RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/108  
 
13 March 2013  
(13-1346)  Page: 1/25  
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 26 MARCH 20131 
 The present document compiles questions rece ived by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
8 March 2013 as specified in WTO/AIR/4086. 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Questions by the United States ................................................................................. 4  
1.2   Brazil's trade an d industry policy ................................................................................. 4  
1.2.1   Questions by Canada ............................................................................................... 4  
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5  
1.3.1   Questions by New Zealand ....................................................................................... 5  
1.4   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 5  
1.4.1   Questions by Canada ............................................................................................... 5  
1.4.2   Questions by the United States ................................................................................. 6  
1.5   Saint-Lucia – Domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork .................................. 6  
1.5.1   Questions by the United States ................................................................................. 6  
1.6   Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO binding ....................................... 6  
1.6.1   Question by New Zealand ........................................................................................ 6  
1.7   Switzerland's complian ce with Articl e 9.1(c) .................................................................. 6  
1.7.1   Question by New Zealand ........................................................................................ 6  
1.8   Thailand's paddy  pledging scheme ............................................................................... 7  
1.8.1   Questions by Canada ............................................................................................... 7  
1.8.2   Questions by the United States ................................................................................. 7  
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ...................... 8  
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) .................................. 8  
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/73) ...................................................................................... 8  
2.1.2   United States  (G/AG/N/U SA/92) ............................................................................... 8  
2.1.3   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/A G/N/VEN/ 26) .................................................... 9  
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) ...................................... 9  
2.2.1   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/29) .......................................................................................... 9  
2.2.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/ 22 and G/AG/N/C HN/25) ............................................................ 9  
2.2.3   Ecuador (G /AG/N/ECU/ 30) ....................................................................................... 9  
2.2.4   Iceland (G/AG/N/IS L/31) ........................................................................................ 10 
2.2.5   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/49) .......................................................................................... 10 
2.2.6   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/184) ........................................................................................ 10 
2.2.7   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/67) ...................................................................................... 10 
2.2.8   Poland (G/AG/N/PO L/68) ........................................................................................ 11 
2.2.9   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/79) ................................................................................. 11 
2.2.10   Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TP KM/102)  ........................................................................ 11 
2.2.11   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) .................................................................................... 11 
2.2.12   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/15) ..................................................................................... 12 
2.3   Special agricultural safe guards (Tables MA :3 to MA:5) ................................................... 12 
2.3.1   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/182) ........................................................................................ 12 G/AG/W/108 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/100) .......................................................................... 12 
2.4   Domestic support co mmitments (Tab le DS:1) ............................................................... 13 
2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/AR G/31) ................................................................................... 13 
2.4.2   Armenia (G/AG/N/AR M/20) ..................................................................................... 14 
2.4.3   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/27) ......................................................................................... 14 
2.4.4   European Union (G/AG/N/ EU/10 AND G/AG/N /EU/10/CORR.1) ..................................... 14 
2.4.5   Georgia (G /A/AG/N/GE O/10) ................................................................................... 15 
2.4.6   Israel (G/A G/N/ISR/48/ Rev.1) ................................................................................. 16 
2.4.7   Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/4) ....................................................................................... 17 
2.4.8   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NI C/32) .................................................................................... 17 
2.4.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/69) ...................................................................................... 18 
2.4.10   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/26) .................................................................................... 19 
2.4.11   Senegal (G/AG/N/SE N/1) ...................................................................................... 20 
2.4.12   South Africa  (G/AG/N/ ZAF/77) ............................................................................... 20 
2.4.13   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9, G/AG /N/UKR/13 and G/AG/N /UKR/13/Co rr.1) ....................... 21 
2.4.14   United States (G/AG/N/USA/89) ............................................................................. 21 
2.5   New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) ............................................. 22 
2.5.1   Armenia (G/AG/N/AR M/22) ..................................................................................... 22 
2.5.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/EC U/33) ...................................................................................... 22 
2.5.3   European Un ion (G/AG/ N/EU/8) ............................................................................... 22 
2.5.4   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/11) ............................................................................. 23 
2.5.5   United Stat es (G/AG/N/ USA/91) .............................................................................. 24 
2.6   Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) ......................................................... 24 
2.6.1   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62) .................................................... 24 
 G/AG/W/108 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.1.1  Questions by the United States 
1.  The United States thanks Brazil for its responses and would like to follow-up on Brazil’s 
response to Question 1a. Section 9 of CONAB’s regulations states that documentation is needed to 
demonstrate that the acquired product reaches an allowed destination, whether it is in another 
state of Brazil or for export. If the purpose of PE P is to move products from areas of over-supply 
(production regions) to areas of under-supply, it would be important for the programme’s function 
to require documentation and verification of both the product origin and destination. 
a. Please provide the list of auction destinations. 
b. Please provide the quantities by destination and by commodity for the last 5 years of the 
programme. 
1.2  Brazil's trade and industry policy 
1.2.1  Questions by Canada 2.  At the November 2012 meeting, Brazil provided a response to Canada’s question regarding its 
trade and industry policy for 2011-2014, called the Plano Brasil Maior ("Greater Brazil Plan"), 
which was created by Act. No. 12,546 of 14 December 2011 ("Lei No 12.546 do 14 de dezembro de 2011"). 
3.  Further to that response, Canada understands that among the Plan's actions is a temporary 
payroll tax exemption for specific sectors, including some agricultural sectors. A 20% mandatory employer's social security contribution on payrolls (contribution to the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social or "INSS") is substituted for a flat rate ranging between 1% and 2% on gross earnings, 
excluding gross revenue from exports.  
4.  The payroll tax relief was extended to four agricultural sectors as a result of Act No. 12,715 of 
September 17, 2012 ("Lei No 12.715 do 17 de setembro de 2012"). These sectors are the same as 
those benefiting from the provisions of REINTEGRA, which was also created under the Greater 
Brazil Plan in 2011. Products covered include exports of pork and pork products, poultry, 
preparations of meat and fish, and preparation of cereals, flour, starch or milk. 
5.  Canada also observes that under REINTEGRA, which was recently extended for 2013, Brazilian 
export companies can receive a refund of up to 3% of their gross receipts derived from exports, or 
use this refund as a tax credit.  
a. Could Brazil provide more detailed information as to the Greater Brazil Plan and 
REINTEGRA's coverage of some agricultural sectors and how these programmes should 
benefit them? 
b. Could Brazil say if the Greater Brazil Plan and REINTEGRA are intended to benefit 
agricultural producers by encouraging exports of processed products? 
c. Could Brazil clarify if the Greater Brazil Plan offers a payroll tax exemption, which 
exempts revenues from exports, or a refund on gross receipts from exports under 
REINTEGRA?  
d. Could Brazil confirm that these tax breaks do not constitute an incentive to export 
agricultural products (pork and pork products, poultry, prepared fish and preparations of cereals, flour, starch and milk), in the form of a benefit from the state? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.3  Canada's dairy policies 
1.3.1  Questions by New Zealand 
6.  New Zealand would request Canada to provide a detailed explanation of a recent decision by 
the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committ ee (CMSMC) chaired by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission (CDC) to implement a milk class for shredded or diced mozzarella. New Zealand is 
concerned that this new measure may be inte nded to displace or discourage imports. 
7.  As with other special milk classes in Canada, the measure is implemented under a national 
scheme by the Canadian Government in partnership with commercial operators. It sets a new price 
for particular domestically produced milk products based on end use rather than on the market, 
and it appears to be targeted at excluding a specific type of import. 
8.  In the past Canada has argued that such measures are commercial in nature. However, the 
Special Milk Product Permit Program which allows Canada to set specific prices for domestic 
products is administered by the CDC – an agent of Government – and enabled by federal and 
provincial legislation. It would appear from the CDC website that the CDC calculates the pooling returns, which redistribute market rents for dairy products enabling the provision of special milk 
classes at competitive prices. The CDC also chairs the committee that makes the decision to enact 
new milk classes. New Zealand is concerned about the role of a crown corporation and agent of the 
crown in the decision making and implementation of these measures, including the development of 
incentive and audit procedures. 
9.  New Zealand would be grateful for more information on this new measure for mozzarella, as 
well as on the ice-cream promotion initiative which has been the subject of earlier questions from New Zealand. In particular New Zealand would be interested in understanding: 
a. What the respective roles of CDC and CMSMC in this initiative are; 
b. How the price for the proposed milk class will be determined; 
c. How pooling returns will be managed; 
d. Any analysis Canada has undertaken on the market impact of this proposed measure;  
e. Any analysis which Canada has done on the WTO compatibility of the new measure; 
f. Any analysis undertaken on the market impact of other measures taken in Canada, 
including the ice-cream promotion initiative and the use of compositional cheese 
standards. 
10.  New Zealand remains concerned about the implementation of a suite of measures by Canada. 
This includes compositional standards aimed at excluding imported inputs for cheese, and the 
creation of new special price categories for domestic milk products which appear to be aimed at 
excluding imports of specific dairy ingredients. Given Canada’s well known commitment to free and open trade, across a number of sectors, New Ze aland is concerned about the diversification of 
these trade restrictive measures in dairy and will continue to seek information on them in this 
Committee and elsewhere. 
1.4  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.4.1  Questions by Canada 
11.  Canada continues to appreciate the updates th at Costa Rica has provided to Canada and this 
Committee regarding its domestic process intended to bring its Current Total AMS in line with its domestic support commitment.  
a. Could Costa Rica please provide an update on the legal review process that the Costa 
Rican government is undertaking prior to determining how to set rice prices? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. As of the previous meeting of this Committee, Costa Rica was not in a position to specify 
when it will be able to comply with its domestic support commitments. Could Costa Rica 
now provide more information on when it expects to bring its domestic support 
programme into compliance with its WTO obligations? 
1.4.2  Questions by the United States 
12.  Costa Rica has exceeded its domestic support limits for 5 years and during this period, Costa 
Rica’s trade-distorting rice policy has exceeded it s ceiling by almost US$312 million. Please provide 
a status of steps Costa Rica has undertaken to meet its Aggregate Measurement of Support 
commitments, including any steps related to the domestic judicial ruling Costa Rica has discussed. 
Has Costa Rica completed its legal analysis? If so, what are the conclusions?  
1.5  Saint-Lucia – Domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.5.1  Questions by the United States 
13.  The United States understands, as indicated by our industry, that Saint-Lucia's domestic 
purchase requirements for poultry increased on 29 October from 25% to 33%. We also understand that there is a domestic purchase requirement of almost 67% for pork.  
a. Please identify where these requirements ar e documented and published. What is the 
legal basis (i.e., citing Saint-Lucia's laws and regulations) for these domestic purchase requirements? What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint-Lucia's laws and regulations) for 
the increased domestic purchase requirement for poultry that was notified by letter to 
poultry importers on 29 October 2012? Where was the notification published? 
b. Please direct us to Saint-Lucia's WTO notifications related to poultry or pork market 
arrangements, domestic purchase requirements and/or import licensing requirements? 
1.6  Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO binding 
1.6.1  Question by New Zealand 14.  New Zealand understands that Sri Lanka has increased its tariffs for milk powder to SL Re 125 
per kilogram. Sri Lanka’s tariff for milk powder is bound at 20% ad valorem. It is possible that 
under certain market prices and exchange rates, the tariff could be in excess of the ad valorem binding. In light of current market prices and exchange rates, New Zealand would appreciate Sri 
Lanka’s assurance that their milk powder tariff is consistent with Sri Lanka’s WTO commitments. If 
it is not consistent, what steps will Sri Lanka take to ensure that its tariff binding is brought in line with its commitment at the earliest possible opportunity? 
1.7  Switzerland's compliance with Article 9.1(c) 
1.7.1  Question by New Zealand 
15.  New Zealand would again like to express its concern regarding Switzerland's compulsory levy 
on milk production to support the export of milk fat. 
16.  On 31 August 2011 the Swiss government announced it had taken a decision to implement a 
compulsory levy of CHF 0.01/kg of marketed m i l k  t o  s u p p o r t  t h e  e x p o r t  o f  m i l k  f a t  u n t i l  
30 April 2013. This levy was to be collected by IP Lait (a private organisation) from all Swiss milk 
producers, including those who are not members of IP Lait, from 1 October 2011. The press 
release announcing this decision stated that reve nues of around CHF34 million are expected every 
year, to support "relief on the butter market". 
17.  Switzerland has previously responded to New Zealand’s concerns by saying that, as IP Lait is 
a private organization, this levy cannot be considered an export subsidy under Article 9.1(c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/108 
 
