G/AG/W/148  
 
29 February 2016  
(16-1205)  Page: 1/31  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 9-10 MARCH 20161 
The present document compiles questions received  by the Secretariat by the deadline specified 
in WTO/AIR/AG/8. 
  
_______________ 
 
                                               
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/148 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 5 
1.1   Statement on consultations under Article 5.7 ................................................................. 5  
1.1.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7903 4) ................................................... 5  
1.2   Australia's Farm In surance Advice  Scheme .................................................................... 5  
1.2.1   Question by In dia (AG-IMS ID 79085 )........................................................................ 5  
1.3   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 5  
1.3.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79001) ....................................... 5  
1.4   Canada's new milk  ingredient  class .............................................................................. 5  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79035) ............................................................. 5  
1.5   Canada's wine  sale policy ........................................................................................... 5  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79003) ....................................... 5  
1.6   China's agri culture policy ............................................................................................ 6  
1.6.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  79030)  .................................................................... 6  
1.7   China's ma ize subsidies .............................................................................................. 6  
1.7.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7902 2) ................................................... 6  
1.8   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 7  
1.8.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79004) ....................................... 7  
1.9   European Union's dairy policies .................................................................................... 7  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79032) ............................................................. 7  
1.10   France's amendment No. 367 to th e proposed law on biodiversi ty ................................... 8  
1.10.1   Question by Indo nesia (AG-IMS ID 79066)  ............................................................... 8  
1.11   India's import ation of apples ..................................................................................... 8  
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 79067)  ........................................................... 8  
1.12   India's new crop  insurance scheme ............................................................................ 8  
1.12.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 79051) ................................................................... 8  
1.12.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79024) .................................................. 9  
1.13   India's export a ssistance pr ogramme s ........................................................................ 9  
1.13.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79002) ..................................... 9  
1.14   India's sugar export subsidies ................................................................................... 10 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 79047) ................................................................ 10 
1.14.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79023) ................................................. 10 
1.15   Japan's MARUKIN St abilization Programme ................................................................. 11 
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  79052) .................................................................. 11 
1.16   Japan's increased support to pig producers through income protection programme ........... 11 
1.16.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79025) ................................................. 11 
1.17   Russian Federation's trade measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural 
products to Kazakhst an .................................................................................................... 11 
1.17.1   Question by Uk raine (AG-IM S ID 79084) ................................................................. 11 
1.18   Thailand's rice policies ............................................................................................. 12 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79005 ) .................................... 12 
1.19   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 13 
1.19.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79027) ................................................. 13 
1.20   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 13 
1.20.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79033 ) .................................... 13 
1.21   Turkey's support scheme to  certain agricult ural se ctors ................................................ 14 
1.21.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79026) ................................................. 14 
1.22   Turkey's rice support ............................................................................................... 14 
1.22.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79029) ................................................. 14 
1.23   Turkey's fruit and ve getable export subsidies .............................................................. 14 
1.23.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79031) ................................................. 14 
1.24   U.S. farm support programmes ................................................................................. 14 
1.24.1   Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79086) ..................................................................... 14 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 16  
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 16 
2.1.1   China (G /AG/N/CH N/30) ......................................................................................... 16 
2.1.2   Costa Rica  (G/AG/N/ CRI/53) ................................................................................... 17 
2.1.3   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/50) .................................................................................. 17 
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/21) ...................................................................................... 17 
2.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 18 
2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/89) ..................................................................................... 18 
2.2.2   Botswana (G/AG/N/BW A/23) ................................................................................... 18 
2.2.3   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/40) ......................................................................................... 19 
2.2.4   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 20 
2.2.5   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/26) ............................................................................. 23 
2.2.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 24 
2.2.7   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/5) ...................................................................................... 24 
2.2.8   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/28) ....................................................................................... 24 
2.2.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/85) ...................................................................................... 26 
2.2.10   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/72) ............................................................................... 27 
2.2.11   Tunisia (G/AG/N/ TUN/45)...................................................................................... 27 
2.2.12   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8) .............................................. 27 
2.2.13   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/93) ............................................................. 28 
2.3   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................. 30 
2.3.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/39) ......................................................................................... 30 
2.3.2   China (G /AG/N/CH N/29) ......................................................................................... 30 
2.3.3   Ecuador (G/AG/N/EC U/40) ...................................................................................... 30 
2.3.4   Hong Kong, Ch ina (G/AG/N/ HKG/39) ........................................................................ 30 
2.3.5   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/53) .......................................................................................... 30 
2.3.6   Russian Federa tion (G/AG/ N/RUS/10) ....................................................................... 30 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.7   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/22) ...................................................................................... 30 
2.4   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION  (TABLE NF:1) ....................... 31 
2.4.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/7) ......................................................................... 31 
2.4.2   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/ 105) ............................................................. 31 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 31  
3.1   Turkey .................................................................................................................. .. 31 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 1.1  Statement on consultations under Article 5.7 1.1.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79034) 
The European Union will provide a statement on the consultations held with the United States 
under Article 5.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture fo llowing U.S. imposition of an additional Special 
Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) duty on imports of butter and cream. 
 
1.2  Australia's Farm Insurance Advice Scheme  
1.2.1  Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79085) The Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper form ulates a Farm Insurance Advice scheme which 
will "allow eligible farm businesses to access up to $2,500 as a one-off grant based on a dollar-for-
dollar matching of funds provided by the farmer."  
a. Could Australia elaborate on how eligibility for the above scheme will be determined? 
b. What is the total budgetary outlay (federal, state and territory governments) for this 
scheme? 
1.3  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.3.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79001) 
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from  the United States, Brazil stated that the Prêmio 
para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was suspended for a reassessment to address 
concerns regarding its control mechanism in order to prevent irregularities. Concerning the Prêmio 
de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) programme, the United States notes that the programme was used for corn, cotton and wheat as recently as 2014. Brazil has not delivered 
PEP and PEPRO data that it agreed to provide in June 2014 (AG-IMS ID 74021). In the 
September 2015 meeting of this Committee, Brazil stated that it lacked a suitable system for 
collecting the information it said it would provide in September 2015.  
 
What is the status of reporting the subject data? What specific steps have been taken since September 2015 to develop a suitable system to collate the data?   
1.4  Canada's new milk ingredient class 
1.4.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79035) New Zealand notes that the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission is expected to establish 
a new milk ingredient class in Ontario as of 1 April 2016. Media indicates that this new milk 
ingredient class will include skim milk solids in all forms that can be used as ingredients, including but not limited to skim milk, skim milk powder, ultrafiltered and diafiltered milk, whole milk 
powder and condensed or evaporated milk (not for retail). Can Canada provide the details of 
exactly which milk products will be covered by this new Ontario milk ingredient class, and information on whether it will affect any prod ucts covered by Canada's existing classes? 
 
1.5  Canada's wine sale policy 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79003) 
Under British Columbia (B.C.) regulations, only B.C. wine may be sold on regular grocery store 
shelves. In contrast, non-B.C. wine, including imported wine, cannot be sold on regular store 
shelves, but only in a "store-within-a-store" with controlled access and with separate cash registers. Further, the location of the "store-wit hin-a-store" and therefore the grocery store selling G/AG/W/148 
 
- 6 - 
 
  imported wine is subject to geographical limitations. A "store-within-a-store" may not be located 
within one kilometer of another private or public liquor store. This dual channel retail system for the sale of wine in grocery stores in the provin ce raises questions about whether the regulations 
are consistent with Canada's national treatment obligations under Article III:4 of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
 
a. Please explain how imported wine is not accorded less favorable treatment than that 
accorded to B.C. wine, given imported wine cannot be sold on regular grocery store 
shelves and is subject to "store-within-a-store" restrictions? 
B.C.'s 6 March 2014 factsheet "B.C. Liquor Policy Review: Liquor in grocery stores" 
states: "A liquor store relocating to a grocery store must be a store within the grocery 
store with a controlled access point and separate till. This is to address public health and 
safety by ensuring strict controls to prevent minor access and minimize shoplifting." 
b. Is B.C. asserting that imported wine presents public health and safety concerns that B.C. 
wine does not, or, that imported wine pr esents different public health and safety 
concerns than B.C. wine?  
c. What measures address public health and safety concerns presented by B.C. wine and 
why are those measures different than the measures that address public health and 
safety concerns presented by imported wine ("store-within-a-store" restrictions)?  
1.6  China's agriculture policy  1.6.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 79030) 
Directives from the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Implementing New Ideas to 
Accelerate Agricultural Modernization and Realize the Goal of Completing the Comprehensively Building of a Moderately Prosperous Society  
 
The 2016 Central Government Number One Document provides a framework for agriculture policy in China.  
 
