RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/109  
 
23 May 2013  
(13-2727)  Page: 1/53  
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 MARCH 20131 
 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions raised in document G/AG/W/108 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Outstanding responses will be circulated in addenda to this document as soon as they are provided by Members. A comprehensive version of the present compilation will be issued thereafter. 
 
_______________ 
 
                                               
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/109 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
Table of Contents 
 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 ................ 4  
1.1   Brazil's domestic support prog rammes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 69027) ....................................... 4  
1.2   Brazil's trade and industry policy .................................................................................. 4  
1.2.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  69026)  .................................................................... 4  
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 6  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 69001 ) ............................................................. 6  
1.4   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 7  
1.4.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  69028)  .................................................................... 7  
1.4.2   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 69029) ....................................... 8  
1.5   Saint-Lucia – Domestic purchase requirements for poultry and pork .................................. 8  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 69030) ....................................... 8  
1.6   Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings ..................................... 9  
1.6.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 69002 ) ............................................................. 9  
1.7   Switzerland's Complian ce with Articl e 9.1(c) .................................................................. 9  
1.7.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 69003 ) ............................................................. 9  
1.8   Thailand's paddy  pledging scheme ............................................................................. 10  
1.8.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  69031)  .................................................................. 10  
1.8.2   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 69032) ..................................... 10  
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ................................ 11  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OT HER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) .............. 11  
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) ..................................................................................... 11  
2.1.2   The United States of  America (G/AG/ N/USA/92) ........................................................ 12  
2.1.3   Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/26) .................................................... 12  
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) .................... 13  
2.2.1   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/29) ......................................................................................... 13  
2.2.2   China (G/AG/N/CHN/22, G/AG/N/CHN/25) ................................................................ 13  
2.2.3   Ecuador (G /AG/N/ECU/ 30) ..................................................................................... 14  
2.2.4   Iceland (G /AG/N/ISL/31) ....................................................................................... 14  
2.2.5   Israel (G /AG/N/ISR/ 49) ......................................................................................... 15  
2.2.6   Japan (G /AG/N/JPN/ 184) ....................................................................................... 15  
2.2.7   Norway (G /AG/N/NOR/ 67) ..................................................................................... 15  
2.2.8   Poland (G /AG/N/POL/68) ....................................................................................... 16  
2.2.9   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/79) ................................................................................ 16  
2.2.10   Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TP KM/102)  ....................................................................... 17  
2.2.11   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/74) ................................................................................... 17  
2.2.12   Ukraine (G /AG/N/UKR/ 15) .................................................................................... 18  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3   SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (T ABLES MA:3 to  MA:5) ........................................................... 19  
2.3.1   Japan (G /AG/N/JPN/ 182) ....................................................................................... 19  
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/100) ......................................................................... 19  
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TAB LE DS:1) ...................................................... 20  
2.4.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/31) ................................................................................... 20  
2.4.2   Armenia (G /AG/N/ARM/ 20) .................................................................................... 26  
2.4.3   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ......................................................................................... 26  
2.4.4   European Union (G/AG/N/ EU/10, G/AG/N/E U/10/CORR.1) .......................................... 27  
2.4.5   Georgia (G /AG/N/GEO/ 10) ..................................................................................... 29  
2.4.6   Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48/REV.1) ................................................................................ 31  
2.4.7   Republic of Mo ldova (G/AG/N/ MOL/4) ...................................................................... 32  
2.4.8   Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NI C/32) ................................................................................... 32  
2.4.9   Norway (G /AG/N/NOR/ 69) ..................................................................................... 34  
2.4.10   Panama (G/A G/N/PAN/26/RE V.1) .......................................................................... 36  
2.4.11   Senegal (G /AG/N/SEN/ 1) ..................................................................................... 38  
2.4.12   South Africa  (G/AG/N/ZA F/77) .............................................................................. 38  
2.4.13   Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/13, G/AG/N/UKR/13/CORR.1) ................................................ 40  
2.4.14   The United States of  America (G/AG/ N/USA/89) ...................................................... 41  
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) .......................................... 41  
2.5.1   Armenia (G /AG/N/ARM/ 22) .................................................................................... 41  
2.5.2   Ecuador (G /AG/N/ECU/ 33) ..................................................................................... 41  
2.5.3   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/8) .............................................................................. 42  
2.5.4   European Unio n (G/AG/N/EU /11) ............................................................................ 43  
2.5.5   The United States of  America (G/AG/ N/USA/91) ........................................................ 45  
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) .................................. 46  
2.6.1   Switzerland (G/AG/N/ CHE/59, G/AG/N /CHE/62) ........................................................ 46  
ANNEX I ....................................................................................................................... . 49 
ANNEX II ...................................................................................................................... . 53 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes  1.1.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 69027) 
The United States of America thanks Br azil for its responses and would like to 
follow-up on Brazil's response to Question 1a. Section 9 of CONAB's regulations states 
that documentation is needed to demonstr ate that the acquired product reaches an 
allowed destination, whether it is in another state of Brazil or for export. If the purpose 
of PEP is to move products from areas of over-supply (production regions) to areas of 
under-supply, it would be important for the programme's function to require documentation and verification of both the product origin and destination.  
a. Please provide the list of auction destinations.  
b.  Please provide the quantities by dest ination and by commodity for the last 
5 years of the programme.  
Answer by Brazil 
The data requested is contained in a separate tabl e that will be sent to the U.S. The data is 
provisional, since it still needs to be confirmed with CONAB. 
1.2  Brazil's trade and industry policy  
1.2.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 69026) At the November 2012 meeting, Brazil prov ided a response to Canada's question 
regarding its trade and industry policy for 2011-2014, called the Plano Brasil Maior 
("Greater Brazil Plan"), which was created by Act. No. 12,546 of 14 December 2011 
("Lei No 12.546 do 14 de dezembro de 2011"). 
Further to that response, Canada understan ds that among the Plan's actions is a 
temporary payroll tax exemption for specif ic sectors, including some agricultural 
sectors. A 20% mandatory employer's socia l security contribution on payrolls 
(contribution to the Instituto Nacional do Se guro Social or "INSS") is substituted for a 
flat rate ranging between 1% and 2% on gross earnings, excluding gross revenue from 
exports.  
The payroll tax relief was extended to four ag ricultural sectors as a result of Act No. 
12,715 of September 17, 2012 ("Lei No 12.715  do 17 de setembro de 2012"). These 
sectors are the same as those benefiting fr om the provisions of REINTEGRA, which was 
also created under the Greater Brazil Plan in  2011. Products covered include exports of 
pork and pork products, poul try, preparations of meat and fish, and preparation of 
cereals, flour, starch or milk. 
Canada also observes that under REINTEGR A, which was recently extended for 2013, 
Brazilian export companies can receive a ref und of up to 3% of their gross receipts 
derived from exports, or use th is refund as a tax credit.  
a. Could Brazil provide more detailed info rmation as to the Greater Brazil Plan 
and REINTEGRA's coverage of some ag ricultural sectors and how these 
programmes should benefit them? 
b. Could Brazil say if the Greater Brazil Plan and REINTEGRA are intended to 
benefit agricultural produc ers by encouraging exports of processed products? 
c. Could Brazil clarify if the Greater Brazil Plan offers a payroll tax exemption, 
which exempts revenues from exports, or a refund on gross receipts from 
exports under REINTEGRA?  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 5 - 
 
