G/AG/W/115
8 November 2013
(13-6235)  Page: 1/30
Committee on Agriculture   
 
 RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 26 SEPTEMBER 20131 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/114 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
This compilation will be revised after respon ses to all the questions have been received. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                               
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/115 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Accession of Croatia to the European Union (A G-IMS ID 71025) ....................................... 4  
1.1.1   Statement by the European  Union ............................................................................. 4  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.2.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71028) ....................................... 4  
1.3   Brazil's trade an d industry policy ................................................................................. 4  
1.3.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71014)  .................................................................... 4  
1.4   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5  
1.4.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 71012) ............................................................. 5  
1.5   China's Cotton Domestic Su pport ................................................................................. 6  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71029) ....................................... 6  
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 7  
1.6.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71030) ....................................... 7  
1.7   India's national food security bill .................................................................................. 8  
1.7.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71015)  .................................................................... 8  
1.8   Indonesia's stoc kholding pr ogramme s .......................................................................... 9  
1.8.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 71044) ....................................... 9  
1.9   The Republic of Korea's domestic support for pork and beef ............................................. 9  
1.9.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  71016)  .................................................................... 9  
1.10   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork ................................ 10 
1.10.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  71032 ) .................................... 10 
1.11   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 11 
1.11.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  71033 ) .................................... 11 
1.11.2   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  71018) .................................................................. 12 
1.12   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 13 
1.12.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  71034 ) .................................... 13 
1.13   Ukraine's state regulation of production and rea lization of sugar .................................... 13 
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  71017) .................................................................. 13 
1.14   United States of America' s Refined Sugar Re -export Program ........................................ 14 
1.14.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  71019) .................................................................. 14 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 15  
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 15 
2.1.1   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/42) .......................................................................................... 15 
2.1.2   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38,  G/AG/N/SLV/40, G/AG/N/SLV /41) .................................. 15 
2.2   SPECIAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) ............................................................ 16 
2.2.1   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/13) ............................................................................. 16 G/AG/W/115 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 16 
2.3.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/AR G/31) ................................................................................... 16 
2.3.2   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/30) ......................................................................................... 17 
2.3.3   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/40) .......................................................................................... 18 
2.3.4   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/34) .................................................................................... 19 
2.3.5   Jamaica (G/AG/N/ JAM/9, G/AG/N /JAM/10) ................................................................ 20 
2.3.6   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NI C/36) .................................................................................... 22 
2.3.7   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/A G/N/VCT/3) ..................................................... 23 
2.3.8   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/106) .......................................................................... 23 
2.3.9   Zambia (G/AG/N/ZM B/8) ........................................................................................ 25 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 25 
2.4.1   Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/52) ...................................................................................... 25 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 .................................... 27 
2.5.1   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/14) ............................................................................. 27 
2.5.2   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/52) .......................................................................................... 28 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 29  
3.1   Viet Nam's de layed notifications ................................................................................. 29 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 30 
 G/AG/W/115 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Accession of Croatia to the European Union (AG-IMS ID 71025) 1.1.1  Statement by the European Union The European Union is proud to inform the WTO Membership that on 1 July 2013 Croatia became 
the 28
th Member State of the European Union. 
In the context of the review process in the Regu lar Committee on Agriculture, the European Union 
would like to inform Members about the arrangements concerning the relevant transparency 
obligations. These are applied in the same manner as for previous EU enlargements. Croatia will 
continue to notify on their own behalf the schedul ed notifications for reporting periods up to 2012. 
As for MA:2 and ES notifications covering 2013, Croatia will notify for the reporting period covering 1 January to 30 June 2013. There will be EU-28 MA and ES notifications for reporting periods from 
1 July 2013 onwards. As far as domestic support is concerned, Croatia will be included in the 
European Union's annual notification covering spending in the marketing year 2012/2013. 
The Membership will be kept informed about arrangements concerning new and modified 
agricultural tariff rate quotas through the regula r MA:1 notification. Apart from notifications of 
individual arrangements, the European Union intends to provide an overall MA:1 update including addenda after GATT Article XXIV negotiations have been concluded. 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.2.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71028) 
The United States of America appreciated Br azil's response to a question on PEP at 
the June 2013 meeting of the Committee (G /AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70007). In its 
response, Brazil said that it was in the pr ocess of compiling the information requested 
by the United States of America on the qu antities by commodity shipped to specific 
domestic destinations as well as the quan tities by commodity exported under the 
programme. 
a. Is Brazil prepared to provide the information now? 
b. If not, when does Brazil expect to provide it? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. At this moment the information requested is still unavailable. 
b. CONAB's control mechanism is under development. The Brazilian government expects to 
be able to provide the information requested soon, but cannot predict when it will be 
available. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the last PEP granted for wheat was in 
March 2012 and for rice in September 2011. Currently the programme is suspended and under reassessment by the government. 
Follow-up: The United States of America was disappointed with Brazil's failure in providing the 
requested information once again. It thanked Brazil for sharing the information as to when the last 
PEP was granted for wheat and rice, and sought similar information on corn. Brazil responded that 
it would provide the information at a later stage. 
1.3  Brazil's trade and industry policy  1.3.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71014) Canada has considered the responses provid ed at previous meetings of the Committee 
on Agriculture regarding its trade and indu stry policy for 2011-2014, called the Plano 
Brasil Maior ("Greater Brazil Plan") and seek s further clarification. As mentioned at 
earlier meetings of the Committee, one of the plan's elements is a temporary payroll tax 
exemption, where the 20% mandatory employ er's social security contribution on 
payrolls (contribution to the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social or "INSS") is G/AG/W/115 
 
- 5 - 
 
  substituted for a flat rate ranging between  1% and 2% on gross earnings, excluding 
gross revenue from exports. Canada understan ds that only employers for which 50% or 
more revenue derived from exports of the products covered are currently eligible to benefit from the measure, and that the ne w calculation methodology exempts entirely 
revenues derived from exports. 
a. Could Brazil provide further details on the eligibility criteria that employers 
have to meet in order to be able to access this new methodology to calculate 
the social security contribution? 
b. Will the application of this new meth odology be broadened to include all 
employers currently contributing to the INSS?  
c. Could Brazil elaborate on the changes br ought by Plano Brasil Maior to the 
calculation methodology and how this new methodology helps to simplify and 
alleviate the administrative burd en on eligible employers?  
d. In light of the definition of a subsid y provided in Arti cle 1.1 (a)(1)(ii); 
"government revenue that is otherwise du e is foregone or not collected…" of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Counter vailing Measures (ASCM), could Brazil 
provide an assessment of the financial impact of the new methodology on the 
level of contributions collected by the INSS from employers?  
e. Considering the provisions of Article 3.1 (a) and paragraph (e) of the 
Illustrative List provided in Annex 1 of  the ASCM, could Brazil substantiate its 
claim that the new calculation methodology does not constitute an export 
subsidy prohibited by the ASCM?  
Answer by Brazil a. The methodology to calculate the social secu rity contribution under Law 12.546 does not 
constitute a tax exemption, as stated in Brazil's previous replies to Canada. The said 
methodology applies for companies that produc e any of the goods listed in the Annex of 
Law 12.546, independent of export performance.  
b. The extension of those simplified calculation procedures to other sectors is currently 
under evaluation by the Brazilian government. 
c. The effects of the measure are still being assessed by the Brazilian government. The 
imposition of a flat rate is meant to spare employers from calculating their due social 
security contribution on a per employee basis. Moreover, the new methodology makes it 
easier for the government to control and audit the collection of revenues arising from the social security contribution. 
d. The financial impact of the measure is under on-going assessment. However, given its 
terms, the Brazilian government expects it to be neutral or even to increase the revenue collected from the social security contribution, as tax evasion is reduced. 
e. Brazil reiterates that the measure does not constitute a tax exemption; rather it imposes 
a different calculation methodology aimed at simplifying administrative procedures and curtailing tax evasion. Furthermore, the measure does not apply export performance requirements. 
1.4  Canada's dairy policies 
1.4.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 71012) According to notified information, Canada ha s used nearly its entire revenue outlays for 
"incorporated products" and "other milk pr oducts" each year since 2003. New Zealand 
has recently seen Canadian media reports describing the development of a new dairy 
manufacturing plant in Scarborough, Onta rio. New Zealand understands from those 
reports that the company's focus will be on exporting the plant's manufacturing output, 
and that the Canadian government may have granted both an export permit, and access 
to a supply of subsidised inputs for furthe r processing via a Special Milk Class 5(b) 
Permit.  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Could Canada please confirm: 
a. Whether the Canadian Dair y Commission has granted the plant access to dairy 
ingredient inputs via a Special Milk Class?  
b. Whether exports from this plant that in corporate dairy products supplied under 
a Special Milk Class will be included in Canada's total revenue outlays and 
volume limits for export subsidies reported to the WTO? 
c. Whether Canada is intending to provide export subsidies up to its full 
entitlement this year, and in subsequent  years for dairy exports through using 
supply managed inputs? 
Answer by Canada Under Class 5(a), (b) and (c) (Special Milk Class (SMC) Permit Program), among other 
domestic milk classes, milk is made available for use in dairy products and products 
containing dairy ingredients at prices which vary according to end use. As mentioned at the 49
th session of the Committee of Agriculture, Canada is of the view that except for SMC 
5 (d), which was found to provide export subsidies under Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, none of the Special Milk Classes constitute export subsidies within the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture. Therefore,  Canada does not include sales under 
SMC 5 (a), (b) and (c) in its calculation of total budgetary outlays and quantity limits for 
export subsidies reported to the World Trad e Organization. Regarding the provision of 
export subsidies, the use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and quantity is consistent with Canada's WTO rights and obligations. Canada 
remains nonetheless committed to the Doha Round and, in conjunction with other WTO 
Members, to the elimination of export subsidies.  
Follow-up: New Zealand welcomed Canada's positive affirmations in respect of full elimination of 
export subsidies. New Zealand noted that, as stated by Canada in its response, special milk 
classes were made available to commercial parties at administered prices that varied according to their end use, i.e. in the course of production with the domestic market price. In New Zealand's 
opinion, since these inputs were provided to comm ercial entities that might have the intention to 
export, the details of that action were of part icular interest to this Committee. Therefore, 
New Zealand sought Canada's response on whethe r the factory in Scarborough had been provided 
with access to dairy inputs via a Special Milk Class, given Canada had not addressed this part of 
the original question. Canada provided a preliminary response as follows: "Milk Class 5(b) is 
available for dairy products other than cheese that are used as ingredients for further processing for the domestic and export markets. As part of the Special Milk Class Permit Program, the 
Canadian Dairy Commission issues 102 permits for dairy products in this Class ". 
The United States of America flagged interest in this question. New Zealand restated its continuing interest in this issue and looked forward to receive further information from Canada. 
1.5  China's Cotton Domestic Support 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71029) 
The United States of America notes that Chin a's last domestic support notification (from 
13 October 2011 - G/AG/N/CHN/21) provided information through 2008. In that 
submission, China reported cotton-specific support (seeds, reserves, transportation) 
accounting for RMB 2.8 billion or 2.5% of th e value of cotton production in 2008. Since 
then, China has added a price support programme for cotton to those pre-existing 
subsidy policies noted above. China's support price for cotton is substantially higher 
than world market prices; with China's fixe d external reference price for cotton, the 
estimated price gap in 2013 is over RMB 6,000 per metric ton. Moreover, during these 
recent four years, China has engaged in si gnificant stock-building for cotton, which has 
affected the global supply equation, leading to generally higher than expected world 
prices and strong Chinese end-user preferen ce for more economically priced imported 
cotton. Given the significant attention around  the world on China's cotton policies:  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 7 - 
 
