G/AG/W/202  
 
17 October 2019  
(19-6791) Page: 1/44 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 30 -31 OCTOBER 20 191 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline 
of 15 October  2019 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/38.  
 
_______________  
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: A RTICLE  18.6 .... 6 
1.1   Angola's fuel subsidies  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
1.1.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92087)  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
1.2   Angola's potential import restrictions  ................................ ................................ .............  6 
1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92045)  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.3   Canada's review of the TRQ system  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92088)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.4   China's state reserves programmes  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
1.4.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92047)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.5   EU's compensation for farmers to adjust to new trade deals  ................................ .............  7 
1.5.1    Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 92089)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.6   EU's planned policy measures against U.S. tariffs  ................................ ............................  7 
1.6.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92090)  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
1.7   Europe an Union - European Court of Auditors report  ................................ ........................  8 
1.7.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92093)  ................................ ................................ ........  8 
1.8   EU's Eco schemes payments  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
1.8.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92092)  ................................ ................................ ........  8 
1.9   Japan's corn policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92097)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.10   Russian Federation - State programme for rural territories development  ...........................  9 
1.10.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92017)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.11   Russia's excise duties on wine and sparkling wine  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.11.1    Question by Eur opean Union (AG -IMS ID 92121)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.12   Switzerland – Financing of security stocks in agricultural sectors  ................................ ..... 9 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92019)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.13   Thailand's support to rice and palm oil  ................................ ................................ .........  9 
1.13.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92014)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.13.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92015)  ................................ .......... 10 
1.14   U.S. farm support  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....10 
1.14.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92050)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.14.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92020)  ................................ ....................... 11 
1.15   U.S. biofuel policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...11 
1.15.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92103)  ................................ ................................ ...11 
1.16   U.S. practices of DS notifications  ................................ ................................ ................ 11 
1.16.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 92086)  ................................ ................................ .....11 
1.17   Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..12 
1.17.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92046)  ................................ ................................ ...12 
1.18   Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  ................................ ........... 12 
1.18.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92075)  ................................ ........................... 12 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92077) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 92001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 
1.19   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 13 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92076)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.19.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92078) and by United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 92002)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 
1.20   Canada's wine sale po licy ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92003)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.21   China's rice policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...14 
1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92005)  ................................ .......... 14 
1.22   China's state trading enterprises  ................................ ................................ ................. 15 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92004)  ................................ .......... 15 
1.23   European Union - Modification of agricultural sched ule of commitments  ........................... 15 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92091)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.24   The EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  ................................ ............................ 15 
1.24.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92079)  ................................ ........................... 15 
1.25   EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 
1.25.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92080) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 92006)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 16 
1.26   The EU's coupled payments  ................................ ................................ ........................ 16 
1.26.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92071)  ................................ ................................ ......16 
1.27   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ ........................ 17 
1.27.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92095)  ................................ ................................ .17 
1.28   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .17 
1.28.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92048)  ................................ ................................ ...17 
1.28.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92007)  ................................ ....................... 17 
1.29   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 
1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92094)  ................................ ................................ .18 
1.29.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92049)  ................................ ................................ ...18 
1.29.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 920 96) ................................ ................... 19 
1.29.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92008)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.30   India's wheat public stockpiling  ................................ ................................ .................. 19 
1.30.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92009)  ................................ .......... 19 
1.31   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .................... 20 
1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92013)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.32   India's short -term crop loans  ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 
1.32.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92010)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.33   India - Dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...20 
1.33.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92011)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.34   India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  ................................ ................................ .............. 21 
1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92012)  ................................ .......... 21 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.35   Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  ................................ ............................... 21 
1.35.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92081)  ................................ ........................... 21 
1.36   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ......21 
1.36.1    Question by Russian Feder ation (AG -IMS ID 92098)  ................................ ................... 21 
1.37   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 
1.37.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 92099)  ................................ ................................ .....22 
1.37.2    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 92100)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.38   Switzerland – Loi Chocolatier  ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 
1.38.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92018)  ................................ ....................... 22 
1.39   United Kingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  .............. 23 
1.39.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92101)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.40   U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.40.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92102)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.40.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92082)  ................................ ........................... 23 
1.40.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92072)  ................................ ................................ ......24 
1.41   U.S. support to cotton sector ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 
1.41.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92073)  ................................ ................................ ......26 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ....................  26 
2.1   Administration of Tariff and other Quota Commitments (Table MA:1)  ................................ 26 
2.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/50)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 
2.1.2    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/101, G/AG/N/THA/102, G/AG/N/THA/103)  ................................ .27 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....27 
2.2.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/125)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
2.2.2    India (G/AG/N/IND/16, G/AG/N/IND/17)  ................................ ................................ ....28 
2.2.3    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/104, G/AG/N/THA/105, G/AG/N/THA/106)  ................................ .29 
2.3   Special agricult ural safeguards (Tables MA:3 To MA:5) ................................ .................... 30 
2.3.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/180, G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  ................................ ............... 30 
2.3.2    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/56)  ................................ ................................ ............... 30 
2.4   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 30 
2.4.1    Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/43, G/AG/N/ARG/44,  G/AG/N/ARG/45) ................................ ....30 
2.4.2    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/11)  ................................ ................................ ......31 
2.4.3    Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/55, G/AG/N/CHL/56)  ................................ ................................ ....31 
2.4.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44)  ................................ ......... 31 
2.4.5    Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/62)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 
2.4.6    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  ................................ ................................ ............... 32 
2.4.7    India (G/AG/N/IND/13)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 
2.4.8    India (G/AG/N/IND/15)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 
2.4.9    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/6, G/AG/N/KGZ/7)  ................................ ....................... 33 
2.4.10    Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 
2.4.11    Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/21, G/AG/N/OMN/22, G/AG/N/OMN/23, G/AG/N/OMN/24, 
G/AG/N/OMN/25)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4.12    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/50)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 35 
2.4.13    Peru (G/AG/N/PER/19, G/AG/N/PER/20, G/AG/N/PER/21)  ................................ ........... 36 
2.4.14    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/24)  ................................ ................................ ......36 
2.4.15    Seychelles (G/AG/N/SYC/4)  ................................ ................................ .................... 37 
2.4.16    Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  ................................ ................................ ................... 37 
2.4.17    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  ................................ ................................ ......... 37 
2.4.18    Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1, G/AG/N/TJK/6)  ................................ ................................ 38 
2.5   New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ .............. 38 
2.5.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 
2.5.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 40 
2.6   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............... 40 
2.6.1    Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/65, G/AG/N/KOR/66, G/AG/N/KOR/67,  
G/AG/N/KOR/68)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 40 
2.6.2    Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39/REV.1, G/AG/N/MEX/44/REV.1)  ................................ ............. 41 
2.6.3    Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/20)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 41 
2.6.4    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/126, G/AG/N/USA/118)  ................................ ....41 
2.6.5    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/127)  ................................ .............................. 41 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  42 
3.1   China ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 
3.2   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 
3.3   Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 42 
3.4   Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 42 
3.5   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 42 
3.6   Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 43 
4   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  43 
4.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 43 
4.2   Russian Federati on ................................ ................................ ................................ .....43 
 
  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Angola's fuel subsidies  
1.1.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92087)  
According to the media , Angola 's government is looking to introduce new fuel subsidies for some 
sectors of economy, including agriculture. The main goal of this measure is to encourage food 
production. In this regard, Ukraine kindly asks Angola to provide information as follows:  
a. Could Angola please indicate the total monetary amount that has been approved, or 
alternatively, which is being considered as fuel subsidies for agriculture?  
b. Could Angola please clarify what eligibility criteria for agricultural producers benefiting 
from this m easure have been approved or are under consideration?  
1.2  Angola's potential import restrictions  
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92045)  
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Go ods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, 
which provides new import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods (40 items).  
  
Canada understands that, as part of Presidential Decree 23/19 and starting in 2022, Angola may 
also apply temporary quantitative restrictions on 16 items, which appear to be included in the original 
list of 54 items. According to the Presidential Decree, these rules seek to support domestic 
production and economic development by restricting importer s' access to imports, including through 
an import licensing system that appears to prioritize the use of domestic production, similar to an 
import substitution policy.  
  
Given the potential impacts on Canada 's exports to Angola of agriculture products cov ered by 
Presidential Decree 23/19, Canada would appreciate if Angola could provide clarification on the 
application and scope of the decree:  
  
a. Could Angola provide additional information on the agriculture products covered by the 
scope of Presidential Dec ree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, 
as well as a list of specific goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the Decree?  
i. Could Angola confirm whether pinto beans (HS 0713.39) are subject to Pres idential 
Decree 23/19?  
b. Could Angola elaborate on the consultation process importers and wholesalers have to 
follow within the domestic market to be eligible for an import licence, including on the 
specific steps required?  
i. Could Angola provide an example of an import authorization request form that would 
be compliant with Presidential Decree 23/19?  
c. How will Angola determine what quantities can be imported? What considerations will be 
taken into account by Angola?  
d.  Could Angola confirm whether limitations  on import quantities for the 40 agriculture 
products listed in Presidential Decree 23/19 are currently applied to importers?  
e. Could Angola explain how the provisions of Chapter I, Article 2 (initial list of 54 products, 
including 40 agriculture products) of Presidential Decree 23/19 differ from provisions from 
Chapter III (subset of 16 products), including in how these will apply to importers?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.3  Canada 's review of the TRQ system  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92088)  
Australia welcomed Canada 's public con sultation and review process with respect to the allocation 
and administration of tariff rate quotas for dairy, poultry and egg products.  
 
Australia has engaged in the consultation process and looks forward to outcomes that remove any 
unnecessary trade -distorting and/or restrictive elements of Canada 's TRQ system for those products.  
Can Canada provide the Membership with an update on the TRQ review?  
 
1.4  China's state reserves programmes  
1.4.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92047)  
Canada is seeking further information  from China regarding its state reserves programmes. Canada 
understands that in 2007 China set up a national reserve for pork and other meats. The pork reserve 
consists of frozen meat and live animals and releases of pork can be made when domestic prices 
are high and the purchase of hogs from farmers can be made when prices are low. Regarding frozen 
pork, the national reserves have a reserve cycle of four months whereby, there are three  rotations 
of pork in a year.  
  
a. Could China indicate where its acquisit ion of pork and live hogs for this state reserve is 
notified in its annual domestic support notification.  
b. How stocks are acquired for the pork states reserve; at what price and from which market 
(e.g., international or domestic)?  
c. What are the criteria for determining the volume of the pork reserve?  
d. What are the factors used to release pork or hogs onto the domestic market and how are 
the release prices determined?  
e.  What is the role of local/provincial government in administering this programme?  
1.5  EU's compensation for farmers to adjust to new trade deals  
1.5.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92089)  
Australia understands the European Commission has put together a EUR 1 billion support package 
for farmers and agri -food businesses as compe nsation and to cushion market disturbances caused 
by the EU -Mercosur agreement.  
 
As Australia has said in previous CoA meetings, Australia acknowledges the importance of assisting 
farmers and producers to adjust to new trade deals. But Australia is concern ed when such large 
packages are announced, particularly given their potential to limit , to a degree , the need to focus 
on long -term structural reforms that are enshrined in the Agreement on Agriculture and 
Members ' commitments under the Agreement.  
 
Can the  European Union  provide information on the measures that will be implemented under this 
package, and what products will be eligible under the package?  
 
1.6  EU's planned policy measures against U.S. tariffs  
1.6.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92090)  
Australia not es media reports that Italy has requested EU assistance for its agricultural producers 
that are likely to be impacted by the United States ' tariffs on USD7.5 billion worth of EU goods from 
18 October.  Australia understands Italy is concerned about the impa ct of the US tariffs on Italian 
cheese, wine and olive oil.  Italian Agriculture Minister Teresa Bellanova reportedly wrote to G/AG/W/202  
 
- 8 - 
 
  EU Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan seeking the creation of a 'zero duty ' EU fund and urging 
the EU for approval of 'export ref unds'. 
 
Can the E uropean Union  provide clarification on what (if any) policy measures it plans on 
implementing for agri -food sectors in EU member States that may be impacted by the US tariffs?  
 
