G/AG/W/119  
 
11 March 2014  
(14-1524)  Page: 1/24  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 21 MARCH 20141 
The present document compiles questions receiv ed by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
7 March 2014  as specified in WTO/AIR/4254. 
  
_______________ 
 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/119 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
Table of contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Article 18.4 of the Ag reement on Ag riculture ................................................................. 4  
1.1.1   Statement by Canada .............................................................................................. 4  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.2.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73026) ............................................ 4  
1.3   Canada's proposed ch anges to tariff  schedule ................................................................ 4  
1.3.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73027) ............................................ 4  
1.4   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 6  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 73001) ............................................................. 6  
1.4.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73034) ............................................ 6  
1.5   China's Cotton Domestic Su pport ................................................................................. 6  
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73035) ............................................ 6  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 6  
1.6.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  73002)  .................................................................... 6  
1.6.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73037) ............................................ 7  
1.7   Ecuador's domestic purchase requ irements ................................................................... 7  
1.7.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73038) ............................................ 7  
1.8   India's market pr ice support fo r rice ............................................................................. 8  
1.8.1   Question by Paki stan (AG-IMS ID 73053)  ................................................................... 8  
1.9   India's national food security bill .................................................................................. 8  
1.9.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 73066) ............................................ 8  
1.10   India's sugar export subsidies .................................................................................... 9  
1.10.1   Question by Australia and Colombia (AG-IMS ID 73036 and AG-IMS ID 73067) .............. 9  
1.10.2   Question by Braz il (AG-IMS ID  73068)  ..................................................................... 9  
1.10.3   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 73055) ...................................................... 10 
1.11   India's wheat stocks and exports .............................................................................. 10 
1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  73003) .................................................................. 10 
1.11.2   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73039) .......................................... 11 
1.12   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork ................................ 11 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73040) .......................................... 11 
1.13   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 12 
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  73004) .................................................................. 12 
1.13.2   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73041) .......................................... 12 
1.14   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 13 
1.14.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 73056) ...................................................... 13 
1.15   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 13 
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 73042) .......................................... 13 G/AG/W/119 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16   U.S. Farm Bill ......................................................................................................... 14 
1.16.1   Question by In donesia (AG-IM S ID 73043) .............................................................. 14 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 15  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 15 
2.1.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/2) ......................................................................... 15 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 16 
2.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/EC U/38) ...................................................................................... 16 
2.2.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/74) ...................................................................................... 16 
2.2.3   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TU N/44) ....................................................................................... 16 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 16 
2.3.1   Botswana (G/AG/N/BW A/19) ................................................................................... 16 
2.3.2   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/32) ......................................................................................... 16 
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/ N/EU/10/REV.1, G/AG/N/E U/17) ............................................. 18 
2.3.4   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/45) .................................................................................. 20 
2.3.5   India (G /AG/N/IN D/7) ............................................................................................ 21 
2.3.6   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ IDN/30, G/AG/N /IDN/34) ............................................................ 21 
2.3.7   Jordan (G/AG/N/JO R/16) ........................................................................................ 21 
2.3.8   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69/REV.1) ............................................................................. 22 
2.3.9   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/18) ...................................................................................... 22 
2.3.10   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/80/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/89/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/USA/93, G/AG /N/USA/93/CO RR.1) ......................................................................... 23 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY notification s (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) ....................................... 24 
2.4.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/33) ......................................................................................... 24 
2.4.2   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/18) ............................................................................. 24 
 G/AG/W/119 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 1.1  Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture 1.1.1  Statement by Canada 
Canada will deliver a statement on best practices in  notification in relation to Article 18.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.2.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73026) 
The United States of America appreciates Br azil’s response to the question on Prêmio 
para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) and Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) from the January 2014 Committee on Agriculture meeting, including data on 
PEPRO (AG-IMS ID 72051).  
 
a. The United States of America has repeatedly requested information on the 
quantities of product shipped to specific  destinations, including both domestic 
and export destinations. The United St ates of America is disappointed that 
Brazil has not been able to compile this data to date. When specifically might 
the United States of America expect to receive this data?  
b. The United States of America notes that  much of the PEPRO data only notes 
where product may not be shipped. The United States of America requests the PEPRO data on a similar basis as the requ ested PEP data given the similarity of 
the two programmes. In particular, please  provide data on the quantities of 
product shipped to specific destinat ions, including domestic and export 
destinations. 
The United States of America notes Brazil’s response to the question on PEP 
from the September 2013 Committee on  Agriculture meeting (AG-IMS 
ID 71028). In that response, Brazil no ted that the PEP programme has been 
suspended and is under reassessment by the government.  
 
c. What was the basis for the reassessment?  
d. Has the government completed its reassessm ent? If so, what did it conclude?  
e. Given the similarity between PEP and PEPRO, was PEPRO also reassessed? If 
so, what was concluded? If not, why was this programme not reassessed?  
1.3  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.3.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73027) 
The United States of America apprecia tes Canada’s response to question 
AG-IMS ID 72049 regarding an amendment to Canada’s Customs Tariff Schedule 
affecting pizza food preparation products. Re cognizing that Canada did not have enough 
time to prepare a complete response to U.S.  questions, the United States of America 
repeats the following questions from January:   
a. Please provide information on historical imports of the product(s) affected by 
Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16 (referenced in AG-IMS 72049), and what the impact of the Parliamentary motion has been on imports of these products. 
b. B y  u s i n g  a n  e f f e c t i v e  d a t e  t h a t  i s  r e troactive, the measure appears to have 
already impacted trade negatively withou t any stakeholders' input. What is the G/AG/W/119 
 
