RD/AG/78* 
24 July 2020  
 Page: 1/51 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English/anglais/inglés  
 
  
UNOFFICIAL ROOM DOCUMENT1 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING OF 28 JULY  
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS WITH ADVANCE RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY  23 JULY  2020) 
 
 
 
Comité de l'agriculture  
 
DOCUMENT DE S ÉANCE NON OFFICIEL1 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING OF 28 JULY  
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS WITH ADVANCE RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY  23 JULY  2020) 
 
 
 
Comité de Agricultura  
 
DOCUMENTO DE SALA NO OF ICIAL1 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING OF 28 JULY  
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS WITH ADVANCE RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY  23 JULY  2020) 
 
 
_______________  
  
 
* In Original language only/En langue originale seulement/En el idioma original solamente.  
1 Documents issued in the RD series are not official WTO documents. They usually appear in their 
language of submission and will not be translated systematically into the working languages of the WTO. They 
are intended for use in WTO meeting rooms and are a ttributed an unofficial symbol for archiving purposes only.  
Les documents de la série RD ne sont pas des documents officiels de l 'OMC. Ils ne paraissent 
généralement que dans la langue dans laquelle ils ont été communiqués et ne seront pas systématiquemen t 
traduits dans les langues de travail de l'OMC. Ils sont destinés aux salles de réunion de l'OMC et une cote non 
officielle leur est attribuée à des fins d'archivage.  
Los documentos de la serie RD no son documentos oficiales de la OMC. Por lo general se d istribuyen en 
el idioma en que han sido presentados y no se traduce n sistemáticamente a los idiomas de trabajo de la 
Organización. Se distribuyen para su uso en las salas de reunión de la OMC y se les asigna una signatura no 
oficial a efectos de archivo ún icamente.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING OF 28 JULY  
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS WITH ADVANCE RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY  23 JULY  2020) 
This document compiles  all questions received for the 93rd meeting of the Committee exclud ing those 
for which advance responses were submitted by 23 July 2020 . Responses submitted in advance can 
be consulted at https://agims -qna.wto.org/public/Pages/en/Search.aspx . 
 
  RD/AG/78  
 
- 3 - 
 
  TABLE O F CONTENTS  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 ..... 7 
1.1   China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ .........................  7 
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 9 3049)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.1.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.2   China's agricultural insurance  ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.3   China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.4  China's stimulus package for corn  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
1.4.1  Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.5  Colombia's sugar fund  ................................ ................................ ................................  9 
1.5.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93183)  ................................ .........................  9 
1.6   Egypt's import license regime  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.7  Egypt's ban on sugar imports  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
1.7.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  ................................ .........................  9 
1.8   Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  ................................ .... 9 
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016) ................................ .........................  9 
1.8.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  ................................ ..........................  10 
1.9  Russian Federation - Subsidies to "certification of agricultural products in foreign markets"  .. 10 
1.9.1  Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  ................................ .......................  10 
1.10   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of - New system for issuing import licenses  ...............................  10 
1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID  93074)  ................................ ................................ ... 10 
1.11  Thailand's sugar support  ................................ ................................ .........................  11 
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93203)  ................................ ...............................  11 
1.11.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227)  ................................ ................................ .... 11 
1.12  US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  ..................  12 
1.12.1   Question by European Union  (AG-IMS ID 93187)  ................................ ......................  12 
1.13  US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  ................................ ......................  12 
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  ................................ ......................  12 
1.14  U.S. insurance programmes ................................ ................................ .....................  13 
1.14.1  Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  ................................ ................................ . 13 
1.15   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  ................................ .........  13 
1.15.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  ................................ .........  14 
1.16  China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ................................  14 
1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248) ................................ ..........  14 
1.17  China's state trading enterprises  ................................ ................................ ..............  14 RD/AG/78  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.17.1   Question by United States of A merica (AG -IMS ID 93249) ................................ ..........  14 
1.18   Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  ................................ .........  15 
1.19  Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  ................................ .....................  15 
1.19.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 931 92) ................................ ................................ ... 15 
1.20   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ .............................  15 
1.20.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93001)  ................................ .....................  15 
1.21   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  15 
1.21.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.21.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  ................................ ................................  16 
1.21.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  ................................ ................................ . 17 
1.21.4   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93283)  ................................ ................................ . 17 
1.21.5    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  ................................ .................  17 
1.21.6   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93229) ................................ ..................  18 
1.21.7   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250) ................................ ..........  18 
1.22   India's export subsidies/export credits  ................................ ................................ ...... 18 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  ................................ .........  18 
1.23   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ . 19 
1.23.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  ................................ .........  19 
1.24   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .................  19 
1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93009)  ................................ .........  19 
1.25   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ......................  20 
1.25.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  ................................ ..............................  20 
1.25.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  ................................ .........  20 
1.26   India's wheat policies  ................................ ................................ ............................  20 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  ................................ .........  20 
1.27   India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ...............................  21 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  ................................ .........  21 
1.27.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255) ................................ ..........  21 
1.28   India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ..................  21 
1.28.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  ................................ .........  21 
1.28.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93254) ................................ ..........  21 
1.29   India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ ...............  21 
1.29.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  ................................ .........  21 
1.29.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9325 1)................................ ..........  22 
1.29.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93252) ................................ ..........  22 
1.29.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253) ................................ ..........  22 
1.30  India - National Dairy Plan Phase I ................................ ................................ ............  22 
1.30.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256) ................................ ..........  22 
1.31   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ... 23 RD/AG/78  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.31.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  ................................ .................  23 
1.31.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191) ................................ ..................  23 
1.32   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ ........  24 
1.32.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  ................................ .........  24 
1.33  Oman's Table DS:2 notifi cation  ................................ ................................ ................  24 
1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93257) ................................ ..........  24 
1.34   Russia's export subsidies ................................ ................................ ........................  24 
1.34.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  ................................ .....................  24 
1.35  Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  ................................ ...............  24 
1.35.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  ................................ ................................ ... 24 
1.36  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program ................................ ................................ . 24 
1.36.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  ................................ ................................ . 24 
1.36.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  ................................ ................................ . 25 
1.36.3   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93232) ................................ ................................ .... 25 
1.36.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  ................................ ................................ .... 26 
1.36.5   Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  ................................ ................................ .. 26 
1.36.6   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240)  ................................ ...............................  27 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..................... 27 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  ................................  27 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .... 27 
2.2.1  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64) ................................ ................................ ..........................  27 
2.2.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  ................................ ................................ .......................  27 
2.2.3  Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  ................................ ................................ ..................  28 
2.2.4   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/48, G/AG/N/MAR/48/Corr.1 G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, 
G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52) ................................ ................................ ...................  28 
2.2.5  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  ................................ ................................ ...... 29 
2.2.6   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28)  ................................ ..................  29 
2.2.7   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29)  ................................ ..................  29 
2.2.8   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30) ...........................  30 
2.2.9  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10, G/AG/N/VNM/11, G/AG/N/VNM/12)  ............  30 
2.3   Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ..................  30 
2.3.1  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  ................................ .............................  30 
2.4   Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) ................................ ..............................  31 
2.4.1   Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 - G/AG/N/BO L/26)  ...............................  31 
2.4.2  Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19) ................................ ........................  31 
2.4.3  Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  ................................ ................................ ..................  32 
2.4.4   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  ................................ ................................ .................  32 
2.4.5   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  ................................ ................................ ...................  33 
2.4.6   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  ................................ ................................ ....................  33 
2.4.7  Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  ................................ ................................ .................  33 
2.4.8  India (G/AG/N/IND/18) ................................ ................................ ..........................  34 RD/AG/78  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.4.9   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ .....................  41 
2.4.10   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ....................  41 
2.4.11    Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  ................................ ...........................  42 
2.4.12   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  ................................ ................................ .................  42 
2.4.13    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ ....................  42 
2.4.14   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  ................................ ..........  43 
2.4.15    Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  ................................ ............................  44 
2.5   New or modified dome stic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ............  44 
2.5.1  India (G/AG/N/IND/19) ................................ ................................ ..........................  44 
2.6   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ .............  45 
2.6.1   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/46, G/AG/N/MAR/46/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/44, 
G/AG/N/MAR/44/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  ................................ ................................ .........  45 
2.7  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............  45 
2.7.1  Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  ................................ ................................ ...................  45 
2.8  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .......................  45 
2.8.1  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/75)  ................................ ...............  45 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ .......... 46 
3.1   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ .............................  46 
3.1.1  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10, G/AG/N/BH R/11,  
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  46 
3.1.2   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  ................................ ................................ .....................  46 
3.2  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............  48 
3.2.1  Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ ............  48 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...................... 48 
4.1  China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  48 
4.2  Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  48 
4.3  India ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  48 
4.4  Kenya ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  49 
4.5  Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  49 
4.6  South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  49 
4.7  United States of America  ................................ ................................ ..........................  49 
5  OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 50 
5.1  China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  50 
5.2  Myanmar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  50 
5.3  Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  51 
 
  RD/AG/78  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMM ITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  China – China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93049)  
Australia welcomes Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of 
America and the People's Republic of China. This is a  positive step forward in resolving existing trade 
tensions and will provide a greater level of certainty to help lift global economic confidence during 
what is a challenging time.  
 
With respect to the commitments made by China under the Agreement in relat ion to agriculture, we 
welcome China's assurances that it will implement the measures in a fully WTO -consistent and 
non-discriminatory manner. We appreciate this with respect to the provisions that concern this 
Committee, but also with respect to the provi sions concerning other agriculture -related aspects of 
the WTO Agreement, for example on the SPS commitments in the US -China Agreement.   
 
We would welcome if China can provide further advice on how it plans to do this, for example:  
 
a. Is China planning on cha nges to applied MFN tariffs to facilitate the purchase and import 
of at least USD 80 billion in agricultural goods over the next two years?  
b. Does China intend on reallocating unused or returned wheat, rice and corn TRQ amounts 
pursuant to a particular mecha nism?  
i. For example, the mechanism established under Annex A of the Bali Ministerial Decision 
on tariff -rate quota (TRQ) Administration.  
c. We would further welcome China advise the Membership on how it plans to implement the 
obligations of Chapter 6, Article 6 .2: Trade Opportunities, paragraph  5, whereby 
"…purchases will be made at market prices based on commercial considerations…".  
1.1.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93050)  
The recently signed Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China includes a requirement in 
paragraph 1 (b) of Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural Products for  the minimum purchase of 
agricultural goods by the People's Republic of China. Chapter 6, Trade in Food and Agricultural 
Products —paragraph 1 b. "For the category of agricultural goods identified in Annex 6.1, no less 
than $12.5 billion above the correspon ding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into 
China from the United States in calendar year 2020, and no less than $19.5 billion above the 
corresponding 2017 baseline amount is purchased and imported into China from the United States 
in calendar  year 2021."  
  
a. Could China provide the value of 2017 imports from the United States for the following 
commodities:  
i. beef;  
ii. pork;  
iii. wheat;  
iv. canola;  
v. soybeans.  
b. Could China elaborate if there is a commitment to purchase specific volumes of particular 
agricul tural products?  
c. Could China please elaborate if private companies, state -owned enterprises or state 
trading enterprises will be given direction to purchase specific volumes of a given 
commodity in order to meet these value targets?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 8 - 
 
  d. What role will the Government of the People's Republic of China play in potentially 
"matching" US exporters of agricultural products identified in Annex 6.1 with importers in 
China?  
e. Paragraph 5  "The Parties acknowledge that purchases will be made at market prices based 
on comm ercial considerations and that market conditions, particularly in the case of 
agricultural goods, may dictate the timing of purchases within any given year." Could 
China elaborate how "commercial considerations" will be taken into account when there is 
a defined value commitment for the purchase of agricultural goods from the United  States?  
f. Could China elaborate as to how it ensures that these new purchase requirements will not 
displace existing commercial relationships?  
1.2  China's agricultural insurance  
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93051)  
In October 2019, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Banking 
and Insurance Regulatory Commission and State Administration of Forestry and Grassland released 
a document called "Guiding options on accelerating the quality of development of agricultural 
insurance". Canada understands that the document aims to promote and standardize the 
development of agricultural insurance.  
  
a. Could China provide an update on the development of agricultur al insurance products?  
b. Would agricultural insurance cover livestock and crops?  
c. Will the cost of premiums be shared between Government(s) and producers? If so, what 
will be the respective contributions?  
d. Will the agricultural insurance products be actuari ally sound i.e., will the premiums cover 
the cost of indemnities?  
1.3  China - Exemptions to retaliatory tariffs  
1.3.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93052)  
On 18 February 2020, China announced that it will allow importers to apply for exemptions to the 
retaliatory tariffs imposed against the United States on 697 product lines including farm products 
such as soybeans, pork and beef. The exemption will have to undergo an approval process and would 
only be effective for one year. Importers could apply for the tariff exemptions starting 2 March 2020.  
  
a. Could China indicate if there is a limit on the number of entities that are eligible for this 
exemption and if s o how many?  
b. Could China confirm if both State -Owned Enterprises and private companies can apply for 
these tariff exemptions?  
c. Could China provide an estimate as to the value of this exemption?  
1.4  China's stimulus package for corn  
1.4.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93224)  
It has come to Brazil's attention, that, on 15 April 2020,  China has launched a stimulus package to 
overturn a recent  reduction trend on corn -planted area.  
 
