G/AG/W/151  
 
13 May 2016  
(16-2705)  Page: 1/61  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 9 MARCH 20161 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/148 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 2 May 2016: 
 
AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
79055 China Australia G/AG/N/CHN/28 
79079 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
79081 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
79094 Peru Brazil Article 18.6 
79064 Tunisia Australia G/AG/N/TUN/45 
79065 Tunisia Australia G/AG/N/TUN/45 
79029 Turkey European Union Article 18.6 
79031 Turkey European Union Article 18.6 
79033 Turkey United States of America Article 18.6 
79018 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8 
79019 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8 
79020 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8 
79088 United States of America India G/AG/N/USA/93 
79091 United States of America India G/AG/N/USA/93 
79095 United States of America Brazil Article 18.6 
  
_______________ 
 
 
                                               
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/151 
 
- 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   Statement by Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 79034 ) ...................................................... 5  
1.2   Australia's Farm In surance Advice  Scheme .................................................................... 6  
1.2.1   Question by In dia (AG-IMS ID 79085 )........................................................................ 6  
1.3   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 6  
1.3.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79001) ....................................... 6  
1.4   Canada's New Milk  Ingredient  Class ............................................................................. 6  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79035) ............................................................. 6  
1.5   Canada's wine  sale policy ........................................................................................... 7  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 79003) ....................................... 7  
1.6   China's Agriculture Policy ............................................................................................ 8  
1.6.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  79030)  .................................................................... 8  
1.7   China's ma ize subsidies ............................................................................................. 10 
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79022) ........................................................ 10 
1.8   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS commitments ........................................................... 10 
1.8.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79004)  ...................................... 10 
1.9   European Union's dairy policies ................................................................................... 11 
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79032) ............................................................ 11 
1.10   France's amendment No. 367 to the proposed law on  biodiver sity .................................. 12 
1.10.1   Question by In donesia (AG-IM S ID 79066) .............................................................. 12 
1.11   India's import ation of apples .................................................................................... 13 
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 79067) .......................................................... 13 
1.12   India's new cr op insuranc e scheme ........................................................................... 13 
1.12.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  79051) .................................................................. 13 
1.12.2   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79024) ...................................................... 14 
1.13   India's export assistance progra mmes ....................................................................... 14 
1.13.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79002 ) .................................... 14 
1.14   India's sugar export subsidies ................................................................................... 16 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 79047) ................................................................ 16 
1.14.2   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79023) ...................................................... 17 
1.15   Japan's MARUKIN St abilization Programme ................................................................. 17 
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  79052) .................................................................. 17 
1.15.2   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79025) ...................................................... 18 
1.16   Peru's pric e band system ......................................................................................... 19 
1.16.1   Question by Br azil (AG-IMS ID 7909 4) .................................................................... 19 
1.17   Russian Federation – Trade measures affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural 
products to Kazakhst an .................................................................................................... 19 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17.1   Question by Uk raine (AG-IM S ID 79084) ................................................................. 19 
1.18   Thailand's rice policies ............................................................................................. 20 
1.18.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79005 ) .................................... 20 
1.19   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 21 
1.19.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79027) ...................................................... 21 
1.20   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 22 
1.20.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  79033 ) .................................... 22 
1.21   Turkey's support scheme to  certain agricult ural se ctors ................................................ 23 
1.21.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79026) ...................................................... 23 
1.22   Turkey's rice support ............................................................................................... 23 
1.22.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79029) ...................................................... 23 
1.23   Turkey's fruit and ve getable export subsidies .............................................................. 24 
1.23.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 79031) ...................................................... 24 
1.24   U.S. Farm Support Programmes ................................................................................ 24 
1.24.1   Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79086) ..................................................................... 24 
1.25   U.S. soyb ean prog rammes ....................................................................................... 26 
1.25.1   Question by Br azil (AG-IMS ID 7909 5) .................................................................... 26 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 27  
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 27 
2.1.1   China (G /AG/N/CH N/30) ......................................................................................... 27 
2.1.2   Costa Rica  (G/AG/N/ CRI/53) ................................................................................... 28 
2.1.3   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/50) .................................................................................. 29 
2.1.4   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/21) ...................................................................................... 29 
2.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 29 
2.2.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/89) ..................................................................................... 29 
2.2.2   Botswana (G/AG/N/BW A/23) ................................................................................... 31 
2.2.3   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/40) ......................................................................................... 32 
2.2.4   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 34 
2.2.5   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/26) ............................................................................. 41 
2.2.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 42 
2.2.7   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/5) ...................................................................................... 42 
2.2.8   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/28) ....................................................................................... 43 
2.2.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/85) ...................................................................................... 51 
2.2.10   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/72) ............................................................................... 52 
2.2.11   Tunisia (G/AG/N/ TUN/45)...................................................................................... 53 
2.2.12   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8) .............................................. 54 
2.2.13   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/93) ............................................................. 55 
2.3   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) .................................. 57 
2.3.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/39) ......................................................................................... 57 
2.3.2   China (G /AG/N/CH N/29) ......................................................................................... 58 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3.3   Ecuador (G/AG/N/EC U/40) ...................................................................................... 58 
2.3.4   Hong Kong, Ch ina (G/AG/N/ HKG/39) ........................................................................ 58 
2.3.5   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/53) .......................................................................................... 59 
2.3.6   Russian Federa tion (G/AG/ N/RUS/10) ....................................................................... 59 
2.3.7   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UK R/22) ...................................................................................... 59 
2.4   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION  (TABLE NF:1) ....................... 60 
2.4.1   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/7) ......................................................................... 60 
2.4.2   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/ 105) ............................................................. 60 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 61  
3.1.1   Turkey ................................................................................................................ . 61 
 
 
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Statement on consultations under Article 5.7 1.1.1  Statement by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79034) The European Union provided a statement on the consultations held with the 
United States under Article 5.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture following U.S. 
imposition of an additional Special Agricu ltural Safeguard (SSG) duty on imports of 
butter and cream. 
 
The United States imposed an additional Sp ecial Agricultural Safeguard (SSG) duty on 
imports of butter and cream as of 5 Oc tober 2015 until the end of the year 
(G/AG/N/USA/103). 
 
The European Union requested consultations with  the United States in order to voice its 
concerns on the measure, to understand th e reasons behind it and to clarify the 
technical details of its application. During th e consultations the United States replied to 
a list of questions from the European Union.   
Following the consultations the European Unio n maintains the view that the imposition 
of the SSG was not economically justified and that the measure was invoked primarily 
for political reasons.  
The European Union fully acknowledges the fact  that the United States has a right to 
impose the measure based on a formula set out in the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
invocation of the measure is to be assesse d on a case-by-case basis and should be 
driven purely by economic factors. In this ca se, this protectionist decision falls short of 
economic rationale, as there was soaring de mand for butter in the United States that 
U.S. producers were unable to keep pace with. Butter prices were very high at 
5,950 USD/tonne in the United States compared to 3,224 USD/tonne in the European 
Union. Moreover the trigger level was around  9,400 tonnes, just 1% of the U.S. butter 
consumption. Further, the volume-based SS G was not imposed on other dairy products 
that also reached the trigger level and was not imposed on butter when the trigger was 
reached in the previous year. 
 At the time of imposing the measure, the Un ited States did not make clear the meaning 
of "products en route" for exporters and only published such information at a later stage 
(on 9 October) under EU pressure. This was a notable failure of transparency. 
 
The European Union invites the United States to use the SSG in the future in an 
economically justified manner and to ensure  the necessary transp arency for affected 
exporters.   
Follow-up : The United States noted that it was permitted under the WTO rules to apply special 
agricultural safeguards on certain products as noted in the U.S. schedule of commitments. With 
respect to the butter safeguard in question, the Unit ed States stated that it published annually the 
trigger level, which was based on a 3-year rollin g average of imports. If the trigger level was 
reached, it may implement the volume-based safeguard. The trigger level published on 29 June 2015 was 9,415 tonnes. When imports exceeded the quantity trigger, USDA evaluated the 
circumstances and would make a decision on a case by case basis.  Factors considered included the 
time of the year, fill level of affected TRQs and the marketing conditions among others. In 2015, the evaluation resulted in a decision to invoke th e quantity-based safeguard in the case of butter. 
At the time USDA imposed the safeguard imports for 2015 were already at 10,895 tonnes, 
compared to the trigger level of 9,415 tonnes. Total butter imports for 2015 were 18,732 tonnes, 
which was a 75% increase over imports for 2014 and almost twice the 2015 trigger level. The United States confirmed that the additional duties imposed ended on 31 December 2015.  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.2  Australia's Farm Insurance Advice Scheme  
1.2.1  Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79085) The Agriculture Competitiveness White Pape r formulates a Farm Insurance Advice 
scheme which will "allow eligible farm businesses to access up to AUD 2,500 as a one-
off grant based on a dollar-for-dollar matchi ng 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 (fed eral, state and territory governments) 
for this scheme? 
Answer by Australia 
 
a. The government's Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper noted that sound risk 
management, including the consideration of appropriate insurance, is an essential part of 
any business. This is particularly true for fa rmers, whose production and profitability are 
directly affected by factors beyond their control, including fluctuating seasonal conditions and market prices. The government has announced that under the Managing Farm Risk 
Programme, it will provide eligible farm bu sinesses with access to a rebate of up to 
AUD 2,500 to cover half the cost of farm in surance advice and assessments. The rebates 
are not for insurance policy premiums. The aim of the programme is to improve the capability of farmers to manage drought and other production and market risks through 
use of agricultural insurance. Details on the eligibility requirements are still being 
finalised by government. The programme is yet to commence, and detailed eligibility requirements are still being developed. 
b. The Government has committed AUD 29.9 million over four years to the programme. 
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 th e programme was used for corn, cotton and 
wheat as recently as 2014. Braz il 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 suit able 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?   Answer by Brazil 
 
Status has not changed since September 2015.  
Follow-up : The United States looked forward to receiving the data which Brazil had agreed to 
provide at the meeting in June 2014.  
 
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 Prod ucts Marketing Commission is expected to 
establish a new milk ingredient class in Onta rio as of 1 April 2016. Media indicates that G/AG/W/151 
 
- 7 - 
 
  this new milk ingredient class will include skim  milk solids in all fo rms that can be used 
as ingredients, including but not limited to skim milk, skim milk powder, ultrafiltered 
and diafiltered milk, whole milk powder an d condensed or evaporated milk (not for 
retail). Can Canada provide the details of exac tly which milk products  will be covered by 
this new Ontario milk ingredient class, an d information on whether it will affect any 
products covered by Canada's existing classes?  
Answer by Canada 
 Discussions on an Ontario milk ingredient class are an ongoing, industry-led initiative. In light of upcoming significant changes in their competitive environment, Canadian dairy stakeholders are 
considering ways to adapt to the new reality. The government of Canada is not directly involved in 
these discussions and is following these discussions with interest, with a view to ensuring they are in conformity with Canada' international obligations. 
 
Follow-up : New Zealand took note that the government of Canada was not directly involved in the 
development of this initiative. New Zealand indica ted that it would be interested in knowing how 
conformity with Canada's international obligations would be ensured and whether this meant that 
Canada's existing milk ingredient classes would not be affected by Ontario's establishment of a new milk ingredient class. The United States flagged its interest in the new milk ingredient class and the effect it would have on the dairy markets.  
 
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, on ly 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-within-a-store" and 
therefore the grocery store selling imported wine  is subject to geographical limitations. 
A "store-within-a-store" may not be located within one kilometre of another private or 
public liquor store. This dual channel retail sy stem for the sale of wine in grocery stores 
in the province raises questions about wh ether 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 favourable 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. Liqu or 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 en suring strict controls to prevent minor 
access and minimize shoplifting". 
b. Is B.C. asserting that imported wine pres ents public health and safety concerns 
that B.C. wine does not, or, that import ed wine presents 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 concer ns presented by imported wine ("store-
within-a-store" restrictions)?  
Answer by Canada 
 
Clarification: The 1 kilometre rule applies to both private and government full service liquor stores (selling both wine and spirits). It does not apply to wine stores that opt to use the 
store-within-a-store model.  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. The exclusive sale of B.C. wine at certain locations has existed for many years and is 
grandfathered through many trade agreements to which Canada is a Party. The regulations provide for the transfer of existing licenses to new locations, but no new licenses are being created.  
b. B.C.'s regulations permit existing liquor stores selling a full range of liquor products, 
including spirits, to relocate under the store-within-a-store model. The public health and safety concerns relate to preventing minor access and minimizing shoplifting of spirits.  
c. For wines sold on the grocery store shelf, all products to which the public has access 
must be within one contiguous product display area within the grocery store; separate "wine sections" are not permitted. The wine must be able to be secured and inaccessible to the public during the hours that liquor is not available for sale (e.g. when licensed 
hours do not align with the grocery store's hours of operation). The licensee must submit 
a security plan to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch indicating how they will guard against shop-lifting and ensure minors do not access the product on the shelf. Cashiers 
that service alcohol must be adults that meet the same stringent requirements no 
matter where alcohol is purchased.  
Follow-up : The United States shared with Members some follow-up questions that it intended to 
raise at the next Committee meeting: "(1) Given Canada's answer that imported wine cannot be 
sold in regular grocery store and it is subject to a "store-within-a-store" restriction, the United States questions how imported wine is not accorded less favourable treatment than that accorded to B.C. wine; (2) Canada mentioned ho w some of these programmes were grandfathered 
through the trade agreements. The United States questions if those are covered agreements under 
the WTO; (3) With respect to the public health and safety concerns, the United States still does not understand whether there is a different public health and safety concern for imported wine 
than for B.C. wine; (4) With respect to licensing, it appears that when there is a change due to 
relocation there is an increased discrimination against imported wine. Australia, the European Union, New Zealand and South Africa registered inte rest in this subject. South Africa stated that 
Canada's policy may have a long-term negative impact on its wine exports to Canada . 
 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 Modernizat ion and Realize the Goal of Completing the 
Comprehensively Building of a Moderate ly Prosperous Society. The 2016 Central 
Government Number One Document provides  a framework for agriculture policy in 
China.   
a. Paragraph 22 notes that China will "…co ntinue to implement and improve the 
minimum procurement policy for rice an d wheat…." Could China provide more 
information as to the additional improv ements to the procurement for wheat?  
b. Paragraph 22 indicates that China "…wi ll deepen reforms over state owned 
grain companies and develop diversifie d market players for procurement and 
sales".  
i. Could China elaborate on the refo rms 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 ex ample would more private entities be 
able to import grains?  
c. Paragraph 25 indicates that additional ag ricultural insurance products will be 
developed including the "… introduction  of target price insurance…" Could 
China elaborate as to which crops it expe cts to be eligible for this type of G/AG/W/151 
 