a. Paragraph 22 notes that China will "…continue to implement and improve the minimum 
procurement policy for rice and wheat…." Co uld China provide more information as to 
the additional improvements to the procurement for wheat?  
b. Paragraph 22 indicates that China "…will deepen reforms over state owned grain 
companies and develop diversified market players for procurement and sales."  
i. Could China elaborate on the reforms currently in place and those anticipated for 
state owned grain companies?  
ii. How does China intend to allow more private entities to participate in the 
procurement and sale of grains, for example would more private entities be able to 
import grains?  
c. Paragraph 25 indicates that additional agricultural insurance products will be developed 
including the "… introduction of target price insurance…" Could China elaborate as to which crops it expects to be eligible for this type of scheme and how would China 
determine the target price for those eligible crops? 
1.7  China's maize subsidies 1.7.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79022) 
The European Union requests an answer to the question AG-IMS ID 77043 raised during the 
77
th Committee on Agriculture on 4 June 2015. 
 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 7 - 
 
  According to World Perspectives Inc. newsletter, on 20 April 2015, China sold 38,700 tonnes of 
maize from state stocks. Further, the Heilongjiang Government supported this sale with a subsidy to grains processors participating in the state grain auction of 200 RMB/t (=32.6 $/t). This subsidy level would be the double of the subsidy of 100 RMB/t granted in 2013/14. 
 
a. Can China confirm that the Heilongjiang Government has granted this type of subsidy? 
Who were the beneficiaries? For what quantity has this subsidy so far been granted in 
the current marketing year and the previous marketing year? 
b. Can China explain whether other local governments grant similar subsidies and if so 
what are the quantities concerned in 2013/14 and 2014/15? 
1.8  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.8.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79004) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its transparency, though remains concerned by Costa 
Rica's continued lack of compliance with its WTO obligations.  
  
In response to AG-IMS ID 78005, Costa Rica notes that "While Costa Rica hopes to be within its AMS limits, production levels for January and February 2015 - during which a fixed producer price 
was applied in accordance with Executive De cree 37.699-MEIC, revoked by the above-mentioned 
Decree No. 38.884–MEIC - will be known during th e first months of 2016, when the National Rice 
Growers Corporation publishes the annual and monthly production data that is needed to calculate the AMS for 2015."  
 
a. Please explain how the administered support price under the new Executive Decree 
differs from the administered support price under the previous support policy.  
b. What was the last administered support price for a ton of rice under the previous support 
policy? What is the administered support price under the new policy?  
c. Is Costa Rica in a position to provide the production figures as indicated by its response 
to AG-IMS ID 78005? If not, when will this data be available?  
1.9  European Union's dairy policies 1.9.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79032) New Zealand welcomes ongoing efforts by the European Union to adopt more market-focussed 
agriculture policies through reform of the CAP. In this regard, New Zealand recalls that at the 
September 2015 Committee on Agriculture meeting, New Zealand sought information on the design and implementation at both EU and member State level of the European Union's 
comprehensive dairy support package announced in September 2015. 
 
a. New Zealand would appreciate any further information the European Union is able to 
provide as to the allocation of this funding, noting that Commission Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/1853 required Member States to notify the Commission without delay and no later than 31 December 2015 of the objective criteria used to determine the methods for granting targeted support and the measures taken to avoid distortion of competition. 
b. Against the background of weak global dairy demand and low prices which are affecting 
farmers across the world, New Zealand further notes that the Commission invited proposals from member States by 25 February 2016 for additional market support 
measures in light of the continuing difficulties facing the sector. Consistent with the 
direction and objectives of its agricultural  reform programme, New Zealand once again 
urges the European Union, when considering any further measures, to avoid approaches 
that distort production and/or trade in favo ur of measures to address real financial 
hardship.  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 8 - 
 
  New Zealand would welcomes any further comme nt from the European Union on how it 
intends to ensure that any further measures do not distort production and/or trade. 
1.10  France's amendment No. 367 to the proposed law on biodiversity 1.10.1  Question by Indonesia (AG-IMS ID 79066) 
Indonesia has received information that the French Senate has adopted Amendment No. 367 to 
the proposed law on biodiversity on 21 Janua ry 2016. The amendment proposes to impose a 
special tax for importation of palm oil and its derivatives in the amount of EUR 300 per tonne 
in 2017, gradually increasing to EUR 900 per tonne in 2020. To put it into perspective, this would 
be a steep hike from the current duty for palm oil, which is EUR 130 per tonne at the average price of EUR 550 per tonne. Indonesia notes with concerns that if the policy become applicable it could present an unnecessary barrier to trade, for ex ample in terms of competitiveness among like 
products in the market. Moreover, this could set a precedent for implementation of similar policy 
and potential non-compliance to Members commitment within the WTO.  
a. Please provide explanation on the reasons be hind this amendment to the proposed law 
on biodiversity? What is the correlation between imposing tax for palm oil and the protection of biodiversity?  
b. Please provide explanation on the elements and method used to calculate the proposed 
amount of tax to be applied and its gradual increase from 2017 to 2020.  
c. Would this proposed policy also be applicable  to other like products which are produced 
domestically or imported from other Members? Please provide examples.  
d. Please explain how the amendment to the proposed law on biodiversity is consistent with 
its obligations under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
e. Please explain how such a measure is consistent with WTO principles of national 
treatment and non-discrimination under Article III of the GATT?  
f. Please provide further information about the operation (entry into force) of Amendment 
No.367 and its intended purpose in the future?  
g. Please give latest updates on the administrative provisions being developed to prepare 
the implementation of the amendment? 
1.11  India's importation of apples  1.11.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79067) 
Since the last Committee on Agriculture meeting India has reopened access, for the import of 
apples, to ports in Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai&Cochin, and Delhi. New Zealand is pleased to see these ports reopen to apple imports, but notes that Visakhapatnam Port and Tuticorin Port remain 
close. Can India confirm this is correct, and if so, advise the reason why these two ports remain 
closed?  
1.12  India's new crop insurance scheme  
1.12.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 79051) Canada understands that India has recently announced a new crop insurance scheme that is to be 
delivered at the state level in partnership wi th private insurance companies and whereby the 
farmer's share of the premiums would be reduced to 1.5% or 2% depending on the type of crop. 
This new scheme is scheduled to launch in June.   
a. Could India indicate what crops will be covered under this new crop insurance scheme?  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. Could India indicate if producers under this new crop insurance scheme will be able to 
choose the level of coverage?  
1.12.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79024) The Indian government has recently announced that it will introduce a new harvest insurance tool, 
which should cover 50% of the Indian farmers within 2 years. 
 
a. Can India explain more in detail how this insurance scheme works, the eligibility criteria 
for farmers and what risks are covered by this scheme? 
b. Does India intend to notify this scheme to WTO? 
 
1.13  India's export assistance programmes 
1.13.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79002) 
The United States asked several detailed questions in September 2015 (AG-IMS ID 78007) and 
received a general response from India. The United States resubmits the following questions, 
noting the U.S. interest in historical data.  
 The United States is concerned about a possible In dian export subsidy programme. Specifically, it 
is the U.S. understanding that from 2004-2014 the Indian government operated an export 
assistance programme for a number of agricultural products called the Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yojana (VKGUY – or "Special Agriculture Pr oduce Scheme"). In 2014 another programme, the 
Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS), was introduced and appears to have some similar 
components to the VKGUY programme.  
 
a. Did India include the VKGUY programme in India's latest export subsidy notification 
(G/AG/N/IND/9)?  
b. The United States understands that under the VKGUY programme, the Indian 
government provides a "duty scrip" equivalent to 5% of FOB value of an exported dairy 
product. Please provide an explanation of how the scrip is used?  
c. According to "Foreign Trade Policy, 27 August 2009 – 31 March 2014" published by 
India's Ministry of Commerce and Indust ry, under the VKGUY programme duty scrip 
benefits are granted with an aim to compensate high transport costs, and to offset 
"other disadvantages". Please explain wh at these "other disadvantages" are?  
d. According to that same document, the subsidies provided under VKGUY are provided 
based on the FOB value of the product expo rted. In light of that, how does India 
effectively link the subsidies to specific transportation costs?  
e. What is the relationship, if any, between th e exported product and the imported product 
on which the scrip is used to reduce the import duty?  
f. When skim milk product (SMP) was eligible, how was the scrip used for imports?  
g. Could the duty scrip be used as a credit  against any other tax charges, or other 
government arrears, other than import duties?  
h. Given that VKGUY terminated 31 March 2015, and the Merchandise Export from India 
Scheme (MEIS) became effective 1 April 2015, was the VKGUY programme replaced by 
the MEIS?  
i. Scrips provided under both VKGUY and MEIS ar e described as "fully transferrable." What 
does "fully transferrable" mean - to whom  can they be transferred and for what?  
j. How much revenue was foregone by th e government under the programme?  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 10 - 
 