1.7  European Union  - European Court of Auditors report  
1.7.1   Question by  Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92093)  
On 8 October, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) published its annual report scrutinizing the 
EU budget in 2018. The ECA found significant level of error in distribution of EU money, which was 
accessed through funds earmarked fo r rural development, market measures and environment or 
climate action, mostly through the EU 's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The auditors examined 
156 of these payments and found that almost a quarter were received despite ineligibility, inaccurate 
information provided, non -compliance to rules or administrative errors.  
 
a. Could the European Union provide further information regarding ECA's findings?  
b. Has this "significant level of error" happened before?  
c. How does the European Union plans to reflect such  findings on its notifications to the WTO?  
1.8  EU's Eco schemes payments  
1.8.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 92092)  
On 1st October, the then Commissioner -Designate for Agriculture, Janusz Wojchichowski, was 
subjected to a first hearing before the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the 
European Parliament. Following the evaluation of his performance during the hear ing of 1st October, 
he had to provide written responses to further questions posed by said Committee, regarding the 
policies he would pursue and implement as Commissioner. While answering question 6.5 "Can you 
confirm that future Eco schemes will reward fa rmers and those rewards can go beyond the cost 
coverage principle applied in pilar 2 of the CA? ", Mr. Wojchichowski stated that Members are allowed 
to offer support that may be higher than mere compensation of cost incurred and income foregone. 
Annex II, paragraph 12  (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, on the subject of payments under 
environmental programs, establishes that "the amount of payment shall be limited to the extra costs 
or loss of income involved in complying with the government programme ."  
  
a. Could the European Union explain how the implementation of Eco schemes under the new 
European Commission will comply with WTO 's obligations and its schedule of concessions?  
b. Could the European Union also provide further information on how it will be possible to 
assess what portion of the payments under the Eco schemes are related to extra costs or 
loss of income and what portion is another form of domestic support, so that it can properly 
notify to the WTO?  
1.9  Japan's corn policies  
1.9.1   Question by Australia  (AG-IMS ID 92097)  
Australia  understands from various media reports in early September  that Japan will be purchasing 
significantly increased amounts of corn from the United States.  Australia also understands the 
storage of these increased stocks of corn wi ll be subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 
and Fisheries (MAFF).  
a. Can Japan explain the policy basis for the increase in corn purchases?  
b. Can Japan provide information on whether any of this additional corn has been purchased 
and imported alre ady? G/AG/W/202  
 
- 9 - 
 
  c. Can Japan provide the WTO -basis for MAFF 's provision of subsidies to store these increased 
corn imports?  
d. Does Japan intend on exporting any of this corn as food aid?  
1.10  Russian Federation - State programme for rural territories development  
1.10.1   Question by Eu ropean Union (AG -IMS ID 92017)  
The Russian government approved the "Sustainable Development of Rural Areas" state programme 
for 2020 -2025 on 4 June. The overall volume of financing totals around 2.3 trillion roubles (around 
EUR 31 billion), including 1 tri llion roubles (around EUR 13.6 billion) from the federal budget.  
a. Could the Russia n Federation  explain more in detail what measures this programme covers 
and which sectors of agriculture will benefit from the aid.  
b. Could the Russia n Federation  indicate how it intends to notify the different aid schemes in 
question.  
1.11  Russia's excise duties on wine and sparkling wine   
1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92121)  
Press reports on 19 September 2019 state that Russian Federation  adopted amendments to the law 
setting wine and sparkling wine excise duties.  
 
Could the Russian Federation  confirm that these amendments provide for a mechanism to refund or 
partially refund excise duties on domestic wine. If so, would the Russian Federation notify this law 
to the WTO as domestic support?  
1.12  Switzerland – Financing of security stocks in agricultural sectors  
1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92019)  
Switzerland has recently abolished the security stocks for coffee and rice. In the agricultural sector 
such stocks still exist  for sugar, fats and oils, cereals and animal feed products.  
 
For the latest three years , can Switzerland indicate for each of the four product groups in question 
the percentage of the financing of these security stocks that was financed through:  
 
• Erstverkehrbringens on :  
• Imported products ; 
• Internally produced products . 
• Grenzabgaben . 
1.13  Thailand's support to rice and palm oil  
1.13.1   Question by Un ited States of America (AG -IMS ID 92014)  
Thailand has indicated that it is providing the following three price subsidy programmes for rice and 
palm oil farmers to boost farmers' incomes: the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program, the Direct 
Payment to Cover R ice Production Cost Program, and the Oil Palm Price Guarantee Program.   
a. Previously, under similar programmes, the Thai government provided daily data which 
offered a transparent mechanism for following developments in the Thai rice market. Will 
the Thai Bo ard of Trade publish daily data related to the three programs of price support?   
b. What, if any, eligibility requirements exist in order for agricultural producers to participate 
in the rice and palm oil programmes?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 10 - 
 
  c. Under the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Progr am, how are rice intervention prices 
determined (e.g., on what basis are these formulated)?  
d. Why are the determined prices for white paddy and Pathumthani fragrant paddy rice 
varieties above current market prices while other varieties are lower than current  market 
prices?  
e. Has the Thai Government imposed requirements to export the rice (and not sell in the 
domestic market) acquired through the bidding process?  
1.13.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92015)  
The United States is concerned that with gov ernment procurement of rice at rates as much as 30% 
above current market prices, it will be difficult for the government of Thailand to export any procured 
rice without incurring a loss.  
a. What criteria does the government of Thailand administer?  
b. Under the D irect Payment to Cover Rice Production Cost Program, what are the 
requirements for farmers to register?  
c. How much rice does Thailand currently have in government stocks and what are the plans 
for these stocks?  
d. How will the various Government schemes to supp ort storage costs be accounted for in 
the domestic support notification?  
e. When does Thailand expect to provide updated Table DS:1 and Table DS:2  notifications 
to the WTO that include information regarding the Paddy Rice Price Guarantee Program, 
Direct Payme nt to Cover Rice Production Cost Programs, and Oil Palm Price Guarantee 
Program?  
1.14  U.S. farm support  
1.14.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92050)  
a. In its 30 August 2019 forecast, the USDA Economic Research Service forecasted net farm 
income, a broad measure of profits, to reach USD 88.0 billion in 2019, including 
USD 19.5 billion in direct government farm payments. 
(https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm -economy/farm -sector -income -finances/farm -
sector -income -forecast/ ). Could the United States explain how providing over 22% of 
producer income through direct subsidies will affect producer decisions and markets?  
b. On 26 September 2019, the USDA announced that producer currently participating in 
federal crop insurance who had in 2019 a payable prevented planting indemnity will 
automatically receive a "top-up" ranging from 10 to 15 % of their prevented planting 
indemnity payments. Also, producers who filed prevented planting claims who also planted 
an MFP -eligible cover crop,  with the potential to be harvested or for subsequent use as 
forage qualify for a USD 15 per acre payment.  
i. Could the US confirm that the "top-up" will be fully paid by the USDA and not as a cost 
shared expense with insurance providers?  
ii. Could the U.S. con firm that producers who filed prevented planting claims and also 
planted MFP -eligible cover crop could benefit from both the "top-up" and the 
MFP payments?  
iii.  Could the U.S. confirm that in some cases, producers who did not plant a row crop 
might be better off than producers who actually planted the same crop given all the 
support provided through different programs?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 11 - 
 
  c. Canada notes Congressional Research Service released a report called "U.S. Farm 
Support: Compliance with WTO Commitments " (R45940) on 4 Octobe r 2019. The report 
indicates that the United States as a result of the expansion of the Market Facilitation 
Program in 2019 to USD 14.5 billion combined with ongoing domestic support programs 
could potentially exceed its annual WTO domestic support commitm ent of USD 19.1 billion 
in 2019. Could the United States elaborate as to how it will manage its production or trade 
distorting domestic support expenditures ensure that it respects its WTO domestic support 
commitment?  
1.14.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID  92020)  
The Congressional Research Service in its report: US Farm Support: Compliance with 
WTO commitments (R45940), suggests that the US could potentially be in breach of its Domestic 
Support commitments for 2019 due to the payments under the market facil itation programme 
adopted and implemented  in 2019, and non -product specific payments reaching US D 24 billion.  
a. Can the US confirm this?  
b. If not can the US indicate which assumptions in the CRS report are wrong and could lead 
to US respecting its commitment s on Domestic Support ? 
1.15  U.S. biofuel policies  
1.15.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 92103)  
Ukraine notes that the United States government has been actively considering biofuel policy 
changes, which are intended to benefit agricultural producers experiencing chall enges due to, in 
part, tariff policy actions.  
a. Could the US please provide information about the recent federal government policy 
actions affecting U.S. biofuel production?  
b. Do such recent biofuel policy changes have an intended impact on the U.S. domestic  
market and U.S. exports?  
c. Can grain, oilseeds or biofuel be the targeted products?  
d. Do ex -ante policy parameters exist, which characterize potential increased support for 
corn and soybean producers?  
1.16  U.S. practices of DS notifications  
1.16.1   Question by China (A G-IMS ID 92086)  
A report by the Congressional Research Service of the United States (U.S. Farm Support: Compliance 
with WTO Commitments) made a brief description about the practice of DS notification by 
the United  States, which is quoted as follow: "Since the origin of the WTO in 1995, the United  States 
has notified its agricultural support outlays on a crop year basis  that is, programme outlays are 
associated with the crop that they are supporting, even if the actual payment does not occur until a 
later ye ar.  
  
This is an important point, since many farm programmes do not make outlays until after a crop is 
harvested and the producer has reported acreage and yield to the FSA county office. Often this 
occurs in the calendar year following the planting and harvesting of a crop. For example, both 
the ARC and PLC programmes require a full 12 months of marketing year data to calculate the 
market -year average price, which is then used to evaluate whether ARC or PLC payments have been 
triggered. As a  result, ARC and PLC payments are not made until after 1 October of the year following 
the crop 's harvest. However, the payments are still associated with the crop from the previous year. 
This delays both the collection and notification of payment data. " It is appreciated if 
the United  States could confirm the description above. If it is the case, please indicate the implication 
of such practice on the work of the Committee on Agriculture . G/AG/W/202  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.17  Brazil's wheat quota  
1.17.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92046)  
Canada is following -up on a question raised by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 91001) during the June  meeting 
of the Committee on Agriculture regarding the announcement by Brazil 's President in March 2019, 
that Brazil would implement a 750,000 metric tonne tariff rate quota for wheat with a zero in -quota 
duty.  
  
Could Brazil provide an update as to when this tariff rate quota will be operational?  
 
1.18  Canada's compensation for farmers after trade concessions  
1.18.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92075)  
New Zealand refers to Canada 's responses to Australia 's question at the June 2019 Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 91002). The Canadian government is providing a series of compensation 
packages to farmers and producers in supply -managed sectors (dairy, poultry and egg sectors) that 
are impacted by recent trade agreements, including CPTPP and CETA.  
  
In its response Canada stated it is working to determine how best to implement its commitment to 
the relevant sectors in a fair and effective way. Media reporting in August 2019 states tha t Canada 
will pay CAD  345 million directly to dairy farmers in the first year based on the size of their production 
quotas.  
  
a. Can Canada confirm that this trade and production -distorting support will be notified as 
AMS?  
b. Export subsidies for products give n a grace period under the Nairobi Decision must be 
eliminated by 1 January 2020. What steps is Canada taking to ensure that 
production -linked compensation does not circumvent the intent of these commitments by 
leading to increased exports of subsidised pr oduct?  
1.18.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92077) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 92001)  
The United States understands that Canada established in 2017 a Dairy Processing Investment Fund 
to assist dairy processors in adapting to market changes resulting from the Canada -European Union 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).  Since then, Canada has announced support 
given to specific processors.  
  
a. How much funding has been allocated to this program?  
b. Does Canada intend to provide additional funding to dairy processors, recognizing the 
entry into force of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans -Pacific 
Partnership (CPTPP) and signing of the United States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement  (USMCA)?  
c. Will support to processors be ta ken into consideration as Canada assesses and sets its 
processor margins, which are included in Canada 's milk class price formulas?  If so, how?  
As noted by Australia in AG-IMS-ID 91002, Canada announced almost CAD  3.9 billion support 
package for its supply -managed sectors, compensating for the impact of the CPTPP and the CETA. 
In the August 16 news release from the Government of Canada, Minister Bibeau announced that  
CAD 1.75 billion will be made available to Canada 's dairy farmers over an eight -year period . The 
United States understands that CAD 345 million will be provided during the first year as direct 
payments under the Dairy Direct Payment Program, which would be in addition to the 
CAD 250 million Dairy Farm Investment Program.  The release noted the an nouncement follows 
ratification of the CETA and the  CPTPP and stated the federal government is committed to supporting 
dairy producers once the  USMCA comes into force. Minister Bibeau stated that Canada is committed 
to other supply -managed sectors.   G/AG/W/202  
 
- 13 - 
 
  d. Does Canada intend to allocate funding additional to the CAD 3.9 billion to support dairy, 
poultry and egg producers after the USMCA comes into force?  
e. If yes, please explain how Canada plans to support dairy, poultry, and egg producers once 
USMCA comes into fo rce. 
1.19  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92076)  
New Zealand notes Canada 's response to its question at the February 2019 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 90018). Under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) Canada has 
agreed to eliminate milk classes 6 (in Ontario) and 7, including their associated milk class pric es, 
within six months from entry into force of the agreement.  
  