- 9 - 
 
  scheme and how would China determine the target price for those eligible 
crops? 
Answer by China 
 
a. No. 1 Document of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council of 2014 provided 
that a national food security strategy addressing the new situation should be established. Based on the consideration of factors including resources and environment 
constraints, supply and demand of grain in China, as well as the changes in the 
international trade environment, the national food security strategy should be based on 
the following principles, notably, maintaining appropriate level of production capacity with the support of science and technology, and thus to guarantee a higher level of self-
sufficiency, with moderate levels of imports as supplement.  
The minimum price procurement policy for wheat is a good example of this strategy. 
Wheat is one of the two major staple food grains for Chinese people with fundamental 
importance, and thus, the most supportive measure of minimum price procurement was 
designed for this product, since it had been expected to effectively protect the farmers' incentive to produce wheat. The consecutive increase of wheat production in the last 
12 years also proved that the objective of promoting wheat production has been 
successfully achieved.  
However, with unfavourable market conditions  in recent years, the market mechanism 
was distorted and the government became the only buyer in reality, which led to high 
level of stockpiling and posed tremendous pressure and challenge for agricultural 
production. Targeting at resolving these problems, the government decides to carry out market-oriented reform, which will allow the market to play a central role in formulating 
the price and thus improve the efficiency of ci rculation of grain products. The reform will 
be carried out on a product basis, and the reform of minimum price procurement policy for wheat and rice will be carried out very cautiously.  
b.  
i. China has been consistently adhering to the principle of market orientation in 
reforming the grain production and procurem ent system. In the process of reforming 
the business operation of the state-owned grain companies, the procurement for 
specific policy objectives that are purely for commercial objectives will be identified. 
The reform of ownership will be accelerated, and the business operation mechanism will be innovated. State-owned grain companies will operate based on more and 
stronger considerations of the market principles, and compete with other market 
players on equal footing. At the same time, the reform also aims at adequately exerting the inherent advantages of the private enterprises, by allowing more 
qualified private enterprises to participate in the procurement and the sale of grain in 
the domestic market.  
ii. It should be highlighted that the procurem ent of grains in the domestic market and 
the import of grain from the international market are two distinct policy areas. The 
reform to promote the diversification of the market players aims at improving the 
procurement and sale of grain within domestic market, and has nothing to do with the import administration of grain products. Since the import of certain grain 
products are subject to tariff rate quota system, the enterprises concerned will be 
continuously administered in accordance with rules and practices that have been in place since China's accession to the WTO. 
c. Target price insurance for agricultural products is one of the policy instruments that 
China will continue to explore in the near future. Starting from 2014, pilot programmes 
were carried out in various regions, covering products including wheat, corn, paddy rice, pork, vegetables and specialty agricultural products. The target price insurance is 
different from the target price subsidy for soybean and cotton. The pilot programme of 
target price insurance for wheat was carried out in Henan Province, with the price based on the price index or average market price as the variant. The indemnity is based on the 
fixed production level, and covers the loss cause by price decrease. The pilot programme 
for paddy rice was carried out in Heilongjiang Province, with the production as the G/AG/W/151 
 
- 10 - 
 
  variant, and the indemnity is based on fixe d price and production loss. Experiences and 
lessons will be drawn from these pilot programmes, which may help to decide the future of the target price insurance.  
Follow-up : Canada, the European Union and the United States indicated their interest in further 
discussions regarding China's policy developments. 
1.7  China's maize subsidies 1.7.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79022) 
The EU requests an answer to the question AG-IMS ID 77043 raised during the 
77
th Committee on Agriculture on 4 June 2015. 
 According to World Perspectives Inc. ne wsletter, 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 USD/tonne). 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 bene ficiaries? 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 go vernments grant similar subsidies and 
if so what are the quantities concerned in 2013/14 and 2014/15? 
Answer by China 
 The reply to this question had been provided at the 78
th regular meeting. The pertinent authorities 
are still collecting statistical data regarding the quantity concerned.  
 Follow-up : The United States flagged interest in this question.  
 
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 it s 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 acco rdance with Executive Decree 37.699-MEIC, 
revoked by the above-mentioned Decree No . 38.884–MEIC – will be known during the 
first months of 2016, when the National Ri ce 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 ad ministered support price under the new 
policy?  
c. Is Costa Rica in a position to provide th e production figures as indicated by its 
response to AG-IMS ID 78005? If not, when will this data be available?  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Answer by Costa Rica 
 Costa Rica advises that under Executive Decree No. 38.884-MEIC, the fixed price for rice producers has been replaced by a reference price. Since the entry into force of this Executive 
Decree, Costa Rica has no longer administered the purchase price from rice producers. As reported 
in previous meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the reference price will serve as an indicative price for transactions between proces sors and producers, thus enabling both parties 
(producers and processors) to negotiate a price according to the grade of the rice and conditions in 
the domestic rice market. As it always has done, and pursuant to commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture, Costa Rica will noti fy the domestic support provided in 2015. The 
notification will reflect the Aggregate Measurem ent of Support for 2015. Only then will it be 
possible to determine whether the amount is within the annual monetary limits of Costa Rica's 
bound AMS of USD 15.9 million.  
Follow-up : The United States indicated its long-standing interest in Costa Rica's rice policy and 
appreciated the transparency provided by Costa Rica. The United States had a particular interest in 
knowing the role of the government in the new policy as well as its impact on domestic rice 
production so as to determine if it was different from the previous policy.  
 1.9  European Union's dairy policies 
1.9.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 79032) 
New Zealand welcomes ongoing efforts by th e 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 Commi ttee on Agriculture meeting, New Zealand 
sought information on the design and implem entation at both European and member 
State level of the European Union's compre hensive dairy support package announced in 
September 2015. 
 
a. New Zealand would appreciate any furthe r 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 memb er States by 25 February 2016 for 
additional market support measures in lig ht of the continuing difficulties facing 
the sector. Consistent with the directio n and objectives of its agricultural 
reform programme, New Zealand once ag ain urges the European Union, when 
considering any further measures, to avoi d approaches that distort production 
and/or trade in favour of measures to address real financial hardship.  
New Zealand would welcomes any furthe r comment from the European Union 
on how it intends to ensure that any fu rther measures do not distort production 
and/or trade. 
Answer by the European Union 
 
a. According to information available, 52% of the funds under Commission Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2015/1853 were distributed to the milk sector; the rest has been allocated to the pig meat sector, the beef sector or for measures applicable to all livestock sectors. 
In most cases, member States (23) are granting targeted aid in the form of payments 
per production unit (farm, number of animals, production volumes, or a combination of these). A few member States have opted for other measures to support livestock 
sectors, such as advisory services on financial aspects of farm business, measures to 
reduce structural costs, measures to alleviate the cash flow of the most vulnerable G/AG/W/151 
 
- 12 - 
 
  farms, measures to relieve the financial burden or reduce social security contributions, 
measures for keeping cows in pasture, feed analysis, animal health, farm relocation, chain quality system, producer organisations and manure processing.  
For more information refer to: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/231_en.htm . 
b. The European Union has taken note of New Zealand's position. At the 14 March Council 
meeting, European Agriculture Ministers will discuss proposals which have been forwarded on possible measures to address the current difficulties which farmers are 
faced with, including financially. The European Union will of course respect all its 
international obligations.  
Follow-up : New Zealand thanked the European Union for responses on how it intended to ensure 
that any further support to its dairy sector did not distort production or trade. While New Zealand 
understood that these new measures would be within European Union's WTO commitments, 
New Zealand was concerned about the amount of CAP support provided. Specifically, with an 
estimate of EUR 40 billion in revenue transfers which accounted for 42% of dairy farm incomes, 
New Zealand found it difficult to envisage  that CAP had no distortive impacts.  
 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 January 2016. The amendment proposes to impose a special tax for importat ion 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 po licy become applicable it could present an 
unnecessary barrier to trade, for example in terms of competitiveness among like 
products in the market. Moreover, this co uld set a precedent for implementation of 
similar policy and potential non-complianc e to Members commitment within the WTO. 
 
a. Please provide explanation on the reasons behind this amendment to the 
proposed law on biodiversity? What is th e 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 applie d and its gradual increase from 2017 
to 2020.  
c. Would this proposed policy also be applic able 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-discrimina tion 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 admini strative provisions being developed to 
prepare the implementation of the amendment? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Answer by the European Union 
 France is indeed working on a law on biodiversity. As is the case for all draft laws, French legislative procedure provides for two readings by  each one of the Chambers (National Assembly 
and Senate). This process is currently under way: the first reading has taken place in the 
two Chambers and the second reading at the National Assembly is scheduled for mid-March 2016. The process will continue over the coming months, though at this stage it is impossible to say 
exactly when the law will be adopted. A number of parliamentarians have opened up a discussion 
on the taxation of edible oils. Given that this discussion is likely to last another few months, it would be premature to consider that any final position has been reached on this subject and to speak of a mechanism that might possibly be introduced. France will be able to answer Indonesia's 
questions later assuming they are still relevant, which will depend on the text that is finally 
adopted. In any case, France will of course respec t all of its obligations as a Member of the WTO. 
 
Follow-up : Indonesia noted that the attention given to this issue highlighted Members' significant 
interest in ensuring the smooth operation of the multilateral system. Indonesia would carefully 
consider all information presented by the European Union and closely follow any further 
developments on this issue. Indonesia understood the European Union desired to protect 
environment and public health. Nevertheless, Indone sia hoped that this legitimate objective could 
be achieved through policies which posed minimal trade barriers and were based on scientific evidence. As palm oil was its largest agriculture export, Malaysia shared the concern expressed by 
Indonesia and wished to receive timely upda tes regarding the progress of the amendments. 
Colombia also flagged its interest in hearing the updates.   
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, Chenna i, Mumbai & Cochin, and Delhi. New Zealand 
is pleased to see these ports reopen to a pple 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? 
 
Answer by India  
The issue is beyond the mandate of CoA and the scope of Agreement on Agriculture.  
 Follow-up : New Zealand, supported by the European Unio n, the United States and Australia, noted 
its view that the issue was relevant to this Committee. New Zealand recalled the conclusions 
drawn by Chair at the last Committee meeting that the issue was relevant and non-burdensome and was therefore admissible under Article 18.6. Australia quoted Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture "… these measures include quantitative import restrictions, variable import levies, 
minimum import prices, discretionary import licensing, non-tariff measures maintained through 
state trading enterprises, voluntary export restra ints and similar border measures …" and noted 
that this issue clearly related to any measure that was not an ordinary customs duty.  Nigeria 
noted its interest in the interpretation of the two articles mentioned by previous speakers – 
Articles 4 and 18.6. On the substance, New Zealand noted that a number of ports had been reopened since the last Committee meeting and sought confirmation on this. New Zealand stated 
that two ports remained closed and reiterated its request for an explanation as to why these ports 
were closed and when they would be reopened. The European Union fully supported New Zealand's comment. The United States noted that  when India's measure went into effect last year there were 
some shipments en route and some of U.S. shipments were allowed. The United States 
appreciated India for that and also for opening some of the key ports but encouraged India to 
open all the ports.  
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 with private insurance companies G/AG/W/151 
 
- 14 - 
 
  and whereby the farmer's share of the premiums would be reduced to 1.5% or 
2% depending on the type of crop. This ne w scheme is scheduled to launch in June.  
 
a. Could India indicate what crops will be covered under this new crop insurance 
scheme?  
b. Could India indicate if producers under this new crop insurance scheme will be 
able to choose the level of coverage?  
Answer by India 
 The details about the scheme can be obtained from the following website: http://www.agricoop.nic.in . 
 
1.12.2  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79024) 
The Indian Government has recently announc ed 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? 
Answer by India 
 
The details about the scheme can be obtained from the following website: 
http://www.agricoop.nic.in .  
 
Follow-up : Canada and the European Union reserved the right to follow up on this issue with 
further questions. Australia, Thailand and the United  States registered interest in this issue. The 
United States noted that with regard to the previous scheme, India had stated at the meeting in 
June 2014 that it would provide a DS:2 notification. The United States asked when a DS:2 
notification would be supplied that covered this new measure.   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 Indian export subsidy programme. 
Specifically, it is the U.S. understanding  that from 2004-2014 the Indian government 
operated an export assistance programme fo r a number of agricultural products called 
the Vishesh Krishi Gram Upaj Yojana (V KGUY – or "Special Agriculture Produce 
Scheme"). In 2014 another programme, the Me rchandise 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" eq u i v a l e n t  t o  5 %  o f  F O B  v a l u e  o f  a n  
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 Industry, under the 
VKGUY programme duty scrip benefits ar e granted with an aim to compensate G/AG/W/151 
 
- 15 - 
 
  high transport costs, and to offset "oth er disadvantages". Please explain what 
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 exported. In light of that, how 
does India effectively link the subsidie s to specific transportation costs?  
e. What is the relationship, if any, between the exported product and the 
imported product on which the scrip is used to reduce the import duty?  
f. When skim milk product (SMP) was e ligible, 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 are described as "fully 
transferrable." What does "fully transf errable" mean – to whom can they be 
transferred and for what?  
j. How much revenue was foregone by th e government under the programme?  
k. Will India notify benefits provided und er 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 produc ts received export assistance under 
the MEIS programme, and if so, in what amounts?  
Answer by India 
 The VKGUY scheme has been discontinued with effect from 31 March 2015. 
 
