G/AG/W/215  
 
11 November 2021  
(21-8562) Page: 1/273 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETINGS IN 2019  
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised during the three meetings1 of the Committee in 2019 as well as follow -up comments made 
during the Review Process. The questions raised at those meetings are contained respectively 
in G/AG/W/1942, G/AG/W/1993, and G/AG /W/202.  
 
Members with outstanding responses to questions raised in 2019 are kindly invited to submit them 
to the Secretariat at the earliest.  Members can submit these responses directly through the AG-IMS 
(Q&A Online Submission (wto.org) ). Should you require login credential to access the Q&A function 
of the AG-IMS, please contact the Secretariat by sending an email to  agcd_mailbox@wto.org . For 
the list of outstanding responses , Members are invited to consult the Secretariat document issued 
regularly in the  G/AG/W/204 / series. The AG -IMS also regularly sends automatic reminder  emails 
to Members with outstanding responses.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
  
 
1 The Committee held three formal meetings in 2019 on 26 -27 February, 25 -26 June, and  30-31 October.  
2 A compilation of written responses to questions raised during the February 2019 meeting of the 
Committee, available as of 11 April 2019, was circulated in document G/AG/W/196.  
3 Questions raised for the 2019 annual examination on export competition are contained in G/AG/W/198.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 26 -27 FEBRUARY 2019  ............................  14 
1.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ...........  14 
1.1.1    Egypt's pest control subsidy  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 
1.1.1.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  ................................ ..............................  14 
1.1.2    EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
1.1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  ................................ ........................  14 
1.1.3    India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .................  15 
1.1.3.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90130)  ...................  15 
1.1.4    India's import  duty protections  ................................ ................................ ................  15 
1.1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90042)  ................................ ....... 15 
1.1.5    India's soymeal export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..............  16 
1.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  ................................ ....... 16 
1.1.6    India's proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ............................  16 
1.1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  ................................ ....................  16 
1.1.7    Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices ................................ ...................  16 
1.1.7.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  ................................ ................................  16 
1.1.8    Republic of Moldova's environmental charges  ................................ ............................  18 
1.1.8.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.1.9    New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  ................................ ...................  19 
1.1.9.1    Question by Eu ropean Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  ................................ ....................  19 
1.1.10    Nigeria's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ . 20 
1.1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90034)  ................................ ............................  20 
1.1.11    Russia's increased support to dairy sector  ................................ ...............................  20 
1.1.11.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  ................................ ..................  20 
1.1.12    Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatière" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision  
on Export competition  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 21 
1.1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  ................................ ..................  21 
1.1.13    Thailand's support to palm oil growers  ................................ ................................ .... 21 
1.1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  ................................ ..................  21 
1.1.14    U.S. Farm Bill 2018  ................................ ................................ ..............................  22 
1.1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  ................................ ............................  22 
1.1.14.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID  90010)  ................................ ..................  24 
1.1.14.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  ................................ ................................ . 24 
1.1.15    U.S. Trade Promotion payments ................................ ................................ .............  25 
1.1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  ................................ ..................  25 
1.1.16    U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  ................................ ...........................  25 
1.1.16.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  ................................ ................................ . 25 
1.1.17   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ....... 25 
1.1.17.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  ................................ ......................  25 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.17.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90120) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  26 
1.1.18    Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ......................  27 
1.1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  ................................ ...... 27 
1.1.19    EU's CAP reform  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28 
1.1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  ................................ ............................  28 
1.1.20    European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  ......................  29 
1.1.20.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90128)  ...............  29 
1.1.20.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90028) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90129)  ....... 30 
1.1.21    Ghana's poultry imports  ................................ ................................ ........................  32 
1.1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  ................................ ...... 32 
1.1.22    India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  33 
1.1.22.1    Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 90032)  ................................ ............................  33 
1.1.22.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  ................................ ..............................  33 
1.1.22.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029)  ................................ ..............  34 
1.1.22.4    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  ................................ ..............................  34 
1.1.22.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  ................................ ...... 35 
1.1.23    India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  35 
1.1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  ................................ ............................  35 
1.1.24    India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ...............................  36 
1.1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90002)  ................................ ..................  36 
1.1.25    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ . 36 
1.1.25.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  ................................ ..............  36 
1.1.26    Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..........  37 
1.1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045)  ................................ ...... 37 
1.1.27    Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  ................................ ................................ . 38 
1.1.27.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90 068) ................................ ......................  38 
1.1.28    Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ .........................  39 
1.1.28.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  ................................ ..................  39 
1.1.29    U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ..............................  39 
1.1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  ................................ ............................  39 
1.1.30    U.S. support to cotton sector  ................................ ................................ .................  40 
1.1.30.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  ................................ ................................ . 40 
1.1.31    Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  ................................ ................................ ..... 41 
1.1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  ................................ ...... 41 
1.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ............................  41 
1.2.1    Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................  41 
1.2.1.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  ................................ ................................ .......................  41 
1.2.1.2    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  ................................ ................................ .......................  42 
1.2.1.3    North Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  ................................ .............  42 
1.2.1.4    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  ................................ ................................ ...................  44 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.2.2    Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................  45 
1.2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/ TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  ..............  45 
1.2.3    Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  45 
1.2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  ................................ ......................  45 
1.2.3.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ .......................  45 
1.2.3.3    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  ................................ ................................ ......................  46 
1.2.3.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ ....................  46 
1.2.3.5    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  ................................ ................................ .......................  60 
1.2.3.6    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  ................................  64 
1.2.3.7    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  ................................ ................................ .................  65 
1.2.3.8    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG /N/TPKM/175)  ..............  66 
1.2.3.9    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, G/AG/N/TUR/20, 
G/AG/N/TUR/21)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  66 
1.2.4    New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ .........  70 
1.2.4.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ .............................  70 
1.2.5    Export subsidy  commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ........  75 
1.2.5.1    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  ................................ ................................ .......................  75 
1.2.5.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/231, G/AG/N/JPN/232, G/AG/N/JPN/233)  ........  75 
1.2.6    Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ ... 76 
1.2.6.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  ................................ ................................ ................  76 
1.3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ..............  77 
1.3.1    Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ . 77 
1.3.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ...................  77 
1.3.2    Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ...........................  78 
1.3.2.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ .. 78 
1.3.3    Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ........  79 
1.3.3.1    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ...................  79 
1.4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  80 
1.4.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  80 
1.4.2    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  80 
1.4.3    Korea, Repub lic of................................ ................................ ................................ .. 80 
1.4.4    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  81 
1.5   EXPORT COMPE TITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  81 
1.5.1    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  81 
1.5.2    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  81 
1.5.3    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  82 
2   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 25 -26 JUNE 2019  ................................ .... 83 
2.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ...........  83 
2.1.1    Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ...............................  83 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.1.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91001)  ................................ ................................  83 
2.1.2    Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  ................................ ........  83 
2.1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 91002)  ................................ ..............................  83 
2.1.2.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91018)  ................................ ....................  84 
2.1.3    Canada's support to canola producers  ................................ ................................ ...... 85 
2.1.3.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91019)  ................................ ....................  85 
2.1.3.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91060)  ................................ ................................ ... 85 
2.1.3.3    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91003)  ................................ ................................  86 
2.1.4    Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ .........  87 
2.1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91132)  ................................ ....... 87 
2.1.5    Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................  87 
2.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91137)  ................................ ....... 87 
2.1.6    China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ................................  89 
2.1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91133)  ................................ ....... 89 
2.1.6.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91134)  ................................ ....... 90 
2.1.6.3    Question by United State s of America (AG -IMS ID 91135)  ................................ ....... 91 
2.1.6.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91136)  ................................ ....... 91 
2.1.7    Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  ................................ .............................  92 
2.1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91138)  ................................ ....... 92 
2.1.8    European Union's modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  .......................  93 
2.1.8.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91015)  ................................ ................................  93 
2.1.9    The EU's malting barley HS cod e ................................ ................................ .............  94 
2.1.9.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91142)  ................................ ....... 94 
2.1.10    The EU's fruit juices TRQ  ................................ ................................ .......................  94 
2.1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91176)  ................................ ...... 94 
2.1.11    The EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  ................................ .......................  96 
2.1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS I D 91004)  ................................ ............................  96 
2.1.12    The EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ ...................  97 
2.1.12.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91061)  ................................ ................................ . 97 
2.1.13    India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ....................  98 
2.1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 91006)  ................................ ............................  98 
2.1.13.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91154)  ................................ ...... 98 
2.1.14    India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  99 
2.1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 91005)  ................................ ............................  99 
2.1.14.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91075)  ................................ ..............................  99 
2.1.14.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91076)  ................................ ............................  100 
2.1.14.4    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91077)  ................................ ............................  100 
2.1.14.5    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 91008)  ................................ ............  101 
2.1.14.6    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91140)  ................................ .... 101 
2.1.15    India's wheat policies  ................................ ................................ .........................  102 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.1.15.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91009)  ................................ ............................  102 
2.1.16    India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ............  103 
2.1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91141)  ................................ .... 103 
2.1.17    India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ .............................  103 
2.1.17.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91151)  ................................ .... 103 
2.1.18    India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .............  104 
2.1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91153)  ................................ .... 104 
2.1.19    India - Maharashtra State export subsidies  ................................ ...........................  104 
2.1.19.1    Question by United States of Am erica (AG -IMS ID 91155)  ................................ .... 104 
2.1.20    India - National Food Security Mission  ................................ ................................ .. 105 
2.1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91157)  ................................ .... 105 
2.1.21    India's increased budget on agriculture and rural development  ................................  105 
2.1.21.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91020)  ................................ ................  105 
2.1.22    India's PM KISAN income g uarantee scheme  ................................ .........................  106 
2.1.22.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 91007)  ................................ ....................  106 
2.1.23    India's short term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ...............  106 
2.1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91147)  ................................ .... 106 
2.1.24    India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ............................  106 
2.1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91149)  ................................ .... 106 
2.1.25    India – Transparency with Green Box measures  ................................ .....................  107 
2.1.25.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91150)  ................................ .... 107 
2.1.26    India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  ................................ ................................ ....... 108 
2.1.26.1    Question by United States of America (A G-IMS ID 91152)  ................................ .... 108 
2.1.27    India - Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)  ................................ .........................  108 
2.1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91156)  ................................ .... 108 
2.1.28    Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ ........................  109 
2.1.28.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS I D 91010)  ................................ ....................  109 
2.1.29    Japan's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .....................  109 
2.1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91158)  ................................ .... 109 
2.1.30    Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  ................................ ...............  110 
2.1.30.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91084)  ................................ ............................  110 
2.1.30.2    Question by United States of America (A G-IMS ID 91159)  ................................ .... 111 
2.1.31    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ...............................  114 
2.1.31.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 91011)  ................................ ............  114 
2.1.32    Pakistan's wheat export subsidies and domestic support  ................................ .........  114 
2.1.32.1    Question by United States  of America (AG -IMS ID 91160)  ................................ .... 114 
2.1.33    Philippines' rice waiver ................................ ................................ ........................  115 
2.1.33.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 91012)  ................................ ..............................  115 
2.1.34    Russia's support to exporting industry in east of the country  ................................ ... 115 
2.1.34.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91021)  ................................ ................  115 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.1.35    Russia's Resolution #1104  ................................ ................................ ..................  116 
2.1.35.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91161)  ................................ .... 116 
2.1.36    Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ ....................  116 
2.1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91162)  ................................ .... 116 
2.1.37    Thailand's import permits f or feed wheat  ................................ ..............................  117 
2.1.37.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91022)  ................................ ................  117 
2.1.38    US Proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ..............................  117 
2.1.38.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 91013)  ................................ ..........................  117 
2.1.38.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91080)  ................................ ............................  118 
2.1.38.3    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 91023)  ................................ ...............................  118 
2.1.38.4    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91024)  ................................ ................  119 
2.1.38.5    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91063)  ................................ ...............................  119 
2.1.38.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 91014)  ................................ ....................  120 
2.1.38.7    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 91016)  ................................ ....................  120 
2.1.38.8    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91027)  ................................ ............................  121 
2.1.39    US tariff rate quotas  ................................ ................................ ...........................  122 
2.1.39.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 91026)  ................................ ............  122 
2.1.40    US disaster bill  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 123 
2.1.40.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 91025)  ................................ ................  123 
2.1.41    US 2018 Farm Bill  ................................ ................................ ..............................  123 
2.1.41.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91062)  ................................ ...............................  123 
2.1.42    Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  ................................ ................................ ... 124 
2.1.42.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91163)  ................................ .... 124 
2.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..........................  124 
2.2.1    Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (table MA:2)  ...............................  124 
2.2.1.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/49)  ................................ ................................ ....................  124 
2.2.1.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/120, G/AG/N/CAN/128)  ................................ .....................  124 
2.2.1.3    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/72)  ................................ ................................ ..............  127 
2.2.1.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/50)  ................................ ................................ ........  128 
2.2.1.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  ................................ ................................ .....................  130 
2.2.1.6    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/238)  ................................ ................................ ...................  130 
2.2.1.7    Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/6)  ................................ ................................ ..............  131 
2.2.1.8    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/104)  ................................ ................................ ...............  133 
2.2.1.9    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/49)  ................................ ................................ .................  134 
2.2.1.10    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/54, G/AG/N/PHL/55, G/AG/N/PHL/56)  ............................  135 
2.2.1.11    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/23)  ................................ ................................  136 
2.2.1.12    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/83)  ................................ ................................ ...............  137 
2.2.1.13    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/125)  ................................ ......................  138 
2.2.2    Domestic support  commitments ( Table DS:1)  ................................ .........................  139 
2.2.2.1    Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/34)  ................................ ................................ ..............  139 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.2.2.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  ................................ ................................ ....................  139 
2.2.2.3    Côte d'Ivoire (G/AG/N/CIV/3 to G/AG/N/CIV/21)  ................................ ..................  140 
2.2.2.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/C orr.2 and G/AG/N/E U/55)  ...........  141 
2.2.2.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/12, G/AG/N/IND/13, G/AG/N/IND/15)  ................................ ..... 152 
2.2.2.6    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  ................................ ................................ .....................  160 
2.2.2.7    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/235, G/AG/N/JPN/236)  ................................ .........................  160 
2.2.2.8    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60, G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62, 
G/AG/N/KOR/63)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  161 
2.2.2.9    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  ..............................  165 
2.2.2.10    Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/10 ) ................................ ................................ .............  166 
2.2.2.11    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  ..........  167 
2.2.2.12    Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1 to G/AG/N/TJK/6)  ................................ .......................  169 
2.2.2.13    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/52, G/AG/N/TUN/56)  ................................ ........................  169 
2.2.2.14    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/21)  ................................ ................................ .................  171 
2.2.3    New or modified domestic support measures (DS:2)  ................................ ................  172 
2.2.3.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ ...........................  172 
2.2.3.2    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  ................................ ................................ ...............  174 
2.2.4    Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ...... 175 
2.2.4.1    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/50)  ................................ ................................ ....................  175 
2.2.4.2    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/125)  ................................ ................................ ................  175 
2.2.4.3    Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39)  ................................ ................................ ..................  176 
2.2.4.4    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/106)  ................................ ................................ ...............  176 
2.2.4.5    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/22, G/AG/N/TUR/23, G/AG/N/TUR/24, G/AG/N/TUR/26, 
G/AG/N/TUR/28, G/AG/N/TUR/29, G/AG/N/TUR/30, G/AG/N/TUR/35)  ................................ .. 177 
2.3   COUNTER NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ......................  179 
2.3.1.1    Philippines  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 179 
2.4   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ............  180 
2.4.1    Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ .........................  180 
2.4.1.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ .....................  180 
2.5   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ......................  181 
2.5.1    Ghana  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  181 
2.5.2    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  181 
2.5.3    Kenya  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  181 
2.5.4    Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  182 
2.5.5    Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  182 
2.5.6    Tunisia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  182 
2.5.7    Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  182 
2.6   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ............................  183 
2.6.1    Argentina ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  183 
2.6.2    Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  183 
2.6.3    Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  184 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.6.4    Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  184 
2.6.5    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  185 
2.6.6    European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 186 
2.6.7    Hong Kong, China  ................................ ................................ ................................  188 
2.6.8    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  188 
2.6.9    Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  189 
2.6.10    Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ..............................  189 
2.6.11    Malaysia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  190 
2.6.12    New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 191 
2.6.13    Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  192 
2.6.14    Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ .............................  192 
2.6.15    Switzerland  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 193 
2.6.16    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  193 
2.6.17    Turke y ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  194 
2.6.18    United States of America  ................................ ................................ ....................  195 
2.6.19    Uruguay ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  195 
2.6.20    Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  195 
3   COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 30 -31 OCTOBER 2019  ............................  197  
3.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 .........  197 
3.1.1    EU statement regarding the EU -28 draft Schedule (AG -IMS ID 92129)  .......................  197 
3.1.2    Angola's fuel subsidies ................................ ................................ ..........................  197 
3.1.2.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92087)  ................................ ..............................  197 
3.1.3    Angola's potential import restrictions ................................ ................................ ...... 197 
3.1.3.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92045)  ................................ ..............................  197 
3.1.4    Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ .............................  198 
3.1.4.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92046)  ................................ ..............................  198 
3.1.5    Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ....... 199 
3.1.5.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92126), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92078)  
and by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92002)  ................................ ..........................  199 
3.1.5.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92076)  ................................ ......................  200 
3.1.6    Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessi ons ................................ ...... 200 
3.1.6.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92127), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92077)  
and by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92001).  ................................ .........................  200 
3.1.6.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92075)  ................................ ......................  201 
3.1.7    Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .....................  202 
3.1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92003)  ................................ ..... 202 
3.1.8    Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ....... 203 
3.1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92088)  ................................ ............................  203 
3.1.9    China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  203 
3.1.9.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92005)  ................................ ..... 203 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.1.10    China's state reserves programmes  ................................ ................................ ...... 204 
3.1.10.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92047)  ................................ ............................  204 
3.1.11    China's state trading enterprises  ................................ ................................ ..........  204 
3.1.11.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92004)  ................................ .... 204 
3.1.12    EU's compensation for farmers to adjust to new trade deals  ................................ .... 205 
3.1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92089)  ................................ ..........................  205 
3.1.13    EU's planned policy measures against U.S. tariffs  ................................ ...................  206 
3.1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92090)  ................................ ..........................  206 
3.1.14    EU - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  ................................ ...... 206 
3.1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92091)  ................................ ..........................  206 
3.1.15    EU - European Court of Auditors report  ................................ ................................ . 208 
3.1.15.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92093)  ................................ ...............................  208 
3.1.16    EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  ................................ ...........................  209 
3.1.16.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92079)  ................................ ....................  209 
3.1.17    EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ......................  210 
3.1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92128), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92080)  
and United States (AG -IMS ID 92006)  ................................ ................................ ..............  210 
3.1.18    EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ .......................  211 
3.1.18.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92071)  ................................ ...............................  211 
3.1.19    EU's Eco schemes payments  ................................ ................................ ................  213 
3.1.19.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92092)  ................................ ...............................  213 
3.1.20    India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ..................  214 
3.1.20.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92095)  ................................ ..........................  214 
3.1.21    India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  215 
3.1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92048)  ................................ ............................  215 
3.1.21.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92007)  ................................ ................  215 
3.1.22    India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ .........................  216 
3.1.22.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92094)  ................................ ..........................  216 
3.1.22.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92049)  ................................ ............................  216 
3.1.22.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 92096)  ................................ ............  217 
3.1.22.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92008)  ................................ .... 218 
3.1.23    India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ............  218 
3.1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92009)  ................................ .... 218 
3.1.24    India's support to rice  exports  ................................ ................................ .............  219 
3.1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92013)  ................................ .... 219 
3.1.25    India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ...............  219 
3.1.25.1    Quest ion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92010)  ................................ .... 219 
3.1.26    India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ............................  219 
3.1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92011)  ................................ .... 219 
3.1.27    India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  ................................ ................................ ....... 220 
3.1.27.1    Questio n by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92012)  ................................ .... 220 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.1.28    Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ ........................  221 
3.1.28.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92081)  ................................ ....................  221 
3.1.29    Japan's corn policies  ................................ ................................ ...........................  221 
3.1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92 097) ................................ ..........................  221 
3.1.30    Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ...............................  222 
3.1.30.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 92098)  ................................ ............  222 
3.1.31    Philippines' rice waiver ................................ ................................ ........................  222 
3.1.31.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 92099)  ................................ ..............................  222 
3.1.31.2    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 92100)  ................................ ...........................  223 
3.1.32    Russian Federation - State programme for rural territories development  ...................  223 
3.1.32.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92017)  ................................ ................  223 
3.1.33    Russia's excise duties on wine and champagne  ................................ ......................  224 
3.1.33.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 9 2121)  ................................ ................  224 
3.1.34    Switzerland's "Loi Chocolatière" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision  
on Export competition  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 224 
3.1.34.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92018)  ................................ ................  224 
3.1.35    Switzerland – Financing of security stocks in agricultural sectors  .............................  225 
3.1.35.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92019)  ................................ ................  225 
3.1.36    Thailand's support to rice and palm oil  ................................ ................................ .. 225 
3.1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92014)  ................................ .... 225 
3.1.36.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92015)  ................................ .... 226 
3.1.37    United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  ....... 226 
3.1.37 .1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92101)  ................................ ..........................  226 
3.1.38    U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ............................  227 
3.1.38.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92102)  ................................ ..........................  227 
3.1.38.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92072)  ................................ ...............................  228 
3.1.38.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92082)  ................................ ....................  231 
3.1.39    U.S. farm support  ................................ ................................ ..............................  232 
3.1.39.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92050)  ................................ ............................  232 
3.1.39.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92020)  ................................ ................  233 
3.1.40    U.S. Biofuel policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  234 
3.1.40.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92103)  ................................ ............................  234 
3.1.41    U.S. practices of DS notifications  ................................ ................................ .........  234 
3.1.41.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 92086)  ................................ ...............................  234 
3.1.42    U.S. support to cotton sector  ................................ ................................ ...............  235 
3.1.42.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92073)  ................................ ...............................  235 
3.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..........................  235 
3.2.1    Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ...........................  235 
3.2.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/50)  ................................ ................................ .................  235 
3.2.1.2    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/101, G/AG/N/THA/102, G/AG/N/THA/103)  ..........................  237 
3.2.2    Imports under tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:2)  ...............................  238 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.2.2.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/125)  ................................ ................................ ..............  238 
3.2.2.2    India (G/AG/N/IND/16, G/AG/N/IND/17)  ................................ .............................  241 
3.2.2.3    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/104, G/AG/N/THA/105, G/AG/N/THA/106)  ..........................  242 
3.2.3    Special safeguards ( Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ..............................  244 
3.2.3.1    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/56)  ................................ ................................ ........  244 
3.2.3.2    Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TPKM/180, G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  ................................ ........  244 
3.2.4    Domestic support commitments ( Table DS:1)  ................................ .........................  244 
3.2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/43, G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  .............................  244 
3.2.4.2    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/11)  ................................ ...............................  246 
3.2.4.3    Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/55, G/AG/N/CHL/56)  ................................ .............................  247 
3.2.4.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44)  ................................ .. 247 
3.2.4.5    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/62)  ................................ ................................ .....................  247 
3.2.4.6    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  ................................ ................................ ........  248 
3.2.4.7    India (G/AG/N/IND/13, G/AG/N/IND/15)  ................................ .............................  249 
3.2.4.8    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/6, G/AG/N/KGZ/7)  ................................ ................  250 
3.2.4.9    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ ..................  252 
3.2.4.10    Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/21, G/AG/N/OMN/22, G/AG/N/OMN/23, G/AG/N/OMN/25)  ..... 252 
3.2.4.11    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/50)  ................................ ................................ ...............  255 
3.2.4.12    Peru (G/AG/N/PER/19, G/AG/N/PER/20, G/A G/N/PER/21)  ................................ .... 256 
3.2.4.13    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/24)  ................................ ................................  259 
3.2.4.14    Seychelles (G/AG/N/SYC/4)  ................................ ................................ ..............  259 
3.2.4.15    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  ................................ ................................ ............  260 
3.2.4.16    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  ................................ ................................ .. 260 
3.2.4.17    Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1, G/AG/N/TJK/6)  ................................ ..........................  262 
3.2.5    New or modified domestic support measures ( Table DS:2) ................................ ........  263 
3.2.5.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ ................................ ....................  263 
3.2.5.2    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  ................................ ................................ ...............  265 
3.2.6    Export subsidy commitments ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ...... 265 
3.2.6.1    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/65, G/AG/N/KOR/66, G/AG/N/KOR/67, 
G/AG/N/KOR/68)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  265 
3.2.6.2    Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39/REV.1, G/AG/N/MEX/44/REV.1)  ................................ ...... 267 
3.2.6.3    Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/20)  ................................ ................................ ...............  267 
3.2.6.4    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/126, G/AG/N/USA/118)  .............................  267 
3.2.6.5    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/127)  ................................ .......................  268 
3.3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ......................  269 
3.3.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  269 
3.3.2    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  269 
3.3.3    Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  269 
3.3.4    Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  269 
3.3.5    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  270 
3.3.6    Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  270 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.4   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ............................  271 
3.4.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  271 
3.4.2    Russian Federation ................................ ................................ ...............................  272 
  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 26 -27 FEBRUARY 2019  
1.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1.1   Egypt's  pest control subsidy  
1.1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  
Australia seeks further information on its question to Egypt at 88th and 89th CoA (AG -IMS ID 88020 
and AG -IMS ID 89076) regarding pest and disease control.  
Egypt listed a Pest Control Subsidy a s "Green Box", noting the measure was directed for pest control 
for cotton; the subsidy was calculated as a fixed amount per acre for all cotton producers who are 
small farmers; and pest control is provided in cash to farmers at the end of each season.  
Can Egypt explain how the subsidy was tied with actual pest control, given the subsidies were 
provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
Answer by Egypt  
The pest control subsidy is directed for pest control for cotto n. Subsidies are calculated as a fixed 
amount per acre for cotton producers who are small farmers. Pest control payment is provided in 
cash to farmers at the end of each season. To ensure that the pest free crops do not receive the 
subsidy, the Central Adm inistration of Pest Control at the Ministry of Agriculture and Land 
reclamation carries out the following actions:  
• On-field inspection campaigns on all summer crops especially cotton;  
• Identification of agricultural areas infected with cotton pests, which then receive the 
pest control subsidy at the end of the agricultural season.  
1.1.2   EU's intervention policy  
1.1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  
Media reports over the past year have s uggested that the European Commission is considering 
revising its ceiling for intervention buying in down to zero tonnes, subject to monthly review. 
Intervention buying in incentivises production even when market demand is not there, and the 
stocks accumul ated can overhang the market for prolonged period. The Commission's SMP stockpile 
accumulated during the 2014/15 market crisis has only recently been sold down following a long 
period of soft prices including for other exporters around the world. There are  a wide range of 
alternative measures available to address the economic distress of producers during a downturn 
which are less likely to affect markets over such a long period.  
a. What consideration has the European Union given to reforming intervention poli cy and 
instead using non -distortive Green Box measures?  
b. As a leading SMP exporter which benefits from a more stable and undistorted market, 
what signals is the European Union willing to give regarding future support policy?  
Answer by European Union  
The C ouncil of the European Union, on the basis of a Commission proposal, decided to set to the 
ceiling at zero for public intervention for SMP that takes place at fixed price in 2019. This change, 
as the one introduced in 2018, indeed aims at avoiding public i ntervention taking place when there 
is no market justification for it.  
The public intervention mechanism has proved to be an effective tool to cope with extreme volatility. 
It mitigated the SMP price decline during the crisis (not only in the EU but worldw ide). The disposal 
of the stocks bought -in has been performed in a prudent way so as not to disturb the market. 
Indeed, in parallel with the release of over 99% of the stock, market prices have increased by more 
than 20%.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 15 - 
 
  The current CAP reform proposal su bmitted by the European Commission, currently under 
consideration by the co -legislators, does not contain any proposed change to the intervention 
mechanism for SMP.  
Follow -up: Given the EU's role as a major exporter, New Zealand considered that the minimu m price 
support scheme would affect the market, even if the stock were disposed prudently. The United 
States expressed the support for the question.  
1.1.3   India's support to rice exports  
1.1.3.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90130)  
An article says that India "give a subsidy of 5% for non -basmati rice exports for the four months to 
25 March 2019, the trade ministry said in the order dated 22 Nov ember " 
(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/india -to-give-5-percent -
subsidy -for-non-basmati -rice-exports -for-4-months -government/article show/66762378.cms ) 
a. Does India give a subsidy of 5% for non -basmati rice exports as the article says?  
b. If it is true, is India against the Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture because it 
does not have the entitlement of export subsidies in the concessio n. 
c. If India is not against the Article 8, could India explain the reason in detail?  
Answer by India  
The MEIS scheme has been challenged before a WTO adjudication panel and therefore India feels 
that it is not appropriate to further comment on this matter.  
Follow -up: Thailand asked India to provide more information on the compliance of the scheme with 
WTO rules and posed a follow -up question as follows: "Noting that the implementation period of the 
scheme was from 26 November 2018 to 25 March 2019, Thailand would like to ask whether India 
has any plan to continue the scheme." The United States asked India  to confirm whether the 
objective of the programme and benefits provided were related to the criteria set out in 
paragraph  9.1 (d) and 9.1 (e) of the AoA. Australia raised concerns regarding the exports from the 
scheme. Australia questioned whether the 5% support that had been referred to in the question was 
administered through the MEIS and the reason non -basmati rice was included in the MEIS. In view 
of India's response to its question at the previous meeting that the MEIS aimed to address 
infrastructure inefficiency and the associated costs, Australia asked how that could justify the 
scheme's compliance with Article 9.4. The European Union flagged interest in the question.  
1.1.4   India's import duty protections  
1.1.4.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90 042)  
In 2018, India gradually increased its import duty protections on several edible oils (i.e., soy, 
sunflower, and canola oils).  
a. Please provide a list of the affected agricultural products with the current and previous 
import duty.  
b. Please explain the d omestic circumstances surrounding, and policy rationale for India 
raising the import duty on edible oils.  
Answer by India  
a. The changes in import duties of edible oils are as below:  
Oil WTO  bound  rate 
(%) Current rate  (%) 
(effective from 14 -06-2018)  Previo us rate 
(%) 
    Crude  Refined  Crude  Refined  
Soya bean oil  45 35 45 30 35 
Rapeseed/mustard/canola  75 35 45 25 35 
Sunflower oil  300 35 45 25 35 
 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 16 - 
 
  b. The changes in the import duties are well within India's bound rates. These are as per 
domestic requirements.  
Follow -up: Canada, as a major exporter of canola and related products, noted its interest in better 
understanding India's domestic circumstances and the rational for India to increase the tariffs on 
edible oils. The European Union echoed Canada's comments.  
1.1.5   India's soymeal export subsidies  
1.1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  
In July 2018, India increased its export subsidy for so ybean meal from 7% to 10%. Noting that India 
does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements:  
a. Please list all subsidy measures provided by India for the export of soybean meal.  
b. Please explain the process by which the subsidies are provided and explain any eligibility 
criteria.  
c. Please provide the total value and quantity of export subsidies for soybean meal by year 
and by destination, and in particular to the United States.  
Answer by India  
Soya bean meal is covered under the MEIS scheme. The MEIS scheme has been challenged before 
a WTO adjudication panel and therefore India feels that it is not appropriate to further comment on 
this matter.  
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the Eur opean Union and the Russian Federation indicated systemic and 
commercial interest in Members' use of export subsidies and their compliance with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision.  
1.1.6   India's proposed domestic support measures  
1.1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  
The Indian government has unveiled a package of $2.8 billion in direct payments for India's small 
farmers by 31 March. This aid package will be paid to the owners of 120 million small and medium 
sized farms.  
Can India give more detail on this p roposed new $2.8 billion aid programme for farmers including 
the specific criteria after which the subsidies will be distributed, and which sectors are expected to 
benefit the most from this scheme?   
Answer by India  
India understands that this question see ks information on the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi 
(PM-KISAN), the programme announced by the Finance Minister of India in the Union 
Budget  2019-20. The details are available at the website http://agricoop.nic.i n/. 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada and the United States supported the question. Australia sought further 
information on direct payments provided to farmers under the PM -KISAN scheme on its eligibility 
criteria and whether India was confident that the outlay  of Rs 75,000 crores in 2019 -20 would be 
sufficient to fully cover this programme.  
1.1.7   Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  
1.1.7.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  
a. In January 2019, the Mexican government announced the Secretariat of Agriculture and 
Rural Development (SADER)'s budget and priorities for 2019. In the budget, a total of 
six billion Mexican pesos will be allocated for the implementation of the Strategic G/AG/W/215  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Programme of Guaranteed Prices for small producers of basic commodities of corn, 
beans , wheat, rice, and milk.  
i. Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for the 
guaranteed prices programme.  
ii. Canada understands that under this programme that Mexico will purchase certain 
volumes of these basic commodities from sma ll scale producers. Could Mexico 
elaborate as to how it will dispose of these purchased commodities on the 
domestic market?  
b. In the same budget for SADER, four billion Mexican Pesos were allocated for the 
implementation of the second Strategic Programme: credits for the Livestock sector. 
Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for this 
programme.  
i. Could Mexico indicate which states are eligible for this programme?  
ii. Which types of livestock will be eligible for this s upport, in order of priority? (For 
example: beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, small ruminants, poultry).  
Answer by Mexico  
a.  
i. Seguridad Alimentaria  Mexicana (SEGALMEX), the newly established agency that 
will be responsible for implementing the Strategic Guara nteed Prices Programme 
(Programa Estratégico de Precios de Garantía ), has not yet published the 
programme's operating guidelines. This means that the details requested by 
Canada are not yet available. It should be noted that this programme has not yet 
entered into operation or begun disbursing resources. For this, the operating 
guidelines will need to be published in the Mexican Official Journal. Once the 
programme is in operation and disbursements have been made, it will be notified 
in accordance with the transparency and notification obligations for the 
corresponding year. Mexico will provide Canada with details concerning the 
programme's operation as soon as possible, once they have been officially 
published.  
ii. The official information that will answer this  question has not yet been published. 
Mexico will provide Canada with a response as soon as possible, once the 
programme's operating guidelines have been published.  
b.  
i. The Livestock Sector Credit Programme (Programa Crédito Ganadero a la Palabra) 
seeks to increase the productivity of small scale livestock producers through in 
kind support and capitalization measures for production units. The operating 
guidelines for this programme were published in the Mexican Official Journal on 
22 February 2019  
(http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5550950&fecha=22/02/2019 ). 
This Livestock Sector Credit Programme comprises four support components:  
• The livestock repopulation comp onent consists of in-kind credit for natural 
and legal persons. Such persons shall receive a certain number of heads to 
increase their livestock numbers. The following types of livestock are eligible: 
cattle, swine, sheep, goats and bees. Credit under this  component may be 
granted in the form of male breeding animals or female breeding animals.  
• The livestock equipment and physical infrastructure component covers 
financial support for purchasing equipment and building physical infrastructure 
for the storage, collection and conveyance of water. It also covers the provision 
of fencing with heavy dut y posts and, for beekeeping, the purchasing of smokers, 
hive tools, uncapping tools, protective clothing, and manual honey extractors. For 
natural persons, the upper limit is 100,000.00 Mexican pesos per production unit. 
For legal persons, up to 100,000.00  Mexican pesos of support is provided per 
active applicant partner, the maximum being 500,00.00 Mexican pesos per legal G/AG/W/215  
 
- 18 - 
 
  person. As regards beekeeping, the limit for natural persons is 20,000.00 Mexican 
pesos, while for legal persons, up to 40,000.00 Mexica n pesos may be granted.  
• The food supplement component involves support for the rehabilitation of 
meadows and pastureland, the production of forage, and the purchase of food 
supplements, such as mineral salts and protein rich foods.  
• The technical services c omponent covers support for the hiring of livestock 
professionals (including veterinary surgeons and animal husbandry specialists), 
who, through outreach, training and consultancy activities, will provide guidance 
to beneficiaries on health, herd reproduct ion management, nutrition, feed and 
fodder production, and veterinary services. The amount of support granted, and 
the scope of the support will depend on the budget available for the programme 
and will be determined subsequently through specific collabora tion agreements 
in accordance with criteria established by the General Coordinating Agency for 
Livestock. Revolving and in-kind credit: Support under the livestock repopulation 
component takes the form of in kind credit that will also be paid back in kind.  The 
time frame for the revolving scheme is as follows: For cattle, credit will be repaid 
in kind by the initial beneficiaries in the form of one breeding female for one 
breeding female or two breeding females for each breeding male. The credit grace 
period is 27 months. 30% of the credit will be repaid between the 27th and 
36th month; a further 30% will be repaid one year later; and the remaining 40% 
will be paid back the following year. The stock received as credit repayment will 
be used to support other beneficiaries. For swine, 100% of the credit will be paid 
back between the 20th and 24th month. For sheep and goats, the credit will be 
repaid on a self-revolving  basis, which means that to pay back credit, the 
producer must check that for each female bree ding animal received by way of 
support, an additional female breeding animal was added to the herd.  
ii. The programme covers the whole country, but priority will be given to the states 
of Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Nayarit, Michoacán, Oaxaca, Quinta na 
Roo, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Yucatán and Zacatecas.  
The livestock concerned may be cattle, swine, sheep, goats or bees, in no order of priority. It is also 
important to note that, particularly in the case of the livestock repopulation component, the stock 
provided as credit in kind must meet the relevant health criteria and standards that ensure the 
country's animal health status is maintained.  
Follow -up: The United States flagged interest in the question.  
1.1.8   Republic of Moldova's environmental char ges  
1.1.8.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  
As Ukraine is aware, the Republic of Moldova applies environmental charges on both imported and 
domestic products pursuant to the Law No. 1540 dated 25  February  1998 "On Charge for 
Contamination of Environment" as  amended. Specifically, Ukraine understands that charges are 
applied for primary packaging materials such as plastics and aluminium and packaging such as Tetra 
Pak and PET -packaging. According to paragraph  6 of Article 11 of the Law certain goods and 
packa ging are exempt from the "Charge for Contamination of Environment". The extent of these 
exemptions, however, is not entirely clear.  
Ukraine exports to the Republic of Moldova beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic beverages 
and other products pack aged in such type of packaging.  
a. Could the Republic of Moldova please clarify if Law No. 1540 as amended applies to all 
packaging used in beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic beverages and other 
products, such as Tetra Pak and PET packaging?  
b. Could the Republic of Moldova please verify that this measure does not represent an 
import restriction, specifically that domestically packaged products and imported 
products face the same charges for such packaging?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
Republic o f Moldova appreciates the interest of Ukraine in the amendment process of the national 
legislation of the Republic of Moldova specially related to TBT related measures, in the context of 
the Law no. 1540 25 February 1998 on environment pollution charges, w hich applies to all types of 
packaging including Tetra Pak and Pet -packaging. The measure is in full compliance with WTO 
principles, does not affect the imports, and offers an equal treatment to imported and domestic 
products. Moreover, Republic of Moldova  takes all the necessary steps and procedures, in order to 
ensure that its national legislation and all the measures are consistent with its commitments 
undertaken under the WTO Agreements.  
Moldova expresses its availability to provide more clarifications  if necessary including through 
bilateral dialogue. Additionally, it shall be mentioned that such questions are more closely related to 
the SPS and TBT measures than to Art. 18.6 of the AoA, thus Moldova would encourage Ukraine to 
raise questions in the mo re relevant WTO Committees.  
Follow -up: Ukraine noted its commercial concern that imported agricultural products and like 
domestic products appeared not to be treated equally. Ukraine looked forward to the bilateral 
consultation with Moldova to further und erstand how Law no. 1540 was implemented in this context.  
1.1.9   New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  
1.1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced end -November 2018 that the 
government would provide a $9.9 million repayable interest -bearing loan for Westland Milk Products 
from the Provincial Growth Fund. He confirmed that some of the spending from the $1 billion 
Provincial Growth Fund will qualify as agricultural subsidies and  have to be reported to the World 
Trade Organization, something New Zealand has not done for 25 years.  
The funds to Westland will be used to develop segregation facilities at the co -operative's Hokitika 
site, which will enable Westland Milk Products to col lect and process different types of milk products 
and milk, such as A2 milk and colostrum.  
a. How does New Zealand intend to notify this support to its dairy sector in its DS:1?  
b. Can New Zealand explain more in detail about this programme and support granted 
from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). How much money is available from the fund to 
agricultural projects, how much for the dairy sector and which agricultural projects are 
envisaged to be supported?  
c. Is this a shift away from previous declared New Zealand p olicy of not granting 
government support to agriculture and the farming sector?  
Answer by New Zealand  
As Members will be aware, New Zealand continues to be an advocate for the removal of trade and 
production -distorting agricultural subsidies. New Zealand' s farmers and the natural environment 
have both benefitted enormously from the removal of such support programmes by adapting to 
market demands and changing production patterns. In response to the specific questions:  
a. The loan for the segregation facilities  is repayable on commercial terms and does not 
confer a benefit to specific producers. New Zealand intends to maintain its track record 
of being up to date and accurately reporting notifications to all WTO Committees.  
b. The New Zealand government has establ ished the PGF to facilitate regional economic 
development over a three -year period. Through the PGF, the government seeks to 
ensure that people living in New Zealand's regions can reach their full potential by 
helping build a regional economy that is susta inable, inclusive and productive. The PGF 
is administered by the Provincial Development Unit, part of the New Zealand Ministry 
of Business, Innovation, and Employment. (Further details can be found at the website 
here). The objectives of the fund are to:  
• Create jobs, leading to sustainable economic growth;  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 20 - 
 
  • Increase social inclusion and participation;  
• Enable Māori to realise aspirations in all aspects of the economy;  
• Encourage environmental sustainability and help New Zealand meet climate 
change commitments alongside productive use of land, water and other 
resources;  
• Improve resilience, particularly of critical infrastructure; and  
• Diversify our economy.  
To improve regional economies, one of the approaches of the fund is to provide balanced 
investment across a range of areas. Funds are not specifically pre -allocated to dedicated 
sectors nor to certain enterprises. Applications under the PGF have been received for 
projects covering a wide range of sectors, including infrastructure, tourism, an d 
community support services. These reflect the wide range of activities that occur in 
New Zealand's regions. No money has been set aside in the PGF for the New Zealand 
dairy sector, nor for the agricultural sector more generally. Applications to the PGF a re 
invited from all entities, such as community groups, local government, or businesses. 
Support is offered based on applications from these entities and are assessed against 
the objectives and criteria announced by the Government. The PGF must comply with  
New Zealand's international obligations.  
c. No. The New Zealand government has not changed its longstanding policy of not 
providing trade - and production -distorting subsidies to the agriculture sector.  
1.1.10   Nigeria's domestic support programmes  
1.1.10.1   Question by Aus tralia (AG -IMS ID 90034)  
Australia welcomes Nigeria's submission of domestic support notifications for the period  2012 
to 2016 – G/AG/N/NGA/17 in October 2017.  
Does Nigeria plan to include key agricultural elements of its Economic Recovery and Growth Plan 
(2017 -2020) in its future domestic support notifications?  
Specifically, how will Nigeria classify its support programme for the integrated transformation of the 
agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving access to markets?  
Answer by Nigeria  
Nigeria undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
1.1.11   Russia's increased support to dairy sector  
1.1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  
According to Russia Dairy news in late November, the Russian government is increasing support per 
hectare for farmers by 11 billion rubles (EUR 145m) and the volume of subsidies per litre of milk by 
8 billion rubles (EUR 105 million) as part of a general increase in agricultural support to 294 billion 
rubles next year. Additional funds will be allocate d for the recapitalisation of the Rossekhozbank.  
a. Can the Russian Federation explain more in detail the eligibility criteria for these new 
aid schemes?  
b. What was the purpose of the recapitalisation of Rossekhozbank?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
a. Resourcing of decoupled support (11 billion rubles) and government support (8 billion 
rubles per  1 quart of traded milk) has not changed in 2019 as it corresponds to volumes 
of support in previous year. Total volume of government support for agriculture in  2019 
is planned to be 303 billion rubles.  
b. Recapitalization (as an instrument of government support) is aimed at ensuring the 
financial stability of JSC "Rosselkhozbank" as a credit institution and is an integral part G/AG/W/215  
 
- 21 - 
 
  of a set of measures to maintain the stability of the banking system in the Russian 
Federation.  
Follow -up: The United States looked forward to notification of the programme to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
1.1.12   Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatière" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export  competition  
1.1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  
a. Can Switzerland confirm that following the new "Loi chocolatière" in operation as of 
1 January 2019, an amount equal to previous export subsidies will reach chocolate 
producers via farmers and priva te funds?  
b. Can Switzerland explain how the new law complies with the Nairobi Export Competition 
Decision and its new certified schedule?  
Answer by Switzerland  
a. The law in question ("Federal Law of 13 December 1974 on the import and export of 
processed agric ultural products") was completely revised following the entry into force 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and is now called the "Federal Law on the import of 
processed agricultural products" (SR 632.111.72). It now only covers regulations 
concerning imp orts of processed agricultural products. All export subsidies were 
therefore eliminated as of 1 January 2019. In parallel, Switzerland has introduced 
support measures in the form of direct payments to milk and cereal producers that are 
not linked to export s. Switzerland has also simplified the authorization procedure for 
inward processing for basic dairy and cereal products that previously benefitted from 
export contributions.  
b. The new law is in conformity with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export comp etition. 
The support measures are also in conformity with the Ministerial Decision, since they 
involve support under the AMS commitment of Schedule LIX Switzerland Liechtenstein. 
The simplification of inward processing arrangements for basic dairy and cere al products 
provides processing companies with administratively simplified access to imported 
products.  
Follow -up: Ukraine highlighted the importance of Members' transparent implementation of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition. Russian Federation acknowledged Switzerland's 
announcement that it would end its export subsidies by 1 January 2019 and noted its concern with 
new export subsidy measures directed to agricultural producers.  
1.1.13   Thailand's support to palm oil growers  
1.1.13.1   Question by Euro pean Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  
At the end of November 2018, the National Palm Oil Committee announced that it would support 
150,000 palm oil growers with up to 22,500 baht per individual grower for a total cost of 
3.5 billion  baht for the taxpayer.  
a. Can Thailand indicate the possible effect on palm oil production the following years of 
this support measures?  
b. How does Thailand intend to notify this support scheme?  
Further, the Minister of Energy has announced that the Electricity Authority Thailand will p urchase 
160,000 tonnes of crude palm oil at a price of 18 baht/kg for the use as fuel in power generation.  
c. Can Thailand confirm that this purchase has taken place?  
d. Can Thailand indicate the current market price for crude palm oil in Thailand?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
a. and b. The support was a temporary measure which was launched to help palm oil growers 
in the southern part of Thailand to cover the costs after several typhoons. Since this 
payment is without any linkage to the production and it is temporary i n nature it 
would have a neutral effect for the consequent production year.  
c. and d. The second programme, purchase of crude palm oil by the Electricity Authority of 
Thailand, is aimed at promoting green energy by using renewable fuels. This is a 
pilot p rogramme to achieve the sustainable development goals. This scheme, which 
started in November 2018 and will end in May 2019, is still ongoing. Thailand will 
evaluate the results and decide whether this policy will be a good scheme for 
promoting green energ y and whether it will be continued. In this programme the 
purchasing price of crude palm oil is 18 BAHT per kilogram. Currently the market 
price of crude palm oil in Thailand ranges from 17 BAHT to 19 BAHT per kilogram 
depends on the quality of the crude p alm oil.  
Follow -up: The United States noted interest in the question.  
1.1.14   U.S. Farm Bill 2018  
1.1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  
Australia notes the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (otherwise known as the Farm Bill) was 
signed into law on 20 December 2018:  
a. When will the United States notify this package to the WTO?  
b. How will the support to agriculture authorised in the Farm Bill be classified under the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How does support to agriculture authorised in the Farm Bill adhere to W TO limits for 
domestic support in agriculture (US domestic support is capped at USD 19 billion)?  
Australia notes the Farm Bill will continue funding for the Market Access Program, Foreign Market 
Development Program, Emerging Markets Program, and the Techni cal Assistance for Specialty Crops 
Program, the four main trade and market access programmes authorised under the previous Farm 
Bill.  
d. Will the organisations that have been awarded funding under the Agriculture Trade 
Promotion Program that was introduced as part of the USD 12 billion farmer assistance 
package still be eligible for funding from the Market Access Program (MAP)?  
e. What are th e differences between these two programmes?  
Australia notes the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers has been renamed as the Dairy 
Margin Coverage Program and it will modify coverage levels and premiums:  
f. Why have the coverage levels and premiums  been adjusted under the programme and 
to what extent?  
g. What is the forecast uptake of this programme with these modifications?  
h. Australia notes that the sugar programme will continue in its current form under the 
Farm Bill. Will the continuation of the cu rrent sugar programme be impacted by the 
US-Mexico sugar suspension agreements and will this have any implications for 
Australia's sugar access under the US WTO sugar quota?  
i. Australia notes the Farm Bill will modify the organic certification requirements f or 
imported agricultural products. What will this involve compared to current process and 
are these new arrangements expected to change current import requirements?  
Australia understands that the United States uses the authorities of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to purchase various food stuffs outside of the farm bills, such as the purchase of G/AG/W/215  
 
- 23 - 
 
  USD 50 million of fluid milk in August 2018, which are then redistributed through nutrition and food 
assistance programmes.  
j. Does the United States plan to expand commodity purchases under Section 32 of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act to additional commodities beyond 
those included in recent years?  
k. How do commodity purchases under Section 32 differ from those  made under the 
authority of Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act, including those announced under the 
Food Purchase and Distribution Program as part the USD 12 billion package to assist 
farmers impacted by trade retaliation?  
l. The US Department of Agriculture o ften notes in Section 32 purchase announcements 
that purchases are made 'with the purpose to encourage the continued domestic 
consumption of these products by diverting them from the normal channels of trade 
and commerce'. Does the United States anticipate  any market impacts from diverting 
purchased commodities from the normal channels of trade and commerce?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The United States will notify the 2018 Farm Bill in due course, once the law has been 
fully implemented and complete  data are available for notification.  
b. See response to question (a).  
c. Expenditures under the 2018 Farm Bill are not expected to exceed the Unites States' 
aggregate measurement of support (AMS) commitments.  
d. ATP eligibility (or participation) does not disqua lify participants from participating in the 
other market development programmes authorized in the Farm Bill. There is an overlap 
in eligibility between all the programs, although eligibility requirements may not be 
exactly the same for each program. For ex ample, only those that could demonstrate 
adverse tariff impact are eligible for ATP.  
e. There are notable differences, for example, in the eligibility of certain administrative 
expenses. For more information on these programs, please refer to 
https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs . 
f. Coverage levels under the Dairy Margin Coverage programme were increased from an 
upper limit of $8 per hundredweight to $9.50 per hundredweight for production history 
up to 5 million pou nds (Tier 1). The upper limit remains $8 per hundredweight for 
production history above that level (Tier 2). Premiums for coverage of Tier1 production 
history were reduced at most coverage levels, ranging from 74% lower to 22% higher; 
premiums for Tier 2 p roduction history increased for most coverage levels, ranging from 
328% higher to 88% lower. The 2018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer 
explanations for new or modified programme provisions.  
g. Official forecasts of participation in the new Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programme 
have not been published. Changes in availability of livestock insurance products for 
dairy and in eligibility rules for participation in both the DMC and purchase of dairy 
insurance products will affect participation decisio ns.  
h. No.  
i. Please note that any changes to the U.S. import policy for organics will be notified to 
the TBT Committee.  
j. USDA will continue to make purchases under Section 32 to provide cost -effective access 
to nutritious food products that can be used by USDA  feeding programmes.  
k. While commodity purchases under Section 32 and those made under the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program (FPDP) are both provided to eligible recipients through USDA's 
nutrition programmes, the programme objectives are different. Commodity purchases 
under Section 32 are ongoing and include a broad range of nutritious food products that 
the Food and Nutrition Service identifies for use in specific feeding programs. 
Commodity purchases under FPDP are aimed at mitigating the negative effects of 
retaliatory t ariffs on producers of certain agricultural products.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 24 - 
 
  l. No, the United States does not anticipate any market impacts.  
Follow -up: Australia was pleased that the US and Mexico sugar suspension agreements would not 
have any implications on its WTO sugar quota  access and looked forward to U.S. notification of the 
new and modified programmes under the new Farm Bill. Brazil, China, the European Union, New 
Zealand and Paraguay signalled interest in the Farm Bill and looked forward to U.S. notification. In 
relation  to question k, Canada noted that previous purchases under Section 32 covered a wide range 
of agricultural products and such purchases had been used to support domestic prices of these 
products. Brazil was particularly interested in how the programmes unde r the Farm Bill would adjust 
to the current commitment of the US and how the changes would apply with respect to sugar. 
Paraguay registered specific interest in questions c, d, e.  
1.1.14.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90010)  
With the renamed Dairy Margin Coverage programme the 'margin coverage levels' are offered at 
reduced premiums and the range has been increased up to a margin of 
USD 9.50 per hundredweight  (cwt.) for milk. The subsidized part of the premiums is going to 
increase for the first 5 mi. poun ds of milk produced.  
Can the US indicate the expected increase of the budgetary outlay for this programme in the coming 
years and whether it is expected to influence the level of production in the  US?  
Answer by United States of America  
The Congressional B udget Office has projected that the Dairy Margin Coverage programme will be 
budget neutral, meaning that budgetary outlays under the new programme are expected to be 
similar to those under the Margin Protection Program for Dairy. The programme is based on historical 
production and is not expected to influence the level of U.S. milk production.  
Follow -up: New Zealand noted interest in the question.   
1.1.14.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  
a. The Farm Bill 2018 has made a number of changes in agriculture risk cover age in terms 
of both price and yield calculations. Under the historical ARC provisions, plug yield was 
70% of the county's transitional yield. The Farm Bill changes the plug yield in the ARC 
benchmark revenue calculation to be no lower than 80% of the coun ty's transitional 
yield. Beside this, USDA Risk Management Agency trend -adjusted yield factors will be 
incorporated into the benchmark and actual yield calculations. The United States is 
requested to explain the reason behind increase in plug yield as well  as using trend 
adjusted yield factors in calculation of ARC payments.  
b. Under the recent Farm bill, fixed reference prices for PLC are now allowed to "float" 
higher based on the Olympic moving average price and may increase to as much as 
115% of the statuto ry reference price. Beside this, market loan rate for covered 
commodities has also been significantly increased. What is the rationale for adopting a 
floating rate reference price and increase in market loan rate for the covered 
commodities?  
Answer by Uni ted States of America  
a. The 2018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer explanations for new or modified 
programme provisions.  
b. See the response to Question (a).  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.1.15   U.S. Trade Promotion payments  
1.1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  
The U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture awarded USD 200 million to 57 organizations through the 
Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program to help U.S. farmers and ranchers identify and access 
new export markets. Can the US give any more detail on the criteria and eligibilit y for these 
programmes?  
Answer by United States of America  
Eligible organizations include non -profit U.S. agricultural trade organizations, non -profit state 
regional trade groups, state agencies and U.S. agricultural cooperatives that can demonstrate 
damages suffered as a result of tariffs imposed on U.S. agricult ural products in 2018/2019. 
Agricultural cooperatives can participate directly or indirectly through an ATP participant operating 
a branded programme. A for -profit entity may participate indirectly through an ATP participant 
operating a brand programme if the entity's size does not exceed 300% of the small business size 
standard established for its industry and published in 13 CFR part 121.  
1.1.16   U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  
1.1.16.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  
Boston Bounty Bucks funds administered t hrough the Boston Collaborative for Food and 
Fitness  (BCFF), is a dollar -for-dollar matching programme that enables farmers' market customers 
using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to expand their purchasing power. 
Programme partic ipants receive double the amount spent in SNAP benefits at farmers' markets (up 
to $10.00). The goals of Boston Bounty Bucks programme were to provide more direct sales 
opportunities for regional farmers through the creation of new and expanded farmers' ma rkets in 
Boston and to increase the economic viability of local farmers' markets by making them accessible 
a new pool of consumers - those who use food stamps/EBT benefits to purchase their food. It seems 
that, under this scheme the regional farmers get dir ect incentives by using the SNAP. The United 
States is requested to clarify the following:  
a. How are the Boston Bounty Bucks funds notified in the domestic support notifications?  
b. Under which category (Green, Blue, or Amber box) the subsidies are/would be not ified?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The United States attempts to identify and notify all state and local programmes for 
inclusion in U.S. domestic support notifications. As such, the United States will review 
the identified measure.  
b. See response to  Question a.  
1.1.17   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.1.17.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  
In 2015, before Class 6 was implemented in Ontario, total skim milk powder (SMP) exports for the 
calendar year were 13,671 tonnes. In 2016 this amount almost doubled  to 23,687  tonnes. In 2017, 
following the implementation of the national milk ingredient strategy (Class 7) total SMP exports 
tripled at 71,861 tonnes. For the 11 months to November 2018 total SMP exports already total 
61,635 tonnes. Canada assured Members  at the November 2018 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 89055) that under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) it had agreed 
to ensure elimination of milk classes 6 (in Ontario) and 7, including their associated milk class prices, 
within six  months from entry into force of the agreement. Given the negative impact these high 
volumes of SMP on the global market continue to have on other major dairy exporting countries, 
can Canada provide an update on what it is doing to eliminate milk classes 6  and 7, and their 
associated milk class prices?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
Canada considers this question to be outside the scope of Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
as it pertains to a bilateral commitment undertaken by Canada in a preferential trade agreement 
that is currently being ratified. Furthermore, Canada reiterates that it is a very small world producer 
and exporter of skim milk powder. It would be difficult to envision Canada having a significant impact 
on global dairy mark ets. 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that its industry had been experiencing negative impacts of these 
policies for the past two years and sought further information from Canada on this issue. The 
European Union shared New Zealand's concern and noted that mil k class 7 was not created in the 
spirit of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision which eliminated export subsidies. The European Union 
expressed disappointment with Canada's delay in transparency in relation to the implementation of 
milk class 7. Australia note d that, based on its understanding from the previous responses provided 
by Canada on this topic, there was recognition that these potential changes from the bilateral 
agreement would be applied on MFN basis and therefore it considered the issue to be withi n the 
scope of the Committee. Australia encouraged Canada to engage in providing answers to the 
questions.   
1.1.17.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90120) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it was in the proces s of verifying the accuracy 
of data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales. Canada also stated that once 
completed, this information would be provided. Is this information available? If not, 
please provide an update on when and where this inf ormation will become available.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it is not obliged to publish a full list of eligible 
Class 7 products and is not in a position to confirm whether the list is identical to the 
list included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova 
Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and Saskatchewan Order No.  28/17.  
What information will Canada publish regarding Class 7 eligibility to inform Members' understanding 
of Class 7 and ensure Canada is complying with i ts WTO commitments regarding the implementation 
of this government measure?  
c. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada states that processor margins "may include return on 
investment for the processors" but did not answer the U.S. question about how this 
factor of the mar gin is determined. Please explain how the return on investment is 
determined.  
Answer by Canada  
a. Canada reiterates that it does not have a timeline to provide for the release of any data 
related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several verificati ons to ensure accuracy 
of the data are required. Once completed, information will be provided in a more 
relevant format.  
b. As noted in the question, Canada is not obliged to publish this type of information from 
industry. Information that will be published is currently the prerogative of industry and, 
as such, it would be inappropriate to specify what information will be published. As a 
part of Canada's strong commitment to its WTO obligations, Canada has responded to 
a significant number of questions in thi s forum and elsewhere with respect to Class 7.  
c. Canada reiterates that how processor margins are calculated is not publicly available, 
although it is based on a third -party study commissioned by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission. The previous study was complet ed in 2005. The study is not publicly 
available for commercial confidentiality reasons, due to the small number of processors 
in the Canadian market.  
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand repeated their interest in receiving further 
information on  this topic to better understand how Canada implemented the scheme.   G/AG/W/215  
 
- 27 - 
 
  1.1.18   Canada's wine sale policy  
1.1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID 85012, 
AG-IMS ID 860 34, AG -IMS ID 87016, AG -IMS ID  88096, and AG -IMS ID 89021. As such, the United 
States repeats its previous questions.  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprisin g products that are 
continuously available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO  Wines 
category".  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed 
to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines  that are on the Vintages Essential list need 
to move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order 
to be sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the  Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer and 
wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorization s have been distributed to 
operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have 
been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a gr ocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price parameters 
and size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of 
existing  Ontario  bag in box wine? ( http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box %2
0Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to four stocks keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between importe d and Ontario 
products.  
f. According to Canada's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies mark -
ups to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province differently than 
commercial wine that have been bottled outside the province. Specifica lly, commercial 
wines that are bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark -up reduction of 20 percentage 
points (from 140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation documents 
setting out mark -ups for commercial wines bottled i n the province and bottled 
outside the province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to qualify 
for this benefit, could Canada please explain how this policy ensures 
non-discrimination against foreign products?  
g. The Nova Sco tia Liquor Corporation maintains a preferential mark -up for Emerging Wine 
Regions (currently 43%). How does a producer from an emerging wine region, as 
defined by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their emerging wine region status?  
Please provide a list o f non -Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines available for sale through the 
NLSC.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the view that it would be 
inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
Follow-up: The European and New Zealand supported the U.S. concern and invited Canada to provide 
further information on this matter.  
1.1.19   EU's CAP reform  
1.1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  
Australia seeks further information on the status of the European C ommission's CAP  reform proposal. 
While Australia welcomes the proposal to reduce total CAP funding, Australia has concerns regarding 
the increased flexibility provided to individual member States to design tailor -made programmes for 
farmers and rural commu nities. Australia understands under the current proposal that member 
States will have the option to transfer up to 15% of their CAP allocations between direct payments 
(pillar 1) and rural development (pillar 2) priorities in line with their EC approved St rategic Plan.  
a. Will the EC set minimum funding requirements (in Euros) per member State for pillar 1 
and pillar 2?  
b. Given the increased flexibility devolved to member States, how will the EC ensure each 
Strategic Plan is WTO compliant?  
c. If member States devi ate from their strategic plans, will there be any punitive actions 
taken by the EC?  
d. Furthermore, as a major canola exporter to the EU, Australia seeks further information 
on the EU's plan to improve protein crop production.  
e. Does the EC's CAP reform propos al plan to increase the supplementary rate for coupled 
income support for protein crops (from 2%)?  
Answer by European Union  
The EU would note that the CAP Reform proposal is currently under discussion under consideration 
by the co -legislators, and that the final outcome may be different from the Commission's initial 
proposals. The following answers are based on the Commission's  initial proposals.  
a. Within the proposed overall annual limits, the proposal would allow member States a 
limited flexibility to shift allocations between pillar 1 and pillar 2. The actual application 
of the flexibility rate would determine the amount avail able in each pillar.  
b. Article 10 of the draft proposal sets out how member States are required to respect 
WTO rules, notably on domestic support. The European Commission are required to 
approve the strategic plans, and this approval will include scrutiny to  ensure respect 
these WTO requirements, including for Blue and Green Box measures.  
c. Divergence from the plan will give rise to corrective rather than the punitive actions. 
However, as performance is the new source of assurance, a divergence between 
establis hed level of expenditure or reported output from the planned level would lead 
to a reduction of expenditure, although this should not be regarded as a sanction A 
deviation from a strategic plan could take two forms:  
• deviations between the planned unit amou nt and effected expenditure and the 
level of reported output. This would lead to a reduction of expenditure. This is in 
relation to the definition of eligibility of expenditure under Article of the relevant 
proposal, which determines that expenditure is el igible if covered by 
corresponding outputs (as planned) and effected by the paying agencies in 
accordance with basic EU requirements. If deviations are more than 50% then 
the Commission may proceed with a suspension of the relevant expenditure for 
the give n intervention in the future.  
• deviations between milestones for results and the level of reported result 
indicators, which would give rise to possible requests for action plans order to put G/AG/W/215  
 
- 29 - 
 
  performance back on track. In the case of failure (action plans n ot 
submitted/insufficient/not implemented) then there could potentially be 
suspensions of payments for the interventions covered by the action plan. If there 
was no sufficient progress by the end of the programming period, there could 
potentially be a perm anent reduction in the suspended amounts.   
See Articles 35, 38, 39 and 52 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of 
the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and 
repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (COM/2018/393 final) and Article 121 of Proposal for a 
Regulation of the European parliament and of the Council establishing rules on support for strategic 
plans to be drawn up by member States under the Common agricultural policy (CAP St rategic Plans) 
and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the 
European  Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (COM/2018/392 final).  
d. On 22 November 2018, the Commission adopted the Report on "The Development of 
Plant Proteins in the European Union". The scope of the report covers oilseeds, pulses 
and fodder  legumes and highlights opportunities to strengthen the development of EU -
grown plant proteins.  
However, it is not the Commission's intention to significantly reduce its imports, since 
EU livestock sectors depend on imports for protein needs, since Europe an production of 
protein crops is not sufficient to cover demand, due in part to the agro -climatic 
conditions in Europe, which do not favour the widespread cultivation of protein -rich 
crops.  
The report is a tool to better understand market dynamics and ma rket segmentation in 
the EU plant protein sector and to identify economic opportunities for European farmers 
(e.g., in the premium feed and food sectors). The general impact on oilseed trade in 
the coming years is likely to be limited.  
e. No. Regarding the C oupled Income Support, the Commission's legislative proposal 
includes an (optional) top up specifically for protein crops, which is a maximum of 2 %.   
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Paraguay registered interest in the EU's CAP. Australia was 
particularly interested in the answers regarding the increased flexibility provided to member States 
to design their own support programmes and how the EU would continue to ensure WTO compliance 
of such programmes given the increased flexibility. Paraguay not ed specific interest in questions b 
and e. New Zealand encouraged the EU to consider these issues as they proceed with their legislators 
to form a final reform package.   
1.1.20   European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.1.20.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90128)  
As a result of Brexit, the European Union is planning to unilaterally apportion its Tariff Rate Quota 
volumes between it and the United Kingdom as of 29 March 2019.  
a. Given the allocation of certain qu ota volumes for 2019 has already occurred, and in 
many cases, import licences may have already been issued, how does the 
European  Union (EU) propose to manage the change to its quotas from its existing 
EU-28 schedule to its new EU -27 draft schedule during the quota year?  
b. How will EU importers be expected to manage existing contracts to import products into 
the UK (whether directly or indirectly) under EU -28 quotas?  
c. How is the EU informing importers of the intended changes?  
Answer by European Union  
a. The ne w apportioned quantities for the EU-27 will only come into effect the day following 
the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Licences issued prior to this date (in the EU-28) G/AG/W/215  
 
- 30 - 
 
  will remain valid for imports into the EU-27 with the exception of licences transferred 
to operators established in the United Kingdom which will expire as soon as Article  1(2) 
of Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 January  2019 on the apportionment of tariff  rate quotas included in the WTO 
schedule of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, 
and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 applies. At this date the remaining 
quantity, for the relevant quota year, including any u nused quantities under expired 
licenses, will be calculated using the shares previously communicated to WTO Members. 
EU implementing regulations are being prepared to this effect. As far as the EU is 
concerned, the Commission will continue to manage the ap portioned EU TRQs in the 
same way it has been doing.  
b. As stated at previous occasions, the EU cannot respond to questions on the UK's future 
trade policy, including its management of TRQs, which will apply when the EU Schedule 
stops applying to the UK (as set out in document G/MA/TAR/RS/570). The EU continues 
to encourage Members to engage bilaterally with the UK on questions relating to the 
UK's future trade policy.  
c. The relevant EU implementing regulations are being prepared and the EU will provide 
inform ation in a public notice. The EU will notify the regulations following the applicable 
WTO procedures.   
Follow -up: Canada noted that the administration of TRQs had an impact on its access to the EU's 
market, which was an important one for Canadian exporters . Australia noted that, as a quota holder 
of several agricultural products, any changes made to quota allocations in 2019 would have 
commercial implications for Australian exporters. Australia gave a specific example of the sheep and 
goat meat quota which operated on a calendar year basis. Australia noted that in November each 
year exporters were notified of their quota allocation for the following year and any changes to these 
allocations would have significant commercial implications for the remainder of 2019. Australia 
reiterated the view that any changes to tariffs or TRQs by the EU and the UK to cover the existing 
trade between the EU and the UK must respect the MFN principle and not diminish existing access 
for third countries, particularly erga omnes TRQs. Thailand noted its concern regarding the 
uncertainty in international trade caused by the current situation of Brexit. Although the EU had 
announced its intention to enter into negotiations and consultations with other WTO Members under 
Article XXVII I, Thailand viewed the EU's unilateral apportionment of its TRQ volumes by launching 
the EU regulation 2019/216 as a prejudgement of the negotiation results. Thailand also viewed that 
part of this regulation impaired the EU's existing commitments under WTO . In particular, Thailand 
pointed out that the semi -milled or wholly milled rice with a concession of 25,516 tonnes, which was 
currently indicated in the regulations as "others", should be erga omnes as originally bound under 
the EU's concession in the WTO . Brazil and New Zealand supported previous speakers' comments, 
particularly the concern with EU's unilateral approach to apportion the WTO TRQs. China, the Russian 
Federation and Uruguay noted interest in this topic.  
1.1.20.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90 028) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90129)  
a. As the deadline for the UK's exit from the EU approaches on 29 March, both the UK and 
the EU have announced elements of their planning for a 'no deal' scenario. Like the EU 
and UK, other WTO Members will need to plan for  this contingency. For exporters 
currently accessing the EU-28 Market, who are holding export licenses and/or closing 
commercial contracts to supply agricultural products to the EU and UK, what assurances 
can the Commission provide to Members that they wil l continue to be able to supply the 
EU and UK markets under current terms from 30 March in the event of a 'no deal'? New 
Zealand expects that the EU and the UK will honour existing arrangements, in terms of 
certification, licensing, customs checks or other  measures which could affect trade.  
b. The EU has launched Article XXVIII negotiations in response to Brexit, which are due to 
start in the coming weeks, once claims of interest have been acknowledged. While the 
EU has signalled its desire to engage in those negotiations in good faith, it appears that 
the impact of EU regulation 2019/216 published 30 January this year in the event of a 
'no deal' would be to unilaterally impose an outcome before affected Members have had 
a chance to engage in negotiations with the EU.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Can the EU clarify how it intends to act ensure negotiations can proceed in an open and 
fair manner?  
Answer by European Union  
a. The EU appreciates Members' concerns about the current uncertainty surrounding the 
UK leaving the EU. That is why the EU and the UK engaged jointing as early as 
October  2017 with WTO Members on the envisaged approach to apportionment of the 
bound WTO TRQs. As stated on many occasions, the key principle is to maintain the 
existing level of market access between the EU-27 and the UK.  
Licences issued (under EU-28) prior 30 March 2019 in case of a "no -deal scenario" will 
remain valid for imports into the EU-27 with the exception of licences transferred to 
operators established in the United Kingdom which will expire as soon as A rticle 1(2) of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 January  2019 on the apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO 
schedule of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, 
and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 applies. At this date the remaining 
quantity, for the relevant quota year, including any unused quantities under expired 
licenses, will be calculated using the shares previously communicated to WTO Members. 
EU implementing regulations are being prepared to this effect. As far as the EU is 
concerned, the Commission will continue to manage the apportioned EU TRQs in the 
same way it has been doing.  
As stated at previous occasions, the EU cannot respond to questions on the UK's future 
trade policy, including its management of TRQs, which will apply when the EU Schedule 
stops applying to the UK (as set out in document G/MA/TAR/RS/570). The EU continues 
to encourage Members to engage bilaterally with the UK on questions  relating to the 
UK's future trade policy.  
b. The EU has followed all the relevant WTO procedures when launching its Article XXVIII 
negotiations. The EU has engaged with the relevant WTO partners on a regular basis 
since then and will continue to do so in goo d faith. The EU also maintains that it is willing 
to continue negotiations in an open and fair manner under Article XXVIII even in the 
case of a "no deal" scenario.  
Given the time limits imposed by the process of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from 
the U nion, the EU has had to take account of the possibility that agreements might not 
be concluded with all WTO Members on the date the EU's goods schedule ceases to 
apply to the United Kingdom. In view of the need to ensure legal certainty and the 
continuous smooth operation of imports, it was necessary to adopt Regulation (EU) 
2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 January 2019 on the 
apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the European Union 
following the wit hdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000. However, Article 2 of that Regulation empowers 
the Commission to amend the EU's portion of the TRQs, in order to take account of any 
potential agreements  concluded under Article XXVIII GATT, while ensuring consistency 
with the methodology set out in the regulation and communicated to WTO Members.  
Follow -up: In relation to question a, New Zealand disagreed that there was requirement for the EU 
to change its  bound WTO commitments on tariff rate quotas as a result of Brexit. In New Zealand's 
view, the relationship between the UK and the EU that should change as a result of Brexit but not 
the EU 's relationships and commitments to the rest of the world. New Zeal and pointed out that the 
policy choice made by the EU and UK to change their commitments undermined the value of these 
commitments and disadvantaged third country trade partners. Further, New Zealand noted that 
GATT Article XXVIII was not designed for the wholesale reduction and re -negotiation of quota 
commitments being proposed by the EU and the UK, and the limited reference period often used in 
Article XXVIII processes was not appropriate in such circumstances.  
New Zealand registered concern with the EU 's approach to informal discussions regarding its 
Article  XXVIII notification. New Zealand noted that the EU had excluded a number of interested WTO G/AG/W/215  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Members in any subsequent negotiations that might take place under Article XXVIII, either for the 
whole discu ssion or for certain products. New Zealand noted that the EU had also proceeded with 
the discussions on the basis of discrepant and erroneous data.  
New Zealand raised further concern with recent EU moves to adopt domestic regulation which would 
allow the EU to unilaterally divest itself of some of its tariff rate quota commitments in the event of 
a "No Deal" Brexit. New Zealand was concerned that the EU had not addressed Members' questions 
regarding how the overall balance of commitments negotiated and agr eed under the WTO would be 
maintained.   
New Zealand noted that, despite the EU's statement that it had no choice but to cut back its WTO 
quota commitments in the Brexit situation, the EU and UK had reached separate conclusions in 
respect of their bilateral FTA commitments.  In the latter case, there was no problem with the EU 
maintaining its full quota commitments and for the UK to accord to bilateral partners separate and 
additional quota access.  
Concerning question b, New Zealand noted that the q uestions it posed, about specific practical issues 
with respect to arrangements in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit, was without prejudice to its position 
on the importance of the EU and UK fully honouring their existing WTO commitments, including 
preservin g the quantity and quality of existing WTO tariff rate quotas post -Brexit. New Zealand 
encouraged the EU and UK, in the event of a "No Deal", to work hard to maintain the status quo for 
third countries. For example, exporters needed to know that their impo rt and export licences would 
continue to be recognized and sanitary and phytosanitary standards would remain the same, and 
they needed to have answers on logistical issues which were raised here. New Zealand expected to 
be consulted and to be provided with  reasonable notice if the EU and UK needed to implement any 
changes to these practical arrangements. New Zealand highlighted the importance for the EU and 
the UK to (1) provide assurances to third countries of their intention to honour in good faith existi ng 
practical arrangements with trade partners; and (2) to work actively to deliver stability and 
continuity for third country partners in the event of a "No Deal" scenario.  
The United States asked when Members could expect a written guidance confirming tha t the EU and 
the UK would honour existing commitments. Paraguay registered concern about the lack of certainty 
on imports to the EU and UK, given the little time remaining before the deadline. Brazil and the 
Russian Federation supported New Zealand's conce rns and urged the EU to take those concerns into 
account and avoid the unilateral implementation of apportionment of TRQs. The EU encouraged 
Members to send their comments in written form and noted that given Article XXVIII negotiations 
was taking place in  another forum, it would avoid detailed comments here.  
1.1.21   Ghana's poultry imports  
1.1.21.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  
The United States requests a response to AG -IMS ID 89023:  
The United States understands that Ghana has established new i mport requirements on poultry 
imports. These new measures appear to restrict the quantity of imports and limit time for which a 
permit is valid.  
a. Please explain which of Ghana's laws, regulations, or other relevant policy directives 
have been added or modi fied to reflect these changes.  
b. Where are these documents published?  
c. Please describe how this new measure is being implemented.  
Answer by Ghana  
Ghana undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 33 - 
 
  1.1.22   India's pulses policies  
1.1.22.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 90032)  
Further to Australia's previous questions at the last Committee meeting (89th CoA), Australia has a 
series of follow -up questions regarding Indian measures relating to pulses.  
Australia notes that India's quantitative restriction (QR) of 100,000 tonnes of peas (including Yellow 
Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas and Kaspa Peas) in Notification No. 4/2015 2020 of 25 April 2018 for a 
period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018) has now been extended three times.  
a. Australia requests India to advis e whether any additional volume was included as part 
of the most recent extension from 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2019?  
In a previous response to this Committee (ID 89057), India stated 466,000 metric 
tonnes of peas were imported against a QR of 100,000 me tric tonnes in the 12 months 
to September 2018.  
b. Australia requests India to advise which countries these peas were imported from?  
c. Of the 466,000 metric tonnes, how many peas were imported after 1 April 2018?  
d. Could India please indicate the total quantity of peas imported (by country) between 
1 October 2018 and 31 December 2018?  
Answer by India  
No additional volumes were included in the extension as imports were allowed due to court orders. 
A total of 5,50,878.37 metric tonnes of peas (HS code 07131000) ha ve been imported in India 
during the period 1 April to 31 December 2018. Argentina, Austria, Canada, Australia, BR Virgin 
Islands, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, USA 
are among many countries from w hich peas were imported in year 2018. Between 1 October to 
31 December 2018, India imported 1,33,290 MT of peas.  
1.1.22.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  
On 25 April 2018, India introduced a quantitative restriction, which imposes a 100,000 tonnes limit 
on the volume of dry peas that can be imported from all countries. This import limit on dry peas has 
been extended multiple times and on 31 December 2018, India announced that this restriction is 
being extended for a period of three months until 31 March 2019.  
a. Could India indicate if the quantitative restrictions (QR) on dry peas will be renewed 
after 31 March 2019?  
b. Considering that the QR have been in place for almost a year could India indicate under 
which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements that is bein g used to support this 
restriction?  
c. Please provide updated monthly numbers for the wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses 
since August 2018.  
Answer by India  
a. At this stage, there is no proposal for renewal of quantitative restriction on dry peas.  
b. This question refers to India's notification to other WTO Committees and will be 
answered in the relevant Committees.  
c. The WPI figures for the months of September, Oct ober, November and December  2018 
are 123.2, 125.5, 130.8 (Provisional) and 135.8 (Provisional) respectively.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 34 - 
 
  1.1.22.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative restriction on import of 
yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the 
territory of India shall be 100 000 MT from 1 April to 30  June 2018. After the expiry of this measure 
the quota was extended until 30 September 2018. In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry of India issued a notice restricting the import of yellow peas from 1 January 2019 until 
31 March 2019.   
Could India clarify the following issues:  
a. What is the amount of yellow peas eligible to be imported from 01 January 2019 until 
31 March 2019?  
b. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported over the periods from 1  April 
to 25 April 2018, from 1 April to 30 June 2018, and from 2 July to 30  September 2018?  
c. How these measures (quantitative restrictions and import ban) are consistent with 
Article XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
a. No additional volumes were included in the recent notification as imports were allowed 
due to court orders. A total of 550,878.37 metric tonnes of peas have been imported in 
India during the period 1 April to 31 December 2018.  
b. The amount of peas imported over the periods from 1  April to 25 April 2018 was 
38,882  MTs, from 1 April to 30 June 2018 was 237,648 MTs, and from 2 July to 
30 September 2018 was 178,490 MTs.  
c. This question refers to India's notification to other WTO Committees and will be 
answered in the relevant committees .  
Follow -up: Canada, the European Union and the United States registered support for all questions 
on this topic and asked in which WTO Committees India would provide responses. The United States 
noted that, based on its understanding, such import restrictions applie d to all peas of HS071310 and 
not just yellow peas.  
1.1.22.4   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  
India has put in place quantitative restrictions on dry pea imports since April 2018. As Ukraine 
currently understands, these restrictions elapsed on 31 December 201 8. According to the media, 
India is expecting a drop in domestic production of pulses output in 2019.  
a. Could India please confirm that quantitative restrictions for dry peas are no longer in 
place as of 1 January 2019?  
b. Does India have preliminary 2019 pro duction estimates for pulses, and what factors are 
deemed critical for India's 2019 production level of dry peas?  
c. Does India have any intention to reinstitute quantitative or other restrictions on any 
pulse imports in 2019?  
Answer by India  
The quantitative restriction on peas has been extended till 31 March 2019.The First Advance 
Estimates of Production of Food grains for the year 2018 -19 are available at http://agricoop.nic.in/ .  
Follow -up: Ukraine re gistered concern regarding the negative impact on the international market 
brought by India's pulses policies and asked India to guarantee predictable opportunities for 
exporting Members.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 35 - 
 
  1.1.22.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  
The United S tates notes that India has again extended the quantitative restriction for peas 
through  31 March 2019.  
a. India has indicated that the quantitative restrictions, which were first implemented 
starting in April 2017, are temporary. When does India intend to en d the restriction?  
b. What are the criteria India uses to determine whether the quantitative restrictions will 
remain in place or be removed?  
c. India has previously agreed to provide an explanation for the restrictions in other 
WTO Committees. When and in whic h committee will India provide a full explanation?  
Answer by India  
a. and b. There is no proposal to extend these measures indefinitely. These measures are 
temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be based on market situation. 
India is constantly reviewing these measures.  
c. This question refers to India's notifica tion to other WTO Committees and will be 
answered in the relevant Committees.  
Follow -up: The United States enquired in which other WTO Committees India was engaging on this 
topic. Australia supported other questions on this topic and reiterated its concer n on the quantitative 
restriction (QR).  Australia noted that although India had claimed the QR was temporary, 
India subsequently extended it from July to September 2018, from October to December 2018, and 
from January to March 2019. In addition, in each ca se, India had not introduced additional volume. 
Australia urged India to provide explanation for the WTO basis of the QR. The EU supported 
Australia's statement and noted its interest in hearing India's explanation on the measure's 
compliance with GATT Art icle XI.1 and Article 4.2 of the AoA. The EU underlined that quantitative 
import restrictions were not part of the toolbox  of the WTO rule book.  
1.1.23   India's sugar policies  
1.1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  
Further to Australia's previous questions regar ding sugar measures implemented by the Government 
of India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions.  
a. Could India please indicate whether it will increase the current mandatory minimum 
selling price for sugar from Rs 29 per kg?  
b. Will the government of India increase the level of buffer stocks of sugar from the current 
level of three million tonnes? In addition, does the Government of India intend to 
increase the current carrying cost reimbursement from Rs 1 ,175 crore?  
Answer by India  
a. Government of India  has fixed the minimum selling price of white/refined sugar for sale 
by sugar mills in domestic market at Rs. 31/kg w.e.f. 14 Feb 2019.  
b. No such proposal is under consideration.  
Follow -up: Guatemala noted that the announcement on sugar subsidies by India on 26 September 
had immediate impact on international sugar prices which hit a decade low and had seriously affected 
its sugar producers. Guatemala repeated its concern, which it had previously expressed in several 
bilateral meetings with India, that the m easure may be inconsistent with India's WTO obligations. 
Guatemala further requested India to provide the relevant information in writing and noted that the 
request was without prejudice to Guatemala's right to request a consultation with India pursuant to  
Article 4 of the "Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes". 
Colombia supported Guatemala's comments. Brazil and the EU reiterated concerns on the impact of 
India's sugar policies on the international market and questione d their consistency with the WTO G/AG/W/215  
 
- 36 - 
 
  rules. Brazil asked India once again to reframe its policy to minimize the negative impact to sugar 
industry. Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Russian Federation flagged interest on this matter.  
1.1.24   India's skim milk powder exp ort subsidies  
1.1.24.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90002)  
a. In reply to questions AG -IMS ID 89026 and AG -IMS ID 88070 in previous meetings 
India promised to give figures on:   
• the total quantity of SMP exported with subsidy;  
• total value of subsidies and;  
• total costs of these subsidies as promised.  
However , this data is not yet available in AG -IMS. Could India deliver this data as soon 
as possible, covering both the federal government level and subsidy granted by the 
states of Gujarat and Maharashtra respe ctively.  
b. India also indicated in the last meeting that it intended to forward a notification of its 
export subsidies. Can India indicate a possible timeframe for this notification?  
Answer by India  
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
Follow -up: New Zealand and the United States registered interests on this topic.  
1.1.25   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.1.25.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  
Follow -up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094 and ID 88104:  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour. In May  2018 Mongolia put i n place a 
quota for import of wheat flour for the rest of the year  2018. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and 
Light Industry of Mongolia published a notice for importers to submit the applications for allocation 
of quota volume only in July  2018. Despite the fact that the deadline for submitting applications for 
quota allocation was 19 July 2018, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia 
failed to allocate the quota volume among the importers of wheat flour in 2018. As a result, impo rts 
were restricted even within the quota volume; and a de facto import ban on wheat flour prevailed 
throughout the whole last year. On 18 January 2019 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light 
Industry of Mongolia issued a decree that opens the import o f certain amounts of agricultural 
products, including wheat flour and milk. The Russian Federation welcomes the intention of Mongolia 
to introduce a quota for import of wheat flour in 2019. However, the Russian Federation is seeking 
further clarification f rom Mongolia regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for not allocating the wheat flour quota volume 
among the importers in 2018?  
b. Whether Mongolia is going to allocate the quota volume among the importers of wheat 
flour for 2019 quota year? When Mongolia is going to issue a decision allocating the 
quota volume among the importers?  
c. Please explain how Mongolia's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 an d Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
a. and b.  the quota allocation was due to take place following the receipt of applications in 
July 2018. However, due to the occurrence of unforeseen political circumstances, G/AG/W/215  
 
- 37 - 
 
  which were followed by the change of Cabinet Members as well as the restructuring 
of the respective ministries, the implementation of the decision could not be 
materialized in due time. This was an internal matter, which directly affected the 
process. Since the beginning of this year, the internal consultations were reinforced, 
and the National Council for Food Security met on 15 January and the 
recommendation was made to allow impo rts of strategically important products, 
including wheat flour. Following the recommendation and the decision by the Ministry 
of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry, the invitation for bids were publicly 
announced; the applications for the imports of whea t flour were received on 
1 February. The bid committee is in the process of examining the applications.  
c. Mongolia wishes to inform the Members that the Law on the Enrichment of Food 
Products was adopted in May 2018. The Law will enter into force on 31 Dece mber 
2019. This Law was adopted upon the recommendation of the World Health 
Organization, which studied and revealed that the population of Mongolia is in need 
for food products which are enriched with iron, zinc, vitamins B and D. To prepare 
for the imple mentation of this Law, monitoring work is required, including on the 
imports of certain food products such as wheat flour. Monitoring through quota is a 
temporary measure until the full implementation of the Enrichment Law and the 
necessary measures are id entified for that purpose. Mongolia wishes to express the 
willingness to engage in bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation.  
Follow -up: The Russian Federation hoped its exports to Mongolia could be resumed.  
1.1.26   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.1.26.1   Ques tion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 88072, Pakistan claimed it is only providing freight and marketing support 
for exports. According to Agreement on Agriculture Article 9.1(d), this would include items such as: 
handling, upgrading and other processing, and international transport and freight, as well as 
favourable internal transport and freight charges. Note that a) the support price in Pakistan is 
Rs 1,300 per 40 kg, or about $265 per MT at August 2018 exchange rate s, and b) that Pakistan 
authorized the export subsidy price of up to $159 per metric tonne. By USDA estimates, if all other 
costs were covered and wheat was sold at that price FOB, Pakistan would still be one of the highest 
price origins in the world.  
a. Please provide additional information and data that would clarify that the subsidy is only 
being provided for the internal transport and freight charges on export shipments.  
According to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, "Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies 
beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis". Pakistan announced a subsidy 
for wheat exports early in 2018, which expired on 30 June 2018. Pakistan reportedly announced 
additional funding for subsidizing wheat export s in November 2018.  
b. Please provide an update on the wheat export subsidy programmes, including the 
quantity of wheat exported under these programmes during 2018.  
c. Please provide any details on how this measure differs from the previous measure 
governing th e programme that expired in June.  
d. Does Pakistan plan to provide increased levels or extend its current support levels for 
wheat exports going forward?  
Answer by Pakistan  
a. Export of wheat is not a regular phenomenon of Pakistan. Even Pakistan imported wheat 
during 2013, 2014 and 2015. Infrastructural gaps and deficiencies along with large 
distances between farms and ports contribute to high inland transportation costs in 
Pakistan. Therefore, in order to offset the effects of these infrastructural inefficienci es 
and to meet quality standards for exports, the support was provided to cover inland 
transport charges, marketing costs, incidental charges, cleaning/grading charges, pre -G/AG/W/215  
 
- 38 - 
 
  shipment inspection charges, fumigation, packaging charges and international freigh t 
costs.  
b. The details of wheat support programme up to June 2018 have already been shared 
previously. About 2.5 million tonnes of wheat was exported till June 2018.  
c. The modalities of current programme are under process and no quantum has been 
exported so far.  
d. No such plan is under consideration at the moment.  
Follow -up: The EU and the Russian Federation highlighted the importance of all WTO Members 
respecting the Nai robi Ministerial Decision on eliminating export subsidies, including those with 
access to Article 9.4. Australia and Canada, as wheat exporters, noted interest in the use of export 
subsidies on wheat. Australia repeated its view that such subsidies needed to link to the actual 
costs of internal transport and freight. Australia reminded Pakistan, despite Pakistan's previous 
statement that it could provide freight and marketing support when necessary under Article 9 .4, 
the Nairobi Decision stated that develop ing Members could continue to benefit from the provisions 
of Article  9.4 until 2023 and Members shall not seek to raise the subsides beyond the average 
level of the past five years on a product basis. Australia sought Pakistan's confirmation on whether 
the subsidies announced last year on wheat exports did not exceed the average of the period 
2012-2017.  
1.1.27   Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  
1.1.27.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90068)  
New Zealand refers to its question at the November 2018 Committee on Agri culture 
(AG-IMS ID 89064) when New Zealand noted that Sri Lanka was applying a Value Added Tax (VAT) 
on imported milk powder while exempting domestic producers.  
a. New Zealand again asks Sri Lanka to explain how its application of VAT on imported 
product and not on domesticall y produced goods complies Article III of the GATT  1947?  
At the time of the last Committee on Agriculture meeting, New Zealand's understanding 
was the tariff on milk powder would be removed for two weeks to enable importers of 
milk powder to clear product.  After the two weeks a lower tariff would be re -imposed 
and a review of the tariff settings on milk powder was scheduled to occur in 
January  2019.  
b. Can Sri Lanka update the Membership on its progress with a review of its tariff settings?  
Answer by Sri Lank a 
As Sri Lanka reported to this Committee in many occasions, milk powder product in Sri Lanka is 
considered as essential commodity and also a sensitive product in the domestic market. Due to these 
reasons, the government pays close attention to global mark et conditions and potential 
vulnerabilities.  
Sri Lanka approximately imports 93,000 MT of powdered milk annually by spending USD 300 million 
on imports. At present New Zealand is supplying almost 90% of powdered milk requirement of 
Sri Lanka, demonstratin g a rapid increase of the market share from 72% in 2013. Sri Lanka also 
understands that Sri Lanka is the fourth largest export destination for powdered milk supply of 
New Zealand.  
Considering domestic markets and political sensitivities as an essential c ommodity, the government 
of Sri Lanka has made every effort in balancing both demand and supply to the benefit of consumers 
as well as suppliers. In this regard, Sri Lanka wishes to mention that since 2012 the government of 
Sri Lanka has been providing imp ort duty waiver to the importers.  
As a long -term measure Sri Lanka's objective is to develop the milk production industry in the 
country on a sustainable manner. In this regard Sri Lanka appreciates New Zealand's active 
engagement with Sri Lanka in providing the required technology and oth er inputs, including cattle.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 39 - 
 
