G/AG/W/190  
 
16 November 2018  
(18-7246) Page: 1/34 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 26-27 NOVEMBER 20181 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
13 November 2018 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/31.  
 
The following table lists questions raised during the Committee  on Agriculture  (CoA)  meeting s on 
20 February, 11 -12 June  and 25 -26 September 2018 where the Secretariat has not received 
responses. The list reflects the situation regarding outstanding r esponses as of 15 November 2018 .  
 
ID Answer by  Question by  Reference  Repeat 
question  
86005  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
86006  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
860652 India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86066  India European Union  I. Article 18.6   
86074  India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86048  Indonesia  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86049  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86106  Thailand  European Union  I. Article 18.6  85039  
86029  Turkey  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
860843 United States of 
America  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86078  Mali European Union  II. Deferred replies to 
questions on notifications  85001  
87079, 
87161 , 
87162  India4 Australia, Brazil, 
Thailand  I. Article 18.6   
87074  India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
87019  Indonesia  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
87094  Mongolia  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
87041,  
87040  Tunisia  United States of America  G/AG/N/TUN/52   
87054  Indonesia  United States of America  Annual dedicated 
discussion  on export 
competition   
88102  China  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
88039  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
88127  India Brazil  I. Article 18.6   
88034  Korea,  Republic  of China  I. Article 18.6   
88031  Russian  Federation  European Union  I. Article 18.6   
88075  Thailand  United  States  of America  I. Article 18.6   
88059  Turkey  European Union  I. Article 18.6   
88076  Zimbabwe  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
880465 India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
                                                
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 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
3 United States answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
4 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
5 India provided partial response to the question.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 2 - 
 
  ID Answer by  Question by  Reference  Repeat 
question  
881292 India Brazil  I. Article 18.6   
88074  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
88027  Ecuador  European Union  G/AG/N/ECU/46   
88099  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/46   
88101  Bahrain, Kingdom of  United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88103  Bahrain, Kingdom of  United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88100 Bahrain,  Kingdom  of United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88106  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/47, 
G/AG/N/ECU/48, 
G/AG/N/ECU/49   
880206 Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
881072 India United States of America  G/AG/N/IND/13   
88113  Kyrgyz Republic  United States of America  G/AG/N/KGZ/4   
88013  Papua New Guinea  Australia  G/AG/N/PNG/1   
88012  Ecuador  Australia  G/AG/N/ECU/45   
88115  Panama  United States of America  G/AG/N/PAN/44   
88082  China  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88084  Ghana  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88086  Kenya  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88007  Morocco  Australia  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88088  India United States of America  V. Other   
88089  Indonesia  United States of America  V. Other  87054  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
  
                                                
6 Egypt provided pa rtial response to the question.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 3 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: A RTICLE  18.6 ... 6 
1.1   China's credit pro gramme  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
1.1.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89022)  ................................ ............  6 
1.2   European Union's modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  ............................  6 
1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89001)  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
1.3   European Union's drought support to farmers  ................................ ................................  6 
1.3.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 89056)  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
1.4   Ghana's poultry imports  ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89023)  ................................ ............  7 
1.5   India's dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
1.5.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89027)  ................................ ............  7 
1.6   India's whey milk powder duty  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89 025) ................................ ............  7 
1.7   Japan's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  7 
1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89028)  ................................ ............  7 
1.8   Pakistan's import subsidies for dairy products  ................................ ................................  8 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89062)  ................................ .........................  8 
1.9   Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  ................................ ................................ ....... 8 
1.9.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89064)  ................................ .............................  8 
1.10   Canada's new milk ingredient class  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89053)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
1.10.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89055)  ................................ ...........................  8 
1.10.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89020)  ................................ ..........  9 
1.11   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ........................  10 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89054)  ................................ .........................  10 
1.11.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89021)  ................................ ........  10 
1.12   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  11 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89057)  ................................ ...............................  11 
1.12.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89004)  ................................ ................................ . 12 
1.12.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89007)  ................................ ................................ . 12 
1.12.4    Question by United St ates of America (AG -IMS ID 89024)  ................................ ........  12 
1.13   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 
1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89058)  ................................ .....................  12 
1.13.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG-IMS ID 89090)  ................................ .................  13 
1.14   India's Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  ................................ ..............  13 
1.14.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89059)  ................................ .........................  13 
1.15   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ . 14 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89026)  ................................ ........  14 
1.16   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................  14 G/AG/W/190  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89060)  ................................ ...............................  14 
1.16.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89029)  ................................ ........  15 
1.17   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  15 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89061)  ................................ ...............................  15 
1.17.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 89091)  ................................ .................  15 
1.18   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .............  15 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89030)  ................................ ........  15 
1.19   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ ............................  16 
1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89063)  ................................ ...............................  16 
1.20   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ .........................  16 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89031)  ................................ ........  16 
1.21   Thailand's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  16 
1.21.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89065)  ................................ .....................  16 
1.22   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89032)  ................................ ........  17 
1.23   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.23.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89005)  ................................ ................................ . 17 
1.23.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89006)  ................................ ................................ . 17 
1.24   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ . 18 
1.24.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 89047)  ................................ ................................ .... 18 
1.24.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89066)  ................................ ...............................  18 
1.25   Zimbabwe's export incentive  ................................ ................................ ....................  19 
1.25.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89033)  ................................ ........  19 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ...................  20 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) ................................  20 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  ................................ ................................ .....................  20 
2.1.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/165)  ................................ ................................ .........  20 
2.1.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/122)  ................................ ............................  20 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table Ma:2)  ................................ .... 21 
2.2.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/30, G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41)  ..............  21 
2.2.2    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37, G/AG/N/EU/40, G/AG/N/EU/48)  ...............................  21 
2.2.3    Panama  (G/AG/N/PAN/35, G/AG/N/PAN/40, G/AG/N/PAN/43, G/AG/N/PAN/46)  ............  22 
2.3   Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ..................  22 
2.3.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/166)  ................................ ................................ .........  22 
2.3.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/167)  ................................ ................................ .........  23 
2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/47)  ................................ ................................ .............  23 
2.4   Domestic Support commitments (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ............................  23 
2.4.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  ................................ ................................ .....................  23 
2.4.2    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/67)  ................................ ................................ ...................  23 
2.4.3    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  24 G/AG/W/190  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.1)  ................................ ..........  24 
2.4.5    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34, G/AG/N/IDN/52, G/AG/N/IDN/53, G/AG/N/IDN/54, 
G/AG/N/IDN/55, G/AG/N/IDN/56, G/AG/N/IDN/57)  ................................ .............................  25 
2.4.6    Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4/CORR.1, G/AG/N/LKA/10, G/AG/N/LKA/11)  .........................  27 
2.4.7    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/84, G/AG/N/CHE/87, G/AG/N/CHE/88)  ...............................  27 
2.4.8    United Sta tes of America (G/AG/N/USA/123)  ................................ ............................  28 
2.5   New or modified Domestic Support measures (DS:2)  ................................ ....................  29 
2.5.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/121)  ................................ ................................ .....................  29 
2.6   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............  30 
2.6.1    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/10)  ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
2.6.2    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/92, G/AG/N/ZAF/93)  ................................ ........................  30 
2.6.3    Zimbabwe (G/AG/N/ZWE/10)  ................................ ................................ ..................  30 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES  TO QUESTIONS ON NOT IFICATIONS  ................................ .........  30 
3.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 30 
3.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ......................  30 
3.2   Domestic Support commitments  (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  31 
3.2.1    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  ................................ .............  31 
3.2.2    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ ..... 31 
3.2.3    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  ................................ ................................ ............  32 
3.3   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............  32 
3.3.1    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ......................  32 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ .......................  33 
4.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  33 
4.2   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 33 
4.3   Malaysia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  33 
4.4   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  33 
4.5   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  33 
4.6   Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  33 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  34 
5.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  34 
5.2   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  34 
 
  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  China's credit p rogram me 
1.1.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89022)  
a. In June 2018,  the People 's Bank of China announced it would ease access to credit for 
small and green economy businesses, including agriculture.  
i. Please provide additional information on China 's provision of subsidized financial credit 
to agricultural producers through rural credi t cooperatives.  
ii. Please explain eligibility requirements, interest rates, participant repayment details, 
and the total value of loans being made available.  
b. The United States understands that China has expanded machinery subsidies outlays for 
agricultural e quipment nationwide and mechanization rates across China are risin g 
rapidly.  For instance, since  2014, buyers of cotton harvesters have been offered a 30% 
subsidy for each machine purchased.  
Please provide information on each machinery subsidies program at  the local, provincial, 
and national levels, including details regarding implementation and outlays over the past 
five years.  
c. China offers value added tax (VAT) cash rebates for agricultural material inputs and 
processed exports.  
Please confirm whether for eign producers of processed and export -oriented products are 
eligible to receive cash rebates for exported products containing domestic and imported 
agricultural inputs.  We also request China to provide the announcement(s) or measure(s) 
that provide detail s of how the eligibility is determined. Additionally, please provide 
methods for calculating "input" VAT assessments and the "cash refund " for exporter VAT 
assessments.  
1.2  European Union's m odification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.2.1   Question by Canad a (AG -IMS ID 89001)  
Canada notes that on 31 October 2018, the European Union's ambassadors have approved a 
"safety -net" regulation (Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
Apportionment of Tariff Rate Quotas Included in the WTO Sche dule of the Union Following the 
Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and Amending Council Regula tion (EC) 
No 32/2000) that will allow the EU to unilaterally implement reduced agricultural products import 
quotas at the World Trade Organization. C anada is very concerned with this regulation and is of the 
view that the European Commission cannot make unilateral changes to its World Trade Organization 
scheduled commitments without first negotiating with Members.  
  