 For the year 2014-15, VKGUY scrips for Rs. 3293 crores were issued. 
 The scrip under the VKGUY was transferable which meant that it could be used for imports 
of goods provided they were freely importable and/or restricted under ITC HS items, listed 
in Appendix 37b of the FTP. 
 As per FTP the basis was f.o.b. value of exports and the rates were overall weighted average 
of such cost. 
 MEIS is a new scheme which has been operational since 1 April 2015 and the list of sectors 
covered is available in Appendix 3b of the FTP. 
 They can be transferred to anyone who intends to use them. 
 All of India's notifications are in accordance with the AoA and all relevant guidelines issued 
by the Committee on Agriculture from time to time. 
 Appendix 37a of the relevant FTP may be referred to. 
Follow-up : Canada and the European Union signalled interest in this issue. Ukraine also noted its 
interest, especially in light of the Nairobi Ministerial decision on export competition. 
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 16 - 
 
  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 outl ays and 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 subm itted a written response to the questions 
raised by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) at th e 78th Committee on Agriculture in relation 
to the Indian minimum indicative 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? 
Answer by India 
 
a. Marketing and promotion services of raw sugar were introduced on 28 February 2014 
and discontinued from 1 October 2015.  
b. The incentive scheme covers about 7.85 Lakh MT of raw sugar for an incentive amount 
of about 210 Cr during 2013-14 sugar season and 5.40 Lakh MT of raw sugar for an incentive amount of about 237 Cr during 2014-2015 sugar season. So far, the incentive 
amount of about 184 Cr for 2013-14 sugar season and about 100 Cr for 2014-2015 
sugar season has been reimbursed to sugar mills for payment to farmers against their 
cane dues. 
c. (No reply was provided.) 
d. The State government of Maharashtra has also notified provision of Rs 1000 per MT of 
raw sugar exported by State sugar mills which are eligible for incentives under the said scheme of central government. So far, no f unds have been reimbursed by the state. 
e. About 9.75 Lakh MT of sugar has been exported  by the sugar mills of the country during 
2015-2016 sugar season till end of February 2016 against the MIEQ. 
f. and g. Under the minimum Indicative Export Quota (MIEQ) no subsidy has been 
provided. G/AG/W/151 
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.14.2  Question by 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 meet ing, 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 th e compensation to the farmers for the supply 
of sugarcane to the sugar mills covers al l 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 pr oducers 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? 
b. How does India see this initiative relate to the definition of export subsidy in 
Article 1(e) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by India 
 The production incentive is allowed at Rs 4.50 per quintal on entire cane crushed by the sugar mills during 2015-2016 sugar season. 
 
The production incentive is to be provided to farmers on behalf of sugar mills to offset the cost of sugar cane supplied by farmers. 
 
Follow-up : Australia, Brazil, and Thailand noted ongoing interest in India's sugar export subsidies. 
Colombia, Costa Rica and Ukraine also registered interest in this issue. Colombia and Ukraine 
noted the importance of honouring the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial decisions regarding export 
subsidies.   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 co sts and retail prices/gross earnings (net 
income) for hog and cattle producers. Based on  media reports, Cana da understands that 
proposed Japanese legislative changes as vo ted on by Cabinet on 25 November 2015 
would, for hog production, increase the ra te of support from 80% to 90% of the 
difference between income and production c osts, and change the contribution ratio 
between the hog producer and government from 1:1 to 1:3.   Canada understands that the change in the contribution 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, contributi on ratios, and any limitations or other 
criteria for participation in the programme?  
b. Could Japan confirm that indeed the pr oposed support is not a new programme, 
and includes only changes to an existing programme?  
c. Through its WTO domestic support notifi cations, Japan notifies two forms of 
support for pork: Market Price Support and Deficiency Payments (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? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 18 - 
 
  d. Could Japan describe the anticipated im pacts from their proposed changes on 
its domestic support-related government outlays/payments and in relation to 
its Total AMS commitments?  
Answer by Japan 
 
a. On 25 November 2015, the Cabinet published "the comprehensive TPP-related policy 
framework," and the amendment of the in come stabilization programme (MARUKIN 
programme) was proposed in this text. For the cattle and pig sector, the existing 
MARUKIN programme covers up to 80% of gaps between average production cost and average carcass price, using the fund mutual ly contributed by cattle or pig producers 
and the government. For the fund, 25% is currently contributed by the cattle producers 
and 50% by the pig producers. The rate of su pport will be changed from 80% to 90% for 
both sectors and contribution rate will be changed from 50% to 25% for the pig sector. 
These amendments will be implemented when the TPP agreement will enter into force. 
b. The proposed amendments as mentioned above will be made upon the existing 
MARUKIN programme, following "the comprehensive TPP-related policy framework" published on 25 November 2015. 
c. Once these amendments are implemented, Japan will provide a notification reflecting the 
amended MARUKIN programme. The existing MA RUKIN programme for the pig sector is 
classified as "Direct Payments". The level of support to be notified should not be prejudged as payments through the MARUKI N programme could fluctuate depending on 
factors such as production cost and carcass price. 
d. The possible impacts on the level of support to be notified should not be prejudged as 
payment through the amended MARUKIN programme for cattle and pig sector could 
fluctuate depending on factors such as production cost and carcass price. 
1.15.2  Question by 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 production 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 quan tity of pig meat imported into Japan? 
 
Answer by Japan 
 For the cattle and pig sector, the existing income stabilization program (MARUKIN program) covers 
up to 80% of gaps between average production cost and average carcass price, using the fund 
mutually contributed by cattle or pig produc ers and the government. For the fund, 25% is 
currently contributed by the cattle producers and 50% by the pig producers. On 
25 November 2015, the Cabinet published "the comprehensive TPP-related policy framework", and 
the amendment of the MARUKIN programme was propos ed in this text. The rate of support will be 
changed from 80% to 90% for both sectors and the contribution rate will be changed from 50% to 
25% for the pig sector. These amendments will  be implemented when the TPP agreement will 
enter into force. The quantity of pig meat to be imported into Japan should not be prejudged as it 
could fluctuate depending on factors such as pig meat supply and demand situation.  
Follow-up : The United States noted its interest in the programme and the effect it would have on 
markets within Japan. The United States was particularly interested in Japan's responses 
concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Ukraine indicated its particular interest in obtaining 
the information regarding the rate of governme nt support expressed in terms of value of 
production.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.16  Peru's price band system 
1.16.1  Question by Brazil (AG-IMS ID 79094) 
a. With regard to the price band system a pplied by Peru, Brazil would like to know 
how the process of implementation of the WTO recommendations in this matter 
is being carried out. 
b. Under the ACE-58, if a country offers any concession to another country or bloc 
not belonging to the Latin American Inte gration Association (ALADI), it should 
negotiate equivalent concession to th e Mercosur countries. In the agreement 
signed between the United States and Peru, products were excluded from the Peruvian's price band system. Does Peru intend to negotiate equivalent concession to the Mercosur countries? 
Answer by Peru 
 Peru undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 
1.17  Russian Federation – 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 chec kpoints via Belarus lengthens the shipping 
distance, adding burdensome requirements th a t  r e s u l t  i n  d a y s  o f  t i m e  d e l a y s  a n d  
additional transit and permitting costs. Th ese border measures negatively affect all 
trade, but particularly adversely affect trade in perishable agricultural goods. 
Additionally, Ukraine notes that the signific ant delays caused by the need to find 
alternative transit routes is having a nega tive effect upon trade flows throughout 
Central Asia, and beyond to China.   
These measures are seriously disrupting not only bilateral trade bu t international trade 
as whole.  
Ukraine kindly requests the Russian Federation: 
 
a. To explain the policy rationale for thes e restrictive measures that are being 
applied to agricultural goods;  
b. To provide WTO Members with all oper ational details, including subsidiary 
legislation or enforcement orders fo r customs authorities regarding its 
implementation;  
c. To confirm whether any similar trade restri ctions on transit are being applied to 
agricultural goods of any other WTO Me mber. If so, please provide details; 
d. To confirm how Russian authorities enforc e these measures, and in particular if 
the country of origin of an agricultural good is the basis for applying the 
measure?; 
e. To explain why the additional transit time and expense for agricultural 
product trade is considered necessary?; G/AG/W/151 
 
- 20 - 
 
  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? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
 
The Presidential Decree No. 1 and Government  Resolution No. 1 of 1 January 2016 on the 
measures to support economic security and national interests of the Russian Federation in 
providing the international transit haulage from the territory of Ukraine to the territory of 
Kazakhstan set out the checkpoints for transit of a ll freights without the distinction of agricultural 
goods.   
There are no specific trade restrictions on transit of agricultural goods implied by the Presidential 
Decree and the Governmental Resolution.   
The trade regime that the Russian Federation is applying to Ukraine starting from 1 January 2016 
is based on the WTO rules and, in essence, does not differ from the regime applied by the Russian 
Federation in its trade relations with other major partners, for example the European Union. 
 
Follow-up : The European Union noted that this item was discussed at the General Council on 
24 February and its opinion on this issue remained  the same as expressed at that meeting. The 
United States appreciated the Russian Federation's response to this question and stated that this 
issue was relevant to this Committee.  
 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 go vernment of Thailand introduced various 
short-term support measures including the Rice Farmer Assistance Program, the on-
farm pledging programme (the "Farmer Loan s to Delay the sale of Rice Paddy for 
2014/15"), special loan interest rates, va rious 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 ho w the programme is implemented.  
c. Do any programmes currently provide an administered price support 
mechanism for rice, including at the sub-na tional 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 10 August 2015, the Thai Commerce Mini stry 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 al so 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 thes e also made at market prices?  
g. Please identify what the ma rket prices were for thes e transactions totalling two 
million tonnes of rice from government reserves.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 21 - 
 
  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.   
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.  
Answer by Thailand 
 
a. and b. Currently, relevant authorities in Thailand have implemented government service 
programmes that mainly aim at enhancing fa rmers' quality of life. Such programmes 
provide market demand forecasts and analyses  that will provide data to carry out the 
enhancement of production and logistics efficiencies through rice variety improvement, 
production planning, the management of cultivation areas, application of technology and innovation, determining appropriate marketin g and promotion activities, pest control, 
and organic farming.  
c. As elaborated in the answer to questions a. and b., Thailand reiterates that the 
programmes were implemented to focus on assisting farmers to improve the efficiency of 
their productions and effectiveness of supply chain management. The programmes do 
not involve administered price support mechanism.  
d. As of 1 March 2016, the overall rice stock is approximately 12 million tonnes.  
e. and g. In 2013, Thailand made a contract with China to sell one million tonnes of new 
production seasons' Thai rice at market price at the time of delivery. The final delivery is 
expected to complete in April 2016. On 3 December 2015, Thailand also made a contract to sell one million tonnes of new production seasons' Thai rice in a government-to-
government transaction with China. The variety of rice and selling price would be 
negotiated and determined in accordance with the market price at each time of delivery.  
h. Thailand would like to clarify that rice sales from government stock are released 
gradually and are dependent on several factors, such as quality of rice, government 
expenditures, and market situation. It is known that rice is a perishable good, the quality of which will decline with time. Taking these factors into account, as well as to ensure that the release of stocks do not affect prices of existing and new season's rice so as not 
to affect the private sectors or the farmers,  Thailand avoids releasing rice from the 
government stock at lower than the market price at each time of release.  
Follow-up : The Philippines recalled its longstanding in terest in Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
and registered continued interest. The Philippines noted that it had been closely monitoring this 
policy and was pleased that this policy was modified to another form of support. The Philippines looked forward to the bilateral discussion with Thailand to exchange information on this type of 
subsidy programmes. The European Union flagged interest.  
 1.19  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.19.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79027) 
The European Union requests an answer to the question AG-IMS ID 78044 raised during 
the 78
th CoA 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. Th e Ministry of Finance is providing a subsidy 
to citrus exporters of 200 YTL/MT in 2013. There is also a minimum price requirement G/AG/W/151 
 
- 22 - 
 
  for this specific subsidy. The Government makes payments to a special account, which 
the exporter can only use to make tax and so cial 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 budgetary outlays and eligible 
quantity as regards export subsidies, notably for citrus fruits, have remained 
below its commitments?  
b. Could Turkey indicate the level of AM S 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 no tifications for the years after 2002? 
Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey's export subsidy and domestic support no tifications are being prepared by its relevant 
authorities and they will be submitted to the WT O Secretariat as soon as they are complete.  
 
Follow-up : The European Union looked forward to rece iving Turkey's notifications and called for 
Members' utmost efforts to ensure updated notifications. Canada, New Zealand, the Russian 
Federation, Ukraine and the United States noted interest in receiving Turkey's notifications. 
Canada stated that Turkey was an important agricultural producer and its notification could 
contribute to the transparency of the Co mmittee. New Zealand and Ukraine stressed the 
importance of ensuring transparency, particular l y  i n  l i g h t  o f  t h e  M C 1 0  d e c i s i o n  o n  e x p o r t  
competition. 
 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 re sponse 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 follo wing additional questions:  
 
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing 
certificate holders over the past severa l years. In the past, Turkey has cited 
U.S. Department of Commerce countervailin g duty decisions on pasta and steel 
pipes and tubes. These decisions do no t provide the information requested.  
Does Turkey confirm that TMO sells domest ic 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 el aborate on this table by stating how 
much of the imports and exports were through the inward processing system.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 23 - 
 
  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 requested data concerning both the 
quantity and quality of wheat imports an d flour exports under 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 over the last three years that Turkey can provide, even if not data.  
Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
Follow-up : The United States noted that question (a) was repeated from the September 
CoA meeting as no response had been receiv ed. The European Union and Ukraine indicated 
interest.  
 
1.21  Turkey's support scheme to  certain agricultural sectors 
1.21.1  Question by 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 fo r 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 orchar ds with half-small fruit scion and 350 TL/da 
if it is certified, 25 TL/ha for soil analys is; 48 TL/ha for fuel; 47 TL/ha for fertilizer". 
 Can Turkey indicate by measure the total bu dgetary outlay executed for these schemes 
in the 2014 and 2015 budget years? 
 