  The Ministry of National Policies and Public Distribution in consultation with Ministry of Finance is 
regularly holding stakeholder consultations with a view to introducing a pricing mechanism for milk 
powder imports in taking  into account current import duty and other levies. This process is expected 
to address concerns of all parties involved in the milk powder imports and trade. Sri Lanka will keep 
Members informed of the developments in due course.  
Follow -up: The EU, Ukrai ne and the US expressed interest in the question.   
1.1.28   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.1.28.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  
According to the latest available export statistics, Turkey has increased the export of flour from 
2.1 million ton nes in 2013 to nearly 3.5 million tonnes in 2017 (Source GTA), which is an increase 
of 63% in four years.  
Year Customs code  Exported quantity ton ne 
2013 11 01 00  2.142.367  
2014 11 01 00  2.207.218  
2015 11 01 00  2.796.517  
2016 11 01 00  3.532.690  
2017 11 01 00  3.489.624  
a. Can Turkey indicate the share of this quantity which has been exported under inward 
processing?  
Further, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) has been buying common wheat on the internal market and 
releasing it on the internal market at a lower price. For instance, in 2013 the buying -in price was 
between 296 $/tonne and 386 $/tonne, while it was released on the Turkish market for 223 $/tonne.  
b. Can Turkey explain in more detail about this scheme for buying -in and release of wheat 
by the TMO in the years since 2013, including prices?  
c. How does Turkey intend to notify this support in its future DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
Turkey would like to provide one answer for the questions a, b as follows: TMO determines 
indepe ndent policies within the framework of profitability and efficiency principles, regarding the 
products that fall within its scope. In this sense, Turkey would like to repeat the answers given in 
the previous committee meetings and its last TPR.  
For the qu estion c: As Turkey mentioned in previous Committees, the data gathering, calculation 
and other technical studies have been going on in order to finish the remaining notifications. Turkey 
strongly believes transparency and better functioning of WTO and in this regard, Turkey would like 
to thank to the EU and other Members for their support and patience during this notification process.  
Follow -up: The Russian Federation and the United States expressed interest in this matter. Ukraine, 
as an exporter of whea t flour, registered commercial interest in Turkey's wheat flour exports, the 
"inward processing" programme and the operation of the TMO.  
1.1.29   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  
1.1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  
Australia thanks the United States fo r its update to Australia's questions at the 89th CoA regarding 
the implementation of the assistance package for farmers impacted by trade retaliation. Australia is 
seeking an update from the Unite States on the second and final round of trade mitigation p ayments 
announced in December 2018.  
a. With applications for the Market Facilitation Program closing on 14 February, could the 
United States please indicate the total amount of expenditure under the programme?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 40 - 
 
  b. How many applications were received (by commodit y)? 
c. If total expenditure is less than the $9.6 billion estimated by USDA, will excess funding 
(remainder of $12 billion) be used for other agricultural programmes?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. As of 13 February 2019, total expenditures for the Market  Facilitation Program were 
$7.06 billion.  
b. As of 13 February 2019, a total of 864,314 applications were received. Data on 
applications by commodity are not available.  
c. USDA authorized up to $12 billion for the Market Facilitation Program, the Food Purchase  
and Distribution Program, and the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program. 
This authorization does not cover other agricultural programs.  
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Paraguay noted interest in the potential programmes and 
their impact to international trade. Paraguay sought once again the exact figures of each support 
program and noted specific interest in responses to question a and b.   
1.1.30   U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.1.30.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 made cotton producers eligible for Title I farm programmes by 
designating seed cotton, i.e. a combination of both cotton lint and cottonseed, a covered commodity, 
effective for the 2018/19 marketing year. United States is requested to explain the following:  
a. What factors were taken into consideration while determining the reference price for 
seed cotton at 36.7 cents per pound?  
b. Why was there a need  to include seed cotton under covered commodity to make it 
eligible for PLC/ARC programmes?  
c. It is understood that for seed cotton, PLC payments will be made if the marketing year 
average price falls below the reference price. How will the marketing year av erage price 
be calculated?  
d. In case marketing year average price is based on the weighted prices of upland cotton 
and cottonseed, what weights would be used?  
e. Please provide the data on total area covered under cotton crop during years 2014 
to 2019. Since t he introduction of cotton as a covered commodity under the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2018, how many generic acres have been reallocated to plant cotton?  
f. Please provide data indicating the number of cotton farmers who have opted for PLC 
and ARC programmes si nce 2018 till date.  
The Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program, 2016 was a programme of the USDA to provide 
one-time payment to producers of cotton to cover ginning costs. A similar programme 
introduced in year 2018, right after the Bipartisan Budget Act, 2018 included "seed 
cotton" in the covered commodity list, thereby making the cotton producers eligible for 
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Revenue Coverage (ARC) programmes.  
g. In this context, could the United States clarify if a cotton producer covere d under the 
PLC or ARC programmes will also be eligible for the CGCS Program, 2018.  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) made producers with historical cotton base eligible to 
reallocate those base acres to seed cotton under t he Agriculture Risk Coverage and 
Price Loss Coverage programmes. It set the reference price for seed cotton at 36.7 
cents per pound. The legislative language does not provide explanations for how the 
reference price was determined.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. The Bipartisan Budget A ct of 2018 language does not offer explanations for new or 
modified programme provisions.  
c. The marketing year average price for seed cotton is a weighted average of upland cotton 
and cottonseed prices. See Section 60101 of the Bipartisan Budget Act for the  specific 
formula used to calculate the marketing year average price for seed cotton.  
d. See response to question (c).  
e. Data on cotton acreage harvested in the United States for marketing year 2014/15 to 
2018/19 is as follows: Unit Description (1000 HA); 2014/2015 (3,785); 2015/2016 
(3,268); 2016/2017 (3,848); 2017/2018 (4,492); 2018/2019 (4,262). Coverage of 
seed cotton un der the ARC and PLC programmes is based on historical base acres of 
cotton, not planted acres. The deadline to enroll base acres in ARC or PLC for the 2018 
crop year was 7 December 2018. Data on reallocation of generic acres is not yet 
available.  
f. Eligibil ity to enroll seed cotton base acres in the PLC and ARC programmes is determined 
by whether the producer or landowner has seed cotton base acres. Production of cotton, 
or any other commodity, is not required. See response to Question (e) regarding 
number o f seed cotton base acre enrolled in PLC and ARC.  
g. The CGCS programme made payments to producers based on planted acres of cotton 
crop year 2017. Seed cotton coverage under the PLC and ARC programmes depends on 
ownership of historical cotton acres and does not require production of cotton or any 
other commodity. It is possible that a cotton producer with ownership of historical cotton 
acres may be eligible for both programmes.  
Follow -up: Brazil signalled interest in the possible trade implications of the U. S. programmes and 
the way the US used historical base acres for seed cotton production.   
1.1.31   Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  
1.1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 89033 and AG -IMS ID 88076, the United States wou ld like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Zimbabwe has not provided a written answer:  
The United States understands the government of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (which is 
the central bank) is providing tobacco growers a performance ex port bonus as an incentive to grow 
the country's production and increase exports. For the 2018 marketing season, the central bank, 
has increased the export incentive from 5% to 12% and up to 17.5% for top exporters.  
a. Please explain these agriculture suppor t measures implemented by Zimbabwe's central 
bank during the marketing periods 2017 and 2018.  
b. What is the legal basis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision 
that allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  
Answer by Zimbabwe  
Zimbabwe undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
1.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
1.2.1   Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
1.2.1.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  
1.2.1.1.1   AG-IMS ID 90072: Question by Australia - Tariff quota f ill 
Australia welcomes India's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table  MA:2) for 
the 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and  2016/17 marketing years.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 42 - 
 
  a. Can India explain the reason for the under -fill for the maize (corn) tariff quota for 
MY 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17?  
i. Can India explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
ii. Can India explain the reason behind the lack of applications in MY 2010/11, 
2012/13, 2014/15 and 2016/17?  
b. Can India explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by India  
For years 2010 -11, 2014 -15 and 2016 -17, no applications were received for the allocation of the 
tariff rate quota for maize. For other years, even after allocation of licenses, the quota was not filled. 
Fill rate of a TRQ is a demand -driven  outcome and based on market situation. India's TRQ 
administration procedure is transparent and is available in the public domain.  
1.2.1.2   Israel  (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  
1.2.1.2.1   AG-IMS ID 90030: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Notified "in -quota imports duri ng period" for all tariff rate quotas significantly exceed "tariff quota 
quantity for period" levels while fill -rate equals 100%. Is it correct that volumes specified in column 
"In-quota imports during period" represent total imports (including out -of-quota import) under the 
tariff line(s) for which TRQs were opened?  
Answer by Israel  
In most TRQ tariff lines there is a voluntary expansion of the quota - either in quantity (larger quota) 
or in tariff (lower tariff within the quota) or both. Therefore, it is assumed that all imports from 
WTO Members are within the quota. Israel is now in the process of introducing a new system which 
will allow for a more accurate tracking, but Israel does not foresee a meaningful change in future 
reports, due to the reason exp lained above.  
1.2.1.3   North  Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  
AG-IMS ID 90073: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Republic of North Macedonia's notification concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) for the 2018 marke ting year (G/AG/N/MKD/24).  
a. Can the Republic of North Macedonia explain the reason for the under -fill for the spelt 
tariff quota for MY 2018?  
i. Can the Republic of North Macedonia explain whether the under -fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence o f SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
b. Can the Republic of North Macedonia explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its 
under -filled tariff quota, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ 
Administration ? 
Answer by North Macedonia  
Republic of North Macedonia has tariff and other quota commitments for: Other spelt, other than 
common wheat and meslin seed, for tariff number 1001990000 with an annual quantity of 
80.000  tones. This commitment applies for all WTO Members. The in -quota rate is 0% and 
out-of-quota rate is applied at 15% +0,1 EUR/kg, tariff rate equivalent (max.75%). The quota is 
allocated to MFN suppliers on a "first -come, first -served" basis. Period of in -quota imports is 
1 January to 31  December in the current year.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 43 - 
 
  The fill rate for Republic of North Macedonia's wheat TRQ remains low (9.4%) in 2018 due to market 
circumstances. The fill rate of wheat TRQ was low in all previous years excluding marketing 
years  2003/2004 and 2004/2005 for which the fill rate was 100%. The fill rates by year were as 
follows:  
Year Fill rate  Year Fill rate  
2003/2004  100%  2010/2011  25.8% 
2004/2005  100%  2011/2012  62.3% 
2005/2006  25% 2013 16.2% 
2006/2007  12,5%  2014 29.7% 
2007/2008  44,6%  2015 27.8% 
2008/2009  34% 2016 17.1% 
2009/2010  27,3%  2017 28% 
The import of wheat and meslin from WTO countries remained high in the period of 2003 -2006, until 
the liberalization brought by the CEFTA agreement in 2007. From 2007 the import of wheat and 
meslin from WTO countries declined and the import from CEFTA countries has been continuously 
rising. The data on total import by year and by partner are as follows:  
Import of wheat and meslin and wheat or meslin flour in Republic of North Macedonia  
Year Wheat and meslin  Wheat or meslin flour  
TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  
  tonnes tonnes  % tonnes  % tonnes  tonnes  % tonnes  % 
2003 94,272  71,490  75.8 22,782  24.2 1,311  232 17.7 1,079 82.3 
2004 104,076  102,290  98.3 1,786  1.7 1,417  337 23.8 1,080 76.2 
2005 90,095  79,795  88.6 10,300  11.4 3,441  430 12.5 3,011 87.5 
2006 25,973  20,880  80.4 5,093  19.6 3,513  333 9.5 3,180 90.5 
2007 60,367  38,021  63.0 22,346  37.0 53,099  274 0.5 52,825 99.5 
2008 55,192  30,471  55.2 24,721  44.8 43,402  220 0.5 43,182 99.5 
2009 51,249  32,741  63.9 18,508  36.1 55,664  147 0.3 55,517 99.7 
2010 55,765  25,748  46.2 30,017  53.8 46,660  319 0.7 46,341 99.3 
2011 78,502  26,451  33.7 52,051  66.3 30,316  474 1.6 29,842 98.4 
2012 121,261  67,943  56.0 53,318  44.0 42,794  397 0.9 42,397 99.1 
2013 66,187  13,053  19.7 53,134  80.3 41,542  95 0.2 41,447 99.8 
2014 87,992  23,969  27.2 64,023  72.8 40,510  51 0.1 40,459 99.9 
2015 97,538  22,417  23.0 75,121  77.0 47,835  79 0.2 47,756 99.8 
2016 75,537  13,949  18.5 61,588  81.5 54,587  138 0.3 54,449 99.7 
2017 87,047  22,648  26.0 64,399  74.0 53,935  140 0.3 53,795 99.7 
2018 86,504  7,762  9.0 78,742  91.0 49,814  88 0.2 49,726 99.8 
The tariff quota for each year are published in Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia, 
at least one month prior to start of the new calendar year, in order for the allocation of the published 
quota to start on time, as of 1 January. Also, the  tariff quota is published on the website of Customs 
Administration http://www.customs.gov.mk/images/documents/kvoti/Kvoti2019STO.pdf . 
AG-IMS ID 90048: Question by Russian Fe deration - Tariff quota fill  
The fill -rate of tariff rate quota for "other spelt, other than common wheat and meslin seed" have 
fallen by almost 20% (from 28% to 9,4%) resulting in quite low fill -in rate as it was notified by the 
Former Yugoslav Republic o f Macedonia in G/AG/N/MKD/22 and G/AG/MKD/24. Could the FYR of 
Macedonia clarify the reasons for the decrease and low fill -rates of the mentioned tariff rate quota?  
Answer by North Macedonia  
See response above.  
AG-IMS ID 90090: Question by Canada - Tariff  quota fill  
Canada notes that, in the Republic of North Macedonia's most recent MA:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/MKD/24), which covers the 2018 marketing year, the fill rate for its sole tariff -rate quota 
(wheat, other than durum wheat or seeds) is low (9.4%). Lo oking at the Republic of North 
Macedonia's previous notifications (G/AG/N/MKD/19 and G/AG/N/MKD/22), covering the 2013 -2017 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 44 - 
 
  marketing years, Canada notes that the fill rate for the same tariff -rate quota (TRQ) has remained 
at or under 30%.  
a. Could the Republic of North Macedonia explain why the fill rate for its wheat TRQ 
remains low?  
b. Has the Republic of North Macedonia considered putting in place a TRQ administration 
policy that is conducive to TRQ utilization?  
Answer by North Macedonia  
See response above.  
1.2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  
AG-IMS ID 90074: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Ukraine's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table  MA:2) for 
the calendar year 2017.  
a. Can Ukraine explain the reason fo r the under -fill for the raw cane sugar tariff quota for 
2017?  
i. Can Ukraine explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. Can Ukraine explain what it is doing to in crease utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Ukraine  
Ukraine appreciates Australia's interest in Ukraine's raw cane sugar TRQ, which was notified to the 
WTO fo r CY 2017. Taking into consideration Ukraine's recent MA:2 notification for CY 2018 
(G/AG/N/UKR/32) Ukraine's response will cover both of these years.  
a. The under -fill for tariff quota was due to market circumstances and not because of the 
existing SPS measures for the product or restrictive tariff quota administration. A 
demand for sugar imports simply did not appear to exist in Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. 
The type of TRQ administration is "License on Demand". This demand -driven market 
opportunity is exec uted on a first -come, first -served basis. Ukraine adopted a system 
of allocating raw cane sugar on a first -come, first -served basis in 2011, in accordance 
with its WTO commitments. Relevant notification was presented to the WTO in due 
course. Ukraine autho rities in charge of administering the License on Demand for the 
sugar TRQ have no record of any application for such a demand -driven import license. 
Thus, Ukraine considers the non -filling to be due to market circumstances. It should 
also be noted that in Ukraine, consumption of sugar per capita declined steadily in recent 
years (2005: 38.1 kg; 2010: 37.1; 2013: 37.1; 2014: 36.3; 2015: 35.7; 2016: 33.3; 
2017: 30.4). Import of sugar also was decreasing significantly until 2013 
(2005:  177 thousand tonnes; 201 0: 90; 2013: 11) and since 2014 has stabilized 
(2014:  7 thousand tonnes; 2015: 4; 2016: 5; 2017: 7). In 2017 and 2018, domestic 
sugar producers fully satisfied the domestic needs.  
b. Ukraine notes above the lack of demonstrated market interest to apply for l icense. 
Besides, Ukraine emphasizes that one of the preferred methods to assure that 
administrative measures are not restricting access to the TRQs in the Bali TRQ Decision 
is "license on demand". Therefore, as long as a demonstrated market interest does n ot 
exist to apply for a sugar TRQ License on Demand, Ukraine has no plans to undertake 
further actions. At the same time, in 2018 Ukraine abolished the market price support 
(minimum prices) for sugar.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 45 - 
 
  1.2.2   Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
1.2.2.1   Chinese Taipe i (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  
AG-IMS ID 90049: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 89073  
The volume -based special safeguard for garlic applied since 14 December 2018 was notified on 
3 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/168). The volume -based special agricultural safeguard on dried 
shiitake applied since 21 December 2018 was notified on 17 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/169). The 
volume -based special agricultural safeguard for peanuts wh ich was in force since 25 December 2018 
was notified on 22 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/171). The volume -based special agricultural 
safeguard for red beans applied since 21 December 2018 was notified on 24 January  2019 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/172).  
Paragraph 7 of Artic le 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that "Any Member taking action 
under subparagraph 1(a) above shall give notice… in any event within ten days of the 
implementation of such action". Could please Chinese Taipei please kindly clarify the reasons fo r this 
delay?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, in line with the special 
safeguard provision of the Agreement on Agriculture, implements SSG on agricultural products 
designated in its schedule if t he volume of imports of that product entering its custom territory 
during any year exceeds a trigger level. As the time needed for custom clearance of imported good 
may vary, delay of the notification might occur occasionally.  
1.2.3   Domestic Support commitments  (Table DS:1)  
1.2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  
AG-IMS ID 90050: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9:  
The United States understands the "Package Assisting Small Exporters (PASE)" provides rebates to 
small exporters to cover 50% of export registration charges. The package funded projects to help 
reduce barriers and/or assist with marketing strategies for small exporters with grant payments over 
a number of years out to 2021 -2022.  
Please spec ify the eligibility criteria for this measure, including a) whether there are any commodities 
or products not eligible to receive payments, and b) whether there is any requirement to export.  
Answer by Australia  
This programme was announced as part of the Australian Government Budget in May 2014. 
Organizations that are legal entities with an Australian Business Number and individuals are eligible 
to apply. The following commodity sectors are eligible for funding: dairy, egg/fish, grain and plant 
products, h orticulture and meat products. To be eligible for the registration certificate rebate scheme 
(which was only available in financial year 2014 -15), grant recipients were required to have 
completed the export certification registration process. All other gra nt funding under the programme 
is to support projects which improve market access for small businesses.  
1.2.3.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 90059: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Australia's response to India's questio n AG-IMS ID 88050 regarding support provided by the 
Australian government for live cattle exports to Indonesia, Australia states that "…the support was G/AG/W/215  
 
- 46 - 
 
  eligible only for those primary producers involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 
the 2011 -12 financial year". On the basis of this statement, it appears that the Australian 
government provided incentives to primary producers on the basis of export performance. How does 
Australia justify the notification of the above -mentioned support as  domestic support and not export 
subsidy?  
Answer by Australia  
In its answer to India's previous question (AG -IMS ID 88050), Australia notes that the assistance 
provided in the form of financial advice grants was available to primary producers directly aff ected 
by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia. Australia considers it is appropriate 
to classify this assistance as domestic support as it was paid to primary producers to enable them 
to seek financial advice on their business arran gements, given they were now unable to export due 
to the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia.  
1.2.3.3   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  
AG-IMS ID 90014: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
a. For the marketing credit measures  
i. Can Brazil indicate the total credit amount and the average subsidised rate for 
these loans/credits?  
ii. Can Brazil indicate the commercial rate for bank loans for such types of loans?  
b. For the debt rescheduling programmes, can Brazil explain more in detail how these 
programmes work, the eligibility criteria and the types of farms that benefit the most 
from these programmes?  
Answer by Brazil  
a. For marketing credit measures: Total credit amount US D 4,1 billion Simple average 
subsidised rate 9,95%  
For non-product -specific production measures: Total credit amount US D 27,2 billion 
Simple average subsidised rate 10,15%.  
As explained in footnote 3 of ST/DS:9 in document G/AG/N/BRA/52, the subsidy is 
calculated on the basis of the difference between the int erest rates of the programmes 
and the SELIC interest rate, which, in this particular case, amounted to 12.83%.  
b. In order to provide a comprehensive explanation of Brazilian debt rescheduling 
programmes, Brazil refers to the accurate description presented i n the document 2005 
"OCDE Review of Agricultural Policies Brazil" from page 88 "Credit policies" until page 
92. In case the EU would like to receive more detailed information about any specific 
aspect of those programmes, Brazil would be pleased to convey their requests to capital.  
1.2.3.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 90077: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia is seeking further information from Ch ina regarding the following aspects of its recently 
submitted domestic support notifications for the period 2011 -2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/42 - 
G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
a. Over the period from 2011 -2016, were all farmers eligible to receive both the minimum 
purchase price and to access temporary reserve measures for the following 
commodities?  
• Corn (2011 -2016);  
• Soybean (2011 -2014);  
• Cotton (2011 -2014);  
• Rapeseed (2011 -2015);  
• Sugar (2011 -2013);  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 47 - 
 
  • Wheat (2011 -2016);  
• Rice (2011 -2016).  
b. In addition, Australia would appreciate further inf ormation on the design and structure 
of the Temporary Reserve Programme. Are there any other agricultural commodities 
that are currently eligible to access the Programme?  
c. Australia would appreciate further information clarifying why eligible production and  the 
administered price for Indica and Japonica rice were converted to those of milled rice? 
What is the basis of the 70% conversion rate stated in these notifications?  
d. Australia seeks further details of what programmes or measures are included in "other 
non-exempt direct payments" for soybean and cotton over the period  2014-2016?  
e. Could China please provide further examples of programmes included under "general 
subsidies for agricultural production supplies" across 2011 -2016?  
Answer by China  
a. Farmer s of the regions where the policies were applied could sell their products at the 
administered prices, if the products could meet the quality and other related 
requirements.  
b. The temporary reserve programme was to safeguard food security by stabilizing the  
market and thus stabilizing farmers' income. The policy was usually announced in the 
harvest season. The price for procurement was set in light of the production costs and 
market conditions. The temporary reserve programme was only applied in specified 
area, usually in some major producing provinces and originally with specified amount 
of procurement within defined timeframe. Since 2012, the Temporary Reserve 
Programmes for various commodities have been terminated gradually, and currently no 
commodity is s ubject to any Temporary Reserve Programme.  
c. The conversion is necessary for the calculation of MPS for rice, since the procurement 
was made at the administered price of paddy rice, while the calculation of support has 
to be made using the fixed external re ference price of milled rice. The 70% conversion 
rate is as the same as that used in the supporting document on Domestic Support 
submitted by China in its accession (WT/ACC/CHN/38/Rev.3).  
d. Target Price Subsidy: The difference between the market price and t he target price is 
paid to eligible farmers.  
e. The "general subsidies for agricultural production supplies", also translated as 
"comprehensive subsidy on agricultural inputs", is a unified subsidy programme. The 
aim is to compensate farmers for the addition al cost resulting from the increased price 
of agricultural inputs, such as diesel, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.  
Follow -up: Australia welcomed China's submission of the Domestic Support notifications which had 
been long -awaited by several Members. Australi a flagged concern about China's repeated de minimis 
breaches for several agricultural products. Australia, while welcomed China's acknowledgement of 
these breaches, noted that the annual notification process was intended to encourage examination 
and discus sion of new measures especially in the exempt categories to prevent such issues from 
occurring. Australia registered interests in all questions posed on these notifications and welcomed 
China's confirmation that the temporary reserve programme was no longe r operating for any 
commodities. The United States noted interest in questions regarding the measures contained within 
other non -exempt direct payments for soya beans and cotton and general subsidies for agricultural 
production supplies.  
AG-IMS ID 90021: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU notice that several Chinese media reports refer to the active crop insurance policy.  
a. Can China explore more in detail the instruments China use in this context, including 
the level of loss needed to become eligible for such support?  
b. Can China indicate how these measures have been included the DS:1  notifications for 
the years 2011 -2016?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Answer by China  
a. It will be useful to know what the media reports are, in order to identify related 
instruments.  
b. The existing crop insurance against natural disasters is notified as Green Box measure 
according to Annex 2 of the Agricultural Agreement.  
Follow -up: The EU noted that these notifications confirmed the concern raised by severa l Members 
in the past regarding whether China had been respecting its limit on domestic support. The EU 
pointed out that the limit had been breached for a range of products for many years. The EU 
welcomed China's process, as demonstrated in the DS:2 notifi cation, to divert its policy away from 
Amber Box support towards less trade -distorting support but noted more could be done. The EU 
looked forward to hearing China's explanation in detail how this reform process would be taken 
forward in the future for all  the sectors where commitments were breached during the period of  2011 
and 2016. The EU also noted that discussions here would spill over into the negotiations on future 
limits for domestic support.  
AG-IMS ID 90061: Question by Russian Federation - Transpa rency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Current Total AMS for corn in 2015 is a sum of support from "Temporary reserve programme" and 
"subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds". Temporary Reserve programme for corn was 
terminated in 2016 (Note "c" to Supp orting Table DS:5 in the notification G/AG/N/CHN/44). 
Supporting Table DS:7 to the notification G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that provision of "target price" and 
"subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds" for soybeans has resulted in Total AMS of 
65.8 million  hundred CNY. Supporting table DS:4 states that support of 65.8 million hundred CNY 
was included in calculation of Current Total AMS.  
Current Total AMS for cotton in 2015 consists of "target price" and "subsidy for improved crop strains 
and seeds", and "c ost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region". 
Notes from "c" to "f" to Supporting Table DS:5 in the notification G/AG/N/CHN/44 state that the 
following measures were terminated: "c. Temporary Reserve programme for corn was t erminated in 
2016. d. Temporary Reserve programme for soybean was terminated in 2014. e. Temporary Reserve 
programme for cotton was terminated in 2014. f. Temporary Reserve programme for rapeseed was 
terminated in 2015."  
Note "c" to the Table DS:1 in notif ication G/AG/N/CHN/46 covering the period of calendar year 2015 
specifies that all measures accumulated in the volume of Current Total AMS in column 3 of 
Table  DS:1 were terminated. The above -mentioned measures include support for corn, cotton and 
soybeans . Note "c" to Supporting Table DS:4 in notification  
G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that support measures for corn, soybean and cotton were terminated. 
Termination of Temporary Reserve programmes for corn, soybean and cotton is clearly stated while 
for other above -mentioned measures it is not. Notification G/AG/N/CHN/47 covering period of 
calendar year 2016 still includes "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds" for corn, "target 
price" for soybeans, "target price" for cotton, and "cost subsidy for transportin g cotton out of Xinjiang 
Uygur Autonomous Region" for cotton.  
Could China please clarify were "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds" for corn; "target 
price" for soybeans; "target price" and "subsidy for improved crop strains and seeds" for cotto n; and 
"cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region" terminated? If 
terminated, then, please, specify when.  
Answer by China  
The subsidies mentioned above were terminated by the end of 2016.  
Follow -up: The EU expressed its interest in understanding how China had included the support by 
regional governments in these notifications, since it seemed that China's notification covered only 
central government expenditure. The EU noted that this comment would apply to other question s 
under this agenda item.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 49 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90056: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The Russian Federation welcomes notifications on Domestic Support covering calendar years 
from 2011 to 2016 submitted by China on 11 December 2018.  
a. Could China please provide the reasons for the delay of notifications starting from  2011?  
b. When does China plan to notify its domestic support measures for 2017 calendar year?  
In notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47 "domestic food aid", "decoupled income support" and 
"regional assistance programme" are mentioned among the measures for which 
exemption from reductio n commitments is claimed.  
c. Could China provide more details on "domestic food aid" including eligibility criteria and 
prices at which food purchases by the government are made?  
d. Could China please provide more details on eligibility criteria for receiving "decoupled 
income support"?  
e. Could China please specify criteria to classify a region as disadvantaged one?  
Answer by China  
a. China submitted the Domestic Support notification for Calendar Years of 2009 and 2010 
in 2015. After that, China started the technic al work related to the notification for the 
years from 2011 to 2014, which in 2016 was at the final stage for submission. However, 
as a case on China's subsidy policies for wheat, rice and corn was filed, the schedule of 
submission was postponed due to tec hnical complications.  
b. The notification for 2017 is now being prepared. The submission could be made around 
2020 or in 2021, depending on availability of statistics and progress of all the technical 
work.  
c. The reply will be provided at later stage.  
d. All fa rmers with the right to contract land are eligible for the subsidy with no 
requirement on production.  
e. The reply will be provided at later stage.  
Follow -up: The United States indicated interest in understanding how various exempt measures met 
the relevant exemption criteria. Paraguay expressed interest in all the questions related to China's 
domestic support policies and joined the Russian Federation in asking when China intended to submit 
its domestic support notification covering 2017.  
AG-IMS ID 90055: Q uestion by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
From 2016 to present, China implemented a "Deep Processing" subsidy (3 billion RMB in 2016) for 
corn processors that is provincially managed and administered using central gov ernment funds in 
Northeast China. On 25 February 2017, three provinces in Northeast China announced, "Procedures 
for the Administration of Financial Subsidies for Feed Processing Enterprises in Jilin, Liaoning and 
Heilongjiang Province". Please explain whe n and where China will notify this policy.  
Answer by China  
The subsidy in question was not a support for agricultural production. It was provided to feed 
processing entities to mitigate their difficulties including shortage of fund. The measures were 
already terminated. The subsidy was independent from the corn price and had no impact on corn 
production, and therefore will not be notified as an agricultural domestic support measure.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 50 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90051: Question by United States of America - General services: research  
In G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, and 
G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Table DS:1, China reports annual government outlays for agricult ure 
research of less than 138 to 223  hundred million RMB per year ($21 -33 billion).  Please explain what 
research activities are included in this calculation.  
Answer by China  
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 90052: Question by United  States of America – General services: inspection 
services  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1, Item 2 €, in 2015, China implemented its "Food and Hygiene Law 
of the People's Republic of China" elaborated in G/SPS/N/CHN/1055, which includes rigorous 
quarantine and inspection requirements. In G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, and G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Table DS:1, China's reported 
outlays for inspection services from 2011 -2016 of 60 -94 hundred million RMB ($10 -15 billio n) 
annually. Please explain what these outlays include. For example, do these outlays include diagnostic 
equipment purchases to implement the "Food and Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China?"  
Answer by China  
The reply will be provided at a later st age.  
AG-IMS ID 90112: Question by Japan - General services: other  
In the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47), the expenditure on the other 
General Services is more than 50% of the expenditure on the General Service. Japan apprecia tes 
that China shows some examples of the other general services such as operating expenditure related 
to buildings, facilities and so on. However, could China give more detailed explanation on what kind 
of the services China provides and how much China sp ends on their services?  
Answer by China  
Expenditures under "other general services" include agricultural business management, international 
exchanges and cooperation, agricultural information processing, agricultural auditing and other 
general services pro vided by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 90058: Question by Russian Federation – General services: other  
The category "Other general services" in Green Box (notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47) c ontains "operating 
expenditures related to buildings, facilities, salaries and expenses of agricultural administrative and 
service agencies as well as pensions to retired employees of these government agencies". Could 
China provide more information regardi ng the building and facilities which are supported under the 
category "Other general services". Which operating expenditures are covered under this subsidy?  
Answer by China  
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 90093: Question by Brazil - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting tables DS:1, the volume of 
measures exempt from reduction commitments in the form of public stockholding for food security 
purposes has sur ged.  
a. Could China provide data on the amount of support each of the benefited crops received 
from 2011 to 2016?  
i. Where applicable, could China elucidate the management mechanism of these 
stocks, the variation of these stocks since 2011 and their current state?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 51 - 
 
  b. Could China provide official and updated data on the exports of crops that benefited the 
most from such pro grammes?  
Answer by China  
a. The support includes the administrative costs associated with the procurement and 
storage of the foodstuffs concerned. The amount of support can't be disaggregated since 
it was provided to the entities engaging in the stockpiling i n a lump sum approach.  
i. The stocks are procured from the market. When the entities concerned buy in the 
foodstuffs, they can get loans for making payments to farmers. The stocks are 
sold according to market conditions. The administrative cost, such as the cost 
resulting from storage, and the cost of loan interest will be borne by the 
government.  
b. The stocks are disposed domestically.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted concern regarding the significant increase of China's expenditure in public 
stockholding between 2 011 and 2016 and supported Brazil's questions. The EU indicated interest in 
this question in relation to the discussions in the CoA  special Session  on public stockholding and 
noted the importance of understanding how Members managed the stocks.   
AG-IMS ID 90113: Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
According to the DS:1 notifications from 2011 to 2016, China stockpiles w heat, corn, rice, 
vegetable oils and sugar for food security. Japan appreciates if China explains the targeted 
amount and the actual amount of stockpiles by product.  
Answer by China  
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 90001: Question by  European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
China – G/AG/CHN/47 – Decoupled income support  
Decoupled income support show increases from CNY 21.7 billion in 2015 to CNY 162 billion in 2016.  
a. Can China please explain more in detail for this increase? If it includes new measures, 
can China explain in detail the criteria for these new support measures and in particular 
the eligibility criteria and how these payments are paid out to farmers? Which type of 
farmers is eligible to this support and are there any regional differentiations for these 
payments?  
b. Can China explain more in detail the expected future annual expenditure related to this 
decoupled income support for the years 2017 to 2019?  
c. Does China intend to make a DS:2 notification for these measures as it has done for 
the Blue Box measures related to cotton and corn in G/AG/N/CHN/48 
and G/AG/N/CHN/49 respectively, as foreseen in Article 18?  
Answer by China  
a. The increase in decoupled income support resulted from a major p olicy adjustment 
in 2016. The subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds and the general subsidies 
for agricultural production supplies were terminated. Thus, the original decoupled direct 
payment for farmers is increased to compensate for farmers' loss . The decoupled direct 
payment is given to farmers with contract land, without any production requirement. 
That's also the reason for sharp decrease in the support as listed in non -product specific 
support.  
b. The expenditure on decoupled direct payment will  largely remain stable for the years 
from 2017 to 2019.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 52 - 
 
  c. The decoupled direct payment increased because of minor adjustments of policy 
objectives to address land and environmental preservation. If necessary, China may 
consider submitting a DS:2 notificatio n.  
AG-IMS ID 90114: Question by Japan - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
China implements the decoupled income support.  
a. Could China explain in detail what kind of measures China implements?  
b. Article 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture p rescribes eligibility for decoupled 
income support. For example, the amount of payments shall not be based on the volume 
of production in any year after the base period. Could China explain in detail if the 
abovementioned measures meet such eligibility?  
c. Could China explain the reason why China drastically increases the expenditure from 
2015 to 2016?  
Answer by China  
a. From 2011 to 2014, the decoupled income support was given to farmers to increase 
their income on a general basis. The subsidy is given to farmer s with contract land 
without any production requirement.  
b. The payment is made to all farmers that hold the contract rights to the land, and the 
payment is not linked to the price, the type and the volume of the production, nor the 
factors of production, i.e., farmers can receive the subsidy regardless of the type  and 
the amount of their actual production, or the factors of production employed.  
c. Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90001.  
AG-IMS ID 90053: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments for 
relief from natural disasters  
Noting the category entitled "payments for relief from natural disasters" in Supporting Table DS:1, 
please explain how China classifies its agriculture -related crop insurance premium subsidy 
expenditures in the following notifications: G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N /CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, and  G/AG/N/CHN/47? What was the total value of China's annual 
premium subsidy payments from 2011 to 2016?  
Answer by China  
The insurance premium subsidy is classified as government financial participatio n in income 
insurance and income safety -net programmes. From 2011 to 2016, the annual premium subsidy 
payments are being verified and will be provided later.  
AG-IMS ID 90016: Question by European Union – Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes  
The European Union notes that China increased the use of certain types of Green Box support 
dramatically between 2015 and 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Support in the form of regional assistance 
programmes increased from 117.857 billion CNY to 220.378 b illion CNY (87%). Can China explain 
more in detail the policy changes behind this substantive increase?  
Answer by China  
In order to fulfil the commitment to build a moderately prosperous society in an all -round way, the 
Chinese government spares no efforts  in recent years to eradicate poverty by 2020. To this end, the 
government increases support for the poverty -stricken regions, and a large proportion of the fund 
was used to develop agriculture related economy in these regions, since agriculture is the maj or 
industry in these places.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 53 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90115: Question by Japan - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes  
China implements regional assistance programmes.  
a. Could China explain in detail what kind of programmes China implements?  
b. Article 13 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture prescribes eligibility for regional 
assistance programmes. Could China explain in detail if the abovementioned 
programmes meet such eligibility?  
Answer by China  
a. The support programmes included in this sub -category are mainly related to poverty 
reduction or poverty alleviation. The subsidy was granted in the form of financial 
transfer to local governments, allowing them to design specific measures that fit the 
specific local conditions. These for example could be livelihood assistance for poor 
population, or infrastructure improvement such as road building etc. It is therefore hard 
to describe in detail.  
b. China is a developing country with a large agricultural popul ation and the limited 
budgetary resources must be used with high efficiency. Therefore, those poverty 
reduction or poverty alleviation programmes are confined to the poverty -stricken areas. 
As defined by the objective criteria, the subsidies are used to su pport local economic 
and social development, including the development for all kinds of industries.  
AG-IMS ID 90122: Question by Australia - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Australia is seeking further information from China regarding its recently submitted 2016 domestic 
support notification. China has included corn producer subsidies as a direct payment under 
production -limiting programmes (Blue Box). Australia seeks further details regarding the application 
and accessibility for these subsidies.  
a. Were the producer subsidies introduced to eventually replace the Temporary Reserve 
Programme for corn?  
b. Furthermore, have these producer subsidies been continued into 2017 and 2018?  
Answer by China  
The Temporary Reserve Programme for corn was terminated in  2016. The corn producer subsidy 
started in 2016 and continued into 2017 and 2018.  
AG-IMS ID 90062: Question by Russian Federation - Payments based on fixed areas or 
yields  
Notification G/AG/N/CHN/47 includes payments based on fixed area and yields under 
production -limiting programmes. Could China provide more details on the functioning of such 
programme for corn?  
Answer by China  
The central government sets an annual amount of corn subsidy, based on 2014 (base period) data 
of corn planting area and fixed y ield in four provinces(region) in Northeast China, namely 
Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. The subsidy is allocated to the 
four provinces according to the planting area of each province (region) in the base period, and th e 
local governments make the payment to farmers. The local government is allowed to use 10% of 
the subsidy they received to facilitate the structural adjustment with the reduction of corn production 
in certain regions that are unfavourable for corn product ion, for example, to compensate the farmers 
for replacing the production of corn with other corps.  
Follow -up: New Zealand signalled systemic interest in the implementation of Blue Box programmes.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 54 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90076: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Further to Australia's question at 88th and 89th CoA (AG -IMS ID 88009/AG -IMS ID  89083), Australia 
thanks China for submitting domestic support notifications for the period  2011- 2016 
(G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
During the 2011 -2016 p eriod, China has acknowledged a number of de minimis  breaches for key 
agricultural commodities. Could China please indicate what measures it has introduced or reforms it 
has implemented to ensure it complies with its WTO obligations?  
Answer by China  
The support above the de minimis  level for the products concerned is mainly due to the Temporary 
Reserve Programmes. Since 2012, China has terminated the temporary reserve programme for 
sugar, oilseeds, cotton and corn, and introduced the target price supp ort and producer's supports 
for cotton and corn which are provided under production -limiting programmes. With these reforms, 
the product -specific support to be accounted in the Current Total AMS has been significantly reduced.  
AG-IMS ID 90091: Question by  Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Tables DS:4, support as 
a % of value of production was above 8,5% for cotton from 2011 to 2016; for corn from 2013 to 
2016; for soybeans from 2012 to 2 016, except in 2013; and for colza in  2011 and sugar in 2012.  
a. How does China justify such level of domestic support under its WTO commitments?  
b. Could China indicate the evolution of domestic prices of these five crops between 2011 
and 2016?  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, every domestic support programme 
that led China to surpass its de minimis  level of support, hence breaching its accession commitments, 
was terminated in or before 2016.  
c. Does "termination" mean that such program mes were not continued under the aegis of 
the same rule and that similar programmes did not replace them? Or does "termination" 
have a different meaning here? If so, which one?  
d. Could China specify the projected and the real impact (quantities, cultivated area and 
government outlays) of the termination of said domestic support programmes on the 
three aforementioned crops?  
Answer by China  
a. As procurement prices went up and volume of commodities bought increased, the 
support associated with the Temporary Reser ve Programmes was driven up to an 
unexpected level. Reforms and adjustments were explored in order to bring the support 
into consistency with China's obligations.  
b. It would be appreciated if Brazil could clarify the meaning of domestic support – that is 
whether it is the market price or the farm price so that the statistics department could 
provide the information as requested.  
c. The measures that led to the excessive level of support include temporary reserve 
programmes for corn, cotton, soybean, rapeseed a nd sugar, the target price support 
for cotton and soybean. Now, the temporary reserve programmes for all products have 
been terminated and no similar programme was introduced to replace them. For cotton, 
the target price subsidy has been significantly chan ged with the introduction of 
production limiting requirements. For soybean, the target price subsidy has been 
terminated. Termination means the end of measures.  
d. China is still waiting for the reply  
Follow -up: With respect to question (b) on domestic prices , Brazil clarified that it was referring both 
to the administered price that was used and the market price that prevailed in China's market. While 
Brazil welcomed China's confirmation that the programmes led to China's violation of commitments G/AG/W/215  
 
- 55 - 
 
  were termina ted, Brazil reiterated its concern regarding the breach. In light that China would provide 
support under Blue Box, Brazil also encouraged China to respect the relevant conditions for that 
type of support.  
AG-IMS ID 90096: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
China indicated that product -specific market price support over de minimis  levels to producers of 
cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, and sugar was provided through temporary reserve programmes. 
These were terminated at different s tages, as per the footnotes to supporting table DS:5 in the 
aforementioned notifications. For example, the temporary reserve programmes for soybeans and 
cotton were both terminated in 2014, while the temporary reserve programmes for rapeseed and 
corn were terminated in 2015 and 2016, respectively. In addition, Canada sees that China did not 
indicate that the temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated and understands that 
China expects it would still be in effect beyond 2016. Canada would appreciat e if China could provide 
further details on these temporary reserve programmes, including those for which support was 
provided under de minimis  levels (e.g., wheat):  
a. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these temporary reserve 
programmes?  
b. What was the legislative or regulatory basis for those programmes? How were they 
different, for example, than the minimum procurement price programmes notified by 
China during the 2011 -2016 period for wheat and japonica/indica rice?  
c. How did thes e programmes operate? Did China purchase the stocks at the applied 
administered price to resell them at market prices? Was a state -owned enterprise, 
monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved in the buying and selling of stocks? 
If so, which ones?  
d. How were applied administered prices determined?  
e. For wheat: i. Can China confirm whether the temporary reserve programme for wheat 
is still in force? What are the eligibility criteria? Could any producer of those commodities 
benefit from the administered pric e?  
f. For terminated programmes:  
i. What were the eligibility criteria? Could any producer of those commodities 
benefit from the administered price?  
ii. Was the termination of these programmes announced publically? If so, when?  
g. While these programmes were 'tempor ary' and most of them terminated, except for 
wheat, does China expect it will resort to such programmes in the future? How will China 
ensure that temporary reserve programmes do not bring its support levels above its 
bound total aggregate measure of suppor t in the future?  
Answer by China  
a. The support was introduced to stabilize the market and thus stabilize farmers' income.  
b. The temporary reserve programmes for various commodities are issued separately on 
annual basis. Please find The Notice on Properly Hand ling Issues Related to the 
Procurement of Grains Harvested in the Autumn of 2013 and The Notice on Issues 
Related to the Procurement of Corn and Soybean for Temporary Reserve in Northeast 
of China in 2013 and related administrative document at the followin g web -links as an 
example: http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2013 -11/16/content_2528455.htm ; 
http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_206698.shtml . The 
temporary reserve programmes were announced after the harvest to stabilize the 
market, while the Minimum Procurement Price programme is usually announced before 
sowing.  
c. China's Grain Reserve Group is entrusted to handle the buying of stocks and the stocks 
are disposed in the open market at market prices.  
d. The prices were determined based on the cost of production, plus appropriate level of 
profits to safeguard the livelihood of small farmers.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 56 - 
 
  e. The temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated in 2018.  
f.  
i. All farmers in the provinces where the programmes are applied are eligible for 
the programme. However, it should be underlined that the commodities they sell 
must satisfy the quality and related requirements for the procurement.  
ii. Yes. It was announced publ icly. For example, the termination of the 
temporary  reserve programme for corn was announced in the Notice on 
Properly  Handle the Procurement of Corn in the Northeast of China in 2016 
(http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_209585.shtml )  
g. There is no plan to reintroduce the temporary reserve programmes. The temporary 
reserve programme for wheat applied in Xinjiang Autonomous Region was terminated.  
Follow -up: Canada registered concern regarding China's breach of domestic support commitments.  
AG-IMS ID 90117: Question by Japan - Scheduled commitment level  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016, China implemented the support for 
cotton , soybeans and corn, and the support exceeded the de minimis  percentage. Could China 
explain in detail the method and the schedule to reduce the support not to exceed the de minimis  
percentage?  
Answer by China  
Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS I D 90062 and AG -IMS ID 90076.  
AG-IMS ID 90057: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
The domestic support notifications for the years from 2011 to 2016 reflect Current Total AMS 
provided in excess of that incorporated in China's Sched ule of commitments. What measures does 
China intend to undertake in order to prevent the possible inconsistency with its obligations under 
paragraph 2 (b) of Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture in the 
future?  
Answer by C hina 
Please refer to the replies to questions AG -IMS ID s 90062 and 90076.  
AG-IMS ID 90097: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
From documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/47, China has provided AMS supports exceeded 
the de minimis  between 2011 – 2016 but has also indicated that those supports exceeding de 
minimis  have been terminated. Please provide details of China's future plans for domestic support 
spending after these notifications.  
Answer by China  
China has the largest population in the wor ld. The importance of stable supply, stable market and 
stable prices cannot be stressed enough for safeguarding food security. China attaches great 
importance to abiding the WTO rules. When this problem occurred, China began to look for new 
ways instantly.  However, any new measure has to fulfil the utmost obligations of safeguarding food 
security and livelihood security for billions of people. Therefore, reform of policies in China, while 
adhering to the right direction, also requires time to realize smooth  transition. At the current stage, 
temporary reserves were terminated for all products. China is working on implementing new policies 
which should comply with WTO rules and our commitments and which should also be suitable for 
China's realities and nationa l conditions. China is faced with great challenges, but it will stand by the 
multilateral trading system.  
Follow -up: Paraguay, as an exporting country, registered concern regarding China's notified support 
above the de minimis level. Paraguay urged China to provide the DS notification for 2017 so that it 
could examine whether China was complying with WTO obligations af ter the termination of the 
temporary reserve programmes.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 57 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90094: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Canada appreciates China submitting more recent domestic support notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture. Canada notes that China has  provided domestic support over its domestic support 
commitment (i.e., nil) over the years notified in G/AG/N/CHN/42 (2011 – Table DS:1) to 
G/AG/N/CHN/47 (2016 – Table DS:1). China notified that, during this period, it provided product 
specific market pric e support over de minimis  levels for cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, and sugar, 
automatically bringing China over its commitment. China also notified that it had provided market 
price support for wheat and rice (japonica and indica cultivars) under the 8 .5% of the product value 
of production.  
For any product where market price support was notified during the period covered by the above 
notifications, including cotton, corn, rapeseed, rice, soybeans, sugar and wheat, Canada requests 
additional information :  
a. Could China clarify whether the quantities notified in column 6 of Supporting Table DS:5 
were quantities procured by China at the applied administered price?  
b. For each year in 2011 -2016, and for each commodity listed above:  
i. Could any producer of those commodities qualify to receive the applied 
administered price? If not, what were the criteria that excluded a producer from 
such a qualification?  
ii. For those producers whose production could qualify for the applied administered 
prices, what quantities did t hey produce (total in tonnes on an annual basis)?  
c. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved in the 
buying and selling of stocks at administered prices? If so, which ones?  
Answer by China  
a. Yes.  
b.  
i. Farmers should meet a serie s of requirements. The policies were only 
implemented in certain area. Farmers' production should meet quality and related 
requirement specified in procurement announcement.  
ii. Please clarify the question. China does not have the production quantity of each 
producer, so China cannot tell how much they produce for the farmers that qualify 
for the administered price.  
c. China Grain Reserve Group and other enterprises entrusted were involved.  
Follow -up: Canada and the EU indicated their interest in following up on questions related to eligible 
production.  
AG-IMS ID 90118: Question by Japan - Market price support  
China ha s implemented the Minimum Price Purchase, the Minimum Procurement Price and the 
Temporary Reserve Programme as Market Price Support.  
a. Could China explain the difference among these three programmes?  
b. Are these three programmes undertaken as a part of public  stockholding for food 
security?  
Answer by China  
a. Actually, there are only two programmes. The Minimum Price Purchase and the 
Minimum Procurement Price are two different interpretations of the same policy. As for 
the difference between the programmes, please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS 
ID 90096.  
b. These programmes were carried out to safeguard China's food security.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 58 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90098: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
From Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/47 , China has indicated various 
"temporary reserve" programmes for various products such as corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed, and 
sugar. Please provide details of temporary reserve programmes and whether they are still used at 
present and for which products.  
Answer by China  
The administered prices, amount procured, time of implementation and region eligible for 
procurement of the programmes were provided in China's notifications. There are no temporary 
reserve programmes implemented for any product now.  
AG-IMS ID 90092: Question by Brazil - Market price support: Eligible production  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Tables DS:5, column 6, the 
eligible production entitled to receive the administered price varied greatly even dur ing the term of 
a single programme. For instance, Temporary Reserve programme for corn was terminated in 2016, 
but the eligible production was 290.7 ten thousand tonnes in 2011; 321.6 ten thousand tonnes in 
2012; 124.6 ten thousand tonnes in 2013; 245.3  ten thousand tonnes in 2014; 46.7 ten thousand 
tonnes in 2015 and 7,136.2 ten thousand tonnes in 2016.  
a. Could China describe the functioning of the Temporary Reserve programmes for corn, 
cotton and soybeans?  
b. If applicable, could China provide information on farmer's eligibility, government outlays 
and the government regulation applicable to those domestic s upport programmes?  
c. Could China explain the eligible production calculation method it has used for cotton, 
corn and soybeans?  
Answer by China  
a. Please refer to the reply to questions AG -IMS ID 90091 and 90096.  
b. All farmers in the provinces where the programm es applied are eligible for the 
programme, if their production meets quality related requirement specified in the 
announcements. The temporary reserve programmes for various commodities are 
issued separately on an annual basis. Please find The Notice on Pr operly Handling Issues 
Related to the Procurement of Grains Harvested in the Autumn of 2013 and The Notice 
on Issues Related to the Procurement of Corn and Soybean for Temporary Reserve in 
Northeast of China in 2013 and related administrative document at t he following web -
links as an example: http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2013 -11/16/content_2528455.htm ; 
http:// www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_206698.shtml . 
c. Please refer to the domestic support notifications of China.  
Follow -up: Paraguay registered interest in the question, particularly in relation to the calculation of 
market price support and t he effective amount purchased by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 90095: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. In G/AG/N/CHN/42 through G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notified product specific support 
measures that were not market price support measures, inc luding for wheat, rapeseed, 
soybean and corn. For example, China notified that it provided subsidies for improved 
crop strains and seeds for all four of those commodities. Could China confirm if there 
were other programmes that specifically targeted wheat,  rapeseed, soybean and corn 
producers?  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notified under 
Supporting Table DS:6 other non -exempt direct payments for soybean and cotton 
during the 2014 -2016 period, i.e., through the last notified year.  Canada notes that 
these payments were provided through a 'target price' type of measure.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 59 - 
 
  i. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these target price 
programmes?  
ii. How were target prices established and what were those target prices? How are 
these different than an applied administered price?  
iii. How many producers could apply to receive these target price payments? How 
much of their production (in tonnes) could have be nefitted from these payments?  
iv. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved in 
the buying and selling of stocks? If so, which ones?  
Answer by China  
a. There were no other programmes that specifically targeted to wheat, rapeseed,  soybean 
and corn producers.  
b. The target price subsidy for soybean is set in light of the production cost and reasonable 
profit to sustain small farmers' livelihood. It is different from administered price because 
this price does not affect the real market  price. Farmers sell their products on the market 
without any intervention from the government. If the market price is below the set 
target price, the difference between the target price and the market price will be paid 
to farmers. All production in desig nated areas is eligible for the subsidy. There is no 
government procurement under the target price.  
AG-IMS ID 90054: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
a. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, "subs idies for 
breeding sows" in China abruptly dropped to 0.73 hundred million RMB in 2016, whereas 
in notifications G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, and 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, total expenditure for "subsidies for breeding sows" was significantly 
greater. Please explain why budgetary outlays for "subsidies for breeding sows" in 2016 
are lower than the preceding four notifications for the years 2012 through 2015.  
b. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, the United States 
notes that Chin a has only notified a corn measure for "subsidies for improved crop 
strains and seeds" for corn in 2016. However, the United States understands China's 
north eastern provinces reportedly announced a subsidy for purchase of corn by 
processors for the 2016 c rop, which ranged from 100 -300 yuan per metric tonne. Please 
explain why these measures have not been notified.  
c. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, while the United 
States welcomes China submitting domestic support notifications for a number of years, 
the United States remains concerned with the overall level of transparency provided 
within these notifications. In particular, the United States is concerned with the lack of 
notifying of a number of measures that the United States i s aware of. For each of the 
below references, the United States understands that China implements one or more 
measures that do not appear to have been notified. For each, please provide relevant 
regulations, legislation, or other official government docume ntation, and in addition, an 
explanation as to why each has not been notified.  
i. Temporary Reserve Program for corn, soybeans, and wheat in Xinjiang province 
from 2007 -2009 
ii. Payments to major gain, oilseed, and hog marketing counties and other regional 
progra mmes. The United States understands these programmes annually 
determine which countries get payments based on production, area, and/or swine 
inventory/marketing with funding often earmarked for use to support producers.  
iii. Support to agricultural product expo rt demonstration bases.  
Answer by China  
a. In 2016, subsidies for breeding sows, cows, and sheep were terminated. A small amount 
from the 2015/16 market year was given in 2016.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 60 - 
 
  b. As described in the question, the subsidy is provided to the processors with the aim to 
mitigating their shortage of fund  and is not a support provided to farmers for supporting 
the agricultural activities they carried out.  
c. The payments to counties of major suppliers of grain, oilseed, and hog are general 
financial transfers to supplement the local governments' budgetary ou tlays. There is no 
requirement of the payment that links to any agricultural production. Replies to other 
questions of part c will be provided at later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 90099: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
From Table DS:9 of documents G/ AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/47, China has used "General 
Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies" for non -product -specific AMS and in 2016, China has 
substantially reduced non -product -specific support. Please deliberate how:  
a. China was able to significan tly reduce support for 2016.  
b. Please provide details on "General Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies" and 
how it is provided and administered.  
Answer by China  
The General Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies, also translated as Comprehe nsive 
Subsidy on Agricultural Inputs, was introduced in 2006 to compensate grain producers for any 
increase in the price of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and diesel fuels. Budgetary outlays for 
this programme have remained stable since 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 90017: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes a substantial decrease in Non -Product -Specific support in the form of 
"general subsidies for agricultural production supplies", from 107.996  billion  CNY 2015 to 
0.097 billion CNY 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Can China explain more in detail the policy changes 
behind this substantive decrease and which types of support that has been eliminated?  
Answer by China  
China terminated the General Subsidies for Agricultural Productio n Inputs in 2016. A small amount 
from 2015/2016 market year was given in 2016 calendar year.  
AG-IMS ID 90119: Question by Japan - Non-product -specific AMS  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016, China implements the general 
subsidies  for agricultural production supplies.  
a. Could China explain in detail on what kind of services China provides?  
b. Why does China decrease the expenditure in 2016 drastically?  
Answer by China  
Please refer to the reply to Questions AG -IMS ID 90099 and AG-IMS ID 90017.  
1.2.3.5   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  
AG-IMS ID 90123: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for the inclusion of an explanatory note in its DS:1, outlining to other 
Members the reason domestic support for milk and eggs exceeded both de minimis  and Israel's Total 
Bound AMS in CY 2017. While this adds to a worrying trend, wh ereby a number of Members have 
reported breaches of their de minimis  and/or Total AMS limits, Australia does acknowledge that 
Israel has put in some effort to explain the reason behind the breach and the efforts to ensure it 
does not see a similar situatio n occur from 2019 onwards.  
a. Will Israel advise if it is likely to again notify a breach in the milk and egg sector in 
CY 2018?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 61 - 
 
  b. Furthermore, would Israel advise if negotiations are likely to take an extended period 
of time, pushing out the aim to implement reforms to ensure a breach does not occur 
in 2019?  
Answer by Israel  
Israel hasn't calculated yet the market price support for milk and eggs in CY 2018. Israel assumes 
that negotiations is likely to take an extended period of time, due to the coming electio n of a new 
government on 9 April 2019.  
Follow -up: Australia flagged interest in reviewing Israel's forthcoming DS notification. Australia and 
New Zealand registered concern regarding the number of Members notifying breaching their DS 
entitlements in the Co mmittee, including Israel. Australia looked forward to hearing from Israel on 
how it planned to rectify the breach. New Zealand hoped that the WTO framework could provide 
more stability so that Members could stay within their commitment level. The United S tatas 
supported the question.  
AG-IMS ID 90023: Question by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
The DS:1 notification shows a non -respect of limits for the egg and dairy sector during calendar year 
2017. This is not the first time that a notificati on from Israel show a non -respect of the limits for 
domestic support in Israel.  
Can Israel indicate which steps Israel has taken to change its agricultural support policy to ensure 
that it fully respect its WTO commitments for AMS?  
Answer by Israel  
Israel has taken the following steps to change its agricultural support policy to ensure that it fully 
respect its WTO commitments for AMS:  
Table Eggs Sector  
The reform programme in the egg sector is still under discussion due to lack of consensus between 
the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In the meantime, a call for proposals and tenders for 
constructing poultry house complexes has been issued (budget of ILS 50 million), which is expected 
to increase efficiency and reduce the administered price.  
The Da iry Sector  
Planning Law was adopted in 2011 setting a mechanism of fixed target price, which is updated 
according to changes in the cost of production. Following the need, according to the Law, to switch 
to an alternative mechanism of minimum price after eight years, the government and the 
stakeholders negotiated a further reform. At the end of October 2018 an outline for a reform was 
signed between the government and the stakeholders. The outline includes subsidies for increasing 
the efficiency of dairy f arms, a reduction of target prices and support for dairy farmers leaving dairy 
production. The reform process will increase the size of dairy farms. The reform agreement requires 
a change in legislation. A memorandum of law has been issued on the subject. Due to the elections 
in Israel, the reform process was postponed, and the future of the reform will be decided by the new 
government that will be established during 2019.  
Follow -up: The EU repeated its concern regarding Israel's non -compliance with the AMS limit and 
encouraged Israel to resort to alternative policies in the future which would not result in breaching 
limit.  
AG-IMS ID 90102: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled  commitment level  
In G/AG/N/ISR/66, Israel notified that it exceeded its Final Bound Total AMS for 2017. Israel noted 
that additional reform measures are expected to decrease the total AMS back below the commitment 
level from 2019 on. The situation is simi lar to what Israel faced in  2011-2014. As Israel noted in 
G/AG/N/ISR/50 it has an ongoing reform related mainly to domestic support and market access for 
various agricultural products. The reform would minimize price support and promote the move of G/AG/W/215  
 
- 62 - 
 
  Israel' s agriculture to more Green Box measures, thus reducing its AMS support. In this context, 
how Israel will be able to ensure it does not exceed its WTO commitments in 2019?  
Answer by Israel  
See response above.  
AG-IMS ID 90103: Question by Ukraine - Schedu led commitment level  
Ukraine notes that according to G/AG/N/ISR/66, in Israel's 2017 domestic support the entire AMS 
of $612,437,000 is exclusively in favour of egg and milk producers. The current AMS exceeds Israel's 
Final Bound Total AMS commitment level  of 569,980,000 USD. In addition, Israel's level of support 
in terms of Value of Production for eggs (66%) and milk (53%) is very high.  
Ukraine appreciates the explanatory note in G/AG/N/ISR/66, in which Israel delineates the nature 
of the policy concerne d and the steps regarding past and additional reform efforts in the dairy and 
egg sectors. These reforms are intended to bring Israel's current total AMS within its WTO bound 
commitment level.  
Back in October 2017 (AG -IMS ID 85084) Israel responded that r egulatory reform in the egg sector 
was under negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of 
Finance and Israel's Farmers' Federation and Poultry Board due to the same issue of breaching the 
bound WTO commitment level.   
a. Could Israel please provide more background information on what types of possible 
structural adjustments are under consideration in the eggs sector?  
b. Could Israel explain whether currency fluctuations have been a factor which caused the 
breach of its WTO bo und commitment level (taking into account that the commitment 
is in U.S. dollars and not in local currency)?  
Answer by Israel  
a. The reform programme in the egg sector is still under discussion due to lack of 
consensus between the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In the meantime, a call for 
proposals and tenders for constructing poultry house complexes has been issued 
(budget of ILS  50 million), which is expected to increase efficiency and reduce the 
administered price.  
b. Currency fluctuations has been one among several factors causing the breach. The 
external reference prices Israel used to calculate the market price support for milk are 
fixed in US dollars. The administered minimum price is set and expressed regularly in 
New Israeli Shekels (NIS) and conve rted to dollars, according to updated rates of 
exchange, for the notification. Since 2002, the NIS had been trending upwards against 
the USD, therefore the administered prices seem higher when expressed in dollar terms.  
AG-IMS ID 90067: Question by United  States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
Regarding Supporting Table 5, the United States welcomes Israel's transparency on the issue of 
breaching its Total AMS commitment level in 2017. Israel has cited the ongoing reforms taking place 
in the egg and dairy sectors since April 2016, when Israel notified breaches of its Total AMS 
commitment levels for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 (G/AG/N/ISR/55). The United States remains 
concerned and asks Israel to provide:  
a. An update on reforms in the egg and dairy s ectors that have taken place since notifying 
in December 2018.  
b. Why Israel believes that these ongoing policy changes will ensure Israel is consistent 
with its Total AMS commitments, given that population growth was cited as the reason 
for breaching its com mitment levels for 2017.  
c. A timeframe for when Israel's Current Total AMS is expected to fall below the Total AMS 
commitment again.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 63 - 
 
  Answer by Israel  
a. Table Eggs Sector: The reform programme in the egg sector is still under discussion 
due to lack of consensus  between the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In the 
meantime, a call for proposals and tenders for constructing poultry house complexes 
has been issued (budget of ILS 50 million), which is expected to increase efficiency and 
reduce the administered pr ice.  
The Dairy Sector: The Dairy Sector Planning Law was adopted in 2011 setting a 
mechanism of fixed target price, which is updated according to changes in the cost of 
production. Following the need, according to the Law, to switch to an alternative 
mech anism of minimum price after eight years, the government and the stakeholders 
negotiated a further reform. At the end of October 2018 an outline for a reform was 
signed between the government and the stakeholders. The outline includes subsidies 
for increas ing the efficiency of dairy farms, a reduction of target prices and support for 
dairy farmers leaving dairy production. The reform process will increase the size of dairy 
farms. The reform agreement requires a change in legislation. A memorandum of law 
has been issued on the subject.  
b. Population growth is the main reason for breaching Israel's Total AMS commitment 
levels for 2017, however, Israel believes that a reform in policy is needed regardless of 
the size of the population and that a move from market p rice support to direct support 
is the right move for Israel.  
c. Due to the elections in Israel, the reform process was postponed, and the future of the 
reform will be decided by the new government that will be established during 2019.  
AG-IMS ID 90066: Quest ion by United States of America - Market price support  
It is noted that Israel adjusted its applied administered price for milk, as explained in the explanatory 
notes which notes the quality differences between the two stated time periods. It is noted that  Israel 
provided in response to AG -IMS ID 85023 the unadjusted rates for 2015 -2016. However, the US is 
unable to replicate the quality improvement data provided in the response and are therefore unable 
to determine whether the unadjusted rates for 2017 wou ld leave Israel in breach of its Total AMS 
commitments.  
a. Please provide the adjustment factor used to report the modified applied administered 
price in 2017.  
b. Please further elaborate on how the exact price adjustment factors were determined, 
as it is unclear from the response provided to AG -IMS ID 85023.  
c. What is the reason Israel did not provide this adjustment factor in its notification?  
Answer by Israel  
a. The adjustment of the administered price for milk was calculated based on the changes 
in the quali ty of milk produced in Israel, as manifested in the protein and fat contents. 
The following table details the changes in quality relative to the base period 
(average  1986- 88).  
Year Protein  Fat quality improvement  
avg. 86 -88 2.98%  3.18%   
2015-16 3.32%  3.72%  12.23%  
2017 3.32%  3.85%  13.73%  
b. In consultation with the Milk Board, the quality improvement was calculated using the 
following coefficients, protein: 54%, fat: 36%, water: 10.0%. The fat and protein 
contents are listed in the official almanac of the Israeli Dairy Board and defined as 
"normative contents".  
c. The adjustment factors were explained in the "explanatory notes" section. These factors 
are now further detailed in the corrected DS:1 report submitted to the Secretariat.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 64 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90065: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table 6, the United States notes a nearly 600% increase in expenditures for 
the 'investment programme' for poultry from 2016. Please explain the reason for this increase.  
Answer by Israel  
Israel thanks the Unit ed States for noticing this unusual increase. The same expenditure line has 
been mistakenly attributed to both "meat of poultry" and "meat of bovine". Israel will submit a 
corrected DS:1 report correcting this error.  
1.2.3.6   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44 , G/AG/N/MYS/45)  
AG-IMS ID 90124: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Malaysia for the effort to submit a number of outstanding Domestic Support 
notifications, for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The submission of these notifications is an important 
demonstration of Malaysia's commitment to transparency and to the provision of responses to 
questions regarding the concerns of other Members on long -overdue notifications.  
a. Could Malaysia please inform Mem bers when they expect to submit domestic support 
notifications from 2015 onwards?  
b. Australia notes Malaysia's 'Paddy Price Subsidy', which is in all three notifications (2012, 
2013, 2014), and requests Malaysia provide further information regarding the subs idy 
available to each producer and the eligibility requirements to receive the subsidy?  
Answer by Malaysia  
Malaysia endeavours to fulfil its notification commitments and is continuously working towards the 
objective of notifying the outstanding notificatio ns.  
Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the poor in the country. Paddy Price 
Subsidy  (PPS) is provided to paddy farmers in the context of poverty redressal and upliftment of the 
socio-economic  well-being of paddy farmers, to ensure that the farmers received a reasonable 
income.  
The eligibility of the payment is determined by clearly defined criteria based on the status of the 
recipient as low -income and resource -poor paddy farmers. Malaysia wou ld also like to highlight that 
Malaysia is a net -importer of rice.  
Malaysia endeavours to increase awareness regarding WTO issues and obligations in the country 
and ongoing process of evaluation of policy and compliance of domestic supports are underway wh ile 
not undermining the importance of the country's need for food security and the livelihood of the 
paddy farmers.  
AG-IMS ID 90104: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Canada notes that the description and information provided for the Paddy Price Subsidy for rice does 
not clearly indicate how this "subsidy" meets the criteria of Paragraph 6, Annex for decoupled income 
support.  
a. Could Malaysia provide information on the defined and fixed base period used to 
determine the direct p ayment?  
b. How is the size of the payment determined?  
c. How many rice producers subscribe to the Paddy Price Subsidy?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Answer by Malaysia  
As previously explained, Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the poor in the 
country. Therefore, this programme is an instrument to provide income support for resource -poor 
farmers to ensure they receive reasonable income. The eligibility of the payment is determined by 
clearly defined criteria based on the status of the recipient as low -income and resourc e-poor paddy 
farmers. Malaysia would also like to highlight that it is a net -importer of rice country.  
Malaysia endeavours to increase awareness regarding WTO issues and obligations in the country 
and ongoing process of evaluation of policy and compliance of domestic supports are underway while 
not undermining the importance of the country's need for food security and the livelihood of the 
paddy farmers.  
1.2.3.7   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  
AG-IMS ID 90107: Question by Canada - Payments based on 85% or less o f the base level 
of production  
Canada notes that, at the 86th Regular session of the Committee on Agriculture (February  2018), 
Ukraine asked Norway about Norway's "Quality Incentive Support Programme for Beef", a Blue Box 
measure notified in 2015, and the 40% increase over 2014 -2016 (from 135.9 million NOK in 2014 
to 191.5 million NOK in 2016) in Blue Box support. Norway explained that the increase in support 
from 2014 to 2016 was due to the fact that support was only provided for 10 months in the first 
year, rather than 12  months, even though a two -month gap only represents 16.7% of a year.  
In Norway's most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/NOR/101), Norway notified another substantial 
increase in the amount of blue box support provided through this program me to beef producers, 
from 191.5 million NOK in 2016 to 260.6 million NOK in 2017 (i.e., approx. 36% in one year). 
Considering the first year of the programme, support has almost doubled over the course of 4 years 
(from 135.9 million NOK in 2014 to 260.6 m illion NOK in 2017).  
a. Could Norway expand on the circumstances that led to this sharp increase over one 
year?  
b. How does this relate to the production -limiting nature of this beef support programme, 
given the fixed base level for the eligible quantity of bee f? Have payments increased? 
If so, by how much, and why?  
Answer by Norway  
Norway in 2015 notified a new DS:2 notification for the "quality incentive support programme for 
beef". For basic information with regard to the programme, Norway would like to refer  to this 
notification and to Norway's answer to Ukraine at the 86th Regular session of the Committee on 
Agriculture (February 2018).  
In the relevant support programme for beef, quality is defined according to the EU Beef Carcass 
Classification Scheme (the  EUROP -system). By increasing in 2017 the support for beef of quality O+ 
and better, and simultaneously reducing the subsidy for meat of quality O, Norway strengthened the 
quality premium for beef production.  
Since most of the beef eligible for the scheme  have a better quality than O, this gave a considerable 
increase in payments.  
The base level of production is 59.4 mill. kg and the maximum eligible quantity of beef is therefore 
50.5 mill. kg. The quantities of beef eligible for the support programme in 2016 and 2017 were 
respectively 49.6 kg and 50.2 mill. kg. Norway has therefore fulfilled the criteria for notifying this 
programme under the Blue Box both in 2016 and 2017.  
Follow -up: New Zealand registered systemic interest in implementation of the Blue  Box programmes. 
New Zealand asked Norway how the production limiting criteria could be met in the case of possible 
increase in the resources allocated to the programme and how a production limiting programme 
could function together with a production enhan cing programme.  Paraguay as a beef exporter noted G/AG/W/215  
 
- 66 - 
 
  its concern regarding the significant increase of Blue Box payments on beef and expressed support 
for question b.  
1.2.3.8   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  
AG-IMS ID 90101: Questio n by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Under Supporting Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/TPKM/173 – G/AG/N/TPKM/175, Chinese Taipei 
has indicated the use of "Government Supplement Purchase" "Government Additional Purchase" and 
"Government  Planed Purchase". Please provide details for each measure and indicate the difference 
between the said measures.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
The purpose of having "planned purchase" is to increase farmers' income. The aim of "supplementary 
purchase " is to stabilize market prices. The "additional purchase" is to prevent prices from being 
lower than production costs.  
Guaranteed prices with purchased quantity limits  
 Planned purchase with 
a limit of 
2,000  kg/hectare for 
the first crop and 
1500  kg/hectare for the 
second crop  Supplementary 
purchase with a limit of 
1,200  kg/hectare for 
the first crop and 800 
kg/hectare for the 
second crop  Additional purchase 
with a limit of 
3,000  kg/hectare for 
the first crop and 
2,400  kg/hectare for 
the second cro p 
Japonica -type rice  NT$26/kg  NT$23/kg  NT$21.6/kg  
Indica -type rice 
and glutinous rice  NT$25/kg  NT$22/kg  NT$20.6/kg  
1.2.3.9   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, 
G/AG/N/TUR/20, G/AG/N/TUR/21)  
AG-IMS ID 90125: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Turkey for the effort to submit a number of outstanding Domestic Support 
notifications – for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (G/AG/N/TUR/17 - G/AG/N/TUR/21). The 
submission of these notifications is an important demonstration of Turkey's commitment to 
transparency and to the provision of responses regarding the concerns of other Members on 
long-overdue notifications.  
Could Turkey provide an update on preparations to submit domestic support notific ations for 2010 
and onwards?  
Answer by Turkey  
Turkey is trying to complete its overdue agricultural notifications. The process of data gathering, 
reviewing and formalizing is still going on.  
Follow -up: Australia urged Turkey to provide further notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 90025: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture  
Supporting Table 2 (G/AG/N/TUR/21):  
a. Can Turkey explain more in the functioning and eligibility criteria of the investment in 
the framework of the development of animal husbandry scheme?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the budgetary outlay for this scheme in 2009?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 67 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
a. The main subjects sup ported within the framework of development of animal husbandry 
are as follows:  
• The projects of the producers, who apply for the production of fodder crops, are 
supported up to 40% of their investment costs if they are approved by Ministry 
of Agriculture a nd Rural Affairs.  
• Cost of artificial insemination is paid for calves if they are registered to the 
pedigree.  
• Investment support is provided to the producers purchasing the queen bees from 
the enterprises that have been granted production permits by the Mi nistry of 
Agriculture and Rural Affairs.  
• Investment support is provided to those who purchase heifers with breeding 
certificate or pure breed certificate issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Affairs.  
b. The total amount of support for the program me in 2009 is 381 million USD.  
AG-IMS ID 90126: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes that in Turkey's recently submitted notifications, it has reported Current Total AMS 
of approximately USD  1.5 million in 2005; USD 1.7 milli on in 2006; USD 490.5 million in 2007; 
USD 2.3 million in 2008; and USD 2.6 million in 2009. Furthermore, as Turkey has noted in these 
notifications, it does not have Final Bound Total AMS in its schedule. Having considered these, can 
Turkey respond to the  following questions:  
a. With regards to the de minimis  'breach' for Soybeans in each year (amounting to 11% 
of VoP in 2005 and 2006, 46% of VoP in 2007 and 14% of Vop in 2008 and  2009), can 
Turkey explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has implemented to 
avoid what seems to be a systematic  breach of de minimis  for Soybean support?  
b. In addition, does Turkey expect its DS notifications for 2010 and onwards to have 
similar, systematic breaches for soybeans?  
c. With regards to the de minimis  'breach' for Rapeseed in 2005 (amounting to 49% of 
VoP),  can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has 
implemented to avoid a breach of de minimis  for Rapeseed support in 2009 and 
onwards?  
d. With regards to the de minimis  'breach' for cotton in 2007 (amounting to 15% of VoP), 
can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what reforms it has 
implemented to avoid what in monetary terms is quite a significant  breach?  
Answer by Turkey  
a., c. and d. Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds, which are imported 
intensively, but at the same time needed for food security and strategic reasons. 
Production of oilseeds is insufficient in Turkey and the support provided over " de 
minimis " ratio in some years is closely related to the sustainability of productio n. 
However, Turkey is well aware of its " de minimis " restriction of 10%, and it is 
trying to regulate all of its supports considering this restriction.  
e. Turkey continues to prepare its domestic support notifications for 2010 and 
beyond, and it does not hav e an estimate for soybean at this stage.  
Follow -up: Australia reiterated the concern regarding the number of Members notifying breaching 
WTO commitments in the Committee. Australia also expressed the concern that, based on its 
understanding of Turkey's response, that the breach was caused by structural problems and it would 
likely to occur again in the future. Australia sought further information from Turkey regarding the 
support data for later years so as to understand how Turkey addressed this  issue.  
AG-IMS ID 90110: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing more recent domestic support notifications to this Committee 
which brings Turkey up to 2009. Canada encourages Turkey to continue its work to submi t its 
domestic support notifications. Canada is concerned that Turkey has exceeded its domestic support G/AG/W/215  
 
- 68 - 
 
  commitment levels (i.e., nil) for all the years notified (2005 -2009), due to product -specific support 
being provided over de minimis  levels. With the ex ception of 2007, where product -specific support 
for cotton brought current total aggregate measurement of support (CTAMS) to $490.5 million (of 
which $5.6 million went to soybean producers), the amount of CTAMS increased from $1.5 million 
in 2005 to $2.6 m illion in 2009, mainly to soybean producers. Turkey also notified support to 
rapeseed producers in 2005 over de minimis  levels ($247,729). Furthermore, the current situation 
of Turkey's domestic support measures as well as their compliance with the obligat ions contained in 
the Agreement on Agriculture remains hard to assess, given that the last year notified refers to 
programmes that were in force almost a decade ago.  
a. What concrete, meaningful steps has Turkey taken to ensure that it complies with its 
WTO domestic support commitment?  
b. What is the current situation of Turkey's domestic support measures? Are support levels 
in excess of Turkey's commitments? If not, when does Turkey expect to conform to the 
obligations contained in the Agreement on Agriculture ?  
c. When will Turkey provide more up -to-date domestic support notifications, so that other 
Members may be able to understand how Turkey's current domestic support policies 
function, as well as their potential impacts on trade or production?  
Answer by Turkey  
a. Turkey is well aware of its " de minimis " restriction of 10%, and it is trying to regulate 
all of its supports considering this restriction.  
b. Turkey continues to prepare its domestic support notifications for 2010 and beyond, 
and it does not have an estimate of compliance with its domestic support commitments 
at this stage.  
c. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90125.  
Follow -up: Canada reg istered concern regarding Turkey's non -compliance with its DS commitment 
and the lack of estimate regarding whether the limit had been respected after 2009. Canada 
encouraged Turkey to keep updating its notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 90106: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
When some Members asked about breach of domestic support commitments in 2003 and  2004 
Turkey reported in response to AG -IMS ID 85044 and AG -IMS ID 85062 that Turkey noted "its 
importer position with high amounts (for  rapeseed) and therefore the level of domestic support has 
no trade distorting effect." In fact, Turkey exceeded the de minimis  level for rapeseed in 2004 so 
Turkey breached or exceeded its domestic support commitments. Moreover, Turkey did not mention 
exceeding de minimis  level for the soybeans in 2003 and 2004. According to the information of DS:1 
notifications for 2005 -2009 Turkey continues to breach its domestic support commitments exceeding 
its de minimis  levels for soybeans and rapeseed, as well as fo r cotton in 2007. Which measures has 
Turkey taken to ensure that it respects its domestic support commitments for the following years?  
Answer by Turkey  
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90126.  
AG-IMS ID 90108: Question by Thailand - Scheduled comm itment level  
Turkey does not have bound AMS commitment but has provided AMS supports exceeded the de 
minimis  level during 2005 -2009. Please clarify regarding the consistency with Turkey's obligations 
under the WTO. Please provide details on how Turkey plan s to reduce/eliminate domestic support 
spending that exceed de minimis  level.  
Answer by Turkey  
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90110.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Follow -up: Paraguay noted the concern that Turkey had been providing support above de minimis 
on a number of pro ducts that Paraguay exported, particularly soybeans. Paraguay sought further 
information on the programmes that had been developed over these years and whether the subsidies 
had been reduced and brought into compliance with the de minimis limit.  
AG-IMS ID  90064: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Turkey for submitting domestic support notifications for  2005-2009. 
The United States notes the continued elimination of market price supports in Turkey's most rec ent 
notifications. In response to AG -IMS 85031, the US was referred to Turkey's replies to its last Trade 
Policy Review (TPR) for additional information on the state -owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) in 
regard to its role in the applied administered prices f or certain commodities. In reviewing the latest 
Secretariat Report of Turkey's TPR of 2016 (WT/TPR/S/331/Rev.1), the report defines TMO as a 
state-owned enterprise with 100% public ownership. In response to question 37 of the TPR 
(WT/TPR/S/331, page 136, p aragraph 4.37), Turkey states "Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is a fully 
autonomous entity and operates on the grounds of profitability." In response to EU  question No. 44, 
Turkey states that "[p]urchasing prices announced by the TMO are not administered but ma rket 
based prices. Thus, Turkey does not include TMOs purchasing prices in the calculation of its domestic 
supports."  
a. Please clarify how the board maintains full autonomy while being a state -owned 
enterprise with 100% public ownership.  
b. Please explain how T MO's announcement and implementation of market -based prices 
for commodities does not qualify it as providing market price support when it is a 100% 
state-owned enterprise.  
Answer by Turkey  
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90009.  
AG-IMS ID 90109: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Please provide details for non -product specific AMS programmes such as the Hybrid seed 
programme.  
Answer by Turkey  
Non-product specific support other than agricultural credits are provided based on are a; and 
agricultural credit support provides subsidized interest rates for loans given to agriculture sector.  
AG-IMS ID 90015: Question by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Cotton support - Supporting Table DS:6 - G/AG/N/TUR/21:  
a. Can Turkey exp lain more in detail the support measures in place for cotton in  2009 
regarding the functioning of the support measures and the eligibility criteria for this 
support.  
b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of cotton supported in 2009 as well as total production 
of cotton in 2009?  
Answer by Turkey  
a. In 2009, 0.42 TL/kg support for certified seed and 0.35 TL/kg support for non -certified 
seed are provided to cotton farmers. The eligibility for support is subject to the following 
conditions: the production of the produ ct should have been completed, and the field 
control of the product should have been finished by the Ministry officials. And thereafter, 
all the related documentation should be delivered to district management of the Ministry 
for issuing, calculation and p ayments.  
b. Production, budgeting and payment of supports are not conducted within the same year. 
While the support is registered on the basis of actual payments, the support cannot be 
paid during the production year. Therefore, Turkey would kindly note that  the related 
calculations and analyses to reach the quantity of cotton supported in 2009 by way of G/AG/W/215  
 
- 70 - 
 
  reaching related district management would take time and create administrative burden 
on the Ministry. However, Turkey will try to do its best to reach the r elated quantities.  
Follow -up: The EU highlighted the importance of the cotton sector and looked forward to receiving 
further information on this topic from Turkey.  
AG-IMS ID 90024: Question by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Wheat Support  - Supporting Table DS:6 - G/AG/N/TUR/21:  
a. Can Turkey explain more in detail the support measures in place for wheat in  2009, 
about the functioning of the support measure and the eligibility criteria for this support?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of wheat supported in 2009 as well as total production 
of wheat in the year 2009?  
Answer by Turkey  
Turkey would like to pro vide one answer for the questions a, b as follows: In 2009, 0.05 TL/kg 
support is provided to wheat farmers. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90015 for 
explanations on functioning, eligibility criteria and quantity of the support.  
1.2.4   New or modified  Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  
1.2.4.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90070: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/AG/N/CHN/49, since 2016, a "Blue Box" domestic support programme 
for corn is in place for production in Northeast China.  
a. Could China provide information on the corn production (quantities, cultivated area and 
fixed yield) from 2011 to 2018, in the target region of the programme?  
b. Could China identify how the "Corn producer subsidy" limits China's corn production in 
Northeast China under the requirements of Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by China  
a. The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
b. The subsidy for corn producers is an important policy for promo ting the "structural 
adjustment" of corn. When the subsidy was allocated to the four provinces/autonomous 
regions, one of the requirements of the allocation of subsidies is to reduce the planting 
area of corn in those area unfavourable for corn production.  As a result, the planting 
area and production of corn of the four provinces was reduced, compared with the 
production in the base period.  
AG-IMS ID 90069: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/AG/N/CHN /48, from 2017 to 2019, a measure aimed at limiting cotton 
production is in place, taking the 2012 -2014 triennium as base period.  
a. Could China provide information on the cotton production (quantities and cultivated 
area) from 2011 to 2018?  
b. Could China identify how the "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton" limits 
China's cotton production under the requirements of artic le 6.5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
c. If possible, could China also explain the entitlement requirements for the support 
programme and how limitation of production is assessed?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 71 - 
 
  Answer by China  
a. The statistics will be provided later.  
b. and c.  The Noti ce on Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton specifies the 
cap for cotton production and the cotton eligible for subsidies. The amount above 
the cap is not eligible for the subsidy. Since the reform was launched in 2017, the 
total production in  China has not exceeded the limit.  
Follow -up: Brazil reiterated the importance of China fulfilling the requirements in Article 6.5 and 
implementing the Blue Box programme in a way that would not affect trade, particularly for cotton, 
a sector where Brazil  had particular interest.  
AG-IMS ID 90085: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that, in G/AG/N/CHN/48 China notified a new domestic support programme for cotton. 
According to China, this new programme meets the cri teria of Article 6, paragraph 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Canada would be grateful if China could provide further details on the 
"Deepening the Target Price Policy reform of Cotton":  
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme  compare to previous market price support programmes for 
cotton, including the one managed through temporary reserves from 2011 -2014 and 
the target price programme from 2015 -2016?  
c. How was the target price of 18,600/tonne determined? How does this price re late to the 
programme notified as 'target price' for cotton under Supporting Table DS:6 of 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47?  
d. How does China ensure that only 85% of the average production of cotton in the base 
period is eligible to receive a payment? Is the payment automatically granted to a 
producer?  
e. How was the 2012 -2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the period of 
application of the programme, which is set to begin in 2017?  
f. As the programme is set to end in 2019, does China expect this programme to be 
replaced by another programme t hat would use a more recent base period?  
Answer by China  
a. The purpose of deepening the target price policy reform of cotton is to stabilize the 
income of cotton farmers and stabilize/limit the cotton production, while allowing the 
market to play the decisi ve role in allocating resources and promoting the healthy 
development of cotton -related industries.  
b. The target price policy does not intervene the market. Market prices fluctuates freely 
according to supply and demand. No procurement was made, and no admi nistered price 
was maintained. Under the previous temporary programme, the government would 
intervene when the market prices drop below the administered prices and make 
procurement. Compared with the target price programme of 2014 -2016, the production 
capping is specified in the new target price programme, with a view to limit the eligibility 
and production thus the impact of the subsidy on cotton production.  
c. The target price is based on the production costs and the appropriate level of profit to 
sustain t he livelihood of small farmers.  
d. The total amount of payment is confined by the capping/limit, and the production 
beyond the limit/capping is not eligible for the subsidy.  
e. 2012-2014 is the most recent years with credible statistics on corn production, when  
the policy was designed in 2016, and thus 2012 -2014 is chosen as the base period.  
f. Whether the current programme will continue or not will be subject to the evaluation 
which will be made this year.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 72 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90086: Question by Canada - Transparency issue s (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/CHN/49 China notified a new domestic support programme for corn. 
According to China, this new programme meets the criteria of Article 6, paragraph 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Canada would be grate ful if China could provide further details on the 
"Corn Producer Subsidy System".  
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme compare to previous market price support programmes for 
corn, including the one managed through temporary re serves from 2011 -2016?  
c. How does this programme operate? Is a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -
trading enterprise involved in the buying and selling of stock at the target price?  
d. How is eligibility determined? Are producers from Northeast China e xclusively eligible 
for this programme? If not, why were planting area and fixed yield data in Northeast 
China used?  
e. Is there a requirement to be a corn producer during the period of application  (2016 -
2018)?  
f. How are the payments determined year -on-year? How was the adjusted payment rate 
established?  
g. How was the 2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the period of 
application of the programme, which was set to begin in 2016?  
h. As the programme ended in 2018, has this programme been replaced, or will it be 
replaced by another programme that  would use a more recent base period?  
Answer by China  
a. The subsidy for corn producers is an important policy for promoting the "structural 
adjustment" of corn and stabilizing the corn production at appropriate level.  
b. The subsidy for corn producers does not intervene the market. Market prices fluctuate 
freely according to supply and demand. No procurement was made and no administered 
price was maintained.  Under the previous temporary programme, the government 
would intervene when the market prices drop below the administered prices and make 
procurement.  
c. Under the programme, no buying and selling is made at the target price.  
d. Corn producers in the four provinces (autonomous region) in the northeast of China are 
eligible for the producer subsidy. And the programme only applies in the four provinces 
(autonomous re gion) exclusively. Producers from other parts of China are not eligible.  
e. Eligible corn producers or corn land owners are eligible for the subsidy.  
f. The amount of the subsidy is determined by the fixed area of the four provinces 
(autonomous region) in base  period, the fixed yield, and the payment rate. The payment 
rate is set considering the production costs and farmers' reasonable income to sustain 
livelihood. The rate is reviewed on a yearly basis. It remains stable and can be adjusted 
if necessary.  
g. 2014 is the most recent year with credible statistics on corn production, when the policy 
was launched in 2016, and thus it is chosen as the base period.  
h. The current programme will largely continue and may be subject to small adjustments 
to better realize the  policy objective, which is to reduce or stabilize the corn production.  
AG-IMS ID 90116: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China notified DS:2 notifications for corn and cotton measures (G/AG/N/CHN/48 and 
G/AG/N/CHN/49). Japan  understands that China formulates production -limiting programmes for 
these products. How does China limit the production based on the programmes?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 73 - 
 
  a. Regarding the corn measure, the notification says "payments are paid on a fixed area 
and yields. The subsidy amount is calculated according to the 2014 (base period) corn 
planting area and fixed yield data in Northeast China". Does this measure subsidize only 
farmers in Northeast China? In addition, could China explain in detail on the method to 
decide "the adjus ted payment rate"? Furthermore, how does China estimate the market 
effect brought by this measure?  
b. Regarding the cotton measure, the notification says, "subsidy is made only to the 
amount of cotton within 85% of the average cotton production in the base pe riod 
(2012 -2014)". Could China explain the reason why China sets such a term as the base 
period? In addition, Japan appreciates if China tell the average cotton production in the 
base period.  
Answer by China  
a. Yes, the programme only applies in the four provinces (autonomous region) exclusively. 
The amount of the subsidy is determined by the fixed area of the four provinces 
(autonomous region) in base period, the fixed yield, and the payment rate. The payment 
rate is set considering the production costs and farmers' reasonable income to sustain 
livelihood.  
b. Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90085.  
AG-IMS ID 90100: Question by Thailand – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China has notified a new measure of domestic support, which is Deepening the Target Price reform 
price of Cotton (G/AG/N/CHN/48). China indicated that "According to Article 6, paragraph 5 (b) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, to limit production. The subsidy is based on the d ifference between 
the market price and the target price. The subsidy is made only to the amount of cotton within 85% 
of the average cotton production with period of application between 2017 – 2019. Please provide 
further details regarding the "Deepening th e Target Price reform price of Cotton" programme.  
Answer by China  
Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90085.  
AG-IMS ID 90075: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. In the "Notice on Deepening Cotton T arget Price Reform" (NDRC JIA [2017] No. 416) 
published by the Ministry of Finance and National Development and Reform 
Commission, it states that the measure relates to the target price reform of cotton in 
Xinjiang.  
Please confirm whether cotton production  in other parts of China are eligible to receive 
the benefits of this measure.  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/48, China states the "subsidy is made only to the amount of cotton 
within 85% of the average cotton production in the base period (2012 -2014)". However, 
it is the U.S. understanding in reading the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price 
Reform" that the base period production is based on all cotton production in China rather 
than the production only within Xinjiang where the target price is in effect. As a result, 
a larger percentage of Xinjiang cotton may be eligible to receive payment under the 
measure without hitting the limits specified in Article 6.5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
i. Please confirm how the base period average cotton production is determined, 
including whether the base period production is limited only to the production 
relevant to the target price policy reform.  
ii. Please provide the volume of cotton production for both Xinjiang and for China 
nationally for each year since 2012, including in 2017.  
c. It is also noted that the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform" also notes, 
in addition to the cotton target price subsidy, "the central government's subsidy for the G/AG/W/215  
 
