G/AG/W/196  
 
12 April 2019  
(19-2467) Page: 1/76 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CO MMITTEE  ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 26 -27 FEBRUARY 20191 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG /W/194 as well as follow -up comments made during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 11 April 2019: 
 
ID Answer 
by Question by  Section/Notification Reference  Repeat 
question  
90041  Ghana  United  States of 
America  I. Article 18.6  89023  
90002  India European  Union  I. Article 18.6   
90034  Nigeria  Australia  I. Article 18.6   
90045  Pakistan  United Stat es of 
America  I. Article 18.6   
90046  Zimbabwe  United States of 
America  I. Article 18.6  89033,  88076  
900562 China  Russian Federation  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
90051,  90052  China  United States of 
America  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
90113  China  Japan  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
90058  China  Russian  Federation  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
900912 China  Brazil  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
900542 China  United States of 
America  G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, 
G/AG/N/CHN /44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47   
900702, 900692 China  Brazil  G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49   
900752 China  United States of 
America  G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49   
90047  Ecuador  United States of 
America  G/AG/N/ECU/46   
90063  Ecuador  United States of 
America  G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, 
G/AG/N/ECU/49   
900823 India United States of 
America  Other   
 
 
 
_______________
                                                
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.  
2 China provided partial response.  
3 India provided partial response.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO  THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE 1 8.6 .... 5 
1.1   Egypt's pest control subsidy  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
1.1.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.2   EU's interve ntion policy  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  ................................ ..............................  5 
1.3   India's support to rice exports  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
1.3.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90130)  .........................  6 
1.4   India's import duty protections  ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9004 2) ................................ .............  6 
1.5   India's soymeal export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  ................................ .............  7 
1.6   India's proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  ................................ ..........................  7 
1.7   Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  ................................ ........................  8 
1.7.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
1.8   Republic of Moldova's environmental charges  ................................ ................................ .10 
1.8.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  ................................ ................................ ....10 
1.9   New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  ................................ ........................ 10 
1.9.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  ................................ ......................... 10 
1.10   Nigeria's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ......11 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90034)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.11   Russia's increased support to dairy sector  ................................ ................................ ....12 
1.11.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  ................................ ....................... 12 
1.12   Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatière" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
competition  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 12 
1.12.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  ................................ ....................... 12 
1.13   Thailand's support to palm oil growers ................................ ................................ ......... 13 
1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  ................................ ....................... 13 
1.14   U.S. Farm Bill 2018  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...13 
1.14.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.14.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90010)  ................................ ....................... 16 
1.14.3    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  ................................ ................................ ......16 
1.15   U.S. Trade Promotion payments  ................................ ................................ ................. 16 
1.15.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  ................................ ....................... 16 
1.16   U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  ................................ ................................ 17 
1.16.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  ................................ ................................ ......17 
1.17   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 17 
1.17.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  ................................ ........................... 17 
1.17.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90120) and United States of America  
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 18 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  ................................ .......... 18 
1.19   EU's CAP reform  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......20 
1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  ................................ ................................ .20 
1.20   European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  ........................... 21 
1.20.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90128)  .................... 21 
1.20.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90028) and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90129)  ............ 22 
1.21   Ghana's poultry imports  ................................ ................................ ............................ 24 
1.21.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  ................................ .......... 24 
1.22   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 
1.22.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 9003 2) ................................ ................................ .25 
1.22.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.22.3    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029)  ................................ ................... 26 
1.22.4    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  ................................ ................................ ...26 
1.22.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  ................................ .......... 27 
1.23   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .27 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  ................................ ................................ .27 
1.24   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...28 
1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90002)  ................................ ....................... 28 
1.25   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ......28 
1.25.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  ................................ ................... 28 
1.26   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ............... 29 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045 ) ................................ .......... 29 
1.27   Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  ................................ ................................ .....30 
1.27.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90068)  ................................ ........................... 30 
1.28   Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  ................................ .............................. 31 
1.28.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  ................................ ....................... 31 
1.29   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ ...32 
1.29.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  ................................ ................................ .32 
1.30   U.S. support to cotton sector ................................ ................................ ...................... 32 
1.30.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  ................................ ................................ ......32 
1.31   Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  ................................ ................................ .......... 33 
1.31.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  ................................ .......... 33 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CO NNECTION WITH INDIVI DUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  34 
2.1   Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ....34 
2.1.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 
2.1.2    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 
2.1.3    The Republic of North Macedonia  (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  ............................ 35 
2.1.4    Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 
2.2   Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................ ....37 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  .................. 37 
2.3   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 38 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  ................................ .......................... 38 
2.3.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ............................ 38 
2.3.3    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 
2.3.4    China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 
2.3.5    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/ 173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  .................. 54 
2.3.6    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 55 
2.3.7    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  ................................ .....58 
2.3.8    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 
2.3.9    Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, G/AG/N/TUR/20, 
G/AG/N/TUR/21)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 60 
2.4   New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  ................................ ............. 64 
2.4.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  ................................ ................................ ..64 
2.5   Export Subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............ 70 
2.5.1    Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 70 
2.5.2    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/231, G/AG/N/JPN/232, G/AG/N/JPN/233)  ............. 70 
2.6   Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision (Table NF:1)  ................................ ........ 71 
2.6.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 71 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO  QUESTIONS ON NOTIFI CATIONS  ................................ ..........  72 
3.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....72 
3.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 
3.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 72 
3.2.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ .......72 
3.3   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ .............. 73 
3.3.1    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 73 
4   OVER DUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  74 
4.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 74 
4.2   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 74 
4.3   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......75 
4.4   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 75 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  75 
5.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 75 
5.2   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 76 
5.3   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 76 
  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  Egypt's pest control subsidy  
1.1.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90019)  
Australia seeks further information on its question to Egypt at 88th and 89th CoA 
(AG-IMS ID 88020 and AG -IMS ID 89076) regarding pest and disease control.   
 
Egypt listed a Pest Control Subsidy as "Green Box", noting the measure was directed for 
pest control for cotton; the subsidy was calculated as a fixed amount per acre for all cotton 
producers who are small farmers; and pest control is provided in cash to farmers at the 
end of each season.  
 
Can Egypt explain how the subsidy was tied with actual pest control, given the sub sidies 
were provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
The pest control subsidy is directed for pest control for cotton . Subsidies are calculated as a fixed 
amount per acre for cotton producers wh o are small farmers. Pest control payment is provided in 
cash to farmers at the end of each season. To ensure that the pest free crops do not receive the 
subsidy, the Central Administration of Pest Control at the Ministry of Agriculture and Land 
reclamatio n carries out the following actions:  
 
• On-field inspection campaigns on all summer crops especially cotton;  
• Identification of agricultural areas infected with cotton pests, which then receive the pest 
control subsidy at the end of the agricultural season.  
1.2  EU's intervention policy  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90026)  
Media reports over the past year have suggested that the European Commission is 
considering revising its ceiling for intervention buying in down to zero tonnes, subject to 
monthly review.  Intervention buying in incentivises production even when market 
demand is not there, and the stocks accumulated can overhang the market for prolonged 
period. The Commission 's SMP stockpile accumulated during the 2014/15 market crisis 
has only recently bee n sold down following a long period of soft prices including for other 
exporters around the world. There are a wide range of alternative measures available to 
address the economic distress of producers during a downturn which are less likely to 
affect mark ets over such a long period.  
 
a. What consideration has the European Union  given to reforming intervention 
policy and instead using non -distortive Green Box measures?  
b. As a leading SMP exporter which benefits from a more stable and undistorted 
market, what s ignals is the European Union  willing to give regarding future 
support policy?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The Council of the European Union, on the basis of a Commission proposal, decided to set to the 
ceiling at zero for public intervention for SMP that ta kes place at fixed price in 2019. This change, 
as the one introduced in 2018, indeed aims at avoiding public intervention taking place when there 
is no market justification for it.  
 
The public intervention mechanism has proved to be an effective tool to co pe with extreme volatility. 
It mitigated the SMP price decline during the crisis (not only in the EU but worldwide). The disposal 
of the stocks bought -in has been performed in a prudent way so as not to disturb the market. G/AG/W/196  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Indeed, in parallel with the rele ase of over 99% of the stock, market prices have increased by more 
than 20%.  
 
The current CAP reform proposal submitted by the European Commission, currently under 
consideration by the co -legislators, does not contain any proposed change to the interventio n 
mechanism for SMP.  
 
Follow -up: Given  the EU's role as a major exporter, New Zealand considered  that the minimum price 
support scheme  would affect the market, even if the stock were disposed prudently. The United 
States expressed the support for the question.  
1.3  India's support to rice exports  
1.3.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 90111)  and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90130)  
An article says that India "give a subsidy of 5 % for non -basmati rice exports for the four 
months to 25  March  2019, the trade ministry said in the order dated 22 Nov." 
(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/india -to-give-5-
percent -subsidy -for-non-basmati -rice-exports -for-4-months -
government/articleshow/66762378.cms ) 
  
a. Does India  give a subsidy of 5 % for non -basmati rice exports as the article says?  
b. If it is true, is India against the Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture because 
it does not have the entitlement of export subsidies in the concession.  
c. If India is not against th e Article 8, could India explain the reason in detail?  
Answer by India  
 
The MEIS scheme has been challenged before a WTO adjudication panel and therefore India feels 
that it is not appropriate to further comment on this matter.  
 
Follow -up: Thailand asked India to provide more info rmation  on the compliance of the scheme with 
WTO rules  and posed a  follow -up question as follows : "Noting that the implementation period of the 
scheme was from 26 November 2018 to 25 March 2019, Thailand would like to ask whether India 
has any plan to continue the scheme. " The United States asked  India to confirm  whether  the 
objective of the programme a nd benefits provided were related to the criteria set out in paragraph 
9.1 (d) and 9.1 (e) of the AoA . Australia raised concern s regarding the exports from the scheme . 
Australia questioned whether the 5% support that had been referred to in the question wa s 
administered through the MEIS and the reason non-basmati  rice was included in the MEIS. In view 
of India's response to its question at the previous meeting that the MEIS aimed to address 
infrastructure inefficiency and the associated costs, Australia ask ed how that could justify the 
scheme's compliance with Article 9.4. The European Union flagged interest in the question.  
1.4  India's import duty protections  
1.4.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90042)  
In 2018, India gradually increased its import d uty protections on several edible oils 
(i.e.,  soy, sunflower, and canola oils).   
  
a. Please provide a list of the affected agricultural products with the current and 
previous import duty.  
b. Please explain the domestic circumstances surrounding, and policy rati onale for 
India raising the import duty on edible oils.   G/AG/W/196  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. The changes in import duties of edible oils are as below:  
Oil WTO  bound  rate 
(%) Current rate  (%) 
(effective from 14 -06-2018)  Previous rate 
(%) 
    Crude  Refined  Crude  Refined  
Soya bean oil  45 35 45 30 35 
Rapeseed/mustard/canola  75 35 45 25 35 
Sunflower oil  300 35 45 25 35 
 
b. The changes in the import duties are well within India 's bound rates. These are as per 
domestic requirements.   
 
Follow -up: Canada, as a major exporter of canola and related products, noted its interest in better 
understanding India's domestic circumstances and the rational for India to increase the tariffs on 
edible oils. The European Union echoed Canada's comments.  
1.5  India 's soymeal export subsidies  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90044)  
In July 2018, India increased its export subsidy for soybean meal from 7 % to 10 %. Noting 
that India does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements:  
  
a. Please list all subsidy measures provided by India for the export of soybean meal.  
b. Please explain the process by which the subsidies are provided and explain any 
eligibility criteria.  
c. Please provide the total value and quantity of export subsidies for soybean meal 
by yea r and by destination, and in particular to the United States.  
Answer by India  
 
Soya bean meal is covered under the MEIS scheme. The MEIS scheme has been challenged before 
a WTO adjudication panel and therefore India feels that it is not appropriate to furt her comment on 
this matter.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada, the European Union and the Russian Federation indicated systemic and 
commercial interest in  Members' use of export subsidies and their compliance with the Nairobi  
Ministerial Decision.  
1.6  India's propos ed domestic support measures  
1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90003)  
The Indian government has unveiled a package of $2.8  billion in direct payments for 
India 's small farmers by 31 March. This aid package will be paid to the owners of 
120 million  small and medium -sized farms.  
 
Can India give more detail on this proposed new $2.8  billion aid programme for farmers 
including the specific criteria after which the subsidies will be distributed,  and which 
sectors are expected to benefit the most from this scheme?    
 
Answer by India  
 
India understands that this question seeks information on the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman 
Nidhi (PM-KISAN), the programme announced by the Finance Minister of India in the Union 
Budget  2019-20. The details are availabl e at the website http://agricoop.nic.in/  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia, Canada and the United States supported the question. Australia  sought further 
information on direct payments provided to farmers under the PM -KISAN scheme  on its eligibility 
criteria and whether  India was  confident  that the outlay of Rs 75,000 c rores in 2019-20 would be  
sufficient to fully  cover this programme.   
1.7  Mexico's Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices  
1.7.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90089)  
a. In January 2019, the Mexican government announced the Secretariat of 
Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER) 's budget and priorities for 2019. In 
the budget, a total of six billion Mexican pesos will be allocated for the 
implementation of the Strategic Programme of Guaranteed Prices for small 
producers of basic commodities of corn, beans, wheat, rice, and milk.  
i. Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for the 
guaranteed prices programme.  
ii. Canada understands that under this programme that Mexico will purchase 
certain volumes of these basic commodities from small scale producers. Could 
Mexico elaborate as to how it will  dispose of these purchased commodities on 
the domestic market?  
b. In the same budget for SADER, four billion Mexican Pesos were allocated for the 
implementation of the second Strategic Programme: credits for the Livestock 
sector. Canada would be interested in the details of the operating procedures for 
this programme.  
i. Could Mexico indicate which states are eligible for this programme?  
ii. Which types of livestock will be eligible for this support, in order of priority? 
(For example: beef cattle, dairy cattle, s wine, small ruminants, poultry) . 
Answer by Mexico  
a.  
i. Seguridad Alimentaria Mexicana (SEGALMEX), the newly established agency that will 
be responsible for implementing the Strategic Guaranteed Prices Programme 
(Programa Estratégico de Precios de Garantía ), has not yet published the programme's 
operating guidelines. This means that the details requested by Canada are not yet 
available. It should be noted that this programme has not yet entered into operation 
or begun disbursing resources. For this, the operatin g guidelines will need to be 
published in the Mexican Official Journal. Once the programme is in operation and 
disbursements have been made, it will be notified in accordance with the transparency 
and notification obligations for the corresponding year. Me xico will provide Canada 
with details concerning the programme's operation as soon as possible, once they have 
been officially published . 
ii. The official information that will answer this question has not yet been published. 
Mexico will provide Canada with a response as soon as possible, once the programme's 
operating guidelines have been published . 
b.  
i. The Livestock Sector Credit Programme (Programa Crédito Ganadero  a la Palabra) 
seeks to increase the productivity of small -scale livestock producers through in -kind 
support and capitalization measures for production units. The operating guidelines for 
this programme were published in the Mexican Official Journal on 22  February  2019 
(http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5550950&fecha=22/02/2019 ). G/AG/W/196  
 
- 9 - 
 
  This Livestock Sector Credit Programme comprises four support components:  
• The livestock repopulation component consists of in -kind credit for natural and legal 
persons. Such persons shall receive a certain number of heads to increase their 
livestock numbers. The following types of livestock are eligible: cattle, swine, sheep, 
goats and  bees. Credit under this component may be granted in the form of male 
breeding animals or female breeding animals.  
• The livestock equipment and physical infrastructure component covers financial 
support for purchasing equipment and building physical infrastructure for the storage, 
collection and conveyance of water. It also covers the provision of fencing with 
heavy -duty posts and, for beekeeping, the purchasing of smokers, hive tools, 
uncapping tools, protective clothing, and manual honey extractors.  For natural 
persons, the upper limit is 100,000.00  Mexican pesos per production unit. For legal 
persons, up to 100,000.00  Mexican pesos of support is provided per active applicant 
partner, the maximum being 500,00.00 Mexican pesos per legal person. As reg ards 
beekeeping, the limit for natural persons is 20,000.00  Mexican pesos, while for legal 
persons, up to 40,000.00 Mexican pesos may be  granted.  
• The food supplement component involves support for the rehabilitation of meadows 
and pastureland, the producti on of forage, and the purchase of food supplements, such 
as mineral salts and protein -rich foods.  
• The technical services component covers support for the hiring of livestock 
professionals (including veterinary surgeons and animal husbandry specialists), wh o, 
through outreach, training and consultancy activities, will provide guidance to 
beneficiaries on health, herd reproduction management, nutrition, feed and fodder 
production, and veterinary services. The amount of support granted,  and the scope of 
the su pport will depend on the budget available for the programme and will be 
determined subsequently through specific collaboration agreements in accordance with 
criteria established by the General Coordinating Agency for Livestock. Revolving and 
in-kind credit : Support under the livestock repopulation component takes the form of 
in-kind credit that will also be paid back in kind. The time -frame for the revolving 
scheme is as follows: For cattle, credit will be repaid in kind by the initial beneficiaries 
in the form of one breeding female for one breeding female or two breeding females 
for each breeding male. The credit grace period is 27 months. 30% of the credit will 
be repaid between the 27th and 36th month; a further 30% will be repaid one year 
later; and the  remaining 40% will be paid back the following year. The stock received 
as credit repayment will be used to support other beneficiaries. For swine, 100% of 
the credit will be paid back between the 20th and 24th month. For sheep and goats, the 
credit will b e repaid on a self -revolving basis, which means that to pay back credit, the 
producer must check that for each female breeding animal received by way of support, 
an additional female breeding animal was added to the herd.  
ii. The programme covers the whole cou ntry, but priority will be given to the states of 
Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Nayarit, Michoacán, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, 
Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Yucatán and Zacatecas.  
The livestock concerned may be cattle, swine, sheep, goats or bees, in n o order of 
priority. It is also important to note that, particularly in the case of the livestock 
repopulation component, the stock provided as credit in kind must meet the relevant 
health criteria and standards that ensure the country's animal health stat us is 
maintained.  
Follow -up: The United States flagged interest in the question.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.8  Republic of Moldova's environmental charges  
1.8.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90005)  
As Ukraine is aware, the Republic of Moldova applies environmental charges on both 
importe d and domestic products pursuant to the Law No. 1540 dated 25  February  1998 
"On Charge for Contamination of Environment" as amended. Specifically, Ukraine 
understands that charges are applied for primary packaging materials such as plastics 
and aluminium a nd packaging such as Tetra Pak and PET -packaging. According to 
paragraph  6 of Article 11 of the Law certain goods and packaging are exempt from the 
"Charge for Contamination of Environment ". The extent of these exemptions, however, is 
not entirely clear.  
  
Ukraine exports to the Republic of Moldova beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic 
beverages and other products packaged in such type of packaging.  
  
a. Could the Republic of Moldova  please clarify if Law No. 1540 as amended applies 
to all packaging used in beer, juice containing products, non -alcoholic beverages 
and other products, such as Tetra Pak and PET -packaging?  
b. Could the Republic of Moldova please verify that this measure doe s not represent 
an import restriction, specifically that domestically packaged products and 
imported products face the same charges for such packaging?  
Answer by Moldova, Republic of  
 
Republic of Moldova appreciates the interest of Ukraine in the amendmen t process of the national 
legislation of the Republic of Moldova specially related to TBT related measures, in the context of 
the Law no. 1540 25 February 1998 on environment pollution charges, which applies to all types of 
packaging including Tetra Pak an d Pet -packaging. The measure is in full compliance with 
WTO principles, does not affect the imports, and offers an equal treatment to imported and domestic 
products. Moreover, Republic of Moldova takes all the necessary steps and procedures, in order to 
ensure that its national legislation and all the measures are consistent with its commitments 
undertaken under the WTO Agreements.  
 
Moldova  express es its availability to provide more clarifications if necessary including through 
bilateral dialogue. Addition ally, it shall be mentioned that such questions are  more closely related to 
the SPS and TBT measures than to Art. 18.6 of the A oA, thus Moldova  would encourage Ukraine to 
raise questions in the  more relevant WTO Committees.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted its commercial  concern  that imported  agricultural  products  and like 
domestic products appeared not to be treated equal ly. Ukraine looked forward to the bilateral 
consultation with Moldova to further understand how Law no. 1540  was implemented in this context.   
1.9  New Zealand's support to dairy processing facilities  
1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90006)  
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced end -November  2018 
that the government would provide a $9.9 mil lion repayable interest -bearing loan for 
Westland Milk Products from the Provincial Growth Fund. He confirmed that some of the 
spending from the $1 billion Provincial Growth Fund will qualify as agricultural subsidies 
and have to be reported to the World T rade Organization, something New Zealand has not 
done for 25 years.  
 
The funds to Westland will be used to develop segregation facilities at the co -operative 's 
Hokitika site, which will enable Westland Milk Products to collect and process different 
types o f milk products and milk, such as A2 milk and colostrum.  
 
a. How does New Zealand intend to notify this support to its dairy sector in its DS:1?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. Can New Zealand explain more in detail about this programme and support 
granted from the Provincial Growth Fund  (PGF). How much money is available 
from the fund to agricultural projects, how much for the dairy sector and which 
agricultural projects are envisaged to be supported?  
c. Is this a shift away from previous declared New Zealand policy of not granting 
government support to agriculture and the farming sector?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
As Members will be aware, New Zealand continues to be an advocate for the removal of trade  and 
production -distorting agricultural subsidies. New Zealand 's farmers and the natural enviro nment 
have both benefitted enormously from the removal of such support programmes by adapting to 
market demands and changing production patterns. In response to the specific questions:  
  
a. The loan for the segregation facilities is repayable on commercial te rms and does not 
confer a benefit to specific producers. New Zealand intends to maintain its track record of 
being up to date and accurately reporting notifications to all WTO Committees.  
b. The New Zealand government has established the PGF to facilitate re gional economic 
development over a three -year period. Through the PGF, the government seeks to ensure 
that people living in New Zealand's regions can reach their full potential by helping build 
a regional economy that is sustainable, inclusive and producti ve. The PGF is administered 
by the Provincial Development Unit, part of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, 
Innovation, and Employment. (Further details can be found at the website here). The 
objectives of the fund are to : 
• Create jobs, leading to sustain able economic growth ; 
• Increase social inclusion and participation ; 
• Enable Māori to realise aspirations in all aspects of the econom y; 
• Encourage environmental sustainability and help New Zealand meet climate change 
commitments alongside productive use of la nd, water and other resources ; 
• Improve resilience, particularly of critical infrastructure ; and  
• Diversify our economy.  
To improve regional economies, one of the approaches of the fund is to provide balanced 
investment across a range of areas. Funds are not specifically pre -allocated to dedicated 
sectors nor to certain enterprises. Applications under the PGF have been recei ved for 
projects covering a wide range of sectors, including infrastructure, tourism, and 
community support services. These reflect the wide range of activities that occur in 
New Zealand 's regions. No money has been set aside in the PGF for the New Zealand  dairy 
sector, nor for the agricultural sector more generally. Applications to the PGF are invited 
from all entities, such as community groups, local government, or businesses. Support is 
offered based on applications from these entities and are assessed a gainst the objectives 
and criteria announced by the Government. The PGF must comply with New Zealand 's 
international obligations.  
c. No. The New Zealand government has not changed its longstanding policy of not providing 
trade - and production -distorting subsidies to the agriculture sector.  
1.10  Nigeria's domestic support programmes  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90034)  
Australia welcomes Nigeria 's submission  of domestic support notifications for the 
period  2012 to  2016 – G/AG/N/NGA/17 in October 2017.  
 
