WT/DS511/19  
 
7 August 2020  
(20-5461) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
CHINA – DOMESTIC  SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS  
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL  
The following communication, dated 5 August 2020 , from the delegation of China  to the Chairperson 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
1. My authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a panel pursuant to 
Article  21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  
("DSU") and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture , with standard terms of reference, as set 
out in Article 7 of the DSU.  China 's request for the establishment of a panel relates to the 
"disagreement ", within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU, "as to the existence or consistency 
with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings " of 
the Dispute Settlement Body ( "DSB") in China — Domestic Support for Agricultural Producers 
(DS511), as identified in Section II, below.  Pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, China requests that 
the DSB refer the matter to the original panel wherever possible.  
 
I. Background  
 
2. On 26 April 2019, the DSB adopted the report of the panel  in China — Domestic Support for 
Agricultural Producers (DS511). The report found that, in the years 2012, 2013, 20 14 and 2015, 
China had provided domestic support in the form of market price support to producers of wheat, 
Indica rice and Japonica rice that, expressed in terms of its Current Total AMS, exceeded China 's 
commitment level of "nil", set forth in Section I of Part IV of China 's Schedule of Concessions on 
Goods CLII.  The report concluded that China had acted inconsistently with its obligations under 
Articles  3.2 and 6.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture . In accordance with the report, the DSB 
recommended that China bring its  measures into conformity with its obligations under the 
Agreement on Agriculture .1  
 
II. The matter at issue:  China 's measures taken to comply have achieved compliance  
 
3. On 18 June 2020,2 China notified the DSB  that it had implemented the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB by adopting the following measures taken to comply:   
 
a. For wheat, China promulgated, on 12 October 2019, the Notice on Announcing the 
Minimum Procurement Price for Wheat for 2020  (Fa Gai Ji a Ge [2019] No. 1617), and the 
Notice on Improving the Wheat Minimum Procurement Price Policy  (Guo Liang Liang 
[2019] No.284).   
 
1 Minutes of 26 April 2019  DSB Meeting, WT/DSB/M/428 , para. 7.5; Panel Report, China – Domestic 
Support for Agricultural Producers , WT/DS511/R, paras. 8.1 -8.3.  
2 Status Report Regarding Implementation of the DSB Recommendations and Rulings by China, 
Addendum, WT/DS511/15/Add.2.  WT/DS511/19  
 
- 2 - 
 
  b. For rice, China promulgated, on 28 February 2020, the Notice on Announcing the Minimum 
Procurement Price for Rice for 2020  (Fa G ai Jia Ge [2020] No.290) and the Notice on 
Improving the Rice Minimum Procurement Price Policy  (Guo Liang Liang [2020] No.41).   
 
4. As set forth in these measures taken to comply, starting from 2020, maximum procurement 
amounts for wheat and rice shall be fix ed each year under the Minimum Procurement Price ( "MPP") 
policies for those products, and the amount of production that is eligible to receive the minimum 
procurement price shall be limited to the maximum procurement amount.  
 
5. The maximum procurement amoun ts and minimum procurement prices for wheat and rice, 
fixed each year in advance of the respective planting seasons, are designed to work together to 
ensure that China provi des domestic support, in the form of market price support to producers of 
wheat, Indica rice and Japonica rice, within the limit of applicable de minimis  level ( i.e., 8.5% of the 
total value of production of a basic agriculture product during the relevant yea r), and that is, 
therefore, consistent with China 's obligations under Articles 3.2 and 6.3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture .  
 
6. Therefore, as of 31 March 2020, the date of expiry of the originally agreed reasonable period 
of time ( "RPT") for China to impleme nt, China had complied with the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings through the adoption of the measures identified in paragraph 3, above.  
 