  k. Will India notify benefits provided under the MEIS in its export subsidy notifications?  
l. From 2010-2014, which agricultural products received export assistance under the 
VKGUY programme, and in what amounts?  
m. Since 2014, have any agricultural products received export assistance under the 
MEIS programme, and if so, in what amounts?  
1.14  India's sugar export subsidies 1.14.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 79047) 
Australia thanks India for the responses to date in relation to India's sugar export subsidy 
programme, as introduced under the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules in 
February 2014. Can India please:  
a. Provide an update on the status of this programme. 
b. Provide the total annual budgetary outlays an d the total annual volume of subsidised 
sugar exported under the programme, since the inception of the programme in 
February 2014. 
c. Advise when the programme, as introduced under the Sugar Development Fund 
(Amendment) Rules in February 2014, will be formally notified to the Committee on 
Agriculture. 
d. Provide an update on the status of th e Maharashtra State sugar export subsidy 
programme, included the total budgetary outlay  and volume of sugar exports subsidised 
under the programme to date. 
Australia notes that India has not yet submitted a written response to the questions 
raised by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) at the 78
th Committee on Agriculture in relation 
to the Indian minimum indica tive export quota programme which was introduced on 
1 October 2015, and respectfully asks that India provides a response. In addition to 
those questions, can India please: 
e. Provide the total volume of sugar exported to date, in relation to the 2015-16 quota 
target of 4 million tonnes. 
f. Provide the total amount of subsidy paid to cane growers to date, under the minimum 
indicative export quota programme. 
g. Confirm that the subsidy is not in fact payable, unless production is exported? 
1.14.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79023) 
In its reply to the EU question (AG-IMS ID 78017) addressed in the context of the 
25 September 2015 Committee on Agriculture meeting, India states that the payment to 
sugarcane farmers through sugar mills is not an export subsidy but is purely aimed at 
compensating the farmers for supply of sugarcane to the sugar mills. As a follow-up to that clarification, could India explain if the compensati on to the farmers for the supply of sugarcane to 
the sugar mills covers all sugar produced by the farmers or only exported quantities of sugar. 
 Could India also confirm media reports from September last year announcing India's decision to make it compulsory for sugar producers to ramp up exports to at least 4 million tonnes in the 
forthcoming crushing season. 
 
a. Can India explain in detail how this new policy  is applied and the functioning of this new 
policy? G/AG/W/148 
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. How does India see this initiative relate to th e definition of export subsidy in Article 1(e) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
1.15  Japan's MARUKIN Stabilization Programme 1.15.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 79052) 
Canada understands that Japan maintains a "MARUKIN" Stabilization Program, which covers the 
difference between production costs and retail prices/gross earnings (net income) for hog and cattle producers. Based on media reports, Canada understands that proposed Japanese legislative 
changes as voted on by Cabinet on 25 November 2015 would, for hog production, increase the 
rate of support from 80% to 90% of the differe nce between income and production costs, and 
change the contribution ratio between the hog producer and government from 1:1 to 1:3.   
Canada understands that the change in the contri bution ratio for hog production would match that 
which exists for the equivalent programme for feeder cattle production.   
a. Could Japan provide details regarding the proposed changes to its MARUKIN programme 
for hogs and cattle, including with regards to the eligibility criteria for producers, rate of support, contribution ratios, and any limitations or other criteria for participation in the 
programme?  
b. Could Japan confirm that indeed the proposed support is not a new programme, and 
includes only changes to an existing programme?  
c. Through its WTO domestic support notifications, Japan notifies two forms of support for 
pork: Market Price Support and Deficiency Pa yments (or Non-Exempt Direct Payments). 
Would the changes to the programme affect the level of support entered under deficiency payments or market price support, or both? 
d. Could Japan describe the anticipated impact s from their proposed changes on its 
domestic support-related government outlay s/payments and in relation to its Total 
AMS commitments?  
1.16  Japan's increased support to pig prod ucers through income protection programme 
1.16.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79025) The Diet is currently considering a proposal from the Japanese government to increase the support 
from 80% to 90% of the difference between prod uction cost and average gross earnings. Can 
Japan explain more in detail about this proposal and whether it is expected to have any impact on 
the quantity of pig meat imported into Japan?  
1.17  Russian Federation's trade measures a ffecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural 
products to Kazakhstan 
1.17.1  Question by Ukraine (AG-IMS ID 79084) 
According to Russian Federation's Presidential Decree No.1 and Government Resolution No.1 of 
1 January 2016, from this date all international transit of cargo by automotive and railway transportation from the territory of Ukraine to Kazakhstan can only be carried out via two check 
points at the Russian-Belarusian state border.  
 
The requirement to use specific transit checkpoints via Belarus lengthens the shipping distance, adding burdensome requirements that result in days of time delays and additional transit and 
permitting costs. These border measures negatively affect all trade, but particularly adversely 
affect trade in perishable agricultural goods. Additionally, Ukraine notes that the significant delays caused by the need to find alternative transit routes is having a negative effect upon trade flows 
throughout Central Asia, and beyond to China.  
 These measures are seriously disrupting not only bilateral trade but international trade as whole. G/AG/W/148 
 
- 12 - 
 
   
Ukraine kindly requests the Russian Federation:  
a. To explain the policy rationale for these restrictive measures that are being applied to 
agricultural goods;  
b. To provide WTO Members with all operational details, including subsidiary legislation or 
enforcement orders for customs authorities regarding its implementation;  
c. To confirm whether any similar trade restrictions on transit are being applied to 
agricultural goods of any other WTO Member. If so, please provide details;  
d. To confirm how Russian authorities enforce these measures, and in particular if 
the country of origin of an agricultural g ood is the basis for applying the measure?; 
e. To explain why the additional transit time and expense for agricultural product trade is 
considered necessary?; 
f. To explain how the measures are not "similar border measures other than ordinary 
customs duties" limiting market access under the meaning of footnote 1 of Article 4, 
paragraph 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
1.18  Thailand's rice policies 
1.18.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79005) 
The Paddy-Pledging Scheme has been reported to result in the government of Thailand purchasing 
an estimated 17.8 million tonnes of grain of rice that it was unable to sell. Since its termination in February 2014, the government of Thailand in troduced various short-term support measures 
including the Rice Farmer Assistance Program,  the on-farm pledging programme (the "Farmer 
Loans to Delay the sale of Rice Paddy for 2014/15"), special loan interest rates, various rice marketing schemes, and an insurance program for seasonal rice.  
 
a. What programmes does Thailand currently provide to benefit rice producers?  
b. For each programme, please explain how the programme is implemented.  
c. Do any programmes currently provide an administered price support mechanism for rice, 
including at the sub-national level? If yes, please explain how the programme is implemented.  
d. Please provide the most recent overall rice stock tonnage.  
e. Please explain how much rice was released or sold into the domestic and international 
markets over the period 2014/2015.  
On August 10, 2015, the Thai Commerce Ministry announced it would sell one million tonnes of 
Thai rice (Jasmine and 5% broken) from government stocks in a government-to-government 
transaction with China. It was reported that these sales would be made at market prices. It was also reported that an additional one million tonnes would be negotiated for sale beginning in 
September 2015.  
 
f. Has Thailand completed the negotiations and sales of the second one million tonnes of 
rice? If so, were these also made at market prices?  
g. Please identify what the market prices were for these transactions totalling two million 
tonnes of rice from government reserves.  
The United States notes that the average ma rket price for Thai rice has been below 
USD 400 since August 2015, while government stocks have been procured at 
USD 450 per tonne under the Rice Farmer Assistance Program. G/AG/W/148 
 
- 13 - 
 
  h. Please confirm that all sales of Thai rice from government stocks were made at no less 
than the price at which they were acquired.  
1.19  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 1.19.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79027) 
The European Union requests an answer to the question AG-IMS ID 78044 raised during the 
78
th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 
The European Union has still not received any substantive answer to questions AG-IMS ID 77047, 
AG-IMS ID 75069 and AG-IMS ID 73056 asked during the 73rd, 75th and 77th Meeting of 
Committee on Agriculture, and invites Turkey to present its reply to these questions.   
Further, the US Department of Agriculture in its Citrus Report for the year 2013 indicates (as in 
the 2011 report) that "the Turkish Government makes support payments to exporters and the rates vary each year. The Ministry of Finance is providing a subsidy to citrus exporters of 
200 YTL/MT in 2013. There is also a minimum price requirement for this specific subsidy. The 
Government makes payments to a special account, which the exporter can only use to make tax and social security payments as well as utilities such as telecommunications, electricity, and 
natural gas. In order to protect domestic producers, the government kept the customs duty rates 
at 2007 levels for orange juice and citrus imports, which are 54%."  
a. Could Turkey confirm that since 2001 its budge tary outlays and eligible quantity as 
regards export subsidies, notably for citrus fruits, have remained below its 
commitments?  
b. Could Turkey indicate the level of AMS support in absolute amounts since 2002 per 
budget year or at least for the budget years 2010 to 2014? 
c. Does this level respect Turkey's de minimis  commitment? 
d. When will Turkey make its DS:1 notifications for the years after 2002? 
1.20  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.20.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 79033) 
The United States appreciates Turkey's response to its question AG-IMS ID 78008. However, the 
response was not clear.  
 
