WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/98 
10 September 2012 
 (12-4828) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 20 September 2012
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
4 September 2012 as specified in WTO/AIR/3989.  The questions raised by New Zealand under Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, whic h were received after that deadline, are also 
included in this compilation.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/98 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 4  
A.  MARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  .............................................. 4  
B.  CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  ......................................................................... 4  
C.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ........................................................... 5  
D.  EUROPEAN UNION RECOURSE TO GATT  ARTICLE XXVIII  PROCEDURES ON POULTRY 
PRODUCTS (G/SECRET/32):   STATEMENT BY CHINA  ................................................................ 5  
E.  INDIA 'S WHEAT EXPORT POLICY  ................................................................................................ 5  
F.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ..... 6 
G.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) ................................................................. 7  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 8  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) .......................... 8  
1.  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/43) .......................................................................................................  8 
2.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/85) .............................................................................................. 8  
B.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) ........................................... 8  
1.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/177) ........................................................................................................ . 8 
C.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) .................................................................. 8  
1.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................ .. 8 
2.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) ..................................................... 9  
3.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1) ........................................................................................ 9  
4.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/40) ................................................................................................. 10  
5.  Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/ Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20) ............................ 10  
6.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) ........................................................................................... 11  
7.  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/32/Rev.1) ...................................................................................... 12  
8.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 13 
9.  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48) ........................................................................................................ .. 15 
10.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/75) ............................................................................................ 16  
11.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) .................................................................................................... 16  
12.  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) ...................................................................................................... 17  
13.  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/24) .................................................................................................... 17  
14.  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/55/Rev.1) ................................................................................... 18  
15.  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/72) .................................................................................................. 18  
16.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) ................................................................................. 19  
17.  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/47) ................................................................................................... 19  
18.  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/6) ...................................................................................................... 19  
D.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 20  
1.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) ............................................................................................ 20  
E.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) ..................................................... 20  
1.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/92) .................................................................................................... 20  
2.  India (G/AG/N/IND/9) .......................................................................................................... .. 21  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 22  
1.  Egypt – Domestic support and ex port subsidy notifications ............................................... 22  
2.  India – Domestic support notifications ................................................................................. 22  
3.  Indonesia – Domestic support notifications .......................................................................... 22  
4.  Panama – Domestic support notifications ............................................................................ 22  
5.  Turkey – Domestic support and export subsidy notifications ............................................ 23  
 G/AG/W/98 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. M
ARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  
1. Argentina will deliver a statement on the effects on market access of obstructions in the form 
of regulations that have no scientific or technical justification 
B. CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
2. New Zealand wishes to resubmit a question asked to Canada at the 64th Committee on 
Agriculture.  It is New Zealand's view that the response received did not address the specific concerns 
raised and New Zealand asks Canada to  please expand upon its earlier response. 
3. Canadian ice cream producers have benefited from the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative since 
2009.  New Zealand understands that this is a subsidy programme which encourages ice-cream 
manufacturers to substitute domestic dairy ingredie nts for imported dairy ingredients by offering 
discounted milk/cream as an input for ice cream  that contains 100 per cent Canadian dairy 
ingredients. 
4. New Zealand has sought further information about the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative at the 
57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th Committee on Agriculture meetings.  In response Canada has said that 
this is a purely commercial arrangement between Da iry Farmers of Canada and ice cream producers.  
However, Canada has also acknowledged that th e Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown 
corporation, calculates the pooling returns and shari ng of promotion costs related to the programme.  
Furthermore, the CDC's latest Annual Report 2010- 2011 (page 9) states:  "The CDC chairs the 
Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and in this capacity, apprises the 
committee on matters of interest or concern that  require resolution and, when necessary, proposes 
various solutions, alternatives or recommendations to enhance orderly and efficient marketing with an 
eye to avoiding deficit or surplus milk production.  The CDC performs a simila r role for the Eastern 
Canadian Milk Pool (P5) and the Western Milk Pool (WMP)." 
5. To date, Canada has not provided any transpar ency about this programme, citing concerns 
about a confidentiality agreement between the CD C and Canadian dairy producers.  New Zealand 
continues to seek further details about the nature of this programme and the role of the CDC and 
provincial marketing boards in relation to it.  New Zealand considers it legitimate to request Canada 
provide greater transparency around this impor t replacement programme given both a crown 
corporation and provincial marke ting boards governed by federal and provincial legislation play 
important roles in its administration and decision-making. 
6. Particular questions are: 
(a) What is the function of the Milk Pooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in relation to 
the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
(b) What is the function of the provincial marketing boards in relation to the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative? 
(c) What is the total value (Can $) of the pooling returns? 
(d) What is a break-down of the promotion costs since the initiative was launched?  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 5 
 