  a. When does China intend to notify dome stic support notifications on recent 
years, in particular for years when  cotton price support was applied?  
b. Can China provide the Committee inform ation on various subsidy measures 
associated with price support as well as accumulation, maintenance, and 
distribution of cotton stocks? 
c. Can China provide the Committee with any information on how it will manage 
its sizable cotton stocks in a manner that  avoids negative effects on the world 
cotton market?  
Answer by China a. Currently, the domestic support notification for 2009-2010 is being prepared and will be 
submitted to the Committee shortly. After that, China will start working on the 
notification for the year 2011 to 2012. 
b. China began stocking cotton in 2011. The purchase takes place between September and 
March the following year during the harvest season. All the relevant information is 
posted on the official website of Chin a's Development and Reform Commission.
2  
c. Cotton stocks are distributed in the domestic market and are not for export. The Chinese 
government will distribute the stocks according to domestic market variables. The stocks 
bear no negative effects on the world market. 
Follow-up: The United States of America looked forward to China's forthcoming notifications and 
indicated its intention to raise follow-up questions. In its view, the large amount of cotton stock 
could have an impact in the world market even if China intended to distribute it domestically. 
Australia thanked China for its enhanced transp arency in the Committee on Agriculture. As 
China is Australia's largest agriculture export market and Australia's most important export market for cotton, Australia welcomed the opportunity to hear further details of China's domestic cotton 
policies. In this respect, Australia would prep are follow-up questions, including questions on 
policies to reinforce market confidence and mitigate  risks of excessive volatility due to the public 
stock held by China. 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.6.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71030) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Rica for notifying the WTO on 29 May 2013 
(G/AG/GEN/110) that the pr ice support mechanism for rice will be eliminated 
1 March 2014 per decree No. 37699-MEIC (20 Ma y 2013) titled, "Elimination of the price 
fixing mechanism for rice and transition to wards an alternative mechanism". Given the 
important implication of this decision to br ing Costa Rica back into compliance with its 
domestic support commitments, a continued u pdate on relevant developments will be 
appreciated.  
a. Please provide the status/details of  the new policy including steps taken 
toward its implementation 
b. Specifically, what will be the role of th e Government of Costa Rica, particularly 
in comparison to other organizations' ro le, in conducting the new rice policy? 
c. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? 
d. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying 
them to the WTO? 
                                               
2 www.sdpc.gov.cn  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by Costa Rica 
As announced at the last meeting of this Committee and in communication G/AG/GEN/110 
dated 31 May 2013, the Government of Costa Rica has decided to eliminate the price 
support mechanism for rice as of 1 March 2014. 
Once price ‑setting for rice has been eliminated, private actors will be responsible for 
determining prices and other variables relating to the purchasing and selling of domestic rice 
(form of payment, place of payment, grades, etc.). 
As always, the Government of Costa Rica will notify this Committee of any element 
of future policies on rice or other agricultural products, in compliance with its notification and transparency obligations. 
Follow-up: Pakistan, the United States of America and Uruguay acknowledged Costa Rica's efforts 
in transparency. The United States of America regi stered continued interest in the implementation 
of the new policy, for example, whether producer organization was involved in setting rice prices, 
whether the authority gave producer organizations that right, and whether the consumers 
provided inputs into that process. As a major player in the Costa Rican market, Uruguay shared 
the US interest. The United States of America fu rther thanked Costa Rica for the opportunity to 
informally hear more details on Costa Rica's policy. 
1.7  India's national food security bill 1.7.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71015) Canada notes that there have been many re ports in the Indian media as well as the 
international media regarding the Na tional Food Security Bill, 2013. 
a. Could India please clarify where the Na tional Food Security Bill, 2013 is in 
India's legislative process and what ar e the next steps with respect to its 
implementation? 
b. Could India please elaborate on the expect ed implications of the National Food 
Security Bill, 2013 on India's public stockholding programmes including on 
levels of procurement and spending? 
c. Canada understands that the states  and the federal government share 
responsibility for agriculture. Could Indi a please describe the mechanisms that 
facilitate the interaction between th e states and the federal government? 
Answer by India 
a. The National Food Security Act 2013 has completed the legislative process and it has 
been notified on 10 September 2013. The details  are available on the website of Ministry 
of Consumers Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
3. 
b. It is premature to raise the issue at this stage when the act is yet to be implemented.  
c. At the federal level, India has the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Consumers 
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. They c oordinate with the respective state ministries 
on important issues relating to agriculture and food distribution. 
Follow-up: Understanding that the national secu rity bill was yet to be implemented, Canada 
proposed to discuss bilaterally with India the ti me for implementation. Canada thanked India for 
the information on the coordination between the states and federal governments, which Canada 
had some familiarity with given Canada's similar structure of agriculture departments. The United States of America also flagged its particular interest in this topic. Supported by 
the United States of America, Pakistan raised two follow-up questions: (1) although rice support 
price was announced in the beginning of this year, ahead of the sowing season, there was no procurement target on the website of the Mini stry of Consumers Affairs, Food and Public 
Distribution for the upcoming harvest season of rice. Could India please indicate the target for the 
harvest season starting from October 2013?; (2) According to Pakistan's information, India may 
                                               
3 http://fcamin.nic.in/  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 9 - 
 