- 7 - 
 
  18.  Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture explicitly includes under the definition of an 
export subsidy: "payments on the export of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of 
governmental action, whether or not a charge on the public account is involved, including 
payments that are financed from the proceeds of a levy imposed on the agricultural product concerned or on an agricultural product from which the export product is derived". This definition 
clearly covers the compulsory milk levy introd uced by the Swiss government in 2011. Therefore 
New Zealand again seeks Switzerland’s confirmation  that this levy will not be renewed when it 
expires on 30 April 2013. 
1.8  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.8.1  Questions by Canada 19.  Canada would like to thank Thailand for its transparency regarding its answers to questions 
posed in the November Committee on Agriculture Meeting. Canada has come across some 
information regarding a new marketing year 2012/2013 Off-Season Paddy Pledging Program. This 
new programme, though not yet finalized, is said to cost approximately USD$6 billion for a pledging target of about 11 million tonnes of paddy rice.  
20.  Could Thailand please provide additional details on this proposed programme? How will 
Thailand manage its domestic support commitments  while providing what Canada assumes to be 
significant amounts of domestic support to producers of rice? 
1.8.2  Questions by the United States 
21.  At the November 2012 meeting, Thailand stated that its Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications to 
the WTO will be made at the soonest opportuni ty (Paragraph 16 of G/AG/W/106 refers).  
a. The United States resubmits it question: When  does Thailand expect to provide updated 
Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications to the WTO that include information regarding the 
paddy pledging scheme? 
b. Thailand previously stated that Official information on rice pledging scheme could be 
found on the website of the Department of  Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce
2. The 
United States notes, however, that the Department of Internal Trade has, since October 8, 2012, discontinued the online publication of rice exports.
3 The Government of 
Thailand also discontinued publishing the rice pledging programme progress report 
online. Please provide a sense of when this function will be restored. 
22.  The United States notes that the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) 
reported revenue of 72 billion baht during 2012 from the Ministry of Commerce from the sales of 
government-owned rice stocks. This revenue appears to indicate much larger sales than previously 
reported.  
a. Is this a result of significant increase in sales between September and the end of the 
year? If this is a result of other reasons, please describe.  
b. Please confirm whether the Government of Thailand places any requirements or 
preferences on stocks that are released to eith er be exported or used domestically. If so, 
when and how does the Government of Thailand  determine if sales are for export or the 
domestic market? What are the legislation or laws that oversee/implement government practices in this area?  
23.   Regarding Thailand's response about its rice intervention price (paragraph 18 of 
G/AG/W/106 refers): 
a. Please provide more details on how the intervention price is determined, including 
information such as what an "appropriate pr ofit reflecting farmer living cost" is. 
                                               
