G/AG/W/ 210 
 
18 March 2021  
(21-2298) Page: 1/56 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 29 -30 MARCH 20211 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
15 March  2021 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/49.  
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ..........................  7 
1.1   Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
1.1.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97002)  ................................ .............  7 
1.2   Canada - farm gate milk prices (SIM 661)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.2.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97003)  ................................ .............  7 
1.3   Canada - Bill C-216 (SIM 662)  ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
1.3.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97005)  ................................ .............  7 
1.4   Canada's Dairy price increase in New Brunswick (SIM 663)  ................................ ...............  8 
1.4.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97025)  ................................ ..........................  8 
1.5   China's rural development plans for 2021 (SIM 664)  ................................ ........................  8 
1.5.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97100)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.6   China's Maize import duties (SIM 665)  ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97024)  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.7   China – Minimum support prices (SIM 666)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.7.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97101)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.8   The European Union's trade policy (SIM 667)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97102)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.9   France - National Strategy for Vegetable Proteins (SIM 668)  ................................ ............ 10 
1.9.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97103)  ................................ ................................ .......10 
1.10   France's soybean production and the EU's Blue Box support (SIM 669)  ............................ 10 
1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97104) ................................ ................................ ......10 
1.11   France - Origin of goods on supermarket shelves (SIM 670)  ................................ ........... 11 
1.11.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97106) ................................ ................................ ......11 
1.12   EU member States' regulations on domestic food products (SIM 671)  ............................. 11 
1.12.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 97108)  ................................ ................................ ...11 
1.13   India - increase on cotton tariffs (SIM 672)  ................................ ................................ ..12 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97111)  ................................ ................................ .12 
1.14   India's oilseeds policies (SIM 673)  ................................ ................................ .............. 12 
1.14.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97009)  ................................ .......... 12 
1.15   India- Support to sugar and b iofuels (SIM 674)  ................................ ............................ 13 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97011)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.16   India- export subsidies for sugar (SIM 675)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97015)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.16.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97016)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.16.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97017)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.17   India - Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) (SIM 676)  ..................... 14 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97021)  ................................ .......... 14 
1.18   Indonesia's imports of citrus, melons, strawberries and persimmons (SIM 677)  ................ 14 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97117)  ................................ ................................ .....14 
1.19   Indonesia - Regulations on imports of bovine meat (SIM 678)  ................................ ........ 15 
1.19.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97116) ................................ ................................ ......15 
1.20   Russian Federation's support on exports of high value -added  
agricultural products (SIM 679)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 
1.20.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97086)  ................................ ................................ ......15 
1.21   Russian Federation - sunflower seeds export duty (SIM 680)  ................................ .......... 15 
1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97023)  ................................ .......... 15 
1.22   Russian Federation's wheat subsidies (SIM 681)  ................................ ........................... 16 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97029)  ................................ .......... 16 
1.23   Russian Federation's grain export duties (SIM 682)  ................................ ....................... 16 
1.23.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97087)  ................................ ................................ ......16 
1.23.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 970 31) ................................ .......... 16 
1.24   Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax (SIM 683) ................................ ......17 
1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97039)  ................................ ....................... 17 
1.25   Russian Federation - Soya Beans Export Duty (SIM 684)  ................................ ............... 17 
1.25.1    Question by United States of America (A G-IMS ID 97028)  ................................ .......... 17 
1.26   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - Imports of agricultural products from Turkey (SIM 685)  ......... 17 
1.26.1    Question by Turkey (AG -IMS ID 97093)  ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.27   Chinese Taipei - ceiling price for imported rice under the TRQ (SIM 686)  ......................... 18 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97008)  ................................ .......... 18 
1.28   Tajikistan's poultry tariffs (SIM 687)  ................................ ................................ ........... 19 
1.28.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97033)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.29   Ukraine's export cap on corn (SIM 688)  ................................ ................................ .......19 
1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97037)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.30   U.S. COVID relief  Package – "H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan" (SIM 689)  ................ 19 
1.30.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97065)  ................................ ....................... 19 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ..............................  20 
1.31   Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector (SIM 646)  ................................ 20 
1.31.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97085)  ................................ ................................ ......20 
1.32   Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Progr am (SIM 512)  ................................ ....................... 20 
1.32.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97095)  ................................ ........................... 20 
1.32.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97004)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.33   China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement (SIM 551)  ................................ ......... 20 
1.33.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97099)  ................................ ................................ .20 
1.34   United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement (SIM 552)  .............................. 21 
1.34.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97121)  ................................ ................................ .21 
1.35   China's cotton policies (SIM 657)  ................................ ................................ ................ 22 
1.35.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97098)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.36   China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises (SIM 620)  ................................ .22 
1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97006)  ................................ .......... 22 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.36.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97007)  ................................ .......... 22 
1.37   Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ ......................... 23 
1.37.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97027)  ................................ ....................... 23 
1.38   Egypt's Sugar import restrictions (SIM 650)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.38.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97030)  ................................ ....................... 23 
1.39   European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments (SIM 487)  ............ 23 
1.39.1    Question by C anada (AG -IMS ID 97107)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.40   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule  
of commitments (SIM 422)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .24 
1.40.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97096)  ................................ ........................... 24 
1.41   EU's environmental policies (SIM 560)  ................................ ................................ ......... 24 
1.41.1    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97131)  ................................ ................................ 24 
1.41.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97132)  ................................ ................................ 25 
1.42   EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 (SIM 602)  ................................ ........... 25 
1.42.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97105) ................................ ................................ ......25 
1.43   Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables (SIM 604)  ...................... 26 
1.43.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97109)  ................................ ................................ .....26 
1.44   India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (SIM 627)  ................................ ......................... 26 
1.44.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97110)  ................................ ................................ .26 
1.45   India's pulses policies (SIM 442)  ................................ ................................ ................. 26 
1.45.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97112)  ................................ ................................ .26 
1.45.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97115)  ................................ ................................ ...27 
1.45.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97114)  ................................ ................... 27 
1.45.4    Question by United States of Amer ica (AG -IMS ID 97022)  ................................ .......... 28 
1.46   India's wheat public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ...28 
1.46.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97012)  ................................ .......... 28 
1.46.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97013)  ................................ .......... 29 
1.46.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97010)  ................................ .......... 29 
1.47   India's short -term crop loans (SIM 527)  ................................ ................................ ......29 
1.47.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97018)  ................................ .......... 29 
1.48   India's export subsidies for skim milk powder (SIM 480)  ................................ ............... 30 
1.48.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97019)  ................................ .......... 30 
1.49   India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (SIM 628)  .......... 30 
1.49.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97020)  ................................ .......... 30 
1.50   India - National Dairy Plan Phase I (SIM 529)  ................................ ............................... 30 
1.50.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97014)  ................................ .......... 30 
1.51   India's export prohibition on onions (SIM 652)  ................................ ............................. 30 
1.51.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97113)  ................................ ................................ .....30 
1.52   Mongolia's quota regime for  importation (SIM 463)  ................................ ....................... 31 
1.52.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97118)  ................................ ................... 31 
1.53   New Zealand's International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC) (SIM 611)  ....................... 31 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.53.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97034)  ................................ ....................... 31 
1.54   Nigeria's – Foreign exchange restrictions affecting dairy and maize imports (SIM 566)  .......31 
1.54.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97036)  ................................ ....................... 31 
1.55   Russian Federation's export quotas (SIM 612)  ................................ .............................. 32 
1.55.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97119) ................................ ................................ ......32 
1.56   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104) (SIM 458)  ............... 33 
1.56.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97032)  ................................ .......... 33 
1.57   Russian Federation's export subsidies for alcohol (SIM 573)  ................................ ........... 33 
1.57.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97064)  ................................ ....................... 33 
1.58   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals (SIM 633)  ............................... 33 
1.58.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97026)  ................................ .......... 33 
1.59   Tajikistan's export  prohibitions on certain food products (SIM 613)  ................................ .34 
1.59.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97120)  ................................ ................................ .....34 
1.60   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board (SIM 574)  ................................ ............... 34 
1.60.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97035)  ................................ .......... 34 
1.61   U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (SIM 616)  ................................ ................... 35 
1.61.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97094)  ................................ ........................... 35 
1.62   U.S. domestic support programmes (SIM 641)  ................................ ............................. 35 
1.62.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97122) ................................ ................................ ......35 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  36 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS ( TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 36 
2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/59)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 
2.1.2    China (G/AG/N/CHN/55)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 
2.1.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/68)  ................................ ................................ ............... 37 
2.1.4    India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 38 
2.1.5    North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/28)  ................................ ................................ ........... 39 
2.1.6    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/70)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 
2.1.7    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/95)  ................................ ................................ .................. 39 
2.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 40 
2.2.1    Congo (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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 40 
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)  ............ 40 
2.2.3    India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 41 
2.2.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/114)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 
2.2.5    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 46 
2.2.6    Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/33)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 
2.2.7    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/75)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 47 
2.2.8    Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/6, G/AG/N/TON/7, G/AG/N/TON/8, G/AG/N/TON/9  ........................ 47 
2.2.9    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 
2.2.10    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/48, G/AG/N/TUR/49)  ................................ .......48 
2.2.11    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/14, G/AG/N/VNM/15, G/AG/N/VNM/16, G/AG/N/VNM/17)  ........ 49 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.3   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ ........... 51 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/130)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 
2.3.2    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/66)  ................................ ................................ ............... 51 
2.3.3    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/255)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 53 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ..53 
2.4.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/54)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 53 
2.4.2    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/61, G/AG/N/TUN/62, G/AG/N/TUN/63, G/AG/N/TUN/64)  ............... 54 
2.5   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............. 54 
2.5.1    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/30, G/AG/N/KGZ/30/ADD.1)  ................................ ......... 54 
2.6   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 54 
2.6.1    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/129)  ................................ .............................. 54 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  55 
3.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 
3.2   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 55 
3.3   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 55 
3.4   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 55 
3.5   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 
3.6   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ ............................ 55 
3.7   South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 
3.8   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
3.9   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 
 
