G/AG/W/205  
 
13 March 2020  
(20-2031) Page: 1/58 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  OF 24-25 MARCH 20201 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
10 March  2020 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/41.  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE I MPLEMENTATION OF COM MITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
1.1   Brazil's subsidized loans  ................................ ................................ ...............................  7 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93044)  ................................ ................................ .........  7 
1.2   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement ................................ ...........................  7 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.2.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.3   United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ .................  8 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.3.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93080)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.3.3    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93082)  ................................ ................................ ..... 9 
1.4   China's agricultural insurance  ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 
1.4.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  ................................ ................................ .....10 
1.5   China - exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  ................................ ................................ ........ 10 
1.5.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  ................................ ................................ .....10 
1.6   Colombia's coffee price stabilization fund  ................................ ................................ .......10 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93006)  ................................ ............ 10 
1.7   Egypt's import license regime  ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 
1.7.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  ................................ ................................ .......11 
1.8   EU "From farm to fork" ("F2F") strategy  ................................ ................................ ........ 11 
1.8.1    Question by Colombia (AG-IMS ID 93127)  ................................ ................................ ..11 
1.9   The EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy  ................................ ................... 11 
1.9.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  ................................ ................................ ..11 
1.10   EU- Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  ................................ ............... 12 
1.10.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93143)  ................................ ................................ 12 
1.11   EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ........................ 12 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93057)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.11.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93059)  ................................ ................................ 12 
1.12   EU's production subsidies resulted from implementation of  SPS measures  ....................... 13 
1.12.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060)  ................................ ................................ 13 
1.13   Japan - supplementary budget to address impact of new trade deal  ................................ 13 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93069)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.14   Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  ................................ ......14 
1.14.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.15   Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  ................................ ................................ ............. 14 
1.15.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93071)  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.16   United States - Japan -US Trade Agreement  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.16.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93081)  ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.17   Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  ................................ ..14 
1.17.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  ................................ ....................... 14 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.18   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - new system for issuing i mport licenses  ................................ .15 
1.18.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074) ................................ ................................ ......15 
1.19   Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  ................................ ................................ .....15 
1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93053)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.20   Thailand's "licence" charge on eggs  ................................ ................................ ............. 16 
1.20.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93075)  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.21   United Kingdom - policy update resulted from Brexit  ................................ ..................... 16 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.22   U.S. domestic support policies and notifications  ................................ ............................ 17 
1.22.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.23   Viet Nam - potential tariff reductions on certain agricultural products  .............................. 17 
1.23.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  ................................ ................................ ...17 
1.24   Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..18 
1.24.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  ................................ ................................ ...18 
1.25   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 18 
1.25.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93048)  ................................ ........................... 18 
1.25.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  ................................ .......... 18 
1.25.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93003)  ................................ .......... 18 
1.26   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.26.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.27   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ............ 20 
1.27.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93045)  ................................ ................................ .20 
1.27.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93046)  ................................ ........................... 20 
1.28   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  ................................ ........... 20 
1.28.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93047)  ................................ ........................... 20 
1.29   Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  ................................ ................................ 21 
1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042 ) ................................ .......... 21 
1.30   The EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ ........................ 21 
1.30.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93055) ................................ ................................ ......21 
1.31   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .21 
1.31.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  ................................ ....................... 21 
1.32   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 
1.32.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  ................................ ................................ .21 
1.32.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  ................................ ................................ ...22 
1.32.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  ................................ ................... 23 
1.33   India's export subsidie s /export credits  ................................ ................................ ........ 23 
1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  ................................ .......... 23 
1.34   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...24 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  ................................ .......... 24 
1.35   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .................... 24 
1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 930 09) ................................ .......... 24 
1.36   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ........................ 24 
1.36.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  ................................ ................................ .24 
1.36.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  ................................ .......... 25 
1.37   India's wheat policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 
1.37.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  ................................ .......... 25 
1.38   India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.38.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  ................................ .......... 25 
1.39   India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 
1.39.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012 ) ................................ .......... 25 
1.40   India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ .................. 26 
1.40.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  ................................ .......... 26 
1.41   Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ ............................... 26 
1.41.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  ................................ ........................... 26 
1.42   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ......26 
1.42.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  ................................ ................... 26 
1.43   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ .......... 27 
1.43.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  ................................ .......... 27 
1.44   Russia's export subsidi es ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 
1.44.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  ................................ ....................... 27 
1.45   Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  ................................ ................................ ............ 27 
1.45.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93019)  ................................ .......... 27 
1.45.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9 3021)  ................................ .......... 27 
1.46   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ .............................. 28 
1.46.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93018)  ................................ .......... 28 
1.47   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .............. 28 
1.47.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93076)  ................................ ................................ .28 
1.48   U.S. Proposed domesti c support measures  ................................ ................................ ...29 
1.48.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93079)  ................................ ................................ .29 
1.48.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93084)  ................................ ................................ ...29 
1.48.3    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  ................................ ................................ 30 
1.48.4    Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93086)  ................................ ................................ ....30 
1.48.5    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93087)  ................................ ........................... 30 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ....................  31 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) ................................ ..31 
2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/55)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 
2.1.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/247)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....31 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/56)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 
2.2.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 
2.2.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/57)  ................................ ................................ ............... 32 
2.2.4    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/71, G/AG/N/KOR/72, G/AG/N/KOR/73)  ....................... 34 
2.2.5    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)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 34 
2.2.6    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/98)  ................................ ................................ ................... 35 
2.2.7    Ukrain e (G/AG/N/UKR/35)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 
2.2.8    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28)  ................................ .................... 35 
2.2.9    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29)  ................................ .................... 35 
2.2.10    Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)  .......................... 36 
2.3   Special agricultural safeg uards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .................... 36 
2.3.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  ................................ ................................ ........... 36 
2.3.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/183)  ................................ ................................ ........... 36 
2.3.3    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/185, G/AG/N/TPKM/187)  ................................ ............... 36 
2.4   Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 37 
2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  ................................ ............................ 37 
2.4.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 37 
2.4.3    Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 - G/AG/N/BOL/26)  ................................ .37 
2.4.4    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 
2.4.5   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  ................................ ................................ .................... 39 
2.4.6    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 40 
2.4.7    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/69)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 41 
2.4.8    Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 41 
2.4.9   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/19)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 
2.4.10    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/67)  ................................ ................................ .................... 42 
2.4.11    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/74)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 43 
2.4.12    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60/CORR.1 - G/AG/N/KOR/63/CORR.1)  ...................... 44 
2.4.13    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, G/AG/N/KOR/63)  ...................... 44 
2.4.14    Nigeria  (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 45 
2.4.15    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/108, G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.1  and G/AG/N/NOR/108/Corr.2)  .....45 
2.4.16    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/AG/N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69) ................................ ...46 
2.4.17    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  ................................ ............................. 46 
2.4.18    Chinese  Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  ................................ ................................ ......... 46 
2.4.19    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 
2.4.20    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36 - G/AG/N/TUR/39)  ................................ ............................... 47 
2.4.21    Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  ................................ ............................... 51 
2.5   New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ .............. 52 
2.5.1    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/1)  ................................ ................................ .............. 52 
2.6   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............... 52 
2.6.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/40, G/ AG/N/ARG/41, G/AG/N/ARG/42) ................................ ....52 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.6.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/54)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 
2.6.3    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)  ................................ ................................ ............ 53 
2.6.4    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/40, G/AG/N/TUR/41, G/AG/N/TUR/42, G/AG/N/TUR/43)  ................ 53 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES  TO QUESTIONS ON NOT IFICATIONS  ................................ ..........  53 
3.1   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 53 
3.1.1    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 53 
3.1.2    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 54 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATI ONS ................................ ................................ ........................  55 
4.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 
4.1.2    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 
4.1.3    European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......56 
4.1.4    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 56 
4.1.5    Korea, Republic of ................................ ................................ ................................ ....56 
4.1.6    Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 56 
4.1.7    South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 56 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  57 
5.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 57 
5.1.2    Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 57 
5.1.3    Myanmar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 57 
5.1.4    Russian Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...57 
5.1.5    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 58 
5.1.6    Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 58 
 
