G/AG/W/246  
 
8 May 2024  
(24-3687) Page: 1/67 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 23 -24 MAY 20241 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 6  May 2024 
as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/75 . 
 
_______________  
 
  
 
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 or obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMP LEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMNTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ............................  7 
1.1   Angola's high -security tax stamps for alcoholic beverages (SIM 877)  ................................ . 7 
1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108050)  ................................ ........................  7 
1.2   Argentina's Fruit Agro -export Program (SIM 878)  ................................ ............................  7 
1.2.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108111)  ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
1.3   Argentina's export license for grains and oilseeds (SIM 879)  ................................ .............  8 
1.3.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108112)  ................................ ..............................  8 
1.4   China's subsidies on rapeseed varieties (SIM 880)  ................................ ...........................  8 
1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 108054)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.5   China's subsidies for agricultural insurance premiums  (SIM 881)  ................................ ....... 8 
1.1.2    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada (AG -IMS ID  108055)  ....... 8 
1.6   China's Interim Implementation Plan to Manage Swine Production Capacity (SIM 882)  .........  9 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America, European Union (AG -IMS ID 108057)  ...................  9 
1.7   China's domestic support for cotton (SIM 883)  ................................ ................................  9 
1.1.3    Quest ion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 108225)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.8   Costa Rica's Low -Carbon Coffee Nation ally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) (SIM 884)  9 
1.1.4    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 1081 10) ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
1.9   Côte d'Ivoire's export suspension of certain foodstuffs (SIM 885)  ................................ ...... 9 
1.9.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108213)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.10   Dominican Republic - Tax on transfer of goods and services (ITBIS) (SIM 886)  ................ 10 
1.10.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108063)  ................................ ..................... 10 
1.11   EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) environmental provisions  (SIM 887)  ..................... 10 
1.11.1    Question by Canada, Brazil (AG -IMS ID 108065)  ................................ ....................... 10 
1.12   EU's measure on Russian agricultural exports (SIM 888)  ................................ ............... 11 
1.12.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108185)  ................................ ................. 11 
1.13   India's establishment of the National Cooperative Exports Limited (NCEL) (SIM 889)  ........ 11 
1.13.1    Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108076)  ................................ ......... 11 
1.14   Jordan's exports of certain foodstuffs (SIM 890)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.14.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108094)  ................................ ........................... 12 
1.15   Malawi's export ban for raw soya beans (SIM 891) ................................ ........................ 12 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 108093)  ................................ ......... 12 
1.16   Morocco's export ban of olive oil (SIM 892)  ................................ ................................ ..12 
1.16.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108095)  ................................ ..................... 12 
1.17   Morocco's support to citrus exports (SIM 893 ) ................................ .............................. 12 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America, European Union (AG -IMS ID 108097)  ................. 12 
1.18   Mozambique - strip-stamps on alcoholic beverages (SIM 894)  ................................ ........ 12 
1.18.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108099)  ................................ ..................... 12 
1.19   Namibia – import restrictions on poultry and pork (SIM 895) ................................ .......... 13 G/AG/W/246  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.19.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108118)  ................................ ..................... 13 
1.20   Pakistan - Regulatory duties on the export of molasses (SIM 896)  ................................ ..14 
1.20.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108102)  ................................ ..................... 14 
1.21   Pakistan's export ban on onions and bananas (SIM 897)  ................................ ................ 14 
1.21.1    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108103)  ........ 14 
1.22   Panama's restriction on the importation of pork products  (SIM 898) ................................ 14 
1.22.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 108104)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.23   U.S. Value -Added Producer Grants (SIM 899)  ................................ ............................... 15 
1.23.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108109)  ................................ ................................ ....15 
1.24   U.S. Forest Act 2023 (SIM 900)  ................................ ................................ .................. 15 
1.24.1    Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 108179)  ................................ .............................. 15 
1.25   U.S. No Russian Agriculture Act (SIM 901)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.25.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108208)  ................................ ................. 16 
1.26   Uruguay's National Adaptation Plan to Climate Variability and Change for the Agricultu ral 
Sector' (NAP -Agro) (SIM 902)  ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 
1.26.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108107)  ................................ ................................ ....16 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ..............................  17 
1.27   Australia - Farm Investment Loans programme (SIM 864)  ................................ ............. 17 
1.27.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108113)  ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.27.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108114)  ................................ ................................ ....17 
1.28   Brazil's Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  ................................ ................................ ...17 
1.28.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108052)  ................................ ..................... 17 
1.29   Canada's dairy Innovation and Investment Fund (SIM 865)  ................................ ........... 17 
1.29.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 108156)  ................................ ......................... 17 
1.30   Canada's tariff rate quota for cheese (SIM 345)  ................................ ............................ 18 
1.30.1    Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 108058)  ................................ ..................... 18 
1.31   China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ ............... 18 
1.31.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 108053)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.32   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  ................................ ......19 
1.32.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 108068)  ................................ ................................ ....19 
1.32.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108115)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.32.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108116)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.32.4    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108117)  ................................ ................................ ....20 
1.32.5    Question b y Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 108067)  ................................ .............................. 20 
1.32.6    Question by New Zealand, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108157)  ................................ ........... 21 
1.33   India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  ................................ .................... 22 
1.33.1    Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 108075)  ................. 22 
1.33.2    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108078)  ........................... 22 
1.34   India's export restrictions on onions (SIM 652)  ................................ ............................. 22 
1.34.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108077)  ................................ ........................... 22 G/AG/W/246  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.35   Nigeria's import prohibitions and restrictions (Including quantitative restrictions (SIM 223)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......23 
1.35.1    Question by United States of America, Australia, European Union, Canada (AG -IMS ID 
108101)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 
1.36   Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ ......23 
1.36.1    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Brazil (AG -IMS 
ID 108106)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 
1.37   Türkiye's export ban on olive oil exports (SIM 703)  ................................ ....................... 23 
1.37.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108105)  ................................ ..................... 23 
1.38   UK's Forest Risk Commodities Provisions (SIM 731)  ................................ ...................... 23 
1.38.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108119)  ................................ ................................ ....23 
1.38.2    Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 108178)  ................................ .............................. 24 
1.39   U.S. Food Security programmes (SIM 875)  ................................ ................................ ..24 
1.39.1    Question by European Union, New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 108098)  ................................ .24 
1.39.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108108)  ................................ ..................... 24 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  25 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 25 
2.1.1    Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/53)  ................................ ................................ .......25 
2.1.2    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/88)  ................................ ................................ .................... 25 
2.1.3    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/28, G/AG/N/KAZ/31)  ................................ .......................... 25 
2.1.4    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/93, G/AG/N/KOR/98)  ................................ ................ 26 
2.1.5    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/25)  ................................ ................................ ............ 27 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .......28 
2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/233)  ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 28 
2.3.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/51, G/AG/N/ARG/51/Corr.1)  ................................ .................. 28 
2.3.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ............ 28 
2.3.3    Bangladesh (G/A G/N/BGD/5/Rev.1, G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1, G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1, 
G/AG/N/BGD/11/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......29 
2.3.4    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/79)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 30 
2.3.5    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/158, G/AG/N/CAN/159)  ................................ ............................ 33 
2.3.6    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/236, G/AG/N/TPKM/237)  ................................ ............... 33 
2.3.7    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/89)  ................................ ................................ ............... 34 
2.3.8    Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/70, G/AG/N/ISL/72)  ................................ ................................ ..36 
2.3.9    India (G/AG/N/IND/31)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 37 
2.3.10    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/71)  ................................ ................................ .................... 40 
2.3.11    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/8/Rev.2, G/AG/N/ISR/12/Rev.2, G/AG/N/ISR/16/Rev.1, 
G/AG/N/ISR/81/Rev.1, G/AG/N/ISR/94)  ................................ ................................ ............... 41 
2.3.12    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/282)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 43 
2.3.13    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/94, G/AG/N/KOR/95)  ................................ .............. 43 
2.3.14    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/144)  ................................ ................................ ............. 45 
2.3.15    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/128)  ................................ ................................ .................... 45 G/AG/W/246  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.3.16    Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/31, G/AG/N/OMN/32, G/AG/N/OMN/33)  ................................ .....46 
2.3.17    Peru (G/AG/N/PER/28, G/AG/N/PER/29, G/AG/N/PER/30)  ................................ ........... 47 
2.3.18    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/40)  ................................ ................................ ......47 
2.3.19    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/122, G/AG/N/CHE/128)  ................................ ..................... 47 
2.3.20    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 
2.3.21    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/169) ................................ ............................. 48 
2.3.22    Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/84)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  ................................ ..49 
2.4.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/160)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 49 
2.4.2    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/96)  ................................ ................................ ......... 49 
2.4.3    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/145, G/AG/N/NZL/146)  ................................ ..................... 50 
2.4.4    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/133)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 
2.4.5    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/26)  ................................ ................................ ............ 52 
2.4.6    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/170)  ................................ .............................. 53 
2.5   EXPORT SU BSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ........ 53 
2.5.1    Mauritius  (G/AG/N/MUS/20)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 53 
2.6   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............. 54 
2.6.1    Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/65)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 54 
2.7   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  ....................... 54 
2.7.1    European  Union (G/AG/N/EU/82)  ................................ ................................ ............... 54 
2.7.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/266, G/AG/N/JPN/267, G/AG/N/JPN/268)  ................................ .......54 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  55 
3.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 
3.2   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 
3.3   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 56 
3.4   Paraguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 56 
3.5   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
3.6   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ............................. 57 
4   DEFERRED REPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 57 
4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATIO N OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ............. 57 
4.1.1    Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ ............. 57 
4.1.2    Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  ......................... 58 
4.1.3    Australia, Ca nada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in excess 
of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ ..................... 58 
4.1.4    Brazil's Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  ................................ ................................ ..59 
4.1.5    Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery  supplies (SIM 772)  ................................ ........................ 59 
4.1.6    Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ ........................ 59 
4.1.7    European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport (SIM  778) .......59 
4.1.8    European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  ................. 60 G/AG/W/246  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.1.9    India's export restrictions (SIM 306)  ................................ ................................ .......... 60 
4.1.10    India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme (SIM 471)  ................................ ..61 
4.1.11    India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  (SIM 515)  ................................ ......61 
4.1.12    India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ .......... 62 
4.1.13    India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM767)  ................................ .................. 62 
4.1.14    India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision (SIM 852)  ................ 62 
4.1.15    Morocco's vegetable and fertilizer subsidies  (SIM 870)  ................................ ............... 63 
4.1.16    Tanzania's export restriction on maize and onions (SIM 860)  ................................ .......64 
4.1.17    United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  ................................ ....65 
4.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  .............................. 65 
4.2.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/30)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 
4.2.2    Bangladesh (G/AG/N/BGD/5/Rev.1, G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1, G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1)  .......... 65 
4.2.3    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/74)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 65 
4.2.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 66 
4.2.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/29)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 66 
4.2.6    Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/81)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 67 
5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  67 
5.1   Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 67 
 
  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMNTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Angola's high -security tax stamps for alcoholic beverages  (SIM 877)  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108050 ) 
On 10 March 2022, Angola published the Executive Decree 149/22 introducing the obligation to affix 
High Security Tax Stamps on certain products including beverages (beer, wine, spirits, soft drinks) 
and tobacco in order to fight smuggling. On 8 April 2022, the Angolan authorities published the 
Executive Decree 186/22, which suspended the mandatory affixing of high -security tax stamps on 
all alcoholic beverages. On 12 May 2023 Angola published a new decree 64/2023 that entere d into 
force on 11 July 2023 even though there were many calls for a longer transition period. According 
to the current version of the Decree, domestic as well as imported alcoholic beverages must be 
provided with a tax stamp describing, among other things , the origin of the beverage.  
Angola did notify this measure2 at the TBT Committee on 20 December 2023, but at that time the 
measure had already been in place in Angola since long; in addition, in the notification message 
accompanying the notification to the WTO Angola provided a final date for comments which expired 
prior to the notification, thus not allowing any time for comments.  
This decree gives rise to concerns for the EU alcoholic beverages ' exporting industry, for a number 
of reasons. Considering the above points, and to facilitate compliance with the requirements, the EU 
would like to request the following:  
a. Could Angola allow a full exhaustion of stocks of un -stamped products ? The 
transitional period for complying with the tax stamp programme ende d on 
12 January  2024. However, there are still unstamped products on the market, placed 
before the entry into force of the programme. If products have been sold to third parties, 
it becomes practically impossible to retrieve them for the purpose of affixin g tax stamps. 
Economic operators should not be held liable for such products.  
b. Could Angola remove the requirement for operators to be accredited as 
Authorized Economic Operator (AEO)  in Angola in order to allow them to affix tax 
stamps in bonded warehouses , as was the case for stocks in Angola before 11  July 2023 
and for products in the import process before 11 July 2023?  
The EU has already underlined the need for more flexibility in the framework of the WTO TBT 
Committee and in the course of the 2024 TPR f or Angola. Can Angola clarify if and to what extent it 
intends to address the concerns raised by the EU and by other WTO Members?  
1.2  Argentina's  Fruit Agro -export Program  (SIM 878)  
1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108111 ) 
India notes that the Ministry of Economy of Argentina runs the Fruit Agro -export Program. The 
website of the Ministry provides the following information regarding th e programme:  
One of the objectives of this programme is to provide financial, technical, and commercial assistance 
to improve the competitiveness and access to new markets of agro -industrial SME companies and 
linked associative schemes belonging to fruit a gro-export complexes.  
[https://www.argentina.gob.ar/economia/planificacion -del-desarrollo -y-la-competitividad -
federal/pro grama -agroexportador -0]. 
 
2 "Obligation to affix high security tax stamps on medicines, beverages, alcoholic liquids, tobacco and its 
manufactured substitutes and other products listed in Annex I of the Decree ". G/AG/W/246  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Under the programme, there are three financing lines, one of which is 'Export prefinancing. ' This 
consists of financial assistance for the recovery of fruit agro -export complexes through bank loans 
to pre -finance exports.  
[https://www.argentina.gob.ar/economia/planificacion -del-desarrollo -y-la-competitividad -
federal/programa -agroexportador -4].  
In this regard, India would like to know the following details:  
a. Please specify the p roducts covered under the Fruit -Agro Export programme and the 
quantum of budgeted expenditures under this programme in 2023 -24.  
b. Could Argentina please explain the term 'Prefinancing of Exports '?  
c. Please provide a list of schemes included as part of the 'Fruit Agro -export programme 
and also the 'linked associative schemes ' as mentioned in the objectives.  
1.3  Argentina's export license for grains and oilseeds  (SIM 879)  
1.3.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108112 ) 
According to recent media reports, from 11  December  2023 to 14  December  2023, Argentina 
suspended new export license applications for grains and oilseeds.  
a. Could Argentina sha re the reason for the implementation of this measure and explain 
what led to its swift termination?  
b. Can Argentina elaborate on how the measure despite its short implementation period 
helped achieve the policy objective underlying the decision to implement the measure?  
c. Does Argentina plan to submit an ER:1 notification for this measure?  
1.4  China 's subsidie s on rapeseed varieties  (SIM 880)  
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 108054 ) 
China 's Provincial Government of Hubei announced on 30 October  2023 a pilot programme to 
subsidize no fewer than six major double -low rapeseed varieties with high yield and high oil in the 
province. The per -unit subsidy is claimed to be CNY 30/mu.  
a. Could China pr ovide the total estimated cost and the application period of this pilot 
programme?  
b. Could China clarify whether there are any ongoing programmes similarly available in 
other provinces to support rapeseed producers? If so, please provide relevant 
programme information including eligibility criteria and total estimated costs.  
1.5   China's subsidies for agricultural insurance premiums  (SIM 881)  
1.1.2   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada (AG -IMS 
ID 108055 ) 
Media reports have indicated that China has allocated $7.57 billion in subsidies for agricultural 
insurance premiums to boost agricultural production.   
We note that China 's last DS:1 was submitted in 2020. Can China please confirm:  
a. Whether the media reporting is accurate?  
b. If so, what agricultural sectors or foodstuffs are the subsidies targeting?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 9 - 
 
  c. Whether there is a specific market failure that is being addressed throu gh these 
subsidies?  
d. How China plan on classifying the subsidies under the AoA and whether they will be 
notified to the Committee?   
1.6  China 's Interim Implementation Plan to Manage Swine Production Capacity  (SIM 
882)  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America, Europ ean Union (AG -IMS ID 108057 ) 
On 23 September  2021, China 's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) published its 
"Interim Implementation Plan to Manage Swine Production Capacity" which provides management 
targets for the swine sector. The plan took effect on 19 September  2021 and provides targets for 
province -by-province sow inventories and the number of large-scale licensed swine farms.   
a. What, if any, domestic support is being provided to swine producers or PRC swine 
production or processing enterprises to achieve published targets related to the 
Implementation Plan to Manage Swine Production Capacity?   
b. What economic analysis was used by MARA to arrive at target numbers of farms or the 
range of breeding sows?   
1.7  China's domestic support for cotton  (SIM 883)  
1.1.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 108225 ) 
What, if any, domestic support is being provided at the sub -national level for cotton and what is the 
breakdown of support by province for the Northwest region?   
1.8  Costa Rica 's Low -Carbon Coffee Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)  
(SIM 884)  
1.1.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108110 ) 
Costa Rica 's project "Low -Carbon Coffee Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions  (NAMA)" involves 
a sector -specific approach focused on a climate -friendly transformation of the entire value chain of 
one of the most important economic sectors in the cou ntry. The project supported three financial 
products to boost low -carbon coffee production and processing. A credit line to commercial banks 
for preferential loans for low -emission investments in mills and Good Agricultural Practices  (GAPs) 
at farms (each USD 10,000 – 1 m), a subsidy for smaller technologies for farmers and millers 
(maximum USD  10,000 per investment), and a grant for a results -based payment scheme for the 
planting of shade trees. (Source: https://mitigation -action.org/projects/costa -rica-low-carbon -
coffee/ ). In this regard, could Costa Rica provide details on the following:  
a. How does it plan to notify the above support in its Domestic Support Notification?  
b. How many coffee growers benefitted from the aforementioned program me? 
c. What is the eligibility criteria for coffee producers to receive support under this 
programme?  
d. What are the three financial products covered under the programme?  
1.9  Côte d'Ivoire's export suspension of  certain foodstuffs  (SIM 885)  
1.9.1   Question by Switzerland (AG-IMS ID 108213 ) 
According to a government source, on 15 January 2024, Côte d'Ivoire suspended exports of certain 
foodstuf fs. Could Côte d'Ivoire please provide the following information:  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 10 - 
 
  a. Is Côte d'Ivoire a net exporter of one of the products subject to the export restriction 
measure?   
b. What are the reasons behind the implementation of this export restriction?  
c. For how long is  the measure to be implemented?  
1.10  Dominican Republic - Tax on transfer of goods and services (ITBIS)  (SIM 886)  
1.10.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108063 ) 
The Dominican Republic applies a special value added tax (called ITBIS) of 18% on imported 
products such as cheeses, ham, canned tomatoes, pasta and other food products. The tax does not 
apply to the like domestic products, r esulting in a discriminatory treatment of imported products. 
The Dominican Republic have indicated that measures would be taken to eliminate the discrimination 
but there has been no progress in resolving the matter.  
How and when does the Dominican Republic  intend to eliminate this discriminatory treatment?  
1.11  EU's Common Agriculture Policy  (CAP) environmental provisions  (SIM 887)  
1.11.1   Question by Canada, Brazil (AG -IMS ID 108065 ) 
The European Commission has recently proposed to review certain provisions of the Common 
Agriculture Policy  (CAP) to provide significant flexibility to European farmers in complying with 
soil/land management and biodiversity related environmental conditionalities under the CAP 
(https://ec.euro pa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1493 ). In addition to allowing 
member States to exempt certain crops, soil types or farming systems from complying with soil -
related conditions, the European Commission is pro posing to change how key  "good agriculture and 
environmental conditions" (GAEC) standards will be approached/applied, including:  
• GAEC 5: requiring farmers to manage tillage in a way that reduces soil erosion risks;  
• GAEC 6: requiring farmers to grow cover crops between seasons to conserve soil, water and 
nutrients, thereby reducing the need for chemical inputs such as fertilizer;  
• GAEC 7: requiring farmers to grow a series of different types of crops in the same area 
across a sequence of growing season s. This helps return nutrients to the soil without 
synthetic inputs and reduces the need for chemical pesticides;  
• GAEC 8: requiring farmers to set aside at least 4 % of their farmland for biodiversity.  
In March 2024, Politico reported that the Commission al so intends to exempt farmers with less than 
10 hectares of land, representing two -thirds of all CAP beneficiaries, from controls and penalties 
related to environmental and climate rules ( https://www.politico.eu/article/eu -takes -the-ax-to-
green -farming -rules).  
a. Considering the new, more flexible and softer approach the European Union  (EU) 
appears to be taking under the CAP, including to lim it the scope and application of key 
soil/land management conditions as well as potentially exempt two -thirds of CAP 
beneficiaries, could the EU expand on how it intends to reach its agriculture 
sustainability objectives? What will be the impact of this app roach on the EU 's ability to 
reach said objectives? What other policies, measures or tools is the EU considering to 
put in place in order to address potential impacts?  
b. Considering the recent trade -related measures that the EU has or is considering to put 
in place, and which the EU states are aimed at, inter alia , increasing global agriculture 
sustainability, could the EU explain how it ensures that it maintains proportional levels 
of ambition between its domestic and trade -related measures?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.12  EU's measure on Russian agricultural exports  (SIM 888)  
1.12.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108185 ) 
Since March 2024 the Eu ropean Commission has been considering a proposal3#COM(2024)148 that 
has as its purpose the  increase in tariffs and  the denial of access to the Union 's tariff rate quotas 
applicable to imports of cereals, oilseeds and related products originating in or ex ported from the 
Russian Federation. In nearly all cases, tariffs on Russian exports to the EU are supposed to increase 
to either EUR 95 per tonne or to an ad valorem duty of 50%, depending on the product.  
The indicated measures will create a discriminatory  trade barrier for Russian foodstuffs access to the 
EU market. Upon the increase of tariffs by the Regulation, these trade flows are expected to 
considerably decrease or even to be disrupted.  
a. Could the EU, please, clarify how the indicated measures corresp ond to WTO rules?  
b. Can the EU share with WTO Members its estimations on how such measures will 
contribute to improving global food security?  
1.13  India's establishment of the National Cooperative Exports Limited (NCEL)  (SIM 889)  
1.13.1   Question  by Canada, Brazil, Austr alia (AG -IMS ID 108076 ) 
In 2023, India established the National Cooperative Exports Limited (NCEL), which appears to be 
aimed at increasing the role of India 's cooperatives in exporting agricultural products. Canada 
understands from news reports that the NCEL will purchase commodities to be exported from its 
ordinary members (multi -state coop, national coop) or nominal/associa te member (person or coop 
bank) at a minimum support price (MSP) fixed by the central government. Out of the total 
profit  NCEL earns from the exports, about 50% will be transferred directly into the bank accounts of 
member farmers. Canada looks forward to reviewing India 's reply to the 2023 Export Competition 
Questionnaire to learn more about the NCEL. In the meantime, Canada would like to ask the 
following:  
a. Could India confirm Canada 's understanding of how the NCEL functions?  
b. Could India elaborate on the measures/policies it has put in place to ensure that the 
NCEL does not operate in a manner that circumvents any of the disciplines contained in 
the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition ?  
Furthermore, Canada understands that the NCEL has been authorized t o act as an intermediary for 
exporting products that are otherwise subject to export restrictions 
(https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri -business/indias -ncel-to-export -1600-
tonnes -of-white -rice-to-singapore/article68047065.ece ).  
c. Could India expand on how the NCEL sources products for these exports and the NCEL's 
role and approach in negotiating prices/quantities with importers?  
d. Could India elaborate on how it is ensuring that the NCEL uses its special rights and 
privileges in a manner that minimizes trade distorting effects and does not result in the 
displa cement or impeding the exports of another Member?  
e. Could India confirm whether other entities have been authorized to export products that 
are otherwise subject to export restrictions, or is the NCEL the sole agent?  
 