Nonetheless, on December 2018, China has submitted  notification G/AG/N/CHN/49 (Table DS:2 ) 
regarding its "Corn  Producer Subsidy System", under Article 6, paragraph 5 (a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
 RD/AG/78  
 
- 9 - 
 
  In the light of the above, could China provide the following  information on:  
 
a. The termination of the "Corn Producer Subsidy System" on  2018, as per G/AG/N/CHN/49, 
and on its substitution by  another corn -specific policy.  
b. The evolution of corn planted area and on the value of  corn production since 2014 (the 
base year for the "Corn  Producer Subsidy System").  
c. The legislation that established the st imulus package launched last April (if possible, could 
China provide a copy  of said legislation?).  
d. The stimulus package budget and if it relies on  price-support, direct payments or other 
forms of subsidies.  
1.5  Colombia's sugar fund  
1.5.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 93183)  
Colombia – Sugar Fund  
Colombia has established a sugar fund, which grants support for sugar exported from Colombia.  
For the three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, can Colombia indicate:  
 
a. Total production of sugar ; 
b. Total quan tity exported, and how much benefited  from subsidies from the sugar fund ; 
c. Total payments made from the sugar fund for the export of sugar ; 
d. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid into the fund from sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.   
1.6  Egypt's  import license regime  
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93054)  
a. Is the import of agriculture goods, such as poultry meat, live animals and corned -beef, 
subject to an import license regime?  
b. If positive, could Egypt provide details on the administration of thi s import license regime 
(criteria for granting the license; economic agents who can request; existence of import 
limits, among others)?  
c. Are decisions on the granting of licenses made available to the public?  
1.7  Egypt's ban on sugar imports  
1.7.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG -IMS ID 93185)  
On June 4 Egypt announced a ban on all imports of sugar. Can Egypt explain how it sees this measure 
respecting the requirements of the GATT Article XI :2(c).   
 
 
1.8  Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy imports  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93016)  
This restriction was published on 11 February. Its effect is a clear restriction on the import of dairy 
products into Nigeria.  
 RD/AG/78  
 
- 10 - 
 
  How does Nigeria explain that this measure is not restricting imports and that it respects the 
following commitments:  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (Market Access);  
• Article III:4 GATT (National Treatment);  
• Article X GATT (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations); and  
• Article XI GATT (General Elimination of Qu antitative Restrictions).  
1.8.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 93073)  
Nigeria recently restricted access to foreign currency for the importation of dairy products. Nigeria 
has provided exemptions to a select few dairy companies on the condition, New  Zealand 
understands, that they "backward integrate"; i.e. set up production or engage in dairy development 
activities locally.  
  
Can Nigeria please explain how this measure is consistent with its WTO obligations?  
 
1.9  Russian Federation - Subsidies to "certi fication of agricultural products in foreign 
markets"  
1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93186)  
The new Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 25 December  2019 N ° 1816 (as 
amended on 13 May 2020) "On state support of organizations in orde r to compensate for part of the 
costs associated with the certification of agricultural products in foreign markets" appears to be an 
export subsidy, falling under Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
The "certification of agricultural products  in foreign markets " seems to cover the following: 
assessment of conformity of agri -food products with requirements of foreign markets, veterinary 
and phytosanitary measures, transportation, storage, testing and disposal of test samples, 
assessment of conf ormity of products with the requirements, contained in the foreign trade contract 
for the supply of agricultural products to foreign markets (hereinafter - the contract), including 
during voluntary certification for obtaining Halal and Kosher certificates.  The provision of certificate 
of costs incurred to meet the requirements of external markets appears necessary to obtain the aid.  
 
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain how it ensures that this new subsidy does not 
compensate for costs incurred as part of and  during the process of selling a product to 
foreign markets and is not an illegal export subsidy?  
b. Can the Russia n Federation  explain how the decree in question complies with the 
requirements of Articles 8  - 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture?   
1.10  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of - New system for issuing import licenses  
1.10.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93074)  
On 27 January 2020, the Saudi Government adopted a new system for issuing import licenses, 
without prior consultations with interested parties or granting an adapta tion period on the new 
measure. The new system requires local importers to file with the Saudi Government, six months in 
advance, "import plans". These plans must include detailed information about the exporter. The 
measure puts at risk not only trade flow s, given that most agricultural goods are traded on a monthly 
basis, according to supply and demand conditions, but also business confidentiality terms, since the 
new measure would make it necessary to disclose to the importer sensitive information, such a s 
production capacity. Furthermore, although it creates a series of new requirements, the criteria for 
approving import plans seem to lack transparency.  
  
a. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provide an English version of the "Amendment of 
Import Licensing P rocedures and Guide" notified through document (G/LIC/N/2/SAU/2)?  
b. Could the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain how the new procedure complies with:  RD/AG/78  
 
- 11 - 
 
  i. Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture (determining that access to Members' 
markets can only be regulated through customs duties, rendering prohibited, among 
others, the establishment of quantitative restrictions and discretionary import licensing 
regimes);  
ii. Article XI, 2 of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (establishing exceptions 
to the general obl igation to eliminate quantitative restrictions on imports and to 
regulate market access only through customs duties, even if operated through quotas 
or licenses);  
iii. Article 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Members should 
ensure th at administrative procedures used to implement import licensing regimes do 
not distort trade and that the rules applicable to the import licensing procedure will be 
neutral and that the procedures will be fair and equitable).  
1.11  Thailand's sugar  support  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93203)  
Australia understands Thailand has approved measures to support its sugar industry, which has been 
impacted by the disruptions caused by COVID -19. We understand the support package is valued at 
THB 10 billion (approx. USD  320 million).  
a. Can Thailand provide  information on this support package, including details on:  
• the different parts of this support package?;  
• the policy objectives of each part?; and  
• how payments for each part are calculated?  
1.11.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 93227)  
According to media reports, T hailand has approved over 10  billion baht (over USD  300 million) in 
subsidies to  sugarcane farmers  (https://www.reuters.com/article/us -thailand -sugar/thailand -
approves -300-million -aid-for-drought -stricken -sugarcane -farmers -idUSKBN23G28H ). 
 
Thailand's most recent WTO DS:1 notification of domestic support commitments (G/AG/N/THA/85, 
6 October  2017)  applicable  to calendar years 2014 -2016, reported a product -specific sugarcane 
subsidy of 450 million baht per year. Although Thailand's notification did not report its value of 
production, the new subsidies appear to exceed the  sugarcane product -specific " de minimis ". 
 
The recently announced program is more than 20 times larger than the last domestic support 
program notified by Thailand  and more than half of Thailand's Total AMS commitment level.  
 
In the light of the above, could Thailand provide the following inform ation:  
 
a. Copies of the applicable measures granting and administering the subsidies, including 
Cabinet Resolutions and any other legal or regulatory instruments.  
b. An estimation of when Thailand plans to submit a new WTO domestic support 
commitment  (DS:1) not ification.  
c. An estimation of when Thailand plans to notify the new sugar subsidies to the WTO.  
d. Confirmation that the 450 million bath Government subsidy  has continued after 2016.  
e. Updated data on the value of its annual sugarcane  production for 2017, 2018, a nd 2019.  
f. Would Thailand explain the eligibility criteria for the  aforementioned program, especially 
regarding the following:  RD/AG/78  
 
- 12 - 
 
  i. Is the program exclusive for sugarcane producers or is it  generally available for 
farmers?  
ii. Is the payment contingent upon the culti vation of  sugarcane?  
iii. Is the program related with the acquisition of inputs and  production factors by 
farmers? If so, how does that affect  the payment?  
iv. Are there any sugarcane producers that are not entitled  to apply for the subsidy?  
g. Since drought has been mentioned as a justification for  the announced domestic support, 
is there an obligation for  farmers to prove production losses as a condition for  payment of 
the subsidy? If positive, how much as a percentage of expected production must these 
losses be ? 
1.12  US – Excise duty exemptions for alcohol on Puerto Rico the US Virgin Islands  
1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93187)  
The EU understand that for every litre of pure alcohol exported to the US from the US Virgin Islands 
or Puerto Rico, the producers r eceive 50% of the excise taxes on that product, as well as excise tax 
on any rum from other sources exported to the US. This is equivalent to a subsidy of about 
USD 3 per litre. According to data available to the EU unaged rum costs about USD 1 – 1.50 per litre 
to produce in these countries.  
 
a. Can the US explain how this scheme works in practice including the origin of alcohol, 
eligible products, exact amount of excise duty exemptions per product, the estimated 
annual amount in question and the final benefic iaries of this scheme.  
b. Can the US give statistical information about quantities exported to the US benefiting  from 
this scheme for the years 2014 to 2019.  
c. Can the US explain how is it ensures that products being exported (from Puerto Rico and 
the US Virg in Islands) to other parts of the world than the US does not benefiting  directly 
or indirectly from this scheme?  
d. Has this subsidy been included in the recent DS:1 notifications from the US?  
1.13  US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93188)  
US – Overcompensation through MFP 1 and MFP 2  
 
According to a study from Kansas State University published in Applied Economic Perspectives and 
Policy  (2020) volume 42, number 2, pp. 205 –226 by Joseph P. Janzen and Nathan P . Hendricks: Are 
Farmers Made Whole by Trade Aid? ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aepp.13045 ) 
many farmers and sectors received more in compensation than their ac tual losses. In the case of 
cotton the study shows an overcompensation of 33 times the actual loss.  
 
During the Special COVID -19 meeting the US several times underlined that all its support measures 
would respect its WTO commitments, without however indic ating how or when it would submit its 
outstanding DS:1 notifications.  
a. Does the US agree with the results presented in this study? If not, can the US explain 
what in the study it disagrees with.  
b. Has the US calculated the real losses of farmers compared to the compensation payments 
through MFP 1 and MFP 2? What are the results of any such calculations?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. How will the US ensure that similar overcompensation will not take place in future given 
it clearly influences farmers ' production  decisions in both the short  and long term?   
1.14  U.S. insurance programmes  
1.14.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93285)  
On 9 June 2020, the USDA Risk Management Agency announced changes to the Livestock Risk 
Protection  (LRP) insurance program for feeder cattle, fed cattle and swine starting this summer with 
the 2021 crop year. Changes include moving premium deadlines to the end of the endorsement 
period and increasing premium subsidies to assist producers. https://rma.usda.gov/en/News -
Room/Press/Press -Releases/2020 -News/USDA -Announces -Improvements -to-the-Livestock -Risk-
Protection -Insurance -Program -This-Summer  
 
a. Could the US indicate what will be the new subsidy rate under the LRP program following 
these changes?  
b. Are these changes temporary and if so, when is the expected end date?  
c. In the last months, did the U.S. also increase the subsidy level for other insurance program 
or do they have the intention to increase the subsidy level for other insurance program? 
If so, by how much?  
1.15  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93004)  
Canada has not yet responded to the following questions posed by the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 92003, AG -IMS ID 91137, 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 regarding wine. 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 movin g 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 ca tegory (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 
product s are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. 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 grocery store to sell, a s agent of a winery that operates a wine boutique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?   
c. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002, which specifies differen t 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%20T
ender.pdf ) 
d. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to four stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LC BO stores, while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If RD/AG/78  
 
- 14 - 
 
  confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
1.15.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93005)  
According to the 6 June 2019 public back grounder issued by Ontario 
(https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2019/06/more -choice -convenience -and-fairness -for-beer-and-
wine-consumers .html: 
 
"Eighty -seven grocers will be selected to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and wine under 
unrestricted authorizations."  
 
"And for the 35 existing grocers that have restricted authorizations, most of their initial restrictions 
will be lifted a nd they will be able to expand their assortments to a larger selection of wine starting 
in October 2019."  
  
a. Have 87 additional grocers been authorized to sell imported and domestic beer, cider and 
wine under unrestricted authorizations?  
b. For the 35 grocers referred to in the backgrounder, what restrictions have been lifted?  
 
1.16  China's rice policies  
1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93248)  
In China's response to the U.S. question AGIMS -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 Commission, the Ministry of Finance, the National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration.   
  
a. Please provide links to these ann ouncements specifically related to the recent rice 
auctions.  
b. Do the auction procedures have any requirements related to exportation of the rice?  
c. Of the recently auctioned rice, what quantities remained in China and what quantities have 
been exported?  
The U nited States repeats its questions in AGIMS -ID 91133:  
 
d. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice?  
e. Are other STEs exporting rice?  
1.17  China's state trading enterprises  
1.17.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93249)  
In response to China 's answer to AG-IMS-ID 91115, the United States provides the link to a 
Bloomberg news article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019 -05-07/chin a-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 behind 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:  
 
b. Please provide an overview of operations of the China Grain Reserves Corp. (Sinograin).   RD/AG/78  
 
- 15 - 
 
  c. Please explain the differences in grain activities or roles carried out between Sinograin 
and COFCO.  
d. Please explain whether or not Sinograin can influenc e through their purchases or sales the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  
1.18  Egypt's export subsidy and Arrears Program  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93042)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91138, the United States has seen press reports that the Government 
of Egypt settled judicial cases for overdue export subsidies administered by the Egyptian Export 
Development Fund (ESF), to promote several economic sectors, including agricultural companies.  
  
a. Please provide the legislation and/or decisions that made this export subsidy available, 
including an explanation of eligibility criteria and how payment rates are determined for 
the export of agricultural products.  
b. Please explain how the set tlement agreements reached on export subsidies with 
agricultural companies impacts the provision of support under this measure.  
1.19  Egypt's export prohibitions on agricultural products  
1.19.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93192)  
At the Committee on Agriculture meeting  held on 18 June 2020, Japan asked Egypt to provide the 
reason why required notification concerning its export prohibitions on leguminous vegetables and 
products thereof had not been made in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement of Agriculture. 
In Eg ypt's response to the said question, Egypt explained that it would be exempt from the 
notification requirement as Egypt is a net importer of the food stuffs concerned. However, according 
to the statistical data such as FAOSTAT, Japan recognizes that Egypt is a net exporter of the foodstuff 
concerned. Japan would appreciate if Egypt could provide the clarification by providing such data as 
to well support that Egypt is a net importer of the foodstuff concerned.  
1.20  India's sugar policies  
1.20.1   Question by European Uni on (AG -IMS ID 93001)  
Follow -up question to AG -IMS ID 92007:  
 
a. Can India indicate for the five years 2011 to 2015 prior to the Nairobi Ministerial meeting 
the following:  
• Total export of sugar from India per year;  
• Quantity of this which had received export su bsidy (federal or state) and the amount 
spend on these subsidies annually 2011 to 2015.  
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 par agraphs 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"?  
1.21  India's pulses polic ies  
1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93058)  
Australia's concerns with respect to India's trade -restricting measures on pulses are very well known 
to Members. Australia has raised its concerns in this and every other relevant Committee for over 
two years, with a particular focus on the quantitative restrictions (QRs) set on a range of 
pulses.  Unfortunately, India continues to implement these measures, which are having a detrimental RD/AG/78  
 
- 16 - 
 
  impact on the global pulses market, including producers in developed and dev eloping countries, with 
traders and with consumers.  
 