  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1   Brazil's subsidized loans  
1.1.1   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 decline in inflation has allowed the 
government to boost funding in a country that already is the world 's largest exporter of staples li ke 
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 informa tion 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 Agreem ent on Agriculture under which the programme 
is intended to be notified?  
c. What are the eligibility criteria for availing such loans?  
1.2  China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the E conomic and Trade Agreement Between the United States 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 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 concerning 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 applied MFN tariffs to facilitate the purchase and import 
of at least US$80 billion in agricultural goods over the next two years?  
b. Does Ch ina intend on reallocating unused or returned wheat, rice and corn TRQ amounts 
pursuant to a particular mechanism?  
i. For example, the mechanism established under Annex A of the Bali Ministerial Decision 
on tariff -rate quota (TRQ) Administration.  
c. We would fur ther welcome China advise the Membership on how it plans to implement the 
obligations of Chapter 6, Article 6.2: Trade Opportunities, paragraph  5, whereby 
"…purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial considerations… ". 
1.2.2   Question by Canada (A G-IMS ID 93050)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the People 's Republic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultu ral 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 abo ve 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 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 8 - 
 
  corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United St ates 
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?  
1.3  United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93078)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of 
Americ a 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 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 ". 
 
Can the US please respond to the following questions with respect 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 purchase 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 tha t the Agreement will not unduly impact 
other Members or markets?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.3.2   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 Republic of Chi na 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 corr esponding 
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 US$24 billion. Could the 
United  States share its analysis on the market conditions that would support increasing its 
agricultural exports by 52% to US$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 products:  
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 c ase 
of agricultural goods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year. " Could 
the United States elaborate how "commercial considerations " 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 relationships?  
1.3.3   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 as well as obligations to purchase set monetary amounts of goods. China 
agrees to import an additional $200 bi llion 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 Agr eements database indicates 
that no such arrangement exists between China and the United States.  
  
a. Could the US provide information on which agricultural products are covered by the phase 
one accord and amount of targeted purchases for these products?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 10 - 
 
