
  
a. What is Turkey's justification for such level of d omestic support under its 
WTO commitments?  
b. Could Turkey provide details on the agricultural policies not exempted from reduction 
commitments (the premium payments) that were in place for cotton, sunflower, soybeans, 
rapeseed, safflower between 2010 and 201 3?  
c. Are the programmes indicated above still in place? If not, when were they terminated?  
d. Which other policy changes has Turkey implemented, since 2013, to ensure that its 
domestic support commitments will be upheld?  
AG-IMS ID 93151: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing more recent domestic support notifications to this Committee, 
which brings Turkey up to 2013 and providing an accurate account of its domestic support. Canada 
encourages Turkey to continue its work to submit its domestic support notifications. However, 
Canada continues to be concerned that Turkey's domestic support is in excess of its annual 
commitment. Canada notes the extremely large increase in its Current Total AMS from 2011 
(USD 17,577,492)  to USD 479,096,942 and USD 400,721,589 USD in 2012 and 2013, respectively.  
  
a. What concrete, meaningful steps has Turkey taken to ensure that it complies with its WTO 
domestic support commitment?  
b. What is the current situation with Turkey's domestic suppo rt commitment?  
AG-IMS ID 93152: Question by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
G/AG/N/TUR/39  
 
The EU thanks Turkey for reducing its backlog in notifications. However, as in the previous 
DS:1 notification, Turkey did not respect its commitments. F or this notification, three sectors did not 
respect the 10% de minimis  limit. G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 87 - 
 
   
Can Turkey for the three sectors in question, cotton, soybeans and rapeseed, state for how long 
these support schemes have been applied after 2012 and whether they have been replaced by other 
support measures?  
AG-IMS ID 93149: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
Thailand thanks Turkey for submitting its Domestic Support Notifications.  Thailand noticed that the 
Total AMS used between 2010 -2013 exceeded Turkey's co mmitment.  
 
Thailand would like to therefore seek Turkey's plan on the current policy on this related issue.  
AG-IMS ID 93146: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9  
 
Please explain the factors that caused the $500 million increase for agricultural credit between 2009 
and 2013.  
2.4.29   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93270: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
While the United States t hanks United Arab Emirates for continuing to regularly provide its 
Table  DS:1 notifications in a timely manner, the United States notes that United Arab Emirates has 
not responded to any question it has ever been asked in this Committee.  The United States would 
encourage United Arab Emirates to bring its responses to these questions up to date, many of which 
also apply to its current notifications.   
 
When can Members expect United Arab Emirates to provide responses?  
AG-IMS ID 93279: Question by United State s of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In notification G/AG/N/ARE /12 covering the United Arab Emirates ' 2016 domestic support spending, 
line 2 (d) "Extension and advisory services " is accompanied by the description "Support for 
agricultu ral research and to facilitate the transfer of information and the results of research to 
producers and consumers " and with the data source of the Abu Dhabi Food Control Authority. In 
notifications G/AG/N/ARE/16 and G/AG/N/ARE/17, covering calendar years  2018 and  2019, no 
description is given under the extension and advisory services and spending is reported by the 
Ministry of Climate Change and Environment and the Dubai Municipality, as well as the Abu Dhabi 
Food Control Authority.  
a. Please describe the spe nding in line 2 (d) Extension and Advisory Services for calendar 
years 2018 and 2019, including whether this is a new measure compared to the outlays 
identified for 2016 and if a Table DS:2 notification will be made for this measure.  
b. Noting that the United  Arab Emirates has not notified a Table DS:1 for calendar year 2017, 
please indicate when that notification will be submitted to this Committee.  
2.4.30   Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  
AG-IMS ID 93155: Question by United States of America - Transparency iss ues (including 
Table DS:2)  
A number of measures notified in G/AG/N/VUT/1 for 2015, V/AG/N/VUT/9 for 2014, and 
V/AG/N/VUT/10 for 2017 including "research" and "training services" have the same monetary value 
for each year.  
  