 
  C. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
(i) Question by Canada 
7. Canada appreciates the transpar ency and the updates that Costa Rica has provided to this 
Committee regarding its domestic process for bringing it Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) into line with its WTO commitment on domestic support.  Could Costa Rica please 
provide an update as to the conc rete actions it is taking to bring itself into compliance with its WTO 
obligations? 
(ii) Question by the United States 
8. Since September 2009, Costa Rica has faced questions regarding a violation of its bound 
Total AMS limit.  The United States and a significant number of other WTO Members have 
continually questioned Costa Rica's breaking of WT O agricultural commitments at each of the twelve 
Committee meetings since that time.  During the March 2011 meeting, Costa Rica presented details of an alternative approach to address its domestic rice policies and bring its AMS back under its bound 
limit, a positive step warmly welcomed by Memb ers.  Unfortunately, after March 2011 Costa Rica 
has not been able to express any positive indication of actions or other efforts by the government to 
correct this trade-distorting domestic policy.  Some interested Members are inviting Costa Rica to 
participate in an informal plurilateral session in advance of the 20 September 2012 formal Committee 
meeting.  The United States encourages Costa Rica to provide information on concrete steps the government has taken or is planning to undertake to  adjust the domestic rice policies and bring its 
total AMS under their final bound total AMS commi tment.  Members will be looking forward to 
Costa Rica's report during the formal meeting.  The United States urges more positive responses than 
presented during the past several meetings. 
D. E
UROPEAN UNION RECOURSE TO GATT  ARTICLE XXVIII  PROCEDURES ON POULTRY 
PRODUCTS (G/SECRET/32):   STATEMENT BY CHINA  
9. China will raise its concerns regarding the European Union's intention to modify its 
commitment on poultry products. 
E. INDIA 'S WHEAT EXPORT POLICY  
(i) Questions by the United States 
10. During the June 2012 Committee meeting, the United States raised concerns about India 
reportedly considering the use of subsidies for expor ts, including for wheat.  Press reports continue to 
indicate the Indian Government is consideri ng supporting exports of government-owned stocks 
(old-crop) wheat in order to free up storage area for the new wheat crop.  Additionally, the Indian 
government is also reportedly considering a ban on private-sector wheat exports in order to facilitate 
exports of government-owned stocks of old-crop wheat. 
(a) Please update the Committee with regard to current trade-related policies for wheat. 
(b) If government-owned stocks of wheat are so ld for export, under what conditions are 
such exports carried out and, in particular , could wheat be sold at a loss (accounting 
for:  stock acquisition;  stock holding;  st ock release;  transport for export;  export 
pricing)? G/AG/W/98 
Page 6  
 
  (c) To the degree the Indian Government is considering an export ban on private-sector 
wheat exports, could an indication be provided as to the likely instruments used to achieve such an export ban (suspension of  general licenses, export taxes, other)? 
F. I
NDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
11. New Zealand would like to again raise concerns  about Indonesia's Regulations 3 and 30 of 
2012.  New Zealand has received no further comm unication from Indonesia about the implementation 
of these regulations which were delayed until 30 Se ptember, or concerning any amendments which 
may have been made over the period of delay.  Ne w Zealand is concerned about the impact of the 
regulations if they were to come into effect, wh ich seem to set up a regime with trade restricting 
consequences.  New Zealand asks Indonesia to expl ain how these measures are consistent with its 
WTO obligations, specifically the prohibition on quan titative restrictions and import prohibitions in 
GATT Article XI and the goal of simplifying fees a nd formalities associated with importation in 
Article VIII. 
12. New Zealand would also like to ask Indonesia fo r further information on how it considers its 
import licensing regime meets the requirements of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
13. Further, New Zealand urges Indonesia to revi ew the regulations in light of their WTO 
commitments. 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
14. Indonesia's responses to questions on quantitativ e restrictions at the March and June 2012 
Committee on Agriculture meetings highlighted Indon esia's policy desire to foster greater domestic 
food and agricultural production in two distinct type s of its agriculture, i.e ., small farms and large 
commercial plantations.  Agricultural and trade polic ies allocating production factors, distributing and 
marketing goods face competing goa ls given Indonesia's strong e xport orientation on one hand and 
import dependence on another.  Policies based on qua ntitative restrictions may appear to provide 
balance, but such policies raise significant ques tions regarding Indonesia's compliance with its 
obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Agriculture Agreement. 
15. The United States continues to be concerned th at Indonesia maintains a discretionary import 
permit quota system for livestock products, and is  concerned that Indonesia plans to implement a 
similar system for horticultural products on 28 September 2012.  The United States has numerous 
concerns about Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 3 and Ministry of Trade Regulation 30, which the 
United States have raised in multiple WTO fora including at the two preceding Committee on 
Agriculture meetings.  The United States urges Indonesia to delay the implementation of these 
regulations indefinitely until they can be brought into conformity with WTO rules. 
(a) Please explain how the Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Agriculture plan to proceed 
with implementation of Ministry of Trade Regulation 3 and Ministry of Agriculture 
Regulation 30 with regard to imports for fresh and processed fruit and vegetable 
products. 
(b) Please explain in detail the objective Regulation 3 has for not allowing direct imports 
of fruit and vegetable products by retailers.  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (c) The United States notes that Indonesia did not answer a question asked at both the 
March and June 2012 COA meetings:  "Can  the Government of Indonesia give 
assurances that fresh and processed fruit and vegetable products will not be quantitatively limited or managed under an import permit system?"  Can Indonesia 
provide such assurances? 
(d) Indonesia's response to question 20 (G/AG/W/95) noted imported and domestically 
produced horticultural products shall be trad ed or transferred to consumers through 
distributors, which unfortunately leaves ope n some doubt regarding equal treatment.  
To ensure fullest understanding of the practi cal daily application regarding fresh and 
processed fruit and vegetable marketing in Indonesia, must all domestically produced 
horticultural product pass through a distributor? 
(e) In June, Indonesia responded that it was in the process of reviewing the Decree of the 
Minister of Agriculture No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011, and No. 52/2011 on importation on Livestock and livestock products with a view  to adapt this regulation to the needs 
of all stakeholders including importers.  What  is the status of this review?  Are any 
changes to these laws expected in the near term? 
(f) At the June Committee on Agriculture meeting, Indonesia confirmed that poultry 
products in HS 0207.13 and HS 0207.14 are cu rrently banned and stated that "the 
main reason is that the poultry industry i nvolves millions of small scale subsistence 
farmers in rural areas."  The United States is sensitive to Indonesia's complex and at 
times contradictory set of agricultural policy objectives.  The United States 
encourages Indonesia to elaborate how altern ative policies short of outright poultry 
import bans have been unable to address the policy concerns, including where additional international cooperation coul d assist in meeting defined objectives. 
G. S
WITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) 
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
16. New Zealand would again like to express its concern regarding Switzerland's compulsory 
levy on milk production, to support the export of milk  fat.  Switzerland has previously responded that 
as IP Milk is a private organization, this le vy cannot be considered  an export subsidy under 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
17. This answer notwithstanding, New Zealand seeks further explanation from Switzerland.  
Namely, New Zealand asks Switzerland to please e xplain how this levy is provided in accordance 
with Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agricultu re.  Article 9.1(c) explicitly includes under the 
definition of an export subsidy:  "payments on the export of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of governmental action, whether or not a charge on the public account is involved, including 
payments that are financed from the proceeds of a levy imposed on the agricultural product concerned 
or on an agricultural product from which the export product is derived". 
18. New Zealand also seeks confirmation by Switzerland that this levy will not be renewed when 
it expires on 30 April 2013. G/AG/W/98 
Page 8  
 