  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?  
1.4  China's agricultural insurance  
1.4.1   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 qualit y of development of agricultural 
insurance ". Canada understands that the document aims to promote and standardize the 
development of agricultural insurance.  
  
a. Could China provide an update on the development of agricultural insurance products?  
b. Would agri cultural 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?  
1.5  China - exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  
1.5.1   Question by Canada (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 exemption 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 this 
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 prov ide an estimate as to the value of this exemption?  
1.6  Colombia's coffee price stabilization fund  
1.6.1   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. eligib ility 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 the programme operates.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.7  Egypt's import license regime  
1.7.1   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 posit ive, could Egypt provide details on the administration of this import license regime 
(criteria for granting the license; economic agents who can request; existence of import 
limits, among others)?  
c. Are decisions on the granting of licenses made available t o the public?  
1.8  EU "From farm to fork" ("F2F") strategy  
1.8.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93127)  
On 17 February 2020, the European Commission published 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 producers to thrive in a sustainable food system. The strategy will include measures to 
significantly reduce the us e 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 instrumen tal 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 
worldw ide if the EU proceeds to substantially reduce the use of pesticides in third 
countries? Are there any alternative methods authorized in the EU that 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 and combining of agrochemicals, 
precisely to ensure soil sustainability? How does the EU expect to encourage thi s 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 active 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.  
1.9  The EU's deforestation and forest degradation strategy  
1.9.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93128)  
On 5 February 2020, the European Commission announced a n impact assessment for the strategy 
"Deforestation and forest degradation – reducing the impact of products placed on the EU market". 
In the document concerned, the EU stated the following: "There are many drivers of deforestation, 
but the expansion of ag riculture is the most important one. Some studies estimate that 80% of 
global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, a phenomenon which has roots in the global 
demand for products such as palm oil, soya and beef."  
a. The community authorities rec ognize that there are many reasons for deforestation and 
that these reasons are based on very different realities depending on the country in which 
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 countries like Colombia G/AG/W/205  
 
- 12 - 
 
  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 and regulatory failure reflected in 
the lack of level playing field between companies that act responsibly toward s 
deforestation and those who do not; and information asymmetries, derived from the lack 
of common standards and reliable information in the hands 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 sustainability criteria for biofuels and 
bioliquids. However, while the EU FLEGT Action Plan tackles illegal logging, it doe s not 
address deforestation caused by agricultural expansion. The recast Renewable Energy 
Directive for the period post 2020 extends the obligation 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 exclude, 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 sustainable palm oil, if it does not allow member States to 
consider this product to be renewable energy?  
b. The a dditional 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 products 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?  
1.10  EU- Border adjustment mechanism for carbon emissions  
1.10.1   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 E U please elaborate 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?  
1.11  EU's environmental policies  
1.11.1   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 the introduction of national strategic plans.  
  
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 environmental impacts of these forms of support?  
b. What are the reasons for delay in the notification?  
1.11.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93059)  
European Union – Green Deal:  
 
On 11 December 2019, the European Union made an announcement on th e European Green Deal. 
The Green Deal is an ambitious programme which, according to the European Union, aims to G/AG/W/205  
 
- 13 - 
 
  transform the EU into a fully sustainable economy, creating a change in the EU's social and economic 
model, while providing the economic resourc es 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, including 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 Transi tion Fund" for European 
agriculture, specifically with regard to the subsidies to be granted, the types of 
programmes and the amounts awarded.  
1.12  EU's production subsidies resulted from implementation of SPS measures  
1.12.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93060)  
European Union – Production subsidies 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 
Europea n Union as a consequence of the 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 fo r agricultural production. 
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 ann ounced on 16  January in Luxembourg. 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 fram ework 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.  
1.13  Japan - supplementary budget to address impact of new trade deal  
1.13.1   Questi on 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 Stat es Trade Agreement signed in October 2019.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 14 - 
 
  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 existin g measures?  
b. How will Japan ensure that these measures do not negatively impact third 
countries ' exports to Japan, either directly or indirectly?  
1.14  Japan's beef special safeguard (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG)  
1.14.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93070)  
On 20 Decemb er 2019, the government of Japan announced 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 elimination 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, continue 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, with the elimination of the WTO beef (SSG) and pork safeguard (SG) before the 
beef and pork safeguards in some of Japan 's EPAs?  
 
1.15  Japan - Japan -US Trade Agreement  
1.15.1   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 timeline s 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?  
1.16  United States - Japan -US Trade Agreement  
1.16.1   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 issues.  
a. What are the timelines for the second round of negotiations between Ja pan and the 
United  States?  
b. Would the scope of this second round include additional commitments on agriculture such 
as purchase commitments?  
1.17  Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  
1.17.1   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 restricting imports and that it respects the 
following commitments:  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 15 - 
 
  • 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 GATT (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions).  
1.17.2   Question by New Zeal and (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?  
 