a. Please confirm whether notified values are actual or projected budgetary outlays or 
expenditures.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 88 - 
 
  b. If values are not actual budgetary outlays, please provide such values for all notified years.  
AG-IMS ID 93158: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS :2) 
The United States notes Vanuatu's submission of domestic support notifications for 2014, 2015, 
and 2017, but not 2016. When will Vanuatu be submitting its notification for 2016? Why was it 
withheld ?  
2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  
2.5.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93280: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please confirm whether any activities under the measures below inclu de input subsidies 
to farmers and, if so, whether these subsidies are being notified under Supporting Table DS:2:  
• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) ; 
• Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) ; 
• National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) ; 
• Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) ; 
• Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN).  
AG-IMS ID 93296: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please provide information on additional fi nancial assistance and direct input subsidies 
provided by any state governments, including those provided as matching grants under any central 
government program mes, and any additional state programs supporting the provision of seed, 
chemicals, agriculture  machines, etc.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93297: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
India has notified Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – Per Drop More Crop component 
(PMKSY -PDMC) in Table DS:2. India states the scheme  meets the general criteria of paragraph  1 
and the general criteria in paragraph 2 of Annex 2.  According to the PMKSY website, categories of 
beneficiaries under the measure include "small and marginal farmers " and "other than small and 
marginal farmers " and the subsidy payment will be limited to unit costs specified in the guidelines 
of the PMKSY -PDMC. It is also unclear where India has notified this value in Supporting Table  DS:1 
of G/AG/N/IND/15 and G/AG/N/IND/18.   
a. Please identify where in Supporting Table DS:1 the PMKSY -PDMC is notified, inclusive of 
the related monetary value for 2018/19.  
b. Please confirm whether the PMKSY -PDMC provides payments or other benefits directly to 
producers.  
c. oting that PMKSY -PDMC, among other things, aims to "improve on -farm water use ", please 
confirm whether the measure provides benefits for on -farm facilities.  
2.5.2   United Ki ngdom (G/AG/N/GBR/1)  
AG-IMS ID 93159: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia welcomes the United Kingdom's submission of its first notification pursuant to the 
Agreement on Agriculture notification obligations. Austral ia looks forward to having the UK engage 
fulsomely in this important transparency work. Australia hopes the UK can set a new standard of 
best practice in terms of quality and timeliness of notifications, drawing on the extensive discussions G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 89 - 
 
  in the Committe e on Agriculture on how to provide the most relevant, fulsome and timely information 
to facilitate other Members' review and understanding of the UK's agricultural sector.  
  
With respect to G/AG/N/GBR/1,  Australia notes the notification states 'the territorial application of 
this instrument is England only'. Can the UK confirm the notification is only applicable to England 
and can the UK provide further information on how programmes in Scotland, Northern Ireland and 
Wales will be notified to this Com mittee?  
AG-IMS ID 93160: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
Can the UK explain whether this or similar programmes will be implemented in Scotland, Wales and 
Northern Ireland?  
AG-IMS ID 93287: Question by United States o f America - General services: other  
The United States welcomes the United Kingdom 's first notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  The notification states that Countryside Stewardship (England) Regulations 2020 "will 
be a simplified version of the cur rent EU scheme designed to encourage more applicants; increase 
delivery of environmental benefits and decrease the administrative burden… " 
  
Please provide additional details with regards to how this measure differs from the EU scheme with 
regards to incre asing delivery of environmental benefits.  
2.6  Export subsidy notifications ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.6.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42)  
AG-IMS ID 93161: Question by India - Quantity of total exports  
Argentina is the highest exporter of Soybean oil in the world. [Source: 
https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/1507/; WITS - 2017 data ]. Argentina has notified soya bean oil 
under its export subsidy notification document s G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42 
for years since 2015 -16, 2016 -17 and 2017 -18. However, Argentina is not entitled to provide export 
subsidies as per its schedule. Could Argentina clarify the following:  
  
a. How does Argentina ensure its complianc e under Article  9 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. Kindly provide the outlays for each product notified in the ES :2 tables provided in 
G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42.  
c. How does Argentina ensure that its subsidized soybean oil is not displacing or impeding 
the soya exports of other Members?  
2.6.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93162: Question by Australia - International food aid  
Australia welcomes Brazil's submission of its ES:3 for calendar year 2018, in which it notified 
14,478.7  tonnes of rice pr ovided as food aid. Australia fully supports the provision of assistance to 
address humanitarian emergencies and to support food security in locations that have poor access 
to sufficient nutrition. With respect to this food aid, can Brazil advise:  
  
a. Which Member/country was the recipient of that food aid?  
b. If Brazil is considering moving to only cash -based food aid?  
c. How it ensures the physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on recipient Members' 
agricultural industries, nor on their region's p roduction and commercial markets of either 
like-products, or substitute products?  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 90 - 
 