- 5 - 
 
  purpose, if any, for using a retroactive date? What is the intended effect of 
retroactive implementation? 
c. Is Canada currently enforcing Supplemen tary Note 2 to Chapter 16? If yes, 
please describe how it is being enforc ed, i.e., how is Canada verifying the 
separate classification of the componen ts of a food preparation in instances 
where the components are comingled or mixed together? If it is not yet enforcing the measure, please describe whether and how it intends to enforce 
Supplementary Note 2. 
d. In 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency revoked Tariff Classification 
Advance Ruling No. 218973 (an advanced ruling on a certain pizza topping product) citing Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16. The United States of 
America understands that Supplementary Note 2 was not effective at the time 
of the revocation of Advance Ruling No . 218973. Please explain the legal basis 
and provide a list of all relevant measur es regarding the revocation of this 
advance ruling. Please also explain the legal basis for revoking the advance 
ruling prior to the effective date of the Supplementary Note. 
e. Are importers now subject to increased tariffs as a result of Supplementary 
Note 2 to Chapter 16? Has any importer appealed or sought further review 
within Canada of the classification dete rmination that resulted in the higher 
tariffs? Please provide details on the a pplication of the higher tariff rate on 
affected products, including the prod ucts covered and volume of trade 
concerned. 
f. Are there any further proposals to amend Canada's tariff schedule in a similar 
manner in the area of food preparations or other goods? If the answer is yes, 
please identify and describe in detail those proposals. Are there any proposals 
to amend the supplementary notes of an y other chapter of Canada's tariff 
schedule to target cheese and/or dairy products in a similar fashion? If the 
answer is yes, please identify an d describe in detail those proposals. 
g. U.S. traders have raised concerns with  the timing of the application of the 
measure. Would Canada consider revoking or delaying application of Supplementary Note 2? 
Additionally, the United States of Americ a requests a response to the following 
questions.  
h. The House of Commons Budget 2014 dated 11 February 2014 confirms the 
Canadian Government’s intention to proceed with the Ways and Means motion to amend Canada’s Customs Tariff Sche dule to add a supplementary note to 
Chapter 16. What are the specific legislat ive steps required to give the motion 
measure legal effect and when does Canada  anticipate initiating those steps?  
i. Canada Border Services Agency i ssued Customs Notice 13-021 as of 
29 November 2013, stating "The Canada Bo rder Services Agency (CBSA) wishes 
to advise of an amendment to the Depa rtmental Consolidation of the Customs 
Tariff effective November 29, 2013". The No tice contains the same language as 
the Ways and Means motion to add the supplementary note. The Notice further 
directs traders to "an amended version of the Departmental Consolidation of 
the Customs Tariff, reflecting this chan ge" on the CBSA Web site. What legal 
e f f e c t  d o e s  C B S A  C u s t o m s  N o t i c e  1 3 - 0 2 1  h a v e ?  W h a t  l e g a l  e f f e c t  d o e s  t h e  
amended Customs Tariff schedule of Canada have?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.4  Canada's dairy policies 
1.4.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 73001) In February, the Canadian Dairy Commission  released programme guidelines for the 
Planned Export Program for Cheese (PEPC). Th e purpose of the programme is described 
as a mechanism to "encourage and support Canadian cheese manufacturers and 
exporters in developing long term export  markets for Canadian cheese". Given that 
Canada uses nearly its entire export subsidy revenue outlays for "incorporated 
products" and "other milk products" each ye ar, could Canada please indicate whether 
this will have an effect on other existing  export programmes that use special milk 
Class 5(d) permits?  
1.4.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73034) 
The United States of America is concerned at  the proliferation of Canada’s special milk 
pricing classes, which now include 39 differe nt classes. Domestic food and industry 
processors appear to receive a special milk cl ass permit to purchase dairy inputs at a 
subsidized price, predicated on a declarat ion that a competitive like-product has been 
imported into Canada. These special milk prices  range from whey used in animal feed to 
cheese used in the manufacturing of further processed products, such as frozen pizzas. 
These products are produced using the heavily  discounted dairy inputs and are then sold 
in domestic and foreign markets. The United  States of America has noticed increasing 
discrepancies between the export numbers pu blished by the Canadian Dairy Commission 
and the export numbers supplied by Statisti cs Canada in Canada’s export subsidy 
notifications to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, in particular with regard to exports of cheese. Please explain these discrepanc ies and how the dairy export subsidies in 
Canada’s notifications are calculated.  
 1.5  China's Cotton Domestic Support 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73035) 
Is China in a position to respond to the questions asked by the United States of 
America in AG-IMS ID 72052 regarding China’s cotton support programme?   
a. China noted in its last response that it would be notifying domestic support 
shortly. Please provide an update on th e intended timeframe for China to notify 
domestic support notifications for recent  years, in particular for years when 
cotton price support was applied.  
b. Please provide the Committee with spec ific information from its official 
website(s) on various subsidy meas ures associated with price support, 
including the legal mechanisms by whic h they are implemented, as well as 
updated data on the accumulation, maintenance, and distribution of cotton stocks since the program’s inception?  
c. The United States of America requests that China provide the Committee with a 
brief summary of China’s analysis on the economic impact and effects of 
China’s management of its sizable dome stic cotton stocks on the world cotton 
market, taking into account the large role  China plays in both global supply and 
demand of cotton.  
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 1.6.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73002) 
At the last meeting of the Committee on Agri culture, Costa Rica indicated that the date 
of the elimination of the price support mechan ism for rice is postponed to 1 March 2015, 
as the rice sector needs more time to finaliz e its definition of the alternative mechanism 
that is to replace the current price support mechanism. Canada takes this opportunity to G/AG/W/119 
 
- 7 - 
 
  again thank Costa Rica for its commitment to  transparency and willingness to engage 
openly with Members.   
a. Could Costa Rica provide an update on the progress made so far in developing 
and defining an alternative mechanis m that would bring Costa Rica in 
compliance with its domestic support commitments? 
b. Could Costa Rica inform this Committee of the options currently under 
consideration?  
1.6.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73037) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Ri ca for regularly updating this Committee on 
its rice policies over the past several years during which time Costa Rica has notified an 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in excess of its bound commitments. The 
United States of America appreciates the transparency provided  in Costa Rica’s 
notification G/AG/GEN/116, but is disappointe d to learn that the elimination of Costa 
Rica’s price support mechanism for rice  has been postponed until 1 March 2015.  
 It is the U.S. understanding that Costa Rica ’s Law 8285, which established the National 
Rice Corporation (CONARROZ), allows the Mi nister of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) 
and the Minister of Economy, Industry and Commerce (MEIC) representation on 
CONARROZ’s General Assembly and Board of Di rectors. The United States of America 
also notes the leading role the General A ssembly and Board of Directors takes in 
CONARROZ’s policy creation, approval, and implementation.  
 Article 7 of Law 8285 and its Regulations st ates that CONARROZ "shall suggest the price 
of rough rice and its byproducts to the MEIC with the financial value the 
agro-industrialist must pay to producers, as  well as the prices consumers must pay for 
milled rice". The United States of America also understands from Article 20, paragraph o 
that a responsibility of the Board of Direct ors is to "Approve, the recommendation for 
chaff and milled prices through technical studie s, which shall be notified to the MEIC". 
 
a. Please describe in more detail the ro le of the CONARROZ’s General Assembly 
and Board of Directors in price determination. 
b. Will these policies continue after the adoption of Executive Decree 
No. 38093-MEIC in 1 March 2015? 
With respect to the alternative mechanis m that the United States of America 
understands is to be introduced, the United  States of America repeats two questions 
asked in September 2013 (AG-IMS ID 71030) and in January 2014 (AG-IMS ID 72050):  
 
c. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system?  
d. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying 
them to the WTO?  
1.7  Ecuador's domestic purchase requirements  
1.7.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73038) 
Industry reports that the government of Ecuador is requiring importers to source a 
specified percentage of products domestic ally, based on agreements signed between 
Ecuador’s Ministry of Agriculture, Mini stry of Industries, and importers.  
 