1.18  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of  - new system for issuing import licenses  
1.18.1   Question by Br azil (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 importe rs 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 business 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 n ew 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 procedure 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 Gen eral 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);  
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).  
1.19  Chinese Taipei - Rice TRQ tender system  
1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93053)  
Australia refers to Chinese Taipei 's administration of its simultaneous buy -and-sell (SBS) 'private ' 
tender system under its WT O 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 transpo rtation and port clearance; and  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 16 - 
 
  • 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 an y 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 entit ies 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 imported 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 reflects 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?  
h. Is an equivalent floor price also applied to rice produced in Chinese Taipei?  
i. If so, please provide details about this and how it is calculated.  
1.20  Thailand's "licence" charge on eggs  
1.20.1   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 actual 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 charges would be reviewed, no action a ppears 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?  
 
1.21  United Kingdom - policy update resulted from Brexit  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93077)  
Canada understands that the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed a Withdrawal 
Agreement that establishes a transition period that is set to end 31  December  2020, unless 
extended. Previously, producers in th e 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 up date indicates that England will move away from the EU CAP and established its own 
agriculture policy framework. ( https://www.g ov.uk/government/publications/the -future -for-food-
farming -and-the-environment -policy -statement -2020).  
a. Could the UK indicate when CAP will no longer apply 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 occur in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 17 - 
 
  c. Could the UK indicate if Scotland, Wales and Northern Irel and will provide similar policy 
updates on their respective agriculture policy frameworks? And if so, what are the 
timelines?  
1.22  U.S. domestic support policies and notifications  
1.22.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93085)  
a. As per a Congressional Research Service repo rt, 
(https://www.everycrsreport.com/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 support to non -product specific support. India requests 
the United States to kindly confirm this.  
b. The Uni ted 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 United States planning to file DS:1 notifications for years post 2016?  
ii. What are the reasons for delay in th e notification?  
c. The United States on 28 February 2020 announced that it intends to make available up to 
$100 million in competitive grants for activities designed to expand the sale and use of 
renewable fuels through the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incent ive 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 producing feedstocks such 
as corn and soybean for renewable fuels.  
ii. How is the US intending to notify this programme under domestic support 
notifications.?  
1.23  Viet Nam - potential tariff reductions on certain agricultural products  
1.23.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 93083)  
According to media reports, Viet  Nam is considering decre asing import tariffs on some agricultural 
products. Viet  Nam's motivation for possible tariff reductions on chicken, processed chicken meat, 
almonds, grapes, wheat, pork, and potatoes, however is not entirely clear. On the one side such 
action follows bila teral discussions with the United States and appears to have the objective of 
reducing Vietnam'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 tariff cuts on these 
agricultural products are in line with the first-year reductions foreseen under the Comprehensive 
and Progressive Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Uk raine understands that the CPTPP has entered 
into force for 7 countries and that ratification 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 ta riff reductions were taken in line with Vietnam's CPTTP commitments.  
  
a. Could Viet  Nam confirm 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 
reduc tions 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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.24  Brazil's wheat quota  
1.24.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93043)  
Canad a 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 t he 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?  
1.25  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.25.1   Question by New Zealand (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 s teps it is taking to eliminate milk classes 6 
and 7, including their associated milk class prices, within six months of this preferential trade 
agreement entering into force?  
 
1.25.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93002)  
In AG -IMS ID 92002, rega rding 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.  
1.25.3   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 marketing 
boards or provincial agencies for interprovincial and export trade of dairy products pursuant to the 
Canadian Dairy Commission Act and the Agr icultural Products Marketing Act.  This would also include 
the power in respect of pricing.  Provincial boards and agencies are also delegated provincial authority 
for pricing based on provincial legislation and statute.  Under the Canadian Milk Supply Manage ment 
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 producer s, 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, Canada 's Agriculture Minister Bibeau in Feb ruary 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 compensatio n 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.26  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.26.1   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 off 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, what 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 agen t of a winery 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 reta il 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, while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
1.26.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  
According to the 6 June 2019 public backgro under issued by Ontario 
(https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-fairness -for-beer-and-
wine-consumers.ht ml: 
 
"Eighty -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 be 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?  
b. For the 35 grocers ref erred to in the backgrounder, what restrictions have been lifted?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.27  Canada's review of the TRQ system  
1.27.1   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 
substant ive 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 det ailed on the government 
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 furthe r 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 Agricult ure for substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support 
and protection?  
1.27.2   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 administra tion of tariff 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?  
 
1.28  Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
1.28.1   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 is 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 notifi cation " raises 
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 thi s 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. wh ether 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 co mpensatory payments in 2020?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.29  Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  
1.29.1   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 agreements reached on export subsidies with 
agricultural companies impacts the provision of suppor t under this measure.  
1.30  The EU's coupled payments  
1.30.1   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 should  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) 2017/23 93?  
b. Could the EU explain the impact of the Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation on its 
blue box domestic support programmes?  
1.31  India's sugar policies  
1.31.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  
Follow -up question to AG IMS ID 92007:  
 
a. Can India indica te for the five years 2011 to 2015 prior to the Nairobi Ministerial meeting 
the following:  
• Total export of sugar from India per year ; 
• Quantity of this which had received export subsidy (federal or state) and the amount 
spend on these subsid ies annually 201 1 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 pro gramme 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 "? 
1.32  India's pulses policies  
1.32.1   Question by Australia (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 focus 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, with 
traders and with consumers.  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Australia was disa ppointed 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 trade -restrictive measures.   
 
