G/AG/W/207  
 
9 September 2020  
(20-6104) Page: 1/52 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 22 -23 SEPTEMBER 20201 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline 
of 7 September 2020 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/44.  
 
_______________  
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
1.1   China - measures adopted at the border to avoid the transmission of COVID -19 .................  7 
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95045)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.2   China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  ................................ ..................  7 
1.2.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95023)  ................................ ............  7 
1.2.2   Question by United States of Ame rica (AG -IMS ID 95024)  ................................ ............  7 
1.2.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95025)  ................................ ............  7 
1.3   European Union - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  ................................ ........................  8 
1.3.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95048)  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.4   United States - EU-US tariff  reduction agreement  ................................ ...........................  8 
1.4.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95073)  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.5   EU - national state aid programmes in response to COVID -19 ................................ ..........  8 
1.5.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95049)  ................................ .............................  8 
1.6   EU- France and Italy's support for the wine sector  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.6.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95050)  ................................ .............................  9 
1.7   EU's variable import levies for cereals  ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
1.7.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95001)  ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
1.8   India- Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund  ................................ .............  9 
1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95054)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.9   India -Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95055)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10   India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products .........................  10 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95033)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.11   Indonesia - import permission for rice  ................................ ................................ ........  10 
1.11.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95058)  ................................ ................................ .... 10 
1.12   Nepal's import ban  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 
1.12.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95034)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.13   Norway's proposed changes to its goods schedule XIV  ................................ ..................  10 
1.13.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95065)  ................................ ..........................  10 
1.14   Russian Federation's import restrictions in response to COVID -19 ................................ .. 11 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95066)  ................................ ................................  11 
1.15   Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  ................................ .............  11 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 95067)  ................................ ......................  11 
1.16   Russian Federation's grain subsidy programme  ................................ ...........................  12 
1.16.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95040)  ................................ ..........  12 
1.17   Thailand's sugar support  ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95069)  ................................ ................................  12 
1.18   Turkey's applied tariffs  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
1.18.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95070)  ................................ ................................ .... 12 G/AG/W/207  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.19   Turkey - Inward Processing Regime Verification  ................................ ...........................  13 
1.19.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95039)  ................................ ..........  13 
1.20   UK's border control during the Brexit transition period  ................................ ..................  13 
1.20.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95002)  ................................ ................................ .... 13 
1.21   U.S. DS: 1 notifications  ................................ ................................ ...........................  14 
1.21.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95075)  ................................ ..........................  14 
1.22   U.S. direct payments to farmers  ................................ ................................ ...............  14 
1.22.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95072) ................................ ................................ .. 14 
1.23   U.S. domestic support polices  ................................ ................................ ...................  14 
1.23.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95015)  ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
1.24   Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  ................................ .................  15 
1.24.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 950 41)................................ ................................ .. 15 
1.24.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95042) ................................ ................................ .. 15 
1.24.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95008)  ................................ ................................ ..... 15 
1.25   Brazil's subsidized loans  ................................ ................................ ...........................  16 
1.25.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95009)  ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
1.26   Brazil's wheat quota  ................................ ................................ ................................  16 
1.26.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95010)  ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
1.27   Canada - Farm Credit Canada  ................................ ................................ ...................  16 
1.27.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95011)  ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
1.28   Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ ............  17 
1.28.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95005)  ................................ ..........  17 
1.28.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95006)  ................................ ..........  17 
1.28.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95146)  ................................ ..........  17 
1.29   Canada's TRQ consultation process  ................................ ................................ ............  17 
1.29.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95043)  ................................ ..........................  17 
1.30   China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ .......................  17 
1.30.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95044)  ................................ ................................  17 
1.31   United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  ................................ ............  18 
1.31.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95071)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.32   EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 ................................ .........................  19 
1.32.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95046)  ................................ ................................  19 
1.32.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95047)  ................................ ................................  19 
1.33   EU's environmental policies  ................................ ................................ ......................  19 
1.33.1    Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 95116) and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95098) ................  19 
1.33.2    Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95097)  ................................ ...............................  20 
1.34   EU's intervention policy  ................................ ................................ ...........................  20 
1.34.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95026)  ................................ ..........  20 
1.34.2    Question by United States o f America (AG -IMS ID 95027)  ................................ ..........  21 
1.34.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95028)  ................................ ..........  21 G/AG/W/207  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95029)  ................................ ..........  21 
1.35   India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  ................................ .......................  21 
1.35.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95051)  ................................ ................................  21 
1.36   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  22 
1.36.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95052)  ................................ ................................  22 
1.36.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95056) ................................ ................................ .. 22 
1.36.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95057)  ................................ ..................  22 
1.37   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  23 
1.37.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95053)  ................................ ................................  23 
1.38   India's DS:1 notifications  ................................ ................................ .........................  24 
1.38.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95030)  ................................ ..........  24 
1.38.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95031)  ................................ ..........  25 
1.38.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95032)  ................................ ..........  25 
1.39   Japan's support package  ................................ ................................ ..........................  25 
1.39.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95059)  ................................ ................................  25 
1.40   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ..... 25 
1.40.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95060)  ................................ ..................  25 
1.41   New Zealand's International AirFreight Capacity Scheme  ................................ ..............  26 
1.41.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID  95061) ................................ ................................ .. 26 
1.42   Nigeria's DS notifications  ................................ ................................ .........................  26 
1.42.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95062)  ................................ ................................  26 
1.43   Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange  restrictions for dairy and corn imports  .....................  26 
1.43.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95035)  ................................ ..........  26 
1.44   Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural products  ................................ .........  27 
1.44.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95064)  ................................ ................................  27 
1.45   Russian  Federation's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ........  27 
1.45.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95036)  ................................ ..........  27 
1.45.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95037)  ................................ ..........  28 
1.46   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  ..............................  28 
1.46.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95068)  ................................ ..........  28 
1.47   Russian Federatio n's export quota  ................................ ................................ .............  29 
1.47.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95012)  ................................ ................................ ..... 29 
1.48   Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  ................................ ................................ ..........  29 
1.48.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95038)  ................................ ..........  29 
1.49   U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  ................................ ................................ . 30 
1.49.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95014)  ................................ ................................ ..... 30 
1.49.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95074)  ................................ ..........................  30 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  30 
2.1   Imports under Tariff and other Quota Commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 30 
2.1.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/135)  ................................ ................................ ...................  30 G/AG/W/207  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/36)  ................................ ................................ ..... 31 
2.1.3   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  ................................ ................................ ........................  31 
2.2   Special Agricultural Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ..................  31 
2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/62)  ................................ ................................ .............  31 
2.3   Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  31 
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  ................................ ................................ ...................  31 
2.3.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/43)  ................................ ................................ ..... 32 
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  ................................ .......................  32 
2.3.4   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  ................................ ................................ ......................  34 
2.3.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  ................................ ................................ ......................  34 
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  34 
2.3.7   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  ................................ ................................ ........................  38 
2.3.8   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
2.3.9   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  ................................ ................................ ....... 39 
2.3.10    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/37)  ................................ ..............................  41 
2.3.11    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123, G/AG/N/USA/135)  ................................ . 42 
2.4   New or modified Domestic Support Measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ .............  43 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  ................................ ................................ ...................  43 
2.4.2   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/118)  ................................ ................................ ..............  44 
2.5   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ .............  44 
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/127)  ................................ ................................ ...................  44 
2.6   Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  ................................ ...........................  45 
2.6.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  ................................ ................................ .............  45 
2.6.2   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/13)  ................................ ................................ ....................  45 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
3.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  45 
3.2   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  45 
4   DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ...............  46 
4.1   Argentina  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  46 
4.2   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  46 
4.3   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  46 
4.4   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  46 
4.5   Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  48 
4.6   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  48 
4.7   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  49 
4.8   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  49 
4.9   Israel  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  49 
4.10   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  49 
4.11   Norway  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  50 
4.12   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  50 G/AG/W/207  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.13   Russian Fed eration  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 50 
4.14   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  51 
4.15   United States of America  ................................ ................................ .........................  51 
4.16   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  ................................ ................................ ..............  52 
 
  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT T O THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  China - measures adopted at the border to avoid the transmission of COVID -19  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95045)  
Australia notes China 's implementation of a number of measures at its border designed to  avoid the 
transmission of COVID -19, including the testing of imported agricultural products and packaging 
for COVID -19. Australia is supportive of Members putting in place measures to control the spread of 
COVID -19 and we note the shared commitment to ens ure emergency measures are targeted, 
proportionate, transparent, temporary, and that they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade or 
disruption to global supply chains and are consistent with WTO rules.   
 
With this in mind, could China kindly advise:   
 
a. the policy reason for these measures, noting the Food and Agriculture Organization  (FAO) 
and the World Health Organization (WHO) advice to date there is no scientific evidence 
that COVID -19 is transmissible on food or agricultural product?   
b. the policy con siderations/thresholds for lifting these measures, including possible time 
frames to ensure agricultural trade is not unnecessarily impacted by COVID -19?  
1.2  China's agricultural exports by state -owned enterprises  
1.2.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95023)  
For all agricultural products exported by state -owned enterprises:  
a. Please  provide the average export price, average procurement price and the average 
representative domestic sales price as required by the ECQ in Table II.  If not available, 
please explain why not.  
b. Please  list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn and 
cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If cannot provide, please explain why not?  
c. Please update  the 2020 ECQ with 2018 and 2019 data.  
1.2.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95024)  
According to customs data, China exported the following quantities of rice between 2017 -2020.  
Year  2017  2018  2019  2020 (January -June)  
Quantity Exported (Tons)  1,195,755  2,089,298  2,747,499  1,361,266  
 
a. Of these exports, how much (quantity) was exported by STEs?  
b. Of exports the exports by STEs, how much was previously held in public stocks?  If 
applicable, what year were those stocks procured?  
1.2.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95025)  
The United States understands from China Customs Statistics that in 2017 China exported 4,000  MT 
of rice to Puerto Rico at a price of USD 370/MT or 2,180 RMB/MT.  At this time, China offered a 
minimum support price of 2,600 RMB/MT for the same type of rice in a n unmilled state (paddy).  
During this same time, national average wholesale market prices for japonica milled rice were 
between 4,200  RMB/MT and 4,800 RMB/MT.  
  
In 2018 China exported 64,250 MT at a price of USD 352/MT, and 63,000 MT in 2019 at a price 
of USD 317/MT.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 8 - 
 
    
Further, noting that China has stated in its STE notification that "Export prices of state trading 
enterprises are determined according to the prices of international market and the supply in domestic 
market, and by referring to the cost pri ces plus circulation expenses such as fees for warehousing, 
transportation, bank interests and inspection, etc. ":  
  
a. Please explain why the price per MT of rice exports to Puerto Rico were significantly lower 
in 2018 and 2019 when compared to 2017, and why  these export prices are so far below 
the minimum support price for rice.  
1.3  European Union - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  
1.3.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95048)  
China welcomes the agreement reached between the United States and the European Union on 
21 August regarding the reduction of tariffs on certain agricultural and non -agricultural products, 
which has been announced to be made on an MFN basis. According to the joint statement by 
the USTR and EU Trade Commissioner, this package of tariff reductions is i ntended to mark "the 
beginning of a process that will lead to additional agreements that create more free, fair, and 
reciprocal transatlantic trade ". We therefore would like to seek transparency regarding this trade 
liberalization arrangement by asking the  US and the EU to provide information regarding the import 
of the products concerned for the most recent three years, including the trade volume and value of 
from each origin on line by line basis, which will be helpful for monitoring the implementation of  the 
agreement and guarantee the positive effects on promoting bilateral trade and enhancing the 
multilateral trading system.   
1.4  United States - EU-US tariff reduction agreement  
1.4.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95073)  
China welcomes the agreement reached between the United States and the European Union on 
21 August, regarding the reduction of tariffs on certain agricultural and non -agricultural products, 
which has been announced to be made on an MFN basis. According to the joint statement by 
the USTR and E U Trade Commissioner, this package of tariff reductions is intended to mark "the 
beginning of a process that will lead to additional agreements that create more free, fair, and 
reciprocal transatlantic trade ". We therefore would like to seek transparency r egarding this trade 
liberalization arrangement by asking the US and the EU to provide information regarding the import 
of the products concerned for the most recent three years, including the trade volume and value of 
from each origin on line by line basis, which will be helpful for monitoring the implementation of the 
agreement and guarantee the positive effects on promoting bilateral trade and enhancing the 
multilateral trading system.  
1.5  EU - national state aid programmes  in response to COVID -19 
1.5.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95049)  
A number of European Union member States have announced national state aid programmes  
dedicated to the agriculture sector in response to th e COVID -19 crisis.  With respect to the specific 
programmes  listed below, we would like to know i)  how much of the allocated amount has already 
been distributed to farmers, and ii) what have been the assessed impacts on current and future 
production levels and prices for the products concerned?  
1. Ireland 's support for the beef sector ( EUR 50 million) SA.58387 ; 
2. Lithuania 's support for bovine animal and milk producers ( EUR 30.5 million) SA.57514 ; 
3. Slovenia 's support for meat and dairy (tba) SA.57139 and SA.57140 ; 
4. Netherlands ' support for the potato sector ( EUR 50 million) SA.57217 ; 
5. Belgium 's support for the potato sector ( EUR 10 million) SA.58014 . G/AG/W/207  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.6  EU- France and Italy's support for the wine sector  
1.6.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95050)  
With respect to support a nnounced for the French and Italian wine sectors, can the EU please clarify 
whether these funds are state aid, or whether this funding comes from existing national support 
budgets, and similarly to New Zealand 's previous question outline i) how much of the  allocated 
amount has already been distributed, and ii) what have been the assessed impacts on current and 
future production levels and prices for wine?  
a. France 's support for the wine sector ( EUR 246 million) ; 
b. Italy's support for the wine sector ( EUR 100 million) . 
1.7  EU's variable import levies for cereals  
1.7.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95001)  
Throughout the year, Brazil has noted that the EU has applied variable import levies in order to 
maintain minimum import prices for several types of several cereals.  In the light of the above, could 
the EU answer the following questions:  
a. How many times has the EU changed its applied tariffs for cereals since January 2020?  
b. How does the EU make such changes publicly available to the private sector?  
c. Do these changes have an immediate effect? Is there any specific treatment to shipments 
en route?  
1.8  India - Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund  
1.8.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95054)  
On 12 May, Prime Minister Modi announced a special economic and support package, whi ch included 
a variety of capacity building measures for the agriculture and food processing sectors.  
 