  2.6.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135)  
AG-IMS ID 93223: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Canada for the submission of its ES:1 for 2018. Australia welcomes this good 
example of a fulsome notification, with clear information on the ongoing implementation of the 
Nairobi Decision outcomes by Canada, including confirmation that the remaining export subsidies in 
Canada 's schedule will be eliminated by the end of this y ear. 
  
With respect to the notification, Australia notes that Canada provided producer financed subsidies 
for butter, cheese and other dairy products.  
  
Can Canada provide further information on these measures, including the funding organisation, any 
opera tional details of these subsidies?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93197: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Canada 's export subsidies for butter increased in  2018/2019 
compared to the year before and that both the outlays and quanti ty of subsidised exports exceeded 
the average level of the past five years.  
 
How does Canada consider this to respect the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition?  
AG-IMS ID 93199: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Canada 's ES:1 notification for Marketing Year 1 (August 2016 -31 July 2017) confirmed no outlays 
on butter, despite Canada having a scheduled commitment of 905 tonnes. Canada 's ES:1 notification 
for Marketing Year 2018 confirms the reintroduction of a subsidy on 151 tonn es of its scheduled 
commitment for butter. New Zealand also notes that Canada continues to subsidise exports of 
cheese.  
 
How is Canada ensuring that export subsidies on butter and cheese (as well as skim milk powder 
and products using dairy ingredients) w ill be effectively eliminated by 31 December 2020, as per 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
2.6.4   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/46,  G/AG/N/MAR/46/Corr.1,  G/AG/N/MAR/44, 
G/AG/N/MAR/44/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  
AG-IMS ID 93163: Question by Australia - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Australia welcomes Morocco's submission of its ES  :1 notification for 2014, 2016 and 2017. Noting 
Morocco's export subsidies are provided subject to Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, can 
Morocco prov ide responses to the following questions:  
  
a. Can Morocco provide details on the cost -reduction measures provided for vegetables, 
fruits, flowers and ornamental plants, olive oil and hatching eggs and day -old chicks?  
b. Can Morocco provide details on how these export subsidies meet Morocco's commitments 
under Nairobi Ministerial Decision, particularly paragraphs 9, 10 and 11?  
2.6.5   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/40, G/AG/N/TUR/41, G/AG/N/TUR/42, G/AG/N/TUR/43)  
AG-IMS ID 93165: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes Turkey's submission of its ES:1 notifications for 2010 through to 2013. This is 
an important demonstration of Turkey's commitment to transparency.  With respect to Turkey's 
remaining overdue ES notifications:  
  
a. Can Turkey advise when it exp ects to submit its outstanding notifications (for  2014 
onwards).  
Further, with respect to Schedule XXXVII – Turkey – Part IV – Section II – Export Subsidies 
(document G/MA/TAR/RS/588), which outlines Turkey's export subsidy reduction commitments, the G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 91 - 
 
  Sched ule indicates Turkey will cease to provide export subsidies as of 1 January 2019 for a range of 
agricultural products, including beef (0201, 0202), sheep meat (0204), milk (0401.30) and 
tomatoes  (0702).  
b. Can Turkey confirm that no export subsidies have bee n provided for those commodities 
consistent with the Nairobi Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93164: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Taking into due account that Turkey`s notifications relates to calendar years 2010 to 2013, hence 
before MC10, and that, accord ing to the notifications, none of its export subsidy reduction 
commitments have been disregarded, it is worth noticing that there is a considerable array of 
agricultural products that were entitled to subsidies. Could Turkey provide information on the 
reforms it has implemented on its agricultural policy related to export subsidies comply with the 
Nairobi Decision?  
2.7  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
2.7.1   Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  
AG-IMS ID 93222: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia  thanks Myanmar for the submission of an ER:1, notifying an export restriction on rice 
from 1 May to 30 June to prevent critical shortages of rice.  
  