  have to liquidate some of the rice reserve to ensu re storage is available for the new harvest. Could 
India please also identify the quantity of rice whic h is likely to be released in the market before the 
new harvest season? 
1.8  Indonesia's stockholding programmes 
1.8.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71044) 
The United States of America has additional  questions related to questions under this 
topic resubmitted under the review of noti fications below. Please provide updated 
information regarding new stockpiling prog rammes in Indonesia, e.g. for soybeans. 
Does Indonesia plan to expand these pr ogrammes further? If so, please provide 
information. 
Answer by Indonesia 
With regard to soybeans, Indonesia does not have any stockpiling programme in place. The 
existing regulation on soybeans is intended to  ensure the efficient distribution (from farmers 
to consumers) and reasonable pricing of soybeans based on market forces. In recent months 
the price of soybeans in Indonesia increased by 30% from around IDR 8,000 to IDR 10,600. 
At present, Indonesia does not intend to expand this programme on soybeans to other agricultural products. 
Follow-up: The United States of America recorded its likely intention of following up at a later 
stage with questions. Canada registered its interest on the programme. 
1.9  The Republic of Korea's domestic support for pork and beef 1.9.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71016) 
Canada understands that in late 2012 the Mi nistry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry & 
Fisheries (MIFAFF) announced its intention to purchase about 2,000 tonnes of pork as 
part of a policy to support the price of pork . In addition, Canada understands that in 
approximately the same period MIFAFF announc ed its intention to provide a financial 
incentive to farmers to reduce the size of the Korean cattle herd in order to support the price of cattle. 
As the Republic of Korea's most recent annua l domestic support notification is for the 
period 2005 ‑2008 (G/AG/N/KOR/43) Canada seeks additional information on these 
measures. 
a. Canada would ask the Republic of Korea to provide information as to the 
approximate cost of the measures for pork and beef. 
b. Subsequent to this measure in the Korean pork market, has there been another 
policy by the Government of the Republic of Korea to support the price of pork? 
If so, Canada asks the Republic of Kore a to provide details of this measure and 
its approximate cost. 
c. Subsequent to the initial action in the Korean beef/cattle market, has there 
been another one by the Government of the Republic of Korea to support the price of beef? If so, Canada asks the Repu blic of Korea to provide details of this 
measure and its approximate cost. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Answer by the Republic of Korea 
In 2010 and 2011, due to the outbreak of f oot-and-mouth disease (FMD), the Korean 
government was forced to eliminate 33.6% of domestic pigs and 4.2% of domestic cattle. 
In response to the event, the Korean gove rnment introduced some temporary measures. 
However, the Republic of Korea finds that Canada's point that "the Korean government 
announced its intention to purchase about 2,000 tonnes of pork as part of a policy to support the price of pork" is not factual. Th e government did not undertake intervention 
purchases and rather implemented a temporary support programme for private pork 
processors to refrain from marketing their pork products.  
Under the programme, the Korean government supported those private processors 
complying with the programme. This programme was implemented in late 2012 and 
early 2013, and was terminated when the pork market showed signs of stabilization. 
Regarding cattle, the Korean government introduced a temporary programme to stabilize 
the price of cows in early 2012 and terminated it in mid-2013.  
a. The approximate cost of the measure for pork  was about 1 billion won. For cattle, the 
cost was 23.6 billion won. 
b. and c. The Republic of Korea confirms th at there has been no additional support 
programmes for pork and beef since then.  
Finally, Korea will notify these measures to the WTO via notifications on domestic support in 
due course. 
Follow-up: Canada informed the Committee of the fruitful bilateral discussion with the Republic of 
Korea. 1.10  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.10.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71032) 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Saint Lucia since no response 
has been received to date from questions posed at the March 2013 meeting. The United States of America has modified question e. 
The United States of America understands, as indicated by industry sources, that 
Saint Lucia's domestic purcha se requirements for poultry increased on 29 October 2012 
from 25% to 33%. The United States of America also understands that there is a domestic purchase requirement of almost 67% for pork. 
a. Please identify where these requirements are documented and published. 
b. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Sain t Lucia's laws and regulations) for these 
domestic purchase requirements? 
c. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Saint Lucia's laws and regulations) for the 
increased domestic purchase requirement for poultry that was notified by letter 
to poultry importers on 29 October 2012? 
d. Where was the domestic notification publicly published? 
e. Does Saint-Lucia intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to poultry or 
pork market arrangements, domestic pu rchase requirements and/or import 
licensing requirements? 
Answer by Saint Lucia 
Saint Lucia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.11  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.11.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71033) 
The United States of America regrets the continued non-response regarding questions 
on Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme, whic h were posed at the March and June 2013 
Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031 and 69032 and 
G/AG/W/111, AG ‑IMS ID 70011). The United States of America resubmits the questions 
and looks forward to holding an informal meeting in advance of the 26 September 
Committee on Agriculture in order to ex plore this issue more substantively. 
a. When does Thailand expect to provide updated Table DS:1 and DS:2 
notifications that include information re garding the paddy pledging scheme to 
the WTO? 
b. Thailand previously stated that official  information on rice pledging scheme 
could be found on the website of the Depa rtment of Internal Trade, Ministry of 
Commerce. The United States of America notes, however, that the Department 
of Internal Trade has, since 8 October 2012, discontinued the online publication 
of rice exports. The Government of Th ailand also discontinued publishing the 
rice pledging programme progress report  online. Please indicate when this 
function will be restored. The United St ates of America notes that the Bank for 
Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) reported revenue of 72 billion baht during 2012 from the Mini stry of Commerce through sales of 
government-owned rice stocks. This reve nue figure appears to indicate much 
larger sales than pr eviously reported.  
c. Is this a result of significant increase  in sales between September and the end 
of the year? If not, what other factor s resulted in the increased revenue?  
d. Please confirm whether the Government of  Thailand places any requirements or 
preferences on stocks that are released fo r either export or do mestic use. If so, 
when and how does the Government of Thailand determine if sales are for 
export or the domestic market? What laws or regulations oversee/implement 
government practices in this area?  
e. Regarding Thailand's response about it s rice intervention price (G/AG/W/106, 
paragraph 18):  
i. Please provide more details on how th e intervention price is determined, 
including information explaining the meaning of an "appropriate profit 
reflecting farmer living cost."  
ii. In 2012, what were the total expend itures on benefits to millers? 
f. The United States of America apprec iates Thailand's detailed response 
regarding the areas that are cultivated and harvested (G/AG/W/106, 
paragraph 20). The United States of Amer ica understands that high prices have 
encouraged farmers, particularly in i rrigated areas, to shorten their growing 
season for each crop, so that multiple ri ce crops (using lower quality varieties) 
can be harvested.  
i. Please describe further the trend in the number of crops per year farmers 
are harvesting and the types/qua lity of rice being planted.  
ii. Please provide the quantities of rice pr ocured by variety fo r crop years 2011 
and 2012.  
Answer by Thailand 
a. The government of Thailand is now coordinating with all relevant agencies to verify data 
and information for accuracy. Once the process is completed, the up-to-date notifications will be submitted accordingly.  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 12 - 
 
  b. General information (in Thai) on the rice pledging scheme is still available on the 
Department of Internal Trade's website.4 Detailed information on export and import of 
rice is available on the website of the Customs Department5 and that of the Thai Rice 
Exporters Association.  
c. In principle, the government will release its stock during off-harvest season during the 
time of the highest world price so that ther e will be the minimum impact on the market. 
Such period normally lasts from August until October. In any case, at this point, Thailand 
cannot confirm the figures asserted by the United States of America. 
d. Release of rice in the government's stock is governed by the government's rice release 
strategy framework. The cabinet of the Commi ttee of the Rice National Policy is the 
authority determining a release of the government's stock of rice, which will be approved 
as a cabinet resolution. The determination is based on different factors, including current 
market situation, and production.  
e.   
i. In determining the rice intervention price,  the authority mainly considers income of 
farmers, which is much lower than the minimum wage of other professions. This consideration follows the object and purpose of the scheme, that is, to help raise the 
living standard of farmers to maintain a sustainable livelihood. 
ii. Thailand is uncertain about what the United States of America means by the term 
"benefits". Nevertheless, under the scheme, the government only compensates millers for operational costs in milling rice according to the Cabinet's resolution. 
Those operational costs cover quality inspection, milling expense, etc. 
f.  
i. Thailand fully understands the US concerns. However, Thailand affirms that since the 
Rice Pledging Scheme was first implemented, the production of Thai rice has not 
significantly changed.  The average number of crops per year remains at two crops 
per year. This is because Thailand has its own resource limits, including cultivated 
land, irrigation, and labour. 
ii. Thailand has a wide variety of geographies and local and traditional knowledge in 
each geography, as well as the research and development for rice varieties. As a result, there are more than 30 varieties of rice and some are grown in areas of small 
communities. The government currently does not collect information for quantities 
procured by variety. 
1.11.2  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71018) 
Canada regrets that its questions to Thaila nd on its Paddy Pledging Scheme from the 
March 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031) and the June 2013 meeting 
(G/AG/W/111, AG ‑IMS‑ID 70017) remain unanswered. Canada re-submits the 
questions and looks forward to Thailand's expeditious response. 
a. Could Thailand please provide additional  details on this proposed programme?  
b. How will Thailand manage its domestic support commitments while providing 
what Canada assumes to be signific ant amounts of domestic support to 
producers of rice?  
Answer by Thailand 
a. The information is not available as the rice pledging scheme is not yet concluded. 
b. Thailand is a major producer and exporter of rice. Thailand would like to emphasize that 
although the scheme aims to improve the living standard of farmers, the government 
always takes into account all the interested parties, including millers and exporters. 
Thailand has honoured and will continue to honour its commitments under the WTO obligations. With all the interest of the public, media, and other stakeholders, the 
                                               