III. Procedural developments since China 's adoption of measures taken to comply  
 
7. China has engaged, and continues to engage, in good faith with the United States on its 
implementation of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.  To recall, the parties originally a greed 
an RPT  for China to implement those recommendations and rulings.  That RPT was to end on 
31 March  2020.  Before the expiry of the originally agreed RPT, the United States asked China to 
agree to extend the RPT to 30 June 2020, so as to "allow the United States additional time to 
evaluate China 's actions ".3 China, in good faith, agreed to the request from the  United States.4 
Moreover, China has been frequently updating the DSB and the United States on the implementation 
status of this dispute.5  
 
8. Nonetheless, the United States  filed a request, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, for 
authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under the GATT 1994 or 
other agreements listed in Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, in the amount of US$  1.3 billion 
for 2020.6 The United States filed this request despite China 's good faith cooperation with the 
United States, and despite China 's adoption and notification of measures taken to fully comply with 
the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.  While the United States acknowledges the existence of 
those "actions " by China, in the form of the measures identified in  paragraph 3, above,7 the 
United  States filed its Article 22.2 request without formally addressing those actions, though its 
request reveals the United States ' disagreement with China that those actions a chieve compliance.   
 
9. China has objected to the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations, as 
proposed by the United States, and the DSB referred the matter to arbitration under Article 22.6 of 
DSU.8 
 
10. It is significant that the United States has filed its Article 22.2 request absent a multilateral 
finding that China 's measures taken to comply fail to achieve compliance.  Under the DSU, the 
United  States was required to seek recourse to review of China 's measures taken to comply under 
Article 21 .5 of the DSU.9 As the Appellate Body explained in US – Continued Suspension , "before 
obtaining the DSB 's authorization to suspend concessions, a Member must initiate a dispute 
 
3 Modification of the Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS511/16.  
4 Modification of the Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of th e DSU, WT/DS511/16.  
5 Status Report Regarding Implementation of the DSB Recommendations and Rulings by China and 
Addenda thereto, WT/DS511/15, WT/DS511/15/Add.1, WT/DS511/15/Add.2.  
6 Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS 511/17. 
7 Modification of the Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, WT/DS511/16.  
8 Recourse to Article 22.6 of the DSU by China, WT/DS511/18.  
9 Article 21.5 states, in relevant part, that "[w]here there is disagreement as to the existence or 
consistency with a  covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings 
such dispute shall  be decided through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures, including wherever 
possible resort to the original panel " (emphasis added).  WT/DS511/19  
 
- 3 - 
 
  settlement process in which it challenges the consistency with the covered agr eements of a measure 
taken by another Member ".10 Indeed, absent a multilateral finding that measures taken to comply 
have failed to achieve compliance, there is no basis for an Article 22.6 arbitrator to determine a level 
of nullification or impairment res ulting from such an alleged non -compliance.  Moreover, the DSB 
cannot  grant authorization to suspend concessions in any amount where the responding Member 
concerned has come into compliance.11  
 
11. Nonetheless, in this dispute, the United States has failed to initiate compliance proceedings 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU to seek multilateral review of what it explicitly acknowledged as 
"actions " by China to comply.  Moreover, the United States has not followed the established practice 
of seeking to agree a sequencing arrangement with China that would set out the "logical way 
forward "12 in light of the apparent US disagreement that China 's measures taken to comply have 
achieved compliance.   
 
12. In these cir cumstances, China, as the original respondent, is filing this request for the 
establishment of a compliance panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.13 Irrespective of whether the 
parties reach, in future, a sequencing arrangement for purposes of this dispute, China considers that 
the arbitrator under Article 22.6 should suspend its work, pending resolution of the dispute under 
Article 21.5 proceedings.  Prompt findings under Article 21.5 will, therefore, assist the parties in 
securing a positive solution to the dispute.14 
 
 
__________  
 
10 Appella te Body Report, US – Continued Suspension , para. 374.   
11 DSU, Art. 22.4 ( "The level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorized by the 
DSB shall be equivalent to the level of the nullification or impairment "). 
12 Decision by the Arbitrator, EC – Bananas III (US) (Article 22.6 – EC), para. 4.9.  
13 China continues to be open to hold consultation with the United States on the implementing measure s 
if requested by the United States.  
14 DSU, Art. 3.7 ( "The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to the 
dispute ").