a. Are any Members of the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) Board of Directors appointed by or 
employed by the government of Turkey?  
The United States has the following additional questions: 
 
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing certificate 
holders over the past several years. In the past, Turkey has cited U.S. Department of 
Commerce countervailing duty decisions on pasta and steel pipes and tubes. These decisions do not provide the information requested.  
Does Turkey confirm that TMO sells domestic wheat to Turkey flour millers 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. The United States appreciates 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).  
i. 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.  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 14 - 
 
  ii. Turkey has responded that "vast majority of Turkish wheat imports and wheat flour 
exports were made under IPR." Please state precisely how much of the imports and exports were through the inward processing system.  
d. In AG-IMS ID 73042, the United States reques ted data concerning both the quantity and 
quality of wheat imports and flour exports und er Turkey's inward processing system. In 
response, Turkey provided data concerning only the quantity of such imports and exports and did not have data to share on quality. Please share any information 
regarding the quality of the wheat imports ov er the last three years that Turkey can 
provide, even if not data.  
1.21  Turkey's support scheme to  certain agricultural sectors 
1.21.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79026) 
The US Department of Agriculture in its Citrus Report for the year 2015 states the following 
regarding, this time, to domestic support: "The  Turkish government supports the citrus farmers 
who are registered in the "Farmers Registration System" and offers these farmers the following 
supports for the year 2015, these are in Turkish Lira (TL) per hectare (ha): 500 TL/ha for Good 
Agricultural Practices, 700 TL/ha for organic agriculture; 1500 TL/ha for standard orchards with small fruit scion and 400 TL/da if it is certified,  1500 TL/ha for standard orchards with half-small 
fruit scion and 350 TL/da if it is certified, 25 TL/ha for soil analysis; 48 TL/ha for fuel; 47 TL/ha for 
fertilizer.  Can Turkey indicate by measure the total budgeta ry outlay executed for these schemes in the 
2014 and 2015 budget years? 
 1.22  Turkey's rice support 
1.22.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79029) 
On 17 December 2015 the government of Turkey has announced the paddy purchasing price for 
2015-2016 at around TL 1,580 (around USD 534) per tonne.  
 
a. Can Turkey indicate have many tonnes benefitted from this price and the total cost for 
TMO for this measure? 
b. How does Turkey intend to notify this support in its DS:1 notification? 
1.23  Turkey's fruit and vegetable export subsidies 
1.23.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 79031) Media reports refer to Turkish government su bsidizing of fruit and vegetable exports to 
compensate for the loss of the Russian market
2. The aid seems to be regulated by a Turkish law 
applicable from 1 January 2016 and consists of subsidies per tonne of fruits (fresh, canned or frozen), dried fruit, fruit juice and vegetable. 
 
a. Could Turkey provide clarifications if such type of export subsidy is currently in place?  
b. Will Turkey notify the use of such export su bsidy in accordance to the WTO transparency 
obligations? 
1.24  U.S. farm support programmes 
1.24.1  Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79086) 
a. According to the Environmental Working Gr oup Farm Subsidy Database, top 20% of 
recipients accounted for 78% of commodity subsidies in 2012. The glaring inequality in 
                                               
2 http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/article/167897/turkey-helps-out-exporters . G/AG/W/148 
 
- 15 - 
 
  farm payments is reflected in the fact that while a recipient in the top 1% category 
received USD 84,200 as farm subsidy, a recipient in the below 80% category received USD 1,555 in the year 2012. One of the top beneficiaries of a farm subsidy- namely DNRC Trust Land Management- Exem got USD 703,805 in 2012 alone. India requests 
the United States to explain the reasons for the high concentration of farm payments in 
favour of big farmers and the steps taken by the US Government in Farm Act 2014 to reduce this inequality.  
b. The Environmental Working Group Farm Subsid y Database also shows the top ten States 
of USA accounted for 58% of commodity subsidy in 2012. For example, Iowa State accounted for 9.1% of total farm subsidy payment in 2012. India requests the United States to also explain this inter-state disparity in farm payments.  
In light of the GSM 102 programme continued by the United States, India wishes to raise the 
following questions: 
 
c. What are the products covered by this programme and what is the current outlay made 
by the United States towards this programme? 
d. What is the method of repayment prescribed under the programme? 
e. What is the basis for defining the rate of interest under the programme and could the 
United States confirm that in each case the rate of interest under the programme is greater than the commercially available rate of interest? 
Price Loss Coverage programme (PLC) 
 
f. Under the PLC, farmers will be given direct payments if the national average price of 
their crop falls below the statutorily defined "reference price" of that crop. Section 1113 
(d) of the Agriculture Act of 2014 offers farmers a one-time option to update their yield 
that can be used as the base for making PLC payments. Updating the yield is "[a]t the sole discretion of the owner of a farm, the owner of a farm shall have a 1- time 
opportunity to update, on a covered commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, the 
payment yield that would otherwise be used in calculating any price loss coverage payment for each covered commodity on the farm for which the election is made." 
To the extent that the PLC programme provides  the flexibility to re-allocate their base 
across covered crops on annual basis, could the United States confirm that PLC 
payments will be treated as coupled payments and subject to AMS calculation? 
g. The "reference price" (Section 1116, PL 113-79) serves as a trigger to make deficiency 
payments under the PLC programme. Considering that individual prices are statutorily 
set for each covered crop, could the United States confirm that payments made under the PLC programme will be notified as pr oduct-specific support under Amber Box? 
h. Considering that the reference price for each covered crop is set at a level well above the 
extant average farm prices in the United St ates and is also markedly above the trigger 
prices under the CCP programme (which the PLC replaces) could the United States show why such a programme will not distort global agricultural markets and how it is 
consistent with the reform process provided  for in Article 20 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture? G/AG/W/148 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) programme 
 
i. Under the SCO programme (Section 11003 (b) of the U.S Agriculture Act 2014), while 
formulating the "level of coverage" it is provided that the said coverage will be triggered 
if the "losses in the area exceed 14 per cent of normal levels (as determined by the 
Corporation". However, that WTO Agreement on Agriculture (Annex 2, Para 7(a) provides that: "eligibility for such payments shall be determined by an income loss, 
taking into account only income derived from agriculture, which exceeds 30 per cent of 
average gross income or the equivalent in net income terms (excluding any payments from the same or similar schemes) in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year pe riod, excluding the highest and the lowest 
entry.") (emphasis added). In light of this could the United States confirm that the 
Supplemental Coverage Option would be notified under the Amber Box? 
"WTO circuit breaker provision" 
 
j. The Agriculture Act of 2014 contains a "WTO circuit breaker provision" that, in the 
unlikely scenario that payments are expected to exceed commitment levels, gives the 
secretary of agriculture the authority to ensu re the United States does not exceed those 
commitments. Section 1601 (d)(1) states that: "If the Secretary determines that expenditures under this title that are subj ect to the total allowable domestic support 
levels under the Uruguay Round Agreements (as defined in section 2 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501)) will exceed such allowable levels for any 
applicable reporting period, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make adjustments in the amount of such expenditures during that period to ensure that 
such expenditures do not exceed the allowable levels" (emphasis added).  
Should there be significant world market price falls for certain agricultural commodities, 
given the highly price-contingent model of the Agriculture Act of 2014, the United States 
could potentially be at risk of exceeding its allowable levels. As opposed to ensuring that 
the Secretary makes adjustments to the full extent necessary, the Agriculture Act of 2014 states that the Secretary shall, "to the maximum extent practicable", make adjustments in the amount of such expendit ures. Could the United States clarify what 
conditions could limit the Secretary to only making adjustment to "to the maximum 
extent practicable" given that exceeding such allowable levels of domestic support would place the United States in violation of its obligations to the WTO? 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 2.1.1  China (G/AG/N/CHN/30) 
AG-IMS ID 79048: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that while China's TRQ imports for wheat and corn improved in 2013, they fell 
again in 2014. Wheat and corn imports in 2014 were approximately one third the in-quota amounts. Similarly, the fill-rate for rice was below half the in-quota amount. Could China please 
outline the reasons for these under-fills, and the steps it will take to improve the fill rate for 
these TRQs? 
AG-IMS ID 79068: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill 
Canada welcomes the improvements in the fill rate for wheat in 2013, reaching 54% which is the 
highest fill rate for wheat since 2004. However, in 2014 the fill rate for wheat dropped to 31.2%. Canada recalls comments from the United States during the 78
th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 78004), that with high domestic prices and falling world prices, China 
continues to significantly under-fill its tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). Canada would also like to note that China has notified an export quota and licensing administration for wheat under its notification of quantitative restrictions to the Committee on Market Access (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/3) 
citing food security reasons under Article XI, XX of GATT 1994. 
 