New Zealand understands this is a bilateral commitment in a preferential trade agreement, however 
the negative impacts of milk classes 6 and 7 on the global SMP market remain ongoing until su ch 
time as the USMCA is ratified and this commitment can be implemented. Once the USMCA is ratified, 
three months must pass before entry into force of the Agreement, meaning global markets will be 
waiting up to nine months (after ratification) before they see any positive consequence of the 
elimination of milk classes 6 and 7. Therefore, can Canada provide any update on the timing of 
ratification, or what it is doing in preparation of elimination of milk classes 6 and 7, including their 
associated milk clas s prices?  
 
1.19.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92078) and by United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 92002)  
In AG -IMS ID 91132, regarding data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales, Canada stated 
that it "has been working towards updating the re porting system in order to be as transparent as 
possible ". 
  
a. Could Canada confirm if data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales will be made 
publicly available once verifications to ensure accuracy are complete?  
b. If so, please provide an upda te on when and where this information will become available.  
In AG-IMS-ID 91132, Canada stated that agriculture is an area of concurrent powers between federal 
and provincial governments.  In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated that it is not obliged to publish a 
full list of eligible Class 7 products.  In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it not in a position to 
confirm whether the full list of eligible Class 7 products is identical to the list included in Dairy 
Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI  2017-06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and 
Saskatchewan Order No. 28/17.  In AG -IMS ID 90039, Canada stated, "Information that will be 
published is currently the prerogative of industry and, as such, it would be inappropriate to specify 
what information will b e published. "  
c. While understanding there are concurrent powers between provincial and federal 
governments in Canada (noted in Canada 's response to AGIMS -ID 91132), does Canada 's 
federal government have legislative authorities to require provincial milk mar keting boards 
to provide information, such as, which products are eligible for a class price even if, thus 
far, "Federal authority over this type of information from provincial milk marketing boards 
has not been deemed necessary "?  
1.20  Canada's wine sale polic y 
1.20.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92003)  
Canada has not yet responded to the following questions posed by the  United  States 
in 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.  As such, the United States repeats its previous questions.  
  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 14 - 
 
  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 
availab le, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines category" . 
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list  need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Win es category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer and wine 
authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to operators 
of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have been 
distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization that permits the 
operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winer y that operates a wine boutique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?   
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002, which specifies different retail price par ameters 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 ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock keeping units 
(SKUs) in LCBO stores, while Onta rio bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If confirmed, 
please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario products.  
1.21  China's rice policies  
1.21.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92005)  
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, t he National Food and 
Strategic Reserves Administration.   
  
a. Please provide links to these announcements specifically related to the recent rice 
auctions.  
b. Do the auction procedures have any requirements related to exportation of the rice?  
c. Of the recently auc tioned rice, what quantities remained in China and what quantities have 
been exported?  
The United States repeats its questions in AGIMS -ID 91133:  
d. Is COFCO the main exporter of this rice?  
e. Are other STEs exporting rice?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.22  China's state trading enterprises  
1.22.1   Ques tion by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92004)  
In response to China 's answer to AG-IMS-ID 91115, the United States provides the link to a 
Bloomberg news article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019 -05-07/china -is-said-to-
plan-overhaul -of-state-agriculture -giants ). Based on the linked article, the  United  States 
understands that the Government of China plans to transfer th e 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 pa ge 192 of G/C/W/701 dated 14 August 2014:  
b. Please provide an overview of operations of the China Grain Reserves Corp. (Sinograin).   
c. Please explain the differences in grain activities or roles carried out between Sinograin 
and COFCO.  
d. Please explain whether o r not Sinograin can influence through their purchases or sales the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  
1.23  European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92091)  
The continued Brexit uncertainty ha s created significant commercial disruption for Australian 
businesses currently holding licenses to export agricultural products into the EU under existing 
EU WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged in 
Article  XXVIII negotiations with affected WTO Members over the past 12 -18 months. Australia has 
remained constructive during these negotiations and has continued to offer Australia 's own quota 
usage data to support both the UK and EU throughout this process.  
  
However, Australia remains particularly concerned that in the event of a no -deal, the UK and EU are 
proposing two conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway through a quota year (i.e. potentially 
splitting a EU28 calendar year quota between the EU27 and UK w ith two months remaining).  
  
For a number of Australia 's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU approaches will result 
in an EU27 and UK CSQ that, when added together, will be less than Australia's current 
EU28  entitlement.  
  
a. Could the EU please provide an explanation for the different approach it has taken from 
the UK?  
b. How will the EU ensure that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota year does 
not leave quota holders worse off (i.e. that newly split TRQs/CSQs add to current 
EU28 entitlements)?  
c. In the event that the proposed splits leave TRQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how will the EU  treat 
agricultural products (exported under licence) which are currently on route and arrive after 
Brexit? Will the E U allow these products to arrive wit hout paying the associated out -of-
quota rates?  
1.24  The EU's support package to Irish beef farmers  
1.24.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92079)  
New Zealand refers to the EU response to Australia 's questions ( AG-IMS ID 91004) at the June  2019 
Committee on Agricult ure. The EU stated that the Irish authorities had a deadline of 31 July to 
provide the EU with details of how they intend to implement the compensation package to Irish beef G/AG/W/202  
 
- 16 - 
 
  farmers of EUR 100 million. Does the EU have an update for the Committee on the me asures to be 
implemented?  
 
1.25  EU's intervention policy  
1.25.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92080) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 92006)  
According to data from the EU Milk Market Observatory, the EU purchased 335,586 MT of skim milk 
powder (SMP) unde r the Intervention Program in calendar year 2016 and 29,193 MT in calendar 
year 2017 at a price of EUR 1,698/mt.  While there were minor sales from stocks in these years, the 
majority of the disposal of EU Intervention stock occurred in a tendering process over the 18 -month 
period January 2018 to June 2019.  The reported tender prices were a weighted average of 
125.3  EUR/100 KG in 2018 and 156.3 EUR/100 KG in January to June 2019 —significantly below the 
acquisition price.  
a. Please confirm these figures.  
b. What was the total cost of the EU Intervention programme, including storage costs, for 
skim milk powder procured in 2016 -17? 
According to data from the EU Milk Market Observatory, EU cow 's milk collected during the 12 -month 
period July 2018 to Jun e 2019 was the same as the previous year (0 % growth), and SMP production 
was down 0.9 % relative to the same period a year ago to 1,604.7 thousand MT.  According to 
Eurostat, EU exports of SMP during the 12 -month period July 2018 -June 2019 were 941,755 MT, u p 
25% (188,602 MT) compared to the same period a year ago.  
c. Given that SMP production in the EU declined in 2018/19, how did SMP exports increase 
by 25 % compared to the previous year?  
d. Did the sale of Intervention stocks at discounted prices facilitate thi s increase in exports?  
According to Eurostat, the size of the global SMP market for the 12 -month period July 2018 to 
June 2019 was 2,535,289 MT.  Given the EU -28 exported 941,755 MT during that same time period, 
the EU 's estimated share of global SMP expor ts during this period was 37 %. Over the three -year 
period 2015 -17, the EU produced on average 1,594 thousand MT of SMP a year and had an export 
market share of 30.6 %.  
  
e. Did the disposition of EU Intervention stocks during the 18 -month period 
January  2018-June 2019 contribute to the increase in the EU 's global SMP market share 
from 30.6 to 37 %?  
f. Can the EU elaborate on the measures taken to ensure that skim milk powder sold from 
Intervention stocks during January 2018 and June 2019 did not create any distur bance of 
the market and were in sold consistent with the EU 's WTO commitments, as required in 
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?  
1.26  The EU's coupled payments  
1.26.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92071)  
The 2018 Omnibus Agricultural Provisions Regulation a mended the 2013 CAP Regulation, removing 
Para. 5 from Article 52 that restricted the provision of coupled support to "the extent necessary to 
create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the sectors or regions concerned ". 
Moreover, an Im pact Assessment by the Commission in 2018 (Report available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2018/EN/SWD -2018-301-F1-EN-MAIN -PART-
3.PDF  -Page 68 ) notes that Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) is currently notified as Blue Box but 
would lik ely become Amber Box in the future.  In this context, India requests the EU to please : 
a. Explain the rationale behind the finding that VCS could become an Amber Box measure.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 17 - 
 
  b. How does the EU intend to notify VCS in domestic support notification if it indeed be comes 
Amber Box support in the future?  
c. Will the EU initiate a new Blue Box programme to replace the VCS, in case it "becomes 
Amber Box "? 
d. The EU is requested to provide product/sector wise allocation of VCS in 2018 along with 
Value of Production data.  
1.27  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.27.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92095)  
Australia refers to its question to India at 91th CoA, AG-IMS ID 91006, in which Australia requested 
India provide information on its new Transport and Marketing Assis tance (TMA) scheme.  
 
India's response did not provide a level of detail for any Member to understand how the TMA is fully 
consistent with all constituent parts of the Nairobi Decision, including paragraphs 9, 10 or 11 of the 
Decision.  
 
Australia therefore requests India provide specific details on:  
a. The average level of export subsidies provided for those products covered by the TMA for 
the past five years?  
b. What steps and assessment India has undertaken in the development of the TMA to ensure 
it is consisten t with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decisions and has at most, a minimal 
trade distorting effect on other Members?  
1.28  India's sugar policies  
1.28.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92048)  
On 28 August 2019, India 's Cabinet approved the use of export subsidies Rp  62.68  billion 
(USD 877 million) to encourage the export of 60 Lakh metric tonnes (6 million MT) of sugar in the 
marketing year 2019/2020 starting on 1 October 2019. The government of India will provide a 
subsidy Rp 10,448 per tonne (US D 146) of sugar for its exp ort.  
  
The announcement notes that this export subsidy is being provided under Article 9.1 (d) and (e) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada notes that paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition charges Members "to ensure tha t any export subsidies have at most minimal 
trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede the exports of another Member ".  
  
a. India is the world 's second largest sugar producer. Could India clarify how it ensures that 
its subsidized sugar exports a re not displacing or impeding the sugar exports of another 
Member?  
b. Could India indicate how much sugar has been exported using these export subsidies?  
1.28.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92007)  
The Indian government announced on 28 August 2019 that it would introduce an export subsidy of 
$ 146.1 per tonne. A budget of 62.68  billion rupees was approved for the export of up to 
6 million  tonnes during the 2019/20  marketing year.  
The announcement also stated that this subsidy did not violate WTO rules.  
 
a. If the export subsidy is not to violate WTO rules, India is considered to conform to 
Article  9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can India please indicate how it has calculated 
and arrived at this level of subsidies including the transport cost in question as well as 
other the other elements taken into consideration.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 18 - 
 
  b. Can India explain how it sees the increasing subsidy level and increasing quantity of sugar 
exports to be subsidised to be in line with Nairobi Ministerial Decision paragraphs 9, 10 
and 11. In particular how does India see the 2019/20 export programme as respecting 
paragraph 10: "Members shall seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond the average 
level of the past five years on a product basis ". 
c. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar exported during the 2018/19 marketing year (total 
and with subsidies) and the total amount spent on subsidy for these exports (by both 
national and provincial authorities).  
1.29  India's pulses policies  
1.29.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG -IMS ID 92094)  
Australia remains concerned with a number of measures implemented by India on pulses, including 
the 'temporary ' quantitative restrictions (QRs) that have now been in place for two years.  Australia 
has raised concerns in every releva nt Committee with respect to India 's trade -distorting measures 
on a variety of pulses. Despite this, India has never explained the WTO -basis for its measures, 
particularly with respect to its QRs.  
 
Australia therefore requests again that India explain fuls omely:  
 
a. The WTO -basis for the application of the QRs? and  
b. The justification for the 'temporary ' QRs, given they have now been in place for more than 
two years for some varieties?  
Australia also requests India to advise:  
c. How many pulses have been imported i nto India the current 2019 -2020 QR period; and  
d. If imports of pulses are above the QRs, can India explain why this is the case?  
1.29.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 92049)  
On 11 September, India issued a notice (Trade notice No.32/2019 -20) that established an imp ort 
deadline of 31 October 2019 for dried peas that enter within the quantitative restriction. This 
quantitative restriction on dried peas was originally allocated for a full year from 1 April 2019 to 
31 March 2020. India has essentially shortened the time frame for the dried peas quantitative 
restriction by five months.  
  