  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS  (SIM)  
1.1  Angola's import policies  (SIM 660)  
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" pro duction?  
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 De cree be rescinded?  
1.2  Canada - farm gate milk prices  (SIM 661)  
1.2.1   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 to cause the farm 
gate milk price to "increase by USD 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 th e 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 gate 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?  
1.3  Canada - Bill C -216 (SIM 662)  
1.3.1   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 the Canadian federal government from making any commitment by inter national trade 
treaty or agreement that would decrease the tariffs or increase the tariff rate quotas applicable to 
dairy products, poultry, or eggs.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 8 - 
 
    
Please comment on the effect such legislation would have on Canada's ability to be fully committed 
to the goal of substantial progressive reductions in agricultural protection over time.  
 
1.4  Canada's Dairy price increase in New Brunswick  (SIM 663)  
1.4.1   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 milk by a minimum of 6c/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 Baxt er Dairy in 
St. John?   
1.5  China's rural development plans for 2021 (SIM 664)  
1.5.1   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;  
• maintaining and improvin g the minimum purchasing prices for wheat and rice; and  
• continuing efforts to recover pig production.  
Australia encourages 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 domestic support.   
Within that context, Australia kindly requests China respond to the following questions on the specific 
aforementioned measu res announced under the rural development plans:   
a. What measures will China implement to 'protect' China's arable land 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 arab le land or limit production?  
b. How will China stabilise and strengthen subsidies to farmers?  
i. Does this indicate that China 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 involve 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 9 - 
 
  i. Will this involve any production -distorting support, for example minimum purchase 
prices?  
1.6  China's Maize import duties  (SIM 665)  
1.6.1   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 T RQ 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 maize has been imported at full duty?  
c. Are any state-owned  companies directly or indirectly i nvolved 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 i mported 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.  
1.7  China – Minimum support pric es (SIM 666)  
1.7.1   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 minimum support price by region?   
c. What are th e estimated expenditures resulting from this increase in the minimum support 
price?  
1.8  The European Union's trade policy  (SIM 667)  
1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97102)  
Australia notes the publication of the European Union's Trade Policy Review – An Open, S ustainable 
and Assertive Trade Policy . Australia also notes the policy supports the European Union's drive 
towards 'open strategic autonomy' and confirms its "readiness to combat unfair practices and use 
autonomous tools to pursue its interests where neede d". The trade policy also sets out the European 
Union's WTO reform actions, including to 'launch negotiations 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 implemented 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 support?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 10 - 
 
  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 interven tion in agriculture in the 
context of Article 6 does not need to be addressed?  
c. Can the European Union provide information on how 'autonomous tool' is defined and what 
kind of unfair practice would need to occur to attract its use?   
1.9  France - National Strategy for Vegetable Proteins  (SIM 668)  
1.9.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97103)  
On 1 December, France's Minister of Agriculture and  Food, Julien 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 plante d 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 mobilized 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? 
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 Ao A Article 6.5 production -limiting  criteria? In this case, how does France plan to 
increase its level of coupled domestic support, considering that it already spends all of the 
VCS budget (15% of CAP's Pillar I "envelope"), including the additional 2% for p rotein 
crops?  
1.10  France's soybean production and the EU's Blue Box support  (SIM 669)  
1.10.1   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 harveste d area that has grown from 21,771 hectares  (ha) to 
163,800 h ectares . Preliminary data from the European Commission estimate  that the harvested area 
has grown further in 2020,  despite the pandemic, to 183,610 h ectares , resulting in a production of 
490 thous and 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 II 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 explain 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)?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 11 - 
 
  c. What base period did France consider for its soybeans production benefiting from Blue Box 
programmes?  
1.11  France - Origin of goods on supermarket shelves  (SIM 670)  
1.11.1   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 visibl e 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, fisheries and meat of local origin are 
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 wa s 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  channel, the Minister of Agriculture stated that this  
action is unprece dented 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 Taxation 
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 initiative?  
b. How does it abide by GATT 's Article III: National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation?  
1.12  EU member States' regulations on domestic food products  (SIM 671)  
1.12.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 97108)  
Ukraine notes that  in May 2020 the European Commission opened infringement proceedings against 
Bulgaria i n 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 favo ur domestic food products." 
Unfortunately, we do not have any information  whether such protective measures applied by 
Bulgaria have been abolished.  
  