  II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. I
MPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/43) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Tariff quota fill 
(i) Question by Canada 
19. Canada notes that the fill rate for the beef TRQ in 2011 is about 16 per cent.  Could Tunisia 
please explain why there is such a low fill rate? 
2. United States (G/AG/N/USA/85) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Tariff quota fill 
(i) Question by Colombia 
20. Could the United States please explain why imports of beef, butter, cheese, ice cream, 
chocolate crumb, tobacco and cotton for the years 2010 and 2011 were lower than the tariff quota commitment levels undertaken in the WTO? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
21. What are the reasons for the permanentl y low utilisation level of tobacco TRQs? 
B. S
PECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/177) 
(a) SSG – Trigger calculations 
(i) Questions by the United States 
22. Japan's notification for the volume-based special safeguard for tariff item numbers 
0401.40.190, 0401.50.119, 0401.50.129 states that 18 t ons were imported during the current period. 
(a) What is the twelve-month period used and data source for the "current period?" 
(b) Import data from the preceding three years is  used to calculate the trigger level.  
Please clarify the reported twelve-month periods used in this calculation, including 
the actual data.  
C. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
23. Following up on Brazil's reply to question 29 in G/AG/W/96, Brazil uses three criteria to 
define 'family farming'.  One of them is limitati on in the size of the land namely 'four module size':  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (a) What criteria define 'a module'? 
(b) Is 'a module' of the same size all over the Brazilian territory? 
24. Are commercial farmers who, as the European  Union understands, benefit from the minimum 
price support, also family farmers? 
25. What is the percentage of family farmers/lo w-income or resource poor  farmers in Brazilian 
agriculture? 
2. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Questions by the United States 
26. The United States notes Canada's responses during the June Committee meeting 
(paragraphs 44 and 48 G/AG/W/96) regarding measures applied to the Canadian hog sector. 
(a) Please provide further policy background to the simultaneous payments, which on the 
one hand indirectly supp ort the expansion of the hog sector (i.e., amber box 
programmes) and on the other hand are aimed to limit and/or reduce the size of the 
hog sector (i.e., Cull Breeding Swine Programme and the Hog Farm Transition 
Programme)? 
(b) Within provincial risk management progr ammes such as Quebec's Farm Income 
Stabilization Insurance (ASRA) and Ontario's Risk Management Programme (mentioned in G/AG/N/CAN/90), what mechanis ms exist to ensure that the level of 
support associated with those programmes does not cause Canada to exceed its total 
final bound AMS commitment level? 
(c) Equally, within the Federa l-Provincial-Territorial process for formulating Canada's 
agri-food programmes, how is the amount of non-exempt direct payments by each provincial or territorial government determined  in a fashion such that the total amount 
of such payments does not breach Cana da's final bound Total AMS commitment 
level? 
(d) In its calculation of current AMS (G/AG/N/ CAN/90), Canada indicates that the value 
of production for grains and oilseeds is calculated by multiplying the quantity of 
production times price.  Could Canada pl ease document in greater detail how this 
calculation is performed using recent canola crops as an example? 
3. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1) 
(i) Questions by the United States 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
27. The United States notes in Supporting Table DS:1 that Costa Rica states under the "Animal 
health programme" that the programme preserves, pr otects, and enhances the health status of the 
country's livestock through impr oved domestic production and other factors.  Please provide an 
elaboration as to how Costa Rica improves domest ic production under this programme and how it 
preserves, protects, and enhances livestock health. G/AG/W/98 
Page 10  
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  infrastructural services 
28. The United States notes in Supporting Table DS:1 that Costa Ri ca provides several 
infrastructure service programmes related to water ma nagement and irrigation, but does not appear to 
subsidize water rates for farmers.  Please confirm that farmers/producers do not receive any direct subsidization for water or indirectly benefit fro m subsidization under or due to these programmes. 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
29. Costa Rica provided a decoupled income suppor t that provides a "temporary unemployment 
subsidy" to small agricultural producers affected  by "national emergency situations".  The 
United States understands from G/AG/N/CRI/39 that th is is a one-time programme that related to a 
specific national emergency declared in Executiv e Decree No. 26252.  However, the United States 
notes that the programme is notified again in G/G/ N/CRI/40 and the title of the programme refers to 
"national emergency situations" in the plural form. 
(a) Please clarify whether this programme remain s available for future similar "national 
emergency situations" or if this was a on e-time programme for a "national emergency 
situation" in 2010. 
(b) The United States is interested to understa nd why this is a decoupled income support 
programme rather than a payment for relief from natural disasters. 
(c) Please provide a link to the official decree noted so that the purpose and 
implementation criteria of the pr ogramme can be better understood. 
4. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/40) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by the United States 
30. The United States notes in footnote 1 of Supporting Table DS:5 that the applied administered 
price is specified as the "average annual price". 
(a) Did the applied administered price change during the 2011 reporting period, and if so, 
what was the basis for the change, includ ing specific details for the calculation? 
(b) Please confirm and explain any distinction be tween the current applied administered 
price and the "average annual price". 
5. Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  marketing and promotion services 
(i) Questions by the United States 
31. The United States notes from G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20 that the 
Dominican Republic notified the rice production a nd marketing programme in Supporting Table DS:1 
as marketing and promotion services.  The United States also notes that the Dominican Republic's 
response to the United States' question in June 2012 th at this measure does not distort the market and 
has no influence on the price received by producers.  Please provide a detailed explanation of the  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 11 
 