Australia was disappointed that in addition to the continued extension of these measures – which 
cannot be considered 'temporary' given they have been in place for over two years – India has 
recently imp lemented even more trade -restrictive measures.   
 
For example, in December 2019, India announced that the 150,000 tonnes QR on peas would be 
subject to additional restrictions, whereby imports would need to meet a minimum import price of 
Rs 200/kg and would only be allowed through one specific port (Kolka ta sea port). Additionally, while 
India expanded the QR on Urad (black gram beans) from 150,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes, the 
additional tonnage (250,000 tonnes) would be limited to Indian millers and refiners and applications 
to import under the QR could only be submitted between 20 December and 31  December  2019 
(12 days), with imports having to occur by no later that 31 March 2020.  
 
With respect to India's QRs on pulses and these additional measures:  
 
a. Can India explain why it restricted pea imports to onl y one specific port?  
b. Can India provide a justification for the minimum import price for peas?  
c. Can India explain why it restricted the additional imports of Urad to Indian millers and 
refiners?  
d. Can India explain why it gave such a limited period for applica tions to be submitted for 
Urad?  
e. Can India explain how the additional measures identified are consistent with India's 
WTO obligations and the WTO basis for the measures?  
f. Can India provide advice on the amount of imports for each QR during the current quota 
year?  
g. Can India confirm whether it will continue to apply the QRs on pulses after 31  March  2020 
(i.e. for the fiscal year 2020/21 commencing on 1 April)?  
1.21.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93066)  
On 18 December 20 19, the Government of India notified an amendmen t to its import policy for dried 
peas under HS code 0713 1000 (Gazette of India No. 37/2015 -2020). According to this amendment, 
in addition to the quantitative restriction of 150,000 MT already in place, imports of dried peas will 
be subject to a minimum i mport price of Rs. 200/CIF (Cost, Insurance & Freight) per kg and imports 
will only be allowed through Kolkata seaport. Indian importers have reported that this minimum 
import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six times the price imported dried peas have t raditionally 
been traded (around Rs. 30 to 35 per Kg).  
  
a. Could India provide more information as to why it amended its quantitative restriction 
policy to include a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detailed information as to how thi s minimum import price works? 
Especially please provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the minimum import price is being applied.  
c. Could India explain how it determined the level of this mi nimum import price, and why it 
was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
e.  Could India explain how a minimum import price requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 17 - 
 
  f. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI?  
g. Please indicate whether the quota will be maintained after 31 March 2020, and please 
indicate whether the minimum import price and the single port of entry requirements will 
also be maintained after 31 March 2020.  
1.21.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93282)  
On 28 March 2020, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India notified Notification No. 
S.O.1225  (E) which extended its quantitative res triction for dried peas under HS code 071310 for 
the fiscal year 2020 -21. The notice specifies that the quantitative restriction for dried peas are set 
at 150,000 MT for the 2020 -21 fiscal year, and that the import policy conditions such as Minimum 
Import Price (MIP) of Rs.200/ and a port restriction through Kolkata sea port only for all peas. 
Imported dried peas have traditionally been traded on India 's domestic market at Rs. 30 to 35 per 
kg so this minimum import price of Rs. 200 per Kg is around six time s higher than market prices.   
 
a. Could India provide more information as to why it has put and place and continues to 
apply a minimum import price on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide detailed information as to how this minimum import price works? In 
particular provide information on the implementation of this policy and the relevant 
documents that explain how this the minimum import price is being applied at the port of 
entry.  
c. Could India explain how it has determined the level of this minimum import price, and why 
it was set at such a prohibitive level?  
d. Could India explain how this minimum import price is consistent with Article  4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
e. Could India explain how a minimum import price requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article XI?  
f. Could India explain how the single port of entry requirement is consistent with GATT 
Article  XI? 
1.21.4   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93283)  
On 16 April 2020, India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a trade notice (S.O.  1260(E)) 
in the Gazette of India which fixed the quantity of peas by type that can be imported under the 
quantitative restriction for fiscal year 2020 -2021 ( 1 April 2020, to 31 March 2021) previously 
announced in trade notice S.O.1225 (E).  Of the 150,000 metric ton nes (MT) announced , 75,000  MT 
is allocated to green peas, and 75,000 MT to "other" peas. The quota for yellow peas is explicitly set 
to 0 MT, which effectively bans its importation for this fiscal year.  
 
a. Could India explain its rationale to ban the import of yellow peas for  fiscal year 2020?  
b. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this import ban?  
c. 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 import 
ban of yellow peas?  
1.21.5   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93067)  
In March 2019 India issued a notification establishing a new quota of 150 000 MT for the period 
from 1 April 2019 until 31 March 2020. However, according to the Trade notice No.  32/2019 -2020 
after seven months of this quota application India completely prohibited the import of pulses to its 
territory from 31  October  2019. According to Notification No.  38/2015 -2020 dated RD/AG/78  
 
- 18 - 
 
  1s of January  2020 in addition to quantitative restrictions for peas remained in force India have 
introduced minimum import price requirement for yellow and green peas. Ports of entry for yellow 
and green peas are also limited to only one seaport Kolkata.  
 
a. Could India prov ide the reasons for tightening restrictive policy in relation to imports of 
pulses?  
b. Could India describe the administration of yellow peas import? Could India clarify how the 
minimum import price on yellow peas is applied?  
c. Could India explain how quantit ative restrictions, import prohibition, recently introduced 
minimum import prices requirement and limitation of ports of entry for pulses to only one 
port are consistent with the WTO rules, including Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.21.6   Question by  Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93229)  
In March 2020, India established new import quota on yellow peas with volume of 150  thousand 
tonnes allowed for import up to 31 March 2021. This quota is subdivided by three sub -quotas: 
75 000 tonnes for green peas, ot her types of peas – 75 000 ton nes, while allowed volume for import 
of yellow peas equals zero. Could India please clarify whether zero for sub -quota volume means that 
import of yellow peas is prohibited even under the quota in question? If yes, what are th e reasons 
behind the introduction of import prohibition on yellow peas? How do these import prohibition and 
restrictions correlate with Article  4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Article  XI of 
the GATT?  
a. In January 2020, India introduced minimum i mport price requirement for peas (200  Rs/kg 
and above). What are the reasons and the purpose of introducing minimum import price 
requirement in addition to existing quantitative restrictions? What is the methodology for 
the minimum import price calculation ? Please, provide the dynamic of domestic prices for 
yellow peas since April 2019. In what way is the introduction of minimum import price 
consistent with Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Number of ports of import for peas were also limited  to only one (seaport Kolkata). What 
are the reasons and goals for introducing restrictions on ports of entry? Why is it necessary 
to import peas exactly through the port of Kolkata? How does it comply with India 's 
WTO commitments? How does restricting por ts of entry correlate with Article 4.2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. When in April 2018 quotas were introduced, India announced that this measure was 
temporary. However, two years later, import restrictions not only continue to operate, but 
have bee n expanded. What are the estimated time frames during which restrictive 
measures (quotas, minimum import price, restriction on ports of entry) will be in force?  
1.21.7   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93250)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92008, India st ated that its quantitative restrictions on mung beans, peas, 
black gram lentils, and pigeon peas are temporary, yet India again notified quantitative restrictions 
on these products in March 2020 that will be in effect through March 2021. By the end of this  latest 
extension, these quantitative restrictions will have been in place for three years.   
  
India states the measures will be further extended or removed based on "market situation. " Please 
describe what market situation is necessary for the permanent removal of these restrictions.  
1.22  India's export subsidies/export credits  
1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93007)  
India stated in AG -IMS ID 89045 that the Interest Equalisation Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit (IES)  "is in the nature of working capital support, which is WTO compatible."  
 RD/AG/78  
 
- 19 - 
 
  The United States notes that Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) notices refer to IES as being an export 
credit program and not a working capital support program. However, the United Stat es also notes 
in RBI notices DBR.Dir.BC.No  62/04.02.001/2015 -16 dated 4  December  2015 and 
DCBR.CO.SCB.Cir.No  1/13.05.000/2015 -16 dated 11  February 2016 explain a procedure for Indian 
banks to pass on the benefit of IES by reducing the interest rate charged  to the eligible exporters 
upfront. The notices also describe how banks submit claims to RBI for reimbursement.   
 
a. Please explain in detail why India does not believe IES is an interest rate support 
programme as covered under paragraph 13 (a) direct financi ng support of the Nairobi 
Decision.  
b. Please explain how RBI's premiums are charged and how RBI's financial 
contribution/claims are recovered under the IES.  
Per DBR.  Dir. BC. No 09/04.02.001/2018 -19 dated 29  November  2018 and 
DBR. Dir. BC. No 22/04.02.001/2018 -19 dated 11  January 2019, the United States notes that 
India's IES rate of interest equalization has increased from 3 % to 5% for Micro, Small & Medium 
Enterprises  (MSME), and that since 2019 the scheme has expanded to allow large 
merch ant/corporate exporters to participate at an interest equalization rate of 3%.   
 
c. Please explain the reasoning for increasing the export financing support and allowing large 
merchants to participate in the IES.  
The United States understands that since incep tion in 2015 to July 2018, the RBI has spent 
₹4,829  crore ( USD 679 million) on the export support scheme for all eligible manufacture and 
agricultural products. The notice instructs RBI to keep records and send a monthly report to India's 
Dept. of Commerce  and Directorate of General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) indicating reimbursements 
made, on both a commodity and bank basis.  
  
d. Please provide the total agricultural product -specific export support spent under the 
scheme and the total value of agricultural produ cts benefited up to the present day.  
1.23  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.23.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93008)  
India Export Subsidies / Export Credits  
  
As a response to AG -IMS ID 89026, India stated that MSMEs exporting dairy produc ts are eligible 
for exports under the IES based on RBI's list of allowable agricultural products (see list per annex 
https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/NT322AN1202 16_1.pdf ). 
 
Please confirm or clarify if the list is inclusive of all agricultural products covered under the scheme 
or please provide an up -to-date annex.  
 
1.24  India's support to rice exports  
1.24.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93009)  
Export Subsidies and Transparency  
  
The United States understands that India has decided not to withdraw prohibited export subsidies 
as recommended by a WTO panel on October 2019 and that MEIS for non -Basmati rice, and other 
products, will possibly be extended be yond 31 March 2020.  
 
a. Please explain if this export subsidy scheme still includes agricultural products and whether 
the export subsidy benefits were increased in 2019 and/or in 2020.  
b. Please provide India's Government notices for the extensions and increase s in 2019 
and 2020 if applicable.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 20 - 
 
  c.  Does India provide any other forms of export subsidies to non -Basmati rice? If so, please 
describe those programmes.  
1.25  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.25.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 93065)  
Australia ref ers to its questions to India at 91th CoA (AG -IMS ID 91006) and 92th CoA 
(AG-IMS ID 92095) with respect to its Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme.  
 
Australia acknowledges that as per Paragraph 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition, developing country 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 
country Members to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1  (d) & (e).   
 
However, Paragraphs 9 through 11 establish clear obligations on India with respect to the 
implementation of export subsidies.   
 
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 assessment India have undertaken 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 effec t on other Members?  
If it is the case that India does not believe Paragraphs 9 through 11 apply to it, Australia would 
further request India:  
c. Explain under what grounds it has made the decision to not apply the commitments and 
provisions of Paragraphs 9 th rough 11 of the Nairobi Decision in the development of the 
TMA scheme?  
1.25.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93010)  
Noting the introduction of the Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) scheme by India in 
March  2019, India has stated in respons e to AG -IMS ID 92095 that the measure complies with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition regarding Article 9.4 export subsidies. The 
measure covers a wide variety of products and lists eligible export destinations including West Africa, 
South America, ASEAN, Oceana, and several other regions.  
a. Given the broad scope of this measure, how does India analyze this programme in the 
context of paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, regarding not 
raising the level of export  subsidy use, and paragraph 11 of the Decision, regarding having 
at most minimal trade distorting effects and not displacing or impeding the exports of 
another Member?  
b. Can exporters benefit from the IES for agricultural products through at least March  2020 
and from TMA (or other export subsidy measures) for the same agricultural products?  
c. If products do benefit concurrently from these measures, please describe what steps are 
taken by India to ensure that the export does not benefit from the measures in excess of 
what is permitted under Article 9.4.  
1.26  India's wheat policies  
1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93013)  
It is the understanding of the United States from press articles that India has recently sought to 
export wheat to other Government s through tenders for purchase.   RD/AG/78  
 
- 21 - 
 
   
a. Is this process stipulated in any Government measures? If so, please provide those 
measures.  
b. What is India's process for determining a price at which India sells stock to foreign entities?  
c. What steps does India take to ens ure that exports of stocks do not distort trade?  
1.27  India - Dairy Loans  
1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93011)  
In AG -IMS ID 92011, India responded to some, but not all, of the U.S. questions regarding "soft 
loans" administered by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB).  To follow up on some of 
those unanswered questions:  
a. Is export performance a requirement for cooperatives to receive an NDDB loan?  
b. Is there a grace period for these loans?  
1.27.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93255 ) 
The United States thanks India for its response to AG -IMS ID 92011 and seeks further clarification 
on whether these loans under the "Supporting Dairy Cooperatives and Farmer  Producer 
Organizations engaged in dairy activities" scheme are contingent  upon e xport performance as this 
was not addressed in India 's response to part b  of the question.  
1.28  India's short -term crop loans  
1.28.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93012)  
In response to AG -IMS ID  91147, India referred the United States to http://agricoop.nic.in/  with 
regards to information regarding the Interest Subvention Scheme.  
a. Please provide data, direct responses, or a more specific website location regarding how 
the measure is implemented, including the va lue of loans covered in 2016/17 
and 2017/18.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notification. If so, where? If not, on what basis?  
1.28.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93254)  
The United States  resub mits AG -IMS ID 92010, as India has not provided a written response . 
 
