G/AG/W/218  
 
31 March 2022 
(22-2621) Page: 1/297 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING S IN 2021 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised during the three  meetings1 of the Committee in 2021 as well as follow -up comments made 
during the Review Process. The questions raised at those meetings  are contained respectively 
in G/AG/W/210, G/AG/W/212, and G/AG/W/213.  
 
Members with outstanding responses to questions raised in 2021 are kindly invited to submit them 
to the Secretariat at the earliest. Members can submit these responses directly through  the AG -IMS 
(Q&A Online Submission (wto.org) ). Should you require login credential to access the Q&A function 
of the AG -IMS, please contact the Secretariat by sending an email to agcd_mailbox@wto.org . For 
the list of outstanding responses, Members are invited to please consult the Secretariat document 
issued regularly in the G/AG/W/204/ series. The AG -IMS also regularly sends automatic reminde r 
emails to Members with outstanding responses.  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 The Committee held three regular formal meetings in 2021 on 29 -30 March, 17 -18 June, 
and 23-24 September.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 29 -30 MARCH 2021  ................................ ......................  14 
1.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  14 
1.1.1   Angola's import policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
1.1.1.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97002)  ................................ .........  14 
1.1.2   Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  ................................ .............  16 
1.1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97085)  ................................ ................................ .... 16 
1.1.3   Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.1.3.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97095)  ................................ .........................  17 
1.1.3.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97004)  ................................ .........  17 
1.1.4   Canada - Farm gate milk prices  ................................ ................................ ...............  18 
1.1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97003)  ................................ .........  18 
1.1.5   Canada - Bill C-216 ................................ ................................ ................................  19 
1.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97005)  ................................ .........  19 
1.1.6   Canada's Dairy price increase in New Brunswick  ................................ .........................  20 
1.1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97025)  ................................ .....................  20 
1.1.7   China's cotton policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  20 
1.1.7.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97098)  ................................ ...............................  20 
1.1.8   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ ......................  21 
1.1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97099)  ................................ ...............................  21 
1.1.9   China's rural development plans for 2021  ................................ ................................ .. 21 
1.1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97100)  ................................ ...............................  21 
1.1.10    China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  ................................ .............  23 
1.1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97006)  ................................ ....... 23 
1.1.10.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97007)  ................................ ....... 23 
1.1.11    China's Maize import duties  ................................ ................................ ...................  24 
1.1.11.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97024)  ................................ ...................  24 
1.1.12    China – Minimum support prices  ................................ ................................ .............  24 
1.1.12.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97101)  ................................ ...............................  24 
1.1.13    Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits  ................................ ................................ .... 25 
1.1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97027)  ................................ ...................  25 
1.1.14    Egypt's Sugar import restrictions  ................................ ................................ ............  25 
1.1.14.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97030)  ................................ ...................  25 
1.1.15    The European Union's trade policy  ................................ ................................ ..........  26 
1.1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97102)  ................................ .............................  26 
1.1.16    France - National Strategy for Vegetable Proteins  ................................ .....................  27 
1.1.16.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97103)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.1.17    France's soybean production and the EU's Blue Box support  ................................ ....... 28 
1.1.17.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97104)  ................................ ................................ . 28 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.18    European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  .......................  29 
1.1.18.1    Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 97107)  ................................ ...............................  29 
1.1.19    EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ...................  30 
1.1.19.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97131)  ................................ ............................  30 
1.1.19.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97132)  ................................ ............................  32 
1.1.20    EU member States' regulations on domestic food products  ................................ .........  32 
1.1.20.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 97108) ................................ ...............................  32 
1.1.21    France - Origin of goods on supermarket shelves  ................................ ......................  33 
1.1.21.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97106)  ................................ ................................ . 33 
1.1.22    EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ ......................  34 
1.1.22.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97105)  ................................ ................................ . 34 
1.1.23    Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  ................................ .. 35 
1.1.23.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97109)  ................................ ................................ . 35 
1.1.24    India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ .... 35 
1.1.24.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97110)  ................................ .............................  35 
1.1.25    India - Increase on cotton tariffs  ................................ ................................ ............  36 
1.1.25.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97111)  ................................ .............................  36 
1.1.26    India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  37 
1.1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97022)  ................................ ....... 37 
1.1.26.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97112)  ................................ .............................  38 
1.1.26.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97115)  ................................ ...............................  39 
1.1.26.4    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97114)  ................................ ...............  41 
1.1.27    India's oilseeds policies  ................................ ................................ .........................  42 
1.1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97009)  ................................ ....... 42 
1.1.28    India - Support to sugar and biofuels  ................................ ................................ ...... 43 
1.1.28.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97011)  ................................ ....... 43 
1.1.29    India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ..............  43 
1.1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97010)  ................................ ....... 43 
1.1.29.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97012)  ................................ ....... 44 
1.1.29.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97013)  ................................ ....... 44 
1.1.30    India - Export subsidies for sugar  ................................ ................................ ...........  45 
1.1.30.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97015)  ................................ ....... 45 
1.1.30.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97016)  ................................ ....... 45 
1.1.30.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97017)  ................................ ....... 46 
1.1.31    India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ .................  47 
1.1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97018)  ................................ ....... 47 
1.1.32    India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  ................................ ...........................  47 
1.1.32.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97019)  ................................ ....... 47 
1.1.33    India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  ......................  48 
1.1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97020)  ................................ ....... 48 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.34    India - Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC)  ................................ . 48 
1.1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97021)  ................................ ....... 48 
1.1.35    India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  ................................ ................................ .........  49 
1.1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97014)  ................................ ....... 49 
1.1.36    India's export prohibition on onions  ................................ ................................ ........  49 
1.1.36.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97113)  ................................ ................................ . 49 
1.1.37    Indonesia's imports of citrus, melons, strawberries and persimmons  ...........................  49 
1.1.37.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97117)  ................................ ................................ . 49 
1.1.38    Indonesia - Regulations on imports of bovine meat  ................................ ...................  50 
1.1.38.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97116)  ................................ ................................ . 50 
1.1.39    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .. 51 
1.1.39.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97118)  ................................ ...............  51 
1.1.40    New Zealand's International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC) ................................ ... 52 
1.1.40.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97034)  ................................ ...................  52 
1.1.41    Nigeria's – Foreign exchang e restrictions affecting dairy and maize imports  ..................  52 
1.1.41.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97036)  ................................ ...................  52 
1.1.42    Russian Federation's support on exports of high value -added agricultural products  ........  53 
1.1.42.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97086)  ................................ ................................ .. 53 
1.1.43    Russian Federation - Sunflower seeds export duty  ................................ ....................  54 
1.1.43.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  97023)  ................................ ....... 54 
1.1.44    Russian Federation's wheat subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...... 54 
1.1.44.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97029)  ................................ ....... 54 
1.1.45    Russian Federation's grain export duties  ................................ ................................ .. 55 
1.1.45.1    Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 97031)  ................................ ....... 55 
1.1.45.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97087)  ................................ ................................ .. 55 
1.1.46    Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  ...........................  56 
1.1.46.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97032)  ................................ ....... 56 
1.1.47    Russian Federation's export subsidies for alcohol  ................................ ......................  57 
1.1.47.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97064)  ................................ ...................  57 
1.1.48    Russian Federation's export quotas  ................................ ................................ .........  57 
1.1.48.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97119)  ................................ ................................ . 57 
1.1.49    Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax  ................................ .................  58 
1.1.49.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97039 ) ................................ ...................  58 
1.1.50    Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ ..........  59 
1.1.50.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97026)  ................................ ....... 59 
1.1.51    Russian Federation - Soya Beans Export Duty  ................................ ..........................  60 
1.1.51.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97028)  ................................ ....... 60 
1.1.52    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - Imports of agricultural products from Turkey  .....................  60 
1.1.52.1    Question by Turkey (AG -IMS ID 97093)  ................................ ................................  60 
1.1.53    Chinese Taipei - Ceiling price for imported rice under the TRQ  ................................ .... 62 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.1.53.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97008)  ................................ ....... 62 
1.1.54    Tajikistan's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ......................  62 
1.1.54.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97033)  ................................ ....... 62 
1.1.55    Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ............  63 
1.1.55.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97120)  ................................ ................................ . 63 
1.1.56    Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ ..........................  63 
1.1.56.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9 7035)  ................................ ....... 63 
1.1.57    Ukraine's export cap on corn  ................................ ................................ .................  65 
1.1.57.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97037)  ................................ ....... 65 
1.1.58    United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  ...........  66 
1.1.58.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97096)  ................................ .......................  66 
1.1.59    United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ ..........  68 
1.1.59.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97121)  ................................ .............................  68 
1.1.60    US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ................................  69 
1.1.60.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97094)  ................................ .......................  69 
1.1.61    US domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ..........  69 
1.1.61.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97122)  ................................ ................................ . 69 
1.1.62    US COVID relief Package – "H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan"  .............................  70 
1.1.62.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97065)  ................................ ...................  70 
1.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  .................  71 
1.2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .. 71 
1.2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/59)  ................................ ................................ .......................  71 
1.2.1.2    China (G/AG/N/CHN/55)  ................................ ................................ ......................  71 
1.2.1.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/68)  ................................ ................................ ..........  73 
1.2.1.4    India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  ................................ ................................ ........................  73 
1.2.1.5    North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/28)  ................................ ................................ ....... 76 
1.2.1.6    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/70)  ................................ ................................ ................  77 
1.2.1.7    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/95)  ................................ ................................ ..............  77 
1.2.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ............................  80 
1.2.2.1    Congo, Democratic Republic of (G/AG/N/COG/5, G/AG/N/COG/6, G/AG/N/COG/7, 
G/AG/N/COG/8, G/AG/N/COG/9)  ................................ ................................ ........................  80 
1.2.2.2    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/65, G/AG/N/SLV/66, G/AG/N/SLV/67, G/AG/N/SLV/68)  ........  80 
1.2.2.3    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/ 68) ................................ ................................ ...............  81 
1.2.2.4    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ........................  82 
1.2.2.5    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/114)  ................................ ................................ ..................  97 
1.2.2.6    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ...................  97 
1.2.2.7    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/33)  ................................ ................................ ..................  98 
1.2.2.8    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/75)  ................................ ................................ ..............  100 
1.2.2.9    Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/6, G/AG/N/TON/7, G/AG/N/TON/8, G/AG/N/TON/9)  .................  100 
1.2.2.10    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  ................................ ................................ .................  101 
1.2.2.11    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/48)  ................................ .........................  101 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.2.2.12    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/48, G/AG/N/TUR/4 9) ................................ .........................  103 
1.2.2.13    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/14, G/AG/N/VNM/15, G/AG/N/VNM/16, G/AG/N/VNM/17)  ... 103 
1.2.3   New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ........  108 
1.2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  ................................ ................................ ..............  108 
1.2.3.2    European Union (G/AG /N/EU/66)  ................................ ................................ ........  108 
1.2.3.3    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/255)  ................................ ................................ ...................  111 
1.2.4   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ....... 112 
1.2.4.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/54)  ................................ ................................ ....................  112 
1.2.4.2    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/61, G/AG/N/TUN/62, G/AG/N/TUN/63, G/AG/N/TUN/64)  ..........  113 
1.2.4.3    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/61, G/AG/N/TUN/63)  ................................ ..........................  113 
1.2.5   Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ ......................  113 
1.2.5.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/30, G/AG/N/KGZ/30/ADD.1)  ................................ .... 113 
1.2.6   Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ .. 114 
1.2.6.1    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/129)  ................................ ........................  114 
1.3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...................  114  
1.3.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  114 
1.3.2   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  115 
1.3.3   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 115 
1.3.4   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  115 
1.3.5   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  116 
1.3.6   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ ......................  116 
1.3.7   South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  116 
1.3.8   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  117 
1.3.9   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ......................  117 
2   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 17 -18 JUNE 2021  ................................ .......................  118  
2.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  118  
2.1.1   Argentina – Export restrictions on beef  ................................ ................................ ... 118 
2.1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98 116) ................................ ...................  118 
2.1.1.2    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98117)  ................................ ................................ . 118 
2.1.2   Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ .............................  119 
2.1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98024)  ................................ ................................ .. 119 
2.1.3   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  ................................ ....... 120 
2.1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98085)  ................................ .............................  120 
2.1.4   Canada - Emergency Food Security Fund  ................................ ................................ . 121 
2.1.4.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98001)  ................................ ................................ .. 121 
2.1.5   Canada's support to the wine sector  ................................ ................................ ....... 121 
2.1.5.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98002)  ................................ ................................ .. 121 
2.1.6   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ........  122 
2.1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98118)  ................................ ....... 122 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.1.7   China's cotton policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  122 
2.1.7.1    Question by Aust ralia (AG -IMS ID 98088)  ................................ .............................  122 
2.1.8   China's TRQ notifications ................................ ................................ .......................  123 
2.1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98090)  ................................ .............................  123 
2.1.9   Egypt's Sugar import restrictions  ................................ ................................ ...........  123 
2.1.9.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98119)  ................................ ...................  123 
2.1.10    France - Minimum selling prices for rural products  ................................ ..................  124 
2.1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98120)  ................................ ...............................  124 
2.1.11    France - Indication of the origin of meats offered in cafeterias and foodservices  ..........  125 
2.1.11.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98121)  ................................ ...............................  125 
2.1.12    Italy - Assistance to local processing companies that purchase Italian inputs  ..............  125 
2.1.12.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98122)  ................................ ...............................  125 
2.1.13    Germany - Domestic support to the livestock sector  ................................ ................  126 
2.1.13.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98123)  ................................ ...............................  126 
2.1.14    Austria's draft resolution to change the criteria for granting the "AMA seal"  ................  127 
2.1.14.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98124)  ................................ ...............................  127 
2.1.15    EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ .................  127 
2.1.15.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98030)  ................................ ................................  127 
2.1.16    India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ .........................  128 
2.1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98084), Canada (AG -IMS ID 98086),  
European Union (AG -IMS ID 98105), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98096), Ukraine  
(AG-IMS ID 98097) and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98098)  ................................ ... 128 
2.1.16.2    Questions by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 98125)  ................................ ..........  129 
2.1.17    India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ .. 130 
2.1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98093)  ................................ ...........................  130 
2.1.18    India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ............  130 
2.1.18.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98087), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98101) and 
United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98099)  ................................ ................................ ..... 130 
2.1.18.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98089), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98100) and 
United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98103)  ................................ ................................ ..... 131 
2.1.19    India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  ................................ .........................  132 
2.1.19.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98091)  ................................ .................  132 
2.1.20    India's e xport prohibitions on onions  ................................ ................................ ..... 132 
2.1.20.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98095) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 98107)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  132 
2.1.21    India's cotton support  ................................ ................................ .........................  133 
2.1.21.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98092)  ................................ ...........................  133 
2.1.22    Indonesia's imports of citrus, melons, strawberries and persimmons  .........................  133 
2.1.22.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98126)  ................................ ...............................  133 
2.1.23    Japan's Rice Paddy Renovation for New Market Development ................................ .... 135 
2.1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98127)  ................................ ..... 135 
2.1.24    Moldova's amendments to the Law on Internal Trade  ................................ ..............  136 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.1.24.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 98128) ................................ .............................  136 
2.1.25    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................  137 
2.1.25.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98074)  ................................ .............  137 
2.1.26    Morocco - Increase in wheat tariffs  ................................ ................................ ....... 138 
2.1.26.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98094)  ................................ ...........................  138 
2.1.27    Nigeria's foreign currency exchange res trictions to wheat and sugar imports  ...............  138 
2.1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98130)  ................................ ..... 138 
2.1.28    Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ .... 139 
2.1.28.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98129)  ................................ ...............................  139 
2.1.29    Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  ................  139 
2.1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 98131)  ................................ ..... 139 
2.1.30    Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax  ................................ ...............  141 
2.1.30.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98132)  ................................ .................  141 
2.1.30.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98136)  ................................ ..... 141 
2.1.31    Russian Federation's support on exports of high  value -added agricultural products  ...... 142 
2.1.31.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98027)  ................................ ................................  142 
2.1.32    Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ ........  143 
2.1.32.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98028)  ................................ ................................  143 
2.1.33    Russian F ederation's export restrictions  ................................ ................................ . 143 
2.1.33.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98133)  ................................ ...............................  143 
2.1.33.2    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 98134) ................................ .............................  143 
2.1.33.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98135)  ................................ ..... 144 
2.1.34    Russi an Federation's grain export duties  ................................ ................................  144 
2.1.34.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98026)  ................................ ................................  144 
2.1.35    South Africa's review of tariff structure for poultry meat imports  ...............................  145 
2.1.35.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98137)  ................................ ...............................  145 
2.1.36    Tajikistan's new Tax Code  ................................ ................................ ...................  146 
2.1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98138)  ................................ ..... 146 
2.1.37    Tajikistan's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ....................  146 
2.1.37.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98139)  ................................ ..... 146 
2.1.38    Turkey's ban on olive oil exports  ................................ ................................ ..........  147 
2.1.38.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98140)  ................................ ..... 147 
2.1.39    Ukraine's licensing requirement for exports of sunflower seeds  ................................ . 148 
2.1.39.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98141)  ................................ ..... 148 
2.1.40    Ukraine's Memorandum of Understanding with the effect of an export restriction  .........  149 
2.1.40.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98142)  ................................ ..... 149 
2.1.41    United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .........  150 
2.1.41.1    Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 98033)  ................................ .....................  150 
2.1.42    United Kingdom - Agricultural Act 2020  ................................ ................................ . 151 
2.1.42.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98032) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 98031)  ........  151 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.1.43    US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ..............................  152 
2.1.43.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98003)  ................................ ................................  152 
2.1.43.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98006)  ................................ ................................  152 
2.1.43.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 98145)  ................................ .....................  153 
2.1.44    US support to cotton sector  ................................ ................................ .................  155 
2.1.44.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98004)  ................................ ................................  155 
2.1.45    US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  .............  155 
2.1.45.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98005)  ................................ ................................  155 
2.1.46    US Conservation Reserve Program  ................................ ................................ ........  156 
2.1.46.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98143)  ................................ ...............................  156 
2.1.47    US American Rescue Plan Debt Payments  ................................ ..............................  157 
2.1.47.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98144)  ................................ .................  157 
2.1.48    Viet Nam's input subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...................  158 
2.1.48.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98146)  ................................ .................  158 
2.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ...............  158  
2.2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ............................  158 
2.2.1.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/65/ADD.1)  ................................ ..............................  158 
2.2.1.2    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/2)  ................................ ................................ ........  160 
2.2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................  160 
2.2.2.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/59)  ................................ ................................ .....................  160 
2.2.2.2    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/57, G/AG/N/ECU/58)  ................................ .........................  161 
2.2.2.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/68)  ................................ ................................ ........  162 
2.2.2.4    India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  ................................ ................................ ......................  162 
2.2.2.5    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/263)  ................................ ................................ ...................  164 
2.2.2.6    Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/58, G/AG/N/MAR/59)  ................................ ........................  165 
2.2.2.7    Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/57)  ................................ ................................ ...............  166 
2.2.2.8    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/116)  ................................ ................................ ................  167 
2.2.2.9    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  ................................ ................................ .. 171 
2.2.2.10    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/32)  ................................ ................................  171 
2.2.2.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/148)  ................................ .......................  172 
2.2.3   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..........................  172 
2.2.3.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/45)  ................................ ................................ ...............  172 
2.2.3.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  ................................ ................................ .....................  172 
2.2.3.3    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63)  ................................ ................................ .....................  173 
2.2.3.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ ....................  176 
2.2.3.5    Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27)  ................................ ................................ ...........  177 
2.2.3.6    Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27, G/AG/N/CIV/28)  ................................ ....................  178 
2.2.3.7    European Union  (G/AG/N/EU/61)  ................................ ................................ ........  178 
2.2.3.8    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/69)  ................................ ................................ ........  178 
2.2.3.9    Guinea (G/AG/N/GIN/10, G/AG/N/GIN/11)  ................................ ...........................  182 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.2.3.10    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ....................  183 
2.2.3.11    India (G/AG/N/IND/25)  ................................ ................................ ....................  196 
2.2.3.12    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/259)  ................................ ................................ ..................  210 
2.2.3.13    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/80)  ................................ ................................ . 212 
2.2.3.14    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/80, G/AG/N/KOR/81, G/AG/N/KOR/82)  ................  213 
2.2.3.15    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/81)  ................................ ................................ . 218 
2.2.3.16    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/33, G/AG/N/KGZ/34)  ................................ ............  219 
2.2.3.17    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19) ................................ ................................ .................  219 
2.2.3.18    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19, G/AG/N/NGA/20)  ................................ ........................  220 
2.2.3.19    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/20) ................................ ................................ .................  221 
2.2.3.20    Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/17, G/AG/N/PAK/18, G/AG/N/PAK/19, G/AG/N/PAK/20)  ........  221 
2.2.3.21    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/33)  ................................ ................................ ..............  221 
2.2.3.22    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  ................................ ................................  223 
2.2.3.23    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/109)  ................................ ................................ .........  223 
2.2.3.24    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  ................................ ................................ .................  224 
2.2.3.25    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135/REV.1)  ................................ .............  225 
2.2.3.26    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150)  ................................ .......................  231 
2.2.3.27    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/14, G/AG/N/VNM/15, G/AG/N/VNM/16, G/AG/N/VNM/17)  ... 236 
2.2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ........  236 
2.2.4.1    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/4)  ................................ ................................ ........  236 
2.2.5   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ....... 237 
2.2.5.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135, G/AG/N/CAN/139)  ................................ ......................  237 
2.2.5.2    India (G/AG/N/IND/24)  ................................ ................................ ......................  238 
2.2.5.3    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/78, G/AG/N/KOR/79)  ................................ ..........  238 
2.3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...................  239  
2.3.1   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  239 
2.3.2   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 239 
2.3.3   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ......................  240 
3   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE  
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 23 -24 SEP TEMBER 2021  ................................ .............  241  
3.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  241  
3.1.1   Argentina's export restrictions on beef  ................................ ................................ .... 241 
3.1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 99094) ................................ ...............................  241 
3.1.1.2    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 99096)  ................................ ................................ . 241 
3.1.2   Argentina's currency of domestic support notification and inflation  ..............................  242 
3.1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 99097) ................................ ...............................  242 
3.1.3   Argentina's export restriction s ................................ ................................ ...............  243 
3.1.3.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99095)  ................................ ...................  243 
3.1.4   Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ .........  243 
3.1.4.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99098)  ................................ .......................  243 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.1.5   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ........  244 
3.1.5.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99099) and United Kingdom  
(AG-IMS ID 99110)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  244 
3.1.6   China's one -off subsidy to farmers  ................................ ................................ .........  244 
3.1.6.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 99100)  ................................ .............................  244 
3.1.7   China's fertilizer and diesel subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...... 245 
3.1.7.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99001)  ................................ ...................  245 
3.1.8   EU's Environmental Policies  ................................ ................................ ...................  245 
3.1.8.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99015)  ................................ ................................ .. 245 
3.1.9   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  246 
3.1.9.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 99101)  ................................ ...............  246 
3.1.10    India's public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ .....................  246 
3.1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 99005)  ................................ ..... 246 
3.1.10.2    Question by United St ates of America (AG -IMS ID 99103)  ................................ ..... 247 
3.1.11    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................  248 
3.1.11.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 99104)  ................................ .............  248 
3.1.12    Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ .... 249 
3.1.12.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 99105)  ................................ ...............................  249 
3.1.13    Russian Federation's grain export duties  ................................ ................................  249 
3.1.13.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99016)  ................................ ................................  249 
3.1.14    Russian Federation's support on exports of high value -added agricultural products  ...... 250 
3.1.14.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99025)  ................................ ................................  250 
3.1.15    Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ ........  250 
3.1.15.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99024)  ................................ ................................  250 
3.1.16    Russian Federation's Export Restrictions  ................................ ................................  251 
3.1.16.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 99106)  ................................ ...............................  251 
3.1.16.2    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 99107) ................................ .............................  252 
3.1.17    Turkey's export restriction on pasta  ................................ ................................ ...... 253 
3.1.17.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 99108)  ................................ ...............................  253 
3.1.18    US – Excise Duty Exemptions for Alcohol on Puerto Rico & the US Virgin Islands  .........  254 
3.1.18.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99002)  ................................ .................  254 
3.1.19    US planned investment in purchasing healthy food and building food bank capacity  ..... 255 
3.1.19.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99017)  ................................ ................................  255 
3.1.20    US Agricultural  Marketing Service programme  ................................ ........................  255 
3.1.20.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99018)  ................................ ................................  255 
3.1.21    US farm support  ................................ ................................ ................................  256 
3.1.21.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99109)  ................................ .....................  256 
3.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ...............  257  
3.2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................  257 
3.2.1.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/56)  ................................ ................................ ....................  257 
3.2.1.2    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/58)  ................................ ................................ .................  258 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.2.1.3    India (G/AG/N/IND/26)  ................................ ................................ ......................  258 
3.2.1.4    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/263)  ................................ ................................ ...................  259 
3.2.1.5    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/264)  ................................ ................................ ...................  260 
3.2.1.6    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  ................................ ................................ .. 261 
3.2.1.7    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/32)  ................................ ................................ .. 261 
3.2.1.8    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6)  ................................ ................................ ........  262 
3.2.1.9    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/153)  ................................ ........................  265 
3.2.2   Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ...............................  266 
3.2.2.1    European Union (G/ AG/N/EU/70)  ................................ ................................ ........  266 
3.2.3   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..........................  266 
3.2.3.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63)  ................................ ................................ .....................  266 
3.2.3.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/142)  ................................ ................................ ................  267 
3.2.3.3    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/73, G/AG/N/COL/73)  ................................ ........................  271 
3.2.3.4    Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27, G/AG/N/CIV/28)  ................................ ....................  272 
3.2.3.5    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/46)  ................................ ................................  273 
3.2.3.6    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/76, G/AG/N/SLV/77, G/AG/N/SLV/78)  ..............................  274 
3.2.3.7    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/78)  ................................ ................................ .............  275 
3.2.3.8    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/79)  ................................ ................................ .............  275 
3.2.3.9    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/69)  ................................ ................................ ........  276 
3.2.3.10    India (G/AG/N/IND/18, G/AG/N/IND/25)  ................................ ............................  277 
3.2.3.11    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/20, G/AG/N/NGA/21)  ................................ ........................  279 
3.2.3.12    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/21, G/AG/N/NGA/22)  ................................ ........................  280 
3.2.3.13    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/22) ................................ ................................ .................  280 
3.2.3.14    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/58)  ................................ ................................ ................  281 
3.2.3.15    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  ................................ ................................  282 
3.2.3.16    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/34)  ................................ ................................  283 
3.2.3.17    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/202)  ................................ ................................ ... 284 
3.2.3.18    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150)  ................................ .......................  285 
3.2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measu res (Table DS:2)  ................................ ........  287 
3.2.4.1    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/4)  ................................ ................................ ........  287 
3.2.4.2    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/5)  ................................ ................................ ........  288 
3.2.5   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ....... 290 
3.2.5.1    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/ 127) ................................ ................................ .........  290 
3.2.5.2    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/117)  ................................ ................................ ................  291 
3.2.5.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/151)  ................................ ........................  291 
3.3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...................  291  
3.3.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  291 
3.3.2   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ......................  292 
3.4   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ .........................  292  
3.4.1   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  292 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.4.2   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  292 
3.4.3   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  293 
3.4.4   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 294 
3.4.5   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  295 
3.4.6   Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ...............................  296 
3.4.7   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  ................................ ................................ ...........  297 
 
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1  COMPILATION OF R ESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 29-30 MARCH  2021  
1.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1.1   Angola's import policies  
1.1.1.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97002)  
Angola's Presidential Decree Number 23/19 of 14 January 2019 provides priority to goods produced 
in Angola by requiring that importers demonstrate they have consulted the domestic market about 
the availability of the goods that they wish to import or have already purchased domestically. This 
decree currently includes more than 54 products, mainly agricultural goods, and also applies to any 
imports that compete with goods produced in the Luanda -Bengo Special Economic Zone. The United 
States understands the g oal of this decree is to increase domestic economic diversification and 
development.  
 
a. Please detail how Angola determines "sufficient" supply of national production from the 
information it collects.  
i. What authority decides whether Angola has "sufficient" pr oduction?  
ii. How does Angola consider this decree to comply with WTO rules, and has Angola 
considered the potential impact on trade and investment?  
iii. Is the Decree in force for a specific length of time before it is cancelled?  
b. When will this trade -restricting Decree be rescinded?  
Answer by Angola  
 
a. How does Angola determine the domestic share in terms of the supply of chicken meat?  
 
In fact, domestic chicken production at the national level represents only 10% of the real 
consumption need.  
 
The needs are calculated according to the per capita consumption determined at the SADC level, 
corresponding to 8.5 kg of chicken meat per inhabitant/year.  
 
Assuming that the official number of inhabitants in the country is 30,000,000 million, the need fo r 
consumption was calculated for the urban population, which represents 60% of the total population, 
equivalent to 18,000,000 inhabitants.  
 
Thus, the total need for chicken meat for the 60% of the population is 153,000 tonnes, of which the 
country produce s only 10%, equivalent to 15,300 tonnes.  
 
The remaining 90%, equivalent to 137,700 tonnes, is the deficit in the national market, which defines 
the import quotas for chicken meat. What are the tariff codes for products whose import requires 
proof of contra ct with a national supplier?  
 
0105.11.00  
0207.11.00  
0207.12.00  
0207.13.00  
0207.14.00  
0207.60.00.  
 
Detail on how Angola determines "sufficient" support for national production based on the 
information obtained.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 15 - 
 
  The strategy to support national production, results from one of the main conclusions of the work 
guided by His Excellency, the President of the Republic, Dr. João Manuel Gonçalves Lourenço, during 
the 7th Ordinary Meeting of the Economic Commission, of th e Council of Ministers, held on the day 
13 July 2018, in Huíla Province, to define strategies and implement instruments to increase the 
competitiveness of national production of goods in the basic basket and other goods of national 
origin in comparison wit h similar imported products. Based on the conclusions of that strategy, where 
the focus was on diagnosing the competitiveness of national production, strategies and instruments 
were designed that, in part, resulted in the approval of the Commercial Chain R egulation for the 
Supply of Goods in the Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, published through 
Presidential Decree no 23/19 of 14 January from now on referred to as "new regulation.  
 
Indeed, for sufficient support, we understand that it consists of creating measures of economic and 
commercial policies that encourage the production and consumption of priority consumer goods of 
national origin, as a result of these, it is expected that the systematic deficit, in the balance of goods 
and non-oil services, which Angola registers, reduce to acceptable levels, that is, to allow the 
reduction of consumption of foreign exchange, which approached dangerous levels, jeopardizing the 
country's foreign currency reserves.  
 
As an example, the Governme nt approved several credit instruments, oriented exclusively to finance 
the production and marketing of the 54 products, on the other hand, the production chains that will 
allow an acceleration of the integration of the production and distribution processe s of these products 
are being structured. be structured and cooperative capacities for agriculture, livestock, fisheries 
and other priority sectors, making them more productive and capable of absorbing the demand for 
priority products. In the same sense, t he establishment of future purchase contracts is being 
promoted, making production more predictable for the supplier/buyer and safer for the producer.  
 
i. Which authority decides to what extent Angola has "sufficient" production?  
The "new regulation", indicat es which bodies are responsible for implementing the measures of the 
"new regulation", however, as with the implementation of this, it will be in the coordination of the 
PRODESI Multisectoral Commission, that decisions will be taken, based on in the best i nformation 
available, on reaching the desired level of domestic production that ensures fair competition in the 
national market, so that national production can progressively conquer growing shares in the 
domestic market and contribute to the diversificati on of the structure of the economy and exports.  
 
ii. How does Angola consider Decree 23/19 to be compatible with WTO rules? Did Angola 
take into account the impact on trade and investment?  
In our understanding "the new regulation" is fully compatible with the multilateral rules of the World 
Trade Organization, and it does not prohibit or restrict imports from member States, it only applied 
new requirements for importing products that are already produced in the country, and products 
with the potential to be pro duced.  
 
In this sense, the aim is to encourage the purchase of national products, by urging importers to 
explore the internal market before making an import decision, as this is true, as there is no limitation 
on the quantities to be imported, in the form  of quantitative restrictions, or any other impediment 
to imports. On the contrary, the "new regulation" aims at valuing the purchase of national products, 
as it encourages the conclusion of future contracts for the purchase of national production.  
 
With r egard to the impact on trade and investment, we hope that the measures expressed in the 
"new regulation" can help to promote the production and consumption of goods in the basic basket 
of national origin; to promote the reduction of informality and the exp ansion of the supply of the 
domestic market with products made in Angola and to promote strategic commercial and technical 
productive alliances that accelerate the horizontal and vertical integration of the productive sectors, 
we also believe that it will benefit investors, since, in a In a market like ours, where production costs 
are very high, it is not possible to obtain a return on investment if the investor has to compete with 
products whose countries of origin have industries at an advanced stage of d evelopment.  
 
iii. Will the decree be in force for a specific period of time, before it is cancelled?  
The implementation of the measures followed the pursuit of certain objectives, such as the 
reorganization and supervision of the role of economic agents engaged  in the activities of production, G/AG/W/218  
 
- 16 - 
 
  transformation and trade or distribution; Promotion of the production of goods from the basic basket, 
which at present have a very low internal supply; Promotion of strategic commercial and 
technical -productive alliances t hat accelerate the horizontal and vertical integration of the productive 
sectors and Improvement of the certification of technical quality and the hygienic -sanitary status of 
the production consumed in the country, the achievement of these objectives will certainly create 
conditions to revoke the regulation concerned. However, there is a commitment on our side to find, 
jointly with our partners, mutually advantageous ways for trade, so that, despite the objectives 
mentioned, these can be changed according t o the agreements reached.  
 
b. When will this decree (which restricts trade) be terminated?  
 
As we explained in the question above, the alteration of the "new regulation" will depend on the 
achievement of the objectives recommended when implementing this,  however, there is room for 
opening to re -evaluate the measures and products considered as priorities in the selected list.  
 
Follow -up: The United States looked forward to having further conversations with Angola regarding 
this decree which required import ers to first purchase certain domestic products before importing.  
 
1.1.2   Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  
1.1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97085)  
With reference to AG -IMS ID 96021 regarding Australia's Busting Congestion for Agricultural 
Exporters package, India would like Australia to clarify the following: As per the Australian 
Government's Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment website, freezing of fees and 
charges for 2020 -21 will be implemented as per the gu idelines set in Cost Recovery Implementation 
Statements. In this respect, what is the expected amount of subsidy or expenditure under this 
measure?  (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled -goods/fish/industry -advice -
notices/2021/2021 -02). 
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question and ongoing interest in this important package to enhance 
Australia's efficient and produ ctive agricultural sector. In addition to Australia's previous response 
to India's question at the 96th Committee on Agriculture in November 2020 (AG -IMS ID 96021), we 
sent India information on this package in early October 2020. We appreciate the opportun ity to 
further discuss this package and its objectives with India and other Members.  
 
With respect to the question:  
 
The Cost Recovery Implementation Statements for Agriculture Sectors are available on the 
Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment W ebsite at: 
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/fees/cost -recovery -implementation -statements . These Cost 
Recovery Implementation Statements describe the impact of the 202 0–21 Federal Budget package 
Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters on exports cost recovery, including how we will 
implement the freezing of fees and charges in 2020 –21. The allocated budget expenditure for the 
'More Efficient and Sustainable Export  Regulation' component is AUD 71.1 million over a four -year 
period (2020 -21 to 2023 -24). 
 
As previously outlined, all measures under the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters package 
will be fully consistent with Australia's commitments at the WTO and will be notified in due course, 
consistent with Australia's notification obligations. No funding will be provided to producers – funding 
will be used to achieve the objectives of the package and to fund the increased staffing and 
operational requiremen ts of the relevant Government agencies. The primary objective of the 
package is to reduce the burden on agricultural producers with respect to bureaucratic procedures 
and out -dated export regulatory systems.  
 
For example, for some Australian agricultural producers, current regulatory requirements mean up 
to 20 forms need to be completed in order to export, meanwhile in 2017 -18 on average 550 paper 
export certificates were manually handled per day by government and exporters to send goods 
overseas.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 17 - 
 
  To addr ess this, the package will create a more efficient, effective and sustainable export regulatory 
system, improving data and technology supported regulation post -COVID -19; and taking systems 
online and providing a single portal for exporters to engage with g overnment to make export rules 
clearer and easier to navigate.  
 
1.1.3   Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program  
1.1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97095)  
New Zealand appreciates Canada's confirmation that it will notify the CAD 345 million paid to dairy 
farmers thr ough the Canada Dairy Direct Program. New Zealand notes that a further 
CAD 1,405  billion in direct payments has been approved over the next three years: 
https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/agricultural -programs -and-services/dairy -direct -payment -
program/?id=1566502074838 .  
 
This programme was esta blished to compensate dairy farmers for the impact of market access 
commitments made under preferential trade agreements, namely CETA and CPTPP. Three years 
after CPTPP entered into force, tariff rate quota fill rates for supply managed products, which inc lude 
dairy, remain chronically underfilled due to complex TRQ administration, an issue also affecting 
WTO quotas.  
 
New Zealand considers the compensation being offered to dairy farmers disproportionate to any 
demonstrated negative impact of preferential tr ade agreements.  
 
How does Canada reconcile the anticipated negative impact of trade agreements with the severe 
underfill of tariff rate quotas on supply managed products currently occurring under both CPTPP and 
WTO quotas?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The objective of the Dairy Direct Payment Program is to support dairy producers as a result of market 
access commitments made under recent international trade agreements, namely the Canada  
European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and th e Comprehensive and 
Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Canada's support plans are 
proportionate to the impact of these long -term commitments.  
 
Moreover, Canada does not agree that its TRQ fill rates are low, nor that Canada's adm inistration of 
its TRQs depresses fill rates. Many of Canada's WTO dairy TRQs were over 95% in Canada's last 
MA:2 notification. This notably included Butter, Cheese, Cream, and Ice Cream.  
 
In regard to  the CPTPP TRQ fill rates, the CPTPP contains mechanism s for New Zealand to discuss 
any concerns it may have related to TRQs under that agreement.  
 
1.1.3.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97004)  
On 28 November 2020, Canada made an announcement about CAD 1,405 billion in direct payments 
that will be mad e over three years to Canadian dairy farmers as a form of compensation for the 
European Union  - Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement  (CETA) and the 
Comprehensive and Progressive Trans -Pacific Partnership  (CPTPP). Canadian dairy farm cash 
receipts rose in 2018, at which time CETA was in effect.  
 
Please explain the rationale behind making payments to dairy farmers on the basis of estimated 
losses from CETA and CPTPP.  
 
a. Please provide detail on the method of estimation.  
b. Please advise whether Canada  will attempt to calculate the actual impact on the Canadian 
dairy sector of these agreements.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
In response to the specific questions from the United States:  
 
a. Payments respond to the 2019 Government of Canada commitment to provide full and  fair 
compensation to supply managed sectors, including dairy producers, for the impacts of 
recent trade agreements. Payments will be distributed to eligible producers through the 
Dairy Direct Payment Program, allowing producers to invest in their operatio ns as they 
adapt to a new market environment.  
b. As higher import volumes will substitute domestic production and impact the revenues of 
supply -managed producers, the Government of Canada estimated income losses over the 
implementation of each agreement.  
c. Canada will continue to monitor TRQ fill rates for all imported products, including milk and 
milk products, throughout the implementation phase of recent trade agreements.  
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in understanding more details about the negat ive effects 
experienced by Canada following implementation of preferential trade agreements. New Zealand 
stated that although Canada maintained that it was up -to-date with its notifications, Canada's most 
recent DS:1 notification was for the calendar year 2016. This implied that Members must wait around 
another four years to see how Canada intends to notify a significant amount of government support 
for producers and processors of supply manged products which were somehow experiencing a 
negative impact from  tariff quotas that remained underfilled. Australia reiterated its concern on 
Canada's supply management regime for dairy products. Australia referred to the submission it made 
as part of Canada's domestic review of the administration of TRQs of supply man aged products 
where it had supported the changes to ensure Canada's and WTO and CPTPP quotas are filled noting 
low fill rates for some TRQS. Australia invited Canada's further engagement on this issue. Uruguay 
indicated interest in more information on Cana da's support for dairy farmers through the dairy direct 
programme so as to understand the commitments under CETA and CPTPP.  
 
1.1.4   Canada - Farm gate milk prices  
1.1.4.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97003)  
On 2 November 2020 the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) announced that farm gate milk prices 
would increase from February 2021. Canada updated milk component price tables in February 2021.  
 
a. Under what authority and by what mechanism did the CDC intervene t o cause the farm 
gate milk price to "increase by $1.46/hl"?  
b. Further, the CDC states "the new farm milk prices are subject to approval by provincial 
authorities in early December 2020". Are prices established by the federal government 
(the CDC) and approved  at provincial level?  
c. CDC also noted that in 2020, "because of various factors such as the COVID -19 pandemic, 
the usual pricing formula was not applied." If the usual pricing formula was not applied, 
then what pricing formula was applied? What factors, in addition to the COVID -19 
pandemic, did CDC consider in developing the pricing formula in 2020? For what period of 
time will the adjusted pricing formula apply? And when will the CDC revert to the "usual 
pricing formula"?  
d. Is there a link between the farm ga te milk price and milk component prices in milk classes? 
If so, what is that link? Is the farm gate milk price used to calculate milk component prices 
in milk classes? If so, how?  
Answer by Canada  
 
In response to specific questions from the United States:  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. The CDC makes announcements and reviews farm gate milk prices and related costs under 
the authority of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act and administers the supply 
management system as per relevant federal -provincial agreements.  
b. Canada has responded on mu ltiple occasions to this question, including in AG -IMS 
IDs 84107, 86033, and 87015. Provincial milk marketing boards are responsible for setting 
milk prices in Canada.  
c. The COVID -19 pandemic has had a profound effect on all aspects of life and Canada's 
dairy industry was not exempt from this reality. The mass closures of the hospitality and 
restaurant industry forced a sudden shift from the food service to retail market, creating 
milk supply, logistical and packaging challenges for stakeholders across the v alue chain of 
the dairy sector during spring 2020.  
Despite these challenges, Canada's supply management system worked as designed by 
adjusting production quota to align with a new demand environment. Between March and 
April 2020, Canadian dairy farmers te mporarily reduced production by over 8% to respond 
to initial market changes, ceasing milk disposals. In light of these exceptional 
circumstances, industry requested that the usual milk price adjustment formula not be 
applied. As is normal practice when th is type of request is made, the CDC holds 
consultations and renders a decision on the price adjustment of milk. The 2% increase in 
the farm gate price is a result of these consultations. This pricing increase was 
implemented on 1 February 2021 and the CDC will continue to review the costs of 
producing milk at the farm level over the course of this year to inform future pricing 
adjustments, which are typically done on an annual basis.  
d. Information on how the price of milk is set in Canada can be found here: https://cdc -
ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -management/how -is-the-price-of-milk-set-in-canada/   
Follow -up: The United States asked Canada to provide clarification regarding the current situation, 
given that the information contained in responses to past questio ns may no longer be correct. The 
European Union and New Zealand reiterated its interest in understanding Canada's milk pricing 
system, particularly following the changes to eliminate milk classes 6 and 7, and the extension of 
milk class 4(a).  
 
1.1.5   Canada - Bill C-216 
1.1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97005)  
On 24 November 2020 the Canadian House of Commons debated Bill C -216, An Act to amend the 
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management). The bill would 
prohibit t he Canadian federal government from making any commitment by international trade 
treaty or agreement that would decrease the tariffs or increase the tariff rate quotas applicable to 
dairy products, poultry, or eggs. Please comment on the effect such legisl ation would have on 
Canada's ability to be fully committed to the goal of substantial progressive reductions in agricultural 
protection over time.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Private Members' Bill C -216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and 
Development Act (supply management), was introduced and considered in First Reading on 
24 February 2020. On 10 March 2021, it passed second reading and was referred to the House of 
Commons Standing Committee on International Trade for review. Canada is  not in a position to 
comment on specifics of proposed legislation currently moving through the legislative process. The 
Government of Canada will continue to be guided by its international trade obligations and 
commitments, including those in the Agreemen t on Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil underlined the importance of this topic in light of its interest in the Market Access 
negotiations at the WTO and its current negotiations with Canada on a Free Trade Agreement 
together with other MERCOSUR partners. Ne w Zealand expressed interest in learning more about 
any proposed changes to the supply management system as it pertained to negotiated outcomes in G/AG/W/218  
 
- 20 - 
 
  preferential trade agreements, including quota access under those agreements. New Zealand noted 
that, under a  separate process, it had made a submission to Canada's Comprehensive Review of 
TRQ Allocation and Administration. It encouraged Canada and all other Members not to introduce 
protectionist measures that limit trade partners from utilizing access to markets  permitted under 
the WTO or via free trade agreements.  
 
1.1.6   Canada's Dairy price increase in New Brunswick  
1.1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97025)  
In January 2021 the New Brunswick Farm Products Commission announced an increase in the price 
of liquid mil k by a minimum of 6 c/litre from 1 February.  
 
a. Can Canada indicate how this price support will is accounted for in its DS:1 notification.  
b. Is there any link between this price increase and the closure of the Baxter Dairy in St. 
John?  
Answer by Canada  
 
The a nnouncement made by the New Brunswick Farm Products Commission is applicable to retail 
prices. New Brunswick minimum retail prices for fluid milk do not constitute support in favour of 
producers. The Government of Canada is not aware of any association bet ween this announcement 
and the closure of a dairy processing facility in Saint John, New Brunswick.  
 
1.1.7   China's cotton policies  
1.1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97098)  
Australia notes China's response to its question AG -IMS ID 96045 on the purchase of Austra lian 
cotton. In its response, China did not answer directly Australia's question seeking information on 
widespread reports that China has directed its businesses to stop or limit the purchases and imports 
of Australian cotton. Australia continues to consid er such directives, if issued, to appear to be 
inconsistent with China's WTO obligations, in particular Paragraph 116 of the Report on the Working 
Party on the Accession of China to the WTO. Can China kindly advise:  
 
a. Has any Chinese authority directly or i ndirectly, officially or unofficially instructed Chinese 
millers, businesses and State -Owned Enterprise to stop or limit purchases and imports of 
Australian cotton, or cotton from any other WTO Member?  
i. If yes, has China published a notice of these measures  domestically, and notified them 
to the WTO? If so, please provide copies of the relevant documentation.  
b. Now that the quota year for cotton has re -started as of 1 January 2021, can China please 
advise:  
i. the year -to-date imports of cotton, including from Aus tralia, and the equivalent period 
in 2020?  
ii. Whether import licences are being issued upon request, including for Australian cotton, 
consistent with WTO obligations?  
iii. If yes, provide figures for the number of import licences issued for Australian cotton 
year to date for 2021 and the equivalent period in 2020?  
Answer by China  
 
a. China has not directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially instructed Chinese millers, 
businesses or enterprises to stop or limit purchases and imports of Australian cotton, or 
cotton from any other WTO Member. Quotas are allocated to applicants who are free to 
choose suppliers on commercial considerations.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 21 - 
 
  b.  
i. In January and February 2018, China imported 427 tonnes of cotton from Australia. 
In the corresponding period of 2019, the figure is 101,000 tonnes. In the 
corresponding period of 2020, the figure is 28,000 tonnes. In the corresponding period 
of 2021, the figure is 354.7 tonnes.  
ii. Import licences for TRQ products are allocated without specifying origins of products. 
Quota holder s may choose to import products from any source they see fit.  
1.1.8   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97099)  
Australia would like to again raise the implementation of the Economic and Trade Agreement 
Between the Unite d States of America and the People's Republic of China: Phase One (the 
Agreement). China has previously advised it was collecting data with respect to Australia's questions 
on the Agreement (AG -IMS IDs 95044 and 96043). Australia kindly requests China to p rovide written 
responses to these questions if the data is now available.  
 
In addition, Australia further notes that according to data from the USDA 
(https://www.fas.usda.gov/index.php ), China only purchas ed USD 26.5 billion in US agricultural 
products in 2020. This is a USD 13.5 billion shortfall on the 2020 target of USD 40 billion under the 
Agreement. Given this shortfall, China is now required to purchase USD 53.5 billion in US agricultural 
products thi s year to meet the two -year target of USD 80 billion under the Agreement. Australia 
kindly requests China answer s the following questions:  
 
Given Article 6.2 (5) of the Agreement notes "purchases will be made at market prices based on 
commercial considera tions and that market conditions, particularly in the case of agricultural goods, 
may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year", can China advise of what led to the 
USD 13.5 billion shortfall in 2020, including in relation to market conditions ? 
 
Does China still expect to purchase the full USD 80 billion in US agricultural exports before the 
conclusion of the timelines in the Agreement?  
 
If yes, is China implementing any measures to encourage its enterprises to purchase US agricultural 
products  in order to meet the target consistent with purchasing under market conditions?  
 
Answer by China  
 
Purchases are based on commercial considerations and market conditions. In 2020, COVID -19 
severely hit global economy, trade flow and transportation. These u nexpected factors, among others, 
could influence the market.  
 
China is a large market. We welcome competitive products from all Members. We will continue to 
import products based on market conditions in line with WTO rules.  
 
As the economy recovers, we exp ect that the demands would increase. China will continue to 
facilitate trade from all Members based on market conditions and in line with WTO rules.  
 
1.1.9   China's rural development plans for 2021  
1.1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97100)  
Australia notes the Central Rural Work Conference (CRWC) was held in Beijing 
on 28-29 December  2020. China's rural development plans for 2021 were outlined during the CRWC.  
 
The measures announced as part of the plan included, but were not limited to:  
 
• protecting China's arable land at a red line of 120 million hectares;  
• stabilising and strengthening subsidies to farmers;  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 22 - 
 
  • maintaining and improving the minimum purchasing prices for wheat and rice; and  
• continuing efforts to recover pig production.  
 
Australia encourag es China to continue to reform its agricultural sector and to do so in a fully WTO 
consistent manner. Australia further encourages China to ensure that reforms are consistent with 
the long -term objective of reducing trade - and production -distorting domesti c support.  
 
Within that context, Australia kindly requests China to respond to the following questions on the 
specific aforementioned measures announced under the rural development plans:  
 
a. What measures will China implement to 'protect' China's arable lan d at a red line of 120 
million hectares?  
i. What is the current arable land area?  
ii. Will this involve domestic support to retire or maintain arable land or limit production?  
b. How will China stabilise and strengthen subsidies to farmers?  
i. Does this indicate that C hina will increase subsidies, and if so, will this be done on a 
product -specific basis and/or non -product specific basis?  
ii. If on a product -specific basis, what products?  
c. How will China 'improve' the minimum purchase prices for wheat and rice?  
i. Will this invo lve increases to the minimum purchase price for each of these products?  
ii. How will these measures be consistent with the outcomes of DS517?  
d. How will China support efforts to recover its pig production?  
i. Will this involve any production -distorting support, for example minimum purchase 
prices?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The current arable land area is 134,998,700 hectares according to the 2016 Land and 
Resources Bulletin. The Third National Land and Resource Survey in China is under 
progr ess. We will share the updated data once the new Bulletin is published. To preserve 
and protect arable land is vital to safeguarding food security in China. The major measures 
include: a ) to prevent arable land from being used for non -agricultural purposes ; b) to 
preserve land conditions by improving infrastructure; and c ) to enhance disease control, 
to promote agricultural mechanization, and to provide personnel training.  
b. No. We intend to provide more subsidies to improve land conditions, infrastructure, 
agricultural services and technology researches. These are Green Box measures.  
c. By improving the minimum purchase prices for wheat and rice, we intend to be more 
flexible in adjusting the purchase prices, in a bid to let the market play the leading role 
while safeguarding our food security and supporting small farmers. The prices are 
determined based on factors such as costs, demand and supply, international prices and 
agricultural development. It does not mean that the prices will be increased.  
China has adj usted the minimum price purchase program in line with the DS511 ruling and notified 
the measures to WTO. The pre -determined targets are set for the purchases starting from 2020. We 
are constantly monitoring the purchase to make sure it does not exceed the target amount. For 
more information, please refer to document WT/DS511/15/Add.2.  
 
d. Our efforts to recover pig production include: a ) to facilitate administrative procedures 
including land use approval and environmental assessment; b ) to provide more market G/AG/W/218  
 
- 23 - 
 
  information and analysis, help farmers to make their decisions; and c ) to systemize the 
prevention and control of swine fever, and to help farmers improve measures against the 
disease.  
Follow -up: Brazil registered interest in this topic.  
 
1.1.10   China's agricult ural exports by state -owned enterprises  
1.1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97006)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 95023 for which China has not provided answers: For all 
agricultural products exported by state -owned enterprises:  
 
a. Please  provide the average export price, average procurement price and the average 
representative domestic sales price as required by the ECQ in Table II. If not available, 
please explain why not.  
b. Please list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn and 
cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If cannot provide, please explain why not?  
c. Please update the 2020 ECQ with 2018 and 2019 data.  
Answer by China  
 
a. Data is not available. Prices are treated as confidential commercial information and are  
not disclosed by the company.  
b. In 2017, export destinations for tobacco are HK; Indonesia; Belgium; United Arab 
Emirates; and etc. In 2017 export destinations for rice are Japan; Korea, Republic of; and 
Turkey etc. In 2016 and 2017, export destinations for  corn are Japan; Russian Federation 
and Viet Nam; for cotton are Viet Nam; Korea, Republic of; and etc.  
c. We will update ECQ in due time.  
1.1.10.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97007)  
Noting China has not provided a response to AG -IMS ID 95024, the United States would like to 
re-ask the question with updated statistics for 2020:  
 
According to customs data, China exported the following quantities of rice between 2017 -2020.  
 
Year  2017  2018  2019  2020  
Quantity Exported (Tonnes)  1,195,755  2,089,298  2,747,499  2,304,487  
 
a. Of these exports, how much (quantity) was exported by STEs?  
b. Of the exports by STEs, how much was previously held in public stocks? If applicable, what 
year were those stocks procured?  
Answer by China  
 
a. Data is not available.  
b. Public stocks are auctioned according to domestic rules, without designating usage. All 
eligible companies can participate in the auctions. We do not track whether the purchased 
rice is exported or not.  
Follow -up: Brazil registered interest in t his topic.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.1.11   China's Maize import duties  
1.1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97024)  
Recently the quantity of maize imported into China has significantly increased. Further, the internal 
market price for maize is significantly above world market price.  
 
China has a TRQ for maize imports of 7.2 million tonnes at 1% import duty. Outside this TRQ there 
is an import duty of 63%.  
 
a. For the current marketing year could China indicate the quantities imported until end of 
February 2021 under the TRQ.  
b. How much maiz e has been imported at full duty?  
c. Are any state -owned companies directly or indirectly involved in the import of maize during 
the current marketing year? Do these companies (or other STEs) import at TRQ rates, or 
any other rate less than the full 63% duty  or under any other preferential arrangements?  
d. Could China indicate the total quantity imported in the 2020 calendar year under the US 
China Phase One deal, and what import duties were applied to these imports. If different 
rates were applied, could China  indicate the quantity imported at each different duty rate.  
Answer by China  
 
a. Please refer to China's MA notification to be notified.  
b. Please refer to China's MA notification to be notified.  
c. According to China's commitment, corn quota has 60% STE share. Com panies that have 
obtained the quota may import at in -quota rate.  
d. China maintains TRQ for corn imports. The in -quota rate is 1% and out -quota rate is 65%. 
Companies apply for the quotas based on commercial decisions.  
Follow -up: Brazil registered interest in  this topic.  
 
1.1.12   China – Minimum support prices  
1.1.12.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97101)  
China recently announced a plan to increase the minimum support price for wheat and soybeans as 
a means to increase production of these crops.  
 
a. Could China provide information if there is a pre -set limit on the volume of wheat or 
soybeans that would be eligible for the minimum support price?  
b. Will the same minimum support price be applied across China, or will there be regional 
variations? If so, what will be the mini mum support price by region?  
c. What are the estimated expenditures resulting from this increase in the minimum support 
price?  
Answer by China  
 
a. China has a pre -determined target on the volume of rice and wheat for the minimum price 
purchase. The pre -determine d target is 50  million tonnes for rice in 2020. The 
pre-determined target is 37  million tonnes for wheat in 2020. We do not maintain 
minimum price purchase for soybeans.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 25 - 
 
  b. Minimum price purchase is only implemented in several designated provinces within major 
production area. In these provinces, the same price applies, with no regional variations.  
c. According to the minimum purchase policy, the purchase is launched only when local 
market prices drop below the minimum price in designated provinces. Th e expenditures 
are difficult to estimate as the purchase will not necessarily be launched.  
1.1.13   Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits  
1.1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97027)  
Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits – Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID 96046  
 
Côte d'Ivoire has not yet submitted replies to the questions asked by the European Union during the 
Committee on Agriculture meeting of 30 November and 1 December 2020. The EU is looking forward 
to receiving replies.  
 
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
 
1.1.14   Egypt's Suga r import restrictions  
1.1.14.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97030)  
Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID 96047  
 
Egypt has still not submitted a reply to question AG -IMS ID 96047. The EU is looking forward to 
receiving a reply.  
 
Decree No 117/2021 prolonged the sugar import restrictions in Decree No 606/2020 for another 
three months. In relation to Decree No 117/2021 the EU seeks clarifications from Egypt on the 
following points:  
 
a. Could Egypt explain how the import restrictions o n white sugar and raw sugar respect its 
commitments under Article XI GATT (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions)?  
b. Could Egypt submit an update on its current national sugar market situation including 
balance sheet for 2018, 2019 and 2020? Has t he temporary surplus of 2020 been reduced?  
c. Could Egypt please explain how the "import approval" for raw and white sugar imports is 
implemented and administered in practice? What are the rules and procedures for the 
submission of applications, what are the  available sources of information on the measures 
and the various steps of the application procedure? Is the eligibility of the applicants 
defined and available for economic operators?  
d. Could Egypt provide information on the deadlines within which "import a pprovals" are 
issued as well as the criteria for issuing the approvals?  
e. Are any fees charged for the "import approval" or are any other formalities required?  
f. Could Egypt explain how many import approval requests have been lodged for white and 
brown sugar since 3 December 2020 and 4 June 2020 respectively and how many requests 
have been granted since the introduction of the measure as well as distribution of such 
licenses among applying countries.  
g. Could Egypt share import statistics (value and volume) on im ports of raw and white sugar 
respectively for each of the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, with the origins of the imports 
for each year.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Answer by Egypt  
 
Follow -up: Australia encouraged Egypt to provide an initial response to the question. Australia 
repeated it s interest as stated at the last CoA in recent timelines and the WTO basis for Egypt's 
import restriction. Brazil reiterated that the Egyptian government's decision to impose restrictions 
on sugar imports unduly harmed developing countries where sugar expo rts had a significant weight 
in their international trade. Brazil noted that the decision also concerned it from a systemic point of 
view since Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture prohibits the imposition of quantitative 
restrictions on imports of ag ricultural products.  
 
Australia and the EU welcomed Egypt's announcement that the measure had been suspended and 
encouraged Egypt to respond to some of the specific questions posed at this Committee in order to 
have more clarity on this matter.  
 
1.1.15   The Europ ean Union's trade policy  
1.1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97102)  
Australia notes the publication of the European Union's Trade Policy Review – An Open, Sustainable 
and Assertive Trade Policy. Australia also notes the policy supports the European Union's dr ive 
towards 'open strategic autonomy' and confirms its 'readiness to combat unfair practices and use 
autonomous tools to pursue its interests where needed'. The trade policy also sets out the European 
Union's WTO reform actions, including to 'launch negoti ations on reinforced rules to avoid distortions 
of competition due to state intervention'. In this context, Australia kindly requests the European 
Union to answer the following questions:  
 
a. Can the European Union advise how its trade policy will be implemen ted in line with the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Do the European Union's proposed negotiations on reinforced rules to avoid distortions of 
competition due to state intervention include reform of the Article 6 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture on domestic suppo rt? 
i. If yes, what kind of reform of Article 6 does the European Union envisage?  
ii. If no, why does the European Union believe state intervention in agriculture in the 
context of Article 6 does not need to be addressed?  
c. Can the European Union provide informatio n on how 'autonomous tool' is defined and what 
kind of unfair practice would need to occur to attract its use?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU appreciates Australia's questions on the Trade Policy Review Communication, 
which outlines EU's view on its trade policy for the future. The EU notes that the document 
addresses a wide spectrum of trade policy issues, which go much beyond agriculture. 
Wherever relevant to agriculture, trade policy is and will remain in line with the rules of 
the Agreement on Agr iculture. The EU will also continue to play an active role in the 
process of review of commitments in the regular Committee on Agriculture as well as in 
the negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee.  
b. In the area of agriculture, Members should ta ke utmost care to respect the rules of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, which are meant to limit distortions. We recall that no other 
area in the WTO has such detailed rules as agriculture. The reform of Article 6 rules is one 
of the topics of our discussions  in the CoA Special Session. The EU would refer Australia 
to the interventions made by the EU in the open -ended meetings and in the small groups, 
where the view of the EU has been expressed in detail and with clarity.  
i. The WTO reform annex of the Trade Pol icy Review Communication contains a section 
on agriculture which makes our views explicit. We also refer Australia to the numerous 
interventions made in the CoA Special Session open -ended meetings and in the small G/AG/W/218  
 
- 27 - 
 
  groups where we provide details of our vie ws on domestic support. In the interest of 
transparency we copy an extract of EU's statement delivered in the CoA -SS of 
10 March  2021: "Any approach to substantive reductions in trade distorting domestic 
support will need to be realistic and fair so that M embers are willing to contribute. 
Clearly, contributions from across the membership will be needed for that to work. It 
is inconceivable to consider an approach where only one, two or a handful of Members 
contribute. An approach should indeed be proportion ate, but proportionality cannot 
mean that "someone other than me should contribute". We need to avoid blanket 
carve -outs for large parts of the membership from future disciplines. We need to create 
rules which will give those Members who have not reformed an incentive to do so. 
Equally, those who have reformed need confidence that those reforms will not be 
questioned or undermined. Finally, as we have said before, a solution to the public 
stockholding issue will need to be part of any credible domestic supp ort formula, since 
stockholding programmes can give rise to large amounts of trade -distorting spending."  
ii. See reply above.  
c. We refer Australia to the Trade Policy Review Communication which provides details, see 
in particular on page 8. We note that the comm unication tackles a wide range of issues 
which are by no means related solely to agriculture or the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Follow -up: Brazil noted the importance to understand how a Member such as the European Union 
intended to reform the "unlevelled pl aying field" in agriculture that remained in the multilateral 
trading system. In the light of recent European Commission statements that the EU hoped its new 
trade strategy would boost sustainability in the agrifood sector around the world, Brazil was 
concerned that the claim that the European Union was ready to "use autonomous tools to pursue its 
interests where needed" came without recognition that national measures must be science -based 
and compatible with the challenges of each country. Brazil also note d that the announced EU strategy 
to promote sustainability standards in global value chains could be pursued through measures, such 
as due diligence, of which the compatibility with WTO rules seemed questionable. Brazil's fear was 
that this combination of policies would lead to increased protectionism rather than to "combat unfair 
practices", as announced by the EU. Paraguay hoped that the measure subject to question 2b ) would 
not be excessive. Paraguay considered it pressing for Members to lead by example and undertake 
commitments to decrease subsidies as per Article 20. With respect to proportionality, Paraguay 
commented that those who contributed the most to distortive measures must make the most efforts. 
Paraguay added that, in the context of the CoA -SS, it seemed that there was not an interest in 
making true reform by the time of the 12th Ministerial meeting.  
 
1.1.16   France - National Strategy for Vegetable Proteins  
1.1.16.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97103)  
On 1 December, France's Minister of Agriculture and Food, J ulien Denormandie, presented the 
general lines of the new "national strategy for vegetable proteins".  
 
On the occasion, the Minister stated that the plan aims to increase by 40% the total area grown with 
vegetable proteins in France until the end of 2022, from the current 1 million to 1.4 million hectares. 
In ten years, the strategy aims to double the total planted area, reaching 2 million hectares (or 8% 
of the country's arable land).  
 
To achieve these objectives, an initial budget of EUR 100 million was m obilized for investments to 
be carried out by December 2022.  
 
Could France provide the following clarifications on how this self -sufficiency strategy relates to the 
EU's commitments under the AoA:  
 
a. What is the expected total budget for implementing the 10 -year goal of doubling the 
production of plant -based proteins?  
b. How does the EUR 100 million budget relate to the CAP?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 28 - 
 
  c. How will this program be included in the EU's DS:1 for the relevant year?  
d. Assuming that the "national strategy for vegetable proteins" will  be implemented in the 
framework of the  "Voluntary Coupled Support" (VCS) programme, how does it relate to 
the AoA Article 6.5 production -limiting criteria? In this case, how does France plan to 
increase its level of coupled domestic support, considering t hat it already spends all of the 
VCS budget (15% of CAP's Pillar I "envelope"), including the additional 2% for protein 
crops?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The funds dedicated to the launch of the national strategy for plant proteins are 
EUR 100 million. These funds come from the French recovery plan (French and EU 
budget).  
b. Other funding will be provided by the CAP. Yet, discussions are still ongoing and it is 
therefore impossible at this stage to give a definitive answer to this question.  
c. As mentioned above, discussions are still ongoing and we cannot provide a definitive 
answer to this question. The EU will include all relevant policies and expenditure related 
to these in its DS:1 notification, in full compliance with the Agreeme nt on Agriculture.  
d. As mentioned above, discussions are still ongoing and we cannot provide a definitive 
answer to this question at this stage.  
Follow -up: Brazil reserved the right to pose further questions.  
 
1.1.17   France's soybean production and the EU's Blue Box support  
1.1.17.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97104)  
According to FAO statistics, from 2008 to 2019, France's soybean production has grown from 
63,106  tonnes to 428,530 tonnes, in a harvested area that has grown from 21,771 hectares (ha) to 
163,800 ha.  
 
Prelim inary data from the European Commission estimate that the harvested area has grown further 
in 2020, despite the pandemic, to 183,610 ha, resulting in a production of 490 thousand tonnes.  
 
Considering that throughout this period the EU has notified Blue Box  programmes and that there is 
a stimulus to the granting of coupled support to protein crops (member States may increase their 
annual national ceiling for VCS by up to 2% if they decide to use at least 2% of their annual national 
ceiling set out in Annex I I of the basic Act to support the production of protein crops), could France 
provide the following information:  
 
a. Since 2008, how much has France spent on coupled support to soybeans that was notified 
by the EU as Blue Box expenditures?  
b. How does France expl ain the huge growth in its soybean production and in its harvested 
area if the only notified product -specific support for soybeans (protein crops) is included 
in Supporting Table DS:3 (production -limiting programs)?  
c. What base period did France consider for  its soybeans production benefiting from Blue Box 
programmes?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Voluntary coupled support is available to member States only since claim year 2015. 
Therefore, data are only available from that year and onwards.  
Since claim year 2015 , France implements one coupled support measure for soya.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 29 - 
 
  The total amount reimbursed by the EU budget to France in respect of claim years 2015 to 2019 
inclusive (implementation data for claim year 2020 not yet available) under that measure is 
EUR 27,600 ,387.  
 
b. The production -limiting character of the voluntary coupled support is ensured by:  
• The respect of the annual financial ceiling fixed by the member State for each measure.  
• The fixed area and yield (or fixed number of animals for animal -related measures) fixed 
by the member State for each measure, which serves as a basis for the followings:  
 
i. it serves as the basis for the calculation of the measure's financial ceiling (the amount 
of support per hectare is multiplied by the fixed ar ea, which gives the financial ceiling);  
ii. a member State may not increase the financial ceiling of a measure if the fixed area 
and yield were exceeded in the last claim year where implementation data are 
available. For instance, a member State may not incre ase the financial ceiling for a 
measure for claim year  2021 if the fixed area and yield were exceeded in claim year 
2019;  
iii. if in a given claim year the eligible area exceeds the fixed area and yield, the unit 
amount per hectare is proportionally reduced. T his creates a deterrent effect, and also 
ensures the respect of the financial ceiling.  
As regards the soya measure in France, it is observed that:  
 
The financial ceiling set -up by France for the soya measure has also constantly decreased over the 
period claim year 2015 - claim year 2020 and remain stable in claim year 2021 in comparison to 
claim year 2020.  
 
The unit amount has dropped from EUR 100/hectare in claim year 2015 to EUR 33/hectare for claim 
year 2019 (claim year 2020 data not yet available).  
 
Finally, it should be underlined, that a farmer may choose to produce a crop based on other 
considerations than the subsidy level, such as total market returns, spreading workload on the farm 
during sowing, growing and harvesting, crop rotation benefits etc .  
 
c. For this soya measure, France set up as reference year of production 2010 -49,736 
hectares.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that the subsidy in question was not compatible with Article 6.5 and 
welcomed information on the classification of this type of subsid ies. Paraguay also sought further 
information on the arable land and the production of soya beans.  
 
1.1.18   European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.1.18.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97107)  
The transition period to allow for the United Ki ngdom and the European Union to negotiate a new 
partnership arrangement ended on 31 December 2020. Canada would appreciate an update from 
the European Union regarding the modification of the EU -28 Final Bound Total AMS commitment to 
reflect the domestic su pport entitlement of the EU -27.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The position of the EU on this subject has not changed since its presentation to Canada on 
21 February 2018 in Geneva. The EU's DS:1 notification covering the 2020/2021 marketing year, 
the first y ear when UK will not be included under the EU's AMS, will take the situation into account. 
At an appropriate moment, the EU will submit appropriate schedule modifications for certification.  
 
Follow -up: Canada looked forward to continuing discussions with both the EU and the UK on the 
arrangements to find appropriate level of the final bound total AMS (FBTAMS). Uruguay indicated G/AG/W/218  
 
- 30 - 
 
  continued interest in finding out how the EU would proceed in dealing with the FBTAMS in line with 
a letter of 20 17 which was later reaffirmed in a document of 22 December. Paraguay noted the 
ongoing discussions and the necessity to continue these discussions in the Market Access committee 
and the Goods Council. Paraguay encouraged the EU to provide an estimate on ho w this arrangement 
would affect its commitments at the WTO and if this had not been done yet Paraguay wanted to 
know the reason. Brazil noted that the point raised by Canada revealed that there appeared to be a 
selective application of the apportionment me thodology by the EU. On the one hand, the EU does 
not accept to deviate from this methodology in current negotiations under Article XXVIII, despite 
not existing any legal basis for it in the GATT or in the Agreement on Agriculture. On the other hand, 
it seems that there is some resistance from the EU in applying this apportionment to adjust its 
FBTAMS. Brazil asked the EU to indicate a date on which it could circulate its new FBTAMS and asked 
whether the delay in changing its FBTAMS schedule indicated that the EU would deduct from the 
new FBTAMS the corresponding amount that had been provided to the UK and that whether the EU 
was also willing to be more flexible regarding the "apportionment" approach in current negotiations 
under article XXVIII. Australia ec hoed the concern expressed by previous speakers and encouraged 
the EU to provide an update on the scheduling of its FBTAMS. The EU noted that the EU's position 
had not changed since the meeting of February 2018 where the EU explained how it intended to 
modify its FBTAMS after the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The EU referred Members to a document 
that was distributed following its presentation at that meeting which in its view provided a very clear 
explanation on its intended approach.  
 
1.1.19   EU's environmental p olicies  
1.1.19.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97131)  
The following questions are being submitted in follow ‑up to the questions submitted by Paraguay 
and Colombia under AG ‑IMS ID 93301.  
 
In January of this year, the Commission published the list of agricultural practices that could be 
supported through the "eco ‑schemes". Defined as a complementary set of (voluntary) tools to be 
offered to farmers to help achieve the CAP environmental and climate objectives, eco ‑schemes 
represent a new stream of funding for the en vironment and the climate from the CAP's direct 
payments budget, mandatory for member States (but designed by them) and voluntary for farmers.  
 
According to the information published by the European Union, these eco ‑schemes offer the 
possibility to grant d irect payments as an incentive to farmers to adopt practices beneficial for the 
environment and the climate, going beyond the costs incurred or the income foregone due to the 
adoption of these practices. This shall include the possibility to set premia whi ch need not be based 
on the additional costs and income losses arising from the commitments in question.  
 
"All eco‑schemes will have to meet the rules of least ‑trade‑distorting ("Green Box") 
support for agriculture, as agreed within the World Trade Organis ation. On that basis, 
where eco ‑scheme payments are not limited to the additional costs and income losses 
arising from the practices concerned, they will have to be considered as 'decoupled 
income support'. In such cases, it is prohibited that payments dep end on a requirement 
to produce – or on type or volume of production – except with regard to a 'base period' 
in the past. "2 
However, direct payments can be counterproductive to environmental objectives; studies suggest 
that under such programmes, approxim ately 6% more land is used for agricultural purposes because 
of the subsidies provided. Cultivating this additional land can have negative consequences for 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, given that this agricultural land would not be cultivated in the 
absence of these subsidies.  
 
There are seven areas of environment, climate and animal welfare actions under the CAP strategic 
plans: a) climate change mitigation; b) climate change adaptation; c) protection or improvement of 
water quality; d) prevention of so il degradation; e) protection of biodiversity; f) actions for a 
sustainable and reduced use of pesticides; and g) actions to enhance animal welfare.  
 
 
2 Footnote no 5 of the document: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -
fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap -post-2020-environ -benefits -simplification_en.pdf . G/AG/W/218  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Of the examples given in the document "List of potential Agricultural practices that eco ‑schemes 
could sup port", some of the practices in the list that seek to advance areas b), f) and g) could have 
a negative impact on areas a) and d).  
 
For example, mechanical harrowing is considered to be an agricultural practice that erodes the soil 
and removes the carbon s equestered therein, leading to an increase in GHGs.  
 
Could the EU:  
 
Explain how subsidies that lead to the over ‑exploitation of natural resources are compatible with its 
objectives of environmental protection and conservation.  
 
Explain how potential negati ve effects on the environment are taken into account when determining 
a policy is an "environmental programme" eligible for subsidies under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Justify the environmental programme definition of practices that may increase GHGs, in the light of 
the common but differentiated responsibilities in the Paris Agreement. We recall that, despite its 
considerable efforts, the EU is among the world's biggest GHG emitters and that its agricultural 
sector is responsible for 10% of the EU's total GHG emissions.3 
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Eco-schemes aim at supporting farm practices that reduce pressure on natural resources, 
improve the state of the environment, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and 
other pollutants. Trade -offs between practices may exist. However, the practices 
supported need to be coherent as regards the overall environmental impact and the 
eco-schemes should provide a lever for an overall positive environmental impact. Eco -
schemes can support practices on productive area as well as the setting and maintenance 
of non-productive areas and landscape elements.  
b. EU member States will design eco -schemes to respond to a wide range of environmental 
and climate objectives and report in their national CAP strategic plans their overall strategy 
to achieve these objectives (the "green architecture").  
The Commission will assess the potential environmental benefits of eco -schemes before 
approving member States' CAP strategic plans.  
c. Eco-schemes will strengthen the efforts of European farmers to contribute to the EU's 
ambitious cli mate objectives to comply with the international EU commitments on Green 
House gas emissions. Article 97(2)(b) of the proposal for a CAP Strategic Plan Regulation 
(currently under negotiation between the EU co -legislators) would require all 
CAP interventio ns to be consistent with a range of European relevant legislation including 
on climate (listed in Annex XI of the proposal).  
In addition, and within the new CAP "green architecture", the CAP Strategic Plans should 
roll out conditionality (a set of obligato ry practices for which farmers are not supported), 
agri-environmental -climate commitments, as well as farm advisory services and 
investments to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.  
Follow -up: In light of the negative environmental impacts  that may be resulted from the subsidies, 
Paraguay noted that it was of great concern that the measure accounted for a share of 40 -45% of 
the total CAP during the period of 2020 -2021. Paraguay also viewed that it would be impossible to 
determine whether th e subsidies had truly been environmentally friendly due to the subsidies' 
negative environmental impacts, including increased emissions as stated by the EU, as well as the 
lack of link of the criteria for benefiting from the policy to scientific or technic al aspects. Further, 
Paraguay pointed out that the lack of distinction between mitigation and climate adaptation was 
problematic in light of the effect it had on reducing GHG emissions. Brazil noted that the questions 
posed by Paraguay and in this and prev ious CoA meetings had given rise to an important reflection 
on what could be classified as payments related to environmental programmes. Brazil noted that, in 
 
3 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics -explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf . G/AG/W/218  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a series of recent reports, the OECD had already pointed out the negative effects on the environm ent 
of coupled support to agricultural production, enabling production that would not exist if there were 
no such support. The potential increase in spending classified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 made 
the absence of well -defined requirements and this sh ould demand the attention of all WTO Members. 
In response to Brazil's comment, the EU noted that sustainability is an important global matter for 
the future which should be integrated, together with climate change, into the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The di scussions on this matter should take place in the special session of the CoA and 
not the regular CoA meeting. Paraguay expressed interest in holding discussions on sustainability in 
agriculture as part of a structured debate on environment and trade and lo oked forward to the EU's 
support and contribution on this topic.  
 
1.1.19.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97132)  
The following question is being submitted in follow ‑up to question AG ‑IMS ID 96007.  In 
December  2020, the press reported that the French authorities h ad announced that they would grant 
a "temporary tax credit of EUR 2,500 to farmers who declare in 2021 and/or in 2022 to have stopped 
use of glyphosate" in the wine, vegetable and grain crop sectors.  
Could the EU:  
 
a. Confirm the veracity of the press reports , including the total amount that producers will 
receive as a subsidy to stop using this phytosanitary product and affected products.  
b. Indicate how long the "temporary tax credit" will be in place and whether or not it can be 
renewed.  
c. Indicate how many prod ucers may benefit from it.  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU confirms that a temporary tax credit of EUR 2,500 will be introduced by the French 
Authorities in 2021 and 2022 for farmers who abandon the use of glyphosate to treat their 
crops.  
b. This tax credit will be granted for a maximum of two years.  
c. The number of beneficiaries is unknown at this stage; it depends on the interest shown by 
farmers for this measure.  
Follow -up: Paraguay expressed the concern regarding the proliferation of the EU's subsidies to 
farmers and the lack of scientific evidence in the case of the measure in question. Noting the EU's 
comments that no information was available on the number of beneficiaries, Paraguay looked 
forward to receiving any preliminary information or updates on suc h information when it becomes 
available. Paraguay also sought an answer to its previous question on whether the payments were 
only made to compensate the loss of income. Paraguay noted that the EU had regularly notified that, 
in the case of plant protectio n, the products would not be renewed, and the trading partners must 
find different alternatives to continue to trade with the EU. At the same time, the EU granted 
generous subsidies to farmers to improve their competitiveness, causing harm to developing 
countries.  
 
1.1.20   EU member States' regulations on domestic food products  
1.1.20.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 97108)  
Ukraine notes that in May 2020 the European Commission opened infringement proceedings against 
Bulgaria in relation to the Cabinet decree that requires supermarket chains to sell produce and other 
foodstuffs made in their regions. In a letter of formal notice, the European Commission asked 
Bulgaria "to remove discriminatory measures obliging retailers to favour domestic food products." 
Unfortunat ely, we do not have any information whether such protective measures applied by 
Bulgaria have been abolished.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 33 - 
 
  At the same time, according to the media, in February 2021, the Parliament of the Czech Republic 
decided to increase the share of domestic food o n the shelves of large stores. Pursuant to the 
amendments to the Food Law, from 2022 more than 50% of selected products in stores with an area 
of more than 400 square meters must be Czech -made. After 2022, the share of sold Czech food will 
increase annuall y until 2028, when, the quota for domestic food should be at least 73%. Thus, the 
above measures would favour domestically produced products and restrict imported goods.  
 
a. Could the EU please provide an update on the current status of the above Bulgarian a nd 
Czech regulations?  
b. Which agricultural products are covered by the protection?  
c. What steps is the EU taking to ensure that mentioned regulations affecting imports of 
agricultural products are consistent with its WTO commitments?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would like to supplement the reply given during the regular CoA 29 March 2021 with the 
following:  
 
On 13 April the Czech Parliament's Chamber of Deputies accepted the Senate's position and dropped 
the amendments instituting the quotas, which had been placed in the legislation when lawmakers 
first voted in January. The proposed measures on minimum percentage of Czech products have now 
been eliminated from the Czech food law.  
  
Ad Bulgaria  
The Bulgarian decree in question is no longer in force as it  expired at the end of 2020 and its 
application was not extended.  
The expired Bulgarian decree covered: milk and dairy products, fish and fish products, fresh meat 
and eggs, honey and fresh seasonal fruits and vegetables from regional suppliers.  
  
Ad Cze chia  
The proposed amendments to the Czech food law cover a wide range of processed and unprocessed 
food products.  
 
The proposed amendments were recently rejected by the Czech Senate. The draft law has been sent 
back to the Chamber of Deputies which will examine it by mid -April.  
 
c. As soon as the European Commission became aware of the prospective measures in question, it 
contacted the relevant national authorities with a view to finding a solution in compliance with EU 
law and the EU's international obl igations. The Commission even launched infringement proceedings 
against Bulgaria and has had extensive contacts with the Czech authorities in an effort to prevent 
the implementation of the amendments in question.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil pointed out that the concern expressed by Ukraine was similar to those raised by 
Brazil in the questions to France that were discussed prior to this question and they all related to 
the increased role of EU member States in matters that impact the  commitments made at the WTO. 
Brazil noted that, if this trend continues, it might be interesting for the EU member States themselves 
to respond to questions in the review process on their respective policies. The EU noted that 
according to its internal la w, trade policy is a matter of the EU commission so it would be within the 
competence of the EU to give answers to such questions at the CoA meeting.  
 
1.1.21   France - Origin of goods on supermarket shelves  
1.1.21.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97106)  
On 9 November 2020,  France's top ten supermarket groups signed a "Charte d'engagements de 
mise en avant des produits frais agricoles, aquatiques et des produits locaux en grande distribution" . 
The document establishes that its signatories must display visible mentions of the French origin of 
goods on supermarket shelves (as well as on the websites of companies and in digital and printed 
advertising campaigns) in which agricultural products, fish eries and meat of local origin are G/AG/W/218  
 
- 34 - 
 
  presented. Also, spaces should be reserved for local products on shelves dedicated to "special 
offers".  
 
The 10 representatives of the French private sector announced that the letter was developed "Sous 
le haut patronage du Ministre de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation" . The letter was published on the 
French government's website and was heralded by the Minister of Agriculture, Julien Denormandie: 
https://agriculture.gouv.fr/video -charte -dengagements -de-mise-en-avant -des-produits -frais-
agricoles -aquatiques -et-des-produits .  
 
In addition, in an interview with a local television chann el, the Minister of Agriculture stated that this 
action is unprecedented in France and has the objective of promoting the "agricultural sovereignty" 
of the country. Considering France's obligations under GATT Article III (National Treatment on 
Internal Tax ation and Regulation), which applies to laws, regulations and requirements affecting the 
internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use of products, could France 
explain:  
 
a. What is the role of the government in such initiati ve? 
b. How does it abide by GATT's Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The French authorities do not contribute to the implementation of this charter, and there 
is no provision for validation and cont rol by the public authorities of the commitments that 
the companies have chosen to make within this framework. The French Government did 
not launch this initiative.  
b. The "Charte d'engagements de mise en avant des produits frais agricoles, aquatiques et 
des produits locaux en grande distribution"  is not a legally binding document, it is a 
voluntary commitment by retail companies. It is thus neither a law, nor a regulation nor 
a requirement affecting distribution (Article III:4). As such, none of the provision s of 
Article III GATT are contravened.  
1.1.22   EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
1.1.22.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97105)  
According to the latest available data from the European Commission, during the first eleven months 
of 2020, EU -27 exports increased b y 0.9% compared to the corresponding period in 2019, reaching 
EUR 168.5 billion.  
 
Despite the great result during a year marred by the effects of the COVID -19 pandemic, the 
European Commission announced on 28 January that it more than doubled the maximum a mount 
of state aid that can be granted to agricultural companies from EUR 100,000 to EUR 225,000. The 
decision was part of new flexibility added to the State Aid Temporary Framework, which the 
Commission first adopted in March 2020 to give national authori ties more possibilities to help their 
economic recovery from the pandemic.  
 
These looser state aid rules have also been extended until 31 December 2021. The Temporary 
Framework was originally supposed to expire at the end of 2020, but had already been exte nded to 
30 June 2021 in October last year.  
 
According to some calculations, the agri -food sector has received a total of around EUR 4.4 billion 
in EU-approved state aid in 2020.  
 
Bearing in mind the EU's commitment that "emergency measures related to agriculture and agri 
food products designed to tackle COVID -19 must be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and 
temporary, and not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disruption t o global supply chains for 
agriculture and agri -food products", and that "[any] such measures are to be consistent with WTO 
rules" (WT/GC/208/Rev.2 and G/AG/30/Rev.2), could the EU explain:  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 35 - 
 
  a. How will these increased COVID -19-related expenditures be reflect ed in the EU DS:1 
notification?  
b. In which box will this support be included?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU will report these measures in its DS:1 based on actual execution of these programmes. As 
indicated in the update to the EU ad hoc report submitted  before this meeting in document 
G/AG/GEN/159/Add.4, the amounts indicated in the ad hoc reports are maximum budgeted 
amounts.  
 
The measures will be reported in the respective DS:1 notifications according to the relevant criteria 
as set out in Article 6 of  the Agreement on Agriculture. As examples:  
 
• Those measures that are product specific grant schemes not exempt from reduction 
requirements, would be expected to be notified as Amber Box.  
• Those support measures that are of the nature of guarantee/financia l support/liquidity 
loans would be expected to be notified under interest subsidies – non product specific.  
 
1.1.23   Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  
1.1.23.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97109)  
a. Japan recognizes that Honduras introduced export  prohibition on dried leguminous 
vegetables on 26 March 2020 and has been maintaining the prohibition without providing 
planned date of termination. Japan would appreciate if Honduras could provide the reason 
behind. Japan would also appreciate if Honduras  could provide when it will withdraw the 
prohibition, and if it is not possible, at least the prospect under what specific condition the 
measure could be withdrawn.  
b. Japan noted a response from Honduras to our question at the CoA held on June, which 
states that Honduras introduced the measure because of the risk of critical shortage of 
legumes. Japan would appreciate if Honduras could provide the updated situation of the 
domestic supply and demand of the products. Japan would also appreciate it if Honduras 
could explain how it has given consideration to the effects of the measure on trading 
partner's food security.  
Answer by Honduras  
 
Honduras thanks Japan for its question concerning the export restriction on red beans.  
  
Our reply is as follows:  
  
As mentio ned at the Committee on Agriculture meeting of 30 November 2020, our country confirms 
that the export prohibition referred to by Japan is no longer in effect, which means that exports of 
red beans under Central American Import Tariff (ACI) tariff subheadin gs 0713.32.00.00 
and 0713.33.40.00 are now authorized.  
 
1.1.24   India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  
1.1.24.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97110)  
Australia thanks India for its response to questions AG -IMS IDs 95055 and 96051 on the Agriculture 
Infrastructure Fund (AIF). In its response, India advised that it was yet to identify the 'export 
clusters' eligible for support under the AIF.  
 
a. Could India please advise if it has now identified the 'export clusters' eligible for support 
under the AIF?  
i. If yes, what crops fall within the definition of an 'export cluster'?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
Projects have now been identified for providing supply chain infrastructure for export clusters of 
crops like fruits, vegetables, spices etc.  
 
1.1.25   India - Increase on cotton t ariffs  
1.1.25.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97111)  
Australia notes that on 1 February India announced an imposition of a 10% tariff on imported cotton. 
Australia acknowledges that this is within India's bound rate for cotton. Nevertheless, Australia is 
concern ed about the impact that this may have on Australia's cotton producers and exporters, as 
well as the impact on the global cotton market. Australia is also concerned about the impact the 
tariff increase will have on India's own manufacturing industry that r elies on importing cotton.  
  
Australia notes that the United States issued a counter notification on 9  November  2018 
(G/AG/W/188) outlining information that indicated India had provided market price support for 
cotton in excess of its de minimis  limits un der Article 6 of the AoA. The potential provision of Amber 
Box domestic support above its de minimis  limit in addition to the need to increase the tariff is 
indicative of a potentially problematic domestic regime for cotton in India that may not be 
WTO consistent.  
 
Australia would like to reiterate that we are not against support for farmers, but that s upport needs 
to be WTO -consistent and cannot circumvent Members' commitments under the AoA.  
 
In that context, Australia would appreciate India's advice on:  
 
a. The domestic market circumstances and policy considerations that led to the 10% tariff 
being impose d at this time?  
b. Whether India expects further tariff increases on cotton or the introduction of other 
measures to limit imports of cotton?  
c. Whether India is planning or expects to implement additional domestic support measures 
for cotton?  
Answer by India  
 
Australia has acknowledged within its question, the said increase in tariff is well -within India's bound 
tariff commitments for cotton.  
 
There is no information available for questions b & c.  
 
Follow -up: The United States thanked Australia for raising the question which discussed the 
interlinkage between market access and domestic support measures. The US noted that the while 
certain types of measure may fall within one agriculture pillar or another, this does not mean the  
policies are not related. The question also highlighted the importance of transparency as Members 
regularly adjust their tariff but there remains no mechanism to notify such changes to this or any 
another WTO  Committee. The US noted that since it notified  the counter notification covering the 
years 2010/2011 to 2017/2018, India's minimum support price for cotton had increased by more 
than 40%. Meanwhile government purchases had also increased substantially, reaching record 
levels. While government may not procure all cotton produced in India, the minimum support price 
measure has a discernible impact on cotton farmers across India. The US quoted a report from a 
few months ago by one Indian cotton ginning and trader association which stated that government 
purchases were the main reason that cotton prices in India have rallied, noting the lack of buying 
from private sector. The US also quoted a report made one month ago by a Cotton Corporation of 
India senior official which stated that "had it not been for th e Corporation, prices would not have 
gone up. Even if we buy just one third of the cotton produced, the ripple effects are enough to reach 
all cotton growers in the country." The US encouraged India to reflect on how it implemented its 
policies and how tho se could be accurately reflected in its DS notifications. The EU registered interest 
in the question and looked forward to receiving more detailed answers from India.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 37 - 
 
  1.1.26   India's pulses policies  
1.1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97022)  
The Unit ed States would like to again raise its concerns with India's trade restrictive measures on 
pulses and the lack of sufficient responses to Members' questions at the previous Committee on 
Agriculture meetings. In late 2017, India began implementing quantita tive restrictions on pulses, 
which has led to considerable concern in this and other WTO committees. To date, at least 59 
questions have been asked in this Committee by at least seven Members requesting India to clarify 
the policy and its compliance with t he WTO rules and agreements. During this period, these 
quantitative restrictions on imports of mung beans, peas, black gram lentils, and pigeon peas have 
been renewed each fiscal year for the past three years, with the value of affected imports decreasing 
by more than 50% during the timeframe. As such, the United States continues to seek answers to 
the following questions:  
 
a. In past CoA and other WTO committee meetings, India has stated the quantitative 
restrictions would be temporary, yet as previously sta ted, they have now been renewed 
for several years. With the current quantitative restrictions set to expire on 31 March 2021, 
please confirm that these measures will not be renewed for a fourth consecutive year.  
b. If India intends on renewing the measures fo r another year, what market or other 
conditions are needed for these quantitative restrictions to end?  
c. Once again, the United States requests an explanation for how these measures comply 
with India's WTO commitments.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. Based on the review of overall demand and supply situation in the domestic market, the 
government has notified an annual quota for Tur of 4 LMT, urad of 4 LMT and Moong of 1.5 LMT for 
year 2021 -22. India has stated the legal basis of its measures pertaining to import r estrictions on 
certain varieties of pulses previously in response to the questions raised by Members in the 
Committee on Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods.  
 
Follow -up: Australia restated its concern on the trade restrictions imposed by India  in relation to 
pulses since August 2017. India was asked to provide more direct and specific answers to the 
questions that were repeatedly raised by Australia and other Members. In particular, Australia sought 
India's explicit explanation in this forum of  the WTO justification of the quantitative restrictions which 
had been put in place for more than four years rather than the reference to the fact that India had 
discussed this issue in the Committee on Market access and the CTG. Canada hoped that India co uld 
provide more explanation and clarity in terms of continuation of the temporary quantitative 
restrictions. Canada pointed out that, these quantitative restrictions, on dry peas in particular, had 
been in place since April 2016 and continued to have sign ificant impact on Canadian farmers. Canada 
also expressed support for questions raised by the other Members on this topic. The Russian 
Federation hoped that the restrictions could be soon lifted by India and indicated its interest in 
seeking more clarifica tion on the matter. The EU and the US echoed the concern expressed by 
previous speakers regarding India's lack of specific answers and the issue of referencing responses 
in other WTO Committees. The EU clarified that the questions were not only about the l egal and 
economic reasons for which India had introduced the measure but whether and how the measure 
respected the WTO rules. The EU also noted that the measure was no longer a temporary measure 
given its presence for more than three years and asked India to give an indication regarding what 
would happen after 1 April. Ukraine noted that India had imposed quantitative restrictions on imports 
of pulses along with other trade distorting policies for more than three years. The measures were 
not temporary and t ransparent and appeared to violate Article XI of the GATT and Article 4 and 12 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. Ukraine underlined the distortive effects of the measures on the 
international pulse market and on reducing trade opportunities for exporters an d noted that 
Ukraine's exports of pulses to India had decreased almost 100 times over the last three years, 
dropping from 157,000 tonnes to less 2,000 tonnes. Ukraine encouraged India to comply with the 
WTO agreements and eliminate the measures.  
  