Does Nigeria plan to include key agricultural elements of its Economic Recovery and 
Growth Plan  (2017 -2020) in its future domestic support notifications?  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Spec ifically, how will Nigeria classify its support programme for the integrated 
transformation of the agriculture sector aimed at boosting productivity and improving 
access to markets?  
 
Answer by Nigeria  
 
Nigeria undertook to provide a response at a later sta ge.  
 
1.11  Russia's increased support to dairy sector  
1.11.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90007)  
According to Russia Dairy news in late November, the Russian government is increasing 
support per hectare for farmers by 11 billion rubles (EUR  145m) and the volu me of 
subsidies per litre of milk by 8  billion rubles (EUR  105 million) as part of a general increase 
in agricultural support to 294 billion rubles next year. Additional funds will be allocated 
for the recapitalisation of the Rossekhozbank.  
a. Can the Russian  Federation explain more in detail the eligibility criteria for these 
new aid schemes?  
b. What was the purpose of the recapitalisation of Rossekhozbank?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
a. Resourcing of decoupled support (11 billion rubles) and government support (8 billion 
rubles per 1 quart of traded milk) has not changed in 2019 as it corresponds to volumes 
of support in previous year. Total volume of government support for agriculture in  2019 
is planned to be 303 billion rubles.  
b. Recapitalization (as an instrument of government support) is aimed at ensuring the 
financial stability of JSC "Rosselkhozbank " as a credit institution and is an integral part of 
a set of measures to maintain the stability of the banking system in the Russian Federation.  
Follow -up: The United States looked forward to notification of the  programme  to the Committee on 
Agriculture .  
 
1.12  Switzerland – "Loi Chocolatiè re" and implementation of the Nairobi Decision on 
Expor t competition  
1.12.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90020)  
a. Can Switzerland confirm that following the new "Loi chocolati ère" in operation 
as of 1  January 2019, an amount equal to previous export subsidies will reach 
chocolate producers via farmers and private funds?  
b. Can Switzerland explain how the new law complies with the Nairobi Export 
Competition Decision and its new certified schedule?  
Answer b y Switzerland  
 
a. The law in question ("Federal Law of 13  December  1974 on the import and export of 
processed agricultural products") was completely revised following the entry into force of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and is now called the "Federal Law on the import of 
processed agricultural products" (SR  632.111.72). It now only covers regulations 
concerning imports of processed agricultural products. All export subsidies were therefore 
eliminated as of 1  January  2019. In parallel, Switzerland has intro duced support measures 
in the form of direct payments to milk and cereal producers that are not linked to exports. 
Switzerland has also simplified the authorization procedure for inward processing for basic 
dairy and cereal products that previously benefit ted from export contributions.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. The new law is in conformity with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition. 
The support measures are also in conformity with the Ministerial Decision, since they 
involve support under the AMS commitment of Sched ule LIX Switzerland -Liechtenstein. 
The simplification of inward processing arrangements for basic dairy and cereal products 
provides processing companies with administratively simplified access to imported 
products.  
Follow -up: Ukraine highlighted the  impor tance of Members' transparent implementation  of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on export competition . Russian Federation  acknowledged Switzerland's 
announcement that  it would end its  export sub sidies by 1 January  2019 and noted its c oncern with 
new expor t subsidy  measures  directed to agricultural producers.   
 
1.13  Thailand's support to palm oil growers  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90008)  
At the end of November 2018 , the National Palm Oil Committee announced that it would 
support 150,000 palm oil growers with up to 22,500  baht per individual grower for a total 
cost of 3.5  billion  baht for the taxpayer.  
 
a. Can Thailand indicate the possible effect on palm oil production  the following 
years of this support measures?  
b. How does Thailand intend to notify this support scheme?  
Further, the Minister of Energy has announced that the Electricity Authority Thailand will 
purchase 160,000  tonnes of crude palm oil at a price of 18 ba ht/kg for the use as fuel in 
power generation.  
 
c. Can Thailand confirm that this purchase has taken place?  
d. Can Thailand indicate the current market price for crude palm oil in Thailand?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
a. and b. The support was a temporary measure which was launched to help palm oil growers 
in the southern part of Thailand to cover the costs after several typ hoons. Since this 
payment is without any linkage to the production and it is temporary in nature it would 
have a neutral effect for the consequent production year.  
 
c. and d. The second programme, purchase of crude palm oil by the Electricity Authority of 
Thailand, is aimed at promoting green energy by using renewable fuels. This is a pilot 
programme to achieve the sustainable development goals. This scheme, which started in 
November 2018 and will end in May 2019, is still ongoing. Thailand will evaluate the results 
and decide whether this policy will be a good scheme for promoting green energy and 
whether it will be continued. In this programme the purchasing price of crude palm oil is 
18 BAHT per kilogram. Currently the market price of crude palm oil in Thai land ranges 
from 17 BAHT to 19 BAHT per kilogram depends on the quality of the crude palm oil.  
Follow -up: The United States noted  interest in the question.  
 
1.14  U.S. Farm Bill 2018  
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90071)  
Australia notes the Agriculture Improve ment Act of 2018 (otherwise known as the Farm 
Bill) was signed into law on 20 December 2018:  
 
a. When will the United States  notify this package to the WTO?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 14 - 
 
  b. How will the support to agriculture authorised in the Farm Bill be classified under 
the WTO Agreement  on Agriculture?  
c. How does support to agriculture authorised in the Farm Bill adhere to WTO limits 
for domestic support in agriculture (US domestic support is capped at 
USD 19 billion)?  
Australia notes the Farm Bill will continue funding for the Market Acce ss Program, Foreign 
Market Development Program, Emerging Markets Program, and the Technical Assistance 
for Specialty Crops Program, the four main  trade and market access programmes 
authorised under the previous Farm Bill.  
 
d. Will the organisations that have  been awarded funding under the Agriculture 
Trade Promotion Program that was introduced as part of the USD  12 billion 
farmer assistance package still be eligible for funding from the Market Access 
Program (MAP)?  
e. What are the differences between these two programmes?  
Australia notes the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers has been renamed as 
the Dairy Margin Coverage Program and it will modify coverage levels and premiums:  
 
f. Why have the coverage levels and premiums been adjusted under the 
programme and to what extent?  
g. What is the forecast uptake of this programme with these modifications?  
h. Australia notes that the sugar programme will continue in its current form under 
the Farm Bill.  Will the continuation of the current sugar programme be impacted 
by the US -Mexico sugar suspension agreements and will this have any 
implications for Australia's sugar access under the US WTO sugar quota?  
i. Australia notes the Farm Bill will m odify the organic certification requirements 
for imported agricultural products.  What will this involve compared to current 
process and are these new arrangements expected to change current import 
requirements?  
Australia understands that the United States  uses the authorities of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to purchase various food stuffs outside of the farm bills, such as the purchase 
of USD  50 million  of fluid milk in August 2018, which are then redistributed through 
nutrition and food assistance prog rammes.  
 
j. Does the United States  plan to expand commodity purchases under Section 32 of 
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act to additional commodities 
beyond those included in recent years?  
k. How do commodity purchases under Section 32 differ f rom those made under the 
authority of Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act, including those announced under 
the Food Purchase and Distribution Program as part the USD 12 billion package 
to assist farmers impacted by trade retaliation?  
l. The US Department of Agri culture often notes in Section  32 purchase 
announcements that purchases are made 'with the purpose to encourage the 
continued domestic consumption of these products by diverting them from the 
normal channels of trade and commerce '. Does the United States  anticipate any 
market impacts from diverting purchased commodities from the normal channels 
of trade and commerce?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States will notify the 2018 Farm Bill in due course, once the law has been fully 
implemented an d complete data are available for notification.  
b. See response to question (a).  
c. Expenditures under the 2018 Farm Bill are not expected to exceed the Unites States ' 
aggregate measurement of support (AMS) commitments.  
d. ATP eligibility (or participation) does not disqualify participants from participating in the 
other market development program mes authorized in the Farm Bill. There is an overlap in 
eligibility between all the programs, although eligibility requirements may not be exactly 
the same for each progr am. For example, only those that could demonstrate adverse tariff 
impact are eligible for ATP.  
e. There are notable differences, for example, in the eligibility of certain administrative 
expenses. For more information on these programs, please refer to 
https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs . 
f. Coverage levels under the Dairy Margin Coverage program me were increased from an 
upper limit of $8 per hundredweight to $9.50 per hundredweight for production history up 
to 5 million pounds (Tier 1). The upper limit remains $8 per hundredweight for production 
history above that level (Tier 2). Premiums for coverage of Tier1 production history were 
reduced at most coverage levels, ranging from 74 % lower to 22 % higher; premiums fo r 
Tier 2 production history increased for most coverage levels, ranging from 328 % higher 
to 88% lower. The 2018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer explanations for new 
or modified program me provisions.  
g. Official forecasts of participation in the new Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program me 
have not been published. Changes in availability of livestock insurance products for dairy 
and in eligibility rules for participation in both the DMC and purchase of dairy insurance 
products will affect participati on decisions.  
h. No.  
i. Please note that any changes to the U.S. import policy for organics will be notified to 
the TBT Committee.  
j. USDA will continue to make purchases under Section 32 to provide cost -effective access 
to nutritious food products that can be used by USDA feeding program mes. 
k. While commodity purchases under Section 32 and those made under the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program (FPDP) are both provided to eligible recipients through USDA 's 
nutrition program mes, the program me objectives are di fferent. Commodity purchases 
under Section 32 are ongoing and include a broad range of nutritious food products that 
the Food and Nutrition Service identifies for use in specific feeding programs. Commodity 
purchases under FPDP are aimed at mitigating the negative effects of retaliatory tariffs on 
producers of certain agricultural products.  
l. No, the United States does not anticipate any market impacts.  
Follow -up: Australia was  pleased that the US and  Mexico  sugar suspension agreements would not 
have any implications on  its WTO  sugar quota access  and looked forward to U.S. notification  of the 
new and modified programmes  under the new Farm Bill . Brazil, China, t he European Union , New 
Zealand and Paraguay  signalled  interest in the Farm Bill  and looked forward to U.S. notification . In 
relation to question k, Canada noted that previous purchases under Section 32  cover ed a wide range 
of agricultural  products  and such purchases ha d been used to support domestic prices  of these 
products . Brazil was p articularly  interest ed in how the programmes  under the Farm Bill  would adjust 
to the current commitment of the US  and how the changes would apply with respect to sugar. 
Paraguay register ed specific  interest  in questions  c, d, e .  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.14.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90010)  
With the renamed Dairy Margin Coverage programme the 'margin coverage levels' are 
offered at reduced premiums and the range has been increased up to a margin of USD  9.50 
per hundredweight (cwt.) for milk. The subsidized par t of the premiums is going to 
increase for the first 5 mi. pounds of milk produced.  
Can the US indicate the expected increase of the budgetary outlay for this programme in 
the coming years and whether it is expected to influence the level of production in the US?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the Dairy Margin Coverage program me will be 
budget neutral, meaning that budgetary outlays under the new program me are expected to be 
similar to those under the  Margin Protection Program for Dairy. The program me is based on historical 
production and is not expected to influence the level of U.S. milk production.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted interest in the question.   
1.14.3   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90037)  
a. The Far m Bill 2018 has made a number of changes in agriculture risk coverage 
in terms of both price and yield calculations. Under the historical ARC provisions, 
plug yield was 70% of the county's transitional yield. The Farm Bill changes the 
plug yield in the ARC  benchmark revenue calculation to be no lower than 80% of 
the county's transitional yield. Beside this, USDA Risk Management Agency 
trend -adjusted yield factors will be incorporated into the benchmark and actual 
yield calculations. The United States is req uested to explain the reason behind 
increase in plug yield as well as using trend adjusted yield factors in calculation 
of ARC payments.  
b. Under the recent Farm bill, fixed reference prices for PLC are now allowed to 
"float" higher based on the Olympic movin g average price and may increase to 
as much as 115% of the statutory reference price. Beside this, market loan rate 
for covered commodities has also been significantly increased. What is the 
rationale for adopting a floating rate reference price and increa se in market loan 
rate for the covered commodities?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The 2018 Farm Bill legislative language does not offer explanations for new or modified 
program me provisions.  
b. See the response to Question (a).  
1.15  U.S. Trade Promotion payments  
1.15.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90013)  
The U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded USD 200 million to 57 organizations through 
the Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program to help U.S.  farmers and ranchers 
identify and access new export markets.  Can the US give any more detail on the criteria 
and eligibility for these programmes?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Eligible organizations include non-profit  U.S. agricultural trade orga nizations, non-profit  state 
regional trade groups, state agencies and U.S. agricultural cooperatives that can demonstrate 
damages suffered as a result of tariffs imposed on U.S. agricultural products in 2018/2019. 
Agricultural cooperatives can participate directly or indirectly through an ATP participant operating 
a branded program me. A for -profit entity may participate indirectly through an ATP participant G/AG/W/196  
 
- 17 - 
 
  operating a brand program me if the entity 's size does not exceed 300% of the small business size 
standard established for its industry and published in 13 CFR part 121.  
 
1.16  U.S. Boston Bounty Bucks funds programme  
1.16.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90038)  
Boston Bounty Bucks funds administered through the Boston Collaborative for Food and 
Fitness  (BCFF), is a dollar -for-dollar matching programme that enables farmers' market 
customers using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to expand 
their purchasing power. Programme participants receive double the amount spent in SNAP 
benefits at farmers ' markets (up to $10.00). The goals of Boston Bounty Bucks 
programme were to provide more direct sales opportunities for regional farmers through 
the creation of new and expanded farmers' markets in Boston and to increase the 
economic viability of local fa rmers' markets by making them accessible a new pool of 
consumers - those who use food stamps/EBT benefits to purchase their food. It seems 
that, under this scheme the regional farmers get direct incentives by using the SNAP. The 
United  States is requested t o clarify the following:  
a. How are the Boston Bounty Bucks funds notified in the domestic support 
notifications?  
b. Under which category (Green, Blue, or Amber box) the subsidies are/would be 
notified?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The United States attem pts to identify and notify all state and local program mes for 
inclusion in U .S. domestic support notifications. As such, the United States will review the 
identified measure.  
b. See response to Question a.  
1.17  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.17.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90018)  
In 2015, before Class 6 was implemented in Ontario, total skim milk powder  (SMP) 
exports for the calendar year were 13,671 tonnes. In 2016 this amount almost doubled to 
23,687 tonnes. In 2017, following the implementation of the n ational milk ingredient 
strategy (Class 7) total SMP exports tripled at 71,861 tonnes. For the 11 months to 
November 2018 total SMP exports already total 61,635 tonnes. Canada assured Members 
at the November 2018 Committee on Agriculture (AG IMS ID 89055) that under the United 
States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) it had agreed to ensure elimination of milk 
classes 6 (in Ontario) and 7, including their associated milk class prices, within six months 
from entry into force of the agreement. Given the negativ e impact these high volumes of 
SMP on the global market continue to have on other major dairy exporting countries, can 
Canada provide an update on what it is doing to eliminate milk classes 6 and 7, and their 
associated milk class prices?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada considers this question to be outside the scope of Article 18 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
as it pertains to a bilateral commitment undertaken by Canada in a preferential trade agreement 
that is currently being ratified. Furthermore, Canada rei terates that it is a very small world producer 
and exporter of skim milk powder. It would be difficult to envision Canada having a significant impact 
on global dairy markets.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand noted that its industry had been experiencing  negative impacts of these 
policies for the past two years  and sought  further info rmation from Canada on this issue. The 
European Union shared New Zealand's concern and noted that milk class 7 was not created in the G/AG/W/196  
 
- 18 - 
 
  spirit of the Nairobi Ministerial Decisi on which eliminated export subsidies. The European Union 
expressed disappointment with Canada's delay in transparency in relation to the implementation of 
milk class 7. Australia noted that, based on its understanding from  the previous responses provided 
by Canada on this topic, there was recognition that these  potential changes from the bilateral 
agreement would be applied on MFN basis  and therefore it considered the issue to be within the 
scope of the Committee. Australia  encouraged Canada to engage in pr oviding answers to the 
questions .   
1.17.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90120)  and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 90039)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that it was in the process of verifying the 
accuracy of data related to milk class prices, utiliz ation, and sales.  Canada also 
stated that once completed, this information would be provided.  Is this 
information available?  If not, please provide an update on when and where this 
information will become available.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 89020, Canada stated that i t is not obliged to publish a full list of 
eligible Class 7 products and is not in a position to confirm whether the list is 
identical to the list included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board 
Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and Sa skatchewan Order 
No. 28/17.  
What information will Canada publish regarding Class 7 eligibility to inform Members' 
understanding of Class 7 and ensure Canada is complying with its WTO commitments 
regarding the implementation of this government measure?  
c. In AG-IMS ID 89020, Canada states that processor margins "may include return 
on investment for the processors" but did not answer the U.S. question about 
how this factor of the margin is determined.  Please explain how the return on 
investment is determined.  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada reiterates that it does not have a timeline to provide for the release of any data 
related to milk class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy 
of the data are required. Once completed, information will be provided in a more relevant 
format.  
b. As noted in the question, Canada is not obliged to publish this type of information from 
industry. Information that will be published is currently the prerogative of industry and, 
as such, it would be inappropri ate to specify what information will be published. As a part 
of Canada 's strong commitment to its WTO obligations, Canada has responded to a 
significant number of questions in this forum and elsewhere with respect to Class 7.  
c. Canada reiterates that how pr ocessor margins are calculated is not publicly  available, 
although it is based on a third-party study commissioned by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission. The previous study was completed in 2005. The study is not publicly  available 
for commercial confidentialit y reasons, due to the small number of processors in the 
Canadian market.  
Follow -up: The European Union and New Zealand repeated their interest in receiving further 
information on this topic to better understand how Canada implemented the s cheme .   
 
1.18  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90040)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 85012, AG -IMS ID 86034, AG -IMS ID 87016, AG -IMS ID 88096, and AG -IMS 
ID 89021. As such, t he United States repeats its previous questions.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines 
from Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that 
are continuously available, available to grocers by m oving them to the LCBO 
Wines category".  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
allowed to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
need to move to the LCBO Win e category (and off of the Vintages Essential 
list) in order to be sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores 
without moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, 
but imported pro ducts are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer 
and wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been 
distributed to operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations 
have been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization 
that permits the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that 
operates a wine boutiq ue inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call 
that Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price 
parameters and size parameters for impo rted bag in box wine than for the 
category of existing Ontario bag in box wine? 
(http://www.doingbusinesswithlcb o.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%2
0Box%20Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to four stocks 
keeping units  (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to  
40 SKUs? If confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between 
imported and Ontario products.  
f. According to Canada's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies 
mark -ups to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province diff erently 
than commercial wine that have been bottled outside the province.  Specifically, 
commercial wines that are bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark -up 
reduction of 20 percentage points (from  140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scot ia Liquor Corporation documents 
setting out mark -ups for commercial wines bottled in the province and bottled 
outside the province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to 
qualify for this benefit, could Canada please explai n how this policy ensures 
non-discrimination against foreign products?  
g. The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation maintains a preferential mark -up for 
Emerging Wine Regions (currently 43%).  How does a producer from an emerging 
wine region, as defined by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their emerging wine 
region status?  
Please provide a list of non -Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines available for sale 
through the NLSC.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the view that it would be 
inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
 
Follow -up: The European and New Zealand supported the U.S. concern and invited Canada to provide 
further information on this matter.   
 
1.19  EU's CAP reform  
1.19.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG -IMS ID 90022)  
Australia seeks further information on the status of the European Commission's CAP 
reform proposal. While Australia welcomes the proposal to reduce total CAP funding, 
Australia has concerns regarding the increased flexibility provid ed to individual member 
States to design tailor -made programmes for farmers and rural communities. Australia 
understands under the current proposal that member States will have the option to 
transfer up to 15% of their CAP allocations between direct paymen ts (pillar 1) and rural 
development (pillar 2) priorities in line with their EC approved Strategic Plan.  
a. Will the EC set minimum funding requirements (in Euros) per member State for 
pillar  1 and pillar 2?  
b. Given the increased flexibility devolved to member States, how will the EC ensure 
each Strategic Plan is WTO compliant?  
c. If member States deviate from their strategic plans, will there be any punitive 
actions taken by the EC?  
d. Furthermore, as a major canola exporter to the EU, Australia seeks further 
inform ation on the EU's plan to improve protein crop production.  
e. Does the EC's CAP reform proposal plan to increase the supplementary rate for 
coupled income support for protein crops (from 2%)?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would note that the CAP Reform p roposal is currently under discussion under consideration 
by the co -legislators, and that the final outcome may be different from the Commission 's initial 
proposals. The following answers are based on the Commission 's initial proposals.  
 
a. Within the proposed overall annual limits,  the proposal would allow member States a 
limited flexibility to shift allocations between pillar 1 and pillar 2. The actual application of 
the flexibility rate would determine the amount ava ilable in each pillar.  
b. Article 10 of the draft proposal sets out how member States are required to respect 
WTO rules, notably on domestic support. The European Commission are required to 
approve the strategic plans, and this approval will include scrutiny to ensure respect these 
WTO requirements, including for Blue and Green Box measures.  
c. Divergence from the plan will give rise to corrective rather than the punitive actions. 
However, as performance is the new source of assurance, a divergence between 
establ ished level of expenditure or reported output from the planned level would lead to a 
reduction of expenditure, although this should not be regarded as a sanction  A deviation 
from a strategic plan could take two forms:  
• deviations between the planned unit am ount and effected expenditure and the level of 
reported output. This would lead to a reduction of expenditure. This is in relation to 
the definition of eligibility of expenditure under Article of the relevant proposal, which 
determines that expenditure is eligible if covered by corresponding outputs (as 
planned) and effected by the paying agencies in accordance with basic G/AG/W/196  
 
