G/AG/W/243  
 
17 November 2023  
(23-7810) Page: 1/66 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 27 -29 NOVEMBER 20231 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
15 November 2023 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/71 . 
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. Questions cosponsored via the 
AG-IMS as of 17:00 on 17 November are  already reflecte d accordingly in this document.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 8 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.1   Australia - Farm Investment Loans programme  (SIM 864)  ................................ ...............  8 
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107076)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.1.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107077)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.2   Canada - Dairy Innovation and Investment Fund (SIM 865)  ................................ .............  9 
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107010)  ................................ ...........................  9 
1.3   Costa Rica's rice policy (SIM 866)  ................................ ................................ ................  9 
1.3.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107014)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.4   Costa Rica's support to micro, small and medium -sized producers (SIM 867)  ....................  10 
1.4.1   Questio n by India (AG -IMS ID 107080)  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
1.5   Egypt's export restriction on onions (SIM 868)  ................................ ..............................  10 
1.5.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Switzerland, Canada  
(AG-IMS ID  107003)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  10 
1.6   France's  new livestock support package (SIM 869)  ................................ ........................  10 
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107038)  ................................ ................................ .... 10 
1.7   Morocco's vegetable and fertilizer  subsidies  (SIM 870)  ................................ ...................  11 
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107030)  ................................ ......................  11 
1.8   Morocco's export restriction on olive oil (SIM 871)  ................................ .........................  12 
1.8.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Switzerland, Canada, Japan  
(AG-IMS ID 107005)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
1.9   Myanmar's export restriction on rice (SIM 872)  ................................ .............................  12 
1.9.1   Question by United Kingdom, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107006)  ................................ ..........  12 
1.10   New Zealand - Productive and Sustainable Land Use Programme (SIM 873)  ....................  12 
1.10.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107082)  ................................ ................................ ... 12 
1.11   Türkiye's transport tax on imported goods (SIM 874)  ................................ ...................  13 
1.11.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107132)  ................................ ........  13 
1.12   U.S. food security programmes (SIM 875)  ................................ ................................ .. 14 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107033)  ................................ ....................  14 
1.13   U.S. Regional Agriculture Promotion Program (SIM 876)  ................................ ...............  14 
1.13.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107085)  ................................ ................................ ... 14 
1.13.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107135)  ................................ ........................  14 
SPECIFIC IMPL EMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .........  15 
1.14   Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ ... 15 
1.14.1    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, Switzerland, Japan 
(AG-IMS ID 107001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
1.15   Brazil's Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  ................................ ................................ . 15 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107034)  ................................ ....................  15 
1.15.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107035)  ................................ ....................  15 
1.16   Brazil's new programme to restore pastureland  (SIM 843)  ................................ ............  16 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107007)  ................................ ........  16 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17   Canada's Dairy Policies (SIM 594)  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
1.17.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107078)  ................................ ................................ ... 16 
1.18   Canada's Advanced Payments Program (SIM 847)  ................................ .......................  17 
1.18.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107079)  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.19   Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ .............................  17 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107012)  ................................ ........................  17 
1.20   Canada 's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  ................................ ...........................  18 
1.20.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107037)  ................................ ................................ .. 18 
1.20.2    Question by United Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS ID 107002)  ................................ ...... 18 
1.21   Canada's tariff rate quota for cheese (SIM 345)  ................................ ..........................  18 
1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107011)  ................................ ........  18 
1.22   China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ .............  18 
1.22.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 107013)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.23   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558) ................................ ...... 19 
1.23.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107021)  ................................ ................................ .. 19 
1.23.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107081)  ................................ ................................ ... 19 
1.24   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) (SIM 515)  ................................ ........  20 
1.24.1    Question by Australia, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107039)  ................................ ..................  20 
1.24.2    Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 107072)  ..........................  20 
1.25   India's national food security bill (SIM 319)  ................................ ................................  20 
1.25.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 107120)  ................................ ................................  20 
1.26   India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision  (SIM 852) ...................  21 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America, Japan (AG -IMS ID 107017)  ..............................  21 
1.26.2    Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107022)  ..............  21 
1.27   India's public stockpiling (SIM 525)  ................................ ................................ ...........  21 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada, Japan (AG -IMS ID 107016)  .... 21 
1.28   India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  ................................ ...................  22 
1.28.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107020)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 
1.28.2    Question by Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107025)  ................................ ............  22 
1.28.3    Question by Japan, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107121)  ................................ ................  22 
1.28.4    Question by Switzerland, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 107122)  ................................ .. 22 
1.29   India's export restrictions on wheat and rice (SIM 306)  ................................ ................  23 
1.29.1    Question by United Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Canada, Japan (AG -IMS ID 
107075)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  23 
1.30   India's export restriction on sugar (SIM 420)  ................................ ..............................  23 
1.30.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 107024)  ................................ ..............................  23 
1.31   India's export restrictions on onions (SIM 652)  ................................ ...........................  23 
1.31.1    Question by Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107023)  ................................ ............  23 
1.31.2    Question by Canada, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107074)  ................................ ..............  23 
1.32   India's export restrictions (SIM 306)  ................................ ................................ ..........  24 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.32.1    Question by United States of America, Australia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Ukraine, 
Canada, Japan (AG -IMS ID 107019)  ................................ ................................ ...................  24 
1.33   Japan -US Trade Agreement (SIM 564)  ................................ ................................ ....... 24 
1.33.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107123, 107136)  ................................ ......................  24 
1.34   Korea's tariff policies (SIM 785)  ................................ ................................ ................  25 
1.34.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107124)  ................................ ........................  25 
1.35   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products and use of reference prices for 
customs valuation purpo ses (SIM 223)  ................................ ................................ ................  25 
1.35.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107125)  ................................ ................................ .. 25 
1.36   Panama's compliance with its domestic support commitments (SIM 758)  ........................  25 
1.36.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107126)  ................................ ........  25 
1.37   South Africa's import measures on poultry meat (SIM 807)  ................................ ...........  25 
1.37.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107004)  ................  25 
1.38   Tajikistan's export ban on onions and other vegetables (SIM 808)  ................................ . 25 
1.38.1    Question by Switzerland, Australia, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 107041)  ....................  25 
1.39   Tanzania's export restriction on maize and onions (SIM 860)  ................................ ........  25 
1.39.1    Question by United Kingdom, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107073)  ................................ ........  25 
1.40   Thailand's corn farmer income guarantee scheme (SIM 861)  ................................ .........  26 
1.40.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107128)  ................................ ....................  26 
1.41   Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ ..... 26 
1.41.1    Question by United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS ID 107133)  ........................  26 
1.42   Türkiye's export restrictions on olive oil (SIM 703)  ................................ .......................  26 
1.42.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107031)  ................................ ....................  26 
1.43   UK's SSG entitlements (SIM 761)  ................................ ................................ ..............  26 
1.43.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107084)  ................................ ................................ ... 26 
1.44   United State s' dairy policies (SIM 462)  ................................ ................................ ....... 27 
1.44.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107086)  ................................ ................................ ... 27 
1.45   U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (SIM 811)  ................................ ................................ ....... 27 
1.45.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107032)  ................................ ....................  27 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  28 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  .....................  28 
2.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/58)  ................................ ................................ ......................  28 
2.1.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/70, G/AG/N/ECU/71, G/AG/N/ECU/72)  ................................ ...... 28 
2.1.3   India (G/AG/N/IND/30)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  29 
2.1.4   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/93)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  29 
2.1.5   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/124)  ................................ ................................ ...............  29 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ...... 30 
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/227)  ................................ ................................ ..........  30 
2.2.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/86)  ................................ ................................ .............  30 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  30 
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/142, G/AG/N/AUS/157, G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1)  ......................  30 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.3.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/74)  ................................ ................................ .........................  33 
2.3.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/158, G/AG/N/CAN/159)  ................................ ...........................  33 
2.3.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ .........................  35 
2.3.5   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/88, G/AG/N/CRI/93)  ................................ ............................  33 
2.3.6   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/67, G/AG/N/ECU/68, G/AG/N/ECU/69)  ................................ ...... 35 
2.3.7   India (G/AG/N/IND/29)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  35 
2.3.8   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/282)  ................................ ................................ ........................  36 
2.3.9   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/21, G/AG/N/KAZ/22, G/AG/N/KAZ/23)  ................................ . 37 
2.3.10    New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/138)  ................................ ................................ ............  38 
2.3.11    Paraguay  (G/AG/N/PRY/36)  ................................ ................................ ...................  38 
2.3.12    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ....................  39 
2.3.13    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1, G/AG/N/GBR/20)  ................................ ........  39 
2.3.14    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1, G/AG/N/USA/169)  ........................  40 
2.3.15    Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/81, G/AG/N/URY/82, G/AG/N/URY/83, G/AG/N/URY/84)  ............  41 
2.3.16    Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/20)  ................................ ................................ ..................  43 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES  (TABLE DS:2)  ................................ . 45 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/155, G/AG/N/AUS/155/Rev.1, G/AG/N/AUS/158)  ......................  45 
2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/160)  ................................ ................................ .....................  45 
2.4.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/161)  ................................ ................................ .....................  49 
2.4.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/88)  ................................ ................................ .............  50 
2.4.5   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/27)  ................................ ................................ .......................  52 
2.4.6   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/170)  ................................ .............................  53 
2.4.7   Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/52)  ................................ ................................ ......................  53 
2.5   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............  53 
2.5.1   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/27)  ................................ ................................ .................  53 
2.6   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  .......................  54 
2.6.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/154, G/AG/N/CAN/155, G/AG/N/CAN/156)  ................................ . 54 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  54 
3.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  54 
3.2   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  55 
3.3   Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  55 
3.4   Europea n Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  55 
3.5   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  55 
3.6   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  55 
4   DEFERRED REPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 56 
4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 ............  56 
4.1.1   Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ ...........  56 
4.1.1.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107044)  ................................ ...................  56 
4.1.2   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United 
States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related servic es (SIM 770)  ........................  57 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.1.2.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107036, 107046, 107049, 107053, 107056, 
107058, 107065, 107068)  ................................ ................................ ................................  57 
4.1.3   United Kingdom's banking and financia l restrictions (SIM 810)  ................................ ..... 57 
4.1.3.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107066)  ................................ ...............  57 
4.1.4   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in excess 
of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ ....................  57 
4.1.4.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107045, 107047, 107062, 107067, 107069)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 57 
4.1.5   Burkina Faso's domestic  support (SIM 845)  ................................ ...............................  58 
4.1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107008)  ................................ ....... 58 
4.1.6   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  ................................ ......................  58 
4.1.6.1    Question by Russian Feder ation (AG -IMS ID 107048, 107050, 107054, 107059, 107064, 
107060)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  58 
4.1.7   Cameroon's import sub stitution policy (SIM 846)  ................................ ........................  59 
4.1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107009)  ................................ ....... 59 
4.1.8   Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ .......................  59 
4.1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107118)  ................................ ...................  59 
4.1.9   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport (SIM  778) ....... 59 
4.1.9.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107051, 107055, 107061)  ......................  59 
4.1.10    European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports (SIM 782)  ..............  60 
4.1.10.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107052, 107057, 107063)  ....................  60 
4.1.11    India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme (SIM 471)  ................................ . 61 
4.1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 107028)  ................................ ...........................  61 
4.1.11.2    Question by United States of America, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107149)  .........................  61 
4.1.12    India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision (SIM 852)  ................  61 
4.1.12.1    Question by Australia, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107151)  ................................ ...............  61 
4.1.12.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 107152)  ................................ ...........................  61 
4.1.12.3    Question by United States of America, Australia, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107018)  ...........  61 
4.1.13    Tanzania's export restriction on maize (SIM 860)  ................................ ......................  62 
4.1.13.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 107127)  .............  62 
4.1.14    Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  ................................ ...........................  62 
4.1.14.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107083)  ................................ ................................  62 
4.1.15    Türkiye's increased import tariffs (SIM 833)  ................................ .............................  62 
4.1.15.1    Question by United States of America, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107131)  .........................  62 
4.1.16    Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  ................................ ................................ ........  63 
4.1.16.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada (AG -IMS ID 107130)  . 63 
4.1.17    Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ .. 63 
4.1.17.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Japan (AG -IMS 
ID 107129)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  63 
4.1.18    United Arab Emirates - Rice export ban  (SIM 862)  ................................ ....................  64 
4.1.18.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
107134)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  64 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..............................  64 
4.2.1   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ....................  64 
4.2.1.1    Bangladesh (G/AG/N/BGD/5, G/AG/N/BGD/6, G/AG/N/BGD/7)  ................................ .. 64 
4.2.1.2    Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/20, G/AG/N/BFA/21, G/AG/N/BFA/22)  .............................  65 
4.2.1.3    India (G/AG/N/IND/29)  ................................ ................................ ........................  65 
  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Australia - Farm Investment Loans programme  (SIM 864)  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107076 ) 
India notes that Australia has been running the Farm Investment Loans program me through the 
Regional Investment Corporation. India also notes from the official guidelines that the programme 
is used to provide loans to farm businesses that are in finan cial need of loans, especially if the farm 
business has been impacted by factors outside its control. The guidelines also mention that the 
program replaces and builds on other concessional loan schemes such as Farm Finance, Drought 
Recovery, Drought Assist ance, Dairy Recovery, and Business Improvement Concessional loans.  
Several regional initiatives continue to provide concessional loans for drought recovery and drought 
assistance. For example, Queensland provides Drought Ready and Recovery Finance Loans, and 
Drought Preparedness Grants and New South Wales also has several programs for payments related 
to disaster relief.  
Refer to:  
https://www.ric.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/20230807_Farm -Investment -Guidelines -
v4.5_WEB_0.pdf , Farm investment loan guidelines: loans for farm businesses (ric.gov.au)  and 
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture -land/farm -food-drought/drought/assistance/ric . 
In this context, India reques ts Australia to provide details, as follows:  
a. What has been the total number of beneficiaries under the Farm Investment Loans 
programme, as on date?  
b. Whether the Farm Investment Loans operate alongside these other regional programmes 
to provide concessional loans?  
c. Further, in continuation of part (b), whether a farmer who has benefited  from the Farm 
Investment Loan after demonstrating financial need (based on the damage suffered due 
to drought) under the guidelines, can avail the benefits under the other init iatives for 
drought assistance or recovery in operation, at the State level?  
1.1.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107077 ) 
India not es that the eligibility criteria of the Farm Investment Loans program states that the loans 
are only available to "Farm businesses that solely or mainly supply, or intend to solely or mainly 
supply, products into supply chains that are interstate and/or ou tside Australia ". The guidelines of 
the program also state that a business will be eligible for a Farm Investment Loan regardless of the 
mix between its actual or intended interstate and/or overseas sales, as long as the business 
demonstrates intent to sup ply outside the state or territory. 
(https://www.ric.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/20230807_Farm -Investment -Guidelines -
v4.5_WEB_0.p df). Thus, as per India 's understanding, the purpose of the program is to provide 
credit to agricultural exporters in Australia.  
In this context, India seeks the following details:  
a. As the loans under the program have a repayment term of 5 -10 years, with only 
repayments on intere sts to be made for the first five years, could Australia state how the 
repayment terms under this program comply with Para 15(a) of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision, 2015?  
b. How is Australia ensuring that this export -contingent programme is compliant with 
Australia 's commitments under  the AoA, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition (2015) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.2  Canada - Dairy Innovation and Investment Fund  (SIM 865)  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107010 ) 
New Zealand notes that the Canadian government has launched a new CA D 333 million 'Dairy 
Innovation and Investment Fund ' to "help the Canadian dairy sector increase its competitiveness 
and adapt to new market realities " through providing Canadian dairy processors funding to "increase 
solids non -fat processing capacity " in order to "better manage the structural surplus of sol ids non -
fat in Canada " (press release here). Could Canada please provide some additional information 
regarding this programme:  
a. How large is Canada 's surplus solids non -fat in total, in each of the past five years?   
b. What additional solids non -fat processing capacity - which products, and in what volumes 
- does Can ada expect or aim for this Fund to deliver?  
c. Will additional production be consumed domestically, or could it lead to an increase in 
exports of Canada 's structural surplus of solids non -fat onto the global market?  
i. The Dairy Innovation and Investment Fund 'Applicant Guide ' (here) notes that to be 
eligible, applicants must "demonstrate there is a market for all milk components ", and 
the Project Application Package requires "copies of dairy product(s) market studies " if 
available – "for example, marketing plans identifying the products being sold and 
targeted market segments ". Will Canada approve funding for projects that identify 
exports  as a targeted market?  
ii. If so, what increase in exports of solids non -fat could this Fund lead to or support? 
What products, and in what volumes?  Will Canada report such exports supported by 
this government subsidy?  
d. Will this Fund, and its subsidies for new  solids non -fat processing capacity, lead to an 
increase or permit an increase in exports of Canada 's structural surplus of solids non -fat 
onto the global market? If so, what products and in what volumes?  
e. How will this Fund interrelate with Canada 's Milk C lass System solids non -fat pricing, 
e.g. Class 4(a) and Special  Milk Classes 5(b) and 5(c)? New Zealand notes that the 
cumulative effect of subsidising additional processing capacity of solids non -fat under this 
Fund and providing special (cross -subsidised?) pricing for the purchase of solids non -fat 
under such Milk C lasses could have a significant impact on trade.   
1.3  Costa Rica's rice policy  (SIM 866)  
1.3.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107014 ) 
Costa Rica 's use of market price support, followed by its use of reference prices, to manipulate rice 
prices domestic ally for both producers and consumers have been a long -standing concern in this 
Committee.  However, it is welcome news that on 3 August 2022, the Government of Costa Rica 
signed two Decrees (38884 -MEIC and 39763 MAG -MEIC-COMEX), which repealed the rice ref erence 
prices.  Further, the MFN tariff on paddy rice was reduced from 35 % to 4.5 % and milled rice was 
reduced from 35 % to 5%. 
It is understood that these actions were amongst the first actions taken under the "Rice Path ", which 
was developed by an inter -institutional team that included the Vice President and Ministers of 
agriculture, economy, and foreign trade. For purposes of experience sharing amongst Members:   
a. Please describe the policy changes undertaken by Costa Rica.  
b. Please explain why these changes w ere undertaken.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.4  Costa Rica's support to micro, small and medium -sized producers  (SIM 867)  
1.4.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107080 ) 
In (WT/TPR/S/392 ), it is stated that Costa Rica provides domestic support to the micro, small and 
medium -sized producers through the Institutional Supply Programme, which the National Production 
Council (CNP) implements, to meet the food supply needs of State instituti ons. The latter are obliged 
by law to acquire these supplies through direct procurement, via the CNP, which must ensure that 
supplies are produced by micro, small and medium -sized agricultural and agro -industrial producers 
and national fisheries.  
In this r egard, India would like to seek information on the following:  
a. At what prices does the National Production Council (CNP) procure food supplies from the 
micro, small and medium -sized agricultural and agro -industrial producers and national 
fisheries?  
b. What ite ms are included in "food supplies " under the Institutional Supply Program?  
c. What are the eligibility criteria for the micro, small and medium -sized agricultural and 
agro-industrial producers and national fisheries to participate in this programme?  
d. Is the ab ove-mentioned programme still in operation?   
1.5  Egypt's export restriction on onions  (SIM 868)  
1.5.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Switzerland , Canada  (AG-
IMS ID 107003 ) 
Media reporting indicates that Egypt have applied an export restriction on onions.  Could Egypt please 
clarify if this is correct?  If an export restriction on onions has been applied, could Egypt please 
confirm:  
a. The nature of this measure and its intended duration?  
b. What consideration has been given to the potential effects of this measure on importing 
Members ' food security, in accordance with Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
c. Whether Egypt plans to submit an ER:1 notification for this measure?   
1.6  France's  new livestock support package  (SIM 869)  
1.6.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107038 ) 
The French Court of Auditors, Cour de Comptes, in a report (OBSERVATIONS DÉFINITIVES) 
published on 22 May 2023, entitled "Les soutiens publics aux éleveurs de bovins ", considered the 
economic model of French livestock farmi ng to be fragile, as its viability  depended on the "high level 
of public support". The report characterizes the sector as the most heavily subsidized in the country, 
with support of EUR 4.3 billion a year. The Court of Auditors recommends pursuing the goal  of 
reducing the country's cattle herd, including converting producers to other crops. The report is 
available at:  
https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/les -soutiens -publics -aux-eleveurs -de-bovins   
For his part, the Minister for Agricult ure and Food Sovereignty, Marc Fesneau, on the occasion of the 
Livestock Summit in Clermont -Ferrand ( 2-4 October), announced a new support package for the 
sector, exemptions and direct payments of more than EUR 30  million, as well as financing lines of 
around EUR 400 million.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Given the high level of tariff protection (with mixed MFN tariffs of up to 12.8% plus specific tariffs 
that can exceed EUR 3 ,000/ton ne for beef cuts) and non -tariff protection (such as the 
anti-deforestation legislation that is about t o come into force), how does France believe that granting 
additional support to its livestock sector is in line with the best trade practices pursued in this 
Organization, and how does it contribute to greater global efficiency in the use of financial/natu ral 
resources and to the transition  to more sustainable models of production and consumption?  
1.7  Morocco's vegetable and fertilizer  subsidies  (SIM 870)  
1.7.1   Question by European Union  (AG-IMS ID 107030 ) 
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of Morocco, announced that the Government will, for the 
first time ever, subsidize the production of tomatoes, onions, and potatoes, by 50 to 7 0% of their 
value, due to the "high price" of the seeds.  
In the House of Representatives, he stated that tomato production would be subsidized with 40,000 
to 70,000 dirhams (between 3,600 and 6,300 euro s) per hectare, potato production with 8,000 to 
15,000  dirhams (between 720 and 1,300 euro s) per hectare, and onion production with 4,000 to 
5,000 dirhams (between 360 and 450 euro s) per hectare.  
The government will also provide 600,000 ton nes of phosphate fertilizers for the coming season 
and subsidize the import of nitrogen fertilizers with 2.2 billion dirhams ( EUR 200 million).  
Seddiki recalled four consecutive years of drought, rising cultivation costs, and the earthquake that 
struck several provinces last month.  
a. Could Morocco confirm this information and provide the legal acts?  
b. When these  payments are scheduled to take place, already in 2023 or as of 2024?  
According to the latest data published by the specialised portal  EastFruit, between July 2022 and 
June 2023, Morocco exported a total of  716,700 tonnes of tomatoes  to international markets, 
representing a revenue of  990 million dollars . 
Fresh tomatoes are also  among the top 10 products exported by Morocco . According to data 
from the  2022 Annual Report on Foreign Trade, prepared by the Moro ccan Bureau de 
Change , exports of fresh tomatoes accounted for 2.4% of the total in 2022, with an increase of 
35% over the previous year's figure. More than half of the export of tomatoes go to the EU member 
States. The EU fears that the announced subsidie s (for tomatoes, onions and potatoes producers) 
would lead to further increases in the production and exports of those goods which might unfairly 
increase the competitive advantage of Moroccan producers vis -à-vis EU producers and have an 
impact on the EU m arket in terms of prices and profitability as Morocco is a major supplier (e.g. 
Morocco has an estimated market share of 8% of total apparent consumption in the EU for 
tomatoes). Moreover, subsidies linked to production, tend to reduce incentives for produ cers to boost 
efficiency and more sustainable agriculture.  
c. Could Morocco provide an estimation of the total hectares used for tomatoes and onions 
growing between 2020 and 2022?  
d. What kind of tomatoes are targeted by the measure? What is the proportion of to matoes 
for export that will benefit from the aid?  
e. What are the criteria and conditions for receiving this type of subsidy?  
f. What is the expectation in terms of take -up of this measure in terms of number of farmers, 
production and surface for the three crop s mentioned?  
g. What is the percentage as compared to the total figures for the three crops?  
h. What is the average level of the aid compared to the total costs incurred by farmers and 
or total turnover for the three crops mentioned?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 12 - 
 