  d. Could Brazil confirm that these tax breaks do not constitute an incentive to 
export agricultural products (pork and pork products, poultry, prepared fish 
and preparations of cereals, flour, star ch and milk), in the form of a benefit 
from the state? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. Canada mentions two distinct measures, each one with its specific product coverage 
and functioning.  
Law 12.715 provides for a new methodology for calculating the mandatory employer's 
social security contribution.  
Reintegra is an indirect tax refund. Through REINTEGRA, indirect ta xes are refunded for 
exported goods at an amount never exceeding the amount levied in respect of like 
products sold for domestic consumption. Since it complies with footnote 1 of the SCM 
Agreement, there is no subsidy involved. 
The new methodology for calculating the mandatory employer's social security 
contribution under Law 12.715 as described by Canada covers the following HS codes 
of Agricultural goods (in some products, the MERCOSUR NCM 8-digit codes are informed):  
Chapter 02 02.03; 02.06; 02.09; 0210.1 
Chapter 05 05.04; 05.05; 05.07; 05.10; 05.11 
Chapter 16 All 
Chapter 19 All 
Chapter 52 5203.00.00 
The application of the methodology does not result in the concession of benefits to these agricultural sectors in the meaning of the SCM Agreement; hence there is no subsidy involved. 
The indirect tax refund under Law 12.546 (REINTEGRA), on the other hand, covers the 
following Agricultural HS codes (in some products, the MERCOSUR NCM 8-digit codes are informed):  
Chapter 04 Except: 0401.10; 0401.20; 0401.30.10; 04.07; 04.08; 04.09; 0410.00.00 
Chapter 08 0801.32.00 
Chapter 09 0901.21; 0901.22 
Chapter 11 Except: 11.03; 1104.22; 1104.23; 1104.29 
Chapter 12 12.08; 1214.10.00 
Chapter 15 1504.10.19; 15.05; 1507.90; 1508.90; 1509.90; 1511.90.00; 1512.19; 
1512.29.10; 1512.29.90; 1513.19.00; 1513.29; 1514.19; 1514.99; 1515.19.00; 1515.29; 1515.90.22; 15.16; 15.17; 15.18; 15.20; 1521.10.00 
Chapter 16 All 
Chapter 17 Except: 17.01; 1702.20; 17.03 
Chapter 18 18.06 
Chapter 19 All 
Chapter 20 All 
Chapter 21 All 
Chapter 22 Except: 22.01;22.07 
Chapter 23 23.01; 23.09 
Chapter 29 2905.43; 2905.44 
Chapter 33 33.01 (except 3301.90.40) 
Chapter 35 35.01; 35.02; 35.03; 35.04; 35.05 
Chapter 38 3809.10; 3823.60 
Chapter 50 50.01 (except 5001.00.00); 50.02 (except 5002.00.00); 50.03 (except 
5003.00.10 and 5003.00.90) 
Chapter 52 52.03 
 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. For the reasons stated in the previous answer, neither Law 12.546 nor Law 12.715 has 
established any measure which could be understood as an export subsidy. 
c. The Greater Brazil Plan introduced a new methodology for calculating the mandatory 
employer's social security contribution under Law 12.715. That methodology applies 
independently of the export performance of indu stries or individual companies, either in 
law or in fact. 
d. For the reasons mentioned above, neither Law 12.546 nor Law 12.715 has established 
any measure which could be understood as an export subsidy. 
Follow-up: The European Union and the United States of America flagged their interest in this 
question. In particular, the United States of America sought assurance as to whether this policy 
essentially promoted specific agricultural exports.  
1.3  Canada's dairy policies 
1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 69001) New Zealand would request Canada to prov ide a detailed explanation of a recent 
decision by the Canadian Milk Supply Ma nagement Committee (CMSMC) chaired by the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) to implem ent a milk class for shredded or diced 
mozzarella. New Zealand is concerned that this new measure may be intended to 
displace or discourage imports.  
As with other special milk classes in Ca nada, the measure is implemented under a 
national scheme by the Canadian Gove rnment in partnership with commercial 
operators. It sets a new price for particular  domestically produced milk products based 
on end use rather than on the market, and it appears to be targeted at excluding a 
specific type of import. 
In the past Canada has argued that such measures are commercial in nature. However, 
the Special Milk Product Permit Program which allows Canada to set specific prices for 
domestic products is administered by the CDC – an agent of Government – and enabled 
by federal and provincial legislation. It would appear from the CDC website that the 
CDC calculates the pooling returns, which re distribute market rents for dairy products 
enabling the provision of special milk classe s at competitive prices. The CDC also chairs 
the committee that makes the decision to enact new milk classes. New Zealand is 
concerned about the role of a crown corporat ion and agent of the crown in the decision 
making and implementation of these measur es, including the deve lopment of incentive 
and audit procedures. 
New Zealand would be grateful for more  information on this new measure for 
mozzarella, as well as on the ice-cream promot ion initiative which has been the subject 
of earlier questions from New Zealand. In particular New Zealand would be interested 
in understanding: 
a. What the respective roles of CDC and CMSMC in this initiative are;  
b. How the price for the proposed milk class will be determined;  
c. How pooling returns will be managed;  
d. Any analysis Canada has undertaken on the market impact of this proposed 
measure;  
e. Any analysis which Canada has done on the WTO compatibility of the new 
measure;  
f. Any analysis undertaken on the market impact of other measures taken in 
Canada, including the ice-cream promotion initiative and the use of compositional cheese standards.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 7 - 
 