At the same time, according to the media, in February 2021 , the Parliament of the Czech Republic 
decided t o increase the share of domestic food on 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 o f sold Czech food will 
increase annually 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 and 
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 WT O commitments?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.13  India - increase on cotton tariffs  (SIM 672)  
1.13.1   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 concerned about the impact that this may have on Australia's cotton producers and 
exporters, as well as the impact on the globa l cotton market.  Australia is also concerned about the 
impact the tariff increase will have on India's own manufacturing industry that relies 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 under Article 6 of the AoA.  The potential provision of Amber 
Box domestic support above its de minimis limit in addition t o 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 support needs 
to be WT O-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 imposed 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?  
1.14   India's oilseeds policies  (SIM 673)  
1.14.1   Ques tion 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 incentives to switch to oilseeds from grains.  One Government of 
India official is repo rted 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 governme nt 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.   
  
a. Please provide 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.  
b. If no official actions have been taken, when will the Government of India decide what 
actions to take, noting several government officials cited 1 April 2021 for actio n to be 
taken.  
c. With regard to the above questions, please identify any border measures (e.g., tariffs, 
TRQs, import restrictions), subsidies (e.g., per hectare subsidy, changes in the minimum 
support price, etc.), or other measures (e.g., incentives to inc rease productivity, such as 
research and development, improvements in economies of scale for oilseed producers, 
etc.).  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.15  India - Support to sugar and biofuels (SIM 674)  
1.15.1   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 ass istance will be 
discontinued in 2023 and an interest subvention grant of INR 45.7 billion (US D 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 schem e 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 the grant will be implemented.  
1.16  India - export subsidies for sugar (SIM 675)  
1.16.1   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 (MAEQ) 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 these 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.  
1.16.2   Question by Unit ed States of America (AG -IMS ID 97016)  
India's last export subsidy notification (G/AG/N/IND/9) provided to the Committee on Agriculture 
was for the marketing years 2004 -2005 to 2009 -2010 with a five-year average notified sugar export 
subsidy of US D 34.9 mi llion covering 2,178,520 MT.  In comparison, the December 2020 approved 
sugar export subsidy totalled  allotted INR 3,500 crores (US D 475.8 million) for 6 million metric 
tonnes ). Paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision states that "Members shall seek not to rai se their 
export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis."  
  
a. Please explain whether 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.  
b. Please explain how India ensures that its export subsidies "have at most minimal trade 
distorting effects and do not displace or impede the exports of another Member" per 
paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
1.16.3   Question by  United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97017)  
The United States 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 how the 2019/20 export incentive measure was implemented and provide 
any eligibility criteria.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 14 - 
 
  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 available?  
c. Please explain how the direct transfers to sugarcane farmers are measures consistent 
with India's commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
1.17  India - Agriculture Infrastructu re and Development Cess (AIDC)  (SIM 676)  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97021)  
On 1 February 2021, the Ministry of Finance presented India's annual budget for Indian Fiscal 
Year 2021/22, creating a new Agriculture Infrastructure and Develo pment 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 greater clarity on t he 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 domestically.  
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.  
1.18  Indonesia's imports of citrus , melons, strawberries and persimmons  (SIM 677)  
1.18.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97117)  
In April 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 his torical 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(No.4 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 beca use 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 ten years back form 2019 (not form 
17 February  2016, the date of Ordinance above) according to the Act (NOMOR21 TAHUN2019 
TENTANG KARANTINA, HEWAN, IKAN, DAN TUMBUHAN).  
  
Even though Indonesia has the right to implement the PRA under the SPS Agreement, the given 
explanation does not have proper ration ale. Consequently, the import ban of the four items above 
is unjustified restriction of trade 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 In donesia 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 impo rts 
in the past, but not refers the period of import record to be necessary when determined G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 15 - 
 
  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.  
1.19  Indonesia - Regulations on imports of bovine meat  (SIM 678)  
1.19.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 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?  
b. Is there a licensing system in place?   
c. What are, if any, the restrictions as to which  companies can apply for licenses in place?  
d. Is there an import quota in place?  
1.20  Russian  Federation's support on exports of high value -added agricultural products  
(SIM 679)  
1.20.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97086)  
As per the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, the Russia n Federation  will adopt new 
support measures to develop exports  of high value -added agricultural 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?  
1.21  Russian Federation - sunflower seeds export duty (SIM 680)  
1.21.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97023)  
The Russian Federation 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 December 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 period 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 Protocol 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 j ustifies 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?   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 16 - 
 
  c. If so, co uld 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 mea sure to the Committee?  
1.22  Russian Federation's wheat subsidies  (SIM 681)  
1.22.1   Question by United 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 
Russia n Federation to compensate flour producers for part of the purchase costs 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 tha t flour producers must meet to receive subsidies covering part of the 
cost of wheat purchases.  
 
1.23  Russian Federation's grain export duties  (SIM 682)  
1.23.1   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 Feb 15 to 
Feb 28); corn and barely (From Feb 15 to Mar 14). 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 Russia n Federation  see the impact of such measure on food security of 
importing countri es? 
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 Russia n Federation  calculate the impact of these measur es on domestic 
prices and international prices?  
1.23.2   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 & 1 011 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 quota established in Decree No. 2097 have a rate 
of EUR  25 per 1,000 kg from February 15th to 28th; that rate increases to EUR 50 per 1,000 kg from 
1 March  to June 30. 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 June 30.   
a. Noting paragraph 1(a) of Art. 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, has the Russian 
Federation ass essed the effect of these export duties on fellow members?  
b. If so, could the Russian Federation please share this analysis.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 17 - 
 