 
  programme's objective and how the programme is im plemented.  If the notified programme covers 
multiple programmes, please list all programmes. 
32. The United States also notes that budgetary outlays for the rice production and marketing 
programme fluctuated significantly from 2008 to 2011, ranging from DR$243 million to DR$600 million.  Please explain what causes the significant fluctuation in programme expenditures from year 
to year. 
33. The United States understands that the Dominican Republic's rice production and marketing 
programme is aimed at small and medium-sized producers, which account for more than 50 per cent 
of national rice production (paragraph 60(b) of G/ AG/W/96 refers).  Please confirm whether the 
benefits of the programme are generally available to all rice producers or only to "small and medium-
sized" producers. 
34. In addition, the United States understands  from the Dominican Republic that the 
"pignoración" is not notified as part of the rice production and marketing pr ogramme.  The Dominican 
Republic indicated that the "pignoración" progr amme's objective is to ensure rice producer 
profitability (paragraph 60(c) of G/AG/W/96 refers). 
(a) If the "pignoración" is not notified as pa rt of the Rice production and marketing 
programme, where does the Dominican Republic notify the programme? 
(b) Please confirm that the programme operates by allowing rice producers to obtain an 
interest-free loan equivalent to 70 per cent of the value of that deposited in specified 
warehouses. 
(c) The United States also understands that th e government pays the storage costs, 
including insurance and requests the Domini can Republic to indicate if, and where, 
government outlays for storage costs and in surance are possibly otherwise notified in 
the Dominican Republic's dom estic support notifications. 
(d) Please identify any other aspects to the "pignoración" programme requiring 
government outlays beyond those for storage costs and insurance. 
(e) Please provide annual government outlays for the "pignoración" during the period 
covered by notifications G/AG/N/DO M/18/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20 (2008 to 
2011). 
6. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box):  Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Questions by Australia 
35. In response to Australia's question at the J une 2012 Committee meeting, the European Union 
noted that "the notification of the European Union' s support to the fruit and vegetable sector as of the 
2007/2008 marketing year reflects changes introduced  in the 2007 reform, which warrant a move 
from the notification based on a price gap calculati on to a notification of budgetary outlays, to the 
extent that no price support of any types exists any lo nger after the reform".  In a previous response to 
the United States on a similar question, the European  Union had noted in the previous price support 
instrument "the entry prices only served as a proxy for the applied administered price". G/AG/W/98 
Page 12  
 
  36. Australia notes however from Council Regulati on (EC) No 1182/2007 that the Entry Price 
System remains and indeed a publication by the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural 
Development issued in May 2010 states that "the 2007 reform did not modify the existing legal framework relating to external trade (entry price system, tariff quotas, trigger volumes…)".
2 
(a) Australia would be grateful if the European Union could elaborate further on how the 
changes made in 2007 justified the change in notification for the entry price system. 
(b) Will the European Union update its notifi cation to include its MPS for fruit and 
vegetables? 
7. Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/32/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  extension and advisory services 
(i) Question by Canada 
37. Honduras has revised its Table DS:1 notifica tion so that the measure "Agribusiness 
development programme for small and medium size d African palm producers" is now classified under 
"Extension and advisory services".  This programme was previously classified under "Marketing and promotion services".  In response to questions raised at the 65
th Committee on Agriculture, Honduras 
indicated that the project provides for the sowing  of 7,206 hectares of African Palm, of which 
2,882 hectares (40 per cent of the project) will be fo r the renewal of plantations and 4,324 hectares for 
extending the cultivated area (60 per cent of the project).  Could Honduras please explain how this programme meets the criteria outlined in paragr aph 2(d) "Extension and advisory services" or 
2(f) "Marketing and promotion services" in Annex 2? 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
38. The United States appreciates Honduras' explanati on of how its programmes are categorized.  
Based on Honduras' explanation of the agribus iness development programme for small and 
medium-sized African palm producers, it appears the programme may be categorized incorrectly.  Honduras explains that the programme will sow 7,206 hectares of African Palm and that the 
programme will also introduce technical and financ ial assistance systems to contribute to the 
development of the sector.  This does not appear to meet the criteria of paragraph 2(d) "extension and 
advisory services, including the provision of means to facilitate the transfer of information and the 
results of research to producers and consumers". 
(a) Please provide further detail on how this programme is implemented, specifically 
what benefits are transferred to producers, how they are transferred, and what costs, if 
any, the producer assumes. 
(b) Please provide further clarification as to how this programme is an extension and 
advisory service given the benefits transferred to producers is not information/research typically associated with extension and advisory services. 
                                                      