Answer by Turkey  
Within the framework of those supports, the amou nts paid to citrus farmers are as follows:  
 
 Under the Support Programme for Organic Agriculture, a total payment of 158,739 TL for 
2,268 decare area in 2014 and a total payment of 143,032 TL for 2,043 decare area 
in 2015. 
 Under the Support Programme for Good Agricultural Practices, a total payment of 
2,995,158 TL in 2014.  
Follow-up : United States indicated interest.  
 
1.22  Turkey's rice support 
1.22.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 79029) 
On 17 December 2015 the government of Tu rkey has announced the paddy purchasing 
price for 2015-16 at around TL 1,580 (around USD 534) per tonne.  
 
a. Can Turkey indicate have many tonnes be nefitted from this price and the total 
cost for TMO for this measure? 
b. How does Turkey intend to notify th is support in its DS:1 notification? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey 
 Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
Follow-up : United States indicated interest.  
 
1.23  Turkey's fruit and vegetable export subsidies 
1.23.1  Question by 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 clarification if such type of export subsidy is currently in 
place?  
b. Will Turkey notify the use of such export subsidy in accordance to the WTO 
transparency obligations? 
Answer by Turkey 
 Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
Follow-up : United States indicated interest.  
 
1.24  U.S. Farm Support Programmes 
1.24.1  Question by India (AG-IMS ID 79086) 
a. According to the Environmental Working Group Farm Subsidy Database, top 
20% of recipients accounted for 78% of commodity subsidies in 2012. The 
glaring inequality in farm payments is  reflected in the fact that while a 
recipient in the top 1% category rece ived 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 Subsidy 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 St ates towards this programme? 
d. What is the method of repaymen t 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 ea ch case the rate of interest under the 
programme is greater than the commerc ially available rate of interest? 
                                               
2 http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/article/167897/turkey-helps-out-exporters . G/AG/W/151 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Price Loss Coverage programme (PLC) 
 
f. Under the PLC, farmers will be given dire ct payments if the national average 
price of their crop falls below the statut orily defined "referen ce 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 a nnual basis, could the United States 
confirm that PLC payments will be treate d 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 pr ogramme. Considering that individual 
prices are statutorily set for each covere d crop, could the United States confirm 
that payments made under the PLC pr ogramme will be notified as product-
specific support under Amber Box? 
h. Considering that the reference price for ea ch covered crop is set at a level well 
above the extant average farm prices in the United States 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 consis tent with the reform process provided 
for in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
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 ar ea exceed 14% of normal levels (as 
determined by the Corporation". However, that WTO Agreement on Agriculture 
(Annex 2, Para 7(a) provides that: "e ligibility for such payments shall be 
determined by an income loss, taking into account only income derived from 
agriculture, which exceeds 30% of aver age 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 period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry.") 
(emphasis added). In light of this coul d 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 "W TO circuit breaker provision" that, in 
the unlikely scenario that payments are expected to exceed commitment levels, 
gives the secretary of agriculture the au thority to ensure the United States 
does not exceed those commitments. Section 1601 (d)(1) states that: "If the Secretary determines that expenditures und er this title that are subject to the 
total allowable domestic support levels under the Uruguay Round Agreements 
(as defined in section 2 of the Urug uay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
3501)) will exceed such allowable levels for any applicable reporting period, 
the Secretary shall, to the maximum exte nt practicable, make adjustments in 
the amount of such expenditures during  t h a t  p e r i o d  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  s u c h  
expenditures do not exceed the a llowable levels" (emphasis added).  
Should there be significant world market price falls for certain agricultural 
commodities, given the highly price-contin gent model of the Agriculture Act of 
2014, the United States could potentially be at risk of exceeding its allowable G/AG/W/151 
 
- 26 - 
 
  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 
expenditures. Could the United States cl arify what conditions could limit the 
Secretary to only making adjustment to  "to the maximum extent practicable" 
given that exceeding such allowable leve ls of domestic support would place the 
United States in violation of its obligations to the WTO? 
Answer by the United States of America 
 
a. Most U.S. farm programmes are based on historical acreage and are not tied to current 
production or acreage. Therefore, the level of the payment relates in part to the size of a 
farm's base (historical) acreage, not the current size of the farm." Additionally, we note 
that the 2014 Farm Bill expands payment limi tation provisions from previous farm 
legislation, including limitations on the average adjusted gross income (AGI) as a 
condition of payment eligibility and a new provision for payment eligibility based on 
whether a person or legal entity is "activity engaged in farming".  
b. The United States is a diverse nation, and the size of the agricultural economy varies 
across states. As a result, farm programme participation varies across states as well.  
c. and e. The United States plans to revert to the questions on the GSM-102 programme 
during the June meeting of the Committee on  Agriculture when the Export Competition 
Questionnaire is on the agenda and all countries focus on Export Competition.  
f. The Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programme does not allow for annual reallocation of 
historical base, nor for annual updating of historical yield. Owners of historical base were provided a one-time only option under the 2014 Farm Act to update yields to a more 
recent fixed historical period (2009-2012) and a one-time only option to reallocate base 
to reflect commodity mix from a more recent fixed historical period (2009-2012). No new base could be added—the reallocation was allowed only within an owner's already 
existing total historical base.  
g. The United States has not made any official determination of WTO classification of any 
programmes established in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will notify the classification of these programmes as part of its official domestic support notification.  
h. Like the CCP programme, the PLC programme does not require production of a particular 
commodity and so producers cannot affect their payments by altering their production decisions, unlike fully coupled payments (e.g., market price support, output payments, 
etc.), under which producers can increase their payments by increasing their production. 
The United States has made a number of reforms to its domestic support measures since the Uruguay Round, including replacing the CCP with the PLC, but remains in compliance 
with our international trade obligations.  
i. The United States has not made any official determination of WTO classification of any 
programmes established in the 2014 Farm Bill. The United States will notify the classification of these programmes as part of its official domestic support notification.  
j. The United States takes its WTO obligations seriously and does not foresee any likely 
scenario where the United States would breach its domestic support commitments.  
1.25  U.S. soybean programmes  
1.25.1  Question by Brazil (AG-IMS ID 79095) 
a. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, could the Unit ed States provide the total amount of 
disbursements for soybean producers und er each of the following programmes 
and/or buy-up options: Marketing Loans (ML), Crop Insurance (CIP), 
Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC), Pr ice Loss Coverage (PLC) and Supplemental G/AG/W/151 
 
- 27 - 
 
  C o v e r a g e  O p t i o n  ( S C O ) ?  I f  c o m p l e t e  d a t a  f o r  F Y  2 0 1 5  i s  n o t  s t i l l  a v a i l a b l e ,  
Brazil would appreciate to receive the most up-to-date information. 
b. For FY 2015, could the United States provide the total amount of premium 
subsidies for soybean production disb ursed under each of the following 
programmes or buy-up options: CIP, ARC,  PLC, and SCO? If complete data for 
FY 2015 is not still available, Brazil would appreciate to receive the most up to-
date information. 
c. For FY 2015, could the United States provide information on the coverage of 
each of the following programmes and/or  buy-up options: CIP, ARC, PLC, and 
SCO, in terms of both soybean produc ers and soybean planted acreage? If 
complete data for FY 2015 is not still av ailable, Brazil would appreciate to 
receive the most up-to-date information. 
d. For FY 2016, could the United States provide information on the projected 
outlays under each of following programs and/or buy-up options: ML, CIP, ARC, 
PLC, and SCO? 
Answer by the United States of America 
 
The United States of America undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 Follow-up : Argentina expressed interest in this question.  
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-ra te for rice was below half the in-quota 
amount. Could China please outline the reason s for these under-fills, and the steps it will 
take to improve the fill rate for these TRQs?  Answer by China 
 
Please refer to answer to AG-IMS ID 79006 below. 
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 sinc e 2004. However, in 2014 the fill rate for 
wheat dropped to 31.2%. Canada recalls comm ents from the United States during the 
78
th meeting of the Committee on Agricultur e (AG-IMS ID 78004), that with high 
domestic prices and falling world prices, Ch ina 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 fill rate for wheat between 2013 
and 2014?  
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 admini stration for wheat addresses its food 
security concerns?  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 Please refer to answer to AG-IMS ID 79006 below. 
AG-IMS ID 79006: Question by the United States of America – Tariff quota fill 
The United States notes that there continue s 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 th e cause for chronic TRQ under-fill. To a llay 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 al locations 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-a llocations by MT; and, the percent of 
STE sector TRQ re-allocations by MT?  
d. The percent of private sector TRQ import s 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 TR Q imports under private sector 
TRQ re-allocations by MT; and, th e percent of private sector and 
STE TRQ imports under STE TRQ re-allocations by MT?  
f. Where does China publish information on the reallocation of wheat, corn, and 
rice quotas, and how soon is this information available after 1 October?  
Answer by China 
 Despite the fact that fill-rates for certain TRQ products in 2014 were lower than those in 2013, the 
fill-rates of these TRQ products increased significantly in 2015. According to its statistics, China 
imported 4.73 million tonnes of corn representing  a fill-rate of 65.7% and 3.38 million tonnes of 
rice, accounting for 63.5% of the TRQ volume. These numbers show that the change in import volumes has reflected the market conditions and TRQ administration system is well functioning. 
 
Follow-up : The European Union and Thailand registered interest on this issue. Australia, Canada, 
the United States noted that while China' response  mentioned rice and corn they were specifically 
interested in the fill rate for wheat. 
 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 61st 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 co ming into force, this has been the case 
for several TRQs including the ones for chee se 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? 
 Answer by Costa Rica 
 
The low utilization of the annual TRQs opened by Costa Rica pursuant to its commitment in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture is not due to admi nistrative procedures but to domestic market 
circumstances. Nonetheless, Costa Rica intends to amend its General Regulations on the 
Distribution and Allocation of Import Tariff Qu otas (Executive Decree No. 30.900 COMEX-MAG) in 
order to change the period for the receipt of applications to 90 days before the beginning of the G/AG/W/151 
 
- 29 - 
 
  quota utilization period (1 January of the following year). Currently, applications may be submitted 
as from the first week of December. This amendment is being made in accordance with the Bali Ministerial Decision "Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products, as defined in Article 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture" (WT/MIN(13)/39 
and WT/L/914). 
 Follow-up : Switzerland noted with interest the reforms envisaged by Costa Rica.  
 
2.1.3  Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/50) 
AG-IMS ID 79007: Question by the United States of America – Transparency issues 
The United States notes that Guatemala's no tification 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?  
 
Answer by Guatemala  
Guatemala has been working hard on its agriculture notifications and it has received support and 
training from the WTO Secretariat for that purpose.  Concerning the footnote on more attractive provisions, Guatemala notes that the tariff currently 
being applied by Guatemala grants better tariff treatment than the bound TRQ rate committed 
within the WTO.  
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 notifi cation (G/AG/N/UKR/21) could Ukraine please 
advise the reason for the continued zero f ill-rates for its raw sugar cane tariff rate 
quota?  Answer by Ukraine 
 
In 2015 the Ministry of Economic Development an d Trade of Ukraine did not get any applications 
for obtaining licences on raw cane sugar import. The reasons for importers not applying for import 
licences in 2015 could be:  
 
 The unfavourable economic situation in Ukraine – including the devaluation of national 
currency about three times in comparison with 2013 and about two times in comparison 
with 2014 resulting in deterioration of the purchasing power of the population. 
 Consumption of sugar per capita declined steadily in recent years. Imports of sugar are 
also decreasing annually. At the same time, in 2012–2015, domestic sugar production 
fully satisfied the domestic needs and create d sugar export potential. In this regard, 
during 2012–2015 Ukraine had no need for import of raw sugar from cane within the tariff quota.  
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 – Direct 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 "f armers 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.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 30 - 
 
  The FMDS operates by triggering a tax deduct ion on that part of the income that is 
deposited in farm management deposits by elig ible 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 containe d in Paragraph 7 of Annex 2. The eligibility 
criteria, for the purpose of claiming a tax deduction under the FMDS are: 
 
a. The farmer should be carrying on a prim ary 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 AUD 100,000 or less. 
b. Individual deposits under the scheme are not less than AUD 1,000 and total 
deposits not more than AUD 400,000. (It is understood that this upper ceiling has been raised vide Agricultural Comp etitiveness White Paper, 2015 published 
by the Australian Government which woul d 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 in come 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? 
 Answer by Australia 
 
As Australia has explained in the Committee on Agriculture several times, this is a scheme that in effect operates over several years, and the re lationship between benefit and loss needs to be 
considered not in a single year but over several years. It is clear from the design and operation of 
the scheme that there is a clear relationship between benefit and loss over time, consistent with 
paragraph 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
India's question is based on the premise that ther e is no relationship between the benefit that a 
farmer receives under the scheme and income loss. This is incorrect. After the initial deposit, one of two scenarios can occur. The first is that a subsequent loss occurs as a result of some event. 
The second is that the farmer exits the scheme without a loss having occurred, in which case the 
original tax deduction would be offset because the deposit would close and the additional funds from the deposit added to income already earned. Hence the farmer would subsequently be taxed on a higher amount of earnings than otherwise.  Under each of these scenarios, there is no 
enduring benefit to the farmer without an income loss occurring. Further, where a deposit is made 
and withdrawn within twelve months, there is no ta x benefit unless specific conditions are met as a 
consequence of natural disaster such as drought, which of course involve an income loss. 
 
Australia can provide some data which illustrates the benefit-loss relationship, drawing on statistics available to the government: 
 
 On average, farmers earn AUD 117,500 in the year they make deposits under the 
scheme. At the time they make a withdr awal they are, on average, earning 
only AUD 19,500 in that year. This is equivalent to an average income loss of 83% at the 
time they withdraw which is well above the minimum 30% reduction in income 
prescribed under paragraph 7(a) of Annex 2.  
 Further, the average tax deduction realised by each farmer only equates to AUD 15,000, 
whilst the average income loss of the deposit holder from the year of their deposit and 
the year of their withdrawal is AUD 98,000. This average payment is 15% of the average G/AG/W/151 
 
- 31 - 
 
  income loss which is much less than the 70% limit prescribed under paragraph 7(b) of 
Annex 2. 
The question also referred to changes to the op eration of the Farm Management Deposits scheme 
which were included in the Government's Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper. These 
changes are not expected to take effect until 1 July 2016. As a result, they are not relevant to the 
treatment of the scheme in existing domestic support notifications and will only affect notifications from 2016-17. 
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 pr oduction 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 clas sified under Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Could Australia, therefore, ki ndly clarify what would be Australia's 
treatment of production l osses that are less than 30%? 
 