  c. Please provide an explanation of how the allocation of licenses for the in -quota export 
tariff is administered, including any eligibi lity criteria.  
The United States is 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 these measures to the Committee?  
1.24  Russian Federation's formula -based grain export tax  (SIM 683)  
1.24.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97039)  
The Russian government formally approved its formula -based grain export tax system that will 
become effective on 2 June 2021.  
a. Could the Russia n Federa tion explain how this measure complies with the requirements of 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XI GATT?  
b. Could the Russia n Federation  in particular state whether and when is it planning to submit 
the relevant notification under Arti cle 12?  
1.25  Russian Federation - Soya Beans Export Duty  (SIM 684)  
1.25.1   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 conducted an analysis on the impact of this export restriction on fellow 
Members?   
d. If so, could you please share this analysis?  
1.26  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of  - Imports of agricultural produc ts from Turkey  (SIM 685)  
1.26.1   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, USD 1,755,000 in December 2019 reduced to USD 960 in 
December 2020, falling by 99.95%; 
• Cereals, pulses, oil seeds and products, USD 21,320,000 in December 2019 reduced to 
USD 1,118,340 in December 2020, falling by 94.75%; 
• Fruit and vegetable products, USD 5,018,000 in December 2019 reduced to USD 82,690 in 
December 2020, falling by 98.35%; G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 18 - 
 
  • Aqua products and animal products, USD 5,706,790 in December  2019 reduced to 
USD 76,170 in December 2020, falling by 98.67%; 
• Tobacco, USD 6,118,620 in December 2019 reduced to USD 0.00 in December 2020, falling  by 
100% ; 
• Fresh fruits and vegetables, USD 5,429,370 in December 2019 reduced to USD 0.00 in 
December  2020, falling by 100%.  
According to the data  above , Turkey would like to ask the questions below:  
a. Turkey kindly would like to ask Saudi Arabian  authorities to clarify this data from their 
own statistics system . 
b. Turkey , as the World's biggest produ cer and exporter of hazelnuts, both in terms of value 
and tonnes, would kindly ask Saudi Arabian  authorities about the reason behind the sharp 
fall in import s of hazelnuts, and whether it is due to decrease in demand, or a 
SPS measure, or due to logistical  difficulties  etc? 
c. Turkey,  as one of the major producers of cereals, pulses, oil seeds and products in the 
World, would kindly ask the reason for 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 for the sharp import fall of the given products.  
e. Turkey , as one of the important producers of Tobacco in the World, would kindly ask the 
reason for 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 the reason for the sharp import fall of the given products.  
g.  Given the sharp decrease in imports of these products, Turkey would kindly ask the 
Saudi  Arabian authorities to share the information about how the shortage of these 
products ha s been compensated ; whether from import or domestic production  
h. Could the Saudi Arabian authorities clarify whether there has been a pr ice 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 specific 
barrier to import food products origin ated from Turkey?  
j. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirm that  these Turkish products are still be ing 
cleared by the Saudi Arabian customs for importation? If this is the case, what has been 
the average time for custom s clearance for import of Turkish goods into  the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia from 15  September 2020 to 1 5 March 2021?  
1.27  Chinese Taipei - ceiling price for imported rice under the TRQ (SIM 686)  
1.27.1   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.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.28  Tajikistan's poultry tariffs  (SIM 687)  
1.28.1   Question b y 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 poultry 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?  
1.29  Ukraine's export cap on corn  (SIM 688)  
1.29.1   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 export 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 imposing this expo rt 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 a n 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?  
1.30  U.S. COVID relief Package – "H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan"  (SIM 689)  
1.30.1   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 measure s will support the farming industry 
and how the US intend s 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 measure s within the deadline set out 
in G/AG/2.   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 20 - 
 
  SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS  (SIM)  RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.31  Australia's package of reforms for the agricultural sector  (SIM 646)  
1.31.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 97085)  
With reference to AGIMS 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 b e implemented as per the guidelines 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) 
 
1.32  Canada's Dairy Direct Payment Program  (SIM 512)  
1.32.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97095)  
New Zealand appreciates Canada's c onfirmation that it will notify the CAD 345 million paid to dairy 
farmers through 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 established 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 include 
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 trade agreem ents.  
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?   
1.32.2   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 made over three years to Canadian dairy farmers as a form of compensation for the 
European Union -Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade A greement (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.  
1.33  China - China -US Economic and Trade  Agreement  (SIM 551)  
1.33.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97099)  
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).  China has previously advised it was collecting data with respect to Australia's questions G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 21 - 
 
  on the Agreement (AG -IM ID 95044 and AG -IM ID 96043).  Australia kindly requests China to provide 
written responses to these questions if the data is now available.  
  
In a ddition, Australia further notes that according to data from the USDA 
(https://www.fas.usda.gov/index.php ), China only purchased USD 26.5 billion in US agricultural 
products in 2020.  This is a USD 13.5 billion shortfall on the 2020 target of US D 40 billion under the 
Agreement.  Given this shortfall, China is now required to purchase USD 53.5 billion in US agricultural 
products this year to meet the two -year target of USD 80 billion under the Agreement.  Australia 
kindly requests China answer the following questions:   
  
a. 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 g oods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year", can 
China advise of what led to the US D 13.5 billion shortfall in 2020, including in relation to 
market conditions?  
b. Does China still expect to purchase the full US D 80 billion in US agricult ural exports before 
the conclusion of the timelines in the Agreement?  
i. 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 condition s? 
1.34   United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  (SIM 552)  
1.34.1   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 Rep ublic of China: Phase One (the 
Agreement).  Australia notes China agreed to purchase US D 80 billion in US agricultural exports over 
two years (US D 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:  
a. Given Article 6.2 (5) of the Agreement notes "purchases will be made at market prices 
based on commercial consider ations 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 what led to the USD 13.5 billion shortfall in 2020, including in relation to 
market conditio ns?  
b. 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?  
i. If yes, does the US predict market conditions will be conducive to China purchasing 
USD 53.5 billion  in agricultural exports this year?  
ii. If yes, is the US developing or implementing policies to facilitate Chinese purchases 
that reach the Agreement's US D 80 billion target?  
c. Can the US advise of the status of future negotiations under Article 8.4?  
i. What is the likelihood that any future agreement will also include value -based targets 
for China's purchase of US agricultural exports?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.35  China's cotton policies  (SIM 657)  
1.35.1   Question by Austra lia (AG -IMS ID 97098)  
Australia notes China's response to its question AG -IM ID 96045 on the purchase of Australian 
cotton.  In its response, China did not answer directly Australia's question seeking information on 
widespread reports that China has directe d its businesses to stop or limit the purchases and imports 
of Australian cotton.  Australia continues to consider such directives, if issued, to appear to be 
inconsistent with China's WTO obligations, in particular Paragraph 116 of the Report on the Workin g 
Party on the Accession of China to the WTO. Can China kindly advise:  
a. Has any Chinese authority directly or indirectly, 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 Australia, 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?  
1.36  China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  (SIM 620)  
1.36.1   Question by United States of  America (AG -IMS ID 97006)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS 95023 for which China has not provided answer s: 
  