- 21 - 
 
  EU requirements. If deviations are more than 50% then the Commission may proceed 
with a suspension of the relevant expenditure for the gi ven intervention in the future.  
• deviations between milestones for results and the level of reported result indicators, 
which would give rise to possible requests for action plans order to put performance 
back on track. In the case of failure (action plans not submitted/insufficient/not 
implemented) then there could potentially be suspensions of payments for the 
interventions covered by the action plan. If there was no sufficient progress by the 
end of the programming period, there could potentially be a permanent reduction in 
the suspende d amounts.    
See Articles 35, 38, 39 and 52 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament 
and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common 
agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (COM/2018/39 3 final) and 
Article 121 of  Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of the Council 
establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by member States under 
the Common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by  the European 
Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (COM/2018/392 final).  
d. On 22 November 2018, the Commission adopted the Report on "The Development of Plant 
Proteins in the European Union". The scope of the report covers oilseeds, pulses and fodder 
legumes and highlights opport unities to strengthen the development of EU -grown plant 
proteins.  
However, it is not the Commission's intention to significantly reduce its imports, since EU 
livestock sectors depend on imports for protein needs,  since European production of 
protein crops  is not sufficient to cover demand, due in part to the agro -climatic conditions 
in Europe, which do not favour the widespread cultivation of protein -rich crops.  
The report is a tool to better understand market dynamics and market segmentation in 
the EU pl ant protein sector and to identify economic opportunities for European farmers 
(e.g. in the premium feed and food sectors). The general impact on oilseed trade in the 
coming years is likely to be limited.  
e. No. Regarding the  Coupled Income Support, the Comm ission 's legislative proposal includes 
an (optional) top up specifically for protein crops, which is a maximum of 2 %.    
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Paraguay registered  interest  in the EU's CAP. Australia was  
particularly interested  in the an swers regarding the increased flexibility provided  to member States 
to design their own support programmes  and how the EU  would continue  to ensure WTO compliance  
of such programmes  given the increased flexibility. Paraguay noted specific  interest in questi ons b 
and e . New Zealand encouraged the EU to consider these issues as they proceed with their legislators 
to form a final reform package.   
1.20  European Union - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.20.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90087)  and Thai land (AG -IMS ID 90128)  
As a result of Brexit, the European Union is planning to unilaterally apportion its Tariff 
Rate Quota volumes between it and the United Kingdom as of 29 March 2019.  
a. Given the allocation of certain quota volumes for 2019 has already occurred, and 
in many cases, import licences may have already been issued, how does the 
European Union  (EU) propose to manage the change to its quotas from its 
existing EU -28 schedule to it s new EU -27 draft schedule during the quota year?  
b. How will EU importers be expected to manage existing contracts to import 
products into the UK (whether directly or indirectly) under EU -28 quotas?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 22 - 
 
  c. How is the EU informing importers of the intended changes ?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The new apportioned quantities for the EU27 will only come into effect the day following 
the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Licences issued prior to this date (in the EU28) will 
remain valid for imports into the EU27 with th e exception of licences transferred to 
operators established in the United Kingdom which will expire as soon as Article 1(2) of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 January  2019 on the apportionment of tariff rate qu otas included in the WTO schedule 
of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, and amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 applies.  At this date the remaining quantity, for the 
relevant quota year, including any unused qu antities under expired licenses, will be 
calculated using the shares previously communicated to WTO Members. EU implementing 
regulations are being prepared to this effect. As far as the EU is concerned, the 
Commission will continue to manage the apportione d EU TRQs in the same way it has been 
doing.  
b. As stated at previous occasions, the EU cannot respond to questions on the UK 's future 
trade policy, including its management of TRQs, which will apply when the EU Schedule 
stops applying to the UK (as set out in document G/MA/TAR/RS/570). The EU  continue s 
to encourage Members to engage bilaterally with the UK on questions relating to the 
UK's future trade policy.  
c. The relevant EU implementing regulations are being prepared and the EU will provide 
information in  a public notice. The EU will notify the regulations following the applicable 
WTO procedures.    
Follow -up: Canada noted that the  administration of TRQ s had an impact on its access to the EU's 
market, which  was an important one for Canadian exporters. Austr alia noted that,  as a quota holder 
of several  agricultural products , any changes made to quota allocation s in 2019 would have 
commercial implications  for Australian  exporters. Australia g ave a specific example of  the sheep and 
goat meat quota which operate d on a calendar year basis.  Australia noted that  in November  each 
year exporters were notified of their quota allocation for the following year  and a ny changes to these 
allocations would  have significant  commercial implications for the remainder of 2019. Australia  
reiterate d the view that  any changes to tariffs or TRQs by the EU and the UK to cover the existing 
trade between the EU and the UK must respect the MFN principle and not diminish existing access 
for third countries, particularly erga omnes TRQs. Thailand noted its concern regarding the 
uncertainty in international trade  caused by the current situation of Brexit. Although  the EU had 
announce d its intention to  enter into negotiations and consultations with other WTO Members under 
Article XXVII I, Thailand viewed the EU's unilateral apportion ment of its TRQ volumes by launching 
the EU regulation 2019/216 as a  prejudgement of the negotiation result s. Thailand also viewed  that 
part of this regulation impaired  the EU's existing  commitments  under WTO . In particular, Thailand 
pointed out that  the semi-milled or  wholly milled rice with a concession  of 25,516 tonnes , which  was 
currently indicated in the regulations as "others" , should be  erga omnes  as originally  bound under 
the EU 's concession in the WTO . Brazil and New Zealand supported previous speakers' comments, 
particularly the concern with EU's unilateral approach to apportion  the WTO TRQs. China, the Russian 
Federation and Uruguay noted interest in this topic.  
1.20.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90028)  and Thailand (AG -IMS ID 90129)  
a. As the deadline for the UK's exit from the EU approaches on 29 March, both the 
UK and the EU have announced elements of their planning for a 'no deal' 
scenario.  Like the EU and UK, other WTO  Members will need to plan for this 
contingency.  For exporters currently accessing the EU28  Market, who are 
holding export licenses and/or closing commercial contracts to supply 
agricultural products to the EU and UK, what assurances can the Commission 
provide to Members that they will continue to be able to supply the EU and UK 
markets under current terms from 30  March in the event of a 'no 
deal'?  New Zealand expects that the EU and the UK will honour existing 
arrangements, in terms of certification, li censing, customs checks or other 
measures which could affect trade.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 23 - 
 
  b. The EU has launched Article XXVIII negotiations in response to Brexit, which are 
due to start in the coming weeks, once claims of interest have been 
acknowledged.  While the EU has signalle d its desire to engage in those 
negotiations in good faith, it appears that the impact of EU regulation 2019/216 
published 30 January this year in the event of a 'no deal' would be to unilaterally 
impose an outcome before affected Members have had a chance  to engage in 
negotiations with the EU.  
Can the EU clarify how it intends to act ensure negotiations can proceed in an open and 
fair manner?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The EU appreciates Members' concerns about the current uncertainty surrounding the UK 
leaving the EU. That is why the EU and the UK engaged jointing as early as October 2017 
with WTO Members on the envisaged approach to apportionment of the bound WTO TRQs. 
As stated on many occasions, the key principle is to maintain the existing level of mar ket 
access between the EU27 and the UK.  
Licences issued (under EU28) prior 30 March 2019 in case of a "no-deal scenario " will 
remain valid for imports into the EU27 with the exception of licences transferred to 
operators established in the United Kingdom which will expire as soon as Article 1(2) of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
30 January  2019 on the apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule 
of the Union following the withdrawal of the Unit ed Kingdom from the Union, and amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 applies.  At this date the remaining quantity, for the 
relevant quota year, including any unused quantities under expired licenses, will be 
calculated using the shares previously com municated to WTO Members. EU implementing 
regulations are being prepared to this effect. As far as the EU is concerned, the 
Commission will continue to manage the apportioned EU TRQs in the same way it has been 
doing.  
As stated at previous occasions, the E U cannot respond to questions on the UK 's future 
trade policy, including its management of TRQs, which will apply when the EU Schedule 
stops applying to the UK (as set out in document G/MA/TAR/RS/570). The EU  continue s 
to encourage Members to engage bilate rally with the UK on questions relating to the UK's 
future trade policy.  
b. The EU has followed all the relevant WTO procedures when launching its Article  XXVIII 
negotiations. The EU  has engaged with the relevant WTO partners on a regular basis since 
then and  will continue to do so in good faith. The EU also maintains that it is willing to 
continue negotiations in an open and fair manner under Article XXVIII even in the case of 
a "no deal " scenario.  
Given the time limits imposed by the process of the United K ingdom 's withdrawal from the 
Union, the EU has had to take account of the possibility that agreements might not be 
concluded with all WTO Members on the date the EU 's goods schedule ceases to apply to 
the United Kingdom. In view of the need to ensure legal  certainty and the continuous 
smooth operation of imports, it was necessary to adopt Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 30  January 2019 on the apportionment of tariff 
rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the European Union following the withdrawal 
of the United Kingdom from the European Union  and amending Council Regulation (EC) 
No 32/2000. However, Article 2 of that Regulation empowers the Commission to amend 
the EU 's portion of the TRQs, in order to take accou nt of any potential agreements 
concluded under Article  XXVIII GATT, while ensuring consistency with the methodology 
set out in the regulation and communicated to WTO Members.  
Follow -up: In relation to question a, New Zealand disagreed that there was requirement for the EU 
to change its bound WTO commitments on tariff rate quotas as a result of Brexit. In New Zealand's 
view,  the relationship between  the UK and the EU that should  change as a result of Brexit  but not 
the EU’s relationships  and commitments to the rest of the world.  New Zealand pointed out  that the 
policy choice made by t he EU and UK to change their commitments undermine d the value of these G/AG/W/196  
 
- 24 - 
 
  commitments and disadvantage d third country trade partners . Further, New Zealand noted  that 
GATT Article XXVIII was not designed for the wholesale reduction and re -negotiation of quota 
commitments being proposed by the EU and the UK , and the limited reference period often used in 
Article XXVIII processes was not appropriate in such circumst ances.  
 
New Zealand registered  concern with the EU’s approach to informal discussions regarding its 
Article  XXVIII notification.  New Zealand noted that  the EU had exclud ed a number of interested 
WTO Members in any subsequent negotiations that might take place under Article XXVIII , either for 
the whole discussion  or for certain product s. New Zealand noted that the EU had also proceeded 
with the discussions  on the basis of  discrepant and  erroneous data.  
 
New Zealand raised further concern with  recent EU moves to adopt domestic regulation which would 
allow the EU  to unilaterally divest itself of some  of its tariff rate quota commitments in the event of 
a "No Deal " Brexit.  New Zealand  was concerned  that the EU had not addressed Members'  question s 
regardi ng how the overall balance of commitments negotiated and agreed under the WTO w ould be 
maintained.    
 
New Zealand noted that, d espite the EU's statement that it ha d no choice but to cut back its WTO 
quota commitments in the Brexit situation, the EU and UK had reached separate conclusions in 
respect of their bilateral FTA commitments.   In the latter case,  there was no problem with the EU 
maintaining its full quota com mitments and for the UK to accord to bilateral partners separate and 
additional quota access.   
 
Concerning question b,  New Zealand noted that the questions it posed , about specific practical issues 
with respect to arrangements in the event of a "No Deal " Brexit, was without prejudice to its position 
on the importance of the EU and UK fully honouring their existing WTO commitments, including 
preserving the quantity and quality of existing WTO tariff rate quotas post -Brexit.  New Zealand 
encouraged the EU and UK, in the event of a "No Deal ", to work hard to maintain the status quo for 
third countries. For example, exporters needed to know that their import and export licences would 
continue to be recognized and sanitary and phytosanitary standards would remain the same, and  
they needed  to have answers on logistical issues which were raised here.  New Zealand expect ed to 
be consult ed and to be provid ed with reasonable notice  if the EU and UK need ed to implement any 
changes to these practical arrangements . New Zealand highlighted the importance for the EU and 
the UK to (1) provide assurances to third countries of their intention to honour in good faith existing 
practical arrangements with trade partn ers; and (2) to work actively to deliver stability and 
continuity for third country partners in the event of a "No Deal " scenario . 
 
The United States  asked  when Members  could expect a written  guidance confirming  that the EU and 
the UK would honour existing  commitments . Paraguay registered concern about the lack of certainty 
on imports to the EU and UK, given the little time remaining before the deadline . Brazil and the 
Russian Federation supported New Zealand's concerns and urged the EU to take those concerns into 
account and avoid the unilateral implementation of apportionment  of TRQ s. The EU encouraged 
Members to send their comments in written form and n oted that given Article  XXVIII negotiations  
was taking place in another forum,  it would avoid detailed comments here .  
 
1.21  Ghana's poultry imports  
1.21.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90041)  
The United States requests a response to AG -IMS ID 89023:  
  
The United States understands that Ghana has established new import requirements on 
poultry imports. These new measures appear to restrict the quantity of imports and limit 
time for which a permi t is valid.   
a. Please explain which of Ghana's laws, regulations, or other relevant policy 
directives have been added or modified to reflect these changes.  
b. Where are these documents published?  
c. Please describe how this new measure is being implemented.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Answer  by Ghana  
 
Ghana undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.22  India's pulses policies  
1.22.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90032)  
Further to Australia's previous questions at the last Committee meeting (89th CoA), 
Australia has a series of follow -up que stions regarding Indian measures relating to pulses.  
Australia notes that India's quantitative restriction (QR) of 100,000 tonnes of peas 
(including Yellow Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas and Kaspa Peas) in Notification 
No. 4/2015 -2020 of 25 April 2018 for a period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018) 
has now been extended three times.  
a. Australia requests India to advise whether any additional volume was included 
as part of the most recent extension from 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2019?  
In a previous respo nse to this Committee (ID 89057), India stated 466,000 metric tonnes 
of peas were imported against a QR of 100,000 metric tonnes in the 12 months to 
September 2018.  
b. Australia requests India to advise which countries these peas were imported 
from?  
c. Of the 4 66,000 metric tonnes, how many peas were imported after 1 April 2018?  
d. Could India please indicate the total quantity of peas imported (by country) 
between 1  October 2018 and 31 December 2018?  
Answer by India  
 
No additional volumes were included in the ext ension as imports were allowed due to court orders. 
A total of 5,50,878.37 metric tonnes of peas  (HS code 07131000) have been imported in India 
during the period 1 April to 31 December 2018.  Argentina, Austria, Canada, Australia, BR Virgin 
Islands, Bulgari a, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, the Russia n Federation , Ukraine, USA 
are among many countries from which peas were imported in year 2018. Between 1 October to 
31 December 2018, India imported 1,33,290 MT of peas.  
 
1.22.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 90088)  
On 25 April  2018, India introduced a quantitative restriction, which imposes a 100,000 
tonnes limit on the volume of dry peas that can be imported from all countries. This import 
limit on dry peas has been extended multiple times a nd on 31 December 2018, India 
announced that this restriction is being extended for a period of three months until 31 
March 2019.  
a. Could India indicate if the quantitative restrictions (QR) on dry peas will be 
renewed after 31 March  2019?  
b. Considering that  the QR have been in place for almost a year could India indicate 
under which provision of the GATT or WTO Agreements that is being used to 
support this restriction?  
c. Please provide updated monthly numbers for the wholesale price index (WPI) 
for pulses sin ce August 2018.  
Answer by India  
 
a. At this stage, there is no proposal for renewal of quantitative restriction on dry peas.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 26 - 
 
  b. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and will be answered 
in the relevant Committees.  
c. The WPI figure s for the months of September, October, November and December  2018 
are 123.2, 125.5, 130.8 (Provisional) and 135.8 (Provisional) respectively.  
1.22.3   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90029)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import t ariffs on yellow peas 
up to 50%. In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a quantitative 
restriction on import of yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount 
of import of yellow peas to the territory of India shal l be 100 000 MT from 1 April to 
30 June 2018. After the expiry of this measure the quota was extended until 
30 September  2018. In late December 2018 the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of 
India issued a notice restricting the import of yellow peas from 1  January 2019 until 31 
March 2019.  
  
Could India clarify the following issues:  
a. What is the amount of yellow peas eligible to be imported from 01 January 2019 
until 31  March 2019?  
b. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported over the periods fr om 1 
April to 25 April 2018, from 1 April to 30 June 2018, and from 2 July to 30 
September 2018?  
c. How these measures (quantitative restrictions and import ban) are consistent 
with Article  XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
 
a. No additional volumes were included in the recent notification as imports were allowed 
due to court orders. A total of 550,878.37 metric tonnes of peas have been imported in 
India during the period 1 April to 31 December 2018 . 
b. The amount of peas imported over the periods from 1 April to 25 April 2018 was 
38,882  MTs, from 1 April to 30 June 2018 was 237,648 MTs, and from 2 July to 
30 September 2018 was 178,490 MTs.  
c. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and will be answered 
in the relevant committees.  
Follow -up: Canada, the European Union and the United States registered support for all questions 
on this topic and asked in which  WTO Committees India would provide re sponses. The United States 
noted that , based on its understanding , such import restrictions applied to all peas  of HS071310 and 
not just yellow peas .  
 
1.22.4   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 90004)  
India has put in place quantitative restrictions on dry pea import s since April 2018. As 
Ukraine currently understands, these restrictions elapsed on 31 December 2018. 
According to the media, India is expecting a drop in domestic production of pulses output 
in 2019.  
a. Could India please confirm that quantitative restricti ons for dry peas are no 
longer in place as of 1 January 2019?  
b. Does India have preliminary 2019 production estimates for pulses, and what 
factors are deemed critical for India's 2019 production level of dry peas?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 27 - 
 
  c. Does India have any intention to reinstitu te quantitative or other restrictions on 
any pulse imports in 2019?  
Answer by India  
 
The quantitative restriction on peas has been extended till 31 March  2019.The First Advance 
Estimates of Production of Food grains for the year 2018 -19 are available at  http://agricoop.nic.in/ .  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine  registered concern regarding the negative impact on the international market 
brought by India's pulses policies and  asked India to guarantee predictable opportunities for 
exporting Members.   
 
1.22.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90043)  
The United States notes that India has again extended the quantitative restriction for peas 
through  31 March 2019.   
 
a. India has indicated that the quantitative restrictions, which we re first 
implemented starting in April 2017, are temporary.  When does India intend to 
end the restriction?  
b. What are the criteria India uses to determine whether the quantitative 
restrictions will remain in place or be removed?  
c. India has previously agreed to provide an explanation for the restrictions in other 
WTO  Committees.  When and in which committee will India provide a full 
explanation?  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. There is no proposal to extend these measures indefinitely. These measures are 
temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be based on market situation. India 
is constantly reviewing these measur es.  
c. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and will be answered 
in the relevant Committees.  
Follow -up: The United States enquired in  which other WTO C ommittee s India was engaging on this 
topic. Australia support ed other questions on this topic and reiterated its concern on the quantitative 
restriction (QR) .  Australia noted that although India had claimed the QR w as temporary , India 
subsequently extended it from July to September  2018, from October  to December 2018, and from 
January  to March 2019.  In addition,  in each case, India ha d not introduced additional volume . 
Australia  urged India to provide  explanation for the WTO basis of the QR. The EU support ed 
Australia's  statement  and noted its i nterest in hearing India's explanation  on the measure's 
compliance with GATT Article XI.1 and Article 4.2 of the AoA. The EU underlined that quantitative 
import restrictions  were not part of the tool box of the WTO rule book . 
 
1.23  India's sugar policies  
1.23.1   Quest ion by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90033)  
Further to Australia's previous questions regarding sugar measures implemented by the 
Government of India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions.  
a. Could India please indicate whether it will increase the current ma ndatory 
minimum selling price for sugar from Rs 29 per kg?  
b. Will the government of India increase the level of buffer stocks of sugar from the 
current level of three million tonnes? In addition, does the Government of India 
intend to increase the current ca rrying cost reimbursement from Rs .1175 crore?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. Government of India has fixed the minimum selling price of white/refined sugar for sale 
by sugar mills in domestic market at Rs. 31/kg w.e.f. 14 Feb 2019.  
b. No such proposal is under considerat ion.  
Follow -up: Guatemala  noted that the announcement on s ugar subsidies  by India on 26 September  
had immediate impact on international sugar prices  which hit a decade low and had seriously affected 
its sugar producers. Guatemala repeated its concern , which it had previously expressed in several 
bilateral meetings with India,  that the measure may be inconsistent  with India's WTO obligations . 
Guatemala further requested India to provide the relevant information in writing and noted that the 
request was without prejudice to Guatemala's r ight to request a consultation  with India pursuant  to 
Article 4 of the "Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes ". 
Colombia supported Guatemala's comments. Brazil and the EU reiter ated concern s on the impact  of 
India's sugar policies  on the international  market  and questioned their consistency with the 
WTO rules. Brazil asked India once again to reframe its policy  to minimize the  negative  impact to 
sugar industry.  Costa Rica, El Sal vador and the Russian Federation flagged interest on this matte r.  
1.24  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.24.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90002)  
a. In reply to questions AG -IMS ID 89026 and AG -IMS ID 88070 in previous 
meetings India promised to give figures on:   
• the total quantity of SMP exported with subsidy;  
• total value of subsidies and;  
• total costs of these subsidies as promised.  
However this data is not yet available in AG -IMS. Could India deliver this data as soon as 
possible, covering bot h the federal government level and subsidy granted by the states of 
Gujarat and Maharashtra respectively.  
 
b. India also indicated in the last meeting that it intended to forward a notification 
of its export subsidies. Can India indicate a possible timeframe  for this 
notification?  
Answer by India  
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand and the United States registered interests on this topic.  
 
1.25  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.25.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 90027)  
Follow up to questions AG -IMS ID 87094 and ID 88104:  
  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quantitative regime for importation of certain agricultural 
products, including wheat flour and milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture 
and L ight Industry of Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour. In May 
2018 Mongolia put in place a quota for import of wheat flour for the rest of the year 2018. 
The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia published a noti ce for 
importers to submit the applications for allocation of quota volume only in July 2018. 
Despite the fact that the deadline for submitting applications for quota allocation was 
19 July 2018, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mong olia failed to 
allocate the quota volume among the importers of wheat flour in 2018. As a result, imports 
were restricted even within the quota volume; and, a de facto import ban on wheat flour 
prevailed throughout the whole last year. On 18 January 2019 t he Ministry of Food, G/AG/W/196  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia issued a decree that opens the import of 
certain amounts of agricultural products, including wheat flour and milk. The Russian 
Federation welcomes the intention of Mongolia to introduce a quot a for import of wheat 
flour in 2019. However, the Russian Federation is seeking further clarification from 
Mongolia regarding its quota regime, in particular:  
  
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for not allocating the wheat flour quota 
volume among the i mporters in 2018?  
b. Whether Mongolia is going to allocate the quota volume among the importers of 
wheat flour for 2019 quota year? When Mongolia is going to issue a decision 
allocating the quota volume among the importers?  
c. Please explain how Mongolia's import restrictions, both quotas and import 
prohibitions, are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
a. and b.  the quota allocation was due to take place following the receip t of applications in 
July 2018. However, due to the occurrence of unforeseen political circumstances, which 
were followed by the change of Cabinet Members as well as the restructuring of the 
respective ministries, the implementation of the decision could n ot be materialized in due 
time. This was an internal matter, which directly affected the process. Since the beginning 
of this year, the internal consultations were reinforced,  and the National Council for Food 
Security met on 15 January and the recommendat ion was made to allow imports of 
strategically important products, including wheat flour. Following the recommendation and 
the decision by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry, the invitation for bids 
were publicly announced; the applicatio ns for the imports of wheat flour were received on 
1 February. The bid committee is in the process of examining the applications.  
c. Mongolia wishes to inform the Members that the Law on the Enrichment of Food Products 
was adopted in May 2018. The Law will e nter into force on 31 December 2019. This Law 
was adopted upon the recommendation of the World Health Organization, which studied 
and revealed that the population of Mongolia is in need for food products which are 
enriched with iron, zinc, vitamins B and D . To prepare for the implementation of this Law, 
monitoring work is required, including on the imports of certain food products such as 
wheat flour. Monitoring through quota is a temporary measure until the full 
implementation of the Enrichment Law and the  necessary measures are identified for that 
purpose. Mongolia wishes to express the willingness to engage in bilateral discussions with 
the Russian Federation.  
Follow -up: The Russian Federation hope d its exports to Mongolia could be resumed.  
 