Answer by Australia 
 In Australia, income loss as a result of drough t is typically greater than 30% of average gross 
income and is often much higher. Production loss of less than 30% would be rare, if at all, given 
the nature of the drought conditions, which are ty pically rare, severe, have a prolonged impact on 
income. Under such drought conditions, which often occur across multiple years, there is no opportunity to produce since there is simply no rain and no soil moisture to produce crops or 
pasture. The nature of dryland agriculture in Australia is particularly susceptible in this regard. In 
most such cases, there is little or no production at all – which is to say, there is a 100% production loss. 
 
2.2.2  Botswana (G/AG/N/BWA/23) 
AG-IMS ID 79039: Question by 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 Infrastructu re Development (LIMID) and Integrated 
Support Programme for Arable Development (I SPAAD)" only benefit low-income farmers 
and not the country's important commercial producers? 
 Answer by Botswana 
 
In Botswana, clearly established criteria are used to identify low-income farmers.  In order for one to benefit from the Livestock Management and Infrastructure Development 
(LIMID) and the Integrated Support Programme for Arable Development (ISPAAD), a resource-
poor farmer must have four cattle or less, 20 goats or less, a 5-hectare field or less, produce 150 kg per hectare or less, earn P 150.00 per month or less (about USD 15 per month) and use 
draught power to plough.  
 Therefore, there is a clear distinction between lo w-income farmers and commercial farmers. As a 
result, the probability of commercial producers benefiting under these programmes is minimal, if 
not zero. In addition, as the population of Botswa na is very small (approximately 2.2 million), all 
low-income farmers are well-known to Extension Workers.  
Follow-up : The United States indicated that it might pose questions in future meetings regarding 
whether there was a percentage of producers that did not fit the definition of low-income farmers.  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.2.3  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/40) 
AG-IMS ID 79054: Question by Australia – Transparency 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? 
 Answer by Brazil 
 
It was mainly due to increases in the SELIC interest rate (reference rate by the Central Bank in the context of fighting inflationary pressures).  
AG-IMS ID 79038: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
a. Can Brazil confirm that no programme of the Brazilian States has been included 
(Rural Development, technica l assistance or otherwise)? 
b. Does Brazil intend to include these pr ogrammes later in the notification? 
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. Yes, the Federal Government transfers consti tute almost 100% of expenditures at the 
State's level. State level numbers are considered negligible.  
b. No, Brazil does not intend to include these programs in the notification.  
AG-IMS ID 79053: Question by Australia – Public 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 stoc kholding 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 go vernment 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 releva nt, can Brazil confirm that food for 
public stockholding purposes are procur ed at current market prices, and not 
administered prices, in accordance with  Annex 2, paragraph 3 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
The expenditure under public stockholding for food security purposes varies over the years due to 
available budget and the selection of the communities benefited by the programme. Based on the budget availability, the Federal Government defines the quantity of products to be acquired under 
the programme. The prices of the products are calculated according to the methodology defined in 
Resolutions SESAN/MDS Nrs. 39/2010 and 59/2013, which varies according to the product type and can be based on: the state average price receiv ed by producers (grains); the average prices in 
the wholesale market (horticulture); the average pr ices prevailing in the wholesale market place 
or, in their absence, the regional wholesale mark et (for processed products). When data is not 
available, prices are defined through documented re search on prices paid to farmers by three local 
retailers. Thus, acquisition prices under the programme are not administered. Furthermore, 
products are directed to selected communities, not sold.  
AG-IMS ID 79069: Question by Canada – Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
Canada notes that the monetary value of its measures under "funds for agricultural 
investments" has increased from USD 89 2.8 million in 2012/2013 to USD 1.6 billion 
in 2013/2014 and that the Investment Enhancement Program (PRI) has been added to G/AG/W/151 
 
- 33 - 
 
  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?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. No. Brazil thanks Canada for pointing it out. PRI was already in place in the 
2012/2013 notification, although Brazil failed  to include it to the footnote list. The 
subsidy granted by the programme decreased from 2013 to 2014 (from USD 38.7 million to USD 7.13 million). The overall increase can be mainly attributed to the increase in the 
SELIC interest rate (reference rate by the Central Bank in the context of fighting 
inflationary pressures). 
b. The Investment Enhancement Program (PRI) is available to any farmer and the loans 
can be used to finance any capital good related to farm production.  
AG-IMS ID 79036: Question by 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-
14, 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? 
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. According to Central Bank Reports, the aver age interest rates for Legal Entities were 
21.4% in 2013 and 24.2% in 2014. The average SELIC interest rates were 8.2% in 2013 
and 10.9% in 2014.  
b. When a credit is renegotiated or a debt is rescheduled, a new credit operation is 
registered at the Central Bank system. Th erefore, the numbers are included in the 
calculation of the implicit subsidy.  
AG-IMS ID 79037: Question by European Union – Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Regarding Supporting Table DS:5:  
 
a. Can Brazil indicate the total production of the products mentioned (coffee, 
edible beans, maize and wheat) and wh ether this information is publicly 
available?  
b. Why the amount notified is not based on total production volume?  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. The numbers for 2014 are: coffee 2,804,070 MT; edible beans 3,294,586 MT; maize 
79,877,714 MT; and wheat 6,261,895 MT. Information is publicly available at the 
IBGE website: 
http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/ bda/agric/default.asp?t=2 &z=t&o=11&u1=1&u2=1&u3=1
&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1 .  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 34 - 
 
  b. The amount notified is the quantity that actually benefited.  
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 were 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?   
Answer by Brazil 
 Under PEPRO, the government supported 794,83 7 tonnes of wheat in 2013/2014. There is no 
available data for quantities of products shipped to specific destinations under the programme.  
 
Follow-up : The United States expressed interest in these programmes, noting that it had posed 
questions on PEP and PEPRO over the years. The Unit ed States noted its particular interest in the 
response on eligible production. Canada expressed similar interest . 
 2.2.4  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 79009: Question by th e United States of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States appreciates China's re sponses 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 secu rity, 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 indi cated that total payments only compensated 
for a small part of farmers' losses.   
b. Please provide an indication of the leve l of compensation provided to farmers 
compared to losses of income.  
c. Please provide a list of the indivi dual programmes included under this 
subheading.  
Answer by China 
 
a. According to the Chinese experts on subsidy policies, the temporary stockholding policy 
was introduced at a defined time in a defined region, and was subject to quantitative limit so as to adjust the relationship be tween demand and supply, while fulfilling the 
need for stockholding. Since the prices of procurement in 2009 and 2010 were not 
higher than the prevailing market price, the policy should not be taken as market price 
support. Take corn as an example. In 2009, the procurement price for corn was CNY 1.50 per kilogram, while the market price was CNY 1.56 per kilogram. In 2010, the 
procurement price was CNY 1.86 per kilogram, and the market price was around 
CNY 1.95 per kilogram.  
b. The agricultural production insurance mainly covers risks of natural disasters and 
epidemic diseases. Currently, the indemnity payments only cover the cost of material 
inputs. For grain, the indemnity payments cover 84% of the cost of material inputs on average, which account for 33% of the total cost.  
c. The technical supporting team have checked the programmes included in this 
subheading. The preliminary finding is that several programmes have been included 
under the subheading of direct payments for relief from natural disasters, some of which G/AG/W/151 
 
- 35 - 
 
  might be irrelevant with agriculture and shou ld be deleted, such as the assistance to 
living cost of the people suffering from natural disasters, fire prevention in the forest region, flood prevention and drought prev ention. Two programmes seem qualified for 
this subheading: assistance to farmers suffering from natural disasters, and subsidy to 
agricultural production insurance. An update d reply will be provided when the technical 
work is completed. 
AG-IMS ID 79055: Question by Australia – Public 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 pub lic 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, vegetable oils and sugar are 
procured and distributed? 
b. What is the price that these products ar e 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?  
Answer by China 
 
Experts are still working on this question. The reply will be provided later. 
AG-IMS ID 79079: Question by 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 repe ated 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, therefor e 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? 
Answer by China 
 Experts are still working on this question. Reply will be provided later.  
AG-IMS ID 79080: Question by 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 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 77053.  Amounts notified under domestic food aid vary annually during the notified 
years 2005-2010. There is a substantial vari ation between 2009 and 2010 in particular 
in the current notification. Could China ex plain why the amount notified for 2010 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 36 - 
 
  decreased so substantially compared to the pr evious years? Is this related to a policy 
change?  Answer by China 
 
Experts are checking the programmes notified under this subheading so as to find out the reason 
for the change in payments. Preliminary examination shows that the methodology applied for the 
subsidy programmes notified under this subheading needs to be corrected. This is similar to the 
situation of the notification of direct payments (please refer to the answer to AG-IMS ID 79012).  
AG-IMS ID 79081: Question by 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 th e amount notified under decoupled income 
support compared to the previous notifica tion G/AG/N/CHN/21. Could China explain 
why this spending is decreasing? Is  this related to a policy change? 
 
Answer by China 
 The technical support team is working on this ques tion and the answer will be provided once the 
work is completed. 
AG-IMS ID 79011: Question by United States of America – Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters 
Regarding AG-IMS ID 78064, China's "payment s for relief from natural disasters" have 
increased substantially since 2005, reachi ng CNY 583.84 hundred million in 2010. Per 
paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture "….payments shall arise 
only following a formal recognition by gove rnment authorities that a natural or like 
disaster has occurred".  
 
a. Please provide a list of all relevant form al 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 sp ecific 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? 
Answer by China 
 
Please refer to answer to AG-IMS ID 79012. 
AG-IMS ID 79056: Question by Australia – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Can China please inform Members as to th e types of programmes that receive funding 
for environmental programmes (under Other General Services) and who are the 
recipients? How are environmental programm es allocated across geographic areas? 
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 Please refer to answer to AG-IMS ID 79012. Further clarification will be provided once the technical 
support team finishes its work.  
AG-IMS ID 79012: Question by United States of America – Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 78065. The United Stat es notes that China's notification of 
environment programme expenditures has incr eased 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 
fulfilment of specific criteria, a requirem ent outlined in paragraph 12 (a) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Further, China st ated that all the support at the time was 
used solely for compensation to the farming households affected by the afforestation 
and reforestation programme.  
 
a. Is this notification still accurate in th at 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 compensati ng farmers for with regards to 
afforestation and reforestation?  
c. If China is still unable to provide the spec ific criteria, on what basis is China 
able to notify this prog ram under paragraph 12?  
Answer by China 
 
Since the budgetary expenditure planning system has been in place for decades, it does not directly reflect the rules of the Agreement on Ag riculture, nor notification requirements to be 
specific. In preparing Supporting Table DS:1. Chin ese experts have to identify the heading or 
subheading that each subsidy programme in the budgetary expenditure report belongs to, and then add up the expenditures of all the items under  the same subheading so as to have the total 
amount of subsidy for each subheading.  
 
Experts studied the questions raised by Australia,  the European Union and the United States very 
carefully, and found that some programmes notified under these subheadings included certain 
programmes that were not accurately categorized;  some were even not payments for agriculture 
covered by the Agreement on Agriculture.   
Take the direct payment under environment programmes for example: 22 programmes were 
notified under this subheading, including: four programmes related to protection of natural forests, namely, management and protection of forest, social insurance assistance, construction of protection projects for natural forests, and other expenditures under forest protection; seven 
programmes related to forestry expenditure, including cultivation of forest, management of 
forestry resources, compensation for the ecological  effects of forests (which reflects the payments 
for the cultivation, management and protection of forest for public welfare), forestry natural 
protection zone, animal and plant protection zone , wetland protection and prevention and control 
of desertization; four programmes related to water resources management and utilization, including preservation of water and soil, management and protection of water resources, 
monitoring of water quality and hydrological forecasting; three programmes under environment 
protection, including, conversion of farmland to forestry, conversion of farmland to pasture, and 
control of deserts; four programmes related to agricultural production, including preservation of production capacity of farmland, protection of pa sture and grassland, protection of resources for 
agricultural use, and management of alien species.  
 Among the 22 programmes, two programmes are considered as direct payments to farmers, 
namely, payments for conversion of farmland to forest and conversion of farmland to grassland, so 
as to compensate the loss of farmers before they are allowed to fell the trees planted. Currently, 
the criteria for the payments are: CNY 1500 per mu, or CNY 22,500 per hectare, which G/AG/W/151 
 
- 38 - 
 
  corresponds to the compensation for farmers due to the income loss caused by stopping 
agriculture production.   The payments are to be made in three instalments: the first instalment of CNY 800 will be paid in 
year 1, another CNY 300 will be paid in year 3, and the rest CNY 400 will be made in year 5. The 
payments for conversion farm land to grassland are made in similar manner, with the first instalment of CNY 600 to be paid in year 1 and the rest CNY 400 to be made in year 3.  
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 Services). This continues a trend 
from previous notifications showing signif icant increases in expenditure for these 
programmes (more than double from 2005).   
a. Can China please explain what eligibilit y requirements are needed to receive 
payments under these programmes?  
b. What types of activities receive f unding and can China explain how these 
activities are in accordance with Anne x 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by China 
 Please refer to answer to AG-IMS ID 79012. The technical supporting team is checking the 
programmes notified under this subheading, and further clarification will be provided once the 
work is completed.  
AG-IMS ID 79010: Question by United States of America – Market price support 
Given China's response to AG-IMS ID 78067, an updated notification continues to be 
warranted. Please provide an estimated submi ssion date for the updated notification?  
 
Answer by China 
 Experts are checking the relevant data in order to find out technical solutions to this question. An updated notification will be provided once the work is completed.  
AG-IMS ID 79013: Question by 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 requ ests that China revise its notification to 
reflect this. 
 