2 See www.dit.go.th   
3 See http://www.dit.go.th/Rice_Product_Bag/2555/081055.pdf . G/AG/W/108 
 
- 8 - 
 
  b. In 2012, what were the total expenditures with regards to these benefits to millers? 
24.  The United States appreciates Thailand's detailed response regarding the areas that are 
cultivated and harvested (G/AG/W/106, par. 20). The United States understands that high prices 
have encouraged farmers, particularly in irrigate d areas, to shorten their growing season for each 
crop, so that multiple rice crops (using lower quality varieties) can be harvested.  
a. Please discuss further the trend in the number of crops per year farmers are harvesting 
and the types/quality of rice being planted.  
b. Please indicate the quantities of rice procured by variety for crop years 2011 and 2012. 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  Administration of tariff and ot her quota commitments (Table MA:1) 
2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) 2.1.1.1  Allocation of licences to importing entities 
2.1.1.1.1  Questions by the European Union 
25.  According to notification G/AG/N/THA/70 of 10 February 2010, the period of validity for 
import certificates under tariff quotas is 30 days. Thailand's recent notification G/AG/N/THA/73 of 
6 November 2012 indicates that the import certificate period for rice has decreased from 30 days 
to 14 days while the import certificate period for other products remains 30 days. Could Thailand explain the rationale for this specific modification of the import certificate period for rice imports 
under tariff rate quota? 
2.1.1.1.2  Questions by the United States 26.  The United States welcomes Thailand’s timely notification of tariff rate quota (TRQ) 
administration and imports within the TRQs. The Public Warehouse Organization (PWO) is 
designated as the administrating agency for 3 TRQs, according to G/AG/N/THA/73. While some 
trade has been notified in most of Thailand’s TR Qs (G/AG/N/THA/74), no trade is registered in the 
3 TRQs – maize for feed, palm oil, and garlic – of  the PWO. Thailand’s feed mills use very large 
amounts of maize to supply its animal industries, which include its export-oriented chicken meat 
industry. Thailand borders Malaysia, which has a large exportable surplus of palm oil. Garlic is widely consumed in Thailand. These facts provide so me basis to expect trade to occur, at least in 
some years. The questions below pertain to the administration of the TRQs by the PWO and the 
absence of in-quota imports. 
a. What is the relationship of the PWO to the Thai Government? 
b. Prior to 2013, did the PWO import products under the TRQs? 
c. Does the PWO compare internal Thai prices to prices for maize for feed, palm oil, and 
garlic available through foreign trade? If so, please provide the internal prices for 2009 and 2010. If not, please explain what is the PWO’s role in tariff quota administration? 
2.1.2  United States (G/AG/N/USA/92) 
2.1.2.1  Country-specific allocation 2.1.2.1.1  Questions by the European Union 
27.  Can the United States explain how (on whic h basis) the TRQ for refined sugar (20,324 tonnes) 
has been allocated between Canada (12,050 tonnes) and the other suppliers (8,294 tonnes)? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.1.3  Venezuela, Bolivarian Re public of (G/AG/N/VEN/26) 
2.1.3.1  Transparency issues 
2.1.3.1.1  Questions by Australia 
28.  Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela explain why it did not include information on tariff 
quota administration for 2007? 
29.  Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ou tline how its tariff quota allocation system and 
mixture of automatic and non-automatic import licences guarantees the importation of the product and its distribution on the domestic market? 
2.1.3.2  Allocation of import licences to importing entities 
2.1.3.2.1  Questions by the European Union 30.  Venezuela's commitments include more than 60 tariff quotas. Over the period it is noted that 
the allocated import licences have been valid for longer periods. For example, in 2003 they were 
valid 90 days while in 2005 they were valid 4 months and in 2008 they were valid 6 months and 
up to one year. Could Venezuela explain the rational e for such change in the period of validity over 
the years? 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) 
2.2.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/29) 2.2.1.1  Tariff and other quotas – Transparency issues 
2.2.1.1.1  Question by the United States 
31.  Brazil notes that, with respect to its wheat tariff-rate quota commitment that has not been 
implemented, negotiations began in 1996 to  change those commitments and that those 
negotiations have not yet concluded. Please explain when Brazil intends to implement its 
longstanding TRQ commitment on wheat, including whether Brazil intends to meet its TRQ 
commitment during the already lengthy period of negotiations to change those commitments? 
2.2.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/22 and G/AG/N/CHN/25) 
2.2.2.1  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.2.1.1  Question by Australia 32.  Could China explain the significant underfill for wheat, corn and rice in CY2010 and CY2011? 
2.2.3  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/30) 
2.2.3.1  Transparency issues 2.2.3.1.1  Question by Australia 33.  For the purpose of transparency, please provide total import figures under column 4 for 
products where the tariff in force was below the in-quota rate. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.2.4  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/31) 
2.2.4.1  Transparency issues 
2.2.4.1.1  Questions by Australia 
34.  Could Iceland explain why there were no in-quota imports of meat and edible offal of sheep 
for the period covered?  
35.  Australia also notes that in-quota imports of meat and edible offal of bovine animals, swine 
and poultry were significantly higher than the corresponding tariff quota quantities, but the corresponding tariff headings are not among those listed in the first page of the notification as 
having inactive tariff rate quotas. Could Iceland explain this? 
2.2.4.1.2  Questions by the European Union 36.  Iceland's notification of most of its tariff quotas is useful in terms of transparency. It is 
important to include all bound quotas in the notification, even those for which the out-of-quota-
duty level is lower than the bound in-quota-duty-level - just as Iceland does. This is important 
since all bound quotas are pieces of the commitments in the Agreement on Agriculture. However, Iceland´s tariff quota commitments include 90 tariff quotas. The notification includes 87 of them. 
Could Iceland explain the reason for excluding three tariff quotas? 
2.2.5  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/49) 2.2.5.1  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.5.1.1  Questions by the European Union 
37.  Israel's notification on tariff rate quotas seems to indicate all imports. Could Israel indicate 
the quantities that were imported under tariff rate quotas?  
2.2.6  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/184) 
2.2.6.1  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.6.1.1  Question by New Zealand 38.  New Zealand notes the very low quota-fill in 2011 for a range of dairy products, particularly 
skim milk powder, butter and butter oil, and whey  (only 11% filled in some cases). New Zealand 
also notes a comparison of a 105% quota-fill fo r other dairy products for general use, and 117% 
for designated dairy products for general use. New Zealand would ask Japan to provide some 
information on the significantly wide variation in these quota-fills given that the 105% and 117% 
quota fill of the dairy products for general use demonstrates a demand for dairy products in Japan in general. 