- 74 - 
 
  Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Production and Construction C orps 
are still implemented in accordance with existing regulations."  
i. Please provide the referenced regulations.  
ii. Please indicate if and how these measures are notified in notifications 
G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47. If not, please explain the basis for this.  
iii. Please identify volume of cotton produced and area planted to cotton by the 
Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps for each year since 2012.  
d. While the measure notified by China in G/AG/N/CHN/49 refers only to a subsidy 
programme in Xinjiang, the United  States notes no similar programmes have been 
referenced either in this notification or in notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47 with regard 
to target price subsidies that are implemented in other provinces.  
Please confirm whether such measures were implemented in other provinces and, if so, 
why they have not been notified.  
e. According to G/AG/N/CHN/49, it is stated that the payments for the corn producer 
subsidy "are paid on a fixed area and yields," while the "subsidy amount is calculated 
according to the 2014 (b ase period) corn planting area and fixed yield data in Northeast 
China." However, the United States understands from the "Implementation Opinions of 
the Ministry of Finance on Establishing a Maize Producer Subsidy System" (Cai Jain 
[2016] No. 869) that man y aspects of how the payment is determined for corn 
producers is the responsibility of provinces (districts), including determining the "sub -
provincial subsidy standards, which allow for difference for the central financial 
subsidies."  
i. Please explain what steps are taken to ensure sub -provincial standards comply 
with the rules set out in Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
ii. Please provide specific examples, including relevant provincial or sub -provincial 
legislation, regulations, or official notices  where sub -provincial standards differ 
from the central financial subsidies.  
Answer by China  
China's preliminary response is as follows. The final response will be provided at a later stage.   
a. Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform is a nation -wide production limiting 
programme. Currently, the subsidy is made only to cotton farmers in Xinjiang, to 
optimize the land with best potentials and gradually phase out the disadvantaged cotton 
land production in the disadvantaged regions.  
b.  
i. 2012-2014 are the mo st recent three years with credible statistics on cotton when 
the policy was launched.  
ii. The statistics are being adjusted after the third national agricultural census and 
will be provided later.  
c.  
i. There might be a misunderstanding regarding the Notice by the United States 
since besides the target price subsidy there should be no other support measures 
implemented in the Xinjiang autonomous region.  
ii. The statistics on cotton production of Xinjiang and construction costs used to be 
included in the to tal cotton production of the Xinjiang autonomous region. China 
will verify and respond later.  
d. The target price subsidy is only provided to Xinjiang autonomous region. The target 
price subsidy has not been provided for other cotton -producing provinces duri ng the 
transition period.  
e. China's preliminary response is as follows. The final response will be provided at a later 
stage.   G/AG/W/215  
 
- 75 - 
 
  i. The central government has stipulated specific instructions on the implementation 
of the subsidy programmes which the subnational g overnments are required to 
follow.  
ii. China is a vast country with complex local conditions so that sub -provincial 
implementation follows the basic standards and requirements that are specified 
by the central financial subsidies. The central government allow s local authorities 
to use a small amount of their subsidy differently according to their local features. 
In certain areas the corn land is in poor quality and needs to be retired. Local 
authorities are allowed to allocate a small amount of the money to co mpensate 
the farmers. In a general picture, all sub -provincial levels have to follow the 
principles set by the central government which is to link the payment to base 
period of fixed area and to limit production.  
1.2.5   Export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, E S:2 and ES:3)  
1.2.5.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  
AG-IMS ID 90127: Question by Australia – Transparency issues  
In G/AG/N/ISR/67, Israel notified export subsidies for fruits (other than citrus fruits), and fresh 
vegetables. Noting the Nairobi Decision, under which Membe rs agreed to not raise their export 
subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis, can Israel provide 
Members with information on:  
Why its exports subsidies for fruits other than citrus fruits in 2017 were around 65% higher t han the 
average level of the past five years for that specific product?  
Answer by Israel  
Exports subsidies for fruits other than citrus were higher in 2017 due to the fact that some subsidies 
for fruits exported in previous years were only technically gra nted in 2017. Israel is in the process 
of eliminating export subsidies, and it is expected that these subsidies will diminish altogether 
before  2022.  
Follow -up: Australia, the European Union and New Zealand highlighted the importance of respecting 
the Nai robi Decision. New Zealand sought Israel's confirmation regarding whether the expenditures 
for export subsidies in previous years had been paid out in 2017. The United States registered 
support for the question. Norway pointed to the following text of the Nairobi Decision "Members shall 
seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a 
production basis" and stressed the difference between legal and best endeavour requirements.  
1.2.5.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/23 1, G/AG/N/JPN/232, 
G/AG/N/JPN/233)  
AG-IMS ID 90012: Question by European Union - International food aid  
Japan notifies food aid in fully grant form.  
a. Could Japan specify if these in -kind amounts have been provided under emergency or 
non-emergency programmes?  
Japan started to provide sorghum/millet as food aid in 2015.  
b. Could Japan provide the reasons for this?  
The amount of oil food aid increased subs tantially in 2015 going from 2,364 tonnes in 
2014 to  967,773 tonnes in 2015.  
c.  Could Japan please provide details on this significant increase in oil food aid?  
d. Has this aid been provided under emergency or non -emergency programmes?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 76 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
Regardi ng the ES:3 notification submitted by Japan, the food assistance programme is provided 
under the non -emergency programme and is not in -kind, but cash based. Based on the request of 
recipient countries or international organizations, Japan provides funds fo r purchasing food. The 
procurement of sorghum/millet is based on the request of recipient countries or international 
organizations and was also procured in the 2013/2014. The procurement of oil in 2014 and 2015 
was 2,364,000 litres and 967,773 litres respe ctively.  
AG-IMS ID 90105: Question by Thailand - International food aid  
In Table ES:3 of documents G/AG/N/JPN/230 – G/AG/N/JPN/233, regarding the Notification of the 
total volume of food aid, Japan indicated providing food aid between  2013–2017 for maize, wheat, 
wheat flour, processed food, pulses and rice. Thailand notes that these food aids exceed Japan's 
commercial exports during the same period. Please provide the quantity and destination of the food 
aid provided in rice.  
Answer by Japan  
Japan's food assistance programme is not in -kind but cash -based. Based on the request of recipient 
countries and/or international organizations, Japan provides funds for purchasing food. Regarding 
the ES:3 notification submitted by Japan, the table below shows the  quantity of rice procured by 
recipient countries or international organizations as aid in the period of 2013 -2016.  
  Total (MT)  
1 Benin  26,882  
2 Burkina Faso  27,480  
3 Cabo Verde  9,990  
4 Comoros  13,439  
5 Côte d'Ivoire  29,402  
6 Democratic Republic of the Congo  44,054  
7 Republic of Congo  3,086  
8 Djibouti  4,189  
9 The Gambia  2,184  
10 Guinea  5,658  
11 Haiti 21,920  
12 Liberia  11,850  
13 Mauritania  32,199  
14 Mozambique  22,316  
15 Niger  19,590  
16 Sao Tomé & Principe  8,746  
17 Senegal  17,502  
18 Sierra Leone  13,839  
19 Togo 4,687  
Follow -up: Australia noted interest in understanding the procurement process when the requests 
from the recipients were made. In particular, Australia sought information regarding whether rice 
purchases were made from the stocks held by the Japanese government or p rocured in the open 
market and at what prices these purchases were made.  
1.2.6   Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  
1.2.6.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  
AG-IMS ID 90079: Question by United States of America - Quantity and concessionally of 
food aid 
Australia provided A UD 377 million in 2017/18 for overseas aid programmes through various 
channels, including multilateral, regional and bilateral channels, humanitarian/emergency 
assistance, non -government organizations (NGOs), ACIAR, and other government departments 
(OGDs). What are the criteria for overseas aid programmes to receive food assistance grants?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Answer by Australia  
The Australian Government is guided by the Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation  and Development's (OECD) Official Deve lopment Assistance (ODA) criteria in 
making  aid-related  funding determinations, including for food assistance grants. More 
information  about the  ODA's criteria can be found at: 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/officialdevelopmentassistancedefinitionandcoverage.htm .  
1.3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
1.3.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
1.3.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 90047: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Ecuador has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID 89034. 
The United States resubmits the questions:  
a. Ecuador registers no imports c oming under TRQ commitments. The United States is the 
holder of first -negotiator rights for these quotas. Please explain how do Ecuador's TRQ 
in-quota tariff rates compare to the MFN current applied rates to these products that 
would otherwise be eligible under Ecuador's TRQs?  
b. Please explain why Ecuador has not opened or allocated quotas to interested parties.  
c. The United States also notes that Ecuador's import permit system is complex and 
obscure, and therefore, difficult for exporters to comply with. Pleas e explain your 
process for issuing import licenses for foods. Please describe the specific steps, including 
those relating to sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, necessary to obtain an 
import license. Please explain if the process varies depending on the product. That is, 
are there additional steps required for some products and not others? If so, please 
explain.  
Answer by Ecuador  
a. Various products under tariff quotas are imported from countries with which Ecuador 
has entered into trade agreements (tari ff preferences). Therefore, no opening of quotas 
is requested for products such as glucose, glucose containing fructose, soya ‑bean 
oilcake, wheat and barley. Furthermore, domestic production satisfies local 
consumption. The question on comparison is not cl ear. From what we understand and 
are in a position to explain, the comparison of tariff quota tariffs and applied tariffs 
(MFN) is not linked to the issue of quota allocation, and therefore does not apply. The 
mechanism is activated if there are requests f or the opening of quotas.  
b. Ecuador did not open quotas because some products are imported from countries with 
which Ecuador has a trade agreement, with preferential tariff rates or levels that are 
more attractive than those applied under tariff quotas. No r equests for openings have 
been received from interested parties.  
c. Import permits are issued through the Ecuadorian Single Window (VUE), a user ‑friendly 
platform that allows for the processing of import licences for quota allocation 
through  the following lin k: https://ecuapass.aduana.gob.ec. Furthermore, importers 
may check  the necessary requirements for each party that wishes to import on 
the platform designed by SENAE at the following link: 
http://ecuapass.aduana.gob.ec/ipt_server/ipt_flex/ipt_arancel.jsp . 
 For information on sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, importers may consult the 
following link: 
https://guia.agrocalidad.gob.ec/agrod b/aplicaciones/publico/productos1/consultaRequ
isitoComercio.php . These systems are interlinked via the Internet and provide users 
with information on the necessary requirements prior to importation.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 78 - 
 
  1.3.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
1.3.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N /ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90063: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89036, for which Ecuador has not yet provided a written 
response:  
a. The United States thanks Ecuador for its most recent Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications 
and the notification of several Green Box measures. However, the United States 
understands that Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and 
Fisheries, according to its website, subsidized a share of the cost of inputs, such as urea 
and potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies for farmers of several commodities 
including corn and rice. Since 2014, preferential attention has been paid to bananas and  
pasture crops for livestock. However, beneficiaries also include sugar cane, cocoa, 
cereals, vegetables, potatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential 
prices, below cost, for inputs.  
i. Please provide additional details with regard to how th e input subsidies measure 
was implemented and the time period under which the subsidy was available to 
producers.  
ii. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador's current domestic support 
notifications?  
iii. If so, please explain how they reportedly meet the gr een box criteria under which 
they are notified.  
iv. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether Ecuador 
will notify these measures for past years.  
b.  
i. According to the Ministry's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by 
produ cers also included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
ii. Please provide additional details with regard to how the agricultural insurance 
programme was implemented, including what losses are covered and what years 
the measure was available.  
iii. Was the insura nce included in these kits the same as the support notified for  2011 
in G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
c.  
i. The United States notes that, in 2015, it was reported that a diesel subsidy 
provided by the government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher diesel 
cost for pr oducers.  
ii. Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether Ecuador 
has notified this measure – and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
Answer by Ecuador  
a.  
(i‑iv). As mentioned in the replies during its third Trade Policy Review,  Ecuador is 
currently studying the agricultural programmes identified in the Secretariat's 
report, with a view to proceeding in due course to notification. The information 
on the website of the current Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock describes 
measur es for the promotion of agricultural and rural development that seek to 
facilitate the acquisition of agricultural inputs for low ‑income or resource ‑poor 
producers. It is a co ‑payment measure concerning the technology kit, which 
includes certified seeds, f ertilizers and agrochemical products, and all of this is 
offered in tandem with a skills ‑training programme for crop farmers. Kindly recall 
that Ecuador already notified a support programme for the purchase of 
agrochemical inputs in document G/AG/N/ECU/25 of 6 September 2010.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 79 - 
 
  b.  
(i‑iii). This is the same programme notified in document G/AG/N/ECU/33 of 
16 November  2012 (DS:2) "Permanent production security system 
(AGROSEGURO)", the details of which are described in the notification.  
c.  
(i‑ii). Diesel is not currently subsidized in Ecuador. This measure was not notified since 
it related to a horizontal subsidy, which had no trade ‑distorting effects or effects 
on agricultural production and fails to meet the basic criteria set out in Annex 2 
of the Agreemen t on Agriculture. For these reasons, the measure has not been 
notified.  
1.3.3   Export subsidy commitments  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
1.3.3.1   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 90078: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 89043 and AG -IMS ID 88115, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Panama has not provided a written answer:  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/PAN/44 Panama notifies that no export subsidies were 
provided from 2004 through 2017. However, the measure Certificados de Fomento a la 
Agroexportación (CEFA), in accordance to Panamanian law (Annex 1 law No.  82 31  December 2009), 
was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural producers with an expo rt subsidy for 
marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, packaging and inland and ocean freight costs.  
Please explain the basis for not notifying this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
Answer by Panama  
In its list of export subsidy commitments in Section II and III of Part IV of its Schedule, Panama set 
out an elimination commitment for an export subsidy programme entitled Certificado de Abono 
Tributario  (Tax Allowance Certificate, CAT), with a completion date of 31 December 2002. The nature 
of this subsidy was described in the report by the Working Party on the Accession of the Republic of 
Panama to the World Trade Organization (WT/SPEC/33/Rev.2). Furthermore, given that Panama has 
no export products with a share of total world agricultural exports  exceeding 5%, it is not, according 
to Committee on Agriculture document G/AG/2 of 30 June 1995, required to make a notification 
corresponding to Table ES:2.  
Regarding Law No. 82 of 31 December 2009, which establishes the Agricultural Exports Promotion 
Certificate (CeFA) referred to by the United States, Panama should point out that the guide to 
notification requirements and formats contained in the Committee on Agriculture document of 30 
June 1995 (G/AG/2) establishes that Members using export subsidies u nder Article 9.1(d) and (e) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture are exempt in terms of Supporting Table ES:2. Nevertheless, 
Panama is aware that, according to the Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015 on export 
competition (WT/MIN(15)/45), developing countr ies like Panama shall continue to benefit from the 
provisions of Article 9.1(d) and (e) of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023, and 
therefore Panama will, in due course, take legislative action to eliminate the CeFA.  
To reassure the partici pating Members of the Committee on Agriculture, please note that Panama 
has 14 international trade agreements with its main trading partners that account for around 75% 
of Panama's total exports, of which over 90% are agricultural products, to which no exp ort subsidies 
apply. It should be noted that the CeFA is valid " de jure ". However, Panama emphasizes that it has 
not been applied "de facto" to Panama's exports under the specific commitments undertaken with 
its trading partners in existing international t rade agreements.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 80 - 
 
  1.4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
1.4.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 90080: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 88082, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which China has not provided a written answer:  
a. The United States notes that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the total 
volume of food aid provided).  
According to press reports, China in prior years, provided bilateral in -kind food aid – in 
particular, rice and wheat, among other commodities - in response to emergency 
appeals. In addition, China has reported food aid donations in its Export Competition 
Questionnaire and in response to questions from the United States in AG -IMS ID 87048.  
b. Does China plan to submit a Table ES:3 for all relevant years? If not, please explain 
why not.   
Answer by China  
China will study whether the ES:3 notification obligation is applicable or not.  
1.4.2   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 90081: Question by United States of America  
Egypt has not provided a written response to the questions posed by the United States in 
AG-IMG ID 88083. Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
The United States notes t hat Egypt's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998 and has not yet responded to the export competition 
questionnaire.  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including Supporti ng Table ES:2, and respond 
to the export competition questionnaire.  
Answer by Egypt  
Egypt is currently undertaking the necessary steps to update its notifications in this regard.  
1.4.3   Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 90060: Question by Australia  
Further to Austra lia's questions (AG -IMS ID 88008, AG -IMS ID 89084) at 88th and 89th CoA, Australia 
notes the Republic of Korea's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers the 
reporting period 2009 -2011.  
a. Can the Republic of Korea please update Members on  its efforts to compile data to 
submit domestic support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
b. Will the Republic of Korea be in a position to submit these notifications at the next 
Committee meeting (91st CoA)?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 81 - 
 
  Answer by Korea, Republic of  
Republic of Korea ha s just submitted the DS:1 for 2012 -2015 (G/AG/N/KOR/60 -63, circulated 
on 8 March 2019) and a DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/KOR/64, circulated on 8 March 2019).  
1.4.4   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 90011: Question by European Union  
Turkey's Domestic Support and ES:1 and ES:2 notifications:  
The EU appreciates the effort made by Turkey with its latest forwarded notifications. However, these 
are still covering the period more than ten years ago. Can Turkey indicate any timeframe for when 
the missing notifications will be for warded to the WTO?  
Answer by Turkey  
Turkey is working on its overdue notifications, both on domestic support and export subsidies. 
Turkey has submitted export subsidies notifications for the period of 2001 -2004. The ES notifications 
for the years 2005 -2009 have already been completed and will be submitted shortly. Turkey is still 
working on notifications for 2010 onwards and plans to submit them soon.  
Follow -up: Paraguay urged Turkey to provide outstanding DS notifications.  
1.5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
1.5.1   India  
AG-IMS ID 90082: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 89045, India stated that the Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre and 
Post Shipmen t Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters of agricultural products is "in the nature of 
working capital support".  
a. Please explain the basis for considering the Scheme a working capital support 
programme, including providing specific language from relevan t official government 
document that supports this claim.  
It is the United States' understanding the Interest Equalization Scheme is an interest 
rate support programme. The Interest Equalization Scheme directly provides a 3% 
rebate in the rate of interest on export credits, which incentives and is contingent upon 
export.  
b. Please provide the total value of export of agricultural products by HS code covered by 
the Interest Equalization programme from 2015 to 2018.  
Answer by India  
As per relevant RBI's circula r available on its website https://www.rbi.org.in/ , it clearly provides that 
the scheme is intended to make short -term working capital finance available to exporters.  
Response will be provided in due course.  
1.5.2   Thailand   
AG-IMS ID 90083: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 88094:  
The United States understands Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financing support 
programmes administered by the Export -Import Bank of Thailand are consistent with the Nairobi 
Decision. The United States does not consider Thailand's statement of this position to be a substitute 
for the provision of information about such programmes in response to questionnaires.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 82 - 
 
  The United States requests  Thailand provide information on programmes operated by the Export -
Import Bank of Thailand for years 2016, 2017, and 2018in a response to the WTO  Secretariat's 
annual export competition questionnaire.  
Answer by Thailand  
In order to fill in the export compe tition questionnaire, Thailand is in the process of gathering 
information from the Export -Import Bank of Thailand. As soon as Thailand gets the information 
required, Thailand will submit the response.  
1.5.3   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 90084: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 89046 and AG -IMS ID 88116, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following question, for which Turkey has not provided a written answer:  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided f ood aid. What is the basis 
for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?  
Answer by Turkey  
Since 2016 Turkey provides food aid data for export competition questionnaire in line with the Nairobi 
Decision. Turkey is in the process of collecting food aid data  for the period before 2016.  
_______________   G/AG/W/215  
 
- 83 - 
 
  2  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 25 -26 JUNE 2019  
2.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6  
2.1.1   Brazil's wheat quota  
2.1.1.1   Question by Ukraine ( AG-IMS ID 91001)  
According to the media (Reuters), Brazil has set up an import quota of 750,000 tonnes of wheat per 
year with zero in quota tariffs. Ukraine kindly asks Brazil to provide information regarding:  
- the annual quantity of import quota for wheat and the respective in quota tariff;  
- a description of import quota arrangements for wheat, including country specific 
allocations;  
- a citation to Brazil's published implementing regulations and guidance for wheat import 
quotas;  
- an indication of when Members can expect notification of relevant information on this 
TRQ. 
Answer by Brazil  
Brazil has not yet opened the mentioned wheat TRQ. Brazil notified to the WTO, in April 1996, its 
intention to eliminate it. Negotiations with the Unit ed States initial negotiating rights) and Canada 
(substantial supplier) were not concluded and, in 2019, Brazil decided to establish the TRQ – which 
has not yet been made effective. As established in Brazil's schedule of concessions, it is an 
erga omnes im port quota of 750,000 tonnes  of wheat per year with zero in -quota tariffs. Extra -
quota bound tariff is 45% ad valorem, while applied tariff is 10% ad valorem.  
Follow -up: Canada, the European Union and the United States noted interest in the issue and look ed 
forward to further information from Brazil particularly its upcoming notifications.  
2.1.2   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
2.1.2.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 91002)  
Australia notes the Canadian government announced an almost CAD 3.9 bil lion support package for 
its supply managed sectors, compensating for the impact of the CPTPP and Canada EU (CETA), upon 
their entry into force. Australia understands this announced package does not consider compensation 
for USMCA.  
Australia acknowledges t he importance of assisting farmers and producers adjust to new trade deals. 
However, this package appears significant, without the long term structural reform called for by 
many WTO Members. Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) has said the package could compensa te for 
around ten years' worth of losses from CPTPP and CETA – agreements which established 
comprehensive market access benchmarks.  
Australia would appreciate if Canada can provide:  
a. an update on the announcement?  
b. advice on whether the package will increase , or whether a new package will be 
announced, to compensate for the USMCA?  
c. explain how this how this package will help Canadian supply managed sectors adjust 
and integrate to new trade agreements, rather than simply protecting them from 
external market com petition?  
Answer by Canada  
a. Canada's Budget 2019 committed up to $3.9 billion to support eligible dairy, poultry 
and egg farmers in response to the Canada -European Union Comprehensive Economic 
and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive  Agreement for 
Trans Pacific Partnership CPTPP). Of this amount, $250 million has already been 
provided to dairy farmers for CETA through AAFC programming, and $2.15 billion will G/AG/W/215  
 
- 84 - 
 
  be available over the coming years to deal with income losses. Up to $1.5 bil lion will be 
provided, as necessary, to protect against any reductions in quota value when quota is 
sold. The Government of Canada is working to determine how best to implement this 
commitment to the Canadian dairy, poultry and egg sectors, in a manner tha t is both 
fair and effective. We are taking the appropriate steps so that programs can be 
announced in a timely fashion. More details will follow shortly.  
b. In October 2018, the Government of Canada committed to fully and fairly support 
farmers and processo rs to help them adjust to the short -term impacts of the Canada 
United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and CPTPP. Canada's Budget 2019 
reaffirmed this commitment through reiterating that the Government will continue to 
work in partnership with supply manage ment stakeholders to address the potential 
future impacts of CUSMA, upon ratification. The Government of Canada has committed 
to discuss with producers and processors to develop the best way forward for them and 
the industry.  
c. The Government of Canada is offering support to dairy, poultry and egg producers to 
help them adjust to the loss of market share, and to mitigate the impacts, due to the 
CETA and the CPTPP. There is a need to support investments in an industry that will 
experience some pressure as a result of additional imports of dairy, including cheese, 
poultry and eggs following recent trade deals.  
Follow -up: Australia noted the concern that Canada's measure could impede CPTPP members' 
exports as envisaged in the agreem ent. Australia reiterated interest in the policy rational behind the 
package, in particular how it supports Canada's supply -managed sectors to adjust and integrate into 
a new trade environment following entry into force of respective FTAs rather than simpl y continuing 
to protect them from the global market. Australia also reiterated interest in the procedural elements 
and eligibility criteria for the programme and its compatibility with Canada's WTO obligations. 
Australia looked forward to reviewing Canada' s future DS notifications covering the support package. 
The European Union echoed Australia's comments and noted interest in examining how the 
programme would be implanted and whether they would be consistent with the WTO rules.  
2.1.2.2   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 91018)  
In March 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau announced an aid package to farmers. It included up to 
CAD 2.15 billion for farmers "to deal with income losses" associated with trade deals with the EU 
and Pacific Rim nations. It also set aside CAD  1.5 billion more to guarantee the value of production 
rights, known as quota, in the event that value were to decline as a result of the deals. That money 
would be paid out only in the event that any quota was sold.  
a. Can Canada explain in more detail what t ype of measures will used for this 
compensation, and what the eligibility criteria will be for these different measures? 
When are the payments expected to be made to the farmers?  
b. Will sectors other than dairy, poultry and egg farmers operating under its sy stem of 
quotas and tariffs, be eligible for this compensation?  
Answer by Canada  
a. Canada's Budget 2019 committed up to $3.9 billion to support eligible dairy, poultry 
and egg farmers in response to the Canada -European Union Comprehensive Economic 
and Trade A greement (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for 
Trans -Pacific Partnership CPTPP). Of this amount, $250 million has already been 
provided to dairy farmers for CETA through Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada (AAFC) 
programming, and $2.15 bi llion will be available over the coming years to deal with 
income losses. Up to $1.5 billion will be provided, as necessary, to protect against any 
reductions in quota value when quota is sold. The Government of Canada is working to 
determine how best to i mplement this commitment to the Canadian dairy, poultry and 
egg sectors, in a manner that is both fair and effective. We are taking the appropriate 
steps so that programs can be announced in a timely fashion.  
b. Canada's Budget 2019 committed up to $3.9 billi on to support eligible dairy, poultry 
and egg farmers in response to CETA and CPTPP. Of this amount, $250 million has 
already been provided to dairy farmers for CETA through AAFC programming, and G/AG/W/215  
 
- 85 - 
 
  $2.15  billion will be available over the coming years to dea l with income losses. Up to 
$1.5 billion will be provided, as necessary, to protect against any reductions in quota 
value when quota is sold. Market access commitments made under recent trade deals 
will impact dairy, poultry and egg processors and producer s. As such, the Government 
of Canada has committed to support dairy, poultry and egg producers and processors. 
This commitment does not extend to other producers.  
Follow -up: Australia noted the concern that Canada's measure could impede CPTPP members' 
exports as envisaged in the agreement. Australia reiterated interest in the policy rational behind the 
package, in particular how it supports Canada's supply -managed sectors to adjust and integrate into 
a new trade environment following entry into force of re spective FTAs rather than simply continuing 
to protect them from the global market. Australia also reiterated interest in the procedural elements 
and eligibility criteria for the programme and its compatibility with Canada's WTO obligations. 
Australia look ed forward to reviewing Canada's future DS notifications covering the support package. 
The European Union echoed Australia's comments and noted interest in examining how the 
programme would be implanted and whether they would be consistent with the WTO rul es. 
2.1.3   Canada's support to canola producers  
2.1.3.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 91019)  
China's strengthened inspection measures of Canadian farm exports is leading to farmers having to 
sell Canola seed produce at discounted prices elsewhere and plant other crops such as wheat. The 
EU is aware of the current issues facing Canada's canola and soya bean markets. Does Canada 
intend to introduce any compensation for its farmers following this situation? Will this include any 
additional loan limits given under Adv ance Payments Program (APP)?  
Answer by Canada  
Under the five -year Canadian Agricultural Partnership (Partnership) framework, farmers have access 
to a robust suite of federal -provincial -territorial cost -shared business risk management programs to 
help them manage severe risks that threaten the viability of their farm, and are beyond their capacity 
to manage. Specifically, farmers can draw on their AgriInvest account balance at any time to manage 
income declines or cash flow issues. In addition, AgriStability  is a whole -farm program that provides 
support for severe income declines. For the 2019 AgriStability program year, an agreement was 
reached with the provinces and territories to extend the enrolment deadline from 30 April 2019 until 
2 July 2019. In additi on, Canada has increased on a permanent basis the maximum amount of 
money available to individual producers under the Advance Payments Program (APP) from 
$400,000  per year to $1 million for all eligible commodities. This permanent change is also 
accompanie d by an increase in the interest -free portion of advances on canola to $500,000 from 
$100,000. This program feature for canola production will only apply for the 2019 program year. 
All other commodities can continue to receive interest -free advances for up  to $100,000.  
2.1.3.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91060)  
Reports suggest that Canada is offering financial assistance to canola growers to boost exports 
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us canada china/can ada unveils measures to help canola farmers 
hit by china ban seeks to boost asian exports idUSKCN1S740D ). As per this report, the government 
will increase the maximum amount of money available to individual producers under the Advance 
Payments Program (APP ), from $400,000 per year to $1 million. Further, the interest free portion 
for canola growers will be increased to $500,000 from $100,000.  
a. Please explain the duration of the above enhancements under the APP.  
b. Please explain the detailed eligibility criteri a, including the components available to only 
canola growers, and the components available to other agricultural producers.  
c. What is the enforcement mechanism? What has been done to implement it and where 
can we find the supporting data available in this re gard?  
d. Please explain how Canada will ensure that this measure is WTO compliant.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 86 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
a. The increase to the maximum amount available to individual producers is a permanent 
change to the program, while the increase to the interest -free portion of a dvances for 
canola producers is a temporary measure for the 2019 program year only.  
b. APP advances are available to Canadian farming operations, including sole proprietors, 
partnerships, corporations and cooperatives, that own and are responsible for the 
production and marketing of eligible agricultural products. Under the program, 
producers can obtain advances on the majority of agricultural products produced in 
Canada (e.g., grains and oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, most livestock, fur pelts, honey 
and m aple syrup) provided that they are intended to be sold during the program year 
as specified in the repayment agreements signed by the producers. The repayment 
agreements are 18 months for most agricultural products, and 24 months for cattle and 
bison. An a dvance is calculated based on 50% of the expected value of an agricultural 
product and the advances must be repaid as the agricultural product is sold. The 
increase to the interest -free portion of advances to $500,000 for the 2019 program year 
is limited t o canola advances. For advances on all other eligible commodities, the 
interest -free limits continues to be the first $100,000. The interest -free limit for canola 
advances will return to $100,000 with the 2020 program year.  
c. The terms and conditions for th e program are set out in the Agricultural Marketing 
Programs Act and its associated Regulations. The program is delivered across Canada 
by 36 third -party APP Administrators. These administrators, along with the financial 
institutions who provide funding fo r the advances, become subject to the program terms 
and conditions by entering into Advance Guarantee Agreements (AGA) with the 
Government of Canada (i.e., with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri -Food) on an 
annual basis. Also on an annual basis, produce rs apply for an advance under the 
program through the APP administrators and are subject to the terms and conditions of 
the program when they sign a Repayment Agreement for their advances with their APP 
Administrators. The Government of Canada works with A PP Administrators and financial 
institutions to ensure the program is administered within the terms and conditions set 
out in the Act, Regulations and AGAs, while the APP Administrators are responsible for 
ensuring that producers taking advances under the program are abiding by the terms 
of their Repayment Agreements. Following the announcement of the Advance Payments 
Program changes, government officials worked with the 36 program administrators to 
amend agreements already in place to reflect the new progr am parameters and revise 
operating procedures to ensure system changes were properly implemented. Producers 
were able to apply for the new amounts as early as June 10, 2019, and new advances 
above $400,000 could be issued as of 26  June 2019. It is too earl y at this time to 
provide data on the impact of the new program limits as the changes are just being 
implemented.  
d. While the temporary increase to the interest -free provision for the 2019 program year 
is being applied solely to advances on canola, the incr ease to the annual per producer 
limit is a permanent change, is not commodity specific, and is being applied to advances 
on all APP -eligible commodities. Canada will continue to report government spending 
on APP based on the same principles that we have fo llowed in the past for this program 
and in line with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
2.1.3.3   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91003)  
Due to market access issues that impact Canadian canola exports to China the government of 
Canada announced support in favor of ag ricultural producers of canola. Specifically, changes in the 
Advance Payments Program are intended to help producers overcome difficulties facing market 
uncertainty. Could Canada please elaborate on specific changes made to the Advance Payments 
Program? Do  these changes specifically aimed at enhancing access opportunities for Canadian canola 
exporters to enter new markets?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 87 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
Canada has increased on a permanent basis the maximum amount of money available to individual 
producers under the Advan ce Payments Program (APP) from $400,000 per year to $1 million for all 
eligible commodities. This permanent change is also accompanied by an increase in the interest -free 
portion of advances on canola to $500,000 from $100,000. This program feature for can ola 
production will solely apply for the 2019 program year. All other commodities can continue to receive 
interest -free advances for up to $100,000. These changes to the APP are intended to allow the 
program to continue to meet its objectives of increasing  producers access to cash flow over their 
production and marketing cycle and providing added financial flexibility so they can find the best 
markets for their commodities, whether domestic or international.  
2.1.4   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
2.1.4.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91132)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated that verifications to ensure accuracy of the data 
related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales are required Canada also stated that 
once completed, this inform ation will be provided. Is this information available? If not, 
please provide an update on when and where this information will become available.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated that it is not obliged to publish a full list of eligible 
Class 7 products. In AG-IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it not in a position to confirm 
whether the full list of eligible Class 7 products is identical to the list included in Dairy 
Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 06, Nova Scotia Reg. 
12/2017, and Sa skatchewan Order No. 28/17. In AG-IMS ID 90039. Canada stated, 
"Information that will be published is currently the prerogative of industry and, as such, 
it would be inappropriate to specify what information will be published." Does Canada's 
federal govern ment have legislative authorities to require provincial milk marketing 
boards to provide information, such as, which products are eligible for a class price? If 
so, please describe the authority.  
Answer by Canada  
As previously stated, certain information p reviously published on the Canadian Dairy Information 
Centre website was inaccurate and not comparable to past data. To correct this, Canada has been 
working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as transparent as possible. Canada is 
committ ed to ensuring that any information published accurately reflects the data that has been 
entrusted to the federal government by industry. With respect to the issue of using federal 
authorities to obtain information, there are many considerations. In Canada , agriculture is an area 
of concurrent powers between federal and provincial governments, meaning that the federal 
government works in partnership with provincial governments to advance the interests of Canada's 
agriculture and agri -food sector. Making a d etermination that a matter is of federal jurisdiction needs 
to be viewed through the lens of these concurrent powers and how these powers have previously 
been exercised (i.e., constitutional convention). Federal authority over this type of information from  
provincial milk marketing boards has not been deemed necessary.  
Follow -up: Australia, the European Union, New Zealand and the United States requested Canada to 
be more transparent with the implementation of milk class 7 including milk class prices, utiliz ation 
and sales. New Zealand was disappointed with Canada's responses and delay in publishing the 
information which Canada had ensured to make available.  
2.1.5   Canada's wine sale policy  
2.1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91137)  
Canada has not yet re sponded to the questions posed by the United States in AG-IMS ID 90040, 
AG-IMS ID 85012, AG-IMS ID 86034, AG-IMS ID 87016, AG-IMS ID 88096, and AG-IMS ID 89021. 
As such, the United States repeats its previous questions.  
a. In AG-IMS ID 84105, Canada states th at "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a subcategory  of Vintages comprising products that are G/AG/W/215  
 
- 88 - 
 
  continuously available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines 
category."  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed 
to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need 
to move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order 
to be sold in grocery sto res? 
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regu lation 232/16, how many restricted beer and 
wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to 
operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have 
been di stributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for  the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call 
that Canada provided in AG-IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price 
parameters  and size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of 
existing Ontario bag in box wine? ( http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms 
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box% 2
0Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
f. According to Canada's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies mark 
ups to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province differently than 
commercial wine that have been bottled outside the province. Sp ecifically, commercial 
wines that are bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark-up reduction of 20 percentage 
points (from 140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation documents 
setting out mark ups for commercial wines bo ttled in the province and bottled 
outside the province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to qualify 
for this benefit, could Canada please explain how this policy ensures non-
discrimination  against foreign products?  
g. The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation maintains a preferential m ark up for Emerging Wine 
Regions (currently 43%). How does a producer from an emerging wine region, as 
defined by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their emerging wine region status?  
h. Please provide a list of non-Canadian  Emerging Wine Region wines availab le for sale 
through the  NLSC.  
Answer by Canada  
a. to e.  Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the 
view that it would be inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time. 
With regard to the number of grocery stor e authorizations, Canada would like to 
direct the US to the recent public backgrounder issued by Ontario: 
https://news.ontario.ca/m of/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-
fairness -for-beer-and-wine-consumers.html .  
f.  The measure is origin -neutral as it allows wine from any region to qualify for the 
reduced mark -up.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 89 - 
 
  g.  To qualify under the EWRP, a wine must satisfy two criteria. First, it must come 
from a region that is considered a distinct winemaking region, as demonstrated 
by the existence of defined viticulture areas and the adoption of guidelines or 
standards for production of wine from grapes grown in the region by a recogni zed 
industry association or group. Second, the total annual production of wine within 
the political boundaries (state, province, or equivalent) of the region must not 
exceed 50,000HL annually.  
h.  Two wines from the Kent region in the United Kingdom have applied and were 
approved for sale in Nova Scotia with the reduced mark -up allowed by the EWRP.  
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand shared US concern regarding Canada's lack of 
transparency in its wine sale policy.  
2.1.6   China's rice policies  
2.1.6.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91133)  
The United States notes that China has been auctioning off government stocks of rice.  
a. Please explain the processes and procedures for the auction.  
b. What entities are allowed to participate? Are STEs allowed to purchase auctioned rice?  
c. What is the quality of the rice that is being auctioned?  
d. Are there any requirements or restrictions on the eventual use of the auctioned rice? If 
the rice may not be used for human consumption, are the stocks of rice den atured in 
any way to keep them from going back into human consumption channels?  
e. The United States has observed that the auctioned prices are significantly lower than 
the procured minimum support prices. How are auction prices determined?  
Answer by China  
In order to safeguard national food security, China accumulated rice stocks through the minimum 
procurement price program.  
The rice stocks are mainly sold by auction to traders and end users. The timing of the auctions is 
jointly determined by the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, 
the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, taking into considerations of market 
conditions. The disposal of rice stocks is organized and implemented by the National Food and 
Strategi c Reserves Administration. The auctions are conducted on the national grain electronic 
trading platform. Qualified grain trading, processing and feed production enterprises can participate 
in the bidding, and have full discretion to the usages of the grain s according to their own needs.  
As for the auction process, the national grain trading centre will publish the "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the documents including "the trading announcement" on their websites 
and through the media bef ore the bidding.  
To ensure food safety, the quality of the rice will be examined before being released. Rice that fails 
to meet the food safety standards is strictly forbidden from being used for human consumption, 
instead, it shall be handled through tar geted sale for the production of fuel ethanol, under the whole -
process supervision by pertinent local authorities. Those who collect, resell or misuse the rice that 
has been disqualified for human consumption shall be penalized by the local Administration for 
Market Regulation. The punishments include charging fines, and depriving the qualification for 
participating purchase. If the behaviour of misuse constituents a crime, the person liable should bear 
the criminal responsibility.  
The rice stocks are dispo sed with the principle of selling at higher price than buying. The ownership 
of the rice stock belongs to the government, and the interest expenses of acquisition funds and other 
costs of acquisition and storage of the rice, as well as sales losses caused by transactions under 
unfavourable market conditions, shall be borne by the government. In order to control the budgetary 
outlay, the government usually chooses suitable timing for the disposal of rice stock. In exceptional 
cases, however, rice stocks may also be sold at prices less than the purchase price. From 2015 to 
2018, more than 30 million tonnes  of grain reserves had been disposed by auction.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 90 - 
 
  Affected by the auction of the rice stocks, the price of rice in domestic market decreased. Due to the 
chang es in the domestic market conditions, the rice export has increased. As one of the major state 
trading enterprises, COFCO has a marketing network covering most countries in the world. COFCO 
develops marketing strategies according to the conditions of the m arket. The United States, like 
other developed countries in Europe and America, is regarded as a high -end market by COFCO and 
other Chinese rice exporters. The rice exported to the United States is brand rice at prices higher 
than 900 dollars per ton ne. 
2.1.6.2   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91134)  
In 2017, unit prices for Chinese exports of rice dropped and exports began to rise.  
a. Please explain why this may be happening.  
b. Are some stocks of auctioned rice available for export? If so, what volumes o f auctioned 
rice are being exported?  
c. Are non STEs allowed to export Chinese rice?  
Answer by China  
In order to safeguard national food security, China accumulated rice stocks through the minimum 
procurement price program.  
The rice stocks are mainly sold b y auction to traders and end users. The timing of the auctions is 
jointly determined by the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, 
the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, taking into considerations of market 
conditions. The disposal of rice stocks is organized and implemented by the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration. The auctions are conducted on the national grain electronic 
trading platform. Qualified grain trading, processing and feed produ ction enterprises can participate 
in the bidding, and have full discretion to the usages of the grains according to their own needs.  
As for the auction process, the national grain trading center will publish the "bidding rules", and 
other relevant informat ion in the documents including "the trading announcement" on their websites 
and through the media before the bidding.  
To ensure food safety, the quality of the rice will be examined before being released. Rice that fails 
to meet the food safety standards is strictly forbidden from being used for human consumption, 
instead, it shall be handled through targeted sale for the production of fuel ethanol, under the 
whole -process supervision by pertinent local authorities. Those who collect, resell or misuse the rice 
that has been disqualified for human consumption shall be penalized by the local Administration for 
Market Regulation. The punishments include charging fines, and depriving the qualification for 
participating purchase. If the behavior of misuse consti tuents a crime, the person liable should bear 
the criminal responsibility.  
The rice stocks are disposed with the principle of selling at higher price than buying. The ownership 
of the rice stock belongs to the government, and the interest expenses of acqui sition funds and other 
costs of acquisition and storage of the rice, as well as sales losses caused by transactions under 
unfavorable market conditions, shall be borne by the government. In order to control the budgetary 
outlay, the government usually choo ses suitable timing for the disposal of rice stock. In exceptional 
cases, however, rice stocks may also be sold at prices less than the purchase price. From 2015 to 
2018, more than 30 million tonnes  of grain reserves had been disposed by auction.  
Affected by the auction of the rice stocks, the price of rice in domestic market decreased. Due to the 
changes in the domestic market conditions, the rice export has increased. As one of the major state 
trading enterprises, COFCO has a marketing network co vering most countries in the world. COFCO 
develops marketing strategies according to the conditions of the market. The United States, like 
other developed countries in Europe and America, is regarded as a high -end market by COFCO and 
other Chinese rice exp orters. The rice exported to the United States is brand rice at prices higher 
than 900 dollars per ton.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 91 - 
 
  2.1.6.3   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91135)  
Based on trade data, it appears the majority of low-price rice exports are being shipped from ports 
near Beijing compared to other provinces. The United States understand that STEs such as COFCO 
are located in Beijing. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice? Are other STEs exporting rice?  
Answer by China  
In ord er to safeguard national food security, China accumulated rice stocks through the minimum 
procurement price program.  
The rice stocks are mainly sold by auction to traders and end users. The timing of the auctions is 
jointly determined by the National Deve lopment and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, 
the National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, taking into considerations of market 
conditions. The disposal of rice stocks is organized and implemented by the National Food and 
Strategic Re serves Administration. The auctions are conducted on the national grain electronic 
trading platform. Qualified grain trading, processing and feed production enterprises can participate 
in the bidding, and have full discretion to the usages of the grains ac cording to their own needs.  
As for the auction process, the national grain trading center will publish the "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the documents including "the trading announcement" on their websites 
and through the media before the bidding.  
To ensure food safety, the quality of the rice will be examined before being released. Rice that fails 
to meet the food safety standards is strictly forbidden from being used for human consumption, 
instead, it shall be handled through targete d sale for the production of fuel ethanol, under the whole -
process supervision by pertinent local authorities. Those who collect, resell or misuse the rice that 
has been disqualified for human consumption shall be penalized by the local Administration for 
Market Regulation. The punishments include charging fines, and depriving the qualification for 
participating purchase. If the behavior of misuse constituents a crime, the person liable should bear 
the criminal responsibility.  
The rice stocks are disposed w ith the principle of selling at higher price than buying. The ownership 
of the rice stock belongs to the government, and the interest expenses of acquisition funds and other 
costs of acquisition and storage of the rice, as well as sales losses caused by tr ansactions under 
unfavorable market conditions, shall be borne by the government. In order to control the budgetary 
outlay, the government usually chooses suitable timing for the disposal of rice stock. In exceptional 
cases, however, rice stocks may also b e sold at prices less than the purchase price. From 2015 
to 2018, more than 30 million tonnes  of grain reserves had been disposed by auction.  
Affected by the auction of the rice stocks, the price of rice in domestic market decreased. Due to the 
changes in the domestic market conditions, the rice export has increased. As one of the major state 
trading enterprises, COFCO has a marketing network covering most countries in the world. COFCO 
develops marketing strategies according to the conditions of the market.  The United States, like 
other developed countries in Europe and America, is regarded as a high -end market by COFCO and 
other Chinese rice exporters. The rice exported to the United States is brand rice at prices higher 
than 900 dollars per ton.  
2.1.6.4   Question b y United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91136)  
According to China's custom's data, the price for rice that has been exported to the United States 
was below $400/MT and yet the minimum support price for paddy (not yet milled) rice has been 
consistently above $400/MT. Please explain how milled rice that was purchased well above $400/MT 
was exported to the United States in a processed form for less than $400/MT?  
Answer by China  
In order to safeguard national food security, China accumulated rice stocks through t he minimum 
procurement price program.  
The rice stocks are mainly sold by auction to traders and end users. The timing of the auctions is 
jointly determined by the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, 
the National Food and S trategic Reserves Administration, taking into considerations of market 
conditions. The disposal of rice stocks is organized and implemented by the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration. The auctions are conducted on the national grain electro nic G/AG/W/215  
 
- 92 - 
 
  trading platform. Qualified grain trading, processing and feed production enterprises can participate 
in the bidding, and have full discretion to the usages of the grains according to their own needs.  
As for the auction process, the national grain trad ing center will publish the "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the documents including "the trading announcement" on their websites 
and through the media before the bidding.  
To ensure food safety, the quality of the rice will be examined b efore being released. Rice that fails 
to meet the food safety standards is strictly forbidden from being used for human consumption, 
instead, it shall be handled through targeted sale for the production of fuel ethanol, under the 
whole -process supervision by pertinent local authorities. Those who collect, resell or misuse the rice 
that has been disqualified for human consumption shall be penalized by the local Administration for 
Market Regulation. The punishments include charging fines, and depriving the qu alification for 
participating purchase. If the behavior of misuse constituents a crime, the person liable should bear 
the criminal responsibility.  
The rice stocks are disposed with the principle of selling at higher price than buying. The ownership 
of the rice stock belongs to the government, and the interest expenses of acquisition funds and other 
costs of acquisition and storage of the rice, as well as sales losses caused by transactions under 
unfavorable market conditions, shall be borne by the governmen t. In order to control the budgetary 
outlay, the government usually chooses suitable timing for the disposal of rice stock. In exceptional 
cases, however, rice stocks may also be sold at prices less than the purchase price. From 2015 
to 2018, more than 30 million tonnes  of grain reserves had been disposed by auction.  
Affected by the auction of the rice stocks, the price of rice in domestic market decreased. Due to the 
changes in the domestic market conditions, the rice export has increased. As one of the ma jor state 
trading enterprises, COFCO has a marketing network covering most countries in the world. 
COFCO  develops marketing strategies according to the conditions of the market. The United States, 
like other developed countries in Europe and America, is re garded as a high -end market by 
COFCO  and other Chinese rice exporters. The rice exported to the United States is brand rice at 
prices higher than 900 dollars per ton.  
Follow -up: The European Union registered interest in the question. Canada noted systemic interest 
in trade -related activities of state trading enterprises.  
2.1.7   Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  
2.1.7.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91138)  
The United States has seen press reports that the government of Egypt (GOE) is implementing  
export subsidy programmes, administered by the Egyptian Export Development Fund  (ESF), to 
promote several economic sectors, including agriculture.  
a. Please explain how the export subsidy measure is implemented and provide eligibility 
criteria for agricultural products.  
b. Please provide the total value of export subsidy by agricultural product group and by 
destinations.  
c. Please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for making this export subsidy 
available.  
d. When will the GOE provide all overdue Tab le ES:1 notifications, including Supporting 
Table  ES:2, and respond to the export competition questionnaire?  
Answer by Egypt  
Follow -up: The United States noted its understanding that the programme may not be funded at the 
moment and continued seeking Egypt 's responses to the question.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 93 - 
 
  2.1.8   European Unio n's m odification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
2.1.8.1   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 91015)  
In the context of Brexit, should the United Kingdom leave the European Union without a preferential 
trade agreement, tr ade between the United Kingdom and the European Union would return to most 
favoured nation (MFN) terms. The EU's proposed apportionment methodology for its WTO tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) volumes does not currently take into account trade flows between the EU 27 and the 
United Kingdom. Specifically, it does not provide for the fact that other WTO Members would compete 
with the United Kingdom for reduced EU 27 WTO TRQ volumes, should the United Kingdom leave 
without an agreement. Even if it were to leave the Eur opean Union without a preferential trade 
agreement, the United Kingdom would remain best positioned to enter the EU market, due to its 
proximity and regulatory compatibility with the European Union.  
a. Can the European Union explain how it would adjust its ap portionment methodology to 
account for UK agriculture exports that may enter the European Union through the EU's 
WTO TRQs?  
At the last Committee on Agriculture meeting in February 2019, the European Union 
stated that Article 2 of EU Regulation (EC) 2019/21 6, which concerns its apportionment 
methodologies, provides for flexibility to allow the EU to make changes once 
negotiations are concluded with other WTO  Members ( AG-IMS ID 90087). Article 2 of 
EC 2019/216 states that, while ensuring consistency with the apportionment 
methodology and in particular ensuring that the market access into the EU  27 does not 
exceed that which is reflected in the share of trade flows during a representative period, 
the European Commission can amend EU 27 WTO MFN TRQ volumes to ta ke account 
the outcome of an GATT Article XXVIII process or pertinent information it may receive 
through that process or from other sources. Understanding that amendments to EU 27 
WTO MFN TRQ volumes must be consistent with the apportionment methodology an d 
not 'exceed' a share of trade flows during a representative period:  
b. Would Article 2 allow the European Union to make changes to its MFN TRQ volumes to 
account for EU 27 UK trade flows (e.g., UK imports into the European Union) should the 
United Kingdom l eave the European Union without a preferential trade agreement?  
c. How would the condition that 'market access not exceed the share of trade flows during 
a representative period' be interpreted in this context, understanding that it is looking 
at past trade f lows from third parties, rather than at future trade flows between the EU 
27 and the United Kingdom, as well as with other WTO Members?  
d. What actions will the European Union take to ensure WTO Members' market access is 
not diminished by having to compete wi th the United Kingdom for reduced EU 27 
volumes, should the United Kingdom begin trading on an MFN basis with the European 
Union as a result of Brexit?  
Answer by European Union  
The EU has repeatedly stated its commitment to achieving the orderly withdrawal of the United 
Kingdom from the EU, including a comprehensive trade arrangement with the UK for the future. The 
EU continues to believe that continued free trade between the UK and the other member States of 
the EU is the best way to ensure access to each other's markets without the need to use each other's 
WTO MFN TRQs in the future.  
The EU would like to again recall that the separate but complementary EU -UK approach to the 
TRQ apportionment endeavours to maintain overall the existing level of market access of other 
WTO Members. The EU Regulation 2019/216 has not been drafted with the aim of addressing the 
future EU -UK trade relationship. As explained above, the EU firmly believe s that a preferential future 
bilateral EU -UK agreement is the most appropriate forum to address the current intra -EU trade.  
Follow -up: Australia registered concern regarding how both the EU and the UK would reflect exiting 
trade between the two markets in their respective WTO commitments and not impact on their 
WTO obligations to other WTO Members. Australia requested assurances that Brexit and the 
respective Article 28 process would not diminish Australia's existing market access and create 
destructions and instabilities in the global agricultural trading systems. China, Paraguay, G/AG/W/215  
 
- 94 - 
 
  the Russian  Federation, the United States and Uruguay joined Australia in expressing the concern 
regarding the EU's approach to TRQ negotiations and stressed that other  WTO Members' access to 
the EU market should not be decreased as a result of Brexit. New Zealand noted that its specific 
concern regarding the EU's proposal was twofold: loss of access into the EU's market, including 
complete elimination of small number of  MFN quotas and large reductions in quotas; (2) a loss of 
flexibility would constrain the ability of both exporters and markets to respond appropriately to 
fluctuations and demand in the current uncertain environment. Further, New Zealand shared 
Canada's v iew that much of what would remain of the reduced MFN TRQ access would likely be 
absorbed by the bilateral EU and UK trade as presently the EU proposal ignored the reality that 
WTO Members would compete for these reduced TRQ volumes with products from clos e and familiar 
suppliers in the UK. New Zealand reiterated the view that the EU should not change its obligations 
in relation to third countries to respond to Brexit. The European Union noted that the UK and itself 
had engaged in Article 28 negotiations wi th all concerned Members as per the WTO rules and they 
would continue demonstrating transparency and openness to Members as they had done since the 
start of the process.  
2.1.9   The EU's malting  barley  HS code  
2.1.9.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91142)  
G/AG/N/EU/37/Corr.1 CY 2016 and G/AG/N/EU/41/Corr.1 CY 2017  
The EU noted that the Malting Barely code 1003 00 should be replaced with code ex 1003 00. There 
appears to be a different HS code listed for Malting Barley in the EU 28 Schedule; the EU tariff 
schedule provided by the EU for the Article XXVIII negotiation; the EU MA:1; the EU correction for 
the 2017 MA:2; and 2018 MA:2. Document G/MA/TAR/RS506/Add2, which provides corrections to 
the EU 28's schedule, lists the HS Code ex 1003 90 for malting barle y. Annex II of the 
EU's Article  XXVIII negotiations document for Brexit lists 1003 90 and does not contain the 
prefix  "ex". 
a. Please clarify whether 1003 90 was used rather than ex 1003 00.  
b. The Article XXVIII document does not contain the prefix "ex". Please  explain if that 
export data is for the entire 100390 HS code for barley rather than just malting barley?  
c. The EU's CY 2016 MA:1 (G/AG/N/EU/31) lists HS codes ex1003 00 50, ex 1003 10 00, 
and ex 1003 90 00. Please explain why there are different HS.  
Answer by European Union  
Concerning the EU-28 CLXXV Schedule, there was an unfortunate typo in G/MA/TAR/RS506/Add2 
that will be corrected in G/MA/TAR/RS506/Add3. The code for barley is 1003 00 and the code for 
malting barley is ex 1003 00. The EU will also submit  corrigendums to its notifications on MA:1 
and MA:2 if necessary.  
2.1.10   The EU's fruit juices TRQ  
2.1.10.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91176)  
a. We have received the EU's response and thank the EU for noting that a corrigendum 
will be submitted for EU 28  schedule. In the meantime, please provide the exact list of 
HS codes for the fruit juice TRQ.  
b. Please confirm whether there have been any changes to this list since 2013.  
c. If the list has changed from the 2013 2015 period, please provide the accurate list f or 
this period.  
d. Below are various HS codes listed across the EU's TRQ documents for Fruit Juice. While 
there may have been nomenclature updates, there still are a number of inconsistencies 
that need clarification.  
  
  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 95 - 2013 - 
G/AG/N/EU/24  2014 - 
G/AG/N/EU/30  2015 - 
G/AG/N/EU/33  Annex  2 - 
Article  28 
document2013 -2015 2016 – 
MA:2 G/AG/N/EU/37  2016 – 
MA:1 G/AG/N/EU/31  2017 -  
MA:2 G/AG/N/EU/41  EU-28 Schedule - 
G/MA/TAR/RS506/Add2  
2009 11 11  2009 11 11  2009 11 11  20091111  2009 11 11  2009 11 11  2009 11 11  2009 11 11  
2009 11 19  2009 11 19  2009 11 19  20091119  2009 11 19  2009 11 19  2009 11 19  2009 11 19  
2009 19 11  2009 19 11  2009 19 11  20091919  2009 19 11  2009 19 11  2009 19 11  2009 19 11  
2009 19 19  2009 19 19  2009 19 19  20092919  2009 19 19  2009 19 19  2009 19 19  2009 19 19  
2009 20 11  2009 20 11  2009 20 11  20093911  2009 29 11  2009 29 11  2009 29 11  2009 29 11  
2009 20 19  2009 20 19  2009 20 19  20093919  2009 29 19  2009 29 19  2009 29 19  2009 29 19  
2009 30 11  2009 30 11  2009 30 11  20094919  2009 31 11  2009 39 11  2009 31 11  2009 39 11  
2009 30 19  2009 30 19  2009 30 19  20097911  2009 31 19  2009 39 19  2009 31 19  2009 39 19  
2009 40 11  2009 40 11  2009 40 11  20097919  2009 49 11  2009 49 11  2009 49 11  2009 49 11  
2009 40 19  2009 40 19  2009 40 19  20098911  2009 49 19  2009 49 19  2009 49 19  2009 49 19  
2009 70 11  2009 70 11  2009 70 11  20098919  2009 79 11  2009 79 11  2009 79 11  2009 79 11  
2009 79 19  2009 79 19  2009 79 19  20098934  2009 79 19  2009 79 19  2009 79 19  2009 79 19  
2009 80 11  2009 80 11  2009 80 11  20098935  2009 81 11  2009 89 11  2009 81 11  2009 89 11  
2009 80 19  2009 80 19  2009 80 19  20098936  2009 81 19  2009 89 19  2009 81 19  2009 89 19  
2009 80 34  2009 80 34  2009 80 34  20098938  2009 89 34  2009 89 34  2009 89 34  2009 89 34  
2009 80 35  2009 80 35  2009 80 35  20099011  2009 89 35  2009 89 11  2009 89 35  2009 89 35  
2009 80 36  2009 80 36  2009 80 36  20099019  2009 89 36  2009 89 35  2009 89 36  2009 89 36  
2009 80 38  2009 80 38  2009 80 38  20099021  2009 89 38  2009 89 36  2009 89 38  2009 89 38  
2009 90 11  2009 90 11  2009 90 11  20099029  2009 90 11  2009 81 19  2009 90 11  2009 90 11  
2009 90 19  2009 90 19  2009 90 19  20099029  2009 90 19  2009 89 38  2009 90 19  2009 90 19  
2009 90 21  2009 90 21  2009 90 21   2009 90 21  2009 90 11  2009 90 21  2009 90 21  
2009 90 29  2009 90 29  2009 90 29   2009 90 29  2009 90 19  2009 90 29  2009 90 29  
     2009 90 21    
     2009 90 29    
 
 
 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 96 - 
 
  i. There appears to be consistency across the EU's MA:2 for 2013, 2014, and 2015; 
however the EU's Article XXVIII, annex 2 document, which is supposed to cover 
the 2013 -2015 time period, has different HS codes. Please explain why there are 
different HS codes.  
ii. Annex 2 of the EU's Article XXV III document appears to be missing HS code 
20091911 and possibly HS codes 20098111and 20098119, or 20098011 and 
20098019. While small, there appear to have been imports for 20098111 and 
20098119 for the time period 2013 2015. Please explain why these HS co des and 
corresponding imports were not included in the EU's Article XXVIII documents 
and why the list of HS codes differ from the various MA:2 submissions, as well as 
the EU 28 schedule and corresponding corrigendums?  
e. Please explain why 2009 31 11 and 2009  31 19 are listed under the EU's 2016 MA:2 
(G/AG/N/EU/37) and 2017 MA:2 (G/AG/N/EU/41), while HS codes 2009 39 11 and 2009 
39 19 appear in the EU's Annex 2  Article XXVIII document 2013 2015, 2016 MA :1 
G/AG/N/EU/31 and EU 28 Schedule  G/MA/TAR/RS506/Add2.  
f. Column G of the EU 28 tariff schedule lists 2009 81 11, 2009 81 19, 2009 89 11, and 
2009 89 19 as belonging to a Tariff Quota, but 2009 81 11 and 2009 81 19 are not 
listed under the TRQ section of the schedule. Please explain this inconsistency.  
Answer by Eu ropean Union  
The EU will give it detailed reply as soon as possible after the meeting. It requires a significant 
amount of data verification, which unfortunately has not been possible to finalise ahead of the 
meeting.  
2.1.11   The EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  
2.1.11.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 91004)  
Australia notes the EU will be compensating Irish beef farmers for the fall in beef prices suffered as 
a result of the UK's exit from the EU. This package would include EUR 50 million from the EU and 
the Irish government would be able to match EU funding, bringing the package to EUR 100 million.  
Australia would appreciate if the EU could provide further information on the package, including:  
- details of the package, including eligibility criteria and timel ines? 
- the WTO basis under which the package will likely be notified in this Committee?  
- the measures the EU will implement to ensure the package does not affect third markets 
and add to the already significant disruptions occurring within the global beef tr ade 
industry?  
Answer by European Union  
The legislation fixing the details for the announced measures has not yet been adopted. The EU will 
revert with a more detailed reply once this has occurred.  
Follow -up: Australia, while acknowledging the unique circum stances related to Brexit, noted that 
developments like this programme detracted from ongoing reform efforts under the Agreement on 
Agriculture and put additional pressure on the already -stressed global beef market. Australia urged 
the EU to consider the b road impact on other Members' sector when developing its programmes and 
asked if any further programmes were considered for other agricultural sectors as a result of the 
Brexit. The European Union replied that for the time being it had not considered suppo rt for other 
sectors. Paraguay, as an exporter of beef, noted interest in the issue, particularly paragraph c of the 
question regarding the measures the EU would implement to ensure the package does not affect 
third markets and disrupt the beef industry. U ruguay flagged interest in the topic.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 97 - 
 
  2.1.12   The EU's coupled payments  
2.1.12.1   Question by India ( AG-IMS ID 91061)  
An impact assessment document by the European Commission in 2018 (Report available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2018/EN/SWD 2018 301 F1 EN MAIN PART 
3.PDF  Page 68) recognizes that the CAP 2013 reintroduced coupled payments, and acknowledges 
that "coupled payments h ave the intention to maintain production at current levels or bring it back 
to historical levels, so there is a positive impact on production associated". Moreover, the 2018 
Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation amended the 2013 CAP Regulation, removi ng Para.  5 
from Article 52 that restricted the provision of coupled support to "the extent necessary to create 
an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the sectors or regions concerned". In this 
context, India requests the European Union to  explain the following:  
a. How does the EU ensure that the "production limiting" criterion, which is a pre -requisite 
for any direct payment program under Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture, is 
met? 
b. With respect to the amendment of Article 52, how doe s this amendment ensure that 
coupled support now does not serve as an incentive to increase production beyond 
historical levels?  
c. What is the enforcement mechanism? What has been done to implement it and where 
can we find the supporting data available in th is regard?  
Answer by European Union  
It is worth recalling the main specificities, in particular the strict pre -conditions and limits that apply 
to Voluntary Coupled Support ('VCS'). EU member States may only grant such aid to those 
agricultural sectors (or  specific types of farming therein), which are particularly important from 
economic, social, or environmental point of view, and undergo certain difficulties. The list of 
potentially eligible sectors is also limited (only 21 sectors are potentially eligibl e). Besides, VCS is 
also subject to a strict budgetary limit at member State level.  
As the study referred to also pointed out, those sectors, which benefitted from VCS in the member 
States concerned, typically experienced substantial production decrease due to their difficulties; and 
VCS in most cases only managed to contribute to their recovery, or at least mitigate the damage 
(e.g. increasing structural unemployment in economically sensitive rural areas) arising from these 
difficulties. But it must be stressed that VCS does not aim to stimulate development. This is why the 
main fe ature of the scheme is its 'production limiting character'; and why the strict conditions and 
limits (see above) apply.  
It should also be recalled that the amendment of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 referred to left 
these conditions and limits intact. The c hanges affected Article 52(5), but the amended wording only 
clarifies the obligation arising from Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Accordingly, it clearly 
spells out that VCS "is a production -limiting scheme", which, in accordance with Article 6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, "shall take the form of an annual payment based on fixed areas and yields 
or on a fixed number of animals".  
The fixed number of hectares and yields, or animals are determined based upon a reference 
period  (2009 -2013). T he prior estimate of the support rate (EUR per hectare, or EUR per animal) is 
also fixed on this basis. However, a mechanism ensures that, compared to this prior estimated, the 
actual payment per hectare/animal in a certain claim year shall be proportional ly lower, if the number 
of actually eligible hectares/animals shows increase in that year. This aims to discourage production 
in a degree that is proportionate to the production level.  
As for enforcement, the Commission uses the member States' ex -ante noti fications and ex -post 
implementation data to enforce the EU rules. The Commission checks that there is no excessive 
payment under the VCS measures implemented by the member States in comparison to the 
measures' envelopes notified by the member States into their ex -ante notifications. In case such 
overspending is detected, they are considered as non -compliance with EU rules and are therefore 
not eligible for funding. If already declared by the member States, the respective EU reimbursement 
are recovered. The refore, the enforcement of the measures' financial envelopes also ensures respect 
of the production limiting criteria.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 98 - 
 
  2.1.13   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
2.1.13.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 91006)  
Australia refers to the Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for Specified Agriculture Products 
scheme announced by the government of India's Press Information Bureau on 5 March 2019. This 
scheme's objective is to "provide assistance for the international component of freight and marketing 
of agricu ltural produce", which pursuant to Article 9, paragraph 1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture 
is an export subsidy.  
Australia notes that pursuant to paragraph 7 of the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition, India as a Developing Member: "s hall continue to benefit from the provisions of 
Article  9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023".  
That said, India is also obliged by the subsequent paragraphs of the Nairobi Decision, which note:  
"9. Members shall not apply export subsid ies in a manner that circumvents the requirement to reduce 
and eliminate all export subsidies;  
"10. Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five 
years on a product basis; and  
"11. Members shall ensure tha t any export subsidies have at most minimal trade distorting effects 
and do not displace or impede the exports of another Member. To that effect, Members using export 
subsidies shall give due consideration to the effects of any such export subsidies on oth er Members, 
and shall consult, upon request, with any other Member having a substantial interest as an exporter 
with respect to any matter related to the export subsidies in question. The Member applying such 
export subsidies shall provide, upon request, s uch a Member with necessary information."  
Noting these relevant paragraphs of the Nairobi Decision, can India provide the following information 
with respect to the TMA:  
a. please advise how this new export subsidy scheme is consistent with the entire Nairobi 
Decision, notably paragraph 9's obligation to reduce export subsidies (rather than 
increase them)?  
b. Can India please provide information on the average level of export subsidies provided 
for those products covered by the TMA for the past five years?  
c. Can Ind ia provide advice on what steps and assessment it undertook in the development 
of the TMA to ensure it is consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision and has, 
at most, a minimal trade distorting effect on other Members?  
Answer by India  
a. to c. As per the Nairobi Ministerial decision, developing Members shall continue to 
benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture until 
the end of 2023.  
The "Transport and Marketing Assistance" (TMA) is a new scheme introduced in 
March 2019. This scheme aims to provide assistance for the international 
component of freight and marketing of agricultural produce and complies with the 
Nairobi decision. Further  details about the scheme can be accessed at 
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=189200 . 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada and the European Union noted concern regarding the level and range 
of export subsidies provided by India and questioned its obligations under the Nairobi Decision. India 
was asked to provide further details on the programme.  
2.1.13.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91154)  
The United States understan ds that the government of India (GOI) has introduced a new export 
subsidy programme titled Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for specified agriculture 
products.  
a. Please explain this new agriculture export subsidy measure implemented by the GOI.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 99 - 
 
  b. Please explain the process by which the subsidies are provided, eligible destinations, 
and the eligibility criteria, including the list of eligible agriculture products by HS code. 
In addition, please provide a separate list of excluded agricultural products by  HS code.  
c. How much has the GOI budgeted for the TMA export subsidy programme for the present 
year?  
d. Please explain if agricultural products under the TMA are eligible for other forms of 
export subsidy or financing programs, such as the "Interest Equalizatio n Scheme on Pre 
and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit" or the "Merchandise Export from India 
Scheme." Please provide a comprehensive list of all eligible programmes.  
Answer by India  
a. to c.  Please refer to our response to Question ID 91006.  
d.  Details r egarding the "Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre - and Post -Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit" can be accessed on the following weblink: 
https://www.rbi.org.in . 
2.1.14   India's pulses policies  
2.1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 9100 5) 
Australia's long -standing concerns with respect to India's quantitative restrictions (QRs) on certain 
pulses are well known. Australia acknowledges that India provided some responses to questions with 
respect to these measures at the 28 May Committee on  Market Access, notably that the measures 
are under examination with respect to the specific WTO basis under which India has imposed them. 
Australia looks forward to receiving India's prompt and fulsome response, but want to register its 
concern that India  still needs to examine the WTO basis after nearly two years of these measures 
being in place (i.e. since August 2017).  
Having noted that, Australia believes it is appropriate for India to provide an updated response to 
Australia's question at CoA 88 (AG -IMS ID 88060) on the temporary nature of the QRs. In response 
to Australia's question, India stated its QRs on pulses were '…temporary and extension or removal 
of these QRs will be based on domestic demand supply situations'.  
On 3 June 2019, the Indian Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare lowered 
its 2018 19 estimate for pulses production to 23.22 million tonnes (down from 24.02 million tonnes 
from the 2nd advanced estimate in February 2019). The latest production estimate fo r 2018 -19 is 
9% lower than the total level of production in 2017 18 and is similar to production levels in 2016 -17 
(when QRs were introduced).  
a. Given reduced production and lower buffer stocks have placed upward pressure on the 
price of some pulses, should Australia expect India to soon remove its QRs on certain 
pulses?  
b. If not, will India increase the import quota volumes from current levels?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  The said policy measure is constantly under review.  
2.1.14.2   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 91075)  
On 29 March 2019, India re-established  an import quota for dry peas for one year (from 1 April 2019, 
to 31 March 2020). During this period 150,000 MT of dried peas will be allowed for import. Canada 
notes that this amount represents only 5% of I ndia's imports of dry peas in 2017 (3.1 million MT).  
a. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this quantitative restriction?  
b. Could India indicate when it will inform the Committee of the relevant provision  of the 
GATT or WTO Agreements it believes supports this quantitative restriction?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 100 - 
 
  c. What factors did India use to determinate the volume of the quantitative restriction for 
dried peas? What specific elements were considered?  
d. Could India provide updated info rmation on the utilization of this import quota?  
Answer by India  
a. to d. These questions refer to India's notification to other WTO committees and will be answered 
in the relevant committee. A total of 855,088 metric tonnes of peas have been imported duri ng the 
year of 2018 -19. 
Follow -up: Canada and the EU requested India to identify the Committee where India had provided 
answers to these questions. Canada also asked India to identify the notification where the relevant 
information would be provided and so ught India's legal justification for the restriction.  
2.1.14.3   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 91076)  
In its answers to Canada AG-IMS ID 87071, India indicated that "the decision for the imposition of 
a quota was based on the domestic demand and supply situation of p ulses in India". It was also 
noted that "mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was not sufficient in case of certain pulses" and 
that "the wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses in the country has come down" . 
a. Please specify how the domestic situation h as evolved over the last months?  
b. Please provide updated monthly numbers for the wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses 
since December 2018.  
Answer by India  
a. The Government has been regularly reviewing the market situation of pulses owing to 
which the quota of pulses has been increased from 6,00,000 MT in 2018 -19 to 
6,50,000  MT for year 2019 -20.  
b. Wholesale Price Index (WPI) of pulses for recent months is as follows:  
Month -wise WPI of Pulses  
Commodities  Dec.-2018 January -2019 February -2019 March -2019 April-2019 May-2019 
Pulses  135.8  136.6  137.5  135.3  138.1  141.8  
2.1.14.4   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 91077)  
In an interview with the press, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Minister Ram Vilas Paswan 
said that: "Since 2016, we have been maintaining a pulse buffer stock of 20 lakh tonnes which is 
now successfully liquidated, without any wastage. This has helped us maintain the prices of pulses 
within limits. Now that this has been disposed of, we are building a new buffer stock of pulses i n 
order to ensure that the prices are under check. We have already procured 12 lakh tonnes. An 
additional 4 lakh tonnes will be procured very soon,".  
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri business/govt to procure 4 lakh 
tonnes of pulses to create 16 l t buffer stock/article27394219.ece . 
a. Could Ind ia describe how this buffer stock was disposed i.e., through which channels 
and the associated quantities?  
b. Could India indicate if any of these buffer stock pulses disposed through e auctions? 
If yes, please provide the quantity and information on the cond itions  
c. Were any of these buffer stock pulses disposed through exports or sold to traders for 
exports? If yes, please provide the quantities and information on the conditions for 
export?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 101 - 
 
  Answer by India  
a. to c.  The buffer stock of pulses created under the  Price Stabilization Fund (PSF) is 
disposed -off through central government schemes, open market sales and supply 
to States/UTs/Central Agencies. Out of the total buffer stocks of about 20.50 Lakh 
MT of pulses created during 2015 -16 and 2016 -17, about 12.47  Lakh MT of pulses 
was disposed -off though e -auctions/open market sale. No pulses were exported 
from the buffer created under the PSF.  
2.1.14.5   Question by Russian Federation ( AG-IMS ID 91008)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative restriction on import of 
yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the 
territory of India sha ll be 100,000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. After the expiry of this measure 
the quota was extended until 30 September 2018.  
In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India issued a notice restricting 
the import of yellow peas from 1 January 2019 until 31 March 2019. In late March 2019 India issued 
a notification establishing a new quota of 150,000 MT for the period from 1 April 2019 until 
31 March2020.  
Answering Russia's question AG-IMS ID 90029 India mentioned that 550,878 metric t onnes of yellow 
peas was imported into India from 1 April to 31 December 2018. It was also said that "imports were 
allowed due to court orders".  
Could India clarify the following issues:  
a. What is the amount of yellow peas eligible to be imported from 1 Janu ary 2019 until 
31 March 2019?  
b. Could India describe the mechanism of issuing court orders for import of yellow peas? 
What are the criteria for importers to be eligible to import under these court orders?  
c. How these measures (quantitative restrictions and imp ort ban) are consistent with 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
a. No additional volumes were included in the extension during 1 January -31 March 2019 
as per the notification, as a total of 855,088 metric  tonnes of peas have been imported 
during the period 2018 -19. For 2019 -20, revised quota is notified as follows:  
Peas: 1.5 lakh tonnes ; 
Moong: 1.5 lakh tonnes ; 
Urad: 1.5 lakh tonnes ; 
Tur/Pigeon Peas – 2 lakh tonnes.  
b. There exists an appropriate legal procedure for the redressal of such claims in India. 
The judicial system in India is independent of the executive.  
c. Please refer to India's response to Question AG-IMS ID 91075.  
2.1.14.6   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 91140)  
On 1 April 2019, India again renewed quantitative restrictions on imports of mung beans, peas, 
black gram lentils, and pigeon peas for the Indian fiscal year (IFY) 2019/20 (April/March). 
Quantitative restrictions on these products have be en in effect since the end of 2017 or the beginning 
of 2018. Indian imports of pulses classified under HS 0713 fell from $4.0 billion in 2016 to $1.1  billion 
in 2018, representing a 74% decrease in only two years. The IFY 2019/20 pigeon pea quota is set 
at 200,000 metric tonnes (MT) and the others are set at 150,000 MT, each.  
a. In past COA and other WTO Committee meetings, India has stated the quantitative 
restrictions would be temporary, yet they have now been renewed for another year. 
Please indicate when a nd how the restrictions will be brought to an end.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 102 - 
 
  b. In the April CTG meeting, India explained that the decision on imposition of quota was 
based on the domestic supply and demand situation of pulses in India. Please provide 
more details on how the supply an d demand situation is assessed and how the decision 
is made to set the level of quantitative restriction for each pulse.  
c. Once again, the United States requests an explanation for how these measures comply 
with India's WTO commitments.  
Answer by India  
a. and b. These measures are temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be 
based on the market situation. India is constantly reviewing these measures. The 
decision for imposition of quota was based on the domestic demand and supply 
situation of pulse s in India which is assessed on the basis of production, prices, 
farmer distress among other factors. Further details may be seen in our response 
to question AG -IMS ID 88109.  
c. Please refer to our response to question AG -IMS ID 91075.  
Follow -up: Australia  was disappointed that India had not provided the WTO basis nor explained the 
measure in any of the WTO Committee. Australia reiterated the concern that these measures had a 
significant impact on the global pulses market. Without prejudice to its call to I ndia to provide the 
WTO basis to these measures or remove the QRs immediately, Australia asked India to seriously 
consider the impact of these measures had on other Members, particularly the impact on developing 
Members when India become a net importer of pulses again. On the matter of transparency and 
advance notices, given the size and importance of India's pulses market to the global industry and 
the importance of imported pulses to India in times of low production, Australia noted that India 
would benef it from being transparent and providing forewarning when implementing or removing 
these measures. Australia noted that India would also appreciate the same courtesy from each 
trading partner in similar situations, i.e. whether India exported important comm odities or when 
India needed to import a staple product. Ukraine shared the concern regarding the lack of 
transparency and predictability of India's pulses policies and noted that India had the obligation to 
ensure Members predictable trade opportunities t o access India's pulses market.  
2.1.15   India's wheat policies  
2.1.15.1   Question by Ukraine ( AG-IMS ID 91009)  
Ukraine notes that India has continuously increased basic customs duty on wheat since 2017. 
Recently in the notification No. 13/2019 Customs, dated the 26 April 20 19 the Central Board of 
Indirect Taxes and Customs announced an increase in the import duty on wheat from 30% to 40%. 
Could India please give background and give main reasons for India's on going policy for wheat 
production and trade, both in general terms  and specifically with regard to import duties? What 
export restrictions on wheat does India maintain, if any?  
Answer by India  
The change in the import duty on wheat from 30% to 40% has been made on the basis of domestic 
demand and supply situations. The applied import duty is well within the bound duty of wheat. At 
present, India maintains no export restrictions on wheat.  
Follow -up: Australia, as a major wheat exporter, noted concern regarding India's ad hoc 
announcement and implementation  of tariff increases. Australia noted that the lack of transparency 
in forewarning would have a detrimental impact to the global trading system and called for increased 
transparency from India. Australia encouraged India to review its DS measures underpinn ing wheat 
production as Australia viewed the use of trade distorting market price support could lead to 
overproduction and result in increased import barriers and export surpluses into global markets. 
Canada shared interest in the topic and noted that the lack of predictability in tariffs affected global 
trade. The United Sates echoed Australia and Canada's comments.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 103 - 
 
  2.1.16   India's wheat public stockpiling  
2.1.16.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91141)  
The United States notes India is having back-to-back record domestic harvests of wheat, which along 
with higher procurement/minimum support prices has resulted in increased government 
procurement leading to higher government stocks of wheat in the last two years. In fact, GOI data 
already shows India is on tr ack to reaching record stock levels of wheat in the 2019/20 season. The 
United States also notes that the government of India is procuring wheat minimum support prices 
(MSP) that are relatively higher compared to international prices.  
a. Please explain why th e GOI has increased the minimum support price for wheat and is 
procuring record quantities of wheat.  
b. Please provide current, historical, and pre-determined  targeted levels of wheat since 
2010. Please explain what steps India is taking to ensure these large  and potentially 
record stockpiles of wheat do not impact global markets.  
c. Please explain what steps India will take to ensure these tocks do not enter international 
markets at prices less than procurement prices, whether as a result of sales from 
governmen t stocks at lower prices or the use of other measures such as export subsidies 
and/or other export financing programmes for wheat.  
d. Noting Madhya Pradesh announced a bonus of INR 1,600 per MT for 2018/19, please 
indicate all states and bonuses amounts annou nced for wheat in 2016/17, 2017/18, 
and 2018/19.  
Answer by India  
(Reply given in ID 92009)  
a. and b.  Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are announced by the Government following the 
recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), 
which takes into account various factors including the cost of 
cultivation/production, changes in input prices, input/output price parity, inter -
crop price parity, effects on the cost of living, effects on general price level, parity 
between prices paid and prices received by farmers, etc. Procurement of wheat 
is done based on the assessment made with regard to the requirements under 
various food security programmes.  
c.  Procurement operations of wheat in India are being carried out with an explicit 
purpose o f ensuring food security in the country. For price stabilization, some 
wheat may also be released for sale in domestic market with the stipulation that 
the same would not be used for exports.  
d. No state has announced bonus for wheat in the marketing seas on 2016 -17, 
2017-18 and  2018- 19. 
2.1.17   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
2.1.17.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91151)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 89026, India stated it would respond in due course to parts b) and c) of 
the question. To date, no response has been provided, and therefore, the United States submits the 
following question: As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 88070, the United States note s that in 
September  2018, India announced another increase in export subsidies for dairy products to 20%, 
to further support the export price of dairy products, including skim milk powder. This is double the 
level of 10% announced in June 2018.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 104 - 
 
  a. Please provide the below budget outlay and quantity data for dairy products under the 
program during each month between June 2018 and May 2019 (or the latest month 
available), including data sources.  
- total cost of the export subsidy measure;  
- total value of  subsidized exports; and  
- total quantity of subsidized exports.  
b. Please explain if the specific eligibility criteria for payments to dairy exporters allows for 
the subsidy to be provided in conjunction with export subsidies provided by the states 
of Gujarat and Maharashtra.  
Answer by India  
The said measure is presently before a WTO adjudication panel and therefore it would not be 
appropriate to comment further on this matter.  
2.1.18   India's support to rice exports  
2.1.18.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 9115 3) 
The United States notes that in November 2018, India announced the introduction of an export 
subsidy for non -Basmati rice of 5 %. Since India is by far the world's largest producer and exporter 
of rice:  
a. Please explain the nature of this export subsidy me asure and its duration.  
b. Please explain how the current level of non-Basmati  rice public stockpiling for food 
security compares to its historical levels.  
c. Please provide a comprehensive list of the rice products under the subsidy by HS codes.  
d. Please provide a list of eligible export destinations.  
e. Please explain if non -Basmati rice under this export subsidy is eligible for other forms 
of export subsidies, export financing (such as the "Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre 
and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit"), or other export scheme maintained by GOI. 
Please provide a list with the names of all eligible programmes.  
Answer by India  
a. to e. The MEIS for the said product was withdrawn with effect from 26 March 2019.  
2.1.19   India - Maharashtra State export subsi dies 
2.1.19.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91155)  
The United States notes that the Maharashtra State Agriculture Marketing Board (MSAMB) is 
providing transportation and freight subsidies to promote the export of fruit and vegetable products. 
According to https://www.freshplaza.com/article/2200311/indian agro exporters to get subsidy on 
sea routes , MSAMB will provide a subsi dy of ₹30.000 (US D 427.52) per container.  
a. Please explain how this measure is implemented and provide any eligibility criteria.  
b. In addition, please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for making this export 
subsidy available. If not available now, wh en will these documents be made available?  
Answer by India  
This is a scheme of the provincial government of Maharashtra. Details are available at the following 
weblink: https://www.msamb.com/Scheme s/ExportScheme . 
Follow -up: Australia raised a follow -up question on whether India's Transport and Marketing 
Assistance (TMA) programme would cover the same products and whether exports would be eligible 
under both programmes.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 105 - 
 
  2.1.20   India - National Food Security  Mission  
2.1.20.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91157)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 88107 India stated the main focus of the government under the National 
Food Security Mission (NFSM) is plant protection and extension services, cluster demonstration, seed 
distribution, etc. Further, as noted in the US question, India, under the NSFM, provides seed 
subsidies to various commodities, including but not limited to rice, wheat, arhar, moong, urd, gram, 
lentil, maize, and barley, in various states. Accordingl y, the NSFM subsidies for certain types of seed 
(e.g., hybrid, high yielding varies) can be approximately 50 % of the cost or a lower rate if an older 
variety. These subsidies do not appear meet the criteria of a Green Box measure and it is unclear 
where India currently notifies such measures in the Green Box as indicated in its previous response.  
a. Please confirm w hat commodities receive seed subsidies under the NSFM or any other 
programme.  
b. Please indicate where such measures are currently notified, and if they are notified as 
exempt measures, please explain how they meet the relevant exemption criteria.  
Answer by India  
The main focus of this scheme is plant protection and extension services, cluster demonstration, 
seed distribution, etc. Beside this, it also focusses on rainfed area, promotion & extension of 
improved technology, nutrient management, pest management, capacity building of farmers, agro 
climatic zone wise planning and cluster approach. Financial assistance is also provided for farmers' 
training on seed production, storage and post -harvest seed technology. Assistance is also provided 
to encour age farmers by demonstrating the benefits of certified seeds. The mission adopted the 
multi-dimensional approach for restoring soil fertility by encouraging sustainable agriculture 
development. All these measures are covered under the Green Box and therefo re, notified under the 
same.  
Follow -up: The United States emphasized that its first question requested India to provide a list of 
the commodities that received the subsidy.  
2.1.21   India's increased budget on agriculture and rural development  
2.1.21.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 91020)  
India's Prime Minister has pledged to spend 100 trillion rupees on infrastructure in the next five 
years and 25 trillion rupees on agriculture and rural development, along with a goal of doubling 
farmer's income by 2022.  
a. Can India p lease provide further details on how it plans to allocate the spending of 
25 trillion rupees on agriculture and rural development?  
b. India also announced plans to double farmers' income by 2022. How will this be done 
taking into account global market prices of produce and measures put in place to 
prevent excess production?  
c. Can India please give further detail on the increase of 410.29 million USD for the 2.(g) 
Infrastructural Services under Supporting Table DS:1 between 2016 and 2017 and what 
this included? ( G/AG/N/IND/13 and G/AG/N/IND/15)  
Answer by India  
a. The response will be provided in due course.  
b. Strategy for improving farmers' income entails various development initiatives, 
livestock productivity, generation and dissemination of improved technologies and also 
through the policy reforms, such as, promoting agricultural investments, value chains, 
producers' alliances, linking production to processing, etc. These initiatives are 
broad -based and aim at removing structural inefficiencies.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 106 - 
 