In response to AG-IMS-ID 91147, India referred the United States to http://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?  
1.29  India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.29.1   Question by Un ited States of America (AG -IMS ID 93014)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009, India stated with regards to sale of its wheat stocks that "[f]or 
price stabilization, some wheat may also be released for sale in domestic market with the stipulation 
that the same w ould not be used for exports."  RD/AG/78  
 
- 22 - 
 
  a. Is the process stipulated in any Government measure? If so, please provide those 
measures.   
b. Per India's response to AG -IMS 92009, how does India ensure that wheat stocks released 
for sale in the domestic market are not expor ted?  
1.29.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93251)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 regarding state bonuses, India  responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season  2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  However, Madhya 
Pradesh an nounced a bonus  for both marketing years 2017/18 and 2018/19.  The Minister of 
Agriculture  in Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pay Rs. 2,000  per quintal 
for acquisition of wheat. " This was greater than the  announced MSP of Rs. 1,8 40 per quintal.  
 
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the  announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the  current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India  states and territories as 
well as for other commodities.  
1.29.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93252)  
In response to AG-IMS ID 92009 regarding a request for current,  historical and pre -determined 
targets levels of wheat since 2010, India did not  provide the quantitative lev els of each, but rather 
indicated only that  "procurement of wheat is done based on the assessment made with regard to 
the requirements under various food security programs. "  
a. Please provide the annual quantitative levels for  current, historical, and pre -determined 
levels of wheat since 2010.  
b. Please indicate any report, publication or website that  contains the assessments 
referenced in India 's previous response.  
1.29.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93253)  
In response to AG -IMS ID  92009 regarding steps taken to ensure record stockpiles of wheat do not 
impact  global markets and do not distort markets, India stated that "some wheat may  also be 
released for sale in domestic market in the stipulation that the same  would not be used for export s." 
 
Please indicate what the specific stipulation states  and where this stipulation can be found in any 
regulation or other  official Government document related to governing the sales of public  stocks in 
the domestic market.  
1.30  India - National Dairy Plan Ph ase I  
1.30.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93256)  
The United States notes that in response to AG -IMS ID 88107 and 92012, India stated it will submit 
a Table DS:2 notification on its NDP I measure in due course, however, India has not notified this 
measure in G/AG/N/IND/19 nor is the measure identified in G/AG/N/IND/18.  
 
a. When will India be making a Table DS:2 notification for this measure?  
b. Within Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/18, the NDP I has not been identified.  Please 
confirm the measure is included in the Table DS:1 notification.  
c. If the measure i s included, please indicate the monetary value of NDP I in 2018/19 and 
under which measure type this measure is notified.  
d. Please provide details of what measures will be implemented following the conclusion of 
Phase  I. Please confirm whether India plans to  submit any applicable DS:2 notifications RD/AG/78  
 
- 23 - 
 
  for those measures and whether India will identify such measures specifically within 
Supporting Table DS:1.  
1.31  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.31.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93072)  
Follow up to ques tions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS ID 91011 
and AG -IMS ID 92098:  
 
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. In August 2019 the Government of Mongolia issued a new 
Resolution describing the system of importation of agricultural products under quota regime. 
Mongolia did not open the quotas for import of wheat flour and liquid milk for 2020. However, 
Mongolia did not exclude these pro ducts from the list of agricultural products subject to quota regime 
either. The Russian Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia regarding its quota 
regime, in particular:  
 
a. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from t he list of agricultural 
products subject to quota regime? When?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future?  
c. Please confirm that Mongolia will not apply quotas for importation of wheat flour and liquid 
milk. 
1.31.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 93191)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS ID 91011, 
AG-IMS ID 92098 and AG -IMS ID 93072:  
 
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain ag ricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. Mongolia did not open quotas for import of these two products 
for 2020, while stated that there were no quantitative restrictions for the following products at all.  
 
However, Mongolia did not exc lude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products 
subject to quota regime. According to the current information, Mongolian competent authorities do 
not issue permits for the import of the following products referring to the fact that there are no 
quotas allocated for these two products. Thus, the absence of import permits made the importation 
of wheat flour and liquid milk in fact impossible.  
 
The Russian Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia regarding its restrictions, in 
particular:  
a. Does the fact that there are no quotas for wheat flour and liquid milk in 2020 mean that 
import of the following products is prohibited? How d oes this fact correspond to the 
previous statements of Mongolia that no quotas are being imposed on these products 
following the recommendations of the National Food Safety Council?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of  agricultural 
products subject to quota regime? When?  
c. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future?  
d. Please explain how Mongolia's import restrictions are consistent with Article XI of the 
GATT  1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.32  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93015)  
The United States notes that Nigeria continues to maintain import prohibitions on several ag ricultural 
products (see https://customs.gov.ng/?page_id=3075 ), including frozen poultry, beef, and pork 
from all countries.   
  
a. Please provide the measure or implementing regulations for these prohibitio ns and specify 
on what basis these imports prohibited?  
b. Can Nigeria explain why import bans are still in place, especially given that Nigeria stated 
in AG -IMS ID 48012 from March of 2007 that many of the restrictions were temporary?  
1.33  Oman's Table DS:2 notif ication  
1.33.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93257)  
In response to A G-IMS ID 92028, the United States would like to thank Oman for their thorough 
responses. As a follow up, the United States would like to inquire if Oman will be submitting a 
Table DS:2 notification for the programs it has outlined across its Table DS:1 notifications, noting 
the difference between a Supporting Table DS:2 within the Table DS:1 notification, and the separate 
Table  DS:2 notification where Members are required to give  detail on new domestic support 
programs.  
1.34  Russia's export subsidies  
1.34.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 93017)  
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 92044.  
 
The EU is concerned about the recent amendment of Article  78 to the Russian Budget Code 
(amendment b y Federal law Nº 330 -ФЗ of 1 October 2019), which appears to allow for subsidies for 
alcoholic products intended for export. In the answer to the EU question No AG -IMS ID 92044 
(Committee on Agriculture, 30.10.2019) on the subject the Russian Federation st ated that "… the 
Budget Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for any forms of exports subsidies".  
Could the Russian Federation further elaborate on that answer in light of the explicit link between 
eligible subsidies and export destination of a lcoholic beverages in the amended Article  78 of the 
Budget Code?  
1.35  Tajikistan's export prohibitions on certain food products  
1.35.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 93305)  
Japan would appreciate it if Tajikistan could explain how export prohibitions on certain food pr oducts 
including wheat, wheat flour and vegetable introduced by the Member on 25  April 2020 meet the 
conditions required in Article  XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the products, ii)  criticalness of the shortag es, and iii)  temporality of the measure. 
Japan would also appreciate it if Tajikistan could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of domestic 
supply and deman d. 
1.36  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.36.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93284)  
As part of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, Secretary Perdue  announced on 17 April that 
USDA is exercising authority under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to purchase and 
distribute agricultural products to those in need. Through this program, USDA 's Agricultural 
Marketing Service  (AMS) is partnering with national, regional and local suppliers to purchase up to RD/AG/78  
 
- 25 - 
 
  USD 3 billion in fresh produce, da iry and meat products. The program will allow the purchase of 
USD 461 million in fresh fruits and vegetables, USD 317 million in dairy products, USD 258 million 
in meat products and USD 175 million in a combination box of fresh produce, dairy or meat produ cts. 
Suppliers will package these products totalling USD 1.2 billion into family -sized boxes, then transport 
them to food banks, community and faith -based organizations, and other non -profits serving 
Americans in need from 15 May through 30 June 2020.  
 
On 4 June 2020, some U.S. news outlet reported that the USDA was paying as much as twice the 
average retail price for milk purchases through the food box program. 
https://www.thebullvine.com/news/to -buy-wholesale -milk-for-its-food-boxes -usda-is-paying -well-
above -retail-prices/   
  
 
a. Could the U.S. confirm whether USDA is buying commodities at prices higher than the 
average market price?  
b. Will the U.S. release the average price paid for commodities purchased through the food 
box program or the average per -unit prices indicated in the food box contracts awarded?  
1.36.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 93286)  
On 12 May 2020, the United States an nounced the USD 19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Program  (CFAP), which will provide USD 16 billion in direct support to farmers and ranchers. In the 
CFAP Cost -Benefit Analysis released on May 14, 2020, the USDA indicated that approximately 
USD 637 mi llion is available to producers of commodities identified through the Notice of Funding 
Availability released on 22 May 2020.  
a. Could the U.S. confirm if the amount of USD 637 million being considered for other 
commodities is included in the original CFAP announcement? Is the amount of USD 637 
still the amount being considered?  
b. Since multiple commodity groups in the U.S. have asked for additional support through 
the CFAP or other programs, is the U.S. considering additional direct payments for the 
U.S. agriculture sector? If so, to what commodity groups?  
c. Under the CFAP, what oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor the funds flowing out 
through the USDA and the CCC, keeping in mind that producer self -certification of the 
farm data is needed to calcu late losses?  
d. How is USDA addressing the possibility that this may create an incentive to over -report 
losses?  
1.36.3   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 93232)  
The US announced the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a 19 billion dollars program 
that provides fi nancial supports to those affected by the COVID -19 pandemic, including farmers and 
ranchers. While the title of this new program is different from the trade mitigation programs of  2018 
and 2019, the structure of the programs appear s to be quite similar, wh ich all cover non -specialty 
crops, animal products, specialty crops and so on. The CFAP uses the fund of the Coronavirus Aid, 
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES ACT), a temporary and new emergency appropriation.  
 
The payment rates are calculated bas ed on price declines and payments are coupled to the 
production or inventory of each agricultural product.  
 
According to statistics released by the USDA, a total of 365,262 applicants have received about 
5.36 billion dollars as of 9 July. Cattle, milk, co rn, hogs, soybeans, upland cotton and wheat are 
among the commodities that received most supports.  
 
a. Could the US share with Members its evaluation on the impact of CFAP on the international 
agricultural market?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 26 - 
 
  b. Is there any linkage between the CFAP and the  Trade Mitigation Programs of 2018 
and 2019? If not, will the US provide any new agricultural trade aid package in 2020?  
c. How does the US intend to notify CFAP, especially the direct payment program? How could 
the US ensure its compliance with the WTO rule s? 
1.36.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 93245)  
The United States recently decided to roll out a plan to promise the purchase of USD 3 billion worth 
of dairy, meat and fruits and vegetable produce from farmers under the "Farmers to Family Food 
Box" scheme, in order to help farmers during the Corona virus pandemic as part of the USD 19 billion 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. The pro ducts procured would be used to provide pre -
approved boxes of fresh produce, dairy and meat to food banks and other non -profit organizations, 
as a part of the Agricultural Marketing Services.  
(Source:  https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/usda -purchase -3-billion -agricultural -commodities -
issuesolicitations -interested ).  
 
The United States announced that it had already completed the firs t round of purchases at 
USD 1.2 billion on 30 June 2020, and that it plans to spend USD 1.47 billion in the second round of 
purchases through July and August 2020.  
(Source : https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food-to-usda/farmers -to-families -food-box)  
 
In this context, India requests the United States to provide the following information:  
 
a. Details regarding the actual procurement of fresh produce, dairy and meat products, as 
well as the actual expenditure on the procurement of each of these commodities.  
b. Details regarding the manner in which such procurement is being made, along with the 
procurement prices.  
c. How is this scheme different in operation from the general  scheme under the Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) distribution programmes, such as the emergency food assistance 
programme? Also, please specify the exclusion criteria, if any, under both these schemes.  
d. How does the United States plan to notify this measu re under the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
1.36.5   Question by Mexico (AG -IMS ID 93299)  
With regard to the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP):  
  
Can the United States provide a breakdown of the following:  
  
a. Payments made under the CARES Act  to compensate for l osses due to the disappearance 
of normal marketing channels:  
• Amount per product ; 
• Number of producers that have benefitted ; 
• Main states that have benefitted . 
b. Payments made by the CCC to compensate for losses due to market disruptions:  
• Amount per product ; 
• Number of producers that have benefitted ; 
• Main states that have benefitted . 
c. With regard to payments made by the CCC, are market disruptions understood to be price 
declines, or are there other types?  
d. With regard to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program,  what criteria were used to 
choose which producers' products should be purchased and distributed under the 
Program?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 27 - 
 
  e. With regard to the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, USD 3 billion has been 
budgeted, but there is talk of significant delays in implemen tation.  
i. What is the amount currently spent by the USDA on this Program?  
ii. Is the goal of distributing the USD 3 billion expected to be met on time? If not, will the 
surplus be re -appropriated by Congress or can the USDA use it for other payments to 
producers ? 
1.36.6   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 93240)  
On 17  April, the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, announced that the Coronavirus Food 
Assistance Program  (CFAP) had been set up. This is a programme designed to provide critical 
assistance to US farmers, tota lling USD  19 billion. It was indicated that the CFAP would provide 
USD 16 billion indirect aid, based on losses in the marketing year 2020 caused by COVID -19, and 
USD 3 billion for the purchase of food as food aid. Furthermore, the USDA will provide additi onal 
funds for the purchase and distribution of food as food aid. The Republic of Paraguay would like to 
have greater clarity on this Program and would thus like to ask the United States for:  
 
a. Confirmation of whether this type of direct aid can be conside red as market price 
support  (MPS);  
b. Eligibility criteria to receive such aid;  
c. Products covered by this Program;  
d. If it is foreseen to pursue the Program beyond the 2020 marketing year;  
e. When the corresponding DS:1 notification is expected to be submitted and if the possibility 
of submitting a partial notification is being considered.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93307: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Chile notes that importers filled 0% of its Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) CHLQ001 in the 2019 calendar 
year (G/AG/N/CHL/64) but does not list the fill r ate for 2018 in its submission.   
 