a. Please explain the legal basis for thes e new domestic purchase requirements 
and how they are consistent with Ecuador’s WTO obligations.  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 8 - 
 
  b. Does Ecuador intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to market 
arrangements for agricultural products that include procurement of a domestic 
product as a requisite for importing?  
1.8  India's market price support for rice 
1.8.1  Question by Pakistan (AG-IMS ID 73053) 
Pakistan appreciates the response provided by India regarding exports of rice in the last 
two years (AG-IMS ID 72059). It appears that  Indian rice exports increased 41% from 
year 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. The export s of non-Basmati increased by 67%. 
 Based on the information available on the we bsite of Food Corporation of India (FCI) 
regarding support price (US$338 per tonne, 1 US dollar equals to 47.91 Indian Rs for 
2011-2012 and US$344.3 per tonne, 1 US dollar equals 54.45 Indian Rs for 2012-2013) 
for paddy common rice, it appears that during the same period there was an increase of 
24% in the rice MPS (Market price support) on the basis of procured quantity as eligible 
production. However there was an increase of 7.3% on the basis of total production as 
eligible production. Since Grade A rice proc urement quantity was not available therefore 
MPS for paddy common rice is used for this calc ulation. Price of Grade A rice is Rs 30 per 
quintal higher than common rice. 
Table 1. RICE AMS (only market price support, other product specific rice AMS is not included) 
(billion US$) 
Commodity 2011-12 2012-13 
Calculated on the basis of procured quantity as eligible production 2.64 3.28 
Calculated on the basis of total production as eligible production 7.99 8.54 
Source: Indian Economic Survey 2012-13, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture 
and Cooperation, Ministry of Agricu lture India. State Bank of India 
 
Could India please verify these figures?  
1.9  India's national food security bill 
1.9.1  Question by United States  of America (AG-IMS ID 73066)  
According to India's Finance Minister, the estimate for India's food subsidy bill in 
2014-2015 is Rs. 115,000 crore (US$18.8 billion; note crore = 10 million) in the interim 
budget. According to India's National Sample Survey Office the poverty gap per its latest 
Consumption Expenditure Survey is Rs. 55, 744 crore (US$9.1 billion) in 2011-2012. In 
other words, the cost of India's food subsid y bill is approximately twice the amount it 
would cost to provide all below poverty households with enough cash to cross the poverty line. The significant cost of the food  subsidy bill compared to the poverty gap in 
India highlights the large costs the governme nt incurs in procuring, storing, and 
distributing food grains that could otherw ise be more effectively used to alleviate 
poverty in India. The United States of Americ a understands that the Finance Minister has 
also capped the Food Corporation of India's reimbursements for costs incurred in 
operating the food subsidy programme at the aforementioned Rs. 115,000 crore 
(US$18.8 billion).  
a. Besides limiting expenditures, what steps is the government of India taking to 
more efficiently implement its current policies? Further, does the recently-passed National Food Security  Act 2013 include any specific language 
to address these concerns?  
b. Given that the National Food Security  Act 2013 directly impacts measures 
reported under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, when does India plan 
to submit a DS:2 notification?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.10  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.10.1  Question by Australia and Colombia (AG-IMS ID 73036 and AG-IMS ID 73067) Australia understands that the Indian go vernment decided to provide incentive 
payments to Indian sugar exporters upon th e export of sugar, as per The Gazette of 
India, dated 28 February. 
 
a. Can India explain the legal basis for this  export subsidy, given that India has 
no scheduled export subsidy commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture? 
b. With regard to the elements of this incentive payment, can India confirm that 
the level of the payment is Indian Rupees  3300 per metric tonne of raw sugar?  
c. When did the incentive payments referenced in the Gazette commence, and 
when will they end? 
d. What is the total value of all incentive pa yments made to date on the export of 
sugar since 12 February 2014? 
e. What is the total volume of raw suga r and refined sugar exports made since 
12 February 2014 that have been subject to incentive payments? 
f. Can India provide the latest available av erage cost of production figures (on a 
per metric tonne basis) for those In dian raw sugar producers that have 
received incentive payments fo r the export of like product? 
g. For the same like product, can India provide the average domestic price (on a 
per metric tonne basis)? 
h. Part (4) of paragraph 2 of the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules, 
2014 states that the incentive payment w ill be recalculated every two months 
after March 2014 taking into account the average exchange rate of the Indian 
rupee vis-à-vis U.S. dollars. Under this bi-monthly review, is it possible for 
India to terminate the incentive paymen t for reasons other than movement in 
the average exchange rate?  
i. Can India provide the anticipated total value of the incentive payments over the 
expected duration of the scheme?  
j. Under the scheme, is there a maximum cap applicable to the per metric tonne 
incentive payment? 
k. In accordance with the Bali 2013 Minist erial Declaration, can India explain 
what, if any, steps it took to exercise  utmost restraint with regard to its 
decision to implement the incentive payments? 
l. Can India indicate when an export subs idy notification covering this scheme 
will be issued? 
1.10.2  Question by Brazil (AG-IMS ID 73068) 
Brazil is concerned with the impact in the world market and with the potential adverse 
effects to the interests of other Members caus ed by subsidized sugar exports from India. 
 
According to India's Official Gazette, date d 28th February 2014, raw sugar exporters 
from India are entitled to export subsidies amounting to 3,300 Rupees per metric ton for 
February and March, 2014. These subsidies w ill be subject to recalculation every two 
months taking into account the average ex change rate of the Rupee vis-à-vis the 
US Dollar. G/AG/W/119 
 
- 10 - 
 
   
In this regard, Brazil would like to raise the following questions:  
a. Could India confirm whether these export subsidies for sugar have been 
approved? 
b. Could India indicate the amount of expo rt subsidies it will grant in budgetary 
outlays and subsidized quantities? 
c. Given that there has been to date no legally-binding decision by the WTO to 
extend the application of Article 9.4 of  the Agreement of Agriculture, what 
would be the legal basis for the provision of these export subsidies? 
d. Could India confirm whether these subsid ies are intended to reduce marketing 
and/or transportation costs? If yes, how the actual costs incurred in the 
marketing and/or transportation of expo rted sugar impact the provision of the 
subsidy? 
e. Could India explain:  
i. the rationale for increasing so significan tly the provision of export subsidies 
for sugar; and  
ii. the steps it took to ensure complia nce with the Ministerial Declaration 
adopted in MC-9 according to which Me mbers shall exercise utmost restraint 
with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies? 
1.10.3  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 73055) 
According to media reports, Indian Cabinet of Ministers approved on 12 February 2014 
an export subsidy of Rs 3,333 per tonne for export of four million tonnes of raw sugar. 
Could India please confirm that such export subsidies have indeed been approved and if 
so confirm the budget and the quantities concerned?  
 1.11  India's wheat stocks and exports 
1.11.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73003) 
Canada thanks India for its responses and would like to follow-up on questions posed at 
the January meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture. India confirmed that 2 million 
metric tonnes of wheat were indeed approv ed for exports in August 2013 at US$300 per 
tonne and that, in keeping with market tr ends, the base price was lowered to US$260 
per tonne. India also indicated that lowering the base price does not necessarily imply 
that product will be sold at that price, and that so far, export prices were between FOB 
US$279.52 and US$289.90 per tonne. Canada und erstands that the Food Corporation of 
India, which according to India is holding st ocks of 28 million metric tonnes as of 
January 2014, purchases its wheat from prod ucers at administered prices through a 
minimum support price mechanism.  
 