  Follow -up: Canada and the United States registered interest in the question. Paraguay sought further 
details on how the announced 25 trillion rupees would be distributed and how India planned to 
double farmers' income with the potential distortions that such subsidies could bri ng to trade.  
2.1.22   India's PM KISAN income guarantee scheme  
2.1.22.1   Question by New Zealand ( AG-IMS ID 91007)  
New Zealand notes the PM KISAN (Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana) income guarantee 
scheme India has implemented to support small farmers.  
a. Can India advi se how income support schemes will support the replacement of existing 
subsidies that India provides on agricultural inputs?  
b. How will India transition from providing indirect to direct income support for its small 
holder farmers?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  With a view to providing income support to farmer families fulfilling the requisite 
criteria of having cultivable land, the Government has launched PM -KISAN to 
supplement the financial needs of the farmers.  
Follow -up: The United States noted inte rest in the question. Australia welcomed the development 
on PM -KISAN and recommended India to consider expand it and remove trade -distorting support 
such as market price support. The European Union supported Australia's intervention.  
2.1.23   India's short term cro p loans  
2.1.23.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91147)  
In response to AGIMS ID 88107, India undertook to provide a response in due course. The United 
States resubmits Question 6 of that question: The United States understands that India provides 
farmers with subsidized interest rates for short term credit under the Interest Subvention Scheme 
that has been implemented since 2006/07. Under the scheme, farmers are offered short term crop 
loans at a subsidized rate of interest.  
a. Please provide additional  details with regards to how this measure is implemented, 
including the effective interest rate subsidy rate and the value of loans covered by the 
measure in 2016/17.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notifica tion. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
Answer by India  
a. Please refer to the website http://agricoop.nic.in .  
b. Response would be provided in due course.  
2.1.24   India  - Dairy Loans  
2.1.24.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91149)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 89027, India acknowledged it is providing "soft loans" administered by 
the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) for distribution to various state cooperatives dairy 
federations.  
a. Please explain the terms offered by the Government of India to NDDB under the soft 
loan, including the rate(s) of interest (including how it compares to the market rate of 
interest), repayment terms, grace periods, and any other terms.  
b. Please explain the process and requirements the cooperatives must fulfil for NDDB to 
extend the loan, including any contingency on export performance.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 107 - 
 
  c. Please explain how and when India intends to notify this support measure in its future 
notifications.  
Answer by India  
(Reply given in ID  92011)  
a. The scheme "Supporting Dairy Cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organizations 
engaged in dairy activities" is a new scheme that will be implemented by the NDDB. 
The rate of interest is proposed to be simple interest of 5% per annum (floating rate), 
which will be calculated on a monthly rest basis from the date of disbursement of loan. 
The penal rate of interest in case of default in repayment will be at 2 % per annum over 
& above the normal interest to be compounded monthly or such rate as may be spec ified 
by the government.  
b. Cooperative Societies and farmer producer organizations engaged in dairy activities 
which fulfil the following criteria will be eligible for working capital loan, to be repaid 
within nine months:  
i. Must not be a defaulter in repayme nt of long -term loan or working capital loan to 
NDDB and/or National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC).  
ii. Past accounts, up to the previous financial year must be attached with the loan 
application.  
iii. The Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) of the oper ations to cover the total 
liability towards lenders should work out to a minimum of 1.25 times.  
iv. The Cooperatives and FPOs engaged in dairy activities must post Operating Profits 
of the last three consecutive financial years. 'Other income & grant' should n ot 
be considered for calculation of Operating Profit.  
v. Current Ratio should be a minimum of 1.00. 'Non recoverable debtors' shall be 
excluded from debtors and 'short term loan & interest due' to be included in 
current liabilities in calculation of current R atio. 
c. No loans were sanctioned till July 2019 under this scheme.  
2.1.25   India – Transparency with Green Box measures  
2.1.25.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91150)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 88107, India did not respond to a question originally asked in 
October  2017. The United States resubmits the question: In response to AG-IMS ID 85018 from 
October 2017, India stated an "answer will be submitted shortly" in relation to the part (f) of t he 
question regarding measures that were also not notified in G/AG/N/IND/12 or G/AG/N/IND/13: "It 
is noted that a number of Green Box measures including, "dry land farming/rain fed farming," 
"provision of loans at concession rates and debt waiver," "soil c onservation in catchment areas of 
river valley projects," and "integrated watershed management" are no longer notified by India.  
It is the US understanding that all of these measures may not have been terminated after 
MY 2010/11. For example, it appears th at India has continued to implement the "integrated 
watershed management" programme according to documentation in India's Union Budget and 
a 2015 India Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs approval of the consolidation of the program 
into a larger program ." 
a. Please indicate if and whether any or all of these measures have been replaced by other 
measures and if so, where these are notified in India's notification.  
b. If not, please verify that all of these measures have been terminated.  
Answer by India  
a. and b. India has already submitted response to the question ID 85018 in the AGIMS. 
Please refer to para (f) of the said response.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 108 - 
 
  2.1.26   India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
2.1.26.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91152)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 88107, question  3, India stated it would submit a DS:2 notification with 
regard to the 2011 introduction of the National Dairy Plan Phase I (NDP I) for the period 2011/12 
through 2018/19 and implemented by the National Dairy Development Board.  
a. Noting that NDP I has eithe r concluded or is near conclusion, please indicate when a 
DS:2 notification will be submitted.  
b. As part of India's previous response, India indicated that the NDP I was "notified as a 
Green Box measure." Further, NDP I appears to provide funding for a broad  array of 
policy measures, which may not all be categorized as the same type of Green Box 
measure.  
i. Please provide additional details on how NDP I is implemented.  
ii. Please indicate which specific Green Box notified measures relate to NDP I 
in G/AG/N/IND/13 an d G/AG/N/IND/15.  
iii. If NDP I measure(s) are aggregated with other measures, please provide break 
outs of the budgetary outlays for each NDP I scheme, as well as the name of each 
scheme/measure.  
c. Please provide details of what measures will be implemented follo wing the conclusion 
of Phase I and whether India plans to submit any applicable DS:2 notifications for those 
measures.  
Answer by India  
a. India's DS 2 notification is being prepared and will be notified in due course.  
b. and c.  Response would be provided in due course.  
2.1.27   India - Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)  
2.1.27.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91156)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 88107 (question 1 and 2), India noted that RKVY was initiated in 2007 
and was an umbrella scheme for variou s types of development activities and noted the cost share 
between the Central and State/Union Territory governments. However, this response provided fewer 
details than had been described in the US summary of its understanding of RKVY. Therefore, the 
Unite d States resubmits its question with additional clarity as to what information is being sought.  
In 2007, the Indian National Development Council launched RKVY, which supports the agricultural 
sector in a number of ways including: crop development, horticul ture, agricultural mechanization, 
natural resource management, marketing and post harvest management, animal husbandry, dairy 
development, extension, etc. The RKVY appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy 
measures.  
a. Please identify all major s chemes that operate under this umbrella scheme. For each, 
please provide additional details on how each scheme is implemented.  
b. Noting India's response that all measures are Green Box, please indicate, which specific 
Green Box notified measures relate to th e various RKVY schemes in G/AG/N/IND/13 
and G/AG/N/IND/15.  
i. If such measures are aggregated with other measures, please provide breakouts 
of the budgetary outlays provided for each RKVY scheme, as well as the name of 
the scheme/measure.  
From 2015 2017, RKVY  was continued as the RKVY Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and 
Allied sector Rejuvenation (RKVY RAFTAAR) with 70 % of outlays to be allocated for activities related 
to infrastructure and assets and production growth. An additional 20 % of RKVY RAFTAA R funding is 
made available for other sub schemes that related to national priorities, while the remaining funding 
is for innovation and agri entrepreneur development.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 109 - 
 
  c. It is noted that India has never submitted any DS:2 notification for any new or modified  
exempt measures. Please indicate whether India will be providing a DS:2 notification 
for the introduction of the RKVY in 2007, the modification of RKVY to RKVY RAFTAAR in 
2015, or for any other new or modified exempt measure introduced whether related to 
RKVY or not.  
Answer by India  
a. to c. Relevant information may be accessed from the following website link: 
https://rkvy.nic.in . In India's DS notifications referred to in the question, RKVY is 
notified under the services covered by para 2(g) of Annex 2 of the AoA. India's 
DS 2 notification is being prepared and will be notified in due course.  
Follow -up: The United States noted that in light of the wide range of measures the scheme covered, 
it would be useful to ha ve a breakdown of information on different measures in India's notification.  
2.1.28   Indonesia's Mea sure 18 in DS477 and DS478  
2.1.28.1   Question by New Zealand ( AG-IMS ID 91010)  
Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative change required to remove 
measure 18 in DS477; DS478 Indonesia — Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 
Products?  
Answer by Indonesia  
We understand that the question raised is related to DSB recommendations and rulings related 
to DS477 and DS478. Indonesia  continues to commit to improve its importation system through 
adjusting the relevant regulations in order to attain full compliance with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. Internal processes related to further adjusting measures 1 -17 are almost 
concluded. With regard to measure 18, the Indonesian government has prepared the documents 
required for the statutory changes. These documents include the draft amendments and their 
respective academic drafts. To date, these documents have been intensively discussed and consulted 
with all related ministries and agencies.  
Follow -up: New Zealand welcomed the steps taken by Indonesia to bring the regulation into 
compliance with the WTO decision and Indonesia's commitments to comply fully with the decision. 
New Zealand was disappointed, however, that full compliance had not been reached in respect of a 
number of measures addressed in the case. New Zealand emphasized its concern regarding 
Indonesia's failure to meet the 22 June deadline for the removal of the Meas ure 18 which limited 
imports based on the sufficiency of domestic supply and was contrary to Indonesia's WTO 
obligations. New Zealand noted that its exporters continued to be adversely impacted by Measure 
18 and other measures which had yet been removed as  required and encouraged Indonesia to 
achieve long -term commercially meaningful compliance with the WTO decision. The European, Japan 
and the Philippines flagged interest in the measure. The Philippines noted that the sufficiency of 
domestic supply require ment was among many import measures imposed by Indonesia on 
horticultural products of the Philippines since 2013 that led to the closure of Indonesia's market. The 
Philippines looked forward to discussing this matter bilaterally with Indonesia.  
2.1.29   Japan's exp ort subsidies  
2.1.29.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91158)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 89028, Japan stated that eligibility and level of payment are determined 
by local agricultural councils and prefecture governments, while national government fund ing 
allocations support local initiatives. The United States understands that these initiatives may include 
new market development overseas.  
a. Please explain how Japan ensures that eligibility or criteria determined by local 
agricultural councils are complia nt with WTO rules?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 110 - 
 
  b. Please provide examples of relevant criteria from several major rice producing 
prefectures, such as Niigata, Hokkaido, and Akita that outline how the payment 
identified by the United States (i.e., 20,00 yen/10 acres for rice planted for new market 
development, domestic, or overseas market) are implemented and how farmers are 
determined to be eligible to receive the payment.  
Answer by Japan  
a. Grants for the Production Area is a program that supports local initiatives for agricultural 
product ion. It is based on the plans established by local agricultural councils consisting 
of farmers and other stakeholders. The eligibility of products and the level of payment 
are determined by the local agricultural councils. The amounts paid as grants must b e 
covered by the fund allocated by the national government through prefectural 
governments. Since the program does not require any payment contingent upon export 
performance, its consistency with the WTO Agreement is ensured.  
b. The unit amount of funding all ocation set as 20,000 yen per 10 ares is only one element 
that the national government takes into account when calculating the amount of funds 
to be allocated to prefectural governments. The eligibility of products and the levels of 
payment to farmers are determined by the criteria which local agricultural councils 
decide, including those in the prefectures cited in the question. Those criteria are 
established based on their individual situations, regardless of the unit amounts of 
funding allocation set by the national government, and payment is made according to 
such criteria.  
2.1.30   Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  
2.1.30.1   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 91084)  
a. At the 90th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Canada asked Mexico a question 
on how it wi ll dispose of the corn, beans, wheat, rice and milk it will purchase under the 
Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices for small producers on the domestic market, 
and asked further details on the Programme's operating procedures. ( AG-IMS ID 90089) 
Mexico responded that it would provide more information once the programme's 
operating guidelines have been published.  
b. Could Mexico provide an update on timelines for the publication of Seguridad 
Alimentaria Mexicana (SEGALMEX) guidelines for the Strategic Progra mme of 
Guaranteed Prices?  
Answer by Mexico  
The following is the reply to question 90089 and follow -up question 91084.  
a. The recently -established Food Security Agency (SEGALMEX), which merges LICONSA 
and DICONSA, will be responsible for the operation of the Programme. The purpose of 
the Programme is to increase the income of small -scale agricultural producers, so as to 
improve their standard of living. The support consists of guaranteeing the sale price of 
part of the crops produced by small -scale produce rs of basic goods, either through direct 
purchases by SEGALMEX, or by covering the differential between the commercial price 
paid by the processing industry and the guaranteed price under the Programme. 
Currently, SEGALMEX is establishing collection centre s for the direct purchase of maize 
and beans from small -scale producers. For wheat and rice, producers will deliver their 
crops to the processing industry, and SEGALMEX will pay them the difference between 
the commercial price and the guaranteed price. For  liquid milk, LICONSA will continue 
to make purchases from small -scale producers (35 cows) and medium -scale producers 
(36 to 100 cows) through its Milk Supply Programme. Table 1 shows the amount of 
incentives granted and the characteristics of the target p opulation.  
  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 111 - 
 
  Table 1. Mexico : Characteristics of the Programme for Guaranteed Prices  
Product  Surface area required 
for eligibility  Agricultural cycle  Guaranteed price  
(Mexican pesos)  Maximum 
purchase 
volume by 
producer  
White 
maize  Producers with up to 
5 hectares of rain -fed land  Spring -summer 2019  5,610.00 per tonne  20 tonnes  
Beans  Producers with up to 
20 hectares of rain -fed land 
and up to 5 hectares of 
irrigated land  Spring -summer 2019  14,500.00  per tonne  15 tonnes  
Rice - Autumn -winter 
2018-2019 and 
spring -summer 2019  6,120.00 per tonne  120 tonnes  
Bread 
wheat  - Autumn -winter 
2018-2019 and 
spring -summer 2019  5,790.00 per tonne  100 tonnes  
Milk - Daily  8.20 per litre  15 litres per cow  
For rice and bread wheat, any producer may participate. Participation is determined by the maximum 
volume by producer as shown in Table 1 and not by size of the land.  
For milk, beneficiaries must be registered in the LICONSA register.  
b. The maize and beans procured by SEGALMEX at guaranteed prices will be used primarily 
to meet the needs of DICONSA for its supply network in rural areas. Once DICONSA's 
needs have been met, the remaining volumes will be sold to other institutional 
programmes or on the open market, in order to recover the commer cial value of the 
products.  
For rice and bread wheat, SEGALMEX WILL NOT physically collect the crops, as they are products 
that are delivered by the producer to the beneficiary industry. It will only implement a payment 
system for producers to cover the di fference between the real price obtained for the delivery of the 
crops and the established guaranteed price.  
The operational guidelines were published on 1 March 2019 and can be accessed at: 
https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5551718&fecha=01/03/2019 . 
2.1.30.2   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91159)  
Mexico recently created the Food Security Agency (Seglamex). According to Mexico, Seglamex will 
procure agri food products at guaranteed prices from small and medium sized producers, sell and 
distribute fertilizers, seed, and other products, and carry out other functions. The United States 
understands that SEGALMEX oversees a guaranteed prices programme for maize, beans, milling 
wheat, rice, and fresh milk.  
a. Please provide additional details regarding the guaranteed price for each commodity, 
including the guaranteed price and any requirements, terms, and conditions receiving 
the guaranteed price.  
b. Please specif y if there will be any limits placed on procurement activities.  
c. Please provide additional details as to how procured commodities will be disposed from 
government stocks.  
d. Please indicate how these new guaranteed prices for small and medium sized producers 
will operate in conjunction with other established price related support policies in 
Mexico. e. Please explain if Mexico's SEGALMEX also intends to introduce input subsidies 
as well? If so, please provide additional details as to how this will be implemente d. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 112 - 
 
  Answer by Mexico  
Mexico recently created the Food Security Agency (SEGALMEX). According to Mexico, SEGALMEX 
will procure agri ‑food products at guaranteed prices from small ‑ and medium ‑sized producers, sell 
and distribute fertilizers, seed, and other pro ducts, and carry out other functions. The United States 
understands that SEGALMEX oversees a guaranteed prices programs for maize, beans, milling 
wheat, rice, and fresh milk.  
a. The support guarantees the sale price of part of the crops produced by small ‑scale 
producers of maize, beans, bread wheat, rice and milk, whether through a direct 
purchase by SEGALMEX or by covering the differential between the commercial price 
paid by the processing industry and the guaranteed price under the Programme.  
Currently, SEGALMEX coordinates the purchases and distribution of the products under 
the Programme through the existing infrastructure of DICONSA and LICONSA. In some 
cases, new collection centres have been set up for the direct purchase of maize and 
beans  from small ‑scale producers through loan ‑for‑use and rental schemes. For wheat 
and rice, producers will deliver their crops to the processing industry and SEGALMEX 
will pay them the difference between the commercial price and the guaranteed price.  
For liqu id milk, LICONSA will continue with its Milk Supply Programme, through which 
it will MAKE purchases from small ‑scale producers, that is to say, producers with up to 
35 cows, and medium ‑scale producers with between 36 and 100 cows.  
Table 1 shows the amount of incentives granted and the characteristics of the target population.  
Table 1: Mexico: Characteristics of the Programme for Guaranteed Prices   
Product  Surface area required for 
eligibility  Agricultural cycle  Guaranteed price  
(Mexican pesos)  Maximum 
purchase 
volume by 
producer   
White 
maize  Producers with up to 
5 hectares of rain ‑fed land  Spring‑summer 2019  5,610.00  per tonne  20 tonnes  
Beans  Producers with up to 
20 hectares of rain ‑fed land 
and up to 5 hectares of 
irrigated land  Spring‑summer 2019  14,500.00  per tonne  15 tonnes  
Rice ‑ Autumn ‑winter 
2018‑2019 and 
spring‑summer 2019  6,120.00 per tonne  120 tonnes  
Bread 
wheat  ‑ Autumn ‑winter 
2018‑2019 and 
spring‑summer 2019  5,790.00 per tonne  100 tonnes  
Milk ‑ Daily 8.20 per litre  15 litres per cow  
For rice and bread wheat, participation is determined by the maximum volume by producer shown 
in Table 1 and not by the size of the land. For milk, beneficiaries must be registered in the LICONSA 
register.  
In addition to the guaranteed pric e shown in Table 1, maize producers will be able to receive financial 
support for the transportation of grain from the production unit to the collection centre. This support 
will amount to MXN 150.00 per tonne, without exceeding the cost of transportation for 20 tonnes 
per cycle, and will be provided upon payment to the producer for the grain.  
The reception of and payment for the grain physically collected by SEGALMEX, namely maize and 
beans, will be carried out in accordance with the following procedure:  
i. verification of the identity of producers and registration of producers in the 
beneficiary register for the Programme;  
ii. analysis of the quality of the grain to confirm compliance with the standards 
required for purchase;  
iii. weighing;  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 113 - 
 
  iv. registration and submissio n of documents and/or electronic registration for 
payment;  
v. to receive payment, beneficiaries must present, as a minimum: official 
identification (voting card from the National Electoral Institute (INE)), federal 
taxpayer registration and an inter ‑bank wire transfer code;  
vi. producers will receive their payment once the quality of the product has been 
verified, within 72  hours after the delivery of the product;  
vii. products will be refused if they do not meet the quality standards established by 
SEGALMEX.  
b. The p rocurement of products is contingent upon budgetary availability.  
The Programme for Guaranteed Prices received a budgetary allocation of MXN 6 billion 
for 2019, while the Milk Supply Programme received MXN 1.2408 billion.  
c. The maize and beans procured by SE GALMEX at guaranteed prices will be used primarily 
to meet the needs of DICONSA for its supply network in rural areas. This action will be 
implemented in DICONSA's rural shops located in 1,012 municipalities in the country's 
poorest areas.  
Once DICONSA's n eeds have been met, the remaining volumes will be sold to other 
institutional programmes or on the open market, in order to recover the commercial 
value of the products.  
For rice and bread wheat, SEGALMEX WILL NOT physically collect the crops. It will only  
implement a payment system for producers to cover the difference between the real 
price obtained for the delivery of the crops and the established guaranteed price.  
Milk will be purchased and distributed through the LICONSA Milk Supply Programme.  
d. The Prog ramme for Guaranteed Prices does not operate in conjunction with the rest of 
the support programmes in the Mexican agricultural sector.  
e. The Decree establishing SEGALMEX grants the Agency the authority to, inter alia, 
promote the sale, distribution and, whe re relevant, importation of fertilizer, improved 
seeds and any other product that may increase agricultural productivity. It may 
therefore sell and distribute fertilizer, improved seeds and other products in order to 
meet its objective through its national  distribution network (primarily, DICONSA shops).  
The Decree does NOT provide for sales at prices lower than market prices.  
The Federal Expenditure Budget and the 2019 Rules of Operation of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) provide for the Programme on Fertilizers. 
However, SEGALMEX IS NOT RESPONSIBLE  for the Programme, which is run by the 
Under‑Secretariat for Agriculture of SADER.  
The Programme on Fertilizers grants in ‑kind support consisting of 450 kg of fertilizer 
per hectare, wi thout exceeding a maximum of 3 hectares per producer, for beneficiaries 
who meet the following requirements:  
i. Beneficiaries must be small ‑scale producers in accordance with the classification 
developed by FAO, specifically those belonging to the E1 and E2 s trata established 
in the 2012 Diagnosis of the Rural and Fisheries Sector in Mexico carried out by 
FAO, which are defined as follows:  
Strata E1: Non ‑market family agriculture. The main characteristic of this type of 
agriculture is that it does not involve revenue from sales but rather is based on 
sporadic sales of unplanned surpluses, as its objective is not to produce goods for 
the market.  
Strata E2: Family agriculture linked to the market. This type of agriculture is 
family‑based and involves sales of pri mary goods that do not exceed MXN 
55,200.00 per year. Such households are also engaged in smaller ‑scale 
non‑agricultural undertakings, as well as paid labour services to supplement their 
family income.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 114 - 
 
  ii. Beneficiaries must be located in areas with a high or very high level of 
marginalization. Priority is given to the states in the South ‑South‑East region; and  
iii. Beneficiaries must be engaged in the production of maize, beans or rice.  
Follow -up: Canada noted interest in how the new programme operated.  
2.1.31   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
2.1.31.1   Question by Russian Federation ( AG-IMS ID 91011)  
Follow -up to questions AG-IMS ID 87094, ID 88104 and ID 90027:  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry 
of Mongolia established an import prohibition on these two products. On 18 January 2019 the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia i ssued a decree that opens the import 
of certain amounts of agricultural products, including wheat flour and liquid milk. The decision on 
allocation of quota volume among the importers of wheat flour for 2019 quota year was adopted 
only in late April 2019. Despite this fact Mongolia have not made this decision publicly available up 
to now.  
As for the liquid milk quota, at this moment the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia did not allocate the volume of this quota among the importers  of liquid milk. The Russian 
Federation welcomes the intention of Mongolia to introduce a quota for import of wheat flour and 
milk in 2019. However, the Russia n Federation  is seeking further clarification from Mongolia 
regarding its quota regime, in partic ular: 
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for not allocating the liquid milk quota volume 
among the importers in 2019?  
b. When Mongolia is going to issue a decision allocating the quota volume among the 
importers of liquid milk?  
c. Please explain how Mongolia's i mport restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
We thank the Russian Federation for the questions. With regard to wheat flour, the decision by the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry to allocate quotas was made in April and it is publicly 
available, namely on the website of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry. With regard 
to liquid milk, although the invi tation was announced, no applications were received expressing the 
interest to import. This situation was informed to our Russian colleagues during the recent meeting 
of the bilateral intergovernmental working group on agriculture on 28 May 2019. In the pr evious 
Committee meetings, Mongolia informed the Members about the necessity of the measure in 
connection with the Law on Food Security as well as the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products. 
As such, the measure is fully justifiable under Article 20 para ( b) and Article 11 para 2(b) of the 
GATT. This measure is not applied in an arbitrary manner and does not discriminate between the 
suppliers.  
Follow -up: Australia shared the Russian Federation's concern and reiterated the importance of all 
WTO Members compl ying with the WTO rules and implementing trade policies in a transparent and 
predictable manner. The United States supported Australia's comments . 
2.1.32   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies and domestic support  
2.1.32.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91160)  
According to a recent International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) study, during 2017 -2018, 
public expenditures on wheat subsidies reached PKR 15.5 billion (approximately $100 million). The 
United States is concerned that Pakistan's wheat subsidy programme is creating huge surpluses that 
Pakistan may not have the resources to store. In addition, the wheat subsidies discourage alternative G/AG/W/215  
 
- 115 - 
 
  cash crops and make the wheat extremely expensive and uncompetitive on the international market 
without signific ant export subsidies.  
a. Please provide an update on the current status of wheat export subsidy programmes 
and domestic support programmes. What is the current level of export subsidy being 
offered for wheat by the government of Pakistan? What is the current wheat support 
price being offered by the government of Pakistan?  
b. Does Pakistan have plans to modify its current wheat domestic support programme in 
a way that would discourage huge surpluses of wheat and encourage the production of 
other crops? If so, plea se explain.  
Answer by Pakistan  
No export subsidy was provided in 2018 for wheat exports.  
2.1.33   Philippines' rice waiver  
2.1.33.1   Question by Japan ( AG-IMS ID 91012)  
Regarding "An act liberalizing the importation, exportation and trading rice, lifting for the purpose 
the quantitative import restriction on rice and other purposes" (Republic Act 11203) enacted by the 
President in this February:  
a. Could the Philippines clarify if tariffication of rice has already applied?  
b. In addition, will the Philippines modify Schedule in accordance with paragraph 3 of the 
Decision of 26 March 1980 (BISD 27S/25)?  
c. If that is the case, when will the modification will be notified to Committee on Market 
Access?  
Answer by Philippines  
a. The Philippines has already removed its quantitati ve restrictions (QRs) on rice. The law 
that prescribes this entered into force on 5 March 2019. However, the Philippines has 
yet to complete its domestic processes in calculating the tariff equivalent of the rice QRs 
as this involves many government agenci es. Nevertheless, the Philippines is applying 
MFN tariff rates of 40% (for in -quota importations) and 50% (for out -quota 
importations). The applied MFN out -quota rate of 50% is expected to be substantially 
very low compared with the minimum 180% tariff equivalent that is inscribed in the law  
b. Yes, the Philippines will modify its Schedules in accordance with the above -mentioned 
1980 Decision.  
c. The Philippines will notify the modification of the Schedules to the Committee on Market 
Access as soon as t he domestic processes on rice tariffication are completed.  
Follow -up: Australia, Paraguay and the European Union welcomed the positive news and looked 
forward to examining the modified schedule. Paraguay noted that, in preparing the analysis 
document it re cently submitted to the CoA  special Session , it had encountered difficulties to compare 
policies across Members due to lack of tariff bindings by some Members in the area of rice. Canada 
and the United States registered interest in the topic.  
2.1.34   Russia's supp ort to exporting industry in east of the country  
2.1.34.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 91021)  
According to the submitted ES1 notifications, the Russian Federation provides no export subsidies 
to agricultural products.  
However, it was recently announced tha t 406 billion rubbles worth of subsidies will be spent under 
the Agribusiness Product Exports project, to boost the export potential of the Russian Far East.  
a. Can the Russia n Federation  provide more information about this programme?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 116 - 
 
  b. When did the programme s tart and when will it be notified under the ES1 notification? 
How does it comply with the Nairobi decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
a. In accordance with national project "International Cooperation and Exports" and related 
federal project "Exports of Agro -Industrial Products" 406.8 million rubles has been 
allocated to achieve agricultural exports to US D 45 billion by 2024. Within the 
framework of the "Exports of Agro -Industrial Products" project the following basic goals 
have been defined:  
• increasing volume of agricultural production, including increased high value -
added products share;  
• improvement of logistics infrastructure;  
• elimination tariff and non -tariff barriers in foreign markets;  
• promotion of agricultural product s to foreign markets.  
For further information, please, visit the website: http://futurerussia.gov.ru .  
b. Russian Federation remains committed not to granting export subsidies that is in 
conformity with its WTO obli gations.  
Follow -up: The United States registered interest in the question.  
2.1.35   Russia's Resolution #1104  
2.1.35.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91161)  
In reference to paragraph three of the EXPLANATORY NOTE to the draft decree of the government 
of th e Russian Federation on Amendments to the Resolution of the government of the 
Russian  Federation of 15 September 2017 No. 1104 "On Granting subsidies from the federal budget 
to Russian organizations for compensation part of the cost of transporting agricul tural and food 
products by land, including rail, transport (Resolution No. 1104)", please explain how the Russian 
Federation plans to handle excess agricultural production. Would those products be exported?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
As explained in the answer to the question AG-IMS 87022, Decree No. 1104 is fully in conformity 
with Russia's export subsidy commitments.  
2.1.36   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
2.1.36.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91162)  
Decree No. 1595  
In response to AG-IMS ID 88073, the Russia n Federation  stated that the Decree has not had "any 
substantial effect on the agricultural production" but likely has demonstrated "positive effects in 
foreign trade". If a larger share of production is now alloca ted to foreign trade while production 
levels remain the same, how would this meet Russia's goal of increasing domestic distribution?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
As already mentioned, subsidy aim to reduce costs for shippers in the process of carriage of g rains 
by railway transport, leading to the increase of the relevant routes of customer deliveries within the 
Russia n Federation , and it is not linked to foreign trade operations. Decree № 1595 serves as the 
instrument, the implementation of which is due to  the territory and uneven distribution of population 
across the territory of the Russia n Federation . As a result, achieves a balance between supply and 
demand in domestic market. Equalization of grain prices leads to reducing production costs of 
companies producing high value -added agricultural products, widely demanded on domestic market, 
located far from production of agricultural raw materials. Therefore, there is no aim to influence 
international grain market. Also, it should be noted, the growth of the  grain exports are linked to 
excess of production over consumption and the need for grain stocks.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 117 - 
 
  Follow -up: Mongolia and the EU noted interest in the topic. Ukraine welcomed the positive effects in 
trade as a result of implementation of Degree No. 1595 and looked forward to Russian Federation 
abiding by WTO commitments. Canada appreciated the Russian Federation's clarification that the 
subsidies were not intended for exports.  
2.1.37   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
2.1.37.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 91022)  
Follow –up question AG-IMS ID 86106: Can Thailand give an update on developments regarding 
import permits for feed wheat since the last year's CoA meeting when this item was discussed?  
Answer by Thailand  
Thailand took note WTO Members' concern.  We are currently considering to revise the measure 
which need to consult with all stakeholders. Thailand expects to have the new Cabinet next month. 
We will inform the progress to the Committee in due course.  
Follow -up: The European Union welcomed Thailan d's consideration of reviewing the system which 
had been a concern to its exporters in the past. Canada looked forward to updates on domestic 
process of revising the measure. Ukraine registered interest.  
2.1.38   US Proposed domestic support measures  
2.1.38.1   Question by Au stralia (AG -IMS ID 91013)  
In response to Australia's questions at COA 88 (AG -IMS ID 88030), the US stated the Market 
Facilitation Package (MFP) was intended as a one time, short term assistance package to assist 
farmers affected by "unfair" treatment by th e US' trading partners. US Secretary of Agriculture, 
Sonny Perdue, also expressed these sentiments on 27 April, when he said he did not see any new 
MFP payments moving forward for 2019.  
Australia would like to raise concerns with respect to the 23 May anno uncement to initiate a second 
MFP to assist farmers hurt by trade disruptions. Given a second tranche of funding (USD  16 billion) 
has now been announced, can the US please confirm the following:  
a. Total expenditure for the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) f or the 2018/19 crop year 
(for applications from 4 September to 14 February)?  
i. if less than USD  10.6 billion, were remaining funds carried over into the second 
tranche  of funding.  
ii. total administered funding by the Agricultural Marketing Service for the Food 
Purchase and Distribution Program. If less than USD  1.2 billion, were remaining 
funds carried over into the second tranche of funding?  
iii. total expenditure provided to exporters through the Agricultural Trade Promotion 
Program. If less than USD  200 million, w ere remaining funds carried over into the 
second tranche of funding?  
Australia also has a number of questions regarding the second Market Facilitation Program  (MFP) 
(USD  14.5 billion) announced on 23 May. Australia is concerned that this new programme cove rs a 
wider range of commodities and may provide farmers with an increased payment (per unit/head) 
per commodity.  
b. When will the USDA provide further details regarding eligibility and payment rates? (if 
these are available, could the US please provide further details)  
c. Why have the number of products and producers covered by the MFP increased between 
the first MFP (July/Aug 2018) and the second MFP (May 2019)?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 118 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
a. The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster R elief Act of 2019 was recently 
enacted. Program details will be announced later this year.  
i. The Market Facilitation Program for the 2018 crop year and the Market Facilitation 
Program announced on 23 May 2019, are separate programs. Funding has been 
made  available for each program as announced.  
ii. Purchases under FPDP totaled $748 million as of 7 June. Additional solicitations 
for purchases to meet the $1.2 billion amount are in process or upcoming.  
iii. USDA announced $200 million in awards under the ATP program on 31 January 
2019.  
b. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
c. See response to question b) above.  
2.1.38.2   Questio n by Canada (AG -IMS ID 91080)  
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on 23 May 2019 announced the authorization 
of up to USD 14.5 billion to be paid to producers between July 2019 and January 2020 under the 
Market Facilitation Program (MFP). A producer's payment amount will be based on a county specific 
payment rate and the producer's total planted area of a specified set of 24 crops.  
a. Could the United States explain in detail how the Market Facilitation Program payments 
will be calculated at the  county level and what the payment rate per county will be. In 
the announcement, the USDA mentioned that planting is required to received payments 
and that the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments "will not distort planting 
decisions". Canada notes t hat due to weather related events, planting has been delayed 
or even compromised in some part of the United States  
b. Could the United States elaborate as to how this announcement made in the middle of 
the US planting season "will not distort planting decisio ns"? 
c. Could the United States clarify if there any plans to allow unplanted acres to qualify for 
payments?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Market Facilitation Program announced on May 23, 2019, is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
b. See response to question a) above.  
c. In a press release on June 10, 2019, the US Department of Agriculture provided the 
following statement regarding eligibility of unplanted acres for MFP payments: "the 
USDA  does not have the legal authority to make MFP payments to producers for 
acreage  that is not planted. To qualify for a 2019 MFP p ayment, you must have 
planted  a 2019 MFP -eligible crop." See https://www.usda.gov/media/press -
releases/2019/06/10/secretary -perdue -statement -disaster -and-trade -related -
assistance .  
Follow-up: Canada noted interest in questions raised by other Members related to the package.  
2.1.38.3   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 91023)  
USDA announced in May to provide up to $16 billion for producers of certain agricultural products, 
including: alfalfa hay, barl ey, canola, corn, crambe, dry peas, extra -long staple cotton, flaxseed, 
lentils, long grain and medium grain rice, mustard seed, dried beans, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, 
safflower, sesame seed, small and large chickpeas, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed, tem perate 
japonica rice, upland cotton, wheat, dairy, hog, tree nut, fresh sweet cherry, cranberry, fresh grape.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 119 - 
 
  Some of the payments are said to be based on a single county rate multiplied by a farm's total 
plantings to those crops in aggregate in 2019, whil e other payments are based on production history 
or 2019 acres of production. These payments seem to be product specific support.  
According to China's preliminary assessment based on the VOPs of the products concerned lately 
notified by the United States, the proposed support for certain products could exceed the de minimis  
level of 5% if the productions and prices remain relatively stable, which would eventually cause the 
breach of the FBAMS commitment of $ 19.1 billion.  
If the United States could verify o therwise, please indicate how these payments should be 
categorized, i.e., whether the payments are product specific or non -product specific and what criteria 
could be considered in making such judgments, and share with China US compliance assessment on 
these payments.  
Answer by United States of America  
These programs will be notified as appropriate in the 2019 Domestic Support notification.  
Follow -up: China stressed the importance of the United States respecting its WTO commitments.  
2.1.38.4   Question by European Uni on (AG -IMS ID 91024)  
On 23  May the USDA announced an aid package to assist farmers in response to trade damage from 
unjustified retaliation and trade disruption. $14.5 billion (out of an overall $16 billion trade package) 
is to be spent through the market facilitation Program (MFP) under CCC.  
a. Can the US indicate when these payments are expected to be made and the estimated 
amount foreseen for each of the three tranches?  
b. How much will be spent on each eligible sector and what will the eligibility criteria be 
for the farmers to get access to these payments?  
c. How does the US intend to notify these payments – Amber Box product specific or..? 
..and in what year?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019,  is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
b. See response to question a) above.  
c. These programs will be notified as appropriate in the 2019 Domestic Support 
notification.  
2.1.38.5   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 91063)  
Reports suggest that the US Department of Agriculture plans to provide aid of $16 billion to 
compensate farmers for lower prices and lost sales stemming from ongoing trade disputes 
(https://www.usda.gov/media/pressreleases/2019/05/23/usda announces support farmers 
impacted unjustified retaliation and ). Amongst the various programs, the Market Facilitation 
program provides for payments to the farmers' respective commodities depending on the severity 
of the trade disruption and the period of adjustment to new trade partners.  
a. How will these disruptions and period of adjustment be calculated ? 
b. How have the eligibility criteria and initial payment rates of the commodities been 
determined under the program?  
Answer by United States of America  
The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the rulemaking process. 
Further  details will be made available as soon as the final rule is issued.  
See response to question a) above.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 120 - 
 
  2.1.38.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 91014)  
On 23 May 2019, the US Department of Agriculture announced a package of up to USD 16 billion of 
"support for farmers impacted by unjustified retaliation and trade disruption". The proposed package 
comprises USD 14.5 billion of direct payments to producers, USD 1.4 billion for a Food Purchase and 
Distribution Program (FPDP) and USD 100 million to "assist in develo ping new export markets for 
producers".  
In response to New Zealand's question at the Committee on Agriculture meeting in September 2018 
(AG-IMS ID 88048), the US confirmed that the USD 12 billion farmer relief package comprising direct 
payments to offset t he impacts of retaliatory tariffs on markets and assistance for trade promotion 
activities was a one -off payment and would not extend into future years.  
a. Can the US provide more detail about the second instalment of USD 16 billion in direct 
support for farm ers announced in May 2019?  
b. How does the proposed USD 16 billion package differ to last year's USD 12 billion farmer 
relief package?  
c. Does the US maintain that last year's farmer relief package remains a one -off payment?  
d. When will the US notify the USD 16 billion domestic support programme to the WTO? 
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, appearing on CNN News on 23  May 2019, 
encouraged US farmers to "plant for the market" and to "not plant for government 
programs".  
e. What steps has the US taken to ensure th e USD 16 billion package does not influence 
US farmers in their planting decisions for the coming season?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Market Facilitation Program for the 2018 crop year and the Market Facilitation 
Program announced on 23 May 2019 , are separate programs. The Market Facilitation 
Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the rulemaking process. Further 
details will be made available as soon as the final rule is issued.  
b. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019 , is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
c. The Market Facilitation Program for the 2018 crop year and the Market Facilitation 
Program announced on 23 May 2019, are separate and ind ependent programs.  
d. These programs will be notified as appropriate in the 2019 Domestic Support 
notification.  
e. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
2.1.38.7   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 91016)  
New Zealand refers to the US responses to Australia's question at the February 2019 Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 90035).  
a. With the Market Facilitation Program having closed on 14 February 2019, can the US 
confirm the final total expenditure under the programme?  
b. If the total expenditure is less than the USD 12 billion authorised by the USDA, will the 
remaining funding be spent on other programmes to support farmers, including the 
Food Purchase and Distribution Program, and the Agricultural Trade Promotion 
Program?  
c. Can the US provide a final breakdown of how the USD 12 billion relief package for 
farmers was spent on the three programs the Market Facilitation Program, the Food 
Purchase  and Distribution Program, and the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 121 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
a. Payments to producers for the Market Facilitation Program for the 2018 crop year 
totalled $8.57 billion as of 7 June. Applications continue to be pr ocessed, so the final 
total will not be available until that is completed.  
b. See response to question a) above. Final expenditures for the MFP program for the 2018 
crop year have not yet been determined.  
c. Payments to producers for the Market Facilitation Program for the 2018 crop year 
totalled $8.57 billion as of 7 June. Purchases under FPDP totalled $748 million as of 
7 June. Additional solicitations for purchases to meet the $1.2 billion are in process or 
upcoming. USDA announced $200 millio n in awards under the ATP program on 
31 January 2019.  
2.1.38.8   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91027)  
Ukraine notes the United States is considering a second bailout package for producers. The first 
authorization in 2018 amounted to some $12 billion. The second aid package in 2019 for producers 
will be approximately $16 billion according to media reports. Could the US please provide information 
as to:  
a. whether the criteria (current level of production of eligible commodities) used in the 
2018 bailout to distribute aid  to producers are under consideration for the proposed 
2019 emergency assistance?  
b. the total number of producers determined eligible to receive funds from the 2018 bailout 
and if this number is expected to be roughly the same for the proposed 2019 emergency  
assistance?  
c. the commodities covered by the 2019 aid package, including the approximate 
percentage (or monetary amount) allocated for specific commodities?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019, is curr ently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will be made available as soon as the final rule is 
issued.  
b. The Market Facilitation Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the 
rulemaking process. Further details will not be available until the final rule is issued.  
c. As announced on 23 May 2019, commodities covered by the 2019 Market Facilitation 
Program include alfalfa hay, barley, canola, corn, crambe, dry peas, extra -long staple 
cotton, flaxseed, lentils, long grain and medium grain rice, must ard seed, dried beans, 
oats, peanuts, rapeseed, safflower, sesame seed, small and large chickpeas, sorghum, 
soybeans, sunflower seed, temperate japonica rice, upland cotton, wheat, milk, hogs, 
tree nuts, fresh sweet cherries, cranberries, and fresh grapes.  The Market Facilitation 
Program announced on 23 May 2019, is currently in the rulemaking process. Further 
details will not be available until the final rule is issued.  
Follow -up: Australia noted concern regarding the significant level of support announced by the US 
in its second support package and its impact on the global market, including farmers, traders and 
consumers in the United States. Australia noted that during the House and Senate Agriculture 
Committee hearing on 11 -13 June, US law maker s, like WTO Members, had expressed concern 
regarding use of the package, including how the package would be operated to avoid distorting the 
US market and affecting planting decisions of US farmers. Australia viewed the support package 
against the spirit o f the Agreement on Agriculture, particularly Member's commitments to provide 
substantial and progressive reductions in support. The package also set a dangerous precedent that 
could damage decades of reform and reduction efforts in the WTO. Australia sough t advice from the 
US whether it would introduce more assistance packages in the future. Paraguay and the European 
Union echoed Australia's concern regarding the package's impact to the international market. 
Paraguay requested the following information from  the US: how it planned to ensure that the 
package would not impact producers, which producers would be benefited, criteria of payment, 
whether the payment would be considered as product -specific and whether this was a one -off G/AG/W/215  
 
- 122 - 
 
  decision. The European Union noted that the US, after implementing a support package of 
USD 12 billion in 2018, had announced in May a second package of a greater scale of USD  16 billion, 
despite its repeated claim that the 2018 package was a one -off exercise. While noting that the US  
may most likely respect its AMS ceilings by spreading the payments over several budget years, the 
European Union was concerned that the significant amount of support, which had never been seen 
before in US DS:1 notifications, would influence production le vels, prices and trade flows in both the 
US and world market. The United States noted that it would notify these packages in due course and 
would respect WTO commitments. Regarding the EU's comments in relation to spreading the 
payments over several budget  years, the US noted that the programmes were designed for specific 
marketing years.  
2.1.39   US tariff rate quotas  
2.1.39.1   Question by Russian Federation ( AG-IMS ID 91026)  
a. Tariff rate quota for butter included in MA:1 notification (G/AG/N/USA/2, page 11) 
points that " pre-existing  allocations for 320,689 kilograms for the EU, New Zealand and 
other countries will be retained. There are no country allocations for the remaining 
quantity". Additional note 6 to the Chapter 4 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States  (2019) Revision 5 (HTS US 2019 Rev. 5) pertaining this tariff quota 
contains no information regarding country specific allocation mentioned in 
G/AG/N/USA/2.  
i. Could USA please clarify whether these allocation for the EU, New Zealand and 
other countries stil l remain in force.  
ii. What countries are mentioned as "other countries" in G/AG/N/USA/2?  
b. The following sentences "Imports under these provisions require import licenses, in 
accordance with terms and conditions provided in regulations issued by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, subject to the approval of the United States Trade Representative 
(USTR). The regulations may provide for the reallocation among supplying countries or 
areas of unfilled quantities, subject to USTR approval" often occurred throughout the 
HTS US 2019 Rev.5. For example, in additional notes 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14.  
i. What is the meaning of "reallocation among supplying countries or areas of 
unfilled quantities" when tariff quotas included in additional notes are not country 
specific?  
ii. In what cases the second sentence of the quote is applied?  
iii. Additional notes 16, 17, 18(b), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25 to the Chapter 4 
concerning TRQs with country specific allocations also contain mentioned 
sentences "Imports under these provisions require import licenses, in accordance 
with terms and conditions provided in regulations issued by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, subject to the approval of the United States Trade Representative 
(USTR). The regulations may provide for the reallocation among supplying 
countries or areas of unfilled quantities, subject to USTR approval".  
Could the United States describe the mechanism of reallocation of TRQs volumes among suppling 
countries under country specific TRQs? What conditions trigger this mechanism? Has it ever been  
applied?  
c. In Additional note 12 of HTS US 2019 Rev.5 it is specified that import of goods subject 
to tariff quota shall not exceed 296,000 kg. Imports under these provisions not in excess 
of 224 981 kg in any calendar year require import licences. In other  additional notes 
(for example, additional note 8 and additional note 14) the wording is "imports under 
these provisions require import licences".  
i. Could the United States clarify why there is such a specificity for tariff quota in 
additional note 12?  
ii. Why t he rest part of TRQ of 71, 019 kg does not require import licences?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 123 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
a.  
i. Yes. Please see the United States Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / 
Monday  27 August 2018/ Notices.  
ii. For each tariff -rate quota, "other co untries" means all WTO Member countries 
except those countries with country allocations in the TRQ.  
b.  
i. The United States manages its licensed TRQs in a manner that promotes the full 
utilization, including through globalization and by administering a s urrender and 
reallocation process for unused portions. Additional information is published 
under the "Program Notices" section of the Foreign Agricultural Service's web site, 
including the amounts available for Reallocation, by Commodity and Country. 
https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/dairy -import -licensing -program . 
ii. See response to question i) above.  
iii. See response to question i) above.  
c. The method by which the United States administers TRQs was a determination made 
by the Secretary of Agriculture in order to implement concessions made in the Uruguay 
Round.  
2.1.40   US disaster bill  
2.1.40.1   Question by European Union ( AG-IMS ID 91025)  
In early June 2019, Congress approved a $19 b illion disaster bill. Can the US explain in more detail 
how it intends to implement that the legislation, once signed by the president, gives the USDA the 
discretion to increase the prevented planting payment factor on crop insurance to 90 % instead of 
55% for corn and 60 % for soybeans.  
Answer by United States of America  
The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 was recently enacted. 
Program details will be announced later this year.  
2.1.41   US 2018 Farm Bill  
2.1.41.1   Question by India ( AG-IMS ID 91062)  
a. The 2018 Farm Bill has maintained the USD 900,000 payment eligibility condition and 
has excluded farmers that earn more than this amount from any benefit (under Section 
1605). But at the same time, the Bill has excluded Loan Deficiency Payments  (LDPs) 
and Marketing Loan Gains (MLGs) from payment limitation or payment eligibility. This 
increases the total benefit that a farmer receives under the provisions of the Bill. In this 
context, could the United States please explain the rationale behind t he exclusion of 
LDPs and MLGs from total payment limits. What is the enforcement mechanism? What 
has been done to implement it and where can India find the supporting data available 
in this regard?  
b. The Farm Bill of 2018 has provisions that are intended for  the benefit of family farms 
such as the inclusion of "first cousin, niece, nephew," in the pool of potential family 
members that qualify for subsidies under the Bill. The Bill also permits farmers' children 
and spouses — without ever having set foot on th e farm — to count as "actively 
engaged" in farming, thus qualifying them for $125,000 worth of subsidy payments. 
Both these steps would extend the benefit to persons who are not directly involved in 
farming. In this regard, could the United States explain the reason and justification 
behind these two inclusions under the Farm Bill. What is the enforcement mechanism? 
What has been done to implement it and where can we find the supporting data 
available in this regard?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 124 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
a. The 2 018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer explanations for new or modified 
program provisions. Implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill is currently underway, so 
final rules related to new provisions are not yet available. Under previous legislation, 
eligibility status has been determined through provision of financial documents, and 
payment limitations have been enforced through records linking payments to individual 
recipients. USDA does not make individual data on farm program payments publicly 
available.  
b. The 2018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer explanations for new or modified 
program provisions. Implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill is currently underway, so 
final rules related to new provisions are not yet available. Current rules on active 
engagement allow only the spouse of an actively engaged operator to qualify for 
individual payments without independently documenting active engagement, and the 
spouse must be part of the farming operation for this provision to apply. Other family 
members must document active engagement to be eligible for program payments. See 
response to question a) above regarding enforcement mechanisms and data.  
2.1.42   Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  
2.1.42.1   Question by United States of America ( AG-IMS ID 91163)  
The United States requests a response from Zimbabwe for AG-IMS ID 90046, 89033, and 88076.  
Answer by Zimbabwe  
2.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.2.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (table MA:2)  
2.2.1.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/49)  
AG-IMS ID 91029: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
In its notification, Brazil indicates that "Regarding the tariff rate quota (750 ,000 tonnes) for wheat, 
Brazil notified to the WTO, in April 1996, its intention to eliminate it. Negotiations with the United 
States (initial negotiating rights) and Canada (substantial supplier) are not concluded".  
In March 2019, during a visit to the US, Brazilian President Bolsonaro's press release stated that 
Brazil would implement a tariff ra te quota allowing for the annual tariff free importation of 
750,000  tonnes of US wheat.  
Without disclosing information on the on-going  negotiations on Article XXVIII GATTT, could Brazil 
indicates if these 750,000 tonnes of wheat correspond to Brazil commit ment taken during the UR 
and since, subject to Article XXVIII GATT? Brazil commitment was to open an erga omnes  (global) 
TRQ. Could Brazil confirm that it will honour this commitment?  
Answer by Brazil  
These 750,000 ton nes of wheat correspond to Brazil's co mmitment taken during the Uruguay Round. 
Brazil opened negotiations on the commitment under GATT's Article XXVIII since 1996. In 2019, 
Brazil decided to establish the TRQ - which has not yet been made effective. Implementation of the 
quota and withdrawal o f negotiations under Article XXVIII shall take place in due course.  
2.2.1.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/120, G/AG/N/CAN/128)  
AG-IMS ID 91030: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes that the fill rate for "Margarine" fell from 47% in 2016 to  39.3% in 2017. 
Could Canada explain the reason behind the significantly lower fill rate of this tariff rate quota?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 125 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
The fill rate observed for the margarine TRQ is mainly due to the current price competitiveness of 
Canada's domestic vegeta ble oil products sector, as well as other external market conditions, which 
include quality considerations, and product availability and prices in export markets.  
AG-IMS ID 91031: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Canada's notifi cation (G/AG/N/CAN/128) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the marketing year 2016/2017, quota year 2016/2017, and calendar year 2017.  
a. Can Canada explain the reasons for the significant under fill for beef and veal 
(CANQ004), dairy products (CANQ007 to CANQ011 inclusive), wheat (CANQ017), barley 
(CANQ018), margarine (CANQ021) and milk protein substances (CANQ022)?  
b. for each underfilled quota, can Canada explain whether the under fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of S PS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
c. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Canada considered moving 
to a tariff only regime for those products?  
d. Can Canada explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Canada  
a. Canada closely monitors its TRQ fill rates. The fill rates for the TRQs mentioned are the 
result of market circumstanc es, which can include competitive domestic prices, low 
domestic demand, quality considerations, as well as product availability and prices in 
export markets, logistical aspects such as market proximity, and transportation and 
insurance costs. For beef and veal (CANQ004), the fill rates observed are a result of 
domestic market circumstances, which includes competitive domestic prices. This is also 
the case for the wheat (CANQ017), barley (CANQ018), and margarine (CANQ021) TRQs, 
which are allocated on a first -come -first-served basis. For dairy products (CANQ007 to 
CANQ011 inclusive), variations in TRQ fill are due to market conditions, which can 
include low domestic demand for a particular product, as well as quality and logistical 
considerations, as mentioned  above. For milk protein substances, total imports were of 
64,449 tonnes in 2016 -2017. This includes imports from the United States, which do 
not count towards total in -quota imports as reported in G/AG/N/CAN/128.  
b. Canada's administration of TRQs is fully consistent with its WTO commitments. Canada 
has put in place TRQ administration policies that include a number of mechanisms 
designed to maximize TRQ fill, such as the "return and reallocation" policy and the 
"under -utilization" penalty. This also includes  the potential to open up TRQs to first -
come -first-served where TRQ fill remains consistently low. In May 2019, Global Affairs 
Canada launched a comprehensive review of TRQ administration and allocation 
of supply -managed tariff rate quotas. This consultati on seeks the views of 
key interested stakeholders on issues of importance to them related to 
supply -managed  TRQs,  including those identified by New Zealand. Consultation results 
will inform  recommendations for longer -term allocation and administration poli cies. 
All interested parties can provide their views from 1 May 2019 to 
31 August  2019 via the online questionnaire ( https://www.international .gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/form -formulaire.aspx?lang=eng ) or e -mail 
(TRQConsultation.ConsultationCT@international.gc.ca). Further information can be 
found on the comprehensive review website ( https://www.international.gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/index.aspx?lang=eng ). 3. See 2.  
Follow -up: Australia looked forward to engaging the T RQ administration review and encouraged 
Canada to consider reforms to increase unitization rates as part of that process. The United States 
appreciated the opportunity to provide comments in Caranda's consultation process and encouraged 
Canada to take the comments into consideration.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 126 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91017: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
New Zealand notes that although the following tariff quotas have frequently been underfilled by 
Canada over the past 6 years, in the latest notification (G/AG/N/CAN/1 28) the fill rate seems 
particularly low.  
TRQ ID  Fill rate in notification (G/AG/N/CAN/*)  
 128 120 112 111 107 103 
CANQ004  62.6%  78% 90% 77% 56.2%  61.1%  
CANQ007  0% 0% 0% 0% 92.3%  92.3%  
CANQ008  50.3%  57% 60% 61% 100%  100%  
CANQ009  24.2%  40% 0% 0% 10.6%  74.7%  
CANQ010  6.5%  13% 54% 35% 41% 50.7%  
CANQ011  61.9 82% 86% 93% 73.1%  97.4%  
CANQ022  27.3%  39% 72% 62% 56.3%  68.4%  
a. Given the extensive work this Committee is undertaking in reviewing the operation of 
the Bali Decision on tariff rate quota administration, can Canada provide an explanation 
as to why these products continue to be underfilled?  
b. Does Canada impose onerous non-tariff barriers that prevent the quota from being 
fulfilled by WTO Members?  
Answer by Canada  
a. Canada supports and actively contributes to the work of this Committee in reviewing 
the operation of the Bali Decision on tariff rate quota (TRQ) administration. Canada 
closely monitors its TRQ fill rates. The fill rates for the TRQs mentioned are the result 
of market circumstances, which can include competitive domestic prices, low domestic 
demand, quality considerations, as well as product availability and prices in exp ort 
markets, logistical aspects such as market proximity, and transportation and insurance 
costs. Canada has put in place TRQ administration policies that include a number of 
mechanisms designed to maximize TRQ fill, such as the "return and reallocation" p olicy 
and the "under -utilization" penalty. This also includes the potential to open up TRQs to 
first-come -first-served where TRQ fill remains consistently low. In May 2019, Global 
Affairs Canada launched a comprehensive review of TRQ administration and all ocation 
of supply -managed tariff rate quotas. This consultation seeks the views of key interested 
stakeholders on issues of importance to them related to supply -managed TRQs, 
including those identified by New Zealand. Consultation results will 
inform  recom mendations for longer -term allocation and administration policies. 
All interested parties can provide their views from 1 May 2019 to 31 August 2019 
via the online questionnaire ( https://www.international.gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/form -formulaire.aspx?lang=eng ) or e -mail 
(TRQConsultation.ConsultationCT@international.gc.ca). Further information can be 
found on the comprehensive rev iew website ( https://www.international.gc.ca/trade -
commerce/consultations/TRQ -CT/index.aspx?lang=eng ).  
b. Canada does not impose onerous non -tariff barrie rs that prevent TRQs from being filled.  
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that in order for the Members to review the underfill mechanism and 
engage on proposals to change and improve the system, better understanding of the reasons why 
underfill occurred was n eeded. New Zealand encouraged Canada to take a leadership role in 
providing complete responses to these questions so other Members could follow this example.  
AG-IMS ID 91032: Question by Russian Federation  - Tariff quota fill  
Russian Federation welcomes hi gh fill rates for the most tariff quotas notified by Canada. However, 
powdered butter milk (CANQ009), dry whey (CANQ010), barley (CANQ018) and milk protein 
substances (CANQ022) demonstrate fill rates lower than 30% while tariff rate quota for 
concentrated/ condensed milk/cream (CANQ007) is filled at 0%. Could Canada please indicate the 
reasons for such low fill rates?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 127 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
The fill rates for the TRQs mentioned are the result of market circumstances, which can include 
competitive domestic prices, low domestic demand, quality considerations, as well as product 
availability and prices in export markets, logistical aspects such as market proximity, and 
transportation and insurance costs.  
2.2.1.3   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/72)  
AG-IMS ID 91033: Question by Australi a - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Costa Rica's notification (G/AG/N/CRI/72) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can Costa Rica explain the reasons for the significant under fill for all except one of the 
tariff quotas in G/AG/N/CRI/72?  
i. For each underfilled quota, can Costa Rica explain whether the under fill was due 
to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quota s which are chronically underfilled, has Costa Rica considered 
moving to a tariff only regime for those products?  
c. Can Costa Rica explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the B ali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
a. The little or no use of import quotas that Costa Rica granted at the WTO is due to market 
reasons combined with the fact that access conditions are better for bilateral quotas. 
Costa Rica maintains t ariff quotas negotiated under free trade agreements for almost 
all products that also have tariff quotas under multilateral commitments with the WTO. 
Bilateral tariff quotas often offer better access conditions on applying an in ‑quota tariff 
of 0%, and in many cases with higher volumes that those at the WTO, which reflects 
the specific balances to be struck in each negotiation. The reality is that users of tariff 
quotas decide to use the WTO ones once they have exhausted all available possibilities 
afforded  by bilateral agreements to complement their product needs when their level of 
operational and market conditions make this profitable. The regulation governing the 
administration of import quotas is contained in Executive Decree No. 39938 COMEX and 
is appl ied equally to both WTO import quotas and bilateral quotas. However, nothing in 
the administration of quotas can explain differences in the use of WTO quotas and those 
under bilateral agreements since identical procedures are used for both. In fact, the 
rate of use of bilateral quotas is over 90% for many products, which demonstrates the 
success and transparency of the system of administering quotas applied by Costa Rica. 
The sanitary and phytosanitary measures applicable to imports are established by the 
competent authorities depending on the prevailing sanitary and phytosanitary 
conditions in markets of origin, irrespective of whether or not the product will be 
imported under MFN conditions, as part of a multilateral quota (WTO) or as part of a 
bilateral q uota. As a result, there are no sanitary or phytosanitary requirements on 
imports that apply exclusively to imports under tariff quotas.  
b. Costa Rica has no intentions of eliminating the tariff quotas it has granted at the WTO 
that show low levels of use, no r does it intend to replace them with tariff concessions. 
Costa  Rica maintains its commitment to enable preferential access to its market under 
the quotas established in the Costa Rica Schedule (Schedule LXXXV Costa Rica, Section 
B – Tariff Quotas), and wh ose final bound tariff, as reflected in Schedule LXXXV Costa 
Rica, Section 1 ‑A Tariffs, is higher than the bound in ‑quota tariff.  
c. Costa Rica changed the timelines for the allocation of import quotas, adjusting the 
opening date for receipt of allocation applications to bring them in line with those 
established in the Import Licensing Agreement, based on the Bali Ministerial Decision 
(WT/MIN(13)/39). This has led to enhanced transparency by including in the 
notification  to the WTO  percentages of  quota usage. These reforms are contained in G/AG/W/215  
 
- 128 - 
 
  Executive  Decree 39938 COMEX, and were duly notified to the WTO on 
20 September  2017 through document G/AG/N/CRI/61.  
AG-IMS ID 91034: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
Russian Federation notes t hat only one tariff rate quota (CRIQ008) included in notification 
G/AG/N/CRI/72 reports fill rate higher than 50% (80,8%). CRIQ002, CRIQ010, CRIQ011 is filled by 
less than 50%, CRIQ025 is filled by less than 5% and CRIQ004, CRIQ005, CRIQ022 has zero fill 
rate. Could Costa Rica please clarify the reasons for such low fill rates?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
The little or no use of import quotas that Costa Rica granted at the WTO is due to market reasons 
combined with the fact that access conditions are better for bi lateral quotas. Costa Rica maintains 
tariff quotas negotiated under free trade agreements for almost all products that also have tariff 
quotas under multilateral commitments with the WTO. Bilateral tariff quotas often offer better access 
conditions on appl ying an in ‑quota tariff of 0%, and in many cases with higher volumes that those 
at the WTO, which reflects the specific balances to be struck in each negotiation. The reality is that 
users of tariff quotas decide to use the WTO ones once they have exhauste d all available possibilities 
afforded by bilateral agreements to complement their product needs when their level of operational 
and market conditions make this profitable. The regulation governing the administration of import 
quotas is contained in Execut ive Decree No. 39938 COMEX and is applied equally to both WTO import 
quotas and bilateral quotas. However, nothing in the administration of quotas can explain differences 
in the use of WTO quotas and those under bilateral agreements since identical procedu res are used 
for both. In fact, the rate of use of bilateral quotas is over 90% for many products, which 
demonstrates the success and transparency of the system of administering quotas applied by 
Costa  Rica. 
2.2.1.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/50)  
AG-IMS ID 91035: Q uestion by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the European Union's notification (G/AG/N/EU/50) concerning imports under 
tariff quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can the EU explain the reasons for the significant under fill of some tariff quotas opened 
during the 2018 calendar year  
i. for each underfilled quota, can the EU explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration ? 
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has the EU considered moving 
to a tariff only regime or alternative TRQ administration on a temporary basis for those 
products? If not, why, not?  
Answer by European Union  
In the EU, any under -fill of WTO TRQs is for economic reasons only. Thanks to continuous reforms, 
EU internal prices have converged towards world prices so making EU products more competitive 
against imports in many agricultural sectors. The EU has also concluded many bilateral t rade 
agreements, liberalising further its agricultural sector. Economic operators and consumers have 
therefore more choices that influence the attractiveness of WTO bound TRQs.  
Any low fill rate is normally linked to market circumstances. Concerning any im pact of SPS measures, 
it should be stressed that it is temporary until the reason for the measure has terminated, e.g. avian 
flu. Concerning the 2018 calendar year, low fill rates of bound WTO TRQs is not the result of SPS 
measures. The concept of restrict ive administration is rather vague. The EU would recall that the 
EU's TRQs management system is based on two main methods: first -come first -served (FCFS) and 
licensing. Many WTO TRQs are managed on a FCFS basis. Other TRQs are managed by licences that 
are delivered on request. However, where the TRQ is oversubscribed, simultaneous examination of 
operators' requests is performed to guarantee fair treatment to all applicants and licenses are issued 
pro rata for the quantities available.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 129 - 
 
  Of the 32 TRQs that w ith low fill rates, 22 are managed on FCFS basis. Concerning the 10 others 
currently managed by licenses, the EU does not in the short term envisage managing them on 
FCFS basis. The EU does not consider that its administration methods lead to under -fill. A s the 
22 TRQs managed by FCFS demonstrate, it is not guaranteed that economic agents will make a 
better use of these 10 other TRQs.  
Follow -up: Paraguay sought to understand the reasons for the underfill.  
AG-IMS ID 91081: Question by Canada - Tariff quota f ill 
Canada notes that the EU's TRQ for meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen is consistently very low, 
with a fill rate of 0.2% in 2018.  
a. Could the EU explain what circumstances, including market conditions or other factors, 
may consistently lead to such a low fill rate?  
Canada also notes that other TRQ fill rates, such as the one for wheat (other than 
common wheat), barley, malting barley and malt sprouts, as well as chemically pure 
fructose, are very low.  
b. Could the European Union explain what circumstanc es, including market conditions or 
other factors, may lead to these very low fill rates?  
Answer by European Union  
The quota for meat of swine, fresh, chilled or frozen is managed on first -come first -served basis. 
The in -quota rate is duty free. It is a global quota ( erga omnes ). Low fill rates can only be explained 
by economic reasons, the EU market for pigmeat being very competitive. The EU is a net exporter 
of pigmeat.  
Tariff items under the quota wheat (other than common wheat) are also now subject to  a bilateral 
agreement (FTA). Therefore, this quota is now less attractive which explain the lower fill rate. This 
is equally the case for barley, which benefits also preferential access. These two TRQs are managed 
by licences.  
Under -fill for quotas maltin g barley, malt sprouts and chemically pure fructose is explained by 
economic reasons. These quotas are managed on a FCFS basis.  
AG-IMS ID 91037: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
Russian Federation welcomes the European Union's notificatio n (G/AG/N/EU/50) regarding imports 
under tariff rate quotas during the calendar year 2018. Russian Federation noted that G/AG/N/EU/50 
contains 16 tariff rate quotas with fill rates lower than 1%. Could EU please provide explanation for 
such low fill rates?  
Answer by European Union  
In the EU, any under -fill of WTO TRQs is for economic reasons only. Thanks to continuous reforms, 
EU internal prices have converged toward world prices therefore making EU products more 
competitive against imports in many agricult ural sectors. The EU has also concluded many bilateral 
trade agreements, liberalising further its agricultural sector. Economic operators and consumers 
have therefore more choices that influence the attractiveness of WTO bound TRQs.  
Of these 16 quotas, 13 are managed on first -come first -served basis. The three other TRQs are 
managed by licences that are delivered on request.  
AG-IMS ID 91036: Question by Russian Federation - Country specific allocation  
Russian Federation welcomes notification (G/AG/N/EU/50) regarding imports under tariff rate quotas 
during the calendar year 2018. Could EU please explain whether TRQ for live sheep and goats still 
have country specific allocation? If so, to what countries is it allocated? Where can one find this 
information on country specific allocation?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 130 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
Part of this quota is allocated to North Macedonia and another part to other WTO Members. A third 
part is allocated to all countries.  
The Russian Federation will find information on these country -specific allocations under the EU 
notification on TRQ Management (MA:1) G/AG/N/EU/31 of 2 September 2016 (see TRQ #9) and also 
under the EU-28 CLXXV Schedule circulated as G/MA/TAR/RS/506 circul ated on 17 October 2017 
(page 120 of GMATARRS506 -02.PDF).  
2.2.1.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  
AG-IMS ID 91038: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
a. The European Union notes the zero fill rate for "Milk and cream in powder" in marketing 
years  2012/2013, 2013/20 14, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017. Could India explain 
the reason for the zero fill rate of this tariff rate quota?  
b. The European Union notes that the fill rate for "Rape, colza or mustard oil" has 
consistently been under 5% with the exception of marketin g year 2014/2015 when the 
fill rate reached  13%. Could India explain the reason for the low fill rate of the "Rape, 
colza or mustard oil" tariff rate quota?  
Answer by India  
a. Please refer to the footnotes in India's MA:2 notifications for the relevant years for the 
necessary clarification.  
b. We would like to point out that the EU's statement in part (b) of question AG -IMS 
ID 91038 regarding the fill rate of India's TRQ being 13%  in the marketing year 2014 -
15 is factually incorrect. The appropriate explanation for each years' fill -rate for the said 
product has already been provided in the footnotes of India's MA:2 notification.  
2.2.1.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/238)  
AG-IMS ID 91039: Question by A ustralia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Japan's notification (G/AG/N/JPN/238) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the fiscal year from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.  
a. Can Japan explain the reasons for the significant under fil l of some of its tariff quotas?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can Japan explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which a re chronically underfilled, has Japan considered moving 
to a tariff only regime or alternative TRQ administration on a temporary basis for those 
products?  
Answer by Japan  
Low fill rates in tariff quota of some TRQ products are mainly due to a decrease in d omestic demand.  
Japan has already made efforts to increase the fill rate. Japan has already implemented a scheme 
of reallocation such as providing several opportunities of application per year.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 131 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91082: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that Japan's TRQ for dried leguminous vegetables (JPNQ013) shows a 61.3% fill rate 
in 2017/2018, with lower fill rates for 2015/2016 (58%) and 2016/2017 (54%)  
a. Could Japan provide additional information as to the import circumstances regarding 
dried leguminous vegetables that may lead to these lower fill rates?  
Canada also notes a much lower fill rate in 2017/2018 (25.5%) and 2016/2017 (27%) 
for Japan's TRQ for barley and its processed products (JPNQ015), which have dropped 
sharply from 71% in  2015/2016.  
b. Could Japan provide additional information as to the circumstances, including market 
conditions or otherwise, that would explain this sharp drop in imports of barley and its 
processed products these past two years?  
Answer by Japan  
a. Low fill rates in tariff quota of dried leguminous vegetables are mainly due to a decrease 
in domestic demand.  
b. Regarding barley, as answered in ID 87111, the reason of its low fill rate is that the 
quantity imported from Australia under the Japan -Australia Economic Partn ership 
Agreement is excluded from the notification, which is mentioned in note (g) of the 
notification.  
Follow -up: Paraguay sought to understand the reasons for the underfill.  
AG-IMS ID 91040: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Could Japan expl ain the exceptional fill rate for Designed Dairy Products for General Use (JPNQ012)?  
Answer by Japan  
State trading of Designated Dairy Products for General Use plays a certain role in stabilizing supply 
and demand of dairy products in Japan.  
Therefore, Jap an imported the products to meet its demand in FY 2017.  
2.2.1.7   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/6)  
AG-IMS ID 91041: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Kazakhstan's notification (G/AG/N/KAZ/6) concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can Kazakhstan explain the reasons for the significant under fill of tariff quotas for beef 
(KAZQ001) and poultry (KAZQ003)?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can Kazakhstan explain whether the under fill was due 
to market ci rcumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Kazakhstan considered 
moving to a tariff only regime for those products?  
c. Can Kazakhstan e xplain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Kazakhstan  
a. The allocation of tariff quotas for importation of beef and poultry is ca rried out in 
accordance with the Rules for the allocation of tariff quotas between foreign trade 
participants for importation into the Republic of Kazakhstan of certain types of meat, 
approved by Order No. 30 of the Minister of National Economy of the Repu blic of 
Kazakhstan dated 20 January 2015. The mechanism for allocation of tariff quotas for 
the import of certain types of meat was described in detail in our previous answer. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 132 - 
 
  Indeed, in  2018, the quota fill rate was: - 1,946 tonnes of beef or 9.3% of 21,0 00 
tonnes; - 103,229.4  tonnes of poultry meat or 80.6% of the established tariff quota 
(128,000 tonnes); - 7,015.6 tonnes of other types of poultry meat included in product 
group 0207, or 58.5% of the established tariff quota (12,000 tonnes). This fill rat e is 
due solely to economic factors: 1) a change in the imports structure – during the period 
2014-2018 import of beef was declining annually. In 2014, cattle meat imports 
amounted to 8.6  thousand tonnes and decreased to 1.9 thousand tonnes in 2018 (a 
decrease of 77.4%). In 2018, imports from the Commonwealth of Independent States 
(CIS) countries and the EAEU states have grown by 79% compared to the figures of 
2015. In general, the share of CIS and EAEU countries in meat imports amounted to 
70%. 2) producti on growth - cattle meat production in the Republic of Kazakhstan 
increased from 450.4 thousand tonnes in 2017 to 477.5 thousand tonnes in 2018 (an 
increase of 6%). Local population prefers fresh meat, while imported frozen beef is used 
only for further pro cessing in food production. Thus, the rather high volume of domestic 
production, combined with local consumer preferences, explains the low level of beef 
imports from third countries. Similar market factors are valid in respect of the fill rate 
for poultry  TRQ. Poultry meat production increased from 186.5 thousand tonnes in 2017 
to 199.7 in 2018 (an increase of 7%); In 2018, there was an increase in imports from 
the CIS countries and the EAEU by 37% compared to 2015. The low level of imports of 
poultry meat  within the tariff quota is explained by their sufficient domestic production 
and consumer preferences. At the same time, we note that no changes were made to 
the Rules for the distribution of tariff quotas.  
b. Currently Kazakhstan is not considering moving to a tariff only regime.  
c. Due to the transparency of the currently applied tariff quota allocation mechanism and 
the fact that the exhibited quota fill rates are results of market conditions, Kazakhstan 
believes there is no necessity for development of any  additional measures to improve 
TRQ fill rates in accordance with the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ 
Administration.  
AG-IMS ID 91083: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that Kazakhstan's fill rate for its fresh, chille d 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 9.3% (2018).  
Could Kazakhstan provide additional information that would explain why its beef TRQ  fill rates remain 
consistently low, including import licencing or other related requirements that could affect imports?  
Answer by Kazakhstan  
The allocation of tariff quotas for importation of beef and poultry is carried out in accordance with 
the Rules for the allocation of tariff quotas between foreign trade participants for importation into 
the Republic of Kazakhstan of certain types of meat,  approved by Order No. 30 of the Minister of 
National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 January 2015. The mechanism for 
allocation of tariff quotas for the import of certain types of meat was described in detail in our 
previous answer. Indeed, in 2018, the quota fill rate was:  
− 1,946 tons of beef or 9.3% of 21,000 tons;  
− 103,229.4 tons of pou ltry meat or 80.6% of the established tariff quota (128,000 tons);  
− 7,015.6 tons of other types of poultry meat included in product group 0207, or 58.5% 
of the established tariff quota (12 000 tons).  
This fill rate is due solely to economic factors:  
1. a change in the imports structure – during the period 2014 -2018 import of beef was 
declining annually. In 2014, cattle meat imports amounted to 8.6 thousand tons and 
decreased to 1.9 thousand tons in 2018 (a decrease of 77.4%). In 2018, imports from 
the Common wealth of Independent States (CIS) countries and the EAEU states have 
grown by 79% compared to the figures of 2015. In general, the share of CIS and EAEU 
countries in meat imports amounted to 70%.  
2. production growth - cattle meat production in the Republic  of Kazakhstan increased 
from 450.4 thousand tons in 2017 to 477.5 thousand tons in 2018 (an increase of 6%). G/AG/W/215  
 
- 133 - 
 
  Local population prefers fresh meat, while imported frozen beef is used only for further 
processing in food production.  
Thus, the rather high vol ume of domestic production, combined with local consumer preferences, 
explains the low level of beef imports from third countries. Similar market factors are valid in respect 
of the fill rate for poultry TRQ. Poultry meat production increased from 186.5 th ousand tons in 2017 
to 199.7 in 2018 (an increase of 7%); In 2018, there was an increase in imports from the CIS 
countries and the EAEU by 37% compared to 2015. The low level of imports of poultry meat within 
the tariff quota is explained by their sufficie nt domestic production and consumer preferences. At 
the same time, we note that no changes were made to the Rules for the distribution of tariff quotas.  
2.2.1.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/104)  
AG-IMS ID 91043: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that in the notification for 2018, Norway, in contrast to previous practice, 
does not include any information about the tariff rate quotas for "meat of deer" (NORQ015) and 
"meat of elk" (NORQ016). Additionally, Norway has included an additional  tariff rate quota not 
previously notified for corned beef (NORQ174) in the notification.  
What are the reasons for these changes in notification practice?  
Answer by Norway  
We thank The European Union for the question. For the quotas «meat of deer» (NORQ015 ) and 
"meat of elk" (NORQ016) the bound in -quota duties are equal to the bound out -of-quota duties. 
Consequently, they have been taken out of the notification similar to other current access quotas as 
referred to in the second paragraph of the MA2 notifica tion. 
Regarding the quota for «corned beef» (NORQ174), this quota has a lower bound in -quota duty than 
the bound out -of-quota duty. Due to an error, this quota has not been notified previously.  
AG-IMS ID 91042: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Norway's notification (G/AG/N/NOR/104) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can Norway explain the reasons for the significant under fill of a number of its tariff 
quotas?  
i. for each underfille d quota, can Norway explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Norway considered moving 
to a tariff only regime for those products?  
c. Can Norway explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Norway  
We thank Austr alia for the question related to quota fill.  
In general, the quota fill rates depend on fluctuations in consumer demand, domestic prices and 
production, as well as imports under bilateral tariff quotas or preferential tariffs. Although imports 
under these  arrangements varies due to variations in demand as well, it seems that for certain 
products, such as poultry and pork, importers have had higher interest in the bilateral EU quotas 
than in the WTO quotas. Trade data indicates that for meat the EU quotas a re preferred by importers 
as fresh/chilled meat are included, whereas the WTO quotas are limited to frozen meat.  
a. In our answer we have focused on the most important quotas.  
Pork (NORQ224) – Over a number of years the domestic market for pork has been 
characterised by surplus production and consequently lower domestic prices. This was G/AG/W/215  
 
- 134 - 
 
  also the case in 2018. The demand and consumption is by large supplied by domestic 
production. In addition, 499 tonnes  of pork were imported under the bilateral EU quota.  
Poultry (NORQ226) – In general, there has been a high domestic production and limited 
interest among importers for importing poultry. In addition,  the import under the 
bilateral EU quota was 526  tonnes  in 2018.  
Turkey (NORQ227) – Although there has been some  increase in domestic demand over 
the last decade, domestic consumption of turkey is relatively low. In addition to the 
WTO quota, an EU quota covers imports of both fresh/chilled and frozen turkey. 
Nevertheless, there was no import of turkey to Norway in 2018.  
Butter (NORQ229) – The consumption of butter is mainly covered by domestic 
production and there is a moderate, but stable utilization of the WTO butter TRQ.  
Eggs (NORQ230) – In general, there has been limited interest among importers for 
importing eggs as domestic supply of salmonella -free eggs to a large extent meets the 
domestic demand. In addition, import under the bilateral EU quota was 259 tonnes  in 
2018.  
White (NORQ231) and red cabbage (NORQ232) – The utilization of the TRQs for white 
and red  cabbage are low due to domestic production. In addition to the WTO quota, a 
number of free trade partners enjoy preferential tariffs for tariff line 07.04.9040 into 
Norway. Whether imports will take place under the WTO quota or preferential tariffs 
depend s on the commercial considerations by the individual importers.  
b. As mentioned, the quota fill rates depend on fluctuations in consumer demand, domestic 
prices and production, as well as imports under bilateral tariff quotas or preferential 
tariffs. Therefore, Norway has not considered to move to a tariff only regime for 
underfilled import quotas.  
c. In order to utilize the market opportunities in the tariff quotas, Norway is advertising 
and distributing these in a transparent manner, and all economic op erators may 
participate in the utilization of the TRQs. If a TRQ is not fully distributed by the beginning 
of the year, the remaining shares are open for allocation throughout the year. Quota 
shares can also be traded between quota holders.  
Follow -up: Para guay sought to understand the reasons for the underfill and how Norway planned to 
increase the fill rates.  
AG-IMS ID 91044: Question by Russian Federation - Country specific allocation  
The notification on tariff rate quota administration G/AG/N/NOR/1 conta ins no information about 
country specific allocation for any quota. At the same time 3 country specific quotas are listed in 
Norway`s Schedule of concessions. Moreover, footnotes 1, 3 and 4 of the most recent MA:2 
notification (G/AG/N/NOR/104) also refer t o the same TRQs listed in Norway`s Schedule. Does 
Norway intend to update its MA:1 notification?  
Answer by Norway  
Norway thanks the Russian Federation for the question on tariff quota administration. As noted in 
the question, the country specific allocatio n of three Norwegian import quotas is already indicated 
in the Norwegian schedule of concessions from 1995 and thus transparency with regard to the 
country allocation is provided. However, we will consider to submit a MA :2 notification concerning 
these thr ee import quotas.  
2.2.1.9   Panama (G/ AG/N/PAN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 91045: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Panama's notification (G/AG/N/PAN/49) concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can Panama explain the reasons for the significant under fill of tariff quotas for a number 
of its tariff quotas, including dairy products, poultry, potatoes and tomatoes?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 135 - 
 
  i. for each underfilled quota, can Panama explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circums tances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has Panama considered moving 
to a tariff only regime for those products?  
c. Can Panama explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Panama  
a. Generally speaking, the fill rate for tariff quotas and especially tariff quotas for  dairy 
products, poultry, potatoes and tomatoes depends on market forces, i.e. conditions in 
the Panamanian market in which domestic or foreign products are presented (including 
quotas), such as price, quality, ease of purchase (cash or credit payment), di stribution 
channels, consumer habits and tastes, among others.  
b. Panama has not considered changing to a tariff ‑only regime for products whose quotas 
are under ‑filled.  
c. Regarding quotas, Panama complies with what has been agreed at the WTO and will 
continue i ts efforts to ensure that the market determines the types of products to be 
consumed, without distinction of origin, and in compliance with the Bali Decision on 
Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
2.2.1.10   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/54, G/AG/N/PHL/55, G/AG/N/PHL/56)  
AG-IMS ID 91046: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes the low fill rate for "Live animal" tariff rate quotas, in particular "swine" 
which dropped to zero in 2018, "goat" which dropped to zero in years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,  2017 
and 2018, and "poultry" which dropped to zero in years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.  
a. Can the Philippines explain the reason for the low fill rate of these tariff rate quotas?  
The European Union notes the low fill rate of the "Sugar" tariff quota a t 1.1% in 2016 
and 25% in  2017.  
b. Can the Philippines explain the reason for the low fill rate of this tariff rate quota in 
these years?  
Answer by Philippines  
a. The Philippines imports mostly pure -bred live animals (Swine -HS 0103.10.00; 
Goat-0104.20.10; Chicke n-0105.11.10, 0105.94.10) for breeding purposes. These tariff 
lines are already imposed with 0% duties and probably one of the reasons for the under -
filled quota importation of non -pure bred live animals covered by the TRQ (Swine 
0103.91.00A, 0103.91.00B, 0103.92.00A, 0103.92.00B; Goat -0104.20.90A, 
0104.20.90B; Chicken -0105.11.90A, 0105.11.90B, 0105.94.91A, 0105.94.91B, 
0105.94.99A, 0105.94.99B).  
b. In 2016, the production of sugar was sufficient to supply the local demand, hence, the 
TRQ importation of sugar was very low. In 2017, the carry -over inventory of sugar from 
the previous year also influenced the low utilization of the TRQ.  
AG-IMS ID 91047 : Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Philippines' notifications (G/AG/N/PHL/54, G/AG/N/PHL/55, G/AG/N/PHL/56) 
concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) during calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  
a. Can the Philippines e xplain the reasons for the significant under fill of tariff quotas for 
beef, goat meat, live poultry, live goat, live swine, cattle and horses?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can the Philippines explain whether the under fill was 
due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 136 - 
 
  b. For those tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has the Philippines considered 
moving to a tariff only regime for those products?  
c. Can the Philippines expl ain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Philippines  
a. The Philippines imports mostly pure -bred live animals (Swine -HS 0103.10.00;  
Goat-0104.20.10; Chicken -0105.11.10, 0105.94.10) for breeding purposes. These tariff 
lines are already imposed with 0% duties and probably one of the reasons for the under -
filled quota importation of non -pure bred live animals covered by the TRQ (Swine -
0103.91.00A, 0103.91.00B, 0103.92.00A, 0103.92.00B; Goat -0104.20.90A, 
0104.20.90B; Chicken -0105.11.90A, 0105.11.90B, 0105.94.91A, 0105.94.91B, 
0105.94.99A, 0105.94.99B). Thus, market circumstances were the reason for the 
historically low TRQ fill rates for t hese products.  
b. Live horses (HS 0101) and cattles (HS 0102) are already applied with a tariff -only 
regime.  
c. The Philippines, through its Minimum Access Volume (MAV) Secretariat continuously 
engage with the private sector to encourage them to utilize the TRQ importation. The 
Philippines' TRQ administration guidelines also ensure that unutilised TRQ licences, in 
whole or in part, are surrendered or recalled to form part of a mid -year pool of unused 
quotas that would be reallocated to other importers for full ut ilisation of TRQs for the 
rest of any given calendar year. Importers with unused and unreturned TRQ licences 
are accompanied with penalties including reduction of allocations in the following TRQ 
licencing year. This reallocation provision is applicable to  all TRQ products.  
2.2.1.11   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/23)  
AG-IMS ID 91048: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Russian Federation's notification (G/AG/N/RUS/23) concerning imports 
under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) during the calendar year 2018.  
a. Can the Russian Federation explain the reasons for the significant under fill of all the 
tariff quotas in G/AG/N/RUS/23 including beef, pork, poultry and whey?  
i. for each underfilled quota, can the Russian Federation explain whether the u nder 
fill was due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the 
product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. For tariff quotas which are chronically underfilled, has the Russian Federation considered 
moving to a tariff only regime or alternative TRQ administration on a temporary basis 
for those products?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
a. The reason for the under fill of the tariff quotas relate to market conditions. SPS 
measures or the administration of the tariff rate quotas do not play  role in this situation.  
b. The Russia n Federation  currently does not envisage any changes to TRQ administration 
method, while maintain tariff quota as specified in Russia's Schedule.  
AG-IMS ID 91085: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill  
Canada notes that the Russian Federation's fill rate for its fresh and chilled beef TRQ (RUSQ001) has 
remained under 2% for the past three years, with a fill rate of 1.9% in 2018. The fill rate for the 
Russian Federation's frozen beef TRQ (RUSQ002) has also remained under 4 0% during the same 
period, with a fill rate of 35.1% in 2018. In an answer to a similar question by Australia at the 
87th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture ( AG-IMS ID 87085), the Russian Federation refers to 
a decreasing domestic consumption of beef as a reason explaining the low fill rates.  
a. Could the Russian Federation provide additional details on its domestic consumption of 
beef, including data that would show this downward trend in the 2016 2018 period?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 137 - 
 
  Canada also notes a sharp decline in the Russian Federation's fill rate for its fresh, chilled 
or frozen pork, and pork trimmings TRQs (RUSQ002 and RUSQ003), trending close to 
60% in 2016 and 2017, and dropping to 11,7% in 2018.  
b. Could the Russian Federation explain why its imports of pork product s suddenly dropped 
in 2018?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
a. Beef consumption in the Russia n Federation  has declined steadily. According to the 
Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, in the Russia n Federation  beef 
consumption in 2015 was 2 ,193 thousand tonnes, in 2016 – 2,066 thousand tonnes, in 
2017 – 2055 thousand tonnes. Relevant information for the year 2018 is not available 
now.  
b. Please refer to Russia's Reply to question AG-IMS 91049.  
AG-IMS ID 91049: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes that the combined fill rate for the tariff rate quotas for "Fresh, Ch illed or 
Frozen Pork" (RUSQ003) and "Pork Trimming" (RUSQ004) has decreased from 61 % in 2017 to 
11.7% in 2018. Could the Russian Federation please explain the reason for this significant reduction 
in fill rate?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
Low fill rates o f this particular tariff quotas is due to market conditions, including domestic 
production. In recent years pork production has been growing rapidly. In 2018, Russia's pork 
production grew up 8.2% from 2017.  
2.2.1.12   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/83)  
AG-IMS ID 91128: Questi on by Indonesia - Tariff quota fill  
Based on the data Indonesia obtained from the WTO database, Indonesia found Thailand's bound 
tariffs for coffee and coconuts are as follow:  
a. Coconuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled: Other (HS 0801.19.90 ): 
54%; 
b. Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated; coffee husks and skins; coffee 
substitutes containing any portion of coffee (HS 0901): 90% ; 
c. Instant coffee and other extracts, essences and concentrated, of coffee, and 
preparations with a basis of t hese extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of 
coffee (HS  2101.10): 49% . Indonesia then checked the applied tariffs of those products 
at http://www.thailandntr.com  and found results as follow:  
d. Coconuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled: Other (HS 0801.19.90): 
60%. 
e. Coffee, whether or not roasted or decaffeinated; coffee husks and skins; coffee 
substitutes containing any portion of coffee (HS 0901): 40% or 4 Baht/kg . 
f. Instant coffee  and other extracts, essences and concentrated, of coffee, and 
preparations with a basis of these extracts, essences or concentrates or with a basis of 
coffee (HS  2101.10): 60% . Indonesia noticed that Thailand has TRQ for all of those 
products, yet after c hecked Thailand latest MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/THA/83) 
Indonesia found that in 2015 those 3 products' fill rates are below 65%, which can be 
categorized as underfill.  Thus,  Indonesia would like to seek clarifications from Thailand 
on these matters : 
g. Why d o the applied tariffs of coconuts and instant coffee exceed the bound tariff of 
those products?  
h. Would Thailand give explanation on why the fill rates of those product are below 65%?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 138 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
a. Thailand would like to inform the Committee that in 198 7, the Ministry of Finance 
announced the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530 (1987) consisted of custom applied 
tariff rate for trade in goods included coconut and instant coffee which the tariff rate is 
60%. After Thailand become WTO Member in 1995, the Minis try of Finance issued 
Notification under the said Decree comprised Thailand's bound tariff rate under the WTO 
commitment which Coconut's tariff rate are 20% for in quota and 54% for out quota 
and Instant coffee's tariff rate are 40% for in quota and 49% fo r out quota. This 
information is located in the Thailand's National Trade Repository website.  
b. In 2015, Thailand mostly imported coconuts (HS 0801.11 0801.12 and 0801.19), coffee 
(HS 0901) and instant coffee (HS 2101.11 and 2101.12) from ASEAN countries. 
Therefore, the TRQ fill rates under WTO were relatively low.  
Follow -up: Indonesia sought clarification regarding the information on applied tariff data it obtained 
from Thailand National Trade Repository which appeared to be the same as the data contained in  
the document of customs Decree B.E. 2560 of 2017. Indonesia noted that should the applied tariffs 
were the same, Thailand's applied tariffs for coconuts and instant coffee under HS 0801.19.90 and 
HS 2101.10 exceeded the bound tariffs. Indonesia asked Thai land to confirm its findings.  
2.2.1.13   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/125)  
AG-IMS ID 91050: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
a. The European Union notes the persistently low fill rate of the "American type cheese" 
quota and the "Lowfat cheese" quota, as reflected by the fill rate of 11% and 1% 
respectively in 2017. Could the United States explain the reason behind the low fill rate 
of these tariff rate quotas?  
b. The European Union notes the zero-fill rate of the "Green ripe olives" tariff quota in 
2017. Could the United States explain the reason behind the zero-fill rate of this tariff 
rate quota?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The fill rates of US TRQs in any particular year are affected by a variety of market 
factors, including price trends, exchange rates, supply and demand. The United States 
would also note that international trade in low fat cheese is limited as internationa l 
standards for low fat cheese are non -existent. The Codex Committee on Food Labelling 
undertook work on developing a list of foods with modified standardized common names 
between 2010 and 2012 for the purpose of nutritional modification that could serve t o 
inform Codex members wishing to promote healthier food options such as low -fat 
cheese options. The European Union opposed the modification of standardized common 
names, stating that the work could confuse consumers as to the properties and handling 
requirements of the modified foods.  
b. As noted in the response to (a), the fill rates of US TRQs in any particular year are 
affected by a variety of market factors, including price trends, exchange rates, supply 
and demand. The United States allocates its TRQ fo r Green ripe olives on a first -come, 
first-serve basis.  
Follow -up: Australia noted a general comment regarding the questions raised in the context of 
MA:2 notifications that Members were not providing sufficient information on TRQ fill in order to 
undertak e the review process. Australia urged Members to consider this issue pragmatically to 
improve the efficiency of the Committee by providing more fulsome notifications. Australia believed 
that this could be further considered as part of Members' overall effo rts to improve transparency in 
the WTO and noted that the Carins group were working on the issue and would put forward its ideas 
in due course.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 139 - 
 