Was the TRQ opened in 2018 and, if so, what was the fill rate?  
2.2.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/50)  
AG-IMS ID 93090: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks China for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/CHN/50). Australia 
notes a number of tariff quotas had a fill rate of less than 65% (wheat: 32.2%, corn: 39.3%, 
rice 57.8%).  
a. Can China explain if it is considering changes to the administration of the TRQs for wheat, 
corn and rice to improve the T RQ fill rates?  
b. If so, can China please provide details of the possible changes, including the timelines for 
such changes?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93091: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
China's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to calendar year 2018, demonst rates that the fill -rate for 
tariff-rate quota CHNQ002 ("corn") decreased during the past years, coming from 72% in  2012 
(G/AG/N/CHN/26) to 39,3% in 2018.  
  
a. Could China provide data on market circumstances that could explain such reduction of 
the volume o f imports under TRQ CHNQ002?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. What are the procedures and criteria for granting import licenses for corn?  
d. What is the share of state -owned enterprises in the total of Chinese corn imports?  
AG-IMS ID 93092: Questi on by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
TRQs for wheat (CHNQ001), corn (CHNQ002) and rice (CHNQ003, CHNQ004) are filled by less 
than 60%. Share of state -trading enterprises (STEs) in TRQ for wheat which has the lowest fill -in 
rate (32,2%) is 90%; shar e of STEs in TRQ for corn (fill -in rate: 39,3%) is 60%; share of STEs 
in TRQ for rice (fill -in rate: 57,8%) is 40%. During the period from 2013 to 2018 in 2014, 2015 
and 2018 fill -in rates of TRQ for wheat were lower than 36%. In comparison with fill -in rate in 2017, 
in 2018 fill -in rate of wheat TRQ decreased by more than 10%. Since 2015 to 2018 fill -in rate of  TRQ 
for corn declined from 65% to 39%. In 2018 in comparison with the data of 2017 fill -in rate of TRQ 
for rice declined from 75,7% to 57,8%.  
  
a. Could China please provide explanations for instantly low fill -in rate of TRQ for wheat and 
declines in fill -in rates of TRQs for wheat, corn and rice?  
b. Could China please explain direct correlation between the low fill -in rate and the share of 
state trading  enterprises in imports under TRQs?  
 
2.2.3   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/7)  
AG-IMS ID 93205: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Kazakhstan for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that Kazakhstan 
notified a fill rate of less tha n 65 % for two of its three quotas.  
 
a. Can Kazakhstan explain the reasons for the underfill of some of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has Kazakhstan considered using the TRQ underfill mechanism as outlined by the Bali 
Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 93189: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
Could Kazakhstan explain the reason for the low fill rate of the TRQ for fresh, ch illed and frozen 
beef?  
2.2.4   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/48, G/AG/N/MAR/48/Corr.1 G/AG/N/MAR/49, 
G/AG/N/MAR/50, G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52)  
AG-IMS ID 93100: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation thanks Morocco for its MA:2 notificat ions (G/AG/N/MAR/48, 
G/AG/N/MAR/49, G/AG/N/MAR/50, G/AG/N/MAR/51, G/AG/N/MAR/52). The Russian Federation 
noticed that during the period from 2013 to 2017 TRQ  for sheep meat (MARQ002) were zero filled 
or about to be zero filled. Could Morocco please indicate the reasons for such low fill -in rates?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93101: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Morocco's latest MA:2 notifications, pertaining to calend ar years 2013 to 2017, indicate that 
tariff-rate quota MARQ003 ("white meat") has had a very low fill rate, ranging from 6.4% in 2017 
to 30% in 2013.  
  
a. Could Morocco provide data on market circumstances that could explain such reduced 
volume of imports un der TRQ MARQ003?  
b. Are imports taking place outside the TRQ?  
c. Has there been any change in the administration method or the establishment of new non -
tariff requirements for the imports of products under TRQ MARQ003?  
d. Which economic operators are entitled to  apply for an import license for white meat?  
e. Is Morocco considering updating its TRQ administration method in order to allow economic 
operators to seize the commercial opportunities deriving from TRQ MARQ003?  
2.2.5   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/27)  
AG-IMS ID 9 3209: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Russia n Federation  for the submission of its MA:2 for 2019.  Australia notes that 
the Russia n Federation  recorded a fill rate of less than 65% for all quotas.  
a. Can the Russia n Federation  explain the reasons for the underfill of its quotas?  
b. For each underfilled quota, was the underfill due to market circumstances, SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
c. Has the Russia n Federation  considered using the TRQ unde rfill mechanism as outlined by 
the Bali Decision?  
 
2.2.6   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28)  
AG-IMS ID 93104: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealand refers to Venezuela's response to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee 
on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 75033). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela advised that 
it would submit its 2013 MA:2 notification for the 16 remaining products within a few days of the 
meeting. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not yet submitted 
its MA:2 notification for the remaining 16 products for the 2013 year. Can the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela please confirm when  this notification will be submitted?  
 
2.2.7   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29)  
AG-IMS ID 93105: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
a. The Russian Federation took note that TRQ for cheese (VENQ010) in 2016 was fully 
filled (100%) whi le in 2017 fill -in rate of the same TRQ dropped to 0%. Could the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please indicate the reasons for such a significant decline?  
b. Several TRQs in 2016 -2017 were zero filled: VENQ020 (wheat), VENQ034 (palm nuts and 
kernels), VEN Q043 (other oils), VENQ046 (coconut oil), VENQ047 (other vegetable fats 
and oils). Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicate the reasons for the absence 
of imports under mentioned TRQs?  
c. Russian Federation noticed that in 2016 fill -in rate of TRQ  for animal or vegetable fats and 
oils was 21,8% while in 2017 fill -in rate decreased to zero percent. Could Venezuela please 
provide the reason for this decline?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.2.8   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/29, G/AG/N/VEN/30)  
AG-IMS ID 93106: Question by  New Zealand - Transparency issues  
New Zealand refers to Canada's question at the November 2014 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 75032). In response, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela advised that it intended to 
bring its notifications up to date as soon as possible. New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela has still not submitted MA:2 notifications for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Additionally, 
New Zealand notes that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has not submitted MA:2 notific ations 
for 2014 and 2015.  
Can the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela please advise when it expects to provide these 
notifications?  
2.2.9   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/9, G/AG/N/VNM/10, G/AG/N/VNM/11, 
G/AG/N/VNM/12)  
AG-IMS ID 93210: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fi ll 
Australia thanks Viet  Nam for the submission of its MA:2s  for reporting years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 
2019.  Australia notes that Viet  Nam recorded a fill rate of 0 for eggs in each period, and a downward 
trend in quota fill for sugar.  
a. Can Viet  Nam provide further information on the 0 % fill rate for eggs, including whether 
it was due to market circumstances, SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Can Viet  Nam provide information on the downward trend on in -quota sugar impor ts? 
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
 
2.3.1   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/130)  
AG-IMS ID 93190: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU welcomes the US finally notifying its SSG use for 2016. The US had recourse to the  SSG on 
no less than 55 tariff lines. When does the US intend to notify its outstanding notifications 
subsequent years?   
AG-IMS ID 93194: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
a. New Zealand notes that special safeguards have been applied to a small volume of many 
tariff line products, including (but not limited to) the following.  
− 04015025 : 34 kgs; 
− 04021050 : 36 kgs; 
− 04051020 : 4 kgs; 
− 04062033 : 8 kgs; 
− 04062039 : 4 kgs. 
Can the US:   
i. explain why price -based special safeguard measures were invoked in these instances, 
for such small quantities of products?  
ii. Advise when corresponding MA:4 notifications will be submitted, identifying the trigger 
price applicable in each case?  
iii. Advise how much additional duty was payable on these 5 tariff lines?  
b. New Zealand notes that the US imported 47,140  tonnes of boneless frozen beef 
(HS 0202.30.80) in 2015 and applied a price -based safeguard on 72  kgs of product. RD/AG/78  
 
- 31 - 
 
  However, in 2016 the US only imported 15,318 tonnes (68% less product than the 
previous year) and yet applied a price -based safeguard on 11,670  kgs of product.  
Can the US:  
i. provide more detail on the trigger price and additional duty payable for HS  0202.30.80 
in calendar year 2016 and in calendar year 2015?  
ii. Confirm if an MA:4 notification will be submitte d for HS 0202.30.80, and when?  
2.4  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/AG/N/BOL/14 - G/AG/N/BOL/26)  
AG-IMS ID 93111: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Plurinational State of Bolivia for its DS:1 notifications for the Calendar 
Years  2006-2018, in which it confirms no domestic support was provided for any of these years.  
 
Australia thanks the Plurinational  State of Bolivia for updating its compliance with its WTO Domestic 
Support notification obligations.  
  
On Bolivia's Ministry of Rural Development and Land website - https://www.ruralytierras.gob.bo/ , 
the financial accounts report for calendar year 2018 indicates that around 612,827,012 Bolivianos 
(approximately USD  89 million), was expended through Government investments or transfers. There 
has also been media reporting that the Plurinational State of Boliv ia is providing agricultural subsidies 
to diversify production away from quinoa.  
 
Can the Plurinational State of Bolivia explain why the expenditure detailed and reported in its official 
Government websites has not been included in Bolivia's Domestic Supp ort notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 93025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In its notifications for 2006 -2018, the Plurinational State of Bolivia reports that no domestic support 
measures exist. For each of the fo llowing programme, please confirm whether any or all of these 
measures were in place between 2006 -2018, their current status, and whether/when the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia will notify the measures.   
  
a. CRIAR: Provides technical assistance and vouchers  that partially cover the cost of 
agricultural technology such as irrigation, greenhouses, or storage units, among others, 
targeting small landholder farmers.  
b. Agricultural Innovation and Services Project: The project innovation in agriculture and 
forestry  and research, technical assistance, and seed certification activities, benefitting 
small-scale commercial seed producers.  
c. Catastrophe Insurance Subsidy Program: The insurance programme covers ten 
commodities and compensates farmers for losses.  
2.4.2   Burkina Fa so (G/AG/N/BFA/18, G/AG/N/BFA/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93213: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The EU appreciates the effort Burkina Faso has made in submitting its Domestic Support notification 
for 2015 and 2017. The notificati ons indicate: Burkina Faso did not apply any domestic support 
measures in the calendar year 2017 ". 
 
Taking into account the importance of the cotton sector in the country and the efforts Burkina  Faso 
is making to improve the sector, the EU wonders whether these efforts are made without any 
Government support, whether Green Box, Article 6.2 subsidies or otherwise.  
 RD/AG/78  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a. Can Burkina Faso confirm that it does not provide any domestic support for the cotton 
sector?  
AG-IMS ID 93212: Question by Australia - Transpare ncy issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Burkina Faso for the submission of DS:1s for 2015 and 2017 confirming that no 
domestic support was provided during these reporting periods. Australia notes FAO reporting 
(http://www.fao.org/3/i3760e/i3760e.pdf ) indicates Burkina Faso began re -investing government 
funding in its agricultural sector following the 2007/08 food crisis.  This reportedly included input 
subsidies, price -setting mechanisms and i rrigation infrastructure.   
a. Noting the DS:1 response for 2015 and 2017, can Burkina Faso confirm that no support 
covered by the Agreement on Agriculture was provided during these reporting periods, for 
example under Article 6.2?  
AG-IMS ID 93260: Question by  United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Burkina Faso 's notification states that its Government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricultural sector.  However, it is the United States ' understanding that Burkina Faso ha s provided 
financial support to cotton companies to purchase and distribute fertilizer at subsidized rates for 
targeted commodities.  As a result, studies have shown that subsidized fertilizer is approximately 
one-quarter cheaper than those purchased at mar ket prices.  It is also understood that seeds, 
pesticides, and equipment may also be subsidized.  The United States also understands the 
Government of Burkina Faso provides funding for agricultural research.  
a. Please confirm whether Burkina Faso provided such input subsidies during the period 
covered by these notifications, CY 2015 and CY 2017.  
b. If so, what was the basis for not notifying these measures and will Burkina Faso be 
submitting a revised notification?  
c. Please confirm no other domestic support was provided to the agricultural sector in 
CY 2015 or CY 2017, such as public funding for agricultural research.  
2.4.3   Cambodia (G/AG/N/KHM/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93288: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In its 2018 notification , Cambodia introduced a new programme classified under paragraph  8 of the 
Annex 2 of the AoA described as "Expenditure on the provisions of agricultural inputs, equipment 
and pest and disease control to agricultural producers for relief from natural disast er in accordance 
with Annex II: 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture ". 
 
a. Could Cambodia provide the name of the measure and general information as to how this 
measure works, who is eligible and what are the eligibility criteria to receive a payment 
under this measure?  
b. Could Cambodia explain how this measure complies with the specific criteria of 
paragraph  8 of the Annex 2 of the AoA?   
2.4.4   Cameroon (G/AG/N/CMR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 93031: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Cameroon indic ates that no support is granted towards agricultural production. The notification 
indicates that support is provided under the environmental protection programme through the 
Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development.  
a. Can C ameroon elaborate more in details of what types of programmes are implemented, 
and who are the beneficiaries, along with eligibility criteria.   RD/AG/78  
 
- 33 - 
 
  b. How much was spent on these programmes in 2018?  
c. Would Cameroon consider including the amounts paid out under suc h programmes in the 
supporting table DS:1 in the future?  
AG-IMS ID 93032: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Cameroon's notification states that its Government does not provide domestic support to its 
agricul tural sector.  However, Cameroon's notification also states that its Government provides 
assistance to the agricultural sector through the Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and 
Sustainable Development's environmental protection programme.   
  
