G/AG/W/136  
 
3 November 2014  
(14-6395)  Page: 1/36  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 13 NOVEMBER 20141 
The present document compiles questions receiv ed by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
30 October 2014 as specified in WTO/AIR/4380. 
  
_______________ 
 
                                               
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/136 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 5 
1.1   Brazil's tax cr edit programmes .................................................................................... 5  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75002) ......................................................... 5  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 5  
1.2.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75023) ............................................ 5  
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75082) ............................................................. 5  
1.3.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75083) ............................................................. 6  
1.3.3   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75025) ............................................ 6  
1.4   Canada's proposed ch anges to tariff  schedule ................................................................ 7  
1.4.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75024) ............................................ 7  
1.5   Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese .......................................................................... 8  
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75026) ............................................ 8  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 8  
1.6.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  75059)  .................................................................... 8  
1.6.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75031) ............................................ 8  
1.7   Egypt's domestic supp ort and export subsidies .............................................................. 8  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75060) ......................................................... 8  
1.8   India's sugar export subsidies ..................................................................................... 8  
1.8.1   Question by Aust ralia (AG-IMS ID 75028)  .................................................................. 8  
1.9   Jordan's inflation adjustments on  the fixed external reference price .................................. 9  
1.9.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  75064)  .................................................................... 9  
1.10   Russia's agricult ural support  for 2015 ........................................................................ 10 
1.10.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 75067) ...................................................... 10 
1.11   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork ................................ 10 
1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75035) .......................................... 10 
1.12   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 10 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75036) .......................................... 10 
1.13   Thailand's Rice Farm er Assistance  Programme ............................................................ 11 
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  75068) .................................................................. 11 
1.14   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 11 
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75001 an d 75037 ) .......................... 11 
1.15   Turkey's agricultural cr edit and investme nt subsidies ................................................... 12 
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  75071) .................................................................. 12 
1.16   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 12 
1.16.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 75069) ...................................................... 12 
1.17   Turkey's export subsidy programmes ......................................................................... 12 
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75027) ................................................................ 12 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 13  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 13 
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/79) ..................................................................................... 13 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 13 
2.2.1   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/44) .......................................................................................... 13 
2.2.2   China (G /AG/N/CH N/26) ......................................................................................... 13 
2.2.3   Iceland (G/AG/N/ ISL/32, G/AG/N /ISL/36) ................................................................. 13 
2.2.4   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/196) ........................................................................................ 14 
2.2.5   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/25) ....................................................................................... 14 
2.2.6   Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/2) ...................................................................... 14 
2.2.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/32) ...................................................................................... 14 
2.2.8   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/43) ................................................................................... 15 
2.2.9   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/81) ................................................................................. 15 
2.2.10   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/78) .................................................................................... 15 
2.2.11   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28) .................................................. 15 
2.3   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) ...................................... 16 
2.3.1   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/195) ........................................................................................ 16 
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/114) .......................................................................... 16 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 16 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/89) ..................................................................................... 16 
2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/98) ....................................................................................... 17 
2.4.3   Georgia (G/AG/N/GE O/13) ...................................................................................... 18 
2.4.4   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/37) ................................................................................... 19 
2.4.5   Iceland (G/AG/N/IS L/33) ........................................................................................ 19 
2.4.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 19 
2.4.7   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/34) .................................................................................... 30 
2.4.8   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MY S/32) ..................................................................................... 30 
2.4.9   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/31) ...................................................................................... 30 
2.4.10   Russian Federa tion (G/AG/ N/RUS/5) ....................................................................... 31 
2.4.11   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LK A/3) .................................................................................... 31 
2.4.12   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/93) ............................................................. 31 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC  SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) ................................. 34 
2.5.1   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/68) ................................................................................. 34 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) .................................. 34 
2.6.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/101)  ..................................................................................... 34 
2.6.2   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/198) ........................................................................................ 35 
2.6.3   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/27) ....................................................................................... 35 
2.6.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/76) ...................................................................................... 35 
2.6.5   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/76) ..................................................................................... 36 
2.7   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION  (TABLE NF:1) ....................... 36 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.7.1   G/ AG/N/U SA/97 .................................................................................................... 36 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 36  
3.1.1   China ................................................................................................................. .. 36 
 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's tax credit programmes 1.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75002) According to media reports Brazil has recently taken action to support its sugar industry by 
stimulating exports of sugar and bioethanol. Th ese reports suggest that: under the REINTEGRA 
programme, in September, Brazil expanded tax credits to sugar and ethanol producers 
worth 0.3% of their exports; in October the rate  was further increased to 3%; this subsidy costs 
Brazilian authorities about BRL 900 million (about USD 387 million ); and the subsidy is directly 
contingent upon export. In the ligh t of this, could Brazil indicate: 
 
a. Whether these reports are accurate? 
b. The quantity of sugar and ethanol subject to this measure? 
c. The amount of duties and taxes borne by su gar and ethanol destined for consumption in 
Brazil and the degree of remission of such duties or taxes for exported products in 
comparison with the duties and taxes which have accrued (within the meaning of 
footnote 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties)? 
d. Given that the definition of an export subsidy under the Agreement on Agriculture does 
not have a provision equivalent to footnote 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Duties, whether the measure is  an export subsidy subject to reduction 
commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture? 
e. Whether the subsidy will be notified as an export subsidy and how it relates to Brazil's 
scheduled export subsidy budget outlay commitment for the product category sugar, 
including ethyl alcohol? 
f. Whether there are plans to reform or abolish this measure, in particular in the light of 
the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition? 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 1.2.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75023) 
The United States appreciates Brazil's responses to questions on the Prêmio para Escoamento do 
Produto (PEP) and Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) in AG-IMS ID 74021. The United States has repeatedly requested information on the quantities of specific products shipped to specific destinations, including both domestic and export destinations. In response to U.S. 
question AG-IMS ID 74021, Brazil indicated that  CONAB is working on improving its control 
mechanism so as to be able to provide data covering more recent periods. The United States has been asking Brazil for this information since the June 2012 Committee meeting, and strongly urges 
Brazil to provide substantive responses to our questions as soon as possible. 
 
a. Please provide an update on this process. By what date can the United States expect this 
data? 
b. In response to U.S. question AG-IMS ID 74021, Brazil stated that the PEP reassessment 
is still in progress. Please provide any updates on the reassessment and confirm the programme remains suspended. 
1.3  Canada's dairy policies 
1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75082) New Zealand remains concerned about the methods Canada uses to calculate the value and 
volume of its dairy exports that receive export subsidies. New Zealand is concerned that Canada G/AG/W/136 
 
- 6 - 
 
  does not include exports that benefit from cheaper ingredients as a result of export subsidies 
delivered through the Special Milk Class Permit Program.  Could Canada please explain why it considers ex ports of, or including, ingredients supplied at 
cheaper rates under the Special Milk Class Permit Program (other than Special Milk Class 5(d)), do 
not benefit from export subsidies as outlined under  Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
namely, "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…"? 
 Could Canada provide the total value and volume of any exports of dairy products that are not counted by Canada as benefiting from export subsidies, and are not part of an Import for 
Re-Export Programme for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 years? Could Canada also provide a 
breakdown on an export market basis for any such exports?  
1.3.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75083) 
New Zealand remains concerned about the ingredients strategy drafted by the Canadian dairy 
producers for the Canadian dairy industry. Given that the Ingredients Strategy refers to the 
involvement of government in programmes that could potentially displace imports and create 
export subsidised product not captured under Canada's current export subsidy commitments, New Zealand again asks Canada to confirm whether the Canadian government:  
a. Has engaged with any industry bodies on this new strategy, and particularly the 
suggestion that the Special Milk Class Permit Program be modified to create a new "ingredients" class of milk that would introduce "competitive world pricing" of surplus 
solids-non-fat (SNF) in order to replace imported dairy ingredients, implementing a new 
"end-use billing mechanism" to prevent "cannibalizing producer revenues from higher-priced milk classes"; and/or, 
b. Intends to implement any parts of the strate gy requiring government involvement, for 
example the creation of additional composit ional standards for dairy products. If so, 
what parts, and how is this consistent with Canada's commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? 
1.3.3  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75025) 
The United States is concerned at the proliferation of Canada's special milk pricing classes, now 
reaching 39 different classes. Domestic food and industry processors appear to receive a special 
milk class permit to purchase dairy inputs at a subsidized price, predicated on a declaration that a 
competitive like-product has been imported into Canada. These special milk prices range from whey used in animal feed to cheese used in the manufacturing of further processed products, such 
as frozen pizzas. These products are produced using the heavily discounted dairy inputs and are 
then sold in domestic and foreign markets.  
a. Please provide an approximation of how much milk goes into special classes and ends up 
in products that are destined for export markets. For example, please advise how much 
milk is sold in special classes and are destined for products categorized under the HS code 19053010 (Bread, Pastry, Cakes and Biscuits ad similar Bakes Products, and 
Unprepared Puddings). Trade in this category is over 265,000 tonnes and valued at USD 
892 million. Is the milk that ends up in exported product notified under the export subsidy notifications? 
b. Whey 
Will the class 3(d) programme, which allows milk to be sold at discounted prices for 
cheese for fresh pizzas sold directly to consumers, be expanded to include additional cheese beyond mozzarella? 
c. Ice Cream 
The trade impact of the Canada-wide ice cr eam promotion plan appears to be quite 
dramatic, with imports of butter oil and sugar blends under tariff code 2106909510 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 7 - 
 
  decreasing by 60% between 2008 and 2009. Please provide details on the 100% 
Canadian ice-cream promotion programme, including details on how much fluid milk is being directed into this programme and the costs involved with this programme. 
d. Other 
Please inform the Committee whether the Canadian Dairy Commission will be 
administering a similar type of programme fo r any additional products and, if so, on 
what products. 
1.4  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.4.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75024) 
At the last meeting, Canada noted that the process of "tabling of a Notice of Ways and Means 
Motion is a standard parliamentary procedure to give effect to domestic taxation changes prior to 
such time that formal legislation can be brough t forward" and that "[l]ongstanding parliamentary 
convention dictates that taxation proposals will be deemed to have come into force as soon as the government tables a Notice of Ways and Means Motion (or on an alternate date specified therein), 
even though the government's taxation plans ha ve not yet been formally adopted by way of 
legislation".  
a. Has this parliamentary procedure ever been used in the past to amend Canadian law for 
the purpose of reversing a Canadian tariff classification interpretation? If yes, please provide the most recent example. 
b. Are all tariff classification changes in Canada treated as taxation proposals and subjected 
to this parliamentary procedure?  
c. If yes, does this mean that all tariff classification changes would be deemed immediately 
effective upon tabling of a Notice of Ways and Means motion unless a later date were 
specified? If so, what percentage of the time is a later date specified and what is the 
average length of time between the tabling of  the Notice of Ways and Means Motion and 
the effective date of the tariff classification change? 
Canada previously noted that "[a] decrease in imports within 1601.00.90.90 would not be 
abnormal as the measure was specifically intended to address imports of goods packaged in a specific, deliberate manner…." The United States has previously noted the significant decrease in imports within that heading corresponding perfectly to the timing of Canada's measure. 
 