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.   
1.36.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97007)  
Noting China has not provided a response to AG -IMS 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 23 - 
 
  b. Of the exports by STEs, how much was previously held in public stocks?  If applicable, what 
year were those stocks procured?  
1.37  Côte d'Ivoire's Tax on imported spirits  (SIM 649)  
1.37.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97027)  
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 receiv ing replies.  
1.38  Egypt's Sugar import restrictions  (SIM 650)  
1.38.1   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 poi nts:  
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 Egypt 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 proc edures 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 prov ide 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 other formalities required?  
f. Could Egypt explain how many import approv al 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 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.  
1.39  European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  (SIM 487)  
1.39.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 97107)  
The transition period to allow for the United Kingdom and the European Union to negotiate a new 
partnership arrangement ended on 31 December 2020.  Canada would appreciate an update from 
the European Union reg arding the modification of the EU -28 Final Bound Total AMS commitment to 
reflect the domestic support entitlement of the EU -27.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.40  United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
(SIM 422)  
1.40.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 97096)  
In the nearly three months now since the end of the U nited 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 14 2 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 ho w 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 UK'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 respe ct to the UK's claim to a new, large, 
entitlement to trade distorting domestic support not provided for under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.41  EU's environmental policies (SIM 560)  
1.41.1   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 97131)  
The following questions are being submi tted 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 environment 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 direct 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 which 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 Organisation. On that basis, where eco ‑scheme 
payments are not limited to the addit ional 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 depend on a requirement to produce – or on type or volume of production 
– excep t 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, approximately 6% more land is used for agricultural purposes because 
of the subsidi es 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.  
 
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/ 210 
 
- 25 - 
 
  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 soil degradation; e)  protection of biodiversity; f) actions for a 
sustainable and reduced use of pesticides; and g) actions to enhance animal welfare.  
Of the examples given in the document " List of potential Agricultural practices that eco ‑schemes 
could support" , some of the practices in the list that seek to advance areas b), f) an d 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 sequestered therein, leading to an increase in GHGs.  
Could the EU:  
a. Explain how subsidies that lead to the over ‑exploitation of natural resources are compatible 
with its objectives of environmental protection and conservation.  
b. Explain how potential negative 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  
c. 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  
1.41.2   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 had 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 s ubsidy 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 producers may benefit from it.  
1.42  EU's support measures in response to  COVID -19 (SIM 602)  
1.42.1   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 by 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 amount 
of state aid that can be granted to agricultural companies f rom EUR 100,000 to EUR 225,000. The 
decision was part of new flexibility added to the State Aid Temporary  Framework, which the 
 
3 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics -explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf . G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Commission first adopted in March 2020 to give national authorities more possibilities to help their 
economic recovery from the p andemic.  
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 extended to 
30 June 2021 in October  last year.  
According to some calcula tions, 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 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/R ev.2 and  G/AG/30/Rev.2), could the EU explain:  
a. How will these increased COVID -19-related expenditures be reflected in the 
EU DS:1 notification?  
b. In which box will this support be included?  
1.43  Honduras - Export prohibitions on dried leguminous vegetables  (SIM 604)  
1.43.1   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 apprec iate 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.  
1.44  India - Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  (SIM 627)  
1.44.1   Questio n by Australia (AG -IMS ID 97110)  
Australia thanks India for its response to questions AG -IMS ID 95055 and AG -IMS ID 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'?  
1.45  India's pulses policies  (SIM 4 42) 
1.45.1   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 n umber of other Members, including developing Members.  Australia most recently raised 
this issue at both 95TH and 96th CoA. India's responses to date have been insufficient.   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 27 - 
 
    
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 appli es to India's use of QRs, the measures appear 
inconsistent with India's WTO -commitments 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 states: "Members shall not maintain, resort 
to, or revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted into ordi nary 
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 WTO -consistency of the QRs imposed on certain 
varieties of pulses solely in relation to Article 4 of the AoA.  
d. Advice as to when In dia plans on removing the QRs on a variety of pulses that it has 
maintained without any clear WTO -justification for more than four years?  
i. Failing their removal, can India advise Members if it considers itself to have 
implemented a permanent QR?  
1.45.2   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 continuous 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?  
b. Could India elaborate on any potential increase to the current quantitative restriction for 
yellow dried 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?  
1.45.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97114)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 96056:  
The Russian Federati on thanks India for the answer to the question AG -IMS ID 96056. However, the 
Russia n Federation  notes that during the 2019 -2021 financial years, India significantly restricted the 
importation of yellow peas through import prohibition, quantitative restrictions, minimum import 
price requirement and ports of entry restriction. The period of applicatio n 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 28 - 
 
  b. What was the dynamic of domestic prices f or yellow peas during the specified period?  
c. In 2016, India has signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Mozambique on 
cooperation in the field of production 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 applying minimum import price requirement and ports of 
import restriction in the upcoming financial year?  
1.45.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97022)  
The United 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 
Agricul ture meetings. In late 2017, India began implementing quantitative 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 re questing India to 
clarify the policy and its compliance with the 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 pa st 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 quant itative 
restrictions would be temporary, yet as previously stated, 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 for 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 In dia's WTO commitments.  
1.46  India's wheat public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
1.46.1   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 to this question at 
this time, please provide an update on India's efforts to collect this information and w hen 
approximately this data will be available.  
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, 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 through the current marketing season.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 29 - 
 
  b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other Indian states and territories, 
including those for other commodities.  
1.46.2   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 Uni ted 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 
provid e the quantitative levels of each, but rather indicated only that "procurement of wheat is done 
based on the assessment made with regard to the requirements under various food security 
programs" . 
  
a. Please provide the annual quantitative levels for current,  historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat since 2010.  
b. Please indicate any report, publication or website that contains the assessments 
referenced in India's previous response.  
1.46.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97010)  
The United States n otes 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 MY2018/19, 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 
quintal for acquisition of wheat."   
  
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the announced MSP f or wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India states and Union 
territories as well as for other commodities.  
1.47  India's short -term crop loans  (SIM 527)  
1.47.1   Question by U nited 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 be en 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 res ponse to these 
questions – most recently covered in AG -IMS ID 93012.   
  
a. 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.  
b. Please confirm what schemes, if any other than the Interest Subvention Scheme, are 
included in the notified measure "interest subsidy."  
c. What commodities benefit from each scheme included in the notified measure "interest 
subsidy"?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 30 - 
 
  d. Is India's notified measure "interest subsidy" the same as the Interest Subvention 
Scheme? If so please clarify why this measure is only notified for 2018/19.  
1.48  India's export subsidies for skim milk powder  (SIM 480)  
1.48.1   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 govern ment will provide 
total assistance of INR 150 crores (USD 20 million) for a six -month period. The export subsidy 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 expor ted under the scheme is 50,000 metric tonnes.  
  
