G/AG/W/142  
 
20 Mai 2015  
(15-2647)  Page: 1/47  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 4 MARCH 20151 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/139 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Responses to the following questions were not provided before 15 May 2015: 
 
AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
Questions under Article 18.6  
76076 Angola European Union - 
76001 Thailand Brazil - 
76033 Thailand European Union - 
76059 Turkey United States of America - 
 
_______________ 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Angola's Joint Executive Decree on import regulation ...................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76076) ......................................................... 4  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.2.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 76039) ....................................... 4  
1.3   Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese .......................................................................... 5  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 76023) ............................................................. 5  
1.4   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 6  
1.4.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 76049) ............................................ 6  
1.5   China's cotton domestic support .................................................................................. 6  
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 76051) ............................................ 6  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 7  
1.6.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 76052) ............................................ 7  
1.7   India's cotton policies ................................................................................................. 8  
1.7.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 76053) ............................................ 8  
1.8   India's sugar export subsidies ..................................................................................... 9  
1.8.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG-IMS ID 76016)  .................................................................. 9  
1.8.2   Question by Colombia (AG-IMS ID 76050) ................................................................. 10 
1.8.3   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76025) ........................................................ 10 
1.9   India's exports of cereals and rice ............................................................................... 11 
1.9.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76027) ........................................................ 11 
1.10   Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat ............................................................. 12 
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76075) ................................................................ 12 
1.11   Pakistan's whea t export subsidies ............................................................................. 13 
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76020) ................................................................ 13 
1.11.2   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 76028) ...................................................... 14 
1.12   Russian Federation's ag ricultural suppo rt for 2015 ....................................................... 14 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 76054) .......................................... 14 
1.13   Russian Federati on's grain exports ............................................................................ 15 
1.13.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 76029) ................................................. 15 
1.14   Thailand's sugar policies .......................................................................................... 15 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76021) ................................................................ 15 
1.14.2   Question by Br azil (AG-IMS ID 7600 1) .................................................................... 16 
1.14.3   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 76033) ...................................................... 17 
1.15   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 17 
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 76058) .......................................... 17 
1.16   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 20 
1.16.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 76059) .......................................... 20 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17   U.S. Export Cred it Guarant ee Program ....................................................................... 20 
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76017) ................................................................ 20 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 21  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 21 
2.1.1   Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/51) ......................................................................... 21 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 22 
2.2.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/103)  ..................................................................................... 22 
2.2.2   Republic of Korea(G/AG/N/KOR/50) .......................................................................... 22 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 23 
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/89) ..................................................................................... 23 
2.3.2   Botswana (G/AG/N/BW A/20) ................................................................................... 23 
2.3.3   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/37) ......................................................................................... 24 
2.3.4   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/20) ............................................................................. 26 
2.3.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/Corr.1) ......................................................... 27 
2.3.6   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/34) .................................................................................... 33 
2.3.7   Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/53) ......................................................................... 33 
2.3.8   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/5) ......................................................................... 34 
2.3.9   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/93) ............................................................... 34 
2.3.10   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/ 100) ........................................................... 36 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 38 
2.4.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/34) ......................................................................................... 38 
2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/99) ....................................................................................... 39 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 .................................... 40 
2.5.1   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/22) ............................................................................. 40 
2.5.2   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/4) ...................................................................................... 42 
2.5.3   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/71) ................................................................................. 43 
2.5.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/99) ............................................................... 44 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 44  
3.1   China (I. Article 18.6) ............................................................................................... 44 
3.2   Turkey (I. Article 18.6) .............................................................................................. 45 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 46 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Angola's Joint Executive Decree on import regulation 1.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76076) Angolan Joint Executive Decree 2215 of 23 /01/2015 regulates the importation and 
distribution and sale of food/non-food prod ucts where domestic supply covers 60% of 
national consumption. This decree establishes import quotas for 2015 for grocery products (cooking oil, corn flour, wheat flour,  salt, rice and sugar), drinks (waters, soft 
drinks, beers, juices and nect ars), eggs and vegetables (pot atoes, onions and garlic) and 
plans to establish seasonal quotas for frui ts and vegetables. Furthermore, the decree 
sets up detailed requirement with respect to  the management of the quotas. The decree 
bans the importation of the above mentioned products outside of quota. The decree also 
bans the importation of the above mentioned pr oducts if pre-packed. The decree puts in 
place entry restrictions, for instance for entry to be by sea or at certain ports. The decree sets up a restrictive quality control of imports and puts severe limits on the 
possibilities to marketing the imported products  to consumers. In view of the European 
Union, the measures introduced appear to be in breach of Angola's WTO commitments, 
notably with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as well as 
Article XI:1 of GATT. Since several EU expo rters already have been affected by the 
decree, the European Union is very concer ned about the effects that this decree may 
have on trade to Angola. The European Union would therefore like to ask Angola whether they have the intention to ensure it s import arrangement is in conformity with 
the WTO/GATT rules. 
 Answer by Angola 
 
Angola noted that the questions from the European Union were submitted after the deadline for questions and undertook to respond at a later stage. 
 
Follow-up: The United States of America shared the concerns raised by the European Union. 
 1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.2.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 76039) 
It has been nearly three years since the United States of America first requested 
information on the quantities of specific products shipped to specific destinations, 
including both domestic and export destinat ions under the Prêmio para Escoamento do 
Produto (PEP) and Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor  (PEPRO) programmes. In 
response to U.S. question AG-IMS ID 74021,  Brazil indicated that CONAB is working on 
improving its control mechanism so as to be ab le to provide data covering more recent 
periods and has repeatedly noted that the re quested data would be available soon. In 
response to U.S. question AG-IMS ID 75023,  the United States of America notes that 
Brazil has no deadline to conclude the proce ss of collecting the relevant information.  
 
a. Has Brazil concluded the process of collect ing the relevant information in order 
to provide the data requested? 
b. If not, please provide an update on this process, including the specific 
limitations that remain in being able to provide the requested information as 
noted in AG-IMS ID 66002 and AG-IMS ID 74021. 
c. Does Brazil have a deadline for CONAB to  provide the central government with 
this information? If not, why? 
d. By what date can the United States of Am erica expect this data? In response to 
U.S. questions AG-IMS ID 74021 and AG-IMS ID 75023, Brazil stated that the 
PEP reassessment is still in progress.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 5 - 
 
  e. Please provide any updates on the re assessment and whether any deadlines 
are set for this process. 
f. Please confirm that the programme remains suspended. 
g. Given the similarity in the manner in which the PEP and PEPRO programmes 
operate, is there any plan to conduc t a reassessment of the PEPRO programme? 
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. This task has not been concluded yet. 
b. The provision of the requested information st ill depends on Brazil completing the ongoing 
monitoring and reviewing process of its policies. 
c. No, this is due to the abovementioned policy monitoring and revising process. 
d. Please refer to the reply above. In response to US questions AG-IMS ID 74021 
and AG-IMS ID 75023, Brazil stated that the PEP reassessment is still in progress.  
e. The reassessment has not yet been concluded, and it is not possible to set a deadline. 
f. Yes, the programme remains suspended. 
g. The PEP and the PEPRO programmes operat e differently; therefore an eventual 
reassessment of the PEPRO could not be justified by the same reasons. As mentioned 
before, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply is currently monitoring 
and reviewing its overall policies.  
1.3  Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese 1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 76023) 
At the last Committee meeting a number of Members sought further information around 
proposed changes to Canada's WTO tariff quot a for cheese as part of the Comprehensive 
Economic and Trade Agreemen t (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. New 
Zealand's concern was, and remains, that  the proposed change would unilaterally 
reduce the quantity of market access av ailable to WTO members, and would be 
inconsistent with Canadian commitments  under the WTO, including fundamental 
MFN obligations. 
 What steps is Canada taking to ensure that  any changes are consistent with Canada's 
WTO commitments and do not unilaterally  disadvantage other WTO Members? 
 
Answer by Canada  
Canada will continue to administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada's Export and Import 
Permits Act in conformity with its WTO obligations. The size of the WTO cheese TRQ will remain at 20,411,866 kg. 
 
Follow-up : New Zealand restated its concerns that the proposed changes to Canada's WTO TRQ for 
cheese would be inconsistent with Canada's commitments under the WTO, including fundamental 
MFN obligations. New Zealand invited Canada to provide more information around the reallocation 
of quota access from other countries to the European Union. New Zealand noted that the concern 
was not around the total size of the quota but rather about Canada's intention to unilaterally reduce the share of the quota availa ble to non EU-members of the WTO. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.4  Canada's dairy policies 
1.4.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76049) 
The United States of America continues to be  concerned at the proliferation of Canada's 
special milk pricing classes, now reaching  39 different classes. Domestic food and 
industry processors appear to  receive a special milk cla ss permit to purchase dairy 
inputs at a subsidized price, predicated on a declaration that a competitive like-product 
has been imported into Canada. These special milk prices range from whey used in 
animal feed to cheese used in the manufacturi ng of further processed products, such as 
frozen pizzas. These products are produced using the heavily discounted dairy inputs 
and are then sold in domestic and foreign markets.   
a. Please provide the Committee with the am ount of direct subsidy assumed by 
consumers through the price supports determined by the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) and used by the prov incial milk marketing boards to 
determine costs of dairy ingredients?  
b. Please explain what the CDC's responsib ilities and duties are with regards to 
the pools. The United States of Amer ica notes the increased investment in 
recent years to expand Canada's domest ic manufacturing of frozen processed 
products containing cheese, in particul ar frozen pizza manufacturing, eligible 
for Special Milk Class (SMC) prices wh ich displaces and substitutes imports 
from trading partners with duty-free acce ss. The United States of America also 
notes the increase in Canadian exports of  frozen processed products containing 
cheese, in particular frozen pizzas, to other markets.  
c. Please explain what assumptions are us ed when the CDC estimates the amount 
of milk that will go into special classes (class 5) when it sets the target for 
industrial milk?  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. The CDC only has the authority to establish the applied administered prices for butter 
and skim milk powder. Prices in special milk classes 5(a), (b) and (c) reflect prices in the 
United States of America and/or worl d markets and are not linked to the 
CDC administered prices.  
b. The CDC chairs the Western Milk Pool (WMP) Coordinating Committee as well as the 
Supervisory Body of the Eastern Milk Pool (P5), administers these federal/provincial 
agreements, does the pooling calculations and provides technical expertise and 
secretariat services to these pools.  
c. The Commission monitors trends in Canadian requirements (demand) and 
production (supply) on a monthly basis. Canadian requirements are defined as total 
domestic demand plus planned exports for industrial dairy products measured in terms of butterfat. Production includes all production of industrial milk within supply management. On behalf of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC), 
the Canadian Dairy Commission calculates the MSQ (national milk production target for 
industrial milk in Canada). This target is adjusted at least every two months to reflect changes in Canadian requirement. 
Follow-up: The European Union shared the concerns raised by the United States of America. 
 
1.5  China's cotton domestic support 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76051) 
According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, China has been the largest 
cotton subsidizer since 2009/2010. The amount of support provided peaked at nearly USD 6 billion in direct assistance in 2012/2013 and was only slightly lower G/AG/W/142 
 
- 7 - 
 
  in 2013/2014. The level of support far exceed s the support provided by other Members. 
While it is true that China's minimum supp ort price did not immediately have a large 
negative impact on world markets, given th at China continued to import and stockpile 
cotton, it appears the long-term impacts may differ. China is the world's largest 
producer, consumer, and importer of cotton. A change in any of these variables can have 
significant impacts on world markets.  
The United States of America notes that China recently announced its plans not to 
expand the TRQ for cotton in 2015. While th ere is no obligation for China to expand 
its TRQ, please provide an update to China' s response to AG-IMS ID 73035 following the 
March 2014 question, noting the changing mark et conditions and that cotton imports to 
China declined from 5.1 million tonnes in 2012 to 4.1 million tonnes in 2013 to 
2.4 million tonnes in 2014, and will likely fall close to the TRQ in-quota quantity of 0.894 million tonnes in 2015. 
 
Answer by China  
China is the world's largest producer, consumer and importer. China's market is quite open and, 
according to China's accession commitments, cotton is a TRQ product. The TRQ quantity is 894,000 tonnes, the in-quota rate is 1%, and the ou t-of-quota rate is 40%. In practice, China also 
takes some measures to encourage cotton trade. In 2014, China ended the cotton reserve 
programme. In the meantime, in or der to stabilize the small-scale farmers' income, China adopted 
a cotton target price programme, which is a support to income.  
China is the world's largest net importer of cotton, large amount of cotton is imported from the 
world's major producers. In recent years, import s of cotton have been large and growing rapidly. 
To weaken the negative impact of imported cotton which is supported by large subsidy and to 
secure the small-scale farmers' livelihood, China has to provide some support to cotton producers 
while the support per capita is still very low. Therefore, China's domestic support of cotton is intended to support farmers' livelihoods and is non-trade-distorting.  
China's reserve programme has little impact on world markets. China is a net importer of cotton. 
Almost no cotton has been exported. Therefore,  China's reserve programme did not cause large 
quantities of exports and did not distort the international market. 
 