d. Please clarify whether Canada agrees that the measure is responsible for at least most of 
the drop-off in imports under 1601.00.90.90. 
Despite the statement just noted, Canada also stated that it would be "impossible" to isolate the 
trade impact of this measure because "various factors influence trade patterns and because multiple products are covered by tariff item 1601.00.90.90". 
 
e. Are the factors influencing trade patterns with respect to products under heading 
1601.00.90.90 atypical in terms of number of factors or quality, and if so, how? Is the interaction between Canada's measure and the various factors influencing trade of such 
products atypical, and if so, how? Does Ca nada take the position that no economic 
impact can be discerned where a measure affects only some of the products under a particular tariff code heading? If no, what differences exist between a scenario where an 
economic impact could be determined and the current scenario? 
The United States understands that "An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget Tabled 
in Parliament on 11 February 2014 and Other Measures", enacted into law on 19 June 2014, 
amended Canada's Customs tariff by adding a supplementary note to Chapter 16 requiring that 
cheese components of certain prepared food products be classified in Chapter 4.  
f. Will Canada submit a revised Schedule reflecting this change to the WTO? If not, what 
plans does Canada have for notifying this change to the WTO? G/AG/W/136 
 
- 8 - 
 
  g. Are there any further proposals to change the methods for determining dutiable value 
for any food preparations or other goods containing cheese or other dairy products, or to otherwise impact the tariff treatment of agricultural or food products containing dairy ingredients? If the answer is yes, please identify and describe in detail those proposals.  
1.5  Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75026) 
The United States notes announced changes to Canada's WTO Tariff-Rate Quota for cheese as part 
of the European Union-Canada Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA). 
Documentation on the website of the government of Canada states that "Canada shall reallocate, beginning in year [one], 800 tonnes of Canada’s 20,411,866 kilogram WTO Tariff-Rate Quota for cheese to the European Union". 
 
How does Canada envision implementation of this provision for the European Union in conjunction with its WTO TRQ for cheese? 
 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75059) 
Canada appreciates Costa Rica's continued commitment to transparency and its engagement with 
Canada and other Members regarding its domestic process to modify its price support programme for rice and how it will in the near future comply with its domestic support commitment. Costa Rica has informed the Committee that the price support programme for rice will be terminated on 
1 March 2015 and that a new alternative mechanism will take its place. Could Costa Rica provide a 
progress report on the proposed alternative mechanism?  
1.6.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75031) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its response in AG-IMS ID 74023 and requests an update. 
The United States also requests responses to unanswered questions about Costa Rica's price 
support programme for rice (AG-IMS ID 74023, AG-IMS ID 73037, AG-IMS ID 71030, 
and AG-IMS ID 72050).  
a. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? If not, on what basis does 
CONARROZ have the authority to compel producers to participate in the new system? 
b. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying them to 
the WTO? 
1.7  Egypt's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.7.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75060) Egypt has not submitted domestic support (DS:1) and export subsidy (ES:1) notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture since 1999. Could Egypt please indicate when it intends to submit these 
overdue notifications to the WTO?  1.8  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.8.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75028) 
Australia acknowledges India's response to Australia's questions at the June 2014 Committee on 
Agriculture in relation to its sugar export subsidies. Australia remains of the view that these export 
subsidies, introduced under the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014, are 
inconsistent with India's WTO obligations and are contrary to the spirit and letter of the Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition agreed at Bali by all Ministers in 2013. 
 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 9 - 
 
  a. Can India provide a further update to the Committee on Agriculture on the Sugar 
Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014, in  relation to published information about 
the value of export subsidy ("incentive") paid per tonne? 
b. Can India provide data on domestic raw sugar production volumes for the period since 
the subsidy was established in February 2014 and the corresponding period in 2013? 
c. Can India provide domestic raw sugar production data for the 2013-14, 2012-13, 
2011-12 and 2010-11 sugar seasons?  
d. Can India advise how many tonnes of raw sugar and refined sugar have been exported: 
i. Since the introduction of the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014? 
ii. Since the commencement of the 2013-14 sugar season to date? 
iii. For the entire 2013-14 sugar season? 
iv. For the entire 2011-12 sugar season? 
e. Reporting reproduced on the Indian Sugar Mills Association website: 
http://www.indiansugar.com/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=3538  in August 2014 states that 
620,000 tonnes of exported raw sugar have been subsidised under the programme since 
the introduction of the export subsidy in February 2014. 
i. Can India now confirm that subsidy payments are underway? 
ii. Could India provide the total value of expo rt subsidy budgetary outlays (in INR), as 
well as the volume and value (in INR) of raw and refined sugar exports that have been subject to incentive payments? 
iii. Could India also provide the number of applications received for payment of the 
export subsidy, including the number of applications received but yet to be paid? 
f. If no export subsidy payments have been made under the scheme, Australia seeks an 
update in relation to the following questions asked in June: 
i. Can India advise if applications have been received for the subsidy payment? 
ii. Can India advise when the fi rst payments will be made? 
iii. If applications have been received, can India advise the total value of subsidy 
payments to be made against these applications? 
iv. If applications have been received, can India advise the total volume of raw and 
refined sugar exports subject to the applications? 
g. If no export subsidy payments have been made under the scheme, will India now 
consider the termination of the subsidy? 
1.9  Jordan's inflation adjustments on  the fixed external reference price 
1.9.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75064) 
Canada would like to reiterate once again its appreciation for Jordan's commitment to 
transparency in providing both unadjusted and adjusted numbers in its notification to the Committee and would like to follow-up on Jordan's responses. Canada is of the view that 
paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agricu lture requires the external reference price to 
be fixed and thus, does not allow 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 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 10 - 
 
  external reference price is to ensure that a Member's capacity to provide trade distorting domestic 
support is effectively capped and cannot expand over time in absolute or relative terms. Furthermore, Canada is of the view that Article 18.4 does not provide a methodology or a legal basis through which a Member's fixed external refe rence 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. Canada 
notes that while Jordan's Total AMS commitment level is of JOD 1,333,973 in 2009 and 2010, its Current Total AMS amounts to JOD 1,979,742 in 2009, and JOD 3,585,308 in 2010. In light of questions asked by Canada and answers provided  by Jordan at the January 2014 and March 2014 
meetings of the Committee on Agriculture:  
 
a. Could Jordan elaborate further on the legal basis for its understanding that the intent of 
Article 18.4 or of paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture is to allow fixed 
external reference prices to be ad justed for accumulated inflation?  
b. Since Jordan's Current Total AMS for 2009 and 2010 are above Jordan's domestic 
support commitment, and as Jordan does not plan on changing its domestic support 
programmes to bring its Current Total AMS in compliance with its commitment (according to its March 2014 response), could Jordan inform this Committee of next 
steps or plans it may consider to bring itself into compliance with its commitments?  
c. Could Jordan point to any other consideration that this Committee should take into 
account in assessing Jordan's ability to abide by its domestic support commitments?  
1.10  Russia's agricultural support for 2015 
1.10.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75067) 
According to media reports, the government of  the Russian Federation has been discussing 
agricultural support for 2015. In particular the Mi nistry of Agriculture intends to allocate an 
additional RUB 77 billion for the programme of st ate support to agriculture in 2015 on top of the 
RUB 170 billion already allocated. Could Russia indicate the measures for which these funds will be used in 2015 and the products targeted by them?   
1.11  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.11.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75035) 
The United States repeats questions asked in the June meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 74044):  
 
a. Please explain how Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork 
are consistent with Saint Lucia's WTO obligations, including Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
b. Please explain how St. Lucia calculated the quantities for domestic purchase 
requirements for poultry and pork mentioned in its response e. to AG-IMS 72055 
(25% for poultry and 40% for pork). 
1.12  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75036) 
The United States thanks Thailand for its responses to questions posed in AG-IMS ID 74050 and 
has follow-up questions:  
In June, Thailand was unable to provide answer s to some of the U.S. questions because the 
accounts were not closed. The United States repeats these questions now.  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 11 - 
 
  The United States notes that the administered price under the Paddy Pledging Scheme was 
THB 14,400 per tonne for the main crop, but since the programme was discontinued market prices in Thailand have fallen dramatically to approximately THB 7,000 per tonne. The United States understands that Thailand procured 11.6 million metric tonnes at a cost of THB 190 billion 
(USD 5.8 million).  
 
a. Please confirm the quantity of paddy rice Thailand procured under the Paddy Pledging 
Scheme for the main crop of MY 2013/2014, and if reported figures are incorrect, please 
provide the correct figures. 
b. Please confirm whether the cost of the Main-Crop Rice Paddy Pledging Program 
is THB 190 billion (USD 5.8 billion) for MY 2013/2014. If this is not correct, please 
provide the correct cost. 
c. Please confirm whether the Soft Loan Measure and Market Intervention are still in 
operation. 
Further, the United States of America notes that Thailand conducted a tender of nearly 
213,000 metric tonnes and that bids from both exporters and domestic millers ranged from 
17%-33% below market prices. Market prices were less than one-half of the administered price. In 
addition, the United States of America notes the dramatic decline in market prices in 2014. 
 
d. Please confirm whether any of these bids were accepted. 
e. If so, were any tenders exported? 
1.13  Thailand's Rice Farm er Assistance Programme 
1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75068) During the 21 March 2014 and 5 and 6 June 2014 m eetings of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Thailand noted that the Paddy Pledging Scheme ceased to operate on 28 February 2014 and on 
31 July 2014 for rice planted in the south. Canada understands that on 24 June 2014 funding for the new Rice Farmer Assistance Program in the amount of THB 4.7 billion (approximately 
USD 145 million) was approved for marketing year 2014/15. This new programme reportedly will 
provide input subsidies for rice produc tion and stabilize the price of rice. 
 