For example, in Decemb er 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 through one specific port (Kolkata sea port).  Addition ally, 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 betw een 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 restricted 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 sub mitted 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)?  
1.32.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  
On 18 December 2020, the government of 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 will 
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 
import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times the price 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 detailed information as to how this minimum impor t 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 determined the level of this minimum import pr ice, 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 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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 23 - 
 
  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.  
1.32.3   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 1st of 
January  2020 in ad dition to quantitative restrictions for peas remained in force India have introduced 
minimum import price requirement for yellow and green peas. Ports of entry for yellow and green 
peas are also limited to only one seaport Kolkata.  
 
a. Could India provide th e reasons for tightening restrictive policy in relation to imports of 
pulses?  
b. Could India describe the administration of yellow 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 for pulses to only one 
port are consistent with the WTO rules, including Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.33  India's export su bsidies /export credits  
1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 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 explain in detail why India doe s 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 I ES. 
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 financing 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 (US$679 million) on the export support scheme for all eligible manufacture and 
agricultural products. The notice instr ucts 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.  
  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 24 - 
 
  d. Please provide the total agricultural product -specific export support spent under the 
scheme and the total value of agricultural products benefited up to the present day.  
1.34  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.34.1   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 )  
 
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.  
 
1.35  India's support to r ice exports  
1.35.1   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 recommended by a WTO panel on October 2019 and that M EIS 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 benefits 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 those programmes.  
1.36  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.36.1   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 Assistance (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 the 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 consist ent 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 would 
further request India:  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 25 - 
 
  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?  
1.36.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  
Noting the introduction of the Tran sport 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 regarding Article 9.4 export subsidies.  The 
measure co vers a wide variety of products and lists eligible export destinations including West Africa, 
South America, ASEAN, Oceana, and several other regions.  
a. Given the broad scope of this measure, how does India analyze 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 displacing or impeding the exports of 
another M ember?  
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 concurrently from these measures, please describe wha t 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.  
1.37  India's wheat policies  
1.37.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  
It is the understanding of the United St ates 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?  
1.38  India - Dairy Loans  
1.38.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  
In AG -IMS ID 92011, India respo nded 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?  
1.39  India's short -term crop loans  
1.39.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 91147, India referred the United States to  http://agricoo p.nic.in/  with 
regards to information regarding the Interest Subvention Scheme.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 26 - 
 
  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 domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
1.40  India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.40.1   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 g overnment 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?  
1.41  Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  
1.41.1   Question by New Z ealand (AG -IMS ID 93068)  
New Zealand would like to acknowledge 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 Indone sia 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.  
1.42  Mongolia's quota regime for i mportation  
1.42.1   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 importation of certain agric ultural 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 whea t 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 regarding its quota 
regime, in p articular:  
 
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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 27 - 
 
  c. Please confirm that Mongo lia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk. 
1.43  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
1.43.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  
The United States notes that Nigeria continues to maintain impo rt 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 reg ulations 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 tempo rary? 
1.44  Russia's export subsidies  
1.44.1   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 Russian 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 Article  78 of the 
Budget Code?  
1.45  Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  
1.45.1   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 ref erred to by TMO and published on its website as 
"intervention purchasing prices ". Article 4 of the relevant measure indicates that its objective is, 
among other things, "...to prevent abnormal increases or decreases in the price of grain products to 
the de terminant 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 r ationale 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.   
1.45.2   Questio n 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 shortened tender periods. It has 
also been c harged 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 s hort-term price options, and to G/AG/W/205  
 
- 28 - 
 
  provide an opportunity for effective and timely intervention in accordance with international trade 
conditions ".  
  
a. Please provide the relevant legislation or implementing regulation that 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 a ctivities to the WTO COA and STE Working 
Party?  
1.46  Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.46.1   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 p rices. The EU requested more information on these transactions and asked when 
the price support for wheat was going to be notified by Turkey. Turkey replied with "TMO determines 
independent policies within the framework of profitability and efficiency prin ciples, 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 mai ntains 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 TMO '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 comports with the "profitability 
and efficiency principles ", as Turkey cited.  
 
1.47  United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.47.1   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 31 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 Austral ian 
businesses currently holding licenses to export agricultural products into the EU under existing 
EU WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia previously raised concerns in the lead up to a possible 
no-deal Brexit that the UK and EU were proposing two co nflicting 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 th at Australia would like to avoid.  
  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 29 - 
 