Follow-up: The United States of America noted that China had been a large importer of cotton and 
that its policies affected the world market. 
 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76052) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Rica for its transparency through the years 
on its domestic support, which Costa Rica ha s notified since 2007 as being in excess of 
its WTO commitment level.   
a. The United States of America requests an update as well as responses to the 
following unanswered questions about Costa Rica's price support programme 
for rice (AG-IMS ID 74023, AG-IMS ID 73037, AG-IMS ID 71030, 
AG-IMS ID 72050, and AG-IMS ID 75031). 
b. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? If not, on what basis 
does CONARROZ have the authority to compel producers to participate in the new system?  
c. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying 
them to the WTO? Please provide an u pdate to Members on these policies.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by Costa Rica 
 Costa Rica thanks the delegations that have been following this issue and reiterates its full commitment to transparency concerning the inform ation available to it when delegations raise 
queries. 
 As notified to this Committee, 1 March 2015 was the date fixed by Executive Decree 
No. 38.093-MEIC for the elimination of the pric e-setting mechanism for rice purchased by 
processors from producers. On 13 January this ye ar, the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and 
Trade (MEIC) opened consultations for a new Executive Decree, which establishes the consumer price for different grades of rice, and replaces the minimum producer price with a reference price 
payable by processors to producers for rice in th e husk. This reference price, based on the grade 
of the rice, is indicative for transactions between producers and processors. 
This new decree (No. 38.884-MEIC) was published in the Official Journal on 27 February. 
In accordance with the principle of transparency that has always governed the actions of 
Costa Rica, Costa Rica shall be notifying this decree in a timely manner through the established channels. 
 
In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture will implement a series of actions for increasing productivity in national rice production, with the goal of ac hieving 40% growth by the year 2018. These actions 
are detailed in the National Development Plan 2015- 2018 for the agricultural and rural sector and 
are aimed at small rice producers in particular. They include training, improving technology, 
increasing the land under irrigation and using more productive seeds.  
Follow-up: New Zealand, echoed by Canada, Pakistan and the United States of America, welcomed 
the transparency provided by Costa Rica on this subject, and restated concerns that Costa Rica's 
domestic support levels exceeded its WTO commitments. The United States of America requested 
further information regarding the entry into forc e of the new decree. Costa Rica noted that the 
answers would be provided in the future.  1.7  India's cotton policies 
1.7.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76053) 
According to the Chairman of the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), the CCI is set to 
lose about INR 20-25 billion (USD 322-403 million) this year because India's minimum 
support price exceeds market prices. The CCI is  expected to be reimbursed by the Indian 
Government for any losses incurred. The CCI Chairman noted China's recent shift in 
demand as a contributing factor to the decr ease in global cotton prices and expressed 
hope for market stability. India's production  of cotton has far outpaced its domestic 
consumption. The United States of Americ a notes that India increased the minimum 
support price for cotton again in 2015 and is , after more than a decade of growth, 
estimated to become the world's largest cotto n producer and remains the second largest 
global exporter. The Chairman of CCI has st ated that CCI is expecting to procure a 
record quantity of cotton, estimate d at approximately 10 million bales. 
 
a. What was the basis for increasing th e minimum support price for cotton, 
particularly given the reduced import demand in China, falling world cotton 
prices, and record or near record Indian production?  
b. Is India taking specific steps to ensure  that the release of its cotton stocks 
does not further exacerbate international cotton markets, either due to direct 
export sales or market leakage? If ye s, please specify and explain the steps 
India is undertaking in this regard. Th e United States of America notes that 
similar market conditions occurred in 2008/2009 when India also procured 
significant quantities of cotton, estima ted at approximately 40% of production. 
According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, India then provided 
USD 26 million in export subsid ies to reduce its stocks.  
c. Please affirm India's commitment to no t use export subsidies or export at 
below the cost of procurement to dispose of cotton stocks.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
a. The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is fixed to protect farmers from distress sale of their 
produce and to protect them from exploita tion. Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are 
announced by the Government following th e recommendations of the Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The CACP takes into account various factors including the cost of cultivation/production, changes in input prices, input/output price 
parity, inter-crop price parity, effects on the cost of living, effects on general price level, 
parity between prices paid and prices received by farmers etc.  
b. and c. India takes its international commitments seriously and believes in fair market 
practices. No export subsidies have been provided for cotton exports. 
Follow-up: The United States of America noted that it would review India's response and noted 
that India's policies on cotton had big effects in the world market. 
 
1.8  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.8.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76016) Australia acknowledges India's response  to Australia's questions at the 75
th Committee 
on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 75028 ) in relation to its sugar export subsidies. Australia has 
stated its concerns regarding the WTO-incons istency of these measures on a number of 
occasions.  
a. Australia understands from media reports that the Indian Government is 
considering an increase to the rate of subsidy from INR 3,371 to INR 4,000 per tonne for the current sugar season. This is close to 20% of the current world 
price per tonne. Can India please provide a further update to the Committee on 
Agriculture on the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014, especially in relation to published information about the value of export subsidy 
("incentive") paid per tonne? 
b. In the response to AG-IMS ID 75028, In dia stated that there is currently no 
budget provision or outlay with respec t of payment of incentives under the 
sugar export subsidy programme: 
If the programme is unfunded, and no incentives are being paid, what has been 
the rationale for the cycle of bi-monthly review, which has seen the rate of subsidy adjusted three times (INR 2, 277, INR 3,300 and INR 3,371) since the 
programme was established in February 2014? 
c. If subsidy payments have been made since the 75
th Committee on Agriculture, 
can India provide the total value of expo rt subsidy budgetary outlays (INR), as 
well as the volume and value (INR) of raw sugar exports that have been 
subject to incentive payments? 
Can India also provide the number of app lications received for payment of the 
export subsidy, including the number of  applications received but yet to be 
paid? 
d. If no export subsidy has been paid, why does not India move to abolish the 
programme? 
Answer by India 
 
a. The Government of India notified incentives on marketing and promotion services for 
raw sugar production in order to promote product diversification in the Indian sugar 
industry since the industry traditionally produces white sugar. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 10 - 
 
  The Government decided to provide incentives at INR 3300, INR 2277, INR 3300 and 
INR 3371 per MT on bi-monthly period from February 2014 up to September 2014 during last sugar season 2013-2014. The incentives were further reviewed by the Government and in view of the increased cane costs and mounting arrears to the 
farmers the Government has decided to provide incentives at INR 4000 per MT to be 
passed on to the cane farmer through the sugar mills. 
b. c. and d. No payments have been made to date. 
1.8.2  Question by Colombia (AG-IMS ID 76050) 
According to the media, the Indian Government  is considering approving an increase in 
the export subsidy for raw sugar granted to  sugar mills from INR 3,300 per tonne to 
INR 4,000 per tonne for the 2015 season. Colombia is concerned about the impact that 
these statements are having on the world sugar market, which is exacerbated by the 
fact that India is the world's third largest exporter of sugar, according to the information provided by the WTO Secretaria t in document G/AG/W/32/Rev.14. In order 
to provide Colombia's producers and expo rters with more detailed information, 
Colombia would welcome replies from India to the following questions:   
a. Would India confirm that it did not grant export subsidies for raw sugar 
in 2014? If it did, how much were these subsidies in terms of quantities and budgetary outlays?  
b. What are the Indian Government's gro unds for contemplating an increase of 
this subsidy to INR 4,000 per tonne for 2015?  
c. How has India considered fulfilling the commitment undertaken at the 
9
th Ministerial Conference to exercise utm ost restraint in using export subsidies 
and any measures having equivalent effect? 
Answer by India 
 
a. and c. India takes its WTO commitments seriously. No payments have been made for 
sugar export incentives to date. 
b. The increase is based on the continued need for product diversification which is 
explained in response to AG-IMS ID 76016. 
1.8.3  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76025) 
Press articles from the end of January indicate  that Indian Food Ministry has approved a 
proposal to increase the export subsidy on  raw sugar to INR 4,000 per tonne for the 
export of up to 1.4 million tonnes of sugar.  
 Could India confirm that such export subsid ies have indeed been approved and explain 
how this measure, which was re-activated after its first introduction in February last 
year, complies with the Indian export subsidy commitments?  
 Answer by India 
 
The incentive on marketing and promotion services for raw sugar production has been announced in order to promote product diversification in the Indian sugar industry since the industry 
traditionally produces white sugar. 
 However no payments have been made to date. 
 
Follow-up: Thailand and Paraguay registered their continued interest and concern on this policy. 
Paraguay further noted its interest to understan d the reasons why these incentives were applied 
when they had not been used in actual harvests . Australia noted that India was one of the world 
largest sugar exporters and that any export subsidies applied by India could have an impact on the G/AG/W/142 
 
- 11 - 
 
  world market. Australia understood that no payments had been made so far, and requested to 
know how many applications for payments had been  received, in light of the Indian press reports 
that had noted that the subsidy would be paid with in the next couple of weeks. Irrespective of 
whether a subsidy had been paid or not, Australia reiterated its call for India to remove this WTO 
inconsistent export subsidy. Colombia noted its concern on India's measures on sugar exports as it 
affected Colombian agricultural exports. Colombia invited India to meet the Bali recommendations to use subsidies in moderation with a view to re ach the objectives of the Hong Kong declaration. 
The European Union asked India whether payments could be expected in the future. India, in 
response to Australia's question, noted that si nce no payments had been made, no information 
had been compiled regarding the number of applicatio ns received. In response to the EU question, 
India noted that no payments had been made. 
 
1.9  India's exports of cereals and rice 
1.9.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76027) 
In reply to the question from the European Union at the meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture in November 2014 (AG-IMS ID 75020), India stated there have been no 
exports from government stocks. However, th e web page of Food Corporation of India 
(http://fciweb.nic.in//upload /Import/export%20web1.pdf ) publishes data on the 
exports of food grains (wheat and rice ) on government account since 1980-1981, 
according to which India has exported food grai ns in most of the years during the period 
in question. In addition, the report of the High Level Committee on Reorienting the Role 
and Restructuring of Food Corporation of Indi a not only confirms the Indian exports of 
food grain from the stocks (42 million metric  tonnes of cereals were exported during 
2012-2013 and 2013-2014) but also suggests estab lishing a system whereby exports of 
stocks would automatically kick in whenever the level of buffer stocks exceed the target 
quantity.  
a. In the light of this, the European Unio n remains concerned about the potential 
adverse spill-over effects of the stockhol ding operations aimed at maintaining 
stocks of food grains and asks India to  explain how it intends to address them 
in line with its WTO commitments.  
b. The European Union would also appreciate detailed information from India 
about exports of food grains upon releasing from the stocks, including 
destinations and prices. The European Union would also ask India to provide 
data on how the export of grain stocks complies with the Indian 
WTO commitments on export subsidies given Article 9.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Answer by India 
 
a. and b. Reference to the recommendations of the High Level Committee is unnecessary 
as the report has not yet been accepted by the Government. 
India takes its WTO commitments seriously and all its actions are fully compliant with 
the WTO rules. 
Follow-up: Canada and the United States of America shared the EU concerns on this subject. 
Canada noted that there were some specific details requested by the European Union regarding 
exports of food grains released from stocks, includ ing destinations and prices, and asked India if it 
was in a position to provide that information. Th e United States of America pointed out that the 
high level committee report had approved 4.5 million tonnes of wheat exports from stocks and 
nearly 5.8 million tonnes were actually exported. India stated that it would provide the website containing details of the high level committee, why it was formed and its purposes. India stated that the two issues being discussed were not related. Regarding Canada's request for additional 
information, India noted that such details would be available in the written response.  
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.10  Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat 
1.10.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76075) In December 2014, the Indonesian Government issued Regulation of the 
Minister of Agriculture No. 139/Permentan/ PD.410/12/2014 concerning Importation of 
Carcass, Meat and/or Processed Meat Products into the Territory of the 
Republic of Indonesia. The regulation limits imports of beef to primal cuts and some 
manufacturing meat. While the regula tion was subsequently amended by 
Regulation of the Minister of Agri culture No. 02/Permentan/PD.410/01/2015 
concerning the Amendment of Regula tion of Minister of Agriculture 
No. 139/Permentan/PD.410/12/2014, allowing imports of secondary beef cuts by state-owned enterprises in limited circumst ances, Australia is concerned that the 
measure effectively restricts the import  of secondary beef cuts and offal. 
 Australia is concerned that this new measure will affect Australian exports of boxed beef 
to Indonesia. Australian industry is already feeling the effects of the regulation, which 
was introduced without notice or consulta tion with trading partners. This measure 
further restricts imports following a range of trade-restrictive measures previously 
implemented by Indonesia. 
 
a. Can Indonesia please explain the objectives of the regulation?  
b. What will be the effect of the regulati on on boxed beef imports to Indonesia? 
c. How is the regulation consistent with Indonesia's obligations under the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, includin g the obligation under Article 4.2 that 
Members shall not implement quantitative restrictions with respect to 
agriculture products?  
d. Can Indonesia please explain if these rest rictions on certain cuts of meat and 
offal will be implemented and applied to domestic products? 
Australia understands the complexities being faced by the Indonesian Government as it 
seeks to meet its food security goals. Au stralia is working with Indonesia to help 
support food security, including through ou r cooperation to increase capability in 
Indonesia's beef industry. However, Australia encourages Indonesia to look to 
alternative policies that are WTO consistent  and that do not restrict high-quality 
Australian products that are a safe and reliabl e contribution to Indonesia's food supply. 
 
Answer by Indonesia 
 The regulations are issued to regulate imports of beef to primal cuts and some manufacturing 
meat (as well as some varieties of meat).  
 
a. The objectives of Regulation No. 02/Pe rmentan/PD.410/01/2015 are to improve the 
distribution chain of meat with a view to ensure that price in the market reflects actual 
demand and supply of meat. Indonesia identified some situations in which there were 
abundant meat available (either domestically produced or imported) but they were not 
consequently followed by price adjustment due to flawed distribution chain. The 
provisions stipulated in the regulations are aimed at ensuring a fair market mechanism 
and preventing unnecessary disruption in meat supply which may cause anomalous price increase.  
b. Indonesian market remains open to imported meats since they are needed to fulfil 
nutritional needs at affordable prices. However, meats entering Indonesian market still have to comply with necessary food  safety and halal requirements.  
c. The regulation is consistent with Indonesia's commitment under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture for Indonesia still opens its market to imported meat products.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 13 - 
 
  d. The regulation only regulates imports of second ary beef cuts and is not related to health 
requirements which apply to all products.  
Follow-up: The United States of America and New Zealand registered their interest on this issue. 
 