a. Could Thailand clarify which rice farmers would be eligible for payments under the Rice 
Farmer Assistance Program? 
b. Could Thailand describe the mechanism to stabilize the price of rice and indicate what 
would be the target price?  
1.14  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.14.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75001 and 75037) 
The United States appreciates responses that Turkey provided to U.S. questions during the 
January and March meetings. The United States rais ed some questions directly on the floor of the 
June meeting (AG-IMS 75001) and did not expect immediate answers. The United States repeats 
the questions for response in the November meeting:   
a. Please explain the TMO Sales Regulation (Code of Practice for Grain Sales after Export to 
Product Manufacturer-Exporters) that allows TMO to make sales to inward processing certificate holders at world prices. Please provide details on any other measures that 
operationalize the TMO. 
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing certificate 
holders over the past several years. Does Tu rkey confirm that TMO sells domestic wheat 
to Turkey flour millers that export flour and hold inward processing certificates? If so, G/AG/W/136 
 
- 12 - 
 
  please provide wheat purchase and wheat sales prices for these transactions for the 
last 3 years. 
c. Please describe any government control or verification requirements for inward 
processing of wheat flour. 
d. The United States of America appreciates Turkey's response on exported flour and 
imported wheat as shown in the table (Annex 2; AG-IMS ID 73042). Are all of the quantities listed imported and exported through the inward processing system? If not, 
please elaborate on this table by stating how much of the imports and exports were 
through the inward processing system. 
e. In AG-IMS ID 73042, the United States of America requested data concerning both the 
quantity and quality of wheat imports and flour exports under Turkey's inward 
processing system. In response, Turkey provided data concerning only the quantity of 
such imports and exports. Please provide data for the last three years listing the quality of wheat imported and the qualit y of wheat flour exported under Turkey’s 
inward processing system. 
f. Please confirm that the sale and trading of inward processing certificates received for 
exporting products occurs and is allowed under  Turkey's regulations. Please also provide 
any measures that regulate this process. 
1.15  Turkey's agricultural credit and investment subsidies 1.15.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75071) In a document entitled "Structural Changes and Reforms on Turkish Agriculture 2003-2013" 
published by the Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, there is mention that red meat 
production has increased as a result of changes in how government support is provided to the sector. In addition, it states that "Agricultural credit periods were extended from 18 months to 
24 months for operating credits and from 5 years to 7 years for investment credits". 
 Could Turkey please provide information regarding all of the sectors that have received these 
agricultural credit and investment subsidies including the respective amounts?  
 1.16  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies  
1.16.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75069) 
Turkey has not submitted domestic support (Table DS.1) and export subsidy (Table ES.1) 
notifications to the Committee on Agriculture since 2001 (Table DS.1) and 2000 (Table ES.1). In the March 2014 Committee on Agriculture, Turkey stated that its respective Ministries were 
working on these notifications.  
 
a. Could Turkey indicate when it intends to su bmit these overdue notifications to the WTO? 
b. As asked in question (AG-IMS ID 73056), could Turkey confirm that the budgetary 
outlays and eligible quantities of subsidised exports, including for citrus fruits, have remained within its commitments since 2001?  
c. As asked in question (AG-IMS ID 73056), could Turkey confirm that its AMS has 
remained below its de minimis  level since 2002? 
1.17  Turkey's export subsidy programmes 1.17.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75027) 
Australia notes that Turkey has notified export subsidy programmes to the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/253/TUR). In that notification, Turkey has indicated the range of products for which export subsidies have been provided for the years 2012 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 13 - 
 
  and 2013. The list of products does not include the full range of eligible products for which Turkey 
has export subsidy commitments.  
a. Could Turkey please clarify whether produc ers/exporters of the following products 
received export subsidies during the reporting period, namely, wheat, wheat flour, 
semolina, dairy products (yogurt, cheese, butte r), meat of bovine animals, sheep meat?  
b. If export subsidies have been paid, could Turk ey please provide, for each of the products 
concerned, a list of export destinations, the total amount of export subsidy applied; and 
the total volume of exports benefitting from export subsidies? 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/79) 
AG-IMS ID 75038: Question by United St ates of America - Other administration 
arrangements 
a. D o e s  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  T h a i l a n d  h a v e  a n y  d o m e s t i c  p u r c h a s e  r e q u i r e m e n t s  a s  a  
condition for importers to receive permission to import under tariff-rate quotas for soybeans, soybean meal, fresh potatoes, and non-fat dry milk? If so, please describe 
how they function. 
b. Does the Government of Thailand sets prices for these commodities on the domestic 
market. If so, please describe how that process works. 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/44) 
AG-IMS ID 75003: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on 
TRQ Administration. 
 2.2.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/26) 
AG-IMS ID 75039: Question by United States  of America - Alloca tion of licences to 
importing entities 
The United States appreciates China's responses to questions on its Table MA:2 from 
Canada (AG-IMS ID 74002). 
 
a. As a follow-up, how does the National Development and Reform Commission allocate the 
public sector quotas? Does it allocate the full public quota each year for each 
commodity? 
b. When the public sector share is not fully used, what is the process for reallocating the 
TRQs to the private sector for possible use? 
2.2.3  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/32, G/AG/N/ISL/36) 
AG-IMS ID 75005: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line in G/AG/N/ISL/32 and G/AG/N/ISL/36, 
in line with the Bali decision on  Tariff Rate Quota Administration. 
AG-IMS ID 75081: Question by  Peru - Tariff quota fill 
Regarding G/AG/N/ISL/36, Iceland has established a tariff quota of 10,423.9 tonnes for tariff 
subheading 110423: "Cereal grains otherwise worked ", in respect of which Iceland reports that in G/AG/W/136 
 
- 14 - 
 
  the period June 2013 to July 2014 it imported only 1,152 tonnes, representing no more than 
11% of the quota allocated.  On the other hand, in 2013 Peru recorded exports under tariff subheading 110423 amounting 
to USD 3.5 million. Although the United States is the main destination of Peruvian exports of 
cereal grains (70% in value terms and 64% in volume terms), shipments to Europe exhibit a positive trend (totalling USD 965,000 and 422 tonnes in 2013). 
 
In view of the above, it is considered appropri ate to ask Iceland to explain why use of the quota 
has been limited.  
2.2.4  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/196) 
AG-IMS ID 75084: Question by Ne w Zealand - Transparency issues 
New Zealand notes that the figures for TRQ quantity for 2012 for skimmed milk powder for other 
purposes; evaporated milk; butter and oil; and rice and its worked and/or prepared products differ 
from Part 1 of the Schedule and from Japan's previous TRQ notifications.  
(in tonnes) 
Product G/AG/N/JPN/196 
(2012) G/AG/N/JPN/184 
(2011) Scheduled 
commitments 
Skimmed milk powder for other 
purposes 74,973 85,878 85,878 
Evaporated milk 1500 1585 1585 
Butter and butter oil 581 1873 1873 
Rice and its worked and/or prepared 
products 1006.10.010 682,200 758,000 758,000 
 
Could Japan please explain the discrepancy and change in methodology between the tariff quota 
quantity figures for 2012 and their scheduled commitments?  
 
AG-IMS ID 75006: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration. 
 
2.2.5  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/25) 
AG-IMS ID 75007: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration.  
2.2.6  Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/2) 
AG-IMS ID 75009: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration. 
 
2.2.7  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/32) 
AG-IMS ID 75029: Question by Canada - Transparency issues 
Canada notes that the in-quota fill for many products listed in Panama's recent MA:2 notification 
for 2012 are, in many cases, non-existent or "None"  due to a variety of factors, this, despite the 
fact that imports were reported for those same lines. 
 
a. Could Panama provide details on the applied tariffs for these products for which imports 
were reported outside of the quota? G/AG/W/136 
 
- 15 - 
 
  b. Are these rates equal, higher or lower than the in-quota rates? 
AG-IMS ID 75070: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
This notification covers 2013 imports for the various tariff lines included in the bound tariff quotas. 
However, the bound tariff quota on maize (HS 1005.90.90, HS 1104.23.20, HS 1104.23.90 of 
150,000 metric tonnes) is not included. Could Panama explain the reasons for this and whether it 
intends to make a notification covering this tariff quota? 
AG-IMS ID 75008: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration.  2.2.8  Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/43) 
AG-IMS ID 75010: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that the MFN applied tariff rates are at or below the in-quota tariff rates for many 
of the Philippines' tariff rate quotas, making th ese quotas, in effect, non-operational. Can the 
Philippines please indicate which tariff rate quotas are non-operational for these reasons? For the 
remaining operational tariff rate quotas, can the Philippines indicate the fill rate?  
2.2.9  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/81) 
AG-IMS ID 75014: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration. 
 