  New Zealand remains concerned about the impl ementation of a suite of measures by 
Canada. This includes compositional standard s aimed at excluding imported inputs for 
cheese, and the creation of new special pric e categories for domestic milk products 
which appear to be aimed at excluding impo rts of specific dairy ingredients. Given 
Canada's well known commitment to free and op en trade, across a number of sectors, 
New Zealand is concerned about the diversific ation of these trade restrictive measures 
in dairy and will continue to seek info rmation on them in this Committee and 
elsewhere.  
Answer by Canada 
In January 2013, the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) moved to 
implement a new milk class for mozzarella cheese for fresh pizzas to meet an evolving 
market demand.  
Although the definition and parameters of this new milk class have yet to be established by 
the CMSMC, the new milk class is planned to be operational in the near future. The CMSMC 
is a permanent body created by  the provincial signatories to the National Milk Marketing 
Plan (NMMP) and is responsible for policy dete rmination and supervision of the provisions 
of the NMMP. The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) acts as the national facilitator and 
mediator in helping build consensus between all parties.  
Canada will ensure that the parameters of this new milk class will be consistent with its 
WTO obligations. 
Regarding compositional standards for cheese, when Canada harmonized its Food and Drug 
Regulations (FDR) and Dairy Products Regulations (DPR) in 2007, it took international 
standards and other countries' regulations into account, as well as the comments received during the World Trade Organization notification  period. To date, no imported cheeses have 
been deemed to contravene the standards.  
As noted in answers provided by Canada at previous meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private contractual agreement between 
the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental organization, and individual ice cream 
processors. The CDC has no part in determining the terms and conditions of the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative and its sole role is to perform monthly pooling calculations.  
Follow-up: New Zealand welcomed the assurance that the milk class would be consistent with 
WTO obligations and expressed interest in further information regarding the implementation of 
the milk class when it became available. New Zealand reiterated its concern regarding the activities of a Crown Corporation which was, in New Zealand's opinion, an agent of government., 
in implementing New Zealand remained concerned about a suite of measures that seemed to be 
designed to exclude imported dairy ingredients. These measures included possible compositional standards that would exclude imported ingredients from manufactured domestic cheese, the 
implementation of special milk classes at subs idized prices designed to undercut imported 
products, and the involvement of the CDC with a programme that provides subsidies to manufacturers who use only domestic ingredients in ice cream. New Zealand believed that the 
activities of the CDC with respect to such measures remained of interest to the Committee. The 
United States of America looked forward to further clarity regarding the specific roles of the CDC 
and other similar agents. The European Union indicated particular interest in the new measure for mozzarella. The EU reminded the Committee of its previously registered concern over the special 
milk class measures in Canada  
1.4  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.4.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 69028) 
Canada continues to appreciate the updates that Costa Rica has provided to Canada 
and this Committee regarding its domestic pr ocess intended to bring its Current Total 
AMS in line with its domestic support commitment.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. Could Costa Rica please provide an upda te on the legal review process that 
the Costa Rican government is undertaking prior to determining how to set rice prices?  
b. As of the previous meeting of this Commi ttee, Costa Rica was not in a position 
to specify when it will be able to comply with its domestic support 
commitments. Could Costa Rica now provide more information on when it expects to bring its domestic support  programme into compliance with its 
WTO obligations?  
Answer by Costa Rica 
The Government of Costa Rica is continuing its legal analysis of the ruling (No. 137 ‑2012‑VI 
of the Administrative Court, issued at 3:35 p.m. on 6 July 2012) to determine how it will 
proceed with respect to setting rice prices. Costa Rica would recall that the ruling ordered the State to compensate producers and required it to revise the regulations governing the 
marketing of rice at the domestic level which, in the case of price setting, have been in 
force for over 20 years. 
The relevant studies are being conducted under  the regulatory framework of the Law on 
the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection - in particular Article 5 
thereof, which provides the State with the possi bility of regulating prices should market 
conditions not allow competition - to lay the appropriate foundations for the measures to be adopted. 
At the same time, measures are being taken to organize the domestic marketing of rice 
with a view to regulating production ‑related variables, which should prepare the ground for 
a possible elimination of the price support mechanism for rice. 
Given the political and social importance of what is to be decided, the Government 
of Costa Rica is not in a position to specify to this Committee the exact or approximate date of completion of this analysis, which is directly related to the adjustment of Costa 
Rica's AMS level. 
1.4.2  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 69029) 
Costa Rica has exceeded its domestic support  limits for 5 years and during this period, 
Costa Rica's trade-distorting rice policy has exceeded its ceiling by almost US$312 
million. Please provide a status of step s Costa Rica has undertaken to meet its 
Aggregate Measurement of Support commitmen ts, including any steps related to the 
domestic judicial ruling Costa Rica has disc ussed. Has Costa Rica completed its legal 
analysis? If so, what are the conclusions?  
Answer by Costa Rica - See above 
Follow-up : Australia, Canada, and the United States of America conveyed systemic concerns on 
Costa Rica's persistent breach of its AMS commitments and expected more details about the legal 
review process of the policy. Supported by the European Union and Pakistan, Australia proposed 
that the Committee reflect on additional ways to assist Costa Rica in resolving this issue. Pakistan 
also registered concern and sought a comparison of Costa Rica's rice prices with international 
prices. Costa Rica responded that it would endeavour to provide this information. Regarding 
Australia's request, Costa Rica indicated that its capital was working on the next Domestic 
Support notification.  
1.5  Saint-Lucia – Domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 69030) 
The United States of America understands , as indicated by our industry, that 
Saint-Lucia's domestic purchase requirements  for poultry increased on 29 October from G/AG/W/109 
 
