G/AG/W/147  
 
4 December 2015  
(15-6435)  Page: 1/51  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE  
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE M EETING ON 25 SEPTEMBER 20151 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised and follow-up comments made during the Review Process.  
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 23 November 2015: 
 
AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
78087 India European Union Article 18.6 
78088 India Chile Article 18.6 
78084 India European Union Article 18.6 
78085 India New Zealand Article 18.6 
78086 India United States of America Article 18.6 
78008 Turkey United States of America Article 18.6 
78056 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78057 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78065 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78060 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78069 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78061 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
78013 Oman United States of America G/AG/N/OMN/13 
78071 Oman United States of America G/AG/N/OMN/13 
78072 Oman United States of America G/AG/N/OMN/13 
78011 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7 
78012 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7 
78010 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/8 
78009 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/8 
  
_______________ 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE 
18.6 .......................................................................................................................... ....... 4 
1.1   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78002) ....................................... 4  
1.2   China – TRQ underfill ................................................................................................. 4  
1.2.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78004) ....................................... 4  
1.3   China's ma ize subsidies .............................................................................................. 5  
1.3.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7801 5) ................................................... 5  
1.4   China's cotton policies ................................................................................................ 5 
1.4.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78070) ....................................... 5  
1.5   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 6  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78005) ....................................... 6  
1.6   European Union's dairy policies .................................................................................... 7  
1.6.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG-IMS ID 78078)  .................................................................. 7  
1.7   India's minimum indicative  export quotas  for su gar ........................................................ 8  
1.7.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG-IMS ID 78087)  .................................................................. 8  
1.8   India's import ation of apples ....................................................................................... 8  
1.8.1   Question by Chile (AG-IMS ID 78088), European Union (AG-IMS ID 78084), 
New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78085) and the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 78086) .............. 8  
1.9   India's support  price for wheat .................................................................................... 8  
1.9.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7801 8) ................................................... 8  
1.10   India's Co tton Policies .............................................................................................. 9  
1.10.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 78006) ..................................... 9  
1.11   India's sugar export subsidies ................................................................................... 10 
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78016) ................................................................ 10 
1.11.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78017) ................................................. 11 
1.12   India's export assistance progra mmes ....................................................................... 11 
1.12.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  78007 ) .................................... 11 
1.13   Indonesia's restrictions on importation of sugar ........................................................... 13 
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78019) ................................................................ 13 
1.14   Republic of Ko rea's rice imports ................................................................................ 14 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78020) ................................................................ 14 
1.14.2   Question by Th ailand (AG-IM S ID 78024) ................................................................ 14 
1.15   Russian Federation 's wheat ex port tax ....................................................................... 15 
1.15.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78021) ................................................. 15 
1.16   Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs .................................................................. 16 
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78022) ................................................................ 16 
1.16.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 78001) .......................................................... 17 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.17   Switzerland's ex port subsidy budget .......................................................................... 17 
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78023) ................................................................ 17 
1.17.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 78025) .......................................................... 18 
1.18   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 18 
1.18.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78044) ................................................. 18 
1.19   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 19 
1.19.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  78008 ) .................................... 19 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 19  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 19 
2.1.1   Switzerland (G /AG/N/CHE/13/ ADD.17) ..................................................................... 19 
2.1.2   United States of Am erica (G/AG/N/U SA/101/ADD. 1) ................................................... 19 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 20 
2.2.1   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/24) ............................................................................. 20 
2.2.2   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/ 102) ............................................................. 20 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 21 
2.3.1   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 21 
2.3.2   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 23 
2.3.3   Costa Rica  (G/AG/N/ CRI/51) ................................................................................... 32 
2.3.4   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/41) ................................................................................... 33 
2.3.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 33 
2.3.6   Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/7, G/AG/N/OMN/13) ................................................................. 39 
2.3.7   Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/16) ...................................................................................... 40 
2.3.8   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/9) ......................................................................... 40 
2.3.9   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LK A/4) ...................................................................................... 46 
2.3.10   Switzerland (G/AG/N/ CHE/72 and G/AG /N/TUN/45) .................................................. 47 
2.3.11   Tunisia (G/AG/N/ TUN/40)...................................................................................... 47 
2.3.12   Tunisia (G/AG/N/ TUN/45)...................................................................................... 48 
2.3.13   United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7 and G/AG/N/ARE/8) ......................................... 48 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3 .................................. 50 
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/108)  ..................................................................................... 50 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 50  
3.1.1   Argentina .............................................................................................................  50 
3.1.2   Turkey (I. Article 18.6) ........................................................................................... 51 
 
 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes 1.1.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78002) 
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 regard ing its control mechanism, in order to 
prevent irregularities. Further, no dead line was set for the completion of this 
reassessment and as such, Braz il has been unable to provide a date upon which it can 
provide the data requested by the United States.   
a. Have reassessments been carried out in  the past for other programmes that 
provide precedent for how this reassessment is being carried out? If so, please 
provide information.  
b. Is the data requested by the United States (see AG-IMS ID 76039, 
AG-IMS ID 75023, AG-IMS ID 74021, AG-IMS ID 66002, AG-IMS ID 77066) also 
being requested by the entity carrying out the reassessment?  
The United States notes that in response to AG-IMS ID 76039, Brazil appears to have 
responded primarily in relati on to the PEP programme and that the reassessment is 
a primary reason for not being able to prov ide a time-frame for providing the requested 
data. With regards to the Prêmio de Equaliz ação pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) programme:  
 
c. Please provide an update on the progress made in the compilation of the 
requested data, and an estimated date  of completion if available.  
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. No. There is no precedent for this kind of reassessment.  
b. No. The reassessment is not connected with the information requested by 
the United States. 
c. The primary reason for not being able to establish a timeframe for providing the 
requested data is the lack of a suited system to collect the kind of information requested. The work is still in progress, and there is no deadline set for its conclusion. 
Follow-up: The United States noted that there had been a number of meetings since Brazil had 
said it would provide the requested data. The United  States stated that Brazil had been working on 
collecting the data for a long time, and requested Brazil to indicate when they would be able to 
provide it. Brazil explained that it continued to work  on this issue as the range of the application of 
the programme was very broad and noted that ther e had been issues related to the collection of 
data in remote parts of the country. Because of this, it was difficult for Brazil to provide a precise 
date for the conclusion of the data collection.  
 1.2  China – TRQ underfill  
1.2.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78004) 
The United States repeats its questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77068). 
 Despite high domestic prices and falling worl d prices, China continues to significantly 
under-fill the substantial tariff-rate quot as (TRQs) it established during its 
WTO accession for wheat, corn and rice. Starti ng in 2015, the United States understands 
that China has added a requirement that non- STE end users purchase domestic stocks in 
order to receive a TRQ allocation. 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 5 - 
 
  a. Please confirm whether there is a new do mestic purchase requirement. If yes, 
please provide the time-frame and conditio ns when it applies to purchases, and 
which products by tariff code line are subject to this requirement.  
b. Also, if there is such a requirement, pl ease provide any further information on 
the implementation of this policy including where a copy of the policy is 
available to WTO Members and when  it was notified to the WTO. 
Answer by China 
 
The pertinent authority informs that no additional requirement such as purchasing grain stocks was added to the allocation of TRQ for agricultural products.   
Follow-up: The United States, supported by the Eu ropean Union, stated that the TRQ underfill was 
a concern to them. They noted their interest in understanding the reason for this underfill as it 
didn't seem to be related to the market situation.  
 
1.3  China's maize subsidies 
1.3.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78015) 
Since no reply has been received to question AG-IMS ID 77043 the European Union 
therefore repeats the question.  According to World Perspectives Inc. newsletter, on 20 April 2015, China sold 
38,700 tonnes of maize from state stocks. Further, the Heilongjiang Government 
supported this sale with a subsidy to grains  processors participating in the state grain 
auction of 200 RMB/t (=32.6 $/t). This subsid y 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 
 There is such subsidy policy in place in 2015, introduced by Heilongjiang Province. 
The beneficiaries of the subsidy are grain processing enterprises. The purpose is to help 
enterprises concerned sustain their operations, since operating costs have been increasing. The quantity of the subsidy is not available yet.  A similar policy has also been introduced by 
Jilin Province. Further clarification may be added based on more detailed information from local 
authorities.  1.4  China's cotton policies 
1.4.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78070) 
The United States repeats its questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77069). 
 
The United States thanks China for its respon se to AG-IMS ID 76051. The United States 
notes in China's response that it appears China has made the assertion that the cotton 
policies in the largest producing, consuming, and importing country of cotton do not 
affect the international market. Howe ver, the International Cotton Advisory 
Committee (ICAC) indicates that China held st ocks of 11.6 million metric tonnes at the 
end of 2013/14, a quan tity equivalent to 149% of Chin ese domestic mill use and 57% of 
global stocks. In 2013/14, China purchased cotton that contributed to those stocks at 
a price of 151 cents per pound and the 2013/ 14 market year was the third consecutive 
year of stock build-ups. The ICAC estima tes that amounts to USD 5.8 billion and G/AG/W/147 
 
- 6 - 
 
  USD 5.1 billion in direct assistance in 2012/ 13 and 2013/14, respectively. As noted by 
the ICAC, China's position in cotton markets pe rmitted this build-up of stocks to distort 
not only domestic prices, but also internatio nal prices. In particular, China's stockpiling 
has led to an increase in use of polyeste r to the detriment of all cotton producing 
countries. China has announced that it plans not to expand the TRQ for cotton in 2015 
beyond its WTO obligation. Imports are likely to fall close to the TRQ in-quota quantity of 0.894 million tonnes (894,000 metric tonnes) in 2015, a decrease from 
5.1 million tonnes of imports in 2012.  
 Please provide a detailed description of why these policies implemented by China are 
not having a distorting effect on world cotton markets. 
 
Answer by China  
Most cotton farmers in China are living in povert y-stricken areas or are members of the minority 
ethnic group that inhabits regions close to the border. Cotton production is the main source of income for most of them and for some cotton production is the only source of income. The sharp 
increase in the cost of labour and production factors has significantly affected farmers' incomes. 
In order to guarantee the livelihood of farmers and the stability of border areas, the Chinese Government provides some support to cotton farmers. Despite the support to cotton farmers, imports of cotton under TRQ have not been affected. 
 
Follow-up: The United States noted that over the years China had been importing well over its 
tariff rate quota and that by dropping imports to the tariff rate quota levels it had had an effect on 
global cotton markets. The United States stated that they would closely follow the supply and 
demand of cotton to see whether incentives to produce cotton were increasing.   
1.5  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78005) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for it s continued transparency, though it remains 
concerned by Costa Rica's continued lack  of compliance with its WTO obligations. 
In particular, the United States notes that support to the rice sector increased from 
USD 81.85 million to USD 86.14 million from 2012  to 2013. While the United States has 
expressed hope in the past with regards to steps Costa Rica has indicated it would be 
taking to come into compliance, the United States notes the repeated delay of necessary 
reforms.   
a. Does Costa Rica intend to meet its AMS commitment in the current year? If not, 
when?  
b. What specific steps is Costa Rica undertaking to bring its AMS into compliance 
with its commitments? Please describe ev idence that the steps are having or 
will have an effect.  
Answer by Costa Rica 
 
Costa Rica would like once again to thank the delegations that have been following this issue and 
advises that Executive Decree No. 38.884-MEIC, which replaced the fixed producer price for rice with a reference price, entered into force in March 2015, and the regulations therein have applied 
to national rice production as from that date. Costa Rica recalls that the mentioned Executive 
Decree was notified to the Committee on Agriculture in Document G/AG/GEN/126.  In keeping with its practice of notifying all of its obligations in a proper and timely fashion in 
accordance with its commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture, Costa Rica will be notifying 
domestic support for 2015 at the end of March 2016, including, of course, the Aggregate Measurement of Support for 2015. At that time this Committee will be able to 
determine whether Costa Rica has managed to meet  the annual monetary limits of its bound AMS, 
which amounts to 15.9 million.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 7 - 
 
  While Costa Rica hopes to be within its AMS limits, production levels for January and 
February 2015 (during which a fixed producer price was applied in accordance with Executive Decree 37.699-MEIC, revoked by the ab ove-mentioned Decree No. 38.884–MEIC) will be 
known during the first months of 2016, when the National Rice Growers Corporation publishes the 
annual and monthly production data that is needed to calculate the AMS for 2015. 
 Follow-up: The United States, Canada and Pakistan welcomed Costa Rica's continued transparency 
on this issue. The United States expressed its interest in studying how Costa Rica's new programme would work. The United States also noted its interest in knowing the role that the Government of Costa Rica had in the group that sets the reference prices.   
1.6  European Union's dairy policies 
1.6.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78078) Australia supports efforts by the European  Union to adopt more market-focussed 
agriculture policies, including reforms like th e termination of the milk-quota system in 
March 2015, which will position dairy prod ucers in the European Union to be 
better-placed to respond to market forces. Au stralia is pleased that the European Union 
continues to show restraint regarding the use of export subsidies, consistent with the 
Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Comp etition. Australia notes that no export 
refunds have been paid on dairy products since 2009.  
 
Given the background of weaker global dair y demand and prices across the world, can 
the European Union:  
a. outline if there are any plans to increase  the current public intervention price 
for butter and skim milk powder;  
b. reaffirm the commitment made by Ministers at the 9
th Ministerial Conference to 
exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export 
subsidies and all export measur es with equivalent effect. 
Answer by the European Union 
 
As outlined by the Commission during the Extr aordinary Council on 7 September, and detailed 
during the informal council on 15 September the European Commission has proposed a EUR 500 million aid package for the dairy sector. The measures proposed are: a one-off payment 
of EUR 420 million to dairy producers, EUR 30 million to promotion activities for dairy products, 
EUR 30 million in emergency aid for refuges for dairy products, and finally new Private Storage measures. No change to the public intervention price is included in the Commission proposals. 
 