1.26  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90045)  
In response to AG -IMS ID 88072, Pakistan claimed it is only providing freight and 
marketing support for exports.  According to Agreement on Agriculture Article 9.1(d), this 
would include items such as: handling, upgrading and other processing, and international 
transport and freight, as well as favourable internal transport and freight charges. Note 
that a) the support price in Pakistan is Rs  1300 per 40 kg, or about $265 per MT at  
August  2018 exchange rates, and b) that Pakistan authorized the export subsidy price of 
up to $159 per metric tonne.  By USDA estimates, if all other costs were covered and wheat 
was sold at that price FOB, Pakistan would still be one of the highest price origins in the 
world.  
 
a. Please provide additional information and data that would clarify that the 
subsidy is only being provided for the internal transport and freight charges on 
export shipments.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 30 - 
 
  According to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, "Membe rs shall seek not to raise their export 
subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a product basis". Pakistan 
announced a subsidy for wheat exports early in 2018, which expired on 30 June 2018. 
Pakistan reportedly announced additional fun ding for subsidizing wheat exports in 
November 2018.  
 
b. Please provide an update on the wheat export subsidy programmes, including 
the quantity of wheat exported under these programmes during 2018.   
c. Please provide any details on how this measure differs from  the previous 
measure governing the programme that expired in June.  
d. Does Pakistan plan to provide increased levels or extend its current support 
levels for wheat exports going forward?  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Pakistan undertook to provide a response at a later  stage.  
 
Follow -up: The EU  and the Russian Federation  highlighted the  importan ce of all WTO Members 
respect ing the  Nairobi  Ministerial  Decision  on eliminating  export subsidies, including  those  with 
access to  Article 9.4 . Australia and Canada,  as wheat exporters , noted interest in the use of export 
subsidies  on wheat . Australia repeated its view that such subsidies  needed to link to the  actual  costs 
of internal  transport and freight . Australia  reminded Pakistan , despite Pakistan's  previous  statement 
that it could  provide freight and marketing  support when necessary  under Article 9,4, the Nairobi  
Decision state d that developing  Members could continue to  benefit from the provisions  of Article  9.4 
until 2023 and Members shall not seek to raise the subsides  beyond the average level of the past 
five years on a product  basis.  Australia sought  Pakistan's  confirm ation on whether the subsidies 
announced last year on wheat exports did not exceed the average of the period 201 2-2017. 
 
1.27  Sri Lanka' s tax on imported milk powder  
1.27.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 90068)  
New Zealand refers to its question at the November 2018 Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 89064) when New Zealand noted that Sri Lanka was applying a Value Added 
Tax (VAT) on import ed milk powder while exempting domestic producers.  
 
a. New Zealand again asks Sri Lanka to explain how its application of VAT on 
imported product and not on domestically produced goods complies Article III of 
the GATT 1947?  
At the time of the last Committee on Agriculture meeting, New Zealand's understanding 
was the tariff on milk powder would be removed for two weeks to enable importers of 
milk powder to clear product. After the two weeks a lower tariff would be re -imposed and 
a review of the tariff settings on milk powder was scheduled to occur in January 20 19.  
 
b. Can Sri Lanka update the Membership on its progress with a review of its tariff 
settings?  
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
As Sri Lanka reported to this Committee in many occasions, milk powder product in Sri Lanka is 
considered as essential commodity and also a  sensitive product in the domestic market. Due to these 
reasons, the government pays close attention to global market conditions and potential 
vulnerabilities.  
  
Sri Lanka approximately imports 93,000 MT of powdered milk annually by spending USD 300 milli on 
on imports. At present New Zealand is supplying almost 90% of powdered milk requirement of 
Sri Lanka, demonstrating a rapid increase of the market share from 72% in 2013. Sri Lanka  also G/AG/W/196  
 
- 31 - 
 
  understand s that Sri Lanka is the fourth largest export destination  for powdered milk supply of 
New Zealand.  
  
Considering domestic markets and political sensitivities as an essential commodity, the government 
of Sri Lanka has made every effort in balancing both demand and supply to the benefit of consumers 
as well as su ppliers. In this regard, Sri Lanka  wishes to mention that since 2012 the government of 
Sri Lanka has been providing import duty waiver to the importers.  
  
As a long -term measure Sri Lanka 's objective is to develop the milk production industry in the 
count ry on a sustainable manner. In this regard Sri Lanka  appreciate s New Zealand 's active 
engagement with Sri Lanka in providing the required technology and other inputs, including cattle.  
  
The Ministry of National Policies and Public Distribution in consult ation with Ministry of Finance is 
regularly holding stakeholder consultations with a view to introducing a pricing mechanism for milk 
powder imports in taking into account current import duty and other levies. This process is expected 
to address concerns o f all parties involved in the milk powder imports and trade. Sri Lanka  will keep 
Members informed of the developments in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The EU , Ukraine and the US expressed interest in the question.    
 
1.28  Turkey's flour export and Turkish Grain Board  
1.28.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 90009)  
According to the latest available export statistics, Turkey has increased the export of flour 
from 2.1  million tonnes in 2013 to nearly 3.5  million  tonnes in 2017 (Source GTA), which 
is an increase of 63% in four years.  
 
Year Customs code  Exported quantity ton ne 
2013 11 01 00  2.142.367  
2014 11 01 00  2.207.218  
2015 11 01 00  2.796.517  
2016 11 01 00  3.532.690  
2017 11 01 00  3.489.624  
a.  Can Turkey indicate the share of this quantity which has been exported under 
inward processing?  
Further, the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) has been buying common wheat on the internal 
market and releasing it on the internal market at a lower price. For instance, in 2013 the 
buying -in price was between 296  $/tonne and 386  $/tonne, while it was released on the 
Turkish market for 223  $/tonne.  
b. Can Turkey explain in more detail about this scheme for buying -in and release of 
wheat by the TMO in the years since  2013, including prices?  
c. How does Turkey intend to notify this support in its future DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey would like to provide one answer for the questions a, b as follows: TMO  determines 
independent policies within the framework of profitability and efficiency principles, regarding the 
products that fall within its scope. In this sense, Turkey would like to repeat the answers given in 
the previous committee meetings and its las t TPR.  
 
For the question c: As Turkey mentioned in previous Committees, the data gathering, calculation 
and other technical studies have been going on in order to finish the remaining notifications. Turkey 
strongly believes transparency and better functio ning of WTO and in this regard, Turkey would like 
to thank to the EU and other Members for their support and patience during this notification process.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Follow -up: The Russian Federation and the United States expressed interest in this matter. Ukraine, 
as an exporter  of wheat flour, register ed commercial interest in Turkey's wheat flour exports, the  
"inward processing" programme and the operation  of the TMO.  
 
1.29  U.S. proposed domestic support measures  
1.29.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 90035)  
Australia thanks  the United States for its update to Australia's questions at the 89th CoA 
regarding the implementation of the assistance package for farmers impacted by trade 
retaliation. Australia is seeking an update from the Unite States  on the second and final 
round of trade mitigation payments announced in December 2018.  
 
a. With applications for the Market Facilitation Program closing on 14 February, 
could the United States please indicate the total amount of expenditure under 
the programme?  
b. How many applications were  received (by commodity)?  
c. If total expenditure is less than the $9.6 billion estimated by USDA, will excess 
funding (remainder of $12 billion) be used for other agricultural programmes?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. As of 13 February 2019, total expe nditures for the Market Facilitation Program were 
$7.06  billion.  
b. As of 13 February 2019, a total of 864,314 applications were received. Data on 
applications by commodity are not available.  
c. USDA authorized up to $12 billion for the Market Facilitation Pro gram, the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program, and the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program.  This 
authorization does not cover other agricultural programs.  
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Paraguay noted interest in the potential programmes  and 
their impact to international trade. Paraguay sought once again the exact figures of each support  
program  and noted specific interest in responses  to question a and b.  
 
1.30  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.30.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 90036)  
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 made cotton producers eligible for Title I farm 
programmes by designating seed cotton, i.e. a combination of both cotton lint and 
cottonseed, a covered commodity, effective for the 2018/19 marketing year. United 
States is requested to explain the following:  
a. What factors were taken into consideration while determining the reference 
price for seed cotton at 36.7 cents per pound?  
b. Why was  there a need to include seed cotton under covered commodity to make 
it eligible for PLC/ARC programmes?  
c. It is understood that for seed cotton, PLC payments will be made if the marketing 
year average price falls below the reference price. How will the mark eting year 
average price be calculated?  
d. In case marketing year average price is based on the weighted prices of upland 
cotton and cottonseed, what weights would be used?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 33 - 
 
  e. Please provide the data on total area covered under cotton crop during years 
2014 to 2019. Since the introduction of cotton as a covered commodity under the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, how many generic acres have been reallocated to 
plant cotton?  
f. Please provide data indicating the number of cotton farmers who have opted for 
PLC and ARC programmes since 2018 till date.  
The Cotton Ginning Cost Share Program, 2016 was a programme of the USDA to provide 
one-time payment to producers of cotton to cover ginning costs. A similar programme 
introduced in year  2018, right after the Bipartisan Budg et Act, 2018 included "seed 
cotton" in the covered commodity list, thereby making the cotton producers eligible for 
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Revenue Coverage (ARC) programmes.  
g. In this context, could the United States clarify if a cotton pr oducer covered under 
the PLC or ARC programmes will also be eligible for the CGCS Program, 2018.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) made producers with historical cotton base eligible to 
reallocate those base acres to seed cotton under the Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price 
Loss Coverage program mes. It set the reference price for seed cotton at 36.7 cents per 
pound. The legislative language does not provide explanations for how the reference price 
was determined.  
b. The Bipar tisan Budget Act of 2018 language does not offer explanations for new or 
modified program me provisions.  
c. The marketing year average price for seed cotton is a weighted average of upland cotton 
and cottonseed prices. See Section 60101 of the Bipartisan Budg et Act for the specific 
formula used to calculate the marketing year average price for seed cotton.  
d. See response to question (c).  
e. Data on cotton acreage harvested in the United States for marketing year 2014/15 
to 2018/19 is as follows: Unit Description (1000 HA); 2014/2015 (3,785); 2015/2016 
(3,268); 2016/2017 (3,848); 2017/2018 (4,492); 2018/2019 (4,262). Coverage of seed 
cotton under the ARC and PLC program mes is based on historical base acres of cotton, not 
planted acres. The deadline to enroll base a cres in ARC or PLC for the 2018 crop year was 
7 December 2018. Data on reallocation of generic acres is not yet available.  
f. Eligibility to enroll seed cotton base acres in the PLC and ARC program mes is determined 
by whether the producer or landowner has se ed cotton base acres. Production of cotton, 
or any other commodity, is not required. See response to Question (e) regarding number 
of seed cotton base acre enrolled in PLC and ARC.  
g. The CGCS program me made payments to producers based on planted acres of co tton crop 
year 2017. Seed cotton coverage under the PLC and ARC program mes depends on 
ownership of historical cotton acres and does not require production of cotton or any other 
commodity. It is possible that a cotton producer with ownership of historical cotton acres 
may be eligible for both program mes.  
Follow -up: Brazil  signal led interest  in the possible trade implications of the U.S. programme s and 
the way the US used historic al base acres  for seed cotton production.   
 
1.31  Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  
1.31.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90046)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89033 and AG -IMS ID 88076, the United States would like to 
reiterate the following question, for which Zimbabwe has not provided a written answer:  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 34 - 
 
   The United Stat es understands the government of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank of 
Zimbabwe (which is the central bank) is providing tobacco growers a performance export 
bonus as an incentive to grow the country's production and increase exports.  For the 2018 
marketing season, t he central bank, has increased the export incentive from 5% to 12% 
and up to 17.5% for top exporters.  
a. Please explain these agriculture support measures implemented by Zimbabwe's 
central bank during the marketing periods 2017 and 2018.  
b. What is the legal ba sis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi 
Decision that allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  
Answer by Zimbabwe  
 
Zimbabwe undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICAT IONS  
2.1  Imports under Tariff and other Quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.1.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/14)  
AG-IMS ID 90072: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes India's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table 
MA:2) for the  2010/11,  2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 
marketing years.   
a. Can India explain the reason for the under -fill for the maize (corn) tariff quota 
for MY  2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17?  
i. Can India explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, 
the existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota administration?  
ii. Can India explain the reason behind the lack of applications in MY 2010/11, 
2012/13, 2014/15 and 2016/17?  
b. Can India explain what it is doing t o increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff 
quota, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ 
Administration?  
Answer by India  
 
For years 2010 -11, 2014 -15 and 2016 -17, no applications were received for the allocation of the 
tariff rate quota for maize. For other years, even after allocation of licenses, the quota was not filled. 
Fill rate of a TRQ is a demand -driven outcome and based on market situation. India 's TRQ 
administration procedure is transparent and is available in the pub lic domain.  
 
2.1.2   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/70)  
AG-IMS ID 90030: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Notified "in-quota imports during period " for all tariff rate quotas significantly exceed 
"tariff quota quantity for period " levels while fill -rate equals 100%. Is it correct that 
volumes specified in column "In-quota imports during period " represent total imports 
(including out -of-quota import) under the tariff line(s) for which TRQs were opened?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
In most TRQ  tariff lines there is a voluntary expansion of the quota - either in quantity (larger quota) 
or in tariff (lower tariff within the quota) or both. Therefore,  it is assumed that all imports from 
WTO Members are within the quota. Israel  is now in the proces s of introducing a new system which G/AG/W/196  
 
- 35 - 
 
  will allow for a more accurate tracking, but Israel  does not foresee a meaningful change in future 
reports, due to the reason explained above.  
 
2.1.3   The Republic of North Macedonia  (G/AG/N/MKD/22, G/AG/N/MKD/24)  
AG-IMS ID 900 73: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Republic of North Macedonia 's notification concerning imports 
under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for the 2018 marketing year (G/AG/N/MKD/24).  
a. Can the Republic of North Macedonia  explain the  reason for the under -fill for the 
spelt tariff quota for MY 2018?  
i. Can the Republic of North Macedonia  explain whether the under -fill was due 
to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Can the Republ ic of North Macedonia  explain what it is doing to increase 
utilisation of its under -filled tariff quota, as per the objective of the review of the 
Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
Answer by the Republic of North Macedonia   
 
Republic of North Macedonia has tariff and other quota commitments for: Other spelt, other than 
common wheat and meslin seed, for  tariff number 1001990000 with an annual quantity of 80.000 
tones.  This commitment applies for all WTO Members. The in -quota rate is 0% and out -of-quota rate 
is applied at 15% +0,1 eur/kg, tariff rate equivalent (max.75%). The quota is allocated to MFN 
suppliers on a "first -come, first -served" basis. Period of in -quota imports is 1 January to 31 
December in the current year.  
  
The fill rate for Republic of North Macedonia 's wheat TRQ remains low (9.4%) in 2018 due to market 
circumstances.  The fill rate of wheat TRQ was low in all previous years excluding marketing 
years  2003/2004 and 2004/2005 for which  the fill rate was 100%. The fill rate s by year  were as 
follows : 
  
Year Fill rate  Year Fill rate  
2003/2004  100%     2010/2011  25.8% 
2004/2005  100%  2011/2012  62.3%  
2005/2006  25%  2013 16.2% 
2006/2007  12,5%  2014 29.7% 
2007/2008  44,6%  2015 27.8% 
2008/2009  34% 2016 17.1% 
2009/2010  27,3%  2017 28% 
  
The import of wheat and meslin from WTO countries remain ed high in the period  of 2003-2006, until 
the liberalization brought by  the CEFTA agreement in 2007. From 2007 the import of wheat and 
meslin from WTO countries decline d and the import from CEFTA coun tries has been continuously  
rising. The  data on  total import by year and by partner are as follows:  
  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Import of wheat and meslin and wheat or meslin flour in Republic of North Macedonia  
Year Wheat and meslin  Wheat or meslin flour  
TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  TOTAL  WTO CEFTA  
  tonnes tonnes  % tonnes  % tonnes  tonnes  % tonnes  % 
2003 94,272 71,490 75.8 22,782 24.2 1,311 232 17.7 1,079 82.3 
2004 104,076 102,290 98.3 1,786 1.7 1,417 337 23.8 1,080 76.2 
2005 90,095 79,795 88.6 10,300 11.4 3,441 430 12.5 3,011 87.5 
2006 25,973 20,880 80.4 5,093 19.6 3,513 333 9.5 3,180 90.5 
2007 60,367 38,021 63.0 22,346 37.0 53,099 274 0.5 52,825 99.5 
2008 55,192 30,471 55.2 24,721 44.8 43,402 220 0.5 43,182 99.5 
2009 51,249 32,741 63.9 18,508 36.1 55,664 147 0.3 55,517 99.7 
2010 55,765 25,748 46.2 30,017 53.8 46,660 319 0.7 46,341 99.3 
2011 78,502 26,451 33.7 52,051 66.3 30,316 474 1.6 29,842 98.4 
2012 121,261 67,943 56.0 53,318 44.0 42,794 397 0.9 42,397 99.1 
2013 66,187 13,053 19.7 53,134 80.3 41,542 95 0.2 41,447 99.8 
2014 87,992 23,969 27.2 64,023 72.8 40,510 51 0.1 40,459 99.9 
2015 97,538 22,417 23.0 75,121 77.0 47,835 79 0.2 47,756 99.8 
2016 75,537 13,949 18.5 61,588 81.5 54,587 138 0.3 54,449 99.7 
2017 87,047 22,648 26.0 64,399 74.0 53,935 140 0.3 53,795 99.7 
2018 86,504 7,762 9.0 78,742 91.0 49,814 88 0.2 49,726 99.8 
 
The tariff quota  for each year are published in Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia, 
at least one month prior to start  of the new calendar year, in order for the allocation of the published 
quota to start on time, as of 1 January. Also, the tariff quota is published on the website of Customs 
Administration  http://www.customs.gov.mk/images/documents/kvoti/Kvoti2019STO.pdf  
 
AG-IMS ID 90048: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The fill -rate of tariff rate quota for "other spelt, other than common wheat and meslin 
seed" have fallen by almost 20% (from 28% to 9,4%) resulting in quite low fill -in rate as 
it was notified by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in G/AG/N/MKD/22 and 
G/AG/MKD/24. Could the FYR of Macedonia clarify the reasons for the decrease and low 
fill-rates of the mentioned tariff rate quota?  
 
Answer by the Republic of North Macedonia  
 
See response above.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90090: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fil l 
Canada notes that, in the Republic of North Macedonia 's most recent MA:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/MKD/24), which covers the 2018 marketing year, the fill rate for its sole tariff -
rate quota (wheat, other than durum wheat or seeds) is low (9.4%). Looking at t he 
Republic of North Macedonia 's previous notifications (G/AG/N/MKD/19 
and G/AG/N/MKD/22), covering the 2013 -2017 marketing years, Canada notes that the 
fill rate for the same tariff -rate quota (TRQ ) has remained at or under 30%.  
 
a. Could the Republic of North Macedonia  explain why the fill rate for its wheat TRQ 
remains low?  
b. Has the Republic of North Macedonia  considered putting in place a 
TRQ administration policy that is conducive to TRQ utilizati on?  
Answer by  the Republic of North Macedonia  
 
See response above.  
 
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/32)  
AG-IMS ID 90074: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Ukraine's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table  MA:2) for the c alendar year 2017.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 37 - 
 
  a. Can Ukraine explain the reason for the under -fill for the raw cane sugar tariff 
quota for  2017?  
i. Can Ukraine explain whether the under -fill was due to market circumstances, 
the existence of SPS measures, or restrictive tariff quota admini stration?  
b. Can Ukraine explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff 
quota, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ Administration?  
Answer by Ukraine  
 
Ukraine appreciates Australia 's interest in Ukraine 's raw cane sugar TRQ, which was notified to the 
WTO for CY 2017. Taking into consideration Ukraine 's recent MA:2 notification for CY 2018 
(G/AG/N/UKR/32) Ukraine's  response will cover both of these years.  
 
a. The under -fill for tariff quota was due t o market circumstances and not because of the 
existing SPS measures for the product or restrictive tariff quota administration. A demand 
for sugar imports simply did not appear to exist in Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. The type of 
TRQ administration is "Licens e on Demand ". This demand -driven market opportunity is 
executed on a first -come, first -served basis. Ukraine adopted a system of allocating raw 
cane sugar on a first -come, first -served basis in 2011, in accordance with its WTO 
commitments. Relevant notific ation was presented to the WTO in due course. Ukraine 
authorities in charge of administering the License on Demand for the sugar TRQ have no 
record of any application for such a demand -driven import license. Thus, Ukraine  consider s 
the non -filling to be du e to market circumstances. It should also be noted that in Ukraine, 
consumption of sugar per capita declined steadily in recent years (2005 : 38.1 kg; 2010 : 
37.1; 2013 : 37.1; 2014 : 36.3; 2015 : 35.7; 2016 : 33.3; 2017 : 30.4). Import of sugar also 
was decreasi ng significantly until 2013 (2005 : 177 thousand tonnes; 2010 : 90; 2013 : 11) 
and since 2014 has stabilized (2014 : 7 thousand tonnes; 2015 : 4; 2016 : 5; 2017 : 7). In 
2017 and 2018, domestic sugar producers fully satisfied the domestic needs.  
b. Ukraine notes ab ove the lack of demonstrated market interest to apply for license. Besides, 
Ukraine emphasizes that one of the preferred methods to assure that administrative 
measures are not restricting access to the TRQs in the Bali TRQ Decision is "license on 
demand ". Therefore, as long as a demonstrated market interest does not exist to apply 
for a sugar TRQ License on Demand, Ukraine has no plans to undertake further actions. 
At the same time, in 2018 Ukraine abolished the market price support (minimum prices) 
for sug ar.  
2.2  Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/168, G/AG/N/TPKM/169, G/AG/N/TPKM/171)  
AG-IMS ID 90049: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 89073  
  
The volume -based special safeguard for garlic applied since 14 December 2018 was 
notified on 3  January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/168). The volume -based special agricultural 
safeguard on dried shiitake applied since 21 December 2018 was notified on 17 January 
2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/169). The vo lume -based special agricultural safeguard for peanuts 
which was in force since 25 December 2018 was notified on 22 January 2019 
(G/AG/N/TPKM/171). The volume -based special agricultural safeguard for red beans 
applied since 21 December 2018 was notified on 24 January 2019 (G/AG/N/TPKM/172).  
  
Paragraph 7 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that "Any Member taking 
action under subparagraph 1(a) above shall give notice…  in any event within ten days of 
the implementation of such action ". Could please Chinese Taipei please kindly clarify the 
reasons for this delay?  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 38 - 
 
  Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, in line with the special 
safeguard provision of the Agreement on Agriculture, implements SSG on agricultural products 
designated in its schedule if the volume of imports of that product entering the its custom territory 
during any year exceeds a trigger level. As the time needed for custom clearance of imported good 
may vary, delay of the noti fication might occur occasionally.  
 
2.3  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/117, G/AG/N/AUS/118)  
AG-IMS ID 90050: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Supporting Table DS:9 : 
  
The United States understand s the "Package Assisting Small Exporters (PASE) " provides 
rebates to small exporters to cover 50 % of export registration charges.  The package 
funded projects to help reduce barriers and/or assist with marketing strategies for small 
exporters with grant pay ments over a number of years out to 2021 -2022.  
  
Please specify the eligibility criteria for this measure, including a) whether there are any 
commodities or products not eligible to receive payments, and b) whether there is any 
requirement to export.  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
This program me was announced as part of the Australian Government Budget in May 2014. 
Organi zations that are legal entities with an Australian Business Number and individuals are eligible 
to apply. The following commodity sectors are e ligible for funding: dairy, egg/fish, grain and plant 
products, horticulture and meat products. To be eligible for the registration certificate rebate scheme 
(which was only available in financial year 2014 -15), grant recipients were required to have 
compl eted the export certification registration process. All other grant funding under the programme  
is to support projects which improve market access for small businesses.  
 