3 COM(2024)148 - Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No  2658/87 
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature a nd on the Common Customs Tariff  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.14  Jordan's exports of certain foodstuffs  (SIM 890)  
1.14.1   Question  by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108094 ) 
According to media reports, in December 2023 Jordan has suspended exports of certain foodstuffs 
such as rice, sugar and vegetable oils.  
a. Can Jordan confirm which foodstuffs they have suspended exports of?  
b. Is Jordan a net  exporter of any of the products subject to the measure?  
c. What is the duration of the implemented measure?  
1.15  Malawi's export ban for raw soya beans  (SIM 891)  
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 108093 ) 
Various media sources have reported that Malawi has implemented an export ban for raw soya 
beans, effective 8 April 2024.  
a. Please confirm if an export ban is in place for  raw soya beans.  
If an export ban is in place:  
b. Please indicate the nature and planned duration of this export ban.  
c. Please indicate if Malawi intends to submit an ER:1 notification associated with this 
export ban.  
1.16   Morocco's export ban of olive oil  (SIM 892)  
1.16.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108095 ) 
In October 2023, Morocco imposed a ban on exports of olive oil. Which is the reason for this ban 
and when this measure is foreseen to be lifted?  
1.17  Morocco's support to citrus exports  (SIM 893)  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America, European Union (AG -IMS ID 108097 )  
The United States understands the Government of Morocco continues to provide a set of incentive 
measures to support citrus exports in the form of phytosanitary assistance, packinghouse station 
construction, and incentives to export to specific countries and regions.   
a. Please provide a breakdown of subsidy and incentive categories and the corresponding 
amounts for calenda r years 2020, 2021 and 2022.   
1.18  Mozambique - strip -stamps on alcoholic beverages  (SIM 894)  
1.18.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108099 ) 
On 14 September 2016, the Mozambique Revenue Authority  (MRA) introduced a requirement for 
excise stamps on alcohol beverages and tobacco products (now extended to beer). It is adopted in 
the "Alcoholic Beverages Sealing and Manufactured Tobacco Regulation" pursuant to laws and 
regulations adopted to establish procedures for sealing alcohol beverages and tobacco manufactured 
products subject to excise duties.  
The EU understands that the measure eventually became applicable in 2017 following the pu blication 
of additional guidelines. The current law and regulations mandate the process of sealing beverages G/AG/W/246  
 
- 13 - 
 
  and manufactured tobacco for every producer, importer, supplier, and user, including enforcement 
agents.  
According to the TBT notification made by  Mozambique, the excise stamp regime entered into force 
on 14 September 2016. However, Mozambique did not notify anything else in 2017 when additional 
guidelines for implementing the measure were published and the measure eventually entered into 
force.  
As mentioned bilaterally in the framework of EU -SADC EPA committee meetings in Durban 
(February  2024), this measure may impact EU exports of alcoholic beverages to Mozambique, as EU 
producers may face a competitive disadvantage due to the need to comply wi th such burdensome 
requirements.  
a. As a result, the EU would like to ask clarifications over the effectiveness of the measure 
to achieve its stated goal.  
b. Also, may Mozambique explain why it considered that no additional TBT notification was 
required in 2017  when it published additional guidelines, so that the measure at stake 
eventually entered into force?  
c. Finally, what are the less -restrictive measures that Mozambique took into consideration 
and why was it concluded that they were not suitable for achieving  the same results?  
1.19  Namibia – import restrictions on poultry and pork  (SIM 895)  
1.19.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108118 ) 
Since 2013, imports of poultry products to Namibia are limited by a quota of 1200 ton nes per month 
(total, irrespective of import source), subject to certain conditions and procedures (including 
obligations to buy certain percentage from local producers).   
The measure was first introduced in 2013 but is now enshrined in its current form in Government 
Notice No 7132/2020. The Government itself qualifies this as a quantitative restriction (p. 1). The 
Notice gives rise to the 'Poultry Market Share (PMS) ' scheme, for which later were adopted the 
standard operating procedures (SOPs).  
EU poultry meat export data to Namibia gathered by the Commission – DG AGRI indicate that the 
quota indeed limited exports and hence prevented further poultry exports from the EU, f or which 
there is overall a demand in the market even taking into consideration the outbreaks of avian 
influenza (HPAI) in certain EU countries.  
For pork, the Livestock and Livestock Products Board (LLPB), formerly Meat Board, implemented a 
'Pork Market Sh are Promotion Scheme ' in Namibia, to be implemented as from 1  October  2020 till 
the 30  September  2028. All pork imports are subject to the implementation of a quantitative 
restriction on the importation of fresh/chilled & frozen pork carcasses/cuts at a ra tio of:  
• 1:2 local purchases (kg) to imports between February and September. This means that one 
is allowed to import two kgs for every one kg bought from approved local pork producers; 
and  
• 1:3 local purchases (kg) to imports between October and January, when there is a shortage 
of local pork in the market.  
For both poultry and pork quotas, the EU is of the view that the Namibian measures introducing 
them constitute an import restriction arguably in breach of Article XI:1 GATT and Article 4.2 (Market 
Acces s) of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). The EU has raised this issue during the recent 
TPR of SACU, as well as during the market access meeting with SADC EPA States in Durban in 
February 2024.  
As a result, the EU would like to ask clarification of the following:  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 14 - 
 
  a. How does Namibia justify these measures from the viewpoint of compatibility with 
WTO law?  
b. Inter alia, Annex 5 (Section A) of the AoA would require, for the measures to be 
WTO-compatible, that effective production -restrictin g measures are applied to poultry 
and pork by Namibia, and that Namibia 's WTO Schedule would designate the products 
concerned as being subject to special treatment reflecting factors of non -trade concerns, 
such as food security and environmental protection . Has Namibia made such a 
designation?  
c. With regard to the quota for poultry imports, the EU would like to ask whether the 
ceiling of 1200 ton nes per month should be considered as a duty -free quota, or if full 
MFN duties apply within the quota.  
1.20  Pakistan - Regulatory duties on the export of molasses  (SIM 896)  
1.20.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108102 ) 
In 2021, the E uropean Uni on observed a positive trend in the reduction of the regulatory duties on 
the export of molasses (HS 1703) to 10%. However, in June 2023 these duties were brought back 
to initial level of 15%, which was introduced in 2009.  
As these duties have been in plac e for almost 15 years, can Pakistan indicate when these duties will 
be removed in line with the guidelines towards reaching its National Tariff Policy (NTP) 2019 -24 
objectives?  
1.21  Pakistan's export ban on onions and bananas  (SIM 897)  
1.21.1   Question by United Kingdo m, Canada, Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108103 ) 
We note media reporting that Pakistan may have implemented an export ba n on onions and bananas. 
If this is the case, please can Pakistan confirm:  
a. The nature of any restrictions and the expected duration?  
b. If Pakistan intends to submit the relevant ER:1 notifications to this committee?   
1.22  Panama 's restriction on the importation of pork products  (SIM 898)  
1.22.1   Question by Canada  (AG-IMS ID 108104 ) 
Canada is concerned with Panama 's new Decree No. 4, which came into force on 10 January  2024, 
and which seeks to restrict the importation of pork products originating from any source falling under 
the following tariff l ines: 0203.11; 0203.12; 0203.19; 0203.21; 0203.22; 0203.29; 0210.11.19; 
0210.11.90; 0210.19.10; 0210.19.29; 0210.19.90; 1602.41.11; 1602.42.10; 1602.42.90; 
and 1602.49.19.  The decree appears to apply a quantitative restriction (QR) limiting annual imports 
of pork to 8,791  MT annually for 2024 (+6% annual growth thereafter), which in effect eliminates 
the over -access component of Panama 's pork tariff -rate quotas (TRQ).  
a. Can Panama confirm if the within access volume of 880MT from Panama 's World trade 
Organiza tion's (WTO) TRQ for pork and pork products (i.e., PANQ001) is included in 
what Panama refers to, in the Decree, as the sum of quotas under Panama's 
international trade agreements?  
b. In 2024, what is the difference between the new import volume of 8,791 MT a nd the 
sum of the within access volumes from Panama 's pork TRQ commitments contained in 
its international trade agreements? Will this "additional" volume be subject to an 
in-quota tariff?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 15 - 
 
  c. Could Panama confirm that no imports beyond the import volume of 8, 791 MT are 
permitted? If yes, could Panama explain how this policy aligns with Panama 's 
commitments under GATT XI (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions) and 
Article  4.2 (Market Access) of the Agreement on Agriculture at the WTO? Could Panama 
also explain why it considers that such a measure would be necessary?  
d. Does Panama anticipate changes to the current administration procedures and license 
requirements for its pork import measures, including as it relates to its WTO TRQ for 
pork? For the "addi tional" volume, will the administration and license procedures mirror 
current processes?   
e. Could Panama provide a detailed justification for such a restriction pursuant to 
Article  XI (2) (b) and Article XX, General Exceptions (referenced in Panama's decree) , 
and why the control measures are specific to the tariff items listed in Article 1? Has 
Panama considered less trade restrictive measures to address its concerns?  
f. When does Panama intend to notify this QR to the WTO?  
g. Is there a defined end date for the im position of these measures, and will there be a 
periodic review of their effectiveness? If so, what criteria will be used to assess whether 
adjustments or modifications are necessary in the future?  
1.23  U.S. Value -Added Producer Grants  (SIM 899)  
1.23.1   Question by Ind ia (AG -IMS ID 108109 ) 
On 17 January  2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the application opening 
for Value -Added Producer Grants  for fiscal year 2024. The grants will provide up to USD  75,000 for  
planning activities or up to USD  250,000 for working capital expenses related to producing and 
marketing a value -added agricultural product ( https://aglaw.psu.edu/ag -law-weekly -
review/agricultural -law-weekly -review -january -24-2024/ ) In this context, the US is requested to 
provide  the guidelines, details and the eligibility criteria for Value -Added Producer Grants.   
1.24  U.S. Forest Act 2023  (SIM 900)  
1.24.1   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 108179 ) 
My delegation wishes to inquire more details about the Fostering Overseas Rule of Law and 
Environmentally Sound Trade Act of 2023 (Forest Act 2023), which was introduced to the US Senate 
in November 2023.  
The stated purpose of this proposed piece of legislation is to combat illegal deforestation by 
prohibiting the importation of products made wholly or in part of certain commodities produced on 
land undergoing illegal deforestation, and for other purposes.  
We ask the US to explain:  
a. The definition and scope of "for other purposes" here.  
b. The definition and scope of "deforestation" covered in this legislation, including whether 
the proposed legislat ion differentiates between legal and illegal deforestation.  
c. The changes from the initial bill introduced in 2021.  
d. The basis  used to develop an initial list of commodities to be covered.  
e. Whether the legislation will establish a list of "countries without a dequate and effective 
protection against illegal deforestation for the production of commodities likely to enter 
the US".  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.25  U.S. No Russian Agriculture Act  (SIM 901)  
1.25.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108208 ) 
U.S. legislators are considering a legislation draft H.R.4768, which is also known as 'No Russian 
Agriculture Act.' T he declared aim of the bill is to reduce dependency of the US on Russian agriculture 
commodities. It requires US executive directors at international financial institutions to encourage 
relevant bodies to (1) support projects that decrease the reliance of countries on the Russia n 
Federation  for agricultural commodities, particularly fertilizer and grain; (2) ensure the resilience of 
global grain supplies; and (3) stimulate private investment in the projects.  
The U.S. pursues several goals with this bill, pr imarily to increase prices on basic foodstuffs and 
fertilizers and to shift agriculture trade flows in the interest of American agriculture sector. The 
author of the draft - U.S. Representative Zack Nunn - explicitly and unequivocally states that 
legislati on should reduce reliance on Russian farmers and put the focus back on supporting America 's 
farmers. However, it is obvious that the legislative initiative will result in greater dependency of 
developing counties on more expensive US agriculture supplies.  
The following questions emerge from the observation:  
a. How does the act correspond to the WTO spirit of non -discrimination while creating 
additional challenges for supplies of more accessible agricultural goods?  
b. How a decrease of agriculture exports from the Russia n Federation , that proved to be a 
reliable supplier of wheat and fertilizers to the world market will contribute to improving 
global food security?  
1.26  Uruguay's National Adaptation Plan to Climate Variability and Change for the 
Agricultural Sector' (N AP-Agro)  (SIM 902)  
1.26.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 108107 ) 
The Government of Uruguay has formulated a climate action plan to a ddress the challenges of 
climate change confronting its agricultural sector. This plan not only aims to mitigate these impacts 
but also aligns with Uruguay's goals of fulfilling its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and 
advancing the Sustainable Dev elopment Goals (SDGs).  
The 'Uruguayan National Adaptation Plan to Climate Variability and Change for the Agricultural 
Sector' (NAP -Agro) outlines a strategic approach centered around production systems, ecosystems 
and natural resources, livelihoods, and i nstitutional capacities ( https://sdg.iisd.org/news/uruguay -
launches -nap-for-agricultural -sector/  
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/NAP%20agriculture%20Uruguay%20exec
utive%20summary%20ENG.pdf )  
In this context, India requests to provide the following information:  
a. When is Uruguay planning to implement this programme?  
b. Would Uruguay be able to provide detailed information on the processes and strategies 
it has established to ensure compliance with WTO requi rements?  
c. Could Uruguay indicate how it intends to notify this subsidy in its Table  DS:1 
notification?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 17 - 
 
  SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.27  Australia - Farm Investment Loans programme (SIM 864)  
1.27.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 108113 ) 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID: 107076 , India requests Australia to provide the following information:  
a. The number of regional schemes that provide concessional loans alongside the Farm 
Invest ment Loans Scheme.  
b. State -wise breakup of expenditure on these regional concessional loan schemes in the 
years  2020-21, 2021 -22 and 2022 -23. 
1.27.2   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 108114 ) 
India notes Australia 's reply to AG -IMS ID 107077 , wherein it is stated that the Farm Investment 
Loans  are not export contingent. Australia further stated that "Guideline 4.1 of the Farm Investment 
Loans Program Guidelines stipulate that a business does not have to sell directly to interstate and/or 
outside Australia" and that "sales can be into a supply c hain that supplies domestic interstate 
markets." In this regard, India has the following follow -up questions:  
a. How many of the 112 beneficiaries of the Farm Investment Loans Scheme are solely 
selling into domestic interstate markets?  
b. How many of the 112 be neficiaries of the Farm Investment Loans Scheme are sellers 
exporting to the international markets? What are the main commodities exported by 
these beneficiaries?  
c. How does a 'business ' demonstrate the 'intent to supply outside the state or territory ' 
to fulfil the eligibility criteria of the Farm Investment Loans Scheme?  
d. It is noted, from Australia 's answers, that the criteria for Farm Investment loans does 
not differentiate between sellers selling into domestic interstate markets and those 
selling into i nternational markets. In this case, how does Australia ensure that 
concessional loans provided to international exporters under the Farm Investment 
Loans scheme do not circumvent its export subsidy commitments under the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision (2015)?  
1.28  Brazil's Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  
1.28.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 108052 ) 
The E uropean Union  would like to th ank Brazil for the reply to the question AG-IMS ID 107035  
regarding the conditions or access to favourable interest rates under Plano Sa fra. In its reply Brazil 
confirms that this access is conditional upon the uses of Brazilian materials. However, the reply does 
not provide arguments as to why Brazil considers  this measure to be in line with Art.  III:4 GATT and 
the TRIMS Agreement.  
Can Brazil explain how this condition complies with paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 in the 
light of paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to the TRIMS agreement?  
1.29  Canada's dairy Innova tion and Investment Fund (SIM 865)  
1.29.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 108156 ) 
New Zealand thanks Canada for their previous answer to AG -IMS ID 107010 , however we are stil l 
seeking answers to parts (i) and (ii). New Zealand would like to repeat these questions, with some 
additions:  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 18 - 
 
  a. Will Canada approve funding for projects that identify exports as a targeted market?  
b. Will Canada notify such exports supported by this governmen t funding to the WTO?  
c. New Zealand notes that based on the linked article (published by the Canadian 
Broadcasting Corporation on 23/04/24), that Canadian dairy companies have already 
made use of Canada's Innovation Fund. Can Canada confirm what steps are ta ken to 
ensure that the processed skim solids are not exported?  
d. How is Canada ensuring that there are no exports as a result of the increased production 
from the Innovation Fund?  
e. Can Canada indicate how it will notify the Innovation Fund to the committee?  
1.30  Canada's tariff rate quota for cheese (SIM 345)  
1.30.1   Question  by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 108058 ) 
In AG-IMS ID 87107 , Canada explained at the time that it had adjusted the volume of the E U reserve 
under their WTO TRQ for cheese to maintain the relative shares for EU and non -EU members 
following an enlargement of the EU, in line with GATT Article XIII.  The United Kingdom assumes a 
consistent approach will be taken and would like to know:  
a. Whether Canada intends, following the UK 's exit from the EU, to apply an adjustment 
to the EU and non -EU reserves under Canada 's WTO cheese TRQ to maintain relative 
shares?  
1.31  China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  
1.31.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 108053 ) 
Canada notes the transparency issues related to China 's Blue Box and provincial/local measures.  
In this context, Canada would like to reiterate previous questions in AG -IMS ID 107013 , in the hope 
of receiving comprehensive and complete answers:  
In response to Canada's questions in AG -IMS ID s 104105 , 105028 , 105029 , and 106073  on how 
China's Blue Box measures for rice in husk ( G/AG/N/CHN/66 ) and corn and soybeans 
(G/AG/N/CHN/67 ) are production -limiting, China stated that "the signal of production limit was 
released".  
a. Could China provide official publications that would include details of programme eligibility 
criteria, conditions, mechanisms or policy tools that have the effect of limiting the production 
of these commodities (e.g., production quotas), and tha t clearly demonstrate how these 
Blue Box measures effectively limit production and comply with the criteria set in Article  6.5? 
Furthermore, China has yet to provide detailed responses to questions in AG -IMS ID s 105025 , 
106074 . Canada woul d appreciate full and detailed responses for each of these questions.    
With respect to key beef/cattle sector information, China indicated that "the current statistical 
system of Chinese central government makes it difficult to count support measures of l ocal 
governments. There is no further information to be provided". In this regard, Canada would like to 
seek the following clarifications:   
a. Could China confirm whether the current statistical system's difficulties in obtaining 
local/provincial measures app lies to all commodity sectors, in addition to beef and 
cattle?  
b. In light of the difficulties encountered by the central government's statistical system, 
could China confirm whether it has included and accounted for all  local/provincial G/AG/W/246  
 