As Australia can see from other questions the European Union has asked during this meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, the European Union is fully committed to the Bali Declaration on export competition, which further to export refunds also includes export credits and guarantees, 
food aid and State Trading Enterprises.  
 Follow-up: New Zealand supported Australia's question and welcomed the European Union's 
ongoing efforts toward a reform of the common agricultural policy, including the Commissioner Hogan's stated commitment to a market oriented approach, and the European Union's ongoing restraint regarding the use of export subsidies.  On the issue of the support package that the 
European Union described, announced on the 7 Sept ember, and then elaborated on 15 September, 
New Zealand noted that this package left consid erable discretion to the member States on the 
specific nature of the programmes to be funded , New Zealand remained interested in knowing 
more about the design of this package and its im plementation at both the European Union and at 
the member State-level. New Zealand urged the European Union to avoid approaches to support 
that distort production in favour of measures to address real financial hardship in its implementation of this package. Argentina stat ed its interest on the subject and thanked the 
European Union for the information provided, in particular, the EU's commitment to the 
Bali declaration.   G/AG/W/147 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.7  India's minimum indicative export quotas for sugar 
1.7.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78087) Australia understands that co mmencing 1 October 2015, a syst em of minimum indicative 
export quotas will be introduced for all Indi an sugar factories, totalling 4 million tonnes 
for 2015-16. This figure represents approximat ely 8% of world trade in raw and refined 
sugar in 2014.  
Can India: 
 
a. Confirm how the total amount mandated for export over 2015-16 
(4 million tonnes) was derived? 
b. Advise the expected break-down of su gar exports in 2015-16 in terms of raw 
and refined sugar? 
c. Advise the expected export destinations, on an indicative basis? 
d. Confirm, against the current background of low international sugar prices, and 
the cost to bring this Indian sugar to  market, whether these exports will be 
entitled to either a national or state-level export subsidy payment? 
Answer by India 
 India undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
1.8  India's importation of apples 
1.8.1  Question by Chile (AG-IMS ID 7808 8), European Union (AG-IMS ID 78084), 
New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78085) and the Unit ed States of America (AG-IMS ID 78086) 
Chile, New Zealand, the European Union and the United States understand that India 
announced on 14 September 2015 (Notificatio n No. 21 /2015-2020) that the importation 
of apples will only be allowed through the Nhava Sheva Port of Mumbai, with all other ports consequently closed to apple imports. Can India confirm that this is correct and if so 
advise the Committee of the date of implementation and the reason for this decision? 
 Answer by India  
India did not consider that this this issue fell within the mandate of the Committee. (See Report of 
the Committee on Agriculture, G/AG/R/79, paragraphs 2.17-2.23)  
1.9  India's support price for wheat 
1.9.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78018) Press reports suggest that the region of Punjab has, for the marketing year 2015/16, increased the 
minimum support price for wheat by 5,000 INR/tonne (72 EUR/tonne) more than the federal 
support level of 14,500 INR/tonne.  (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/punjab-government-seeks-rs-
1950-a-quintal-msp-for-wheat/articleshow/47490036.cms ). 
 
a. How does India intend to include this  increase in its Domestic Support 
notification? 
b. Have any other Indian states introduc ed similar increases for the 2015/16 
marketing year? G/AG/W/147 
 
- 9 - 
 
  c. During the years for which India has al ready made notifications for Domestic 
Support (up to and including the year 2010) was there any similar state support applicable in the State of Punjab, and, if yes, how was this included in 
the DS:1 notification?  
Answer by India 
 The question is based on a press report dated 31 May 2015 stating that the Chief Minister of 
Punjab demanded MSP for wheat for Rabi Season 2015-16 to be fixed at INR 1,950 per quintal as 
against the current MSP of INR 1,450 per quintal. The MSP is fixed by the Government of India based on the report of CACP, which takes various factors into account. The State Governments in India do not decide MSP for wheat as it is fixed uniformly across all States, by the Government of 
India. There was no State support in terms of MS P for wheat in Punjab during the referred period. 
 Follow-up: The United States and Canada indicated their interest in India's domestic policies with 
respect to wheat.  1.10  India's Cotton Policies 
1.10.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78006) 
The United States resubmits questions from the June CoA (AG-IMS ID 77109). 
 In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India respon ded to part a) that there are a number of 
factors involved in the setting of the Minimum Support Price (MSP). However, 
the US question remains:  
a. Which of these factors were the bases for raising the MSP for cotton, in light of 
the fact that there was reduced import  demand in China, falling world cotton 
prices, and record or near record Indian production? 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India respon ded to part b) of the question by stating 
that India takes its commitments seriously and believes in fair market practices. 
The United States agrees fully in this resp onse, for itself and all Members. However, 
India did not address the question asked. The United States repeats the question: 
 
b. Is India taking specific steps to ensure  that the release of its cotton stocks 
does not further distort international cotton markets, either due to direct 
export sales or market le akage? If yes, please sp ecify and explain the steps 
India is undertaking in this regard. The United States notes that similar market 
conditions occurred in 2008/2009 when India also procured significant 
quantities of cotton, estimated at appr oximately 40% of production. According 
to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, India then provided USD 26 million in export subs idies to reduce its stocks. 
Answer by India 
 
Minimum Support Prices for various agricultural crops, including raw cotton, are fixed on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices (CACP), views of the 
State Governments concerned, Central Ministries and other relevant factors. While formulating its 
recommendations, the CACP considers, inter alia, a number of factors including the cost of production, changes in input prices, trends in market prices, the demand-supply situation, the 
effect on general price levels, the e ffect on the cost of living etc.  
 The Government has fixed the MSP of cotton for the 2015-16 season at INR 3,800 per quintal (medium staple) and INR 4,100 per quintal (long stap le). This is an increase of INR 50 over the 
MSP for these varieties for the year 2014-15. This is in response to an increase in the All India 
weighted average cost of production for the year 2015-16 by INR 287 over the previous year, in addition to other factors.  
 
All actions of the Government of India are WTO compliant.   G/AG/W/147 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Follow-up: India and Pakistan indicated their interest on this issue. 
 
1.11  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.11.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78016) 
Australia notes that India has not yet subm itted a written response to the questions 
raised by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) at the 77th Committee on Agriculture in relation 
to Indian sugar export subsidies, and respectf ully asks that it does so. Australia notes 
that a number of delegations have expresse d support for its questions and therefore 
asks that India formally respond to the questi ons in writing and orally, as is the practice 
of this Committee.  
Australia has stated its concerns regarding the WTO-inconsistency of these measures on 
a number of occasions and urges India to end the programme.   
In February 2015, India officially increased the rate of its export subsidy for raw sugar 
from Indian Rupees (INR) 3,371 to INR 4,0 00 per tonne, for a quantity of 1.4 million 
tonnes over the 2014-15 sugar season. At INR 4,000, this level of subsidy currently 
represents over 25% of the current world benchmark price.  
 In addition to outstanding questions from the 77
th Committee on Agriculture, can India: 
 
a. Advise how much has been paid under the export subsidy programme to 
eligible applicants for both the 2013-14 season and the 2014-15 season to date? 
b. Advise the total amount of individual applications received under the export 
subsidy programme, and the total amount of export subsidy claimed, for both 
the 2013-14 season and the 2014-15 season to date? 
c. Advise how many tonnes of raw sugar ha ve been produced in India during 
the 2014-15 season to date? 
d. Advise how many tonnes of raw sugar have been exported in the 2014-15 
season to date? 
e. Australia understands that the top export markets for Indian raw sugar with 
the Indian export subsidy are: Iran, So malia, the Former Sudan, Tanzania and 
the UAE. Can India confirm the top five destinations for its raw sugar exports. 
f. Can India please identify how many LD Cs are destinations for its raw sugar 
exports? 
At the 73
rd Committee on Agriculture, India stated  (AG-IMS ID 73036) that the export 
subsidy programme was "one of the numerou s steps contemplated/undertaken by the 
central government as well as various state governments in the country to tackle arrears payments by sugar mills to Indian  sugarcane farmers …" and further, that 
"… (t)he interventions by the government ai m to infuse additional liquidity in the 
severely stretched sector and are linked to  cane payments to farmers by the sugar 
mills".  
g. Can India provide an update of the effe ctiveness of the sugar export subsidy 
programme with respect of the po licy goals identified above? 
h. Can India provide an update on the im plementation of the separate sugar 
export subsidy programme, reportedly  proposed by the Indian State of 
Maharashtra? G/AG/W/147 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 The pay-out is not an export subsidy but is part of product diversification programme from white to raw sugar. During the financial year 2014-15, about INR 1,831.6 million has been paid to sugar 
mills for the marketing and promotion of raw sugar and for clearance of cane dues of farmers. 
178 applications from nearly 80 eligible sugar m ills for cumulative pay-out of INR 1,970 million 
were received during 2013-14 sugar season and about 55 applications for pay-out of 
INR 1,000 million have been received during current sugar season 2014-15. During 2014-15 sugar 
season, 0.550 million tonnes of raw sugar (up to 31 August 2015) has been produced. About 0.0475 million tonnes of raw sugar has been exported during 2014-15 sugar season so far. Major export destinations of raw sugar have been Sri Lanka, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, etc. 
With the help of the pay-outs under the programm e, the liquidity of the sugar mills has improved 
enabling the mills to pay the cane dues arrears of the farmers to some extent.  
1.11.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78017) 
Since no reply has been received to question AG-IMS ID 77044 the European Union 
therefore repeats the question. 
 
After the introduction of the export subsidy of INR 4,000 per tonne of raw sugar by the 
Indian Central Government in February 2015, the website of "Business Standard" on 13 April reported "The Maharashtra Govern ment on 14 April announced an export 
subsidy of INR 1,000 ($1=INR 62.31) pe r tonne for raw sugar to boost the 
cash-strapped sugar industry in the state, in  addition to the INR 4,000 already unveiled 
by the central government, according to the state's co-operative minister Chandrakant 
Patil". 
 
a. Could India confirm these figures of INR 4000 and INR 1000 and explain how 
these subsidies granted comply with  its WTO commitments on export 
subsidies? 
b. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar that has/will be able  to benefit from 
these subsidies?  
Answer by India 
 
a. The Maharashtra Government has announced an incentive of INR 1,000 per tonne for 
payment to sugarcane farmers through the sugar mills. The intervention is not an export 
subsidy but is purely aimed at compensating the farmers for supply of sugarcane to the sugar mills. This is a step undertaken by the Government to tackle the problem of 
arrears in payments by sugar mills to Indian sugarcane farmers.  
b. The incentive benefit during the sugar season 2013-14 was given for only 
0.715 million tonnes and during the current sugar season (2014-15) the eligible quantity is 0.35 million tonnes. 
Follow-up: Australia, supported by Colombia and Brazil, noted that this issue was important to 
them as they were always concerned about th e WTO-consistency of the measures taken by 
Members. The European Union requested India to explain if the compensation to the farmers for 
the supply of sugar cane to the sugar mill covered all sugar produced by farmers or was only 
related to the quantities of sugar exported. India noted that it would answer this question at a 
later stage. Colombia requested India to honour the commitment of the Bali Ministerial regarding 
export subsidies. 
 1.12  India's export assistance programmes 
1.12.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78007) 
The United States is concerned about a possible Indian export subsidy 
programme. Specifically it is the US  understanding that from 2004-2014 the 
Indian Government operated an export  assistance programme for a number of G/AG/W/147 
 
- 12 - 
 
  agricultural products called the Vishesh Kris hi Gram Upaj Yojana (VKGUY – or "Special 
Agriculture Produce Scheme"). In 2014 an other programme, the Merchandise Export 
from India Scheme (MEIS), was introduc ed 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. Could India prov ide an explanation of how the scrip is 
used?  
c. According to "Foreign Trade Policy, 27th August 2009 - 31st March 2014" 
published by India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry, under the VKGUY programme duty scrip benefits are gran ted with an aim to compensate high 
transport costs, and to offset "other disadvantages". Can India 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 the 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 prod uct (SMP) was eligible, how was the scrip used for imports?  
g. Could the duty scrip be used as a credit  against any other tax charges, or other 
government arrears, other than import duties?  
h. Was the VKGUY programme replaced by the Merchandise Export from India 
Scheme (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 the Government under the programme? 
The United States notes that MEIS, which st arted in 2014, excludes cereals, milk and 
milk products, meat and meat  products, and sugar. However, the United States is 
concerned that all other agricultural produc ts could participate in this programme. 
 
k. Will India notify benefits provided  under the MEIS in its export 
subsidy notifications?  
l. From 2010-2014, which agricultural products  received export assistance under 
the VKGUY programme, and in what amounts? 
m. Since 2014, have any agricultural produc ts received export assistance under 
the MEIS programme, and in what amounts? 
n. Please confirm that cereals, milk and milk products, meat and meat products, 
and sugar are excluded from the MEIS programme?  
o. Is VKGUY permanently ended or could it be reintroduced? If it can be 
reintroduced, what would be the circumstances?  
p. 
If VKGUY was re-introduced, would it be changed in any way? For example, 
would it have a different product eligibility list? G/AG/W/147 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 The VKGUY scheme stands terminated with effect from 31 March 2015.  
For the year 2014-15, VKGUY scrips for INR 3,293 crores were issued. 
 The MEIS programme is effective from 1 April 2015. A list of products covered is available in 
appendix 3B of the FTP. 
 As per paragraph 3.06 of FTP 2015-20 as notified vide Notification No. 8 dated 4 June 2015 amended from time to time, the status/eligibility of the products mentioned above for the benefit 
under MEIS are as follows: 
 
Product Status 
Cereals of all types ineligible 
Milk and milk-products, unless specifically notified in Appendix 3B ineligible 
Meat and meat products, unless specifically notified in Appendix 3B ineligible 
Sugar of all types and forms, unless specifically notified in Appendix 3B ineligible 
 
Follow-up: The United States, supported by New Zealand, requested India to indicate whether 
skimmed-milk powder was eligible or not for support. India stated that it had already specified the 
eligible products under the MEIS programme in  its response, and noted that the VKGUY scheme 
had already been terminated and was no longer operational. New Zealand noted its interest in this 
issue, including, but not limited to, the issue of possible application of an export subsidy 
programme to dairy products.  
1.13  Indonesia's restrictions on importation of sugar  
1.13.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78019) Australia understands that in December 20 14, Indonesia imposed new restrictions on 
the importation of sugar through ci rcular No 1300/M-DAG/SD/12/2014.  
 
a. Can Indonesia please explain how its restrictions on sugar imports are 
consistent with its obligations under  Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, in particular: 
i. whether Indonesia issues import permit s for sugar on a quarterly basis and 
in accordance with quotas set by the Government; and 
ii. whether Indonesia imposes a range of ot her restrictions on the importation 
of sugar, including: 
 limits on the types of businesses that can import sugar; 
 rules prohibiting the sale of refine d sugar produced from imported raw 
sugar to the domestic retail market; and 
 rules prohibiting the importation of white sugar for consumption except 
with government approval at certain times of the year and to producers 
sourcing at least 75% of their cane domestically. 
b. Can Indonesia please provide further information about the operation of 
circular No 1300/M-DAG/SD/12/2014 and its intended purpose? 
Answer by Indonesia 
 Indonesia thanks Australia for its interest in the issue. Indonesia never issues any policies or 
introduces any new regulations on sugar imports or quota on sugar. The objective of the Minister 
of Trade Circular No.1300/M-DAG/SD/12/2014 is to regulate distribution of refined sugar to the users, which are food, beverages and pharmaceutical industries. The circular neither regulates importation nor operates as an effort to restrict sugar imports. The circular was not issued as a G/AG/W/147 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Ministerial Regulation and therefore it does not fall under the category of Indonesian positive law. 
This means it is not fully binding to the public.   1.14  Republic of Korea's rice imports  
1.14.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78020) 
a. Could the Republic of Korea please advi se of the arrangements for importing 
rice? 
b. The Republic of Korea advised WTO Members of proposed changes to its rice 
import measures in G/MA/TAR/RS/396. Those arrangements have not been certified by WTO Members and Austra lia, China, the United States, and 
Viet Nam objected to them. Has the Republic of Korea been applying the 
arrangements that it circulated in (G/MA/TAR/RS/396) for imports of rice? 
c. How much table rice has been im ported since 1 January 2015?  
d. How much non-table rice has been  imported since 1 January 2015? 
e. How do these figures (for c and d) compare with the previous three year 
averages for table and non-table rice? 
Answer by the Republic of Korea 
 
a. and b. The Korean Government decided to cease the special treatment on rice and 
submitted a revised country schedule on rice tariffication, G/MA/TAR/RS/396, in September 2014.  
Pursuant to the document L/4962 (p rocedures for modification and rect ification of schedules of tariff 
concessions), the Republic of Korea has been implementing rice tariffication since 1 January 2015.  
c. to e. As of September, the Republic of Korea has auctioned 285,525 tonnes of brown rice 
and about 30,000 tonnes of milled rice. This information is on the website: www.at.or.kr . 
Follow-up: Australia noted that it would continue to follow up bilaterally on the issue. 
 