- 9 - 
 
  25% to 33%. We also understand that there is a domestic purchase requirement of 
almost 67% for pork.  
a. Please identify where these requirements are documented and published. 
What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Sa int-Lucia's laws and regulations) for 
these domestic purchase requirements? What is the legal basis (i.e., citing 
Saint-Lucia's laws and regulations) for the increased domestic purchase 
requirement for poultry that was notified by letter to poultry importers on 
29 October 2012? Where was the notification published?  
b. Please direct us to Saint-Lucia's WTO notifications related to poultry or pork 
market arrangements, domestic purchase requirements and/or import licensing requirements?  
1.6  Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings 
1.6.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 69002) New Zealand understands that Sri Lanka has in creased its tariffs for milk powder to Rs 
125 per kilogram. Sri Lanka's tariff for milk powder is bound at 20% ad valorem. It is 
possible that under certain market prices an d exchange rates, the tariff could be in 
excess of the ad valorem binding. In light of  current market prices and exchange rates, 
New Zealand would appreciate Sri Lanka's as surance that their milk powder tariff is 
consistent with Sri Lanka's WTO commitments. If it is not consistent, what steps will 
Sri Lanka take to ensure that its tariff bind ing is brought in line with its commitment at 
the earliest possible opportunity? 
Follow-up : New Zealand looked forward to continuing productive bilateral discussions with Sri 
Lanka.  
1.7  Switzerland's Compliance with Article 9.1(c) 
1.7.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 69003) New Zealand would again like to expre ss its concern regarding Switzerland's 
compulsory levy on milk production to  support the export of milk fat.  
On 31 August 2011 the Swiss government a nnounced it had taken a decision to 
implement a compulsory levy of CHF0.01/kg of  marketed milk to support the export of 
milk fat until 30 April 2013. This levy was to be collected by IP Lait (a private 
organisation) from all Swiss milk producer s, including those who are not members of 
IP Lait, from 1 October 2011. The press rele ase announcing this decision stated that 
revenues of around CHF34 millio n are expected every year, to support "relief on the 
butter market".  
Switzerland has previously responded to New Zealand's concerns by saying that, as IP 
Lait is a private organization, this levy ca nnot be considered an export subsidy under 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture explicitly includes under the definition of 
an export subsidy: "payments on the export of  an agricultural product that are financed 
by virtue of governmental ac tion, whether or not a charge on the public account is 
involved, including payments that are financ ed from the proceeds of a levy imposed on 
the agricultural product concerned or on an agricultural product from which the export 
product is derived". This definition clearly covers the compulsory milk levy introduced 
by the Swiss government in 2011. Therefore New Zealand again seeks Switzerland's 
confirmation that this levy will not be renewed when it expires on 30 April 2013.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Answer by Switzerland 
As IP Lait has not requested an extension of the application to non ‑members of the 
measure concerning the contribution of one ce ntime per kg of marketed milk, the Federal 
Council has not taken any further decision on the matter. Consequently, this measure 
continues to apply to non ‑members of IP Lait until 30 April 2013 only, in accordance with 
the decision of 31 August 2011. 
Follow-up : The European Union and New Zealand maintained the view that the measure fell 
under Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. Considering that Switzerland has no 
scheduled concessions on butter, New Zealand urged the Swiss authority to bring the measure in 
line with WTO disciplines. The European Union welcomed the confirmation that the measure wold 
expire by the end of April and indicated its inte ntion to continue monitoring the measure and to 
follow up at a later stage.  
1.8  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.8.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 69031) Canada would like to thank Thailand for it s transparency regarding its answers to 
questions posed in the November Committee on  Agriculture Meeting. Canada has come 
across some information regarding a new ma rketing year 2012/201 3 Off-Season Paddy 
Pledging Program. This new programme, thou gh not yet finalized, is said to cost 
approximately USD$6 billion for a pledging target of about 11 million tonnes of paddy 
rice. 
Could Thailand please provide additional details on this proposed programme? How will 
Thailand manage its domestic support co mmitments while providing what Canada 
assumes to be significant amounts of do mestic support to producers of rice?  
1.8.2  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 69032) 
At the November 2012 meeting, Thailand stated that its Table DS:1 and DS:2 
notifications to the WTO will be made at the soonest opportunity (Paragraph 16 of 
G/AG/W/106 refers).  
a. The United States of America resubmit s it question: When does Thailand 
expect to provide updated Table DS:1 an d DS:2 notifications to the WTO that 
include information regarding the paddy pledging scheme?  
b. Thailand previously stated that Official  information on rice pledging scheme 
could be found on the website of the Depa rtment of Internal Trade, Ministry of 
Commerce . The United States of Am erica notes, however, that the 
Department of Internal Trade has, si nce October 8, 2012, discontinued the 
online publication of rice exports. The Government of Thailand also 
discontinued publishing the rice pledgi ng programme progress report online. 
Please provide a sense of when th is function will be restored.  
The United States of America notes that the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural 
Cooperatives (BAAC) reported revenue of 72 billion baht duri ng 2012 from the Ministry 
of Commerce from the sales of government-own ed rice stocks. This revenue appears to 
indicate much larger sales than previously reported.  
a. Is this a result of significant increase  in sales between September and the end 
of the year? If this is a result of  other reasons, please describe.  
b. Please confirm whether the Government of Thailand places any requirements 
or preferences on stocks that are rele ased to either be exported or used 
domestically. If so, when and how does the Government of Thailand determine 
if sales are for export or the domestic  market? What are the legislation or 
laws that oversee/implement gove rnment practices in this area? G/AG/W/109 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Regarding Thailand's response about its ri ce intervention price (paragraph 18 of 
G/AG/W/106 refers):  
a. Please provide more details on how th e intervention price is determined, 
including information such as what an "appropriate profit reflecting farmer 
living cost" is.  
b. In 2012, what were the total expenditur es with regards to these benefits to 
millers?  
The United States of America appreciates Thailand's detailed response regarding the 
areas that are cultivated and harvested (G/A G/W/106, par. 20). The United States of 
America understands that high prices have  encouraged farmers, particularly in 
irrigated areas, to shorten their growing se ason for each crop, so that multiple rice 
crops (using lower quality varieties) can be harvested.  
a. Please discuss further the trend in the number of crops per year farmers are 
harvesting and the types/qualit y of rice being planted.  
b. Please indicate the quantities of rice procured by variety for crop years 2011 
and 2012.  
Follow-up : Australia, Canada, the European Union and the United States of America urged 
Thailand to provide a response as soon as possibl e. Australia emphasized the importance of rice 
and rice policy for Members in both the Regular and Special Committees. In this regard, Australia 
was eager to receive additional information regarding recent developments in Thailand's rice 
policy which had appeared in the press. The Eu ropean Union remained concerned by the Thai 
policy and would continue to monitor developments and the possible effects of this policy on the 
market. Thailand was urged to submit an updated notification. 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) 
AG-IMS ID 69033: Question by European Union - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities 
According to notification G/AG/N/THA/70 of 10 February 2010, the period of validity 
for import certificates under tariff quotas is 30 days. Thailand's recent notification 
G/AG/N/THA/73 of 6 November 2012 indicates that the import certificate period for 
rice has decreased from 30 days to 14 days wh ile the import certificate period for other 
products remains 30 days. Could Thailand explain the rationale for this specific 
modification of the import certificate period  for rice imports under tariff rate quota? 
 