1.11  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies 
1.11.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76020) Australia understands that the Pakistan Go vernment has recently decided to provide 
export subsidy payments for wheat export s. If this is the case, can Pakistan: 
 
a. Advise when the export subsidy payments will commence and how long the 
export subsidy programme is scheduled to run? 
b. Advise how much export subsidy has been paid to date and how much volume 
has been exported under the export subsidy programme? 
c. Advise the product or products (by HS code) that the subsidy applies to, and 
the subsidy rate per tonne? 
d. Advise how much in total has been budgeted for the export subsidy 
programme? 
e. Advise which markets are expected to receive subsidized wheat exports from 
Pakistan? 
f. Advise when the export subsidy progra mme will be notified to the Committee 
on Agriculture? 
g. Reaffirm its recognition that all forms of export subsidies are highly trade 
distorting forms of support, in acco rdance with the Bali 2013 Ministerial 
Declaration on Export Competition? 
Answer by Pakistan 
 
a. The expiry date of inland transport cost for Sindh Province is 31 March 2015 and for 
Punjab Province is 15 April 2015. 
b. Nothing has been paid till to date. 
c. Wheat is the only product. 
d. It is inland transport cost, no one has submitted any claim, and finance has not yet 
allocated or sanctioned or released any amount. 
e. Exports will be done by the private sector therefore the destination is not known until 
declared by the exporter. Since no exports have taken place under this program 
therefore cannot provide any further information. 
f. If any export would take place under this program, it will be notified to the Committee 
as soon as the data is available. 
g. Pakistan is deeply concerned with the fact that WTO Members failed to meet the 
deadline of 2013 for elimination of all forms of export subsidies and fully supports the Bali declaration on Export Competition.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.11.2  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76028) 
According to an article in "The Express Tr ibune" on the 23 January 2015, the Pakistani 
Economic Coordination Committee approved a subsidy of about PKR 5 billion for the 
export of 1.2 million tonnes of wheat and imposed a ban on the import of wheat by-
products.  
 Could Pakistan indicate how these measures comply with Pakistan's WTO commitments, 
in particular Article 8 of the Agreement for Agriculture for the subsidy and Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture for the import ban?  Answer by Pakistan 
 
Currently there is no import ban on wheat. Pakistan is fully cognizant of its commitments and temporary measures regarding inland transport cost  were designed to integrate the poor farmers 
in the market operations. No amount has been paid yet. 
 Follow-up: Canada, echoed by the United States of  America, noted its interest in the questions 
posed by Australia and the European Union. Austra lia noted the proliferation of export subsidies 
that were not actually being paid and stated that if  these subsidies were not in fact being paid, this 
provided an opportunity to remove these policies. Australia encouraged Pakistan to remove these subsidies as quickly as possible. The European Union noted that it would review Pakistan's 
response and took note that no payments had yet been made. 
 1.12  Russian Federation's agricultural support for 2015 
1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76054) 
On 28 January 2015, the Russian Government i ssued its "Plan of Priority Measures to 
Ensure Sustainable Economic Development an d Social Stability in 2015" (Plan). The Plan 
outlines a number of steps to be taken by the Russian Government to "ensur[e] 
sustainable economic development and social stability" during the current economic 
difficulties. Of relevance to this Committe e, the Plan sets forth numerous steps to 
support the agriculture sector, including the provision of up to 50 billion roubles 
(approximately USD 760 million) from the federal budget in 2015 to support the 
agricultural sector.  
a. Please provide a detailed overview of the specific programmes that will be 
funded through this Plan and targeted at the agriculture sector.  
b. If there are non- or minimally trade dist orting support policies, when does the 
Russian Federation plan to subm it Table DS:2 notifications?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
 Information about the amounts provided under the "plan of priority measures to ensure the 
sustainable economic development of the economy and social stability for 2015 year" (Plan), is 
currently provisional and will be adjusted in accordance with the established schedule for the financial year. The implementation of the Plan does not presume the use of additional or new 
measures in domestic support. In addition, to make an assessment of the level of Government 
support, information on actually used funds is n eeded which will be available at the end of the 
financial year after the formal implementation of  the budget. Accordingly, the Russian Federation 
will present information about domestic support measures in its notification.  
 Follow-up: The United States of America noted that it would study Russia's responses. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.13  Russian Federation's grain exports 
1.13.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 76029) The European Union has learned from the medi a reports that the Russian Federation has 
stopped issuing phytosanitary certificates  for grain exports to most destination 
countries thus imposing a de facto export restriction. It was further reported that, 
pursuant to an act of Government adopte d on 26 December, the Russian Federation 
imposed an export duty on wheat of 15% pl us EUR 7.5, or at least EUR 35 per tonne 
starting 1 February 2015.  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation confirm th at such measures have been applied 
and give further detailed informatio n about the measures, including the 
destinations concerned and justifications?  
b. Does the Russian Federation intend to  notify the measures to the WTO as 
required by Article 12.1(b) of th e WTO Agreement on Agriculture? 
c. Were the export restrictions in question applied on an MFN basis? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
 
The Russian Federation has no information regarding the media reports that the Russian 
Federation has stopped issuing phytosanitary certificates for grain exports. At the same time the Russian Federation would like to state that there is no decision to stop issuing phytosanitary certificates for grain exports to any destination countries. Respectively any allegations regarding 
export restrictions are incorrect. Referring to the export duty issue the Russian Federation 
confirms that export duties had been imposed on ce rtain grains. This measure is in conformity with 
WTO obligations, including transparency obligations.  
 
1.14  Thailand's sugar policies 
1.14.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76021) 
According to the press article, "government to slash rice crop, sell stockpiles to cut 
glut", in the Bangkok Post 2 February 2015 (see http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/ne ws/464229/thailand-to-slash-rice-crop-
sell-stockpiles-to-cut-glut ), the Thai Government is to provide incentives to cut rice 
production by up to 34 million tonnes for the 2016-2017 cropping year. These incentives 
are said to include shifting production away  from rice and into sugar cane, and are in 
response to over ‑production of rice caused by the government's former market price 
support for rice producers. The market price support has reportedly led to very large 
stockpiles of rice.  
 
a. Can Thailand comment on the veracity of this report and confirm if the 
intention of the Government is to reduce  rice production and end market price 
support programmes for rice? 
b. Can Thailand explain what policy tools will be utilized to try and achieve this 
outcome, and indicate what incentives, if  any, will be provided to move rice 
growers into sugar cane production? 
Answer by Thailand 
 Thailand reiterates that the Paddy Pledging Scheme, to which Australia referred, has been 
terminated. The information appeared in the news report is currently a draft study, which has not 
been approved or implemented by the authority. It is only an initiative which has so far been consulted among stakeholders. The concept is to restructure agricultural production by encouraging farmers to efficiently grow other crops in appropriate areas. The restructuring 
decision is voluntary for farmers. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.14.2  Question by Brazil (AG-IMS ID 76001) 
a. According to the Three-Month Progress Re port of the National Council for Peace 
and Order (NCPO), dated September 2014, "As for the low sugar cane prices, the NCPO has approved the increase of sugar cane prices for production year 
2013/2014, to THB 160 per tonne, that will  be directly paid to farmers that 
have sent their goods to the sugar factories totalling 103.67 million tonnes. This has resulted in over 300,000 sugar cane producers receiving higher 
dividends from their produce, which will serve as an ongoing basis to develop 
both the sugar cane industry and sugar manufacturing industry systematically". Would the Thai Governme nt be able to provide information on 
how long this payment has been provided to farmers? Could the Thai 
Government confirm if this payment is a pplicable to all sugar cane production 
of the corresponding crop season for which it was announced? Could the legislation that provided the basis for these payments be made available?  
b. Thailand provided its last notifi cation on domestic support in 
April 2014 (G/AG/N/THA/75), regarding the 2008 calendar year. Does the Thai Government intend to present update d notifications? Will the payments for 
sugar cane price support be included in the coming Thai domestic support 
notifications?  
c. According to the aforementioned NCPO  Progress Report, the 160 bath per 
tonne price will be applied to 103.67 millio n tonnes of sugar cane delivered to 
sugar factories, totalling THB 16.59 billio n to be paid through the Cane and 
Sugar Fund (CSF). Sugar factories have to contribute to the CSF with a levy of THB 5 per tonne of sugar sold in the do mestic market (2.6 million tonnes of 
sugar), amounting to THB 13 billion. It is  therefore possible to conclude that 
the total amount spent with sugar cane price support is considerably higher than the contributions of the factories to the CSF. Could the Thai Government 
provide information on how the CSF is f unded in order to bear the cost of 
payments for sugar cane price support ? Given that the amount collected 
through the CSF levy is lower than th e amount necessary for the payments, 
please explain how this difference is financed. 
d. According to different statistical sources,  sugar cane planted area in Thailand 
has been growing in recent years. US  Department of Agriculture reports 
indicate that the cane planted area has grown from 1.28 million hectares in 
crop season 2011/2012 to 1.51 million in  the current sea son (2014/2015). 
Could Thailand provide statistics on its planted area and total production from 
2011/2012 until now? 
e. According to the Department of Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce of 
Thailand, minimum prices for sugar for domestic market are required by the Price of Good and Service Act (1999). How are minimum prices for domestic 
market related to export prices? Are domestic minimum prices higher than 
export prices? 
f. Could the Thai Government provide in formation on farm gate sugar cane 
production and transportation  costs to the factories?  
g. According to market sources, Thailand  has accumulated a large amount of 
sugar stocks. Could the Thai Government  please inform whether these sugar 
stocks belong to the private or th e public sector? Given that Quota A 
determines the quantity of sugar to be delivered to the domestic market, is it 
correct to assume that the exceeding stocks will be necessarily exported?  
h. The Thai Government intends to induce pr oducers to switch from rice to sugar 
cane in determined regions, accordin g to market sources. Could Thailand 
confirm that this is the case? If so, what policy instruments will be used to 
achieve this crop switch? What are th e main economic reasons that would G/AG/W/142 
 
- 17 - 
 
  justify it? Would sugar cane be more profitable for Thai farmers than rice? 
Why?  
Answer by Thailand 
 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
 1.14.3  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 76033) 
The European Union thanks Thailand for thei r reply to its questions of November 2014 
(AG‑IMS ID 75105). The European Union would seek further information on the 
operation and administration of Thailand's  sugar policy. Thailand states that the 
operation and administration of Thailand's  sugar industry are not controlled by the 
Government. It is also stated that there is a ceiling price for Quota X for retail sale and 
that Quota Y is the quantity for export by Thai Cane and Sugar Corporation Limited. In 
the light of this, could Thailand explain: 
 
a. Whether ceiling prices for Quota X and mi nimum farm gate prices of sugarcane 
are set by the Government? 
b. What are the administrative prices for do mestic sugar in comparison to export 
prices during the most recent five ye ars for which the data is available? 
c. Whether administrative prices for domestic  sugar are affecting the quantities of 
sugar exported? 
d. Whether Thai Cane and Sugar Corporation Limited, which exports Quota Y 
sugar, has received any support from the Government, including government 
financing, preferential access to capital,  underwriting of losses or write-offs of 
debts; and whether any special legislativ e privileges have been granted to this 
company)? 
e. If so, whether Thailand intends to notify it to the WTO pursuant to 
Article XVII:4(a) of the GATT? 
Answer by Thailand 
 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
 Follow-up: Pakistan noted its concern on this issue. 
 1.15  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.15.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76058) 
In June 2014 and November 2014, Thailand was unable to provide answers to some of 
the U.S. questions in AG-IMS ID 74050 and AG-IMS ID 75036 regarding Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme, which was terminat ed as of 28 February 2014. The United 
States of America repeats the questions.  
 
The United States of America notes that  the administered price under the Paddy 
Pledging Scheme was THB 14,400 per tonne fo r the main crop, but since the programme 
was discontinued, market prices in Thailand  have fallen dramatical ly to approximately 
THB 7,000 per tonne. The United States of Am erica understands that Thailand procured 
11.6 million metric tonnes at a cost of TH B 190 billion (USD 5.8 million) in 2013/2014.  
 
a. Please confirm the quantity of paddy ri ce Thailand procured under the Paddy 
Pledging Scheme for the main crop of  MY 2013/2014. If reported figures are 
incorrect, please provide the correct figures.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 18 - 
 
  b. Please confirm whether the cost of the Main-Crop Rice Paddy Pledging Program 
is THB 190 billion (USD 5.8 billion) for MY 2013/2014. If this is incorrect, please provide the correct cost.  
Further, the United States of America no tes that Thailand conducted a tender of 
203,000 metric tonnes on 28 October 2014 and a tender of 400,000 metric 
tonnes on 22 December 2014. The United States of America notes that market prices are far less than the administered prices at which stocks were procured. 
In addition, the United States of Americ a notes the dramatic decline in market 
prices in 2014. 
c. Please confirm whether any tenders were exported and provide any publically 
available information with regard to the sales price of these tenders.  
New questions:  
 On 25 November 2014, the Thai Government approved an on-farm pledging programme 
(the "Farmer Loans to Delay the sales of Rice Paddy for MY 2014/2015"). The 
programme appears to operate in the same manner as the former Paddy Pledging Scheme did, but with several limitations, such  as lower intervention prices, and limits on 
procurement areas and on eligibility, which is limited to the main-crop production.  
 