Given the very short timeline, and uncertainty, that the EU is imposing on WTO members regarding 
the negotiation of the modification of concessions of all TRQs included in Schedule CLXXV of the EU, 
and more recently on 19 October 2018, with a corrected version of i ts annexes (data); could t he 
EU expand on how it plans to address numerous concerns raised by many members regarding the 
TRQs apportionment itself while, afterward, also having to negotiate with all members that have 
reserved their rights to negotiate and/or consult with the EU?  
 
1.3  European Union's  drought support to farmers  
1.3.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 89056)  
These spring and summer the drought caused by extreme weather in the European Union heavily 
influenced cereal and other agricultural sectors. In response to the serious consequences, the EU 
has supported farmers that have been coping with the drought aftermath. Could the EU please G/AG/W/190  
 
- 7 - 
 
  inform on measures u nder the Common Agricultural Policy or any additional specific actions taken 
to help farmers, and how those measures and actions that fall under the domestic support provisions 
of the Agreement on Agriculture will be notified?  
 
1.4  Ghana's poultry imports  
1.4.1   Question by United States of America (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 
permit is v alid.  
 
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.  
1.5  India's d airy Loans  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89027)  
Based on the press release from India 's Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers ' Welfare 
(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRe lease.aspx?relid=180765 ), the United States understands a "soft 
loan" (at an interest rate of 5 %) is being given to support the state cooperative dairy federations 
under a working capital scheme being managed by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB).  
Please explain this measure.  
 
1.6  India's  whey milk powder duty  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89025)  
In March 2018, India increased its import duty protection for whey milk powder to 40% from 
30%.  Reportedly, this is one of four policy measu res to help Indian farmers overcome the ongoing 
milk oversupply in the state of Maharashtra.    
  
Please explain the domestic circumstances surrounding, and policy rationale for India raising the 
import duty of whey milk powder.   
 
1.7  Japan's export subsidies  
1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89028)  
The United States understands the Japan 's budget FY2018 budget sets aside 330.4 billion yen for 
overall direct payments to rice farmers ( "Direct Payment for Full Rice Paddy Utilization "), of which 
105.7 4 billion yen is earmarked for a program called "Subsidies for the Creation of Production 
Areas. " The United States understands that under this programme,  a payment of 
20,000  yen/10  ares is provided to farmers in cases where rice is planted for new market 
development, domestic, or overseas market.  
  
a. Please provide a more detailed explanation of this programme.  
b. Please provide all criteria required to receive payments, including how payment eligibility 
related to overseas markets are determined. In the event  payments are made for rice that 
is exported, please explain whether the payment constitutes an export subsidy as 
described in Article 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.8  Pakistan's  import subsidies for dairy products  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 8 9062)  
The Pakistan Parliament when it approved the mini -budget also increased import tariffs for several 
products including dairy products such as whey, cheese powder products and curd. In the case of 
cheese powder, the increase was a doubling of the tarif fs from 20 to 40%. Furthermore, for curd it 
was an immediate increase from zero to 15%. These sudden increases has had very disruptive 
effects for commercial operators . 
 
Can Pakistan explain more in detail the reason behind these increases in tariffs and the criteria for 
choosing these specific products?  
 
1.9  Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89064)  
New Zealand notes that Sri Lanka is  applying a Value Added Tax (VAT)  on imported milk powder 
while exempting domestic producers. While New Zealand supports Sri Lanka 's ability to enact taxes 
in line with national objectives, they should also comply with Sri Lanka 's international obligations . 
Article III of the GATT 1947 clearly states that imported product will not be subject to taxes higher 
than those applied to like domestic product. Can Sri Lanka explain how its application of VAT on 
imported product and not on domestically produced goods  complies with this Article?  
 
1.10  Canada's new milk ingredient c lass  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89053)  
Australia notes that under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) Annex  3-B 
(Agricultural Trade between Canada and the United States), Can ada will ensure that milk class  6 
and milk class 7, including their associated milk class prices, are eliminated six months after entry 
into force of the Agreement.  
 
Australia welcomes the agreement in the USMCA on elimination of Canada 's milk classes 6 an d 7 
pricing, given Australia's concerns about the trade -distorting effects of Class 6 and 7 pricing policies, 
which have resulted in a significant increase in Canadian exports of subsidised skim milk powder.  
 
a. Can Canada confirm if all elements of milk clas ses 6 and 7, and their associated pricing, 
will be eliminated entirely and uniformly for all Members, and not only in relation to trade 
between Canada and the United States?  
b. If not, which elements of milk classes 6 and 7 will remain, and will there be any differences 
in their application to the United States and to other Members?  
1.10.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89055)  
New Zealand refers to the text of the recently signed United  States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement  (USMCA), available on the US Trade Representat ive's website https://ustr.gov/trade -
agreements/free -trade -agreements/united -states -mexico -canada -agreement/united -states -
mexico. In Section C: Dairy Pricing and Exports, paragraphs 3 and 4 read: "3. Canada shall ensure 
that milk class 6 and milk class 7, including their associated milk class prices, are eliminated six 
months after entry into force of this Agreement. 4. Six mont hs after entry into force of this 
Agreement, Canada shall ensure that products and ingredients formerly classified under milk classes 
6 and 7 shall be reclassified and that their associated milk class prices shall be established 
appropriately based on end use." 
  
While the elimination of these milk classes is welcomed the New Zealand dairy industry continues to 
experience the negative impacts of these policies.  
  
a. How will Canada assure the Membership that it will not subsidise the exports of skim milk 
powd er through the use of Class 6 and Class 7 until their elimination?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. Can Canada confirm that after milk classes 6 and 7 are eliminated, the appropriate end 
use of products and ingredients formerly classified under those milk classes will not be 
eligible for  any form of trade distorting price support or incentive?  
1.10.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89020)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 88061, Canada stated that it was in the process of verifying the accuracy of 
data related to milk class prices, utilization, and s ales. Canada also stated that once 
completed, this information would be provided. Would Canada please provid e monthly 
milk component (i.e.,  butterfat, proteins, other solids) prices and monthly volumes of milk 
components utilized (for Class 7 and total uti lization for all classes), specifically at the 
provincial levels.  If this information is still not available, please provide an update on when 
and where this information will become available.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 83039, Canada states in regard to Class 7 that "A full list of the eligible 
products will be posted on the Canadian Dairy Commission website ". 
i. Is this list available? If so, where?  
ii. Is this list identical to the list included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board 
Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2 017, and Saskatchewan Order No.  28/17 
(below)?  
Class 7 - Eligible components, products and ingredients: (a) skim milk components in 
liquid and dry form, in any concentration, derived by any process, including MPC and 
MPI(1); (b) skim -milk powder; (c) whole milk powder(2); (d) edible casein and edible 
caseinate powders(3); (e) yogurt powders, sour cream powders, and partly -skimmed 
milk powder and blended milk powders with a maximum fat content of 4%; and (f) 
rennet casein (dry or curd) used in the m anufacture of non -standardized final products 
in the processed cheese category(4).  
c. In AG -IMS 84107, Canada states that "prices under milk class 7 for butterfat, protein, and 
other solids are determined based on world prices, and the prices for skim milk po wder in 
the United States, the European Union and Oceania are included in the definition of world 
prices. A processor margin is also deducted in the calculation of milk class ".  
i. From 1 January 2017 to present, please provide processor margins for each prod uct 
in each milk class.  
ii. Please provide formulas, methodologies, and data used to calculate processor margins, 
for each product in each milk class.  
iii. How are processor margins used in the calculation of milk class prices?  
iv. Please provide responses to questions  a through c by province if the information and 
documents differ by province.  
v. How often are processor margins changed and using what process?  
vi. The United States understands processor margins are set to cover returns on 
investment for processors.  Is this tru e, and if so, how is it determined?  
d. Please provide export data (2015 -2017 and year -to-date 2018, by volume and value), 
with destination countries broken out for Class 7 eligible components, products, and 
ingredients.  
e. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island B oard Order DFPEI 2017 -04 paragraph 6 specifies: 
Class 7 Prices apply to: (a) milk components utilized in products classified in class 7 that 
are sold as finished products; (b) milk components utilized in products sold as ingredients 
for use in the manufact ure of non -dairy food products; (c) milk components utilized in the 
manufacture of animal feed; and (d) milk components utilized as ingredients in dairy G/AG/W/190  
 
- 10 - 
 
  products classified in other classes by the Canadian Harmonized Milk Classification System, 
on a skim m ilk equivalent basis and within the limits imposed by HBR.   
i. In AG -IMS ID 84107, the United States asked if this is the case for all 
provinces.  Canada responded that it was not in a position to confirm this information, 
and that some provinces were still in  the process of implementing milk class 7 through 
their respective regulatory processes.  Please confirm that Class 7 prices apply as 
specified in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 para. 
6, and that this is the case for all pro vinces.  
ii. What are "the limits imposed by HBR " referenced in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward 
Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 para. 6, and do they apply for all provinces?  
1.11  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89054)  
New Zealand refers  to the text of the recently signed United  States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement  (USMCA), available on the US Trade Representative 's website https://ustr.gov/trade -
agreements/free -trade -agreements/united -states -mexico -canada -agreement/united -states -
mexico . The US -Canada side letter on wine states that Canada will ensure British Colombia (BC) 
modifies the measures identified in the US p anel request WT/DS531/7 ( 29 May 2018) New Zealand 
is a third party to this case. The side letter also states that BC will eliminate the measures that allow 
only BC wine to be sold on regular grocery shelves, while imported wine can only be sold through a 
"store within a store ".  
 
a. Can Canada confirm how it will ensure the outcome of this side letter is implemented?  
b. Can Canada confirm whether the conditions to be appli ed to wine imported from the 
US agreed in the USMCA side letter will also be applied to win e imports from other 
countries?  
1.11.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89021)  
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, and AG -IMS ID 88096.  As such, the United S tates repeats its 
previous questions.  
  