  i. How would Morocco notify t his type of support in their DS:1 notification? The last DS:1 
notification from Morocco is from 2012.  
j. As concerns the news on the fertilisers that: The government will also provide 
600,000  tonnes of phosphate  fertilizers for the coming season and subsidize the import of 
nitrogen fertilizers with 2.2 billion dirhams ( EUR 200 million), the EU wonders whether 
Morocco has reflected on alternative approaches which could result in more sustainable 
use of fertilisers  and pesticides thereby limiting  soil degradation and other negative 
environmental impacts.  
1.8  Morocco's export restriction on olive oil  (SIM 871)  
1.8.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, Switzerland , Canada , Japan  
(AG-IMS ID 107005 ) 
Media reporting indicates Morocco have applied an export restriction on olive oil. Assuming this 
reporting is accurate, could Morocco p lease confirm:  
a. The nature and intended duration of this measure?   
b. What consideration Morocco has given to the effects of this measure on importing Members 
in line with Article 12.1 (a) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Whether Morocco will be submitting an E R:1 notification for this measure?  
1.9  Myanmar's export restriction on rice  (SIM 872)  
1.9.1   Question by United Kingdom , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107006 ) 
Media reporting indicates that Myanmar have introduced an export restriction on rice. We understand 
this is, in part, in response to export restrictive measures being introduced by others. If this reporting 
is correct, could Myanmar please cla rify: 
a. The background and rationale, including any market analysis used to inform the decision 
taken on the imposition of this restriction?   
b. The nature and intended duration of this measure?  
c. If Myanmar plans to submit an ER:1 notification to the Committee o n Agriculture?  
1.10  New Zealand - Productive and Sustainable Land Use Programme  (SIM 873)  
1.10.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 107082 ) 
India notes that the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) offers Farming Funds and programs under 
its 'Funding and Rural Support ' initiative. Farming Funds and programme provides a package named 
'Productive and Sustainable Land Use ' (PSLU). This package ai ms to promote farm land -use practices 
that deliver more value and improved environmental outcomes. Work of this programme is said to 
incorporate supporting market access and export systems through protecting high -value food 
exports.  
(https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding -rural-support/farming -funds -and-programmes/productive -and-
sustainable -land-use/) 
In this regard,  
a. How does New Zealand classify this measure?  
b. Has the measure been notified in its DS notification?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 13 - 
 
  c. What has been the total expenditure under the programme in the most recent year?  
d. The MPI New Zealand website states that the program me is also a imed at protecting 
high-value exports. Could New Zealand clarify what protection is being advanced to the 
exports and what is the quantum of expenditure under PSLU dedicated to protecting high -
value exports?  
e. What products are classified as high -value expor ts for PSLU?  
1.11  Türkiye's transport tax on imported goods  (SIM 874)  
1.11.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107132 ) 
In Presidential Decree 7708, dated 15 October 2023, it is stated that various levels of "an additional 
financial liabilities … shall be imposed… along with the import duty " on various HS tariff lines (or 
customs tariff statistics positions [GTIP]) under Cha pter 08.  
In Presidential Decree 4107, dated 22 June 2020, it is stated that various levels of "an additional 
financial liabilities  … shall be imposed… along with the import duty " on various HS tariff lines (or 
customs tariff statistics positions [GTIP]) u nder Chapters 07, 08, 09, 12, 18, 19, and 20.  
In Presidential Decree 2818, dated 5 August 2020, it is stated that various levels of "a mass housing 
fund surcharge… shall be imposed… along with the import duty " on various HS tariff lines (or customs 
tariff statistics positions [GTIP]) under Chapters 07, 08, 09, and 12.  
For all tariff items in Türkiye 's Goods Schedule, Türkiye has bound "other duties and charges" at 
non-zero rates for all items except for those marked "free". This includes taxes of 4 % applied to 
imports arriving by maritime transport and 3 % for imports arriving by road, rail, or air transport. 
However, information was not available on whether these taxes are still levied according to the WTO 
Trade Policy Review Secretariat Report  (WT/TPR/S/439 ).  
a. Please clarify whether Türkiye still imposes an additional transport tax on imported goods?   
b. If so, is the tax applied for all items not marked as 'free'. If not, could Türkiye list the HS 
lines for which the tax applies?  
c. The various Presidential Decrees cited above indicate additional duties or charges that are 
imposed on various agricultural imports into Türkiye.   
d. Please clarify whether each of the identified charges applied along with the import duty is 
applied only for imported goo ds or if the charge is paid by importers and domestic 
producers alike.  
e. If the charges are paid only by importers, please explain whether these charges are 
included as part of Türkiye 's MFN tariff rate.  If so, please explain how Türkiye ensures 
these additi onal charges do not result in Türkiye exceeding its bound MFN tariff rate.  
f. If these charges are only applied for imported goods, please explain how these charges 
align with Türkiye 's Goods Schedule.  
g. What is the difference between "additional financial lia bilities " and "mass housing fund 
surcharges "?  
h. What was the basis for identifying the agricultural products covered in each Presidential 
decree?  
i. What was the reason for changing the charges from " an additional financial liabilities " to 
"a mass housing fu nd surcharge "?  
j. Why are some countries exempted from the charges or assessed lower charges?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.12  U.S. food security programmes  (SIM 875)  
1.12.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107033 ) 
In September 2023, US has announced that the United States is investing USD 455 million to 
strengthen global food security and international capacity -building efforts. The investment will utilize 
more than 375,000 metric ton nes of U.S. commodities.  
The commodities in the Food for Progress program me will be sold in local and regional markets and 
proceeds will help strengthen short - and long -term food security through development of agricultural 
value cha ins and trade -promoting activities. Prior to investing in a project, USDA conducts numerous 
analyses to ensure that local production and markets will not be impacted, and U.S. commercial 
interests will not be affected.  
The EU is interested to receive more  details on the analyses conducted by the US in order to ensure 
that those programmes would not have a negative impact on the local markets.  
While appraising the efforts of the US against the global hunger and food insecurity, the EU is also 
concerned by t he continued use of in -kind food aid by the US, as well as the monetization of 
international food aid, which may be counter -productive in the efforts to improve local agricultural 
value chains.  
a. Is there an assessment available as to whether the commoditie s under the Food for 
Progress programme will all be monetised or only in case when there is a demonstrable 
need for such monetisation?   
b. Has the US considered to procure international food aid from local or regional sources 
instead of utilizing US commoditi es? 
c. The EU is looking forward to see the allocation tables for FY 2024 once available as 
announced by the USDA ( fas.usda.go v/topics/food -security ). 
1.13  U.S. Regional Agriculture Promotion Program  (SIM 876)  
1.13.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107085 ) 
In a press release No. 0215.23, dated 24  October 2023, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack 
announced that the U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture (USDA) is providing USD 2.3 billion to help 
American producers maintain and develop markets for their commodities and use U.S. commodities 
to bolster international food aid. The USDA will use USD 1.3 billion for the Regional Agricultu ral 
Promotion Program and support for specialty crop industries to diversify export markets and 
USD 1 billion to help address global hunger.   
In this context, India with an intent to understand the Regional Agriculture Promotion Program 
better, requests th e US to respond to the following:   
a. What are the specialty crops covered in this Program?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria to claim support under the Program?  
c. The press release states that in 2018 USDA developed the Agricultural Trade Promotion 
Program (A TP) to help exporters diversify their markets. The funds from ATP will expire 
next year and with that, many exporters are already curtailing their activities. Has the US 
Notified the ATP support? If yes, please provide the details.  
1.13.2   Question  by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 107135 ) 
New Zealand understands that the US has introduced a Regional Agricultural Trade Promotion 
Program for US D 1.3 billion and has further dedicated an additional USD 1 billion to 
commodity -based international food aid.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Could the United States please:  
a. Provide an outline of how the Regional Agricultural Trade Promotion Program will operate?  
b. Explain how and when both programmes will be notified to this Committee?  
c. And, finally, give details regarding what form the international food aid will take.  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.14  Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  
1.14.1   Question by Unit ed Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, Switzerland , 
Japan  (AG-IMS ID 107001 ) 
We thank Argentina for their response t o AG-IMS ID  106006 . This does not replace Argentina 's 
obligation to provide an ER:1 table to this Committee. Could Argentina please confirm when they 
will submit this notification?   
1.15  Brazil's Plano Safra programme (SIM 842)  
1.15.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 107034 ) 
The EU has taken note of the reply of Brazil to its question AG -IMS ID 106069  at the 106th CoA 
session concerning Plano Safra and its relation to the requirements of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition. From the reply  provided by Brazil it is not clear that credit lines available for Brazilian 
farmers can not be used as export financing.  
The EU would like Brazil to confirm that none of the available credit lines within Plano Safra are 
contingent on exports of agricultu ral products.  
1.15.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107035 ) 
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 106070  at the 106th CoA Brazil claimed that access to favourable 
interest rates under Plano Safra is not conditional upon the use of Brazilian materials, and requested 
the EU to indicate where the information of such conditionality was found . 
The EU would like to inform Brazil, that the information comes from the  webpage of BNDES - O 
banco nacional do desenvolvimento . And more precisely:  
The programme "moderfrota " (direct page  Moderfrota – Programa de Modernização da Frota de 
Tratores Agrícolas e Implementos Associados e Colheitadeiras (bndes.gov.br)  gives information on 
the financing of tractors and harvesters. If you click on "O que pode ser financiado ", the following 
statement appears: Os bens devem ser credenciados pelo BNDES ou importados se m similar 
nacional, com a devida comprovação.  
Another example is the PCA. (direct page PCA - Programa para Construção e Ampliação de Armazéns 
(bndes.gov.br)  gives information on the financing of irrigation. Similarly, it is necessary to click on 
"o que pode ser financiado " and the same mention appears.  
Finally, on another page of the BNDES, concerning the Pronaf (familial agriculture) Pronaf - itens 
financiáve is (bndes.gov.br), the following details appear:  
Máquinas e equipamentos  
1. Itens novos: produzidos no Brasil, que constem da relação da  Secretaria Especial de Agricultura 
Familiar e do Desenvolvimento Agrário, observando a descrição mínima e valor máximo de cada 
item; constem da relação do Credenciamento de Fornecedores Informatizado (CFI) do BNDES; 
atendam aos parâmetros relativos aos índices mínimos de nacionalização definidos nos normativos 
do BNDES aplicáveis ao Finame; e tenham até 80 CV  de potência, quando se tratar de tratores e G/AG/W/243  
 
- 16 - 
 
  motocultivadores; observado, por fim, que o plano, projeto ou orçamento deve conter o código do 
MDA e do CFI do BNDES, referente ao item a ser adquirido;  
2. itens novos produzidos no Brasil não credenciados: que não constem d a relação da da Secretaria 
Especial de Agricultura Familiar e do Desenvolvimento Agrário e da relação do CFI do BNDES, até o 
limite de crédito de R$ 10 mil por item financiado; salvo ordenhadeiras e seus componentes, que 
devem constar da relação de CFI do BNDES, mesmo quando de valor inferior igual ou inferior a R$ 
10 mil;  
3. itens usados: de valor financiado de até R$ 200 mil por beneficiário final quando se tratar de 
colheitadeira automotriz, e de R$ 96 mil para os demais casos, fabricados no Brasil, rev isados e com 
certificado de garantia emitido por concessionária ou revenda autorizada. O certificado de garantia 
pode ser substituído por laudo de avaliação emitido pelo responsável técnico do projeto atestando a 
fabricação nacional, o perfeito funcionamen to, o bom estado de conservação e que a vida útil 
estimada da máquina ou equipamento é superior ao prazo de reembolso do financiamento.  
4. Itens novos importados: desde que não haja fabricação no Brasil de itens com a mesma função 
atestada no plano, projet o ou orçamento, exclusivamente para apoio por meio das Linhas PRONAF 
Mais Alimentos e PRONAF Agroindústria. A comprovação de inexistência de similar nacional deverá 
ser realizada por meio dos documentos exigidos pelo produto BNDES Automático, os quais deve rão 
ser mantidos no dossiê da operação.  
Can Brazil explain how the condition upon the use of Brazilian materials complies with paragraph  4 
of Article III of GATT 1994 in the light of paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to the TRIMS agreement?  
1.16  Brazil's new program me to restore pastureland  (SIM 843)  
1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107007 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106021 , Brazil stated that some programme design aspects of its newly 
announced programme to restore pastureland with funding of up to USD 120 billion were still being 
defined and that more information could be provided in the future.   
a. Is Brazil able to now prov ide further information regarding this programme?  
b. If so, please provide further information regarding this programme.  
c. If so, please describe if and how environmental and social gains accruing from this 
programme will be measured.  
d. If not, please provide fur ther details with regards to the timeline for the development of 
this programme and when it is scheduled to be fully implemented.  
1.17  Canada's Dairy Policies (SIM 594)  
1.17.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107078 ) 
India understands from Canada 's response to AG -IMS ID 106134 , that the Dairy Direct Payments 
Program is aimed at "the transition to a new market environment as a result of the market access 
concessions Canada has made in recent trade a greements, and to support the industry in mitigating 
these impacts ". According to Canada 's statement, these market access concessions include 
concessions made under the CETA, CPTPP, and CUSMA.  
India thanks Canada for its response to AGIMS ID 106134, howev er, the details about the economic 
methodology used by Canada are still awaited to understand the determination of the quantum of 
payments under the Dairy Direct Payments, to specifically assess the impact of the three above -
mentioned  Free Trade Agreements . G/AG/W/243  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.18  Canada's Advanced  Payments Program (SIM 847)  
1.18.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107079 ) 
Canada runs the Advance Payments Progra m (APP) as a federal loan guarantee program me that 
provides agricultural producers with easy access to low -cost cash advances. A cash advance for the 
purpose of this program is calculated based on up to 50% of the anticipated market value of the 
eligible agricultural products that are being produced or that are held in storage.  
(https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/programs/advance -payments)  
In this regard, India requests Canada to answer the following:  
a. Canada stated in its reply to AGIMS ID 106136 part (c) "Since the APP constitutes non -
product specific support provided in favour of agricultural producers in general, the share 
of expenditures for sheep and beef is unavailable ". If the support is non -product specific 
in nature, then how APP payments are calculated based on the anticipated market value 
of eligible products?  
b. In light of Part (a) could Canada provide the anticipated market value determined for 
certain eligible products such as sheep, cattle, and foodgrains?  
c. Further, based on determined anticipated market values for eligible products mentioned 
in part (b), could Canada share the total expenditure on each eligible product out of the 
APP budget?  
d. The eligibility criteria of the APP states that 'the majority of agricultural products are 
eligible for an APP advance '. India also notes "Livestock that has been sent for slaughter, 
animals under supply management (for example, dairy cows and poultry), and breeding 
animals that are not intended for the ma rket during the production period are  not eligible  
under the program ". Canada may please provide a list of other agricultural products which 
are not eligible for the APP advances?  
1.19  Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107012 ) 
New Zealand thanks Canada for directing New Zealand to the Canadian Dairy Information Centre 
(CDIC) for information on Canadian exports of dairy products.  
New Zealand notes, however, that Canada 's "Canadian Dairy Exports " data on the CDIC website 
(here) provides export data at the HS8 -digit level for most dairy exports, but it does not do so for 
certain products which Canada 's customs tariff, a nd Canada 's MA:2 notifications to the WTO, outline 
as dairy products , or contain high levels of dairy content.  For example in subheadings HS3054.00 
and 1901.90:  
• Canada 's customs tariff specifies that "Milk protein substances with a milk protein content 
of 85% or more by weight, calculated on the dry matter, are classified in tariff item No. 
3504.00.11 or 3504.00.12 " (Chapter 35 Supplementary Note 1, p457, here).  
• Further, Canada 's customs tariff specifies, for example, that 1901.90.53/54 and 
1901.90.33/34 are for "food preparations of goods of headings 04.01 to 04.04 ", containing 
"50% or more on a dry weight basis of milk solids " and "more than 10% but less than 
50% on a dry weight basis of milk solids " respectively.  
• These codes are also specified in Canada 's MA:2 notifications setting out Canada 's dairy 
quotas ( link): TQ ID CANQ022 "Milk Protein Substances " and CANQ014 "Other Dairy ". 
a. New Zealand notes that for these products, Canada only publishes data at the HS6 -digit 
level (3504.00 and 1 901.90). Could Canada please provide export data at the 8 -digit level 
within these subheadings for transparency?  
In the absence of published 8 -digit data to date, New  Zealand notes the HS6 -digit data published 
by Statistics Canada, available on the CDIC w ebsite ( here), and replicated on the Global Trade Atlas, G/AG/W/243  
 