1.14.2  Question by Thailand (AG-IMS ID 78024) 
With regard to the document entitled "Recti fication and Modification of Schedules - 
Schedule LX - Republic of Korea" submitted by the Republic of Korea and circulated to 
Members on 30 September 2014, (G/MA/TAR/RS /396), Thailand notes that in the light 
of objections by Thailand and four other Members namely, Australia, China, 
the United States, and Viet Nam, Korea's pr oposal was not formally certified. Thailand 
has since received information from capital th at the Republic of Korea has enforced its 
proposed, but unapproved Schedule, since 1 January 2015.   
Thailand understands that the Republic of Korea has been applying a global quota for 
rice products of 408,700 tonnes, with an in-q uota tariff rate of 5% and an out-quota 
rate of 513%. Thailand continues to believe  that the proposed out-of-quota rate at 
513% is unreasonably high, and cannot accept the method of calculation used by the 
Republic of Korea. Thailand also understands th at the country-specific quotas previously 
given to Australia, China, the United States , and Thailand have all been cancelled. 
This would unfairly and negatively have adve rse impact on Thailand's current trade as 
a result.  
 In the light of this information, Thailand would like to pose the following questions to 
the Republic of Korea:  
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 15 - 
 
  a. Could the Republic of Korea please co nfirm that it has been enforcing its 
proposed Schedule since 1 January 2015. If  so, does the Republic of Korea have 
a definite timeframe for the a pplication of the Schedule?  
b. Since Korea's proposed schedule has not been approved, and no consultations 
have been held since the aforementioned Members objected to the Schedule in 
December 2014, Thailand believes that consultations between the Republic of Korea and the objecting Members should be arranged as soon as 
possible. These consultations are necessary  in order to resolve issues relating 
to the rectifications and modifications of  the Republic of Korea's schedule for 
rice products and to have a formally ce rtified Schedule come into force as soon 
as possible so as to minimize the negati ve trade impacts on Members resulting 
from Korea's enforcement of the unapproved Schedule.  
In this respect, could the Republic of Kore a please indicate when it plans to convene 
consultations with the relevant Members to resolve issues regarding the rectification 
and modification of Korea's Schedule for rice products?  
Answer by the Republic of Korea 
 
a. The Korean Government decided to cease the special treatment on rice and submitted 
a revised country schedule on rice tariffication, G/MA/TAR/RS/396, in September 2014.  
Pursuant to the document L/4962 (procedures for modification and rectification of schedules of 
tariff concessions), the Republic of Korea has been implementing rice tariffication 
since 1 January 2015. 
 
b. Bilateral consultations will be arranged with a view to resolving this issue soon. 
Follow-up: The European Union and China stated their interest in the subject. The United States 
noted that it continued to reserve its position with respect to the Republic of Korea's proposed 
rectification and modification of its tariff schedule.  
 
1.15  Russian Federation's wheat export tax  
1.15.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78021) Press reports state that the Russian Fede ration has introduced, starting from 
1 July 2015, a wheat export tax, set at 50% of the customs price per tonne minus  
5,500 roubles, but not less than 50 roubles per tonne. Could the Russian Federation confirm this measure and explain how it intend s to comply with the related transparency 
requirements as laid down in Article 12. 1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 Answer by the Russian Federation 
 
The Russian Federation confirms that export duti es had been imposed on certain grains and, in 
fact, in conformity with the agreement in the form  of an exchange of letters between the European 
Union and the Russian Federation relating to the introduction of increase of export duties of raw 
materials, the Russian Federation informed the European Union about their mentioned measures 
as of 11 June 2015. The Russian Federation stands ready to share information on export prohibitions or restrictions instituted in accordance with paragraph 2a of Article XI of the 
GATT 1994 on general elimination of quantitative restrictions as laid out in Article 12:1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
Follow-up: Switzerland underscored its interest in the issue of restrictions to agricultural products, 
and supported the question posed by the Europe an Union. The United States noted that it 
continued to have an interest in the increase in transparency on export restrictions and welcomed the EU question. 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.16  Sri Lanka's increase in milk powder tariffs 
1.16.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78022) Australia understands that Sri Lanka has increased its tariffs for milk powder to the 
higher of either 25% ad valorem , or a specific duty of Sri Lankan Rupees 
(Rs) 225 per kilogram. 
 
a. Can Sri Lanka please identify the specific HS codes, to the eight-digit level- that 
these tariff increases apply to, and can Sri Lanka also advise the relevant 
bindings for these tariff lines? 
b. Can Sri Lanka please confirm the current ad valorem  equivalent of the 
Rs 225 per kilogram specific duty and al so indicate the milk powder reference 
values that are used in this calculation? 
Answer by Sri Lanka 
 
Sri Lanka appreciates the interest shown by some delegations in Sri Lanka's agriculture 
notifications and the clarifications sought on the tariff structure Sri Lanka applied for milk powder imports. 
Despite its small and vulnerable status, Sri Lanka is a country that maintains its bound tariff for 
agriculture products at a very low level of 50%. This, in fact, is much below the bound rates maintained for agriculture products by even so me of the most advanced economies. Moreover, 
Sri Lanka's bound tariffs for milk powder imports remain even lower, at 20%. The tariff lines, 
which are subject to this bound rate, include 0402.10.01, 0402.21.01 and 0402.29.01. 
These extremely low bound rates have posed formidable challenges for Sri Lanka's dairy industry, which is still in its infancy, but closely linked, to the livelihood of our rural population. 
It is also pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka imports more than twice what it exports to the world 
every year, resulting in a huge, unfavourable bala nce of trade. Sir Lanka's expenditure on dairy 
imports accounts for as much as one fifth of this trade gap. This situation also warrants serious 
efforts by the Sri Lankan Government to develop its dairy industry to a much higher level. 
However, Sri Lanka has no intention to renegoti ate its bound rates at this juncture. What the 
Government prefers to do instead is to provide a temporary breathing space for our dairy farmers, which support thousands of low-income families at the grassroots level. On the other hand, the 
Government is also tasked with the responsibility of ensuring affordable prices for milk powder, 
a commodity which continues to remain an essential and highly sensitive product for Sri Lankan consumers. In view of this dual responsibility, the Government is compelled to maintain certain 
temporary measures to support the local dairy industry, while controlling the maximum retail price 
of milk powder to safeguard the consumer. 
The currently applied milk powder tariff, which is in the form of a mixed structure plus a duty 
waiver, aims at striking the delicate balance between the interests of the dairy industry and the consumer. The duty waiver, which is fixed in rup ee-term, is adjusted either upward or downward, 
depending on the behaviour of the milk powder prices in the international market. 
In view of the substantial decline witnessed in the milk powder prices over the recent months, 
the Government of Sri Lanka has decided to revise the duty waiver as a temporary measure that 
was crucial to minimize any adverse impact the extremely low international prices could have on its infant dairy industry. Sri Lanka would certainly consider readjusting the particular waiver after 
observing the market trends for a while. 
In these circumstances, Sri Lanka looks forward to the support and cooperation of all principle 
suppliers of milk powder products at this crucial stage. Sri Lanka's delegation has already had 
bilateral discussions with the Australian and New Zealand delegations in this regard and, Sri Lanka 
believes that it would be able to reach some understanding of the current situation and work out a mutually acceptable solution to this issue.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.16.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78001) 
New Zealand understands that Sri Lanka has increased its tariffs for milk powder to 
Rs 225 per kilogram (HS 0402.10.01 skimmed milk powder, HS 0402.21.01 and HS 0402.29.01 whole milk powder). Sri Lank a's tariff for milk powder is bound at 
20% ad valorem . This rate is now equivalent to around a 70% ad valorem  duty (based 
on GDT price at 1 September 2015). New Zealand is concerned that Sri Lanka is 
operating outside of its bound tariff rate. What action is Sri Lanka taking to ensure its 
applied tariff is brought in line with it s WTO commitments at the earliest possible 
opportunity?  Answer by Sri Lanka 
 
See answer provided to question AG-IMS ID 78022, above.  
Follow-up: Australia stated that it was mindful of the challenges faced by Sri Lanka and noted its 
appreciation for the bilateral engagement on this issue. Australia looked forward to the return to 
the previous applied rates for these products. New Zealand also thanked Sri Lanka for the bilateral 
discussion and noted their real concern about Sri Lanka's breach of its tariff bindings for milk 
powder, both at the current levels, apparently at  70% ad valorem equivalent as compared to a 
20% binding, but also in the context of variable compliance since the year 2000 when a binding was established. New Zealand noted that apparent breaches in milk powder tariff rates were also 
noted at the 69
th and 70th Committee on Agriculture meetings. New Zealand took note of the fact 
that the changes in duties were temporary and l ooked forward to further discussions on the nature 
of that temporary change and when it was likely to be reversed to go back to within bound levels. 
New Zealand encouraged Sri Lanka to explore a more long term solution to avoid an ongoing 
reoccurrence of this situation. The European Union supported the concerns that Australia and New Zealand had raised regarding the import level for milk powder and the respect of the bound 
rate. Sri Lanka noted that when calculating the ad valorem equivalent, it appeared that the duty 
waiver given under the Section 19 of the Custom Ac t of Sri Lanka had not been taken into account. 
For example, the duty waiver given for milk powder imports was almost 45% of the duty that is applied. Moreover, when looking at the import figu res, Sri Lanka stated that a continuous increase 
from its principal suppliers could be observed, indicating that there was not a drop in the import 
levels. Sri Lanka planned to come to a mutually acceptable solution with all of Sri Lanka's principal partners. 
 
1.17  Switzerland's export subsidy budget 
1.17.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 78023) 
Australia thanks Switzerland for its response to its question raised at the 
77
th Committee on Agriculture in relation to the proposed increase to Swiss export 
subsidy budgetary outlays. In that response, Switzerland stated that the proposal would 
be subject to parliamentary review in J une 2015. Can Switzerland please provide 
an update to the Committee in relation to  the current status of the export subsidy 
proposal?  
Answer by Switzerland 
 The Swiss Parliament decided in June 2015 to incr ease the export subsidy budgetary outlays for 
processed agricultural products with an additional appropriation of CHF 26 million. With this 
additional appropriation, the total amount of export contributions will reach CHF 96 million for 2015. These increased budgetary outlays remain below Switzerland's WTO commitments.  
The Parliament took its decision in a specific context: price developments in the markets and the 
sharp appreciation of the Swiss franc against the eu ro helped to fuel an exceptional rise in the 
price differential to the detriment of Swiss producers. 
 
The Swiss Government intends to respect the export competition commitments that it made in Bali. For 2016, it has submitted to Parliament a reduced budget which allocates CHF 68 million for 
contributions to exports of processed agricultural products. 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 18 - 
 
  1.17.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 78025) 
New Zealand thanks Switzerland for its transp arency in the Committee on Agriculture on 
its proposal to increase export subsidies on processed agricultural products by up to 
CHF 20 million, however notes its concern ab out these plans given the trade distorting 
effects of export subsidies and the Bali Declaration on export subsidies in which 
Ministers committed to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies. Could Switzerlan d please provide an update on the proposal 
to exceptionally increase the export subsid y budget for processed agricultural products 
for 2015 by a maximum of CHF 20 million?  Answer by Switzerland 
 
See answer provided to question AG-IMS ID 78023, above.   
Follow-up: The European Union, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and 
Costa Rica supported the concerns raised by Australia and New Zealand. Australia urged all 
Members to recall the undertakings made by Minist ers in Bali to show restraint regarding use of 
export subsidies consistent with the Ministerial Declaration on export competition. New Zealand 
noted its disappointment regarding Switzerland's in crease of its export subsidy budget for 2015 by 
CHF 20 million, almost a third of the original budget. New Zealand, supported by a number of Members, questioned whether currency appreciation was a valid reason for the use of trade 
distorting measures like export subsidies. New Zealand appreciated Switzerland's intention to fulfil 
the commitments made in Bali on export competition and noted the fact that its proposed 2016 budget was in line with its 2014 outlays and its original 2015 budget.  
 
1.18  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.18.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 78044) 
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 73
rd, 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 
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 domestic support and export subsidies no tifications are being prepared by our relevant 
authorities and they will be submitted to the Se cretariat as soon as they are completed and 
transmitted to our mission in Geneva. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Follow-up: The European Union requested that Turkey provide a time-frame for when the 
notifications would be forwarded to the WTO. Tu rkey was not in a position to indicate any 
time-frame.  
1.19  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.19.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 78008) 
The United States has received Turkey's responses to the US questions and is reviewing 
them. As a follow-up, could Turkey confir m whether any Members of the TMO's Board 
of Directors are appointed by or empl oyed by the Government of Turkey?  
 Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
Follow-up: The European Union noted its disappointment over the lack of response from Turkey, 
stating that Turkey provided the same answer th e last time the European Union asked the same 
question. The European Union noted the need for responses to be provided in a decent time-frame. 
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 2.1.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/13/ADD.17) 
AG-IMS ID 78027: Question by Australia - Allo cation of licences to  importing entities 
Australia thanks Switzerland for its resp onse to its question raised at the 77
th Committee 
on Agriculture, regarding the allocation of import entitlements within the Tariff Rate 
Quota (TRQ) for "Animals for slaughter; meat  mainly produced on the basis of coarse 
fodder". In that answer, Switzerland expl ained that quota shares for a number of 
products within the TRQ are distributed to im porters on the basis of a contribution to 
Swiss production, that is, the number of  animals slaughtered of Swiss origin. 
Can Switzerland clarify how these requiremen ts accord with its obligations under the 
agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measur es, namely Article I of the Annex to that 
Agreement and Article 4(2) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
 
Answer by Switzerland  
Switzerland refers to its reply to the question by the United States at the 77
th Committee on 
Agriculture. The increase in the quota shares for "Animals for slaughter; meat mainly produced on the basis of coarse fodder" distributed on the ba sis of a contribution to Swiss production was 
decided by the Swiss Parliament in March 2013. Only the distribution of quota shares is affected by 
this change in system. The fill rate for the tariff quota and the subcategories in question has traditionally been high (always exceeded in each  notification from 1995 to 2013), and should not 
be affected by this change. Switzerland therefore considers this system to be consistent with its 
WTO commitments. 
 Follow-up: The European Union and the United States noted their interest in this issue. 
 2.1.2  United States of Am erica (G/AG/N/USA/101/ADD.1) 
AG-IMS ID 78074: Question by the Dominica n Republic - Country-specific allocation 
Under which criteria does the United States  establish reallocations among beneficiary 
countries?  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Answer by the United States of America 
 The United States establishes reallocations on the same basis as the original allocations. Some countries on the original allocation did not receive additional allocation because they indicated that 
they could not ship additional amounts above the original. 
 2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/24) 
AG-IMS ID 78075: Question by the Dominican Republic - Transparency issues The European Union indicated in a footnote  that, where the numbers do not carry an 
asterisk, the amount indicated corresponds to import authorizations. What is the 
rational to use import authorizations instead of actual imports? 
 Answer by the European Union 
 
The tariff quotas in question are monitored on the basis of import licences issued. Data on actual imports are not recorded for the purpose of quota fill.  
 