Austral ia voiced its continued concern about restrictions placed on imports of pulses to India and 
continued to call on India to permanently remove all quantitative restrictions on pulses. Australia G/AG/W/218  
 
- 38 - 
 
  noted that several WTO Members including itself had repeatedly r aised this issue at various WTO 
Committees and encouraged India to provide timely and comprehensive answers to questions posed 
at this Committee instead of referencing answers given in other Committees. The US welcomed 
India's announcement to remove the qu antitative restriction but remained concerned that this is 
only a temporary suspension which may be automatically reinstated in a few months. The US also 
expressed concern about trade implications of such measures, given India had not lifted all 
quantitati ve restrictions and appeared to be planning to make regular use of such measures going 
forward, in conjunction with various other policy measures including market prices support. The US 
noted that the question jointly proposed by six Members emphasized the  importance of Members 
responding to questions raised at this Committee and Members' joint concern that the quantitative 
restriction had been in place for a number of years. The US urged India to provide full response to 
this question. Canada and the EU su pported the comments made by Australia and the US and 
encouraged India to provide direct and specific answers to the question. Canada also highlighted the 
unpredictability created by this measure, not only for exporters but also for production decisions an d 
the resulted impact on future supplies of high -quality pulse products in times of shortage. The 
Russian Federation expressed concern on the resumption of the quantitative restriction on pulses.  
 
1.1.26.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97112)  
Members are well aware of Australia's concerns regarding India's trade restrictive measures on 
pulses, particularly India's quantitative restrictions (QRs) on a variety of pulses. These concerns are 
shared by a number of other Members, including developing Members. Au stralia most recently raised 
this issue at both 95th and 96th CoA. India's responses to date have been insufficient.  
 
For over four years, India has characterised these QRs as 'temporary', and has justified the QRs 
under various GATT provisions, including Article XI and Article XX.  
 
Australia believes that the AoA supersedes GATT Article XI with respect to the use of QRs. Since 
India has not explained how GATT Article XX applies to India's use of QRs, the measures appear 
inconsistent with India's WTO -commit ments and should be removed immediately.  
 
India has referred Members to its responses and statements on this issue made in the Committees 
in Market Access and the Council on Trade in Goods. While Australia acknowledges those statements, 
it once again reminds India that Article 4.2 of the AoA state s: "Members shall not maintain, resort 
to, or revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordinary 
customs duties (footnote 1), except as otherwise provided for in Article 5 and Annex 5". Footnote 1 
says "These measures  include quantitative import restrictions".  
 
Given Article 4 of the AoA unambiguously disciplines QRs, Australia believes India has provided 
insufficient justification for its restrictions to this Committee vis -à-vis its obligations under the AoA.  
 
In this  context, Australia asks India to provide:  
 
a. An update on the market conditions that are justifying the continuation of the QRs on 
pulses.  
b. The latest fill rates for the QRs and the import data for the affected pulses.  
c. A detailed explanation regarding the WT O-consistency of the QRs imposed on certain 
varieties of pulses solely in relation to Article 4 of the AoA.  
d. Advice as to when India plans on removing the QRs on a variety of pulses that it has 
maintained without any clear WTO -justification for more than fo ur years?  
i. Failing their removal, can India advise Members if it considers itself to have 
implemented a permanent QR?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
312,079 tonnes of moong; 449,777 tonnes of pigeon peas and 69,439 tonnes of urad was imported 
during 2019 -20. The governme nt has been continuously reviewing and monitoring the situation and 
the measure. India has stated the legal basis of its measures pertaining to import restrictions on 
certain varieties of pulses previously in response to the questions raised by Members in Committee 
on Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods.  
 
Follow -up: Australia restated its concern on the trade restrictions imposed by India in relation to 
pulses since August 2017. India was asked to provide more direct and specific answers to the  
questions that were repeatedly raised by Australia and other Members. In particular, Australia sought 
India's explicit explanation in this forum of the WTO justification of the quantitative restrictions which 
had been put in place for more than four years  rather than the reference to the fact that India had 
discussed this issue in the Committee on Market access and the CTG. Canada hoped that India could 
provide more explanation and clarity in terms of continuation of the temporary quantitative 
restrictions . Canada pointed out that, these quantitative restrictions, on dry peas in particular, had 
been in place since April 2016 and continued to have significant impact on Canadian farmers. Canada 
also expressed support for questions raised by the other Members on this topic. The Russian 
Federation hoped that the restrictions could be soon lifted by India and indicated its interest in 
seeking more clarification on the matter. The EU and the US echoed the concern expressed by 
previous speakers regarding India's la ck of specific answers and the issue of referencing responses 
in other WTO Committees. The EU clarified that the questions were not only about the legal and 
economic reasons for which India had introduced the measure but whether and how the measure 
respect ed the WTO rules. The EU also noted that the measure was no longer a temporary measure 
given its presence for more than three years and asked India to give an indication regarding what 
would happen after 1 April. Ukraine noted that India had imposed quanti tative restrictions on imports 
of pulses along with other trade distorting policies for more than three years. The measures were 
not temporary and transparent and appeared to violate Article XI of the GATT and Article 4 and 12 
of the Agreement on Agricultu re. Ukraine underlined the distortive effects of the measures on the 
international pulse market and on reducing trade opportunities for exporters and noted that 
Ukraine's exports of pulses to India had decreased almost 100 times over the last three years, 
dropping from 157,000 tonnes to less 2,000 tonnes. Ukraine encouraged India to comply with the 
WTO agreements and eliminate the measures.  
  
Australia voiced its continued concern about restrictions placed on imports of pulses to India and 
continued to cal l on India to permanently remove all quantitative restrictions on pulses. Australia 
noted that several WTO Members including itself had repeatedly raised this issue at various WTO 
Committees and encouraged India to provide timely and comprehensive answers to questions posed 
at this Committee instead of referencing answers given in other Committees. The US welcomed 
India's announcement to remove the quantitative restriction but remained concerned that this is 
only a temporary suspension which may be automati cally reinstated in a few months. The US also 
expressed concern about trade implications of such measures, given India had not lifted all 
quantitative restrictions and appeared to be planning to make regular use of such measures going 
forward, in conjuncti on with various other policy measures including market prices support. The US 
noted that the question jointly proposed by six Members emphasized the importance of Members 
responding to questions raised at this Committee and Members' joint concern that the quantitative 
restriction had been in place for a number of years. The US urged India to provide full response to 
this question. Canada and the EU supported the comments made by Australia and the US and 
encouraged India to provide direct and specific answer s to the question. Canada also highlighted the 
unpredictability created by this measure, not only for exporters but also for production decisions and 
the resulted impact on future supplies of high -quality pulse products in times of shortage. The 
Russian Fe deration expressed concern on the resumption of the quantitative restriction on pulses.  
 
1.1.26.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97115)  
On 31 March 2021, India's quantitative restriction on dried peas is scheduled to expire. This 
quantitative restriction has been c ontinuous for the past three years.  
 
a. Could India explain what its plans are with respect to its quantitative restriction on dried 
peas after 31 March 2021?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 40 - 
 
  b. Could India elaborate on any potential increase to the current quantitative restriction for 
yellow d ried peas, which is currently set at 0 tonne?  
c. Could India explain why it considers this measure to be "temporary" considering it has 
been consistently applied for the past three years?  
Answer by India  
 
a to c. The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring the situation and the 
measure based on market situation.  
 
Follow -up: Australia restated its concern on the trade restrictions imposed by India in relation to 
pulses since August 2017. Ind ia was asked to provide more direct and specific answers to the 
questions that were repeatedly raised by Australia and other Members. In particular, Australia sought 
India's explicit explanation in this forum of the WTO justification of the quantitative re strictions which 
had been put in place for more than four years rather than the reference to the fact that India had 
discussed this issue in the Committee on Market access and the CTG. Canada hoped that India could 
provide more explanation and clarity in t erms of continuation of the temporary quantitative 
restrictions. Canada pointed out that, these quantitative restrictions, on dry peas in particular, had 
been in place since April 2016 and continued to have significant impact on Canadian farmers. Canada 
also expressed support for questions raised by the other Members on this topic. The Russian 
Federation hoped that the restrictions could be soon lifted by India and indicated its interest in 
seeking more clarification on the matter. The EU and the US echoed the concern expressed by 
previous speakers regarding India's lack of specific answers and the issue of referencing responses 
in other WTO Committees. The EU clarified that the questions were not only about the legal and 
economic reasons for which India had  introduced the measure but whether and how the measure 
respected the WTO rules. The EU also noted that the measure was no longer a temporary measure 
given its presence for more than three years and asked India to give an indication regarding what 
would ha ppen after 1 April. Ukraine noted that India had imposed quantitative restrictions on imports 
of pulses along with other trade distorting policies for more than three years. The measures were 
not temporary and transparent and appeared to violate Article XI  of the GATT and Article 4 and 12 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. Ukraine underlined the distortive effects of the measures on the 
international pulse market and on reducing trade opportunities for exporters and noted that 
Ukraine's exports of pulses to I ndia had decreased almost 100 times over the last three years, 
dropping from 157,000 tonnes to less 2,000 tonnes. Ukraine encouraged India to comply with the 
WTO agreements and eliminate the measures.  
  
Australia voiced its continued concern about restric tions placed on imports of pulses to India and 
continued to call on India to permanently remove all quantitative restrictions on pulses. Australia 
noted that several WTO Members including itself had repeatedly raised this issue at various WTO 
Committees an d encouraged India to provide timely and comprehensive answers to questions posed 
at this Committee instead of referencing answers given in other Committees. The US welcomed 
India's announcement to remove the quantitative restriction but remained concerned  that this is 
only a temporary suspension which may be automatically reinstated in a few months. The US also 
expressed concern about trade implications of such measures, given India had not lifted all 
quantitative restrictions and appeared to be planning t o make regular use of such measures going 
forward, in conjunction with various other policy measures including market prices support. The US 
noted that the question jointly proposed by six Members emphasized the importance of Members 
responding to question s raised at this Committee and Members' joint concern that the quantitative 
restriction had been in place for a number of years. The US urged India to provide full response to 
this question. Canada and the EU supported the comments made by Australia and th e US and 
encouraged India to provide direct and specific answers to the question. Canada also highlighted the 
unpredictability created by this measure, not only for exporters but also for production decisions and 
the resulted impact on future supplies of h igh-quality pulse products in times of shortage. The 
Russian Federation expressed concern on the resumption of the quantitative restriction on pulses.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 41 - 
 
  1.1.26.4   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97114)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 96056:  
 
The Russian F ederation thanks India for the answer to the question AG -IMS ID 96056. However, the 
Russian Federation notes that during the 2019 -2021 financial years, India significantly restricted the 
importation of yellow peas through import prohibition, quantitative r estrictions, minimum import 
price requirement and ports of entry restriction. The period of application of quota on yellow peas 
for 2020 -2021 financial year will end by 31 March.  
 
a. Could India, please, identify the volume of yellow peas imported during the  periods 
31.03.2020 – 16.04.2020 and 16.04.2020 – 16.03.2021?  
b. What was the dynamic of domestic prices for yellow peas during the specified period?  
c. In 2016, India has signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Mozambique on 
cooperation in the field of prod uction and marketing of pigeon peas. However, the text of 
the Memorandum has also mentioned some "other pulses". What kind of pulses are 
included in the category "other pulses"? Could India please specify the volume of yellow 
peas imported into India from Mozambique under this Memorandum during 2020 -2021 
financial year? Could India also provide information on volumes of yellow peas imported 
under the Memorandum during previous financial years starting from 2016?  
i. Is India going to eliminate the quota regime for peas and allow unrestricted import of 
yellow peas into its territory? If not, what are the factors that force India to continue 
keeping quantitative import restrictions in place beyond the end of 2020 -2021 financial 
year?  
ii. Is India planning to stop appl ying minimum import price requirement and ports of 
import restriction in the upcoming financial year?  
Answer by India  
 
a. The import of yellow peas for 2020 -2021, as available, was 33,831 metric tonnes.  
b. The Wholesale Price Index has increased over the year 20 20-21. 
c. Other pulses include green mung beans. Import of yellow peas has not taken place under 
the MoU with Mozambique.  
i. and ii. The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring the situation 
and the measures for peas.  
Follow -up: Australia resta ted its concern on the trade restrictions imposed by India in relation to 
pulses since August 2017. India was asked to provide more direct and specific answers to the 
questions that were repeatedly raised by Australia and other Members. In particular, Aust ralia sought 
India's explicit explanation in this forum of the WTO justification of the quantitative restrictions which 
had been put in place for more than four years rather than the reference to the fact that India had 
discussed this issue in the Committe e on Market access and the CTG. Canada hoped that India could 
provide more explanation and clarity in terms of continuation of the temporary quantitative 
restrictions. Canada pointed out that, these quantitative restrictions, on dry peas in particular, had  
been in place since April 2016 and continued to have significant impact on Canadian farmers. Canada 
also expressed support for questions raised by the other Members on this topic. The Russian 
Federation hoped that the restrictions could be soon lifted by India and indicated its interest in 
seeking more clarification on the matter. The EU and the US echoed the concern expressed by 
previous speakers regarding India's lack of specific answers and the issue of referencing responses 
in other WTO Committees. The  EU clarified that the questions were not only about the legal and 
economic reasons for which India had introduced the measure but whether and how the measure 
respected the WTO rules. The EU also noted that the measure was no longer a temporary measure 
given its presence for more than three years and asked India to give an indication regarding what 
would happen after 1 April. Ukraine noted that India had imposed quantitative restrictions on imports G/AG/W/218  
 
- 42 - 
 
  of pulses along with other trade distorting policies for mo re than three years. The measures were 
not temporary and transparent and appeared to violate Article XI of the GATT and Article 4 and 12 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. Ukraine underlined the distortive effects of the measures on the 
international pulse m arket and on reducing trade opportunities for exporters and noted that 
Ukraine's exports of pulses to India had decreased almost 100 times over the last three years, 
dropping from 157,000 tonnes to less 2,000 tonnes. Ukraine encouraged India to comply with  the 
WTO agreements and eliminate the measures.  
  
Australia voiced its continued concern about restrictions placed on imports of pulses to India and 
continued to call on India to permanently remove all quantitative restrictions on pulses. Australia 
noted that several WTO Members including itself had repea tedly raised this issue at various WTO 
Committees and encouraged India to provide timely and comprehensive answers to questions posed 
at this Committee instead of referencing answers given in other Committees. The US welcomed 
India's announcement to remove  the quantitative restriction but remained concerned that this is 
only a temporary suspension which may be automatically reinstated in a few months. The US also 
expressed concern about trade implications of such measures, given India had not lifted all 
quantitative restrictions and appeared to be planning to make regular use of such measures going 
forward, in conjunction with various other policy measures including market prices support. The US 
noted that the question jointly proposed by six Members emphasi zed the importance of Members 
responding to questions raised at this Committee and Members' joint concern that the quantitative 
restriction had been in place for a number of years. The US urged India to provide full response to 
this question. Canada and th e EU supported the comments made by Australia and the US and 
encouraged India to provide direct and specific answers to the question. Canada also highlighted the 
unpredictability created by this measure, not only for exporters but also for production decis ions and 
the resulted impact on future supplies of high -quality pulse products in times of shortage. The 
Russian Federation expressed concern on the resumption of the quantitative restriction on pulses.  
 
1.1.27   India's oilseeds policies  
1.1.27.1   Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 97009)  
In January 2021 several news outlets reported that the Indian Government could announce a 
five‑year plan to cut vegetable oil imports worth USD 10 billion a year in the federal budget by 
providing farmers with financial incent ives to switch to oilseeds from grains. One Government of 
India official is reported to have stated the Indian Government has already mapped out a five -year 
plan to significantly increase India's oilseed production. One Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers 
Welfare official is reported to have stated that India oilseed production could double in five years.  
 
A senior official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, as well the head of an industry 
association, were reported stating that a "National  Mission on Oilseeds" is planned to be implemented 
by 1 April. Another government official is reported to state the government plans to provide a per 
hectare subsidy for farmers to switch from rice and wheat production to oilseeds production.  
 
Please prov ide an overview of what actions the Government of India has taken with regard to policy 
shifts related to increasing oilseed output or reducing vegetable oil imports.  
 
If no official actions have been taken, when will the Government of India decide what ac tions to 
take, noting several government officials cited 1 April 2021 for action to be taken.  
 
With regard to the above questions, please identify any border measures (e.g. tariffs, TRQs, import 
restrictions), subsidies (e.g. per hectare subsidy, changes i n the minimum support price, etc.), or 
other measures (e.g. incentives to increase productivity, such as research and development, 
improvements in economies of scale for oilseed producers, etc.).  
 
Answer by India  
 
This scheme is yet to be implemented and t he details sought are not available at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted that the Indian Government and industrial officials had stated 
that the Indian Government was considering raising tariffs on edible oil in order to become 
self-sufficient and self -reliant and industrial official further suggested that revenues from raising 
tariffs be used in oil production. The US sought further information from India regarding further G/AG/W/218  
 
- 43 - 
 
  restrictions on market access and using tax revenues to subsi dize production. Brazil expressed 
concern about India's policies such as these subject to US questions that led to an inefficient and 
unsustainable allocation of factors of production and that usually demanded constant state support 
to enable economic acti vities. Paraguay registered interest in the question. Specifically, Paraguay 
sought India's confirmation regarding its actions taken, or potential actions/measures that might be 
implemented to ensure that the policy changes would be effective. Canada, as a  significant exporter 
of vegetable oil to India, flagged interest in learning more about the five -year plan. The EU registered 
interest in the question and looked forward to receiving more detailed answers from India.  
 
1.1.28   India - Support to sugar and biofuels   
1.1.28.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97011)  
In December 2020, India's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) announced that it has 
run a surplus of sugar production for more than a decade and has been providing financial assistance 
to export the surplus stocks. The press release goes on to state that this financial assistance will be 
discontinued in 2023 and an interest subvention grant of INR 45.7 billion (USD 626 million) was 
approved to help divest excess sugar production for ethanol. It is worth noting that the Indian sugar 
sector benefits from a price support scheme that has incentivized overproduction, and India imposes 
an import tariff on ethanol as high as 150%. The United States recognizes the importance of biofuels 
in addressing climate and environmental concerns, but also emphasizes the importance of 
addressing these issues in the least -distorting manner possible.  
 
a. Please indicate when the interest subvention grant will be implemented.  
b. Please provide additional details on how th e grant will be implemented.  
Answer by India  
 
This scheme is yet to be implemented and the details sought are not available at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union registered interest in the question and looked forward to receiving 
more detailed answers from India. Brazil reiterated its interest in following India's sugar policies, in 
particular export subsidy programmes. Recalling that the subsidies provided by Ind ia to their sugar 
sector were the basis of the ongoing dispute DS 579, Brazil underscored the importance of India 
adopting measures to avoid overproduction, artificial depreciation of international prices and 
displacement of third countries' exports. In Br azil's view, an alternative would be to encourage 
investments in ethanol production from sugar, which contribute to generating alternatives for the 
outflow of its production.  
 
1.1.29   India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.1.29.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  97010)  
The United States notes that India has not provided a response to AG -IMS ID 95032 and therefore 
resubmits the question:  
 
Noting India has not yet provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93251, the United States would 
like to revise the information  presented with respect to the questions asked: In response to 
AG‑IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India responded that no state announced a bonus for 
wheat in the marketing season 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19. However, Madhya Pradesh awarded 
a wheat  bonus of INR 2,000/MT in MY 2017/18 and INR 2650/MT in MY  2018/19, in addition to the 
MSP, according to http://mpkrishi.mp.gov.in/hindisite_New/pdfs/MKSY_24042018.pdf . The Mini ster 
of Agriculture in Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pay INR 2,000 per 
quintal for acquisition of wheat."  
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 throug h the current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India states and Union territories 
as well as for other commodities.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
1.1.29.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97012)  
In its response to AG -IMS ID  93251, India replied "The information requested under this question 
will be submitted in due course". The United States notes that India has still not provided a response, 
and therefore, resubmits the question. If India is not able to provide a response t o this question at 
this time, please provide an update on India's efforts to collect this information and when 
approximately this data will be available.  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India responded that no state announced 
a bon us for wheat in the marketing season 2016/17, 2017/18, or 2018/19. However, Madhya 
Pradesh announced a bonus for both marketing years 2017/18 and 2018/19. The Minister of 
Agriculture in Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pay INR 2, 000 per quintal 
for acquisition of wheat". This was greater than the announced central Minimum Support Price (MSP) 
of INR 1,840 per quintal.  
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 t hrough the current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other Indian states and territories, 
including those for other commodities.  
Answer by India  
 
The information requested will be submitted in due course.  
 
1.1.29.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97013)  
In its response to AG -IMS ID 93252, India replied "The information requested under this question 
will be submitted in due course." The United states notes that India has still not yet provided a 
response, and therefore, resubmits the question: In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding a 
request for current, historical and pre -determined targets levels of wheat since 2010, India did not 
provide the quantitative levels of each, but rather indicated only that "procurement of wheat is done 
based on the assessmen t made with regard to the requirements under various food security 
programs".  
 
a. Please provide the annual quantitative levels for current, historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat since 2010.  
b. Please indicate any report, publication or website that co ntains the assessments 
referenced in India's previous response.  
Answer by India  
 
Before the onset of each marketing season, the Government holds a consultative meeting with the 
Food Corporation of India (FCI), the State Governments and other stakeholders t o make an 
assessment regarding the availability of wheat for procurement at Minimum Support Price (MSP) in 
order to meet the food security requirements of our citizens. Based on the feedback received in the 
meeting regarding the production prospects and ma rket situation, procurement estimates (targets) 
are drawn up by the Government.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted that, given that India is one of the main proponents for a permanent solution 
on Public Stockholding and has been advocating the protection under the p eace clause agreed in the 
Bali Ministerial Conference against its two recent "de minimis" breaches, this kind of concrete 
information required by Canada, the EU and the US is important for Members to make informed 
decisions on the topic and would be useful  for the discussions in the special session of the Committee 
on Agriculture. The EU supported Brazil's comment. In relation to AG -IMS IDs 98087, 98101, 
and 98099, the European Union and the US hoped that the response could be provided before the 
next Commi ttee meeting and that the response could include the specific data and publications 
requested by the co -sponsors. The US commented that India's previous response on this issue stated 
that no state bonuses were announced but official state government websit es and numerous media G/AG/W/218  
 
- 45 - 
 
  reports had indicated otherwise. On AG -IMS IDs 98089, 98100, and 98103, Canada requested 
further information on the assessment process.  
 
1.1.30   India - Export subsidies for sugar  
1.1.30.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97015)  
On 16  December 2020, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approved sugar export subsidies 
for marketing year (MY) 2020/21, totalling INR 3,500 crores (USD 475.8 million) to export six million 
metric tonnes (MMT) under its Maximum Admissible Export Quota (M AEQ) programme. The United 
States notes that the export subsidy outlays result in an export assistance of INR 5,833/MT 
(USD  78.60/MT) in MY 2020/21, and INR 10,448/MT (USD 140.8/MT) MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the measures authorizing and administering th ese export subsidies. If not 
available now, when will these documents be made available?  
b. Please explain how these measures are being implemented and provide any eligibility 
criteria.  
Answer by India  
 
The said measure is presently under challenge before a W TO panel and therefore, it would not be 
appropriate to comment further on this matter at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay requested more information about implementation of the measure questioned 
in AG-IMS ID 97015. Regarding the measure discussed in AG -IMS ID 97016, Paraguay sought India's 
confirmation that the measure would have minimum effect and would not affect sugar exports of 
other Members as committed by India under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. Paraguay also 
highlighted India's role as a major sugar exporter in the world and cited the WTO statistics which 
showed that India's share of global sugar exports had increased from 0.88% before 2019 to  10% 
in 2019. Switzerland expressed interest in question AG -IMS ID 97015 and stressed the value of 
review of practices under the EC pillar and the monitoring of commitments undertaken at the Nairobi 
Ministerial meeting. Canada flagged systemic interest in ensuring whether Members met their export 
subsidy commitments in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competit ion. Australia, as a sugar exporter, 
requested India to clarify how its export subsidies were consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The EU noted that the export subsidies granted by India to its sugar 
sector had been s ubject to a number of questions in the past. The EU was concerned about the 
effects these export subsidies had on the volume of sugar production in India and on the world 
market. The EU questioned the compliance of this support with India's commitment in N airobi to 
limit the use of export subsidies and in particular paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. 
The EU asked India whether it had consulted with any other Member having a substantial interest 
as an exporter with respect to the export subsid ies in question, as provided for in paragraph  11. 
Brazil reiterated its interest in following India's sugar policies, in particular export subsidy 
programmes. Recalling that the subsidies provided by India to their sugar sector were the basis of 
the ongoin g dispute DS 579, Brazil underscored the importance of India adopting measures to avoid 
overproduction, artificial depreciation of international prices and displacement of third countries' 
exports. In Brazil's view, an alternative would be to encourage inv estments in ethanol production 
from sugar, which contribute to generating alternatives for the outflow of its production.  
 
1.1.30.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97016)  
India's last export subsidy notification (G/AG/N/IND/9) provided to the Commit tee on Agriculture 
was for the marketing years 2004 -2005 to 2009 -2010 with a five -year average notified sugar export 
subsidy of USD 34.9 million covering 2,178,520 MT. In comparison, the December 2020 approved 
sugar export subsidy totalled allotted INR 3,5 00 crores (USD 475.8 million) for 6 million metric 
tonnes). Paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision states that "Members shall seek not to raise their 
export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis."  
 
a. Please explain wheth er India has exceeded the commitment it undertook in the Nairobi 
Decision for MY 2020/21 and MY 2019/20. If not, please submit the correct calculations.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 46 - 
 
  b. Please explain how India ensures that its export subsidies "have at most minimal trade 
distorting effec ts and do not displace or impede the exports of another Member" per 
paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
Answer by India  
 
India's Export notification ES:1 has recently been updated for years 2010 -11 to 2013 -14. Certain 
support measures related to sugar are presently under challenge before a WTO panel and therefore, 
it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay requested more information about implementation of the measure quest ioned 
in AG-IMS ID 97015. Regarding the measure discussed in AG -IMS ID 97016, Paraguay sought India's 
confirmation that the measure would have minimum effect and would not affect sugar exports of 
other Members as committed by India under the Nairobi Minist erial Decision. Paraguay also 
highlighted India's role as a major sugar exporter in the world and cited the WTO statistics which 
showed that India's share of global sugar exports had increased from 0.88% before 2019 to 10% 
in 2019. Switzerland expressed in terest in question AG -IMS ID 97015 and stressed the value of 
review of practices under the EC pillar and the monitoring of commitments undertaken at the Nairobi 
Ministerial meeting. Canada flagged systemic interest in ensuring whether Members met their exp ort 
subsidy commitments in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Australia, as a sugar exporter, 
requested India to clarify how its export subsidies were consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The EU noted that th e export subsidies granted by India to its sugar 
sector had been subject to a number of questions in the past. The EU was concerned about the 
effects these export subsidies had on the volume of sugar production in India and on the world 
market. The EU ques tioned the compliance of this support with India's commitment in Nairobi to 
limit the use of export subsidies and in particular paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. 
The EU asked India whether it had consulted with any other Member having a sub stantial interest 
as an exporter with respect to the export subsidies in question, as provided for in paragraph 11. 
Brazil reiterated its interest in following India's sugar policies, in particular export subsidy 
programmes. Recalling that the subsidies pr ovided by India to their sugar sector were the basis of 
the ongoing dispute DS 579, Brazil underscored the importance of India adopting measures to avoid 
overproduction, artificial depreciation of international prices and displacement of third countries' 
exports. In Brazil's view, an alternative would be to encourage investments in ethanol production 
from sugar, which contribute to generating alternatives for the outflow of its production.  
 
1.1.30.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97017)  
The United S tates understands that in December 2020, INR 5,361 crores (USD 728.8 million) was 
provided by the Government of India to pay export incentives for sugar exported during 
the 2019/2020 season and is to be transferred to sugarcane farmers.  
 
a. Please explain ho w the 2019/20 export incentive measure was implemented and provide 
any eligibility criteria.  
b. Please provide a copy of the measures or URL(s) for authorizing and administering these 
export subsidies. If not available now, when will these documents be made a vailable?  
c. Please explain how the direct transfers to sugarcane farmers are measures consistent with 
India's commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by India  
 
The said measure is presently under challenge before a WTO panel and therefore, it would not be 
appropriate to comment further on this matter at this stage.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay requested more information about implementation of the measure questioned 
in AG-IMS ID 97015. Regarding the measure discussed in AG -IMS ID 97016, Paraguay sought  India's 
confirmation that the measure would have minimum effect and would not affect sugar exports of 
other Members as committed by India under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. Paraguay also 
highlighted India's role as a major sugar exporter in the world  and cited the WTO statistics which 
showed that India's share of global sugar exports had increased from 0.88% before 2019 to 10% 
in 2019. Switzerland expressed interest in question AG -IMS ID 97015 and stressed the value of G/AG/W/218  
 
- 47 - 
 
  review of practices under the EC  pillar and the monitoring of commitments undertaken at the Nairobi 
Ministerial meeting. Canada flagged systemic interest in ensuring whether Members met their export 
subsidy commitments in the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Australia, as a sugar exporter, 
requested India to clarify how its export subsidies were consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The EU noted that the export subsidies granted by India to its sugar 
sector had been subject to a number of quest ions in the past. The EU was concerned about the 
effects these export subsidies had on the volume of sugar production in India and on the world 
market. The EU questioned the compliance of this support with India's commitment in Nairobi to 
limit the use of export subsidies and in particular paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. 
The EU asked India whether it had consulted with any other Member having a substantial interest 
as an exporter with respect to the export subsidies in question, as provide d for in paragraph 11. 
Brazil reiterated its interest in following India's sugar policies, in particular export subsidy 
programmes. Recalling that the subsidies provided by India to their sugar sector were the basis of 
the ongoing dispute DS 579, Brazil un derscored the importance of India adopting measures to avoid 
overproduction, artificial depreciation of international prices and displacement of third countries' 
exports. In Brazil's view, an alternative would be to encourage investments in ethanol product ion 
from sugar, which contribute to generating alternatives for the outflow of its production.  
 
1.1.31   India's short -term crop loans  
1.1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97018)  
Since September 2018, the United States has been seeking additional clarity  from India on the 
implementation of its subsidized interest rates for short term credit under the Interest Subvention 
Scheme, which has been implemented since at least 2006. The United States appreciates the 
inclusion of the measure "interest subsidy" for  the first time in its 2018/2019 notification. However, 
the United States would still note India has still only provided only a partial response to these 
questions – most recently covered in AG -IMS ID 93012. Therefore, we re -ask the part of the question 
seeking greater clarity as to how the Interest Subvention Scheme is implemented and what the 
eligibility criteria are, as India's response simply directed Members to refer to the Indian Ministry of 
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare homepage.  
 
a. Please confirm w hat schemes, if any other than the Interest Subvention Scheme, are 
included in the notified measure "interest subsidy."  
b. What commodities benefit from each scheme included in the notified measure "interest 
subsidy"?  
c. Is India's notified measure "interest sub sidy" the same as the Interest Subvention 
Scheme? If so, please clarify why this measure is only notified for 2018/19.  
Answer by India  
 
India has notified total interest subsidy under Interest subvention scheme to the agriculture sector 
as non-product specific support. Such subvention is available to farmers having Kisan Credit Card 
and for a short -term credit of up to maximum of Rs. 300,000.  
 
1.1.32   India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  
1.1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97019 ) 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 96013, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which India has not provided a response:  
 
The United States understands the Gujarat Government introduced Resolution No.  SDS/1020 
20/960/Kh  to provide export subsidies for skim milk powder (SMP), in effect from 1  November  2020 
to 30 April 2021. The resolution indicates the Gujarat Government will provide total assistance of 
INR 150 crores (USD 20 million) for a six -month period. The export su bsidy will entail INR  50 per 
kilogram of SMP exported by the milk cooperatives if the FOB price is INR  180. The total amount of 
SMP that can be exported under the scheme is 50,000 metric tonnes.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 48 - 
 
  a. Please explain how these measures are being implemented and provide any eligibility 
criteria.  
b. Please provide the measure authorizing and administering these export subsidies. If not 
available now, when will these documents be made available?  
c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under the A greement on 
Agriculture, including export subsidies commitments in Article 9.  
Answer by India  
 
The Government of Gujarat announced a financial assistance for skimmed milk powder to defray the 
costs of marketing including handling, domestic and internationa l freight which are allowed for 
developing countries under the WTO's AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition. This is a temporary measure to help the vulnerable farmers and cooperatives.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand  expressed interest in the question and India's 
compliance with the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
1.1.33   India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  
1.1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97020)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 95033, the United States notes the Ministry of Finance announced the 
Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RoDTEP) would be implemented 
from 1 January 2021.  
 
a. Please provide an update on the operational status and guidelines of the Scheme for 
Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RoDTEP), which is reported to 
replace the Merchandize Export Incent Scheme (MEIS).  
b. If operational, please list what agricultural products are eligible under this measure.  
c. Please provide an explanation of this measure, including what specific duties and taxes 
are eligible for refund for agricultural products such as rice.  
Answer by India  
 
The details as sought regarding RoDTEP scheme are not available at this stage.  
 
1.1.34   India - Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC)  
1.1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97021)  
On 1st February 2021, the Ministry of Finance presented India's annual budget for Indian Fiscal 
Year 2021/22, creating a new Agriculture Infrastr ucture and Development Cess (AIDC) on select 
food and agricultural products. The cess, which is an added tax or duty, appears to apportion the 
existing basic custom import duty (BCD) into two separate taxes or duties. The United States would 
appreciate gre ater clarity on the implementation of the AIDC.  
 
a. Please provide India's reasoning for apportioning the BCD into two different duties for 
select products.  
b. Please clarify if the new AIDC would apply to the specified agricultural products produced 
and sold d omestically.  
c. How long does India intend on imposing the new cess on select agricultural products?  
d. Has the Government of India established guidelines for how the funds from the AIDC may 
be used? If so, please provide a copy or the specific URL.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Answer by In dia 
 
a. to d. Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) has been imposed for the specific 
purposes of financing the agriculture infrastructure and other development expenditure. No end date 
has been prescribed for AIDC. AIDC would be used for financing infrastructure and development 
expenditure in the agriculture sector.  
  
1.1.35   India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
1.1.35.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97014)  
In its response to AG -IMS ID 93256, India replied that it would notify a DS:2 for t he National Dairy 
Plan in due course. The United States notes that a DS:2 for this programme has not yet been 
submitted. When does India expect to notify the programme?  
 
Answer by India  
 
India will submit the relevant DS:2 notification in due course.  
 
1.1.36   India's export prohibition on onions  
1.1.36.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97113)  
a. Regarding export prohibition on all varieties of onion, Japan would appreciate it if India 
could explain the reason why the notification was not made before the measure was taken 
while pr ior notification is required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Japan 
would also appreciate if India would intend to make the notification on this measure near 
future.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if India could explain how it has given due consid eration to the 
effects of the measure on importing Members' food security. Japan would also appreciate 
it if India could provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the 
products rather than an export quota which would allow a certain a mount of exports.  
Answer by India  
 
The said measure was temporarily in force in order to ensure availability of onions in the domestic 
market at reasonable prices.  
 
Follow -up: Japan flagged remained concern on India's export prohibition measure and asked India 
to provide more comprehensive explanation on this matter.  
 
1.1.37   Indonesia's imports of citrus, melons, strawberries and persimmons  
1.1.37.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97117)  
In Apr il 2019, Japan requested Indonesia to accept import of four items (citrus, melons, strawberries 
and persimmons) of the fresh foods of plant origin (FFPO) with the historical export data (2006 -2016, 
Plant Quarantine Statistics). This was in response to the explanation from Indonesia that the PRA 
(pest risk analysis) is required for FFPO with no records of imports before 17 February, which is the 
enforcement date of the Ministerial Ordinance (Noo4 of 2015), while the PRA is not required for FFPO 
with imported  records before the same date (i.e. 17 February 2016).  
 
However, the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia did not accept it, stating that "the four items need 
PRA because there has been no commercial import according to our data."  
 
In addition, in October  2020, Indonesia responded that it would not accept the imports of those 
products if there are no record of imports over 10 years back form 2019 (not form 17  February  2016, 
the date of Ordinance above) according to the Act (NOMOR21 TAHUN2019 TENTANG KARANT INA, 
HEWAN, IKAN, DAN TUMBUHAN).  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Even though Indonesia has the right to implement the PRA under the SPS Agreement, the given 
explanation does not have proper rationale. Consequently, the import ban of the four items above 
is unjustified restriction of tr ade if it remains so until the completion of the PRA. As already expressed 
in bilateral talks, this situation is extremely regrettable, and Japan strongly requests Indonesia that 
the aforementioned four items be added to the list of importable items.  
 
In relation to the above, Japan would like to ask Indonesia the two questions as follows:  
 
a. The trade statistics provided by Indonesia clearly shows the import record of these four 
items from Japan before 2016. Japan would like to ask Indonesia how it decided whether 
or not these imports are for commercial purposes based on what data.  
b. Article 6 of the Act stipulates that the PRA is required for FFPO with no records of imports 
in the past, but not refers the period of import record to be necessary when determine d 
the PRA. It should be determined by records of import until 2016 because this matter is 
based on the Ministerial Ordinance (No. 55, 2016) Japan would like Indonesia to explain 
why the import performance for the past 10 years from 2019 is required.  
Answer  by Indonesia  
 
In responding to the question by Japan, Indonesia, herewith, clarifies to the Committee, that the 
prevailing regulation concerning food safety control on the importation of fresh food of plant origin 
is the regulation we notified under G/SPS /N/IDN/114 – namely, and in short, the Minister of 
Agriculture Regulation No. 55 of 2016. This regulation has been enforced since 18  November  2016.  
 
Additionally, the pest risk analysis requirement had been clearly stated in the Ministry of Agriculture 
regulation No. 9/2009, which is now re -emphasized in law No. 21/2019.  
 
Thus, Indonesia underlines that import procedures, including for citrus, melons, strawberries, and 
persimmons, are clearly stated and known by Members of this Committee who also conduct ex ports 
of fresh foods of plant origin to Indonesia.  
 
On the claim of data discrepancy, Indonesia relies on official government import data for the specific 
fruits in question, which is among the reasons why we required that the data be generated officially 
from government -recorded past imports. As such, the justification for requiring the PRA is not 
without a solid basis.  
 
Follow -up: While acknowledging Indonesia's rights to restrict imports based on the SPS Agreement, 
Japan clarified that the issue in question was not related to SPS as the reasoning provided by 
Indonesia to reject the imports of the relevant products from Japan was not  science -based. Japan 
noted that it had made several requests to Indonesia over the last two years, through letters, 
bilateral consultations and at other occasions, to indicate which fresh products as listed in the 
question Indonesia could import from Japa n and the Ministry of Agriculture had continuously rejected 
the request. Japan also stated that the criteria established by the Indonesian authority to determine 
whether imports of the products in question from Japan could be accepted were inconsistent. Fi rst 
Japan was asked to provide import records in 2016 or before and when such record was presented 
Indonesia rejected the imports on the ground that the import amount was too small to be qualified 
as commercial imports while other fruits with similar impor t amount were on the importable list. 
When Japan made another attempt to present the import records, Indonesia asked for the data 
covering a 10 -year period up to 2019 instead.  
 
1.1.38   Indonesia - Regulations on imports of bovine meat  
1.1.38.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS I D 97116)  
After more than a decade of negotiation, in September 2019, Brazil and Indonesia reached an 
agreement on the sanitary certificate that would allow Brazil exports of frozen deboned bovine meat 
to Indonesia. Since then, the Brazilian private sector has found some difficulties to access 
Indonesia's market. Given this situation, could Indonesia explain:  
 
a. How does it regulate imports of frozen deboned bovine meat?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 51 - 
 
  b. Is there a licensing system in place?  
c. What are, if any, the restrictions as to which comp anies can apply for licenses in place?  
d. Is there an import quota in place?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia would like to convey the substance of the import regulations for carcass, meat, edible 
offal and/or its products for food from FMD free country without  vaccination has never been modified 
since 2019 (Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia No.  42/2019). 
Hence, Indonesia reiterates in which there are no new regulations related to import licensing and 
import quota policy.  
 
The import regulations for frozen deboned bovine meat from country with only have FMD free zone 
without vaccination or with vaccination (ex: Brazil) is Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Republic of Indonesia No.  17/2016.  
 
Furthermore, Brazil  could attain a piece of information regarding Importation of frozen deboned 
bovine meat from the Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia 
No. 17/2016. Furthermore, Brazil could access the official website Ministry of Agricult ure 
http://karantina.pertanian.go.id  and contact through the email sps.indonesia@pertanian.go.id  for 
comprehensive information.  
 
As Indonesia and Brazil are both WTO Members, Indonesia ensures that this regulation complies 
with Indonesia's commitment under the Agreement on SPS and OIE. Indonesia would also like to 
recall that in WTO, Members are allowed to set the technical standard  for food safety in a way that 
does not create unnecessary barriers to trade.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted that Indonesia's reply was focused on sanitary issues, whereas, in its 
question, Brazil focused on tariff and TRQ administration issues related to Indone sia's market access 
conditions for beef. Therefore, Brazil invited Indonesia to submit additional information that contains 
more direct answer to Brazil's question.  
 
1.1.39   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.1.39.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97118)  
Follow-up to questions AG -IMS IDs 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011, 92098, 93072, 95060 and 96058:  
 
In 2020 Mongolia did not open quotas for importation of liquid milk and wheat flour and stated that 
there were no quantitative restrictions for the following products for 2020. However, Mongolia did 
not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime, 
which means that the quotas may be imposed in future. Referring to the Mongolia's answer to the 
question AG -IMS ID 93072, we highlight once again Mongolia's statement that import quotas were 
applied only befor e the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products would come into force.  
 
According to the current information received from the Mongolian side in March 2021 it was decided 
not to establish quotas for liquid milk and wheat flour in 2021. We thank Mongolia for this 
information. We also ask Mongolia to make the legislation concerning quota regime available and 
transparent and to provide all the provisions considering the importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk to the Russian Federation.  
 
In light of this, the  Russian Federation expects to receive the following information from Mongolia:  
 
a. When will Mongolia exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime? Are there any provisions considering quota regime in the  
Mongolian Lawmaking Plan for 2024?  
b. When will Mongolia make the legislation regarding quota regime for 2021 available for the 
Russian Federation?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 52 - 
 
  c. Please, confirm that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk in future.  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
We would like to confirm our response that we gave to our Russian colleagues by email on 9 March, 
whereby we informed that the National Food Security Council of Mongolia met on 4 March and made 
a recommendation not to impose import quot as on wheat flour and liquid milk.  
 
Follow -up: The Russian Federation noted that it was still not able to supply its products to Mongolia 
and hoped that the market access condition would be changed soon.  
 
1.1.40   New Zealand's International Airfreight Capacity sc heme (IAFC)  
1.1.40.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97034)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 94050 - New Zealand's International Airfreight Capacity 
scheme  (IAFC) (SIM 611)  
 
In the reply to question AG -IMS ID 94050 New Zealand indicated that NZD 330 million ha d been 
made available.  
 
a. Could New Zealand indicate how much has been spent on the IAFC to date.  
b. Could New Zealand indicate how much has been paid for each agricultural sectors under 
the scheme.  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The IAFC is a limited and temporary s cheme to support maintenance of New Zealand's essential air 
services. The scheme supports air carriers to continue to provide New Zealand with vital air 
connectivity in the exceptional circumstances of the COVID -19 public health pandemic. The IAFC 
does not  provide funding to specific agricultural sectors, or indeed to any other specific sectors, 
therefore no data is collected in those terms. As of 17 March 2021, New Zealand had spent 
NZD 310,105,954 on the scheme.  
 
Follow -up: Canada reiterated its interest in the question, in particular the consistency of this 
programme with New Zealand's trade obligations including the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
competition.  
 
1.1.41   Nigeria's – Foreign exchange restrictions affecting d airy and maize imports  
1.1.41.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97036)  
Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID 93016 - Nigeria's – Foreign exchange restrictions affecting dairy 
and maize imports (SIM 566)  
  
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) imposed restrictions on for eign exchange for Imports of dairy as 
of 11 February 2020 and corn as of 13 July 2020. The EU asked several questions in the Committee 
of Agriculture meeting of July 2020 and in the Council for Trade in Goods meeting of November 2020 
about these restrictio ns. Unfortunately, not all have been fully replied to. Therefore, the EU would 
like to ask the following follow -up questions:  
 
a. Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Balance -of-Payments Provisions of the 
GATT  1994 requires Members to "announce publicly, as soon as possible, time -schedules 
for the removal of restrictive import measures taken for balance of -payments purposes". 
In its previous replies, Nigeria indicated that it is closely monitoring the developments in 
the global oil market and will as soon as possible announce time -schedules for phasing 
out of the temporal measure on milk and dairy products importation.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Could Nigeria inform the membership of the time schedule for the phasing out of the measure on 
milk and dairy products importation, as well  as for maize/corn?  
 
b. The EU has previously asked to have more details as regards the eligibility criteria for the 
backward integration program. Nigeria claimed that CBN had a transparent process of 
determining the companies, which have or are to invest in  Nigeria's milk and dairy sector.  
In the spirit of transparency, could Nigeria explain the eligibility criteria as well as the main steps of 
the process to select the companies for the backward integration programme? How many companies 
have been admitted in the programme starting February 2020 and until today?  
 
c. Nigeria has indicated that the purpose of the backward integration programme is to foster 
the development of value chains and manufacturing activities by encouraging greater use 
of locally produced inputs in production through the creation of backward linkages, while 
at the same time affirming that it is not Nigeria's intention to restrict access to the Nigerian 
market or discriminate between locally produced and imported milk and dairy products. 
Moreover, Nigeria insists that importers of milk and dairy products may source forex from 
other avenue while being at liberty to transfer the burden on consumers in terms of higher 
prices.  
Could Nigeria explain how the dairy and corn forex restrictions are n ot distorting the equality of 
competitive conditions for the importers, as long as the importers who have to outsource forex from 
other avenues have higher costs than those accepted in the backward integration programme?  
 
d. Finally, it is now one year for da iry and more than half year for corn since these restrictions 
have been in place.  
Could Nigeria share with the membership the positive impact of the measures on its balance of 
payments, respectively its economy?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
1.1.42   Russian Federation's su pport on exports of high value -added agricultural products  
1.1.42.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97086)  
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation will adopt new 
support measures to develop exports of high value -added agric ultural products. 
(https://mcx.gov.ru/en/news/The -Ministry -of-Agriculture -of-Russia -will-adopt -new-support/ ). 
 
a. What measures are being adopted and when will these measures be implemented?  
b. What products are considered to be high -value added and also please elaborate on the 
criteria for identification of such products?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b. The rep ort referred to the existing domestic support measures for agricultural industries 
involved in deep processing of grains, oilseeds, as well as processing (canning) of fish, crustaceans 
and mollusks. The main instruments of this domestic support are concess ional lending, 
reimbursement of part of direct costs incurred for the building (modernization) of relevant facilities, 
leasing of high -tech equipment and machinery.  
 
Follow -up: The United States understood that the support measures in question were to reimburse 
expenses of purchasing new equipment or other investment projects at enterprises and sought 
further information on: (1) the criteria for firms to be eligible to receive the support; (2) if  firms 
must engage in exportation of their production to receive state reimbursement; and (3) the total 
value of firm exports with this factor and the total reimbursement made by the Russian Government. 
The EU indicated interest in all the questions addres sed to the Russian Federation on its export 
subsidies and questioned whether the Russian Federation had respected its WTO commitments.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 54 - 
 
  1.1.43   Russian Federation - Sunflower seeds export duty  
1.1.43.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97023)  
The Russian Fed eration has published Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  2065 
"On Amending the Rates of Export Customs Duties for Good Exported from the Russian Federation 
outside the States Parties to Agreements on the Customs Union", dated 10 Decembe r 2020. The 
decree raises the export duty on Sunflower Seeds (HS Codes 1205 10 900 0 & 1206 00 990 0) from 
6.5% but no less than 11.4 EUR per 1,000 kg and 6.5% but no less than 9.75 EUR respectively, to 
30% but not less than 165 EUR per 1,000 kg for the pe riod from 9 January to 30 June 2021.  
 
The implemented export duties in Decree No. 2065 appear to be higher than those agreed to in Part 
V of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation, which 
formed Annex 1 to the Protoco l of Accession and is referenced in Working Party Report, 
(WT/ACC/RUS/70 – WT/MIN(11)/2), Para. 638.  
 
a. Please identify on what basis the Russian Federation justifies the increase in its export 
duties beyond its WTO commitments.  
b. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art . 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has the Russian 
Federation conducted an analysis on the impact of this export restriction on fellow 
Members?  
c. If so, could you please share this analysis?  
The United States is also concerned by the Russian Federation's  lack of transparency 
because it has not notified these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture.  
d. When will the Russian Federation notify this measure to the Committee?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. The Russian Federation applies export  duties in accordance with the WTO Agreement, 
including Protocol on Russia 's Accession to the WTO.  
 
The Russian Federation respects and properly fulfills its notification obligations under the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 
In addition, the Russian Federation  notes that Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture refers to 
export prohibition or restriction applied in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT  1994, 
which, in turn, covers prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other c harges.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine viewed that by increasing export duties beyond the WTO commitments the 
Russian Federation had violated the WTO rules and called on it to bring its policy in conformity with 
the WTO disciplines.  
 
1.1.44   Russian Federation's wheat subsidies  
1.1.44.1   Question by U nited States of America (AG -IMS ID 97029)  
The Russian Federation has published Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No  2095 
"On approval of the Rules for the provision and distribution of other extrabudgetary transfers with a 
specific purpose  from the federal budgets to the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian 
Federation in order to co -finance the expenditure obligations of the constitute entities of the Russian 
Federation to compensate flour producers for part of the purchase co sts food wheat", dated 
14 December 2020. The decree establishes a subsidy to compensate flour producers for the purchase 
of milling wheat. Please provide the criteria that flour producers must meet to receive subsidies 
covering part of the cost of wheat pu rchases.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Criteria for transfer resources from the Federal budget to budgets of constitute entities of the 
Russian  Federation assessed on the basis of the following:  
 
- the presence of normative legal act of constitute entity o f the Russian Federation to envisage 
the order and the rules for granting support on account of fund from budget of constitute entity 
of the Russian Federation and the requirements to recipients of the budgetary resources, 
including requirement not to rais e prices of flour during provision of other inter -budget transfers 
and to provide the list of documents to receive the partial compensation of expenses related to 
purchase of soft (milling) wheat;  
- the presence of budgetary appropriations in budget of const itute entity of the Russian  Federation 
for discharge of expenditure obligations of constitute entity of the Russian Federation;  
- constitute entity commitment about not raising prices of flour by local flour producers during 
provision and distribution of oth er inter -budget transfers;  
- to be eligible for the support constitute entity of the Russian Federation must have flour 
producers in its territory (pursuant to the Russian Federal State Statistic Service).  
 
Follow -up: The European Union indicated interest in  all the questions addressed to the Russian 
Federation on its export subsidies and questioned whether the Russian Federation had respected its 
WTO commitments.  
 
1.1.45   Russian Federation's grain export duties  
1.1.45.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97031 ) 
The Russian Federation has published Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  2096 
"On Amending the Rates of Export Customs Duties for Good Exported from the Russian Federation 
outside the States Parties to Agreement on the Customs Union", dated 14 December 2020. The 
decree creates new export restrictions with a two -tiered export duty on exports of wheat and meslin 
(HS Codes 1001 19 000 0 & 1011 99 000 0), rye (HS Code 1002 90 000 0), barley (HS Code 1003 
90 000 0), and corn (HS Code 1005 90  000 0) for the period from 15 February to 30 June 2021. The 
Russian Federation subsequently revised these export duties in Decree of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 33 dated 23 January 2021.  
 
The export duties on wheat and meslin under the qu ota established in Decree No. 2097 have a rate 
of EUR 25 per 1,000 kg from 15th to 28th February; that rate increases to EUR 50 per 1,000  kg from 
1 March to 30 June. The duties on corn and barley have rates of EUR 25 per 1,000  kg, and EUR  10 
per 1,000 kg, respectively, from the period 15 March to 30 June.  
 
a. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art. 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has the Russian 
Federation assessed the effect of these export duties on fellow Members?  
b. If so, could the Russian Federation please share this analysis.  
c. Please provide an explanation of how the allocation of licenses for the in -quota export 
tariff is administered, including any eligibility criteria. The United States is concerned by 
the Russian Federation's lack of tr ansparency because it has not notified these export 
restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture.  
d. When will the Russian Federation notify these measures to the Committee?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d.  Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 97026  (item 1. 1.50.1 below) . 
 
1.1.45.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97087)  
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, the Russian Prime Minister signed a 
resolution on grain export duties. The export duties will be charged on wheat (From 15 Feb to G/AG/W/218  
 
- 56 - 
 
  28 Feb); corn and barely (From 15 Feb to 14 Mar). Such duties will be increased in future. 
(https://mcx.gov.ru/en/news/Russian -Prime -Minister -signs-resolution -on-grain-export -duties /) 
 
How does the Russian Federation see the impact of such measure on food security of import ing 
countries?  
 
In view of the short duration of implementation of these export duties, India would like to know if 
these export duties have stabilized prices for the products in the domestic market? How does the 
Russian Federation calculate the impact of these measures on domestic prices and international 
prices?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The measure under the Government Resolution No.  2096 is exempted from the scope of 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of the General Agreement  on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994. Please, see explanation in the reply to the question 
AG-IMS ID 97023.  
b. In April 2021, average producer prices for wheat and corn have decreased by 11.6% 
and 3.1% respectively in comparison with February 2021. Growth of the averag e 
consumer prices for wheat flour has slowed from 3.1% in November 2020  - January 2021 
to 1.3% in February  - April 2021 as well as over the same period for bread, made with 
wheat flour, from 1.9% to 1.6% and pasta, made with wheat flour, from 2.9% to 1.6%.  
1.1.46   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  
1.1.46.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97032)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS IDs 95068 and 91161, for the "Support program for the transportation of 
agricultural and food products", th e United States notes that the budgetary amount allocations for 
the current financial year 2021 is RUB 6 billion (USD 80.7 million), an increase of 46% year over 
year compared to RUB 4.1 billion (USD 56.2 million) in 2020.  
 
a. Please provide the total subsid y amount paid during fiscal year 2020 and the total value 
of agricultural and food products covered under the program.  
b. Please provide a list of agricultural and food products, including HS codes, that benefited 
from this program in 2020.  
c. Please explain any  legislative amendments and operational/regulatory changes to the 
programme in 2021.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to c.  The data on the amount of subsidy provided for in 2020 and 2021 is not available yet.  
 
The support programme  for the transportation of agricultural and food products covers  live animals, 
beef, pork, lamb, relevant edible by -products, fish, products of animal origin (including milk, cream, 
butter, cottage cheese, cheeses), eggs, honey, live plants, vegetables, fr uits, grains, cereals, fats 
and oils (animal, vegetable), confectionery, and prepared food products, etc.  
 
Oil products, sugar, products of the flour -grinding industry, confectionery products, flax seeds, meat 
and food products, vegetables, water, juices, jams, honey, coffee, and leaven had received the 
support in 2020.  
 
The main legislative amendments were aimed at improving the efficiency of subsidy administration. 
In particular, the changes included the possibility of applying for a subsidy and providing  supporting 
documents in electronic form using "One Window " system, the reduction of the list of documents to 
be provided by the recipient of the subsidy.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Follow -up: Given the strong appearance of the railway subsidy as export subsidies and the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision to eliminate export subsidies, Ukraine called on the Russian Federation to ensure 
that no export subsidy was provided directly or indirectly under this scheme. The EU echoed 
Ukraine's comments.  
 
1.1.47   Russian Federation's export subsidies for  alcohol  
1.1.47.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97064)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 93017 and AG -IMS ID 95036 . 
 
The amended provision in the budget code says:  
 
"1. Subsidies to legal entities (with the exception of subsidies to state (municipal) institu tions), 
individual entrepreneurs, as well as individuals - producers of goods, works, services are provided 
free of charge and irrevocably in order to reimburse lost income and (or) financial security 
(reimbursement) costs in connection with the production  (sale) of goods with the exception of 
excisable goods, but including cars and motorcycles, alcoholic products intended for export, grapes, 
wine products made from the specified grapes: wines, sparkling wines (champagne), liquors with a 
protected geographi cal designation, with a protected name (specialty wine)(wine materials), 
performing works, rendering services."  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation indicate if there were any subsidies granted under this 
provision during calendar 2020 for alcoholic products inte nded for exports.  
b. If yes, could the Russian Federation indicate the amount of the subsidy, and the quantity 
of each product that has received this subsidy.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
No legal acts have been adopted in support of the amendment to Artic le 78 of the Budget Code of 
the Russian Federation in 2020.  
 
Follow -up: Australia supported the question and encouraged the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the measure is consistent with its obligations under both the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the GATT. Australia further requested the Russian Federation to notify this measure to the WTO 
within the obligated time frame. Japan expressed concern on the export tax introduced by the 
Russian Federation. Brazil noted the linkages between the question on ex ports of high value -added 
agricultural products and the one on formula -based grain export tax. On the one hand, there are 
restrictions on exports of staple crops; on the other hand, there are still unclear measures aimed at 
exports of higher value -added pr oducts. Brazil believed that there are ways to create opportunities 
to export value -added products that do not distort the international market. Brazil viewed this type 
of measure as proof of the need that, after the reform in domestic support, the issues of market 
access, including tariff peaks and escalation, and export restrictions need to return to the center of 
the CoA Special Session debates.  
 
1.1.48   Russian Federation's export quotas  
1.1.48.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97119)  
In December 2020, the Russian Federation issued two decrees to restrict exports of wheat, rye, 
corn, sunflower seeds and rapeseeds in the first half of 2021:  
 
• Decree No. 2097 of 14 December 2020, introducing a tariff -rate quota (TRQ) of 17.5 million 
tonnes on grains, including wheat, r ye, barley, and corn, to be in effect 15 February to 
30 June 2021.  
• Decree No. 2096 of 14 December 2020, establishing a zero -tariff rate on exporting rye, 
barley, and corn within the TRQ above, an in -quota export tariff on wheat of EUR 25 per 
tonne, and an out-of-quota export tariff on those products of 50% but not less than 
EUR 100 per tonne, which will apply from 15 February to 30 June 2021.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 58 - 
 
  In the view of the foregoing, could the Russian Federation:  
 
a. Provide updated information on the filling of the expo rt quota;  
b. Inform if there are plans to extend these export restriction measures;  
c. Clarify if it intends to notify such measures.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to c.  The temporary export tariff quota was terminated on 30 June 2021 and is no longer in forc e. 
 
The Russian Federation respects and properly fulfills its notification obligations under the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil invited the Russian Federation to provide a written response.  
 
1.1.49   Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax  
1.1.49.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97039)  
The Russian Government formally approved its formula -based grain export tax system tha t will 
become effective on 2 June 2021.  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation explain how this measure complies with the requirements of 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI GATT?  
b. Could the Russian Federation in particular state whether and when is it planning to submit 
the relevant notification under Article 12?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b. The Russian Federation notes that Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture refers to 
export prohibition or restriction applied i n accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT  1994, 
which, in turn, covers prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges.  
 
Follow -up: The United States sought the Russian Federation's justification for imposing the export 
tax which appeared to be permanent. Understanding that the Russian Federation is party to several 
regional and bilateral economic agreement, the US asked whether these formula -based green export 
studies were applied on grain exports to all countries. If no t, the US invited the Russian Federation 
to provide a list of export destinations that were exempted from these duties. Notting Paragraph 1.a 
of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the US asked if the Russian Federation had assessed 
the effect of t hese export taxes on other Members and when it would notify the measure to the CoA. 
Japan registered interest in the topic.  
  
Australia supported the question and encouraged the Russian Federation to ensure that the measure 
is consistent with its obligati ons under both the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATT. Australia 
further requested the Russian Federation to notify this measure to the WTO within the obligated 
time frame. Japan expressed concern on the export tax introduced by the Russian Federation. Brazil 
noted the linkages between the question on exports of high value -added agricultural products and 
the one on formula -based grain export tax. On the one hand, there are restrictions on exports of 
staple crops; on the other hand, there are still unclea r measures aimed at exports of higher 
value -added products. Brazil believed that there are ways to create opportunities to export 
value -added products that do not distort the international market. Brazil viewed this type of measure 
as proof of the need tha t, after the reform in domestic support, the issues of market access, including 
tariff peaks and escalation, and export restrictions need to return to the center of the CoA Special 
Session debates.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 59 - 
 
  1.1.50   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
1.1.50.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97026)  
The Russian Federation has published Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  2097 
"On the Tariff Quota for the Export of Grain Crops Outside the Territory of the Russian Federation to 
States that are not Members of the Eurasian Economic Union", dated 14 December 2020. The decree 
imposes a tariff quota of 17.5 million tonnes on exports of wheat and meslin (HS Codes 1001 
19 000 0 & 1011 99 000 0), rye (HS Code 1002 90 000 0), barley (HS Code  1003 90 000 0), and 
corn (HS Code 1005 90 000 0) for the period from 15 February to 30 June 2021.  
 
This is the second consecutive year that the Russian Federation has implemented quantitative export 
restrictions on cereal grains. Concerns of potential ann ual recurrence and the effect on world food 
security of these restrictions were raised previously by the United States (AG -IMS ID96019), India 
(AG-IMS ID 95012 and 96036), and the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95067).  
 
According to Russian media reports, the R ussian Federation is expected to harvest more than 
130 million tonnes of grains in the season 2020/21, the second largest grain harvest on record.  
 
In response to the European Union's question (AG -IMS ID 95067), the Russian Federation stated 
that it monito rs "the functioning of national grain market, which became even more relevant during 
the COVID -19 pandemic."  
 
a. Please provide an explanation of the Russian Federation's concerns with its national grain 
market.  
b. Please explain how these quantitative export r estrictions improve the functioning of the 
Russian Federation's national grain market.  
c. Please explain the process by which the Russian Competent Authority will determine the 
allocation of export licenses for these grain quotas. For example, how are license  winners 
to be chosen?  
d. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art. 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has the 
Russian  Federation assessed the effect of these export restrictions on fellow Members and 
the impact on global food security during the COVID -19 pandemic?  
e. If so, could you please share this analysis?  
The United States notes that in the Russian Federation's response to AG -IMS ID 95067 it 
informs that a temporary tariff quota on the export of certain grain would be in effect. The 
United States remains concerned by the Russian Federation's lack of transparency because 
it has not notified these or the previous year's export restriction to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
f. When will the Russian Federation notify these measures to the Committee?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to f.  Against the backdrop of uncertainty caused by COVID -19 pandemic, the Russian Federation 
is making systematic efforts aimed at synchronizing processes related to ensuring food security and 
availability of agricultural product s on domestic market, stabilizing domestic prices, and exporting 
agricultural products. Structural changes in domestic demand in the Russia n Federation  are also 
taken into account.  
 
Allocation of in -quota volumes among exporters were performed on the basis  of historical export 
performance.  
 
The Russian Federation respects and properly fulfills its notification obligations under the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 60 - 
 
  In addition, the Russian Federation notes that Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture refers to 
export prohibition or restriction applied in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT  1994, 
which, in turn, covers prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges.  
 
1.1.51   Russian Federation - Soya Beans Export Duty  
1.1.51.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97028)  
Media sources have reported that the Russian Federation is considering raising the export duty on 
Soya Beans (HS codes 1201 00 100 0 & 120 00 900 0) to 30% but not less than EUR 165 per 
1,000  kg, with an implementation period from 1 February to 30 June 2021.  
 
The reported export duties appear to be higher than those agreed to in the Russian Federation's 
schedule.  
 
a. Please confirm if the reported Soya Bean export duty is being considered or has been 
adopted  by the Russian Federation.  
If yes:  
b. Please identify on what basis the Russian Federation justifies the increase in its export 
duties beyond its WTO commitments.  
c. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art.  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has the 
Russian  Federation c onducted an analysis on the impact of this export restriction on fellow 
Members?  
d. If so, could you please share this analysis?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 97023.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine supported the question and noted that the export measures imposed by the 
Russian Federation appeared not to comply with the rules and the Russian Federation's commitments 
at the WTO.  
 
1.1.52   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - Imports of agricultural products f rom Turkey  
1.1.52.1   Question by Turkey (AG -IMS ID 97093)  
According to Turkish national statistics, the agricultural import of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 
Turkey has been rapidly reducing in December and November 2020 compared to the same period 
of 2019 in the following products:  
 
• Hazelnuts and its products, 1,755,000 USD at December 2019 reduced to 960  USD at 
December 2020, falling 99.95%;  
• Cereals, pulses, oil seeds and products, 21,320,000 USD at December 2019 reduced to 
1,118,340 USD at December 2020, falling  94.75%;  
• Fruit and vegetable products, 5,018,000 USD at December 2019 reduced to 82,690 USD at 
December 2020, falling 98.35%  
• Aqua products and animal products, 5,706,790 USD at December 2019 reduced 
to 76,170  USD at December 2020, falling 98.67%;  
• Tobacco, 6,118,620 USD at December 2019 reduced to 0.00 USD at December 2020, 
falling  100%;  
• Fresh fruits and vegetables, 5,429,370 at December 2019 reduced to 0.00 USD 
at December  2020, falling 100%.  
 
According to the data given below, Turkey would like to ask the questions below:  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 61 - 
 
  a. Turkey kindly would like to ask Saudi authorities to clarify this data from their own 
statistics system.  
b. Turkey is the World's biggest producer and exporter of hazelnuts, both in terms of value 
and tonnes, would kindly ask Saudi authoriti es the reason behind the sharp falling of 
importation of hazelnuts, whether it is due to decrease in demand, whether due to a SPS 
measure, whether due to logistical difficulties, or etc?  
c. Turkey as one of the major producers of cereals, pulses, oil seeds an d products in the 
World, would kindly ask the reason of the sharp import fall of the given products.  
d. Turkey as one of the major producers of Aqua products and animal products in the World, 
would kindly ask the reason of the sharp import fall of the given p roducts.  
e. Turkey as one of the important producers of Tobacco in the World, would kindly ask the 
reason of the sharp import fall of the given products.  
f. Turkey as one of the important producers of Fresh fruits and vegetables in the World, 
would kindly ask th e reason of the sharp import fall of the given products.  
g. Turkey would kindly ask that given the sharp decrease of these products, could the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia authorities share the information about how the shortage of these 
products have been compens ated, whether from import or domestic production.  
h. Could Saudi authorities clarify whether there has been a price increase in the domestic 
market of the products given above.  
i. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirm if there is any import restriction or sp ecific 
barriers to food products origined from Turkey?  
j. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirm that those Turkish products still be cleared in 
the Saudi Arabian customs for importation? If this is the case, what has been the average 
time for custom clear ance for import of Turkish goods into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
from 15 September 2020 to 15 March 2021?  
Answer by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
 
a. All Kingdom's trade related data and statistics are available on the General authority for 
Statistic website, it can be viewed at: https://www.stats.gov.sa/ . 
b. to e. and f. Agricultural products quantities imported t o the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are 
subject to supply and demand.  
g. Any shortage of the above -mentioned products are compensated either from local 
production or imports.  
h. The prices for all agricultural products are determined by market force, prices increase or 
decrease according to that.  
i. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirms that there was no any import restrictions or specific 
barriers to imports from Turkey or from any other country, except what have been notified 
to the WTO,  in accordance with WTO rules.  
j. As mentioned above, all imports are entered to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia without any 
restrictions if it complies with rules and regulations, and subject to the same customs 
procedures. Products imported to the Kingdom are being cleared by Saudi Customs in  a 
very short time if all requirements are met.  
Follow -up: Turkey stated that, in recent years, as one of the most important agricultural producers 
and exporters in the world, it had made significant investments in delivering safe food to 
international mar kets, including in human resources in conducting research, tests and controls to G/AG/W/218  
 
- 62 - 
 
  ensure high quality and safe food at reasonable prices. Turkey noted that its efforts had been 
recognized by several international entities and market players throughout the w orld. Against this 
backdrop, Turkey noted that, as underlined in the question, its agricultural products had been facing 
unfair market access treatments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the restrictions of entering 
Saudi Arabia's market were not implemen ted on the basis of reasonable explanation nor on scientific 
grounds. Noting that that the free flow of agricultural products would highly benefit both countries, 
Turkey urged the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to bring its practice in line with the agreements an d its 
commitments at the WTO.  
 
1.1.53   Chinese Taipei - Ceiling price for imported rice under the TRQ  
1.1.53.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97008)  
The United States requests that Chinese Taipei explain how it calculates the ceiling price for imported 
rice under the TRQ and provide an explanation of the overall process of setting such a price. Is the 
calculation of the ceiling price publicly available on any of its government websites? If not, please 
provide.  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation would like to thank the U nited States for the question. Our response is as follows, the 
ceiling price of rice procurement is set on the basis of various factors, including export costs, freight 
fees, processing fees at import ports, including in surance premium, harbor construction dues and 
trade promotion service charge, import business tax, loading and unloading fees at import port, 
inspection charges, quarantine fees, and inland transportation fees, as well as domestic retail prices. 
We will al so survey the market condition before finalizing the ceiling price. In addition, if the previous 
tender fails, the ceiling price will be then readjusted accordingly. However, the ceiling price cannot 
be higher than the domestic wholesale price, to avoid th e case of subsidizing foreign enterprises.  
 
1.1.54   Tajikistan's poultry tariffs  
1.1.54.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97033)  
On 25 February 2021, Tajikistan notified the WTO Committee on Market Access (G/MA/W/167) that 
it seeks to increase its customs  duties on poultry (HS heading 0207) from 10% to 15%. This duty 
would be higher than Tajikistan's 10% bound rate for poultry.  
 
a. Please explain the rationale for increasing tariffs on poultry imports from 10% to 15%.  
b. Please explain how a 15% tariff for poul try imports is in compliance with Tajikistan's final 
bound rate of 10%.  
c. When will Tajikistan reduce its poultry tariff back to WTO permitted levels?  
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
The spread of COVID -19 around the world and the closure of borders, as well as the restrictions of 
trade between the countries during this difficult and crisis period has forced countries to be less 
dependent on food imports from second countries and develop domestic production.  
 
The issue of increasing import duties on poultry considere d taking into account the negative impact 
of COVID -19 on domestic production, low quality of imported poultry and public health, as well as a 
significant increase in imports of poultry compared to the previous year and the development of the 
poultry indust ry in the country.  
 
Increase in import duties on poultry is foreseen for a certain period of time until the development of 
domestic production and for the supply of population with high quality product. In this regard, the 
question may arise that in accord ance with the provisions of the WTO agreements in case of low 
quality of imported products to protect the public health, the non -tariff measures should be taken 
rather than tariff measures. In case of non -tariff measures given the lack of testing laborator ies to 
test the safety of products, its import will be completely stopped and will negatively affect the supply G/AG/W/218  
 
- 63 - 
 
  of consumer market and will increase the prices due to current production capacity. It should be 
noted that in the last two years, no entreprene urs have applied for the import of poultry from the 
United States to Tajikistan.  
 
In order to provide new technologies to increase the capacity of the poultry industry, development 
of domestic production and the supply of domestic markets with domestic pro duct in accordance 
with the laws of the Republic of Tajikistan dated 21 February 2018, No. 1511 and No. 1512 the tax 
and customs incentives were introduced to Tax and Customs codes, where the equipment and 
materials for the poultry industry were exempted f rom VAT and customs duties. Also, in accordance 
with the relevant provisions of these acts from 1 January 2018, poultry farms are exempted from 
four types of internal taxes - income tax, value added tax, road user tax and real estate tax.  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan highly appreciates your kind cooperation and positive consideration of this 
issue.  
 
1.1.55   Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
1.1.55.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97120)  
Japan recognizes that Tajikistan introduced export prohibition on varieties of agricultural products 
on 25 April 2020, and has been maintaining the prohibition without providing the planned date of 
termination. Japan would appreciate if Tajikistan could provide the reason behind. Japan would also 
appreciate if Tajikistan  could provide when it will withdraw the prohibition, and if it is not possible, 
at least the prospect under what specific condition the measure could be withdrawn.  
 
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
We would like to thank Japan for their question raised at the meetin g of the Committee on Agriculture 
held on 29 -30 March 2021.  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan provide the following:  
 
In response to the COVID -19 pandemic, like many countries the Government of Tajikistan adopted 
a series of preventive measures to ease the impa ct of the COVID -19 outbreak to economy.  
  
As part of these measures on 25 April 2020, the Government of Tajikistan introduced a temporary 
export ban  on a number of food staples, including vegetables, cereals, meat, flour, eggs, wheat due 
to the COVID -19 pa ndemic. The ban was meant to ensure adequate domestic supplies and curb 
price increases. This measure is no longer applied as Tajikistan has already started to export these 
products to other countries.  
 
1.1.56   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.1.56.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97035)  
The United States has additional questions regarding Turkey's statements about the Turkish Grain 
Board (TMO) and its policies in support of domestic producers. In response to AG -IMS ID 90009 
Turkey sta ted, "TMO determines independent policies within the framework of profitability and 
efficiency principles, regarding the products that fall within its scope". In response to US questions 
submitted regarding Turkey's 2016 TPR (WT/TPR/S/331), Turkey stated " [TMO] is a fully 
autonomous entity and operates on the grounds of profitability" and that "[p]urchasing prices 
announced by the TMO are not administered but market -based prices. Thus, Turkey does not include 
TMOs purchasing prices in the calculation of its  domestic supports". Despite this, these claims do 
not appear to match with recent statements and actions by the Government of Turkey and TMO. For 
example: in 2019, Turkey's Minister of Agriculture and Forestry stated "We, particularly Mr. 
President, have always stood by the hazelnut growers and so we shall be. Nobody should doubt it. 
In certain years, intervention of Turkish Grain Board is needed, in others it is not. As long as it is 
needed, Turkish Grain Board will stand by the hazelnut growers. Nobody s hould doubt it".  
 
a. Please clarify the Minister's statement, which appears to state his direction for TMO to 
"intervene" in the hazelnut sector, as it compares to statements made by Turkey in this 
and other WTO committees. In November 2020, TMO's Chairman o f the Board of Directors G/AG/W/218  
 
- 64 - 
 
  and General Manager (GM) spoke before Members of the Turkish Parliament on the 
State -Owned Enterprises Higher Commission, the Court of Accounts Group President and 
Auditors, and Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and other  Ministry 
representatives. According to the TMO official website, the TMO GM noted that the 
purchase prices for bread and durum wheat were set higher than foreign prices. Further, 
the TMO GM noted that for 17 products including, cereals, legumes, hazelnuts , raisins, 
dried figs, and dried apricots, the priority task of TMO is "to establish the purchasing 
policies and to prevent prices of these products from falling against the producers" and 
the purchase prices are calculated based on many parameters.  
b. Please  clarify how the information presented by the TMO General Manager compares to 
statements made by Turkey in this and other WTO committees.  
c. Please provide the list of the above -mentioned 17 products.  
d. Please provide TMO's list of set purchase prices for the l ast three years and analysis 
showing TMO's comparison to market prices.  
e. What are the parameters used by TMO in determining the purchase prices?  
f. Please specify the various means by which TMO undertakes its "priority task" of preventing 
falling prices agains t producers.  
g. How does TMO reconcile these practices with previous WTO statements "th ose decisions 
are made on grounds of profitability"?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. TMO carries out the purchases and sales of the products in its field of activity which is 
subject to provisions of private law and competition under the same conditions as other 
private companies. While carrying out these activities, TMO takes into account not only 
the short -term profit but also the long -term profit by ensuring the sustainability of the 
production. In the statement of our Minister, attention was drawn to this issue and to the 
fact that TMO being active in the market, when necessary, builds trust among all sector 
stakeholders, including producers.  
b. Within the scope of the WTO Agreement on Ag riculture, there is no provision stating that 
a price higher than the world prices could not be present in purchases made by public or 
private sector organizations and Turkey does not have any commitment in this regard. 
TMO determines purchase and sale pri ces according to the domestic market conditions. 
Therefore, carrying out activities on the basis of profitability and efficiency as well as the 
aim of "preventing prices from falling to the detriment of producers" is about ensuring 
sustainability of produc tion and taking into account the long -term profits. This is not 
intended to create an effect that will disrupt international trade.  
c. Currently there are maximum customs tariffs (bound tariffs) that can be applied to 
products that fall within TMO's field of activity. For example, Turkey's bound tariffs for 
grain products are 180%. Therefore, there may be differences between domestic and 
foreign prices, depending on the customs duties and market conditions. In addition to 
customs duties, freight charges and in surance are also added to imported prices.  
d. These products are bread wheat, durum wheat, barley, oats, rye, triticale, corn, paddy, 
shelled red lentils, green lentils, dry beans, chickpeas, poppy, seeds, shelled hazelnuts, 
seedless raisins, dried apricots a nd dried figs. TMO's purchase prices are announced 
publicly and domestic market prices are published by commodity exchanges.  
e. Please refer to the response AG -IMS ID 97035 (b).  
f. Please refer to the response AG -IMS ID 97035 (b).  
g. Please refer to the response AG -IMS ID 97035 (b)  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Follow -up: Ukraine expressed interest in receiving further information on the operation of the Turkish 
Grain Board (TMO). Ukraine would continue to follow -up on this matter and ensure that intervention 
activities by the TMO do not amount to market prices support.  
 
1.1.57   Ukraine's export cap on corn  
1.1.57.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97037)  
On 25 January 2021, the Ukrainian Ministry of Economic Development, Trade, and 
Agriculture  (MEDTA) announced an export cap on corn of 24 million tonnes for the marketing 
year 2020/21 ending June 2021. MEDTA announced also that Ukraine's projected production of corn 
was 30.3 million tonnes. MEDTA's Press Release stated that "the Ministry of Economy expects there 
to be no problems with the ex port of corn to foreign markets or a possible shortage of this crop in 
domestic markets."  
 
Taking note of commitments undertaken by Ukraine under Article XI of GATT 1994 and Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture:  
 
a. Please explain why Ukraine is imposi ng this export cap and what factors contributed to 
the decision to impose it.  
b. Please explain how the Government of Ukraine will implement and enforce this export cap.  
c. Considering paragraphs 1(a) and 2 of Art. 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has Ukraine  
conducted an analysis on the impact of this export restriction on fellow Members?  
d. If so, could Ukraine please share this analysis?  
e. When will Ukraine notify this measure to this Committee?  
Answer by Ukraine  
 
Ukraine would like to thank the U nited States for the interest to Ukraine's agricultural policy.  
 
First of all, providing answer to questions a, b, c and d, we need to state that Ukraine has not 
introduced any quantitative restrictions on export of corn since 2011/2012 marketing year.  
 
As it was ment ioned at some previous CoA meetings, starting from 2011 on an annual basis the 
Ministry for Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine (or Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food of Ukraine) and grain market participants (grain market entities a nd their public 
associations) have signed a Memorandum of understanding.  
 
The aim of the Memorandum is to provide for information exchange and consultations between the 
parties with a view to ensuring food security, predictable regime of grain export and a voiding the 
imposition of quantitative restrictions or duties on grain exports.  
 
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Memorandum, the parties agree on possible optional volumes of grain 
exports on the basis of the preliminary balance of supply and demand of grain in the marketing year, 
taking into account different types of cereals, including (if necessary) on their qualitative 
characteristics and intended use, with the subsequent possible signing of Annex 1 to the 
Memorandum. For example, in 2013/2014 MY such Anne x was not signed.  
 
In accordance with the forecast balance of supply and demand of grain in 2020/2021 marketing 
year, the export potential of corn is estimated at 24 million tonnes, subject to the formation of 
optimal transitional stocks.  
 
Therefore, on 25  January 2021 the parties signed Addendum to Annex  1 of a Memorandum 
for 2020/2021 marketing year concluded by the parties on 1 July 2020. The Addendum sets the 
optimal export volumes of corn at the level of 24 million tonnes.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 66 - 
 
  As of 22 March 2021, 15.4 mi llion tonnes of corn were already exported. Thus, by the end of the 
marketing period, under the Addendum to Annex 1, 8.6 million tonnes remained to be exported, 
which is the optimal amount to be exported by the end of 2020/2021 MY.  
 
The provisions of this document do not impose any legal obligations on the parties, and exports in 
excess of the agreed volumes are not subject to restrictions and do not automatically trigger the 
introduction of such restrictions.  
 
e. Taking into account the above, Ukraine does not need to notify this measure to the WTO.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil underlined the danger that export restrictions posed to price stability, with a direct 
impact on food security and on international food prices. The case of corn was particularly relevant, 
Brazil noted, given its importance as animal feed. Accordi ng to data from the International Grains 
Council, international corn prices were, in March 2021, more than 50% above the level of a year 
ago. Brazil stressed the importance that Ukraine and other Members such as the Russian Federation 
design their policies  in the light of the impacts they caused on the international market and also in 
the light of Members' obligations under the AoA and the GATT.  
 
1.1.58   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.1.58.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97096)  
In the nearly three months now since the end of the United Kingdom (UK) transition period, the 
serious concerns that other WTO Members have raised regarding the major reduction in quantity 
and quality of access the UK has proposed to apply to its  142 bound tariff rate quota commitments 
remain largely unresolved. Over that time, an immediate issue of denial of access under those quotas 
has emerged in respect of access into the Northern Ireland market. We ask the UK to provide 
updated information on  how it intends to address these serious and increasingly urgent issues and 
to provide assurances that traders seeking to utilise valid access under these quotas will not be 
impeded or incur any unwarranted liability in trade with Northern Ireland.  
 
The U K's draft schedule includes a claim to trade distorting agricultural domestic support (AMS), 
amounting to more than 20% of the value of UK agricultural production. The UK further proposed 
(in May 2020) to convert this to pounds sterling using a more recent  and favourable exchange rate 
than would have applied to the period on which the earlier claim was based.  
 
Can the UK please advise when and how it proposes to engage with other WTO Members to respond 
to the questions and concerns others have raised with respect to the UK's claim to a new, large, 
entitlement to trade distorting domestic support not provided for under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
Throughout the process of the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, th e United 
Kingdom has strived to ensure that it maintains the previous balance of rights and commitments 
without leaving other Members worse off. We have apportioned bound tariff -rate quotas based on 
trade flows in a representative period and have been enga ging in constructive negotiations and 
consultations with Members through the Article XXVIII process.  
 
In addition to the answer previously given by the United Kingdom on this issue in question 
AG-IMS ID 96062 at the 96th meeting of the Committee on Agricul ture, we would also like to update 
that following the successful conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union 
and the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom has issued an MA:1 notification, confirming that the 
European Union is not eligibl e for access to the United Kingdom's erga omnes  quotas, addressing an 
issue raised by Members in this Committee previously.  
 
Regarding the specific question relating to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom has taken a number 
of steps to support traders fo llowing the end of the transition period with respect to moving goods 
into Northern Ireland. The UK Trader Scheme has been established to allow authorised businesses 
to undertake that the goods they are moving into Northern Ireland are "not at risk" of onw ard 
movement to the EU and therefore not liable to EU tariffs. Additionally, the UK Government's G/AG/W/218  
 
- 67 - 
 
  GBP 200 million Trader Support Service provides education and guidance for all traders moving 
goods into Northern Ireland.  
 
The United Kingdom has been clear t hat we want to address the particular issue New Zealand raised 
today by working constructively with traders and our international partners, including with the 
European Union as part of ongoing dialogues on the implementation of the UK -EU Withdrawal 
Agreeme nt. We will continue to engage bilaterally with WTO Members, including New Zealand, on 
this. 
 
With regards to the United Kingdom's Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) entitlement, the United 
Kingdom first set out its intention to divide the pre -existing EU -28 level of commitment on domestic 
support between the UK and EU in October 2017, using an objective methodology based on previous 
approaches adopted at the WTO. Prior to submitting the draft Goods Schedule with the apportioned 
value of AMS commitments in July 2018, the UK maintained a dialogue with WTO Members on the 
approach and methodology used based on historic calculations. Since that time, the UK has 
continued this dialogue with Members, including on the question of redenominating all currency 
compone nts in the schedule into pound sterling using a methodologically sound formula built on 
previous examples at the WTO, as explained in G/MA/TAR/RS/570/Add.1. We are continuing this 
dialogue with Members to address relevant questions and concerns.  
 
Follow -up: Canada expressed concern with the UK's unilateral decision to confer its proposed 
FBTAMS using a favourite exchange rate that did not reflect the reality at the time contributing its 
AMS to the EU. Canada noted that, as an original WTO Member, the UK's F BTAMS should be based 
on its AMS support from the base period as reflected in its AGST table, and using a moderate 
exchange rate to evaluate the UK's support level in 1986 -1988 would distort the reality of the UK's 
AMS in that period. Canada was of view th at the UK should either keep the commitments in euros 
or use an exchange rate that reflects the reality of the UK's based period during its contribution in 
the Uruguay Round. New Zealand noted that the UK had indicated previously that it was looking to 
address the serious concerns a number of WTO Members have raised regarding its proposed 
treatment of its WTO tariff rate quota commitments, as part of the GATT Article XXVIII process it 
initiated in December 2018. So far, however, despite continued discussion s and the ongoing efforts 
concerned WTO Members like New Zealand had made to seek practical solutions, there had been 
little discernible progress in resolving Members' concerns. New Zealand noted that meanwhile it had 
been waiting for progress on meaningfu l solutions its exporters had faced with a direct and 
immediate example of the commercial harm arising from this issue. New Zealand's food exporters 
had been informed that they could not utilise valid UK quota access for exports into Northern Ireland 
due t o complications arising from the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Other 
WTO Members may also be experiencing similar difficulties. In this situation, New Zealand urged the 
UK to re -double its efforts to work with it to resolve both this imm ediate issue and the broader 
question of arriving at an outcome acceptable to concerned WTO Members on the proposals it had 
made to cut back its WTO tariff rate quota commitments. On the AMS, New Zealand reiterated its 
position that there is no provision i n the Agreement on Agriculture to enable a unilateral change to 
a Member's commitments on trade distorting agricultural domestic support. Given this, any 
proposals the UK might want to make in this regard, including any currency alterations and their 
poten tial impacts, would need to be fully consulted and agreed with other interested WTO Members. 
Moreover, as referenced in the question, the scale of the UK's AMS claim, at Euros 5.914 billion, 
amounts to more than 20% of the value of UK agricultural producti on. If the UK were to spend this 
amount, this would put it in the front rank of users of trade distorting domestic support in the WTO. 
New Zealand therefore requested a clear indication from the UK as to when and how it proposes to 
hold the necessary consu ltations with other WTO Members on its claim to establish a new and very 
substantial AMS entitlement. New Zealand also voiced its continued concern about the large range 
of agricultural products – 685 – on which the UK had sought to claim application of th e special 
agricultural safeguard which included a number of products where the UK has no domestic 
production. Uruguay registered interest in both matters raised by New Zealand and encouraged the 
UK to keep Members up-to-date with the exchange rate issue. N oting the question had also been 
discussed in the Market Access Committee and other forums at the WTO and no clarity had been 
provided, Paraguay sought information on how the UK planned to respond to concern by Members 
with regards to the AMS commitment. C hina reiterated its concern regarding the UK's apportionment 
of TRQ commitments from the EU schedule and the AMS calculation. Australia noted that the UK's 
trade distorting domestic support entitlement was its biggest priority as it had significant impact on 
global markets, food security and agriculture development goals of other Members. Brazil recalled 
its dissatisfaction, demonstrated over the past few years, with the fact that little had been done to G/AG/W/218  
 
- 68 - 
 
  prevent "Brexit" from negatively affecting UK and EU obligations vis -à-vis other WTO Members. 
Brazil noted that although the British Government had been attentive during the multilateral and 
bilateral discussions, there were numerous difficulties that the Brazilian private sector had been 
facing since the be ginning of the year. Brazil stressed that its concerns also comprised systemic 
issues, such as relaxations in border controls for agricultural goods from the EU and the self -
allocation of the FBTAMS.  
 
1.1.59   United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.1.59.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97121)  
Australia would like to again raise the implementation of the Economic and Trade Agreement 
Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China: Phase One (the 
Agreement). Australia notes  China agreed to purchase USD 80 billion in US agricultural exports over 
two years (USD  40 billion per annum). Yet according to figures published by the USDA 
(https://www.fas.usda.gov/regions/china ), China only purchased USD 26.5 billion in US agricultural 
exports in 2020. This is a USD 13.5 billion shortfall and would require China to purchase 
USD 53.5 billion this year to meet the USD 80 billion target.  
 
Australia also notes that the Agreement is due  to conclude this year. However, under Article 8.4 of 
the Agreement, both parties are to agree upon timing of further negotiations.  
 
In this context, Australia kindly requests the United States respond to the following questions:  
 
Given Article 6.2 (5) of the Agreement notes "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", can the US advise of wha t led to the 
USD 13.5 billion shortfall in 2020, including in relation to market conditions?  
 
Does the US still expect China to purchase the full USD 80 billion in US agricultural exports before 
the conclusion of the timelines in the Agreement?  
 
If yes, do es the US predict market conditions will be conducive to China purchasing USD 53.5 billion 
in agricultural exports this year?  
 
If yes, is the US developing or implementing policies to facilitate Chinese purchases that reach the 
Agreement's USD 80 billion t arget?  
 
Can the US advise of the status of future negotiations under Article 8.4?  
 
What is the likelihood that any future agreement will also include value -based targets for China's 
purchase of US agricultural exports?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States does not collect data on particular commercial considerations or market 
conditions that may impact the timing of private commercial interactions.  
b. The United States continues to monitor China's implementation of the Agreement and the 
United States Department of Agriculture forecasts that market conditions will be conducive 
to 2021 being a stronger export year for US agricultural products than 2020. (2021 
Outlook)  
c. The United States cannot comment at this time on any potential future trade n egotiations.  
Follow -up: The EU noted its interest in this subject in particular the potential effect these announced 
purchases may have on world market prices and any resulted increased price volatility, as well as 
whether the agreement respects the WTO ru les. 
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 69 - 
 
  1.1.60   US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.1.60.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97094)  
New Zealand notes recent media reporting that the US has put a hold on payments under the 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP ) while also extending the deadline for signing up to the 
CFAP. New Zealand is aware also that the US is undertaking a review of the CFAP's administration, 
with Secretary Vilsack recently reported as saying that USDA wanted to "make sure that we 
understood  and appreciated the full range of need, and the full range of resources that might 
potentially be available before we made decisions about how best to allocate those resources".  
 
Can the US clarify how it will ensure that any remaining funds allocated un der the CFAP will be 
deployed in a way that is proportionate to the harm it seeks to address, transparent, consistent with 
WTO obligations, and wound back as soon as they are no longer necessary?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
As stated by Secretary Vilsack, the US is reviewing the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic on the 
food and agriculture production system. Program announcements and any changes will be made in 
a transparent manner once those reviews are complete.  
 
These programs will be notified co nsistent with WTO rules and at the appropriate time.  
 
The US will continue to monitor the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic and will phase out assistance 
consistent with authorizing legislation in response to changes and improvements in conditions.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that responses to COVID -19 including agricultural domestic support 
should be temporary, transparent, and consistent with the WTO rules. Paraguay noted interest in 
the question.  
 
1.1.61   US domestic support programmes  
1.1.61.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97122)  
On 10 March, the United States announced its latest ad hoc, large -sum domestic support programme 
to its agricultural sector. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 is expected to destinate nearly 
USD 23 billion in nutrition - and agriculture - related provisions.  
 