Another notice dated of 30 September (Trade notice No. 35/2019 -20) advises that extensions to 
this deadline will not be considered and importers that fail to meet this deadline risk being  "debarred 
for allotment of quota of pulses in future ". 
  
a. Could India provide the rational for reducing the application period of the quantitative 
restriction on dried peas?  
b. Could India provide the current utilization rate dried peas import under the allo cated 
import quota?  
c. Could India indicate why they will not consider providing extension for importers with valid 
quota allotment?  
d.  What factors did India that established an import deadline of 31 October for dried peas? 
What specific elements were consid ered?  
e. Could India indicate which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements is being used to 
support this quantitative restriction?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 19 - 
 
  f. Could India indicate when it will inform, and in which relevant committee it will provide 
the relevant provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements it believes supports this 
quantitative restriction?  
1.29.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 92096)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative restriction on import of 
yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the 
territory of India shall be 100,000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. After the expiry of this me asure 
the quota was extended until 30 September 2018. In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry of India issued a notice restricting the import of yellow peas from 1  January  2019 until 
31 March 2019. In late March 2019 India issued a noti fication establishing a new quota of 
150,000  MT for the period from 1 April 2019 until 31 March 2020.  
  
Answering Russia 's questions AG-IMS ID 90029 and 91008 India mentioned that there is appropriate 
legal procedure to import yellow peas in excess of quota volume through court orders. Could India 
please clarify the following issues:  
  
a.  
i. Could India describe the appropriate legal procedures f or importation of yellow peas 
in excess of quota volume?  
ii. Could India provide the reference to legal act that contains the mechanism of import 
of yellow peas in excess of quota volume through court orders?  
iii. What are the criteria for importers to be eligibl e to import under such court orders?  
b. How these measures (quantitative restrictions and import ban) are consistent with 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, considering the 
fact that according to Article 4.2 of the Agre ement on Agriculture WTO Members took the 
commitment not to maintain quantitative import restrictions?  
1.29.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92008)  
How will India implement changes to remove its quantitative restrictions on mung beans, peas, blac k 
gram lentils, and pigeon peas, which expire on 31 March 2020?  
 
1.30  India's wheat public stockpiling  
1.30.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92009)  
The United States resubmits questions in AG-IMS ID 91141, as India has not provided a written 
respons e.  
  
The United States notes India is having back -to-back record domestic harvests of wheat, which along 
with higher procurement/minimum support prices has resulted in increased government 
procurement leading to higher government stocks of wheat in the la st two years.  In fact, GOI data 
already shows India is on track to reaching record stock levels of wheat in the 2019/20 season. 
The United States also notes that the government of India is procuring wheat minimum support 
prices (MSP) that are relatively higher compared to international prices.  
a. Please explain why the GOI has increased the minimum support price for wheat and is 
procuring record quantities of wheat.  
b. Please provide current, historical, and pre -determined targeted levels of wheat s ince 2010.  
c. What steps is India taking to ensure these large and potentially record stockpiles of wheat 
do not impact global markets?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 20 - 
 
  d. Please explain what steps India will take to ensure these stocks do not enter international 
markets at prices less than p rocurement prices, whether as a result of sales from 
government stocks at lower prices or the use of other measures such as export subsidies 
and/or other export financing programmes for wheat.  
e. Noting Madhya Pradesh announced a bonus of INR  1,600 per MT fo r 2018/19, please 
indicate all states and bonuses amounts announced for wheat in 2016/17, 2017/18, 
and 2018/19.  
1.31  India's support to rice exports  
1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92013)  
In India 's response to AG-IMS ID 91153, India explained that the MEIS for non -Basmati rice was 
withdrawn on March 26, 2019.  Please provide the following information:  
  
a. A list of products and corresponding HS codes that were eligible to receive the subsidy.  
b. The volume of non -Basmati rice exported under this program.  
c. As list of other forms of export subsidies, export financing (such as the "Interest 
Equalization Scheme on Pre - and Post -Shipment Rupee Export Credit "), or other export 
scheme maintained by GOI that could be used for non -basmati rice.  
1.32  India's shor t-term crop loans  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92010)  
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 l ocation 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?  
1.33  India - Dairy Loans  
1.33.1   Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 92011)  
The United States resubmits questions in AG-IMS-ID 91149, as India has not provided a written 
response.   
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 89027, India acknowledged it is providing "soft loans " administered by 
the National Dairy Development Bo ard (NDDB) for distribution to various state cooperatives dairy 
federations.  
  
a. Please explain the terms offered by the Government of India to NDDB under the soft loan, 
including the rate(s) of interest (including how it compares to the market rate of inte rest), 
repayment terms, grace periods, and any other terms.  
b. Please explain the process and requirements the cooperatives must fulfil for NDDB to 
extend the loan, including any contingency on export performance.  
c. Please explain how and when India intends to notify this support measure in its future 
notifications.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.34  India - National Dairy Plan Phase I  
1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92012)  
The United States resubmits questions in AG-IMS-ID 91152, as India has not provided a written 
response.  In response to AG -IMS ID 88107, question 3, India stated it would submit a 
DS:2 notification with regard to the 2011 introduction of the National Dairy Plan Phase I (NDP I) for 
the period 2011/12 through 2018/19 and implemented by the National Dairy Developm ent Board.  
  
a. Noting that NDP I has either concluded or is near conclusion, please indicate when a 
DS:2 notification will be submitted.  
b. As part of India 's previous response, India indicated that the NDP I was "notified as a 
Green Box measure ". Further, ND P I appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy 
measures, which may not all be categorized as the same type of Green Box measure.  
i. Please provide additional details on how NDP I is implemented.  
ii. Please indicate which specific Green Box notified measures relate to NDP I 
in G/AG/N/IND/13 and G/AG/N/IND/15.  
iii. If NDP I measure(s) are aggregated with other measures, please provide break outs 
of the budgetary outlays for each NDP I scheme, as well as the name of each 
scheme/measure.  
c. Please pro vide details of what measures will be implemented following the conclusion of 
Phase I, and whether India plans to submit any applicable DS:2 notifications for those 
measures.  
1.35  Indonesia's Measure 18 in DS477 and DS478  
1.35.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92 081)  
Can Indonesia provide an update on progress toward the legislative changes required to remove 
measure 18 in DS477; DS478 Indonesia — Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal 
Products, an explanation of the steps that need to be taken to remove measure 18, and the expected 
dates for the completion of those steps.  
 
1.36  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.36.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 92098)  
Follow up to questions AG-IMS ID 87094, ID 88104, ID 90027 and ID 91011:  
  
In 2013 M ongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural products, 
including wheat flour and liquid milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry 
of Mongolia established an import prohibition on these two products. On 18 January 2019 the 
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia issued a decree that should have opened 
the import of certain amounts of agricultural products, including wheat flour and liquid milk. The 
decision on allocation of quota volume among the importers of wheat flour for 2019 quota year was 
adopted only in late April 2019 (it became publicly available only in June 2019). Quota volume for 
import of liquid milk has never been allocated among the importers for 2019 quota year (as a result, 
it is impossible to export liquid milk to the territory of Mongolia in 2019). In August 2019 the 
government of Mongolia issued a new Resolution describing the system of importation of agricultural 
products under quota regime. The Russian  Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia 
regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
a. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, considering the fact that 
according to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture WTO Members took the 
commitment not to maintain quantitative import restrictions.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994. Following up to the answer of Mongolia to 
Russia 's question AG-IMS ID 91011, could Mongolia please explain in what way Mongolia 's 
import restrictions are "necessary to " the application of standards or regulati ons for the 
"classification, grading or marketing " of commodities.  
1.37  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.37.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 92099)  
The Philippines responded to Japan's question at the last COA regarding tariffica tion on rice as 
"already removed its quantitat ive restrictions (QRs) on rice " and "(the law) entered into force on 
5 March 2019 ". Regarding the modification of the Schedule, the Philippines also responded as "in 
accordance with 1980 Decision " and "will notify the modification of the Schedule to the Committee 
on Market Access ". To date, however, no notification has been made.  
  
Moreover, the Philippines notified the WTO on 13 September that it would launch preliminary 
safeguard investigation on rice.  Japan would like to raise its interest in these iss ues and be engaged 
in the discussion in an appropriate forum.  
  
Japan has a systemic concern on the application of restrictive import measures including safeguard 
this time because the Philippines have not initiated necessary process to bind the tarifficat ion. It 
should be immediately initiated. In this regard, Japan would like to ask the Philippines to provide a 
concrete time frame for the modification of the Schedule.  
  
On the other hand, the regulation already entered into force on 5 March this year, for  the rice import 
after the tariffication, titled "The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.11203 ", 
what they call "IRR" to liberalize  the importation, exportation and trading of Rice. Since the 
IRR implies related measures to be applied, p lease clarify the status of those planned measures 
mentioned in the IRR including the one regarding "the calculated tariff equivalent " in the Section.5 
of the IRR.  
 
1.37.2   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 92100)  
Please provide updates on the rice tariffication procedure. Please also provide details regarding the 
current system being implemented for the importation of rice by the Philippines.  
 
1.38  Switzerland – Loi Chocolatier  
1.38.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 92018)  
Could Switzerland explain the fu nction and status of the private trust "TSM Treuhand GmbH " - for 
the milk sector - and FSPC (French: Fédération suisse des producteurs de céréales, German: 
Schweizerischer Getreideproduzentenverband – SGPV) – for the cereals sector – in the context of 
the compensation of the price difference of incorporated products, and explain under which 
conditions such compensation is granted?  
 
The EU notes that on the TSM website it is stated in German: "Im Rahmen eines Leistungsauftrages 
des Bundesamtes für Landwirtsc haft erfüllt die TSM öffentlich -rechtliche Aufgaben im Bereich der 
Milchpreisstützung ". [In EN In the context of a performance report issued by the Federal Office of 
Agriculture, the TSG complies with public law tasks relating to milk price support].  
 
This appears to imply that payments made by these organisations are financed by virtue of 
government action. Can Switzerland confirm the accuracy of the TSM website and that the 
compensation for incorporated products is based on this public law task.  
 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.39  United K ingdom - Modification of the EU's agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.39.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92101)  
The continued Brexit uncertainty has created significant commercial disruption for Australian 
businesses currently holding licenses to export ag ricultural products into the EU under existing 
EU WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). Australia is aware that both the UK and EU are engaged in 
Article  XXVIII negotiations with affected WTO Members over the past 12 -18 months. Australia has 
remained constructive  during these negotiations and has continued to offer Australia 's own quota 
usage data to support both the UK and EU throughout this process.  
  
However, Australia remains particularly concerned that in the event of a no -deal, the UK and EU are 
proposing tw o conflicting approaches to split TRQs midway through a quota year (i.e. potentially 
splitting a EU28 calendar year quota between the EU27 and UK with  two months remaining).  
  
For a number of Australia 's country -specific quotas, the differing UK and EU ap proaches will result 
in an EU27 and UK CSQ that, when added together, will be less than Australia's current 
EU28  entitlement.  
  
a. Could the UK please provide an explanation for the different approach it has taken from 
the EU?  
b. How will the UK ensure that any proposal to split TRQs midway through a quota year does 
not leave quota holders worse off (i.e. that newly split TRQs/CSQs add to current 
EU28 entitlements)?  
c. In the event that the proposed splits leave TRQ/CSQs fully exhausted, how will the 
UK treat agricu ltural products (exported under licence) which are currently on route and 
arrive after Brexit? Will the UK allow these products to arrive without paying the associated 
out-of-quota rates?  
1.40  U.S. Proposed domestic support measures  
1.40.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 92102)  
Australia continues to monitor the United States ' farmer Trade Aid Packages for 2018 and  2019.  
Australia looks forward to the United States ' domestic support notifications that will include these 
programs and welcomes any advice on when the 201 8 notification will be submitted.  
 
With respect to the packages, Australia has noted a change in language by the U.S. Government 
regarding the purpose of the packages. Australia understands the packages were developed and 
implemented to offset the effects of tariffs on US products entering China. However, language on 
the purpose of the packages seems to now indicate that they are to support farmers for effects that 
they may be feeling in any market.  
 