AG-IMS ID 78043: Question by South Africa - Tariff quota fill 
South Africa notes with concern the low fill rates of certain quotas as notified in 
G/AG/N/EU/24. South Africa would like to kn ow the reasons why the following quotas 
were not filled and what the administration procedures are for allocating the quotas. 
Are these quotas allocated to specific countries?  
 080510 – Oranges; 
 2008 –Preserved fruit; 
 2009 – Grape juice. 
Answer by the European Union 
 These three tariff rate quotas are not allocated to any specific country; they are erga omnes . 
They are administered following the "first come - first served" principle. The low fill rates reflect 
the market conditions for these fruit and juices.  
 Follow-up: Argentina voiced its concern, both with respect to the low-fill rates and zero-fill rates 
for products such as bovine meat, poul try, cherries and also orange juice. 
 2.2.2  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/102) 
AG-IMS ID 78032: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The US commitments comprise 54 bound tariff quotas. However, the notification only 
includes 44 of them. As a matter of transp arency, could the United States explain the 
rationale for omitting ten TRQs? 
 
Answer by the United States of America  
Of the 54 tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) the WTO lists for the United States, 10 (USAQ003, USAQ005, 
USAQ007, USAQ011, USAQ015, USAQ027, USAQ029, USAQ031, USAQ032, USAQ048) represent bilateral TRQs with Mexico as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico's 
agricultural trade with the United States is fu lly liberalized therefore none of these TRQs are 
required anymore.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) AG-IMS ID 78073: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
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 77051. 
 
a. Can China indicate whether the aid given to State Trading Enterprises either as 
direct or indirect support in the form of  aid from the Industrialisation Funds or 
similar support instruments (which also includes agricultural and agro-food 
sectors) has been included in the notification and with which amounts? 
Supporting Table DS:1 
 
b. The footnote to the Supporting Table DS:1 states that the data includes both 
the outlays of the national and subnat ional governments. Could China explain 
the national and subnational shares of the Green Box spending notified? 
c. Can China indicate in which heading of th e current notification the Agricultural 
Insurance Programme has been included (CNY 116.9 billion in 2009, according to the annual budget for National People's Congress)? 
d. Can China elaborate on the reasons for the continued increase of the food 
security stocks (+33%) while at the same time production continue to 
increase? 
e. What types of farmers receive direct ai des and which sectors are eligible, and 
which criteria must farmers fulfil to be  eligible for this type of payments? 
Supporting Table DS:4 
 
f. Can China give further details to the ca lculation of the Value of Production, 
including the sources for this calculation in DS:4? 
g. Can China give more details on the di fferences in definition of products 
categories as indicated in the footnote to Table DS:4? 
Supporting Table DS:5 
 
h. Could China provide information on tota l wheat and rice production in the 
notified years 2009 and 2010? 
i. Can China give more details on the reasons for the very significant differences 
in the production numbers in this noti fication and the figures given by the 
national administration in "Report on grain development in China – 2013". 
According to the latter the buying-in of  wheat in China by State Enterprises 
in 2009 reached a total of 69.339 million tonnes, whereas this notification only indicates 39 million tonnes. Can China plea se explain this difference in detail? 
The difference for rice is even bigger.  How have the quantities for this 
notification been calculated? 
j. What are the reasons not to include maize in this notification, when to 
EU knowledge there exists a system of guaranteed prices for maize (minimum 
procurement price scheme). G/AG/W/147 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 
a. China attaches great importance to the questions of Members, including 
the European Union. However, regarding the so-called Industrialization Fund and 
the STE, we don't understand the relation between them. We therefore would like 
the European Union to clarify this question. 
b. Currently, China does not have the numbers at hand. The data is taken from the Outlay 
documents of the Ministry of Finance, which already has the aggregated expenditures of 
both national and sub-national governments. According to China's technical experts, if 
the national and subnational shares are to be calculated, technically, all the data should be broken down and then added up again, which requires almost the same amount of 
time as preparing the aggregated number. 
c. China can't identify the payment of CNY 116. 9 billion in the national budget for 2009. 
However, according to China's statistics, the expenditure on agricultural and forestry 
insurance is CNY 5.96 billion in 2009, which was included in the item of "payments for 
relief from natural disasters". 
d. The quantity of public stockholding for food security purposes can be affected by various 
factors, e.g., the need to address pressure on  food security caused by increased demand 
of daily consumption or inventory replenishment. In general, the quantity of food stock is always in dynamic equilibrium. Also, to increase food security stocks at times when production continues to decrease is not helpful for food security. 
e. All farmers with the right to contract land are eligible to receive direct payments. 
f. China calculates the value of production of "agricultural products" falling into the 
coverage of agricultural products defined by  the Agreement on Agriculture of the WTO, 
by deducting the value of fishery from the value of agriculture, for which coverage is 
broader than that of the Agreement on Agri culture. The value of agriculture comprises 
the value of production of four sub-sectors, namely, farming, forestry, husbandry and 
fishery. The data are from the official statistics by the National Bureau of Statistics of 
China. This methodology for VoP calculation is chosen because of the special condition in China. Since there are 260 million households in more than 30 provinces engaging in agricultural production, it is infeasible to use the methodology provided for in the 
Agreement on Agriculture. It is admitted that there may be minor deviations, because 
certain forestry products beyond the coverage are also included in the value. However, the error is negligible, since the value of production of forestry is not big, compared with 
the total value of agriculture. 
g. Please refer to the answer to question f. 
h. According to the statistics by the National Bu reau of Statistics, the production of wheat 
in 2009 and 2010 was 115.1 million tonnes and 115.2 million tonnes, while the 
production of rice was 195.1 million tonn es and 195.8 million tonnes respectively. 
i. The quantities of procurement by State Ente rprises in the "Report on grain development 
in China" include the quantities of procurement carried out by the enterprises 
themselves, as well as the quantities purchased under the Minimum Procurement Price 
Scheme. The quantity procured by the enterprises themselves is purchased at market price, based on their own business considerations. While the quantities in the notification 
are only the quantities purchased unde r the Minimum Procurement Price Scheme, 
i.e., the quantity purchased at guaranteed price. 
According to the Minimum Procurement Price Sc heme, when the market price falls to the 
level of the MPP, farmers can choose to sell their wheat or rice to the state, and the 
state will buy in all the products the farmers are willing to sell. Farmers are also free to sell their products to other buyers. Farm ers are guaranteed the minimum procurement 
price when they sell their products to the state, and the price of their sales to other 
buyers is subject to their negotiations. In addition, other factors also limit the G/AG/W/147 
 
- 23 - 
 
  procurement carried out under the Minimum Procurement Price Scheme. For example, 
farmers in China often keep some of their production for their own consumption, since hundreds of millions of them are subsistence farmers with very small farm lands. At the same time, Minimum Price Procurement Scheme is only applicable within limited regions 
instead of the whole country. Therefore, the qu antities of actual procurement are used in 
the calculation of the level of market price support, which are smaller than the quantities in the report. 
j. The procurement of corn is made under the "Temporary Stockholding Scheme", 
a scheme that is different from Minimum Procurement Price Scheme. The procurement under temporary stockholding is made at a price reflecting market conditions. 
2.3.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 78062: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77080 from the June CoA. 
 The United States notes that the Chinese Government did not include market price 
support calculations for corn, soybeans, and ra peseed in 2009, despite the fact that an 
applied administered price was announced for these commodities under the temporary 
reserve price support programme. The temp orary reserve programme operates as a 
price support programme and in a very  similar manner to the Minimum Price 
Procurement programme that was notified by China. The Government offers to purchase 
commodities at a specified price if the market price falls below that price. 
The Government holds the commodities in reserve and re-sells them in future years 
when market prices are higher. During year s of falling prices, like 2009, the Government 
buys large volumes to prevent prices from falling. In 2009, for example, China set a target price for corn at CNY 1,500 per me tric tonne, soybeans at CNY 3,700 per metric 
tonne, and rapeseed at CNY 3,700 per metric tonne.  
 According to the 2010 China Grain Industry Development Report edited by Nie Zhenbang, Director of the National Grai n Bureau (p. 14), "to stabilize grain market 
prices, protect returns to grain-planting farmers, in 2009 the Government implemented 
minimum procurement price programmes for rice and wheat, and temporary reserve 
purchases for corn, soybeans and Xinjiang wheat". The report said that the 
Government's grain reserves were at a record-high level as a result of these market 
stabilization programmes (p.29).   
Further, Xinhua News  Service in 2010 (see http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2010-
01/11/content_12791971.htm ) cited the Government's increase in minimum 
procurement prices for rice and wheat an d temporary reserve pr ocurement of rice, 
wheat, corn, soybeans and central reserves of oils from soybeans and rapeseed as 
measures that prevented prices  from falling during 2009.  
  The Xinhua article reported that purchase s by the State to intervene in markets 
prompted an increase in market prices and effectively increased the income of farmers 
by CNY 40 billion (USD 5.9 billion) duri ng 2009, "… effectively protecting the 
enthusiasm of farmers to plant grain". China clearly implements the "temporary 
reserve" programme in a manner that is inte nded to manipulate producer incentives and 
prevent market forces of supply and dema nd from determining prices. This was 
acknowledged by Chinese authorities during 2014 when "temporary reserve" programmes were ended for cotton and soybeans. 
 
a. Please revise the notification to include all relevant commodities for which an 
applied administered price was establishe d under this or any other programme. 
If China does not consider these pre-determined prices to be administered 
prices for these commodities, please explain the rationale. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. If the rationale is that the pre-determin ed prices are based on market prices, 
please clarify whether, in cases where th e market prices decline after the date 
the administered price is set, the admi nistered price does not automatically 
adjust (in other words it remains constant throughout the period for which it is 
set). 
c. If so, please indicate the reason for fixi ng the price rather than allowing market 
prices to move freely throughout the year.  
Answer by China 
 The purpose of this scheme of temporary stockholding is to protect farmers' livelihood and to guarantee food security. The purchasing price is a reflection of the market conditions, and there is 
a limit to the quantity of stockholding. These are different from the Minimum Procurement Price 
Scheme.  
AG-IMS ID 78063: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77073 from the June CoA. 
 China notified that outlays for agricultural infrastructure services  include a number of 
programmes. 
 
a. Please identify all major programmes a ccounted for in the notified value and 
the respective value of outlays in 2009 and 2010. 
b. Please provide additional details with regards to what the Agricultural 
Comprehensive Development Programs are and how they are implemented.  
c. Please provide additional details on how "small scale watering facilities on 
farmland" are implemented and how they meet the requirements of 
paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, in particular that it 
excludes expenditures for on-farm facilities. 
Answer by China 
 
a. Programmes covered by infrastructure services include: public welfare tasks in rural 
areas, comprehensive construction of energy projects in rural areas, drinking water 
supplying facilities for human and animals, small scale watering facilities on farmland, 
and soil and water conservation programmes. 
b. The Agricultural Comprehensive Development Programs include mainly programmes of 
two categories, land management programmes and programmes to facilitate 
industrialized agricultural production. La nd management programmes cover programmes 
related to improvement of land with low and medium productivity, ecological management programmes including renovation of grassland, and the update 
programmes for water-saving facilities in medium-sized irrigated area 
(667-20,000 hectares). Industrialized agricultural production programmes provide support for the construction of infrastructure facilities related to agricultural production, 
such as the roads, irrigation facilities and facilities for inspection and technical training. 
The programmes are implemented by Agricultural Comprehensive Development Offices at various levels. The offices of provincial level are in charge of the organization of the 
application. After the preliminary selection by the offices at county level, review and 
approval will be carried out by offices of municipal and provincial level, and then the applications will be reported to the office at national level and registered before the 
programmes are formally implemented. 
c. Support for construction of small-scale watering facilities is provided to farmer 
cooperatives, local governments of villages or small towns, to fund the construction of G/AG/W/147 
 
- 25 - 
 
  small-scale watering facilities for farmlands. Since most farms in China are very small, it 
is neither economic nor affordable for the farmers to construct watering facilities just for their own farms. Therefore, the projects are mainly constructed and managed by local governments or farmer cooperatives. The support is not provided through payments to 
farmers directly, nor does it include the expenditures for facilities on the farms. 
AG-IMS ID 78055: Question by the European Union - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
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 77052.  
a. Can China indicate the products, quantity and the average buying-in price of 
each product for the years 2009 and 2010? Can China indicate how the buying-in price was fixed and the level fo r the different products in question? 
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? 
c. Could China confirm that food purchase s by the Government under the public 
stockholding for food security purposes are made at current market prices as 
required by paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture? 
d. Could China indicate the food security  related pre-determined targets which 
guide the volume and accumulation of st ocks under the public stockholding for 
food security purposes as requir ed by paragraph 3 of Annex 2? 
Answer by China 
 
a. The procurement of agricultural products fo r public stockholding is made at prices 
reflecting market conditions. 
b. Relevant authorities are still working on details of the question. 
c. It can be confirmed that the purchases are made at prices reflecting market conditions. 
d. The objectives of China's food security po licy are: stabilizing the acreage of crop 
plantation; guaranteeing the self-sufficiency of important food products, including grains 
for the large population; maintaining the level of stockholding of food; and, establishing 
the logistics system for agricultural products concerned. The public stockholding for food 
security purposes is in conformity with the above-mentioned objectives. The purchase is 
made at prices reflecting market conditions. 
AG-IMS ID 78056: Question by the European Union - Domestic food aid 
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 
decreased so substantially compared to the pr evious years? Is this related to a policy 
change?  
 Answer by China 
 
Relevant authorities are still working on details of the question.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 26 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78057: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
The European Union would underline the importance to receive answers to the questions 
asked at the 77th meeting of the Committee, therefore the European Union repeats its 
question AG-IMS ID 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 
 
Relevant authorities are still working on details of the question.  
AG-IMS ID 78064: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77075 from the June CoA.  
 China's "payments for relief from natural disa sters" have increased substantially since 
2005, reaching CNY 583.84 hundred million in 2010. Per paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture "… payments  shall arise only following a formal 
recognition by government au thorities 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. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China noted that notified payments under this 
subheading include "disaster prevention ". Please clarify how this meets the 
criteria of paragraph 8. Please provide additional details as to the meaning of 
"disaster prevention". 
c. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China st ated that it was not in a position to 
provide any specific resources related to other specific policy and implementing 
guidance regarding the notified programmes. Is China now in a position to do 
so? If not, what resources are availa ble to help Members better understand 
programmes notified under this subheading? 
d. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, Chin a indicated that total payments only 
compensated for a small part of farmers' losses. Please provide an indication of 
the level of compensation provided to farmers compared to losses of income. 
e. Please provide a list of the indivi dual programmes included under this 
subheading. 
Answer by China 
 It's technically difficult, if not impossible, to compile the list of "all relevant formal recognitions", 
since the recognition could be made by governments of various levels. In general, the payments 
are made by local governments to support various activities related to disaster relief, after the disasters are recognized according to the contingency plan made by governments of various levels. 
It would be a misunderstanding that the payments for relief of natural disasters comprise the 
payment for "disaster prevention". This misunderst anding was caused by the inaccurate translation 
from Chinese into English. The payments cover outlays on relief from natural disasters and the restoration of agricultural production facilities, which in Chinese are generally summarized as 
"prevention of floods and disaster relief". As for the level of compensation, China confirms that the 
payments made conform to the relevant provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78065: Question by the 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 77074 from the June CoA. 
 