2.3.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 90059: Question by India - Other p roduct -specific AMS/EMS  
In Australia 's response to India 's question AG -IMS ID 88050 regarding support provided 
by the Australian government for live cattle exports to Indonesia, Australia states that 
"…the support was eligible only for those primary produc ers involved in the live cattle 
export trade to Indonesia during the 2011 -12 financial year ". On the basis of  this 
statement, it appears that the Australian government provided incentives to primary 
producers on the basis of export performance. How does Australia justify the notification 
of the above -mentioned  support as domestic support and not export subsidy?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
In its answer to India 's previous question (AG -IMS ID 88050), Australia notes that the assistance 
provided in the form of financial advice grants was available to primary producers directly affected 
by the temporary suspension of live  cattle exports to Indonesia. Australia considers it is appropriate 
to classify this assistance as domestic support as it was paid to primary producers to enable them 
to seek financial advice on their business arrangements, given they were now unable to ex port due 
to the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia.  
 
2.3.3   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/52)  
AG-IMS ID 90014: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
a. For the marketing credit measures  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 39 - 
 
  i. Can Brazil indicate the total credit amount and the  average subsidised rate 
for these loans/credits?  
ii. Can Brazil indicate the commercial rate for bank loans for such types of loans?  
b. For the debt rescheduling programmes, can Brazil explain more in detail how 
these programmes work, the eligibility criteria a nd the types of farms that 
benefit the most from these programmes?  
Answer by Brazil  
 
a. For marketing credit measures: Total credit amount US$ 4,1 billion  Simple average 
subsidised rate 9,95%  
For non -product -specific production measures: Total credit amount US$ 27,2 billion Simple 
average subsidised rate 10,15% .  
As explained in footnote 3 of ST /DS:9 in document G/AG/N/BRA/52, the subsidy is 
calculated on the basis of  the difference between the interest rates of the program mes 
and the SELIC interest rate, which, in this particular case, amounted to 12.83%.  
b. In order to provide a comprehensive explanation of Brazilian debt rescheduling 
program mes, Brazil  refers to the accurate  description presented in the document 2005 
"OCDE Review of Agricultural Policies Brazil " from page 88 "Credit policies " until page 92. 
In case the EU would like to receive more detailed information about any specific aspect 
of those programme s, Brazil would be pleased to convey their requests to capital.  
2.3.4   China (G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 90077: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia is seeking further information from China regarding the following aspects of its 
recently submitted domestic support notifications for the period 2011 -2016 
(G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
a. Over the period from 2011 -2016, were all farmers eligible  to receive both the 
minimum purchase price and to access temporary reserve measures for the 
following commodities?  
• Corn (2011 -2016);  
• Soybean (2011 -2014);  
• Cotton (2011 -2014);  
• Rapeseed (2011 -2015);  
• Sugar (2011 -2013);  
• Wheat (2011 -2016);  
• Rice (2011 -2016).  
b. In addition, Australia would appreciate further information on the design and 
structure of the Temporary Reserve Programme. Are there any other agricultural 
commodities that are currently eligible to access the Programme?  
c. Australia would appreciate further in formation clarifying why eligible production 
and the administered price for Indica and Japonica rice were converted to those 
of milled rice? What is the basis of the 70% conversion rate stated in these 
notifications?  
d. Australia seeks further details of what  programmes or measures are included in 
"other non -exempt direct payments" for soybean and cotton over the period 
2014 -2016?  
e. Could China please provide further examples of programmes included under 
"general subsidies for agricultural production supplies" across 2011 -2016?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. Farmers of the regions where the policies were applied could sell their products at the 
administered prices, if the products could meet the quality and other related requirements.  
b. The temporary reserve programme was to safeguard food security by stabilizi ng the 
market and thus stabilizing farmers ' income. The policy was usually announced in the 
harvest season. The price for procurement was set in light of the production costs and 
market conditions. The temporary reserve programme was only applied in specif ied area, 
usually in some major  producing provinces and originally with specified amount of 
procurement within defined timeframe. Since 2012, the Temporary Reserve Programmes 
for various commodities have been terminated gradually, and currently no commodit y is 
subject to any Temporary Reserve Programme.  
c. The conversion is necessary for the calculation of MPS for rice, since the procurement was 
made at the administered price of paddy rice, while the calculation of support has to be 
made using the fixed exter nal reference price of milled rice. The 70% conversion rate is 
as the same as that used in the supporting document on Domestic Support submitted by 
China in its accession (WT/ACC/CHN/38/Rev.3).  
d. Target Price Subsidy : The difference between the market price  and the target price is paid 
to eligible farmers.  
e. The "general subsidies for agricultural production supplies ", also translated as 
"comprehensive subsidy on agricultural inputs ", is a unified subsidy programme . The aim  
is to compensate farmers for the ad ditional cost resulting from the increased price of 
agricultural inputs, such as diesel, fertilizers, pesticides , etc. 
 
Follow -up: Australia welcome d China's submission of the Domestic Support notifications  which had 
been long-awaited  by several Members . Australia flagged  concern about China's  repeated de minimis 
breaches for several agricultural products. Australia,  while welcome d China's acknowledgement of 
these breaches, noted that the annual notification process was intended to enc ourage examination 
and discussion of new measures especially in the exempt categories to prevent such issues from 
occurring. Australia registered interests in all questions posed on these notifications and welcomed 
China's confirmation that the temporary r eserve programme was no longer operating for any 
commodities.  The United States noted interest in  questions regarding the measures contained within 
other non -exempt direct payments for soya beans and cotton and general subsidies for agricultural 
production  supplies.   
 
AG-IMS ID 90021: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU notice that several Chinese media reports refer to the active crop insurance policy.  
 
a. Can China explore more in detail the instruments China use i n this context, 
including the level of loss needed to become eligible for such support?  
b. Can China indicate how these measures have been included the DS:1 
notifications for the years 2011 -2016?  
Answer by China  
 
a. It will be useful to know what the media repor ts are, in order to identify related 
instruments.  
b. The existing crop insurance against natural disasters is notified as Green Box measure 
according to Annex 2 of the Agricultural Agreement.  
Follow -up: The EU noted that these notifications confirm ed the concern raised by several Members 
in the past regarding whether China had been respecting its limit on domestic suppor t. The EU 
pointed out that the limit had been breached  for a range of products for many years. The EU 
welcomed China's process, as demonstrated  in the DS:2 notification,  to divert its policy  away from 
Amber Box support towards less trade -distorting support  but noted more could be done. The EU 
looked forward to hearing  China's  explana tion in detail how this reform process would be take n G/AG/W/196  
 
- 41 - 
 
  forward in the future for all the sectors where commitment s were breached during  the period of  2011 
and 2016.  The EU also noted that discussions here would spill over into the negotiation s on future 
limits  for domestic support.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90061: Question  by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
Current Total AMS for corn in 2015 is a sum of support from "Temporary reserve 
programme" and "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds". Temporary Reserve 
programme for corn was terminated in 2016 (Note "c" to Supporting Table DS:5 in the 
notification G/AG/N/CHN/44). Supporting Table DS:7 to the notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that provision of "target price" and "subsidies for improved crop 
strains and seeds" for soybeans has r esulted in Total AMS of 65.8  million hundred CNY. 
Supporting table DS:4 states that support of 65.8 million hundred CNY was included in 
calculation of Current Total AMS.  
  
Current Total AMS for cotton in 2015 consists of "target price" and "subsidy for im proved 
crop strains and seeds", and "cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur 
Autonomous Region". Notes from "c" to "f" to Supporting Table DS:5 in the notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/44 state that the following measures were terminated: "c. Temp orary 
Reserve programme for corn was terminated in  2016. d. Temporary Reserve programme 
for soybean was terminated in 2014. e. Temporary Reserve programme for cotton was 
terminated in 2014. f. Temporary Reserve programme for rapeseed was terminated in 
2015 ." 
  
Note "c" to the Table DS:1 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/46 covering the period of calendar 
year 2015 specifies that all measures accumulated in the volume of Current Total AMS in 
column 3 of Table DS:1 were terminated. The above -mentioned measures inclu de support 
for corn, cotton and soybeans. Note "c" to Supporting Table DS:4 in notification  
  
G/AG/N/CHN/46 states that support measures for corn, soybean and cotton were 
terminated. Termination of Temporary Reserve programmes for corn, soybean and cotton 
is clearly stated while for other above -mentioned measures it is not. Notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/47 covering period of calendar year 2016 still includes "subsidies for 
improved crop strains and seeds" for corn, "target price" for soybeans, "target pric e" for 
cotton, and "cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous 
Region" for cotton.  
  
Could China please clarify were "subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds" for corn; 
"target price" for soybeans; "target price" and "subs idy for improved crop strains and 
seeds" for cotton; and "cost subsidy for transporting cotton out of Xinjiang Uygur 
Autonomous Region" terminated? If terminated, then, please, specify when.  
 
Answer by China  
 
The subsidies mentioned above were terminated b y the end of 2016.  
 
Follow -up: The EU expressed its interest  in understanding how China ha d included the support by 
regional governments in these notifications , since it seemed that  China's notification cover ed only 
central government expenditure. The EU noted that this  comment would apply to  other questions 
under this agenda item . 
 
AG-IMS ID 90056: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The Russian Federation welcomes notifications on Domestic Support covering calendar  
years from  2011 to 2016 submitted by China on 11 December 2018.  
 
a. Could China please provide the reasons for the delay of notifications starting 
from 2011?  
b. When does China plan to notify its domestic support measures for 2017 calendar 
year?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 42 - 
 
  In notificati ons G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, 
G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, G/AG/N/CHN/47 "domestic food aid", "decoupled 
income support" and "regional assistance programme" are mentioned among the 
measures for which exemption from reduction commitments  is claimed.  
c. Could China provide more details on "domestic food aid" including eligibility 
criteria and prices at which food purchases by the government are made?  
d. Could China please provide more details on eligibility criteria for receiving 
"decoupled income support"?  
e. Could China please specify criteria to classify a region as disadvantaged one?  
Answer by China  
 
a. China submitted the Domestic Support notification for Calendar Years of 2009 and 2010 
in 2015. After that, China started the technical work related to the notification for the 
years from 2011 to 2014, which in 2016 was at the final stage for submission . However, 
as a case on China 's subsidy policies for wheat, rice and corn was filed, the schedule of 
submission was postponed due to technical complications.  
b. The notification for 2017 is now being prepared. The submission could be made 
around  2020 or in 2021,  depending on availability of statistics and progress of all the 
technical work.  
c. The reply will be provided at later stage.  
d. All farmers with the right to contract land are eligible for the subsidy with no requirement 
on production.  
e. The reply will be pro vided at later stage.  
Follow -up: The United States indicated interest in understanding how various exempt measures met 
the relevant exemption criteria. Paraguay  expressed interest in all the questions related to China's 
domestic support policies and joined  the Russian Federation in asking when  China  intended to  submit 
its domestic support notification  covering 2017.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90055: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
From 2016 to present, China implemented a "Deep Processing" subsidy (3 billion RMB in 
2016) for corn processors that is provincially managed and administered using central 
government funds in Northeast China. On 25 February 2017, three provinces in Northeast 
China announced,  "Procedures for the Ad ministration of Financial Subsidies for Feed 
Processing Enterprises in Jilin, Liaoning and Heilongjiang Province". Please explain when 
and where China will notify this policy.  
Answer by China  
 
The subsidy in question was not a support for agricultural prod uction. It was provided to feed 
processing entities to mitigate their difficulties including shortage of fund . The measures were 
already terminated. The subsidy was independent from the corn price and had no impact on corn 
production, and therefore will no t be notified as an agricultural domestic support measure.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90051: Question by United States of America - General services: research  
In G/AG/N/CHN/42, G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
G/AG/N/CHN/46, and G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Tabl e DS:1, China reports annual 
government outlays for agriculture research of less than 138 to 223 hundred million 
RMB per year ($21 -33 billion).  Please explain what research activities are included in this 
calculation.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 43 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90052: Question by United States of America - General services: inspection 
services  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1, Item 2(e), in 2015, China implemented its "Food and 
Hygiene Law of the People's Republic of China" elaborated in G/SPS/N/CHN/1055, which 
includes rigorous quarantine and inspection requirements.  In G/AG/N/CHN/42, 
G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, and 
G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Table DS:1, China's repo rted outlays for inspection services 
from 2011 -2016 of 60 -94 hundred million RMB ($10 -15 billion) annually.  Please explain 
what these outlays include. For example, do these outlays include diagnostic equipment 
purchases to implement the "Food and Hygiene L aw of the People's Republic of China?"  
Answer by China  
 
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90112: Question by Japan - General services: other  
In the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47), the expenditure 
on the other General Services is more than 50% of the expenditure on the General Service. 
Japan appreciates that China shows some examples of the other general services such as 
operating expenditure related to buildings, facilities and so on. However, could China  give 
more detailed explanation on what kind of the services China provides and how much 
China spends on their services?  
Answer by China  
 
Expenditures under "other general services" include agricultural business management, international 
exchanges and coop eration, agricultural information processing, agricultural auditing and other 
general services provided by the government.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90058: Question by Russian Federation - General services: other  
The category "Other general services" in Green Box (notifi cations G/AG/N/CHN/42, 
G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, 
G/AG/N/CHN/47) contains "operating expenditures related to buildings, facilities, 
salaries and expenses of agricultural administrative and service agencies as well as 
pensio ns to retired employees of these government agencies". Could China provide more 
information regarding the building and facilities which are supported under the category 
"Other general services". Which operating expenditures are covered under this subsidy?  
Answer by China  
 
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90093: Question by Brazil - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting tables DS:1, 
the volume of measures ex empt from reduction commitments in the form of public 
stockholding for food security purposes has surged.  
a. Could China provide data on the amount of support each of the benefited crops 
received from 2011 to 2016?  
i. Where applicable, could China elucidate th e management mechanism of these 
stocks, the variation of these stocks since 2011 and their current state?  
b. Could China provide official and updated data on the exports of crops that 
benefited the most from such programmes?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. The support includes the administrative costs associated with the procurement and storage 
of the foodstuffs concerned. The amount of support can 't be disaggregated since it was 
provided to the entities engaging in the stockpiling in a lump sum approach.  
i. The s tocks are procured from the market. When the entities concerned buy in the 
foodstuffs, they can get loans for making payments to farmers. The stocks are sold 
according to market conditions. The administrative cost, such as the cost resulting 
from storage, and the cost of loan interest will be borne by the government.  
b. The stocks are disposed domestically.  
Follow -up: Paraguay noted concern regarding the significant increase of China's expenditure in public 
stockholding between 2011 and 2016 and supported  Brazil's question s. The EU indicate d interest in 
this question in relation to the discussion s in the CoASS on public stockholding  and noted the 
importance of understand ing how Members managed  the stocks.   
 
AG-IMS ID 90113: Question by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
According to the DS:1 notifications from 2011 to 2016, China stockpiles wheat, corn, rice, 
vegetable oils and sugar for food security. Japan appreciates if China explains the targeted 
amount and the actual amoun t of stockpiles by product.  
Answer by China  
 
The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90001: Question by European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
China – G/AG/CHN/47 – Decoupled income support  
Decoupled income support sho w increases from CNY  21.7 billion in 2015 to 
CNY 162 billion in 2016.  
 
a. Can China please explain more in detail for this increase? If it includes new 
measures, can China explain in detail the criteria for these new support measures 
and in particular the el igibility criteria and how these payments are paid out to 
farmers? Which type of farmers is eligible to this support and are there any 
regional differentiations for these payments?  
b. Can China explain more in detail the expected future annual expenditure re lated 
to this decoupled income support for the years 2017 to 2019?  
c. Does China intend to make a DS:2 notification for these measures as it has done 
for the Blue Box measures related to cotton and corn in G/AG/N/CHN/48 and 
G/AG/N/CHN/49 respectively, as fore seen in Article 18?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The increase in decoupled income support resulted from a major policy adjustment 
in 2016. The subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds and the general subsidies for 
agricultural production supplies were terminated. Thus, the original decoupled direct 
payment for farmers is increased to compensate for farmers ' loss. The decoupled direct 
payment is given to farmers with contract land, without any production requirement. 
That's also the reason for sharp decr ease in the support as listed in non -product specific 
support.  
b. The expenditure on decoupled direct payment will largely remain stable for the years 
from 2017 to 2019.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 45 - 
 
  c. The decoupled direct payment increased because of minor adjustments of policy objective s 
to address land and environmental preservation. If necessary, China may consider 
submitting a DS:2 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 90114: Question by Japan - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
China implements the decoupled income support.  
a. Could China explain in detail what kind of measures China implements?   
b. Article 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture prescribes eligibility for 
decoupled income support. For example, the amount of payments shall not be 
based on the volume of production in  any year after the base period. Could China 
explain in detail if the abovementioned measures meet such eligibility?  
c. Could China explain the reason why China drastically increases the expenditure 
from 2015 to 2016?  
Answer by China  
 
a. From 2011 to 2014, the d ecoupled income support was given to farmers to increase their 
income on a general basis. The subsidy is given to farmers with contract land  without any 
production requirement.  
b. The payment is made to all farmers that hold the contract rights to the land, and the 
payment is not linked to the price, the type and the volume of the production, nor the 
factors of production, i.e., farmers can receive the subsidy regardless of the type and the 
amount of their actual production, or the factors of production emplo yed.  
c. Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90001.  
AG-IMS ID 90053: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments for 
relief from natural disasters  
Noting the category entitled "payments for relief from natural disasters" in Su pporting 
Table DS:1, please explain how China classifies its agriculture -related crop insurance 
premium subsidy expenditures in the following notifications: G/AG/N/CHN/42, 
G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46, and 
G/AG/N/CHN/47? What was the total value of China's annual premium subsidy payments 
from 2011 to 2016?  
Answer by China  
 
The insurance premium subsidy is classified as government financial participation in income 
insurance and income safety -net programmes. From 2011 to 2016, th e annual premium subsidy 
payments are being verified and will be provided later.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90016: Question by European Union - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes  
The European Union notes that China increased the use of certain types of Green Box 
support dramatically between 2015 and 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Support in the form of 
regional assistance programmes increased from 117.857 billion CNY to 
220.378  billion  CNY (87%). Can China explain more in detail the policy changes behind  
this substantive increase?  
Answer by China  
 
In order to fulfil the commitment to build a moderately prosperous society in an all -round way, the 
Chinese government spares no efforts in recent years to eradicate poverty by 2020. To this end, the 
government increases support for the poverty -stricken re gions, and a large proportion of the fund G/AG/W/196  
 
- 46 - 
 
  was used to develop  agriculture related economy in these regions, since agriculture is the major 
industry in these places.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90115: Question by Japan - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance p rogrammes  
China implements regional assistance programmes.  
a. Could China explain in detail what kind of programmes China implements?   
b. Article 13 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture prescribes eligibility for 
regional assistance programmes. Could China  explain in detail if the 
abovementioned programmes  meet such eligibility?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The support programme s included in this sub -category are mainly related to poverty 
reduction or poverty alleviation. The subsidy was granted in the form of financia l transfer 
to local governments, allowing them to design specific measures that fit the specific local 
conditions. These for example could be livelihood assistance for poor population, or 
infrastructure improvement such as road building etc. It is therefor e hard to describe in 
detail.  
b. China is a developing country with a large agricultural population and the limited budgetary 
resources must be used with high efficiency. Therefore, those poverty reduction or poverty 
alleviation programmes are confined to th e poverty -stricken areas. As defined by the 
objective criteria, the subsidies are used to support local economic and social 
development, including the development for all kinds of industries.  
AG-IMS ID 90122: Question by Australia - Payments based on fixed  areas or yields  
Australia is seeking further information from China regarding its recently submitted 2016 
domestic support notification. China has included corn producer subsidies as a direct 
payment under production -limiting programmes (Blue Box). Austra lia seeks further 
details regarding the application and accessibility for these subsidies.  
a. Were the producer subsidies introduced to eventually replace the Temporary 
Reserve Programme for corn?  
b. Furthermore, have these producer subsidies been continued in to 2017 and 2018?  
Answer by China  
 
The Temporary Reserve Programme for corn was terminated in 2016. The corn producer subsidy 
started in 2016 and continued into 2017 and 2018.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90062: Question by Russian Federation - Payments based on fixed area s or 
yields  
Notification G/AG/N/CHN/47 includes payments based on fixed area and yields under 
production -limiting programmes. Could China provide more details on the functioning of 
such programme for corn?  
 
Answer by China  
 
The central government sets an annual amount of corn subsidy, based on 2014 (base period) data 
of corn planting area and fixed yield in four provinces(region) in Northeast China, namely 
Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Th e subsidy is allocated to the 
four provinces according to the planting area of each province (region) in the base period, and the 
local governments make the payment to farmers. The local government is allowed to use 10% of 
the subsidy they received to faci litate the structural adjustment with the reduction of corn production 
in certain regions that are unfavourable for corn production, for example, to compensate the farmers 
for replacing the production of corn with other corps.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Follow -up: New Zealand signal led systemic interest in the implementation of Blue Box programmes.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90076: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Further to Australia's question at 88th and 89th CoA (AG -IMS ID 88009/AG -IMS ID 89083), 
Australia thanks China for subm itting domestic support notifications for the 
period  2011 -2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47).  
 
During the 2011 -2016 period, China has acknowledged a number of de minimis  breaches 
for key agricultural commodities. Could China please indicate what measure s it has 
introduced or reforms it has implemented to ensure it complies with its WTO obligations?  
 