- 18 - 
 
  demonstrates that Canada 's exports of these products have increased sharply over the past five 
calendar years (2018 -2022):  
• HS3504.00 export volumes have increased by 369% (from 4,758 tonnes to 22,331 tonnes), 
and  
• HS 1901.90 export volumes have increased by 178% (from 65,025 tonnes to 
180,957  tonnes).  
• In both cases, this is a his torical peak in Canada 's exports of these HS subheadings, which 
as noted above in question 1 can contain high levels of dairy content.  
This would suggest that there has in fact been a sharp increase in Canada 's overall dairy exports in 
recent years, when taking into account dairy containing exports under these subheadings.  
b. Can Canada please comment on this, and provide information to help Members understand 
the reasons for such an increase?   
1.20  Canada 's Review of  the TRQ System (SIM 536)  
1.20.1   Question  by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107037 ) 
In reference to question AG -IMS ID 105024 , Brazil would like to refer to the recent approval of Bill 
C-282 in the House of Commons by a comfortable margin, with prospects that the bill could become 
law in the coming weeks. This piece of legislation excludes products  covered by the "supply 
management system" fro m possible trade negotiations and, thus, from any form of facilitating access 
to the Canadian market.  
Considering the possible impairment of the  Canadian Government 's capability to fulfill its 
commitments under the Uruguay Round, notably the balance in ea ch Member's concessions between 
the areas of industrial and agricultural goods, services and TRIPS, crowned by the principle of 
"single  undertaking", are there plans to question the validity of Bill C -282 in case of parliamentary 
approval?  
1.20.2   Question  by Unit ed Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS ID 107002 ) 
We note Canada 's response to AG -IMS ID  106007 . Please could Canada clarify the remaining steps 
that need to be completed in order for them to conclude their TRQ review, and when the outcomes 
from the review will be available to WTO Members?   
1.21  Canada's  tariff rate quo ta for cheese (SIM 345)  
1.21.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107011 ) 
Is Canada considering proportionately reall ocating its WTO tariff rate quota (TRQ) for cheese back 
to the MFN quota allocation for non -EU exporters to reflect the exit of the United Kingdom from 
the EU in 2020?   
1.22  China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  
1.22.1   Question by Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107013 ) 
In light of the responses China has provided to previous questions asked by Canada in AG -IMS ID s 
104105 , 105028 , 105029 , and 106073 , as well as in AG -IMS ID s 105025  and 106074 , Canada would 
like to follow up in the hope of receiving comprehensive and complete answers.   
In response to Canada 's questions in AG -IMS ID 104105, 105028, 105029, and 106073 on how 
China 's Blue Box measures for rice in husk ( G/AG/N/CHN/66 ) and corn and soybeans 
(G/AG/N/CHN/67 ) are production -limiting, China stated that "the signal of productio n limit was 
released ". Could China provide official publications that would include details of programme eligibility 
criteria, conditions, mechanisms or policy tools that have the effect of limiting the production of 
these commodities (e.g., production quo tas), and that demonstrate that production needs to be 
limited for producers to receive Blue Box payments?   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Furthermore, China has yet to provide detailed responses to questions in AG -IMS ID 105025 and 
106074. Canada would appreciate full and detailed resp onses for each of these questions.   
With respect to key beef/cattle sector information, China indicated that "the current statistical 
system of Chinese central government makes it difficult to count support measures of local 
governments. There is no furthe r information to be provided. " In this regard, Canada would like to 
seek the following clarifications:   
a. Could China confirm whether the current statistical system 's difficulties in obtaining 
local/provincial measures applies to all commodity sectors includ ing beef and cattle?  
b. In light of the difficulties encountered by the central government 's statistical system, could 
China confirm whether it has included and accounted for all local/provincial domestic 
support measures in its domestic support notifications , as per paragraph 3 of Annex 3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?   
c. If not, could China provide information on steps and approaches it is taking to address 
this issue?  
1.23  EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  
1.23.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS I D 107021 ) 
Following up on question AG -IMS ID 106010 , to which the European Union replied it hoped "to tu rn 
this regulation into an opportunity", Brazil should emphasize that agricultural exports represented 
47.6% of the country's total exports in 2022, when the commodities potentially impacted by the 
UEDR correspond to more than 60% of this value.  
There is m uch concern about potential disruption in international trade by December 2024, with 
halted flows, not for non -compliance, but simply because there is no agreed means of proving 
compliance. In the meantime, countries that have already consumed their native  vegetation in the 
past will be in an advantageous position to gain market share in a highly competitive environment, 
with possible tectonic shifts in global trade, derived from an unilateral, discriminatory and rushed 
piece of legislation. In this regard,  Brazil demands that the European Union indicate precisely in the 
UEDR and the respective implementing acts:   
a. the cooperation mechanisms raised in the response under consideration, which seem to 
motivate optimism about the effects of the legislation, given  the order of commercial 
importance it represents for Brazil and other Members of this Committee, recalling that 
the cooperation mechanisms indicated in the response to question AG-IMS ID 105034  are 
non-specific;   
b. provisions against disruptive effects on the global market for the commodities indicated, 
in the ev ent of imbalances in the initial phase of implementation.  
1.23.2   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 107081 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106140 , the EU stated that the rules are designed to ensure that products 
sold in the EU from any country, including the EU member States, comply wit h the same 
requirements in terms of preventing deforestation. However, the benchmarking system established 
by the regulation imposes different due diligence obligations on operators from high -risk and low -
risk countries.  
Further, for a measure to be justi fied under Article XX of the GATT 1994, the measure should also 
satisfy the requirements of the chapeau of the Article i.e., it is not applied in a manner that would 
constitute "a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where t he same 
conditions prevail ", and is not a "disguised restriction on international trade ". 
In this context, India reiterates its question and again requests the EU to explain how does the EU 's 
measure justify the chapeau requirements of Article XX of the GATT 1994?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.24  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) (SIM 515)  
1.24.1   Question by Australia , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107039 ) 
Austr alia thanks India for its response to AG -IMS ID 106028 . However, we note that India did not 
adequately answer the question. With regard to the Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for 
Specified Agricultural Products Scheme:  
a. Please provide the following data for each year (2019 to present):  
i. the total value of  export subsidy provided, including breakouts by agricultural product 
or product group (please identify at the HS 6 -digit level) ; 
ii. the total quantity of subsidized exports ; and  
iii. the average subsidy rates.  
b. Please explain whether  the TMA scheme has been exten ded after 31 March 2022. If the 
TMA is still in effect, please explain whether it will expire on 31 December 2023, in 
accordance with the Nairobi Decision.  
1.24.2   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 107072 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 106028 , we welcome the news that India is committed to eliminating all export 
subsidies by 31 December 2023.  However, India did not respond to the question asked and therefore 
it is resub mitted.   
As a follow up to AG -IMS IDs 95051  and 93010 , it is noted that India's Department of Commerce 
introduced the "Transport  and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for Specified Agriculture Products 
Scheme " to provide assistance for the international component of freight costs faced by Indian 
exporters of agriculture products. The scheme was in effect between 1 March 2019 and 
31 March  2021. However, the Department notified a "Revised TMA for exports after 1 April 2021 to 
31 March 2022. " We note that major changes have been made in the revised TMA Scheme, such as 
the coverage of dairy products, which were not previously covered, and that  rates of assistance were 
increased, by 50 % for exports by sea and by 100 % for exports by air.  
a. Please provide the following data for each year (2019 to present):   
i. The total value of export subsidy provided, including breakouts by agricultural product 
or product group (please identify at the HS 6 -digit code);  
ii. The total quantity of subsidized exports; and  
iii. The average subsidy rates.  
b. Please  explain whether the TMA scheme has been extended after 31 March 2022. If the 
TMA is still in effect, please explain whe ther it will expire on 31 December 2023, in 
accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.   
1.25  India's national food security bill (SIM 319)  
1.25.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 107120 ) 
On 5 November 2023, the Times of India ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/free -ration -
scheme -to-be-extended -5-more-years -pm-modi/articleshow/104 974993.cms?from=mdr ) reported 
that India had announced the extension of the PM Garib Kalyan Ann Yojna (PMGKAY) free foodgrains 
scheme, under the National Food Security Act (NFSA), for the next five years, with the intent ion to 
provide free foodgrain to 800 million poor people.  
 G/AG/W/243  
 
- 21 - 
 
  a. Could India clarify whether procurement under the extended PMGKAY will be made at 
current market prices or through an applied administered price?   
b. If India 's procurement of foodgrains under the extended PMGKAY will be made through an 
applied administered price, could India:  
i. Clarify how the impact of this approach on its WTO domestic support commitments 
has been considered in its decision -making process?  
ii. Provide the considerations that would make procurement at applied administered 
prices preferable to procurement at current market prices, considering the latter would 
minimize trade distortions while preserving its effectiveness?  
1.26  India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision  (SIM 852)  
1.26.1   Question  by United States of America , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 107017 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106029 , India stated it was still collecting the requested information 
regarding how it calculates its public stockholding for food security expenditures; therefore, the 
question is being resubmitted.   
In response to AG -IMS ID 105038 , India stated it was not able at the time to provide details with 
regards to what the notified value under Annex 2, paragraph 3 includes a nd excludes as compared 
to "Total Food Subsidy " in the Government of India 's Expenditure Budget for 2020 -21 through 
2023-24, or why the values for "Total Food Subsidy " were significantly larger than what was notified 
under Annex 2, paragraph 3.   
a. Is India i n a position to provide the requested information in parts (a) and (b) of AG -IMS 
ID 105038 ? 
b. Please indicate the data source and methodology for the notified value provided by India 
for "public stockholding for food security " in its domestic support notifications.  
1.26.2   Question by United States of America, Australia , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107022 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106027  India stated "The information is not compiled in the requested 
form" with regards to information that is required as part of its response to 2.d of the Annex of the 
Bali Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes.   
Is India currently compiling the requested information?  
1.27  India's public stockpiling  (SIM 525)  
1.27.1   Question by United States  of America, Australia , Canada , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 
107016 ) 
Dating back as far as 2015, Members have been asking India about state bonuses provided over the 
announced minimum support prices reported in Supporting Table DS:5, as well as in more recent 
years the Stat istical Appendix ( "f. Purchase prices "). 
When Members last inquired as to an update on the ability of India to provide information on state 
bonuses in March 2023 (AG -IMS ID 104021 ), India stated, "The information is not available at the 
moment. "  
a. Please provide Members an update on the gathering of this information that has been 
requested for many years and has yet to be appropriately included in India 's domestic 
support notifications.  
When Members inquired in AG -IMS ID 105050  about information on state bonuses in India 's 
response to "f. Purchase Prices " in the Statistical Appendix, India stated, "India has dul y G/AG/W/243  
 
- 22 - 
 
  notified all the required information under the Bali Annex " for each of the three 
sub-questions.   
b. Please explain whether this response was solely related to India 's position that only 
information on rice should be included in the Statistical Appendix per  sub-question a) or if 
Members should understand India 's response in the context of sub -question b) that India 
is of the opinion that the purchase prices, which in many years, for certain states, includes 
bonuses, are not required to be included in the Sta tistical Appendix.  
c. Please confirm that for sub -question c), India is not willing to share all of the data sources 
used to compile the Statistical Appendices in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 . 
1.28  India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  
1.28.1   Question by United  States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
107020 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 106022 , India noted that the quantity of non -basmati rice India considered to be for 
adequate availability varies "depending on various elements, inclu ding population size, agriculture 
production, food habits, demand & supply, natural calamities, and unforeseen pandemics. " It is 
recognized that various factors could contribute to this quantity varying over time, but we remain 
interested in understanding India 's assessment regarding "adequate availability of non -basmati 
white rice in the Indian market " at the time of the decision to impose an export ban on non -basmati 
rice. At the time of the decision there were various media reports indicati ng there were sufficient 
supplies to meet domestic demand.  Further, USDA estimates of Indian rice production were 
134 million ton nes in August 2023 and its estimates of Indian rice stocks were 36 million ton nes 
in 2023/24.   
What quantity of public stocks o f rice did India consider adequate for domestic needs at the time 
this export restriction was put in place?  
1.28.2   Question by Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 10702 5) 
Australia thanks India for its response to question AG -IMS ID 106022  and has a follow -up question 
relating to its export restrictions on non -basmati white rice. We appreciate the need for India to 
ensure domestic food security, however, we are aware of media reporting that  rice stocks are 
exceeding Government targets by millions of metric ton nes 
(https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ indias -november -rice-stocks -state-warehouses -
around -double -target -2023-11-08/). 
We would like to again question India on the quantity of public stocks required to ensure domestic 
needs are met?   
1.28.3   Question by Japan, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107121 ) 
Japan thanks India for its replies to our questions raised at the previou s COA meeting, AG -IMS IDs 
106001 , 106003 , 106004  and 106005 . 
Japan is of the view that it is problematic, despite advance notifications are clearly stipulated in the 
Article  12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, not only  advance notifications but also the notifications 
themselves have not been made for the cases of many export restrictions that have been introduced 
by WTO Members.  Japan would like to listen to India 's view about the fact that India has not 
submitted ER:1 notification even for the ongoing export restrictions on non -basmati white rice, 
broken rice, etc.  
1.28.4   Question  by Switzerland , United Kingdom  (AG-IMS ID 107122 ) 
Switzerland notes that India has announced an export quota for non -basmati white rice for several 
countries after imposing a ban on this commodity in July 2023.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Can India indicate which countries have been granted an export quota for non -Basmati 
white rice and the respective export volumes?  
b. How many requests for export of non -Basmati white rice has India received since the ban 
was imposed and how many of these requests have resulted in exports?  
c. On what bas is does India decide whether or not to grant a requesting country an export 
quota for non -Basmati white rice?  
1.29  India's export  restrictions on wheat and rice  (SIM 306)  
1.29.1   Question by United  Kingdom, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine , Canada , Japan  (AG-
IMS ID 107075 ) 
The United Kingdom notes India 's responses provided in A G-IMS IDs 106008 , 106011 , 106037 ; in 
particular that the relevant measures are intended to be 'temporary ' and are being reviewed from  
'time-to-time'. Notwithstanding this, we would again request that India submit their 
ER:1 notifications covering the relevant measures, in line with their obligations under Article 12 1.b. 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
1.30  India's export restriction on su gar (SIM 420)  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 107024 ) 
Australia thanks India for its response to question AG -IMS ID 103091  and has a follow -up question 
relating to its export restrictions on sugar.  
On 18 October 2023 the Indian government issued Notification No. 36/2023 -Customs to extend the 
date for restrictions on export of sugar beyond the previously notified ex piration date of 
31 October  2023, with no end date specified.  
Noting Article 12, paragraph 1(b), of the Agreement on Agriculture, which states that Members shall 
specify the duration of export restrictions, could India please inform the Membership of the e xpected 
duration of this export restriction?  
1.31  India's export restrictions on onions (SIM 652)  
1.31.1   Question  by Australia, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107023 ) 
Australia thanks India for its response to question AG -IMS ID 106005  and has a follow -up question 
relating to onion exports. On 28 October 2023, the Indian government issued  the Notification 
No. 42/2023 -Customs ( https://content.dgft.gov.in/Website/dgftprod/d73ae bd9-ab58-4652-8987-
607fa0cc69ef/DGFT%20Notification%20No%2042 -2023%20dated%2028.10.2023 -ENGLISH.pdf ) 
to impose a minimum export price on onions of US D 800 per metric  tonne.  
a. Noting that in the first six months of 2023, a ccording to trade statistics compiled by the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, the monthly export price of onions averaged 
approximately US D 207 per metric  tonne. Could India please explain how it  has given 
consideration to the effects of the mea sure on importing Members ' food security given 
that only onions valued at four times the average export price will be eligible for export?  
b. Could India also explain its reasoning for the selection of a minimum export price as the 
appropriate measure to cont rol exports rather than quantitative restrictions or 
prohibitions?  
1.31.2   Question  by Canada, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 107074 ) 
On 28  October 2023, India announced the imposition of a minimum export price (MEP) of 
USD 800 FOB per metric ton ne on its export of onions (Tariff items 0703 10 10 and 0712 20 00), 
effective from 29 October 2023 until 31 December 2023 (Directorate General of Foreign Trade G/AG/W/243  
 
- 24 - 
 
  notification No.42/2023). Previously, co -sponsors of AG -IMS ID 106005  also raised questions with 
respect to India 's imposition of a 40% export duty on Ind ia's exports of onions (sub -heading 
0703 10), effective since 19 August 2023, until 31 December 2023 (Department of Revenue No. 
48/2023).  
a. Could India provide its rationale for imposing a MEP on its exports of onions?  
b. Could India confirm whether the export duty measure on onions is still in effect?   
c. If so, for onions that fall under 0703 10 10 and that would, as such, appear to be under 
the scope of both measures, could India clarify whether the 40% export duty is applied in 
addition to the MEP?  
d. Could India explain how the food security of importing Members has been considered in 
its decision to impose these export restrictions?  
e. Could India provide the timelines as to when it intends to provide an ER:1 notification for 
each of its MEP and export duty on onion s? 
f. According to Reuters ( https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india -sets-800-per-ton-
minimum -export -price-onions -till-end-decem ber-2023-10-28), India also announced the 
procurement of 200,000 ton nes of onions for its buffer, over and above the 500,000 ton nes 
already procured. Could India confirm whether there are applied minimum procurement 
prices and quantities for onions as part of India 's procurement of onions its buffer stock? 
If so, could India cite an online official source that would provide this information?   
1.32  India's export restrictions (SIM 306)  
1.32.1   Question by United States of America, Austr alia, United Kingdom, Switzerland, 
Ukraine , Canada , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 107019 ) 
In response to various questions regarding Indi a's use of export restrictions and prohibitions, India 
has made statements similar to that in response to AG -IMS ID 106008 :"The measures are temporary 
and are bein g reviewed from time to time to enable necessary changes based on domestic demand 
and supply situations. India 's measures were necessitated by the need to manage its food security 
concerns. "  
Given that India has noted these measures are temporary, for eac h export restriction or prohibition 
measure currently in place, please provide the current date that each measure is set to expire or 
confirm the measure has expired as of the date of this Committee meeting.   
a. Export ban on sugar.  
b. Export duty of 40 % on onio ns. 
c. Export ban on non -basmati white rice.  
d. Export duty of 20 % on non -basmati white rice.  
e. Export duty of 20 % on parboiled, non -basmati rice.  
f. Minimum export price on basmati rice.  
g. Export ban on wheat and wheat products.  
h. Export ban on broken rice.  
i. Export duty of 20 % on rice in the husk, husked brown rice.  
j. Export ban on de -oiled rice bran (DORB).  
 
1.33  Japan -US Trade  Agreement (SIM 564)  
1.33.1   Question  by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107123 , 107136 ) 
With regard to questions AG -IMS ID 106012 , 105035 , 106017 , and 105036 , Brazil would like to 
know when Japan and the United States will notify the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
about the 2019 bilateral trade agreement under purview?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.34  Korea's tarif f policies (SIM 785)  
1.34.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 107124 ) 
New Zealand would welcome an update from the Republic of  Korea regarding the effectiveness of 
the tariff rate reductions/zeroing on imported fruits and eggs respectively. Have these adjustments 
met the expectations set out when these trade -liberalising measures were introduced?  
1.35  Nigeria's import  prohibitions on cer tain agricultural products and use of reference 
prices for customs valuation purposes (SIM 223)  
1.35.1   Question  by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 107125 ) 
Regarding questions AG -IMS ID 98129 , 99105  and others, Brazil celebrates the decision by the 
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on 12 October, to allow free float of the national currency against 
the dollar and other global currencies including "all the 43 items  previously restricted by the 2015 
Circular referenced TED/FEM/FPC/GEN/01/010".   
In line of t he stated, Brazil would like to ask Nigeria to confirm that no other technical barrier obstruct 
our bilateral trade of these items, including rice.  
1.36  Panama's compliance with its domestic support commitments (SIM 758)  
1.36.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107126 ) 
Since 2017, Panama has consistently reported being above its authorized de minimis  levels of 
domestic suppo rt for rice.  In response to AG -IMS ID 106047 , Panama noted that the resolution 
established a temporary, one -time and non -extendable support.   
a. Please confirm when this temporary, one -time and non -extendable support will conclude.  
b. Please confirm the name of the resolution that established this support.   
1.37  South Africa's  import measures on poultry meat (SIM 807)  
1.37.1   Question by United  Kingdom, United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107004 ) 
We appreciate South Africa 's response to AG -IMS ID  105037 . In addition, could South Africa provide 
further det ail as to the criteria, analysis and evidence used to determine the suspension of 
anti-dumping duties? Furthermore, we understand the period of suspension of anti -dumping duties 
on poultry for several Members has since lapsed – without anti -dumping duties being reapplied. 
Could South Africa also confirm whether a full review of duties on all WTO Members are being 
considered and if so, provide a status update on this review?   
1.38  Tajikistan's export ban on onions and other vegetables (SIM 808)  
1.38.1   Question by Switze rland , Australia , United Kingdom  (AG-IMS ID 107041 ) 
In its oral response to AG -IMS ID  104070  (written answer outstanding) Tajikistan informed that it 
will submit an ER:1 notification on previous export restrictions in due course.  
Can Tajikistan p lease provide an update as to when it intends to submit the ER:1 to the CoA?  
1.39  Tanzania 's export restriction on maize and onions (SIM 860)  
1.39.1   Question  by United Kingdom , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107073 ) 
We acknowledge Tanzania 's response provided in the room during the 106th Committee on 
Agriculture to A G-IMS ID 106015 , in which it was stated that reporting on an export rest riction G/AG/W/243  
 