- 19 - 
 
  domestic support meas ures in its domestic support notifications, as per paragraph 3 of 
Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. If not, could China provide information on steps and approaches it is taking to address 
this issue?  
1.32  EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strate gy (SIM 558)  
1.32.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 108068 ) 
Following -up to question AG-IMS ID 107021  and others, Brazil  acknowledges the response by the  EU 
on the CAP  requirement to spare 4 % of arable land as  non-productive area, in contrast to Brazilian 
20% to 80% requirement, but must insist on the non -replied  question on how the EU plans to offset 
the damage to  foreign trade, especially with vulnerable smallholder  suppliers, as entry into force of 
the EU deforestation  legislation (EUDR) rapidly approaches.  
Under enormous strain, given the commercial importance  of the products involved, Brazil must note 
that this  Committee session takes place seven months  before the  entry into force of the EUDR. Some 
of these contracts  are negotiated years in advance; a semester is no more than the timeframe for 
production and transportation.  
Yet, numerous trading partners, especially developing  countries, where most of na tive vegetation is 
still preserved, have no guidelines to comply with the EUDR,  regardless of the actual risk of 
deforestation.  
As different partners extensively declared, the EU  opened no meaningful dialogue with potentially  
affected countries before voti ng the EUDR. As a  consequence of a rushed and one -sided process, in 
the eve of its entry into force, the EUDR lacks, for  instance, the appointment of some national  
authorities, no sign of harmonic national -level supplementary legislation, clear criteria fo r due  
diligence paperwork, working IT system for data  collection, reliable surveillance and mapping system  
for deforestation, among other indispensable  information for trade predictability.  
a. In light of the aforementioned lack of information,  is the EU cons idering postponing the 
entry into force  or completely reassessing the EUDR?  
b. In case of a negative answer, Brazil would ask the  EU to present solid deadlines for 
disclosing and  implement the following measures:  
- Possible supplementary national legislation  implementing the EUDR;  
- Precise list of documents, with detailed information  on the content of due diligence 
paperwork for each  product under the EUDR;  
- Official launch? for all users? of the digital  platform for registering due diligence and 
support documents ; 
- Structural correction on the European Forest  Observatory, which has serious accuracy 
errors and  confuses areas of planted vegetation with areas of  native vegetation, or the 
announcement of alternative  sources of information on deforestation;  
- Testing peri ods for IT systems, customs, and trading  operations.  
c. If the EU insists on anchoring its legislation in  the exceptions of Article XX of GATT 1994, 
g (relating  to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources),  it is necessary to take 
into account the chapeau of  the same article which states that the exceptions  apply 
when there is no discrimination or disguised  restriction on trade. As we approach 
December, and the  EU is imposing a practical impossibility on trade with  various 
partners, especially devel oping countries, by  requiring impractical supporting 
documents, the  discrimination and trade restriction could not be  clearer. Could the EU 
elaborate on how the EUDR can be considered consistent with WTO rules when 
its discriminatory and trade -restrictive effects become  ever more material and the EU 
shows little openness to  dialogue?  
d. The EUDR treats the commitments countries made  voluntarily under the Paris 
Agreement (NDCs) as  inescapable obligations. However, in response to  protests by G/AG/W/246  
 
- 20 - 
 
  farmers throughout t he continent, the EU  just recently revealed that its 
environmental  commitments related to agriculture will be reviewed.  
Apparently, the rest of the world has no similar  rights. Brazil wishes to understand in what capacity  
the EU is entitled to determine, w ith most serious  trade implications, the cogency in third parties  
commitments while it faces similar challenges  internally in the right balance among the three  pillars 
of sustainable development.  
1.32.2   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 108115 ) 
In the context of the EU deforestation regulation, the EU response to AG -IMS ID  105034  stated that 
the "NDICI -Global Europe - instrument will provide EUR 1 billion in grants for the period 2021 -2024 
to protect, restore, and sustainably manage forests in partner countries. Also, EUR 2.5 billion will be 
provided in grants for the period 2021 -2024 to support sustainable agriculture in partner countries".  
In furtherance to the abo ve-stated response, India seeks the following information:  
Could the E uropean Union  provide details of the grants provided to protect, restore, and sustainably 
manage forests in partner countries, as well as details pertaining to grants provided to support  
sustainable agriculture in partner countries?   
1.32.3   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 108116 ) 
The Impact assessment report of EU Defo restation Regulation (EUDR) on "Minimising the risk of 
deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market" highlights 
that "Operators in third countries, including smallholders, could face costs to develop or implement 
systems to allow EU operators to comply with the new requirements, where they do not already 
have systems in place. Further, additional costs borne by actors in producing countries to ensure 
compliance with the regulation would be any costs of switching to p roduction practices compliant 
with the deforestation -free definition".  
In this context, India seeks the following information:  
a. What measures does the EU intend to take to mitigate the impacts of such a unilateral 
measure on low -income resource -poor farmer s of developing and least developing 
countries?  
b. Would the EU implement mechanisms to cover adaptation costs in traceability and due 
diligence requirements?  
1.32.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 108117 ) 
India raises its concerns about the "Benchmarking system" adopted by the EU under its 
Deforestation Regulation, which would categorize the exporter countries into high -risk and low -risk 
based on certain conditions. One of the conditions is "whether the Nationally Determined 
Contributions (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change cover 
emissions and removals from agriculture, forestry, and land use".  
In this conte xt, India requests the EU to elaborate on the rationale behind setting agriculture -related 
NDC commitments to UNFCC as a criterion for the benchmarking system.  
1.32.5   Question by Indonesia (AG -IMS ID 108067 ) 
Indonesia wishes to follow -up to its question AG-IMS ID 104053  and inquire more detailed 
information regarding coun try benchmarking in the EU 's Deforestation and Forest Degradation 
policy.  
a. Who would be responsible for the categorization of countries as low -risk, standard -risk, 
or high -risk?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 21 - 
 
  b. Will the EU employ a third party to conduct the categorization? If so, does th is third 
party possess exclusive authority in the benchmarking? Or will it consult the 
EU Commission and the producing countries? Would it be possible for the respective 
target country to appeal the result of such categorization?  
c. What will be the basis of  categorization? Will it be country -based, region -based, or 
commodity -based?  
If a commodity from one particular region is considered as high -risk, will the same categorization 
apply to other commodities from the same region?  
Will the label of a particular  commodity in one region be also applied to that particular commodity 
from other region in the same country?   
d. In response  to our previous question AG-IMS ID  104053 , the EU stated that the main 
criteria for assessment in country benchmarking include: (i) rate of deforestation and 
forest degradation, (ii) rate of  expansion of agriculture land for relevant commodities, 
and (iii) production trends of relevant commodities and of relevant products.  
Could the European Union  provide detailed information about the methodology to calculate the 
aforementioned criteria, in cluding the data sources?  
How would the E uropean Union  resolve the possibility of discrepancies in data and/or the 
unavailability  of the required data?   
e. When will the benchmarking start to apply?   
In addition, Indonesia also requests the EU to explain:  
f. whether the Regulation intends to eventually replace the existing certification schemes, 
such as the Roundtable Sustainable Palm Oil  (RSPO) and the Indonesian Sustainable 
Palm Oil  (ISPO).  
g. Who would  be the competent authorities in the context of the implementation of the 
Regulation. Please also explain about the business process involved and the review of 
the implementation of the Regulation.   
1.32.6   Question by New Zealand, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108157 ) 
Given the potential implications for trade in agricultural goods, New Zealand wishes to raise the EU 's 
Deforestation Regulation , which we have also raised in other WTO Committees including CTG. We 
appreciate the opportunity to engage with the EU in these fora.  
In this vein, New Zealand would like to express concern again about the high compliance burden 
placed on exporters to the  EU, in particular for low -risk countries, and the impact the Regulation 
may have on global agricultural trade.  
While New Zealand shares the EU 's goal to address global deforestation, we are concerned this is 
not the most trade facilitative approach.  
We seek further information on:  
a. whether the E uropean Union  will be extending the date for commencement of 
implementation of the regulation past 30 December 2024, or provide for a soft start, to 
give time to address stakeholders concerns, and for additional cl arity from the 
Commission?  
b. How the E uropean Union  will give due consideration to the local laws and conditions of 
exporters to the EU given the significant differences in our agricultural systems?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 22 - 
 
  We encourage the EU to consider how it could advance dialog ue multilaterally on trade responses to 
environmental challenges.  
1.33  India 's export restriction  measures on rice  (SIM 767)  
1.33.1   Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia , United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 108075 ) 
In January 2024, in the context of India 's ongoing export restrictions on rice, India 's Economic Times 
reported that the United Nations had barred Indian exporters from participating in its rice 
procurement tenders for the World Food Program  (WFP) 
(https://economictimes.indiatimes. com/news/economy/foreign -trade/un -bars-indian -rice-
exporters -from-wfp/articleshow/106907185.cms  ). In late February 2024, several news outlets 
reported that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade  (DGFT) of India had re ceived requests to 
allow India 's rice exporters to engage in the WFP 's rice tender process, which the DGFT denied.  
a. Could India confirm whether its rice exporters have been prohibited from participating 
in the WFP 's rice tenders or if related exporter requ ests have been denied, including in 
the context of the WFP 's recent tenders for broken rice supplies to countries including 
Cameroon, Togo and Algeria?  
b. If so, what factors and considerations have led the DGFT to prohibit India 's rice 
exporters from partic ipating in the WFP tenders or deny related export requests?  
c. Could India explain how this prohibition or refusal complies with the 2022 Ministerial 
Decision on WFP Food Purchases Exemption from Export Prohibitions or Restrictions and 
India's commitment to exempt WFP non -commercial humanitarian food purchases from 
its export prohibitions or restrictions?  
d. When will India 's rice exporters be allowed to participate in the WFP 's rice tenders?  
1.33.2   Question  by United Kingdom, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108078 ) 
According to recent media reports, despite India 's general export ban on non -basmati white rice, 
India has permitted exports of 3 0,000  tonnes of non -basmati white rice to Tanzania and 
80,000  tonnes of broken rice to Djibouti and Guinea Bissau.   
Please could India explain:  
a. Whether the reporting on this is accurate, and if so, which other Members have 
benefited from government -to-government agreements with India on the export of non -
basmati white rice?  
b. What further information India intends to communicate on bilateral arrangements, and 
other government -to-government agreements, that may impact the international rice 
market, to aid transparency and reduce volatility?   
1.34  India's export restrictions  on onions  (SIM 652)  
1.34.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 108077 ) 
On 7 December 2023, India announced an export ban on its export of onions, effective from 
7 December  2023 until 31  March  2024 (Directorate General of Foreign Trade notification 
No.42/2023). Previously, co -sponsors of AG -IMS ID 106005  also raised questions with respect to 
India's imposition of a minimum export price (MEP) of US D 800 FOB per metric ton nes on its export 
of onions (Tariff items 0703 10 10 and 0712 20 00), effective from 29  October  2023 until 
31 December  2023 (Directorate General of Foreign Trade notification No.42 /2023) and a 40% export 
duty on India 's exports of onions (sub -heading 0703 10), effective since 19 August 2023, until 
31 December  2023 (Department of Revenue No. 48/2023).    G/AG/W/246  
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Could India provide further information on the reasons for converting the export 
restriction into an export ban? What elements led to the conclusion that the previously 
implemented export restriction was not enough to meet the government 's stated 
objective?  
b. Could India confirm whether the export ban on onions is still in effect?   
c. Could India explain how the food security of importing Members has been considered in 
its decision to impose an export ban on onions?  
d. When does India intend to provide an ER:1 notification for its export bans on onions?  
1.35  Nigeria's import prohibitions and restr ictions (Including quantitative restrictions 
(SIM 223)  
1.35.1   Question  by United States of America, Australia, European Union, Canada (AG -IMS 
ID 108101 ) 
The Government of Nigeria has indicated it has not lifted import bans on any of the 25 product 
categories listed as prohibited f or import, which include many food and agricultural products .  
a. Please explain the reasoning for continuing to impose import prohibitions on a wide 
range of food and agricultural products, including frozen poultry, pork, b eef, eggs, live 
birds, refined vegetable oils, cane or beet sugar, cocoa butter, powder, and cakes, 
spaghetti/noodles, tomatoes, fruit juice in retail packs, sweetened beverages, beer, and 
selected non -alcoholic beverages.   
b. If these import prohibitions wer e put in place with respect to sanitary and phytosanitary 
concerns, please explain why these prohibitions are in place for all imports from all 
countries, regardless of risk.   
1.36  Türkiye 's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.36.1   Question by Uni ted Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, Switzerland , Brazil  
(AG-IMS ID  108106 ) 
We thank Türkiye for their response recorded in AG-IMS 107133 . Please can Türkiye confirm whether 
the export restriction on olive oil is still in place? If so, when will they submit the required 
ER:1 notification?  
1.37  Türkiye's export ban on olive oil  exports (SIM 703)  
1.37.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 108105 ) 
In July 2023, Türkiye imposed a ban on exports on bulk of olive oil, this ban was supposed to end 
in October 2023 but  was extended. The ban was not notified to the WTO. Which is the reason for 
this ban and when this measure is foreseen to be lifted?  
1.38  UK's Forest Risk Commodities Provisions (SIM 731)  
1.38.1   Question by India  (AG-IMS ID 108119 ) 
On 9 December 2023, the U nited Kingdom  confirmed that the full list of commodities in -scope of the 
Forest Risk Commodities regulation covers  cattle products (e xcluding dairy), cocoa, palm oil and soy 
and any derived products ( https://questions -statements.parliament.uk/written -
statements/detail/2023 -12-12/hcws117 ).  
In this context, India requests the United Kingdom  to provide the following information:  
a. What are the compliance requirements for the covered products under this proposal?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. When does the United Kingdom  intend to implement the regulation?  
c. How would the United Kingdom  ensure that the measure does not amount to an 
unjustifiable non -trade barrier ? 
d. What measures does the United Kingdom  intend to take to consult with other countries 
to mitigate the negative trade impacts of this proposed regulation?  
1.38.2   Question by Indonesia  (AG-IMS ID 108178 ) 
Indonesia wishes to inquire more information about the Environment Act 2021, specifically about 
the Forest Risk Commodity Regulations.  
We ask the U nited Kingdom  to provide updates reg arding the process related to secondary legislation 
to operationalize the requirement of Schedule 17, including information about the due diligence 
requirements.  
We ask the U nited Kingdom  also to explain whether it has conducted meaningful consultation wit h 
countries possibly affected by this Regulation.  
1.39  U.S. Food Security programmes (SIM 875)  
1.39.1   Question  by European Union, New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 108098 ) 
In reply to a question from the E uropean Union  and New Zealand AG-IMS ID 107033  concerning the 
Food for Progress programme, the US replied that it "conducts numerous analyses to ensure that 
local production and markets will not be impacted, and U.S. commercial interests will not be 
affected". Do both conditions need to be complied wi th? Which of those two conditions prevails in a 
situation when they oppose each other?  
The U nited States  also stated that those assessments are not publicly available. However, the ECQ 
in its Food Aid section imposes on Members the obligation to provide a description of relevant needs 
assessment and whether food is responding to a declaration of emergency or an emergency appeal. 
Will the US be providing this information in its replies to the ECQ?  
1.39.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108108 ) 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development announced 
in April 2024 that they will deploy $1 billi on in Commodity Credit Corporation funding to purchase 
U.S.-grown commodities to provide emergency food assistance to people in need throughout the 
world.  
An initial tranche of approximately $950 million will support the purchase, shipment and distribution  
of U.S. wheat, rice, sorghum, lentils, chickpeas, dry peas, vegetable oil, cornmeal, navy beans, pinto 
beans and kidney beans – commodities that align with traditional USAID international food 
assistance programming. USDA will purchase the commodities and  transfer them to USAID for 
distribution.  
USAID has selected 18 countries for the initial round of support: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Nigeria, 
Rwanda, Sout h Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda. Yemen.  
Can the US explain how it will ensure the conformity of this programme with paragraphs 23 -32 of 
the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, contributing to the objective of preventing commercial 
displacement?  
In par ticular, can the US specify how this programme takes into account local market conditions of 
the same or substitute products in recipient countries?  
 G/AG/W/246  
 