  2.2.2   Domestic support commitments ( Table DS:1)  
2.2.2.1   Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/34)  
AG-IMS ID 91164: Question by United States of  America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment / Development Programmes)  
Supporting Table DS:2  
The United States thanks Botswana for submitting its 2017 notification.  
a. It appears the Agriculture Services Support Project (ASSP) is a newly notifie d 
programme in 2017. According to Article 18.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, this 
programme should have a corresponding Table DS:2 notification. Does Botswana intend 
to provide a DS:2  notification for this measure?  
b. Can Botswana please explain the 135 % increase in spending on the "Livestock 
Management and Infrastructure Development (LIMID) and Integrated Support 
Programme for Arable Development (ISPAAD)" as compared to its previous notification?  
Answer by Botswana  
2.2.2.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  
AG-IMS ID 91165: Q uestion by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Brazil's notified expenditures under Green Box measures decreased significantly between 2016 
and 2017 across a number of areas that included significant declines in Agricultur al research 
programme, Educational services for rural areas, Extension services on agricultural production, 
Support for irrigation programmes, Acquisition of rural land for agrarian organization, and Program 
of acquisition of agricultural products from fam ily farming.  
a. Please explain the reason for the drop in expenditures for each of the identified 
measures?  
The United States, along with several other Members, has expressed concern at 
previous meetings of the COA over the potentially trade distorting effects of PEP and 
PEPRO programs.  
b. Brazil stated in its response to AG-IMS ID 87014 that both PEP and PEPRO "are not 
contingent on export or on export performance." Would Brazil consider removing proof 
of export as a criteria for qualifying for payments under PEP and PEPRO?  
c. Brazil stated in its response to AG-IMS ID 87014 that "there is no new forecast for new 
PEP/PEPRO auctions for the 2017/2018 crop." Are any PEP or PEPRO auctions expected 
for agricultural commodities in 2019?  
Brazil notified c alendar year 2017 payments under PEP and PEPRO in its DS:1 
notification dated 28 January  2019 as Product Specific Aggregate Measure of Support: 
Non-Exempt Direct Payment.  
d. In recent years, several million tonnes of corn in the state of Mato Grosso received 
support under the PEPRO programme. Given that most of the corn in the state is 
exported, will Brazil notify this programme under ES:1?  
e. Why are wheat outlays under PEPRO so much lower compared with Brazil's previous 
notification?  
Answer by Brazil  
a. In 2015 an d in 2016, Brazil's GDP decreased 3.5%. In 2017, Brazil's GDP grew only 
1%. Such macroeconomic challenges led to fiscal constraints and, thus, to smaller levels 
of Green Box support measures.  
b. Brazil reiterates that both PEP and PEPRO, being domestic suppo rt programs, do not 
discriminate between sales to the domestic and external markets, which depend on G/AG/W/215  
 
- 140 - 
 
  market conditions. All it is required is that the bidder presents documentation proving 
the sale and outflow of the product from producing regions towards undersupplied 
regions.  
c. Both PEP and PEPRO depend on market conditions in a given period. So far, market 
conditions do not indicate the need to use these mechanisms for any crop.  
d. PEPRO programs are designed as instruments to supplement the value received from 
the sale of a product so that it reaches the value of the Minimum Price. Payments to 
producers under PEPRO are only made if there is proof of outflow of production from 
areas where the market prices of the product are (or were) below minimum prices. 
Since PEPRO is used for domestic support and is not contingent on export or on export 
performance, it will remain being notified under DS:1, ST DS :6 "Product -Specific 
Aggregate Measure of Support: Non -Exempt Direct Payment".  
e. PEPRO may be available when the  market price of a product in a region is below the 
minimum price. Due to a slight overall increase in the average price of wheat, it was 
less common to resort to the program than in previous years.  
2.2.2.3   Côte d'Ivoire ( G/AG/N/CIV/3  to G/AG/N/CIV/21 ) 
AG-IMS ID 91086: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The following questions concern notifications G/AG/N/CIV/3 to G/AG/N/CIV/21: Canada would like 
to thank Côte d'Ivoire for its efforts to update its notifications. From Côte d'Ivoire's notifications, 
Canada notes that the country has not notified any support to its agricultural industry for the last 
19 years. Côte d'Ivoire did, however, notify support programmes under the Green Box and under 
Article 6.2 in its AGST supporting tables at the time of its accession.  
a. Can Côte d'Ivoire confirm that it has no agricultural programmes to notify in its domestic 
support notifications?  
b. Upon its accession to the WTO, Côte d'Ivoire notified a number of programmes in its 
AGST supporting table s. Were these programmes still in force between 2000 and 2018?  
c. In its AGST supporting tables, Côte d'Ivoire indicated that agricultural input subsidies 
were used. Did Côte d'Ivoire use agricultural input subsidy programmes between 2000 
and 2018?  
d. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development website 
(http://www.agriculture.gouv.ci/accueil/pages/la politique de relance agricole ), Côte 
d'Ivoire implemented the National Agricultural Investment Programme (PNIA) between 
2012 and 2016. The programme was estimated at 2,040 billion CFA francs (some 
3.5 billion  US dollars). Could Côte d'Ivoire please explain why this programme was not 
notified, fully or in part, in its domestic support notifications between 2012 and 2016?  
e. According to the WTO Secretariat's report for Côte d'Ivoire's 2017 Trade Policy Review 
(WT/TPR/S/362), Côte d'Ivoire applies guaranteed minimum price policies, including a 
guaranteed minimum price policy for cocoa crops that has been in place since the 
2012/2013 season. Could Côte d'Ivoire please explain why it has not notified any price 
support  in its domestic support notifications since 2012?  
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
AG-IMS ID 91139: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
It is noted that Cote d'Ivoire has notified zero domestic support of any kind betw een 2000 and 2018. 
It is understood that Cote d'Ivoire may fund or implement several measures that support the 
agricultural sector. For example, the government of Cote d'Ivoire has implemented and providing 
funding for a National Rice Development Strategy since 2008. As another example, the United States 
understands the minimum guaranteed price for cocoa growers was raised by 7% to 750  CFA francs 
per kg for the 2018/19 growing season.  
Taking into account the information noted above, the United States seeks confirmation regarding 
whether the Government of Cote d'Ivoire has provided funding for any support measures, including 
research, extension, input subsidies or price supports of any kind.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 141 - 
 
  Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
AG-IMS ID 91051: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia welcomes Côte d'Ivoire's submission of 18 domestic support notifications for the 
periods  2000-2012 and 2014 -2018.  
The submission of notifications by all Members, regardless of how long ago the reporting yea r was, 
is a demonstration of a Member's commitment to transparency and to the effective and efficient 
operation of this Committee.  
While Australia acknowledges Côte d'Ivoire's efforts, Australia is aware of a number of agriculture 
support and investment pr ograms within the Côte d'Ivoire's National Agricultural Investment 
Programme (PNIA). References to these programmes were included in the 2017 Trade Policy Review 
for Members of the West African Economic and Monetary Union. Australia notes these programmes 
have not been included in any of Côte d'Ivoire's DS notifications.  
a. Australia would like to understand why Côte d'Ivoire has not considered these 
programmes as domestic support under the Agreement on Agriculture, including 
possibly under S&DT or Green Box?  
b. Will Côte d'Ivoire consider revisions in due course?  
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
AG-IMS ID 91052: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU thanks Ivory Coast for its DS:1 notifications, covering years up to and including 2019. 
However, the EU would like to know, whether there is absolutely NO domestic support granted.  
According to the website of the agricultural M inistry 
http:// www.agriculture.gouv.ci/uploads/Presentation_Reforme WCC.pdf . 
The Ivory Coast has a support scheme for cacao. The government has fixed a minimum price cacao 
at 725 F CFA/Kg (p 15):  
• investment is also foreseen ; 
• Mise en place de la PPPP en Mai 2012;  
• Mise en œuvre des projets du FIMR:  
• En moyenne 10 milliards par an et spécifiquement pour la campagne 2012/2013, 
15 milliards FCFA de travaux prévu . 
Can Ivory Coast explain why these measures were not included in their DS:1 notifications.  
Answer by Côte d'Ivoire  
2.2.2.4   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/C orr.2 and G/AG/N/EU/55 ) 
AG-IMS ID 91053: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including Table  DS:2)  
The EU's overall domestic support spending has decreased by about EUR5 billion over the past five 
years, however, during this time period, both its total AMS and blue box spending has increased. 
The EU's AMS spending as per its most recent notification for MY2016/17 is EUR1 billion more than 
it was in MY2013/14. Over the same period Blue Box spend ing increased by EUR2 billion. The EU's 
proposed CAP for the next cycle focuses on 'greening' agriculture. How does the EU propose to 
reform its currently highly trade distorting domestic support spending under the next CAP, noting 
that Amber and Blue box support does not encourage environmentally sustainable farming practices?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 142 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
First, the EU believes that reduction of trade distorting Amber Box support should be a prime priority 
for WTO Members. This is why the EU has reformed its agricultural policy over the last 28 years, and 
reduced its use of Amber Box measures from above EUR 60 billion in its first DS:1 notification (for 
only 15 member States) to now less than EUR 10 billion in 2016/17 for 28 member States.  
Greenin g, in the sense of reducing the environmental impact and reducing the climate effect of 
agricultural production, is prime priority of the CAP proposal presented by the EU Commission that 
is currently under discussion in Council of the European Union and th e European Parliament.  
Further, the current wording of the Green Box, in fact leads to some measures which can be 
extremely beneficial for the environment, or climate mitigation having to be notified as Amber Box 
support.  
Therefore, the relatively minor c hanges, in a historical perspective, of the EU's Amber Box use in 
recent years, is in no way a sign of relaxation of our wish to see reductions the use of and further 
limits on Amber Box trade distorting support. Nor are these changes a sign of reducing th e 
importance of the political direction of EU farm policy towards more sustainable production methods.  
Follow -up: New Zealand agreed that comprehensive reform of Amber Box support and trade 
distorting support measures should be a prime priority for WTO Me mbers and commended the EU's 
efforts in reforming the CAP over the past 28 years. New Zealand noted that the EU, as one of the 
largest global agricultural producers, exporters and subsidizers, was a major influencer, not only on 
global market conditions, b ut in achieving sustainability and climate change goals, which should be 
significant motivators for reforming agricultural trade policies. New Zealand pointed out that given 
the current context Members did not have the luxury of another 28 years to achieve  these goals. 
New Zealand sought the EU's elaboration on which current wording of Green Box could lead to "some 
measures which can be extremely beneficial for the environment or climate mitigation having to be 
notified as Amber Box support." The EU noted t hat some environmentally beneficial measures it 
introduced were linked to production and therefore could not be classified as Green Box support as 
per Annex 2 of the AoA. The EU further underlined that, during the current discussions on CAP 
reforms in the parliament, environmental concern and climate mitigations was identified with a 
higher priority as it had been in previous CAP reforms.  
AG-IMS ID 91090: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
The European Union stated  in its response to Canada's question at the September 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 88077) that: "For the budget year 2016 in total EUR 1.27 billion was paid out to organic 
production." The EU also stated: "As regards the type of extra costs that are eligible, examples of 
eligible costs can be found in each Rural Development Programmes, for example: the extra costs of 
purchasing organic fertilisers and/or organic pesticides, …". Canada is interested in further details 
regarding the EU's organic programme.  
a. What w as the amount of support provided under this measure to support organic 
production by commodity for the budget year 2016?  
b. Could the European Union provide amount of support against the various eligible costs 
for budget year 2016?  
c. Could the European Union p rovide the total income of all the farms that have received 
support for organic production for the budget year 2016?  
d. Could the European Union provide the total income of all the farms that have not 
received support for organic production for the budget yea r 2016?  
Answer by European Union  
a. During the Budget year 2017 EUR 940 million was included from Rural 
Development measures in the DS:1 notification  
b. In the calendar year 2016, this aid was provided for support to organic conversion 
and maintenance through a ll rural development programmes. Article 28 of the EU 
Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD) covers support to organic farming and states that G/AG/W/215  
 
- 143 - 
 
  payments made under this article shall compe nsate beneficiaries for all or part of 
the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made 
(i.e. conversion to organic farming or maintenance of organic farming practices 
compared to costs of conventional farming practices. The add itional costs and 
income foregone being the only eligible costs to be considered under this 
measure.  
c.and d.  Data on organic farms income is not available based on the criteria mentioned in 
the questions.  
Follow -up: Paraguay asked the EU to clarify why t he information requested in question c and d were 
not available and whether the EU would be in a position to provide the requested data at the next 
Committee meeting. The EU responded that such information was not available in its database and 
estimation o n farms which had received support for organic production could not be made.  
AG-IMS ID 91113: Question by Paraguay - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Paraguay wishes to co -sponsor the following question raised by Canada (AG-IMS ID 91090):  
The European Union stated in its response to Canada's question at the September 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 88077) that: "For the budget year 2016 in total EUR 1.27 billion was paid out to organic 
production." The EU also stated: "As regards  the type of extra costs that are eligible, examples of 
eligible costs can be found in each Rural Development Programmes, for example: the extra costs of 
purchasing organic fertilisers and/or organic pesticides, …". Canada is interested in further details 
regarding the EU's organic programme.  
a. What was the amount of support provided under this measure to support organic 
production by commodity for the budget year 2016?  
b. Could the European Union provide amount of support against the various eligible costs 
for budget year 2016?  
c. Could the European Union provide the total income of all the farms that have received 
support for organic production for the budget year 2016?  
d. Could the European Union provide the total income of all the farms that have not 
received suppo rt for organic production for the budget year 2016?  
Answer by European Union  
a. During the Budget year 2017 EUR 940 million was included from Rural 
Development measures in the DS:1 notification  
b. In the calendar year 2016, this aid was provided for support to organic conversion 
and maintenance through all rural development programmes. Article 28 of the EU 
Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD) covers support to organic farming and states that 
payments made under this article shall compensate beneficiaries for all or pa rt of 
the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made 
(i.e. conversion to organic farming or maintenance of organic farming practices 
compared to costs of conventional farming practices. The additional costs and 
income foregone  being the only eligible costs to be considered under this 
measure.  
c. and d.  Data on organic farms income is not available based on the criteria mentioned in 
the questions.  
AG-IMS ID 91074: Question by Thailand - Public stockholding for food security pur poses  
Please kindly refer to the European Union Domestic Support Notification marketing year 2015/2016 
(G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr.2), the EU notified Public stock holding for food security purposes of 2015/2016 
valued 21 Million Euro which increased from the amoun t of the same programme notified 
in 2014/2015 approximately 100 %. Could the EU please clarify the description of the programme 
and reasons for the substantial increase of the subsidies to this programme?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 144 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
The expenditure link to thi s is primarily link to one EU member State having security stocks (for 
defence policy reasons). Further information on this programme is not publicly available.  
AG-IMS ID 91089: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance progr ammes  
In G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr.2, the European Union revised the domestic support amounts it provided in 
2015 under Supporting Table DS:1, item (j), environmental programmes, and item (k), regional 
assistance programs. Looking at the amount the European Union notified under regional assistance 
programmes in 2014 (G/AG/N/EU/43) and the revised number for 2015, Canada notes an increase 
in spending of 2.4 billion EUR in 2014 to 4.4 billion EUR in 2015, i.e., an increase of over 80% in 
one year. At t he 88th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Canada asked the European Union 
about a similar increase in spending under its environmental programmes ( AG-IMS ID 88077). The 
EU responded that the increase in environmental programme expenditures was a con sequence of 
the gradual implementation of the 2013 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, which became 
only fully visible during the 2016 budget year in the case of rural development programs. With 
G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr.2, this increase now occurs within regional assistance programmes, and not 
environmental programmes.  
c. Could the European Union confirm whether this increase is due to the later budgetary 
implementation of rural development initiatives under the 2013 EU CAP reform? If so, 
could the European U nion explain why rural development programmes were reported 
under environmental programs?  
G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr.2 also mentions that an amount of 409 million EUR was omitted under item (k), 
regional assistance programmes.  
d. Could the European Union clarify to wh ich programme or policy aspect of the 2013 EU 
CAP this amount is related?  
Answer by European Union  
a. The EU can confirm that the answers given in question AGIMS is correct, however the 
increase was not from EUR 5 885 mio to EUR 8.121 mio but EUR 6.417 mio, a s set out 
in document G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr 2.  
The increase from 2014/15 to 2015/16 was due to the gradual implementation of the 
Rural development programmes for the period 2014 to 2020.  
EU Rural Development policy includes a significant part of the environme ntal measures 
as implemented by the EU and its member States, and are notified under Environmental 
programmes in Green Box, since these measures fulfil the criteria as set out in Annex 
2 of AoA.  
b. The omission concerns certain less -favoured area payments th at unfortunately were not 
included in the original notification.  
Follow -up: Canada noted interest in questions related to the EU's environmental programmes.  
AG-IMS ID 91079: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Could European Union please provide further information explaining the decrease in "Other general 
services" in 2016/2017 in comparison to 2015/2016 and the simultaneous increase in "Regional 
assistance programmes"?  
Answer by European Union  
The reason behind this  decrease is to be found in the implementation of the Rural Development 
programmes. Most of the programmes notified under this heading for Rural Development measures 
under the 2007 -2013 were not maintained in the 2014 -2020 Rural Development programmes. The  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 145 - 
 
  last year of payments for 2007 -2013 programmes was during budget year 2016, and therefore 
particular visible in the EU notification covering budget year 2017.  
AG-IMS ID 91058: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Australia seeks further information on specific environmental measures included in the EU's DS:1 
notification.  
In 2016/17, the EU provided EUR 6.48 billion of Green Box domestic support for environm ental 
measures. This included ' "support and protection of organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition' ". 
c. Of the EUR 6.48 billion of total environmental programme support, could the EU please 
provide the amount (in euros) provided for organic production?  
d. Can the EU please provide the eligibility criteria to access the organics programme and 
explain how it aligns with the EU's broader environmental policy?  
e. Strong demand for organic food from EU consumers is causing pressures on supply. 
Could the EU please explain how support payments under this programme are limited 
only to the extra costs or loss of income (Annex 2 paragraph 12 (b)) in complying with 
the EU's broader environmental policy objectives and are not merely input subsidies?  
f. How does the EU create conditions of fair competition?  
Answer by European Union  
a. EUR 940 million from Rural Development measures  
b. Support provided by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development for organic 
farming (both conversion to and maintenance) is granted for applying organic farming 
practices and methods as defined in organic farming Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. 
These are the principle eligibility criteria to access the rural development organic 
farming support.  
Organic farming methods and prac tices are considered as beneficial for the environment 
and natural resources with particularly important positive impact on soil, water, and 
biodiversity. This is due to the non -use of chemical fertilisers and plant protection 
products, requirements of cro p rotation or limited use of organic fertilisers (nitrogen 
input) to mention just few principles of organic farming.  
All this is clearly linked to the objectives of the EU environmental policy, promoting 
sustainable management of natural resources, includ ing ensuring water quality, soil 
quality, and stability of agri -ecosystems. Organic farming contributes to reducing 
pollution from agricultural sources (nitrates and other pollutants), including from 
livestock production. Organic farming delivers public go ods contributing to the 
protection of the environment, in line with the objectives of the EU environmental policy.  
The organic farming measure is expected to contribute to several Union priorities for 
rural development which strongly related to the object ives of the EU environmental 
objectives and challenges, in particular:  
Priority 4: "Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry" with 
a focus on the following areas:  
a. restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas and in 
areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as well 
as the state of European landscapes;  
b. improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management;  
c. preventing soil erosion and improving soil management.  
Priority 5: "Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate 
resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors" with a focus on the following area:  
a. fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 146 - 
 
  c. As explained in the reply to point b) above, support for organic farming in the context 
of rural development is provided in order to achieve beneficial environmental and 
climate e ffects resulting from the management of land in accordance with the organic 
farming practices and methods. Through this, support for organic farmers is not 
targeting production but the need to contribute to the EU's environmental policy 
objectives.  
Suppor t for organic farming methods and practices is calculated based on the principle of income 
loss and additional costs caused by the application of these methods and practices, compared to 
conventional farming management practices. The support might include such costs related to 
information and contracting (transaction costs), which are however limited to 20% of the premium 
or 30% in case of commitments undertaken by groups of farmers. No other element is included in 
the calculation of organic farming payment s in rural development.  
d. It should be recalled that support levels usually vary between the payments for 
conversion to organic farming and maintenance of organic farming. In the first case, 
the support level (limited to the period of conversion from con ventional to organic 
production methods) is higher to compensate the fact that farmers cannot 
commercialise their production yet as organic and claim higher prices.  
We do not understand the question related to "fair competition".  
Follow -up: In relation to question d, Australia noted that it was referring to "conditions of fair 
competition" as referred to in the second paragraph of the introductory part of the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91054: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assista nce programmes  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting its domestic support notification for marketing year 
2016-2017 (G/AG/N/EU/55).  
Australia seeks further information on measures contained in Supporting Table DS:1 regarding 
regional assistance programmes . In 2016 17, the value of support for specific measures benefiting 
certain disadvantaged areas increased to EUR 5.9 billion, up from EUR 4.4 billion in 2015 16 (revised 
from EUR 2.3 billion via corrigendum in April 2019 (G/AG/N/EU/46/Corr.2)).  
a. Can the EU please provide information for the significant revision (over 90% increase) 
to the measure in 2015 16?  
b. In 2016 17, the value of support has increased significantly again. Could the EU please 
provide a detailed breakdown (by disadvantaged area) of the EUR 5.9 billion in regional 
assistance?  
c. What is the definable criteria for a region to be both classified as disadvantaged and 
eligible to receive payments?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 147 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
a. The change from EUR 4.4 billion to EUR 5.9 billion is mainly due to the grad ual 
implementation of Rural Development programmes. For the Rural Development 
programmes in the period, EU  member States had two or three years following the 
commitment to make the payments for these measures.  
As far as the corrigendum, the reasons are cle arly laid out on the front -page of the 
corrigendum. One measure was incorrectly notified under (j) environmental 
programmes and one measure had unfortunately been omitted in the process of data 
collection.  
b. Expenditure under rural development evolve over t ime. For measure 7 ('basic services 
and village renewal') project implementation often starts slowly and payment of the 
grants occur at a later stage. Several member States had no expenditures for this 
measure in 2015 -16, while others increased their budge t implementation in 2016 -17 
from a low level in the year before. Furthermore, some member States had 
administrative delays in the first years of the implementation of the Rural Development 
Programmes, resulting in annual payments executed only in later yea rs, e.g. for areas 
facing natural or other specific constraints (ANC). This resulted to a significant increase 
in EAFRD expenditures in year 2016 -17 compared to 2015 -16. No further breakdown of 
ANC payments between mountain areas and areas with natural con straints other than 
mountains exists.  
Breakdown by RD measure  
Total public expenditure (EAFRD + national co -financing – mio Euros)  
RD measure  2015 -16 
(Q4/15 -Q3/16)  2016 -17 
(Q4/16 -Q3/17)  
M 7 'basic services and village renewal'  172.0  763.2  
M 13 'areas facing natural or other specific constraints'  2 665.9  4 845.1  
c. Areas  facing natural or other specific constraints (ANC) are designated according to 
Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council .  
ANCs are divided in three different categories:  
1. Mountain areas designated according to the criteria of altitude or slopes.  
2. Areas facing natural constraints, other than mountain (previous "LFAs intermediate 
areas"), designated based on biophysical criteri a and a fine -tuning process.  
3. Areas affected by specific constraints. Up to 10% of member State's territory may be 
designated under this category if it is considered necessary to continue land 
management in order to conserve or improve the environment, mai ntain the 
countryside, preserve the tourism potential or protect the coastline.  
According to Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, payments may, where duly justified, 
be differentiate according to the severity of the identified permanent constrai ns affecting farming 
activities and/or according to the farming systems. They have to be degressive above a threshold 
level of area per holding, to be defined in the Rural Development Programme.  
AG-IMS ID 91078: Question by New Zealand - Market price suppo rt 
The EU is a major producer and exporter of SMP.  
a. Why does it spend EUR1.5 billion on market price support for this product?  
b. Why did the EU increase its market price support to producers for SMP from 
MY2015/2016 to MY2016/17 – a period in which the global  SMP market was already 
distorted due to the EU's intervention stocks?  
c. How will the EU reform its interventionist approach to the SMP market, including its use 
of market price support?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 148 - 
 
  During 2016, 2017 and 2018, the average domestic price for butter in th e EU was significantly higher 
than the average world price. In the first half of 2019 the EU domestic butter price converged with 
the average world price.  
d. Why does the EU continue to provide market price support for butter given that doing 
so falsely infla tes the price its producers receive?  
e. Alternatively, is the price convergence this year an indication that that EU is currently 
reducing and removing its price support? The EU increased its spending on 
"extraordinary support measures" for milk for MYs 2015/ 16 and 2016/17.  
f. What are these measures and why does the EU provide them?  
Answer by European Union  
a. The amount of EUR 1.5 billion is calculated Market Price Support. As New Zealand 
is aware, this calculation is laid down in G/AG/2 and the EU follows this approach 
strictly: the EU support price – External Reference Price (ERP) – multiplied by 
total production. The EU has d ecided to maintain intervention as a possibility in 
the CAP. However, since the annual limit for SMP buying -in was fixed at 0 during 
marketing year 2018/19 as well during marketing year 2019/20, the EU can 
already now announce, that there will be no Market  Price Support for SMP in the 
DS:1 notification for marketing years 2018/19 and 2019/20.  
b. The increase in MPS from 2015/16 to 2016/17 was entirely due to the increase 
in total production of SMP. As New Zealand can see in supporting table DS:5, the 
support price level was unchanged.  
c. The current proposal for CAP reform does NOT contain any change to the 
intervention measures for SMP  
d. See reply to point A. The EU has not bought any butter into intervention since 
2010.  
e. and f. The EU has not changed its suppo rt policy for SMP and butter. The EU has and 
continues to maintain the intervention measure as a safety net in the case of 
extreme price fluctuations. The EU has in previous meeting explained in detail the 
expenditures linked to the extra -ordinary measures , reflected in the most recent 
DS:1 notifications. New Zealand can find more information in the reply the EU 
gave to the following question AGIMS ID 90026.  
Follow -up: New Zealand was encouraged to hear that the EU would not implement market price 
support for SMP for marketing years 2018/19 and 2019/20 but maintained the view that the EU's 
market price support for dairy distorted the highly variable market. New Zealand encouraged the EU 
to consider removing the intervention measure in the near future and pr oposed the EU to do so in 
conjunction with eliminating subsidies that encouraged overproduction. New Zealand viewed that 
intervention measure may not be needed in the EU market if its producers were incentivised by 
market forces rather than production -distorting subsides. The EU disagreed with New Zealand's view 
and noted that its dairy policies were market -oriented, and its farmers were competing fairly in the 
world market. The EU noted that it had demonstrated good faith in reforming its dairy policies by  
abolishing the quota system, which had been criticized in the past with high prices. The EU also 
noted that the market prices for butter and SMP in the EU and New Zealand were at par.  
AG-IMS ID 91091: Question by Canada - Non product specific AMS  
Canada n otes that the EU's non product specific AMS went from 742.4 million EUR in 2015 to 
1,053.7  million EUR in 2016, with an increase in insurance subsidies from 507.9 million EUR to 
816.8  million EUR in the same period. At the 83rd Committee on Agriculture, Australia noted a recent 
upward trend in spending under the same program, and inquired about the reasons behind this trend 
and related impacts on the 2013 Common Agricultural Policy reform ( AG-IMS ID 83108). The 
European Union responded that t he measure comprised of general insurance subsidies paid out of 
EU member State budgets, which have been increasingly used in recent years.  
a. Could the European Union provide more details as to the reasons why usage has been 
increasing? What type of insuranc e subsidy (e.g., discounted premium) is provided to 
producers?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 149 - 
 
  b. Could the European Union provide information on product coverage as well as risk 
coverage for these insurance subsidies? What products are eligible, and in which 
EU member State? At the 24th Committee on Agriculture, the United States inquired 
about the EU's insurance subsidy program provided by EU member States ( AG-IMS ID 
24043). At the time, the European Union responded that the insurance subsidy covered 
hail insurance.  
c. Is this the same insura nce subsidy? If not, how does it differ?  
Answer by European Union  
The question of risk management has been a substantial part on the ongoing discussion on changes 
to the CAP, and several EU member States have in this context increased their use of insurance 
schemes, in particular within their Rural Development programmes . See the summary table showing 
the risk coverage as well as the product coverage for the member States that have notified the 
support in question.  
Country  Eligible Products  Risk coverage  
Spain  Crops : Arable crops, fruits, vegetables, 
forestry, olives, gr apes, industrial crops, 
Animals beef cattle,sheeps -goats, poultry, 
beekeeping, equines, pigs, rabbits.  Damage caused by natural disasters or 
exceptional occurrences, adverse climatic 
events which can be assimilated to a natural 
disaster, animal diseases a nd plant pests, the 
removal and destruction of fallen stock and 
damage caused by protected animals, and by 
other adverse climatic events.  
France  All crops (production losses)  Drought, excessive temperatures, heat waves, 
sun excess, low temperatures, lack of sunlight, 
cold waves, frost, excess water, heavy rains, 
pouring rains, excess humidity, hail, snow or 
ice weight, storm, whirlwinds and  sand storms  
Italy  cereals, oilseeds, proteins,industrial crops, 
fruits and vegetables, wine grapes, Olives, 
plant nursery,livestock farms.  hail,strong wind, flood,drough,frost,excess rain, 
excess snow, sunstroke and hot wind, 
temperature changes,plant 
diseases,pest  infesta tions, epizooties 
(livestock).  
Latvia  All crops sowings and plantings  to cover 
losses caused by unfavorable weather 
conditions.  Animals : epizooty, other 
diseases.  Crops:  Hail, storm, rainstorm, unfavorable 
wintering and drought. For animal cases  - 
epizooty and other diseases.  
Hungary  Wheat, maize, rape, rye, barely, sunflower, 
triticale, grape, apple, pear  Hail, flood, thunder shower, frost, storm, fire  
Poland  Crops:  Cereals, rape, corn, potatoes, sugar 
beet, leguminous plants, fruits, ground 
vegetables, fruit trees and plants, tobacco, 
strawberries, hops, colza.  Animal 
production:  poultry, pigs, cattle, sheep, 
horses, goats.  Crops:  Hurricane, flood, rainstorm, hail, 
lightning, landslides, avalanches, droughts, 
negative effects of winter or spring frosts. 
Animal production:  hurricane, flood, 
rainstorm, hail, lightning, landslides, 
avalanches and emergency slaughter.  
Slovenia  Crop, fruit  and animal disease  Hail, fire, lightning, frost, floods and storms; 
animal diseases  
AG-IMS ID 91059: Question by Brazil - Classification of measures  
In document G/AG/N/EU/55, Supporting Table DS:1, the European Union has notified, as 
environmental programmes, expenditures related to "support and protection of organic production 
by creating conditions of fair competition". The European Union had already done so in document 
G/AG/N/EU/46. Despite the EU's previous replies to Canada in this Committee ( AG-IMS ID 88077), 
Brazil i s not convinced that the elements on which the EU based its decision to notify such 
programmes as Green Box measures meet the requirements of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
First, as regards to policy specific criteria and conditions, there is no dire ct exclusive relation between 
organic production and environmental conservation. Since it is almost impossible to completely sever 
agriculture from the environment, if a broad interpretation of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 becomes the 
rule, the indiscriminate n otification of allegedly environmental programmes could ensue.  
Still related to policy specific criteria and condition, the notion of "compensate beneficiaries for all 
or part of the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made"  (AG-IMS 
ID 88077) is questionable, given that so called organic products tend to have higher selling prices. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 150 - 
 
  The market itself compensates for the eventual loss of productivity inherent to organic goods 
systems. The farmers would thus receive double compe nsation: from the market and from the 
government, which would imply that such domestic support programmes have more than minimal 
trade distorting effects or effects on production.  
Brazil asks if the European Union could please provide:  
a. An updated amount of  domestic support expenditure that was provided to organic 
production;  
b. Information on the organic market in the European Union as compared to the regular 
agricultural market (growth, average selling prices);  
c. Information on which crops are most supported;  
d. Information on what is the treatment organic production is expected to receive in the 
Common Agricultural Policy Post 2020;  
e. How the organic production contributes to the conservation of the environment in a 
manner that is different from other forms of agricultural production.  
Answer by European Union  
a. EUR 940 million from Rural Development measures  
b. More detailed information can be found on the following web -sites:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/organics -sector -rise-both-domestic -production -and-
imports -see-large-increases -2019-mar-07_en  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -
fisheries/farming/documents/market -brief-organic -imports -mar2019_en.pdf  
c. Organic support does not target individual crops, but production systems. Therefore, 
the EU does not collect detailed data on this aspect. Nevertheless, it can be said that 
organic production involves a very diverse range of crops. Fruits and vegetables and to 
a lesser extent grassland and other fodder crops figure stro ngly in organic farming.  
d. The CAP Reform proposal is currently under discussion between the legislative 
authorities, the Council and European Parliament. The Commission proposal provided 
no EU -wide support to organic farmers. However, under the New Delivery  Mechanism, 
member States will have to design and plan interventions under a CAP plan that will 
allow reaching the nine common objectives of the CAP. In relation to environmental 
objectives organic production is included,  
e. Organic farming methods and pract ices are beneficial for the environment and natural 
resources with a particularly important potential of positive impact on soil, water and 
biodiversity. This is due to the non -use of chemical fertilisers and plant protection 
products, requirements of crop  rotation, and a limited use of organic fertilisers (nitrogen 
input) to mention just few principles of organic farming.  
The objectives, principles, and production rules certified as organic farming production 
methods and practices go beyond what is consid ered as normal or conventional farming 
practices with regard to those practices impact on the environment. As such, organic 
farming represents a significant added value in the process of protecting and enhancing 
the environment linked to farming activities . 
Follow -up: Colombia noted interest in questions related to the EU's environmental programmes 
(AG-IMD ID s 91089, 91090 and 911113). Australia supported questions raised by other Members 
and noted that the EU had a bigger influence on the agricultural trading system than the other 
Members.  
AG-IMS ID 91116: Question by Paraguay - Classification of measures  
Paraguay wishes to co-sponsor  the following question raised by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 91059):  
In document G/AG/N/EU/55, Supporting Table DS:1, the European Union has notified, as 
environmental programmes, expenditures related to "support and protection of organic p roduction 
by creating conditions of fair competition". The European Union had already done so in document G/AG/W/215  
 
- 151 - 
 
  G/AG/N/EU/46. Despite the EU's previous replies to Canada in this Committee ( AG-IMS ID 88077), 
Brazil is not convinced that the elements on which the EU based its decision to notify such 
programmes as Green Box measures meet the requirements of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
First, as regards to policy specific criteria and conditions, there is no direct exclusive relation between 
organic productio n and environmental conservation. Since it is almost impossible to completely sever 
agriculture from the environment, if a broad interpretation of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 becomes the 
rule, the indiscriminate notification of allegedly environmental programm es could ensue.  
Still related to policy specific criteria and condition, the notion of "compensate beneficiaries for all 
or part of the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made" ( AG-IMS 
ID 88077) is questionable, given that so called organic products tend to have higher selling prices. 
The market itself compensates for the eventual loss of productivity inherent to organic goods 
systems. The farmers would thus receive double compensation: from the market and from the 
governmen t, which would imply that such domestic support programmes have more than minimal 
trade distorting effects or effects on production.  
Brazil asks if the European Union could please provide:  
a. An updated amount of domestic support expenditure that was provided to organic 
production;  
b. Information on the organic market in the European Union as compared to the regular 
agricultural market (growth, average selling prices);  
c. Information on which crops are most supported;  
d. Information on what is the treatment org anic production is expected to receive in the 
Common Agricultural Policy Post 2020;  
e. How the organic production contributes to the conservation of the environment in a 
manner that is different from other forms of agricultural production.  
Answer by European Union  
a. EUR 940 million from Rural Development measures . 
b. More detailed information can be found on the following web -sites:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/organics -sector -rise-both-domestic -production -and-
imports -see-large-increases -2019-mar-07_en  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -
fisheries/farming/documents/market -brief-organic -imports -mar2019_en.pdf  
c. Organic support does not target individual crops, but production systems. Therefore, 
the EU does not collect detailed data on this aspect. Nevertheless, it can be said that 
organic production involves a very diverse range of crops. Fruits and vegetables and to 
a lesser extent grassland and other fodder crops figure strongly in organic farming.  
d. The CAP Reform prop osal is currently under discussion between the legislative 
authorities, the Council and European Parliament. The Commission proposal provided 
no EU -wide support to organic farmers. However, under the New Delivery Mechanism, 
member States will have to desig n and plan interventions under a CAP plan that will 
allow reaching the nine common objectives of the CAP. In relation to environmental 
objectives organic production is included,  
e. Organic farming methods and practices are beneficial for the environment and natural 
resources with a particularly important potential of positive impact on soil, water and 
biodiversity. This is due to the non -use of chemical fertilisers and plant protection 
products, requirements of crop rotation, and a limited use of organic fert ilisers (nitrogen 
input) to mention just few principles of organic farming.  
The objectives, principles, and production rules certified as organic farming production 
methods and practices go beyond what is considered as normal or conventional farming 
practices with regard to those practices impact on the environment. As such, organic 
farming represents a significant added value in the process of protecting and enhancing 
the environment linked to farming activities.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 152 - 
 
  Follow -up: Colombia noted interest in ques tions related to the EU's environmental programmes 
(AG-IMD ID s 91089, 91090 and 911113). Australia supported questions raised by other Members 
and noted that the EU had a bigger influence on the agricultural trading system than the other 
Members.  
2.2.2.5   India ( G/AG/N/IND/12, G/AG/N/IND/13, G/AG/N/IND/15 ) 
AG-IMS ID 91098: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In its 2017/2018 domestic support notification, India reintroduced a new program under 
the payment for relief from natural disasters (paragraph 8, Annex 2), and a new 
program described as "Waving off Agricultural loans" under paragraph 11, Annex 2 a) 
Could India indicate when it will provide the relevant DS:2 notification with additional 
information on how these two programmes  which provide a total of USD 9.8 billion in 
support satisfy the criteria in Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Could India elaborate on the trigger for payments under the measure described as 
"payments for relief from natural disasters"?  
c. Regarding t he program described has "Waving off Agricultural loans":  
• could India provide additional information on objective criteria used to determine 
the structural disadvantages that this program is intended to address.  
• Could India elaborate on the criteria used t o determine the amount of payment 
required to compensate for the structural disadvantages.  
• Paragraph 11. (d) indicates that payments are only to be given for the "period of 
time necessary for the realization of the investment …". Could India provide 
inform ation on the duration of these payments?  
Answer by India  
a. India's DS 2 notification is under preparation and will be notified in due course.  
b. Under the measure described as "payments for relief from natural disasters", the 
Government provided subsidy on pre mium of agricultural insurance for production loss 
exceeding 30% of the average of production.  
c. The notified measures have been implemented by certain provincial governments. The 
agriculture sector in India faces multiple structural disadvantages such as dr oughts, 
crop failures, small landholding size, etc. Such structural disadvantages have led to 
severe stress in the agricultural sector which is also manifest in episodes of farmers 
suicides. Given these conditions, certain provincial governments such as Ta mil Nadu, 
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab etc. announced a 
one-time debt waiver for farmers to alleviate farm distress, based on specific conditions 
which differ from state to state.  
Follow -up: Canada looked forward to India's prompt DS:2 notification. Concerning India's response 
to question c that some measures were provided at the state level, Canada sought information on a 
list of states who had the programmes and which particular programmes were provided by each 
state. The EU noted interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91092: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/IND/12 and G/AG/N/IND/13 - Total VoP for the agricultural sector  
In question AG-IMS ID 88068 and others, India indicated the amount for VoP for the different crops, 
but not the total VoP for the agricultural sector for the years 2015/16 and 2017/18. Can India 
indicate the total VoP for the years in question?  
Answer by India  
The VoP for t he agricultural sector was USD 3,77,393 million and USD 4,54,986 million 
during  2015-16 and 2017 -18 respectively.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 153 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91093: Question by European Union - General services: infrastructural services  
Regarding G/AG/N/IND/13 and G/AG/N/IND/15  
Can India p lease give further detail on the increase of 410.29 million USD for the 2.(g) Infrastructural 
Services under Supporting Table DS:1 between 2016 and 2017 and what this included in this 
amount? Which type of measures, eligibility criteria and type of farmers  concerned?  
Answer by India  
Please refer to India's response to Question AG -IMS ID 91020.  
AG-IMS ID 91087: Question by European Union - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
India submitted a DS:1 notification o n 26 March 2019 for the marketing year 2017 2018. On page 
one, India provides supplemental information on Green Box support (Supporting Table DS:1) 
reported earlier in G/AG/N/IND/12 for the marketing years 2014/15, 2015/16 and in G/AG/N/IND/13 
for the mark eting year 2016/17. The information states the waiving off of agricultural loans under 
the following measure type "Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids".  
Can India please provide further information on the DS:1 notification G/A G/N/IND/12 submitted for 
the marketing year 2017 2018. In particular, the methodology behind the waiving off of the 
agricultural loans and its impact on its Green Box classification, the eligibility criteria and the type 
of farmers concerned.  
Answer by Ind ia 
Please refer to India's response to Question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  
AG-IMS ID 91094: Question by European Union - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Regarding G/AG/N/IND/15 , 
The European Union notes the Gree n Box measure "Waving off Agricultural loan" that India 
introduced in 2014 2015 and that it increased substantially to 8,072 million USD in 2017 2018.  
a. How does this measure fulfil the criteria for "structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investme nt aids" (paragraph 11) in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. What are the reasons for the major increase in support level for the measure between 
2016-2017 and 2017 -2018?  
Answer by India  
Please refer to India's response to Question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  
AG-IMS ID 91145: Question by Japan - Direct payments: structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids  
G/AG/N/IND/15  
In relation with India's DS:1 notification on 2017, significant increases of Waiving off Agricultural 
loan were  observed once every some years, namely 2014 and 2017. Such financial support may 
help farmers out of their accumulated unpaid loan, it would also help farmers to invest on their 
production in excess. How does the Indian Government ensure that such impacts  will be avoided?  
Answer by India  
Please refer to response to Question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 154 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91096: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Thailand would like to thank India to sub mit Domestic Support Notification of 2017/2018 
(G/AG/N/IND/15). In the said notification, India notified measure namely "Waiving off Agricultural 
Loan" valued 8,072 Million USD under the measures exempt from the reduction commitment. Please 
provide more de tailed information and related regulations on these matters.  
Answer by India  
Please refer to India's response to Question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  
AG-IMS ID 91099: Question by Australia - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 (G/AG/N/IND/15), India ind icated it provided US D 3.96 million and 
USD 17.6 million in market price support for rapeseed/mustard and soyabeans respectively 
in 2017/18. These measures were saw procurement in 2016/17 for the first time in a number of 
years.  
a. what was total production of rapeseed/mustard (in both value and volume) in marketing 
year 2017/2018?  
b. What was total production of soyabean yellow (in both value and volume) in marketing 
year 2017/2018?  
c. For both rapes eed/mustard and soybean yellow, what is the eligibilit y criteria to receive 
the minimum support price?  
i. Is it available to all producers?  
Answer by India  
a. and b. 
Product  Total Production 
(Lakh Ton nes) Value of Production 
(USD Mn)  
Rapeseed/Mustard  84.30  4,052.30  
Soybean  109.33  4,632.48  
c.  The eligible production is only a portion of marketable surplus meeting prescribed 
specifications offered by farmers to government agencies at the MSP.  
AG-IMS ID 91101: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
G/AG/N/IND/15  
In its 2017/20 18 notification, India reported USD 792 million in market price support for pulses. 
India also reported 1.83 million of tonnes in eligible production.  
a. Please confirm that the 1.83 million tonnes reported as eligible production in supporting 
table DS:5 repr esents government procurement of pulses at the applied administered 
price by India.  
b. Could India explain why it did not take into account the Korea beef Appellate Body ruling 
and the panel report finding of the DS511 case (China — Domestic Support for 
Agricultural Producers) for establishing the eligible production for pulses  
Answer by India  
a. The volume of eligible production for pulses of 1.83 million tonnes has already been 
notified in the supporting table DS:5 of the DS :1 notification for year 2017 -18.  
b. The findings of Appellate body in the cases referred to by Canada in their question are 
specific to the facts of those cases. What is relevant in one dispute does not 
automatically apply in other situations.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 155 - 
 
  Follow -up: Canada and the EU asked India to clarify if the eligible production notified by India was 
the quantity procured at applied administered price or the total production. The EU also registered 
interest in question AG -IMS ID 91175 and disagreed with India's vi ew that Korea beef case was not 
related to the question. The US echoed the EU's comments.  
AG-IMS ID 91100: Question by Canada - De minimis  
G/AG/N/IND/15  
At the 87th Committee on Agriculture, India indicated that product specific value of production data 
would be included in its future domestic support notifications. However, in Supporting Table DS:4, 
Canada notes that product specific value of production data were once again not included. The 
inclusion of value of production data greatly improves the transp arency of Supporting Table DS:4.  
a. Could India provide the value of production for all products reported in Supporting 
Table  DS:4 for 2017 2018?  
Answer by India  
Please refer to our response to Question AG -IMS ID 91174.  
AG-IMS ID 91095: Question by European U nion - De minimis  
Regarding G/AG/N/IND/15,  
According to the notification, India has increased market price support for several products 
in 2017/2018, including rice, wheat and pulses. This support is claimed to be below the de minimis  
level of India (10 % of the value of production). However, that claim is hard to verify, since India 
does not include information about value of production in its notification.  
a. Could India please provide information about the value of production for the products 
notified in Sup porting Table DS:4?  
Answer by India  
Please refer to our response to Question AG -IMS ID 91174.  
Follow -up: Canada, the EU and the US encouraged India to include the value of production data its 
supporting table for the sake of transparency.  
AG-IMS ID 91171: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Could India please provide product specific value of production for all products reported in Supporting 
Table DS:4 for 2016 2017 and 2017 2018?  
Answer by India  
Please re fer to India's response to Question AG -IMS ID 91174.  
AG-IMS ID 91168: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
India's notification of measures included in Supporting Table DS:1 provides no information regarding 
what schemes or programmes India is notifying. Further, it appears that India may be aggregating 
all schemes or programmes that qualify under different measure types. This, in combination with 
India having never notified any DS:2 notifications with regards to  the introduction or modification of 
any scheme or programme, has made it difficult for Members of this Committee to review India's 
domestic support measures or be able to ascertain even the most basic aspects of what schemes or 
programmes India operates.  
For each measure type listed in Supporting Table DS:1, please provide a name and description for 
each measure that is included in the notified value of support.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 156 - 
 
  Answer by India  
India's DS:2 notification is under preparation and will be notified in due cour se. 
Follow -up: The US repeated its question and asked India to provide a name and description for each 
measure.  
AG-IMS ID 91170: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
India has notified a new measure as an exempt measure under Annex 2, paragraph 8 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (i.e., payments for relief from natural disasters). Based on the note to the 
question, it is presumed that this support is entirely related to agricultural insurance.  
a. Please identify  what specific schemes are included under this measure type, including 
the names of each insurance scheme if more than one.  
b. Please confirm whether there is any relationship between the insurance scheme(s) 
notified under Supporting Table DS:1 and Supporting  Table DS:9. If so, please explain.  
c. Will India be providing a DS:2 notification for this (these) new measure(s)?  
d. How is formal government recognition of a natural disaster determined and declared?  
e. Please describe how these measures meet the criteria set ou t in paragraph 8 of Annex  2. 
f. If any non-insurance  scheme is included, please provide the name(s) and details with 
regards to how the measures are implemented.  
Answer by India  
a. to e.  The name of the scheme is Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). 
Government provides subsidies on premium of agricultural insurance for 
production loss exceeding 30% of the average of production which is notified 
under Supporting Table DS:1. Premium subs idies on agricultural insurance for 
production loss less than 30% is notified under Supporting table DS:9. The same 
has been clearly explained through the footnotes in the relevant notification. 
Further details can be accessed at the weblink: https://pmfby.gov.in . 
India's  DS:2 notification is under preparation and will be notified in due course.  
AG-IMS ID 91174: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Please provide value of prod uction data for all commodities listed in Supporting Table DS:4. For 
those commodities that have been aggregated (e.g., coarse cereal and pulses), please provide the 
value of production for each individual commodity for which an announced minimum support p rice 
exists.  
Answer by India  
Value of Production in 2017 -18(in USD Million)  
Rice 42,234.29  
Cotton  13,525.4  
Groundnut in shell  5,965.18  
Sunflower in seed  90.41  
Soybean  4,632.48  
Wheat  26,993.18  
Rapeseed/mustard  4,052.30  
Pulses  17,148.25  
Coarse grains  10,755.60  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 157 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91177: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
India has notified a market price support for "pulses." However, upon reviewing the Minimum 
Support Price (MSP) announcements for Marketing Year 2017/18, India does not provide a "pulses" 
price support, but rather individual price supports for several coarse cereal commodities.  
a. Please confirm what "pulses" had an announced Minimum Support Price in MY 2017/18.  
b. Please confirm the annou nced MSP for each.  
c. The United States understands that the "pulses" fixed external reference price does not 
include a lentils value in its calculation as it was not included in India's AGST even when 
support for lentils is undertaken. Please explain the bas is for not calculating the external 
reference price for 1986 88 for lentils when a price support for lentils is provided.  
d. Please explain what change in policy occurred between when India undertook its 
commitments and now that has resulted in the change in how India notifies support for 
various "pulses" commodities.  
e. Did India undertake procurement in all of these "coarse cereal" commodities in 
MY 2017/18? If not, how is this consistent with India's position that it does not notify 
market price support if no procurement occurred, as is the case with a number of 
commodities that the Indian government announces Minimum Support Prices for but 
are absent from this notification?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  MSP for pulses can be accessed at http://agricoop.nic.in . 
c. and d. Lentils do not feature in India's AGST notification. However, support to lentils is 
being notified in our DS notifications within pulses. The ERP for pulses is 
calculated by taking the simple average of the E RP for arhar, moong, urad, and 
gram. India is consistently notifying product specific support for pulses at 
aggregate level since 1995 -96.  
e.  India has duly notified market price support for coarse cereal in Marketing Year 
2017/18 by considering the portion of marketable surplus meeting the prescribed 
specifications offered by farmers at the administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 91088: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks India for submitting its domestic support notifications for marketing year 2017 -18 
(G/AG/N/IND/15). Australia is seeking further information on measures relating to the "waiving of 
Agricultural loans." Australia also notes that India has pro vided supplementary information regarding 
this measure for earlier marketing years (2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17).  
a. Were the initial loans related to the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare 
'Agriculture Credit Flow Targets'?  
b. Are the initial loans avai lable to all farmers?  
i. If not, could India please outline the eligibility requirements to receive the initial 
loans?  
c. In providing financial assistance to waive outstanding loans, does the government 
require evidence that the loan is to assist operations in response to objectively 
demonstrated structural disadvantages (AoA Annex 2 para 11 (a))?  
Answer by India  
a. and b. For agriculture credit, Indian farmers are dependent on both institutional 
(banking sector) as well as non -institutional sources (private mon ey lender). Due 
to exorbitant interest rates, non-institutional  source of credit is exploitative in 
nature. Therefore, government has taken measures to increase institutional credit 
and bring more farmers within the fold of institutional credit.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 158 - 
 
  c.  Please refer to response to question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  
AG-IMS ID 9 1169: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
India has notified for 2014/15 through 2017/18 "waiving off agricultural loan" as a structural 
adjustment assistance provided th rough investment aids. The United States understands these 
measures to be new and ad hoc measures, primarily or often provided by State governments. For 
example, the United States understands that in 2014 Andhra Pradesh state government provided 
more than 70% of farmers in the state a debt relief subsidy. It is reported that the verification 
process in Andhra Pradesh was determined based on which farmers exceeded a certain debt 
threshold with payment made over several years. A similar programme in 2014 also  was initiated in 
Telangana with approximately 3.6 million beneficiaries.  
a. Please confirm whether the identified measures are those being reported in India's most 
recent notification.  
i. If not, please explain the basis for not including in India's domestic support 
notification.  
b. Please explain how the notified measures are implemented, including eligibility 
requirements to receiver the waiver.  
c. Please explain if, and if so how, the programs meet the criteria of paragraph 11 of 
Annex  2 of the Agreement  on Agriculture.  
d. Please explain whether the annual budgetary outlays are part of a single 
scheme/programme or if payments are made on an ad hoc annual basis and represent 
more than one program.  
e. Please confirm whether budgetary outlays notified include all relevant State waivers or 
only represent outlays made by the Central government.  
Answer by India  
a. Yes  
b. - e. Please refer to response to Question AG -IMS ID 91098 (c).  
AG-IMS ID 91173: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to low 
income or resource poor producers  
Members have repeatedly asked India to provide breakdowns in its notification of "other input 
subsidies", which constitute several vastly different programmes operated by different Ministries.  
a. Please provide a breakdow n of budgetary outlays or monetary outlays for each scheme.  
b. Please confirm whether there are one or more schemes contributing to each of the 
following types of inputs: irrigation, fertilizer, and electricity.  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  All input subsidies provided have been notified. The data regarding breakdown of 
input subsidies notified under Article 6.2 for 2017 -18 is as follows: Fertilizer: 
USD 10,735 million, Irrigation: USD 4,191 million and power: USD 7,648 million.  
AG-IMS ID 91175: Questi on by United States of America - Market price support  
India has notified a market price support program mefor "coarse cereals." However, upon reviewing 
the Minimum Support Price (MSP) announcements for Marketing Year 2017/18, India does not 
provide a "coar se cereals" price support, but rather individual price supports for several coarse cereal 
commodities.  
a. Please confirm what "coarse cereals" had an announced MSP in MY 2017/18.  
b. Please confirm the announced MSP for each.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 159 - 
 
  c. Please explain how a "coarse cereals"  fixed external reference price was developed, 
given that India made its commitments on the basis of each individual commodity.  
d. Noting recent "consistency" in how India notifies market price support for "coarse 
cereals", please explain what change in polic y occurred between when India undertook 
its commitments and now that has resulted in the change in how India notifies support 
for various "coarse cereals" commodities.  
e. Did India undertake procurement in all of these "coarse cereal" commodities in MY 
2017/1 8? 
Answer by India  
a. and b.   MSP for coarse cereals can be accessed at http://agricoop.nic.in . 
c. and d.  The ERP for coarse cereal is calculated by taking the simple average of the ERP 
of different variety of coarse  cereal like maize, jowar, bajra etc. As these are 
different varieties of coarse cereals, therefore, MPS is calculated at aggregate 
level. (e) India has duly notified market price support for coarse cereal in MY 
2017/18 by considering the portion of market able surplus meeting the prescribed 
specifications offered by farmers at the administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 91179: Question by United States of America - Non product specific AMS  
The insurance premium subsidy notified in Supporting Table DS:9 decreased subs tantially in 
MY 2017/18.  
a. Please explain the decrease in support between MY 2016/17 and MY 2017/18.  
b. It is noted that there is a new footnote in MY 2017/18. Please confirm whether there 
was a change in the implementation of agricultural insurance in MY 2017/18 and 
explain.  
c. Please confirm whether India has moved support previously notified in Supporting Table 
DS:9 to Supporting Table DS:1 with no corresponding change in policy.  
Answer by India  
a. to c.  The expenditure on account of premium subsidies under Pradhan Mantri Fasal 
Bima Yojna  (PMFBY) is partially notified as non -product specific support and 
partially under para 8 of Green Box. Government subsidies on premiums of 
agricultural insurance for production loss exceeding 30% of the avera ge of 
production is notified under Supporting Table DS:1. Premium subsidies on 
agricultural insurance for production loss less than 30% is notified under 
Supporting  table DS:9.  
Follow -up: The US stressed the importance of DS:2 notifications in helping Memb ers understand 
changes in policies. Australia supported all questions related to India's DS notifications. Australia 
noted that India's continuation of excluding the value of production (VoP) data in its DS notifications 
had burdened the Committee's review  process and was against the spirit of transparency. Australia 
requested India to include the VoP data in its notifications as a standard practice considering India 
was a major agricultural producer and its policy had an impact on global market.  
AG-IMS ID 91178: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
For commodities such as rice, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, and millet, India announces several 
different Minimum Support Prices based on varietal or quality differences.  
a. Please confirm whether notified  support for any of these commodities or the value of 
production used for calculating de minimis  has been aggregated or if simply no 
procurement was undertaken for certain varieties/qualities.  
i. As one example, please confirm the value of production for soya bean yellow refers 
to production data solely for soyabean yellow rather than total national production 
and that no procurement occurred for soyabean black.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 160 - 
 
  b. If no aggregation occurred, please specify for the identified commodities, as well as any 
others, th e value of production data that corresponds to each variety/quality type.  
Answer by India  
The calculation of Market Price Support is done for soybean and value of production of soybean is 
used to calculate de minimis  level.  
Follow -up: The US noted that it would be interested in information on all the commodities listed in 
its question. The US a lso encouraged India to provide the complete response to each question 
instead of referring to other responses.  
2.2.2.6   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  
AG-IMS ID 91102: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that Israel has reported domestic support o ver its annual commitment for 2017. 
Canada appreciates the transparency and the information provided in the notification 
G/AG/N/ISR/66 for 2017 and that this information was previously provided in G/AG/N/ISR/55 when 
Israel reported an excess of domestic su pport for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Could Israel 
indicate the progress it is making with respect to the additional reforms in its dairy and egg sectors 
so that future notifications are within its WTO obligations?  
Answer by Israel  
Israel has take n the following steps to change its agricultural support policy to ensure that it fully 
respects its WTO commitments for AMS: Table Eggs Sector The reform program in the egg sector is 
still under discussion due to lack of consensus between the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In 
the meantime, a call for proposals and tenders for constructing poultry house complexes has been 
issued (budget of ILS 50 million), which is expected to increase efficiency and reduce the 
administered price. The Dairy Sector Pla nning Law was adopted in 2011 setting a mechanism of 
fixed target price, which is updated according to changes in the cost of production. Following the 
need, according to the Law, to switch to an alternative mechanism of minimum price after eight 
years, th e government and the stakeholders negotiated a further reform. At the end of October 2018 
an outline for a reform was signed between the government and the stakeholders. The outline 
includes subsidies for increasing the efficiency of dairy farms, a reducti on of target prices and support 
for dairy farmers leaving dairy production. The reform process will increase the size of dairy farms. 
The reform agreement requires a change in legislation. A memorandum of law has been issued on 
the subject. Due to the elec tions in Israel, the reform process was postponed, and the future of the 
reform will be decided by the new government that will be established during 2019. Timeline The 
status of the reform remains unchanged since the review process of the CoA Meeting No. 90 in 
February 2019. Following Israel's elections in April this year there will be snap elections this 
September. A new government has therefore not been formed and we are not in a position to give 
an indication as to when the reform may be finalized.  
Follow-up: The EU and the US registered interest in the subject.  
2.2.2.7   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/235, G/AG/N/JPN/236)  
AG-IMS ID 91180: Question by United States of America - Payments based on 85% or less 
of the base level of production  
For CY 2015 and CY 2016, Japan notified a direct payment for rice producers under a production 
limiting programme. Upon reviewing G/AG/N/JPN/192 regarding the description of the measure, it 
remains unclear how the programme meets the overarching criteria of Article 6.5, as set out in the 
chapeau, which requires such measures to be "production limiting."  
a. Please provide additional details with regards to how this programme is in fact 
"production l imiting" taking note that Japan described the programme in the following 
context: "the new direct payment programme has been introduced in order to create 
an environment where motivated farmers can continue rice production in paddy fields."  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 161 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
a. The government set the target level of rice production, in order to avoid over -production 
and stabilize the supply -demand and price of rice, and the direct payment under this 
program was paid only to the farmers who abided by the target and limited their 
production. This was the way the government envisaged to "create an environment 
where motivated farmers can continue rice production in paddy fields" as the Unites 
States cited from DS2 notification.  
This program is no longer effective because it was ended  after payment to rice produced in 2017.  
AG-IMS ID 91146: Question by India - Payments based on 85% or less of the base level 
of production  
Japan in its DS:1 Notification for 2016 2017 (G/AG/N/JPN/236) has notified "Direct Payment for 
Rice" under Article 6 .5 under which payments are made based on 85% or less of the base level of 
production. As per the DS:2 Notification for the year 2014 (G/AG/N/JPN/192), the Direct Payment 
program consists of two components: i) the fixed component calculated based on the hi storical gap 
between the national average cost of production and farm gate price, and ii) the variable component 
which is paid only in the year when the farm gate price goes below a fixed threshold. According to 
information in public domain, it is learnt t hat the components of the programme were phased out 
in 2014 and 2018 respectively. In this respect, kindly clarify:  
a. If Japan has a blue box program for rice in operation at present?  
b. What is the enforcement mechanism of the blue box program? What has been done to 
implement it and where can we find the supporting data available in this regard?  
c. If not, how has Japan adjusted its blue box program for rice? Kindly provide a detailed 
list of the programmes that are targeted towards rice, after the removal o f the blue box 
programme.  
Answer by Japan  
This program is no longer effective because it was ended after payment to rice produced in 2017. 
There is no follow -up program.  
2.2.2.8   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/60, G/AG/N/KOR/61, G/AG/N/KOR/62 , 
G/AG/N/KOR/63 ) 
AG-IMS ID 91103: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In comparing the overall value of production provided in Korea's Supporting Table DS:4 for 2011 
and 2012, and for previous and subsequent years, Canada notes that Korea's value of p roduction 
sharply increased from 43,214 billion KRW in 2011, to 51,616 billion KRW in 2012, and that it 
remained more or less stable in subsequent years (e.g., 50,843 billion KRW in 2015).  
a. Could Korea explain how its value of production increased by almost  20% in one year, 
despite following a more steady growth before and after 2011 and 2012? Did Korea 
change its calculation methodology?  
b. Could Korea provide the source(s) of data it used in 2011 and in 2012 to calculate its 
value of production, including sta tistical reports or databases?  
c. In the years 2012 2015, Canada sees that Korea has reported domestic support 
spending in its Supporting Table DS:9 under "Other" and " Self-help fundraising".  
Could the Republic of Korea provide additional information as to th e types of 
programmes that are currently reported under those categories? What products are 
covered under these programs?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. Before 2007, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs  (MAFRA) calculated VoP 
using price informati on from various authorities including aT, National Agricultural G/AG/W/215  
 
- 162 - 
 
  Cooperative Federation  (NACF), etc. After the revision of the Government Organizing 
Act in February  2008, the job of calculation and announcement of VoP were transferred 
from MAFRA to Statisti cs Korea. Since  2008, the price for VoP was calculated indirectly 
by multiplying the price index by the product price of the previous year. However, from 
June 2016, Statistics Korea returned to the old system by utilizing NACF's big data 
collection. As par t of this effort, VoP data from 2008 to 2015 was revised on 
November  2017.  
b. The VoP data Canada referred for 2011 was notified in 2015, which is before the data 
correction. Revised data for 2008 to 2011 is posted on the web page of Statistics Korea: 
http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=M_01_01&vwcd=MT_ZTIT
LE&parmTabId=M_01_01#SelectStatsBoxDiv 2 .  
c. Other category covers following four programs: "support for rural commun ity companies 
project, seed industry promotion project, stabilization of livelihood  and income of 
farmers, and structural reform in slaughterhouses ". Self -helf Fundraising category 
covers "fundraising for agricultural and animal products". All five program s mentioned 
do not provide support for farms producing specific products. They are all non -product 
specific programs.  
Follow -up: Noting the importance of the question for all Members, the EU supported the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91184: Question by United Stat es of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States understands the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation provides interest 
free or low interest loans to Rice Processing Complexes to incentivize purchases of rice from 
producers. In addition, the United States understands that the Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food 
and Rural Affairs also provides similar interest free or reduced benefits to Rice Processing Complexes 
for the purchase of rice from producers. The total am ount of money floated by the National 
Agricultural Cooperative Federation is understood to be approximately 1.9 trillion Korean Won and 
the payments made by the Korean Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs totaled 
approximately 1.2 trillion Korea n Won. a. Please confirm whether these interest reductions are 
accounted for in Korea's most recent domestic support notifications. If so, where? b. If not, please 
explain.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
The RPC support was calculated based on interest rate difference between subsidized interest rate 
and market interest rate. Support by NACF hasn't been included in Korea's DS, because it is a private 
entity. We notified the RPC support under the "structural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment ai ds" under paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of AoA. The amount of support for 2015 is around 
31 billion KRW, not 1.2 trillion KRW.  
AG-IMS ID 91183: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States notes that since Korea's last domestic s upport notification for the calendar 
year 2009, barley is no longer notified as a commodity receiving a price support and a price support 
for soybeans was notified for all years except 2010. Further, the notified eligible production for the 
soybean price s upport measure appears to be a fraction of the total quantity of soybean production 
in Korea.  
a. Please explain how Korea defines eligible production for purposes of its soybean price 
support.  
b. Please provide relevant legislation or other official government d ocuments that support 
this definition. For example, if notified eligible production is less than total production, 
please identify the relevant official documents that prevent additional procurement from 
being undertaken.  
c. Please confirm that Korea does not  announce minimum prices for barley or any other 
commodity.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 163 - 
 
  Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. The Government announces target quantity and target price of soybean procurement 
on annual basis, based on domestic supply and demand. The amount of subsidy was 
calculated using volume of soybeans that were actually procured by the government . 
b. Please refer to the Guideline on the Government Purchase of Soybeans for 2015. (The 
Guideline is in Korean only. Interested Members are invited to contact Korea to get a 
copy) .  
c. There is no market price support policy that is not included in the notification from 2012 
to 2015.  
Follow -up: The EU noted interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91148: Question by Australia - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for submitting its domestic support notification for the 
reporting periods 2012 2015. During these periods, the Republic of Korea increased the value of 
special and differential treatment investment (S&DT  AoA Article 6.2 ) subsidy exemptions from 
KRW 1.56 billion to KRW 2.73 billion. Can the Republic of Korea provide information with respect to:  
a. Can the Republic of Korea provide information regarding these investment subsidies 
including the specific eligibility criteria an d breakdown of expenditure, and explain how 
they support agricultural and rural development?  
b. As a major G20 economy, boasting an annual trade portfolio of around US D 1 trillion 
and GDP per capita comparable to many developed Members, and given the RoK's to tal 
value of S&DT exemptions is at less than 0.2% of its total AMS entitlement, when will 
the RoK cease to apply S&DT agricultural exemptions?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. "Seedling infrastructure development program" by Forest Service Korea has been 
notified as Article  6.2 investment support. The program was introduced to support 
smallholding farmers producing quality seedlings. Since the total amount of the support 
is relatively small (around 2 million USD), Korea will review notifying this program under 
the AMS in our future notification.  
b. Developing country status issue is about WTO rules, and there has not been any change 
to the current rule in multilateral level yet. Korea is willing to actively participate in the 
WTO rule making process on this matter .  
AG-IMS ID 91193: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/KOR/63, the Republic of Korea notified 
spending on public stockholding for food security purposes of KRW 174.05 billion in CY2015.  
Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) states, "The volume and accumulation 
of such stocks shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security" . 
a. Can the Republic of Korea explain the polic y basis for these measures and how it 
predetermines  the targets?  
Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the AoA further states, "Food purchases by government shall 
be made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less 
than the current dom estic market price for the product and quality in question." 
Can the Republic of Korea provides?  
b. A breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spending.  
c. The prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold?  
d. Confirmation the purc hase and sale of commodities were made at domestic market 
prices?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 164 - 
 
  Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. The policy rationale for public stockholding is to have stable supply in time of emergency 
like natural or man -made disaster. The target quantity is 17 -18% of to tal annual 
consumption, which is the FAO guideline.  
b. Total expenditure of 174  billion in CY 2015 was for rice.  
c. Public stockholding rice is procured and released at the market price, and Article 10 of 
the Grain Management Act clearly states that. In 2015, 360,000t of rice was purchased 
at the prevailing market price of 1,800  KRW/kg and was sold also at the prevailing 
market price of 2,000  KRW/kg.  
d. The Republic of Korea confirms that procurement and release of public -stockholding 
grain are made at market pri ces. 
AG-IMS ID 91192: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Australia seeks further information regarding the the Republic of Korea's notified 'decoupled income 
support' reported in G/AG/N/KOR/63.  
a. Can the Republic of Korea please advise how much of the KWN 1,369.09 billion was 
directed to the "Fixed payment scheme for paddy fields"?  
b. Can the Rok please provide eligibility criteria for the measure (under AoA Annex 2 
paragraph 6)?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. The total amount spent for "fixed payment scheme for paddy fields" in 2015 was 842.71 
billion KRW.  
b. Eligibility criteria for the fixed payment scheme for paddy fields is as follows: the 
program sets (1) fixed area of lands that were used for rice cultivati on (2) during the 
fixed period between 1998 and 2000(base periods), and gives (3) fixed amount of 
payment regardless of production.  
AG-IMS ID 91172: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia thanks the Republic of Korea for submitting its dome stic support notification for 2015 
(G/AG/N/KOR/63).  
Australia seeks further information regarding product specific support for soybeans, noting that 
support for soybeans rose from KRW 0.13 billion to KRW 47.31 billion in the period CY 2012 to 2015, 
and in 2015 support as a percentage of value of production of soyabean was in notified as being in 
excess (12.35% of value of production) of the Republic of Korea's de minimis  limit. 
a. What was the total volume of soybean production (in tonnes) in calendar year 201 5? 
b. Please confirm whether all soybean production was eligible to receive the administered 
price?  
i. If not, could the Republic of Korea please outline the eligibility criteria to receive 
the administered price and whether eligible production was limited or ca pped?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. The total amount of domestic soybean production in 2015 was 103,504 MT. More than 
80% of the total domestic soybean consumption for food (95% if animal feed included) 
has been imported from abroad.  
b. Only soybean farmers who have advance contract with the g overnment before harvest 
are eligible to sell pre -determined amount for the procurement.  
Follow -up: Paraguay encouraged Korea to continue the positive trend of submitting further DS 
notifications and asked when it planned to submit its next notification. As a major exporter of soya G/AG/W/215  
 
- 165 - 
 
  beans, Paraguay noted interest in information on Korea's soya subsidies, including the criteria and 
eligibility for payment and volume of production. The EU noted interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91189: Question by European U nion - Non product specific AMS  
Direct payments – Non product Specific support  
Supporting Table DS:9 includes an amount of KRW 187.92 bio. Can Korea provide more details 
about this measure and how it is granted to farmers?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
The non-product specific direct payment notified under Supporting Table DS:9 is for non -rice paddy 
field farmers who are registered as full -time farmers. The amount of support is 400,000  KRW/ha  (for 
spring, summer, and fall season) and 500,000  KRW/ha  (for wint er season). Unfortunately, we made 
some mistake in calculating total amount of support. Some spendings were double counted, so the 
actual payments would be much less than the reported one. The corrected number is as follows: 
2012 (KRW 22.77 billion), 2013 (KRW 29.08 billion), 2014 (KRW 76.98 billion), 
2015 (KRW  53.66  billion). We will submit revised notifications for the related years soon.  
2.2.2.9   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  
AG-IMS ID 91186: Question by United States of America - Transpa rency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. Malaysia appears to have two price related policies for rice. The first is a Guaranteed 
Minimum Price established under the Control of Padi and Rice Act of 1994. The United 
States understands the minimum price in 2014 wa s RM 750 per tonne. According to 
BERNAS, the entity enforces the Guaranteed Minimum Price and is a buyer of last resort, 
which "buys all paddy delivered, even if it is operating at full capacity".  
In addition, producers receive a direct payment subsidy for  each tonne of rice produced, which 
was RM 248.1 per tonne in 2014.  
i. For each measure, please specify how each is notified in Malaysia's domestic 
support notifications, and how each meets the criteria outlined in the Agreement 
on Agriculture. b. For each me asure, please provide additional details on how 
each measure is implemented, such as how the payment rates are determined 
and who is eligible.  
b. The United States understands Malaysia implemented a rice miller subsidy of 
approximately RM  600,750 per tonne in  2014.  
i. Please specify how the measure is notified in Malaysia's domestic support 
notifications, and how the measure meets the criteria outlined in the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
ii. Please explain how this measure is implemented, including how payment rates 
are determined.  
Answer by Malaysia  
a.  
i. The Guaranteed Minimum Price is administered by BERNAS and does not 
involve any government spending.  
 The Paddy Price Subsidy programme is notified in Malaysia’s domestic 
support notification. The PPS is an instrument based on the in the context 
of poverty redressal and upliftment of the socio -economic well -being of 
paddy farmers. Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the 
poor in the country. The PPS is to ensure the farmers receive a reasona ble 
income.  
b.  The eligible producers under the Paddy Price Subsidy programme are determined by 
clearly defined criteria based on the status of the recipient as low -income and resource -
poor paddy farmers.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 166 - 
 
  i. and ii.  Malaysia do not implement a rice mill er subsidy programme in 2014.  
AG-IMS ID 91185: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: decoupled 
income support  
Malaysia notifies a "Paddy Price Subsidy" as decoupled income support measure exempt under the 
criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. It is noted that any measure 
notified as a Green Box measure must meet the basic criteria of Annex 2 to be considered in 
conformity. Specifically, this includes ensuring such measures "do not have the effect of a providin g 
a price support to producers." Noting the programme objectives and criteria for payment eligibility 
set out in Malaysia's response to AG-IMS ID 90104 and 90124:  
a. Please specify how the value of payments to eligible producers is determined, including 
wheth er the type or volume of current production is taken into account in determining 
the benefit received by a producer.  
b. Please specify how this measure meets the Green Box criteria including paragraph 1 of 
Annex 2.  
Answer by Malaysia  
a. The value of payments to eligible producers is based on the context of poverty redressal 
and upliftment of the socio -economic well -being of paddy farmers. The Paddy Price 
Subsidy programme (PPS) is to ensure the farmers receive a reasonable income.  
 The eligible produc ers are determined by clearly defined criteria based on the status of 
the recipient as low -income and resource -poor paddy farmers.  
b. The measure has most -minimal, trade -distorting effects or effects on production.  
2.2.2.10   Mongolia (G/AG/N/MNG/10)  
AG-IMS ID 91194: Qu estion by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia welcomes Mongolia's submission of its domestic support notification for Calendar 
Years  2014 and 2015 (G/AG/N/MNG/10). Although, we note that Mongolia did not submit domestic 
support  notifications for years 2000 through to 2013.  
Can Mongolia update the Committee on its progress to submit domestic support notifications 
outstanding?  
Answer by Mongolia  
Concerning notifications, like many other developing Members, Mongolia lags behind in submitting 
the notifications due to frequent structural changes in the government, restraints on the capacity as 
well as the complexity of notification requirements. Since recent past, the Government is working 
to improve the inter -agency coordination with  a view to improving notification capacity. After 
consultations with the Secretariat, Mongolia has submitted notifications starting from more recent 
years, namely 2014 and 2015. The Government will continue working to improve the submission of 
notification s depending on the capacity and the availability of data for past years. Taking this 
opportunity, Mongolia expresses her interest in technical assistance specifically targeting the 
improvement of notifications and notification capacity.  
AG-IMS ID 91188: Qu estion by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. The United States would like to thank Mongolia for its recent contribution to this effort 
by providing its DS:1 notification covering the years 2014 and 2015.  
 Noting Mongolia' s last DS:1 notification was for 1999, please explain whether Mongolia 
is currently preparing additional overdue notifications for all other and if so, when these 
are to be expected.  
b. In Mongolia's previous notification, it had notified a number of Green Bo x (Annex 2) 
measures that are not included in this most recent notification, including agricultural 
services such as research, extension, plant and animal protection, etc. It is noted in G/AG/W/215  
 
- 167 - 
 
  Mongolia's most recent Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/297) that the Mi nistry of 
Industry and Agriculture operated several agriculture related services including the 
National Agricultural Extension Center, the Veterinary and Animal Breeding Agency, the 
National Centre for Livestock Gene Bank, and Biocombinat, which appear to be 
examples of some continuation or modification to measures that had been notified in 
Mongolia's previous notification for 1999.  
Please explain the basis for not including these measures in Mongolia's most recent notification.  
c. Mongolia's most recent notification includes a number of new programmes that are 
exempt from reduction commitments as Development Programs.  
When will Mongolia submit a DS:2 notification that explains how each of these measures meets the 
exemption criteria under Article 6.2?  
d. Mong olia's National Programme for Food Security had a total budget of $1.2 billion from 
2008-16, which includes non-governmental  donors providing a minority share of the 
funding for programs such as loans/grants for agricultural producers and processors, 
an irrigation crop production program, and a farm machinery subsidy.  
Please confirm if these measures are included in Mongolia's DS:2 notification and if so, how they 
meet the criteria of Article 6.2.  
e. The United States understands Mongolia operates a livestock crop insurance program.  
i. Please explain whether this programme was implemented during 2014 2015.  
ii. Please explain how the measure was implemented and whether it was included 
in Mongolia's notification. If not, why?  
f. The United States notes Mongolia has changed  the currency in its notifications in on two 
occasions. Please explain the rationale for these changes.  
Answer by Mongolia  
2.2.2.11   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  
AG-IMS ID 91166: Question by United States of America - Market pri ce support  
a. Each year Chinese Taipei notifies three market price support measures for different 
types of rice, namely "government planned purchase," "government supplementary 
purchase", and "government additional purchase".  
i. Please summarize how these three programmes operate and are interrelated.  
ii. Please explain how and when the applied administered prices for each is 
announced.  
iii. Please explain how eligible production quantities are determined for each of the 
three types notified. If eligible quantities are an nounced, please specify when in 
comparison to planting and harvesting.  
iv. For each type notified, if there are any limitations such as production regions or 
quality, please specify and provide details regarding which regions and what 
quality specifications.  
v. Please also identify corresponding share of total production meeting these 
limitations for each year covered by notifications G/AG/N/TPKM/173 175.  
b. For sugar and tobacco leaves, Chinese Taipei notifies market price support for "contract 
guaranteed purchase."  
i. Please summarize how this measure is implemented for sugar and tobacco leaves.  
ii. Please explain how and when the applied administered prices are announced.  
iii. Please explain how eligible production quantities are determined. If eligible 
quantities are announced, please specify when in comparison to planting and 
harvesting.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 168 - 
 
  iv. If there are any limitations such as production regions or quality, please specify 
and provide details regarding which regions and what quality specifications. 
Please also identify co rresponding share of total production meeting these 
limitations for each year covered by notifications G/AG/N/TPKM/173 
G/AG/N/TPKM/175.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
a. 
i.  The purpose of having the "planned purchase" measure of rice is to increase 
farmers' inc ome. The "supplementary purchase" is aimed at stabilizing the market 
prices. As for the "additional purchase", it is to avoid the market price being lower 
than production cost. Guaranteed prices and quantity limit of these three 
measures are as follows:  
Measure  Guaranteed prices  Quantity limit  
Planned purchase  NTD 26/kg for Japonica -type rice  
NTD 25/kg for Indica -type rice and 
glutinous rice  2,000 kg/hectare for the first crop  
1,500 kg/hectare for the second crop  
Supplementary 
purchase  NTD 23/kg for Japonica -type rice  
NTD 22/kg for Indica -type rice 
and glutinous rice  1,200 kg/hectare for the first crop  
800 kg/hectare for the second crop  
Additional purchase  NTD 21.6/kg for Japonica -type rice  
NTD 20.6/kg for Indica -type rice and 
glutinous rice  3,000 kg/hectare for the first crop  
2,400 kg/hectare for the second crop  
ii. The government would announce all purchase prices and quantity limits to the 
public before each harvest.  
iii.  Farmers who wish to participate in the programs shall report their area of rice 
plantation in advance for the government to calculate the eligible quantities of 
"planned purchase", "supplementary purchase", and "additional purchase" 
measure for each farmer .  
For example, in 2015, for a 2 -hectare rice plantation in the first crop growing season, the eligible 
quantities of "planned purchase", "supplementary purchase", and "additional purchase" measure 
were 4,000 kg, 2,400 kg, and 6,000 kg respectively, which amounted to a total eligible quantity 
of 12,400 kg.  
Since in recent years the total eligible quantity of guaranteed price purchase is lower than the 
quantity actually harvested, farmers can sell their remaining harvested rice to the market.  
iv.  For the p urchase of public stock, the crop shall be grown on the agricultural land 
and meet the following quality standards:  
1. Moisture shall not exceed 13%.  
2. Test weight: Japonica rice shall weigh over 530 grams per litre, Indica rice 
shall weigh over 490 grams per l itre, short grain waxy rice shall weigh over 
510 grams per litre, and long grain waxy rice shall weigh over 480 grams 
per litre.  
3. Foreign matter shall not exceed 0.5%.  
4. Damaged kernel shall not exceed 6% with heat damaged kernels 
below  0.5%.  
5. Off-type kernel shall not exceed 5% for Japonica rice and Indica rice, and 
shall not exceed 3% for waxy rice.  
6. Broken kernel shall not exceed 4% for Japonica rice, shall not exceed 8% 
for Indica rice, shall not exceed 3% for short grain waxy rice, and shall not 
exceed 6% for long grain waxy rice.  
7. Immature kernel shall not exceed 20% for Japonica rice and Indica rice, 
and shall not exceed 10% for waxy rice.  
8. Non-opaque waxy kernels: shall not exceed 4% for waxy rice.  
9. Hygiene requirements shall conform to the releva nt food hygiene laws.  
The standards for inspection in subparagraph 4 through subparagraph 8 above shall be evaluated 
on the brown rice basis.  
v. The data of individual measure's share is not available.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 169 - 
 
  b. The contract -based purchases of sugar cane and toba cco leaves are carried out in 
accordance with the contracts signed between Taiwan Sugar Corporation (TSC) and 
Taiwan Tobacco & Liquor Corporation (TTLC) and farmers. The applied administered 
prices will be indicated along with the contract. The contract gu aranteed prices of sugar 
was NTD 24.878/kg in 2013, 2014 and 2015, while that of tobacco leaves ranged from 
NTD 204/kg to NTD 206/kg.  
There is no limit on the purchase quantity of sugar and tobacco leaves. All Crop produced under the 
contract will be purch ased by TSC and TTLC.  
Under the contract guaranteed -price program of sugar, the crops of specific species or cultivated in 
the prescribed plantation area will be given the priority to be included in the contract. As for the 
domestic tobacco leaves, there i s no restriction in terms of the production area. However, the certain 
quality standards need to be met.  
Follow -up: The US asked Chinese Taipei if the information related to question a. v would be provided 
in the future or it was not available. Australia s upported US question and noted that its rice exporting 
industry had a key interest in Chinse Taipei's rice market as it had been highly protected and 
supported. The EU indicated systemic interest in the subject.  
2.2.2.12   Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1  to G/AG/N/TJK/6)  
AG-IMS ID 91104: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Question applies to Tajikistan's notifications G/AG/N/TJK/ 1 to G/AG/N/TJK/ 6 
Between 2013 and 2018, Tajikistan, notified that it has not provided any domestic support to its 
agricultural sector. Canada notes that in its AGST tables, Tajikistan included a number of programs 
classified as Green Box, as Special and Differential Treatment – "Development Programmes", as 
product specific AMS and non-product  specific AMS.  
a. Could Tajikista n please clarify if the programmes listed in its AGST tables were still in 
operation between 2013 and 2018? If yes, could Tajikistan provide an explanation as 
to why these programmes were not included in its recent domestic support notifications.  
b. The measu res listed in Tajikistan's AGST tables include general services such as 
inspection services and, pest and disease control. Could Tajikistan clarify that these 
general services are still in operation?  
c. According to the FAO website ( http://www.fao.org/3/a bp563e.pdf ), in 2012 Tajikistan 
put in place the Agricultural Reform Programme of the Republic of Tajikistan. The 
Agricultural Reform Programme of the Republic of Tajikistan includes a list of 22 
objectives to reform its agricultural sector. Could Takikistan clarify if there were any 
agricultural programmes launched as part of this Agricultural Reform Programme to 
meet the 22 agricultural objectives? If yes, please provide the names of the 
programmes and the amounts expended. Also, could Tajikistan clarify why these 
measures were not included in Tajikistan's recent domestic support notifications.  
Answer by Tajikistan  
2.2.2.13   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/52, G/AG/N/TUN/56)  
AG-IMS ID 91195: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. The United States notes that Tunisia only notifies product specific support for milk in 
the form of market price support. However, the United States understands th at Tunisia 
operates several additional programmes related to milk. For three measures identified 
below by the United States, please identify how the measure is notified in Tunisia's most 
recent domestic support notification or provide the basis for exclusi on. Please also 
provide the same information for any other programmes related to milk not already 
identified.  
i. Tunisia provides a subsidy for dairy projects that total 7 -25% of the project cost.  
ii. Tunisia provided government funding of approximately US D 17 mi llion for milk 
collection and cooling.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 170 - 
 
  iii. In 2016, Tunisia had a budget of approximately US D 8 million to process milk 
stocks when there is overproduction. Please also confirm for the most recent five 
notified years whether such funding was used and if so, ho w much.  
b. The United States understands for certain commodities (e.g., sugar and tobacco) the 
government operates a public storage programme intended to stabilize market prices 
at a targeted price level.  
c. Please provide additional details as to how this progr amme is operated. b. Please 
specific how this programme is notified in Tunisia's domestic support notifications.  
d. Tunisia provides support to farmers in the form of agricultural input subsidies for items 
such as fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation at rate s below cost. For each type of input, 
fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation, as well as any others not identified by the United 
States, please explain how the subsidy is provided and the basis for not including such 
measures in Tunisia's domestic support n otification.  
Answer by Tunisia  
AG-IMS ID 91191: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
In Tunisia's response to AGIMS 87041 regarding production levels in 2016 compared to notified 
eligible production, Tunisia indi cated that it would provide a response at a later stage. The United 
States repeats the question in the context of both 2016 and 17 noting that for 2017, eligible 
production figures notified by Tunisia were 10,300 MT of durum wheat, 1,000 MT of common wheat , 
9,000 MT of barley, and 892,000 MT of milk. It is the United States understanding that Tunisia 
produced 840,000 MT of durum, 150,000 MT of common wheat, 390,000 MT of barley and over 
900,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
a. Please explain the reasons for using eligib le production of 5,300 MT for durum, 500 MT 
for common wheat, 1,100 MT of barley and 865,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
b. Please provide any regulations, laws, or other implementing legislation that shows that 
a limit is placed on the quantity of production of each  of these commodities that can 
receive the announced applied administered price.  
Answer by Tunisia  
AG-IMS ID 91190: Question by United States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
c. In Tunisia's response to AG-IMS ID 87040, Tunisia indicated that it would provide a 
response at a later stage. The United States repeats the question and notes that Tunisia 
has also adjusted the fixed external reference price for 2017 for the same commodities. 
For the reporting period o f 2016, Tunisia has adjusted the fixed external reference prices 
for durum wheat, common wheat, barley and milk to take account of inflation and 
exchange rates. The same was done for products notified for 2014 in G/AG/N/TUN/47, 
at which time, in response t o AG-IMS ID 62036, Tunisia stated that it considered the 
rate of inflation between 1998 2014 to be excessive, which justifies an adjustment of 
the FERP. The Agreement on Agriculture states Members shall give due consideration 
of excessive inflation, but a Member cannot unilaterally determine that it has excessive 
rates of inflation and then make adjustments as reflected in their notifications.  
i. Please provide additional information, including data that substantiates Tunisia's 
claims that its rates of inflati on are "excessive," noting that Tunisia's inflation 
rates are well within the range of most other Members' rates.  
ii. Please provide information and data that shows all calculations regarding inflation 
in Tunisia's most recent notification (G/AG/N/TUN/52).  
iii. Please submit a revised notification, which shows the unadjusted FERP and 
calculation of domestic support.  
d. In addition, the United States notes that Tunisia indicated in response to AG-IMS ID 
81087, Tunisia was undertaking an investigation to identify alterna tive options for 
notifying support. Please provide an update on this investigation and whether reforms 
to Tunisia's policies are being considered.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 171 - 
 