One measure announced was the establishment of an Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development 
Fund which aims to support private investment in dairy proce ssing, value addition and cattle feed 
infrastructure. The announcement noted 'incentives will be given for establishing plants for export 
of niche products.   
Could India please provide further details of the incentives which will be provided for establishi ng 
plants for the export of niche products, including:  
i. what products will qualify; and  
ii. what are the incentives?  
1.9  India -Agriculture Infrastructure Fund  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95055)  
On 9 August, Prime Minister Modi announced an Agriculture Infras tructure Fund (AIF) which is a 
medium -long term debt financing facility for investment projects for post -harvest management 
infrastructure and community farming assets, including to enable the agriculture sector to be 
competitive with global levels. The sc heme guidelines for the AIF note that eligible projects include 
providing supply chain infrastructure for 'clusters of crops including export clusters.  
 G/AG/W/207  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Could India please provide further details of how financing will be provided for the projects; 
includin g: 
i. What crops fall within the definition of 'export cluster '?  
1.10  India - Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95033)  
The United States understands that India has introduced the Scheme for Remission of Duties and 
Taxes on Exported Products and understands a number of agricultural products, including rice, are 
eligible to benefit from this scheme that is reported to be a replacement for the Merchandize Export s 
from India  Scheme (MEIS).  
a. What agricultural products are eligible under this measure?  
b. Please provide an explanation of this measure, including what specific duties and taxes 
are eligible for refund for agricultural products such as rice.  
1.11  Indonesia - import permissio n for rice  
1.11.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95058)  
Japan recognizes that importers of rice to Indonesia are required to obtain import permission from 
the Ministry of Trade prior to importation, according to the relevant regulations. However, the import 
of Japa nese rice has not taken place recently because the importers cannot obtain the permission 
due to the substantial delay of the process.  
In the bilateral consultation in early summer, Indonesia agreed to check the situation, responding 
to the concerns expre ssed by Japan.  As no information has been provided since then and no 
improvement has been observed, Japan has an increasingly serious concern on this issue.  
Japan would like Indonesia to solve this problem promptly and clarify the situation of the delay as  
well as what has been considered, and to indicate its actions for improvement.  
1.12  Nepal's import ban  
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95034)  
On 29 March 2020, the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supply (MOICS) of the Government of 
Nepal (G oN) enacted a ban on several commodities from all origins, including dry peas, betel nut, 
dried dates, black pepper, liquor, and luxury vehicles.   
a. Please provide the reason for the ban, and specify the period during which the ban is likely 
to continue?  
b. How does this comply with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, taking 
particular note of footnote 1?  
1.13  Norway's proposed changes to its goods schedule XIV  
1.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95065)  
New Zealand refers to G/MA/TAR/RS/592 of 17 December 2019, in which Norway proposed changes 
to its goods schedule XIV, eliminating certain quotas agreed as part of the Uruguay Round market 
access outcome.  
Norway contends that the elimination of these quota volumes is a 'rectification ' in accordance  with 
the Decision of 26 March 1980 (C/M/139) on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of 
Schedules of Tariff Concessions (the '1980 Procedures ') and that it does not change the scope of G/AG/W/207  
 
- 11 - 
 
  concessions offered by Norway, since the bound in quota dutie s are the same as the bound out of 
quota duties.  
New Zealand disagrees with this interpretation and believes the elimination of the quota volumes 
is not of a 'purely formal character ' as provided by paragraph 2 of the 1980 Procedures. In 
particular we are  concerned that:  
• 211 individual quotas would be eliminated including many products of interest for 
New Zealand. This represents the vast bulk of Norway 's current TRQ concessions  
• In any future  market access negotiation in which either in -quota tariffs or e xpansion of 
tariff rate quota volumes forms part of the negotiation, Members could reasonably expect 
that Norway would make concessions on those products for which there are scheduled 
TRQ volumes  
• These quotas  formed a key part of the market access discussions in the Uruguay Round. 
If the volumes had not been significant to Members, they would not have been scheduled 
in this way  
Can Norway please explain how the proposed changes are not considered substantive?  
1.14  Russian Federation's import restrictions in response to COVID -19 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95066)  
Australia understands the Russia n Federation  has implemented import restrictions on a number of 
agricultural products in response to the impact of COVI D-19. The list of products subject to 
restrictions, Decree 445 issued by Prime Minister Mishustin, includes b ut is not limited to: fish, beef, 
veal, pork, poultry, dairy products, rice, sugar and vegetables.  With respect to these import 
restrictions, can the Russian Federation  kindly provide Members with:   
a. the policy reason for these measures?  
b. the expected length of time that these measures will be in place?   
c. the WTO basis for these measures?  
d. the expected impact on Russian imports for each product in Decree  445, i. e.g. the average 
imports for each product in recent years vs the recorded and/or forecast import volumes 
in current and future years?  
1.15  Russian Federation – Permanent export quota for cereals  
1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 95067)  
The Russia n Federation  plans on the permanent basis to introduce a grain export quota set 
in April-June 2020 in response to the COVID -19 pandemic, TASS reported in mid -July. Minister of 
Agriculture Dmitry Patrushev said: "We want the quota mechanism to become constan t. We plan to 
determine the quota parameters together with market participants after receiving the final data on 
the harvest of the new season - presumably in October of this year" . 
According to TASS, the Russia n Federation  should export 45  million ton nes of grain in the 
season  2020/21, which began on 1 July. The Ministry of Agriculture expects a grain harvest in  2020 
of 122.5  million ton nes. 
The Russian Federation , in its accession to the WTO (WT/ACC/RUS/70 - WT/MIN(11)/2) committed 
to abide by Article XI GATT (paragraph 647 page 157):   
647. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that upon accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation would apply such quantitative G/AG/W/207  
 
- 12 - 
 
  export restrictions, in accordance with Article XI of the GATT 1994 an d Article 12 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Article XI:2(a) GATT allows: "Export prohibitions or restrictions temporarily  applied to prevent or 
relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting contracting party .  
Introduction of a permanent export restriction will be a breach of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
in direct contradiction to the reply given by The Russian Federation  in the accession process. Can 
the Russian Federation  confirm that it will respect the Agreement on Agriculture and that no 
permanent export restrictions will be introduced? The EU underlines that it considers a repetitive 
annual temporary export quota to be a violation of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
1.16  Russian Federation's grain subsidy pro gramme  
1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95040)  
On 15 August 2019, the Russian Federation approved a long -term grain industry development 
strategy to strengthen its position as a global grain market producer and supplier by 2035. The 
subsidy programme is estimated to increase to 8 billion rubles (approx imately USD 120 million) 
by 2024.  
  
a. Please confirm whether the strategy includes input subsidies for the purchasing of new 
agricultural equipment, including harvesters and tractors and other inputs.  
1.17  Thailand's sugar support  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 95069)  
Australia understands Thailand has approved measures to support its sugar industry, which has been 
impacted by the disruptions caused by COVID -19. We understand the support package is valued at 
THB 10 billion (approx. USD  320 million).  
Can Thailand provide information on this support package, including details on:  
a. the different parts of this support package?  
b. the policy objectives of each part? and  
c. how payments for each part are calculated?  
1.18  Turkey's applied tariffs  
1.18.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 95070)  
a. Japan recognizes that Turkey has introduced additional tariffs on the certain products and 
expanded the range of products subject to the increased tariffs since last April, in which 
the introductions are often announced publicly without any prio r indication. We are 
concerned about the lack of predictability. Even though Japan understands that additional 
tariffs are within the bound levels, we would appreciate it if Turkey could clarify the reasons 
behind such additional tariffs and the planned da tes of withdrawal, and also explain 
whether similar actions, i.e. imposition of additional tariffs, are foreseen/scheduled as well 
as the general background of the needs of such moves. This information would be essential 
to ensure the transparency and stab ility of businesses between the two countries.  
b. Japan  recognizes that Turkey recently started providing a Member with the duty -free 
access for the certain agricultural products. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could 
clarify the situation and, indicate w hen the same access becomes available to other 
Members under the principle of Most -Favoured -Nation Treatment.  
Japan also notes  that some of those products (e.g. chocolate) which Turkey recently 
started providing duty -free access to a Member are seemingly subject to additional tariffs G/AG/W/207  
 
- 13 - 
 
  when imported from other Members. Japan would appreciate it if Turkey could provide 
clarification.  
1.19  Turkey - Inward Processing Regime Verification  
1.19.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95039)  
Turkey is one of the world 's largest exporters of wheat products, particularly flour and pasta. Virtually 
all of these exports occur under the inward processing regime, which allows duty -free imports of 
wheat for an equivalent quantity of wheat product exports.   
a. Please list th e 12-digit tariff codes under chapter 10 of the tariff schedule that are eligible 
for imports under the inward processing regime.   
b. Please  also list the 12 -digit tariff codes of the resulting processed products made from 
inputs under chapter 10.   
The United  States seeks to understand how Turkey implements its verification system under the 
inward processing regime to ensure that it is appropriate for wheat products, which can be easily 
commingled.   
c.  Please provide web links to the applicable certificates need ed to import wheat and export 
wheat products incorporating domestic wheat.  If these certificates aren 't publicly 
available, why not, and could the Turkish Government please provide copies which show 
the information required.  
d. Please list the criteria pertaining to the quantity, quality, and characteristics of the wheat 
and wheat products required under the verification system.  
1.20  UK's border control during the Brexit transition period  
1.20.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 95002)  
Among the UK 's preparations for the end of the transition period, several reports informed that the 
UK will be phasing -in border controls after the end of the transition period in December 2020 to give 
time for businesses affected by COVID to adapt to the changes.  As regards agricultural products, 
information available indicates that:  
− From April 2021, all products of animal origin  - for example meat, pet food, honey, milk or 
egg products - and al l regulated plants and plant products will also require pre -notification 
and the relevant health documentation.  
 
− From July 2021, traders moving all goods will have to make declarations at the point of 
importation and pay relevant tariffs. Full Safety and S ecurity declarations will be required, 
while for SPS commodities there will be an increase in physical checks and the taking of 
samples: checks for animals, plants and their products will then take place at GB Border 
Control Posts.  
In the light of the abov e, could the UK answer the following questions:  
a. Is the information above accurate? What else does the phasing -in of border controls entail 
in what regards trade in agricultural products?  
b. Will every agricultural good from every trade partner be accorded the  same treatment?  
c. In the case of a negative answer for the question above, how does this policy comply 
with the MFN clause?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.21  U.S. DS: 1 notifications  
1.21.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95075)  
New Zealand looks forward to receiving the U.S. domestic support notifications for the marketing 
years 2018 onwards in due course. In light of the recently released Coronavirus Food Assistance 
Programme  (CFAP), and previous rounds of Market Facilitation Programme (MFP) payments, can 
the US please outline how it plans to notify these domestic support outlays, and whether it expects 
these notifications to exceed agricultural AMS entitlements?  
1.22  U.S. direct payments to farmers  
1.22.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95072)  
On 2 September 2020, the USDA ERS released updated  numbers on the U.S. farm sector financial 
indicators. Federal Government direct farm program payments are now forecasted to reach USD 
37.2 billion in 2020 or 36.2% of the U.S. net farm income. After increasing 64% in 2017 -18 and 
another 65% in 2019 -20, fed eral Government payments are now expected to push the net farm 
income to a 7 year high amid decreasing farm cash receipt.  
a. In recent weeks, Administration 's officials have indicated that a second wave of 
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program payment may be an nounced shortly. Could 
the U.S. indicate if this trend of rapidly rising federal Government payment will continue 
in 2020-21? 
b. Could the United States elaborate on its plans to reduce the dependency of its farmers 
on Government payments and provide details on how this support will respect its 
WTO domestic support commitment . 
1.23  U.S. domestic support polices  
1.23.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95015)  
The United States in recent times has increased domestic support to agriculture through various 
relief, bailout packages  and other measures. Based on the data from the Department of Agriculture, 
the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has estimated that USD 34 billion was allocated or spent 
during the crop year 2019. The following are some of the programmes  through which supp ort was 
given for the crop year 2019.  
Table: Federal Farm Payments for the 2019 Crop Year  
Category  Amount  
(USD)  
Agricultural Risk Coverage / Price Risk Coverage  5 Billion*  
Market Facilitation Program  14.5 Billion  
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  5.9 Billion  
Crop Insurance Premium Subsidy  6.3 Billion  
Disaster Relief and all other subsidies  2.3 Billion  
Total 34 Billion  
* Final amount unknown until October 2020 . 
Source:  EWG, from Department of Agriculture data .  
a. The United States is requested to provide the details of the nature of the above 
programmes . 
b. How will the United States ensure that the USD 19.1 billion limit under the Amber box is 
complied with for the year 2019?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.24  Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
1.24.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95041)  
On 3 July, the Australian Government announced an additional AUD 241.9  million to subsidize the 
transportation cost of exporting of high -value agricultural goods vi a the International Freight 
Assistance Mechanism (IFAM). In total, IFAM is expected to provide up to AUD 351.9  million to 
reduce the transportation costs for the export of Australian agricultural goods.  
Canada appreciates Australia transparency in regard to IFAM. That being said, in Canada 's view, the 
IFAM does seem to operate as an export subsidy programme.  
a. Could Australia indicate if it intends to report this transportation support as an export 
subsidy?  
b. Please indicate how IFAM is in conformity with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and 
Australia 's export subsidy commitments?  
c. Could Australia explain the rationale to more than triple the budget of the IFAM?  
1.24.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95042)   
Canada notes that in its response to question AG-IMS ID 94034 t hat Australia has shared information 
on International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM) with the WTO as part of the WTO 's Trade 
Monitoring Report and in the form of an ad hoc COVID -19 notification for the WTO COVID -19 tracker 
of goods.  However, as this m easure clearly falls under the mandate of the Committee on Agriculture 
and given the high level of interest in IFAM could Australia indicate when it will provide an ad hoc  
notification with the relevant details on IFAM to this Committee?  
1.24.3   Question by India (AG-IMS ID 95008)  
On 3 July 2020, the Australian Government committed an additional AUD 241.9 million to continue 
the International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM), helping keep international freight routes and 
flights operating until the end of the year. This funding is in addition to the AUD 110 million 
announced in April 2020 to establ ish the IFAM under the AUD 1 billion Relief and Recovery Fund to 
support regions, communities and industry sectors disproportionately affected by COVID -19.  
According to the Australian Government 's factsheet, eligible products include:  
• seafood (including lobsters);  
• premium red meat (including beef, lamb and pork);  
• dairy (such as fresh milk and yoghurt);  
• horticulture (such as premium fruits and packaged salad or vegetables . 
The IFAM appears to be an aid provided to reduce the costs of marketing exports of  agricultural 
products, namely the costs of international transport and freight. As such, it appears to be an export 
subsidy as defined in Article 9.1(d) of the Agreement on Agriculture which covers "the provision of 
subsidies to reduce the costs of market ing exports of agricultural products (other than widely 
available export promotion and advisory services) including handling, upgrading and other 
processing costs, and the costs of international transport and freight". For developed WTO Members 
such as Aus tralia, paragraph  6 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 19  December  2015 
(WTO  document WT/MIN (13)/40) provides for the elimination of export subsidies as of the date of 
adoption of that Decision.  
a. Can Australia explain how the IFAM respects its WTO obl igations on agricultural export 
subsidies as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Can Australia provide more precision on how these funds are distributed, noting specifically 
how freight rates are determined for ag ricultural exporters and whether any of the funds 
can be received by exporters directly?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.25  Brazil's subsidized loans  
1.25.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95009)  
With reference to the answer to AG -IMS ID 93044 on Brazil 's policy of "Plano Safra ", an umbrella 
programme that involves many elements of Brazilian Agricultural policy, India thanks Brazil for its 
response. India would like to ask the following supplementary questions:  
a. As Brazil 's response does not cater to part (b) of AG-IMS ID 93044, India would lik e to 
ask again as to how much has been spent under this initiative in 2017 -18? Further, kindly 
elucidate the provision under the Agreement on Agriculture and indicate which supporting 
table is the programme notified in 2018 notification?  
b. How much has been spent under this initiative during 2018 -19 and 2019 -20? 
c. As per the information available on the relevant website, the credit provided under the 
program has increased by 6.1% over the last crop season to BRL 236.3 billion for the 
period  2020-2021. India wou ld like to know what led to increase in the value of credit 
reserved for agriculture and livestock over 2019 -20 and 2020 -21? 
d. The programme states that credit will be provided to producers "at rates compatible with 
their business ". In this respect, what per centage of interest is subsidized under the 
programme?  
e. Kindly specify the criteria of distinguishing between small and medium producers for the 
application of the policy.  
f. What are the different financing options available under the programme?  
1.26  Brazil's wheat quota  
1.26.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95010)  
This is with reference to Brazil 's commitment towards implementation of  its 750,000 metric tonnes 
duty-free tariff rate quota (TRQ) for wheat. In this regard, we request Brazil to provide details 
regarding the following:  
a. The details of the Government agency, trading or administrative body competent to grant 
licenses or access to quotas?  
b. Are there any limitations on eligibility of applicants?  
c. How are the licenses or access to quotas allocated by the co mpetent agency?  
d. Are there any limitations on the period of validity or use of the licenses granted?  
e. How much wheat was imported under the TRQ for year 2018 -19 and 2019 -20? 
1.27  Canada - Farm Credit Canada  
1.27.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95011)  
India welcomes Canad a's response to Question AG-IMS ID 94053. Canada in its response stated 
that "existing and potential FCC customers must meet FCC 's eligibility criteria ". In a related news 
item, it has been mentioned that: "With $200 million in increased lending capacity, the Canadian 
Dairy Commission can provide stronger support for the supply management system by buying and 
storing more butter and cheese. It's a great way to help manage production and to support our 
producers and processors, while ensuring a secure supply  of local dairy products for Canadians." In 
this regard, India requests Canada to provide responses to the following:  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 17 - 
 