2 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fruit-and-vegetables/2007-reform/details_en.pdf  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 13 
 
 
  8. India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
39. In relation to India's reply of the Comm ittee on Agriculture of June 2012 (G/AG/W/96, 
paragraph 74(c) refers), could India provide some qua rterly data on the past stocks to be maintained 
"as established by the government" even if it is acknowledged that the prescriptions as to the 
"predetermined targets" stipulated in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are not 
laid down in national legislation?  Is there a website where these targets established by the 
government are accessible? 
40. When will India provide the requisite Table DS:2  notifications in relation to the buffer stock 
operations which will facilitate the broade r understanding of the exempted measures? 
41. From India's reply of the Committee on Agri culture of June 2012 (G/AG/W/96, paragraph 
74(b) refers) and India's reply of the Committee meeting of September 2011 (G/AG/W/88, paragraph 
22(c) refers), the European Union understands th at the difference between  the purchase price under 
the buffer stock operations and India's External Refe rence Prices is accounted for in India's AMS, in 
accordance with footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agr eement on Agriculture.  Could India explain how 
these amounts are taken into account in its AMS notifications?  Which domestic support supporting 
tables contain these amounts? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Questions by the United States 
42. The United States appreciates India's respon se to questions 58(b) and 59(b) from the 
March 2012 Committee meeting (G/AG/W/94 refers). 
(a) To ensure correct understanding of the responses, please confirm that India's 
measures do not contain specific language in cr op insurance legislation to ensure that 
losses of less than 30 per cent are covered, as required by paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) To facilitate an accurate understanding, please provide data showing the average 
production loss for payments made under the crop insurance programme for years covered by India's domestic support notification. 
(c) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential treatmen t / Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
(i) Questions by the United States 
43. The United States notes India's request to only use official Government of India data and 
notifications material (paragraph 60 of G/AG/W/94 re fers).  Unfortunately, various questions remain 
based on information currently extracted from wh at the United States understands to constitute 
official sources.  The United States is interested in a clear understanding of India's policies, 
documentation of relevant measures and supporting data.  Robust and deta iled responses to the 
following questions will lead to a better understandi ng of India's official perspective of certain 
measures in support of agriculture producers. G/AG/W/98 
Page 14  
 
  (a) Please provide the value of input subsidies (aggregate and by grouping) provided to 
various farm size categories, such as those defined by the Agricultural Census. 
(b) Please explain why landholding size rather th an value of output per land unit is a 
better measure for determining "low income, resource-poor". 
(c) Please confirm if Members correctly understand based on India's response to 
question 60(a) and 60(b) in G/AG/W/94 that India categorises ALL farmers as "low-
income, resource poor". 
44. India cited (question 18 of G/AG/W/88 refers) the lack of irrigation and land ceiling laws as 
reasons why large farms are to be considered as "l ow income, resource-poor".  Please provide further 
explanation to support this. 
45. The United States appreciates India's furt her responses regarding input subsidies 
(paragraph 62 of G/AG/W/94 refers), but absent mo re precise data responses and/or reference to 
publically available budget documents the thrust of  the question remains open (discrepancy between 
referenced document and notification).  Please clarif y the noted discrepancy in the data and provide 
any further details or referen ce additional documentation which can  facilitate a better understanding 
of India's policies with regard to input subsidies (specific measures, scope of usage for each input for 
agricultural producers)? 
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by the United States 
46. In G/AG/W/94 India responded in paragraph 64 that it was collecting relevant information 
with respect to calculating a conversion factor for seed cotton to cotton lint and would report back to 
the Committee.  Assuming India is now in a po sition to respond, the United States repeats the 
question: 
47. Regarding the United States' request for documen tation and information on external reference 
prices, the United States was seeking more detailed info rmation than that provided in India's response 
because of the large gap between the applied admini stered price and the external reference prices 
notified in Supporting Table DS:5.  For example, the external reference price for cotton is 
approximately three times as large as the applied admini stered price.  The United States would like to 
confirm, among other things, that the prices have be en measured at the same stage of production (seed 
cotton or milled cotton).  Repeating the ques tion from September 2011, please provide documentation 
(source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality  adjustments) for the external reference prices 
for each commodity included in Supporting Table DS:5. 
48. Regarding India's response in paragraph 65 of G/AG/W/94 on India's public stockholding 
programme, the United States would appreciate furthe r clarity.  How is the minimum support price for 
wheat and rice determined using the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices' assessment of cost 
of production?  Specifically, are other factors taken in to account or is the support price set equal to the 
cost of production assessment? 
(e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support:  Eligible production 
(i) Questions by the United States 
49. Regarding India's response in paragraph 67 of  G/AG/W/94, it is of interest to better 
understand India's policies and in pa rticular details or explanation regarding the clear policy change  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 15 
 