a. Could India elaborate on the specific elements considered under the ambit of 
market trends when determining base price for wheat exports?  
b. Could India elaborate on the process wh ereby its government determines what 
volume of wheat stocks will be approved for export and what factors are considered when determining timi ng of the export tenders?  
c. Could India indicate what costs in additi on to those related to market trends 
are taken into consideration in determining an export price for wheat, for example, transportation costs, storage costs?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 11 - 
 
  d. Could India indicate if there is any inte ntion to approve more exports of wheat 
at the base price of US$260 per tonne once the 2 million metric tonnes have 
been exported?  
1.11.2  Question by United States  of America (AG-IMS ID 73039)  
Expanding the background on the question submitted during the January Committee on 
Agriculture meeting, the United States of America notes that export tenders published 
by the state Trading Corporation of India Li mited (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading 
Company (MMTC), and Project and Equipmen t Corporation of India (PEC) between 
15 November 2013 and 23 January 2014, report the government of India tendered more 
than 1 million tonnes of wheat at prices  ranging from US$278.20-289.90 per tonne. 
Further, the Food Corporation of India has pu blished that the total economic cost of the 
acquisition and distribution of wheat in 2013/2014 was US$316.79 per tonne, well 
above the noted tender prices.   
The United States of America resubmits its January 2014 Committee on Agriculture 
question to India:   
The United States of America is concerned th at India is exporting wheat at prices well 
below acquisition costs. For example, Indi a’s Commission on Agricultural Costs and 
Prices in its discussion paper n
o 2 estimated that the cost of storing, handling, and 
distributing wheat purchased by the govern ment’s Food Corporation of India equals 
40% of the acquisition cost. For example,  if India procured wheat in 2013/2014 at 
13,500 rupees per tonne or US$221 per tonne (US$1 = 61 rupees), the United States of 
America calculates a cost to port of US $310 per tonne. An export price of US$260 per 
tonne is well below this cost to the India government.  
 
a. Please provide figures on the cost to th e Indian government of wheat at export 
ports named in export tender docume nts published by the State Trading 
Corporation of India Limited (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading Company 
(MMTC), Project and Equipment Corporatio n of India (PEC), and any other such 
entity; broken down by acquisition c ost, storage cost, transport cost, other 
cost.  
b. Please also provide the winning bids on  wheat export tenders for MMTC, STC 
and PEC via this port.  
1.12  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73040) 
The United States of America welcomes Saint Lucia's notification of its import licensing 
procedures and the copies of the law and orde r that implement such requirements to the 
WTO Import Licensing Committee (G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4 and G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4/Corr.1). The United States of America notes that the External Trade Act at Section 3 (1) states 
that "The Minister may by order published in  the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating 
in the island… (b) prohibit absolutely or limit the importation of any goods if in his or 
her opinion such action is in the interest of the island and may for the same reason 
make by order any such imports subject to su ch conditions as he or she may think fit." 
Based on the External Trade Act, Section 3( 1), it appears that the domestic purchase 
requirements for chicken and pork would co nstitute "conditions" that should be 
published as an order. 
 
a. Please state whether an order establishi ng that an importer must purchase 
domestic product in order to receive an import license for chicken or pork was 
published, and if so, where. 
b. Additionally, please explain how Saint Lu cia's domestic purchase requirements 
for poultry and pork are consistent with Saint Lucia's WTO obligations, G/AG/W/119 
 
- 12 - 
 
  including Article 4.2 of the Agreement on  Agriculture and Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. 
c. When will Saint Lucia respond fully to the questions asked by the United States 
of America during COA meetings in  September 2013 (AG-IMS 71032) and 
January 2014 (AG-IMS 72055)? 
1.13  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 73004) 
Canada appreciates Thailand's participation in informal consultations on this issue. 
However, Canada regrets that its questions to Thailand on its Paddy Pledging Scheme 
since the November 2012 meeting remain unanswered.   
a. Could Thailand indicate whether it intends to answer these questions in the 
near future? If so, could Thailand pr ovide information on the timelines for 
providing the requested information?  
b. While the Committee is still expecting Thailand’s domestic support notifications 
for 2007 and subsequent years, could Thai land please provide an estimate of 
government expenditures related to th e purchase of rice under the Paddy 
Pledging Scheme? 
1.13.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73041) 
There have been a number of press reports regarding Thailand's rice policy recently. 
These reports have indicated that Thailand may suspend or end its current rice policy. 
 
a. Please provide an update on the status  of Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme. 
Please provide specific details with re gards to if and how the programme will 
be continued going forward. 
b. If the policy is being permanently elim inated, what steps, if any, is the 
government considering in order to replace it with a new policy scheme? 
The United States of America notes pre ss reports indicating that in February 
Thailand tendered 600,000 tonnes of rice from government stocks to exporters 
at an estimated 10,000-11,000 baht (U S$307-338)-per tonne. In January, 
Thailand reportedly tendered 150,000 to nnes of rice at prices 7-19% below 
market prices. The United States of  America also understands from press 
reports that Thailand will be seeking to sell 1 million tonnes of rice per month. 
 
c. Please provide data to confirm the volume  and price of these and other tenders. 
d. What steps will Thailand take to ensure export prices remain in line with its 
WTO commitments? 
The United States of America also resu bmits its question from the January 
Committee meeting: 
 
e. The United States of America notes that Thai rice prices have declined 
dramatically in 2013. Further, Thaila nd has gone from the highest-priced 
supplier to one of the lowest over the past two years. In AG-IMS ID 71033, 
Thailand indicated that it was taking measures to minimize the impact on 
markets of its release of government rice  stocks. Press reports in Thailand have 
also indicated that Thailand has sol d rice at below market prices. 
i. What factors have contributed to this dramatic decline in Thailand’s export 
prices? G/AG/W/119 
 