  a. Could Canada elaborate upon the eligible criteria for this programme?  
b. Could Canada please advise how it will ensure that these measures do  not negatively 
impact the global markets?  
1.28  Canada's new milk ingredient class  
1.28.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95005)  
In AG -IMS 87015, Canada stated "Federal authority for the marketing of dairy products is delegated 
to provincial milk marke ting boards or provincial agencies for interprovincial and export trade of 
dairy products pursuant to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act and the Agricultural Products 
Marketing Act. This would also include the power in respect of pricing. Provincial boards and agencies 
are also delegated provincial authority for pricing based on provincial legislation and statute. Under 
the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and federal -provincial agreements, 
these entities coordinate the exercise of their del egated federal and provincial authorities. Although 
responsibilities vary from province to province, boards and agencies generally license producers, 
allocate milk quotas, and establish or negotiate the prices or accounting values charged to 
processors, ac cording to the milk's end use."  
Would Canada explain the federal -provincial agreements under which provincial boards and agencies 
exercise authority over milk pricing?  
1.28.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95006)  
Canada has made it clear that the Government of Canada is committed to concluding the work 
related to full and fair compensation for recent trade agreements, including the USMCA (see, for 
example, AG -IMS 93003). Canadian news media has published articles t hat make assertions about 
the monetary value of compensation that would be appropriate for dairy farmers.  
  
Does the Government of Canada have a target value for the full and fair compensation planned?  
1.28.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95146 ) 
In AG -IMS 93002, Canada stated "…Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release of 
any data related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy 
of the data are required. Canada is committed to ensurin g that any information published accurately 
reflects the data that has been entrusted to the federal Government by industry ".  
Would Canada please share the frequency or the timeline under which information sharing generally 
occurs, through which industry entrusts data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales to the 
federal Government?  
1.29  Canada's TRQ consultation process  
1.29.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95043)  
When does Canada expect to resume its TRQ consultation process?  
1.30  China - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.30.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95044)  
In relation to Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement between China and the United States, 
China has reportedly imported around US D 10 billion worth of US agricultural pro ducts (based on 
Chinese import data) in the first six months since entry into force of Agreement. China 's monthly 
targets for agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three 
months reaching well under half of their targets, and in the second three months only slightly above 
half of their monthly target. At this rate, Members can reasonably expect Chinese purchases of 
US agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark, and fall well under the targe t 
under the Agreement.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Given this situation, Australia requests China provide answers to the following questions:  
a. Can China advise if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?   
i. and if all measures imp lemented to facilitate these purchases have been applied on an 
MFN basis where relevant?   
ii. and if so, describe the method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can China provide a disaggregated break down for purchases in the first six months of the 
Agreem ent for each agricultural product listed in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement?  
c. Can China provide the current TRQ fill rates for wheat, rice and corn since 1 January 2020?   
i. and whether the TRQs will be filled or have high utilization levels in the remaining six 
months of 2020 to meet the purchase targets?  
d. Has China changed or introduced new measures to facilitate purchases of US agricultural 
products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including:  
i. Advising Chinese SOEs to purchase increased volumes of US agric ultural products?  
ii. Reducing  applied tariffs for certain products?  
iii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iv. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?   
e. Is China planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of 
US agricultural products to meet the purchase targets under the Agreement?  
1.31  United States - China -US Economic and Trade Agreement  
1.31.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95071)  
In relation to Phase One of the Economic and Trad e Agreement between China and the United States, 
China reportedly imported around US D 10 billion worth of US agricultural products (based on Chinese 
import data) in the first six months since entry into force of Agreement. China 's monthly targets for 
agricultural purchases have never been reached, with actual purchases in the first three months 
reaching well under half of their targets, and in the second three months only slightly above half of 
their monthly target. At this rate, Members can reasonably expe ct Chinese purchases of US 
agricultural products to reach less than half of the 2017 benchmark, and fall well under the target 
under the Agreement.  
Given this situation, Australia requests the US provide answers to the following questions:  
a. Can the US advis e if all purchases made to date have been done so at market prices based 
on commercial considerations?   
i. And if all measures implemented to facilitate these purchases have been applied on an 
MFN basis where relevant?   
ii. And if so, describe the method used to evaluate these considerations?  
b. Can the US provide a disaggregated break down for purchases in the first six months of 
the Agreement for each agricultural product listed in Annex 6.1 of the Agreement?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 19 - 
 
  c. Is the US seeking China implement any specific additiona l measures to ensure China 
increases its purchases in the last six months of the first year of the Agreement to achieve 
the 2020 purchase targets?   
d. Has the US changed or introduced new measures to facilitate imports of Chinese 
agricultural products beyond what is required in the Agreement, including : 
i. Reducing applied tariffs for certain products?  
ii. Changing or removing non -tariff measures or amending the administration of imports?  
iii. Additional improvements to technical market access protocols?  
e. Is the US planning any future changes or new measures to facilitate imports of Chinese 
agricultural products?  
1.32  EU's support measures in response to COVID -19 
1.32.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95046)  
Australia thanks for the EU for its response to question 94011, submit ted for the 94th Committee on 
Agriculture. Australia notes the European Council has adopted regulation (EU) 2020/872 which 
allows member States to pay up to EUR 7 000 to farmers and up to EUR 50 000 to small and medium 
agri-businesses from remaining unspen t rural development funds to assist in offsetting the effect of 
COVID -19 on farm businesses.  
In addition to being time -limited, has the EU placed any other limitations on how this financial 
support can be provided while limiting the impacts on trade and third country markets?  
1.32.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95047)  
On 16 July, the European Commission announced the approval of a EUR 1.2 billion Italian scheme 
to support companies active in agriculture, forestry, fishery, aquaculture and related sectors aff ected 
by the COVID -19 outbreak (G/AG/GEN/159/Add.1). The support measures will include direct grants, 
repayable advances, tax and payment advantages, reduction or cancellation of the payment of social 
security and welfare contributions, debt write -off and other payment facilities.  
a. What criteria must a primary agriculture -related business meet to be eligible for support?  
b. Is an eligible individual company able to receive multiple forms of support (e.g. a direct 
grant and tax advantages)?  
c. What percentage of co mpanies that have applied for the scheme so far are involved in the 
primary agricultural sector?  
d. What is the percentage breakdown by measure of the support provided so far?  
1.33  EU's environmental policies  
1.33.1   Question by Colombia (AG -IMS ID 95116)  and Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95098)  
In its replies to questions AG -IMS ID 93300 and 93301 from Colombia and Paraguay, the 
European  Union (EU) indicated that it was not in a position to provide detailed answers to the 
questions raised, as the reform of the Common Agricultural P olicy (CAP) 2021 -2027 and the Farm 
to Fork strategy are currently being discussed by the European Parliament and European Council.  
 
Given that the start of the CAP  2021-2027 is imminent, and that the financial resources approved 
under the policy are releva nt to the funding of the measures envisaged under the Farm to Fork G/AG/W/207  
 
- 20 - 
 
  strategy,2 Colombia and Paraguay would like the EU to provide the estimated dates for the approval 
of the final version of the CAP  2021-2027. We would also like to emphasize our hope that the EU 
will be able to provide detailed answers to our questions under item 93300/93301 once sufficient 
details are available.  
a. Question 93239 – European production subsidies resulting from the implementation of 
SPS measures:  
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID  93060, the EU indicated that " it is not able to answer the first 
question as it does not hold data at such level of detail " and that " concerning the second question, 
(…) the EU is not able to answer the question raised un til more precise information from Paraguay 
as to the specific measures referred to ". 
 
Following up on these replies, we would like to know whether:  
b. The EU could provide data on the total amounts to be received, an average subsidy per 
capita and an indicati ve list of the products that could be covered.  
c. The EU could confirm if we should understand from the second reply that similar subsidies 
(as compensation for the non -use of certain pesticides) have not been introduced and that 
there are no plans to introdu ce such subsidies in any of the 26 other EU Members.  
1.33.2   Question by Paraguay (AG -IMS ID 95097)  
At the last session of the CoA, the delegation of Paraguay, in its questions AG -IMS ID 93059 and 
AG-IMS ID 93238, asked the EU detailed questions regarding the draf t European Green Deal and 
Carbon Adjustment Mechanism. At the time, the EU responded that:  
"The EU is not in a position to elaborate further on the very detailed questions from Paraguay, which 
could only be answered if and when a formal proposal is adopted  and agreed  by the EU 
co-legislators ". 
 
While we understand that the level of detail sought in the questions is not yet available, we would 
like to know whether:  
a. The EU is in a position to provide an approximate time frame for the various periods of 
this legislative process.  
b. The abovementioned sentence found in the reply should be interpreted as meaning that 
only the final measure, and not a draft thereof, will be notified.  
We would like to emphasize our hope that the EU will be able to answer our det ailed questions under 
AG-IMSID  93059 and AG-IMS ID 93238 once sufficient details are available.  
1.34  EU's intervention policy  
1.34.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95026)  
The EU notes in several AG -IMS responses that the EU makes efforts to avoid any disturbance of 
the market when disposing of skim milk powder (SMP) public intervention stocks.  As previously 
mentioned, this principle is also captured in EU Regulation No 1308.2013, Article 16 (1).  
  
a. Please describe in detail the process that the EU goes through to determine if release of 
stocks will create market disturbance.  
b. Does the EU estimate the price effect on foreign markets, and if so, what factors does 
the EU consider in its calculation?   
 
2 Farm to Fork Strategy, For a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, pages. 8, 11.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.34.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95027)  
In the EU 's response to AG -IMS ID 92006, the EU stated that "The prices at which the SMP in public 
intervention was sold in 2018 and 2019 were in line with market reality, taking into account the 
ageing of the product and therefore its relative loss of commer cial value (not the intrinsic quality of 
the product). " 
  
a. Please describe what the EU understands to be the relationship between the age of SMP 
and the value of the commercial product.  
b. Please describe exactly how the ageing of the product and/or the qualit y of the product 
was taken into consideration in the tendering process.  For example, how did it affect any 
minimum or maximum selling prices?  Please also provide data on the actual prices of stock 
sales in each year.  
c. Did the age of the SMP at the time of t he stock sales affect whether it was sold for use in 
food versus animal feed, either for domestic or international sales?  If so, please explain.  
d. For each year, please provide a breakdown (actual or estimates) of how much SMP was 
sold for food use versus an imal feed, both for domestic and international sales.  
e. For each year, please indicate the quantity of SMP sold by the age of the SMP at the time 
of the stock sales.  
1.34.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95028)  
Please provide annual production, domestic consumption, and export data for the EU 's SMP 
from 2016-2019.  
 
1.34.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95029)  
Please provide an update on current EU SMP stock levels.   
1.35  India's Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA)  
1.35.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95051)  
Australia would like to follow -up with India on question AG-IMS ID 93065, submitted for the 93rd 
Committee on Agriculture, with respect to India 's Transport and Marketing Assistance  (TMA) 
Scheme.   
 