- 25 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Dominican  Republic ( G/AG/N/DOM/53 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108040 : Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada would like to thank the Dominican Republic for its MA:2 notification covering calendar 
year 2023. Canada notes that the fill rate for maize (corn) was 100%, consistent with previous 
trends. For c alendar year 2022 ( G/AG/N/DOM/51 ), the Dominican Republic mentioned that it was 
considered unnecessary to open the TRQ as the Government applies a 0% tariff on all imports of 
maize. Could the Dominican Republic further elaborate on why a 0% tariff on al l imports of maize 
was applied in 2022, but not in any other recent year?   
AG-IMS ID 108220 : Question  by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the Dominican Republic for submitting 
notification G/AG/N/DOM/53 . We note the low fill rate of tariff quota DOMQ006 "Rice" - 8.3%.  
Could you please indicate:  
a. The reaso ns for the low fill rate of this tariff quota?  
b. Whether there are plans to modify the TRQ administration mechanism in line with the 
Bali Decision for a better TRQ fill rate?  
2.1.2   El Salvador  (G/AG/N/SLV/88 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108217 : Question  by Paraguay - Other administration arrangements  
The delegation of Paraguay thank s El Salvador for submitting notification G/AG/N/SLV/88 .  
We note that El Salvador has not indicated the fill rate for all the quotas included in its schedule of 
commitments.  
Could El Salvador indicate why the other quotas have not been opened?  
2.1.3   Kazakh stan (G/AG/N/KAZ/28 , G/AG/N/KAZ/31 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108041 : Question  by Canada, B razil, Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that Kazakhstan's fill rate for its fresh, chilled or frozen beef TRQ (KAZQ001) has been 
consistently at or below 10% since Kazakhstan started providing MA:2 notifications (2016), with the 
latest fill rate at 1.3% (2022) and 4.7% (2023).   
a. Can Kazakhstan explain the reasons for the significant under -fill of tariff quotas for 
beef (KAZQ001)?   
b. For this tariff quota, has Kazakhstan considered moving to a tariff -only regime for those 
products?   
c. Can Kazakhstan pro vide information on any of the measures it may be taking to increase 
the utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, as per the objective of the review of the  
Bali Decision  on TRQ Administration?   
AG-IMS ID 108218 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of Kazakhstan for submitting notifications 
G/AG/N/KAZ/28  and G/AG/N/KAZ/31 . We note the low fill rate for the following tariff quotas:  
- KAZQ001 - Fresh, chilled or frozen beef: 1.3% and 4.7%  
- KAZQ003 - Meat and edible offal, of the poultry of heading 01.05, fresh, chilled or frozen, 
not listed above: 24.7% and 37.9%  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Could you please indicate:  
a. The reasons for the low fill rate of this tariff quota?  
b. Whether there are plans to modify the TRQ administration mechanism in line with the 
Bali Decision for a better TRQ fill rate?  
2.1.4   Korea, Republic  of (G/AG/N/KOR/93 , G/AG/N/KOR/98 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108039 : Question by Canada, Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Canada would like to thank the Republic of Korea for its MA:2  notifications covering calendar 
year 2022 and 2023 respectively. Canada notes that several fill rates remain significantly low, 
something that has been raised by various Members throughout the years.    
a. Could the Republic of Korea explain the reasons for the low fill rate of the following tariff 
quotas for 2022 and 2023: KORQ001 (0%); KORQ002 (0%); KORQ0014 (0%); 
KORQ0015 (0%); KORQ0016 (0%); KORQ0017 (0%); KORQ0017 (0%); KORQ0026 
(0%); KORQ0030 (0%); KORQ0038 (0%); KORQ0042 (0%); KORQ0044 (0%) ; 
KORQ0055(0%); KORQ0063 (0%) and KORQ0066 (0%).   
b. Could the Republic of Korea provide information on any of the measures it may be taking 
to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, as per the objective of the Bali 
Decision on TRQ Administra tion?  
Furthermore, Canada has noticed that between 2022 and 2023, the fill rate for KORQ001 (butter) 
sharply increased from 4,6% to 100%. The same observation can be made for KORQ034 (ginger), 
where the fill rate also increased from 0% to 100% between 202 2 and 2023.    
c. Could Republic of Korea advise if the changes in the utilisation of these quotas are the 
result of a modification in the allocation methodology?   
d. Could the Republic of Korea provide information as to the factors or circumstances that 
led to t hese sharp increases.   
AG-IMS ID 108148 : Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand notes that in Korea 's latest MA:2 Notification ( G/AG/N/KOR/98 ), the fill rate for Milk 
and Cream (KORQ009), and Whey (KORQ010) remain low, with a fill rate of 18.2% and 34.8% 
respectively. Why have the fill rates  for these quotas remained low since 2021 (according to previous 
notifications), and has the Republic of Korea given consideration to changing their Tariff Quota 
Administration to address these consistently low fill rates?  
AG-IMS ID 108216 : Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
The delegation of Paraguay tha nks the Republic of Korea for submitting notifications G/AG/N/KOR/93  
and G/AG/N/KOR/98 . We note the low fill rate for the following tariff quotas: KORQ001; KORQ002; 
KORQ003, KORQ009, KORQ010, KORQ012, KORQ014; KORQ0015; KORQ0016; KORQ0017; 
KORQ018; KORQ022; KORQ025; KORQ0026; KORQ0030; KORQ031; KORQ0042; KORQ0044; 
KORQ0055; K ORQ058; KORQ062; KORQ0063 ; KORQ0066 and KORQ067.  
Could you please indicate:  
a. The reasons for the low fill rate of this tariff quota?  
b. Whether there are plans to modify the TRQ administration mechanism in line with the 
Bali Decision for a better TRQ fill rat e? G/AG/W/246  
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.1.5   United Kingdom  (G/AG/N/GBR/25 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108219 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the United Kingdom for submitting notification 
G/AG/N/GBR/25 . We note the low fill rate for the following tariff quotas: GBRQ013, GBRQ018, 
GBRQ021, GBRQ023, GB RQ025, GBRQ026, GBRQ033, GBRQ034, GBRQ035, GBRQ036, GBRQ038, 
GBRQ041, GBRQ045, GBRQ047, GBRQ049, GBRQ050, GBRQ052, GBRQ057, GBRQ060, GBRQ061, 
GBRQ075, GBRQ079, GBRQ080, GBRQ082, GBRQ084, and GBRQ085.  
a. Could you please indicate:  
i. The reasons for the low fill rate of this tariff quota?  
ii. Whether there are plans to modify the TRQ administration mechanism in line with 
the Bali Decision for a better TRQ fill rate?  
We also note that the United Kingdom has not notified imports under quotas GBRQ28, GBRQ29, 
GBRQ31, GBRQ48, GBRQ51, GBRQ68, GBRQ86, GBRQ87, GBRQ89, and GBRQ90.  
b. Could you please indicate why imports under these quotas were not notified?  
AG-IMS ID 108042 : Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada thanks the United Kingdom for its most recent MA:2 notification, covering the calendar 
year 2023. Canada remains concerned with the low fill rate for several TRQs. In its reply to AG -IMS 
ID 106088 , the United Kingdom as indicated that it will adapt its approach to quota administration 
where necessary.    
a. Is the United Kingdom considering adapting its TRQ administration methodology to 
increase the fill rates for these TRQs?    
b. Can the United Kingdom provide information on any of the measures it may be taking 
to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, as per the objective of the Bali 
Decision on TRQ Administration?    
AG-IMS ID 108121 : Question  by India - Tariff quota fill  
India thanks the United Kingdom f or its most recent Table MA:2 notification ( G/AG/N/GBR/25 ), 
covering the calendar year 2023. India notes that, in this notification, several of the United 
Kingdom 's tariff -rate quotas (TRQ) appear to have low fill rates. This includes TRQ ID 's 
GBRQ013  (28.9%), GBRQ057 (14%), GBRQ052 (0%), GBRQ050 (0%), GBRQ047 (19.1%). Could 
the UK:  
a. Explain the circumstances, including any market -related factors or any consideration 
related to TRQ administration and import requirements, which may have led to its  TRQ 
underfills?  
b. Clarify whe ther it has any plans to modify the TRQ administration methods to improve 
these fill rates.  
AG-IMS ID 108122 : Question  by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Thailand appreciates the United Kingdom's MA:2 notification. Could the United Kingdom kindly 
explain the reason that Manioc Starch (GB RQ060 and GBRQ061) recorded a low fill rate in 2023?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TPKM/233 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108123 : Question by Thailand - Trigger calculations  
Thailand appreciates Chinese Taipei's submission of a notification on SSGs that apply to Pomelos 
in 2024. According to the notification, no pomelos were imported into Chinese Taipei between 2020 
and 2022. Could Chinese Taipei provide an explanation for the rationale and approach of 
implementing this SSG?  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT  COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Argentina  (G/AG/N/ARG/51 , G/AG/N/ARG/51/Corr.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108124 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its Domestic support notification( G/AG/N/ARG/51 ) for the agricultural year 2019 -2020 and in the 
corrigendum ( G/AG/N/ARG/51/corr.1 ), Argentina notified  Current Total AMS for Tobacco in its 
supporting Table DS:4 as 74,181,773  pesos, which is 98.88% of the Final Bound Total AMS 
commitment level of Argentina. In this regard, India seeks the following information:  
a. What was the value of production of Tobacco for the agricultural year 2019 -2020?  
b. When does Argentina plan to file DS:1 notification for agricultural years 2020 -21, 
2021-22, and 2022 -23, the last being filed for the year 2019/2020 in 2022?   
2.3.2   Australia ( G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108125 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India notes Australia 's expenditure of AUD 16 million under the "Australian Government: Export and 
Regional Wine Support Package" in its latest DS:1 notification for FY 2019 -20 and has the foll owing 
follow -up questions to AG -IMS ID 107153 : 
a. India not es that on Wine Australia 's website ( https://www.wineaustralia.com/whats -
happening/highlights -of-the-$50m -package ), the scheme ena bled 'delivery of  Wine 
Export Grants  to 135  Australian wine producers to fund their own promotional activities 
in 2018-19, and a second round that 's currently available with expanded criteria to 
diversify into new markets '. Could Australia please confirm that support for these 
135 wine export grants under the scheme in 2018 -19 has been notified to the WTO?  
b. India wis hes to know the duration of the second round of the Wine Exports Grant 
Programme and whether the support notified in G/AG/N/AUS/157/rev.1  under the 
Australian Government: Export and Regional Wine Support Package is actually support 
given in the second round. Also, India seeks to know the 'expanded criteria ' for receiving 
support under the second round of the Wine Exports Grants program.  
c. India notes from the Wine Australia factsheet at  
https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/c2665c7e -7fc1-4b34-9055-
633da97562e0/ERWSP_WEG_FactSheet3_v2 -%281%29.pdf  that a number of Wine 
Export Grants ha d been provided to offset the cost of marketing wine in export markets 
from 1  July 2020. India wishes to know how many such grants were provided from 
July 2020 to June 2021 and the quantum of expenditure on these grants in this given 
period. Also, India seeks to know how these export -contingent grants are compliant 
with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition (2015)?  
d. India seeks a breakup of the AUD  50 million Export and Regional Wine Support Package 
as given in the Wine Australia Web site, with specific year -wise expenditures from 
FY 2018-19 to FY 2020 -21 under each of the following heads: (i) Targeted Market 
Campaigns in the USA and China, (ii) Capability Development Programs, (iii)  Wine 
Export and International Wine Tourism Grants.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108127 : Question by India - Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks Australia for submitting a revised DS:1 Notification ( G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 ) for 
FY 2019-20. However, India notes that the expenditure under the South Australia Red Meat and 
Wool Programme continues to remain reported in Supporting Table DS:6 and Supporting Table DS:9 
in the revised notification. In this regard, India has the following queries:  
a. Australia stated in reply to AG -IMS ID 107088  and AG -IMS ID 107142  that such 
duplication in reporting arose out of an error. India would urge Australia to correctly 
classify the said program under Supporting Table DS:6 by issuing a second revision.  
b. India also wishes to know the quantum of support provided and the number  of 
beneficiaries under the South Australia Red Meat and Wool Program in FY  2020-21, 
FY 2021-22, and FY  2022-23. 
AG-IMS ID 108126 : Question by India - Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters  
India notes that Australia has enacted several domestic support programs to offset the effects of 
Bushfires, including (i) Emergency Bushfire Response in Primary Industries Grant, (ii) Victoria: 
Eastern Victoria 2019 -20 bushfire recovery support programs for primary producers, and (iii) South 
Eastern Victoria bushfire recovery support for primary producer s, in the FY 2019 -20 period. In this 
context, India would like to know the following:  
a. In the follow -up to AG -IMS ID 107182 , whether Australia has reviewed the two Bushfire 
Recovery Support Programs against the criteria of Annex 2, para 8. In particular, how 
has Australia ensured compliance with Annex 2, Para 8 ( b) and (c)?  
b. India would also like to know the number of beneficiaries under each of the following 
schemes: (i) Victoria National Disaster Concessional Loans Scheme, (ii) South Australia: 
Bushfire Recovery (PIRSA), (iii) Eastern Victoria 2019 -20 bushfire re covery support 
programs for primary producers, and (iv) Australian Government: Emergency Bushfire 
Response in Primary Industries Grant.  
c. India wishes to know if the same primary producer in Victoria would be eligible to receive 
support from multiple 'bushf ire' recovery schemes. If so, could Australia provide the 
number of beneficiaries benefitting from more than one bushfire recovery scheme in FY 
2019-20?  
2.3.3   Bangladesh ( G/AG/N/BGD/5/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/BGD/11/Rev.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108066 : Question by United States of America, European Union, Australia, 
Canada – Market price support  
Bangladesh has notified market price support for rice and wheat in Supporting Table DS:5 in 
G/AG/N/BGD/11  and previous notifications. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated 
Bangladesh's paddy rice production at approximately 52 million metric tonnes in 2020/21. However, 
the sum of the eligible production listed in Supporting Table DS:5 for ri ce is significantly less.  
a. Please explain how eligible production was determined for rice and wheat.   
b. For any procurement undertaken by the government, please explain how such 
procurement is released from public stocks.   
AG-IMS ID 108005 : Question by Canada, Japan, Australia – Transparency  issues 
(including Table  DS:2)  
Bangladesh submitted seven revised Table DS:1 notifications for reporting periods 2008/2009 
(G/AG/N/BGD/5/Rev.1 ), 2010/2011 ( G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1 ), 2012/2013 ( G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1 , 
2014/2015 ( G/AG/N/BGD/8/Rev.1 ), 2016/2017 ( G/AG/N/BGD/9/Rev.1 ), 2018/2019 
(G/AG/N/BGD/10/Rev.1 ), and 2020/2021 ( G/AG/N/BGD/11/Rev.1 ), which previously omitted a G/AG/W/246  
 
- 30 - 
 
  support measure entitled Procurement and Distribution for Food Security Purpose , and which 
Bangladesh has reported under both paragraphs 3 and 4 of Annex 2.  
a. Could Banglade sh provide additional details regarding the measures Bangladesh has 
taken under these two paragraphs? Which measure concerns public stockholding for 
food security, and which concerns domestic food aid? What are the policy differences 
between the two measur e types and provide a breakdown expenditures for each year?  
b. Could Bangladesh provide information on laws and regulations that are relevant to the 
Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes measure(s) notified over the 
period  2008/2009 -2020/2021?  
c. Could Bangladesh clarify whether commodities procured under both measure types over 
the period 2008/2009 -2020/2021 were associated with any applied administered prices 
and predetermined target volumes?  
d. Could Bangladesh provide the expected timelines as to when i t will submit a 
DS:2 notification demonstrating how these measures meet the criteria of Annex 2 and 
are exempt from reduction commitments?  
AG-IMS ID 108064 : Question by United States of America, European Unio n, Japan, 
Australia, Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
It is noted that Bangladesh has revised its domestic support notifications for fiscal years 2008/09 
through 2020/21 (alternating years) to include "Procurement and distribution for fo od security 
purpose" in Supporting Table DS:1 as both public stockholding for food security purposes and 
domestic food aid.   
For each notified year, please provide a breakdown of expenditures for "public stockholding for food 
security purposes" and "domest ic food aid" as required in G/AG/2 .  
AG-IMS ID 108061 : Question by U nited States of America, European Union, Japan, 
Australia, Canada  – Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In light of the revised domestic support notifications from Bangladesh, which now include two new 
green box measures (i.e., public stockholdi ng for food security purposes and domestic food aid), 
which have been aggregated by Bangladesh, we submit the following:   
a. Please provide details of what commodities are procured and distributed under the 
notified measure.   
b. Please explain how those commodit ies are procured.   
c. If rice is procured under this newly notified measure, please confirm whether the 
notified market price supports for Boro -1, Boro -2, or Amon rice are associated with the 
procurement for public stockholding for food security purposes.   
d. Please provide details on how the procurement quantities of each commodity are 
determined, including details on what the annual predetermined targets are for each of 
the notified years.   
e. When will a Table DS:2 notification for each measure being notified as implemented for 
the first time in 2008/09 be made to this Committee?   
2.3.4   Brazil ( G/AG/N/BRA/79 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108006 : Question  by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank Brazil for issuing its domestic support notification covering the 
agricultural year 2021/2022.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 31 - 
 
  With respect to Brazil 's Program  of acquisition of agricultural products from family farming  (PAA), 
Canada understands from Brazil 's response to AG -IMS ID 105130  that the program is notified 
separately under Annex 2 paragraph 3 (Public Stockholding) and paragraph 4 (Domestic Food Aid) 
to improve the quality of the information and more precise ly describe expenditures under the PAA.  
Could Brazil please further elaborate on this explanation, specifically how expenditures under 
paragraphs 3 and 4 differ?   
AG-IMS ID 108007 : Question by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Brazil notified USD  413,462 for its Investment Credit measure and USD  269,320 
for its Production Credit measure for the period covering agricultural year 2021/2022, a substantial 
increase from the previous reporting period.  
Could Brazil please explain the significant increase in support for  its Investment Credit and 
Production Credit measures?   
AG-IMS ID 108129 : Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
For Agricultural year 2021/2022, Brazil has reported a total of $683 million as investment subsidies 
and input subsidies. This is a substantial increase in comparison with the reported amounts during 
previous year ($10 million in 2020/2021 and $85 million in 2019/2020).  
a. Could Brazil provide more details on the implicit subsidies mentioned in the foot note of 
supporting table DS:2? Are these increases due to new measures ? 
b. Could Brazil explain the increase with more than half billion in comparison with the 
previous Agricultural year?  
AG-IMS ID 108132 : Question by India – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In 2019, Brazil informed that it had decided to forego the use of special and differential 
treatment  (S&DT) in current and future WTO negotiations, to help move the WTO forward 
(WT/TPR/G/432 ). However, India observes a significant increase in the expenditure allocated to the 
Development box for the agriculture year 2021 -22, as indicated in DS notification ( G/AG/N/BRA/79 ), 
amounting to 682.7  USD million, in contrast to 10.2 US D million in 2020 -21 as per DS Notification 
G/AG/N/BRA/74 . This signifies an approximate increase of 6 ,708.76%. In this context,  
a. Could Brazil elaborate on the initiatives it plans to u ndertake to completely forego the 
use of Article 6.2 subsidies?  
b. Also, could Brazil provide reasons for the significant increase in expenditure under the 
Development Box? India requests a clarification on whether this increase is attributed 
to a rise in the  number of beneficiaries in existing programs or to the implementation 
or introduction of new programs.  
AG-IMS ID 108133 : Question  by Indonesia – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Indonesia thanks Brazil for submitting its DS:1 notification for the marketing year 2021/2022 
(G/AG/N/BRA/79 ).  
We note that the expenditures under the development box increased significantly from USD 10,028 
thousand in marketing year 2020/2021 to USD 682,782 thousand in marketing year 2021/2022.  
We kindly request Brazil to ex plain:  
a. The reason for such increase.  
b. Whether there are changes or new program under "investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture" and "input subsidies available to low -income and resource -poor 
producers".  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 32 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108008 : Question by Canada – Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 in G/AG/N/BRA/79 , Brazil notified USD  11,151 in market price support for 
maize. Canada notes this is the first time in recent years that Brazil has notified market price support 
for maize.  
Could Brazil please explain the conditions/circumstances that led Brazil to provide market price 
support for maize?  
AG-IMS ID 108130 : Question by European Union – Market price support  
Brazil has reported market price support for maize. The amount of the MPS is 11.5 million and the 
eligible quantity used for the calculation is 59,000 tonnes.  
a. Could Brazil provide further clarification s on the eligible quantities for which they have 
paid market price support?  
b. Does Brazil expect to continue with the marker price support for Maize also 
in 2022/2023?  
AG-IMS ID 108009 : Question by Canada – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:7 in G/AG/N/BRA/79 , Brazil notified Production -Specific Credit as the 
measure type for its product -specific AMS for coffee. Could Brazil please explain what this type of 
credit measure is and how it operates?   
AG-IMS ID 108010 : Question by Canada – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notes that there is no Suppo rting Table DS:6 in G/AG/N/BRA/7 9. Could Brazil please confirm 
that, as was the case with G/AG/N/BRA/74 , there is no support to be notified under PEPRO for 
oranges for the 2021 to 2022 reporting period?   
AG-IMS ID 108149 : Question by India – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
According to the latest DS:1 not ification ( G/AG/N/BRA/79 ), Brazil has allocated USD 15.6 million to 
support Coffee producers through the "Product -specific credit" program. In this regard, could Brazil 
provide the following information:  
a. Details of the aforementioned programmes along with their obj ectives.  
b. Eligibility criteria for coffee producers to participate in this programme.  
c. Number of beneficiaries supported under this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 108011 : Question by Canada – Non-product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9 in G/AG/N/BRA/79 , Brazil notified USD  1.17 million for its Insurance 
Programs, a substantial increase from the previous reporting period (USD 537,346). Further, Brazil 
notified USD  522,447 for non -product specific production and marketing credit measures.  Canada 
notes that Brazil had not notified this measure since the 2018 to 2019 r eporting period, at which 
time, Brazil notified USD  10,309 in support.   
a. Could Brazil please explain the significant increase in support for its Insurance Programs 
measure?   
b. Could Brazil please explain the significant increase in support for its non-product specific 
production and marketing credit measure between the 2022 to 2023 reporting period 
and the 2018 to 2019 reporting period? Why were these measures/expense not notified 
in 2020 and 2021?   
AG-IMS ID 108131 : Question by European Union – Non-product -specific AMS  
According to the data reported, the  non-product specific support has increased for another year and 
reached $2,6 billion in 2022. In the foot note, Brazil provided the following explanation:  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 33 - 
 
  […]" 
(1)  Implicit subsidy based on the difference between the rescheduled program interest 
rate an d SELIC interest rate. The debt reschedule program is Rural Debt Securitisation;  
(3)  Implicit subsidy based on the difference between the interest rate of each of the 
following programs and SELIC (Special System for Liquidation and Custody) interest 
rate (interest rate for the overnight interbank loans collateralized by government 
bonds): Constitucional Funds (FNO, FNE and FCO), Pronamp (Medium -Scale Agricultural 
Procucer Support Program), and Rural Savings and Mandatory Resources at controlled 
interest ra tes." 
Could Brazil explain what is the difference between the implicit subsidies reported in supporting 
table DS:2 and those in DS:9?  Does the category of beneficiaries low-income or recourse -poor 
producers  is the only difference?  
2.3.5   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/158 , G/AG/N/CAN/ 159) 
AG-IMS ID 108134 : Question  by India – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In reply to part (a) of question AG -IMS ID 107094 , Canada responded that "it was mainly due to 
factors such as widening in the gap between the commercial interest rate and program interest rate 
from 2019 to 2020 along with an increase in outstand ing debt". In light of the above response, India 
requests Canada to provide the following information related to Federal Credit Concessions:  
a. commercial interest rate and program interest rate for the years 2019 and 2020 ; 
b. number of beneficiaries during the year 2019 and 2020 ; 
c. value of outstanding debts for the years 2019 and 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 108135 : Question by India – Non-product -specific AMS  
India notes that Canada has provided an incomplete answer to AG -IMS ID 107095 . Therefore, 
Canada is again requested to provide the list of programmes/schemes covered under the measure 
'Provincial Programs ' mentioned in table DS:9 (Non -Product -Specific AMS) in the DS:1 notification 
for the calendar year 2020, along wi th the amount of support provided under different 
programmes/schemes.  
AG-IMS ID 108136 : Question by India – Non-product -specific AMS  
In response to question AG -IMS ID 107097 , Canada stated that "The increase was due to the 
successive stages of implementing various federal and provincial programmes over the years 
2018-2020."In light of the above response, India request s Canada to provide a list of all federal and 
provincial programmes along with the amount of support provided from 2018 to 2020 that resulted 
in a consistent increase in the support under 'Canadian Agricultural Partnership Non -Business 
Risk (BRM) Managemen t Initiatives '. 
2.3.6   Chinese Taipei ( G/AG/N/TPKM/236 , G/AG/N/TPKM/237 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108038 : Question by Can ada, Australia – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Chinese Taipei notified a separate insurance subsidy, the Agricultural Insurance , in Supporting 
Table  DS:9 for Calendar Year 2021 ( G/AG/N/TPKM/237 ). Footnote No. 6 further explains that the  
insurance covers the loss of crops due to natural disasters or the loss of revenue due to declines in 
the prices of agricultural commodities.   
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide a list of eligible crops?   
b. Could Chinese Taipei explain why this programme is classified as non -product specific 
Amber Box support, and how it differs from Government Payments for Relief of 
Damaged Income by Natural Disasters  and Special Loans Granted to Farmers for the 
Relief of Da maged Farms due to Natural Disasters , which have been notified as "Green 
Box" under Annex 2 paragraph 8?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108222 : Question  by Paraguay – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of Chinese Taipei for submitting notifications 
G/AG/N/TPKM/236  and G/AG/N/TPKM/237 .  
Please indicate the Table DS:2 notification for the programmes notified under paragraph  12 
"Environmental programmes" of Annex 2 to the AoA.  
AG-IMS ID 108012 : Question by Canada – Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
Chinese Taipei notified two measures under Ann ex 2 paragraph 8 in Supporting Table DS:1, 
i.e., Government Payments for Relief of Damaged Income by Natural Disasters  and Special Loans 
Granted to Farmers for the Relief of Damaged Farms due to Natural Disasters , for which  support 
significantly increased in 2020 and 2021 ( G/AG/N/TPKM/236 ; G/AG/N/TPKM/237 ).  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide reasons for such an increase? Were these direct payments 
provided following a formal recognition by government authorities that a natural 
disaster or disaster had occurred? If so, which?   
b. Could Chinese Taipei explain in detail how the loss -trigger reference level for production 
is established as per the requirement of paragraph 8(a) (e.g., an average based on 
preceding three year s or an Olympic average) for each of these measures?   
c. Could Chinese Taipei provide additional details on how the support provided under 
Special Loans Granted to Farmers for the Relief of Damaged Farms due to Natural 
Disasters  cover losses of income, livestock, land or other production factors?  
AG-IMS ID 108001 : Question by European Union – Market price support  
The E uropean Union  thanks the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
for its notifications G/AG/N/TPKM/236  and G/AG/N/TPKM/237 . 
a. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu explain if 
the Agriculture and Foo d Agency was involved in the purchases of the rice varieties as 
reported in its DS:1 notifications (supporting tables DS:5) in documents 
G/AG/N/TPKM/236  and G/AG/N/TPKM/237 ? If yes, why those market purchases were 
not reflected in the curren t State Trading notification: G/STR/N/20/TPKM ? 
b. If this was not the case, how the purchases were carried out?  
c. What was the market share of the exports from the quantities of rice purchased in  2020 
and 2021 (supporting tables DS:5) in documents G/AG/N/TPKM/236  for 2020 and  
G/AG/N/TPKM/237  for 2021)?  
AG-IMS ID 108013 : Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia – Classification of measures  
Chinese Taipei indicated in Footnote No. 5 that the Livestock Insurance Program , in Supporting 
Table  DS:9, only benefits dairy cattle and hogs. Could Chinese Taipei provide a detailed rationale as 
to how support provided under the Livestock Insurance Program  does not constitute product -specific 
support?   
2.3.7   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/89 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108015 : Question by Canada, Austr alia – Transparency issues (including  
Table  DS:2)  
Canada notes that the European Union notified a close to 2 billion euro increase in current total AMS 
spending between MY 2019 -2020 and MY 2020 -2021, from 5,329.6 to 7,429.9 billion euros. Could 
the Europea n Union  explain the reasons for this significant increase?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 35 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108002 : Question by Japan, United States of America, Canada – Transparency 
issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan welcomes DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/EU/89 ) from EU and would like to ask following questions 
on the product specific EMS in the Supp orting Table DS:8.  
a. Japan would like to have a better understanding on 'National aid ' mentioned in relation 
to potatoes and other crops products. What kinds of specific measures including market 
price support component are included in this aid? Do these mea sures include storage 
support like other products notified in this EMS table?  
b. Especially, Japan is interested in this aid implemented in connection with 'COVID aid ' 
and would appreciate it if EU could provide further information about the COVID aid.  
AG-IMS ID 108137 : Question  by Thailand – Transparency issues (i ncluding Table DS:2)  
Thailand appreciates the European Union's submission of its DS:1 notification for the marketing 
year 2020-2021.   
The Environmental Programmes in Supporting Table DS:1 include the support and protection of 
organic production by creating conditions of fair competition. Could the European Union provide 
additional information on the criteria and how it fulfils the conditions set forth in Annex II of the  AoA?  
Furthermore, Thailand observes that the structural adjustment assistance s upplied through 
investment aid includes a condition on quality improvement schemes. Could the European Union 
please provide additional information on the criteria and how it meets the criteria laid out in Annex  II 
of the AoA?  
AG-IMS ID 108070 : Question by United States of America, Japan, Australia – Transparency  
issues (including Table  DS:2)  
The United States notes the European Union 's significant increase in Current Total AMS for "Other 
Crops Products" from EUR 43.5 million in Marketing Year (MY) 2019 -2020 to EUR 869.5 million in 
MY 2020 -2021.   
a. Please explain th e reasons for this EUR 826 million increase.   
b. Please explain what is included in the "Other Crops Products" category.   
Further, in Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5, we notice a sharp increase in the European Union 's 
market price support for skimmed milk powder from EUR 0.8 million to EUR 1,513.9 million from 
MY 2019-2020 to MY 2020 -2021.   
c. Please explain what measures contributed to an expansion of market price support for 
skimmed milk powder.   
d. Please explain why the value of production for skimmed milk po wder is zero.   
AG-IMS ID 108016 : Question by United King dom, United States of America, Canada, 
Australia – Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids  
We thank the EU for their submission of G/AG/N/EU/89 . We note that payments have been made to 
aid farm modernisation. Ple ase can the EU describe the criteria used to determine the structural 
disadvantage and who is eligible for support?  
AG-IMS ID 108072 : Question by United States of America, Australia – Direct payments: 
payments under environmental programmes  
Under Environmental programmes in G/AG/N/EU/89 , the European Union has notified "Protection of 
environment and preservation of the countryside, aid for environmentally sensitive areas; support 
and protection of organic production by creating conditions of fair competition; aid for forestry 
measures in agriculture; conservation and improvement of rural heritage."   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 36 - 
 