The United States notes that China's notification of environment programme 
expenditures has increased over time. China, in response to AG-IMS ID 59032, stated 
that it was impossible to determine wh ether the payments under the various 
programmes notified under these programmes are dependent on the fulfilment of specific criteria, a requirement outlined in paragraph 12(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Further, China stated that all the support at the time was used solely for 
compensation to the farming households affe cted 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 ramme under paragraph 12? 
Answer by China 
 Relevant authorities are still working on details of the question. 
 
AG-IMS ID 78058: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: payments under regional assistance programmes 
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 77055.  
Could China provide more details on the ai d provided to disadvantaged regions under 
regional assistance programmes? What are the criteria for disadvantaged regions? 
 
Answer by China 
 The criteria for classifying poverty-stricken areas are the parameters concerning the economic and 
social development. If these parameters are be low the average level of the western region, the 
area will be classified as a poverty-stricken area. Fourteen geologically neighbouring areas have been identified with such criteria. The support for such areas are universally available, and are not coupled with the type and quantity of production, nor with the market price. 
 
AG-IMS ID 78066: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments under regional assistance programmes 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77076 from the June CoA.  
China's regional assistance programme incl udes "outlays on aid and assistance to 
disadvantaged regions".  
a. How does China define "disadvantaged re gions" and what are those regions in 
China? 
b. Please provide additional details with regards to how this programme operates. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 Please refer to the answer to Question AG-IMS ID 78058, above.  
AG-IMS ID 78067: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77078 from the June CoA. 
 
a. The United States notes that China's calc ulation of market price support for rice 
is incorrect. The calculation uses a price for unmilled paddy rice as the administered price. However, the fixed ex ternal reference price for rice is for 
milled rice. These prices are not comparab le. The administered price should be 
adjusted to make it comparable to the price for milled rice. Please revise your 
notification. 
b. In AG-IMS ID 65049, China states that  the minimum purchasing price policy 
functions in the main grain producing pr ovinces, not in the overall state. The 
United States notes that China often cite s ensuring the livelihood of its poorest 
producers as a rationale for its domestic support policies. 
i. Please explain the basis for providing minimum support prices only to the 
producers in the main grain producin g regions where the greatest grain 
surpluses are located.  
ii. Even if only small surpluses were availa ble to sell in other regions, wouldn't 
providing a market price support to th ose smaller producers still provide the 
same important benefit as it does to  producers with larger surpluses as 
China claims?  
Answer by China 
 
a. The reason for China to use the price for unmilled paddy rice, instead of the milled rice, 
is that, the actual object of the procurement concerned was unmilled paddy rice, since milled rice is not suitable for long-term storage. Chinese experts have studied the questions very carefully, and concluded that there are great difficulties in the conversion 
of both price and quantity, because different varieties of rice are planted in different 
parts of China, and the conversion rates for different varieties are also different. At the same time, there is no fixed corresponding relationship between the unmilled and milled 
rice, which makes it impossible to convert the price with the same coefficient. 
b. The purpose of this scheme is to stabilize gr ain production, to guarantee supply at times 
of major fluctuations of the market supply and demand relationship, to protect farmers' 
livelihood and to guarantee food security. Setting geographical limits for the scheme is 
to reduce to the extent possible interventions or distortions to the market. The fiscal burden is also a factor that has been taken into account. Furthermore, in other provinces grain production is usually much less, resulting in relatively higher prices and less 
necessity for a minimum purchasing scheme. 
AG-IMS ID 78059: Question by the European  Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
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 77056. 
 
Could China explain why the eligible production  for rice in 2010 in Supporting Table DS:5 
is indicated at 0?  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 Please refer to the answer to question AG-IMS ID 77011. In 2009, the market price of rice in 
major production region was lower than the minimum procurement price, hence triggering the 
policy and rice was purchased at the minimum procurement price. In 2010, the market price was 
higher than the minimum procur ement price, so the minimum pr ocurement price scheme was not 
triggered, and therefore, the amount of eligible production was nil. 
 
AG-IMS ID 78068: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production  
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77077 from the June CoA.  
 With regards to the notified market price support programme for wheat and rice in 
Supporting Table DS:5, the United States already understands that according to China 
"only the grains sold to the State at the mi nimum purchasing price are entitled to the 
applied administered price" as noted in AG -IMS ID 65049. However, the methodology 
for market price support in paragraph 8, Annex 3, is clear that the quantity of production 
eligible to receive the applied administered pr ice must be used. Eligible production is not 
the same as what was actually purchased,  unless a predetermined limit was announced 
in conjunction to the support price.  
 
a. Please cite documentation that establishe s the level of production eligible to 
receive the applied administered price.  
b. If pre-determined targets are not set by the Government, please indicate 
whether there are any statutory limits on  the quantities of product that are 
eligible to receive the applied administered price. 
Answer by China 
 The minimum procurement price policy is implemented in a defined region (the major production region) and a defined time (the harvest season), which in reality constitutes limitations for the 
quantity of procurement. 
 AG-IMS ID 78060: Question by the European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
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 
 China undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 
AG-IMS ID 78069: Question by the United St ates of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
Since China has not supplied formal written re sponses, the United States resubmits its 
question AG-IMS ID 77079 from the June CoA.   As has been previously noted by multiple Me mbers, China's inclusio n of negative market 
price support in the summation of produc t-specific AMS in Supporting Table DS:7 
is a serious concern and should be reported as a zero for purposes of summation. The United States would note that the intent of negative support in the AMS is to 
account for "specific agricultural levies or fees paid by producers" per Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 30 - 
 
  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 an d specific rules that China believes 
permits this. 
The United States appreciates the transparency  provided by China in noting the various 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7 . The United States suggests China notify 
these programmes on a disaggregated basis.  
c. Please provide a breakdown of the produc t-specific programmes notified in the 
footnotes with their respec tive outlays by commodity. 
Answer by China 
 
China undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 78061: Question by the Euro pean Union - Non-product-specific AMS 
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 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? 
b. Is the aid given as tax rebates (for instan ce in the horticultural sector) included 
in this table? 
Answer by China 
 China undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
 
Follow-up: The United States stated that it agreed with the views of some of the questioners, for 
example, on market price support and negative AMS support. The United States was also 
interested in how the Central Government ensure d that the support given as a prevention level 
was in the category that was reported in the notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 78014: Question by Canada - China's outstanding responses at the 
77
th Committee on Agriculture meeting 
At the 77th Committee on Agriculture Meeting on 4 June 2015, Canada posed several questions to 
China on its 2009 and 2010 DS:1 notification G/AG/N/CHN/28, i.e. AG-IMS ID 77007, 
AG-IMS ID 77008, AG-IMS ID 77009, AG-IMS ID 77010, AG-IMS ID 77011, AG-IMS ID 77012 and 
AG-IMS ID 77013. Canada recalls that during the J une meeting, China indicated that it was not in 
a position to provide responses but would do so shortly after the meeting. Canada notes that the 
rules require that Members not in a position to provide a reply at a meeting of the Committee have 
30 days to provide a detailed response. Given that  China has not yet provided responses to any of 
Canada's questions, Canada respectfully requests that China provide substantive answers to the 
questions. 
 
 AG-IMS ID 77007: Question by Canada  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
Historically, China has notified product-sp ecific support for six products: wheat, 
rice, corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed and pigs (starting in 2007). Potato was G/AG/W/147 
 
- 31 - 
 
  added to the list in 2009 and highland barley and peanuts were added in 2010. 
Could China please elaborate on the criter ia for payments to these newly included 
products and the duration of these measures?   
Answer by China 
 The Chinese government provided subsidy for improved crop strains and seeds of highland 
barley, potato and peanut in 2009 and 2010. The payment rate for highland barley seed was 
CNY 10 per mu, or CNY 150 per hectare; CNY 100 per mu or CNY 1,500 per hectare for potato, CNY 50 per mu or CNY 750 per hectare for peanuts.   
 AG-IMS ID 77012: Question by Canada  - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
China claims exemption for outlays for pub lic stockholding of vegetable oils and 
sugar but does not report any market pric e support for these products. Does this 
imply that China does not use administered prices to acquire the public stocks of 
vegetable oils and sugar? 
  
Answer by China  China did not purchase sugar and vegetable oil at administered prices in 2009 and 2010. 
 
 AG-IMS ID 77011: Question by Canada - Ma rket price support: Eligible production  
Canada notices a significant increase in eligible production for rice in 2009 and 
a zero amount in eligible production in 2010. Could China please explain these 
significant changes? In 2010, would the zero amount in e ligible production 
i n d i c a t e  t h a t  n o  r i c e  w a s  p r o c u r e d  through the Minimum Procurement Price 
Scheme? 
 Answer by China  
In 2009, the market price of rice in major production region was lower than the minimum 
procurement price, hence triggering the policy and rice was purchased at the minimum procurement price. In 2010, the market pric e was higher than the minimum procurement 
price, so the minimum procurement price sch eme was not triggered, and therefore, the 
amount of eligible production was nil.   
 AG-IMS ID 77009: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notes that payments to pig produc ers dropped considerably from RMB 6.30 
hundred million in 2009 to RMB 2.13 hundred million in 2010. Could China elaborate on this change in support to pig producers? 
 
Answer by China  
Support to pigs in 2009 and 2010 was a subsidy for breeding productive sows. However, 
in 2010, the policy was actually not implemented. The expenditure in 2010 was the residual amount that should have been paid in 2009, which was much smaller than the payment 
in 2009.  
 
 AG-IMS ID 77013: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that outlays on input subsid ies (Supporting Table DS:9), which rose 
dramatically in 2007, continued to increase by 10% in 2008 and then by 10% 
again in 2010, reaching more than Y 95 billion or about USD 14 billion. This single large amount prompts Canada to repeat the unanswered question from the 
65
th Committee on Agriculture meeting (AG-IMS 65051) about the steps China is 
taking to be able to provide the info rmation disaggregated by agricultural 
machines, fertilizers, agricultural diesel oil, and feeds. 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Answer by China 
 Input subsidies comprise mainly the programme of comprehensive subsidies for agricultural inputs and the programme for purchasing agri cultural machinery and tools. The programme 
of comprehensive subsidies for agricultural inputs is to compensate in a comprehensive way 
farmers' suffering from price surges of agricultural inputs. For this programme there are no further disaggregated expenditures, since the payment rate is calculated based on price 
indexes of various production factors in a comprehensive manner, and the amount of 
payment is the result of payment rate times th e acreage of contract land of each farmer. 
The subsidy is paid directly to farmers, who have full discretion regarding the use of the subsidy, regardless of whether they actually purchase the inputs or not. Therefore, the 
government doesn't have the amount of subsidy for each input. Under the programme for 
purchasing agricultural machinery and tools, subsidies are provided to farmers or services providers of agricultural machinery and tools that purchase agricultural machinery and tools.  
 
Follow-up: A number of Members welcomed China's answers to questions from a previous 
Committee on Agriculture meeting.  
 
2.3.3  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/51) 
AG-IMS ID 78033: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level Canada would like to express its apprecia tion for Costa Rica's transparency and 
engagement over the past few years rega rding its Current Total AMS excess of its 
WTO commitment. With its most recent DS:1 notification for 2014, Costa Rica is once again over its AMS commitment and does not provide any support details aside from the 
Market Price Support for rice. Would Costa Ri ca indicate when it expects to provide 
a revised notification to the Committee to in clude the missing information? Canada looks 
forward to Costa Rica's DS:1 notification for 2015 when the Executive Decree will be 
operational.  
 Answer by Costa Rica  
Costa Rica would like once again to thank Canada for following this issue and advises that 
Executive Decree No. 38.884-MEIC, which replaced  the fixed producer price for rice with 
a reference price, entered into force in March 2015. The regulations therein have applied to 
national rice production as from that date. Costa Rica recalls that the mentioned Executive Decree 
was notified to the Committee on Agriculture in Document G/AG/GEN/126.  
In keeping with its practice of notifying all of its obligations in a proper and timely fashion in 
accordance with its commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture, Costa Rica will be notifying domestic support for 2015 at the end of March 2016, including, of course, the Aggregate Measurement of Support for 2015. It is then that this Committee will be able to 
determine whether Costa Rica has managed to meet the annual monetary limits of its bound AMS, 
which amounts to USD 15.9 million.  
While Costa Rica hopes to be within its AMS limits, production levels for January and 
February 2015 (during which a fixed producer price was applied in accordance with Executive Decree 37.699-MEIC, revoked by the ab ove-mentioned Decree No. 38.884–MEIC) will be 
known during the first months of 2016, when the National Rice Growers Corporation publishes the 
annual and monthly production data that is needed to calculate the AMS for 2015.  Follow-up: The United States, Canada and Pakistan welcomed Costa Rica's continued transparency 
on this issue. The United States expressed its interest to study how Costa Rica's new programme would work. The United States also noted its interest in knowing the role that the Government of Costa Rica had in the group that sets the reference prices. 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.3.4  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/41) 
AG-IMS ID 78034: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
Honduras notified the programme "Sustainable rural development programme for the 
Southern Region (EmprendeSUR)" as a Green Box programme for 2014. In the following 
Supporting Table DS:2, Honduras notifies  "Competitiveness and sustainable rural 
development project in the Northern Zo ne of Honduras (Northern Horizons)". 
The information provided per the notification does not substantially differentiate the two 
programmes.  
 Please elaborate on why the EmprendeSUR pr o g r a m m e  i s  c o n s i d e r e d  t o  b e  T r a i n i n g  
Services consistent with the Green Box, while the Northern Horizons program is listed as 
an investment programme under Article 6.2. Are payments being provided in the form of 
investment subsidies to individual farmers?  
 