a. Could China please explain the drop in f ill rate for wheat between 2013 and 2014?  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 17 - 
 
  b. Given that world wheat import prices are low, China's exports to the world are minimal, 
and the fill rate for its import quota is low, could China please explain how an export quota and licensing administration for wheat addresses its food security concerns?  
AG-IMS ID 79006: Question by the United  States of America - Tariff quota fill 
The United States notes that there continues to be significant TRQ under-fill for grains, specifically 
wheat, corn, and rice. The United States is concerned that issues affecting TRQ administration may be the cause for chronic TRQ under-fill. To allay these concerns, please provide information on the 
following:  
 
a. the percent of unused private sector quota allocations returned by 15 September and 
then re-allocated by 1 October as per China's TRQ measures; and, the percent of unused 
STE quota allocations returned by 15 September and then re-allocated by 1 October, as 
per China's TRQ measures?  
b. the percent of private sector initial TRQ allocations by metric tonne (MT); and, the 
percent of STE initial TRQ allocations by MT ?  
c. the percent of private sector TRQ re-allo cations by MT; and, the percent of STE 
sector TRQ re-allocations by MT?  
d. the percent of private sector TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT; and, the 
percent of STE TRQ imports under initial TRQ allocations by MT?  
e. the percent of private sector TRQ imports under private sector TRQ re-allocations by MT; 
and, the percent of private sector and STE TRQ imports under STE TRQ re-allocations 
by MT?  
f. Where does China publish information on th e reallocation of wheat, corn, and rice 
quotas, and how soon is this information available after 1 October?  
2.1.2  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/53) 
AG-IMS ID 79078: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill 
In its answer to Switzerland's question at the 61
st Committee on Agriculture Meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 61008), Costa Rica highlighted the fact that new applicants may be allocated with 
more than 20% of the tariff quota if the volume allocated to the historical applicants is less than 80%. With DR-CAFTA coming into force, this has been the case for several TRQs including the ones for cheese and other dairy products in multiple consecutive years. Nonetheless, the fill rates 
for these TRQs remained very low. Is Costa Rica considering any measures to increase its 
WTO tariff rate quota fill rates?  
2.1.3  Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/50) 
AG-IMS ID 79007: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
The United States notes that Guatemala's notification does not provide information for all 
commodities in all years. A footnote states that other more attractive provisions were provided. 
Please provide more detail as to what is considered a more attractive provision?   2.1.4  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/21) 
AG-IMS ID 79049: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
In relation to Ukraine's latest MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/UKR/21) could Ukraine please advise the 
reason for the continued zero fill-rates for its raw sugar cane tariff rate quota? 
 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.2  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.2.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/89) AG-IMS ID 79092: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
In response to India's question (AG-IMS ID 76040), Australia has clarified that the Farm 
Management Deposit Scheme (FMDS) allows "farmers to prepare financially for loss of income as a consequence of low income events like drought." However there still remains some inconsistency 
between the impugned scheme and Paragraph 7 of Annex 2. 
 The FMDS operates by triggering a tax deduction on  that part of the income that is deposited in 
farm management deposits by eligible farmers during high income years. In other words, the 
subsidy, which is in the form of "revenue foregone", is available in the income year that the 
deposit is made and the eligibility for the subsidy has no relationship with "income loss" as contained in Paragraph 7 of Annex 2. The eligibili ty criteria, for the purpose of claiming a tax 
deduction under the FMDS are: 
 
a. The farmer should be carrying on a primary production business as defined in Sub-
section 995-1 (1) of ITAA, 1997 at the time of making the deposit, provided the taxable 
non-primary production income of the farmer is $100,000 or less. 
b. Individual deposits under the scheme are no t less than $1,000 and total deposits not 
more than $400,000. (It is understood that this upper ceiling has been raised vide 
Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, 2015 published by the Australian Government 
which would further expand the coverage of the scheme). 
c. Individual deposits do not exceed taxable primary production income. 
d. Deposits are held for at least 12 months or should qualify for one of the early repayment 
exceptions. 
In essence, the eligibility for tax deduction is determined, inter alia, by the nature of farm activity 
carried on by the farmer and the quantum of deposits made. There is no demonstrable 
requirement to show actual income loss accruing to the farmer to claim tax deduction on the deposits. In light of this, India wishes to reiterate its former question: could Australia clarify how this scheme complies with the requirements of paragraph 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture? 
AG-IMS ID 79093: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
In response to India's question (AG-IMS ID 76041), Australia noted that "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." Australia has however not confirmed that if production losses 
are less than those described in Annex 2, paragraph 8, such payments will not be classified under 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Could Au stralia, therefore, kindly clarify what would be 
Australia's treatment of production losses that are less than 30%?  
2.2.2  Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/23) 
AG-IMS ID 79039: Question by the European Union - Input subsidies available to low-
income or resource-poor producers 
Can Botswana explain what measures it has taken to ensure that the programmes "Livestock 
Management and Infrastructure Development (LIMID) and Integrated Support Programme for Arable Development (ISPAAD) only benefit low-income farmers and not the country's important 
commercial producers? G/AG/W/148 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.2.3  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/40) 
AG-IMS ID 79054: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Brazil has notified a substantial increase (approximately 80%) in expenditure for development 
programmes under Article 6.2. Can Brazil explain why there has been such a significant increase 
since the preceding notification? 
AG-IMS ID 79038: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
a. Can Brazil confirm that no programme of the Brazilian States has been included (Rural 
Development, technical assistance or otherwise)? 
b. Does Brazil intend to include these programmes later in the notification? 
AG-IMS ID 79053: Question by Australia - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
a. In relation to the 2013/14 notification from  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/40) Australia notes that 
expenditure under public stockholding for food  security purposes increased by over 15% 
from the previous year. Could Brazil please  explain the reason for this substantial 
increase?  
b. Could Brazil please explain how the government operates these programmes, including, 
where relevant, how Brazil determines the price at which the government buys and sells 
agricultural produce under this public stockholding for food security programme? Where 
relevant, can Brazil confirm that food for public stockholding purposes are procured at current market prices, and not administered prices, in accordance with Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 79069: Question by Canada - In vestment subsidies ge nerally available to 
agriculture 
Canada notes that the monetary value of its measures under "funds for agricultural investments" 
has increased from USD 892.8 million in 2012/2013 to USD 1.6 billion in 2013/2014 and that the 
Investment Enhancement Program (PRI) has been adde d to the list of measures in Footnote 2, and 
which was not included in Brazil's notification for the reporting period 2012/2013.  
 
a. Could Brazil clarify if the increase in the amount of support claimed under "Funds for 
agricultural investment" is attributed to the PRI?  
b. As it appears that the PRI is a new measure, could Brazil please provide additional 
information on it, e.g., producer eligibility criteria, initiatives that are eligible for funding?  
AG-IMS ID 79036: Question by the European  Union - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture 
a. For the different measures based on interest support Brazil has used the SELIC rate as 
reference rate, which is fixed by the Brazilian Central Bank. However the commercial rate is much higher. Can Brazil indicate a representative average interest rate applied by 
commercial banks during 2013-2014, and the rate for SELIC during the same period? 
b. Can Brazil indicate how non-payments/forfeitures from farmers on these loans/credits 
are included in the amounts notified? 
AG-IMS ID 79037: Question by the European  Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:5, 
 
a. Can Brazil indicate the total production of th e products mentioned (coffee, edible beans, 
maize and wheat) and whether this information is publicly available?  
b. Why the amount notified is not based on total production volume?  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 20 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 79070: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notes that payments to wheat under the PEPRO programme resumed in 2013/2014 in the 
amount of USD 32.89 million after no payments we re made in 2012/2013. Could Brazil indicate 
the volume of wheat acquired through under PEPRO and if this wheat was exported what was the 
destination?  
 2.2.4  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 79009: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States appreciates China's responses in the September 2015 meeting and wishes to 
follow-up.  
 