- 26 - 
 
  applied by Tanzania on maize was inaccurate. We think this exposes some of the current challenges 
around monitoring export restrictions and prohibitions.   
Recent reporting has also indicated that Tanzania has applied an export restriction on onions . If this 
reporting is accurate, please could Tanzania provide detail on the nature and expected duration of 
the measure, and when they will be able to submit an ER:1 notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture?   
1.40  Thailand's corn farmer income guarantee sc heme (SIM 861)  
1.40.1   Question by European  Union (AG -IMS ID 107128 ) 
Could Thailand provide information on the status of their suppo rt measure for corn production in 
form of deficiency payments, known as "Corn farmer income guarantee scheme " in English, running 
from December 2019?  
a. When does this measure expire?  
b. What is the financial allocation planned for this programme and what was t he actual 
spending in the years since 2019? How is the "guarantee price " and "average market price 
"for corn calculated under the scheme?  
c. How does Thailand intend to notify this support programme in their overdue DS:1 
notification covering the period sinc e 2016?  
d. How does Thailand assess the compatibility of this programme with its domestic support 
commitments under Agreement of Agriculture?  
1.41  Türkiye 's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.41.1   Question by United  Kingdom, Switzerland , Japan  (AG-IMS ID 107133 ) 
We would like to thank Türkiye for their response to AG -IMS ID  106056 . Notwithstanding, could 
Türkiye please confirm when they will provide an ER:1 notification to the Committee on Agriculture 
covering the relevant measures?   
1.42  Türkiye's export restrictions on olive oil (SIM 70 3) 
1.42.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107031 ) 
In August 2023, Türkiye has re -introduced export restrictive measure on oli ve oil for a period of 
three months due to the shortage of olive oil production in Mediterranean countries and subsequent 
negative effects on domestic prices.  
The Ministry of Trade (of Türkiye) stated that the additional measures have been put into effect for 
the export of olive oil in bulk or in barrels until the beginning of the next olive oil harvest period 
(1 November 2023).  
a. Could Türkiye confirm that the temporary measures have not been renewed as initially 
stated?  
b. Did the measures have the desired eff ect on the domestic market?  
1.43  UK's SSG entitlements  (SIM 761)  
1.43.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 107084 ) 
The AoA Article 5 clause 1(b), stipulates that  the trigger price for a particular product designated 
under the SSG mu st be determined using the average import prices from 1986 -88 for that specific  
product. In response to AG -IMS ID 106161 , 105104  and 102095 , the UK has expressed  its G/AG/W/243  
 
- 27 - 
 
  commitment to adhere to Ao A Article 5. Therefore, could the UK confirm if  the trigger prices for the 
relevant commodities will indeed be calculated based  on the average cost, insurance and freight 
(c.i.f.) unit values from the years  1986-88? 
1.44  United States' dairy  policies (SIM 462)  
1.44.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107086 ) 
In a news release dated 29 September 2023, there was additional dairy support to produc ers though 
two programmes i.  e. the Milk Loss Program (MLP) and the Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance 
Program (ODMAP). The US has notified the MLP in the DS:1 notification for the marketing 
year 2020-21 (G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 ) as non -exempted direct payments in  the Supporting 
Table:6. Whereas, the ODMAP  was created to assist certified organic dairy producers facing a unique 
set of challenges in recent years and provides financial  assistance o n one -time cost -share payment 
for a producer 's projected marketing costs in 2023 based on 2022 costs.  USDA recently announced 
a second round of payments for dairy producers through ODMAP, providing an additional 
USD 5 million to help dairy producers with m arketing costs to mitigate market volatility, higher input 
and transportation costs, and unstable feed supply and prices that have created unique hardships in 
the organic dairy industry.  
(https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -room/news -releases/2023/dairy -margin -coverage -program -
provides -critical -support -for-dairy-operations ) 
In this con text, India seeks to know the following,  
a. How does the one -time cost -share payment work? Is there any limit on dairy operations 
who can benefit from this programme?  
b. How much is the total budget under ODMAP?  
1.45  U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (SIM 811)  
1.45.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107032 ) 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is making more than USD 3 billion i n funding available 
for agricultural producers and forest landowners nationwide to participate in voluntary conservation 
programs and adopt climate -smart practices in fiscal year 2024 as part of President Biden 's Investing 
in America agenda. The announceme nt comes as the Biden -Harris Administration hosts the first -
ever White House Climate Resilience Summit.  
These funds are provided by President Biden 's Inflation Reduction Act – the largest climate and 
conservation investment in history . This law invests an additional USD 19.5 billion for USDA 's 
popular conservation programmes. These programmes also a dvance the President 's Justice 
Initiative, which aims to ensure 40 % of the overall benefits of certain climate, clean energy, and 
other federal investments reach disadvantaged communities that have been marginalized by 
underinvestment and overburdened by p ollution. The USDA 's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) saw record producer interest in these resources in fiscal year 2023, the agency is 
now accepting applications from producers interested in this additional conservation assistance for 
fiscal year 2024.  
This includes investing in cover crops, waste and fertilizer management, and grazing practices, while 
continuing to work through existing programmes to help producers address other natural resource 
challenges. Ultimately, this will lead to econ omic opportunity for producers, more productive soil, 
cleaner water and air, healthier wildlife habitat and natural resource conservation for future 
generations. " 
The EU notes the additional funding announced in September for agricultural producers and forest 
landowners who would participate in voluntary conservation programs and adopt climate -smart 
practices in fiscal year 2024.  
According to the same source, the U SDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) saw 
record producer interest in these resources in fiscal year 2023.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 28 - 
 
  a. Could US confirm whether certain funds have been already used in 2023 fiscal year?  
b. What were the programmes/schemes eligible for fund ing? 
c. The EU is looking forward to the DS:2 notification of the US, providing details on the 
different programmes/measures and budget distributions.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Ecuador ( G/AG/N/ECU/58 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107043: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
As noted previously in AG -IMS ID 99029 , the HS code for whole turkey, fresh or chilled, in Ecuador 's 
Table MA:2 notification is incorrect. The code listed aligns with whole turkey, fr ozen. Ecuador 
responded to AG -IMS ID  99029  stating that it would conduct a legal analysis about this matter.  
Please provide an update on whether or not  this legal analysis has been concluded, the analysis 's 
findings, and if there are plans to update the HS codes.  
2.1.2   Ecuador ( G/AG/N/ECU/70 , G/AG/N/ECU/71 , G/AG/N/ECU/72)  
AG-IMS ID 107137: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada thanks Ecu ador for its MA:2 notifications. Canada notes that, for calendar year 2019, 
Ecuador notified 0 in -quota imports for all of its tariff -rate quotas (ECUQ001 through to ECUQ014), 
and that for 2020, 2021 and 2022, Ecuador notified in -quota imports only for ECU Q005 – flint maize 
other, which have increased substantially in 2022. In the General notes, Ecuador explains that: 
(1) applied MFN tariffs for some subheadings remained below the quota tariff levels; (2) imports 
were from partners that benefit from prefere ntial treatment under trade agreements with Ecuador; 
and (3) no imports were recorded under some subheadings.   
Could Ecuador clarify:  
a. Which of Ecuador 's TRQs were subject to MFN tariffs that were below the quota tariff level;  
b. Whether the MFN applied tariff  mentioned in the notes were applied to 'out-of-quota ' 
imports,  below the in -quota bound tariff rate?  
c. How much was imported from partners that benefitted from preferential treatment and to 
which WTO TRQ these imports were linked;  
d. For which TRQ or subheadin g no imports were recorded, and the reasons why?  
AG-IMS ID 107138: Question by United States of America - Tariff quota fill  
In Ecuador 's Table MA:2 notifications from Calendar Years 2019 through 2022 ( G/AG/N/ECU/70  
through G/AG/N/ECU/73 ), the MA:2 tables show a 0 percent fill rate for all products except for Flint 
Maize in each reported year.  
a. For these products with 0 percent fill rates, are applied MFN rates lower than the in -quota 
tariff rates? Please provide the MFN and the in -quota tariff rates applied in each reported 
year and clarify where the rates are published yearly.  
b. Noting that the tariff levels and allocations of WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs) were not 
published for the years 2020 through 2022 on Ecuador 's Ministry of Agriculture 's website 
at https://www.agricultura.gob.ec/organi zacion -mundial -de-comercio/ , please clarify if 
the import quotas were opened for any of the TRQs from 2019 through 2022.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 29 - 
 
  c. The United States observes a significant increase in fill rate of Flint Maize in 2022, from 
below 2 0% in 2019, 2021, and 2022 to over 80 percent. What caused this increased fill 
rate? 
2.1.3   India ( G/AG/N/IND/30 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107139: Question by European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The European Union would like to thank India for submitting its MA:2 notificatio n for the financial 
year 2022/2023 in G/AG/ N/IND/30 . As other Members have noted in previous questions submitted 
in the framework of the Committee on Agriculture the tariff quota INDQ001 has been having a fill 
rate of 0% for years now.  
a. Has India considered changing the method of management of this tariff rate quota 
(INDQ001)?  
b. Is India taking any kind of measures to ensure that the management of its WTO tariff rate 
quotas which have a low fill rate is trade conducive?  
2.1.4   Israel ( G/AG/N/ISR/93 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107140: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We thank the delegation of Israel for submitting its MA:2 notification for 2022. We would like to 
know:  
a. The reasons for the low fill rate for quota ISRQ010 – Sweet corn; and  
b. Wheth er Israel has considered modifying the method of administering the quota to 
increase its use.  
2.1.5   Switzerland ( G/AG/N/CHE/124 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107141: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada would like to thank Switzerland for its most recent MA:2 noti fication. Could Switzerland 
confirm whether its 2022 imports of goods for industrial processing were not charged to CHEQ019, 
CHEQ020 and CHEQ021, as was the case in 2021 ( G/AG/N/CHE/119 ) and 2020 ( G/AG/N/CHE/113 )? 
If not, could Switzerland:  
a. provide details of the tariff treatment it applied to its imports of goods for industrial 
processing, including the duty rates applied?  
b. explain why its approach to tariff treatment for imports of goods for industrial processing 
was different in 2020 and 2021 vs. 2022?  
AG-IMS ID 107202: Question by Paraguay - Tariff quota fill  
We thank the delegation of Switzerland for submitting its MA:2 notification for 2022. We would like 
to know:  
 
a. The reasons for the low fill rates (below 65%) for the following quotas:  
- CHEQ003: Live swine (4%)  
- CHEQ010: Dried egg products (56%)  
- CHEQ017: Fresh apples, pears and quinces (64.1%)  
- CHEQ020: Fruit for cider and distillation (0%)  
- CHEQ026: Durum wheat, undenatured (54.6%)  
- CHEQ028: Coarse grains for human consumption (51.1% ) 
b. Whether Switzerland has considered modifying the method of administering the quota to 
increase its use.  
c. In cases where Switzerland has notified a fill rate exceeding 100% on a constant basis, 
why consideration is not being given to the permanent expansio n of the quotas concerned, G/AG/W/243  
 
- 30 - 
 
  e.g. CHEQ005 - Animals for slaughter; meat mainly produced on the basis of coarse 
fodder, CHEQ012 - Bovine semen, and CHEQ015 - Vegetables.  
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei ( G/AG/N/TPKM/227 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107203: Question  by Paraguay - Transparency issues  
We welcome Chinese Taipei's submission of its notification on SSGs applied to the category "Other 
Chicken Cuts" during the period of application 5 September -31 December 202 3. In this connection, 
we would like to know:  
 
a. The origins of the imports concerned; and  
b. Whether, given the small difference between the trigger level and the volume of imports 
indicated, Chinese Taipei, as one of the few Members that still use the SSG, ha s considered 
not using it as part of the reform process that envisages the elimination of SSG duties as 
set out in Art. 5.9 of the  AoA.  
2.2.2   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/86 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107087 : Question by India - Trigger calculations  
In response to AG -IMS ID 106171 , the EU stated that the trigger price for "boneless cuts of fowl of 
the species " has been notified in G/AG/N/EEC/2  and no changes have been made since then. 
However, we are unable to locate the reference to HS 02071410 in G/AG/N/EEC/2 .  
India requests the EU to identify the sa me or provide clarification if there have been any 
modifications to the HS code reference.  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia ( G/AG/N/AUS/142 , G/AG/N/AUS/157 , G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107089: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia in its DS:1 Notification for FY 2018 -19 (G/AG/N/AUS/142 ) and for FY 2019 -20 
(G/AG/N/AUS/157 ) has pro vided the following information with respect to non -product specific 
Amber box support:   
i. A total increase from AUD 350.14 million in 2018 -19 to AUD 950.60 million in 
2019-20;  
ii. an increase in support under the Farm Household Allowance Program from 
AUD 116.1 55 million in 2018 -19 to AUD 134.377 million in 2019 -20, and a further 
increase to AUD 180.730 million in 2020 -21 (as per Australia's response to AG -IMS 
ID 106130 ); and   
iii. an expenditure of AUD 415.673 million during FY 2019 -20 on concessional loans under 
the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) Loans scheme.   
In this regard, India has the following questions:   
a. What are the reasons behind this massive rise in non -product specific support?   
b. Could Australia state why the support under the Farm Household Allowance Program has 
shown such a marked increase in the period between 2018 -19 and 2020 -21?  
c. Is the RIC an umbrella programme for several smaller schemes? If so, Australia may 
provide a scheme -wise breakup of the expenditure.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 107142: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev. 1, in Supporting Table DS:6, for the financial year 2019/20, Australia 
notified AUD  628,000 in expenditures for the "South Australia: Red Meat and Wool Program. "  
As part of an associated footnote, Australia states that the programme contributes to improving 
sheep and cattle quality and productivity.  
a. Could Australia provide disaggregated data of the non -exempt direct payments for 
separate sheep and cattle categories?  
Under Supporting Table DS:9, Australia also notified AU D 628,000 in expenditures for the "South 
Australia: Red Meat and Wool Growth Program. " 
b. Is this programme the same programme notified in Supporting Table DS:6? If not, how 
do these programmes  differ from the perspective of product -specificity?  
AG-IMS ID 107 157: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/AUS/157  and G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 , Australia notified AUD  3.4 billion in expenditures 
related to "South Australia: On -Farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Re bate Scheme " as payments 
for relief from natural disasters. At the same time, the programme is described as support to install 
vital on -farm water infrastructure (e.g., water storages, pipes, power generators, etc.).  
a. Given its apparent focus on infrastruct ure, could Australia explain how this programme 
meets all the conditions set out in sub -paragraph (a) through (e) of Annex 2, 
paragraph  8?  
b. If this is a new/modified programme, could Australia submit a Table DS:2 notification?  
Australia has also notified e xpenditures under two other separate programmes, i.e., "On-Farm 
Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme " and "Queensland: Drought Relief Assistance 
Scheme Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate (EWIR) " in Supporting Table DS:9.   
c. Could Australia provide  the considerations as to how these programmes are different from 
"South Australia: On -Farm Emergency Water Infrastructure Rebate Scheme, " the 
perspective of their domestic support classification?   
AG-IMS ID 107158: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/AUS/157  and G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 , Australia has not notified any 
expenditures from "Australian Government: Farm Management Deposit Scheme. " Could Australia 
provide a rationale as to why it has not notified any e xpenditures under that programme?   
AG-IMS ID 107088: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks Australia for submitting the DS:1 notification for Marketing Year 2019 -20 
(G/AG/N/AUS/157 ). India also notes that in  the given marketing year, Australia has provided support 
to Red Meat under the South Australia Red Meat and Wool Programme. With reference to Supporting 
Tables DS:4, DS:6 and DS:9, India has the following questions:   
a. What specific conditions in the given marketing year prompted Australia to initiate the 
programme? Is the programme still in operation?   
b. India notes that Australia has notified support of AUD 628,000 under the South Australia 
Red Meat and Wool Program as product -specific non -exempt direct paym ents under 
Supporting Table DS:6. It is also noted that Australia has notified AUD 628,000 of support 
under the same programme as non -product specific support under Supporting Table DS:9. 
India seeks to know if the programme has both product specific and n on-product specific 
components and if so, whether the amount of support is equal under both product -specific 
and non -product specific components?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 32 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 107155: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
We note an increase in Australia 's notified Amber Box support in G/AG/N/AUS/157 , due in large part 
to the significant increase in spending under the Regional Investment Corporation Loans Scheme.   
a. Please describe this measure.  
b. Please explain the reason fo r the increase in expenditures in FY 2019/20.  
AG-IMS ID 107156: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
a. Canada notes that in G/AG/N/AUS/157  and G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 , the support Australia 
notified for "New South Wales: Natural Disaster Relief Scheme " increased from 
AUD 88.77  million in 2018/19 to AUD  243.62 million in 2019/20.  
b. Could Australia confirm whether the programme 's payment eligibility criteria excluded any 
primary producers who did not meet the trigger criteria of a production loss exceeding 
30%, as per subparagraph 8(a) of Annex 2?  
AG-IMS ID 107154: Question by Japan - Non-product -specific AMS  
Japan welcomes Australia 's submissions of DS:1 notification, G/AG/N/AUS/157 . 
With re spect to the RIC loan scheme, budgetary outlays of AUD 415.673 million in FY2019 was 
significantly higher than in FY2018 when it was first established, which accounts for nearly half of 
Total Non -Product -Specific AMS (de minimis). It is de minimis level, h owever it is exceeding far 
above the AMS commitment level.  
The provision of two -year interest free period for the drought related loans seems to have 
unprecedentedly increased the demand for loan applications ( https://www.ric.gov.au/news/ric -
loans-deliver -relief-drought -affected -communities ). It seems that large part of the AUD 400 million 
could be explained as interest subsidi es for Drought Loans and AgBiz Drought Loans. Could Australia 
provide a breakdown of the AUD 400 million? Is this increase in budget expenditure a temporary 
phenomenon, or could it be considered as leading to constant budget increase?  
AG-IMS ID 107153: Que stion by Canada - Classification of measures  
In G/AG/N/AUS/157/Rev.1 , in Supporting Table DS:9, Australia notified AUD  16 million in 
expenditures for the "Australian Government: Export and Regional Wine Support Package. " 
According to Wine Australia 's website ( https://www.wineaustralia.com/whats -happening/highlights -
of-the-$50m -package ), this is an  AUD 50 million package which included a component of targeted 
marketing campaigns in China and the United States.  
a. Could Australia explain why this programme, which appears to be specific to wine, is 
classified as non -product specific support in Supporting  Table DS:9?  
In addition, the programme description, available on Wine Australia 's website, indicates that, in 
round 1 of the programme, 135 Australian wine producers secured an average grant of 
approximately AUD11,100 to support export promotional activit ies in China and the United States 
(https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/c2665c7e -7fc1-4b34-9055-
633da97562e0/ERWSP_WEG_FactShee t3_v2 -%281%29.pdf ). These grants appear to be reducing 
of the cost of marketing and promotion activities in support of exports in specific destinations.   
b. Could Australia  clarify whether any portion of the grants can or h as been used to reduce 
the cost of its wine exports?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.3.2   Costa Rica ( G/AG/N/CRI/88 , G/AG/N/CRI/93 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107098: Question  by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India noticed a significant decline of 26% in expenditure on environmental programmes from 
USD 1,133 thousand  in 2021 (G/AG/N/CRI/88)  to USD  831.21 thou sand in 2022 ( G/AG/N/CRI/93 ). 
Could Costa Rica provide reasons for such a sharp decline?  
2.3.3   Brazil ( G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107093: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India notices the introduction of the "Program of Acquisition of Agricultural Products from Family 
Farming " under the measure 'Domestic food aid ' for the year 2020/ 21 (G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) with an 
allocation of USD 10 million. Also, the same programme has been notified  under the 'Public 
stockholding for food security purposes ' with an allocation of USD 34 million for the same year.   
In this regard, India requests Brazil to answer the following:  
a. Why is the "Program of Acquisition of agricultural products from family farming " notified 
under two measures namely: 'Public stockholding for food security purposes ' and 
'Domestic food aid ' for the year 2020/21, as compared to  2019/20?  
b. Could the farmers participating in the "Program of acquisition of Agricultural Products from 
Family Farming " sell their crops both under 'public stockholding for food security purposes ' 
and 'Domestic food aid measures ' at the same time ? 
c. How many farmers have benefited from this programme during 2019 -20 and 2020 -21? 
d. How does the government dispose of the crops procured under this scheme?  
e. What was the budget allocation of the aforementioned programmes  for the years 2021 -22 
and 2022 -23? 
2.3.4   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/158 , G/AG/N/CAN/15 9) 
AG-IMS ID 107161: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Follow -up of question of AG -IMS ID 106094  
During 106th CoA, the EU has requested Canada to pro vide more details concerning Canada 's Dairy 
Direct Payment Programme (question AG -IMS ID 106094).  
As part of the reply, Canada has provided the following additional information:  
CAD 1.75 billion in support was made available to dairy producers through the Dairy Direct Payment 
Program for the impacts of CETA and CPTPP. Support was initially intended to be distributed over 
eight years, but in 2020, after the first year of the program, Canada set the schedule to provide the 
remaining payments over three years only. Support through the Dairy Direct Payment Program for 
the impacts of CETA and CPTPP concluded in 2022 -23.  
In November 2022, Canada announced CAD  1.2 billion, over six years starting in 2022 -23, through 
the Dairy Direct Payment Program to account for impacts resulting from Canada 's market access 
commitments in the Canada -United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).   
The EU thanks Canada for the reply and the additional information.  
a. Could Canada explain whether the Dairy Direct Payment Programme would be further 
extended, beyond the six years, which have started in 2022 -2023?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 34 - 
 
  b. Does Canada consider shifting the scope and the purpose of the payments towards 
programmes aimed at more efficient and sustainable production methods?  
AG-IMS ID 107162: Question by Un ited States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes  
In G/AG/N/CAN/158  and G/AG/N/CAN/159 , environmental measure outlays notified at the provincial 
level were only a fraction of the funding notified in the Table DS:2  notifications G/AG/N/CAN/160  
and G/AG/N/CAN/161  averaged annually over the five -year period.  
Please explain the reasoning, including whether actual expenditures were significantly less than that 
reported in G/AG/N/CAN/160  and G/AG/N/CAN/161  or if expenditur es were primarily undertaken in 
years other than those covered by G/AG/N/CAN/158  and G/AG/N/CAN/159 . 
AG-IMS ID 107096: Question by India - Market price support  
Concerning G/AG/N/CAN/159 , India notes that the Applied  Administered Price (AAP)  for Buttermilk 
shows an increasing trend, as it  increased from 7,824.99 CAD/tonne in 2016 to 8,585.6 CAD/tonne 
in 2020. In this  context, India requests the following information:  
a. What is the mechanism to  calculate AAP for buttermilk?  
b. What is the differenc e between  a 'calendar year ' and a 'dairy year '? Why is the latter used 
instead of the  former for calculating AAP?  
c. What factors have been responsible  for increasing AAP in the last five  years?  
d. What was the AAP for butter and skimmed milk for the  years 2021 and 2022?  
AG-IMS ID 107094: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
India notes that Canada has provided DS:1 notifications for the calendar years 2019 
(G/AG/N/CAN/158 ) and 2020 ( G/AG/N/CAN/159 ) on 28 August, 2023.   
In this regard, India requests Canada to answer the following:   
a. India observes non -product specific support for Federal Credit Concessions was 
CAD 36.7 million during the y ear 2019 while, in the year 2020, the support for the same 
programme was CAD 337.5 million. The support increased by approximately 820%. What 
are the reasons behind this drastic increase in support and allocation of the expenditure?   
b. India would like to kn ow more about the programme and requests Canada to provide 
details of accessible web links, if available.  
AG-IMS ID 107095: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
India notes in Canada 's latest DS:1 notification filed for Calendar Year 2020 ( G/AG/N/CAN/159 ), 
that Canada provides certain non -product specific payments under Provincial Programs to the extent 
of CAD 322.5 million.   
In this regard, India requests Canada to provide the following information:  
a. Details of programmes covered under the 'Provincia l Programs ' 
b. The break -up of the expenditure notified under Provincial Programs with respect to specific 
provincial schemes covered.  
AG-IMS ID 107097: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In the Supporting Table DS:9, India observes that the support  for "Canadian Agricultural Partnership 
Non-Business Risk (BRM) Management Initiatives " has increased over the years. In 2018 it was 
CAD 39 million, in 2019 it increased to CAD 45.9 million and in 2020 it was CAD 65.1 million.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 35 - 
 