2.2.7  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/67) 
2.2.7.1  Transparency issues 
2.2.7.1.1  Question by the European Union 39.  The commitments of Norway comprise mo re than 230 bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification includes only about 20 of them. The European Union would like to request Norway to 
include all bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of transparency. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.2.7.2  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.7.2.1  Question by the European Union 
40.  Could Norway elaborate on the reason why th e frozen meat of swine TRQ is under-utilized? 
2.2.8  Poland (G/AG/N/POL/68) 2.2.8.1  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.8.1.1  Question by Australia 
41.  Could Poland explain the reasons behind its significant underfills on its tariff rate quotas, 
including for its fresh or chilled and frozen beef; fresh, chilled or frozen swine; dairy products; and 
horticulture such as cucumbers, apples, pears and quinces? 
2.2.9  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/79) 2.2.9.1  Tariff quota fill 2.2.9.1.1  Question by Australia 
42.  Could South Africa explain the significant underfill for a number of dairy products such as milk 
and cream (fresh), milk powder, butter and cheese, as well as for eggs and potatoes? 
2.2.9.1.2  Question by the European Union 
43.  South Africa´s tariff quota commitments include 53 tariff quotas. Three quarters are almost 
fully utilized. The rest of the tariff quotas show a relatively low utilization. According to the binding 
list, the in-quota tariff levels are set in relation to the out-of-quota tariff level. It must not exceed 
20% of the out-of-quota tariff level. Therefore it seems like the tariff quota provides good market 
access. What are the reasons behind the relatively low utilization for the rest of the tariff quotas? 
2.2.10  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/102) 2.2.10.1  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.10.1.1  Question by Australia 
44.  Could Chinese Taipei explain the zero fill rate for bananas and the significant underfill rate for 
fresh pears and fluid milks? 
2.2.11  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) 
2.2.11.1  Transparency issues 2.2.11.1.1  Question by the European Union 
45.  In its notification, Thailand indicates that it has eliminated a tariff rate quota on 
unmanufactured tobacco (tobacco leaves). Could Thailand explain the rationale and legal basis for eliminating this tariff rate quota? 
2.2.11.2  Tariff quota fill 
2.2.11.2.1  Question by Australia 
46.  Could Thailand explain the significant underfill in its tariff rate quota for maize (for feedstuff) 
and rice (including paddy, broken)? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.2.11.2.2  Question by Canada 
47.  In 2009 and 2010 Thailand had a tariff quota qu antity of 2,281 tonnes for soya bean oil and 
its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified. In quota imports during 2009 
were 39 tonnes and in 2010 they were 13.22 tonnes. Could Thailand explain low fill rates for soya bean oil and its fractions (whether or not refine d, but not chemically modified) for the years 2009 
and 2010? 
2.2.12  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/15) 2.2.12.1  Transparency issues 
2.2.12.1.1  Question by Australia 
48.  Could Ukraine provide reasons as to why it did not have any in-quota imports for raw cane 
sugar during CY2012? 
2.3  Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.3.1  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/182) 
2.3.1.1  SSG trigger calculations 2.3.1.1.1  Questions by the United States 
49.  Please explain Japan’s method for calculating the trigger price for the price-based safeguard 
for milk and cream (HS 0402.91.129). The data source indicated by Japan (Ministry of Finance "Japan’s Trade Statistics") shows that Japan impo rted the product in October and December 2012. 
The unit price of the imports was 443 yen/kg and 368 yen/kg, respectively. Both are higher than 
the trigger price notified in Japan’s notification (144.31 yen/kg). 
50.  Please also explain why import data on thes e products from the Ministry of Finance Japan’s 
Trade Statistics differs from Japan Customs data. 
2.3.2  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/100) 
2.3.2.1  Link with TRQ commitments 2.3.2.1.1  Question by Australia 
51.  Could Chinese Taipei explain why it invokes a volume-based SSG for other liquid milks given 
that some of the tariff lines used to calculate the trigger are lines subject to a TRQ and thereby limited in access opportunities? 
2.3.2.2  Trigger calculation 
2.3.2.2.1  Question by Australia 52.  Can Chinese Taipei explain why it did not use the most recently available data for the 
calculation of the trigger? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.4  Domestic support commitments (Table DS:1) 
2.4.1  Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/31) 
2.4.1.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.4.1.1.1  Questions by Japan 53.  Could Argentina kindly explain the background for the existence of various product-specific 
measures for tobacco while there are few such for the other products? 
2.4.1.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Direct payments: decoupled income support 2.4.1.2.1  Questions by the European Union 
54.  In relation to the Agricultural Social Programme notified under paragraph 6, could Argentina 
explain what constitutes a defined and fixed base period for this programme as mandated by paragraph 6(a)? 
55.  Could Argentina please confirm that the payments under the different measures of the Special 
Fund for Tobacco notified under paragraph 6 are granted no matter whether and what production 
is undertaken by farmers? 
56.  The spending on the measure "Social welfare for producers in the provinces of Corrientes, 
Catamarca, Misiones and Salta" under the Special Fund for Tobacco increased from 1 to 24 million 
pesos in the period notified. What is the reason for this increase? What are the eligibility criteria for these payments? 
2.4.1.2.2  Questions by Japan 
57.  Could Argentina kindly explain why the sum of "Special Fund for Tobacco" of Decoupled 
income support in the Supporting Table DS:1 has increased by about 5 times from 2006 to 2008? 
58.  How do the programmes meet the criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2? 
2.4.1.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Direct payments: relief from natural disasters 
2.4.1.3.1  Questions by the European Union 59.  The support for producers who suffered damage from flooding, rainfall, hail and other adverse 
phenomena in the provinces of Corrientes, Catama rca, Tucuman, Misiones and La Rioja increased 
from 2 million to 76 million pesos over the notified period. This constitutes an increase of almost 4,000%. What is the reason behind this increase in spending? 
60.  In relation to the measure "support for prod ucers who suffered damage from flooding, rainfall, 
hail and other adverse phenomena in the province s of Corrientes, Catamarca, Tucuman, Misiones 
and La Rioja", could Argentina provide more deta ils on how this scheme operates? What kinds of 
losses are covered? Please also provide relevant information in relation to this measure's 
compliance with the criteria of paragraph 8.  
2.4.1.4  Current Total AMS (Amber Bo x) - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
2.4.1.4.1  Questions by the European Union 
61.   Could Argentina explain how the payments per unit of tobacco notified in Supporting Table 
DS:8 work? What is the role of the applied administered price in this measure? 
62.  Could Argentina explain the calculation with which it arrives at the amount notified as the 
equivalent measurement of support for tobacco in Supporting Table DS:8?  G/AG/W/108 
 