Answer by Honduras 
 
i. The EmprendeSur Programme was classified under paragraph 2(c) (training services) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as it focuses on both general and specialist 
training for small-scale producers in the departments of Francisco Morazán, Choluteca, Valle, La Paz and El Paraíso. The programme seeks to build social, technical, productive and managerial capacity with a view to creating value chains that benefit small-scale producers 
in the above-mentioned rural communities and en hancing job creation and food security in 
those areas. 
ii. The Northern Horizons Programme involves training and capacity-building for poor rural 
households in the departments of Atlántida, Cortés and San Bárbara. It promotes production 
methods that focus on environmental protection, gender equality and rural youth inclusion and comprises the following components: human and social development, value chains, 
competitiveness and project management. 
In view of the above, and on the basis of rele vant research and analysis conducted by this 
State Secretariat and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the Northern Horizons Programme should be classified under Annex 2, General services, paragraph (c), since it includes general and 
specialist training services. We emphasize that  the Government of Honduras does not grant 
individual support, but rather general support for these communities. 
It should be noted that the Northern Horizons Programme will no longer be implemented as of 
October 2015, as co-financing from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) 
and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has not materialized given that the resources destined 
for this programme are being redirected to other initiatives prioritized by the Government. 
 
2.3.5  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 78035: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG-I MS ID 77083 from the June CoA meeting.  
 The United States notes that India's exte rnal reference price for wheat in 1986/87, 
1987/88, and 1988/89 in G/AG/AGST/IND is INR 3,540 per metric tonne for each year. 
India's AGST document states these pric es are the c.i.f. average unit price for 
RITC No. 0413002 (1986-87) and H.S. No. 1001.9002 (1987-88 and 1988-89) derived 
from Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade in  India. In G/AG/N/IND/10, India converted 
this to USD 264 per metric tonne. This price a ppears to be quite high compared to other 
WTO Members who scheduled fixed external re ference prices (FERP) for wheat in their 
AGST documents. For example, the EU FERP is approximately USD 97 per metric tonne, 
the Turkish FERP is approximately USD 98.50  per metric tonne, and the Japanese FERP 
is approximately USD 160 per metric tonne when each is converted to US dollars. Further, various measures of world prices also show the world price of wheat to be G/AG/W/147 
 
- 34 - 
 
  much lower than that notified by India. For ex ample, the US No.2 Gulf soft red winter is 
USD 126 per metric tonne and the US Gulf hard red winter was USD 135 per metric 
tonne. This would appear to indicate that fo r India's FERP, on a c.i.f. basis, to make 
sense shipping costs per tonne would have  almost equalled the price of the wheat 
itself. For further comparison, even during the 2006-2008 period, the Russian 
Federation only scheduled a FERP of USD 211 per metric tonne.  
a. Please provide the source data for establishing India's FERP. 
b. Please provide an explanation for the va riance between India's FERP and other 
relevant prices discussed above. 
c. Please confirm that the external refere nce price was indeed the same for each 
year at INR 3,540 per metric tonne. 
Answer by India 
 
a. to c. The original data source is as indicated in India's AGST document. The calculations can be 
confirmed using widely available standard sources of trade statistics.  
AG-IMS ID 78037: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 77110 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76018 and othe r responses to various Members questions, 
India has repeatedly stated the basis for notifying in US dollars is to provide 
a comparable estimate since 1995. However, this is not comparable to the commitments 
India undertook in its AGST document. Further, in response to AG-IMS ID 76066, the 
United States of America notes that upon  the request for India's notification in 
Indian rupees that India states "support ha s already been notified and the conversion 
rates from INR to USD have already been provided". 
 At India's suggestion, the United States of America has used the information provided in 
India's notification to calculate the level of support India notifies in Indian rupees for 
comparison. The United States of America notes India's Market Price Support, using 
India's current methodology for calculatin g support at Rs 362.5 million for wheat and 
Rs 335.7 million for rice. 
 
Please confirm whether the US  calculations are correct. 
 
Answer by India 
 The necessary details are provided in the notifica tions for the relevant period. India requests the 
United States to share the detailed calculations us ed by them for arriving  at the above figures. 
 
AG-IMS ID 78038: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 77111 from the June CoA meeting. 
 In response to AG-IMS ID 76067, India responded that State governments do not 
provide any funding for the support of agricult ure and that all funds are provided by the 
Central Government. State governments expe nd Central government funds "per the 
modalities defined by the Government of India".  
Please explain what these modalities are and how they are implemented. 
 Answer by India 
 
The modalities are framed on a programme by programme basis and may specify various components to be included such as research and development, pest management, cold chain G/AG/W/147 
 
- 35 - 
 
  infrastructure, extension services, marketing infrastructure etc. The implementation of these 
components and the specific role that is assigned to State governments is detailed in the operational guidelines for the programme in question.   
AG-IMS ID 78039: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 77112 from the June CoA meeting. 
 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part b) and c) , India provided data on the quantities of 
wheat exported through competitive global te nders. This data varies from the data 
noted by the United States on the Food Corporation of India website. 
 
a. Please provide the source of the data pr ovided by India and what accounts for 
the discrepancy between the two sources. 
b. Please provide the weighted averages on an annual basis. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part  e-g), the United States appreciates 
India's commitment to the WTO and notifying in a manner it considers 
consistent with the WTO. However, the United States repeats the questions in 
hopes of understanding how India notifies: 
c. Please confirm the US estimates of Stat e bonuses and provide total State-level 
funding expenditures for the notified period, including, but not limited to, 
state-bonuses per part e) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
d. Please confirm whether the State-bonus or  other State-level funding is included 
in the notification by India under pub lic stockholding for food security per 
part d) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
e. Please explain any other expenditure notified under this sub-heading and 
include relevant values for the notified period. 
Answer by India 
 
a. The export quantity reflected in the websit e of FCI pertaining to the years 2012-13 
and 2013-14 is as per off-take data fed in DISFM (FCI's Computer Program) by field 
offices. The entire quantity issued out from a depot for the purpose of export is shown in 
the DISFM to have been exported. However, the export during the said period as per bill of lading quantity was 5.47 Million MT. The ex port figures as per bills of lading and as 
per DISFM for the two years under reference are provided below: 
(Quantity in Million MT) 
S. No. Source of Data 2012-13 2013-14 Total 
1. As per bill of lading 2.899 2.571 5.470 
2. As per DISFM 3.074 2.429 5.503 
 
b. The average FOB rate in the export undertaken during the three years from 2012-13 
to 2014-15 is as follows: 
S. No. Year Average FOB 
(USD) 
1 2012-13 314.01 
2. 2013-14 294.15 
3 2014-15 281.22 
 
c. It is not clear how the United States has arrived at these estimates of State bonuses. 
d. and e. The notifications by India under public  stockholding for food security reflect the 
difference between the MSP and the issue prices. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 36 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78040: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
The United States resubmits its question AG-I MS ID 77113 from the June CoA meeting.  
The United States thanks India for providin g a copy of the legislation in response 
to AG-IMS ID 76070.  
a. The United States of America would a ppreciate a better understanding of the 
basis for implementing this debt program as described.  
b. Other than landholding size, what factors contributed to India's assessment 
that two hectares was an appropriat e basis for determining which farmers 
received debt waivers versus debt relief. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76070, India states there is no pooling of landholdings by 
India farmers. However, per the link provided by India 
https://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190  the law states the 
following: "In the case of borrowing by more than one farmer by pooling their 
landholdings, the size of the largest landholding in the pool shall be the basis for the 
purpose of classification of all farmers in th at pool as 'marginal farmer' or 'small farmer' 
or 'other farmer'". 
c. Please explain. 
d. The United States repeats the previous qu estion noting the pooling described in 
the legislation provided by India: Ca n India provide relevant data on the 
pooling of landholdings by Indian farm ers? For example, the percentage of 
landholdings that are pooled; the average size of the combined pooled 
landholdings; the number of farmers involv ed in a single landholding "pool" on 
average, etc. 
e. In response to AG-IMS ID 75052, Indi a stated it would be providing the 
appropriate Table DS:2 notification in du e course. The notification has still not 
been provided despite being a progra m introduced a number of years ago. 
f. When will India submit this overdue notification? 
Answer by India 
a. and b. The Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 for farmers was 
implemented through all scheduled commercial banks, besides Regional Rural Banks 
(RRBs) and co-operative credit institutions.  
c. to f. Section 3.7 of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 did not 
introduce a new mechanism but prescribed the criteria for determining whether a debt 
would be waived or relief provided (as the case may be), in the event that more than 
one farmer (in individual capacities as either single operational holders or joint operational holders) had come to an arrangement to pool their landholdings when they 
applied for a loan. As stipulated, the size of land of the farmer with the largest 
landholding becomes the basis for classification of all farmers in that pool. More information about the number and size of operational holdings are available publically in the All India Report on Number and Area of operational holdings at 
http://agcensus.nic.in/document/agcensus2010/completereport.pdf . A full report 
including statistics on the amount of debt is available in the Report of the Comptroller 
and Auditor General of India on the Implementa tion of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and 
Debt Relief Scheme 2008.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 37 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78041: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
The United States resubmits its question AG-I MS ID 77114 from the June CoA meeting.  
a. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India notes in part c) that government is 
purchasing at MSP only the surplus produce which the farmer wants to sell. 
Based on India's response, it is in fact  the US understanding that it is the 
choice of farmers not to sell to the Gove rnment at the MSP and that there is no 
limitation on the quantity of products, including rice or wheat that the 
Government is willing to purchase from In dian farmers. Please confirm this is 
correct. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India did not directly answer the question. 
The United States of America would like to confirm that India's decision to 
abandon its notification methodology reflected in the AGST document and 
India's first notification for 1995/1996 is  because of the reason provided and 
not due to any policy change between 1995/1996 and 1996/1997. Please 
confirm. 
c. The United States of America also notes that India, in response to various 
questions asked by Members, has based its choice of notifying in US dollars on 
the fact that it did so in its first notifi cation for comparable levels of support. 
If no domestic change in policy occurred, as India was asked to confirm, this 
logic seems to be inconsistent within India's notification.  
d. Please provide the level of total prod uction for all years since 1995/96 for 
commodities notified under Supporting Table DS:5 so that Members may have a basis of comparing current level of su pport with that notified in India's 
commitments and its first notification, with respect to eligible production. 
e. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062 part d) and e), India states its notification is 
compliant with WTO rules. The United St ates of America notes that India has 
notified that all rice and wheat farmer s in India received the same applied 
administered price. However, the United  States of America notes that this 
appears to be inaccurate, and according to official state agencies and media 
reports state bonuses in addition to the applied administered price were 
provided in a number of states. For example, the state of Madya Pradesh 
procured 3.538 million metric tonnes of wheat in 2010/11. Wheat procured in 
Madya Predesh was not purchased at the a pplied administered price notified by 
India, but rather at rate of Rs. 100 per me tric quintal higher than the notified 
administered price. In total, trillions of  rupees are expended each year paying 
state bonuses for the procuremen t of wheat and rice alone. 
f. Please update Supporting Table DS:5 to reflect the actual applied administered 
prices. 
Answer by India 
a. It is clarified that farmers have a choice of either selling their produce to the 
Government Agencies at MSP or to sell it to anyone else at competitive prices. However, this does not mean that there is no limitation on the quantity of products i.e. rice or 
wheat to be purchased by the Government fr om the farmers. Before the onset of each 
marketing season, the Government of India holds a consultation meeting with the officials of Food Corporation of India (FCI), State Governments and others to make 
an assessment of availability of wheat or rice, as the case may be, for procurement at 
MSP based on the prospects of production  and market situation. Based on this, 
Government of India fixes targets for procurement of wheat or rice for the ensuing 
marketing season. There is no question of the Government resorting to unlimited 
procurement over and above the targets set for the season.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 38 - 
 
  In view of the fact that procurement is made in respect of only a few of the crops under 
the MSP operations, the support given is limited to these crops. This is the reason why all the crops for which MSP is announced are not notified.  
b. to c. The notification in US dollars simply in dicates the conversion of the relevant figures 
into the US currencies to provide comparable level of support. This is the consistent 
approach followed by India.  
d. The total production of rice, wheat and cotton from 2004-05 to 2010-11 were provided 
in response to AG-IMS ID 75073 by the European Union (G/AG/W/138).  
e. For every marketing season, the Government  of India announces the MSP for various 
commodities covered under the price support scheme. Government of India has taken a decision not to procure from Stat es paying bonuses to farmers.  
f. The Applied Actual Prices are as indicated in the notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 78036: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production  
The United States resubmits its question AG-I MS ID 77084 from the June CoA meeting.  
In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, the United States understands that India only notified 
the procured quantity of production as the "eligible production" for purposes of 
Supporting Table DS:5 because "India procur es the marketable surplus which farmers 
want to sell keeping aside their own consumption requirements and seed requirements 
for the next crop year". The United States appreciates this response regarding what the 
amount actually procured is. However, the question remains: "what is the reasoning 
behind India's decision to adopt a new und erstanding of eligible production and 
abandon its previous position of notifyin g all price supports as reflected in its 
AGST document"? 
a. Please explain. 
b. Further, please explain wh ether there has been any policy change in how the 
administered price is operated during the period under review in India's most recent notification as compared to during the period covered 
by G/AG/AGST/IND. In particular, India notes in its AGST document that the 
"administered price shown in column 3 pertain to the following marketing 
years in which production shown under co lumn 5 becomes eligible for the said 
administer price". In other words, India claimed, and as such made 
commitments under the WTO, that its admi nistered prices were eligible to be 
received by all production. 
Answer by India 
Market support prices are intended to provide mini mum remunerative prices to the farmers so that 
they do not have to resort to distress sales. For most of the commodities under MSP, generally 
market prices rule above MSP and, therefore, Government is not required to make any 
procurement. The Government intervenes only when market prices fall below MSP. Another aspect is that the government does not procure in all the States, hence the entire production is not covered.  
Follow-up: The United States sought clarification from India regarding a pending Table DS:2 
notification that India had previously stated it would submit. The European Union asked India to 
confirm that the Indian Government did not buy from States that give bonuses to farmers. 
This was confirmed by India. The European Union then requested confirmation from India as to 
whether the Indian federal government was not buying wheat from the Punjab government. India 
noted that two different things were being confused. India stated that the EU's earlier question 
regarding Punjab was based on a price report. India explained that the Chief Minister of Punjab G/AG/W/147 
 