d. Given that Thailand has introduced se veral other rice programmes, what was 
the reason for adopting this pledging programme?  
e. Is there any limitation on the overall qu a nt i ty o f  ri c e t ha t  ma y be purc ha s ed 
under the programme?  
On 2 October 2014, the Thai Govern ment approved THB 40 billion (USD 
1.3 billion) for direct payments to rice producers with payments up to USD 195 
per hectare. The United States of Am erica understands the payments will be 
based on farm size. 
f. Are the direct payments a one-time offering or does Thailand expect to provide 
similar payments in the future?  
g. Please explain how farm size is determ ined and on what period of time the 
payments are based.  
Thailand has also adopted an input subsidy programme under the Rice Farmer 
Assistance Program. The subsidy will be available for fertilizers, 
pesticides/insecticides, seeds, machiner y, and land, totalling up to THB 582 per 
rai (USD 111 per hectare).  
h. Please provide additional details with re gard to how this programme operates.  
i. Please indicate whether this programme will continue to operate along with the 
new on-farm pledging programme.  
In the response to question AG-IMS ID 75036, Thailand said it "would like to 
confirm that under the rule and polic y of the Ministry of Commerce, the 
Department of Foreign Trade is to conduct tenders to release the rice from the 
stock without any negative effect to  the rice market. Any tenders with 
unreasonably lower than market pric es will not be accepted by the 
Government".  
j. Please explain how "unreasonably lower than market prices" are determined. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand 
 
a. and b. Currently, Thailand is unable to provide the figures for the marketing year 
2013/2014 as the relevant authority is finalizing the account. The information is also 
subject to the ongoing investigations and upcoming court proceedings relating to the 
past pledging programme.  
c. Thailand would like to clarify that government tenders are not specific for exports. The 
procedure is open for all legal persons who register as rice traders with the Ministry of 
Commerce. According to statistics, in January 2015, Thailand's rice export decreased t r e m e n d o u s l y  c o m p a r e d  t o  t h e  s a m e  p e r i o d  l a s t  y e a r .  L a s t  m o n t h ,  T h a i l a n d ' s  r i c e  exports accounted only for 600,000 metric tonnes, ranking third after India and Viet 
Nam. The price of Thai rice is USD 40-50, higher than other sources.  
d. Thailand confirms that the Paddy Pledging Scheme has been terminated. The 
programme mentioned by the United States of America is not operated in the same 
manner as the former pledging scheme. It is a loan programme available for farmers in 
order to delay the sales of rice paddy during the harvest season so that the market prices do not plummet due to a large supply in the market. To be eligible for the loan, 
farmers are required to keep their paddy in their own barn or granary; therefore, this 
will not result in any stockholding by the Government. The programme is available for low-income resource-poor jasmine rice farmers in the northern and north-eastern parts of Thailand.  
e. The Government targeted that the overall qu antity of rice under the programme would 
be approximately 2 million tonnes of paddy. Thailand reiterates that the Government does not purchase rice under this programme.  
f. and g. This programme aims at relieving the expense burden related to seeds, fertilizers, 
and pesticides/insecticides for low-income resource-poor rice farmers which account for more than 90% of the farmer population in Thailand. Under the programme, the 
Government will provide eligible farmers with a fixed amount of THB 1,000 per Rai 
(1 hectare = 6.25 Rai; USD 1 = THB 32.85), or approximately the figure given by the United States of America. Each household, with an average of four members, receives 
the payment not exceeding THB 15,000 or around USD 450 per year. At this time, the 
Government does not have any future plan for this type of payment programme. The 
farm size for each household is determined according to the registration of farmers with the authority in the previous year. 
h. and i. Under the programme the United States of America referred to, the Government 
does not provide any subsidy to farmers. The Government encourages voluntary cooperation from the private-sector suppliers of fertilizers, pesticides/insecticides, and 
machinery to reduce the prices of those supplies.  
j. Thailand would like to clarify that at present, when conducting tenders, the Department 
of Foreign Trade will announce the market price of rice, below which the Government will not sell. Therefore, the bidders will not be allowed to offer any price below the market 
price determined by the Government.  
Follow-up: The Philippines and India registered th eir interest and concern on the subject. The 
Philippines noted that rice and sugar were very  important commodities for the Philippines. The 
Philippines expressed its hope that this plan would not translate to further subsidization in other 
sectors like sugar. The Philippines stated that there was a new initiative in congress to look at Thailand's subsidization policy. With respect to rice auctioning by the Government, the Philippines 
requested clarification from Thailand, as to wh ether the set price was below the paddy pledging 
scheme price. Thailand clarified that the price set by the Government was from the current market price. The United States of America stated that it would study Thailand's responses and might come back with questions in the future. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.16  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.16.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 76059) 
Turkey has not yet responded to questions from the November meeting that were 
originally posed on the floor during the Ju ne 2014 meeting. The United States of 
America repeats them. 
 
a. Please explain the TMO Sales Regulation (Code of Practice for Grain Sales after 
Export to Product Manufacturer-Exporters) that allows TMO to make sales to 
inward processing certificate holders at world prices. Please provide details on 
any other measures that operationalize the TMO. 
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing 
certificate holders over the past severa l years. Does Turkey confirm that TMO 
sells domestic wheat to Turkey flour mille rs that export flour and hold inward 
processing certificates? If so, please provide wheat purchase and wheat sales 
prices for these transactions for the last three years. 
c. Please describe any government control or verification requirements for inward 
processing of wheat flour. 
d. The United States of America appreciate s Turkey's response on exported flour 
and imported wheat as shown in the table (Annex 2 in G/AG/W/106; AG-IMS ID 73042). Are all of the quantities listed imported and exported through the inward processing system? If not, please elaborate on this table by 
stating how much of the imports and exports were through the inward 
processing system. 
e. In AG-IMS ID 73042, the United States of America requested data concerning 
both the quantity and quality of wheat imports and flour exports under 
Turkey's inward processing system. In response, Turkey provided data concerning only the quantity of such im ports and exports. Please provide data 
for the last three years listing the qualit y of wheat imported and the quality of 
wheat flour exported under Turkey 's inward processing system. 
f. Please confirm that the sale and tradin g of inward processing certificates 
received for exporting products occurs and is allowed under Turkey's 
regulations. Please also provide any me asures that regulate this process. 
Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 Follow-up : The European Union and Ukraine registered their concern on this subject.   
 
1.17  U.S. Export Credit Guarantee Program  
1.17.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 76017) Australia understands that the FY2015 US Ex port Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) 
country/region allocations provide an allocati on for export credit guarantees to the 
Republic of Korea (ROK) to the value of US D 400 million. The allocation for the ROK is 
the single largest Commodity Line 1 allocation , being larger than the export credit for 
Africa/Middle East and larger than South America. See 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit-guarantee-pr ogram-gsm-102/gsm-
102-allocations . 
 
a. Could the United States of America plea se advise what products does GSM-102 
finance to the ROK and in what volumes, for years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014? G/AG/W/142 
 
- 21 - 
 
  b. What particular disadvantage do United  States of America exporters face in 
obtaining commercial export credit for exports of agricultural products to 
the ROK? 
c. What proportion of total U.S. agricultur al exports to the ROK are assisted by 
the GSM 102 programme? 
d. What percentage of U.S. agricultural exports to the ROK , by product category, 
are assisted by the GSM 102 programme? 
Answer by United States of America 
 The United States of America provides a transparent account of historical and current summary data on the countries or regions of destination, commodities, and dollar value of exports registered 
under its Export Credit Guarantee Program. Thos e data are readily available for viewing on the 
U.S. website by the public and are updated annually.   
a. The information requested is available at the following link which provides GSM-102 
annual programme activity reports and includes activity to the Republic of Korea, by commodity: http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/expo rt-credit-guaran tee-program-gsm-
102/yearly-activity-reports . 
b. The GSM-102 programme provides credit guarantees to encourage financing of 
commercial exports of U.S. agricultural produc ts. By reducing financial risk to lenders, 
credit guarantees encourage exports to buyers in countries — mainly developing 
countries — that have sufficient financial strength to have foreign exchange available for 
scheduled payments.  
and d. The information needed to derive the percentages requested by Australia is 
readily available at the following link, which provides US export data: 
http://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx . 
Follow-up: Argentina, Canada and the European Union registered their interest on the subject. 
Canada noted that it would take a look at the links provided by the United States of America. 
Australia noted that it was not clear whether volumes for commodities were available in the links provided. Australia requested confirmation as to whether the information requested in question c) and d) would be available in the link provided. Th e United States of America noted that the link 
provided contained a database with all trade by tariff line and commodities, both in dollar value 
and volume, for any country, or combination of countries, and products.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 2.1.1  Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/51) 
AG-IMS ID 76055: Question by Peru - Transparency issues 
a. Could Korea please explain in detail how ta riff quotas for quinoa are allocated? 
b. Peru would like to know whether Korea has an official website in English on 
which the tariff quota fill rate can be consulted in real time. 
Answer by Republic of Korea 
 
a. The TRQ for quinoa is allocated through public auction of importing rights. The import 
rights are sold to the highest bidder. The TRQ for quinoa is filled at once in the bidding. 
A Korean state trading company, Korea Agro-fisheries & Food Trade Corporation, is responsible for the public auction of quinoa . The bidding schedule is published on the 
web site of that company.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Although information on tariff quota fill rates is not available in real time, Members may 
get the result of the bidding as well as the required procedures through the internet. 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 2.2.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/103) 
AG-IMS ID 76056: Question by Peru - Transparency issues 
a. Could Canada please provide details on how General Import Permit #1 
operates? 
b. Why is the tariff quota fill rate over 100 % for certain products , such as wheat, 
barley, eggs and chicken? 
Answer by Canada 
 
a. Dairy products are controlled under Canada's Export and Import Permits 
Act (EIPA) (website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-19/page-1.html ) and 
are on the Import Control list (website: http://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._604/page-1.html ), an EIPA regulation. 
Accordingly, an import permit is required for shipments of dairy products to enter 
Canada, regardless of whether the import is for commercial or personal use. These 
import permits can be shipment-specific permits issued to individual importers on the 
basis of established rules and policies (e.g., in the context of Tariff Rate Quotas), or they can be General Import Permits (GIPs) that authorize all Canadian residents to import the goods in question, subject to the conditions of the GIP. GIP No. 1 allows the personal 
importation by any Canadian resident of most controlled dairy products, up to a value of 
USD 20 CAD. The GIP is applied when an importing resident makes their import declaration at the border. GIP No. 1's USD 20 CAD limit does not apply to milk (tariff 
item 0401.10.10 or 0401.20.10). The full list of qualifying dairy products can be found in 
General Import Permit No. 1 — Dairy Products for Personal Use regulation (SOR/95-40) (website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-95-40/FullText.html ). 
b. The main reason for the over fill of the ba rley products TRQ is the growing demand for 
specialty malts used in beer production (m ainly micro-breweries and craft breweries). 
Many of the specialty malts required by brew eries are not widely available in Canada and 
additional permits beyond the WTO volume commitment are provided to meet demand 
in Canada. Since 1999/2000 the wheat products TRQ has tended to be overfilled. The 
imports of wheat products enter under a first-come, first-served TRQ administration method and are closely monitored. When imports are near 100% of the quota volume 
the quota is closed. This method for monitoring wheat product imports often results in 
the tariff rate quota being slightly overfilled (since it is difficult to exactly cut the quota off at the WTO commitment level). For broiler hatching eggs and chicks, the TRQ fill is 
higher than 100% since 1995 because the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) commitment is larger than the WTO commitment. The NAFTA commitment is calculated based on 21.1% of estimated domestic production of broiler hatching eggs. The broiler hatching eggs and chicks tariff quota is broken down into 
broiler hatching chicks (3.7% of anticipated domestic production) and hatching eggs 
(17.4% of anticipated domestic production ). In the case of chicken, the NAFTA 
commitment of 7.5% of the previous year's production which is administered on a global 
basis has been larger than Canada's WTO chicken commitment since 1995.  
2.2.2  Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/50) AG-IMS ID 76022: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Can Korea please provide the tariff quota fill ra tes for each tariff line in line with the Bali 
Decision on Tariff Rate Quota Administration?  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Answer by Republic of Korea 
 Korea would like to underline its full commitment to all WTO regulations, including the Bali decision on TRQ Administration. Considering the Bali decision on TRQ Administration was adopted at the 
end of 2013, Korea will use the modified notification form for the 2014 TRQ notification.  
 2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/89) 
AG-IMS ID 76040: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
In response to India's question (AG-IMS ID 75043), Australia has provided details of the 
Farm Management Deposit Scheme (FMDS). However, Australia has not provided the 
relevant information on how this scheme co mplies with the requirements of paragraph 7 
of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Australia is again requested to provide this 
information. In particular, could Australia indicate how the scheme ensures that the 
eligibility for the scheme is determined  by an income loss exceeding 30%? 
 