AG-IMS ID 69034: Question by the United Stat es of America - Allocation of licences to 
importing entities 
The United States of America welcomes Tha iland's timely notification of tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) administration and imports within the TRQs. The Public Warehouse 
Organization (PWO) is designated as the ad ministrating agency for 3 TRQs, according 
to G/AG/N/THA/73. While some trade has been  notified in most of Thailand's TRQs 
(G/AG/N/THA/74), no trade is registered in the 3 TRQs – maize for feed, palm oil, and 
garlic – of the PWO. Thailand's feed mills use very large amounts of maize to supply its 
animal industries, which include its export -oriented chicken meat industry. Thailand 
borders Malaysia, which has a large exportable  surplus of palm oil. Garlic is widely 
consumed in Thailand. These facts provide some basis to expect trade to occur, at least 
in some years. The questions below pertain to  the administration of the TRQs by the 
PWO and the absence of in-quota imports.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. What is the relationship of th e PWO to the Thai Government?  
b. Prior to 2013, did the PWO import products under the TRQs?  
c. Does the PWO compare internal Thai prices to prices for maize for feed, palm 
oil, and garlic available through fore ign trade? If so, please provide the 
internal prices for 2009 and 2010. If not,  please explain what is the PWO's 
role in tariff quota administration?  
2.1.2  The United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/92) 
AG-IMS ID 69035: Question by European  Union - Country-specific allocation 
Can the United States of America explain how (on which basis) the TRQ for refined 
sugar (20,324 tonnes) has been allocated between Canada (12,050 tonnes) and the other suppliers (8,294 tonnes)? 
Answer by the United States of America 
The base allocation of the non-specialty refined sugar TRQ (20,344 MTRV) is as follows: 
10,300 MTRV for Canada; 2,954 MTRV for Mexico; and 7,090 MTRV for all countries (or 
"global").For FY 2013, Mexico relinquished its share, which was re-allocated on a pro rata 
basis to the base allocation fo r Canada and the global TRQ. 
2.1.3  Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela (G/AG/N/VEN/26) 
AG-IMS ID 69005: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
a. Could the Bolivarian Republic of Vene zuela explain why it did not include 
information on tariff quota administration for 2007? 
b. Could the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela outline how its tariff quota 
allocation system and mixture of auto matic and non-automatic import licenses 
guarantees the importation of the produc t and its distribution on the domestic 
market?  
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
a. The information for 2007 was not included because it was not necessary under the 
provisions on tariff quotas in document G/AG/2 (Notification Requirements and 
Formats). 
 This document only requires a comprehensive one-off notification on quota administration methods followed by ad hoc notification of any changes in their 
administration. In this case, it happened that no changes had taken place in the 
administration method applied by Venezuela in 2007.  
b. In keeping with the Agreement on Import Li censing Procedures, import licensing is not 
used as a trade-restrictive instrument in  Venezuela. Consequently, the evaluation 
mechanisms applied when allocating an import licence take account of criteria such as 
participation, balance, transparency and fairness. 
Import licences are distributed among th e competing firms that guarantee the 
importation of the product and its distributi on on the domestic market; a share of the 
quota is also ensured for first-time importers. The utilization of licences issued to 
applicants in the past is also taken into consideration, in keeping with Article 3.5(j) of 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
AG-IMS ID 69036: Question by European Union - Allocation of licences to importing 
entities 
Venezuela's commitments include more than 60 tariff quotas. Over the period it is 
noted that the allocated import licences ha ve been valid for longer periods. For G/AG/W/109 
 