- 39 - 
 
  had requested the Government of India to fix the market price support at 1,950 for wheat. It was 
a request which had been placed by the State of Punjab to the Government of India. This kind of requests were normally made by the States to th e Government of India then, after considering all 
the requests and taking all the factors into account, the Government would fix a minimum support 
price. That was how the system operated. 
2.3.6  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/7, G/AG/N/OMN/13) 
AG-IMS ID 78013: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In November 2012 (AG-IMS ID 68029), September 2012 (AG-IMS ID 67038) and 
June 2015 (AG-IMS ID 77090) the United  States asked a question regarding 
Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7 and the notification of new programmes. 
Oman stated it would respond at a later stag e. The United States resubmits its question: 
The United States asked questions in 2009 regarding Oman's notification 
G/AG/N/OMN/7. The United States notes that  a number of those programmes appear in 
the most recent notification (G/AG/N/OMN/ 11 refers). In 2009, Oman provided helpful 
responses to the US questions and indicated a Table DS:2 notifica tion regarding those 
programmes would be submitted. Please confirm if Oman submitted a Table DS:2 
notification. If not, when will Oman be making its notification?  
Answer by Oman Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 78071: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
The United States resubmits its question AG-IMS ID 77087 on G/AG/N/OMN/13 from 
the June CoA. 
Oman has notified "Development of  natural pastures" under General 
service - Infrastructure in Supporting Table DS:1. 
a. Can Oman provide further details on th e programme to develop and maintain 
natural pastures on government land?  
b. Are the natural pastures used for animal grazing? If so, do individual producers 
benefit from the improvements made to the pasture land? 
Answer by Oman 
Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 78072: Question by the United St ates of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment/Develo pment Programmes): Other 
The United States resubmits its question  AG-IMS ID 77088 on G/AG/N/OMN/13. 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, budgetary expenditures  under "National project for date palm 
development" increased substantially in 2013. Please describe how this programme 
operates and the reason for the large change in expenditures in the most recent notification. 
Answer by Oman 
Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 40 - 
 
  2.3.7  Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/16) 
AG-IMS ID 78046: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia thanks Pakistan for the re sponse to its question at the 77th Committee 
on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 77038) with re spect to Pakistan's domestic support 
notification (G/AG/N/PAK/16), and the Pakistan 's notification of support in US Dollars 
(USD), rather than Pakistan Rupees. 
In its response, Pakistan stated that the use of USD was essentially an extension of 
previous practice. Could Pakistan  please explain what the rati onale is for not notifying in 
local currency, in the first instance? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Pakistan chose to calculate the AMS in US dollars because it is a currency which remains stable in 
value terms during the period under reference. A detailed reply was also provided for this, 
regarding earlier notifications, in our submission  dated 19 March 1998 on a similar issue. We can 
have more discussion on this with Australia bilaterally, if they are interested. 
Follow-up: Australia noted that it would take up the offer from Pakistan to pursue this issue 
bilaterally. As a general comment, Australia stated that it continued to have concerns over 
countries that choose to make their notifications in currencies other than the domestic currency 
and that it would continue to monitor this practice. The United States, supported by the European Union and Canada, expressed interest on  the subject and requested that information be 
shared on the outcome of future bilateral discu ssions between Pakistan and Australia. Pakistan 
clarified that the objective was not to have any bila teral negotiations. Pakistan stated that it would 
explain further why Pakistan relies on US dollars as a currency to report data. Pakistan was of the view that bilateral discussions wouldn't lead to any negotiations, and added that US dollars were 
used for reporting other data to other multilateral institutions as well, and that it was consistent 
with the practice followed by Pakistan. 
2.3.8  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/9) 
AG-IMS ID 78081: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federati on please elaborate on the types of 
programmes and respective expenditure th at receive payments under environmental 
programmes and regional assistance programmes?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
In 2013, targeted subsidies were provided by regional budgets: 
 for financial support to organizations conducting the collection and recycling of bio-waste 
– USD 0.19 million; 
 for the land protection from flooding and water erosion – USD 0.01 million; 
 for the measures on the creation of anti-erosion protective forest plantations – 
USD 4.71 million; 
 for work on reclaiming landfi ll biowaste – USD 0.04 million; 
 for the protection of reindeer pastures from fire – USD 0.24 million. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 41 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 78048: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that a number of items in the Green Box have received support in Russia's 
newest DS:1 for 2013, which reported no am ounts in the previous notification. These 
include: 
 
a. Domestic Food Aid; 
b. Decoupled Income Support; 
c. Government financial participation in in come insurance and income safety-net 
programmes; 
d. Structural adjustment assistance pr ovided through resource retirement 
programmes; 
e. Payments under Environment Programs; 
f. Other. 
Would the Russian Federation please indicate, for each of these items, if the provided 
support is a result of new initiatives? If so,  would the Russian Federation please advise 
when it expects to provide an associated DS:2 notification providing the necessary 
details regarding these programmes?  
Answer by the Russian Federation Structural changes in financial agricultural support in the Russian Federation were caused by the 
introduction of the new state ag ricultural programme, actual si nce 2013 till 2020. This programme, 
as well as regional programmes, is developed in conformity with the WTO principles, taking into account individual commitments to reduce domestic support. 
One of the parts of the national agricultural dome stic support policy is the progressive replacement 
of measures that have a distorting effect on trade with the measures that are exempted from 
financing reduction commitments, in other words with the "green" box measures. 
The structure of agricultural state support includes specific non-distorting measures ("Green Box"), 
including decoupled income support in crop production, support for agricultural income insurance 
and domestic food aid, which have been develope d and notified in strict conformity with the 
criteria of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture as of 15 April 1994. 
Decoupled income support in crop production, as well as agricultural insurance support 
programme, is provided in the sub-programme "Dev elopment of crop sub-sector, processing and 
marketing of crop products". Decoupled income support affords to maintain the quality 
of agricultural crop products by ecologization of agricultural products and conservation of the soil's 
resource potential. Its financing is fixed and available for agricultural producers that possess crop areas.  
The potential recipient must submit the documents supporting the status of agricultural producers 
and the availability of land with owned area for obtaining the federal support. 
The total volume of the financial support in 2013 for decoupled income support in crop production 
was USD 1,192.15 million (including the federal component - USD 794.46 million, the regional 
component - USD 397.69 million). 
The agricultural insurance support programme is provided within the allowable financial assistance 
(which compensates for not more than 50% loss of public funds), in conformity with the specified 
threshold level of insurance case for state support (when the reduction of the gross income G/AG/W/147 
 
- 42 - 
 
  exceeds 30%) and the average value of the loss of  gross income, calculated on the basis of the 
five-year period. 
A part of the insurance premium paid to the insurance company fund is co-financed within the 
provided agricultural insurance income support. Payments being provided in conformity with the 
insurance contracts are consistent with the above mentioned parameters. 
The total volume of financial support for agricultural insurance income support was 
USD 171.76 million (including the federal component - USD 146.86 million, the regional component - USD 24.90 million). 
The state support related to the compensation of  a part of costs incurred while registering the 
ownership of land areas for private farms (compensation of registration costs) in "Fostering for structural changes through the promotion of investments". 
The total volume of financial support for the me ntioned branch was USD 100.60 million (including 
the federal component – USD 64.45 million, th e regional component – USD 36.15 million). 
AG-IMS ID 78077: Question by the Dominican Republic - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
What programmes are included under: "(d)  Decoupled income support" and "(e) 
Government financial participation in in come insurance and income safety-net 
programmes"? And what do they consist of? 
Answer by the Russian Federation See answer provided in question AG-IMS ID 78048. 
AG-IMS ID 78049: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: pest and disease control 
Support for pest and disease control under  the Green Box decreased significantly 
in 2013 going from a total of USD 755.36 mill ion in 2012 to USD 80.92 million in 2013. 
Would the Russian Federation please elaborat e on the reasons behind this substantial 
decrease in support? 
Answer by the Russian Federation Quantitative differences in financial support for pest and disease control identified by comparing 
the data of 2013 and 2012 are caused by the recalculation of financial support for pest and disease control. Moreover the target localization of financ ing is not subject to notification, and therefore, 
the exclusion of expenses (salaries, social insu rance contributions, etc.) is provides for the 
maintenance of the authorized agency (the Fe deral Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Surveillance). 
AG-IMS ID 78052: Question by Canada - General services: training services 
Federal support under training services in creased from USD 19.50 million in 2012 to 
USD 518.35 million in 2013. Would the Russian Fe deration please provide details on this 
substantial increase in support? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
The volume of financial support for "Education and training services" in 2012 was 
USD 469.58 million and had an insignificant devi ation from the volume of financial support 
in 2013 (USD 518.3 million).  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 43 - 
 
  The amount of USD 19.50 million is a subject to notification under "Training support and 
consulting services", included in subsection iv  "Extension and advisory services, including the 
provision of means to facilitate the transfer of information and the results of research to products and consumers". 
AG-IMS ID 78079: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Under General Services in Table DS:1, coul d the Russian Federation disaggregate the 
sub-federal expenditure for infrastructural se rvices (paragraph vii) to delineate the 
expenditure and the specific projects fo r each type of infrastructure item?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
The bulk of the regional (infrastructure) co sts in 2013 was associated with the creation 
(restoration) of:  
 the basic infrastructure, including electricity networks, water supply (including the 
drilling of boreholes), gas and automobile lines (access) roads – USD 39.79 million (57.17%); 
 the reclamation infrastructure for irrigation and drainage and erosion 
control - USD 23.95 million (34.42%); and 
 the infrastructure for marketing of agricultural products, including logistical support, as 
well as facilities for the storage of agricultural products and 
foodstuffs - USD 5.85 million (8.41%). 
AG-IMS ID 78053: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Canada notes a significant decrease in spen ding under public stockholding for food 
security purposes from 2012 to 2013 going from USD 228.80 million to USD 0.16 million 
respectively. Would the Russian Federation plea se elaborate on this significant decrease 
in support?  
Answer by the Russian Federation Reduction in financial support for «Public stockholding for food security purposes» on a reported 
basis in 2013 is due to the adjustment in the qual ification of the notified support measures, which 
resulted in financial support under "Subsidies to legal entities for intervention fund forming, 
holding, insuring international fund, loan servicing and relevant measures" in the volume of 
USD 100.99 million and was considered in "Other". The reduction in financial support under the last article is related to the decrease in expenses (costs) of the federal agent. 
AG-IMS ID 78080: Question by Australia - Di rect payments: decoupled income support  
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation explain what the decoupled income support 
is for, who is eligible, and how is the payment determined?  
Answer by the Russian Federation See answer provided in question AG-IMS ID 78048. 
AG-IMS ID 78047: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
The notification includes for the first time  decoupled income support with significant 
amounts at both federal and sub-federal leve l. Can the Russian Federation explain more 
in detail the reasons for this shift in support and the eligibility criteria for farmers for G/AG/W/147 
 
- 44 - 
 
  this support? Does the Russian Federation inte nd to make a DS:2 notification for this 
policy change?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
See answer provided in question AG-IMS ID 78048. AG-IMS ID 78082: Question by Australia - Direct payments: other 
In Table DS:1, could the Russian Federation please elaborate on what the subsidies for 
intervention funds are for and how they op erate within the agricultural system?  
Answer by the Russian Federation Purchasing (trade) interventions are used to stabilize the market prices for agricultural goods, raw 
materials and food in conformity with the pre-fixed (administered) minimum (maximum) levels of prices for grain and other agricultural products.  
Purchasing (trade) interventions are carried out by the state agent determined on the competitive 
basis. The total volume of financial support in 2013 for the state agent for conducting purchasing (trade) interventions (for covering operating expenses) was USD 100.99 million. The market 
situation concerning the turnover of rye was stable in 2013. In this regard, purchasing 
interventions in relation to this crop were not carried out. 
AG-IMS ID 78051: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Rye is no longer included in the list of products receiving Mark et Price Support in 
Supporting Table DS:5. Would the Russian Fede ration please elaborate on the reasons 
why this product is no longer included? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
See answer provided in question AG-IMS ID 78048, above. 
AG-IMS ID 78054: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada noticed that wheat, buckwheat, pota toes and soybeans have been added to the 
list of plant products receiving product- specific support in Russia's Supporting 
Table DS:4. Since these products were not cove red in the previous notification, could the 
Russian Federation please elaborate on wh y these products were added to the list? 
Is this the result of a new initiative? If so,  would the Russian Federation please provide 
details? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
The expansion of the products list under the Tabl e DS:4 occurred due to the reason of emergence 
of regional targeted state support, realized through: 
 reimbursement of the costs associated with the production of 
buckwheat (USD 0.06 million); 
 reimbursement of the costs associated with the expenses for purchasing the 
potatoes (USD 0.07 million); 
 payments in connection with the realization of the certified wheat of own production at 
least three class to the companies of grain processing and to the companies of bread producing (USD 0.86 million); and G/AG/W/147 
 
- 45 - 
 
   payments per tonne of soybean and sold to processing companies and poultry 
farms (USD 0.04 million). 
AG-IMS ID 78083: Question by Australia - Non-product-specific AMS In Supporting Table DS:9, a number of farm inputs have been included as non-product 
specific AMS.  
a. In particular, could the Russian Federa tion explain the use of subsidies of 
interest rates on short term credit s and investments and the method of 
calculation please? 
b. Could the Russian Federation also expl ain the eligibility requirements for 
interest rate subsidies on credits take n by personal subsidiary households, 
peasant farm enterprises and agri cultural consumer cooperatives? 
c. How were the subsidies calculated for the purpose of the current notification?  
Answer by the Russian Federation 
Agricultural credits are supported by the state in the form of interest rate compensation for the 
credits (loans) received by agricultural producers in Russian credit organizations or agricultural 
credit consumer cooperatives. 
For personal subsidiary households (or private auxiliary households) and agricultural consumer 
cooperatives that sign respective contracts since 01/01/2013 compensation amounts to two-thirds 
of the refinance rate (discount rate) of th e Central Bank of the Russian Federation.  
For private auxiliary households compensation was granted for the contracts concluded for the 
period of:  
 5 years (or less): for agricultural animals purchasing, for purchasing of equipment for 
livestock farming and agricultural products processing, for cattle-breeding premises 
repairing, reconstruction and building, for purchasing of gas equipment and connection to gas network on condition that total sum of credit (loan) received by a citizen with 
a private auxiliary household, does not exceed RUB 700,000 in current year for one 
household;  
 2 years (or less): for purchasing fuels and lubricants, parts for repairing agricultural 
machinery and cattle-breeding premises, mineral fertilizers, protection facilities for plant, 
feed, veterinary preparations and other mate rial resources for seasonal work, including 
materials for greenhouses, young agricultural animals, and for premium payments at agricultural products insurance on condition that total sum of credit (loan) received by 
a citizen holding a private auxiliary household, does not exceed RUB 300,000 in current 
year for one household.  
For agricultural consumer cooperatives compensation was granted on the basis of contracts 
concluded for the period of:  
 8 years (or less): for purchasing the special technological equipment, refrigerating 
equipment, agricultural animals, breeding materials, including for their delivery to 
cooperative members for building, reconstruction, and modernization of warehouse and processing premises, storages of potatoes, vegetables and fruits, greenhouse systems for vegetable production in closed soil, cattle-breeding and feed-processing objects and 
objects for flax and flax fibre processing, building and reconstruction of agricultural 
markets, trade platforms, centers of acceptan ce, initial processing and storage of milk, 
meat, vegetable and other agricultural products, and establishment of perennial 
plantations and vineyards, including building and reconstruction of perennial plantation 
vaccination complexes on condition that total sum of credit (loan) taken in current year, does not exceed RUB 40 million for one cooperative.  G/AG/W/147 
 