India did not resp ond to any of Australia 's clear questions in AG-IMS ID 93065 with respect to the 
TMA and how it is consistent with the Nairobi Decision.  Australia kindly requests India provide 
answers to the following questions:  
a. What was the average level of export subsid ies provided for those products covered by 
the TMA for the past five years?   
b. What steps and assessments has India undertaken in the development of the TMA to 
ensure it is consistent with paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Decision and has at most, a 
minimal trade  distorting effect on other Members?  
c. Does India believe Paragraphs 9 through 11 are not applicable to India?   
i. If so, why not?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.36  India's pulses policies  
1.36.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95052)  
With respect to India 's restrictive pulses measures, Australia ac knowledges that India has referred 
Members to India 's statement at the June 2020 Council for Trade in Goods.  
In that aforementioned statement, India said that its understanding of the 'interplay ' between 
Article XI of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the AoA was that quantitative restrictions (QRs) were 
never required to be tariffied under the Uruguay Round negotiations, hence the prohibition of QRs 
in Article 4.2 of the AoA does not apply. Article 4.2  of the AoA states: "Members shall not 
maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties [footnote 1], except as otherwise provided for in Article 5 
and Annex 5 ".  
Footnote 1 to  Article 4.2 of the AoA clearly states that "These measures include quantitative 
import restrictions… " This is unambiguous and Members will agree that this clearly disciplines 
quantitative restrictions, temporary or otherwise.  
a. Can India please explain the purpose and drafting of footnote 1, if it were not to strictly 
capture QRs under Article 4.2?  
With respect to the other questions in AG-IMS ID 93058, India appears to have asked Members to 
refer to its statement at the CTG in June.  Australia has reviewed t he statement and understands 
from India 's statement that it is justifying the other measures questioned as being consistent under 
the general exceptions under Article XX of the GATT 1994. If this is correct, can India please provide 
responses in this Commi ttee to the following further questions:  
b. Under what specific provision of Article XX of the GATT 1994 does India justify:  
i. the restriction of pea imports to only one specific port?  
ii. the minimum import price for peas?  
iii. the restriction of additional imports of Urad to only Indian millers and refiners?  
iv. such a limited period for applications to be submitted for Urad imports?  
c. Can India explain how each measure in question b. conforms to the specific provision of 
Article XX of the GATT 1994?   
1.36.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95056)  
Quantitative Restrictions on Pulses  
  
In reply to Canada 's questions ID  93066 and ID 93283, India referred Canada to its statement at 
the 11 June 2020 meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, regarding its quantitative restrictio ns 
on pulses. Canada asks India to kindly directly answer the question for the benefit of this committee, 
or to share a copy of the statement it made to the Council for Trade in Goods to encourage 
transparency.  
1.36.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 950 57) 
We thank India for its answers to questions (ID 93067, ID 93229).  
In the answer to question ID 93229 India correctly indicated that for the year 2020 -2021 quota for 
peas was the same as in previous years. This emphasizes one more time that the quota re gime 
remained in force for several consecutive years, while when in 2018 India introduced quota in the 
first time, India presented it as temporary measure.  
a. The Russian Federation refers to the fact that total quota for peas is 1.5 lakh MT for the 
year 2020-2021. Please, confirm that the share of yellow peas in total quota for peas is zero G/AG/W/207  
 
- 23 - 
 
  and thus import of yellow peas is prohibited. If import of yellow peas is allowed, please, 
indicate under which quota and on what conditions yellow peas can be imported i nto India.  
b. The Russian Federation would appreciate if India could provide clarification on how the 
minimum import price for peas is applied in addition to the answers to questions 
AG-IMS ID 93067, AG-IMS ID 93229. Please describe what options the importer will have if 
the price of peas is lower than the required price. Will it be allowed for the importer to sell 
such peas or not? In case of the denial, will there be an opportunity for the importer to 
appeal it? How the measure is consistent with the provisi ons outlaid in Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and principles of fare calculation of actual value as it is prescribed 
by the Article VII:2 of the GATT?  
c. In its answer to questions ID 93067 and ID 93229 India referred to its statement at the 
meetin g of the Council on Trade in Goods regarding the necessity of applying the measures 
on peas in order to remove any surplus of pulses, as permitted under Article XI:2(c)(ii) of 
the GATT, and to protect public morals and human, animal or plant life or health  in India, as 
provided in Article XX(a) and (b) of the GATT. In this regard, the Russian Federation has the 
following questions:  
On Article XI:2(c)(ii) of the GATT:  
d. The R ussian Federation  would like to emphasize that after Agreement on Agriculture came 
in force, Article XI:2(c)(ii) ceased to apply to agricultural products. Could India, please, 
explain why does it use Article XI:2(c)(ii) for justification of quotas on peas when this Article  
does not longer apply to peas?  
On Article XX of the GATT:  
e. Could India, please, explain in what way restrictions on import of pulses do provide 
protection to public morals and human, animal or plant life or health?  
f. Has India considered using less trade res trictive measures with respect to import of yellow 
peas?  
1.37  India's sugar policies  
1.37.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95053)   
As Members are aware, India 's support to its sugar industry is of significant interest to Australia, 
and is currently subject to a dispute settlement process. As we have outlined in that dispute process 
and in this Committee over many years, when measured against the AoA rules India appears to 
provide substantial trade - and production -distorting support to its sugar industry.   
 
This s upport continues to be provided, with India announcing an increase in its Fair and 
Remunerative Price (FRP) for sugarcane in August from Rs.2750/tonne to Rs. 2850/tonne. We also 
understand from reports, including the NITI Aayog taskforce report, that India  may once again 
increase its minimum domestic sugar price (currently known as the 'minimum support price for 
sugar ' or MSP) by Rs.2 to Rs. 33 per kilogram.  
In addition to the continuation of these two measures, Australia notes that India has also fixed 
remunerative prices for ethanol, which in recent years have been differentiated on the basis of the 
raw material utilized including certain types of molasses (C -heavy and B -heavy), sugarcane juice, 
sugar and sugar syrup. While Australia is supportive of India 's efforts to promote and advance 
ethanol production and usage, this is not a substitute for undertaking meaningful reforms to address 
the underlying overproduction of sugar fuelled by subsidies. This is supported by the recent 
NITI Aayog taskforce report that states, "By mandating OMCs (Oil Marketing Companies) to procure 
ethanol under the EBP (Ethanol Blended Petrol) programme at fixed prices, the Government has 
effectively been subsidising the sugar industry. " G/AG/W/207  
 
- 24 - 
 
  These three measures combined effectively me an India is fixing prices at three stages in the 
sugarcane/sugar production process. The sugarcane FRP and sugar MSP have both consistently led 
to significant overproduction of highly subsidised sugar in India, leading to India 's implementation 
of export q uotas for sugar. We are disappointed to read reports that India will likely once again 
introduce an export quota for sugar of 7 million tonnes for the 2020 -21 sugar season to deal with 
this overproduction.   
Australia therefore requests the Indian delegation respond to the following questions relevant to the 
2020-21 sugar season:   
a. Will the MSP for sugar be increased? If so, to what price?  
b. What is India 's current sugar export forecasts for the 2020 -21 sugar season?  
c. Will India implement an export quot a? If so, will it be supported by other subsidies?  
Australia is also interested in the fixed remunerative ethanol prices. As we have made clear to India 
and other Members, we are not against India developing a sustainable, market -oriented sugar sector 
– which may include an ethanol production sector. And indeed, we would hope such measures would 
contribute to a reduction in the excess sugar in India – and remove the need for export quotas.   
In this regard, can India please respond to the following questions : 
d. What is India 's forecast sugarcane and sugar production in tonnes for the 2020 -21 sugar 
season?  
e. What is the current cane arrears owed by millers? (In Indian Rupees);  
f. What is the expected amount in tonnes of sugarcane and sugar that will be diverted to 
ethanol production in the 2020 -21 sugar season?  
g. Will millers be provided any additional support for the increased costs associated with 
diverting sugarcane and its derivatives to ethanol?  
i. Will this support be contingent on complying with any other orders or directives in the 
sugarcane or sugar sector?  
h. What is the policy objective of the fixed remunerative prices for ethanol?   
i. Is it primarily to improve liquidity of millers that owe arrears payments to farmers 
pursuant to the sugarcane FRP?    
ii. If not, what are the other policy objectives of this measure?   
iii. Do OMCs pay the fixed remunerative prices to sugar millers?    
iv. Do OMCs get paid a subsidy to cover possible arrears from paying the fixed 
remunerative prices?  
i. Will India notify these ethanol support measures in its Domestic Support notifications?  
1.38  India's DS:1 notifications  
1.38.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95030)  
Noting India has not provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93271, the United States notes India 
verbally informed Members t hat it would provide a response regarding state bonuses in due course.   
a. Please provide an update on providing this information.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 25 - 
 
  b. Will India be revising its Table DS:1 notifications, including Supporting Table DS:1, the 
Annex, and Statistical Appendix related to the Bali Decision to reflect relevant state and 
Union Territory bonuses for each year?  
c. If not, why?  
1.38.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95031)  
Noting India has not provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93267, India stated  verbally it would 
provide the requested information on various nutritional/welfare programmes  in due course.  
  
a. For each measure identified, please provide a response to 2e in the Annex to 
G/AG/N/IND/18 ( "Date of commencement of the programme ").  
1.38.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95032)  
Noting India has not yet provided a written response to AG -IMS ID 93251, the United States would 
like to revise the information presented with respect to the questions asked:  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92009 re garding state bonuses, India responded that no state announced 
a bonus for wheat in the marketing season 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  However, Madhya 
Pradesh awarded a wheat bonus of Rs.2000/MT in MY 2017/18 and Rs.2650/MT in MY2018/19, in 
addition to th e MSP, according to 
http://mpkrishi.mp.gov.in/hindisite_New/pdfs/MKSY_24042018.pdf . The Minister of Agriculture in 
Madhya Pradesh is quoted stating "This means the state will pa y Rs. 2,000 per quintal for acquisition 
of wheat. "  
  
a. Please confirm any payments made to producers above the announced MSP for wheat in 
Madhya Pradesh since 2016/17 through the current marketing season.  
b. Please confirm any such payments to producers in other India states and Union 
territories as well as for other commodities.  
1.39  Japan's support package  
1.39.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95059)  
Australia thanks Japan for the responses to other Members ' questions regarding support for the 
food, agr iculture, forestry and fisheries sector in response to COVID -19. We understand Japan has 
implemented a 3.5 billion yen (USD 32 million) program to assist processed food manufacturers and 
food service providers to replace imported ingredients with domestic ingredients. Further to Japan 's 
responses to previous questions on this program:  
a. Can Japan outline the criteria and measures put in place to limit the program 's impacts on 
market access of other countries?  
b. Can Japan explain whether this a form of local content requirement that needs to be met 
to be eligible to receive the support?  
c. Can Japan indicate whether any other measures, were considered to assist food 
manufacturers and food service providers maintain a steady supply of agricultural inputs, 
for example improved market access conditions to make imports more commercially 
viable?   
1.40  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.40.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 95060)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094, AG -IMS ID 88104, AG -IMS ID 90027, AG -IMS ID 91011, 
AG-IMS ID 92098 and AG -IMS ID 93072.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 26 - 
 
  The Russian Federation thanks Mongolia for the answer to the question AG -IMS ID 93072.  
According to the current information, in 2020 Mongolia did not open quotas for import of liquid milk 
and wheat flour and  stated that there were no quantitative restrictions for the following products 
for 2020. However, Mongolia did not exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural 
products subject to quota regime, which means that quotas may be imposed i n future. The 
Russian  Federation is seeking further clarification from Mongolia regarding its measures , in 
particular:  
a. Bearing in mind the Mongolia 's statement that the quota regime was implemented 
temporarily until the Enrichment Law came into force in D ecember 2019, does Mongolia 
plan to exclude wheat flour and liquid milk from the list of agricultural products subject to 
quota regime? When?  
b. Does Mongolia plan to introduce new quotas for importation of these products in future 
(in 2021 and further) ? 
1.41  New Zealand's International AirFreight Capacity Scheme  
1.41.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95061)  
New Zealand seems to indicate in its answers to question AGIMS ID 94038, that their 
USD 330 million International Air Freight Scheme did not provide support for the  export of New 
Zealand agricultural products. Canada 's understanding of the programme is that it allows airlines 
and air freight companies to offer rates that would currently not be commercially viable if this subsidy 
was not offered by New Zealand Governm ent. 
a. Could New Zealand explain how this transportation subsidy does not subsidize 
New Zealand 's exports of agricultural products compared to other WTO Members who have 
not implemented a similar scheme?  
b. Could New Zealand indicate if it intends to report thi s support as an export subsidy?  
c. Please indicate how the program is in conformity with the Nairobi Decision and New 
Zealand 's export subsidy commitments?  
1.42  Nigeria's DS notifications  
1.42.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95062)  
Australia would like to follow up on  its question to Nigeria, AG-IMS ID 93131 (which is, itself, a follow 
up to AG-IMS ID 92117 from 92nd CoA), with respect to its DS notifications for the period 2012 -16 
(G/AG/N/NGA/17), in which it notified that it did not provide domestic support during th is period. 
No response has been received.  
a. Australia would like to know if Nigeria plans to include key agricultural elements of its 
Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support 
notifications.  
b. Specifically, how will Nigeria notify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
1.43  Nigeria - Foreign currency exchange restrictions for dairy and corn imp orts 
1.43.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95035)  
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has imposed restrictions on foreign exchange for dairy products 
and corn.  On 11 February 2020, the governor of the CBN, Godwin Emefiele, reported that the goal G/AG/W/207  
 
- 27 - 
 
  of imposing forex restrictions on dairy products is to encourage backward integration in the 
domestic dairy sector.   
  
a. What criteria does the Government of Nigeria use to determine whether a company 
qualifies for foreign exchange for dairy imports?  Can compa nies that do not embark on 
backward integration still qualify for foreign exchange for dairy imports?  
b. The governor of the CBN reported that there is an exception for companies that import 
products that are not available in the domestic market.  How does the Government of 
Nigeria determine if a product is available in the domestic market?  
c. On 13 July 2020, a notice issued by Dr. O.S. Nnaji, Director of the CBN 's Trade and 
Exchange Department ordered authorized dealers to stop processing Form M requ ests 
for foreign exchange for corn imports.  Is it possible for corn importers to access foreign 
exchange from the CBN or from other sources?  If so, what criteria do these importers 
need to meet?  
1.44  Nigeria's import prohibitions on certain agricultural product s 
1.44.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 95064)  
Australia would like to refer to the United States question 93015 with respect to Nigeria 's import 
prohibitions on a number of agricultural products.  
Can Nigeria provide the Committee with a response to the questio ns raised in question 93015, re -
iterated below:  
a. What are the implementing regulations for these measures?  
b. What is the WTO basis for these measures?  and 
c. Why are these measures characterised as temporary if they have been in place for well 
over a decade?  
1.45  Russian Federation 's export subsidies  
1.45.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95036)  
In September 2019, the Russia n Federation approved an amendment to Article 78 of its Budget 
Code, which appears to now allow for subsidies for "alcoholic products in tended for export ". The 
amendment now reads:   
  