Bearing in mind the  US commitment that "emergency measures related to agriculture and agri ‑food 
products designed to tackle COVID -19 must be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary, 
and not create unnecessary barriers to tra de or disruption to global supply chains for agriculture and 
agri-food products", and that "[any] such measures are to be consistent with WTO rules" 
(WT/GC/208/Rev.2 and G/AG/30/Rev.2), could the  US provide the following information:  
 
a. Does the programme in clude direct payments, market price support or income support 
features?  
b. Which agricultural producers are eligible to receive this new batch of payments?  
c. How does this program relate to CFAP 1 & 2, through which US's farmers received around 
USD 23.6 billion  in payments until February 2021 ( https://www.farmers.gov/cfap )? 
d. How will these increased COVID -19-related expenditures be reflected in the  US DS:1 
notification? In which box will this support be included?  
e. Taking into account the ad hoc (outside the farm bill) domestic support programs adopted 
since 2018 and the participation of government payments in the rural income, how does 
the US plan to phase out the additional support being provided to American farmer s? G/AG/W/218  
 
- 70 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
a. and b. The American Rescue Plan does not provide direct payments related to agricultural 
production, market price support, or income support. Provisions of the American Rescue 
Plan within the jurisdiction of the  US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will reduce hunger 
across the United States, strengthen the food supply chain, invest in rural America, and 
provide support to underserved, socially disadvantaged farmers.  
c. The American Rescue Plan provides its own authority a nd funding, separate from those 
used in CFAP 1&2.  
d.  The programs enacted into law are in the rulemaking process and further details will be 
made available as soon as the final rules are issued.  
All relevant measures will be notified consistent with WTO rul es at the appropriate time.  
e. The COVID -19 pandemic and its impacts on agriculture and food systems remains ongoing. 
All assistance provided to farmers has been in response to specific concerns. The  US will 
continue to monitor the impacts of the COVID -19 pan demic and will phase out assistance 
consistent with authorizing legislation in response to changes and improvements in 
conditions.  
1.1.62   US COVID relief Package – "H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan"  
1.1.62.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97065)  
The US Congress  has passed a USD 1.9 trillion COVID relief package, which includes more than 
USD 10 billion for agriculture and USD 12 billion for nutrition programmes.  
 
a. Could the  US explain more in detail how these measures will support the farming industry 
and how the US intends to notify this domestic support.  
b. In particular could the  US indicate if any measures will be Green Box or Blue Box and if 
the US intends to submit a DS:2 notification for such measures within the deadline set out 
in G/AG/2.  
Answer by Unite d States of America  
 
Provisions of the American Rescue Plan within the jurisdiction of the  US Department of 
Agriculture  (USDA) will reduce hunger across the United States, strengthen the food supply chain, 
invest in rural America, and provide support to un derserved, socially disadvantaged farmers.  
 
The programs enacted into law are in the rulemaking process and further details will be made 
available as soon as the final rules are issued. These programs will be notified consistent with 
WTO rules and at the appropriate time.  
 
Follow -up: The EU reiterated its interest in all the COVID -19-related measures the  US had 
implemented in the agricultural sector which amounted to a considerable amount, resulting in 
significant influence on the global markets. Australi a sought further information from the  US on 
specific measures for the farming industry under this package, how it intended to notify its domestic 
support and when Members could expect the notification to be submitted. Paraguay noted interest 
in receiving m ore information on how these measures would be classified and notified in  US DS:1 
notification. Canada expressed similar interest and questioned whether the  US support packages 
may affect its ability of meeting the AMS commitments at the WTO.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 71 - 
 
  1.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
1.2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
1.2.1.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/59)  
AG-IMS ID 97038: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
On 18 November 2019, Brazil issued a decree implementing a 750,000 -tonne tariff-rate quota (TRQ) 
for non -Mercosur wheat imports through 17 November 2019, and issued a new TRQ on 
18 November  2020, which is valid only through 17 November 2021. The United States also notes 
Brazil's recent notifi cation to withdraw from Article XXVIII negotiations on this original concession. 
Noting this, please explain:  
 
a. What steps is Brazil taking to make the wheat TRQ permanent, so annual renewals are 
not necessary?  
b. What are the expected dates these steps to m ake the wheat TRQ permanent will be taken?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
On 1  December  2020, Brazil published Presidential Decree No. 10.557/2020, which fully 
reincorporated into Brazil's legal system the commitment to establish an annual 750,000 -tonne tariff 
rate quo ta (TRQ) with the import duty rate reduced to 0% for tariff lines NCM 1001.19.00 and 
1001.99.00.Thus, since the publication of this decree, the tariff -rate quota for wheat provided for in 
Brazil's schedule of commitments is already permanently established and does not require annual 
renewals or other legal measures for its internal maintenance.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the  US welcomed Brazil's decision to make the wheat TRQ permanent.  
 
1.2.1.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/55)  
AG-IMS ID 97123: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks China for submitting its MA:2 notification for calendar year 2019.  
 
Australia notes two tariff rate quotas (TRQs) had a fill rate of less than 65%; wheat (36.2%); and 
rice (57.8%). Australia notes it asked question AG -IMS ID 93090 at the 93rd CoA with respect to 
underfills in both wheat and rice in calendar year 2018. China's response to this question was that:  
 
China will administer the TRQs for wheat, corn and rice in accordance with the WTO rules and China's 
accession commitments. The total quantities committed will be allocated to end -users, and the quota 
holders have full discretion on importation according to the market conditions and their actual needs.  
 
Australia notes China's import of wheat only increased from 3 2.2% in 2018 to 36.2% in 2019 and 
that rice remained at 57.8%.  
 
These products were also the subject of a dispute settlement case (DS517) in which China was ruled 
to have been implementing TRQ administration that was inconsistent with the obligations to 
administer TRQs on a transparent, predictable and fair basis, and in a manner that would not inhibit 
the filling of each TRQ. Australia also notes that Chapter 3, Annex 14 of the Economic and Trade 
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Peopl e's Republic of China requires China 
to implement TRQ measures for wheat and rice in conformity with the Panel Report from DS517.  
 
In this context, Australia remains interested in China's TRQ  administration for wheat and rice. 
Therefore, Australia kindly requests China respond to the following questions:  
 
a. Can China provide further details on how it is implementing the recommendations and 
rulings of DS517 to ensure there is no underfill of whe at and rice?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 72 - 
 
  b. Can China advise any changes to its TRQ administration for wheat and rice as a result of 
the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America and the People's 
Republic of China?  
c. Can China elaborate on the market conditions tha t led to an underfill for wheat and rice in 
calendar year 2019?  
d. Can China provide an indication of advanced expected fill rates for calendar year 2020?  
Answer by China  
 
a. China maintains TRQ administration in a bid to fully utilize the quota, but the fill ra te is 
determined by market conditions. According to WTO rules and China's commitment, all 
quotas are allocated to end users, and unused quota are requested to return for 
reallocation. For more information, please refer to document WT/DS517/12.  
b. No change.  
c. All imports are made by enterprises based on commercial considerations. Market 
conditions include but not limited to price differences, consumer's preferences, demand 
and supply.  
d. Please refer to China's MA notification to be notified.  
AG-IMS ID 97124: Qu estion by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the fill rate for China's wheat TRQ for reporting year 2019 is quite low at 36.2% 
and that a low fill rate for this TRQ has been a constant trend since at least 2016.  
 
a. Could China elaborate on the rea sons for the low fill -rate of this TRQ?  
b. What steps is China taking to ensure that its TRQ administration is not deterring importers?  
Answer by China  
 
TRQ fill rates are determined by market conditions. China maintains TRQ administration in a bid to 
fully utilize the quota, but the fill rate is determined by market conditions. According to WTO rules 
and China's commitment, all quotas are allocated to end users, and unused quota are requested to 
return for reallocation.  
AG-IMS ID 97066: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes that the fill rate of the Tariff Rate Quota for wheat (CHNQ001) is low 
at 36.2% in 2019.  
 
Could China please explain the reasons behind this low utilization of the Tariff Rate Quota?  
 
Answer by China  
 
TRQ fill rates are determined by market conditions.  
AG-IMS ID 97125: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand appreciates the submission on market access notification of year 2019 by the People's 
Republic of China. In this connection, could China  please clarify why the rice TRQ was underfilled?  
 
Answer by China  
 
All imports are made by enterprises based on commercial considerations.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 73 - 
 
  1.2.1.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/68)  
AG-IMS ID 97126: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the fill rates for the EU's pork TRQs ranges from 0% to 12%. These fill rates are 
well below the 65% threshold established under the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration. Could the 
EU elaborate the reasons for these low fill rates and the remedies to improve market access under 
these TRQs?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The world market for pork is currently driven by strong demand from China which is a very attractive 
market for all pork exporters, including Canada. The EU market, in turn, was depressed last year 
due to  COVID -19 restrictions affecting food services and the slaughter industry as well as the effect 
of African Swine Fewer in some EU member States. This affected EU meat imports in general as the 
EU market became less attractive to exporters.  
AG-IMS ID 97133:  Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We note that, in the aforementioned notification, the following quotas of interest to Paraguay have 
low fill rates:  
 
- EUQ005: 61.6%;  
- EUQ008: 29.6%;  
- EUQ072 and EUQ073: 0.3%;  
- EUQ082: 0%;  
- EUQ098: 22.1%.  
 
According to the notification, these quotas are administered through import licences. Considering 
that they have fill rates of less than 65%, has the European Union considered modifying the system 
for their administration?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
TRQs EUQ005 and EUQ007 on beef are country allocated. Licences are issued monthly to operators 
in conformity to their applications. The low fill rate is explained by market conditions.  
 
TRQs EUQ072 and EUQ073 concerns maize to be imported in Portugal and Spai n. As the applied 
duty on maize is set to zero most of the time, imports under these TRQs would be unnecessary.  
 
TRQ EU082 concerns sorghum. It is generally filled, however, it was not filled this year. World 
sorghum prices became much higher than maize du e to world feed demand pushing up sorghum 
prices. Since maize and sorghum crops are substitutes, there was no interest in importing sorghum 
under the TRQ by the EU compound feed industry. In addition, as the applied duty for sorghum is 
set to zero most of the time, imports under this would be TRQ unnecessary.  
 
Changing the management method would therefore have no impact on the fill rate of these TRQs.  
 
1.2.1.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  
AG-IMS ID 97041: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Accordi ng to India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade, the eligible entities for allocation of quota 
of milk powder and maize are only designated state trading enterprises and not open to private 
importers.  
 
a. Please explain why the eligible entities for these  products was determined to be the 
designated state trading enterprises.  
b. b. Are these entities the only entities eligible to apply to receive an allocation as referenced 
in footnotes to India's table MA:2 notifications for milk powder and maize?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 74 - 
 
  c. If so, and  these entities do not apply, what does the Government of India do to ensure 
re‑application and allocation during the financial year in case there are insufficient 
applications for the TRQ?  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The government grants exclusive privileg es to State Trading Enterprises (STEs) for the 
purpose of TRQ for items whose imports are required to be strictly monitored.  
 
Agencies as enlisted in Para 2.60 (a) of Handbook of Procedures of Foreign Trade Policy (2015 -2020) 
are entitled to apply for TRQ . The government can authorize any other person, if required, to import 
under TRQ scheme of the notified products.  
AG-IMS ID 97042: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
India's schedule of commitments shows a market access commitment  to 500,000 metric tonnes of 
maize. There are no stipulations as to the end use of the import product. However, India published 
in June 2020 notification No. 28/2020 – Customs, which includes an end -user clause on importers 
of maize.  
 
a. Why is there an end -user clause in accessing TRQ imports for maize?  
b. Please explain if the TRQ for maize limits any type of maize (by use) for imports under the 
HS code 100590.  
Answer by India  
 
The end -use clause is incorporated to ensure that TRQ is used b y an actual user and not trader. The 
TRQ is not limited to any particular type of maize.  
AG-IMS ID 97127: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks India for submitting its MA:2 notification for calendar year 2019. Australia further 
thank s India for providing a detailed explanation for the low fill rate for rape, colza or mustard 
oil (INDQ003).  
 
Australia notes a number of other tariff rate quotas (TRQs) had a fill rate of less than 65%: milk and 
cream in powder (INDQ001) (0%); and maize (INDQ002) (10%). Australia further notes that it has 
asked questions on India's TRQ fill rates for these products previously. We thank India for providing 
answers to these questions, including that market circumstances dictated fill rates and that no or 
limited applications were received. Given these previous responses, Australia kindly asks India to 
respond to the following questions:  
 
a. Can India elaborate on why no or limited applications were received for INDQ001 (milk), 
including the domestic market circ umstances?  
b. Can India elaborate on the reason for the underfill of INDQ002 (maize), including the 
domestic market circumstances?  
c. Can India provide information on the quota administration for INDQ001 and INDQ002, in 
particular the time period provided for th e submission of applications and whether any 
end-user requirements or specific ports of entry were stipulated in the TRQ administration 
arrangements?  
d. Can India provide information on any efforts to improve administration to encourage more 
applications and  greater fill rates?  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. Application for import under TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based on market 
situation. Fill rate of a TRQ is also demand -driven and based on market situation. Limited 
applications were received for the alloc ation of the tariff rate quota for maize.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 75 - 
 
  c. Paragraph 2.62 of Handbook of Procedure, 2015 -20 prescribes the conditions applicable 
on availing quotas under TRQ. The last date for submission of application is before 
1st March of each financial year preceding t he year of quota. The said paragraph does not 
prescribe any end user requirements or specific ports of entry.  
d. The procedure of TRQ allocation and its usage for import clearance has been shifted from 
manual mode to a centralized IT based system through Indi an Customs EDI.  
AG-IMS ID 97128: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
In G/AG/N/IND/20, India has notified that NDQ002 Maize (corn), other (corn) has had a 10% fill 
rate.  
 
a. Could India provide data on market circumstances that could explain such a reduced fill 
rate? 
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ? How much has India imported under tariff line 
100590 from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Fill rate of a TRQ is demand -driven and based on market situation.  
b. Total import quantity for maize during 2019 -20 was 458,470.09 MT.  
AG-IMS ID 97040: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
The United States thanks India for its table MA:2 submission. However, it remains concerned with 
the low fill rates for milk powder, which  have had no notified in -quota imports since 2012/13 and 
maize since 2014/15 (TRQs INDQ001 and INDQ002). This chronic underfill continued in India's 
FY 2019/2020 (April – March) notification with only a small quantity of maize imports. During the 
final mon th of this notification, it is understood India eliminated the provision of the tariff rate quota 
for milk powder per notification No. 01/2020 – Customs and only reinstated it in June 2020 per 
notification No. 28/2020 – Customs.  From February to June 2020,  milk powder was subject to a duty 
rate of 60%.  
 
a. Please confirm the tariff rate quota for milk powder was not part of India's tariff schedule 
or accessible during the period of February to June 2020.  
b. If so, what was the rationale for not allowing product  to enter through the tariff rate quota?  
c. Noting that Indian Ministry of Commerce data shows milk powder imports of 1,276  metric 
tonnes during FY 2019/20, please explain the reason for low -fill rates and why no imports 
occurred at the lower duty rate of 15% , but instead the higher out -of-quota rate of 60%.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The TRQ of milk powder has been a part of India's Foreign Trade Policy in 
accordance with paragraphs 2.60  - 2.62 of the Handbook of Procedures, 2015 -20. This 
provision has continued  during the period Feb ruary - June 2020 ensuring fulfilment of 
TRQ commitment. Customs notification underwent a change merely on account of a 
procedural change whereby the procedure of TRQ allocation and its usage for import 
clearance was shifted from manu al mode to a centralized IT based system through Indian 
Customs EDI. Thus, TRQ was accessible during the period of February to June 2020, in 
terms of the provisions of the India's Foreign Trade as above.  
c. No applications were received from importers for im port of milk powder under TRQ.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 76 - 
 
  1.2.1.5   North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/28)  
AG-IMS ID 97129: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Republic of North Macedonia for submitting its MA:2 notification for calendar 
year 2019.  
 
Australia notes a tari ff quota had a fill rate of less than 65% (MKDQ001 - other spelt, other than 
common wheat and meslin seed: 15.5%). Australia notes that we have asked the Republic of North 
Macedonia questions on this TRQ in the past, but we kindly request similar confirmat ion to explain 
this underfill, including:  
 
a. Was this the result of market forces, preferential imports or tariff quota administration?  
b. Is the Republic of North Macedonia doing anything to improve fill rates?  
Answer by North Macedonia  
 
Referring to question raised by Australia in connection with individual MA:2 notification of Republic 
of North Macedonia for 2020 (G/AG/N/MKD/28)  
  
The following question has been addressed to Republic of North Macedonia in the context of the 
Review Proce ss of the Committee on Agriculture:  
  
Australia thanks North Macedonia for submitting its MA:2 for calendar year 2019.  
 
Australia notes a tariff quota had a fill rate of less than 65% (MKDQ001 - other spelt, other than 
common wheat and meslin seed: 15.5%) . Australia notes that we have asked North Macedonia 
questions on this TRQ in the past, but we kindly request similar confirmation to explain this underfill, 
including:  
 
1. Was this the result of market forces, preferential imports or tariff quota administrat ion? 
2. Is North Macedonia doing anything to improve fill rates?  
  
Reply by Republic of North Macedonia to question raised by Australia.  
  
a. The Republic of North Macedonia has tariff and other quota commitments for: other spelt, 
other than common wheat and me slin seed, for tariff number 1001990000 in a year 
quantity of 80,000 tonnes. This commitment applies for all WTO Members. The quota rate 
is 0% and out of quota rate is applied 15% +0,1 EUR/kg, tariff rate equivalent 
(max.  75%). The quota is allocated to MF N suppliers on a "first -come, first -served" basis. 
Period of in -quota imports is 1 January – 31 December in the current year.  
The fill rate of TRQ remain low (15.5%) in 2020. Answers to this TRQ is provided in the past, the fill 
rate of wheat TRQ was low (less than 65%) in all previous years excluding marketing 
years  2003/2004 and 2004/2005 when the fill rate was 100%.  
  
The fill rate by years was:  
 
Year  Fill rate  Year  Fill rate  
2003/2004  100%  2010/2011  25,8%  
2004/2005  100%  2011/2012  62,3%  
2005/2006  25% 2014 29,7%  
2006/2007  12,5%  2015 27,8%  
2007/2008  44,6%  2016 17,1%  
2008/2009  34% 2017 28% 
2009/2010  27,3%  2018 9,4%  
2010/2011  25,8%  2019 21,8%  
2013 16,2%  2020 15,5%  
 
This is a result of market forces and preferential imports that Republic of North Macedonia has within 
CEFTA Agreement, concluded in 2006. The CEFTA Agreement does not apply customs duties at all 
among CEFTA countries (Western Balkan) on all products (indu strial and agricultural). So the import G/AG/W/218  
 
- 77 - 
 
  of wheat and meslin and import of wheat or meslin flour in Republic of North Macedonia from CEFTA 
countries is with preferential tariff rate of 0%. This was the main reason why the import of wheat 
and meslin from WTO  countries declines from 2007 and import of CEFTA countries is permanently 
raising.  
 
The total import by years and import structure shows this trend, as follows:  
Import of wheat and meslin and wheat or meslin flour in Republic of North Macedonia  
Year Whea t and meslin  Wheat or meslin flour  
TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  
 tonnes tonnes  % tonnes  % tonnes tonnes  % tonnes  % 
2003 94,272 71,490  75.8 22,782  24.2 1,311  232 17.7 1,079 82.3 
2004 104,076 102,290  98.3 1,786  1.7 1,417  337 23.8 1,080 76.2 
2005 90,095  79,795  88.6 10,300  11.4 3,441  430 12.5 3,011 87.5 
2006 25,973  20,880  80.4 5,093  19.6 3,513  333 9.5 3,180 90.5 
2007 60,367  38,021  63.0 22,346  37.0 53,099  274 0.5 52,825 99.5 
2008 55,192  30,471  55.2 24,721  44.8 43,402  220 0.5 43,182 99.5 
2009 51,249  32,741  63.9 18,508  36.1 55,664  147 0.3 55,517 99.7 
2010 55,765  25,748  46.2 30,017  53.8 46,660  319 0.7 46,341 99.3 
2011 78,502  26,451  33.7 52,051  66.3 30,316  474 1.6 29,842 98.4 
2012 121,261  67,943  56.0 53,318  44.0 42,794  397 0.9 42,397 99.1 
2013 66,187  13,053  19.7 53,134  80.3 41,542  95 0.2 41,447 99.8 
2014 87,992  23,969  27.2 64,023  72.8 40,510  51 0.1 40,459 99.9 
2015 97,538  22,417  23.0 75,121  77.0 47,835  79 0.2 47,756 99.8 
2016 75,537  13,949  18.5 61,588  81.5 54,587  138 0.3 54,449 99.7 
2017 87,047  22,648  26.0 64,399  74.0 53,935  140 0.3 53,795 99.7 
2018 86,504  7,762  9.0 78,742  91.0 49,814  88 0.2 49,726 99.8 
2019 104,405  18,155  17.4 86,250  82.6 51,843  148 0.3 51,695  99.7 
2020 96,748  15,356  15.9 81,412  84.1 41,227  1846 4.5 39,381  95.5 
 
b. The Republic of North Macedonia respects the transparency and impartiality in allocation 
of TRQ  and the fill rates is based on principle "first come first served". Annual tariff quota 
are published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia, at least one month 
prior to start the new calendar year, in order the allocation of the publi shed quota to start 
on time, as of 1 January. Also, the tariff quotas are posted individually on the websites of 
the Ministry of Economy and Customs Administration.  
The allocation and utility of TRQ is done via Electronic system for integrated tariff envir onment – 
ITO (http://ite.customs.gov.mk:9080/masterApp/ ), avoiding any possible administration process.  
Daily reports on allocated tariff quotas or partially deducted tariff quotas, as well current state of 
the remaining tariff quotas by countries are available in the consultation module of the Electronic 
System for Integrated Tariff Environment  - ITO (http://ite.customs.gov.mk:9080/masterApp/ ) 
 
1.2.1.6   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/70)  
AG-IMS ID 97043: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States notes that notification G/AG/N/PHL/70 concerning imports under tariff rate quotas 
(table MA:2) during calendar year 2019 has the sa me in -quota import quantities as notification 
G/AG/N/PHL/56 concerning imports under tariff quotas (table MA:2) during calendar year 2018.  
 
Please confirm whether this is correct, and if not, please provide corrected data for calendar 
year 2019.  
 
Answer  by Philippines  
 
1.2.1.7   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/95)  
AG-IMS ID 97067: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union thanks South Africa for its notification (G/AG/N/ZAF/95) concerning imports 
under tariff quotas during the calendar year 2018.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 78 - 
 
  a. Could South Africa explain the reasons for the underfill for: ZAFQ001, ZAFQ007, ZAFQ008, 
ZAFQ009, ZAFQ010, ZAFQ011, ZAFQ012, ZAFQ015, ZAFQ018, ZAFQ021, ZAFQ022, 
ZAFQ029, ZAFQ031, ZAFQ036, ZAFQ043, ZAFQ048 and ZAFQ053 all of which recorded no 
more th an 6% fill rate, with the large majority of them recording 0% fill rate?  
b. For each underfilled quota, could South Africa explain whether the underfill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
c. Could South Africa explain if it is doing anything to increase utilisation of its underfilled 
tariff rate quotas?  
Answer by South Africa  
  
South Africa thanks the European Union for the interest in the South African market access 
commitme nts and would like to respond as follows:  
  
a. The reason for the under fill of the TRQs in question relate to market conditions and the 
prevailing tariffs. SPS measures or tariff rate quota administration methods do not play a 
role. In accordance with South Africa's commitments, the in -quota tariff rate for all the 
TRQs is fixed at 20% of the applicable bound rate. Import permits were made available to 
economic operators for all TRQs. Allocations are based on historic performance with 
provisions for newcomers  and for small operators.  
b. In many cases, the applied MFN tariff is a specific duty that has not been changed for 
many years. Exchange rate depreciation and inflation resulted in the relevant level of 
protection of the MFN duty to be eroded over time with t he result that the in -quota tariff 
being either close or above the MFN tariff. The conclusion of various Free Trade 
Agreements also contributed to in -quota tariff rates losing some of its attractiveness for 
economic operators.  
c. In recent years, South Africa  moved the allocation of permits from an annual basis to a 
half-yearly or even a quarterly basis, for some products, to improve the efficiency of the 
allocations. The South African system is very transparent with regular publications in the 
government Gaze tte. In addition, regular consultations take place with stakeholders. No 
major changes are envisaged in the near future with regard to the TRQ administration 
system.  
Meat of bovine animals (ZAF Q0001)  
  
Most imports to the South African market originated from neighbouring countries that are members 
of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) with only limited imports from outside the customs 
union. The reasons for the low fill rate are therefore market conditions, prevailing tariffs and 
transport costs an d not TRQ administration methods or SPS measures. TRQ allocation is on the basis 
of permits and these are allocated to economic operators on a quarterly basis.  
  
Dairy Products (ZAFQ007, ZAFQ008, ZAFQ009, ZAFQ010)  
  
The MFN applied tariff for dairy produc ts is fixed at R 4.50/kg (milk powder, butter milk & yogurt 
and whey) and at R 5.00/kg (butter and cheese) since the late 1990s. If this specific duty is 
converted to the ad valorem equivalent it is very close to the ad valorem in -quota tariff. This is the  
reason economic operators do not make use of the TRQs for dairy products. Imports are taking place 
at either the MFN duty or at preferential rates as agreed in the various trade agreements South 
Africa concluded since the late 1990s. Import permits are al located to economic operators on a 
half-yearly or annual basis for dairy products.  
 
Eggs (ZAFQ012)  
 
This TRQ is applied across two HS codes at the four-digit level, HS 0407 and HS 0408. For HS 0407, 
the MFN tariff is at zero and no permits for TRQ imports are issued. Some imports do take place. 
For HS 0408, permits are issued to economic operators at a quarterly basis. Some imports do take 
place, mainly at preferential rates under the various trade agreements that have been concluded.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 79 - 
 
   
Peas & Beans (ZAFQ015)  
 
The MFN tariff for Peas is 15% and for Beans and Other leguminous Vegetables the MFN tariff is at 
Zero. Import permits for peas are issued at a half -yearly basis and some imports take place on the 
basis of the issued permits. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of 
relevant import permits.  
 
Dried Peas (ZAFQ018)  
 
This TRQ is applied across two HS codes, HS 071320 and HS 071390. For HS 071320, the MFN tariff 
is at zero and no permits for TRQ imports are issued. So me imports do take place. For HS 071390, 
the MFN tariff is 15% for Seeds and 24% for Dried Peas. Imports do take place, also under 
preferences as created under preferential trade agreements. The administration of TRQs is not a 
limiting factor in the utiliz ation of relevant import permits.  
 
Grapes Dried (ZAFQ021)  
 
The MFN tariff for Grapes Dried (080620) is 10%. Permits are issued to economic operators on a 
half-yearly basis and some imports do take place under preferences as created under preferential 
trade agreements. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant 
import permits.  
 
Dried Fruit (ZAFQ022)  
 
The MFN rate for products under this heading (HS 0813) is 10%. The in -quota tariff varies slightly 
in accordance with t he product, however, it is close or just below the MFN tariff. Permits are issued 
on a half -yearly basis. Some imports do take place. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting 
factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
  
Maize or Maize equiva lent (ZAFQ029)  
 
This TRQ includes various tariff lines, for most, the MFN tariff is currently at zero. Imports permits 
are issued for all relevant products but importers, in accordance with prevailing market conditions, 
did not make use of such. The admini stration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of 
relevant import permits.  
 
Other cereals (ZAFQ031)  
 
This TRQ includes various tariff lines, for most, the MFN tariff is currently at zero. For some lines, 
the MFN duty is at 5%. Imports permit s are issued for all relevant products but importers, in 
accordance with prevailing market conditions, did not make use of such. The administration of TRQs 
is not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
 
Rapeseed (ZAFQ036)  
 
The MF N tariff for Rapeseed (HS 1205) is at zero for Seeds used for sowing, and 10% for other 
seeds. The in -quota tariff rate is at 8% and importers opted to not make use of the permits that 
have been issued. Imports, however, do take place. The administration o f TRQs is not a limiting 
factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
 
Malt extracts (ZAFQ043)  
 
Products for the TRQ  fall within tariff heading 1901.10 and the MFN duty is at 20%. The in -quota 
tariff rate is very close to the MFN tariff and imports do take place. Permits to economic operators 
are issued on a quarterly basis. TRQ administration is not the reason for the low utilization of TRQs.  
 
Wines and Spirits (ZAFQ048)  
  
This TRQ includes various tariff lines and permits are issued to economic operators on all applicable 
lines. Imports do take place, mainly on the basis of preferential rates as agreed under the variou s G/AG/W/218  
 
- 80 - 
 
  trade agreements South Africa has concluded since the late 1990s. The administration of TRQs is 
not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
 
Cotton (ZAFQ053)  
  
The MFN tariff for most tariff lines under this TRQ is at zero. A sp ecific duty is applied for one tariff 
line, that, in accordance to our calculations, has a very low ad valorem equivalent. Imports, however, 
do take place, mainly from developing Members and LDCs within the region at a zero duty. TRQs 
administration is not  a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
 
1.2.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
1.2.2.1   Congo , Democratic Republic of  (G/AG/N/COG/5 , G/AG/N/COG/6, 
G/AG/N/COG/7, G/AG/N/COG/8, G/AG/N/COG/ 9) 
AG-IMS ID 97130: Question by Canada - Transpa rency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/COG/5, G/AG/N/COG/6, G/AG/N/COG/7, G/AG/N/COG/8, G/AG/N/COG/9  
 
Canada would like to thank the Democratic Republic of the Congo for its efforts to bring its 
notifications up-to-date. 
 
The Democratic Republic of the  Congo recently submitted notifications to WTO Members on its 
domestic support policies for the years 2016 to 2020, in which it indicated that it had not provided 
any domestic support to agricultural producers. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has also  
indicated that it did not provide any domestic support to agricultural producers between 2001 and 
2015. During the most recent WTO trade policy review of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
in 2013, the report by the WTO Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/285 - Congo ) stated that:  
 
"The principal support measures for farmers are: exemption from the business licence fee (124); 
exemption from personal income tax (IRPP) for those with income under CFAF 265,000 (125); 
distribution (free of charge) of tested seeds by the a uthorities (rice, cassava, maize, groundnuts, 
potatoes); continuation until 2016 of the exemption from duties and taxes on agricultural inputs and 
machinery; and various investments to develop the rural sector (including the repair of rural roads). 
Agrifoo d enterprises may receive subsidies under the National Investment Charter (chapter  2). 
Additionally, an Agricultural Techniques Demonstration Centre has been opened to train agricultural 
technicians."  
 
a. Canada would like to understand why none of the suppor t measures for farmers identified 
by the WTO Secretariat have been notified by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 
why none of the agriculture programmes identified in the national development plan 
(2018 -2022) have been included in Congo's domestic support notifications.  
b. Can the Democratic Republic of the Congo confirm that it has not provided any inspection 
service programme as defined in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Congo , Democratic Republic of  
 
Follow -up: Australia welcomed Congo's updated notifications and encouraged it to ensure all support 
measures are captured in past and future DS notifications.  
 
1.2.2.2   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/65 , G/AG/N/SLV/66, G/AG/N/SLV/67, 
G/AG/N/SLV/ 68) 
AG-IMS ID 97138: Question by Ca nada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/SLV/65, G/AG/N/SLV/66, G/AG/N/SLV/67, G/AG/N/SLV/68  
 
Canada appreciates El Salvador providing more recent domestic support notifications to this 
Committee, which brings El Salvador up to 2011. Canada  encourages El Salvador to continue its 
work to submit its domestic support notifications.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 81 - 
 
  When will El Salvador provide more up -to-date domestic support notifications, so that other Members 
may be able to understand how El Salvador's current domestic su pport policies function, as well as 
their potential impact on trade or production?  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
We thank Canada for its question.  
 
El Salvador is aware of its transparency obligations and has made a concerted effort to bring all its 
notification s up to date in this Committee.  Accordingly, we have notified domestic support 
from 2003 to 2011, and, as you can see from our notifications, this support is within El Salvador's 
entitlements. We continue to work in close coordination with San Salvador to  bring ourselves up to 
date with our remaining notifications and will very soon be notifying domestic support for the 
years  2012 to 2016.  
 
El Salvador would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that, since 2016, the country has 
imported two dollars in food products for every dollar it exports in food products. This reaffirms the 
country's status as a net food -importing developing country, and, bearing in mind that El Salvador's 
agricultural exports account for less than 0.1% of world agricultural exp orts, it is clear that the 
distorting effects of the domestic support granted for its agricultural production are negligible.  
 
1.2.2.3   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/68)  
AG-IMS ID 97139: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Regarding G/AG/N/SLV /68, 
 
a. For the financial year 2011, El Salvador notified a new programme named as "Direct 
payments to dairy organizations to improve their members' service capability". Could 
El Salvador provide more information on how this program works and how it meets th e 
criteria of paragraph 6 of the Annex 2 of the AoA?  
b. For the financial year 2011, El Salvador notified a new programme which was described 
as "Credits for the cultivation of staple grains (maize, bean, sorghum and rice), vegetables 
and fruit". This USD 29 million programme was notified has input subsidies un der 
Supporting Table DS:2.  
i. Could El Salvador provide more information on how this programme works, and who 
is eligible?  
ii. Could El Salvador explain what type of export subsidy was provided under this 
programme?  
Answer by El Salvador  
 
a. El Salvador thanks Canada for its question. The programme falls under the Family Farming 
Programme for Production Linkages ( Programa de Agricultura Familiar para el 
Encadenamiento Productivo ), which seeks to increase the income level of resource -poor 
rural families by improv ing the competitiveness of rural businesses and promoting 
production chains in rural areas. Investment resources were transferred to seven 
organizations, thereby benefitting 636 people, of which 447 were men and 189 women. 
The support received enabled rura l producers' organizations to improve production 
capacity.  
The eligibility requirements for this programme include a low level of income, involvement in family 
or subsistence farming, and membership of a community organization. The programme is not linked 
to production levels, prices or the use of certain production factors.  
 
b. We thank Canada for its interest in the components of the Family Farming Programme. 
Regarding the credit programme for the cultivation of staple grains, El Salvador would like 
to infor m Members that this component grants credits for the production of staple grains, 
fruit or vegetables. To access these credits, applicants must be family or subsistence G/AG/W/218  
 
- 82 - 
 
  farmers, the products grown must be staple grains, fruits or vegetables, and the plante d 
surface area must be less than three manzanas.  
The nature of the Family Farming Programme means that it is aimed at low -income farmers who 
supply informal markets in rural areas of El Salvador with their surplus produce (after consumption 
and making prov ision for the next crop).  
 
1.2.2.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 97044: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In AG -IMS ID 95086, the United States requested that India identify each law and regulation (or 
other offici al source) generally referenced in India's notification, which stated "National Food Security 
Act, 2013; various Public Distribution System (Control) Orders and their subsequent amendments 
issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and various State  legislations/orders". India's 
response to the question repeated the aforementioned quote from the notification.  
 
a. Please provide a complete list identifying each "order" and "subsequent amendment" 
referenced in "various Public Distribution System (Control ) Orders and their subsequent 
amendments issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955."  
b. For each identified in part a) please provide a copy or specific URL(s)/Weblink.  
c. Please provide a complete list identifying of all "various State legislations/order s". 
d. For each identified in part c) please provide a copy or specific URL(s)/Weblink.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. The relevant information may be accessed from the following web links: 
https://dfpd.gov.in/acts_C .htm; https://dfpd.gov.in/Orders_C.htm . 
 
Follow -up: The  US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged In dia to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the followi ng 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock  procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sal e prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the  US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the info rmation 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where  to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97045: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In AG -IMS ID 95086, the United States asked India to "identify document or measure with 
pre-determined targets related to food security". India's response did not identify such documents 
or measures, but rather referred the United States to "the relevant information on rules and orders 
regarding India's food security programmes" on the Department of Food and Public Distribution 
Website.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 83 - 
 
   
e. Please provide an exhaustive list of the specifically "relevant information on rules and 
orders".  
f. For each identified rule, order, or other information source, please provide a copy o r 
specific URL(s)/weblink.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The relevant information may be accessed from the following web -links: 
https://dfpd.gov.in/acts_C.htm ; https://dfpd.gov.in/Orders_C.htm . 
 
Follow -up: The  US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the  US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS ID s 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific informa tion regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notificatio ns contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on  public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial es timate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the  US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in  India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the  ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97046: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 95087 requesting the identification of all agencies that procure 
commodities and what commodities eac h procures, India stated that "Nodal agencies like the Food 
Corporation of India (FCI), National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India  (NAFED) 
and various state agencies procure agricultural commodities at minimum support price". India's 
response indicates there are other nodal agencies not identified as their response states "nodal 
agencies like…" Please provide a complete list all nodal agencies for each commodity, including state 
agencies.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Links for major procurement a gencies are as follows: https://fci.gov.in/ ; http://www.nafed -
india.com/.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance,  the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectivel y. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Urugu ay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Par aguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices G/AG/W/218  
 
- 84 - 
 
  between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Furthe r, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97047: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In res ponse to AG -IMS ID 95087 India stated "The Minimum Support Price program was initiated in 
the 1960 's (1966 -1967) and currently covers 24 crops" with regard to the identification of all 
programs under which the MSP is provided and the date of commencement o f each.  
 
a. Does India's response mean that minimum support prices for all 24 crops that are currently 
receiving MSP under the Public Distribution System commenced in 1966 -1967?  
b. If not, please indicate for the current 24 crops the years when they began receiv ing MSP.  
Answer by India  
 
The rationale for seeking the information, as sought through this question, is not clear, as the same 
has no relevance to the implementation of commitments negotiated under Uruguay Round.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG-IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock pro cured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale pr ices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the informat ion 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to ques tions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97048: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 95088, the United States requests additional info rmation on the data in 
the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18.  
 
a. In response to 2f) of the Statistical Appendix to G/AG/N/IND/18 "Officially published 
objective criteria or guidelines", India outlined the four objectives of India's food security 
program. Please provid e copies or the specific URL(s) to locate the official publications of 
this information referenced.  
b. With regard to the request for further details regarding stock accumulation FCI referenced 
the IISFM. It appears that a password is needed to access the IIS FM at 
https://disfm.iisfm.nic.in/ . Does this mean stock accumulation data is not available to the 
general public?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 85 - 
 
  c. Please provide the specific URL(s) at which information on procurement targets and 
quantitative li mits can be found.  
Answer by India  
 
The detailed statistical data as mandated under the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding 
has already been provided in India's relevant DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of  information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the  complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and com pliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's l ack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at pr evious meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97049: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
We thank India for their response to AG -IMS ID 95089, which referred the United States to 
https://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/sales/scan0 014_2.pdf  for the guidelines for empanelment 
and registration under OMSS(D). However, this does not contain any information on price 
methodology. Please provide a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested information on price 
methodology for open market  sales of food grains from public stocks.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, handling 
cost, freight charges, etc.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG-IMS IDs 97044 and  97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete lis t of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when  such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figur es for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transp arency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetin gs have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding G/AG/W/218  
 
- 86 - 
 
  how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97050: Question by United States of America - Transparency i ssues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 95090, the United States requested an explanation as to why data for 
items m through p (total imports and exports, by value and quantity) were not provided. In India's 
response it is stated that total import and export data were not provided because "only export and 
import from public stockholdings have been considered". It remains unclear as to why India chose 
to provide data on imports and exports from public stocks only and chose to exclude data on t otal 
imports and exports (items m through p in the Statistical Appendix). While this additional information 
is appreciated, the total trade data is important to include for transparency purposes.  
 
Please provide a more detailed reason as to why India has o nly partially provided the data in the 
Annex.  
 
Answer by India  
 
In the Statistical Appendix on rice to G/AG/N/IND/18, import and export from public stockholding 
have been considered, and information has been accordingly provided, as explained in the footnote. 
Information regarding India's total export and import for ri ce may be accessed from the web link: 
https://tradestat.commerce.gov.in/eidb/default.asp . 
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instan ce, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG-IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respecti vely. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Ur uguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be share d; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members ha ve obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Fur ther, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of t he Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97051: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 93268, India states the wheat and rice reserve price for sale of stocks 
in the domestic market is kept above the applied administered price.  
 
a. Does information on the reserve price of wheat and rice for sale of their stocks in domest ic 
market exist publicly?  
b. If so, please provide a specific link to these documented prices, rather than a general link 
to a website.  
Answer by India  
 
Relevant reserve prices can be accessed from https://dfpd.gov.in/ . 
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 87 - 
 
  which sough t some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India woul d submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in t he market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questio ns were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested informati on on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the revie w process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97052: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 93274, we are unable to find the exact statistics on Opening and Ending 
Balan ce of Stocks (items a. and i. of the Statistical Appendix) on https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/ . 
Please provide a specific links(s) to the source of these statistics India has reported.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The de tailed statistical data as mandated under the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding 
has already been provided in India's relevant DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG -IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respe ctively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be sh ared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other product s. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members  have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning o f the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97053: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 93275, we are unable to find the exact statistics on "Annual Releases 
under the programme" in line (e.) of the table notified by India on https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/ . 
Please prov ide a specific links(s) to the source of these statistics.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 88 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
The detailed statistical data as mandated under the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding 
has already been provided in India's relevant DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG-IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislatio ns/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged India to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information t o enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the following 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for othe r products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given 
India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected leve l of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sale prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 201 8 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the info rmation promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU  referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97055: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States remains concerned by the general lack of transparency provided by India notifying 
its various measures, which have been largely aggregated to p oint of not being able to identify what 
actual measures/schemes fall under each measure type. This complicated abilities for Members to 
understand Indian policy and how measures comply with various criteria set out in the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 
Further , we do appreciate India's first Table DS:2 notification in March 2020, which identifies 
11 different measures.  
 
However, as a follow -up on AG -IMS ID 93266, the United States is having trouble identifying where 
the measures in India's latest DS:2 fall with in Supporting Table DS:1 for MY 2017/18.  
 
To help us better understand exactly which programmes are being notified in DS:1 and to increase 
transparency on these various measures and their affiliated outlays, please provide the specific name 
and description s of measures contained in its DS:2 notification for the outlays notified Supporting 
Table DS:1. For example, India's Table DS:2 notification identified USD 427.45 million in 
expenditures for the PMKSY measure, but does not specify how the measure is meets  the criteria of 
paragraph 2 beyond the chapeau or where it is classified in its Supporting Table DS:1.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The PMKSY is notified under paragraph 2 (g) of Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in 
India's DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: The US remained concerned with the lack of information in India's responses. For 
instance, the US requested more specific responses to its questions AG-IMS IDs 97044 and 97046 
which sought some specific information regarding the state legislations/orders referenced in India's 
notifications and the complete list of all nodal agencies respectively. The US, echoed by Australia, 
Canada and Uruguay, encouraged In dia to ensure measures captured in its DS:1 notifications contain 
sufficient information to enable Members to understand India's policy and compliance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Uruguay sought further clarification from India concerning the followi ng 
questions: whether India would submit information on public stock administered for other products 
such as wheat, coarse grains, pulses, and rice and when such information could be shared; given G/AG/W/218  
 
- 89 - 
 
  India's role as a world exporter of rice, whether the stock  procured would be exported; if India has 
an initial estimate concerning the expected level of support for 2020/2021 including if they have 
de minimis figures for rice and other products. Paraguay requested more information concerning 
statistics on the sal e prices for rice and wheat in the market and the data on the reference prices 
between 2018 and 2019. The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted 
that Members have obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the info rmation 
requested in the questions were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised 
by India for later submissions at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked 
India to give specific indication regarding where  to find the requested information on the web links 
it had provided in its answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding 
how to improve the functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive 
answers to questions raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97054: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 95091 requesting data on allocation for d istribution and buffer stocks 
available for the period 2018 -19. 
 
a. Is the final data available for 2018 -19? 
b. If so, please provide the requested data on expenditures in relation to the accumulation 
and holding of rice stocks of products identified including s torage.  
c. For each data point, please provide the specific URL(s) at which this data can be found.  
Answer by India  
 
The data for public stockholding for food security purposes has been notified in India's DS:1 
notifications for relevant years.  
 
Follow -up: The US reiterated concern on India's lack of responses, noting that it had already posed 
several of the questions in previous meetings without receiving India's responses. Specifically, on 
AG-IMS ID 97057, the US noted that India did not respond  to the question which sought information 
on the names and descriptions of the actual schemes that are included in India's notifications. 
Paraguay, in view of India's role as one of the main exporters of agricultural products and the 
influence of its polic ies on the international market, requested India to provide more specific 
information to the questions as soon as possible. The EU noted that it is the Member's obligation to 
give substantive answer and requested India to provide answers it promised for la ter submission. 
The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted that Members have 
obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information requested in the questions 
were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised by India for later submissions 
at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked India to give specific 
indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links it had provided in its 
answers. Th e EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding how to improve the 
functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive answers to questions 
raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
 
AG-IMS ID 97056: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 93267, which India stated it would provide a response in 
due course.  
 
If India is unable to provide the requested information now, when does I ndia plan to provide the 
breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to sections of the 
population in need" for each of the distribution schemes under the National Food Security Act.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The data for publi c stockholding for food security purposes has been notified in India's DS:1 
notifications for relevant years.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 90 - 
 
  Follow -up: The US reiterated concern on India's lack of responses, noting that it had already posed 
several of the questions in previous meetings  without receiving India's responses. Specifically, on 
AG-IMS ID 97057, the US noted that India did not respond to the question which sought information 
on the names and descriptions of the actual schemes that are included in India's notifications. 
Paragua y, in view of India's role as one of the main exporters of agricultural products and the 
influence of its policies on the international market, requested India to provide more specific 
information to the questions as soon as possible. The EU noted that it is the Member's obligation to 
give substantive answer and requested India to provide answers it promised for later submission. 
The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted that Members have 
obligations to provide substantive answe rs. The EU noted the information requested in the questions 
were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised by India for later submissions 
at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked India to give specific 
indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links it had provided in its 
answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding how to improve the 
functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members ' substantive answers to questions 
raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97058: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 93278, for which India stated it  would provide a response 
in due course.  
 
If India is unable to provide the requested information now, when can we expect the information 
requested to be submitted?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The data for public stockholding for food security purposes has been noti fied in India's DS:1 
notifications for relevant years.  
 
Follow -up: The US reiterated concern on India's lack of responses, noting that it had already posed 
several of the questions in previous meetings without receiving India's responses. Specifically, on 
AG-IMS ID 97057, the US noted that India did not respond to the question which sought information 
on the names and descriptions of the actual schemes that are included in India's notifications. 
Paraguay, in view of India's role as one of the main exporters  of agricultural products and the 
influence of its policies on the international market, requested India to provide more specific 
information to the questions as soon as possible. The EU noted that it is the Member's obligation to 
give substantive answer a nd requested India to provide answers it promised for later submission. 
The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted that Members have 
obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted the information requested in the quest ions 
were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised by India for later submissions 
at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked India to give specific 
indication regarding where to find the requested informa tion on the web links it had provided in its 
answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding how to improve the 
functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive answers to questions 
raised under the rev iew process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97136: Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
The following question is being submitted in follow ‑up to question AG ‑IMS ID 96009, which we 
believe was not answered in a satisfactory manner in the room.  
 
We reiterate our questions on:  
 
a. The number of medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers in India and how many hectares these 
farms cover.  
b. The main branches of production in which these medium ‑ and large ‑scale producers are 
engaged.  
We further note that India's replies were uploaded to the AG ‑IMS system only few weeks ago and 
still failed to answer the questions submitted. We urge India to upload the replies as soon as possible G/AG/W/218  
 
- 91 - 
 
  and to make ever y effort to try to do so within the time frames established in the procedures of the 
Committee.  
 
Answer by India  
 
More than 99.43% farmers are low income or resource poor with landholding less than 10 hectares. 
This information can be accessed from India's  Agriculture Census. India does not maintain the data 
in the manner asked in the question.  
 
Follow -up: The US reiterated concern on India's lack of responses, noting that it had already posed 
several of the questions in previous meetings without receiving India's responses. Specifically, on 
AG-IMS ID 97057, the US noted that India did not respond to the question which sought information 
on the names and descriptions of the actual schemes that are included in India's notifications. 
Paraguay, in view of India 's role as one of the main exporters of agricultural products and the 
influence of its policies on the international market, requested India to provide more specific 
information to the questions as soon as possible. The EU noted that it is the Member's obl igation to 
give substantive answer and requested India to provide answers it promised for later submission. 
The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted that Members have 
obligations to provide substantive answers. The EU noted th e information requested in the questions 
were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised by India for later submissions 
at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked India to give specific 
indication regarding  where to find the requested information on the web links it had provided in its 
answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding how to improve the 
functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive answe rs to questions 
raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97057: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States appreciates the data p rovided in response to AG -IMS ID 93276.  
 
However, India has not fully responded to the question with regard to the names, descriptions, and 
monetary value of each scheme or measure, but rather provided only aggregated values for the 
types of support (ferti lizer, irrigation, and power).  
 
a. Please provide the name and description of the scheme or schemes that provide fertilizer 
subsidies in India. Please also provide the monetary value if there each scheme if more 
than one.  
b. Please provide the name and descripti on of the scheme or schemes that provide irrigation 
subsidies in India. Please also provide the monetary value if there each scheme if more 
than one.  
c. Please provide the name and description of the scheme or schemes that provide power 
subsidies in India. Pl ease also provide the monetary value if there each scheme if more 
than one.  
Answer by India  
 
The input subsidies are available to low -income or resource -poor farmers, and are duly notified 
under Article 6.2 of the AoA.  
 
Follow -up: The US reiterated concern on India's lack of responses, noting that it had already posed 
several of the questions in p revious meetings without receiving India's responses. Specifically, on 
AG-IMS ID 97057, the US noted that India did not respond to the question which sought information 
on the names and descriptions of the actual schemes that are included in India's notifi cations. 
Paraguay, in view of India's role as one of the main exporters of agricultural products and the 
influence of its policies on the international market, requested India to provide more specific 
information to the questions as soon as possible. The E U noted that it is the Member's obligation to 
give substantive answer and requested India to provide answers it promised for later submission. 
The EU echoed the US concern on India's lack of transparency and noted that Members have 
obligations to provide s ubstantive answers. The EU noted the information requested in the questions 
were not provided in India's notifications and the information promised by India for later submissions G/AG/W/218  
 
- 92 - 
 
  at previous meetings have never been received. Further, the EU asked India to  give specific 
indication regarding where to find the requested information on the web links it had provided in its 
answers. The EU referred to the discussions at the informal meeting regarding how to improve the 
functioning of the Committee and it viewed ensuring Members' substantive answers to questions 
raised under the review process as one of the ways to improve transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 97140: Question by Brazil - Market price support  
On DS:1 notification G/AG/N/IND/18, regarding the marketing year from  1 October 2018 to 30 
September 2019, India has invoked the peace clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, due to domestic support provided for rice. India informed 
the Membership that "other suppor t for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently" (Supporting Table DS:5, footnote 3).  
 
Could India provide further clarification on the issue, especially:  
 
a. How much and what kind of support has it granted to rice producers beyond the PSH 
programme?  
b. When will this additional support be notified?  
Answer by India  
 
We are in the process of collecting information on "other support". We will notify this information in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU not ed that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It considered 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India only gave detailed 
figures on the rice programme and not for other products. The EU added t hat the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for other products as for rice. Paraguay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Dec ision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifications and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's 
replies were insufficient and would like to follow -up on the following questions: (1) on  AG-IMS IDs 
97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers to sub questions a and b as 
the previous information provided by India did not give a proper response to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay sought info rmation on how much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as required in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Me mbers and respect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned no tification does 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compliance with its commitments at the 
WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Committee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more tran sparent in future meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previous speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bonuses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice 
support measures, the US e ncouraged India to provide more detailed information including names 
of the schemes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the 
required information.  
  
Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess whether 
India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's efforts to 
notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the most up 
to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India responds 
in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional information 
about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 97001: Qu estion by European Union - Market price support  
Follow -up on question AG ‑IMS ID 93198  
 
a. Parts c) and d) of the original question AG -IMS ID 93198 have still not been fully answered 
by India. For part d) India indicated that the reply would be made in due cou rse and for G/AG/W/218  
 
- 93 - 
 
  part c) no statistical annex was submitted for wheat, coarse grains and pulses. The EU 
looks forward to receiving a full reply from India to these important parts of question 
AG-IMS ID 93198.  
b. "c) RESPECT OF PARAGRAPHS 3C AND 3D OF THE BALI MINI STERIAL DECISION  
"Paragraph 3c of the Bali Ministerial Decision requires the Member to provide on an 
annual basis, additional information by completing the template contained in the Annex, 
for each public stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes "  
In point 2b of the Annex India indicates that its public stockholding programmes cover rice, wheat, 
coarse grains and pulses. However, the statistical Annex only includes rice.  
 
Can India submit the required statistical annex for wheat, coarse grains and pulse?  
 
c. d) SUPPORT OTHER THAN PUBLIC STOCKHOLDING FOR RICE  
In footnote 3 in Supporting Table 5 India indicates that "Other support for rice, that is, other than 
public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subse quently". However, this 
information is necessary to verify whether India has respected paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial 
Decision which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes other than 
public stockholding.  
 
i. Can India indi cate what types of support are concerned?  
ii. Can India indicate when this notification will be submitted?  
iii. Will this notification also include revisions of prior notifications (for instance for 2014 
and subsequent years) to include this type of support for the  years in question?  
Answer by India  
 
India has taken recourse to the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for rice. Thus, the 
related data for rice has been notified. For other products, covered under India's food security 
programmes, product s pecific -support was less than the prescribed de minimis  limit, and information 
regarding the same has been given under the Supporting Tables 4  and 5 of India's Domestic Support 
notification in document G/AG/N/IND/18. We are in the process of collecting inf ormation on "other 
support" and it will be notified in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU noted that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It considered 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India on ly gave detailed 
figures on the rice programme and not for other products. The EU added that the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for oth er products as for rice. Paraguay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Decision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifications and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's  
replies were insufficient and would like to follow -up on the following questions: (1) on AG -IMS 
IDs 97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers to sub questions a and b 
as the previous information provided by India did not give a pr oper response to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay sought information on how much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as  required in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Members and respect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned notification does 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compliance with its commitments at 
the WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Commi ttee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more transparent in future meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previous speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bon uses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice 
support measures, the US encouraged India to provide more detailed information including names G/AG/W/218  
 
- 94 - 
 
  of the schemes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the  
required information.  
  
Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess whether 
India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's efforts to 
notify its updated Table DS:1 noti fication to this Committee, which has made it one of the most 
up-to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide addition al 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 97134: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
The following questions are being submitted in follow ‑up to question AG ‑IMS ID 95101.  
 
a. Is India of the opinion that it does not have to submit a notification of the annex for the 
previous years?  
i. If so, please explain why.  
ii. If not, please indicate when the annexes for the years 2013 to 2018 will be presented.  
b. Could India indicate whether it exceeded its de minimis  levels again for the period  2019‑20 
or 2020 ‑21?  
Answer by India  
 
a. The Statistical Appendix to the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public stockholding (2013) 
requires data for "latest" three years which has been duly notified in India's DS:1 
notification for year 2018 19 under document symbol G/AG/N/IND/18.  
b. India will notify its DS:1 notification in due course for 2019 -20. 
Follow -up: the EU noted that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It considered 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India only gave detailed 
figures on the rice programme and not for other products. Th e EU added that the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for other products as for rice. Paraguay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Decision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifications and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's 
replies were insufficient and would like to follow -up on the following quest ions: (1) on AG -IMS 
IDs 97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers to sub questions a and b 
as the previous information provided by India did not give a proper response to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay  sought information on how much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as required in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Members and respect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned notification does 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compliance with its commitments at the 
WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Committee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more transparent in future meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previous speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bonuses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice 
support measur es, the US encouraged India to provide more detailed information including names 
of the schemes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the 
required information.  
AG-IMS ID 97135: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
The following question is being submitted in follow ‑up to question AG ‑IMS ID 96008.  
 
In its reply provided in the room, the delegation of India stated that:  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 95 - 
 
  • Buyers must fill out a "stamp paper" which costs 100 rupees to process.  
• The document commi ts them to not export.  
• If there is a violation, the buyer is disqualified for a period of one year.  
• There is no follow ‑up mechanism.  
 
We would therefore like to ask:  
 
a. Whether India can confirm that the process only requires the submission of that "stamp 
paper" and indicate what is its legal validity.  
b. How can it be confirmed whether there is a violation or not in the absence of a follow ‑up 
mechanism?  
We further note that India's replies were uploaded to the AG ‑IMS system only few weeks ago. We 
urge India to upload the replies as soon as possible and to make every effort to try to do so within 
the time frames established in the procedures of the Committee.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Paraguay is requested to refer to India's response to Question AG-IMS ID 96008 whereby India has 
provided detailed information on the mechanism.  
 
Follow -up: The EU noted that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It considered 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India only gave d etailed 
figures on the rice programme and not for other products. The EU added that the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for other produc ts as for rice. Paraguay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Decision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifications and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's 
replies were insufficient and would like to follow -up on the following questions: (1) on AG -IMS 
IDs 97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers to sub questions a and b 
as the previous information provided by India did not give a proper resp onse to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay sought information on how much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as required  in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Members and respect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned notification does 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compliance with its commitments at the 
WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Committee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more transparent in future meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previous speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bonuses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice 
support measures, the US encouraged India to provide more detailed information including names 
of the schemes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the 
required  information.  
AG-IMS ID 97059: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Please provide an update on the process of collection of information on "other support" for rice as 
requested in AG -IMS ID 95092, for which India has not yet provid ed a response. and noting India 
has still not provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93272.  
 
If India is unable to provide the requested information, please provide a general description of the 
type of support that is being referenced and the names of any schemes that will be included in this 
category of "other support" and confirm whether this support existed prior to 2018/19 or was 
introduced in that year.  
 
Answer by India  
 
We are in the process of collecting information on "other support". We will no tify this information in 
due course.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 96 - 
 
  Follow -up: The EU noted that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It considered 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India only gave detailed 
figures on th e rice programme and not for other products. The EU added that the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for other products as for rice. Parag uay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Decision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifications and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's 
replies were insufficient and  would like to follow -up on the following questions: (1) on AG -IMS 
IDs 97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers to sub questions a and b 
as the previous information provided by India did not give a proper response to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay sought information on h ow much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as required in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Members and re spect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned notification d oes 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compliance with its commitments at the 
WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Committee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more transparent in f uture meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previous speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bonuses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice 
support measures, the US encouraged In dia to provide more detailed information including names 
of the schemes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the 
required information.  
  
Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members co uld assess whether 
India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's efforts to 
notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the most up 
to-date Members with its transparenc y obligations. Brazil considered it important that India responds 
in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional information 
about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 97060: Question by Unite d States of America - Market price support  
Following up on part b) of AG -IMS ID 93271, India stated it would provide responses in due course.  
 
When can Members expect the information requested on the values of bonuses provided by each 
state and to which pr oducts bonuses applied during marketing year 2018/19 to be provided, if a 
response is not readily available for this meeting of the COA?  
 
Answer by India  
 
Follow -up: The EU noted that it had different interpretation of the Bali Decision on PSH. It consider ed 
that Members should notify all its PSH programmes in its notification while India only gave detailed 
figures on the rice programme and not for other products. The EU added that the Bali Decision not 
only required information on de minimis in Supporting Table DS:4 as India had done but India should 
also provide the same annex table for other products as for rice. Paraguay agreed with the EU's 
interpretation of the Bali PSH Decision and asked India to include details of all the PSH programmes 
in its notifi cations and not only those related directly to the PSH Decision. Paraguay noted India's 
replies were insufficient and would like to follow -up on the following questions: (1) on AG -IMS IDs 
97134 and 97135, Paraguay requested India to give specific answers t o sub questions a and b as 
the previous information provided by India did not give a proper response to those two question; 
(2) concerning AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay sought information on how much support was provided 
for rice apart from the PSH programme; and (3) in connection to AG -IMS ID 97140, Paraguay asked 
India to provide statistics as required in AG -IMS ID 93271 and encouraged India to exchange views 
with the concerned Members and respect its obligation at the WTO. Brazil noted that the questions 
raised previously and the 18 new questions at this meeting in connection to G/AG/N/IND/18 one 
year after the circulation of the notification demonstrated that (1) the concerned notification does 
not contain all the details needed for evaluating India's compli ance with its commitments at the 
WTO; and (2) the responses given by India to the Committee are not satisfactory to resolve 
Members' concern. Brazil urged India to be more transparent in future meetings when responding 
to questions. The US supported previo us speakers' comments. It noted that it had repeatedly 
presented questions on state bonuses and urged India to give detailed responses. On other rice G/AG/W/218  
 
- 97 - 
 
  support measures, the US encouraged India to provide more detailed information including names 
of the sche mes, any other general information as well as the steps India would take to collect the 
required information.  
 
1.2.2.5   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/114)  
AG-IMS ID 97097: Question by New Zealand - Payments based on 85% or less of the base 
level of production  
New Zealand tha nks Norway for its notification G/AG/N/NOR/114.  
 
In Supporting Table DS:3 "Measure exempt from the reduction commitment – Direct Payments 
under Production -Limiting Programmes" – "Exempt Direct Payments" Norway has notified a "Quality 
Incentive Support Prog ramme for Beef".  
 
Could Norway please clarify the consistency of this programme with Article 6 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, specifically if there is a production -limiting feature to the programme, and how does it 
relate to the "Headage support" program me in terms of coverage.  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway thanks New Zealand for the question.  
  
Norway notified a new DS:2 notification for the "quality incentive support programme for beef" 
in 2015 (G/AG/N/NOR/80). The maximum eligible quantity is calculated on the basis of historical 
production during the three-year period preceding the adoption of this program. The programme 
was adopted by the Parliament in 2013, and accordingly the base perio d includes the years  2010 
through 2012. The historical quantities in these years were 58.8 mill kg, 60.4 mill kg and 59.0  mill kg 
respectively. Hence, the base level of production is 59.4 mill kg and the maximum eligible quantity 
of beef is therefore 50.49  mill kg according to article 6.5. (ii) in the Agreement on Agriculture.  
  
The objective of the programme is to improve the quality of Norwegian beef production. The farmers 
will only receive the payment when the quality requirements are met. In 2019, supp ort for 
45.6 mill kg was granted under the programme. Norway therefore fulfills the criterion for notifying 
this programme under the Blue Box.  
  
The headage payments are notified according to Article 6.5 (iii) in the Agreement on Agriculture. For 
bovine a nimals, excluding cows, the fixed number of heads is 648 100. The actual number receiving 
support in 2019 was 559 274, well below the maximum number established.  
 
1.2.2.6   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 97141: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia has asked several questions with respect to Panama's notified breach of its de minimis  limit 
for rice in calendar year 2019 (as detailed in G/AG/N/PAN/54). Australia thanks Panama for its 
response to question AG -IMS ID 93221, but notes Panama has n ot responded to AG -IMS ID 95094.  
 
Australia kindly requests Panama to provide a written response to AG -IMS ID 95094.  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
a. Pursuant to Article 4 of Law No. 17 of 2018, the Republic of Panama is set to begin the 
review of this Law.  
b. The Republi c of Panama established a commission to be responsible for carrying out this 
review in the first half of this year.  
c. Given that rice is the main consumer product in the country's basic food basket and in the 
light of the current production conditions, the R epublic of Panama, in the short and 
medium term, is implementing measures relating to research, technical assistance, 
technological support, timely credit and guidance for producers on new agronomic 
practices aimed at improving productivity and the efficie ncy of production costs. Panama G/AG/W/218  
 
- 98 - 
 
  hopes that these efforts will result in increased efficiency and food security in the rice 
sector.  
1.2.2.7   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/33)  
AG-IMS ID 97142: Question by Thailand - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment/Development Programmes)  
Thailand thanks Paraguay for its submission of 2019 Domestic Support Notification. Could Paraguay 
provide further information on its support package called "Support for family farming" and 
"Development of competitiveness in agriculture"?  
 
Answ er by Paraguay  
 
Support for small scale family farming  
 
In general, the support provided for small scale family farming includes, among other inputs, seeds, 
fertilizers, basic farming tools, poultry and manual milking machines. The purpose of these measures 
is to support the most vulnerable producers who are living in poverty despite participating in the 
value chain, with a view to encouraging rural integration and development.  
 
In 2019, 1,743 families received almost 300,000 kg of certified seeds fo r the production of crops for 
home consumption (such as potatoes and onions) in the departments of Paraguarí, Concepción, 
Guairá, Caazapá, Cordillera, Caaguazú, Itapuá, Canindeyú, San Pedro and Central. Similarly, money 
was transferred for the purchase of agricultural inputs, from which 1,467 families in the departments 
of Caaguazú, Cordillera, Concepción, Paraguarí, Guairá and Canindeyú benefitted.  
 
Small scale family farming uses mainly family labour for production, most of which is for the farm's 
own con sumption and provides a source of income for farms that hire no more than 20 salaried 
temporary day labourers per year during specific periods of the production process, who live on the 
farm or in nearby areas. The farms may vary in size depending on the d efinition of small-scale 
producers (a maximum of 50 hectares in the eastern region) but, generally speaking, they have an 
average of no more than 20 hectares of land, with low levels of productivity and income, regardless 
of their production sector. Small scale family farming is based on the following principles: overall 
sustainability; territoriality and the protection of common goods; solidarity economy; independent 
and differentiated organization; food, seed and technological sovereignty; subsidiarity; and 
adequate and relevant  education.  
 
Competitiveness development programme  
 
This programme is supplemented by actions coordinated with other institutions related to the 
agricultural and forestry sector, the approach of which considers the market as a factor for success 
in the pos itioning and competitive performance of the country's agricultural production.  
 
This way of working represents an opportunity for production organizations to develop and 
strengthen their organizational management skills while serving as a link with other e conomic 
sectors (universities and financial, marketing, exporting and logistics entities). The central purpose 
is to promote the competitive integration of the agricultural sector into different markets in an 
economically, socially and environmentally sust ainable and fair way, thereby making a positive 
contribution to the improvement of the conditions for the development of competitive agricultural 
products that generate greater income.  
 
There are seven competitiveness committees, headed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 
(MAG), with public private partnerships, in the aquaculture, pig, dairy, apiculture, sheep and poultry 
(laying hens and broilers) sectors.  
 
The programmes are aimed at organizations or formal individual producers, supporting them through 
a government counterpart in the use of technology, seeds, tools, machinery and infrastructure, as 
well as logistically, which contributes to the competitiveness of their products destined for the local 
market or regional market where possible, taki ng into account volume and quality standards, etc.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 99 - 
 
  In 2019, 7,871  producers in the departments of Concepción, San Pedro, Cordillera, Guaira, 
Caaguazú, Caazapá, Itapuá, Misiones, Paraguarí, Alto Paraná, Amambay and Central were provided 
with training on, i nter alia, market based production planning, market information management, 
post-harvest product management, joint marketing, the promotion of marketing centres, and legal 
requirements, regulations and documents for farmers' market producer associations. S imilarly, 
2,092  organized producers were given support to improve the marketing of their products through 
agricultural fairs. They were supported with organization, promotion, transport and the presentation 
of products for the holding of fairs. Some 380 pr oducers from various parts of the country also 
received support with the domestic transport of products so that they could be sold at local markets.  
AG-IMS ID 97072: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture  
Suppo rting Table DS:2 – Support for family farming.  
 
Could Paraguay indicate in more detail the types of measures and investments supported and how 
family farms are defined.  
 
Answer by Paraguay  
 
In general, the support provided for small scale family farming in cludes, among other inputs, seeds, 
fertilizers, basic farming tools, poultry, and manual milking machines. The purpose of these 
measures is to support the most vulnerable producers who are living in poverty despite participating 
in the value chain, with a view to encouraging rural integration and development.  
 
In 2019, 1,743 families received almost 300,000 kg of certified seeds for the production of crops for 
home consumption (such as potatoes and onions) in the departments of Paraguarí, Concepción, 
Guairá, Caazapá, Cordillera, Caaguazú, Itapuá, Canindeyú, San Pedro and Central. Similarly, money 
was transferred for the purchase of agricultural inputs, from which 1,467 families in the departments 
of Caaguazú, Cordillera, Concepción, Paraguarí, Guairá and Canindeyú benefitted.  
 
Small scale family farming uses main ly family labour for production, most of which is for the farm's 
own consumption and provides a source of income for farms that hire no more than 20 salaried 
temporary day labourers per year during specific periods of the production process, who live on th e 
farm or in nearby areas. The farms may vary in size depending on the definition of small scale 
producers (a maximum of 50 hectares in the eastern region) but, generally speaking, they have an 
average of no more than 20 hectares of land, with low levels o f productivity and income, regardless 
of their production sector. Small scale family farming is based on the following principles: overall 
sustainability; territoriality and the protection of common goods; solidarity economy; independent 
and differentiated  organization; food, seed and technological sovereignty; subsidiarity; and 
adequate and relevant education.  
AG-IMS ID 97071: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producers  
Supporting Table DS:2 – Development  of competitiveness in agriculture  
 
What type of input subsidies are granted and what are the eligibility criteria for such investments?  
 
Answer by Paraguay  
 
This programme is supplemented by actions coordinated with other institutions related to the 
agricultural and forestry sector, the approach of which considers the market as a factor for success 
in the positioning and competitive performance of the country's agricultural production.  
This way of working represents an opportunity for production organizati ons to develop and 
strengthen their organizational management skills while serving as a link with other economic 
sectors (universities and financial, marketing, exporting and logistics entities). The central purpose 
is to promote the competitive integratio n of the agricultural sector into different markets in an 
economically, socially and environmentally sustainable and fair way, thereby making a positive 
contribution to the improvement of the conditions for the development of competitive agricultural 
produ cts that generate greater income.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 100 - 
 
  There are seven competitiveness committees, headed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock 
(MAG), with public private partnerships, in the aquaculture, pig, dairy, apiculture, sheep and poultry 
(laying hens and broil ers) sectors.  
 
The programmes are aimed at organizations or formal individual producers, supporting them through 
a government counterpart in the use of technology, seeds, tools, machinery and infrastructure, as 
well as logistically, which contributes to th e competitiveness of their products destined for the local 
market or regional market where possible, taking into account volume and quality standards, etc.  
In 2019, 7,871 producers in the departments of Concepción, San Pedro, Cordillera, Guaira, 
Caaguazú, Caazapá, Itapuá, Misiones, Paraguarí, Alto Paraná, Amambay and Central were provided 
with training on, inter alia, market -based production planning, market information management, 
post-harvest product management, joint marketing, the promotion of marketing  centres, and legal 
requirements, regulations and documents for farmers' market producer associations. Similarly, 
2,092  organized producers were given support to improve the marketing of their products through 
agricultural fairs. They were supported with o rganization, promotion, transport and the presentation 
of products for the holding of fairs. Some 380 producers from various parts of the country also 
received support with the domestic transport of products so that they could be sold at local markets.  
 
1.2.2.8   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/75)  
AG-IMS ID 97061: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Support Table DS:5  
 
The United States notes that the Philippines notified market price support for rice and corn in 
calendar year 2019, after last notif ying them in calendar year 2015.  
 
a. Please confirm if the Philippines announced a minimum purchase price for the procurement 
of rice in 2016, 2017, or 2018. If so , what were the announced prices?  
b. Please confirm if the Philippines announced a minimum purchase price for the procurement 
of corn in 2016, 2017, and 2018. If so , what were the announced prices?  
Answer by Philippines  
 
AG-IMS ID 97062: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In AG -IMS ID 87035, the Philippines stated that t here are predetermined annual limitations in 
legislation for how much rice and corn to have on hand.  
 
a. Please provide those volumes for calendar year 2019 and other years for which such 
legislation was in place since 2015.b.  
Please provide a copy or URL to  any relevant legislation that sets those limits.  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
1.2.2.9   Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/6 , G/AG/N/TON/7, G/AG/N/TON/8, G/AG/N/TON/ 9) 
AG-IMS ID 97143: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In 2016, Tonga's Supporting Table DS:1  increased 155%, with increases mainly to General Services 
programmes classified under 2(a) Research, 2(b) Pest and Disease Control, and 2(d) Extension and 
Advisory Services.  
 
Could Tonga elaborate on any change in policies that supported this significant  increase?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 101 - 
 
  Answer by Tonga  
 
The Government of Tonga made significant changes in terms of its government priorities and 
approved to increase the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests (MAFF) budget by TOP 2.5 million 
with the ambition to increase animal production for food security and import substitution purposes 
by targeting the following areas of (a) Research, (b) Pest and Disease Control and c) Extension and 
Advisory Services.  
 
During the FY  2016/17 the MAFF underwent restructuring to reflect the priorities of the Ministry 
whereby three divisions (i)Research, ii) Livestock and iii) Extension Divisions were merged into one 
Division named the Research and Rural Development Division. Most of this increased budget (extra 
TOP 2.5 million) we nt to this new program.  
 
Our Livestock production increased significantly with the new breeds of cattle, sheep pigs, goats, 
ducks and chickens obtained through support and assistance from the Government of Australia, Fiji, 
New Zealand, People's Republic of  China and Vanuatu and mostly through Artificial Insemination  (AI) 
and this program is still continuing on. You may note that this was specifically for livestock but 
research in terms of crops and other agricultural related also continued on an ongoing bas is. 
 
1.2.2.10   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  
AG-IMS ID 97077: Question by European Union - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5 - Inflation and exchange rate  
 
As in previous years notifications, Tunisia indicates that it has used the reference prices of the 
reference period and adjusted them to take account of inflation and exchange rate movements.  
 
Could Tunisia indicate the exchange rate and inflation rate for 2018 and 2019 used in these 
calculations as well as the cumulative rates used in this notification . 
 
Answer by Tunisia  
 
AG-IMS ID 97145: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
For the notification concerning domestic support for the calendar year 2019, Canada notes that 
Tunisia has unilaterally adjusted its fixed external reference price to take into account inflation and 
changes in its exchange rate. Canada notes that under Article 18:4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
it is the responsibility of the Committee on Agriculture, not Tunisia, to give consideration to excessive 
rates of inflation . In response to question AG -IMS ID 82022, Tunisia has provided its current total 
aggregate measurement of support without any adjustments to its fixed external reference prices 
for the notifications concerning domestic support from 2002 to 2015.  
 
Could Tu nisia indicate what its current total AMS would have been for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 
if no adjustments had been made to its external reference prices?  
 
Answer by Tunisia  
 
1.2.2.11   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/48)  
AG-IMS ID 97063: Question by United States o f America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 93148, the United States requests more information on the two 
hazelnut ‑related programs that were first notified in G/AG/N/TUR/36 under paragraphs 6 ("Payments 
are based on ar ea, registry to the Farmers Registry System and Hazelnut Registry System …") and 
11 ("Hazelnut alternative product payment: payments are based on area aiming to encourage 
cultivation of alternative products and to give up producing surplus hazelnut."), resp ectively, of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:  
 
a. Regarding the structural adjustment measure for hazelnuts notified under paragraph 11 
of Annex 2:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 102 - 
 
  i. What is the objectively demonstrated structural disadvantage of the program per 
paragraph 11(a)?  
ii. What i s the clearly defined government program for the re -privatization of agricultural 
land per paragraph 11(a)? Please provide any URLs or documentation on the program.  
iii. Noting the criteria set out in paragraphs 11(b -c), please provide details on how 
area-based  payments are determined.  
iv. Please confirm whether the hazelnut measure was concluded in CY 2015.  
b. Regarding the decoupled income support for hazelnuts notified under paragraph  6 of 
Annex 2:  
i. What was the defined and fixed base period used for this measure per paragraph 6(a)?  
ii. Please provide details on how area -based payments are determined per paragraph  6 
(b-d). Turkey first notified both hazelnut programmes in G/AG/N/TUR/36. To date, 
there has been no DS:2 submitted for these programmes to help the Membership 
understand the nature and scope of these Green Box programs.  
c. When does Turkey plan to submit a DS:2 for these programs and any other relevant new 
Green Box measures notified in G/AG/N/TUR/36 through G/AG/N/TUR/48?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
These two sup ports are complementary to each other and support payments per decare are made 
to those who produce hazelnuts in licensed areas and compensatory payments are made to those 
who dismantle their gardens to prevent hazelnut production in unlicensed areas.  
 
In 2009, Turkey as the world's largest producer of hazelnuts, which is a strategic product, created 
a "Hazelnut Strategy" to increase productivity. (The legal base of the strategy can be found at 
https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/File/GeneratePdf?mevzuatNo=13368&mevzuatTur=Teblig&mevzuatT
ertip=5  and) Through this strategy, hazelnut cultivation areas have been redefined. Hazelnut 
production has spread rapidly and unplanned in the past years, so improper land use has emerged 
by creating hazelnut gardens in fertile lands and high forest areas. Hazelnut producers, which are 
generally small family businesses, were adversely affected by this situation and the yield was very 
low in hazelnut orchards with a high average age.  
 
This strategy, emerged with the necessity of re -planning of production areas, aims to prevent 
improper land use as well. For instance, in areas where forests are degraded and hazelnut gardens 
are 750 meters above sea level, climate conditions get harder due to the increase in altitude and 
moving away from the seashore, thus adversely affecting hazelnut production.  
 
Regulations for production of hazelnuts in the most suitable areas are based on the limitation of 
production areas, quality of hazelnut and the land use capability class.  
 
Via these regulations, the areas which:  
 
• has maximum 750 meters altitude,  
• are outside of 1st and 2nd class agricultural lands,  
• are 3rd class agricultural lands with a s lope of more than 6%.  
 
are allowed to produce hazelnuts.  
 
The owners of areas outside of this regulation were paid two net compensation of the income they 
would earn in a year if they dismantle the hazelnut garden during production years of 2009 -2014.  
 
The purpose of decoupled income support is to ensure registration and license ownership in hazelnut 
production with a view to strengthen the area planning mentioned above. It is aimed that producers 
who register to the Farmer Registration System and the Hazel nut Registration System continue to G/AG/W/218  
 
- 103 - 
 
  produce hazelnuts in licensed areas. The reason why such support was not notified before is that 
this support started to be provided in 2010 with the announcement of the Hazelnut Strategy in 2009.  
 
1.2.2.12   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/48, G/AG/N/TUR/49)  
AG-IMS ID 97146: Question by Brazil - Classification of measures  
Regarding Turkey's DS:1 notifications for calendar years 2014 (G/AG/N/TUR/48), 2015 
(G/AG/N/TUR/49) and 2016 (G/AG/N/TUR/50), Brazil has noticed that "Support g iven to increase 
usage of hybrid seed and certified seed and seedling" was classified as "Investment subsidies" in 
Supporting Table DS:2.  
 
Could Turkey explain why it has chosen to notify it as "Investment subsidies" and not as "Input 
subsidies"?  
 
Answer b y Turkey  
 
The support given to the use of hybrid seeds, certified seeds, and seedlings is area -based and cannot 
be qualified as "input support" because it is given after the farmer has harvested the product. It is 
classified as "investment support" because  the purpose of providing this support is to increase 
quality, ensure sustainability, increase registration and develop alternative agricultural techniques 
that are environmentally sensitive.  
 
1.2.2.13   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/14 , G/AG/N/VNM/15, G/AG/N/VNM/16, 
G/AG/N/V NM/17) 
AG-IMS ID 97147: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates the transparency and the information Viet Nam provided in its domestic support 
notifications. As stated in the Secretariat Report of Viet Nam's Trade  Policy Review, in 2015, Viet 
Nam introduced a value -added tax (VAT) exemption for fertilizer to encourage and reduce 
agricultural production costs.  
 
Could Viet Nam elaborate on whether this VAT exemption for fertilizers is something it notifies in its 
domestic support notifications?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam did not collect statistics data on this content in our submitted notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 97149: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, under  "Public stockholding program for food security purpose ", Viet  Nam 
indicates that food purchases by the government are based on market rules.  
 
Could Viet Nam explain what it means by "market rules"? Is this support related to market price 
support reported in Supporting Table DS:5?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
"Market rules" means that enterprises have to purchase rice at market prices and are responsible 
for their business performance. The government only provided interest rates support for enterprises 
to borrow capital from commercial banks to purchase rice.  
AG-IMS ID 97150: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters  
For the 2014 to 2017 period, Viet Nam reported one or more new programmes classified under 
Annex  2 paragraph 8 of the AoA (Payments for relief from natural dis asters).  
 
a. Could Viet Nam provide further programme details on its new programs, including who is 
eligible, how the programmes work?  
b. Could Viet Nam explain how each programme notified under Annex 2 paragraph 8 meets 
all the criteria related to this type of programme. Notably, please explain how each G/AG/W/218  
 
- 104 - 
 
  programme is meeting the trigger criteria (30% loss of income) and the base period 
criteria ( three  or five years) of paragraph 8(a).  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
a. During the period 2011 -2013, the government carried out the  pilot agricultural insurance. 
However, after 2013, some localities implemented agricultural restructure programs, 
including policy supporting for production of several farmers, so we still have statistics on 
this program. Since 2018, the government has is sued a new policy on supporting for 
agricultural insurance; and Viet Nam will update this policy in the notifications of the next 
period.  
b. The government only support partially for producers when they encounter natural 
disasters, epidemics and depending on  each specific case.  
AG-IMS ID 97148: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada notes that Viet Nam has unilaterally updated its fixed external reference price for rice for a 
more recent base period for notification year 2014 and 2015. The Agreement  on Agriculture does 
not allow for such adjustments, except in specific circumstances which Viet Nam has not met.  
  
a. Could Viet Nam please justify why it updated the base period of its external reference 
price?  
b. Could Viet Nam provide what would have been it s market price support for rice under 
Supporting Table DS:5, AMS for rice under Supporting Table DS:4 and current total AMS, 
if the external reference price had not been updated for 2014 and 2015?  
c. Could Viet Nam explain how the eligible production of 1,000 ,000 tonnes is set and explain 
why it did not use total rice production?  
d. Please clarify if this support has been eliminated as of 2016?  
e. Could Viet Nam specify if market price support reported for rice is related to the acquisition 
of food stock under a Pu blic stockholding program for food security purposes as notified 
in Supporting Table DS:1?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
a. We do not use external reference price because Supporting Table DS:5 only shows the 
actual support (i.e. VND 143.61 and 149.85 billion respectiv ely in 2014 and 2015), which 
is the interest rate support for businesses to purchase 1 million tonnes of rice for 
temporary storage with the market price at the time of purchasing. The external reference 
price listed in Supporting Table DS:5 is for referen ce only and not the basis for calculating 
the support value (i.e. VND 143.61 and 149.85 billion respectively in 2014 and 2015).  
b. Viet Nam does not implement any policy of market price support. We only supported the 
purchase of rice for temporary storage in the form of interest rates support for businesses 
to purchase rice in a maximum period of six months for temporary storage in some 
provinces in the 2014 and 2015 winter -spring crop. Accordingly, the data related to rice 
in Supporting Table DS:4 and Support ing Table DS:5 respectively in 2014 and 2015 is the 
value of interest rate support for enterprises to purchase rice for temporary storage. 
Enterprises were responsible for purchasing rice at the market price at that time.  
c. In 2014 -2015, we determined 1,000, 000 tonnes based on the calculation of the demand 
for the temporary storage of rice of some provinces in that winter -spring crop, not based 
on the total rice production output.  
d. This policy has not been implemented since 2016.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 105 - 
 
  e. The rice -related data in Supporting Table DS:5 is interest rate support enterprises to 
purchase 1 million tonnes of rice at market prices for a maximum period of six months for 
temporary storage; and the government is not responsible for the business effic iency of 
enterprises. Due to a translation error, we would like to correct the content in the "Measure 
Types" columm of the Supporting Table DS:5 is "Interest rate support to purchase rice for 
temporary storage for business purpose" instead of "National te mporary storage program 
for rice – Interest rates support".  
Meanwhile, purchasing rice to store temporarily in Supporting Table DS:1 is the government's annual 
program of purchasing food to add to the national stockpile for food security and relief purpose s if 
natural disasters, epidemics and hunger relief happen.  
AG-IMS ID 97068: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Viet Nam notified implementation of market price support for rice in calendar years 2014 and 2015 
(G/AG/N/VNM/14 and G/ AG/N/VNM/15). The measure is described as "National temporary storage 
program for rice - Interest rates support". The United States also notes that the Vietnam Food 
Association (VFA), a state -owned enterprise, established a guaranteed purchase price of VND  3,500 
per kilogram in MY 2008/2009, VND 4,000 in MY 2009/2010, and VND 5,000 per kilogram in 
MY 2010/2011, but Viet Nam did not appear to report these programmes for those years to the 
Committee. Given this:  
 
a. Please confirm the guaranteed purchase prices  announced in 2008/09 through 2010/11.  
b. Why were these not notified by Viet Nam in the relevant Table DS:1 notifications?  
c. Please confirm whether any guaranteed purchase prices (or other applied administered 
prices) were announced for years prior to 2014 or after 2015.  
d. Please provide a copy of or URL for any legislation or other government document that 
implemented the "National temporary storage program for rice – Interest rates."  
e. Please specify when the "National temporary storage programme for rice – Interest rates" 
was first implemented and whether it has since been repealed.  
f. If Viet Nam did have such legislation for the "National temporary storage programme for 
rice – Interest Rates" or any other measure that announced a government purchase price 
for rice  in 2008 to 2011, why were these measures not notified?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
a. VFA is not a state -owned enterprise. VFA is an association representing for rice businesses 
in Viet Nam with the task of supporting and connecting domestic businesses with 
importer s, as well as supporting trade promotion activities. The Vietnamese Government 
does not regulate the rice purchase price.  
b. Due to a translation error, we would like to correct the content in the "Measure Types" 
column  of the Supporting Table DS:5 is "Intere st rate support to purchase rice for 
temporary storage for business purpose" instead of "National temporary storage program 
for rice – Interest rates support". The interest rate support for enterprises to purchase 1 
million tonnes of rice for temporary sto rage in winter -spring crops in 2014 and 2015 was 
to help enterprises to solve their capital difficulties. The government provided interest 
rates support when enterprises borrowed money from banks to purchase rice. They had 
to buy rice at market prices and took responsibility for their own business performance.  
Meanwhile, Supporting Table DS:1 is the annual temporary purchase of national reserves for the 
purposes of food security, hunger relief, and epidemics control, etc.  
 
c. The interest rates support progra m for businesses to purchase rice for temporarily storage 
in 2014 -2015 does not regulate the purchase price. Enterprises had to purchase according 
to the market rules (meaning that buying at the market price at that time).  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 106 - 
 
  d. Legal documents (only Vietnamese version available) relating to the interest rate support 
for businesses to buy rice for temporary storage are as follows:  
- Decision 373a/QD -TTG of the Government on purchasing paddy and rice of 2013 -2014's 
winter -spring crop for temporary storage : QD 373a 2014 tam tru gao.pdf . 
- Decision 241/QD -TTG of the Government on purchasing paddy and rice of 2014 -2015's 
winter -spring crop for temporary storage : QD 241 2015 tam tru gao.pdf . 
 
e. Due to a translation error, we would like to correct that the content in the "Me asure Types" 
column in Supporting Table DS:5 is "Interest rate support to purchase rice for temporary 
storage for business purpose", not "National temporary storage program for rice – Interest 
rates support". This program was implemented in 2014 and 2015.  
f. As explained above, due to a translation error, we would like to correct that the content 
in the "Measure Types" column in Supporting Table DS:5 is "Interest rate support to 
purchase rice for temporary storage for business purpose", not "National temporary  
storage program for rice – Interest rates support". This program was implemented in 2014 
and 2015.  
Meanwhile, the national temporary rice storage program announced in Supporting 
Table  DS:1 is for emergency relief (such as natural disasters, epidemics). This content 
was included in the Notification for the period 2009 -2013.  
AG-IMS ID 97070: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In Viet Nam's AGST Supporting Tables (WT/ACC/SPEC/VNM/3/Rev.7), the average External 
Reference Price (ERP) for rice is shown as VND 3,145,660/tonne. However, in Viet Nam's Table 
DS:1 notification, the external reference price for rice is listed as VND 9,553,540/tonne for 2014, 
and 9,275,390/tonne for 2015. Please explain why Viet Nam has not used it s External Reference 
Price (ERP) for rice established in its AGST.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
We do not use external reference price because Supporting Table DS:5 only shows the actual support 
(i.e. VND 143.61 and 149.85 billion respectively in 2014 and 2015), w hich is the interest rate support 
for businesses to purchase 1 million tonnes of rice for temporary storage with the market price at 
the time of purchasing. The external reference price listed in Supporting Table DS:5 is for reference 
only and not the basi s for calculating the support value (i.e. VND 143.61 and 149.85 billion 
respectively in 2014 and 2015).  
AG-IMS ID 97069: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Viet Nam lists 1,000,000 tonnes of eligible rice prod uction under the programme in both 2014 
and 2015. Please explain how the value notified for eligible production was determined. In particular, 
please explain if it was based on total production.  
 
a. If the value represents a value other than total production,  please provide any regulations, 
laws, or other implementing legislation that shows that a limit is placed on the quantity of 
production of rice that can receive the announced applied administered price.  
b. Also, please provide any regulations, laws, or othe r implementing legislation relevant to 
the price support programme, including how procurement is determined and any other 
relevant information on the scope or operation of the programme.  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
a. In 2014 -2015, we determined 1,000,000 tonnes based on the calculation of the demand 
for temporary storage of rice of some provinces in that winter -spring crop, not based on 
the total rice production output.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 107 - 
 
  Relevant legal documents (only Vietnamese version available) are as follows:  
- Decision 373a/QD -TTG of the Government on purchasing paddy and rice of 
2013-2014's winter -spring crop for temporary storage : QD 373a 2014 tam tru 
gao.pdf . 
- Decision 241/QD -TTG of the Government on purchasing paddy and rice of 2014 -2015's 
winter -spring crop for tempo rary storage : QD 241 2015 tam tru gao.pdf . 
 
b. Viet Nam does not implement any price support program.  
AG-IMS ID 97151: Question by Thailand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Thailand thanks Viet Nam for its submission of Domestic Support Notification year 2014 to 2017 
(G/AG/VNM/14 - G/AG/VNM/17). In this regard , could Viet Nam please provide further and in -depth 
details on "Variety Support Program" such as criteria for farmers to participate the programme and 
calculation of the payments fo r participated farmers?  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam does not have a separate variety support program for the agricultural sector. Variety 
support policies are embedded in general agricultural support programs implemented by central and 
regional managemen t agencies.  
  
There are two forms of support for plant and animal varieties:  
- Variety support for poor households and households affected by natural disaster and 
epidemics to restore production, as we ll as eliminate hunger and reduce poverty.  
- Support for pl ant and animal varieties under the agricultural restructuring program (this 
policy is implemented by provinces/cities; and there are different levels of support for each 
specific program depending on the budget conditions of each province).  
AG-IMS ID 97073 : Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:7, Viet Nam notifies "variety support" for rice, corn, vegetables, coffee, 
pepper, cashew nuts, tea, buffalo, cow, pig, and poultry. This notified support appear s to be an 
aggregation of various measures.  
 
a. For each commodity, please identify the individual measures (e.g. schemes, programs, 
subsidies) that are included in these aggregated categories.  
b. For each measure (and commodity) identified in part a) please pr ovide a description of 
the measure and the spending level.  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam does not have a separate variety support program for the agricultural sector. Variety 
support policies are embedded in general agricultural support programs implemented  by central and 
regional management agencies.  
  
There are two forms of support for plant and animal varieties:  
- Variety support for poor households and households affected by natural disaster and 
epidemics to restore production, as we ll as eliminate hunger and reduce poverty.  
- Support for plant and animal varieties under the agricultural restructuring program (this 
policy is implemented by provinces/cities; and there are different levels of support for each 
specific program depending on the b udget conditions of each province).  
AG-IMS ID 97082: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producers  
Viet Nam indicates it spends VND 5.3 trillion on input subsidies. Could Viet Nam explain in more 
detail how  much is provided for fuel subsidies, fertiliser, seeds and other inputs.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 108 - 
 
  Answer by Viet Nam  
 
These support measures are for low -income households, poor households, near -poor households, 
and areas with special difficulties to develop agricultural producti on. Support is provided in the forms 
of money or in -kind. Accordingly, people can choose the form of support and the list of in -kind 
support including plant varieties, livestock breeds, veterinary drugs, and iodized salt. This support 
is provided by local government agencies. Due to limited resources and statistical capacity, Viet Nam 
does not have detailed statistics for each support category.  
 
1.2.3   New or modified Domestic Support measures ( Table DS:2)  
1.2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  
AG-IMS ID 97088: Question by In dia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per the information in Australia's DS:2 notification, G/AG/N/AUS/130, regarding new or modified 
domestic support measures exempt from reduction:  
 
a. period of application of measures like Maintain Tasmania's  Fruit Fly Pest Free Area Status; 
Sustainable Irrigation Futures Initiative; Connections Project (previously known as the 
Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP)) has expired. Have these measures 
been terminated or provided further extension?  Please provide details.  
b. Australia is requested to elucidate if the following measures - Bacchus Marsh Irrigation 
District (BMID) Modernisation Project and Werribee Irrigation District (WID) Modernisation 
Project have been extended as well and till when?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question.  
 