Noting this change in language, can the United States explain:  
a. What is the purpose of the package: is it to compensate farmers for changes in any 
market? Or is it limited to effects from specific markets?  
b. How it is ensuring the distortionary effects of these types of domestic support are being 
limited?  
c. What plans or measures are in place, or under development, to manage the end of these 
support measures for farmers once the 2019 package ends?  
1.40.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 92082)  
On 25 July 2019, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) released deta ils of the USD  16 billion 
support package for farmers, as announced in May 2019. The additional funding brings the total 
amount of subsidies injected into the US farm economies over two years, to USD 28 billion. The G/AG/W/202  
 
- 24 - 
 
  funding will be used primarily for direct payments to farmers, and also government purchases of 
agricultural goods, including processed foods, and trade promotion activities. Producers can sign up 
for payments under the USDA Market Facilitation Program bet ween 29 July and 6 December 2019.  
  
a. How many producers have signed up for MFP payments so far, i.e. since 29 July 2019? 
MFP payments are to be made in up to three tranches, with the first payments starting in 
mid-late August.  
b. How much funding has been pa id out to producers so far? According to the USDA website, 
the second and third tranches of payments will be made in November, and early 
January  2020. At this stage of the process, does the US anticipate that a second tranche 
of payments will be made in No vember?  
At the September 2018 Committee on Agriculture meeting (AG -IMS ID 88048), New Zealand raised 
its concerns and sought confirmation that the USD 12 billion package was a one -off payment (applied 
in 2018/19) and would not extend into future years. The  US responded that the announced 
programme was a one -time response to retaliatory tariffs imposed on US agricultural commodities.  
c. Given the additional funding of USD 16 billion (for 2019/20) and reporting that President 
Trump has indicated that, if require d, further funding will be made available in 2020, does 
the US now expect these support payments to farmers to become an annualised support 
programme rather than a one -off response?  
1.40.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92072)  
a. Market Facilitation Program (MFP) of the United States "provides assistance to farmers 
and ranchers with commodities directly impacted by unjustified foreign retaliatory tariffs, 
resulting in the loss of traditional export markets ". With reference to question 
AG-IMS ID 91063 raised in June 20 19 CoA meeting, the United States responded that 
"Market Facilitation Program is currently in the rulemaking process ". 
i. India requests the United States to provide an update on the status of the programme.  
ii. Further, the United States is requested to state th e total as well as component -wise 
amount of compensation announced so far under the programme.  
iii. India would appreciate if the United States can clarify the basis for deciding the 
product -wise payments where there is no impact on trade as a result of diversi on of 
trade to other markets with no significant trade injury incurred.  
iv. Could the United States please provide information on the average level of subsidies 
provided for the products covered under the MFP since the programme started?  
v. India requests the Uni ted States to elucidate the provisions of the Agreement on 
Agriculture under which the programme is intended to be notified?  
b. The Budget Summary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), FY 2019, 
under the heading of International Markets for U .S. Agricultural Exports, states that "The 
Budget includes $433 million to reduce trade barriers that disadvantage U.S. agricultural 
exports and to open new markets for U.S. farm products. " (Source : 
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda -fy19-budget -summary.pdf ). 
In this regard, the United States is requested to  
i. Elaborate, how the sum of $433 million would be channelized for increasing agricult ural 
exports?  
ii. Please advise the provisions of AoA and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, under which 
such a support has been provided.  
c. "The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is issuing a new regulation to implement the 
Agricultural Trade Promotion Program  (ATP). The ATP provides assistance to G/AG/W/202  
 
- 25 - 
 
  U.S. agricultural industries to conduct activities that promote U.S. agricultural 
commodities in foreign markets for commodities impacted by tariffs, including activities 
that address existing or potential non -tariff barriers to trade. " (Source : 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/30/2018 -18870/agricultural -trade -
promotion -program ) 
i. India w ould like to request the United States to explain how the money disbursed 
under the ATP intends to increase agricultural exports by addressing the non -tariff 
barriers to trade?  
ii. The programme mentions about some activities to be conducted with assistance from 
the government, what is the nature of these activities?  
iii. What constitute "potential "non-tariff barriers and how would the United States assess 
the impact of the "potential " non-tariff barriers? Are there any identified guiding 
parameters?  
iv. Please advise the provisions of the AoA, under which this scheme would be notified?  
Further, India would like to understand how this new scheme is consistent with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 2015?  
d. The USDA 's Trade Aid Package includes "Food Purchase  and Distribution Program " to 
partially offset lost export sales of affected commodities under which the USDA has 
targeted an initial 29 commodities for purchases and distribution through domestic 
nutrition assistance programs. " (refer to 
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45310.html ). In this respect, India would 
request the United States to provide information on the following:  
i. The prices at which the commodities would be procured?  
ii. How does the United States intend to dispose the procured stocks? Would there be an 
international aid component in the disposal of the stocks?  
e. In July/August, 2018, the United States announced US D 12 billion package comprising 
direct payment under 'Market Facilitation Programme ' (MFP), Food Purchase and 
Distribution Programme (FPDP) and Trade Promotion Programme (TPP) to assist farmers 
suffering from damage due to unjustified trade retaliation by forei gn nations.  Further, in 
May 2019, the US announced US D 16 billion package to support for farmers impacted by 
unjustified retaliation and trade disruption. In this context:  
i. The US is requested to provide the reasoning for authorizing the second relief packa ge 
in May 2019 for agriculture, immediately following a similar programme in 2018.  
ii. Given the fact that a member with total AMS commitments is obligated to make the 
domestic support notification no later than 90 days following the end of the calendar 
year, when will the US submit its domestic notification covering July/August 2018 relief 
package?   
f. With regards to the Trade Mitigation Programmes for 2018 and 2019, the United States is 
requested to provide the following:  
i. What was the budgeted and actual expend iture for Market Facilitation 
Programmes  (MFP), Food Purchase and Distribution Programme (FPDP) and the 
Agricultural Trade Promotion Programme (ATP) under both the relief packages?  
ii. What is the specific eligibility criterion for MFP under 2018 relief packa ge?  
iii. Kindly list all the products that were procured under the FPDP and how the procured 
quantity was disposed under both relief packages?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 26 - 
 
  g. India reiterates its Question with AGIMS ID 91603 regarding the May 2019 relief 
package.  Reports suggest that the US Department of Agriculture plans to provide aid of 
$16 billion to compensate farmers for lower prices and lost sales stemming from ongoing 
trade disputes:  
(https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2019/05/23/usda -announces -support -farmers -
impacted -unjustified -retaliation -and). Amongst the various programs, the Market Facilitation 
programme provides for payments to the far mers' respective commodities depending on the severity 
of the trade disruption and the period of adjustment to new trade partners.  
i. How will these disruptions and period of adjustment be calculated?  
ii. How have the eligibility criteria and initial payment ra tes of the commodities been 
determined under  the programme? Was the criterion for MFP in 2019 different from 
the previous MFP?  
1.41  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.41.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 92073)  
The United States has been providing assistance for cotton und er various programmes, namely, 
Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) Program for Cotton Producers, Cotton Transition Assistance 
Program (CTAP), Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program (CGCS), Economic Adjustment Assistance for 
Domestic Users (EAAU)  Program, Cotton Sto rage Cost Reimbursements, Stacked Income Protection 
Plan for Upland Cotton (STAX). In this regard, India would request the United States to furnish 
information on the support provided under each of these programmes for marketing years 2016 
onwards.  
 
2  POINT S RAISED IN CONNECTI ON WITH INDIVIDUAL N OTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of Tariff and other Quota Commitments (Table MA:1) 
2.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/50)  
AG-IMS ID 92104: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Ecuador's MA:1 notification G/AG/N/ECU/50 presents modifications to the TRQs administration 
system described in notification G/AG/N/ECU/8. Under the latter, no in -quota imports have taken 
place between 2014 and 2016 (MA:2 notification G/AG/N/ECU/46).  
a. Could Ecuador provide further details on the rationale of the changes of the arrangement 
applicable to its TRQs?  
b. How these changes could increase the tariff -quota fill rate?  
c. Does Ecuador legislation provides for an underfill mechanism?  
AG-IMS ID 92105: Questi on by Russian Federation - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities  
The Russian Federation welcomes notification of Ecuador on tariff rate quotas administration. 
Point (b) (iii) of column 3 of ECUQ001 for turkey specifies that "licences will be issued subject to 
compliance with the requirements established by the competent authority responsible for the 
operationalization of quota administration ".  
a. Could Ecuador provide the requirements to which importer shall comply to be eligible to 
import under this T RQ?  
b. Could Ecuador please specify the reference to legal act containing such requirements?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92016: Question by United States of America - Allocation of licences to 
importing entities  
Under Ecuador 's description of import arrangements applicable, E cuador states in b  (iii) that 
"licenses will be issued subject to compliance with the requirements established by the competent 
authority responsible for the operationalization of quota administration ". 
  
a. What are the requirements for receiving an import l icense?  Are they publicly available?  If 
so, where?  
b. Please explain the method of allocation that the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Livestock  (MAG) will use to distribute import licenses (e.g., first come, first -serve).  
Allocation arrangement c(i) states that  "each December, MAG will publish the tariff levels and the 
volume of the WTO import quotas to be used the following year ".  
  
c. How would the tariff levels be determined?  
d. Where will the tariffs be published?  
2.1.2   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/101, G/AG/N/THA/102, G/AG/N/THA/103)  
AG-IMS ID 92021: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Allocation arrangement (c) states "details of other arrangements (not involving import licenses) ".  
a. Can Thailand elaborate on what is included in the "details of other arrangements "?  
Thailand 's "30 days validity of import certificate " for nearly all of its TRQs could make it difficult for 
distant exporting countries to meet this requirement.  
  
b. Can Thail and clarify the reason for the short timeframe?  
The United States is concerned that limiting recipients to State Owned Enterprises could restrict 
imports.   
c. Can Thailand confirm that the recipients of import licenses are limited to State Owned 
Enterprises f or maize and palm oil?   
d. Are there any other products in which the recipients are limited to State Owned 
Enterprises?  
AG-IMS ID 92106: Question by Russian Federation - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities  
The notification G/AG/N/THA/103 specifies th at for THAQ001 "(ii) - (iii) A total quota of 
55,000  tonnes will be allocated as follows: juristic persons which involve production for export ". 
Does the requirement to "involve production for export " mean that juristic person is eligible to import 
under T RQ only if it produces and exports products?  
 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/125)  
AG-IMS ID 92074: Question by India - Transparency issues  
India welcomes Australia 's notification document G/AG/N/AUS/125 concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) for financial year 2018 -19 wherein it is mentioned that Australia's 
unmanufactured tobacco (HS codes 240110, 240120 and 240130) tariff quota has not been 
implemented since 1 January 1995 owing to the cust oms duty being zero. The notification further 
states that the Australian Border Force does collect the excise equivalent duty on imports of 
unmanufactured tobacco at the border to ensure consistency in treatment for both imported and 
domestic goods in the Australian market. As per the Australian Government 's Department of Home G/AG/W/202  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Affairs Notice no. 2019/07 dated 1 March 2019, the excise -equivalent customs duty rates are at 
$1090.33/kg ( https://www.abf.gov.au/help -and-support -subsite/CustomsNotices/2019 -07.pdf ).  
 
Australia 's MA 1 notifications on TRQ Administration also state that in respect of unmanufactured 
tobacco "The tariff in Section I -B of Australia's schedule has not been implemented as the Australian 
Government has applied a tariff duty of zero from 1 January 1995 for all imports of unmanufactured 
tobacco ". 
 
As understood from the above, Australia is effectively charging custom duty at the rate of excise 
duty on import of unmanufactured tobacco.  
 
Australia is requested to:  
a. Explain the rationale for stating that custom duty is set at zero for all imported goods 
classified under HS code 2401 when it is being charged at the rate of excise duty and 
therefore, not ope ning the TRQ since 1995.  
b. State the volume of imports of unmanufactured tobacco for HS lines 240110, 240120 
and 240130 during last five years?  Please also provide the sources of imports for all these 
lines for last five years.  
c. Explain the tariff quota admin istration for unmanufactured tobacco.  
2.2.2   India (G/AG/N/IND/16, G/AG/N/IND/17)  
AG-IMS ID 92107: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia thanks India for its MA:2 notifications for FY2017 -18 and FY2018 -19. In the notifications, 
India reported either nil or close to nil fill rates for a number of items, including INDQ001, INDQ002 
and INDQ003.  India advised that "no applications were received for the allocation of the tariff rate 
quota " for those items.   
 
a. Can India provide documentation detailing the application process?  
b. Can India advise if the application process involves a level of complexity that hinders 
traders from submitting applications or whether other processes, such as 
SPS requirements, had any impact on the lack of applications ? 
AG-IMS ID 92108: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
India's latest MA:2 notification, pertaining to the financial years 01 -04-2017 to 31 -03-2018 and 
01-04-2018 to 31 -03-2019, indicates that there hasn 't been any imports under INDQ001 (tariff lines 
040210 and 040221 - milk and cream in powder) and INDQ002 (tariff line 100590 - maize), even 
though there is not any indication on the notification that they were not opened. It is worth noticing 
that India 's notification G/AG/N/IND/14 (Table MA:2) indicat ed that, during marketing 
years  2010/2011 and 2011/2012, INDQ001 fill rates were 201% and 446% respectively.  
  
a. Could India provide data on market circumstances that could explain the absence of 
applications under TRQs INDQ001 and INDQ002?  
b. Has there been any change on the TRQs' administration method or the establishment of 
new non -tariff requirements for the imports of products under TRQs INDQ001 
and INDQ002?  
AG-IMS ID 92109: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues  
Ukraine appreciates India 's MA:2 notifi cations for the four tariff rate quotas, including the 
supplementary information regarding the status of applications for TRQs as well as the applied 
TRQ tariff rates compared to either applied or bound rates. The TRQ quantities represent potentially 
meani ngful volumes for international trade however according to India 's explanation no interest 
exists to supply the three products under the TRQ.  
  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 29 - 
 
  a. Could India provide additional backgrounds for zero fill rate for skimmed milk powder and 
whole milk powder, gr anules or other solid forms (INDQ001) and maize (INDQ002) during 
the period in question?  
i. Please include as part of this response any possible existence of market circumstances, 
which may have a direct bearing on traders ' interest to supply these three pro ducts?  
b. Would India consider reducing the in -quota tariff rate of 15% for skimmed milk powder 
and whole milk powder, granules or other solid forms?  
AG-IMS ID 92022: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
The United States thanks India f or providing notifications concerning imports under tariff rate quotas 
(Table MA:2) for the 2017/18 and 2018/2019 financial years.  
  