  a. To gain a better understanding of the European Union 's environmental measures, could 
the European Union provide insights as to how it ensures its measures are protecting 
the environ ment.   
b. Please explain how "protection of organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition" protects the environment.  
AG-IMS ID 108071 : Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada - Direct 
payments: other  
The United States notes the European Union 's significant increase in Green Box spend ing for 
expenditures on "Other Direct Payments" from EUR  7,763.9  million in Marketing Year 
(MY) 2019-2020 to EUR 9,317.7 million in MY 2020 -2021.   
a. Please explain the reasons for the EUR 1,553.8 million increase in MY 2020 -2021.  
AG-IMS ID 108014 : Question by Canada, Japan, Brazil, Australia - Other product -specif ic 
AMS/EMS  
Canada would like to thank the European union for issuing its domestic support notification covering 
the marketing year (MY) 2020 -2021.  
Canada notes that support for "other crops products" in Supporting Table DS:4 has increased 20 -fold 
between MY 2019 -2020 and MY 2020 -2021, from 43.6 million euros to 869.5 million euros.   
a. Could the European Union please provide details on the conditions that led to this 
significant increase in support provided to "other crops products"?   
b. Could the European Union provide a breakdown of the expenditures, for each crop, 
under this category?   
AG-IMS ID 108073 : Question by United States of America, Japan - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The United States notes that the European Union 's Supporting Table DS:8 for Marketing Year 
(MY) 2020-2021 contains product -specific equivalent measurements of support for four types of 
products —butter, olive oil, beef, and sheep —that were not included in the European Union 's 
Supporting Table DS:8 for MY 2019 -2020.   
a. Please provide additional information about these "private stor age" measurements and 
explain why the European Union used these programs in MY 2020 -2021.   
2.3.8   Iceland ( G/AG/N/ISL/70 , G/AG/N/ISL/72 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108139 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (i ncluding 
Table  DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  thanks Iceland for submitting its DS:1 notification for Calendar year 2021.The 
European Union  notes that the current total AMS of Iceland is very close to the total AMS 
commitment level.  
a. Could Iceland elaborate on i ts actions to remain within its annual limit?  
b. Does Iceland consider other type of support measures for the milk sector, which are not 
market price support?  
AG-IMS ID 108017 : Question by Canada, Australia - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank Iceland for its 2023 domestic support notification. Canada notes the 
significant support provided to its milk sector, which accounts for 94.6% of the value of production, 
once adjusted for inflation. Without inflation adjustment, this amount represents 105.1% of the 
value of p roduction, as noted by Iceland in the general note (1) of the  Supporting Table DS:4. This G/AG/W/246  
 
- 37 - 
 
  represents an increase in the support as a percentage of value of production of 13.9  point of 
percentage from 2022 ( G/AG/N/ISL/71 ) and 22.6 point of percentage fr om 2021 ( G/AG/N/ISL/70 ).   
Canada understands that a portion of this increase in support is due to increasing input prices and 
cost of capital due to high inflation. However, this support only represents a fragment of the total 
provided in 2023 (as per the Supporting Table DS:6), with market price support representing the 
largest share of the total. Canada would like to ask the following:    
a. Could Iceland provide details that would explain the increase in support provided to its 
milk sector, including as it went beyond the value of production for that sector?   
AG-IMS ID 108140 : Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
New Zealand notes that in supporting tables DS:1 and DS:3 of Iceland 's latest Domestic Support 
notification ( G/AG/N/ISL/72 ) there are new non -recurring programmes or payments. Can Iceland 
give additional details regarding the drivers behind these new non -recurring programmes, and what 
the criteria is to receive them?  
AG-IMS ID 108074 : Question  by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Iceland notified support for milk increasing, as a percentage of the value of production and adjusted 
for inflation, from 72 % to 81% to 95% over the three most recent notifications.  
a. What was the reason for this significant increase?   
b. Is Iceland taking any steps to reduce the significant level of support as a percent of the 
value of production for dairy?   
AG-IMS ID 108138 : Question  by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Iceland for submitting its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/ISL/72 . 
Australia notes that Iceland has notified that it has exceeded its AMS entitlement of 
SDR 130.1  million in calendar year 2023.  
Australia asks that Iceland indicate what measures it is taking (or considering) that will ensure 
that its level of domestic supp ort is brought within existing entitlements.  
2.3.9   India ( G/AG/N/IND/31 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108018 : Question  by Canada, Brazil, Australia - Transparenc y issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank India for its recent domestic support notification.  
a. Could India provide the name and description of the measures notified in Supporting 
Table DS:1, especially for measures under paragraph 2 of Ann ex 2?  
b. Could India confirm if there are new or modified domestic support measures exempt 
from reductio n commitments that are counted in the new domestic support notification 
G/AG/ N/IND/31  covering the marketing year 2022 -2023? If so, when is India plan ning 
on providing the Membership with a new DS:2 notification covering these programmes?   
AG-IMS ID 108142 : Question by Canada, Japan, Australia - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank India for its recent domestic support notification. Upon reviewing India 's 
Domestic Support Tabl e DS:1, Canada notes that programs under Annex 2, paragraph 3 (public 
stockholding) and Annex 2, paragraph 4 (Domestic food aid) appear to have been merged under 
one single expense.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Could India provide separate expenditures under paragraphs 3 and 4, as on e relates to the 
accumulation and holding of stocks and the other, to domestic food aid to sections of the population 
in need?   
AG-IMS ID 108004 : Question by Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada 
- Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan would like to ask following questions, regarding Supporting Table DS:2.  
a. What are the factors behind the 50% increase in 'Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers ' since the MY  2021/2022?  
b. Besides irrigation, fertilizer, and electricity mentioned in the note, are other i nputs such 
as feed and fuel also covered by these subsidies?  
c. Would India be able to provide the breakdown of the subsidies for each input?  
AG-IMS ID 108145 : Question by European Union - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes  
Under the Bali public stockholding (PSH) decision India is allowed to overshoot  its Product Specific 
limit set at 10% of Value of Production (VoP) of a specific product. In the 2022/23 notification its 
support to rice is 12,1% of VoP. Rice is a product for which India has increased its share of world 
exports.  
a. Could India confirm whet her all support granted for rice by the regional states has been 
included in its annual domestic support (DS:1) notification? If not, what are the 
quantities and varieties of rice which have not been included in the DS:1 notification? 
What is the amount of  the subsidies?  
India reported in the Annex to the DS:1 (data pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Bali Ministerial 
Decision, including that required by its statistical annex) without providing the total eligible 
quantities; exports and imports; open market sale s.  
Product: Rice (according to the statistical Annex of G/AG/N/IND/31 ) 
Mio. t.   2020 -21 2021 -22 2022 -23 
Opening stocks  a 24.75  34.75  28.39  
Annual purchase  b 60.08  58.94  54.04  
Total availability  c=a+b  84.83  93,69  82,43  
Annual releases  d 46.62  62.05  50.17  
open market sales  e No data  No data  No data  
Total release  f=e+d  46.62  62.05  50.17  
Total availability  g=c-f 38,21  31,64  32.26  
End stocks IND/18  h 38,21  31,64  32.26  
 
 
b. Could India provide the missing data and more precisely :  
i. Total eligible quantities of rice;  
ii. Total imports (value and quantities);  
iii. Total exports (value and quantities);  
iv. Open market sales (domestic).  
AG-IMS ID 108003 : Question by Japan, United States of America, Canada - Public 
stockholding for food security purposes  
Japan welcomes India 's DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/IND/31 ) for the MY  2022/2023. Japan would like 
to ask India reasons for the increase in the value of public stockholding for food security purposes 
and domestic food aid, which is approximately 21% rise compared to the MY  2021/2022 notification.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 39 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108141 : Question  by Brazil - Input subsidies av ailable to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
While thanking India for its DS:1 notification,  referring to MY  2022/23, Brazil notes the sharp 
increase in expenditure under Article 6.2 (Development  Programmes), expressed in STDS:2, from 
roughly USD 32  billion to USD 48 billion in one year or a 50%  expansion.  
Taking into account the fact that this sum exceeds  the total agriculture support from most the 
Membership, could India justify this sudden escalation  in expenditures in terms of marketing prices 
of fertilizers, agrochemicals, electricity and eligible  number of resource -poor or low -income farmers 
in the  country?  
AG-IMS ID 108019 : Question by Canada , Japan, Australia - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
Canada notes a substantial increase in notified support under "input subsid ies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers" in Supporting Table DS:2 in Marketing Year (MY)  2022/2023, 
which reached an all -time high of 48 billion USD, a 16 billion USD increase from MY  2021-2022. 
Canada would like to ask the following:   
a. What are the reasons/circumstances/considerations behind the significant increase in 
support under "input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers" for 
MY 2022 -2023? Have there been any changes to India's approach or measures?   
b. Could India provide a breakdown of how much subsidies are provided to irrigation, 
fertilizers and electricity?   
c. The footnote for Supporting Table DS:2 states the following: "as per the Agricultural 
Census for the year 2015 -2016, 99.43% of farm holdings are of lo w-income or resource 
poor farmers". Could India provide an update on its most recent Agricultural Census 
launched on July 28, 2022 ( https://agcensus.da.gov.in/ ) and w hen it intends to publish 
its final findings?   
AG-IMS ID 108144 : Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
According to the 2022 -2023 notification, India gave input subsidy worth $48.13 billion to its 
low-income or resource -poor producers. This includes supp ort for irrigation, fertilisers and electricity. 
Article 6.2 support has increased with $16 billion since the previous reporting period ($32 billion). 
The input subsidies represent almost 50% of all subsidies paid by India.  
a. Could India confirm whether this  increasing trend will continue also in 2023/2034?  
b. What is the percentage of the fertilisers for which India provided subsidies 
in 2022/2023?  
c. Could India provide details of the measures/programmes implemented under this 
reported item (article 6.2 input sub sidies)?  
AG-IMS ID 108060 : Question by Canada - Market  price support  
Canada would like to reiterate concerns previously expressed in AG -IMS ID s 107016, 105050  and 
104021  regarding the lack of transparency regarding India 's state -level bonuses, which are provided 
over the announced minimum support prices (MSP) reported in Supporting Table DS:5, as well as 
in the Statistical Appendix ("f. Purchase prices"). In response to AG -IMS 10402 1 (March 2023), India 
indicated that the information was not available.     
Canada understands that despite the MSP being mandated at the federal level, each of India 's 
28 states and 8 union territories is responsible for adopting the MSP guidelines through  its own 
Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committee (APMC). Canada also understands that regional 
differences between APMCs are significant; with some states having never legislated an APMC, 
whereas others having strong and active APMC regulation.    G/AG/W/246  
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Could  India confirm if bonuses provided above the MSP in certain states and unions 
were counted in the final MSP support shown in the statistical appendix?   
b. If not, please provide an update on the gathering of this information that has been 
requested on many in stances and that has yet to be appropriately included in India's 
domestic support notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 108143 : Question by European Union - Market price support  
India has notified Market price support for several agricultural products (supporting table DS:5). 
However, India has provided Value of production (VoP) amount only for rice, without specifying the 
variety/type of rice.  
In this regard, could India provide the VoP of the other agricultural  goods for which market price 
support has been paid in 2022/2023: coarse cereal, groundnut, pulses, rap eseed/mustard, 
sunflower, wheat?  
a. Could India specify the type of rice they have paid market price support?  
b. How the total eligible quantity of rice included in supporting table DS:5 was established?  
2.3.10   Indonesia ( G/AG/N/IDN/71 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108020 : Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia - 
Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
We thank Indonesia for their submission of G/AG/N/IDN/71 . The supporting table in their DS:1 
states that over IDR 53.4 billion had been spent on public stockholding for food security purposes 
in 2022 - a signifi cant reduction from IDR 3.7 trillion spent in 2021.   
Additionally, there has been reporting of 28.7 trillion IDR in loans provided by the government for 
food procurement companies to ensure adequate supplies of rice and other staples in 2024. The UK 
would be interested to understand Indonesia 's explanation on:  
a. a. The factors behind the successful reduction in expenditure reported under Annex  2 
on public stockholding for food security purposes between 2022 and 2021.  
b. b. What is driving the recently reported l oans provided by the government and whether 
the objective is to address an agricultural market failure or more structural 
market/financial failures?  
AG-IMS ID 108090 : Question by United States of America, Australia, European Union, 
Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Indonesia notified market price support for rice in calendar year 2022.   
a. Please confirm the quantity of rice produced in Indonesia in calendar year 2022.   
b. If this value differs from the value notified as eligible production, please explain the 
difference, including eligibility requirements and a copy or link to any relevant 
legislation.   
c. Are the notified values for eligible production, the external price, and the applied 
administered price on a paddy or milled basis?   
d. Is there any relation between rice procured under  this measure and support notified 
under Supporting Table DS:1?  If so, please explain.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 41 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108044 : Question by Canada, Australia, United Kingdom - Public stockholding 
for food security purposes  
Indonesia 's response in AG -IMS ID 104078  indicated that it had moved support under Rice for Poor 
and Low -Income Society (Bansos Rastra) , previously notified under Domest ic Food Aid (Annex  2, 
paragraph  4), to Reserve Stock for Emergency , now notified under public stockholding for food 
security purposes (PSH) (Annex 2, paragraph 3). Canada would like to follow up with additional 
questions.  
a. Considering the change in classifi cation, could Indonesia provide timelines as to when 
it will submit a Table DS:2 notification demonstrating how Bansos Rastra  meets the 
criteria of Annex 2 paragraph 3, as per Article 18.3 of Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. One of the requirements under Annex  2 paragraph  3 is that the process of stock 
accumulation and disposal shall be financially transparent. In this respect, could 
Indonesia provide a copy or link that describes how Indonesia established 
predetermined targets for the volume and accumulation?  
c. Could Indonesia clarify whether rice stocks procured under Reserve Stock for 
Emergency were procured under an applied administered price? If so, at what applied 
administered price, and which quantities were eligible for procurement?  
d. In Indonesia 's Table DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/IDN/71 ), Canada notes that the 
expenditure under Reserve Stock for Emergency  decreased from IDR  3,771,187  million 
in 2021 to IDR  54,403  million in 2022. At the same time, the expenditure on Reserve 
Fund for Government to Purchase Food Stuff at Mar ket Prices  was reduced from 
IDR 3,182,579 million in 2021 to nil in 2022. Could Indonesia explain the reasons 
behind such a drastic decline in both programme expenditures?  
AG-IMS ID 108083 : Question by United States of America, European Union, Canada - 
Domestic food aid  
In G/AG/N/IDN/71 , Indonesia notified bu dgetary outlays of IDR 45,120,000 million in calendar 
year 2022 for "cash -based food aid for Poor and Low -Income Society."  This value is identical to the 
value notified for calendar year 2021.   
a. Please confirm the notified value is correct and that the noti fied value represents actual 
budgetary outlays.   
AG-IMS ID 108211 : Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In G/AG/N/IDN/71 , Indonesia notified IDR 33,310,796 million (or, more than USD 2 billion) in input 
subsides for feeds and fertilizer.  
a. Please provide the name of each subsidy measure implemented under this notified 
measure type, as well as a description of e ach measure.   
b. Please provide the disaggregated value of fertilizer subsidies and feeds subsidies.   
2.3.11   Israel ( G/AG/N/ISR/8/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/12/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/16/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/81/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/94 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108147 : Question by Brazil - Transp arency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to the OECD Agriculture Policy and  Monitoring Evaluation 2021, "[.] total support to 
agriculture in Israel continued to increase from 2018  to 2020. This mostly reflects the persistence 
of regulations, price controls and border protection  targeting specific commodities. The total 
support  estimate (TSE) amounted to 0.5% of GDP in 2018 -20."  
In its notification DS:1 for calendar -year 2021,  Israel reported product -specific support for milk of  
approximately USD 550 million, corresponding to 62.3%  of VoP, an increase of 20% over  2020. G/AG/W/246  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Notwithstanding  the notified surge in expenditures with market price  support and production quotas, 
there is no information  on other types of support identi fied by the OECD.  
a. Could Israel indicate where public interventions  along the chain of milk industry 
commensurate with  OECD reports can be found in its DS:1 notification?  
b. Could Israel elaborate on how public expenditure  and revenue foregone in price 
adminis tration  throughout the chain can be accounted differently from  product -specific 
support?  
AG-IMS ID 108045 : Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In reference to:  G/AG/N/ISR/8/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/12/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/16/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/19/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/26/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/30/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/33/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/37/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/41/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/42/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/45/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/47/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.2 , G/AG/N/ISR/55/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/60/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/66/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/74/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/80/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ISR/81/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/ISR/94  
Canada appreciate Israel's transparency and the explanatory note provided in the notified domestic 
support revisions, ranging from 1995 to 2020. Israel specifies that the revisions are due to an 
in-depth analysis of the Israeli egg market conducted in 2022. Israel concluded that there has never 
been an applied admi nistered price set by the Israeli government or any other regulatory authority. 
However, in its reply to AG -IMS ID 100019 , Israel mentioned that the timeline for ending the target 
price system in the egg sector was not set yet, but that Israel aimed to make gradual changes over 
several years.    
Furthermore, the OECD specified that egg production quotas and recommended prices, which serve 
as the basis for calculating the maximum retail prices in Israel, are applied as an instrument to 
provide price support to producers (see https://www.oecd -ilibrary.org/sites/2bef8da8 -
en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/2bef8da8 -en).   
a. Could Israel expand on why the "target price system in the egg sector" referred to in 
its response to AG -IMS ID 100019  and/or the "recommended prices" as referred by 
the OECD, are not considered as an applied administered price by the Israel 
government?   
b. Could Israel provide an overview of the functioning of the target price system ?  
c. Could Israel expand more on the reason why it believes it wrongly notified an applied 
administrative price for eggs during all these years?   
AG-IMS ID 108146 : Question by Australia  - Market price support  
Austra lia thanks Israel for submitting its DS:1 revisions covering calendar years 
1995-2020 (G/AG/N/ISR/8/Rev.2  - G/AG/N/ISR/81/Rev.1 ).  
Australia notes Israel 's removal of its notifications for administered prices for eggs and its 
reporting  that "there has never been an applied administered price set by the Israeli government or 
any other  regulatory authority, guaranteed to table egg producers."   
Australia asks that Israel : 
a. Provide additional information about its egg regime during the period 1995 -2020, 
including : 
i. How prices were determined . 
ii. The impact of any government price determinations on the prices received by egg  
producers . G/AG/W/246  
 