4 www.dit.go.th  
5 http://www.customs.go.th  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 13 - 
 
  government is now more than ever aware of  the obligations under the WTO and tries to 
improve the work with regard to transparency of the scheme. 
Follow-up: Canada regretted the non-availability of the requested information. Australia, Pakistan 
and the United States of America appreciate d Thailand's commitment to transparency and 
openness to discussions in also informal settings. Australia noted its strong systemic and 
commercial interest in this issue and expressed co ncern on the impact of Thailand's stockpile on 
the international market. Therefore Australia reserved the right to follow up on how the stockpile 
would be drawn down and how the implementation  of the paddy pledging scheme would continue. 
Pakistan shared Australia's concern. In its view, any price distortion in the international market caused by subsidized stocks would largely jeop ardize the livelihood and the food security of 
millions of poor rice farmers in Pakistan whose liv es depended on rice cultivation and exportation. 
In this connection, Thailand was encouraged to share continuously information regarding the 
position and releases of the rice stock. The European Union reiterated its concern about the operation of the Thai rice stock policies both from  a systemic point of view and the market point of 
view. It further recalled the suggestion at the prev ious meetings that Thailand should prepare a 
draft notification. 
1.12  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.12.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 71034) 
The United States of America understands that the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) sells 
wheat to domestic flour mills below acquisitio n costs. Please provide information on the 
destination, whether for export and/or for the domestic market, of the flour made from 
such wheat sales.  
Answer by Turkey Turkey undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
Follow-up: The United States of America appreciated the opportunity to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with Turkey. Australia, the European Union and the Philippines expressed interest in 
Turkey's response and requested Turkey to shar e the data with the Membership. The Philippines 
reported to the Committee about the antidumping case on Turkish wheat flour it launched in its 
capital, which still remained as a technical process at this stage.  
1.13  Ukraine's state regulation of pr oduction and realization of sugar  
1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71017) 
A news release dated 19 April 2013 from the Pr ess Service of the Ministry of Agrarian 
Policy and Food of Ukraine notes that a draf t law which, among other things, notes that 
"… minimal prices for sugar beets and A quota sugar will be abolished…". 
a. Could Ukraine please provide the Committ ee with an update on the status of 
this new draft law? 
b. Could Ukraine indicate if the removal of the administered pric es for sugar beets 
and A quota sugar take effect immedi ately upon passage of the new law? 
Answer by Ukraine In accordance with the law of Ukraine "on state regulation of production and sale of sugar", 
domestic sugar production supplied to the do mestic market in Ukraine is limited by 
quota "A". 
In order to guarantee and ensure a stable do mestic market of beet sugar from domestic 
production, it is proposed in the draft law to keep the quota "A" for the production and 
supply of sugar in the domestic market. Quota "A" is a governmental tool based on market 
principles with proper administration that allows regulating the domestic sugar market, by legalizing and disciplining behaviour of players in the domestic sugar market. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 14 - 
 
  The Ministry of Agrarian Policy of Ukraine has prepared the draft law of Ukraine "On 
Amending the Law of Ukraine 'On state regulati on of production and sale of sugar' (the 
production and supply of sugar to the domest ic market)" (registration number 2856 from 
18 April 2013) (hereinafter - the Draft Law). The draft Law is aimed at: 
− maintenance of the production capacity of the sugar industry; 
− formation of pro-market investment, credit and pricing policies for factory beets and 
sugar; 
− settlement of the question of sale of sugar produced over quota "A";  
− preservation and improvement of the qu oting mechanism for manufacturing and 
supplying on the domestic market of sugar (quota "A"); 
− abolition of minimum prices for sugar beets and sugar quotas "A". 
The final provisions of the draft law provide that the law shall enter into force on the day 
following the day of its publication. With this, it is foreseen that within three months from the date of enactment of this draft law the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine will bring the 
relevant regulations into conformity with the la w in force. Therefore, the enacted law will be 
implemented through the provisions of subord inate legislation issued by the Cabinet of 
Ministers of Ukraine. 
1.14  United States of America's Refined Sugar Re-export Program  
1.14.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 71019) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently undertaken several 
initiatives to avoid processors forfeiting sugar offered as collateral to USDA when 
securing loans under the sugar programme. Am ongst these initiatives, the Farm Service 
Agency (FSA) modified the Refined Sugar Re -export Program (RSRP) which resulted in 
two tranches of sugar being purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 
which was subsequently provided to RSRP pa rticipants in exchange for a minimum of 
2.5 credits per metric tonne (MT) of sugar provided. There were also temporary waivers 
that permitted licensed refiners to transfer programme sugar from their license to 
another refiner's license through until 30 September 2013; that increased the license 
limit for cane sugar refiners from 50,000 MT of credits to 100,000 MT through until 
31 December 2014; and that extended the time frame to make required exports or sugar 
transfers from 90 days to 270 days. To date, these actions have resulted in 
approximately 106,742 MT of sugar being pu rchased by the CCC and then exchanged for 
311,264 RSRP credits. USDA announced a third tranche of exchanges on 12 September 2013, for licensed refiners to ex change license credits under the RSRP for 
an additional 77,451 MT of CCC-owned su gar. Canada has concerns that the 
modifications to the RSRP appear to provide export subsidies on sugar prohibited under 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Would the United States of America provide data on: 
i. the current and expected sugar surplus in the United States of America; 
ii. the amount of sugar outstanding under loans that could be forfeited; 
iii. the amount of sugar currently held by CCC; and 
iv. the total amount of debits and total amount of credits outstanding in 
licensee's accounts. 
b. The RSRP normally has a neutral impact  on the supply of sugar in the US 
market (i.e., one tonne of raw imports to  1 tonne of exports of refined sugar or 
equivalent in sugar-containing products ). Would the United States of America 
explain how the changes to the RSRP, including the temporary waivers and 
increase to the exchange ratio:  
i. has impacted volumes of raw sugar imports into the United States of 
America;  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 15 - 
 
  ii. has impacted volumes of exports of re fined sugar (or equivalent in sugar-
containing products) from the United States of America; 
iii. is expected to impact these volumes in the future?  
c. How is the CCC compensated for the sugar it provides to RSRP participants?  
Answer by the United States of America 
a.  
i. While USDA does not publish an estimate of  the sugar surplus, current projected US 
sugar ending stock levels are sufficiently high to result in US sugar prices below 
support levels.  
ii. As of 16 September 2013, the amount was 526, 529 MT. This amount changes daily. 
iii. The amount is 77,451 MT (170,750,000 pounds) on 16 September 2013.  
iv. As of 16 September 2013 the sum of debi ts and credits of the seven re-export 
licensees was approximately zero. 
b.  
i. The exchanges of CCC sugar for Refined Sugar Re-export Program (RSRP) credits 
may reduce potential RSRP imports, which might have occurred in the next 1 -2 years.  
ii. The ten-year average for US exports of su gar is approximately 216,000 MT per year 
and the current estimate for 2012/13 is approximately 245,000 MT.  
iii. The exchanges of CCC sugar for RSRP credit s may reduce RSRP imports, which might 
have occurred in the next 1-2 years. Licensees are free to adjust their imports 
according to market conditions and the credits do not (i.e., never) expire, therefore 
it is not possible to specify how much imports in any specific year may be reduced. 
c. In exchange for the sugar, CCC received RSRP credits. 
Follow-up: Australia and the European Union registered their interest and intention to follow up on 
the questions.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.1.1  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/42) AG-IMS ID 71002: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Further to a similar question in 2011 (parag raph 12 of G/AG/W/86 refers), Australia 
notes that Chile has notified there were no imports within its tariff quota for beet sugar 
or other sugar in 2012 (tariff lines 1701.9920 and 1701.9990). Could Chile provide advice as to whether its previous  explanation continues to apply? 
Answer by Chile 
The previous explanation (AG-IMS ID 62010) continues to apply. 
2.1.2  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38, G/AG/N/SLV/40, G/AG/N/SLV/41) 
AG-IMS ID 71026: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of El Salvador comprise eleven bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification for 2011 and 2012 includes only one of them. The European Union would like to request El Salvador to include all bound tariff quotas in the notifications as a matter 
of transparency. This request was also rais ed at the 66th meeting of the Committee in 
June 2012 (paragraph 23 of G/AG/W/96 refe rs). The European Union would like to G/AG/W/115 
 
- 16 - 
 
  repeat this transparency related concern si nce the new notification under review also 
lacks information on ten bound tariff rate quotas. 
Answer by El Salvador El Salvador undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 71003: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes the fill rate for El Salvador's  one operational TRQ (for cheddar, in blocks 
or in bars) was around 23% in 2012. Australia  further notes this fill rate has remained 
low for a number of years. Could El Salvad or please clarify the reasons for the low 
utilisation of this TRQ, especially given that the fill rate stood at over 83% in its 2006 
notification (G/AG/N/SLV/27).  
If this relates to arrangements under free tr ade agreements, Australia would be grateful 
if El Salvador could explain what percentage of its total imports of the relevant products 
in 2012 were covered by concessionary treatment under a free trade agreement 
arrangement. 
Answer by El Salvador 
El Salvador undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.2  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.2.1  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/13) 
AG-IMS ID 71004: Question by Australia - Transparency issues Could the European Union confirm whether any SSGs were invoked during marketing 
year 2011/2012. Australia notes that this qu estion is primarily in the interests of 
enhanced transparency. To this same end, Au stralia requests the European Union clearly 
indicate where an SSG was invoked by filling in columns 3 and 4 of the relevant 
notification. 
Answer by the European Union 
The European Union thanks Australia for this suggestion on enhanced transparency. 
The European Union is willing to engage in tr ansparency related discussions where this issue 
can be addressed among others. 
As indicated in the notification: the SSG based on volume was calculated but not made 
operational on fruit and vegetables; the SSG ba sed on price for sugar, poultry and eggs was 
operational and the additional duty was applie d as relevant according to the value of the 
product imported. 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/31) 
AG-IMS ID 71005: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Can Argentina confirm that its spending on  infrastructure services excludes the 
provision of on-farm facilities? 
Answer by Argentina 
Argentina confirms that the general infrastructure services notified in document 
G/AG/N/ARG/31 for the agricultural years 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 fully comply with paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The outlays G/AG/W/115 
 