- 13 - 
 
  ii. Has Thailand evaluated whether it need s to take any additional steps to 
minimize the impact of its stock releas es on markets, including displacing 
exports of other countries due to its low prices? 
f. Press reports in Thailand note that even at these low prices, Thailand is finding 
it difficult to find buyers for its rice an d is simultaneously under pressure to sell 
stocks in order to fund its rice subsid y programme, which is currently late in 
making payments to its producers. Give n the current situation, what, if any, 
changes does Thailand plan to make to  its rice pledging scheme to address 
these concerns? 
g. Please provide an update on the following  aspects of Thailand's rice pledging 
scheme. 
i. How much rice has been procured by the government in the current crop 
year? 
ii. How much rice does Thailand curre ntly have in government stocks? 
iii. What is the current support price for rice in Thailand? 
iv. What is the support price for the upcoming rice crop year? 
h. Thailand last made a domestic suppo rt notification for the year 2007. 
Thailand's rice domestic support has und ergone several reforms since that time 
and is much different today than it was seven years ago. The United States of 
America notes this significant delay in no tifications and requests an update on 
when Members can expect Thailand to come into compliance with its 
notifications requirements. 
1.14  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies  1.14.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 73056) 
a. Given that Turkey has not submitted domestic support (DS:1) and export 
subsidies (ES:1) notifications to th e Committee on Agriculture since 2001 and 
2000 respectively, could Turkey please indi cate when it intends to submit these 
overdue notifications to the WTO? 
b. In the meantime, could Turkey please confirm that since 2001 its budgetary 
outlays and eligible quantities of subsidiz ed exports, including for citrus fruits, 
have remained within its commitments?  
c. Could Turkey please confirm that its AMS has remained since 2002 below its de 
minimis  level? 
1.15  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.15.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 73042) 
The United States of America appreciates Turkey's response to AG-IMS ID 72057 
regarding sales of Turkish wheat flour made from the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) wheat 
sales. 
 In Turkey's response, it states that "As a le gal entity truly autonomous in its activities, 
TMO determines purchase and sale prices of pr oducts within its area of activity through 
decisions taken by the Board of Directors." 
 
a. Does the Board of Directors have the au thority to operate TMO at a profit loss 
resulting from procurement prices set ab ove world prices and sales prices set 
at world prices?  If so, how is the profit loss covered? G/AG/W/119 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Turkey also states that "TMO currently does not make wheat purchases as part 
of inward processing schemes".  
b. Does TMO sell wheat to domestic mills specifically for the export of flour? If so, 
please provide the volume of TMO wheat so ld to millers specifically for export 
for the past three years. Please also include data listing the quantity of bran exported and nationalized against the inward processing system for wheat 
flour exports. 
c. Please share data for the last three ye ars listing the quantity and quality of 
wheat imported and quantity and quality of flour exported under Turkey's inward processing system.   
1.16  U.S. Farm Bill 
1.16.1  Question by Indonesia (AG-IMS ID 73043) On 7 February 2014, a new Farm Bill (the Agri culture Act of 2014) was signed into law. 
The cost of the Act is estimated at US$956 b illion. The Bill is issued in an environment of 
high farm income. As one of the biggest agri culture spenders in absolute and per capita 
terms, any policy related to subsidy in the United States of America always has an 
outsized impact on global food security prospect.  
 United States of America is one of Indone sia's main trading partners especially on 
agriculture. Any policy change in the United States of America will have direct influence 
on the agriculture market and on the fate of large portion of vulnerable farmers in 
Indonesia. In this regard, Indonesia would lik e to ask some preliminary questions to the 
United States of America : 
 
a. The Bill is estimated to cut US$8 b illion from the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program or SNAP (food stamp)  by changing eligibility rules. Can the 
United States of America explain furt her the new eligibility requirements to 
receive food stamps?  
b. The Bill will end income transfer prog ramme to price support to producers. 
What are the reasons for this shifting? 
c. For eligible crops, the Bill requires U.S.  farmers to make an irrevocable choice 
between two programmes for countercyc lical price protection: Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Co verage (ARC). The choice will be in 
effect for the 2014 to 2018 crop years.  
i. Could the United States of America ex plain the eligibility criteria for the 
producers to enrol in the two schemes? 
ii. How does the Price Loss Coverage operate? 
iii. How does Agricultural Risk Coverage operate? 
iv. What is the difference between Agricultural Risk Coverage based upon 
county and individual revenue level? 
d. Relating to Price Loss Coverage, the Unit ed States of America sets "reference 
prices" for all programme crops, amon g others: wheat, corn, rice, soybean, 
other oilseeds, peanuts, dry peas, grai n sorghum, barley, oats, lentils, small 
chickpeas, large chickpeas.  
i. How are "reference prices" calculated for such products? 
ii. What elements are taken into account in setting the "reference price"?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 15 - 
 
  iii. What is the relation between "reference prices" and market prices for the 
crops under the programme?  
iv. Will the "reference prices" be adapted? 
e. It seems that the crop insurance beco mes the foundation of the Farm Bill and 
the primary safety net for producers. The federal crop insurance programme 
makes available subsidized crop insuranc e to agriculture producers. More than 
100 crops are insurable. The Bill increase s funding for crop insurance relative 
to baseline levels by an additional US$5.7 billion over 10 years. Could the 
United States of America explain the reason of the huge increase in crop 
insurance? 
f. The Agricultural Risk Coverage will provid e payment if actual crop revenue falls 
below established revenue guarantee.  
i. How is the threshold amount for the revenue guarantee set?  
ii. What factors are taken into account in establishing such threshold? 
iii. How are insurable yields established?  
iv. Will the production history determine the revenue guarantee threshold?  
v. Can the United States of America explain rice margin insurance?  
g. The Bill also creates a Supplemental Cove rage Option. Could the United States 
of America explain how this programme operates? 
h. The Bill will provide livestock indemnity pa yment to eligible producers on farms 
that have excessive livestock l osses due to adverse weather.  
i. How is the parameter of excessive losses determined? 
ii. Is there any cap to such payment? 
i. In many occasions, the United States of America advocates the importance of 
reform in agriculture by minimizing government intervention to the market. 
Could the United States of America explai n to what extent the Farm Bill reflects 
the U.S. interest in reforming trade in agriculture? 
j. Can the United States of America guarantee that the implementation of the 
Farm Bill will comply with the U.S. commitments in WTO? 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
2.1.1  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/2) 
AG-IMS ID 73005: Question by Australia - Transparency issues Australia welcomes the Russian Federation's notification and seeks clarification on the 
basis of the quota allocations for dry whey. Au stralia suspects that the description in the 
notification may contain a typographical error.  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/38) AG-IMS ID 73044: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
The United States of America notes that in  the footnotes of G/AG/N/ECU/38, Ecuador 
states that "No in-quota imports were recorded given that the tariffs in force in 2012 
were below the maximum in-quota rate. Th e exception is subheading 02071400, the 
tariff level of which was higher than that of  the quota, but no imports were requested." 
 
a. What is the official process for requesting imports of 02071400? 
b. Where can importers and exporters find information about the request 
procedure?   
2.2.2  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/74) 
AG-IMS ID 73058: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of Norway comprise more than 230 bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification includes only about 20 of th em. The European Union would once again like 
to request Norway to include all bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of 
transparency. 
 