As noted in China's response to AG-IMS ID 78062, despite its intended purpose to stabilize production and provide food security, the programmes are de facto market support prices. 
Therefore, under WTO rules, they should be notified as administered prices.  
 
a. The United States requests that China re vise its notification to reflect this.  
In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China indicated that total payments only compensated for a 
small part of farmers' losses.  
b. Please provide an indication of the level of  compensation provided to farmers compared 
to losses of income.  
c. Please provide a list of the individual programmes included under this subheading.  
AG-IMS ID 79055: Question by Australia - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
China reported in its notification for the calendar years 2009 and 2010 (G/AG/N/CHN/28) a 10% 
increase in expenditure under public stockholding. Australia notes the European Union had also sought further detail at the 77
th and 78th Committees on Agriculture.  
 
a. Can China explain how expenditure under this programme is determined and what is the 
method by which wheat, corn, rice, vege table oils and sugar are procured and 
distributed? 
b. What is the price that these products are procured at and how much production is 
procured?  
c. What is the total production of these commodities?  
d. What is the explanation for the increase in public stockholding expenditure 
between 2009 and 2010?  
AG-IMS ID 79079: Question by the European Union - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The European Union noticed reply to question AG-IMS ID 78055 point b is missing and requests an 
answer. This question was originally raised during the 77th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 
4 June 2015 and repeated during the Committee on Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77052. 
 
b. A continued upward trend in China's spending on public stockholding for food security 
purposes is seen in Supporting Table DS:1. Could China indicate what type of 
expenditure is included in the notified amount? G/AG/W/148 
 
- 21 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 79080: Question by the European Union - Domestic food aid 
The European Union noticed reply to question AG-IMS ID 78056 is missing and requests an 
answer. This question was originally raised during the 77th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 4 
June 2015 and repeated during the Committee on  Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77053. 
 Amounts notified under domestic food aid vary annually during the notified years 2005-2010. There is a substantial variation between 2009 and 2010 in particular in the current notification. 
Could China explain why the amount notified for 2010 decreased so substantially compared to the 
previous years? Is this related to a policy change? 
AG-IMS ID 79081: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
The European Union noticed reply to question AG-IMS ID 78057 is missing and requests an 
answer. This question was originally raised during the 77
th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 
4 June 2015 and repeated during the Committee on Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77
th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77054. 
 The European Union notes a decrease in the amount notified under decoupled income support 
compared to the previous notification G/AG/N/CHN/21. Could China explain why this spending is 
decreasing? Is this related to a policy change? 
AG-IMS ID 79011: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
Regarding AG-IMS ID 78064, China's "payments for relief from natural disasters" have increased 
substantially since 2005, reaching CNY 583.84 hundred million in 2010. Per paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture "….p ayments shall arise only following a formal 
recognition by government authorities that a natural or like disaster has occurred."  
 
a. Please provide a list of all relevant formal recognitions by either the central government 
or local governments that provided eligibility for payments in 2010.  
In response to AG-IMS ID 78064, China stated that it was not in a position to provide any specific 
resources related to other specific policy and implementing guidance regarding the notified 
programmes. 
 
b. Is China now in a position to do so? If not, what resources are available to help Members 
better understand programmes notified under this subheading? 
AG-IMS ID 79056: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Can China please inform Members as to the types of programmes that receive funding for 
environmental programmes (under Other General Services) and who are the recipients? How are 
environmental programmes allocated across geographic areas? 
AG-IMS ID 79012: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments under environmental programmes 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 78065. The United States notes that China's notification of environment programme expenditures has increased over time. China, in response to AG-IMS ID 59032, stated 
that it was impossible to determine whether the payments under the various programme notified 
under these programme are dependent on the fulfilmen t of specific criteria, a requirement outlined 
in paragraph 12(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Further, China stated that all the support at 
the time was used solely for compensation to the farming households affected by the afforestation 
and reforestation program.  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 22 - 
 
   
a. Is this notification still accurate in that all support is still for afforestation and 
reforestation programmes?  
b. Is China now able to provide the details of such criteria? In particular, what exactly are 
the payments compensating farmers for with regards to afforestation and reforestation?  
c. If China is still unable to provide the specific criteria, on what basis is China able to 
notify this program under paragraph 12?  
AG-IMS ID 79057: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
China reported an increase in expenditure from  2009 to 2010 of approximately 15% for Regional 
assistance programmes (under Other General Serv ices). This continues a trend from previous 
notifications showing significant increases in ex penditure for these programmes (more than double 
from 2005).   
a. Can China please explain what eligibility requirements are needed to receive payments 
under these programmes?  
b. What types of activities receive funding and can China explain how these activities are in 
accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
AG-IMS ID 79010: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
Given China's response to AG-IMS ID 78067, an u pdated notification continues to be warranted. 
Please provide an estimated submission date for the updated notification?  
AG-IMS ID 79013: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production  
With China's answer to AG-IMS ID 78068, the United States understands that the entire 
production of wheat and rice in the targeted regions should be used to calculate China's AMS for 
wheat and rice. The United States requests that China revise its notification to reflect this. 
AG-IMS ID 79059: Question by Austra lia - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
In Supporting Table DS:7 China reports that support  to the cotton industry includes a "subsidy for 
reserve cost". Can China please inform Members as to what this "reserve cost" is and what is the rationale for subsidizing this "reserve cost"?  
AG-IMS ID 79082: Question by the European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
The European Union noticed reply to question AG-IMS ID 78060 is missing and requests an 
answer. This question was originally raised during the 77
th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 
4 June 2015 and repeated during the Committee on Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77057. 
 Can China explain in detail the reason for the sizeable variations for cotton between the years 2009 and 2010 in Supporting Table DS:7? 
AG-IMS ID 79014: Question by the United St ates of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
Since China has not supplied formal written responses, the United States resubmits its question 
AG-IMS ID 78069. As has been previously noted by multiple Members, China's inclusion of 
negative market price support in the summation of  product-specific AMS in Supporting Table DS:7 
is a serious concern and should be reported as a zero for purposes of summation. The United 
States would note that the intent of negative support in the AMS is to account for "specific 
agricultural levies or fees paid by producers" per Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   G/AG/W/148 
 
- 23 - 
 
  a. Please state the intended objective of Chin a's price support programmes. Please clarify 
how these objectives are in line with providing a negative level of support as purported by China in its notification.  
b. China has previously indicated that it refers to the "rules of the WTO Secretariat" as a 
basis for notifying in this way. Please provide the relevant Secretariat documentation 
and specific rules that China believes permits this.  
The United States appreciates the transparency provided by China in noting the various 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7. The United States suggests China notify these 
programmes on a disaggregated basis.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of the product-specific programs notified in the footnotes 
with their respective outlays by commodity.  
AG-IMS ID 79058: Question by Australia - Non-product-specific AMS 
a. China reported in its notification (G/AG/N/CHN/28) input subsidies that are primarily for 
the means of production. Could China please disaggregate these input subsidies by type 
of input and the associated indivi dual expenditure for each item?  
b. China reported in its notification (G/AG/N/CHN/28) non- product-specific interest rate 
subsidies. Can China inform Members with  answers to the following questions: 
i. what eligibility criteria is required for recipients to access these interest rate 
subsidies? 
ii. How was the interest rate subsidy calculated? 
iii. Who provides the investment loans for such activities where interest rate subsidies 
are provided? Who are the recipients of such loans? 
AG-IMS ID 79083: Question by the Euro pean Union - Non-product-specific AMS 
The European Union noticed reply to question AG-IMS ID 78061 is missing and requests an 
answer. This question was originally raised during the 77
th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 
4 June 2015 and repeated during the Committee on Agriculture meeting on 25 September 2015. 
 
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions asked at 
the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 77058. 
 
a. Input subsidies: Can China elaborate on the functioning of the system aid for 
mechanisation which is given to the distributors of agricultural machinery for certain 
types of material which has to be produced for at least half in China? How can non-China 
based producer participate is this scheme? 
b. Is the aid given as tax rebates (for instance in the horticultural sector) included in this 
table? 
2.2.5  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/26) AG-IMS ID 79060: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
a. The European 2012/13 notification (G/AG/N/EU/26) identified in the Supporting 
Table DS:1 a number of generic activities in relation to Structural Adjustment Assistance provided through Investment Aids. Could the European Union please explain what 
programmes were involved, including the expenditure for each programme, for the 
following two activities: 
i. the restructuring of the sugar industry, and  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 24 - 
 
  ii. the national restructuring programmes for the cotton sector. 
b. Can the European Union explain why thes e programmes are exempt from reduction 
commitments and how they are consistent with Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture? 
AG-IMS ID 79061: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
The EU 2012/13 notification (G/AG/N/EU/26) identi fied in the Supporting Table DS:1 a number of 
generic activities under Environmental Programmes. Can the European Union please explain what 
activities producers are required to undertake under the following notified programme headings and what amount of expenditure relates to programmes under each heading:   
a. protection of the environment and pr eservation of the countryside; and 
b. conservation and improvement of rural heritage. 
2.2.6  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 79015: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States appreciated India's responses and wishes to follow-up on the response to 
AG-IMS 78035, that "The original data source [for  establishing India's FERP] is as indicated in 
India's AGST document. The calculations can be confirmed using widely available standard sources of trade statistics". However, as noted in the original question, using widely standard sources of trade statistics, the United States have not been able to confirm India's FERP calculation of USD 
240 per metric tonne for wheat. The U.S. calculations show that wheat prices during that period 
ranged from USD 100-160 per metric tonne. Therefore the United States respectfully would like additional clarification. Please specifically cite sources for these trade statistics?  
 