- 17 - 
 
  notified in that document represent expenditure for the provision or construction of capital 
works only, which excludes the provision of on ‑farm goods or services. 
The three programmes corresponding to the Special Fund for Tobacco have the following 
objectives: 
i. to disperse hail clouds in the southern part of the province of Jujuy following their 
detection by radars located at the operations centre; 
ii. to improve the municipal effluent system  in the provinces of Misiones, Chaco, 
Corrientes, Tucumán and Jujuy; and 
iii. to reduce the environmental impact of production activities in above ‑mentioned 
provinces through the use of appropriate practices. 
The programme for the rehabilitation of irriga tion and drainage systems in Chaco, Chubut, 
Mendoza, Neuquén and Tucumán forms part of the Provincial Agricultural Services 
Programme (PROSAP). The programme seeks to overcome development constraints in these 
provinces and, in particular, improve the manage ment of provincial irrigation and drainage 
systems through the rehabilitation of cha nnels and the construction of drainage 
networks, etc.  
2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/30) 
AG-IMS ID 71037: Question by the United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes that Br azil indicated that its domestic food aid 
programme was modified in 2009 under Law 11,947 of 16 June 2009 and resulted in the expansion of the programme (and expend itures) (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70053). 
The United States of America notes that Br azil has not provided a Table DS:2 for this 
modified exempt programme. Does Brazil in tend to provide a Table DS:2 for this 
programme and any other modified or new exempted programmes?  
Answer by Brazil 
Brazil will soon provide a Table DS :2 notification for this programme. 
Follow-up: The United States of America was pleased to hear that a Table DS:2 notification would 
be submitted.  
AG-IMS ID 71036: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States of America note s that Brazil indicated (G/AG/W/111, 
AG-IMS ID 70057 and 70001) that the large in crease in expenditures for the PAA was 
due to the "incorporation of data of the Ministry of Social Development". 
a. Please explain if there was a change in the programme in 2009/10 that 
resulted in this new data or if the programme remains unchanged, but with 
more accurate budgetary figures? 
b. If the latter, does Brazil plan to amend its past notifications? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. The programme remains unchanged. The new data presented simply constitutes more 
accurate budgetary figures. 
b. Brazil does not plan to amend its past notifications, since the figures notified were 
correct. The 2009/2010 notification merely included a budgetary source which was not 
available before. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 18 - 
 
  2.3.3  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/40) 
AG-IMS ID 71020: Question by Cana da - General services: research 
Canada notes that there was a 33% increa se in expenditures under "research and 
development centres" from Ch$10,763,377,000 in 2010 (G/AG/N/CHL/37) to 
Ch$14,320,521,000 in 2011. Could Chile elabor ate on the reasons for this substantial 
increase in support to "Research and development centres"?  
Answer by Chile 
First, it should be noted that notifications ar e made in each year's currency; therefore, to 
make a comparison with the 2010 amount, an inflation correction factor issued by the 
treasury department must be applied. In this particular case, the factor is an increase of 3.3%. 
Upon applying this correction, the 2012 budget effectively increased by 8.2%. During 
implementation for the year 2011, as per A NNEX 1 of this document, a budget amendment 
was made whereby $1,674,337 thousand was added to the initial budget to finance 
mandatory retirements in the institution. This resulted in a transfer of 
$14,320,521 thousand. 
AG-IMS ID 71009: Question by Australia - General services: extension and advisory 
services 
Could Chile please confirm that its suppor t for irrigation and energy efficiency 
pre-investment programmes does not invo lve direct payments to producers or 
processors? 
Answer by Chile 
The payments referred to in Chile's notification are not made directly to the producers or 
processors since they concern payment for advisory services which goes directly to the 
consultant concerned. 
Thus, these are direct financing programmes for advisory services which are considered to 
fall within the Green Box, in accordance with the provisions of the Ag reement on Agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 71038: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
The United States of America appreciates Ch ile's consistent and timely submission of 
domestic support notifications to the Comm ittee. Similar to Chile's 2010 Table DS:1 
notification (G/AG/N/CHL/37), Chile notifi ed its agricultural insurance programme 
through Measure Type 2.5
6 direct payment to producers (G/AG/N/CHL/40). In Chile's 
response to a question (AG-IMS ID 66047 of  G/AG/N/CHL/37) about this notification 
from the European Union, it stated that "C hile considers agricultural insurance to be 
consistent with the considerations in paragrap h 5 of Annex 2, in particular the criteria 
set forth in paragraph 6(b) to (e)".  
a. Please confirm that as in paragraph 6(e) , "no production shall be required in 
order to receive such payments" (i.e., farmers would receive payment for 
insurance premiums regardless of whet her or not anything is produced). 
b. Please confirm how the subsidy benefit is transferred to the producer 
(i.e., a direct payment to the producer or  indirectly via payments to insurance 
companies to reduce the pr emium rate for producers). 
c. Please provide information on the level of  production or income loss required 
for a producer to receive an insurance payment. 
d. Further, please explain how th e income loss is calculated? 
                                               
6 Paragraph 5 of Annex 2 under the Agreement on Agriculture G/AG/W/115 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Answer by Chile 
e. In the event of loss covered by the agricult ural insurance policy, farmers will recover 
their direct production costs, i.e. the wo rking capital invested in fruit growing or 
production. This insurance affords farmers greater financial stability and solvency, boosts 
their access to credit, and enables them to pursue their farming activities, while 
protecting their work and families. 
Agricultural insurance provides coverage against adverse weather conditions that most 
frequently cause damage to annual crops and fruit production in Chile, such as drought 
in rain‑fed areas, excessive and unseasonable rainfall, frost, high winds, snow and hail. 
f. Subsidy conditions 
The general subsidy will cover 50% of th e net premium, plus a fixed amount of 
UF 1.50 per policy up to a ceiling of UF 80 per farmer per crop year. 
Until 30 June 2013, a special subsidy will be granted for cereal crops (rice, oats, barley, 
rye, maize, wheat, and triticale), equivalent to 75% of the net premium, plus a fixed 
amount of UF 0.60 per policy up to the same  ceiling of UF 80 per farmer per crop year. 
Insurance companies undertake to issue the respective invoices and credit notes in the 
policyholder's name for the full premium, including the subsidized part thereof. 
g. This is an insurance that provides climate ‑risk coverage in the event of production loss. 
The insurance company evaluates the adverse weather event, certifies that it did indeed 
occur, and determines which insured area has been affected. 
Under no circumstances is the insurance linked to the policyholder's loss of income. 
h. The insurance does not cover loss of income but rather the damage caused by an event 
affecting an insured crop. Farmers will recover their direct production costs, that is, the 
working capital invested in fruit growing or production. 
Follow-up: The United States of America enquired whether Chile would classify this programme 
under paragraph 8 (payments for relief from natura l disasters) of Annex 2 in the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
2.3.4  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34) AG-IMS ID 71039: Question by the United St ates of America - General services: other 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Indonesia since no response has 
been received to date from questions posed at the June 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70025). In the years covered by Indonesia's prior notifications 
(G/AG/N/IDN/30 and G/AG/N/IDN/34), what programmes has Indonesia administered 
that subsidize loans taken out by farm prod ucers (for instance, the Kredit Ketahanan 
Pangan—Food Security Credit)? 
a. What was the amount of government spending to subsidize the loans? How 
many farmers received the loans?  
b. Have any of the loans been forgiven?  
c. Please indicate how such measures ar e accounted for in Indonesia's recent 
notifications.  
Answer by Indonesia In 2012, the amount of government spending to subsidize the loans was IDR 601 billion or 
equivalent to USD 52.4 million. These loans ar e given to farmers with the aim of ensuring 
food and energy security while at the same time  improving farmers' welfare. At present, no 
loans have been forgiven.  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 20 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 71031: Question by the United St ates of America- Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
The United States of America notes that Indo nesia states that stocks are procured at 
administered prices, which take mark et prices into account (G/AG/W/111, 
AG-IMS ID 70026). The United States of America also notes that Indonesia has not 
provided a Supporting Table DS:4 or Support ing Table DS:5 to account for the use of 
administered prices per footnote 5 of pa ragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Further, the United States of America understands Indonesia's response to 
part (b) of AG-IMS ID 70031 to  state that no administered price was reported after 2001 
due to Indonesia's procurement being for bu ffer stock operations. This appears to be 
inconsistent with the aforementioned footno te. Please explain and clarify these policies 
and notifications.  
Answer by Indonesia Indonesia is in the process of preparin g the Supporting Table DS:4 and Supporting 
Table DS:5 and these will be notified in due time.  
With regards to administered priced during 2001-2004, Indonesia will submit a revision to 
its notification in due time. 
AG-IMS ID 71040: Question by the United Stat es of America- Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters 
The United States of America notes that th e measure reported as a direct payment for 
relief from a natural disaster, as describe d in response to AG-IMS ID 70029 and 70071 
in G/AG/W/111 compensates producers for a pr oduction loss due to a natural disaster 
with payments-in-kind (rice). Further, such payments have no specific conditions for 
payment.  
a. How does this measure meet the criteria set out in paragraph 8(a) of the 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  which requires producers to sustain a 
loss of more than 30% to receive payment? 
b. Are payments limited to agricultural prod ucers or available to all residents in 
the affected disaster area?  
c. If the latter, could Indonesia explain wh y this measure is not notified as a 
domestic food aid programme?  
Answer by Indonesia 
At present, Indonesia is in the process of form ulating the specific regulation with regards to 
payment for relief from a natural disaster given to producers. Indonesia will ensure that this 
regulation is consistent with its WTO obligations.  
With regards to eligibility, the payments are avai lable to all residents in the affected disaster 
area and this measure will be notified as domestic food aid programme.  
2.3.5  Jamaica (G/AG/N/JAM/9, G/AG/N/JAM/10) 
AG-IMS ID 71027: Question by the European Union - General services: extension and 
advisory services 
a. Jamaica's expenses for general services "extension and advisory services" have 
decreased by more than 40% according to the 2009 notification compared to 
the previous notification for 2008/09.  Could Jamaica explain the reasons 
behind this major decrease?  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 21 - 
 