Answer by China  China's experts pointed out that regarding the "quantity eligible for administered price", if the total 
production of the targeted region were used, the result would be exaggerated. There are two 
reasons: 
i. Most of the grain is produced by small-scale farmers in China. Part of the production 
is kept by farmers for their own consumptio n, and the rest is sold as commodities.  
ii.  Quality requirements have been set for the grains to be procured. Only wheat and 
rice satisfying certain standards can be accepted, and thus, not all production is 
eligible for the administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 79059: Question by Australia – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
In Supporting Table DS:7 (G /AG/N/CHN/28) 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 ra tionale for subsidising this "reserve cost"?  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 39 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 The reserve cost resulted from the cost of interest  paid by the procuring entity, the China National 
Cotton Reserves Corporation, to the Agriculture Development Bank for the loans to pay for the 
procurement of cotton for reserve. 
AG-IMS ID 79082: Question by 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 77
th 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? 
 
Answer by China  Based on the reply to AG-IMS ID 79059, the product-specific AMS for cotton includes expenditure 
on interest costs of the cotton reserve, which is determined by the amount of reserve. In 2010 the 
cotton price in the international market was high er than 2009, and there was less reserve in 2010, 
leading to less expenditure on interest cost subsidies. That's the reason for the decrease of the 
product-specific AMS.  
A G - I M S  I D  7 9 0 1 4 :  Q u e s t i o n  b y  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  o f  A m e r i c a  – Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, 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 
s u p p o r t  i n  t h e  A M S  i s  t o  a c c o u n t  f o r  " s p e c i f i c  a g r i c u l t u r a l  l e v i e s  o r  f e e s  p a i d  b y  producers" per Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
a. Please state the intended objective of China'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 ru les 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 produc t-specific programs notified in the 
footnotes with their respecti ve outlays by commodity.  
Answer by China 
 Since China's accession to the WTO, its technical support team used the same methodology to calculate product specific AMS as applied in the DS notification for the base period, i.e., from 1996 
to 1998. The notifications on market price su pport for years from 2002 to 2008 had not been 
challenged, which made the technical support team  believe that the methodology was appropriate. 
Now they are studying this issue and will come out with their comment later.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 40 - 
 
  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 th e associated individual 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 th e recipients of such loans? 
Answer by China 
 
a. Subsidies to means of production are mainly the expenditure under the comprehensive 
subsidy for agricultural inputs, which was paid to compensate for additional cost caused 
by increasing international energy price, particularly the oil price.  
However, the subsidy was not paid based on each type of input, but instead in a 
comprehensive manner. The Ministry of Finance calculated the increase of cost based on the price index of the inputs concerned at na tional level to determine the payment rates 
and this was further multiplied with the area of the farmer's land or farm household 
concerned.  
The payment will be made directly to farmer s, and farmers are allowed to buy whatever 
they like, even products for daily use. Theref ore, this is a type of income support and 
there is no disaggregated statistics regarding each type of specific product.  
b.  
i. Interest subsidies were mainly used on the interest of the loans for approved 
Comprehensive Development programmes. Projects on interest rate which satisfy the requirement for such payments can apply for this subsidy.  
ii. The interest rates were determined based on the benchmark interest of the same 
time period at the same level of  the People's Bank of China. 
iii. The recipients of the loans are the farmers or entities participating in the 
comprehensive development projects. The lo ans are provided by the domestic banks 
concerned. 
AG-IMS ID 79083: Question by European 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 77
th 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 dist ributors 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? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. Is the aid given as tax rebates (for instan ce in the horticultural sector) included 
in this table? 
Answer by China 
 
a. There is no such requirement regarding the use of at least 50% of the materials 
produced in China. The only requirement for receiving the subsidy is that agricultural machines should have passed the accreditation. The aim of the accreditation is to 
guarantee the safety, reliability and applicability.  
b. The rebate was made based on the actual payment for VAT. China believes that this is in 
conformity with the practices applied internat ionally, and does not constitute a subsidy. 
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 throug h Investment Aids. Could the European 
Union please explain what progra mmes were involved, including the 
expenditure for each programme, for the following two activities: 
i. the restructuring of the sugar industry, and  
ii. the national restructuring prog rammes for the cotton sector. 
b. Can the European Union explain why these programmes are exempt from 
reduction commitments and how they are consistent with Annex 2 of the 
Agreement of Agriculture? 
Answer by the European Union 
 
a. During the 2012/13 marketing year no amount was paid out from the sugar 
restructuring fund; in fact the last paym ent was made during 2011/12 marketing year. 
The European Union will ensure the referenc e is deleted in future notifications.  
b. For cotton restructuring, this measure was introduced as a temporary instrument, which 
has been applied in Greece and Spain, covering for instance full and permanent dismantling of the ginning facilities or investments related to certain specific quality 
schemes linked to restructuring. For Greec e 2012/13 was the last marketing year, and 
for Spain the last year will be budget year 2017. In 2012/13 a total amount of EUR 10 million was paid.  
AG-IMS ID 79061: Question by Australia – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
The European 2012/13 notification (G/AG/N/EU /26) identified in the Supporting Table 
DS:1 a number of generic activities under Environmental Programmes. Can the European 
Union please explain what activities prod ucers 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 preservation of the countryside; and 
b. conservation and improvement of rural heritage. G/AG/W/151 
 
- 42 - 
 
  Answer by the European Union 
 
a. This concerns primarily "agri-environmental" payments under Rural Development 
programmes. These measures only cove r commitments going beyond relevant 
mandatory standards as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection 
product use and other relevant mandatory requirements. The commitments are to be undertaken for a period of five to seven years, and the payments shall be annual and 
only cover additional costs or income foregone resulting from the commitments made. 
For the 2012-13 marketing year a total amount of EUR 3.3 billion was paid from the 
European budget and a similar amount as co-financing from member States.  
For more information please see:  
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/a pp_templates/enrd_assets/pdf/measure-
information-sheets/C_Infosheet_214.pdf .  
b. This measure covers the drawing-up of protection and management plans relating to 
Natura 2000 sites and other places of high natural value, environmental awareness 
actions and investments associated with maintenance, restoration and upgrading of the natural heritage and with the development of high natural value sites. It also relates to 
studies and investments associated with maintenance, restoration and upgrading of 
cultural heritage such as the cultural features of villages and the rural landscape. 
In total an amount of EUR 183 million was pa id from the European budget and a similar 
amount as co-financing from member States budget.  
For more information please see:  
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/a pp_templates/enrd_assets/pdf/measure-
information-sheets/C_Infosheet_323.pdf .  
 
2.2.6  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 79015: Question by 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 origin al data source [for establishing India's 
FERP] is as indicated in India's AGST docume nt. 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 tr ade statistics, the United States have not 
been able to confirm India's FERP calculat ion of USD 240 per metric tonne for wheat. 
The U.S. calculations show that wheat pric es 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?  
 
Answer by India  The AGST is a document approved following due process after conclusion of the Uruguay Round. 
All its calculations before approval were open for comments. At this stage it is not desirable to 
have a Member raise concerns on the calculations in AGST.  
2.2.7  Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/5) 
AG-IMS ID 79071: Question by Canada – General 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 subsidisin g the cost of operations?  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 43 - 
 
  Answer by Mauritius 
 
 The Field Operation Regrouping Irrigation Project (FORIP) is a general service provided 
to planters across the island for land preparation. FORIP also emphasize regrouping of 
small planters to enhance their productivity. Irrigation services are geared towards 
providing irrigation facilities in specific zones and advise on specific irrigation projects. These supports are general services fallin g mainly under infrastructural services. 
 Please also note that the total value of Agricultural Production amounts to 
Rs. 10,308,000,000 and the total AMS (including the FORIP Programme and Irrigation Services) stands at Rs. 649,900,000 which means that the subsidy provided falls within the de minimis of 10%. 
2.2.8  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/28) 
AG-IMS ID 79073: Question by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Canada notes that under "structural ad justment assistance provided through 
investment aids" and "payments under  regional assistance programmes", 
Mexico indicates that the Countryside Alliance Programme (l ast 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 Acquisitio n 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 (PRO MAF). Could Mexico elaborate as to 
what structural adjustments are bein g addressed by each and how these 
measures meet the relevant criter ia 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 associa ted DS:2 notification for these new 
measures?  
Answer by Mexico 
 
a.  
i. The Countryside Alliance Programme was operational from 1996 to 2007. In 2008, it 
was replaced by the Programme for the Acquisition of Productive Assets (PAAP), which sought, like the Countryside Alliance Programme, to increase the strategic 
capital goods of rural and fishing communities through complementary support for 
investment in rural economic regions and units for the implementation of activities relating to primary production, health an d safety, value-added processes and market 
access, and production in the rural sector as a whole, in accordance with the 
2008 Rules on the Operation of SAGARPA Programmes (2008 SAGARPA Rules). In 
order to meet the objectives of the PAAP , the SAGARPA Rules established that "the 
Secretariat shall continue with the operating strategy of the Countryside Alliance 
Programme", which meant that the PAAP was implemented using virtually the same 
procedures as those of the Countryside Alliance Programme. Annex A of the 2008 SAGARPA Rules contains a table of equivalences of the programmes and 
components in operation until 2007 versus 2008, which shows that under the new 
programme structure for 2008, the PAAP was divided into four main components: 
1. an agricultural component, which included the Countryside Alliance agricultural 
programmes; G/AG/W/151 
 
- 44 - 
 
  2. a livestock component, which comprised the former Countryside Alliance 
livestock programme; 
3. a rural development component, which incorporated the Countryside Alliance 
rural development programmes; and 
4. a fishing component, which is not included in the notifications to the WTO.  
The PAAP meets the criteria set out in pa ragraph 11 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture, for the following reasons: 
1. Since support is provided for cases in which a structural disadvantage can be 
objectively demonstrated, most of the su pport under the PAAP (at least 75% of 
its total budget) was granted as a priority to producers in the following categories:  
 Producers located in areas with high and very high levels of marginalization, 
in accordance with the criteria established by the National Population Council (CONAPO). Areas are identified on the basis of an index containing 
information on the level of education of the population, access to basic 
services such as drainage, electricity and piped water, size of the area and level of income, as indicated in the CONAPO Methodology
3 for Estimating the 
Marginalization Index by Area.  
 Producers with a low level of or zero productive assets. SAGARPA establishes 
that this category includes the following:  
 Owners of up to 20 ha of rain-fed land or 5 ha of irrigated land, or up to 
800 metres squared of protected agriculture.  
 Livestock producers who own up to 15 head of cattle or their equivalent in 
other livestock. 
 Individuals belonging to categories with social and structural 
disadvantages, such as women, young persons, indigenous persons, persons with disabilities, and older adults. 
 Groups of producers comprising persons with social and structural 
disadvantages, provided that their annual sales per member do not exceed two times the minimum annual salary in force in the Federal District (currently, this limit is equivalent to MEX$ 53,320 or 
approximately USD 3,000 per year). 
2. To receive support under the PAAP, it was not necessary to produce any 
particular crop or any minimum quantity. Furthermore, the payments were 
decoupled from the quantities produced. 
3. Payments were not linked to the domestic or international prices of any crops or 
products.  
4. The support involved single payments, therefore meeting the requirement that 
payments be given only for the period of time necessary for the realization of the investment in respect of which they are provided. It should be noted that the producers who were granted support were not eligible to receive it again for the 
following two years. 
5. It was not mandatory to produce any particular agricultural product in order to 
receive the support. 
6. Payments covered only part of the invest ment amount requested. In the extreme 
case of producers who lived in areas with high and very high levels of marginalization and who also belonged to a social group with structural 
                                               
3 The details of this methodology will be circulated as an addendum to this document (in Spanish only). 
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 45 - 
 
  disadvantages (indigenous persons, women, persons with disabilities), the 
support provided could cover up to 90% of the investment, provided that the importance of the project was justified. In other cases, the percentage covered varied between 10% and 70%.  
The PAAP was operational in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2011, its name was changed 
to the Support for Investment in Equipment and Infrastructure Programme, which has the same objectives and operational mechanism as the PAAP, and the same 
focus on providing support for producers li ving in areas with high or very high 
marginalization. 
ii. The measures listed for the reporting period 2010 are components of the PAAP. 
Therefore, its objectives and operational mechanism are subject to the same 
principles and considerations mentioned in the response contained in the paragraph 
above. For administrative and programme supervision purposes, each general programme (such as the PAAP) is divided into several sub-programmes and 
components, which are implemented by different units (SAGARPA general 
directorates). For example, the General Directorate for the Promotion of Agriculture is responsible for implementing the agricu ltural component of the PAAP, while the 
General Coordinating Agency for Livestock is responsible for the livestock 
component. The advantage of this system is that, as specialized teams are responsible for the different elements of a programme, it is easier to identify which applications for support will create the most positive impact, thus optimizing the use 
of resources. In general, however, all of the components and sub-programmes are 
subject to the same rules as the general programme.  
b. Work is already underway to prepare these notifications, which will be submitted to the 
Committee on Agriculture as soon as possible. 
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 pr ovided 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 includ ing a description of the clearly-defined 
government environmental or conservation programme?  
 Answer by Mexico 
 
The Strategic Project for the Construction of Small-Scale Hydraulic Works was part of the comprehensive strategy for the conservation of natural resources, specifically soil and water, 
implemented by SAGARPA through the Programme for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 
for Primary Production, which established specific and clearly defined criteria and conditions for participation in the Programme and for the type of works permitted.   
For the Strategic Project for the Construction of Small-Scale Hydraulic Works, the specific works 
authorized were: man-made watering holes; ma sonry or concrete dams; spring boxes; water 
storage ponds; water storage tanks; loose stone, log and brushwood check-dams; drinking 
troughs; and water-conveyance channels. 
AG-IMS ID 79075: Question by Canada – Direct 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 under regional assistance programmes". 
 
a. Could Mexico please indicate whic h 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 agricultur al production in the prescribed area?  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 46 - 
 