With respect to the question:  
 
a. Australia kindly refers India to its response to India's question 95018. In addition, we can 
confirm that the Connections Project (previously known as the Northern Victorian 
Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP)) has been completed and expenditure ceased as 
indicated in G/AG/N/AUS/130.  
b. The work on the Werribee Irrigation District Modernisation Project commenced in 2016 
and reached practical completion in Decemb er 2019. More information can be found at 
http://www.srw.com.au/projects/bmid -modernisation/ . As indicated in our DS:2 
notification, this measure is exempt from reduction commitments consis tent with Annex  2, 
paragraph 2(g) regarding infrastructural services.  
1.2.3.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/66)  
AG-IMS ID 97137: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. The document, Next Generation Europe, is presented in the notification as  an instrument 
adopted in the wake of the crisis caused by the COVID ‑19 pandemic and proposes 
EUR 8.1 billion for the agricultural and forestry sectors for the next few years. Could the 
EU explain:  
i. The criteria used to determine that EUR 8.1 billion would be needed for the 
post‑pandemic recovery of those sectors.  
ii. How these subsidies are temporary, proportionate and targeted?  
b. With regard to the measures foreseen under the concept of animal welfare:  
i. Which specific practices benefit under this concept?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 109 - 
 
  ii. On what basis can this support be notified as an "environmental programme" under 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Point 3.2 of the notification refers to programmes to be funded under the rural development pillar, 
Paraguay reiterates  its concern about potentially unlimited funding under paragraph 12 of Annex  2 
to the Agreement on Agriculture for policies related to organic farming for the various reasons set 
out in questions AG ‑IMS IDs 95099 and 93303.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. an d b. The amount fixed for agriculture was part of the overall compromise at the July  2020 
European Council meeting. It was subsequently included in the regulation of the European Parliament 
and the Council on CAP transitional rules for 2021 -2022 (Regulatio n (EU) 2020/2220).  
 
These amounts are only available in 2021 and 2022. Member States will have to implement these 
measures in their implementation of their pandemic recovery strategy. The amounts can only be 
used for the measures specifically referred to in Article 58a of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, which 
includes amongst others broadband investments, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, 
resource efficiency including precision and smart farming.  
 
c. and d. See reply to question AG -IMS ID 97152 .  
AG-IMS ID 97074: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States would like to thank the European Union for its Table DS:2 notification and the 
level of transparency provided. The United States agrees with the importance of promoting resilience 
against the impacts of climate change in agriculture. With that in mind, the United States would like 
to ask for clarification from the EU on the following points:  
 
Regarding the Transitional Regulation 2021 and 2022, the EU states in Section 1.2 of the notification 
that this regulation mostly extends the current CAP (as described in the EU DS:2 notification 
G/AG/N/EU/35) to apply during the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. Under Section 3.1, the EU states 
that EU me mber States still have until 19 February 2021 to notify the EU Commission on decisions 
on implementing certain options within the support measures (e.g. transferring amounts and 
implementation options) and that an addendum will be submitted once these deci sions have been 
taken. Further, it is noted that it is not possible to evaluate the EU's assertion that the specific aid 
schemes will therefore continue to be notified unchanged as indicated in G/AG/N/EU/35 given this 
missing information. The United States  looks forward to reviewing the revised, complete Table DS:2 
notification.  
 
Please provide more information on the ways in which the Transitional Regulation deviates from the 
current CAP.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The transitional Regulation is foremost a prolongation of the current CAP to cover the period until 
the reformed CAP enters into force, which is expected to take place on 1 January 2023.  
 
The current CAP was adopted for the period 2014 -2020. DS:2 notifica tion G/AG/N/EU/35 explicitly 
mentioned that Rural Development programmes would end on 31 December 2020. In the interests 
of transparency, the EU has submitted an additional DS:2 notification to inform WTO Members that 
the current legislation has been prolo nged for two years by the Transitional Regulation. This 
prolongation is a change to existing policy as previously notified to WTO Members.  
 
The most significant changes will take place for direct payments and on possibilities for EU member 
States to trans fers amounts between the pillars. The choices made by member States are currently 
being examined by the Commission services, and should this lead to a need for further updates to 
the DS:2 notification the EU will submit one in due course.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 110 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97075: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Table DS:2 notification references the "M21" measure introduced in Regulation (EU) 2020/872 
as a response to the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
a. Please confirm if this is part of th e Next Generation Europe (NGEU) measure or the 
Transitional Regulation.  
b. The Table DS:2 notification states that the M21 measure has not yet been implemented; 
given the lack of information about the actual support measures under the program, what 
was the ra tionale of the EU for submitting a DS:2 notification at this time?  
Answer by European Union  
 
M21 is not part of Next Generation Europe (NGEU). The legal base is different and M21 is part of the 
EU response to COVID -19. 
 
The EU is still examining the propos ed implementation by EU member States of the relevant 
measures, and should any of these be Green or Blue Box a DS:2 notification will be submitted in 
due course.  
AG-IMS ID 97076: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
According to the notification, Next Generation Europe (NGEU), the EU Recovery Instrument adopted 
in response to the COVID -19 crisis, will provide EUR 750 billion over the 2021 to 2027 period, of 
which EUR 8.1 billion will be for agricultural and fore stry sectors as well as rural areas.  
 
The United States understands from the notification that the extra amount of EUR 8.1 billion is not 
yet available and the exact date for this measure's entry into force is unknown pending ratification 
by all EU member State parliaments.  
 
a. Given that the resources for rural development under the "EURI Regulation" will be 
available only for the 2021 and 2022 programming years, does the EU expect the measure 
to enter into force in the near future?  
b. What was the rationale for notifying the measure prior to having information on the exact 
provisions and timing of implementation?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. As soon as the own resources decision has been ratified by all member States, then 
spending under these measures  may begin. Member States are already planning the 
practical implementation to ensure rapid progress.  
b. The EUR 8.1 billion from Next Generation EU will be spent on existing measures available 
to EU members States under the same conditions as described in G /AG/N/EU/35. The 
DS:2 notification under examination today concerns therefore only the changes to what 
was notified in G/AG/N/EU/35. EU member States are already planning the 
implementation of these changes, whilst waiting for the own resources decision to  be 
ratified.  
Article 11 of the Transitional Regulation provides for entry into force on 29 December 2020. 
Therefore, the EU has submitted this notification, which according to G/AG/2 shall be no later than 
30 days of adoption.  
 
"From G/AG/2  - Notificati on frequency and format: a notification as attached should be submitted 
for each new or modified measure as far as practicable before such measures are adopted and in 
any event within 30  days of adoption."  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 111 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97078: Question by United States of Amer ica - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The EU states that the measures financed under the EURI Regulation in the EU DS:1 notification will 
follow that of the equivalent instruments under the current Rural Development programmes and will 
all be no tified as Green Box measures. However, this notification lacks the level of detailed 
information required to demonstrate that a measure meets the criteria for exemption.  
 
Please confirm a revised DS:2 from the EU will contain the information necessary to d etermine if 
this measure meets the criteria for exemption.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
No, the EU does not intend to submit a new DS:2, as the measures have already been notified under 
G/AG/N/EU/35. The EURI Regulation only increases the amount available fo r the current measures. 
The Transitional Regulation prolongs Rural Development programmes to cover 2021 and 2022. The 
EU therefore sees no need to make a further update to the DS:2 notification. However, The EU 
considered it important for transparency purp oses to indicate the increase in resources allocated 
under the EURI Regulation.  
 
Notification G/AG/N/EU /35 was examined in particular during the 83rd regular CoA on 27 -
28 March  2017. During this meeting the EU answered questions from the US, i.e. AG -IMS I Ds 83097 
and 83098. Since notification G/AG/N/EU /35 has already been examined in detail the EU did not see 
any need to repeat its contents in notification G/AG/N/EU/66, but concentrated on the changes 
agreed compared to the existing legislation.  
AG-IMS ID  97152: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
Canada notes that under Rural Development, the EU claims payments related to animal welfare 
under paragraph 12, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Could the EU elab orate on how such 
payments would meet the criteria as described in the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU already include animal welfare in its notification G/AG/N/EU /35.  
 
Article 12 of Annex 2 reads as follow:  
 
"Eligibility for such payments shall be determined as part of a clearly -defined government 
environmental or conservation programme and be dependent on the fulfilment of specific conditions 
under the government programme, including conditions related to pro duction methods or inputs".  
 
Measures related to animal welfare should be seen as part of conservation programmes and related 
to production method in this context. In the view of the EU the animal welfare support is fully part 
of "conservation and the cond itions related to production methods". This relates to the wellbeing of 
animals during their growing/production cycles. Respect of improved animal welfare requirements 
may lead to reduced production intensity and so increased production costs per unit prod uced.  
 
Support for animal welfare is only granted for measures that go beyond current legal minimum 
requirements. In the EU there is growing concern on animal welfare and demand for animal products 
produced with standards above the current legal baseline. To assist farmers in this process towards 
further market orientation and being able to supply the quantities for such products, member State 
Rural Development programmes may support farmers implementing better standards in their 
production systems. The sup port is based on costs incurred or income foregone. These better animal 
welfare standards include increased space per animal, special needs for adaptation to stables and 
production systems. A significant part of the support is spent on investments aids.  
 
1.2.3.3   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/255)  
AG-IMS ID 97153: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Brazil appreciates Japan's answer to question AG-IMS ID 95004 and would like to pose some 
follow -up questions regarding DS:2 notification G/AG/N/JPN/255 . G/AG/W/218  
 
- 112 - 
 
   
a. Support based on variable input use (together with support based on output) is recognized 
as the most distortive type of domestic measures (see OECD's Agricultural Policy 
Monitoring and Evaluation 2020). In addition, recent studies show the negative 
environmental impacts of some of the most coupled forms of support policies (market 
price support and payments based on input use), indicating a strong relationship between 
increases in these particular support policies and higher GHG emissions and nitrogen 
pollution (see OECD's Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Agricultural Policies).  
Since the provision of seeds is tantamount to a support based on variable input use, how does the 
"Program for Structural Transition of Field Crops" meet the fundamental re quirement of not having, 
or having at most minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production, as required by 
Annex  2 (1) of the AoA?  
 
b. Could Japan share the technical analysis that supports the claim that "the pest -resistant 
varieties tend to be hi gher in price and to bring inferior yields compared to the conventional 
varieties"?  
c. Have farmers that applied crop rotation before the introduction of such program been 
previously supported by a different domestic support programme?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. In recent years, potatoes in Japan have been heavily influenced due to the damage caused 
by pests such as yellow potato cyst nematode. This program is expected to have the effect 
of reducing the amount of pesticide use and lessening the burden on the environmen t by 
promoting the introduction of the pest -resistant varieties. The payments are provided for 
the additional costs associated with the introduction of pest -resistant varieties, and do not 
promote production of potato by lowering input costs. Therefore, it  does not have 
trade-distorting effects or effects on production.  
b. Pest-resistant varieties tend to be newer and therefore the price of seed is higher than 
conventional varieties until they are widely adopted, and the former is about 6% more 
expensive than the latter. On the other hand, in regard of yield, according to the potato 
farmers' production results, the average yield of conventional varieties is 3,766 kg/10a, 
and the average yield of pest resistant varieties is 3,297 kg/10a. The yield of pest -resist ant 
varieties is inferior to that of conventional varieties by about 500 kg/10a.  
c. This program is a new measure which has its specific conditions related to production 
methods or inputs following the requirement of Annex 2 (12) of the AoA, in order to 
impro ve the soil environment, and farmers have not received such supports before.  
1.2.4   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
1.2.4.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 97079: Question by United States of America - State trading enterprises  
COFCO is China's largest agricultural state -owned enterprise and the largest food -processing 
company, with products covering all the main categories of daily consumption. The United States is 
concerned that COFCO, due to its significant monopoly power and integrated agricultural supply 
chain, may be increasing its market share in some agricultural product exports vis -à-vis private 
traders.  
 
a. Please provide a comprehensive list of agricultural and food products that have been 
exported by COFCO.  
b. If COFCO expo rts the following agricultural products: eggs, honey, apples, grapefruit, 
pears, frozen vegetables, or onions:  
i. Please provide, for each product, the total quantity and value of exports by COFCO 
and China as a whole for calendar years 2017, 2018 and 2019.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 113 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. According to information disclosed by the company, COFCO exports rice, corn, alcohol and 
tea. 
b. COFCO did not export the above -mentioned products in 2017, 2018 and 2019.  
1.2.4.2   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/61 , G/AG/N/TUN/62, G/AG/N/TUN/63, 
G/AG/N/TUN/ 64) 
AG-IMS ID 97084: Question by European Union - Special and differential treatment 
(Article 9.4)  
The EU would thank Tunisia for making such a export subsidy notification for its use of Article  9:4 
as provided for in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. This is an example to be followed by other 
Members using such support.  
 
a. Could Tunisia indicate the quantities of each product that benefited from these subsidies.  
b. Could Tunisia indicate what part of the total expenditure was related to Article 9(1)(d) and 
9(1)(e) res pectively.  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
1.2.4.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/61, G/AG/N/TUN/63)  
AG-IMS ID 97144: Question by Canada - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Canada notes that Tunisia notified export subsidies under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agricultur e 
for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.  
 
a. The outlay for the group of products described as "Vegetables, fruit, plants and 
preparations thereof" has increased year -on-year. An outlay increase of 189% was 
recorded between 2017 and 2018. Could Tunisia plea se explain how the subsidies granted 
for this group of products have been used?  
b. Could Tunisia please provide more information on the specific products included in the 
category "Products of the milling industry and preparations thereof"?  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
1.2.5   Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
1.2.5.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/30, G/AG/N/KGZ/30/ADD.1)  
AG-IMS ID 97080: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks the Kyrgyz Republic for its notification of G/AG/N/ KGZ/30 
and G/AG/N/KGZ/30/Add.1, notifying the temporary export restrictions on certain agricultural 
commodities. As notified in addendum 1, the export restrictions were lifted on 30  December  2020 
and reimposed on 8 January 2021.  
 
a. Are the reimposed export r estrictions valid for six months from 8 January 2021 or from 
the initial date of 19 November 2020?  
b. Please provide the date that the export restrictions expire.  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
Export restrictions introduced by the Decree of the Government of the  Kyrgyz Republic No.  569 
dated 19 November 2020, were not removed on 30 December 2020 and amendments were made 
to the Resolution No.  569. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 114 - 
 
   
According to the amendments, a temporary ban on the export (export) of certain types of agricultural 
products from th e Kyrgyz Republic is adopted from 8 January 2021 for a period of six months, 
i.e. until 8 July 2021.  
 
In addition, corn was removed from the list of restrictions.  
 
1.2.6   Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  
1.2.6.1   United States of America (G /AG/N/USA/129)  
AG-IMS ID 97154: Question by Canada - Other forms of assistance  
Canada notes that under Item 3(f) Value of food assistance used in development programmes, the 
United States reports USD 526,463,661 as the value of commodities donated as food aid that were 
monetized.  
 
Could the United States elaborate on the local or regional market analysis completed prior to 
monetization of food assistance to ensure that monetization does not negatively impact local 
markets?  
 
Answer by United States of Americ a 
 
The US Government works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to analyze  
the markets and choose agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local 
markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed  US food aid program in a recipient 
country, the  US Government must make a positive "Bellmo n Determination" . The local and regional 
market analysis of the Bellmon Determination takes into consideration quantitative and qualitative 
market data, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the country, suitability of 
commodity, and  potential policy issues.  
  
It should be noted most US in -kind commodities were provided for food aid emergency purposes for 
which monetization was not permitted. The 2018 Farm Bill included key technical changes to the 
Food for Peace Act that increased th e efficiency and improved the oversight and management of 
food assistance under Title II during FY 2019, including the following:  
  
"Monetization: The elimination of the monetization requirement for USAID's Title II Food for Peace 
programming enables more funding to go toward programs funded under Title  II, which allowed 
USAID to reach more beneficiaries with food assistance."  
 
1.3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
1.3.1   Australia  
AG-IMS ID 97089: Question by India  
Australia last notified its domestic support notification for pe riod July 2017 to June 2018, 
(DS:1  notification G/AG/N/AUS/129). Australia may indicate when is it going to notify the pending 
notifications?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia thanks India for its question.  
 
With respect to the question:  
 
Australia kindly r efers India to its response to India's question 96024. Additionally, Australia is 
working judiciously to finalise its outstanding DS:1 notifications and expects to upload the 
notifications to AG -IMS before the 98th CoA.  
 
Australia appreciates India, and other Members' concern with Australia's overdue DS:1 notifications, 
and is cognisant of the need to meet, as best as possible, notification timelines. As previously noted, G/AG/W/218  
 
- 115 - 
 
  the current delay is due to Australia's strong comm itment to ensure all measures, at both federal 
and state level that are subject to AoA rules, are captured in the DS:1 notifications.  
 
Australia is committed to providing fulsome information that gives other Members the required level 
of information to rev iew the reported domestic support measures and assess their WTO compliance.  
We look forward to India and other Members' review of our DS:1 notifications in due course.  
 
1.3.2   Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 97090: Question by India  
When will Brazil notify its outstanding Domestic Support notifications, as the last notification was of 
the Calendar Year 2018?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil is concluding the revision of information related to domestic support for the implementation 
year 201 9 and expects to submit the DS:1 notification to the Committee as soon as possible.  
 
1.3.3   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 97091: Question by India  
The EU last notified its domestic support notification for the marketing year 2017 -18 
(DS:1  notification G/AG/N/EU/61). E U may indicate when is it going to notify the pending 
notifications?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The notification for the 2018/19 marketing year, which covers the EU 2019 budget year that ended 
on 31  December 2019, will be submitted at the latest during Apr il 2021.  
 
1.3.4   India  
AG-IMS ID 97081: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that India has eight years of overdue notifications for table ES:1, Supporting 
Table ES:2, and ES:3 for relevant years.  
 
As a follow -up to AG‑IMS IDs 93168, 9203 0, 91143 and 88085:  
 
Please provide an update on the status of preparation of its numerous years of overdue ES:1, 
ST/ES:2 and ES:3 notifications and tell Members when the Committee can expect to be notified.  
 
Answer by India  
 
India has recently updated its  Export Subsidy notification ES:1 table for years 2010 -11 to 2013 -14. 
For the reminder of the years, the notifications are under formulation.  
  
Follow -up: The US made a general comment on overdue notifications noting that several questions 
had been address ed to a number of Members, particularly on Table DS:1 notification. The US noted 
that an effective monitoring system of the Committee relies on sharing of timely, accurate and 
complete notifications. Each of these elements can be viewed as three legs of a stool and if one leg 
is missing or too short the stool would not be sturdy and may likely to collapse. Beyond one Member's 
overdue notifications, the US also expressed interest in learning more about what constraints 
Members face in submitting notification s in a timely manner. An open discussion on this could help 
to identify where deadlines may be unrealistic or technical assistance may be necessary. The US 
noted that the topic of timeliness should not only be considered in terms of submission of 
notificat ions but is also important in ensuring discussions at this Committee are timely and 
addressing current global issues based on current agricultural trade trend rather than simply a 
historical reflection. Further, timeliness alone will not create a sturdy st ool, accurate notifications 
are also needed. This leads to the fundamental question of why notifications are needed and the US 
listed the following two reasons: (1) to compare a Member's applied measures in a given year against G/AG/W/218  
 
- 116 - 
 
  its commitments; (2) to unde rstand the policies being implemented by a Member in a given year. 
The US invited Members to share views on how well notifications can serve to achieving the 
aforementioned objectives or any other common objectives. The US further noted that building on 
the other two legs of the stool is the completeness of notifications which includes ensuring all 
relevant information are included in notifications so Members can have a complete picture of the 
measures concerned and Members can effectively review the notifi cations. The US noted that these 
types of questions can help the Committee evaluate where and how notifications could be improved. 
Finally, the US noted that while it viewed there is a need for more information and clarification on 
how Members should notif y information, information currently required in notifications are still 
important. The EU supported US comments and stressed the equal importance of replies to 
questionnaires in addition to notifications. The EU encouraged India to fill the questionnaires  on 
cotton and export competition. India also encouraged Members that posed questions under the 
agenda item of overdue notifications to update their own notifications.  
 
1.3.5   Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 97155: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification dates from 16 March 2015 and covers marketing years up to 2011/12. 
Could Pakistan indicate when it intends to submit notifications for subsequent marketing years.  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
DS:1 notifications covering marketing year s up to 2015 -16 were submitted. The notifications for the 
subsequent marketing years are under preparation.  
 
1.3.6   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
AG-IMS ID 97156: Question by Brazil  
In 2016, the Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture of the Kingdom of Saudi Ar abia (MEWA) 
included in its National Transformation Program the goal of 60% self -sufficiency in poultry production 
by 2020, compared to the 42% recorded that year.  
 
In December 2020, there was an announcement that the country had achieved 65% self -sufficie ncy. 
As a result, the Saudi Government's target has increased to produce locally 80% of the chicken 
consumed in the country by 2025.  
 
According to the most recent DS:1 notifications, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been providing 
product specific domestic support to poultry in excess of its " de minimis ", but still within its FBTAMS.  
Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia's latest notification is for calendar year 2017.  
 
In light of the above, Brazil consults the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on when more recent 
DS:1 notificat ions should be expected.  
 
Answer by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
 
Domestic support notifications will be submitted in due course after all data collection and review is 
completed.  
 
1.3.7   South Africa  
AG-IMS ID 97083: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notifi cation G/AG/N/ZAF/88 dates from 21 September 2016 and covers the 
2014 marketing year. Could South Africa indicate when it intends to submit notifications for 
subsequent years.  
 
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa thanks the European Union for the question.  
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 117 - 
 
  We are aware of the outstanding DS:1 notifications and are working towards completion. We have 
made some progress with the expenditure statistics that have been missing and we hope to finalize 
the notifications soon.  
 
1.3.8   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 97157:  Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification G/AG/N/THA/85 dates from 6 October 2017 and covers the 2014 to  2016 
calendar years. Can Thailand indicate when it intends to submit notifications for subsequent years.  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand is gathering the information from the relevant 
agencies and will notify to the Committee on Agriculture in due course.  
 
1.3.9   United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 97092: Question by India  
In response to AG -IMS I Ds 96025 and 96026, the United States replied that the measures will be 
notified consistent with WTO rules beginning with the notification for the year 2018/19 and 2019/20 
respectively. It is observed that USA's latest published Domestic Support notificati on is of the 
calendar year 2017. When will the United States notify its outstanding DS notifications?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States thanks India for the question regarding its Table DS:1 domestic support 
notifications. In light of questions raised by several Members regarding the US domestic support 
notification, the United States has completed a review of its notification practices in order to provide 
accurate, complete, and more timely notifications. The details of these changes a re explained in a 
revised marketing year 2017/18 Table DS:1 notification, which has been submitted to the WTO, 
along with the marketing year 2018/19 Table DS:1 notification.  
 
As a result of these changes, the United States will be able to provide the exten sive amount of 
information notified in its notifications more accurately and in a more timely manner. The United 
States is currently drafting the marketing year 2019/20 Table DS:1 notification, which will be notified 
in due course.  
 
The United States would  encourage all Members to review their notification practices to ensure 
notifications are both timely and accurate.  
 
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 118 - 
 
  2  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 17 -18 JUNE 2021  
2.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
2.1.1   Argentina – Export restrictions on beef  
2.1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98116)  
We understand that Argentina has recently introduced an export restriction/ban on beef.  
 
When does Argentina intend to submit a n ER:1 notification?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
Under the National Food Emergency Law, approved in 2002 and extended until 31 December 2022 
by means of Law No. 27.519 of September 2019, it is a duty of the State to continually ensure the 
right of our country's  population to food and food and nutrition security, and to do so as a matter of 
priority.  
 
Taking into account the above ‑mentioned legal framework, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries Resolution No. 75/2021 seeks to guarantee the fundamental rights of the population, with 
guaranteed access to basic goods being a priority concern, and especially to those goods that 
contribute to ensuring the population's food supply, which is being affected by the current global 
emergency caused by the COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
Our country is currently seeing variations in the prices of meat products, which is preventing 
domestic consumers from having normal access to basic foods. This situation must be put in context, 
with the context being that the current governmen t took office amid alarming poverty and destitution 
rates, further compounded by the global COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
It should be noted that, against this backdrop of global emergency, Argentina is seeking to bring 
order to the sector's operations, restrict spe culative practices, improve the traceability of exports 
and prevent tax evasion in foreign trade, with a view to securing access to food for the national 
population, and particularly for vulnerable groups.  
 
It is important to highlight that the instruments  in question exclusively affect 10 tariff headings 
corresponding to certain cuts of fresh bovine meat and frozen meat, and, in accordance with GATT 
Article XI:2(a), have been applied temporarily in the light of the current emergency situation.  
 
Furthermore , Argentina informs Members that it is currently working with various stakeholders, 
including the private sector, to achieve the above ‑mentioned legitimate objectives in the shortest 
time possible.  
 
Follow -up: In light of Argentina's response that the meas ure was temporary, the EU asked Argentina 
to specify which period the measure was foreseen to be in force. The EU also requested Argentina 
to indicate whether it had already submitted a Table ER:1 notification to the WTO. Argentina said 
that it would respo nd to the EU's follow -up questions at a later stage.  
 
2.1.1.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98117)  
a. Regarding the official announcement of a 30 -day ban on all beef exports from Argentina, 
Japan finds that the required notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been 
made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
i. Japan would  appreciate if Argentina could provide the reason behind and intend to 
make the notification on this measure near future.  
ii. Japan would also appreciate if Argentina could explain how it has given due 
consideration to the effects of the measure on importing Members' food security, as 
required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 119 - 
 
  iii. Is it possible to provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on  the 
products rather than an export quota which would allow a certain amount of exports.  
b. Japan is concerned the decision may set to have ramifications for the trade globally. Japan 
would appreciate if Argentina could explain how the measure meets the conditions 
required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages.  
Answer by Argentina  
 
Under the National Food Emergency Law, approved in 2002 and extended until 31  December  2022 
by means of Law No. 27.519 of September 2019, it is a duty of the State to continually ensure the 
right of our country's population to food and food and nutrition security, and to do so as a matter of 
priority.  
 
Taking into account the above ‑mentioned legal framework, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries Reso lution No. 75/2021 seeks to guarantee the fundamental rights of the population, with 
guaranteed access to basic goods being a priority concern, and especially to those goods that 
contribute to ensuring the population's food supply, which is being affected by the current global 
emergency caused by the COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
Our country is currently seeing variations in the prices of meat products, which is preventing 
domestic consumers from having normal access to basic foods. This situation must be put in cont ext, 
with the context being that the current government took office amid alarming poverty and destitution 
rates, further compounded by the global COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
It should be noted that, against this backdrop of global emergency, Argentina is seeking t o bring 
order to the sector's operations, restrict speculative practices, improve the traceability of exports 
and prevent tax evasion in foreign trade, with a view to securing access to food for the national 
population, and particularly for vulnerable grou ps. 
 
It is important to highlight that the instruments in question exclusively affect 10 tariff headings 
corresponding to certain cuts of fresh bovine meat and frozen meat, and, in accordance with GATT 
Article  XI:2 (a), have been applied temporarily in the  light of the current emergency situation.  
 
Furthermore, Argentina informs Members that it is currently working with various stakeholders, 
including the private sector, to achieve the above ‑mentioned legitimate objectives in the shortest 
time possible.  
 
2.1.2   Brazil's wheat quota  
2.1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98024)  
India thanks Brazil for providing response to AG -IMS 95010 on Brazil's Wheat quota.  
 
a. In response to (a) -(d) part, Brazil has provided the URL 
"http://www.mdic.gov.br/images/REPOSITORIO/secex/gab/portarias_secex_2019/Portar
ia_SECEX_044_2019.pdf " of Portaria SECEX no. 44 which regulates the operationalization 
and distribution of the quota. While accessing the link, it directs us to a website and not 
to the relevant text. In this regard, India requests Brazil to provide the specific link of the 
text Portaria SECEX no. 44.  
b. In response to (e) Brazil has provided the URL 
"http://www.siscomex.gov.br/informacoes/importacao/ " which is related to updated 
quota fill information. While accessing the link, it was published in Brazil's official language. 
India requests Brazil to provide r esponse to the question itself.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 120 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Brazil apologizes as the government website has been updated, resulting in the link being 
broken. While a new link is not yet available, Brazil points out that Portaria SECEX No. 44 
is also available in Brazil's federal official gazette, in the following l ink: 
https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?data=19/11/2019&jornal=5
15&pagina=126&totalArquivos=200   
b. From 01/01/ 2021 to 24/05/ 2021 (latest information available) imports under BRAQ002 
totaled 33,145 t onnes . 
Brazil invites India to consult the weblink provided, since data is updated frequently. Information on 
how much of the quota has been utilized is in the  last column.  
 
Follow -up: Canada encouraged all Members to provide responses to questions raised in the 
Committee rather than providing a link to a website and asking Members to search for the 
information there. The EU supported Canada's comments and called for Members to provide  
substantive answers.  
 
2.1.3   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
2.1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98085)  
Australia notes the recent Canadian budget included USD 230 million to compensate Canadian dairy, 
poultry and egg producers for market  access concessions made under the Comprehensive Economic 
and Trade Agreement, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership. Can Canada please:  
  
a. confirm this compensation will be fully consistent with its obligations under  the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
b. Confirm if the Membership should expect further compensation for domestic producers of 
these commodities to be announced when the Comprehensive Review of the Allocation 
and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, Poul try and Egg Products – Phase II is 
published in September 2021?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Yes, the compensation will be fully consistent with Canada's obligations under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. The Government of Canada has fulfilled its commitment to provide full and fair 
compensation to producers of supply -managed commodities for the impact of CETA and 
CPTPP. Canada will remain transparent with its trading partners as it relates to 
compensatory measures for producers of supply -managed commodities.  
Follow -up: New Zealand appreciated Canada's efforts to resume the review of the allocation and 
administration of tariff rate quotas. New Zealand noted that Canada's most recent DS:1 notification 
covered calendar year 2016, which means that Members need to wait anothe r year to see how 
Canada would notify the amount of government support provided to producers and processers of 
supply management products which are experiencing a negative impact from tariff quotas that 
remain underfilled. Given this delay, New Zealand enc ouraged Canada to provide more details on 
how to it intends to notify this expenditure at a sooner date. Brazil thanked Australia for bringing 
this issue back to the Committee and noted that MERCOSUR is negotiating an FTA with Canada in 
the expectation tha t no additional market access distortions will be created that alter the negotiating 
balance that is being sought through Brazil and Canada's bilateral negotiations. The US registered 
interest in this topic and expressed concern on Canada's delayed DS noti fications.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 121 - 
 
  2.1.4   Canada  - Emergency Food Security Fund  
2.1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98001)  
India appreciates Canada for its several policies to manage the effect of the coronavirus to the 
agricultural and allied activities.  
  
In April 2020, the Government of Canada announced up to $100 million through the Emergency 
Food Security Fund to Canadia n food banks and other national food rescue organizations to help 
improve access to food for people experiencing food insecurity in Canada due to the COVID -19 
pandemic. On 9  October 2020, the Government of Canada announced an additional $100 million to 
further support food security. Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) was provided with $30 million from 
this funding to bolster its Indigenous Community Support Fund."  
  
a. What measures are being taken under the programme?  
b. How much amount of support has Canada disbu rsed during 2020 for this programme?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada is working with national and regional food security organizations that have an 
established network and distribution system for emergency food aid. These organizations 
understand the issues many communities are facing, and are well positioned to quickly 
and efficiently work with local partners to meet the urgent and increased food needs 
directly related to the COVID -19 pandemic. Data on local organizations, communities and 
at-risk groups, such as visible minorities and Indigenous groups supported under the 
program, as well as the increase of food availability in targeted communities, are collected 
to ensure that funds are distributed in the most efficient way to maximize the impact on 
food security  across Canada. While funding is still being distributed under the second round 
of the Emergency Food Security Fund (second $100 million), more than 3,000 initiatives 
supporting vulnerable communities were approved under the first round of the program 
(first $100 million).  
b. During the Government of Canada's 2020 -2021 fiscal year, which ended 31 March  2021, 
Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada disbursed $165 million under this program.  
2.1.5   Canada's support to the wine sector  
2.1.5.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98002)  
Canada 's Budget document for 2021 provides for $101 million over two years, starting in 2022 -23, 
to Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, to implement a programme for the wine sector that will support 
wineries in adapting to ongoing and emerging challenges, in line with Canada's trade obligations. 
(https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/pdf/budget -2021-en.pdf, Page No 217 ). 
 
a. What does the programme Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada entail?  
b. Under what provision of the AoA would the programme be notified?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada is currently in the process of developing a program, in 
consultation with the Canadian wine sector, that will implement Canada's April  2021 
Budget announcement. As indicated in Budget 2021, $101 million will be made available 
over two years to Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, to implement a program for the wine 
sector that will support wineries in adapting to ongoing and emerging challenges, in line 
with Canada's trade obligations. Details regarding the program, which is to begin in fiscal 
year 2022 -23, are not yet available.  
b. The program will be notified as appropriate in the relevant domestic support notifications.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 122 - 
 
  Follow -up: New Zealand regi stered interest in the question.  
 
2.1.6   Canada's review of the TRQ system  
2.1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98118)  
The Canadian Government held a series of consultations on allocation and administration of 
supply -managed tariff -rate quotas, with t he most recent comment period open from 6  January  2021 
to 5 March  2021. Please comment on the stakeholder feedback received during that comment period 
and what changes the Canadian Government may make in response.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
All stakeholder feedback received throughout the consultations will help inform decision -making on 
long-term allocation and administration policies for Canada's supply -managed TRQs. This process is 
still underway and any changes are expected to be publishe d this fall, for implementation beginning 
in January 2022.  
 
2.1.7   China's cotton policies  
2.1.7.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98088)  
Australia thanks China for its answer to its question regarding the purchase of Australia cotton 
(AG-IMS ID 97098).  
 
Given Chinese millers and other importers have told Australian exporters they have been 
discouraged from purchasing Australian cotton, what steps has China taken to inform Chinese 
millers, businesses or enterprises that there is no prohibition on importing Australian co tton?  
 
Australia thanks China for the additional data provided in China's response on Australian cotton 
imports. China did not provide, however, total cotton import data or import license data as 
requested. As such, could China please provide:  
 
a. Total impo rts of cotton for the first four months of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.  
b. Total imports of Australian cotton for the first four months 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.  
c. Total imports of cotton for the first four months of 2021.  
d. Total imports of Australian cotton for the first four months of 2021.  
e. Whether import licences are being issued upon request, consistent with WTO obligations.  
f. The number of import licences issued for cotton year to date for 2021, and the equivalent 
period in 2020.  
Answer by China  
 
 Cotton Impor ts Cotton Imports  
 From Australia  From All  
Jan-17 4,174.4  115,387.5   
Feb-17 6,774.1  138,729.6   
Mar-17 601.7  120,918.0   
Apr-17 2,746.3  106,103.1   
Jan-Apr 2017  14,296.6  481,138.2   
Jan-18 427.7  133,908.3   
Feb-18 0.0 102,700.3   
Mar-18 245.6  107,502.3   
Apr-18 2,757.5  105,024.6   
Jan-Apr 2018  3,430.8  449,135.6   
Jan-19 38,998.8  280,527.6   
Feb-19 61,699.5  229,568.1   
Mar-19 36,832.1  152,392.3   G/AG/W/218  
 
- 123 - 
 
   Cotton Impor ts Cotton Imports  
Apr-19 22,146.6  179,919.3  
Jan-Apr 2019  159,677.0  842,407.3   
Jan-20 18,057.3  148,397.6   
Feb-20 9,967.0  264,113.4   
Mar-20 5,972.1  201,197.5   
Apr-20 6,174.4  124,841.9   
Jan-Apr 2020  40,170.9  738,550.4   
Jan-21 354.7  401,144.1   
Feb-21 0.0 289,555.3   
Mar-21 1,816.8  280,392.1   
Jan-Mar 2021  2,171.5  971,091.5   
 
a. Chinese millers and other importers have never been directly or indirectly discouraged 
from purchasing Australian cotton, and it is not necessary to take steps to inform the 
millers and other importers that the government is not taking any measures discouraging 
cotton imports from Australia. We would like the Australian colleagues to further verify the 
source of information.  
e. Yes. Import licences are issued upon request consistent with WTO obligations.  
f. China has issued 894,000 tonnes  of import quota for cotton in 2021. Another 
700,000  tonnes  of cotton quota applying sliding tax will be issued shortly. Companies 
holding quotas can obtain the import licences at designated institutions.  
2.1.8   China's TRQ notifications  
2.1.8.1   Question by Australia (A G-IMS ID 98090)  
Australia thanks China for its answer to its question regarding the administration of wheat TRQs 
(AG-IMS ID 97123).  
 
We note China referred to its MA notification to be notified. Could China please advise when it will 
make this notificatio n?  
 
Answer by China  
 
It will be submitted in the coming days.  
 
2.1.9   Egypt's Sugar import restrictions  
2.1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98119)  
Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID s 96047 and 97030.  
 
Egypt has neither replied to question AG -IMS ID 96047 nor to t he follow -up question 
AG-IMS ID 97030. The EU therefore repeats its questions and is looking forward to receiving a reply.  
 
Decree No 117/2021 prolonged the sugar import restrictions in Decree No 606/2020 for another 
three months. In relation to Decree No 117/2021 the EU seeks clarifications from Egypt on the 
following points:  
 
a. Could Egypt explain how the import restrictions on white sugar and raw sugar respect its 
commitments under Article XI GATT (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions)?  
b. Could E gypt submit an update on its current national sugar market situation including 
balance sheet for 2018, 2019 and 2020? Has the temporary surplus of 2020 been reduced?  
c. Could Egypt please explain how the "import approval" for raw and white sugar imports is 
implemented and administered in practice? What are the rules and procedures for the 
submission of applications, what are the available sources of information on the measures G/AG/W/218  
 
- 124 - 
 
  and the various steps of the application procedure? Is the eligibility of the applic ants 
defined and available for economic operators?  
d. Could Egypt provide information on the deadlines within which "import approvals" are 
issued as well as the criteria for issuing the approvals?  
e. Are any fees charged for the "import approval" or are any othe r formalities required?  
f. Could Egypt explain how many import approval requests have been lodged for white and 
brown sugar since 4 June 2020 and 3 December 2020 respectively and how many requests 
have been granted since the introduction of the measure as wel l as distribution of such 
licenses among applying countries?  
g. Could Egypt share import statistics (value and volume) on imports of raw and white sugar 
respectively for each of the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, with the origins of the imports 
for each year?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Follow -up: Australia and the EU welcomed Egypt's announcement that the measure had been 
suspended and encouraged Egypt to respond to some of the specific questions posed at this 
Committee in order to have more clarity on this matter.   
 
2.1.10   France - Minimum selling prices for rural products  
2.1.10.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98120)  
Last April, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of France released the report entitled "Rapport 
concernant le bilan de la loi EGAlim et la nécessité de mieux rémuné rer la chaîne de valeur agricole"  
("Rapport Papin"), which proposes amendments to legislation aimed at "improving payments" for 
local farmers, through the establishment of minimum selling prices for rural products.  
 
In view of the above, could the Europea n Union:  
 
a. explain how the future French policy of minimum selling prices would suit EU pricing policy 
notified in "Supporting Table" DS:5 of their DS:1 notifications?  
b. Update other Members on debates related to the approval of the so -called "Loi EGAlim 2"?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. This is not a position of the French Government but a proposal of an independent report, 
which will not determine the evolution of French legislation. The recommendations of this 
report aim to strengthen the contractual  framework, the transparency of commercial 
relations and mediation tools.  
It is in no way a question of setting up minimum prices for the sale of agricultural products, which 
are subject to free negotiation between the parties.   
 
Therefore, there is no inf luence on the way in which the EU notifies market price support in 
Supporting Table DS:5 in the DS:1 notification.  
 
b. A bill has been submitted to the Assemblée Nationale, based on the recommendations of 
the Papin report. The French Government has not yet ta ken a formal position on this 
proposal, which will be the subject of a parliamentary debate this summer.  
Follow -up: Brazil asked if the final proposal submitted to the Assemblée National incorporated the 
recommendation made by the report aiming at establis hing minimum prices for rural products. The 
EU responded that it would verify that and reply to Brazil at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 125 - 
 
  2.1.11   France - Indication of the origin of meats offered in cafeterias and foodservices  
2.1.11.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98121)  
Last May, the Minister of Agriculture and Food of France, Julien Denormandie, announced in an 
interview to the television channel "BMF TV", that will become mandatory "from next summer" the 
indication of the origin of meats offered in cafeterias and foodservices ("resta uration collective", 
such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, businesses and institutions of public administration).  
 
It should be noted that this is the second recommendation of the Papin's  report, which stressed the 
desirability "d'identifier systématiquement l'Origine France des ingrédients et des produits, y compris 
en restauration collective" in a topic entitled "pour plus de patriotisme agriculture" . 
 
Furthermore, one of the objectives of the measure is to remedy the fact that "la plupart des poulets 
viennent d'Ukraine, du Brésil. Mais très peu de France."  (Source: 
https://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/l -origine -de-la-viande -devra -etre-indiquee -dans-les-cantines -
des-cet-ete-20210421 ). 
 
Could France provide the following additional information:  
 
a. Will the measure be mandatory for public and private establishmen ts? 
b. Will financial incentive be granted to purchase products of French origin?  
c. Will there be any restrictions on the sale of goods that are not produced in France?  
d. How is this measure compatible with the clause of National Treatment enshrined in 
Article  III of GATT?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Yes, the draft text would make it compulsory to mention the origin of meat from bovine, 
porcine, ovine and poultry species bought raw and served in commercial and collective 
catering.  
b. No. 
c. No. 
d. The mention of origin will be mandatory no matter the origin of the product, whether 
foreign or domestic. As such, it fully abides by GATT's Article III provisions.  
Follow -up: Canada, Paraguay and Ukraine registered interest in the question. Canada, as a large 
exporter of high -quality beef products, expressed concern that the proposed measure appeared to 
limit access to France's beef market. Ukraine asked Members to ensure that their import -restrictive 
measures comply with WTO rules and obligations.  
 
2.1.12   Italy - Assistance to local  processing companies that purchase Italian inputs  
2.1.12.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98122)  
Under the "National Plan for Recovery and Resilience" (PNRR) for the use of resources from "Next 
Generation EU", the Italian Government announced that it will allocate an estimated amount of 
EUR 6.9 billion to the agri -food sector.  
 
Out of these EUR 6.9 billion, EUR 1.2 billion will be allocated to the so -called "contratti di filiera" , 
understandings brokered by the Italian Government through financing for local processi ng 
companies that buy Italian inputs.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 126 - 
 
  It should be noted that on 17 April the Minister of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies of Italy, 
Stefano Patuanelli, gave an interview to the newspaper "Il Sole 24 Ore", in which he stressed the 
importance of "contratti di filiera"  as an instrument of Italian "food sovereignty".  
 
In light of the above, could Italy provide the following clarifications:  
 
a. Will the "contratti di filiera"  be implemented through a minimum price policy?  
b. May exporting companies also benefit from the "contratti di filiera" ? 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. No, they are not implemented by a minimum price policy.  
b. "Contratti di filiera " are not intended to support expor t companies. Indeed, neither in the 
eligibility criteria nor at the level of support granted will the export performance of the 
beneficiary in question (before or after investment) be taken into account for the 
calculation of the subsidy level.  
2.1.13   Germany - Domestic support to the livestock sector  
2.1.13.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98123)  
On 4 March, the entity "Bundnis Gemeinsam gegen die Tierindustrie"  published an estimate 
according to which total domestic support to German livestock would amount to EUR 13.2 bil lion per 
year. 
 
According to the most recent FAO data from 2018, German animal production recorded the following 
figures:  
  
2018 2018   
Unit Value  
Eggs, hen, in shell [1062]  1,000 USD  1,521,511.00  
Livestock [2044]  1,000 USD  29,976,877.00  
Meat indigenous, cattle [944]  1,000 USD  4,475,027.00  
Meat indigenous, chicken [1094]  1,000 USD  1,407,794.00  
Meat indigenous, duck [1070]  1,000 USD  227,533  
Meat indigenous, geese [1077]  1,000 USD  31,693  
Meat indigenous, horse [1120]  1,000 USD  2,16 
Meat indigenous, pig [1055]  1,000 USD  7,183,068.00  
Meat indigenous, sheep [1012]  1,000 USD  189,312  
Meat indigenous, total [1770]  1,000 USD  14,347,127.00  
Meat indigenous, turkey [1087]  1,000 USD  830,541  
Milk, Total [1780]  1,000 USD  13,805,181.00  
Milk, whole fresh cow [882]  1,000 USD  13,792,683.00  
Milk, whole fresh goat [1020]  1,000 USD  12,498  
 
In light of the above -mentioned, Brazil would appreciate it if the EU could reply the following 
questions:  
 
a. Does the European Union confirm that domestic support provided by Germany to its 
livestock production totals EUR 13.2 billion per year (approximately US D 16.1 billion per 
year or 53% of its VoP)?  
b. In which items EU's domestic support notifications include support provided by Germany 
to its liv estock?  
c. On 13 April, Germany`s Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan for the 
period  2023-2027 was sent to the Bundestag. Would the European Union be able to 
confirm whether there will be changes regarding domestic support for livestock in this 
Strategi c Plan if compared to the policy currently in force?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 127 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
The EU has not been able to verify the assumptions and calculations by this private " anti-meat 
consumption" NGO. The information publicly available from this NGO shows that the assumptions 
used are different from the rules and requirements established in the Agreement on Agriculture on 
how to calculate and notify domestic support. The figures in the mentioned paper are not at all 
related to how the WTO Members are required to not ify agricultural support in DS:1. It seems that 
the NGO is mixing Amber, Blue and Green Box as well as including many other elements not covered 
by the AoA.  
 
The EU support granted to EU livestock producers is correctly reported in the latest DS:1 notific ation 
(G/AG/N/EU/69), which will be examined later during this Regular CoA meeting.  
 
The proposal for the CAP -reform 2023 to 2027 is still under negotiation between the co -legislators, 
European Parliament and Council of Ministers. The EU is therefore not a ble to elaborate on which 
measures EU member States will implement until after this Regulation has been adopted by the 
co-legislators and the Strategic Plans of the MS have been submitted to the EU Commission.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay registered interest in the question, noting that its meat sector is important to 
the country and its producers had raised concern on the measure in question.  
 
2.1.14   Austria's draft resolution to change the criteria for granting the "AMA seal"  
2.1.14.1   Questio n by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98124)  
Austrian parliamentarians submitted a draft resolution to the Agriculture Commission aiming at 
changing the criteria for granting the "AMA seal" (the most known certificate for food quality in 
Austria), with a view to preventi ng it from being granted to foods of animal origin in whose 
production or breeding extra -EU protein feeds have been used.  
 
Considering that the certification is granted by "Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing GesmbH" 
(AMA -Marketing), an Austrian Government -commissioned agency and subsidiary of the regulatory 
body for agricultural affairs (AMA), could the European Union explain how the proposal is consistent 
with Article III of GATT?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The resolution  referred to by the Brazilian Authorities was rejected by the Austrian Parliament on 
20th May 2021. (1413/A(E)).  
 
https://www.parlament.gv. at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/A/A_01413/index.shtml#tab -
ParlamentarischesVerfahren  
 
2.1.15   EU's environmental policies  
2.1.15.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98030)  
The EU's farming subsidy programme, which is being reformed, will offer farmers EUR 38 -58 billion 
over 2023 -2027 for ec o-schemes, including organic production.  
  
a. What subsidy measures would be introduced through this programme?  
b. Who would be the eligible beneficiaries?  
c. How would the assessment for identifying beneficiaries be carried out?  
d. Which products would be covered und er the proposed subsidy programme?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 128 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
a. The proposal for the CAP reform for the period 2023 to 2027 is still under negotiation 
between the co -legislators, European Parliament and Council of Ministers. The EU is 
therefore not able to el aborate on which measures EU member States will implement until 
after this Regulation has been adopted and the Strategic Plans of the member States have 
been elaborated.  
b. The beneficiaries will be farmers.  
c. and d. The EU will include this information in its upcoming DS:2 notification which will be 
forwarded to the WTO following the adoption of all Strategic Plans.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that the subsidies provided by the EU in relation to environment could 
have a distortive effect on trade if not implement ed in an appropriate manner. Paraguay cautioned 
against providing price support rather than environmental protection through these measures. Brazil 
noted that, as its concern on the UK's domestic support policies, there is also, in this case, risk of 
distortions that occurs both on the side of subsidies and on the side of barriers. Brazil had been 
following the debates taking place in the European Union about the future of CAP and hoped that 
there will not be an increase in distorting domestic support, disg uised as environmental policies, 
which undermines the reforms that the EU has made so far in its agricultural policy. India looked 
forward to the EU's upcoming DS:2 notification.  
 
2.1.16   India's pulses policies  
2.1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98084) , Canada (A G-IMS ID 98086), European 
Union (AG -IMS ID 98105), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98096), Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 
98097) and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98098)  
AG-IMS ID s 97115 (Canada) and 97022 (USA) and 97114 (Russian Federation) and 97112 
(Australia) - Pulses QR  
  
Members are well aware of our collective concerns regarding India's trade restrictive measures on 
pulses, particularly India's quantitative restrictions on a  variety of pulses. We have continued to 
pose a range of questions to India and to date, India's responses have been insufficient.  
  
Following up on AG-IMS ID 97112, 97114, 97115 and 97022, India's quantitative restrictions on 
various pulses were schedule d to expire on 31 March  2020, but India has indicated these 
"temporary" measures, which were introduced in 2017 and 2018, will be extended for 2021 -22 with 
an annual quota of 400,000 MT for tur (pigeon peas), 400,000 MT for urad, and 150,000 MT for 
moong. However, the announcement in the Gazette of India on 15 May 2021 (No. 1731) permitting 
the import of tur, urad, and moong albeit temporarily through 31 October 2021 is welcome news. 
India has not announced measures for 2021 -22 with respect to import  of yellow peas, but it is 
understood in media reports that import restrictions remain in place for yellow peas. When Members 
have inquired how decisions are made with regards to the implementation of quantitative restrictions 
on pulses, India has responde d that it reviews the overall demand and supply situation or market 
situation.  
  
a. Noting India's previous responses regarding "market situation," please provide more 
specific information, including data (e.g., domestic vs world price, domestic production, 
consumption, etc.) that supports India's claims regarding how it determined to extend the 
quantitative restrictions for the 2021 -22 Indian fiscal year, which began in April 2021 and 
subsequently lifted in May 2021.  
b. Please explain why restrictions were lifte d for the identified pulses only through 
31 October  2021, including providing any relevant data.  
c. Please outline how and when India will assess whether the temporary restriction will be 
re-introduced after 31 October 2021.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 129 - 
 
  d. Please confirm the current status of restrictions on the importation of yellow peas for fiscal 
year 2021 -22. If the quantitative restrictions on yellow peas is extended for fiscal 
year 2021-22, please provide a copy of the official notice or indicate when it will be 
published.  
e. Has India co nsidered less trade -distorting measures that could address the underlying 
objectives of India's imposition of import restrictions on pulses? If so, why were such 
measures not adopted?  
f. In AG -IMS ID 97115, India did not explain why it considers these measure s to be 
"temporary" considering they have been applied since 2017 and 2018. Please explain, 
including how India defines "temporary" and on what basis these measures are not 
considered permanent quantitative restrictions.  
g. Please provide a detailed explanati on regarding the WTO -consistency of the quantitative 
restrictions imposed on certain varieties of pulses in relation to Article 4 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
h. Please explain whether the minimum import price requirement or port of import restriction 
is applicable to any of the measures extended for the 2021 -22 Indian fiscal year.  
Answer by India  
 
a.-c. and e.-g. The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring these measures. 
India has stated the legal basis of its measures pertaining to qu antitative restrictions on certain 
varieties of pulses previously in response to the questions raised by Members in Committee on 
Market Access and the Council for Trade in Goods. India has taken these measures in exercise of 
Article XX (General Exceptions)  of the GATT 1994.  
 
d. The import of yellow peas (07131010) during 2020 -21 (April -Feb), as available, was 
33,831.58  metric tonne s. MIP requirement or port restriction imposed continues to remain applicable 
in the fiscal year 2021 -22. 
 
Follow -up: Australia voiced its continued concern about restrictions placed on imports of pulses to 
India and continued to call on India to permanently remove all quantitative restrictions on pulses. 
Australia noted that several WTO Members including itself had repeatedly rais ed this issue at various 
WTO Committees and encouraged India to provide timely and comprehensive answers to questions 
posed at this Committee instead of referencing answers given in other Committees. The US 
welcomed India's announcement to remove the quant itative restriction but remained concerned that 
this is only a temporary suspension which may be automatically reinstated in a few months. The US 
also expressed concern about trade implications of such measures, given India had not lifted all 
quantitative restrictions and appeared to be planning to make regular use of such measures going 
forward, in conjunction with various other policy measures including market prices support. The US 
noted that the question jointly proposed by six Members emphasized the im portance of Members 
responding to questions raised at this Committee and Members' joint concern that the quantitative 
restriction had been in place for a number of years. The US urged India to provide full response to 
this question. Canada and the EU suppo rted the comments made by Australia and the US and 
encouraged India to provide direct and specific answers to the question. Canada also highlighted the 
unpredictability created by this measure, not only for exporters but also for production decisions and 
the resulted impact on future supplies of high -quality pulse products in times of shortage. The 
Russian Federation expressed concern on the resumption of the quantitative restriction on pulses.  
 
2.1.16.2   Questions by the European Union ( AG-IMS ID 98125)  
According t o publicly available information the EU understands that as from now yellow peas can be 
imported into India when a certain minimum price and an additional 50% duty are respected.  
  
a. Can India please indicate the minimum price in place ? 
b. Can India confirm that an additional 50% duty is applicable ? G/AG/W/218  
 
- 130 - 
 
  c. Are there any time limits fixed for this import regime?   
Answer by India  
 
a. MIP on Yellow Peas is INR 200 per kg on CIF value basis.  
b. The current effective levy is same as earlier levy (50%) and there has been no additional 
levy on yellow peas.  
c. The government has been continuously reviewing and monitoring these measures.  
2.1.17   India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  
2.1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98093)  
Australia thanks India for its response to its question on  the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  (AIF) 
(AG-IMS ID 97110). In its response, India advised that projects have been identified for "providing 
supply chain infrastructure for export clusters of crops like fruits, vegetables, spices etc." Australia 
requests  if could please specify which fruits and vegetables are included in the export clusters, and 
provide specific details of any other commodities included in the export clusters  
 
Answer by India  
 
Under the AIF, projects have been identified for providing sup ply chain infrastructure for export 
clusters of crops like fruits, vegetables,  spices etc. The programme does not identify specific 
commodities, hence specifics of fruits and vegetables requested by Australia are not available.  
 
2.1.18   India's wheat public stock piling  
2.1.18.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98087) , European Union (AG -IMS ID 98101) 
and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98099)  
AG-IMS ID s 97010, 97012, and 97060  (United States) - State Support (for wheat and rice)  
 
India has not provided a written response  with regards to the provision of state bonuses related to 
the Minimum Support Price scheme for wheat in several Committee on Agriculture meetings, 
including AG -IMS ID s 97010 and 97060 in March 2021, which themselves are a repeated question 
with no respons e (AG -IMS-IDs 95032 and 93271) and follow up on AG -IMS ID s 93251 and 92009.  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19. However, Madhya 
Pradesh awarded a wheat bonus of INR 2000/MT in MY 2017/18 and INR 2650/MT in MY  2018/19, 
in addition to the MSP, according to 
http://mpkrishi.mp.gov.in/hindisite_New/pdfs/MKSY_24042018.pdf . The Minister of Agriculture in 
Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating : "This means the state will pay INR 2,000 per quint al for 
acquisition of wheat."  
 
Since these questions were raised, it is reported 
(https://www.livem int.com/news/india/maharashtra -farmers -to-get-700-per-quintal -additional -
incentive -above -msp-for-paddy -11606228134080.html ) that the Maharashtra cabinet in 
November  2020 approved a INR 700 per quintal bonus for paddy for the 2020/21 kharif marketing 
season  above the announced MSP.  
 
a. Please confirm the Madhya Pradesh Government's official announcement of the 
above -referenced wheat bonuses in MY 2017/18 and MY 2018/19.  
b. Please provide information any other state announced wheat bonuses since MY  2016/17 
through the current marketing season.  
c. Please confirm Maharashtra cabinet announced paddy bonus for MY  2020/21.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 131 - 
 
  d. Please provide any other state announced paddy bonuses since MY  2016/17 through the 
current marketing season.  
e. Please provide information regarding any other Indian States or Union territories having 
made any such payments for other commodities to producers.  
If India is unable to provide a written response or indicates  the information will be provided in due 
course with regards to parts a) and b) of this question, which have been discussed in this Committee 
since at least 2019, please respond to the following:  
 
f. What specific steps has India taken to collect information on state bonuses from states 
and union territories since 2019?  
g. Once this information is collected, will India be submitting revised domestic support 
notifications?  
h. Please explain whether there is any relation between state bonuses for paddy, such as 
those identified in MY 2020/21 for Maharashtra, and footnotes in India's 2018/19 
and 2019/20 domestic support notifications, which state "Other support for rice, that is, 
other than public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently." 
and "Based on the available provisional data."?  
Answer by India  
 
The information requested will be submitted in due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted that, given that India is one of the main proponents for a permanent solution 
on Public Stockholding and ha s been advocating the protection under the peace clause agreed in the 
Bali Ministerial Conference against its two recent "de minimis" breaches, this kind of concrete 
information required by Canada, the EU and the US is important for Members to make informe d 
decisions on the topic and would be useful for the discussions in the special session of the Committee 
on Agriculture. The EU supported Brazil's comment. In relation to AG -IMS ID s 98087, 98101, 
and 98099, the European Union and the US hoped that the resp onse could be provided before the 
next Committee meeting and that the response could include the specific data and publications 
requested by the co -sponsors. The US commented that India's previous response on this issue stated 
that no state bonuses were an nounced but official state government websites and numerous media 
reports had indicated otherwise. On AG -IMS ID s 98089, 98100, and 98103, Canada requested 
further information on the assessment process.  
 
2.1.18.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98089) , European Union (AG -IMS ID 98100) 
and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98103)  
AG-IMS ID s 97013 (USA) and 95085 (EU) – Pre-Determined Stocks  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 97013, India provided a brief explanation of the assessment process and 
how procurement  estimates are drawn up by the Government of India; however, it did not respond 
to the specific requests. Therefore, the questions are repeated:  
  
a. Please provide the annual quantitative levels for current, historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat and  rice respectively since 2010.  
b. Please indicate any report, publication or website that contains the assessments 
referenced in India's current and previous partial responses.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. Before the onset of each marketing season, the governme nt holds a consultative meeting 
with the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the State governments and other stakeholders to make an 
assessment regarding the availability of wheat and rice for procurement at Minimum Support 
Price (MSP) in order to meet the fo od security requirements of our citizens. Based on the feedback G/AG/W/218  
 
- 132 - 
 
  received in the meeting regarding the production prospects and market situation, procurement 
estimates (targets) are drawn up by the government.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted that, given that India  is one of the main proponents for a permanent solution 
on Public Stockholding and has been advocating the protection under the peace clause agreed in the 
Bali Ministerial Conference against its two recent "de minimis" breaches, this kind of concrete 
information required by Canada, the EU and the US is important for Members to make informed 
decisions on the topic and would be useful for the discussions in the special session of the Committee 
on Agriculture. The EU supported Brazil's comment. In relation to AG-IMS ID s 98087, 98101, and 
98099, the European Union and the US hoped that the response could be provided before the next 
Committee meeting and that the response could include the specific data and publications requested 
by the co -sponsors. The US commen ted that India's previous response on this issue stated that no 
state bonuses were announced but official state government websites and numerous media reports 
had indicated otherwise. On AG -IMS ID s 98089, 98100, and 98103, Canada requested further 
informat ion on the assessment process.  
 
2.1.19   India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  
2.1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98091)  
India – Follow-up on question AG -IMS ID 96053  
  
In its reply to this question India indicated that they were collecting the data and that a reply would 
be provided in due course.  
  
Is India now in a position to share this data with Members and upload it into AG -IMS? 
 
Answer by India  
 
The Government of Gujarat announced a financial assistance for skimmed milk powder for limited 
time frame of six months for limited quantity of 50,000 MTs and with maximum support of INR 50 
per kg to defray the costs of marketing including handling, domestic and international freight which 
are allowed for developing countries under the WTO's AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on 
Export Competition. This is a temporary measure to help the vulnerable farmers and cooperatives 
in view of the COVID -19 situation.  
 
Follow -up: The EU hoped that India's data would include the number of products that were sup ported 
and recalled that Ministers agreed under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition to restrict use 
of export subsidies.  
 
2.1.20   India's export prohibitions on onions  
2.1.20.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98095)  and United States of America (AG -IMS ID 
98107)  
AG-IMS IDs 96054 and 97113 (Japan) – Export Prohibition on Onions  
  
In AG -IMS IDs 96054 and 97113 India was requested to provide the explanation about export 
prohibition on all varieties of onion. However, India failed to provide any specific answer, only 
answe ring that it was temporarily in force.  
  
a. Please provide an explanation as to why the notification was not made before the measure 
was taken when prior notification is required per Article 12 of Agreement on Agriculture. 
When does India intend to make the n otification on this measure?  
b. Please explain how India has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on 
importing Member's food security.  
c. Please provide the reason why India resorted to the export prohibitions on the products 
rather than an expo rt quota which would allow a certain amount of exports.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 133 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The said measure was temporarily in force to ensure the availability of onions in the domestic 
market at reasonable prices. The measure was relaxed within a month, w.e.f. 9 October 2020.  
 
Follow -up: Japan flagged remained concern on India's export prohibition measure and asked India 
to provide more comprehensive explanation on this matter.  
 
2.1.21   India's cotton support  
2.1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98092)  
Australia notes that from 2017/18 to 2019/20, eligible production under the price support 
programme for cotton increased from 0.07 million tonnes to 1.79 million tonnes. This has resulted 
in sizeable differences in the levels of support during this period,  with India's support for cotton 
increasing from USD 14.83 million to USD 184.83 million. The applied administered price also 
increased by USD 270 per tonne.  
 
As highlighted previously, Australia notes that the United States issued a counter notification on 
9 November 2018 (G/AG/W/188) outlining information that indicated India had provided market 
price support for cotton in excess of its de minimis  limits under Article 6 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA).  
 
Australia kindly asks India to:  
 
a. please expla in the reason for the variations in eligible production,  
b. provide the value of production for cotton,  
c. confirm that India has not exceeded its de minimis  limits under Article 6 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. Cotton crop offered by farmers within the stipulated  procurement period, conforming to 
the specifications prescribed by Government of India is purchased at MSP by the Govt.  
b. and c. As per the available data, Value of Production (provisional) for Cotton for 
year 2019/20 is USD 13,535.01  million. India has not  exceeded the de minimis  limit under 
Article 6 of the AoA.  
2.1.22   Indonesia's imports of citrus, melons, strawberries and persimmons  
2.1.22.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98126)  
Indonesia stated at the 97th Committee on Agriculture, that the import measure is being 
implem ented under laws and regulations for food safety, and PRA is implemented based on criteria 
whether there is a commercial import record in the Indonesian Government data or not.  
 
Japan has checked and taken the official import data of four items (Citrus, Me lons, Strawberries and 
Persimmons)  that we want to be listed from FAOSTAT and Global Trade Atlas and created a table as 
below.  
 
These four items can be identified as having import records before 2016 which was explained by 
Indonesia in 2019 as a requiremen t for items to be added to the importable list.  
 
Moreover, Indonesia changed the condition for the addition to the importable list, to have import 
records for the past 10 years from 2019 when Japan enquired Indonesia in October 2019. But you 
can see that t here was an import record for persimmons during that period.  
 
On the other hand, Grapes that are already added to the importable list, have an import record up 
to 2008, but no import record before the addition to the list which is from 2009 to 2016.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 134 - 
 
   
As the aforementioned fact, Japan consider that there is no big di fference between four items (Citrus, 
melons, strawberries and persimmons) that we are requesting to be added to the importable list 
and the those items such as Chilies/peppers (dry), Grapes, Peaches/Nectarines and Pears that are 
already listed on the list.  This fact is inconsistent with the explanation by Indonesia.  
 
Japan understands that for items with no import record it is required to have PRA under the Minister's 
Decree, and there is no stipulation of the actual import record required period in the Dec ree. Japan 
would like Indonesia to explain clearly the following:  
 
a. Why Indonesia judged against the actual record that these imports were not for 
commercial purposes  
b. What exactly is the necessary condition to add the four items to the importable list  
Import Record from Japan into Indonesia  (2006 -2016) (Unit: tonnes)  
Item  Approved 
product 
list 2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  
Oranges  Not listed  1 < 0.5           
Melons  12 9 54 18        
Strawberries  1 < 0.5           
Persimmons           6 8 
Chillies and 
peppers  Listed  1 1 < 0.5  < 0.5   < 0.5  1  2 26 6 
Grapes  < 0.5  < 0.5  1         
Peaches and 
nectarines  < 0.5  < 0.5         < 0.5   
Pears  < 0.5  < 0.5   < 0.5   < 0.5      10 
Data Source:  FAOSTAT (Persimmons is from Global Trade Atlas, HS -0810909900) . 
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia believes Japan has been able to meet the SPS requirements and standards imposed by 
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia. Nonetheless , Indonesia shall implement 
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), including monitoring and investigation of pests and diseases of 
concern to Indonesia and necessary chemical control or biological control measures. In this relation, 
Indonesia has taken notes o f the follow -up questions by Japan on this market access issue for citrus, 
melon, strawberry, and persimmons.  
 
In responding to Japan's inquiry, Indonesia is aware that some parts of our response – the first half 
– are better taken up by the SPS Committee and the Import Licensing Committee. Nonetheless, I 
hope this exercise will assist us all in making more transparent on the issue under this Committee.  
 
To start with, Indonesia would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the basis on Indonesia's 
stipulation on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Indonesia notes Japan's extensive comprehension 
of Indonesia's Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) practices, which are implemented based on the information 
on pest status. However, Indonesia introduced a revision of p est status on 16 September 2020. This 
regulation is a revision of the 2018 regulation and in accordance with international standard 
guidance.  
 
Prior to the introduction of this revision in 2020, the Indonesian Government had formally informed 
trade partner s in Indonesia, in the previous year in 2019, that Indonesia will conduct a review of 
the phytosanitary requirement for commodities imported to Indonesia over the last ten years due 
to changes of pest status. And such communication was done through the mis sions/embassies of 
trade partners in Indonesia.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 135 - 
 
  This change in pest status has amended the basis for Indonesia's PRA, both for commodities that 
have been previously imported, as well as commodities that have not been previously imported. And 
we do require  PRA to be conducted for all produces/commodities entering our territory.  
 
In order to meet the market access conditions for commodities that have previously been imported 
and in order to smoothen this review process, Indonesia kindly requests the Japanese  NPPO to 
submit technical information on the relevant commodities – the technical details of which can be 
taken up separately outside this plenary.  
 
While for commodities that have not been previously imported from Japan, the NPPO shall submit 
an official letter for market access, which includes:  [i] technical information on pest status; and  
[ii] priority list – since the Indonesian authority will prioritize the conduct of PRA based on the priority 
determined by the exporting partner.  
 
And now, on the treatment of our SPS regime to the four commodities in question (citrus, melon, 
strawberry, and persimmons), the difference in treatment will depend on: [i] whether or not they 
have been previously imported; and on [ii] whether or not import licensing regi me applies to them.  
 
And on the issue of import licensing regime: Out of the four commodities, strawberries and 
persimmons are not regulated through an import permit. And thus, they must follow the applicable 
quarantine procedures.  
 
Meanwhile, import procedures for citrus and melons, which are regulated with import permit through 
the applicable Ministerial Decree should obtain Import Recommendation of Horticulture Products 
through The Ministry of Agriculture of The Republic of Indonesia and persistentl y must comply with 
quarantine provisions.  
 
Thus, the aim of our review here is to ensure the correct administration and of relevant import 
procedures, and to ensure the application of the correct form of facilitation of incoming Japanese 
produces/commoditi es to Indonesia, based on previously established stipulation, and taking into 
account changes in the status of related risk.  
 
Lastly, Indonesia appreciates Japan's effort in providing data that could be useful as general 
information. However, Indonesian au thorities are using national data on the importation product as 
official reference.  
 
To conclude, we are opened for further inquiry from Japan to resolve this matter amicably at the 
earliest possible time.  
 
Follow -up: Japan noted that, although it had no o bjection to Indonesia's implementation of the PRA 
as an SPS measure, it would be inappropriate to raise this issue at the SPS Committee before the 
concern is resolved at this Committee.  
 
2.1.23   Japan's Rice Paddy Renovation for New Market Development  
2.1.23.1   Question by  United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98127)  
The United States understands that Japan's third FY 2020 supplementary budget set aside 29 billion 
yen for a new program, "Rice Paddy Renovation for New Market Development." The United States 
understands that und er this programme, a payment of 40,000 yen per 10 ares is provided to farmers 
in cases where rice, "profitable crops," wheat, barley, and soybeans are planted for new market 
development, including for export.  
  
a. Please provide a detailed explanation of this  programme, including on eligible and 
non-eligible end -uses for rice produced under the programme.  
b. Please provide all criteria required to receive payments, including how payment eligibility 
related to overseas markets are determined.  
c. Please provide the am ount of direct payments made under the programme.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 136 - 
 
  d. In the event payments are made for rice that is exported, please explain whether the 
payment constitutes an export subsidy as described in Article 9 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
e. Please confirm the rice  paddy areas that receive the Rice Paddy Renovation Project for 
New Market Development support payments will not be eligible for the Direct Payments 
for Rice Paddy Utilization support payments, an existing production conversion programme 
funded by MAFF's a nnual budget.  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. b. d. This project supports efforts such as rice for new market development, processed rice, 
high-profit crops, and low -cost production of wheat, barley, and soybeans, with the requirement 
that producers take at least thre e low -cost measures such as direct sowing seeding, efficient 
fertilization, and shared use of agricultural machinery, in order to promote cultivation of paddy field 
amid declining demand for rice for staple food due to the impact of the  COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
Of these, "rice for new markets development" is a measure that focuses on development of new 
markets both domestically and internationally. "Rice for new markets development" is determined 
not by "whether or not to export" but by "whether or not to develop new markets." This project does 
not fall under the category of export subsidies stipulated in Article 9 of the Agreement on 
Agricultural, since it only includes rice for export as a result of domestic support.  
 
Details of this project is available in Japanese on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 
and Fisheries.  https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/keikaku/soukatu/r2hosei_3.html  
 
c. Support for producers of th is project will be implemented by paying up to 29 billion yen as its 
budget.  
 
e. The area of paddy field supported by this program is not covered by the supports of the Direct 
Payment for Rice Paddy Utilization program including the support for strategical  crops (rice for 
developing new market, rice for processing, wheat, barley and soybeans).  
 
Follow -up: Uruguay and the US hoped that the payments made under the programme would not 
constitute export subsidies and Japan would comply with the Nairobi Decision  on Export Competition. 
Australia, as an exporter of rice, registered interest in further information on the programme.  
 
2.1.24   Moldova's amendments to the Law on Internal Trade  
2.1.24.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 98128)  
The Parliament of the Republic of Moldova has adopted amendments to the Law on Internal Trade 
that seem to be not consistent with paragraphs 1 and 4 of Art. III of the GATT since they can hardly 
ensure an equality of competitive conditions for imported products in relation to domestic products, 
but in stead provide a less favourable treatment for imported goods. In particular, according to 
Art. 211 of the Law, the food merchants, with the exception of those working in small retail trade 
units, are obliged to purchase and ensure the laying of food produc ts from the short food chain on 
the shelf in the amount of at least 50% of the linear length of the shelf in the case of the sale of 
food products from the same category as included in the list of food products originating from a 
short food chain. The list  of food products subject to the provisions of Art. 211 of the Law is approved 
by the government and is updated annually. The mentioned amendments also foresee monetary 
sanctions in case of violation by the merchant and/or supplier of the established norms  regarding 
the quota for the goods on the shelf.  
 
a. Could the Republic of Moldova please confirm that the above -mentioned amendments will 
enter into force from 1 July 2021?  
b. Which agricultural products are currently included in the list of food products app roved by 
the Moldova's Government?  
c. Could the Republic of Moldova please explain how such measures comply with 
paragraphs  1 and 4 of Art. III of the GATT that call for effective equality of opportunities G/AG/W/218  
 
- 137 - 
 
  for imported products in respect of the application o f laws, regulations and requirements 
affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, distribution or use of products?  
Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
 
The Republic of Moldova wishes to extend its appreciation for the continuous interest of Ukraine in 
the am endment process of the national legislation of the Republic of Moldova on internal trade, 
particularly Law no. 231/2010 and thanks Ukraine for the submitted questions.  
 
As previously noted, the purpose of the above -mentioned act is to create the necessary legal 
framework for internal trade through the development of a suitable distribution network of 
commercialized food products and to ensure its compliance with the conditions of free competition, 
to balance the negotiating power, as well as to ensure the p rotection of life, health, safety and 
economic interests of consumers.  
 
a. The amendments to Article 211 of the Law on internal trade will enter into force on 
1st July 2021.  
b. Currently, there is no exhaustive list. The list of food products from the short food chain 
will be drafted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Regional Development, 
which represents the main specialized body of the public administration respon sible for 
the implementation of the governmental policy in the field of agriculture. Currently, the 
list is still in the process of development/drafting and should be consulted with all 
interested stakeholders. The government should approve this list by 1st July 2021 (which 
will be updated on an annual basis).  
c. The amendments to the above -mentioned law are in compliance with WTO principles; 
these do not affect the imports and offer treatment no less favorable to imported products 
comparing to like domestic p roducts. This Law is establishing an interaction mechanism 
between supplier and seller of the products on the internal market and will not introduce 
any other measures at the border against imported goods which could not be justified by 
WTO rules. Moreover , the amendments have been proposed and consulted internally in a 
transparent manner, involving all the interested stakeholders, including public institutions, 
private sector, as well as foreign investors.  
Additionally, shall be noted that the Republic of Moldova takes all the necessary steps and 
procedures, in order to ensure that its national legislation and all the relevant measures are 
consistent with its commitments undertaken under the WTO Agreements.  
 
We express our availability to provide more clarifications, if needed including through bilateral 
dialogue. "  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine drew Moldova's' attention to Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article III of GATT which 
called for an equal opportunity for imported pr oducts in respect of application of all laws, regulations 
and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution 
or use of products and noted that the application of the provisions are not limited to measu res at 
the border. Ukraine would continue monitoring the issue and revert as necessary.  
 
2.1.25   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
2.1.25.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98074)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID s 87094, 88104, 90027, 91011, 92098, 93072, 9 5060, 96058 
and 97118:  
  
We appreciate Mongolia's decision not to open quotas for importation of liquid milk and wheat flour 
for 2021. We also bear in mind Mongolia's statement that The Food Law is included in the list of the 
laws to be amended by the Parl iament by 2024 and that the amendments will ensure the compliance 
with the WTO Agreements. However, it's a long period and we insist on making it earlier. At the very 
moment the uncertainty in trade conditions still remains, as Mongolia did not exclude whe at flour 
and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime. We would like to refer 
once again to Mongolia's answer to the question AG -IMS ID 93072, where Mongolia states that G/AG/W/218  
 
- 138 - 
 
  import quotas were applied only before the Law on th e Enrichment of Food Products would come 
into force.  
  
Referring to the previous questions the Russian Federation expects to receive the following 
information from Mongolia:  
  
a. Is Mongolia planning to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of ag ricultural 
products subject to quota regime as early as possible?  
b. What amendments will Mongolia make considering the Food Law? Why couldn't they be 
made earlier than 2024?  
c. Will there be any confirmation that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation o f wheat 
flour and liquid milk in future? If yes, when then?  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
Follow -up: The Russian Federation looked forward to the opening of Mongolia's markets for the 
products mentioned in the question.  
 
2.1.26   Morocco - Increase in wheat tariffs  
2.1.26.1   Question  by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98094)  
Australia notes Morocco has announced increases in customs duties on common and durum wheat. 
Circular 6193/211 increases the duty on common wheat from 0% to 135% effective 15  May 2021.  
 
Circular 6192/211 increases the duty o n durum wheat from 0% to 170% effective 1  June 2021. 
Australia notes this is within Morocco's allowed maximum duty for both products.  
 
However, noting the impacts that large increases can have on Member's trading with Morocco and 
the wheat market globally, could Morocco please:  
 
a. outline the policy rationale for the increased tariffs?  
b. Advise if it has considered the impact of these increases on other Members and the global 
wheat market?  
Answer by Morocco  
 
Follow -up: Canada noted that while the large  increase in duty on wheat was within Morocco's bound 
tariffs, the sudden increase in tariff could have an impact on trade. Canada asked if Morocco had 
provided advance notice, such as shipment en -route provision or any other guidance to importers 
and expo rters in order to mitigate any negative impact on shipments that were en route when the 
tariff change was made.  
 
2.1.27   Nigeria's foreign currency exchange restrictions to wheat and sugar imports  
2.1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98130)  
On 16 April 2021, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) stated that it is planning to apply foreign 
exchange restrictions to wheat and sugar imports. ( https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigeria -
halt-foreign -currency -sugar -wheat -imports -central -bank-2021-04-16/)  
 
a. Please explain CBN's procedure for deciding to place foreign exchange restrictions on 
agricultural products.  
b. Please explain how  the CBN announces its decision to restrict access to foreign exchange 
for certain commodities.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 139 - 
 
  c. Will the CBN give advance notice before imposing foreign exchange restrictions on 
additional commodities?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
2.1.28   Nigeria's import prohibitions on c ertain agricultural products  
2.1.28.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98129)  
Nigeria maintains a list of agricultural products whose imports are prohibited. This list can be found 
on the website of the "Federal Ministry of Finance" ("Nigeria Customs Service"), at the  following 
address: https://customs.gov.ng/?page_id=3075 . 
 
Among the products whose import is prohibited are "live or dead birds including frozen poultry; pork; 
beef; birds eggs; refined vegetable oils a nd fats; cane or beet sugar; coca butter, powder and cakes; 
spaghetti/noodles and fruit juice in retail packs ".  
 
In the light of the above, could Nigeria explain how the import ban on the products listed above is 
consistent with the obligation taken by Ni geria in Article 4 of the AoA, which prohibits Members to 
maintain or adopt quantitative restrictions on imports?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
2.1.29   Philippines - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) permits  
2.1.29.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 98131)  
The United States thanks the Philippines for its response to AG -IMS ID 96015 regarding the 
Philippines' administration of sanitary and phytosanitary import clearance (SPSIC) permit issuances. 
The United States is still concerned that SPSI C permits are used for purposes other than ensuring 
that imported agricultural products meet the standards to protect human, animal, or plant life or 
health.  
 
During the 22 October 2020 Philippine Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food, and Agrarian Reform  
hearing on proposed Senate Resolution Number 536 "Improve the Rice Importation Procedure" 
(https://youtu.be/0v2fXLoK3kw ), Department of Agriculture (DA) Undersecretary Rodolfo V. Vicerra 
told the Senate Committ ee, "[DA] need[s] to really manage the issuance of SPSIC, specifically on 
the timing so that the arrivals of these imports will not combine with our main harvest. So, we will 
have to come up with an administrative order on [rice imports]." On 16 October  2020, DA Secretary 
William Dar informed the Philippine Senate Committee on Finance 
(https://youtu.be/7541ggmm2ZM ) that the DA has "institutionalized management strategy not to 
really bring feed wheat during the ma in harvest of corn… and so that management strategy is now 
put in place." These statements point to the Department of Agriculture using SPSIC permits to 
restrict imports of various products for reasons other than those stated by the Philippines in their 
reply to AG -IMS ID 96015.  
 
a. Please explain how using SPSIC permits to manage the timing of import arrivals so that 
they do not coincide with the main Philippine rice and corn harvest seasons is an effective 
tool to protect human, animal, or plant life or heal th. 
b. Please explain the role of the Secretary of Agriculture and the DA Bureaus in reviewing 
and approving SPSIC issuances.  
c. According to the DA Bureau of Animal Industry 
(https://www.bai.gov.ph/index.php/importation -data?download=3968:spsic -issued -
2020-monthly ), no SPSICs were issued for whole chickens during March and 
July-December 2020.  
Please explain why SPSIC issuances for whole chickens during cale ndar year 2020 were limited.  
 
d. Have any SPSICs for whole chickens been issued since the beginning of 2021? If not, why?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 140 - 
 
  According to the DA Bureau of Plant Industry ( http://bpi.da.gov.ph/bpi/index.php/reports -
documentation/spsic -for-rice/10450 -spsic-issued -and-volume -applied -per-month -as-of-april-30-
2021), SPSICs were not issued for rice in September -October 2019 or October -November 2020, and 
were only issued on a limited basis in September 2020. These dates appear to correspond with part 
of the harvest season for rice in the Philippines.  
 
e. Please explain why SPSIC were not issued for rice during these time  periods.  
f. Please provide information on SPSIC permits, including volumes, applied for and/or issued 
for corn, wheat, and other commodities for 2019, 2020, and year -to-date for 2021.  
Answer by Philippines  
 
a. and b. SPS import clearance is a system which ensur es that importation of agricultural 
and fishery commodities complies with existing rules, regulations, and requirements, as 
cleared by the DA regulatory agencies, to ensure that import commodities are safe to 
humans and animals for food and feed, and will not cause the entry, establishment and 
spread of plant pests and animal diseases. The SPSIC document also prescribes the 
post-entry conditions to be complied with by the importer in order to maintain the safety, 
quality, fitness, and suitability of the imp orted products or commodities for their intended 
purposes.  
The Secretary of Agriculture has no role in reviewing and approving the SPSICs. These are mandated 
by the Secretary to bureaus, particularly Bureau of Animal Industry, Bureau of Fisheries and Aqua tic 
Resources, and Bureau of Plant Industry, and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority.  
  
b. to e. There had been reports to the Department regarding unscrupulous and unfair trade 
practices, which may pose serious threat to the safety of food and feed as wel l as animal 
and plant health. These reports compelled DA to review importer registrations and SPS 
requirements. As an impact, the issuance of the SPSIC was disrupted for rice and other 
commodities.  
SPSIC applications, in particular for importation of whole  chicken from the US, were rejected because 
the decision on the application for accreditation status of the US was deferred in 2019. In effect, 
there should be no additional establishments and meat formats beyond those that were previously 
endorsed to the Philippines.  
 
f.  
SPSICs issued and volume applied for select commodities, 2018 -2021  
Year/Month  Rice Corn  Feed Wheat  Whole Chicken  
2018 - 1,119  2,954  19  
- 2.16 million MT  22.31 million MT  569,030 kg  
2019 4,069  1,247  1,910  44  
3.63 million MT  1.80 million MT  0.107 million MT  1,071,189 kg  
2020 5,535  1,040  1,864  9  
4.80 million MT  1.93 million MT  11.77 million MT  147,100 kg  
2021*  1,717  138 604 -  
1.91 million MT  0.145 million MT  2.9 million MT  - 
* As of May 2021 . 
 
Follow -up: Brazil, as an important trading partner of the Philippines that had faced recent problems 
with its poultry exports, thanked the US for the detailed analysis on the system for issuing import 
licenses. In this regard, Brazil recalled that the Agreement on Import Licensing  applies to agricultural 
products and that 'licensing procedures shall not be administered in such a manner as to have 
restricting effects on imports'."  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 141 - 
 
  2.1.30   Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax  
2.1.30.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98132)  
Follow-up to question AG-IMS ID 97039 and AG -IMS ID 97064 . 
  
No replies to these questions have been uploaded in AG -IMS. Can the Russian Federation indicate 
when the replies will be available?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the answers to AG-IMS ID 97064 and AG -IMS ID 97039.  
 
Follow -up: Australia supported the question and encouraged the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the measure is consistent with its obligations under both the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the GATT. Australia further requested the Russian Federation to notify this measure to the WTO 
within the obligated time frame. Japan expressed concern on the export tax introduced by the 
Russian Federation. Brazil noted the linkages between the question on ex ports of high value -added 
agricultural products and the one on formula -based grain export tax. On the one hand, there are 
restrictions on exports of staple crops; on the other hand, there are still unclear measures aimed at 
exports of higher value -added pr oducts. Brazil believed that there are ways to create opportunities 
to export value -added products that do not distort the international market. Brazil viewed this type 
of measure as proof of the need that, after the reform in domestic support, the issues of market 
access, including tariff peaks and escalation, and export restrictions need to return to the center of 
the CoA -SS debates.  
 
2.1.30.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98136)  
The United States would like to follow up on the European Union's q uestion (AG -IMS ID 97039) 
about the Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax system that will become effective on 
2 June 2021. It is also noted that the Russian Federation has not provided a response to that 
question. The formula would apply an export tax of 70% of the difference between the export base 
price of wheat per ton ne and USD 200. For barley and corn the tax would be 70% the difference the 
export base price per ton ne and USD 185.  
  
a. Please explain how the export base price of wheat, bar ley, and corn will be determined.  
b. Please explain how this measure complies with the requirements of Art.  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of GATT 1994.  
c. Will the Russian Federation notify this measure to the WTO, specifically within the 
obligated notification timeframe of 30 days after implementation (i.e., 2 July 2021)?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The Government Resolution No. 117 of 6 February 2021 "On Rates of Export Customs 
Duties on Certain Grains Exported from the Russian Federatio n to the States that are Not 
the Parties to the Customs Union Agreements" introduced floating export duties on wheat 
and meslin (EAEU HS codes 1001 19 000 0, 1001 99 000 0), rye (EAEU HS code 1002 90 
000 0), barley (EAEU HS code 1003 90 000 0), corn (EAEU HS code 1005 90 000 0).  
According to the Government Resolution the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation rates of export duties for the grains are calculated by the following formula:  
ED = (P ind. – P base) x 0.7, where  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 142 - 
 
  ED – rate of export dut y of wheat and meslin/barley/corn, USD per 1 ton4; 
P base - 200 USD per 1 tonne if calculate the export duty on wheat and meslin;  
P base - 185 USD per 1 tonne if calculate the export duty on barley or corn.  
P ind. is calculated as average of price indicat ors expressed in USD per 1 ton.  
If the calculation resulted in negative ED then ED assumed to be zero.  
Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation daily basis monitors prices of wheat and 
meslin, barley and corn by monitoring respective price indicat ors, namely the daily stock 
quotes or indices based on over -the-counter contracts. These price indicators are 
calculated in accordance with basis and location terms: "FOB Novorossiysk".  
b. The measure under the Government Resolution No. 117 is of fiscal natu re and therefore 
is exempted from the scope of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
Follow -up: Australia supported the question and encouraged the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the measure is consistent with its obligations under both the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the GATT. Australia further requested the Russian Federation to notify this measure to the WTO 
within the obligated time frame. Japan expressed concern on the export t ax introduced by the 
Russian  Federation. Brazil noted the linkages between the question on exports of high value -added 
agricultural products and the one on formula -based grain export tax. On the one hand, there are 
restrictions on exports of staple crops; on the other hand, there are still unclear measures aimed at 
exports of higher value -added products. Brazil believed that there are ways to create opportunities 
to export value -added products that do not distort the international market. Brazil viewed this  type 
of measure as proof of the need that, after the reform in domestic support, the issues of market 
access, including tariff peaks and escalation, and export restrictions need to return to the center of 
the CoA -SS debates.  
 
2.1.31   Russian Federation's support on exports of high value -added agricultural products  
2.1.31.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98027)  
India would like to request the Russian Federation to provide response to question AG -IMS ID 97086.  
 
For convenience, India repeats the question:  
  
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation will adopt new 
support measures to develop exports of high value -added agricultural products.  
  
a. What all measures are being adopted and when will these measures be imple mented?  
b. What products are considered to be high -value added and also elaborate on the criteria 
for identification of such products?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 97086.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted the linkages  between the question on exports of high value -added 
agricultural products and the one on formula -based grain export tax. On the one hand, there are 
restrictions on exports of staple crops; on the other hand, there are still unclear measures aimed at 
expor ts of higher value -added products. Brazil believed that there are ways to create opportunities 
to export value -added products that do not distort the international market. Brazil viewed this type 
 
4 The floating export duties on wheat and meslin, ba rley and corn are available on the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian Federation website at: https://m cx.gov.ru/ministry/departments/departament -
ekonomiki -investitsiy -i-regulirovaniya -rynkov/industry -information/info -2021-god/. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 143 - 
 
  of measure as proof of the need that, after the reform in do mestic support, the issues of market 
access, including tariff peaks and escalation, and export restrictions need to return to the center of 
the CoA -SS debates.  
 
2.1.32   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
2.1.32.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98028)  
India would like to follow up on the question asked by the European Union in AG -IMS ID 95067 on 
Russia's export quota for cereals. In the response provided, the Russian Federation mentions that it 
established a temporary tariff quota on exportation of certain  grains, which will be in effect from 
15 February 2021 to 30 June 2021. Since the period of export quota is coming to an end:  
  
a. India would like to know the current status of the measure.  
b. Could the Russian Federation explain what its plans are with respect to such measures 
after 30 June 2021?  
c. How much export has been made by the Russian Federation under this tariff quota system 
for the quota period?  
d. What are the commodities that fall under this temporary tariff quota?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99024.  
 
2.1.33   Russian Federation's export restrictions  
2.1.33.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 98133)  
a. Japan recognizes that the Russian Federation introduced export prohibition for three 
months on buckwheat from June 2021. However, finds that the required notification to the 
Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
i. Japan would appreciate if Russian Federation could provide the reason behind and 
intend to  make the notification on this measure near future.  
ii. Japan would also appreciate if Russian Federation could explain how it has given due 
consideration to the effects of the measure on importing Member's food security, as 
required in Article 12 of the Agre ement on Agriculture.  
iii. Is it possible to provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on the 
products rather than an export quota which would allow a certain amount of exports.  
b. Japan is concerned the decision may set to have ramifications f or the trade globally. Japan 
would appreciate if Russian Federation could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, and ii) criticalness of the shortages.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99106.  
 
2.1.33.2   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 98134)  
Ukraine recognizes that according to the Government Resolution No. 684 of 30 April 2021 the 
Russian Federation intr oduced temporary export prohibition on barley valid from 5  June to 
31 August  2021, however it did not provide required notification to the Committee on Agriculture in G/AG/W/218  
 
- 144 - 
 
  accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In view of that, could the 
Russian Federation:  
  
a. Provide more specific information, including statistical data regarding domestic production, 
consumption, stocks, import and export, on the basis of which the export prohibition on 
buckwheat was undertaken?  
b. Explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Provide explanation of how the measure meets the conditions required in Article XI of 
GATT, namely essentiality of t he products and criticality of the shortages?  
d. Inform when it is going to submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and relevant notification in 
accordance with Article XI of GATT?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. The Russian Federation did not introduce temporary restriction on barley valid from 5  June 
till 31 August 2021. As for buckwheat, please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99106.  
 
2.1.33.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98135)  
The Russian Federation published Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  684, 
dated 30 April 2020. The Decree imposes an export ban on buckwheat (HS Codes 100810000, 
11003199009, and 1004293000) for the period 5 June to 31 Augu st 2021.  
 
This is the second consecutive year that the Russian Federation has implemented quantitative export 
restrictions on cereal grains. Concerns about this potential annual recurrence have been raised 
repeatedly by the United States (AG -IMS ID s 97031, 97026, 96018, and 96019) and other 
WTO Members given the effect that Russia's export bans would have on world food security. The 
Russian Federation has not provided a written response to these questions or only provided partial 
responses, which do not provide any analysis on the effect that these export restrictions may have 
on fellow Members.  
  
a. Please identify on what basis the Russian Federation justifies this export ban on buckwheat 
through Decree No. 684.  
b. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art. 12 of th e Agreement on Agriculture, has the Russian 
Federation assessed the effect of this export ban on fellow Members and the impact on 
global food security?  
c. If so, please share this analysis. If not, please explain any plans to conduct such analysis.  
The Unit ed States remains concerned about the Russian Federation's lack of transparency 
because it has never notified to the Committee on Agriculture an export restriction, 
including this Decree.  
d. When will the Russian Federation notify Decree No. 684 to the WTO?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99106.  
 
2.1.34   Russian Federation's grain export duties  
2.1.34.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98026)  
India would like to request the Russian Federation to provide response to question AG -IMS ID 97087. 
For convenience, India repeats the question:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 145 - 
 
   
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, Russian Prime Minister signed a 
resolution on grain export duties. The export duties will be charged on wheat (from 15 February to 
28 Februar y); corn and barley (from 15 February to 14 March). Such duties will be increased in 
future.  
(https://mcx.gov.ru/en/news/Russian ‑Prime‑Minister ‑signs‑resolution ‑on‑grain‑export‑duties/)  
 
a. How does the Russian Federation see the impact of such measures on food security of 
importing countries?  
b. In view of the short duration of implementation of these export duties, India would like to 
know if these export duties have stabilized prices for the products in the domestic market? 
How does the Russian Federation calculate the impact of these measures on domestic 
prices and international prices?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b. Please refer to the an swer to AG -IMS ID 99016.  
 
2.1.35   South Africa's review of tariff structure for poultry meat imports  
2.1.35.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98137)  
On 16 March, a ministerial directive from the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition of 
South Africa (DTIC ) regarding the review of the tariff structure for the importation of poultry meat 
was published in the country`s official press.  
 