2.2.7  Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/5) 
AG-IMS ID 79071: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Could Mauritius confirm that payments under the category "Irrigation Services" and "Field 
Operations Regrouping Irrigation Project" exclude subsidies of on-farm infrastructure or subsidising the cost of operations?   
2.2.8  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/28) 
AG-IMS ID 79073: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Canada notes that under "structural adjustment assistance provided through investment 
aids" and "payments under regional assistance programmes", Mexico indicates that the 
Countryside Alliance Programme (last notified under reporting period 2008) was replaced by the Productive Assets Programme in reporting period 2009 which from reporting 
period 2010 becomes the Programme for the Acquisition of Productive Assets. 
i. Could Mexico indicate if these are the same programme or if these are three different 
programmes? Could Mexico describe how each programme meets the relevant criteria in paragraph 11, Annex 2?  
ii. In reporting period 2010, a number of different measures are listed i.e., agricultural 
component, livestock component, Support for the Maize and Bean Producers' Production Chain (PROMAF). Could Mexico elaborate as to what structural 
adjustments are being addressed by each and how these measures meet the 
relevant criteria in paragraph 11, Annex 2?  
b. Canada notes that there are a number of new measures notified as Green Box payments 
for which a DS:2 notification is missing. Would Mexico please advise when it expects to 
provide an associated DS:2 notification for these new measures?  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 79074: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Canada notes that starting in reporting year  2010 under the "payment under environmental 
programmes", that support is provided to the "construction of small scale hydraulic works". Could 
Mexico elaborate as to how this type of project meets the criteria in paragraph 12, Annex 2 
including a description of the clearly-define d government environmental or conservation 
programme?  
AG-IMS ID 79075: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
Canada notes that in reporting year 2010, a new measure called Strategic Food Security 
Programme is reported under "Payments und er regional assistance programmes". 
 
a. Could Mexico please indicate which regions are disadvantaged and the objective criteria 
used?  
b. Could Mexico advise that the payments limited to the extra costs or loss of income 
involved in undertaking agricultural production in the prescribed area?  
AG-IMS ID 79076: Question by Canada - In vestment subsidies ge nerally available to 
agriculture 
For the years 2007 to 2012, there have been many changes to the Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture under Special and Differential Treatment – Development Programmes as described below:  
 
a. Transfers through interest rates:  
i. Mexico lists the Programme for the Promotion and Development of Financing for the 
Rural Sector in the reporting periods 2008-2010. Would this be the same as the 
Support Programme for Access to the Rural Financial System (PAASFIR) described in 
its previous notification for the reporting period year 2007? If not, please describe 
how it is different.  
ii. The Programme for the Promotion and Development of Financing for the Rural Sector 
included the following sub-programmes/measures as listed in the reporting period 2010:  
 Support for Instruments for the Promotion and Development of Rural Financing; 
 Technical Assistance Programme for Rural Microfinance (PATMIR); 
 Shared Risk Trust (FIRCO); 
 Agricultural and Fertilizer Price Risk Management Fund; 
 National Guarantee Fund for the Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries and Rural 
Sectors; 
 Humid Tropics Programme (Financing component). 
As these are not reported in the following years, has the Programme for the Promotion and 
Development of the Financing for the Rural Sector been terminated, along with its sub-programmes?  
 
iii. Canada notes that a number of items have received support which no amounts were 
provided prior to the dates listed for each measure listed below:  
 Rural development finance corporation "Financiera Rural" and some of its 
programmes during the reporting periods 2009 and 2012; G/AG/W/148 
 
- 26 - 
 
   Guarantee and Development Fund for Agriculture and Livestock and Poultry 
Farming for the reporting periods 2009 to 2012; 
 Fund for Encouraging Investment in Localities with Medium, High and Very High 
Levels of Marginalization and Guarantee Programme (SAGARPA) for the reporting 
period 2011 and 2012; 
 Technical Assistance Programme for Rural Microfinance (PATMIR) for the 
reporting period 2011 and 2012. 
Is the provided support a result of new initiatives? Would Mexico please advise when it expects to 
provide an associated DS:2 notification providing the necessary details regarding these programmes? Are these programmes still in force?   
b. Transfers through insurance:  
In the 2008 reporting period Mexico notified a measure under "transfer through insurance" called 
"insurance premium subsidy available to all produc ers" while in the 2009 to 2012 reporting period, 
there are two insurance related measures i.e., "agricultural insurance premium subsidy" and 
"Support programme for agriculture Insurance Funds".   
i. Could Mexico please provide additional information on the "support programme for 
agriculture insurance funds"?  
ii. Could Mexico provide information as to the government share of the agricultural 
insurance premium subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 79077: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could Mexico please clarify what the term "Promo tion of production patterns" means for canola?  
AG-IMS ID 79062: Question by Australia - Non-product-specific AMS 
In Supporting Table DS:9 for reporting period 2012 a new measure type called "Market risk 
management through rural financial intermediaries" was introduced. Could Mexico please explain what this activity does, what the eligibility requirements are, and how the expenditure is 
calculated? 
 2.2.9  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/85) 
AG-IMS ID 79041: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
From information provided in Norway's answers to questions asked during previous meetings of 
the Committee on Agriculture, the European Unio n understands that Norway has eliminated the 
administered target prices for sheep meat and eggs from 1 July 2013 and for beef from 
1 July 2009. Has Norway since then eliminated the administered target prices for any additional 
products or are there currently any plans to do so? 
AG-IMS ID 79063: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Norway's Supporting Table DS:1 notification for calendar year 2014 (G/AG/N/NOR/85) includes a 
number of environmental programmes as being exempt from reduction commitments in 
accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can Norway please explain what 
activities producers are required to undertake under the following notified programme headings and what amount of expenditure relates to programmes under each heading: 
 
a. Subsidy to ecological production;  
b. National environmental programme; and 
c. Regional environmental programme, including those covering valuable agricultural 
landscapes, including World Heritage Areas. G/AG/W/148 
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.2.10  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/72) 
AG-IMS ID 79016: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
Under the category of Structural Adjustment Assistance Provided Through Investments Aids, the 
United States notes that CHF 35.57 million is provided to improve livestock breeding.  
 
a. Please explain how these funds are used by the government to improve livestock 
breeding?  
b. Are funds provided to Swiss breed associ ations or private companies that supply 
livestock genetics? If so, please explain how these funds are used by such associations or companies.  
c. Further, please explain the relationship be tween breed associations that receive such 
funds and the government.  
AG-IMS ID 79017: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
The United States notes increases in 2013 in product-specific support for many animal products. 
For example, milk and milk products, bovine meat, swine meat, and poultry all received increased support compared to 2012. For each of these products, the applied administered price increased in 
2013.  
 
a. Please explain the reason for the increases in the administered price?  
The United States notes, in particular, that the swine meat administered price increased 28% from 
the previous year. 
 
b. Is Switzerland taking any steps to limit increases in administered prices given that 
support now comprises 66% of the value of production for bovine meat, 58% for swine 
meat, and 80% for poultry meat? If so, please explain these steps.  
2.2.11  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/45) 
AG-IMS ID 79065: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia notes that Tunisia is a major exporter of "other agricultural products". Can Tunisia please 
advise if any of the products that have market price support applied to them are utilized in the production of other agricultural products that Tunisia exports? 
AG-IMS ID 79064: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
In Tunisia's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/TUN/45) Tunisia has modified the fixed 
external reference price by which market price supp ort is calculated. There is no legal basis in the 
Agreement of Agriculture for modifying the fixed exte rnal reference price in this way. Accordingly, 
can Tunisia please resubmit its domestic support notification to show the fixed external reference price without modification and alterations and also  please amend the domestic support calculations 
accordingly so they show the amount of market price support? 
 2.2.12  United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8) 
AG-IMS ID 79019: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its questions.  
 