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 moving the m to the LCBO Wines category."  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
produ cts 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 boutique  
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 11 - 
 
  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 import ed bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag in 
box wine?   
(http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo .com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 S KUs? 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 different ly 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 poin ts 
(from  140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scotia Li quor 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 expla in 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?  
h. Please provide a list of non -Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines  available for sale 
through the  NLSC.  
1.12  India's pulses policies  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89057)  
Further to Australia's previo us questions to India during the September 2018 meeting (ID 88060) 
regarding the various measures relating to pulses implemented by India, Australia has a series of 
follow -up questions.  
 
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 twice.  
 
Firstly, the QR was extended on 2 July 2018 i n Notification No.15/2015 -2020 for a further three 
months until 30 September 2018. Following this, the QR was extended on 28 September 2018 in 
Notification No. 37/2015 -2020 until 31 December 2018.  
India has previously responded to one of Australia 's questi ons (ID 88060) that the QR was fully 
utilised during the first three months (1 April to 30 June 2018).  
 
a. Australia requests India to advise whether any additional volume was included as part of 
the extension until 30 September 2018?  
b. Australia requests India  to advise whether any additional volume was included as part of 
the extension until 31 December 2018?  
i. If no volume was added, can India confirm that there has been an effective import ban 
on peas for 6 months from July to December 2018?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 12 - 
 
  c. Is India intending  to extend the QR for a third time following 31 December?  
i. If India does extend the QR, will additional volume be included?  
ii. How much notice does India intend to provide exporters and importers should there 
be any further extension of the QR?  
d. Can India provi de an explanation for the WTO basis of the QRs?  
1.12.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89004)  
On 28 September 2018, India released a notification which extends the import restriction on dry 
peas for a period of three months until 31 December 2018. Could India indic ate if the quantitative 
restrictions on dry peas will expire after 31 December 2018?  
 
1.12.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89007)  
At the 88th Committee on Agriculture, India mentioned (see question AG IMS - ID 88095) that its 
agencies are procuring pulses at the administered price and market price.  
  
a. Could India specify how its agencies decide if pulses will be procured at the administered 
prices or market prices?  
b. Could India provide the number of pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) procured by India at the applied 
administe red price in the implemented year 2016 -2017?  
c. Could India provide the number of pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) procured by India at the market 
price in the implemented year 2016 -2017?  
d. Could India indicate if pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) were procurement at administered  prices in 
the first month of the marketing season for quantities reported in India's 2016 notification?  
1.12.4   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89024)  
The United States remains deeply concerned with India 's quantitative restrictions on imports of 
select varieties of pulses, including peas.  Despite many Members raising concerns in several 
WTO committee meetings over the past year, India continues to maintain the quantitative 
restrictions and, to date, has no t explained how such measures are consistent with its WTO 
commitments.  
 
a. Does India intend to again extend the quantitative restriction for peas beyond the current 
extension period , which runs from 30 September to 31 December 2018?  
b. When does India intend to  end the restriction, or will it be applied indefinitely?  
c. Please provide justification for how India 's quantitative restrictions for pulses, including 
peas, comply with its WTO commitments.  
d. India has previously agreed to provide a full explanation for the  restrictions.  When will 
India provide such a full explanation?  
1.13  India's sugar policies  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89058)  
According to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, the government of India has extended the deadline 
for export under the Mini mum Indicative Export Quota (MIEQ) to December 2018.  
  
a. Could India provide data on the volume and the value of exports of sugar under the MIEQ 
scheme until now?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. How much subsidies in total have been given to sugar exports under the MIEQ scheme 
and what has been the average subsidy per tonne?  
c. Can India provide the average level of export subsidies it has granted to sugar export per 
year for the years 2013 to 2017 (in Rupee/t)?  
India has announced a programme 'Assistance to sugar mills ' with a support leve l of 55  Rupee/kg.  
  
d. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar cane or white sugar that will qualify for this 
subsidy?  
In July 2018, Prime Minister Modi announced that his government will increase the minimum price 
for sugarcane for 2018/19 to 275 Rs per qui ntal while the cost of production for sugar is 155 Rs per 
quintal of sugarcane.  
  
e. How does India ensure that this support is within the "de minimis " entitlement?  
f. The EU notes that the last Indian´s notification on export subsidies covers the marketing 
year 2009/10. Can India indicate when the missing ES:1 and ES:2 notifications will be 
submitted to the WTO?  
1.13.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG-IMS ID 89090 ) 
The Russian Federation notes that India provides export s ubsidies to the sugar industry. The 
governmen t of India decreased sugar export duty from 20% to 0% in March 2018. At the same time 
it increased export quota on sugar up to 2 million tons. In September 2018 India announced an 
increase in sugar export subsidies up to 1 billion US dollars for 5 million tonnes, including subsidies 
in the amount of 150 US dollars per ton ne of sugar, and an increase in subsidies for transportation 
of sugar from 13,8 to 41,3 US dollars per ton ne. 
 
a. Could India confirm the amount of export subsidies provided?  
b. Could India descr ibe the criteria for producers to be eligible to receive the abovementioned 
export subsidies?  
c. Could India describe the criteria for producers to be eligible to receive subsidies for 
transportation of sugar?  
1.14  India's Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ( MEIS)  
1.14.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89059)  
At the Committee on Agriculture in September 2018, India noted the export subsidies of INR 50 per 
KG for 60,000 tonnes of SMP provided for skim milk producers in Gujarat were to assist with 
marketing and tra nsport costs. India also announced the inclusion of milk powder in the Merchandise 
Export from India Scheme (MEIS) wi th an ad valorem subsidy of 20%.  
  
a. Did the costs of marketing and transport recently increase?  
b. What is the relationship between the costs of marketing and transport and the subsidies 
provided?  
c. What is the duration of the two programmes?  
d. The Export Competition Ministerial Decision of December 2015 commits all Members not 
to raise export subsidies above the previous five year average on a pr oduct basis. India 
last notified export subsidies in 2012, for the marketing years 2004 -2005 to 2009 -2010 
(G/AG/N/IND/9). Do India 's new export subsidies for skim milk producers in Gujarat and 
the inclusion of milk powder in the MEIS mean that export subsi dies for these products 
now exceed the previous five year average?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 14 - 
 
  e. India has not provided information on export subsidies to the annual examination process 
established by the Ministerial Decision since its adoption. When will India respond to the 
Secretar iat questionnaire to provide information on these new programmes and any other 
programmes?  
1.15  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89026)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88070, the United States notes that in September 2018, India 
announced another increase in export subsidies for dairy products to 20%, to further support the 
export price of dairy products, including skim milk powder.  This is double the level of 10% announced 
in in June 2018.   
  
a. Please provide a comprehensive list of the 28 milk -related products benefiting from the 
subsidy, including HS codes.  
b. Question 2  Please provide the following budget outlay and quantity data for dairy products 
under the program during the months of June 2018 - October 201 8, including data 
sources:  
i. total cos t of the export subsidy measure;  
ii. total value of subsidized exports;  and 
iii. total quantity of subsidized exports.  
 
c. Please explain if the specific eligibility criteria for payments to dairy exporters allows for 
the subsidy to  be provided in conjunction with export subsidies provided by the states of 
Gujarat and Maharashtra.  
d. Please explain if dairy products are eligible for, and if they have received, export financing 
under the "Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre and Post Ship ment Rupee Export Credit " 
or any other export financing scheme maintained by governmental entities in India.  
1.16  Korea's rice imports  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89060)  
Australia is seeking an update from the Republic of Korea on its efforts to resolve outstanding issues 
relating to the rectification and modification of its schedule resulting from the tariffication of rice and 
rice products.  
 
 Australia is also intereste d in whether the Republic of Korea has considered possible alternative 
solutions, including other possible changes to tariff quota administration for rice, as part of its 
consultation efforts to resolve issues with impacted parties.  
 