"1. Subsidies to legal entities  (with the exception of subsidies to state (municipal) institutions), 
individual entrepreneurs, as well as individuals - producers of goods, works, services are provided 
free of  charge and irrevocably in order to reimburse lost income and (or) financial security 
(reimbursement) costs in connection with the production (sale) of goods  with the exception 
of excisable goods, but including  cars and motorcycles, alcoholic products inte nded for export , 
grapes, wine products made from the specified grapes: wines, sparkling wines (champagne), liquors 
with a protected geographical designation, with a protected name (specialty wine)(wine materials), 
performing works, rendering services. " [emphasis added ] 
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 93017, the Russian Federation states with regards to the amendment that 
it "lists legal entities for the purpose of compensation of cost incurred in connection with 
production/trade of alcoholic products, inter alia, intended for export. " The response goes on to state 
that "the rules for providing subsidies would have been determined in other legal acts in accordance 
with the budget legislation of the Russian Federation. Such legal acts have not been adopted by t he 
Government of the Russian Federation. " 
  
a. Has the Russian Federation enacted and/or adopted such acts that would provide for the 
adoption of Article 78 of its Budget Code?  If so, please provide those legal measures.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 28 - 
 
  b. Please explain the intended purpose behind the amendments in Federal Law No.  330-FZ 
to Article 78 of the Budget Code, specifically regarding "alcoholic products intended for 
export. " 
c. Please provide the criteria for applicants to receive subsidies for alcoholic products 
intended for e xport.  
d. What are the "costs incurred in connection with production/trade of alcoholic products " 
that Russian producers and exporters may be compensated for under Federal 
Law No. 330-FZ? 
The amendments to Article 78 of the Budget Code excludes from the categ ory of goods eligible for 
subsides the broad category of "excisable goods, " but then specifically includes  certain excisable 
goods, primarily "alcoholic products intended for export, " grapes, and certain types of wines.   
  
e. e. Please provide a definition for the term "alcoholic products intended for export ". 
f. Please clarify whether alcoholic products "intended for export " must actually be exported 
for individuals to receive a subsidy.  
g. Please describe how the Russian Federation  will ensure that any subsidies provided 
under Article  78 of the Budget Code are consistent with its WTO obligations to not 
provide export subsidies.   
1.45.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95037)  
Within Decree of the Government of the Russian Fed eration of December 25, 2019 N 1816 , it 
states:  
"The Government of the Russian Federation decides:  To approve the attached:   
a. Rules for the provision of subsidies from the federal budget to organizations in order to 
compensate for part of the costs associat ed with the certification of agricultural products 
in foreign markets; " 
Description of the certification scope: "certification of agricultural products in foreign markets" - a 
set of requirements carried out in order to assess the conformity of agricultura l products to the 
requirements of external markets, veterinary and phytosanitary measures, transportation, storage, 
testing and disposal of test samples, and also the requirements carried out in order to assess the 
conformity of products with the requireme nts in a foreign trade contract for the supply of agricultural 
products to foreign markets (hereinafter the contract), including certification for the receipt of halal 
and kosher certificates. " 
  
b. Please provide the criteria applicants must meet to receive federal subsidies for the costs 
associated with the certification of agricultural products in foreign markets.  
c. Please explain which specific costs towards certification are eligible for compensation 
under this Decree and how these costs are calculated.  
1.46  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports (Resolution #1104)  
1.46.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95068)  
The United States notes that, the Government of the Russian Federation has updated "Support 
program for the transportation of agricultu ral and food products " as administered by the Russian 
Export Center (REC) and regulated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 
September 15, 2017 No. 1104 as amended by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation dat ed 06.02.2020 No. 104.  The most significant change noticed is the budgetary amount 
allocations for the current financial year (2020): 4.1 billion rubles (USD  56.2 million).  This is up 
substantially from 49.3 million rubles in 2017.  
  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 29 - 
 
  As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91161,  
  
a. Please explain in detail the recent changes to the programme, inclusive of covered 
products, support limits, and regional coverage.  
b. Please explain how the payments are calculated.  
1.47  Russian Federation's export quota  
1.47.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95012)  
The Russian Federation imposed grain export quotas in response to the COVID -19 pandemic. There 
are reports of such quotas being made permanent. How does the Russian Federation assess the 
effect of such quotas in relation to the world food deman d? 
1.48  Turkey - Turkish Grain Board (TMO)  
1.48.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95038)  
TMO Purchases  
  
In its response in AG -IMS ID 93019, Turkey indicated that "TMO purchase prices are not considered 
as administered prices " because TMO buys and sell s under market conditions.   
  
However, the TMO website includes a document entitled "2020 Dönemi TMO Müdahale Alım Fiyatları " 
which translates as "2020 Period TMO Intervention Buying Prices. " These prices are announced in 
advance of the harvest and are set by the President of Turkey, i.e. it is a policy decision, not a 
market decision. For more information please see: http://www.tmo.gov. tr/Main.aspx?ID=29233  
  
Turkey claims that these are not applied administered prices, but the panel in China -- Agricultural 
Producers  (para. 7.177) defines the applied administered price as "the price set by the Government 
at which specified entities will  purchase certain basic agricultural products." This definition seems to 
fit exactly with Turkey 's policies, which includes prices set by the Government at which TMO will 
purchase basic agricultural products, like wheat and other grains.   
Turkey also notif ied price support programmes  for cereals (including wheat, barley, maize, rice, and 
oats) with applied administered prices until its 2001 notification, but its 2002 notification (submitted 
15 years later) did not include a calculation with applied administ ered prices.  In response to 
AG-IMS ID 85068, Turkey stated "a more market oriented policy was implemented, in which the 
production decision and price setting has been administered by the market itself without public 
intervention. " 
  
a. It would be appreciated if Turkey further elaborated on the policy changes, including copies 
of any relevant laws, regulations, or other official Government documents, that explain 
the change that occurred between 2001 and 2002.   
b. Please clarify  how the ann ouncement by the President of Turkey (e.g., "2020 Period 
TMO Intervention Buying Prices ") relates to the response provided to part a) of this 
question and how this announcement relates to Turkey 's response that "TMO buys and 
sells under market conditions. " 
c. Are any cereals produced within Turkey not eligible for purchase by TMO while the 
intervention program is active?  
d. Please provide any other information that may help Members understand how these 
activities can be viewed as not being market price support as Turkey has indicated in 
previous responses and its notifications.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 30 - 
 
  1.49  U.S. Coronavirus Food Assistance Program  
1.49.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 95014)  
The Paycheck Protection Program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) 
Act is a USD 350 billion loan programme, backed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). It 
was implemented in April 2020 to provide American small businesses with eight weeks of cash -flow 
assistance through 100 % federally -guaranteed loans. In this regard, I ndia welcomes the United 
States ' response to question  AG-IMS ID 94047 raised by the European Union. India would like to 
ask the following supplementary questions:  
a. Is there any budgeted allocation or target for the agriculture sector in this relief package?  
If yes, please indicate the budgeted amount allocated to the farm sector.  
b. Given that the programme closed in August 2020, is there any plan to continue with this 
programme further?  
1.49.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 95074)  
New Zealand thanks the US for it s answer to the previous question ( AG-IMS ID 94026) regarding 
the US ' Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP). We note that on 11 August 2020, almost 
60 further commodities became eligible for CFAP payments. Given the US has, as of 31 August 2020, 
paid out almost USD 9.5 billion of the allocated funding, and given the CFAP 's scope has recently 
been expanded, can the US please advise:  
a. Whether the US plans to further extend the deadline for applications beyond 11 September 
given the ongoing disruption s facing producers;  
b. Whether the US foresees further direct support being made available to producers – either 
through CFAP, or through other measures; and  
c. How the US plans to roll back this support in a way that will ensure both the viability of 
its affec ted sectors and the stability of global markets.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Imports under Tariff and other Quota Commitments  (Table MA:2)  
2.1.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/135)  
AG-IMS ID 95076: Question by China - Transparency issues  
Australia administers its import of cheese through TRQ, with a committed quantity of 11,500 tonnes. 
In its recent MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/AUS/135), Australia notified that it imported 
11,472.77  tonnes of cheese for the financial year of 2019.   
a. Could Austral ia provides the origins of the cheese import and the quantity imported from 
each origin?  
According to the Report by the Secretariat for the Trade Policy Review of Australia (WT/TPR/S/396), 
"the specific duty together with the tariff quota regime on cheese and curd provide some import 
protection for the dairy industry", but this protection was eliminated for some trading partners, 
including the South Pacific Forum island countries, LDCs, and preferential partners covered by 
Australia's RTAs/FTAs.  
b. Could Austr alia provide information on cheese and curd imported from these trading 
partners, including the volume and value for the financial year of 2019?   G/AG/W/207  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.1.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/36)  
AG-IMS ID 95077: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia thanks the Dominican Republic for the submission of its outstanding MA:2 notifications up 
to reporting year 2019.   
In reporting year 2019 (G/AG/N/DOM/36), with respect to DOMQ001 (chicken meat), 
DOMQ006  (rice), DOMQ007 (sugar) and DOMQ008 (powder ed milk, fullcream or skim), all of which 
recorded either 0% tariff quota fill or less than 65% tariff quota fill, can the Dominican Republic:  
a. Explain the reasons for the underfill of these quotas – which for many have seen a 
downward trend over the past f ive years?  
b. Has the Dominican Republic considered implementing measures that would improve the 
quota fill for these products, including for example using the TRQ underfill mechanism 
outlined in the Bali Decision?  
2.1.3   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/253)  
AG-IMS ID 95078: Ques tion by China - Tariff quota fill  
According to the notifications on imports under the TRQs of Japan, the fill rates of peanut TRQ 
remained low for the most recent 3 years (43%, 49.3% and 47.7%). Could Japan provide the 
reasons for the low fill rates? If po ssible, please provide the information on production and 
consumption of peanut for the relevant years.  
2.2  Special Agricultural Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/62)  
AG-IMS ID 95003: Question by Brazil - Link with TRQ commitments  
According to notification G/AG/N/EU/62, the EU has made use of price -based SSGs on imports of 
boneless cuts of fowl of the species (02071410).  
Considering that tariff line 02071410 is included in some of the EU TRQs (EU -Q023, EU -Q025 
and EU-Q026), would the EU be able to provide the following voluntary information:  
a. Were the price -based SSGs triggered for imports within the quota volumes?  
b. What was the volume of imports affected by the additional duty?  
c. The additional duty imposed under subparagrap h 1(b) was set according to which of 
AoA's Article 5(5) schedule?  
2.3  Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/129)  
AG-IMS ID 95016: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Australia 's latest DS: 1 notification in document G/AG/N/AUS/129 (FY 2017 -18), it is not clear 
where the following programmes  have been notified:  
a. Australian Government: Industry -led Research Sub Program: IRSP will fund projects to 
optimize irrigation water use and improve on -farm risk managem ent skills.  
b. Northern Territory: Research into new technology and products to enhance the 
competitiveness of the Northern Territory's agricultural industry.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 32 - 
 
  c. South Australia: Almond Centre of Excellence. The Almond Centre will address current 
production limitations and provide almond growers with the ability to maximize yields by 
working within new environmental constraints.  
d. South Australia: National Sterile Insect Technology Facility: Research and development to 
help eradicate incursions of fr uit fly into South Australia.  
e. Australian Government: Loxton Research Centre Redevelopment: Redeveloping the centre 
to provide agricultural research and collaboration within the South Australian Murray 
Darling Basin.  
Australia is requested to provide inform ation as to whether the above programmes  have been 
terminated, and if not, under which head in the DS:1 notification have these been notified?  
AG-IMS ID 95019: Question by India - General services: research  
In Australia 's DS:1 notification for FY 2017 -18, in document G/AG/N/AUS/129, it is observed that 
for the research program notified under "Australian Government: Red Meat Research and 
Development: Research and development to improve the productivity and market performance of 
the meat and livestock indust ry and further the sustainable use and management of natural 
resources " there has been a huge increase of 44 % in the amount notified in comparison to the 
previous notification.  
a. Can Australia elaborate upon the type of activities covered under the programme?  
b. Also elucidate the reason for such a huge increase in the amount not ified?  
2.3.2   Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/43)  
AG-IMS ID 95079: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes the Dominican Republic 's submission of seven DS:1s. This is a strong demonstration 
of the Dominican Republic 's com mitment to transparency. Australia welcomes and commends the 
Dominican Republic.  
With respect to the latest notification for 2019, G/AG/N/DOM/43, can the Dominican Republic 
respond to the following  questions:  
a. Australia notes Green Box pest and disease expe nditure increased by almost 1600 % 
from 2018 to 2019. Can the Dominican Republic please explain this increase?  
b. Australia notes Green Box extension and advisory services reduced by almost one third 
from 2018 to 2019. Can the Dominican Republic please explain  this decrease?  
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/61, G/AG/N/EU/55)  
AG-IMS ID 95117: Question by Colombia – Classification of measures  
In response to questions AG -IMS ID 93302 and AG -IMS ID 93303 from Colombia and Paraguay, the 
EU indicated that the "support and p rotection of organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition" are "environmental programmes " within the meaning of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to 
the Agreement on Agriculture, due to the fact that one of the goals of this support is "to restore, 
preserve and enhance biodiversity".  
  
However, the March 2019 report by the European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and 
Technology entitled "Farming without plant protection products - Can we grow without using 
herbicides, fungicides and insect icides?" points out that plant protection products, including 
herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, have unwanted and inevitable secondary effects, such as their 
negative impact on biodiversity due to land use changes. The European Parliament Panel notes that: 
 
"[...] it is clear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro -ecology, is often not the best 
choice. At farm level, all scientific meta -studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather 
marginal, but that, at global level, there  will be a drastic decrease in biodiversity, since organic G/AG/W/207  
 
- 33 - 
 
  farming is approximately 25% less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 
11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception th at 
natural PPPs, used in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct 
and needs further scientific confirmation."   
 
In this respect, this study published by the European Parliament recognizes that organic farming 
may have adverse effects on biodiversity. In light of this report and of the document  "COMMISSION 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009  on 
the placing of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}" , already identified in questions 93302 
and 93303, we reiterate our concern:  
 
How does the Europea n Union consider that the payments to promote organic farming, which were 
notified in G/AG/N/EU/61 (page 5) and G/AG/N/EU/55 (page 5), may be notified under the category 
"Environmental Programmes" of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
AG-IMS ID 95099: Question by Paraguay - Classification of measures  
In response to questions AG -IMS ID 93302 and AG-IMS ID 93303 from Colombia and Paraguay, the 
EU indicated that the " support and protection of organic production by creating conditions of fair 
competition " are " environmental programmes " within the meaning of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, given that, inter alia , the objective of the support is " to restore, 
preserve and enhance biodiversity ". 
 