  For a number of Australia 's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approaches would have 
resulted in an EU27 and UK CSQ that, 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 pr eviously 
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 worse 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?  
1.48  U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  
1.48.1   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 
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 
developm ent, 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 Packages?  
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?  
1.48.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93084)  
According to the USDA, a higher proportion (approximately 30%) of net farm income is expected to 
come from federal assistance pr ogrammes 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 current payments? USDA forecasts 
$139 billion in exports in fiscal year 2020, up $4 billion from  2019 numbers. That 's 
significantly lower than the expectation that China would purchase $40 billion in 
agricultural products from the U.S. or $36 billion higher than USDA projections. 
Additionally, the CORVID -19 outbreak is slowing global economic activit y. 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. Could the United States confirm 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 T rump, 
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 they 
had an average adjusted gross income (AGI) level higher than $900,000 limit ma y 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 payments in 2018?  
e. Could the United States indicate under which notification year wi ll these retroactive 
payments will be notified?  
1.48.3   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 93144)  
How are the trade assistance programmes for agricultural producers and exporters affected by 
disputes with China being implemented, given that the USDA (United States D epartment of 
Agriculture) has repeatedly announced increases in the aid and assistance budgets for these 
producers?  
It is important to understand what amounts have been allocated, to which products, and for which 
specific activities, and, in particular, h ow this support is consistent with multilateral commitments.  
1.48.4   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 pro ducts for 2018 and 2019. In light of the above, 
we request the United States to provide information 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 prod ucts for which the support is granted;  
d. the manner in which the United States will notify these subsidies 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 effects of 
specific circumstances; and 6. the producer states that benefited most from the payments.  
1.48.5   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 time 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 Marke t Facilitation Program  (MFP) 
payments so far, i.e. since 29 July 2019?  
MFP payments are to be made 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 benefits.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 31 - 
 
  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 re trospective payments 
from the 2018 MFP, during the parallel signup period (29 July to 6 December 2019)?  
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 under 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 as 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 th ird tranche of payments announced by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, is the final payment 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 impact ed by trade deals that are yet to be implemented? And confirm when this 
additional package of support will be notified to the WTO?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota 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 the 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:  
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: Questio n 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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.2.2   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 TR Q 
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?  
2.2.3   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  
 
- 33 - 
 
  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 restrictive 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 imports under tariff rate quotas 
during the marketi ng year 2018/2019. New Zealand notes that a significant number of the 
TRQ quotas have very low fill rates, particularly in regards to dairy products. Could the EU please 
provide an explanation of the circumstance 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 the European Union for the submission of the notific ation 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 Euro pean 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 rate 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 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, EECQ035, EECQ036, EECQ037, EECQ097, EECQ111) had 
zero or almo st zero fill -in rate. Could European Union provide the reasons for the absence of import 
under mentioned TRQs?  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.2.4   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 th e 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 significant underfill of some of its 
tariff quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can the Republic of Korea explain whether the under -fill was 
due to market circumstances, SPS measures for t he product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?      
c. Did the Republic 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 notification s indicated a steep decline on the fill rate of TRQs KORQ020 
(onions) and KORQ021 (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 c ould explain such 
a reduction of the volume of imports under TRQs KORQ020 and 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 we re 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 tree s), 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 mentioned TRQs?  
2.2.5   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 Ru ssian 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). Russian Federation noticed 
that during the period from 2013 to 2017 TRQ for sheep meat (MARQ002) were zero filled or abo ut 
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 place o utside the TRQ?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 35 - 
 
  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?  
2.2.6   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/98 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 rate of 45.7%).  
 
2.2.7   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/35)  
AG-IMS ID 93102: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Ukraine's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to calendar year 2019, indicate that there has 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 approve 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 quantity is 0%. Could Ukraine please 
elaborate the reason?  
 
2.2.8   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 quest ion 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?  
 
2.2.9   Venezuela, Bolivaria n 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%) while 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), VENQ043 (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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 36 - 
 
  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?  
2.2.10   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 93106: Q uestion 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 t o 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 notifications 
for 2014 and 2015. Can the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please advise when it expects to provide 
these notifications?  
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   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?  
 
2.3.2   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 decrease 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 ensure its consumers have 
access to sufficient quantities of affordable chicken legs and wings?  
2.3.3   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 notifications of Garlic and Other Milk Products, Chinese Taipei used 125% as base 
trigger level to calculate trigger volumes. However, Article 5.4 a nd footnote 3 of AoA allows 
using 125% (Article 5.4 (a)) if the domestic consumption were not taken into account. 
Thailand views that Chinese Taipei already has domestic consumption on both 
notifications. Could Chinese Taipei clarify why the domestic consu mption is not taken into 
account?  
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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 37 - 
 
  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 respond 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:  
  
In its 2016/2017 domestic support DS:1 notification document G/AG/N/ARG/45, Argentina notified 
the "Belgrano Agricultural Stimulus Plan " 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 covered?  
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 appears 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 d oes not 
constitute revenue forgone, an input subsidy or any another type of domestic support that 
benefits Australian agricultural producers?  
2.4.3   Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14  - G/AG/N/BOL/2 6) 
AG-IMS ID 93111: Question by Australia - Transpar ency 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 repor ted in its official 
government websites has not been included in Bolivia 's Domestic Support notifications?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 38 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In its notifications for 2006 -2018, the Plurinatio nal 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 o f 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. Agricult ural Innovation and Services Project: The 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 in surance programme covers 10 
commodities and compensates farmers for losses.  
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 resp onse 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 2020?  
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 products 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 products 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 P rogrammes)  
Supporting Table DS:2  
  
Brazil 's notified expenditures in ST/DS: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.  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 39 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93 026: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -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 table 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 resche duled programme interest rate during the reporting 
period?  
c. What has been the average 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 an d SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest rate 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 each of the previous three years, with outlays 
totalling  more than 650 million USD 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 production and 
marketing credits.  
 