In an effort to better  understand the application and usage of new rice tariff quota arrangements, 
could the Republic of Korea:  
 
a. provide the value and volume of rice for processing use and rice for table use imported in 
calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017?  
b. explain how, under exi sting arrangements, the proportion of rice for processing and ri ce 
for table use is determined?  
c. explain how the tariff quota volume is al located?  
d. advise whether the exporter is able to establish a commercial relationship directly with the 
importer/end -user? G/AG/W/190  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Australia notes the Republic of Korea 's last MA:2 notification concerning imports under 
tariff quotas is from July 2016 (G/AG/N/KOR/57) and covered calendar years 2014 
and 2015.  
e. Can Korea provide an update to Members on its efforts to submit outstanding MA:2 
notifications, particularly in light of the implementation of tariff quotas for rice products?  
1.16.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89029)  
a. The United States unders tands that Korea has been administering a global quota for rice 
products of 408,700 MT, with an in -quota tariff rate of 5% and an out -of-quota tariff rate 
of 513 %. The United States notes that in light of objections to the out -of-quota rate, 
Korea 's propos al has not been formally certified.  Please provide an update on Korea's 
efforts to resolve issues regarding the rectification and modification of Korea's schedule 
for rice products and Korea's ongoing consultations held with concerned Members.   
b. The United States notes that Korea 's imports of rice in CY2018 are well below its historical 
levels.  According to its WTO Minimum Market Access Agreement, Korea has committed to 
import at least 408,700 MT of rice annually.  However, as of 18 October 2018, Korea has 
only imported about half of this amount (221,305 MT).  Please provide an update on 
Korea 's rice imports.  
1.17  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89061)  
Australia notes that Pakistan 's Economic Coordination Committee of Cabinet approved on 2  October 
the proposal from the Commerce Division to export one million tonnes of surplus sugar. In order for 
the mills to be eligible to export their excess sugar, Pakistan 's central bank has stated that the mills 
must clear cane arrears and start crushing . 
a. Will Pakistan provide any funding to assist the mills to clear cane arrears during this 
crushing season?  
b. Is Pakistan proposing to provide any freight or financial support to sugar exporters during 
this crushing season?  
1.17.2   Question by  Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 8909 1) 
The Russian Federation notes that Pakistan has been applying export s ubsidies on sugar for the last 
four years. In 2017 the Government of Pakistan announced an increase of export subsidies and 
export quotas. The volume of export quota for sug ar grew significantly: from 500 thousand ton nes 
to two  million ton nes. Pakistani exporters enjoy sugar subsidies of 97 US dollars per ton ne. 
Therefore, the total amount of subsidies could equal to 194 million US dollars in 2017.  
 
a. Could Pakistan specify the  amount of export subsidies for s ugar it provided over the last 
four years?  
b. Could Pakistan clarify the mechanism of choosing the destinations for export of sugar 
under this program?  
c. Could Pakistan describe the criteria for producers to be eligible to recei ve the 
abovementioned export subsidies?  
1.18  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89030)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 88072:  
  
The United States understands that Pakistan announced a subsidy for wheat exports earlier this year 
and that the current programme expired on 30 June 2018, the conclusion of the 2017/18 fiscal year. G/AG/W/190  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Please provide an update on the wheat export subsidy programme, including the quantity of wheat 
exported und er this programme during 2018.  Does Pak istan plan to provide more subsidies to 
support wheat exports?  If so, please provide additional information, including the expected tenure 
of the programme.    
 
1.19  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89063)  
Australia thanks the Philippine s for its response to its questions at the September 2018 CoA 
regarding the 30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General Council's waiver 
decision of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932).  
 
The Philippines stated that it expects to complete the enactment of a rice tariffication law by the end 
of the year.  
 
a. Does the Philippines have an update on the enactment of the rice tariffication law?  
b. Is enactment by the end of the year still likely?  
1.20  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.20.1   Question by United States of Ame rica (AG -IMS ID 89031)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of poultry products 
in September 2017.  In June 2018, Suriname informed the WTO that it seeks to increase its bindings 
under Article XXIV  (6) to conform with  the CARICOM Common External Tariff (CET). The new duty 
of 40% is twice the rate of Suriname's 20% bound rate for poultry products.  The United States looks 
forward to negotiating with Suriname under Article XXVIII to discuss compensation for withdrawing 
a trade concession.   
a. Please explain how Suriname is in compliance with its WTO obligations by raising the tariff 
on imports of poultry products beyond its bound rate.  
b. The United States asks Suriname to refrain from applying the above -bound 40% rate until 
the Article XXVIII process has concluded. Will Suriname agree to do so?  
1.21  Thailand's sugar policies  
1.21.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89065)  
On 15 January 2018, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) invoked its special power 
under Section 44 of t he Interim Constitution to revoke the sugar quota system and float the local 
sugar price. The quota system will be phased out once the floating price is effective, but the 
government has to reserve a buffer stock for one month to serve and secure sugar sup ply for 
domestic consumption.   
 
a. Can Thailand give more details about the timing of the introduction of the floating price?  
b. Can Thailand indicate the price levels in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for quota A, B and C?  
c. Can Thailand explain how it is planned to buy -in sugar to the buffer stocks and what will 
be the procedure for its release. How will the buying -in and selling price be determined?  
d. Has Thailand taken any decisions to create buffer stocks, and have any quantities been 
bought up to now or is it planned for 2018 and 2019?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.22  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89032)  
Thailand has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID 88075. 
As such, the United States repeats its previous q uestions:  
  
The fees are levied on all importers in the form of import permit fees on all shipments of uncooked 
meat, poultry and meat offal. The United States has concerns that these fees are significantly higher 
than the corresponding domestic slaughteri ng fees for the same products and appear 
disproportionate to the cost of services rendered.  
  
a. What services are covered by the import permit fees and how are these calculated?  
b. What services are covered by the domestic slaughtering fees and how are these 
calculated?  
c. Please provide an official response with a detailed cost breakdown, method of calculation, 
and list of services provided for both the import permit fees for food safety inspection as 
well as its domestic slaughtering fees.  
d. In the absence of info rmation supporting the exact calculation of and the services 
associated with these fees, Thailand 's fee structure for import permit fees for food safety 
inspection and domestic slaughtering fees raises national treatment concerns including 
pursuant to the principle that prohibits discrimination between imported and domestically 
produced goods.  
e. What is Thailand 's justification for the discrepancy between import permit fees and 
domestic slaughtering fees?  
1.23  U.S. dairy policies  
1.23.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89005)  
Follow up from June Meeting (87th Committee on Agriculture):  
  
At the 87th Committee on Agriculture, on 11 June 2018, the Unite States confirmed in their answer 
to question AG -IMS ID 87106 that the "Dairy Revenue Protection " insurance programme wil l be 
funded in the same manner as other crop insurance products. According to the American Farm 
Bureau Insurance Services, this product has been available nationwide since 9 October 2018.  
  
Could the Unite States indicate the what percentage of the premiu ms are subsidized under the Dairy 
Revenue Protection insurance programme and what outlay has been allocated to this program to 
cover premium subsidy costs?  
 
1.23.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89006)  
a. On 14 August 2018, the USDA announced plans to purchase $50 mi llion worth of fluid milk 
(whole, 2 %, 1% and skim) for distribution to t he Emergency Food Assistance Program. 
The USDA noted that the purpose of the purchases is "to encourage the continued 
domestic consumption of these products by diverting them from the normal channels of 
trade and commerce ". Canada understands that it is the first time the USDA has purchased 
fluid milk using its authority under Section 32 of the Act of 24 August 1935. Furthermore, 
on 22 October 2018, the USDA announced plans to purchase fresh fluid milk, targeting 
certain orders for milk in half -gallons that were not fulfilled under contracts that were 
awarded on 26 September 2018. Canada is of the understanding that the contract type 
for these purchases is anticipated to be firm -fixed pr ice.  
i. Could the United States explain what circumstances have prompted the purchase of 
fluid milk? Does the United States foresee the purchase of fluid milk on a regular basis 
in the future?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 18 - 
 
  ii. Has the United States assessed and estimated how these fluid mil k purchases would 
affect the level of production and prices? If so, could the United States share details 
of these estimates?  
iii. Could the United States. clarify what type of pricing mechanism was used and will be 
used for the purchases of fluid milk announc ed in August and October?  
iv. If a firm -fixed price was used or will be used, could the U.S. indicate what is this fixed 
price and how the fixed price differs from domestic prices?  
b. In October 2018, the USDA announced the awarding of purchase contract awards for a 
total of 81,703,200 pounds of natural American cheese for delivery throughout 2019 under 
the USDA domestic food distribution programs. The USDA also announced the purchase 
under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program of 4,118,400 pounds of proces s 
American cheese (contract value of $7,649,692.83), the purchase of 604,800 pounds of 
yellow ch eddar chunks (contract value of  1,474,135.74) and the purchase of 
601,662  pounds of high -protein yogurt (contract value of  $725,019).  
i. The 81,703,200 pounds of natural American cheese purchased for delivery in 2019 is 
significantly higher than the quantity purchased in FY  2017 (71.25 million pounds) and 
in FY 2018 YTD (70.66 million pounds). Could the United States clarify what changed 
in the market place resulti ng in this increased  quantity needed under the 
USDA  domestic food distribution programs?  
ii. Could the United States confirm the amount and quantity for each category of dairy 
products that have been purchased, so far, under the Food Purchase and Distribution  
Program.  
iii. Could the United States indicate what other dairy product(s) the USDA intends to 
purchase under the remaining portion of the $84.9 million allocated to dairy products 
under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program?  
1.24  U.S. proposed domestic suppo rt measures  
1.24.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 89047)  
The United States has announced USD 12 billion package to help farmers who are hit by retaliatory 
tariffs. It is claimed that this package will assist agricultural producers to meet the costs of disrupted 
markets. In response to Question AG -IMS ID 88047, the United States stated that The Market 
Facilitation Program will provide payments to producers of soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn, cotton, 
hogs, milk, sweet cherries, and almonds. It is requested to provide the following information:  
 