Answer by China  
 
The support above the de minimis  level for the products concerned is mainly due to the Temporary 
Reserve Programmes. Since 2012, China has t erminated the temporary reserve programme for 
sugar, oilseeds, cotton and corn, and introduced the target price support and producer 's supports 
for cotton and corn  which are  provided under production -limiting programmes. With these reforms, 
the product -specific support to be accounted in the Current Total AMS ha s been significantly reduced.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90091: Question by Brazil - Scheduled commitment level  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Tables DS:4, 
support as a % of val ue of production was above 8,5% for cotton from 2011 to 2016; for 
corn from 2013 to  2016; for soybeans from 2012 to 2016, except in 2013; and for colza in 
2011 and sugar in 2012.  
a. How does China justify such level of domestic support under its 
WTO  commitments?  
b. Could China indicate the evolution of domestic prices of these five crops 
between  2011 and 2016?  
According to notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42  - G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, every domestic support 
programme that led China to surpass its de minimis  level of sup port, hence breaching its 
accession commitments, was terminated in or before 2016.  
c. Does "termination" mean that such programmes were not continued under the 
aegis of the same rule and that similar programme s did not replace them? Or 
does "termination" hav e a different meaning here? If so, which one?  
d. Could China specify the projected and the real impact (quantities, cultivated area 
and government outlays) of the termination of said domestic support 
programmes on the three aforementioned crops?  
Answer by Ch ina 
 
a. As procurement prices went up and volume of commodities bought increased, the support 
associated with the Temporary Reserve Programmes w as driven up to an unexpected level. 
Reforms and adjustments were explored in order to bring the support into consi stency 
with China 's obligations.  
b. It would be appreciated if Brazil could clarify the meaning of domestic support – that is 
whether it is the market price or the farm price so that the statistics department could 
provide the information as requested.  
c. The measures that led to the excessive  level of support include temporary reserve 
programmes for corn, cotton, soybean, rapeseed and sugar, the target price support for 
cotton and soybean. Now, the temporary reserve program mes for all products have been 
terminated and no similar program me was introduced to replace them. For cotton, the 
target price subsidy has been significantly changed with the introduction of 
production -limiting requirements. For soybean, the target price subsidy has been 
terminated. Termination means the end of measures.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 48 - 
 
  d. China is still waiting for the reply  
Follow -up: With respect to question  (b) on domestic prices , Brazil clarified that it was referring both 
to the administered price that wa s used and the market price that prevailed in China's market. While 
Brazil welcom ed China's confirmation that the programmes led to China's violation of commitments  
were terminated , Brazil reiterated its  concern regarding the breach . In light that China would provide 
support under Blue Box, Brazil also encouraged China to respect  the relevant conditions  for that 
type of support.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90096: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
China indicated that product -specific market price support over de minimis  levels to 
producers of cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, and su gar was provided through 
temporary reserve programmes. These were terminated at different stages, as per the 
footnotes to supporting table DS:5 in the aforementioned notifications. For example, the 
temporary reserve programmes for soybeans and cotton were both terminated in 2014, 
while the temporary reserve programmes for rapeseed and corn were terminated in 2015 
and 2016, respectively. In addition, Canada sees that China did not indicate that the 
temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated and und erstands that China 
expects it would still be in effect beyond 2016. Canada would appreciate if China could 
provide further details on these temporary reserve programmes, including those for which 
support was provided under de minimis  levels (e.g., wheat):   
a. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these temporary 
reserve programmes?  
b. What was the legislative or regulatory basis for those programmes? How were 
they different, for example, than the minimum procurement price programmes 
notified by China during the 2011 -2016 period for wheat and japonica/indica 
rice?  
c. How did these programmes operate? Did China purchase the stocks at the 
applied administered price to resell them at market prices? Was a state -owned 
enterprise, monopoly or stat e-trading enterprise involved in the buying and 
selling of stocks? If so, which ones?  
d. How were applied administered prices determined?  
e. For wheat: i. Can China confirm whether the temporary reserve programme for 
wheat is still in force? What are the eligi bility criteria? Could any producer of 
those commodities benefit from the administered price?  
f. For terminated programmes:  
i. What were the eligibility criteria? Could any producer of those commodities 
benefit from the administered price?  
ii. Was the termination of these programmes announced publically? If so, when?  
g. While these programmes were 'temporary' and most of them terminated, except 
for wheat, does China expect it will resort to such programmes in the future? 
How will China ensure that temporary reserve p rogrammes do not bring its 
support levels above its bound total aggregate measure of support in the future?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The support was introduced to stabilize the market and thus stabilize farmers ' income.  
b. The temporary reserve programme s for various commodities are issued separately on 
annual basis. Please find The Notice on Properly Handling Issues Related to the 
Procurement of Grains Harvested in the Autumn of 2013 and The Notice on Issues Related G/AG/W/196  
 
- 49 - 
 
  to the Procurement of Corn and Soybean for Temporary Reserve in Northeast of China 
in 2013 and related administrative document at the following web -links as an example: 
http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2 013-11/16/content_2528455.htm ; 
http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_206698.shtml . The 
temporary reserve programme s were announced after the harvest to  stabilize the market, 
while the Minimum Procurement Price programme is usually announced before sowing.  
c. China's Grain Reserve Group is entrusted to handle the buying of stocks and the stocks 
are disposed in the open market at market prices.  
d. The prices w ere determined based on the cost of production, plus appropriate level of 
profits to safeguard the livelihood of small farmers.  
e. The temporary reserve programme for wheat was terminated in 2018.  
f.  
i. All farmers in the provinces where the programmes are applied are eligible for the 
programme. However, it should be underlined that the commodities they sell must 
satisfy the quality and related requirements for the procurement.  
ii. Yes. It was announced publicly. For example, the termination of the temporary reserve 
programme for corn was announced in the Notice on Properly Handle the Procurement 
of Corn in the Northeast of China in 2016 
(http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_209585.shtml )  
g. There is no plan to reintroduce the temporary reserve programme s. The temporary 
reserve programme for wheat applied in Xinjiang Autonomous Region was terminated.  
Follow -up: Canada registered concern regarding  China's breach of domestic support commitments.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90117: Question by Japan - Scheduled commitment level  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016, China implemented the 
support for cotto n, soybeans and corn, and the support exceeded the de minimis  
percentage. Could China explain in detail the method and the schedule to reduce the 
support not to exceed the de minimis  percentage?  
 
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90062 and AG-IMS ID 90076.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90057: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
The domestic support notifications for the years from 2011 to 2016 reflect Current Total AMS 
provided in excess of that incorporate d in China 's Schedule of commitments. What measures does 
China intend to undertake in order to prevent the possible inconsistency with its obligations under 
paragraph 2 (b) of Article 7 and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture in the 
future?  
 
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to the replies to questions AG -IMS ID 90062 and 90076.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90097: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
From documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, China has provided AMS supports 
exceeded the de minimis  between 2011 – 2016 but  has also indicated that those supports 
exceeding de minimis  have been terminated. Please provide details of China 's future plans 
for domestic support spending after these notifications.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
China has the largest  population in the world. The importance of stable supply, stable market and 
stable prices cannot be stressed enough for safeguarding food security. China attaches great 
importance to abiding the WTO rules. When this problem occurred, China began to look f or new 
ways instantly. However, any new measure has to fulfil the utmost obligations of safeguarding food 
security and livelihood security for billions of people. Therefore,  reform of policies in China, while 
adhering to the right direction, also requires time to realize smooth transition. At the current stage, 
temporary reserves were terminated for all products. China is working on implementing new policies 
which should comply with WTO rules and our commitments and which should also be suitable for 
China 's realities and national conditions. China is faced with  great challenges,  but it will stand by the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay , as an exporting country,  registered concern regarding China's notified  support  
above the de minimis level . Paraguay urged China to provide the DS notification for 2017 so that it 
could examine whether China was complying with WTO obligations after the termination of the 
temporary reserve programmes.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90094: Question by Ca nada - Market price support  
Canada appreciates China submitting more recent domestic support notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture. Canada notes that China has provided domestic support over 
its domestic support commitment (i.e., nil) over the year s notified in G/AG/N/CHN/42 
(2011 – Table DS:1) to G/AG/N/CHN/47 (2016 – Table DS:1). China notified that, during 
this period, it provided product -specific market price support over de minimis  levels for 
cotton, corn, rapeseed, soybeans, and sugar, automat ically bringing China over its 
commitment. China also notified that it had provided market price support for wheat and 
rice (japonica and indica cultivars) under the 8.5% of the product value of production.  
  
For any product where market price support was  notified during the period covered by 
the above notifications, including cotton, corn, rapeseed, rice, soybeans, sugar and wheat, 
Canada requests additional information:  
a. Could China clarify whether the quantities notified in column 6 of Supporting 
Table DS:5 were quantities procured by China at the applied administered price?  
b. For each year in 2011 -2016, and for each commodity listed above:  
i. Could any producer of those commodities qualify to receive the applied 
administered price? If not, what were the cr iteria that excluded a producer 
from such a qualification?  
ii. For those producers whose production could qualify for the applied 
administered prices, what quantities did they produce (total in tonnes on an 
annual basis)?  
c. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopo ly or state -trading enterprise involved in 
the buying and selling of stocks at administered prices? If so, which ones?  
Answer by China  
 
a. Yes.  
b.  
i. Farmers should meet a series of requirements. The policies were only implemented in 
certain area. Farmers ' produc tion should meet quality and related requirement 
specified in procurement announcement.  
ii. Please clarify the question. China does not have the production quantity of each 
producer, so China cannot tell how much they produce for the farmers that qualify for 
the administered price.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 51 - 
 
  c. China Grain Reserve Group and other enterprises entrusted were involved.  
Follow -up: Canada and the EU indicated their interest in following up on  questions related to eligible 
production.   
 
AG-IMS ID 90118: Question by Japan - Market price support  
China has implemented the Minimum Price Purchase, the Minimum Procurement Price and 
the Temporary Reserve Programme as Market Price Support.  
a. Could China explain the difference among these three programmes?  
b. Are these three programmes undertaken as a part o f public stockholding for food 
security?  
Answer by China  
 
a. Actually, there are only two programme s. The Minimum Price Purchase and the Minimum 
Procurement Price are two different interpretations  of the same policy. As for the difference 
between the programme s, please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90096.  
b. These program mes were carried out to safeguard China 's food security.  
AG-IMS ID 90098: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
From Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/ 47, China has indicated 
various "temporary reserve " programmes for various products such as corn, soy bean , 
cotton, rapeseed, and sugar. Please provide details of temporary reserve programmes and 
whether they are still used at present and for which products.  
 
Answer by China  
 
The administered prices, amount procured, time of implementation and region eligible for 
procurement of the programmes were provided in China 's notifications. There are no temporary 
reserve program mes implemented for any product now.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90092: Question by Brazil - Market price support: Eligible production  
According to notification s G/AG/N/CHN/42 - G/AG/N/CHN/47, Supporting Tables DS:5, 
column 6, the eligible production entitled to receive the administered price varied greatly 
even during the term of a single programme. For instance, Temporary Reserve programme 
for corn was terminate d in 2016, but the eligible production was 290.7 ten thousand 
tonnes in 2011; 321.6 ten thousand tonnes in 2012; 124.6 ten thousand tonnes in 2013; 
245.3 ten thousand tonnes in 2014; 46.7 ten thousand tonnes in 2015 and 7,136.2 ten 
thousand tonnes in 2016.   
a. Could China describe the functioning of the Temporary Reserve programmes for 
corn, cotton and soybeans?  
b. If applicable, could China provide information on farmer's eligibility, government 
outlays and the government regulation applicable to those domestic  support 
programmes?  
c. Could China explain the eligible production calculation method it has used for 
cotton, corn and soybeans?  
Answer by China  
 
a. Please refer to the reply to question s AG-IMS ID 90091 and 90096.  
b. All farmers in the provinces where the programmes applied are eligible for the programme, 
if their production meets quality related requirement specified in the announcements. The G/AG/W/196  
 
- 52 - 
 
  temporary reserve programme s for various commodities are issued separately o n an 
annual basis. Please find The Notice on Properly Handling Issues Related to the 
Procurement of Grains Harvested in the Autumn of 2013 and The Notice on Issues Related 
to the Procurement of Corn and Soybean for Temporary Reserve in Northeast of China i n 
2013 and related administrative document at the following web -links as an 
example:  http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2013 -11/16/content_2528455.htm; 
http://www.lswz.gov.cn/html/ywpd/lstk/2018 -06/11/content_206698.shtml . 
c. Please refer to the domestic support notifications of China.  
Follow -up: Paraguay registered interest in  the question, particularly in relation to the calculation of 
market price support and the effective amount purchased by the government.   
 
AG-IMS ID 90095: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. In G/AG/N/CHN/42 through G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notifie d product specific 
support measures that were not market price support measures, including for 
wheat, rapeseed, soybean and corn. For example, China notified that it provided 
subsidies for improved crop strains and seeds for all four of those commodities. 
Could China confirm if there were other programmes that specifically targeted 
wheat, rapeseed, soybean and corn producers?  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47, China notified 
under Supporting Table DS:6 other non -exempt direct payments for s oybean and 
cotton during the 2014 -2016 period, i.e., through the last notified year. Canada 
notes that these payments were provided through a 'target price' type of 
measure.  
i. What circumstances, including market conditions, gave rise to these target 
price programmes?  
ii. How were target prices established and what were those target prices? How 
are these different than an applied administered price?  
iii. How many producers could apply to receive these target price payments? 
How much of their production (in tonnes) could have benefitted from these 
payments?  
iv. Was a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or state -trading enterprise involved 
in the buying and selling of stocks? If so, which ones?  
Answer by China  
 
a. There were no other programme s that specifically targeted to wheat, rapeseed, soybean 
and corn producers.  
b. The target price subsidy for soybean is set in light of the production cost and reasonable 
profit to sustain small farmers ' livelihood. It is different from administered price because 
this price does not affect t he real market price. Farmers sell their products on the market 
without any intervention from the government. If the market price is below the set target 
price, the difference between the target price and the market price will be paid to farmers. 
All produ ction in designated areas is eligible for the subsidy. There is no government 
procurement under the target price.  
AG-IMS ID 90054: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
a. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N /CHN/47, "subsidies for 
breeding sows" in China abruptly dropped to 0.73 hundred million RMB in 2016, 
whereas in notifications G/AG/N/CHN/43, G/AG/N/CHN/44, G/AG/N/CHN/45, 
and G/AG/N/CHN/46, total expenditure for "subsidies for breeding sows" was 
significa ntly greater.  Please explain why budgetary outlays for "subsidies for G/AG/W/196  
 
- 53 - 
 
  breeding sows" in 2016 are lower than the preceding four notifications for the 
years 2012 through 2015.  
b. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, the United 
States n otes that China has only notified a corn measure for "subsidies for 
improved crop strains and seeds" for corn in 2016.  However, the United States 
understands China's north eastern provinces reportedly announced a subsidy for 
purchase of corn by processors for the 2016 crop, which ranged from 100 -300 
yuan per metric tonne.  Please explain why these measures have not been 
notified.  
c. Regarding Supporting Table DS:7 in notification G/AG/N/CHN/47, while the 
United States welcomes China submitting domestic support notifications for a 
number of years, the United States remains concerned with the overall level of 
transparency provided within these notifications.  In particular, the United States 
is concerned with the lack of notifying of a number of measures that the U nited 
States is aware of.  For each of the below references, the United States 
understands that China implements one or more measures that do not appear to 
have been notified.  For each, please provide relevant regulations, legislation, or 
other official gov ernment documentation, and in addition, an explanation as to 
why each has not been notified.  
i. Temporary Reserve Program for corn, soybeans, and wheat in Xinjiang 
province from  2007 -2009  
ii. Payments to major gain, oilseed, and hog marketing counties and other 
regional programmes.  The United States understands these programmes 
annually determine which countries get payments based on production, area, 
and/or swine inventory/marketing with funding often earmarked for use to 
support producers.  
iii. Support to agri cultural product export demonstration bases.  
Answer by China  
 
a. In 2016, subsidies for breeding sows, cows, and sheep were terminated. A small amount 
from the 2015/16 market year was given in 2016.  
b. As described in the question, the subsidy is provided to the processors with the aim to 
mitigating their shortage of fund  and is not a support provided to farmers for supporting 
the agricultural activities they carried out.  
c. The payments to counties of major suppliers of grain, oilseed, and hog are general financial 
transfers to supplement the local governments ' budgetary ou tlays. There is no 
requirement of the payment that links to any agricultural production. Replies to other 
questions of part c will be provided at later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 90099: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
From Table DS:9 of documents G/ AG/N/CHN/42 – G/AG/N/CHN/47, China has used 
"General Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies" for non -product -specific AMS and 
in 2016, China has substantially reduced non -product -specific support. Please deliberate 
how:  
a. China was able to significan tly reduce support for 2016.  
b. Please provide details on "General Subsidies for Agricultural Production 
Supplies" and how it is provided and administered.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
The General Subsidies for Agricultural Production Supplies, also translated as Compreh ensive 
Subsidy on Agricultural Inputs, was introduced in 2006 to compensate grain producers for any 
increase in the price of agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and diesel fuels. Budgetary outlays for 
this programme have remained stable since 2012.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90017: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes a substantial decrease in Non -Product -Specific support in the 
form of "general subsidies for agricultural production supplies ", from 107.996 billion 
CNY 2015 to 0 .097 billion CNY 2016 (G/AG/N/CHN/47). Can China explain more in detail 
the policy changes behind this substantive decrease and which types of support that has 
been eliminated?  
 
Answer by China  
 
China terminated the General Subsidies for Agricultural Produ ction Inputs in 2016. A small amount 
from 2015/2016 market year was given in 2016 calendar year.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90119: Question by Japan - Non-product -specific AMS  
According to the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2016, China implements the 
general subsidies for agricultural production supplies.  
a. Could China explain in detail on what kind of services China provides?  
b. Why does China decrease the expenditure in 2 016 drastically?  
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to the reply to Question s AG-IMS ID 90099 and AG-IMS ID 90017.  
 
2.3.5   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/173, G/AG/N/TPKM/174, G/AG/N/TPKM/175)  
AG-IMS ID 90101: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table D S:2) 
Under Supporting Table DS:5 of documents G/AG/N/TPKM/173 – G/AG/N/TPKM/ 175, 
Chinese Taipei has indicated the use of "Government Supplement Purchase " "Government 
Additional Purchase " and "Government Planed Purchase ". Please provide details for each 
measure and indicate the difference between the said measures.  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
The purpose of having "planned purchase " is to increase farmers' income. The aim of "supplementary 
purchase " is to stabilize marke t prices. The "additional purchase " is to prevent prices from being 
lower than production costs.  
 
Guaranteed prices with purchased quantity limits  
 Planned purchase 
with a limit of 
2,000  kg/hectare for 
the first crop and 
1500  kg/hectare for 
the second cro p Supplementary 
purchase with a limit 
of 1,200  kg/hectare 
for the first crop and 
800 kg/hectare for 
the second crop  Additional purchase 
with a limit of 
3,000  kg/hectare for 
the first crop and 
2,400  kg/hectare for 
the second crop  
Japonica -type rice  NT$26/kg  NT$23/kg  NT$21.6/kg  
Indica -type rice and 
glutinous rice  NT$25/kg  NT$22/kg  NT$20.6/kg  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 55 - 
 
  2.3.6   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/66)  
AG-IMS ID 90123: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia thanks Israel for the inclusion of an explanatory note in its DS:1, outlining to 
other Members the reason domestic support for milk and eggs exceeded both de minimis  
and Israel's Total Bound AMS in CY  2017. While this adds to a worrying trend, wh ereby a 
number of Members have reported breaches of their de minimis  and/or Total AMS 
limits,  Australia does  acknowledge that  Israel has put in some effort to explain the reason 
behind the breach and the efforts to ensure it does not see a similar situation occur 
from  2019 onwards.   
a. Will Israel advise if it is likely to ag ain notify a breach in the milk and egg sector 
in CY  2018?  
b. Furthermore, would Israel advise if negotiations are likely to take an extended 
period of time, pushing out the aim to implement reforms to ensure a breach 
does not occur in  2019?  
Answer by Israel  
 
Israel hasn't calculated yet the market price support for milk and eggs in CY  2018. Israel  assume s 
that negotiations is likely to take an extended period of time, due to the coming election of a new 
government on 9 April 2019.  
 
Follow -up: Australia flagge d interest in reviewing Israel's forthcoming DS notification. Australia and 
New Zealand  registered concern regarding  the number of  Members  notifying  breaching their DS 
entitlements  in the Committee , including  Israel . Australia  looked forward to hearing fro m Israel on 
how it planned to rectify the breach.  New Zealand hoped that the WTO framework  could  provide 
more stability  so that Members could stay within  their commitment level. The United Statas  
supported the question .  
 
AG-IMS ID 90023: Question by European Union - Scheduled commitment level  
The DS:1 notification shows a non -respect of limits for the egg and dairy sector during 
calendar year  2017. This is not the first time that a notification from Israel show a non -
respect of the limits for domestic  support in Israel.  
 
Can Israel indicate which steps Israel has taken to change its agricultural support policy 
to ensure that it fully respect its WTO commitments for AMS?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
Israel has taken the following steps to change its agricultura l support policy to ensure that it fully 
respect its WTO commitments for AMS:  
 
Table Eggs Sector  
 
The reform programme  in the egg sector is still under discussion due to lack of consensus between 
the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In the meantime, a call for proposals and tenders for 
constructing poultry house complexes has been issued (budget of ILS  50 million), which is expected 
to increase efficiency and reduce the administered price.  
 
The Dairy Sector  
 
Planning Law was adopted in 2011 setting a mechanism of fixed target price, which is updated 
according to changes in the cost of production. Following the need, according to the Law, to switch 
to an alternative mechanism of minimum price after eight years,  the government and the 
stakeholders negotiated a further reform. At the end of October 2018 an outline for a reform was 
signed between the government and the stakeholders. The outline includes subsidies for increasing 
the efficiency of dairy farms, a redu ction of target prices and support for dairy farmers leaving dairy 
production. The reform process will increase the size of dairy farms. The reform agreement requires 
a change in legislation. A memorandum of law has been issued on the subject. Due to the e lections G/AG/W/196  
 
- 56 - 
 
  in Israel, the reform process was postponed,  and the future of the reform will be decided by the new 
government that will be established during 2019.   
 
Follow -up: The EU repeated its concern regarding  Israel's non -compliance with the  AMS limit and 
encouraged Israel to  resort to alternative policies in the future which would not result in breaching 
limit.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90102: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
In G/AG/N/ISR/66, Is rael notified that it exceeded its Final Bound Total AMS for 2017. 
Israel noted that additional reform measures are expected to decrease the total AMS back 
below the commitment level from 2019 on. The situation is similar to what Israel faced 
in 2011 -2014.  As Israel noted in G/AG/N/ISR/50 it has an ongoing reform related mainly 
to domestic support and market access for various agricultural products. The reform 
would minimize price support and promote the move of Israel's agriculture to more Green 
Box measur es, thus reducing its AMS support. In this context, how Israel will be able to 
ensure it does not exceed its WTO commitments in 2019?  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
See response above.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90103: Question by Ukraine - Scheduled commitment level  
Ukraine notes that according to G/AG/N/ISR/66, in Israel's 2017 domestic support the 
entire AMS of $612,437,000 is exclusively in favour of egg and milk producers. The current 
AMS exceeds Israel's Final Bound Total AMS commitment level of 569,980,000 USD. In 
addition, I srael's level of support in terms of Value of Production for eggs (66%) and milk 
(53%) is very high.  
 
Ukraine appreciates the explanatory note in G/AG/N/ISR/66, in which Israel delineates 
the nature of the policy concerned and the steps regarding past and  additional reform 
efforts in the dairy and egg sectors. These reforms are intended to bring Israel's current 
total AMS within its WTO bound commitment level.  
 