  In this regard, India requests Canada to respond to the following:  
a. What are the reasons for the consistent increase in support under this particular 
programme?  
b. India would like to know more about the programme and requests Canada to provide 
details of accessible web links, if a vailable.  
2.3.5   China ( G/AG/N/CHN/47 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107206 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 104015  regarding corn, soybean, and cotton support, China indicated it 
"is implementing corn and soybeans producer subsidies in Northeast China. " 
a. What,  if any, domestic support is being provided at the sub -national level for soybeans 
and what is the breakdown of support by province for the Northeast region?   
b. What, if any, domestic support is being provided at the sub -national level for corn and 
what is t he breakdown of support by province for the Northeast region?  
2.3.6   Ecuador ( G/AG/N/ECU/67 , G/AG/N/ECU/68 , G/AG/N/ECU/69 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107163: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to thank Ecuador for its 2019, 2020 and 2021 domestic support notifications. 
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/ECU/56 , Ecuador notified expenditures under paragraphs 2(a), 2(f), 
2(g) and paragraph 4, whereas in G/AG/N/ECU/67 ; G/AG/N/ECU/68 ; G/AG/N/ECU/69 , Ecuador has 
not notified any expenditures under these paragraphs.   
In addition, starting in 2019, Ecuador notif ied expenditures under Supporting Table DS:2, for a 
programme to 'Support agricultural producers for the purchase of agrochemical inputs under the 
Socio Siembra Programme. ' However, Canada notes that Ecuador does not appear to have submitted 
a Table DS:2 t o demonstrate how this new domestic support measure is exempt from reduction 
commitments and meets the criteria of Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Could Ecuador provide the reasons why no expenditures have been reported under 
paragraphs 2(a), 2(f), 2(g) and paragraph 4?  
b. Could Ecuador provide timelines as to when it intends to submit a Table DS:2 for the Socio 
Siembra Programme?  
2.3.7   India ( G/AG/N/IND/29 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107027: Question by Australia , Canada  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Australia notes India 's response to AG -IMS ID 106031 . However, India did not answer the question 
adequately.  
Could India please provide the value of production for each of the following individual products: 
maize, barley, millet, sorghum,  ahrar/tur, gram, urad, lenti ls, and rapeseed/mustard.   
AG-IMS ID 107165: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks India for its response to AG -IMS ID 106033  and notes that measures notified in the 
Supporting Table DS:1, DS:2, and DS:9 of the domestic support notification G/AG/N/IND/29  include 
expenditures incurred by both the Central government and  State governments.  
Australia requests that India provide a breakdown of expenditure for the measures listed in 
Supporting Tables DS:1, DS:2 and DS:9 of the domestic support notification G/AG/N/IND/29  that G/AG/W/243  
 
- 36 - 
 
  clearly differentiates the expenditure for measures by the central government and the expenditure 
for measures by the state government as distinct expenditure amounts.  
AG-IMS ID 107040: Question  by Australia - Public stockholding for food security  purposes  
In response to AG -IMS ID 105038 , India states it was not able at the time to provide  details with 
regards to what the notified value under Annex 2, paragraph 3  includes and excludes as compared 
to "Total Food Subsidy " in the Government of India 's Expenditure Budget for 2020 -21 through 
2023-24 or why the values for "Total Food Subsidy " were significantly larger than what was notified 
under Annex 2, paragraph 3.   
Is India in a position to provide the requested information in parts (a) and (b) of AG -IMS ID 105038? 
Please indicate the data sourc e and methodology for notified value provided by India for "public 
stockholding for food security " in its domestic support notifications.  
2.3.8   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/282 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107100: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Accordin g to para 4.24 of Japan 's TPR ( WT/TPR/S/4 38/Rev.1 ), under the Emergency Measures to 
Develop New Sales Channels of Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishery Products, the Government 
provides financial support to compensate for part of the expenses for those who develop  new sales 
channels for certain products such as e -commerce and for those who supply certain products for 
school lunches and children's cafeterias in response to excess inventories of agricultural, forestry, 
and fishery products caused by the substantial d ecrease in demand, including reduced inbound 
tourism consumption due to the COVID -19 pandemic. The budget for this support amounted to 
JPY 19 billion in FY2021.   
In this regard, could Japan:  
a. specify where this expenditure has been notified in its DS:1 noti fication.  
b. Name the products eligible to receive this government support.  
AG-IMS ID 107101: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per para 4.32 of Japan 's TPR ( WT/TPR/S/438/Rev.1 ), the government provides direct payments 
to farmers who  produce crops other than table rice in the paddy field under the 'Direct Payments for 
Rice Paddy Utilization ' programme, to optimize the use of paddy fields, against the background of 
diminishing domestic demand for rice. The Payments are classified into (i) direct payments to assist 
the production of strategic crops (other than table rice); (ii) grants for produ ction areas; and 
(iii) direct payments for promoting high profitability in paddy farming. (iv) payments for farmers 
who produce certain products like wheat, barley, and soybeans in the paddy field for new market 
development. The Payments under these progra ms are made when producers meet at least three 
of the specific requirements including those for environmental protection such as direct sowing 
seeding and efficient fertilization, to promote the cultivation of paddy fields. An expenditure of 
370 JPY Billio n for this programme has been notified under the Green box paragraph 12 in Japan 's 
latest DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/JPN/282 ).  
In this context, Japan is requested to provide answers to the following questions:  
a. Could Japan confirm if the expenditure under 'Direct  payments for rice paddy utilization ' 
has been notified under the Green Box as 'Payments for conversion from rice production: 
payments for maintaining paddy fields in environmentally good condition through growing 
any plants other than rice or other approp riate management '?  
b. The official web link  to the programme states 'self-sufficiency ' and 'strengthening rice 
paddy profitability ' as its objectives. In this regard, how can it be classified as an 
'environmental or conservation program ' as provided in para 12 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. What are the strategic crops grown under this programme and how are they disposed of?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 37 - 
 
  d. Who is eligible to receive payments under this programme?  
e. Please provide the list of specific requirements to be met by the beneficiaries to receive 
payments under this programme.  
f. Please elaborate on the environmental reasons associated with the 4 streams of payments 
under this program, as mentioned above.  
g. Please provide the expenditure under each of these payments, for the year 2020 -21.  
AG-IMS ID 107099: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
As per AG -IMS ID 106174 , Japan has notified the crop income stabilizat ion payments to Rice, Wheat, 
Barley, Soybean, Sugar beet, and Potato used for the manufacture of starch, Buckwheat, and 
Rapeseed as non -product specific support. Moreover, Japan has mentioned that business farmers 
who produce the above crops are exclusivel y eligible to benefit from the program, which leaves the 
Japanese producers of beef and veal, the meat of swine, eggs, starch, and other crops if any, 
ineligible to receive payments under this program.   
In this context, Japan is requested to respond to the se follow -up questions:  
a. Given the crop income stabilization payments apply only to selected products mentioned 
above, how does Japan justify notifying this support as 'non-product specific '?  
b. India requests Japan to provide the estimate of support provided  to the eligible crops 
individually.  
c. India further requests an English translation of the details of implementation of the crop 
income stabilization programmes, for greater transparency.   
2.3.9   Kazakhstan ( G/AG/N/KAZ/21 , G/AG/N/KAZ/22 , G/AG/N/KAZ/23 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107168 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Kazakhstan 's submission of a number of overdue Table DS:1 notifications in G/AG/N/KAZ/21  to 
G/AG/N/KAZ/ 26 is greatly appreciated.  However, it is noted there appears to be substantial 
differences in how agricultural support is provided in Kazakhstan in recent years as compared to its 
Agricultural Supporting Tables for 2010 -2012 where a better understanding of Kazakhstan 's current 
support would be appreciated.   
a. Kazakhstan has not notified any sub -national expenditures in Table DS:1.  Please confirm 
that sub -national support is no longer provided in Kazakhstan. If no longer provided, can 
Kazakhstan provide the rea son for this change.  
b. Kazakhstan no longer notifies procurement of a large number of commodities in 
Supporting Table DS:5.  Please confirm Kazakhstan or entities operating on the behalf of 
the government do not undertake procurement of agricultural commoditi es other than at 
market prices.  
c. Please for further details with regards to what the notified expenditures in Supporting 
Table DS:1 under Public stockholding for food security purposes includes.  What, if any, 
commodities are procured and whether those commo dities are procured at market prices.  
d. Milk powder, butter, cheese, and milk all have a measure entitled "Subsidizing the costs 
of processing enterprises of the purchase of agricultural products for the production of its 
deep processing products " in Support ing Table DS:6.   
i. Please explain how these measures for various dairy products are implemented.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 38 - 
 
  ii. Please provide details of how producers benefit from the subsidies to processors and 
how purchase prices are determined.  
iii. Please explain how the budgetary expendi tures are determined.  
e. Please explain the measure "Reimbursement of a part of expenses incurred by a subject 
of the agro-industrial complex, in investments " in Supporting Table DS:9, including how 
the measure is implemented and who the beneficiaries are.  
AG-IMS ID 107167: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes that in Supporting Table DS:9, Kazakhstan has reported subsidies for 
development of livestock breeding, improving the productivity and quality of animal products.  
a. Could Kazakhstan explain whether these subsidies are aimed to support private entities 
or organisation (public or private)?  
b. What are the criteria t o receive the subsidies?  
2.3.10   New Zealand ( G/AG/N/NZL/138 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107102 : Question by India - General services: research  
India notes that in its reply to AG -IMS ID 106175 , New Zealand provided the following clarification 
regarding the Primary Growth Partnership PGP:   
"The PGP is now closed to new applications, and they are instead covered under the Sustainable 
Food and Fiber Futures (SFFF). However, there are still 10 programs which were under the PGP that 
are now captured  under SFFF. "  
In this regard, India requests New Zealand to provide:  
a. The current number of beneficiaries under the 10 programmes that were earlier under PGP 
and presently under SFFF.  
b. Total funding provided for these 10 programmes since their coverage unde r SFFF.  
2.3.11   Paraguay  (G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107103 : Question by India - Domestic food aid  
In response to 'part -e' of AG -IMS ID 105114 , Paraguay had stated that, "Some of the programs are 
aimed at helping subsistence farmers to grow crops for their own consumption".   
To seek more clarity on the programmes ai med at helping subsistence farmers grow crops for their 
own consumption under 'Project to improve campesina and indigenous family farming' and 'Project 
to improve campesina and indigenous family farming in the Eastern Region', India raised a question 
(AG-IMS ID 105114) to which Paraguay replied in Spanish. The English translation as per Google 
stands as follows,  
"Paraguay greets India and clarifies what follows: the 2 (two) projects cited in the 
response are to help peasant and indigenous family agriculture , said support is intended 
for self -consumption in basic fruit and vegetable crops and small livestock: - Beans - 
Bananas - Corn - Pineapple - Tomato - Onion - Potato - Cassava - Locote - Pork – 
Chickens. Currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock  has a Vice Ministry of 
Family Agriculture (FA) where all assistance is channelled to the FA sector. The projects: 
Improvement of Peasant Family Agriculture and Improvement of Peasant and 
Indigenous Family Agriculture in the Eastern Region. The items can b e corroborated by 
official data from the Central Bank of Paraguay, which do not belong to Paraguay's 
exportable supply, as these are intended for self -consumption for small farmers and are 
framed in internal food aid."  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 39 - 
 
  In this context, India has the following queries for Paraguay:  
a. Does giving direct payments to farmers for producing crops for their own consumption 
qualify as 'domestic food aid ' under the AoA?  
b. How does Paraguay ensure that crops produced under the two projects mentioned above 
aren't used for export purposes?  
c. Please provide official documents or web links, having English translation, that can explain 
the objectives of the two projects mentioned above along with their programmes 
individually.  
2.3.12   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107105 : Question by India - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In the DS:1 notification G/AG/N/THA/85 , the input subsidies provided by Thailand vary significantly 
for the notified years. Notably, the expenditur es for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016 were 
39,552.82  million Baht, 0.42 million Baht, and 64 ,712.26 million Baht respectively.  
In this regard, please explain the following,  
a. While answering a similar question raised by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86023 ) on the input 
subsidy expenditure, Thailand replied that the expenditure varied due to 'different 
circumstances and policies ' at the time of application of the measure. Please elaborate on 
these circumstances and enumerate the policies respon sible for the variation in 
expenditure.  
b. How does Thailand define and identify low -income or resource -poor farmers? What is the 
eligibility criteria applicable for a farmer to be classified as low -income or resource -poor?  
c. Has the definition ever changed ove r the years notified?  
d. Please provide the list of input subsidies given in favour of farmers.  
e. Please name the agricultural products eligible to receive such input subsidies.  
AG-IMS ID 107104: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In the DS:1 no tification G/AG/N/THA/85 , non-exempted product -specific support for rice has been 
provided in the form of loans for production, loans for stockholding, and payments for stockholding 
in 2014 -2016.  
a. Could Thailand elaborate on how these support measures w ere implemented, including 
their purpose/objective?  
b. Are the measures still operational in 2023?  
2.3.13   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/ GBR/20 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107107 : Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India requests the UK to provide the reasons for the decrease in environmental programmes' support 
from GBP 545.57  million in CY 2021 ( G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1 ) to GBP 532.77 million in CY 2022 
(G/AG/N/GBR/20 ). G/AG/W/243  
 
- 40 - 
 
  2.3.14   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/USA/169 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107169 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Concerning G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , in its response to AD -IMS ID 106099  and 106102 , the United 
States noted that data on direct payments to dairy producers and beef cattle producers under the 
United States Department of Agriculture 's (USDA) Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), 
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) and, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees an d Farm -
Raised Fish Program (ELAP), is not available due to the lack of species -specific data for standing 
disaster programmes. However, Canada notes that USDA 's Program Factsheets for certain disaster 
programmes include species -specific livestock payment r ates per head, including for dairy and for 
beef cattle.   
For example, under the LFP, the 2023 payment rate per head for an adult dairy cow/bull is 
USD 151.12, while the 2023 payment rate per head for an adult beef bull/cow is USD  58.12 
(https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-
Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/fsa_lfp_livestockforageprogramfactsheet_2022.pdf ). Under the LIP, the 
2023 payment rate per head for an adult dairy cow is USD  1,198.13, while the 2023 payment rate 
per head for an adult beef bull is USD 1,512.19 ( https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-
Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2023/FSA_LIP_LivestockImdemnityProgram_Factsheet_2023.pdf ).  
Canada also notes that for both the LFP and the LIP, species -specific payment rates per head appear 
to be available for most species eligible under either programmes. In this context:   
a. Could the United States confirm whether LFP and LIP applicants are requ ired to specify 
which species and what quantities for which they are claiming a payment, including to 
determine the direct payment rates and amounts?   
b. Could the United States provide further details on its response that species -specific data 
is not availab le? 
c. If the number of heads per species per producer is not available, how are payments 
calculated?  
d. If this data is available, could the United States provide the amount of non -exempt direct 
payments to dairy and to beef cattle and calve producers under the  LFP, LIP, and ELAP 
programmes during market year 2021/22.   
AG-IMS ID 107205: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Following the United States ' answers to questions AG -IMS ID s 106109  and 106110 , New Zealand is 
seeking additional detail regarding what ad hoc measures in the US concluded in the marketing 
years 2020 -2022, and why these mea sures were concluded.  
AG-IMS ID 107108: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India thanks the US for its response to AG -IMS ID 106178 . India requests a list of programs that 
were phased out other than the Klamath River Basin Block Grant . 
AG-IMS ID 107170: Question by Ca nada - Non-product -specific AMS  
Canada takes note of the United States ' response in AG -IMS ID 106100  on its notification of 
non-product specific AMS for its Agriculture Risk Coverage -County (ARC -CO) expenditures and Price 
Loss Coverage (PLC) expenditures. Canada would like to ask the below follow -up questions:   
a. Could the United States provide more information on both programmes ' eligibility criteria, 
specifically whether applicants are required to specify whether they are still producers as 
part of their applications?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. Could the United States provide information on the number of producers that have 
received payments and that were active producers at the time they received a payment 
versus those that have received payments and were no longer in production?  
c. Of the active producers, which were involved in  the production of the same commodity for 
which they were receiving a commodity -specific payment?  
d. Could the United States provide the total dollar amount that active producers received 
during the marketing year 2020/21?  
2.3.15   Uruguay ( G/AG/N/URY/81 , G/AG/N/URY/82 , G/AG/N/URY/83 , 
G/AG/N/URY/84 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107173 : Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan welcomes Uruguay 's DS:1 notifications for four years (CY2017 -2020).  
There can be seen almost threefold increase in total of Green Box compared to the notifications 
before CY  2016. Japan would like to know the reason behind this increase mainly related to 
paragraph  2(b) 'Pest and disease control ' and 2(g) 'Infrastructural services ', Annex II, Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 107112: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
For the Calendar Year 2019 DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/URY/83 ), it is observed that the Green Box 
support declined by 11.92 % from CY 2018 (USD 137,313,727 in CY 2018 to USD 120,944,573 in 
CY 2019). With both general services and environmental programmes support declining, India would 
like to understand the factors contributing to the reduction in the support.  
AG-IMS ID 107175: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that, in G/AG/N/URY/82 , G/AG/N/URY/83  and G/AG/N/URY/84 , under Annex  2 
paragraph 2(f), Uruguay has notified expenditures for the programme Mejor de estación – Canasta 
inteligente, and  in G/AG/URY/84  under paragraph 2 2(g) for the 'Metropolitan Agri -Food Unit ', both 
of which were not included in Uruguay 's previous DS:1 notifications. In addition, Uruguay notified 
expenditures under Annex 2 paragraph 8 in 2018 and 2020 foll owing a Declaration of agricultural 
emergency, pursuant to a drought situation. Uruguay does not appear to have submitted a 
Table  DS:2 to demonstrate how these domestic support measures are exempt from reduction 
commitments and meet the criteria of Annex 2  of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Could Uruguay provide timelines as to when it intends to submit a Table DS:2 to provide 
the required information related to Mejor de estación – Canasta inteligente and the 
Metropolitan Agri -Food Unit?  
b. Could Uruguay provide  details as to the eligibility criteria for a producer to receive a direct 
payment under Annex 2, paragraph 8 in 2018 and 2020, including whether payments were 
made in situations where a producer 's losses exceeded 30 % of its average production in 
the preceding three years, or based on an Olympic average?  
AG-IMS ID 107174: Question by United States of America - General services: other  
The recent submission of overdue domestic support notifications for Calendar Years 201 7, 2018, 
2019, and 2020 from Uruguay are appreciated.   
In G/AG/N/URY/81 , Supporting Table DS:1 notes the implementation of the Pilot Livestock Index 
Insurance Plan to gather information for the design of a potential index -based insurance product 
based on the normalized difference vegetation index. It was noted that family farmers from the 
Basalto and Sierras del Este landscape units were financially supported to be able to participate in 
the program. This programme was also notified in the two following  notifications ( G/AG/N/URY/82 , 
G/AG/N/URY/83 ). However, the pilot program is not listed in G/AG/N/URY/84  nor does there appear 
to be a permanent program.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 42 - 
 