2.4.5   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 93031: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Cameroon indicates that no sup port 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 Development.  
a. Can Cameroon elaborat e 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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 40 - 
 
  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 programme.   
  
 Please elaborate on w hat the assistance to the agricultural sector is with regards to environmental 
protection programme.  
 
2.4.6   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  
AG-IMS ID 93113: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
According to Agriculture and Agri -Food Canad a, 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 "growing forward 2 " to be 
notified a fter 2018?  
AG-IMS ID 93035: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
"Note 2" to "Supporting Tables DS:5" indicates that "eligible production " of skim milk powder equals 
total production (102 ,953 t) less product sales for further processing and animal feed under Special 
Classes 5a, b, and c (11,840 t) and 4m (69,964 t) less total exports (23.687 t), plus that portion of 
exports that had received the support price (0 t).  
  
a. Is SMP produced in O ntario 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 On tario 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 (powder) and 5 a, b, and c and for exports from 
eligible pro duction. 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 Zealand - 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 Marketing 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 payments made under each of these pro grams so that Members 
may understand how the reported values were derived.  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 41 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93115: Question by New Zealand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Spending under AgriInsurance increased from CAD 894 million in 2015, to CAD 1038.3 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 repo rted. 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 domestic support.   
c. Please also provide a copy of all legal instruments related to the programme.  
2.4.7   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 between 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 - Transparency 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 expanding 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 w ell 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  
Colomb ia 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.  
 
2.4.8   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93117: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada no tes that in its 2018 DS:1 notification, Georgia notified a new programme titled 
"Elaboration and Management of Environmental Protection and Agriculture Development Policy " 
under paragraph 2 (a) research, Annex 2.  
  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 42 - 
 
  a. Could Georgia please advise when it expe cts to submit a DS:2 notification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of activities that are eligible under this programme?  
2.4.9   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 notified 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 n otification for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of infrastructural services that are eligible under this 
programme?  
2.4.10   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 t o 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 93040: 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 notific ation.  
  
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 consumers 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 8 9041, for 
which we only received partial 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 appli ed administered price is applicable. ", Indonesia 
responded 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 ap plicable 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 43 - 
 
  c. The US reiterates 2e ( "Please confirm whether the a pplied 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 th at the eligible production quantity for MPS for rice in 2018 is nearly 10 times larger 
than in 2017 quantity, resulting in an 800% increase in market price support.  
  
Please explain the reason behind the significant change in the quantity of eligible prod uction and 
whether eligible production was notified as the procured quantity, as noted by Indonesia in response 
to AG -IMS ID 89041.  
 
2.4.11   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 appreciates 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 dairy and egg sectors so that Isra el 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 for 2018 Israel has notified domestic support over its annual commitment and 
that the amount reported is an increase of US$18.5 million above the amount notified in 2017 when 
Israel also exceeded its domestic support commitment. Canada appreciates the transparency and 
the inf ormation 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 to Canada 's question s 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 bring Israel 's Curre nt 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 curr ent 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 administered 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 for eggs 
and milk th at 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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 44 - 
 
  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: Question by Brazil - Market pri ce 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:  
 
Could Israel provide comparative dat a 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 ID 90066, it is still uncle ar 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 ID 93126: Question by Unite d 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.  
 
2.4.12   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 were 
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 decrea se 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.  
2.4.13   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 notifications  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 suppo rt, 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 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 45 - 
 
  aided through these investment subsidies and details of the investment subsidies 
provided?  
2.4.14   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93131: Question by Australia - 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 sup port 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 P lan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
2.4.15   Norway ( G/AG/N/NOR/108 , G/AG/N/NOR/108/C orr.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 Environmental 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 un der 
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 
information 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 s ubsidy 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 increased 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 (Suppor ting Table DS:6).  
 
What changes have been made to the quality incentive programme between 2017 and 2018 that 
leads to this change of classification?  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 46 - 
 
  2.4.16   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/67, G/AG/N/PHL/68, G/AG/N/PHL/69)  
AG-IMS ID 93135: Question by New Zealand - Direc t 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 d isasters - 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% between 2015 and 2018?  
2.4.17   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 menti oned,  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?  
2.4.18   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  
AG-IMS ID 93116: Question by Aust ralia - 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, but 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 rice 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 provi de more detail on the purpose and objective of this Program? and  
b. Can Chinese Taipei explain if the Program is achieving its purpose and objective?  
2.4.19   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 o f their domestic 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 su pport 
commitments." 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)?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 47 - 
 
  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 ha s 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 t o excessive rates 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. Could Tunisia please up date this table 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:  
  
a. 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. Cou ld Tunisia please update this table by including the current total 
aggregate measurement of support for the years 2016 and 2017 without any changes to 
its external reference prices?  
b. 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 tak en to address this 
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".  
c. Could Tunisia please provide an u pdate on its investigations under way to identify 
alternative options for notifying support and the steps to be taken?  
d. Could Tunisia please indicate when it will notify its domestic support without adjustments 
to its external reference prices?  
2.4.20   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 (Table 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 under 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 Turki sh Government to bring its subsidy 
levels into line with its WTO commitments and obligations.  
c. 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 implement ed 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 48 - 
 