Can Myanmar advise if the measures ended as notified – on 30 June – and if any further measures 
are being considered or developed with respect the export of rice from Myanmar?  
2.8  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.8.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/75)  
AG-IMS ID 93298: Question by United States of America -  
The United States thanks the Republic of Korea for the transparency provided in notifying its 
Table  NF:1 for 2018 and 2019.  
  
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID 93170 and 91123:  
  
The United States notes that the Republic of Korea provided food aid donations to the W FP for all 
years between 2008 and 2017 but did not notify any Table NF:1 for this period or Table  ES:3 
since 2013. Also, we noted that the Republic of Korea through the Asean Plus Three Emergency Rice 
Reserve's  (APTERR) food aid program provided in -kind fo od aid in year 2017.  
a. Please indicate when the Republic of Korea will be providing NF:1notifications for 
years  2008 to 2017.  
b. Please explain whether food aid donations to APTERR in 2017 should be notified in 
Tables  ES:3 and NF:1. If not, why not.  
3  DEFERRED R EPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)   
3.1.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10, G/AG/N/BHR/11, 
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93308: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS: 2) 
The United States notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain has not responded to any of the questions it 
has been asked since 2014 and would encourage the Kingdom of Bahrain to bring its responses to 
these questions up to date.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 92 - 
 
    
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89035/88101, for which the Kingdom of Bahrain has not 
responded and also applies to G/AG/N/BHR/11 and G/AG/N/BHR/14:  
  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 the Kingdom of Bahrain notified "plant protection" as 
a pest and disease c ontrol measure under Annex 2. No pest and disease control measure was notified 
for 2013 in G/AG/N/BHR/7, but the Kingdom of Bahrain did notify "Land preparation, crop protection, 
veterinary services" as a general services measure for that year as well as i n 2011 and previous 
years. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, the Kingdom of Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, national campaign 
for the control of red palm weevil" as a pest and disease control measure.  
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services") indicates whether 
the same programme received funding in only certain years or if a new programme was 
introduced with the same name. Please clarify.  
b. For each m easure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by the Kingdom of Bahrain in 
G/AG/N/BHR/10, please provide a short description of how the measure is implemented.  
c. Please confirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure (e.g., "plant 
protection" a nd "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil") 
will be submitted to this Committee.  
AG-IMS ID 93309: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain has not responded to any questions it has been 
asked since 2014 and would encourage the Kingdom of Bahrain to bring its responses to these 
questions up to date.  
 
The United States notes no response has be en provided for AG -IMS ID 88100/74038 regarding 
G/AG/N/BHR/7 and also applies to G/AG/N/BHR/11 and G/AG/N/BHR/14. The Kingdom of Bahrain 
has notified input subsidies for crops and animal products inputs generally available to low -income 
or resource -poor pr oducers.  
 
a. How does the Kingdom of Bahrain define "low -income or resource -poor"?  
b. What percent of Bahraini agricultural producers meets this definition ? 
c. Please describe what inputs are eligible to receive a subsidy, how the support measure 
implemented, and h ow the subsidy is calculated . 
3.1.2   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  
AG-IMS ID 93177: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow up with Singapore with respect to question AG -IMS ID 92120 that 
Australia asked at th e 92nd CoA: 
  
Australia thanks Singapore for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/SGP/32), in 
which it confirms no domestic support was provided or maintained.  Singapore has not notified the 
provision of any domestic support for the last de cade.  
  