- 13 - 
 
  example, in 2003 they were valid 90 days while in 2005 they were valid 4 months and 
in 2008 they were valid 6 months and up to one year. Could Venezuela explain the rationale for such change in the pe riod of validity over the years? 
Answer by Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
Article 3.5(g) of the Agreement on Import Lice nsing Procedures states that "the period of 
licence validity shall be of reasonable duration and not so short as to preclude imports …".  
In 2008, the competent Venezuelan authorities ag reed to harmonize the period of validity 
of import permits. This harmonization covered import licences. 
A period of six months to one year was adopted in order to provide sufficient time to 
implement the licences. 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/29) 
AG-IMS ID 69037: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
Brazil notes that, with respect to its whea t tariff-rate quota commitment that has not 
been implemented, negotiations began in 1 996 to change those commitments and that 
those negotiations have not yet concluded.  Please explain when Brazil intends to 
implement its longstanding TRQ commitmen t on wheat, including whether Brazil 
intends to meet its TRQ commitment during th e already lengthy period of negotiations 
to change those commitments? 
Answer by Brazil 
Brazil considers that the current situation regarding wheat imports (a 10% MFN tariff 
applies, without the TRQ) is more favourable than the situation which would occur if the 
scheduled TRQ for the product was to be implemented. Notwithstanding this fact, the issue is presently under internal consultations in Brazil, with a view to finding a satisfactory 
solution to both sides. It is noteworthy to mention that a zero-rate quota for 
1.000.000 metric tonnes of wheat will be effective as of 1 April 2013. 
Follow-up:  The United States of America informed the Committee of the bilateral work with Brazil 
and thanked Brazil for its efforts to resolve the issue. Canada noted its interest.  
2.2.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/22, G/AG/N/CHN/25) 
AG-IMS ID 69006: Question by  Australia - Tariff quota fil 
Could China explain the significant underfill for wheat, corn and rice in CY2010 and 
CY2011? G/AG/W/109 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Answer by China 
Since China's accession to the WTO, China has been allocating tariff quota to enterprises 
according to its commitments. Enterprises who have the quotas decide to use them or not by themselves, depending on various market factors.  
In terms of wheat, corn and rice, China was blessed with increasing harvests for 9 
consecutive years since 2004. The domestic supply has been sufficient and market prices are stable. Thus the enterprises lack incentives to import from the international market. 
The data of 2012 (for wheat, corn and rice, the quota fills are 38.4%, 72.3%, and 44.5% 
respectively) shows an increase of tariff quota fill, which demonstrates that the enterprises will increase imports when they see fit. The above data is for reference only. For finalized 
numbers, please see the future tariff quota notification submitted to the WTO. 
Follow-up : The United States of America was interested in China's policy of importing upon 
demand in order to control food inflation. The United States of America reserved the right to 
follow up with additional questions at a later stage, particularly regarding the administration of 
China's STE's share of TRQs for wheat, corn and ri ce as well as the reallocation process for TRQs.  
2.2.3  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/30) 
AG-IMS ID 69007: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
For the purpose of transparency, please provide total import figures under column 4 for 
products where the tariff in force was below the in-quota rate. 
Answer by Ecuador 
In 2011, the tariff for the majority of products included in Ecuador's list of tariff quotas was 
lower than the in ‑quota bound ceiling rate, which is why no imports were recorded under 
this modality. 
As regards poultry meat, in 2011, Ecuador imported frozen turkey meat which, despite 
being the most highly consumed product, falls outside the quota. There were no imports of 
frozen cuts and offal of fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, as consumption in 2011 was 
centred on whole frozen chicken meat imported from the United States of America. 
For the purposes of transparency, please find  in Annex Ecuador's 2011 import records for 
products that were included in the quota list but imported outside the tariff quota due to 
the tariff being lower than the ceiling. 
2.2.4  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/31) AG-IMS ID 69008: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Could Iceland explain why there were no in-q uota imports of meat and edible offal of 
sheep for the period covered? 
Australia also notes that in-quota imports of meat and edible offal of bovine animals, 
swine and poultry were significantly high er than the corresponding tariff quota 
quantities, but the corresponding tariff headin gs are not among those listed in the first 
page of the notification as having inactive tariff rate quotas. Could Iceland explain this? 
AG-IMS ID 69038: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
Iceland's notification of most of its tariff quot as is useful in terms of transparency. It is 
important to include all bound quotas in the notification, even those for which the out-of-quota-duty level is lower than the bound in-quota-duty-level - just as Iceland does. 
This is important since all bound quotas are pieces of the commitments in the 
Agreement on Agriculture. However, Icel and´s tariff quota commitments include 90 
tariff quotas. The notification includes 87 of  them. Could Iceland explain the reason for 
excluding three tariff quotas? G/AG/W/109 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer by Iceland 
A corrigendum (G/AG/N/ISL/31/Corr.1 refers) was circulated on 26 March. Iceland believes 
that the corrigendum adequately addresses th e discrepancy raised in the question, and 
would be happy to follow-up with any Delegation, as needed. 
2.2.5  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/49) 
AG-IMS ID 69039: Question by Euro pean Union - Tariff quota fill 
Israel's notification on tariff rate quotas seems to indicate all imports. Could Israel 
indicate the quantities that were imported under tariff rate quotas? 
Answer by Israel 
Since customs duties in some TRQ products are equal or lower than the MFN tariffs, it is 
practically impossible to differentiate between the quantities imported under the same 
products.  
2.2.6  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/184) AG-IMS ID 69004: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill 
New Zealand notes the very low quota-fill  in 2011 for a range of dairy products, 
particularly skim milk powder, butter and bu tter oil, and whey (only 11% filled in some 
cases). New Zealand also notes a comparison  of a 105% quota-fill for other dairy 
products for general use, and 117% for design ated dairy products for general use. New 
Zealand would ask Japan to provide some information on the significantly wide 
variation in these quota-fills given that the 105% and 117% quota fill of the dairy products for general use demonstrates a demand for dairy products in Japan in 
general. 
Answer by Japan 
The imports of the TRQ for "designated dairy products for general use" are implemented by 
state-trading with a view to stabilizing supply-demand for dairy products. The quota-fill of 
the TRQ has been nearly full every year an d imports of the TRQ play a major role in 
stabilizing supply and demand situations in the domestic market. All the other TRQs on 
dairy products are for private importers and a part of these TRQs is underfilled as the 
domestic consumption related to these TRQs have been declining. 
Follow-up : Noting that the most recent FAO Global Food Outlook (Global Market Analysis report 
of November 2012) had forecast additional demands for dairy products in Japan for the coming 
years, New Zealand hoped to see those increasing demands reflected in Japan's TRQ fill rates. 
The United States of America highlighted that it had requested on several occasions, both bilaterally and recently in the Trade Policy Review, that Japan provide information regarding the 
administration of its TRQs and the fill rates. Certain administrative processes and decisions, in 
the view of the United States of America, might lead to lower fill rates. The United States of 
America looked forward to continuing to work with Japan on these issues.  
2.2.7  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/67) 
AG-IMS ID 69040: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of Norway comprise more than 230 bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification includes only about 20 of th em. The European Union would like to request 
Norway to include all bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of transparency. 
Answer by Norway G/AG/W/109 
 