a. What is the eligibility criterion for producers to receive aid under the "The Market 
Facilitation Program "? 
b. How the quantum of aid under "Market Facilitation Program " for specific crops like wheat, 
soybeans, wheat, cotton and mi lk would be calculated? If there are any guidelines for this 
programme in public domain, it is requested to share the link.  
c. In response to question AG -IMS ID 88047, the United States replied that the Food 
Purchase and Distribution program will purchase 29 different commodities targeted by 
retaliatory tariffs that are appropriate for distribution to nutrition program use. Please list 
out the 29 commodities covered under this programme.  
1.24.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89066)  
Australia thanks the United States for its response to Australia 's questions at the September 2018 
CoA regarding the USD6 billion trade assistance package for farmers impacted by trade retaliation. 
Australia is seeking an update from the United States on the implementation of the pac kage.  
  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. Noting that the application process for assistance to farmers impacted by trade retaliation 
under the Market Facilitation Program opened on 4 September 2018, Australia would 
appreciate information from the United States as to:  
i. the amount of assist ance paid to date;  
ii. the total number of individual farmers that have received assistance; and  
iii. by commodity, the number of farmers that have received assistance.  
b. Under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program, what products will the United States 
purchase in this program 's first quarter (commenced 1 October 2018) and what products 
does the United States expect to purchase under this program next quarter?  
c. Based on the current take -up rates and number of applications, does the United States 
envisage exhaustin g the entire USD6 billion budget for the first tranche of assistance?  
d. Australia would appreciate information from the United States on how and when it plans 
to move forward with the second tranche of assistance:  
i. will the United States wait until the fundin g for the first tranche of assistance is 
exhausted before announcing the second tranche?  
ii. will the rate of payment be adjusted for specific commodities?  
iii. is it expected that the method used to calculate the rate of assistance will change?  
iv. will new tariff lev els and other market conditions be taken into account and if so, how 
will this be done?  
  
e. In the US Department of Agriculture 's report, "Trade Damage Estimation for the Market 
Facilitation Program and Food Purchase and Distribution Program " (published 
September  2018), it identifies "regional basis effects " as an "other factor " which "may 
have mitigated some of the trade damages calculated ". Can the United States please 
clarify what it meant by "regional basis effects "? 
f. Can the United States confirm there wi ll be no Market Faci litation Program assistance 
for 2019 production, even if the current budget allocation has not been fully exhausted?  
 
1.25  Zimbabwe's export incentive  
1.25.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89033)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88076, the United States would like to reiterate the following question, 
for which Zimbabwe has not provided a written answer:  
  
The United States understands the government of Zimbabwe 's central bank, the Reserve Bank of 
Zimbabwe, 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, the 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 basis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision that 
allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 20 - 
 
  2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNE CTION WITH INDIVIDUA L NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments ( Table MA :1) 
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  
AG-IMS ID 89009: Question by Norway - Transparency issues  
In the COA meeting in September 2018, Canada answere d that the import figures for 2014 -2016 
from each of the thirteen most recent members of the European Union were not part of the 
considerations for the transfer of 800 tonnes of Canada´s WTO TRQ for cheese to the European 
Union to maintain the relative sha res of supply due to new EU member S tate accessions.  
 
What other import figures were part of the considerations for the transfer of 800 tonnes? Please 
specify import figures per new member State of the European Union.  
 
2.1.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/165)  
AG-IMS ID 89003: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada notes that in Table MA:1, for the TQ ID CHTQ008 (red bean), in item (b) (iv) the Allocation 
of licences of access to quotas to importers, the period for the validity of tariff quota certificates 
changed from 1 January – 1 September to 1 April - 1 December. Canada understands that because 
of the Chinese New Year holiday and the purchase of red beans for cakes or other bakery products, 
the highest demand for red beans is in January and February in t he Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  
  
This changed tariff quota administration will significantly limit availability of access of imports of 
Canadian red beans. Canada 's harvest season is from September/October and shipments  normally 
arrive in January. Imports from Canada represented around 60% of yearly total imports of red beans 
in 2016 and 2017 in the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and this 
volume represents around 12% of domestic consumpti on. These numbers show that Canadian high 
quality red beans are desired by Taiwanese consumers; however, with the change in the period for 
the validity of tariff quota certificates, consumers would be directly impacted as the price might 
increase due to a potentially short supply.  
  
Canada notes that the harvest season for one of the other key exporters is in May and for the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu it is in January. Therefore, this 
change will unfairly benefit the oth er key exporter and domestic growers of red beans.  
  
a. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu provide 
further details as the reason why the period for the validity of tariff quota certificates has 
changed?  
b. Has the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu assessed the 
impact on the price? If so, could it be shared?  
2.1.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/122)  
AG-IMS ID 89067: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
In the annex to the MA:1 notific ation of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/122) there seems to be a 
numerical error in the table presenting country allocations of tariff quotas. The sum of the different 
allocations for refined sugar does not sum up to the total amount of 192,000 tonnes. The global 
allocation corresponds to 22,000 tonnes according to the information in the actual table, but in 
footnote 4 to the table it is stated that the global allocation is 7,090 tonnes. Could the United States 
please clarify which number is correct?  
 G/AG/W/190  
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table Ma:2)  
2.2.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/30 , G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41 ) 
AG-IMS ID 89089: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Russian Federation notes that the previous notification c oncerning imports under tariff quotas 
G/AG/N/CHN/30 covering the period 2013 -2014 was submitted in 2016. The latest notifications 
G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41 covering the period 2015 -2017 were circulated 
in November  2018.  
 
a. Could China prov ide the reasons for such a delay?  
Russian Federation takes note of the improved market access opportunities due to the increase of 
import s under TRQ for wheat from 31,2% in 2015 to 45,9% in 2017. However, fill -in rate remains 
relatively low.  
 
b. Could China please indicate the reasons for the underfill of this tariff rate quota?  
c. What measures could be undertaken to improve this situation?  
Russian Federation also notices substantial decrease in imports under TRQ for corn from 65,7% in 
2015 to 39,3% in 2017.  
 
d. Could China please provide reasons for such a decline?  
e. What measures could be undertaken to improve this situation?  
AG-IMS ID 89052: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes China 's notifications concerning imports under tariff quotas ( Table MA:2) for 
calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017.  
 
a. Can China explain the reasons for the under -fills for tariff quotas for wheat, corn and rice 
opened during 2015, 2016 and 2017?  
i. for each product, can China explain whether the under -fill was due to marke t 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Can China explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, as 
per the objective of the review of the Bali Decisio n on TRQ Administration?  
2.2.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37, G/AG/N/EU/40, G/AG/N/EU/48)  
AG-IMS ID 89008: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
a. Canada notes that based on the European Union (EU)'s MA:2 Notifications of the past 
recent years, many of the tarif f rate quotas (TRQs) 's fill rates are consistently very low, 
including for wheat, meat of swine and meat of bovine.  Considering the United 
Kingdom  (UK) upcoming withdrawal from the EU:  
i. could the EU inform Members on what steps will be put forward to ensure that TRQs 
fill rates will not be impacted?  
ii. has the EU considered taking this opportunity to simplify its quota procedures and 
administration?  
b. Given that the UK will be leaving the EU  during 2019 (at the end of March), could the EU 
expand on how the volume that is available to be imported over the 2019 year for each 
EU TRQ will be impacted?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 22 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89068: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the European Unio n's notification concerning imp orts under tariff quotas 
(Table  MA:2) for marketing year 2017/18 ( G/AG/N/EU/48 ). 
 
a. Can the EU explain the reasons for the significant under -fill for some tariff quotas opened 
during the 2017/18 marketing year?  
b. for each product , can the EU explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota 
administration?  
c. Given that 50%  of the quotas opened in 2017/18MY did not reach a fill rate of 5%, has 
the EU considered moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
d. Can the EU explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
AG-IMS ID 89069 : Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation welcomes detailed notification submitted by the European Union. According 
to the notification G/AG/N/EU/48, 30% of TRQs have zero fill rates ; 18% from 0% to 5%;  and 10% 
from 5% to 10%. Summing up, 58% of TRQs have fill rates lower than 10%.  
  
a. Could the EU indicate reasons for such low (or zero) fill rates?  
b. How does the EU intend to address such low levels of imports under TRQs?  
The Russian Federation notes that the EU significant ly under fills (below 2%) some of its quotas for 
several products, including meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry eggs for consumption, in shell, 
skimmed milk powder, and butter.  
  
c. Could the EU indicate the reasons for such low fill rates?  
d. How does the EU intend to address low levels of imports of these products?  
AG-IMS ID 89070: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Could the EU please clarify the term "effective imports" in footnote "*"i.e. , for HS 02031955 , 
02032955, 1704, 20096190, 20096911, 20096919, 20096951 and 20096990, and whether there 
are relations/specific reasons between this footnote and the zero or low fill rates for tariff lines with 
"*" since it is the case for most lines with" *".  
 