2.2.10  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/78) 
AG-IMS ID 75012: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that Thailand has not yet answered Australia's question in respect of 
G/AG/N/THA/74 (AG-IMS 69044 refers). Australia repeats the question for the current notification: Can Thailand please account for the significant underfill in its tariff rate quota for maize (for 
feedstuff) and rice (including paddy, broken) for the years 2011 to 2013? 
 2.2.11  Venezuela, Bolivarian Re public of (G/AG/N/VEN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 75032: Question by Canada - Transparency issues 
Canada notices that Venezuela has not provided an MA:2 notification for 2009, 2010, 2011 
and 2012. Could Venezuela please advise when it expects to provide these notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 75033: Question by Canada - Transparency issues 
Venezuela's latest MA:2 notification for 2013 provides  the quota fill for only one product: sugar. In 
its previous MA:2 notification (G/AG/N/VEN/25) a total of 61 products were covered. Could Venezuela please explain why so many products ar e no longer included in its MA:2 notification? 
AG-IMS ID 75015: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for each tariff line, in line with the Bali decision on Tariff 
Rate Quota Administration. 
AG-IMS ID 75034: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill 
The tariff quota fill for sugar in 2013 is four times the amount of the tariff quota. Could Venezuela 
please explain why actual imports of cane sugar significantly exceeded the tariff quota quantities? 
 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.3  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.3.1  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/195) AG-IMS ID 75030: Question by Canada - Trigger calculations 
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/JPN/195, and also in other recent MA:4 notifications, including 
G/AG/N/JPN/189, G/AG/N/JPN/187, G/AG/N/JPN/179 and G/AG/N/JPN/154, Japan has used a 
different trigger calculation methodology than the one prescribed in Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
a. Could Japan elaborate on the reasons why it regularly uses an alternate methodology to 
calculate its price-based SSG trigger?  
b. Given that there often seems to be issues with the availability of information regarding 
imports in the reference period, could Japan provide details on the considerations or 
factors that lead it to conclude in those instances that a price-based SSG is both necessary and in compliance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.3.2  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/114) 
AG-IMS ID 75011: Question by Australia - Trigger calculations 
Chinese Taipei estimated the trigger level for betel nuts using the volume of imports and 
consumption for 2010, 2011 and 2012. However, Chinese Taipei provided 2013 in-quota imports 
in G/AG/N/TPKM/112. Can Chinese Taipei explain why they have not used 2013 imports in G/AG/N/TPKM/114?  
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.4.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/89) AG-IMS ID 75042: Question by India - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
a. Could Australia confirm whether the payments made under On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency 
Program that are exempt from reduction commitment pursuant to Annex 2, Paragraph 2 (g) pertain to capital works only  and excludes the subsidized provision of 
on-farm facilities? If yes, India seeks further information on monetary value of eligible 
activities for funding mentioned in the SEWPAC Report, Round Four, Funding Guidelines, July, 2013 (page 6), as reproduced below: 
"Activities eligible for funding 
Activities eligible for project/sub-project funding generating water savings for the 
Australian Government will be infrastructure based, occur on an existing irrigated farm, and may include the following: 
 installing new or upgrading existing irrigation infrastructure or technology, including 
automated water management systems and sensing equipment intended to improve decision-making about irrigation which will improve irrigation efficiency; 
 improving irrigated area layout or desi gn for the purpose of improving on-farm 
irrigation efficiency (e.g. laser grading, decommissioning old irrigation infrastructure 
as part of enhancing the overall efficiency of the system); 
 ancillary equipment necessary for new or upgraded irrigation systems to function 
(e.g. computer equipment); 
 training, where this is important to the success of the project. However, training on 
how to use new irrigation infrastructure equipment should normally be provided by 
the supplier as part of the installation costs; 
 pre-construction activities including: building/ environmental approvals, cultural 
heritage approvals, engineering design  and environmental impact statements 
(provided these do not commence/ conclude prior to Stage One (in-principle) G/AG/W/136 
 
- 17 - 
 
  approval). Program funding will be dire cted to irrigation applied to primary 
production. This includes irrigated crops, pasture for stock (e.g. dairy) and commercial horticulture." 
b. Monetary value of payments notified under On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program 
increased from AUD 60.33 million in 2013 to AUD 158 million in 2014. What are the 
reasons for this increase? 
c. Could Australia confirm if the payment made under NSW Private Irrigation Infrastructure 
Operations Program that are exempt from reduction commitment pursuant to Annex 2, 
Paragraph 2(g) pertains to capital works only  and excludes the subsidized provision of 
on-farm facilities? If so India seeks further information on the monetary value of funding that improves the efficiency of irrigation  systems and on-farm water use, accessed at 
SEWPAC, reproduced below:  
"Nine projects have been approved to date for funding of around AUD 642 million that 
improve the efficiency of irrigation system s and on-farm water use, through measures 
such as modernising irrigation channels , installing pumped pipeline systems and 
constructing secure stock and domestic water delivery systems." 
d. Could Australia provide information as regards to infrastructure projects undertaken at 
Tasmania and Western Australia during the period of notification and forms of 
support/assistance?  
AG-IMS ID 75043: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Could Australia provide information regarding current methodology of payments made under Farm 
Management Deposit Scheme for estimating reve nue foregone and its compliance with Annex 2, 
paragraph 7 criteria?  
AG-IMS ID 75046: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
Could Australia provide information regarding forms of support provided under Exceptional 
Circumstances Relief Payments, as no information is available at the notified data source? What 
are exceptional circumstances and does the measure notified under Annex 2, paragraph 8 meet the criteria of this paragraph including the production loss exceeds 30% of the average of 
production in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding 
five-year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry?  
AG-IMS ID 75044: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes 
Could Australia provide information regarding projects undertaken through Caring for our 
Country-National Heritage Trust and forms of support provided, as no information is available at the notified data source? 
 
2.4.2  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/98) 
AG-IMS ID 75054: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could Canada clarify whether there is an overlap in payments made under AgriInvest, 
AgriRecovery Framework and AgriInsurance for the producer's total loss under paragraphs 7 and 8 
of Annex 2? 
AG-IMS ID 75050: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
a. Could Canada provide information on the AgriInvest programme including a brief 
description of eligibility criteria and the current methodology for determining the amount 
of payments?  
b. Could Canada clarify whether any direct payments have been made under this 
programme?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75051: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
a. Could Canada explain in detail the Agri-Insurance scheme and specify the difference 
from its predecessor programme (Production Insurance)?  
b. How is the premia distributed between federal and provincial government? Do the 
producers or farmers pay any premia? If so how much and methodology for calculating costs?  
c. Could Canada further explain the compliance of AgriInsurance programme with Annex 2 
Paragraph 7 criteria including methodology for payments and revenue foregone?  
AG-IMS ID 75053: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
Could Canada provide information regarding the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive payment 
under AgriRecovery Framework? Does the AgriRecovery Framework notified under Annex 2, paragraph 8 meet the criteria of this paragraph in cluding the production loss exceeding 30% of the 
average of production in the preceding three-year  period or a three-year average based on the 
preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry?   
2.4.3  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/13) 
AG-IMS ID 75072: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that several new programmes are included in Georgia's most recent 
DS:1 notification for 2013 for which no DS:2 notifications have been submitted. These include:  
 Paragraph 2 (b): 
 Food Safety, Plant Protection and Epizootic Safety; 
 Diagnosis of food production, animal and plant diseases; 
 Food Safety, Plant Protection and Epizootic reliability programme management 
and administration; 
 Paragraph 2 (c): Support Measures for Agricultural cooperatives. 
Could Georgia please advise when it expects to submit a DS:2 notification for these new 
measures?  
AG-IMS ID 75074: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Support for several existing programmes has increased substantially from Georgia's previous 
DS:1 notification: 
 
 Support for the Agricultural Support Program increased substantially between 2012 
and 2013 going from GEL 3,432,754 to GEL 191,588,966 respectively. 
 Support to the "Development of Viticulture and Winemaking" also increased going 
from GEL 1,504,164 in 2012 to GEL 35,672,610 in 2013.  
 Support to the "Rehabilitation of Amelioration System" more than quadrupled 
between 2012 and 2013 going from GEL 13,850,000 to GEL 61,477,236. 
Could Georgia provide an explanation for these dramatic increases in support?  
 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.4.4  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/37) 
AG-IMS ID 75077: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012, Honduras' Green Box support decreased 
significantly, from USD 18.7 million to USD 7.4 million, while support to development programmes 
just about doubled from USD 5.6 million to USD 11  million. Could Honduras explain the significant 
decrease in Green Box support and the apparent parallel increase in support to development programmes in 2011-2012?  
 
2.4.5  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/33) 
AG-IMS ID 75079: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada notes that, for the years covered by the notification (i.e. 2004 – 2012), Iceland provides 
amounts that are both adjusted and unadjusted for inflation. However, its unadjusted Current 
Total AMS for these years is within Iceland's Final Bound Total AMS commitment.  
a. Is Iceland claiming that excessive inflation has had an influence on its ability to abide by 
its domestic support commitments?  
b. Could Iceland explain why it is providing amounts adjusted for inflation for all the years 
covered by the notification?  
2.4.6  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) AG-IMS ID 75016: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
The Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry 
of Agriculture, Government of India, provides information on minimum support prices for 
agricultural commodities for the period 2004-13 in India (see further: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/MSP.htm ). According to the government of India, India has had 
minimum support prices for 25 crops for the period 2004-13 including: rice, wheat, cotton, 
soyabean, sugarcane, bajra, maize, ragi, arha r (Tur), moong, urad, nuts, sunflower seeds, 
sesamum, nigerseed, barley, gram, masur (lentil) , rape seed, safflower, toria, copra, and jute. 
 
India's notification (G/AG/N/IND/10) does not list 25 commodities as receiving minimum price support. Twelve commodities are listed for the year 2004-05 and three commodities are listed for the year 2010-11. 
 
a. Could India explain, on a commodity basi s, the apparent discrepancy between the 
information provided by the government of India on minimum support prices and 
G/AG/N/IND/10? 
b. Can India explain why all the commodities receiving minimum support prices within 
India for the period 2004-05 to 2010-11 have not been included in the 
notification G/AG/N/IND/10? 
c. Can India explain why sugarcane, which, pursuant to the Sugarcane (Control) Order 
1966 had a statutory minimum price for sugar cane for the period prior to 2009-10, is not included in G/AG/N/IND/10? 
d. Can India explain why cotton is not listed in G/AG/N/IND/10 when the Cotton 
Corporation of India (http://cotcorp.gov.in/procurement.aspx) states that it has purchased cotton at minimum support prices every year during the period 2004-05 
to 2010-11?  
AG-IMS ID 75020: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could India provide information on its exports of wheat and rice for the period 2010-11 including: 
 
a. The volume and value of rice and wheat exports in 2010-11; G/AG/W/136 
 
- 20 - 
 
  b. The export destinations for rice and wheat in 2010-11; and 
c. Whether there were any exports, direct or indirect, from government held stocks of 
wheat and rice in 2010-11, and if so, the volu me, value and destination of such exports? 
AG-IMS ID 75021: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia notes that in the period 2004-05 to 2010-11, India's Annex 2 "Green Box" commitments 
for infrastructural services and crop insurance increased by a multiple of ten. Buffer stock operations and "other input subsidies" (such as fertiliser, irrigation, electricity and seeds) almost 
tripled in value. 
 