Back in October 2017 (AG -IMS ID 85084) Israel responded that regulatory reform in the 
egg secto r was under negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development, Ministry of Finance and Israel's Farmers' Federation and Poultry Board due 
to the same issue of breaching the bound WTO commitment level.   
a. Could Israel please provide more background information on what types of 
possible structural adjustments are under consideration in the eggs sector?  
b. Could Israel explain whether currency fluctuations have been a factor which 
caused the breach of its WTO bound commitment level (taking int o account that 
the commitment is in U.S. dollars and not in local currency)?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. The reform program me in the egg sector is still under discussion due to lack of consensus 
between the Ministry of Finance and the growers. In the meantime, a cal l for proposals 
and tenders for constructing poultry house complexes has been issued (budget of 
ILS 50 million), which is expected to increase efficiency and reduce the administered price.  
b. Currency fluctuations has been one among several factors causing t he breach.  The 
external reference prices Israel use d to calculate the market price support for milk are 
fixed in US dollars. The administered minimum price is set and expressed regularly in New 
Israeli Shekels (NIS) and converted to dollars, according to u pdated rates of exchange, 
for the notification. Since 2002, the NIS had been trending upwards against the USD, 
therefore the administered prices seem higher when expressed in dollar terms.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 57 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90067: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
a. Regarding Supporting Table 5, the United States welcomes Israel's transparency 
on the issue of breaching its Total AMS commitment level in 2017. Israel has 
cited the ongoing reforms taking place in the egg and dairy sectors since  
April  2016, when Israel notified breaches of its Total AMS commitment levels 
for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 (G/AG/N/ISR/55). The United States remains 
concerned and asks Israel to provide:  
i. An update on reforms in the egg and dairy sectors that have taken place since 
notifying in December 2018.  
ii. Why Israel believes that these ongoing policy changes will ensure Israel is 
consistent with its Total AMS commitments, given that population growth was 
cited as the reason for breaching its commitment levels for 2017.  
iii. A timeframe for when Israel's Current Total AMS is expected to fall below the 
Total  AMS commitment again.  
Answer by Israel  
 
i. Table Eggs Sector : The reform program me in the egg sector is still under discussion 
due to lack of consensus between the Minis try of Finance and the growers. In the 
meantime, a call for proposals and tenders for constructing poultry house complexes 
has been issued (budget of ILS  50 million), which is expected to increase efficiency 
and reduce the administered price.  
The Dairy Se ctor: The Dairy Sector Planning Law was adopted in 2011 setting a 
mechanism of fixed target price, which is updated according to changes in the cost of 
production. Following the need, according to the Law, to switch to an alternative 
mechanism of minimum p rice after eight years, the government and the stakeholders 
negotiated a further reform. At the end of October 2018 an outline for a reform was 
signed between the government and the stakeholders. The outline includes subsidies 
for increasing the efficiency  of dairy farms, a reduction of target prices and support for 
dairy farmers leaving dairy production. The reform process will increase the size of 
dairy farms. The reform agreement requires a change in legislation. A memorandum 
of law has been issued on th e subject.  
ii. Population growth is the main reason for breaching Israel's Total AMS commitment 
levels for 2017, however, Israel  believe s that a reform in policy is needed regardless 
of the size of the population and that a move from market price support to di rect 
support is the right move for Israel.  
iii. Due to the elections in Israel, the reform process was postponed,  and the future of the 
reform will be decided by the new government that will be established during 2019.  
AG-IMS ID 90066: Question by United Stat es of America - Market price support  
It is noted that Israel adjusted its applied administered price for milk, as explained in the 
explanatory notes which notes the quality differences between the two stated time 
periods. It is noted that Israel provided i n response to AG -IMS ID 85023 the unadjusted 
rates for 2015 -2016. However, the US is unable to replicate the quality improvement data 
provided in the response and are therefore unable to determine whether the unadjusted 
rates for 2017 would leave Israel in  breach of its Total AMS commitments.  
  
a. Please provide the adjustment factor used to report the modified applied 
administered price in 2017.  
b. Please further elaborate on how the exact price adjustment factors were 
determined, as it is unclear from the resp onse provided to AG -IMS ID 85023.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 58 - 
 
  c. What is the reason Israel did not provide this adjustment factor in its 
notification?  
Answer by Israel  
 
a. The adjustment of the administered price for milk was calculated based on the changes in 
the quality of milk produced in Israel, as manifested in the protein and fat contents. The 
following table details the changes in quality relative to the base period 
(average  1986-88).  
Year Protein  Fat quality improvement  
avg. 86 -88 2.98%  3.18%   
2015-16 3.32%  3.72%  12.23%  
2017 3.32%  3.85%  13.73%  
 
b. In consultation with the Milk Board, the quality improvement was calculated using the 
following coefficients, protein: 54%, fat: 36%, water: 10.0%. The fat and protein contents 
are listed in the official almanac of the Israeli Dairy Bo ard and defined as "normative 
contents".  
c. The adjustment factors were explained in the "explanatory notes" section. These factors 
are now further detailed in the corrected DS:1 report submitted to the Secretariat.  
AG-IMS ID 90065: Question by United State s of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
Regarding Supporting Table 6, the United States notes a nearly 600 % increase in 
expenditures for the 'investment programme ' for poultry from 2016.  Please explain the 
reason for this increase.  
 
Answer by Israel  
 
Israel thanks the United States for noticing this unusual increase. The same expenditure line has 
been mistakenly attributed to both "meat of poultry" and "meat of bovine". Israel will submit a 
corrected DS:1 report correcting this error.  
 
2.3.7   Malaysia (G/AG /N/MYS/43, G/AG/N/MYS/44, G/AG/N/MYS/45)  
AG-IMS ID 90124: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Malaysia for the effort to submit a number of  outstanding Domestic 
Support notifications, for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The submission of these notifications is 
an important demonstration of Malaysia's commitment to transparency and to the 
provision of responses to questions regarding the concerns of othe r Members on long -
overdue notifications.   
a. Could Malaysia please inform Members when they expect to submit domestic 
support notifications from 2015 onwards?  
b. Australia notes Malaysia's 'Paddy Price Subsidy', which is in all three 
notifications (2012, 2013, 2 014), and requests Malaysia provide further 
information regarding the subsidy available to each producer and the eligibility 
requirements to receive the subsidy?  
Answer by Malaysia  
  
Malaysia endeavours to fulfil its notification commitments and is continu ously working towards the 
objective of notifying the outstanding notifications.  
  
Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the poor in the country.  Paddy Price 
Subsidy  (PPS) is provided to paddy farmers in the context of poverty redressal an d upliftment of the G/AG/W/196  
 
- 59 - 
 
  socio-economic well -being of paddy farmers, to ensure that the farmers received a reasonable 
income.  
  
The eligibility of the payment is determined by clearly defined criteria based on the status of the 
recipient as low -income and resou rce-poor paddy farmers. Malaysia would also like to highlight that 
Malaysia is a net -importer of rice.  
  
Malaysia endeavours to increase awareness regarding WTO issues and obligations in the country 
and ongoing process of evaluation of policy and complianc e of domestic supports are underway while 
not undermining the importance of the country 's need for food security and the livelihood of the 
paddy farmers.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90104: Question by Canada - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Canada notes that th e description and information provided for the Paddy Price Subsidy 
for rice does not clearly indicate how this "subsidy" meets the criteria of Paragraph 6, 
Annex for decoupled income support.  
a. Could Malaysia provide information on the defined and fixed bas e period used to 
determine the direct payment?  
b. How is the size of the payment determined?  
c. How many rice producers subscribe to the Paddy Price Subsidy?  
Answer by Malaysia  
 
As previously explained, Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of t he poor in the 
country.  Therefore, this programme is an instrument to provide income support for resource -poor 
farmers to ensure they receive reasonable income. The eligibility of the payment is determined by 
clearly defined criteria based on the status of  the recipient as low -income and resource -poor paddy 
farmers. Malaysia would also like to highlight that it is a net-importer of rice country.  
  
Malaysia endeavours to increase awareness regarding WTO issues and obligations in the country 
and ongoing proce ss of evaluation of policy and compliance of domestic supports are underway while 
not undermining the importance of the country 's need for food security and the livelihood of the 
paddy farmers.  
 
2.3.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/101)  
AG-IMS ID 90107: Question by Canada - Payments based on 8 5% or less of the base level 
of production  
Canada notes that, at the 86th Regular session of the Committee on Agriculture 
(February  2018), Ukraine asked Norway about Norway's "Quality Incentive Support 
Programme for Beef", a Blu e Box measure notified in 2015, and the 40% increase over 
2014 -2016 (from 135.9 million NOK in 2014 to 191.5 million NOK in 2016) in Blue Box 
support. Norway explained that the increase in support from 2014 to 2016 was due to the 
fact that support was only  provided for 10 months in the first year, rather than 12 months, 
even though a two -month gap only represents 16.7% of a year.  
  
In Norway's most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/NOR/101), Norway notified another 
substantial increase in the amount of blue  box support provided through this programme 
to beef producers, from 191.5 million NOK in 2016 to 260.6 million NOK in 2017 (i.e., 
approx. 36% in one year). Considering the first year of the programme, support has 
almost doubled over the course of 4 years (from 135.9 million NOK in 2014 to 260.6 
million NOK in 2017).  
a. Could Norway expand on the circumstances that led to this sharp increase over 
one year?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 60 - 
 
  b. How does this relate to the production -limiting nature of this beef support 
programme, given the fixed b ase level for the eligible quantity of beef? Have 
payments increased? If so, by how much, and why?  
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway in 2015 notified a new DS:2 notification for the "quality incentive support programme for 
beef". For basic information with regard to the programme,  Norway would like to refer to this 
notification and to Norway's answer to Ukraine at the 86th Regular session of the Committee on 
Agriculture (February 2018).  
  
In the relevant support programme for beef, quality is defined according to the EU Beef Carcass 
Classification Scheme (the EUROP -system). By increasing in 2017 the support for beef of quality O+ 
and better, and simultaneously reducing the subsidy for meat of quality O, Norway strengthened the 
quality premium for beef production.  
  
Since most of the beef eligible for the scheme have a better quality than O, this gave a considerable 
increase in payments.  
  
The base level of production is 59.4 mill. kg and the maximum eligible quantity of beef is therefore 
50.5 mill. kg. The quantit ies of beef eligible for the support programme in 2016 and 2017 were 
respectively 49.6 kg and 50.2 mill. kg. Norway has therefore fulfilled the criteria for notifying this 
programme under the Blue Box both in 2016 and 2017.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand registered systemic interest in implementation of the Blue Box programmes. 
New Zealand asked Norway how the production limiting criteria could be met in the case of  possib le 
increase in the  resources allocated to the programme  and how a product ion limi ting programme 
could function  together with  a production enhancing  programme.  Paraguay as a beef exporter noted 
its concern regarding the significant increase of Blue Box payments on beef  and expressed support 
for question b.  
 
2.3.9   Turkey (G/AG/N/TUR/ 17, G/AG/N/TUR/18, G/AG/N/TUR/19, G/AG/N/TUR/20, 
G/AG/N/TUR/21)  
AG-IMS ID 90125: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Turkey for the effort to submit a number of outstanding Domestic 
Support notifications – for 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (G/AG/N/TUR/17 - 
G/AG/N/TUR/21). The submission of these notifications is an important demonstration 
of Turkey's commitment to transparency and to the provision of responses regarding the 
concerns of other Members on long -overdue notifications.   
Could Turkey provide an update on preparations to submit domestic support notifications 
for 2010 and onwards?   
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey is trying to complete its overdue agricultural notifications. The process of data gathering, 
reviewing and formalizing is still going on.  
 
Follow -up: Australia urged Turkey to provide  further  notifications.   
 
AG-IMS ID 90025: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally available 
to agriculture  
Supporting Table 2 (G/AG/N/TUR/21):  
a. Can Turkey explain more in the functioning and eligibility criteria of the 
investment in the framework of the development of animal husbandry scheme?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the budgetary outlay for this scheme in 2009?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 61 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
a. The main subjects supported within the framework of development of animal husbandry 
are as follows:  
• The projects of the producers, who apply for the production of fodder crops, are 
supported up to 40% of their investment costs if they are approved by Ministr y of 
Agriculture and Rural Affairs.  
• Cost of artificial insemination is paid for calves if they are registered to the pedigree.  
• Investment support is provided to the producers purchasing the queen bees from the 
enterprises that have been granted production  permits by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Affairs.  
• Investment support is provided to those who purchase heifers with breeding certificate 
or pure breed certificate issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.  
b. The total amount of suppo rt for the programme  in 2009 is 381 million USD.  
AG-IMS ID 90126: Question by Australia - Scheduled commitment level  
Australia notes that in Turkey's recently submitted notifications, it has reported Current 
Total AMS of approximately (USD) $1.5 million i n 2005; $1.7 million in 2006; $490.5 
million in 2007; $2.3  million in 2008; and $2.6 million in 2009. Furthermore, as Turkey 
has noted in these notifications, it does not have Final Bound Total AMS in its schedule. 
Having considered these, can Turkey respo nd to the following questions:  
a. With regards to the de minimis  'breach' for Soybeans in each year (amounting to 
11% of VoP in 2005 and 2006, 46% of VoP in 2007 and 14% of Vop in 2008 and 
2009), can Turkey explain what measures it has introduced or what refo rms it 
has implemented to avoid what seems to be a systematic breach of de minimis  
for Soybean support?  
b. In addition, does Turkey expect its DS notifications for 2010 and onwards to have 
similar, systematic breaches for soybeans?   
c. With regards to the de minimis 'breach' for Rapeseed in 2005 (amounting to 49% 
of VoP), can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what 
reforms it has implemented to avoid a breach of de minimis  for Rapeseed support 
in 2009 and onwards?  
d. With regards to the de minimis 'breach' for cotton in 2007 (amounting to 15% 
of VoP), can Turkey please explain what measures it has introduced or what 
reforms it has implemented to avoid what in monetary terms is quite a significant 
breach?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. c and d.  Turkey intends to maintain its production habit in oilseeds, which are imported 
intensively, but at the same time needed for food security and strategic reasons. 
Production of oilseeds is insufficient in Turkey and the support provided over " de minimis " 
ratio in some years is closely related to the sustainability of production. However, Turkey 
is well aware of its " de minimis " restriction of 10%, and it is trying to regulate all of its 
supports considering this restriction.  
b. Turkey continues to prepare its  domestic support notifications for 2010 and beyond, and 
it does not have an estimate for soybean at this stage.  
Follow -up: Australia reiterated the concern regarding the number of Members notifying breaching  
WTO commitment s in the Committee . Australia also expressed the concern that , based on its G/AG/W/196  
 
- 62 - 
 
  understanding of Turkey's response , that the breach was caused by structural problem s and it would 
likely to occur again in the future. Australia sought further information from Turkey regarding the 
support data for later years so as to understand how Turkey addressed this issue.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90110: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada appreciates Turkey providing more recent domestic support notifications to this 
Committee which brings  Turkey up to 2009. Canada encourages Turkey to continue its 
work to submit its domestic support notifications. Canada is concerned that Turkey has 
exceeded its domestic support commitment levels (i.e., nil) for all the years notified 
(2005 -2009), due to p roduct -specific support being provided over de minimis  levels. With 
the exception of 2007, where product -specific support for cotton brought current total 
aggregate measurement of support (CTAMS) to $490.5 million (of which $5.6 million went 
to soybean pro ducers), the amount of CTAMS increased from $1.5  million in 2005 to $2.6 
million in 2009, mainly to soybean producers. Turkey also notified support to rapeseed 
producers in 2005 over de minimis  levels ($247,729). Furthermore, the current situation 
of Turke y's domestic support measures as well as their compliance with the obligations 
contained in the Agreement on Agriculture remains hard to assess, given that the last year 
notified refers to programmes that were in force almost a decade ago.  
a. What concrete, meaningful steps has Turkey taken to ensure that it complies 
with its WTO  domestic support commitment?  
b. What is the current situation of Turkey's domestic support measures? Are 
support levels in excess of Turkey's commitments? If not, when does Turkey 
expe ct to conform to the obligations contained in the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. When will Turkey provide more up -to-date domestic support notifications, so 
that other Members may be able to understand how Turkey's current domestic 
support policies function, a s well as their potential impacts on trade or 
production?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. Turkey is well aware of its " de minimis " restriction of 10%, and it is trying to regulate all 
of its supports considering this restriction.  
b. Turkey continues to prepare its domesti c support notifications for 2010 and beyond, and 
it does not have an estimate of compliance with its domestic support commitments at this 
stage.  
c. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90125.  
Follow -up: Canada registered concern regarding Turkey's non -compliance with its DS commitment 
and the lack of estimate regarding whether the limit had been respected after 2009. Canada  
encourage d Turkey to  keep updating  its no tifications .  
 
AG-IMS ID 90106: Question by Russian Federation - Scheduled commitment level  
When some Members asked about breach of domestic support commitments in 2003 
and 2004 Turkey reported in response to AG -IMS ID 85044 and AG -IMS ID 85062 
that Turkey noted "its importer position with high amounts (for rapeseed) and therefor e 
the level of domestic support has no trade distorting effect." In fact, Turkey exceeded the 
de minimis  level for rapeseed in 2004 so Turkey breached or exceeded its domestic 
support commitments. Moreover, Turkey did not mention exceeding de minimis  level  for 
the soybeans in 2003 and 2004. According to the information of DS:1  notifications for 
2005 -2009 Turkey continues to breach its domestic support commitments exceeding its 
de minimis  levels for soybeans and rapeseed, as well as for cotton in 2007. Which  
measures has Turkey taken to ensure that it respects its domestic support commitments 
for the following years?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 63 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90126.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90108: Question by Thailand - Scheduled commitment level  
Turkey does not have bound AMS commitment but has provided AMS supports exceeded 
the de minimis  level during 2005 -2009. Please clarify regarding the consistency with 
Turkey 's obligations under the WTO. Please provide details on how Turkey plans to 
reduce/e liminate domestic support spending that exceed de minimis  level.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90110.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay noted the concern that Turkey ha d been providing support above de minimis  
on a number of  products that Paraguay  export ed, particularly soybeans . Paraguay sought further 
information on the programmes that had been developed over these years and whether the subsidies 
had been reduced and brought into compliance with the de minimis limit.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90064: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Turkey for submitting domestic support notifications for 
2005 -2009. The United States notes the continued elimination of market price supports 
in Turkey's mos t recent notifications. In response to AG -IMS 85031, the US was referred 
to Turkey's replies to its last Trade Policy Review (TPR) for additional information on the 
state -owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) in regard to its role in the applied administered 
prices for certain commodities. In reviewing the latest Secretariat Report of Turkey's TPR 
of 2016 (WT/TPR/S/331/Rev.1), the report defines TMO as a state -owned enterprise 
with 100% public ownership. In response to question 37 of the TPR (WT/TPR/S/331, 
page 1 36, paragraph 4.37), Turkey states "Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is a fully 
autonomous entity and operates on the grounds of profitability." In response to 
EU question No.  44, Turkey states that "[p]urchasing prices announced by the TMO are 
not administered b ut market -based prices. Thus, Turkey does not include TMOs 
purchasing prices in the calculation of its domestic supports."  
a. Please clarify how the board maintains full autonomy while being a state -owned 
enterprise with 100% public ownership.  
b. Please explain how TMO's announcement and implementation of market -based 
prices for commodities does not qualify it as providing market price support 
when it is a 100 % state -owned enterprise.  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90009.  
 
AG-IMS ID 9 0109: Question by Thailand - Non-product -specific AMS  
Please provide details for non -product specific AMS programmes such as the Hybrid seed 
programme.  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Non-product specific support other than agricultural credits are provided based on ar ea; and 
agricultural credit support provides subsidized interest rates for loans given to agriculture sector.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90015: Question by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Cotton support - Supporting Table DS:6 - G/AG/N/TUR/21:  
a. Can Turkey explain more in detail the support measures in place for cotton 
in 2009 regarding the functioning of the support measures and the eligibility 
criteria for this support.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 64 - 
 
  b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of cotton supported in 2009 as well as total 
production of cotton in 2009?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
a. In 2009, 0.42 TL/kg support for certified seed and 0.35 TL/kg support for non -certified 
seed are provided to cotton farmers. The eligibility for support is subject to the following 
condition s: the production of the product should have been completed, and the field 
control of the product should have been finished by the Ministry officials. And thereafter, 
all the related documentation should be delivered to district management of the Ministry 
for issuing, calculation and payments.  
b. Production, budgeting and payment of supports are not conducted within the same year. 
While the support is registered on the basis of actual payments, the support cannot be 
paid during the production year. Therefore,  Turkey would kindly note that the related 
calculations and analyses to reach the quantity of cotton supported in 2009 by way of 
reaching related district management would take time and create administrative burden 
on the Ministry. However, Turkey will try  to do its best to reach the related quantities.  
Follow -up: The EU highlighted the importance of the cotton sector and looked forward to receiving 
further information on thi s topic from Turkey.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90024: Question by European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Wheat Support - Supporting Table DS:6 - G/AG/N/TUR/21:  
a. Can Turkey explain more in detail the support measures in place for wheat in 
2009, about the functioning of the support meas ure and the eligibility criteria for 
this support?  
b. Can Turkey indicate the quantity of wheat supported in 2009 as well as total 
production of wheat in the year 2009?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey would like to provide one answer for the questions a, b as foll ows: In 2009, 0.05 TL/kg 
support is provided to wheat farmers. Please refer to the response to AG -IMS ID 90015 for 
explanations on functioning, eligibility criteria and quantity of the support.  
 