- 14 - 
 
  63.  Considering that almost the entire Argentinean AMS is taken up by support for tobacco, what 
mechanisms are there in place in tobacco-related measures to ensure that the spending remains 
within the scheduled limit? 
2.4.2  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) 2.4.2.1  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
2.4.2.1.1  Questions by the United States 
64.  The United States takes note that in G/AG/N/ARM/16/Rev.1 for 2007 there are two 
programmes (i.e., "Assistance to land users of up to 7 acres" and "Assistance for acquisition of 
nitrogen fertilizers") in Supporting Table DS:9. In Supporting Tables DS:9 of G/AG/N/ARM/20 for 
2008 and 2009, Armenia notified "State support to the agricultural land users" and in 2011, Armenia notified "State support to agricultural land users in the framework of grain crops production, seed-breeding, and seed production development programmes". Is there any relation 
between these programmes? Please elaborate on how these programmes operate. 
65.  The United States notes that from 2008 through 2011, Armenia notified "Supplying farmers 
with livestock on the condition of postponed pa yments, in the framework of the Cattle Husbandry 
Development Programme". Please provide furthe r explanation of the terms of repayment for 
participating farmers, including any eligibility requirements, how long farmers have to repay the loan, and the subsidized interest rate. 
2.4.3  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
2.4.3.1  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 2.4.3.1.1  Questions by the United States 66.  The United States thanks Brazil for its response in paragraph 38 of G/AG/W/106 (Committee 
on Agriculture, November 2012) and understands from Brazil’s response that there was no policy 
change in the "Emprestimo do Governo Federal" (EGF) between 2003/04 and 2004/05 that prompted the change in notification methodology. Is this understanding correct? 
67.  The United States notes that Brazil also stated in its response that "traditional minimum 
support prices have been replaced…": 
a. Please clarify the policy change to which Brazil refers by the term "replaced". 
b. Please explain how this policy changes how EGF programmes are operated and how 
payments are determined. 
2.4.4  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10 AND G/AG/N/EU/10/CORR.1) 2.4.4.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.4.4.1.1  Question by Japan 
68.  Could the European Union kindly explain the outline of "de minimis regulation" mentioned in 
the explanations of many programmes in Supporting Table DS:1? Why have these explanations 
been added to this notification? 
2.4.4.2  Current total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support: eligible production 
2.4.4.2.1  Question by Canada 
69.  The European Union’s Supporting Table DS: 5 reported no eligible production for the following 
products: durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum an d rice. As a result, the European Union did not 
provide any market price support for these products , which is a significant change from previous G/AG/W/108 
 