2.2.3   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/35, G/AG/N/PAN/40, G/AG/N/PA N/43 , 
G/AG/N/PAN/46)  
AG-IMS ID 89071: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
Russian Federation takes note that TRQ for chicken meat is regularly underfilled (below 3%) over 
the recent four years (2014 -2017). Could Panama please explain why the fill rate for this tariff rate 
quota remains such low? What measures Panama is going to undertake to provide better utilization 
of underfilled TRQ?  
 
2.3  Special agricultural safeguard s (Tables MA:3  to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/166)  
AG-IMS ID 89072: Question by New Zealand - Link with TRQ commitments  
For the purpose of enhanced transparen cy, and recognizing Chinese Taipei's right to invoke the SSG 
in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture, can Chinese Taipei confirm when a 
MA:2 notification will be submitted for Members to assess the tariff quota fill rate before the SSG  
was invoked.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 23 - 
 
   
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/167)  
AG-IMS ID 89073: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
The Russian Federation welcomes the notification of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu concerning special  safeguards. Paragraph 7 of Article 5 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture states that Members give notification "…as far in advance as may be practicable and 
in any event within 10 days of the implementation of such action". Chinese Taipei 's notification was 
issued on 25 October 2018 while the period of application of the measure started 21 September 
2018. Could please Chinese Taipei provide reasons for such a delay?  
 
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/47)  
AG-IMS ID 89074: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes the European Union 's notification concerning special safeguard action taken 
(Table MA:5) for marketing year 2017/18. Can the EU provide the following information for all the 
products for which safeguard action was taken based on price?  
a. Volume of imports affected;  
b. Extent to which the import price was below the trigger price; and  
c. Additional duty levied.  
2.4  Domestic Support commitments (TABLE DS:1)  
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  
AG-IMS ID 89075: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible  
production  
As pointed out by India during the 88th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 88053), 
Canada excludes sales of butter and skimmed milk powder for further processing, total exports of 
butter and skimmed milk powder as well as sales  of skimmed milk powder for animal feed from the 
eligible production when calculating market price support. It is the European Union 's understanding 
that Canada does not restrict the amount of butter and skimmed milk powder that could be procured 
at admini stered prices. Hence, it would seem that the entire Canadian production of butter and 
skimmed milk powder is eligible to receive the support price. The fact that some of the production 
eventually is sold for further processing or animal feed or is exported  and does not receive the 
administered price does not seem to alter this conclusion.  
 
Could Canada please elaborate further on why Canada considers that butter and skimmed milk 
powder that is exported or sold for further processing should not be counted a s eligible production 
in the calculation of market price support?  
 
2.4.2   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/67)  
AG-IMS ID 89010: Question by Canada - General services: pest and disease control  
In its Supporting Table DS:1, Costa Rica describes under the General Services heading "2(b) Pest 
and disease control " its Animal health programme as "General programmes to preserve, protect and 
enhance the health status of the country's livestock through i mproved domestic production... "  
 
a. Could Costa Rica explain how this programme improves domestic livestock production?  
b. Could Costa Rica explain how improving domestic livestock production contributes "to 
preserve, protect and enhance the health status of the country 's livestock "?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 24 - 
 
  2.4.3   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 89076: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease control  
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 88th Committee on Agriculture, 
AG-IMS ID 88020 regarding p est 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 contro l 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 subsidies were 
provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
 
2.4.4   European Unio n (G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 89077: Question by New Zealand - Transparency  issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The evolution of the EU CAP has seen a shift from some of the most distorting forms of support, 
including direct payments, towards l ess distorting 'Green Box ' support. However, over the previous 
three reporting periods (from 2013 to 2016) there has been an overall increase in the EU 's notified 
AMS and production -limiting support, and an overall decrease in Green Box measures which incl udes 
a decrease in EU research  spending from 1,204.7 million EUR  to 999.4 million EUR. Furthermore, 
the proposed CAP reform would include a devolution of its administration from the EU to its member 
States. We ask that the EU elaborate on this and how the current CAP reform is expected to affect 
future outlays, in particular:  
  
a. What are the reasons for these trends?  
b. Will the current CAP reforms see a reduction in Amber Box outlays from 2020, including 
direct payments?  
c. How will research be provided for in  the future CAP?  
d. How will the EU ensure tha t the devolution of the CAP to m ember States will not result in 
an increase in distortionary outlays?  
Spending totals (million Euro)  
  2013/14  2014/15  2015/16  
Total spending  77,333.10  74,777.90  72,261.40  
Total AMS  5,971.70  6,642.30  7,101.80  
Total Blue Box  2,663.60  2,878.80  4,331.10  
Total Green Box  68,697.80  65,256.80  60,828.50  
AG-IMS ID 89037: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes  
The United States notes that, despite an overall decline in Green Box expenditures between 2014/15 
and 2015/16, there was an increase for the 'Environmental Programmes ' measure under General 
Services from 5,885.2 million euros in 2014/15 to 8,121.5 million  euros in 2015/16. Please explain 
the reason(s) for the increased expenditures. Was this a result of any changes to the programmes 
being administered? If so, please explain.  
AG-IMS ID 89050: Question by India - Payments based on 85 per cent or less of the  base 
level of production  
EU has notified Voluntary Coupled support for Cereals, Flax and Hemp, Fruit and vegetables, Hops, 
Nuts, Olive Oils, Protein crops, Rice, Silkworms, Sugar beet, Beef, Sheep and goat meat and Dairy 
under Article 6.5 of AoA in the DS  Notification of 2015/16. Please provide relevant details of the 
programme. Please also elaborate how the support fulfils the criteria of Article 6.5 of Agreement on 
Agriculture?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89038: Question by United States of America - Payments based on 85 per 
cent or less of the base level of production  
The United States notes a 50% increase in Blue Box expenditures from 2,879 million euros 
in 2014/15 to 4,331 million euros in 2015/16. It appears that the increase occurred under the 
'Voluntary Coupled Suppo rt' measures under both 'Payments based on fixed area and yields ' and 
'Payments based on 85% or less of the base level of production ', but it is not quite clear since this 
measure is not indicated in the 2014/15 notification.  
 
a. Please confirm whether the 'Payments in virtue of Art 68 of Regulation 73/2009 ' measure 
for 2014/15 is the same as the 'Voluntary Coupled Support ' measure in the 2015/16 
notification.  
b. If they are not the same measure, please elaborate on how they are different and whether 
a Table DS: 2 will be provided on the 'Voluntary Coupled Support ' measure.  
c. If they are the same measure, please explain the reason(s) behind the increased 
expenditures for 'Voluntary Coupled Support '. 
AG-IMS ID 89051: Question by India – Other product -specific AMS /EMS  
a. The EU has given National aid and Private storage aid for Butter, Pig meat, Olive oil and 
Ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin during 2015/16 as notified in Supporting Table DS:8. 
This type of support has not been notified previously under Supporting Tabl e DS:8. Is it a 
new programme? India would like to have mo re details of the programme , how the 
programme operates, what are the parameters for providing the aid etc.?  
b. The EU has notified support under measures such as National aid, Production aid, 
Extraordinary support measures, Restructuring, Specific aid, Green harvesting and non -
harvesting and Market withdrawal by Producer Organisations in Supporting Table DS:6 of 
2015/1 6 DS:1 Notification. India would like to know if these are some new measures by 
EU. What is the coverage and eligibility criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 89039: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
The United States notes a 225% increas e for 'milk' support in DS6 between 2014/15 (183 million 
euros) and 2015/16 (594 million euros), stemming from the 'extraordinary support measures ' 
programme, a programme which was not included in the 2014/15 DS1 notification. Please explain 
what the 'extraordinary support measures ' programme is, under what conditions it operates and 
how payments are determined and if it is expected to be used in subsequent years.  
AG-IMS ID 89049: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In the Supporting Table DS:9 of  DS:1 notification of 2015/16, EU notified "Horizontal support in the 
Fruit and Vegetables sector". This support was mentioned in the previous notifications but the 
amount of support under this category was not mentioned. Can the EU provide more details ab out 
the support programme, including its various components?  
 
2.4.5   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34, G/AG/N/IDN/52,  G/AG/N/IDN/53,  
G/AG/N/IDN/54, G/AG/N/IDN/55 , G/AG/N/IDN/56, G/AG/N/IDN/57)  
AG-IMS ID 89012: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural servic es 
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that under Infrastructure services, that Indonesia has 
reported expenditures under a new measure called "Construction of irrigation, barns and rice field 
expansion ". a. The policy specific criteria in paragraph 2(g ), Annex 2 indicates that expenditures 
should be directed to the provision or construction of capital works only, and excludes the 
subsidization of on -farm facilities other than for the reticulation of generally available public utilities. 
Could Indonesia provide further details on how the "construction of barns and rice field expansion " 
meet the policy criteria of paragraph 2(g)?  
 G/AG/W/190  
 