  a. Please clarify how these family farmers from the Basalto and Sierras del Este landscape 
unit received financial support.  
b. Please confirm the pilot programme has ended and no permanent Livestock Index 
Insurance Plan has been implemented.  
i. If there is a permanent programme, do participants receive financial support to 
participate? What are the eli gibility criteria for producers to participate?  
AG-IMS ID 107113: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India thanks Uruguay for their domestic support notification for the calendar years 2017 
(G/AG/N/URY/81 ), 2018 ( G/AG/N/URY/82 ), 2019 ( G/AG/N/URY/83 ), and 2020 ( G/AG/N/URY/84 ). 
India notices that the environmental programmes mentioned in DS:1 CY 2016 ( G/AG/N/URY/63 ) 
"national directorate of natural resources" and "development and climate change adaptation" are 
not mentioned in CY 2017, CY 2018, CY 2019, and CY 2020 DS:1 notification.   
In this context, India seeks clarification from Uruguay on the following:   
a. Have these programmes ended or merged with new programmes?  
b. Would Uruguay p rovide a DS:2 notification concerning the new or modified domestic 
support environmental programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 107172: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Canada would like to thank Uruguay for its 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 domestic support 
notifications. Canada notes that Uruguay has notified expenditures under Supporting Table DS:2 in 
2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 for the 'Associative Water Strategies for Prod uction (EAAP) ' and for 
2017, 2018 and 2020 for the 'Water for Rural Development Programme (MADR), ' both of which 
appear to have been introduced in 2017, as these programmes do not appear in Uruguay 's 2016 
DS:1 notification. Canada also notes that Uruguay d oes not appear to have submitted a Table DS:2 
to demonstrate how these two domestic support measures are exempt from reduction commitments 
and meet the criteria of Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Could Uruguay provide timelines as to when it i ntends to submit a Table DS:2 to provide 
the required information related to the EAAP and the MADR?  
b. Could Uruguay provide a rationale as to why no expenditures were reported for the MADR 
in 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 107110: Question by India - Investment subsidies g enerally available to 
agriculture  
In Domestic Support notification DS:1 for the calendar year 2019 ( G/AG/N/URY/83 ), Development 
Programmes in Supporting Table DS:2 declined from USD 878,929 (CY 2018) to USD 415,254 
(CY 2019) . India understands that Value Chains and Family Production (Enhancing Value in Family 
Production)  implementation stopped in 2018, however, what was the reason behind the decline in 
Associative Water Strategies for Production (EAAP)  support?  
AG-IMS ID 107114: Question  by India - Investm ent subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In the recent DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/URY/84 ) for the calendar year 2020, India observes that 
Uruguay 's development programme support has increased to USD 1,705,942 from USD 415,254  in 
CY 2019 due to the additio n of "More Water for Rural Development Programme (MADR) " programme. 
India understands that this programme helps rural producers use natural resources in a sustainable 
way, enhancing their ability to adapt to climate variability and change. Through this pro gramme, 
non-reimbursable support is provided to offset the extraordinary costs of implementing projects for 
the supply and distribution of water on the farms of small, medium -sized and family farmers G/AG/W/243  
 
- 43 - 
 
  throughout the country, as well as technical assistance that contributes to a farm development 
project. In this context, India seeks further information:  
a. What constitute the "extraordinary costs "? 
b. How does Uruguay define small, medium -sized farmers?  
c. What kind of technical assistance is provided to a farm develo pment project?  
AG-IMS ID 107115 : Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In AG -IMS ID 105111 , Uruguay responded that MGAP and the BSE subsidize the insurance premium 
for the farming sector since 2002, under Law No. 17.503 of 30 June 2002, as amended by Law 
No. 17.844 of 21 October 2004 and Law No. 18.827 of 21 October 2011, which set up the Farm 
Development Fund (FFG), formerly known as the Farm Reconstruction and Development 
Fund (FRFG).   
Since the amount of insurance premium subsidy is determined based on the actual size of poultry 
farmers in squa re meters and for pigs in sows, please provide the breakdown of support for 'poultry ' 
and 'pigs' individually under the Supporting Table DS:7 Farm Development in CY 2020 
(G/AG/N/URY/84 ). 
AG-IMS ID 107171: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:7 of G/AG/N/URY/81 , Uruguay notifies that the dairy sector receives 
discounted electricity tariffs. This same measure is also notified in G/AG/N/URY/82 , G/AG/N/URY/83 , 
and G/AG/N/URY/84 , but for o ther sectors ( e.g., rice).   
a. Please provide additional details regarding discounted energy tariffs and what commodities 
were eligible for CY 2017 through CY 2020?  
b. What was the reason for different commodities having notified support in different 
years?  For example, was rice eligible in all years and support was only provided in specific 
years or are eligible commodities determined annually.  If the latter, on what basis is this 
determination made.  
AG-IMS ID 107111: Question by India - Other product -specific A MS/EMS  
As per the Supporting Table DS:7 of CY 2017 ( G/AG/N/URY/81 ) and CY 2018 ( G/AG/N/URY/82 ) 
'More Meat and Wool Livestock Programme' and 'More Value to Sheep Production programme' offer 
non-repayable financial support to partially offset the costs of implementing projects in livestock and 
sheep value chain systems. In this regard, please provide the following information:   
a. What are the eligibility criteria for projects to take advantage of the non -repayable 
financial support?  
b. Is there any limit to financial support that can be claimed by small, medium -sized family 
producers,  if so, what is it?  
2.3.16   Viet Nam ( G/AG/N/VNM/20 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107119: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Viet Nam for submitting their 2020 DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/VNM/20 ) and the 
relevant supporting tables. Austr alia notes that the total agricultural value of production (VoP) is 
missing from Supporting Table DS:4.  
Could Viet Nam please provide its total agricultural VoP for 2020?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 107176 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Viet  Nam's expenditures for "Payments for relief from natural disasters " decreased 
significantly from the calendar year 2017 -2019 average of VND 2,899.05 billion, to current 2020 
levels of VND 1,209.76 billion.  
a. Viet Nam noted in its respons e to Canada 's question, in AG -IMS ID 97150 , that the 
Government had issued a new policy on support for agricultural insurance. Could Viet Nam  
confirm whether such a decrease was due to the policy reform referred to in its response? 
If so, could Viet Nam  provide information as to what has been changed and when?  
b. Further to AG -IMS ID 97150, could Viet  Nam explain how each current programme notified 
under paragraph 8 of Annex 2 meets all the criteria, particularly the trigger criteria (30% 
loss of income) an d the base period criteria ( three or five years) of paragraph 8(a)?  
c. If any of these programmes are new or modified, could Viet Nam  provide timelines as to 
when it intends to submit a Table DS:2 notification to demonstrate how these meet the 
relevant Annex 2 criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 107177: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes  
Viet Nam  has notified VND 1,447 billion expenditures under paragraph 13 for "Supporting the poor 
in remote and mountainous areas in order to a lleviate hunger and poverty. " 
a. Could Viet Nam  provide more detail about the programme, including on how it meets each 
criteria under sub -paragraph 13(a) -13(f)?  
b. If this is a new or modified programme, could Viet Nam  provide timelines as to when it 
intends to  submit a Table DS:2 notification to demonstrate how these meet the relevant 
Annex 2 criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 107178 : Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes  
Could Viet Nam  confirm if the total monetary value of all e xpenditures Viet Nam  has notified under 
paragraph 13 (regional assistance programs) should read VND 10,490.69 billion instead of 
VND 20,981.37 billion? If not, could Viet Nam  provide the rationale as to why total expenditures 
under paragraph 13 are greater  than the added total of each of the programme -specific expenditures 
notified?   
AG-IMS ID 107180: Question  by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under regional assistance programmes  
In Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/VNM/20 , Viet Nam reported VND 20,981 million in regional 
assistance support. The second largest category of support was the measure with the description 
beginning "Program on rapid and sustainable poverty reduction…, well known as Resolution  30 
(supporting reclamation cost s, varieties, fertilizer, loan interest on agricultural production, vaccine, 
livestock, poultry, food aid, extension, plant protection, etc…. "  
a. Please confirm if the sub -total for regional assistance is the correct value or an error.  
b. Given the numerous different activities covered under this description that appear to 
possibly be more appropriately broken out in either other parts of Supporting Table DS:1 
or other supporting tables, please explain why this has been notified as regional assistanc e 
and how it meets the exemption criteria therein.  For example, how does fertilizer, loan 
interest on agricultural production qualify within the green box and why is food aid, 
extension, plant protection, and animal health notified here and not under other  respective 
types of Supporting Table DS:1 measures?  
c. Please describe what type of measure is being referred to for the terms "livestock ", 
"poultry ", and "fertilizer "? G/AG/W/243  
 
- 45 - 
 
  d. What was the reason for the more than doubling of expenditures under this measure since 
the previous notification for CY 2019?  
AG-IMS ID 107179: Question by Canada  - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notes that the expenditures Viet Nam  notified for "Variety Support " across various products 
(e.g., pig, buffalo, cow, etc.) in Supporting Tab le DS:7 declined from a total amount of 
VND 10,907.60 billion in 2019 ( G/AG/N/VNM/19 ) to VND 106.18 billion in 2020 ( G/AG/N/VNM/20 ). 
Could Viet Nam  provide a rationale, including potential policy changes, that would explain this 
significant decline in "Variety Support "?  
AG-IMS ID 107181: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/VNM/20 , the value of production for poultry declined 
significantly.   
Please explain the reason for this sharp decline.  
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  
2.4.1   Australia ( G/AG/N/AUS/155 , G/AG/N/AUS/155/Rev.1 ,  G/AG/N/AUS/158 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107182: Question  by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. Last Au stralia 's DS:2 Notifications G/AG/N/AUS/155  issued in September 2023 and 
G/AG/N/AUS/158  issued in November 2023 cover measures implemented over the years 
belonging to the past, many of which have already expired in 2021 or 2022.  
What are the r easons for those notification delays?  
 
b. Can Australia  specify how its programmes contained in notifications G/AG/N/ AUS/155 and 
G/AG/N/A US/158  comply with the indicated paragraphs of Annex 2 of the AoA, as this 
information is not provided in the notifications?  
c. In particular, how does the Bushfire Recovery Programme comply with paragraph 8 of 
Annex 2?  
2.4.2   Cana da (G/AG/N/CAN/160 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107183 : Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. The European Union notes that measures notified by Canada in G/AG/N/CAN/160  cover 
the period 2018 -2023. Given the fact that we are in No vember 2023, Could Canada please 
explain the reasons for the substantial delay in notifying these measures, which renders 
the information provided less useful for other WTO Members? Will these measures 
continue to be in place beyond 2023?  
b. Canada specifies,  that the AgriMarketing programme provides "up to CAD 121 million in 
support for Canada 's agriculture and agri -food industry to promote and market their 
products globally ". Are payments under this programme contingent on exports?  
c. The Expanding Markets and Regional Opportunities programme aims to support Ontario's 
agri-food and agri -products industry to gain and maintain access to new and growing 
markets, including taking advantage of market opportunities. What precisely is being 
financed under this programm e? Are payments under this programme contingent on 
exports?  
d. The Agriculture Development Fund (ADF) supports the growth of the agriculture industry 
by developing solutions to emerging problems that constrain production and value -added 
processing. What precisely is being financed under this programme?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 46 - 
 
  e. Climate Change (Alberta): The programme is to contribute to climate change action and 
the Partnership 's Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change priority area by helping 
the sector reduce GHG emissio ns and implement practices to adapt to climate change, 
position itself in a low carbon economy, minimize resource waste and optimize resource 
utilization, and understand the risk and opportunities related to GHG emissions. Can 
Canada explain how payments u nder this programme notified under paragraph 12 of 
Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is 
ensured that the amount of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved 
in complying with the govern ment programme?  
f. The Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change initiative is designed to increase the 
sector's capacity to maintain competitiveness, manage risks, enhance productivity and 
contribute to economic growth through action on climate change and increasing 
environmental sustainability. The initiative addresses priority environmental issues related 
to water quality, air quality, soil health and biodiversity, and includes the following 
programmes: an Environmental Farm Plan, Beneficial Managemen t Practices (BMP) and 
Climate Change Adaptation Program (CCAP). Can Canada explain how payments under 
this programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the 
requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount  of payment is 
limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government 
programme?  
g. Action Manitoba will help farmers implement and adopt beneficial management practices 
(BMPs) on their farm identified in their Environmental Fa rm Plan. The BMPs are grouped 
into categories related to: resource efficiency planning; soil improvement and GHG 
reduction; manure and livestock management; drainage water management; and 
hazardous products management. Can Canada explain how payments under  this 
programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the 
requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount of payment is 
limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government  
programme?  
h. The Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture programme will assist producers to evaluate 
the environmental and climate change risks associated with their operations, acquire 
knowledge and tools to address these risks, provide financial incentive s to help them 
implement solutions and assist them to enhance their land base. The programme is 
separated in three sub -programmes: Environmental Management Planning, 
Agro-Environmental Club Program, and Adoption of Environmental Beneficial Management 
Practices. It is stated that financing under this Programme is notified under Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(d) and paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can Canada specify 
which elements of the Programme are notified under paragraph 12? Can Canada explain 
how pa yments under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA 
comply with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount 
of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with th e 
government programme?  
i. The Agricultural Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Program will support projects 
aimed at reducing the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and addressing the 
impacts of climate change such as extreme weather events, chang ing water availability, 
soil conditions, pests, etc., and at improving the sector's ability to manage climate change 
risks, including through clean technology innovation and adoption, while building public 
confidence in the environmental performance of the  sector. Can Canada explain how 
payments under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA 
comply with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount 
of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of in come involved in complying with the 
government programme?  
j. The environmental stewardship programme supports the sector by better reflecting the 
commitments that have been identified within the Canada -Ontario Lake Erie Action Plan, 
Ontario's Agricultural Soi l Heath and Conservation Strategy, and the Made -in-Ontario 
Environment Plan. Can Canada explain how payments under this programme notified 
under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the requirements thereof? In G/AG/W/243  
 
- 47 - 
 
  particular, how is it is ensured th at the amount of payment is limited to the extra costs or 
loss of income involved in complying with the government programme?  
k. The Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change programme features two 
subprogrammes: Agriculture Stewardship Program (ASP) an d Alternative Land Use 
Services program (ALUS). The first is a suite of initiatives designed to increase 
environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation and adaptation by providing 
technical and financial support to encourage producers to voluntari ly implement Beneficial 
Management Practices (BMPs). The focus of the ALUS programme will be to prevent soil 
erosion and siltation of watercourses and wet lands, improve water quality and enhance 
wildlife habitat in targeted areas beyond those covered by P rince Edward Island 's 
regulations on agricultural practices. It is stated that financing under this Programme is 
notified under Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) and paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Can Canada specify which elements of the Programme are  notified under paragraph 12? 
Can Canada explain how payments under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of 
Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is 
ensured that the amount of payment is limited to the extr a costs or loss of income involved 
in complying with the government programme?  
l. The Prime -Vert program aims to increase the adoption of agri -environmental practices by 
agricultural businesses that benefit the environment and human health. Areas of 
intervent ion include: preservation and improvement of water quality, soil health and 
conservation, pesticide usage reduction and risk assessment, biodiversity conservation 
and the fight against climate change (including GHG emission reductions and adaptation). 
It is stated that financing under this Programme is notified under Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) 
and paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can Canada specify which elements 
of the Programme are notified under paragraph 12? Can Canada explain how payments 
under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the 
requirements thereof? In particular, how is it is ensured that the amount of payment is 
limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the governme nt 
programme?  
m. Saskatchewan's environmental sustainability and climate change programme objective is 
to enhance the resiliency and sustainability of the agriculture sector by proactively 
managing environmental risks. The initiative includes the following pr ogrammes and 
activities: Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) and Farm Stewardship Program (FSP). Can 
Canada explain how payments under this programme notified under paragraph 12 of 
Annex 2 to the AoA comply with the requirements thereof? In particular, how is i t is 
ensured that the amount of payment is limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved 
in complying with the government programme?  
AG-IMS ID 107184: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The initiatives  of various provinces to address climate change is welcomed as notified in 
G/AG/N/CAN/160 . A few examples of what has been notified by Canada include: Alberta 's measure 
aims to contribute to climate change action through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 
implementing practices to adapt to climate change, British Colombia 's measure aims to maintain 
competitiveness, manage risk, and enhance productivity through action on climate and increasing 
environmental sustainability, and Nova Scotia 's measure aims to reduce the level of greenhouse gas 
emissions and address the impacts o f climate change.   
Many of these measures are notified under Annex 2, paragraph 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
which states "Eligibility for such payments shall be determined as part of a clearly -defined 
government environmental or conservation progra mme and be dependent on the fulfilment of 
specific conditions under the government programme, including conditions related to production 
methods or inputs. "  
In order to better understand this measure and to facilitate a Member -sharing experience in 
addres sing the important issue of climate change:   
a. Please explain how payments to producers are determined.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 48 - 
 
  b. What are the specific conditions that producers must meet?  
c. What metrics have been adopted to ensure actions undertaken by producers are positively 
contrib uting to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other factors outlined.  
d. How has Canada facilitated cooperation and information across provinces?  
e. Has Canada considered ways to share its experiences internationally?  
f. Noting these measures all expire at the end  of 2023, what lessons has Canada and its 
provinces learned from these experiences and can Canada share what the next steps are 
following the end of these measures?   
AG-IMS ID 107190: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: income 
insurance  and income safety -net programmes  
We appreciate the explanation of how the AgriStability program has been modified under the CAP in 
G/AG/N/CAN/160 . We note that one of the modifications to this programme was the removal, 
starting in programme year 202 0, of the reference margin limit, which was introduced in the 2013 
programme year.   
a. Why was the reference margin limit removed starting in programme year 2020?  
b. What effect does this removal have on the level of payments to producers? We note that 
in calend ar year 2018, expenditures notified under this programme were 
CAD 238.5  million. In calendar 2019, they rose to CAD 443.5 million, falling slightly in 
calendar year 2020 (CAD 361.2 million).  
c. We note that this programme is notified on a "stabilization year " – (note 1 to supporting 
table DS:1). Does that mean that payments notified in 2020 reflect lost income in a 
different year?  
AG-IMS ID 107185: Question by United States of America - Classific ation of measures  
Regarding the AgriAssurance program notified in G/AG/N/CAN/160 , we note that funding is provided 
directly to small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in the agriculture sector to adopt 
assurance systems and obtain third party certification when it is required to meet an export 
opportunity.   
Please explain how this is not a direct payment to producers.  
AG-IMS ID 107186: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
We are interested in learning mo re about the AgriRisk Initiatives programme notified in 
G/AG/N/CAN/160 .  
a. We understand that this is a new measure that covers the period FY 2018 to FY 2023. 
However, it is unclear if this programme is notified in G/AG/N/CAN/158  or 
G/AG/N/CAN/159 . Please explain if the measure is included in these notifications, and if 
not, when it will be notified in a Table DS:1 notification.  
b. Please explain how this programme relates to the AgriInsurance program that is notified 
in Supporting Table DS:9 in G/AG/N/CAN/159 . 
c. We note that both components of this programme are being notified under Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The research and development (R&D) 
component fits the policy -specific criteria under para. 2(a), but the s econd component, 
Administrative Capacity Building (ACB), does not seem to meet the policy -specific criteria 
for research (para 2(a)). According to the notification, ACB "…provides funding to build 
administrative capacity during the early years of deliverin g new risk management tools 
and help demonstrate the operational viability of these new tools to attract and secure G/AG/W/243  
 