  b. In 2009 Jamaica discontinued to notify  for fiscal years and commenced to 
notify for calendar years.  
i. Could Jamaica explain the reasons be hind this change of periods? 
ii. How has the risk of double counting been solved? 
Answer by Jamaica 
Two revised domestic support notifications were circulated on 28 October: 
G/AG/N/JAM/9/Rev.1 that covers fiscal years 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 and 
G/AG/N/JAM/10/Rev.1 that covers fiscal years 2009/2010, 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. 
a. With regard to the 40% reduction in the fi gure for "extension and advisory services" 
for 2009/2010 relative to the notification for the 2008/2009 period, this was due to an error in the process of tabulation from the Budget of Expenditure for the 2009/2010 
fiscal year. This error has been corrected and is reflected in the revised notification. For 
ease of reference, the correct figures are as follows: 
2008/2009 - US$22.7 million 
2009/2010 - US$19.2 million 
The exchange rates for the period 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 were also incorrect and 
these too have been corrected and are reflected in the revised notification. 
b.  
i. All figures are taken from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries' budget of 
expenditure which is based on the fiscal period 1 April to 31 March each year. The figures in the notification are therefore based on the fiscal period and not the 
calendar year. To report the notifications for the periods 2009/2010, 2010/2011 and 
2011/2012 as calendar years was therefore an unfortunate error. The figures have been corrected in the revised notifications. 
ii. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is mindful of the possibility of double 
counting in the tabulation of the data for preparation of the relevant notifications. Every effort is therefore made to prevent such an occurrence. In the latest review 
exercise, checks were again made to ensure there was no incidence of double 
counting. 
AG-IMS ID 71041: Question by the United States of America - General services: 
inspection services 
The United States of America appreciate s Jamaica's notification to update the 
Committee on the relevant appl ied domestic support policies of Jamaica. In Supporting 
Table DS:1 (G/AG/N/JAM/9 and G/AG/N/JAM/10) , it is noted that expenses related to 
plant quarantine nearly doubled in 2008/2009 as  compared to all other years notified.  
a. Please provide information about change s in plant quarantine programmes that 
caused this budgetary increase.  
b. Additionally, is there a rationale for not providing the general DS:1 table 
characterizing the level of non-exempt support? 
Answer by Jamaica a. The figure enumerated for "Plant Quarantine" for the 2008/2009 fiscal year was an error 
which was due to incorrect tabulation of the figures from the Budget of Expenditure for 
that fiscal year, as well as the use of the incorrect exchange rate. These errors have been corrected and reflected in the revised notification G/AG/N/JAM/9/Rev.1. 
b. It should be noted that Jamaica does not have any non-exempt support measures in 
place and Jamaica did not include any of these measures in the Schedule of Commitments. Consequently, only Green Box measures are undertaken by Jamaica. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Follow-up: The United States of America thanked Jamaica for submitting the original notification in 
order to give Members an opportunity to review it. Supported by the European Union, 
the United States of America further praised Jamaica's willingness to revise the notification. With respect to the question AG-IMS ID 71041, the United  States of America clarified that the purpose 
of raising the question was to encourage Jamaica to supply a Table DS:1. 
2.3.6  Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/36) AG-IMS ID 71042: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
The United States of America appreciates Ni caragua's notification (G/AG/N/NIC/36) to 
update the Committee on the relevant applied domestic support policies. 
The United States of America notes th at Nicaragua has previously stated 
(AG-IMS ID 69067) that the general objective of the Food Production Program (PPA) is 
to eradicate hunger, chronic malnutrition, ex treme poverty, and unemployment in poor 
rural households through a quantitative an d qualitative increase in production and 
consumption proteins. This is accomplished through the issuance of vouchers, which the 
government supplies animals, on-farm infrastructure, seeds,  plants and plant materials 
for both animal and human consumption and training/technical assistance. The programme appears to have multiple dimens ions, which include input subsidization and 
training/extension services for poverty-stri cken households that are captured across a 
variety of exempt domestic support categories with the ultimate consequence being 
increased food consumption, but not the dire ct provision of food for consumption or 
direct subsidization of food purchases.  
a. Could Nicaragua explain why this progra mme may not be better captured under 
paragraph 2 of Annex 2 and/or under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Additionally, the cover note to this no tification explains that during the 
reporting year in question all support is  of the exempted character. Is there a 
rationale for not providing the general DS :1 table characterizing the level of 
non-exempt support?  
Answer by Nicaragua a. Since January 2007, Nicaragua has been notifying the Food Production Programme (PPA) 
under Supporting Table DS:1 – Domestic food aid. The main purpose of the programme 
is to eradicate hunger, chronic malnutrition, extreme poverty and unemployment by 
means of a quantitative and qualitative incr ease in production and the consumption of 
protein foods. 
Nicaragua considers that the PPA meets th e basic criteria set out in Annex 2, 
paragraph 1(a) and (b), to the Agreement on Agriculture. In Annex 2, the programme has been classified under Government Service Programmes, paragraph 4 – Domestic 
food aid, which specifies that the provision of domestic food aid to sections of the 
population must be linked to nutritional objectives, in the form of direct provision of food or the provision of means to allow the recipients to buy food. 
The PPA grants means of production to be managed and reproduced by the beneficiaries, 
namely women. It does not directly involve food for consumption. Instead, the 
beneficiaries receive a package of goods designed to enable them to produce food for their families in a sustainable manner. They are also given technical assistance in 
various areas including gender, animal health and feed, cooperative associations, 
environment and marketing. 
In view of the foregoing, Nicaragua consid ers that the most appropriate provision for 
notifying the programme is paragraph 4, and not either of the subparagraphs of 
paragraph 2 – General Services, of Annex 2. 
As regards the concern that Nicaragua might notify the PPA under Article 6.2 – Domestic 
Support Commitments of the Agreement on Agriculture, Nicaragua emphasizes once 
again that the main purpose of the programme is not to provide assistance to encourage 
agricultural and rural development in general, but to eradicate hunger, and combat G/AG/W/115 
 
- 23 - 
 
  chronic malnutrition, extreme poverty and unemployment in poor rural households 
through an increase in protein foods. Theref ore, it is not necessary to notify the PPA 
under Article 6.2. 
b. Nicaragua does not consider it necessary to provide the DS:1 Table according to 
document G/AG/2, page 11 of the English vers ion, the last paragraph of which specifies 
that "[w]here no support exists, a statement to this effect should be made". This indicates the consistency of paragraph 2 of notification G/AG/N/NIC/36, which reports 
that the only domestic support measure applie d by Nicaragua is classified in the exempt 
category. 
2.3.7  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/3) AG-IMS ID 71043: Question by the United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciate s St. Vincent and the Grenadines' recent 
domestic support notification updating the Committee on the relevant applied 
agricultural policies. The provision of the type of "investment" support outlined in 
Supporting Table DS:1 can represent important policy steps toward strengthening infrastructure for agricultural producers, which is increasingly being highlighted as 
essential to expanding any domestic agricult ural system's capacity to produce more 
and/or more efficiently. 
a. Please provide the total value of agricultural production relative to the notified 
support. 
b. Also, the cover note to this notification explains that during the two years in 
question all support is of the exempted character. Is there a rationale for not 
providing the general DS:1 table char acterizing the level of non-exempt 
support? 
Answer by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Vincent and the Grenadines undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.3.8  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/106) 
AG-IMS ID 71006: Question by Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
Chinese Taipei's spending on "Infrastructur al services: Planning and construction of 
irrigation/drainage facilities and rural roads, land consolidation for agricultural sector 
and establishment of rural community" in creased from NT$9,119.81 million in 2008 to 
NT$16,856.92 million in 2010. Can Chinese Taipei  please confirm that this expenditure 
relates to capital works only, especially  that component described as for the 
"establishment of rural community". Can Chin ese Taipei also please confirm that these 
payments do not extend to subsidized provision of on-farm facilities.  
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
The increase in spending on infrastructural services from 2008 to 2010 can be attributed to 
reconstruction works after the damage caus ed by Typhoon Morakot in August 2009, and 
public infrastructure works needed for the inauguration of the Taipei International Flora Exhibition in November 2010. 
These expenditures, which included hydraulic and drainage facilities, water and soil 
conservation and prevention, urgent repairs to rural roads, market facilities, and infrastructure works associated with environmental programmes, were on capital works 
only, and did not include subsidies for on-farm facilities. G/AG/W/115 
 