2.2.3  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/44) 
AG-IMS ID 73057: Question by Euro pean Union - Tariff quota fill 
Tunisia notified that it imported 1,831 tonn es of cheese under a TRQ of 1,500 tonnes in 
calendar year 2012. Could Tunisia please cl arify why it notified imports beyond the 
TRQ volume?  
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/19) AG-IMS ID 73045: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Compared to Botswana's previous domestic support notification, Botswana has 
introduced several new programmes including "Agricultural Research," Disease and Pest 
Control," National Master Plan for Arable Agriculture and Dairy Development," "Cattle 
Identification" and "Foot and Mouth Disease Co mpensation." According to Article 18.3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, it appears th at these newly notified programmes should 
have corresponding Table DS:2 notifications.  Is Botswana planning to provide these 
notifications? 
 AG-IMS ID 73046: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
Botswana notifies a transport subsidy under "investment subsides generally available to 
agriculture" as per Article 6.2. Please provide details with regards to how the transportation subsidy is implemented. 
 
2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/32) 
AG-IMS ID 73031: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
Please explain why debt rescheduling is repo rted under both Supporting Tables DS:2 
and DS:9?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 17 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 73032: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
a. No support is reported for cotton and coffee, although programmes exist for 
these products. Please explain why Brazil has not reported any support. 
b. No support for maize is reported in 2011 in Supporting Table DS:4, although 
substantial support (US$423 million) is reported in 2010. Please explain why 
support is not reported for 2011.  
AG-IMS ID 73006: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes that in Calendar Year 2012 und er General Services, Brazil has notified a 
measure called "Agricultural research progra mme" with payments of US$224.9 million.  
 
a. As this measure has not been in previo us notifications, could Brazil elaborate 
on the types of agricultural research pr ojects that have received funding?  
b. As this appears to be a new measure, co uld Brazil indicate when it will submit a 
Table DS:2 notification to provide the Committee with more information?  
AG-IMS ID 73007: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Canada notes under extension of advisory se rvices that the expenditures related to 
"Acquisition of equipment by municipalities for services in rural areas" has increased 
three-fold from US$243 million in 2011 to US$749 million in 2012.   
a. Could Brazil elaborate as to the types of  equipment purchased by municipalities 
to provide services in these rural areas?  
b. Could Brazil outline the process whereb y the municipalities apply or request 
the purchase of this equipment?  
c. Could Brazil also provide a list of municipalit ies that were in need of this type of 
equipment?  
AG-IMS ID 73008: Question by Canada - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Canada notes that payments related to "E xtension services on rural development" 
increased from US$16.4 million in 2011 to almost US$190 million in 2012. Could Brazil 
elaborate as to the reasons for this phenomenal increase in expenditures over the 
course of a year?   
AG-IMS ID 73028: Question by United States  of America - General services: extension 
and advisory services 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 (1) (vi) – Extension, the United States of America 
notes that spending on extension services in 2011 (US$1.6 billion) increased to almost 
double the level reported in 2009 (US$78 0 million). Please explain the substantial 
increase.   
AG-IMS ID 73009: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes that under public stockholding  for food security purposes expenditures 
related to "management of public stockholdi ng program" decreased substantially from 
US$283 million in 2011 to US$0.38 million in 2012. Canada understands that 
expenditures are for the management of th e food supply system and pest and disease 
control related to public stocks. Could Brazil elaborate on the reasons for this change in 
expenditures?  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 73010: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes that, under public stockholding  for food security purposes, expenditures 
related to "Programme of acquisition of ag ricultural products fr om family farming" 
increased significantly from US$20.2 million in 2011 to US$203.4 million in 2012.  
 
a. Could Brazil elaborate as to the reasons for this increase in expenditures?  
b. Could Brazil provide a list of the types of agricultural products that are acquired 
from family farms and thei r respective volumes?  
AG-IMS ID 73029: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1 (2) – Pub lic Stockholding, the United States of 
America notes that spending declined su bstantially in 2010 (US$304 million) and 2011 
(US$205 million) from the figure reported in 2009 (US$653 million). Please explain why 
Brazil has moved away from this type of programme.  
 
AG-IMS ID 73011: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Canada notes that the expenditures relate d to the "Warranty-Crop Fund" (government 
sponsored agricultural insurance) increase d significantly from US$77.7 million in 2011 
to US$302 million in 2012.   
Could Brazil confirm that this programme meet s the criteria of paragraph 8(a), Annex 2, 
more specifically, the production loss exceed s 30% in either: (a) the average production 
in the preceding three-year period or (b) a three-year average based on the preceding 
five-year period, excluding the highest and lowest entry.  
 AG-IMS ID 73030: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
Are the investment credits noted in Suppo rting Table DS:2 generally available?  
 AG-IMS ID 73033: Question by United St ates of America - Market price support 
a. Regarding Supporting Table DS:5, the Unit ed States of America notes that the 
minimum support price for wheat went down from US$329.05/tonne in 2010/2011 to US$254.19/tonne in 2011/20 12. Please explain why there was 
such a large decrease within one year.  
b. Please explain why total production is not used for the minimum support price 
calculation if the wheat is grown in locations eligible to receive the 
government’s minimum support price.  
2.3.3  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10/REV.1, G/AG/N/EU/17) AG-IMS ID 73047: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States of America notes that the revision to the European Union's domestic 
support notification for 2009/2010 now incl udes eligible production in Supporting 
Table DS:5 for barley. The result is an incr ease in the Total Aggregate Measurement of 
Support. The United States of America also notes that the European Union stated in 
AG-IMS ID 69053 that the Health Check of th e CAP set the limit of buying of barley, 
among other commodities, at "zero" as provid ed in Article 13.1(a) of Council Regulation 
(EC) 1234/2007 and therefore public interven tion is not automatically available for 
these products.  G/AG/W/119 
 
- 19 - 
 
  a. Please confirm this was the result of  a public intervention in 2009/2010. 
b. What specific factors were used to dete rmine the use of the public intervention 
in 2009/2010? 
AG-IMS ID 73012: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada appreciates the European Union prov iding a revised notification indicating a 
change from zero product specific support for both barley and sorghum to EUR 2,109.7 
million and EUR 9.5 million, respectively. Co uld the European Union elaborate on the 
reasons for revising these amounts in G/AG/N/EU/10/Rev.1?  
 AG-IMS ID 73015: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Canada notes that payments related to infr astructural services have increased from 
EUR 1,866 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 2,311 m illion in 2010/2011. Could the European 
Union elaborate on the reasons for this increase in spending?   
AG-IMS ID 73013: Question by Australia - General services: other 
Australia notes that the European Union notifi es "farm relief" under other farm services 
(General Services, paragraph v iii). In its answer to a question by the United States of 
America in 2012 (AG-IMS 66058), the European Union explained that farm relief 
included "sickness schemes which aim to help  farmers in the smooth running of their 
operations". Could the European Union ad vise whether its fa rm relief programmes 
constitute direct payments (including payments in kind) to producers, and if so, how 
this complies with the requirements of Anne x 2 Paragraph 2 that general services shall 
not involve direct payments to producers?   
AG-IMS ID 73016: Question by Canada - General services: other 
Canada notes that the payments related to other farm services have increased from 
EUR 813.4 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 1, 489 million in 2010/2011 and that the 
description of the measure references member states’ measures.  
 