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 t hese documents be made available?  
c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture, including export subsidies commitments in Article 9.  
1.49  India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  (SIM 628)  
1.49.1   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.  
1.50  India - National Dairy Plan Phas e I (SIM 529)  
1.50.1   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 the 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?  
 
1.51  India's export prohibition on onions  (SIM 652)  
1.51.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 97113)  
a. Regarding export prohibition on all varieties of onion, Japan would appreciate it if India 
could explain th e reason why the notification was not made before the measure was taken 
while prior 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. G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 31 - 
 
  b. Japan would appreciate it if India could explain how it has given due consideration 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 prohib itions on the 
products rather than an export quota which would allow a certain amount of exports.  
1.52  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  (SIM 463)  
1.52.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 97118)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS 
ID 91011, AG -IMS ID 92098, AG -IMS 93072, AG -IMS ID 95060 and AG -IMS ID 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 th e 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 before the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products would come into force.   
According to the current information received from the Mongolian side in Marc h 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?  
c. Please, confirm that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and 
liquid milk in future.  
1.53  New Zealand's International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC)  (SIM 611)  
1.53.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97034)  
Follow -up to question AG-IMS ID 94050  
 
In the reply to question AG -IMS ID 94050 New Zealand indicated that NZD  330 million had 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 agr icultural sectors under 
the scheme.   
1.54  Nigeria's – Foreign exchange restrictions affecting dairy and maize imports  (SIM 
566)  
1.54.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 97036)  
Follow -up on question AG -IMS ID 93016  
  
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) imposed restrictions on foreign 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 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 32 - 
 
  of Agriculture meeting of July 2020 and in the Council for T rade in Goods meeting of November  2020 
about these restrictions. 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 Provisio ns 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.  
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 we ll 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 integr ation 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 libe rty to transfer the burden on consumers in terms of higher 
prices.  
Could Nigeria explain how the dairy and corn forex restrictions are not 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 dairy and more than half year for corn since these restrictions 
have been in place.  
Could Nigeria share with the membersh ip the positive impact of the measures on its 
balance of payments, respectively its economy?  
1.55  Russian Federation's export quotas  (SIM 612)  
1.55.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 97119)  
In December 2020, the Russian Federation issued two decrees  to restrict exports o f 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, rye, 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 ton ne, and 
an out -of-quota export tariff on those  products of 50 % but not less than EUR 100 per ton ne, 
which will apply from 15 February to 30 June 2021.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 33 - 
 
  In the view of the foregoing, could the Russian Federation:  
a. Provide updated information on the filling of the export  quota;  
b. Inform if there are plans to extend these e xport restriction measures;  
c. Clarify if it intends to notify such measures.  
1.56  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  (SIM 458)  
1.56.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 97032)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 95068 and AG-IMS ID 91161, for the "Support program for the 
transportation of agricultural and food products" , the 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 subsidy 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.  
1.57  Russian Federation's export subsidies for  alcohol  (SIM 573)  
1.57.1   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 ) institutions), 
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 p roduction (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 geographical designation, with a protected name (specialty wine)(wine materials), 
performing works, rendering services."  
a. Could the Russia n Federation  indicate if there were any subsidies granted under this 
provision during calendar 2020 for alcoholic produ cts intended for exports.  
b. If yes, could the Russia n Federation  indicate the amount of the subsidy, and the quantity 
of each product that has received this subsidy.   
1.58  Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  (SIM 633)  
1.58.1   Question by United State s 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 Member s 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 co rn 
(HS Code 1005 90 000 0) for the period from 15 February to 30 June 2021.   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 34 - 
 
  This is the second consecutive year that the Russian Federation has implemented quantitative export 
restrictions on cereal grains. Concerns of potential annual 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 Russi an 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 monitors "t he 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 restric tions 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 winne rs 
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 AGIMS 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 Ru ssian 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?  
1.59  Tajikistan's export prohibitions o n certain food products  (SIM 613)  
1.59.1   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 plann ed 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 specifi c condition the measure could be withdrawn.  
 
1.60  Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  (SIM 574)  
1.60.1   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 stated, "TMO determines independent policies within the framework of profitability and 
efficiency principles, regarding the products that fall within its scop e". In response to U.S. 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 examp le:  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 35 - 
 
  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 ot hers it is not. As long as it is needed, Turkish 
Grain Board will stand by the hazelnut growers. Nobody should 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 c ompares to statements made by Turkey in this 
and other WTO committees.  
In November 2020, TMO's Chairman of the Board of Directors 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 t han 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 fr om 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 last 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 against producers.  
g. How does TMO reconcile these practices with previous WTO statements "that decisions are 
made on grounds of profitability"?  
1.61  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  (SIM 616)  
1.61.1   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 f or 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 ne ed, 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 under the CFAP will be 
deployed in a w ay 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?  
1.62  U.S. domestic support programmes  (SIM 641)  
1.62.1   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 U.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 to global s upply chains for agriculture and G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 36 - 
 
  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 include 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 2 021 ( 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 farmers?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
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 750,0 00-ton 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 notification to withdraw from Artic le 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 make the wheat TRQ permanent will be taken?  
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 a nd their actual 
needs.   
Australia notes China's import of wheat only increased from 32.2 % 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 b een 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 People's Republic of China  requires China 
to implement TRQ measures for wheat and rice in conformity with the Panel Report from DS517.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 37 - 
 
  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 ther e is no underfill of wheat and rice?  
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 t he market conditions that 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?  
AG-IMS ID 97124: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the fi ll 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 reasons for the low fill -rate of this TRQ?  
b. What steps is China  taking to ensure that its TRQ administration is not deterring importers?   
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?  
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?  
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 r ates 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 marke t 
access under these TRQs?  
 