- 49 - 
 
  private sector support. " Please explain why ACB is being notified under Annex 2, paragraph 
2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture and not unde r a different paragraph 2 category?   
2.4.3   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/161 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107192: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The European Union notes that the three measures notified by Canada in G/AG/N/CAN/161  were 
applied 15 June - 15 July 2020, fiscal years 2018 - 2021 and 1 April 2021 - 31 January 2023 with 
an extension to 1 March 2024 respectively. Could Canada please explain the reasons for the 
substantial delay in notifying these measures, which renders t he information less useful for other 
WTO Members?  
AG-IMS ID 107193 : Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan thanks Canada for its DS:2 notification, G/AG/N/CAN/161 . 
Regarding Agricultural Clean Technology (ACT) program on page 3, it is described that this 
programme consists of two components, "Research and Innovation Stream" and "Adoption Stream". 
It seems the expenditure for this programme is included in either Paragraph 2(a) 'Research ' or 
Paragraph 12 'Payments under envi ronmental programmes ' of Annex II of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Could Canada provide the breakdown to illustrate the amount of each stream in the 
DS:1 notifications for CY2018, 2019 and 2020?  
AG-IMS ID 107194: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
On 25 August 2023, Canada circulated a Table DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/CAN/161 ) that addresses 
new or modified programmes associated with the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP), which is 
a five -year investm ent covering 2018 -2023.  Noting that this submission was made only a few 
months before the end of the period covered by the CAP:   
a. Please explain the cause of the delay in making this submission.  
b. Please provide an update on what is planned to occur or replace the CAP upon its expiration 
at the end of 2023.  
AG-IMS ID 107196: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The description of the programme, "CAP priority area: Markets and Trade  (Cost -Shared) " is 
insufficient to fully understand how the components of this programme meet the criteria for 
exemption under Annex 2, paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Specifically:   
a. Please identify the eligible applicants to receiving funding under each com ponent.  
b. Please provide more details for the "Buy BC Partnership Programme, " specifically, what 
activities are covered under these two components (Buy BC logo licensing and Buy BC 
cost-shared funding) and how does this measure meet the policy -specific crite ria under 
Annex 2, paragraph 2(f) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Please provide more details for the "Expanding Markets and Regional Opportunities " 
program and how it meets the policy -specific criteria set out in Annex 2, paragraph 2(d) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
d. For the "Programme services -conseils, " what is meant by adapting to a "constantly 
changing business environment while respecting societal expectations, " and how do the 
advisory services under this program address those conditions?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 50 - 
 
  e. Please ex plain how the funding streams under the "Product2Market -Value -Added " 
programme meet the policy -specific criteria under Annex 2, paragraph 2(f) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 107191: Question by European Union - Domestic food aid  
Follow -up of q uestion of AG -IMS ID 106093  
The EU thanks Canada for the  reply to question AG -IMS ID 106093 . 
Canada has referred  to DS:2 notification G/AG/N/C AN/161 , where details of the Surplus Food Rescue 
Program have been provided.  
Canada has stated in paragraph (3) Detailed description of measure  that: "Eligibility for payments 
is determined by clearly -defined criteria related to nutritional objectives for vulnerable populations 
and avoiding food waste. Administration and financing of the programme is transparent and is 
publicly available on the Governmen t of Canada website. The programme's funding allowed eligible 
organizations to bid on perishable surplus products competitively. " 
The EU thanks Canada for the reply.  
Could Canada provide more details on the defined criteria and the financing of the progra mme?  
AG-IMS ID 107195: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
Regarding the programmes notified under the CAP priority area: "Science, research, and innovation  
(Cost Shared), " we have a few questions regarding their classificatio n. Specifically:   
a. According to the notification, the Ontario Agri -food Research Initiative supports 
"…Knowledge Translation and Transfer (KTT) activities " and provides support for 
"advancing innovative technologies, services and products by funding market validation 
and product development activities. " Please explain how the funding under this 
programme meets the policy -specific criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
b. There is insufficient information to determine if the "Agricu lture Development Fund " meets 
the policy -specific criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Please provide more details in support of this notification.  
c. Based on the description in the notification, the ADOPT programme appears to  be broader 
in scope than just research. What other activities are funded under this  programme; for 
example, what type of demonstration and evaluation projects fall under this program?  
2.4.4   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/88 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107204 : Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank the EU for its replies to the questions submitted under AG -IMS ID 106120 regarding how 
the additional costs or loss of revenue incurred in complying with environmental programmes are 
measured; however, these replies focus on who makes the calculation, details concerning 
adjustment to different sectors and areas, and whose responsibility the calculation is made under, 
but do not cover how the calculation is made or how compliance with the provisi ons of paragraph 
12 of Annex 2 of the AoA could be verified.  
AG-IMS ID 107147: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Regarding sectorial interventions, which are described in Section 1.3.3 of G/AG/N/EU/88 , the EU 
indicated that it established interventions in certain sectors that follow the requirements of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
a. Are all of these meas ures new, or are some modified existing measures? Please specify 
which measures fall into which category (new or modified).  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 51 - 
 
  b. Please provide more detail on each specific component listed under each sectoral category. 
For example, we count nearly 30 individua l programmes under the category "fruit and 
vegetables, hops, olive oil, table olives and other sectors referred to in Article 42, point 
(f)" and each entry includes one or more different references to paragraphs in Annex 2, 
which presumably are the basis f or exemption. It is not possible to evaluate some of these 
measures without additional information on how they meet the policy -specific criteria.  
c. Under the EU 's sectorial interventions for fruits and vegetables, hops, olive oil, table olives, 
and other sec tors, the EU establishes investments in tangible and intangible assets, 
research, experimental and innovative production methods, and other actions in improving 
resilience against pests and reducing risks and impacts of pesticide use, including 
implementin g Integrated Pest Management Techniques.  
i. How will the EU provide financial support under its 2023 -2027 Common Agricultural 
Policy (CAP) to reduce the risks of pesticide use while facilitating food security and 
minimizing the impact on trading partners?  
ii. The United States notes that there is no definition of "Integrated Pest Management 
Techniques " in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 or in Regulation (EU) 
No 2021/2115.  Please provide a definition of "Integrated Pest Management 
Techniques " and explain how the EU 's investments in Integrated Pest Management 
Techniques are consistent with its obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 107148 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/EU/88 , Section 3.1.4 provides information on types of interventions in rural development. 
We note that member States had "…the freedom to design their interventions as Green Box 
compatible, choosing the Paragraph most suitable to their situation out of those listed in Annex 2… " 
While there is a lot of descriptive information in this section, we do not see specific examples of 
member State programmes (interventions) and would ask the following questions:   
a. Please provide the specific programmes that EU member States have developed in 
accordance with Annex 2 criteria, along with a description of each programme and the 
basis for exemption.  
b. In particular, please provide more details about investments in irrigation, which is 
referenced on p. 8, and explain w hy paragraph 11 or paragraph 8 of Annex 2 would serve 
as the basis for exemption.  
AG-IMS ID 107144: Question by Australia - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
Australia thanks the EU for its response to AG -IMS ID 106115 . We note in the EU 's answer that only 
one EU member State made a choice to design two Coup led Support interventions in a way to comply 
with the requirements of Article 6.5.  
a. Could the EU please clarify which member State decided to design its Coupled Support 
interventions to comply with the requirements of Article 6.5?  
b. Could the EU please provid e further information on these two Coupled Support 
interventions including, if available, relevant links to webpages containing further 
information?  
AG-IMS ID 107146: Question by United States of America - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
In G/AG/N/EU/88  Section 1.3.2 Coupled Direct Payments, the EU explains that member States may 
grant Coupled Income Support under production -limiting programmes within defined quantitative 
limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals in compl iance with 
Article  6.5. Moreover, the notification states that other types of Coupled Support Payments applied 
without the production -limiting constraints are out of scope of this notification.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 52 - 
 
  a. Please provide an example of a member State Coupled Income Su pport under 
production -limiting programmes, compared to an example of a member State Coupled 
Income Support that is applied without the production -limiting constraints.  
b. Will the EU 's Table DS:1 notification provide specific legal or regulatory references f or each 
programme notified in Supporting Table DS:3 to enhance transparency and provide 
Members with the ability to review how each member State is implementing this type of 
program?  
AG-IMS ID 107145: Question by United States of America - Classification o f measures  
In G/AG/N/EU/88 , for a number of new or modified measures described under 1.3.1 Decoupled 
Direct Payments, paragraph 5 of Annex 2 is cited as the basis for exemption rather than paragraph  6 
of Annex 2 as was the case for the previous decoupled income support measures.   
a. For those measures in this category for which payments are not based on payment 
entitlements and the EU is claiming paragraph 5 of Annex 2 as the basis for exemption, 
please provide a fuller explanation of how these payments will be structured.   
b. Will the payment rate be unchanged or is there a different basis on which the payments 
will be made?  
2.4.5   Nigeria ( G/AG/N/NGA/27 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107197 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would li ke to thank Nigeria for notifying its Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) as 
part of its latest Table DS:2 notification. In the notification, Nigeria mentions that measures under 
ERGP fall under Annex 2 and Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Canada understands that 
ERGP is a wide -ranging plan that includes various policy tools that aim to boost agricultural 
productivity and self -sufficiency.   
Could Nigeria provide detailed information for each measure of the ERGP that meet the criteria of 
Annex 2, including how each of these measures meet the criteria as well as which policy -specific 
criteria are met?   
AG-IMS ID 107198 : Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/NGA/27 , Nigeria  has notified the Economic and Recovery Growth Plan (ERGP) that was 
established in February 2017 and concluded in December 2020.  Nigeria notes that this plan includes 
various measures that meet various Annex 2 and Article 6.2 criteria.  While efforts to boo st 
productivity are welcomed, particularly through the use of Annex 2 and Article 6.2 support, further 
information is requested.   
a. Utilizing Nigeria 's most recent Table DS:1 notification, G/AG/N/NGA/20 , please identify 
which measures correspond to the EG RP notified in G/AG/N/NGA/27 . 
b. For each measure within the ERGP, that is included in Supporting Table DS:2 
G/AG/N/NGA/27 , how does each meet the criteria established under Article 6.2 and 
Annex  2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 107199: Ques tion by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
While G/AG/N/NGA/27  is a welcome contribution, the notification has aggregated measures to such 
an extent that it is not possible to identify how measures comply with various exemption criteria. 
Nigeria is encouraged to provide additional details in a revision , as well as to respond to a number 
of outstanding questions that could be partially or fully answered through a more fulsome Table 
DS:2 notification.  These questions include AG -IMS IDs 99076 , 99077 , 98174 , and 98175 .  
a. When will responses to these questions, dating back to 2021, be provided for Members to 
review?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 53 - 
 
  b. When will a revised Table DS:2 be provided with the required information?  
2.4.6   United States of America  (G/AG/N/USA/170 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107109: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes  
India thanks the US for their DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/USA/170 ). With respect to the Organic and 
Transitional Education and Certification Program (OTECP), India understands it is a new programme 
that is included in environmental programmes in Annex 2 Paragraph 12 of the AoA. India also notes 
that US runs the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP) to provide cost share assistance 
to producers and handlers of agricultural products who are obtainin g or renewing their certification. 
In this regard the USA is requested to provide the following information:   
a. Under OTECP, what is the meaning of "portion of eligible expense ", under the criteria 
"payments only cover a portion of eligible expense "? 
b. Since t he OTECP and Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP) are both cost -
sharing programmes, what is the difference between them?  
c. India understands that the period of application is from FY 2022 and FY 2023. Are there 
any plans to extend the support pos t-2023 for OTECP?  
2.4.7   Uruguay ( G/AG/ N/URY/52 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107200 : Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes  
In 2013, Uruguay notified the Development and Climate Change Adaptation Project in its Table DS:2  
notification ( G/AG/N/URY/52 ). Under paragraph 5, G/AG/N/URY/52  says that the programme will be 
applied until March 2017. Uruguay has continued to notify programmes under DACC -World Bank, 
most recently the More Water for Rural Development Programme i n the Supporting Table DS:2 of 
G/AG/N/URY/84  for CY 2020.   
a. Please provide the current implementation period for the Development and Climate 
Change Adaptation Project.  
b. How has the measure been changed or modified since it was originally notified in 2013?  If 
there have been changes, will a Table DS:2 notification be issued?  
2.5  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  
2.5.1   Kazakhstan  (G/AG/N/KAZ/27 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107026 : Question by United Kingdom - Transparency issues  
We would like to thank Kazakhsta n for their submission of G/AG/N /KAZ/27 , notifying their export 
restrictions on live cattle and small cattle.   
We strongly encourage other WTO Members to follow Kazakhstan's good example, providing timely 
notification of export restrictions and prohibi tions to the Committee on Agriculture, and adopting 
measures (e.g. temporary quotas) that seek to mitigate the consequences on importing Members.   
We note that it is helpful for Members to understand the intended duration of any restrictive 
measures - could Kazakhstan provide further information on how the timescales for their measures 
were determined?  
AG-IMS ID 107029: Question by United States of America, Switzerland - Transparency 
issues  
In December 2022, Kazakhstan introduced an export quota for bulls, rams, and cattle breeding stock 
at 60,000 head for bulls over 12 months of age and 120,000 head for ram over six months of age; G/AG/W/243  
 
- 54 - 
 
  the measure was set to expire in March 2023. In March 2023, the Ministry of Agriculture extended 
the export quota until 24 Decem ber 2023. The most recent extension was notified in 
G/AG/N/KAZ/27 .  
a. Please explain how export controls on live cattle from Kazakhstan have impacted producer 
income and profitability?  
b. Has Kazakhstan considered other policy options that would not distort  markets or reduce 
income for Kazakhstan producers as a result of exports of live cattle to international 
markets?  If so, please explain the options considered.  
2.6  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1)  
2.6.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/154 , G/AG/N/CAN/ 155, G/AG/N/CAN/156 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107201 : Question by European Union - Quantity and concessionality of food 
aid 
Canada indicates that its "food assistance incorporates a mix of tools, including provision of eligible 
products,  cash, vouchers, nutritional interventions, and livelihood protection in emergency and early 
recovery situations ". What proportion of Canadian food assistance was given as in -kind assistance 
in the notified period 2019 - 2021?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Austral ia 
AG-IMS ID 107187 : Question by European Union  
Last Australia 's DS1 notification covers the years 2018/2019. When will Australia provide its updated 
notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 107090: Question by India  
India thanks Australia for filing the long overdue DS:1 notification for Marketing Year 2019 -20. 
However, India notes that Australia 's notifications for Marketing Years 2020 -21, remains pending for 
two years. In previous responses to questions regarding due DS:1 notifications, Australia had replied  
that it would file the notifications in due course. Given that Australia is a developed country and 
technologically advanced economy, India seeks to know what factors or constraints are causing 
delays in notifying their Domestic Support programmes.  
AG-IMS ID 107091: Question by India  
India notes that Australia 's DS:1 notification for Marketing  Years 2021 -22, remains pending for more 
than a year.  As per G/AG/2  Australia as a Member with base and annual commitment  Australia 
should provide notifications no later than 90 days  following the end of the calendar (or, marketing, 
fiscal, etc.) year in  question. And provide a final notification no later than 120 days if a  provisional 
notification was submitted within 90 days.  
In this regard, India has the following ques tion: 
Considering  DS:1 notification requirements of G/AG/2  are not fulfilled by Australia  repeatedly, does 
Australia consider these timelines too difficult to adhere to?   
AG-IMS ID 107092: Question by India  
India notes that Australia 's DS:1 notification for Marketin g Years 2022 -23 remains to be filed. With 
this, Australia has outstanding notifications for three years. For effective monitoring and functioning 
of the Committee on Agriculture, transparent information on the measures adopted by Members is 
essential, part icularly if that Member is a developed economy with base and annual commitments; 
in the absence of notification by the Members, this function is adversely affected.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 55 - 
 
  In this regard, India would like to know what measures Australia is taking to expedite the  process 
of filing the notifications at the WTO in time and to submit its outstanding notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 107188 : Question by United States of America  
Noting Australia has just submitted G/AG/N/AUS/157  for FY 2019/20:   
When can Members expect A ustralia to notify for subsequent years?  
3.2  Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 107117: Question by India  
The latest DS notification ( G/AG/N/BRA/74 ) submitted by Brazil is for the Agricultural Year 2020/21. 
Could Brazil indicate when it plans to submit its outstanding DS notification for 2021 -22? 
3.3  Canada  
AG-IMS ID 107189: Question by United States of America  
Efforts taken by Canada to bring its Table DS:1 and Table DS:2 notifications more up to date are 
greatly appreciated.  However, Canada 's most recent notification is for CY 2020.   
When can Members expect Canada to notify for subsequent years?  
3.4  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 107116: Question by India  
In response to AG -IMS ID 106172 , the EU stat ed that it is working actively to overcome the delays 
in the DS:1 notifications for marketing years 2020 -21 and 2021 -22. In this context, India seeks 
information on the following:   
a. What are the difficulties faced by the EU in adhering to the notification o bligations?  
b. What steps is the EU taking to actively overcome the delays in the DS:1 notification for 
marketing years 2020 -21 and 2021 -22?  
3.5  India  
AG-IMS ID 107042: Question by Australia  
The below question is asked to India as a follow up to AG ‑IMS IDs 106038 , 97081 , 93168 , 92030 , 
91143  and 88085  and considering that 1) India's last Table ES:1 was for  2013/14 and India has 
utilized agricultural export subsidies since then, and 2) India has never notified a Table ES:3 
notification even though Ind ia has provided international food aid.   
Please provide an update on the status of preparation of its overdue Table ES:1 and Table ES:3 
notifications.  Also, please clarify when the Committee on Agriculture can expect to receive these 
notifications.  
3.6  Thailan d 
AG-IMS ID 107106: Question  by India  
In response to question AG -IMS ID  105113 , Thailand stated that they were in the process of 
gathering information for publishing their outstanding DS:1 notifications for calendar years 2017, 
2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 and would notify the CoA at the earliest.  
For effective monitoring and functioning of the Committee on Agriculture, transparent information 
on the measures adopted by Members is essential; in the absence of notification by the Members, 
this function is adversely affected. As a developing country, Th ailand is required to notify their G/AG/W/243  
 
- 56 - 
 
  Domestic Support notification within one year.  However, Thailand has failed to submit its DS:1 
notifications for the calendar year 2017 onwards.  The last submitted notification pertains to the 
calendar years 2014 to 2016 (G/AG/N/THA/85 ) dated 6th October 2017. In this regard:  
a. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2017, which has been pending for five years?  
b. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2018, which has been pending for four years?  
c. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2019, which has been pending for three years?  
d. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2020, which has been pending for two years?  
e. To maintain transparency, when does Thailand plan to submit its outstanding DS:1 for the 
calendar year 2021, whic h has been pending for more than a year?  
In view of the above, could Thailand  
f. Please explain what measures has Thailand undertaken so far to comply with its 
outstanding notification obligations.  
g. Please provide reasons for the delay in filing the notificat ions. 
4  DEFERRED REPLIES  
4.1  MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
4.1.1   Angola's import policies (SIM 660)  
4.1.1.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107044 ) 
The EU would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS 100058 . 
 
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, 
which provides new import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods. This Presidential Decree 
seeks to support domestic production and economic development by restricting importers' access to 
imports, including through an import licensing system that appears to prioritize the use of domestic 
production, similar to an import substitution policy. Given the potential impacts on EU's exports to 
Angola of agricultural products covered by Presidential Decree 23/19, the EU would appreciate if 
Angola could provide clarifications on the following points:  
a. Could Angola provide additional information on the agricultural product s covered by the 
scope of Presidential Decree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, 
as well as a list of specific goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the Decree?  
b. Could Angola explain how the res trictions are implemented, and notably if licenses are 
used to manage these restrictions?  
c. Could Angola elaborate on the process importers and wholesalers have to follow to be 
eligible for an import license, including on the specific steps required?  
d. Could A ngola provide additional clarifications on the quantitative restrictions laid down by 
Article 11 of the Decree, especially on how the assessment of the existence of internal 
capacity for import substitution is conducted?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Angola previously indicated that ca ncellation of the Decree will depend on the achievement of its 
objectives.  
e. Could  Angola elaborate on the methodology and process for the assessment of the 
achievement of those objectives?  
4.1.2   Australia, Canada , European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Unit ed Kingdom, 
United States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
4.1.2.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID 107036 , 107046 , 107049 , 107053 , 
107056 , 107058 , 107065 , 107068 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
The following restrictive measures have been introduced against the Russian F ederation with severe 
negative effects on domestic agricultural production cycle and the global food security:   
a. Prohibitions to provide technical assistance, brokering services or other services related to 
certain goods, including agriculture goods, for an y sale, supply, transfer or export of those 
goods.  
b. Prohibitions to provide financing or financial assistance related to certain goods, including 
agriculture goods, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those goods.  
c. Prohibitions to provide insurance a nd reinsurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export 
of those goods.  
d. Application of financial restrictions on Russian Agriculture Bank assets, as well as 
prohibitions to deal with their assets.  
To our regret, we have to acknowledge that for the most par t, these are the developing, including 
net-food-importing developing countries and the least -developed countries, that pay the highest 
price for such restrictive measures.  
Could Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Norway, Japan, New Zealand, th e 
United  Kingdom and the United States, please, clarify how the application of such measures 
contributes to global food security. In particular, whether they believe that the observed disruptions 
in the supply chains of goods and services related to the pr oduction and distribution of agricultural 
products, including wheat and fertilizers, and increased volatility in the global agricultural market 
should be considered as useful contributions to food security.   
4.1.3   United Kingdom's banking and financial restricti ons (SIM 810)  
4.1.3.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107066 ) 
The Russian Federation is examining the amendment to Genera l Licence – Transactions related to 
agricultural commodities including the provision of insurance and other services 
(INT/2022/2349952) as of June 6, 2023. Could the United Kingdom please confirm that this 
regulation lifts any restrictions imposed earlier on collaboration of Russian exporters and GAFTA?  
4.1.4   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  
4.1.4.1   Question by Russian  Federation (AG -IMS ID 107045 , 107047 , 107062 , 107067 , 
107069 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 58 - 
 