a. Can India account for these large increases? 
b. Can India clarify what percentage of farmers moved out of low-income resource poor 
farmers as a result of these favourable programmes? 
AG-IMS ID 75092: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that pulses are no longer included in Supporting Table DS: 4 starting in 2006-07. 
Could India please provide information on the reason why product-specific support is no longer 
provided for pulses?  
AG-IMS ID 75073: Question by European Unio n - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
a. Could India indicate the total annual production per marketing year (2004/05 
to 2010/11) for:  
 rice (both paddy and milled), 
 wheat, and 
 sugar (raw and white)? 
b. The European Union notes that this notifica tion is made in US dollars. Could India 
indicate the exchange rate used for each year covered by the notification? Could India 
explain these choices?  
c. There are measures in Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2 which are notified for the first 
time. Could India indicate whether it will be submitting a DS:2 notification for these 
measures?  
d. For the following products a minimum price exists in India: groundnuts in shell, 
sunflower seed, soybean, sesamum, Niger seed, safflower, copra and sugarcane. 
However, no amount is notified.  
i. Could India explain the reasons why these support schemes are not being applied or 
used by Indian farmers or any other reason why no amount is notified? 
ii. Could India indicate the average market price for these products in the 2010-11 
marketing year, including the data source and the market used for the calculations? 
AG-IMS ID 75117: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
With respect to the currency to express AMS, while Indian Rupee was used in the AGST, India has 
changed it to U.S. Dollar since the notification  of 1995/96. Could India explain why it changed the 
currency in the notifications from  Indian Rupee to U.S. Dollar? 
AG-IMS ID 75058: Question by Paraguay - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Does India guarantee minimum prices for products other than those detailed in the 
notification? Official websites appear to indicate that minimum prices are announced for G/AG/W/136 
 
- 21 - 
 
  25 products that are not included in the notification. What would be their impact in 
terms of India's commitments?  
b. India has become a major exporter of various agricultural products. It shows the highest 
rates of growth in agricultural trade and is among the leading exporters of various 
agricultural products. To what extent do these exports benefit from domestic support 
policies, since as much as 99.15% of producers are eligible for the Article 6.2 exemption; and various products are covered by the guaranteed minimum price 
scheme? 
AG-IMS ID 75045: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States notes that state governments in India provide significant levels of funding for 
activities in support of agriculture in their respective states, and that this state government 
funding is distinct from central government support.   
a. Does India's notification reflect the state-leve l funding in support of agriculture? If yes, 
please identify where state-level support is notified.  
The United States notes that India's notification is in U.S. dollars, but as outlined in its 
AGST document, India made its commitments in Indian Rupees. The United States also notes that 
India has stated that it has consistently notified its domestic support only in U.S. dollars.  
b. Is it India's position that it can notify in any currency it chooses without respect to the 
currency in which its commitments were made as reflected in its 
AGST (G/AG/AGST/IND)? 
AG-IMS ID 75047: Question by United Stat es of America - General services: other 
India notifies several types of General services support. 
 
a. Does India's notification of General services support reflect any state-level support under 
this heading?  
b. Does India provide any state-level support that would be classified as General services? 
c. If yes, please provide the amount of state-level support provided under each 
sub-heading for each of the notified years.  
AG-IMS ID 75085: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
The criteria in paragraph 3, Annex 2, Public stockholding for food security purposes states that the 
"…volume and accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre-determined targets and relate 
solely to food security". Could India please provide the pre-determined target volumes for the 
crop(s) acquired for public stockholding for each of the reporting years?  
AG-IMS ID 75080: Question by European Unio n - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
Could India confirm that the stocks bought for "Buffer Stock Operations" (point (b) in supporting 
table DS:1) have not been exported and explain wh at measures have been taken to ensure this?  
AG-IMS ID 75118: Question by Japan - Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
Based on the Public Distribution System (PDS), the government of India has constantly purchased 
and stored much more quantity of grains than required for domestic food security. As a result, the stock might have been distributed to other countries at low price, undermining food security in 
importing countries. In addition, the PDS is suspecte d to be inefficient as a food security measure 
due to rotting grains caused by improper management.  
a. Japan would like India to explain why the government outlay for public stockholding has 
rapidly expanded and on what activities the budget has been spent. G/AG/W/136 
 
- 22 - 
 
  b. Some articles report that grains in the public stockholding in India have been released to 
other countries, including developing ones, at  low prices. Could India indicate, in each 
year: 
 the quantity of grains distributed to Indian nationals under the PDS; 
 the quantity sold to domestic retailers or processors besides the PDS; 
 the quantity sold to foreign governments or companies; and 
 the quantity disposed due to decay or damage by pests? 
c. Annex 2, paragraph 3 in the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that "the volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security". Does the government of India determine targets in any plan for the volume of the buffer stock and procurement in advance? If so, is it announced in public? 
Are such predetermined volumes appropriate in view of ensuring domestic food security? 
d. Some articles report that food purchase d in excess of the capacity of the Food 
Corporation of India (FCI) is lying in the open exposed to heat and rains resulting in a 
large amount of disposal. According to the website of the FCI, its facilities including 
private ones are capable to store around 40 mi llion tonnes of grains in total. How are the 
grains purchased in excess of that amount managed? 
AG-IMS ID 75116: Question by Thailand - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
India notified the programme "buffer stock operations (food grain)" in its Supporting Table DS:1: 
Measures exempt from the reduction commitment – "Green Box" with the monetary values of the measure each year.  
 
a. Are those amounts included in the amount of support appeared in Supporting DS:4 and 
Supporting Table DS:5 or Supporting Table DS:7? 
b. Could India explain how it takes into account its public stockholding for food security 
purposes in the AMS calculation according to footnote 5 of Annex 2 under the Agreement on Agriculture? 
AG-IMS ID 75048: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
India regularly releases food grains from public stocks at subsidized prices in the Indian market to 
control domestic prices. India has also exported grains from public stocks at apparently subsidized 
prices. Table DS:1 reflects a significant increase in funding since 2006/07. 
 
a. Please provide the quantities of grain export ed on the international market from public 
stocks on an annual basis since 2006/07. 
b. Please explain India's objectives for increasing funding under this activity line 
since 2006/07. 
The public stockholding expenditures are cited as  from Ministry of Agriculture sources, but the 
Ministry of Agriculture figures published in report s of the Reserve Bank of India do not appear to 
include the subsidy paid to farmers by the Food Corporation of India (reported by that body as 
INR 428.7 billion in 2009-10).  
 
c. Does India's notification include expenditures by the Food Corporation of India, and if so, 
where are they included?  
The United States understands that several Indian state governments provide their own food-grain 
subsidy schemes for consumers in addition to the central government's programme.  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 23 - 
 
  d. Does India’s notification reflect the state-level support under this heading? If yes, please 
identify where state-level support is notified. 
e. Please provide the amount of state-level support under this heading. 
AG-IMS ID 75049: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters 
a. Does India's notification reflect state-level payments under this heading? If yes, please 
identify where state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state-level payments under this heading. 
c. Please provide the reasons for increasing the funding under this heading in 2010/11. 
AG-IMS ID 75086: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
G/AG/N/IND/10 shows for the first time an entry for the "Provision of loan at concessional rates 
and debt waver" under "Structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids" in General services (Green Box). Could India please  provide a description of this newly notified 
measure including the eligibility criteria for receiving payments and how it meets the criteria of 
paragraph 11, Annex 2?  
AG-IMS ID 75052: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provid ed through investment aids 
a. Does India's notification reflect state-level payments under the heading: Structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids? If yes, please identify where state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state-level payments under this heading. 
c. Is the concessional loans and debt waiver programme effectively implemented for all 
agriculture loans and as a result generally available to all agriculture? If not, what 
proportion of agriculture loans is eligible for assistance under the concessional loans and 
debt waiver programme?  
d. Since the programme is a newly notified meas ure introduced during the report period, 
please indicate when India will submit a Table DS.2 notification. 
AG-IMS ID 75055: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
a. Does India's notification reflect state-level payments under the heading: Payments under 
environmental programs? If yes, please identify where state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state-level payments under this heading. 
c. Since the "integrated watershed management  programme" is a newly notified measure 
introduced during the report period, please indicate when India will submit a Table DS.2 
notification. 
AG-IMS ID 75087: Question by Canada - In vestment subsidies ge nerally available to 
agriculture 
There was a noticeable increase in support for the "Government programmes on livestock and 
poultry improvement/breeding" under "Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture" 
in 2007-08. Could India please explain this increase in spending and demonstrate how this 
programme meets the criteria of Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 24 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75056: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
India's notification mentions only livestock/poultry assistance and loans under tea development. 
The United States understands that India provid es significant funding for various field crops, 
horticultural crops, plantation crops, and other related activities, as well as loan programmes, but 
these do not appear in India's notification.  
a. Has India provided a complete listing of all agricultural development and loan programs? 
b. Does India’s notification reflect state-level support under this? If yes, please identify 
where state-level support is notified. 
c. Please provide the amount of state-level support under this heading. 
AG-IMS ID 75022: Question by Australia - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Australia notes the increase in spending under "other input subsidies" listed in G/AG/N/IND/10. 
 
a. Could India provide specific information on the spending for all of the individual items 
under "other input subsidies"? 
b. Could India also account for how these subsidies were delivered in each of the years 
notified? 
c. Could India advise if these "other inpu t subsidies" are comprised of separate 
programmes? 
d. If so, could India provide information on the purpose and design of each programme? 
e. Can India explain why these programmes are not notified as individual programmes in 
their 2004-05 to 2010-11 notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 75088: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Support for "Grant-in-aid given for production of planning material of cardamom (both small and 
large)" is no longer listed under "Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource poor 
producers" starting in 2007-08. Could India please confirm whether or not this measure has been terminated?  
AG-IMS ID 75089: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
The amounts reported as "other input subsidies" has increased each year and constitutes most of 
the support reported in Supporting Table DS:2. The f ootnote indicates that this support is provided 
to "fertilizers, irrigation, electricity, seeds, etc.", but this does not provide sufficient information to 
review progress in the implementation of commit ments. Could India please provide a breakdown 
of the support for the 2004-05 to 2010-11 years?  
AG-IMS ID 75078: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low-
income or resource-poor producers 
a. Could India subdivide the amounts of the input subsidy mentioned in point (b) of 
Table DS:2 – "Article 6.2 support" for all the years covered by the notification into 
amounts for: (a) fertilisers; (b) irrigation; (c) electricity; (d) seeds; and (e) other? 
b. Could India explain the criteria that have been used to classify farmers as "low income 
or resource poor farmers"? Could India indicate  the proportion of total Indian agricultural 
production produced by these farmers?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 25 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75119: Question by Japan - Inpu t subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Agricultural input subsidies to low income or resource poor producers along with Article 6.2 have 
rapidly increased in recent years, and are equivale nt to around 13% of total agricultural output 
in 2010. By classifying farmers with less than 10 hectares of land as "low income or resource poor 
producers", India has excluded all the inpu t subsidies from the calculation of AMS. 
 