c. Could the European Union elaborate on the reason(s) for this increase in 
spending?  
d. Could the European Union indicate whic h member states also provide payments 
related to other farm services and the respective amounts?  
AG-IMS ID 73048: Question by United Stat es of America - General services: other 
Regarding Supporting Table DS:1, "Other farm  services" increased substantially from 
2009/2010 to 2010/2011. What was the reason for this increase?  
AG-IMS ID 73014: Question by Australia - Direct payments: income insurance and 
income safety-net programmes 
Australia notes that the European Union’s expenditure under (e) Income Insurance and 
Safety-net Programmes has increased by around 30% from 2009/2010 to 2010/2011. 
Could the European Union kindly explain the reasons for this increase?  
 AG-IMS ID 73017: Question by Canada - Pa yments based on fixed areas or yields 
Canada notes the dramatic decrease in per hectare compensatory payments to 
producers of cereals, oilseeds, protein crop s, grass silage, including set aside from 
EUR 1,434.9 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 3.8 million in 2010/2011. Could the European 
Union account for this change?  
 G/AG/W/119 
 
- 20 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 73018: Question by Canada - Pa yments based on fixed areas or yields 
Could the European Union explain the dramat ic drop in payments for quality premium 
and supplements to per hectare compensa tory payments to durum wheat from 
EUR 129.3 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 0.5 million in 2010/2011? 
 
AG-IMS ID 73019: Question by Canada - Live stock payments made on a fixed number of 
head 
Could the European Union explain the drop in payments under the special premium for 
producers holding male bovine animals from EUR 105.3 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 82.3 million in 2010/2011?  AG-IMS ID 73020: Question by Canada - Live stock payments made on a fixed number of 
head 
Could the European Union explain the drop payments under the slaughter premium 
within nationally fixed maximum numbe r of head (calves and adults) from 
EUR 335.1 million in 2009/2010 to EUR 61.5 million in 2010/2011?  
 AG-IMS ID 73021: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes the inclusion of a new measure called "temporary exceptional support 
measures (Green harvesting and non-harv esting)" and the associated payment of 
EUR 128.7 million.   
a. Could the European Union describe the circumstances requiring this temporary 
exceptional support?  
b. Could the European Union elaborate on the differences, if any, between this 
measure’s green harvesting and non-ha rvesting compared with the measure 
called "green harvesting and non-harvesting"?  
2.3.4  Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/45) 
AG-IMS ID 73049: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
a. Please confirm that domestic support  programmes listed in G/AG/N/GTM/45 
come from Guatemala's domestic fundin g sources and not from outside donors 
(e.g., WFP, FAO, U.S. Departme nt of Agriculture, etc.). 
b. Does Guatemala intend to submit a Table DS:2 notification for new or modified 
domestic support measures such as PR ODERT, PROCHUCH, and Special Training 
Program for Food Security (PESA)?   
AG-IMS ID 73050: Question by United States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
Please describe how the training for silo manufacturers and delivery of silos to rural 
families adheres to Annex 2, paragraph 2( g), which states that "In all cases the 
expenditure shall be directed to the provisio n or construction of capital works only, and 
shall exclude the subsidized provision of on-f arm facilities other than for the reticulation 
of generally available public utilities." 
 AG-IMS ID 73051: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under regional assistance programmes 
Please describe how the credit support for sm all producers in the Chorti area meets the 
requirements listed in Annex 2, paragraph 13. 
 G/AG/W/119 
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.3.5  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
AG-IMS ID 73054: Question by Pakistan - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Below are follow-up questions on non-prod uct specific subsidies under Article 6.2 
(AG-IMS ID 72004). 
 It is Pakistan's understanding that inpu t subsidies exempted under Article 6.2 are 
available to all farmers, whether they are gr owing for their own food (resource-poor low 
income producers) or they are growing in commercial quantities. 
 
a. Could India please inform that which steps have been taken to ensure that 
Article 6.2 input subsidies (seed, fertilizer , diesel, electricity etc) are used only 
by the low-income resour ce poor producers?  
b. Is it correct that input subsidies (non -product specific) are available to the 
producers of all rice varieties? 
c. Are there any product-specific input subs idies reported previously or provided 
under Article 6.2? 
d. Could India please indicate the total (n on-product specific) subsidies of the 
type exempted under 6.2 in G/AG/N/IND/7 that were provided in the last two years (2011-12 and 2012-13)? 
2.3.6  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30, G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 73052: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America repeats questions previously asked in AG-IMS ID 71031 
and AG-IMS ID 72036 since Indonesia has not notified Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5, 
nor submitted a revision to its notification  for administered prices during 2001-2004. 
 
Could Indonesia please explain and provide fu rther clarity regarding the acquisition of 
stocks for its public stockholding for food  security purposes programme in light of 
seemingly contradictory information in its no tifications and responses to questions in 
the Committee? Please address the following points: 
 
a. The United States of America notes th at Indonesia states that stocks are 
procured at administered prices, which ta ke market prices into account but are 
not the sole determining factor (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70026).  
b. The United States of America also no tes that Indonesia has not provided a 
Supporting Table DS:4 or Supporting Ta ble DS:5 to account for the use of 
administered prices per footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.   
c. Further, the United States of America und erstands Indonesia's response to part 
(b) of AG-IMS ID 70031 to state that no  administered price was reported after 
2001 due to Indonesia's procurement bein g for buffer stock operations.  This 
appears to be inconsistent with the aforementioned footnote 5.  
2.3.7  Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/16) 
AG-IMS ID 73022: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada would like to reiterate its appreciation for Jordan’s commitment to transparency 
in providing both unadjusted and adjusted num bers in its notification to the Committee 
and would like to follow-up on Jordan’s resp onse. In light of Jordan’s response, Canada G/AG/W/119 
 
- 22 - 
 
  understands that, in calculating a Member’s Current Total AMS, paragraph 8 of Annex 3 
of the Agreement on Agriculture requires th e external reference price to be fixed. 
Canada recognizes that Article 18.4 provides  that in the review process, Members (the 
Committee) shall give due consideration to th e influence of excessive rates of inflation 
on the ability of a Member to abide by it s domestic support commitments. However, 
Canada is of the view that Article 18.4 does not provide a methodology for adjusting a 
Member’s fixed external reference prices, and does not provide a methodology that 
would consider accumulated inflation since th e fixed external reference prices’ reference 
period, as a measure of excessive inflation affecting a Member’s ability to abide by its 
domestic support commitments.   
a. Is Jordan planning on implementing changes in its domestic support 
programmes to ensure that its unadjusted Current Total AMS for subsequent years falls within its domestic support commitments?  
b. Could Jordan provide any other information that could help the Committee 
understand the particular methodology it  has used, including the timing and 
the basis for it?  
2.3.8  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69/REV.1) 
AG-IMS ID 73059: Question by European Union - Market price support The European Union notes that Norway's market price support for barley increased by 
more than 27% in 2012 compared to 2011. What are the reasons behind this increase? 
Apart from an increase in the applied admini stered price and in production, have there 
been policy changes?  
2.3.9  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/18) 
AG-IMS ID 73023: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada observes that product-specific suppo rt provided to hops production, under a 
measure which provides "compensation of cost s of production", amounted to 119% of 
that product's value of production in 2009,  95% of value of production in 2010 and 
115% of value of production in 2011. Could Ukraine provide an explanation as to how 
payments can exceed the value of production for hops?  
 