- 16 - 
 
  The notification of imports under TRQs for the calendar year 2001 (G/AG/N/NOR/38) was 
the first notification in which Norway did not include TRQs for which a tariff only regime applies. In accordance with the Norwegian Schedule the in-quota tariff rates for the majority of the current access quotas have been at the level of the bound MFN tariff for the 
corresponding tariff line as of calendar year 2000. Since Norway has fulfilled its 
commitments for the current access quotas with a tariff-only regime, these have not been included in the notifications. This has been explained at the cover sheet of every TRQ 
notification since the notification of TRQ commitments for the calendar year 2001 
(G/AG/N/NOR/38, G/AG/N/NOR/46, G/AG/N/N OR/50, G/AG/N/NOR/53, G/AG/N/NOR/56, 
G/AG/N/NOR/63, and G/AG/N/NOR/67).  
AG-IMS ID 69041: Question by Euro pean Union - Tariff quota fill 
Could Norway elaborate on the reason why the frozen meat of swine TRQ is 
underutilized?  
Answer by Norway 
The entire TRQ volume for 2011 was allocated to 10 private importers with quota shares 
ranging from 19,000 kilograms to 523,000 kilo grams. However, due to the market 
situation, with sufficient domestic supply at competitive prices, it seems that the importers 
did not find it commercially interesting to utilize their quota shares. The import quota in 
question contains frozen carcasses. The industry normally does not use frozen carcasses, as this implies extra costs related to defrosting. 
2.2.8  Poland (G/AG/N/POL/68) 
AG-IMS ID 69009: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Could Poland explain the reasons behind it s significant underfills on its tariff rate 
quotas, including for its fresh or chilled and fr ozen beef; fresh, chilled or frozen swine; 
dairy products; and horticulture such as  cucumbers, apples, pears and quinces? 
Answer by Poland 
The notification concerns the period of 1 January – 30 April 2004 i.e. (4 months only). The 
TRQs were available at that time on a first come - first served basis. In this period, the 
EU-15 members States already had a duty free access to the Polish market, including for the products covered by these TRQs. Therefor e, the interest of potential suppliers was 
relatively limited and as a result the TRQs were significantly under-filled. Since 1 May 2004 
Poland became member of the European Un ion and took over th e European Union's 
customs regulations. 
2.2.9  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/79) 
AG-IMS ID 69010: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Could South Africa explain the significant und erfill for a number of dairy products such 
as milk and cream (fresh), milk powder, butter and cheese, as well as for eggs and 
potatoes? 
Answer by South Africa G/AG/W/109 
 