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/7, 
 
a. In Under sub-headings "Pest and disease control" and "extension advisory services" the 
United Arab Emirates notified two values of support for each year; however, it is unclear 
from the notification the difference between the two values. Please explain what each 
value represents.  G/AG/W/148 
 
- 28 - 
 
  b. It is noted that compared to G/AG/N/ARE/5 for the years 2000 and 2001, the United 
Arab Emirates introduced in 2002 a number of new programmes that are considered exempt under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, United Arab Emirates introduced one new programme in 2003 under subheading "Inspection". When 
does the United Arab Emirates plan on submitting its DS:2 notifications for these new 
programs?  
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8, 
 
c. Why is there a significant increase in monetary value for pest/disease control and 
extension/advisory service support measures from the previous calendar years?  
d. Why was the inspection support measure not reported for calendar year 2014? Is the 
United Arab Emirates no longer using this support measure or has it been replaced by 
another support measure? Why?  
AG-IMS ID 79018: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
The United States resubmits its questions.  
 
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8: 
 
a. How does the new infrastructure support measure meet the policy-specific criteria in 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, such as the eligibility criteria to receive the 
payment, the conditions applying to the payments, or the rules governing the amount of 
the payment?  
b. When will the Table DS:2 notification for the new infrastructure support measure be 
submitted?  
AG-IMS ID 79020: Question by the United St ates of America - Input subsidies available 
to low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States resubmits its questions.  
 Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/7:  
a. It is noted that all measures notified under the criteria of Article 6.2 were eliminated 
in 2006. What was the basis for the eliminat ion of these measures and did the United 
Arab Emirates introduce any other measures as part of this reform? If so, what?  
b. How did the United Arab Emirates define low-income or resource-poor producers at the 
time these measures were operational?  
2.2.13  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 79089: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Follow up question to AG-IMS ID 76048. In response to India's question, the United States has 
responded that for the calculation of Fixed External Reference Price for butter, non-fat dry milk and cheddar cheese it has selected f.o.b. price because the United States was a net-exporter of all 
three products during the 1986-88 period. Could the United States clarify the source of this data? 
AG-IMS ID 79090: Question by India - Dire ct payments: decoupled income support  
Follow up question to AG-IMS ID 75110. In response to India's question regarding the exclusion of 
certain crops from the programme- Farm Service Ag ency Direct Payments under the definition of 
"covered commodity" in Section 1001 (4) of the 2008 Farm Act and the resulting ambiguity in 
notifying direct payments within the Green Box, the United States responded that they meet the 
fundamental requirements of Annex 2.  
 However India wishes to reiterate that Section 1001 (4) read along with Subtitle A-Direct Payments and Counter-Cyclical Payments of the 20 08 Farm Act expressly limits the availability of G/AG/W/148 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Direct Payments to wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, long grain rice, 
medium grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, and other oilseeds. In light of this, could the United States explain how it is justified to notify Direct Payments within the Green Box? 
AG-IMS ID 79087: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Follow-up question to AG-IMS ID 76044. In response to India's question, the United States 
claimed that Administrative and Operating (A&O) reimbursements are provided by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Corporation to private crop insurers in exchange for delivery of insurance services. 
Could the United States further clarify whether the farmer is absolved of the burden to make A&O payments completely and why this will not result in trade distorting effects or effects on production? 
AG-IMS ID 79088: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
Follow up question to AG-IMS ID 76046. In response to India's request, the United States 
responded that it requires additional time to compile data on per unit rate of electricity charged for 
participants in the Federal irrigation projects and power rates charged for industrial, agricultural 
and residential users of electricity. India requ ests the United States again to provide this 
information based on the current status. 
AG-IMS ID 79091: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
Follow up Question to AG-IMS ID: 75112 
 
a. In response to India's question regarding how obligations of irrigators and other 
beneficiaries of a water project are determined (sub-question "a"), the United States 
responded that "a project purpose's total cost is the sum of the specific and allocated costs". In this context, India requests the United States to provide the following details: 
i. Is there a specific formula for allocating the remaining costs, which cannot be 
allocated to specific costs, over different project purposes? 
ii. If there is such a formula for allocation, does it vary from project to project? 
iii. Could the United States specify the projects where the purpose for which maximum 
costs have been allocated to irrigation? 
b. In response to India's question regarding how obligations of irrigators and other 
beneficiaries of a water project are determined (sub-question "a"), the United States 
responded that "generally the net result of this allocation is that project purposes which 
have higher economic benefits, such as M&I uses, are allocated a greater share of the costs on a per-acre foot basis than a projec t purpose with lower economic benefits". In 
this context, India requests the United States to clarify the following details: 
i. Within the framework of the cost-allocation method highlighted herein, on what 
grounds has the United States made a determination that project purposes such M&I 
uses have higher economic benefits than other purposes? 
ii. Is there a fixed percentage of economic benefit allocated for each project purpose 
after the deduction of specific costs from its total benefits? If yes, could the United States furnish the details? 
c. In response to India's question regarding shif ting of repayments due from irrigators to 
other beneficiaries of water projects (sub-que stion "b"), the United States has responded 
that the benefit provided by irrigation assistance was realised by the original land 
owners and the value of this benefit was capitalised when the lands were sold to new 
owners and thereby eliminated the assistance.  
Even if it is assumed that the value of this benefit was capitalised when the lands were sold, the 
subsidies that are currently notified by the Unit ed States should take into account the price 
support for irrigation water supply. As an exampl e, according to several studies, the irrigation 
water users of the Central Valley Project pay an av erage of USD 6.15 per acre foot, while the cost G/AG/W/148 
 
- 30 - 
 
  to the Federal Government is USD 72.99. This implies a subsidy of at least 91%. In light of this 
could the United States explain how the shifting of repayments is justified?  2.3  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.3.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/39) 
AG-IMS ID 79042: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Why has Brazil in Table ES:2, under section II - Products (G/AG/2/Add.1 - List of "Significant 
Exporters") notified only total exports of oilseeds whereas data on coarse grains, oilcakes, sugar, 
bovine meat, pig meat, poultry meat, live animals, tobacco and cotton seems to be missing?   2.3.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/29) 
AG-IMS ID 79043: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Does China intend to separately submit ES:2 notifications for 2013 and 2014 including total 
exports of eggs, fruits, vegetable and tobacco for which China is a significant exporter according to 
document G/AG/W/123?  
 2.3.3  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/40) 
AG-IMS ID 79040: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Does Ecuador intend to separately submit an ES:2 notification for 2013 including total exports of 
fruits for which Ecuador is a significant exporter according to document G/AG/W/123?  
2.3.4  Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/39) 
AG-IMS ID 79045: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Does Hong Kong, China intend to separately submit an ES:2 notification for 2015 including total 
exports of poultry meat for which Hong Kong, China is a significant exporter according to 
document G/AG/W/123?  
2.3.5  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/53) 
AG-IMS ID 79044: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
Israel has considerably increased export subsidies in 2014, compared to 2013. How would Israel 
explain this policy development in light of the Bali Ministerial commitment to exercise utmost 
restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies? 
 2.3.6  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/10) 
AG-IMS ID 79021: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Does Russian Federation intend to separately subm it an ES:2 notification for 2015 including total 
exports of wheat and wheat flour for which Russian Federation is a significant exporter according 
to document G/AG/W/123? 
 2.3.7  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/22) 
AG-IMS ID 79046: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
Does Ukraine intend to separately submit an ES:2  notification for 2015 including total exports of 
wheat and wheat flour for which Ukraine is a significant exporter according to document G/AG/W/123? 
 G/AG/W/148 
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.4  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1) 
2.4.1  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/7) AG-IMS ID 79050: Question by the European  Union - Quantity and concessionality of 
food aid 
The notified amounts of Russia's food aid in notifi cation G/AG/N/RUS/7 differ for certain products 
and destinations from the information found in Secretariat background document G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3 (dated 27 July 2015). For example, in G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3 the 
Russian Federation notifies the use of in-kind food aid to certain countries in 2014. There are no 
indications of such food aid in G/AG/N/RUS/7. What are the reasons behind these discrepancies? 
 2.4.2  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/105) 
AG-IMS ID 79028: Question by the European  Union - Quantity and concessionality of 
food aid 
The European Union notices that for certain products, such as beans, emergency food product 
meal replacements, potatoes, rice, soy fortified cornmeal, wheat and wheat soy blends, the United 
States notifies larger amounts of in-kind food aid to least developed and net food-importing developing countries for fiscal year 2013 than what has previously been notified to all destinations 
(see G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3, dated 27 July 2015).What are the reasons behind these 
discrepancies?  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Turkey 
AG-IMS ID 79072: Question by Canada 
In response to Canada's question (AG-IMS ID 78026) on overdue notifications at the 78
th 
Committee on Agriculture Meeting on 25 Septem ber 2015, Turkey indicated that work was 
underway to prepare the outstanding notifications on  export subsidies and domestic support. Could 
Turkey please update the Committee on the progress towards submitting these overdue 
notifications? In the meantime, could Turkey prov ide information on its domestic support as well 
as the use of export subsidies provided to the wheat sector?  
__________