On Singapore's Food Agency website, there are a number of programmes that may fall within the 
Agreement of Agriculture commitments made by Singapore, for example: the Agriculture 
Productivity Fund; the Productivity Enhancement Scheme; the Research  & Development scheme; 
and the Cash Advancement program.  
Can Singapore confirm that it has not provided any domestic support under these programmes, or 
explain how any expenditure under these programmes do not fall under Singapore's Agreement on 
Agricultur e commitments.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 93 - 
 
  3.1.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93141: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91195, noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
  
The Un ited States notes that Tunisia only notifies product specific support for milk in the form of 
market price support. However, the United States understands that Tunisia operates several 
additional programmes related to milk which were not notified at all.  
  
a. For the three measures identified below, please confirm how the measure is notified in 
Tunisia's most recent domestic support notification or provide the basis for exclusion.  
b. Please also provide the same information for any other programs related to milk not 
already identified including programs that:  
i. Provide a subsidy for dairy projects.  
ii. Provide funding of approximately USD 17 million for milk collection and cooling.  
iii. Provide USD 8 million to process milk stocks when there is overproduction. Please al so 
confirm for the most recent five notified years whether such funding was used and if 
so, how much.  
The United States understands for certain commodities (e.g., sugar and tobacco) the Government 
operates a public storage program intended to stabilize mar ket prices.  
  
c. Please provide the measure and additional details as to how this program is operated and 
please specific how this program is notified in Tunisia's domestic support notifications.  
Tunisia provides support to farmers in the form of agricultural  input subsidies for items such as 
fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation at rates below cost.  
d. For each type of input, fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation, as well as any others not 
identified by the United States, please explain how the program is admin istered and the 
basis for not including such measures in Tunisia's domestic support notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93140: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91191 noting the same i ssues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
  
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS 87041 regarding production levels in 2016 compared to notified 
eligible production, Tunisia indicated that it would provide a response at a later stage. The 
United  States r epeats the question in the context of both 2016 and 2017. It is the United  States 
understanding that Tunisia produced 840,000 MT of durum, 150,000 MT of common wheat, 
390,000  MT of barley and over 900,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
  
a. Please explain what the volum e of eligible production notified represents.  For example, in 
2016 Tunisia notified eligible production of 5,300 MT for durum, 500 MT for common 
wheat, 1,100 MT of barley and 865,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
b. Please provide the relevant measures and explain how the measures limit the quantity of 
eligible production of each of these commodities.  
AG-IMS ID 93139: Question by United States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
The United States repeats AG-IMS ID 91190 noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's n otification 
for 2018.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 94 - 
 
    
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS ID 87040, Tunisia indicated that it would provide a response at a 
later stage. The United States repeats the question and notes that Tunisia has also adjusted the 
fixed external reference price for 2 017 for the same commodities. For the reporting period of 2016, 
Tunisia has adjusted the fixed external reference prices for durum wheat, common wheat, barley 
and milk to take account of inflation and exchange rates. The same was done for products notified  
for 2014 in G/AG/N/TUN/47, at which time, in response to AG -IMS ID 62036, Tunisia stated that it 
considered the rate of inflation between 1998 -2014 to be excessive.  
  
a. Please provide additional information for Members to consider with the request, includi ng 
inflation rates for all years since 1986, noting that Tunisia's inflation rates are well within 
the range of most other Members' rates.  
b. Please provide information and data that shows all calculations regarding inflation in 
Tunisia's most recent notifica tion (G/AG/N/TUN/52).  
c. Please submit a revised notification showing domestic support calculated with an 
unadjusted FERP.  
d. Is Tunisia considering making substantive reforms to its policies that will bring it into 
compliance with its obligations?  
3.2  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
3.2.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 93230: Question by Japan - Transparency issues  
a. Japan recognizes that Kyrgyz Republic introduced export prohibitions on certain food 
products including wheat and meslin, whe at flour, rice, and sugar on 22 March 2020, and 
appreciates the measure was notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 31 March 2020. 
Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why the notification 
was not made before the measur e was taken while "prior notification" is required in 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if  Kyrgyz Republic could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Tr ade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situa tion of 
domestic supply and demand.  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 93166: Question by United States of America  
Table ES:3 and Table NF:1 Notifications  
  