a. According to the Agriculture Census in India, while the percentage of households owning 
more than 10 hectares of farmland is 0.8%, the area operated by such large-scale farmers counts for 12% of all farm area in India, and 7% of chemicals is consumed by them. Please indicate average amounts the sch eme paid to a holding by each group size: 
 marginal (less than one hectare), 
 small (one to two hectares), 
 semi-medium (two to four hectares), 
 medium(four to ten hectares), 
 large (more than ten hectares). 
b. The average size of farmland in India is 1. 2 hectares, and more than 80% of holdings 
own less than 2 hectares. Nevertheless, India classifies farmers with less than 
10 hectares of land as "low income or resource poor producers". Please explain why India includes farmers with relatively large farm land in "low income or resource poor producers". 
c. Does India have any requirement for farmers to receive the subsidy in light of reducing 
trade distorting effect and supporting poor farmers? 
AG-IMS ID 75057: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
a. Please provide a detailed breakdown for all the particular input subsidies, grants, and aid 
under the heading of "Agriculture input subsidies for low income or resource poor 
farmers: Other input subsidies". 
b. What are the reasons for the significant increase in spending from 2005/06 
through 2008/09? 
c. Does India's notification reflect state-level support under this heading? If yes, please 
identify where state-level support is notified. 
d. Please provide the amount of state-level support under this heading. 
Article 6.2's exemption of agricultural input subsidies from certain domestic support reduction 
commitments is limited to such subsidies that are "generally available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers in developing country Members". As India explained in previous responses (AG-IMS ID 67026 and 74051), notified agricultural input subsidies are generally 
available to all Indian producers.  
 
e. What proportion of India's producers does it consider to be "low-income or resource 
poor" within the meaning of Article 6.2? 
f. How does India determine which producers are "low-income or resource poor" within the 
meaning of Article 6.2? 
Further, as the United States noted in AG-IMS ID 74051, based on a number of Indian agricultural 
policies and their stated objectives, a subset of Indian producers ("marginal and small producers") 
are targeted for purposes similar to those of Article 6.2.  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 26 - 
 
   
g. What is the relevance of qualification as a "marginal" or "small" producer to the 
determination of whether a producer is low-in come or resource poor for the purposes of 
Article 6.2? 
The United States also notes that landholding size is a primary measure of classifying Indian 
producers, including for WTO purposes, and that the average landholding size is declining due to an increase in the number of landholdings and populations in line with existing Indian hereditary 
laws. This would indicate that the average size of India landholdings will continue to decline as the 
population continues to grow.  
h. What measures other than landholding size, if any, does India use to determine whether 
a producer qualifies for a classification of producers, such as "marginal and small 
producers", entitled to targeted support under India's agricultural support programmes?" For example, is a farmer with 10 hectares of a high return crop like mangoes the same 
as a wheat or corn farmer with 10 hectares? 
India's notification lists only programmes specific to the spice board as part of the measure grant-
in-aid for production. The United States understands that there are also other commodity specific 
programs—including, but not limited to—cotton, jute, rubber, and horticultural products. 
 
i. Please clarify if India's notification includes these other commodity specific programmes, 
and, if yes, where. 
j. Please provide a listing of all grants and assistance for production agricultural 
commodities and related support levels.  
k. Does India's notification reflect state-level support under this heading? If yes, please 
identify where state-level support is notified. 
l. Please provide the amount of state-level support under this heading. 
AG-IMS ID 75017: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
a. Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreement on Agricu lture provides that the level of support 
actually provided should be "calculated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, including Article 6, and with th e constituent data and methodology used in 
the tables of supporting material incorporated by reference in Part IV of the Member’s 
Schedule". 
India's constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting material 
incorporated by reference in Part IV of the Member's Schedule is India's AGST 
(G/AG/AGST/IND). India's AGST sets out all domestic support measures, including AMS, 
minimum support prices, external reference prices and total market price support, in 
Indian rupees (INR).  
I nd ia' s  notifi c ation (G /AG /N /I N D/1 0 ) is  in US d olla rs  (USD) rathe r than I ndian rup e e s 
(INR). The choice of currency can lead to marked differences in some indicators. For example, the applied administered price (2010-11) for rice appears to be 125% higher than the external reference price (1986-89) for rice when using USD, but 426% higher 
when using INR.
2 
Can India explain why it has used USD instead of INR in G/AG/N/IND/10? 
b. Can India explain why it uses the years 1986-1989 for the base period to determine the 
external reference prices instead of 1986-1988 as set out in Annex 3, paragraph 9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture? Australia notes that the base period 1986-1989 is used in India's AGST as well as the recent notifications. 
                                               
2 Price 15,000 INR/tonne minus external reference price of 3,520 INR/tonne. The administered price of 
15,000 INR/tonne includes the coefficient of 1.5 as set out in India's AGST. Source for price is http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/MSP.htm  (includes conversion fr om paddy to milled). G/AG/W/136 
 
- 27 - 
 
  c. In India's AGST and subsequent notifications a coefficient of 1.5 has been applied to the 
administered price for rice. According to the DS :5 notifications, this coefficient is applied 
because the administered price is the procurement price for common paddy and a conversion to an equivalent rice price is us ed for the purpose of calculating de minimis. 
i. Could India explain on what basis the coefficient was derived, and specifically, how 
the coefficient of 1.5 was determined? 
ii. Could India explain why a coefficient is nece ssary since the administered price is for 
paddy rice; statistics on production volume and procurement for paddy rice are 
available; and the total value of producti on for paddy rice is available from the 
"Statewise estimates of value of output from agriculture and allied activities 2013", Central Statistics Office India, Table Itemwise Value of Output From Agriculture and 
Allied Sectors, p.300? 
AG-IMS ID 75093: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
Canada notes that in Supporting Table DS:5, India indicates that the external reference price is 
"generally from AGST/…". G/AG/AGST/IND, incorporated by reference in India's Schedule, uses 
the currency "RT/T" while, G/AG/N/IND/10 uses U.S. dollars to calculate market price support to a number of products. Could India please explain this discrepancy?  
AG-IMS ID 75120: Question by Japan - Market price support 
While aimed at assisting poor farmers in India,  the minimum support price policy could be in 
favour of large scale farmers compared to small ones. Furthermore, it might incentivize farmers to produce more. 
 
a. By stimulating production, the price support policy in India has led to increased output 
and export of grains in recent years. Th e grain trade expanded by the policy might 
hinder agricultural activities, lower food self -sufficiency, and undermine food security in 
importing countries. Please indicate the names of countries importing grains from India's public stockholding and the price. 
b. Since support prices benefit farmers in proportion to the amount of production which 
each farmer sells to a government, such a scheme gives advantage to large scale farmers and vice versa. Does India have any requirement for the policy in light of 
supporting poor farmers? 
AG-IMS ID 75013: Question by Switzerland - Market price support 
In the notification Switzerland observes significantly increasing applied administered prices. 
Switzerland would like to ask India to explain to what extent this development reflects increasing 
world market commodity prices and whether it has affected producer price support. 
AG-IMS ID 75115: Question by Thailand - Market price support In Supporting Table DS:5, India provides the applied administered prices for rice for each 
marketing year, please explain how India derived those numbers. Are the prices in the table for a 
certain type of rice? If so, which type of rice? Or  does India calculate such number from the prices 
of different types of rice? 
AG-IMS ID 75062: Question by United St ates of America - Market price support 
a. The United States notes that India's notification lists only a few commodities where the 
government has notified an applied minimum support price (MSP) and has actually procured crops. Please provide the applied MSP for all commodities in the years covered 
by this notification. 
b. The United States notes that, despite the few commodities that India notified as 
procured at an applied MSP, India announc ed an MSP for approximately 25 crops for 
which the government guarantees to purchase all domestic production (up to the total 
volume of production) of the crops that producers wish to sell the government at the announced MSP. India notified such policies in its AGST document, which India has noted previously (AG-IMS ID 67028). India explained in AG-IMS 65061 that its notification G/AG/W/136 
 
- 28 - 
 
  position changed, and that it now only notifies MSP for commodities where procurement 
occurs. 
What was the reasoning behind India’s decision to adopt a new understanding of eligible 
production and abandon its previous position of notifying all price supports as reflected 
in its AGST document? 
c. According to a Government of India Report ("Price Policy for Rabi Crops: The Marketing 
Season 2013-14"3), state-level support can be quite significant and can lead to state 
take-over of certain commodity markets. One example highlighted by the report notes 
that the introduction of a state bonus (of INR 100/ 100kg) on the minimum support price in 2007/08 resulted in a dramatic increase in state government procurement levels. State procurement increased from 0.8% of wheat produced in 2006/07 to 85% in 
2011/12. The result, according to the report, was a crowding out of the private sector 
and the government becoming "virtually a monopsonist" in the wheat market, which is "not healthy for long term efficiency in proc urement operations as well as for farmers." 
Several state governments maintain additional bonuses above and beyond the MSP for 
crops produced and marketed in their respective states. 
Does India's notification include the total ma rket support extended by all of the state 
governments including additional bonuses, waivers for taxes and levies, etc.? If not, 
please provide these figures.  
AG-IMS ID 75018: Question by Australia - Ma rket price support: Eligible production  
Could India explain why total production was not used for eligible production for each of the 
relevant commodities in each year in the period 2004-05 to 2010-11? Australia understands that 
G/AG/N/IND/10 contains eligible production figures that are less than total production. For instance, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2011 produced by the Directorate of Economics and 
Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperatio n, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India 
states that total production of rice in 2010-11 was 95.33 million tonnes (See further: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/latest_20011.htm ). What has been notified in G/AG/N/IND/10 is 
34.2 million tonnes. Australia notes that the Food Corporation of India doesn't establish any 
quantitative limits on what it will purchase. The Food Corporation of India website sets out its purchasing policy on its website, which states: "Whatever stocks which are brought to the Purchase centres falling within the government of India's specifications are purchased at the fixed 
support price" ( http://fciweb.nic.in/procurements/view/20 ). 
 
a. Could India confirm that there are no quantitative limits on the volume of rice and wheat 
that the Food Corporation of India will purchase? 
b. Could India advise what the figures listed under "eligible production" in Table DS:5 for 
each of the commodities and for each of the years in the period 2004-05 to 2010-11 
represent? 
c. In India's AGST for rice for the period 1986-87 to 1988-89, eligible production volume 
and total production volume (milled) were the same. In the recent set of notifications provided by India, eligible production for rice was a portion of total production (milled). 
Could India account for the discrepancy between the way eligible production was 
calculated in India's AGST and the most recent notifications? 
d. Could India explain why total production was no t used for eligible production for each of 
the relevant commodities in each year in the period 2004-05 to 2010-11?  
                                               