 
  with respect to the quantities "all production" used in preparing its first domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/IND/1) and the significantly smaller quantities used in subsequent notifications.  
(a) Did India have a particular change in policy that supported this switch in the 
production parameter utilized in the notifications? 
(b) How does India ensure that the benefit of prices arising from the market price support 
measures are not accruing to those producers not benefiting from direct (or indirect) 
sales under the government's procur ement ("purchased production")? 
9. Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Question by the European Union 
50. What foodstuffs are eligible for public stockholding? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
(i) Question by the European Union 
51. The European Union notes that payments to meat of poultry producers in the Galilee area 
show a considerable variability based on the notifi cations presented by Israel, especially since 2004.  
Could Israel explain why this spending varies a lot between years? 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by Australia 
52. Could Israel provide specific details of how pa yments provided to milk producers notified in 
Supporting Table DS:1 (environmental payments) m eet the criteria under Annex 2 paragraph 12(a) 
and (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Question by Australia 
53. Israel's Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) has increased from just over 
60 per cent in 2005 to now being over 93 per cent of  it Final Bound Total AMS, with the principal 
sector receiving support being the dairy sector.  Coul d Israel provide an update on the status of 
implementation of dairy industry reform?  Australi a notes various Israeli Government inquiries into 
cost of living pressures.  Australia understands a r ecent report made a number of recommendations for 
further dairy reform, including reducing price support.  Further, Australia understands this report also 
found amongst other things that Israeli food prices are 10 to 20 per cent higher than those of other 
OECD countries.  Australia welcomes Israel's appr oach to addressing barriers to trade as a means of 
reducing food prices for its consumers. G/AG/W/98 
Page 16  
 
  (e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
54. The understanding of the European Union is that the poultry production quota was set up in 
the Galilee Law areas.  Considering that no 'elig ible production' of poultry appears in Supporting 
Table DS:5 in the current as well as previous notif ications, the European Union would like to ask for 
clarification whether the production quota for poultry still exists. 
55. Also, what is the relation between the poultry production quota and the direct payment 
notified in Supporting Table DS:6 under 'Galilee Law'? 
(f) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
56. The Table DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/ISR/17) ex plains the operation of the 'water cuts 
payments' in relation to the crop year 1999-2000.  C ould Israel provide an update of how the payment 
is applied currently? 
57. Considering the 'water cuts payments' have been  in place in Israel for many years, and the 
European Union's impression is that they have b ecome a structural payment rather than a one-off 
payment related to a natural disaster, has Israel  considered changing the way of notifying these 
payments? (see Israel's reply to a question from Australia in G/AG/R/32, page 30) 
10. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/75) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
(i) Question by Japan 
58. Could New Zealand kindly explain why Green B ox payments, especially for Pest and disease 
control, have substantially increased in 2011? 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Question by the European Union 
59. Could New Zealand please explain how the 'Rural Assistance Payments' support meets the 
criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2?   In particular, how are the minimal living needs determined in 
light of the requirement for the payments to compen sate for not more than the total cost of replacing 
losses? 
11. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
60. The European Union understands that Norway applied price support for beef in processed 
agricultural products for several years prior to 1 July  2009, but that it was not notified separately since 
the support was part of the price difference betwee n the administered target price and the world 
market reference price.  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (a) Were there other products for which such practice was followed? 
(b) If the target price for beef was removed as of  1 July 2009, what is the 'price support' 
measure Norway notifies in Supporting Table DS:8? 
12. Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
(i) Question by the United States 
61. The United States asked questions in 2009 rega rding Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7.  
The United States notes that a number of those prog rammes appear in the most recent notification 
(G/AG/N/OMN/11 refers).  In 2009, Oman provided helpful responses to the United States' questions 
and indicated a Table DS:2 notification regardi ng those programmes would be submitted.  Please 
confirm if Oman submitted a Table DS:2 notifi cation, as it seems to be unavailable on the WTO 
website. 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / Development Programmes) 
(i) Questions by Canada 
62. Under "Investment subsidies generally availa ble to agriculture", Oman has notified a 
"National project for palm oil development".  Give n that the measure appears to be provided only to 
palm producers, could Oman please explain how the me asure meets the criteria of being "generally 
available to agriculture" as described in Article 6. 2 (Special and Differential Treatment / Development 
Programmes)? 
63. Could Oman explain why the measure "Protec tion of agriculture lands from sweeping away" 
is classified under Article 6.2 (Special and Di fferential Treatment / Development Programmes)? 
64. Could Oman explain why it has listed the two measures "National project for palm oil 
development" and "Protection of agriculture la nds from sweeping away" as "other" under the column 
"measure type"? 
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
65. Could Oman please explain who the beneficiaries of the 'National project for date palm 
development' notified in Supporting Table DS:2 as a special and differential treatment development 
programme are? 
66. Could Oman elaborate on the reasoning for including this measure under Special and 
Differential Treatment? 
13. Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/24) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  stru ctural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids 
(i) Questions by the United States 
67. The United States notes that Panama's Agricu ltural Competitive Programme in Supporting 
Table DS:1 is notified as structural adjustment a ssistance provided through investment aid.  Among G/AG/W/98 
Page 18  
 