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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.1.4   India (G/AG/N/IND/20)  
AG-IMS ID 97041: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
According to India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade, the eligible entities for allocation of quota 
of milk powder and maize are only des ignated 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. 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?  
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?  
AG-IMS ID 97042: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
India's schedule of commitments shows a market access commitment t o 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.  
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 
thanks 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) (zero %); 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, includin g 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 circumstances?  
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 IN DQ001 and INDQ002, in 
particular the time period provided for the 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 effo rts to improve administration to encourage 
more applications and greater fill rates?  
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.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 39 - 
 
  a. Could India p rovide 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?  
AG-IMS ID 97040: Question by United States o f 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 month of this notification, it is understood India eliminated the provision of the tar iff 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 %. 
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 tariff quota had a fill rate of less than 65 % (MKDQ001 - other spe lt, 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 confirmation 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?  
2.1.6   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/70)  
AG-IMS ID 97043: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The Unit ed States notes that notification G/AG/N/PHL/70 concerning imports under tariff rate quotas 
(table MA:2) during calendar year 2019 has the same in -quota import quantities as notification 
G/AG/N/PHL/56 concerning imports under tariff quotas ( table MA:2) dur ing calendar year 2018.   
Please confirm whether this is correct, and if not, please provide corrected data for calendar 
year 2019.   
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.  
a. Could South Africa explain the reasons for the underfill for: ZAFQ001, ZAFQ007, ZAFQ008, 
ZAFQ009, ZAFQ010, ZAFQ011, ZAFQ012, ZAFQ015, ZAFQ018, ZAFQ021, ZAFQ022, G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 40 - 
 
  ZAFQ029, ZAFQ031, ZAFQ036, ZAFQ043, ZAFQ048 and ZAFQ053 all of which recorded no 
more than 6% f ill 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 admin istration?  
c. Could South Africa explain if it is doing anything to increase utilisation of its underfilled 
tariff rate quotas?  
2.2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.2.1   Congo (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 - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)   
Canada would like to thank Congo for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date.  
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. 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 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 t hose with income under CFAF 265,000 (125); 
distribution (free of charge) of tested seeds by the authorities (rice, cassava, maize, groundnuts, 
potatoes); continuation until 2016 of the exemption from duties and taxes on agricultural inputs and 
machinery; a nd various investments to develop the rural sector (including the repair of rural roads). 
Agrifood enterprises may receive subsidies under the National Investment Charter (chapter 2). 
Additionally, an Agricultural Techniques Demonstration Centre has been o pened to train agricultural 
technicians."  
a. Canada would like to understand why none of the support measures for farmers identified 
by the WTO Secretariat have been notified by Congo and why none of the agriculture 
programmes identified in the national deve lopment plan (2018 -2022) have been included 
in Congo's domestic support notifications.  
b. Can Congo confirm that it has not provided any inspection service programme as defined 
in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  
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 Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
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.   
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 domest ic support policies function, as well as 
their potential impact on trade or production?  
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 progra mme named as "Direct 
payments to dairy organizations to improve their members' service capability".  Could G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 41 - 
 
  El Salvador provide more information on how this program works and how it meets the 
criteria of paragraph 6 of the Annex 2 of the AoA?  
b. For the financi al 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 under 
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?  
2.2.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 97044: Question by United Sta tes 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 official source) generally referenced in India's notification, which stated "National Food Sec urity 
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 quot e 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/orders".  
d. For each identified in part c) please provide a copy or specific  URL(s)/ Weblink.   
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.  
  
a. Please provide an exhaustive list of the specifically "relevant information on rules and 
orders" . 
b. For each identified rule, order, or other  information source, please provide a copy or 
specific URL(s)/weblink.  
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 proc ure 
commodities and what commodities each 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 commodit ies 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.   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 42 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97047: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 95087 India stated "The Minimum Support Price program was initiated in 
the 1960s (1966 -1967) and currently covers 24 crops" with regard t o the identification of all 
programs under which the MSP is provided and the date of commencement of 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 comme nced in 1966 -1967?  
b. If not, please indicate for the current 24 crops the years when they began receiving MSP.  
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 Sta tes requests additional information 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 secu rity 
program.  Please provide 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 IISFM at 
https://disfm.iisfm.nic.in/ . Does this mean stock accumulation data is not available to the 
general public?   
c. Please provide the specific URL(s) at which information on procurement targets and 
quantitative limits can be found.  
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/scan0014_2.pdf  for the guidelines for empanelment 
and registration under OMSS(D). However, this does not contain any information on pric e 
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.  
AG-IMS ID 97050: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (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 total 
imports and e xports (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 only partially provided the data in the 
Annex.   
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.   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 43 - 
 
  a. Does information on the reserve price of wheat and rice for sale of their stocks in domestic 
market exist publicly?  
b. If so, please provide a specific link to these documented prices, rather than a genera l link 
to a website.  
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 
Balance 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 In dia has reported.  
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 ta ble notified by India on https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/ . 
  
Please provide a specific links(s) to the source of these statistics.   
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 within  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 descriptions of measures contained in its DS:2 notification for the outlays notified in 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  meets t he criteria of 
paragraph 2 beyond the chapeau or where it is classified in its Supporting Table DS:1.  
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 distribution 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 storage.  
c. For each data point, please provide the specific URL(s) at which this data can be found.  
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 India 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.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 44 - 
 
  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 r esponse 
in due course.  
  
If India is unable to provide the requested information now, when can we expect the information 
requested to be submitted?  
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 produce rs 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 t o answer the questions submitted. 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.  
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 provided 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 
(e.g., fertilizer, 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 description 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.  Please also provide the monetary value if there each scheme if more 
than one.   
AG-IMS ID 97140: Question by Brazil - Market price suppor t 
In 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 supp ort provided for rice. India 
informed the  Membership that "other support 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 clarifica tion 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 45 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97001: Question 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 course  and for 
part c) no statistical annex was submitted for wh eat, 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 MINISTERIAL DECISION  
"Paragraph 3c of the Bali Ministerial Deci sion 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 subsequently". However, this 
information is necessary to verify whe ther 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 indicate 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?  
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?  
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:  
• Buyers must fill out a "stamp paper" which costs 100 rupees to process.  
• The document commits 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:  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 46 - 
 
  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 th e 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.  
AG-IMS ID 97059: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Please provide an update on the proce ss of collection of information on "other support" for rice as 
requested in AG -IMS ID 95092, for which India has not yet provided 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.  
AG-IMS ID 97060: Question by United 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 products bonuses applied during marketing year 2018/19 to be provided, if a 
response is not readily available for this meeting of the COA?  
2.2.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/114)  
AG-IMS ID 97097: Question by Ne w Zealand - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base 
level of production  
New Zealand thanks 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 Programme 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" programme in terms of coverage.  
2.2.5   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 not responded to AG -IMS ID  95094.   
Australia kindly requests Panama provide a written response to AG -IMS ID 95094.  
2.2.6   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"?   G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 47 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97072: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture  
Supporting 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.   
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 ? 
2.2.7   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/75)  
AG-IMS ID 97061: Question by United States of America - Market price support   
The United States notes that the Philippines notified market price support for rice and corn in 
calendar year 2019, after last notifying them in cal endar 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?  
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?  
AG-IMS ID 97062: Question by United States of America - Market price support   
In AG-IM ID 87035, the Philippines stated that there 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.  
2.2.8   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 
program mes 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?  
 