AG-IMS ID 73024: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada observes that Ukraine has again indexed the reference price for sugar produced 
from sugar beets. In Supporting Table DS:5, regarding the calculation of market price 
support for sugar produced from sugar beets, document "WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR/1/Rev.12" specifies that Ukraine's fixed external reference price 
for 2004–2006 is Hrv 1,747.33 per tonne. Canada would like to once again point to the 
provisions contained in Paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which 
require the external reference price to be fixed. Ukraine has not adequately 
demonstrated so far how the indexing of the reference price follows the rules of the 
agreement. Canada raised similar questions, as did Japan, the European Union, Norway 
and Australia, during the June 2011 and Nove mber 2012 meetings of the Committee and 
notes that Ukraine's response  repeatedly cited Article 18.4 as providing accommodation 
for its methodology. Ukraine also indicated that it intends to use this methodology in 
future notifications. Canada would like to re iterate that the appropriate methodology for 
calculating market price support  is described in paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture after which due considerat ion shall be given, by this Committee, 
regarding the influence of excessive inflat ion on a Member's ability to abide by its 
commitments as described in Article 18.4.   
Could Ukraine please indicate when it w ill provide revised notifications which would 
include the accurate fixed external referenc e price of Hrv 1,747.33 per tonne for sugar G/AG/W/119 
 
- 23 - 
 
  produced from sugar beets and revised Curr ent Total AMS numbers for 2009, 2010 and 
2011?   2.3.10  United States of America (G/A G/N/USA/80/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/89/REV.1, 
G/AG/N/USA/93, G/AG/N/USA/93/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 73060: Question by Europe an Union - General services: other 
The European Union notes that spending under  "underwriting gains to insurers" notified 
under General Services varies considerably over the period 2009 – 2011 reflected in the 
three recent notifications. At the same time  the other elements of the administrative 
spending of the Risk Management Agency no tified under General Services remain quite 
stable.  
 
a. Could the United States of America expl ain the substantial variations of the 
"underwriting gains" from one year to another? 
b. Could the United States of America explai n how it is that "underwriting gains" 
record a positive spending amount in the notifications in the years when loss claims exceed premium income? (On the basis of the information on the 
website of the USDA's Risk Manageme nt Agency, premium income exceeded 
the claims under the federal crop insura nce in 2010, while loss claims exceeded 
premium income in 2009 and 2011). 
AG-IMS ID 73061: Question by European Union - Market price support 
Regarding G/AG/N/USA/80/REV.1, 
 
a. In relation to the explanation in footnote  2, could the United States of America 
explain the reason behind the temporary increase in the applied administered 
prices for the two dairy products in 2009? 
b. Could the United States of America expl ain how they identified the "eligible 
production" of nonfat dry milk and cheddar cheese for the purpose of the 
calculations made in Supporting Table DS:5?  
c. The MPS for butter, nonfat dry milk and cheddar cheese do not seem to add up 
to the "total dairy" amount. Could the United States of America confirm the 
calculations? 
AG-IMS ID 73062: Question by European Union - Non-product-specific AMS In the latest notifications presented by th e United States of America, the European 
Union observes a substantial increase in sp ending on premium subsidies to producers 
under the crop and revenue insurance subsidised by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (in Supporting Table DS:9).  
 
a. Could the United States of America indi cate what percentage of farmers made 
use of this insurance over the three latest years notified 2009 - 2011?  
b. How is "revenue" defined for the purpose of the insurance? 
AG-IMS ID 73064: Question by European Union - Classification of measures 
In G/AG/N/USA/80/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/USA/89/ Rev.1, the United States of America 
notes that the reporting on the Rural Energy for America was corrected in the 
notifications. Could the United States of Am erica explain why they consider this change 
was necessary?   G/AG/W/119 
 
- 24 - 
 
  2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.4.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/33) AG-IMS ID 73065: Question by European Union - Government involvement Could Brazil provide information on the PAA programme (Programa de Aquisição de 
Alimentos) as applied by the Brazilian govern ment? According to the publicly available 
data, the Brazilian government purchased 830,000  tonnes of food amounting to a cost of 
R$1,75 billion in 2012 under the PAA and this amo unt is partly or fully exported as food 
aid. Are those amounts reflected in the Br azilian export subsidies or in any other 
notification? Could Brazil explain how the me asures applied by the government in the 
context of this programme comply with the definition of export subsidies as laid down in Article 1(e) of the Agreement on Agricultur e, given that the purchased products are 
exported? 
 2.4.2  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/18) 
AG-IMS ID 73025: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Australia notes the reported remarks of the European Commissioner for Agriculture and 
Rural Development on 16 January 2014, in particular that:  
 
"Since 1 January, EU legislation is also very clear: export refunds have ceased to exist as 
a means of systematically supporting a sect or. Moreover, I would like to tell you this 
evening, in the framework of preferenti al partnership agreements with African 
countries: I am prepared to go one step furthe r. I am ready to propose to stop, once and 
for all, the use of export refunds to those developing country destinations – even in 
times of crisis when this instrument can still be used. This commitment will bring our 
agricultural policy fully into line with EU development policy." 
 Australia recognises this statement as refl ecting both reform undertaken, and also a 
proposal for another further step in the right direction. At the same time, Australia 
considers that while welcome, this reform w ill continue to fall short of the commitment 
to the parallel elimination of all forms of ex port subsidies and disciplines on all export 
measures with equivalent effect, as se t out in the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial 
D e c l a r a t i o n ,  a n d  t h e n  r e a f f i r m e d  b y  M i n i s t e r s  i n  B a l i .  I n  t h i s  c o n t e x t ,  A u s t r a l i a  n o t e s  
that while the European Union pays no export  refunds, its level of export subsidies on 
sugar has generally remained at or above its export subsidy commitment levels. Will the 
European Union ensure that the physical quan tity of EU sugar exports subject to export 
subsidies for the 2013/2014 marketing year complies with its obligations. Consistent with Ministers’ commitment to enhance transparency and to improve monitoring in 
relation to all forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, 
Australia reiterates its previous request for the European Union to provide data on the 
physical volume of sugar exports.  
 
 
__________