Answer by Australia 
 The purpose of Farm Management Deposits (FMDs) is to allow farmers to prepare financially for loss of income as a consequence of low income events like drought. It is designed to increase the 
self-reliance of Australian primary producers by helping them manage their financial risk and meet 
their needs in low-income years, for example due to  drought, fire or flood, by building up cash 
reserves as a precautionary balance. Tax is still  paid on the funds withdrawn from FMDs in any 
particular year in accordance with Australian taxation policy. The FMD policy is aimed at 
minimising government payments to farmers duri ng drought and other disasters by encouraging 
farmers to be both prepared and self-reliant during such low income years. This approach is 
intended to increase farm financial preparedness over time. 
 Exceptional circumstances are defined as events that are rare, severe, and which have a prolonged impact on income and which are outside those that a farmer could normally be expected to 
manage using responsible farm management strategies. In the Australian context, the most 
common circumstances of this kind involve serious drought. There is a significant lag in farming 
conditions returning to pre-drought levels as water availability and reserves, soil moisture, and 
pasture cover return to normal, and livestock restocking takes place. Historically in Australia, such 
droughts have resulted in production losses consistent with all of the criteria in Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 76041: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
In response to India's question (AG-IMS ID  75046), Australia has stated that "due to 
the nature of the severity of drought requir ed for EC to be declared, production losses 
are likely to be greater than those describe d in Annex 2, paragraph 8". Could Australia 
confirm that if production l osses are less than those describe d in Annex 2, paragraph 8, 
such payments will not be classified under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 
Answer by Australia  
See answer to question above (AG-IMS ID 76040). 
 2.3.2  Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/20) 
AG-IMS ID 76060: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
What is the definition or criteria that Bots wana uses to classify low income or poor 
resource farmers?  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Answer by Botswana 
 In Botswana, a low-income or resource-poor farmer is defined as a subsistence or smallholder farmer who does not produce for commercial purposes, but produces mainly for home 
consumption. Resource-poor farmers mainly practice traditional food systems. They use neither 
farm machinery nor modern/new technology.  
With respect to crop farming, a resource-poor farmer owns a small farm of less than 5 hectares. 
Crop yield is low, approximately 150 kg/hectare. They mainly use draught power to plough their 
fields. They apply neither fertilizers nor pesticides. They do not practice row planting and use hand broad casting. Cultivation, weeding, harvesting and threshing are done by hand and/or hand-held 
implements like hoes.  
 Regarding livestock farming, resource-poor farmers own a small herd of less than 20 cattle in 
communal/rural areas. The calving rate is low and mortality rate is high. They do not keep records 
and do not provide supplementary feeding and su rvival is by scavenging. No vaccination is 
undertaken except for the ones carried-out by Government to prevent diseases of economic 
importance like Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), Rabies, Anthrax and Black Quarter, in accordance 
with Annex 2 paragraph 2 (b) on pest and disease control of the Agreement on Agriculture.  2.3.3  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/37) 
AG-IMS ID 76062: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates th e inclusion of the note to Supporting Table 
DS:7 indicating all of the products that ar e part of Brazil's various product-specific 
support programmes, including Market Price Support. The United States of America believes that notes, such as these, in Memb ers' notifications prov ide greatly improved 
transparency with regard to the general st ate of agricultural support in a country 
compared to notifications that simply state only those items with a budgetary outlay or 
other calculated measure of support. For exam ple, Brazil's notification makes clear that 
government funding targeted at market pric e support programmes is, in part, dependent 
on forecast prices.  
 
a. Noting that Brazil may provide funding to support programmes, including 
market price support, of these various products in any given year, please 
describe whether the Government will re -evaluate funding for a given product 
if market prices fall significantly belo w the expected levels when the initial 
funding is determined.  
b. The note to Supporting Table DS:7 states  that some products have the right to 
be supported only in specific states or re gions. Does this indicate that state or 
regional funding exists or does it mean that federal funding is limited to certain 
areas?  
c. The United States of America notes that  the PEP programme was used for both 
grapes and oranges in 2012 and PEPRO was used for oranges. Can Brazil 
provide any information on the quantities of product purchased under both 
these programmes that were sold do mestically and were exported?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. When market prices fall significantly below expected levels, the Government can ask the 
National Congress for additional funding. 
b. It means that the funding for some products is limited to certain areas. 
c. The supported (not purchased) quantities were 11,634 tonnes of oranges and 
78,027 tonnes of grapes under PEP, and 25,785 tonnes of oranges under PEPRO. Specific information on quantities sold domestically and/or exported is not available. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 76030: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Canada notes that "Support for projects of  agricultural development" notified under 
extension and advisory services has in creased substantially in 2012/2013 from 
USD 278.7 million in 2011/2012 to  USD 998.6 million in 2012/2 013. Could Brazil please 
provide details on this significant increase in spending including the types of projects 
that benefit this funding? What sort of  agricultural development is targeted? 
 
Answer by Brazil  The increase in spending was justified by the need to support public investment by local 
authorities in side roads in all Brazilian towns outside metropolitan areas (before 2013, such 
spending was restricted to towns with less than 50,000 inhabitants). The notified values also reflect expenditures aimed at supporting actions by local authorities in reaction to severe droughts 
in 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 76031: Question by Canada - General services: marketing and promotion 
services 
Canada notes that under marketing and prom otions services, "support for marketing 
projects" has increased significantly in  2012/2013 from USD 2. 4 million in 2011/2012 
to USD 21 million in 2012/2013. Could Brazil please elaborate on the reasons for this 
change in expenditure? 
 
Answer by Brazil  
The increase in spending on marketing and promotion services is explained by the fact that the 
current Brazilian projects have been consolidating year by year, benefiting from available funds in 
the national budget law.  
AG-IMS ID 76061: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America notes that Brazil provides "Funds for variable input 
acquisitions". The United States of America also notes that Brazil st ated in response to 
AG-IMS ID 66025 that the definition of lo w-income or resource-poor producers is 
identical to that of "family farming" in Brazil,  which is the three criteria to define family 
farming (low-income or resource-poor producers): 
 
i. limitation in the size of the land (four module size); 
ii. most part of the family revenue must come from the agricultural activity; 
iii. the business is operated by the family  with predominance of its own labour 
force. The definition was esta blished by Law 11326/2006 and its 
amendments.  
a. Please provide more detail with regard to the land limitations ("four module 
size"). The United States of America und erstands these vary by location, and 
would appreciate several examples in st ates such as Mato Grosso, Tocantins, 
Parana, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goias, and Minas Gerais. 
b. Do size limitations vary by commodity? 
c. Are there any limits on total income? 
d. What is the median income of these farmers in Brazil? Please also provide 
examples for median income in the states noted in question a. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil 
 
a. The module size was defined by the Special Instruction INCRA Nr. 20, 28 May 1980, and 
varies by municipality. Brazil will provide th e United States of America an updated file 
with the module size of all municipalities in Brazil. 
b. No, size limitations do not vary by commodity. 
c. Yes, the current limit is BRL 360,000.00 of total revenue, per family/rural property, per 
year.  
d. That information is not relevant to the implementation of public policies related to family 
farming in Brazil. There is no official data on that issue. Please refer to the reply above for an example for median income in the states noted in question a). 
AG-IMS ID 76034: Question by Canada - De minimis  
Canada notes that the total Value of Production (VOP) figure used to calculate the 
de minimis  threshold is on a provisional basis. Could Brazil please advise when they 
intend to provide the actual total VOP fi gure? Will the other product-specific figures 
need to be revised as well?  
Answer by Brazil 
 No, these figures do not need to be revised. 
AG-IMS ID 76036: Question by Cana da - Classificati on of measures 
Canada notes that "Funds for input subsidie s" is no longer included in Brazil's 
Supporting Table DS:2 (special and different ial treatment). However, a new item has 
been added to Brazil's Supporting Table DS :9 (Non-product specific support) also 
entitled "Funds for input subsidies". Co uld Brazil please indicate whether the 
programme under supporting table DS:2 has been  terminated or has it been re-classified 
under supporting table DS:9 as non-product specific? If the latter is true, could Brazil 
elaborate on the reasons for this change in classification? 
 Answer by Brazil  
The programme used to benefit only family farmers (low-income or resource-poor producers), but 
it has been modified and now can benefit other kinds of producers.   
2.3.4  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/20) 
AG-IMS ID 76032: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes an important decrease in support for "Public Stockholding for Food 
Security Purposes" in 2011/2012. Could the European Union provide details on this 
substantial drop in payments?  Answer by European Union 
 
As is indicated in the notification, this expenditure relates only to individual member State expenditure. Member States only spent EUR 1.2 m illion in the 2012 budget year due to changes in 
policies, which is indeed a significantly lower amount than in 2011. 
AG-IMS ID 76037: Question by Canada - Pa yments based on fixed areas or yields 
Could the European Union provide details on the significant drop in payments for 
transitional fruit and vegetables which went from EUR 210.5 million in 2010/2011 to 
EUR 70.9 million in 2011/2012?  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Answer by European Union 
 This aid was paid under a temporary and degressive scheme introduced during the reform of the CAP provisions for the fruit and vegetable sector introduced by Council Regulation (EC) 1182/2007 
with effect from 1 January 2008. The aid should sh ow further reductions in subsequent years.  
AG-IMS ID 76038: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS Canada notes the inclusion of a new measure called "Mutual funds in case of animal or 
vegetal diseases" and the associated payment of EUR 26.9 million. Could the European 
Union describe the circumstances requiring this support?   Answer by European Union 
 
The possibility to support the setting up of mutual funds has been provided for in Articles 68(1)(e) and 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, with effect from 1 January 2009. However, the 
2012 budget year was the first in which this possibility was taken up by a member State. 
 Follow-up: Canada noted its interest in the circumstances that would require this type of 
funding (mutual funds).  2.3.5  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/Corr.1) 
AG-IMS ID 76018: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia thanks India for its answers to the questions raised by Australia at the 
75
th Committee of Agriculture, in relation to India's notification (G /AG/IN/10). Australia 
acknowledges India's answer to Australia's question (AG-IMS ID 75017) on the use of 
United States Dollars (USD) instead of Indian Rupees (INR) in India's recent 
notifications. Australia notes, however, that India's AGST requires that INR be used, and 
indeed INR was used by India prior to its last notification. 
 
a. Can India explain why it is no longer using INR in its notifications, and why it 
considers it more important "to provide comparable estimates" than to follow 
India's AGST?  
b. Can India also explain why it considers USD as being more reflective of the real 
impact of Indian domestic support when domestic support is actually delivered 
in INR and not USD? 
Answer by India 
 India has followed a consistent approach with respect to currency used when notifying its domestic 
support notifications. Notification of domestic support in US dollars since 1995-1996 has been 
done in order to provide comparable estimates of the support. 
AG-IMS ID 76019: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
With respect to the question from Australia (AG-IMS ID 75021) on input subsidies, India 
states that "about 99% of farm holdings have  less than ten hectares of land which is not 
considered to be adequate to generate enou gh income to maintain a minimum standard 
of living". India states that the situatio n has deteriorated further over the period 
2001-2002 to 2010-2011. This is despite the fact that Indian input subsidies to these 
farms have increased by almost 300% in the notification period and that market price 
support has also been available for a range of agricultural commodities. 
 
a. Can India explain why concessional farm inputs and market price support have 
not made any significant change to the economic circumstances of the recipient 
farmers?  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 28 - 
 
  b. Can India also explain why rice prod uction and wheat production have 
accelerated significantly in the period under notification, along with the value 
of agricultural output, yet according to  India's response, the number of farmers 
deemed to be living without a sufficient  income has increased over the same 
period? 
Answer by India 
 
a. India's agriculture is subjected to structur al disadvantages arising out of small and 
fragmented landholdings, depletion in soil fertility, lack of access to markets and technology, and low levels of productivity and income. Since agriculture in India is not remunerative and input costs are rising over time due to upward price movement in the 
country, concessional farm inputs and market price support have not been able to keep 
pace with the rate of inflation.  
b. There is a marginal increase (3%) in the quantity of production of rice during 2001-2002 
and 2010-2011 and an increase (19%) in the quantity of wheat production 
from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011. This increase in the production of rice and wheat has, however, had very limited impact on the livelihood of the Indian poor farmers since the 
number of small or resource poor farmers has increased during the decade 2000-2010. 
AG-IMS ID 76066: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 75045 regarding th e significant levels of state-level funding 
that are distinct from central government funding noted by the United States, India 
states that "Agriculture is a state subjec t in India, and all support provided by the 
Government is implemented at the state level". 
 
a. The United States of America appreciates India's response that all agricultural 
support in India is implemented at the state level, but repeats its questions 
regarding whether India's notification in cludes both central government funded 
support and state-level funded support.  
I n  r e s p o n s e  t o  A G - I M S  I D  7 5 0 4 5 ,  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  o f  A m e r i c a  n o t e s  t h a t  i n  
India's response and explanation of the ma nner in which it notifies its domestic 
support programmes, India stated that it no tifies consistently in U.S. dollars so 
as to provide comparable estimate s from one year to the next.  
b. Please provide India's notified levels of  support for its most recent notified 
year (2010) in Indian rupees for comparison purposes with its commitments 
reflected in its AGST (G/AG/AGST/IND).  
Answer by India 
 
a. In India agriculture is a state subject. Th e funds for assistance for the agriculture 
programmes are budgeted by the Government of India (GoI) and expended through the State governments as per the modalities defined by the GoI.  
b. The support has already been notified and the conversion rates from INR to USD have 
already been provided in India's notifications. 
AG-IMS ID 76067: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 75047, regardin g general services support, India simply 
stated that agriculture is a state subject and that all support is implemented at the state 
level.  
 The United States of America repeats its qu estions seeking clarification as to whether 
support notified as general services is f unded completely by the central government G/AG/W/142 
 
- 29 - 
 
  (and implemented by states) or if some level of notified support al so includes state-level 
funding. If the notified support does not in clude state-level support, please indicate the 
instances in which states do provide funding.  
 