However,  the March  2019 report of the European Parliament's Panel of Experts on the Future of 
Science and Technology entitled Farming without plant protection products: Can we grow without 
using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides? notes that plant protection products, including 
herbicides, fungicides and pesticides, have unwanted and unavoidable side effects, such as their 
negative impact on biodiversity due to changes in land use. However, the European Parliament's 
Panel of Experts notes that:  
 
"[...] it is c lear that organic farming, and its implementation in agro -ecology, is often not the best 
choice. At farm level, all scientific meta -studies indicate that the increase in biodiversity is rather 
marginal, but that, at global level, there will be a drastic de crease in biodiversity, since organic 
farming is approximately 25% less productive than conventional farming. This implies that, to feed 
11 billion people, more land is needed at the expense of biodiversity. Moreover, the perception that 
natural PPPs, used  in organic farming, are less toxic and lead to less residues is not always correct 
and needs further scientific confirmation ."3  
 
In this connection, the study published by the European Parliament recognizes that organic farming 
may have a negative impac t in terms of biodiversity. In light of this report and the document 
Commission Staff Working Document  accompanying the document Report from the Commission to 
the European Parliament and the Council Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing  
of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue 
levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final }4, already referred to in question 93302/93303, we 
reiterate our concern over how the European Union considers that  payments to promote organic 
farming, which were notified in G/AG/N/EU/61 (p. 5) and in /AG/N/EU/55 (p.  5), can be notified 
under the category "Environmental programmes" of paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
3 Panel of Experts on the Futur e of Science and Technology, "Farming without plant protection products: 
Can we grow without using herbicides, fungicides and insecticides? ", March 2019, p. II.  
4 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the  
European Parliament and the Council Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing of plant 
protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final}, p. 87.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.3.4   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  
AG-IMS ID 95080: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia thanks Georgia for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2019. With respect to its 
supporting table  DS:1, can Georgia explain how its 'preferential agro -credits ' programme operates, 
including:  
a. What sector or producer cohort receives funding through this program?  
b. What structural disadvantage is being experienced by that sector or producer cohort? and  
c. What the funding involves and what terms are attached to the agro -credits?  
2.3.5   Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/23)  
AG-IMS ID 95081: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
In its domestic support notification for 2019, Georgia reports support under paragraph  11 of Annex  2 
of the AoA (Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids) which is described 
has "Preferential Agro -credits ". Could Georgia explain wh at structural disadvantage is the program 
designed to address, and how the program meets the criteria of paragraph  11 of Annex  2 of the  AoA? 
 
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/18)  
AG-IMS ID 95082: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its repl y to question AG-IMS ID 93291, India indicated that it would provide an answer in due 
course to Canada 's question related to discrepancies in statistical information for rice stocks in its 
domestic support notification (G/AG/N/IND/18) for 2018/2019.  
Is India in a position to provide an answer to Canada 's question?  
AG-IMS ID 95085: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. Waiving of Agricultural loans  
In the 2017/18 notification India included «  Waiving of Agricultural loan " with an amount 
of USD 8,07 billion. No amount is mentioned for this measure in 2018/19.  
Can India explain whether this measure has been abolished or whether the measure is 
still applied but no payment took place through this instrument.   
b. Allocation  for dist ribution and buffer stock  
An amount of USD 18 billion is indicated for this measure.  
i. Can India indicate how much is used for distribution and how much on operating the 
buffer stocks.  
ii. Can India indicate the quantity of products that entered and left the buffer stocks 
during 2018/19 marketing per product.  
c. Supporting  table DS:2  
In the footnote India indicates that 99,43% of India 's farmers are low -income.  Can India 
please indicate the total area (in ha) that the other 0,57% of the farmers are using and 
the percentage which this area represents of India 's total Utilised Agricultural Area.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 35 - 
 
  d. Supporting table DS:2  
India indicates an amount  of USD 24.18  billion for input subsidies.   
Can India please indicate the separate amounts for :  
− Irrigation ; 
− Fertilizers ; 
− Electricity ; 
− Fuels/diesel.  
 
e. Supporting Table DS:4  
India has not indicated any VoP other than for rice in a footnote. This issue has already 
been discussed several times in past Regular CoA meetings, and the EU will once more 
strongly encourage  India to include VoP values for all the products in Supporting 
Table  DS:4 as the EU and most other Members do.  
Can India please indicate the VoP figures for all the products in supporting table DS:4.  
f. Supporting table DS:5  
According to India statistics total milled rice production in 2018/19 was 116  million tonnes. 
India has only used 44,33  million tonnes in its calculation of the market price support.  
Can India please explain in detail why the remaining 72  million tonnes did not benefit from 
the administered price? Did this rice not fulfil the same quality criteria as the 44,33 million 
tonnes bought in? Which are the criteria?   
AG-IMS ID 95086: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/ AG/N/IND/18 India identified as "Relevant laws and regulations " the "National 
Food Security Act, 2013; various Public Distribution System (Control) Orders and their subsequent 
amendments issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; and various State 
legislations/orders. "  
  
a. Please identify all relevant laws and regulations, including each state legislation/order.  
b. Please identify document or measure with pre -determined targets related to food security.  
AG-IMS ID 95087: Question by United States of Ameri ca - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18 India stated under "The date of commencement of the programme " 
for the Public Distribution System as "since 1960s. "  
  
a. Please identify all programs  under which minimum support prices are provided for rice, 
wheat, coarse grains and pulses and specify the date of commencement for each.  
b.  Identify all agencies that procure any commodity under each of these programs and 
specify which commodities each agen cy procures.  
AG-IMS ID 95088: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In the Annex to G/AG/N/IND/18 India stated under "Officially published objective criteria or 
guidelines " "[t]he main objectives of food security  programmes. " 
  
a. Please identify the criteria or guidelines for all relevant programmes  listed in response to 
Question 2(a) above.  
b. How does India publish or make available information on process of stock accumulation?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 36 - 
 
  c. Please specify provisions related to vo lume and accumulation of stocks, including any 
provisions related to pre -determined targets and quantitative limits.   
AG-IMS ID 95089: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The Nairobi Decision Annex requires "[a] description of any measures aimed at minimizing 
production or trade distortive effects of the programme. " In G/AG/N/IND/18 India responded that 
"Government does not undertake exports on a commercial basis from publi c stockholdings. " It is 
noted however that the Food Corporation of India indicates that rice was exported to Egypt 
commercially in 2016/17 and for humanitarian purposes in 2017/18.  
  
a. Please explain the prohibition on exports "on a commercial basis " and how  it is 
enforced.  Does enforcement include monitoring of export data?  
b. If so, please explain how that monitoring may demonstrate exports not containing volumes 
from public stockholdings.  Specify any data that may be used for monitoring and whether 
those data  are publicly available.  
c. India's annex additionally states that "open market sales of food grains from public 
stockholding are made provided the buyer gives an undertaking of not exporting from such 
purchases. " Please explain how the buyer gives the undert aking and how it is enforced.  
d. For open market sales of food grains from public stockholding, how does India make sales 
and set prices, i.e. price methodology.  
AG-IMS ID 95090: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2 ) 
In the Statistical Appendix (Rice) to G/AG/N/IND/18 India did not provide data for items m through 
p (total imports and exports, by value and quantity), with the footnote "Only export and import from 
public stockholdings have been considered. "  
  
a. Please explain why this information was not provided.  
b. Noting India has not yet provided a written response to AG-IMS ID 93198, please provide 
statistics on India 's exports and imports of rice in 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19.  
AG-IMS ID 95091: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In G/AG/N/IND/18 India notified Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes - Allocation for 
distribution and buffer stock (in millions USD): USD 17,212.05.  
  
a. What are the expenditures in relation to the accumulation and holding of rice stocks of 
products identified including storage?  
AG-IMS ID 95084: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
In reply to question AG-IMS ID 93294, India provided a link r ather than an answer to Canada 's 
question on conformity of the program called Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM -KISAN)  with 
the Green Box criteria. The link provided by India ( https://pmkisan.gov.in/ ) was not wor king when 
it was consulted by Canada during the first week of September. Canada would therefore, ask India 
to directly answer the questions in ID 93294 (copied below), related to the Pradhan Mantri Kisan 
Samman Nidhi programme.  
a. Could India clarify who is e ligible for this program and what are the criteria that determined 
eligibility for a payment?  
b. Could India indicate if payment levels are determined by income of producers and if so, 
what is the defined and fixed base period used to define eligibility?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 37 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95100: Question by Paraguay - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In its answer to question AG-IMS ID 93234/5, India indicated that: " Input subsidies notified under 
Article 6.2 are generally available  to low income and resource poor farmers. This support is on 
account of power, fertilizer and irrigation in agriculture."  
Could India confirm:  
a. Whether these power, fertilizer and irrigation subsidies are also provided to medium - and 
large-scale producers;  
b. The number of mediu m- and large -scale producers in India and how many hectares these 
farms cover;  
c. The main branches of production in which these medium - and large -scale producers are 
engaged.  
AG-IMS ID 95101: Question by Paraguay - Market price support  
In follow -up to the answers provided in the room by India to questions 93233/36, and we note that 
India has still not been uploaded to the AG -IMS system, we request India to provide the following 
additional details:  
a. Why does it consider that the annex should only be submitted  from the time its limits have 
been exceeded, or are at risk of being exceeded, and not from when the programme comes 
into existence, as required under paragraph 3(c) of the Bali Decision?  
b. Where specifically in notification DS:1  G/AG/N/IND/18 does it consi der that the 
information referring to the volumes and notification of stocks, pursuant to paragraph 3(b) 
of the Bali Decision, can be found?  
c. We thank India for confirming that stocks are not re -exported. However, the question 
sought an explanation of the m echanism in place to ensure that stocks are not 
re-exported. We once again request further details on the measures developed by India 
to ensure that its stocks are not re -exported. We note that, according to the WTO statistics 
contained in G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 , India is the world's leading exporter of rice. Its rice 
exports for the period covered by this notification were equivalent to almost 30% of world 
rice exports.  
d. Why did India take so long to notify that it had exceeded its de minimis  levels for rice, 
given that the Bali Decision allows notification when there is a risk of violation?  
e. Whether the 44.33  million tonnes of rice in Table DS:5 correspond to India's entire rice 
production for the year covered by this notification.  
AG-IMS ID 95092: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In G/AG/N/IND/18 India notified Market Price Support for rice (in millions USD): USD 5,004.97 with 
the footnote, "Other support for rice, that is, other than public stockholding for food security 
purposes, will be notified subsequently. " Noting India has not yet provided a written response to 
AG-IMS ID 93198 and AG-IMS ID 93272:  
  
a. Please identify the national legislation underlying other support for rice.  
b. Please provide a brief description of this other support.  
c. What was the reason for not including such measures in India 's domestic support 
notification?  
d. Was this other support first introduced only in 2018/19 and is such support still in effect 
for subsequent years?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 38 - 
 
  e. Please provide an update on India 's plan to submit a revised notification with this 
information as it noted verbally during the last Committee on Agriculture meeting.  
AG-IMS ID 95083: Question by Canada - Classification of measures  
In reply to question AG-IMS ID 93293, India provided a link rather than an answer to Canada 's 
question on the conformity of the programme called Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)  with 
the Green Box criteria. Canada consulted the link provided by India and found the operational 
guidelines of t he PMFBY. It is mentioned in that document that the:  
  
"The Average Yield of a notified crop in Insurance Unit (IU) will be average yield of best five years 
out of last seven years. The Threshold yield of the notified crop is equal to Average Yield multipl ied 
by Indemnity level. The Threshold Yield for any crop and IU shall compulsorily be part of the 
notification for the season and shall not change at any point during that season. " 
  
The average reference period yield of this programme set at the best five  years out of last seven 
years, does not meet the base period criteria to calculate the average production level, as defined 
by Annex  2 paragraph  8 (a), which has to be set at the preceding three -year period or a three -year 
average based on the preceding f ive-year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry.  
a. In light of this information, could India indicate how it could justify the current classification 
of this programme under paragraph  8 of the Green Box?  
b. Could India indicate when it will reclassi fy this support in the Amber Box, as this 
programme does not meet the exemption requirements of the Annex  2 of the Agreement 
of Agriculture?  
2.3.7   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/254)  
AG-IMS ID 95004: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Brazil welc omes Japan 's recognition that techniques such as crop rotation, and technology such as 
pest-resistant varieties, are sustainable and environment -friendly. In this sense, could Japan provide 
the following information:  
a. Is the support provided for the introdu ction of pest -resistant varieties in the field crop 
areas based on the acquisition of such seeds?  
b. Are farmers that have been applying crop rotation in their farms before the introduction 
of the "Program for Structural Transition of Field Crops " also eligible for the benefit?  
c. Is the productivity gain derived from the use of such techniques and technolog ies taken 
into account when assessing the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with 
the Government program me? 
AG-IMS ID 95093: Question by China - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its notification on domestic support for the fis cal year of 2017 （G/AG/N/JPN/254), Japan notified 
that it provided direct payments under production limiting programmes of JPY 70.5 billion. According 
to the Report by the Secretariat for the Trade Policy Review of Japan (WT/TPR/S/397), the Japanese 
Governm ent abolished the Direct Payment for Rice and the administrative allocation of rice 
production volume targets in 2018. At the same time, the MAFF continues to provide direct payments 
to farmers who produce crops other than table rice in the paddy field. Co uld Japan explain the 
possible impact of such policy changes, including the changes in the area of planting and production 
of rice? Whether the change will further impact the import and export of rice of Japan?   
AG-IMS ID 95102: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay would like to thank Japan for the submission of its DS:1 notification for the fiscal 
year 2017-2018 (G/AG/N/JPN/254). We note that market price support (MPS) for beef and veal 
production has increased significantly from one fiscal year to another. Specifically, in the previous 
notification, contained in document G/AG/N/JPN/236, we can see that Japan 's MPS for such products G/AG/W/207  
 