  the benefits of the programme notified is direct support of risk management through insurance for 
productive hectares and other vulnerabilities. 
(a) Please provide more detail on how this progr amme works, especially with regards to 
insurance. 
(b) Please describe how the programme meets the requirements of paragraph 11 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatme nt / Development Programmes) – Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture 
(i) Questions by the United States 
68. In Supporting Table DS:2, Panama details a credit and loan programme available to small-
scale producers with an annual income not exceeding US$ 100,000. 
(a) Does the income threshold apply only to inco me from agriculture or is this a total 
income from all sources? 
(b) Beyond this specific credit and loan progra mme with its defined income limit, does 
Panama have a working definition for "small-scale" producers, and if so could this be 
provided? 
14. Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/55/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
(i) Questions by Australia 
69. Australia has previously asked questions rega rding Supporting Table DS:1 on the category 
(b) public stockholding for food security purpo ses, which Australia understands from previous 
responses is for storage of concentrated juice. 
(a) Could Switzerland please provide  further details on the predetermined levels of 
stocks required in order to meet the food security objective? 
(b) Could Switzerland also provide details of the specific food security programme 
identified in national legislation, under wh ich such a storage plan is justified? 
15. Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/72) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by Australia 
70. Australia notes the United States had previously  raised questions regarding Thailand's Rice 
Procurement Policies (G/AG/W/92/Rev.1 refers).  Thailand's last domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/THA/72) occurred in October 2010, coveri ng the period up until 2007.  Australia would 
appreciate Thailand providing updated do mestic support notifications, give n that as the world's largest 
rice exporter, Thailand's policies have a significant impact on the international marketplace.  These 
updated notifications would provide welcome advice on changes in AMS levels with the  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 19 
 
 
  reintroduction of the rice pledging scheme in 2011.  Australia would also welcome advice on external 
reporting of proposed changes to the pledging scheme and how this might affect future notifications. 
16. United States (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net 
programmes 
(i) Question by Japan 
71. With regard to Crop and revenue insuran ce in Green Box (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1), the 
United States commented at the 63rd regular meeting in September 2011 (G/AG/W/88/Rev.1) that "the 
United States will submit a Table DS:2 as soon as possi ble" (in response to the policy change in the 
2008 Farm Act).  When would the United States submit the Table DS:2 notification? 
17. Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/47) 
(a) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatme nt / Development Programmes) – Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture 
(i) Question by Canada 
72. Under "Investment subsidies generally ava ilable to agriculture", Uruguay has notified 
US$ 1.3 million dollars in support.  The notificati on does not include any name or description of the 
measure with reference to the criteria in Article  6.2.  Could Uruguay please provide more details 
regarding these investment subsidies? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
73. Could Uruguay please provide a description of its  "Investment subsidies generally available 
for agriculture" as notified in Supporting Table DS:2? 
(iii) Question by the United States 
74. The United States takes note that Uruguay notif ies external funding from the International 
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) as part of its Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture in footnote 1 in Supporting Table DS :2.  The United States we lcomes this transparent 
delineation regarding external funding in supp ort of agriculture producers and seeks further 
amplification regarding Uruguay's views as to when and why such support should be notified to the 
WTO? 
18. Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/6) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Question by the United States 
75. Recent announcements by Zambia's Minister of Agriculture indicate some domestic 
agricultural policies appear to possibly provide supp ort in favour of agricultural producers.  Zambia's 
most recent Table DS:1 notification shows no supp ort is provided for the six notified, alternating 
years starting in 2000.  In the interest of more  fully understanding Zambia 's relevant agricultural 
policies, the United States looks forward to further di alogue to clarify the nature of certain domestic 
programmes and if, after some reflection, these might satisfy various criteria in the Agreement on G/AG/W/98 
Page 20  
 
  Agriculture for notification in a Table DS:1.  Beyond domestic support measures, the announcement 
also invoked some possible measures by the Govern ment of Zambia, which could additionally qualify 
for notification under Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture (agricultural export restrictions). 
D. N
EW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  Pest and disease control 
(i) Question by Canada 
76. Could New Zealand please confirm whether the programme "Response to combat the 
kiwifruit disease Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae (P sa)" provides direct payments to producers or 
processors?  Would the affected kiwi growers be compensated for loss of income under the 
programme? 
E. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/92) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitmen ts (Article 9.1) – Transparency issues 
(i) Questions by Australia 
77. Australia notes the outlays on skim milk powde r, other milk products and incorporated 
products in years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 remain  at 100 per cent of Canada's annual outlay 
commitment levels. 
(a) Could Canada provide information on why ex port subsidy levels remain high for 
these particular products noting Canada's probl ems with higher internal milk prices? 
(b) Could Canada outline what reforms it inte nds to introduce to its supply managed 
dairy regime to ensure that it is well placed to meet the Doha Round commitments of eliminating export subsidies in 2013? 
(ii) Questions by Pakistan 
78. Please provide the HS code of the products receiving export subsidy as 'Incorporated 
Products'. 
79. Please indicate the first five or those receiving 80 per cent of the budgetary outlay under this 
category. 
80. Is there any change in the nature of products from year to year or do they remain the same? 
(b) Circumvention of commitments – International food aid 
(i) Question by the United States 
81. In its notification of export subsidy commitmen ts, Canada indicates that it exports about 
20,000 to 30,000 tons of vegetables as food aid.  While products su ch as vegetables constitute only a 
very tiny portion of overall global food, there ma y be interesting nutritional or other reasons for  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 21 
 