According to that document, the Minister directed ITAC to focus its review on the following items:  
 
"a) Considering the intr oduction of specific rather than ad valorem duties;  
b) Considering simplifying the tariff structure by reducing the number of tariff lines for poultry in 
Schedule 1 to the customs and Excise Act, Act 91 of 1964, by operating at a 6 -digit, 7 -digit or 8 -digit 
level;  
c) Considering specific anti -dumping measures where appropriate and consider how these impact 
on the level of the ad valorem tariffs;  
d) Considering the introduction of an appropriate system of rebates whereby tariff levels on certain 
imports can be reduced where parties are achieving exports; and  
e) Considering the possibility of other measures such as an entry price system."  
 
Could South Africa provide further clarification on the aforementioned process, in particular:  
 
a. What is the status of the  review of the tariff structure for the import of poultry meat?  
b. What is the forecast for concluding the review?  
c. Considering that in the review exercise the adoption of specific tariffs and an "entry price 
system" are being evaluated, what precautions is So uth Africa taking to ensure that its 
possible new tariff structure does not violate its commitments in terms of terms of market 
access at the WTO, including its schedule of concessions and Article 4 and footnote 1 of 
the AoA?  
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa thanks Brazil for the question and their interest in this matter. South Africa would like 
to respond as follows:  
 
a. The review is currently in its publication phase where comments from interested parties 
have been solicited in terms of the proposals as set out in the Ministerial instruction.  
b. The International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC) is reviewing the 
tariff structure for the importation of poultry meat as instructed by the Minister. ITAC's G/AG/W/218  
 
- 146 - 
 
  normal time frame to complete ta riff amendment applications is six months. Pending 
ITAC's recommendation, the recommendation must go through an approval process. Due 
to the nature of the review and the approval process, it is not possible to forecast when 
the process will be concluded.  
c. The review is still at an early stage and detail is not yet available. South Africa will ensure 
compliance with its market access commitments. This could include, for example, the 
capping of the duties with the relevant WTO bound rate.  
Follow -up: The EU no ted that South Africa had introduced over the last years several measures that 
constrained the imports of poultry meat and registered interest in the outcome of the review. The 
US encouraged South Africa to reconsider potential changes to its poultry tarif f structure and not to 
restrict imports that could result in increased costs for its consumers of poultry.  
 
2.1.36   Tajikistan's new Tax Code  
2.1.36.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98138)  
Tajikistan has published a new Tax Code that will enter into force on 1 January 2022. Chapter  57, 
Article 414, paragraph 1 of Tajikistan's new tax law exempts "business entities in the field of poultry 
farming, fish farming, and the production of combined feed for bird and animals," from paying tax 
on income of lega l entities, value added tax (VAT), taxes on real estate, and land taxes for a period 
of six years. Imports of these products into Tajikistan would remain subject to a VAT, customs duty 
and "other taxes".  
 
Noting the exemption of the VAT for domestic busine ss entities and products, but no similar 
exemption for importing entities and products, please explain how this measure complies with 
Tajikistan's WTO obligations, including GATT Article III.  
 
Answer by Tajikistan  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan would like to  thank the US for their question concerning Tajikistan's new 
Tax Code (AG -IMS ID 98138) that exempts "business entities in the field of poultry farming, fish 
farming, and the production of combined feed for bird and animals," from paying tax on income of 
legal entities, value added tax (VAT), taxes on real estate, and land taxes for a period of six years.  
 
We would like to inform you that the incentives provided in Article 414, Chapter 57 of the Tax Code 
are not new and were implemented in 2019 and the fore seen changes of new Tax Code are general 
and technical characters.  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan highly appreciates your kind cooperation and positive consideration of this 
issue.  
 
2.1.37   Tajikistan's poultry tariffs  
2.1.37.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  98139)  
In February 2021, Tajikistan notified the WTO Committee on Market Access of a draft resolution 
(G/MA/W/167) to increase Tajikistan's import duties on poultry from 10% to 15%. The United States 
is concerned about this increase as it is higher that T ajikistan's 10% bound rate for poultry. Through 
bilateral discussions the United States confirmed that the 15% tariff is already in effect and 
permanent. The United States requests that Tajikistan provide answers to the following questions:  
  
a. please explai n the rationale for increasing tariffs on poultry imports from 10% to 15%.  
b. Please explain how a 15% tariff for poultry imports is in compliance with Tajikistan's final 
WTO bound rate of 10%.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 147 - 
 
  Answer by Tajikistan  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan would like to thank the US for their question (AG -IMS ID 98139) 
concerning Tajikistan's poultry tariffs.  
 
The spread of COVID -19 around the world and the closure of borders, as well as the restrictions of 
trade between the countries during this difficult and crisis peri od has forced countries to be less 
dependent on food imports from second countries and develop domestic production.  
 
The issue of increasing import duties on poultry considered taking into account the negative impact 
of COVID -19 on domestic production, low  quality of imported poultry and public health, as well as a 
significant increase in imports of poultry compared to the previous year and the development of the 
poultry industry in the country.  
 
Increase in import duties on poultry is foreseen for a certain period of time until the development of 
domestic production and for the supply of population with high quality product. In this regard, the 
question may arise that in accordance with the provisions of the WTO agreements in case of low 
quality of im ported products to protect the public health, the non -tariff measures should be taken 
rather than tariff measures. In case of non -tariff measures given the lack of testing laboratories to 
test the safety of products, its import will be completely stopped a nd will negatively affect the supply 
of consumer market and will increase the prices due to current production capacity. It should be 
noted that in the last two years, no entrepreneurs have applied for the import of poultry from the 
United States to Tajiki stan. 
 
In order to provide new technologies to increase the capacity of the poultry industry, development 
of domestic production and the supply of domestic markets with domestic product in accordance 
with the laws of the Republic of Tajikistan dated 21 Feb ruary 2018, №1511 and №1512 the tax and 
customs incentives were introduced to Tax and Customs codes, where the equipment and materials 
for the poultry industry were exempted from VAT and customs duties. Also, in accordance with the 
relevant provisions of t hese acts from 1 January  2018, poultry farms are exempted from four types 
of internal taxes - income tax, value added tax, road user tax and real estate tax.  
 
The Republic of Tajikistan highly appreciates your kind cooperation and positive consideration of  this 
issue.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil and Uruguay flagged concern that Tajikistan seemed to violate one of the basic 
principles of the WTO – the consolidation of tariffs. Brazil and Uruguay invited Tajikistan to reduce 
its applied tariffs to the bound level and reminded Tajikistan of the Article XXVIII of GATT process 
should it be interested in changing its schedule of concessions.  
 
2.1.38   Turkey's ban on olive oil exports  
2.1.38.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98140)  
It has been reported ( https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/business/turkey -bans-bulk-olive-oil-
exports/92345 ) that Turkey's Ministry of Commerce has imposed a ban on the export of bulk olive 
oil until 31 Octob er 2021 upon request from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In the article, 
The Aegean Olive Oil Exporters Association of Turkey is quoted saying "Exports [of olive oil] are at 
low levels compared to past seasons. Turkey's annual domestic consumpti on is 140,000 ton nes, and 
we have around 60,000 to 70,000 ton nes that can be exported."  
 
a. Please explain Turkey's reasoning for implementation of the ban on bulk olive oil exports, 
particularly if there is not a shortage.  
b. Please explain how the export ban complies its WTO commitments, including Art. 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI of GATT 1994.  
c. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art. 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has Turkey assessed 
the effect of this export ban on fellow Members and the impa ct on global food security?  
d. If so, could Turkey please provide this analysis.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 148 - 
 
  e. When does Turkey intend to notify the measure to the Committee on Agriculture?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey would like to thank USA for the question. The answer is as follows:  
 
Unprocessed olive oil and processed olive oil products in bulk or in barrels are among products  listed 
in the annex of the Communiqué on the Goods Subject to Registered Export (No: Export  2006/7). 
The export of these products is carried out within the framewor k of the provisions of Article  7 of the 
Export Regulation.  
 
In this context, olive oil exports are registered by the Exporters' Associations. It is seen that  
processed olive oil products in bulk or in barrels as well as packaged olive oil are exported as o f the 
first six months of 2021.  
 
According to Turkstat datas, on quantity basis : 
 
- our export of olive oil in packages up to 5 kg decreased by 11,2% ; 
- our export of other olive oil decreased by 19,3% ; 
- our total olive oil export decreased by 16,8% ; 
 
Between 1st January  - 25 June 2021 compared to the same period of last year.  
 
According to Turkstat datas, on value basis : 
 
- our export of olive oil in packages up to 5 kg decreased by 2,7% ; 
- our export of other olive oil increased by 9,5% ; 
- our total olive oil export increased by 4,2%.  
 
2.1.39   Ukraine's licensing requirement for exports of sunflower seeds  
2.1.39.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98141)  
Ukraine's Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Agriculture (MEDTA) has proposed draft 
Resoluti on No. 1329, which would impose a licensing requirement for exports of sunflower seeds 
(HS Code 1206009900) with a quota of zero tonne  from 15 May to 30 September 2021. This 
resolution would effectively ban Ukraine's exports of sunflower seeds during this period. 
(https://ww w.me.gov.ua/Documents/Detail?lang=uk -UA&id=98146033 -c486-4de1-9bbf-
3101e4e4d165&title=ProktPostanoviKabinetuMinistrivUkrainiproVnesenniaZminUDodatok1 -
DoPostanoviKabinetuMinistrivUkrainiVid28 -Grudnia2020 -R-1329-) 
 
In an article, dated 23 April 2021, Roman L eshchenko, Minister for Agrarian Policy and Food (MAPF) 
is quoted saying "The ban on sunflower (seed) exports is an illegal measure because according to 
current legislation, the reason for its introduction is a violation of market equilibrium, or deficit. 
However, there is no shortage of sunflower in Ukraine." He said the ban could create conditions for 
anti-competitive actions. ( https://www. agriculture.com/markets/newswire/ukraine -farm-minister -
opposes -sunflower -seed-export -ban) 
 
a. Please confirm if this resolution has been adopted. If so, please provide a copy or link to 
the final resolution.  
b. Please explain whether Ukrainian legislation does o r does not allow imposing a licensing 
requirement, with a zero quota, on exports (i.e., an export ban) of sunflower seeds from 
Ukraine.  
c. If Ukrainian legislation does allow this, please cite the relevant legal act(s).  
d. Please explain Ukraine's justification for implementing a licensing requirement, with a zero 
quota, on the export of sunflower seeds.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 149 - 
 
  e. Has MEDTA or MAPF completed an analysis on the sunflower seed market in Ukraine, or 
determined the impact of this resolution on fellow Member's food security? If  so, could 
Ukraine please share this analysis. If not, does Ukraine plan to conduct this analysis?  
i. Please explain how this draft resolution is in line with Ukraine's WTO commitments, 
including with respect to article XI of GATT 1994.  
ii. When will Ukraine notify this resolution to the WTO?  
Answer by Ukraine  
 
Ukraine would like to thank the United States for its interest in Ukraine's agricultural policy and is 
providing the following answers to the questions posed by the United States:  
 
a. The draft res olution has not been adopted.  
b. Ukrainian legislation does allow using non -automatic export licensing as an administrative 
procedure if export quotas are imposed.  
c. Article 16 of the Law of Ukraine "On Foreign Economic Activity", as well as provisions of 
the W TO agreements, allow imposing export prohibitions and restrictions in certain 
circumstances.  
d. Neither a licensing requirement nor a quota on the export of sunflower seeds has been 
implemented.  
e. The analysis of statistical data showed certain negative trends  in the market (a drop in 
the sunflower seed production due to a lower yield; a decrease in supply of sunflower 
seeds for crushing and processing; a significant increase in price).  
i. and ii. The draft resolution has not been adopted.  
Follow -up: The EU expr essed concern regarding the market effects of the export restriction measures 
questioned in AG -IMS ID s 98141 and 98142, in particular the effects on importing developing 
countries. The EU also questioned whether Ukraine had respected the notification oblig ation under 
the AOA.  
 
2.1.40   Ukraine's Memorandum of Understanding with the effect of an export restriction  
2.1.40.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 98142)  
On 19 April 2021, the Ukraine's Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Agriculture (MEDTA) 
announced it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on sunflower oil with industry, 
where producers agreed to limit exports to 5.38 million ton nes for marketing year 2020/21. The 
United States is concerned as this MOU and similar MOU's for wheat and c orn appear to have the 
effect of an export restriction.  
  
In a previous question about MEDTA's corn MOU, (AG -IMS ID 97037) Ukraine responded that "As it 
was mentioned at some previous CoA meetings, starting from 2011 on an annual basis the Ministry 
for De velopment of Economy, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine (or Ministry of Agrarian Policy and 
Food of Ukraine) and grain market participants (grain market entities and their public associations) 
have signed a Memorandum of understanding."  
  
a. Please explain if Ukraine's industry representatives were required to participate in MOU 
discussions with MEDTA for corn, wheat and/or sunflower oil.  
b. Please explain if Ukraine's market entities and public associations were required to sign 
the final MOU for each respective commodity.  
c. Please explain how Ukraine determines which commodities require signing of a MOU in a 
given marketing year.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 150 - 
 
  In the same response, Ukraine stated that "In accordance with the forecast balance of 
supply and demand of grain in 2020/2021 marketing year, the export potential of corn is 
estimated at 24 million tonnes , subject to the formation of optimal transitional s tocks."  
d. Please detail all criteria that MEDTA considers in its calculation of "the export potential" 
for commodities subject to an MOU.  
e. Please explain how public associations allocate export volumes among specific entities 
when an optimal export volume is determined.  
Answer by Ukraine  
 
Ukraine would like to thank the United States for the interest in Ukraine's agricultural policy and is 
providing the following answers to the questions posed by the United States:  
  
a. Industry representatives were not required to participate in MOU discussions. At the same 
time, such discussions are essential for the parties in order to agree on contents of a MOU, 
which is a product of these discussions.  
b. Market entities and public associations were not and are not required to s ign the final MOU 
for each respective commodity. At the same time, these MOUs, which do not impose any 
legal obligations on the parties, are open for accession by other participants.  
c. Ukraine (Ukrainian Government and its ministries) does not determine whi ch commodities 
require signing of a MOU in a given marketing year.  
d. Supply (domestic production, stocks, import) and domestic demand are taken into account 
by the MOUs' parties in order to estimate the export potential.  
e. Public associations do not allocate export volumes among specific entities.  
Follow -up: The EU expressed concern regarding the market effects of the export restriction measures 
questioned in AG -IMS ID s 98141 and 98142, in particular the effects on importing developing 
countries. The EU also questioned whether Ukraine had respected the notification obligation under 
the AOA. Brazil flagged concern regarding Ukraine's attempts to restrict exports, even thr ough 
agreements between the government and the private sector. It noted that when the measure is 
adopted by an important player in the international market, it could influence prices in the market. 
Brazil further referred to a statement by the FAO which re ad as follows "the FAO Food Price 
Index  (FFPI) averaged 127.1 points in May 2021, 5.8 points (4.8%) higher than in April and as much 
as 36.1 points (39.7%) above the same period last year. The May increase represented the biggest 
month -on-month gain since October 2010. It also marked the twelfth consecutive monthly rise in 
the value of the FFPI to its highest value since September 2011, bringing the Index only 7.6% below 
its peak value of 137.6 points registered in February 2011. The sharp increase in May r eflected a 
surge in prices for oils, sugar and cereals along with firmer meat and dairy prices".  
 
2.1.41   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
2.1.41.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 98033)  
The issues created by the UK's propos ed treatment of its WTO tariff rate quota commitments post 
Brexit continue unresolved and are generating direct and negative commercial impacts for 
WTO Members. Most immediately, our exporters are being denied the ability to use legally 
established tariff rate quotas into Northern Ireland. While we appreciate that the UK Government 
has made resolving this issue a priority, we request an update on the specific timeline by which the 
UK expects to have resolved this particular immediate access blockage?  
 
Answe r by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom remains committed to addressing issues relating to tariff rate quotas in Northern 
Ireland. The UK and the European Union have discussed this issue during the course of the year and G/AG/W/218  
 
- 151 - 
 
  have urgently been exploring severa l potential solutions. The UK remains committed to working 
closely together with members to ensure continuity of trade and to minimise disruption.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand urged the UK to seek a practical and meaningful solution to this issue as its 
export ers could not utilize the quota access to Northern Ireland currently. Uruguay noted that 
Members had faced difficulties in utilizing the UK's tariff rate quotas due to the complexity of the 
situation of Northern Ireland and the agreements between the EU an d the UK. Uruguay hoped that 
the UK could opt for a TRQ mechanism that could be used fully in its entire territory.  
 
2.1.42   United Kingdom - Agricultural Act 2020  
2.1.42.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 98032) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 98031)  
As part of the Agricultural Act 2020, the UK has announced a shift towards public money for public 
goods with payments based on rewarding farmers for safeguarding the environment, animal welfare 
and the UK's food system. We welcome the stated direction of UK agricultural  policy and the shift 
away from more trade distorting measures this implies. Given the greater clarity now available on 
the direction of UK agricultural policy, we would appreciate updated information on the implications 
this new UK approach will have on a ctual UK levels of trade distorting support, noting that the UK's 
current AMS claim (dating from 2017) represents 83% of the entire AMS expenditure declared by 
the EU -28 in 2015 -16 and over 20% of the value of UK agricultural production?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom is continuing to develop its agriculture policy following the end of the transition 
period arranged as part of leaving the European Union, and provides information on developing 
schemes and pilot projects through the gov.uk webs ite on a regular basis, including through the 
"Agricultural transition plan 2021 to 2024"5 document published in November 2020 which covers the 
territory of England. The UK's overarching objective is to modernise its domestic support provisions 
including to help achieve legitimate objectives on climate change, environmental protection, animal 
welfare and sustainability, and doing so in a way that removes or minimises trade distortion.  
   
The UK's approach to establishing its Aggregate Measure of Support ( AMS) entitlement was set out 
in October 2017. The UK and European Union used the agreed and established approach set out in 
the Agreement on Agriculture to determine what the UK's AMS entitlement would have been as an 
independent member under the Agreement . The UK joined the WTO as part of the EU12 bloc with a 
joint AMS entitlement calculated in accordance with Annexes 3 and 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The UK and European Union have now agreed the UK part of the original EC12 
entitlement, by using th e methodology set out in Annexes 3 and 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
to calculate "the base level for the implementation of the reduction commitment on domestic 
support" for the UK, and then applied the 20% reduction commitment. This resulted in the am ount 
set out in the UK Goods Schedule, an entitlement which represents less than 10% of the original 
entitlement of the 12 members of the European Community at the time. This transparent approach 
follows the agreed Agreement on Agriculture methodology and therefore replicates the approach 
taken by all other WTO members to determine AMS entitlements and was specifically designed not 
to increase the overall level of AMS entitlements at the WTO. We continue to engage bilaterally with 
Members who have outstandi ng questions or concerns about this approach.  
 
Follow -up: Intervening Members welcomed the UK's initiative to move its agricultural programmes 
away from production and trade distorting measures. Canada referred to the document mentioned 
by the UK which app lies to transition plans for England during the period of 2021 -24 and asked what 
programmes were being planned for other parts of the UK. The UK took note of the question and 
said it would follow up later. China, New Zealand, Paraguay, and Uruguay reiterat ed their concern 
on the UK's proposed AMS entitlements. Considering that the claimed AMS entitlement represented 
more than 20% of UK's total value of agricultural production, New Zealand encouraged the UK to 
hold consultations with other interested Members  and noted that the currency alterations and the 
potential impacts of the claim would need to be fully consulted and agreed with others. Uruguay 
called on the UK to commit itself to the reform process and support the initiative of the Cairns Group 
and El S alvador to limit and reduce trade distorting support entitlements by 2030. Paraguay noted 
that despite the various questions posed by other Members, the UK has not given an appropriate 
 
5 https://www.gov.uk/governme nt/publications/agricultural -transition -plan-2021-to-2024. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 152 - 
 
  response on this matter yet and hoped that the UK can address it as qui ckly as possible. China noted 
that AMS functions as export subsidies when a large proportion of trade -distorting support was 
granted to exported products. China looked forward to further discussions with the UK on this matter, 
both on bilateral and multila teral basis. Australia invited the UK to regularly update the Committee 
on the impact of its agricultural policies and the actual level of its trade -distorting support, 
particularly in the context of UK's sizeable AMS entitlements claim. Australia also enc ouraged the 
UK to engage with interested Members on a plurilateral basis to discuss its proposed AMS bound 
level and the direction of its agricultural policies. Brazil thanked Canada and New Zealand for raising 
this issue in the CoA; it noted that there ma y be a convergence between, on the one hand, increased 
subsidies to remunerate farmers for meeting environmental and animal welfare standards 
sovereignly defined by the UK and, on the other hand, restrictive measures on imports from third 
countries that ad opt and comply with their own standards, many of which are more advanced in 
terms of both the potential to protect the environment and less distortive effects on trade, due to 
not being attached to governmental domestic support. Brazil noted that, in this sense, it would be 
important to understand why the UK considers this type of subsidy necessary. The Russian 
Federation expressed interest in the issue.  
 
2.1.43   US Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
2.1.43.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98003)  
It is understood that Unit ed States' new Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative will provide 
USD 2 million to farmers.  
  
a. Could the United States elaborate on how this USD 2 million sum would work in practice?  
b. How long would the programme be in operation?  
Answer by United Stat es of America  
 
The Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative was announced by the  US Department of 
Agriculture  (USDA) in March 2021 with the objective of distributing assistance broadly and equitably 
to those who qualify and to use authorities extended by Congress to assist producers who have not 
benefitted from previous rounds of COVID -19 assistance, including underserved producers and 
smaller and medium -sized operations. The USD 2 million dollars announced by USDA on 5  April 2021 
will be used to establish partnerships with organizations to provide outreach and technical assistance 
to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Funding for successful applicants is expected to be 
in place by 1  September  2021.  
 
Follow -up: In light of the large amoun ts of payments, Canada noted concern regarding the measure's 
implication for production and trade. Brazil thanked New Zealand and India for giving the US the 
opportunity to clarify how its successive new programmes for the agricultural sector are being 
designed and whether WTO rules are being respected. Brazil referred to a question it posed at the 
previous Committee meeting about the "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021" and flagged concern 
about the potential of  US ad hoc programmes to distort agricultural m arkets. Brazil noted that the 
COVID -19 pandemic had affected all Members, but many found less distortive ways to address the 
negative effects on their domestic agricultural sector. Australia invited the US to further clarify 
whether the payments made under  the programmes would exceed its AMS commitment and 
encouraged the US to ensure the remaining fund are allocated in a transparent manner and comply 
with WTO obligations. New Zealand supported Australia's comments and recalled that Members' 
response measure s to COVID -19 should be temporary, transparent and consistent with WTO rules. 
New Zealand looked forward to  US DS:1 notification. The EU registered interest in the topic. Uruguay 
emphasized the importance of avoiding excessive use of such ad hoc programmes .  
 
2.1.43.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98006)  
India thanks the United States for its response to AG -IMS ID 95014 on the Paycheck Protection 
Program. In its response, US states that under the Paycheck Protection Programme, there is no 
budgeted allocation or targe t for agriculture sector. But, it is known from various reports that the 
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) provided forgivable loans to small businesses, including farms.  
Could the United States clarify the following:  
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 153 - 
 
  a. Eligibility criteria under the scheme for loans for the farmers?  
b. How does this programme comply with the provision under the AoA?  
c. It is understood that this programme currently offers PPP loans until 31  May 2021. Is this 
expected to be extended?  
d. In response to AG -IMS ID 95014, regarding  continuation of the programme, US responded 
"The US Congress would need to pass new legislation to extend the Paycheck Protection 
Program. To date, no such legislation has been enacted". Has the new legislation been 
passed? Kindly provide details.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is available to a wide range of small businesses 
across numerous sectors, including the agricultural sector. Small businesses, including 
agricultural producers, farmers, and ranchers are el igible for PPP loans if they meet specific 
criteria: 1) the business has 500 or fewer employees, 2) the business fits within the 
revenue -based sized standard, which is on average annual receipts of USD  1 million, or 
3) a farm business that meets the Small Business Administration's alternative size 
standard, which has a) a maximum net worth of the business of not more than USD  15 
million and b) the average net income for Federal income taxes of the business for the 
two full fiscal years before the date of th e application is not more than USD  5 million.  
b. Farmers and ranchers eligible for PPP loans did not receive benefits that exceeded those 
received by other small businesses. Therefore, as a generally available and widely -used 
program, it will not be notified in the US DS:1 as an agricultural domestic support measure.  
c. The acceptance of PPP applications concluded on 31 May 2021.  
d. No legislation has been passed to extend the PPP.  
Follow -up: In light of the large amounts of payments, Canada noted concern regarding the measure's 
implication for production and trade. Brazil thanked New Zealand and India for giving the US the 
opportunity to clarify how its successive new programmes for the agricultural sector are being 
designed and whether WTO rules are being respected . Brazil referred to a question it posed at the 
previous Committee meeting about the "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021" and flagged concern 
about the potential of US ad hoc programmes to distort agricultural markets. Brazil noted that the 
COVID -19 pandemic  had affected all Members, but many found less distortive ways to address the 
negative effects on their domestic agricultural sector. Australia invited the US to further clarify 
whether the payments made under the programmes would exceed its AMS commitment  and 
encouraged the US to ensure the remaining fund are allocated in a transparent manner and comply 
with WTO obligations. New Zealand supported Australia's comments and recalled that Members' 
response measures to COVID -19 should be temporary, transparent and consistent with WTO rules. 
New Zealand looked forward to US DS:1 notification. The EU registered interest in the topic. Uruguay 
emphasized the importance of avoiding excessive use of such ad hoc programmes.  
 
2.1.43.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 98145)  
New Zealand notes recent media reporting that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has announced 
the new USDA Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative, to make financial assistance available 
to a broader set of producers than in previous aid programs. USDA reported it is dedicating at least 
USD 6 billion toward the new programs. We understand that the existing Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program (CFAP) will fall within the new initiative with some alterations under the new 
CFAP-AA. 
 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2021/03/24/after -identifying -gaps-previous -aid-
usda-announces -pandemic  
 
New Zealand understands that the Pande mic Assistance for Producers initiative encompasses four 
sections:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 154 - 
 
  • Part 1: Investing USD 6 Billion to Expand Help & Assistance to More Producers;  
• Part 2: Adding USD 500 Million of New Funding to Existing Programs;  
• Part 3: Carrying Out Formula Payments unde r CFAP 1, CFAP 2, CFAP AA;  
• Part 4: Reopening CFAP 2 Sign -Up to Improve Access & Outreach to Underserved Producers.  
 
The US had previously approved more than USD 9.5 billion in payments in the second round of the 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), of an allocated USD 14 billion, in addition to the 
USD 10.4 billion in the first round of CFAP of USD 14 billion through 2019 and 2020.  
 
New Zealand awaits the formal notification of these programmes to this Committee but notes the 
strong likelihood that these payments may see the US exceed their AMS limits of USD 19.1 billion. 
In the purpose of transparency:  
 
a. Can the US provide an update on the total amount of funding delivered to date?  
b. Can the US clarify how it will ensure that any remain ing funds allocated under the CFAP 
will be deployed in a way that is proportionate to the harm it seeks to address, transparent, 
consistent with WTO obligations, and wound back as soon as they are no longer necessary?  
c. And when we can expect to see notifica tion of payments consistent with commitments 
made under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. In fiscal year 2020, outlays under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) were 
USD 10.7 billion. To date in fiscal year 2021 (1 October  2020 – 31 May 2021), outlays 
under the second tranche of this program were USD  13.7 billion.  
b. In 2021, USDA carefully reviewed all COVID -19 assistance programs and in the course of 
that review identified gaps and disparities in how that assistanc e was distributed. 
Assistance is intended to respond to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic that has affected 
US agriculture. Assistance still being provided through CFAP is targeted at verified needs 
that have not been addressed by previous implementation of th e program. The US will 
continue to monitor the impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic and will phase out assistance 
consistent with authorizing legislation in response to changes and improvements in 
conditions.  
c. The United States is currently drafting the Table D S:1 notification for marketing 
year 2019/20, which will be submitted once complete. Subsequent Table DS:1 
notifications will be drafted after the completion of the relevant implementation period and 
the necessary data has been collected.  
Follow -up: In light of the large amounts of payments, Canada noted concern regarding the measure's 
implication for production and trade. Brazil thanked New Zealand and India for giving the US the 
opportunity to clarify how its successive new programmes for the agricultu ral sector are being 
designed and whether WTO rules are being respected. Brazil referred to a question it posed at the 
previous Committee meeting about the "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021" and flagged concern 
about the potential of US ad hoc programmes t o distort agricultural markets. Brazil noted that the 
COVID -19 pandemic had affected all Members, but many found less distortive ways to address the 
negative effects on their domestic agricultural sector. Australia invited the US to further clarify 
whether  the payments made under the programmes would exceed its AMS commitment and 
encouraged the US to ensure the remaining fund are allocated in a transparent manner and comply 
with WTO obligations. New Zealand supported Australia's comments and recalled that M embers' 
response measures to COVID -19 should be temporary, transparent and consistent with WTO rules. 
New Zealand looked forward to US DS:1 notification. The EU registered interest in the topic. Uruguay 
emphasized the importance of avoiding excessive use o f such ad hoc programmes.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 155 - 
 
  2.1.44   US support to cotton sector  
2.1.44.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98004)  
a. What measures are being taken by the United States to ensure that the product -specific 
AMS to cotton of USD 1,388.57 million which amounts to 19.1% of the value of production 
of cotton during MY 2018 -19 does not affect the world cotton prices?  
b. The United States is requested to provide the area, production, domestic price, export and 
import (quantity and value) of cotton for the last 10 years?  
c. Has the United States undertaken any study/analysis examining the impact of the  US 
cotton subsidies on world cotton price? If yes, kindly provide the details of the study.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Product -specific AMS to cotton in 2018/19 was primarily composed of pa yments under the 
Market Facilitation Program. This was an ad hoc measure to provide assistance to 
commodities already planted or produced when the program was announced and so would 
not be expected to have production effects.  
b.  
United States Cotton Statisti cs  
United States Cotton Statistics  
  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  
(1) Cotton production 
(thousand tonnes )  3,391  3,770  2,811  3,553  2,806  3,738  4,555  3,999  4,336  3,256  
(2) Cotton area of 
cultivation  
(thousand hectares )  3,829  3,773  3,053  3,783  3,268  3,848  4,492  4,043  4,700  3,521  
(3) Average price 
(USD/tonne )  2,061  1,669  1,847  1,448  1,422  1,554  1,585  1,594  1,373  1,437  
(Trade data for HS 5201)  
(4) Export value  
(million USD )  8,386  6,225  5,592  4,396  3,889  3,959  5,827  6,550  6,141  5,968  
(5) Export quantity 
(1,000 tonnes )  2,760  2,752  2,790  2,166  2,396  2,469  3,252  3,576  3,562  3,822  
(6) Import value  
(million USD ) 15.7 6.6 6.6 9.4 4.6 11.6 3.2 2.9 1.4 1.0 
(7) Import quantity 
(1,000 tonnes )  3.6 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.7 7.3 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.5 
Notes:  Data in lines (1) and (2) are verified by the United States and sourced from ICAC "Cotton this Month" 
publication. Year N corresponds to cotton season N/N+1 which begins on 1 August. Data for 2018 
and 2019 are estimates. Data in line (3) is Marketing Year average price from USDA NASS: 
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/ . Data in lines (4)  - (7) are sourced from United States 
Census Bureau are cal endar year statistics.  
 
c. No. The United States has not undertaken any such studies or analysis.  
2.1.45   US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  
2.1.45.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 98005)  
With respect to question AG -IMS ID 93187 to whi ch the United States responded that it is looking 
into the matter and will respond as appropriate, India is interested in the United States' response to 
the question reproduced below:  
  
a. Can the US explain how this scheme works in practice including the or igin of alcohol, 
eligible products, exact amount of excise duty exemptions per product, the estimated 
annual amount in question and the final beneficiaries of this scheme?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 156 - 
 
  b. Can the US give statistical information about quantities exported to the US benefiti ng from 
this scheme for the years 2014 to 2020?  
c. Can the US explain how it ensures that products being exported from Puerto Rico and the 
US Virgin Islands to other parts of the world other than the US do not benefit directly or 
indirectly from this scheme?  
d. Has this subsidy been included in the recent DS:1 notifications of the US, if yes, under 
which Supporting Table?  
e. Please elaborate on the nature of the measure and under what provisions of the Agreement 
on Agriculture can it be classified? Please provide th e relevant URL for notification of the 
measure.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States has already provided a response to this question. Please see AG-IMS ID 93187 
for the original response, which is repeated here:  
 
a. There is no such scheme benefitting rum producers. Under  US law, rum produced in or 
imported into the United States is subject to an excise tax. Rum that is produced in Puerto 
Rico and the  US Virgin Islands and shipped to the United States is also subject to this 
excise tax. Unde r US law, a portion of excise taxes on rum imported into the United States 
is transferred to the general treasuries of Puerto Rico and the  US Virgin Islands.  
b. As noted above, no such scheme exists. Rum produced in Puerto Rico and the  US Virgin 
Islands that is shipped to the United States is subject to the same excise tax as rum 
produced in or imported into the United States.  
c. As stated above, there is no such scheme. Under  US law, a portion of excise taxes on rum 
imported into the United States i s transferred to the general treasuries of Puerto Rico and 
the US Virgin Islands.  
d. As stated above, there is no such subsidy to include in the  US DS:1 notification.  
e. See above.  
Follow -up: The EU requested further details on the subsidy.  
 
2.1.46   US Conservation Rese rve Program  
2.1.46.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 98143)  
Last April, the US has announced the reopening of registrations for the "Conservation Reserve 
Program" (CRP). Since the CRP is notified in the Supporting Table DS:1 as an "environmental 
program", could the US provide the following information:  
 
a. In addition to the goal of adding 4 million acres to the CRP, have other conditions of the 
programme been changed, such as farmers' eligibility criteria, eligible commodities and 
payment rates?  
b. According to notifica tion G/AG/N/USA/150, expenditures under the programme were 
USD 635 million. These expenses are significantly lower than the USD  1.8 billion notified 
in 2016 (G/AG/N/USA/123) and the USD 1.31 billion notified in 2017 
(G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1) and the USD 1.68 billion announced by the USDA for 2020. 
Could the US explain the reason for this fluctuation in expenditure under the "Conservation 
Reserve Program"? (Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -room/news -
releases/2020/usda -issues-168-billion -in-payments -to-producers -enrolled -in-the-
conservation -reserve -program )  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 157 - 
 
  c. According to USDA information, "The Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) is used to 
evaluate and rank land offered for enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CR P) 
during a general signup. Scores are based on the expected environmental benefits to soil 
resources, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other resource concerns during the time the 
land is to be enrolled in the program. Each offer submitted is assigned a point score based 
on its relative environmental benefits". How does the EBI relate to the criterion in 
paragraph  12 of Annex 2 to the AoA (payment is "limited to the extra costs or loss of 
income involved in complying with the government program")? 
(Sour ce: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Environmental_Benefits_IndexConserv
ation_Reser.pdf ) 
d. What is the estimated increase in expenditure due t o the reopening of registrations for the 
"Conservation Reserve Program" (CRP)?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Eligibility for participation in the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) remains the same 
under the 2018 Farm Bill. Participation is determine d by an auction system that ranks 
producer bids according to the environmental benefits that would be derived from 
long-term retirement of the agricultural land. There is no link to commodities, and 
payments are in the form of an annual rental payment. USD A's Farm Service Agency bases 
rental rates on the relative productivity of the soils within each county and the average 
cash rent using data provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The 
maximum CRP rental rate for each offer is calc ulated in advance of enrolment. Producers 
may offer land at that rate or offer a lower rental rate. Producers are also eligible for up 
to 50% cost -share for installation of conservation practices on their enrolled land, as well 
as payments to encourage pri oritized practices, such as those associated with soil health 
and water quality.  
Because enrolments continue below authorized levels, program adjustments were announced for the 
most recent signup period to encourage full enrolment. FSA may now adjust soil rental rates above 
previous limits of 85 -90% of the base rates (including a minimum grasslands rental rate) and provide 
an inflation adjustment over the life of CRP contracts. A Climate Smart practices payment has been 
added to encourage establishment of p ractices related to carbon sequestration, and payments for 
water quality practices have been increased.  
 
b. Thank you for noting the unexpectedly low outlays reported for the CRP program in our 
2018 notification. The USD 635 million was based on earlier data;  updated program data 
shows that CRP outlays in FY  2019 were USD 1.9 billion, in line with outlays for other 
years. The United States will submit a corrigendum to make that correction.  
c. Producers forgo production (and thus income) on the land enrolled in CR P for the length 
of the contract, generally for at least 10 -15 years. Annual rental payments for land enrolled 
in CRP do not reimburse for the value of lost production on the land.  
d. USDA estimates net expenditures of USD 2.1 billion for CRP in FY  2021, comp ared to 
USD 1.9 billion in FY  2019 and USD 1.85 billion in FY  2020.  
2.1.47   US American Rescue Plan Debt Payments  
2.1.47.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98144)  
The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of 
1 Januar y 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and Guaranteed Farm Loans and Farm 
Storage Facility Loans debt relief to any socially disadvantaged producer who has a qualifying loan 
with FSA. This includes producers who identify as one or more of the followi ng: Black/African 
American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, or Pacific Islander. 
Since this debt payment will qualify as income, Congress determined the 20% additional payment 
is intended to help mitigate liabilities that occur when clearing a debt, which may include tax 
liabilities, among others.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 158 - 
 
  a. Can US explain more in detail how it intends to include this aid scheme in its 
DS:1 notification?  
b. Does the US intend to notify separately the loan and the 20% additional payment?  
(https://www.farmers.gov/americanrescueplan?utm_campaign=AmericanRescuePlan&utm_mediu
m=email&utm_source=g ovdelivery ) 
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. and b.  On 26 May 2021, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) issued the first notice of funding 
availability for eligible borrowers with direct loans under the Farm Loan Programs (FLP) and Farm 
Storage Facility L oan Program (FSFL), as authorized by section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan 
Act of 2021 (ARPA). A subsequent notice addressing guaranteed loans and remaining loan balances 
eligible under section 1005 is still forthcoming and will be published within 120 days of the 26th May 
announcement. Once the implementation of section 1005 of ARPA  is complete, the United States 
will determine the appropriate notification of the measure.  
 
Follow -up: The EU flagged concern that the various new measures introduced by the US would be 
Amber Box support and the spending may exceed  US AMS bound level. The  EU asked what measures 
the US would take to ensure that its initiative would not break the WTO commitments.  
 
2.1.48   Viet Nam's input subsidies  
2.1.48.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 98146)  
Viet Nam – Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID 97082  
  
No reply to this quest ion has been uploaded in AG-IMS. Can Viet Nam indicate when the reply will 
be available? The question is reproduced below.  
  
Viet Nam indicates it spends VND 5.3 trillion on input subsidies. Could Viet Nam explain in more 
detail how much is provided for fu el subsidies, fertiliser, seeds and other inputs.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
These support measures are for low -income households, poor households, near -poor households, 
and areas with special difficulties to develop agricultural production. Support is provided in the forms 
of money or in -kind. Accordingly, people can choose the form of support and the list of in -kind 
support including plant varieties, livestock breeds, veterinary drugs, and iodized salt. This support 
is provided by local government agencies. Due  to limited resources and statistical capacity, Viet Nam 
does not have detailed statistics for each support category.  
 
2.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments  (Table MA:1)  
2.2.1.1   European Unio n (G/AG/N/EU/65/ADD.1)  
AG-IMS ID 98075: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States appreciates the MA:1 addendum in G/AG/N/EU/65/Add.1, which excludes the UK 
from participating in the EU's TRQs.  
 
a. Noting the information notified both in G/AG/N/EU/65 and this addendum, are there any 
other free trade agreement (FTA) partne rs that should be (or are) excluded from WTO 
TRQ allocations? If so, please provide a list of these FTA partners that are excluded from 
applicable WTO TRQ allocations.  
b. Will TRQ EU -Q078, TRQ EU -Q090, and TRQ EU -Q104 be updated to reflect the adoption 
of leg islation implementing the provisions of the EU -UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement G/AG/W/218  
 
- 159 - 
 
  (TCA)? If so, will the EU submit a revision of G/AG/N/EU/65, incorporating both these 
TRQs and the information shared in G/AG/N/EU/65/Add.1?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The exc lusion was designed to address a specific situation related to the withdrawal of the UK from 
the EU and thus does not affect other FTA partners.  
 
The relevant implementing Regulations (EU 2021/254 and EU 2021/761) have now been adopted 
and are fully in fo rce. These two Regulations cover all agricultural WTO TRQ concerned by the 
provision for the exclusion of the UK. They will be notified in due course. Processed agricultural 
products are covered in a separate legislative act. For further details please see  links below :  
 
https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0254&from=EN   
https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0760&qid=1622817663033   
AG-IMS ID 98076: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States requests that the EU please provide an update on the status of legislation 
concerning the TRQs listed in paragraph 2 of G/AG/N/EU/65/Add.1.  
  
a. Did legislation go into effect in April 2021 as expected?  
b. Additionally, TRQ EU -Q113 is for a U SA-only TRQ; will TCA -related legislation affect 
this TRQ?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The legislation on the exclusion of the imports of products originating in the United Kingdom for the 
TRQs for processed agricultural products was adopted on 27 May 2021. It will be notified in due 
course. Please see the link below : https://eur -lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/852   
 
The country -specific TRQ 113 (food preparations) which is allocated to the USA w ill not be affected 
by this change.  
AG-IMS ID 98077: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Allocations for TRQ EU -Q098 have been updated in G/AG/N/EU/65/Add.1 from "Australia, Brazil, 
Cuba, other third countries." to "Australia, Brazil , Cuba, All third countries except the United 
Kingdom".  
  
a. Please clarify whether there has been a change with respect to Australia's, Brazil's, and/or 
Cuba's participation in the general allocation.  
b. Are Australia, Brazil and Cuba now able to participate in the "all third countries except the 
United Kingdom" allocation?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. There has been no change in the participation of these countries to the general allocation. 
The only change that was implemented was the exclusion of t he United Kingdom from the 
category of "other third countries".  
b. Please see answer to section a) above.  
AG-IMS ID 98078: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Paragraphs 1m ) and 1n ) of G/AG/N/EU/65/Add.1 both refer to TRQ EU -Q077.  
  
Please clarify which paragraph contains the appropriate language for TRQ EU -Q077 and whether the 
other paragraph refers to another TRQ.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 160 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
Both paragraphs refer to the "others" part of TRQ77 clarifying that imports from United Kingdom  do 
not qualify for this category. There should only be one reference, hence paragraph "m" correctly 
describes the TRQ accurately.  
 
Follow -up: The US appreciated the EU's reflection of the changes to its TRQ administration in its 
notifications and looked f orward to further updates as the Brexit TRQ negotiations proceed.  
 
2.2.1.2   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/2)  
AG-IMS ID 98079: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States congratulates the United Kingdom on submitting its first Table M A:1 notification 
to the Committee on Agriculture and providing WTO Members the opportunity to review.  
  
a. The United Kingdom has noted that the EU is excluded from erga omnes  TRQs. Are there 
any other FTA partners that should also be excluded from erga omnes  or other TRQ 
allocations and if so, please specify the countries.  
b. It appears that the United Kingdom copied over the tariff codes from the EU's 2017 
schedule, for which the EU has since made corrections. Specifically, in document 
G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.3 the  EU makes corrections to the tariff code for malting barley 
and fruit juices. Please verify whether these updates need to be incorporated in the 
UK's MA:1 along with the corrected codes.  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. As set out in the United Kingdom's MA:1 notification of 15 January 2021, the European 
Union is excluded from the use of the UK's erga omnes  tariff rate quotas (TRQs). Apart 
from the European Union no other WTO member is excluded from the UK's erga omnes  
quotas.  
b. The United Kingdom has had technical discussions with several WTO Members in relation 
to corrections that will be required in the UK's Goods Schedule XIX. This includes the 
corrections to the tariff codes for malting barley and fruit juices as add ressed by the 
European Union previously in documents G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.2 and 
G/MA/TAR/RS/506/Add.3. The UK will shortly seek to rectify its schedule to address these 
technical corrections. Following this schedule rectification, the UK will also incorpora te 
relevant updates to its MA:1. The UK thanks the USA for highlighting this issue. This is a 
demonstration of the benefits of transparency at the WTO, which the UK fully supports.  
2.2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/ N/BRA/59)  
AG-IMS ID 98007: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
India thanks Brazil for submitting its MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/BRA/59) for calendar year 2019. 
India notes that Apples; peaches (BRAQ001) (0%); and Durum wheat, other (than seeds); Other 
(than durum wheat), other (than seeds) (BRAQ002) (6.2%) had a fill rate of less than 10%.  
  
a. Can Brazil elaborate on the reason for the underfill for each of the products?  
b. Can Brazil provide information on any efforts to improve administration for greater f ill 
rates?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Brazil calls India's attention to the footnotes in Brazil's MA:2 notification, which reads as 
follows:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 161 - 
 
  "BRAQ001 - Brazil informs the Committee on Agriculture that the tariff -rate quota for 
apples and pears was not implemented, given that the applied tariffs (10%) were below 
the in -quota rate (13.5%) for both products. Imports during 2019 (metric tonnes): 
Apples  78,459; Pears 153,489. Brazil also clarifies that the original TRQ commitment of 
10,000 tonnes was applied for both tar iff item numbers (08081000, 08082001). " 
"BRAQ002 - Since the quota has been established from 18 November 2019, the in -quota 
imports data provided consider less than two months and not a whole year, what results 
in a low fill rate. " 
As indicated in the foot notes, TRQ BRAQ001 was not opened as the applied MFN tariffs 
are lower than the intra -quota tariff, while import data for BRAQ002 is partial, pertaining 
only to the final period 2020.  
Import data in only partial, because BRAQ002 has a quota -year from 18th November to 
17th November of the following year (Resolução nº  10 do Comitê Executivo de Gestão da 
CAMEX, from 12th November  2019), while Brazil's notification is on a calendar -year basis. 
If taken into account the full quota -year, BRAQ002 has been fully fi lled. 
b. Brazil discloses the information about the application and use of the quota online, thus 
allowing for transparent monitoring by all interested parties.  Updated quota fill information 
can be found at: http://www.siscomex.gov.br/informacoes/importacao/   
Select "COTAS DE IMPORTAÇÃO" - "COTA CAMEX". In the new tab, check for the 
HS NUMBER (NCM 1001.19.00 1001.99.00).  
Updated information on companies that have received license can be found at: 
http://www.siscomex.gov.br/informacoes/importacao/   
Select "COTAS DE IMPORTAÇÃO" - Cota de Importação de Trigo 2021 – Proporcional.  
2.2.2.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/57 , G/AG/N/ECU/ 58) 
AG-IMS ID 98080: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
In the last two notifications MA:2, referring to calendar years 2017 (G/AG/N/ECU/57) and  2018 
(G/AG/N/ECU/58), Ecuador reported that there were no intra -quota imports and that "Applied 
MFN tariffs for some su bheadings remained below the quota tariff levels.".  
 
Could Ecuador clarify whether:  
 
a. all TRQs have been opened. If not, which ones were opened?  
b. There are "subheadings" of each one of the TRQs whose applied rate is higher than the 
intra-quota rate. If so, f or which TRQ?  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
a. Ecuador opened its TRQs in the years covered by the notifications, with these TRQs being 
allocated on a first come, first served basis.  
b. The notifications made by Ecuador on TRQs for 2017 (document G/AG/N/ECU/57) 
and 2018 (d ocument G/AG/N/ECU/58) contained the following sentence as a footnote to 
Table  MA:2: "Applied MFN tariffs for some subheadings remained below the quota tariff 
levels".  
This footnote refers to the cases in which the applied tariff for the product subject to  a 
TRQ, in line with our WTO commitments, is lower than the in-quota  tariff due to a unilateral 
adoption of tariff policy measures, the setting of a lower applied level, or the fact that the 
products are imported from countries with which our country has a  trade agreement.  
For example, in the case of tariff policy measures, Ecuador applied tariff deferrals to 0% 
for wheat and soya bean oilcake in 2017 and 2018.The applied tariff levels for yellow 
maize, milk in powder, barley, sorghum, wheat and maize starc h, glucose, glucose 
fructose, glucose syrup and oilcake of colza are lower than the in-quota  tariff.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 162 - 
 
  2.2.2.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/68)  
AG-IMS ID 98149: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues  
The following question is being asked in follow ‑up to the reply r eceived to AG ‑IMS ID 97133. The 
European Union has indicated that the beef tariff quotas EUQ005 and EUQ007 are country ‑specific. 
Could the European Union indicate the utilization levels of these quotas by tariff line?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The quota f ill for the beef tariff rate quotas EUQ005 and EUQ007 may be found on this website: 
Allocation Coefficients TRQs -Import.pdf ( europa.eu ).  
 
The order numbers covering EUQ005 and EUQ007 are: 09.4002, 09.4450, 09.4451, 09.4452.  
AG-IMS ID 98081: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
It is noted in G/AG/N/EU/68 that EU -Q033 is not marked closed, and it does not provide data on 
in-quota imports (columns 4 and 5).  
 
Please confirm that this TRQ is closed, or provide the relevant import data for this TRQ.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Due to a technical glitch, it seems the data was not taken into account in the EU transmission to 
the WTO. EU -Q033 is indeed closed for the period running from  1 July 2019 and until 30 June 2020. 
237 tonnes have been imported which means a fill rate of 4.4%.  
 
2.2.2.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  
AG-IMS ID 98034: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, United States  
  
In AG -IMS IDs 97128 and 97127 India was requested to provide data on market circumstances that 
could explain the underfill of the maize (INDQ002) and milk (INDQ001) TRQs in G/AG/N/IND/20. In 
response, India failed to provide any data and stated that the TR Q underfill was demand -driven and 
based on the market situation.  
  
a. Please provide quantitative data and any relevant qualitative information that would 
substantiate the claim made by India. For example, was the domestic market price for 
maize less than th e world price?  
Further, India was requested to provide information on the quota administration of maize  (INDQ002) 
and milk (INDQ001), and in response, India directed Members to review Paragraph 2.62 of Handbook 
of Procedures, 2015 -20. Paragraph 2.62 state s that imports of maize will be through 
designated  STEs.  
  
b. Please confirm if the Handbook of Procedures, 2015 -20, which states it applies only 
through 31 March 2020, is still the relevant document regarding the administration of tariff 
rate quotas for the current year 2021. When is a revised version expected to replace it?  
c. Please provide further details on the reallocation procedures undertaken by India if no 
applications are received by a designated STE. Please also provide links to any relevant 
government  documentation governing this process.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 163 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. As stated by India in its response to AG-IMS ID 97127, applications for import under TRQ 
and fill rates are demand driven and based on market situation. For example, 
during  2019-20, a comparison   of the domestic and international prices for maize shows 
that the former was almost half of the latter.  
b. The validity of Handbook of Procedure, 2015 -20 has been extended up to 
30th September  2021.  
c. No reallocation procedures are adopted by India in such cases.  
Follow -up: Brazil noted that its private sector confirmed that there is no demand for imports, as 
these are controlled by public companies, in line with what is provided for in the 'Handbook of 
Procedures'. Considering that India is a large corn pro ducer and that eventual imports would only 
complement its domestic production, Brazil expressed interest in understanding procedures of 
reallocation of licenses from state -owned companies to the private sector if the government does 
not show interest in us ing them.  
AG-IMS ID 98035: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
Co-sponsors: Australia, United States  
  
In AG -IMS ID s 97128 and 97127 India was requested to provide data on market circumstances that 
could explain the underfill of the ma ize (INDQ002) and milk (INDQ001) TRQs in G/AG/N/IND/20. In 
response, India failed to provide any data and stated that the TRQ underfill was demand -driven and 
based on the market situation.  
  
a. Please provide quantitative data and any relevant qualitative in formation that would 
substantiate the claim made by India. For example, was the domestic market price for 
maize less than the world price?  
Further, India was requested to provide information on the quota administration of maize (INDQ002) 
and milk (INDQ001 ), and in response, India directed Members to review Paragraph 2.62 of Handbook 
of Procedures, 2015 -20. Paragraph 2.62 states that imports of maize will be through 
designated  STEs.  
  
b. Please confirm if the Handbook of Procedures, 2015 -20, which states it ap plies only 
through 31 March 2020, is still the relevant document regarding the administration of tariff 
rate quotas for the current year 2021. When is a revised version expected to replace it?  
c. Please provide further details on the reallocation procedures undertaken by India if no 
applications are received by a designated STE. Please also provide links to any relevant 
government documentation governing this process.  
Answer by India  
 
a. As stated by India in its response to AG -IMS ID 97127, applications for imp ort under TRQ 
and fill rates are demand driven and based on market situation. For example, 
during  2019-2020, a comparison of the domestic and international prices for maize shows 
that the former was almost half of the latter.  
b. The validity of Handbook of P rocedure, 2015 -2020 has been extended up to 
30th September 2021.  
c. No reallocation procedures are adopted by India in such cases.  
Follow -up: Brazil noted that its private sector confirmed that there is no demand for imports, as 
these are controlled by publi c companies, in line with what is provided for in the 'Handbook of 
Procedures'. Considering that India is a large corn producer and that eventual imports would only 
complement its domestic production, Brazil expressed interest in understanding procedures o f G/AG/W/218  
 
- 164 - 
 
  reallocation of licenses from state -owned companies to the private sector if the government does 
not show interest in using them.  
 
2.2.2.5   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/263)  
AG-IMS ID 98082: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Japan for its MA:2 notif ication for the fiscal year 2019/2020. Australia notes Japan 
recorded a fill rate of less than 6 5% for nine of its quotas:  
 
1. skimmed milk powder (for school lunch);  
2. skimmed milk powder (for other purposes);  
3. prepared whey (for infant formula);  
4. butter and butteroil;  
5. mineral concentrated whey;  
6. dried leguminous vegetables;  
7. barley and its processed parts;  
8. ground -nuts; tubers of konnyaku; and  
9. silk-worm cocoons and raw silk.  
 
Australia notes that we have asked Japan questions on these TRQs in the past, but we kindly request 
similar confirmation to explain these underfills, including:  
 
a. can Japan explain the reasons for the underfill of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can  Japan explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
c. Can Japan explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, as 
per the objective of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Japan  
 
The reasons for underfill of these quotas are as follows. Japan has already improved the TRQ 
administration by introducing more frequent allocation and modifying the validity  period of licenses.  
(skimmed milk powder (for school lunch), skimmed milk powder (for other purposes), prepared 
whey (for infant formula), butter and butteroil, mineral concentrated whey)  
 
The quotas of these products have been unfulfilled as the domestic  consumption related to these 
products have not been increasing.   
 
(dried leguminous vegetables, barley and its processed parts, ground -nuts)  
 
The low fill rates are mainly due to the decrease in domestic demand and market circumstances. 
The reason for th e low fill rate of WTO barley tariff quota is that the barley for feed is imported under 
the Economic Partnership Agreements and its quantity is not calculated in the WTO tariff quota fill 
rate.  
 
(tubers of konnyaku)  
 
Due to the decreasing demand and changing market environment of konnyaku, under the declaration 
of a state of emergency for COVID -19 pandemic in Japan, the import volume of konnyaku flour was 
decreased.   
 
(silk-worm cocoons and raw silk)   
 
Japan's domestic  silk fabric manufacturers are faced with intense international competition due to 
the decline in demand for Japanese -style attire as well as increased imports of silk fabrics and 
secondary silk fabrics.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 165 - 
 
  Due to this situation, the demand for cocoons and r aw silk in Japan is decreasing and the digestibility 
of the tariff rate quota has been low in recent years.  
 
Follow -up: Australia encouraged Japan to include more information in future MA:2 notifications when 
a quota fill rate is below 65%. This will enabl e Members to assess more quickly whether low fill rates 
are due to market circumstances, SPS issues or quota administration.  
AG-IMS ID 98083: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand welcomes Japan's notification (G/AG/N/JPN/263) regarding i mports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the fiscal year 2019/2020.  
  
New Zealand notes the concerning and continual trend in a persistent underfill of some of Japan's 
tariff quotas. (JPNQ007 Prepared Whey 26.8%, JPNQ009 Mineral concentrated whey 26 .9%, 
JPNQ001 Skimmed milk powder 23.4%, JPNQ002 Skimmed milk powder (For other 
purposes)  41.4%, JPNQ008 Butter and butteroil 30.3%).  
  
Japan has previously argued a lack of domestic demand as being a key contributing factor regarding 
Japan's continual TQ underfill. However, quotas for these products in free trade agreements have 
been heavily subscribed.  
  
New Zealand would like to know:  
  
a. Can Japan provide an update on reasons for the continued significant under -fill of several 
WTO dairy tariff quotas (JP NQ007, JPNQ009, JPNQ001, JPNQ002, etc)?  
b. Given the quota underutilisation, has Japan considered further or completely liberalising 
the trade?  
c. For quotas with chronic underfill, will Japan consider simplifying tariff quota administration 
and removing restric tive quota conditions?  
Answer by Japan  
 
The quotas of these four items have been unfulfilled as the domestic consumption related to these 
quotas have not been increasing. Japan will appropriately analyze the causes of low fill rate and, if 
necessary, impro ve the procedures such as the frequency of allocations and modifying the validity 
period of license.  
 
2.2.2.6   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/58 , G/AG/N/MAR/ 59) 
AG-IMS ID 98102: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Morocco for its MA:2 notifications for the calendar years 2018 and 2019.  
  
a. Can Morocco please explain the reasons for the significant underfill for sheep meat (0.9% 
for 2018 and 2019), and the underfill for white meat (37.7% in 2019). Can Morocco explain 
whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For sheep -meat, which is chronically underfilled, has Morocco considered moving to a 
tariff-only regime for this product?  
c. Australia  welcomes the increase in the TRQ fill rate for white meat from 5.8% in 2018 
to 37.7% in 2019. However, can Morocco explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of 
its under -filled tariff quotas for sheep meat and white meat as per the objective of the  Bali 
Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Morocco  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 166 - 
 
  2.2.2.7   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/57)  
AG-IMS ID 98104: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Nicaragua for its MA:2 notification for CY  2020. Australia notes that Nicaragua 
recorded a fill rate of 20.4% for milk, a reduction from 55.8% in CY  2019. Australia notes that we 
have asked Nicaragua questions on this TRQ in the past, but we kindly request similar confirmation 
to explain this underfill, including:  
  
a. could Nicaragua please explai n the reasons for the underfilled quota?  
b. Was the under -fill due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Could Nicaragua please explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled 
tariff quota for milk as per the objective of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Nicaragua  
 
In follow ‑up to Australia's questions regarding the MA:2 notification for the calendar year 2020 
(document G/AG/N/NIC/57), Nicaragu a states the following:  
 
a. Could Nicaragua please explain the reasons for the underfilled quota?  
The tariff quota for imports of powdered milk established by Nicaragua in accordance with WTO 
bound schedule XXIX was utilized by 65.7% on average in the period from 2006 to 2020. This is 
mainly due to the fact that Nicaragua is an exporter of liquid milk, milk powder, cheese and other 
dairy products. As such, it is ranked first in Central America.  
 
The quota fill in 2020 was 20.4%, which was the lowest in the pas t 11 years; this decrease, according 
to the users, was because of low domestic demand for imported milk powder, primarily whole milk 
powder, due to a higher supply of domestic dairy products and the impact of the COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
In terms of administrat ion, it is important to note that the quota was fully allocated in 2020. 
However, during the period for returning allocated volumes, which takes place in the first three 
working days of September, users returned 1,292.60 MT, for which no applications were submitted 
during the reallocation process.  
 
b. Was the underfill due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
The low tariff quota fill in 2020 is due to market circumstances because of a higher supply of domestic 
dairy products and the impact of the COVID ‑19 pandemic.  
 
c. Could Nicaragua please explain what it is doing to increase utilization of its underfilled 
tariff quota for milk as per the objective of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Nicaragua establishes the process of allocation and administration of WTO tariff quotas in accordance 
with the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, including the Bali Decision.  
 
The Ministerio de Fomento, Industria y Co mercio, MIFIC (Ministry of Development, Industry and 
Trade), is the government body responsible for the allocation and administration of WTO tariff rate 
quotas and those in existing trade agreements.  
 
The provisions for the allocation and administration of  WTO tariff rate quotas are established 
annually through ministerial agreements, published in the Official Journal La Gaceta and on the 
MIFIC website. These ministerial agreements contain, among other provisions, those aimed at 
regulating the following:  
 
1. Receipt and allocation, which includes the requirements for participating in the allocation of 
the tariff quota, the periods for submission and review of applications and the methods for G/AG/W/218  
 
- 167 - 
 
  distribution and issuance of import licences. Applications are submitt ed by interested parties 
through Nicaragua's tariff quota administration system, available on the MIFIC website.  
2. Administration: Monitoring of the utilization of allocated volumes, the period scheduled for 
users to return unused quantities, and the period for the redistribution and allocation of 
volumes returned by users, import periods and penalties.  
3. For 2020, MIFIC Ministerial Agreement No. 006 ‑2020 was adopted, which contains the 
regulations for the allocation and administration of the WTO milk powder ta riff quota 
for 2020.  
 
MIFIC Ministerial Agreement MIFIC No. 006 ‑2020:  
http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/normaweb .nsf/09cf45d6fc893868062572650059911e/bb327e5
35755ea3b0625854d00767376?OpenDocument   
 
2.2.2.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/116)  
AG-IMS ID 98108: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
In its notification G/AG/N/NOR/116, referring to the calendar year 01/01/2020 to 31/12/2020, 
Norway reported reduced fill rates of its TRQs for products of animal origin, as follows:  
  
- NORQ007 ("Meat of bovine animals, meat to promotional fairs"): 17.1%;  
- NORQ174 ("Other prepared or preserved meat, meat offal or blood, of poultry of heading 
No.01.05, of bovine animals"): 43.4%;  
- NORQ224 ("Meat and edible offal of swine, carcasses and halfcarcasses, frozen"): 21.9%;  
- NORQ226 ("Meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry not cut in pieces, frozen, fowls of the 
specius Gallus  domesticus "): 5.4%;  
- NORQ227 ("Meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry not cut in pieces, frozen, turkeys"): 0%;  
- NORQ230 ("Eggs, hens' eggs"): 28.1% . 
  
a. Could Norway provide data on market conditions that could explain the reduced volume 
of imports under TRQs NORQ007, NORQ174, NORQ224, NORQ226, NORQ227 
and NORQ230?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQs? How much?  
Answer by Norway  
 
NORQ007: (Meat  - promotional fairs).  
 
a. Due to the outbreak of COVID -19, Norway was in lock down through large parts of  2020, 
and there was only limited possibilities to arrange promotional fairs. This resulted in a 
somewhat reduced fill rate in 2020 compared to 201 9.  
b. We are not able to estimate if other imports of the same products was intended for 
promotional fairs. In light of the lock down it is not probable that there was any imports 
for this purpose outside the quota.  
NORQ174: Firstly: quota description should  read: "other prepared or preserved meat, meat offal or 
blood, of bovine animals" not including "of poultry of heading 01.05".  
 
a. The low quota fill -rate is explained by limited demand for this product in the Norwegian 
market. But still the in -quota imports  increased compared to 2019.  
b. The quota consists of cornbeef (ex. 16.02.5009). Cornbeef is only a part of this tariff line, 
and official statistics are not detailed enough to separate cornbeef from other imports 
under this tariff line. Total imports on tari ff line 16.02.5009 was 109 tonnes  in 2020.  
NORQ224: (Swine  - Frozen)  
 
a. Due to surplus in the domestic market, there has for several years been limited demand 
for pork imports. Several measures has been taken over the last few years to reduce 
production, le ading to a more balanced domestic market at the start of 2020.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 168 - 
 
  However, due to the COVID -19 outbreak in 2020, travel restrictions led to increased 
domestic demand. This led to a deficit of pork meat in the Norwegian market. Import 
volumes within the tariff  quota increased and fill -rate then increased from 1 % in 2019 
to 22% in 2020.  
b. There were no other imports on the tariff line 02.03.2100, which the WTO -quota consists 
of. 
In addition to the WTO quota, 592 tonnes  of pork were imported under the bilateral EU  
quota. This also includes fresh or chilled swine meat, which is considered more attractive 
by the meat industry than frozen pork meat.  
NORQ226: (Poultry)  
 
a. In general, there has been a high domestic production and limited interest among 
importers for importing poultry.  
b. Total import volume on the tariff line 02.07.1200 was 445 tonnes . 429 tonnes  were 
imported as a part of the EU -quota, and 4 tonnes  were impor ted out of quota. In total the 
import under the bilateral EU quota, which includes more tariff lines, was 931 tonnes  
in 2020, including both fowls of the species Gallus  domesticus  and turkey.  
NORQ227: (Turkey)  
 
a. Although there has been some increase in dom estic demand over the last decade, 
domestic consumption of turkey is relatively low.  
b. In addition to the WTO quota, the EU quota covers imports of both fresh/chilled and frozen 
poultry, including turkey. Approximately 812 kg was imported to Norway in 2020,  of which 
616 kg were imported under the EU quota.  
NORQ230: (Eggs):  
 
a. In general, there has been limited interest among importers for importing eggs as 
domestic supply of salmonella -free eggs to a large extent meets the domestic demand. 
The tariff fill ra te in 2020 was reduced compared to 2019, but still higher than the prior 
two years.  
b. In addition, import under the bilateral EU quota was 119 tonnes  in 2020.  
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question and encouraged Norway to take all steps 
to address barriers to trade including improving administrative conditions for TRQs when possible. 
Uruguay shared the concern of other Cairns Group members concerning the low tariff fill rates 
notified by Norway. Uruguay asked Norway whether any other quot a in addition to natural honey is 
currently active or has been active over the last 10 years even though the bound in -quota duty is 
the same as the bound out -of-quota duty. Norway replied that no other quota had been active in 
the past 10 years in addition  to the 22 quotas included in its notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 98109: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that, in the notification for 2020, Norway has included an additional tariff 
rate quota for natural honey (NORQ035),  not previously notified. What are the reasons for this 
change in notification practice?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
We thank the European Union for the question with regard to the honey quota. This quota has not 
previously been notified as the bound in quota duty is the same as the bound out of quota duty. 
However, the quota is active with a lower applied duty than the bound duty and thus we have decided 
to report it annually.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 169 - 
 
  Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question and encouraged Norway to take all steps 
to address barriers to trade including improving administrative conditions for TRQs when possible. 
Uruguay shared the concern of other Cairns Group members concerning the low tariff fill rates 
notified by Norway. Uruguay asked Norway whether any other quota in addition to natural honey is 
currently active or has been active over the last 10 years even though the bound in -quota duty is 
the same as the bound out -of-quota duty. Norway replied that no other quota had been active in 
the past 10 years in addition to the 22 quotas included in its notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 98106: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Norway for its MA:2 notification for CY  2020. Australia notes that Norway recorded 
a fill rate of less than 65% for eleven quotas:  
  
1. meat of bovine animals, meat to promotional fairs;  
2. meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen;  
3. apples, pears and quinces, fresh, apples from 16 March to 31 July; 
4. swedes, mangolds, fodder roots, hay, lucerne (alfalfa), clover, sainfoin, forage kale, lupines, 
vetches and similar forage products, whether or not in the form of pellets, other, other hay;  
5. other prepared or preserved meat, meat offal or blood, of po ultry of heading No.  01.05, of 
bovine animals;  
6. meat and edible offal of swine, carcasses and half carcasses, frozen;  
7. meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry not cut in pieces, frozen, fowls of the species 
Gallus  domesticus ; 
8. meat and edible offal of poult ry, poultry not cut in pieces, frozen, turkeys;  
9. eggs, hens' eggs;  
10. white and red cabbages, white cabbages; and  
11. white and red cabbages, red cabbages.  
  
Australia notes that we have asked Norway similar questions in the past, but we kindly request 
similar co nfirmation to explain these underfills, including:  
  
a. could Norway please explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive ta riff quota administration?  
c. Has Norway considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
Answer by Norway  
 
The demand for tariff quotas can vary greatly depending on the current situation in the domestic 
market. Generally, sever al of the quotas contain frozen products that are less attractive than fresh 
products. This is reflected in the quota fill -rate. 
 
1. (Meat - promotional fairs). Due to the outbreak of COVID -19, Norway was in lock down 
through large parts of 2020, and there was  only limited possibilities to arrange 
promotional fairs. This resulted in a somewhat reduced fill rate in 2020 compared to 2019.  
2. (Sheep/goat).  
The domestic supply in 2020 covered a larger share of the market, resulting in less 
imports. The quota fill -rate was also limited by less available supply from Iceland.  
There is also a global quota for for sheep  and goatmeat (206 tonnes ) with a fill -rate of  86% 
in 2020.  
The total import og  sheep and lamb meat in 2020 was approximately 289 tonnes , of which 
247 tonnes  was imported within these two quotas.  
3. (Apples, pears and quinces) This quota is for imports of apples only in November. In 
November 2020 deliveries of domestic produced apples was scarce. Hence the tariff on 
apples was reduced to zero from 18th of November, this affected the fill rate of this quota.  
4. (Swedes, mangolds, fodder etc) Hay. The need for imports is closely related to the 
domestic fodder harvest. The seasons of 2019 an d 2020 were good, and therefore the 
need for imports of hay was low.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 170 - 
 
  5. (Other prepared and preserved meat) Firstly: quota description should read: "other 
prepared or preserved meat, meat offal or blood, of bovine animals" not including "of 
poultry of heading  01.05".  
The low quota fill -rate is explained by limited demand for this product in the Norwegian 
market.  
6. (Swine, frozen) Due to surplus in the domestic market, there has for several years been 
limited demand for pork imports. Several measures ha ve been t aken over the last few 
years to reduce production, leading to a more balanced domestic market at the start 
of 2020.  
However, due to the COVID -19 outbreak in 2020, travel restrictions led to increased 
domestic demand. This led to a deficit of pork meat in the Norwegian market. Import 
volumes within the tariff quota increased and fill -rate then increased from 1 % in 2019 
to 22% in 2020.  
In addition to the WTO quota, 592 tonnes  of pork were imported under the bilateral EU 
quota. This also includes fresh or chilled swine meat, which is considered more attractive 
by the meat industry than frozen pork meat.  
7. (Poultry) In general, there has been a high domestic production and limited  interest 
among importers for importing poultry. In addition to the WTO quota, the import under 
the bilateral EU quota was 931 tonnes  in 2020, including both fowls of the species 
Gallus  domesticus  and turkey.  
8. (Turkey) Although there has been some increase in domestic demand over the last 
decade, domestic consumption of turkey is relatively low. In addition to the WTO quota, 
the EU quota covers imports of both fresh/chilled and frozen poultry, including turkey. 
Approximately 812 kg was imported to Norway in 2020, of which 612 kg were imported 
under the EU quota.  
9. (Eggs): In general, there has been limited interest among importers for importing eggs 
as domestic supply of salmonella -free eggs to a large extent meets the domestic demand. 
The tariff fill rate in 2020 was reduced compared to 2019, but still higher than the two 
prior years.  
In addition, imports under the bilateral EU quota was 119 tonnes  in 2020.  
10. White and red cabbage, white cabbage; Domestic production normally covers the demand. 
There is a low de mand for imports until exporting countries offer new white cabbage earlier 
than domestic producers. In addition, it is duty free imports from 1st of August until 30th 
of September and a low difference between in -quota duty and out -of-quota duty from 
1st of October to 31st of May.  
11. White and red cabbage, red cabbage. Domestic production normally covers demand. 
Imports are duty free in August and September.  
 
For all quotas the underfill was due to market circumstances.  
 
Norway has not considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism . 
 
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question and encouraged Norway to take all steps 
to address barriers to trade including improving administrative conditions for TRQs when possible. 
Uruguay shared the concern of other C airns Group members concerning the low tariff fill rates 
notified by Norway. Uruguay asked Norway whether any other quota in addition to natural honey is 
currently active or has been active over the last 10 years even though the bound in -quota duty is 
the same as the bound out -of-quota duty. Norway replied that no other quota had been active in 
the past 10 years in addition to the 22 quotas included in its notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 98150: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
Could Norway explain the reas ons for the low utilization of the tariff rate quota for bovine meat 
NORQ007 (17.1%) and indicate whether it has considered amending the administration method for 
this quota to increase its utilization?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 171 - 
 
  Answer by Norway  
 
NORQ007: (Meat  - promotional fairs).  
 
Due to  the outbreak of COVID -19, Norway was in lock down through large parts of 2020,  and there 
was only limited possibilities to arrange promotional fairs.  
 
This resulted in a  somewhat reduced fill rate in 2020 compared to 2019.  
 
Norway  has not considered changing the method of administration for this quota.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question and encouraged Norway to take all steps 
to address barriers to trade including improving administrative conditions f or TRQs when possible. 
Uruguay shared the concern of other Cairns Group members concerning the low tariff fill rates 
notified by Norway. Uruguay asked Norway whether any other quota in addition to natural honey is 
currently active or has been active over t he last 10 years even though the bound in -quota duty is 
the same as the bound out -of-quota duty. Norway replied that no other quota had been active in 
the past 10 years in addition to the 22 quotas included in its notifications.  
 
2.2.2.9   Russian Federation (G/AG/N /RUS/27)  
AG-IMS ID 98008: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
With respect to the Russian Federation's response to AG -IMS ID 93209, could the Russian 
Federation:  
  
a. elaborate on the market conditions resulting in under fill?  
b. Can Russian Federation provide  information on any efforts to improve administration to 
improve fill rates?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b.  Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99019.  
 
2.2.2.10   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/32)  
AG-IMS ID 98110: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Referring to the calendar year 01/01/2020 to 12/31/2020, five Russian TRQs for products of animal 
origin have low fill rates, which range from 1% to 24.9%.  
  
a. Could the Russian Federation provide data on market conditions that could explain the low 
volume o f imports under TRQs RUSQ001, RUSQ002, RUSQ005, RUSQ006 and RUSQ007?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ? How much?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The reason for low fill rates for TRQs  on beef, poultry and whey is mainly market 
circumstances. Over the last years, production of meat and meat products has been 
increasing in the Russian Federation. At the same time, there is a tendency of changing 
consumer preferences.  
b. Imports of meat and meat products are also carried out outside the TRQs, however, the 
volumes are relatively low comparing with the volumes imported within the TRQs 
(from  19 kg for fresh and chilled beef to 26,244 tonns for frozen beef in 2020).  
Follow -up: Brazil invited the Russian Federation to provide a written response.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 172 - 
 
  2.2.2.11   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/148)  
AG-IMS ID 98009: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
India thanks the United States for its Table MA:2 notification for 2019 (G/AG/N/USA/148) which 
shows low fi ll rates for products like Dried milk, whether or not containing added sugar or other 
sweetening matter (USAQ006); American  - type cheese, including Colby, washed curd and granular 
cheese (but not including Cheddar cheese), and cheese and substitutes for c heese containing, or 
processed from, such American  - type cheese (USAQ019); Cheese and substitutes for cheese, 
containing 0.5% or less by weight of butterfat (except articles within the scope of other import 
quotas provided for in additional (USAQ023).  
  
a. Can the US elaborate on the reason for the underfill in :  
USAQ006 (dried milk) : 2.5% ;  
USAQ019 (American - type cheese) : 1.7% ;  
USAQ023 (Cheese and substitutes for cheese) : 0.1%?  
b. What changes in the administration are being envisaged to improve the fill rates?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The fill r ates of  US TRQs in any particular year are affected by a variety of market factors, 
including price trends, exchange rates, supply and demand.  
b. No changes are currently envisioned as the underfill is  a result of market factors.  
2.2.3   Domestic Support commitments  (Table DS:1)  
2.2.3.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/45)  
AG-IMS ID 98111: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada noticed that Argentina notifies its domestic support on the basis of the 1992 peso.  
  
Could Argentina explain if and how it converted its support amount from current pesos to 1992 
pesos? If yes, could Argentina provide the exchange rate used to convert its support amount into 
1992 pesos for its 2016 notification?  
 
Answer by  Argentina  
 
Within the framework of its WTO commitments, Argentina, in its Schedule of Commitments LXIV, 
has bound the monetary value of its commitments in 1992 pesos, which are equivalent to US dollars, 
as was duly communicated in documents G/AG/N/ARG/4 a nd G/MA/TAR/RS/52.  This monetary value 
is used by Argentina to make its respective notifications to the WTO.  
 
The exchange rate used for conversion purposes is that offered by the Central Bank of Argentina.  
 
Follow -up: The EU indicated interest in the ques tion, which, in its view, pointed to the systemic issue 
of the use of exchange rate when the Member did not notify in its national currency. The issue also 
linked to discussions in another forum about the use of inflation rate.  
 
2.2.3.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/58)  
AG-IMS ID 98010: Question by India - General services: extension and advisory services  
In Brazil's DS:1 notification for calendar year 2018 submitted vide document symbol 
G/AG/N/BRA/58, under Measures exempt from the reduction commitment - "Green Box", 2 (d).  
Extension and advisory services, Brazil has provided 4,278.5 USD thousand for the acquisition of 
equipment by municipalities for services in rural areas. But in the DS:1 notification, G/AG/N/BRA/63, 
the same is not notified. Has the support been discontin ued for agricultural year 2018/19?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 173 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil  
 
There was no expenditure under this program in 2019.  
AG-IMS ID 98011: Question by India - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In Brazil's DS:1 notification for calendar year 2018 submitted vide document no. G/AG/N/BRA/58, 
under Measures exempt from the reduction commitment – Special and Differential Treatment – 
"Development Programmes" (b) Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers  
- DEBT RESCHEDULING - Rescheduling of debts in longer terms and most favorable conditions 
(under PRONAF and PROCERA Programs), Brazil has provided 27,981 USD thousand. But in the 
DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/BRA/63), the same is not notified. Brazil is requested to provide the 
reason.  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
2018 was the last year of the debt rescheduling program for PRONAF and PROCERA. Therefore, there 
is no reason to continue being notified, as the subsidy is currently equal to zero. Brazil had already 
stated this under AG -IMS ID 93026.  
 
2.2.3.3   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63)  
AG-IMS ID 98012: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. It is noted from Brazil's most recent DS:1 notification for period Agriculture year 2018 -19 
(G/AG/N/BRA/63) that the period for n otification of support under Annex 2 is changed 
from Calendar year to Agriculture year. Brazil is requested to kindly elaborate on the 
reason for this change. Would Brazil modify all its previous DS:1 notifications in the similar 
manner?  
b. An FAO report, av ailable at http://www.fao.org/in -
action/agronoticias/detail/en/c/1116679/  states that Brazil subsidized loans for 
the 2018/19 agriculture programme will reach USD 58 billion. In  this regard, the report 
also mentions, "the government to boost funding in a country that is the world's largest 
exporter of staples like soybeans and coffee".  
i. Brazil is requested to elucidate if this measure is notified in its recent DS:1 notification? 
If yes, then under which Supporting Table?  
ii. What is the amount of subsidy during 2018 -19 and 2019 -20?  
iii. For which products is this loan offered?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. Brazil thanks India for its question and clarifies that it had always indicated in its 
notific ations that it pertained to agricultural years (see G/AG/N/BRA/48 and previous 
notifications).  
For G/AG/N/BRA/52 and G/AG/N/BRA/58, however, due to a clerical error, it reads in the cover that 
they refer to calendar years. Brazil will submit a corrigendum of the cover of the notification in both 
cases and of Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/BRA/52.  
 
However, the information notified in Tables DS:1 and in Supporting Tables is accurate and refers to 
agricultural years 2016/2017 in the case of G/AG/N/BRA/52 and 2017/2018 in the case of 
G/AG/N/BRA/58.  
 
Therefore, there was no change in how Brazil notifies. DS:1 is based on agricultural years, with the 
sole exception of Supporting Table  DS:1 (green box), which is based on calendar years. The 
reporting period is stated in eac h Supporting Table.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 174 - 
 
  b.  
i. The weblink above refers to funds available for financing through 'Plano Safra'. Plano 
Safra is an umbrella program that involves many elements of Brazilian agricultural 
policy. Only a fraction of the program's funds are deemed domes tic support according 
to the Agreement on Agriculture. The volume of available financing does not 
necessarily correspond to a subsidy actually being granted.   
Firstly, not all of the available financing is actually disbursed; and most importantly, for the amount 
actually disbursed, only a fraction - for example, the difference between the interest rate of each of 
the specific programs and the reference market ra te in the case of credit programs - is actually a 
subsidy. The subsidy component of the referred program was duly notified for year 2018/2019.  
 
ii. All subsidies granted by Brazil during agricultural year 2018 -2019 are included in the 
respective notifications . Information regarding agricultural year 2019 -2020 will be 
informed in Brazil's next DS:1.  
iii. Due to the nature of 'Plano Safra' as described in item 'i' of this answer, Brazil cannot 
identify which programs and products were financed. All programs that rec eived 
subsidies are included in the Brazilian notifications. None of them are product -specific.  
AG-IMS ID 98014: Question by India - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
India thanks Brazil for submitting its DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/BRA/63) for  agricultural 
year 2018/2019. India notices that under Supporting Table DS:1, Measures exempt from the 
reduction commitment - "Green Box", under Public stockholding for food security purposes, Brazil 
has provided additional support to two new measures name ly: Maintenance and management and 
Implementation of food and nutritional security in health. In this regard,  
  
a. India requests Brazil to provide details of the above mentioned measures.  
b. How do these measures satisfy the criteria under Annex 2 of the AoA?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. In previous notifications, expenditures under these measures were already being 
accounted for under the PAA (Program of acquisition of agricultural products from Family 
farming). In order to improve the quality of the information and more precisely detail what 
is spent under the PAA, Brazil chose to notify the measures separately.  
b. These expenditures relate to the management and the coordination of the national food 
security system. They do not involve transfers from consumers nor have the effect of 
providing price support to producers.  
Follow -up: India sought further details concerning Brazil's response to question b. Brazil noted that 
it would respond to India at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 98015: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
With respect to Brazil's DS:1 notification, G/AG/N/BRA/63, for the agricultural year 2018/2019, it is 
noticed that under Supporting Table DS:9 - Non-Product -Specific AMS, Brazil has provided 
USD 10,309 thousand to Non -product -specific production and marke ting credit. This seems to be a 
new support being provided. India requests Brazil to provide details of this non -product specific 
support including the description, eligibility criteria, amount allocated, duration of the credit.  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
This is not a new measure. Brazil invites India to review notification G/AG/N/BRA/52, in which 
expenditures totalling  650,476 USD thousand were notified under the same program. This measure 
was not included in G/AG/N/BRA/58 because no domestic support was granted through 
in 2017/2018.  
 
Details of this support can be seen in the footnote description:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 175 - 
 
   
'Implicit subsidy b ased on the difference between the interest rate of each of the following programs 
and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest rate (interest rate for the overnight 
interbank loans collateralized by government bonds): Constitutional Fun ds (FNO,FNE and FCO), 
Pronamp (Medium -Scale Agricultural Producer Support Program), and Rural Savings and Mandatory 
Resources at controlled interest rates.'  
 
In the case of notification G/AG/N/BRA/63, in the period from 07/01/2018 to 06/30/2019, the 
notified amount of 10,309 USD thousand was fully originated within the scope of PRONAMP.  
 
The 'non -product specific production and marketing credit' is available to  agricultural producers in 
general, hence the eligibility criteria are the same as those of rural credit in general, as follows:  
 
The rural producer (individual or legal entity) and the rural producer cooperative may be 
beneficiaries of rural credit when t here is no specific requirement.  
 
The private individual or the legal entity, even if not considered a rural producer, may be 
beneficiaries of rural credit if it engages in the following activities related to the sector:  
 
- research or production of seedling s or seeds inspected or certified;  
- research or production of semen for artificial insemination;  
- provision of mechanized services, of an agricultural nature, in rural properties, including for 
soil protection;  
- provision of artificial insemination services i n rural properties;  
- fishing for commercial purposes;  
- crop measurement.  
 
Indigenous producers may be beneficiaries of rural credit, provided that, if not emancipated, they 
are assisted by Fundação Nacional do Índio (FUNAI), which shall also sign the credit instrument.  
 
The following are not eligible for rural credit:  
 
- non-resident foreigners;  
- the purchaser of agricultural products and their intermediaries;  
- associations of rural producers, except for their direct production;  
- rural unions;  
- commercial partners,  if the partnership contract restricts either party's access to financing.  
 
The beneficiary of rural credit, except for the purposes of poultry, olive and pig farming, is classified 
as: 
- mini-producer - when the global value of its annual agricultural produ ction does not exceed 
the equivalent of 200 MVR (highest reference value);  
- small producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global value 
of its annual agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of 600 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global 
value of its annual agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of 3000 MVR;  
- large producer - when the global value of its annual agricultural production exce eds the 
equivalent of 3000 MVR.  
 
For the purposes of poultry and olive farming, the beneficiary is classified as:  
 
- mini-producer - when the global value of its annual agricultural production does not exceed 
the equivalent of 400 MVR;  
- small producer - when,  exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global value 
of its annual agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of 1200 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global 
value of its annu al agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of 6000 MVR;  
- large producer - when the global value of its annual agricultural production exceeds the 
equivalent of 6000 MVR.  
 
For the purposes of pig farming, the beneficiary is classified as:  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 176 - 
 
  - mini-producer - when the global value of its annual agricultural production does not exceed 
the equivalent of 500 MVR;  
- small producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global value 
of its annual agricultural production does not e xceed the equivalent of 1500 MVR;  
- medium producer - when, exceeded the limit indicated in the preceding item, the global 
value of its annual agricultural production does not exceed the equivalent of 7500 MVR;  
- large producer - when the global value of its a nnual agricultural production exceeds the 
equivalent of 7500 MVR.  
AG-IMS ID 98112: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/BRA/63 - Supporting Table DS:2  
  
Brazil indicates that it has used the SELIC rate as basis for calculating the subsidy element.  
  
a. What has been the actual rate used in the calculation for the subsidy element under a) 
and b) respectively?  
b. Could Brazil indicate the rate used for the different investment credit schemes under a)?  
c. Could Brazil indicate  the effective rate applied to beneficiaries for the different production 
credit schemes under b)?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. The implicit subsidy was calculated through the difference between the applied interest 
rate for each  program and the benchmark interest rate (SELIC), taking into account all 
the parameters of each program.  
The source of SELIC is the Central Bank website, available at: 
https://www.bcb.gov.br/estabi lidadefinanceira/selicfatoresacumulados  
 
b. Please find below the list of credit schemes in relation to which domestic support was 
provided:  
Scheme  Rate 
PRONAF 4.60%  
Combate à Pobreza Rural 0.50%  
Nossa Primeira Terra 1.00%  
ABC 5.25%  
Inovagro 6.00%  
PCA - Progr . Constr. Ampl. armazéns 5.25%  
Procap -Agro 3.70%  
Pronamp 6.00%  
Governos Estaduais 3.50%  
 
c.  
Scheme Rate  
PRONAF 4.60%  
 
2.2.3.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 98013: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
The United States would like to fol low up on its last several questions on China's environmental 
programs, including the most recent questions from 2015 and 2016 under AG -IMS IDs 77074, 
78065, 79012 and 80038. In its response to AG -IMS ID 79012, China indicated "Since the budgetary 
expendit ure planning system has been in place for decades, China could not base on the rules of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, nor notification requirements to be specific, in preparing Supporting 
Table  DS:1. Chinese experts have to identify the heading or subheadi ng that each subsidy 
programme in the budgetary expenditure report belongs to, and then add up the expenditures of all G/AG/W/218  
 
- 177 - 
 
  the items under the same subheading so as to have the total amount of subsidy for each subheading. 
Experts studied the questions raised b y Australia, the European Union and the United States very 
carefully, and found that some programmes notified under these subheadings included certain 
programmes that were not accurately categorized, some were even not payments for agriculture 
covered by t he Agreement on Agriculture."  
  
The United States seeks an update on the response provided above in 2016, specifically seeking the 
following information:  
  
a. A breakdown of the individual programmes that fall under the notified environmental 
outlays along with outlays for each programme, correcting for any inaccurately categorized 
programs as mentioned in its response to AG -IMS ID 79012.  
b. Identification of the programmes falling under the notified environmental outlays that are 
specifically tied to agr iculture, as well as a very brief description of each to better 
understand its objectives and how it is implemented.  
Answer by China  
 
a. In the DS:1 notifications previously submitted by China, the environmental  outlays include 
payments for desertification co ntrol, pasture protection, rural environmental protection, 
agricultural resources protection, natural forest protection, forestry sand control, water 
and soil conservation, water conservancy and water resources management and 
protection. After constant and  careful studies, experts have found two technical issues 
regarding these payments. Firstly, some payments are not directly related to agricultural 
production and will be removed from the notification in the future, namely desertification 
control, pasture protection, rural environmental protection, agricultural resources 
protection, natural forest protection, forestry sand control. Secondly, some payments are 
not made directly to the farmers and will be moved to the "general service" in future 
notifications , such as agricultural resources protection and water resources management 
and protection.  
b. Payments relevant to environmental outlays are as follows:  
Agricultural resources protection: The outlay is divided and given to provinces. All 
provinces need to inv est the funds according to the specified national purposes and tasks, 
which include cultivated land protection and quality improvement, fishery resource 
protection, grassland ecological protection. The funds are not granted directly to farmers.  
Water resou rces management and protection: The funds are mainly used for improvement 
of small and medium rivers, construction of small reservoirs and reinforcement, water -
saving reconstruction of medium -sized irrigation areas, construction of water and soil 
conservat ion projects, connection of rivers and lakes to improve rural landscape, water 
resources conservation and protection, and prevention and control of mountain flood 
disasters, etc. The funds are allocated to local governments with specified tasks and 
purpose s. The funds are not granted directly to farmers.  
Retiring farmland to forest or grass: For retiring farmland to forest, farmers are paid 1200 
RMB per Mu, which are paid in three instalments  over five-year period. For retiring 
farmland to grass, farmers ar e paid 850 RMB per Mu, which are paid in two instalments  
over 3 -year period. These payments may be moved to "resource retirement" in future 
notifications.  
2.2.3.5   Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27)  
AG-IMS ID 98113: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Côte d'Ivoire indicates no support granted. However, from public sources the EU has seen that Côte 
d'Ivoire has a support programme for cacao bean producers through the Sustainable Cocoa initiative 
and other means.  
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 178 - 
 
  Could Côte d'Ivo ire please explain how its support programmes operates for cacao bean producers, 
in particular:  
  
a. who fixes the price, and based on which criteria?  
b. At which level of the production is the price fixed?  
c. Which operators have s to respect this price?  
d. How is  it controlled whether the price is paid, and who controls this.  
e. Are there any regulations on exports of cacao that are influenced/dependant on the fixed 
price being paid to producers?  
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
 
2.2.3.6   Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27, G/AG/N/CIV/28)  
AG-IMS ID 98114: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to  the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Côte  
d'Ivoire:  
 
"On Thursday 1 October 2020, the Head of State, Alassane Ouatta ra, inaugurated the Seventh 
National Coffee and Cocoa Day. During this ceremony, he  announced the field price of cocoa per kilo 
which has increased from  CFAF 825 to CFAF 1000" 
(http://www.agriculture.gouv.ci/accueil/details_actualite/le -prix-d-achat -bord-champ -du-kg-de-
cacao -fixe-a-1000-francs -cfa292 ). 
 
Could  the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire indicate the reason why this m easure was not   
reported in its domestic support notifications for 2019 and 2020?  
 
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
 
2.2.3.7   European Union  (G/AG/N/EU/61)  
AG-IMS ID 98016: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With respect to EU's DS:1 notification  for marketing year 2017/2018 (G/AG/N/EU/61), what is the 
value of production for the following products: Butter, Common wheat, Skimmed Milk Powder, Other 
livestock, Fruits and Vegetables, Beekeeping, Apricots, Nectarines, Aubergines, Melon, Watermelon, 
Clementines, Satsumas, Other products not mentioned in Annex X of EU Reql 1580/2007, Potatoes 
and Other crop products?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU uses Eurostat figures for Value of Production. However, a figure does not exist in Eurostat 
for all of th e products specified in Supporting Table DS:4 of the notification. This is the case for all 
the products listed in India's question.  
 
In those cases, where there exists no Eurostat figure for VoP for a product, the EU includes the full 
calculated amount f or support from Supporting Tables DS:5 to DS:8 in its Current Total AMS. If the 
EU had chosen to use an estimated amount for VoP for the products in question (or included these 
products in a broader group of products), it may have resulted in these product s being within the 
de-minimis limits. The EU's approach is therefore more transparent and indeed it may in fact increase 
the notified Current Total AMS amount rather than would otherwise have been the case.  
 
2.2.3.8   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/69)  
AG-IMS ID 98147: Q uestion by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to thank the EU for its DS:1 notification and welcomes the level of detail 
provided.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 179 - 
 
    
Australia requests additional information regarding a number of programmes notifi ed 
in G/AG/N/EU/69.  
  