  Answer by Mexico 
 
a. The regions in which the Strategic Food Security Project (PESA) is implemented are 
classified by CONAPO as areas of high or very high marginalization. The criteria used to 
determine whether a region is an area with high or very high marginalization are 
contained in the CONAPO methodology paper4 a s  p a r t  o f  t h e  a n s w e r  t o  q u e s t i o n  
AG-IMS 79073.  
b. The Operating Rules of the PESA ensure that  payments are limited to the extra costs 
arising from implementation of the project, which in no case should exceed 90% of the 
total cost of the project, with a cap of MEX$ 100,000 (approximately USD 5,500) per project and per beneficiary household. 
AG-IMS ID 79076: Question by Canada – Investment subsidies generally 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, pl ease 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 fo r Rural Microfinance (PATMIR); 
 Shared Risk Trust (FIRCO); 
 Agricultural and Fertilizer Pr ice Risk Management Fund; 
 National Guarantee Fund for the Ag ricultural, 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 item s 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; 
 Guarantee and Development Fund fo r Agriculture and Livestock and 
Poultry Farming for the reporting periods 2009 to 2012; 
                                               
4 The details of this methodology will be circulated as an addendum to this document (in Spanish only). G/AG/W/151 
 
- 47 - 
 
   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 initia tives? Would Mexico pl ease advise when it 
expects to provide an associated DS:2 noti fication providing the necessary details 
regarding these programmes? Are th ese 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 producers" 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 additi onal 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?  
Answer by Mexico 
 
a.  
i. The Support Programme for Access to the Rural Financial System (PAASFIR) was in 
operation for the last time in 2007. In 2008, it was replaced by the Programme for 
the Promotion and Development of Financing for the Rural Sector (PIDEFIMER). However, both programmes focus on providing support to promote two areas of 
strategic importance for the development of the rural financing system in Mexico: 
the establishment of liquid guarantees and the creation and strengthening of rural financial intermediaries. It is therefore simply the name of the programme that has changed. This can be seen more clearly in the following table: 
Policy Instrument Components of the PAASFIR Equivalent components of the 
PIDEFIMER 
Establishment of liquid 
guarantees (collateral) Support for the esta blishment of liquid 
guarantees Support for inst ruments for the 
promotion and development of financing 
 Support for producers participating in 
state funds for liquid solidarity 
guarantees   
Creation and consolidation of 
Rural Financial Intermediaries Establishment of rural financial 
intermediaries Support for financial intermediaries 
 
ii. The Programme for the Promotion and Development of Financing for the Rural 
Sector (PIDEFIMER) was implemented in 2008, and continued to be operational in 
2009 and 2010, but was phased out, together with its sub-programmes, in 2011.  
The 2011 SAGARPA Operating Rules contain no general support programmes for 
rural financing. However, the Risk Prevention and Management Programme included 
one of the components which, in previous years, had been part of the 
PIDEFIMER (Guarantees), in addition to a new component entitled "Fund for Encouraging Investment in Areas with Medium, High and Very High Levels of 
Marginalization" (FOINI).  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 48 - 
 
  The FOINI also provides support for the establishment of liquid guarantees, but 
d i f f e r s  i n  t h a t  i t  f o c u s e s  o n  a r e a s  w i t h  m e d i u m ,  h i g h  a n d  v e r y  h i g h  l e v e l s  o f  marginalization.  
The 2011 notification provided information on the support granted under the two 
components of the Risk Prevention and Management Programme, i.e. Guarantees 
and the FOINI, which amounted to  a total of 1991 MEX$ 207.8 million. 
iii. The Rural Financing programmes are new initiatives, for which the expenditure has 
been listed in the Mexican Federal Public Treasury accounts since 2009. The 
DS:2 notification will be submitted to the WTO Committee on Agriculture as soon as possible.  
The Guarantee and Development Fund for Agriculture and Livestock and Poultry 
Farming is a long-running programme that could not be recorded in the Mexican 
Federal Public Treasury accounts until 2009.  
The Fund for Encouraging Investment in Areas with Medium, High and Very High 
Levels of Marginalization (FOINI) appeared for the first time in 2011. The 
DS:2 notification will be submitted to the WTO Committee on Agriculture as soon as possible.  
The Technical Assistance Programme for Rural Microfinance (PATMIR) was already 
notified in 2010 as one of the components of the PIDEFIMER (in the same year, 1991 MEX$ 13.3 million were notified for the PATMIR).  
In that same year, it was agreed that responsibility for implementation of the 
PATMIR would be transferred from SAGARPA to the National Savings and Financial 
Services Bank (BANSEFI), and therefore the amount notified for the PATMIR in 
2011 (1991 MEX$ 23.6 million) was disbursed by BANSEFI instead of SAGARPA. 
The DS:2 notifications of these programmes will be submitted to the WTO Committee 
on Agriculture as soon as possible. It should be noted that all of these programmes are still operational, with the exception of the FOINI, which ended in 2014. 
b.  
i. The Support Programme for Agricultural Insurance Funds is managed by 
AGROASEMEX and provides payments to cover a variable percentage of the operating costs of integrative insurance funds and bodies (in general, associations 
comprising various funds). The aim of the support is to increase coverage for and 
incorporation of new segments of producers in agricultural insurance. The support will cover only the following items:  
(a) salaries, wages and fees of technical and administrative staff hired by the Fund, 
including transportation, food and accommodation costs for travel that is related exclusively to their operat ional functions (expenses for meetings, assemblies and 
sessions or any other activities not relating to the performance of such functions 
are therefore excluded);  
(b) electricity, water, telephony, Internet, messenger services, rental and 
maintenance of premises, maintenance of vehicles owned by the Fund, 
stationery, office supplies and consumables, and financial expenditure required 
for the operation of the Fund; and  
(c) the fees of the independent public accountant who produces the financial 
statements of the Fund.  
 
As can be observed, the Support for Agricu ltural Insurance Funds is not a direct 
subsidy for the premiums paid by agricultural producers. However, by reducing the 
funds' operating expenses (particularly thos e of the smallest funds, as the lower the 
operating expenditure, the higher the percentage of the subsidy granted), it G/AG/W/151 
 
- 49 - 
 
  increases the availability of insurance for producers, which has a positive impact on 
their access to this service. 
ii. The Agricultural Insurance Premium Subsidy is allocated as followed: 
For agricultural insurance:  
1) Producers in the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Quintana 
Roo, Tabasco, Veracruz and Yucatán receive a 60% subsidy;  
2) Producers in the states of Aguascalientes, Distrito Federal, Guanajuato, 
Hidalgo, México, Michoacán, Morelos, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, 
Tlaxcala and Zacatecas receive a 45% subsidy;  
3) Producers in the states of Chihuahua, Colima, Coahuila, Durango, Jalisco, 
Nayarit, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas receive a 40% subsidy; and  
4) Producers in the states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sinaloa and 
Sonora receive a 35% subsidy. 
 
For livestock insurance:  
1) For insurance against high mortality rates, milk production loss, loss of an 
unborn animal, loss due to flooding, loss due to specific treatments, death 
caused by exotic diseases, and preventive slaughter to guard against exotic 
diseases, the subsidy is 50%.  
2) For insurance provided under promotion programmes, insurance for animal 
health campaigns, adjustment insurance provided under promotion 
programmes, insurance for livestock transportation, insurance for basic 
transit risks, insurance for shows and exhibitions, insurance for quarantine 
stations, on-site insurance, the genetic improvement insurance package, and 
adjustment insurance, up to 30% of the premium is subsidized.  
3)  For aquaculture insurance, accident insurance coverage for poultry, accident 
insurance coverage for pigs and accident insurance for apiculture, up to 
20% of the premium is subsidized. 
AG-IMS ID 79077: Question by Canada – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could Mexico please clarify what the term "P romotion of production patterns" means for 
canola? 
Answer by Mexico 
In 2009 and 2010, the productive conversion component of the Programme for the Sustainable 
Use of Natural Resources for Primary Production included the sub-component "Promotion of 
production patterns". This sub-component sought to promote a shift from traditional crops to other 
crops that were more profitable and better suited to the agro-ecological conditions of regions considered as a priority due to over-exploitation and deterioration or shortage of primary 
production resources. Eligible substitution crops included canola and other oilseeds such as soya 
and safflower.  
The support consisted of a payment of up to 30% of  the cost of the productive conversion project 
for producers with a low level of or zero produc tive assets, or up to 20% for other producers. 
AG-IMS ID 79062: Question by Australia – Non-product-specific AMS 
Mexico has lodged notifications for the years 2008-2012 (G/AG/N/MEX/28). In 
Supporting Table DS:9 for reporting period 2012 a new measure type called "Market risk 
management through rural financial interm ediaries" was introduced. Could Mexico 
please explain what this activity does, what  the eligibility requirements are, and how 
the expenditure is calculated? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 50 - 
 
  Answer by Mexico 
The measure type is a support component created in 2012, which subsidized financial option 
premiums for the purchase or sale of agricultural futures in a manner similar to the 
ASERCA Contract Farming Programme. However, the Market Risk Management through Rural 
Financial Intermediaries measure differed in that the support it provided was conditional upon the hedging scheme being implemented through a financial intermediary, at the same time as the 
financing needed for production was secured. 
Eligibility requirements  
The target population comprises natural and legal persons from the agricultural sector and their 
organizations which are involved in the production and purchase of eligible products in accordance with the following criteria and requirements:  
CRITERIA, REQUIREMENTS, SUPPORT (1 - 2) FOR PRODUCERS AND BUYERS  
a. Enrolment in the programme: 
i. Registration of the contract of sale between the producer and buyer with the financial 
intermediary. 
b. Fulfilment of the contract: 
i. Agreement by the parties that the contract has been fulfilled.  
SUPPORT (3) FOR PRODUCERS AND/OR BUYERS WITH COVERAGE  
a. Enrolment in the programme: 
i. Registration of the contract of sale between the producer and buyer with the financial 
intermediary. 
b. Fulfilment of the contract: 
i. Agreement by the parties that the contract has been fulfilled. 
c. Approval of the area: 
i. Conformity with the credit processes established by the financial intermediaries. 
d. Approval of the water irrigation system: 
i. Conformity with the credit processes established by the financial intermediaries. 
e.  Demonstration of livestock producer status, where relevant: 
i. Conformity with the credit processes established by the financial intermediaries. 
f. Demonstration of payment of the participant's percentage share of the cost of the 
futures options contract: 
i. The documentation pertaining to the purchase of the option is registered during the 
financing origination process. 
g. Market maker status: 
i. Operation as a market maker. Fulfilment of the contract shall be understood to mean 
compliance as recognized by the parties for the purpose. In cases where one of the G/AG/W/151 
 
- 51 - 
 
  parties fails to comply for reasons beyond its control, compliance will still be 
recognized and hence support will be provided only to those parties who were not responsible for said failure to comply. 
How the expenditure is calculated 
The expenditure for the Market Risk Management through Rural Financial Intermediaries 
component was determined on the basis of the estimated demand for and acceptance of the 
support by potential users. 
Follow-up : The United States expressed interest in these programmes.  
2.2.9  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/85) 
AG-IMS ID 79041: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
From information provided in Norway's answ ers to questions asked during previous 
meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, th e European Union 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? 
Answer by Norway 
There have been no new reforms with respect to administered prices since the reforms for sheep 
meat and eggs were implemented on 1 July 2013. The government is now working on a new White 
Paper on agricultural policies, which is scheduled  to be submitted to the Parliament by the end 
of 2016. As the work is still at an early stage, it is premature to indicate any possible new reforms. However, the remaining administered prices are among the issues that will be discussed during the ongoing process.  
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 prog rammes as being exempt from reduction 
commitments in accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Can Norway 
please explain what activities producers ar e required to undertake under the following 
notified programme headings and what amo unt of expenditure relates to programmes 
under each heading: 
a.  Subsidy to ecological production;  
b. National environmental programme; and 
c. Regional environmental programme, in cluding those covering valuable 
agricultural landscapes, including World Heritage Areas. 
Answer by Norway 
a. In order to be eligible to receive support to ecological production the farmers are 
required to meet the criteria with respect to production methods, input use, etc. laid 
down in national legislation. The Norwegian legislation is based on the EU legislation. 
The payments represent compensation for additional costs and loss of income due to fulfilling the requirements.  
The expenditure to programmes under this heading is NOK 104.8 million. G/AG/W/151 
 
- 52 - 
 
  b. As pointed out in the Norwegian notification (G/AG/N/NOR/55) there are criteria to be 
met under the specific payments, and ther e are the underlying requirements in the 
Environmental Plan Regulation. The quality cr iteria vary between different measures and 
the amount of payments is higher for higher quality levels because of rising cost of 
compliance.  
In order to be eligible to receive payments under this programme producers are required 
to document that the agricultural area included in the programme is managed in 
accordance with the prevailing requirements in the Regulation on production support. In 
addition, certain actions are prohibited.  
The economic measures under the environmental programmes shall cover additional 
costs linked to the participation in the programme through the maintenance of the agricultural landscape and other environmen tal requirements, and represent payments 
for the production of environmental goods. 
If the farmer fails to carry out the necessary measures in order to produce the 
environmental goods for which the payments are made, the payments in question will be 
reduced or withdrawn.  
The expenditure to programmes under this heading is NOK 3,985.3 million.  
c. In order to target the various environmental challenges throughout the country, the 
regional programme (one per county district) is established as a supplement to the 
national programme. The provisions for the regional measures are laid down in the 
national programme. Based on these provisions, each county prioritises measures to deal with local and regional environmental challenges. Each County Programme is approved (for a four-year period) by Norwegian Agricultural Authority according to the 
National Programme requirements. 
The particularly valuable agricultural landscapes, including in World Heritage Areas, are 
areas that are of particular national and international interest to preserve. One 
important aspect is to prevent loss of biological diversity. The farmers are paid for losses 
due to protection of the area, or for losses due to complying with particular management or maintenance methods specific to the area in question.  
The expenditure to programmes under these headings are: 
 Regional environmental programme NOK 657.0 million; 
 Particularly valuable agricultural landscapes NOK 11 million. 
Follow-up : The United States expressed interest in these programmes.  
2.2.10  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/72) 
AG-IMS ID 79016: Question by United States of America – Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provid ed 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 us ed by the government to improve 
livestock breeding?  
b. Are funds provided to Swiss breed a ssociations or private companies that 
supply livestock genetics? If so, please explain how these funds are used by such associations or companies.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 53 - 
 
  c. Further, please explain the relationship between breed associations that 
receive such funds and the government.  
Answer by Switzerland 
Federal contributions for the promotion of the li vestock industry (cattle, swine, sheep, goats, 
equids, rabbits, poultry, honey bees and new world camelids) are provided for in the Ordinance on Livestock Breeding, which entered into force on 1 January 2013. In 2014 contributions were 
granted to 22 breed associations for herdbook management, production testing and the 
preservation of Swiss species. Suppliers of genetic material do not receive subsidies. 
AG-IMS ID 79017: Question by 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 produc ts, 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 incr eases 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.  
Answer by Switzerland 
Switzerland refers to its response to the question by Canada at the 78
th Committee on Agriculture 
meeting (AG-IMS ID 78042). Switzerland's calculatio n of the total market price support is carried 
out in accordance with Annex 3 to the Agreement on Agriculture. Switzerland calculates the 
applied prices "as close as practicable to the point of first sale". Thus, the notified increase reflects 
market price trends as indicated by the official observations of the Federal Office for Agriculture and the price data provided by various agricultural organizations. 
Switzerland has recently implemented a new agricultural policy (AP14-17). The respective 
notifications, which will be available in the near future, reflect the new direct payment structure 
and the measures related to agricultural markets. 
Follow-up : The European Union indicated interest in these questions.  
2.2.11  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/45) 
AG-IMS ID 79065: Question by Australia – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia notes that Tunisia is a major export e r  o f  ' o t h e r  a g r i c u l t u r a l  p r o d u c t s ' .  C a n  
Tunisia please advise if any of the products  that have market price support applied to 
them are utilised in the production of other agricultural products that Tunisia exports? 
Answer by Tunisia 
Tunisia undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. G/AG/W/151 
 