- 43 - 
 
  b. Contextualise  media releases from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 
that notified Minist erial price determinations for eggs (of prices payable by consumers) 
[Link:  https://www.gov.il/en/pages/eggs -price-reduction ] 
2.3.12   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/282 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108150 : Question  by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks Japan for its response to AG-IMS ID 107101 . However, some aspects of the 'Direct 
Payments for Rice Paddy Utilization ' programme remain unclear and India would like to seek 
clarification regarding them.  
Importantly, under this programme, Japan provides fo ur kinds of payments. (i) direct payments to 
assist the production of strategic crops (other than table rice); (ii) grants for production areas; and 
(iii) direct payments for promoting high profitability in paddy farming. (iv) payments for farmers 
who prod uce certain products like wheat, barley, and soybeans in the paddy field for new market 
development. As per para 4.32 of Japan 's TPR ( WT/TPR/S/438/Rev.1 ), the Payments under these 
programmes are made when producers meet at least three of the specific requirements including 
those for environmental protection such as direct sowing seeding and efficient fertilization, to 
promote the cultivation of paddy fields.  
In this regard, India requests Japan to:  
a. Enumerate the specific requirements the producers are required to meet to receive 
payments under this programme.  
b. Provide a working weblink for this programme, as the link shared with India in AG -IMS 
IDs 107101 , is not accessible.  
2.3.13   Korea, Republic of ( G/AG/N/KOR/94 , G/AG/N/KOR/95 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108025 : Question  by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that "pork " was included in Supporting Table DS:6 and that it received a total 
deficiency payment of KRW  60.9 billion in the Calendar Year 2020 ( G/AG/N/KOR/95 ). Could the 
Republic of Korea provide information on factors and numbers used in the calculation?  
AG-IMS ID 108221 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the Republic of Korea for submitting notifications 
G/AG/N/KOR/94  and G/AG/N/KOR/95 .  
a. Please indicate the Table DS:2 notification for the programme notified  under 
paragraph  12 "Environmental programmes" of Annex 2 to the AoA, "Aid for organic 
fertilization and production; establishing environment -friendly farming base; disposal 
and natural circulation of livestock manure".  
b. We note that notification G/AG/N/KOR/94 , corresponding to the calendar year 2019, 
does not include product -specific support for rice. Could the Republic of Korea please 
explain why?  
AG-IMS ID 108022 : Question by Canada, Australia - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters  
With respect to two support measures notified under A nnex 2 paragraph 8: Natural Disaster Relief 
Expenditures  and Compensation for Stamping Out Infected Livestock  in Korea 's Table  DS:1 
notifications ( G/AG/N/KOR/94 ; G/AG/N/KOR/95 ) 
c. Could the Republic of Korea provide a copy of programme guidelines (or a weblink) that 
would describe how the loss -trigger reference level for production is established as per 
the requirement of paragraph 8(a) (e.g., an a verage based on preceding three years or 
an Olympic average) for each of these measures?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 44 - 
 
  d. Could  the Republic of Korea provide details as to what natural disasters have been 
formally recognized by government authorities and have led to direct payments to 
producers?  
e. Could the Republic of Korea provide expected timelines as to when it will submit a 
DS:2 notification demonstrating  how these measures meet the Annex 2 criteria and are 
exempt from reduction commitments?  
AG-IMS ID 108091 : Question by United States of America, Australia, European Union - 
Direct payments: payments under environmental programmes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, the Republic of Korea notified "Aid for organic fertilization and production; 
establishing environment -friendly farming base; disposal and natural circulation of livestock 
manure."   
Please provide further details on the measures notified under this including:   
a. The names of each measure;   
b. How each measure improves the environment; and   
c. How South Korea measures the environmental outcomes of these measures.   
AG-IMS ID 108023 : Question by Canada, Australia - Market price support  
The Republic of Korea did not report market price support (MPS) for "soybeans" but included new 
MPS for "pulses" in Table DS:1 notifications ( G/AG/N/KOR/94 ; G/AG/N/KOR/95 ). Canada would like 
to seek the following clarification:  
a. Could the Republic of  Korea confirm whether "soybeans" is no longer eligible to receive 
MPS starting in Calendar 2019? If so, what would be the rationale behind the policy 
change?  
b. On the MPS calculation for "pulses",  
i. Could the Republic of Korea provide relevant legislation and government 
documents regarding its MPS policy for pulses?  
ii. Could the Republic of Korea indicate which specific pulse products receive MPS?  
iii. Does the Republic of Korea announce an applied administered price for each pulse 
product? If so, are t hese prices different and could the Republic of Korea provide 
each of them?  
iv. Could the Republic of Korea illustrate how the external reference price is 
calculated for pulses including the reference period used?  
v. Could the Republic of Korea explain how it def ines eligible production?  
AG-IMS ID 108092 : Question by United  States of America, European Union, Canada - 
Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5, South Korea notified a significant increase in the eligible production for 
pulses.  
a. Please explain this increase and explain how eligible production is calculat ed.  
b. If the total volume of pulses produced in South Korea differs from the value notified as 
eligible production, please explain the difference, including eligibility requirements and 
a copy or link to any relevant legislation.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 45 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108151 : Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Thailand apprecia tes the Republic of Korea's submission of its DS:1 notifications for calendar 
years  2019 and 2020. Thailand notes in the supporting table DS:9 that the non -product -specific AMS 
referred to as "self -help fund raising" was provided throughout 2019 and 2020. Could the Republic 
of Korea provide information on eligibility and payment criteria for this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 108024 : Question by Canada, Brazil, Australia - Classification of measures  
In response AG -IMS ID 98169 , the Republic of Korea indicated that the deficiency payment scheme 
would be abolished and reorganized as "Green Box" in 2020 to prevent rice Total AMS from exceeding 
Korea 's Final Bound Total AMS. However, deficiency payment for rice continued to be reported in 
Supporting Table DS:6 for Calendar Year 2020 ( G/AG/N/KOR/95 ). 
a. Could the Republic of Korea provide an update on the reorganization of the defic iency 
payment for rice and clarify whether any of such payments have been modified to meet 
the "Green Box" criteria in 2020?  
2.3.14   New Zealand ( G/AG/N/NZL/144 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108224 : Question by Indonesia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Indonesia thanks New Zealand for its DS:1 notification for the finan cial year  2022/2023 
(G/AG/N/NZ L/144 ). 
We note that all spending that was previously under the Adverse Climatic Events measure has been 
transferred to the Agricultural Recovery Assistance.  
In this regard, NZD  27,918  million was spent on Agricultural Recovery Assistance in the financial 
year 2022/2023, compared to NZD  5,5 million for Adverse Climatic Events in the financial 
year 2021/2022.  
We note that the increase is due to recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle.  
We kindly ask New Zealand to fur ther explain:  
a. a more detailed information on spending related to Agricultural Recovery Assistance in 
the financial year 2022/2023.  
b. The differences between support provided under Agricultural Recovery Assistance and 
Cyclone Gabrielle Recovery.  
AG-IMS ID 108026 : Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
With respect to Rural Assistance Payments  notified under Annex 2 paragraph 8: Payments (made 
either directly or by way of government financial participation in crop insurance schemes) for relief 
from natural disasters, could N ew Zealand   
a. Explain in detail how the programme fully meets each of the criteria under Annex  2 
paragraph 8, subparagraphs (a) through (e), specifically how the loss -trigger reference 
level for production is established as per the requirement of paragraph 8(a) (e.g., an 
average based on preceding three years or an Olympic average)?   
b. Provide rationale for eligibility to be assessed on a four weekly basis and how this review 
process would affect the factors that determine programme benefit?   
2.3.15   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/128 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108180 : Question by Eur opean Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Norway has spent 97% of the Total AMS commitment level in Calendar Year 2022.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 46 - 
 
  a. Would this increase in the current AMS will be kept also in the following years?  
b. Does Norway envisage any reforms of the ir Domestic support spendings and more 
precisely   in reducing the MPS?  
c. Could Norway provide more details on NOK  908.5  million reported fees and levies  in 
Supporting table DS:5 and deducted from the current total AMS?  
We have noted an increase with around N OK 200 million in the spendings under paragraph 12 of 
supporting table DS:1.  
d. Could Norway clarify whether the increase is due to new programmes/measures? If this 
is the case, could Norway provide more details on these measures since the latest 
DS:2 notification is from 2019.  
AG-IMS ID 108027 : Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
Canada would like to thank Norway for providing its domestic support notification covering the 
calendar year 2022. In Supporting Table DS:9, Norway notified for the first time a 
non-product -specific and non -exempt payment for what is categorized as an extraordinary subsidy 
for electricity.  Could Norway please indicate the factors that lead it to provide a subsidy for electricity 
to its producer s?  
2.3.16   Oman ( G/AG/N/OMN/31 , G/AG/N/OMN/32 , G/AG/N/OMN/33 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108100 : Question by United States of America, Canada - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
It is noted that in calendar year 2022, as well as in previous years recently notified, Oman does not 
appear to notify any support for wheat or procurement activities associated with wheat.    
Media  reports in Oman indicate that Oman 's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Water Resources 
signed an agreement wit h the Oman Flour Mills Company to purchase locally produced wheat from 
harvest in 2022/23 for OMR  500 per ton ne with the objective of encouraging local farmers to grow 
wheat.   
Media  reports also indicate that the Ministry in calendar year 2022 supports and encourages farmers 
to grow wheat by providing them with seed of improved, high -yield varieties. Further, media reports 
indicate that the Ministry with the support of the Agricultural and Fisheries Development Fund has 
provided new harvesters.   
a. Please provide an overview of what measures were taken by Oman to support wheat 
production and whether this has been notified in G/AG/N/OMN/31 -G/AG/N/OMN/ 33 or will 
be notified in future notifications where support has occurred since the reporting period of 
the most recent notification.   
AG-IMS ID 108028 : Question  by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services  
Canada would like to thank Oman for issuing its domestic  support notification covering the calendar 
year 2022. Upon reviewing the support table DS:1, Canada noted that several programs under 
category 2(d) extension and advisory services  have not been reported, contrary to Oman 's previous 
notifications dating ba ck to 2010. This includes "Update and improve the agricultural statistics data 
system", the "development of information technology services" and "studies and advisory 
consultants to support the Ministry 's technical device," which no longer appear in Oman 's latest 
domestic support notification.   
a. Could Oman confirm whether these programs have been terminated? If so, when?   
b. If not, could Oman provide an update on the status of these programs as well as related 
expenditures?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.3.17   Peru ( G/AG/N/PER/28 , G/AG/N/PER/29 , G/AG/N/PER/30 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108029 : Question  by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank Peru for its recent DS:1 notifications for 2019, 2020, and 2021.  
a. Could Peru please confirm if there are any new or modified measures since its last 
notification?  
b. If there are in fact new measures since Peru 's last DS:1 notification, could Peru please 
confirm when it will provide a DS:2 notification to demonstrate how these measures 
meet the Annex 2 criteria and are exempt from reduction commitments?   
AG-IMS ID 108046 : Question by Canada - Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that in Peru 's 2016 DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/PER/16 ), the period of application for 
the Special Project for the Provinces of Datem del Marañon, Alto Amazonas, Loreto and Condorcanqui 
(PEDAMAALC) was 10 years, with the date of entry into effect being 14 February  2014.   
a. Could Peru please confi rm if this measure is still in force or if it has been terminated?   
b. If still in force, could Peru please explain why this measure was not notified in Peru 's 
recent STDS:1 for 2019, 2020, and 2021?   
c. If the project is still in effect, could Peru please provi de the cost of the measure per 
year since 2014?   
AG-IMS ID 108030 : Question  by Canada, Australia - General services: marketing and 
promotion services  
Canada notes that Peru notified USD  90.6 million in 2020 and USD  208.5  million in 2021 for 
measures to improve market access for rural agricultural producers. Could Peru please explain the 
significant increase in support between calendar years 2020 and 2021?   
2.3.18   Russian Federation ( G/AG/N/RUS/40 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108223 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The delegation of Paraguay thanks the delegation of the Russian Federation fo r submitting 
notification G/AG/N /RUS/40 . 
Please indicate the Table DS:2 notification for the programme notified under paragraph  12 
"Environmental programmes" of Annex 2 to the AoA.  
2.3.19   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/122 , G/AG/N/CHE/128 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108152 : Question by India - Direct payments: payments under r egional 
assistance programmes  
India notes that Switzerland, in its DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/CHE/122 ) for the CY 2021, has notified 
CHF 558.9  million as the support provided under Regional Assistance Programmes. Out of this, a 
total of CHF 418.9  million is allocated to five different programmes with similar objectives. Namely, 
these prog rammes are 'Payments for farming on sloping land, ' 'Payments for farming on steep 
slopes, ' 'Payments for wine cultivation on steep slopes, ' 'Payments for farming in difficult conditions ', 
and 'Mountain pasturing payments. ' In this context, India seeks the following information:  
a. Provide official web links or documents of these programmes.  
b. Provide the eligibility criteria for each programme.   
c. What is the number of beneficiaries under each of these programmes?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 48 - 
 
  d. Is a single beneficiary eligible to receive paymen ts under more than one of these 
programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 108031 : Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Brazil, Canada, 
Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids  
We thank Switzerland for the submission of their DS:1 notification for 2022, G/AG/N/CHE/128 . On 
page 3, we note expenditure under Paragraph 11, "Structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids", for 'Assistance to improve livestock breeding '. Please can Switzerland 
describe the criteria used to determine the structural disadvantage and who is eligible for support?   
2.3.20   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108158 : Question by India - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
As India has not received a response for the question AG-IMS ID 107105 , the question is repeated 
here. In the DS:1 notification G/AG/N/THA/85 , the input subsidies provided by  Thailand vary 
significantly for the notified years. Notably, the expenditures for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 
were 39,552.82  million  Baht, 0.42 million  Baht, and 64,712.26 million Baht respectively.   
Importantly, when Australia enquired about the reason for such significant differences in the input 
subsidy expenditure ( AG-IMS ID: 86023) Thailand replied that the expenditure varied due to 
'different circumstances and policies ' at the time of application of the measure. In this regard, India 
seeks th e following clarifications:  
a. Please elaborate on these circumstances and enumerate the policies responsible for the 
variation in expenditure.  
b. How does Thailand define and identify low -income or resource -poor farmers?  
c. Has the definition ever changed over th e years?  
d. Please provide the list of input subsidies given in favour of farmers.  
e. Please provide the list of agricultural products eligible to receive such input subsidies.   
2.3.21   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/169 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108153 : Question  by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In the Table DS:1 notification  (G/AG/N/USA/169 ) for the MY  2021-22, the U nited States  introduced 
the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) which accounts for USD  7,017.384  million. In this context, the 
United States  is requested to provide the following information:  
a. guidelines of the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) ; 
b. eligibility criteria to avail assistance under this programme.  
2.3.22   Uruguay ( G/AG/N/URY/84 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108155 : Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In the recent DS:1 notification of Uruguay ( G/AG/N/URY/84 ) for the calendar year 2020, India 
observed that the product -specific Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) for fruits, vegetables, 
poultry, and pigs is primarily financed from the Farm Develop ment Fund. This fund is designed to 
provide insurance premium subsidies, particularly for climate risk management purposes. In this 
context, Uruguay is requested to provide the following information:  
a. Risk Coverage and product wise premium subsidies provide d under the programme.  
b. Is the programme funded by both federal and provincial governments? If yes, please 
provide the share of each.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 49 - 
 
  2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  
2.4.1   Canada  (G/AG/N/CAN/160 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108210 : Question by Europea n Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  would like to thank Canada for the replies to question AG-IMS ID  107183  related 
to its DS:2 Notification G/AG/N/CAN/160 .  
For the points (e) -(m), how payments under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex  2 
to the AoA comp ly with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount 
of payment is limited  to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government 
programme?  
AG-IMS ID 108159 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per the Table DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/CAN/160 ) submitted on 28 August 2023, Agri Marketing 
is a five -year programme under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) (2018 -2023), providing 
support for Canada 's agriculture and agri -food industry to promote and market t heir products 
globally. The programme has two components: (a) the National Industry Association and (b) the 
Small and Medium -Sized Enterprises. The National Industry Association components provide funding 
to industry -led promotion and marketing activities that help the Canadian agriculture and agri -food 
sector increase and diversify exports to international markets and seize domestic market 
opportunities.  
In this regard, India would like to ask if the scheme is still in operation? If so, India requests Can ada 
to explain how the programme complies with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition  (2015).   
2.4.2   Korea, Republic of ( G/AG/N/KOR/96 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108033 : Question by Canada, Australia - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The Republic of Korea notified a new programme Basic Payment Programme  for Promoting Public 
Functions of Agriculture and Rural Communities  in its most recent Table DS:2 ( G/AG/N  KOR/96), 
indicating that the programme has no end date in its application and that the 2020 programme cost 
was KRW  2,358.77 billion (or approximately USD 1.7 billion).     
a. Could the Republic of Korea clarify eligibility criteria for producers, including those that 
would limit producers from participating in the programme?   
b. With respect to the Act on Operation of Direct Payment Program for P romoting Public 
Functions of Agriculture and Rural Communities , could the Republic of Korea clarify 
whether all eligible farmers are required to be engaging in current agricultural 
production in order to receive the basic direct payments? If so, could the Republic of 
Korea explain how it would meet Annex  2 paragraph 6(e)?   
c. Could the Republic of Korea clarify what the base period is used for each eligible 
agricultural product and whether it is fixed and will remain unchanged?  
AG-IMS ID 108163 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  notes a new notified measure "Basic Payment Program for Promoting Public 
Functions of Agriculture and Rural Communities" notified under paragraphs  1 and 6 (Decoupled 
income support) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. We notice that the Republic o f Korea 
adopts a similar approach as the EU, conditioning this Basic Payment on several cross -compliance 
rules related to environment, ecology, food safety, etc.  
Could the Republic of Korea specify if the notified amount is paid out yearly?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 50 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 108164 : Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The eligibility for this new programme notified by the Republic of Korea, which is intended to promote 
the public functions of agriculture and rural communities, remains somewhat unclear. New Zealand 
is interested in hearing m ore regarding what makes a farmer eligible for this programme, specifically 
what actions a farmer must take to "contribute to promoting the role of agriculture and rural 
communities delivering public goods to society through agriculture activities"?  
AG-IMS ID 108162 : Question by Australia - Classification of mea sures  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for submitting its DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/KOR/96 ). 
Australia asks that the Republic of Korea indicate whether the notified program 'Technology 
Development for the Industrialization of 1st generation Smart Farms ' includes direct payments to 
producers.  
AG-IMS ID 108032 : Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
The Republic of Korea stated in its recent Table DS:2 ( G/AG/N/KOR/96 ) that Technology 
Development for the Industrialization of 1st Generation Smart Farms applies technologies to enhance 
convenience and quality of ICT equipment and tools used in smart greenhouses or smart livestock 
barns.  
Can the Republic of Korea confirm that this programme does not involve direct payments to 
producers and processors, including those operating in greenhouse and livestock sectors?   
2.4.3   New Zealand  (G/AG/N/NZL/145 , G/AG/N/NZL/146 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108161 : Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Ta ble DS:2)  
Australia thanks New Zealand for submitting its DS:2 notifications ( G/AG/N/NZL/145  
and G/AG/N/NZL/146 ). 
New Zealand has notified that the Cyclone Gabrielle Farmer and Grower Recovery Grant includes 
recovery grants include up to NZD  10,000 for pastoral and arable farmers and that 
5,387  applications  were approved and paid out to 4,756  farmers, growers and Whenua Maori 
owners. Australia also notes that the notification states that the programme "provides no direct 
payments to producers or processors."  
Australia asks that New Zealand : 
a. Clarify the operation of the Cyclone Gabrielle Farmer and Grower Recovery Grant 
scheme ( G/AG/N/ NZL/145 ), including how the notification can claim the programme 
provides no direct payments to producers or processors when, by the programme's 
description, it includes payments for producers.  
b. Descr ibe how the Cyclone Gabrielle Farmer and Grower Recovery Grant scheme 
(G/AG/N/NZL/145 ) and the Agricultural Recovery Assistance scheme 
(G/AG/N/NZL/14 6) meet the criteria of Annex II paragraph 8, including the calculation 
of production loss under subpara graph  8(a). 
AG-IMS ID 108034 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
New Zealand submitted a Table DS:2 notification for two new or modified programmes: (1) Cyclone 
Gabrielle – Primary Sector Response ; and (2)  North Island Weather Events – Cyclone Gabrielle 
Response and Recovery . New Zealand claims that both programmes meet the policy -specific criteria 
of Annex 2 paragraph 8 Payments (made either directly or by way of government financial 
participation in crop insurance schemes) for relief from natural disasters . Furthermore, New  Zealand 
claims that both programmes provide no direct payments to producers and processors.   
Could New  Zealand : 
a. Confirm whether participating producers o r processors are eligible to receive direct 
payments under these two programmes?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 51 - 
 