  Answer by Tunisia  
Follow -up: The EU signalled interest in the subject and noted that  it had implications for how Member 
should notify their DS notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 91105: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
G/AG/N/TUN/56  
a. In response to question AG-IMS ID 82022, Tunisia provided its current total aggregate 
measurement of support level between 200 2 and 2015 without any changes to its 
external reference prices. Could Tunisia please update this table by including the current 
total aggregate measurement of support for the years 2016 and 2017 without any 
changes to its external reference prices?  
b. Canada  wishes to remind Tunisia that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, it is the responsibility of the Membership as a whole, and not of Tunisia, to 
give consideration to excessive rates of inflation. In response to question 
AG-IMS ID 82048 fro m Canada, Tunisia stated as follows: "Regarding the steps to be 
taken to address this situation so that the external reference prices will no longer be 
adjusted in the future, the investigations under way will identify alternative options for 
notifying sup port and the steps to be taken".  
i. Could Tunisia please provide an update on its investigations under way to identify 
alternative options for notifying support and the steps to be taken?  
ii. Could Tunisia please indicate when it will notify its domestic support without 
adjustments to its external reference prices?  
Answer by Tunisia  
2.2.2.14   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/21)  
AG-IMS ID 91196: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States understands Turkey is continuing to work to bring its domestic support 
notifications up to date and the United States appreciates Turkey's effort. While the United States 
waits for more current notifications, the United States notes Turke y's most recent domestic support 
notification (G/AG/N/TUR/21) for 2009 does not include any product specific or non-product  specific 
support for fruits, vegetables, or individual fruits/vegetables. However, the United States 
understands that such measures may exist, such as a subsidy for certified saplings for any new fruit 
orchards.  
a. Please confirm if the subsidy for certified saplings for any new fruit orchards was in 
force in 2009. If so, how it was classified?  
b. Please confirm whether any other payments, w hether product specific or non product 
specific, went to supporting the following sectors for 2017, 2018, or 2019: Fruit Juices, 
Homogenized fruit preparations, Frozen Fruits and Vegetables (dehydrated), or any 
individual fruit or vegetable fresh or proces sed/prepared. If so, please explain how such 
measures are implemented.  
c. Please also indicate any other measures in 2009 or in the most recent three years that 
may be classified as Green Box by Turkey for any of these sectors or individual products. 
If so, p lease explain how such measures are implemented.  
Answer by Turkey  
a. Turkey's certified seed and seedling support for the year 2009 was notified in ST -DS-2 
under "Development Programmes". This support was provided to farmers who were 
registered in the Farmers ' Registry System and used certified seeds and seedlings. It 
was provided based on area, aimed to protect plant health and environment, and to 
improve product quality and safety. This support was not specifically directed to new 
fruit orchards.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 172 - 
 
  b. Turkey con tinues to prepare its domestic support notifications for 2010 and onwards 
and will submit them as soon as possible.  
c. Turkey provides support for good agricultural practices and organic agriculture which 
are notified in ST -DS-2 under "Development Programmes " for the year 2009. Fruit and 
vegetable producers benefit from these supports. Producers should hold good 
agricultural practices or organic agriculture certificates in order to benefit from these 
area-based supports. The main purposes of these supports ar e promoting agricultural 
production which does not harm human and animal health; protecting environment and 
natural resources and ensuring food security through sustainable agriculture.  
2.2.3   New or modified domestic support measures (DS:2)  
2.2.3.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 91199: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Could China indicate the overall amount of expenditure it estimates that it will spend on the 
measures in each of the years of applicati on for the two sectors in question.  
Answer by China  
Regarding the corn producer's subsidy, the total amount of subsidy is determined based on the fixed 
area of planting of the four provinces in the base period and the payment rate in the year. With 
regard to the cotton target price subsidy, the amount of the subsidy is determined based on the 
quantity of cotton sold by cotton farmers and the difference between the target price and the average 
market price of the year, provided that the quantity does not exc eed the upper limit. Since both 
subsidies are subject to market prices, it is difficult to predict the expenditures in advance.  
Follow -up: The EU sought an indication from China regarding the overall expenditure of the measure 
in question and noted that this information was required by the G/AG/2.  
AG-IMS ID 91197: Question by Brazil - Payments based on 85% or less of the base level 
of production  
Brazil thanks China for the answers provided for questions AG-IMS IDs 90069 and 90070, but 
understands tha t further clarification is needed for Members to assess the adequacy of Chinese 
policies to Article 6.5 of the AoA (blue box). Regarding corn subsidies, China claimed that "As a 
result, the planting area and production of corn of the four provinces was red uced, compared with 
the production in the base period." ( AG-IMS ID 90070)  
a. Could China provide data on the corn planting area and production of the four provinces 
both in the base period and in the following period. Regarding cotton subsidies, China 
explain ed that "statistics will be provided later." ( AG-IMS ID 90069).  
b. Could China provide data on cotton production from 2011 to 2018?  
c. Could China provide details on the cap eligibility (what is the cap and how was it 
established)?  
d. Could China provide an expendi ture comparison, by Chinese region, between the 
minimum price support programs that were in place before and the "Deepening the 
Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton" program that is in place now?  
Answer by China  
a. According to the data currently available, t he total planting area of corn in the four 
provinces in the base period (2014) is 17.4 million hectares, and 18.5, 17.4, 16.4, 
17.0 million hectares in the following 4 years.  
b. According to the data available, for the years from 2011 to 2018, China's cotton  
production are : 6.69, 6.72, 6.36, 6.28, 5.86, 5.34, 5.65, 6.10 million tonnes  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 173 - 
 
  respectively, and the cotton productions in Xinjiang are 3.50, 3.89, 3.94, 4.15, 4.19, 
4.08, 4.57 and 5.11  million  tonnes respectively.  
c. The quantity of cotton eligible for targe t price subsidy is capped at 85% of the average 
production of cotton in the base period from 2012 to 2014.  
d. Before the move made in 2017 to deepen the target price policy reform, cotton 
producers in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region can receive the target pr ice subsidy, 
which was introduced in 2014 to replace the temporary procurement and storage policy. 
The support for cotton are 18.8, 40.6, 40.4 for the years from 2011 -2013. The 
expenditures on target price subsidy are 31.2, 30.5, 16.8 billion for the years  from 
2014-2016. The expenditures for 2017 and 2018 are not available at this stage.  
Follow -up: The EU noted interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 91106: Question by Canada - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Canada appreciates China's response to the question Canada posed at the 90th meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture regarding China's new Blue Box payments for corn ( AG-IMS ID 90086). 
Canada has follow -up questions on the calculation of the payment rate, as well as on the basis 
through which payme nts are delivered to each producer. Canada understands from China's response 
that the total amount of the subsidy is determined by the fixed area of the four eligible provinces 
(autonomous regions) in the base period (2014), a fixed yield, a payment rate t hat is revised 
annually and considers the production costs and farmers' reasonable income to sustain their 
livelihood.  
a. Could China provide additional details on the calculation of the payment rate: i. how is 
the cost of production determined? ii. how is a 'reasonable income' determined? iii. what 
considerations are taken into account in the yearly revisions, other than variations in 
the cost of production?  
b. How are single payments to individual producers determined, i.e., how is a producer's 
share of the tot al subsidy determined, once the total amount of the subsidy has been 
established? Is a corn producer's share of the subsidy based on the share of the fixed 
area that it cultivated in 2014?  
c. To obtain a payment through the "Corn Producer Subsidy System", do producers have 
to go through an application process, if so, please describe the steps?  
Answer by China  
a. Production cost is calculated based on the survey of agricultural production costs 
conducted by NDRC. Reasonable income means an income level  that can ensure the 
farmers' income from agricultural production can make up for the total costs and keep 
the income stable compared with their income in previous years. When adjusting the 
subsidy rate, factors such as the current market price will be tak en into account, in 
addition to the annual cost changes.  
b. The Ministry of Finance calculates the amounts of subsidy for each province and 
transfers the subsidy to the provincial governments, and authorizes the provincial 
governments to make detailed implem entation plans, including the determination of the 
payment rates. The subsidy will be directly transferred to the bank accounts of farmers. 
Due to China's vast territory and complex national conditions, it is necessary to provide 
sub-national governments c ertain flexibilities to tailor policies to the local conditions. 
Based on such considerations, provincial governments are allowed to allocate part of 
the subsidy for the structural adjustment of corn production and reduce the planting of 
corn in non-advant ageous  areas.  
c. To be eligible for receiving corn producer subsidy, farmers need to make an application 
to the local government and report their corn planting areas. The planting area of each 
farm will be made public in the village before being approved by the government, which 
will become the basis for determining the amount of the subsidy.  
Follow -up: Canada sought to examine whether China's measure was indeed production -limiting as 
per the Blue Box Criteria and whether the adjustments in payments to produc ers would result in 
more production of corn.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 174 - 
 
  2.2.3.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  
AG-IMS ID 91108: Question by Canada - Payments based on 85% or less of the base level 
of production  
Canada appreciates Norway providing information on its new Article 6.5 (Blue Box) domestic support 
programme to small and medium size dairy farms. Based on information in G/AG/N/NOR/103, 
Canada understands that this program meets the criteria under Article 6.5 (a)(ii) that is, "such 
payments are made on 85% or less of the base level of production". However, it appears that the 
conditions of the programme do not directly relate to a percentage of the base level of production, 
but rather to the number of cows per individual dairy farm, i.e., the payment is made per milk cow, 
to farms that have 6 to 50 milk cows, independently of the yield per cow. The maximum amount of 
support is granted to farms with 23 cows. Norway explains that the programme meets the criteria, 
as the number of cow eligible for the payment in 2018 was of 154,438, which w as 69.1% of the 
average base level of 223,501 cows for the 2015 – 2017 period. In addition, Canada notes that in 
its notification, Norway did not provide a period of application for the programme.  
a. Could Norway provide more information on the operation of t he programme, including 
the level of annual payments per cow and the application process?  
b. How does Norway expect the number of eligible cows to remain under 189,975 over the 
duration of the programme, given that there is no specified duration, and that the  total 
number of eligible cows is not itself fixed?  
i. For example, could there be an incentive for dairy farms that have a marginal 
number of cows over 50 to reduce their number of cows to benefit from 
programme payments?  
ii. Could this provide an incentive for new producers to enter the market and hold 
23 cows for the maximum level of payments, including by purchasing the extra 
cows from farmers looking to reduce their herd size to benefit from the payments?  
Answer by Norway  
a.  
In Norway, there are annual agricultural negotiations between the Government and the two farmer 
associations. The resulting Agricultural Agreement is subject to ratification by the Parliament 
(Stortinget). Among the different schemes and regulations that a re laid down in the negotiations, is 
the annual payment to the farmers regarding the "Support to small and medium size dairy farms". 
In the negotiations, there is an ongoing process of review and evaluation of the different support 
programs.  
In May this y ear, the Government and the farmer associations reached an agreement for 2020 
regarding the support programs for agricultural production in Norway. Table 1 below shows the level 
of annual payments per cow in 2020 in the support program for small and medium  size dairy farms.  
Table 1: Support scheme for cows in small and medium sized dairy farms in 2019. The 
payment for  
  Interval  Amount NOK per milking cow  
Number of milking cows   1-23  1 650  
24-50 -1 355  
The Agricultural Agreement is fixed for only one year at the time. Norway can therefore not provide 
information concerning how many years the support scheme for small and medium sized dairy farms 
will last.  
For this support program, the dairy farmers apply twice a year, 15 March and 15 October, and t he 
payment to the farmers is provided by the Norwegian Agricultural Agency in the following year.  
b.   
Before the Norwegian Agricultural Agency pays the support to the dairy farmers, the Agency have 
full information about how many cows in total the farmers h ave applied for. If the farmers in total 
should apply for more animals than the maximum eligible number, 189 975 dairy cows, the number 
of animals that are eligible for support will be reduced for all of the farmers by using the same 
percentage of reductio n for each farmer.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 175 - 
 
  We will also mention that Norway in the coming two years will experience a reduction in the total 
number of dairy cows. This is related to the phasing out of export subsidies for dairy products.  
Regarding the questions b i) and b ii) Nor way will refer to our answer to question b above. The total 
support per farm is gradually reduced from 24 cows up to 50 cows. There will be no sudden changes 
in the support per farm according to the number of cows.  
We will also point out that the support p er cow is small compared with the total costs related to an 
increase in the number of dairy cows per farm. A new producer must also purchase milk quotas to 
be allowed to produce milk. Therefore, the support scheme for small and medium sized dairy farms, 
will not give any real incentive for new producers to enter the market.  
2.2.4   Export subsidy commitments ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.2.4.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/50)  
AG-IMS ID 91201: Question by European Union - Export subsidies subject to reduction 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
Over three years after Nairobi, Brazil did not provide its updated schedule. Currently, 16 product 
specific export subsidy reduction commitments still appear in Brazils' schedule.  
When will B razil comply with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
Answer by Brazil  
First of all, it is important to mention that Brazil is upholding the objectives and purpose of the 
Nairobi Decision, for Brazil has not provided export subsidies sin ce it consolidated its rights during 
the Uruguay Round. Regarding the procedural steps to update its schedule of concessions, the 
measure requires Congressional approval. It was not possible to complete this process under the 
previous administration and Br azilian regulation requires the process to be restarted under the new 
administration. The Brazilian government remains committed to the Nairobi Decision and hopes to 
obtain approval from Congress later this year.  
Follow -up: The EU looked forward to Brazil's completion of its legal procedures. Norway noted that 
several Members provided the explanation that they had not used any export subsidies since the 
Uruguay round to justify the delay in amending their ES schedules. Norway found it difficult to 
understand that Members who had not provided export subsidies had the biggest challenges in 
completing the legal work of amending their schedules, whereas other Members who had to make 
many hard efforts during a short period had already competed the work. Br azil noted that its legal 
system was complex and may had different requirements than other Members' systems and 
committed to make its best efforts in resolving the issue.  
2.2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/125)  
AG-IMS ID 91204: Question by New Zealand - Export subsidies s ubject to reduction 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
New Zealand notes that Canada has, for the first time since 2011 (G/AG/N/CAN/92), subsidised its 
exports of butter in marketing year 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018.  
a. Can Canada provide an explanation of the domes tic policy changes that led to it utilising 
its scheduled commitment to subsidise butter?  
b. Does Canada expect this practice to become a trend in the time remaining before export 
subsidies on butter must be eliminated?  
c. Does Canada intend to notify export sub sidies for butter in its ES:1 notification for 
marketing year 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2019?  
Answer by Canada  
a. The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) administers the exports of dairy products, 
including butter, under milk class 5(d) in accordance with the 2015  Nairobi 
Ministerial  Decision. Specific circumstances resulted in the CDC exporting 50 tonnes G/AG/W/215  
 
- 176 - 
 
  of butter in the 2017 -2018 dairy year. More information is available in the CDC's 
2017-2018 Annual Report which is available at: http://www.cdc -
ccl.gc.ca/CDC/userfiles/file/CDC_AR_2018_%20FINAL%20WEB%20en(1).pdf   
b. Decisions to use milk class 5(d) are made on a case -by-case basis. This relatively small 
amount of butter should not constitute a trend; however, if exports under milk class 
5(d) are made prior to the end of 2020 they will be administered in accordance with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
c. Canada will continue to comply with all of its international trade ob ligations, including 
those related to notifications.  
Follow -up: The EU reiterated concern with the issue. The US registered interest.  
2.2.4.3   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39)  
AG-IMS ID 91198: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Mexico implemented three temporary incentive programmes for the 
export of 1.0 million metric tonnes of white corn due to oversupply in key Mexican regions. The 
intended incentive  has a budget of approximately USD 15.4 million (see titles of notices).  
Titles of the Notices: A) Notice to announce the incentive to address specific marketing problems of 
white corn growing in the 2017 spring summer crop cycle, under the Commercializati on Support 
Program. B) Notice to announce the incentives to address specific marketing problems of corn 
growing in the 2017 spring summer crop cycle, for the states of Guanajuato, Jalisco and Michoacan, 
for livestock consumption, under the Commercializatio n Support Program. C) Notice to announce 
the incentive to address specific marketing problems of the surplus volume of white corn from the 
2016/17 fall winter crop cycle for the state of Sinaloa, under the Commercialization Support 
Program.  
Under the Nairo bi Decision developing country Members can benefit from the provisions of Article  9.4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023.  
a. Please explain whether Mexico considers these programmes Article 9.4 export subsidies.  
b. If so, please submit a Suppo rting Table ES:2 for calendar year 2017.  
Answer by Mexico  
We thank the United States for its question. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development  (SADER) is currently carrying out the appropriate internal consultations to provide 
clarification on th is matter and obtain detailed information to enable us to make a correction to our 
2017 export subsidies notification.  
2.2.4.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/106)  
AG-IMS ID 91205: Question by European Union - Export subsidies subject to reduction 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
The European Union notes that Norway's export subsidies for processed agricultural products 
increased by 18% between 2017 and 2018. Considering that Norway will not be allowed to use 
export subsidies for those products after 2020, is Norway planning any alte rnative measures to 
promote Norwegian exports of processed agricultural products post 2020?  
Answer by Norway  
Norway thanks the EU for the question related to export subsidies for processed agricultural 
products  (PAP).  
Even though Norway's export subsidies for PAPs correctly has increased by 18%, the total volume 
of exported PAPs receiving such subsidies are also low (approximately 3.6% of the total PAPs 
exported).  
The phasing out of export subsidies will indeed be a challenge to those parts of the  PAP-industry 
that are affected. The Norwegian government is in a process of reviewing the current scheme for G/AG/W/215  
 
- 177 - 
 
  inward processing, mainly by simplifying it. The industry may use this scheme for continued exports 
based on imported raw materials.  
2.2.4.5   Turkey (G/AG/ N/TUR/22, G/AG/N/TUR/23, G/AG/N/TUR/24 , 
G/AG/N/TUR/26, G/AG/N/TUR/28, G/AG/N/TUR/29, G/AG/N/TUR/30, 
G/AG/N/TUR/35 ) 
AG-IMS ID 91187: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
G/AG/N/TUR/22 35  
The United States thanks Turkey for its recent transparency effort in bringing its export subsidy 
notifications up to date.  
a. Please provide an update on when additional notifications for more recent periods will 
be submitted.  
b. Please indicate for 2017, 2018, and 2019 what products are eligible to still receive 
export subsidies.  
c. In G/AG/N/TUR/25, for the year 2004, Turkey notified that it provided export subsidies 
for Fruit Juices, Homogenized fruit preparations, Frozen Fruits and Vegetables 
(dehydrated). Please provide a breakdown of the specific t ypes of fruits or vegetables 
(or HS 6/HS 8  tariff lines) that received support for each of these categories along with 
the associated outlay. If such information is not readily available, please indicate 
whether any specific types of fruits or vegetables ( or HS 6/HS 8 tariff lines) are known 
to receive a large share of the notified support level.  
Answer by Turkey  
a. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 91206.  
b. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 91206.  
c. In G/AG/N/TUR/25, in the tables ES:1 and ES:2,  Turkey has notified the export 
subsidies provided for the related products, including export quantities and values. On 
the other hand, we are in the process of evaluating the other requested information.  
AG-IMS ID 91097: Question by Thailand  
Thailand wou ld like to thank Turkey for submitting the export subsidy notifications (G/AG/N/TUR/26, 
G/AG/N/TUR/27, G/AG/N/TUR/28, G/AG/N/TUR/29 and G/AG/N/TUR/30). According to the 10th 
Ministerial Decision in 2015 (Nairobi Ministerial Decision), developing country Members shall 
eliminate their export subsidy entitlements by the end of 2018 or by the end of 2022 for products 
that it has notified export subsidies in one of its three latest export subsidy notifications examined 
by the Committee on Agriculture before the date of adoption of Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
In this regard, could Turkey please:  
a. Clarify whether it is still currently providing export subsidies? and if so please elaborate 
its plan to reduce export subsidies commitment to meet Nairobi Ministerial D ecision.  
b. Provide information as to when the subsequent notifications will be provided.  
c. Elaborate on Direct Export Subsidies and provide examples of such programmes 
implemented by Turkey.  
Answer by Turkey  
a. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 91206.  
b. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 91206.  
c. The policy objective of this export subsidy Programme is to develop Turkey's export 
potential in agricultural products. The subsidies are provided to produc er/exporters or 
exporters in the form of deduction of their debts to the public corporations from their 
subsidy entitlement which is calculated on the basis of fixed amount per unit. Subsidy G/AG/W/215  
 
- 178 - 
 
  system is designed by taking into consideration the annual volume  and value 
commitments of Turkey, originated in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 91107: Question by Canada - Export subsidies subject to reduction 
commitments (Article 9.1)  
Questions apply to TUR/26 to TUR/30  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing  more recent export subsidy notifications to this Committee. 
Since the last year notified refers to programmes that were in force 10 years ago, Canada is 
concerned with the fact that the current situation of Turkey's export subsidy measures remains hard 
to assess, including their compliance with export subsidy elimination commitments contained in the 
2015 Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. Canada notes that Turkey has notified export subsidies 
for apples (TURX021) for the years 2005, 2006 and 2009, but  that apples were omitted from the 
2007 and 2008 notifications.  
a. Could Turkey explain why apples were omitted from the 2007 and 2008 notifications? 
Were budgetary outlays and quantities for those years nil?  
b. If so, will Turkey provide revised notifications t hat would show that no export subsidies 
were provided for apples during that period (a nil)?  
c. Were apples excluded from Turkey's export subsidy programmes during those years? If 
so, how and why?  
d. When will Turkey provide more recent export subsidy notificati ons, so that other 
Members may be able to understand how Turkey complies with the 2015 Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by Turkey  
a. Due to budgetary constraints, Turkey did not provide any export subsidies for apples 
in 2007 and 2008.  
b. Products  which are not involved in export subsidy programme of Turkey are not shown 
in notifications.  
c. Please refer to the response for question a.  
d. Please refer to the response to  AG-IMS ID 91206.  
AG-IMS ID 91206: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia acknowledges Turkey has submitted export subsidy commitment – ES:1 notifications for 
2005 through to 2009.  
While we appreciate the notifications, Australia would like to express its concern w ith Turkey's 
remaining overdue notifications on export subsidy commitments. With those for 2010 onwards 
remaining overdue.  
a. Australia welcomes Turkey's advice on when it will submit its outstanding notifications.  
Noting that Turkey is limited by the Nairobi  Decision to providing export subsidies 
beyond  2018 only for those products for which it was providing export subsidies in 
its 1998-2000 reporting period, can Turkey:  
b. Confirm what, if any, export subsidies it has provided since the end of 2018?  
Answer by T urkey  
a. Turkey has submitted Table ES:1, ES:1 -Supporting Table and Table ES:2 notifications 
for the period of 2001 -2009. We are still working on the notifications for the following 
years and we hope to complete them very soon.  
b. In accordance with the Nairobi  Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, Turkey's 
revised schedule was circulated through the document G/MA/TAR/RS/588 dated 18 June 
2019. Turkey is currently providing export subsidies for agricultural products in line with 
the commitments of Turkey o riginated in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Pursuant G/AG/W/215  
 
- 179 - 
 
  to Article 25.2 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Turkey will 
submit new and full notifications for current export subsidies soon.  
AG-IMS ID 91207: Question by European Union  - Transparency issues  
Turkey has recently submitted their due notifications up to 2009. Over three years after Nairobi, 
Turkey still did not provide its updated schedule. Notifications 2010 1018 are also outstanding.  
When will Turkey comply with its oblig ations under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by Turkey  
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 91206.  
2.3  COUNTER NOTIFICATIONS  
2.3.1.1   Philippines  
AG-IMS ID 91210: Question by Indonesia - Trigger calculations  
Indonesia would like to thank the Philippines for its continued cooperation.  
Referring back to Indonesia's question ( AG-IMS ID 88126) in the 88th CoA meeting, 25 -26 June  2018 
and the Philippines' response contained in document G/AG/W/187, Indonesia noted that the 
omittance of reference pri ce for the year 1987 and 1988 was due to the fact that no commercial 
importation of the concerned products took place in both year 1987 and 1988.  
According to the Foreign Trade Statistics of the Philippines for year 1986 1988 published by the 
National Stat istics Office of the Republic of the Philippines, Indonesia found that the Philippines 
imported instant coffee exist both in 1986 (PHP 203.74/kg) and 1988 (PHP 106.13/kg). However, in 
its notifications to the WTO through the document G/AG/N/PHL/27 and G/AG /N/PHL/53, the 
Philippines determined the trigger price for instant coffee (HS 2101.11.10) only based on the import 
and price data in 1986 since the Philippines claimed that there was neither any commercial 
importation in 1987 nor in 1988 of the concerned products. We have submitted our findings to the 
Philippines on this issue.  
As a follow -up, Indonesia would like to seek further clarifications from the Philippines regarding this 
matter:  
a. Why did the Philippines omit the import and price data in 1988 in its calculation of the 
average reference price for determining trigger price?  
This omission has resulted in grave disadvantage not only for Indonesia, but also other 
Members.  
b. With the availability of 1988 data, the trigger price of Instant Coffee and Extra ct Coffee, 
which according to Article 5.1 (b) of Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) shall be based on 
the average of 1986 to 1988, which is to be reduced from PHP 203.74/kg to PHP 
154.85/kg.  
In light of this important finding, the present Philippines' trigger price has far exceeded the correct 
trigger price and accordingly, to be consistent with the AoA, correction to the existing trigger price 
of Instant Coffee and Extract Coffee as per WTO notifications by the Philippines is required.  
As one of the main expor ters of this agriculture product category, Indonesia hopes that the 
Philippines will seriously consider Indonesia's finding on this important matter. Indonesia eagerly 
looks forward to a productive discussion on the correct determination of the Philippines ' trigger price 
of Instant Coffee and Extract Coffee.  
Thus, Indonesia would like to seek further clarifications from the Philippines regarding this matter.  
Answer by Philippines  
a. The Philippines did not omit any import and price data in the calculation of t he price 
trigger for the subject coffee products because there was neither any import of the 
products in  1988 nor in 1987.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 180 - 
 
  b. How could there be data for 1988 or even for 1987 when there was no importation in 
either 1988 or 1987?  
Indeed, Article 5.1(b) of th e Agreement on Agriculture requires a trigger price be based on the 
average of 1986 to 1988, and since there were no importations of the subject coffee products 
in 1987-1988, the trigger price that the Philippines notified to the WTO is only based on the 
importation in 1986. Unfortunately, the same provision does not provide for any creative 
interpretations of the calculation – as Indonesia has been suggesting – for arriving at a different 
trigger price in the absence of any importation in 1987 and 1988.  
Moreover, the import and price data in 1987 -1988 that Indonesia are using for its arguments are 
coffee products of different tariff nomenclature – and definitely not the ones that are the subject of 
the price SSG.  
c. Given our response to questions 1 & 2, the re is no correct price trigger other than the 
trigger price the Philippine notified to the WTO almost 20 years ago.  
2.4  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
2.4.1   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 91167: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
According to press reports, the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Minister recently announced 
plans to procure an additional 400,000 MT of pulses in the coming weeks to build a reserve of 
approximately  1.6 million metric tonnes.  
In light of this development, the United States repeats AG -IMS ID 86108:  
a. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India notified market price support for the Tur, 
Moong, Urad, Gram, and Lentil pulses for all years notified with the exc eption of 
2011/12; however, India announced a Minimum Support Price for each commodity for 
each of the years notified, including  2011/12.  
i. Please confirm whether India procured any of these commodities in 2011/12.  
ii. Please also confirm whether India would hav e procured the commodities that year 
if market prices had fallen below the administered (announced) Minimum Support 
Prices.  
iii. If India did not procure these commodities in 2011/12, please explain how the 
programme was implemented differently in 2012/13 and 2 013/14, when market 
price support was also notified, as compared to 2011/12 when no market price 
support was notified. Please include citations to any government decrees, 
regulations, or other communications that explain this difference.  
b. It is noted in G/A G/N/IND/11 that India aggregated gram, arhar, urad, moong, and 
lentils as "pulses" in Supporting Table DS:5 as a single market price support measure. 
However, it is also noted that India announced distinct Minimum Support Prices (applied 
administered price s) for each of the separate pulses and are disaggregated in India's 
AGST. For example, in 2012/13, India announced the following distinct Minimum 
Support Prices: Tur: INR 38,500/tonne; Moong: INR 44,000/tonne; Urad: INR: 
43,000/tonne; Gram: INR 28,000/tonn e; and Lentil: INR  28,000/tonne. However, the 
Minimum Support Price /applied administered price notified is approximately INR 
36,900/tonne (converted to INR using the notified exchange rate for  2012/13).  
i. Please explain the reason for aggregating these puls es despite announcing 
distinct applied administered prices for each.  
ii. Please provide market price support calculations for each commodity that 
separately receives a distinct announced applied administered price for each year 
covered by G/AG/N/IND/11.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 181 - 
 
  Answer  by India  
a. India did not procure these crops at the administered price during 2011 -12. The 
government procures only a portion of the marketable surplus meeting the prescribed 
specifications offered by the farmers at the administered price.  
b. India has been consistently notifying product specific support for pulses at aggregate 
levels since  1995-96. 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada and the EU shared US concern.  
2.5  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
2.5.1   Ghana  
AG-IMS ID 91131: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 88084, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which Ghana has not provided a written answer: The United States notes that Ghana's last 
notification (G/AG/N/GHA/2) concerning export subsidy commitments (Table ES:1)  is for the 
year 2000 and has not yet responded to the export competition questionnaire.  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications and respond to the export competition 
questionnaire.  
Answer by Ghana  
2.5.2   India  
AG-IMS ID 91143: Question by United Sta tes of America  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 88085, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which India has not provided a timely answer: The United States notes that India owes the 
Committee on Agriculture 7 years of overdue no tifications (Table ES:1 and Supporting Table ES:2), 
and responses to the export competition questionnaire ECQ from calendar year 16 to the present. 
In addition, India owes the Committee on Agriculture several years of notifications (Table ES:3) after 
providing bilateral in-kind food aid – in particular rice and wheat - in response to emergency appeals, 
consistent with India's Nairobi commitments.  
a. Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 and Supporting Table ES:2 notifications, and a 
response to the ECQ on oper ational changes in export subsidy measures.  
b. Please proceed to notify Table ES:3 for relevant years. If not, please explain.  
Answer by India  
The relevant ES notifications are under preparation and will be notified in due course. We would also 
like to draw M embers' attention to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition, wherein developing Members have the flexibility of responding to the questionnaire 
after 2020.  
2.5.3   Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 91144: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 88086, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which Kenya has not provided a written answer:  
a. The United States notes that Kenya's last notification ( G/AG/N/KEN/1) concerning 
export subsidy commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1995 and has not yet 
responded to the export competition questionnaire.  
b. Please provide all overdue export subsidy notifications, Table ES:1.  
Answer by Kenya  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 182 - 
 
  2.5.4   Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 91208: Question by Australia  
Australia notes Morocco has not submitted an export subsidy notification (ES:1) since the 2011 
reporting period.  
Can Morocco please inform Member when it plans to submit its notably overdue export subsidy 
notification s? 
Answer by Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 91182: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Morocco is overdue in notifying (Table ES:1 and Supporting 
Table  ES:2), and responses to the export competition questionnaire ECQ from calendar year 201 6 
to the present.  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 and Supporting Table ES:2 notifications, and a response to 
the ECQ on operational changes in export subsidy measures.  
Answer by Morocco  
2.5.5   Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 91209: Question by Australia  
Australia notes Pakistan has not submitted a domestic support notification (DS:1) for any year since 
the 2011 reporting period.  
Can Pakistan please inform Members when it plans to submit its notably overdue DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by Pakistan  
Notification is under preparation.  
AG-IMS ID 91181: Question by United States of America  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 88087: When Pakistan will provide all overdue export subsidy 
notifications to the Committee on Agriculture, Table ES:1, including Supporting Table ES:2, 
Table  ES:2, and Table ES:3?  
Answer by Pakistan  
Notification is under preparation.  
2.5.6   Tunisia  
AG-IMS ID 91203: Question by Australia  
Australia thanks Tunisia for submitting its domestic support notification (DS:1) for the reporting 
period 2017. However, Australia not es that Tunisia has not submitted an Export Subsidy  (ES:1) 
notification since the 2014 reporting period.  
Can Tunisia please inform Members when it plans to submit its notably overdue export subsidy 
notifications?  
Answer by Tunisia  
2.5.7   Ukraine  
AG-IMS ID 91202:  Question by Australia  
Australia notes Ukraine has not submitted a domestic support notification (DS:1) since the 
2012 reporting period.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 183 - 
 
  In its response to the EU's question at CoA 89 (ID 89088), Ukraine acknowledged it was currently 
preparing DS:1 notific ations for the reporting periods 2013 2015. It also indicated that these 
notifications were expected to be completed in early 2019 and submitted prior to the 91st CoA 
meeting.  
Can Ukraine please inform Members when it plans to submit its notably overdue DS :1 notifications?  
Answer by Ukraine  
Ukraine would like to thank Australia for its question and inform that DS:1 notifications for the 
period  2013-2015 are currently being finalized by the relevant authorities. These notifications will 
be submitted to the W TO in accordance with the established procedures.  
2.6  EXPORT COMPETITION  
2.6.1   Argentina  
AG-IMS ID 91111: Question by United States of America  
Argentina - Export Credit  
a. Please update responses to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) with 2017 
and 2018 data fo r the Investment and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE).  
b. Please explain why Argentina responded "not applicable" in the ECQ, for questions  3 
through 8, regarding the Bank of the Argentine Nation (BNA's) export financing 
activities.  
Answer by Argentina  
"The Bank of the Argentine Nation offers different lines of credit for exporters, with the aim of 
financing working capital and the investment necessary at the various stages of the export process, 
that is, prior to and following shipment, such as: pre ‑export financ ing; financing for exporting 
enterprises; and short ‑, medium ‑ and long ‑term export financing. These credit lines are trade lines 
established by the Bank of the Argentine Nation with fixed criteria based on financial market 
conditions (...).  
Given the above , it should be highlighted that none of these credit lines are part of the "Export 
Support Programmes". It is for this reason that Argentina responded "not applicable" for points 3 to 
8 of the questionnaire.  
Lastly, please be informed that the criteria/re quirements of the credit lines in question, and their 
beneficiaries, can be consulted on the website of the Bank of the Argentine Nation at: 
http://www.bna.com.ar . 
2.6.2   Australia  
AG-IMS ID 91028: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit - Question to Australia  
The EFIC's 'Export Contract Loan", "Export Line of Credit", "Small Business Export Loan" and "Export 
Capital Working Guarantee" notified previousl y by Australia have been excluded from the answers 
to the Export Competition Questionnaire this time.  
Can Australia explain how those instruments qualify under footnote 7 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision and therefore need not to be notified?  
Answer by Australia  
Australia thanks the EU for the question and opportunity to provide an additional layer of 
transparency with respect to its approach towards the Export Competition Questionnaire circulated 
on 25  October 2018. Australia conducted a thorough examin ation of its historical answers to export 
competition questionnaires to ensure our response was consistent with Australia's obligations under G/AG/W/215  
 
- 184 - 
 
  the Nairobi Decision. The origins of Australia's historical answers and programme coverage date 
back to broader tr ansparency efforts prior to the Nairobi Decision. Footnote 7 of the Nairobi Decision 
stipulates that for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Nairobi Decision, export credits are those 
exports of products listed in Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture th at do not include "working 
capital financing to the suppliers". Working closely with Efic, the Department of Foreign Affairs and 
Trade examined the Export Contract Loan, Export Line of Credit, Small Business Export Loan and 
Export Capital Working Guarantee  programs to ascertain if they fell within the scope of the Nairobi 
Decision. This examination identified that those programmes provide only working capital financing 
to suppliers. Therefore, Australia established that those programmes fell outside of the scope of the 
Nairobi Decision and removed them from the response to the Questionnaire.  
2.6.3   Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 91055: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
Concerning PROEX Direct Financing, Brazil informs that the repayment p eriod is up to ten years. In 
case of exports to Cuba, the notified average repayment period in 2018 was 34 months.  
Does Brazil agree that this does not conform with the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Brazil  
Brazil does not agree with this statement. Paragraph  17, footnote 11 of said Decision states that: 
"In the event that Cuba is a recipient Member in this situation, the time frame can be greater than 
54 months and any such monitoring and surveillance shall not apply without the prior express 
consent of Cuba" . 
2.6.4   Canada  
AG-IMS ID 91057: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
Concerning repayment terms for Buyer Financing – how would Canada ensure the compliance with 
the Nairobi Decision in case of a use of this instrument for the sale of agricultural products?  
Answer by Canada  
Buyer Financing products are not available for the export sale of agricultural products.  
AG-IMS ID 91112: Question by United States of America  
Canada – International Food Aid  
To date, Canad a has not provided updated responses to question 2 of the ECQ. Please provide 
quantity and/or value of food aid provided in years 2017 and 2018 in the ECQ. If Canada cannot 
provide, please explain why.  
Answer by Canada  
Canada would like to thank the United  States for finding the error that slipped into its form on export 
competition in 2019. The value of food aid on Canada's form should refer to 2017 and not to 2016. 
The form should therefore state: "In 2017, Canada provided CAD 361.8 million in food assist ance". 
We would also like to emphasize that all this food aid was provided on an untied cash -based basis 
and fully in grant form. This information will be revised in the new version of the Secretariat 
document.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 185 - 
 
  2.6.5   China  
AG-IMS ID 91064: Question by European U nion 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
Data on Export Credit Financing has not been updated since 2016.  
When will China provide the missing information for 2017 and 2018?  
Answer by China  
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017-2018 are being prepared and will be 
submitted as soon as possible.  
AG-IMS ID 91070: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
State Trading Enterprises  
When will China provide answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire concerning agricultural 
exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE working party?  
Answer by China  
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared and will be 
submitted as soon as possible.  
AG-IMS ID 91114: Question by United States of America  
China – Export Credits  
Please provide data updates for the export credit section of the ECQ for years 2017 and 2018, 
including the annual average premium rates/fees per programme and data on program use by 
product or pr oduct group. If China cannot provide updates, please explain why.  
Answer by China  
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared and will be 
submitted as soon as possible.  
AG-IMS ID 91115: Question by United States of America  
China – State Trading Enterprises  
a. Based on news sources, the United States understands that the government of China 
plans to transfer the trading assets of Sinograin, which includes its stockpiles and 
oilseed crushing capacity, to COFCO Corporation . Please explain the rationale behind its 
restructuring of assets for its agricultural state trading enterprises.  
b. Please provide an update to China's STE section for years 2017 and 2018 in the ECQ, 
including average procurement and export prices. If China cannot provide updates, 
please explain why.  
Answer by China  
a. We haven't got the news as quoted by the United States.  
b. The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared 
and will be submitted as soon as possible.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 186 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91 117: Question by United States of America  
China – International Food Aid  
The United States notes that in the last two years the China has not updated the export competition 
questionnaire's (ECQ) for the international food aid section.  
a. Please provide an update on quantity and/or value of food aid provided in years 2017 
and 2018, including product description of in-kind food aid and the value of cash -based 
food assistance.  
b. Please provide a description of whether monetization and/or re -exports were permitte d 
for years  2016, 2017 and 2018.  
Answer by China  
a. Responding to the request by the recipient governments, the Chinese government 
provided emergency food aid through bilateral and multilateral channels such as the 
WFP, with the total value of 2 billion RMB.  
b. Monetization and/or re -exports were not permitted for food aid provided by the Chinese 
government.  
2.6.6   European Union  
AG-IMS ID 91118: Question by United States of America  
European Union - Export Credit  
a. The United States notes that several EU memb ers have not responded to all the 
questions in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
i. Bulgaria indicated that the maximum and average repayment terms are "not 
applicable". Please provide more specifics about this programme. Please explain 
why these te rms are "not applicable."  
ii. Denmark did not provide a total value figure for exports of agricultural products 
in 2016, 2017, and 2018, for the reinsurance programme. Please explain what 
steps Denmark is taking to gather this data. c. Can France please confir m that 
the average fee rate for Cuba is 2.4%, and the average fee rate for Greece is 
6.5%?  
b. As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 87050, the United States understands that Italy's SACE BT 
is a subsidiary of SACE S.p.A., and SACE S.p.A. is a subsidiary of Cassa Deposi ti e 
Prestiti, which is 80% Ministry of Economy and Finance, owned by SACE. The United 
States notes the provisions on the Nairobi Decision apply to export financing support 
"provided by a government or any public body" as referred to in the Article 1.1(a)1  of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM).  
i. The United States requests Italy provide information on programmes operated by 
SACE, SACE BT and any other SACE subsidiary that have export credit operations 
benefiting agricultural exports for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in the ECQ.  
c. As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 87050 and Spain's Instituto de Credito Oficial (ICO). The 
United States notes that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is 
not limited to jus t agricultural specific programmes, programmes with subsidies or any 
other kind of aid, or programmes where private institutions negotiate the specific 
conditions of each contract.  
i. The United States requests Spain provide information on export financing 
programs operated by the ICO with respect to agricultural exports for years 2016, 
2017, and  2018 in the ECQ.  
Answer by European Union  
a. 
i. Bulgaria confirms that no export financing support with a maximum repayment 
term beyond 18 months has been in operatio n in 2018.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 187 - 
 
  Bulgaria's reply to the Export Competition Questionnaire contains information on 
risk cover program operated by the Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency, which 
does not involve any credit instruments. Hence repayment, respectively 
maximum repayment  term and annual average repayment period, are not 
applicable.  
ii. The data is not yet available.  
iii. France. The EU can confirm, that in France, as indicated in its reply to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire, the average fee rates for Cuba and Greece  are, 
respectively 2.4% and 6.5%.  
b. The EU will revert with an answer to this question.  
c. Spain reiterates its detailed reply previously provided on this issue. You can find further 
details under the provided link: https://www.ico.es . 
The Instituto de Crédito Oficial, a subsidiary credit institution of the State Secretariat for the 
Economy and Business Support, provides products within its short -term export facility (financing of 
up to 180 days) to small and medium -sized companies and self -employed, business to facilitate 
advance payment of invoices. The purpose of the financing granted through this facility (short -term 
exporters) is the advance collection of invoices/pre -financing derived from Spanish companies' 
export a ctivity to EU and the rest of the word.  
This financing is provided through private financial institutions that negotiate the conditions of every 
contract directly with the client, always bearing in mind some general guidelines approved by the 
General Boar d of ICO and the conditions which have been signed through a contract between ICO 
and private financial institutions.  
The financing funds for these operations are raised by ICO directly in the capital markets. Interest 
rates charged by ICO to private enti ties are therefore calculated on the basis of the market cost of 
financing. There are no subsidies or any other kind of aid. The private financial institution charges 
the client an additional intermediation margin that covers, among other risks, the risk o f non-
payment . Private financial institutions assume therefore 100% of the risk of financing and reflect 
this risk in the final price to be paid by the client. Therefore, the final cost is fully fixed according to 
market parameters.  
Private financial insti tutions are not obliged to provide these products but do so voluntarily.  
There is no specific product for the agricultural sector, although ICO presents sectorial statistics of 
its operations based on the information provided by private institutions. Companies are classified 
according to the CNAE (Spanish National Classificatio n of Economic Activities).  
ICO has a catalogue of facilities both in the domestic and international markets. The short -term 
export facilities are included in the catalogue of ICO facilities to support (by providing financing) the 
internationalisation of S panish companies. You can find this information at: https://www.ico.es . 
Given that there are no government subsidies or any other kind of aid, that there are no sector -
specific programmes for agriculture, and that private  institutions negotiate the specific conditions of 
each contract, these types of operations are not subject to reporting obligations established by the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 91119: Question by United States of America  
European Union – International Food Aid  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 87052, the United States notes that Austria and the Czech Republic 
replied to the 2018 Secretariat's Questionnaire. However, the EU response still does not include a 
reply from several EU member States that a re signatories to the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) 
and/or the Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD), which have reported 
food aid donations in recent years.  
Please explain why some EU member States are not responding to the food  aid section in the 
Questionnaire.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 188 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
All EU member States with the exception of Luxembourg have duly replied to all sections of the 2018 
Export Competition Questionnaire. Which EU member States does the US have in mind?  
Follow -up: The US clarified that as per its understanding all the EU member States had made 
bilateral donations to World Food Programme and other International organizations and sought to 
understand why only two member States mentioned in the question had reported it  in the Export 
Competition questionnaire.  
2.6.7   Hong Kong, China  
AG-IMS ID 91120: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  
The United States understands that Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation (HKECIC) offers 
export credit insurance for agri cultural products. Hong Kong, China indicated that the average 
premium rate, maximum and average repayment terms, are "not applicable as no repayment of 
loans is involved."  
Please explain why these questions are "not applicable."  
Answer by Hong Kong, China  
The Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation (HKECIC) provides exporters with insurance 
protection against non-payment  risks arising from commercial and political events. As the HKECIC 
only provides export credit insurance which does not involve repa yment of premiums, it is considered 
that information relating to the "maximum repayment terms" and "average repayment periods" are 
not applicable in this context. That said, for the sake of transparency, we have provided updated 
information on the annual a verage premium rate, as well as the maximum and typical credit period 
for export credit insurance policies to the Questionnaire. For instance, the annual average premium 
rate involving agricultural products is 0.41% for the financial year ending 31 March 2 018. In the 
same financial year, the maximum credit period and the typical credit period for export credit 
insurance policies involving agricultural products are 180 days and 90 days or shorter respectively.  
2.6.8   India  
AG-IMS ID 91072: Question by European Unio n  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
State Trading Enterprises  
When will India provide answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire concerning agricultural 
exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE working party?  
Answer by India  
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing members have the flexibility of responding to the Questionnaire after 2020.  
India (I. Article 18.6)  
AG-IMS ID 91073: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Qu estionnaire  
Question to India  
India has not provided any answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
When will India provide the information concerning Export Financing and agricultural exporting 
STEs?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 189 - 
 
  Answer by India  
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing Members have the flexibility of responding to the Questionnaire after 2020.  
AG-IMS ID 91121: Question by United States of America  
The United States requests that India respond to  the export competition questionnaire  (ECQ) and 
come up to date on its export subsidy notifications.  
Answer by India  
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing Members have the flexibility  of responding to the Questionnaire after 2020.  
Follow -up: The EU encouraged developing Members, particularly large exporters such as India to 
respond to the questionnaire on a voluntary basis to ensure transparency. The US drew India's 
attention to the ES  notification requirement.  
2.6.9   Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 91071: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Subsidies  
Over three years after Nairobi, Indonesia did not provide its updated schedule. When will Indonesia 
comply with the commitme nts undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
Answer by Indonesia  
Indonesia has continued the issuance process of Presidential Instruction intended to eliminate its 
export subsidy entitlement under Schedule XXI, which was delayed due to the holding of 
Indones ia's 2019 general election. We believe this process will be completed in the near future.  
2.6.10   Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 91123: Question by United States of America  
International Food Aid  
The United States requests that the Republic of Korea come up to date on its ECQ submissions, 
including information on food aid. The United States understands through WFP and OECD reports 
that Korea is a party to the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) and has provided food aid. 
Additionally, the United St ates understands from Asean Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve's 
(APTERR) press releases (posted here: https://www.apterr.org/news events ) that APTERR has 
provided in kind food aid in recent years.  
Please indicate when the Republic of Korea will provide a response to the ECQ for years 2016, 2017 
and 2018.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
Korea's ES notification for 2018 including food aid performance and response to ECQ will be 
submitted in due course af ter the data collection.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 190 - 
 
  2.6.11   Malaysia  
AG-IMS ID 91069: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
Malaysia claims that maximum repayment terms per programme are of no relevance to the facilities 
offered by EXIM Malaysia, as the y are based on commercial basis.  
Are there any guaranties involved in case of non -repayment by the recipients of the loans?  
Answer by Malaysia  
No. 
• Maximum repayment terms per programme is not applicable as there is no subsidy 
provided by EXIM bank. Facil ities offered by EXIM Malaysia are based on commercial 
basis (e.g. lending terms based on market rate) rather than preferential rate due to 
subsidies, grants or equivalent.  
• In carrying the Bank’s lending activities, it sources its funds from the Debt Cap ital 
Market and bilateral borrowings from various lenders.  
• As for Trade Financing, the tenure for Pre -Shipment is up to 120 days and for Post -
Shipment is up to 180 days. As for Cross Border Financing facilities, the tenure of a loan 
can go as high as up to 10 years thus the repayment period commensurate with the 
tenure of the loan. Nevertheless, for financing of projects, gestation period may be 
allowed subject to the Cash flow projection by the customer.  
AG-IMS ID 91124: Question by United States of Amer ica 
Export Credit  
The United States understands Malaysia did not answer questions to 4 through 8 because fees are 
based on commercial rate, or based on market rate, or that there is no specific program by product 
or destination. The United States notes that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition is not limited to just agricultural specific programmes or to programmes that do not 
follow commercial/market rates.  
Please provide responses for all missing data in the Questionnaire.  
Answer by Malaysia  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per program  
• Credit insurance/Takaful is risk priced based and according to commercial rate.  
Additional Answer  
• EXIM Bank’s pricing is based on Risk Based Pricing Model (RBPM). Each application is 
given an internal rating based on the Operating Spread + Credit Spread. The Operating 
Spread consist of Cost of Borrowing, Base Rate (LIBOR or KLIBOR), Overhead Cost and 
Liquidity Cost. The Credit Spread is basically the rate EXIM Bank charge based on the 
obligor’s credit rating/standing.  
• Therefore, the all in rate that the Bank charges are basically between 5% to 7% for 
USD loans and 6% to 8% for MYR loans.  
• As for the Bank’s Credit Insurance/Takaful Product the assessment is based on several 
factors as well such as the exposure country, sales turnover, number of buyers, sum 
insured and others. For Short Term, the premium/wakalah fee ranges between 0.3% to 
1% as for Medium -Long Term the premium/wakalah fee ranges between 1.2% to 2.5%  
5. Maximum repayment terms per program  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 191 - 
 
  • Not applicable as there is no subsidy provided by EXIM bank. Facilities offered by EXIM 
Malaysia are based on commercial basis (e.g. lending terms based on market rate) 
rather than preferential rate due to subsidies, grants or equivalen t. 
• In carrying the Bank’s lending activities, it sources its funds from the Debt Capital 
Market and bilateral borrowings from various lenders.  
Additional Answer  
• As for Trade Financing, the tenure for Pre -Shipment is up to 120 days and for Post -
Shipment  is up to 180 days. As for Cross Border Financing facilities, the tenure of a loan 
can go as high as up to 10 years thus the repayment period commensurate with the 
tenure of the loan. Nevertheless, for financing of projects, gestation period may be 
allowed  subject to the Cash flow projection by the customer.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per program  
• Monthly repayment applies for Export credit, Export credit guarantee and credit 
insurance.  
Additional Answer  
• The average repayment for Trade Financing  is between 3 to 6 months. As for Cross 
Border Financing, the average repayment term is between 4 to 5 years.  
7. Export destination or group of destinations per program  
• No specification in relation to destinations per program.  
Additional Answer  
• EXIM Bank as at 2017 is exposed to 87 countries across the globe.  
8. Program use by product or product group  
• No program by product or product group.  
Additional Answer  
• EXIM Bank’s product for Banking is divided into Trade and Cross Border Financing. As 
for Credit Insurance/Takaful, the product is divided into Short Term and Medium -Long 
Term. For more detail information on the products, please visit: 
https://www.exim.com.my/index.php/en/islamic -banking  
2.6.12   New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 91068: Question by European Un ion  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
New Zealand reports that the maximum credit term for the Export Credit Guarantee product offered 
by NZEC is 15 years.  
How does New Zealand ensure the respect of the Nairobi Decision and the maximum tenor length 
of 18 months in case of agricultural products?  
Answer by New Zealand  
With all its programmes, New Zealand Export Credit (NZEC) complies with New Zealand's 
international trade obligations and other international guidelines as they apply to export cre dits. As 
a result, NZEC ensures compliance with the Nairobi Decision in respect to export credit support for 
agricultural products.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 192 - 
 
  2.6.13   Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 91125: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
The United States notes Pakistan r eplied in the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) that it does 
not have an agricultural exporting STE. However, the United States understands that Pakistan 
Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO) procures and maintains reserves of wheat, 
and exports grain when called upon by the Government of Pakistan (GOP). For example, according 
to notification F No.4 12/2014/DFSC II/Wheat Export dated Islamabad 12th December 2018, decided 
to sell 0.5 million metric tonnes for Export from PASSCO's reserv es. The Trading Corporation of 
Pakistan Ltd (TCP), which according to the TCP website is the "principal trading arm of the 
Government of Pakistan", appears to also export agricultural products.  
Please explain the basis for not reporting PASSCO and TCP as a gricultural exporting STEs.  
Answer by Pakistan  
Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Services Corporation Limited (PASSCO) manages strategic wheat 
stocks and provides it to wheat deficit areas of KPK, Gilgit Baltistan, AJK and Baluchistan. 
PASSCO  does not import and export commodities directly. Wheat was laid off in the domestic market 
through bidding as standard practice for stock management. In 2018 the bid price was slightly higher 
than the support price of wheat.  
2.6.14   Russian Federation   
AG-IMS ID 91126: Qu estion by United States of America  
Export Credits  
a. The United States notes that the Russian Export Center (RCE) operates a programme 
called "Compensation for export credits from commercial banks" that subsidizes interest 
rates on export credits provided by  commercial banks, which includes transactions 
supporting agricultural products, per Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation No. 620 of 24 May 2017 and in accordance with Federal Law of 
29 November  2018 No. 459 ФЗ.  
i. Please describe this expor t credit programme and whether it should be reported 
in the export competition questionnaire (ECQ).  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for agricultural products in 2017 and 2018.  
b. The United States not es that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), Rosselkhozbank provides trade financial products/services for the 
export of agricultural products.  
i. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing activities should  be 
reported in the ECQ.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
Information about such export financing support was submitted to the Secretariat.  
AG-IMS ID 91127: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 87058, the R ussian Federation stated that the "United Grain Company 
and subsidiaries (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise within the meaning of the working definition 
set forth in the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of GATT 1994".  
a. Please describ e Russia's State Grain Intervention Fund (SGIF) and UGC's role in 
operating the SGIF.  
b. By which government authorities does UGC operate the SGIF?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 193 - 
 
  c. In what circumstances does UGC export grain?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
a. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation organizes purchasing of 
agricultural commodities to the State Intervention Fund and selling of these 
commodities from the Fund.  
b. The purchases and the sales are carried out through an agent selected by the Ministry. 
United Grain Company (JSC UGС) is currently sole government agent in grain 
purchasing and selling interventions.  
c. Grain interventions from the Fund carried out at market prices and thereafter these 
commodities can be traded both domestic and foreign markets. It should be emphasized 
that JSC UGС do not make export transactions associated with the Fund commodities.  
Follow -up: The European Union registered interest in the subject.  
2.6.15   Switzerland   
AG-IMS ID 91067: Question by European Union  
Export  Subsidies  
Switzerland has modified its schedule to make it compliant with the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition. This has required the abolition of export subsidies provided so far on basis of the 
"Federal Law of 13 December 1974 on the import and ex port of processed agricultural products". In 
parallel, Switzerland has introduced direct payments to milk and cereal producers. The concerned 
amounts, equal to the abolished export subsidies are transferred from the farmers via private funds 
to exporters o f transformed products.  
Would Switzerland agree that in the light of the ruling on Canada – Dairy, which defines the meaning 
of "financed by virtue of governmental action", this new arrangement is de facto an export subsidy 
and as such in breach of the Nai robi Decision?  
Answer by Switzerland  
We wish to thank the EU for its question. The revised law and accompanying measures comply with 
WTO law.  
First, the direct payments to milk and cereal producers to which the EU refers in its question are 
made wholly ind ependently of exports. Second, the government is in no way involved in the private 
promotional measures that might be initiated and implemented by the food processing industry. 
There is no comparison, therefore, between this situation and the Canada – Dairy case mentioned 
by the EU.  
2.6.16   Thailand   
AG-IMS ID 91110: Question by United States of America  
Thailand – State Trading Enterprises  
The United States notes that Thailand indicated in previous responses to the export competition 
questionnaire (ECQ) it does no t have an agricultural exporting STE. However, as per Thailand's last 
notification to the Working Party in 2014, the Public Warehouse Organization (PWO) and Tobacco 
Authority of Thailand (TOAT) were STEs that engaged in the export of rice and tobacco respe ctively.  
a. Why does Thailand consider PWO and TOAT not to be agricultural exporting STEs?  
b. Have the PWO or TOAT involved in the export of rice or tobacco since the adoption of 
the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Thailand  
Thailand is collecting information from related agencies and we will submit the questionnaire to the 
Committee in due course.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 194 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 91130: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
As a follow -up to AG-IMS ID 90083 and 88094: United States would like to reiterate the following 
questions to Thailand, since it has not provided a written answer. The United States understands 
Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financing support programs administered by the 
Export Import Bank of Thailand are consistent w ith the Nairobi Decision. The United States does not 
consider Thailand's statement of this position to be a substitute for the provision of information 
about such programs in response to questionnaires.  
The United States requests Thailand provide informati on on programs operated by the Export Import 
Bank of Thailand for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in a response to the WTO Secretariat's annual 
export competition questionnaire.  
Answer by Thailand  
Thailand has submitted additional information of the Export Cred its questionnaire for the year 2016 
2018 to the WTO Secretariat on 24 June 2019.  
2.6.17   Turkey   
AG-IMS ID 91065: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Credit  
From the information provided, the credits provided by Eximbank have a max imum tenor length of 
seven years. How does Turkey ensure the respect of the Nairobi Decision and the maximum tenor 
length of 18 months in case of agricultural products?  
Answer by Turkey  
In the Export Competition Questionnaire, Turkey indicated that credit programs' maximum 
repayment terms is maximum seven  years. However, this period of 7 years is valid for Eximbank's 
support programmes aiming financing domestic investments for export. The beneficiaries of these 
support programmes which cover all the sectors  are our exporters. Thus, Turkey would like to make 
a correction on her answer for the Questionnaire. Turkey would like to underline that it is noted that 
the export credits defined in 7th footnote of the 13th paragraph do not include working capital 
financing to the suppliers in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. In this respect, 
Eximbank's support programmes that fall under the 7th footnote of the 13th paragraph are not 
required to respect to the maximum repayment term of  18 months.  
AG-IMS ID 91066: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Export Subsidies  
Turkey has recently submitted their due notifications up to 2009. Over three years after Nairobi, 
Turkey still did not provide its updated schedule. Notifications 2010 1018 are also outstanding.  
When will Turkey comply with its obligations under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by Turkey  
In accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on Export Competition, Turkey's rev ised 
schedule was circulated through the document G/MA/TAR/RS/588 dated 18 June 2019. Turkey has 
submitted Table ES:1, ES:1 -Supporting Table and Table ES:2 notifications for the period of 2001 
2009. We are still working on the notifications for the followi ng years and we hope to complete them 
very soon.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 195 - 
 
  2.6.18   United States of America   
AG-IMS ID 91056: Question by European Union  
Export Competition Questionnaire  
Food Aid  
The information provided by the US within the framework of the Questionnaire and in answer to  
questions posed several times by the EU in the CoA concerning in kind food aid does not prove 
compliance with paragraph 25 of the Nairobi Decision.  
Could the US specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or international entities 
requeste d US non-emergency  in kind food assistance as required by paragraph 25 of the Nairobi 
Decision?  
Answer by United States of America  
The United States' Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of 
Agriculture  (USDA) issue public solicit ations for applications from private volunteer 
organizations  (PVO), international organizations (IO) and other eligible implementing partners for 
development/capacity building food assistance programs in select countries. Countries are selected 
for potenti al development food assistance programs based on a quantitative and qualitative 
evaluation of demographic and health information, market conditions, and food and nutrition security 
indicators. These solicitations are designed in close consultation with hos t country governments. All 
implementing partners enter into a Host -Country Agreement, ensuring that program activities align 
with and support national food security agendas.  
2.6.19   Uruguay   
AG-IMS ID 91122: Question by United States of America  
Export Credits  
The United States notes that Uruguay responded "nil" to the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) 
in the past few years. Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not 
limited to just agricultural specific programmes:  
Please explain why Uruguay does not consider the State Insurance Bank (Banco de Seguros del 
Estado) and Bank of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay (Banco de la República Oriental de Uruguay) 
export financing support activities.  
Answer by Uruguay  
The export financing  regime continued to exist up until 2014. Pursuant to Decree No. 147/014 of 
23 May 2014, since 1 June 2014, no operations have been established under the export financing 
regime, which was regulated by Book III of the Compilation of Operating Rules of the Central Bank, 
except for a number of products for which the deadline for the establishment of such operations was 
31 December 2014. Regarding the activities of the State Insurance Bank (BSE) and the Bank of the 
Eastern Republic of Uruguay (BROU), it is imp ortant to recall that, while both institutions are owned 
by the Government, they operate on a competitive basis within the framework of private law, and 
are not financed by the national budget. Thus, there are no Government programmes on export 
credits or export credit guarantees, or insurance programmes, which was why Uruguay responded 
"nil" ("There are no subsidies on export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes 
for the financing of agricultural exports in Uruguay") in the second secti on of its questionnaire.  
2.6.20   Viet Nam   
AG-IMS ID 91109: Question by United States of America  
Viet Nam – Export Credits  
The United States notes that Viet  Nam has not updated its response to the Secretariat's 
Questionnaire since 2016 and has not provided data for export financing support program run by 
The Vietnam Development Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 196 - 
 
  When Viet  Nam will provide data updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ? If Viet  Nam 
cannot provide updates, please explain why?  
Answer by Viet Nam  
Regarding the reply on the Export Competition Questionnaire for the period 2016 -2018, Viet Nam is 
currently finalizing this questionnaire and will soon send the notification to the WTO.  
With respect to the activities of the Vietnam Devel opment Bank (VDB), in accordance with Decree 
No.32/2017/NĐ -CP dated 31 March 2017 on State investment credit, since 15 May 2017 until now, 
VDB has not provided any loans for export activities. For the previous period, the providing of loans 
extended to exp ort contracts was in accordance with the Decree No.75/2011/NĐ -CP dated 
30 August  2011 on State investment credit and loans extended to export contracts. Accordingly, the 
lending interest rate would be reported by the Chairman of the VDB Board of Directors to the Ministry 
of Finance to announce on the principle of matching with the market interest rate; and enterprises 
must implement loan security measures in accordance with the government regulations on security 
transactions. Viet Nam confirms that these lo ans was provided completely on market basis, not a 
Government subsidy, and did not cause market distortion. According to the VDB statistics, total 
loans extended to export contracts in the agricultural sector disbursed in 2016 and 2017 were 
VND 2,833 billi on and VND 75.77 billion respectively.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 197 - 
 
  3  COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 30 -31 OCTOBER 2019  
3.1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
3.1.1   EU statement regarding the EU-28 draft Schedule (AG-IMS ID 92129)  
EU statement regarding the EU-28 draft Schedule  
During bilateral discussions on the EU-28 draft Schedule CLXXV, the issue of technical adjustments 
to commitments on domestic support has ari sen. The draft schedule was drawn up in the context of 
enlargements of the EU customs union from 25 to 28 members. The context of EU enlargements 
has been discussed before in the WTO, notably in the General Council meeting of 22 February 2010 
(see WT/GC/M/ 125). The EU statements made in that meeting remain valid. Notably the EU 
recognises that the procedures used would not create a precedent in this respect. Once again, the 
adjustments have been the subject of engagement with interested Members.  
Follow -up: New Zealand welcomed the statement which clarified the shared understanding that there 
were no agreed legal mechanisms to modify the commitments under Part 4 of Members' schedules. 
Further, such modifications were carried out based on careful and systemat ic consultations with the 
interested Members and these changes did not set precedence for future adjustments of this kind. 
New Zealand praised the transparent engagement of the EU in various Committees and their 
systematic reforms of agriculture policies w hich had resulted in a move to less distortive policy 
settings and noted that those efforts had resulted in a good basis for such consultations. New 
Zealand welcomed the assurance provided by the EU and signalled its willingness to lift reservations 
on the  draft Schedule.  
3.1.2   Angola's fuel subsidies  
3.1.2.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92087)  
According to the media, Angola's government is looking to introduce new fuel subsidies for some 
sectors of economy, including agriculture. The main goal of this measure is to encourage food 
production. In this regard, Ukraine kindly asks Angola to provide information as follows:  
a. Could Angola please indicate the total monetary amount that has been approved, or 
alternatively, which is being considered as fuel subsidies for agriculture?  
b. Could Angola please clarify what eligibility criteria for agricultural p roducers benefiting 
from this measure have been approved or are under consideration?  
Answer by Angola  
3.1.3   Angola's potential import restrictions  
3.1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92045)  
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., The Re gulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, 
which provides new import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods (40 items). Canada 
understands that, as part of Presidential Decree 2 3/19 and starting in 2022, Angola may also apply 
temporary quantitative restrictions on 16 items, which appear to be included in the original list of 
54 items. According to the Presidential Decree, these rules seek to support domestic production and 
econom ic development by restricting importers' access to imports, including through an import 
licensing system that appears to prioritize the use of domestic production, similar to an import 
substitution policy. Given the potential impacts on Canada's exports to  Angola of agriculture products 
covered by Presidential Decree 23/19, Canada would appreciate if Angola could provide clarification 
on the application and scope of the decree:  
a. Could Angola provide additional information on the agriculture products covered  by the 
scope of Presidential Decree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, 
as well as a list of specific goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the Decree?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 198 - 
 
  i. Could Angola confirm whether pinto beans  (HS 0713.39) are subject to 
Presidential Decree 23/19?  
b. Could Angola elaborate on the consultation process importers and wholesalers have to 
follow within the domestic market to be eligible for an import licence, including on the 
specific steps required?  
i. Could Angola provide an example of an import authorization request form that 
would be compliant with Presidential Decree 23/19?  
c. How will Angola determine what quantities can be imported? What considerations will 
be taken into account by Angola?  
d. Could An gola confirm whether limitations on import quantities for the 40 agriculture 
products listed in Presidential Decree 23/19 are currently applied to importers?  
e. Could Angola explain how the provisions of Chapter I, Article 2 (initial list of 54 products, 
including 40 agriculture products) of Presidential Decree 23/19 differ from provisions 
from Chapter III (subset of 16 products), including in how these will apply to importers?  
Answer by Angola  
3.1.4   Brazil's wheat quota  
3.1.4.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92046)  
Canada is following -up on a question raised by the Ukraine ( AG-IMS ID 91001) during the June 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture regarding the announcement by Brazil 's President in 
March  2019, that Brazil would implement a 750,000 metric tonne s tariff rate quota for wheat with a 
zero in -quota duty.  
Could Brazil provide an update as to when this tariff rate quota will be operational?  
Answer by Brazil  
The 750,000 metric tonne s tariff rate quota for wheat with a zero in -quota duty has not yet been 
made o perational because Brazil`s Foreign Trade Chamber (CAMEX), the collegiate body of the 
Brazilian government responsible for decision making on issues related to foreign trade - responsible, 
therefore, for the TRQ for wheat - underwent a reformulation proces s and only had its new structure 
published by decree last October 4th. The matter of establishing the tariff rate quota for wheat 
should be included on CAMEX`s agenda in the near future. A presidential Decree revoking 
Decree  n.º 1.892/96 is also undergoing  internal approval. The decision on the implementation of 
said TRQ will be publicly available.  
On the 5th of November, the executive branch of CAMEX approved the establishment of the wheat 
TRQ, which will enter into force after the issuance of a CAMEX reso lution and the derogation of the 
aforementioned Decree.  
Follow -up: The tariff quota of 750,000 metric ton nes for wheat with a zero rate within the quota has 
not yet been implemented because the Brazilian Chamber of Foreign Commerce (CAMEX), the 
collegiate body of the Brazilian Government in charge of adopting decisions regarding the Issues 
related to foreign trade - responsible, therefore, for the tariff quota for wheat - was the subject of a 
restructuring process and its new structure was not pu blished by decree until last October 4. The 
issue of the establishment of the TRQ for wheat should be included in the CAMEX program in the 
near future. Furthermore, a Presidential Decree revoking Decree No. 892/96 is subject to an internal 
approval procedu re. The decision regarding the application of the tariff quota will be made public. 
On November 5, the executive body of CAMEX approved the establishment of the tariff quota for 
wheat, which will enter into force after the promulgation of a resolution by C AMEX and the revocation 
of the aforementioned Decree.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 199 - 
 
  3.1.5   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
3.1.5.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92126) , New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92078) and 
by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92002)  
In AG -IMS ID 91132, regarding data related to  milk class prices, utilization, and sales, Canada stated 
that it "has been working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as transparent as 
possible".  
a. Could Canada confirm if data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales will be  
made publicly available once verifications to ensure accuracy are complete?  
b. If so, please provide an update on when and where this information will become 
available.  
In AG -IMS-ID 91132, Canada stated that agriculture is an area of concurrent powers betw een federal 
and provincial governments. In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated that it is not obliged to publish a 
full list of eligible Class 7 products. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it not in a position to 
confirm whether the full list of eligible C lass 7 products is identical to the list included in Dairy 
Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and 
Saskatchewan Order No. 28/17. In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated, "Information that will be 
published is curr ently the prerogative of industry and, as such, it would be inappropriate to specify 
what information will be published."  
c. While understanding there are concurrent powers between provincial and federal 
governments in Canada (noted in Canada's response to A GIMS -ID 91132), does 
Canada's federal government have legislative authorities to require provincial milk 
marketing boards to provide information, such as, which products are eligible for a class 
price even if, thus far, "Federal authority over this type of  information from provincial 
milk marketing boards has not been deemed necessary"?  
Answer by Canada  
a. As previously stated, certain information previously published on the Canadian Dairy 
Information Centre website was inaccurate and not comparable to past d ata. To correct 
this, Canada has been working towards updating the reporting system in order to be as 
transparent as possible. Canada is committed to ensuring that any information 
published accurately reflects the data that has been entrusted to the federa l 
government by industry. Canada reiterates that it does not have a timeline to provide 
for the release of any data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several 
verifications to ensure accuracy of the data are required. Once completed, info rmation 
will be provided in a more relevant format.  
b. See previous response.  
c. The powers of Parliament (i.e., exclusive federal legislative authority), enumerated in 
ss. 91 and 92 (10) of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, concern matters of national 
interest. Examples of these powers include: the regulation of trade and commerce; 
direct and indirect taxation; the Census and statistics; defence; navigation and 
shipping; quarantine; sea coast and inland fisheries, currency and coinage; banking; 
patents; copyrights; and works connecting provinces, beyond boundaries of one 
province, or within a province but to the advantage of Canada or more than one 
province. The exclusive powers of Provincial legislatures, enumerated in ss. 92, 92(A) 
and 93 of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, concern matters of a local nature. 
Examples of these powers include the following: direct taxation within the Province; 
municipalities; property a nd civil rights; the incorporation of companies; natural 
resources; and matters of a merely local or private nature. Concurrent powers are 
specified in ss. 94A and s. 95 of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, which include: 
immigration; and agriculture. C ertain areas of government action - some of which have 
become priorities over the years - are not specifically identified and assigned to one or 
both orders of governments in the Constitution Act, 1867. The courts have found that 
these areas come under var ious legislative powers, some federal, others provincial. For 
example, two such areas are the environment and health. In addition to these powers, 
the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, s. 91, confer on the Federal Parliament the power G/AG/W/215  
 
- 200 - 
 
  " to make Laws for the  Peace, Order and good Government of Canada, in relation to all 
Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to 
the Legislatures of the Provinces". This power is "residuary" in the sense that any matter 
that does not c ome within the power of provincial legislatures comes within the power 
of the federal Parliament. This residuary power ensures that every area of legislation 
comes under one or both of Canada's two orders of government. When a question arises 
as to whether  a law enacted by Parliament or a provincial legislature comes within their 
respective constitutional powers, an authoritative answer can come only from the 
courts. Thus , over the years, through the process of judicial review, the content and 
scope of the federal and provincial legislative powers have been clarified, defined, 
limited or expanded. For example, the federal Trade and Commerce power (s. 91(2)) 
has been interpreted to mean that Parliament can regulate trade generally in Canada, 
as well as the fl ow of trade across provincial or international borders, but cannot 
regulate the operation of particular industries, businesses or professions within 
provinces. The provincial power over property and civil rights (s. 92(13)) gives 
provinces the authority to  regulate trade and commerce within their respective territory.  
3.1.5.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92076)  
New Zealand notes Canada's response to its question at the February 2019 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 90018). Under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) Canada has 
agreed to eliminate milk classes 6 (in Ontario) and 7, including their associated milk class prices, 
within six months from entry into force of the agreement.  
New Zealand understands this is a bilateral commitment in a p referential trade agreement, however 
the negative impacts of milk classes 6 and 7 on the global SMP market remain ongoing until such 
time as the USMCA is ratified and this commitment can be implemented. Once the USMCA is ratified, 
three months must pass be fore entry into force of the Agreement, meaning global markets will be 
waiting up to nine months (after ratification) before they see any positive consequence of the 
elimination of milk classes 6 and 7. Therefore, can Canada provide any update on the timin g of 
ratification, or what it is doing in preparation of elimination of milk classes 6 and 7, including their 
associated milk class prices?  
Answer by Canada  
Precise timelines for the ratification of the Canada -United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) remain  
uncertain. Canada is committed to working closely with our partners towards the timely ratification 
and implementation of the Agreement. Milk classes 6 and 7 will remain compliant with Canada's 
international trade obligations up until six months following  the CUSMA entering into force, when 
the specific requirement in CUSMA to eliminate these milk classes takes effect. As previously stated, 
the Government of Canada is working with Canadian industry and provincial governments to comply 
with the terms of the  Agreement, which includes the elimination of milk classes 6 and 7 by industry 
and provincial governments.  
3.1.6   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
3.1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92127) , New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92077) and 
by United State s of America (AG -IMS ID 92001).  
The United States understands that Canada established in 2017 a Dairy Processing Investment Fund 
to assist dairy processors in adapting to market changes resulting from the Canada -European Union 
Comprehensive Economic and Tr ade Agreement (CETA). Since then, Canada has announced support 
given to specific processors.  
a. How much funding has been allocated to this program?  
b. Does Canada intend to provide additional funding to dairy processors, recognizing the 
entry into force of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership (CPTPP) and signing of the United States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement  (USMCA)?  
c. Will support to processors be taken into consideration as Canada assesses and sets its 
processor margins, which are included in Canada's milk class price formulas? If so, how?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 201 - 
 
  As noted by Australia in AG -IMS-ID 91002, Canada announced almost CAD  3.9 billion support 
package for its supply -managed sectors, compensating for the impact of the CPTPP and the CETA. 
In the August 16 news release from the Government of Canada, Minister Bibeau announced that 
CAD 1.75 billion will be made available to Canada's dairy farmers over an eight -year period. The 
United States understands that CAD 345 million will be provided during the  first year as direct 
payments under the Dairy Direct Payment Program, which would be in addition to the 
CAD 250 million Dairy Farm Investment Program. The release noted the announcement follows 
ratification of the CETA and the CPTPP and stated the federal  government is committed to supporting 
dairy producers once the USMCA comes into force. Minister Bibeau stated that Canada is committed 
to other supply -managed sectors.   
d. Does Canada intend to allocate funding additional to the CAD 3.9 billion to support da iry, 
poultry and egg producers after the USMCA comes into force?  
e. If yes, please explain how Canada plans to support dairy, poultry, and egg producers once 
USMCA comes into force.  
Answer by Canada  
a. The overall program budget is $100 million and the program will end on 31 March  2021.  
b. The Government of Canada continues to work diligently with dairy, poultry and egg 
sectors and processors to evaluate the anticipated impacts of CETA and CPTPP and to 
determine the compensation mechanisms that best suit the needs of processors.  
c. There are no current plans to review Canadian processor margins.  
d. The Government of Canada, has committed up to CAD 3.9 billion to support eligible 
dairy, poultry and egg producers  in response to CETA and CPTPP. Additionally, the 
Government of Canada is committed to work with the dairy, poultry and egg sectors to 
address potential future impacts of CUSMA.  
e. The Government of Canada will continue to work diligently with the dairy, pou ltry and 
egg sectors to evaluate the potential future impacts of CUSMA.  
3.1.6.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92075)  
New Zealand refers to Canada 's responses to Australia 's question at the June 2019 Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 91002). The Canadian gov ernment is providing a series of compensation 
packages to farmers and producers in supply -managed sectors (dairy, poultry and egg sectors) that 
are impacted by recent trade agreements, including CPTPP and CETA.  
In its response Canada stated it is working to determine how best to implement its commitment to 
the relevant sectors in a fair and effective way. Media reporting in August 2019 states that Canada 
will pay CAD 345 million directly to dairy farmers in the first year based on the size of their product ion 
quotas.  
a. Can Canada confirm that this trade and production -distorting support will be notified as 
AMS?  
b. Export subsidies for products given a grace period under the Nairobi Decision must be 
eliminated by 1 January 2020. What steps is Canada taking to e nsure that 
production -linked compensation does not circumvent the intent of these commitments 
by leading to increased exports of subsidised product?  
Answer by Canada  
a. This program will be notified as appropriate in Canada 's 2019 Domestic Support 
notificati on.  
b. Canada 's policies and programs are fully in compliance with Canada 's international trade 
obligations. Canada has implemented the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition and in 
keeping with its terms and conditions will eliminate its remaining export su bsidies by the 
end of 2020. These payments provided to eligible dairy producers are not contingent upon 
export and are not linked to export subsidies.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 202 - 
 
  Follow -up: New Zealand encouraged Canada to share further information on how the measure would 
be implemented and looked forward to Canada's DS notification.  
3.1.7   Canada's wine sale policy  
3.1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92003)  
Canada has not yet respon ded to the following questions posed by the United States in 
AG‑IMS IDs 91137, 90040, 85012, 86034, 87016, 88096, and 89021. As such, the United States 
repeats its previous questions.  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are 
continuously available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines 
category".  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential lis t allowed 
to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need 
to move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order 
to be sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Can adian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many re stricted beer and 
wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to 
operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have 
been distributed for a "wine bout ique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board  of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002, which specifies different retail price parameters 
and size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of existing 
Ontario bag in box wine? (http://www.doingbusinesswithlc bo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%2
0Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores, while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 4 0 SKUs? If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
Answer by Canada  
a. to e. Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the 
view that it would be inappropriate to further commen t on this issue at this time. 
With regard to the number of grocery store authorizations, Canada would like 
to direct  the U.S. to the recent public backgrounder issued by Ontario: 
https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-fairness -for-
beer-and-wine-consumers.html .  
Follow -up: The EU and New Zealand echoed U.S. concern.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 203 - 
 
  3.1.8   Canada 's review of the TRQ system  
3.1.8.1   Questio n by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92088)  
Australia welcomed Canada 's public consultation and review process with respect to the allocation 
and administration of tariff rate quotas for dairy, poultry and egg products.  
Australia has engaged in the consultation proce ss and looks forward to outcomes that remove any 
unnecessary trade -distorting and/or restrictive elements of Canada 's TRQ system for those products.  
Can Canada provide the Membership with an update on the TRQ review?  
Answer by Canada  
Canada has completed the first phase of its Comprehensive Review of Tariff Rate Quotas. This phase 
of the Review involved soliciting the views of domestic and international stakeholders on the current 
operation of Canada 's system of tariff rate quota administration. Feedback was sought through a 
call for written submissions, a questionnaire, and face -to-face meetings. Using the information 
gathered through the first phase of consultation, Canada is preparing draft TRQ administration 
policies for Ministerial review. Po licies will be prepared for Canada 's 38 existing TRQs under the WTO, 
CETA and CPTPP, and for the 16 TRQs negotiated under the unratified CUSMA agreement. Canada 
plans to publish the draft policies in early 2020. Subsequently, Canada will hold a second roun d of 
consultations to solicit feedback on the draft policies. Canada expects to publish final administration 
policies in September 2020 for the 2021 TRQ year.  
Follow -up: Australia looked forward to Canada's further steps to optimize commercial values in the 
TRQ use and to facilitate participation of competitive suppliers. In addition, Australia look s forward 
to reviewing the draft policy and being involved in the consultations in 2020. The EU flagged its 
commercial interest in improving the admi nistration of the tariff rate quotas and looked forward to 
the final decision to be taken by Canada. The US thanked Canada for engaging in the open discussion 
on its agriculture TRQ administration.  
3.1.9   China's rice policies  
3.1.9.1   Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 92005)  
In China's response to the U.S. question AG -IMS-ID 91133, China notes that "bidding rules", and 
other relevant information in the document including "the trading announcement" is published on 
the National Development and Reform Commissi on, the Ministry of Finance, the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration.  
a. Please provide links to these announcements specifically related to the recent rice 
auctions.  
b. Do the auction procedures have any requirements related to exportation of t he rice?  
c. Of the recently auctioned rice, what quantities remained in China and what quantities 
have been exported?  
The United States repeats its questions in AGIMS -ID 91133:  
d. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice?  
e. Are other STEs exporting rice?  
Answer by China  
a. Please visit the website of National Grain Trade Center for the Trading Rule and the 
Announcement for Auction of grains.  
b. No such requirement has been attached to the auctioned rice.  
c. We don 't have the data for the recently auctioned rice as requeste d by the United States.  
d. COFCO is a state trading enterprise for rice, and one of the main exporters of rice.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 204 - 
 
  e.  Besides COFCO, Beidahuang Group is also a state trading enterprise for exporting rice. 
In addition, some non -STEs also export rice through borde r trade.  
Follow -up: The EU highlighted importance of transparency on all STEs in terms of their notifications 
to the WTO, both in the STE Working Group and in the context of the annual Export Competition 
questionnaire in the Committee on Agriculture.  
3.1.10   China's state reserves programmes  
3.1.10.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92047)  
Canada is seeking further information from China regarding its state reserves programmes. Canada 
understands that in 2007 China set up a national reserve for pork and other meats. The p ork reserve 
consists of frozen meat and live animals and releases of pork can be made when domestic prices 
are high and the purchase of hogs from farmers can be made when prices are low. Regarding frozen 
pork, the national reserves have a reserve cycle of 4 months whereby, there are 3 rotations of pork 
in a year.  
a. Could China indicate where its acquisition of pork and live hogs for this state reserve is 
notified in its annual domestic support notification.  
b. How stocks are acquired for the pork states reserv e; at what price and from which 
market (e.g., international or domestic)?  
c. What are the criteria for determining the volume of the pork reserve?  
d.  What are the factors used to release pork or hogs onto the domestic market and how 
are the release prices det ermined?  
e. What is the role of local/provincial government in administering this programme?  
Answer by China  
a. The expenditures related to the state reserve of pork have been included in the 
expenditures on public stockholding for food security purposes.  
b. The reserve is accumulated through a bidding process. The purchase is made at market 
price. Imported pork is not excluded from the state reserve.  
c. The quantity of pork reserve is determined based on consumption level of the 
permanent urban population at key t ime periods, such as the Spring Festival.  
d. The release will be made when there is serious natural disaster, accident or unexpected 
public sanitary events, etc. The release is generally made through open auction.  
e. In the administration of the state pork rese rve, local governments are responsible for 
recommending candidate entities to the central government , and monitor the 
implementation of the reserve program by the selected entities.  
Follow -up: The EU flagged particular interest in how the stock was manage d and how China would 
notify the relevant expenditures in the future.  
3.1.11   China's state trading enterprises  
3.1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92004)  
In response to China 's answer to AG -IMS-ID 91115, the United States provides the link to a 
Bloom berg news article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019 -05-07/china -is-said-to-
plan-overhaul -of-state-agriculture -giants ). Based on the linked article, the United States 
understands that the Government of China plans to transfer the trading assets of Sinograin, which 
includes its stockpiles and oilseed crushing capacity, to COFCO Corporation.  
a. Please explain the rationale beh ind its restructuring of assets for its agricultural state 
trading enterprises.  
In reference to #115 on page 192 of G/C/W/701 dated 14 August 2014:  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 205 - 
 
  b. Please provide an overview of operations of the China Grain Reserves Corp. (Sinograin).   
c. Please explain the differences in grain activities or roles carried out between Sinograin 
and COFCO.  
d. Please explain whether or not Sinograin can influence through their purchases or sales 
the level or direction of imports or exports.  
Answer by China  
a. Since the ne ws is not released by the enterprises concerned or relevant government 
bodies, please seek confirmation from the source of the news.  
b. China Grain Reserves Group Ltd. Company is a state owned enterprise, but not a state 
trading enterprise. Therefore, China does not have the obligation to provide such 
information.  
c. For the purpose of transparency, China would like to make a brief introduction about 
China Grain Reserves Group Ltd. Company. China Grain Reserves Group Ltd. Company 
is a state -owned enterprise in c harge of the management of the central reserve of grain, 
cotton and oil. At the same time, it is entrusted by the state to carry out public 
stockholding policies, such as the minimum price procurement for rice and wheat. The 
scope of its business covers 8 commodities, including rice, wheat, soybean and cotton. 
It is authorized to safeguard national food security through the positive and prudent 
utilization of the resources from both domestic and international market. Trade related 
business is not the major responsibility of China Grain Reserves Group Ltd. Company, 
but the responsibility of COFCO.  
3.1.12   EU's compensation for farmers to adjust to new trade deals  
3.1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92089)  
Australia understands the European Commission has put together a  EUR 1 billion support package 
for farmers and agri -food businesses as compensation and to cushion market disturbances caused 
by the EU -Mercosur agreement.  
As Australia has said in previous CoA meetings, Australia acknowledges the importance of assisting 
farmers and producers to adjust to new trade deals. But Australia is concerned when such large 
packages are announced, particularly given their potential to limit, to a degree, the need to focus 
on long -term structural reforms that are enshrined in the Agre ement on Agriculture and Members' 
commitments under the Agreement.  
Can the European Union provide information on the measures that will be implemented under this 
package, and what products will be eligible under the package?  
Answer by European Union  
The Eu ropean Commission remains convinced that the Mercosur Agreement is well calibrated and 
that its implementation will not result in destabilizing EU domestic markets.   
In the unlikely case of market disturbances directly attributable to the implementation o f the 
Mercosur Agreement, the Commission stands ready to support EU agricultural sectors. The concrete 
details of any measures and their financing would be decided at the time.  
Follow -up: Australia encouraged Members to be transparent with regards to any p otential trade 
distorting measures. New Zealand noted that adjustment processes with respect to trade 
agreements should be in line with WTO reform objectives and should not result in unnecessary 
distortions. New Zealand sought clarification regarding the d efinition of market disturbances noted 
by the EU and more information on how the measures would be implemented. The EU noted that 
the definition on disturbance could be referred to in the Common organisation of the markets  (CMO) 
in agricultural products. W ith respect to the measures to be put in place and their implementation, 
the EU noted that it was not in a position to speculate at the moment on its plan in the next 3 -4 years 
and the measures would be decided once the market disturbance was known and how it would be 
developed and viewed in the market.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 206 - 
 
  3.1.13   EU's planned policy measures against U.S. tariffs  
3.1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92090)  
Australia notes media reports that Italy has requested EU assistance for its agricultural producers 
that are likely to be impacted by the United States ' tariffs on USD7.5 billion worth of EU goods from 
18 October.  Australia understands Italy is concerned about the impact of the  US tariffs on Italian 
cheese, wine and olive oil.  Italian Agriculture Minister Teresa Bellanova reportedly wrote to EU 
Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan seeking the creation of a 'zero duty ' EU fund and urging the 
EU for approval of 'export refunds '. 
Can the EU provide clarification on what (if any) policy measures it plans on implementing for 
agri-food sectors in EU member States that may be impacted by the US tariffs?  
Answer by European Union  
The EU regrets the US decision to increase tariffs, while re iterating its commitment to find a mutually 
agreed solution with the US. The Commission will closely monitor market developments following 
the introduction of the tariffs (which were only applied on 18 October). If that evidence shows that 
the application of the US tariffs is the cause of a severe deterioration in market conditions for a given 
sector, the Commission stands ready to consider support measures.  
Follow -up: Paraguay sought greater clarification regarding how the EU intended to implement the 
measures and how the EU member States would be affected by the tariffs.  
3.1.14   EU - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
3.1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92091)  
The continued Brexit uncertainty has created significant commercial disruption for Aust ralian 
businesses currently holding licenses to export agricultural products into the EU under existing EU 
WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged in 
Article  XXVIII negotiations with affected WTO Members over t he past 12 -18 months. Australia has 
remained constructive during these negotiations and has continued to offer Australia 's own quota 
usage data to support both the UK and EU throughout this process.  
However, Australia remains particularly concerned that in  the event of a no -deal, the UK and EU are 
proposing two conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway through a quota year (i.e. , potentially 
splitting a EU -28 calendar year quota between the EU -27 and UK with two months remaining).  
For a number of Austral ia's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approaches will result 
in an EU -27 and UK CSQ that, when added together, will be less than Australia's current EU -28 
entitlement.  
a. Could the EU please provide an explanation for the different approach it  has taken from 
the UK?  
b. How will the EU ensure that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota year 
does not leave quota holders worse off (i.e. , that newly split TRQs/CSQs add to current 
EU-28 entitlements)?  
c. In the event that the proposed splits le ave TRQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how will the EU 
treat agricultural products (exported under licence) which are currently on route and 
arrive after Brexit? Will the Eu allow these products to arrive without paying the 
associated out -of-quota rates?  
Answer by European Union  
This reply also covers question to UK with AG-IMS ID 92101.  
The European Council endorsed the revised Withdrawal Agreement agreed with the UK government 
on 17 October 2019 in order to provide for an orderly withdrawal. Thus, the EU hopes tha t the 
imminent no -deal disruptions due to splitting of the quota mid -way through the quota period, as G/AG/W/215  
 
- 207 - 
 
  described in your question, will not materialise. Subsequently the period provided for in Article 50(3) 
TEU, was extended by the European Council Decision  (EU) 2019/1810 until 31 January 2020.  
The EU understands the concern about uncertainty faced by economic operators. In this context, 
the EU would like to recall that the EU together with the UK have been reaching out to WTO trade 
partners in Geneva since  October 2017 to inform and consult them on the envisaged joint EU -UK 
approach to apportion the existing WTO bound TRQs of the EU.  
During the past months, the EU has published detailed information on the consequences and 
implications for TRQ apportionment  and management in the case of a no -deal Brexit, in order to 
reduce the inevitable commercial uncertainties for operators as much as possible. The Commission 
will continue to manage the apportioned EU-27 TRQs in the same way it has been doing.  
The volume f or a given TRQ that is available in the quota period during which the UK withdrawal 
takes place will be based on the remaining quantities available at the time of withdrawal. For the 
EU-27, this means that a quota fully used until the withdrawal date will not have any further 
quantities available. For quotas with remaining quantities, the apportionment method as set out in 
Commission Implementing Regulation EU 2019/386 will apply as from the date of the withdrawal for 
the available quantities.  
For full tran sparency purposes and as stipulated by the above EU Regulation, these quantities will 
be published as from relevant date (or within maximum two working days) the apportionment of the 
TRQs starts applying. This information will be regularly updated thereaft er. 
In terms of the duty applicable to agricultural products (exported under licence), which, at the date 
of Brexit, will be en route to Europe the situation will be as follows (as stipulated by the above -
mentioned  Regulation EU 2019/386): where a European ( EU-27) operator is in the possession of a 
licence issued by an EU-27 authority before Brexit, he/she can import this product into the EU-27 
territory benefiting from the current in -quota duty. On the other hand, a TRQ licence issued by a UK 
authority or held by an UK operator will no longer be valid for imports into the EU-27 after the 
withdrawal of the UK from the EU in case of no -deal or af ter the transition period in case the 
Withdrawal Agreement enters into force.  
As stated at previous occasions, the EU cannot respond to questions on the UK's future trade policy, 
including its management of TRQs, which will apply when the EU Schedule stops  applying to the UK 
(as set out in document G/MA/TAR/RS/570). We continue to encourage Members to engage 
bilaterally with the UK on questions relating to the UK's future trade policy including details of the 
future TRQ administration.  
Follow -up: In the lig ht that the questions related to UK's trade policy and particular pace of UK's 
legislation which would impact agriculture exporters, Australia believed that the UK should be held 
accountable on this matter and respond to Members' concerns in this Committee . Uruguay echoed 
Australia's request, noting that the UK was taking its own decision on this matter. Australia further 
echoed concern on TRQ apportionment between the EU and the UK and noted that it would result in 
the loss of commercial value and splittin g the quotas midway through the year would increase 
commercial uncertainty, particularly in view of the different methodologies proposed by the EU -27 
and the UK. Australia noted that this uncertainty had already impacted exporters and decreased 
exports. Au stralia looked forward to working together with the EU and the UK to minimize the 
disruptions. New Zealand supported the approach as outlined by the EU to use the actual quantities 
to assess quota utilization, which, in its view was in line with Members' c ommitments under the AoA. 
New Zealand disagreed with the approach proposed by the UK. Canada appreciated the clarification 
provided by the EU on shipment en route and reiterated its previous view that to the extent possible, 
trade environment for exporters  should remain predictable. Brazil stressed the importance of both 
the EU and the UK preventing the uncertainties which would negatively impact their trade relations 
with other WTO Members and the new market access conditions were not worse than currently 
provided by the EU -28. Paraguay and Uruguay registered interest and sought further information on 
the distribution of the remaining TRQ and what measures would be taken to prevent market 
disruptions. The EU informed Members that both parties had been open in the apportionment process 
with a hope that the deal would be agreed during the 17 October Summit so that the no deal scenario 
and the uncertainties it would bring could be avoided.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 208 - 
 