- 54 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 79064: Question by Australia – Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
In Tunisia's latest domestic support notifi cation (G/AG/N/TUN/45) Tunisia has modified 
the fixed external reference price by which ma rket price support is calculated. There is 
no legal basis in the Agreement of Agriculture for modifying the fixed external reference 
price in this way. Accordingly, can Tuni sia 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. 
Answer by Tunisia 
Tunisia undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 
2.2.12  United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7, G/AG/N/ARE/8) 
AG-IMS ID 79019: Question by 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 notifi ed two values of support for each year; 
however, it is unclear from the noti fication the difference between the two 
values. Please explain what each value represents.  
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 programmes?  
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? 
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 79018: Question by 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 cond itions applying to the payments, or the 
rules governing the amount of the payment?  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 55 - 
 
  b. When will the Table DS:2 notification  for the new infrastructure support 
measure be submitted?  
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 79020: Question by United States 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 elimination of these measures 
and did the United Arab Emirates introduc e 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?  
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 
2.2.13  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 79089: Question by India – Transparency 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 th ree products during the 1986-88 period. Could 
the United States clarify the source of this data? 
Answer by the United States of America The source of the data is the U.S. Census Bureau.  
AG-IMS ID 79090: Question by India – Direct 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 progra mme Farm Service Agency Direct Payments 
under the definition of "covered commodity " in Section 1001 (4) of the 2008 Farm Act 
and the resulting ambiguity in notifying di rect payments within the Green Box, the 
United States responded that they meet th e fundamental requirements of Annex 2.  
However India wishes to reiterate that Se ction 1001 (4) read along with Subtitle A-
Direct Payments and Counter-Cyclical Paym ents of the 2008 Farm Act expressly limits 
the availability of Direct Payments to whea t, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pu lse crops, soybeans, and other oilseeds. In 
light of this, could the United States explain ho w it is justified to notify Direct Payments 
within the Green Box? 
Answer by the United States of America Direct payments met the requirement of Anne x 2 of having no, or at most minimal, 
trade-distorting effects or effects on production. The United States notes that where a programme G/AG/W/151 
 
- 56 - 
 
  had clear eligibility requirements and the payments were decoupled from production, prices and 
factors of production, the programme is unlikely to have been trade distorting. Further, because 
direct payments were decoupled from production, these payments were not made in response to production of any specific set of crops.  
AG-IMS ID 79087: Question by India – Direct 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 Corpor ation 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 e ffects or effects on production? 
Answer by the United States of America As the United States explained in response to AG-IMS ID 76044, administrative and 
operating (A&O) reimbursements are made by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to private crop insurers in exchange for delivery of services under the authority of the FCIC. The 
outlays pay only a portion of the private crop insurers' administrative and operating expenses 
incurred for delivering crop insurance policies. The reimbursements are outlays that would otherwise be incurred by the FCIC if it were itself delivering crop insurance policies. These outlays 
meet the criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 1 in that support is provided through a publicly-funded 
government programme and does not involve transf ers from consumers, and the support does not 
have the effect of providing price support to prod ucers. Moreover, the outlays meet the criteria in 
Annex 2, paragraph 2 (general services) in relation to programmes that provide services or 
benefits to agriculture or the rural community and are not direct payments to producers or 
processors.  
AG-IMS ID 79088: Question by India – Non-product-specific AMS 
F o l l o w  u p  q u e s t i o n  t o  A G - I M S  I D  7 6 0 4 6 .  I n  r e s p o n s e  t o  I n d i a ' s  r e q u e s t ,  t h e  
United States responded that it requires addi tional time to compile data on per unit rate 
of electricity charged for participants in th e Federal irrigation projects and power rates 
charged for industrial, agricultural and resident ial users of electricity. India requests the 
United States again to provide this in formation based on the current status. 
Answer by the United States of America The United States is working with the relevant government agencies to respond to the question as 
soon as possible.  
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? G/AG/W/151 
 
- 57 - 
 
  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 th e net result of this allocation is that 
project purposes which have higher econ omic benefits, such as M&I uses, are 
allocated a greater share of the costs on  a per-acre foot basis than a project 
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-alloca tion 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 econom ic 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 shifting of repayments due from 
irrigators to other beneficiaries of water projects (sub-question "b"), the 
United States has responded that the bene fit 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 United States should take into 
account the price support for irrigation wa ter supply. As an example, according to 
several studies, the irrigation water users of the Central Valley Project pay an average 
of USD 6.15 per acre foot, while the cost 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? 
Answer by the United States of America 
The United States is working with the relevant government agencies to respond to the question as 
soon as possible.  
2.3  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.3.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/39) 
AG-IMS ID 79042: Question by European Union – Quantity of total exports 
Why has Brazil in Table ES:2, under sectio n 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 me at, poultry meat, live animals, tobacco and 
cotton seems to be missing?   Answer by Brazil 
 
Coarse grains, oilcakes, sugar, bovine meat, poultry meat, tobacco and cotton were notified at Section I, as they were scheduled. Pig meat and live animals were not notified because they were 
not scheduled or listed in the current version of G/AG/2/Add.1 document. 
 Follow-up : The European Union highlighted the importance of reporting total exports in 
ES:2 notifications by all significant exporters.  
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.3.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/29) 
AG-IMS ID 79043: Question by European 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 an d tobacco for which China is a significant 
exporter according to document G/AG/W/123?  
 Answer by China 
 
China will provide the relevant data in the required format.  2.3.3  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/40) 
AG-IMS ID 79040: Question by European 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? 
 Answer by Ecuador 
 
Document G/AG/2 of the Committee on Agriculture, dated 30 June 1995, contains agricultural notification requirements in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Document G/AG/2/Add.1 of 16 October 1995 includes a list of "significant exporters" which are 
required annually to submit data on their total ex ports in the form of Table ES:2. Ecuador does not 
feature on the list of significant exporters in th is document. The report by the Chairperson and its 
annexes, circulated to Members in document G/AG/W/123, does not imply any change in 
Members' existing notification obligations. A ccordingly, Ecuador has not proceeded with the 
notification of the ES.2 form. If changes were made  to requirements on agricultural notification in 
the future, Ecuador would have no objections to fulfilling them. 
 
2.3.4  Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/39) 
AG-IMS ID 79045: Question by European Union – Quantity of total exports 
Does Hong Kong, China intend to separate ly submit an ES:2 notification for 2015 
including total exports of poultry meat fo r which Hong Kong, China is a significant 
exporter according to document G/AG/W/123?  
Answer by Hong Kong, China 
 In accordance with the notification requiremen ts adopted by the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) 
(documents G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1), Hong Kong, China is not required to submit a Table ES:2 
notification as Hong Kong, China has no export subsidy reduction commitments in its Schedule and it is not included in the list of "significant exporters" as set out in G/AG/2/Add.1.   
Hong Kong, China notes that there is a list of significant exporters as summarized in CoA Chair's 
report (G/AG/W/123), which was prepared on the Chair's own responsibility and without prejudice to Members' positions. Hong Kong, China notes that while the Committee had made important 
progress on certain aspects of the review, there was no revision to the notification requirements 
mentioned in the first paragraph above.   
Nevertheless, for the sake of transparency, Hong Kong, China is pleased to provide the information 
as set out below.   Quantity of Hong Kong, China's total exports of poultry meat (thousand tonnes): 
 Year 2014: 682; 
 Year 2015: 640. 
Source: Census and Statisti cs Department, Government of Hong Ko ng Special Administration Region  
Note: Over 99.9% of Hong Kong, China's total expo rts of poultry meat comp rised of re-exports.  G/AG/W/151 
 
- 59 - 
 
   
2.3.5  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/53) 
AG-IMS ID 79044: Question by 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 an y recourse to all forms of export subsidies? 
 
Answer by Israel 
 This policy tool has always been carefully used by Israel and only to provide limited relief to Israeli exporters in specific situations. As required by the Bali Ministerial Declaration the level of export 
subsidies for all products is still significantly below Israel's export subsidy commitments and no 
new export subsidies have been introduced in re cent years. Changes in the composition of the 
exported products during 2014 with increased export of other fruit (mostly dates) caused the 
increase in subsidies in this category (which is still only 40% of Israel's commitment in this 
category). In line with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision all export subsidies will be totally removed by the end of 2022.  
 
Follow-up : The European Union took note of Israel's commitments to implement the Nairobi 
Ministerial decision.  
 
2.3.6  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/10) 
AG-IMS ID 79021: Question by European Union – Quantity of total exports 
Does the Russian Federation intend to separa tely submit an ES:2 notification for 2015 
including total exports of wheat and wheat fl our for which the Russian Federation is a 
significant exporter according to document G/AG/W/123?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
 Notification G/AG/N/RUS/10 was made in accordance with the Russian Federation's commitments in the WTO. Report by the Chairperson in G/AG/W/123 made available "for ease of reference" the 
list of "members having a share exceeding 5% in  total world exports" based on the FAO export 
statistics for 2009-2011. The Russian Federation und erstands from the Chairperson's report of 
2014 (G/AG/W/123) that the list of "significant exporters" established in document G/AG/2/Add.1 
was not modified and remains to be valid to this  day. As always the Russian Federation stands 
ready to provide the requested information for the sake of transparency:  
 
Description of products  Calendar year  Quantity of total exports 
(tonnes) 
Wheat and wheat flour 2015 21,496.5 
 
2.3.7  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/22) 
AG-IMS ID 79046: Question by European 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 Ukra ine is a significant exporter according to 
document G/AG/W/123?  
Answer by Ukraine 
 Ukraine appreciates that the European Union has drawn its attention to this missing Table ES:2 
notification. In fact, Ukraine is considering the opportunity to provide this additional notification in 
line with the Committee's most updated understandings. Ukraine attaches strong importance to the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on Export Competition and looks forward to continual reductions in and elimination of agricultural export subsidies. 
 G/AG/W/151 
 
- 60 - 
 
  Follow-up : New Zealand thanked the European Union for bringing the issues of export subsidies 
and ES:2 notifications to the attention of the Committee. New Zealand expressed concern 
regarding the way Members approached the significant exporter issue. New Zealand recalled that Members had not agreed to update the formal list of significant exporters and noted that the Chair 
had adopted a pragmatic approach by updating the list under his own responsibility. New Zealand 
was encouraged by Hong Kong, China's response which recognized the need for increased transparency despite the non-obligation. New Zeal and encouraged other Members to follow Hong 
Kong, China's lead to provide the additional information and also encouraged Hong Kong, China to 
present that information in the ES:2 format. The United States supported New Zealand's intervention. The United States noted that the Ch air's report did not suggest taking away any of 
the obligations that were required in notifi cations but recommended Members to voluntarily 
provide additional information on trade volumes. The United States encouraged the Committee to 
follow recommendations in that document. India stressed the fact that the Chair's report had not been agreed by consensus and had been made  under the Chair's responsibility. Therefore 
Members could not alter the ES:2 notification format  in order to increase transparency. India noted 
that Members were free to supply additional information in other formats but notification formats could not be changed until consensus was reached.  
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 European Union – Quantity and concessionality of food 
aid 
The notified amounts of Russia's food aid in notification 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 (dat ed 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 indi cations of such food aid in G/AG/N/RUS/7. 
What are the reasons behind these discrepancies? 
 Answer by the Russian Federation 
 
a. The answers to the questionnaire circulated by  the Secretariat were provided at the end 
of 2014. After providing the answers, the in formation on food aid provided by the 
Russian Federation was aggregated and finalized.  
b. The actual information on food aid in NF:1 for 2014 is provided in financial equivalent by 
the Russian Federation, with all the data aggregated.  
c. The discrepancies detected by the European Union are connected to the time of 
information processing and to the fact that the Russian Federation provided financial 
equivalent to the food aid amount in Table NF:1.  
2.4.2  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/105) 
AG-IMS ID 79028: Question by 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 am ounts 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 reason s behind these discrepancies? 
 Answer by the United States of America 
 
Revisions to and reconciliations between data sources have occurred since submission of the information to the Export Competition Questionnaire and subsequently to G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3. The United States is currently investigating the data differences G/AG/W/151 
 
- 61 - 
 
  between G/AG/W/125/Rev.3/Add.3 and G/AG/N /USA/105 and will provide a more detailed 
response when this analysis is complete.  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  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 September 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 provide 
information on its domestic support as well as  the use of export subsidies provided to 
the wheat sector?  
Answer by Turkey 
 Turkey's export subsidy and domestic support no tifications are being prepared by its relevant 
authorities and they will be submitted to the WTO Secretariat as soon as they are complete. 
 
__________