2.2.9   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/60)  
AG-IMS ID 97077: Question by Eu ropean Union - Market price support  
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 e xchange rate and inflation rate for 2018 and 2019 used in these 
calculations as well as the cumulative rates used in this notification.   
 G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 48 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97145: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
For the notification concerning domestic support fo r 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 th e 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 t o its fixed external reference prices 
for the notifications concerning domestic support from 2002 to 2015.  
 
Could Tunisia indicate what its current total AMS would have been for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 
if no adjustments had been made to its external ref erence prices?  
 
2.2.10   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/48, G/AG/N/TUR/49)  
AG-IMS ID 97063: Question by United States of 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 area, 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."), 
respectively, of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:   
a. Regarding the structural adjustment measure for hazelnuts n otified under para graph  11 
of Annex 2:  
i. What is the objectively demonstrated structural disadvantage of the program per 
paragraph 11(a)?  
ii. What is 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 para 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 n otified 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 program s and any other relevant new 
Green Box measures notified in G/AG/N/TUR/36 through G/AG/N/TUR/48?   
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/T UR/49 ) and 2016 (G/AG/N/TUR/50), Brazil has noticed that "Support  given to increase 
usage of hybrid seed and certified seed and seedling" was classified as "Investment subsidies" in 
supporting table DS:2.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 49 - 
 
  Could Turkey explain why it has chosen to notify it  as "Investment subsidies" and not as "Input 
subsidies"?  
2.2.11   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 97147: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates the transparency and the info rmation 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 produ ction costs.   
Could Viet Nam elaborate on whether this VAT exemption for fertilizers is something it notifies in its 
domestic support 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 mark et price 
support reported in Supporting Table DS:5?  
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 paragra ph 8 of the AoA (Payments for relief from natural disasters).  
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 paragra ph 8 meets 
all the criteria related to this type of programme. Notably, please explain how each 
programme is meeting the trigger criteria (30% loss of income) and the base period 
criteria (3 or 5 years) of paragraph 8(a).  
AG-IMS ID 97082: Question by Europ ean 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 inpu ts.  
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 its mar ket price support for rice under 
ST DS:5, AMS for rice under ST  DS:4 and current total AMS, if the external reference price 
had not been updated for 2014 and 2015?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 50 - 
 
  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 Public stockholding program for foo d security purposes as notified 
in Supporting Table DS:1?  
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 guaran teed 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 yea rs 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 progra mme 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 pur chase 
price for rice in 2008 to 2011, why were these measures not notified?   
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 its Ext ernal Reference Price (ERP) for rice established in 
its AGST.  
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 production 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 other implementing legis lation relevant to 
the price support programme, including how procurement is determined and any other 
relevant information on the scope or operation of the programme.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 51 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97151: Question by Thailand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Thailand thanks Vi et 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 th e programme and 
calculation of the payments for participated farmers?  
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 appears 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 provide a description of 
the measure and the spending level.  
2.3  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  
AG-IMS ID 97088 : Question by India - 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 Main tain 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 fur ther 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 a nd till when?  
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?  
ii. On what basis can this support be notified as an "environ mental programme" under 
paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 52 - 
 
  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 p aragraph 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 ID 95099 and AG‑IMS ID 93303.  
AG-IMS ID 97074: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (in cluding 
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 regulatio n 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 member 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 decisions have been 
taken.  Further, it is noted that it is not possible to ev aluate 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.  
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 the Next Generation Europe (NGEU) measure or the 
Transitional Regulation.  
b. The Table DS:2 notification states that the M21 measu re has not yet been implemented; 
given the lack of information about the actual support measures under the program, what 
was the rationale of the EU for submitting a DS:2 notification at this time?  
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 billio n will be for agricultural and forestry 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 pe nding 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 53 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 97078: Question by United States of America - 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 notified 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 determine if 
this measure meets the criteria for exemption.  
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 elaborate on how such 
payments would meet the criteria as described in the Agreement on Agriculture?   
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.  
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 paymen ts 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 o f seeds is tantamount to a  support based on variable input use, how 
does the "Program for Structural Transition of Field Crops"  meet the fundamental 
requirement 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 higher in price and to bring inferior yields compared to the conventional 
varieties"?  
c. Have farmers that appl ied crop rotation before the  introduction of such program 
been previously supported by a different domestic support programme?  
2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.4.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 97079: Question by United States of Am erica - 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 i ts 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.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 54 - 
 
  b. If COFCO exports 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 cale ndar years 2017, 2018 and 2019.  
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 like to thank Tunisia for making such a n 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) respectively . 
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 Agriculture 
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 please explain how the subsidies granted 
for this group of products have been used?  
b. Could Tunisia please provi de more information on the specific products included in the 
category "Products of the milling industry and preparations thereof"?  
2.5  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
2.5.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/30, G/AG/N/KGZ/30/ADD.1)  
AG-IMS ID 97080: Quest ion 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 i n Addendum 1, the export restrictions were lifted on 30 December 2020 
and reimposed on 8 January 2021.  
a. Are the reimposed export restrictions 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.  
2.6  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF: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 assis tance 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?  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 55 - 
 
  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 97089: Question by India  
Australia last notified its domestic support notification for period July 2017 to June 2018, 
(DS:1  notification G/AG/N/AUS/129). Could Australia indicate when is it going to notify the pending 
notifications?  
3.2  Brazil   
AG-IMS ID 97090: Question by India  
When will Brazil notify its outstanding Domestic Support notifications, as the last notification was  for 
Calendar Year 2018?  
3.3  European  Union  
AG-IMS ID 97091: Question by India  
The EU last notified its domestic support notification for  Marketing year 2017 -18 (DS:1  notification 
G/AG/N/EU/61). Could the EU indicate when is it going to notif y the pending notifications?  
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 ID  93168, AG ‑IMS ID  92030, 
AG‑IMS ID 91143 and AG ‑IMS ID 88085:  
  
Please provide an update on the status of preparation of these  numerous years of overdue ES:1, 
ST/ES:2 and ES:3 notifications and tell Members when the Committee can expect to be notified.  
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.   
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 Arabia (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% se lf-sufficiency.  
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 specifi c domestic  support to poultry in excess of its " de minimis ", but still  within its FBTAMS.  
Nonetheless, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's latest notification is for  calendar year 2017.  G/AG/W/ 210 
 
- 56 - 
 
  In light of the above, Brazil consults the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia on when more recent 
DS:1 notifications should be expected.  
3.7  South  Africa  
AG-IMS ID 97083: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification 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.   
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 ind icate when it intends to submit notifications for subsequent years.  
3.9  United  States of America  
AG-IMS ID 97092: Question by India  
In response to AG -IMS ID 96025 and AG-IMS ID 96026, the United States replied that the measures 
will be notified consistent w ith 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 notification 
is of the calendar year 2017. When will the United States notify its outstanding DS notifi cations?  
 
 
__________