- 15 - 
 
  marketing years. Could the European Union please elaborate on the reasons behind the decrease 
in eligible production? Is this the result of a change in policy? 
2.4.4.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: other 
2.4.4.3.1  Question by Australia 70.  Can the European Union provide details on why "other farm services (viii)" under Annex 2(a) 
General Services increased by approximately 500 million Euros compared with the last notification 
period (G/AG/N/EU/7 refers)? 
2.4.4.4  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents: environmental and regional assistance 
programmes 
2.4.4.4.1  Questions by Japan 71.  With regard to the Environmental Programme s and the Regional Assistance Programmes in 
Supporting Table DS:1, could the European Union kindly explain why these programmes have 
increased from the marketing year 2008/2009, while the Environmental Programmes fell down in 
2008/2009 from 2007/2008 which "marked the beginning of a new programming period in Rural Development (2007/2013) when expenditure typica lly tends to increase after passage from one 
programming period to another" according to the European Union’s reply in the regular session in 
June 2012 (paragraph 64, G/AG/W/96). Is it because of the additional and expanding programmes notified in Table DS:2 (G/AG/N/EU/10), the increasing unit price of payment or the increasing 
applied area? 
72.  Does the European Union estimate that these programmes will increase in the future through 
the modulation from direct payments to rural development? 
2.4.4.5  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
2.4.4.5.1  Question by Australia 
73.  Could the European Union provides details on  the changes to public intervention for barley, 
rye, maize and durum wheat which account for the "z ero" eligible production figure in Supporting 
Table DS:5. With the quantitative limit effectively set at zero, when does intervention occur and at 
what price? What happens with the stocks that might be purchased through these interventions? 
2.4.4.6  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
2.4.4.6.1  Question by Japan 
74.  Regarding milk in Supporting Table DS:6, could the European Union kindly explain the 
background of the necessity for "Exceptional support measures" for milk, in spite of the existence of market price support programmes for skimmed milk powder and butter ? 
2.4.5  Georgia (G/A/AG/N/GEO/10) 
2.4.5.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: extension and advisory services 
2.4.5.1.1  Questions by the European Union 
75.  Could Georgia please provide more details about the "Vineyard renewal measures" 
programme notified under General Services? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.4.5.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Genera l services: infrastructural services 
2.4.5.2.1  Questions by Australia 
76.  Could Georgia please explain how the "Support  of Agrarian Machinery" Presidential National 
Programme for 2007 complies with paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2? 
77.  Could Georgia provide more information on its 2010 and 2011 "Rural Development 
Programme Regions" programme and what they entailed in terms of infrastructural services 
consistent with paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2? 
2.4.5.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Direct payments: decoupled income support 
2.4.5.3.1  Question by the European Union 
78.  There are measures for grape and wine notified under the decoupled income support 
paragraph in different years of the notification . Could Georgia provide more information about 
these measures? 
2.4.5.4  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Domestic food aid 
2.4.5.4.1  Questions by Japan 79.  With regard to Supporting Table DS:1, could Georgia kindly explain why "Flour Provision to 
Residents of Municipality Settlements" (Domesti c food aid) increased substantially in 2007? 
80.  How did the Government of Georgia procure the flour for the programme? 2.4.5.5  Classification of measures 
2.4.5.5.1  Question by the European Union 
81.  Could Georgia explain why they consider the measure "Mineral fertiliser (ammonium 
saltpetre) provision to residents of municipality settlements" as falling under the decoupled income support paragraph? The measure, to our underst anding, seems to concern provision of inputs 
rather than direct payments to producers? 
2.4.6  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.1) 2.4.6.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
2.4.6.1.1  Questions by the United States 82.  The United States notes that Israel's notification for Water Cuts Payment was revised from 
$19.2 million to $0 for 2010.  
a. What was the reason for this change in notification? 
b. If no payments were made because water cuts were no longer applied, please confirm 
the date upon which this occurred? 
c. Please indicate whether this programme has been terminated or temporarily suspended. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.4.7  Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/4) 
2.4.7.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.4.7.1.1  Questions by the United States 
83.  The United States appreciates Moldova’s first domestic support notification since acceding to 
the WTO in 2001 for the 2001-04 period. The United States looks forward to continuing to learn 
more about Moldova’s domestic support agricultural policies. The United States notes that 
d o m e s t i c  s u p p o r t  m e a s u r e s  g e n e r a l l y  w e r e  n o t i f i e d  e i t h e r  f o r  a  s i n g l e  y e a r  o r  o v e r  o n l y  a  f e w  years.  
a. Is it correct that Moldova’s programmes notified here are not permanent, long-term 
legislation? If not, please provide a brief over view of the agricultural policy structure in 
Moldova. 
b. When will Moldova be notifying for more recent years? 
2.4.7.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: other 
2.4.7.2.1  Questions by the United States 84.  The United States notes "Support and credit  stimulation fund for agricultural producers" 
outlays were first notified by Moldova in 2002.  Was this programme first implemented in 2002? 
Please provide additional information on the operation of this programme. 
2.4.7.3  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
2.4.7.3.1  Questions by the United States 
85.  The State Reserve for wheat was notified by Moldova for only 2001.  
a. What is the objective of the state reserve? 
b. Does Moldova still maintain state reserves for wheat even though no purchases were 
made in 2002-04? 
2.4.7.4  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 2.4.7.4.1  Questions by the United States 
86.  Moldova notified "Control on selection and reproduction in zoo techniques" in 2004. Please 
provide further details regarding what this programme entails and what is meant by "zoo techniques". 
2.4.8  Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/32) 
2.4.8.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) - General services: pest and disease control 2.4.8.1.1  Question by the United States 87.  Budgetary outlays for "programme for the prev ention of exotic diseases" more than doubled 
in 2011. What is the reason for this significant increase in outlays? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.4.8.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Domestic food aid 
2.4.8.2.1  Question by the United States 
88.  The Food Production Programme (PPA), among other objectives, aims to increase "production 
and the consumption of protein foods". The United States notes that the PPA only covers the period of 2007-2011. 
a. Please explain how the objective of increasing production and consumption of protein 
foods is to be achieved under the programme. 
b. Since the programme is now complete, can Nicaragua provide any evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the programme in meeting the stated objectives? 
2.4.9  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69) 2.4.9.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 2.4.9.1.1  Question by Australia 
89.  Can Norway please confirm the accuracy of Norway’s Current Total AMS for 2011. The figure 
provided (NKr 9,648.5 million) is the same as in Norway’s 2010 domestic support notification. The correct figure for 2011 would appear to be NKr 9,859.9 million from Supporting Table DS:4 
provided in the 2011 notification.  
2.4.9.1.2  Question by the European Union 90.  In Table DS:1, Norway notifies Current To tal AMS for 2011 as NKr 9,648.5 million, whilst in 
Supporting Table DS:4 the Current Total AMS is  NKr 9,859.9 million. Which figure is correct? 
2.4.9.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: other 2.4.9.2.1  Question by Australia 91.  Australia notes that the vacation and replacement scheme continues to be amongst the 
largest Annex 2 programmes notified. Could Norway pl ease provide details on the eligibility criteria 
for this scheme? How is the payment per farm determined? 
2.4.9.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: other 
2.4.9.3.1  Question by Canada 
92.  In 2011, Norway provided NKr 1.3 billion  for the "Vacation and Replacement Scheme", 
reported under "Other". The measure involves a refund for additional farm operating expenses 
during holidays and to alleviate financial difficul ties due to illness. Could Norway please provide 
information as to which types of farming operations are eligible for the vacation part of the programme scheme and on the maximum amount that can be refunded? 
2.4.9.4  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
2.4.9.4.1  Question by Canada 
93.  Current Market Price Support for pork has increased by 14% between 2008 and 2011. This is 
mainly due to increases in the applied administered prices despite eligible production slightly 
declining between 2008 and 2011. Can Norway ex plain why applied administered prices have 
increased for pork during that period? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.4.9.5  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
2.4.9.5.1  Question by Australia 
94.  Could Norway please provide further details on  the fees and levies associated with the "farm 
feed adjustment" in Supporting Table DS:7 which reduces overall Current Total AMS for milk by approximately NKr 600 million. 
2.4.9.5.2  Questions by the European Union 
95.  From Norway's answer to the question raised by the European Union during the 68
th meeting 
of the Committee on Agriculture in November 2 012 regarding Norway's use of price compensation 
payments (internal price rebates), the European  Union understands that Norway applies price 
compensation payments (internal price rebates) for beef, potatoes, poultry, dairy products, pork and lamb meat when used in the production of processed agricultural products. Does this support to the processing industry only apply to the use of beef, potatoes, poultry, dairy products, pork 
and lamb meat of Norwegian origin or is the support granted for the use of imported beef, 
potatoes, poultry, dairy products, pork and lamb meat as well? 
96.  Is it correct that Norway does not apply pr ice compensation payments (internal price rebates) 
for eggs and egg products? 
2.4.10  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/26) 2.4.10.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Transp arency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.4.10.1.1  Question by the United States 
97.  The United States notes the "National Emergency Plan" is a new programme notified under 
Supporting Table DS:1. Pursuant to G/AG/2, all Members are required to provide a Table DS:2 for any new or modified domestic support measure exempt from reduction. When does Panama plan 
to provide such a notification for this new programme? 
2.4.10.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) - General services 2.4.10.2.1  Question by the United States 
98.  The United States notes that the descrip tions of "Subsistence farming and sustainable 
agriculture programmes, including crop promotion, use of accessible technology and environmental protection" and "Farming promotion and technological development programmes" 
differ between G/AG/N/PAN/27 (2008 and 2009), G/AG/N/PAN/24 (2010), and 
G/AG/N/PAN/26 (2011). In addition, budgetary outlays for both programmes have increased significantly from 2008 through 2011.  
a. Do the changes in the measure descriptions relate to a change in legislation and/or to 
the implementation of the programme?  
b. What is the reason for the increase in budgetary outlays? 
2.4.10.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct pa yments: structural adjustment assistance 
through investment aids 
2.4.10.3.1  Question by the United States 99.  The United States appreciates the additional information on the Agricultural Competitiveness 
Programme provided by Panama in G/AG/W/103. 
a. The United States understands from Panama’s response that the government will 
contribute, within an established time-fra me, 50% towards producers’ agricultural 
insurance policy invoices. Please indicate what the established time-frame for this 
programme is. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 20 - 
 