Answer by India 
 The funds for assistance for the agriculture progra mmes are budgeted by the Government of India 
(GoI) and expended through the State governments as per the modalities defined by the GoI.  
AG-IMS ID 76068: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
I n  r e s p o n s e  t o  p a r t  a )  o f  A G - I M S  I D  7 5 0 4 8 , India indicated that it had not exported 
grains from government stocks since 2006/2007.  
 
a. Please confirm whether this response was in  relation to only the notified period 
or whether it also includes dates beyond the notified period?  
The United States of America notes that, according to publicly available official 
government data, India's food subsidy has continued to rise since 2010/2011. 
Based on the Food Corporation of Indi a website, India has also exported 
significant quantities from public st ocks since that time. For example, 
in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, India expo rted 3.07 million metric tonnes and 
2.43 million metric tonnes of wheat from  the Food Corporation of India. 
b. Please confirm these export volumes. 
c. Please provide detailed information, including tender notices and prices, 
regarding these exported quantities.  
The United States of America notes that India notified USD 12.28 billion in 
public stockholding for food security purposes in 2009/2010. At the official 
exchange rate notified by India, this is equivalent to INR 582 billion. As noted 
by the United States of America in part c) of AG-IMS ID 75048, the Food 
Corporation of India reported INR 428 billio n in "subsidies" or the fiscal losses 
associated with procuring rice and whea t at the minimum support price and the 
selling at heavily discounted prices in 2009/2010. This figure more than 
doubled by 2013/2014. Several states also provided bonuses in addition to the 
minimum support price. In 2009/2010, the United States of America estimates 
that these bonuses were equivalent to INR 11,463.9 million. 
d. Please confirm if the expenditures note d by the Food Corporation of India are 
included in the notification by India under  public stockholding for food security 
purposes.  
e. Please confirm the U.S. estimates of st ate bonuses and provide total state-level 
funding expenditures for the notified period, including, but not limited to, state-bonuses per part e) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
f. Please confirm whether the state bonus or  other state-level funding is included 
in the notification by India under public stockholding for food  security per part 
d) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
g. Please explain any other expenditure notified under this sub-heading and 
include relevant values for the notified period. 
Answer by India 
 
a. The response is only for the notified period.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. and c. The quantities of wheat exported through competitive global tenders during 2012 
to 2014 are as follows: 
(In million tonnes) 
2012-2013 2013-2014 
2.92 2.54 
 
The weighted average price of USD 303.35 per tonne has been realized from these exports. 
d. India's notification is consistent with the WTO rules and includes expenditure incurred in 
its public distribution programme.  
e. f. and g. India's notification is consistent with the WTO rules and India's commitment to 
the WTO. 
AG-IMS ID 76069: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters 
The United States of America thanks India fo r its response to AG-IMS ID 75049 and the 
clarifications provided. The United Stat es of America would like to confirm its 
understanding of India's response that:   
a. under the sub-heading, "payments for relief from natural disasters", the 
payments include no state-level funding an d simply indicate the level of central 
government expenditures implemented by states; 
b. no state-level expenditures are used to fund the National Crop Insurance 
Scheme (which is funded complete ly by the central government). 
Answer by India 
 
Payments to farmers for relief from natural disasters are covered under the National Crop 
Insurance scheme. The funds for the assistance are provided by the Government of India and 
spent through the States as implementing agencies.  
AG-IMS ID 76070: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provid ed through investment aids 
The United States of America thanks India for this response to AG-IMS ID 75052 and 
looks forward to reviewing the Table DS:2 wh en it is notified. The United States of 
America notes that the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme classifies 
farmers as "marginal, small, and other". Ma rginal and small farmers are collectively 
considered those with no more than two hect ares of land, while "other" consists of all 
other farmers. The Scheme provides debt waivers to marginal and small farmers and 
debt relief to other farmers.   
a. The United States of America would a ppreciate a better understanding of the 
basis for implementing this debt programme as described.  
b. Other than landholding size, what factors contributed to India's assessment 
that two hectares was an appropriat e basis for determining which farmers 
received debt waivers versus debt relief.  
The United States of America notes that the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt 
Relief Scheme takes into account farmer s that pool their landholdings per 
details linked in response to AG-IMS 75052.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 31 - 
 
  c. Can India provide relevant data on th e pooling of landholdings by Indian 
farmers? For example, the percentage of landholdings that are pooled; the average size of the combined pooled landholdings; the number of farmers involved in a single landholding "pool" on average, etc. 
Answer by India 
 
a. and b. Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief scheme is publically available at 
http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_Circ ularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190 . 
c. There is no pooling of landholdings by Indian farmers as 99.15% of Indian farmers are 
small or resource poor and cultivating their own land for subsistence.  
AG-IMS ID 76035: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low-
income or resource-poor producers 
Follow-up on question AG-IMS ID 75078: 
 
a. Can India indicate the percentage of tota l agricultural area that is farmed by 
those farmers possessing less than 10 hectares?  
b. Can India indicate the percentage of to tal Indian production of wheat, rice, 
maize and cotton respectively that ar e produced by farmers possessing less 
than 10 hectares? 
Answer by India 
 
a. As per Agriculture Census of India (2005-06) about 99.15% of farm holdings are of low 
income or resource poor farmers. Other relevant details are available in the Agriculture Census document. 
b. No such data is maintained. 
AG-IMS ID 76071: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
As noted in AG-IMS ID 75057, the average la ndholding size in India is declining. The 
decline is due to a combination of an in crease in the number of landholdings, an 
increase in population, and the operation of Indian hereditary laws, which indicate that 
the average size of Indian landholdings will continue to decline. As a consequence, an 
increasing number of Indian farmers may be marginalized due to a reduced ability to 
earn income off their land. What steps is In dia taking, or considering, to address the 
trends that are resulting in lower incomes for producers? 
 
Answer by India  
The Government is committed to address the issue by upgrading technology, adopting better farm 
techniques, developing markets, using high yielding seeds and making available other necessary inputs which affect the productivity. 
AG-IMS ID 76072: Question by United St ates of America - Market price support 
In its responses to question AG-IMS ID 75062,  India states that it  only procures very 
few crops under the various announced minimu m support prices and that those are the 
only administered prices notifi ed in Supporting Table DS:5.  
 
a. What is India's objective in establis hing minimum support prices for other 
commodities? G/AG/W/142 
 
- 32 - 
 
  b. Please address the fact that these pr ices provide an inherent support to 
producers in the sense that the producer s will receive the support price in the 
event of a decline in market prices.  
In response to part b) of question AG-IM ID 75062, India stated that the 
Government procures the marketable su rplus of minimum support price (MSP) 
commodities less only what farmers want to keep for their own consumption and seed requirements. As the United States of America noted in part c) of AG‑IMS 75062, the Government, through the MSP and compounded by 
additional bonuses provided by states, can be a virtual monopsonist in certain 
markets, such as the market for wheat.  The Government of India itself has 
stated this is "not healthy for the long term efficiency in procurement 
operations as well as for farmers". 
c. Please confirm that the choice of farmer s not to sell to the Government at the 
MSP is a matter of their own decision and that there is no limitation on the 
quantity of products, including rice or wheat that the Government is willing to 
purchase from Indian farmers.  
d. With regard to India's response to part b), please confirm that India's decision 
to abandon its notification methodology reflected in the AGST document and India's first notification for 1995/1996 is because of the reason provided and not due to any policy change between 1995/1996 and 1996/1997. 
In response to part c) of question AG-IMS ID 75062, India noted that the 
notification covers support by the Government. It remains unclear however, how all the support, such as state bonuses, are in fact covered by this 
notification. This is particularly conc erning given the Government of India 
report which described the impact a state bonus can have on overall 
government procurement.  
e. Please provide an updated Supportin g Table DS:5 including relevant 
MSP bonuses.  
Answer by India 
 
a. and b. In India since the majority of the farmers are low income or resource poor, MSP 
is fixed to protect the farmers from distre ss sales of their crops and to prevent them 
from exploitation.  
c. The Government is purchasing at MSP only the surplus produce which the farmer wants 
to sell. 
d. India's notification is consistent with the WTO rules. The eligible production is the 
quantity which has been actually procured. 
e. In India agriculture is a State subject and all support provided by the Government of 
India is implemented at the State level. 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada, and Paraguay expressed support for the questions raised by other 
Members and noted continued interest in the issu e given India's large volumes of wheat and rice 
exports. Canada and New Zealand noted that many of the questions posed to India dealt with methodological issues in the notification, particularly with respect to the calculation of market price 
support and the relevant exchange rates, and these were important systemic questions. The 
European Union and Canada requested clarification wi th respect to the definition of low income and 
resource poor farmer, specifically for India to prov ide the percentage of the area cultivated by the 
low income/resource-poor farmers. India noted th at they would share this information in their 
written response. The United States of America planned to follow-up in the next meeting with questions regarding whether India had taken steps to ensure that those producers who do not sell to government agencies at the MSP did not benefit from the direct or indirect effects of the G/AG/W/142 
 
- 33 - 
 
  government's guarantee to purchase any, and all, production that producers wished to sell at the 
MSP, and to elaborate on it, if that was the case.  2.3.6  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 76063: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes that In donesia has not provided a Supporting Table 
DS:4 or Supporting Table DS:5 to account for the use of administered prices per footnote 
5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture. Indonesia previously 
indicated (AG-IMS ID 75063, AG-IMS ID 73052,  and AG-IMS ID 74043) that it would be 
notifying Supporting Table DS:4 and DS:5 shortly. When can Members expect the 
notification of the relevant Supporting Table DS:4 and Supporting Table DS:5?  
 Answer by Indonesia 
 
In November 2014 Indonesia nearly finalized its notification of the Supporting Table DS:5. However, it was later identified that some aspects of the methodology used in the calculation 
needed to be revaluated. Indonesia is currently working to improve the calculation of the data and 
it will provide notification of the Supporting Table DS:5 in the near future.  2.3.7  Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/53) 
AG-IMS ID 76042: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notices that rice is not listed as re ceiving product-specific support in Korea's 
Supporting Table DS:4 in 2009. Support has been  reported in previous years and for the 
two consecutive years (i.e. 2010 and 2011). Co uld Korea please explain this anomaly? 
 Answer by Republic of Korea 
 
The Deficiency Payment Scheme for Rice Farmers is designed to be triggered when the market 
price of rice falls to a certain level during the harvest season. As Canada has correctly pointed out, in the 2009 harvest season the market price was not low enough to trigger the deficiency payment 
scheme.  
AG-IMS ID 76073: Question by Thailand - Other product-specific AMS/EMS Korea indicates the "deficiency payment" me asure for rice under Supporting Table DS:6 
for 2010 and 2011. Please provide more details for this measure. Is the payment paid 
according to the deficiency between the base  price(s) and current market price(s)? How 
does Korea determine the base price(s) and market price(s)? Is the payment available 
for all domestic production?  
 Answer by Republic of Korea  
The Republic of Korea has reformed its rice policy since 2005. Korea abolished the traditional Rice 
Purchasing Program and introduced a deficiency payment scheme for rice farmers. In other words, Korea has moved from producer price policy to producer income policy. The Korean Government 
supports rice farmers' income through two different schemes: the fixed direct payment scheme 
under the Supporting Table DS:1 and the Deficiency Payment Scheme under the Supporting Table DS:6. For the latter scheme, with respect to  Thailand's question, the Korean Government 
provides 85% of the gap between the target pr ice and the market price in harvest season 
combined with the first direct payment scheme. It means that if the market price exceeds a certain level, no additional deficiency payment will be triggered. The target price is reset every five 
years, taking into account among other things, the rice price fluctuation as well as farmers' 
income. As for the market price, the average produc er price is published from the survey covering 
the period from October to January each year. To be eligible for the "deficiency payment", paddy fields had to be registered in the historical production during the period 1998-2000. According to 
the paragraph 10 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on  Agriculture, the amount of the subsidy was 
calculated and notified as budgetary outlays.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 76074: Question by Tha iland - Non-product-specific AMS 
Korea's Supporting Table DS:9 indicates th e amount spent under the crop insurance 
programme. Does the programme provide insura nce to all crops? If not, please specify 
which crops are eligible for the programme. Wh at are the conditions to be eligible for 
the assistance under the programme? Could Korea explain the reason why the amount 
spent under the programme increased from 2010 to 2011?   
Answer by Republic of Korea 
 The insurance is developed and managed by insurance companies on a commercial basis. Farmers choose different types of insurance policies vol untarily and the Government covers 50% of the 
premium when farmers or agricultural corporations buy crop insurance. In 2011, there were 
43 eligible crops, including fruits, paddy rice and horticultural crops grown in facilities. The insurance holders receive the insurance coverage based on their contracts. The reason for the 
increase in the amount of budgetary outlay under  the programme was that the number of eligible 
crops as well as the participating farmers increased during that period.   
2.3.8  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/5) 
AG-IMS ID 76064: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes that the Russian Federation did not notify a market 
price support for corn; however, corn was notified in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/39.  
 
a. Please verify that no price support was announced for corn in 2012.  
b. If price support was announced for co rn in 2012, please explain when the 
Russian Federation decided to permanen tly eliminate price supports for corn.  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
 
During the period of accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation assumed no obligation in using price support measures with regard to products and,  in particular, to corn. Therefore, there was no 
formal renunciation of the use of this measure. At the same time in 2012, measures aimed at price 
support for corn were not used.  
 2.3.9  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 76048: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In its domestic support notifications, in some years the United States of America has 
calculated market price support  for dairy, while in other years it has calculated this 
support for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheddar cheese.  
 
a. Could the United States of America provide reasons for this change? 
b. Could the United States of America co nfirm that it had notified the Fixed 
External Reference Price for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheddar cheese in its 
AGST? 
c. What was the total applied AMS for these three categories separately in 1986-
1988? 
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. As noted in the US response to AG-IMS ID 60052, the 2008 Farm Act eliminated the 
dairy price support, which had been established at USD 9.90 per hundredweight (cwt), or USD 218.258 per tonne, since 1999 for all milk. The 2008 Farm Act authorized the "Dairy Product Price Support Program," which established minimum purchase prices, as G/AG/W/142 
 
- 35 - 
 
  follows: non-fat dry milk at USD 0.80 per pound (USD 1,763.698 per tonne); butter at 
USD 1.05 per pound (USD 2,314.853 per tonne); and cheddar cheese at USD 1.13 per pound for blocks (USD 2,491.223 per tonne) and USD 1.10 per pound for barrels (not used in the notification).  
b. As noted in the US response to AG-IMS ID 60052, the United States of America notified 
a Fixed External Reference Price for all dairy in its AGST. Given the change in dairy policy, a new market price support calculatio n was required, one for each of the three 
supported products (butter, non-fat dry milk, and cheddar cheese). In accordance with 
Annex 3, paragraph 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, market price support was calculated by calculating the gap between the fixed external reference price and the 
applied administered price (the statutory support price) for each product, and by 
multiplying that figure by the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied 
administered price (the statutory support price). According to Annex 3, paragraph 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture, a fixed external reference price shall be based on the 
years 1986-1988, and shall be the average f.o.b. price for the agricultural product in a 
net-exporting country. The United States of America was a net-exporter of all three products during the 1986-1988 period, so an f.o.b. price was selected; the United States 
of America notified the fixed external reference price of USD 159.826/tonne. 
c. Prior to 2008, the United States of America did not maintain a support price for these 
individual commodities and therefore, there is no basis for determining the level of 
AMS support.  
AG-IMS ID 76044: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Follow-up question to AG-IMS ID 75107: 
 