- 39 - 
 
  was JPY  237.3  billion; however, the following fiscal year, this support rose to JPY  243.9  billion, an 
increase of JPY  6.6 billion. In light of the above, we would like to know:  
a. What led to this increase in the MPS granted to beef a nd veal production?  
b. What percentage of production is covered by this support, both in notification 
G/AG/N/JPN/236 and in notification G/AG/N/JPN/254? We note that in both notifications, 
the VOP is not included (neither  the total nor the percentage correspo nding to the MPS 
provided). We urge Japan to always include such data in its DS:1 notifications and not just 
when they are below the de minimis  level, for the sake of transparency.  
c. Could Japan please provide information on the main export markets for Japan ese beef and 
veal and export volumes for these years (2016 -2017 and 2017 -2018)?  
d. We note with f urther  concern that the information being assessed today is for the fiscal 
year 2017 -2018 when the current fiscal year is 2020 -2021, which shows a significant del ay 
in the submission of Japan's DS:1 notifications.  
i. Could Japan please provide updated information, f or the years not yet covered by 
notifications , on the MPS that has been granted for beef and veal?  
ii. What steps is Japan taking to reduce the delays in the s ubmission of its 
DS:1 notifications?  
2.3.8   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/54)  
AG-IMS ID 95094: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia would like to follow -up on its question AG-IMS ID 93221 regarding Panama 's notified 
breach of its de minimis  limit for rice in CY  2019 – as detailed in G/AG/N/PAN/54. Australia thanks 
Panama for responding to question 93221 in AGIMS.  
a. Noting Panama 's response to AG-IMS ID 93221, whereby it said no substantial changes 
would be made to Law No 17., can Panama advise  if it will still be carrying out a review of 
the law?   
i. If so, can Panama advise when the review will occur? and  
b. Regardless of any review, can Panama advise how it will ensure it will conform with its 
WTO obligations in the next and future reporting years?  
2.3.9   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/29)  
AG-IMS ID 95095: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the Russia n Federation  for the submission of its DS:1 for calendar year 2018. With 
respect to its Support Table DS:4 an d DS:6, Australia notes that the Russian Federation  has notified 
product -specific Amber Box support to its grape industry totalling USD  27.4 million, approximately 
7.38% of the value of production of grapes. While this exceeds Russia 's de minimis , Australi a 
acknowledges this is within Russia 's final bound total AMS.   
Australia notes the Russia n Federation  recently implemented Federal Law No 468 -FZ - "On Viticulture 
and Winemaking in the Russian Federation ". The Russia n Federation  informed Members at the 
Council for Trade in Goods that this measure was aimed at developing winemaking in the 
Russian  Federation  and would be applicable to both domestically produced and imported wines. With 
this in mind, Australia would like to know if the Russian Federation  expects to continue to provide 
support – in excess of de minimis  limits – for grapes (and therefore indirect ly for wine) in future 
years? If such support continues in conjunction with the requirements of the new Federal Law, 
Australia is concerned wine makers in other countries would be disadvantaged and displaced in the 
Russian market.  With this in mind, can the Russia n Federation  provide further detail on the 
production subsidies provided to grape producers at both the federal and sub -federal level, 
including:   G/AG/W/207  
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Full names of the programmes ; 
b. Their objectives;  
c. Details on the funding provided; and  
d. Eligibility crit eria?  
AG-IMS ID 95103: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)   
a. Can the Russia n Federation  please indicate which exchange has been used in the 2018 
notification from Roubles to US D. 
b. Can the Russia n Federation  explain more i n detail how the output subsidies, both federal 
and sub -federal, in the milk sector operate, including the eligibility criteria and objectives, 
as well as  the level of payments (per unit amounts as well).   
AG-IMS ID 95105: Question by United States of Amer ica - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
  
The Russian Federation did not notify market price support for 2018. In its response to 
AG-IMS ID 92064, the Russian Federation stated the minimum purchase price for grains is 
announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and that no market price support was notified for 2017 due 
to lack of procurement, but that the possibility of market price support remai ns in force.  
  
a. Please confirm the minimum procurement prices for wheat, barley and any other 
supported commodities with announced prices for 2018.  
b. Is the reason for not notifying market price support for 2018 lack of procurement?  
c. Given that market price s upport is still an option for commodities, will the 
Russian  Federation notify market price support in future years, regardless of whether 
procurement is nil?   
AG-IMS ID 95106: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Supporting  Table DS:6  
  
Outlays for federal and sub -federal production subsidies on poultry, swine and deer increased 482%, 
118% and 117%, respectively, between 2017 and 2018.  
  
a. Please explain the reason for the significant increases for each of the stated 
commodities.   
AG-IMS ID 95096: Question by Australia - Non-product -specific AMS  
In regards to its Supporting Table DS:9, Australia notes the budgetary outlay for the 'Federal 
Subsidies of Interest Rate on Short Term Credits and Investment ' has decreased by  over 
USD 450 million compared to 2017.   
a. Can the Russian Federation  provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program me(s) are counted in this measure; and  
ii.  why funding decreased by more than 40% between 2017 and 2018?  
Australia also  notes the value of support under the 'Federal Other Credit Support Interest Rate 
Subsidies Program ' has increased by over USD 300 million year -on-year.  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. Can The Russian Federation  provide further details on this measure, including:  
i. what subsidy program me(s) are counted in this measure?   
ii. what interest rates and terms are attached to this programme, and what eligibility 
criteria are involved? and   
iii. why has the value of support of this measure increased by more than 260% 
between  2017 and 2018?   
2.3.10   Turkey (G/AG/N /TUR/36, G/AG/N/TUR/37)  
AG-IMS ID 95104: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In follow -up to the answers provided by Turkey to questions AG-IMS ID 93154, 93178, 93156 
and 93157, we request Turkey to provide the following addit ional details:  
a. Why are organic production subsidies provided in two different categories, under 
Article  6.2 and in environmental programmes?  
b. How does Turkey consider that these organic production subsidies, which are defined by 
Turkey itself as " support pa yments " and not as " input subsidies " in its response to question 
AG-IMS ID 93145, qualify under the provisions of Article 6.2. of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and should not be notified as an Amber Box measure as MPS?  
c. Why does Turkey consider that organic production can be notified under environmental 
programmes, given that organic production may result in an increase in CO2?  
d. Given Turkey's concern for the environment and the significant number of subsidies that 
it provides under environmental programmes, and Turkey's response to question 
AG-IMS ID 93154 that:  
"Turkey's vision within the scope of climate change is to develop fu lly integrated climate 
change -related objectives in its policies, (…), increase the use of clean and renewable 
energy resources, (…), and provide its citizens with a high quality of life and welfare with 
low-carbon intensity. Turkey is dedicated to protect  the environment and mitigate the 
negative effects of climate change."  
i. Why does it provide subsidies for diesel fuel for agriculture?  
ii. Is it considering suspending its fuel subsidies?  
e. In its response to question 93152, Turkey indicates that " it intends to m aintain its 
production habit in oilseeds " while noting that it " is well aware of the de minimis 
commitments and doing its utmost to fulfil its obligations ", which appeared to be 
contradictory responses.  
Similarly, we note that, according to the statistics provided in document G/AG/W/32/Rev.18 showing 
the percentage of world trade of the leading exporters of certain products/groups of products, Turkey 
was included in the list of soya bean exporters almost continuously from 2011 to 2018.  
 
We reiterate our spe cific question: What specific actions is Turkey taking to ensure it does not exceed 
its de minimis  levels in soya bean production?  
f. What levels of support were provided to soya beans for the years when there was a backlog 
of notifications from Turkey?  
g. Could Turkey  provide an estimated timeline when it plans to submit its outstanding DS:1 
notifications?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 42 - 
 
  We also urge the delegation of Tu rkey, in the interests of transparency and in order to facilitate the 
monitoring of its agricultural subsidy policies, to:  
i. Answer all the questions, instead of referring to other answers in the system;  
ii. Include in its notifications the corresponding percent age of VOP.  
2.3.11   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123, G/AG/N/USA/135)  
AG-IMS ID 95107: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Paraguay would like to thank the United States for the submission of its DS:1 notification for  2017 
(G/AG/N/USA/135). We note that the VOP of sesame production has increased significantly from 
one fiscal year to another.  
 
In the previous notification, contained in document G/AG/N/USA/123, the VOP of sesame was 
USD 1.371  million and, that year, the United St ates granted an MPS of 19.33% of the VOP, 
equivalent to USD  265,000. The following fiscal year, this support rose to USD  380,000, with the 
MPS reaching only 3.47%, simply because the VOP had increased to USD  11.065  million dollars. The 
VOP of sesame in the  United States therefore increased by almost USD  9.7 million from one fiscal 
year to the next. In light of the above, we would like to know:  
a. What led to this increase in the VOP of sesame? Could the United States confirm the role 
that the previous year's s ubsidies played in this dramatic increase in the VOP?  
b. Could the United States please provide information on the main export markets for sesame 
and export volumes for these years (2016 and 2017)?  
c. We note with f urther  concern that the information being assessed today is for 2017, which 
shows a significant delay in the submission of the United States' DS:1 notifications.  
i. Could the United States please provide updated information, f or the years not yet 
covered by notifications , on the VOP of sesame and the MPS that has been granted for 
this product?  
ii. What steps is the United States taking to reduce the delays in the submission of its 
DS:1 notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 95013: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Ta ble DS:2)  
India welcomes the Domestic Support Notification DS:1 by the United States for MY  2017 
(G/AG/N/USA/135). India notes that the product -specific support as a percentage of the value of 
production (VoP) for bananas has increased significantly from 0.27 % in 2016 to 64.43 % in 2017. 
Similarly, the product -specific support for coffee has also increased from 0.63 % to 189.8 % during 
the same period.  
a. Could the United States explain the reason for this exponential increase?  
b. Furthermore, it  is also requested that the United States provide the details of the 
programmes/measures through which support was given to these two crops in 2017.  
AG-IMS ID 95108: Question by Canada - General services: other  
For 2017, the United States is reporting in s ection 2 (h) other general services, USD 2,935 million 
in state programmes  for agriculture. This is a USD 275 million increase from the amounts reported 
in 2016.   
Could the United States clarify what programmes  have seen a significant increase in outlays b etween 
2016 and 2017?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95109: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
  
Between 2016 and 2017, U.S. crop insurance premium subsidy for soybeans increased by almost 
USD 450 million. At the same time U.S. soybean pr oduction remained fairly stable. Could the United 
States explain what changes took place in the market place or the in the suite of insurance 
programmes  to generate such an increase?  
 
AG-IMS ID 95110: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:6  
  
For the dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP), the United States is reporting -USD 18.2 million in 
total direct payments in 2017 (September 2017 to August 2018) including administrative fees and 
premiums. In February 2018, Congress, th rough the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, made 
adjustments to the MPP, including significant reductions in premiums, to strengthen its support to 
dairy producers. The enrolment period was extended twice to 22 June 2018, and coverage election 
and eligibility  for payments in 2018 was retroactive to 1 January 2018.   
According to information found on the USDA website ( https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs -and-
services/Dairy -MPP/index ) , the margin for the months of February, March, April, May, June, July 
and August 2018 was below the highest insurable level of $8.00 per cwt. and  payments were possible 
for production insured at the highest level, in these months.  By enrolling in June 2018, producers 
already knew what payments they would receive, if insured at the highest level, for February, April, 
and March, prior to submitting their applications. In a 12 June 2018  announcement, the USDA 
mentioned that " USDA has already issued more than USD 89 million for margins triggered in 
February, March and April ". In the 2018 Monthly Payments Processed report  on the USDA website 
(https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafiles/Price -
Support/Excel/2018%20Monthly%20Payments%20P rocessed%20 -%20December.pdf ), the USDA 
indicates that close to USD 254 million in payments has been processed by 10 December 2018. As 
a lot of these payments were triggered between February and August 2018, could the USDA clarify 
how this -USD 18.2 million  in total direct payments under the MPP was calculated?   
The 2018 Farm Bill, authorized the repayment of premiums under the MPP to producers who paid 
premiums into the programme for 2014 through 2017 calendar year. The repayment amount is 
equal to the difference between the total amount of premiums paid by the dairy operation for each 
applicable calendar year of coverage and the total amount of payments made to the MPP -Dairy 
participating dairy operations for that applicable calendar year. An operation either could elect to 
receive 50 % of the repayment amount as cash refund or take 75 % of the amount as a credit that 
can be used toward premiums for the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) Program. Could the U.S. clarify 
if these repayments, on the 2017 -year basis,  were included into this notification and indicate how 
much was returned in cash and how much was returned as a credit to producers under  DMC?  
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news -room/news -releases/2019/usda -announces -repayment -options -
for-producers -with-coverage -in-previous -margin -protection -program -for-dairy 
AG-IMS ID 95111: Question b y New Zealand - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
New Zealand notes that the total non -exempt direct payments for beef cattle and calves nearly 
doubled (from USD 33.322 million to USD 60.551 million) for the marketing year 2017. Similarly, 
the total non -exemp t direct payments for livestock increased from USD 290.498 million to 
USD 367.954 million for the marketing year 2017. Can the US please advise what caused this 
increase in payments, and whether we can expect continued rises in payments to both beef cattle  
and calves, and livestock in the marketing year 2018 and beyond? (supporting table DS:6 refers).  
2.4  New or modified Domestic Support Measures  (Table DS:2)  
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/130)  
AG-IMS ID 95018: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Australia 's latest DS:2 notification, in document G/AG/N/AUS/130, the stated period of application 
for the following measures viz. "Maintain Tasmania's Fruit Fly Pest Free Area Status "; "Sustainable G/AG/W/207  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Irrigation Futures Initiative "; "Interim Great Artesian Basin Infrastructure Investment Program "; 
"East Grampians West Wimmera Feasibility Study " "Mitiamo Reticulated Water Supply Feasibility 
Study "; "South West Loddon (SWL) Rural Water Supply Project "; "ACT Rural Grants (ARG) 2017/18 "; 
and "Welcome/Montagu Riverworks " is over. What is the current status of each of these 
programmes? In case these programmes are still in application, please provide details.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95020: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per Australia 's DS:2 notification, in document G/AG/N/AUS/130, the "Export Partnership 
Program " has been replaced with "SA Export Accelerator ". Australia is requested to provide the 
following information:  
a. The products that benefited from the grants unde r Export Partnership Program during its 
period of application?  
b. How is the SA Export Accelerator program me different from the one that it replaced?  
c. Under which provision of the AoA is the new program me being notified by Australia?  
d. How does Australia justify  the grants under Export Partnership program me to be 
categorized as exempt support under the AoA and not an export subsidy?  
2.4.2   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/118)  
AG-IMS ID 95022: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
New Zealand 's recent DS:2 notification, in document G/AG/N/NZL/118, which concerns new or 
modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction, New Zealand mentioned a measure as 
"Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures (SFFF) ". New Zealand is requested to elaborate up on the 
following:  
a. The criteria for industries to apply for funds under the programme.  
b. What is the reason behind merging the two funds Primary Growth Partnership and 
Sustainable Farming Fund?  
c. As per document G/AG/N/NZL/118, the programme is explained to be meeting the specific 
criteria of paragraph 2 of the General services e.g. (a) research; (b) pest and disease 
control; (c) training services; (d) extension and advisory services; (e) inspection services; 
(f) marketing and promotion services;  or (g) infrastructural services. However, in the DS:1 
notification for 2018 -19, G/AG/N/NZL/119, only the research component of the SFFF has 
been notified. What was the support provided for other components of paragraph 2 under 
Annex 3, viz. (b) pest and d isease control; (c) training services; (d) extension and advisory 
services; (e) inspection services; (f) marketing and promotion services; or (g) 
infrastructural services?  
2.5  Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  
2.5.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/127)  
AG-IMS ID 95021: Question by India - Quantity of total exports  
In its ES:2 notification, document G/AG/N/AUS/127 for the calendar year 2018, Australia mentioned 
that it has moved to reporting on a Calendar Year basis from Fiscal Year with respect to expor t 
subsidy notification requirements. Can Australia explain the reason behind such change in the 
reporting year?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.6  Export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1)  
2.6.1   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/8)  
AG-IMS ID 95112: Question by United States of America - Transpa rency issues  
Could the Kyrgyz Republic please confirm that all of its notified export restrictions will expire 
on 22 September 2020?  
 