The United States notes that based on the footnotes, no applications were received for the allocation 
of the tariff rate qu ota for two consecutive years.  
  
a. Could India explain for each TRQ why no applications were received for the allocation of 
the tariff rate quotas?  For example, were there commercial reasons?  Were there sanitary 
or phytosanitary barriers?  Was the out -of-quota tariff lower than the in -quota tariff?  
b. Please confirm if the TRQ allocations are only accessible to STEs listed in India 's most 
recent MA:1 notification, G/AG/N/IND/6.  
The United States also notes that the in -quota imports during the 2017/2018 
and 2018/2019  financial years were 1,629 MT and 436 MT respectively for "Rape, colza or mustard 
oil".  
  
c. Could India clarify why the TRQ was partially filled for the two consecutive periods when 
no applications were received for the same period(s) and when during the 2018 -2019 
reporting period the applied tariff on HS lines 151419 and 151499 was equal to the bound 
in-quota tariff?  
2.2.3   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/104, G/AG/N/THA/105, G/AG/N/THA/106)  
AG-IMS ID 92113: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Regarding G/AG/N/THA/106, Australia notes a number of quotas were expanded, including in some 
cases to 'unlimited quantities '. 
a. Can Thailand explain the reasons why it expanded those quotas?  
i. And if they will be expanded again?  
b. Can Thailand explain if it is considerin g expanding other quotas in future years?  
i. Or if it is considering eliminating quotas that it has expanded to unlimited quantities?  
AG-IMS ID 92110: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation welcomes the notifications of impo rt under TRQs issued by Thailand. The 
Russia n Federation  noted that some TRQs in 2016 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, THAQ012, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ0017, THAQ0018, THAQ0023), in 2017 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ017, THAQ018, THAQ023), in 2018 (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, 
THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ 017, THAQ023) have zero or almost zero fill -in rates. Data shows that 
some TRQs (THAQ005, THAQ007, THAQ011, THAQ014, THAQ016, THAQ017, THAQ0023) are not 
filled consistently during recent three  years. Could Thailand provide the reasons for such low fill 
rates? G/AG/W/202  
 
- 30 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92111: Question by Ukraine - Tariff quota fill  
Ukraine welcomes Thailand 's MA:2 notifications for the calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018. At the 
same time, Ukraine notes that THAQ011 (maize for feedstuff) has a zero fill rate.  
a. Could Thailan d please give its understanding regarding key circumstances for the zero 
TRQ fill in the calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018?  
b. Please inform what steps are considered to be taken to address potential reasons for zero 
fill of THAQ011, which would be in line  with the 2013 Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 92112: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks Thailand for submitting its MA:2 for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/THA/106). 
Australia notes a number of tariff quotas did not rec ord any fill (0%) or less than 65% fill rate.  
a. Can Thailand explain the reasons for the significant underfill of some of its tariff quotas  
b. For each underfilled quota, can Thailand explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, SPS measures  for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 To MA:5)  
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/180, G/AG/N/TPKM/182)  
AG-IMS ID 92114: Question by Thailand - Trigger calculations  
Please provide the reasoning to why the calculation of trigger level for SSG of poultry offal and fresh 
milk did not take into account of the domestic consumption even if the data was readily available.  
 
2.3.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/56)  
AG-IMS ID 92115: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
In its notification MA:5 (G/AG/N/EU/56), the European Union has informed that some imports under 
HS position 02.07 were subject to price -based special safeguards.  
 
a. Could the European Union provide information on the volume of trade under tariff 
lines 02071210, 02071290 and 02071410 affected by the SSG?  
b. Could the European Union clarify if the shipments against which special safeguard actions 
were taken occurred inside or outside EU TRQs for these tariff lines (02071210, 02071290 
and 020714 10)? 
2.4  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/43, G/AG/N/ARG/44, G/AG/N/ARG/45)  
AG-IMS ID 92051: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services  
In its 2014/15 notification  (G/AG/N/ARG/43 ), in Supporting Table DS:1, Argentina has notified what 
appears to be two new programmes called "Agricultural Bio -Input Development Programme" and 
"Advice and technical assistance to increase the adaptability and resilience of small agricultural 
family farmers in response to th e impact of climate change" under Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) of the 
Green Box.  
a. If these are new measures, could Argentina indicate when it plans to submit a 
DS:2 notification?  
b. Could Argentina please elaborate on which projects under Extension and advisory s ervices 
are eligible for funding and outline?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92052: Question by Canada - General services: training services  
From 2015/16 to 2016/17  (G/AG/N/ARG/44  and G/AG/N/ARG/45 ), budgetary outlays for "Special 
Fund for Tobacco: Training of technical speci alists and producers" notified under the Training services 
Annex 2, paragraph 2(c) of the green box increased significantly. Could Argentina provide an 
explanation for this increase in outlays?  
AG-IMS ID 92054: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. In its 2016/2017 notification, Argentina notified product -specific domestic support for 
Soya under what appears to be a new measure called "Belgrano Agricultural Stimulus 
Plan".  
Could Argentina provide more information about this programme, includ ing details on the eligibility 
criteria for projects and how funding is allocated?  
b. In its 2016/2017 DS:1 notification, Argentina provided new domestic support for 
Sunflowers and Maize under "Interest -rate subsidy programme for loans to small -scale 
agricultural producers ".  
Could Argentina explain in more details the eligibility criteria of this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 92053: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In its 2016/17 DS :1 notification, in Supporting Table DS:9, Argentina has notified a new measure 
called " National Agro -Industry Trust Fund ". Could Argentina provide more de tails about projects 
eligible to receive funding under this programme?  
2.4.2   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/11)  
AG-IMS ID 92033: Question by European Union - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment / Development Programmes)  
The E uropean Union  would lik e to thank Bahrain for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date. 
The EU has noted that Bahrain has notified support in supporting table DS:2, which is applicable for 
countries having the right to use Article 6:2 of the Agreement on Agriculture – i.e. developing 
countries.  
 
Taking into account that Bahrain according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita at 
USD 21 890 (2018 figures), and as such is classified as a "high income" country ( USD 12 376 or 
more), the EU would ask whether Bahrain  could clarify this notification and identify the development 
needs that are met by using this Article.  
 
2.4.3   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/55, G/AG/N/CHL/56)  
AG-IMS ID 92055: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (inclu ding Table DS:2)  
In both its DS:1 notification for 2016 and 2017, Chile notified its monetary value in "CLP million ". In 
past notification, Chile notified its monetary value in "thousand CLP ". Could Chile confirm the 
monetary value used in G/AG/N/CHL/55 & G/AG/N/CHL/56?  
 
2.4.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 92056: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Follow -up to answer to AG-IMS ID 90096 : 
  
Canada notes that China indicated that its temporary reserve prog ramme for wheat was terminated 
in 2018. In March 2018, China 's State Administration of Grain (SAG) was renamed the State 
Administration of Grain and Reserves (SAGR) which assumed consolidated responsibilities for the 
stewardship of strategic reserves of wh eat, corn rice, oilseeds natural gas and petroleum. In 
early 2019, the government of China announced that it would strengthen regulations around 
strategic grain reserves.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a. Could China confirm if the state reserve programme for wheat under SAGR is different  
from the temporary reserves programme referenced in its domestic support notifications?  
b. Could China elaborate as to how stocks are acquired, at what price and from which market 
(e.g., international or domestic)?  
c. What is the role of local/provincial gove rnment in administrating strategic reserves of 
commodities?  
d. What are the factors used to determine the volume of the reserve?  
e. What are the factors used to determine when stocks are released and how is the release 
price determined?  
2.4.5   Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/62)  
AG-IMS ID 92058: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Canada observes that the expenditures in Cuba 's 2016 and 2017 notifications 
(G/AG/N/CUB/54 Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CUB/59 respectively) were expressed in million CUP, 
whereas the expenditures in Cuba 's 2018 DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CUB/62) are 
expressed in single CUPs. The figures in G/AG/N/CUB/62 have not be en adjusted with 
additional digits to denote millions.  
i. Is Canada correct in assuming that this was an omission?  
b. Assuming that the expenditures in Cuba 's 2018 DS:1 notification are expressed in 
million  CUP, Canada notes that Cuba 's expenditures under Anne x 2, paragraph 11 – 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids have increased 
from CUP 91.0 Million in 2016 and CUP 61.3 Million in 2017 to CUP 765.2 Million in 2018, 
a twelve -fold increase in the span of one year.  
i. Could Cuba please  explain this sudden increase in spending? Was a new programme 
implemented in 2018 or were changes made to the previous investment aid 
programme?  
ii. If so, when will Cuba notify this new or modified programme through a 
DS:2 notification?  
2.4.6   European Union (G/AG /N/EU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 92059: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Canada thanks the European Union for its responses to Canada 's questions during the June 2019 
meeting (AG -IMS ID 91090) regarding its payments to organ ic producers under paragraph 12, 
Annex  2, Agreement on Agriculture.  
  
Canada notes that because of certain data collection issues that the requested information is not 
available. Canada would be interested in the following information related to organic p roduction in 
the European Union.  
  
a. Could the EU provide the total value of production of all organic production in 2016 in 
the EU?  
b. Could the EU provide the total farms income of all the organic farms and/or farms that 
have organic production in 2016 in t he EU?  
c. What were the total payments made to organic producers for:  
i. annual crops ; 
ii. specialized perennial crops ; G/AG/W/202  
 
- 33 - 
 
  iii. other land uses ; 
d. Could the EU provide the number of organic farms and/or farm that have organic 
production in 2016 the EU?  
e. Could the EU provide  the number of farms that have received support for organic 
production for the budget year 2016 under (j) Environmental Programmes?  
2.4.7   India (G/AG/N/IND/13)  
AG-IMS ID 92023: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
In India 's response to AG -IMS ID 91156, India provides a link to a website for the RKVY programme 
and explains that these are all notified under 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
However, the website describes programmes unrelated to infrastructural se rvices (e.g., State 
Agricultural Plans).  
  
a. Please explain how State Agricultural Plans are specifically limited in scope to 
infrastructural services.   
b. Please explain why there is a specific programme and programme allocation set aside for 
the "State Agric ulture Infrastructure Development Plan " if all of the programmes are 
infrastructural services, as described in 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
2.4.8   India (G/AG/N/IND/15)  
AG-IMS ID 92025: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: s tructural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids  
The United States again requests eligibility requirements to receive the waiver, initially requested 
in AG-IMS ID 91169.  
AG-IMS ID 92024: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
a. Regarding AG -IMS ID 91178, please explain why India used the value of production for an 
aggregation of products if the Minimum Support Price was based on a variety or quality 
difference?   
b. Per the example in AG -IMS ID 91178, why did India use the VOP for soybeans if the MSP 
was specifically for soyabean yellow?  
2.4.9   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/6, G/AG/N/KGZ/7)  
AG-IMS ID 92026: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Since Kyrgyz Republic 's last notification for 2015, it  appears several new Green Box measures have 
been introduced, including 'state support of seed production. '  
  
a. Please explain how this new measure is implemented.  
b. Does the Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this new measure, 
or overdue notifications for 1999 -2014, as noted in AGIMS -ID 89040?  
It appears Green Box expenditures have doubled 2015.  
  
c. Please explain this increase.  
It appears that expenditures for Non -Product -Specific AMS have increased over 25 % since 2015.  
  
d. Please exp lain this increase.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92027: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
It appears several new Green Box measures were introduced in 2017 including 'support of public 
seed-stocks '. (G/AG/N/KGZ/7 ). 
 
a. Please explain how this new measure is implemented.  
It appears there has been a significant – over 40 % – increase in expenditure for Green Box measures 
as compared to 2016.  
 
b. Please explain this increase.  
It appears that expenditures for Non -Product -Specif ic AMS have more than tripled, as compared 
to 2016.  
 
c. Please explain this increase.  
2.4.10   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/17)  
AG-IMS ID 92117: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia would like to follow up with Nigeria with respect to q uestion AG-IMS ID 90034 that Australia 
asked at the 90th CoA.  
 
Nigeria 's domestic support notifications for the period 2012 to 2016 (G/AG/N/NGA/17) notified that 
it did not provide domestic support during this period.  
 