Please  elaborate on what the assistance to the agricultural sector is with regards to environmental 
protection programme.  
 
2.4.5   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/131)  
AG-IMS ID 93035: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table  DS:5 
  
"Note 2" to "Supporting Tables DS:5" indicates that "eligible production" of skim milk powder equals 
total production (102,953 t onnes ) less product sales for further processing and animal feed under 
Special Classes 5a, b, and c (11,840 t onnes ) and 4m (69,964 t onnes ) less total exports 
(23.687  tonnes ), plus that portion of exports that had received the support price (0 t onne).  
  
a. Is SMP produced in Ontario using components priced under Class  6, which was 
implemented in April 2016, also excluded from eligible production in the same manner as 
is done for SMP product sales under Special Classes 5 a, b, and c and 4m?  
b. If so, how much SMP was produced in Ontario in 2016 under Class 6 and was exclud ed 
from eligible production?  
c. The United States notes that Canada continues to exclude butter and skim milk powder 
for further processing under Classes 4m (powder) and 5 a, b, and c and for exports from 
eligible production. Following up on AG -IMS ID 83079, what measure specifically excludes 
butter and skim milk powder for further processing and exports from receiving the price?  
2.4.6   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93117: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes that in its 2018 DS:1 notific ation, Georgia notified a new programme titled 
"Elaboration and Management of Environmental Protection and Agriculture Development Policy" 
under paragraph 2 (a) research, Annex 2.  
  
a. Could Georgia please advise when it expects to submit a DS:2 notification  for this 
programme?  
b. Could Georgia elaborate on the types of activities that are eligible under this programme?  
2.4.7   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/64)  
AG-IMS ID 93264: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Emergency response following the 
eruption of the Fuego volcano " as a payment for relief from natural disasters.  
a. Please describe how the measure is implemented and how payment rates are determined.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 34 - 
 
  b. How does this measure comply with Annex 2 paragraph 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and when will Guatemala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  
AG-IMS ID 93265: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from na tural disasters  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala has notified a new measure "Coffee Trust Fund " for the first time 
to assist in addressing rust fungus disease.  However, the United States understands the Coffee Trust 
Fund was created in 2001 and is administe red by the Rural Development Bank and supervised by 
the Ministry of Agriculture.  The United States further understands the fund provides for 
1) non-reimbursable funds for inputs and assistance to coffee production, 2) low interest loans for 
producers, and 3) public transfers of up to USD 100 million.  
a. Please confirm whether the Coffee Trust Fund was funded by the Government of 
Guatemala prior to 2018.  
b. Please provide further details on how the Coffee Trust Fund is implemented, including the 
types of support p rovided via the fund in calendar year 2018.  
c. How does the Coffee Trust Fund comply with Annex 2 paragraph of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and when will Guatemala be notifying this information in Table DS:2?  
AG-IMS ID 93263: Question by United States of Amer ica - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In calendar year 2018 Guatemala no longer notified agricultural input subsidies in Supporting 
Table  DS:2.  
 
Please confirm the measures notified in 2017 are no longer operational.  
2.4.8   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93228: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Through its latest DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/IND/18), dated 31 March 2020, India notified that it 
has exceeded the "de minimis " level for rice for the ma rketing year 2018 -2019. India also claimed 
that its public stockholding programs for food security purposes (covering rice and a number of other 
commodities) have been consistently reported in its Table DS:1 notifications since 1995 and that its 
program is  consistent with the criteria of paragraph 3, footnote 5, and footnote 5  and 6 of Annex  2 
to the AoA. For these reasons, the breach of the "de minimis " limits for rice is covered by the peace 
clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockh olding for Food Security Purposes 
(WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  
  
Brazil appreciates India 's efforts in complying with its transparency notification obligations and asks 
if India could provide comments on the following quest ions: 
  
a. How does India understand that it has complied with the additional transparency 
obligations provided for in the Bali Decision so that it can invoke the Peace Clause therein?  
b. Why the PSH program template provided for in the Bali Decision was not sub mitted in 
previous notifications?  
c. When did rice public stockholding begin? What are the criteria and rules for the formation 
of rice stocks? In which regulation are they defined?  
d. How is the recently announced rise on the Minimum Support Price for rice from  
INR 18,15  to 18,68 related to the PSH policy?  
e. When will information on other domestic support policies for rice be provided (footnote  3 
from DS: ST 5)?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 35 - 
 
  f. Does India intend to provide data related to PSH programs for wheat, coarse grains and 
pulses in the fo rmat of the statistical appendix of the Bali Decision for the period between 
2013 and 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 93291: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As part of its 2018/2019 domestic support notification, India notified the relevant  statistical 
information described in the Statistical Appendix of the Annex of the Bali ministerial decision. Canada 
noted some discrepancies between the rice stock variations and the quantities purchased and 
released (under the program and open market sal e). Canada calculated this discrepancy of 
3.427  million of tonnes for 2016 -2017, 3.211 millions of tonnes for 2017 -2018 and of 9.733  millions 
of tonnes for 2018 -2019.  
 
Could India provide an explanation of these discrepancies? Please include detailed infor mation of 
what happened to these stocks, notably how they were disposed, through which channel, at what 
price, and if they were exported.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93274: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to the Opening and Ending Balance of Stocks (a. and i.) 
notified by India:  
a. Please provide the source of these statistics and please confirm whether the values include 
private stocks.  
b. If private stocks are included , please provide a breakdown of public and private stocks.  
AG-IMS ID 93275: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Statistical Appendix, with regards to "Annual Releases under the programme" in line  (e.) o f 
the table notified by India:  
 
Please provide the source of these statistics.  
AG-IMS ID 93277: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
With regards to all statistics in the Statistical Appendix of India's DS:1 Notification, please confirm 
all data is on a marketing year basis.  If any statistics are not, please identify which ones and what 
yearly basis is used.  
AG-IMS ID 93268: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
As noted in the statistical annex for rice, open market sales are made from the stocks accumulated 
in reference to the expenditures notified by India as the "allocation for distribution and buffer stock. " 
a. Please confirm whether open market sales for all commod ities are sold from the public 
stocks at the same price as they are procured, which is the applied administered price 
noted in Supporting Table DS:5.  
b. Please provide the expenditure or revenue forgone from open market sales if the 
procurement and sales pric es are not the same.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 36 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93273: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Statistical Appendix  
 
India announced a Market Support Price  for unmilled paddy rice, therefore it should be notifying all 
statistics in  the Annex, along with rice market price support in ST DS:5, on an unmilled basis rather 
than a milled basis.  However, India notified its statistics on a milled basis.  
 
What is the basis for providing the statistical annex on a milled basis rather than on the basis of the 
product supported?  
AG-IMS ID 93195: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Japan would appreciate if India could provide the value of production data for each of the 
agricultural products listed in Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/IND/18 including Coarse 
cereal, Cotton, Groundnut, Pulses, Rapeseed/Mustard, Soyabean Yellow, Sunflower and 
Wheat, as well as the total value of India agricultural production. This is for us to make 
sure the value of support for each commodi ty is under de minimis  threshold.   
b. Japan would appreciate if India could provide a clarification to explain why the value of 
support for wheat is  negative  ( -30.53m USD) in Supporting Tables DS:4 and  DS:5 of 
G/AG/N/IND/18.  
AG-IMS ID 93266: Question by Uni ted States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
While we thank India for providing a timely notification for Table DS:1 for reporting period 2018/19, 
the notification, in particular Supporting Table DS:1, lacks any detail of transparency  beyond broad 
levels of support by classification type.  We take note that India has identified 11 exempt from 
reduction measures in its first ever Table DS:2 notification.  However, none of these measures appear 
to be discernable in anyway in Table DS:1 wit h the exception of the Public Distribution System and 
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana  (PMFBY) and that is only because the values notified in 
Table  DS:2, an ad hoc non -annual notification, could be manually matched with values notified 
in Table DS:1.  
  
a. India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in 
Supporting Table DS:1.  
b. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value of each of India 's exempt measu res. 
c. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the Supporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
d. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is required in a Supporting Table DS:1 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:1 for the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notification up to date with re quired information.  
AG-IMS ID 93267: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
The United States understands that the Public Distribution System accounts for the largest share of 
stocks released from public stocks; however, India operates a number of nutritional/welfare 
programs that provide domestic food aid.  Other distribution schemes under the National Food 
Security Act include the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, and the Midday Meal 
Scheme.  Further, food is distributed from p ublic stocks under several other schemes not subject to 
the National Food Security Act.  
Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic food aid to 
sections of the population in need " for each of these measures and confirm whether all are notified 
in the aggregated value notified by India.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 37 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93278: Question by United States of America - Domestic food aid  
India has notified USD 17.2 billion for the "allocation for distribution and buffer stock ". According to 
G/AG/N/IND/19, this value represented the "Public Distribution System, National Food Security 
Act, 2013. " Further, G/AG/N/IND/19 states outlays are covered by both paragraph  3 and  4 of 
Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Please provide a breakdown of t he "expenditures in relation to the accumulation… of stocks 
of products " under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
b. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the…holding of stocks of 
products " under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of the "expenditures in relation to the provision of domestic 
food aid to sections of the population in need " under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
AG-IMS ID 93294: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
In its last notification, India notified a program me called Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman 
Nidhi (PM-KISAN) under paragraph 6 of the Annex 2 of the AoA.  
a. Could India clarify who is eligible for this program me and what are the criteria that 
determined eligibili ty for a payment?  
b. Could India indicate if payment levels are determined by income of producers and if so, 
what is the defined and fixed base period used to define eligibility?  
AG-IMS ID 93234: Question by Paraguay and AG-IMS ID 93235: Question by Canada - 
Input subsidies available to low -income or resource -poor producers  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. In 
Table  DS:2 of the notification, India reports a subsidy of USD 24.1  billion in reference to Article  6.2, 
indicating that it provides "other input subsidies" amounting to that value. Could India please provide 
information on:  
a. the types of inputs subsidized,  
i. whether such inputs are limited to those indicated in the footnote or whethe r others 
are also included ; and  
ii. the disaggregated value of the subsidy per type of input;  
b. eligibility criteria and whether the subsidies are available exclusively or "in general" for 
low-income and resource -poor farmers;  
c. whether India is planning reform s to reduce its farmers' dependence on this type of 
subsidy, in respect of which we note an increase of approximately USD 2  billion between 
the notification covering the marketing year 2017 -2018 (G/AG/N/IND/15) and notification 
G/AG/N/IND/18; in this regar d, could India explain the reasons for this considerable 
increase from one marketing year to the next?  
AG-IMS ID 93276: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Indi a listed "Other input subsidies" as the name and description of more 
than USD  24 billion in support based on data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, 
Ministry of Chemicals and Chemistry, Ministry of Power, and Ministry of Statistics and Program 
Implementation.  The footnote to this table indicates this includes subsidies for irrigation, fertilizers, 
and electricity.  
  
India has neglected to provide the name and descriptions of any measure notified in Supporting 
Table DS:2.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 38 - 
 
  a. Please resubmit a completed Supporting Table DS:2 for MY 2017/18, inclusive of names, 
descriptions, and monetary value of each of India's exempt measures.  
b. If India is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, India is encouraged to 
clarify that the S upporting Table is provisional, as other Members have done in the past.  
c. Further, if data for 2017/18 that is required in a Supporting Table DS:2 notification is not 
accessible at this time, please provide a completed Supporting Table DS:2 for the most 
recent year such information is available and provide a timeline for when India will bring 
its more recent notification up to date with required information.  
AG-IMS ID 93281: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or res ource -poor producers  
As Members have asked with previous notifications, could India please provide a breakdown of 
expenditures on irrigation, fertilizers and electricity notified under Supporting Table DS:2. For each 
monetary value, please also identify:  
a. the published data sources from which the monetary values provided are sourced, and  
b. the name of each scheme or schemes (e.g., measures) that contribute to the value 
provided.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93220: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia thanks In dia for its DS:1 notification for marketing year 2018 -19 (G/AG/N/IND/18).  
Australia notes that India provided product -specific domestic support for a rice in excess of India 's 
product -specific de minimis  commitments.  Australia understands that India assert s that the breach 
is covered by the peace clause set out in the Bali Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes (WT/MIN (13)/38) and the General Council Decision (WT/L/939).  Australia would 
like to ask the following questions:  
a. What was the total production of rice (in both value and volume) in marketing 
year 2018-19? 
b. What is the eligibility criteria to receive the minimum support price?  
c. And what is the minimum price support available to all rice growers?  
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of  the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks shall 
correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security". For the period covered by the 
notification, could India provide:    
d. The pre -determined targets, when these were establi shed, and under which legislation; 
and; an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a sole 
focus on food security?  
AG-IMS ID 93290: Question by Canada - Market price support  
In its 2018/2019 domestic support notification, India reported support for rice in excess of its 
de minimis  level for rice. By doing so, India breached is WTO domestic support commitment to limit 
its support for rice at 10% of its value of production.  
 