  b. Government participation in partially-funding producers’ agricultural insurance appears 
to be more accurately described as a "government financial participation in income 
insurance" (or "payments made by way of government financial participation in crop 
insurance schemes for relief from natural disa sters") pursuant to paragraph 7 (or 8) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Please explain the reasons behind notifying 
government participation in crop insurance as "Structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids".  
2.4.10.4  Article 6.2 (S&D) – Di rect payments: structural ad justment assistance through 
investment aids 
2.4.10.4.1  Question by the United States 100.  Panama details a credit and loan programme  available to small-scale producers with an 
annual income not exceeding US$100,000. The Unit ed States notes from the Panama General 
Agricultural Census of 2011 that the annual fa rmer income for small farms is US$3,298.88 and 
US$4,840.16 for large farms. In addition, the Agricultural Census states that out of the 245,105 producers, only 52,026 rely on only on-farm income for their living. The remainder have off-farm 
income to support their total incomes. How does Panama reconcile these statistics about its 
producers with availability of credit and loans for "small scale producers with annual incomes not exceeding US$100,000"? 
101.  The United States would like to know if Pana ma is in a position to respond to the following 
question raised at the September 2012 Commi ttee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/103): 
"Beyond this specific credit and loan programme with its defined income limit, does Panama have a working definition for "small-scale" producers, and if so could this be provided?" Please also 
explain any differences in this response with the data noted above in the Agricultural Census. 
2.4.11  Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/1) 2.4.11.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.4.11.1.1  Questions by Japan 
102.  Could Senegal confirm that there have been no support measures from 1995 to 2011? Is 
there any measure, for example, based on "La loi sénégalaise d’orientation agro-sylvo-pastorale" 
which was enacted in 2004? 
2.4.12  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/77) 2.4.12.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: Other 2.4.12.1.1  Questions by the European Union 
103.  What works are financed in the framework of the measure "Erection of waterworks"? Are 
there any on-farm works financed within this measure? In relation to the measure "Erection of waterworks", could South Africa share its assessment of how these works have contributed to the 
more effective utilisation of the land by producers? 
104.  In relation to the measure "Auxiliary and associated services", what type of transport 
services are supplied by the South African Government? 
2.4.12.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Domestic food aid 
2.4.12.2.1  Questions by Japan 105.  Could South Africa kindly explain why "National School Nutrition Programme" (domestic food 
aid) in Supporting Table DS:1 increased substantially in 2 consecutive years (about doubled from 
2008) and outline how the programme is operated? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 21 - 
 
  2.4.12.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents: payments under regional assistance 
programmes 
2.4.12.3.1  Questions by Canada 
106.  The amount of Development Aid under Regional assistance programmes provided to "assist 
producers in underdeveloped and disadvantaged areas with development aid to encourage 
agricultural and rural development as an inte gral part of the development programme" has 
increased. Could South Africa provide more details as to the nature of the measure, specifically, consistency with Annex 2, paragraph 13 and the reason for the increase? Could South Africa 
elaborate on the criteria for an area to be considered a disadvantaged region? 
2.4.13  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9, G/AG /N/UKR/13 and G/AG/N/UKR/13/Corr.1) 
2.4.13.1  Current Total AMS (Amber Bo x) - Excessive rates of inflation 
2.4.13.1.1  Question by Australia 
107.  At the 14 November 2012 meeting of the Committee, Australia supported a question asking 
Ukraine to explain which provision or provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture would allow or enable such an adjustment to the fixed external  reference price in relation to "sugar produced 
from sugar beets". Australia acknowledges Ukraine’s initial response at the Committee on 
Agriculture meeting, and formally requests Ukra ine provide a revised notification without the 
indexation (G/AG/N/UKR/13 and G/AG/N/UKR/13/Corr.1 refers).  
2.4.13.1.2  Question by Canada 
108.  Canada thanks Ukraine for providing a detailed response to its question regarding the 
calculation of market price support for sugar produced from sugar beets. Canada’s view is that the appropriate methodology for calculating market pric e support is described in paragraph 8, Annex 3 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. If during a revi ew of a Member’s domestic support notification 
the Committee is advised that inflation has affected that Member’s ability to abide by its domestic support commitment, then the Committee would refer to Article 18.4 and accord "due 
consideration". Article 18.4 does not allow a Member to self-adjust the methodology for calculating 
any element of its Current Total AMS. Could Ukrain e please indicate when it will provide revised 
notifications which would include the accurate fixed external reference price? (G/AG/N/UKR/9 and 
G/AG/N/UKR/13 refer).   
2.4.14  United States (G/AG/N/USA/89) 2.4.14.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct Payments: relief from natural disasters 
2.4.14.1.1  Question by Canada 
109.  In response to Canada’s question regarding the length of the reference period that was used 
under the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, the United States indicated that the approved yield is an average of a producer’s actual production history (APH) for a minimum of four 
to a maximum of ten crop years, depending on the crop and producer history. The criteria under 
Annex 2, paragraph 8(a) states that eligibility  for such payments shall be determined by a 
production loss which exceeds 30% of the averag e of production in the preceding three-year 
period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and 
lowest entry. Given that the reference period does not meet the criteria specified under Annex 2, Canada requests that the United States either take measures to bring the programme into conformity with the clearly defined criteria, or to report this programme as domestic support 
subject to reduction commitments under Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture. G/AG/W/108 
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.5  New or modified domestic support measures (Table DS:2) 
2.5.1  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/22) 
2.5.1.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: research 
2.5.1.1.1  Question by Australia 110.  Could Armenia please explain how the "Wheat and Barley Seed Farming Development 
Programme" complies with the requirements of Annex 2? 
2.5.2  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/33) 2.5.2.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.5.2.1.1  Question by Australia 
111.  Could Ecuador please clarify which paragraph of Annex 2 it is referring to in notifying the 
programme as a Green Box measure? 
2.5.2.1.2  Questions by Japan 
112.  With regard to the notification G/AG/N/ECU/33, could Ecuador kindly indicate the article in 
Annex 2 that is relevant to the programme? Can Ecuador clarify how the programme meets each of the relevant criteria under the section titled "Detailed description of the measure with reference 
to criteria" in the notification format? 
2.5.2.1.3  Question by the United States 113.  In relation to G/AG/N/ECU/33 and Supporting  Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/ECU/34, please provide 
further explanation of how the Permanent Production Security System (AGROSEGURO) operates. 
Please include details regarding how the programme complies with Annex 2 paragraph 8(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
2.5.3  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) 
2.5.3.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct pa yments: structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids 
2.5.3.1.1  Question by Canada 
114.  Canada thanks the European Union for responding to its questions regarding Reform of the 
Common Market Organisation in the wine sect or (G/AG/N/EU/8) and after a review of the 
responses has the ensuing follow-up questions: 
a. G/AG/N/EU/8 notes that a sub-set of measures, including support for "tangible or 
intangible investments in processing facilities, infrastructure and marketing which improve the overall performance of the ente rprises". Could the European Union please 
provide some examples of "tangible investments" that could be eligible for support? 
b. Could the European Union please indicate if the investment measures component of the 
Common Market Organisation in the wine sector will continue beyond the year 2012? G/AG/W/108 
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.5.4  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/11) 
2.5.4.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
2.5.4.1.1  Question by Australia 
115.  Could the European Union provide further details on the sizeable exceptional support 
measures introduced for dairy in 2009 in Supporting Table DS:6? 
116.  What, if any, policy adjustments have been  made/taken since these measures were used? 
2.5.4.2  Annex 2 (Green Box) - Direct payments: decoupled income support 2.5.4.2.1  Questions by the United States 
117.  The European Union’s notification regarding its Single Payment Scheme states: 
"Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 gives Member States the opportunity to review their initial choice. Member States which chose the historical model are allowed to review the value of payment entitlements with a view to approximating their uni t value, and also to change over to a regional 
application of the SPS. In particular, member States may adjust the territorial distribution of direct 
support by effecting a gradual redistribution be tween regions. Moreover, member States which 
chose the regional model are also allowed to review their decisions with the aim of approximating 
the value of payment entitlements." 
a. What are the guidelines for making these changes?  
b. For those member States opting to move from the historical model, will unit value 
determinations be based on values holding during the historical base period?  
c. For those member States moving to the historical model, will value of payment 
entitlements be based on the same historical base period as in the original legislation? 
2.5.4.3  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct pa yments: structural adjustment assistance 
provided through investment aids 
2.5.4.3.1  Questions by Australia 118.  In relation to "3.2 Restructuring support in the cotton sector", can the European Union 
please clarify how it ensures payments under its cotton sector restructuring support are limited to 
the amount required to compensate for the structural disadvantage? 
119.  In relation to "3.2 Setting up of young farmers", can the European Union please explain what 
structural disadvantage is being compensated for? 
2.5.4.4  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: environmental programmes 2.5.4.4.1  Question by Australia 120.  Could the European Union please clarify how it ensures "Natura 2000 agri-environmental 
payments" are limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the 
government programme? 
2.5.4.5  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: decoupled income support 
2.5.4.5.1  Question by Canada 
121.  Article 132, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/200 9, provides for the continuation of augmented 
direct payments by new member States provided th at prior to the date of accession that a "CAP-
like national scheme" was in operation in the new member State. Could the European Union please 
clarify what is a "CAP-like national scheme"? Could the European Union please elaborate as to the G/AG/W/108 
 