In response to India's question, the United  States of America has claimed that on 
account of administrative and operating reimbu rsements to insurers "there are no trade 
distorting effects or effects on  production". Could the United  States of America elaborate 
this claim further, particularly as pa yment of administrative and operating 
reimbursements by the Federal Government relieves the farmers of the burden to make these payments to the private insurance companies?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
Outlays for administrative and operating (A&O) reimbursements are made by the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to private crop insurers in exchange for delivery of services under the authority of the FCIC. Instead of providing a fully government operated delivery infrastructure 
for crop insurance, the FCIC has developed a pub lic-private partnership in which private insurance 
companies work jointly with the FCIC to administ er and service a programme of crop insurance for 
producers. A&O reimbursements, along with underwriting gains and losses, are the means by which the FCIC reimburses private insurers for their services in delivering this programme. A&O 
reimbursements are provided in exchange for de livery of services and therefore, the FCIC can 
withhold the reimbursement or require repayment if the insurer fails to provide the delivery services as outlined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement. The A&O reimbursements are not a 
part of the crop insurance premium.  
AG-IMS ID 76045: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS Follow-up question to AG-IMS ID 75108: 
 
India had pointed out that while the GRP Scheme in 7 CFR §407.9 outlines a Common 
Policy for insurance, there are product specific  parts to this policy for crops like barley, 
corn, cotton, forage, peanuts, sorghum, soybe an, wheat as contained in 7 CFR §407.10 – 
7 CFR §407.17. India had sought to know how such crop specific provisions with a 
tailor-made criterion for different "crop insure d", catering only to certain crops, does 
not make the GRP Scheme product specific in nature. In response, the United States of 
America has stated that it has "in the past  notified its crop insurance programme as 
non-product specific in light of the progra mme's parameters". However, a Congressional G/AG/W/142 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Research Service report of April 2007 states  that "Most crop insurance subsidies (with 
the exception of adjusted gross revenue insura nce) can be linked directly to a specific 
insured crop". In light of these facts, the United States of America is requested to 
elaborate its answer, as it does not a ddress the core issue raised by India.  
 
Answer by United States of America  
Prior to 2008, the United States of America notified net indemnities as non-product specific 
producer support. In part, the United States of America notified crop insurance support as non-product specific because basic provisions of the crop insurance programme are generic and broadly available to a wide and growing range of commodities. Although insurance plans are 
written on a commodity specific basis, the rates for premium support are not commodity-specific 
and apply equally to all commodities insured under a particular insurance policy. In other words, 
as a general matter, the same support is availabl e at the same percentage across crops. However, 
the United States of America notes the questions raised by various Members, including prior 
questions by India, regarding the classification of  crop insurance by the United States of America 
as non-product specific. In preparing its 2012 notifi cation the United States of America undertook 
a review of its notification of its crop insurance programme. As a result of that review, the United 
States of America decided that because crop insurance premiums are based on production histories and expected prices of specific commodities, and because crop insurance policies are priced according to the actual crop planted and contain crop specific terms and features, and thus 
the associated premium support has similar crop-specific associations, the US crop insurance 
programme is more appropriately classified as product-specific support. Also, with the transition to separate reporting of crop insurance delivery support and producer premium support as a result of 
the 2008 Farm Bill, it has become technically feasible to accurately report crop insurance support 
by individual commodities. The United States of America has implemented product specific 
reporting of crop insurance premium support beginning with the 2012 notification. Corrected 
notifications reflecting the new reporting method for 2008-2011 will be submitted as soon as they 
can be completed.  
AG-IMS ID 76046: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS Follow-up question to AG-IMS ID 75112: 
 
India had sought to know the per unit rate charged for electricity used to transport irrigation water and the power rates charged for industrial, agricultural and residential 
users of electricity. However, the response from the United States of America does not 
provide the information sought by India. United  States of America is again requested to 
provide the specific information sought by India.  
 
Answer by United States of America  Because of the number of institutional participants in the distribution of water from federal 
irrigation projects, compiling the relevant data is complex and will require additional time. The 
United States of America is currently compiling the relevant information and will provide a more complete response once the information is compiled.  
 
2.3.10  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/100) 
AG-IMS ID 76043: Question by Canada - General services: other 
In the United States of America most rece nt Table DS:1 notification for 2012, no 
amounts are reported for the following programmes notified under the Green Box: a) underwriting gains to insurers, b) re source conservations and development, 
c) conservation loans, d) voluntar y public access and wildlife habitat 
incentives (VPA-WHIP). Could the United Stat es of America please confirm whether or 
not these programmes have been terminated?   
Answer by United States of America 
 The programmes were not terminated and no amounts were notified for the following reasons: 
a) Insurers sustained underwriting losses in 2012 and thus underwriting gains to insurers were G/AG/W/142 
 
- 37 - 
 
  reported as 0. b) There were no funds appropriated for the Resource Conservation and 
Development programme in 2012. c) Conservation loans are guaranteed loans made by private lenders with a government repayment guarantee should borrowers fail to meet their repayment obligations. No interest rate subsidy is provided. An annual credit subsidy rate is calculated based 
on the default rate for loans in the programme and fees paid by participants. That rate for 2012 
was negative, and therefore, the credit subsidy was 0 for that year. d) There were no expenditures on VPA-HIP in 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 76010: Question by Europe an Union - General services: other 
The European Union notes the "underwritin g gains to insurers" measure previously 
included under the General Services in Supportin g Table DS:1 is no longer notified in the 
current notification covering the marketing year 2012.  
 
a. Has this measure been included in a di fferent way in the current notification? 
b. Could the United States of America expl ain what changes to the operation of 
the measure led to this notification change? 
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. and b. The underwriting gains were not notified because insurers sustained underwriting 
losses in 2012, and thus underwriting gains to insurers were reported as 0. There has been no change in the way underwriting gains to insurers is reported.  
AG-IMS ID 76015: Question by Austra lia - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
The United States of America reported in its notification for the marketing year 2012 on 
8 December 2014 (G/AG/N/USA/100) a number of product specific commodity loan interest subsidies (e.g. barley, canola, corn , cotton, dry peas, flaxseed, honey, oats, 
peanuts, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar and sunflowers). 
 
a. Can the United States of America inform Members how the interest subsidy 
used in each of the relevant commoditi es was calculated and how the amount 
notified as product-specific AMS was determined?  
b. Could the United States of America please explain the rationale behind 
reporting crop insurance as product spec ific support when previously it has 
been notified as non-product specific support? 
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. The interest subsidy on Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) commodity loans, 
calculated on a crop year basis, is the difference between the market and the CCC interest rates multiplied by monthly loan s outstanding for each crop placed under 
the loan, net of loan fees paid by producers. The interest subsidy also includes the value 
of interest waived when commodities are forfei ted to settle the loan, or when the loan is 
paid back under a marketing loan arrangement. 
b. See response to question AG-IMS ID 76045. 
AG-IMS ID 76024: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could the United States of America please ex plain why chickpeas, lentils and wool are no 
longer included in the list of products rece iving product-specific support in Supporting 
Table DS:4? 
 Answer by United States of America 
 
Chickpeas, lentils, and wool did not receive product specific support in 2012; thus, these commodities are not included in Supporting Table DS:4 for 2012. Chickpeas, lentils, and wool G/AG/W/142 
 
- 38 - 
 
  remain covered commodities under the Marketing Assistance Loan Program, as noted in footnote 1 
to Supporting Table DS:6 and footnote 2 to Supporting Table DS:7, but no benefits were paid with respect to these products under this programme in 2012.  
AG-IMS ID 76047: Question by Cana da - Classificati on of measures 
The United States of America has reported  the Crop and Revenue Insurance programme 
as non-product specific (Supporting Table DS: 9) from 1995 to 2011. Canada notices 
that in its most recent Table DS:1 notifica tion for 2012, the programme is now notified 
as product-specific (Supporting Table DS:4). Could the United States of America please 
explain the policy change to warrant a change  in the classification from Non-product 
specific to Product-specific support? If there is no policy change to justify the change in 
the notification of crop insurance to produc t-specific AMS could th e United States of 
America indicate when it will submit re vised notifications for previous years? 
 Answer by United States of America 
 
See response to question AG-IMS ID 76045. 
AG-IMS ID 76011: Question by European Union - Classification of measures 
The European Union notes that in the latest  notification subsidies to premiums under 
crop insurance are no longer notified as  non-product-specific AMS but instead are 
notified on a product-specific basis.  
a. Could the United States of America explain this notification change? 
b. Were there changes to the operation of the measure which led to this 
notification change? 
Answer by United States of America 
 See response to question AG-IMS ID 76045. 
 
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/34) AG-IMS ID 76009: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: pest and disease control 
In its most recent Table DS:2 notification  (G/AG/N/BRA/34), Brazil introduces a new 
measure entitled "Agricultural Protection  P r o g r a m "  w h i c h  c a m e  i n t o  e f f e c t  o n  
1 January 2013. Canada is seeking further details on the provided description, namely:  
 
a. How long will this measure be in effect?  
b. What portion of the annual budget does Br azil expect to be attributed to this 
new programme?  
c. Could Brazil provide examples of public or private companies eligible to receive 
this funding? What is their connect ion to the agricultural industry?  
d. Could Brazil please elaborate further on th e types of "activitie s" related to pest 
and disease control that will benefit from this support?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. The current programme replaced two programmes: "Classification and inspection of 
agricultural inputs", and "Food safety program". It will be in effect at least until 2015 (the end of the Long-term Plan 2012-2015).  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 39 - 
 
  b. The budget allocated to this programme is defined annually by the budget law. The 
outlay in 2014 was BRL 49,407,577.67. The budget for 2015 has not yet been defined.  
c. Public agencies at both national and state levels are responsible for inspection of 
agricultural activities. Part of the inspection  services is performed on a permanent basis 
in a number of slaughterhouses. Accordingly,  the direct beneficiaries of the programme 
are state agencies as well as branches of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food 
Supply in the states. 
d. Examples of activities are reimbursements of travel costs, supplies for laboratories, 
laboratory analysis run by public or private companies, etc. 
AG-IMS ID 76008: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services Brazil introduced a new programme in G/ AG/N/BRA/34 entitled "Inspection of 
Agricultural Activities". Suppo rt for this programme will be notified in paragraph 2 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada is seeking further details on the provided description, namely: 
 
a. How long will this measure be in effect?  
b. What portion of the annual budget does Br azil expect to be attributed to this 
new programme?  
c. Could Brazil provide examples of public or private companies eligible to receive 
this funding? What is their connect ion to the agricultural industry?  
d. Could Brazil please elaborate further on th e types of "activitie s" related to pest 
and disease control that will benefit from this support?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. The current programme replaced three programmes: "Foot-and-Mouth Disease 
eradication program", "Pest and disease control in animals", and "Pest and disease control in plants". It will be in effect at least until 2015 (the end of the Long-term 
Plan 2012-2015).  
b. The budget allocated to this programme is defined annually by the annual budget law. 
The outlay in 2014 was BRL 116,631,286.05. The budget for 2015 has not yet been defined.  
c. Public agencies at both national and state levels are responsible for pest and disease 
control measures. Accordingly, the direct beneficiaries of the programme are state agencies as well as branches of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply in 
the states.  
d. Examples of activities are reimbursements of travel costs, supplies for laboratories, pest 
risk assessments run by other public agencies, etc.  
2.4.2  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/99) 
AG-IMS ID 76007: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
Regarding Canada's notification (G/AG/N/ CAN/99) and its subsequent response to 
Australia's question (AG-IMS ID 74017) on the "Pilot Programme to Support 
Multifunctionality of Agriculture" at  the 74th Committee on Agriculture, 
 
a. Could Canada please define "multif unctionality" in the context of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? G/AG/W/142 
 
- 40 - 
 
  I n  C a n a d a ' s  r e s p o n s e  t o  A G - I M S  I D  7 4 0 1 7 ,  C a n a d a  s t a t e d  t h a t  e l i g i b i l i t y  f o r  
projects under this scheme requires th at "a successful applicant (farm) must 
demonstrate that its proposed projec t will carry out beneficial farming 
practices and will generate be nefits for the community". 
b. Can Canada detail these beneficial farmin g practices and benefits accruing to 
local communities? 
c. If projects under the scheme have been  started, can Canada list them along 
with their relevant beneficial farming practices, what financial support was 
provided for what activity, and what  community benefits were accrued? 
Answer by Canada 
 
a. For the purposes of the "Pilot Programme to Support Multifunctionality", 
"multifunctionality" looks beyond the primary function of agriculture's production. It can, for example play a role in preserving the environment through actions to protect 
biodiversity, promote pollination or support  regional identities. Under the programme, 
financial assistance is capped at $30,000 per farm. Funding for a collaborative project is limited to $300,000. As mentioned in Canada's previous answers, this funding is not 
related to type or volume of production, prices or production factors.  
One specific project introduced forage crops containing different plant species to 
blueberry fields. The beneficial farming practi ces include promoting the nesting of native 
pollinating insects, helping protect sensitive areas from erosion and increasing the 
biodiversity of blueberry fields.  
b. In terms of benefits to the community, cyclists on the track located near these plots will 
benefit from attractive rural landscapes.  
More information on individual programmes, select "Bilan de mi-parcours 2011-2013" at 
the following link: http://www. mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Producti ons/md/programmesliste/de
veloppementregional/Pages/multifonctionnalite.aspx. 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 
2.5.1  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/22) AG-IMS ID 76057: Question by Peru - Transparency issues 
Could the European Union please elaborate on  the legal framework and operation of the 
subsidies granted for poultry meat? 
 Answer by European Union 
 
Until 2013, the legal basis for export refunds in the European Union, including for poultry, was Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007[1], which established a common organisation of agricultural 
markets. That Regulation sets out the scope and principles of the export refund mechanism on 
specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) Article 162. The legal framework for export refunds changed from 1 Janua ry 2014. The legal basis for EU export refunds 
is now set out in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013[2]. Rules on export refunds are laid down in 
Part III, Chapter VI (from Article 196 onwards). Export refunds under the reformed Common 
Agricultural Policy are an instrument which may only be used exceptionally in the case of necessity to address market disturbances (see recital 160 and Article 219). Exports refunds for poultry were 
fixed at zero on 18 July 2013 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013[3] and 
the zero refund rate has remained applicable  ever since, as for all other products.  
 