  3.1.15   EU - European Court of Auditors report  
3.1.15.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92 093)  
On 8 October, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) published its annual report scrutinizing the 
EU budget in 2018. The ECA found significant level of error in distribution of EU money, which was 
accessed through funds earmarked for rural development, market measures and environment or 
climate action, mostly through the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The auditors examined 
156 of these payments and found that almost a quarter were received despite ineligibility, inaccurate 
information provided, n on-compliance to rules or administrative errors.  
a. Could the European Union provide further information regarding ECA's findings?  
b. Has this "significant level of error" happened before?  
c. How does the European Union plans to reflect such findings on its notif ications to the 
WTO?  
Answer by European Union  
a. Policy (CAP)  
In reality, the error reported by the European Court of Auditors for expenditure under 
the heading "Natural Resources " of the EU 's current Multiannual Financial Framework is 
2.4%, which is very close to the materiality threshold. Therefore, it is not considered as 
a high level of error. The Court also says with regard to the EU budget as a whole that 
the level of error it estimates is not pervasive (point VI of the statement of assurance 
and para graph 28 of Annex 1.1).  
The MFF heading "Natural Resources " encompasses the common agricultural policy and 
other areas. With regard to the CAP alone, the Court 's annual reports states that "[t]he 
Commission 's estimate of the amounts at risk at payment for CAP spending [...] is 
consistent with [the Court 's] conclusion " (para 7.38).  
The Commission 's estimate of risk at payment, as published in DG AGRI 's annual activity 
report 2018, is 2.15% (pages 142 -144). This is just above materiality.  
It should be noted t hat direct payments under the CAP, which account for around 72% 
of spending under this policy, were free of material error (below 2%), as reported by 
the Court (paragraph 7.37). This is also consistent with the error rate of 1.83% for 
direct payments publi shed in DG AGRI 's annual activity report (Annex 10, part 3.2.6, 
pages 147 -148).  
Further, the levels of error are at payment. Taking into account the corrective capacity 
(net financial corrections by the Commission and recoveries by the Member States), the 
remaining overall financial risk to the EU budget is a mere 0.25%, as explained in DG 
AGRI's annual activity report (pages  143-144).  
a. ECA's sample and findings  
For MFF heading "Natural Resources ", the Court examined a total of 251 transactions, 
out of which 95  direct payments under the CAP and 156 for rural development, market 
measures, fisheries, environment and climate action. As mentioned above, the Court 
found that direct payments were unaffected by material error. Out of the re maining 156 
transactions, 136 related to rural development payments under the CAP and 14 to 
market measures also under the CAP (the other 6 transactions related to non -CAP policy 
areas).  
In rural development, more than three quarters of transactions were u naffected by any 
error whatsoever. The Court reported that "[o]f the 136 rural development transactions 
we tested, 104  were unaffected by error [...] " (paragraph 7.22). Among the remaining 
transactions, six had issues with no financial impact, 20 contained  errors below 20% 
and only in six cases the errors exceeded 20%. This means that not all transactions 
where the Court detected issues affected the budget; and those that did were not 
necessarily 100% undue payments. Finally, this is before taking into acco unt the 
corrective capacity of the European Commission.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 209 - 
 
  The adjusted error rate for rural development under shared management posted in DG 
AGRI's annual activity report 2018 is 3.2%, and the average corrective capacity (net 
financial corrections by the Commission and recoveries by member States) corresponds 
to 2.47% (page 94, table 2.1.1.2.2 -15). Therefore, the remaining risk for rural 
development  alone is significantly below materiality.  
Likewise, the issues detected by the Court in connection with market measures did not 
affect the entire respective payments in all cases. Out of the 14 transactions tested for 
market measures transactions, more th an three fourth were unaffected by any error 
(paragraph 7.25) . 
b. 
As explained above, the level of error is not very high; it is just above the materiality 
threshold of  2%. 
The level of error reported by the European Court of Auditors for the MFF heading 
"Natural Resources " has been decreasing over the years. In its 2018 annual report, the 
error rate published is 2.4%, the same as for 2017, but still lower than in the previous 
years (2014: 3.6%; 2015: 2.9%; 2016: 2.5%).  
c. 
The EU notified all payments made to farmers during the budget years covering the 
individual notification. Should there be repayments during later years, these are not 
taken into account in later notifications, i.e. , the EU may in reality over -report such 
payments to farmers.  
Finally, the  EU believes these error rates are a benchmark for public administrations 
and as low or lower as in any other WTO member. The EU would welcome Brazil or any 
other member coming forward with their own national audit authority's analysis on their 
own spendin g on support programmes for farmers and rural areas.  
Follow -up: Brazil noted that it would follow the implementation of CAP and its compliance with the 
EU's commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
3.1.16   EU's support package to Irish beef  farmers  
3.1.16.1   Quest ion by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92079)  
New Zealand refers to the EU response to Australia 's questions ( AG-IMS ID 91004) at the June 2019 
Committee on Agriculture. The EU stated that the Irish authorities had a deadline of 31 July to 
provide the EU with detai ls of how they intend to implement the compensation package to Irish beef 
farmers of EUR 100 million. Does the EU have an update for the Committee on the measures to be 
implemented?  
Answer by European Union  
Eligibility  
Eligibility focusses on suckler cow farmers (with progeny sired by beef breed bulls born in 2018) and 
farmers having bovines older than 12 months sent for slaughter in the disturbance period 
(September 2018 – May 2019).  
Dairy farmers with less than 40 dairy cows are also eligible . Dealers/agents and slaughterhouses 
are excluded.  
Only farmers enrolled for direct payments in 2018 would be eligible.  
Conditionality (5% nitrate reduction over 1 year):  
Aid is available to farmers that reduce organic nitrates by 5% over 1 year (1 July 20 20 -
30 June 2021).  
Conditionality (5% nitrate reduction in 1 year) is based on an existing tracking of bovine organic 
nitrate generated by farms (the calculation is done using a daily coefficient multiplied by the days 
of staying on the farm)  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 210 - 
 
  The reference  quantity of bovine organic nitrates would be the one registered in reference year: 
1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019 (available to each farmer on DAFM's mobile portal (agfood.ie) every 
month).  
In addition, eligible farmers would have to be members of a Board Bio  Quality Assurance Scheme or 
of a DAFM agri -environmental scheme.  
Aid level and controls:  
Payments to suckler cow farmers would be EUR 40 per head, up to a maximum of 40 suckler cows.  
Payments to beef finishers would be EUR 100 per head, up to a maximum of  100 bovine animals.  
A cap is proposed on the amount of aid received per farm to ensure that the vast majority of beef 
farms are prioritised for compensation rather than the small number of farms with very large animal 
numbers (max. 40 suckler cows and max . 100 bovines older than 12 months).  
Farmers have to explicitly apply for aid to obtain it.  
Compliance can be checked through the identification system by calculating the animals present on 
the farm during the reference period  
Front -loaded validations are provided for as well as an ex -post evaluation. Payment will start once 
all validations are completed.  
Actions taken to avoid distortion of competition include a requirement of a 5% nitrate reduction 
which is designed to avoid incentivising increased produc tion. 
No payments will be made by Ireland before 15 October 2019.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted that as a major producer and exporter, beef was a sensitive sector in its 
country and its export of beef had experienced a drop in last few years. Paraguay sought m ore 
information on future assistance to Irish producers.  
3.1.17   EU's intervention policy  
3.1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92128), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92080)  and 
United States (AG -IMS ID 92006)  
According to data from the EU Milk Market Observatory, the EU pur chased 335,586 MT of skim milk 
powder (SMP) under the Intervention Program in calendar year 2016 and 29,193 MT in calendar 
year 2017 at a price of EUR 1,698/mt.  While there were minor sales from stocks in these years, the 
majority of the disposal of EU Int ervention stock occurred in a tendering process over the 18 -month 
period January 2018 to June 2019.  The reported tender prices were a weighted average of 
125.3  EUR/100 KG in 2018 and 156.3 EUR/100 KG in January to June 2019  - significantly below the 
acquisition price.  
a. Please confirm these figures.  
b. What was the total cost of the EU Intervention program, including storage costs, for 
skim milk powder procured in 2016 -17? 
According to data from the EU Milk Market Observatory, EU cow 's milk collected during the 12 -month 
period July 2018 to June 2019 was the same as the previous year (0 % growth), and SMP  production 
was down 0.9 % relative to the same period a year ago to 1,604.7 thousand MT.  According to 
Eurostat, EU exports of SMP during the 12 -month period July 2018  - June 2019 were 941,755  MT, 
up 25 % (188,602 MT) compared to the same period a year ago.  
c. Given that SMP production in the EU declined in 2018/19, how did SMP exports increase 
by 25 % compared to the previ ous year?  
d. Did the sale of Intervention stocks at discounted prices facilitate this increase in 
exports?  
According to Eurostat, the size of the global SMP market for the 12 -month period July 2018 to June 
2019 was 2,535,289 MT.  Given the EU -28 exported 941 ,755 MT during that same time period, the 
EU's estimated share of global SMP exports during this period was 37 %. Over the three -year period 
2015-17, the EU produced on average 1,594 thousand MT of SMP a year and had an export market 
share of 30.6 %.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 211 - 
 
  e. Did th e disposition of EU Intervention stocks during the 18 -month period January 2018  
-June 2019 contribute to the increase in the EU 's global SMP market share from 30.6 
to 37%?  
f. Can the EU elaborate on the measures taken to ensure that skim milk powder sold fro m 
Intervention stocks during January 2018 and June 2019 did not create any disturbance 
of the market and were in sold consistent with the EU 's WTO commitments, as required 
in Article  16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?  
Answer by European Union  
a. The Commi ssion can confirm that the data published in the Milk Market Observatory are 
correct.  
b. The total expenditure up to and including September 2019 has been EUR 137 million.  
c. There is not necessarily any direct relation between production and exports. EU exports  
of SMP decreased by 17% in 2016 despite production having increased by 2%. And 
EU SMP exports in 2017 increased by 36%, despite production having decreased by 2% 
and no public intervention stocks being released during that year.  
d. The Commission is not in t he position to speculate on this. As mentioned in previous 
answer, SMP exports can increase or decrease independently from the increase or 
decrease of production and public stocks. The actual export is also dependent on the 
demand side.  
e. Same reply as d)  
f. The Commission adopted a cautious approach when disposing of SMP intervention 
stocks. In fact, almost no sales took place until the recovery in market conditions was 
confirmed. The prices at which the SMP in public intervention was sold in 2018 and 2019 
were in line with market reality, taking into account the ageing of the product and 
therefore its relative loss of commercial value (not the intrinsic quality of the product). 
In the period where the bulk of the SMP intervention stocks were disposed of (Apri l 
2008 – January 2019) EU SMP milk prices increased by more than 30% and Oceanian 
SMP prices increased by more than  20%. Indeed, no market disturbance was observed, 
rather the contrary.  
Follow -up: New Zealand encouraged the EU to look at a longer -term refo rm while implementing the 
intervention policies. Australia registered interest in the question. Canada noted that, as per the 
report prepared by the Secretariat, its global share of skim milk powder was only 2.5% and the 
share of the EU, US, New Zealand an d Australia was 31%, 27%, 14%, and 7% respectively. In 
noting EU's response that its exports of skim milk powder did not cause market disturbances, Canada 
stated that the same could be argued for itself with its small share in the global trade. Ukraine not ed 
that, in the light that the EU was a major exporter of agricultural products including skim milk 
powder, the EU's intervention policies had a strong potential to influence the global markets and 
therefore deserved close attention. The EU committed to co ntinue engagement in the discussions 
on intervention policies on skim milk powder.  
3.1.18   EU's coupled payments  
3.1.18.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92071)  
The 2018 Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation amended the 2013 CAP Regulation, removing 
Para. 5 from Article  52 that restricted the provision of coupled support to "the extent necessary to 
create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the sectors or regions concerned ". 
Moreover, an Impact Assessment by the Commission in 2018 (Report available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2018/EN/SWD -2018-301-F1-EN-MAIN -PART-
3.PDF  -Page 68) notes that Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) is currently notified as Blue Box but 
would likely become Amber Box in the future.  In this context, India requests the EU to please . 
a. Explain the rationale behind the finding that VCS could become an Amber Box measure.  
b. How does the EU intend to notify VCS in domestic support notification if it indeed 
becomes Amber Box support in the future?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 212 - 
 
  c. Will the EU initiate a new Blue Box programme to replace the VCS, in case it "becomes 
Amber Box "? 
d. The EU is requested to provide product/sector wise allocation of VCS in 2018 along with 
Value of Production data.  
Answer by European Union  
a. and b. 
The current Voluntary Coupled support is notified as Blue Box support according to the 
requirement in Article 6.5 in the Agreement on Agriculture. The changes introduced by 
the so -called 'omnibus' -Regulation do not change the nature of the scheme or the way 
in which the EU intend to notify this support scheme. It is a production -limiting sche me 
based on fixed area and yields and fixed number of animals, and on the strict respect 
of the financial ceilings at measure level.  
In the CAP reform proposal VCS will be replaced by Coupled Income Support (CIS). The 
proposed new scheme is not designed to  fulfil the Article 6.5 criteria to be notified as 
Blue Box measures, foremost because there is no longer any requirement for the 
production -limiting constraint. However, the support, which is optional for member 
States, will still only be available to a l imited list of potentially eligible sectors and type 
of production and on the condition that they are undergoing difficulties in the member 
State concerned. In addition, the budgetary allocation which may be granted by 
member States to such type of support  is strictly limited. Finally, the member States' 
CAP plans (including the coupled support intervention) will be subject to the 
Commission's assessment and approval. The reason for eliminating the production 
limiting aspect of the measures was that it crea ted enormous red tape, which led to 
severe criticism from farmers about direct payments in general. Further, several WTO 
members have argued during negotiations in the CoA/SS that Blue Box measures should 
be subject to similar reduction requirement as Ambe r Box, including up to and at MC11 
in Buenos Aires. In other words, as no credit was given for policy reforms away from 
Amber Box measures, there was no longer political support within the EU to continue to 
have this support respect Article 6.5 of the Agre ement on Agriculture given the 
administrative burden involved.  
c. 
The CAP reform proposal does not include any other Blue Box programme to replace 
VCS. However, nothing would prevent member States to implement their coupled 
support in a way that respects t he Blue Box requirements. The current cotton Blue Box 
programme will continue. The EU would also like to underline, that the overall budget 
allocation for direct payments for the period 2021 to  2027 is proposed to be reduced by 
6%.  
d. 
Data concerning appl ications in Calendar Year 2017   
Sector  Total amount paid  
(in Mio EUR)  VoP per product  
(in Mio EUR)   
Beef and veal  1,639,2  33.772   
Cereals  96,7 45.960   
Flax + Hemp  2,4 935 (1) 
Fruit and vegetables  163 73.061   
Hops 4,4 346  
Milk and milk products  853,1  59.376   
Nuts 16,6 N A  
Oilseeds  1 12.382   
Olive oil  66,1 6.393   
Protein crops + Grain legumes  443,7  1.616   
Rice 54,9 691  
Seeds  5,3 1.625   
Sheepmeat and goatmeat  503,5  5.744   
Silkworms  0,2 1,1 (2) 
Starch potato  17,2 11.327  (3) 
Sugar beet  175,6  3.880   
Source:  VoP EUROSTAT.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 213 - 
 
  (1) VOP covers all fibre plants, incl. cotton.  
(2) Supported number of boxes.  
(3) VOP all potatoes.  
Follow -up: In light of the EU's past statement that Blue Box was a useful reform tool which could 
help it to move policies under Amber Box to Blue Box and eventually into Green Box, New Zealand 
was disappointed with the reversed transition. In relation to the EU's comments on agriculture 
negotiations, New Zealand recalled it was one of the Members raising the possibility of disciplines 
on Blue Box in the CoA  special Session  and invited Members to reflect on whether and how disciplines 
on Blue Box could be imposed. It also encouraged the EU to deploy all the tools at its disposal to 
continue the reform. Paraguay  expressed concern on EU's decision to revert to polices that could 
affect trade. The EU recalled its success in the history of reforming its intervention policies on beef, 
butter and cereals to decoupled direct payments and confirmed its unchanged view th at Blue Box 
was an extremely useful tool in agriculture reform. The EU noted two reasons that led to its decision 
on the coupled income support: (1) the administrative burden to respect the Blue Box criteria made 
it difficult for farmers to accept the Blue  Box payment system; and (2) the discussions in the WTO 
on disciplining Blue Box payments which played a political influence in Brussels. Norway noted that 
it did not share the experience of the EU in terms of the administrative burdens in Blue Box 
payment s. Norway further noted that lack of political support in negotiations should not be a strong 
argument for moving from Blue Box back to Amber Box. The EU noted that, despite its view that 
Blue Box was a good reform tool, it was not the right policy to go f orward in its current 
political  context.  
3.1.19   EU's Eco schemes payments  
3.1.19.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92092)  
On 1st October, the then Commissioner -Designate for Agriculture, Janusz Wojchichowski, was 
subjected to a first hearing before the Agriculture and Rura l Development Committee of the 
European Parliament. Following the evaluation of his performance during the hearing of 1 October, 
he had to provide written responses to further questions posed by said Committee, regarding the 
policies he would pursue and im plement as Commissioner. While answering question 6.5 (Can you 
confirm that future Eco schemes will reward farmers and those rewards can go beyond the cost 
coverage principle applied in pilar 2 of the CA?), Mr. Wojchichowski stated that Members are allowed  
to offer support that may be higher than mere compensation of cost incurred and income foregone. 
Annex  II, paragraph 12, b of the Agreement on Agriculture, on the subject of payments under 
environmental programs, establishes that "the amount of payment sh all be limited to the extra costs 
or loss of income involved in complying with the government programme."  
a. Could the European Union explain how the implementation of Eco schemes under the 
new European Commission will comply with WTO`s obligations and its schedule of 
concessions?  
b. Could the European Union also provide further information on how it will be possib le to 
assess what portion of the payments under the Eco schemes are related to extra costs 
or loss of income and what portion is another form of domestic support, so that it can 
properly notify to the WTO?  
Answer by European Union  
The proposal for the CAP Reform post 2020 is currently being negotiated between Council and the 
European Parliament and the final outcome is not expected until during 2020.  
As Brazil is doubtless aware, the EU has in the past notified measures benefitting the environment 
under pa ragraph 6 and paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. For measures 
notified under paragraph 12, the rule of compensating only for 'extra costs or loss of income ' as 
required by the provision is respected. For support measures notified unde r paragraph 6, the 
respective requirements, including non -crop specificity are respected.  
Experience in the EU clearly shows that in some cases of measures with very good environmental 
or climate change effects, compensating only for 'extra costs or loss of income ' is not sufficiently 
attractive to have significant numbers of farmers applying for such measures. In consequence, many 
good environmental actions would not be taken up by farmers, and the planned good environmental 
effects are not reached.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 214 - 
 
  This experience thus shows that the current wording of Annex 2 does not always permit non -trade 
distorting measures with good environmental or climate mitigating effects to be fully implemented 
in the Green Box. In this case such schemes would need to be notif ied as Amber Box measures - 
not because those measures are trade distorting, but because the current wording of Annex 2 do 
not allow these measures to be classified as Green Box compatible.   
Given public opinion expects governments to implement all Sustain able Development Goals as 
effectively as possible, our experience shows that there may be a need to revisit the wording of the 
articles in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture to ensure all environmental/climate mitigating 
measures are fully covered.  
Follow-up: Canada recalled its questions raised previously on the EU's Green Box payments for 
organic production under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 and appreciated the EU's initiative to revisit the 
Green Box criteria. Paraguay highlighted the importance of the measures being consistent with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and the notification requirements. New Zealand recognized the importance 
of pursuing environmental objectives but urged caution against introducing distortions to Green Box. 
The EU noted that in t he CAP reform 2020, member States had proposed measures which were 
genuinely environmentally friendly and not trade distorting in its view. As some of the environmental 
measures proposed did not fulfil the current wording of Annex 2, they were notified as Amber Box 
support. The EU noted that its politicians were facing the dilemma of whether implementing good 
environmental policies under Amber Box or less good ones compiling with Green Box criteria. The 
EU stressed the need to have discussions in the CoA  special Session  regarding how non -trade 
distorting and environmentally positive polices could be included in the Green Box.  
3.1.20   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
3.1.20.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92095)  
Australia refers to its question to India at  CoA 91, AG-IMS ID 91006, in which Australia requested 
India provide information on its new Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme. India 's 
response did not provide a level of detail for any Member to understand how the TMA is fully 
consistent wit h all constituent parts of the Nairobi Decision, including paragraphs 9, 10 or 11 of the 
Decision. Australia therefore requests India provide specific details on:  
a. The average level of export subsidies provided for those products covered by the TMA 
for the  past five years?  
b. What steps and assessm ent India has undertaken in the development of the TMA to 
ensure it is consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decisions and has at most, a 
minimal trade distorting effect on other Members?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  As per Para 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition, developing 
members shall continue to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023. Article 9.4 of the AoA allows 
developing members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1 (d) & (e).  
The "Transport and Marketing Assistance " (TMA) is a new scheme introduced in 
March 2019. It aims to provide assistance for the international component of 
freight and marketing of agricultura l produce and is compliant with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision.  Further details about the scheme can be accessed at a 
weblink that will be provided in our written response 
(http://p ib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=189200 ). 
Follow -up: Australia sought additional transparency to ensure that the TMA measure would be fully 
consistent with the Nairobi Decision. Canada and the US registered systemic interest in increasing 
export s ubsidies while Members were mandated to reduce or eliminate them.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 215 - 
 
  3.1.21   India's sugar policies  
3.1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92048)  
On 28 August 2019, India's Cabinet approved the use of export subsidies Rp 62.68 billion 
(USD  877 million) to encourage the export of 60 Lakh metric tonnes (6 million MT) of sugar in the 
marketing year 2019/2020 starting on 1 October 2019. The government o f India will provide a 
subsidy Rp 10,448 per tonne (USD  146) of sugar for its export.  
The announcement notes that this export subsidy is being provided under Article 9.1 (d) and (e) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada notes that paragraph 11 of the Na irobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition charges Members "to ensure that any export subsidies have at most minimal 
trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede the exports of another Member."  
a. India is the world's second largest sugar pro ducer. Could India clarify how it ensures 
that its subsidized sugar exports are not displacing or impeding the sugar exports of 
another Member?  
b. Could India indicate how much sugar has been exported using these export subsidies?  
Answer by India  
a.  The sc heme is intended to provide support for expenses on marketing costs including 
handling, upgrading and other processing costs, costs of international and internal 
transport and freight charges on export of sugar for the sugar season 2019 -20, which 
is compli ant with Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Till now, no exports have been made under the scheme.  
3.1.21.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92007)  
The Indian government announced on 28 August 2019 that it would introduce an export subsidy of 
$ 146.1 per tonne. A budget of 62.68 billion rupees was approved for the export of up to 6 million 
tonnes during the 2019/20 marketing year. The announcement also stated that this subsidy did not 
violate WTO rules.  
a. If the export subsidy is not to violate WTO rules, India is considered to conform to 
Article  9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can India please indicate how it has 
calculated and arrived at this level of subsidies including the transport cost in question 
as well as other the other elements taken into consideration.  
b. Can India explain how it sees the increasing subsidy level and increasing quantity of 
sugar exports to be subsidised to be in line with Nairobi Ministerial Decision paragraphs 
9, 10 and 11. In particular how does India see the 2019/20 export programme as 
respecting paragraph 10:"Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond 
the average level of the past five years on a product basis".  
c. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar exported during the 2018/19 marketing year 
(total and with subsidies) and the total amount spent on subsidy for these exports (by 
both national and provincial authorities).  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  The export subsidy to be provided to the sugar mills have been calculated by 
taking into account the expenses incurred by them on marketing costs (including 
handling, upgrading and other processing costs) and costs of international and 
internal transport a nd freight charges and is therefore consistent with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision.  
c. India will provide an answer to this question in due course.  
Follow -up: Colombia and Ukraine registered interest in India's domestic and export policies on sugar. 
Australia and Brazil noted that some of the questions raised with regards to India's sugar policies G/AG/W/215  
 
- 216 - 
 
  were currently part of an on -going WTO dispute and would continue to follow related developments 
closely.  
3.1.22   India's pulses policies  
3.1.22.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92094)  
Australia remains concerned with a number of measures implemented by India on pulses, including 
the 'temporary' quantitative restrictions (QRs) that have now been in place for two years. Australia 
has raised concerns in every relevant Committe e with respect to India's trade -distorting measures 
on a variety of pulses. Despite this, India has never explained the WTO -basis for its measures, 
particularly with respect to its QRs.  
Australia therefore requests again that India explain fulsomely:  
a. The W TO-basis for the application of the QRs? and  
b. The justification for the 'temporary' QRs, given they have now been in place for more 
than two years for some varieties?  
Australia also requests India to advise:  
c. how many pulses have been imported into India the  current 2019 -2020 QR period; and  
d. If imports of pulses are above the QRs, can India explain why this is the case?  
Answer by India  
a. This question refers to India's notification to other WTO committees and will be 
answered in the relevant committee that is the Committee on Market Access.  
b. These measures are temporary and are imposed on the basis of market situation which 
is regularly re viewed.  
c. During 1 April to 19 September 2019, 6.95 lakh metric tonnes of pulses were imported 
against a quota of 8.5 lakh metric tonne.  
d. The imports of pulses are above the quota because of court orders.  
Follow -up: Australia remained concerned on the restr ictions imposed by India and noted that its 
pulses exports to India had been decreased significantly over the last few years due to the trade 
measures imposed by India. Australia expressed disappointment with the response and engagement 
from India and requ ested India to provide an explanation for the legal basis of the QRs which was 
raised at many WTO Committees including the CoA. India reaffirmed its engagement in the issue 
and noted that it had responded to this question in the Market Access Committee.  
3.1.22.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92049)  
On 11 September, India issued a notice (Trade notice No.32/2019 -20) that established an import 
deadline of 31 October 2019 for dried peas that enter within the quantitative restriction. This 
quantitative restriction on d ried peas was originally allocated for a full year from 1 April 2019 to 
31 March 2020. India has essentially shortened the timeframe for the dried peas quantitative 
restriction by 5 months.  
Another notice dated of 30 September (Trade notice No. 35/2019 -20) advises that extensions to 
this deadline will not be considered and importers that fail to meet this deadline risk being "debarred 
for allotment of quota of pulses in future ". 
a. Could India provide the rational for reducing the application period of the qu antitative 
restriction on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide the current utilization rate dried peas import under the allocated 
import quota?  
c. Could India indicate why they will not consider providing extension for importers with 
valid quota allotment?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 217 - 
 
  d. What factors did India that established an import deadline of 31 October for dried peas? 
What specific elements were considered?  
e. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this quantitative restriction?  
f. Could India indicate when it will inform, and in which relevant committee it will provide 
the relevant provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements it believes supports this 
quantitative restriction?  
Answer by India  
a, c, d.  As stated in Trade Notice No.32/2019 -20 dated 11 September 2019, this decision 
was taken to effectively contain the prices of pulses for the relief of consumers.  
A total of 4.25 lakh metric tonnes (approx.) of dried peas have been imported 
during April to September 2019 against the quota of 1.5 lakh metric tonnes for 
2019-20. 
f.  This question refers to India's notification to other WTO committees and will be 
answered in the relevant committee that is the Committee on Market Access. 
These measures are temporary and are imposed on the basis of market situation.  
Follow -up: Canada an d the EU noted that the QR measure in question was not a temporary one in 
their perspective as it had been introduced since April 2018. Canada took note of India's response 
provided at the Market Access Committee and would follow up in that Committee. The EU sought a 
complete response by India. The US echoed Canada and the EU's comments.  
3.1.22.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 92096)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this measur e on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative restriction on import of 
yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the 
territory of India shall be 100,000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. After the exp iry of this measure 
the quota was extended until 30 September 2018. In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry of India issued a notice restricting the import of yellow peas from 01  January  2019 
until 31 March 2019. In late March 2019 Indi a issued a notification establishing a new quota of 
150,000 MT for the period from 1 April 2019 until 31 March 2020.  
Answering Russia 's questions AG-IMS ID 90029 and 91008 India mentioned that there is appropriate 
legal procedure to import yellow peas in excess of quota volume through court orders. Could India 
please clarify the following issues:  
a. 
i. Could India describe the appropriate legal procedures for importation of yellow 
peas in excess of quota volume?  
ii. Could India provide the reference to legal ac t that contains the mechanism of 
import of yellow peas in excess of quota volume through court orders?  
iii. What are the criteria for importers to be eligible to import under such court 
orders?  
b. How these measures (quantitative restrictions and import ban) are  consistent with 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, considering 
the fact that according to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture WTO Members 
took the commitment not to maintain quantitative import restrictions?  
Answer by India  
a. Our regulatory regime allows imports of yellow peas up to the volume of the quota. 
However, on a case to case basis, the courts have been allowing relief.  
b. This question refers to India's notification to other WTO Committees and will be 
answered in the relevant committee that is the Committee on Market Access.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 218 - 
 
  3.1.22.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92008)  
How will India implement changes to remove its quantitative restrictions on mung beans, peas, black 
gram lentils, and pigeon peas, which expire on 31 March 2020?  
Answer by India  
The said measures are temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be  based on market 
situation. India is constantly reviewing these measures.  
Follow -up: Ukraine expressed concern on India's policies which led to unfavourable conditions in the 
international market and looked forward to a more predictable market.  
3.1.23   India's w heat public stockpiling  
3.1.23.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92009)  
The United States resubmits questions in AG -IMS-ID 91141, as India has not provided a written 
response.   
The United States notes India is having back -to-back record domestic ha rvests of wheat, which along 
with higher procurement/minimum support prices has resulted in increased government 
procurement leading to higher government stocks of wheat in the last two years.  In fact, GOI data 
already shows India is on track to reaching r ecord stock levels of wheat in the 2019/20 season. The 
United States also notes that the government of India is procuring wheat minimum support prices 
(MSP) that are relatively higher compared to international prices.  
a. Please explain why the GOI has increas ed the minimum support price for wheat and is 
procuring record quantities of wheat.  
b. Please provide current, historical, and pre -determined targeted levels of wheat since 
2010.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure these large and potentially record stockp iles of 
wheat do not impact global markets?  
d. Please explain what steps India will take to ensure these stocks do not enter 
international markets at prices less than procurement prices, whether as a result of 
sales from government stocks at lower prices or the use of other measures such as 
export subsidies and/or other export financing programmes for wheat.  
e. Noting Madhya Pradesh announced a bonus of INR 1,600 per MT for 2018/19, please 
indicate all states and bonuses amounts announced for wheat in 2016/17, 2017/18, 
and 2018/19.  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are announced by the Government following the 
recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), 
which takes into account various factors including the cost of 
cultivation/production, changes in input prices, input/output price parity, inter -
crop price parity, effects on the cost of living, effects on general price level, parity 
between prices paid and prices received by farmers, etc. Procurement of wheat 
is done based on the assessment made with regard  to the requirements under 
various food security programmes.  
c. and d.  Procurement operations of wheat in India are being carried out with an explicit 
purpose of ensuring food security in the country. For price stabilization, some 
wheat may also be relea sed for sale in domestic market with the stipulation that 
the same would not be used for exports.    
e. No state has announced bonus for wheat in the marketing season 2016 -17, 
2017-18 and 2018 -19.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 219 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia, Canada and Paraguay expressed commerc ial interests as significant wheat 
exporters. Canada sought information on the potential effects of this measure on India's wheat 
imports and on the markets when stocks were released. The EU supported previous interventions.  
3.1.24   India's support to rice exports  
3.1.24.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92013)  
In India 's response to AG -IMS ID 91153, India explained that the MEIS for non -Basmati rice was 
withdrawn on 26 March 2019.  Please provide the following information:  
a. A list of products and corr esponding HS codes that were eligible to receive the subsidy.  
b. The volume of non -Basmati rice exported under this program.  
c. As list of other forms of export subsidies, export financing (such as the "Interest 
Equalization Scheme on Pre - and Post -Shipment Rupe e Export Credit "), or other export 
scheme maintained by GOI that could be used for non -basmati rice.  
Answer by India  
a. and b. MEIS scheme has been challenged before a WTO adjudication panel and therefore 
we feel that it is not appropriate to further comme nt on this matter.  
c.  No specific export financing scheme such as "Interest Equalization Scheme" is 
available for any kind of rice.  
3.1.25   India's short -term crop loans  
3.1.25.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92010)  
In response to AG-IMS-ID 91147, Indi a referred the United States to  https://www.agricoop.nic.in .  
a. Please provide data or a more specific website location for the value of loans covered 
by the measures in 2016/17.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
Answer by India  
3.1.26   India - Dairy Loans  
3.1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92011)  
The United States resubmits ques tions in AG-IMS-ID 91149, as India has not provided a written 
response.   
In response to AG -IMS ID 89027, India acknowledged it is providing "soft loans " administered by 
the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) for distribution to various state cooperati ves dairy 
federations.  
a. Please explain the terms offered by the Government of India to NDDB under the soft 
loan, including the rate(s) of interest (including how it compares to the market rate of 
interest), repayment terms, grace periods, and any other ter ms. 
b. Please explain the process and requirements the cooperatives must fulfil for NDDB to 
extend the loan, including any contingency on export performance.  
c. Please explain how and when India intends to notify this support measure in its future 
notifications.   G/AG/W/215  
 
- 220 - 
 
  Answer by India  
a. The scheme "Supporting Dairy Cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organizations 
engaged in dairy activities" is a new scheme that will be implemented by the NDDB. 
The rate of interest is proposed to be simple interest of 5% per annum (floatin g rate), 
which will be calculated on a monthly rest basis from the date of disbursement of loan. 
The penal rate of interest in case of default in repayment will be @ 2 % per annum over 
& above the normal interest to be compounded monthly or such rate as ma y be specified 
by the government.  
b. Cooperative Societies and farmer producer organizations engaged in dairy activities 
which fulfill the following criteria will be eligible for working capital loan, to be repaid 
within nine months:  
i. Must not be a defaulter in repayment of long-term loan or working capital loan 
to NDDB and/or National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC).  
ii. Past accounts, up  to the previous financial year must be attached with the loan 
application.  
iii. The Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) of the operations to cover the total 
liability towards lenders should work out to a minimum of 1.25 times.  
iv. The Cooperatives and FPOs engaged in dairy activities must post Operating Profits 
of the last three  consecutive financial years. 'Other income & gran t' should not 
be considered for calculation of Operating Profit.  
v. Current Ratio should be a minimum of 1.00. 'Non recoverable debtors' shall be 
excluded from debtors and 'short term loan & interest due' to be included in 
current liabilities in calculation of current Ratio.  
c. No loans were sanctioned till July 2019 under t his scheme.  
3.1.27   India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
3.1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92012)  
The United States resubmits questions in AG-IMS-ID 91152, as India has not provided a written 
response.  In response to AG -IMS ID 88107, question 3, Indi a stated it would submit a 
DS:2 notification with regard to the 2011 introduction of the National Dairy Plan Phase I (NDP I) for 
the period 2011/12 through 2018/19 and implemented by the National Dairy Development Board.  
a. Noting that NDP I has either concl uded or is near conclusion, please indicate when a 
DS:2 notification will be submitted.  
b. As part of India 's previous response, India indicated that the NDP I was "notified as a 
Green Box measure. " Further, NDP I appears to provide funding for a broad array  of 
policy measures, which may not all be categorized as the same type of Green Box 
measure.  
i. Please provide additional details on how NDP I is implemented.  
ii. Please indicate which specific Green Box notified measures relate to NDP I 
in G/AG/N/IND/13 and G/ AG/N/IND/15.  
iii. If NDP I measure(s) are aggregated with other measures, please provide break 
outs of the budgetary outlays for each NDP I scheme, as well as the name of each 
scheme/measure.  
c. Please provide details of what measures will be implemented followi ng the conclusion 
of Phase  I, and whether India plans to submit any applicable DS:2 notifications for those 
measures.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 221 - 
 
  Answer by India  
a. b. and c.  NDP I is a scientifically planned multi -state initiative being implemented by 
National Dairy Development Bo ard (NDDB) with the network of End Implementing 
Agencies (EIAs) for the period 2011 -12 to 2018 -19 with the objective, inter alia, 
to provide rural milk producers with greater access to the organized milk 
processing sector.  
The implementation period of NDP I came to end on 3l March 2019. So far, under 
NDP I, 572 sub projects of 172 EIAs from 18 States have been approved with 
total approved grant assistance of USD  366 million. The approved sub projects 
include 95 sub projects on Project Management and Learnin g activities. In India's 
DS notification nos. G/AG/N/IND/13 and G/AG/N/IND/15, this programme has 
been notified under para 2 of Annex 2 of the AoA. India will submit the 
DS:2 notification on the policy in due course.  
3.1.28   Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS4 78  
3.1.28.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92081)  
Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to remove 
measure 18 in DS477; DS478 Indonesia - Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 
Products, an explanation of the steps that need to be taken to re move measure 18, and the expected 
dates for the completion of those steps.  
Answer by Indonesia  
Indonesia has completed the enactment process of the new Minister of Agriculture regulations 
relevant to the dispute, namely regulation No 39/2019 concerning re commendations for importation 
of horticultural products, and regulation No 42/2019 concerning the importation of carcass, meat, 
edible offal and/or its processed products for food into the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. 
With respect to the Minister of Trade regulations, we are also pleased to inform that Indonesia has 
completed the enactment process of regulation No 44/2019 concerning the importation of 
horticultural products, and regulation No 29/2019 on the exportation and importation of animal and 
animal products. With regard to measure 18, the draft of amendments of r elevant laws, along with 
corresponding academic drafts, will further be discussed with the President. This is the extent of 
updates we can provide the Committee, as the new Indonesian Parliament and the new Indonesian 
government Cabinet continues to conclu de their respective transition process.  
Follow -up: In light that the deadlines had expired, New Zealand urged Indonesia to move towards 
compliance.  
3.1.29   Japan's corn policies  
3.1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92097)  
Australia understands from various media rep orts in early September that Japan will be purchasing 
significantly increased amounts of corn from the United States. Australia also understands the 
storage of these increased stocks of corn will be subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 
and F isheries (MAFF).  
a. Can Japan explain the policy basis for the increase in corn purchases?  
b. Can Japan provide information on whether any of this additional corn has been 
purchased and imported already?  
c. Can Japan provide the WTO -basis for MAFF 's provision of su bsidies to store these 
increased corn imports?  
d. Does Japan intend on exporting any of this corn as food aid?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 222 - 
 
  Answer by Japan  
In order to ensure the stable feed supply in Japan, MAFF has introduced a measure to support private 
companies purchasing maize for livestock feed in advance than usual/planned timing from any 
country, which alleviates the domestic feed production damage caused by the first -ever confirmation 
of the pest in Japan.  
3.1.30   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
3.1.30.1   Question by Russian Federation ( AG-IMS ID 92098)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027 
and AG-IMS ID 91011:  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. In l ate 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry 
of Mongolia established an import prohibition on these two products. On 18 January 2019 the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia issued a decree that should have opened 
the import of certain amounts of agricultural products, including wheat flour and liquid milk. The 
decision on allocation of quota volume among the importers of wheat flour for 2019 quota year was 
adopted only in late April 2019 (it became publicly availabl e only in June 2019). Quota volume for 
import of liquid milk has never been allocated among the importers for 2019 quota year (as a result, 
it is impossible to export liquid milk to the territory of Mongolia in 2019). In August 2019 the 
government of Mongo lia issued a new Resolution describing the system of importation of agricultural 
products under quota regime. The Russian Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia 
regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
a. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, considering the fact that 
according to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture WTO Members took the 
commitment not to maintain quan titative import restrictions.  
b. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994. Following up to the answer of Mongolia 
to Russia 's question AG -IMS ID 91011, could Mongo lia please explain in what way 
Mongolia 's import restrictions are "necessary to " the application of standards or 
regulations for the "classification, grading or marketing " of commodities.  
Answer by Mongolia  
Mongolia wishes to inform the Russian Federation and the Members that internal consultations 
continue. As a result, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia has started 
the internal procedures to abolish the quota regime. The final decision will be made by the National 
Food Security Council in its next meeting. We will continue working both internally and with the 
Russia n Federation  and will inform the Members accordingly.  
3.1.31   Philippines' rice waiver  
3.1.31.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 92099)  
The Philippines responded to Japan's question at the last COA regarding tariffication on rice as 
"already removed its quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice" and "(the law) entered into force on 
5 March 2019". Regarding the modification of the Schedule, the Philippines also responded as "in 
accordance with 1980 Decision" and "will notify the modification of the Schedule to the Committee 
on Market Access".  
To date, however, no notification has been made. Moreover, the Philippines notified the WTO on 
13 September that it would launch preliminary safeguard investigation on rice.  
Japan would like to raise its interest in these issues and be engaged in the discussion in an 
appropriate forum. Japan has a systemic concern on the application of restrictive impor t measures 
including safeguard this time because the Philippines have not initiated necessary process to bind 
the tariffication. It should be immediately initiated. In this regard, Japan would like to ask the G/AG/W/215  
 
- 223 - 
 
  Philippines to provide a concrete time frame fo r the modification of the Schedule. On the other hand, 
the regulation already entered into force on 5 March this year, for the rice import after the 
tariffication, titled "The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.11203", what they 
call "IR R" to liberalize the importation, exportation and trading of Rice. Since the IRR implies related 
measures to be applied, please clarify the status of those planned measures mentioned in the IRR 
including the one regarding "the calculated tariff equivalent"  in the Section.5 of the IRR.  
Answer by Philippines  
The rectifications and modifications of Schedule LXXV -Philippines was circulated (G/MA/TAR/RS/591) 
on 17 October 2019.  
Importation of rice is open to all registered importers but is subject to existing Food Safety 
requirements. The preliminary investigation was terminated on 10 October 2019.  
3.1.31.2   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 92100)  
Please provide updates on the rice tariffication procedure. Please also provide details regarding the 
current system being im plemented for the importation of rice by the Philippines.  
Answer by Philippines  
The rectifications and modifications of Schedule LXXV -Philippines was circulated (G/MA/TAR/RS/591) 
on 17 October 2019.  
Importation of rice is open to all registered importers but is subject to existing Food Safety 
requirements.  
Follow -up: The EU registered interest in following the matter.  
3.1.32   Russian Federation - State programme for rural territories development  
3.1.32.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92017)  
The Russian government  approved the "Sustainable Development of Rural Areas" state programme 
for 2020 -2025 on 4 June. The overall volume of financing totals around 2.3 trillion roubles 
(around  EUR 31 billion), including 1 trillion roubles (around EUR 13.6 billion) from the federal budget.  
a. Could the Russian Federation explain more in detail what measures this programme 
covers and which sectors of agriculture will benefit from the aid.  
b. Could the  Russian Federation indicate how it intends to notify the different aid schemes 
in question.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The objectives of the programme are to maintain the number of population in rural areas, as well as 
to increase average monthly resou rces of rural households and to increase the share of upgraded 
housing in rural areas. Most financing will be allocated to construction of housing and development 
of the engineering and transport infrastructure. The measure is taken with the purpose to cre ate 
appropriate conditions for agricultural development and improve quality of life in rural areas. This 
measure will be notified as a Green Box measure under General services.  
Follow -up: Canada noted its interest in the measure in light of the sizeable amount of support that 
would be granted and the planning of notifying the construction of housing and development of the 
engineering and transport infrastructure as General Services under Green Box. Canada noted that 
it would study the response further and may follow up.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 224 - 
 
  3.1.33   Russia's excise duties on wine and champagne  
3.1.33.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92121)  
Press reports on 19 September 2019 state that the Russia n Federation  adopted ame ndments to the 
law setting wine and sparkling wine excise duties. Could the Russia n Federation  confirm that these 
amendments provide for a mechanism to refund or partially refund excise duties on domestic wine. 
If so, would the Russian Federation notify th is law to the WTO as domestic support?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The Russian Federation as well as all the other WTO Members retain the right to optimize their 
taxation burden in order to redistribute revenues to avoid unacceptable imbalancies. The aim of the 
amendments that are being made to the Part 2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is to 
eliminate discrimination against imported wines.  
3.1.34   Switzerland 's "Loi Chocolati ère" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export competition  
3.1.34.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92018)  
Could Switzerland explain the function and status of the private trust "TSM Treuhand GmbH" - for 
the milk sector - and FSPC (French: Fédération suisse des producteurs de céréales, German: 
Schweizerischer Getreideproduzen tenverband – SGPV) – for the cereals sector – in the context of 
the compensation of the price difference of incorporated products, and explain under which 
conditions such compensation is granted?  
The EU notes that on the TSM website it is stated in German : "Im Rahmen eines Leistungsauftrages 
des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft erfüllt die TSM öffentlich -rechtliche Aufgaben im Bereich der 
Milchpreisstützung". [In EN In the context of a performance report issued by the Federal Office of 
Agriculture, the TSG c omplies with public law tasks relating to milk price support].  
This appears to imply that payments made by these organisations are financed by virtue of 
government action. Can Switzerland confirm the accuracy of the TSM website and that the 
compensation f or incorporated products is based on this public law task.  
Answer by Switzerland  
On the basis of Article 43 of the Law on Agriculture (RS 910.1), a service contract between the Swiss 
Confederation and TSM Fiduciaire Sàrl regulates tasks to be performed in  the dairy sector. These 
public law tasks are the subject of exhaustive regulation in Article 12 of the Ordinance on milk price 
support (RS 916.350.2) and are compensated by the Confederation. The Swiss Federation of Cereal 
Producers (FSPC) is an associati on within the meaning of Article 60 et seq. of the Civil Code. Only 
producer organizations and groups whose members produce cereals, oilseeds or protein crops can 
be FSPC members.  
The FSPC is not tasked in any way with implementation of the Law on Agricul ture (RS 910.1) and is 
not associated in any way with implementation of the provisions of Article  55 thereof concerning the 
additional payment for cereals. The conditions for granting the additional payment for cereals are 
established in the Ordinance on c ontributions for particular crops (RS 910.17). As already indicated 
in previous replies to questions on this subject, Switzerland abolished the legal bases for the 
compensation of price differences for incorporated primary materials for export with the ref orm that 
entered into force on 1 January 2019. This reform is in conformity with the Nairobi Decision. Nor are 
there any service contracts between the Confederation and private companies in this sphere. Hence 
there are no payments on exports financed by vi rtue of government action.  
Follow -up: The EU underlined the need to ensure correct implementation on Nairobi Decision. 
Ukraine flagged interest in the implementation of the policy.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 225 - 
 
  3.1.35   Switzerland – Financing of security stocks in agricultural sectors  
3.1.35.1   Questio n by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92019)  
Switzerland has recently abolished the security stocks for coffee and rice. In the agricultural sector 
suck stocks still exist for sugar, fats and oils, cereals and animal feed products.  
For the latest three years can  Switzerland indicate for each of the four product groups in question 
the percentage of the financing of these security stocks that was financed through:  
• Erstverkehrbringens on : 
o Imported products ; 
o Internally produced products . 
• Grenzabgaben . 
Answer by Switzerland  
In order to secure the country's supply of vitally important goods and services during severe 
shortages, Switzerland maintains reserve stocks of certain goods, including basic foodstuffs and 
animal feed (rice, coffee, oils and fats, sugar, cere als for human consumption, feed grains). The 
costs of managing these stocks are entirely financed through contributions levied at the time of 
importation of the goods in question. The financing of reserve stocks of coffee and rice is currently 
under review  with the aim of abolishing these contributions that are now only being levied at the 
time of importation. Consideration will be given to the collection of contributions when these products 
are first placed on the domestic market (this concerns both import ed goods and those produced in 
Switzerland) and the abolition of these reserve stocks.  
3.1.36   Thailand's support to rice and palm oil  
3.1.36.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92014)  
Thailand has indicated that it is providing the following three price sub sidy programmes for rice and 
palm oil farmers to boost farmers' incomes: the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program, the Direct 
Payment to Cover Rice Production Cost Program, and the Oil Palm Price Guarantee Program.    
a. Previously, under similar programmes, the Thai government provided daily data which 
offered a transparent mechanism for following developments in the Thai rice market. 
Will the Thai Board of Trade publish daily data related to the three programs of price 
support?   
b. What, if any, eli gibility requirements exist in order for agricultural producers to 
participate in the rice and palm oil programmes?  
c. Under the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program, how are rice intervention prices 
determined (e.g., on what basis are these formulated)?  
d. Why ar e the determined prices for white paddy and Pathumthani fragrant paddy rice 
varieties above current market prices while other varieties are lower than current 
market prices?  
e. Has the Thai Government imposed requirements to export the rice (and not sell in the 
domestic market) acquired through the bidding process?  
Answer by Thailand  
The Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program in crop year 2019/2020 aims to secure income stability for 
rice farmers in Thailand who have very low income. Rice farmers who would like t o participate in the 
program must register with the Department of Agricultural Extension under the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Cooperatives. Those rice farmers must cultivate rice during the period of April to 
October 2019 and register to the program withi n 15 days. The products under this scheme must 
have optimum humidity not exceeding 15%, and the cultivated area must not exceeded 
40 Rais/household.  
The Guarantee price are varied in each type of paddy rice. The price are determined by the cost of 
producti on including transportation cost from farms to the wholesale market. The information of G/AG/W/215  
 
- 226 - 
 
  wholesale prices for paddy rice and rice products from all regions in the country are available at the 
website of the Department of Internal Trade (www.dit.go.th). In a ddition, the Thai government does 
not impose anyexport requirements to the rice under this program.  
Furthermore, the Palm Oil Price Guarantee Program in crop year 2019/2020 has objective to secure 
income stability for palm oil growers. Eligible palm oil gr owers must own palm oil farm with palm oil 
tree aged no less than three years old and already yielding palm oil, and the cultivated area must 
not exceed 25 Rais/household. They must register with the Department of Agricultural Extension 
under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The Guarantee price is determined by the cost 
of production and transportation cost from farms to the wholesale market. Thai production of palm 
oil mostly consumed by domestic market.  
Follow -up: The EU flagged interest in t he question.  
3.1.36.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92015)  
The United States is concerned that with government procurement of rice at rates as much as 30% 
above current market prices, it will be difficult for the government of Thailand to export any procured 
rice without incurring a loss.  
a. What criteria does the government of Thailand administer?  
b. Under the Direct Payment to Cover Rice Production Cost Program, what are the 
requirements for farmers to register?  
c. How much rice does Thailand curr ently have in government stocks and what are the 
plans for these stocks?  
d. How will the various Government schemes to support storage costs be accounted for in 
the domestic support notification?  
e. When does Thailand expect to provide updated Table DS:1 and Tab le DS:2 notifications 
to the WTO that include information regarding the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program, 
Direct Payment to Cover Rice Production Cost Programs, and Oil Palm Price Guarantee 
Program?  
Answer by Thailand  
The Direct Payment to Cover Rice Pro duction Cost Program during crop year 2019/2020 provide 
input supports to Thai rice farmers. The program aims to reduce cost of production and support 
agricultural tools and essentials inputs for rice farmers. Farmers who would like to participate the 
program must register with the Department of Agricultural Extension.  
After the scheme is completed, the Thai Ministry of Commerce will collect information from related 
agencies and will submit Domestic Support Notification to the Committee.  
Follow -up: The EU f lagged interest in the question.  
3.1.37   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
3.1.37.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92101)  
The continued Brexit uncertainty has created significant commercial disruption for Australian 
business es currently holding licenses to export agricultural products into the EU under existing 
EU WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged in Article 
XXVIII negotiations with affected WTO Members over the past 12 -18 months. Australia has remained 
constructive during these negotiations and has continued to offer Australia 's own quota usage data 
to support both the UK and EU throughout this process.  
However, Australia remains particularly concerned that in the event of a  no-deal, the UK and EU are 
proposing two conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway through a quota year (i.e. , potentially 
splitting a n EU-28 calendar year quota between the EU -27 and UK with two months remaining).  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 227 - 
 
  For a number of Australia 's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approaches will result 
in an EU -27 and UK CSQ that, when added together, will be less than Australia's current EU -28 
entitlement.  
a. Could the UK please provide an explanation for the different approach it has taken from 
the EU?  
b. How will the UK ensure that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota year 
does not leave quota holders worse off (i.e. , that newly split TRQs/CSQs add to current 
EU-28 entitlements)?  
c. In the event that the proposed splits leave T RQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how will the UK 
treat agricultural products (exported under licence) which are currently on route and 
arrive after Brexit? Will the UK allow these products to arrive without paying the 
associated out -of-quota rates?  
Answer by Unite d Kingdom  
Answer provided by EU in the 92nd CoA under question 92091.  
Follow -up: In the light that the questions related to UK's trade policy and particular pace of UK's 
legislation which would impact agriculture exporters, Australia believed that the UK s hould be held 
accountable on this matter and respond to Members' concerns in this Committee. Uruguay echoed 
Australia's request, noting that the UK was taking its own decision on this matter. Australia further 
echoed concern on TRQ apportionment between th e EU and the UK and noted that it would result in 
the loss of commercial value and splitting the quotas midway through the year would increase 
commercial uncertainty, particularly in view of the different methodologies proposed by the EU -27 
and the UK. Aus tralia noted that this uncertainty had already impacted exporters and decreased 
exports. Australia looked forward to working together with the EU and the UK to minimize the 
disruptions. New Zealand supported the approach as outlined by the EU to use the ac tual quantities 
to assess quota utilization, which, in its view was in line with Members' commitments under the AoA. 
New Zealand disagreed with the approach proposed by the UK. Canada appreciated the clarification 
provided by the EU on shipment en route an d reiterated its previous view that to the extent possible, 
trade environment for exporters should remain predictable. Brazil stressed the importance of both 
the EU and the UK preventing the uncertainties which would negatively impact their trade relations  
with other WTO Members and the new market access conditions were not worse than currently 
provided by the EU -28. Paraguay and Uruguay registered interest and sought further information on 
the distribution of the remaining TRQ and what measures would be ta ken to prevent market 
disruptions. The EU informed Members that both parties had been open in the apportionment process 
with a hope that the deal would be agreed during the 17 October Summit so that the no deal scenario 
and the uncertainties it would bring  could be avoided.  
3.1.38   U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  
3.1.38.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92102)  
Australia continues to monitor the United States ' farmer Trade Aid Packages for 2018 and 2019.  
Australia looks forward to the United States ' domestic support notifications that will include these 
programs and welcomes any advice on when the 2018 notification will be submitted.  
With respect to the packages, Australia has noted a change in language by the U.S. Government 
regarding the purpose of  the packages. Australia understands the packages were developed and 
implemented to offset the effects of tariffs on US products entering China. However, language on 
the purpose of the packages seems to now indicate that they are to support farmers for eff ects that 
they may be feeling in any market.  
Noting this change in language, can the United States explain:  
a. What is the purpose of the package: is it to compensate farmers for changes in any 
market? Or is it limited to effects from specific markets?  
b. How it  is ensuring the distortionary effects of these types of domestic support are being 
limited?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 228 - 
 
  c. What plans or measures are in place, or under development, to manage the end of 
these support measures for farmers once the 2019 package ends?  
Answer by United Sta tes of America  
a. The purpose of the 2019 trade mitigation program is to assist U.S. producers negatively 
impacted by continued retaliation and trade disruption. The estimated impacts of tariff 
retaliation were limited to those countries (China, EU, India, an d Turkey) imposing 
retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture when the program was announced on 
23 May 2019.  
b. The programs are designed to minimize effects on production and planting decisions.  
c. There are no plans beyond the current 2019 program.  
Follow -up: Australia reiterated its concern regarding the precedence trade aid package had set and 
its implications on the markets. Australia called on Members to shift away from trade distorting 
support and achieve desired policy outcomes through alternat ive measures that were less trade 
distorting.  
3.1.38.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92072)  
a. Market Facilitation Program (MFP) of the United States "provides assistance to farmers 
and ranchers with commodities directly impacted by unjustified foreign retaliatory 
tariffs, resulting in the loss of traditional export markets ". With reference to question 
AG-IMS ID 91063 raised in June 2019 CoA meeting, the United States responded that 
"Market Facilitation Program is currently in the rulemaking process ". 
i. India requests th e United States to provide an update on the status of the 
programme.  
ii. Further, the United States is requested to state the total as well as component -
wise amount of compensation announced so far under the programme.  
iii. India would appreciate if the United Stat es can clarify the basis for deciding the 
product -wise payments where there is no impact on trade as a result of diversion 
of trade to other markets with no significant trade injury incurred.  
iv. Could the United States please provide information on the averag e level of 
subsidies provided for the products covered under the MFP since the programme 
started?  
v. India requests the United States to elucidate the provisions of the Agreement on 
Agriculture under which the programme is intended to be notified?  
b. The Budget Summary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), FY 2019, 
under the heading of International Markets for U.S. Agricultural Exports, states that 
"The Budget includes $433 million to reduce trade barriers that disadvantage U.S. 
agricultural exp orts and to open new markets for U.S. farm products. " (Source : " 
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda -fy19-budget -
summary.pdf "). In this regard, the United States is requested to  
i. Elaborate, how the sum of $433 million would be channeliz ed for increasing 
agricultural exports?  
ii. Please advise the provisions of AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, under 
which such a support has been provided.  
c. "The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is issuing a new regulation to implement the 
Agricultur al Trade Promotion Program (ATP). The ATP provides assistance to 
U.S. agricultural industries to conduct activities that promote U.S. agricultural 
commodities in foreign markets for commodities impacted by tariffs, including activities 
that address existin g or potential non -tariff barriers to trade. " (Source: " 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/30/2018 -18870/agricultural -
trade -promotion -program "). G/AG/W/215  
 
- 229 - 
 
  i. India would like to request the United States to explain how the money disbursed 
under the ATP intends to increase agricultural exports by addressing the non -
tariff barriers to trade?  
ii. The programme mentions about some activities to be conducted with assis tance 
from the government, what is the nature of these activities?  
iii. What constitute "potential "non-tariff barriers and how would the United States 
assess the impact of the "potential " non-tariff barriers? Are there any identified 
guiding parameters?  
iv. Please  advise the provisions of the AoA, under which this scheme would be 
notified? Further, India would like to understand how this new scheme is 
consistent with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 2015?  
d. The USDA's Trade Aid Package includes "Food Purchase and Distribution Program " to 
partially offset lost export sales of affected commodities under which the 
USDA  has targeted an initial 29 commodities for purchases and distribution 
through  domestic nutrition assistance programs. " (refer to 
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45310.html ). In this respect, India would 
request the United States to provide information on the following:  
i. The prices at which the commodities would be procured?  
ii. How do es the United States intend to dispose the procured stocks? Would there 
be an international aid component in the disposal of the stocks?  
e. In July/August 2018, the United States announced USD 12 billion package comprising 
direct payment under 'Market Facilit ation Programme' (MFP), Food Purchase and 
Distribution Programme (FPDP) and Trade Promotion Programme (TPP) to assist 
farmers suffering from damage due to unjustified trade retaliation by foreign nations. 
Further, in  May 2019, the US announced USD  16 billi on package to support for farmers 
impacted by unjustified retaliation and trade disruption. In this context:  
i. The US is requested to provide the reasoning for authorizing the second relief 
package in May 2019 for agriculture, immediately following a similar  programme 
in 2018.  
ii. Given the fact that a member with total AMS commitments is obligated to make 
the domestic support notification no later than 90 days following the end of the 
calendar year, when will the US submit its domestic notification covering 
July/August 2018 relief package?  
f. With regards to the Trade Mitigation Programmes for 2018 and 2019, the United States 
is requested to provide the following:  
i. What was the budgeted and actual expenditure for Market Facilitation 
Programmes  (MFP), Food Purchase and Distribution Prog ramme (FPDP) and the 
Agricultural Trade Promotion Programme (ATP) under both the relief packages?  
ii. What is the specific eligibility criterion for MFP under 2018 relief package?   
iii. Kindly list all the products that were procured under the FPDP and how the 
procured quantity was disposed under both relief packages?  
g. India reiterates its Question with AGIMS ID 91603 regarding the May 2019 relief 
package. Reports suggest that the US Department of Agriculture plans to provide aid of 
$16 billion to compensate farmer s for lower prices and lost sales stemming from ongoing 
trade disputes:  
(https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/201 9/05/23/usda -announces -support -
farmers -impacted -unjustified -retaliation -and). Amongst the various programs, the 
Market Facilitation programme provides for payments to the farmers' respective 
commodities depending on the severity of the trade disruption and  the period of 
adjustment to new trade partners.  
i. How will these disruptions and period of adjustment be calculated?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 230 - 
 
  ii. How have the eligibility criteria and initial payment rates of the commodities been 
determined under the programme? Was the criterion for MFP in 2019 different 
from the previous MFP?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. 
i. Sign-up for the 2019 Market Facilitate Program (MFP) began on July 29, 2019. 
More information about the program can be found at: 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2019/07/25/usda -announces -
details -support -package -farmers   
ii. As of Monday, 30  September  2019, a total of $5.2 billion in MFP payments had 
been m ade to producers.  
iii. USDA defined economic losses due to the trade actions in terms of gross trade 
damages. Gross trade damages were defined as the total amount of expected 
export sales lost to the retaliatory partner due to the additional tariffs. Gross 
trade damage contributes to the economic cost to the producer to adjust to the 
disrupted markets, manage surplus commodities, and expand and develop new 
markets, consistent with the design of the MFP.  
iv. The program is still being implemented and final data are  not yet available. As of 
30 September  2019, total MFP payments were $5.2 billion.  
v. The United States will notify these programs to the Committee on Agriculture at 
the appropriate time.  
b.  
i. With regard to the cited report, this was a budget proposal made by the 
Administration and was never enacted by Congress.  
ii. These programs are currently being implemented, and the United States will 
report these measures per the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition in due course.  
c.  
i. The funding provided through the ATP is intended to help U.S. agricultural 
exporters identify and access new markets. It is further intended to mitigate the 
adver se effects of other countries' tariff and non –tariff barriers by providing cost -
share assistance to eligible U.S. organizations for activities such as consumer 
advertising, public relations, point -of-sale demonstrations, participation in trade 
fairs and ex hibits, market research, technical assistance, etc.  
ii. The U.S. Government and/or its staff do not generally participate in ATP activities. 
Participants use their own personnel and members or hire additional staff and/or 
contractors to undertake a variety of  activities that include everything from 
market research to technical assistance and promotional events. After conclusion 
of an activity, participants seek reimbursement for eligible expenditures. Overall, 
the ATP  program provides cost –share assistance to reimburse program 
participants for eligible expenditures they make in furtherance of approved 
activities under an ATP agreement.  
iii. A potential non -tariff barrier is any proposed or impending non -tariff issue that a 
program participant believes will threaten  access to a market for U.S. agricultural 
commodities. If an ATP participant identifies a potential barrier, they may propose 
activities (such as technical assistance, trade servicing, etc.) designed to mitigate 
or lessen the impact of the threatened barri er.  
iv. These programs are currently being implemented and the United States will 
report these measures per the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition in due course.  
d.   
i. Commodities purchased un der the Food Purchase and Distribution Program are 
purchased at market prices using a competitive bid process.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 231 - 
 
  ii. There are no procured stocks under this program. Food purchased through FPDP 
is directly distributed by the Food and Nutrition Service of USDA t o food banks, 
schools, and other outlets serving low -income individuals in the United States. 
None of the food purchased under this program is distributed through 
international aid programs.  
e.  
i. The 2019 program provides producers with financial assistance to absorb some 
of the additional costs resulting from having to delay or reorient marketing for 
the 2019 crop due to continued trade actions of foreign governments.  
ii. The United States will notif y these programs to the Committee on Agriculture as 
part of its regular notification for the 2018/2019 marketing year.  
f.  
i. USDA was authorized to provide up to $12 billion in assistance under the 
2018 programs. In 2019, USDA was authorized to provide up t o $16 billion. Total 
actual expenditures for the three 2018 programs are approximately $10 billion as 
of 30  September  2019: $8.6 billion for MFP, $1.1 billion for FPDP, and $200 
million for ATP. The 2019 programs have just begun to be implemented. As of 
30 September  2019, payments under MFP total $5.2 billion. No purchases have 
yet been made under FPDP. On 19  July 2019, $100 million in cost -share 
assistance was awarded under ATP.  
ii. Eligibility criteria for MFP under the 2018 program can be found at 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR -2019-title7-vol10/xml/CFR -2019-
title7-vol10 -part1409.xml .  
iii. The following products were announced for the 2018 FP DP: apples, apricots, beef, 
blueberries, cranberries, dairy, figs, grapefruit, grapes, hazelnuts, kidney beans, 
lemons/limes, lentils, macadamia nuts, navy beans, fresh oranges, orange juice, 
peanut butter, pears, peas, pecans, pistachios, plums/prunes, po rk, potatoes, 
rice, strawberries, sweet corn, and walnuts. Actual purchases as of 
30 September  2019 included apples, beef, blueberries, cranberries, dairy figs, 
grapefruit, grapes, hazelnuts, kidney beans, lentils, navy beans, fresh oranges, 
orange juice, peanut butter, pears, peas, pecans, pistachios, plums/prunes, pork, 
potatoes, rice, strawberries, sweet corn, and walnuts. The following products 
were announced for the  2019 FPDP: pork, dairy, beef, poultry, lamb, citrus 
(oranges, orange juice, grapefruit,  lemons, and limes), apples, strawberries, 
blueberries, apricots, plums/prunes, pears, figs, sweet corn, raisins, potatoes, 
onions, and processed foods (including tomato sauces, canned tomatoes, pasta, 
prepared cereals, soups/broths, and other processed fo ods. No purchases have 
yet been made under the 2019 FPDP.  
g.  
i. Please refer to the 2019 USDA Trade Damage Estimation Report for an 
explanation of the methodology used to measure gross trade damages caused by 
ongoing retaliatory tariffs. The trade mitigatio n programs do not compensate 
farmers for lower prices.  
ii. Please see the response to question (g)(i) above. For eligibility criteria for the 
2019 MFP, please see 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/29/2019 -15700/trade -
mitigation -program#sectno -citation -%E2%80%891409.1 .  
Follow -up: China, Canada and Paraguay registered interest in the subject. Paraguay sought further 
information on the aid provided and its effect on the market.  
3.1.38.3   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92082)  
On 25 July 2019, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) released details of the USD  16 billion 
support package for farmers, as announced in May 2019. The additional funding brings the total 
amount of subsidies injected into the US farm economies over 2 ye ars, to USD 28 billion. The funding 
will be used primarily for direct payments to farmers, and also government purchases of agricultural G/AG/W/215  
 
- 232 - 
 
  goods, including processed foods, and trade promotion activities. Producers can sign up for 
payments under the USDA Mar ket Facilitation Program between 29 July and 6 December 2019.  
a. How many producers have signed up for MFP payments so far, i.e. since 29 July 2019? 
MFP payments are to be made in up to three tranches, with the first payments starting 
in mid -late August.  
b. How much funding has been paid out to producers so far? According to the USDA 
website, the second and third tranches of payments will be made in November, and 
early January  2020. At this stage of the process, does the US anticipate that a second 
tranche of p ayments will be made in November?  
At the September 2018 Committee on Agriculture meeting (AG -IMS ID 88048), New Zealand raised 
its concerns and sought confirmation that the USD 12 billion package was a one -off payment (applied 
in 2018/19) and would not ext end into future years. The US responded that the announced 
programme was a one -time response to retaliatory tariffs imposed on US agricultural commodities.  
c. Given the additional funding of USD 16 billion (for 2019/20) and reporting that President 
Trump has indicated that, if required, further funding will be made available in 2020, 
does the US now expect these support payments to farmers to become an annualised 
support programme rather than a one -off response?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. This data is  not yet available.  
b. As of Monday, September 30, 2019, a total of $5.2 billion in 2019 Market Facilitation 
Program payments had been made to producers. No announcement has been made 
regarding the second and third tranches of 2019 Market Facilitation Progra m payments.  
c. The 2018 and 2019 trade mitigation programs were authorized separately in response 
to specific prevailing conditions.  
Follow -up: New Zealand reiterated the view that there were many ways to help farmers and Amber 
Box measures were the least p referable of all given their negative impact on the market. The US 
was asked to discontinue the measures and consider other options. The EU shared New Zealand's 
concern.  
3.1.39   U.S. farm support  
3.1.39.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92050)  
a. In its 30 August 2019 forecas t, the USDA Economic Research Service forecasted net 
farm income, a broad measure of profits, to reach $88.0 billion in 2019, including $19.5 
billion in direct government farm payments. ( https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm -
economy/farm -sector -income -finances/farm -sector -income -forecast/ ). Could the 
United States explain how providing over 22% of producer income through direct 
subsidies will  affect producer decisions and markets?  
b. On 26 September 2019, the USDA announced that producer currently participating in 
federal crop insurance who had in 2019 a payable prevented planting indemnity will 
automatically receive a "top-up" ranging from 10 t o 15% of their prevented planting 
indemnity payments. Also, producers who filed prevented planting claims who also 
planted an MFP -eligible cover crop, with the potential to be harvested or for subsequent 
use as forage qualify for a $15 per acre payment.  
i. Could the US confirm that the "top-up" will be fully paid by the USDA and not as 
a cost shared expense with insurance providers?  
ii. Could the U.S. confirm that producers who filed prevented planting claims and 
also planted MFP -eligible cover crop could benefit from both the "top-up" and the 
MFP payments?  
iii. Could the U.S. confirm that in some cases, producers who did not plant a row 
crop might be better off than producers who actually planted the same crop given 
all the support provided through different programs?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 233 - 
 
  c. Canada notes Congressional Research Service released a report called "U.S. Farm 
Support: Compliance with WTO Commitments " (R45940) on 4 October 2019. The report 
indicates that the United States as a result of the expansion of the Market Facilitation 
Program in 2019 to $14.5 billion combined with ongoing domestic support programs 
could potentially exceed its annual WTO domestic s upport commitment of $19.1 billion 
in 2019. Could the United States elaborate as to how it will manage its production or 
trade distorting domestic support expenditures ensure that it respects its WTO domestic 
support commitment?  
Answer by United States of  America  
a. U.S. farm programs are designed to minimize any potential production distortions and 
enable farmers to respond to market signals, by separating payments from producer 
planting decisions and thus eliminating producers' ability to increase payments by their 
production choices. That minimizes incentives to produce more or different commodities 
than they would in response to market signals.  
b. i. The "top -up" payment for prevented planted acres will be paid by USDA, not cost -
shared with insurance provide rs. ii. Producers who have filed prevented planting claims 
will receive the prevented planting "top -up" for which they are eligible. Producers who 
filed prevented planting claims for crops affected by natural disasters and who then 
plant an MFP -eligible co ver crop will be eligible to apply for the $15/acre MFP -cover crop 
payment. iii. The United States cannot confirm this statement. Producers make planting 
decisions based on their expected returns from the market, not in response to U.S. 
programs. Expected costs and returns vary across crops, regions, and producers and 
the effects of natural disasters can sometimes lead to situations in which realized crop 
revenue is below variable input costs, making the decision not to plant the preferred 
choice.  
c. The Unit ed States cannot confirm the results of the analysis presented in the cited 
report. The United States will ensure all payments are consistent with the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture, including obligations capping trade -distorting domestic 
support.  
Follow -up: The EU registered interest in the question, particularly question b(iii).  
3.1.39.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92020)  
The Congressional Research Service in its report: US Farm Support: Compliance with 
WTO commitments (R45940), suggests that the US could potentially be in breach of its Domestic 
Support commitments for 2019 due to the payments under the market facilitation programme 
adopted and implemented in 2019, and non -product specific payments reaching U SD 24 billion.  
a. Can the US confirm this?  
b. If not , can the US indicate which assumptions in the CRS report are wrong and could 
lead to US respecting its commitments on Domestic Support?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The United States cannot confirm th e results of the analysis presented in the cited 
report. It is premature to speculate on the level of U.S. domestic support for 2019/2020, 
given that the marketing year has just begun, and programs are still being 
implemented. We note that the CRS report a lso indicates that the results presented in 
the report are tentative given uncertainties about future prices and program 
expenditures.  
b. See the response to Question (a).  
Follow -up: Australia, New Zealand and Paraguay expressed concern with U.S. compliance with its 
WTO commitments. Australia encouraged all Members to consider a shift away from trade distorting 
policies and to achieve the desired policy outcome through alternative no n-trade distorting 
measures.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 234 - 
 
  3.1.40   U.S. Biofuel policies  
3.1.40.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92103)  
Ukraine notes that the United States government has been actively considering biofuel policy 
changes, which are intended to benefit agricultural producers experiencin g challenges due to, in 
part, tariff policy actions.  
a. Could the U.S. please provide information about the recent federal government policy 
actions affecting U.S. biofuel production?  
b. Do such recent biofuel policy changes have an intended impact on the U.S.  domestic 
market and U.S. exports?  
c. Can grain, oilseeds or biofuel be the targeted products?  
d. Do ex-ante policy parameters exist, which characterize potential increased support for 
corn and soybean producers?  
Answer by United States of America  
a. The Renewab le Fuel Standard, or RFS, was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act, to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation's renewable rules sector while 
reducing reliance on impor ted oil. The implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard 
is governed by 42 U.S.C. §7545. Regulation of Fuels. Subpart (o) of that statute 
describes the federal government policy actions affecting U.S. biofuel production. On 
4 October  2019, the Administra tion announced actions to be undertaken by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
with respect to implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). On 
15 October  2019, the EPA issued a supplemental notice  of proposed rulemaking on the 
recently proposed rule to establish renewable fuel volumes for 2020 and 2021. 
(https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa -issues-supplemental -proposal -renewable -
fuels-volumes ). Among other actions, EPA proposes and requests public comment on 
adjustments to the way that annual renewable fuel percentages are calculated, in 
addition to expanding biofuel requirements in 2020 and ini tiating a rulemaking process 
to streamline labelling and remove other barriers to the sale of E15 included in the initial 
notice of proposed rulemaking. The 30 -day comment period will begin following the 
EPA's public hearing on 30 October  2019. More inform ation is available at EPA's website 
(https://www.epa.gov/renewable -fuel-standard -program ) which details other policy 
actions that affect U.S. biofuel production, such as the Proposed Volum e Standards 
for 2020, and the Biomass -Based Diesel Volume for 2021 (also available 
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR -2019-07-29/pdf/2019 -15423.pdf ).  
b. The actions anno unced in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking are intended 
to improve the implementation of the RFS. These actions are not targeted at specific 
commodities but are aimed at providing greater predictability and transparency in the 
operation of the  U.S. biofuel market.  
c. No.  
d. No.  
Follow -up: Ukraine, as exporter of corn, ethanol and biproducts, noted interest in polices that would 
affect the exports of these products.  
3.1.41   U.S. practices of DS notifications  
3.1.41.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 92086)  
A report by the Congressional Research Service of the United States (U.S. Farm Support: Compliance 
with WTO Commitments) made a brief description about the practice of DS notification by the 
United  States, which is quoted as follow: "Since the origin of the WTO in 1995, the United States 
has notified its agricultural support outlays on a crop year basis —that is, programme outlays are G/AG/W/215  
 
- 235 - 
 
  associated with the crop that they are supporting, even if the actual payment does not occur until a 
later year.  
This is an important point, since many farm programmes do not make outlays until after a crop is 
harvested and the producer has reported acreage and yield to the FSA county office. Often this 
occurs in the calendar year following the planting an d harvesting of a crop. For example, both 
the ARC and PLC programmes require a full 12 months of marketing year data to calculate the 
market -year average price, which is then used to evaluate whether ARC or PLC payments have been 
triggered. As a result, AR C and PLC payments are not made until after 1 October of the year following 
the crop 's harvest. However, the payments are still associated with the crop from the previous year. 
This delays both the collection and notification of payment data. " It is apprec iated if the United 
States could confirm the description above. If it is the case, please indicate the implication of such 
practice on the work of the Committee on Agriculture  
Answer by United States of America  
The United States submits notifications of it s domestic support programs on an annual basis as soon 
as possible following availability of program data, which depends on provisions governing how 
programs are to be implemented. For example, the Agricultural Act of 2014 required that payments 
under ARC and PLC programs be made no earlier than October 1 following the end of the applicable 
marketing year for the covered commodity (see 7 U.S.C. §9016 (e) and §9017 (e)). As explained in 
supporting table DS:9 in G/AG/N/USA/123, ARC -CO, PLC, and ARC -IC payment s for crop year 2016 
were made in fiscal year 2018 (1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018). However, these payments 
are notified for the 2016/17 marketing year since they are based on price and revenue data for that 
marketing year. Reporting domestic support  by crop/marketing year provides the fullest information 
to the Committee on Agriculture on U.S. expenditures associated with a single program year.  
3.1.42   U.S. support to cotton sector  
3.1.42.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92073)  
The United States has been providing as sistance for cotton under various programmes, namely, 
Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) Program for Cotton Producers, Cotton Transition Assistance 
Program (CTAP), Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program (CGCS), Economic Adjustment Assistance for 
Domestic Users (EA AU) Program, Cotton Storage Cost Reimbursements, Stacked Income Protection 
Plan for Upland Cotton (STAX). In this regard, India would request the United States to furnish 
information on the support provided under each of these programmes for marketing year s 2016 
onwards.  
Answer by United States of America  
The United States ' DS:1 notification for 2017/18 is being prepared and will be submitted to the 
WTO Committee on Agriculture for review in the coming weeks.  
Follow -up: India looked forward to reviewing U. S. DS:1 notification.  
3.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
3.2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:1)  
3.2.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/50)  
AG-IMS ID 92104: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Ecuador's MA:1 notification  G/AG/N/ECU/50 presents modifications to the TRQs administration 
system described in notification G/AG/N/ECU/8. Under the latter, no in -quota imports have taken 
place between 2014 and 2016 (MA:2 notification G/AG/N/ECU/46).  
a. Could Ecuador provide further d etails on the rationale of the changes of the 
arrangement applicable to its TRQs?  
b. How these changes could increase the tariff -quota fill rate?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 236 - 
 
  c. Does Ecuador legislation provides for an under fill mechanism?  
Answer by Ecuador  
In the context of internal institutional changes in various national bodies in Ecuador that deal with 
trade policy, e.g. , the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), it has been necessary to establish 
new tariff quota administration regulations that are in line with ou r current institutional environment 
and agricultural policy, in order to enable Ecuador to regulate and continue to apply its 
WTO commitments.  
The relevant requirements are clear and can be consulted by the general public on the MAG website 
at: 
https://www.agricultura.gob.ec/organizacion ‑mundial ‑decomerciohttps://www.agricultura.gob.ec/o
rganizacion -mundial -decomercio . The legal instrument that established these requirements is 
Administrative Resolution No. 154, which can be accessed on the same web page. The tariff quota 
fill and quota rent will depend on the trade operators.  
Ecuador has not established any mechanism tha t prevents the use of reduced tariff rates for products 
included on its list of tariff quotas at the WTO. In previous years, these quotas have not been filled 
owing to: a lack of domestic demand; the importation of products with tariff preferences lower th an 
the in‑quota tariff, originating from countries with which Ecuador maintains trade agreements; and 
the temporary reduction in the MFN tariff to a level lower than the in ‑quota tariff, specific cases 
being soya bean oil ‑cake (HS 2304.00.00.00) and wheat (HS 1001110000, HS 1001190000, 
HS 1001910000 and HS 1001991000).  
AG-IMS ID 92105: Question by Russian Federation - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities  
The Russian Federation welcomes notification of Ecuador on tariff rate quotas administration. 
Point (b)(iii) of column 3 of ECUQ001 for turkey specifies that "licences will be issued subject to 
compliance with the requirements established by the competent authority responsible for the 
operationalization of quota administratio n".  
a. Could Ecuador provide the requirements to which importer shall comply to be eligible 
to import under this TRQ?  
b. Could Ecuador please specify the reference to legal act containing such requirements?  
Answer by Ecuador  
The notice concerning the opening of  quotas for 2019 can be found on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) at: https://www.agricultura.gob.ec/organizacion -mundial -
decomercio . The legal ins truments relating to the administration of tariff quotas are COMEX 
Resolution No. 009 ‑2019 and MAG Administrative Resolution No. 154.  
Administrative Resolution No. 154 indicates the time ‑frame and the requirements to be met by 
foreign trade operators.  
The COMEX Resolution states that the information listed below will be published on the MAG website 
each December:  
a. a description of the products concerned and their tariff classification;  
b. the volume available for each quota;  
c. the relevant administration method;  
d. the quota allocation period;  
e. the time limit for the receipt of applications; and  
f. the relevant quota implementation requirements.  
In‑quota tariff rates that will be published on the website are the same as the bound tariffs that were 
included in Ecuador's s chedule of concessions when it joined the WTO.  
The WTO quota will be allocated and distributed through an annual Administrative Resolution of the 
MAG Undersecretariat for Marketing, which will indicate the volume allocated for each product and 
operator.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 237 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92016: Question by United States of America - Allocation of licences to 
importing entities  
Under Ecuador 's description of import arrangements applicable, Ecuador states in b(iii) that "licenses 
will be issued subject to compliance with the requirements established by the competent authority 
responsible for the operationalization of quota administration ". 
a. What are the requirements for receiving an import license?  Are they publicly available?  
If so, where?  
b. Please explain the method of all ocation that the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Livestock  (MAG) will use to distribute import licenses (e.g., first come, first -serve).  
Allocation arrangement c(i) states that "each December, MAG will publish the tariff levels and the 
volume of the WTO import  quotas to be used the following year ".   
c. How would the tariff levels be determined?  
d. Where will the tariffs be published?  
Answer by Ecuador  
The notice concerning the opening of quotas for 2019 can be found on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) at: https://www.agricultura.gob.ec/organizaci on-mundial -
decomercio . The legal instruments relating to the administration of tariff quotas are COMEX 
Resolution No. 009 ‑2019 and MAG Administrative Resolution No. 154.  
Administrative Resolution No. 154 indicates the time ‑frame and the requirements to be met by 
foreign trade operators.  
The COMEX Resolution states that the information listed below will be published on the MAG website 
each December:  
a. a description of the products concerned and their tariff classification;  
b. the volume available for each quota;  
c. the relevant administration method;  
d. the quota allocation period;  
e. the time limit for the receipt of applications; and  
f. the relevant quota implementation requirements.  
In‑quota tariff rates that will be published on the website are the same as the bound tariffs that were 
included in Ecuador's schedule of concessions when it joined the WTO.  
The WTO quota will be allocated and distributed through an annual Administrative Resolution of the 
MAG Undersecretariat for Marketing, which will indicate the volume al located for each product and 
operator.  
3.2.1.2   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/101, G/AG/N/THA/102, G/AG/N/THA/103 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92021: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Allocation arrangement (c) states "details of other arrangements (not involving imp ort licenses) ".  
a. Can Thailand elaborate on what is included in the "details of other arrangements "?  
Thailand 's "30 days validity of import certificate " for nearly all of its TRQs could make it difficult for 
distant exporting countries to meet this require ment.  
b. Can Thailand clarify the reason for the short timeframe?  
The United States is concerned that limiting recipients to State Owned Enterprises could restrict 
imports.   
c. Can Thailand confirm that the recipients of import licenses are limited to State Own ed 
Enterprises for maize and palm oil?  
d. Are there any other products in which the recipients are limited to State Owned 
Enterprises?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 238 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
The "details of other arrangements (not involving import licenses) " refer to the contact point and 
information of agency in charge of import permission.  
The Regulation of Ministry of Commerce sets the validity of TRQ import certification for 30 days in 
order to monitor import statistics for quota reallocation. Reissuance of TRQ import certification are 
allowed if it needed.  
The Thai government grants import licenses for maize and palm oil for both State -Owned  Enterprises 
and juristic persons. Thailand 's main suppliers of maize and palm oil are from ASEAN member 
countries which Thailand has FTA and allows both SOE and juristic person to import.  
AG-IMS ID 92106: Question by Russian Federation - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities  
The notification G/AG/N/THA/103 specifies that for THAQ001 "(ii) - (iii) A total quota of 
55,000  tonnes will be allocated as follows: juristic persons which involve production for export ". 
Does the requirement to "involve production for export " mean that j uristic person is eligible to import 
under TRQ only if it produces and exports products?  
Answer by Thailand  
The import license for qualified milk powder importer is not limited to "juristic persons which involve 
production for export " but also include juri stic persons which manufacture condensed milk, utilize 
milk powder as an input for their production, and manufacturer of yoghurt drink.  
3.2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:2)  
3.2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/125)  
AG-IMS ID 92074: Question by In dia - Transparency issues  
India welcomes Australia 's notification document G/AG/N/AUS/125 concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) for financial year 2018 -19 wherein it is mentioned that Australia's 
unmanufactured tobacco (HS codes 240110, 24012 0 and 240130) tariff quota has not been 
implemented since 1 January 1995 owing to the customs duty being zero. The notification further 
states that the Australian Border Force does collect the excise equivalent duty on imports of 
unmanufactured tobacco at the border to ensure consistency in treatment for both imported and 
domestic goods in the Australian market. As per the Australian Government 's Department of Home 
Affairs Notice no. 2019/07 dated 1 March 2019, the excise -equivalent customs duty rates are a t 
$1,090.33/kg ( https://www.abf.gov.au/help -and-support -subsite/CustomsNotices/2019 -07.pdf ).  
Australia 's MA:1 notifications on TRQ Administration also state that in  respect of unmanufactured 
tobacco "The tariff in Section I -B of Australia's schedule has not been implemented as the Australian 
Government has applied a tariff duty of zero from 1 January 1995 for all imports of unmanufactured 
tobacco ". 
As understood from  the above, Australia is effectively charging custom duty at the rate of excise 
duty on import of unmanufactured tobacco.  
Australia is requested to:  
a. Explain the rationale for stating that custom duty is set at zero for all imported goods 
classified under HS code 2401 when it is being charged at the rate of excise duty and 
therefore, not opening the TRQ since 1995.  
b. State the volume of imports of unmanufactured tobacco for HS lines 240110, 240120 
and 240130 during last five years?  Please also provide the sou rces of imports for all 
these lines for last five years.  
c. Explain the tariff quota administration for unmanufactured tobacco.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 239 - 
 
  Answer by Australia  
a. The additional information Australia provided in its MA:2 is to ensure we provide as 
much transparency as possi ble to Members with respect to the import conditions for 
unmanufactured tobacco.  
If Australia were to simply note that the TRQ was not opened and imports totaled 0, we 
would expect Members to ask why that was. We therefore provide the applied tariff for 
unmanufactured tobacco, i.e. zero; and also the confirmation that unmanufactured 
tobacco is subject to an excise equivalent customs duty.  
An Excise is a domestic/internal commodity -based tax that is applied to alcohol, 
tobacco, and fuel and petroleum produ cts in Australia. i.e. If an entity produces, stores 
or manufactures those goods in Australia, it needs to have an excise licence and may 
need to pay excise duty. Where goods that would otherwise be subject to excise are 
imported from outside of Australia – in this case unmanufactured tobacco, instead of 
paying an excise, an importer pays the excise equivalent customs duty. That equivalent 
customs duty allows for equity in the tax treatment of both domestic and imported 
excisable goods and is consistent wit h the "national treatment" principle as found in 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994 (where imported products should not be subject to any 
internal taxes or charges in excess of those applied to like domestic products).  
b. Australia provides the following available s tatistics on imports of unmanufactured 
tobacco from Calendar Year 2014 through to Calendar Year 2018.  
 
  
  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 240 - HS lines  Source of 
imports  Unit of Quantity  CY2014  CY2015  CY2016  CY2017  CY2018  
      Quantity  Quantity  Quantity  Quantity  Quantity  
240110 Unmanufactured tobacco, not stemmed/stripped  All economies  WEIGHT - kilogram    3       
240110 Unmanufactured tobacco, not stemmed/stripped  United States  WEIGHT - kilogram    3       
                
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly 
stemmed/stripped  All economies  WEIGHT  - kilogram  2,298,420  135       
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Brazil  WEIGHT - kilogram  694,220          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  China  WEIGHT - kilogram  138,600          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  India WEIGHT - kilogram  559,080          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Malaysia  WEIGHT - kilogram  5,600          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Mozambique  WEIGHT - kilogram  51,540          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Pakistan  WEIGHT - kilogram  96,000          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Philippines  WEIGHT - kilogram  307,280          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Switzerland  WEIGHT - kilogram  99,000          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Tanzania  WEIGHT - kilogram  254,040          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  Thailand  WEIGHT - kilogram  5,600          
240120 Unmanufactured tobacco, partly or wholly stemmed/stripped  United States  WEIGHT - kilogram  87,460  135       
Source:  DFAT, based on ABS data  
Note:  The sudden reduction in imports of unmanufactured tobacco is due to tobacco manufacturing facilities closing in Australia. No tobacco products have been manufactured 
in Australia since 2015. Australia has had no imports under 240130 during the last five years.  
 