2.4  New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  
2.4.1   China  (G/AG/N/CHN/48, G/AG/N/CHN/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90070: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/AG/N/CHN/49, since 2016, a "Blue Box" domestic support 
programme  for corn is in place for production in Northeast China.  
a. Could China provide information on the corn production (quantities, cultivated 
area and fixed yield) from 2011 to 2018, in the target region of the programme?  
b. Could China identify how the "Corn pro ducer subsidy" limits China 's corn 
production in Northeast China under the requirements of Article 6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The reply will be provided at a later stage.  
b. The subsidy for corn producers is an important policy fo r promoting the "structural 
adjustment " of corn. When the subsidy was allocated to the four provinces /autonomous 
region s, one of the requirements of the allocation of subsidies is to reduce the planting G/AG/W/196  
 
- 65 - 
 
  area of corn in those area unfavourable for corn prod uction. As a result, the planting area 
and production of corn of the four provinces was reduced, compared with the production 
in the base period.  
AG-IMS ID 90069: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
According to notification G/A G/N/CHN/48, from 2017 to 2019, a measure aimed at 
limiting cotton production is in place, taking the 2012 -2014 triennium as base period.  
  
a. Could China provide information on the cotton production (quantities and 
cultivated area) from 2011 to 2018?  
b. Could China identify how the "Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of 
Cotton" limits China 's cotton production under the requirements of artic le 6.5 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. If possible, could China also explain the entitlement requirements for the support 
programme and how limitation of production is assessed?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The statistics will be provided later.  
b. and c. The Notice on Deepening the Target Price Policy Reform of Cotton specifies the cap 
for cotton production and the cotton eligible for subsidies. The amount above the cap is 
not eligible for the subsidy. Since the reform was launched in 2017, the total production 
in China has not exceeded the limit.  
Follow -up: Brazil reiterated the importance of China fulfilling the requirements in Article 6.5 and 
implementing the Blue Box programme in a way that would  not affect trade , particularly for cotton, 
a sector where Brazil ha d particular interest.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90085: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that, in G/AG/N/CHN/48 China notified a new domestic support programme 
for cotton. According to China, this new programme meets the crite ria of Article  6, 
paragraph 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada would be grateful if China could 
provide further details on the "Deepening the Target Price Policy reform of Cotton":  
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme compare to previous market price support 
programmes for cotton, including the one managed through temporary reserves 
from 2011 -2014 and the target price programme from 2015 -2016?  
c. How was th e target price of 18,600/tonne determined? How does this price 
relate to the programme notified as 'target price' for cotton under Supporting 
Table DS:6 of G/AG/N/CHN/45, G/AG/N/CHN/46 and G/AG/N/CHN/47?  
d. How does China ensure that only 85% of the average production of cotton in the 
base period is eligible to receive a payment? Is the payment automatically 
granted to a producer?  
e. How was the 2012 -2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the 
period of application of the programme, which is set to  begin in 2017?  
f. As the programme is set to end in 2019, does China expect this programme to be 
replaced by another programme that would use a more recent base period?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. The purpose of deepening the target price policy reform of cotton is t o stabilize the income 
of cotton farmers and stabilize/limit the cotton production, while allowing the market to 
play the decisive role in allocating  resources and promoting the healthy development of 
cotton -related industries.  
b. The target price policy doe s not intervene the market. Market prices fluctuate s freely 
according to supply and demand. No procurement was made, and no administered price  
was maintained.  Under the previous temporary programme, the government would 
intervene when the market prices drop below the administered prices and make 
procurement. Compared with the target price programme  of 2014-2016, the production 
capping is specified in the new tar get price programme , with a view to limit the eligibility 
and production thus the impact of the subsidy on cotton production.  
c. The target price is based on the production costs and the appropriate level of profit to 
sustain the livelihood of small farmers.  
d. The total amount of payment is confined by the capping/limit, and the production beyond 
the limit/capping is not eligible for the subsidy.  
e. 2012-2014 is the most recent years with credible statistics on corn production, when the 
policy was designed in 201 6, and thus 2012 -2014 is chosen as the base period.  
f. Whether the current programme will continue or not will be subject to the evaluation which 
will be made this year.  
AG-IMS ID 90086: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada  notes that in G/AG/N/CHN/49 China notified a new domestic support programme 
for corn. According to China, this new programme meets the criteria of Article 6, 
paragraph 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada would be grateful if China could 
provide furt her details on the "Corn Producer Subsidy System".  
a. What is the objective of this programme?  
b. How does this programme compare to previous market price support 
programmes for corn, including the one managed through temporary reserves 
from 2011 -2016?  
c. How doe s this programme operate? Is a state -owned enterprise, monopoly or 
state -trading enterprise involved in the buying and selling of stock at the target 
price?  
d. How is eligibility determined? Are producers from Northeast China exclusively 
eligible for this pr ogramme? If not, why were planting area and fixed yield data 
in Northeast China used?  
e. Is there a requirement to be a corn producer during the period of application 
(2016 2018)?  
f. How are the payments determined year -on-year? How was the adjusted payment 
rate established?  
g. How was the 2014 base period determined? How does this relate to the period 
of application of the programme, which was set to begin in 2016?  
h. As the programme ended in 2018, has this programme been replaced, or will it 
be replaced by another programme that would use a more recent base period?  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 67 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
a. The subsidy for corn producers is an important policy for promoting the "structural 
adjustment " of corn  and stabiliz ing the corn production at appropriate level.  
b. The subsidy for corn producers does not intervene the market. Market prices fluctuate 
freely according to supply and demand. No procurement was made and no administered 
price was maintained.  Under the previous temporary program me, the government would 
intervene when the market prices drop below the administered prices and make 
procurement.  
c. Under the programme, no buying and selling is made at the target price.  
d. Corn producers in the four provinces (autonomous region) in the northeast of China are 
eligible for the producer subsidy. And the program me only applies in the four provinces 
(autonomous region) exclusively. Producers from other parts of China are not eligible.   
e. Eligible corn producers or corn land owners are eligible for the subsidy.  
f. The amount of the subsidy is determined by the fixed area of the four provinces 
(autonomous region) in base period, the fixed yield, and the payment rate. The payment 
rate is set considering the production costs and farmers ' reasonable income to sustain 
livelihood. The rate is reviewed on a yearly basis. It remains stable and can be adjusted if 
necessary.  
g. 2014 is the most recent year with credible statistics on corn production, wh en the policy 
was launched in 2016, and thus it is chosen as the base period.  
h. The current program me will largely continue and may be subject to small adjustments to 
better realize the policy objective, which is to reduce or stabilize the corn production.  
AG-IMS ID 90116: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China notified DS:2 notifications for corn and cotton measures (G/AG/N/CHN/48 and 
G/AG/N/CHN/ 49). Japan understands that China formulates production -limiting 
programmes for th ese products. How does China limit the production based on the 
programmes?  
a. Regarding the corn measure, the notification says "payments are paid on a fixed 
area and yields. The subsidy amount is calculated according to the 2014 (base 
period) corn planting a rea and fixed yield data in Northeast China". Does this 
measure subsidize only farmers in Northeast China? In addition, could China 
explain in detail on the method to decide "the adjusted payment rate"? 
Furthermore, how does China estimate the market effec t brought by this 
measure?  
b. Regarding the cotton measure, the notification says, "subsidy is made only to 
the amount of cotton within 85% of the average cotton production in the base 
period (2012 -2014)". Could China explain the reason why China sets such a term 
as the base period? In addition, Japan appreciates if China tell the average cotton 
production in the base period.  
Answer by China  
 
a. Yes, the program me only applies in the four provinces (autonomous region) exclusively. 
The amount of the subsidy is det ermined by the fixed area of the four provinces 
(autonomous region) in base period, the fixed yield, and the payment rate. The payment 
rate is set considering the production costs and farmers ' reasonable income to sustain 
livelihood.  
b. Please refer to the r eply to question AG -IMS ID 90085.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 68 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90100: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
China has notified a new measure of domestic support, which is Deepening the Target 
Price reform price of Cotton (G/AG/N/CHN/48). China in dicated that "According to Article 
6, paragraph 5 (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture, to limit production. The subsidy is 
based on the difference between the market price and the target price. The subsidy is 
made only to the amount of cotton within 85% of  the average cotton production with 
period of application between 2017 - 2019. Please provide further details regarding the 
"Deepening the Target Price reform price of Cotton" programme.  
Answer by China  
 
Please refer to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 90085.  
 
AG-IMS ID 90075: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
a. In the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform" (NDRC JIA [2017] No. 
416) published by the Ministry of Finance and National Development and R eform 
Commission, it states that the measure relates to the target price reform of 
cotton in Xinjiang.  
Please confirm whether cotton production in other parts of China are eligible to 
receive the benefits of this measure.  
b. In G/AG/N/CHN/48, China states the  "subsidy is made only to the amount of 
cotton within 85% of the average cotton production in the base period (2012 -
2014)".  However, it is the U.S. understanding in reading the "Notice on 
Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform" that the base period productio n is based 
on all cotton production in China rather than the production only within Xinjiang 
where the target price is in effect.  As a result, a larger percentage of Xinjiang 
cotton may be eligible to receive payment under the measure without hitting the 
limits specified in Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
i. Please confirm how the base period average cotton production is determined, 
including whether the base period production is limited only to the production 
relevant to the target price policy r eform.  
ii. Please provide the volume of cotton production for both Xinjiang and for 
China nationally for each year since 2012, including in  2017.  
c. It is also noted that the "Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform" also 
notes, in addition to the cotton target price subsidy, "the central government's 
subsidy for the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Production 
and Construction Corps are still implemented in accordance with existing 
regulations."  
i. Please provide the referenced regulations.  
ii. Please indicate if and how these measures are notified in notifications 
G/AG/N/CHN/42 -47. If not, please explain the basis for this.  
iii. Please identify volume of cotton produced and area planted to cotton by the 
Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps for e ach year since 2012.  
d. While the measure notified by China in G/AG/N/CHN/49 refers only to a subsidy 
programme in Xinjiang, the United States notes no similar programmes have 
been referenced either in this notification or in notifications G/AG/N/CHN/42 -
47 wi th regard to target price subsidies that are implemented in other provinces.   
Please confirm whether such measures were implemented in other provinces 
and, if so, why they have not been notified.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 69 - 
 
  e. According to G/AG/N/CHN /49, it is stated that the payments for the corn 
producer subsidy "are paid on a fixed area and yields," while the "subsidy 
amount is calculated according to the 2014 (base period) corn planting area and 
fixed yield data in Northeast China."  However, the U nited States understands 
from the "Implementation Opinions of the Ministry of Finance on Establishing a 
Maize Producer Subsidy System" (Cai Jain [2016] No. 869) that many aspects of 
how the payment is determined for corn producers is the responsibility of 
provinces (districts), including determining the "sub -provincial subsidy 
standards, which allow for difference for the central financial subsidies."  
i. Please explain what steps are taken to ensure sub -provincial standards 
comply with the rules set out in Art icle 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
ii. Please provide specific examples, including relevant provincial or sub -
provincial legislation, regulations, or official notices where sub -provincial 
standards differ from the central financial subsidies.  
Answer by China  
 
China's preliminary response is as follows. The final response will be provided at a later stage.   
 
a. Notice on Deepening Cotton Target Price Reform is a nation -wide production limiting 
program me. Currently, the subsidy is made only to cotton farmers in Xinjiang, to optimize 
the land with best potentials and gradually phase out the disadvantaged cotton land  
production in the disadvantaged regions.  
b.  
i. 2012-2014 are the most recent three years with credible statistics on cotton when the 
policy was launched .  
ii. The statistics are being adjusted after the third national agricultural census and will be 
provided later.  
c.  
i. There might be a misunderstanding regarding the Notice by the United States since 
besides the target price subsidy there should be no ot her support measures 
implemented in the Xinjiang autonomous region.  
ii. The statistics on cotton production of Xinjiang and construction costs used to be 
included in the total cotton production of the Xinjiang autonomous region. China will 
verify and respond l ater.  
d. The target price subsidy is only provided to Xinjiang autonomous region. The target price 
subsidy has not been provided for other cotton -producing provinces during the transition 
period.  
e. China's preliminary response is as follows. The final response  will be provided at a later 
stage.   
i. The central government has stipulated specific instructions on the implementation of 
the subsidy programmes which the subnational governments are required to follow.  
ii. China is a vast country with complex local conditio ns so that  sub-provincial 
implementation follows the basic standards and requirements that are specified by the 
central financial subsidies. The central government allows local authorities to use a 
small amount of their subsidy differently according to the ir local features. In certain 
areas the corn land is in poor quality and needs to be retired. Local authorities are 
allowed to allocate a small amount of the money to compensate the farmers. In a 
general picture, all sub -provincial levels have to follow th e principles set by the central G/AG/W/196  
 
- 70 - 
 
  government which is to link the payment to base period of fixed area and to limit 
production.  
2.5  Export Subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.5.1   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/67)  
AG-IMS ID 90127: Question by Australia - Transpare ncy issues  
In G/AG/N/ISR/67, Israel notified export subsidies for fruits (other than citrus fruits), 
and fresh vegetables.  Noting the Nairobi Decision, under which Members agreed to not 
raise their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five  years on a product 
basis, can Israel provide Members with information on:  
 
Why its exports subsidies for fruits other than citrus fruits in 2017 were around 65% 
higher than the average level of the past five years for that specific product?  
Answer by Isra el  
 
Exports subsidies for fruits other than citrus were higher in 2017 due to the fact that some subsidies 
for fruits exported in previous years were only technically granted in 2017. Israel is in the process 
of eliminating export subsidies, and it is exp ected that these subsidies will diminish altogether 
before  2022.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, the European Union and New Zealand  highlighted the importance of respecting 
the Nairobi Decision . New Zealand sought Israel's confirmation regarding whether the expenditures 
for export subsidies in previous years had been paid out in 2017. The United States registered 
support for the question. Norway pointed to the following  text of the Nairobi Decisi on "Members shall 
seek not to raise  their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a 
production basis" and stressed the difference between legal and best endeavour requirements.  
 
2.5.2   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/230, G/AG/N/JPN/231, G/AG/N/JPN /232, 
G/AG/N/JPN/233)  
AG-IMS ID 90012: Question by European Union - International food aid  
Japan notifies food aid in fully grant form.  
a. Could Japan specify if these in -kind amounts have been provided under 
emergency or non -emergency programmes?  
Japan sta rted to provide sorghum/millet as food aid in 2015.  
b. Could Japan provide the reasons for this?  
The amount of oil food aid increased substantially in 2015 going from 2,364 tonnes 
in 2014 to 967,773 tonnes in 2015.  
c.  Could Japan please provide details on th is significant increase in oil food aid?  
d. Has this aid been provided under emergency or non -emergency programmes?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Regarding the ES :3 notification submitted by Japan, the food assistance programme is provided 
under the non -emergency program me and is not in-kind, but cash based. Based on the request of 
recipient countries or international organizations, Japan provides funds for purchasing food. The 
procurement of sorghum/millet is based on the request of recipient countries or international 
organizations and was also procured in the 2013/2014. The procurement of oil in  2014 and 2015 
was 2,364,000 litres and 967,773 litr es respectively.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 71 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 90105: Question by Thailand - International food aid  
In Table ES:3 of documents G/AG/N/JPN/230 – G/AG/N/JPN/233, regarding the 
Notification of the total volume of food aid, Japan indicated providing food aid 
between  2013 – 2017 for maize, wheat, wheat flour, processed food, pulses and rice. 
Thailand notes that these food aids exceed J apan's commercial exports during the same 
period. Please provide the quantity and destination of the food aid provided in rice.  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan 's food assistance programme is not in -kind but cash -based. Based on the request of recipient 
countries an d/or international organizations, Japan provides funds for purchasing food. Regarding 
the ES :3 notification submitted by Japan, the table below shows  the quantity of rice procured by 
recipient countries or international organizations as aid in the period o f 2013 -2016.  
  
  Total (MT)  
1 Benin  26,882  
2 Burkina Faso  27,480  
3 Cabo Verde  9,990  
4 Comoros  13,439  
5 Côte d'Ivoire  29,402  
6 Democratic Republic of the Congo  44,054  
7 Republic of Congo  3,086  
8 Djibouti  4,189  
9 The Gambia  2,184  
10 Guinea  5,658  
11 Haiti 21,920  
12 Liberia  11,850  
13 Mauritania  32,199  
14 Mozambique  22,316  
15 Niger  19,590  
16 Sao Tomé & Principe  8,746  
17 Senegal  17,502  
18 Sierra Leone  13,839  
19 Togo 4,687  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted interest in understanding  the procurement process when the requests 
from the recipients were made. In particular, Australia sought information regarding whether rice 
purchases were made from the stocks held by the Japanese government or procured in the open 
market and  at what prices  these purchases were made .  
  
2.6  Notifications in the context of the NFIDC Decision  (Table NF:1)  
2.6.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/119)  
AG-IMS ID 90079: Question by United States of America - Quantity and concessionally  of 
food aid  
Australia provided A$377 million in 2017/18 for overseas aid programmes through 
various channels, including multilateral, regional and bilateral channels, 
human itarian/emergency assistance, non -government organizations (NGOs), ACIAR, and 
other government departments (OGDs). What are the criteria for overseas aid 
programmes to receive food assistance grants?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
The Australian Government is guide d by the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and 
Development 's (OECD) Official Development Assistance (ODA) criteria in making aid -related 
funding determinations, including for food assistance grants. More information about the ODA 's 
criteria can be fou nd at:  
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/officialdevelopmentassistancedefinitionandcoverage.htm .  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 72 - 
 
  3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
3.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 90047: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
Ecuador has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United Stat es in AG -IMS 
ID 89034.  The United States resubmits the questions:  
  
a. Ecuador registers no imports coming under TRQ commitments. The United States 
is the holder of first -negotiator rights for these quotas.  Please explain how do 
Ecuador 's TRQ in -quota tariff rates compare to the MFN current applied rates to 
these products that would otherwise be eligible under Ecuador 's TRQs?  
  
b. Please explain why Ecuador has not opened or allocated quotas to interested 
parties.  
c. The United States also notes that Ecuador 's impor t permit system is complex and 
obscure, and therefore, difficult for exporters to comply with.  Please explain your 
process for issuing import licenses for foods.  Please describe the specific steps, 
including those relating to sanitary and phytosanitary req uirements, necessary 
to obtain an import license.  Please explain if the process varies depending on the 
product.  That is, are there additional steps required for some products and not 
others?  If so, please explain.  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to p rovide a response at a large stage.  
 
3.2  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 90063: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 89036, for which Ecuador has not yet provided a 
written response:  
a. The United States thanks Ecuador for its most recent Table DS:1 and DS:2 
notifications and the notification of several Green Box measures. However, the 
United States unde rstands that Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, 
Aquaculture and Fisheries, according to its website, subsidized a share of the 
cost of inputs, such as urea and potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies 
for farmers of several commodities in cluding corn and rice. Since 2014, 
preferential attention has been paid to bananas and pasture crops for livestock. 
However, beneficiaries also include sugar cane, cocoa, cereals, vegetables, 
potatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential pr ices, below 
cost, for inputs.   
i. Please provide additional details with regard to how the input subsidies 
measure was implemented and the time period under which the subsidy was 
available to producers.  
ii. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador's current domestic support 
notifications?   G/AG/W/196  
 
- 73 - 
 
  iii. If so, please explain how they reportedly meet the green box criteria under 
which they are notified.   
iv. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether 
Ecuador will notify these measures for past ye ars. 
b.  
i. According to the Ministry's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by 
producers also included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
ii. Please provide additional details with regard to how the agricultural 
insurance programme was implemented, incl uding what losses are covered 
and what years the measure was available.  
iii. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as the support notified for 
2011 in  G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
c.  
i. The United States notes that, in 2015, it was reported that a diesel subsidy 
provi ded by the government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher 
diesel cost for producers.  
ii. Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether 
Ecuador has notified this measure – and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
Answer by  Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a large stage.  
 
3.3  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 ) 
3.3.1   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 90078: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89043 and AG -IMS ID 88115, the United States would like to 
reiterate the following question, for which Panama has not provided a written answer:  
  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/PAN/44 Panama notifies that no export subsidies 
were provided from 2004 through 2017. However, the measure Certificados de Fomento 
a la Agroexportación (CEFA), in accordance to Panamanian law (Annex 1 law No.  82 
31 December 2009), was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agric ultural 
producers with an export subsidy for marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, 
packaging and inland and ocean freight costs.   
  
Please explain the basis for not notifying this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
Answer by Panama  
 
In its list of export subsidy commitments in Section II and III of Part IV of its Schedule, Panama set 
out an elimination commitment for an export subsidy programme entitled Certificado de Abono 
Tributario  (Tax Allowance Certificate, CAT), with a completion date of 31  December  2002. The nature 
of this subsidy was described in the report by the Working Party on the Accession of the Republic of 
Panama to the World Trade Organization (WT/SPEC/33/Rev.2). Furthermore, given that Panama has 
no export products with a share of  total world agricultural exports exceeding 5%, it is not, according 
to Committee on Agriculture document G/AG/2 of 30  June 1995, required to make a notification 
corresponding to Table ES:2.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 74 - 
 
  Regarding Law No.  82 of 31  December  2009, which establishes the Agricultural Exports Promotion 
Certificate (CeFA) referred to by the United States, Panama  should point out that the guide to 
notification requirements and formats contained in the Committee on Agriculture document of 
30 June 1995 (G/AG/2) establishes that Members using export subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and  (e) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture are exempt in terms of Supporting Table ES:2. Nevertheless, 
Panama is aware that , according to the Ministerial Decision of 19  December  2015 on expo rt 
competition (WT/MIN(15)/45), developing countries like Panama shall continue to benefit from the 
provisions of Article 9.1(d) and (e) of the Agreement on Agriculture until the end of 2023, and 
therefore Panama will, in due course, take legislative actio n to eliminate the CeFA.  
 
To reassure the participating Members of the Committee on Agriculture, please note that Panama 
has 14 international trade agreements with its main trading partners that account for around 75% 
of Panama's total exports, of which o ver 90% are agricultural products, to which no export subsidies 
apply. It should be noted that the CeFA is valid " de jure ". However, Panama  emphasize s that it has 
not been applied " de facto " to Panama's exports under the specific commitments undertaken wit h 
its trading partners in existing international trade agreements.  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID 90080: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88082, the United States would like to reiterate the following 
question, for  which China has not provided a written answer:  
a. The United States notes that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the 
total volume of food aid provided).   
According to press reports, China in prior years, provided bilateral in -kind food aid – in 
particular, rice and wheat, among other commodities - in response to emergency appeals. 
In addition, China has reported food aid donations in its Export Competition Questionnaire 
and in response to questions from the United States in AG IMS ID 87048.  
b. Does Ch ina plan to submit a Table ES:3 for all relevant years? If not, please 
explain why not.    
Answer by China  
 
China will study whether the ES:3 notification obligation is applicable or not.  
 
4.2  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 90081: Question by United States of America  
Egypt has not provided a written response to the questions posed by the United States 
in AG-IMG ID 88083. Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
  
The United States notes that Egypt's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export 
subsidy commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998 and has not yet responded to the 
export competition questionnaire.  
  
Pleas e provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including Supporting Table ES:2, and 
respond to the export competition questionnaire.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt is currently undertaking the necessary steps to update its notifications in this regard.  
 G/AG/W/196  
 
- 75 - 
 
  4.3  Korea, R epublic of  
AG-IMS ID 90060: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia's questions (AG -IMS ID 88008, AG -IMS ID 89084) at 88th and 
89th CoA, Australia notes the Republic of Korea's latest domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers the reporting period 2009 -2011.  
a. Can the Republic of Korea please update Members on its efforts to compile data 
to submit domestic support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
b. Will the Republic of Korea be in a position to submit these notifications at the 
next Committee m eeting (91th CoA)?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
Republic of Korea has just submitted the DS:1 for 2012-2015 (G/AG/N/KOR/60 -63, circulated on 
8 March 2019) and a DS:2 notification  (G/AG/N/KOR/64, circulated on 8 March 2019) .  
 
4.4  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 90011: Question by European Union   
Turkey's Domestic Support and ES:1 and ES:2 notification s: 
 
The EU appreciates the effort made by Turkey with its latest forwarded notifications. 
However, these are still covering the period more than ten years ago. Can Turkey indicate 
any timeframe for when the missing notifications will be forwarded to the WTO?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey is working on its overdue notifications, both on domestic support and export subsidies. 
Turkey  has submitted export subsidies notifications for the period of 2001 -2004. The ES notifications 
for the years 2005 -2009 have already bee n completed and will be submitted shortly. Turkey is still 
working on notifications for 2010 onwards and plans to submit them soon.  
 
Follow -up: Paraguay urged Turkey to provide outstanding DS notifications.  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 90082: Question by Unit ed States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89045, India stated that the Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters of agricultural products 
is "in the nature of working capital support".  
  
a. Please  explain the basis for considering the Scheme a working capital support 
programme , including providing specific language from relevant official 
government document that supports this claim.   
It is the United States' understanding the Interest Equalization Scheme is an interest rate 
support programme. The Interest Equalization Scheme directly provides a 3% rebate in 
the rate of interest on export credits, which incentives and is contingent upon export.  
b. Please provide the total value of export of agricultura l products by HS code 
covered by the Interest Equalization programme  from 2015 to 2018.  G/AG/W/196  
 
- 76 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
a. As per relevant RBI 's circular available on its website  https://www.rbi.org.in/ , it clearly 
provides that the s cheme is intended to make short -term working capital finance available 
to exporters.  
b. Response will be provided in due course.  
5.2  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 90083: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88094:  
  
The United States understands Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financing 
support programmes administered by the Export -Import Bank of Thailand are consistent 
with the Nairobi Decision. The United States does not consider Thailand's statem ent of 
this position to be a substitute for the provision of information about such programme s in 
response to questionnaires.  
  
The United States requests Thailand provide information on programme s operated by the 
Export -Import Bank of Thailand for years 2 016, 2017, and 2018in a response to the 
WTO  Secretariat's annual export competition questionnaire.  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
In order to fill in the export competition questionnaire, Thailand is in the process of gathering 
information from the Export -Import Ban k of Thailand. As soon as Thailand gets the information 
required, Thailand will submit the response.   
 
5.3  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 90084: Question by United States of America  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89046 and AG -IMS ID 88116, the United States would like to 
reiterate the following question, for which Turkey has not provided a written answer:  
  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid.  What 
is the basis for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Since 2016 Turkey provides food aid data for export competition questionnaire in line with the Nairobi 
Decision. Turkey is in the process of collecting food aid data for the period before 2016.  
 
 
__________