- 46 - 
 
   2 years (or less): for purchasing seasonal wo rk material resources, young agricultural 
animals, national agricultural raw materials for initial and industrial processing (since 2013, agricultural raw material for initial and industrial processing), for procurement of agricultural products produced by cooperative members for further sale, 
for cooperative organization arrangements and premium payments at agricultural 
products insurance on condition that total sum of credit (loan) taken in current year, does not exceed RUB 15 million for one cooperative.  
This type of state support was granted on the basis of documents submitted by the potential 
subsidy receiver, which confirms the status of agricultural producer, the fact of raising funds under credit (loan) contract concluded with respective organization, and the fact that the credit (loan) contract corresponds with the above mentioned goals.  
The state support notified in G/AG/N/RUS/9 was granted to the agricultural producers in the 
corresponding financial year (including support granted on the base of contracts concluded prior 
to 01/01/2013).  
In 2013 total amount of such state support was USD 169.41 million (on federal level 
USD 157.13 million, on sub-federal level – USD 12.28 million). 
AG-IMS ID 78050: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that agricultural crop insuranc e premium subsidy is no longer listed in 
Supporting Table DS:9. Would the Russian Federation confirm whether or not this programme has been terminated? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
The Russian Federation confirms that the mentioned programme has been terminated. 
Follow-up: A number of Members welcomed Russia' s submission of answers in advance of the 
meeting. Australia stated that the reason for raising these questions was its strong support and 
belief in full transparency within notifications. Fr om Australia's perspective, it was only by getting 
that level of detail that the Membership was ab le to make a reasonable assessment of whether 
particular measures and forms of expenditure met AoA exemptions. The United States indicated its 
interest in Russia's domestic support policies.  
2.3.9  Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4) 
AG-IMS ID 78045: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The European Union welcomes Sri Lanka's co ntinued domestic support notifications. 
a. Can Sri Lanka elaborate further on the reason for the significant increase in 
investment aid from 2012 to 2013 and whic h crops or agricultural sectors have 
benefitted from this increase? 
b. According to the information available, in marketing year 2012/13, 
the Sri Lanka Paddy Marketing Board acquired 131,000 tonnes of paddy rice. 
Has there been any support given directly  or indirectly for buying-in, storing 
and distribution for the rice bought-in by the Paddy Marketing Board? Has this 
support been included in the notification? 
Answer by Sri Lanka 
a. With regards to the European question on the significant increase in the agriculture 
investment aid of Sri Lanka from 2012-2013, Sri Lanka wishes to clarify that when the 
data was calculated, support given to the rubber plantation sector had been included in G/AG/W/147 
 
- 47 - 
 
  the data for 2013 by an oversight. The amount of subsidies given to the rubber sector is 
LKR 436 million. Accordingly, investment subsidies, generally available to plantation crops and minor agricultural crops, should be read as LKR 999.10 million. A corrigendum to correct this data will be submitted to the WTO in due course. Subsidies given to 
plantation crops and minor agricultural crops include the following: replanting, new 
planting, infilling and crop rehabilitation of  tea and replanting, new planting, and crop 
rehabilitation support for coconut.  
b. The Paddy Marketing Board (PMB) purchases paddy rice from the farmers to stabilize the 
open market price with the aim of enhancing the livelihood of the farmers. PMB purchases approximately account for 7% of the total production of paddy rice. The private sector plays a major role in pa ddy rice purchases and marketing. PMB is 
expected to compete with the private sector. Depending on the crop as per the season 
purchases by PMB may vary. The PMB does not receive or provide any subsidy on these operations. Its funds requirements are channelled from the state banks as a loan to 
purchase paddy rice. 
2.3.10  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/72 and G/AG/N/TUN/45) 
AG-IMS ID 78042: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Canada notes that the applied administered  price for meat of bovine has increased 
in 2013 going from 3,387 CHF/tonne in 2012 to 4,319 CHF/tonne in 2013. Could 
Switzerland please provide an explanation for this increase? 
Answer by Switzerland 
Switzerland understands that this question relates to the applied administered price for meat of 
swine, which did in fact increase from CH F 3,387/tonne in 2012 to CHF 4,319/tonne in 2013 
(in the case of bovine meat, from CHF 8,701/tonne in 2012 to CHF 8,893/tonne in 2013). 
Our calculation of the total market price support is carried out in accordance with Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Switzerland calculates th e 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 Ag riculture and the price data provided by different 
agricultural organizations.  2.3.11  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/40) 
AG-IMS ID 78031: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
In G/AG/N/TUN/40,  Tunisia has adjusted the reference prices for durum wheat, soft 
w h e a t ,  b a r l e y  a n d  m i l k  t o  t a k e  a c c o u n t  o f  i n f l a t i o n  a n d  e x c h a n g e  r a t e  m o v e m e n t s .  
As stated in previous Committee on Agricult ure meetings, Canada is of the view that 
paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires the external reference 
price to be fixed and thus, does not allo w for any type of adjustment, including 
adjustments based on inflation. One of the main objectives for calculating a Member's 
Current Total AMS using a fixed external reference price is to ensure that a Member's 
capacity to provide trade distorting domest ic support is effectively capped and cannot 
expand over time in absolute or relative terms.  
Furthermore, Canada is of the view that Ar ticle 18.4 does not provide a methodology or 
a legal basis through which a Member's fixed external reference prices may be adjusted 
for inflation, and does not give any consideration for a methodology which would account for accumulated inflation after the reference period of the fixed external 
reference price(s). Rather, under Article 18. 4 it is Members (i.e. the Committee) that 
shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability 
of a Member to abide by its domestic support commitments.  
Would Tunisia provide a rationale for why it believes inflation adjustments are required 
for its fixed external reference price? G/AG/W/147 
 
- 48 - 
 
  Answer by Tunisia 
Tunisia considers that the inflation and the depreciation of the local currency vis-à-vis  foreign 
currencies recorded between 1986-1988, the base period referred to in the Agreement on 
Agriculture, and the recent period, corresponding to the date of the notifications, were excessive 
and justify the adjustment made. Indeed, the exchange rate used to determine the reference prices during the above-mentioned base period in local currency varied considerably, in a manner 
that was particularly excessive. 
From USD 0.88 to the Tunisian dinar during the 1986-1988 reference period, it approximated 
USD 1.6 against the Tunisian dinar in the notifi cation period. These rates are published in the 
financial statistics report of the Central Bank of Tunisia, which shows the evolution of the exchange 
rate of the dinar against the US dollar. The inflation rate in Tunisia is also published in the annual report of the Central Bank of Tunisia. 
Thus, the inflation and the depreciation of the local currency against foreign currencies recorded 
between 1986 - 1988 and the period under consideration justify an adjustment of external 
reference prices. 
The basis for the adjustment in question is Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
which stipulates that: "In the review process Members shall give due consideration to the influence 
of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments". 
2.3.12  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/45) 
AG-IMS ID 78030: Question by the Europe an Union - Excessive rates of inflation 
The European Union welcomes Tunisia' s domestic support notifications. 
In Supporting Table DS:5, Tunisia indicate s that the external reference has been 
adjusted to take account of inflation. 
a. Can Tunisia indicate the inflation rate  u s e d  f o r  e a c h  y e a r  c o v e r e d  b y  t h e  
notification? 
b. Can Tunisia explain how this unilateral inflation adjustment of the external 
reference price is in compliance wi th the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by Tunisia 
See answer to question AG-IMS ID 78031. 
2.3.13  United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7 and G/AG/N/ARE/8) 
AG-IMS ID 78011: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 77101 on G/AG/N/ARE/7 form the 
June CoA.  
a. Under sub-headings "pest and diseas e control" and "extension advisory 
services" the United Arab Emirates notifi ed the values of support for each year; 
however, it is unclear from the notifi cation what the difference between the 
two values is. 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, G/AG/W/147 
 
- 49 - 
 
  the United Arab Emirates introduc ed 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? 
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 78012: Question by the United St ates of America - Input subsidies available 
to low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States resubmits its question AG -IMS ID 77102 on G/AG/N/ARE/7 form the 
June CoA. 
 
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 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 78010: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Regarding G/AG/N/ARE/8, 
 
a. Why is there a significant increase in monetary value for pest/disease control 
and extension/advisory service support measures from the previous calendar 
years?  
b. 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 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 78009: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
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?  
b. When will the Table DS:2 notification  for the new infrastructure support 
measure be submitted?  
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide an answer at a later stage. G/AG/W/147 
 
- 50 - 
 
  2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 
2.4.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/108) AG-IMS ID 78076: Question by the Dominican Republic - Transparency issues Could Canada explain: 
 
a. What are the producer-financed subsid ies granted to sk im milk powder? 
b. Under which criteria are these grants awarded? 
Answer by Canada 
 Canada's dairy export subsidies are provided through the milk class 5(d). Under this class, milk components are made available at internationally  competitive prices for the export of dairy 
products. The quantities of butter, skim milk powder, cheese, and other dairy products that may 
be exported using the components from class 5( d) are capped by the applicable quantity or 
budgetary outlay commitment specified in Sect ion II, Part IV, of Canada's WTO Schedule. 
The Canadian Dairy Commission takes commercial considerations into account to export and issue 
export permits to interested parties for subsidized dairy products.   
AG-IMS ID 78028: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The total amount of export subsidies grante d by Canada has remained stable and there 
is no significant downward trend of subs idies granted over the years. Moreover, 
subsidies granted to dairy products are at or very close to the Canadian commitment 
levels. In light of this and the Bali Minister ial Declaration on Export Competition which 
undertakes to ensure to the maximum extent possible that the level of export subsidies 
will remain significantly below the Members'  export subsidy commitments, could Canada 
indicate whether it intends to undertake re forms in the field of export competition? 
 Answer by Canada 
 
A s  C a n a d a  s t a t e d  i n  i t s  r e s p o n s e  t o  a  s i m i l a r  q u e s t i o n  f r o m  t h e  E u r o p e a n  U n i o n  a t  t h e  75
th Committee on Agriculture meeting in November 2014, the elimination of export subsidies 
remains a high priority for Canada. It remains one of Canada's negotiating objectives in all of 
Canada's trade negotiations. The use of export subsidies have in fact been eliminated for nearly all 
of Canada's bilateral trade agreements. No new ex port subsidies have been introduced in recent 
years and the total amount of export subsidies that have been reported are within Canada's 
commitments. Canada fully supports and is committed to the Bali Package and will continue to 
work to develop the post-Bali work programme to address the export competition pillar with a view to achieving "further concrete progress". 
 
Follow-up: New Zealand welcomed Canada's commitment to the elimination of export subsidies in 
its bilateral agreements, but noted that this was not substitute for a multilateral outcome on the issue and that it looked forward to Nairobi on that front. 
 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  Argentina 
AG-IMS ID 78029: Question by the European Union 
The European Union takes note of the reply to the question AG-IMS ID77042. However, 
despite the stated size of the amounts in question, can Argentina indicate when it 
intends to notify its domestic support for the years 2008/09 onwards? 
 G/AG/W/147 
 
- 51 - 
 
  Answer by Argentina 
 Firstly, it should be clarified that Argentina's most recent notification on domestic support corresponds to the marketing year 2008/2009, which covers the period December 2008 to 
November 2009. Secondly, please be advised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries is currently collecting all the information needed to meet the notification requirements from the various areas and decentralized bodies. 
 
Attention should be drawn to the fact that, as stated by the WTO Secretariat in its most recent Trade Policy Review Report on Argentina, domestic support for the Argentine agricultural sector is extremely limited. In accordance with the commitments undertaken, the Amber Box support 
granted by Argentina is restricted to approxim ately USD 75 million and the amounts corresponding 
to Green Box support are, proportionally, considerably lower and more marginal than those granted by many other Members. 
 
3.1.2  Turkey (I. Article 18.6) 
AG-IMS ID 78026: Question by Canada 
C a n a d a  i s  c o n c e r n e d  w i t h  T u r k e y ' s  l a c k  o f  t i m e l y  n o t i f i c a t i o n  o f  e x p o r t  s u b s i d y  a n d  
domestic support measures. The last meas ures notified were in 2000 for export 
subsidies and 2001 for domestic support. Would Turkey provide a specific timeline as to 
when it intends to complete and submit th ese missing notifications to the Committee? 
More specifically, Canada is interested in receiving information on Turkey's historical 
domestic support information for subs idies provided to the wheat sector. 
 
Answer by Turkey 
 Turkey's domestic supports and export subsidie s notifications are being prepared by Turkey's 
relevant authorities and will be submitted in due course to the Secretariat when they are 
completed.  AG-IMS ID 78003: Question by the United States of America 
Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
Turkey has not made a domestic support noti fication since 2001 nor an export subsidy 
notification since 2000. Turkey has been  asked repeatedly by  Members in this 
Committee over a number of years about the de lay in these notifications. This lack of 
transparency over such a long period is of  particular concern because Turkey ranks as 
the 7
th largest agricultural producer in the world and has undergone a number 
of changes in domestic agricultural policy ov er that time. When does Turkey plan to 
submit its domestic support and export subsidy notifications?   Answer by Turkey 
 
See answer to question AG-IMS ID 78026  
Follow-up: The Russian Federation indicated its co ncern regarding Turkey's overdue notification. 
The United States noted that Turkey had provid ed the same response over the last years and 
urged Turkey to finish its notifications and to notify them. More generally, the United States noted 
that some Members had already notified for 2014. Many Members, including some of the least 
developed countries, have notified for 2013. The United States hoped that all Members would be current, at least through 2012. Noting the ability of some least developed countries to remain current, the United States hoped that major emerging country Members (and all other Members) 
would fulfil their transparency obligations by provid ing more recent notifications. Canada noted its 
understanding that there had been some domestic  policy developments in Turkey and encouraged 
Turkey to submit its notifications as soon as possible so that the Committee on Agriculture could 
have a chance to review those developments. 
 
__________