2.6.2   Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/13)  
AG-IMS ID 95113: Question by Japan - Timely notification  
Japan recognizes the notification of Vie t Nam 's measure made to the Committee on Agriculture on 
4 August 2020, after the discussions in the special meeting. It was unfortunate that the notification 
was delayed in light of Article 12 of Agreement of Agriculture, but at least this reminds other 
countries not having notified their measures yet of the transparency obligation, which does not 
disappear even after the withdrawal of such measures. Japan appreciates the Viet Nam 's notification 
in this regard.   
In future occasions, Japan would like  to see Viet Nam 's maximal efforts to avoid introducing the 
export restrictions and in case that such measures are necessary, notification obligations of Viet 
Nam will be properly met. Japan would like to appreciate it if Viet Nam could share any useful 
experiences with the Committee on how to avoid the delay with a view to ensuring the future 
compliance of notification obligation.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 95017: Question by India  
Australia 's last DS:1 notification is for the period 1 Jul y 2017 to 30 June 2018. Can Australia indicate 
when it will notify its DS:1 notification for 2018 -19? 
 
3.2  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 95114: Question by Canada  
Export Subsidies  
 
Canada notes that Turkey submitted its draft export subsidies schedule in June 2019 and that it was 
certified in September 2019.  However, Turkey retains the right to use export subsidies for a relatively 
large number of agricultural products. Could Turkey indicate when it expects to submit export 
subsidy notifications subsequent to 2013, the date of its most recent notification?  
 
AG-IMS ID 95115: Question by Canada  
Domestic Support Notification  
 
Canada notes that in its response to questions ID  93151 and ID 93153, Turkey indicated that work 
on its 2014 – 2016 annual domestic support notif ications was in progress. Could Turkey provide the 
Committee with an update on when it can expect to submit these notifications?   G/AG/W/207  
 
- 46 - 
 
  4  DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON EXPORT COMPETITION  
4.1  Argentina  
AG-IMS ID 95118: Question by United States of America   
Export Credit  
  
The United States notes that Argentina did not provide updates since 2018.  Please update responses 
to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) with 2018 and 2019 data for the Investment and 
Foreign Trade Bank (BICE).   
4.2  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 95119:  Question by European Union  
Australia – Follow up to question 94048 - Australia's International Freight Assistance Mechanism  
 
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 94048 Australia has referred to its response to a question posed 
by Canada. This reply provide s useful background information on the reasoning behind the 
establishment of IFAM. However, it does not clarify the doubts expressed by the EU in its question.  
 
As pointed at in question AG-IMS ID 94048, IFAM appears to be an export subsidy as defined in 
Article 9.1 (d) of the Agreement of Agriculture, which covers "the provision of subsidies to reduce 
costs of marketing exports of agricultural products (other than widely available export promotion 
and advisory services), including handling, upgrading and other processing costs and the costs of 
international transport and freight ". For Developed WTO Members such as Australia, paragraph 6 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial decision of 19 December (WTO document WT/MIN(13)/40) provides for the 
elimination of export su bsidies as of the date of the adoption of that Decision.  
a. Australia was among the strongest supporters of tightening the disciplines on export 
competition, and in fact, the first Member to modify its Schedule to comply with Nairobi.  
Can Australia explain ho w the IFAM respects its WTO obligations on agricultural export 
subsidies as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture, 
as well as in its own Schedule?  
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
AG-IMS ID 95120: Question by United States of America   
State Trading Enterprises  
  
Regarding its notification of The Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales ' STE activity, 
would Australia please provide the average exported price and the average representative domestic 
sales price for rice in marketing years 2015/2016 to 2018/19?  If Australia cannot provide this 
information, please explain why not.   
4.3  Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 95121: Question by European Union  
Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four years after Nairobi, Brazil did not provide its updated schedule. When will Brazil comply 
with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
4.4  China  
AG-IMS ID 9 5143: Question by Canada  
Canada notes that information for Item #3 – total value of export of agricultural products covered 
by export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes and use per programme has G/AG/W/207  
 
- 47 - 
 
  been provided for years 2015 –2016 for  programmes under the Agricultural Development Bank of 
China and the Export Import Bank of China.  
  
Could China indicate when it will provide more recent data?  
AG-IMS ID 95122: Question by European Union  
China – outstanding replies to questions AG-IMS ID  91064 and 91070  
 
The EU would like to reiterate its questions AG-IMS ID 91064 and 91070 posed within the framework 
of the previous dedicated Session on Export Competition to which China did not provide yet a reply:  
a. AG-IMS ID 91064: Data on Export Financing has not been updated since 2016. When will 
China provide the missing information for 2017 and 2018?  
b.  AG-IMS ID  91070: When will China provide answers to the Export Competition 
Questionnaire concerning agricultural exporting STEs as notified to th e WTO STE working 
party?  
AG-IMS ID 95123: Question by United States of America  
 
Export Credit  
  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 92031, the United States notes that China responded with 2017 
and 2018 data.  However, the United States notes that the 2020 ECQ did not include this notification 
update of China 's export financing programmes.   
  
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ with 2017, 2018 and 2019 data.    
b. Please explain what steps China is taking to provide programme use by product or product 
group for SINOSURE.  
AG-IMS ID 95124: Question by United States of America   
 
Food Aid  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 92031, China states that it "provided food aid with the total value of 
2 billion RMB to relevant countries through both multilateral and bilateral channels from 2017 
to 2018. " 
  
Please provide the quantities of in -kind food aid provided by commodity and the values of all untied 
cash-basis food aid for each specific year.  If this information cannot be provided, please explain why 
not. 
AG-IMS ID 95125: Question by U nited States of America   
State Trading Enterprises  
  
a. For each exported product listed in the ECQ, please provide the average exported price, 
average procurement price, and the average representative domestic sales price for 
marketing years 2015 to 2017.   
b. If unable to provide, please explain why not.  
c. Please list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn and 
cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If China cannot provide this information, please explain 
why not.  
d. Finally, please update th e 2020 ECQ with 2018 and 2019 data.    G/AG/W/207  
 
- 48 - 
 
  4.5  Colombia  
AG-IMS ID 95126: Question by European Union  
Colombia – Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 93183 – Sugar Fund  
 
Colombia 's reply to question AG-IMS ID 93183 is not complete. Could Colombia provide data for the 
three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019 on:  
a. total payments made from the sugar fund for the export of suga . 
b. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid into the fund from sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.  
c. It seems that due to the nature of the fund and the government 's involvement in the 
establishment and its role in the committee, FEPA could be seen as a de facto  export 
subsidy as referred to in Article 9.1 (c) of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). To 
the extent that the reference price is  higher than the average export price, the resulting 
compensation paid to exporters could be qualified as an export subsidy even if this result 
is not intended.  
d. Can Columbia explain how it is planning to ensure compliance of FEPA with the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition?  
4.6  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 95127: Question by United States of America  
Bulgaria – Export Credit  
  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States notes Bulgaria did not respond to maximum 
repayment terms and the annual average repay ment periods in the 2020 ECQ notification.   
  
Please update the ECQ with maximum terms and annual average repayment periods.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95128: Question by United States of America  
Denmark – Export Credit  
  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, the United States notes that Denmark has not updated data on 
its reinsurance program me.   
  
Please explain what steps Denmark is taking to provide this data.  
 
AG-IMS ID 95129: Question by United States of America  
Italy - Export Credit  
  
The United States thanks Italy for the transparency it provided in responding to the ECQ by 
providing  2019 data for SACE Spa.  
  
a. Please provide 2016, 2017 and 2018 data for SACE  Spa as well.  
The United States notes that in the SACE SIMEST 2018 annual report, credit insurance operations 
abroad totaled EUR 0.8 billion where the sector for agri -food accounted for 10.9% of this total.   
b. Please explain why SACE subsidiaries such as SIM EST are not being reported in the 
EU's ECQ.   G/AG/W/207  
 
- 49 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95130: Question by United States of America   
Spain – Export Credit  
  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States reiterates that the Decision on Export Competition 
is not limited to just agricultural -specific program mes.  
  
Please provide information for ICO export financing program mes for agriculture that are in non -
specific sector program mes.  
AG-IMS ID 95131: Question by United States of America   
Food Aid  
  
The United States notes the E uropean Union provided an ECQ food aid notification for Austria, 
Czech  Republic, Slovenia and Sweden. However, the United States noted that the EU did not 
provided a response for the European Commission and for several other member states such as 
Denmark, Finland, France, Luxemburg, and Spain, which are all members of the Food Assistance 
Convention.  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91119, 87052 and 84122, can the EU and the later mentioned member 
States please provide the total value of untied cash -based food  aid for all non -notified years. If the 
information cannot be provided, please explain why not.  
4.7  India  
AG-IMS ID 95132: Question by European Union   
India – outstanding reply to question AG-IMS ID 92007  
 
The EU would like to remind India, that its reply to point (c) of question 92007 is still outstanding : 
 
"c. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar exported during the 2018/19 marketing year 
(total and with subsidies) and the total amount spent on subsidy for these exports (by 
both national and pro vincial authorities). " 
4.8  Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 95133: Question by European Union  
Indonesia – Schedule update following Nairobi  
  
Over four years after Nairobi, Indonesia did not provide its updated schedule. When will Indonesia 
comply with the commitments un dertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
4.9  Israel  
AG-IMS ID 95007: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
  
Can Israel please provide the average exported price and the average representative domestic sales 
price for years 2016 to 2019?  If the information cannot be provided, please explain why not.   
4.10  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 95144: Question by Canada   
Export financing  
  
Canada notes that the information provided under Item #8 program me use by product or product 
group includes a list of over 20 products from the period 2013 – 2019.   
  
What product or product group was covered by New Zealand 's programmes in 2019?  G/AG/W/207  
 
- 50 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95134: Question by European Union   
New Zealand – follow up to ques tion AG-IMS ID 94050 – International Airfreight Capacity schemes  
 
New Zealand has introduced the International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC), by which it 
supports the export of New Zealand's product by air to export destinations. In its reply to EU que stion 
AG-IMS ID 94050, N ew Zealand  has provided some information on background and operation of the 
scheme, but its compliance with WTO export competition disciplines is not clear.  
a. Could New Zealand  explain how IAFAC is not an export subsidy falling under Article 9.1(d) 
– "the provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports of agricultural 
products including (…) the costs of international transport and freight. " 
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
4.11  Norway  
AG-IMS ID 95135: Question by United States of America   
Food Aid  
  
The United States notes that Norway does not respond to the food aid questions following the 
ECQ structure.  However, Norway ask Members to refer to its NF: 1 Notifications, which does not 
provide the total amount of food aid provided but rather uncomprehensive data reported to the 
OECD 's Development Assistance Committee (DAC).  
  
Please update the 2020 ECQ and include data following the Nairobi Annex structure, including the 
total value of multilateral and bilateral food aid from 2016 to 2019.  
4.12  Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 95136: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 91125, the United States notes that Pakist an did not reply to the question 
with regards to the Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd (TCP).  Therefore, we restate the question.  
  
Please explain the basis for not reporting the TCP as an agricultural exporting STE.  
4.13  Russian Federation  
AG-IMS ID 95145:  Question by Canada   
State trading enterprises  
 
Canada refers to the Russian Federation 's responses to questions from the United States 
(AG-IMS ID 87058 and AG-IMS ID 91127) regarding the operation of the United Grain 
Company  (JSC UGC) and the assertion by the Russian Federation that this entity is not a State 
Trading Enterprise.  
  
Could the Russian Federation clarify if the status pf the JSC UGC has evolved since the response to 
the questions from the United States given the following description of the JSC UGC on its website 
(emphasis added)?  
  
JSC UGC, being a strategic state -owned operator  in the Russian grain market, and acting in the 
interests of executing the state strategy  for the development of infrastructure and logis tics 
facilities and the export potential of agricultural products,  implements large -scale investment 
projects.   G/AG/W/207  
 
- 51 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 95137: Question by European Union   
Russia n Federation  - Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 93186 - Subsidies to "certification of 
agricultural products in foreign markets " 
 
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 93186 the Russia n Federation  has stated that government support 
to legal entities for compensation of part of costs on certification of agro -industrial products to 
foreign markets in the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No.  1816 of 
25 December 2019 is not an export subsidy within the meaning of Article 9.1 (d).  
 
Can the Russia n Federation  justify its reply by:  
a. Explaining how it ensures that t his new subsidy does not compensate for costs incurred 
as part of and during the process of selling a product to foreign markets and is not an 
illegal export subsidy?  
b. Explaining how the decree in question complies with the requirements of Articles 8 -10 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?   
AG-IMS ID 95138: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States thanks the Russian Federation for its 
transparency regarding the JSC Russian Export Center export financing interest rate support 
program me for agricultural products.  However, the United States notes that the 2020 ECQ does not 
include a notification of this measure.   
  
Please update the 2020 ECQ and also include 2019 data.   
 
4.14  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 95139: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit  
  
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2020 ECQ.  
  
Please provide value of programme use by product or product group.  If the information cannot be 
provided, please explain why not and what steps Thai land is taking to provide this data.   
AG-IMS ID 95140: Question by United States of America  
State Trading Enterprises  
  
The United States thanks Thailand for its response to 2020 ECQ and the inclusion of Public 
Warehouse Organization as an agricultural exporting STE.   
  
Can Thailand please update the 2020 ECQ and provide statistical information such as the quantity 
exported by STE, the average export price and destinations for the calendar years 2014 and 2019? 
If the information cannot be pr ovided, please explain why not.    
4.15  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 95141: Question by China  
According to the notification of the United States on international food aid (G/AG/N/USA/138), a 
total of 414,540 ton nes of coarse grains were exported for the fiscal year of 2018 (from 01 -10-2018 
to 30-09-2019). However, in its replies to the Export Competition Questionnaire submitted in 2019 
and 2020, the United States notified that 354,700 ton nes of sorghum was provided as food aid in 
the fiscal year of 2018 a nd 413,830 ton nes of sorghum was provided for the fiscal year of 2019. 
Could the United States clarify if there is any connection between these products and volumes as 
mentioned above ，i.e., is the sorghum part of the food aid notified as "coarse grain "? In addition, 
we fully understands that the U.S. Government chooses agricultural products for food aid based on 
detailed market analysis, and would like to ask the United States for further information regarding G/AG/W/207  
 
- 52 - 
 
  the destinations and usages of the sorghum provided as food aid, and the demand assessment for 
each donation?  
AG-IMS ID 95142: Question by European Union   
United States – Food Aid  
 
In the US Fiscal Year 2019 the US has provided 2.0 million tonnes of in -kind food aid with a total 
value of USD 741 mi llion for which monetisation was permitted.  
 
Can the US explain how it complies with paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Nairobi Decision, which defines 
the conditions under which monetization of in -kind food aid can take place?  
4.16  Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
AG-IMS ID 95063: Question by European Union  
  
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of - Schedule update following Nairobi  
  
Over four years after Nairobi, the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela did not provide its updated 
schedule. When will Indonesia comply with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
 
 
__________