Skimmed milk  
  
In MY  17/18, the EU notified EUR 1,549.3 million in price support for skimmed milk powder, and in 
MY 18/19, the EU notified EUR 0, noting there was zero eligible production. Given this:  
  
a. could the European Union please confirm that skimmed milk powder did not receive any 
price support in MY  18/19?  
b. Does skimmed milk powder receive funds through other support mechanisms?  
Wine 
 
Could the EU please provide additional information on the programmes under its 'National S upport' 
measure provided to wine under Supporting Table DS:6 and 'Market Support' in Supporting 
Table DS:8.  
  
Insurance and Interest  
 
Could the EU please provide additional information, including the names of programmes, sources 
and specific commodities for the insurance subsidies and interest concessions notified in Supporting 
Table DS:9?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Yes, SMP did not receive any market price support during 2018/19. The quantity that could be 
bought into intervention was fixed a t zero – Council Regulation (EU) 2018/147 of 29 January 2018.  
As indicated in Supporting Table DS:8 EUR 1.2 million was spent on Private storage for SMP during 
budget 2019 (marketing year 2018/19).  
AG-IMS ID 98198: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: d ecoupled income support  
G/AG/N/EU/69 - Decoupled payments:  
  
Could the European Union explain the grounds for the increase of almost 400 million euros in 
decoupled payments from the financial year 2017 2018 to 2018 2019?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The over all level of payments for decoupled aid were higher in the budget year 2019 than in the 
previous year, and this explain the increase. While it may seem substantial in nominal terms, it is 
still just 1% in relative terms. No changes to the legal provisions influenced this increase. 
Furthermore, the amount is still €300 million less than in the 2016/17 DS:1 notification. The total 
level of entitlements for decoupled payments did not change.  
AG-IMS ID 98153: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Adjustment programmes provided through investment aids  
 
Could the European Union explain the grounds for the increase of over 400 million euros in such 
payments in the financial year 2018 ‑2019?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The increase primarily reflects the implementation of Rural Development programmes. This line 
traditionally fluctuates largely depending on the seven  year programming period for Rural 
Development. Looking into the previous seven y ears the highest amount was EUR 7.3 billion and 
the lowest was EUR 3.7 billion. So, this type of annual change are natural and do not relate to any 
changes to the legal provisions.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 180 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 98154: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
G/AG/N/EU/69 - Environmental programmes  
  
a. Could the European Union indicate how much of the total of 8,163 million euros was 
allocated to the "support and protection of organic production by creating conditions of 
fair competition"?  
b. Could the European Union explain how the subsidies create conditions of fair competition?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The amount spent on Organic support equalled to EUR 2 013 million of which 2/3 paid from the EU 
budget and 1/3 national co -financing.  
 
The w ords "create of fair competition" comes from the EU organic legislation, that also includes rules 
that encompass every stage of the production process, from seeds to the final processed food. The 
EU will consider the wording of the text in the DS:1 notific ation for future notification  
 
Follow -up: Brazil posed a few follow -up questions as follows:  
 
i. Does the EU consider that there is 'unfair competition' between organic and non -organic producers 
within the bloc or that there is 'unfair competition' between  organic producers in the EU and those 
from third countries?  
 
ii. What is the origin of this 'unfair competition'?  
 
iii. Does the EU take into account the increased selling prices of organic products compared to 
conventional products?  
 
iv. Are those payments attached to legal requirements or to issues inherent to organic production?  
 
Brazil recalled that Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture does not authorize payments to create 
'fair competition', but to reward increased production costs arising fr om compliance with 
environmental requirements established in domestic legislation. The EU clarified that the wording 
"fair competition" comes from the overall organic legislation which sets out rules concerning seeds 
and other specific characters of organi c production that need to be respected. The "fairness" has 
nothing to do with whether organic production is more or less competitive to non -organic production 
or whether it relates to imports. The EU reiterated that it is considering changing the wording o f "fair 
competition" which has been referenced in its notifications for many years to ensure that it does not 
lead to misunderstanding.  
AG-IMS ID 98148: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
G/AG/N/EU/69  
 
Australia would like to thank the  EU for its DS:1 notification and welcomes the level of detail 
provided.  
 
Could the EU please provide additional information on the programmes under its 'Restructuring' and 
'National Support' measures provided to wine listed in Supporting Table DS:6 and ' Market Support' 
in Supporting Table DS:8, including names of programmes and sources?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Annex 4 of the staff working document (see link below) on the evaluation of wine programs provides 
full information on their implementation in t he following tables:  
 
- Table 9, page 100: Number of beneficiaries and operations in support of promotion and 
information in the member States, from 2014 to 2018  
- Table 10, page 101: Number of beneficiaries and operations in support of restructuring and 
conversion in the member States  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 181 - 
 
  - Table 11, page 102: Number of beneficiaries and financed insurance policies in the member 
States, from 2014 to 2018  
- Table 12, page 10 3: Number of beneficiaries and operations supported by the investment 
measure in the member States, from 2014 to 2018  
- Table 13, page 103: Number of beneficiaries of the by -product distillation measure and 
outputs of the measure in the member States, from 2 014 to 2018.  
 
This should help to better understand the use and distribution of the financial envelopes of EU MS 
in wine programs.   
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food -farming -
fisheries/key_policies/documents/swd2020 -232-evaluation -wine-sector_en.pdf  
AG-IMS ID 98151: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
G/AG/N/EU/69  
  
Australia would  like to thank the EU for its DS:1 notification and welcomes the level of detail 
provided.  
  
Could the EU please provide additional information, including the names of programmes, sources 
and specific commodities for the insurance subsidies and interest concessions notified in Supporting 
Table DS:9?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU is currently collecting the exact names of the schemes, but it concerns the following member 
States: Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania and Finland.  
AG-IMS ID 98152: Question by Australia - Classification of me asures  
G/AG/N/EU/69  
 
Australia would like to thank the EU for its DS:1 notification and welcomes the level of detail 
provided.  
 
Could the EU please explain how 'support and protection of organic production by creating conditions 
of fair competition' in Su pporting Table DS:1 meets the Annex 2 requirements under Environmental 
programmes?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU will refer Australia and other members to the very detailed reply the EU gave in question 
AG-IMS ID 95117 on why it has included support t o Organic production under Annex 2 paragraph  12 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. The EU indeed finds that its support to organic farming falls within 
this scope and fulfils Green Box criteria as outlined in our reply to question AG -IMS ID 95117.  
 
The EU wo uld remind that all WTO Members should do their outmost to fulfil the preamble of the 
Agreement on Agriculture which includes the following:  
 
"Noting that commitments under the reform programme should be made in an equitable way among 
all Members, having regard to non -trade concerns, including food security and the need to protect 
the environment;"  
 
The push for increasing Europe's organic area is part of a much wider transition of Europe's food 
system, which aims to make not only production, but also cons umption of food more sustainable. 
The Farm to Fork Strategy is a multi -annual, multifaceted strategy and part of Europe's Green Deal 
to make the continent carbon neutral by 2050. Globally, the Green Deal and its Farm to Fork Strategy 
aim to contribute to r eaching the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and work with 
international partners to strive towards higher level of sustainability in the food system globally. 
Organic food production can play an important in role in this process and at the sam e time contribute 
to more biodiversity.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil posed a few follow -up questions as follows:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 182 - 
 
   
i. Does the EU consider that there is 'unfair competition' between organic and non -organic producers 
within the bloc or that there is 'unfair competit ion' between organic producers in the EU and those 
from third countries?  
 
ii. What is the origin of this 'unfair competition'?  
 
iii. Does the EU take into account the increased selling prices of organic products compared to 
conventional products?  
 
iv. Are those payments attached to legal requirements or to issues inherent to organic production?  
Brazil recalled that Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture does not authorize payments to create 
'fair competition', but to reward increased production costs a rising from compliance with 
environmental requirements established in domestic legislation. The EU clarified that the wording 
"fair competition" comes from the overall organic legislation which sets out rules concerning seeds 
and other specific characters of organic production that need to be respected. The "fairness" has 
nothing to do with whether organic production is more or less competitive to non -organic production 
or whether it relates to imports. The EU reiterated that it is considering changing the wording of "fair 
competition" which has been referenced in its notifications for many years to ensure that it does not 
lead to misunderstanding.  
AG-IMS ID 98017: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
India thanks the EU for providing its DS:1 notifi cation (G/AG/N/EU/69) for the Marketing 
Year 2018/2019. Considering the Supporting Table DS:9 - Non product specific AMS, in the 
DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/EU/69) for the Marketing Year 2018/2019 and DS:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/EU/61) for the Marketing year 2 017/2018, it is noticed that Measures  - Fruits & Vegetables 
- Green harvesting and non  - harvesting and Fruits & Vegetables - harvest insurance have not been 
notified in DS:1 (G/AG/N/EU/69) notification. Why have these measures not been notified in the 
2018/2019 notification?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The measures in question were not used during the 2018 -19 marketing year.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil posed a few follow -up questions as follows:  
 
i. Does the EU consider that there is 'unfair competition' between or ganic and non -organic producers 
within the bloc or that there is 'unfair competition' between organic producers in the EU and those 
from third countries?  
 
ii. What is the origin of this 'unfair competition'?  
 
iii. Does the EU take into account the increase d selling prices of organic products compared to 
conventional products?  
 
iv. Are those payments attached to legal requirements or to issues inherent to organic production?  
Brazil recalled that Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture does not authorize paym ents to create 
'fair competition', but to reward increased production costs arising from compliance with 
environmental requirements established in domestic legislation. The EU clarified that the wording 
"fair competition" comes from the overall organic leg islation which sets out rules concerning seeds 
and other specific characters of organic production that need to be respected. The "fairness" has 
nothing to do with whether organic production is more or less competitive to non -organic production 
or whether it relates to imports. The EU reiterated that it is considering changing the wording of "fair 
competition" which has been referenced in its notifications for many years to ensure that it does not 
lead to misunderstanding.  
 
2.2.3.9   Guinea (G/AG/N/GIN/10 , G/AG/N/GI N/11) 
AG-IMS ID 98115: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The Government of Canada welcomes the efforts made by Guinea to update its domestic support 
notifications to the WTO.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 183 - 
 
    
The notifications for 2017, 2018 and 2019 indicat e in a footnote for certain measures that: "Outlays 
correspond to the period 2017 -2019".  
  
Could Guinea specify whether the amounts for the measures that refer to this footnote account for 
the total outlays for these three years in each of the notifications, or whether the total outlays for 
the three years was divided equally among the notifications for 2017, 2018 and 2019?  
 
Answer by Guinea  
AG-IMS ID 98155: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The Un ited States would like to thank Guinea for submitting its first -ever Table DS:1 notifications 
and looks forward to reviewing and learning more about Guinea's domestic support measures. The 
United States welcomes the transparency provided and would like to seek clarification in certain 
areas:  
a. Guinea has notified "Crop season support" as an "extension and advisory service" 
measure. Please provide additional details explaining this measure.  
b. The general note at the bottom of the table in ST DS:1 states the "o utlays correspond to 
the period 2017 -2019". Please confirm whether the values notified in each annual 
notification are 1) actual expenditures or budgetary funding/estimates and 2) the total 
expenditures/funding for the three years or the expenditures/fundi ng for the three years 
allotted into three equal amounts.  
c. It is noted that the notified measure "Support for West African Agricultural Productivity 
(PPAO/WAAP) – FA" appears to be a World Bank funded measure according to 
https://www.waap -ppaao.org . Please confirm whether the notified values in Guinea's 
notification represent only government expenditures/funding or include other sources, 
such as the World Bank.  
Answer by Guinea  
 
2.2.3.10   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 98042: Question by Australia - Domestic food aid  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated tha t data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, i ncluding 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 
2) holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population 
in need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting this information, India st ated the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data, despite stating that t he value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  
 
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notifications cited:  
 
a. a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2  of the AoA.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 184 - 
 
  c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 i s for full year.  
AG-IMS ID 98043: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated that data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, inc luding 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 
2) holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population 
in need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting this information, India stat ed the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data, despite stating that the  value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  
 
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notifications cited:  
 
a. a breakdown of  the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 o f the AoA.  
c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' mea sure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/19 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/20 is for full year.  
2.4.24 India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 98044: Question by Japan - Domestic food aid  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated that data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agri culture, including 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 
2) holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population 
in need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting this information , India stated the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data, despite stat ing that the value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 185 - 
 
   
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notifications cited:  
 
a. a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3  of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income  support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
AG-IMS ID 98045: Question by Paraguay - Domestic food aid  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated t hat data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture,  including 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 
2) holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population 
in need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting this information, India stated the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data, despite stating that  the value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  
 
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notifications cited:  
 
a. a breakdo wn of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3 of Anne x 2 of the AoA.  
c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support ' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for f ull year.  
AG-IMS ID 98046: Question by Russian Federation - Domestic food aid  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 186 - 
 
  In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated that data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agri culture, including 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 
2) holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population 
in need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting this information , India stated the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data, despite stat ing that the value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  
 
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notifications cited:  
 
a. a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 i s for full year.  
AG-IMS ID 98047: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
AG-IMS ID 97058 (USA) – Para 3 and 4 of Annex 2  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 93278, India stated that data would be submitted in due course to a 
request for a breakdown of the $17.2 billion in notified expenditures reported in G/AG/N/IND/18 and 
G/AG/N/IND/19 for measures related to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agre ement 
on Agriculture, including 1) expenditures related to the accumulation of stocks of products, 2) 
holding of stocks of products, and 3) provision of domestic food aid to a section of the population in 
need. However, in AG -IMS ID 97058 re -requesting thi s information, India stated the information 
had been notified in India's DS:1 notification for relevant years. India's most recent notification 
shows this aggregated value has increased $18.7 billion in G/AG/N/IND/25 with no breakdown of 
the relevant data,  despite stating that the value includes funding that falls under paragraph 3 and 4 
of the AoA.  
 
As requested in AG -IMS ID 93278, please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25, which does not exist in the notificatio ns cited:  
 
a. a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
b. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of products" under  
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. A breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 187 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'deco upled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas, the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
AG-IMS ID 98048: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS ID 97057 (USA) – Input Subsidies  
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or programs contribute to the notified outlays on electricity notified under Supporting 
Table  DS:2. India's most rece nt response states that input subsidies are duly notified under 
Article  6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressing the questions posed. Therefore, we 
again request the following information on India's notified outlays on electricity:  
 
a. Please pr ovide the name and description of the scheme(s)/program(s) that provide 
electricity subsidies in India.  
b. Please provide the monetary value on each program if more than one or the methodology 
used to calculate the benefit to agricultural producers.  
c. Please p rovide the legislation authorizing the scheme(s)/program(s).  
d. Please confirm whether the following types of subsidies identified by the United States 
based on GOI Union Budget and Planning Commission documents are included in notified 
outlays on electricity : Electricity Subsidy to Agricultural Consumers, Diesel subsidy in 
drought and deficient rains affected areas.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies in part d are included in outlays for electricity, please 
provide the names of the specific programs that fall u nder these subsidies along with the 
affiliated outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the names of any other programs that contribute to outlays on electricity 
that are not listed in part d.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The input subsidies are available to low-income or resource -poor farmers, and are duly 
notified under Article 6.2 of the AoA. The input subsidy provided to farmers with respect to power is 
not compiled scheme -wise. 
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with rega rds to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in 
aggregate, India notified more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from USD 24 
billion in the previous year and USD 23  billion from the year before. The US sought to understand 
more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input subsidies regardless 
of the recipients are one of the most distorting form of domestic support, with the least effec t of 
transferred benefits to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' decisions, not only for 
planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could have a negative 
impact on the environment. The EU shared  US concern o n India's input subsidies and the lack of 
transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98051: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 188 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 9705 7 (USA) – Input Subsidies  
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or programs contribute to the notif ied outlays on fertilizer subsides notified under 
Supporting Table DS:2. India's most recent response states that input subsidies are duly notified 
under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressing the questions posed. Therefore, 
we agai n request the following information on India's notified outlays on fertilizer subsidies:  
 
a. Please provide the name and description of the program(s) that provide fertilizer subsidies 
in India.  
b. Please provide the monetary value on each program if more than one.  
c. Please provide the legislation authorizing the program(s).  
d. Please confirm whether the  following types of subsidies identified by the United States 
based on GOI Union Budget and Planning Commission documents are included in notified 
outlays on fertilizers: Subsidy on Imported Fertilizers, Subsidy on Decontrolled Fertilizers, 
Subsidy on Indi genous Fertilizers, Investment in Public Enterprises where loans and 
investments are provided to various public sector fertilizer companies.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies in part d are included in outlays for fertilizers, please 
provide the names of the  specific programs that fall under these subsidies along with the 
affiliated outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the names of any other programs that contribute to outlays on fertilizers 
that are not listed in part d.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The sup port notified under ST DS:2 in DS:1 notification for MY 2019 -20 with respect to 
fertilizer takes into account expenditure under Nutrient based (P&K) fertilizer, namely Nitrogen (N), 
Phosphate (P), Potash (K) and Sulphur (S) (USD 3,719.05 million) and urea based 
(USD  8,053.8  million) schemes. Under the nutrient -based scheme, decontrolled indigenous and 
imported P&K fertilizer is included, while under the urea -based scheme, controlled indigenous and 
imported urea is included.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that Ind ia had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in 
aggregate, India notified more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from U SD 24 
billion in the previous year and USD 23 billion from the year before. The US sought to understand 
more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input subsidies regardless 
of the recipients are one of the most distorting f orm of domestic support, with the least effect of 
transferred benefits to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' decisions, not only for 
planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could have a negative 
impact o n the environment. The EU shared  US concern on India's input subsidies and the lack of 
transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98052: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS ID 97057 (USA) – Input Subsidies  
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or programs contribute to the notified outlays on fertilizer subsides notified under 
Supporting Table  DS:2. India's most recent response states that input subsidies are duly notified 
under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressi ng the questions posed. Therefore, 
we again request the following information on India's notified outlays on fertilizer subsidies:  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 189 - 
 
   
a. Please provide the name and description of the program(s) that provide fertilizer subsidies 
in India.  
b. Please provide the mo netary value on each program if more than one.  
c. Please provide the legislation authorizing the program(s).  
d. Please confirm whether the following types of subsidies identified by the United States 
based on GOI Union Budget and Planning Commission documents ar e included in notified 
outlays on fertilizers: Subsidy on Imported Fertilizers, Subsidy on Decontrolled Fertilizers, 
Subsidy on Indigenous Fertilizers, Investment in Public Enterprises where loans and 
investments are provided to various public sector ferti lizer companies.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies in part d are included in outlays for fertilizers, please 
provide the names of the specific programs that fall under these subsidies along with the 
affiliated outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the na mes of any other programs that contribute to outlays on fertilizers 
that are not listed in part d.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The support notified under ST DS:2 in DS:1 notification for MY 2019 -20 with respect to 
fertilizer takes into account expenditure under Nutrient based (P&K) fertilizer, namely Nitrogen (N), 
Phosphate (P), Potash (K) and Sulphur (S) (USD 3,719.05 million) and urea based 
(USD  8,053.8  million) schemes. Under the nutrient -based scheme, decontrolled indigenous and 
imported P&K fertilizer is included, while under the urea -based scheme, controlled indigenous and 
imported urea is included.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided  a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in 
aggregate, India notified more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from 
USD 24 billion in th e previous year and USD 23 billion from the year before. The US sought to 
understand more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input 
subsidies regardless of the recipients are one of the most distorting form of domestic sup port, with 
the least effect of transferred benefits to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' 
decisions, not only for planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could 
have a negative impact on the environment. The EU shared  US concern on India's input subsidies 
and the lack of transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98049: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producer s 
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS ID 97057 (USA) – Input Subsidies  
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or p rograms contribute to the notified outlays on electricity notified under Supporting 
Table  DS:2. India's most recent response states that input subsidies are duly notified under 
Article  6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressing the questions po sed. Therefore, we 
again request the following information on India's notified outlays on electricity:  
 
a. Please provide the name and description of the scheme(s)/program(s) that provide 
electricity subsidies in India.  
b. Please provide the monetary value on e ach program if more than one or the methodology 
used to calculate the benefit to agricultural producers.  
c. Please provide the legislation authorizing the scheme(s)/program(s).  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 190 - 
 
  d. Please confirm whether the following types of subsidies identified by the United S tates 
based on GOI Union Budget and Planning Commission documents are included in notified 
outlays on electricity: Electricity Subsidy to Agricultural Consumers, Diesel subsidy in 
drought and deficient rains affected areas.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies  in part d are included in outlays for electricity, please 
provide the names of the specific programs that fall under these subsidies along with the 
affiliated outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the names of any other programs that contribute to outl ays on electricity 
that are not listed in part d.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The input subsidies are available to low -income or resource -poor farmers, and are duly 
notified under Article 6.2 of the AoA. The input subsidy provided to farmers with respect to power is 
not compiled scheme -wise. 
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in 
aggregate, India notifi ed more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from USD 24 
billion in the previous year and USD 23 billion from the year before. The US sought to understand 
more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input sub sidies regardless 
of the recipients are one of the most distorting form of domestic support, with the least effect of 
transferred benefits to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' decisions, not only for 
planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could have a negative 
impact on the environment. The EU shared  US concern on India's input subsidies and the lack of 
transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98050: Questio n by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS ID 97057 (USA) – Input Subsidies  
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or programs contribute to the notified outlays on electricity notified under Supporting 
Table  DS:2. India's most recent response states that input subsidie s are duly notified under 
Article  6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressing the questions posed. Therefore, we 
again request the following information on India's notified outlays on electricity:  
 
a. Please provide the name and description of the scheme(s)/program(s) that provide 
electricity subsidies in India.  
b. Please provide the monetary value on each program if more than one or the methodology 
used to calculate the benefit to agricultural producers.  
c. Please provide the legislation authorizing the  scheme(s)/program(s).  
d. Please confirm whether the following types of subsidies identified by the United States 
based on GOI Union Budget and Planning Commission documents are included in notified 
outlays on electricity: Electricity Subsidy to Agricultural Consumers, Diesel subsidy in 
drought and deficient rains affected areas.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies in part d are included in outlays for electricity, please 
provide the names of the specific programs that fall under these subsidies along with the 
affiliated outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the names of any other programs that contribute to outlays on electricity 
that are not listed in part d.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 191 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The input subsidies are available to low -income or resource -poor farmers, a nd are duly 
notified under Article 6.2 of the AoA. The input subsidy provided to farmers with respect to power is 
not compiled scheme -wise. 
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and e ncouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in 
aggregate, India notified more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from USD 
24 billion in the previous year and USD 23 billion from the year before. The US sought to understand 
more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input subsidies regardless 
of the recipients are one of the most distorting form of domestic support, with the least effect of 
transferred benefits to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' decisions, not only for 
planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could have a negative 
impact on the environment. The EU shared  US concern on India's input subsidies and the lack  of 
transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98053: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS ID 97057 (USA) – Input Subsidi es 
 
Between 2018 and 2020, a number of questions have been submitted to India (AG -IMS IDs 88108, 
91173, 93281, 93276 and 97057) seeking additional information on understanding what specific 
schemes or programs contribute to the notified outlays on fertiliz er subsides notified under 
Supporting Table DS:2. India's most recent response states that input subsidies are duly notified 
under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture without addressing the questions posed. Therefore, 
we again request the following  information on India's notified outlays on fertilizer subsidies:  
 
a. Please provide the name and description of the program(s) that provide fertilizer subsidies 
in India.  
b. Please provide the monetary value on each program if more than one.  
c. Please provide the  legislation authorizing the program(s).  
d. Please confirm whether the following types of subsidies identified by the United States 
based on GOI  Union Budget and Planning Commission documents are included in notified 
outlays on fertilizers: Subsidy on Imported Fertilizers, Subsidy on Decontrolled Fertilizers, 
Subsidy on Indigenous Fertilizers, Investment in Public Enterprises where loans and 
investments are provided to various public sector fertilizer companies.  
e. If the above -mentioned subsidies in part d are included in outlays for fertilizers, please 
provide the names of the specific programs that fall under these subsidies along with the 
affiliat ed outlays for each program.  
f. Please provide the names of any other programs that contribute to outlays on fertilizers 
that are not listed in part d.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to f. The support notified under ST DS:2 in DS:1 notification for MY 2019 -20 with respect to 
fertilizer takes into account expenditure under Nutrient based (P&K) fertilizer, namely Nitrogen  (N), 
Phosphate (P), Potash (K) and Sulphur (S) (USD 3,719.05 million) and urea based 
(USD  8,053.8  million) schemes. Under the nutrient -based scheme,  decontrolled indigenous and 
imported P&K fertilizer is included, while under the urea -based scheme, controlled indigenous and 
imported urea is included.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. In addition, the US noted that, in G/AG/W/218  
 
- 192 - 
 
  aggregate, India notified more than USD 25 billion in input subsidies in 2019/20, up from 
USD 24 billion in the previous year and USD 23 billion from the year b efore. The US sought to 
understand more about the continued increase in spending, taking particular note that input 
subsidies regardless of the recipients are one of the most distorting form of domestic support, with 
the least effect of transferred benefit s to farmers. Further, input subsidies disturb producers' 
decisions, not only for planting, but in terms of quantities of inputs supplied to farmland, which could 
have a negative impact on the environment. The EU shared  US concern on India's input subsidie s 
and the lack of transparency in the matter. Paraguay registered interests in the questions.   
AG-IMS ID 98036: Question by Australia - Market price support  
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) and 97140 (Brazil) and 97059 (USA) - Other Support for Ri ce 
 
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140, 93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for information regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table 5, which states "Other support for rice, that is, other  than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently".  
 
This information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box  support for programmes 
other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stock holding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicate what specific schemes, measures, or types of support are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/19.  
b. How much support is provided for each identified measure?  
c. If unable to provide detailed info rmation at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevant years.  
d. If India remains unable to provide any information, it would be appreciated if India could 
give some indication of what issues it is experiencing with col lecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be provided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
whether India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to thi s Committee, which has made it one of the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 98037: Question by European Union - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) an d 97140 (Brazil) and 97059 (USA) - Other Support for Rice  
 
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140, 93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for information regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table 5, which states "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently".  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 193 - 
 
   
This information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision,  which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes 
other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the com mitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicate what specific schemes, measures, or types of support are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/2019.  
b. How much support is provided for eac h identified measure?  
c. If unable to provide detailed information at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevant years.  
d. If India remains unable to provide any information, it would be appreciated if India could 
give so me indication of what issues it is experiencing with collecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be provided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are in the process of collecting information on "other su pport" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
whether India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to no tify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet i n a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 98038: Question by Japan - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) and 97140 (Brazil) and 97059 (USA) - Other Support for Rice  
 
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140, 93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for informati on regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table 5, which states "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently".  
 
This information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes 
other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is dif ficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicate what specific schemes, measures, or types of support are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/19.  
b. How much support is provided for each identified measure?  
c. If unable to provide detailed information at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevant years.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 194 - 
 
  d. If India remains unable to provide any infor mation, it would be appreciated if India could 
give some indication of what issues it is experiencing with collecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be provided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are  in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
whether India is complying with the requirements of the Ba li Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 98039: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Ja pan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) and 97140 (Brazil) and 97059 (USA) - Other Support for Rice  
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140, 93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for information regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table 5, which states "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently".  
 
This information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph  5 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes 
other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicate what specific schemes, measures, or types of supp ort are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/19.  
b. How much support is provided for each identified measure?  
c. If unable to provide detailed information at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevan t years.  
d. If India remains unable to provide any information, it would be appreciated if India could 
give some indication of what issues it is experiencing with collecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be pro vided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
wheth er India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. B razil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 98040: Question by Russian Federation - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 195 - 
 
   
G/AG/N/IND/18   
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) and 97140 (Brazil) and 97059 (USA) - Other Support for Rice  
 
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140,  93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for information regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table DS:5, which states "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food 
secur ity purposes, will be notified subsequently". This information is necessary to verify whether 
India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no 
increase of Amber Box support for programmes other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicat e what specific schemes, measures, or types of support are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/19.  
b. How much support is provided for each identified measure?  
c. If unable to provide detailed information at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevant years.  
d. If India remains unable to provide any information, it would be appreciated if India could 
give some indication of what issues it is experiencing with collecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be provided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
whether India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to notify its updated Table DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one o f the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provide additional 
information about its other Amber box support ou tlays for rice.  
AG-IMS ID 98041: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, United States  
 
G/AG/N/IND/18  
 
AG-IMS IDs 97001/93198 (EU) and 97140 (Brazil) and 97059  (USA) - Other Support for Rice  
 
In response to AG -IMS IDs 97001, 97140, 93198, and 97059, India indicated that a reply would be 
made in due course with regards to requests for information regarding footnote 3 in Supporting 
Table 5, which states "Other supp ort for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently".  
 
This information is necessary to verify whether India has adhered to paragraph 5 of the Bali 
Ministerial Decision, which requires that there  be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes 
other than public stockholding.  
 
Given the lack of any indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess 
whether India is complying with the commitments outlined in the B ali Decision on Public Stockholding 
for Food Security.  
 
a. Please indicate what specific schemes, measures, or types of support are concerned, and 
confirm whether these existed prior to 2018/19.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 196 - 
 
  b. How much support is provided for each identified measure?  
c. If una ble to provide detailed information at this stage, please indicate when this 
information will be notified for all relevant years.  
d. If India remains unable to provide any information, it would be appreciated if India could 
give some indication of what issues  it is experiencing with collecting this information or 
notifying it and whether any preliminary information could be provided at this stage.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. We are in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil stressed the need for more information from India so that Members could assess 
whether India is complying with the requirements of the Bali Decision. Brazil acknowledged India's 
efforts to notify its updated Table  DS:1 notification to this Committee, which has made it one of the 
most up -to-date Members with its transparency obligations. Brazil considered it important that India 
responds in detail to item 'd' of the question, if it is not yet in a position to provid e additional 
information about its other Amber box support outlays for rice.  
 
2.2.3.11   India (G/AG/N/IND/25)  
AG-IMS ID 98061: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98061), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98062 ), Japan 
(AG-IMS ID 98063), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98066), and 
United States (AG -IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)It is noted that 
between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical A ppendix to India's most recent 
Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the Government of India increased 
by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more than 7 million tonnes , 
the quantity released t o beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million tonnes , and the quantity 
released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 800,000 tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?India remains the world's largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, 
India's number one export position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice 
as much rice, by value, than its second closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable 
increase in open -market sales, there are concerns about the impact government stock 
releases have on India's export position, directly or indirectly.  
b. In response to AG -IMS ID 97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc.". We thank India 
for this o verview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that is actually offered 
by farmers and meeti ng specifications prescribed by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (Dom estic), 
exports are not allowed. Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS (D) 
stipulates that products under the OMSS (D) will be utilized domestically and not exported G/AG/W/218  
 
- 197 - 
 
  by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 . 
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around 9 8% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders turning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/201 9 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than d ouble the quantity of the next largest exporter, the action taken by India, on a significant 
scale domestically, could have real impacts on global markets. The US reiterated concern regarding 
India's public stockholding for food security programmes which a ppear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of simply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the number of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands tod ay is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situation is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian private sector seems not to be able to provide food domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of  the world. In addition 
to the co -sponsors' concern about 'open -market sales' expressed in question 'c', it is questionable 
whether the very existence of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an ov erproduction that has no other destiny but the international 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98068: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/25In the statistical appendix of India 2019 -2020 domestic support notification, the 
stock variation number for rice was off by 14,187,000 tonnes . Could India please explain what 
happened to these 14,187,000 tonnes  of rice?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The Government of India announces minimum support price for paddy rather than rice. However, 
for comparison with the external reference price, the minimum support price of paddy is converted 
into that of rice by using an average conversion ratio, which is also  provided in our DS:1 domestic 
support notifications. The stocks mentioned in the table are of rice rather than of paddy. Some 
stocks are in the form of un -milled paddy. The discrepancies are also on account of damage due to 
various factors, and also due t o inter -state movement of stock.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question.  
 
In light of India's response that the discrepancy was due to the conversion of the minimum support 
price for paddy into that for rice, the EU asked if the beginning and ending stock in the table annexed 
to India's notification refer to rice at different processing stage or the same type of rice. Canada also 
requested India to update the table to have gr eater clarity on the information provided therein. 
Paraguay reminded India that, as its rice exports account for around 30% of world exports, its rice 
policy could have a significant impact on the world market, particularly for small rice exporting 
countri es such as Paraguay. Paraguay underlined the importance of transparency of public 
stockholding for food security programmes and noted that such programmes should not be trade 
distorting and called for Members to ensure stocks procured under the programmes are not 
exported. Paraguay also noted the difficulty to access India's compliance with the Bali Decision due 
to the lack of information on other rice subsidies in its notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 98055: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (includ ing 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union welcomes India's domestic support notification for 2019/2020 
(G/AG/N/IND/25).  
 
a. The European Union notes that India does not provide value of production data in 
Supporting Table  DS:4, which makes it difficult for Members t o verify the claims made on G/AG/W/218  
 
- 198 - 
 
  de minimis . Could India please provide value of production data for the products concerned 
as well as for total agricultural production for 2019/2020?  
b. Would India consider including value of production data in Supporting Table D S:4 in future 
domestic support notifications?  
c. In footnote (3) to Supporting Table DS:5, India states, "other support for rice, that is, 
other than public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently". 
The same statement was made i n India's domestic support notification for 2018/2019 
(G/AG/N/IND/18), but no additional data has been provided so far. How does India 
consider the missing data for "other support for rice" complies with the requirement to 
"have fulfilled and continue to f ulfil its domestic support notification requirements under 
the AoA", as stipulated in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes (WT/MIN(13)/38)?  
d. The European Union notes an increase of more than 40% in notified non -product-specific 
AMS in Supporting Table DS:9 for 2019/2020 as compared to 2018/2019. Increases in 
support are substantial for both "Insurance Premium Subsidy" and "Interest Subsidy". 
Could India please elaborate on the reasons behind this increase and whethe r any policy 
changes have taken place?  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. Value of Production (USD million) data for year 2019 -20 (Provisional): 
Rice: 46,077.31; Wheat : 32,962.63; Cotton : 13,535.01; Pulses : 18,378.31; Coarse 
cereal : 15,171.84; Groundnut : 7,935.69; Rape seed and mustard seed : 5,124.76; 
Soyabean Yellow : 5,703.94 and Sunflower 109.31; Total VoP: 5,10,158 . 
c. We are in the process of collecting information on "other support" and it will be notified in 
due course.  
d. The increase was primarily due t o pending liabilities.  
Follow -up: In light of India's response that the discrepancy was due to the conversion of the 
minimum support price for paddy into that for rice, the EU asked if the beginning and ending stock 
in the table annexed to India's notifica tion refer to rice at different processing stage or the same 
type of rice. Canada also requested India to update the table to have greater clarity on the 
information provided therein. Paraguay reminded India that, as its rice exports account for around 
30% of world exports, its rice policy could have a significant impact on the world market, particularly 
for small rice exporting countries such as Paraguay. Paraguay underlined the importance of 
transparency of public stockholding for food security programmes  and noted that such programmes 
should not be trade distorting and called for Members to ensure stocks procured under the 
programmes are not exported. Paraguay also noted the difficulty to access India's compliance with 
the Bali Decision due to the lack of  information on other rice subsidies in its notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 98056: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Discrepancies in PSH stock data  
 
Based on the data in the statistical Annex for the PSH data in DS:1 notifi cation 2018/19 and 2019/20 
the following data can be established:  
 
India PSH stock figures from Statistical Annex in notification  
 
Mio. T   2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -20 
opening stocks  A 28,81  29,78  30,04  29,39  
Annual purchase  B 38,11  38,13  44,33  52,00  
Total availability  c=a+b  66,92  67,91  74,37  81,39  
Annual releases  D 33,52  34,20  34,40  33,36  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 199 - 
 
  Mio. T   2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 2019 -20 
open market sales  E 0,19 0,46 0,85 1,61 
Total release  f=e+d  33,71  34,66  35,25  34,97  
Total Availabilities - Total release  g=c-f 33,21  33,25  39,12  46,42  
End stocks IND/25  H 29,78  30,04  29,39  32,23  
Discrepancies  i=g-h 3,43 3,21 9,73 14,19  
 
This table shows a discrepancy between what goes in and out of 14 million tonnes in marketing 
year 2019/20.  
 
Can India explain what happened to these 14 million tonnes of rice in the marketing year 2019/20?  
 
Based on the average purchase price this quantity corresponds to an amount of more than $5 billion  
  
Answer by India  
 
The Government of India announces minimum support price for paddy rather than rice. However, 
for comparison with the external reference price, the minimum support price of paddy is converted 
into that of rice by using an average conversion ratio, which is also provided in our DS:1 domestic 
support notifications. The stocks mentioned  in the table are of rice rather than of paddy. Some 
stocks are in the form of un -milled paddy. The discrepancies are also on account of damage due to 
various factors, and also due to inter -state movement of stock.  
 
Follow -up: In light of India's response that the discrepancy was due to the conversion of the 
minimum support price for paddy into that for rice, the EU asked if the beginning and ending stock 
in the table annexed to India's notification refer to rice at different processing stage or the same 
type of rice. Canada also requested India to update the table to have greater clarity on the 
information provided therein. Paraguay reminded India that, as its rice exports account for around 
30% of world exports, its rice policy could have a significant imp act on the world market, particularly 
for small rice exporting countries such as Paraguay. Paraguay underlined the importance of 
transparency of public stockholding for food security programmes and noted that such programmes 
should not be trade distorting and called for Members to ensure stocks procured under the 
programmes are not exported. Paraguay also noted the difficulty to assess India's compliance with 
the Bali Decision due to the lack of information on other rice subsidies in its notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 98062: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98061), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98062), Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 98063), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98066), and United 
States  (AG-IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
It is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to 
India's most recent Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by  the Government 
of India increased by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more 
than 7 million tonnes , the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million 
tonnes , and the quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 
800,000  tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?   
India remains the world's largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, India's number one export 
position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice as much rice, by value, 
than its second closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable increase in open -market sales, 
there are concerns about the impact government stock releases have on India's export 
position, directly or indirectly.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 200 - 
 
  b. In response to AG -IMS ID  97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc.". We thank India 
for this overview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to expor t 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that is actually offered 
by farmers and meeting specifications prescribed by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (Domestic), 
exports are not allowed. Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS  (D) 
stipulates that products under the OMSS (D) will be utilized domestically and not exported 
by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 .  
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around 9 8% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders turning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than double the quantity of the next largest exporter, the action taken by India, on a significant 
scale do mestically, could have real impacts on global markets. The US reiterated concern regarding 
India's public stockholding for food security programmes which appear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of simply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for  domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the number of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands today is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situation is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian pri vate sector seems not to be able to provide food domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of the world. In addition 
to the co -sponsors' concern about 'open -market sales' expressed in question ' c', it is questionable 
whether the very existence of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an overproduction that has no other destiny but the international 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98063: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98061), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98062), Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 98063), Pa raguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG ‑IMS ID 98066), and United States 
(AG-IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
It is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to 
India's most rece nt Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the Government 
of India increased by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more 
than 7 million tonnes , the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/2 0 dropped by 1 million 
tonnes , and the quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 
800,000  tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 201 - 
 
  India remains the world's largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, India's number one export 
position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice as much rice, by value, 
than its second ‑closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable increase in open -market sales, 
there are concerns about the impact government stock releases have on India's expo rt 
position, directly or indirectly.  
b. In response to AG -IMS ID  97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc.". We thank India 
for this overview, but repeat the req uest for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domest ic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that is actually offered 
by farmers and meeting specifications prescribe d by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (Domestic), 
exports are not allowed. Guidelines for empanelment and registration under  OMSS (D) 
stipulates that products under the OMSS (D) will be utilized domestically and not exported 
by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 .  
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around 9 8% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders turning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than double the quantity of the next largest exporter, t he action taken by India, on a significant 
scale domestically, could have real impacts on global markets. The US reiterated concern regarding 
India's public stockholding for food security programmes which appear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of sim ply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the number of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands today is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situat ion is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian private sector seems not to be able to provide food domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of the world. In addition 
to the co -sponsors' concer n about 'open -market sales' expressed in question 'c', it is questionable 
whether the very existence of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an overproduction that has no other destiny but the int ernational 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98064: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98061), Europea n Union (AG -IMS ID 98062), Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 98063), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98066), and United States 
(AG-IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
It is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in t he Annex and Statistical Appendix to 
India's most recent Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the Government 
of India increased by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more 
than 7 million tonne s, the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by G/AG/W/218  
 
- 202 - 
 
  1 million  tonnes , and the quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 
800,000  tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent re sult of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?  India remains the world's largest exporter  of rice, and in 2020, 
India's number one export position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice 
as much rice, by value, than its second closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable 
increase in open -market sales, there are concerns about the  impact government stock 
releases have on India's export position, directly or indirectly.  
b. In response to AG -IMS ID 97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc." . We thank India 
for this overview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sa les from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that is actually o ffered 
by farmers and meeting specifications prescribed by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sales under Op en Market Sales Scheme (Domestic), 
exports are not allowed. Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS (D) 
stipulates which products under the OMSS  (D) will be utilized domestically and not 
exported by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 .  
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around  98% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders tu rning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than double the quantity of the next largest exporter, the action taken by India, on a significant 
scale domestically, could have real impacts on global m arkets. The US reiterated concern regarding 
India's public stockholding for food security programmes which appear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of simply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the num ber of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands today is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situation is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian private sector seems not to be able to provide foo d domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of the world. In addition 
to the co -sponsors' concern about 'open -market sales' expressed in question 'c', it is questionable 
whether the very existen ce of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an overproduction that has no other destiny but the international 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as r equested 
in the question.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 203 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 98066: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 98061), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98062), Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 98063), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG ‑IMS ID 98066), and 
United  States  (AG-IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
It is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to 
India's most recent Table DS:1 notifications, the n otified value of rice purchases by the Government 
of India increased by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more 
than 7 million tonnes , the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million 
tonnes , and  the quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 
800,000  tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the subsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reason ing behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?  India remains the world's largest exporter of rice, and in 2020, 
India's number one export position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice 
as much rice, by value, than its second ‑closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable 
increase in open -market sales, there are concerns about the impact government stock 
releases have on India's export position, directly or indirectl y. 
b. In response to AG -IMS ID 97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight charged, etc.". We thank India 
for this overview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that open -market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the privat e sector, which must then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
  
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that is actually offered 
by farmers and meeting specifications prescribed by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sales under Open Market Sales Scheme (Domestic), 
exports are not allowed. Guid elines for empanelment and registration under OMSS  (D) 
stipulates that products under the OMSS (D) will be utilized domestically and not exported 
by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 .  
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around 9 8% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare sche mes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders turning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases  in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than double the quantity of the next largest exporter, the a ction taken by India, on a significant 
scale domestically, could have real impacts on global markets. The US reiterated concern regarding 
India's public stockholding for food security programmes which appear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of simply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the number of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands today is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situation is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian private sector seems not to be able to provide food domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of the world. In addition G/AG/W/218  
 
- 204 - 
 
  to the co -sponsors' concern ab out 'open -market sales' expressed in question 'c', it is questionable 
whether the very existence of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an overproduction that has no other destiny but the interna tional 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98065: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 980 61), European Union (AG -IMS ID 98062), Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 98063), Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 98064), Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 98066), and United States 
(AG-IMS ID 98065) - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 
It is noted that between MY 2018/19 and MY 2 019/20, in the Annex and Statistical Appendix to 
India's most recent Table DS:1 notifications, the notified value of rice purchases by the Government 
of India increased by over $3 billion, annual purchases in the quantity of rice increased by more 
than 7 m illion tonnes , the quantity released to beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 dropped by 1 million 
tonnes , and the quantity released for open -market sales doubled, increasing by almost 800,000 
tonnes . 
 
a. Given the large decline in beneficiaries in MY 2019/20 and the s ubsequent result of open 
market sales doubling between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, what is the reasoning behind 
the 7 million tonnes  increase in annual purchases of rice under India's public stockholding 
program in MY 2019/20?  India remains the world's larg est exporter of rice, and in 2020, 
India's number one export position grew substantially; India now exports more than twice 
as much rice, by value, than its second closest competitor. Noting the also sizeable 
increase in open -market sales, there are concer ns about the impact government stock 
releases have on India's export position, directly or indirectly.  
b. In response to AG -IMS ID 97049, India stated "open market sale is arrived at on the basis 
of a number of factors including MPS, handling cost, freight ch arged, etc.". We thank India 
for this overview, but repeat the request for a copy of or specific URL(s) for the requested 
information on price methodology for open -market sales of food grains from public stocks.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure that op en-market sales from government stocks are 
not crowding out domestic sales by the private sector, which must then turn to export 
markets to sell their products?  
Answer by India  
 
a. It is to be noted that only a portion of the marketable surplus of rice that i s actually offered 
by farmers and meeting specifications prescribed by the government is procured at 
administered price.  
b. Price for open market sale is arrived at on the basis of a number of factors including MSP, 
handling cost, freight charges, etc. For sa les under Open Market Sales Scheme (Domestic), 
exports are not allowed. Guidelines for empanelment and registration under OMSS (D) 
stipulates which products under the OMSS  (D) will be utilized domestically and not 
exported by the bidder. These guidelines can be accessed from 
http://fci.gov.in/sales.php?view=224 .  
c. As per data available for MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20, around  98% of the stocks released 
through open -market sales was taken by the state governments for meeting the 
requirements under various food security and welfare schemes, and hardly 2% was taken 
up by the private traders. Hence, the issue of private traders tu rning to export markets to 
sell their products does not arise.  
Follow -up: The US noted that between 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, India undertook substantial 
increases in rice procurement while also decreasing the quantities released to beneficiaries. As a 
result, open market sales in the government stocks doubled. As the world's largest rice exporter, by 
more than double the quantity of the next largest exporter, the action taken by India, on a significant 
scale domestically, could have real impacts on global m arkets. The US reiterated concern regarding G/AG/W/218  
 
- 205 - 
 
  India's public stockholding for food security programmes which appear to be operating well beyond 
the scope of simply ensuring adequate stocks in its food system for domestic population. Brazil noted 
that the num ber of supplementary questions demonstrates that the annex included in India's 
notification as it stands today is not sufficient. In Brazil's view, the situation is unclear, as, on the 
one hand, the Indian private sector seems not to be able to provide foo d domestically, but, on the 
other, it would be competitive enough to make India the largest rice exporter of the world. In addition 
to the co -sponsors' concern about 'open -market sales' expressed in question 'c', it is questionable 
whether the very existen ce of a minimum price programme of such magnitude does not negatively 
affect market signals and causes an overproduction that has no other destiny but the international 
market. Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as r equested 
in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98067: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measures increased over 700% from USD 853 million to 
USD 6.9 billion between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measure that 
contributed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in D ecember 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas, the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provide d a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India clarified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was ap plied only for one quarter in 2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with larg e agricultural 
populations to assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with 
market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outputs. The fact that it is possible to migra te from a distortive policy to this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmers in each of the Members. Nevertheless, B razil 
said that it would carefully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied by a reduction in expenditure under Arti cle 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98069: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measures increased over 700% from USD 853 million to USD 
6.9 billion between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measure that 
contributed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 206 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreove r, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas, the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with reg ards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India clarified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was applied only for one quarter  in 2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with large agricultural 
populations  to assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with 
market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outputs. The fact that it is possible to migrate from a distortive polic y to this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmers in each of the Members. Nevertheless, Brazil 
said that it would c arefully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied by a reduction in expenditure under Article 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98070: Question by European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measures increased over 700% from USD 853 million  to 
USD 6.9 billion between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measure that 
contributed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreov er, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY  2018/19 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas, the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/20 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regard s to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India clarified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was applied only for one quarter in  2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with large agricultural 
populations to  assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with 
market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outputs. The fact that it is possible to migrate from a distortive policy t o this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmers in each of the Members. Nevertheless, Brazil 
said that it would care fully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied by a reduction in expenditure under Article 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98071: Quest ion by Japan - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 207 - 
 
  Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measures increased over 700% from $853 million to $6.9 
billion between MY 2018/1 9 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measure that 
contributed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programme s that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notificat ion 
for MY 2018/2019 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas, the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India c larified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was applied only for one quarter in 2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with large agricultural 
populations to assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with 
market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outpu ts. The fact that it is possible to migrate from a distortive policy to this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmer s in each of the Members. Nevertheless, Brazil 
said that it would carefully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied  by a reduction in expenditure under Article 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98072: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measure s increased over 700% from $853 million to $6.9 
billion between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measure that 
contribut ed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operation alized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY  2018/19 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/20 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India c larified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was applied only for one quarter in 2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with large agricultural 
populations to assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with G/AG/W/218  
 
- 208 - 
 
  market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outpu ts. The fact that it is possible to migrate from a distortive policy to this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmer s in each of the Members. Nevertheless, Brazil 
said that it would carefully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied  by a reduction in expenditure under Article 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98073: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: decoupled 
income support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
Outlays on 'decoupled income support' measures increased over 700% from $853 million to 
$6.9 billion between MY 2018/19 and MY 2019/20.  
 
a. Please provide the reason(s) behind this large increase in outlays.  
b. Please explain if there has been a change in the programme(s) under this measur e that 
contributed to this significant increase.  
c. Please identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 'decoupled income support' 
measures.  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The scheme notified under 'decoupled income support' measure is the PM -KISAN. The 
scheme got operationalized in December 2018 only. Moreover, outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2018/19 is only for one quarter of the year, whereas the outlay notified in DS:1 notification 
for MY 2019/2020 is for full year.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that India had not provided a full response with regards to the requested 
information and encouraged India to supply further information. The US asked India to confirm if 
only one measure PM -KISAN fell under decoupled income support. India c larified that the PM -KISAN 
measure was applied only for one quarter in 2018 while in 2019 and 2020 it was applied for the 
whole year. Brazil noted that the use of payments provided for in paragraphs 5 to 13 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) is an important way for Members with large agricultural 
populations to assist them, without distorting agricultural production and trade, as occurs with 
market price support policies and policies linked to the use of inputs or coupled to agricultural 
outpu ts. The fact that it is possible to migrate from a distortive policy to this type of support is, in 
Brazil's view, proof that there is no need to establish, within the framework of the reform process, 
disciplines that take into account the number of farmer s in each of the Members. Nevertheless, Brazil 
said that it would carefully evaluate India's responses to ensure that the general and specific 
requirements of Annex 2 of the AoA are met, and expect that this increase in Green Box spending 
to be accompanied  by a reduction in expenditure under Article 6.  
AG-IMS ID 98054: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
India notes in footnote 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the calculation of  market price support is 
"Based on the available provisional data."  
 
a. Please indicate which notified data in the calculation of market price support for rice is 
provisional data and which is final data.  
b. Please indicate when the relevant final data will be n otified.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The data for Value of Production is provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates 
available, at the time of preparation of the notification.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 209 - 
 
  Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provi de the information as requested 
in the question. The US reiterated its concern regarding India's inability to clarify what other support 
were provided to rice producers in addition to market price support which was notified. Further, the 
US noted that the only provisional data is the value of production data as provided in India's response 
and asked India if it means that it does not consider the data provisional because of the lack of state 
bonuses to market price support that may be provided to rice. The US requested India to indicate a 
timeframe for when it would complete gathering information on other support to rice and state 
bonus. The EU backed  US request. Canada also noted that some information were missing in India's 
responses and encouraged India t o provide complete response to the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98057: Question by European Union - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
India notes in footnote 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the calculation  of market price support is 
"Based on the available provisional data."  
 
a. Please indicate which notified data in the calculation of market price support for rice is 
provisional data and which is final data.  
b. Please indicate when the relevant final data will b e notified.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The data for Value of Production is provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates 
available, at the time of preparation of the notification.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urged India to pr ovide the information as requested 
in the question. The US reiterated its concern regarding India's inability to clarify what other support 
were provided to rice producers in addition to market price support which was notified. Further, the 
US noted that t he only provisional data is the value of production data as provided in India's response 
and asked India if it means that it does not consider the data provisional because of the lack of state 
bonuses to market price support that may be provided to rice. T he US requested India to indicate a 
timeframe for when it would complete gathering information on other support to rice and state 
bonus. The EU backed  US request. Canada also noted that some information were missing in India's 
responses and encouraged Indi a to provide complete response to the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98058: Question by Japan - Market price support  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
India notes in footnote 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the calculation of market price support is 
"Based on the available provisional data."  
 
a. Please indicate which notified data in the calculation of market price support for rice is 
provisional data and which is final data.  
b. Please indicate when the relevant final  data will be notified.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The data for Value of Production is provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates 
available, at the time of preparation of the notification.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urge d India to provide the information as requested 
in the question. The US reiterated its concern regarding India's inability to clarify what other support 
were provided to rice producers in addition to market price support which was notified. Further, the 
US noted that the only provisional data is the value of production data as provided in India's response 
and asked India if it means that it does not consider the data provisional because of the lack of state 
bonuses to market price support that may be provid ed to rice. The US requested India to indicate a 
timeframe for when it would complete gathering information on other support to rice and state 
bonus. The EU backed  US request. Canada also noted that some information were missing in India's 
responses and en couraged India to provide complete response to the question.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 210 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 98059: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
Co-Sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
India notes in footnote 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the c alculation of market price support is 
"Based on the available provisional data."  
 
a. Please indicate which notified data in the calculation of market price support for rice is 
provisional data and which is final data.  
b. Please indicate when the relevant final d ata will be notified.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The data for Value of Production is provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates 
available, at the time of preparation of the notification.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urged I ndia to provide the information as requested 
in the question. The US reiterated its concern regarding India's inability to clarify what other support 
were provided to rice producers in addition to market price support which was notified. Further, the 
US no ted that the only provisional data is the value of production data as provided in India's response 
and asked India if it means that it does not consider the data provisional because of the lack of state 
bonuses to market price support that may be provided to rice. The US requested India to indicate a 
timeframe for when it would complete gathering information on other support to rice and state 
bonus. The EU backed  US request. Canada also noted that some information were missing in India's 
responses and encou raged India to provide complete response to the question.  
AG-IMS ID 98060: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Co-sponsors: Australia, European Union, Japan, Paraguay, United States  
 
India notes in footnote 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the calculation of market price support is 
"Based on the available provisional data."  
 
a. Please indicate which notified data in the calculation of market price support for rice is 
provisional data and which is final data.  
b. Please in dicate when the relevant final data will be notified.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. The data for Value of Production is provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates 
available, at the time of preparation of the notification.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay supported the question and urged India to provide the information as requested 
in the question. The US reiterated its concern regarding India's inability to clarify what other support 
were provided to rice producers in addition to market price sup port which was notified. Further, the 
US noted that the only provisional data is the value of production data as provided in India's response 
and asked India if it means that it does not consider the data provisional because of the lack of state 
bonuses to  market price support that may be provided to rice. The US requested India to indicate a 
timeframe for when it would complete gathering information on other support to rice and state 
bonus. The EU backed  US request. Canada also noted that some information were missing in India's 
responses and encouraged India to provide complete response to the question.  
 
2.2.3.12   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/259)  
AG-IMS ID 98156: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
For fiscal year 04/01/2018 to 03/31/2019, Japan c ontinued to notify "Payments related to price" 
and "Deficiency payments" in Supporting Table DS:6 ("Product -Specific Aggregate Measurements of 
Support: Non -Exempt Direct Payments") for products such as "beef and veal"; "eggs"; "fruits"; 
"meat of swine"; "m ilk" and "vegetables".  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 211 - 
 
  To the question AG -IMS ID 63065, from Canada, Japan gave the following answer:"(a) "Payments 
related to price" refer to the payments, the amount of which is part of the difference between the 
reference price and the market price, pa id when the market price falls below the reference price. 
The "deficiency payments" refer to the payments, the amount of which is the entirety of the 
difference between the reference price and the market price, paid when the market price falls below 
the re ference price."  
 
In light of the above, Japan could provide the following additional information:  
 
a. Do the descriptions provided in 2011 under AG -IMS ID 63065 remain applicable to the 
programmes notified in G/AG/N/JPN/259?  
b. If so, what is the difference betw een these programmes and the "Price Stabilization" 
measures indicated in Supporting Table DS:5 ("Product -Specific Aggregate Measurements 
of Support: Market Price Support") for "Beef and veal" and "Meat of swine"?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. The descriptions in 2011 ( AG-IMS ID 63065) is applicable to the notification in 2021 
(G/AG/N/JPN/259).  
b. The programme in DS: 6 is direct payment, while the programme in DS 5 is supply and 
demand adjustment to stabilize market prices.  
AG-IMS ID 98157: Question by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Japan, in Supporting Table DS:4, provides value of production data for those 
products where the total product -specific support falls under the de minimis  threshold and in 
Supporting Table DS:9, the total agriculture value of production. The addition of value of production 
data for all products in Supporting Table DS:4 would complement the existing transparency in 
Japan's notification. In its next annual domest ic support notification, would Japan provide value of 
production data for all products?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan makes notification in accordance with G/AG/2, which stipulates the reporting format. The 
value of production is not required to be stated in th e notification format, but Japan provide the 
production value of the items which support fall under the de minimis  from the viewpoint of 
consistency with the rules and transparency. Japan is open to discussion on improving transparency 
on agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 98158: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Could Japan indicate the subsidy equivalent regarding the value of production for the 
following products for which it has provided subsidies that are higher than de minimis  
subsidies:  
Beef: JPY 266.9 billion.  
Sugar: JPY 19.5 billion.  
 
b. Could Japan explain the reasons for the increase of over JPY 20 billion in AMS support for 
beef?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan makes notification in accordance with G/AG/2, which stipulates the reporting format. The 
value of production is not required to be stated in the notification format, but Japan provide the 
production value of the items which support fall under the de minimis  from the viewpoint of 
consistency with the rules and transparency. Japan is  open to discussion on improving transparency 
on agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, and Canada welcomed Japan's openness to consider including value of 
production data for all products in its notifications which is a good step towards improved G/AG/W/218  
 
- 212 - 
 
  transparency. Canada stated that some Members including itself has already followed the practice. 
Brazil hoped that Japan could have the same openness to discuss substantial reforms on Domestic 
support in addition to transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 98159: Question b y United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Japan for its most recent Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/JPN/259); 
however, further clarity is sought with regard to the programmes implemented by Japan and w here 
they are reported in Japan's notification and the relation between several different measures.  
 
a. It is noted that Japan notified "agricultural insurance scheme" in Supporting Table  DS:1 
under "Payments for relief from natural disasters" and also "agric ultural insurance scheme" 
in Supporting Table DS:9. Please provide additional information indicating the name of the 
program/measure notified in each Supporting Table and whether there is any relation 
between the two programs/measures.  
b. Please indicate what  program/measures are reported as "crop income stabilization 
payment". Does this include "Direct Payments for Upland Field Crop" based on the Act on 
Farming Income Stabilization or any other measures?  
Answer by Japan  
 
a. This is agricultural insurance system in which producers select the type of insurance and 
the items covered according to the type of business. The insurance coverage for losses 
greater than 30% of average income is DS:1 and the insurance coverage for losses less 
than 30% of av erage income is DS:9.  
b. The "Crop income stabilization payment" reported in DS:9 includes "Direct Payments for 
Upland Field Crops" and "Payments to mitigate income loss on rice and upland crops", 
which are implemented based on the Act on Farming Management S tabilization.  
AG-IMS ID 98160: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Japan's most recent Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/JPN/259), outlays for Japan's Agricultural 
Insurance Scheme increased over 150% between FY 2017 and FY 201 8.Please explain the reason 
for the large increase in expenditures.  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The income insurance was newly introduced as a menu of agricultural insurance in FY  2018, and the 
amount of subsidy for the insurance was included in the G/AG/N/JPN/259.  
 
2.2.3.13   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/80)  
AG-IMS ID 98161: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
From 2005 to 2015, Korea's description for its public stockholding for food security purposes 
specified that expenditure was related to  staple grains including barley, rice and soybean. For 
notifications 2016, 2017 and 2018, the reference to soybean was removed from the description.  
 
a. Could the Republic of Korea clarify if soybean is still part of its public stockholding for food 
security purposes programme?  
b. Could the Republic of Korea clarify how and if the expenditures reported under its public 
stockholding for food security purposes were related to its administered price for soybean 
for the 2005 to 2015 period?  
c. Could the Republic of Kore a describe how soybean was procured for public stockholding 
for food security purposes during the 2005 to 2015 period, and if soybean was procured 
at Korea's applied administered price?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 213 - 
 
  d. For the 2016 to 2018 period, could the Republic of Korea describe its procurement policies 
for barley under its public stockholding for food security measure, and clarify at what price 
barley was procured during that period?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. For question a, soybean can be a subject of public stockholding program me for food 
security purposes according to the domestic law (Grain Management Act). Soybean was, 
however not included in the stockholding programme for the purpose of food security.  
b. For question b and c, soybean is not included in Korea's public stockhold ing for food 
security purposes. Soybean procurement programme is notified to WTO as market price 
support (MPS).  
c. For question d, barley also can be a subject of public stockholding programme for food 
security purposes according to the domestic law. From 20 16 to 2018, barley was not 
included in the stockholding programme for the purpose of food security.  
Follow -up: Australia and Canada appreciated the Republic of Korea's detailed information on 
domestic regulations governing purchases of the products. Austra lia requested the Republic of Korea 
to consider including such information in future DS:1 notifications to allow Members to assess the 
compliance of its public stockholding for food security programmes with the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
2.2.3.14   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/80 , G/AG/N/KOR/81, G/AG/N/KOR/ 82) 
AG-IMS ID 98162: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for its DS:1 notifications for 2016 –2018. Australia notes that 
in Supporting Table DS:5 of G/AG/N /KOR/81, the Republic of Korea notified total market support for 
soybeans at KRW 33.27 billion in CY  2017. This was an increase from KRW 7.26 billion notified in 
G/AG/N/KOR/80 for C Y 2016. Australia notes this was due to the increase in eligible production . 
Given this:  
 
Could the Republic of Korea please explain this significant increase and why eligible production 
decreases in G/AG/N/KOR/82 for CY  2018 to 2.33 thousand tonnes (from 8.85 thousand tonnes 
in CY 2017).  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
The eligi ble production in 2017 has increased because the yield has significantly increased year on 
year, and the market price of the harvest period decreased. This led to relatively high participation 
rate in the government procurement program.  
 
In 2018, on the ot her hand, the yield decreased because growth and development of the crops were 
not good due to drought. This led to higher market price than purchase price during harvest season, 
resulting in low participation rate in purchase.  
AG-IMS ID 98163: Question by  Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for its DS:1 notifications for 2016 – 2018. Australia notes 
that in Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/KOR/81, Republic of Korea notified product -specific support 
for rice at KRW 1,489.78 billion in CY 2017, an increase from KRW 726.22 billion in CY 2016. 
However, Australia also notes the Republic of Korea notified a subsequent decrease in support for 
rice at KRW 539.33 billion for CY  2018. Given this:  
 
a. could the Republic of Korea please explain the reasons for these highly variable levels of 
support for rice provided through deficiency payments?  
b. Could the Republic of Korea provide the following information on its deficiency payments 
for rice in 2016, 2017 and 2018 :  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 214 - 
 
  i. what was the eligibility criteria for the program (e.g. was it limited by volume or 
availability to specific producers)?  
ii. What were the specific payment rates per tonne and average amounts received per 
farmer?  
iii. What were the policy objectives of the defic iency payments?  
iv. Could the Republic of Korea please confirm if the deficiency payments are provided 
directly or indirectly to potential rice exporters in the Republic of Korea.  
Australia notes that the value of production for rice increased from KRW 6,619 billion in 2017 to 
KRW 8,401 billion in 2018 (approximately USD 1,590 million).  
 
c. If so, what volumes of rice and to which destinations did the Republic of Korea export?  
d. Can the Republic of Korea explain the significant increase in the production of rice, and 
whether the deficiency payments contributed to that increase?  
e. Should we therefore expect to see an increase in production, and possibly the level of 
deficiency payments to rice in 2019, 2020, and 2021 as seen in previous years?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. For question a, the deficiency payments for rice are based on a gap between the market 
price and target price, and is subject to the domestic support reduction commitment.  
- To be eligible for the payments, paddy fields had to be in production during the period 
of 1998 to 2000.  
- The target price is renewed every five years reflecting changes in the average rice 
prices. The market price is calculated with prices surveyed during harvest season in a 
given year.  
- The reason for the increase in the def iciency payment expenditures in 2017 is 
attributed to unusual price declines of rice. This was caused by a continued good 
harvest and the subsequent increase in rice stock levels. The amount of deficiency 
payments has fallen to an average level in 2018 bec ause the issue of oversupply was 
resolved. Please see the table below.  
 
 * Rice price: (2016) 1,883 KRW/kg → (2017) 1,621 KRW/kg → (2018) 2,231 KRW/kg).  
 
b. For question b (i), to be eligible for the "deficiency payment", paddy fields had to be in 
production during the fixed period from 1998 to 2000.  
- For question b (ii), first, payment rates per tonne are as follow. KRW 198 thousand 
for 2016, WON 419 thousand for 2017, and WON 156 thousand for 2018. Second, 
average amounts received per farmhouse are as follow . WON 1,060 thousand 
for 2016, WON 2,175  thousand for 2017, and WON 799 thousand for 2018. Please 
refer to the table below.  
- For question b (iii), the deficiency payment programme aims to stabilize the income 
of farmers producing rice, a staple food in the Republic of Korea, in case of rice price 
fluctuations.  
- For question b (iv), the deficiency payments are provided to farmers producing rice in 
farmlands. Rice exporters are not eligible to receive the payments.  
 
c. For question c, the Republic of Korea export ed 2,100 tonnes and 2,031 tonnes of rice in 
2017 and 2018 respectively, to several countries such as United States, Australia, and 
other Asian countries.  
d. For question d, there is no evidence that the deficiency payments encourage more 
production, rather th e scheme aims to stabilize farm income in case of rice price 
fluctuations. For example, the volume of rice production decreased by 3% from G/AG/W/218  
 
- 215 - 
 
  3.972  million tonnes in 2017 to 3.868 million tonnes in 2018. The data indicates that the 
2018 rice production did no t improve despite the increased deficiency payments.  
e. For question e, the volume of rice production and the amount of deficiency payments for 
2019 are estimated to remain at a similar level to the average year.  
Follow -up: The EU indicated interest in the subject.  
 
AG-IMS ID 98164: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for its DS:1 notifications for 2016 –2018. Australia notes that 
in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/KOR/82, the Republic of Korea notified spending on public 
stockholding for food security purposes of KRW 356.31 billion in CY  2018, an increase of 
KRW 132.7  billion from CY  2017. Given this:  
 
a. could the Republic of Korea please explain the reason for this increase?   
Annex 2, pa ragraph 3 of the Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) states, "The volume and accumulation 
of such stocks shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security." In this 
context:  
 
b. could the Republic of Korea explain the policy basis for these measures, how it 
pre-determines the targets and that it is consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 3?  
Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the AoA further states, "Food purchases by government shall be made at 
current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic 
market price for the product and quality in question". Could the Republic of Korea please provide:  
 
c. a breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spending?  
d. The prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold?  
e. Confirmation the purchase and sale of commodities were made at domestic market prices?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. The deficiency payments for rice are based on a gap between the market price and target 
price, and is subject to the domestic support reduction commitment.  
• To be eligible for the payments, paddy fields had to be in production during the 
period of 1998 to 2000.  
• The target price is renewed every five years reflecting changes in the average rice 
prices. The market price is calculated with prices surveyed during harvest season in 
a given year.  
• The reason for the increase in the deficiency payment expenditures in 2017 is 
attributed to unusual price declines of rice.  
This was caused by a continued goo d harvest and the subsequent increase in rice stock levels. The 
amount of deficiency payments has fallen to an average level in 2018 because the issue of 
oversupply was resolved. Please see the table below.  
 
* Rice price: (2016) 1,883 KRW/kg → (2017) 1,621  KRW/kg → (2018) 2,231 KRW/kg).  
 
b.  
i. To be eligible for the "deficiency payment", paddy fields had to be in production during 
the fixed period from 1998 to 2000.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 216 - 
 
  ii. First, payment rates per tonne are as follow. KRW 198 thousand for 2016, WON 419 
thousand for 20 17, and WON 156 thousand for 2018. Second, average amounts 
received per farmhouse are as follow. WON 1,060 thousand for 2016, WON 2,175 
thousand for 2017, and WON 799 thousand for 2018. Please refer to the table below.  
iii. The deficiency payment programme aims  to stabilize the income of farmers producing 
rice, a staple food in the Republic of Korea, in case of rice price fluctuations.  
iv. The deficiency payments are provided to farmers producing rice in farmlands. Rice 
exporters are not eligible to receive the paym ents. 
c. The Republic of Korea exported 2,100 tonnes and 2,031 tonnes of rice in 2017 and 2018 
respectively, to several countries such as United States, Australia, and other Asian 
countries.  
d. There is no evidence that the deficiency payments encourage more pro duction, rather the 
scheme aims to stabilize farm income in case of rice price fluctuations. For example, the 
volume of rice production decreased by 3% from 3.972 million tonnes in 2017 to 
3.868  million tonnes in  2018. The data indicates that the 2018 rice  production did not 
improve despite the increased deficiency payments.  
e. The volume of rice production and the amount of deficiency payments for 2019 are 
estimated to remain at a similar level to the average year.  
Follow -up: Australia and Canada appreciated the Republic of Korea's detailed information on 
domestic regulations governing purchases of the products. Australia requested the Republic of Korea 
to consider including such information in future DS:1 notifications to al low Members to assess the 
compliance of its public stockholding for food security programmes with the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 98165: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea (ROK ) for its DS:1 notifications for 2016 – 2018.  
 
Australia seeks further information regarding the ROK's notified 'decoupled income support' reported 
in G/AG/N/KOR/80, G/AG/N/KOR/ 81 and G/AG/N/KOR/ 82. 
 
a. Could the ROK please advise how much of the funds were d irected to the "Fixed payment 
scheme for paddy fields" for 2016, 2017 and 2018?  
b. Could the ROK please provide eligibility criteria for the measure (under AoA Annex  2 
paragraph  6)? 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. The amount spent for the Fixed payment scheme f or paddy fields are WON 836.34  billion  
in 2016, WON 829.26 billion in 2017 and WON 817.15 billion in 2018.   
b. The program sets, 1) fixed area of lands that were used for rice cultivation, 2) during the 
fixed period between 1998 and 2000 and, 3) gives fixed a mount of payment regardless of 
production or price. It complies with the requirements in Paragraph 6 of the Annex 2 of 
Agreement of Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 98167: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The United States thanks  the Republic of Korea for its domestic support notifications for CY  2016 
through CY  2018. We note that deficiency payments made for rice put the Republic of Korea right 
at their Final Bound Total AMS commitment level in CY  2017. Deficiency payments for ri ce in CY  2016 
were approximately half of the total payments in CY  2017, and payments in CY  2018 fell below 
CY 2016 levels. Noting the Republic of Korea's response to AG -IMS ID 76042 stating deficiency 
payments are made "when the market price of rice falls to a certain level during the harvest season":  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 217 - 
 
   
a. Please explain the reason for the increase in payments for CY  2017.  
b. Please explain if changes in market price trigger levels played a role in the increase. If so, 
is there any legislation outlining new or altered trigger levels?  
c. Did the Republic of Korea take a policy action in CY  2017 that prevented it from exceeding 
its commitment levels? If so, please explain.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. For question a, the deficiency payments for rice are based on a gap between the market 
price and target price, and is subject to the domestic support reduction commitment.  
- To be eligible for the payments, paddy fields had to be in production during the period 
of 1998 to 2000.  
- The target price is renewed every five years reflecting changes in the average rice 
prices. The market price is calculated with prices surveyed during harves t season in a 
given year.  
- The reason for the increase in the deficiency payment expenditures in 2017 is 
attributed to unusual price declines of rice. This was caused by a continued good 
harvest and the subsequent increase in rice stock levels.  
 
* Rice pri ce: (2016) 1,883 KRW/kg → (2017) 1,621 KRW/kg.  
 
Annual rice production (tonnes)  
2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  
4,006,185  4,230,011  4,240,739  4,326,915  4,196,691  3,972,468  3,868,045  
 
b. For question b, the increase in payments for 2017 was not attributed to a change in market 
price trigger level. The market price trigger levels stayed the same for five years from the 
2013 to 2017 period.  
c. For question c, the commitment level of the Republ ic of Korea was set as an upper limit 
of the budget for the deficiency payment scheme in 2017. The amount of payments for 
farms were determined accordingly.  
AG-IMS ID 98166: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for its DS:1 notifications for 2016 –2018.  Australia seeks 
further information regarding Korea's Supporting Tables DS:9 in G/AG/N/KOR/80, G/AG/N/KOR/81 
and G/AG/N/KOR/82.  Could the Republic of Korea provide the names of programs reported under 
'Self-help fund raising' and 'Other'?  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
'Self-help fundraising' programmes include Fundraising for agricultural and animal products.  
 
'Other' programmes cover Support for Rural community companies project, Seed industry promotion 
project, and Seedling infrastructure development program.  
AG-IMS ID 98168: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Brazil is pleased to note that, in 2017, South Korea managed to keep its CTAMS of 
KRW 1,489.78  billion below its FBTAMS o f KRW 1,490 billion (G/AG/N/KOR/81).  
 
Nevertheless, there is a noticeable variation in the "deficiency payments" for rice between 2016 and 
2018: KRW 726.22 billion (G/AG/N/KOR/80), KRW 1,489.78 billion (G/AG/N/KOR/81) and 
KRW 539.33 billion (G/AG/N/KOR/82) , respectively.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 218 - 
 
  There was also a notable increase in rice VoP between 2016 and 2018: KRW  6,391.9  billion 
(G/AG/N/KOR/80), KRW 6,619.6 billion (G/AG/N/KOR/81) and KRW  8,401.2  billion 
(G/AG/N/KOR/82), respectively.  
 
In light of the above, could South Korea explain:  
 
a. The functioning of the "deficiency payments" programme reported in Supporting 
Table  DS:6 ?  
b. The reason for the reduction in "deficiency payments" expenditure for rice between 2017 
and 2018?  
c. The reason for the growth of rice VoP between 2017 and 2018?  
d. The reason for the increase in "crop insurance" and "direct payment" expenditures 
reported as "non -product specific AMS"?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
a. The deficiency payment programme aims to stabilize the income of farmers producing rice, 
a staple food in the Republic of Korea, in case of rice price fluctuations.  
 
b. The increase in the deficiency payment expenditures in 2017 is attributed to unusual price  
declines of rice. This was caused by a continued good harvest and the subsequent increase 
in rice stock levels. The amount of deficiency payments has fallen to an average level in 
2018 because the issue of oversupply was resolved. Please see the table bel ow.  
* Rice price: (2016) 1,883 KRW/kg → (2017) 1,621 KRW/kg → (2018) 2,231 KRW/kg).  
 
c. The value of rice production is calculated by multiplying the price by the volume of 
production. The volume of rice production decreased from 3.972 million tonnes in 2017  to 
3.868 million tonnes in 2018. The value of production for rice increased because the rice 
price surged.  
d. In regard to  direct payment, new programmes were introduced in 2018, namely the 
Support Scheme for Cultivation of Alternative Crops in Paddy Fields  and Support for the 
Settlement of Young Farmers.  
- The expenditures for "crop insurance" increased because four (4) new products 
(buckwheat, broccoli, button mushroom and king oyster mushroom) were newly 
included in 2018. In addition, the number of insured farm households increased 42% 
in 2018, compared to the previous year. This is attributable to the improvement of the 
insurance policy including the expansion of the coverage scope and regions.  
 
* The number of insured farm households: (2017) 195,804 → (2018) 277,112.  
 
2.2.3.15   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/81)  
AG-IMS ID 98169: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In its 2017 notification (G/AG/N/KOR/81), the Republic of Korea reported a Current Total AMS of 
KRW 1,489.78 billion, which was only KRW 0 .3 billion below Korea's Final Bound Total AMS. All 
support reported in Korea's Current Total AMS related to its rice deficiency payment.  
 
Could the Republic of Korea clarify if the support under its rice deficiency payment is capped to 
prevent its rice AMS from increasing beyond KRW 1,490 billion? If not, how does the Republic of 
Korea plan to ensure that its deficiency payments are not going to result in its Current Total AMS 
exceeding its Final Bound Total AMS going forward?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 219 - 
 
  Answer by Korea, Repu blic of  
 
The Republic of Korea abolished the deficiency payment scheme and reorganized the direct payment 
scheme as green box in 2020, to prevent rice AMS from exceeding Korea's Final Bound Total AMS.  
 
The DS notification for the new direct payment scheme will be submitted in due course after the 
data collection and internal review.  
 
2.2.3.16   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/33 , G/AG/N/KGZ/3 4) 
AG-IMS ID 98170: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
Canada notes that in Supporting Table DS:9, there is an expenditur e called "Breeding of cattle 
support". Could Kyrgyz Republic elaborate how this measure, which appears to be directed at cattle, 
is considered to be a non -product specific measure?  
 
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
AG-IMS ID 98171: Question by Canada - Transpare ncy issues (including Table DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
a. Kyrgyz Republic includes an expenditure called "The Project: Investments to Villages – 3" 
(WB)(loan)" claimed as Green Box under Structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids. Cou ld Kyrgyz Republic elaborate on the activities covered by this 
project?  
Supporting Table DS:9  
 
b. There are a number of expenditures for "Animal breeding and market development 
programme – 2 IFAD" and "Animal breeding and market development programme – 2 
IFAD – loan".  
Could Kyrgyz Republic provide more information on the types of animals that are eligible for the 
breeding portion of this programme?  
 
c. There are two separate expenditures for "Comprehensive development of dairy sector 
productivity (WB) (loan).  
i. Could Kyrgyz Republic elaborate how this measure, which appears to be directed at 
the dairy sector, is considered to be a non -product specific measure?  
ii. Could Kyrgyz Republic elaborate on the differences between the two expenditures for 
this measure?  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
2.2.3.17   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/19)  
AG-IMS ID 98172: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In calendar year 2020, Nigeria did not report any expenditures related to Domestic Food 
Aid as it did in calendar year 2019. Could Nigeria elaborate if the programme is still 
operational?  
b. Nigeria reports an expenditure for "Support for infrastructural Projects in Rural Areas" 
under Infrastructural Services. Could Nigeria elaborate on the types of projects that are 
covered under this measure?  
c. Nigeria reports an expenditure under Article 6.2 for "Other input subsidies for resource 
poor producers".  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 220 - 
 
  i. Could Nigeria elaborate on the types of inputs that are supported under this measure?  
ii. Could Nigeria elaborate on its criteria to d efine "resource poor producers"?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
AG-IMS ID 98173: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States would like to thank Nigeria for its 2019 and 2020 Table DS:1 notifications. It is 
noted  that these are Nigeria's first notified domestic support measures under the Agreement on 
Agriculture. We look forward to reviewing notifications covering 2017 and 2018, as well as any 
revised notifications for 2012 to 2016, which Nigeria noted it is revie wing in response to AG -IMS 
ID 96059.  
 
It is noted Nigeria has not notified the name or description of any measure in Supporting Table DS:1. 
For example, the name and description of the measure under the category of support "Inspection 
services" is simply " Inspection of Agricultural Services," which neither indicates what measures were 
actually undertaken by Nigeria nor gives an indication of the type of support provided. Such 
information is useful in the review of notifications by Members of this Committee and serves as a 
basis for greater sharing of information on how Members support their agricultural sectors.  
 
We encourage Nigeria to provide the necessary information in its forthcoming notifications and 
revisions to any prior notifications.  
 
Noting that Nigeria has notified the introduction of many new measures, when will Nigeria be able 
to provide a Table DS:2 notification reflecting these new measures?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
AG-IMS ID 98174: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
Under Supporting Table DS:2, Nigeria lists "Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor 
producers." The United States understands that Nigeria incentivizes domestic fertilizer production 
and distributio n of fertilizer to farmers at subsidized rates under the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative 
according to the Nigeria Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.  
 
a. Noting that Nigeria has not notified the name or description for any measure in Supporting 
Table DS:2, please provide the names and brief description of any programmes or 
schemes, such as the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative, that are included in the notified 
measure category "Other input subsidies available to low -income or resourc e-poor 
producers."  
b. For each identified programme or scheme, please identify what inputs are subsidized and 
the eligibility requirements for producers.  
c. How does Nigeria define 'low -income or resource -poor producers'?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
2.2.3.18   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/1 9, G/AG/N/NGA/20)  
AG-IMS ID 98175: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia welcomes Nigeria's DS:1 notifications for CY  2019 and CY  2020. We encourage Nigeria to 
provide as much information as po ssible in future DS notifications to enable analysis of its agriculture 
policies by Members. In this context, Australia requests further details on the types of input subsidies 
that are provided in the support outlined in Supporting Table DS:2 in both noti fications.  
 
Answer by Nigeria  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 221 - 
 
   
2.2.3.19   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/20)  
AG-IMS ID 98176: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
In calendar year 2019, Nigeria reports an expenditure called "Supply of Food Items to vulnerable 
Persons" under Domestic Food Aid.  
 
Could Nigeria  elaborate on the food items that are covered under this expenditure and indicate if 
these food products were acquired at market prices?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
2.2.3.20   Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/1 7, G/AG/N/PAK/18, G/AG/N/PAK/19, 
G/AG/N/PAK/ 20) 
AG-IMS ID 98177: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
G/AG/N/PAK/17 to G/AG/N/PAK/20  
 
Canada noticed that Pakistan's public stockholding for food security measure for wheat was listed in 
Supporting Table DS:1 for notification year 2012 to 2015, but that the amount listed for each year 
was 0 (zero). For that same period, Pakistan reported market price support for wheat in each year.  
 
a. Could Pakistan clarify if the public stockholding measure(s) for which support was reported 
during the 2007 to 2011 period were still operational for the 2012 to 2015 period?  
b. Could Pakistan explain the policy changes that resulted in support being reported for public 
stockholding for food security in the 2007 to 2011 period, but not in the 2012 to 2015 
period?  
i. For the 2 012 to 2015 period, could Pakistan explain if the wheat quantity reported in 
Supporting Table DS:5 was procured as part of Pakistan's public stockholding for food 
security purposes?  
ii. For the 2007 to 2011 period, could Pakistan clarify if the wheat quantity reported in 
Supporting Table DS:5 was procured as part of Pakistan's public stockholding for food 
security purposes?  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
2.2.3.21   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/33)  
AG-IMS ID 98018: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With regards t o Paraguay's DS:1 notification for year 2019 (G/AG/N/PRY/33). Kindly provide:  
 
a. Details of the programmes "Support for family farming" and "Development of 
competitiveness in agriculture.  
b. How do the above two programmes meet the criteria under Article 6.2. Please provide the 
relevant website links for the above programmes . 
c. Details of the following schemes notified under Domestic Food Aid:  
i. Improving Rural and Indigenous Family Farming;  
ii. Improving Rural and Indigenous Family Farming in the Eastern Region.  
d. Also explain how these programmes meet the criteria under Annex 2.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 222 - 
 
  Answer by Paraguay  
 
a. The answer is identical to those provided to question AG ‑IMS ID 97142, submitted by 
Thailand at the previous meeting of the Committee:  
Support for small ‑scale family f arming: In general, the support provided for small ‑scale family 
farming includes, among other inputs, seeds, fertilizers, basic farming tools, poultry and manual 
milking machines. The purpose of these measures is to support the most vulnerable producers wh o 
are living in poverty despite participating in the value chain, with a view to encouraging rural 
integration and development. In 2019, 1,743 families received almost 300,000 kg of certified seeds 
for the production of crops for home consumption (such as potatoes and onions) in the departments 
of Paraguarí, Concepción, Guairá, Caazapá, Cordillera, Caaguazú, Itapuá, Canindeyú, San Pedro and 
Central. Similarly, money was transferred for the purchase of agricultural inputs, from which 1,467 
families in the de partments of Caaguazú, Cordillera, Concepción, Paraguarí, Guairá and Canindeyú 
benefitted. Small ‑scale family farming uses mainly family labour for production, most of which is for 
the farm's own consumption. Small ‑scale family farming is based on the foll owing principles: overall 
sustainability; territoriality and the protection of common goods; solidarity economy; independent 
and differentiated organization; food, seed and technological sovereignty; subsidiarity; and 
adequate and relevant education.  
 
Programme for the development of competitiveness: This programme is supplemented by actions 
coordinated with other institutions related to the agricultural and forestry sector, the approach of 
which considers the market as a factor for success in the positioni ng and competitive performance 
of the country's agricultural production. This way of working represents an opportunity for production 
organizations to develop and strengthen their organizational management skills while serving as a 
link with other economic  sectors (universities and financial, marketing, exporting and logistics 
entities). The central purpose is to promote the competitive integration of the agricultural sector into 
different markets in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable  and fair way, thereby 
making a positive contribution to the improvement of the conditions for the development of 
competitive agricultural products that generate greater income. There are seven competitiveness 
committees, headed by the Ministry of Agricult ure and Livestock (MAG), with public ‑private 
partnerships, in the aquaculture, pig, dairy, apiculture, sheep and poultry (laying hens and broilers) 
sectors. The programmes are aimed at organizations or formal individual producers, supporting them 
through a  government counterpart in the use of technology, seeds, tools, machinery and 
infrastructure, as well as logistically, which contributes to the competitiveness of their products 
destined for the local market or regional market where possible, taking into a ccount volume and 
quality standards, etc. In 2019, 7,871 producers in the departments of Concepción, San Pedro, 
Cordillera, Guaira, Caaguazú, Caazapá, Itapuá, Misiones, Paraguarí, Alto Paraná, Amambay and 
Central were provided with training on, inter alia,  market‑based production planning, market 
information management, post ‑harvest product management, joint marketing, the promotion of 
marketing centres, and legal requirements, regulations and documents for farmers' market producer 
associations. Similarly, 2,092 organized producers were given support to improve the marketing of 
their products through agricultural fairs. They were supported with organization, promotion, 
transport and the presentation of products for the holding of fairs. Some 380 producers fr om various 
parts of the country also received support with the domestic transport of products so that they could 
be sold at local markets.  
 
b. The programmes consist of subsidies for inputs to support the most vulnerable groups. 
The areas in which these progr ammes are implemented are areas of social conflict in the 
Paraguayan territory (North ‑East) and the programmes also seek to encourage farmers 
and indigenous peoples to turn away from narcotics production and convert to other crops.  
c. Both programmes aim to sustainably increase the income of poor rural households 
engaged in small ‑scale and indigenous subsistence family farming in the country. The 
programme entitled "Improving rural and indigenous family farming" assisted 14,000 rural 
familie s and was aimed at family farmers and indigenous communities in the national 
territory due to their high levels of poverty, focusing on production value chains. The 
programme entitled "Improving Rural and Indigenous Family Farming in the Eastern 
Region" pr ovided assistance to some 13,500 rural families from four departments (San 
Pedro, Concepción, Canindeyú and Caaguazú) in Paraguay's eastern region.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 223 - 
 
  d. These programmes fall under subparagraph 4 of Annex 2, since the aid provided is for 
production that is to b e consumed by the producer. As one of the most vulnerable sections 
of the Paraguayan population, the group in question is eligible to receive the government 
food aid, with the main objective being to ensure that they are well ‑nourished and improve 
the orga nization of their activities . 
2.2.3.22   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 98022: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
According to Russian Federation's DS:1 notification for Calendar year 2018, two schemes by the 
name "Federal - Agricultural cargo es transportation on preferential terms" and "Sub -federal - 
Agricultural cargoes transportation on preferential terms" have been notified.  Given this, can the 
Russian Federation elaborate on the following:  
 
a. which agricultural products are eligible to recei ve support under these programmes?  
b. Are these subsidies also available to exported products?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b. The subsidy for transportation of agricultural products within the territory of the 
Russian  Federation covers live animals, beef, pork, lamb, relevant edible by -products, fish, products 
of animal origin (including milk, cream, butter, cottage cheese, cheeses), eggs, honey, live plants, 
vegetables, fruits, grains, cereals, fats and oils (animal, vegetable), confectionery, and pr epared 
food products, etc. The subsidy is not designated to exported products.  
 
2.2.3.23   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/109)  
AG-IMS ID 98196: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Could Switzerland  explain the reasons for the increase in AMS sp ending of 
almost  CHF 100 million?  
b. Payment s made under Annex 2:  
i. could Switzerland provide details on the programmes amounting to CHF  135.7  million, 
financed under the "research" section?  
ii. Could Switzerland provide details on the programmes amounting to CHF  312 million, 
financed under the "biodiversity payments" section?  
iii. Could Switzerland explain the justification behind the notification of animal welfare 
programmes under paragraph 12 of Annex 2?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
a. The increase in AMS is  due to the introduction of the supplement for marketed milk and 
the supplement for cereals. Both programmes have been in effect since 1 January 2019.  
b.  
i. The above mentioned amount of CHF 135.7 million corresponds to the research 
expenditure of Agroscope. Ag roscope is the Swiss centre of excellence for agricultural 
research and makes an important contribution to the sustainability of the agri food 
sector and to the conservation of the environment. Agroscope's research covers the 
entire value chain of the agri  food sector, with the aim of ensuring a competitive and 
multi functional agricultural sector, high quality food for a healthy diet and an intact 
environment. Agroscope gears its research work to the needs of those who make use 
of its services. It has outl ined 17 strategic research fields for these research and 
development activities.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 224 - 
 
  ii. The objectives and measures established under biodiversity payments should 
contribute to the fulfilment of the environmental goals set for agriculture in 
Switzerland. Such goals include countering the decline in priority species and precious 
national habitats on utilized agricultural land and in the summer pasturing region. The 
payments go towards the establishment, maintenance and networking of biodiversit y 
promotion areas, with a view to preserving and promoting species richness and the 
diversity of natural environments and habitats. The payments consist of quality 
payments and networking payments. In 2019, the payments for quality amounted to 
CHF 313 mill ion and those for networking to CHF  105 million. The quality payments 
are made according to two quality levels (levels I and II). Quality level I includes basic 
requirements relating to land use. If more rigorous biodiversity requirements are met, 
payments  for quality level II are made for certain types of biodiversity promotion areas 
(described below). The networking payments are granted so that biodiversity 
promotion areas are established on sites that are of vital importance for biodiversity. 
This includ es, for example, areas located along forests, watercourses and hedgerows. 
Moreover, species and habitat specific measures are implemented as part of 
networking projects in order to promote the species concerned in a targeted manner.  
c. The animal welfare paym ents form part of the direct payments included in a clearly defined 
government programme. The payments compensate farmers for the increased production 
costs that arise as a result of complying with strict requirements and are consistent with 
paragraph  12 of Annex 2 which refers to, inter alia, production methods.  
AG-IMS ID 98180: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia thanks Switzerland for submitting its DS:1 notification for CY  2019. Australia notes an 
estimate figure is used for the ' Refund of fuel tax to farmers' under Supporting Table DS:9.  
 
a. Could Switzerland confirm that the final figure is still not yet available?  
b. If the figure is available, Australia kindly encourages Switzerland to update its 
DS:1 Notification to reflect the ne w information.  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
The final figures have just been published: the refund of fuel tax to farmers amounted to 
CHF 65.1 million for 2019. Switzerland will update the notification as soon as possible.  
 
2.2.3.24   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  
AG-IMS ID 981 81: Question by United States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
The United States thanks Tunisia for its most recent domestic support notification. We would like to 
re-submit AG -IMS ID 93139, itself a repeated question from AG -IMS ID 91190, to whic h Tunisia has 
yet to provide a response. We note the concerns raised in these questions apply to all of Tunisia's 
recent domestic support notifications, including G/AG/N/TUN/60.  
 
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS ID 87040, Tunisia indicated that it would pro vide 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 the reporting period of 2016, 
Tunisia has adjusted the fixed externa l 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 for 
inflationary adjustments, including inflation rates for all years since 1986, noting that 
Tunisia's inflati on rates are well within the range of most other Members' rates.  
b. Please provide information and data that show all calculations regarding inflation in 
Tunisia's most recent notification (G/AG/N/TUN/52).  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 225 - 
 
  c. Please submit a revised notification showing domestic  support calculated with an 
unadjusted FERP.  
d. Is Tunisia considering making reforms to its domestic support policies? If so, please 
explain.  
Answer by Tunisia  
 
Australia and Canada registered interest in the topic which they considered as a systemic issue at 
the Committee. The two stressed that the Committee has the responsibility to consider possible 
excessive rates of inflation and a WTO  Member should not unilaterally adjust its notifications. Brazil 
reminded Tunisia that its question AG-IMS ID 93137 on the same topic from a previous meeting 
remained unanswered.  
 