Taking into account China has not responded to AG -IMS ID 92029 and 88082, the United  States 
notes that China in responding to the ECQ and AG -IMS ID 92031, China stated that it has provided 
food aid through both multilateral and bilateral channels through 2018 but has never notified 
Table  ES:3 (showing the total volume of food aid provided). Furthe r China stated in response to 
AG-IMS ID 90080 that it would study whether a Table ES:3 notification is necessary.  
a. Has China determined if notification of Table ES:3 is necessary?   
b. If not necessary, please explain.  
The United States notes that the volume of  international food assistance provided by China as 
reported in the export competition questionnaire from 2015 to 2018, is over 2 billion RMB per year, G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 95 - 
 
  making China the third largest food donor, after the United States and the European Union and its 
member  States.  As a food aid donor or donors of technical and financial assistance:  
c. When can Members expect China to notify Table NF:1?  
d. If China does not plan to notify, please explain why.  
4.1.2   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 93167: Question by United States of America  
The United  States notes that Egypt's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998.  As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 90081, Egypt stated 
that it was undertaking the necessary steps to update its ES notifications.  Please provide an update 
on the steps being taken by Egypt to submit its overdue notifications.  
 
4.1.3   European Union  
Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93 180) 
The European Union has notified its DS:1 notification up to marketing year 2016 -17. In this regard, 
India requests the European Union the following:  
 
a. When is it planning to file DS:1 notifications for years post 2016 -17? 
b. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  
4.1.4   India  
AG-IMS ID 93200: Question by European Union  
ES:1 notifications  
 
The latest  ES:1 notification for India covers the year 2009.  
 
a. Can India indicate when the outstanding ES:1 notifications will be submitted?  
b. Can India indicate whether it will include all Article 9:4 subsidies granted at Federal and 
State level in these notification s as suggested in earlier discussions in the Committee?   
AG-IMS ID 93168: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID  92030, AG-IMS ID 91143 and AG-IMS ID 88085, India states the 
preparation of notifications are underway and it would notify its export subsidies "shortly" . Please 
provide an update on the status of preparation of its numerous years of overdue notifications and 
tell Members when the Committee can expect to be notified.  
AG-IMS ID 93169: Question by United States of America   
The United States noticed that the Food Corporation of India has provided humanitarian food aid, 
on behalf of the Government on India, for example to Afghanistan in 2018 -19, 
(see: http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Import/ENGLISH%202011 -2020.pdf ).  
  
c. Please provide additional information on FCI's activities, including in what years 
humanitarian food aid has been provided.  
d. Please indicate whether India will be submitting ES:3 notifications for all relevant years. 
If not, please explain why not.  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 96 - 
 
  4.1.5   Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 93201: Question by European Union  
DS:1 notification  
 
The latest notification submitted in 1998 by Kenya concerns the year 1996.  
 
Can Kenya indicate when  its outstanding notifications will be submitted, in particular for recent 
years?  
4.1.6   Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 93170: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91123, the Republic of Korea stated that ES notification for food aid w ill 
be submitted in due course after the data collection.  
a. Please explain when the Republic of Korea will finish collecting its food aid data and submit 
Table  ES:3 notification for food aid for all relevant years?   
b. Since the Republic of Korea is a food aid  donor and donors of technical and financial 
assistance, will the Republic of Korea provide a Table NF:1 Notification?  If not, please 
explain why not.  
4.1.7   Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 93171: Question by European Union  
The EU appreciates the efforts Morocco has made in reducing the backlog of notifications in particular 
on export subsidies. However,  Morocco's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2012 covering the 
years 2003 to 2007. Can Morocco indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding 
DS:1 notifications?  
 
4.1.8   South Africa  
AG-IMS ID 93172: Question by European Union  
South Africa's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2016 covering the year 2014.  Can South Africa 
indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding DS:1 notifications?  
4.1.9   United States of Am erica  
AG-IMS ID 93202: Question by European Union   
ES:1 Notifications  
 
The latest ES:1 notification submitted covers 2017/18. Can the US indicate when the outstanding 
ES:1 notifications will be submitted?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93246: Question by India  
India notes that the United States submitted its last domestic support notification (DS:1  notification) 
as contained in document G/AG/N/USA/123 in 2018, for the marketing year 2016. According to the 
G/AG/2 document, the United States is required to submit its domestic support notification no later 
than 90 days following the end of the calendar (or, marketing, fiscal, etc.) year in question.  
  