- 24 - 
 
  methodologies employed to assess whether the me asures in the new member States were "CAP-
like"? 
2.5.4.6  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
2.5.4.6.1  Question by Canada 
122.  In the notification, restructuring support is described as a "transitional measure that has 
been added in order to support agricultural holdings undergoing restructuring, including diversification to activities outside agriculture, due to a reform of the single Common Market 
Organisation". Could the European Union please explain what structural disadvantages are 
included in this measure? How does the European  Union determine whether there is an objectively 
demonstrated structural disadvantage? What are th e criteria used? Further, please describe how 
the measure conforms to each of the criteria set out in Annex 2, paragraph 8. 
2.5.4.7  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paymen ts: structural assistance provided through 
investment aids 
2.5.4.7.1  Question by Canada 
123.  The European Union provides support for "setting up of young farmers". The support is said 
to compensate for an objectively demonstrated structural disadvantage contained in an investment plan. This type of support increased from EU R 50,000 to EUR 70,000. Could the European Union 
elaborate as to the type of structural disadvan tage faced by young farmers? Could the European 
Union please indicate as to at what age it considers a "young farmer"? Could the European Union please explain how this type of support compensa tes for a structural disadvantage? Further, what 
are the estimated costs associated with this measure? 
2.5.5  United States (G/AG/N/USA/91) 
2.5.5.1  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: environmental programmes 2.5.5.1.1  Questions by Australia 
124.  Can the United States please clarify what environmental or conservation objectives are 
achieved by the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP)? 
125.  Australia notes that one objective of the VP A-HIP programme is to maximize participation by 
land owners – can the United States confirm that payments made are limited to the extra costs or 
loss of income involved in complying with the government programme and explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure these payments are limited in this way? 
126.  Regarding the Conservation Loan Program, could the United States explain what the "clearly 
defined government environmental or conservati on programmes" that the programme relates to 
are, and the legislative measures in place to ensure compliance? 
2.6  Export subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1 to ES:3) 
2.6.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62) 
2.6.1.1  Export subsidies subject to redu ction commitments (Article 9.1): Product 
coverage/scheduled commitments 
2.6.1.1.1  Question by the European Union 
127.  The column "description of products" in Table ES:1 of G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62 
contains the following tariff codes for milk and dairy produce under the definition of incorporated products: ex 0401.10, ex 0405.10, ex 0402.90, ex 0405.90. These codes do not seem to be 
included in the respective product definition in the Swiss Schedule of Concessions. Could 
Switzerland please explain?  G/AG/W/108 
 
- 25 - 
 
  2.6.1.2  Circumvention of commitments: International food aid 
2.6.1.2.1  Question by the European Union 
128.  Why does Switzerland notify food aid in th e form of milk powder and cheese in Table ES:3 
rather than in Table ES:1, considering that Switzerland has export subsidy reduction commitments for dairy products? 
2.6.1.3  Circumvention of commitments: Othe r measures with circumvention potential 
2.6.1.3.1  Question by the European Union 129.  According to documents G/AG/N/CHE/59 an d G/AG/N/CHE/62, Switzerland has maintained 
export subsidies for incorporated products as of 2011. According to Article 11 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture "in no case may the per-unit subsidy paid on an incorporated agricultural primary product exceed the per-unit export subsidy that  would be payable on exports of the primary 
product as such." This issue was raised at the 57th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture held 
on 19 November 2009, where the European Union questioned Switzerland's use of export subsidies 
for processed products in light of Article 11 of  the Agreement on Agriculture. At that time, 
Switzerland did not agree with an interpretation of Article 11 that would necessitate the 
elimination of export subsidies on processed products in case those were eliminated for 
corresponding raw agricultural products. In the light of Swiss use of export subsidies as per 
documents G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62, how does Switzerland interpret Article 11 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? 
__________