- 26 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89013: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
a. In supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes th at under Public stockholding for food security 
purposes, the description of the measure changed from "Reserve stock for emergency and 
price stabilization purposes " in the previous notification (G/AG/N/IDN/34) to "Reserve 
stock for emergency ".  
i. Could Indone sia provide further information on the changes to this programme 
whereby price stabilization purposes is no longer one of the objectives?  
ii. Could Indonesia indicate if there is another measure that provides price stabilization?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:1, Ca nada notes that the expenditures for Public stockholding for 
food security purposes have decreased significantly, from IDR 2,160.10 billion in 2011 
(G/AG/N/IDN/34) to IDR 76,021 million (IDR 0,076 billion) in 2017.  
i. Could Indonesia provide further details on the conditions that led to this significant 
decrease in expenditures?  
ii. Could Indonesia please confirm if changes occurred in the measures? If so, could 
Indonesia explain those changes?  
AG-IMS ID 89011: Question b y Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that compared to Indonesia 's previous annual domestic 
support notification (G/AG/N/IDN/34) that Indonesia 's recently submitted notifications no lo nger 
include the item "Payments for relief from natural disasters ". Could Indonesia confirm that no 
payment has been made to farmers to cover losses from natural disasters?  
AG-IMS ID 89014: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
a. In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the expenditures related to investment 
subsidies and input subsidies have increased significantly,  from IDR 18,100,062 million 
in 2012 to IDR 41,423,977 million in 2017. Could Indonesia please provide  details on the 
conditions that led to this significant increase in expenditures?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:2, for 2012 (G/AG/N/IDN/52), Canada notes that a new measure 
is reported under Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture, namely Facilit ies 
and infrastructure to encourage agricultural and rural development, however very limited 
information regarding the program(s) itself is provided. Could Indonesia please provide 
further details about this program(s): what types of facilities and infrast ructure projects 
are eligible?  
AG-IMS ID 89041: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Indonesia for bringing its domestic support notifications up to date.   
a. Please explain how the External Reference Price (ER P) was calculated, including any 
supporting data or information.  For rice, please indicate whether the ERP is on a milled 
basis or a paddy basis.  
b. The United States notes that BULOG set a procurement target of 2.7 million metric ton nes 
(MMTs) of milled rice  equivalent for MY 2017/18. Further procurement as of June 2018 
was approximately 0.9 MMTs of milled rice equivalent, a decrease from 1.3 MMTs in MY 
2016/17.  The United States also notes procurement quantities of 1.97 MMT in MY 2014/15 
and 2.96 MMT in MY 2 015/16.  It is also noted that BULOG has a procurement target of 
3.7 MMTs of milled rice equivalent in MY 2016/17.  
  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 27 - 
 
  i. Supporting Tables DS:5 in Indonesia 's notifications are notified on a calendar year 
basis rather than marketing year.  Please confirm the dat es for which the applied 
administered price is applicable.  
ii. Compared to the procured levels noted by the United States on a milled equivalent 
basis, Indonesia has notified eligible production quantities of 303 metric tons in 
calendar year 2016 and 58 metric  tonnes in calendar year 2017.  Please explain how 
eligible production quantities notified were determined.  
iii. Please explain whether BULOG is authorized to purchase quantities of rice in excess of 
the procurement target quantity or whether there are any limit s on the quantity of rice 
that may be procured.  If so, please provide a copy of the law, regulation or other 
document that substantiates this.  
iv. Please explain how the procurement target quantity is determined and when.  
v. Please confirm whether the applied pri ce and the eligible production notified are on a 
milled basis or paddy basis.  
AG-IMS ID 89078: Question by European Union - Market price support  
Indonesia in supporting table DS:5 lists its market price support for rice and indicates eligible 
production fo r this scheme as 58,000  tonnes for 2017 and 45,387  tonnes in 2016.  
 
a. Can Indonesia indicate its total rice production in 2016 and 2017.  
b. Can Indonesia indicate which quantity of the above total rice production would be of a 
quality that would qualify it for this scheme.  
EU has the impression that this price support scheme is a programme for distribution as 
food aid.  
c.  Can Indonesia indicate the quantity distributed in 2016 and 2017 and how many people 
benefitted from this programme in the two years in question.  
2.4.6   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4/CORR.1, G/AG/N/LKA/10, G/AG/N/LKA/11)  
AG-IMS ID 89015: Question by Canada - Investmen t subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the expenditures under Investment subsidies generally 
available to plantation crops and agricultural crops have increased  significantly, from 
LKR 999.10  million in 2 013 (G/AG/N/LKA/4/Corr.1) to LKR 8,478 million in 2015 (G/AG/N/LKA/10), 
but decreased to LKR 2,241 million  in 2016. Could Sri Lanka please provide details on the conditions 
that led to this significant increase, and followed by a sharp decrease in  2016, in  expenditures?  
 
2.4.7   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/84, G/AG/N/CHE/87, G/AG/N/CHE/88)  
AG-IMS ID 89079: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Australia welcomes Switzerland 's notification concerning domestic support (Table DS:1) for the 
calendar year 2016  (G/AG/N/CHE/88 ). Under the category of Decoupled Income Support, Australia 
notes that Switzerland has included "supplement to market earnings ".  
  
a. Can Switzerland please state how much of the total 165.5 million CHF decoupled income 
suppor t was directed to "supplement to market earnings "? 
b. Can Switzerland provide the eligibility criteria for producers to receive a supplement to 
market earnings?  
c. Can Switzerland provide details of what commodities are eligible for a supplement to 
market earnin gs? G/AG/W/190  
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89016: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
In 2014, 2015 and 2016, Switzerland classified programmes described as payments for 
pasture -based milk and meat production and payments for the extensive far ming of cereals, 
sunflowers, high -protein peas, field beans and colza as environmental programmes.  
 
a. Can Switzerland explain how these two programmes function, particularly with respect to 
their eligibility criteria and the level of payments made by the Swi ss government?  
b. Are these new programmes? If so, can Switzerland indicate when it expects to submit 
a DS:2 notification to the Committee?  
c. Can Switzerland explain the rationale behind classifying these two programmes as 
environmental programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 89 019: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:7 for the reference years 2015 and 2016, Switzerland notified measures 
described as market price support for bovine meat, eggs and milk and milk products.  
 
a. For each of the products mentioned above, can Switzerland provide further details on the 
programmes included under the measure type described as market price support?  
b. Can Switzerland explain how these measures differ from the price support policies notified 
in Supporting Table DS:5 of Switzerland's domestic support notification for 2013 
(G/AG/N/CHE/72)?  
2.4.8   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123)  
AG-IMS ID 89017: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, under the heading "General Services " the United States notified a 
significant increase under a programme called "Underwriting gains to insurers " (from 
USD 659 million in 2015 to USD  1,833 million in 2016). Could the United States of America provide 
a more detailed explanation of  these "underwriting gains to insurers " and indicate the reasons for 
this significant increase?  
AG-IMS ID 89080: Question by Australia - Domestic food aid  
Australia notes that in Supporting table DS:1 in G/AG/N/USA/123,  the United States has notified 
USD 102.2 billion in domestic food aid for marketing year 2016. Australia notes that the US domestic 
food aid spending has steadily increased since 2008 -09 at the time of the Global Financial 
Crisis  (GFC), and has been consistently over USD 100 billion since 2 011. Although the GFC is now 
over, US spending on food aid has not decreased. In 2000, the United States  notified that its 
spending on domestic food aid was USD 32.34 billion; in 2009, i t was USD 78.80 billion; and in  2014, 
it was USD 102.84 billion.  
  
a. Can the United States  explain the background for the steady increase in domestic food aid 
spending that has remained above USD 100 billion in recent years?  
b. Has the United States  been reviewing domestic food aid programmes with a view to 
ensuring the support  is still required at such high levels?  
c. Paragraph 4, Annex 2 of the AoA declares that "food purchases by the government shall 
be made at current market prices and the financing and administration of the aid shall be 
transparent". To that end, could the Un ited States please explain:  
i. what processes are in place to ensure that food purchases are at market prices;  
ii. whether it procures food from international sources, or only from domestic sources; 
and  
iii. what proportion of the food aid is in the form of direct provision of food versus the 
provision of means to buy food?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89081: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia welcomes the United States of America's Domestic Support Notification for marketing 
year 2016 (G/AG/N/USA/123). Australia notes that sugar is the only product for which market price 
support is provided (as per Supporting Table DS:5), and the product -specific AMS for sugar is nearly 
65%, which is considerably higher than other agricultural products notified by the United State s. 
This figure is notably higher than the approximately 51% product -specific AMS notified in marketing 
year 1995, meaning the US has actually gone backwards in terms of possible reforms to  the US  sugar 
industry. The U.S.  administered price is higher and th e eligible production has increased in the last 
20 years.  
 
Given the sustained high levels of protectionism and domestic support over the last 20 years and 
the current costs on consumers and users, will the United States engage in genuine reform to the 
US sugar sector?  
AG-IMS ID 89018: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/USA/123, the United States notified non -product specific 
support of USD  3.777 billion under ARC -CO and USD  3.272 billion under PLC compared to USD 5.933 
billion and US D 1.943 billion under the respective program me for 2015 (G/AG/N/USA/121). Could 
the United States explain what caused the significant increase in ARC -CO notified support and the 
significant decrease in PLC notified support between 2 015 and 2016?  
  
2.5  New or modified Domestic Support measures (DS:2)  
2.5.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/121)  
AG-IMS ID 89048: Question by India - Direct payments: income insurance and income 
safety -net programmes  
To be eligible to participate in AgriStability, producers must  have filed an income tax return, have 
been actively farming for at least six consecutive months, and have completed one production cycle 
during the programme year. AgriStability operates on a whole -farm margin basis, i.e., based on the 
margin of all commo dities on the farm. Payments are triggered when a producer's programme 
margin in the current year drops more than 30% below their historical reference margin. A 
producer's programme margin is the difference between their allowable income minus expenses 
directly related to production (e.g., commodity purchases, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and veterinary 
expenses). Adjustments are made for changes in receivables, payables and inventory. A producer's 
reference margin is the average programme margin of the pre ceding five years, excluding the 
highest year and the lowest year. Starting in the 2013 programme year, the reference margin may 
be subject to a limit. This limit is the lower of a producer's historical reference margin or the average 
of allowable expenses  reported in previous years.  
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue -agency/services/tax/businesses/farmers -fishers/agr istability -
agriinvest -programs -farmers.html . 
 