- 24 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 71021: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Under the general services category, paym ents for infrastructural services have 
increased significantly from year to year, from NT$ 9,119.81 million in 2008 to 
NT$13,265.68 in 2009 to NT$16,856.92 million in  2010, in other words, 45% and 27%, 
respectively. Could Chinese Taipei elaborat e on the reasons for these increases each 
year? 
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
The increases in spending on infrastructural services from 2008 to 2010 are mainly 
attributable to reconstruction works after the damage caused by Typhoon Morakot in August 2009. These expenditures, which included hydraulic drainage facilities, water and soil conservation and prevention, urgent repa irs to rural roads, debris flow control 
engineering in the disaster areas, and market facilities and infrastructure works associated 
with environmental programmes, were on capital work only, and did not include subsidies for on-farm facilities, and continued until 2011.  
Expenditures on soil and water conservation an d prevention outside the disaster areas were 
also higher during the period. Furthermore, substantial public infrastructure works were needed in association with the inauguration of the Taipei International Flora Exhibition in 
November 2010. 
AG-IMS ID 71007: Question by Australia - Market price support With regard to its domestic support commitmen ts notified in Supporting Table DS:5, can 
Chinese Taipei please advise how and when its planned purchase of rice is notified each 
year in support of its approach in calculatin g market price support on the basis of actual 
purchases rather than total value of production?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
According to paragraph 8 of Annex 3 in Agreement on Agriculture, the domestic support for 
rice is calculated using the gap between a fixed external reference price and the applied administered price multiplied by the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied 
administered price. 
Regarding the quantity of production eligible to receive the applied administered price, the 
planned purchases of rice are made only from farmers in certain areas, and the rice has to be of a certain specified quality. Those farmer s not qualified or whose quality of rice does 
not meet the set criteria are not eligible to join the programme. 
Follow-up: Given Chinese Taipei's response that rice was purchased from certain areas and of a 
particular quality, Australia questioned Chinese Ta ipei if this criteria was published somewhere.  
AG-IMS ID 71023: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that in each year a substantia l amount of the non-product specific support 
reported was attributed to payments under the "Agricultural Fertilizer Price Difference 
Subsidy" which makes its first appearance in 2008.  
a. Could Chinese Taipei provide more deta ils regarding the methodology used to 
determine the preferential  price for fertilizer for agricultural use?  
b. Is this preferential price for fertilizer for agricultural use determined on an 
annual basis? 
Answer by Chinese Taipei The preferential price of buying fertilizer for farmers is determined by the difference between 
the ex-factory price and the subsidy by th e government. The ex-factory price is in 
accordance with the international price of raw materials, and the ex-factory price in G/AG/W/115 
 
- 25 - 
 
  September 2004 is used as the baseline. Part of  the rise in the ex-factory price from the 
baseline is subsidised by the government. 
2.3.9  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/8) AG-IMS ID 71008: Question by Australia - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
Can Zambia please confirm that its governme nt food security stockholdings for purposes 
are made at market prices?  
Answer by Zambia 
Zambia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/52) AG-IMS ID 71010: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
In relation to the "development and climat e change project", Australia seeks further 
advice about the basis of Uruguay's classifi cation of this programme, particularly in 
relation to financial assistance to encourag e investment in production systems. What 
are the specific conditions that are re quired to be met under the government 
programme and what measures are in place to  ensure that payment is limited to the 
extra costs in complying with  the government programme?  
Answer by Uruguay The development and climate change adaptation project is a domestic support measure that 
will not have, or will have at most minimal, tr ade-distorting effects or effects on production. 
It is a publicly funded government progra mme financed by a World Bank loan to the 
Uruguayan Government. It will not have the effect of providing price support to producers. The project was classified as a "payment under environmental programmes" since it meets 
the following criteria laid down in Anne x 2 to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture: 
"(a) Eligibility for such payments shall be determined as part of a clearly -defined 
government environmental or conservation pr ogramme and be dependent on the fulfilment 
of specific conditions under the government programme, including conditions related to production methods or inputs. (b) The amo unt of payment shall be limited to the extra 
costs or loss of income involved in complying with the government programme".  
The development objective of the project (ODP) is to support Uruguay's efforts aimed at 
encouraging producers to adopt improved en vironmentally sustainable and climate-smart 
agricultural practices. This objective will be achieved by developing and implementing 
instruments that provide producers with critical and timely information for the adoption of 
improved on-farm natural resource management. Producers will also receive technical and financial assistance to encourage investment in their production systems, so as to reduce 
risks and make them more resilient to extr eme climatic events. In a strategy aimed 
at producing triple wins for the country, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries' (MGAP) leadership is promoting an innovati ve approach to the management of natural 
resources and reduction of the impact of clim ate variability in agriculture while improving 
agricultural competitiveness. Without such an integrated approach, climate change and the 
anthropogenic consequences for the country's natural resources could result in accelerated degradation. In this context, the MGAP has requested World Bank assistance to prepare and 
implement the proposed project in order to co ntribute to its climate change adaptation 
and mitigation priorities. The project intends to make agriculture in Uruguay more productive and more sustainable as a key to taking the first steps along the "green growth" 
path. The proposed components will support po licies and actions geared towards making the 
environment a potential source of growth on the basis of efficiency, innovation and resilience 
to climate variability and change. In additi on, the proposed project will support the G/AG/W/115 
 