Australia would like to know if Nige ria plans to include key agricultural elements of its Economic 
Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support notifications. Specifically, how 
will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated transformation of the agricultu re sector 
aimed at boosting productivity and improving access to markets?  
 
2.4.11   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/21, G/AG/N/OMN/22, G/AG/N/OMN/23, 
G/AG/N/OMN/24, G/AG/N/OMN/25)  
AG-IMS ID 92028: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States thanks Oman for submitting a DS:1 notification for the previous five years.  
The United States notes that Oman has never submitted a DS:2 notification describing how its new 
programmes are administered and why they are classified as Green Box or as Article  6.2 programs.  
Supporting Tables DS:2 within Oman 's previous and recent DS:1 notifications have shown continued 
funding for several programmes for which Oman has never submitted a DS:2 notification, including: 
"national project for d ate palm development ", "protection of agriculture lands from sweeping away ", 
"establishment of fodder production company in Najd ", "establishment and development of 
agricultural and veterinarian quarantine ", "development of natural pastures ", and "studies and 
advisory consultants to support the Ministry's technical device ".  
 
a. Does Oman plan to submit a separate DS:2 notification detailing the new programmes 
outlined in its DS:1 notification?  
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, Oman has notified "Establishment of fodder produ ction company in Najd" and 
"Establishment and development of agricultural and veterinarian quarantine" as exempt measures 
under Supporting Table DS:1. The United States notes that these establishment costs have 
continued for several years, with expenditure  peaks in 2015 for vet quarantine, and in 2016 for the 
fodder production.  
  
b. Please provide more details on the reason for these continuing payments and whether 
they extend beyond the initial establishment of the designated facilities (e.g., are 
payments ma de to defer costs, such as maintenance of facilities, etc. that would otherwise 
be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices), and why they have fluctuated 
over time.   G/AG/W/202  
 
- 35 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92118: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural ser vices  
Australia thanks Oman for submitting its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018  
(G/AG/N/OMN/25 ).  
 
Under Green Box, Infrastructural services (2, g), Oman notified that it provided support for the 
establishment of a fodder company in Najd.   
 
Can Oman provide more information on what capital works were included in this expenditure?  
AG-IMS ID 92061: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2 , Oman notified a programme named "National project  for date palm 
development ".  
a. Could Oman describe the eligibility criteria for this programme?  
b. Could Oman describe how this programme operates?  
AG-IMS ID 92037: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture  
"Nationa l project for date palm development " (under the "Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture "): 
 
Could the Oman provide more details, especially whether the project aims at increasing planting 
acreage (quantitative objectives) or whether the fo cus is qualitative e.g. higher quality date palms, 
geographical indications, qualitative marks/labels etc.  
AG-IMS ID 92036: Question by European Union - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment / Development Programmes)  
The E uropean Union  would like  to thank Oman for its efforts to bring its notifications up to date. 
The European Union  has noted that Oman has notified support in supporting table DS:2, which is 
applicable for countries having the right to use Article  6.2 of the Agreement on Agricultur e – 
i.e. developing countries.  
 
Taking into account that Oman according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita at USD 15,110 
(2018 figures), and as such is classified as a "high income" country ( USD 12,376 or more), the 
European Union  would ask whether Oman could clarify this notification and identify the development 
needs that are met by using this Article.  
 
2.4.12   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/50)  
AG-IMS ID 92062: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada is disappointed to note that  Panama has exceeded its annual domestic support commitment 
by PAB 41.7 Million in 2017, and by PAB 54.3 Million in 2018, as a result of Panama exceeding its 
product specific de minimis for rice.  
  
In 2018, Panama 's support for rice amounted to 31.9% of i ts value of production (VoP) for rice, 
while it was at 24.4% of rice VoP in 2017, an increase of 7.5 percentage points. This significant 
increase appears to be due to a second surge in eligible production, in addition to the one that 
occurred in 2017 (comp ared to 2016 levels), while the price support of PAB 7.50 per quintal 
remained unchanged.  
  
At the 88th session of the Regular Committee on Agriculture, in its response to the United States 
requesting information regarding Panama 's breach of its domestic support commitment in 2017 
(AG-IMS ID 88114), Panama indicated that the first surge was explained by various reasons. 
Amongst other things, Panama explained that the rice price support program was recent and 
relatively unknown by rice producers, as it was announced in August 2015, and that payments are 
not necessarily received in the same year as the production year. Panama also indicated that it 
considered the program had stabilized by 2017. In addition, Panama did not clarify what steps it G/AG/W/202  
 
- 36 - 
 
  would take to c ome back into compliance with its domestic support commitments, but indicated that 
Article 4 of Law 17 of 22 February 2018 allows for a review of the support price for rice every three 
years.  
  
a. Could Panama please explain the reasons why eligible productio n increased by 76% 
between 2017 (252,387 tonnes) and 2018 (328,628.5 tonnes), considering the program 
was in its 3rd implementation year?  
b. Does Panama expect eligible production to increase again in 2019?  
c. What considerations led Panama to believe that the program had stabilized in 2017, when 
payments increased considerably in 2018?  
d. What actions will Panama be taking to ensure compliance wit h its domestic support 
commitments in 2019 and in subsequent years?  
e. When is the next rice support price review expected to take place? Would Panama consider 
decreasing its support price for rice to mitigate risks of non -compliance and/or limiting 
eligible  production through legislative means?  
2.4.13   Peru (G/AG/N/PER/19, G/AG/N/PER/20, G/AG/N/PER/21)  
AG-IMS ID 92063: Question by Canada - General services: research  
a. In its 2015, 2016 and 2017 DS:1 notification, Peru notified a programme called "Payment 
for Competi tiveness Programme " under Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) Research - of the 
Green  Box.  
i. Could Peru provide the criteria of eligibility of projects under this programme and how 
it defines "small and medium -sized producers "?  
ii. Could Peru provide more details about th e allocation of funding under this programme?  
b. In its 2015, 2016 and 2017 DS:1 notification, Peru notified a programme called 
"Innovation and competitiveness projects and measures. " under Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) 
Research - of the Green box. Could Peru provi de the criteria of eligibility of projects and 
more details about the allocation of funding under this programme?  
2.4.14   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/2 4) 
AG-IMS ID 92064: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Contrary to previous year s, the Russian Federation did not report market price support for any 
commodities in 2017.  
  
Could the Russian federation confirm that the measure reported has price support in previous years 
were abolished? If not, could the Russian Federation have expla ined why this support was not 
notified?  
AG-IMS ID 92038: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union notes that the Russian Federation, unlike previous years, does not notify any 
market price support for whea t and barley in 2017.   
 
Did the Russian federation not use administered prices for wheat and barley in 2017? Can the 
Russian Federation  explain more in detail the changes to its cereal support policy?  
AG-IMS ID 92119: Question by Australia - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Australia thanks the Russian Federation for the submission of its DS:1 for 2017.   
 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Australia notes the Russian Federation  notified a USD 100 million increase in support for milk from 
its 2016 to 2017 DS:1.  
 
Can the Russian Federation prov ide more information on why its support for milk increased 
significantly?  
 
2.4.15   Seychelles (G/AG/N/SYC/4)  
AG-IMS ID 92065: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates the quality and the level of detail in the Seychelles ' 2016 domestic support 
notification. Canada notes that the Seychelles has notified payments for relief from natural disasters 
in 2016 (Annex 2, paragraph 8), while no payment under Annex 2 paragraph 8 were notified in its 
previous domestic suppo rt notification (G/AG/N/SYC/3 – 2013-2015).  
  
Could the Seychelles indicate whether these payments are related to a new programme, or a 
programme that has been modified? If so, when will the Seychelles be providing a DS:2 notification, 
including a rationa le as to how the program meets the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 8?  
AG-IMS ID 92066: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Canada notes a significant increase in the Seychelles ' expenditures in ST/DS:2 under investm ent 
loans with a preferential interest rate, from an average of SCR 0.12 Million in 2013 -2015, to 
SCR 21.35 Million in 2016.  
  
Could the Seychelles provide an explanation as to why investment loans with a preferential rate 
increased by more than SCR 21 Mi llion in one year?  
 
2.4.16   Singapore (G/AG/N/SGP/32)  
AG-IMS ID 92120: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Singapore for its DS:1 notification for Calendar Year 2018 (G/AG/N/SGP/32), in 
which it confirms no domestic  support was provided or maintained.  Singapore has not notified the 
provision of any domestic support for the last decade.   
  
On Singapore 's Food Agency website, there are a number of programmes that may fall within the 
Agreement of Agriculture commitments  made by Singapore, for example: the Agriculture 
Productivity Fund; the Productivity Enhancement Scheme; the Research & Development scheme; 
and the Cash Advancement program.  
  
Can Singapore confirm that it has not provided any domestic support under these  programmes, or 
explain how any expenditure under these programmes do not fall under Singapore 's Agreement on 
Agriculture commitments.  
 
2.4.17   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/181)  
AG-IMS ID 92034: Question by European Union - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters  
Payments for relief from natural disasters have increased from TWD 4.5  trillion to TWD 8.3  trillion.  
 
Can Chinese Taipei explain the reason for this and what types of "damaged income " are concerned?  
 
How is the compensation calculated  including eligibility criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 92035: Question by European Union - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5 Chinese Taipei lists several different market price support schemes for 
rice.  
 G/AG/W/202  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Can Chinese Taipei  explain more in detail the different aide schemes for rice and the eligibility criteria 
for these schemes. Further, can Chinese Taipei  indicate the total production within its territory for 
the different types of rice listed.  
AG-IMS ID 92116: Question by Brazil - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In its notification G/AG/N/TPKM/181, Chinese Taipei has informed that product -specific support for 
soybean reached 70.87% of its VoP in 2016. For the purpose of comparison, in 2015, according to 
notification G/AG/N/T PKM/175, product -specific support for soybean accounted for 58.35%.  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide clarify the reasons for this increase?  
b. What measures have been implemented to try to reduce this sector 's dependence on 
product -specific support measures?  
AG-IMS ID 92057: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Under Supporting Table DS:7, Chinese Taipei reported freight subsidy for sugar.  
  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide information on how this programme works, including details 
on the eligibilit y criteria, and how the freight subsidy is allocated?  
b. Is this subsidy available to sugar that is exported?  
2.4.18   Tajikistan (G/AG/N/TJK/1, G/AG/N/TJK/6)  
AG-IMS ID 92067: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to reite rate that question AG -IMS ID 91104 is still pending answer from Tajikistan. 
Canada is hence resubmitting questions raised at the previous meeting:  
  
Question applies to Tajikistan's notifications TJK/1 to TJK/6 Between 2013 and 2018, Tajikistan, 
notified that it has not provided any domestic support to its agricultural sector. Canada notes that 
in its AGST tables, Tajikistan included a number of programmes classified as Green Box, as Special 
and Differential Treatment – "Development Programmes", as product -specific AMS and non 
product -specific AMS.  
  
a. Could Tajikistan please clarify if the programmes listed in its AGST tables were still in 
operation between 2013 and 2018? If yes, could Tajikistan provide an explanation as to 
why these programmes were not in cluded in its recent domestic support notifications.  
b. The measures listed in Tajikistan 's AGST tables include general services such as inspection 
services and, pest and disease control. Could Tajikistan clarify that these general services 
are still in oper ation?  
c. According to the FAO website ( http://www.fao.org/3/a -bp563e.pdf ), in 2012 Tajikistan 
put in place the Agricultural Reform Programme of the Republic of Tajikistan. The 
Agricultural Reform Programme o f the Republic of Tajikistan includes a list of 22 objectives 
to reform its agricultural sector. Could Takikistan clarify if there were any agricultural 
programmes launched as part of this Agricultural Reform Programme to meet the 
22 agricultural objective s? If yes, please provide the names of the programmes and the 
amounts expended. Also, could Tajikistan clarify why these measures were not included 
in Tajikistan 's recent domestic support notifications.  
2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) 
2.5.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 92070: Question by Canada - Payments based on fixed areas or yields  
Canada would like to express once again its appreciation for China 's responses to questions posed 
by Canada at the 90th (AG-IMS ID 90086) and 91st meeting (AG -IMS ID 91106) of the Committee 
on Agriculture regarding China 's Blue Box domestic support measures for corn. Canada would be G/AG/W/202  
 
- 39 - 
 
  grateful for further information on some of the key aspects of China 's "Corn Producer Subsi dy 
System ".  
  
Canada understands from China 's response to AG -IMS ID 90086 and AG -IMS ID 91106 that the 
objective of the 2016 -2018 "Corn Producer Subsidy System ", which was implemented across four 
northeastern  Chinese provinces or autonomous regions, was to stabilize corn production at an 
appropriate level, while sustaining producers ' livelihood. This includes a stabilization of farmers ' 
income, where the payment rate is reviewed on a yearly basis and adjusted as necessary, taking 
into account producers ' cost of production and market prices, which fluctuate according to supply 
and demand.  
  