2.2.3.25   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/135/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 98178: Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The US has changed the notifying period from marketing year to fiscal year and made a revision for 
marketing year 2017 (G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1). With the change, there are some non -negligible 
inconsistencies of data in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/135. Please further explain.  
 
a. Can the US please elaborate on the reasons why the notifying period is revised to fiscal 
year 2017/2018 (1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018) from marketing year 2017  
(1 September 2017 to 30 August 2018), which was notified in G/AG/N/USA/135. Won't 
the data in September 2017 be missing from notification?  
b. Could the US please explain "All standing and ad hoc  disaster and emergency relief 
programs are notified on a fiscal -year basis that aligns with the marketing year of the 
notification."? What months are covered in the notification?  
c. With the change of notifying period, why National Institute for Food and Agriculture  (NIFA) 
expenditure is reduced from $11 million in G/AG/ N/USA/135 to $1 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1?  
d. With the change of notifying period, why WHIP in Green Box is reduced from $152 million 
in G/AG/N/USA/135 to $1 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The data that was notified  under  US fiscal year 2017 (1 October 2016 to 
30 September  2017) in G/AG/N/USA/135 has been revised to notify on a  US fiscal year 
2018 basis (1  October 2017 to 30  September 2018) in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1. Data for 
September  2017 can still be found in G/AG/N /USA/135. This revision corrects a data lag 
in previous notifications, in which the fiscal year was not aligned with the marketing year 
and puts all data in these tables on a fiscal -year basis, which will improve the timeliness 
of future notifications.  
b. Expenditures for standing and ad hoc  disaster and emergency relief programs, notified 
under  US marketing year (1 September 2017 to 31 August 2018) in G/AG/N/USA/135, 
have now been updated to a  US fiscal year 2018 basis (1 October 2017 
to 30 September  2018) in  G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1.  
c. The data notified for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture  (NIFA) 
in G/AG/N/USA/135 covers the 12 -month period from 1  September  2017 to 
31 August  2018. The data notified for the NIFA in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 covers the 
12-month period from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018.  
d. The data notified for WHIP in G/AG/N/USA/135 covers the 12 -month period from 
1 September 2017 to 31 August 2018. The data notified for WHIP in 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 covers the 12 -month period from 1 Oct ober 2017 to 
30 September 2018.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 226 - 
 
  Follow -up: China asked the US to confirm if the payments under NIFA or WHIP were made in 
September 2017. The US would reply to the question at a later stage. Brazil registered interest in 
the question.  
  
The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The EU indicated 
particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation Program 
and other temporary market support measures including those under the  non-product specific 
payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS spending. 
Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the US to 
remain within the limit of support, taking in to account the huge impact the support could have on 
the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on the 
need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
 
AG-IMS ID  98179: Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. The US has changed the notifying methods and removed several product -specific support 
programmes to non -product specific boxes (G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1). With the change, 
please further ex plain:  
b. Why specific product support for Banana is reduced from $3.844 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to $0.004 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, thus being no longer 
calculated into AMS?  
c. Why specific product support for Coffee is reduced from $83.081 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to $0.032 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, thus being no longer 
calculated into AMS?  
d. Why specific product support for Grapefruit is reduced from $28.333 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to $6.095 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, thus being no longe r 
calculated into AMS?  
e. Why specific product support for Honey is reduced from $46.532 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to $13.289 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, thus being no longer 
calculated into AMS?  
f. Why specific product support for Papaya is reduced from $1 .572 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to $0.023 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, thus being no longer 
calculated into AMS?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
For all commodities noted in the question by China, the United States' revised notification no longer 
includes Wildfires and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) on a product -specific basis for these 
commodities. This is the primary reason for the decrease i n the product -specific Aggregate 
Measurement of Support for each, except honey/apiculture. Because the WHIP program covers a 
broad range of commodities without specific payment rates by commodity and data on program 
outlays is not available on a crop -specific basis, the program is notified in Supporting Table DS:9. 
Further, while preliminary estimates were previously developed for product -specific expenditures 
under this program, those estimates have been re-evaluated  in response to questions raised by 
other WTO  Members. We have determined that these product -specific estimates were not sufficiently 
accurate for use in the notifications as further analysis of data reporting confirmed that sufficient 
data was not available to support previous assumptions used to assign payments to individual 
products.  
  
As noted in the G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, data limitations necessitate that all payments under 
Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP), including for honey/apiculture, are notified as 
livestock support, as sp ecies-specific data is no longer available. This is the primary reason for the 
change in the notified Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) for honey/apiculture.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications . The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation G/AG/W/218  
 
- 227 - 
 
  Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern o n the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98182: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
From what one can infer from recent notifications, in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, the US categorized 
payments in 2018 from the 2018 Market Facilitation Program (MFP) as product -specific support and 
reclassified expenditure under "Wildfires and Hurricane Indemni ty Program" (WHIP) and federal 
insurance programs, such as "Agriculture Risk Coverage, county -based" (ARC -CO) and part of the 
"Price Loss Coverage" (PLC) as non -product -specific. Also, from what one can infer, the 2019 MFP 
payments were reported as non -product-specific.  In view of the above, could the United States:  
 
a.  
i. confirm that payments for the 2018 and 2019 Market Facilitation Program have been 
notified differently?  
ii. If so, explain the reasons for classifying part of the expenditure as non -product -specif ic 
and part of the expenditure as product -specific.  
b.  
i. Inform if all payments related to MFP 2018 and MFP 2019 were included in the 
notifications G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/150 or if there is still a residual 
amount of payments to be notified for ma rketing year 2019/2020?  
ii. Confirm the total amount of payments under MFP 2018 and under MFP 2019?  
c. Explain, in the light of the AoA disciplines, the reasons that led to the reclassification of 
WHIP, ARC -CO and PLC?  
d. Inform whether it intends to notify the MFP also as an export subsidy, since a significant 
part of the payments went to soybean and cotton producers, products in relation to which 
the USA is among the largest exporters in the world?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. All Market Facilitation Program  (MFP) payments made in fiscal year 2018 in 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 were made on a product -specific basis, while payments made in 
fiscal year 2019 in G/AG/N/USA/150 include both those made on a product -specific and 
non-product -specific basis.  
The 2019 MFP fo r non-specialty crops was paid on total acreage of those eligible crops using a single 
county -level payment rate for all non -specialty crops using county -level aggregate historical acreage 
and yield data. Therefore, such payments were notified as non -produ ct specific.  
  
Payments under the 2018 MFP for all eligible commodities and under the 2019 MFP for non -specialty 
crops, hogs, and milk were based upon levels of production for individual commodities and individual 
commodity payment rates. Therefore, such payments were notified as product -specific.  
  
b. All payments for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 were notified in 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/150, respectively. Nearly all 2018 MFP 
payments occurred in previously -notified fiscal years. Remaining fiscal year 2020 
payments under the 2018 MFP  and the fiscal year 2020 payments of 2019 MFP will be 
notified in the forthcoming marketing year 2019/20 notification.  
Total payments under the 2018 MFP were $8.58 billion and total payments under the 2019 MFP were 
$14.5 billion.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 228 - 
 
    
c. Given that the Wildfir es and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) program covers a broad 
range of commodities and does not specify crop -specific payment rates, the program is 
notified in Supporting Table DS:9. Further, data on program outlays are not available on 
a crop -specific bases. While estimates were previously developed for product -specific 
expenditures under this program, these estimates have been reevaluated in response to 
questions raised by other WTO  Members. We have determined that these product -specific 
estimates were  not sufficiently accurate for use in the notifications as further analysis of 
data reporting confirmed that sufficient data was not available to support previous 
assumptions used to assign payments to individual products.  
For marketing year (MY) 2017/18,  Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 
payments on generic base acres under provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill were made on current 
plantings of covered commodities on those acres and thus are reported as product -specific in 
Supporti ng Table DS:6. However, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 eliminated generic base acres, 
and all base acres are now covered by the same provisions that do not require production of specific 
commodities to be eligible for payments. As a result of this chang e, no payments were made on 
generic base acres in MY 2018/19; payments on former generic base acres included in ARC and PLC 
support was notified in Supporting Table DS:9.  
  
d. No. The Market Facilitation Program does not meet the definition of an export subs idy 
under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and oth er temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and  asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricul tural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98183: Question by China - Classification of measures  
The US has made significant changes to its notifying method, including box -shifting. Please further 
explain:  
 
a. could the US please justify why the federal crop insurance coverage has been moved from 
Supporting Table DS:6 (product -specific AMS – non-exempt direct payments) to 
Supporting Table DS:9 (nonproduct -specific AMS), since premium rates vary from 
products and  counties? From a newspiece on Illinois farmdaily, the premium rate for corn 
in 2020 is USD 0.55 (50% loss) while the rate for cotton is USD 0.21? 
(https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2021/02/higher -2021-crop-insurance -premiums -and-
2021-decisions.html ) 
b. Could the US please justify why Wildfires and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) has 
been moved from Supporting Table DS:6 (product -specific AM S – non-exempt direct 
payments) to Supporting Table DS:9 (nonproduct -specific AMS). According to USDA 
information, the WHIP+ payment formula was: WHIP+ Payment = Expected Value of Crop 
x WHIP Factor - Actual Value of Crop Harvested x Payment Factor - NAP P ayment or Crop 
Insurance Indemnity Received by Producer ( https://www.farmers.gov/recover/whip -
plus). The payment is clearly calculated based on different commodity?  
c. Could the US please explain why t he Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) is 
reported in "Payments for relief from natural disasters" in Green Box support as well as in 
Supporting Table DS:9 (nonproduct -specific AMS)?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. There has been no change  to the reporting of federal crop insurance premium subsidies 
for specific commodities. For example, the crop insurance premium subsidy for corn, a 
commodity referenced in the question, is notified identically in both G/AG/N/USA/135 and G/AG/W/218  
 
- 229 - 
 
  G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev. 1. Whole Farm Revenue Insurance has been reported in Supporting 
Table DS:9 consistently since its introduction.  
b. Given that the Wildfires and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) covers a broad range 
of commodities and does not specify crop -specific payment r ates, the program is notified 
in Supporting Table DS:9. Further, crop -specific data on outlays are not available, so while 
estimates were previously developed for product -specific expenditures under this 
program, these estimates have been reevaluated in re sponse to questions raised by other 
WTO Members. We have determined that these product -specific estimates were not 
sufficiently accurate for use in the notifications as further analysis of data reporting 
confirmed that sufficient data was not available to support previous assumptions used to 
assign payments to individual products. The WHIP (or WHIP+) factor is not 
product -specific but set at the same level for all eligible crops based on the level of crop 
insurance coverage. Because some disasters occurred prior to planting or harvest, 
for WHIP+, a payment factor was used to reduce payments for a small share of crops with 
costs that were not incurred because the crop acreage was unharvested or prevented from 
being planted.  
c. WHIP payments to uninsured produce rs continue to be notified as "Payments for relief 
from natural disasters" in Green Box support because they meet the criteria for exemption 
(i.e., production loss greater than 30%). WHIP payments to insured producers are notified 
in Supporting Table DS:9 (nonproduct -specific AMS).  
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural product s in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98184: Question by China - Classification of measures  
Could the US please explain why "net budget outlays for livestock grazing on public range" is 
reported as non -product -specific support rather as product -specific support under the product group 
"livestock"?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
United States has consistently reported net budget outlays for livestock grazing on public rangeland 
as non -product -specific support, beginning with the original schedules submitted under the URAA. 
Use of the product group "livestock" is a recent adjustmen t based on changes in the availability of 
species -specific data for standing disaster programs. We continuously review the classification of  
US programs reported in our notifications and will take the issue China raises into consideration for 
future notifi cations.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support me asures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subs cribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98185: Question by China - Classification of measures  
Could the US please explain why ARC -CO and PLC ar e reported as non -product specific support when 
each covered commodity has different payment rate, and even the payment is based on historical 
production, the payment still goes to the active producer of that commodity?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 230 - 
 
  China's statement that ARC -CO and PLC payments go to the active producer of that commodity is 
incorrect. Payments under these programs are made to producers who own and/or operate farms 
with historical base acres of those crops. While payment rates are ca lculated for each covered 
commodity according to the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill, the base acreage and yields are fixed 
and based on historical production and no production of the covered commodity or other commodity 
is required to receive payment. Th erefore, the payments (if any) cannot be associated with current 
production of a specific commodity.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged  concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made b y Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98186: Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to US congress report ( https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11539 ) 
on WHIP, US Government authorized USD 2.36 billion for agricultural production losses for the losses 
occurred in 2017 and 2018, and another 3 billion for 2018  and 2019. From 2017 to 2019, the total 
budget for WHIP was USD 5.36 billion. In US notifications (G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 
and G/AG/N/USA/150), only a total of USD 293.4 million were notified. Please explain.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Budget author ization and actual outlays are not the same. Spending under a program is authorized 
up to a certain amount but actual outlays depend upon program participation and, in the case of the 
WHIP program, on eligible losses. The authorized amount may not be spent  in its entirety.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market s upport measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to rema in within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in add ition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98187: Question by China - Market price support  
Could the US please justify the adjustment made to the reference price of sugar based on 1986 
1988 average price to include transportation costs and how is the adjustme nt complies with Annex  3 
of Agriculture Agreement?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The external reference price for sugar in the United States notifications are fixed and unchanged 
from the values reported in the United States' Uruguay Round Agricultu ral Supporting Tables 
(G/AG/AGST/USA). Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that "The fixed external 
reference price shall be based on the years 1986 to 1988 and shall generally be […] the average 
c.i.f. unit value for the basic agriculture produ ct concerned in a net import country in the base 
period." The United States used the Caribbean price as the representative world price in its AGST 
document and adjusted the price for transportation costs at the time to get a reflective c.i.f. world 
price a s the United States was a net importer during the 1986 -1988 period.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Marke t Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notifi ed by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have G/AG/W/218  
 
- 231 - 
 
  on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a l evel playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98188: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/USA/135 and G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev. 1  
 
a. Canada understands that the revised notification changed the reporting date range (which 
excludes the month of September 2017 and includes the month of September 2018) to 
reflect the Marketing Year of 2017/2018. Could the  US please explain what the difference 
between the two Current Total AM S values (Overall change of $264.486 million) from 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 represent?  
b. Is this difference mainly the result of the date change, or are there also changes in 
programme spending for the same months during the covered period?  
c. Could the  US please clarify why there is a lack of data on specific livestock species in 
Supporting Tables DS:4 and 6 in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 (e.g. cattle & calves, alpacas, 
bison etc.) as compared to G/AG/N/USA/135, which had disaggregated data on specific  
livestock species? Will this aggregation of livestock continue in future notifications?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The change in the AMS values represents the difference in support that exceeds de minimis  
values for product specific support. This difference was caused by the change in outlays 
between the reporting period for the original and revised notifications for c ertain disaster 
and emergency programs. The overall change of $264.486 million is only for the difference 
in product specific support, as the non -product specific support was de minimis  in both 
the original and revised notifications.  
b. There are no changes in program spending reflected between the G/AG/N/USA/135 to 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1. The difference is primarily the result of the change in notification 
of standing and ad hoc  disaster and emergency assistance programs from a marketing 
year to a more accurat e and timely fiscal year reporting basis that is aligned with the 
marketing year being notified. The revised notification also reflects the changes from 
notifying WHIP for producers with NAP/crop insurance coverage in Supporting Table DS:9 
rather than Supporting Table DS:6.  
c. As explained in the cover note to G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, data limitations necessitated 
that all payments under ELAP, LIP, and LFP be notified as livestock support, as product -
specific data is no longer available.  
Follow -up: Canada took n ote of the new methodology used in  US DS notifications and would like to 
know the impact on  US ability to meet its commitments. Canada also sought additional information 
on the ARC, PLC and MFP payments and asked the US to make differentiation between the 
programmes under MFP in future notifications as the payments cover multiple programmes. Brazil 
registered interest in the question.  
 
The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The EU indicated 
particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation Program 
and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product specific 
payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS spend ing. 
Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the US to 
remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have on 
the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to  the comments made by Brazil on the 
need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
 
2.2.3.26   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150)  
AG-IMS ID 98189: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table D S:2) 
Australia would like to thank the United States for its DS:1 notification and welcomes the level of 
detail provided.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 232 - 
 
   
Australia notes the United States' current total AMS increased by approximately $10 billion 
from MY 2017/18 to MY  2018/19, which acc ording to the notification, was largely attributed by the 
Market Facilitation Program. In this context:  
 
a. could the United States please elaborate on the type of support provided to farmers to 
manage disrupted markets, deal with surplus commodities and expa nd and develop new 
markets at home and abroad highlighted in Supporting Table DS:9?  
b. Further, could the United States please elaborate on the 'storage forgiven' and 'commodity 
loan forfeiture' measures for peanuts and cotton as outlined in Supporting Table DS:7?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States has responded numerous times in the Committee to questions about 
the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), including the purpose, design, and operation of the 
program. The 2019 MFP provided producers with financial assistance to absorb some of 
the additional costs resulting from having to delay or reorient marketing for the 2019 crop 
year due to continued trade actions of foreign governments, which required many 
producers to store surplus com modities and to find new markets, either domestic or 
international, for their commodities.  
b. Current provisions of the Marketing Assistance Loan Program (MALP) provide storage 
credits for upland cotton so that upland cotton loan obligations can be repaid at a value 
equal to the adjusted world price level. For upland cotton loan collateral that is forfeited, 
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) will pay all or a portion of warehouse storage 
charges that accrue, but only for the period that the cotton was ple dged as loan collateral. 
Storage credits are based on the lower of the actual warehouse storage rate or the 
maximum storage -credit rate as established according to statutory limits.  
Commodity loan forfeitures for cotton and peanuts or for other commodities  covered under the MALP, 
are the benefit to a producer when the commodity provided as collateral against a marketing loan 
is forfeited to the CCC in lieu of repaying the loan. The value of the benefit corresponds to the value 
a producer could have gained h ad the loan been repaid below the loan rate (marketing loan gain) or 
had the producer chosen to receive a loan deficiency payment.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil reiterated its concern on  US 'ad hoc' programmes for agriculture. Brazil pointed to 
the 'unlevel playing field' that exists in the AoA disciplines, which, in its view, does not receive the 
same attention given to other economic sectors such as industrial products. Brazil underlined that 
the effects of subsidies granted by the US overcompensate the real impact s of the trade war on 
domestic producers as indicated by analysts. New Zealand expressed interest in the question.  
 
The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The EU indicated 
particular interest in how the US notif ied various payments under the Market Facilitation Program 
and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product specific 
payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS spending. 
Uruguay fla gged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the US to 
remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have on 
the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments ma de by Brazil on the 
need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98191: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Could the United States please clarify why portions of th e Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) 
and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments are no longer listed in Product -Specific 
Non-Exempt Direct Payments (Supporting Table DS:6)?  
b. Could the United States please explain which variables impacted the decrease in ARC and 
PLC payments from $6,607.32 million in 2017 -18 to $2929.93 million in 2018 -19? 
c. Canada understands that payments made under the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) 
were classified both as non -product specific and product specific. Could the United States G/AG/W/218  
 
- 233 - 
 
  please detail what aspect of the MFP programme falls under the non -product specific 
category?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. For marketing year (MY) 2017/18, Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) payments on generic base acres und er provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill 
were made on current plantings of covered commodities on those acres and thus are 
reported as product -specific in Supporting Table DS:6. However, the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of 2018 eliminated generic base acres, and all b ase acres are now covered by the 
same provisions that do not require production of specific commodities to be eligible for 
payments. As a result of this change, no payments were made on generic base acres in 
MY 2018/19; payments on former generic base acres included in ARC and PLC support 
was notified in Supporting Table DS:9.  
b. Changes in year -to-year ARC -CO and PLC payments are a result of changes in the levels 
of the values used as inputs in the payment formula. For ARC -CO, payments are made 
when count y-level revenue for the covered commodity falls below the rolling average 
benchmark. ARC -CO payments fell from $3.63 billion in fiscal year 2018 to $1.05 billion in 
fiscal year 2019, reflecting changes in county -level revenue and the rolling average 
benchm ark. For PLC, payments are made when the national average price for the covered 
commodity falls below the statutory reference price for that commodity. PLC payments fell 
from $2.94 billion in fiscal year 2018 to $1.85 billion, reflecting changes in the dif ference 
between the national average price for the covered commodity relative to the statutory 
reference price for that commodity. In both cases, if payments are triggered, they are 
made on 85 % of the base acres of the covered commodity.  
c. The 2019 MFP payme nts to non -specialty crops are notified as non -product -specific 
because the payment rates were not specific to the crop receiving the support. Specifically, 
the MFP payment rates for those crops were established as one rate for all eligible 
non-specialty c rops in a county using the county -level using aggregate historical acreage 
and yield data for those crops.  
Follow -up: Canada took note of the new methodology used in  US DS notifications and would like to 
know the impact on  US ability to meet its commitmen ts. Canada also sought additional information 
on the ARC, PLC and MFP payments and asked the US to make differentiation between the 
programmes under MFP in future notifications as the payments cover multiple programmes. Brazil 
registered interest in the qu estion.  
The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The EU indicated 
particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation Program 
and other temporary market support measures includ ing those under the non -product specific 
payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS spending. 
Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the US to 
remain within the limit of  support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have on 
the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on the 
need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial pr oducts.  
AG-IMS ID 98019: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
With regard to the United States' DS:1 notification for marketing year 2018/2019 
(G/AG/N/USA/150), details on the following may be provided:  
 
a. The notification provides  that support of USD 5,190 million is provided under the Market 
Facilitation Programme under table DS:9, however it was earlier, i.e. for MY 2017 -2018 
(G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1), notified under DS:6 table. Why is the product -specific support 
under the Market F acilitation Programme shifted from DS:6 Supporting Table to DS:9?  
b. Since the MFP clearly identifies products for which markets were disrupted, as explained 
through various footnotes to the DS:1 notification, how does the programme meet the 
non-product speci fic criteria?  
c. How were the product -specific MFP payments computed for MY 2017 -2018?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 234 - 
 
  d. The expenditure notified under the WHIP programme under Supporting Table DS:9 is seen 
to have increased from USD 2.710 Million in the MY  17-18 to USD 288.699 Million in 
MY 2018/2019. What is the reason for this more than hundred times increase in the 
support in just one year?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. There was no shifting of support. All Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments made in 
fiscal year 2018 in G/A G/N/USA/135/Rev.1 under the 2018 MFP were made on a 
product -specific basis, while payments made in fiscal year 2019 in G/AG/N/USA/150 under 
the 2019 MFP include both those made on a product -specific and non -product -specific 
basis.  
b. The 2019 MFP for non -specialty crops was paid on total acreage of those eligible crops 
using a single county -level payment rate for all non -specialty crops using county -level 
aggregate historical acreage and yield data. Therefore, such payments were notified as 
non-product specif ic.  
c. The United States repeats the response to India's question regarding the methodology for 
calculating payments in AG -IMS ID 89047: The methodology to calculate Market 
Facilitation Program payments is established in Title 7 CFR Part 1409.5, which can be  
found at this link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8c3bf772cc93509b7bb9795493b48cf6 &mc=true&n=pt7.10.
1409&r=PART&ty=HTML#se7.10.1409_15   
d. The first enrolment for WHIP began in July 2018. Given that expenditures under this 
programme are notified on a fiscal year, a small portion of payments were made in fiscal 
year 2018, which ended on 30 September  2018. Most payments under this programme 
were made in fiscal year 2019, which is notified in G/AG/N/USA/150.  
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how  the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending . Uruguay flagged concern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to th e comments made by Brazil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
AG-IMS ID 98197: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Food and consumer services - Child nutriti on programmes:  
 
a. Which commodities are eligible?  
b. The description of the programme indicates that the expenses include both commodities 
and cash. Could you indicate how much of the USD 23 billion was used for commodities?  
c. Are there local purchasing require ments for commodities in these programmes?  
AMS  
 
The product -specific AMS spending of the United States of America increased by almost 
USD 9 million from the period 2017 -2018 to 2018 -2019. Similarly, non -product -specific AMS 
increased by almost USD 2 bill ion. While we recognize that this spending is within the entitlements 
of the United States, it represents a significant increase in trade -distorting subsidies.  
 
d. Could the United States confirm that this trend will not continue in subsequent 
notifications?   G/AG/W/218  
 
- 235 - 
 
  e. We note with concern the considerable increase in support for soybeans (23.08% of value 
of production), sorghum (29.49% of value of production) and sesame (10.3% of value of 
production). Could the United States indicate:  
i. the reason for these increases; and  
ii. the main export markets for these products for the year to which this notification 
refers?  
f. What steps have been taken to reduce these subsidies?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Child Nutrition Programs encompass the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, 
Special Milk Program, the Child and Adult Care Program, and the Summer Food Service 
Program. Each provides benefits to low -income children (and elders), and except for the  
Special Milk Program, there are no specified eligible commodities.  
Participating schools and day care facilities receive cash subsidies and/or entitlements for 
USDA -purchased foods for each reimbursable meal they serve. In exchange, institutions must ser ve 
meals (and snacks) that meet Federal nutritional requirements, though decisions about the specific 
foods to serve and the methods of preparation are made by local school food authorities.  
  
b. Costs for commodities for the Child Nutrition Programs for FY  2018 totalled USD 1.4 billion.  
c. There are no purchasing requirements that require commodities for these programs to be 
purchased locally. As noted in the response to question a), participating schools and other 
eligible institutions make their own decisions  on what foods to serve but must meet 
nutritional requirements.  
d. The United States is currently drafting the 2019/20 notification and will report programs 
consistent with the Agreement on Agriculture.  
e.  
i. Increases in support for soybeans and sorghum were pr imarily a result of the 
introduction of ad hoc  payments under the 2018 Market Facilitation Program. The 
increase in support for sesame is primarily a result of an increase in crop insurance 
premium subsidies, which saw a substantial increase in acres cover ed. Crop insurance 
rates are determined with actuarial models for soundness of the crop insurance 
policies, and premium rates are regularly re -evaluated.  
ii. In calendar years 2018 and 2019 the major export markets, by value, for soybeans 
(HS 1201) include Ch ina, Mexico, and the European Union; for sorghum (HS 1007) 
include China, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union; and for sesame (HS 1207.40) 
include Mexico, Japan, Canada, and Myanmar.  
f. The 2018 Market Facilitation Program (which was the primary reason for the increase in 
notified support) was an ad hoc , temporary measure that is no longer in effect.  
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified vario us payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged conc ern with the figures notified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Bra zil on 
the need to have a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 236 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 98190: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia would like to thank the United States for its DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/USA/150) and 
welcomes the level of detail provided.  
 
Could the United States please elaborate on the 'storage forgiven' and 'commodity loan forfeiture' 
measures for peanuts and cotton as outlined in Supporting Table DS:7?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Current provisions of the Marketing Assistance Loan Program (MALP) provide storage credits for 
upland cotton so that upland cotton loan obligations can be repaid at a value equal to the adjusted 
world price level. For upland cotton loan collateral that is forfeited, the Commodity Credit 
Corporation  (CCC) will pay all or a portion of warehouse storage charges that accrue, but only for 
the period that the cotton was pledged as loan collateral. Storage credits are based on the lower of 
the actual warehouse storage rate or the maximum storage -credit rate as established according to 
statutory limits.  
  
Commodity loan forfeitures, for cotton and peanuts or for other commodities covered under the 
MALP, are the benefit to a producer when the commo dity provided as collateral against a marketing 
loan is forfeited to the CCC in lieu of repaying the loan. The value of the benefit corresponds to the 
value a producer could have gained had the loan been repaid below the loan rate (marketing loan 
gain) or had the producer chosen to receive a loan deficiency payment.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and India expressed interest in all the questions on  US DS:1 notifications. The 
EU indicated particular interest in how the US notified various payments under the Market Facilitation 
Program and other temporary market support measures including those under the non -product 
specific payments. The EU shared other Members' concern on the significant increase in  US AMS 
spending. Uruguay flagged concern with the figures n otified by the US for 2018 -2019 and asked the 
US to remain within the limit of support, taking into account the huge impact the support could have 
on the domestic and global markets. Uruguay also subscribed to the comments made by Brazil on 
the need to hav e a level playing field for agricultural products in addition to industrial products.  
 
2.2.3.27   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/14 , G/AG/N/VNM/15, G/AG/N/VNM/16, 
G/AG/N/VNM/ 17) 
AG-IMS ID 98192: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like  to mention that answers are pending from Viet Nam on question AG -IMS 
IDs 97147, 97148, 97149 and 97150.  
 
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Viet Nam thanks Canada for the questions. The answers have been uploaded today 20 June 2021 
on the AG -IMS.  
 
Follow -up: Canada wou ld like to follow up on Viet Nam's market price support programmes.  
 
2.2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measures ( Table DS:2)  
2.2.4.1   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/4)  
AG-IMS ID 98193: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In notification G/AG /N/GBR/4 (DS:2), through which it claims exemption from domestic support 
reduction commitments for the programme "Coupled Support for Protein Crops", the UK reported 
that "The total area eligible for payment under the Pilot Scheme will be capped at 1,000 h ectares 
(ha). In 2020, 153 h ectares  of Protein Crops were grown in Northern Ireland."  
 
Could the UK clarify the following points:  
 
a. How does a domestic support measure aimed at increasing the protein crops production 
area in 6,535 times meets the requiremen t of being a "production -limiting" measure?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 237 - 
 
  b. How will the UK ensure that the increase in the planted area will not cause damage to the 
local ecosystem?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. As notified in the United Kingdom DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/GBR/4) submitted 
6 April 2021 a Protein Crops Pilot Scheme has been introduced in Northern Ireland. The 
measure is seen as a tool for more diverse and sustainable arable crop management 
practices, the implementation of the scheme will encourage best practice in crop rotation , 
pest management and crop diversity. The pilot scheme will run for calendar years 2021 
and 2022 with the total area eligible for payment under the pilot scheme for both 2021 
and 2022 capped at 1,000 hectares. The maximum budget for the scheme is 
GBP 330,0 00 per year. This will be funded from the 2021/22 budget for direct payments 
and amounts to 0.11% of the direct payments budget.  
The 1,000 hectares cap is consistent with Blue Box criteria according to Article 6.5 which states that 
direct payments under p roduction -limiting programmes shall not be subject to the commitment to 
reduce domestic support if such payments are based on fixed area and yields. The 1,000 hectares 
cap is not a target for future production levels but is a limit on the total area that c an receive support 
under this scheme. The area limit corresponds to 0.1% of total agricultural area in Northern Ireland 
and less than 0.01% of total agricultural area in the UK.  
 
b. The Protein Crop pilot scheme is not designed to increase overall agricultural area, it will 
instead incentivise a small number of producers to diversify crop production. It is not 
envisaged that the very modest scale of the scheme will cause damage to the  local 
ecosystem.  
Northern Ireland is currently developing policies to incentivise the agriculture industry to tackle 
issues such as carbon, ammonia and nutrient management. Any schemes developed will help ensure 
the protection of our local ecosystem and contribute to helping the UK to achieve its international 
environmental commitments.  
  
Follow -up: Paraguay registered interest in the question, noting that protein crop is one of the main 
sources of exports for Paraguay. Paraguay sought more details regard ing the subsidies and if there 
would be an increase in the arable surface area as mentioned in sub question a.  
 
2.2.5   Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.2.5.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/135, G/AG/N/CAN/139)  
AG-IMS ID 98029: Question by India - Transparency issues  
India thanks Canada for submitting its ES:1 for the marketing year 2019/2020. While comparing 
the ES:1 notification for the marketing year 2018/2019 (G/AG/N/CAN/135) and latest published 
notification for marketing year 2019 -2020 (G/AG/N /CAN/139), India notices that for "Cheese" 
(XSID: CANX008), there is an increase in subsidized exports outlays and quantity. The subsidized 
exports outlays increased from 9,299 CAD Thousand to 11,696 CAD Thousand, showing an increase 
of around 26%, while t he subsidized exports quantity increased from 4293 to 4582, showing an 
increase of around 7%.  
 
As per Nairobi Ministerial Decision, "developed Members shall immediately eliminate their remaining 
scheduled export subsidy entitlements as of the date of adopt ion of this Decision". But this statement 
of NMD has an exemption clause as mentioned in footnote (4) : "This paragraph shall not cover 
processed products, dairy products, and swine meat of a developed Member that agrees to eliminate 
as of 1 January 2016 a ll export subsidies on products destined for least developed countries, and 
that has notified export subsidies for such products or categories of products in one of its three latest 
export subsidy notifications examined by the Committee on Agriculture befo re the date of adoption 
of this Decision. For these products, scheduled export subsidies shall be eliminated by the end 
of 2020, and quantity commitment levels shall be applied as a standstill until the end of 2020 at the 
actual average of quantity levels of the 2003 -05 base period. Furthermore, there shall be no export 
subsidies applied either to new markets or to new products".  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 238 - 
 
  India understands that Canada would be in the process of reducing the subsidized export outlays 
and quantities with respect to d airy products in view of the provisions under the NMD, however, the 
same increased in 2019 -20. In this regard, what steps and measures are being taken to eliminate 
the export subsidies?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
On 11 December  2017, the WTO Secretariat circulate d Canada's draft modified export subsidy 
schedule (G/MA/TAR/RS/512) which eliminated Canada's export subsidy entitlements for wheat and 
wheat flour, course grains, oilseeds, vegetable oils, oilcakes, and vegetable as of the date of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision. As well, Canada's draft modified export subsidy schedule indicates the 
Nairobi quantity limits for dairy products as prescribed in Footnote 4 and their elimination as of 
31 December 2021. Canada notes that it pro -rated the quantity volumes for da iry products to reflect 
the partial dairy year from 1 August to 31 December  2020.  
 
The volume and budgetary outlays notified in G/AG/N/CAN/139 for 2019 -2020 are fully consistent 
with Canada's export subsidy commitments.  
 
Canada's export subsidies on dair y products were eliminated at the end of 2020 as per the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision.  
  
Follow -up: The EU expressed interested in the question.  
 
2.2.5.2   India (G/AG/N/IND/24)  
AG-IMS ID 98194: Question by European Union  
On 22 March 2021 India submitted the ES:1 notifications for the years 2010/11, 2011/12 
and 2012/13. When can Members expect India to submit the remaining outstanding 
ES:1 notifications, which are now up to eight years late compared to deadline set out in G/AG/2?  
 
Answer by India  
 
It may be no ted that on 22 March 2021, India submitted the ES:1 notification for four years 
i.e. 2010-11, 2011 -12, 2012 -13 and 2013 -14. For remaining years, India will submit its 
ES:1 notification in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU asked India to provide a timeline reg arding when it would submit its outstanding 
notifications.  
 
2.2.5.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/7 8, G/AG/N/KOR/7 9) 
AG-IMS ID 98195: Question by Australia - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea (ROK) for its ES:1 notifications for CY 2018 and 2019. 
Australia notes export subsidies were provided for fruits, and vegetables. Could the ROK please:  
 
a. provide a breakdown of the specific types of fruits or vegetables (or HS -6/HS-8 tariff lines) 
that received support i n the form of 'cost reduction measures' along with the associated 
outlay for each type of fruit or vegetable  
b. If such information is not readily available, please indicate whether any specific types of 
fruits or vegetables (or HS -6/HS-8 tariff lines) are kn own to receive a large share of the 
notified support.  
c. Could the Republic of Korea provide a detailed explanation as to what is covered in the 
'cost reduction measures' and the specific eligibility criteria?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
For question a and b, fruits including pear, grape and tangerines received Article 9.4 support. 
Vegetables such as onion, paprika and strawberries received support.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 239 - 
 
  For question c, the principle of the 'cost reduction measures' is to partially support distribution cost, 
including domestic and international transportation costs, selection and packaging costs, quality 
enhancement and marketing costs. The cost may differ depending on the distance and the means 
of transportation whether products are sea -shipped or air -carried.  
 
2.3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
2.3.1   Canada  
AG-IMS ID 98020: Question by India  
India thanks Canada for submitting DS:1 notification, G/AG/N/CAN/131, for the calendar year 2016. 
According to the G/AG/2 document, Canada is required to submit its domestic support notification 
no later than 90 days following the end of the calendar (or, marketing, fiscal, etc.) year in questi on.  
 
By when would Canada notify its pending domestic support notifications?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada would like to thank India for this question. Canada's 2017 domestic support notification is 
pending final consultation and approval process and should b e notified momentarily for 
WTO Members' review. In addition, Canada has been working on revised versions of its last three 
domestic support notifications (2014, 2015, 2016), which should also be available very soon. Canada 
is actively working to review and  accelerate its notification process. Canada is currently working on 
its 2018 domestic support notification and should soon start the 2019 notification process.  
 
Follow -up: The US welcomed Canada's upcoming notification and emphasized that timely, complete , 
and accurate notifications are essential for the review process of the Committee.  
 
2.3.2   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 98021: Question by India  
India takes note of the European Union's recently submitted DS:1 notification for the marketing year 
(2018 -2019) (G/AG/N /EU/69). By when can the WTO Members expect the European Union to notify 
its pending DS:1 notifications?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would like to refer India to the detailed reply given by the EU in question AG-IMS 96028 - 
raised by India. The EU do es its outmost to ensure submission of all the notifications within the 
timeframe set in G/AG/2. The EU also pays utmost attention to the completeness and correctness 
of the information required. The EU is fully up-to-date with all its notifications within  AoA except 
DS:1. The EU has in several meetings explained why the EU, as most other Members with AMS, 
cannot respect the unrealistic deadline for DS:1 notifications set in G/AG/2.  
 
Let me also refer India to the report of the very first Regular CoA meetin g on 23 March 1995, where 
the draft to G/AG/2 was discussed. You can find this in document G/AG/R/1. In this report point 7 
states:  
 
"7. With respect to notification requirements relating to Current Total AMS commitments 
(Table  DS:1), an approach proposed  for consideration was that annual notifications based on 
preliminary data should be submitted not later than 60 or 90 days following the relevant period, 
with definitive data, including actual budgetary outlays being notified as soon as practicable 
therea fter." 
 
"In the following meeting the G/AG/2 was adopted with the wording we now know all by heart. But, 
as can be read from the report the drafters of G/AG/2 were fully aware that the 90 days could not 
be respected for definitive data. The reality today i s that members prefer to use definitive data which 
takes more time., I propose to India that we work together to make correct and complete 
notifications and also to fix a new deadline which can be respected by all, including by India and 
the EU." 
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 240 - 
 
  2.3.3   United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 98023: Question by India  
India notes that the United States' latest submitted DS:1 notification is for the marketing 
year 2018-2019 (G/AG/N/USA/150). In its response to question AG -IMS ID 97092, the United States 
highligh ted the importance of timeliness and accuracy of the notifications. By when can the 
WTO Members expect the United States to notify the above -mentioned notification?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
For marketing year 2019/20, which concluded at the end of September 2020, the data and 
information necessary to complete the marketing year 2019/20 table DS:1 notification only recently 
became available. United States is currently drafting the marketing ye ar 2019/20 table DS:1 
notification, which will be notified as soon as possible.  
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 241 - 
 
   
3  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 23 -24 SEPTEMBER 2021  
3.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6  
3.1.1   Argentina's export restrictions on beef  
3.1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 99094)  
On 20 May 2021, the Government of Argentina imposed a 30 -day prohibition on beef exports. This 
was followed by restrictions on the export of beef, limiting exports for th e remainder of 2021 to 50% 
of the average monthly volumes exported from July to December 2020.  
 
a. Could Argentina please explain how these export controls are consistent with its stated 
goal to rectify trade practices that distort agricultural trade?  
b. When will Argentina submit a notification under Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture on these measures?  
Answer by Argentina  
 
Argentina has always advocated a fairer, more transparent and more predictable multilateral system, 
one without unjustified disto rtions to trade in agricultural products. This position goes beyond any 
specific temporary situation that may currently affect our domestic market. It is a long -standing 
demand, where particular support has been given to the need to put agricultural produc ts on an 
equal footing with other goods (NAMA), thereby levelling the playing field as regards the rules 
governing trade in industrialized goods that have benefitted from the multilateral rounds of 
negotiations for decades.  
 
3.1.1.2   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 9 9096)  
a.  
i. Japan recognizes that Argentina introduced export ban for 30 -day on beef from 
20 May. Furthermore, it has been reported 
(https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalle Aviso/primera/245930/20210623 ) that 
Argentina have imposed ban on some parts of beef and quota of the other parts of 
beef from 18 June 2021 to 31 December 2021. However, the required notification to 
the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accorda nce with Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Could Argentina provide the reason behind and please make 
the notification on this measure near future.  
ii. Could Argentina explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the 
measure on importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
b.  
i. Could Argentina explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article  11 
of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of th e 
products, ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii)  temporality of the measure.  
ii. Could Argentina provide the reason why it resorted to the export prohibitions on some 
parts of beef, rather than arranging quotas which reflects the situation of domestic 
supply and demand.  
Answer by Argentina  
 
We must emphasize that the measures concerned were adopted strictly for a specific period of time 
and were issued within the framework of the National Food Emergency Law, which made it the G/AG/W/218  
 
- 242 - 
 
  State's duty to guarantee o n a permanent and priority basis the right to food and the food and 
nutritional security of our country's population. The legal regime applicable comprises National 
Executive Decree 108/2002 and was extended by means of Law No. 27.519 of 31 December 2020.  
 
Accordingly, the Argentine measure applicable to meat exports seeks to prevent a critical shortage 
of food products and is aimed at protecting human life and health. The measures are therefore 
justified under Article XI:2(b) and Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.  
 
It should be made clear that Decree 408/2021 (of 22 June 2021) relaxed the limitation on exports 
and opened a monthly quota to export fresh, chilled and frozen beef, equivalent to 50% of the 
monthly average of the total tonnage of meat products expo rted in the period July -December 2020.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and Japan sought clarification from Argentina regarding why it had not submitted 
a Table ER:1 notification on the measure and when Members could expect it. Ukraine emphasized 
the obligation of WTO M embers undertaking export restriction measures to comply with the 
WTO rules, in particular Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 11 of the GATT. 
Argentina stated that it would revert to the question after consulting the capital.  
 
3.1.2   Argentina's currency of domestic support notification and inflation  
3.1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 99097)  
Canada would appreciate more precisions in regard to  the answer provided by Argentina on Question 
Ag-IMS ID 98111. Documents G/AG/N/ARG/4 and G/MA/TAR/ RS/52 noted in Argentina's answer do 
provide indirect information on how Argentina requested WTO Members to rectify its comments to 
take into account "excessive inflation", but does not provide a clear explanation of the methodology 
used by Argentina to tr ansfer its support level from 2016 pesos to 1992 pesos.  
 
In document G/AG/N/ARG/4 and G/MA/TAR/RS/52, Argentina explained that: "Excessive inflation" 
was calculated as the difference between the inflation rates in the United States and Argentina during 
this period, based on the movement of the wholesale price index and the exchange rate in force in 
our country (1 peso equals 1 US dollar)."  
 
a. Could Argentina clarify if the domestic support amounts reported in Argentina's 2016 DS:1 
notification were adjusted for excessive inflation in order for them to be converted from 
2016 pesos to 1992 pesos? If yes, please describe in detail the methodology used to adjust 
the amount for excessive inflation.  
b. Could Argentina provide the exact conversion factor that would all ow Members to convert 
Argentina's domestic support amounts expressed in 1992 pesos back into 2016 pesos?  
c. Could Argentina provide its official USD to pesos exchange rate number for the period 
covered by notification year 2016?  
Answer by Argentina  
 
Regarding the domestic support amounts reported in the 2016 DS:1 notification, Argentina can 
confirm that it has made no adjustments for excessive inflation.  
 
As we explained at the 98th COA, the 1992 pesos bound in our Schedule of Commitments LXIV are 
equivalent to US dollars.  
 
This monetary value is used by Argentina to make its respective notifications within the 
WTO framework. The exchange rate used for the purposes of the corresponding conversion is that 
offered by the Central Bank of Argentina.  
  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 243 - 
 
  3.1.3   Arge ntina's export restrictions  
3.1.3.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99095)  
The EU notes that Argentina has not presented any notifications under Article 12 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture which would cover the export restrictions in place on agricultural pro ducts.  
 
a. In the context of the current focus on the need to improve transparency, in particular on 
export restrictions, would Argentina consider a more transparent approach on the use of 
this important policy instrument?  Similarly, Argentina in spring 2021 introduced a 
ban/restriction on beef exports, recently prolonged for another two months, as part of an 
attempt to control rising inflation.  
b. Does Argentina intend to notify these export prohibitions/restrictions to the Committee on 
Agriculture?  
Answer by Ar gentina  
 
First of all, it should be emphasized that the measures adopted by Argentina have in no way affected 
global food security or the food security of our trading partners. As already noted within the 
framework of the TPR of Argentina, Argentine export s of beef (Chapters 0201 and 0202) have 
remained consistent with historical averages. The average export volumes for the months of June 
and July during the 2019 -21 period increased by 131% and 104% respectively compared to 
the 2016-18 period.  
 
Furthermore , the most recent months of 2021 alone show that exports have remained well above 
the monthly average for 2016 -18 (20,500 tonnes), amounting on average to more than 
45,000  tonnes per month in the last three months (May -June-July).  
 
Our country's beef expor ts are concentrated in only a few markets, and many of these destinations 
have import tariff quotas, which means they were never affected by the limitations set out in 
Decree  408/21 or its amendments.  
 
Consideration has also been given to specific concern s, for instance, through Decree 513/2021, 
which established an additional monthly quota of 3,500 tonnes of kosher beef for export to Israel.  
 
Lastly, as regards the reasons for applying the measures to meat exports, they seek to prevent a 
critical shortag e of food products and are aimed at protecting human life and health.  
 
The measures are therefore justified under Article XI:2(b) and Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.  
 
Follow -up: The EU sought Argentina's clarification regarding whether it intended to notify the 
relevant export restriction measure to the WTO. Ukraine emphasized the obligation of WTO Members 
undertaking export restriction measures to comply with the WTO rules, in particular Article 12 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and Article 11 of the GATT.  
 
3.1.4   Canada's new milk ingredient class  
3.1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99098)  
New Zealand has raised questions in the past around Canada's previous milk Class 7, which allow ed 
for domestic milk ingredients to undercut pricing for competing imports, and facilitated the export 
of Canadian milk protein below the cost of Canadian production. Adjustments to Canada's special 
milk class system have removed Class 7, however the newly  introduced Class 4a appears to have a 
number of similarities to Class 7. New Zealand would welcome further information from Canada 
regarding the differences between Class 4(a) and Class 7, including but not limited to pricing 
formula, product coverage, an d calculated processor margin.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 244 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
As Canada has previously noted to New Zealand in its response to AG -IMS ID 96040, Class 4(a) is 
not a new milk class. Class 4(a), along with all of Canada's milk classes, conform to Canada's 
international t rade commitments.  
 
Canada would like to draw New Zealand's attention to its response to AG -IMS ID 96004, where 
Canada directed Members to find more information on how milk prices are set, including the relevant 
pricing formula and processor margin, at the following link: https://cdc -ccl.ca/index.php/en/supply -
management/how -is-the-price-of-milk-set-in-canada/  With respect to product coverage, Canada 
would like to draw New Zealand's attention to its response to AG -IMS ID 96011. As noted in that 
response, Class 4(a) includes the following products: Butter and butteroil, concentrated milk as an 
ingredient in the food industry, concentrated milk protein, all  types of powders, milk and milk 
components used to make infant formula, rennet casein (dry or curd) used in processed cheese.  
 
Follow -up: The EU and New Zealand expressed concern regarding milk class 4(a)'s potential to 
displace imports. Australia express ed interest on the matter.  
 
3.1.5   Canada's review of the TRQ system  
3.1.5.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99099)  and United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 
99110)  
We appreciate Canada's ongoing willingness to review its Tariff Rate Quota policy. New Zealand 
would welcome furt her information around when Canada expects to finalise and announce the 
conclusions of the Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of supply managed 
TRQs, and if this additional delay in the review decision is anticipated to effect the ti ming of any 
resulting implementation?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas for Dairy, 
Poultry and Egg Products was put on hold as a result of Canada's federal election. Any updates to 
the process will be shared once they are known.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom looked forward to Canada's updated 
information on the review. Australia asked when the outcome of the review would be available and 
when the findings would  be implemented.  
 
3.1.6   China's one -off subsidy to farmers  
3.1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 99100)  
Australia notes media in mid -June 2021 reported that China is providing a one -off subsidy to farmers, 
worth 20 billion yuan or US D 3.1 billion, to assist with rising costs of production materials. Australia 
requests China provides the following details in relation to this 'one -off subsidy':  
 
a. What are the eligibility criteria for this subsidy?  
b. What 'production materials' is the subsi dy seeking to cover rising costs for?  
c. Australia notes the subsidy is being reported as 'aimed at ensuring farmers' willingness to 
produce grains', therefore could China please detail which grains (and other agricultural 
products) are eligible for the subsi dy?  
d. Will China be notifying this subsidy in its relevant Domestic Support notification? If so, 
when does China anticipate submitting this notification?  
e. Reporting cites that 'measures will also be taken to better regulate the agricultural supplies 
market';  could China please provide detail on what measures it may be considering?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 245 - 
 
  f. Is this subsidy linked to the reported five other types of subsidies (covering the purchase 
of farm machine; agricultural insurance; arable land protection; ploughing; and support 
to corn, soybean and maize production), which are to be provided by the Ministry of 
Finance? Could China please provide details on these other five subsidies, such as what 
the total amounts will be?  
Answer by China  
 
We will reply after we get the relevant i nformation.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil expressed interest in the issue. Brazil noted that China's latest DS:1 notification 
related to calendar year 2016 and included several programmes that, according to the notification, 
had terminated at that time. Thus, Members  were unaware of official information from China 
regarding its policies and budgetary spending  on programmes, which, in 2016, were not in line with 
China's WTO commitments, as it had provided at that time Amber Box support for cotton, corn and 
soybeans abo ve "de minimis" levels. Brazil sought China's confirmation regarding whether it had 
been able to bring its policies in line with its WTO commitments and when Members could expect to 
receive China's new DS:1 notifications. China responded that, since the US  brought the dispute 
against China's domestic support measures, it had reformed its domestic regulations and 
administration procedures to bring them in line with the WTO regulations and the policies subject to 
question had been adjusted or removed.  
 
3.1.7   China 's fertilizer and diesel subsidies  
3.1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99001)  
According to press reports China has introduced subsidies to its farmers to compensate for increases 
in fertilisers and diesel prices.  
 
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/china -to-give-farmers -%243.1 -bln-in-subsidies -amid-rising -
costs-2021-06-18 
Can China explain more in detail about how these schemes operate, including : budgetary outlays 
(separately for fertilisers and diesel as well State and Regions);  
to whom will the subsidies be paid out;  
the eligibility criteria for the potential beneficiaries of the schemes; and  
the timeframe under which they will be appl icable.  
 
Answer by China  
 
We will reply after we get the relevant information.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil expressed interest in the issue. Brazil noted that China's latest DS:1 notification 
related to calendar year 2016 and included several programmes that, according to the notification, 
had terminated at that time. Thus, Members were unaware of offic ial information from China 
regarding its policies and budgetary spending  on programmes, which, in 2016, were not in line with 
China's WTO commitments, as it had provided at that time Amber Box support for cotton, corn and 
soybeans above "de minimis" levels . Brazil sought China's confirmation regarding whether it had 
been able to bring its policies in line with its WTO commitments and when Members could expect to 
receive China's new DS:1 notifications. China responded that, since the US brought the dispute 
against China's domestic support measures, it had reformed its domestic regulations and 
administration procedures to bring them in line with the WTO regulations and the policies subject to 
question had been adjusted or removed.  
 
3.1.8   EU's Environmental Policies   
3.1.8.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99015)  
India thanks the European Union for providing a response to AG -IMS ID 98030. In response to 
part (c) and (d), the E.U. replied, "The E.U. will include this information in its upcoming DS:2 
notification, which will be f orwarded to the WTO following the adoption of all Strategic Plans." When 
would the EU make its DS:2 notification in this regard?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 246 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
While there was a political agreement on CAP -Reform post 2022 in June 2021, the basic legal acts 
have not yet been adopted by the co -legislators – the Council and the European Parliament. First 
after the adoption MS will be in position to forward their proposed Strategic Plans to the 
EU Commission. It is expected that all Strategic Plans will be approve d during 2022. As soon as all 
plans have been adopted the EU will submit a DS:2 notification with the information as required in 
the AoA. 
 
Follow -up: Paraguay sought a specific timeline in 2022 regarding when EU's DS:2 notification would 
be available. The EU gave further details of the CAP reform process. It expected that the basic legal 
acts of the CAP reform would be approved by the co -legislators at the end of November and that its 
members States would forward their draft Strategic Plans during the first  months of 2022. The EU 
explained that reviewing and approving all Strategic Plans from the 27 member States would be a 
long process given the first two draft plans it had seen were 700 -800 page long. The EU would not 
be in a position to prepare and submit  a DS:2 notification until all the Strategic Plans have been 
approved, which was expected to be completed during the year of 2022.  
 
3.1.9   India's pulses policies  
3.1.9.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 99101)  
Following up to AG -IMS ID 98096 the Russian Feder ation continues to call on India to remove its 
quantitative restrictions on yellow peas.  
 
a. When is India going to eliminate its quantitative restriction on pulses? Is India planning to 
make regular use of such measures?  
b. For 31 August 2021 India has still n ot announced measures for 2021 -22 with respect to 
import of yellow peas. Does it mean that import of yellow peas in the fiscal year 2021 -22 
is de facto prohibited? When is India going to publish an official notification on its import 
regime bearing in mind  Article X:1 of the GATT 1994, which states that all laws, 
regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings pertaining to restrictions or 
prohibitions on import shall be published promptly in such a manner as to enable 
governments and traders to become acquainted with them?  
c. Bearing in mind the fact that in the AG -IMS ID 98096 India stated that minimal import 
price requirement and port of entry restriction continues to remain applicable in the fiscal 
year 2021 -22 the Russian Federation wonders abou t the reasons for remaining of these 
additional trade -restrictive measures. When is India going to eliminate minimum import 
price requirement and port of entry restriction?  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c.  The import of pulses i.e., moong, urad and tur is Free. The import of yellow peas is restricted 
(not prohibited). Restrictions imposed on yellow peas is temporary. The government has been 
continuously reviewing and monitoring these measures. The import of  yellow peas (07131010) 
during 2020 -21, as available, was 33,831.58 metric tonnes.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada, the EU, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the United States 
expressed concern with India's continued quantitative restrictions on pulse imports and urged India 
to remove the restrictions permanently.  
 
3.1.10   India's public stockpiling  
3.1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 99005)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 98099, India again responded that it would respond in "due course" to a 
longstanding  agenda item and request of this Committee. However, part of AG -IMS ID 98099 
requested India to identify what specific steps has Indian taken to collect information on support 
measures that have not been included in its domestic support notifications. Plea se identify what G/AG/W/218  
 
- 247 - 
 
  steps India is taking to collect information on support measures that have not been included in its 
domestic support notifications, if India remains unable to respond in full to AG -IMS ID 98099.  
 
Answer by India  
 
The requested information will be submitted in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The US repeated its request for information from India regarding sub -national level 
support provided to producers of various commodities including wheat and rice. The US noted that, 
based on publicly available i nformation, including some information published by the Government of 
India, it was understood that such support had been provided and examples of this information had 
been presented in several counter notifications made by the US and other Members. The US  asked 
what steps were being taken by India to collect this data and information on support measures that 
had not been included in its Domestic Support notifications. In addition, the US, speaking on behalf 
of all the co -sponsors of the question AG -IMS ID 98103, requested India to provide data on the 
annual quantitative levels of current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice. The 
US noted such information had not been included in India's DS:1 notification nor had it been provided 
by India  in its response to the question. Australia supported the US request. Brazil noted that, 
despite India's efforts in maintaining its Domestic Support notifications up-to-date, significant 
information were missing from its latest DS:1 notifications (G/AG/N/I ND/18 and G/AG/N/IND/25). 
Brazil reiterated its concern regarding India's fulfilment of the conditions for resorting to the interim 
mechanism established under the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. 
Particularly in relation to  AG-IMS ID 99005, the provision of the missing information would be 
essential for the Membership to assess if India's recourse to the Bali peace clause was in a manner 
that results in an increase of the support subject to its de minimis limits. Canada, the  EU and 
Paraguay urged India to provide substantive answers to the questions and underlined the importance 
of such information in assessing India's compliance with the WTO rules and in moving forward the 
negotiations on a permanent solution to public stock holding programmes in the context of 
the CoA-SS.  
 
3.1.10.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 99103)  
The United States appreciates the information shared with the co -sponsors of AG -IMS ID 98103 
regarding the process India undertakes with regard to ass essing the availability of wheat and rice 
for procurement. India was requested to provide specific data: annual quantitative levels of current, 
historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice since 2010.  
 
a. Is India in a position to provide the annua l quantitative levels of current, historical, and 
pre-determined levels of wheat and rice since 2010 at this time? If so, please do.  
b. In its response to AG -IMS ID 98103, India stated that "the Government holds a 
consultative meeting with the Food Corporatio n of India (FCI), the State Governments and 
other stakeholders to make an assessment regarding the availability of wheat and rice for 
procurement at Minimum Support Price (MSP) in order to meet the food security 
requirements of our citizens" . With regard t o the consultative meeting cited, does India 
publish a summary of those discussions or the outcomes of the meeting? If so, please 
share them.  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b.  The relevant information is duly notified by India in Domestic Support notifications.  
 
Follow -up: The US repeated its request for information from India regarding sub -national level 
support provided to producers of various commodities including wheat and rice. The US noted that, 
based on publicly available information, including some inform ation published by the Government of 
India, it was understood that such support had been provided and examples of this information had 
been presented in several counter notifications made by the US and other Members. The US asked 
what steps were being take n by India to collect this data and information on support measures that 
had not been included in its Domestic Support notifications. In addition, the US, speaking on behalf 
of all the co -sponsors of the question AG -IMS ID 98103, requested India to provide  data on the 
annual quantitative levels of current, historical, and pre -determined levels of wheat and rice. The 
US noted such information had not been included in India's DS:1 notification nor had it been provided G/AG/W/218  
 
- 248 - 
 
  by India in its response to the question.  Australia supported the US request. Brazil noted that, 
despite India's efforts in maintaining its Domestic Support notifications up-to-date, significant 
information were missing from its latest DS:1 notifications (G/AG/N/IND/18 and G/AG/N/IND/25). 
Brazil reiterated its concern regarding India's fulfilment of the conditions for resorting to the interim 
mechanism established under the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. 
Particularly in relation to AG -IMS ID 99005, the provision o f the missing information would be 
essential for the Membership to assess if India's recourse to the Bali peace clause was in a manner 
that results in an increase of the support subject to its de minimis limits. Canada, the EU and 
Paraguay urged India to p rovide substantive answers to the questions and underlined the importance 
of such information in assessing India's compliance with the WTO rules and in moving forward the 
negotiations on a permanent solution to public stockholding programmes in the context  of 
the CoA-SS.  
 
3.1.11   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
3.1.11.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 99104)  
Following the question AG -IMS ID 97118, the Russian Federation would like to reiterate its concern 
about the uncertainty in trade conditions with re spect to wheat flour and liquid milk, as they are still 
not excluded from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime. We continue referring to 
the answer AG -IMS ID 93072, where Mongolia states that import quotas were applied only before 
the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products would come into force. In context of this the Russian 
Federation expects to receive the following information from Mongolia:  
 
a. When is Mongolia planning to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of 
agricultural products?  
b. In the Trade Policy Review Report in March 2021 Mongolia stated that the issue of 
"restrictions on wheat flour and liquid milk were included in the gu idelines for improving 
the Mongolian legislation until 2024 and shall be amended in accordance with the 
WTO rules and principles by 2021". What amendments will Mongolia make considering the 
Food Law of 20 December 2012? Why couldn't they be made earlier th an 2024? What are 
the results of making the amendments in accordance with the WTO rules and principles 
by 2021?  
c. Could Mongolia please clarify its quota regime policy for liquid milk and wheat flour 
for 2022?  
d. When will Mongolia present a confirmation that q uota regime for these products will be 
eliminated completely, and not only for the following year?  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
We thank the Russian Federation for the questions.  
 
As the Food Law of Mongolia is in force, it is not possible to exclude wheat flour an d liquid milk from 
the list of agricultural products.  
 
Mongolia informs that no import quotas are being imposed on wheat flour and liquid milk since 2019 
and will not impose quotas again.  
 
Mongolia would like to inform that the necessary amendments to the Food Law, which are envisaged 
to ensure compliance with the WTO Agreements, are under development.  
 
Follow -up: The Russian Federation stressed that it continued to face difficulties to access the 
Mongolian markets and urged Mongolia to eliminate the restri ctive measures.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 249 - 
 
  3.1.12   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
3.1.12.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 99105)  
Brazil would like to invite Nigeria to provide, in writing, through the A G-IMS system, the answer that 
was given during the 98th CoA to q uestion AG -IMS ID 98129.  Additionally, Brazil would appreciate it 
if Nigeria could provide information regarding different restrictions that, in Brazil's view, are 
tantamount to quantitative prohibitions.  
 
A decade ago, Brazil was contributing to Nigeria's  food security through exports of rice, which 
increased overall supply and kept prices in check. Since 2014/2015, when Nigeria banned the use 
of foreign exchange to import dozens of agricultural items, including rice, Brazil's exports have 
decreased to the  point of no exports of rice being registered since 2018.  Brazil notes that Nigeria 
has not answered question AG-IMS ID 98130, posed by the US, regarding the same issue.  
 
In the light of the above, could Nigeria provide the following information:  
 
a. Which pr oducts are being affected by the foreign exchange restrictions?  
b. Why is a staple food such as rice being kept under such restrictions?  
c. Is there a timetable for the lifting of such restrictions?  
d. How does such a "de facto" quantitative restriction comply with WTO rules?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil hoped to receive more detailed responses in writing, in particular with regards to 
sub questions a -c, which had not been replied by Nigeria so far.  
 
3.1.13   Russian Federation's grain export duties  
3.1.13.1   Quest ion by India (AG -IMS ID 99016)  
India would like to request the Russian Federation to provide a response to questions AG -IMS 
IDs 97087 and 98026. For convenience, the question is repeated as follows:  
 
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federa tion, the Russian Prime Minister signed a 
resolution on grain export duties. The export duties will be charged on wheat (from 15 February to 
28 February); corn and barley (from 15 February to 14 March). Such duties will be increased in 
future.  
 
a. How does th e Russian Federation see the impact of such measures on the food security of 
importing countries?  
b. In view of the short duration of implementation of these export duties, India would like to 
know if these export duties have stabilized prices for the product s in the domestic market?  
c. How does the Russian Federation calculate the impact of these measures on domestic 
prices and international prices?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The export duties were established in order to stabilize situation with the prices o n the internal 
market amid the decreasing revenues of the population as a result of COVID -19 pandemic, as well 
as to ensure food security. The Russian Federation applies export duties in accordance with the WTO 
Agreement, including Protocol on Russia 's Accession to the WTO.  
 
Follow -up: India sought more clarity concerning the measure in reference to sub question a to 
understand whether it fell under the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture. The EU supported India's 
comments and reiterated the importance  of timely notifications on export restriction measures. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 250 - 
 
  Brazil supported the question and expressed its view that Members should have utmost restraint in 
establishing export prohibitions and restrictions as well as guaranteeing that the AoA and the GATT 
requirements on ER are rigorously met. Brazil stated that Members benefit from the international 
agricultural trading system during favourable times and must preserve it from Member -induced 
shocks during adverse times. Global confidence in the international  agricultural trading system 
hinges on Members' conduct and respect of the international law. Brazil looked forward to reviewing 
Russian Federation's written answers, with particular interest in how these export duties have 
affected prices of the products in the domestic market. Finally, Brazil recalled that its questions 
AG-IMS IDs 98110 and 97119 to the Russian Federation from the two previous meetings were still 
pending.  
 
3.1.14   Russian Federation's support on exports of high value -added agricultural products  
3.1.14.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99025)  
It is noted that the Russian Federation has not provided the response to AG -IMS ID 97086. The 
question was repeated in AG -IMS ID 98027, and the response still remains outstanding. India would 
like to request the Russian Federation to provide a response. For convenience, the question is 
repeated below: As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation 
will adopt new support measures to develop exports of high value -added agricultural prod ucts. 
 
a. What measures are being adopted, and when will these measures be implemented?  
b. What products are considered to be high -value -added and also elaborate on the criteria 
for identification of such products?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 97086.  
 
Follow -up: The US understood that the support measures in question were to reimburse expenses 
of purchasing new equipment or other investment projects at enterprises and sought further 
information on: (1) the criteria for fi rms to be eligible to receive the support; (2) if firms must 
engage in exportation of their production to receive state reimbursement; and (3) the total value of 
firm exports with this factor and the total reimbursement made by the Russian Government. The EU 
indicated interest in all the questions addressed to the Russian Federation on its export subsidies 
and questioned whether the Russian Federation had respected its WTO commitments.  
 
3.1.15   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
3.1.15.1   Question by In dia (AG -IMS ID 99024)  
The response to AG -IMS ID 98028 remains outstanding. India would like to repeat the questions 
with a request for a response:  
 
India would like to follow up on the question asked by the European Union in AG -IMS ID 95067 on 
Russia's exp ort quota for cereals. In the response provided, the Russian Federation mentions that it 
established a temporary tariff quota on exportation of certain grains, which will be in effect from 
15 February 2021 to 30 June 2021. Since the period of export quota has come to an end:  
 
a. India would like to know the current status of the measure.  
b. Could the Russian Federation explain its plans with respect to such measures after 30 June 
2021?  
c. How much export has been made by the Russian Federation under this tariff quot a system 
for the quota period?  
d. What are the commodities that fall under this temporary tariff quota?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 251 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. The temporary export tariff rate quota was terminated on 30 June 2021 and is no longer in 
force. The tariff rate quo ta covered wheat and meslin, corn, rye and barley. The volume of export 
of these agricultural products in the first half of 2021 was 14.3 million tonnes.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil supported the question and expressed its view that Members should have utmost 
restraint in establishing export prohibitions and restrictions as well as guaranteeing that the AoA 
and the GATT requirements on ER are rigorously met. Brazil stated that Members benefit from the 
international agricultural trading system during favourable times  and must preserve it from 
Member -induced shocks during adverse times. Global confidence in the international agricultural 
trading system hinges on Members' conduct and respect of the international law. Brazil looked 
forward to reviewing Russian Federation 's written answers, with particular interest in how these 
export duties have affected prices of the products in the domestic market. Finally, Brazil recalled 
that its questions AG -IMS IDs 98110 and 97119 to the Russian Federation from the two previous 
meetings were still pending.  
 
3.1.16   Russian Federation's Export Restrictions  
3.1.16.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 99106)  
In AG -IMS ID 98133, Japan requested the explanation about export prohibition on buck wheat, to 
which we have not received an answer yet. Japan would appr eciate it if Russian Federation provide s 
a specific answer to that question.  
 
a.  
i. Japan recognizes that the Russian Federation introduced export prohibition for three 
months on buckwheat from June 2021. However, Japan finds that the required 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture has not been made in accordance with 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Could the Russian Federation provide the 
reason behind  and Please make the notification on this measure near future.  
ii. Could the Russian Federation explain how it has given due consideration to the effects 
of the measure on importing Members' food security, as required in Article  12 of the 
Agreement on Agricult ure. 
b.  
i. Could the Russian Federation explain how the measure meets the conditions required 
in Article  11 of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality 
of the products, ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure.  
ii. Could the Russian Federation provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on buck wheat, rather than arranging quotas which reflects the situation 
of domestic supply and demand.  
iii. Could the Russian Federation ple ase provide the date that the export prohibition 
expire(d).  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. and b.  The Russian Federation respects and properly fulfills its notification obligations under the 
Agreement on Agriculture and will continue such an approach in future.  
 
There were no falls in the volume of export that could affect other Members. In 2021, the Russia n 
Federation exported 68,708 tonnes of buckwheat, which is higher than in 2019 and 2020 (56,982 
and 54,165 tonnes respectively).  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 252 - 
 
  Buckwheat is included  in the basket of food commodities of the Russian Federation. It is a highly 
nutritious whole grain, a source of protein and fiber; it is beneficial for blood sugar management, 
supports healthy heart, manages diabetes and lowers cholesterol.  
 
The temporary  export restriction on buckwheat was in effect from 5 June till 31 August 2021.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine again reminded Members undertaking export restriction measures of their 
obligations to comply with the relevant rules under the WTO agreements, in particula r Article 12 of 
the AOA and Article 11 of the GATT. Ukraine called the Russian Federation to respect the 
WTO transparency requirements and to give due consideration to the effects of the measures on 
other Members' food security. Brazil supported the questi on and expressed its view that Members 
should have utmost restraint in establishing export prohibitions and restrictions as well as 
guaranteeing that the AoA and the GATT requirements on ER are rigorously being met. Brazil stated 
that Members benefit from the international agricultural trading system during favourable  times and 
must preserve it from Member -induced shocks during adverse times. Global confidence in the 
international agricultural trading system hinges on Members' conduct and respect of the int ernational 
law. Brazil looked forward to reviewing Russian Federation's written answers, with particular interest 
in how these export duties have affected prices of the products in the domestic market. Finally, 
Brazil recalled that its questions AG -IMS IDs  98110 and 97119 to the Russian Federation from the 
two previous meetings were still pending.  
 
3.1.16.2   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 99107)  
Ukraine resubmits AG -IMS ID 98134 for which the Russian Federation has not provided answers:  
 
Ukraine recognizes that according to the Government Resolution No. 684 of 30 April 2021 the 
Russian Federation introduced temporary export prohibition on buckwheat valid from 5  June 
to 31 August 2021, however it did not provide required notification to the  Committee on Agriculture 
in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In view of that, could the Russian 
Federation:  
 
a. Provide more specific information, including statistic data regarding domestic production, 
consumption, stocks, import and export, on the basis of which the export prohibition on 
buckwheat was undertaking?  
b. Explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on importing 
Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Provide explanation how the measure meets the conditions required in Article XI of GATT, 
namely essentiality of the products and criticalness of the shortages?  
d. Inform when it is going to submit a notification to the Committee on Agriculture in  
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and relevant notification in 
accordance with Article XI of GATT?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. to d. Please refer to the answer to AG -IMS ID 99106.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine again reminded Members un dertaking export restriction measures of their 
obligations to comply with the relevant rules under the WTO agreements, in particular Article 12 of 
the AOA and Article 11 of the GATT. Ukraine called the Russian Federation to respect the 
WTO transparency req uirements and to give due consideration to the effects of the measures on 
other Members' food security. Brazil supported the question and expressed its view that Members 
should have utmost restraint in establishing export prohibitions and restrictions as w ell as 
guaranteeing that the AoA and the GATT requirements on ER are rigorously being met. Brazil stated 
that Members benefit from the international agricultural trading system during favourable  times and 
must preserve it from Member -induced shocks during adverse times. Global confidence in the 
international agricultural trading system hinges on Members' conduct and respect of the international 
law. Brazil looked forward to reviewing Russian Federation's written answers, with particular interest 
in how thes e export duties have affected prices of the products in the domestic market. Finally, G/AG/W/218  
 
- 253 - 
 
  Brazil recalled that its questions AG -IMS IDs 98110 and 97119 to the Russian Federation from the 
two previous meetings were still pending.  
 
3.1.17   Turkey's export restriction o n pasta  
3.1.17.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 99108)  
a.  
i. Japan recognizes that Turkey introduced export restriction on pasta on 
17 December  2020, but finds that the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made in accordance with Article 12 o f the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Furthermore, it has been reported that Turkey imposed a restriction on 
pasta from 3 September 2021 again. Could Turkey provide the reason behind the lack 
of notification,?.  
ii. Could Turkey explain how it has given due consider ation to the effects of the measure 
on importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
b.  
i. Could Turkey explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article  11 of 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, 
ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure.  
ii. Could Turkey also please explain (1) domestic supply and demand of durum wheat, 
price tran sition (2) percentage of pasta exports to total domestic demand, 
(3) relationship between them and export restrictions with statistical data. We would 
appreciate the explanation of these data and their evaluation by the Turkish 
Government, as it has been r eported ( https://tekdeeps.com/domestic -wheat -usage -
barrier -stops -export -of-high-quality -pasta/ ) that some industrial people are of the 
view that the restr iction is not necessary.  
iii. The last measure from 17 December 2020 lasted four months, Could Turkey please 
provide the date that the export restrictions from 3 September 2021 will expire.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey would like to thank Japan for the question an d the answer is as follows:  
 
Pasta is among the products listed in the annex of the Communiqué on the Goods Subject to Export 
Registration (No: Export 2006/7) and the export of these goods is carried out within the framework 
of the provisions of Article 7 of the Export Regulation. In this respect, pasta export is registered by 
the general secretariats of exporters' association for monitoring purposes.  
 
Nonetheless, if the ITC -TradeMap database is examined, it would be seen that pasta was exported 
within the  time period specified in the question sent by Japan."  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine called on Members introducing export restriction measures to comply with the 
obligations under the relevant disciplines of the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATT. The EU 
expressed concern with the lack of ER:1 notifications submitted to the WT O, noting that the reports 
from IFPRI and other organizations showed that a significant number of export restrictions measures 
had been imposed since the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 254 - 
 
  3.1.18   US – Excise Duty Exemptions for Alcohol on Puerto Rico & the US V irgin Islands  
3.1.18.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 99002)  
In its reply to question AG -IMS 93187 the US answered:  ".. Under U.S. law, a portion of excise taxes 
on rum imported into the United States is transferred to the general treasuries of Puerto Rico a nd 
the U.S. Virgin Islands…"  
 
a. Can the US indicate how big share of the excise duties collected is transferred to Puerto 
Rico and the Virgin Islands respectively.  
b. Can the US indicate the amounts in US dollar for the financial years that ended 
30 September 2 017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 that was transferred to Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands respectively.  
c. Is rum, exported to the US but processed from imported alcohol in Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands also eligible for this transfer of excise duty.  
d. Can the U S explain how the authorities on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Island use these 
transferred excise duties. Any specific purpose and under which criteria.  
e. How is support granted to farmers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included in the US 
DS:1 notificat ions. 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Under US law, a portion of excise taxes on rum imported into the United States is 
transferred to the general treasuries of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as cover 
over payments. There is a regulatory formu la for dividing cover over payments on imports 
of rum at 27 CFR 26.31. Pursuant to this formula, Puerto Rico has received 87.63% of the 
cover over payments and the USVI has received 12.37%.  
b. The figures for cover over payments on imported rum for both the U S Virgin Islands (USVI) 
and Puerto Rico are the following:  
Puerto Rico  
FY 2017:  USD 36,274,000  
FY 2018: USD 61,670,000  
FY 2019: USD 58,193,000  
FY 2020: USD 48,909,000  
USVI 
FY 2017: USD 5,122,000  
FY 2018: USD 8,708,000  
FY 2019: USD 8,217,000  
FY 2020: USD 6,906,000  
 
c. Yes. 
d. Section 7652 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, which governs the transfer of federal 
rum excise tax collections to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, does 
not impose restrictions on how either territory  can use the proceeds.  
e. Domestic support to agricultural producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is notified 
in the US DS:1 to the greatest extent possible. All available and verifiable data at the 
Federal and subnational level is included in the no tification.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 255 - 
 
  3.1.19   US planned investment in purchasing healthy food and building food bank capacity  
3.1.19.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99017)  
With respect to the USDA's plan to invest USD 1 Billion to "Purchase Healthy Food for Food Insecure 
Americans and Build Food Ba nk Capacity", under which, the fund will be disbursed into three 
categories:  
 
i. USD 500 Million to Support Emergency Food Assistance;  
ii. up to USD 400 Million to Support Local, Regional, and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers;  
iii. up to USD 100 Million in Infrastructu re Grants to Build Capacity for Food Banks and 
Expand Reach into Underserved Areas.  
Could the United States clarify the following:  
 
a. At what price would the USDA purchase the food products?  
b. What food products will be covered under the programme?  
c. How does t his programme/scheme comply with AoA, and under which provisions?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The USD 500 million will be provided through The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program  (TEFAP ). Food purchases under this program are made at market prices through 
a competitive bid process. Additional information on the other program components will 
be made available when program details are announced. However, we do not anticipate 
that the infra structure grants will involve funding for food purchases.  
b. All food products that are currently eligible for TEFAP, which can be found here 
(https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/usda -foods -available -list-tefap), will be covered. As 
stated in part (a), additional information on the other program components will be made 
available when program details are announced.  
c. TEFAP is notified as domestic food aid in Supporting Table DS:1 as it co mplies with the 
criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The other programs will 
be notified once they have been implemented.  
3.1.20   US Agricultural Marketing Service programme  
3.1.20.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 99018)  
"Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) mission is to create domestic and international marketing 
opportunities for US producers of food, fibre, and speciality crops."  
 
a. How would the United States implement this programme?  
b. What crops would be covered unde r this mission?  
c. What specific measures are envisaged?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is an agency of the United States Department of 
Agriculture and has been in operation since 1939. AMS oversees and administe rs standardization, 
grading, certification, market news, marketing orders, research and promotion, and regulatory 
programs for a broad range of agricultural commodities. More information can be found at this link: 
https://www.ams.usda.gov/about -ams. 
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 256 - 
 
  3.1.21   US farm support  
3.1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 99109)  
New Zealand notes the recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announcement of the new 
Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program. Through the pro gramme, USDA will make available 
USD 350 million in payments to dairy farmers impacted by market disruptions caused by the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
 
USDA Secretary Vilsack noted that this assistance is part of a larger package of subsidies including 
permanent i mprovements to the Dairy Margin Coverage safety net program, totalling over 
USD 2 billion. New Zealand understands that these programmes are part of the USD  6 billion 
USDA  Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative announced in March. This is in addition  to more 
than USD  5.6 billion prescribed under the previous administration's Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program (CFAP) which has also been rolled into the Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative.  
 
The current administration's American Rescue Plan Act  also contains USD 10 billion targeted at 
supporting agricultural producers.  
 
New Zealand awaits the formal notification of these programmes to this Committee and notes the 
USDA's Economic Research Services forecast that direct payments to US producers wi ll reach 
USD 28 billion, therefore likely exceeding the US' AMS commitments of USD 19.1 billion. In the 
purpose of transparency:  
 
a. Can the US provide an update on the total amount of funding delivered under these 
programmes (Pandemic Assistance for Producer s, CFAP) to date ? 
b. Can the US update the committee on the timing for notification of these payments 
(including the Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance Program)  to this Committee?  
c. Can the US clarify how it will ensure that any remaining funds allocated und er these 
programmes will be deployed in a way that is proportionate to the harm it seeks to 
address, transparent, consistent with WTO obligations, and wound back as soon as they 
are no longer necessary?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States is updating its response to AG -IMS ID 98145 with the following data: 
based on available data to date ( 1 October  2020 – 5 September  2021), Fiscal Year 2021 
outlays under CFAP  were 12.8 billion. Data on other Pandemic Assistance programs are 
still preliminary and can be provided when they become available.  
b. As explained in the note to G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, all ad hoc and emergency assistance 
is notified on a fiscal year basis. T herefore, assistance provided under these programs in 
Fiscal Year 2020 was notified in the 2019/20 notification. Assistance provided under these 
programs, including the recently -announced Pandemic Market Volatility Assistance 
Program, will be notified in t he 2020/21 notification.  
c. Assistance is intended to respond to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic that has affected 
US agriculture. Assistance that is still being provided through Pandemic Assistance for 
Producers and CFAP is targeted at verified needs that hav e not been addressed by previous 
implementation of the program. The United States will continue to monitor the impacts of 
the COVID -19 pandemic and will phase out assistance consistent with authorizing 
legislation in response to changes and improvements in  conditions.  
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU, and New Zealand expressed concern regarding US large 
expenditures on farm support and invited the US to provide further information on the programme, 
including the expenditure and timeline on each measure. Ne w Zealand stressed that emergency 
measures taken in response to the COVID -19 pandemic should be temporary, transparent and 
consistent with WTO rules. Brazil invited the US to provide an updated ad hoc report on COVID -19 
measures (G/AG/GEN/161) and the DS:1  notification for Marketing Year 2019 -2020. Australia noted G/AG/W/218  
 
- 257 - 
 
  it would continue to closely monitor Members' COVID -19 related programmes and welcomed US 
commitment to notify the measures as soon as practicable. The US noted that it had submitted 
its 2019/2020  DS:1 notification which was currently under the internal WTO process. The US 
reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting that additional information is available on the 
USDA website. It had shared the link with Members before and would be happy to p rovide any 
Member with the link again upon request.  
 
3.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
3.2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments  (Table MA:2)  
3.2.1.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/56)  
AG-IMS ID 99028: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
Thailand appreciates the submission on Market Access Notification of Calendar Year 2020 by China.  
 
According to the notification, China notified rice, short and medium grain with tariff quota quantity 
of 2,660,000  metric  tonnes and rice, long grain with ano ther tariff quota quantity 
of 2,660,000  metric tonnes. However, the actual quota import has been reported by the sum of both 
short and medium grain, and long grain.  
 
In this regard, could China clarify the actual quota import for each TRQ ID in order to sh ow the 
actual TRQ fill -rate for short and medium grain separated from long grain?  
 
Answer by China  
 
Such information is not available at present.  
AG-IMS ID 99027: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
China's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to calen dar year 2020, demonstrates that the fill -rate for 
tariff-rate quota CHNQ003 and CHNQ004 ("rice") was 54.7%. Considering that in the past 10 years, 
these quotas have had a fill -rate above 70% only once (calendar year 2017 - G/AG/N/CHN/41), 
Brazil would app reciate it if China could provide the following information:  
 
a. Could China provide data on market circumstances that would explain the relatively low 
volume of imports under TRQ CHNQ003 and CHNQ004?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQs?  
c. What are the pr ocedures and criteria for granting import licenses for rice?  
d. What is the share of state -owned enterprises in the total of Chinese rice imports?  
e. Could China provide indication whether the majority of imports were of short and medium 
grains or long grains?  
Answer by China  
 
a. China's annual production of rice often exceeds demand. The imports of rice depend on 
market factors such as prices and consumer preferences. Annual production and area of 
rice can be found on the website of China's Statistics Bureau.  
b. No. 
c. Please refer to Schedule CLII of China.  
d. As stated in Schedule CLII of China, quota for both short  and medium grain and long grain 
rice shall be allocated to state enterprises and to private sectors at a ratio of 50:50.  
e. Such informati on is not available at present.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 258 - 
 
  Follow -up: In view of China's consistent underfill on TRQ CHNQ003 and CHNQ004, Australia 
encouraged China to consider ways to improve the fill rates. The EU indicated interest in the 
question.  
 
3.2.1.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/58)  
AG-IMS ID 99029: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Much trade in global poultry meat is frozen. Ecuador's original TRQ schedule (in the attachment 
to WT/L/77/Add.1) listed the correct HS92 code for whole frozen turkey (020722) but provid ed an 
incorrect product description: "whole turkeys, fresh or refrigerated." This error was noted and the 
correct HS code (020725) for whole frozen turkey was identified in G/MA/TAR/R/321/Add.1.  
 
However, the original error is replicated in Ecuador's Table  MA:1 notifications through 2018 which 
only shows the bound tariff code 020722 from G/MA/TAR/R/321 and not the correct code in the 
aforementioned addendum. In addition, the HS code (020724) appears to be incorrect in 
Ecuador's  2019 MA:1 notification (G/AG/ N/ECU/50) for the TRQ with HS code possibly being drawn 
from WT/L/77/Add.1. It should be noted that the corresponding HS2017 code for whole frozen turkey 
in Ecuador's tariff schedule is 020725.  
 
a. Taking note of these apparent errors, will Ecuador be submitt ing revised MA:1 and 
MA:2 notifications to reflect Ecuador's commitments?  
b. Please confirm whether Ecuador currently administers this TRQ to permit whole frozen 
turkeys to be imported.  
c. Taking note that Ecuador has consistently reported a zero in -quota fill r ate for this TRQ as 
well as the TRQ for frozen chicken parts in its MA:2 notifications, what steps is Ecuador 
taking to improve fill rates?  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
a. Ecuador thanks the United States for its questions. In this regard, Ecuador is conducting 
a lega l analysis of the question received concerning the possible errors mentioned, based 
on the commitments in Ecuador's WTO Schedule of Concessions CXXXIII (133), specifically 
Section I -B "Tariff Quotas", and the bilateral agreement concluded with the United S tates 
during our accession to the Organization in November 1994. Section I -B of the 
above -mentioned bilateral instrument indicates that agreement was reached on 
commitments regarding a quota for fresh or refrigerated whole turkeys.  
We hope to be able to pr ovide a reply at a later stage and to continue with discussions on this matter 
at the bilateral level.  
 
b. Ecuador administers the quotas that are currently listed in Section I -B of Ecuador's 
WTO Schedule of Concessions CXXXIII (133) for fresh or refrigerated  whole turkeys.  
c. Ecuador administers its quotas in accordance with internal provisions based on multilateral 
rules. We have not had any opening requests, which, as we have explained on previous 
occasions, may be because the applied tariff is lower than the in -quota tariff or because 
the products come from trading partners with a lower tariff, etc. Furthermore, it should be 
noted that these products also have to meet other requirements (phytosanitary, etc.) that 
affect market access.  
3.2.1.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/26)  
AG-IMS ID 99030: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks India for submitting its MA:2 for fiscal year 2020/21. Australia notes a number of 
tariff quotas had fill rates of less than 65 %: 
 
INDQ001 – 0%; 
INDQ002 – 0%. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 259 - 
 
   
Australia notes no applications were received for the allocation of either tariff rate quota  (TRQ). 
Australia kindly asks India to answer the following:  
 
a. Was this the result of market forces, preferential imports or tariff quota administration?  
b. Is India doing anything to imp rove fill rates?  
c. Has India taken any actions that might have discouraged importers from using the TRQs?  
Answer by India  
 
a. to c.  Application for import and fill rate under TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based on 
market situation. The fill rates of TRQ s in any particular year are affected by a variety of factors, 
including price, exchange rates, supply and demand, domestic production, etc. The policy and 
process are periodically being reviewed for better management of TRQs. Specific efforts have been 
undertaken to provide an electronic, paperless process for TRQ. allocation. No actions have been 
taken that may discourage importers from using the TRQs.  
AG-IMS ID 99048: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
Brazil thanks India for engaging with Members and providing answers to some questions posed in 
relation to previous MA:2 notifications, specifically to fill rates of INDQ002 (Maize (corn), other).  
 
Brazil notes that, in G/AG/N/IND/26, India stated that "no applications were received for the 
allocation of the tariff rate quota" INDQ002. Brazil also recalls that, in answering question AG-IMS 
ID 97127, posed by Australia, India explained that "The last date for submission of application is 
before 1 March of each financial year preceding the year o f quota". If Brazil has understood correctly, 
considering that India's financial year runs from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, in practice, 
applications should be made up to one month in advance of the beginning of the financial year.  
 
In the light of the above, could India explain if it has contemplated any expansion in the window for 
applications for imports under TRQ INDQ002, especially the possibility of allowing for licenses to be 
applied during the financial year, so as to provide more flexibility to market operators?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The fill rate under TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based on market situation. It is affected by 
a variety of factors, including price, exchange rates, supply and demand, domestic production, etc.  
No such proposal is under consideration.  
 
3.2.1.4   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/263)  
AG-IMS ID 99003: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand appreciates the submission on Market Access Notification of Fiscal Year 2019/2020 by 
Japan. According to the notification, the TRQ f ill rate for rice and its worked and prepared products 
is significantly high and near the full quota. In this regard, has Japan ever considered to expand this 
TRQ in the near future?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan has conducted minimum access rice imports to reac h the quantity stipulated in the Schedule 
made under the Uruguay Round agreement.  
 
Japan has no intention to expand its TRQ quantity for rice and its worked and/or prepared products 
in the Schedule.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil welcomed Thailand's question to Japan.  Brazil noted that TRQs are minimum access 
commitments that Members undertook during the Uruguay Round and should not be made subject 
to trade -restricting measures when their fill rate is high. In Brazil's view, just like that the 
international trading sys tem should not be harmed by export -restrictive measures, Members should 
be interested in promoting TRQ fill through trade facilitating measures.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 260 - 
 
   
3.2.1.5   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/264)  
AG-IMS ID 99049: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Japan for s ubmitting its MA:2 for fiscal year 2020/21. Australia notes a number of 
tariff quotas had fill rates of less than 65%:  
 
JPNQ001 – 6.4%;  
JPNQ002 – 31.4%; 
JPNQ007 – 20.1%;  
JPNQ008 – 18.8%; 
JPNQ009 – 28%; 
JPNQ013 – 55.8%; 
JPNQ015 – 16.4%; 
JPNQ018 – 41.1%; 
JPNQ019 – 12%; 
JPNQ020 – 12.9%.  
 
Australia has asked questions previously regarding low fill rates for a number of these commodities. 
Australia kindly asks Japan to answer the following:  
 
a. Was this the result of market forces, preferential imports or tariff quota administration?  
b. Is Japan doing anything to improve fill rates?  
c. Has Japan taken any actions that might have discouraged importers from using the TRQs?  
Answer by Japan  
 
The reasons for underfill of these quotas are as follows.  
 
Japan has alread y improved the TRQ administration by introducing more frequent allocation and 
modifying the validity period of licenses.  
 
Japan will appropriately analyze the causes of low fill rate and, if necessary, improve the procedures 
such as the frequency of alloca tions and modifying the validity period of license.  
 
(skimmed milk powder (for school lunch), skimmed milk powder (for other purposes), prepared 
whey (for infant formula), butter and butteroil, mineral concentrated whey)  
The quotas of these items have bee n unfulfilled as the domestic consumption related to these quotas 
have not been increasing. Especially, due to the COVID -19 outbreak in 2020, all elementary, junior 
and senior high schools were closed nationwide from March to June. This led to the decrease  in the 
fill-rate for skimmed milk powder for school lunch.  
 
(dried leguminous vegetables and ground -nuts) 
The low fill rates are mainly due to the long -term decline in domestic demand. Furthermore, in 2020, 
sales of Japanese -type confectionaries at depar tment stores and tourist spots have dropped 
significantly due to the COVID -19.  
 
(barley and its processed products)  
The reason for the low fill rate of WTO barley tariff quota is the decrease in domestic demand and 
market circumstances. Furthermore, the q uantity of barley for feed imported under the Economic 
Partnership Agreements is not calculated in the WTO tariff quota fill rate.  
 
(tubers of konnyaku)  
The decrease in the import amount of konnyaku flour is considered due to the decreasing domestic 
dema nd especially for other than household consumption such as tourism, food service, and other 
events, due to the declaration of a state of emergency caused by COVID -19 pandemic.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 261 - 
 
  (silk-worm cocoons and raw silk)  
While the demand for Japanese -style attire has long been on decline, the imports of silk fabrics and 
secondary silk fabrics has been increasing. In addition, in 2020, the COVID -19 caused the demand 
for kimono to decrease significantly, as various exhibitions and events were ca ncelled and people 
refrained from going out. Due to this situation, the demand for cocoons and raw silk in Japan has 
been decreasing and the fill rate of its quota has been low in recent years.  
AG-IMS ID 99050: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand notes Japan's market access notification G/AG/N/JPN/264, in which the fill -rate for 
tariff quota JPNQ001 for skimmed milk powder (for school lunch) in fiscal year 2020 -2021 was  6.4%.  
 
Could Japan indicate the reason(s) for this low fill -rate? 
 
Answer by Japan  
 
Due to the COVID -19 outbreak in 2020, All elementary, junior and senior high schools were closed 
nationwide from March to June. This led to the decrease in the fill -rate for skimmed milk powder for 
school lunch.  
 
3.2.1.6   Russian Federation (G/AG/N /RUS/27)  
AG-IMS ID 99019: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
India requests the Russian Federation to provide a response to AG -IMS ID 98008. For convenience, 
the question is repeated below:  
 
With respect to the Russian Federation's response to AG -IMS ID 93209, could the Russian 
Federation:  
 
a. elaborate on the market conditions resulting in under -fill? 
b. provide information on any efforts to improve administration to improve fill rates?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Follow -up: India requested further explanat ion from the Russian Federation regarding the low fill 
rates on Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Poultry and Fresh and Chilled beef. The Russian Federation referred 
India to its response to AG -IMS ID 99051. Brazil asked the Russian Federation if its decision to 
terminate it beef TRQs and replace it by "ad valorem" custom duties was related to changes in 
structure of consumption or low TRQ fill rates. Brazil also asked if the Russian Federation had ever 
considered whether non -tariff measures could be the reason for low fill rates on TRQs on animal 
products such as meat. The Russian Federation stated that it would revert to Brazil's question after 
consulting with the capital.  
 
3.2.1.7   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/32)  
AG-IMS ID 99051: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill 
According to Table MA:2 in G/AG/N/RUS/32, the fill rate in 2020 for Russian Federation's tariff quotas 
was as follows:  
 
RUSQ001 Fresh and Chilled beef - 1%;  
RUSQ001 Frozen beef - 24.9%;  
RUSQ005 Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Poultry - 11.4%;  
RUSQ006 Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Poultry – 12.8%;  
RUSQ007 Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Poultry – 3.8%; and  
RUSQ009Whey and modified whey, in powder - 0%.  
 
Could the Russian Federation indicate the reasons f or these low fill -rates?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 262 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand asked if the Russian Federation could provide any additional information on 
the low fill rates, particularly for whey and modified whey. The Russian Federation repeated its 
response that the low fill rates were due to the changes in consumption patterns. As local production 
was sufficient, there was no request for import licenses.  
 