3 CACP, "Price Policy for Rabi Crops: The Marketing Season 2013-14", pg. 22. 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare. aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=40&KeyId=471. G/AG/W/136 
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75076: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Could India confirm that the quantity (eligible production) taken into account for the total market 
support in table DS:5 for rice and wheat concerns only the quantities bought in to the food grain 
distribution scheme? 
AG-IMS ID 75121: Question by Japan - Mark et price support: Eligible production  
With respect to the eligible production to calculate AMS, India adopted total production in AGST 
and the first notification (1995/96) and change d it to the procured quantity (from 1996/97 
onwards). Please explain why India changed the eligible production in its notifications from total production to procured quantity. 
AG-IMS ID 75114: Question by Thailand - Ma rket price support: Eligible production  
In the Supporting Table DS:5 of MY2004-05 to MY2010-11, India provides the numbers for 
"eligible production". Please confirm that the "eligible productions" which India indicates for each crop in all marketing years are the production that the government of India supported, i.e. 
purchased from the farmers.  
AG-IMS ID 75019: Question by Australia - De minimis In G/AG/N/IND/10 India has not notified total value of production (VOP) for any of the 
commodities in any of the years. The extent to which a WTO Member is within its de minimis  
entitlements can only be assessed if the Member provides information on its VOP.  
a. Can India explain why VOP was not included for commodities claimed to be subject to 
de minimis  entitlements? 
b. Could India supply that information for each year in the period covered by the recent set 
of notifications (2004-05 to 2010-11)? 
c. As the VOP figure is required for the calculation of de minimis  entitlements, could India 
advise how India has calculated its de minimis  and AMS in G/AG/N/IND/10 in the 
absence of VOP figures?  
AG-IMS ID 75090: Question by Canada - De minimis 
Could India please provide for each product its value of production (VOP) data which was used to 
calculate each product's de minimis  threshold in Supporting Table DS:4?  
AG-IMS ID 75091: Question by Canada - De minimis 
Would India consider routinely including values of production in its notifications in order both to 
facilitate the review process of the Committee on Agriculture and to increase transparency regarding its non-exempt support measures? Canada notes in this regard that other Members over 
the years have started to routinely include the values of production in their notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 75075: Question by European Union - De minimis For the years 2009/10 and 2010/11 could India indicate the value of production (VoP) for wheat 
and rice used in table DS:4 to qualify this support as being within the " de minimis " limits? 
AG-IMS ID 75113: Question by Thailand - De minimis In the Supporting Table DS:4 of MY2004-05 to MY 2010-11, India indicates that the support for 
each crop is not above the " de minimis " level. Thailand would appreciate it if India can provide 
data of value of production for each crop that India indicates as " de minimis " in the table.  
AG-IMS ID 75061: Question by United  States of America - De minimis 
Please provide the total value of agricultural production relative to the notified support. 
 G/AG/W/136 
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.4.7  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 75063: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Indonesia indicated that "[t]he administered price is set by taking into account the market price as 
well as cost of production by farmers", (AG-AMS ID 74043). 
 
a. How is the cost of production by farmers used in setting the administered price? 
b. Are there any factors other than market price and the cost of production of farmers used 
in setting the administered price? 
The United States notes that Indonesia has not provided a Supporting Table DS.4 or Supporting 
Table DS.5 to account for the use of administered prices per footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. Indonesia previous ly indicated (AG-AMS ID 74043) that "it is still 
collecting the necessary data across ministries to prepare notification of Supporting Table DS.4 and DS.5. Indonesia expects to notify the documents as soon as they are finalized". 
 
c. Please provide an update for when Indonesi a expects these documents to be finalized 
and when Indonesia expects to notify Suppo rting Table DS.4 and Supporting Table DS.5. 
2.4.8  Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/32) 
AG-IMS ID 75094: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Canada notes that in Malaysia's most recent DS: 1 notification, the Price Subsidy and 
Guaranteed Minimum Price programme is no longer listed in Supporting Table DS: 1. The 
Price Stabilization and Guaranteed Minimum Price programme seems to have replaced it. 
Could Malaysia please indicate whether the Price Stabilization and Guaranteed Minimum Price programme is new or a modification of the previously notified Price Subsidy and 
Guaranteed Minimum Price program?  
b. The information provided for the Price St abilization and Guaranteed Minimum Price 
income support programme suggests that the payments would fall under AMS type of 
support. Could Malaysia provide details to show how this measure meets the relevant 
policy-specific criteria of paragraph 6, A nnex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.4.9  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/31) AG-IMS ID 75095: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
At the 68
th Committee on Agriculture meeting on 14 November of 2012, Canada asked Panama to 
explain how the "National Emergency Plan" meets the criteria of paragraph 8, Annex 2, particularly criterion 8(a) that the payments must only cover losses greater than 30%. Panama's response was 
that a Table DS: 2 notification would be circulated "soon".
4 
 
a. To date, Canada has not been able to find a Table DS:2 describing this measure on the 
WTO document distribution facility. Could Pana ma please provide information as to when 
a Table DS: 2 notification describing the Nati onal Emergency Plan will be available?  
b. Canada re-iterates its previous question to Panama regarding how the "National 
Emergency Plan" meets the policy specific criteria of paragraph 8, Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, e.g., that the payments cover losses greater than 30%.  
c. Support for the National Emergency Plan programme increased substantially from 2012 
to 2013 going from 367,305.60 balboas to 2,714,179.05 balboas respectively. Could 
Panama please provide an explanation for this noticeable increase?  
                                               
4 Paragraph 42 on page 24-25 of G/AG/W/106 refers. G/AG/W/136 
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75065: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States understands that the government announced that it would pay corn producers 
USD 1.25 per quintal and rice producers USD 22.50 per quintal in 2013. In addition, eligible corn 
and sorghum producers received production incentive payments.  
 
a. Please provide an explanation of any government programmes related to payments 
made to corn and rice producers in Panama. 
b. How does Panama reflect these programmes in its notification? 
2.4.10  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/5) AG-IMS ID 75096: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Regarding the Payment to stockholding for food security purposes reported under Supporting 
Table DS: 1, could Russia please elaborate on the process for determining the food security targets?  
 
a. At what frequency are the targets established and/or reviewed?  
b. How long are these stocks typically held before being released?  
c. What is the mechanism to release these stocks?  
AG-IMS ID 75097: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
Under structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids reported under the 
Green Box, there is an item entitled "Compensation of the registration costs".  
 
a. Could Russia please explain why there are no amounts listed under the federal 
component but there are two identical measures (with different amounts) listed under 
the sub-federal component?  
b. Could Russia provide a clarification as to what "compensation for the registration costs" 
encompasses?  
AG-IMS ID 75098: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
In Russia's Supporting Table DS: 4, there is an it em entitled "Meat". Could Russia provide details 
as to what products are included under this listing?  
 
2.4.11  Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/3) 
AG-IMS ID 75099: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Canada notes that between 2007 and 2008 support for fertilizer subsidy under Article 6.2 
increased dramatically going from LKR 15,639 to LKR 44,282 million. Could Sri Lanka elaborate on 
this significant increase in support?  
 2.4.12  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 75109: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Omission of the Common Crop Insurance Policy fr om the U.S. notification for the marketing 
year 2011 results in non-notification of the said policy.  
a. Could the United States clarify why the Co mmon Crop Insurance Scheme, as contained 
in 7 CFR 457 (§457.8), has not been mentioned in the notification?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 32 - 
 
  b. In as much as various sections of the Common Crop Insurance Scheme make provisions 
for specific crops, eg.- §457.101 which excludes revenue protection for small grain crops (flax, oats, buckwheat, rye) other than whea t and barley, could the United States clarify 
whether this scheme does not fall under the product specific support within the Amber 
Box?  
AG-IMS ID 75110: Question by India - Dire ct payments: decoupled income support  
The United States has enumerated an outlay of USD 4,745 million for Farm Service Agency Direct 
Payments, as specified in the 2002 Farm Act and reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Act (PL 110-246), 
within green box.  
a. Could the United States elucidate what payments under the 2008 Farm Act (PL110-246) 
it has classified as decoupled income support under the Green Box?  
b. Could the United States clarify which specific provisions in the 2008 Farm 
Act (PL110-246) related exclusively to decoupled income support?  
c. Could the United States clarify how the diverse means of establishing base acres for 
different crops, as per §1001(2) of the 2008 Farm Act, justify the direct payments made on this basis to fall within the Green Box?  
d. §1001(4) defines "covered commodity" to the exclusion of certain crops, as a result 
thereof other provisions related to direct payments under Subtitle A of the 2008 Farm Act which rely on this definition fall outside the ambit of Green Box. Could the United States then clarify how it is justified to notify direct payments made on this basis within 
Green Box?  
e. Could the United States clarify whether §1102(b)(2)(B), whereby the Secretary uses his 
discretion to establish a national average yield under §1102, has ever been used? If so, 
then what are the parameters used by the Secretary to establish the same?  
AG-IMS ID 75107: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Federal crop insurance is the primary ongoing crop loss assistance programme in the United 
States. It is permanently authorized by the Fe deral Crop Insurance Act (the Act), as amended 
(7 U.S.C. Ch. 36), and is administered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management 
Agency (RMA). Federal crop insurance policies ar e marketed and serviced by private insurance 
companies. In purchasing a policy, a producer growing an insurable crop may select a level of crop 
yield and price coverage and pay a portion of the premium, which increases as the levels of yield and price coverage rise. The remainder of the premium is covered by the federal government.  
 