The total amount of the subsidy is calculated by China 's Ministry of Finance, using the payment rate 
and both a fixed area  (four northeastern  provinces) and a fixed yield based on 2014 production 
levels, and is transferred to provincial governments. Provincial governments then transfer the per 
producer amount of the subsidy directly to producers ' bank account through a Minist ry of Finance 
approved, detailed provincial implementation plans, which include reducing the planting of corn in 
'non-advantageous ' areas. To receive a payment, corn producers need to apply for the payment to 
the local government and report their total cor n planting area, which is made public and used to 
determine the amount of the payment. China indicated that it intends on continuing the programme 
beyond 2018.  
  
a. Could China confirm whether the implementation of the "Corn Producer Subsidy Program " 
is cont inuing in 2019 and whether it will continue in 2020?  
i. If so, is the fixed area and yield still based on 2014 levels?  
ii. Have changes been made to the programme?  
b. Could China provide additional information on the payment rate, including on how farmers ' 
income  are assessed?  
i. For example, what is the reference base for income stabilization?  
ii. Are producer revenues meant to increase through those payments?  
iii. What was the payment rate in 2016, in 2017 and in 2018? What is the payment rate 
in 2019, if the programme i s currently still in place?  
iv. How is income stabilization achieved? Is there a specific "average revenue per 
producer " target at the provincial level or in the implementation plans?  
v. Has the total amount of the subsidy resulted in an increase in producer re venues?  
c. Could China provide additional information on the fixed yield amount used by the Ministry 
of Finance to assess the total amount of the subsidy?  
i. What specific quantity does the Ministry of Finance use in its calculation?  
ii. Does this quantity always  stay the same? Is the payment rate the only component 
that can be adjusted?  
iii. Will this quantity remain the same beyond 2018, the end of the period of application 
of the programme?  
d. Could China elaborate on the process for delivering the payment to produce rs, including 
on how payments per producer are determined, and whether producers can increase 
planting areas to increase their payment?  
e. Given that the stated objective of the programme is to ensure income and production 
stabilization for corn producers in  specific regions of China, could China elaborate on the 
considerations and market conditions that make the production -limiting "Corn Producer G/AG/W/202  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Subsidy System " preferable to an income -safety net or direct payment type of programme, 
which directly relate to producer revenues and are deemed to be non - or minimally trade 
and production -distorting?  
f. Could China indicate whether the four northeastern  provinces/autonomous regions are 
facing issues related to corn production surpluses?  
i. If so, was the "Corn Produce r Subsidy System " effective in limiting and stabilizing corn 
production in the region?  
ii. What was the total annual corn production in the four northeastern  Chinese provinces 
or autonomous regions in 2014 to 2018?  
iii. Were financial or economic incentives given  for producers to transition to other types 
of production?  
2.5.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/103)  
AG-IMS ID 92083: Question by New Zealand - Payments based on 85 % or less of the 
base level of production  
New Zealand refers to Norway's response to Canada's questions ( AG-IMS ID 91108) at the 
June 2019 Committee on Agriculture, in relation to its notification (G/AG/N/NOR/103) regarding Blue 
Box domestic support programme to small and medium size dairy farms. New Zealand would like to 
know the percentage of tot al dairy production that small and medium dairy farms provide?  
 
2.6  Export subsidy notifications ( Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.6.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/65, G/AG/N/KOR/66, G/AG/N/KOR/67, 
G/AG/N/KOR/68)  
AG-IMS ID 92039: Question by European Union - Special and differential treatment 
(Article 9.4)  
The E uropean Union  would like to thank the Republic of Korea for its efforts to bring its notifications 
up to date. The E uropean Union  has however noted that the Republic of Korea has notified its export 
subsidy commitments for  2014-2017 in Supporting Table ES:2, using the Article 9.4 exemption 
reserved for developing countries.  
 
Taking into account that the Republic of Korea according to the World Bank has a GNI per capita at 
USD 30,600 (2018 figures), and as such is classified as a "high income" country ( USD 12,376  or 
more), the E uropean Union  would ask whether the Republic of Korea could clarify this notification 
and identify the development needs that are met by using this Article.  
AG-IMS ID 92122: Questi on by Ukraine - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
Ukraine appreciates the opportunity to review the Republic of Korea 's export subsidy notifications 
for the years 2014 –2017. The data demonstrate a significant increase in monetary support for  
vegetable (51 % increase from 2014 to 2017) and an exceptional increase in monetary support for 
processed food (747 % increase from 2014 to 2017). The combined monetary and volume impact 
for each of these products is also noteworthy: in the case of processe d food, the volume increase of 
843% in fact reduces the per unit subsidy; however, the volume increase for vegetables of 3.8 % 
translates to a significantly high per unit subsidy. The Republic of Korea claims the export subsidy 
support under the provisions of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Ukraine kindly ask the 
Republic of Korea to provide the following information:  
a. What are the main reasons for the sharp increases in export subsidy support for vegetables 
and processed food?  
b. Please identify specifically, which vegetables benefit from this export subsidy support?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 41 - 
 
  c. Please specify the nature of the cost reduction measures applied and any differences or 
specifics for vegetables and processed food.  
d. Could the Republic of Korea inform how this poli cy meets requirements of paragraphs  9 
and 10 of the 2015 Nairobi Decision stipulating the obligation "not to raise their export 
subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis "?  
2.6.2   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/39/REV.1, G/AG/N/MEX/44/REV.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 92123: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues  
Mexico's latest ES:1 notifications (G/AG/N/MEX/39/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/MEX/44/Rev.1) reveal the 
granting of export subsidies to maize (corn) on back -to-back years, from 2017 to 2018.  
 
Could Mexico pr ovide further information on the programmes or policies that allowed for the payment 
of such export subsidies to Mexican farmers, especially if such programmes or policies are still in 
place?  
 
2.6.3   Myanmar (G/AG/N/MYN/20)  
AG-IMS ID 92124: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes Myanmar 's submission of ten overdue ES:1 notifications. Australia welcomes this 
commitment to bringing notification submissions up to date and the transparency that comes with 
that.  
 
Australia looks forward to the submission of the ES:1 notifications for 2015 and onwards, and in the 
absence of these: Australia would like to know if Myanmar has provided export subsidies in those 
reporting periods?  
 
2.6.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/126, G/AG/N/USA/118)  
AG-IMS ID 92084: Question by New Zealand - Quantity of total exports  
The U.S. previous ES:1 and ES:2 notifications (G/AG/N/USA/118) was for Calendar Year 2015. The 
latest notification (G/AG/N/US/126) is for Fiscal Year 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. Can the U nited 
States please clarify how it has (or will) notify total exports for the six months not accounted for in 
either notification, i.e. 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016?  
 
2.6.5   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/127)  
AG-IMS ID 92125: Question by Australia - Internati onal food aid  
Australia thanks the United States for its ES:3 notification for FY 2016 -17 (G/AG/N/USA/127) 
reporting total food aid to all destinations.  Australia fully supports the provision of assistance to 
address humanitarian emergencies and improve fo od security in regions that have poor access to 
sufficient nutrition. However, Australia notes the volumes of physical food aid notified by the 
United  States for specific products are significant, for example: 850 thousand tonnes of wheat and 
flour; 375 th ousand tonnes of course grains; 111 thousand tonnes of rice and 140 thousand tonnes 
of vegetable oil.  Australia would therefore kindly welcome the United States ' advice on:  
a. Whether it is considering moving to untied food assistance consistent with paragraph 23(c) 
of the Nairobi Decision?  
b. How it ensures the physical food aid does not cause adverse effects on recipient Members ' 
agricultural industries, nor on their region 's production and commercial markets of either 
like-products, or substitute produ cts? 
AG-IMS ID 92085: Question by China - International food aid  
China welcomes the ES:3 notification of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/127) dated 1  August  2019, 
concerning food aid (Table ES:3) in the context of export subsidy commitments for the fiscal ye ar 
from 01 -10-2016 to 30 -09-2017. It is noted that 20,000  tonnes of oilcakes were provided as G/AG/W/202  
 
- 42 - 
 
  international food aid. Please clarify whether the oilcakes were provided as emergency food aid or 
non-emergency food aid? In addition, please provide the needs a ssessment for such aid.  
 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
3.1  China  
AG-IMS ID 92029: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88082 and AG-IMS ID  90080, the United States would like to reiterate 
the following questions:  
a. The United States notes  that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the total 
volume of food aid provided).  
b. Has China determined whether or not it will submit Table ES:3 - Notification of the total 
volume of food aid for all relevant years? If not, please explain why not.   
3.2  India  
AG-IMS ID 92030: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88085 and AG-IMS ID 91143, the United States notes that India owes 
the Committee on Agriculture seven  years of overdue notifications (Table ES:1, Supporting 
Table  ES:2, and ES:3 for relevant years). India 's export subsidy data is necessary for discussions 
among WTO member in pursuing a reform agenda at the Ministerial Conference in June 2020.  
  
Please provide all overdue ES notifications as soon as possible.  
 
3.3  Kazakhstan  
AG-IMS ID 92040: Question by European Union  
So far Kazakhstan has not provided any DS:1 notification after it became a WTO member on 
30 November 2015. When does Kazakhstan inte nd to submit its DS:1 notifications?  
 
3.4  Morocco  
AG-IMS ID 92041: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1 notification Morocco provided dates back to 2012 covering the year 2003 to 2007.  
 
When does Morocco intend to submit its subsequent notifications?  
 
3.5  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 92068: Question by Canada  
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its domestic support notifications for 2005 to 2009 in 2018.  
 
Given that these recent DS:1 notifications cover programmes from 10 years ago and which may no 
longer be in forc e could Turkey provide an update on its schedule to submit more recent domestic 
support notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 92069: Question by Canada  
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its export subsidy notifications both Table ES:1 and ES:2 
for 2005 to 2009 in 20 19. Given that these recent ES:1 and ES:2 notifications are for time frames 
that are 10 years in the past and therefore, difficult to assess Turkey 's implementation of its export 
subsidy commitments , could Turkey provide an update on its plans to submit mo re recent export 
subsidies notifications?  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 92042: Question by European Union  
The latest DS:1, ES:1 and ES:2  notification provided by Turkey cover the year 2009. When does 
Turkey intend to submit its subsequent notifications?  
 
3.6  Viet Nam  
AG-IMS ID  92043: Question by European Union  
The latest MA:2 notification from Viet  Nam is document G/AG/N/VNM/8 dated 28  September  2016 
covering the years 2011 to 2015. When does Viet  Nam intend to submit notifications for the following 
years?  
 
4  OTHER  
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID 92031: Question by United States of America  
At the June 2019 CoA, the United States requested that China provide data updates for the export 
credit section, agricultural exporting state trading enterprises and food aid sections of the ECQ for 
years 2017 and 2018.  In AG -IMS ID 91115, China responded that "the export competition 
questionnaire for 2017 -2018 is being prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible. " However, 
the Secretariat 's document G/AG/ W/125/Rev.11 and addendums did not included updates to China 's 
response sections.  
  
Will China submit its ECQ responses for years 2017 -18? If China will not provide updates, could 
China please explain its rationale?  
 
4.2  Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 92044: Question by European Union  
Introduct ion of Export subsidies  
 
Press reports on 10 October 2019 state that President Putin signed into law amendments to the 
Budget Code permitting the disbursement of subsidies to exporters of alcoholic beverages.  
 
The current version of the Budget Code prohib its subsidies to producers of goods subject to excise 
taxes, except producers of wines from domestic grapes.  According to the new rules, producers of all 
alcoholic beverages will be eligible to receive export subsidies covering interest rate costs on loans .  
a. Can the Russian Federation  list all the products that will be covered by both the existing 
and the new rules? For which export destinations will these rules apply?  
b. Can the Russian Federation  please explain how these rules are in conformity with the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition - WT/MIN(15)/45?  
AG-IMS ID 92032: Question by United States of America  
The United States would like to repeat its question in AG -IMS ID 91126, as the Russian Federation  
has not provided a response.   
  
The Un ited States notes that the Russian Export Center (RCE) operates a programme called 
"Compensation for export credits from commercial banks " that subsidizes interest rates on export 
credits provided by commercial banks, which includes transactions supporting  agricultural products, 
per Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  620 of 24 May 2017 and in 
accordance with Federal Law of 29 November 2018 No. 459 -ФЗ. 
  
a. Please describe this export credit programme and whether it should be reported in  the 
export competition questionnaire (ECQ).  
b. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing transactions 
for agricultural products in 2017 and 2018.  G/AG/W/202  
 
- 44 - 
 
  The United States notes that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), Rosselkhozbank provides trade financial products/services for the export of 
agricultural products.  
c. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank 's trade financing activities should be reported in 
the ECQ.  
 
 
__________