  In 2022, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have 
introduced i mport tariffs on agricultural products in excess of their bound rates violating a number 
of their bound rate commitments.  
Such an apparent violation of the WTO commitments contributed to deteriorations in the agricultural 
markets.  
We expect information from mentioned Members about the timing of elimination of the 
inconsistencies as part of their contributions to world food security and on compliance with tariff 
commitments.  
4.1.5   Burkina Faso's domestic support (SIM 845)  
4.1.5.1   Question by United States o f America (AG -IMS ID 107008 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106039  for which a response is requested through this 
resubmission.   
In G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , and G/AG/N/BFA/22 , Burkina Faso notified that it provided no 
domestic support for the period 2019 through 2022. However, it appears that Burkina Faso may 
have provided various forms of domestic support during this time period, which may fall within 
various WTO categories of support including Green and Amber Boxes.   
For example, official Burkina Faso government data indicates that there was a fixed farm gate price 
for cotton as well as subsidized prices for fertilizer for cotton during 2019/20, 2020/21, 20 21/22, 
and 2022/23. Another example is the National Rice Development Strategy, which includes among 
other things, government funded research and extension for the rice sector.   
a. Please describe the government's role in setting prices for cotton and fertiliz er in Burkina 
Faso during the time period covered by G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , and 
G/AG/N/BFA/22 . 
b. Please provide additional details regarding the National Rice Development Strategy and 
the government's role in the strategy.  
c. Please explain why such measures were not notified, a nd confirm whether any other 
domestic support measures were provided from 2019 through 2022.  
4.1.6   Canada , European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  
4.1.6.1   Question by Russian Federa tion (AG -IMS ID 107048 , 107050 , 107054 , 107059 , 
107064 , 107060 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited the sale, supply, transfer or export of goods 
which, according to the Council Regulation № 833/2014, could contribute to the enhancement of the 
Russian Federations' industrial capacities. Such goods, in particular, include tractors, track -laying 
tractors and road tractors for semi -trailers, etc., which a re used in the agricultural sector.  
Similar trade restrictions were undertaken by Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014), Norway (Decision 
No. 1076), New Zealand (Regulation SL 2022/74), Canada (Regulation SOR/2014 -58) and Japan 
(Cabinet of Ministers Decision of  7 June 2022 on Measures Concerning the Situation in Ukraine).  
As one of the major suppliers of agricultural products, including critical foodstuffs and grains, in 
particular wheat, the Russian Federation ensures food security of a large number of countrie s, 
net‑food importing developing countries included. However, the trade prohibitions and restrictions 
applied on agricultural machinery including spare parts already now has a negative impact on G/AG/W/243  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Russia's agricultural output, which, in turn, will progressiv ely contribute to the food crisis and 
jeopardize global food security in the long run.  
In this regard, we would like to find out how the application of such measures correlates with the 
declared objective to mitigate the food security concerns.  
4.1.7   Cameroon's  import substitution policy (SIM 846)  
4.1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 107009 ) 
No response has been provided t o AG-IMS ID 106040  for which a response is requested thro ugh this 
resubmission.   
In February 2023, the Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development (MINEPAT) released 
the MINEPAT report (MINEPAT Economic Reports - MINEPAT Cameroun), which describes the 
implementation of an import substitution policy fo cused on the agricultural industry.   
a. Please explain how this measure will not restrict imports.  
b. Please explain how this measure is compliant with commitments under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, Article III:4 of the GATT, and other relevant 
WTO commitments.  
4.1.8   Côte d'Ivoire – Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  
4.1.8.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 107118 ) 
The EU wants to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID  96046 . 
Côte d'Ivoire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
Code général des impôts2. This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  
How does it respect the following WTO commitments:  
• Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
• Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxati on and Regulation).  
4.1.9   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport 
(SIM  778)  
4.1.9.1   Question by Russian Federation  (AG-IMS ID 107051 , 107055 , 107061 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:   
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohib ited for any road transport undertaking established 
in the Russian Federation to transport goods by road within the territory of the EU, including in 
transit (Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision No. 
1076) and I celand (Regulation No 281/2014).   
Application of such measures only creates impediments for trade and imposes conditions that can 
negatively affect the stability of global agricultural market.   
At the same time, according to the above -mentioned regulations , competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland may authorize the transport of goods by a road transport undertaking 
established in the Russian Federation if the competent authorities have determined that such 
 
2 http://www.dgi.cgici.com/indexs.htm . G/AG/W/243  
 
- 60 - 
 
  transport is necessary for the purchase, impo rt or transport of agricultural and food products, 
including wheat and fertilizers whose import, purchase and transport is allowed under the 
Regulation.   
In our view, the above -mentioned provisions of the regulations can be interpreted ambiguously, and 
are inherently discretionary. Such situation can lead to overcompliance, which, in turn, results in 
non-application of the exemptions and de -facto restrictions in respect of agricultural products.   
In this regard, we would be grateful if the EU, Norway and Ic eland could clarify the following:   
a. Can the competent authorities withhold authorizations for the transport of goods by a road 
transport undertaking established in the Russian Federation  even if such transport is 
necessary for the purchase, import or trans port of agricultural and food products, including 
wheat and fertilizers, given the wording used in the Regulation?  
b. What is the procedure for obtaining such an authorization? And what regulations govern 
this procedure?  
c. How many authorizations have been issu ed under this Regulation to date?  
d. Is there an approved form of such an authorization?  
4.1.10   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports (SIM 782)  
4.1.10.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 107052 , 107057 , 107063 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 16 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited access to ports in the EU territory to any vessel 
registered under the flag of the Russian Federation, as well as to vessels that have changed their 
Russian flag or their registration to the flag or register of any other State after 24 February 2022 
(Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision No. 1076) 
and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  
At the same time, according to the menti oned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland may authorize a vessel to access a port under such conditions as they deem 
appropriate, after having determined that the access is necessary for the purchase, import or 
transport of agricultu ral and food products, including wheat and fertilizers whose import, purchase 
and transport is allowed under the Regulation.  
There is no settled procedure or conditions for obtaining such authorization. There is no form of 
proof of such authorization, and no information on the number of permits issued.  
Such artificial logistical barriers, as well as non -transparent and ambiguous regulations are 
destabilizing global agricultural markets and have even more severe consequences for the global  
food security. For instance, according to the last estimations of the WTO, fertilizer prices rose 60% 
year-on-year in August. Meanwhile, imposing prohibitions on logistical capabilities of one of the 
major suppliers of fertilizers, will only consolidate t his upward trend, which, in turn, will lead to food 
insecurity and debt distress in developing countries.  
We expect Members concerned to explain how they are willing to ensure effective elimination of the 
above -mentioned  restrictions in respect of agricult ural products. Currently their exemptions to 
regulations are not working.  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 61 - 
 
  4.1.11   India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme (SIM 471)  
4.1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 107028 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106024 , India stated that it had noted the question and would revert. 
We would like to repeat the question:  
a. Please confirm whether India sells foodgrains, including rice, at prices below costs under 
the Open Market Sale Scheme.   
b. Please  clarify what costs are being borne by the Price Stabilization Fund.  
4.1.11.2   Question by United States of America , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107149 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106024 , India stated it would revert with a response at a later date, which 
has not yet been uploaded to AG -IMS. Therefore, the question is resubmitted.   
The Indian Food Secretary Sanjeev Chopra told media , "There has been a sharp increase in prices 
of wheat and rice recently…. The governmen t has decided to offload 50 lakh tonnes (5 million ton nes) 
wheat and 25 lakh tonnes (2.5 million ton nes) rice under the Open Market Sale Scheme. "  
Further it is noted that the reserve price for rice released under open market sales was reduced and 
the Food  Secretary told media , "The cost on account of reduction in the reserve price will  be borne 
from the Price Stabilization Fund maintained by the Department of Consumer Affairs. "  
a. Please confirm whether India sells foodgrains, including rice, at prices below costs under 
the Open Market Sale Scheme.   
b. Please clarify what costs are being bor ne by the Price Stabilization Fund.  
4.1.12   India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision (SIM 852)  
4.1.12.1   Question by Australia , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 10715 1) 
Australia notes India 's answer to AG -IMS ID 106027 . However, India did not provide an adequate 
answer. Therefore, we would like to ask the question again:  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105051 , we would like to repeat the 
question:  Item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25 , and 
G/AG/N/IND/27  mentions that "Relevant laws and regulations" includes v arious State 
legislation/orders. However, item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  does not contain 
reference to States.   
Please provide a complete list identifying all state legislation/orders that are relevant to the 
stockholding programme, as well as copie s of those documents or specific URLs/weblinks.  
4.1.12.2   Question by Australia  (AG-IMS ID 107152 ) 
Australia notes India 's response to  AG-IMS ID 106030 . However, India did not answer the que stion 
adequately.  
Please provide data (and the source) for 2017/18 through 2021/22 of the quantities of paddy and 
wheat procured by NAFED both on behalf of the Food Corporation of India and those purchased on 
a commercial basis.  
4.1.12.3   Question by United States o f America, Australia , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107018 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 106030 , India noted that, according to NAFED 's Annual Report 2021 -22, 
there is no indication of any paddy or wheat procurement done on a commercial basis and it only G/AG/W/243  
 
- 62 - 
 
  provided details of procurement done on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. Further, the NAFED 
website specifically indicates that  foodgrain procurement was done on behalf of the Food Corporation 
of India and states that the NAFED Annual Report provides the current/updated details regarding 
procurement.   
In response, India stated "The referred shipment (AG -IMS ID 105043 ) of rice to Bang ladesh 
(G2G trade), rice and wheat to Myanmar (humanitarian aid) and all other trades carried by NAFED 
are based on commercial purchases from the open market by way of floating tenders/e -auctions and 
are not linked with public stocks procured at MSP. "  
However, India did not provide the data requested. Therefore, the question is resubmitted:   
Please provide data (and the source) for 2017/18 through 2021/22 of the quantities of paddy and 
wheat procured by NAFED both on behalf of FCI and those purchased on a commercial basis.  
4.1.13   Tanzania 's export restriction on maize (SIM 860)  
4.1.13.1   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 107127 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106015  for which a response is requested through this 
resubmission.   
The United Kingdom is aware of media reporting on Tanzania 's application of an export restriction 
on maize. To provide clarity to Members, could Tanzania please confirm: the nature of these 
measures; their intended duration; and what consideration it has given to the effects of this measure 
on importing Members ' food security in accordance with Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture? The United Kingdom no tes that Tanzania is a net -exporter of maize. We would be 
interested to understand when Tanzania plans to provide an ER:1 Table to the Committee on 
Agriculture for their export restrictions on this specific foodstuff.   
4.1.14   Thailand's Paddy Pledging  Scheme (SIM  313)  
4.1.14.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 107083 ) 
India reiterates the question asked in AGIMS ID 106158  since no response was received for the 
same.  
India thanks Thailand for their answ ers to AG -IMS IDs 103137 , 104101 , and 105103 . However, the 
answers provided do not sufficiently aid us in analysing the WTO compatibility of the rice policy. 
With Thailand's DS:1 notifications pending for the last six years, India believes the information 
sought here is vital to uphold transparency and determine the WTO consistency of rice policies. In 
this context, India requests Thailand to respond to the following:  
a. India observes that over the years Thailand has implemented support measures like 
pledging programs and price insurance programs, amon g others, for rice producers. Since 
it is difficult to determine which of these programs are currently being implemented, India 
requests Thailand to provide the name and the implementation details of all the schemes 
designed to support rice farmers, at pre sent.  
b. How does Thailand intend to notify these measures in the DS:1 notification?  
c. For the sake of transparency, India further requests links to the official websites which 
provide the objectives, working details and timely updates for these, if any.  
4.1.15   Türki ye's increased import tariffs (SIM 833)  
4.1.15.1   Question by United States of America , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 107131 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106055  for which a response is requested through this 
resubmission.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 63 - 
 
  We would like to follow up on the joint question by Canada and the European Union AG -IMS 
ID 105090  regarding Türkiye's increase in tariffs for certain grains.   
a. Please explain whether foreign purchases by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) are subject 
to the increased tariffs.  
b. If TMO is not subject to the 130% import tariffs:  
i. Please provide a copy of the decree or relevant authority authorizing TMO's Please 
exemption , and 
ii. explain if there are any other entities also exempt from these import duties.  
4.1.16   Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  
4.1.16.1   Question  by United States of America, United Kingdom , Canada  (AG-IMS ID 
107130 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106054  for which a response is requested through this 
resubmission.   
We would like to follow up on AG -IMS IDs 103031  and 100014  regarding Türkiye's reimbursements 
of freight costs for certain agricultural products. Understanding that certain freight subsidies may be 
authorized under the 2015 N airobi Decision on Export Competition, this authorization is set to soon 
expire. We request that Türkiye provide information on its freight reimbursement programme so 
that WTO Members may better understand its export regime. We repeat AG -IMS IDs 103031  and 
100014  below:  
a. Please provide a copy of or link to the legal measures authorizing these subsidies, 
specifically a 2016 decision entitled "İhraç Taşımalarına Navlun Desteği Sağlanması 
Hakkında Karar" (Decision on Freight Support for Exports) and subsequent implementing 
measures.  
b. What products are eligible to receive freight support?  
c. What are the eligible destinations?  
d. How is the freight support determined? How much may an exporter receive per shipment?  
e. Please confirm the years and periods within each year th at Türkiye has authorized such 
freight support since 2016, including for 2022 and beyond, if applicable.  
f. Please provide quantities of goods receiving support by tariff code (at least the 4 -digit 
level) and the total amount of subsidy and amount of subsidy per tariff code. In addition, 
please identify the quantities and total amount of subsidy for goods exported to the United 
States, including for dry milled corn products (HS 1104.23).  
g. Noting the apparent contingency on export performance and understanding these 
measures were introduced following the 2015 Nairobi Decision on Export Competition and 
may still be authorized to provide support, please explain how these measures comply 
with Türkiye's export subsidy scheduled commitments and its comm itments under the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
4.1.17   Türkiye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
4.1.17.1   Question by United  States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland , Japan  (AG-
IMS ID  107129 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106056  for which a response is requested throug h this 
resubmission.   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 64 - 
 
  We would like to follow up on AG -IMS IDs 101042  and 102029  regarding Türkiye's export 
restrictions. We note that Türkiye announced another export ban on olive oil from 1 August 2023 
until 1 November 2023 and introduced restrictions on chickpea and lentil exports that have not yet 
been notified to the Committee on Agriculture. We remind Türkiye t hat as a WTO Member it agreed 
to notify export restrictions imposed on products for which Türkiye is a net -food exporter, even for 
those temporary in nature, to the WTO Committee on Agriculture.   
a. Please provide a copy of or link to both the authorities giv en to the Turkish Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry (MinAF) and the regulations or documentation of MinAF 
implementing these authorities for specific commodities.  
b. When will Türkiye notify its export restrictions on olive oil, chickpeas, lentils, or othe r 
agricultural products to the Committee on Agriculture through the required Table ER:1 
notification?  
4.1.18   United Arab Emirates  - Rice export ban  (SIM 862)  
4.1.18.1   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 
107134 ) 
No response has been provided to AG -IMS ID 106061  for which a response is requested through this 
resubmission.   
It is understood that the United Arab Emirates ' Ministry of Economy banned the export and re -export 
of rice on 28 July 2023.   
a. What was the reason for implementing this measure?  
b. Please confirm when the measure will be lifted and whether an extension will be 
considered.  
4.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH I NDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
4.2.1   DOMESTIC  SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
4.2.1.1   Bangladesh ( G/AG/N/BGD/5 , G/AG/N/BGD/6 , G/AG/N/BGD/7 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107159: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In light of the lack of a written response from Bangladesh regarding questi on AG-IMS ID 106019 , 
Canada would like to reiterate its question:   
In reviewing Bangladesh's Table DS:1 notifications for reporting periods 2008/09 ( G/AG/N/BGD/5 ), 
2010/2011 ( G/AG/N/BGD/6 ), 2012/2013 ( G/AG/N/BGD/7 , 2014/2015 ( G/AG/N/BGD/8 ), 2016/2017 
(G/AG/N/BGD/9 ), 2018/2019 ( G/AG/N/BGD/10 ), and 2020/2021 ( G/AG/N/BGD/11 ), Canada would 
like to seek clarification on measures reported in Supporting Table DS:9:   
a. Could Bangladesh clarify what programmes or measures are included as part of its 
notificat ion of indirect subsidies?   
b. How are these indirect subsidies provided to farmers with respect to imported urea and 
non-urea fertilizers?   
c. Could Bangladesh provide an example to illustrate the methodology used to calculate the 
outlays for these indirect sub sidies?   G/AG/W/243  
 
- 65 - 
 
  4.2.1.2   Burkina Faso ( G/AG/N/BF A/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , G/AG/N/BFA/22 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107160 : Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In light of the lack of written response from Burkina Faso regarding question AG -IMS ID 106090, 
Canada would ask again the following:   
Canada appreciates the effort Burkina Faso has made in submitting its annual domestic support 
notification for 2019, 2021 and 2022. Burkina Faso's notifications state that its government does 
not provide domestic support to its agricultural sector.   
Despite this, Canada understands that Burkina Faso's Ministère de l'Agriculture et des  
Aménagements  Hydro -agricoles has recently launched a regional (Sud -Ouest, Hauts -Bassins, 
Cascad es and Boucle du Mohoun) agriculture support project 
(https://www. agriculture.gov.bf/accueil/details?tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5
Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=108&cHash=4cb2ca8cfb1fb45a33385705fc73f2
83), and that the Minstère des Ressources Animales et Halie utiques has provided input subsidies for 
forage seeds to Burkina Faso's agriculture producers 
(https://www.mra.gov.bf/accueil/details?tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontr
oller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=127&cHash=271542e9e70fcf0888cefd065a196028 ). 
a. Considering the above, could B urkina Faso elaborate on potential plans to provide a 
domestic support notification to this Committee, which would reflect the implementation 
of these domestic support measures by Burkina Faso?   
b. Could Burkina Faso also provide an update on its plans to sub mit its domestic support 
notification for 2020?  
4.2.1.3   India ( G/AG/N/IND/29 ) 
AG-IMS ID 107166: Question by Australia , Canada  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105047 , we would like to repeat the 
question:  In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/29 , and also in the annexes  that appear in 
G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 , item 2. c., under 
"Agency in charge of implementation" the following entities  are listed: the Ministry of Agriculture & 
Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India; 
Food Corporation of India (FCI); National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India (NAFED); and 
State governments  and their agencies.   
Please provide a list of all state agencies involved in implementation of the programme.  
AG-IMS ID 107164: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105042 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
In Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 , India has provided limited  information about the 
insurance premium and interest subsidies extended to various crops or agricultural products, and 
also does not appear to include information on any state -specific measures. For example, it  is 
understood the states of Bihar, Punjab, and West Bengal have their own state crop insurance 
programs, which are funded by the states and not the central government.   
a. Please confirm what schemes are included under the measure notified as "insurance 
premium subsidy" and provide a breakdown of expenditures for each. For example, does 
"insurance premium subsidy" include the following crop insurance schemes: Pradhan 
Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Unified Package 
Insurance Sche me, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, National Crop Insurance 
Program?  G/AG/W/243  
 
- 66 - 
 
  b. Please confirm what Indian states implement crop insurance schemes in addition to or 
separate from the national crop insurance program and provide links to the operational 
guideli nes for each.  
c. Please confirm whether the notified value for crop insurance includes these state -level 
measures and if not, why.  
d. Please identify what crops or agricultural products are eligible for the national insurance 
premium and interest subsidies.  
e. Please explain why India notifies insurance premiums as non -product specific given that 
at least some of the insurance schemes have varying premiums rates for different eligible 
crops. For example, under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium rate 
for wheat is the lesser of 1.5% or the actuarial rate, while that for bajra and oilseeds is 
the lesser of 3.5% or the actuarial rate, and horticultural crops are the actuarial rate.  
AG-IMS ID 107150: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
In response to AG -IMS ID 106032  India stated it was compiling the requested information; however, 
the information has not been provided in writing.  Therefore, the question is resubmitted for a 
response:   
As we have not yet received a reply from India t o AG-IMS ID 105042 , we repeat the question:  In 
Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 , India has provided limited information about the 
insurance premium and interest subsidies extended to various crops or agricultural products, and 
also does not appear to include information on any state -specif ic measures. For example, it is 
understood the states of Bihar, Punjab, and West Bengal have their own state crop insurance 
programs, which are funded by the states and not the central government.  
a. Please confirm what schemes are included under the measure notified as "insurance 
premium subsidy" and provide a breakdown of expenditures for each. For example, does 
"insurance premium subsidy" include the following crop insurance schemes: Pradhan 
Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Uni fied Package 
Insurance Scheme, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, National Crop Insurance 
Program?  
b. Please confirm what Indian states implement crop insurance schemes in addition to or 
separate from the national crop insurance program and provide links  to the operational 
guidelines for each.  
c. Please confirm whether the notified value for crop insurance includes these state -level 
measures and if not, why.  
d. Please identify what crops or agricultural products are eligible for the national insurance 
premium a nd interest subsidies.  
e. Please explain why India notifies insurance premiums as non -product specific given that 
at least some of the insurance schemes have varying premium rates for different eligible 
crops. For example, under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium rate 
for wheat is the lesser of 1.5 % or the actuarial rate, while that for bajra and oilseeds is 
the lesser of 3.5 % or the actuarial rate, and horticultural crops are the actuarial rate.  
__________