Please indicate what concrete steps India is takin g to rectify the situation and fulfil its WTO domestic 
support commitment for rice in the future.   
AG-IMS ID 93198: Question by European Union - Market price support  
a. STOCKS AND RELEASE  
Based on the figures in notification in the statistical annex the EU has drawn up the following balance 
sheet for the rice public stockholding programme.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 39 - 
 
   
Mio. t.    2016 -17 2017 -18 2018 -19 
opening stocks  a 28,811  29,784  30,043  
Annual purchase  b 38,110  38,130  44,330  
Total availability  c=a+b  66,921  67,914  74,373  
Annual releases  d 33,52  34,2 34,4 
open market sales  e 0,190  0,460  0,850  
Total release  f=e+d  33,71  34,66  35,25  
Total availability - total release  g=c-f 33,211  33,254  39,123  
End stocks IND/18  h 29,784  30,043  29,390  
          
Discrepancy  i=g-h 3,427  3,211  9,733  
 
Can India explain in detail the discrepancies in this table? Where have these quantities of rice gone? 
Notably, the discrepancy for 2018 -19 is 25% of total annual purchases which seems extremely large.  
  
b. TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS  
India claims that no imports to or exports from public stocks occurred.   
 
However, in order to examine compliance with paragraph 4 of the Bali Ministerial Decision, it is 
necessary to examine import and export figures for the entire production of I ndia for each year 
concerned.   
 
Can India indicate the total quantities and value of rice imported and respectively exported for each 
year concerned.  
 
c. RESPECT OF PARAGRAPHS 3C AND 3D OF THE BALI MINISTERIAL DECISION   
"Paragraph 3c of the Bali Ministerial D ecision requires the Member to provide on an annual basis, 
additional information by completing the template contained in the Annex, for each public 
stockholding programme that it maintains for food security purposes " 
In point 2b of the Annex India indica tes that its public stockholding programmes cover rice, 
wheat, coarse grains and pulses. However, the statistical Annex only includes rice.  Can India 
submit the required statistical annex for wheat, coarse grains and pulses.   
d. SUPPORT OTHER THAN PUBLIC STOC KHOLDING FOR RICE  
In footnote 3 in Supporting table  5 India indicates that "Other support for rice, that is, other 
than public stockholding for food security purposes, will be notified subsequently ". However, this 
information is necessary to verify whether  India has respected paragraph 5 of the Bali Ministerial 
Decision which requires that there be no increase of Amber Box support for programmes other 
than public stockholding.  
i. Can India indicate what types of support are concerned  
ii. Can India indicate when th is notification will be submitted.  
iii. Will this notification also include revisions of prior notifications (for instance for  2014 
and subsequent years) to include this type of support for the years in question?   RD/AG/78  
 
- 40 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93233: Question by Paraguay and AG-IMS ID 93236: Question by Canada - 
Market price support  
The Republic of Paraguay wishes to thank India for submitting notification G/AG/N/IND/18. We note 
with concern that India has exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice production and that it has 
submitted an annex to the notification pursuant to the Bali Ministerial Decision. We therefore request 
that India provide clarification on the following points:  
 
a. Could India please explain why these PSH programmes cou ld not be included under the 
Green Box, like the USD 17.2  billion worth of PSH measures already notified as such in 
the same notification?  
b. Why was this annex not submitted in previous years, as required under paragraph 3(c) of 
the Bali Decision, given that it concerns a programme in existence since 2013, according 
to information provided by India in the Annex to notification G/AG/N/IND/18?  
c. Could India please provide information on the volume and notification of stocks, in 
accordance with paragraph 3(b);  
d. What steps has India taken to ensure that purchased stocks subsequently sold in the 
domestic market (approximately 850,000  tonnes, according  to the figures notified) are 
not later exported?  
e. How does India consider itself to have met the requirements of paragraph 3(a) of the Bali 
Decision by submitting a notification covering the period 2018 -2019?  
f. Is India considering reviewing its notificati ons to amend the total amount of eligible 
production, and not only the production actually purchased, in accordance with the 
Agreement on Agriculture and existing jurisprudence in this area?  
AG-IMS ID 93311: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
Thailand appreciates India 's notification to the Committee on Agriculture. In this regard, Thailand 
seeks clarification on the notification of public stock holding for food security purposes as follows;  
a. Thailand notes that the Bali Decision requires a developi ng Member benefiting from this 
Decision to notify the Committee on Agriculture that it is exceeding or is at risk of 
exceeding either or both of its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) limits (the 
Member's Bound Total AMS or the de minimis  level) as res ult of such programmes.  
Could India please clarify whether such notification has been submitted to the COA prior to the 
implementation?  
 
b. Could India provide further details on how purchase prices and release prices on public 
stock holding for food securit y purposes for rice were determined?  
AG-IMS ID 93271: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 the methodology for calculating Market Price Support is same as previous 
notifications, despite concerns raised by va rious Members over a number of years, including but not 
limited to aggregation of applied administered prices across separately supported products and the 
inclusion of sub -national support.   
a. For each product for which India announced a Minimum Support Pric e (MSP) for marketing 
year 2018/19, please identify the corresponding MSP.  
b. If applied administered prices in Supporting Table DS:5 do not include additional bonuses 
above the MSP that certain states may provide, please specify the values of any bonuses 
provided by each state and to which products bonuses applied during marketing 
year 2018/19.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 41 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 93272: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
India has notified in footnote 3 of Supporting Table DS:5 that "other support for rice " will be notified 
subsequently.  When will this support be notified in a revised Table DS:1 notification?  
AG-IMS ID 93293: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In its last notification, India classified the measure called Prad han Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana  (PMFBY) 
as Green Box under paragraph 8 of the annex 2 of the AoA. In its DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/IND/19) 
India explained that:  
 
"Provisions are consistent with criteria in Annex 2, paragraph 8, as the Government subsidies are  
on premium of agricultural insurance for production loss exceeding 30% of the average of yield of 
past years. " 
a. Could India indicate what is the period used to calculate average past yield under this 
program me? More specifically, what is the methodology on the number of "past years " 
used to calculate the average reference period yield?  
b. Could India explain how it meets the base period requirement to calculate the average 
production level, as defined by Annex 2 p aragraph 8 (a)?  
A program described as Insurance premium subsidy is also reported for in supporting table DS:9 for 
Government subsidies on premiums of agricultural insurance for production loss not exceeding 
30% of the average of production.  
c. Could India in dicate if the support reported is part of the same insurance program of the 
one reported under Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)?  
d. Please indicate how the two support programs are related and how they interact with each 
other.  
 
2.4.9   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93131 : Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow -up with Nigeria with respect to question AG -IMS ID 90034 that Australia 
asked at the 90th CoA and question AG -IMS ID 92117 that Australia asked at the 92nd 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.  
  
a. 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.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving  
access to markets?  
2.4.10   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 93221: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Panama for the submission of its DS:1 for 2019.  Australia notes Panama is reporting 
a breach of de minimis  for support provided  to rice during this reporting period.   
 
Can Panama explain what caused this breach and how it has worked to prevent a similar breach in 
the subsequent reporting periods?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.4.11   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/18)  
AG-IMS ID 93136: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
In the Methodological Note point 4 it is indicated that the support price for common wheat since  2004 
has been 1000 SAR/t. However, in Supporting Table 4 no administered price is mentioned, and no 
eligible produ ction indicated.  
 
Can the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia explain whether any common wheat has benefitted from the 
1000 SAR/t support price and if so, for what quantity?  
2.4.12   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/34)  
AG-IMS ID 93269: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States takes note that Singapore has introduced its first notified domestic support 
measures. According to Singapore Food Agency 's (SFA) website, in order to buffer from supply 
disruptions, Singapore ai ms to produce 30% of its nutritional needs by 2030 by implementing its 
"30 by 30" Food Production Target.  Through funding and technology transfer, SFA assists local 
farmers transfer and adopt technology to increase and intensify their output.  The United St ates 
understands that the Basic Capability Upgrading (BCU) scheme for example co -funds up to 50 % of 
the cost of purchasing equipment and other qualifying costs.  Similarly, the Productivity 
Enhancement Standard (PES) scheme provides up to 30 -70% of the cost  of purchasing equipment 
and other qualifying costs.  
a. Please describe how all notified measures comply with relevant exemption criteria set out 
in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Will Singapore be submitting a Table DS:2 notification providing ful l information on how 
the measure meets specific eligibility criteria?  
2.4.13   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93137: Question by Brazil - Excessive rates of inflation  
Tunisia has stated, in its DS:1 notification for calendar year 2018 (G/AG/N/TUN/58), that it ha s used 
the reference prices of the reference period and adjusted them to take account of inflation and 
exchange rate movements. Brazil recognizes that developing countries may be vulnerable to higher 
domestic inflation rates and currency volatility that re nders its fixed external reference price  (FERP) 
values in domestic currency outdated. Nonetheless, Members, to fulfill their notification obligations, 
have to abide by the terms of their domestic support commitments. Article 18, paragraph 4 of 
the AoA, est ablishes that "In the review process Members shall give due consideration to the 
influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support 
commitments." Thus, it is the review work in the Committee on Agricultu re that has to be carried 
out taking into account excessive general increases in prices.  
  
a. Would Tunisia consider submitting its DS tables concurrently on both an unadjusted and 
an inflation -adjusted basis, as suggested previously by WTO Secretariat (G/AG/ W/45)?  
b. Could Tunisia provide data on its domestic inflation rate for recent years?  
AG-IMS ID 93138: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada notes that Tunisia has unilaterally adjusted its fixed external reference price for inflation. 
Canada notes that under Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, it is the responsibility of the 
Committee during the review process, and not of Tunisia, to give consideration to excessive rates of 
inflation. In response to question AG -IMS ID 82022, Tuni sia provided its Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Support between 2002 and 2015 without any adjustments to its fixed external 
reference prices.  
  RD/AG/78  
 
- 43 - 
 
  a. a. Could Tunisia please update this table by including the Current Total Aggregate 
Measurement of Suppo rt for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 without any changes to its 
external reference prices?   
Canada notes that a written response is outstanding for the question AG -IMS ID 91105 regarding 
G/AG/N/TUN/56. It is copied below for reference:  
  
b. In response to q uestion AG ‑IMS ID 82022, Tunisia provided its current total aggregate 
measurement of support level between 2002 and 2015 without any changes to its external 
reference prices. Could Tunisia please update this table by including the current total 
aggregate m easurement of support for the years 2016 and 2017 without any changes to 
its external reference prices?  
c. 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 
from Canada, Tunisia stated as follows: "Regarding the steps to be taken to address this 
situation so that the external reference prices will no lon ger be adjusted in the future, the 
investigations under way will identify alternative options for notifying support and the 
steps to be taken".  
d. Could Tunisia please provide an update on its investigations under way to identify 
alternative options for noti fying support and the steps to be taken?  
e. Could Tunisia please indicate when it will notify its domestic support without adjustments 
to its external reference prices?  
2.4.14   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/16, G/AG/N/ARE/17)  
AG-IMS ID 93270: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
While the United States thanks United Arab Emirates for continuing to regularly provide its 
Table  DS:1 notifications in a timely manner, the United States notes that United Arab Emirates  has 
not responded to any question it has ever been asked in this Committee.  The United States would 
encourage United Arab Emirates to bring its responses to these questions up to date, many of which 
also apply to its current notifications.   
 
When can Memb ers expect United Arab Emirates to provide responses?  
AG-IMS ID 93279: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In notification G/AG/N/ARE /12 covering the United Arab Emirates ' 2016 domestic support spending, 
line 2  (d) "Extension and advisory services " is accompanied by the description "Support for 
agricultural research and to facilitate the transfer of information and the results of research to 
producers and consumers " and with the data source of the Abu Dhabi Food  Control Authority. In 
notifications G/AG/N/ARE/16 and G/AG/N/ARE/17, covering calendar years  2018 and  2019, no 
description is given under the extension and advisory services and spending is reported by the 
Ministry of Climate Change and Environment and th e Dubai Municipality, as well as the Abu Dhabi 
Food Control Authority.  
a. Please describe the spending in line 2 (d) Extension and Advisory Services for calendar 
years 2018 and 2019, including whether this is a new measure compared to the outlays 
identified for 2016 and if a Table DS:2 notification will be made for this measure.  
b. Noting that the United Arab Emirates has not notified a Table DS:1 for calendar year 2017, 
please indicate when that notification will be submitted to this Committee.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 44 - 
 
  2.4.15   Vanuatu (G/AG/N/VUT/9, G/AG/N/VUT/10)  
AG-IMS ID 93155: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
A number of measures notified in G/AG/N/VUT/1 for 2015, V/AG/N/VUT/9 for 2014, and 
V/AG/N/VUT/10 for 2017 including "research" and "training services" have the same monetary value 
for each year.  
  
a. Please confirm whether notified values are actual or projected budgetary outlays or 
expenditures.  
b. If values are not actual budgetary outlays, please provide such values for all notified years.  
AG-IMS ID 93158: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States notes Vanuatu's submission of domestic support notifications for 2014, 2015, 
and 2017, but not 2016. When will Vanuatu be submitting  its notification for 2016? Why was it 
withheld?  
2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  
2.5.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/19)  
AG-IMS ID 93280: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please confirm whe ther any activities under the measures below include input subsidies 
to farmers and, if so, whether these subsidies are being notified under Supporting Table DS:2:  
• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) ; 
• Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) ; 
• National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) ; 
• Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) ; 
• Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN).  
AG-IMS ID 93296: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Could India please provide information on additional financial assistance and direct input subsidies 
provided by any state governments, including those provided as matching grants under any central 
government program mes, and any additional state programs supporting the provision of seed, 
chemicals, agriculture machines, etc.  
 