  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 concerning 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 context of investment support within the framework of the 
development of animal husbandry; ( iv) the manner in which T urkey 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 
continui ty 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 chang e. 
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 t he 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 types 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 anima l 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 environm ent and the fight against climate change.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 49 - 
 
  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 amoun t 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 increase of more than USD 130,000,000 in one year for this type of subsidy; ( iii) the 
type of support provided in the co ntext 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 th e 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 in crease in these subsidies from 2012 
to 2013; ( 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 o f 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 9314 8: Question by United States of America - 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/T UR/20.  
  
e. 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 chang e in 
support.  
f. In 2010 Turkey introduced a decoupled income support and a structural adjustment 
measure for hazelnuts.  Please provide information on how the measure was implemented.  
g. For each of the above identified new or modified measures, as well as any o ther relevant 
exempt 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 investment 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 50 - 
 
  b. Please explain how support for use of hybrid and certified seed/seedlings is implemented, 
including how eligibility 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 avail able 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.  
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 Turkey 
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 ca lendar years 2005, 2007, and 2009.  
  
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 rec orded 
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 commitme nt level  
According to notifications 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 justificat ion for such level of domestic 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, safflow er between 2010 and 2013?  
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 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 51 - 
 
  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 fro m 2011 
(US$17,577,492) to US$479,096,942 and US$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 Tur key's domestic support 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. For this notification, three sectors did not 
respect the 10% de minimis  limit. 
 
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 commitment.  
 
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 Ta ble DS:9  
 
Please explain the factors that caused the $500 million increase for agricultural credit between 2009 
and 2013.  
2.4.21   Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  
AG-IMS ID 93155: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(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 pro jected budgetary outlays or 
expenditures.  
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 no tes 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 ?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 52 - 
 
  2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  
2.5.1   United Kingdom (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. Australia looks forward to having the UK engage 
fulsomely in this important transparency work. Australia hopes the UK can set a new standard of 
best p ractice in terms of quality and timeliness of notifications, drawing on the extensive discussions 
in the Committee on Agriculture on how to provide the most relevant, fulsome and timely information 
to facilitate other Members ' review and understanding of t he 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 Committee?  
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?  
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 documents 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 compliance 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 subs idized 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 i t notified 
14,478.7  tonnes of rice provided 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 indu stries, nor on their region 's production and commercial markets of either 
like-products, or substitute products?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 53 - 
 
  2.6.3   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 - Spec ial 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 provi de 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?  
2.6.4   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 
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?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)   
3.1.1   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 the 92nd CoA: 
  
Australia thanks Singapore for its DS:1 notification for Ca lendar 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 decade.  
  
On Singapore 's Food Agency website, there are a number of progra mmes 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.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Can Singapore co nfirm 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 
Agriculture commitments.  
3.1.2   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 United States notes that Tunisia only notifies product specific suppor t 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 me asure 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 US$17 million for milk collection and cooling.  
iii. Provide US$8 million to process milk stocks when there is overproduction. Please also 
confirm for the most recent five notified years whether such funding w as 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 market 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 administered and the 
basis for not including such measures in Tunisia 's domest ic 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 issues 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 repeats the question in the context of both 2016 and 2017. It is the Unite d 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 volume of eligible production notified represents.  For example, in 
2016 Tunisi a 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 c ommodities.  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 55 - 
 
  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 notification 
for 2018.  
  
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 2017 for the same commodities. For th e 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, including 
inflation rates for all years sin ce 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 notification (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?  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 93166: Que stion 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). Further China stated in response to 
AG-IMS ID 90080 th at 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 Chin a as 
reported in the export competition questionnaire from 2015 to 2018, is over 2 billion RMB per year, 
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 techn ical 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 ta ken by Egypt to submit its overdue notifications.  
 G/AG/W/205  
 
- 56 - 
 
  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 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 Comm ittee 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 201 8-19, 
(see: http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Import/ENGLISH%202011 -2020.pdf ).  
  
a. Please provide additional information on FCI 's activities, including in what years 
huma nitarian food aid has been provided.  
b. Please indicate whether India will be submitting ES:3 notifications for all relevant years. 
If not, please explain why not.  
4.1.5   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 will 
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.  
4.1.6   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 20 07. Can Morocco indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding 
DS:1 notifications?  
 
4.1.7   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?  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 57 - 
 
  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 que stionnaire.  
  
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 data 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 certai n "Subsidies for the 
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 Japa n 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 
council s, prefectural governments, 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 governmen ts or their agencies 
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: 
  
Australia welcomes Myanmar 's submission of ten overdue ES:1 notifications. Australia 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 the se:  
 
Can Myanmar advise 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:  
  G/AG/W/205  
 
- 58 - 
 
  The United States notes t hat according to the website 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   Thailand  
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 respons e 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 provide d 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 w hy. 
 
 
__________