 
 G/AG/W/215  
 
- 241 - 
 
  Follow -up: India noted that imposing an excise duty on tobacco did not justify the non -opening of 
the TRQ and requested more comprehensive response. Australia responded that the applied tariff 
for the manufactured tobacco was set at zero and thus there was  no need to open the TRQ.  
3.2.2.2   India (G/AG/N/IND/16, G/AG/N/IND/17)  
AG-IMS ID 92107: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks India for its MA:2 notifications for FY2017 -18 and FY2018 -19. In the notifications, 
India reported either nil or c lose to nil fill rates for a number of items, including INDQ001, INDQ002 
and INDQ003. India advised that "no applications were received for the allocation of the tariff rate 
quota " for those items.   
a. Can India provide documentation detailing the application  process?  
b. Can India advise if the application process involves a level of complexity that hinders 
traders from submitting applications or whether other processes, such as 
SPS requirements, had any impact on the lack of applications?  
Answer by India  
a. and b. The documentation and application process for importing under the TRQ scheme 
is provided for in India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade's Hand Book  of 
Procedures (2015 -20) which is available at the weblink that will be provided in 
our written response ( https://dgft.gov.in/hand -book-of-procedures -2015-20-
primary -tabs) 
AG-IMS ID 92108: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
India's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to the financial years 01 -04-2017 to 31 -03-2018 
and 01‑04-2018 to 31 -03-2019, indicates that there hasn't been any imports under INDQ001 (tariff 
lines 04021 0 and 040221 - milk and cream in powder) and INDQ002 (tariff line 100590 - maize), 
even though there is not any indication on the notification that they were not opened. It is worth 
noticing that India's notification G/AG/N/IND/14 (Table MA:2) indicated th at, during marketing 
years  2010/2011 and 2011/2012, INDQ001 fill rates were 201% and 446% respectively.  
a. Could India provide data on market circumstances that could explain the absence of 
applications under TRQs INDQ001 and INDQ002?  
b. Has there been any cha nge on the TRQs' administration method or the establishment 
of new non -tariff requirements for the imports of products under TRQs INDQ001 
and INDQ002?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  No applications were received for allocation of the tariff rate quota for the 
products in question. Fill rate of a TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based 
on market situation. India's TRQ administration procedure is transparent and is 
available in India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade's Hand Book of 
Procedures (2015 -20).  
AG-IMS ID 92109: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues  
Ukraine appreciates India 's MA:2 notifications for the four tariff rate quotas, including the 
supplementary information regarding the status of applications for TRQs as well as the applied TRQ 
tariff rates compared to either applied or bound rates. The TRQ quantities represent potentially 
meaningful volumes for international trade however according to India 's explanation no interest 
exists to supply the three products under the TRQ.  
a. Could India provi de additional backgrounds for zero fill rate for skimmed milk powder 
and whole milk powder, granules or other solid forms (INDQ001) and maize (INDQ002) 
during the period in question?  
i. Please include as part of this response any possible existence of market  
circumstances, which may have a direct bearing on traders ' interest to supply 
these three products?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 242 - 
 
  b. Would India consider reducing the in -quota tariff rate of 15% for skimmed milk powder 
and whole milk powder, granules or other solid forms?  
Answer by Indi a 
a. No applications were received for the allocation of the tariff rate quota for the products 
in question. Fill rate of a TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based on market 
situation. Please refer to the footnotes in India's MA:2 notifications for the relevant 
years for the necessary clarification.   
b. No such proposal is under consideration.  
AG-IMS ID 92022: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks India for providing notifications concerning imports under tarif f rate quotas 
(Table MA:2) for the 2017/18 and 2018/2019 financial years.  
The United States notes that based on the footnotes, no applications were received for the allocation 
of the tariff rate quota for two consecutive years.  
a. Could India explain for eac h TRQ why no applications were received for the allocation 
of the tariff rate quotas?  For example, were there commercial reasons?  Were there 
sanitary or phytosanitary barriers?  Was the out -of-quota tariff lower than the in -quota 
tariff?  
b. Please confirm if t he TRQ allocations are only accessible to STEs listed in India 's most 
recent MA:1 notification, G/AG/N/IND/6.  
The United States also notes that the in -quota imports during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 
financial years were 1,629 MT and 436 MT respectively f or "Rape, colza or mustard oil ".  
c. Could India clarify why the TRQ was partially filled for the two consecutive periods when 
no applications were received for the same period(s) and when during the 2018 -2019 
reporting period the applied tariff on HS lines 1 51419 and 151499 was equal to the 
bound in -quota tariff?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  No applications were received for the allocation of the tariff rate quota for the 
products in question. Fill rate of a TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based 
on market si tuation. India's TRQ administration procedure including the list of 
entities eligible for import under the scheme is available in India's Directorate 
General of Foreign Trade's Hand Book of Procedures (2015 -20).  
c. As mentioned in the footnote in the rele vant notification's table, the applied tariff 
on HS lines  151419 and 151499 was equal to the bound in -quota tariff. WTO's 
Handbook on Notification Requirements under the AoA suggests that in case of 
applied MFN rate being lower than the in -quota rates, tot al imports may be 
depicted in the notification for the product.  
3.2.2.3   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/104, G/AG/N/THA/105, G/AG/N/THA/106 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92113: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia notes a number of quotas were expanded, including in some cases to 'unlimited quantities'.  
a. Can Thailand explain the reasons why it expanded those quotas?  
i. And if they will be expanded again?  
b. Can Thailand explain if it is considering expanding other quotas in future years?  
i. Or if it is considering eliminating quotas  that it has expanded to unlimited 
quantities?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 243 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
Thailand would like to thank Australia for the question. The quota quantities of TRQs in Thailand 
depends on the domestic consumption and manufacturers' demand. It may vary in each year.  
AG-IMS ID 92112: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Thailand for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Year 2018. Australia notes a number 
of tariff quotas did not record any fill (0%) or less than 65% fill rate.  
a. Can Thailand explain the reasons for the significant underfill of some of its tariff quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, can Thailand explain whether the under -fill was due to 
market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
Answer by  Thailand  
There are TRQs under filled and non -filled rates of importation under WTO in year 2018. It is because 
Thailand imports some TRQ products from Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) such as maize and palm 
oil from ASEAN countries and garlic from China. Furt hermore, Thailand can grow many agricultural 
products to sufficiently supply domestic market such as rice, dried longan and soybean oil. Therefore, 
there is no demand to import some TRQ products.  
AG-IMS ID 92110: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff qu ota fill  
The Russian Federation welcomes the notifications of import under TRQs issued by Thailand. The 
Russian Federation noted that some TRQs in 2016 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, THAQ012, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ0017, THAQ0018, THAQ0023), in 2017 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ017, THAQ018, THAQ023), in 2018 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ017, THAQ023) have zero or almost zero fill -in rates. Data shows that 
some TRQs (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ017,  THAQ0023) are not 
filled consistently during recent 3 years. Could Thailand provide the reasons for such low fill rates?  
Answer by Thailand  
The importation of some Thailand's TRQ products under WTO have low or non - fill TRQs fill rate 
because some products were mainly imported under Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) such as maize, 
palm oil and garlic. Moreover, Thailand is a major grower and exporter of some TRQs products such 
as rice, dried longan, soybean oil which domestic supply meets domestic consum ption and also 
export to the world market. There are some TRQ products that Thailand cannot cultivate and import 
from the world market such as; Japanese rice and Basmati rice from India. The importation of those 
TRQ depends on domestic demand.  
AG-IMS ID 92 111: Question by Ukraine - Tariff quota fill  
Ukraine welcomes Thailand's MA:2 notifications for the calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018. At the 
same time, Ukraine notes that THAQ011 (maize for feedstuff) has a zero -fill rate.  
a. Could Thailand please give it s understanding regarding key circumstances for the zero 
TRQ fill in the calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018?  
b. Please inform what steps are considered to be taken to address potential reasons for 
zero fill of THAQ011, which would be in line with the 2013 B ali Decision on TRQ 
Administration?  
Answer by Thailand  
Thailand mainly imports maize from ASEAN countries, which Thailand engaged under Free Trade 
Agreement. The imported quantities of maize in 2016 to 2018 were 124,460 tonnes, 96,428  tonnes 
and 153,663  tonnes respectively. Those imported quantities were higher than Thailand's quota 
quantities commitment of maize under the WTO which bound at 54,700 tonnes per year.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 244 - 
 
  3.2.3   Special safeguards ( Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
3.2.3.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/56)  
AG-IMS ID 92115: Ques tion by Brazil - Transparency issues  
In its notification MA:5 (G/AG/N/EU/56), the European Union has informed that some imports under 
HS position 02.07 were subject to price -based special safeguards.  
a. Could the European Union provide information on the vol ume of trade under tariff lines 
02071210, 02071290 and 02071410 affected by the SSG?  
b. Could the European Union clarify if the shipments against which special safeguard 
actions were taken occurred inside or outside EU TRQs for these tariff lines (02071210, 
02071290 and 02071410)?  
Answer by European Union  
As preamble, on general principle of the application of the SSG in the EU, the EU invites Brazil to 
refer to last year EU's reply to Australia No ID 89074.  
Specifically , on both questions: the EU trade statistics do not monitor trade subject to the SSG.  
3.2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/180, G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  
AG-IMS ID 92114: Question by Thailand - Trigger calculations  
Please provide the reasoning to why the calculation of trigg er level for SSG of poultry offal and fresh 
milk did not take into account of the domestic consumption even if the data was readily available.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
The trigger level of special safeguard is calculated according to Article 5 of the Agree ment on 
Agriculture. Footnote 3 of Article 5 states that where domestic consumption in not taken into 
account, the base trigger level under subparagraph 4(a) shall apply.  
3.2.4   Domestic support commitments ( Table DS:1)  
3.2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/43 , G/AG/N/ARG/44, G /AG/N/ARG/45 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92051: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory services  
In its 2014/15 notification, in Supporting Table DS:1, Argentina has notified what appears to be two 
new programmes called "Agricultural Bio -Input Develop ment Programme" and "Advice and technical 
assistance to increase the adaptability and resilience of small agricultural family farmers in response 
to the impact of climate change" under Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) of the Green Box.  
a. If these are new measures, c ould Argentina indicate when it plans to submit a DS:2 
notification?  
b. Could Argentina please elaborate on which projects under Extension and advisory 
services are eligible for funding and outline?  
Answer by Argentina  
a. Argentina is in the process of prepari ng the above ‑mentioned DS:2 notifications, which 
will soon be forwarded to the WTO Secretariat for publication.  
b. Firstly, it should be noted that both programmes were notified in document 
G/AG/N/ARG/43 under paragraph 2(d) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
since their objectives are to provide advice, assistance and technical support to 
agricultural producers. The Agricultural Bio ‑Input Development Programme was 
designed to provide training for agricultural producers on how to use b io‑inputs and find 
alternatives to agrochemicals to order to increase the industrialization and value ‑added 
of agricultural production in an environmentally ‑friendly way. The programme was open G/AG/W/215  
 
- 245 - 
 
  to all interested producers. Secondly, the Project to enhance adaptation and resilience 
in family farming in north ‑eastern Argentina was established in response to the impact 
of climate change in the region. It seeks to provide advice and technical support to 
increase the adaptability and resilience of small ‑scale, family farmers to the impacts of 
climate change. The project stems from a local issue, as the region is experiencing 
problems in terms of access to water and negative effects from climate change. Climate 
change can  be observed  in changing temperatur es and rainfall patterns, by hastening 
or delaying the onset of the rainy season, increasing its intensity and prolonging its 
absence, and causing increasingly harmful frosts and unusually high temperatures. In 
addition, soil erosion and deforestation are making the ecological system and rural 
population more vulnerable, by reducing agricultural and livestock productivity, thus 
threatening food security and decreasing revenues. The programme also seeks to 
strengthen hydrometeorological and agro ‑productive m onitoring systems and to 
improve management of climate change adaptation measures and actions through 
training workshops for government officials and producers. The general objective is to 
increase the adaptability and resilience of small ‑scale family farm ers to the impacts of 
climate change and variability, especially those stemming from the growing intensity of 
hydrometeorological events, such as floods and droughts. Lastly, it should be noted that 
both programmes meet the "Green Box" fundamental requirem ent included in 
paragraph  1 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as they do not have 
trade‑distorting effects.  
AG-IMS ID 92052: Question by Canada - General services: training services  
From 2015/16 to 2016/17, budgetary outlays for "Special Fund for  Tobacco: Training of technical 
specialists and producers" notified under the Training services Annex 2, paragraph 2(c) of the green 
box increased significantly. Could Argentina provide an explanation for this increase in outlays?  
Answer by Argentina  
It should be noted that our country attaches great importance to providing training services to 
tobacco specialists and producers. The recorded increase in training programmes for specialists and 
producers between the 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons (notified in d ocuments G/AG/N/ARG/44 
and G/AG/N/ARG/45) has been the result of the increase in the number of programmes and 
provinces that have received such training services. Since 2016, the provinces that have benefited 
from these programmes have incorporated tools, such as the use of satellite images, in order to 
improve supervision of producers' activities. These new tools require training the specialists in charge 
in how to use georeferencing, remote ‑sensing and satellite ‑imaging software. Moreover, new 
programmes for small ‑scale producers are being developed, which offer training on good farming 
practices with a view to improving their quality of live and revenues.  
AG-IMS ID 92054: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. In its 2016/2017 notification, A rgentina notified product -specific domestic support for 
Soya under what appears to be a new measure called "Belgrano Agricultural Stimulus 
Plan". Could Argentina provide more information about this programme, including 
details on the eligibility criteria f or projects and how funding is allocated?  
b. In its 2016/2017 DS:1 notification, Argentina provided new domestic support for 
Sunflowers and Maize under "Interest -rate subsidy programme for loans to small -scale 
agricultural producers ". Could Argentina explain  in more details the eligibility criteria of 
this programme?  
Answer by Argentina  
a. Pursuant to Joint General Resolution No. 3993 ‑E/2017, the so ‑called Belgrano Plan was 
implemented, conferring a benefit to producers from the provinces of Salta, Jujuy, 
Formo sa, Santiago del Estero, Tucum án, Corrientes, Misiones, Catamarca, La Rioja and 
Chaco who had marketed soya sown during the 2016/17 season. Resolution 
No. 3993‑e/2017 states that, to be eligible for funding, producers must meet certain 
criteria, namely: ha ving sold soya beans sown in the provinces covered by the Plan 
(during the 2016/17 season) and being registered in the Fiscal Register of Operators 
Trading in Grains and Pulses or in the Register of Mono ‑taxpaying Grain Producers. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 246 - 
 
  Producers must also repor t the primary grain disposals from the operations conducted 
and have met their obligation to report the area sown and their soya production for the 
2016/17 season. The contributions under this Plan were approved by means of an 
administrative decree, and th e payments were made through bank transfers to the 
beneficiaries' accounts declared to the Federal Public Revenue Administration (AFIP). It 
should be noted that AFIP carried out systemic checks on the above ‑mentioned criteria, 
providing the Under ‑Secretari at for Agriculture, the implementing authority, details on 
the validated applications that had passed such checks. It should also be noted that out 
of total soya production for the 2016/17 season, only 3.84% of production received 
support under the Plan, w ith disbursements to producers accounting for only 0.3% of 
the total gross value of soya bean production in Argentina.  
b. The programme in question, notified in Supporting Table DS.7 in 
document  G/AG/N/ARG/45, was created through a financing agreement conclud ed 
between the former Ministry of Agro ‑Industry and the Bank of the Province of Buenos 
Aires. With regard to the eligibility criteria, under the agreement that was signed, the 
then Ministry of Agro ‑Industry agreed to contribute a percentage of the interest  rate on 
loans for working capital to small ‑scale sunflower and maize producers. Lastly, it should 
be noted that this programme ended on 31 December 2017.  
AG-IMS ID 92053: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In its 2016/17 DS -1 notification, in S upporting Table DS:9, Argentina has notified a new measure 
called " National Agro -Industry Trust Fund ". Could Argentina provide more details about projects 
eligible to receive funding under this programme?  
Answer by Argentina  
The National Agro ‑Industry Trust Fund was created, by means of Resolution No. 20 ‑E/2017, as an 
administrative and financial trust with the aim of stimulating, promoting and developing the 
agro‑industrial sector; plant and animal health and quality and food safety; territori al development 
and family farming; pure and applied research and its application to agriculture and fishing; and 
regional and/or provincial production in various areas of the country. An executive committee was 
set up to administer the Fund and is responsi ble for establishing the instruments to implement 
resources from the Fund. When analysing the projects that are eligible for funding, special 
consideration is given to those that contribute to improving working capital, infrastructure and 
logistics, qualit y and value ‑added at origin, as well as competitiveness. Fund beneficiaries may be, 
inter alia, natural or legal persons, micro, small or medium ‑sized enterprises, undivided estates, 
funds in trust or state entities. The Trust Fund has allocated part of it s funds to a series of projects, 
the recipients of which have been provincial governments, which are using them for their health and 
assistance plans for agricultural, cooperative small and medium ‑sized enterprises to finance loans 
for producers, groups of  producers, foundations and associations of producers.  
Follow -up: The EU signalled interest in the question.  
3.2.4.2   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 92033: Question by European Union - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment / Development Programmes)  
The EU would like to thank the Kingdom of Bahrain for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date. 
The EU has noted that the Kingdom of Bahrain has notified support in supporting table DS:2, which 
is applicable for countries h aving the right to use Article 6:2 of the Agreement on Agriculture – i.e., 
developing countries.  
Taking into account that the Kingdom of Bahrain according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita 
at USD  21,890 (2018 figures), and as such is classified as a " high income" country (USD 12 376 or 
more), the EU would ask whether the Kingdom of Bahrain could clarify this notification and identify 
the development needs that are met by using this Article.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom of  
We thank the EU for their inter est. However, we have been consistently notifying our domestic 
support under this Article and the GNI per capita is not a criteria recognised by Art.6.2 . G/AG/W/215  
 
- 247 - 
 
  3.2.4.3   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/55, G/AG/N/CHL/56)  
AG-IMS ID 92055: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (includ ing Table DS:2)  
In both its DS:1 notification for 2016 and 2017, Chile notified its monetary value in "CLP million ". In 
past notification, Chile notified its monetary value in "thousand CLP ". Could Chile confirm the 
monetary value used in G/AG/N/CHL/55 & G /AG/N/CHL/56?  
Answer by Chile  
The answers to the question asked by Canada, in the framework of the review process of the 
Committee on Agriculture, regarding the fact that there is an error in Chile's domestic aid 
notifications for the years 2016 and 2017 ( G/AG/N/CHL/55 and G/AG/N/CHL/56), are contained in 
the respective corrigendum prepared by the WTO Secretariat: G/AG/N/CHL/55/Corr.1; 
and G/AG/N/CHL/56/Corr.1.  
3.2.4.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 92056: Question by Canada - Transpa rency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Follow -up to answer to AG-IMS ID 90096  
Canada notes that China indicated that its temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated 
in 2018. In March 2018, China 's State Administration of Grain (SAG) was renamed the State 
Administration of Grain and Reserves (SAGR) which assumed consolidated responsibilities for the 
stewardship of strategic reserves of wheat, corn rice, oilseeds natural gas and petroleum. In 
early 2019, the government of China announced that it would strengthen regulations around 
strategic grain reserves.  
a. Could China confirm if the state reserve programme for wheat under SAGR is different 
from the temporary reserves programme referenced in its domestic support 
notifications?  
b. Could China elaborate as to how stocks are acquired, at what price and from which 
market (e.g., international or domestic)?  
c. What is the role of local/provincial government in administrating strategic reserves of 
commodities?  
d. what are the factors used to determine the volume of t he reserve?  
e. What are the factors used to determine when stocks are released and how is the release 
price determined?  
Answer by China  
The state reserve program for wheat under the administration of the National Food and Strategic 
Reserves Administration is different from the Temporary Reserve Program for wheat. The state 
reserve program is a regular reserve program for the purpose of sec uring and stabilizing the supply 
of wheat. The stocks are accumulated through purchase made at market price. The wheat is mainly 
purchased from the domestic market. The quantity of the stock is determined based on the supply 
and demand situation in the mar ket, as well as the capacity of fiscal budget. Stocks are released 
when there is shortage in supply or abnormal fluctuation in the market price. The release is made 
at market price.  
Follow -up: The US supported the question.  
3.2.4.5   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/62)  
AG-IMS ID 92058: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Canada observes that the expenditures in Cuba 's 2016 and 2017 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CUB/54 Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CUB/59 respectively) were expressed in million 
CUP, whereas the expenditures in Cuba 's 2018 DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CUB/62) are G/AG/W/215  
 
- 248 - 
 
  expressed in single CUPs. The figures in G/AG/N/CUB/62 have not been adjusted with 
additional digits to denote millions.  
i. Is Canada correct in assuming that this was an omission ?  
b. Assuming that the expenditures in Cuba 's 2018 DS:1 notification are expressed in 
million  CUP, Canada notes that Cuba 's expenditures under Annex 2, paragraph 11 – 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids have increased from 
CUP 91.0 Million in 2016 and CUP 61.3 Million in 2017 to CUP 765.2 Million in 2018, a 
twelve -fold increase in the span of one year.  
i. Could Cuba please explain this sudden increase in spending? Was a new 
programme implemented in 2018 or were changes made to the previous 
investment aid programme?  
ii. If so, when will Cuba notify this new or modified programme through a 
DS:2 notification?  
Answer by Cuba  
a. 
i. Yes, there was an error in the monetary value expressed. The correct monetary 
value is million CUP.  
b. 
i. The figure  that appears in paragraph 11 "Investment aids" under "Payments 
made to improve rural structures and for the purchase of equipment, machinery, 
etc. (Annex  2, §11)" should be CUP 67.6 million.  
ii. Not applicable. See previous reply.  
3.2.4.6   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 92059: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
Canada thanks the European Union for its responses to Canada 's questions during the June 2019 
meeting (AG -IMS ID 91090) regarding its payments to organic producers under paragraph  12, 
Annex  2, Agreement on Agriculture.  
Canada notes that because of certain data collection issues that the requested information is not 
available. Canada would be interested in the following information related to organi c production in 
the European Union.  
a. Could the EU provide the total value of production of all organic production in 2016 in 
the EU?  
b. Could the EU provide the total farms income of all the organic farms and/or farms that 
have organic production in 2016 in the EU?  
c. What were the total payments made to organic producers for:  
i. annual crops ; 
ii. specialized perennial crops ; 
iii. other land uses . 
d. Could the EU provide the number of organic farms and/or farm that have organic 
production in 2016 the EU?  
e. Could the EU provid e the number of farms that have received support for organic 
production for the budget year 2016 under (j) Environmental Programmes?  
Answer by European Union  
The current available statistics in the EU do not allow the EU to give an answer to these questio ns. 
Whilst statistics are available on land use and production, data is not available for the value of 
production.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 249 - 
 
  The way in which member States reporting on the support given to organic production through Rural 
Development programmes or other national me asures does not allow the EU to give the information 
asked for under question 3 to 5.  
If members want more information on EU organic production, they may find it on 
the following  website : https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food -farming -
fisheries/farming/documents/market -brief-organic -farming -in-the-eu_mar2019_en.pdf . 
More information on Organic production can be found on the EUROSTAT database 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database  under 'table by themes', Agriculture \Organic 
Production.  
Follow -up: Brazil and Paraguay flagged interest in the question.  
3.2.4.7   India (G/AG/N/IND/13 , G/AG/N/IND/15 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92023: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
In India 's response to AG -IMS ID 91156, India provides a link to a website for the RKVY programme 
and explains that these are all notified under 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
However, the website describes programmes unrelated to infrastructural services (e.g., State 
Agricultural Plans).  
a. Please explain how State A gricultural Plans are specifically limited in scope to 
infrastructural services.   
b. Please explain why there is a specific programme and programme allocation set aside 
for the "State Agriculture Infrastructure Development Plan " if all of the programmes are 
infrastructural services, as described in 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, commonly referred as RKVY, mainly focusses on 
strengthening the farmers' efforts through creation of require d pre and 
post-harvest agri -infrastructure that increases access to storage, market facilities 
etc. The programme has been accordingly notified under para 2 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 92025: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
The United States again requests eligibility requirements to receive the waiver, initially requested 
in AG-IMS ID 91169.  
Answer by India  
The notified measures have been im plemented by certain provincial governments. A one -time debt 
waiver is provided to the farmers to alleviate farm distress, based on specific conditions which differ 
from state to state including waiving loans of small & marginal farmers, waiving loans avai led 
through cooperative structure, etc.  
AG-IMS ID 92024: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
a. Regarding AG-IMS ID 91178, please explain why India used the value of production for 
an aggregation of products if the Minimum Support Price was base d on a variety or 
quality difference?   
b. Per the example in AG-IMS ID 91178, why did India use the VOP for soybeans if the 
MSP was specifically for soyabean yellow?  
Answer by India  
a. and b.  India has been consistently using this methodology since its first domestic support 
notification for the year 1995 -96. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 250 - 
 
  Follow -up: Noting that a Member's past practice of notifications did not justify for the need to 
continue the practice, the EU requested India to change the method. The EU also asked India if 
disaggregated vop data as requested by the US was available.  
3.2.4.8   Kyrgyz Republ ic (G/AG/N/KGZ/6 , G/AG/N/KGZ/7)  
AG-IMS ID 92060: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada thanks the Kyrgyz Republic for its new domestic support notification for 2016 and 2017. 
However, it is difficult to assess compliance as  well as to see any trends in domestic support provided 
by the Kyrgyz Republic to its agricultural producers in the absence of notifications for previous years. 
The Kyrgyz Republic has yet to provide its annual domestic support notifications for 1999 to 20 11, 
and for 2013 to 2015, the Kyrgyz Republic provided DS:1 notifications for 1998 and 2012 only. In 
this context, Canada encourages the Kyrgyz Republic to continue its efforts in completing its 
domestic support notifications for the years mentioned above.   
At the 85th Session of the Regular Committee on Agriculture in October 2017 (AG -IMS ID 85047), 
the Kyrgyz Republic indicated in its response to Canada that it was fully committed to the 
WTO transparency requirements and that it was in the process of completing its do mestic support 
notifications.  
a. Could the Kyrgyz Republic please advise when it expects to submit its 1999 -2011 
and 2013-2015 annual domestic support notifications?  
Under Supporting Table DS:9, Canada notes a substantial increase in non -product specific AMS , 
from KGS 377.4 Million in 2016 to 1,362.8 Million in 2017. Much of the increase appears to be related 
to agricultural production subsidy programmes "Credits available to farmers 3, 4 ", to which the 
number 5 was added in 2017 ( "Credits available to farmer s – 3, 4 and 5 ").  
b. Could the Kyrgyz Republic provide additional information on the scope and coverage of 
the programme, including the products that are eligible to receive credits?  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
Domestic support notifications related to agricu lture are the most complex and require careful 
analytical work and detailed collaboration with the relevant departments of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Food Industry and Land Reclamation of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Ministry of Finance of 
the Kyrgyz Republi c and other departments of the republic. Nevertheless, work on the formation of 
notifications on state support for agriculture for the period from 1999 to 2011, 2013 and 2014, is 
ongoing. The Kyrgyz Republic intends to provide these notifications as soon a s possible. 
2015 domestic support notification has already been distributed (G/AG/N/KGZ/5 dated 
25 May 2018). The volume of the "amber box " of the Kyrgyz Republic is traditionally comprised of 
measures not related to the production of a particular product,  with more than half of these measures 
aimed at subsidizing the interest rate on agricultural loans in the Kyrgyz Republic, which are 
implemented as part of the projects "Financing of Agriculture -4, 5, 6". Commercial banks and 
specialized financial and cre dit institutions that have expressed a desire to participate in the Projects 
conclude a cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Finance of the Kyrgyz Republic. Loans to 
farmers are issued at a reduced rate, after which commercial banks and specialized f inancial and 
credit institutions submit monthly subsidy applications to the Ministry of Finance every month until 
the 10th, indicating the amount of the loan for the corresponding month. Priorities in obtaining a soft 
loan are the following entities: concl uded contracts for the supply of their products; concluded 
contracts with local producers for the supply of raw materials; with positive dynamics of growth in 
the number of jobs, expansion of production and increase in tax deductions. Therefore, for Financ ing 
of Agriculture -3, 4 and 5 the total amount of loans respectively amounted to 3,801.2 million KGS, 
4,831.9 million KGS, and 6,656.4 million KGS. The priority areas are crop production, animal 
husbandry, processing of agricultural products. This program has been implemented since 2012 and 
every year the amount of loans grows as the development of a particular agricultural sector is 
necessary, for example, processing of agricultural products. Total support amount indeed reached 
1,362.8 million  KGS in  2017 but that was less than 1% of total agricultural value of production, 
hence small and well within the de minimis  limit.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 251 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92026: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Since Kyrgyz Republic's last notifica tion for 2015, it appears several new Green Box measures have 
been introduced, including 'state support of seed production '.  
a. Please explain how this new measure is implemented.  
b. Does the Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this new measure, 
or overdue notifications for 1999 -2014, as noted in AG -IMS-ID 89040?  
It appears Green Box expenditures have doubled 2015.  
c. Please explain this increase.  
It appears that expenditures for Non -Product -Specific AMS have increased over 25% 
since 20 15.  
d. Please explain this increase.  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
a. The implementation of the World Bank grant for the project "Support of public seed 
funds" included three areas: - training mobilizers of public seed funds; - promoting the 
creation of about 90 pu blic seed funds and the provision of training for their members; 
- providing high -quality seeds and fertilizers to members of newly created public seed 
funds and women's self -help groups. Currently, the project has been completed. The 
volume of "green box"  measures in 2017 was increased due to the step -by-step 
implementation of World Bank projects to support agriculture; in 2017, the increase 
was mainly due to support provided for land reclamation and seed growing.  
b. The costs of non -product -specific AMS (i. e. general support measures not related to 
products) are increased due to the implementation of the state program "Financing of 
Agriculture" and the investment project "Financing the supply of agricultural machinery 
to Kyrgyzstan" worth US D 20 million, whi ch is implemented from March 2014 and 
provides for the allocation of loans for the purchase of agricultural machinery and the 
development of its service infrastructure in Kyrgyzstan.  
AG-IMS ID 92027: Question by United States of America - Transparency iss ues (including 
Table DS:2)  
It appears several new Green Box measures were introduced in 2017 including 'support of public 
seed-stocks '. 
a. Please explain how this new measure is implemented.  
It appears there has been a significant – over 40 % – increase in exp enditure for Green 
Box measures as compared to 2016.  
b. Please explain this increase.  
It appears that expenditures for Non -Product -Specific AMS have more than tripled, as 
compared to  2016.  
c. Please explain this increase.  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
a. The implementation of the World Bank grant for the project "Support of public seed 
funds" included three areas: - training mobilizers of public seed funds; - promoting the 
creation of about 90 public seed funds and the provision of training for their membe rs; 
- providing high -quality seeds and fertilizers to members of newly created public seed 
funds and women's self -help groups. Currently, the project has been completed. The 
volume of "green box" measures in 2017 was increased due to the step -by-step 
imple mentation of World Bank projects to support agriculture; in 2017, the increase 
was mainly due to support provided for land reclamation and seed growing.  
b. The costs of non -product -specific AMS (i.e. general support measures not related to 
products) are incr eased due to the implementation of the state program "Financing of G/AG/W/215  
 
- 252 - 
 
  Agriculture" and the investment project "Financing the supply of agricultural machinery 
to Kyrgyzstan" worth US D 20 million, which is implemented from March 2014 and 
provides for the alloca tion of loans for the purchase of agricultural machinery and the 
development of its service infrastructure in Kyrgyzstan.  
3.2.4.9   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 92117: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to f ollow-up with Nigeria with respect to question AG -IMS ID 90034 that Australia 
asked at the 90th CoA.  
Nigeria's domestic support notifications for the period 2012 to 2016 (G/AG/N/NGA/17) notified that 
it did not provide domestic support during this period.  
Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its Economic 
Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support notifications. Specifically, how 
will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integ rated transformation of the agriculture sector 
aimed at boosting productivity and improving access to markets?  
Answer by Nigeria  
Nigeria wishes to thank Australia for its questions regarding its outstanding DS Notifications. Nigeria 
believes that timely an d effective notifications of measures as well as transparency are essential for 
the proper functioning of the Multilateral trading system. However, it is pertinent to note that the 
delay by Nigeria in fulfilling its DS Notification obligation is not willfu l. It is due to resource and 
capacity constraints. This notwithstanding, Nigeria Government has set in motion an inter -Agency 
process for detailed compilation of its DS programmes for the year 2017 to 2020 to enable it  to 
notify them accordingly. Nigeria is also in the process of reviewing its DS programmes for the period 
2012 to 2016 with a view to submitting revised notification for these periods where necessary. 
Nigeria will in the coming days fulfill its DS Notificatio ns obligations.  
3.2.4.10   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/21, G/AG/N/OMN/22, G/AG/N/OMN/23 , 
G/AG/N/OMN/25)  
AG-IMS ID 92118: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services  
Australia thanks Oman for submitting its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018.  
Under Green Box, Infrastructural services (2, g), Oman notified that it provided support for the 
establishment of a fodder company in Najd.  
Can Oman provide more informati on on what capital works were included in this expenditure?  
Answer by Oman  
Phase I: Infrastructure works (fence, gates, guard room, internal roads).  
Phase II: Electrical wiring.  
Phase III: Installation of a pivotal irrigation system.  
AG-IMS ID 92061: Quest ion by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Oman notified a programme named "National project for date palm 
development ".  
a. Could Oman describe the eligibility criteria for this programme?  
b. Could Oman de scribe how this programme operates?  
Answer by Oman  
The Executive Plan lists four programs as follows:  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 253 - 
 
  Development program to promote production: propagation and dissemination of distinctive varieties, 
and the adoption and development of modern methods of  agricultural operations, and control of 
pests.  
Development Program for the Promotion of Date Marketing: Development of Date Filling Units.  
Extension program for date palm development: A guide program intended to introduce farmers to 
the importance of cont rolling the quality of dates through the use of devices and equipment to do 
so and to follow modern scientific methods to raise the productivity of the palm.  
Research program for the promotion of date palms: conduct research to address pests and diseases 
and improve the productivity of palm by adopting modern techniques to improve the quality of dates 
and treatment methods and the optimal use of dates and their products and palm waste.  
AG-IMS ID 92036: Question by European Union - Article 6.2 (Special and D ifferential 
Treatment/Development Programmes)  
The European Union would like to thank Oman for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date. The 
European Union has noted that Oman has notified support in supporting table DS:2, which is 
applicable for c ountries having the right to use Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture – 
i.e., developing countries.  
Taking into account that Oman according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita at 
USD 15,110  (2018 figures), and as such is classified as a "high income" country (USD  12,376 or 
more), the European Union would ask whether Oman could clarify this notificatio n and identify the 
development needs that are met by using this Article.  
Answer by Oman  
Support policies in the agricultural sector in order to develop this sector in general and encourage 
investment in specific activities and events in particular. Resear ch, extension and pest control 
activities. In general, direct support is to support the requirements of agricultural production and 
breeding of livestock in order to develop patterns of exploitation of agricultural resources such as 
increasing degrees of m echanization and the introduction of modern irrigation systems and the use 
of modern production methods. As a result of the financial conditions in many periods due to 
fluctuating oil prices in addition to structural adjustment policies that have been used  to rehabilitate 
the Omani economy in line with the requirements of the Sultanate's accession to the World Trade 
Organization, the trend has been to reduce direct government support in order to eliminate it and 
to the indirect support in the form of capita l grants and soft loans.  
AG-IMS ID 92037: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture  
"National project for date palm development " (under the "Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture "): 
Could the Om an provide more details, especially whether the project aims at increasing planting 
acreage (quantitative objectives) or whether the focus is qualitative e.g., higher quality date palms, 
geographical indications, qualitative marks/labels etc.  
Answer by Oma n 
The strategy aims to disseminate an investment thought based on the optimal utilization of all date 
palm products, taking advantage of the data of the times and techniques and tools to support the 
overall Omani development, and can be summarized as follo ws: 
1. Production of high -quality palm fruits that fit their consumer nature as table dates or 
manufacturing dates.  
2. Marketing the product locally and abroad throughout the year and find appropriate 
manufacturing industries.  
3. Marketing other palm products by ma nufacturing them and achieving added value.  
4. Raise the productivity of the palm and reduce the cost of production inputs.  
5. Preventing and protecting the palm from pests and diseases and reducing the loss of 
palm production before and after harvest.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 254 - 
 
  6. Organize date palm cultivation to suit the needs of the country and make the best use 
of water according to the developed marketing systems.  
7. Working on the protection of Omani palm varieties and developing some of them.  
8. Optimization of the agro -ecosystem of date pa lms to maximize the yield of water used.  
AG-IMS ID 92028: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Oman for submitting a DS:1 notification for the previous five years.  The 
United States note s that Oman has never submitted a DS:2 notification describing how its new 
programmes are administered and why they are classified as Green Box or as Article 6.2 programs.  
Supporting Tables DS:2 within Oman 's previous and recent DS:1 notifications have sho wn continued 
funding for several programmes for which Oman has never submitted a DS:2 notification, including: 
"national project for date palm development ", "protection of agriculture lands from sweeping away ", 
"establishment of fodder production company i n Najd ", "establishment and development of 
agricultural and veterinarian quarantine ", "development of natural pastures ", and "studies and 
advisory consultants to support the Ministry's technical device ".  
a. Does Oman plan to submit a separate DS:2 notification detailing the new programmes 
outlined in its DS:1 notification?  
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, Oman has notified "Establishment of fodder production company in Najd" and 
"Establishment and development of agricultural and veterinarian quarantine" as exempt measures 
under Supporting Table DS:1. The United States notes that these establishment costs have 
continued for several years, with expenditure peaks in 2015 for vet quarantine, and in 2016 for the 
fodder production.  
b. Please provide more details on the reas on for these continuing payments and whether 
they extend beyond the initial establishment of the designated facilities (e.g., are 
payments made to defer costs, such as maintenance of facilities, etc. that would 
otherwise be passed on to customers in the fo rm of higher prices), and why they have 
fluctuated over time.  
Answer by Oman  
Question  Response  
Question about establishment of fodder production 
company in Najd: The United States indicates that the 
establishment  costs for Najd have continued for several 
years, peaking in 2016. Please provide more details on 
why thesecontinuing payments  The payments were added to make 
adjustments to the irrigation system and the 
electrical voltage of the Najd project, where 
some problems have arisen.  
On the development of quarantine and veterinary 
quarantine capacity, the United States notes that the costs 
of quarantine and veterinary quarantine capacity have 
continued for several years, peaking in 2015. Please 
provide further details on why these ongoing pay ments 
have been made and whether the initial construction 
period for designated facilities has exceeded Example 
(payments made to defer costs such as maintenance of 
installations, which were transferred to customers in the 
form of price increases).  The Min istry is pursuing the principle of gradual 
rehabilitation of ports in terms of economic 
importance and logistical priority in the region.  
Supply inspection and inspection equipment 
and equipment for all ports in the Sultanate  
Supplying ovens to get rid of rejected 
consignments of agricultural and veterinary 
quarantine  
Contribute to the processing of the 
phytosanitary reference laboratory  
Supply of sterilization gases (methyl bromide 
and eco 2 Fayoum) to process incoming and 
outgoing consignments  
Conducting expansion and maintenance works 
for the veterinary quarantine of live animals in 
Al Mazyona  
Expansion of the veterinary quarantine of live 
animals in  Raysut  
Complete the equipment of the Central 
Laboratory for Animal Health in Seaal  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 255 - 
 
  Question  Response  
Complete the necessary services for the 
veterinary quarantine of live animals in Seaal  
Provision of diagnostic equipment, reagents 
and materials for animal consignments  
Providing the tools, equipment and equipment 
required for the electronic numbering program 
for camles  
Oman has never submitted a DS:2  notification describing 
how its new programs are administrated?  The agricultural notification is designed at 
specific format and it doesn't require any 
administrated descriptions, in "NAME AND 
DESCRIPTION  OF MEASURE…" in ST DS:2 table 
we have described how soft loans are 
calculated. And the other two project are 
operated by the government departments.  
· "All measures, if existing, in the relevant year 
covered under article 6.2 are reported here 
along with the monetary value " (Handbook 
on agriculture notifications page 44)  
· "All green box measures if existing, in the 
relevant year would need to be inc luded in ST 
DS:1 along with the monetary value " 
(Handbook on agriculture notifications page 
44) 
Why they are classified as green box or as article 6.2 
programs?  Green box:  Because all programs are operated 
by the relevant government departments and 
don't involve direct payments to producers. 
and it doesn't distort trade or production.  
Article 6.2 program:  By reference to article 
6.2 of the agreement on agriculture, the three 
programs which are mentioned in ST DS:2 
classified as investment subsidies avail able 
to agriculture . These three programs are 
development programs that's why they are 
classified as ST DS2 (article 6.2 programs).  
Does Oman plan to submit a separate DS:2 notification 
detailing the new programs outlined in its DS:1 
notification?   Oman currently is notifying two supporting 
tables (ST DS:1 & ST DS:2) each year updated 
according to the general budget of the 
agriculture sector. The ST DS:2 contains three 
programs which are under investment 
subsidies available to agriculture,  if there 
are any new programs in 2019, it will be 
outlined in next supporting tables.  
3.2.4.11   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/50)  
AG-IMS ID 92062: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada is disappointed to note that Panama has exceeded its annu al domestic support commitment 
by PAB 41.7 Million in 2017, and by PAB 54.3 Million in 2018, as a result of Panama exceeding its 
product specific de minimis  for rice.  
In 2018, Panama 's support for rice amounted to 31.9% of its value of production (VoP) fo r rice, 
while it was at 24.4% of rice VoP in 2017, an increase of 7.5 percentage points. This significant 
increase appears to be due to a second surge in eligible production, in addition to the one that 
occurred in 2017 (compared to 2016 levels), while the  price support of PAB 7.50 per quintal 
remained unchanged.  
At the 88th session of the Regular Committee on Agriculture, in its response to the United States 
requesting information regarding Panama 's breach of its domestic support commitment in 2017 
(AG-IMS ID 88114), Panama indicated that the first surge was explained by various reasons. G/AG/W/215  
 
- 256 - 
 
  Amongst other things, Panama explained that the rice price support program was recent and 
relatively unknown by rice producers, as it was announced in August 2015, and tha t payments are 
not necessarily received in the same year as the production year. Panama also indicated that it 
considered the program had stabilized by 2017. In addition, Panama did not clarify what steps it 
would take to come back into compliance with its  domestic support commitments, but indicated that 
Article 4 of Law 17 of 22 February 2018 allows for a review of the support price for rice every three 
years.  
a. Could Panama please explain the reasons why eligible production increased by 76% 
between 2017 (25 2,387 tonnes) and 2018 (328,628.5 tonnes), considering the program 
was in its 3rd implementation year?  
b. Does Panama expect eligible production to increase again in 2019?  
c. What considerations led Panama to believe that the program had stabilized in 2017, 
when payments increased considerably in 2018?  
d. What actions will Panama be taking to ensure compliance with its domestic support 
commitments in 2019 and in subsequent years?  
e. When is the next rice support price review expected to take place? Would Panama 
consider decreasing its support price for rice to mitigate risks of non -compliance and/or 
limiting eligible production through legislative means?  
Answer by Panama  
a. The increase of 76,241.6 metric tonnes in supported production between 2017 and 2018 
was mainly due to the fact that, for 2018, payments in support of rice production 
included payments pending for production sold in previous years; and the production 
sold especially in the last few months of 2017 is presented for procedural purposes in 
2018, w hen the payment becomes effective.  
b. Panama expects that eligible production will increase in 2019 since payments are still 
pending for sold production corresponding to previous years and it is expected that rice 
production will increase in the 2019/2020 agr icultural cycle.  
c. The main consideration that led Panama to believe that the program had stabilized in 
2017 was the fact that the harvested area in domestic production, which is the main 
variable in the sale of rice and the reason for the payment of support  (PAB 7.50 per 
quintal sold), stood at 71,000 hectares, which corresponded to the levels expected in 
recent years. The planted area (in hectares) for rice in the crop years 2014/2015 to 
2017/2018 were: 52,428; 57,066; 66,231 and 70,937, respectively.  
d. Article 4 of Law No. 17 of 22 February 2018, declaring rice to be a national food security 
crop, provides that the State shall adopt measures to guarantee rice production.  
e. In the short term, Panama plans to review the amount of support in accordance with 
Law No . 17 of 22 February 2018. Consequently, it is hoped that the support price review 
will take place in 2021.  
Follow -up: Uruguay reiterated concern regarding the distorting effects of the product -specific AMS 
granted to rice, an important export product for U ruguay, and requested Panama to stay in line with 
its commitments. Canada and the EU echoed the importance of compliance with DS commitments.  
3.2.4.12   Peru (G/AG/N/PER/19, G/AG/N/PER/20, G/AG/N/PER/21)  
AG-IMS ID 92063: Question by Canada - General services: resear ch  
a. In its 2015, 2016 and 2017 DS:1 notification, Peru notified a programme called 
"Payment for Competitiveness Programme" under Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) Research - 
of the Green  Box.  
i. Could Peru provide the criteria of eligibility of projects under this pro gramme and 
how it defines "small and medium -sized producers"?  
ii. Could Peru provide more details about the allocation of funding under this 
programme?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 257 - 
 
  b. In its 2015, 2016 and 2017 DS:1 notification, Peru notified a programme called 
"Innovation and competitiven ess projects and measures." under Annex 2, paragraph 
2(a) Research - of the Green box. Could Peru provide the criteria of eligibility of projects 
and more details about the allocation of funding under this programme?  
Answer by Peru  
a. 
i. Supreme Decree No.  014-2009-AG establishes the Regulations implementing the 
Legislative Decree creating the Payments for Competitiveness Programme (PCC). Article 
28(l) provides that small and medium -sized agricultural producers  are natural 
persons whose main economic activi ty is agriculture, animal husbandry and/or 
agroforestry, including activities involving the primary processing of the products 
derived therefrom.  
Similarly, the PCC Operations Manual, approved by Ministerial Resolution No. 0114 ‑2012-AG, lays 
down the criteria for determining whether a producer is small or medium -sized, which include the 
number of hectares, the geographical area and the type of cultivation or husbandry involved . 
Table No. 01: Criteria for determining whether producers are small or medium -sized, 
based on the size of the productive unit owned.  
Geographical 
area Size in hectares  
Land must not exceed:  Type of farming  
Coast  20 hectares - irrigated  All types of cultivation and husbandry.  
Mountain  65 hectares - unirrigated,  
20 hectares - irrigated  All types of cultivation and husbandry, with 
the exception of South American camelid 
husbandry and use, in which case the land 
may be larger.  
Highland  50 hectares  All types of cultivation and husbandry.  
Lowland  115 hectares  All types of cultivation and husbandry.  
Chapter II of the PCC Operations Manual states that organizations comprised of small and/or 
medium -sized agricultural producers (OPA)4, who operate in sustainable production units  (UPS)5, 
are eligible for the PCC. The PCC provides them with access to three incentives :  
• For partnership , reimbursement of any expenses related to the formal establishment of 
organizations of producers.  
• For management , co-financing of a manager for the organization.  
• For the adoption of technology , co-financing of the goods and services needed to improve 
production or marketing.  
Moreover, Article 47 states that the criteria for approving the eligibility of OPAs are related 
to the tenure and use of farmland holdings and their potential capacity for generating 
profit and following a business plan . 
 
4 Organization of Agricultural Producers (OPA): legal person comprised of small and/or medium -sized 
agricultural producers, under any modality permitted by the legal system.  
5 Sustainable Production Unit (UPS): Set of conditions characterizing a type of agricultural, livestock or 
forestry activity that allows produc ers of minimal scale to generate profits and recoup their investment in the 
implementation of productive systems.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 258 - 
 
  Table No. 02:  Criteria for tenure and use of farmland holdings  
Geographical 
area Tenure of holdings  Type of farming  
Coast  20 or more hectares covered by the PCC Business Plan.  
Fewer than 20 hectares of productive lands used for 
agricultural purposes, or to operate businesses whose 
capacity for generating profit and recouping investment is 
not dependent on the number of hectares.  All types of cultivation 
and husbandry.  Mountain  
Highland  
  
With regard to potential capacity , in order to generate profit or follow a business plan, economic 
and financial analysis tools and indicators are used to determine the potential capacity of OPAs to 
generate profit and follow a business plan.  
ii. The PCC is an executive unit of the Minis try of Agriculture and Irrigation that 
seeks to enhance agricultural competitiveness. Its budget is allocated through the 
treasury and enables the co ‑financing of incentives for beneficiaries of the 
programme, which are transferred through financial entiti es.  
Table No. 03: Co -financing of PCC incentives for eligible OPAs  
Incentive (*)  Input of the 
Programme  OPA input  
UIT % UIT % 
Partnership: Up to 0.5 UIT  0.5 100     
Management:  Up to 12 UIT each year  Year 1    70   30 
Year 2    50   50 
Year 3    30   70 
Adoption of technology:  
- Up to 300 UIT per OPA and from 4 UIT 
per partner.  
- The limit per partner may be increased 
up to 8 UIT, but only in cases of 
restructuring of production, understood 
as the entry of the OPA into a new 
business; applicable to eligible expenses 
for the planting of new crops.  PNT not exceeding 
125 UIT 100 Up to 80  25 20 
PNT between 125 
and 286  UIT 200 Up to 70  86 30 
PNT exceeding 
286 UIT  300 Up to 60    40 
(*) The amount of incentive expressed in Tax Units (UIT) will depend on its value on the date of 
approval by the ST.  
PNT: Business plan for the adoption of technology incentive  
UIT at 2019:  S/4200.  
b. The item listed as "Innovation and competitiveness projects and measures" is not a 
programme but, rather, a group of mea sures that are taken by various executive 
entities, special projects and several sections of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation, in support of Policy No. 6 on agrarian innovation and technological upgrading, 
contained in the National Agrarian Polic y, approved by Supreme Decree No 002 -2016-
MINAGRI.  
The strategic guidelines for the policy on agrarian innovation and technological upgrading prioritizes 
research into irrigation technological upgrading, soil and pasture management, sustainable use of 
genetic resources, forest development, biosecurity, genetic improvement and control of livestock 
diseases, improvement of crop resistance to pests and climate change, as well as actions promoting 
value added.  
As part of the implementation of the National Agra rian Policy, between 2015 and 2017, MINAGRI 
allocated funding for the development of projects to genetically enhance cattle breeding for the 
production of genetic material for cattle. Studies into the use of forestry and wildlife resources have 
also been c onducted. The amounts of funding have been notified in DS -1 for the years 2015, 2016 
and 2017.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 259 - 
 
  3.2.4.13   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/24)  
AG-IMS ID 92064: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Contrary to previous years, the Russian Federation did not report market price support for any 
commodities in 2017.  
Could the Russian federation confirm that the measure reported has price support in previous years 
were abolished? If not, could the Russia n federation explain why this support was not notified?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The minimum prices for certain grains is usually announced by the Ministry of Agriculture for calendar 
year or more. The prices were announced for 2017 -2018, but no procu rement interventions have 
been conducted for the grains. Consequently, market price support for the grains in 2017 was zero. 
The possibility of such measure of state support remains in force.  
Follow -up: Noting that no product received market price support in 2017 and no change had taken 
place in Russia's policies, Canada asked whether administered prices were maintained for that year. 
The EU echoed Canada's follow up question.  
AG-IMS ID 92038: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The European Union notes that the Russian Federation, unlike previous years, does not notify any 
market price support for wheat and barley in 2017.  
Did the Russian federation not use administered prices for wheat and barley in 2017? Can the 
Russi an Federation explain more in detail the changes to its cereal support policy?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
Market price support was not used for wheat and barley as for other cereals in 2017. There have 
been no policy changes in this connection.  
AG-IMS ID 92119: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks the Russian Federation for the submission of its DS:1 for 2017.   
Australia notes the Russia n Federation  notified a US D 100 million increase in support for milk from 
its 2016 to 2017 DS:1.  
Can the Russian Federation provide more information on why its support for milk increased 
significantly?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
The purpose of the increase in state support for milk in 2017 was technical modernization within 
dairy cattl e programme. For instance, 231 complexes (dairy farms and complexes) were 
reconstructed, upgraded and put into operation in 2017.  
3.2.4.14   Seychelles (G/AG/N/SYC/4)  
AG-IMS ID 92065: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates the quality and the level of detail in the Seychelles ' 2016 domestic support 
notification. Canada notes that the Seychelles has notified payments for relief from natural disasters 
in 2016 (Annex 2, paragraph 8), while no payment under Annex 2 p aragraph 8 were notified in its 
previous domestic support notification (G/AG/N/SYC/3 – 2013-2015).  
Could the Seychelles indicate whether these payments are related to a new programme, or a 
programme that has been modified? If so, when will the Seychelles be providing a DS:2 notification, 
including a rationale as to how the program meets the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 260 - 
 
  Answer by Seychelles  
AG-IMS ID 92066: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Canada notes a significant increase in the Seychelles ' expenditures in ST/DS:2 under investment 
loans with a preferential interest rate, from an average of  SCR 0.12 million in 2013 -2015, to 
SCR 21.35 million in 2016.  
Could the Seychelles provide an explanation as to why  investment loans with a preferential rate 
increased by more than SCR 21 million in one year?  
Answer by Seychelles  
3.2.4.15   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  
AG-IMS ID 92120: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Singapore for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/SGP/32), in 
which it confirms no domestic support was provided or maintained.  Singapore has not notified the 
provision of any domestic support for the last decade.   
On Singapore 's Food Agency website, th ere are a number of programmes that may fall within the 
Agreement of Agriculture commitments made by Singapore, for example: the Agriculture 
Productivity Fund; the Productivity Enhancement Scheme; the Research & Development scheme; 
and the Cash Advancement  program.  
Can Singapore confirm that it has not provided any domestic support under these programmes, or 
explain how any expenditure under these programmes do not fall under Singapore 's Agreement on 
Agriculture commitments.  
Answer by Singapore  
The Agricu lture Productivity Fund (APF), a programme administered by the Singapore Food 
Agency  (SFA), helps farmers in Singapore develop higher technology farming capabilities and 
conduct R&D on innovative technologies.  
The APF comprises the (i) Research and Develop ment (R&D) Open Call; (ii) Basic Capability 
Upgrading (BCU) Scheme; (iii) Productivity Enhancement (PE) Scheme; and (iv) Cash Advancement.  
Singapore takes our WTO obligations seriously, including those under the Agreement of Agriculture.  
In line with our o bligations, we have notified the APF to the WTO as a domestic support measure 
falling within the green box for calendar year 2019.  
3.2.4.16   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  
AG-IMS ID 92034: Question by European Union - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natu ral disasters  
Payments for relief from natural disasters have increased from TWD 4.5 trillion to TWD 8.3 trillion.  
Can Chinese Taipei explain the reason for this and what types of "damaged income " are concerned?  
How is the compensation calculated includi ng eligibility criteria?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
First of all, my delegation would like to thank EU for its interest on our natural disaster relief program. 
Before providing our response to the question, my delegation would like to remind EU and other 
members with interests that the amount of disaster relief referred in EU's question could be 
unintentionally multiplied by a thousand time by accidentally using "trillion" rather than "billion".  
Due to extremely low temperatures in January 2016 Typhoon Nibbl e, Typhoon Morandi and Typhoon 
Meiji, there were severe losses in our agricultural sector. The amount of losses has reached 
NT$38.3  billion NT dollars in 2016, which is more than 1.2 billion US dollars. Acting according to the 
"Agricultural Natural Disaste rs Relief Regulations" (hereafter referred as "Relief Regulations"), the G/AG/W/215  
 
- 261 - 
 
  Council of Agriculture offered cash to compensate farmers' losses caused by the natural disasters, 
in the view that such relief will help those farmers to recover from their loss and resume cultivation 
swiftly. The Relief Regulations stipulated that cash relief would be given where a farmer suffered 
losses of more than 20% of their production. If the on -site inspection carried out by competent 
authorities confirmed the eligibility of f armers to claim disaster relief, cash relief equal to 10% up 
to 20% of the average production cost of the crop suffering from the damage would be provided.  
AG-IMS ID 92035: Question by European Union - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 Chinese Taipei lists several different market price support schemes for 
rice.  
Can Chinese Taipei explain more in detail the different aide schemes for rice and the eligibility criteria 
for these schemes. Further, can Chinese Taipe i indicate the total production within its territory for 
the different types of rice listed.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
My delegation would like to thank EU for its question. We would like to refer to our responses to 
question AG -IMS ID 91116 raised by Unit ed States and AG -IMS ID 90101 raised by Thailand. We 
stand ready to provide further clarity if needed.  
The purpose of having the "planned purchase" is to increase farmers' income. The "supplementary 
purchase" is aimed at stabilizing the market prices. The  "additional purchase" is to avoid the price 
from being lower than production costs.  
Farmers who wish to participate in the programs shall report their area of rice plantation in advance 
for the government to calculate the eligible quantities of "planned p urchase", "supplementary 
purchase", and "additional purchase" measure for each farmer.  
Upon harvest, farmers can refer to the latest market price to decide whether to sell their crop to the 
government and at what quantity. For the collection of public stoc k, the crop shall be grown on 
agricultural land and meet the following quality standards:  
1. Moisture shall not exceed 13%.  
2. Test weight: Japonica rice shall weigh over 530 grammes per liter, Indica rice shall 
weigh over 490 grammes per liter, short grain wax y rice shall weigh over 510 grams 
per liter, and long grain waxy rice shall weigh over 480 grams per liter.  
3. Foreign matter shall not exceed 0.5%.  
4. Damaged kernel shall not exceed 6% with heat damaged kernels below 0.5%.  
5. Off-type kernel shall not exceed 5% f or Japonica rice and Indica rice, and shall not 
exceed 3% for waxy rice.  
6. Broken kernel shall not exceed 4% for Japonica rice, shall not exceed 8% for Indica 
rice, shall not exceed 3% for short grain waxy rice, and shall not exceed 6% for long 
grain waxy ri ce. 
7. Immature kernel shall not exceed 20% for Japonica rice and Indica rice, and shall not 
exceed  10% for waxy rice.  
8. Non-opaque waxy kernels: shall not exceed 4% for waxy rice.  
9. Hygiene requirements shall conform to the relevant food hygiene laws.  
The standa rds for inspection in sub -paragraph 4 through sub -paragraph 8 above shall be evaluated 
on the brown rice basis.  
Production of each rice type in 2016  
Type  Production (tonnes)  
Japonica -type rice  1,443,119  
Indica -type rice  67,779  
glutinous rice  76,879  
Total 1,587,777  
AG-IMS ID 92116: Question by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In its notification G/AG/N/TPKM/181, Chinese Taipei has informed that product -specific support for 
soybean reached 70.87% of its VoP in 2016. For the purpose of comparison, in 2015, according to 
notification G/AG/N/TPKM/175, product -specific support for so ybean accounted for 58.35%.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 262 - 
 
  a. Could Chinese Taipei provide clarify the reasons for this increase?  
b. What measures have been implemented to try to reduce this sector`s dependence on 
product -specific support measures?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
To fulfil the po licy goal for ensuring national food security, cut back on the area of rice paddy 
cultivation, and revitalize farmlands, the COA embarks on a program namely "Big Granary Project. " 
This program is aiming at rebuilding the domestic supply chain of grains, in cluding soybeans, and 
producing domestic grain crops which are safe, with good quality and diversified options for 
producers and consumers. This program will be reviewed annually on the rolling basis with the view 
to make the soybean industry become more s elf-sustainable and require less subsidies.  
AG-IMS ID 92057: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Under Supporting Table DS:7, Chinese Taipei reported freight subsidy for sugar.  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide information on how this programm e works, including details 
on the eligibility criteria, and how the freight subsidy is allocated?  
b. Is this subsidy available to sugar that is exported?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
The freight support is part of the deal between Taiwan Sugar Corporation (TSC)  and their contracted 
sugarcane farmers, aiming at maintaining the willingness and benefits of contractors. The cost of 
transportation between farm and sugar factory with a regular 21 -tonnes truck paid by farmers will 
be full recovered by TSC. In addition,  this subsidy is not available to sugar that is exported.  
3.2.4.17   Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1, G/AG/N/TJK/6)  
AG-IMS ID 92067: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to reiterate that question AG -IMS ID 91104 is still pendin g answer from Tajikistan. 
Canada is hence resubmitting questions raised at the previous meeting:  
Question applies to Tajikistan's notifications TJK/1 to TJK/6 Between 2013 and 2018, Tajikistan, 
notified that it has not provided any domestic support to its  agricultural sector. Canada notes that 
in its AGST tables, Tajikistan included a number of programmes classified as Green Box, as Special 
and Differential Treatment – "Development Programmes", as product -specific AMS and non 
product ‑specific AMS.  
a. Could Tajikistan please clarify if the programmes listed in its AGST tables were still in 
operation between 2013 and 2018? If yes, could Tajikistan provide an explanation as 
to why these programmes were not included in its recent domestic support notificat ions.  
b. The measures listed in Tajikistan's AGST tables include general services such as 
inspection services and, pest and disease control. Could Tajikistan clarify that these 
general services are still in operation?  
c. According to the FAO website ( http://www.fao.org/3/a -bp563e.pdf ), in 2012 Tajikistan 
put in place the Agricultural Reform Programme of the Republic of Tajikistan. The 
Agricultural Reform Programme of the Republic of Tajikistan includes a list of  22 
objectives to reform its agricultural sector. Could Tajikistan clarify if there were any 
agricultural programmes launched as part of this Agricultural Reform Programme to 
meet the 22  agricultural objectives? If yes, please provide the names of the 
programmes and the amounts expended. Also, could Tajikistan clarify why these 
measures were not included in Tajikistan's recent domestic support notifications.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 263 - 
 
  Answer by Tajikistan  
3.2.5   New or modified domestic support measures ( Table DS:2)  
3.2.5.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 92070: Question by Canada - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Canada would like to express once again its appreciation for China 's responses to questions posed 
by Canada at the 90th (AG-IMS ID 90086) and 91st meeting (AG -IMS ID 91106) of the Committee 
on Agriculture regarding China 's Blue Box domestic support measures for corn. Canada would be 
grateful for further information on some of the key aspects of China 's "Corn Producer Subsidy 
System ".  
Canada understands from China 's response to AG -IMS ID 90086 and AG -IMS ID 91106 that the 
objective of the 2016 -2018 "Corn Producer Subsidy System ", which was implemented across four 
northeastern Chinese provinces or autonomous regions, was to stabilize corn production at an 
appropriate  level, while sustaining producers ' livelihood. This includes a stabilization of farmers ' 
income, where the payment rate is reviewed on a yearly basis and adjusted as necessary, taking 
into account producers ' cost of production and market prices, which flu ctuate according to supply 
and demand.  
The total amount of the subsidy is calculated by China 's Ministry of Finance, using the payment rate 
and both a fixed area (four northeastern provinces) and a fixed yield based on 2014 production 
levels, and is trans ferred to provincial governments. Provincial governments then transfer the per 
producer amount of the subsidy directly to producers ' bank account through a Ministry of Finance 
approved, detailed provincial implementation plans, which include reducing the p lanting of corn in 
'non-advantageous ' areas. To receive a payment, corn producers need to apply for the payment to 
the local government and report their total corn planting area, which is made public and used to 
determine the amount of the payment. China i ndicated that it intends on continuing the programme 
beyond 2018.  
a. Could China confirm whether the implementation of the "Corn Producer Subsidy 
Program " is continuing in 2019 and whether it will continue in 2020?  
i. If so, is the fixed area and yield still b ased on 2014 levels?  
ii. Have changes been made to the programme?  
b. Could China provide additional information on the payment rate, including on how 
farmers ' income are assessed?  
i. For example, what is the reference base for income stabilization?  
ii. Are producer revenues meant to increase through those payments?  
iii. What was the payment rate in 2016, in 2017 and in 2018? What is the payment 
rate in 2019, if the programme is currently still in place?  
iv. How is income stabilization achieved? Is there a specific "average revenue per 
producer " target at the provincial level or in the implementation plans?  
v. Has the total amount of the subsidy resulted in an increase in producer revenues?  
c. Could China provide additional information on the fixed yield amount used by the 
Ministry of Finance to assess the total amount of the subsidy?  
i. What specific quantity does the Ministry of Finance use in its calculation?  
ii. Does this quantity always stay the  same? Is the payment rate the only component 
that can be adjusted?  
iii. Will this quantity remain the same beyond 2018, the end of the period of 
application of the programme?  
d. Could China elaborate on the process for delivering the payment to producers, inclu ding 
on how payments per producer are determined, and whether producers can increase 
planting areas to increase their payment?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 264 - 
 
  e. Given that the stated objective of the programme is to ensure income and production 
stabilization for corn producers in specific  regions of China, could China elaborate on 
the considerations and market conditions that make the production -limiting "Corn 
Producer Subsidy System " preferable to an income -safety net or direct payment type 
of programme, which directly relate to producer revenues and are deemed to be non - 
or minimally trade and production -distorting?  
f. Could China indicate whether the four northeastern provinces/autonomous regions are 
facing issues related to corn production surpluses?  
i. If so, was the "Corn Producer Subsidy  System " effective in limiting and stabilizing 
corn production in the region?  
ii. What was the total annual corn production in the four northeastern Chinese 
provinces or autonomous regions in 2014 to 2018?  
iii. Were financial or economic incentives given for prod ucers to transition to other 
types of production?  
Answer by China  
a. The Corn Producer Subsidy continues in 2019. The fixed area and yield are still based 
on 2014 level. It is expected to continue in 2020. Currently, we don 't have the details 
of the policy a t hand.  
b. At the central government level, the payment rate is determined based on the cost of 
production and the average market price of cotton farmers. When the payment is made 
to each producer, the local government is entrusted to determine the specific payment 
rate of the region under its governance. The statistics on the planting area of corn for 
the past three  years show that the policy has successfully realized the requirement of 
production -limiting. It should be noted that the policy is not introduce d to increase the 
income of corn producers, instead it was set to facilitate the market -oriented reform for 
corn, by preventing the serious adverse effect of policy adjustment on the farmers ' 
income from corn production.  
c. The yield is 423.8 kilos per mu, o r 6.36 ton nes per hectare, which is fixed for 2016 -
2019.  
d. In order to receive the subsidy, corn producers are request to apply to the local 
governments. The local governments will verify and calculate the total area of 
production of region under their governance and calculate the payment rate based on 
the total a mount of subsidy transferred to them, and then the amount of subsidy for 
each producer. The subsidy will be transferred directly to the bank account of the corn 
producers. If the producers expand their production which cause the increase of the 
total plant ing area of the region, the payment rate will be lower than the expected level, 
and thus insufficient to fill the gap between the market price and their production cost. 
Under such circumstance, their willingness to plant corn will be reduced. The statisti cs 
show that the total planting areas of the 3 provinces and the Autonomous Region of 
Inner Mongolia have been lower than their plating areas in the base period for the past 
three  years, which means that the policy didn 't provide incentives for corn produc ers to 
increase corn production.  
e. Farming in China is carried out by hundreds of millions of small -scale households, with 
the average farmland  area of less than 0.7 hectares per household. For most of farmers, 
their farmlands  are scattered at different pla ces and can 't be planted as one production 
unit. Affected by the traditional living style and plantation habits, many famers plant a 
variety of crops for their own consumption. With such disadvantage, most farmers can 't 
sustain their daily life solely rely ing on grain production and have to get additional 
income from other channels, such as part time jobs in the non -agriculture sectors. This 
situation makes it impossible for the government to precisely get and verify the income 
of each individual farmer, in cluding their incomes from agricultural production. 
Therefore, there is no sound basis for the government to implement the policies that 
can satisfy the criteria of the income safety -net programs.  
f. f. The subsidy program played an important role in facilitating the supply side reform, 
which has been proved to be successful. During the reform process, local governments G/AG/W/215  
 
- 265 - 
 
  were authorized to use part of the subsidy to encourage farmers who used to produce 
corn to make decisions based on market signals.  
3.2.5.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  
AG-IMS ID 92083: Question by New Zealand - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base 
level of production  
New Zealand refers to Norway's response to Canada's questions ( AG-IMS ID 91108) at the 
June 2019 Committee on Agriculture, in rel ation to its notification (G/AG/N/NOR/103) regarding Blue 
Box domestic support programme to small and medium size dairy farms. New Zealand would like to 
know the percentage of total dairy production that small and medium dairy farms provide?  
Answer by Norw ay 
Norway thanks New Zealand for the interest in Norwegian dairy farms. Small and medium size dairy 
farms defined as holdings with 1 -50 cows per farm, provide 74 % of the total dairy cow number in 
Norway.  
Follow -up: New Zealand reiterated its interest in B lue Box support and noted it would continue to 
monitor how Members managed production limiting requirements.  
3.2.6   Export subsidy commitments ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
3.2.6.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/65, G/AG/N/KOR/66, G/AG/N/KOR/67 , 
G/AG/N/KOR/68 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92039: Question by European Union - Special and differential treatment 
(Article 9.4)  
Republic of Korea ES:1 Notifications G/AG/N/KOR/65 to 68 - Developing Country  
The EU would like to thank the Republic of Korea for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date.  
The EU has however noted that the Republic of Korea has notified its export subsidy commitments 
for 2014 -2017 in Supporting Table ES:2, using the Article 9.4 exemption reserved for developing 
countries.  
Taking into account that the Republic o f Korea according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita at 
USD 30,600 (2018 figures), and as such is classified as a "high income" country (US D 12,376 or 
more), the EU would ask whether the Republic of Korea could clarify this notification and identify 
the development needs that are met by using this Article.  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
The Republic of Korea can avail itself of Article 9.4 support until the end of 2023, according to the 
Nairobi ministerial decision on export support.  
Follow -up: The EU no ted that Korea's response that it would continue to apply Article 9.4 until 2023 
was contradictory to its recent decision of not applying S&D provisions at the WTO and asked the 
Republic of Korea to confirm its response. The Republic of Korea confirmed tha t it would apply 
Article  9.4 till 2023. The EU repeated its view that only those Members in real development need 
should use the Article 9.4 provision and it found Korea's case difficult to justify as its Gross National 
Income almost doubled the world aver age.  
AG-IMS ID 92122: Question by Ukraine - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
G/AG/N/KOR/65; G/AG/N/KOR/66; G/AG/N/KOR/67; G/AG/N/KOR/68  
Ukraine appreciates the opportunity to review the Republic of Korea 's export subsidy notifications 
for the years 2014 –2017. The data demonstrate a significant increase in monetary support for 
vegetable (51 % increase from 2014 to 2017) and an exceptional increase in monetary support for 
processed food (747 % increase from 2014 to 2017). The combined monetary and volume impact 
for each of these products is also noteworthy: in the case of processed food, the volume increase of 
843% in fact reduces the per unit subsidy; however, the volume increase for vegetables of 3.8 % G/AG/W/215  
 
- 266 - 
 
  translates to a signific antly high per unit subsidy. The Republic of Korea claims the export subsidy 
support under the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Ukraine kindly ask the 
Republic of Korea to provide the following information:  
a. What are the main reasons for the sharp increases in export subsidy support for 
vegetables and processed food?  
b. Please identify specifically, which vegetables benefit from this export subsidy support?  
c. Please specify the nature of the cost reduction measur es applied and any differences or 
specifics for vegetables and processed food.  
d. Could the Republic of Korea inform how this policy meets requirements of paragraphs 
9 and 10 of the 2015 Nairobi Decision stipulating the obligation "not to raise their export 
subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis "?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
a. The Republic of Korea continuously decreases the proportion of export subsidy to total 
transport cost  (25% in 2008 to 9$ in 2018) as an effort to c omply with its WTO 
obligation. The support for vegetables and processed food has increased due to 
successful diversification of export markets including Middle East and European 
countries, which led to increase in long -distance air cargo volumes as well as  export 
subsidy.  
b. 35 products including bell pepper, strawberry, mushroom are receiving Article 9.4 
support. Detailed list is as follows; - 2014 : bell pepper, strawberry(fresh), enokitake, 
pleurotus eryngii, cabbage, chinese cabbage, cherry tomato, onion,  tomato, 
muskmelon, takuan, other mushrooms, strawberry(frozen), chili pepper, other 
vegetables, pearl oyster mushroom, radish, watermelon, sweet potato, korean zucchini, 
potato, red pepper powder, garlic, cucumber, beefsteak plant, eggplant, bracken, 
carrot, seasoned beefsteak plant, green onion, spinach, common mushroom, garden 
asparagus, lettuce - 2015 : bell pepper, strawberry(fresh), enokitake, pleurotus eryngii, 
cabbage, chinese cabbage, cherry tomato, onion, tomato, muskmelon, takuan, other 
mushrooms , strawberry(frozen), chili pepper, other vegetables, pearl oyster 
mushroom, radish, watermelon, sweet potato, korean zucchini, potato, garlic, 
cucumber, beefsteak plant, eggplant, bracken, carrot, green onion, spinach, common 
mushroom, garden asparagus, s iraegi, vegetable seeds, kabocha, lettuce - 2016 : bell 
pepper, strawberry(fresh), enokitake, pleurotus eryngii, cabbage, chinese cabbage, 
cherry tomato, onion, tomato, muskmelon, takuan, other mushrooms, 
strawberry(frozen), chili pepper, other vegetables,  pearl oyster mushroom, radish, 
watermelon, sweet potato, korean zucchini, potato, garlic, cucumber, beefsteak plant, 
eggplant carrot, green onion, spinach, common mushroom, garden asparagus, siraegi, 
vegetable seeds, kabocha, lettuce - 2017 : bell pepper,  strawberry(fresh), enokitake, 
pleurotus eryngii, cabbage, chinese cabbage, cherry tomato, onion, tomato, 
muskmelon, other mushrooms, strawberry(frozen), chili pepper, other vegetables, pearl 
oyster mushroom, radish, watermelon, sweet potato, korean zucchi ni, potato, garlic, 
cucumber, beefsteak plant, eggplant carrot, green onion, spinach, common mushroom, 
garden asparagus, vegetable seeds, kabocha, lettuce, oriental melon, bean  
c. 9% of the transport and freight costs are calculated and supported by the gove rnment. 
While 9% subsidy rate remains unchanged, amount of support varies depending on 
distance and whether products are sea -shipped or air -carried. As for vegetables, air 
carrier is frequently used in order to maintain their freshness when exported to dis tant 
countries while processed foods are mostly sea -shipped.  
d. As the Republic of Korea mentioned in its previous answer, diversification of export 
markets and rise in export volume led to increase in export support. Korea plans to 
continuously drop export subsidy rates to fully implement the WTO agreement 
including  2015 Na irobi decision.  
Follow -up: Ukraine reaffirmed its strong support of the Nairobi Decision to reduce and eliminate 
export subsidies. New Zealand supported Ukraine's comments and recalled tha t in the Nairobi 
Decision Members also committed to exercise utmost restraint with regard to export subsidies which 
could have adverse effects on other Members.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 267 - 
 
  3.2.6.2   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39/REV.1, G/AG/N/MEX/44/REV.1)  
AG-IMS ID 92123: Question by Brazil - Transp arency issues  
Mexico's latest ES:1 notifications (G/AG/N/MEX/39/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/MEX/44/Rev.1) reveal the 
granting of export subsidies to maize (corn) on back -to-back years, from 2017 to 2018.  
Could Mexico provide further information on the programmes or policies that allowed for the payment 
of such export subsidies to Mexican farmers, especially if such programmes or policies are still in 
place?  
Answer by Mexico  
The export subsidies mentioned by Brazil were provided under the Marketing Incentives Componen t 
of the Marketing Support Programme run by the Agency for Agricultural Market Development and 
Marketing Services (ASERCA).  
Table 1 shows the subsidy amounts provided in 2017 and 2018 and the share those amounts 
represented of certain variables of interest.  
Table 1. Mexico: Maize (corn) export subsidies, 2017 ‑2018  
 2017  2018  
Maize (corn) export subsidies (MXN  million)  356.0  339.0  
As percentage of Marketing Incentives Component  7.5%  6.5%  
As percentage of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) budget 
expenditure  0.5%  0.4%  
As percentage of gross value of maize (corn) production  0.3%  0.3%  
Source:  Prepared with Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development data .  
The incentive is now part of a new programme under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development, the Programme for Social and Sustainable Agricultural Markets (AMSYS), which seeks 
to promote the appropriate marketing of surplus harvests of eligible crops, such as maize (corn), 
and does not include export ‑related support components.  
It should be noted that, in line with the new commitments undertaken in the area by Mexico as a 
result of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, no export subsidies were provided for any product in fiscal 
year 2019. While provision i s made for marketing support for maize (corn), that support is focused 
on internal transportation to supply the domestic industry.  
Follow -up: The EU echoed New Zealand's call for Members to exercise utmost restraint with regard 
to export subsidies which co uld have adverse effects on other Members as per the Nairobi Decision.  
3.2.6.3   Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/20)  
AG-IMS ID 92124: Question by Australia  
Australia welcomes Myanmar 's submission of 10 overdue ES:1 notifications. Australia welcomes this 
commitment to bringing notification submissions up to date and the transparency that comes with 
that. Australia looks forward to the submission of the ES:1 notifications for 2015 and onwards, and 
in the absence of these: Australia would like to know if Myanmar has provided expor t subsidies in 
those reporting periods?  
Answer by Myanmar  
3.2.6.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/126, G/AG/N/USA/118)  
AG-IMS ID 92084: Question by New Zealand - Quantity of total exports  
The U.S. previous ES:1 and ES:2 notifications (G/AG/N/USA/118) was for Calendar Year 2015. The 
latest notification (G/AG/N/US A/126) is for Fiscal Year 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. Can the US 
please clarify how it has (or will) notify total exports for the six months not accounted for in either 
notification, i.e. , 1 January 20 16 to 30 June 2016?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 268 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
The United States thanks New Zealand for its question and would like to direct them to footnote 1 
of the United States 2015 ES notification (G/AG/N/USA/118). The footnote states that all quantity 
commitments are for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, following the same reporting timeframe 
as our schedule and the most recent notification in question.  
3.2.6.5   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/127)  
AG-IMS ID 92125: Question by Australia - International food aid  
Australia thanks the United States for its ES:3 notification for FY 2016 -17 (G/AG/N/USA/127) 
reporting total food aid to all destinations.  Australia fully supports the provision of assistance to 
address humanitarian emergencies and impr ove food security in regions that have poor access to 
sufficient nutrition. However, Australia notes the volumes of physical food aid notified by the United 
States for specific products are significant, for example: 850 thousand tonnes of wheat and flour; 
375 thousand tonnes of course grains; 111 thousand tonnes of rice and 140 thousand tonnes of 
vegetable oil.  Australia would therefore kindly welcome the United States ' advice on:  
a. whether it is considering moving to untied food assistance consistent with 
paragraph  23(c) of the Nairobi Decision?  
b. How it ensures the physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on recipient 
Members ' agricultural industries, nor on their region 's production and commercial 
markets of either like -products, or substitute product s? 
Answer by United States of America  
a. U.S. food assistance is not tied directly or indirectly to commercial exports of agricultural 
products or other goods and services. Additionally, please note in the U.S. export 
competition questionnaire that, since fiscal year 2016, the value and volume of  physical 
food aid notified by the United States have been decreasing year over year. Also, ever 
since fiscal year 2016 the total value of food assistance through cash transfers, 
vouchers, or locally and regionally procured food has substantially increased  and 
exceeded the total value of U.S. in -kind food aid.  
b. The U.S. Government works with recipient governments and implementing 
organizations to analyze the markets and choose agricultural products that will not 
disrupt local production, prices, local marke ts, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval 
of a proposed U.S. food aid program in a recipient country, the U.S. Government must 
make a positive "Bellmon Determination." The local and regional market analysis of the 
Bellmon Determination takes into cons ideration quantitative and qualitative market 
data, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the country, suitability 
of commodity, and potential policy issues.  
AG-IMS ID 92085: Question by China - International food aid  
China welcomes  the ES:3 notification of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/127) dated 1 August 2019, 
concerning food aid (Table ES:3) in the context of export subsidy commitments for the fiscal year 
from 01 -10-2016 to 30 -09-2017. It is noted that 20,000 tonnes of oilcakes we re provided as 
international food aid. Please clarify whether the oilcakes were provided as emergency food aid or 
non-emergency food aid? In addition, please provide the needs assessment for such aid.  
Answer by United States of America  
The notified 20,000  tonnes consisted of soybean meal provided as non -emergency developmental 
food aid. As notified in the U.S. 2019 export competition questionnaire, U.S. food assistance for 
non-emergency development/capacity building is provided by private voluntary organiz ations, 
cooperatives, governments of developing countries and their agencies, universities, the World Food 
Programme, and other international organizations. The U.S. Government works with the 
implementing organizations and the recipient governments to anal yse the markets and choose 
agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local markets, or commercial trade.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 269 - 
 
  Follow -up: China asked the US to clarify whether food aid was provided to soymeal or oil cake. The 
US noted that the notifi ed 20,000 tonnes consisted of soybean meal provided as non -emergency 
development food aid. China pointed out that there may be an error in U.S. Table ES:3 notification. 
The US would review its notification.  
3.3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.3.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 92029: Que stion by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID 88082 and AG-IMS ID 90080, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following questions:  
a. The United States notes that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the total 
volume of food aid provided).  
b. Has China determined whether or not it will submit Table  ES:3 - Notification of the total 
volume of food aid for all relevant years? If not, please explain why not.  
Answer by China  
3.3.2   India  
AG-IMS ID 92030: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID 88085 and AG -IMS ID 91143, the United States notes that India owes 
the Committee on Agriculture seven years of overdue notifications (Table ES:1, Supporting 
Table  ES:2, and ES:3 for relevant years). India 's export subsid y data is necessary for discussions 
among WTO Member in pursuing a reform agenda at the Ministerial Conference in June 2020.  
Please provide all overdue ES notifications as soon as possible.  
Answer by India  
India's Export subsidies under Article 9.4 of th e AoA will be notified shortly.  
3.3.3   Kazakhstan  
AG-IMS ID 92040: Question by European Union  
So far Kazakhstan has not provided any DS:1 notification after it became a WTO Member on 
30 November 2015. When does Kazakhstan intend to submit its DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by Kazakhstan  
Kazakhstan thanks the EU for its interest in Kazakhstan's DS notifications.  
Currently Kazakhstan is in the process of finalizing DS notification for 2016 calendar year and we 
expect this notification to be available for WTO members r eview in the nearest future.   
3.3.4   Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 92041: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification Morocco provided dates back to 2012 covering the year 2003 to 2007. 
When does Morocco intend to submit its subsequent notifications?  
Answer by M orocco  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 270 - 
 
  3.3.5   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 92068: Question by Canada  
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its domestic support notifications for 2005 and 2009 in 2018. 
Given that these recent DS:1 notifications cover programmes from ten years ago and which may no 
longer be in force could Turkey provide an update on its schedule to submit more recent domestic 
support notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
The notification process of Turkey in the field of domestic support and export subsidies has been 
going on with the related institu tions and sections. Internal approval procedures are still going on. 
Having said that Turkey once again would like to note that it is committed to its notification 
obligations. In this regard, Turkey would like to announce that the notifications regarding domestic 
support and export subsidies for the years 2010 -2013 have been prepared and will be submitted 
within a couple of weeks. Turkey will keep its efforts to fulfill its obligations to complete the 
outstanding notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 92069: Question by  Canada  
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its export subsidy notifications both Table ES:1 and ES:2 
for 2005 to 2009 in 2019. Given that these recent ES:1 and ES:2 notifications are for time frames 
that are ten years in the past and therefore, difficult t o assess Turkey 's implementation of its export 
subsidy commitments. Could Turkey provide an update on its plans to submit more recent export 
subsidies notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
The notification process of Turkey in the field of domestic support and export subsidies  has been 
going on with the related institutions and sections. Internal approval procedures are still going on. 
Having said that Turkey once again would like to note that it is committed to its notification 
obligations. In this regard, Turkey would like to  announce that the notifications regarding domestic 
support and export subsidies for the years 2010 -2013 have been prepared and will be submitted 
within a couple of weeks. Turkey will keep its efforts to fulfill its obligations to complete the 
outstanding notifications.  
Follow -up: Canada encouraged Turkey to continue the data collection exercise so as to bring the 
remaining notifications up to date. The US stressed importance of timely notifications to have 
meaningful discussions in this Committee.  
AG-IMS ID 92042: Question by Eu ropean Union  
The latest DS:1, ES:1 and ES:2 notification provided by Turkey cover the year 2009. When does 
Turkey intend to submit its subsequent notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
The notification process of Turkey in the field of domestic support and expor t subsidies has been 
going on with the related institutions and sections. Internal approval procedures are still going on. 
Having said that Turkey once again would like to note that it is committed to its notification 
obligations. In this regard, Turkey wo uld like to announce that the notifications regarding domestic 
support and export subsidies for the years 2010 -2013 have been prepared and will be submitted 
within a couple of weeks. Turkey will keep its efforts to fulfill its obligations to complete the 
outstanding notifications.  
3.3.6   Viet Nam  
AG-IMS ID 92043: Question by European Union  
The latest MA:2 notification from Viet Nam is document G/AG/N/VNM/8 dated 28 September 2016 
covering the years 2011 to 2015. When does Viet Nam intend to submit notifications fo r the following 
years?  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 271 - 
 
  Answer by Viet Nam  
Viet Nam has been gathering data/information and will provide required MA:2 notifications as soon 
as possible.  
3.4  EXPORT COMPETITION  
3.4.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 92031: Question by United States of America  
At the June 2019 CoA,  the United States requested that China provide data updates for the export 
credit section, agricultural exporting state trading enterprises and food aid sections of the ECQ for 
years 2017 and 2018. In AG -IMS ID 91115, China responded that "the export comp etition 
questionnaire for 2017 -2018 is being prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible. " However, 
the Secretariat 's document G/AG/ W/125/Rev.11 and addendums did not included updates to China 's 
response sections.  
Will China submit its ECQ responses  for years 2017 -18? If China will not provide updates, could 
China please explain its rationale?  
Answer by China  
EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
No export subsidy has been provided for agricultural products since China's entry into the WTO in 
2001.  
EXPORT CREDIT, EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEES OR INSURANCE PROGRAMS (EXPORT FINANCING)  
a. Agricultural Development Bank of China  
The trade financing programs provided in the reporting period were all short -term 
working capital financing to the suppliers, which are not subject to the provisions of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.   
b. The Export -Import Bank of China  
The trade financing programs provided in the reporting period were all short -term 
working capital financing to the suppliers, which are no t subject to the provisions of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.   
c. China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE)  
The export credit insurance programs provided by SINOSURE are risk cover provided 
on regular commercial terms and  conditions.  
In 2017, the total value of export covered by export insurance is $ 13.6 billion with the annual 
average premium rates/fees of 0.31% and annual average repayment period of 75 days per program. 
The exportation destinations include: the United S tates, Japan, Hong Kong China, the United 
Emirates and South Korea.  
In 2018, the total value of export covered by export insurance is $ 15.95 billion with the annual 
average premium rates/fees of 0.24% and annual average repayment period of 70 days per pro gram. 
The exportation destinations include: the United States, Japan, Hong Kong China, Indonesia and 
South Korea.  
FOOD AID  
In response to the requests for emergency food aid by the pertinent recipient countries, China 
provided food aid with the total value  of 2 billion RMB to relevant countries through both multilateral 
and bilateral channels from 2017 to 2018. The aid was provided both in cash and in -kind. All food 
was provided on fully granted basis. Monetization and re -export were not allowed.  
AGRICULTUR AL EXPORTING STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES  
For relevant information, please refer to the notifications on state trading (G/STR/N/16/CHN, 
G/STR/N/17/CHN) submitted by the Government of the People's Republic of China in July 2018.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 272 - 
 
  3.4.2   Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 9 2044: Question by European Union  
Introduction of Export subsidies  
Press reports on 10 October 2019 state that President Putin signed into law amendments to the 
Budget Code permitting the disbursement of subsidies to exporters of alcoholic beverages.  
The current version of the Budget Code prohibits subsidies to producers  of goods subject to excise 
taxes, except producers of wines from domestic grapes.  According to the new rules, producers of all 
alcoholic beverages will be eligible to receive export subsidies covering interest rate costs on loans.  
a. Can the Russian Federat ion list all the products that will be covered by both the existing 
and the new rules? For which export destinations will these rules apply?  
b. Can the Russian Federation  please explain how these rules are in conformity with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition - WT/MIN(15)/45?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
There is no specific list of products covered both the existing and the new rules. It may or may no t 
include such products in future, it is still under discussion. We should also mention that the Budget 
Codex of the Russian Federation does not provide for any forms of exports subsidies including for 
those to the producers of wines from domestic grapes. In case of the development of any measures 
of state support the provision of Nairobi decision on export competition prohibiting direct export 
subsidies will be followed. We note that the Russian Federation amends the Budget Code in line with 
the WTO Nairob i Ministerial Decision.  
AG-IMS ID 92032: Question by United States of America  
The United States would like to repeat its question in AG -IMS ID 91126, as the Russian Federation  
has not provided a response.   
The United States notes that the Russian Export C enter (RCE) operates a programme called 
"Compensation for export credits from commercial banks " that subsidizes interest rates on export 
credits provided by commercial banks, which includes transactions supporting agricultural products, 
per Resolution of t he Government of the Russian Federation No.  620 of 24 May 2017 and in 
accordance with Federal Law of 29 November 2018 No. 459 -ФЗ. 
a. Please describe this export credit programme and whether it should be reported in the 
export competition questionnaire (ECQ).  
b. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for agricultural products in 2017 and 2018.  
The United States notes that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), Rosselkhozbank p rovides trade financial products/services for the 
export of agricultural products.  
c. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank 's trade financing activities should be reported 
in the ECQ.  
Answer by Russian Federation  
1. Description of the programme:  
Direct financing support; any other form of governmental export credit support: The 
Government provides financing for JSC Russian Export Center to subsidize interest rates 
on export credits and other financing products similar to loan according to the Resolution 
of the Government of the Russian Federation of 24 May 2017 No. 620. In 2017 -2018 
credit resources have been used mainly for working capital financing.  
2. Description of export financing entity:  
JSC Russian Export Center is a development institution establishe d by the Government 
of the Russian Federation to support the development of the non -commodity exports.  G/AG/W/215  
 
- 273 - 
 
  3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes and use per programme:  
Nil in 2017 (do not include working capital financing). Approximately 5.5 USD million in 
2018 (do not include working capital financing).  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme: Information is not held.  
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme: 18 months.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme: Information is not held.  
7. Export destination or group of destinations per programme: Information is not held.  
8. Programme use by product or product group: Agricultural products.  
 
 
__________