 
  exploring in certain situations such alternative f ood groups.  What vegetables (tariff lines) are being 
reported under this notification and what were th e quantities of each type of vegetable exported as 
food aid? 
2. India (G/AG/N/IND/9) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitments  (Article 9.1) – Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4) 
(i) Questions by Australia 
82. Noting that Article 9.4 makes clear that "d uring the implementation period, developing 
country Members shall not be required to undertak e commitments in respect of the export subsidies 
listed in subparagraphs (d) and (e ) of paragraph 1" and that the extension of this Article was 
contingent on an outcome on export subsidies as st ated in the 2005 Ministerial Declaration;  could 
India outline its justification for the continue d use of export subsidies on agricultural products? 
83. Could India please provide details of the HS codes covered under each of the product 
descriptions, noting that "tea" seems to be at the HS 4 digit level? 
84. Could India provide further details of what is covered by the category "animal products", 
which has increased almost six times between 2008/2009 and 2009/2010? 
85. Noting the recent media reports of wheat exports from India's Government stocks3, could 
India provide details on the types of support provided for these exports, noting that wheat is not currently in the list of products for which India pr ovides export subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e)? 
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
86. The European Union observes that the notif ication presented by India shows not only 
increased use of export subsidies under Article 9.1( d) and (e), but also a growing list of products 
receiving such support.  In this respect the Eu ropean Union would like to raise the following 
questions: 
87. India notifies the use of export subsidies that are exempted from reduction commitments for 
developing country Members pursuant to Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  According to 
Article 9.4, such export subsidies were exempt from reduction commitments for developing country 
Members during the implementation period for those Members.  Since the implementation period for 
developing country Members ran be tween 1995 and 2004, this exemption was no longer available for 
the years 2005 to 2010.  However, according to its notification, India continues to notify export subsidies of the type Article 9.4 after the end of the implementation period.  What is India's 
interpretation of "implementation period" in this context? 
88. What is in India's view a valid WTO legal base on the basis of which India keeps adding new 
products eligible for export subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e), while none of these products are 
bound under the export competiti on part of India's Schedule? 
89. Could India share with the Committee its economic assessment on the basis of which 
products in notified Supporting Tables DS:2 are granted export subsidies? 
                                                      
3 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-clears- food-ministry-proposal-to-export-wheat/970034 G/AG/W/98 
Page 22  
 
  90. India notifies a sharp increase of export subsidies for sugar between 2006-2007 and 
2009-2010.  These subsidies mainly take the form of internal transport subsidies for sugar.  Could 
India please explain the reasons for this significan t increase in export subsidies for sugar between 
2006-2007 and 2009-2010? 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
1. Egypt – Domestic support and export subsidy notifications 
(i) Question  by Australia 
91. Egypt has not submitted export subsidy or dom estic support notifications to the Committee 
since 1999.  Can Egypt indicate when these overdue notifications will be submitted to the Committee 
on Agriculture? 
2. India – Domestic support notifications 
(i) Question by Canada 
92. Canada notes that India has not submitted domes tic support (Table DS:1) notifications for the 
years 2004-2005 through to 2010-2011.  Could India please indicate when it will submit its 
notifications for these years? 
3. Indonesia – Domestic support notifications 
(i) Question  by Australia 
93. Indonesia's domestic support notifications for the years 2001-2003 have not been made 
available to Members although Australia welcomes  the notification and the ensuing discussion on 
notifications covering the period 2004 to 2008 at the June Co mmittee meeting.  Can Indonesia 
provide details on when these notifi cations might be made available? 
(ii) Question by Canada 
94. At the June 2012 meeting of the Committee, Indonesia indicated that with regard to its annual 
domestic support notifications for the years 2001, 20 02 and 2003 it was in process of collecting data 
for the preparation of these outstanding notifications.  Could Indonesia please provide an update as to when it expects to submit these no tifications to the Committee? 
4. Panama – Domestic support notifications 
(i) Question by the European Union 
95. The current notification under review presents Panama's domestic support for 2010.  It seems 
that notifications covering 2008 and 2009 are missi ng.  When will these notifications be available? 
(ii) Question by Japan 
96. Japan appreciates that Panama submitted the domestic support notification of the year 2010, 
but at the same time notes that the notifications of the years 2008 and 2009 have not been submitted 
yet.  When would Panama submit 2008 and 2009 domestic support notifications?  G/AG/W/98 
 Page 23 
 
 
  5. Turkey – Domestic support and export subsidy notifications 
(i) Question by Australia 
97. According to the latest status of notifica tions document, Turkey has not submitted export 
subsidy notifications since 2001 a nd domestic support notifications since 2002.  Australia would 
welcome further clarification on levels of supp ort, noting that the OECD 2011 Agriculture Policy 
Monitoring and Evaluation Report noted that Prod ucer Support Estimates (PSE) have risen over the 
past 20 years and remain higher than the OECD av erage.  While Australia appreciates that the PSE 
calculations are different to the WTO AMS measures without notifications it is difficult to develop a 
further appreciation of agriculture policy developmen ts in Turkey and their impact on trade.  Can 
Turkey please indicate when th e Committee can expect to receive these notifications? 
 
 
__________