  b. Explain in detail how both programmes fully meet each of Annex  2 paragraph  8 (a) 
through (e), specifically how the loss -trigger reference level for production is established 
as per the requirement of paragraph 8(a) (e.g., an average based on preceding three 
years or an Olympic average)?   
AG-IMS ID 108047 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada seeks clarification on the Agricultural Recovery Assistance program, notified in 
New Zealand 's most recent Table DS:2 ( G/AG/NZL/146 ). New Zealand states that Agricultural 
Recovery Assistance now has a broader scope.    
a. Could New Zealand provide information on any modifications and/or additions to the 
previous Adverse Climatic Events measure.   
In its notification, New Zealand notes that Agricultural Recovery Assistance meets two policy -specific 
criteria of Annex 2, i.e.: (1) paragraph 8, payments for relief from natural disasters, made either 
directly or by way of government financial participation in crop insurance schemes; and, (2) 
paragraph 2(b) General services - pest and disease control. Furthermore, New Zealand claims that 
Agricultural Recovery Assistance provides no direct payments to producers and processors.    
Could New Zealand:   
b. explain how thi s programme can concurrently meet the two separate criteria, considering 
that they expenditures under paragraph 2 of Annex 2 cannot include any direct payments 
to producers or processors, while paragraph 8 payments must meet the criteria for direct 
payment s to producers?  
c. Confirm whether participating producers or processors are eligible to receive direct 
payments under the same programme?  
d. Explain in detail how this programme fully meets each of Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a) 
through  (e), specifically how the loss -trigger reference level for production is established 
as per the requirement of paragraph 8(a) (e.g., an average based on preceding three 
years or an Olympic average)?   
Furthermore, New Zealand notes that NZD  27,918  million (i.e., NZD  27 billion) was spent  under the 
Agricultural Recovery Assistance program in the 2022 -2023 Financial year, and that the reason for 
such a high level of spending is due to recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle, where NZD  25 million was 
distributed via the program.   
e. Could New Zealand c onfirm that NZD  27 billion is the correct amount for the 2022 -2023 
Financial Year for the program?  
f. New Zealand also notified a separate Table DS:2 on Cyclone Gabrielle – Primary Sector 
Response and North Island Weather Events – Cyclone Gabrielle Response a nd Recovery 
(G/AG/N/NZL/145 ). Could New Zealand explain how the support provided following 
Cyclone Gabrielle via Agricultural Recovery Assistance differs from the support provided 
through these two event -specific programmes?   
AG-IMS ID 108165 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  notes that the notification concerns past measures. What obstacles did 
New Zealand encounter to notify the measures before their implementation, as requested?  
Can New Zealand specify how the notified measures comply with the requirements of paragraph  8 
of Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 108160 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  notes that the notification concerns a measures implemented as of 2020.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 52 - 
 
  a. What obstacles did New Zealand encounter to notify the measures before their 
implementation, as required?  
b. What is the predicted end of the implementation period?  
c. Can New Zealand specify how the notified measures comply with the requirements of 
parag raph 8 of Annex 2 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.4.4   Thaila nd (G/AG/N/THA/133 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108166 : Question by I ndia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Thailand has subsidized its sugarcane farmers to reduce PM 2.5 dust during the production 
season  2020-21 and 2021 -22 as per its DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/THA/133 ). Thailand has 
expressed its intent to  notify this programme under para 12 of the Green box named 'payments 
under environmental programs '. Moreover, the notification provides that the 'amount of the payment 
is limited to the extra costs of 120 Baht per tonne in order to cover loss of daily inc ome of fresh 
cane farmers when harvesting good and fresh sugarcane rather than burnt sugarcane. ' In this 
regard, India requests Thailand to explain how the loss of daily income has been calculated.   
2.4.5   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/26 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108214 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks the U nited Kingdom  for its Table DS:2 notification dated 11  March  2024, 
(G/AG/N/GBR/26 ). India notes that UK provides support to encourage farmers and other land 
managers to adopt agricultural practices that contribute to clima te change mitigation and adaptation 
under the  Environmental Improvement through Agriculture, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 
(AONBs) Scheme. In this regard :  
a. Please provide further information regarding the types of agriculture practices that 
contribut e to climate change mitigation and adaptation covered under the programme.  
b. Considering payments under structural adjustment assistance will be provided through 
investment aid, what are the different types of structural disadvantages covered under 
the AONB  scheme to be eligible to receive the grants?  
With respect to the Scottish Land Fund Grant, which aims to enable place -based community groups 
to acquire part of Langholm Moor to deliver social, environmental, and economic public policy 
outcomes, the UK has  classified the measure as "Direct payments to producers" and "Decoupled 
Income Support". In this context, could the UK provide details of the eligibility criteria for 
beneficiaries of this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 108167 : Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Thailand appreciates the Unit ed Kingdom 's submission of its DS:2 notification. We note the Goose 
Management Schemes, which aim to maintain sustainable populations of geese associated with 
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) while minimising losses to farmers.   
Could the United Kingdom pro vide further details on the eligible payments as well as the 
methodology used to assess the programme's extra costs or income losses?  
AG-IMS ID 108021 : Question by United States of America, Australia - Transparency issues 
(including  Table DS:2)  
G/AG/N/GBR/26  includes a detailed description of the Environmental Improvement through 
Agriculture, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) Scheme. The United Kingdom has cited 
several different criteria from Annex  2 and it is not clear how the AONBs  Scheme meets all of the 
criteria listed.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 53 - 
 
  a. Please provide more details on the types of direct payments that this program will 
provide as they pertain to each of the criteria (Paras. 6, 11, and 12) cited in the 
notification.  
b. Please clarify the recipients o f the support provided through this program.   
c. What measures are in place to ensure that payments are limited in the manner required 
in Annex 2 and that producers are not overcompensated?   
AG-IMS ID 108035 : Question by United States of America, Australia - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
According to G/AG/N/GBR/26 , payments for Woodland Creation Schemes are "limited to the costs 
of creating woodland, based on a standard payment per hectare and the costs incurred and income 
foregone."   
a. Does the combined payment, including the standard per hectare paym ent, take the 
level of support beyond the threshold of costs incurred and income foregone?   
b. Please clarify the recipients of the support provided through this program.   
2.4.6   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/170 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108215 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In its reply to question 106122 concerning the DS:2 notification of the measure "Local Food for 
Schools Cooperative Agreement Program" the US did not provide a clear reply to point b - how can 
the United States conclude that the measures in question have no t rade-distorting effects or effects 
on production?  
Can the US provide a precise description on how the above -mentioned requirement is taken into 
consideration and complied with?  
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.5.1   Mauritius  (G/AG/N/MUS/20 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108036 : Question by United St ates of America, European Union, Australia, 
Canada - Transparency issues  
According to G/AG/N/MUS/20 , "export subsidies were not granted to agricultural products during 
the financial year from 01 -07-2022 to 30 -06-2023." However, on November 10, 2023, Ma uritius 
notified the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ( G/SCM/N/401/MUS ) that 
Mauritius was operating a Freight Rebate Scheme for the period of 2022/2023.  According to 
G/SCM/N/401/MUS , the program is run by the Agricultural Marketing Board and provided a total 
subsidy of Rs 800,000 in 2022/2023. The Agricultural Marketing Board website  provides information 
on the Freight Rebate Scheme and notes that the program provides freight refunds for eligible 
shipments with "A capping of Rs  30 million per applicant".   
a. Please confirm whether or not the Freight Rebate Scheme was operating in 2022/2023.   
b. Please confirm the subsidy amount provided during this period.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 54 - 
 
  2.6  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
2.6.1   Morocco  (G/AG/N/MAR/65 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108037 : Question by Canada, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom - Transparency 
issues  
Canada would like to thank Morrocco for its transparency and for issuing i ts ER:1 notification covering 
olives, preserved olives and olive oil products. Morocco mentions in its notification that an export 
licensing regime has been introduced for these products with the view of ensuring the supply of 
domestic market. In addition,  news reports from October 2023 mention that Morocco 's Minister of 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development had approved a decree binning the export of olive oil 
to supply its domestic market ( https://www.millingmea.com/morocco -bans-export -of-olive-oil-to-
regulate -local-prices/ ).  
a. Could Morocco expand on the functioning of the new export licencing regime mentioned 
in its ER:1 notification? What is the process to apply for an export licence and who is 
eligible to apply? Has a maximum volume been determined for the issuance of export 
licences? If so, what  is the maximum volume and what considerations has Morocco 
taken into account in establishing it?   
b. Could Morocco share the relevant Official Gazette reference and information as to where 
the policy was notified?   
c. Could Morocco confirm the status of the dec ree that would seek to ban the export of 
olive oil? Has this decree been adopted/is it in force?  
2.7  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.7.1   European  Union ( G/AG/N/EU/82 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108177 : Question by United States of America - Other forms of assistance  
The United States notes that under s ection 3 of the European Union 's NF:1 notification for several 
years up to calendar year 2022, the European Union does not provide much information on the 
technical and financial assistance programs that it offers to address the needs of LDCs, NFIDCs, and 
developing countries.  
a. Should we understand that the European Union does not provide any kind of technical 
and financial assistance (including contributions to multilateral organizations with an 
agricultural emphasis) to address specific challen ges or foster sustainable development 
in the agricultural sectors of LDCs and NFIDCs, and developing countries?   
b. If the European Union does indeed provide any kind of technical or financial assistance 
in this area, will the European Union please amend its NF:1 notification for calendar 
year 2022 and provide a description going forward of its technical and financial 
assistance programs, including the level of monetary contributions for those programs? 
If the European Union cannot provide this information, pl ease explain why not.  
2.7.2   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/266 , G/AG/N/JPN/267 , G/AG/N/JPN/268 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108059 : Question  by United States of America, Australia - Other forms of 
assistance  
The United States notes in Japan 's NF:1 notification for calendar years 2017 to 2021, under 
paragraphs  3.1 and  4.1, that it  has provided loans for technical and financial assistance under 
concessional terms, in which there is a grant element of more than 25 %, to the agricultural sector 
of LDCs and NFIDCs, and developing countries.  
a. Please provide a description of the concessional loan program.  What types of projects 
do these official development assistance (ODA) loans finance in LDCs, NFIDCs, and 
developing countries?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 55 - 
 
  b. Please provide a breakdown of ODA concessional loan amounts, recipient countries, and 
types of projec ts financed for calendar years 2021 to 2017.  
c. What is the source or the financing entity providing/administering the concessional loan 
program?   
d. Please explain whether a relevant needs assessment of the projects is performed before 
providing a concessional loan.  
e. Please provide the annual average repayment periods and the annual average interest 
rates charged. If Japan cannot provide this information, please explain why not.   
f. Since there seems to be a grant element attached to these concessional loans, pleas e 
explain how these concessional loan programs are not tied directly or indirectly to 
commercial exports of agricultural products or other goods and services; and not linked 
to the market development objectives of the donor.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 108168 : Question by India  
India notes Australia 's responses to AG -IMS ID s: 107090, 107091 , 107092 , 107187 , and  107188 . 
India appreciates Australia 's strong commitment tow ards ensuring that all measures enacted at the 
federal and state levels are reflected in its notifications in a 'fulsome ' manner.  
However, Australia 's delay in submitting its pending notifications is adversely affecting the 
monitoring of its schemes and t he general level of transparency at the CoA. India would urge 
Australia to submit its long -overdue DS:1 notification for FY 2020 -21, FY 2021 -22, and FY  2022-23, 
and hopes Australia can provide the enquiring Members with a possible future date by which it c an 
submit its pending notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 108169 : Question by Indonesia  
The latest DS:1 notification submitted by Australia was for the financial year  2019/2020 
(G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 ). 
a. We kindly request Australia to explain the reasons for this continued delay.  
b. We are particularly curious to hear about specific challenges encountered by Australia 
as a developed country Member in meeting its notification obligation, and efforts have 
been undertaken to fulfil its overdue DS:1 notification.  
c. When can we expect to receive Australia 's overdue DS:1 notification?  
3.2  Canada  
AG-IMS ID 108170 : Question by India  
India notes that Canada's latest DS:1 notification is for the calendar year 2020. Therefore, we 
request Canada to kindly update the Committee on wh en the pending notifications for the 
years  2021, 2022 and 2023 will be issued.  
AG-IMS ID 108171: Question  by Indonesia  
The latest DS:1 notification submitted by Canada was for the financial year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CAN/159 ). 
a. We request Canada to explain the reasons for this continued delay.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 56 - 
 
  b. We are particularly c urious to hear about specific challenges encountered by Canada as 
a developed country Member in meeting its notification obligation, and efforts have been 
undertaken to fulfil its overdue DS:1 notification.  
c. When can we expect to receive Canada 's overdue DS :1 notification?  
3.3  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 108172 : Questio n by India  
India notes that the EU 's latest DS:1 notification dated 20th December 2023 is for the marketing 
year 2020-21 (G/AG/N/EU/89 ). As per the notification requirements and format under G/AG/2 , 
Members with Total AMS commitment in Part IV of their Schedule are required to submit their 
domestic support notification no later  than 120 days following the end of the calendar (or, marketi ng, 
fiscal, etc.) year in question.  However, in contrast to certain developing countries that have 
successfully managed to submit their 2022 -23 domestic support notification, the EU 's notifications 
have been delayed.  
Further, in response to India 's questio n in AG -IMS ID 106172 , the EU stated that "The notificat ion 
for the 2021 -2022 marketing year, which covers the EU 2022 budget year that ended on 
31st December 2022, will be submitted at the latest during April 2024" . 
In this context, India would like to know by when the EU would notify its pending domestic support 
notifications for the marketing years 2021 -2022 and 2022 -2023.   
AG-IMS ID 108173 : Question by Indonesia  
The latest DS:1 notification submitted by the European Union was for the marketing year 2020/2021 
(G/AG/N/EU/89 ). 
a. We request the European Union to explain the reasons for this continued dela y.  
Indeed, such delay might indicate that even developed Members are not necessarily immune to 
challenges in meeting notification obligations.  
Therefore, we would like to  know more about these specific challenges and efforts that have been 
undertaken by the EU to fulfil its overdue DS:1 notification.   
b. When  can we expect to receive the European Union 's overdue DS:1 notification?  
AG-IMS ID 108069 : Question by United States of America  
It is noted that the European Union 's most recent Table DS:1 notification covers 2020/21, which 
concluded approximately three year s ago.   
c. Has the European Union considered undertaking efforts to provide its notifications on a 
more timely basis?  
3.4  Paraguay  
AG-IMS ID 108174 : Question by India  
The latest  Table DS:1 notificatio n (G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) submitted by Paraguay is for the calendar 
year 2021. Could Paraguay update the Committee regarding its plan for filing pending notification 
for the years 2022 and 2023?  
3.5  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 108175 : Question by India  
India notes with concern that the latest Table DS:1 notification from Thailan d was notified seven  
years ago which severely undermines transparency, a fundamental concept, so pivotal to an effective 
functioning of Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Agriculture Special Session. In response G/AG/W/246  
 
- 57 - 
 
  to the questions raised regarding the  reasons for the delay, Thailand stated in AG -IMS ID 105113  
that they were in the process of gathering information for publishing their outstanding Table DS:1 
notifications for calendar years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 and would notify the CoA at the 
earliest. Thereafter, in AG -IMS ID 107106 , Thailand mentioned that they were in the process of 
confirming and checking the information that will be notified to ensure that there are no missing 
elements or inaccurately figured notifications. While India appreciates Thailand 's efforts in collecting, 
processing and checking the data for notification, p lease provide the following information:  
a. Enumerate and explain the circumstances leading to prolonged delay in filing DS:1 
notifications.  
b. When would Thailand file its long -pending DS:1 notifications, due for the last seven 
years?  
As WTO Table MA:2 notific ations are supposed to be submitted no later than 60 days of the following 
year, and the deadline for the same has lapsed for the year 2023, India would like to enquire when 
Thailand will submit its outstanding MA:2 notification for the year 2023.  
AG-IMS I D 108212 : Question by Indonesia  
As a developing country M ember, Indonesia is fully aware of the challenges in fulfilling all notification 
requirements. In the case of Thailand, the latest DS:1 notification submitted was for the calendar 
year 2016 ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ).  
We note Thailand 's previous statement that it  would submit its DS:1 notification "in due course, 
hopefully shortly".   
We kindly request Thailand to explain:  
a. The reasons for this continued delay, including specific challenges encountered.  
b. Efforts have been taken to fulfil its overdue DS:1 notification.  
c. When can we expect to receive Thailand 's DS:1 notification for the calendar years  2017 
onwards.  
3.6  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 108176 : Question by India  
India thanks the U nited States  for notifying the Table DS:1 notification for 2021 -22. For effective 
monitoring and functioning of the Committee on Agriculture, transparent information on the 
measures adopted by Members is essential; in the absence of notification by the Members, this 
function is adversely affected. The US is required to notify their Domestic Support notification within 
120 days.  Therefore, India requests the US to update the Committee regarding its plans to submit 
its pending DS:1 notification for the marketing year 2022 -23. 
4  DEFERRED REPLIES  
4.1  MATTERS  RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
4.1.1   Angola's  import policies (SIM 660)  
4.1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108049 ) 
The E uropean Union  would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS 100058 .  
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e.,  The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origi n, 
which provided import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 58 - 
 
  As Angola admitted in the framework of the Trade Policy Review 2024 (for example, point 1.4 of 
Angola's report), the declared objective of this program was - among others - to promot e exports 
and replace imports. Reportedly due to the concerns raised by WTO Members, Angola decided to 
revoke Decree 23/19 and have it replaced by Presidential Decree 213/23, which came into force 
on 30 January 2024.  
Given the potential impacts on EU's exp orts to Angola of agricultural products covered by Presidential 
Decree 213/23, the EU would appreciate if Angola could provide clarifications over the exact scope 
of new Presidential Decree 213/23 and the extent to which the elements of non -compliance with  
WTO law were eliminated in the new Decree. In the course of the TPR, Angola clarified that "Several 
existing provisions in the previous Presidential Decree No. 23/19 were eliminated, to comply with 
the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), approved in F ebruary 2017, to which Angola is a party".  
How does Angola justify the legitimacy of the measures  that introduce quantitative restrictions on 
imports, as well as the requirements in terms of import licenses, in light of other WTO legislation 
other than the  TFA? It should be noted that at previous WTO meetings and during the 2024 TPR of 
Angola, the EU has repeatedly expressed concerns regarding this measure. To date, Angola has not 
provided any substantive response and/or explanations on how it intends to in tegrate this decree 
within the scope of WTO legality.  
In addition,  could Angola explain how the restrictions are implemented, and notably if licenses are 
used to manage these restrictions and what is the process that importers and wholesalers have to 
follow to be eligible for an import licence, including on the specific steps required?  
4.1.2   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
United States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
4.1.2.1   Questi on by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108181 , 108189 , 108186 , 108191 , 
108195 , 108197 , 108203 , 108206 ) 
The Russian Federation has raised this question at the CoA Committee meetings on numerous 
occasions. However, no substantive answer has been provid ed yet.  
Evidently, we witness selective compliance with the WTO transparency rules by some Members: 
Australia, Canada, the E uropean Union , Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, the U nited Kingdom , the 
United States of America . 
We call Australia, Canada, the E uropea n Union , Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, the U nited Kingdom , 
and the United States of America  to follow its transparency obligations under Article 18.6 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and provide meaningful answers to the questions raised.  
4.1.3   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  
4.1.3.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108182 , 108183 , 108198 , 108204 , 
108207 ) 
The Russian Federation has raised the question at the CoA Committee m eetings for several times. 
However, no substantive reply has been provided so far.  
Evidently, we witness selective compliance with the WTO transparency rules by some Members: 
Australia, Canada, the European Union , Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom , the 
United States of America .  
We call Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom , and the United States of America  to 
follow its transparency obligations under Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture and provide a 
response on the merits of the raised question.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 59 - 
 
  4.1.4   Brazil's  Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  
4.1.4.1   Question by Euro pean Union (AG -IMS ID 108051 ) 
The E uropean Union  would like to reiterate its previous question AG-IMS ID 107034  to which it did 
not receive a reply.  
The EU has taken note of the reply of Brazil to its question 106069  at the 106th CoA session 
concerning Plano Safra and its relation to the requirements of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition. From the reply  provided by Brazil it is not clear that credit lines available for Brazilian 
farmers can not be used as export financing.  
The EU would like Brazil to confirm that none of the available credit lines within Plano Safra are 
contingent on exports of agricultu ral products.  
4.1.5   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural  machinery supplies (SIM 772)  
4.1.5.1   Question by Russian  Federation (AG -IMS ID 108184 , 108187 , 108192 , 108196 , 
108199 , 108200 ) 
The Russian Federation has repeatedly raised this question at the CoA Committee  meetings. 
However, no substantive reply has been provided so far.  
A decision not to give a reply to a row of questions provided in writing is not in line with the usual 
practice of this organization. We again witness selective compliance with the WTO tran sparency rules 
by some Members:  Canada, the E uropean Union , Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway.  
We call Canada, the E uropean Union , Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, and Norway to follow its 
transparency obligations under Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agric ulture and provide a response 
on the merits of the raised question.  
4.1.6   Côte d'Ivoire  – Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  
4.1.6.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108062) 
The E uropean Union  wants to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID 96046 . 
Côte d'Ivoire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
Code général des impôts. This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
a. How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  
b. How does it respect the following WTO commitments:  
- Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
- Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regula tion).  
The E U would appreciate that a bilateral meeting were to be held informally between our delegates 
in order to advance on the resolution of the issue, for which the EU has been waiting for a reply for 
a long time.  
4.1.7   European  Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport 
(SIM  778)  
4.1.7.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108188 , 108193 , 108201 ) 
The Russian Federation has repeatedly raised this question at the CoA Committee meetings. 
However, no substantive reply has been provided so far.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 60 - 
 