In the above context India would like to seek the following information/clarifications:  
 
a. What is the methodology for calculation of "average historic margin " for payment to the 
beneficiaries in the AgriStabilit y programme notified by Canada in May 2018?  
b. It has been stated in Canada 's DS:2 Notification that the cost of support will fluctuate 
depending on decline in the income of agricultural producers.   In this connection:  
i. What is the budget allotment for the pro gramme?  
ii. What are the allowable margins referred to in the programme?  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.6  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3) 
2.6.1   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/10)  
AG-IMS ID 89002: Question by Canada - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
In Supporting Table ES:2 of G/AG/N/MUS/10, Canada notes that Mauritius reported export subsidies 
under Article 9.4. Could Mauritius please expand on how it plans to implement the Nairobi decision 
regarding Article 9.4 for least developed countries and net food-importing by the end of 2030?  
AG-IMS ID 89042: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
a. Mauritius notifies a freight rebate scheme; does this subsidy relate  to the Freight Subsidy 
Scheme to Africa, speci fically targeting exports to certain ports in Mozambique, Comoros, 
Seychelles, Angola, Cameroon, Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Morocco, Mayotte, Nigeria, Reunion, and Senegal?  
b. According to the Ministry of Finance 's budget, Mau ritius spent 20,000,000 Mauritius 
Rupees on the Freight Subsidy Scheme in FY 2017/18 and plans to maintain this level of 
expenditure for the next two years (see page 1 of the budget document for further 
information: http://mof.govmu.org/English/Documents/2017/Budget2017 -
2018/Estimates17 -18/V_27_012017_18CMI.pdf ). Please explain why this notification only 
shows an expenditure of 5,000,000 Mauritiu s Rupees instead of 20,000,000 Mauritius 
Rupees.  
2.6.2   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/92, G/AG/N/ZAF/93)  
AG-IMS ID 89082: Question by Ukraine - Quantity of total exports  
Ukraine notes that South Africa did not provide export subsidies for agricultural products in 2015  
and 2016 according to G/AG/N/ZAF/92 and G/AG/N/ZAF/93. At the same time, there were significant 
increases in South Africa 's exports of certain goods, including sheep meat (by 84 times), deciduous 
fruits (by 67%), vegetable oils (by 39%), beer (by 36%), fl our, meal and pellet of fish (by 35%), 
maize and maize products (by 22%) and others. Could South Africa please provide information on 
circumstances that led to such significant increases in exports of the above -mentioned products?  
 
2.6.3   Zimbabwe (G/AG/N/ZWE/10 ) 
AG-IMS ID 89044: Question by United States of America – Transparency issues  
Did Zimbabwe support or incentivize exports for any tobacco farmers under the Command 
Agricultural Program in 2017? If so, please describe how this programme operates, including outlays, 
and if Zimbabwe intends to notify this programme.  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTI FICATIONS  
3.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
3.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 89034: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Ecuador has not yet responded to the questions posed by the Unit ed States in AG -IMS ID 88099.  The 
United States reposes the questions with the following modifications:  
 
a. Ecuador registers no imports coming under TRQ commitments. The United States is the 
holder of first -negot iator 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.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 31 - 
 
  c. The United Sta tes also notes that Ecuador 's import 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 relatin g to 
sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, 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.  
3.2  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.2.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  
AG-IMS ID 89035: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG IMS ID 88101, for which the Kingdo m of Bahrain has not responded:  
  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 Bahrain notified "plant protection" as a pest and disease 
control measure under Annex 2. No pest and disease control measure was notified for 2013 
in G/AG/N/BHR/7, but Bahrain did  notify "Land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services" as 
a general services measure for that year as well as in 2011 and previous years. In 2015, 2016 
and 2017, Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm we evil" 
as a pest and disease control measure.   
 
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services") indicates whether 
the same programme received fundin g in only certain years or if a new programme was 
introduced with the same name.  Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by Bahrain in G/AG/N/BHR/10, please 
provide a short description of how the measure is implemented.  
c. Please co nfirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure (e.g., "plant 
protection" and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil") 
will be submitted to this Committee.  
3.2.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/ 49) 
AG-IMS ID 89036: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG IMS ID 88106, 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 
understands that Ecuador's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries, 
according to its website, subsidized a share o f the cost of inputs, such as urea and 
potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies for farmers of several commodities including 
corn and rice. Since 2014, preferential attention has been paid to bananas and pasture 
crops for livestock. However, benefic iaries also include sugar cane, cocoa, cereals, 
vegetables, potatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential prices, below 
cost, for inputs.   
i. Please provide additional details with regard to how the input subsidies measure is 
implemented and t he time period under which the subsidy was available to producers.  
ii. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador's current domestic support notifications?   
iii. If so, please explain how they reportedly meet the green box criteria under which they 
are notified.   G/AG/W/190  
 
- 32 - 
 
  iv. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether Ecuador will 
notify these measures for past years.  
b. According to the Ministry's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by producers also 
included agricultural insurance coveri ng losses.  
i. Please provide additional details with regard to how the agricultural insurance 
programme was implemented, including what losses are covered and what years the 
measure was available.  
ii. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as the suppo rt notified for 2011 
in G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
c. The United States notes that in 2015 it was reported that a diesel subsidy provided by the 
government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher diesel cost for producers.  
Please confirm that this diesel subsidy wa s eliminated and clarify whether Ecuador has 
notified this measure and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
3.2.3   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  
AG-IMS ID 89040: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits A G IMS ID 88113, for which the K yrgyz Republic has not yet provided 
a written response:  
  
a. Since the Kyrgyz Republic's last notification for 2012, it appears several new exempt 
measures have been introduced including "extension and advisory servic es to the 
agricultural sector."  
i. Please explain when this new measure was introduced and how it is implemented.  
ii. Does the Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this measure, 
as well as overdue DS:1 notifications for 1999 -2011 as noted in response to AG IMS 
ID 85047 and for the years 2013 -2014?  
b. It is noted that the Kyrgyz Republic undertook commitments in its domestic currency. 
While the transparency of the notification of the exchange rate used for U.S. dollars is 
appreciated, the Unite d States request Kyrgyz Republic to please notify in its domestic 
currency.  
Does Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit future notifications in its local currency?  
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 89043: Qu estion by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
Panama has not provided a written response to the questions posed by the United States 
in AG IMG ID 88115. Thus, the Un ited States repeats them here:  
  
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), wa s started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural 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 Suppo rting Table ES:2.  
 G/AG/W/190  
 
- 33 - 
 
  4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID  89083: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (88009) at CoA meeting 88, Australia notes China 's latest domestic 
support notification (G/AG/N/CHN/29) covers the reporting period 2009-2010.  
  
Can China please inform Members on its efforts to submit outstanding domestic support notifications 
from 2011 onwards?  
 
4.2  Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID  89084: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (88008) at 88th CoA meeting, Au stralia notes the Republic of Korea's 
latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers the reporting period 2009 -2011 
  
Can the Republic of Korea please inform Members on its efforts to submit outstanding domestic 
support notifications from 2012  onwards?  
 
4.3  Malaysia  
AG-IMS ID  89085: Question by Australia  
Australia notes Malaysia 's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/MYS/32) covers the 
reporting period 2008 -2011. Can Malaysia please inform Members on its efforts to provide updated 
domesti c support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
 
4.4  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 890 86: Question by European Union   
The EU notes that the last Thailand´s notification on export subsides covers the year 2013. Can 
Thailand indicate when the missing notifications will be subm itted?  
 
4.5  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID  89087: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's questions, ( AG-IMS ID  85062 and AG-IMS ID  88006) at 85th and 88th CoA 
meetings, regarding Turkey's outstanding notifications:  
 
Could Turkey provide an update on its progress to submit outstanding domestic support and export 
subsidy notifications?  
 
4.6  Ukraine  
AG-IMS ID 890 88: Question by European Union   
In the latest years, Ukraine has significantly increased its support to the agricultural sector. However, 
the latest DS:1 notificat ion from Ukraine covers the year 2012. Can Ukraine indicate any timeline 
for when the membership can expect to see the outstanding DS:1 notifications.  G/AG/W/190  
 
- 34 - 
 
  5  OTHER  
5.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 89045: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add .1 and Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
India has not provided a response to the questions posed by the United States in 
AG IMS ID 88088.  Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
  
The United States notes that government of India through the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), 
since 2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters for agricultural products.  The rate of interest equalization 
is 3% and the scheme is available to certain exports, including certain agricultural and food products.  
  
a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural products while providing at the same time 
interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, including the 
specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
c. Please explain how this measure complies with India's WTO commitments, and if direct 
lending is provided by RBI, why  this export fi nancing support activity has not been 
reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
5.2  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 89046: Questi on by United States of America   
Turkey has not provided a response to the question posed by the United States in AG IMS ID 88116.   
  
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?  
 
 
__________