- 26 - 
 
  deployment of a climate-smart agriculture approach, which is a core component of such 
growth, by promoting agricultural systems that can enhance productivity, increase sustainable development and resilience, and suppo rt low-carbon growth. This represents one 
element of an integrated results-oriented appr oach that the Bank has developed through its 
partnership with the MGAP, as described below.  
Component 1 will establish a system to integr ate, synthesize, and generate critical and 
timely information in relation to natural resource management, short- and medium-term 
climate forecasts, and potential long-term changes and impacts. This 
includes: (a) facilitating the integration of dispersed agricultural production, natural resource management and new climate-related information in an online state-of-the-art platform tailored to the needs of different users includin g producers, advisory service providers, rural 
insurance and agricultural research and policy institutions; (b) improving the methodologies 
and spatial resolution of seasonal climate forecasts and establishing climate early warning systems; (c) improving real time monitoring of climate, vegetation and other variables 
relevant to agriculture; (d) simulating and evaluating the expected impacts of introducing 
different adaptation technologies and policies;  (e) organizing training programmes for staff 
of the General Directorate for Renewable Natural Resources (RENARE), the National Institute 
of Agricultural Research (INIA) and the National Meteorological Directorate (DNM), 
producers and advisory service providers on the use of the agriculture information and 
decision-making support system; and (f) pr oviding feedback and recommendations to 
improve the targeting of MGAP assistance to producers, in particular for the investments 
financed by subprojects. 
This Component seeks to achieve key outcomes such as: (a) a public integrated agriculture 
information and decision-making support system  accessible to users from the public and 
private sectors; (b) expanded overall informat ion on the sector to enable the MGAP to 
improve the targeting of its future programmes, including activities financed under Component 2 of the project; (c) identification of vulnerabilities and potential opportunities 
ensuing from climate variability for natural resource management and agricultural 
production systems; (d) wider use of insurance to cover climatic risks; and (e) more extensive exchange of Uruguayan experiences relating to climate change mitigation and 
adaptation measures with other countries (mainly through South-South exchanges).  
The MGAP Directorate-General of Rural Deve lopment (DGDR) will implement and provide 
finance for the implementation of Compon ent 2 projects including demand-driven 
subprojects consisting of investments and technical assistance to: (i) reduce farm 
vulnerability to extreme climatic events; (ii) improve farm productivity and sustainability; 
(iii) increase the availability of water resources for irrigation and livestock consumption; (iv) promote the adoption of an integrated approa ch to natural resource management practices 
in agriculture and livestock production systems,  including improved water use efficiency and 
generation of biodiversity benefits in natu ral pastures; and (v) promote the adoption of 
energy efficiency measures and the generation of cost-effective and clean biomass energy in 
the agricultural sector. Investment proposals will be submitted by individual producers or 
groups of producers and producers' organizations.  
The key outcomes of this Component are: (i) the adoption of integrated natural resource 
management practices and adaptation measures, with particular emphasis on increased 
on-farm availability of water and improved water resources management, so as to achieve 
greater long-term sustainability of producti on systems and improve their resilience to 
extreme climatic events; and (ii) the impl ementation of pilot investments aimed at 
mitigating emissions and increasing the use of biomass for energy generation.  
Component 3 will finance activities to strengthen the capacity of: (a) agricultural producers 
(regardless of farm size) and technical staff of advisory service providers to adopt integrated 
natural resource and water management practices; and (b) the MGAP, specifically RENARE, 
to implement its natural resource management programmes and climate change strategy in 
the agricultural sector, including: (i) the development of the MGAP's online services relating to land and water use, conservation and mana gement; (ii) the updating of RENARE's soil 
mapping and cartography; (iii) the provision of  technical assistance to improve Uruguay's 
legal and policy framework and strengthen RE NARE's operational capacity in managing 
water and grasslands resources; and (iv) the provision of technical assistance to MGAP staff 
in the dissemination of experiences, organization of conferences and participation in 
international events relating to climate change.  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Key outcomes of this Component are: (a) the development of modern cartographic 
information integrated with climate and agriculture information and decision-making support systems accessible to different users; (b) the updating of the country's soil use maps; (c) the improvement of RENARE's current Geographic Information System (GIS) – a critical 
element of the Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) – and its integration with the 
cartography and soil information to be developed; (d) the adoption of modern methods for the planning of land use at farm level; (e) th e development of an improved policy framework 
for water and grassland resource manage ment; and (f) a comprehensive training 
programme for producers and service providers on sustainable techniques for better soil and 
water management.  
Component 4 will provide the funds required for:  (a) supporting the operation of the Project 
Management Unit in efficiently coordinating and managing the project; (b) supporting the 
operation of a monitoring and evaluation system for the project; (c) coordinating and supervising the implementation of the training  activities described under Component 3; and 
(d) assisting with the design and implementation of a communication strategy to 
disseminate results and lessons learned within the country and the region. The proposed project management team will be structured around the resources of the existing Project 
Implementation Unit established under the on-going Bank-financed Integrated Natural 
Resources and Biodiversity Management Project (Loan 7305-UY, locally known as Proyecto Producción Responsable (PPR) and key MGAP staff. 
AG-IMS ID 71022: Question by Cana da - Classificati on of measures 
Canada thanks Uruguay for submitting a Ta ble DS:2 notification describing the new 
measure development and climate change adap tation project (Proyecto de Desarrollo y 
Adaptación al Cambio Climático, DACC).  
Paragraph 3(b) describes the objectives of me a s u r e s  t h a t  w i l l  b e  e m p l o y e d  t o  a s s i s t  
farmers to mitigate and/or adapt to the effe cts of climate change. One such objective is 
identified as increasing production.  
a. Firstly, could Uruguay clarify under which category of exempt support, 
e.g. Annex 2, Article 6.2 or Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture that the 
development and climate change adapta tion project is being notified?  
b. If the development and climate change adaptation project is being notified 
under Annex 2, then could Uruguay plea se elaborate on paragraph 3(b) which 
includes as one of the objectives as bein g to increase production in individual 
farm holdings as Annex 2 is clear that payments must not be linked to 
production? 
Answer by Uruguay See above. 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 
2.5.1  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/14) AG-IMS ID 71011: Question by Australia - Transparency issues Following on from Australia's question at  the 68th Committee on Agriculture meeting 
in November 2012 (paragraph 8 of G/AG/W/106 refers), and on-going concerns about 
the European Union's compliance with its su gar export subsidy obligations, Australia 
asks the European Union to please confirm its physical volume of out-of-quota sugar 
exports on a year ‑to‑year basis and then follow-up as soon as the data is available on 
physical exports for the whole marketing year . Can the European Union also confirm its 
actual and planned licences issued  for the 2012/13 marketing year?  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer by the European Union 
Export licences for out-of-quota sugar for the marketing year 2012/13 have been issued for 
the whole quantity of 1.35 million tonnes. Regard ing the physical exports, data will become 
available around 2-3 months after the end of the marketing year (30 September 2013). 
AG-IMS ID 71024: Question by Brazil - Transparency issues 
Brazil understands that the European Union is still notifying under Table ES:1 the total of 
subsidized exports on the basis of licenses issued and not on the basis of the actual 
exports in a given market year. This is an i ssue of concern to Brazil, already highlighted 
in previous Committee on Agriculture meetings  and in the General Council. Brazil firmly 
believes that the European Union's WTO oblig ations are not complied with by simply 
guaranteeing that the number of export licen ses issued with reference to a particular 
year is not above the European Union's sc heduled commitments. Brazil considers that 
the actual exports of a Member in any give n year should not be in excess of its WTO 
schedule commitments. Members should not lose  sight that it is the actual export of 
subsidized products that affect the internat ional markets. As a matter of fact, Brazil 
knows that for MY 2011-2012 the European Un ion's exports of out-of-quota sugar were 
above the European Union's reduction commitm ents. In light of the information above, 
Brazil would encourage the European Union to bring their current practice into 
conformity with its WTO obligations and as k whether actual exports of out-of-quota 
sugar may exceed again the European Union's export subsidies commitments in MY 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.  
Answer by the European Union 
The European Union complies with its scheduled commitments, including on 
export subsidies. The European Union has always respected its export subsidy commitments 
for sugar and will continue to do so in the future. 
Follow-up: Australia requested the European Union to explain how the European Union had 
complied with its commitments on export subsidies when it had exported nearly 1.4 million tonnes 
of out-of-quota sugar. The European Union resp onded by reiterating that export licences for 
out-of-quota sugar for the marketing year 2012/ 13 had been issued for the whole quantity of 
1.35 million tonnes and the European Union notified  subsidized exports based on licenses issued. 
Brazil invited the European Union to comment on its action of notifying the total subsidized exports 
in Table ES:1 on the basis of export licences but not on actual exports and the European Union 
confirmed that this accurately reflected their notification practice.  
2.5.2  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/52)  
AG-IMS ID 71013: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Australia acknowledges the consid erable reductions Israel has made to its use of export 
subsidies on vegetables and fruits, and also th e elimination of export subsidies on citrus 
fruits. Could Israel please explain its cu rrent policy regarding export subsidies and 
possible domestic consideration or discussion  about eliminating the use of all forms of 
export subsidies? Israel notified the use of  export subsidies in 2011/12 but in its latest 
trade policy review (8 May 2013) it was stated  that Israel does not use export subsidies 
for agricultural products. 
Answer by Israel The total export subsidies allocated to fruit and vegetable producers during the past three 
export seasons was much lower than the commitment outlay and quantities. The support 
varies according to specific export policy co nsiderations and the budget available in the 
notified periods.  G/AG/W/115 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Israel will consider its future policy depend ing on the export subsidy commitments and the 
contribution of other Members to the process. However, this policy tool was always used very carefully by Israel, and only to provid e limited relief to the domestic producers in 
specific situations.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Viet Nam's delayed notifications AG-IMS ID 71035: Question by the United States of America 
Vietnam has not submitted domestic suppo rt notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture since acceding to the WTO in 200 7. Could Vietnam please indicate when it 
intends to submit these overdue notifications to the WTO?  
Answer by Viet Nam 
As a very recently acceded Member, Viet Nam fully shares the Membership's determination 
to strengthen transparency. Looking at the Secretariat Document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.15, Viet Nam highly appreciates Members who fully complied with their notification obligations. 
However, Viet Nam also recognizes that a significant number have not implemented their 
obligation for many years.  
With regard to Viet Nam's notification obligation, as may be known, it has been delayed due 
to unexpected complexity of the gathering of information, especially at the provincial level, 
as well as heavy workloads of capital officials who are in charge of notifications. With great support from the Secretariat, the delegation of Viet Nam would like to report to the Committee that it shall complete and notify domestic support for 2007 and 2008 in coming 
days.  
Follow-up: The United States of America felt encouraged to hear Viet Nam's announcement of the 
forthcoming notification and the cooperation with the Secretariat in preparing the notification. 
Supported by Switzerland, the United States of America took the opportunity to compliment the 
work of the Secretariat in adding the charts that gave an overview of outstanding notifications in the compliance document (G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.15). The United States of America found those 
charts to be very useful and somewhat alarming, especially in relation to the high proportion of 
overdue notifications in certain categories. Switzerland found it interesting to see a large number of overdue notifications and observed that for qu ite a high number of years notifications were 
missing. Switzerland and the United States of America further encouraged all Members who had 
outstanding notifications to increase their efforts to transparency. Finally the United States of 
America announced its upcoming Table DS:1 notification.   
_______________ G/AG/W/115 
 
- 30 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
G/AG/N/CHL/40 
(AG-IMS ID 71020) 
GENERAL SERVICES: RESEARCH 
Content of 2011 expansion 
High‑impact transfer and extension to enhance the competitiveness of the sector 
Technological Transfer and Extension Centre (CTE) 
Areas of activity: 
Production systems (PS) 
Transfer of technology and know ‑how 
Specialization 
Operating units: 
Specialized work units focusing on priority territories and issues 
Decentralized Interact with environment; dynamic. 
Strategy for transferring results 
Training 
Technology ‑transfer activities 
Field days 
Demonstration plots Advisory services 
Institutionalize private advisory services provided by INIA researchers and officials 
Small producers - SAT INDAP 
Medium ‑sized and large producers 
Businesses (subsidiary firms, limited companies, intellectual property) 
Promote profitable activities Study of activities with problems, investment needs 
 
__________