Lately, the United States has announced a number of programmes for supporting i ts domestic 
agriculture sector. These programmes may have significant implications for the international prices 
of agricultural goods.  
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 97 - 
 
  In this context, India requests the United States to elucidate the reasons for not submitting its 
DS:1 notification fo r the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. By when can WTO Members expect the 
United  States to notify its domestic support for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93310: Question by Mexico   
The review process, which is conducted on the basis of Members' notifi cations to the Committee on 
Agriculture, is the principal means of reviewing compliance with Uruguay Round commitments. As a 
result, the Secretariat, Mexico and numerous developed and developing Members have combined 
their resources and technical efforts t o keep abreast of the reporting of budgetary outlays for 
domestic support. We note with concern that the last DS:1 notification from the United States was 
for the marketing year 2016 and therefore ask:  
  
When will the United States submit domestic support notifications for the years 2016/17, 2017/18, 
2018/19 and 2019/20?  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 93024: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks China for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS 92031, China stated that SINOSURE export insurance programmes covered 
a total value of USD 13.9 billion, USD 13.6 billion and USD 15.95 billion of agricultural products 
exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.  
  
Please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by product or product group 
(i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  If China is unable to provide this data at this time, 
please explain if China is taking steps to provide this d ata after the end of 2020 when the 
Nairobi  Decision Annex should be fully adopted by all Members.  
5.1.2   Japan  
AG-IMS ID 93173: Question by United States of America   
In response to AG -IMS ID 91158 and AG -IMS ID 89028, Japan stated that certain "Subsidies for th e 
Creation of Production Areas" under the "Direct Payment for Full Rice Paddy Utilization" program do 
not constitute export subsidies because they are not contingent on export performance.  
  
The United States seeks to understand how Japan has reached this conclusion, as the payments are 
made in specific cases where rice is planted for new market development overseas (e.g., for export). 
The previous responses discussed how decision -making is conducted between the local agricultural 
councils, prefectural gove rnments, and national government, and pointed out that there is no 
requirement to allocate a certain amount for new market development overseas, i.e. exports. 
However, the responses did not explain how there is no "provision by governments or their agencie s 
of direct subsidies… contingent on export performance" for those payments that are made for this 
purpose.  
  
Please provide details on how subsidies for new market development in overseas markets are 
structured and what requirements or conditions apply.  
 
5.1.3   Myanmar  
AG-IMS ID 93174: Question by Australia  
Australia would like to follow up with Myanmar with respect to question AG-IMS ID  92124 that 
Australia asked at the 92nd CoA: 
  G/AG/W/205/Rev.1  
 
- 98 - 
 
  Australia welcomes Myanmar's submission of ten overdue ES:1 notifications. Aust ralia welcomes this 
commitment to bringing notification submissions up to date and the transparency that comes with 
that. Australia looks forward to the submission of the ES:1 notifications for 2015 and onwards, and 
in the absence of these:  
 
Can Myanmar a dvise if it has provided any export subsidies in those reporting 
periods  (2015  onwards)?  
5.1.4   Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 93175: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks the Russian Federation for the transparency provided in responding to the 
export competition questionnaire.  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States would like to repeat question (c) as the 
Russian  Federation has not provided a written response:  
  
The United States notes that according to the webs ite of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), the bank provides trade financial products and services for the export of 
agricultural products. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing activities should be 
reported in the ECQ.  
5.1.5   Thail and  
AG-IMS ID 93176: Question by United States of America  
The United States thanks Thailand for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
  
The United States noted in Thailand's ECQ response that Export -Import Bank of Thailand 
(EXIM  Thailand) covered a total value of THB 5,282.49 million (USD 147.7 million), 
THB 8,322.5  million (USD 246.1 million), and THB 13,732.3 (USD 424.5 million) of agricultural 
product exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and  2018 respectively.  
  
Can Thailand please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by product or 
product group (i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.   
 
5.1.6   Viet Nam  
AG-IMS ID 93142: Question by United States of America  
The United  States resubmits AG -IMS ID 91109 on export competition for which Viet  Nam has not 
provided a written response:  
  
The United States notes that Viet  Nam has not updated its response to the Secretariat's 
Questionnaire since 2016 and has not provided data for  export financing support programs run by 
The Vietnam Development Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018. When will Viet  Nam provide data 
updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ?  If Viet  Nam is not able to provide this data, 
please explain why.  
 
 
____ ______