  A decision not to give a reply to a row of questions provided in writing is not in line  with the usual 
practice of this organization. We again witness selective compliance with the WTO transparency rules 
by some Members: the E U, Iceland, Norway.  
We call the EU, Iceland, and Norway to follow its transparency obligations under Article 18.6 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and provide a response on the merits of the raised question.  
4.1.8   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  
4.1.8.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108190 , 108194 , 108202 ) 
The Russian Federation has repeatedly raised this question at the CoA Committee meetings.  
However, no substantive reply has been provided s o far.  
A decision not to give a reply to a row of questions provided in writing is not in line with the usual 
practice of this organization. We again witness selective compliance with the WTO transparency rules 
by some Members: the E uropean Union , Iceland,  Norway.  
We call the E uropean Union , Iceland, and Norway to follow its transparency obligations under 
Article  18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture and provide a response on the merits of the raised 
question.  
4.1.9   India's export  restrictions (SIM 306)  
4.1.9.1   Question  by United Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Canada, Japan, 
Brazil (AG -IMS ID 108081 ) 
We note that India has not yet responded to Ag -IMS 107075. India have implemented various export 
restrictions including on basmati rice; non -basmati white rice; onions; broken rice; sugar; wheat 
flour; and wheat, stating their measures are based on changes in domestic demand and supply.  
Please could India explain:  
a. The criteria they use to  assess if  a domestic  supply  or demand  situation  amounts  to a 
'critical shortage ' in line with GATT Article XI:2(a),  and what assessments are carried out 
to ensure  that the imposition of an export  restrictions  is the  appropriate means  of 
addressing the issues?  
b. When  they will submit  their ER:1 notifications  for these  various  export 
restriction  measures, in line with their obligations under Article 12 1.b. of the Agreement 
on Agriculture?  
c. Which of the  export restrictions mentioned above are still in place, and their anticipated 
duration?  
4.1.9.2   Question  by United States of America, Australia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Ukraine, Canada, Japan, European Union (AG -IMS ID 108079 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107019 , we repeat: In response to various 
quest ions regarding India 's use of export restrictions and prohibitions, India has made statements 
similar to that in response to AG -IMS ID  106008 : "The measures are temporary and are being 
reviewed from time to time to enable necessary changes based on domestic demand and supply 
situations. India 's measures were necessitated by the need to manage its food security concerns."  
Given that India has noted these measures are temporary, for each export restriction or prohibition 
measure currently in place, please provide the current date that each measure is  set to expire or 
confirm the measure has expired as of the date of this Committee meeting.  
a. Export ban on sugar.   
b. Export duty of 40 % on onions.   
c. Export ban on non -basmati white rice.   
d. Export duty of 20 % on non -basmati white rice.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 61 - 
 
  e. Export duty of 20 % on parboiled, non -basmati rice.   
f. Minimum export price on basmati rice.   
g. Export ban on wheat and wheat products.   
h. Export ban on broken rice.   
i. Export duty of 20 % on rice in the husk, husked brown rice.   
j. Export ban on de -oiled rice bran (DORB).   
4.1.10   India's  rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme (SIM 471)  
4.1.10.1   Question  by United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia (AG -IMS 
ID 108084 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107149, we rep eat: In response to AG -IMS 
ID 106024 , India  stated it would revert with a response at a later date, which has not yet been 
uploaded to AG -IMS. Therefore, the question is resubmitted.    
The Indian Food Secretary Sanjeev Chopra  told media , "There has been a s harp increase in prices 
of wheat and rice recently…. The government has decided to offload 50 lakh tonnes [5 million ton nes] 
wheat and 25 lakh tonnes [2.5 million ton nes] rice under the Open Market Sale Scheme."   
Further it is noted that the reserve price for rice released under open market sales was reduced and 
the Food Secretary  told media , "The cost on account of reduction in the reserve price will be borne 
from the Price Stabilization Fund maintained by the Department of Consumer Affairs."   
a. Please confirm whether India sells foodgrains, including rice, at prices below costs under 
the Open Market Sale Scheme.    
b. Please clarify what costs are being borne by the Price Stabilization Fund.   
4.1.11   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  (SIM 515)  
4.1.11.1   Question  by United States of America, Australia, Canada (AG -IMS ID 108085 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107072 , we repeat: In AG -IMS ID  106028 , we 
welcome the news that India is  committed to eliminating all export subsidies by 
31 December  2023.  However, India did not respond to the question asked and therefore it is 
resubmitted.   
As a follow up to AG -IMS IDs  95051  and 93010 , it is noted that India's Department of Commerce 
introduced the "Transport and Marketing Assistance  (TMA) for Specified Agriculture Prod ucts 
Scheme" to provide assistance for the international component of freight costs faced by Indian 
exporters of agriculture products. The scheme was in effect between 1  March  2019 and 
31 March  2021. However, the Department notified a "Revised TMA for expo rts after 1  April 2021 to 
31 March  2022." We note that major changes have been made in the revised TMA Scheme, such as 
the coverage of dairy products, which were not previously covered, and that rates of assistance were 
increased, by 50% for exports by sea  and by 100% for exports by air.  
a. Please provide the following data for each year (2019 to present):  
i. The total value of export subsidy provided, including breakouts by agricultural 
product or product group (please identify at the HS 6 -digit code);   
ii. The tot al quantity of subsidized exports; and  
iii. The average subsidy rates.   
b. Please explain whether the TMA scheme has been extended after 31 March 2022. If the 
TMA is still in effect, please explain whether it will expire on 31  December 2023, in 
accordance with the  Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 62 - 
 
  4.1.12   India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
4.1.12.1   Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Japan, Thailand, 
Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 108086 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107016 , we repeat: Dating back as far as 2015, 
Members have been asking India about state bonuses provided over t he announced minimum 
support prices reported in Supporting Table DS:5, as well as in more recent years the Statistical 
Appendix ("f. Purchase prices").    
When Members last inquired as to an update on the ability of India to provide information on state 
bonuses in March 2023 (AG -IMS ID  104021 ), Indi a stated, "The information is not available at the 
moment."    
a. Please provide Members an update on the gathering of this information that has been 
requested for many years and has yet to be appropriately included in India's domestic 
support notifications.   
When Members inquired in AG -IMS ID  105050  about information on state bonuses in India's 
response to "f. Purchase Prices" in the Statistical Appendix, India stated, "India has duly notified all 
the required information under the Bali Annex" for each of the three sub -questions.    
b. Please explain whet her this response was solely related to India's position that only 
information on rice should be included in the Statistical Appendix per sub -question a) 
or if Members should understand India's response in the context of sub -question b) that 
India is of th e opinion that the purchase prices, which in many years, for certain states, 
includes bonuses, are not required to be included in the Statistical Appendix.   
c. Please confirm that for sub -question c), India is not willing to share all of the data 
sources used  to compile the Statistical Appendices 
in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , 
and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 .  
4.1.13   India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM767)  
4.1.13.1   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Paraguay, 
Cana da, European Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108080 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107020 , we repeat: In AG -IMS ID  106022 , India 
noted that the quantity of non -basmati rice India considered to be for adequate availability varies 
"depending on various elements, including population size, agriculture production, food habits, 
demand & supply, natural calamities, and unforeseen pandemics."  It is recognized that vario us 
factors could contribute to this quantity varying over time, but we remain interested in understanding 
India's assessment regarding "adequate availability of non -basmati white rice in the Indian market" 
at the time of the decision to impose an export ba n on non -basmati rice. At the time of the decision 
there were various media reports indicating there were sufficient supplies to meet domestic demand.  
Further, USDA estimates of Indian rice production were 134  million ton nes in August 2023 and its 
estimate s of Indian rice stocks were 36  million ton nes in 2023/24.    
What quantity of public stocks of rice did India consider adequate for domestic needs at the time 
this export restriction was put in place?   
4.1.14   India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision (SIM 852)  
4.1.14.1   Question  by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Paraguay, European 
Union (AG -IMS ID 108088 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107018 , we repeat: In response to AG -IMS 
ID 106030 , India noted that, according to NAFED 's Annual Report 2021 -22, there is no indication of 
any paddy or wheat procurement done on a commercial basis and it only provided details of 
procurement done on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. Further, the NAFED website specifically G/AG/W/246  
 
- 63 - 
 
  indicates that  foodgrain procurement was done on behalf of the Food Corporation of India and states 
that the NAFED Annual Report provides the current/updated details regarding procurement.    
In response, India stated "The referred shipment (AG -IMS ID  105043 ) of rice to Bangladesh 
(G2G  trade), rice and wheat to Myanmar (humanitarian aid) and all other trades carried by NAFED 
are based on commercial purchases from the open market by way of floating tenders/e -auctions and 
are not linked with public stocks procured at MSP."   
However, India did not provide the data r equested. Therefore, the question is resubmitted:   
Please provide data (and the source) for 2017/18 through 2021/22 of the quantities of paddy and 
wheat procured by NAFED both on behalf of the Food Corporation of India and those purchased on 
a commercial b asis.  
4.1.14.2   Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Thailand, Paraguay 
(AG-IMS ID 108089 ) 
Noting that India has  not responded to AG -IMS ID  107022,  we repea t: In response to AG -IMS 
ID 106027  India stated "The information is not c ompiled in the requested form" with regards to 
information that is required as part of its response to 2.d of the Annex of the Bali Decision on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes.    
Is India currently compiling the requested information?   
4.1.14.3   Quest ion by United States of America, Japan, Thailand, Paraguay, Brazil, Canada, 
European Union, Australia (AG -IMS ID 108087 ) 
Noting that India has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107017 , we repeat: In response to AG -IMS 
ID 106029 , India stated it was still collecting the requested information regarding how it calculates 
its public stockholding for food security expenditures; therefore, the question is being resubmitted.    
In response to AG -IMS ID  105038 , India stated it was not able at the time to provide details  with 
regards to what the notified value under Annex 2, paragraph 3 includes and excludes as compared 
to "Total Food Subsidy" in the Government of India 's Expenditure Budget for 2020 -21 through 
2023-24, or why the values for "Total Food Subsidy" were significantly larger than what was notified 
under Annex 2, paragraph 3.   
a. Is India in a position to provide the requested information in parts (a) and (b) of AG -IMS 
ID 105038 ? 
b. Please indicate the data source and m ethodology for the notified value provided by India 
for "public stockholding for food security" in its domestic support notifications.   
4.1.15   Morocco's vegetable and fertilizer subsidies  (SIM 870)  
4.1.15.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 108096 ) 
The E uropean Union  would like to reiterate its previous question AG-IMS 107030  for which the reply 
is still pending:  
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of Morocco  announced that the Government will, for the 
first time ever, subsidize the production of tomatoes, onions, and potatoes, by 50 % to 70% of their 
value, due to the "high price" of the seeds.  
In the House of Representatives, he stated that tomato production would be subsidized with 
40,000  to 70,000 dirhams (between 3,600 and 6,300 euro s) per hectare, potato production with 
8,000  to 15, 000 dirhams (between 720 and 1,300 euro s) per hectare, and onion production with 
4,000  to 5,000 dirhams (between 360 and 450 euro s) per hectare.  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 64 - 
 
  The government will also provide 600,000 tons of phosphate fertilizers for the coming season and 
subsidize the import of nitrogen fertilizers with 2.2 billion dirhams (€200 million).  
Seddiki recalled four consecutive years of drought, rising cultivation costs, and the earthquake that 
struck several provinces last month.  
a. Could Morocco confirm this information and pr ovide the legal acts?  
b. When thes e payments are scheduled to take place, already in 2023 or as of 2024?  
According to the latest data published by the specialised portal  EastFruit, between July 2022 and 
June 2023, the Kingdom exported a total of 716,700 tonne s of tomatoes  to international markets, 
representing a revenue of  990 million dollars.  
Fresh tomatoes are also  among the top 10 products exported by Morocco. According to data from 
the 2022 Annual Report on Foreign Trade, prepared by the Moroccan Bureau de  Change, exports of 
fresh tomatoes accounted for 2.4% of the total in 2022, with an increase of 35% over the previous 
year's figure. More than half of the export of tomatoes go to the EU member States. The EU fears 
that the announced subsidies (for tomatoe s, onions and potatoes producers) would lead to further 
increases in the production and exports of those goods which might unfairly increase the competitive 
advantage of Moroccan producers vis -à-vis EU producers and have an impact on the EU market in 
terms  of prices and profitability as Morocco is a major supplier (e.g. Morocco has an estimated 
market share of 8% of total apparent consumption in the EU for tomatoes). Moreover, subsidies 
linked to production, tend to reduce incentives for producers to boost efficiency and more sustainable 
agriculture.  
c. Could Morocco provide an estimation of the total hectares used for tomatoes and onions 
growing between 2020 and 2022?  
d. What kind of tomatoes are targeted by the measure? What is the proportion of tomatoes 
for exp ort that will benefit from the aid?  
e. What are the criteria and conditions for receiving this type of subsidy? What is the 
expectation in terms of take -up of this measure in terms of number of farmers, 
production and surface for the three crops mentioned? Wh at is the percentage as 
compared to the total figures for the three crops? What is the average level of the aid 
compared to the total costs incurred by farmers and or total turnover for the three crops 
mentioned? How would Morocco notify this type of suppo rt in their DS:1 notification? 
The last DS:1 notification from Morocco is from 2012.  
As concerns the news on the fertilisers that:  The government will also provide 600,000 tons of 
phosphate fertilizers for the coming season and subsidize the import of nitr ogen fertilizers with 
2.2 billion dirhams (€200 million),  the EU wonders whether Morocco has reflected on alternative 
approaches which could result in more sustainable use of fertilisers and pesticides thereby 
limiting  soil degradation and other negative e nvironmental impacts.  
4.1.16   Tanzania 's export  restriction on maize and onions (SIM 860)  
4.1.16.1   Question  by United Kingdom, Canada (AG -IMS ID 108209 ) 
We note that Tanzania  hasn't replied to  AG-IMS ID 107073  regarding  a reported export restriction 
on onions.  We'd be grateful if  Tanzania  could  confirm:  
a. Whether  there is a  restriction  on the export of onions,  and if so, its intended duration?  
b. If a restriction is in place,  when  does Tanzania  intend  on submitting  an 
ER:1 notification?  G/AG/W/246  
 
- 65 - 
 
  4.1.17   United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  
4.1.17.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 108205 ) 
The Russian Federation has repeatedly raised this question at the CoA Com mittee meetings. 
However, no substantive reply has been provided so far.  
A decision not to give a reply to a row of questions provided in writing is not in line with the usual 
practice of this organization. We again witness selective compliance with the WT O transparency rules 
by the U nited Kingdom . 
We call the U nited Kingdom  to follow its transparency obligations under Article 18.6 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and provide a response on the merits of the raised question.  
4.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH I NDIVI DUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
4.2.1   India ( G/AG/N/IND/30 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108120 : Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The E uropean Union  would like to reiterate its question  AG-IMS ID  107139  to which it has not 
received a reply:  
The European Union would like to thank India for submitting its MA:2 notification for the financial 
year 2022/2023 in G/AG/IND/30 . As other Members have noted in previous questions submitted in 
the framework of the Committee on Agriculture the tariff quota INDQ001 has been having a fill rate 
of 0% for years now.  
a. Has India considered changing the method of management of this tariff rate 
quota  (INDQ001)?  
b. Is India taking any kind of measures to ensure that the management of its WTO tariff 
rate quotas which h ave a low fill rate is trade conducive?  
4.2.2   Bangladesh ( G/AG/N/BGD/5/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1 , 
G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108043 : Question by Canada, Austral ia - Non-product -specific AMS  
In light of the lack of a written response from Bangladesh regarding question in AG-IMS IDs 106019  
and 107159 , Canada would like to reiterate the same questions:   
In reviewing Bangladesh's Table DS:1 notifications for reporting periods 2008/09 
(G/AG/N/BGD/5/Rev.1 ), 2010/2011 ( G/AG/N/BGD/6/Rev.1 ), 2012/2013 ( G/AG/N/BGD/7/Rev.1 , 
2014/2015 ( G/AG/N/BGD/8/Rev.1 ), 20 16/2017 ( G/AG/N/BGD/9/ Rev.1 ), 2018/2019 
(G/AG/N/BGD/10/Rev.1 ), and 2020/2021 ( G/AG/N/BGD/11/Rev.1 ), Canada would like to seek 
clarification on measures reported in Supporting Table DS:9:  
a. Could Bangladesh clarify what programmes or measures are included as part of its 
notification of indirect subsidies?  
b. How are these indirect subsidies provided to farmers with respect to imported urea and 
non-urea fertilizers?  
c. Could Bangladesh provide an example to illustrate the methodology used to calculate 
the outlays for these indirect subsidies?   
4.2.3   Brazil ( G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108128 : Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As Brazil has not yet replied to AG -IMS ID 107093 , India would like to repeat the question:   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 66 - 
 
  India notices the introduction of the "Program of Acquisition of Agricultural  Products from Family 
Farming" under the measure 'Domestic food aid ' for the year 2020 -21 (G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) with an 
allocation of USD 10 million. Also, the same programme has been notified under the 'Public 
stockholding for food security purposes ' with an allocation of USD  34 million for the same year. In 
this regard, India requests Brazil to an swer the following:  
a. Why is the "Program of Acquisition of Agricultural Products from Family Farming" 
notified under two measures, namely: 'Public stockholding for food security purposes ' 
and 'Domestic food aid ' for the year 2020 -21, as compared to 2019 -20?  
b. Could the farmers participating in the "Program of Acquisition of Agricultural Products 
from Family Farming" sell their crops under both 'public stockholding for food security 
purposes ' and 'Domestic food aid measure '' at the same time?  
c. How many farmers ha ve benefited from this program during 2019 -20, 2020 -21, 
2021-22 and 2022 -23?  
d. How does the government dispose of the crops procured under this scheme?  
e. What was the budget allocation for the aforementioned programmes for the years 
2022-23and 2023 -24? 
4.2.4   China  (G/AG/N/CHN/47 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108056 : Question by Unite d States of America, European Union - Transparency 
issues (including Table  DS:2)  
Noting that China has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107206 , we repeat: Following up on AG -IMS 
ID 104015  regarding corn, soybean, and cotton su pport, China indicated it "is implementing corn 
and soybeans producer subsidies in Northeast China."   
a. What, if any, domestic support is being provided at the sub -national level for soybeans 
and what is the breakdown of support by province for the Northeast  region?   
b. What, if any, domestic support is being provided at the sub -national level for corn and 
what is the breakdown of support by province for the Northeast region?   
4.2.5   India ( G/AG/N/IND/29 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108082 : Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia - Non-
product -specific  AMS 
Noting that Indi a has not responded to AG -IMS ID  107150 , we repeat: In response to AG -IMS 
ID 106032  India stated it was compiling the requested information; however, the information has 
not been provided in writing.  Therefore, the question is resubmitted for a response:    
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID  105042 , we repeat the question: In 
Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 , India has provided limited information about the 
insurance premium and interest subsidies extended to various crops or agricultural products, and 
also does not appear to include information on any state -specific measures. For example, it is 
understood the states of Bihar, Punjab, and West Bengal have their own state crop insurance 
programs, which are funded by the states and not the central government.   
a. Please confirm what schemes are included under the measure notified as "insurance 
premium su bsidy" and provide a breakdown of expenditures for each. For example, 
does "insurance premium subsidy" include the following crop insurance schemes: 
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Unified 
Package Insurance Scheme, Na tional Agricultural Insurance Scheme, National Crop 
Insurance Program?   G/AG/W/246  
 
- 67 - 
 
  b. Please confirm what Indian states implement crop insurance schemes in addition to or 
separate from the national crop insurance program and provide links to the operational 
guidelines f or each.   
c. Please confirm whether the notified value for crop insurance includes these state -level 
measures and if not, why.   
d. Please identify what crops or agricultural products are eligible for the national insurance 
premium and interest subsidies.   
e. Please  explain why India notifies insurance premiums as non -product specific given that 
at least some of the insurance schemes have varying premium rates for different eligible 
crops. For example, under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium 
rate for wheat is the lesser of 1.5 % or the actuarial rate, while that for bajra and oilseeds 
is the lesser of 3.5 % or the actuarial rate, and horticultural crops are the actuarial rate.  
4.2.6   Uruguay ( G/AG/N/URY/81 ) 
AG-IMS ID 108154 : Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
India noted that Uruguay has not responded to the AG -IMS ID 107171 . Uruguay has been providing 
discounted electricity tariffs as part of other product -specific support, as notified by it since  2017 
(G/AG/N/URY/81 ). In thi s regard, India seeks additional details regarding discounted energy tariffs 
for milk, including number of enterprises benefitting from the subsidy from CY  2017 onwards.   
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1  Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 108048 : Question by United States of America  
For calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022, please provide a br eakdown of total product specific export 
subsidies by destination for each of the following agricultural products:   
a. Vegetables ; 
b. Tangerines/Mandarins, Fresh ; 
c. Lemons/Limes ; 
d. Oranges, Fresh ; 
e. Orange Juice (65° brix basis) ; 
f. Flowers and plants . 
 
 
__________