AG-IMS ID 93297: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
India has notified Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – Per Drop More Crop compo nent 
(PMKSY -PDMC) in Table DS:2. India states the scheme meets the general criteria of paragraph  1 
and the general criteria in paragraph 2 of Annex 2.  According to the PMKSY website, categories of 
beneficiaries under the measure include "small and marginal  farmers " and "other than small and 
marginal farmers " and the subsidy payment will be limited to unit costs specified in the guidelines 
of the PMKSY -PDMC.  It is also unclear where India has notified this value in Supporting Table  DS:1 
of G/AG/N/IND/15 and G/AG/N/IND/18.   
a. Please identify where in Supporting Table DS:1 the PMKSY -PDMC is notified, inclusive of 
the related monetary value for 2018/19.  
b. Please confirm whether the PMKSY -PDMC provides payments or other benefits directly to 
producers.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 45 - 
 
  c. oting that PMKS Y-PDMC, among other things, aims to "improve on -farm water use ", please 
confirm whether the measure provides benefits for on -farm facilities.  
2.6  Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.6.1   Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/46, G/AG/N/MAR/46/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR /44, 
G/AG/N/MAR/44/Corr.1, G/AG/N/MAR/47)  
AG-IMS ID 93163: Question by Australia - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Australia welcomes Morocco's submission of its ES  :1 notification for 2014, 2016 and 2017. Noting 
Morocco's export subsidies  are provided subject to Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, can 
Morocco provide responses to the following questions:  
  
a. Can Morocco provide details on the cost -reduction measures provided for vegetables, 
fruits, flowers and ornamental plants, oli ve oil and hatching eggs and day -old chicks?  
b. Can Morocco provide details on how these export subsidies meet Morocco's commitments 
under Nairobi Ministerial Decision, particularly paragraphs 9, 10 and 11?  
2.7  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
2.7.1   Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/21)  
AG-IMS ID 93222: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks Myanmar for the submission of an ER:1, notifying an export restriction on rice 
from 1 May to 30 June to prevent critical shortages of rice.  
  
Can Myanmar advise if the measures ended as notified – on 30 June – and if any further measures 
are being considered or developed with respect the export of rice from Myanmar?  
2.8  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.8.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/K OR/74, G/AG/N/KOR/75)  
AG-IMS ID 93298: Question by United States of America -  
The United States thanks the Republic of Korea for the transparency provided in notifying its 
Table  NF:1 for 2018 and 2019.  
  
As a follow up to AG-IMS ID 93170 and 91123:  
  
The United States notes that the Republic of Korea provided food aid donations to the WFP for all 
years between 2008 and 2017 but did not notify any Table NF:1 for this period or Table  ES:3 
since 2013. Also, we noted that the Republic of Korea through the Asea n Plus Three Emergency Rice 
Reserve's  (APTERR) food aid program provided in -kind food aid in year 2017.  
a. Please indicate when the Republic of Korea will be providing NF:1notifications for 
years  2008 to 2017.  
b. Please explain whether food aid donations to APT ERR in 2017 should be notified in 
Tables  ES:3 and NF:1. If not, why not.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 46 - 
 
  3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)   
3.1.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10, G/AG/N/BHR/11, 
G/AG/N/BHR/14)  
AG-IMS ID 93308: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States notes that the Kingdom of Bahrain has not responded to any of the questions it 
has been asked since 2014 and would encourage the Kingdom of Bahrain t o bring its responses to 
these questions up to date.  
  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89035/88101, for which the Kingdom of Bahrain has not 
responded and also applies to G/AG/N/BHR/11 and G/AG/N/BHR/14:  
  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 the Kingdom of Bahrain notified "plant protection" as 
a pest and disease control measure under Annex 2. No pest and disease control measure was notified 
for 2013 in G/AG/N/BHR/7, but the Kingdom of Bahrain did not ify "Land preparation, crop protection, 
veterinary services" as a general services measure for that year as well as in 2011 and previous 
years. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, the Kingdom of Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, national campaign 
for the control of red palm weevil" as a pest and disease control measure.  
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services") indicates whether 
the same programme recei ved funding in only certain years or if a new programme was 
introduced with the same name. Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by the Kingdom of Bahrain in 
G/AG/N/BHR/10, please provide a short description of how the measure is implemented.  
c. Please confirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil") 
will be submitted to this Committee.  
3.1.2   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/58)  
AG-IMS ID 93141: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91195, noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
  
The United States notes that Tunisia only noti fies product specific support for milk in the form of 
market price support. However, the United States understands that Tunisia operates several 
additional programmes related to milk which were not notified at all.  
  
a. For the three measures identified belo w, please confirm how the measure is notified in 
Tunisia's most recent domestic support notification or provide the basis for exclusion.  
b. Please also provide the same information for any other programs related to milk not 
already identified including progr ams that:  
i. Provide a subsidy for dairy projects.  
ii. Provide funding of approximately USD 17 million for milk collection and cooling.  
iii. Provide USD 8 million to process milk stocks when there is overproduction. Please also 
confirm for the most recent five notifie d years whether such funding was used and if 
so, how much.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 47 - 
 
  The United States understands for certain commodities (e.g., sugar and tobacco) the Government 
operates a public storage program intended to stabilize market prices.  
  
c. Please provide the measure an d additional details as to how this program is operated and 
please specific how this program is notified in Tunisia's domestic support notifications.  
Tunisia provides support to farmers in the form of agricultural input subsidies for items such as 
fertiliz er, pesticide, and irrigation at rates below cost.  
d. For each type of input, fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation, as well as any others not 
identified by the United States, please explain how the program is administered and the 
basis for not including suc h measures in Tunisia's domestic support notification.  
AG-IMS ID 93140: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States repeats AG -IMS ID 91191 noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
  
In Tunisia's response to AG -IMS 87041 regarding production levels in 2016 compared to notified 
eligible production, Tunisia indicated that it would provide a response at a later stage. The 
United  States repeats the question in the context of both 2016 and 2017. 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 what the volume of eligible production notified repr esents.  For example, in 
2016 Tunisia notified eligible 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 the relevant measures and explain how the measures limit the quantity of 
eligible production of each of these commodities.  
AG-IMS ID 93139: Question by United States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
The United States repeats AG-IMS ID 91190 noting the same issues appear in Tunisia's notification 
for 2018.  
  
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 of 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 t ime, in response to AG -IMS ID 62036, Tunisia stated that it 
considered the rate of inflation between 1998 -2014 to be excessive.  
  
a. Please provide additional information for Members to consider with the request, including 
inflation rates for all years since  1986, noting that Tunisia's inflation rates are well within 
the range of most other Members' rates.  
b. Please provide information and data that shows all calculations regarding inflation in 
Tunisia's most recent notification (G/AG/N/TUN/52).  
c. Please submit a revised notification showing domestic support calculated with an 
unadjusted FERP.  
d. Is Tunisia considering making substantive reforms to its policies that will bring it into 
compliance with its obligations?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 48 - 
 
  3.2  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
3.2.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 93230: Question by Japan - Transparency issues  
a. Japan recognizes that Kyrgyz Republic introduced export prohibitions on certain food 
products including wheat and meslin, wheat flour, rice, and sugar on 22 March 2020, and 
appreciates the measure was notified to the Committee on Agriculture on 31 March 2020. 
Japan would appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why the notification 
was not made before the measure was taken while "prior notification" is re quired in 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. Japan would appreciate it if  Kyrgyz Republic could explain how the measure meets the 
conditions required in Article XI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely 
i) essentiality of the pr oducts, and ii) criticalness of the shortages. Japan would also 
appreciate it if Kyrgyz Republic could provide the reason why it resorted to the export 
prohibitions on the products, rather than arranging quotas which reflect the situation of 
domestic suppl y and demand.  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID 93166: Question by United States of America  
Table ES:3 and Table NF:1 Notifications  
  
Taking into account China has not responded to AG -IMS ID 92029 and 88082, the United  States 
notes that China in responding to the ECQ and AG -IMS ID 92031, China stated that it has provided 
food aid through both multilateral and bilateral channels through 2018 but has never notified 
Table  ES:3 (showing the total volume of food aid provided). Further China stated in r esponse to 
AG-IMS ID 90080 that it would study whether a Table ES:3 notification is necessary.  
a. Has China determined if notification of Table ES:3 is necessary?   
b. If not necessary, please explain.  
The United States notes that the volume of international food  assistance provided by China as 
reported in the export competition questionnaire from 2015 to 2018, is over 2 billion RMB per year, 
making China the third largest food donor, after the United States and the European Union and its 
member States.  As a food aid donor or donors of technical and financial assistance:  
c. When can Members expect China to notify Table NF:1?  
d. If China does not plan to notify, please explain why.  
4.2  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 93167: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Egypt's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998.  As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 90081, Egypt stated 
that it was undertaking the necessary steps to update its ES notifications. Please provide an update 
on the steps being taken by Egypt to submit its overdue notifications.  
 
4.3  India  
AG-IMS ID 93200: Question by European Union  
ES:1 notifications  
 
The latest ES:1 notification for India covers the year 2009.  RD/AG/78  
 
- 49 - 
 
   
a. Can India indicate when the outstanding E S:1 notifications will be submitted?  
b. Can India indicate whether it will include all Article 9:4 subsidies granted at Federal and 
State level in these notifications as suggested in earlier discussions in the Committee?   
AG-IMS ID 93168: Question by United S tates of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID  92030, AG -IMS ID 91143 and AG -IMS ID 88085, India states the 
preparation of notifications are underway and it would notify its export subsidies "shortly". Please 
provide an update on the status of preparation o f its numerous years of overdue notifications and 
tell Members when the Committee can expect to be notified.  
AG-IMS ID 93169: Question by United States of America  
The United States noticed that the Food Corporation of India has provided humanitarian food aid, 
on behalf of the Government on India, for example to Afghanistan in 2018 -19, 
(see: http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Import/ENGLISH%202011 -2020.pdf ).  
  
c. Please provide additional information on FCI's activities, including in what years 
humanitarian food aid has been provided.  
d. Please indicate whether India will be submitting ES:3 notifications for all relevant years. 
If not, please explain why not.  
4.4  Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 93201: Question by European Union  
DS:1 notification  
 
The latest notification submitted in 1998 by Kenya concerns the year 1996.  
 
Can Kenya indicate when its outstanding notifications will be submitted, in particular for recent 
years?  
4.5  Moro cco  
AG-IMS ID 93171: Question by European Union  
The EU appreciates the efforts Morocco has made in reducing the backlog of notifications in particular 
on export subsidies. However, Morocco's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2012 covering the 
years 2 003 to 2007. Can Morocco indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding 
DS:1 notifications?  
 
4.6  South Africa  
AG-IMS ID 93172: Question by European Union  
South Africa's most recent DS:1 notification is from 2016 covering the year 2014.  Can South Af rica 
indicate any timetable for submission of its outstanding DS:1 notifications?  
4.7  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 93202: Question by European Union  
ES:1 Notifications  
 
The latest ES:1 notification submitted covers 2017/18. Can the US indicate when the  outstanding 
ES:1 notifications will be submitted?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 50 - 
 
   
AG-IMS ID 93246: Question by India  
India notes that the United States submitted its last domestic support notification (DS:1  notification) 
as contained in document G/AG/N/USA/123 in 2018, for the marketi ng year 2016. According to the 
G/AG/2 document, the United States is required to submit its domestic support notification no later 
than 90 days following the end of the calendar (or, marketing, fiscal, etc.) year in question.  
  
Lately, the United States h as announced a number of programmes for supporting its domestic 
agriculture sector. These programmes may have significant implications for the international prices 
of agricultural goods.  
  
In this context, India requests the United States to elucidate the  reasons for not submitting its 
DS:1 notification for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. By when can WTO Members expect the 
United  States to notify its domestic support for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019?  
 
AG-IMS ID 93310: Question by Mexico  
The review process, which is conducted on the basis of Members' notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture, is the principal means of reviewing compliance with Uruguay Round commitments. As a 
result, the Secretariat,  Mexico and numerous developed and developing Members have combined 
their resources and technical efforts to keep abreast of the reporting of budgetary outlays for 
domestic support. We note with concern that the last DS:1 notification from the United State s was 
for the marketing year 2016 and therefore ask:  
  
When will the United States submit domestic support notifications for the years 2016/17, 2017/18, 
2018/19 and 2019/20?  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  China  
AG-IMS ID 93024: Question by United States of America  
The United St ates thanks China for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS 92031, China stated that SINOSURE export insurance programmes covered 
a total value of USD 13.9 billion, USD 13.6 billion and USD 15.95 billion of agricultural products 
exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.  
  
Please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by product or product group 
(i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  If Chi na is unable to provide this data at this time, 
please explain if China is taking steps to provide this data after the end of 2020 when the 
Nairobi  Decision Annex should be fully adopted by all Members.  
 
5.2  Myanmar  
AG-IMS ID 93174: Question by Australia  
Australia would like to follow up with Myanmar with respect to question AG -IMS ID  92124 that 
Australia asked at the 92nd CoA: 
  
Australia welcomes Myanmar's submission of ten overdue ES:1 notifications. Australia welcomes this 
commitment to bringing notifica tion 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:  
 
Can Myanmar advise if it has provided any export subsidies in th ose reporting 
periods  (2015  onwards)?  RD/AG/78  
 
- 51 - 
 
   
5.3  Viet Nam  
AG-IMS ID 93142: Question by United States of America  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 91109 on export competition for which Viet  Nam has not 
provided a written response:  
  
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 programs run by 
The Vietnam Development Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018. When will Viet  Nam provide data 
updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ?  If Viet  Nam is not able to provide this data, 
please explain why.  
 
 
__________