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R 1234&amp;qid=1424291656333&amp;from=EN   
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 41 - 
 
  [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R 1308&amp;qid=1424335702265&amp;from=EN   
 
[3] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R 0689&amp;qid=1424292053626&amp;from=EN   
AG-IMS ID 76006: Question by Australia - Quantity of total exports 
Can the European Union advise the total quantity of sugar exported for the marketing 
year 2012/2013? 
 Answer by European Union  
The total quantity of sugar (as defined in the Section II of Part IV of the EU schedule of 
concessions) physically exported during the marketing year 2012/13 can be found in Table ES:2, under Part I. It equals 1,441.7 million tonnes. 
AG-IMS ID 76065: Question by United States  of America - Quantity of total exports 
The United States of America appreciates th e European Union's voluntarily reporting on 
total exports in connection with being a Sign ificant Exporter as suggested by the Chair 
(G/AG/W/123). The United States of Americ a notes differences in the total exports 
notified under the "Quantity of Total Exports"  in Part I and the total exports voluntarily 
notified under Part II. The differences appear  significant with respect to some of the 
commodities, such as other milk products, pig meat, poultry, eggs, wine, and tobacco. 
The Chair also suggested voluntarily providing more detailed tariff li ne data as per his 
table when the quantity of exports of the spec ific tariff category was more than 10% of 
the total for that product group.  
 
a. Is the European Union willing to consider providing more detailed tariff 
grouping export data when the detaile d tariff grouping exceeds 10% of the 
product group being voluntarily notified in  Part II as a Significant Exporter as 
described in G/AG/W/123?  
b. Please provide an explanation as to th e nature of the discrepancies between 
the column "Quantity of total exports" under Part I and the column "Quantity 
of total exports (of products as per the list of Significant Exporters)" 
under Part II.  
c. Please describe the differences in prod uct coverage between both the fruits 
and vegetables lines in Part I (fresh an d processed) and the fruit and vegetable 
lines in Part II. If the total of each sets of lines are the same, similar to question b, please describe the nature of the discrepancy between the totals.  
Answer by European Union 
 
a. Trade statistics are being constantly updated. The European Union considered that a 
reference to EU trade data extraction tool in footnote (**) of Table ES:2 served the 
purpose of transparency better than a single fi gure which only represents the situation in 
a particular point of time. The European Union is of course ready to provide more detailed data at disaggregated level for the detailed tariff groupings with imports 
exceeding 10% of the total product group and intends to do so in the future. 
b. The difference between Part I and Part II is due to the fact that the product coverage in 
these datasets does not match. 
c. Product coverage for fruits and vegetables in Part I is defined in Section II of Part IV of 
the EU schedule of concessions. Product covera ge for fruits and vegetables in Part II is 
defined in Annex 3 of document G/AG/W/123. The product coverage for each is as in Annex 1 (see end of document).  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.5.2  Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/4) 
AG-IMS ID 76005: Question by Australia - Spec ial and differential treatment (Article 9.4) 
Australia thanks Mauritius for its recent ex port subsidy notifica tion (G/AG/N/MUS/4). 
Australia notes that in 2013, Mauritius provid ed export subsidies to a range of fruits, 
vegetables and flowers. Can Mauritius: 
 
a. advise if the notified export subsidy programme continued into 2014 and if so, 
please indicate the budgetary outlay an d the total quantity exported under the 
subsidy in 2014? 
b. advise if the programme is still underwa y and if so, when is the programme 
scheduled to end? 
c. advise which markets have received subs idized fruit, vegetables and flowers 
from Mauritius? 
d. reaffirm its recognition that all forms of export subsidies are a highly trade 
distorting form of support, in acco rdance with the Bali 2013 Ministerial 
Declaration on Export Competition? 
Answer by Mauritius 
 
a. Yes, the programme continued in 2014. The budgetary outlay was USD 100,000 and the 
quantity exported was 2,445 tonnes, representing 0.6% of the total exports. 
b. The programme is scheduled to end in year 2015. 
c. It is not market specific but applicable to specific fruits, vegetables and flowers to any 
market worldwide. 
d. Mauritius recognizes the trade distorting nature of exports subsidies. But some modest 
forms of subsidies may also be crucial for the sustainability of some of the most 
vulnerable segments of society. The Freight Rebate Scheme was introduced with a view to assisting small planters to sustain their activities. The scheme is applicable to a 
selected group of fruits and vegetables which are seasonal. In addition to the 
environmental benefits and contribution to rural development associated with such activities, this is a livelihood concern for hundreds of planters.  
AG-IMS ID 76004: Question by European Union - Special and differential treatment 
(Article 9.4) 
Can Mauritius explain how the subsidies notified comply with its WTO obligations, 
notably given that Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture expired on 
the 31 December 2004? 
 Answer by Mauritius 
 
It is a matter of fact that Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture expired in December 2004. 
Mauritius is a highly vulnerable Small Island Developing State, geographically isolated from its main markets whose exports of highly perishable goods can only be air freighted. Cultivation of 
fruits, vegetables and flowers is the domain of small farmers in Mauritius who mostly reside in 
rural and disadvantaged areas. Given that freight co st is a huge barrier to exports and taking into 
account the conditions of rural farmers, the Freight Rebate Scheme, which is minimal compared to 
overall exports of products from Mauritius, was maintained. G/AG/W/142 
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 76014: Question by United Stat es of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4) 
Why is Mauritius using export subsidies under  Article 9.1(d) when the implementation 
period for such use under Article 9.4 has elapsed?  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
Mauritius is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) with inherent natural constraints related to 
agriculture. The country has been pursuing an export-oriented strategy and undergone 
tremendous trade liberalization. Given its limited agricultural land and its isolation from its major markets, a freight rebate scheme was introduced. The scheme caters for small poor farmers whose 
livelihood depends on growing exotic tropical fruits and vegetables on marginal land which would 
otherwise be abandoned. The Freight Rebate Sche me was therefore introduced with a view to 
assisting small planters sustain their activities. The scheme is applicable to a selected group of 
fruits and vegetables which are seasonal. In addition to the environmental benefits and 
contribution to rural development associated with such activity, this is a livelihood concern for hundreds of planters. The support extended to the planters under this scheme was around USD 
100,000, which corresponded to 2,445 tonnes in the year 2014, representing 0.6% of the total 
volume exported. This is very minimal. There is serious socio-economic impact which would be associated with the planters that are depending on such support if they go out of business.   
Follow-up: Australia, echoed by the European Union and the United States of America, noted that 
it had a different view of Article 9.4, and that it hoped the programme would come to an end in 
2015. Australia welcomed Mauritius's early response in advance of the meeting.  
 
2.5.3  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/71) 
AG-IMS ID 76002: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The European Union notes that levels of ex port subsidies for processed products in 
Switzerland remain stable, if not increasing over the last few year s and relatively close 
to the Swiss commitment level.  
In the light of this, could Switzerland indica te whether it plans to undertake reforms in 
the field of export competition with a view  to abolishing all export subsidies, in 
particular for processed products, in lin e with the Bali declaration on export 
competition?  
 Answer by Switzerland 
 
Since 2005, Switzerland has substantially reduced export subsidies. Export subsidies on basic agricultural products were completely abolished in 2010. Export subsidies granted on processed agricultural products remained relatively stable over recent years and amounted to CHF 70 million 
in 2013 and 2014. This sum is far below the annual commitment level of CHF 114.9 million. 
 For the purposes of transparency, Switzerland would like to inform the Committee about the 
recent decision taken by the Swiss Federal Council on 25 February 2015 to submit to Parliament a 
proposal to exceptionally increase the export su bsidy budget for processed agricultural products 
for 2015 by a maximum of CHF 20 million. A final decision on this issue will be taken by Parliament 
in June this year. 
 The budget increase is proposed in the contex t of the unexpected appreciation of the Swiss 
currency and the corresponding impairment of co mpetitiveness of Swiss exporters following the 
discontinuation of the minimum exchange rate of  the Euro against the Swiss Franc by the Swiss 
National Bank in January this year.   
Switzerland remains fully committed to the Bali declaration on export competition. The Swiss 
Government explicitly understands its proposal as a one-off budget increase limited to the year 2015 in order to respond to the exceptional economic circumstances. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Follow-up : Argentina and New Zealand reminded Members of the Bali Declaration on export 
competition. New Zealand registered its concerns regarding Switzerland's plan to increase its 
export subsidies by almost 30%, and requested Sw itzerland to reconsider this and to explore 
alternative policy options.  
 
2.5.4  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/99) 
AG-IMS ID 76003: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
In footnote 2 of Table ES:1 notification th e United States of America clarifies that 
amounts of export credit guarantees regi stered under its GSM-102 programme do not 
constitute budgetary outlays for pu rposes of annual commitment levels.  
 
Without prejudice to that position, could the United States of America nevertheless 
explain why it does not give the volumes of subsidised exports in Table ES:1 which have benefitted from the GSM-102 programme as thes e subsidised exports should constitute 
quantities for the purposes of comp lying with the commitment levels? 
 Answer by United States of America 
 
The United States of America provides a transparent account of historical and current summary data on the countries or regions of destination, commodities, and dollar value of exports registered 
under its Export Credit Guarantee Program. This data is readily available for viewing on the US 
website by the public and is updated annually.  
 3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  China 
AG-IMS ID 76012: Question by United States of America In response to AG-IMS ID 73035, China stated its notification for 2009 and 2010 were 
being reviewed to guarantee accuracy befo re submission. China has not yet submitted 
its notification after more than one year of  review. The United States of America notes 
that the objective of this Committee is to  provide Members with timely updates on 
agricultural policies carried out by Members. In  furtherance of this objective, the United 
States of America now notifies its domest ic support on an annual basis before all 
information is finalized and regularly subm its corrigenda as needed. We believe this 
process provides Members with a timely sharing of information, despite the inability to 
provide 100% accurate information at the init ial date of notification. The United States 
of America would recommend all WTO Member s work to better meet the transparency 
objectives of this Committee so that discussi ons may be robust and informative. As an 
example of the problem with delayed notifica tions, the United States of America notes 
that it has asked a number of questions regarding China's cotton policy over the past several years, and specifically asked ab out a policy that was implemented and 
terminated without any notification to the WTO.  
 
a. When can the United States of America ex pect China to provide its notifications 
for 2009 and 2010?  
b. When can the United States of America expect China to provide more recent 
notifications to bring its WTO notifications up to date?  
Answer by China 
 
The preparation work for China's domestic support for the years 2009 and 2010 is completed. China is undergoing the final check and will subm it the notifications to the committee very soon. 
As for the subsequent notification, China is still preparing it. When the notification is ready, China 
will submit it without further delay. 
 G/AG/W/142 
 
- 45 - 
 
  3.2  Turkey 
AG-IMS ID 76013: Question by United States of America Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
When does Turkey plan to submit its domestic  support and export subsidy notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
Turkey continues to work on the notifications which will be submitted as soon as they are 
completed.  G/AG/W/142 
 
- 46 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Product coverage of fruits and vegetabl es notified in the European Union's 
Table ES:2 (G/AG/N/EU/22) 
Part I 
 
Fruit and vegetables, fresh 
 
HS code Product description 
 070200 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 080212 Shelled almonds 
080221) Hazelnuts or filberts 
080222) 080231 Walnuts, in shell 
080510 Oranges 
080520 Mandarins, (including tangerines and satsumas); clementines, wilkings and similar 
citrus hybrids 
080530 Lemons and limes 
080610 Grapes, fresh 080810 Apples 080930 Peaches, including nectarines, fresh 
 
Fruit and vegetables, processed 
 
HS code Product description 
 080620 Dried grapes 
081210 Cherries, provisionally preserved, but unsuitable in that state for immediate 
consumption 
200210 Tomatoes, whole or in pieces, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or 
acetic acid 
200600 Fruit, nuts, fruit-peel and other parts of plants, preserved by sugar (drained, glacé or 
crystallized) 
200819 Nuts and other seeds, including mixtures 
200911 Frozen orange juice 
200919 Other orange juice  
Part II 
 
Fruits 
 
HS code Product description 
 0803 Bananas 
0804 Dates, Figs, Pineapples, Avocados, Guavas, Mangoes and Mangosteens 
0805 Citrus fruits 0806 Grapes 
0807 Melons and papayas 
0808 Apples, Pears and Quinces 0809 Apricots, Cherries, Plums, Sloes and Peaches 0810 Other fruits (e.g., Strawberries, raspberries, courants and gooseberries, cranberries and 
other fruits of genus vaccinium, kiwifruit, durians, persimmons) 
 Vegetables 
 HS code Product description  
0701 Potatoes 
0702 Tomatoes 0703 Onions, shallots, garlic and leeks G/AG/W/142 
 
- 47 - 
 
  0704 Cabbages and cauliflowers 
0705 Lettuce and chicory  0706 Carrots and turnips and other similar edible roots 0707 Cucumbers and gherkins  
0708 Leguminous vegetables 
0709 Other vegetables (e.g., Asparagus, aubergines, celery other than celeriac, mushrooms 
and truffles, fruits of the genus capsicum or of the genus pimenta, spinach, globe 
artichokes, olives, pumpkins, squash and gourds) 
 
__________