3.2.1.8   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/6)  
AG-IMS ID 99052: Question by Brazil - Tariff quota fill  
a. Brazil notic es that, in general, fill rates for TRQs notified in document G/AG/N/GBR/6 are 
low. 
Brazil also notices that, as a result of Regulation 1432/2020, the UK has established a performance 
requirement for applying for licenses, which requires operators to demon strate proof of trade in 
order to be able to import under some TRQs.  
 
In the light of the above, could the UK explain:  
 
i. How Regulation 1432/2020 is affecting fill rates of the TRQs notified in G/AG/N/GBR/6?  
ii. For future quota years, how will operators be abl e to make proof of trade in a scenario 
of reduced fill rates?  
b. Specifically, Brazil notes that imports under GBRQ006 (fill -rate: 32,4%) and GBRQ007 
(fill-rate: 0,1%) (Meat of bovine animals, frozen; edible offal of bovine animals, frozen) 
are significantly below historical levels, as indicated in documents G/SECRET/44. Brazil 
would appreciate it if the UK could provide the following information:  
i. Could the UK provide data on market circumstances that would explain the low volume 
of imports under TRQ GBRQ006 a nd GBRQ007?  
ii. Are imports taking place outside the TRQs?  
iii. What are the procedures and criteria for granting import licenses for GBRQ006 
and GBRQ007?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom welcomes this question from Brazil following the submission of our first MA:2 
notification (G/AG/N/GBR/6).  
 
We have sought to adopt a transparent and timely approach in submitting our notification and we 
aim to review our process following feedback received to identify how we can further improve 
future  MA:2 notifications.  
 
We have consulted stakeholders and conducted further data analysis and the United Kingdom has 
no evidence to suggest that the proof of trade requirement has had an impact on TRQ fill rates. We 
regularly review our TRQ administration me thods in light of experience gained and in consultation 
with stakeholders. We will adapt quota administration where necessary.  
 
This notification mainly covers the latter half of marketing year quotas from 1 January – 
30 June 2021. To understand the lower level of tariff -rate quota utilisation mentioned, we have 
spoken to stakeholders and conducted further data analysis to establish the factors behind this 
change. Our assessment is that the low utilisation is driven by a decrease in demand during that 
period, particularly within the hospitality and food services sector. During the reporting period, the 
United Kingdom's economy, like many others, faced restrictions on citizens to tackle the global 
COVID -19 pandemic, as well as logistical challenges, congestio n and delays in moving goods around 
the world. We believe this is the primary reason for the low fill rate.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 263 - 
 
  Our engagement with stakeholders has also suggested that the switch over from EU to UK quota 
administration has had some impact on trading patterns. The United Kingdom Government has 
worked hard to make this process as easy as possible for traders and we b elieve the impact is limited 
and decreasingly prevalent.  
 
According to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) trade data, 32,804.98 tonnes of the 
products covered by quotas GBRQ006 and GBRQ007 were imported between 1 January – 
30 June 2021. Of this, 31,4 09.86 tonnes were imported from the European Union under the Trade 
and Cooperation Agreement.  
 
More information on the issue of licences under tariff quotas can be found at the following link. This 
is updated monthly.  
 
UK tariff rate quotas - GOV.UK ( https://www.gov.uk/ ) 
 
The latest specific administrative arrangements applying to the issue of licences for quota GBRQ006 
for 2021/22 can be found at the following link:  
 
Notice to Traders 67/21 - Import of Frozen Beef and V eal Quota (GATT) - GOV.UK 
(https://www.gov.uk/ ) 
 
Although demand under quota GBRQ006 has been low during the first part of the year, we note that 
quantities requested for the new 2021/22 quota period have increased signi ficantly. Given the 
reduction of restrictions affecting the UK economy in this period, this suggests our assessment is 
correct and that we can hope for a return to more usual trading patterns.  
 
The administration of Quota GBRQ007 is no longer based on a li cence system. This quota has been 
moved to a first -come first -served system to make it more flexible and simpler to use. This decision 
was taken based on our review of the pre -existing system which showed consistent under -utilisation. 
Utilisation of this q uota can be found at the following links:   
 
UK Integrated Online Tariff: look up commodity codes, duty and VAT rates - GOV.UK ( https://trade -
tariff.service.gov.uk/ ). 
AG-IMS ID 99009: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
Paraguay notes with concern the extremely low tariff rate quota fill rates for beef. Apart from quota 
GBRQ006, all the other quotas have a fill rate of, or close to, 0%. Likewise, the fill rate of quota 
GBRQ006 barely reaches 3 2.4%. In light of the above, please could the United Kingdom:  
 
c. Explain the reasons for the low tariff rate quota fill rates for beef?  
d. Indicate whether it has or is considering changing its administration method, in accordance 
with the provisions of the Ba li decision on tariff rate quotas?  
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom welcomes this question from Paraguay following the submission of our first 
MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/GBR/6).  
 
We have sought to adopt a transparent and timely approach in subm itting our notification and we 
aim to review our process following feedback received to identify how we can further improve future 
MA:2 notifications.  
 
This notification mainly covers the latter half of marketing year quotas from 1 January – 
30 June 2021. To understand the lower level of tariff -rate quota utilisation mentioned, we have 
spoken to stakeholders and conducted further data analysis to establish the factors behind this 
change. Our assessment is that the low utilisation is driven by a decrease in demand during that 
period, particularly within the hospitality and food services sector. During the reporting period, the 
United Kingdom's economy, like many others, faced restrictions on citizens to tackle the global 
COVID -19 pandemic, as well as logistic al challenges, congestion and delays in moving goods around 
the world. We believe this is the primary reason for the low fill rate.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 264 - 
 
  Our engagement with stakeholders has also suggested that the switch over from EU to UK quota 
administration has had some i mpact on trading patterns. The United Kingdom Government has 
worked hard to make this process as easy as possible for traders and we believe the impact is limited 
and decreasingly prevalent.  
 
Information on the issue of licences under tariff quotas, includ ing those managed on the basis of 
Certificates of Authenticity, can be found at the following link. This is updated monthly.  
 
UK tariff rate quotas - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)  
With reg ard to the second part of Paraguay's question, a general information notice to traders setting 
out quota administration based on licences can be found at the following link:  
 
Notice to Traders 40/20 - Changes to Licences managed by WTO and Preferentil Import Tariff Rate 
Quotas in the UK from 1 January 2021 (publishing.service.gov. uk) 
The majority of beef quotas are administered by the issue of a licence on demand subject to the 
presentation of a valid Certificate of Authenticity.  
 
The latest specific administrative arrangements applying to the issue of licences for quota GBRQ006 
for 2021/22 can be found at the following link:  
 
Notice to Traders  67/21 - Import of Frozen Beef and Veal Quota (GATT) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)  
 
Although demand under quota GBRQ006 has been low during the first part of the year, we note that 
quantities requested for the new 2021/22 quota period have increased significantly. Given the 
reduction of restrictions affecting the UK economy in this period, this suggests our assessment is 
correct and that we can hope for a return to more usual trading patterns.  
 
The UK will regularly review its TRQ administration metho ds in light of experience gained. However, 
it is too early to consider changes to methodology given the exceptional circumstances that have 
impacted on trade over the past year or so.  
AG-IMS ID 99053: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand than ks the UK for its notification concerning imports under tariff rate quota during the 
marketing year from 1 January to 30 June 2021. Thailand noted that the fill rate of TRQ number 
GBRQ066 (Processed chicken meat, containing 25% or more but less than 57% by  weight of poultry 
meat or offal) was slightly low during the reporting year. Could the UK explain the reasons for the 
underfill rate of the above -mentioned TRQ?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
The United Kingdom welcomes this question from Thailand following t he submission of our first 
MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/GBR/6). We have sought to adopt a transparent and timely approach in 
submitting our notification and we aim to review our process following feedback received to identify 
how we can further improve future  MA:2 notifications.  
 
This notification mainly covers the latter half of marketing year quotas from 1 January – 
30 June 2021. To understand the lower level of tariff -rate quota utilisation mentioned, we have 
spoken to stakeholders and conducted further dat a analysis to establish the factors behind this 
change. Our assessment is that the low utilisation is driven by a decrease in demand during that 
period, particularly within the hospitality and food services sector. During the reporting period, the 
United K ingdom's economy, like many others, faced restrictions on citizens to tackle the global 
COVID -19 pandemic, as well as logistical challenges, congestion and delays in moving goods around 
the world. We believe this is the primary reason for the low fill rate . 
 
Our engagement with stakeholders has also suggested that the switch over from EU to UK quota 
administration has had some impact on trading patterns. The United Kingdom Government has 
worked hard to make this process as easy as possible for traders and w e believe the impact is limited 
and decreasingly prevalent.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 265 - 
 
  Information on the issue of licences under tariff quotas can be found at the following link. This is 
updated monthly.UK tariff rate quotas - GOV.UK ( https://ww w.gov.uk )Although demand under 
quota GBRQ066 has been low during the first part of the year, we note that available quantities 
during the first sub -period of the 2021/22 quota year have been almost exhausted. Given the 
reduction of restrictions affecting t he UK economy in this period, this suggests our assessment is 
correct and that we can hope for a return to more usual trading patterns.  
 
3.2.1.9   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/153)  
AG-IMS ID 99020: Question by India - Tariff quota fill  
India thanks the Unit ed States for its Table MA:2 notification for 2020 (G/AG/N/USA/153), which 
shows low fill rates for the following products:  
 
i.  Dried milk, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter 
(USAQ006) (1.8%);  
ii. Dried milk and dried cream, whether  or not containing added sugar or other 
sweetening matter. Additional US Note 9 to chapter 4 (USAQ009) (9.3%);  
iii. Cheese and substitutes for cheese, containing 0.5% or less by weight of butterfat 
(except articles within the scope of other import quotas provid ed for in additional 
(USAQ023)  (1.9%);  
iv. Cotton, not carded or combed, the product of any country or area, including the United 
States, having a staple length of 34.925 mm (1 3/8 inches) or more. Additional US 
Note 8 to chapter 52 (USAQ052)  (1.2%);  
And zero -fill rates for some other products, as mentioned below:  
 
i. American -type cheese, including Colby, washed curd and granular cheese (but not 
including Cheddar cheese), and cheese and substitutes for cheese containing or 
processed from, such American - type cheese (USAQ019)  (0%);  
ii. Chocolate and low -fat chocolate crumb containing 5.5% or less by weight of butterfat 
(excluding articles for consumption at retail as candy or confection). Additional 
US Note 3 to chapter 18 (USAQ036) (0%);  
iii. Animal feed containin g milk or milk derivatives. Additional US Note 2 to chapter  23 
(USAQ046) (0%);  
iv. Cotton, not carded or combed, the product of any country or area including the 
United  States, having a staple length under 28.575 mm (1 -1/8 inches) (except harsh 
or rough cotton , having a staple length under 19.05 mm (3/4 inch)). Additional 
US Note 5 to chapter 52 (USAQ049)  (0%);  
v. Harsh or rough cotton, not carded or combed, the product of any country or area 
including the United States, having a staple length of 29.36875 mm (1 -5/32 inches) 
or more but under 34.925 mm (1 -3/8 inches) and white in colour (except cotton of 
perished sta ple, grabbots and cotton pickings). Additional US Note 6 to chapter 52 
(USAQ050)  (0%);  
vi. Cotton, not carded or combed, the product of any country or area including the United 
States, having a staple length of 28.575 mm (1 -1/8 inches) or more but under 
34.925  mm (1 -3/8 inches) (except harsh or rough cotton, not carded or combed, 
having a staple length of 29.36875 mm (1 -5/32 inches) or more but under 34.925  mm 
(1-3/8 inches) and white in colour (except cotton of perished staple, grabbots and 
cotton pickings)). Additional US Note 7 to chapter 52 (USAQ051); Fibers of cotton 
processed but not spun. Additional US Note 10 to chapter 52 (USAQ051)  (0%);  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 266 - 
 
  vii. Fibers of cotton processed but not spun. Additional US Note 10 to chapter 52 
(USAQ054)  (0%) 
a. Could the United States e laborate on the reason for the underfill or zero -fill rate of the 
products mentioned above?  
b. What efforts are being envisaged to improve the fill rates?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The fill rates of US TRQs in any particular year are affected by a v ariety of market factors, 
including price trends, exchange rates, supply and demand.  
b. No changes are currently envisioned as the underfill is a result of market factors.  
Follow -up: Switzerland flagged interest in the question, particularly on the fill rate s for USAQ024 
"Swiss and Emmentaler cheese with eye formation".  
 
3.2.2   Special safeguards  (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
3.2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/70)  
AG-IMS ID 99054: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks the European Union (EU) for submitting it s MA:5 notification for marketing 
year 2020/21. Can the EU provide the following information for all the products for which safeguard 
action was taken based on price:  
 
• volume of imports affected;    
• extent to which the import price was below the trigger pri ce; and  
• additional duty levied.  
Australia has asked this question previously (AG -IMS ID 89074) and notes the EU advised at that 
time it did not collect this information. Nonetheless, and to enhance the transparency of safeguard 
implementation, Australia would appreciate the EU updating t he Membership as to whether this 
information is now available and if so, providing it in AG-IMS. 
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The reply given previously (AG -IMS ID 89074) remains valid. The EU does not collect this 
information.  
 
3.2.3   Domestic Support commitments ( Table DS:1) 
3.2.3.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/63)  
AG-IMS ID 99055: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:1  
 
The United States thanks Brazil for submitting its domestic support notification for Agricultural 
Year 2018/19 and takes note of several changes regarding notified measures in Supporting 
Table  DS:1. These changes include Brazil no longer notifying "Acquisition of equipment by 
municipalities for services in rural areas", nearly completely e liminating notified outlays for "support 
for technological innovation projects to family farming" and notifying "Inspection of organic 
production" as a new measures.  
 
Please confirm whether Brazil has modified or introduced new measures and whether such c hanges 
will be reflected in a Table DS:2 notification.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 267 - 
 
  It is also noted that several new measures related to public stockholding for food security have been 
notified in 2018/19, but overall expenditures in this category decreased slightly.  
 
Do these chan ges reflect a change in the implementation of public stockholding measures or a 
disaggregation of existing measures for transparency purposes?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. There has been no modification nor introduction of new measures in existing programmes.  
In relation to "Acquisition of equipment by municipalities for services in rural areas" and "Inspection 
of organic production", they were not included in the notification as there was no expenditure under 
them for agricultural year 2018/2019.  
 
In relation to "support for technological innovation projects to family farming", the expenditure was 
notified.  
 
Therefore, there is no reason to circulate a DS:2 notification.  
 
b. In the previous notification, the programs currently notified under the headings 
"Maintenance and management" and "Implementation of food and nutritional security in 
health" were being notified under the heading PAA ("Program of acquisition of agricultural 
products from Family farming").  
The purpose of the data disaggregation was to im prove the quality of the notified information and 
to provide greater transparency to existing public stockholding for food security purposes programs 
under the Green Box.  
 
3.2.3.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/142)  
AG-IMS ID 99056: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Canada for submitting its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2017. Australia would 
like to request further information on the following programmes:  
 
a. AgriStability – Canada notified an expenditure of $444.8 million in 2017, an increase from 
$200.7 million in 2016. Can Canada please explain the circumstances leading to this 
significant increase?  
b. Other direct payments – in Supporting Table DS:6 'Other direct payments' are listed for 
honey, other crops, beef, milk (flui d and industrial) and apples. Could Canada please 
provide additional information on these payments?  
c. Other Provincial Programs – in Supporting Table DS:7 'Other Provincial Programs' are 
listed as providing support for other crops, beef, pork, sheep and pota toes. Could Canada 
please provide additional information on these programmes?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. AgriStability is one of the business risk management programs for Canada. It protects 
Canadian producers against large declines in farming income for reasons su ch as 
production loss, increased costs and market conditions. The year -over-year increase in 
the Domestic Support Notification, Supporting Table DS:1 for AgriStability from $200.7 
million Canadian dollars in 2016 to $444.8  million Canadian Dollars in 2017 was mainly 
the result of a change in farm income factors which resulted in large income declines.  
b. Programs included under Supporting Table DS:6 as other direct payments are as follows:  
o Honey: Nova Scotia's Pollination Expansion Program ; 
o Other crops: suppo rt for Vineyard Research, Vineyard Marketing and Lowbush 
Blueberry in Nova Scotia ; 
o Apple: Crop Strategic Assistance (New Brunswick), Apple Efficiency (Nova Scotia) ; G/AG/W/218  
 
- 268 - 
 
  o Beef: Dead Livestock Removal Services (PEI), BC Cattlemen's Association (BC) ; 
o Milk: Livesto ck Strategic Assistance (New Brunswick) . 
  
c. Programs included under Supporting Table DS:7 as other direct payments are as follows:  
o Other crops: Cranberry Industry Development Program (Newfoundland), Vineyard 
Development and Expansion Program (Nova Scotia), New Brunswick Sugar Bush 
Silviculture Funding Program (New Brunswick) ; 
o Beef: Livestock Strategic Assistance (New Brunswick), BSE Recovery Loan Program 
(Manitoba), Stocker Program (Manitoba), Short Term Cattle Loan Program 
(Saskatchewan) ; 
o Pork: Liv estock Strategic Assistance (New Brunswick), Hog Loans (Manitoba) ; 
o Sheep: Livestock Strategic Assistance (New Brunswick) ; 
o Potatoes: Potato Production Services (Newfoundland) . 
 
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 99058: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Can Canada indicate where the following schemes are included in the notification?  
 
• grants paid in Ontario under the "VQA wine support program";  
• subsidies paid in Quebec under th e "Programme d'appui au positionnement des alcools 
québécois dans le réseau de la société des alcools du Québec".  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The VQA wine support program and the Programme d'appui au positionnement des alcools québécois 
dans le réseau de la société  des alcools du Québec were not reported in Canada's 2017 DS:1 
notification. Both programs were excluded, as they do not provide support for an agricultural product 
in favour of the producers of the basic agricultural product.  
 
Canada's methodology for est ablishing its basic agricultural product AMS is based on agricultural 
products that are part of its value of production calculation (i.e. products included in Canada's farm 
cash receipts). Canada's basic agricultural products AMS list, which covers all bas ic agriculture 
products, has been established as part of Canada's AGST Supporting Tables, and have been reported 
in a consistent matter since 1995. Canada's farm cash receipts methodology accounts for grape 
receipts, which may or may not be processed into wine, but excludes receipts coming from wine 
production.  
AG-IMS ID 99026: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks Canada for submitting the DS:1 notification for 2017. It is noted that in Supporting 
Table DS:1 and Suppo rting Table DS:9 (G/AG/N/CAN/142), Canada has mentioned the reporting 
period as "Stabilization year". What does this signify?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Stabilization Year refers to the program year. For example, the AgriStability guidelines provide the 
following definition: Program Year The period for which the Participant files a return under the 
Income Tax Act, or for Participants who are not required to file returns under the Income Tax Act, 
the calendar year.  
AG-IMS ID 99060: Question by Turkey - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey thanks Canada for submitting its domestic support notification.  
 
a. Supporting Table DS:1: Canada has been notifying "Income insurance and income 
safety -net programs" for STDS:1 table. Turkey notes that amount of  support for this 
measure type has been dropped until 2017. According to G/AG/N/CAN/142, "Income 
insurance and income safety -net programs" support has been increased more than twice 
in 2017.  
i. Can Canada explain the reason behind this increase?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 269 - 
 
  ii. What is the c urrent situation with this measure? Will it continue to increase in the 
future?  
b. Supporting Table DS:4: On the Supporting Table DS:4, there is a line indicating the 
amount of support for "other crops". Can Canada list these "other crops"?  
c. Supporting Table D S:9: Turkey notes that amount of support for "Federal Credit 
Concessions" has been increasing mostly and it is more than three times increased 
compared to year 2012.  
i. Can Canada explain the reason behind this increase in years?  
ii. What is the current situation  with this measure? Will it continue to increase in the 
future?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a.  
i. The "income insurance and income safety -net programs" category is comprised of 
AgriStability. AgriStability is one of the business risk management programs for 
Canada and it  is a margin based program. It protects Canadian producers against large 
declines in farming income for reasons such as production loss, increased costs and 
market conditions. The year -over-year increase was mainly the result of a change in 
farm income fac tors which resulted in large income declines.  
ii. AgriStability is a margin based program and it will fluctuate over time depending on 
production loss, costs of production and market conditions.  
b. Canada's "other crops" AMS includes all crops other than grain, o ilseed, and forage that 
are not directly listed in Supporting Table DS:4.   
In 2017, amounts reported under the other crops AMS was for grapes, greenhouse vegetables, 
maple syrup, blueberry and cranberries.  
 
c.  
i. The increase in "Federal Credit Concessions" is the result of a growing gap between 
the program interest rate on federal -backed agriculture related financing and the 
interest rate(s) associated with commercial loans. (i.e., chartered banks, credit unions, 
and insurance, trust and loan companies).  
ii. "Feder al Credit Concessions" may or may not increase in the future depending on the 
gap between the program interest rate and the interest rate associated with 
commercial loans.  
AG-IMS ID 99059: Question by Japan - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
 
a.  
i. Could Canada explain the reasons for the increase in Direct payments on 'Wheat and 
durum' which increased over 570% from $4.3 million to $24.3million between CY  2017 
and CY 2018.  
ii. If there has been a change in the programme(s) that c ontributed to this significant 
increase, could Canada explain the details of the change.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 270 - 
 
  b.  
i. Could Canada explain the reasons for the increase in Direct payments on Measure Type 
Assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles  of 'beef'' which increased over 470 % 
from $0.7 million to $33.4 million between CY 2017 and CY 2018.  
ii. If there has been a change in the programme(s) that contributed to this significant 
increase, could Canada explain the details of the change.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a.  
i. Canada has yet to submit its  2018 notification, and Canada will hence provide an 
answer according to its most recent notifications available. As contained in the 
WTO 2016 domestic support notification, Supporting Table DS:6, Wheat and Durum 
Total Direct Payments were $16.2 million an d in the WTO 2017 domestic support 
notification, Supporting Table DS:6 the Wheat and Durum Total Direct Payments were 
$24.3 million dollars. The year -over-year increase was mainly the result of an increase 
in direct payments under the Assurance - stabilization des revenues agricoles  (ASRA) 
in Quebec (i.e., from $5.9 million in 2016 to $15.0 million in 2017).  
ii. Under the Assurance - stabilization des revenues agricoles (ASRA) program, payments 
to producers are based on the price for wheat . There was no change in the program. 
Changes in payments are directly linked to the objective of the program and the way 
it is designed. The program protects against market and production cost fluctuations.  
b.  
i. Canada has yet to submit its 2018 notification,  and Canada will hence provide an 
answer according to its most recent notifications available. As contained in the 
WTO 2016 domestic support notification, Supporting Table DS:6, Total Direct 
Payments under the provincial program Assurance - stabilisation d es revenus agricoles  
for beef were $37.6 million and in 2017, Total Direct Payments for the same program 
were $33.4 million.  
ii. There appears to be very little change in Total Direct Payments under the program.  
AG-IMS ID 99057: Question by Australia - De minimis 
Australia thanks Canada for submitting its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2017. Australia notes 
that Canada has provided product -specific domestic support for milk and sheep in excess of product -
specific de minimis  commitments, but within its Tota l AMS commitment level.  
 
For milk, the breach of de minimis  is largely due to Canada's market price support programme.  
 
For sheep, the breach of de minimis  is largely due to risk and income management programs in 
Ontario and Quebec.  
 
Can Canada please outline the measures it is taking to ensure future support to milk and sheep 
remain within Canada's product -specific de minimis  commitments?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada's AMS for milk and sheep are in line with Canada's WTO commitments. Can ada follows 
closely its WTO domestic support commitments to ensure that its current total AMS remain below 
its bound total AMS.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand expressed interest in the question.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 271 - 
 
  3.2.3.3   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/73 , G/AG/N/COL/73 ) 
AG-IMS ID 99063: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
During calendar year 2017 and 2018, Colombia notified new support for maize. The measure is 
described as direct support to producers.  
 
a. Could Colombia provide the name of the measure and a short description of how the 
programme works?  
b. Could Colombia provide the eligibility criteria for the measure?  
Answer by Colombia  
 
Replies to questions posed by Canada regarding Colombia's support for maize  
 
The measure is based on Colombia's commitments under the World Trade Organization  (WTO) 
Agreement on Agriculture, Article 6, Domestic Support Commitments, expressed in terms of Current 
Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS), corresponding to the annual or final bound 
commitment level specified in Part IV of the Member 's Schedule.  
 
1. Support provided for white maize in 2017  
 
1.1 Name of the measure: "Apoyo a la comercialización de maíz blanco cosechado en el segundo 
semestre de 2017" (Support provided for marketing white maize harvested in the second half 
of 2017)  
 
Description of the programme: Through the programme, an income support scheme was introduced 
for producers of white maize in the department of Córdoba.  
 
Support was provided to producers of white maize for the drying, preparation and storage of the 
grain to i mprove marketing, based on the following considerations:  
 
• As a product meant for human consumption and for which demand is stable, marketing 
difficulties had been anticipated for an estimated white maize harvest of 242,550 tonnes in 
the second half of 2017, as a result of a 2% increase in the planted area.  
• The main harvest period in Córdoba, the department that produces the most white maize, 
is the second half of the year.  
• Rainfall in the region during the second half of 2017 affected the moisture conte nt of the 
product, making marketing more difficult, which in turn increased domestic stocks, mainly 
because the harvest in this department is in November.  
• By making use of the existing drying facilities in the department of Córdoba, the measure 
focused on the storage of the product, adding value to and marketing it, and thus boosting 
producers' income.  
 
The eligibility criteria were set out in Resolution No. 388 of November 2017:  
 
• Support is provided to producers of white maize in the department of Córdoba who dry that 
grain during the period covered by Resolution No. 388/2017 (23 November  – 
20 December  2017).  
• The maximum volume of yellow maize eligible for support was fixed at 23,255 tonnes.  
• The monetary amount of the support was fixed at COP 43,000 (USD 14 .6 at the average 
exchange rate for 2017) per tonne of white maize harvested and dried in the second half 
of 2017.  
 
1.2 Name of the measure: "Apoyo a la comercialización de maíz blanco cosechado en el segundo 
semestre de 2017 en los departamentos de Tolima , Meta y Valle del Cauca" (Support provided for 
marketing white maize harvested in the second half of 2017 in the departments of Tolima, Meta and 
Valle del Cauca)  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 272 - 
 
  Description of the programme: Through the programme, support was introduced for marketing th e 
stocks of white maize harvested in the second half of the year in the departments of Tolima, Meta 
and Valle del Cauca.  
 
Support was provided to producers of white maize to facilitate marketing, based on the following 
considerations:  
 
• The planted area of white maize grew by 2% in the first half of 2017, reaching 
44,100  hectares, which increased supply by 6% (14,000 additional tonnes) in 2017. 
Production benefited from the favourable weather conditions in the three above mentioned 
departments. This surplus led to marketing difficulties, as the product is meant for human 
consumption and demand for it is stable.  
• The harvest period in the second half of 2017 was marked by low prices on the domestic 
market, which were, on average, 15% lower than prices in 2016. This combination of factors 
led to an increase in stocks of white maize on the farms of producers in the above -mentioned  
departments, with some 25,000 tonnes of grain not placed on the market.  
Resolution No. 439 of 2017 sets out the eligibility criteria:  
 
• Support is provided to producers of white maize from the above mentioned departments for 
the harvest in the second half of 2017.  
• Pursuant to the requirements of each department, the Resolution establishes the monetary 
amount of marketing support per tonne.  
• Support was provided for sales made directly by producers to industrial facilities or traders 
between 20 and 27 December 2017.  
 
2. Support provided for yellow maize in 2018  
 
Name of the measure: "Apoyo a la comercialización de maíz amarillo seco cosechado en el territorio 
nacional en el segundo semestre de 2018" (Support for marketing dry yellow maize harvested within 
the national territory in the second half of 2018)  
 
Description of the programme: The programme was created to facilitate the marke ting of yellow 
maize harvested in the second half of 2018 and to support producers' income in the context of low 
prices for yellow maize, increased imports of the product, and limited storage and drying facilities.  
 
Support was provided to producers of dry  yellow maize harvested in the second half of 2018 to 
facilitate marketing, based on the following considerations:  
 
• The average purchase price per tonne of yellow maize on the domestic market was lower 
than production costs, resulting in economic losses fo r producers.  
• Production of modified yellow maize in the first half of 2018 rose by 23% compared to the 
same period in 2017, reaching 393,186 tonnes.  
• Stocks of modified yellow maize were 33,100 tonnes.  
• Given the difficulties of marketing dry yellow maize for the above -mentioned  reasons, 
marketing support focused on facilitating stock rotation by partially covering the loss 
incurred as a result of marketing dry yellow maize harvested in the second half of  2018.  
 
Resolution No. 444 of 22 November 2018 sets out the eligibility criteria:  
 
• Support was provided to producers of dry yellow maize harvested in the second half of 2018 
and marketed between 22 November and 20 December 2018.  
• Support was provided only f or sales made directly by producers to industry or a business.  
• The monetary amount of the support was COP 57,634 (USD 19.5 at the average exchange 
rate for 2018) per tonne of dry yellow maize.  
 
3.2.3.4   Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/27, G/AG/N/CIV/28)  
AG-IMS ID 99064: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Côte d'Ivoire reported no domestic support granted to agricultural producers in either its 2019 
or 2020 Table DS:1 notifications, which continues Cote d'Ivoire's trend of not ifying that no domestic G/AG/W/218  
 
- 273 - 
 
  support has been granted. However, it remains concerning that Cote d'Ivoire continues to make 
these notifications of no domestic support while not responding to questions posed by the United 
States and other Members regarding measur es that have been identified as likely domestic support 
measures.  
 
During the period covered by G/AG/N/CIV/27 and G/AG/N/CIV/28, it appears Cote d'Ivoire has 
continued to provide support to producers, including for cacao, cashew nuts, and cotton. For 
exam ple, a Government of C ôte d'Ivoire website states that the President of Cote d'Ivoire indicated 
that 21 billion FCFA were paid to producers of cashew and cotton. ( https://www .gouv.ci/_actualite -
article.php?recordID=10680&d=1#p ) Another Government of C ôte d'Ivoire website included a quote 
from Ivoirian Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development stating, "in the cocoa sector alone, more 
than 7,000  billion  FCFA have been distr ibuted to producers […] since 2011." 
(https://www.gouv.ci/_actualite -article.php?recordID=10641&d=1#p )  
 
With regard to both measures during 2019 and 2020, as well as for pre vious years notified, please 
explain on what basis various support measures, including those for cacao, cashew nuts, and cotton, 
have not been notified.  
 
The United States also would appreciate an update on when Cote d'Ivoire intends to provide 
responses t o the various unanswered questions raised by Members regarding the specific details of 
some of these measures and their non -notifications, including the question posed by the United 
States in AG -IMS ID 91139.  
 
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
 
3.2.3.5   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/46)  
AG-IMS ID 99065: Question by Brazil - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Brazil thanks the Dominican Republic for its latest DS:1 notification and notices that, even though 
overall expenditures under Article 6. 2 have decreased between 2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/43) and 2020 
(G/AG/N/DOM/46), notified expenditures under "Special Fund for Agricultural Development (FEDA)" 
have increased almost 7 fold, from 37,119,927.61 DOP to 259,719,919.9 DOP (Brazil duly notes 
that there h as also been a decrease on notified expenditures under "Agricultural Bank").In the light 
of the above, could the Dominican Republic provide further explanation on the motives behind such 
changes in Supporting Table DS:2 from 2019 to 2020?  
 
Answer by Domini can Republic  
 
We thank Brazil for its question, which has enabled us to detect an error in the amount notified 
by FEDA  for 2020. The notification will therefore be corrected in the AG -IMS. 
 
AG-IMS ID 99066: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In 2020, Dominican Republic notified input subsidies under Supporting Table DS: 2, which is 
described as seed promotion and distribution.  
 
a. Could Dominican Republic provide more information on the eligibility criteria of the 
programme?  
b. Could Dominican Republic elaborate on how the programme targets low -income or 
resource -poor producers ? 
Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
a. Interested parties must submit their application through the offices of the Ministry of 
Agriculture. The service is aimed at small and medium -sized producers and their existing 
organizations that are involved in agricultural  rural development, which are identified in 
accordance with the parameters set out in Resolution No. RES -MA-2019-39. G/AG/W/218  
 
- 274 - 
 
  b. Interested parties  must submit an application t hrough one of the national offices of the 
Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry then coordinates seed deliveries with the regional 
directorates using a list of favoured producers; the service is aimed at small and 
medium -sized producers and their existing organizations that are involved in agricultural 
rural development. The classification of types of producers was established via 
Resolution  RES-MA-2019-39, which specifies the parameters used for each producer and 
for small -producer organizations.  
AG-IMS ID  99067: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9 includes an amount of DOP 439,5 million for "Storage, insurance and financial 
costs subsidy".  
 
a. Can the Dominican Republic explain more in detail which product is covered by  this "Pledge 
Programme - food security maintenance programme"?  
b. How is the subsidy level for "Financial costs, storage cost and insurances" determined?  
c. Is the subsidy amounts specific for the different products eligible to the programme?  
Answer by Dominican Republic  
 
a. Since its launch, the programme has covered various basic -basket products, as well as 
other less traditional products. In previous years, it covered rice, beans, pork, onions, 
garlic, strawberries, chicken and potatoes. The programme's legal basis authorizes the 
Ministry of Agriculture to include any agricultural product in the Pledge Programme.  
b. Every year, consensus is reached with all the predominant stakeholders in rice production, 
and on this basis, a decision is made on all the hea dings that form or will form part of the 
Pledge Programme. The financial costs are determined by the pool of commercial banks 
participating in the programme in that specific year. Regarding storage and insurance, the 
Executive Unit for Pledges (UEPI) pays 1.08% and 0.95% respectively, which is equivalent 
to the cost of one fanega in storage (DOP 2.92 per fanega) and DOP 2.57 in insurance. 
For items that need to be kept in cold storage, such as beans, potatoes, garlic, onions, 
etc., cold storage facility ren tal is paid additionally. Generally speaking, USD 0.001 is paid 
per month per pound.  
c. The amounts depend on the quantities pledged for each product and their share.  
3.2.3.6   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/76, G/AG/N/SLV/77, G/AG/N/SLV/78)  
AG-IMS ID 99068: Question by Unite d States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States welcomes recent efforts by El Salvador to bring their domestic support 
notifications further up-to-date with the recent notification of support for 2012/2013 
through  2015/2016 follow upon previous submissions in 2020 and earlier in 2021 for other 
outstanding notifications.  
 
Taking note of the numerous new notified measures and increased notified level of spending in 
exempt measures by El Salvador both in G/AG/N/SLV/76 -79 and previous notifications, please 
confirm when El Salvador will be submitting the required Table DS:2 notifications for these new or 
modified exempt measures.  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
El Salvador is bringing its notifications within the Committee on Agr iculture up to date. We hope to 
have met our notification commitments as soon as possible.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 275 - 
 
  3.2.3.7   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/78)  
AG-IMS ID 99069: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
For financial year 2014/2015, El Salvador reported no i nvestment subsidy, a first since 2006.  
 
Could El Salvador confirm that no investment subsidy was provided to agricultural producers for 
the 2014/2015 financial year?  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
Confirmed.  
 
AG-IMS ID 99070: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/SLV/78, no Supporting Table DS:2 domestic support was notified in 2014/15, while some 
support was notified in both previous and subsequent years.  
 
Please confirm there were no development progr ammes in the period of 2014/15.  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
Confirmed.  
 
3.2.3.8   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/79)  
AG-IMS ID 99071: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In financial year 2015/2016, El Salvador introduced a number of input subsidy measures under 
Supporting Table DS:2  
 
a. Could El Salvador provide more information on the eligibility criteria of the programmes?  
b. Could El Salvador explain how the programmes target low -income or resource -poor 
producers?  
Answer by El Salvador  
 
These programmes are available to low-income  producers engaged in subsistence family farming. 
These are defined as producers that farm less than three " manzanas " (one manzana = a square 
area of approximately 100 metres x 100 metres) and consum e almost all they produce; there are 
around 325,000 such producers in El Salvador.  
AG-IMS ID 99072: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG/N/SLV/79, El Salvador notifies several dif ferent measures under "Agricultural input 
subsidies generally available to low -income or resource -poor producers."  
 
Please identify how El Salvador defines a low -income or resource -poor producer in its domestic 
legislation and confirm whether the same defi nition is used for each notified measure or whether 
there are varying definitions.  
 
Answer by El Salvador  
 
El Salvador identifies low -income producers as those engaged in subsistence family farming. They 
are defined as producers that farm less than three manzanas  and consume almost all they produce. 
This definition is used for all notified measures.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 276 - 
 
  3.2.3.9   European U nion (G/AG/N/EU/69)  
AG-IMS ID 99073: Question by United States of America - Other 
product -specific  AMS/EMS  
Sugar support between MY17/18 to MY18/19 increased from EUR 4.1 million to EUR 131 million due 
to the addition of two new measures: National State Ai d France - POSEI and National Aid France 
POSEI Regulation 228/2013.  
 
Please describe how the National State Aid France – POSEI and National Aid France POSEI 
Regulation  228/2013 are implemented and the differences between the two measures.  
 
Answer by Europe an Union  
 
The first measure (EUR 88.5 million) fulfils the principal objective which is to remedy the difficulties 
caused by the specific situation of the French outermost regions e.g. remoteness, insularity and 
structural constraints. To that end, the EU Regulation 228/2013 (article 23) allows France to grant 
an additional aid with a budget of up to EUR  90 million per marketing year. The French 
Regulation  2011-1927 describes the costs that can be covered by this aid:  
 
• aid to producers of sugar cane to comp ensate the extra production costs due to the structural 
handicaps in the outermost regions,  
• logistical support to the sugar manufacturers which export their production to European 
ports,  
• adaptation of the sugar manufacturers to the reform of the common o rganisation of the 
market in sugar.  
 
The second measure (EUR 38 million) is designed to help sugar manufacturers (which produce sugar 
intended for refining) in Guadeloupe and La Réunion adapt to the end of sugar quotas, as defined 
by the French Regulation  2017-1033.  
 
Follow -up: In view of the reduced sugar imports by the EU resulting from the end of the quota 
system, Brazil registered concern that France, the EU's largest producer of sugar beet, is increasing 
its subsidies. Brazil sought EU's confirmation regarding whether the increased domestic support 
measures provided to sugar producers could be a reason behind the forecast presented in the EU's 
Short -Term Outlook for EU agricultural markets in 2021, which read as follows: "EU sugar beet 
production could reach 110 million tonnes (+11 tonnes year -on-year) in 2021/22. Sugar production 
could increase by 1 million tonnes compared to 2020/21, to 15.5 million tonnes". The EU noted that 
its sugar production increased during the first year following the end of the quota system as a result 
of the expectation that high sugar prices at that time would continue. However, since then the 
production decreased each year. The EU referred Brazil to the sugar chapter of its next 10 years' 
medium -term outlook rep ort which would be published in two months for further details.  
AG-IMS ID 99074: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
In G/AG/N/EU/69, the European Union notified a new measure for wine, 'national support', that did 
not exi st in the previous year, with support totalling  EUR 25 million.  
 
Please describe how this measure is implemented.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The amount in Supporting Table DS:6, is in reality an error. By accident it is a double counting, since 
the amounts for this year as well for the previous years is included in the sum notified in Supporting 
Table DS:8.  
 
The EU will submit a correction to G/AG/N/EU/69 where the amo unt of EUR 25 million for national 
support in DS:6 will disappear, since it is already accounted for in Supporting Table as in previous 
years.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 277 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 99075: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The EU notification G/AG/ N/EU/69 shows that grapes received support from the "Market withdrawal 
by Producer Organisations + CY CNDP" measure in 2018/19 and in previous years.  
 
a. It is the United States' understanding that 'CY CNDP' may be the abbreviation for Cyprus 
Complementary Na tional Direct Payments; however, it is not clear from the European 
Union's notification. Please confirm.  
b. Please clarify the relationship between the CY CNDP and "Market withdrawal by Producer 
Organisations", including why the CNDP and the Market Withdrawal  are notified as a single 
measure.  
Answer by European Union  
 
Yes, correct interpretation of Cyprus Complementary National Direct Payments.  
  
The measures are not notified as one measure. Since they both concerns the wine sector they are 
notified together u nder this heading.  
 
3.2.3.10   India (G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25 ) 
AG-IMS ID 99006: Question by Paraguay, United States of America - Public stockholding 
for food security purposes  
Follow -up on AG -IMS ID 98039.  
 
In its reply to his question India has once again sta ted that it is "in the process of collecting 
information on "other support" and it will be notified in due course." Could India please provide an 
update on when this could be expected to be notified?  
 
We reiterate that this information is necessary to veri fy whether India has adhered to paragraph  5 
of the Bali Ministerial Decision, which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for 
programs other than public stockholding. We also reiterate our concern that given the lack of any 
indication of what type of other support may be involved, it is difficult to assess whether India is 
complying with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security.  
 
Answer by India  
 
We are in the process of collecting the information and it will be notified in due course.  
 
Follow -up: Noting these questions were follow ups to previous questions which were either not 
responded to or only partially responded to, the US requested India to provide full replies to both 
these and the original questions. In relation to AG -IMS ID 99006, the US noted that the information 
requested is required as part of Table DS:1 notification and is necessary to verify if India complied 
with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Sto ckholding for Food Security 
Purposes  (PSH). Paraguay reiterated its earlier comments that the information requested is 
important for Members to properly monitor India's use of the Bali PSH decision and to continue 
agricultural negotiations on this topic, w hich was viewed by India as the most important topic for 
reaching an outcome at MC12. Paraguay encouraged India to contribute to this process and provide 
substantive responses and data as requested.  
AG-IMS ID 99010: Question by Paraguay, United States of America - Domestic food aid  
Follow up on AG -IMS ID 98045.  
 
As requested in the referenced question please provide the following data for G/AG/N/IND/18, 
G/AG/N/IND/19, and G/AG/N/IND/25:  
 
a. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks of products" 
under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 278 - 
 
  b. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…  holding of stocks of products" under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. Breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to  the provision of domestic food aid to sections 
of the population in need" under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
The information being requested once again was not provided by India in its answer to the referenced 
question and it is, as noted in the ori ginal question, not available in the notifications provided by 
India, referenced in this question.  
 
Answer by India  
 
a. to c. The data for public stockholding for food security purposes has been notified in India's DS:1 
notifications for relevant years.  
 
Follow -up: Noting these questions were follow ups to previous questions which were either not 
responded to or only partially responded to, the US requested India to provide full replies to both 
these and the original questions. In relation to AG -IMS ID 99006, the US noted that the information 
requested is required as part of Table DS:1 notification and is necessary to verify if India complied 
with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes  (PSH). Paraguay reiterated its earlier comments that the information requested is 
important for Members to properly monitor India's use of the Bali PSH decision and to continue 
agricultural negotiations on this topic, which was viewed by India as the most importa nt topic for 
reaching an outcome at MC12. Paraguay encouraged India to contribute to this process and provide 
substantive responses and data as requested.  
AG-IMS ID 99007: Question by Paraguay, United States of America - Direct payments: 
decoupled income support  
Follow -up on AG -IMS ID 98072.  
 
In its reply to this question India did not identify all schemes or programmes that fall under 
'decoupled income support' measures. Therefore, we reiterate our request for this information.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Paraguay is requested to refer to India's response to question AG-IMS ID 98072.  
 
Follow -up: Noting these questions were follow ups to previous questions which were either not 
responded to or only partially responded to, the US requested India to provide fu ll replies to both 
these and the original questions. In relation to AG -IMS ID 99006, the US noted that the information 
requested is required as part of Table DS:1 notification and is necessary to verify if India complied 
with the commitments outlined in th e Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security 
Purposes  (PSH). Paraguay reiterated its earlier comments that the information requested is 
important for Members to properly monitor India's use of the Bali PSH decision and to continue 
agricultural negotiations on this topic, which was viewed by India as the most important topic for 
reaching an outcome at MC12. Paraguay encouraged India to contribute to this process and provide 
substantive responses and data as requested.  
AG-IMS ID 99008: Question b y Paraguay, United States of America - Market price support  
Follow -up AG -IMS ID 98059.  
 
In its reply to this question India did not indicate when the relevant final data will be notified. 
Therefore, we reiterate our request for this information.  
 
Answer b y India  
 
As mentioned in the response to question AG-IMS ID 98059, the data for Value of Production is 
provisional in nature and was used, as per the estimates available at the time of preparation of the 
notification. Any significant difference between the  provisional and final data would be considered 
for notification.   
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 279 - 
 
  Follow -up: Noting these questions were follow ups to previous questions which were either not 
responded to or only partially responded to, the US requested India to provide full replies to  both 
these and the original questions. In relation to AG -IMS ID 99006, the US noted that the information 
requested is required as part of Table DS:1 notification and is necessary to verify if India complied 
with the commitments outlined in the Bali Decisi on on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes 
(PSH). Paraguay reiterated its earlier comments that the information requested is important for 
Members to properly monitor India's use of the Bali PSH decision and to continue agricultural 
negotiations on this topic, which was viewed by India as the most important topic for reaching an 
outcome at MC12. Paraguay encouraged india to contribute to this process and provide substantive 
responses and data as requested.  
 
3.2.3.11   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/20 , G/AG/N/NGA/21 ) 
AG-IMS ID 99012: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In notification G/AG/N/NGA/20 for 2019, Nigeria reports green box payments exempt from 
reduction commitments for "domestic food aid", a category that was not included in 
notification G/AG/N/NGA/21 and therefore appears to be a new programme. In light of the 
above, the Nigerian delegation is asked when it plans to submit the corresponding DS:2 
notification.  
b. According to the reported information, the following increases of more  than or close to 
NGN 1 billion have been noted in the following green box categories:  
• Extension and advisory services: from NGN 4,533.5 million to NGN 8,325.15 million.  
• Infrastructural services: from NGN 7,199.3 million to NGN 8,192.7 million.  
 
In each ca se, could Nigeria provide information on the programmes and reasons that have led to 
such significant increases and, where appropriate, which specific goods or sectors have benefited 
from this support?  
 
c. Nigeria has also reported an expenditure increase of NGN  3,692.5  million in subsidies 
granted under Article 6.2. Nigeria is requested to explain the reasons for this significant 
increase, as well as the programmes included and goods benefiting under this item and 
the eligibility criteria for bene ficiary farmers.  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nigeria's efforts in updating Table  DS:1 
notifications and invited Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to no te that Nigeria has been making valuable use of the policy space and the 
flexibilities of the Green Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested inf ormation in future 
notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 99076: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -income 
or resource -poor producers  
In the two notifications Nigeria indicates NGN  895.9 million and NGN  4,588 million in Supporting 
Table DS:2 f or input subsidies.  
 
a. Can Nigeria clarify which types of input subsidies is covered under this heading?  
b. Furthermore, is the increase from 2018 to 2019 due to a change in policy?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nige ria's efforts in updating Table DS:1 
notifications and invited Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to note that Nigeria has been making valuable use of the policy space and the 
flexibilities of the Gre en Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested information in future 
notifications.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 280 - 
 
   
3.2.3.12   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/21 , G/AG/N/NGA/22 ) 
AG-IMS ID 99011: Questi on by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In notification G/AG/N/NGA/21 for 2018, Nigeria reports green box payments exempt from 
reduction commitments for "Other general services - Management of Rural Settlement 
Programmes", a category th at was not included in notification G/AG/N/NGA/22 and 
therefore appears to be a new programme. In light of the above, the Nigerian delegation 
is asked when it plans to submit the corresponding DS:2 notification.  
b. A substantial increase is also noted in the reported green box expenditures between 2017 
and 2018, with a difference of approximately NGN 20 billion. According to the reported 
information, the following increases of more than NGN 1 billion have been noted:  
• Training services: from NGN 2,646.4 million  to NGN 9,474 million ; 
• Extension and advisory services: from NGN 1,036 million to NGN 4,533.5 million ; 
• Marketing and promotion services: from NGN 26,437.4 million to NGN 29,136.7 
million ; 
• Infrastructural services: from NGN 1,844.8 million to NGN 7,199.3 million ; 
• In each case, could Nigeria provide information on the programmes and reasons that 
have led to such significant increases and, where appropriate, which specific goods or 
sectors have benefited from this support?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nigeria's efforts in updating Table DS:1 
notifications and invited Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to note that Nigeria has been making valuable use  of the policy space and the 
flexibilities of the Green Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested information in future 
notifications.  
 
3.2.3.13   Nigeria ( G/AG/N/NGA/22)  
AG-IMS ID 99078: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Nigeria reported the introduction of a significant number of new measures starting 
in year 2017. Canada also notes that neither the name of th e measures, nor the specific descriptions 
of each of the measures were included in Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2.  
 
a. Could Nigeria specify when it intends to submit a DS:2 notification, which would provide 
the necessary justifications for exempting the num erous new programs reported in 
Nigeria's DS:1 notification starting in 2017?  
b. Could Nigeria provide the actual name and descriptions of the measures compiled in its 
notifications from 2017 to 2020?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nigeria's efforts in updating Table DS:1 
notifications and invited Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to note that Nigeria has been making valuable use of the policy space and th e 
flexibilities of the Green Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested information in future 
notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 99013: Question by Paraguay  - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay is pleased to note Nigeria's efforts in submitting its outstanding notifications from 2017 
to 2020. We note that between 1995 and 2016 Nigeria reported that it had not provided any 
domestic support.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 281 - 
 
  In notification G/AG/N/NGA/22 for 2017, Nigeria reports green box payments exempt from reduction 
commitments and pursuant to Article 6.2, assigned to eight different categories. Please could Nigeria 
clarify:  
 
a. What the starting year of these programmes is?  
i. Whether these programmes existed before 2017 and if so, whether the notifications 
for the previous years will be amended?  
ii. Whether Nigeria plans to submit the eight DS:2 notifications for these programmes, if 
the programmes are recent.  
b. What the eligibility criteria are for the support provided under Article 6.2 and what type of 
inputs are granted?  
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nigeria's efforts in updating Table DS:1 
notifications and invited  Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to note that Nigeria has been making valuable use of the policy space and the 
flexibilities of the Green Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested information in future 
notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 99077: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia welcome s Nigeria's DS:1 notifications for calendar year 2017. As we have done on previous 
DS:1 notifications, Australia continues to encourage Nigeria to provide as much information as 
possible in future DS notifications to enable analysis of its agriculture poli cies by Members. In this 
context, Australia requests further details on the types of input subsidies that are provided in the 
support outlined in Supporting Table DS:2.  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the EU and Paraguay welcomed Nigeria's e fforts in updating Table DS:1 
notifications and invited Nigeria to provide responses to the questions as soon as possible. Brazil 
was also pleased to note that Nigeria has been making valuable use of the policy space and the 
flexibilities of the Green Box and encouraged Nigeria to avoid resorting to trade - and production -
distorting policies. Finally, Brazil invited Nigeria to incorporate the requested information in future 
notifications.  
 
3.2.3.14   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 99082: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States understands, based on AG -IMS ID 93196, that the notified value represents 
payments made for any rice sold during the notified calendar year – whether production is from the 
current agri cultural year or a previous agricultural year. This is also noted in AG -IMS ID 92062 where 
the United States understands Panama to state that the eligible production figure represented 
2018 production as well as production from the last few months of 2017.   
 
Further, the United States notes that the same measure as for rice is notified for milk and maize in 
Supporting Table DS:6. It was the United States understanding that all outlays made during the 
given calendar year, for rice, milk, and maize regardless  of when production occurred was the 
notified outlay value. However, in G/AG/N/PAN/58, Panama includes a new footnote only for rice in 
Supporting Table DS:4 stating, "Amount includes support for previous years."  
 
a. Please provide further clarification on wh at the reporting year for notified outlays in 
Supporting Table DS:4 and Supporting Table DS:6 represent and whether there is a 
difference for rice versus other commodities.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 282 - 
 
  b. Please provide further clarification as to what the eligible production listed repr esents 
specifically. For example, does the volume notified in G/AG/N/PAN/58 represent all 
production sold during specific months at the end of 2019 and most/all of 2020?  
Answer by Panama  
AG-IMS ID 99080: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In DS:1 notification 2020, Panama notified an investment subsidies programme under Supporting 
Table DS:2. The programme is described as: "Loans generally available to small -scale producers 
with an annual income not exceeding USD 10 0,000" . 
 
a. Could Panama further explain how "small -scale producers" is defined in the context of this 
subsidy?  
b. Could Panama provide the percentage and number of farmers in Panama with an annual 
income under 100,000 USD?  
Answer by Panama  
AG-IMS ID 99079: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Panama has exceeded its annual domestic support commitment for a fourth 
consecutive year.  
 
Could Panama please provide an update on the steps it is undertaking to bring itself back in to 
compliance with its domestic support commitment?  
 
Answer by Panama  
AG-IMS ID 99081: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
The United States remains concerned regarding Panama's compliance with its domestic support 
commitments , particularly with respect to notified support for rice, which was 2.5 times larger in 
calendar year 2020 than it was in calendar year 2019.  
 
In Panama's response to AG -IMS ID 97141, Panama stated that a commission would review Law  17 
of 2018 in the firs t half of 2021.  
 
Please provide an update on this review and what the findings were.  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
3.2.3.15   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 99021: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
India requests the Russian Federation to provide a resp onse to AG -IMS ID 98022. For convenience, 
the question is repeated, as follows:  
 
According to Russian Federation's DS:1 notification for the Calendar year 2018, two schemes by the 
name "Federal - Agricultural cargoes transportation on preferential terms" and "Sub -federal - 
Agricultural cargoes transportation on preferential terms" have been notified.  
 
Given this, could the Russian Federation elaborate on the following:  
 
a. Which agricultural products are eligible to receive support under t hese programmes?  
b. Are these subsidies also available to exported products?  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 283 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. In 2018, under the Government Resolution No. 1104 meat and edible offal of cattle, 
poultry, horses, asses, mules, meat of swine, sheep, goats, fish and crustaceans, molluscs 
and other aquatic invertebrates, milk and cream, whey, butter and other fats and oils, 
cheese and curd, bird eggs, honey, foodstuffs of plant origin were transported.    
b. Subsidies are provided to ease the transportation of agricult ural products within the 
territory of the Russian Federation in order to connect remote areas, lacking appropriate 
transport infrastructure. The eligibility criteria is a fact of transportation of certain 
agricultural products by the Russian organisations within the territory of the 
Russian  Federation.  
3.2.3.16   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/34)  
AG-IMS ID 99083: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that many of the measures claimed as Green Box by the Russian Federation do not  
include adequate descriptions of the measure(s) or the name of such measure(s). Furthermore, it is 
noted by Canada that, since its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation has yet to submit a 
DS:2 notification to report any new measures or modificatio n of its measures which would justify 
changes in amounts reported over the years.  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation explain when it intends to provide a DS:2 notification to help 
the other delegations understand the programmes included in the broad categories notified 
by the Russian Federation, in addition to providing justification for their exemption?  
b. Please provide a list of all programmes names, description and justification for Green Box 
exclusion for measures aggregated under "Decoupled income support", " Payments for 
relief from natural disasters" and "environmental programmes".  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Follow -up: Canada highlighted the importance to understand how the Russian Federation used 
Annex 2 programmes and if the relevant criteria had been m et.  
AG-IMS ID 99084: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
As with previous years, the Russian Federation did not notify market price support again for 2019.  
 
In AG -IMS ID 95105, the Russian Federation stated it would only notify its  market price support 
when interventions take place.  
 
a. Please provide an update of the announced minimum procurement prices for wheat, 
barley, and any other supported commodities for 2019.  
b. Please confirm the reason for not notifying market price support for  2019 is the lack of 
interventions.  
c. Please explain the criteria used by the Russian Federation to determine when interventions 
will take place.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. The minimum prices for certain grains (VAT included) for the purposes of procurement 
from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 announced by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation were set as follows (rubles per tonne):   
- for first class soft wheat: 10,900 rubles;  
- for second class soft wheat: 9,900 rubles;  
- for third class  soft wheat: 8,900 rubles;  
- for fourth class soft wheat: 7,600 rubles;  
- for fifth class soft wheat: 6,400 rubles;  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 284 - 
 
  - for rye not lower than third class: 5,900 rubles;  
- for barley: 6,500 rubles;  
- for corn not lower than third class: 7,100 rubles.  
 
b. Government in terventions were not carried out in 2019 as well as in 2018 due to the 
market situation.  
c. Government procurement interventions are carried out when prices for agricultural 
products are below the minimum calculated prices, while government commodity 
(purchas ing) interventions are carried out when prices for agricultural products are above 
the maximum calculated prices. These price levels for interventions are set annually by 
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, taking into account the averag e 
monthly producer prices in the previous year.  
3.2.3.17   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/202)  
AG-IMS ID 99062: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters  
In 2017, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu r eported an 
expenditure of 184.78 TWD million under "relief from natural disasters" paragraph 8, Annex 2 for a 
programme which provides an interest subsidy.  
 
a. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu indicate what 
percentage o f loss of production is needed to occur in order for a producer to be eligible 
for the special loans?  
b. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu provide more 
information on the eligibility criteria of the programme?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation would like to thank Canada for the question. Our response is as follows:  
 
The main purpose of the low -interest natural -disaster recovery loan is to help the affected farmers 
and fishermen to recover from the natural disaster. Rather than stipulating the percentage of loss, 
the Council of Agriculture announces the disaster areas and damaged items depending on the loss 
extent of agricultural production after disaster assessment. Farmers and fishermen suffering from 
the disaster c an apply for the loan with the disaster certificate and the agricultural natural disaster 
restoration and re -cultivation plan. Credit departments of Farmers' and Fishermen's Associations will 
review the submission and release the low -interest loan that mee ts the needs of the applicants.  
 
Follow -up: Canada sought further information from Chinese Taipei to confirm if the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 relating to the percentage of loss of production had been met. Chinese Taipei 
reiterated its response that rather than stipulating the percentage of loss, the Council of Agriculture 
declares the disaster areas and damaged items depending on the extent of loss of agricultural 
production after disaster assessment.  
AG-IMS ID 99061: Question by Austra lia - De minimis  
Australia thanks Chinese Taipei for submitting its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2017. Australia 
notes that Chinese Taipei has provided product -specific domestic support for a number of products 
in excess of product -specific de minimis  commitments, but within its Total AMS commitment level. 
For three of these products, domestic support has reached more than 50% of the value of 
production:  
 
- Feed corn – 99.34%;  
- Soybean – 80.67%;  
- Tobacco leaves – 64.01%.  
 
Can Chinese Taipei please o utline any measures implemented to try to reduce the reliance on 
product -specific domestic support of these three products?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 285 - 
 
  Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation would like to thank Australia for the questions. Our response is as follows:  
 
a. In order to e nsure national food security, reduce the area of paddy cultivation and 
revitalize farmlands, Chinese Taipei adopts strategies such as production clusters, contract 
farming and distribution, processing integration, market -oriented promotion, and food and 
agriculture education. These policies are aimed at rebuilding the domestic grain supply 
chain and producing domestic grain crops that are quality, safe, diversified, and import 
substitutional. The measures taken on soybeans and feed corns are based on the 
government policy and resources. By now, there is no intention to amend such a policy.  
b. Tobacco farmers have been guided to convert their cultivation from tobacco to other cash 
crops. Incentives and subsidies for tobacco farmers to plant tobacco are no longer  
provided.  
3.2.3.18   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/150)  
AG-IMS ID 99085: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to thank the US for uploading its answer to Australia's question AG -IMS ID  98189 
on the Market Fac ilitation Program (MFP) notified in G/AG/N/USA/150. Australia thanks the US for 
the additional information provided on the MFP.  
 
In addition to product -specific support under the MFP, Australia notes the US reported in 
G/AG/N/USA/150 USD 5.19 billion of no n-product specific support under the MFP for non -specialty 
crops in Supporting Table DS:9. This was not counted towards the US' current total AMS, since the 
total non -product specific support fell below the US' de minimis  limit. In this context, Australia would 
like to seek the following additional information:  
 
a. could the US explain why the MFP support in Supporting Table DS:9 was not reported 
against specific products in Supporting Table DS:6?  
b. Could the US explain the change to the US notified current total AMS if this 
USD 5.19 billion was reported under product -specific support?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Support to all commodities provided under the 2018 MFP is notified in Supporting 
Table DS:6. Support to hogs, milk, sweet fresh cherries, ginseng, table grapes, and 
cranberries provided under the 2019 MFP is notified in Supporting Table DS:6. Support to 
non-specialty crops under the 2019 MFP is notified in Supporting Table DS:9 because it is 
not product -specific support. Producers received payments based on total acreage of 
eligible commodities at a single, per acre rate.  
b. The United States does not re -estimate the Current Total AMS based on hypothetical 
alternative notification of progr ams. US domestic support is notified consistent with the 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
Follow -up: Brazil supported the question.  
AG-IMS ID 99086: Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Regarding AG -IMS ID 98178 "W ith the change of notifying period, why National Institute for Food 
and Agriculture (NIFA) Biomass Research and Development is reduced from USD 11 million in 
G/AG/N/USA/135 to USD 1 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1? And why WHIP in Green Box is 
reduced from  USD 152 million in G/AG/N/USA/135 to USD 1 million in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1"?  
 
The US answered that "The data notified for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture  (NIFA) 
in G/AG/N/USA/135 covers the 12 -month period from 1 September 2017 to 31 Augus t 2018. The 
data notified for the NIFA in G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 covers the 12 -month period from 
1 October  2017 to 30 September 2018. The data notified for WHIP in G/AG/N/USA/135 covers the G/AG/W/218  
 
- 286 - 
 
  12-month period from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2018. The data no tified for WHIP in 
G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1 covers the 12 -month period from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018".  
 
Does it mean that a lion's share of the NIFA and WHIP payments were made in September 2017? 
Please further explain how and when the payments were  made.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States thanks China for identifying an error in the US response in AG -IMS ID 98178. 
While the header to Supporting Table DS:1 in G/AG/N/USA/135 indicates that the reporting period 
was 1 September 2017 to 30 August 2018, the data in Supporting Table DS:1 in G/AG/N/USA/135, 
unless otherwise indicated, covered F iscal Year 2017 (1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017) as 
referenced in the general notes. Therefore, the data notified for the National Institute for Food and 
Agriculture (NIFA) in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/USA/135 covered Fiscal Year 2017. The data 
in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, as explained in the cover note, covers Fiscal 
Year 2018 (1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018). There is no overlap in the data between the 
original and revised notification.  
 
For WHIP, the data in G/AG/N/US A/135 was notified on a crop year basis for the 2017/18 crop year 
(generally a 12 -month period during 2017 to 2018 but given the broad range of commodities covered 
by WHIP, the crop year differs by crop). Crop year data reflect payments associated with a c rop 
year, not the period of time in which the payment was made. In G/AG/N/135/Rev.1, data for WHIP 
was notified on a fiscal year basis (the 12 -month period from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018) 
and reflects actual outlays during that period. A small am ount of WHIP payments associated with 
the 2017/18 crop year was paid in Fiscal Year 2018, given that the program was not operational 
until 18 July 2018.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil supported the question.  
AG-IMS ID 99088: Question by China - Transparency issues (i ncluding Table DS:2)  
According to USDA, the US Government will be providing USD 1 billion to producers who filed claims 
through the Quality Loss Adjustment (QLA) programme and the Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus 
(WHIP+) starting 15 June 2021. These progra mmes were originally set up for producers who 
experienced losses in 2018 and 2019 natural disasters but will continue to provide funds for future 
weather -related losses. For eligible crop losses, producers who applied for and received their first 
WHIP+ pay ment can expect to receive the additional second payment beginning in mid -June. Could 
the US please provide more information on how the second WHIP+ payment will be made? For 
producers who received first WHIP+ payment, how the additional second payment wil l be calculated? 
And considering the payment is based on losses in 2018 and 2019, will the second payment be 
notified in 2018, 2019 or 2021?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) and the Quality Los s Adjustment  (QLA) 
Program provide assistance for losses due to specified natural disasters occurring in calendar 
years  2018 and 2019. They do not provide funds for future weather -related losses.  
 
Producers received an initial WHIP+ payment for 2019 crop losses equal to 50% of the calculated 
WHIP+ payment. The second payment, issued beginning 15 June 2021, was equal to 40% of the 
calculated WHIP+ payment. Thus, summing the first and second payments,  producers received a 
total of 90% of the calculated WHIP+ program payment.  
 
As noted in G/AG/N/USA/150, all standing and ad hoc  disaster and emergency relief programs are 
notified on a fiscal year basis that aligns with the marketing year of the notificat ion. WHIP+ and 
QLA payments made in fiscal year 2021 will be notified in the 2020/21 US DS:1 notification.  
 
Follow -up: China asked the US to explain why total payments were notified separately in two 
different years given that US farmers had already been i nformed in 2019 that they would receive 
90% of the payment if they suffer losses and thus the US Government had the exact information on 
total payments at that time. The US said it would consult its technical experts but a preliminary 
answer was that notif ying in fiscal year could provide the relevant information on an accurate basis 
and in an accelerated manner. Brazil supported the question.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 287 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 99087: Question by China - Classification of measures  
Please further explain why WHIP+ is notified as no n-product specific, since each payment made to 
the farmer is calculated based on expected value and actual harvested value of each crop. Previously, 
the US replied that "crop -specific data on outlays are not available". Is it because each farmer applies 
for the payment based on collective crop values of the whole farm?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
As explained in the note to G/AG/N/USA/135/Rev.1, payments under WHIP to producers with 
non-insured crop assistance program (NAP) or federal crop insuranc e coverage are notified as 
nonproduct -specific support for two reasons: 1) crop -specific data on outlays are not available and 
previous product -specific estimates were determined to not be sufficiently accurate for use in the 
notification, and 2) the progr am is appropriately notified in STDS:9 because it covers a broad range 
of commodities and does not specify crop -specific payment rates. The same approach is taken for 
payments to these producers under WHIP+, which was structured similarly to WHIP. WHIP and  
WHIP+ payments to a producer were aggregated in order to apply payment limits and other eligibility 
requirements, and crop -specific data are not available.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil supported the question.  
 
3.2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measures  (Table DS:2)  
3.2.4.1   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/4)  
AG-IMS ID 99089: Question by Brazil - Classification of measures  
Follow -up to AG -IMS ID 98193:  
 
Brazil thanks the United Kingdom for answering question AG -IMS ID  98193, however Brazil 
respectfully disagrees with the inte rpretation and application of Article 6.5 of the AoA made by 
the UK. 
 
Brazil has circulated document JOB/AG/196 (Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture In 
Perspective) and acknowledges that there are escape valves in Article 6.5, yet the UK's interpre tation 
would create a loophole in the AoA architecture which, in Brazil's view, may jeopardize the 
agreement's domestic support discipline logics of capping trade -distorting domestic support.  
 
Should this interpretation be consolidated among the Membership , nothing would prevent any 
Member from establishing any production -target and argue that it is not subject to the commitment 
to cap domestic support because it is based on fixed area, however large or even implausible. In 
practice, there would be no limit  to subsidization.  Through the UK's explanation, Brazil infers that 
the UK does not seek to unlimitedly increase its production. Nonetheless, this does not change the 
fact that, in Brazil's view, the programme does not meet Article 6.5 rationale, objective s and criteria.  
 
Therefore, Brazil asks the UK whether it would consider notifying "Coupled Support for Protein Crops" 
in the Amber Box.  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
Article 6.5. a (i) of the Agreement on Agriculture allows payments to qualify as Blue Box if such 
payments are based on fixed area and yields. The UK therefore confirms that in its view the "Coupled 
Support for Protein Crops" programme has been correctly notified as Blue Box. The UK would like to 
provide reassurance that this scheme will not re sult in a significant increase in the production of 
protein crops in the UK. The scheme is limited to 1,000  ha, while the area of protein crops grown in 
the UK in 2020 was 233,000  ha as per the UK Agricultural Census 2020.  
 
The UK is grateful to Brazil for  the information and analysis provided in JOB/AG/196 and the UK is 
committed to ongoing discussions around this and other aspects of criteria clarification in domestic 
support at the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil noted tha t this question reinforced the conclusion in its submission JOB/AG/196 to 
the special session of the Committee that the criteria for Blue Box programmes as outlined in G/AG/W/218  
 
- 288 - 
 
  Article  6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture need further clarification. Australia echoed  Brazil's 
comments. The US flagged interest in the question.  
 
3.2.4.2   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/5)  
AG-IMS ID 99091: Question by Turkey - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Turkey appreciates the United Kingdom providing information on new or modified dom estic support 
measures exempt from reduction.  
 
a. Can United Kingdom explain how "Protected Landscapes" is identified in the Farming in 
the Protected Landscape Programme?  
b. Can United Kingdom explain the criteria for being a "young farmer" in the Annual Defra 
Grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs 2021/22?  
c. On the "Future Farming and Countryside Programme Tree Health Pilot" measure, it is said 
that "Eligibility for payments will be restricted to specific criteria, notably the presence of 
specific  tree pests and diseases."  
Can United Kingdom give details about this specific criteria?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
a. For the purposes of 'The Farming in the Protected Landscape Programme' eligible farms 
are categorised as those located within the boundaries  of the designated 10 National Parks 
(including the Broads) and 34 Areas of Outstanding National Beauty (AONBs).  
These landscapes are designated for their natural beauty and/or distinctive character and cover 
around 26% of England, or 31,722  km2. Both Nati onal Parks and AONBs have legal designation with 
clearly defined boundaries.  
 
The statutory purpose of National Parks is to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and 
cultural heritage and promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoy ment of the 
special qualities of the Park.  
 
The statutory purpose of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty is restricted to conserving and 
enhancing natural beauty.  
 
The purposes, powers, boundaries and constitution of protected areas is set out in legislation. The 
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides grant funding each year to support 
the delivery of their statutory purposes.  
 
Further informati on on the National Parks and AONBs can be found on the following websites : 
 
- National Parks England: https://www.nationalparksengland.org.uk/  
- National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty: 
https://landscapesforlife.org.uk/   
- And further information on the specific programme can also be found on the gov.uk website; 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/funding -for-farmers -in-protected -landscapes  
 
b. Regarding the second part of Turkey's question, the National Federation of Young Farmers 
Clubs coordinates the ac tivities of 593 Young Farmers Clubs with 19,000 members aged 
between 10 to 28. It is one of the largest rural youth organisations in the UK. The grant 
will help the clubs run activities that will help their members develop skills, work with local 
communiti es and promote their social life in somewhat isolated rural communities. There 
are no specific criteria except the above age range and link to rural communities.  
c. Regarding the third part of Turkey's question this scheme is a tree health pilot being run 
by the Forestry Commission to prepare for a new Tree Health Scheme in development that 
will tackle tree pests and diseases and improve the capacity of our trees to adapt to G/AG/W/218  
 
- 289 - 
 
  changing environmental pressures. It will replace the current Countryside Stewardship 
woodland tree health grants that end in 2024.  
The Tree Health Pilot's objective is to test and refine new elements of the future Tree Health Scheme 
ahead of its launch in 2024. The aim is to tackle tree pests and diseases with novel approaches to 
reduce d isruptions and costs and as such we are testing group application, where a lead facilitator 
brings land -owners or managers together to collaboratively deal with tree health issues.  
 
It will be very small scale allowing only 100 applications.  
 
Eligibility  for the pilot will be limited to the following specific locations:  
 
1. The North -West of England, primarily targeting the Arnside and Silverdale Area of 
Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Lake District National Park.  
2. The West -Midlands, primarily targeting th e Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 
and Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  
3. The South -East and London: primarily targeting Kent and East Sussex.  
 
To be eligible for the pilot, applicants need to have an eligible tree pest o r disease confirmed by the 
Forestry Commission. Among the incentives being tested through the Pilot, support will be available 
for diseased and infested trees outside of woodland, for the following specific tree species and pests 
& diseases chosen as they fit the pilots aims:  
 
1. Larch ( Larix decidua ) with Phytophthora  ramorum  
2. Sweet Chestnut ( Castanea  sativa ) with Phytophthora  ramorum  or Sweet Chestnut Blight 
(Cryphonectria  parasitica ). 
3. Spruce ( Pisea) in areas with Ips typographus  (Spruce Bark Beetle).  
4. Ash ( Fraxinus  excelsior ) with Ash Dieback (caused by Hymenoscyphus  fraxineus ). 
 
AG-IMS ID 99090: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Thailand thanks UK for the submission of notification co ncerns new or modified domestic support 
measures exempt from reduction. Thailand notes the "Farming in Protected Landscapes Programme" 
which is classified as Green Box. The notification mentioned that the programme aligned with specific 
criteria of Paragra ph 12 (Payments under environmental programmes) of Annex 2 under the AoA.  
 
Could the UK provide more information in this regard, such as the criteria for projects that are 
eligible for environmental programmes, the expected amount of total support under en vironmental 
programmes, how the programs operate, and the payment system for each project?  
 
Answer by United Kingdom  
 
Farmers and land managers working within and around the boundaries of a legally designated 
Protected Landscape (either a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) will be able to 
apply for grant funding though an application process with their r espective Protected Landscape 
organisation.  
 
Each project must:  
 
Connect to the particular Protected Landscapes management plans;  
Deliver against at least one of the following outcomes under four key themes below:  
Climate; namely, issues such as carbon  storage or sequestration, reduced flood risk, better 
understanding amongst farmers and the public of how habitat management can deliver on carbon 
storage and reduced carbon emission goals, and making the landscape more resilient to climate 
change.  
Nature ; such as managing habitat for greater biodiversity and greater connectivity between habitats  
People; this includes more opportunities for people and diverse audiences to explore, enjoy and 
understand the landscape and greater public engagement in land ma nagement (e.g., volunteering).  
Place; meaning that it reinforces or enhances the quality and character of the landscape, conserving 
or enhancing historic structures and features with more effective interpretation, increasing the 
resilience of nature frien dly farming businesses helping local economies.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 290 - 
 
  The Farming in Protected Landscapes' scheme is a 3 -year programme with forecast expenditure of 
GBP 22.5 million in year 1 and similar amounts in years 2 and 3 resulting in a total expenditure of 
around GBP 67.5 million.  
 
Farmers and landowners whose businesses are located within the Protected Landscape boundaries 
are eligible to submit applications which will be assessed on the above criteria. The scheme will 
replace those parts of the previously notified Co untryside Stewardship Scheme that supported the 
equivalent activities.  
 
The payments use equivalent existing agri -environment scheme payment rates i.e. the same where 
they exist for the same activity. Where they do not exist, items are provided on an actu al cost basis 
and three quotes are required following Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs financial 
controls. In both cases, payments are limited to the cost of complying with the government 
programme.  
 
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides a grant to the National Park and 
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty bodies. These bodies then enter into an agreement with the 
farmer who are paid from that grant on completion of the work. P ayments are made in arrears.  
 
More information can be found about the previous notifications for the existing Countryside 
Stewardship Scheme, for which some elements will be replaced in this scheme, on the gov.uk 
website : https://www.gov.uk/countryside -stewardship -grants .  
 
3.2.5   Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
3.2.5.1   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/127)  
AG-IMS ID 99092: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada notes that New Zeala nd did not report any amount in year 2019/2020 or 2020/2021 related 
the $372 million International Air Freight Capacity (IAFC) scheme that provides government 
assistance to reduce airfreight costs for the export for agricultural goods.  
 
a. Could New Zealand e xplain why no amount related to this programme was reported either 
in 2019/2020 or 2020/2021?  
b. Please explain why New Zealand doesn't believe that a programme, contingent on exports, 
which subsidize airfreight costs for the export of agricultural goods is n ot an export 
subsidy?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
The IAFC was a limited and temporary scheme to support maintenance of New Zealand's essential 
air services. The IAFC ended on 30 April 2021 with the Maintaining Air Connectivity Scheme 
established from 1 May 202 1. The IAFC scheme supported air carriers to continue to provide New 
Zealand with vital air connectivity during the exceptional circumstances of the COVID -19 public 
health pandemic. The IAFC did not provide funding to any specific sectors, including the ag riculture 
sector. The scheme was reported as a 'Policy Development in Trade in Services' on the WTO's tracker 
of 'Measures Taken Specifically in the Context of the COVID -19 Pandemic.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the EU called on all Members to respect the Nairo bi Ministerial Decision to 
eliminate export subsidies. New Zealand reaffirmed its commitment to the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision and explained further the reason for the IAFC scheme. New Zealand noted that pre -
COVID -19 transport of goods were mainly carrie d by passenger flights which were severely reduced 
by travel restrictions during the pandemic. Those flights focused primarily on connectivity including 
with small pacific islands around New Zealand for which New Zealand has responsibilities. Under 
the IAFC scheme, the government temporarily resumed some air services to continue to provide 
New Zealand with vital air connectivity.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 291 - 
 
  3.2.5.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/117)  
AG-IMS ID 99093: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada notes that Norway submitted the last n otification which covers its remaining export subsidy 
commitment under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  
 
Could Norway confirm that it has eliminated all remaining export subsidies as of 31  December  2020?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway confirms to have eliminated all export subsidies as of 31 December 2020. We are looking 
forward to other members confirming the same as soon as possible.  
 
3.2.5.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/151)  
AG-IMS ID 99022: Question by India - International f ood aid  
India thanks the United States of America for its ES:3 notification for the year  2019/20 
(G/AG/N/USA/151). India notices that for products "Rice" and "Oil Cakes", the quantity of food aid 
has increased from 81,940 tonnes to 114,100 tonnes for Rice and for Oil Cakes quantity of food aid 
increased from 49,290 tonnes to 84,030 tonnes in comparison to ES:3 notification for the year 
2018/19 (G/AG/N/USA/138). India would like to seek information on the following:  
 
a. Who all are the recipient members of the food aid for these products?  
b. How does the USA ensure that physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on the 
recipient Members' agricultural industries, nor on their region's production and commercial 
markets of either like -products or substitute prod ucts? 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Recipients of rice as food aid in Fiscal Year 2020 include: Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Haiti, 
Madagascar, Niger, and the Republic of Congo. Recipients of oil cakes as food aid in Fiscal 
Year 2020 include: Cambodia, Ghana, and Indonesia.  
b. The US Government works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to 
analyze markets and choose agricultural products that will not disr upt local production, 
prices, local markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed US food aid 
program in a recipient country, the US Government must make a positive "Bellmon 
Determination." The local and regional market analysis informi ng the Bellmon 
Determination takes into consideration quantitative and qualitative market data, timing of 
harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the country, suitability of commodity, 
and potential policy issues.  
Follow -up: Brazil welcomed the question and took the opportunity to stress that food aid should not 
be used to dump surplus of subsidized production or excessive government procurements in third 
markets. Brazil recalled the objective of preventing or minimizing commercial displacement a nd the 
obligation of not circumventing export subsidy commitments. The EU supported Brazil's intervention.  
 
3.3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.3.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 99004: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification from China covers marketing year 2016. When do es China intend to 
submit notifications for the following years.  
 
Answer by China  
 
China will submit its notifications for the following years later this year or early next.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 292 - 
 
   
Follow -up: The EU reminded Members of their responsibilities to submit updated notifications and 
ensure transparency at the Committee.  
 
3.3.2   United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 99023: Question by India  
India thanks the United States for providing a response to AG -IMS ID  98023. The USA mentioned 
that they are currently drafting their DS:1 notification for the year 2019 -20. India would like to 
request the USA to provide the expected timeline when all these pending notifications will be issued.  
 
Answer by United States of A merica  
 
The United States has submitted its DS:1 notification for marketing year 2019/20 to the WTO.  
 
3.4  EXPORT COMPETITION  
3.4.1   Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 99035: Question by Canada  
Secretariat Note (G/AG/W/125/Rev.14) Could Brazil provide the Committee with an update on wh en 
it will submit its modified draft export subsidies schedule?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
According to Brazil's national legal system, the rectification of Part IV, Section II of its Schedule of 
Concessions requires the issuing of a Presidential Decree that inter nalizes the Nairobi Decision. 
Therefore, the rectification of the Schedule of Concessions will be circulated as soon as the 
Presidential Decree is issued. Brazil does not provide export subsidies for agricultural products, 
hence Brazil is in fulfilment  of its obligations pursuant to the 2015 Ministerial Conference.  
 
Follow -up: Canada, India and Ukraine urged Brazil to submit modified export subsidies schedule.  
 
3.4.2   Canada  
AG-IMS ID 99032: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 87045 Canada stated "Foreign Exchange Guarantee (FXG) - For the Export 
Development Corporation (EDC) the FXG is a working capital solution and as such Canada did not 
include it in the responses to the questionnaire given that the Nairobi Decision exc ludes working 
capital products from the definition of export credits." However, EDC's website 
(https://www.edc.ca/en/solutions/working -capital/foreign -exchange -facility -guarantee.html ) 
implies that FXG is a foreign exchange hedging instrument. Given the EDC's website 
characterization, please further clarify why Canada does not consider that FXG is a foreign exchange 
hedging instrument.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The Foreign Exchange Facility Guarantee is a working capital product untied to any specific export 
contracts because the guarantee replaces the collateral required to setup a foreign exchange hedging 
facility with a foreign exchange contract provid er. It enhances EDC's customer's liquidity; however, 
it does not manage foreign exchange risk. This is why it is not considered a foreign exchange hedging 
instrument and why EDC does not categorize this product as export credit support or an export 
credit guarantee program.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 293 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 99034: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
 
For all past notified years, please provide a product breakdown of programme use for the following 
agricultural product categories:  
 
"Commodities - Grain, Specialty Cr ops" and "Processor/Elevator -Grain, Specialty Crops", such as for 
barley, canola, corn, pulses, soy, and wheat; and  
"Food/Processed Food and Beverages", such as for butter, skim milk powder, cheese, and other milk 
products.  
 
Answer by Canada  
Sum of Busine ss Facilitated – Currency: Million/CAD  
 2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  
Commodities -Grain, Specialty Crops  670 1,862  2,634  2,050  1,850  2,046  2,523  
ARI 670 1,861  2,630  2,046  1,842  2,038  2,518  
eSCI 0.64 1 3.4 4 7 8 4.5 
Food/Processed Food and Beverages  869 995 852 797 671 758 1,411  
ARI 868 992 847 790 662 753 1,399  
eSCI 0.72 3 4.4 7 8.2 5.3 12 
Processor/Elevator -Grain, Specialty Crops  1,614  469 611 475 434 365 278 
ARI 1,614  469 611 475 434 365 277 
eSCI   0.10 0.06 0.1 0.13 0 0.47 
 
3.4.3   China  
AG-IMS ID 99036: Question by Canada  
Export financing (G/AG/W/125/Rev.14/Add2)  
 
Canada notes that the description of role of the China Agriculture Development Bank in addition to 
agricultural policy finance includes "promoting agriculture and rural de velopment". Could China 
elaborate on how the China Agriculture Development Bank promotes agriculture and are these 
activities related to production?  
 
Answer by China  
 
Agricultural Development Bank of China supports the export of agricultural products by pr oviding 
domestic customers with general commercial credit products such as export negotiation, export 
discount, export invoice financing and export credit insurance financing. The bank does not provide 
preferential export financial services specifically fo r agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 99037: Question by European Union  
In document G/AG/W/125/Rev.14/Add.2, China indicates in its answer to the third question of the 
questionnaire that when it comes to short -term credit insurance of Sinosure, agricultural products 
are not specified in the projects. Hence no amount of export of agricultural products covered by 
short-term credit insurance of Sinosure is provided in the answer to the question. However, in 
China's answer to the fourth question of the questionnaire it is s tated that under short -term credit 
insurance of Sinosure the underwriting amount for agricultural exports were USD 15.18 billion  
in 2019 and USD 12.23 billion in 2020 respectively.  
 
How should this seemingly contradictory information be interpreted?  
 
Answe r by China  
 
The short -term credit insurance program that China provides may cover any products but does not 
link to any specific agricultural products. Where projects related to agricultural products are 
qualified, applications may be made for such short-term credit insurance programs. The reply to 
Question 4 in the questionnaire contains the data of 2019 and 2020 of the total export value for the 
agricultural projects that use the short -term credit insurance programs.  G/AG/W/218  
 
- 294 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 99031: Question by Un ited States of America  
The United States notes China reported in questions 3 and 4 of the ECQ that SINOSURE offers short 
term credit insurance for agricultural exports. The United States seeks further clarity with regards 
to these responses.  
 
In response to question 3 China states "Short -term credit insurance of Sinosure: it does not specify 
agricultural products for its projects".  
 
a. Please clarify if this is part of why China responded "Nil" to question 8 "Programme use by 
product or product group".  
In response to question 4, China states "Under short -term credit insurance of Sinosure: in 2019, the 
underwriting amount for agricultural exports was USD 15.18 billion, and the underwriting premium 
was USD 38.009 million, with an average rate of 0.25%. The 2020  figures are USD 12.23 billion, 
USD 382.29 billion and 0.31%".  
 
b. Please confirm the underwriting amounts of USD  15.18  billion for 2019 and 
USD 12.23  billion for 2020 represent the total value of export of agricultural products 
covered by Sinosure's short -term credit insurance.  
Answer by China  
 
With respect to questions 3 and 4 of the ECQ, the short -term credit insurance program that China 
provides may cover any products but does not link to any specific agricultural products. Where 
projects related to agricultural products are qualified, applications may be made for such short -term 
credit insurance programs. The reply to question 4 in the questionnaire contains the data of 2019 
and 2020 of the total export value for the agricultural projects that use the short -term credit 
insurance programs.  
 
With respect to question 4, in 2019, the underwriting amount for agricultural exports is 
USD 15.18  billion, and t he underwriting premium is USD 38.009 million, with an average rate 
of 0.25%. The 2020 figures are USD 12.23 billion, USD 38.229 million and 0.31% respectively.  
AG-IMS ID 99038: Question by United States of America  
Please confirm the maximum repayment ter ms for Export -Import Bank of China's export financing 
programmes.  
 
Answer by China  
 
The maximum credit period is 270 days.  
 
3.4.4   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 99039: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits – Italy 
 
The United States notes Italy reported in the ECQ that SACE SpA – Italian Export Credit Agency 
offers supplier credit for agricultural products for 2020. Please provide total value by agricultural 
commodity groups under SACE SpA's supplier credit programme  for 2020.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The total value by agricultural commodity is provided in the table below:  
 
Groups of  products  Euro/000  
Wine 1,365  
Agricultural products  850.2  
Vegetable drinks and coffee  210 
Pet food and fertilizers  320 
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 295 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 99040: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits - Spain  
 
The United States thanks Spain for the transparency provided in responding to the ECQ by 
providing  2020 data for the credit insurance programme offered for agricultural products  by the 
Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO). Please provide the annual average premium rate and value by 
agricultural commodity groups for 2020 under ICO's credit insurance programme.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
There are no flat prices for these transactions. As we already mentioned in point 4 of Spain's entry 
in the EU Annual Submission to the WTO on Export Competition document, premium rates in general 
depend on different factors (rating of the destination country, risk profile of foreign buyer,  amount 
of the guarantee, due date of deferred payments) and are negotiated with individual exporter 
according to insurance cover provided.  
 
In this case, most of the transactions involve our Irrevocable Letters of Credit Confirmation scheme 
where the risk  falls under the issuing bank and not under the debtor.  
 
The Premium rates for this modality range between 0.28% and 1,21%.  
 
Follow -up: The US noted that the EU's response did not include data by agricultural commodity 
group. The EU responded that such fig ures were not available yet.  
AG-IMS ID 99041: Question by United States of America  
International Food Aid  
 
The United States notes the European Union response does not include information for Denmark, 
which is a signatory to the Food Assistance Convention (FAC).  
 
Please provide Denmark's food aid data.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
Product Description: N/A (No in -kind aid)  
 
Quantity and/or value of food aid provided: USD 52,351,200 . 
 
Description of whether food aid is provided on in -kind, untied ca sh-based basis and whether 
monetisation was permitted: Untied cash basis, monetisation not permitted.  
 
Description of whether in fully grant form or concessional terms: Full grant.  
 
Description of relevant needs assessment (and by whom) and whether food ai d is responding to a 
declaration of emergency or an emergency appeal (and by whom): Food Aid is responding both to 
declarations of emergency and to appeals by both international organisations and UN system. Needs 
assessments in the form of HRPs, WFP assess ments, IPC global platform.  
 
Description of whether re -export of food aid is an option under the terms of the provision of food 
aid: It is not.  
 
3.4.5   India  
AG-IMS ID 99042: Question by Canada  
Export financing (G/AG/W/125/Rev. 14/Add2)  
 
India indicates that under the "credit risk insurance cover" that in addition to exports of cotton that 
"other agricultural and allied products" benefited from this programme. Could India provide more 
informatio n on the agricultural products covered?  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 296 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
The agricultural products include cashew, coffee, dairy and poultry products, spices, tea, etc.  
AG-IMS ID 99044: Question by European Union  
a. For clarity, does the total value of exports of agricultur al products subject to the Export 
Credit Guarantee Corporation of India's Credit Risk Insurance cover in 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.14/Add.2 present the combined value for both calendar year 2019 
and 2020?  
b. Could India please provide the values for 2019 and 2020 separa tely? 
Answer by India  
 
In the document G/AG/W/125/Rev. 14/Add. 2, information has been provided for financial year 
period 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 99043: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
 
The United States appreciate s India's transparency and first -time response to the ECQ, which is an 
important contribution in making the dialogue on export financing substantive in the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
 
The United States notes India reported in the ECQ under ECGC's Credit Ris k Insurance cover 
program, a total value of over $4.07 billion in "Cotton, other Agriculture and allied products."  
 
Please provide a product breakdown of the "cotton, other Agriculture and allied products."  
If unable to provide data by product, please ex plain why such information cannot be provided and 
identify, which products are included in "other Agriculture and allied products."  
 
Answer by India  
 
a. and b . Refer to response provided to question AG -IMS ID 99042.  
AG-IMS ID 99045: Question by United States of America  
International Food Aid  
 
The United States notes India reported in the ECQ that it provided food aid to the Republic of Korea 
1,585  MT of wheat.  
 
Please clarify whether the food aid was for the Republi c of Korea, including more details on the 
relevant needs assessment (and by whom) and whether food aid is responding to a declaration of 
emergency or an emergency appeal (and by whom).  
 
Answer by India  
 
The information required by the ECQ as per the Nairob i Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition  (2015) has already been provided in India's response to the ECQ vide document number 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.14/Add.3.  
 
3.4.6   Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 99046: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
 
The United  States notes the Russian Federation did not provide, as it was the case in previous years, 
the "annual average premium rates/fees per programme" for EXIAR and REB.  
 
Please provide the annual average premium rates for EXIAR and REB.  
 G/AG/W/218  
 
- 297 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Fed eration  
 
In 2020 annual average premium rates were:  
 
JSC Russian Agency for Export Credit and Investment Insurance [EXIAR]: 2.06%.  
JSC Eximbank of Russia [REB]: 7.9%.  
AG-IMS ID 99047: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
 
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID s 92032 and 95138, please provide an update on the operational status 
of REC's export financing interest rate support programme for agricultural products.  
 
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The Russian Export Center Group [REC Group] is a state export  support institution, which provides 
both financial and non -financial export support both to agricultural and non -agricultural value -added 
products. REC Group incorporates three  legal entities: JSC Russian export center, JSC EXIAR and 
JSC Eximbank of Russi a. 
 
- JSC Russian Export Center [REC] provides non -financial support, including foreign market 
analysis, promotion in the foreign markets, international patenting and certification, customs 
administration of exports. REC operates in accordance with the Feder al Law No. 164 -FZ of 
8 December 2003 "On the Basics of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", the 
Government Resolution No.  71 of 5  February 2016 "On the Approval of the Rules of Export 
Support Activity and the Interaction with Federal Executive Bodi es and Rosatom State 
Nuclear Energy Corporation for the Joint -Stock Company Russian Export Center", the 
provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law No. 208 -FZ of 
26 December 1995 "On Joint -Stock Companies", the Federal Law No.  39-FZ of 22  April 1996 
"About the Security Market".  
 
- JSC Russian Agency for Export Credit and Investment Insurance [EXIAR] provides official 
support for export credits in the form of pure insurance cover. EXIAR operates under 
Government Resolution No.  964 o f 22 November 2011 (amended on 26 February 2021).  
 
- JSC Eximbank of Russia [REB] provides lending support towards exports. REB operates 
under the Government Resolution No. 16 of 11 January 1994 "On the Import -Export Bank 
of Russia" (amended on 26  June 2000) , Federal Law No. 395 -1 of 2  December  1990 
(amended on 30 December 2020), Federal Law No. 208 -FZ of 26  December  1995 (amended 
on 27  December  2018).  
 
3.4.7   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 99033: Question by Canada  
Secretariat Note (G/AG/W/125/Rev.14)  
 
Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provide the Committee with an update on when it will 
submit its modified draft export subsidies schedule?  
 
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
 
Follow -up: Emphasizing the importance of Members complying  with the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition  (EC), Ukraine urged Venezuela to modify its export subsidies schedule and respond to 
the EC questionnaire.  
 
 
__________