a. For the marketing year 2011, the United States has notified an outlay of 
USD 1,383 million for administrative and operating expenses to insurers delivering 
Federal Crop Insurance under the Green Box. In as much as the reimbursements of 
USD 1,383 million for administrative and operating expenses to insurers relieves the burden of premium to be paid for Addition al Coverage contained in §1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Act, could the United States clarify how this overall 
subsidization of premium falls under Green Box?  
b. By virtue of segregation of administrative  and operation expenses and the same being 
paid by the U.S. government, could the United States clarify how this does not amount 
to underestimation of premium subsidies mentioned in the Amber Box?  
c. Could the United States elucidate the amount of premium in terms of administrative and 
operating expenses paid by the farmers under various insurance plans?  
d. Could the United States elucidate the amount of administrative and operating expenses 
included in the premium to be paid by farmers under various insurance plans, but the payment for which is made by the Corporation?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 33 - 
 
  e. Could the United States clarify whether the administrative and operating expenses to 
insurers as mentioned in the notification are covered by the premium amount marked for administrative and operating expenses in §1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act? If so, what is the extent of this coverage?  
f. Could the United States clarify the apportionment of reimbursements for administrative 
and operating expenses to insurers made as a part of the reinsurance agreement vis a vis the premium payments being made for Addi tional Coverage by the Corporation under 
§1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act? Does any other ad hoc disaster assistance programme 
cover the same subject matter as the insurance plans under the aegis of the Act?  
AG-IMS ID 75111: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes 
The United States has notified an amount of USD 1,795 million for the purpose of conservation 
reserve programme under environmental payments of the Green Box. India seeks clarifications regarding the following questions:  
 
a. Could the United States please clarify the agricultural commodity breakup of cropland 
taken under the Conservation Reserve Program?  
b. If the CRP is notified under Paragraph 12, th en could the United States please clarify 
whether as per the requirements of Paragraph 12, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the cost share payment (§1410.21) and the annual rental payment (§1410.42) does not exceed the limit as laid down in Paragraph 12(b), Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 75108: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
Premium Subsidies to Producers (USD 7,460.674 million) and Supplemental Crop Revenue 
Assurance (USD 1,442.390 million) are mentioned in Non-Product Specific AMS within the Amber 
Box.   
a. Eligibility for crop loss assistance under §1531(b) utilizes the criterion that "the actual 
production on the farm for at least 1 crop of economic significance shall be reduced by at 
least 10% due to disaster, adverse weather, or disaster-related conditions". Could the United States please clarify the paramete rs for identifying a crop of "economic 
significance", which is supposed to have a uniform meaning as given by the Secretary?  
b. Could the United States clarify from whose point of view is the "economic significance" 
evaluated for the purposes of §1531(b)?  
c. The GRP Scheme in 7 CFR §407.9 outlines a Common Policy for insurance. However, 
there are product specific parts to this policy for crops like barley, corn, cotton, forage, peanuts, sorghum, soybean, wheat as contained in 7 CFR §407.10 -7 CFR §407.17. 
These crop specific sections give a tailor-made criterion for "crop insured" for each of 
these crops. Could the United States clarify how such crop specific provisions catering only to certain crops does not make the GRP Scheme product specific in nature? Could the United States also clarify why the support to specific crops in the GRP Scheme, as 
mentioned above, should not be added to the product specific support being provided to 
these crops?  
AG-IMS ID 75112: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
In its notification G/AG/N/USA/93, the United States has specified an amount of USD 188.725 
million as non-product specific subsidy for Irrigation Bureau Reclamation Projects.   
a. Could the United States provide details of how obligations of irrigators for repayment of 
costs of construction water projects are calculated?  
b. Could the United States provide details of the amounts of financial assistance provided to 
irrigators by shifting the repayment of part or all of their obligations to other 
beneficiaries of water projects ("irrigation assistance")?  G/AG/W/136 
 
- 34 - 
 
  c. Could the United States provide details of financial assistance provided as a "charge off" 
that relieves irrigators of portions of their repayment obligations by enacting specific legislations?  
d. Could the United States provide details of irrigation assistance and charge offs on 
repayment of costs allocated to irrigation for all the eligible projects as of 2011 or the 
latest year for which the details are available?  
e. Could the United States provide details of th e percentage of irrigation costs repaid by 
irrigation assistance and relieved by charge offs for 2011 or the latest year for which the 
details are available?  
f. Could the United States provide justification for not including the financial assistance 
provided as an "irrigation assistance" and "charge off" in its Non-Product-Specific AMS?  
g. Could the United States clarify whether the amount of non-product specific support 
under Bureau of Reclamation includes the financial assistance that irrigators receive under the Small Reclamation Project Act and the Distribution System Loans Act? Could 
the United States provide details and amounts of financial assistance provided to 
irrigators under these two acts as of 2011 or the latest year for which the details are available?  
h. Could the United States provide details of the per unit rate charged for electricity used to 
transport irrigation water and the power rates charged for industrial, agricultural and residential users of electricity? If the rate charged for electricity used to transport irrigation water is lower than that charged for other users of electricity, how does the 
United States justify exclusion of this subsidy from calculation of non-product specific 
AMS?  
i. Could the United States provide the following details in respect of water supplied to 
farms in the Wetlands Water District: (a) price charged to farms in Wetlands for each 
acre-foot of water; (b) quantity of water supplied annually to farms in Wetlands Water District during 2005-2011; and (c) price charged to other users for the water supplied?  
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2) 
2.5.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/68) AG-IMS ID 75122: Question by Canada - Payments under regional assistance 
programmes  
Switzerland informs the Committee of a new programme  entitled "Payments for farming in difficult 
conditions". Would Switzerland please expand on the criteria of eligibility for compensation and specify the methodology used to determine producers' loss of income?  
 
2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.6.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/101) 
AG-IMS ID 75101: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The total amount of export subsidies granted by Canada has remained stable and there is no 
significant downward trend of subsidies granted ov er the years. In light of this and the Bali 
Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, could Canada indicate whether it has undertaken 
reforms in the field of export competition, and if not, whether it has any plans to do so? 
AG-IMS ID 75040: Question by United States  of America - Product coverage/scheduled 
commitments 
a. Is the tonnage of cheese reported under subsidized exports made up wholly of milk 
priced at class 5(D) pricing? Please provide data on pricing for milk sold under class 5(D), as well as the quantities of milk going into class 5(D) uses? G/AG/W/136 
 
- 35 - 
 
  b. Please explain what the difference is between what the Canadian Dairy Commission 
terms "planned exports" and "other exports" within milk class 5(D)? In addition, please explain how pricing for planned exports and other exports approved by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Commi ttee (CSMC) are determined.  
AG-IMS ID 75100: Question by Australia - Quantity of total exports 
Can Canada please advise why the amount of subsidised skim milk powder exports (9,277 tonnes) 
notified in Table ES:1, exceeds the total exports of skim milk powder (8,319 tonnes) notified in 
Table ES:2?  
 2.6.2  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/198) 
AG-IMS ID 75102: Question by European Union - International food aid 
According to document G/AG/W/125/Add.3 Japan give s cash contributions for purchasing food aid. 
However, Japan runs a counterpart funds system where recipient countries obtain funds by selling products provided by Japan. In light of this could Japan indicate: 
 
a. The extent to which the food aid amounts no tified for 2010-12 were provided in-kind or 
were monetised? 
b. In light of this information and the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, 
could Japan indicate whether it has undertaken reforms in the field of export competition, and if not, whether it has any plans to do so? 
2.6.3  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/27) 
AG-IMS ID 75004: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
a. Australia thanks Mexico for its recent ES notifications. Mexico has advised that only 
wheat exports were subsidised in 2012. Can Mexico therefore please explain why beans, 
maize, sorghum and sugar are listed under the heading "Quantity of subsidized exports 
(thousands of tonnes)" in the 2012 Mexican Table ES:2 notification? Can Mexico clarify if the volumes disclosed in that notification are subsidised export volumes, or total export 
volumes for the products in question? 
b. Can Mexico please provide a full ES:1 notification for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 
and 2012? 
AG-IMS ID 75103: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
This notification shows a significant reduction in  Mexico's use of export subsidies in 2012, as 
compared to the rest of the notification period  (2008 – 2011). The European Union welcomes this 
reduction. Could Mexico indicate any policy re forms leading to this positive development? 
AG-IMS ID 75041: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
a. When does Mexico plan to submit Table ES:1 for each of the years notified? 
b. In the Supporting Table ES:2, Mexico includ es tables for each year from 2008 through 
2012 entitled, in relevant part, "Developing Country Members using Article 9.1(d) and/or 
(e) Export Subsidies". The United States notes that these are the same provisions relevant to the limited flexibility afforded to developing Members during the implementation period under Article 9.4. Does Mexico take the position that Article 9.4 is 
relevant to the data listed in the Supporting Tables ES: 2 tables for the 
years 2008-2012? 
2.6.4  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/76) 
AG-IMS ID 75104: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
According to this notification, Norway's export subsidy outlays for swine meat increased by 
almost 40 % between 2012 and 2013, and in 2013 reached the highest level since 1999. In light G/AG/W/136 
 
- 36 - 
 
  of this information and the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, could Norway 
indicate whether it has undertaken reforms in the field of export competition, and if not, whether it has any plans to do so?  
2.6.5  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/76) 
AG-IMS ID 75105: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
Thailand states that it did not provide any export subsidies subject to reduction commitments in 
the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. According to the International Sugar Organisation 
Outlook (MECAS(11)17), Thailand's policy on the expo rt of sugar is based on quotas designated for 
domestic requirements and export commitments. More specifically, the C Quota covers the exportable surplus of sugar for which sugar cane growers are paid a minimum price (which is at 
least equal to the sales value of B Quota sugar). In light of this information, for each of the 
years 2009-2013, could Thailand, as a follow-up to the reply to question (AG-IMS ID 74032), indicate: 
 
a. The method of allocation of A, B and C quotas and the amounts of these quotas? 
b. Whether there is an obligation to export sugar from any of these quotas? 
c. The administered prices paid to sugar cane growers for cane which used to produce A, B 
and C quota sugar? 
d. The administered prices for A, B and C quota sugar ex-works, at wholesale and at 
consumer level? 
e. The market prices for A, B and C quota sugar and for the cane used to produce the sugar 
for each quota? 
f. The total cost of production of the sugar cane which is used to produce sugar? 
g. The total cost of production of the sugar which is exported? 
2.7  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1) 
2.7.1  G/AG/N/USA/97 
AG-IMS ID 75106: Question by European Union - Export credits, export credit 
guarantees, insurance programmes 
This notification gives a figure for U.S. export credit guarantee programmes covering 
WTO developing countries, least-developed countries  and net food-importing developing countries 
of USD 4,123,288,076 in the 2011 fiscal year. This amount exceeds the total value of exports of 
agricultural products covered by the GSM-102 programme in the 2011 fiscal year notified in the background document by the WTO Secretariat on Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or 
Insurance Programmes (G/AG/W/125/Add.2, dated 21 May 2014), which is USD 4,060,624,195. 
Could the United States explain the reasons behind this discrepancy?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  China AG-IMS ID 75066: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In AG-IMS ID 73035, China indicated that it was working on its notification for domestic support. 
Please provide an update on the intended ti meframe for China to notify domestic support 
notifications for recent years. 
 
 
__________