- 17 - 
 
  As for the underfill of the quota for milk powder, butter and cheese it should be noted that 
these products are subject to a specific duty. International prices of these products have increased substantially in recent years with the result that the specific applied rate is lower than the in-quota ad valorem rate. In these cases, importers have no interest in making 
use of the quotas.  
For fresh milk and cream, the applied rate is zero and no quota is being administered for 
these products. This applies to the potatoes as well. 
For eggs, import permits were made available to economic operators for the relevant tariff 
lines but only a few applications for import permits were received. 
AG-IMS ID 69042: Question by Euro pean Union - Tariff quota fill 
South Africa´s tariff quota commitments in clude 53 tariff quotas. Three quarters are 
almost fully utilized. The rest of the tariff quotas show a relatively low utilization. 
According to the binding list, the in-quota tari ff levels are set in relation to the out-of-
quota tariff level. It must no t exceed 20% of the out-of-quo ta tariff level. Therefore it 
seems like the tariff quota provides good ma rket access. What are the reasons behind 
the relatively low utilization for the rest of the tariff quotas? 
Answer by South Africa 
There are different reasons for the underfill of these quotas. One is that for a number of 
these quotas the current applied rate is lower or equal to the in-quota tariff rate and economic operators have no interest in using the quotas. Also, the in-quota rate is often equal or lower than the applied tariff in the case of specific applied duties as the current 
high international prices often result in a relatively low ad valorem equivalent of the 
specific duty. The other reason is that for some products, there are sufficient local supplies and economic operators have no interest in importing the relevant products. 
2.2.10  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/102) 
AG-IMS ID 69011: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Could Chinese Taipei explain the zero fill ra te for bananas and the significant underfill 
rate for fresh pears and fluid milks? 
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
The TRQ mechanism is the result of negotiation upon Chinese Taipei's WTO accession. All 
the administration procedures for these TRQ products are in accordance with the principles 
of transparency, predictability, equity and ar e based on market mechanism. Chinese Taipei 
is committed to implementing TRQs in accordance with WTO rules. 
Regarding the nil or low quota fill-rate for banana, fresh pears and liquid milks, it may be 
caused by the domestic market supply and demand factors. Besides, the major banana 
production area is suffered from quarantine pests and diseases. Importation from the infected areas is not allowed until they meet Chinese Taipei's quarantine requirements. 
2.2.11  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) 
AG-IMS ID 69044: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
In its notification, Thailand indicates that  it has eliminated a tariff rate quota on 
unmanufactured tobacco (tobacco leaves). Could Thailand explain the rationale and 
legal basis for eliminating this tariff rate quota? G/AG/W/109 
 
- 18 - 
 
   
AG-IMS ID 69012: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Could Thailand explain the significant underf ill in its tariff rate quota for maize (for 
feedstuff) and rice (including paddy, broken)? 
Follow-up : Australia looked forward to receiving details about the reasons for the quota 
underfill. Australia considered that policy develo pments related to the "Paddy Pledging Scheme" 
could also have market impacts that would effect TRQ fill rates. Responses on both issues were 
requested again in this regard.  
AG-IMS ID 69043: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill 
In 2009 and 2010 Thailand had a tariff quota quantity of 2,281 tonnes for soya bean oil 
and its fractions, whether or not refined, bu t not chemically modified. In quota imports 
during 2009 were 39 tonnes and in 2010 they were 13.22 tonnes. Could Thailand explain low fill rates for soya bean oil and its fractions (whether or not refined, but not 
chemically modified) for the years 2009 and 2010? 
2.2.12  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/15) 
AG-IMS ID 69013: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
Could Ukraine provide reasons as to why it did not have any in-quota imports for raw 
cane sugar during CY2012? 
Answer by Ukraine 
In 2012 the Ministry of Economic Developmen t and Trade of Ukraine did not receive any 
application for obtaining a licence on raw cane sugar import. Ukrainian authorities consider that unfavourable market condition for raw cane sugar in Ukraine in 2012 was the main reason for importers not applying for import licences.  
The following table showed a comparison between the estimated price for raw cane sugar 
(based on the New York Stock Exchange pric e), including transportation and processing 
costs, and the prices for sugar produced from sugar beets in Ukraine: 
  Estimated price for raw 
cane sugar 
(UAH/tonne) Price for sugar 
produced from sugar 
beets in Ukraine (UAH/tonne) 
at the beginning of the first quarter 6750 6000 
second quarter 7321 6000 
third quarter 5869 5550 
third quarter 5929 5910 
at the beginning of December 5909 5000 
 
The lowest estimated price for raw cane sugar was higher than the highest price for sugar 
produced from sugar beets in Ukraine in each quarter, which made it economically 
impractical for Ukraine to purchase and import raw cane sugar within tariff quotas from WTO Members (producers and traditional exporters). 
Follow-up : Australia understood that unfavourable market conditions were contributing to the 
TRQ underfill. In Australia's view, Ukraine had drawn some interesting comparisons between the 
prices of the domestically produced sugar and raw cane sugar. Australia recalled its previous 
question to Ukraine regarding the domestic market  price support to the sugar beet industry in 
Ukraine. Australia reserved the right to raise furt her questions if necessary. The United States of 
America made a general statement concerning questions and responses relating to TRQ fill rates. 
The United States of America first recalled the substantial justification  it provided in the G/AG/W/109 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Committee meeting held in September 2012 regarding answers2 to questions raised in relation to 
the reasons for low TRQ fill rates. The United States of America believed that it is useful for the 
Committee to understand the reasons behind the low demand for a particular product which 
caused the low TRQ fill rate. In this context, Me mbers were called upon to provide greater details 
in their responses. Nevertheless, the United Stat es of America was pleased to note that some 
Members such as Ecuador had already done so.  
2.3  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.3.1  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/182) AG-IMS ID 69045: Question by the United States of America - Trigger calculations 
Please explain Japan's method for calculat ing the trigger price for the price-based 
safeguard for milk and cream (HS 0402.91.1 29). The data source indicated by Japan 
(Ministry of Finance "Japan's Trade Statisti cs") shows that Japan imported the product 
in October and December 2012. The unit price of the imports was 443 yen/kg and 
368 yen/kg, respectively. Both are higher th an the trigger price notified in Japan's 
notification (144.31 yen/kg).  
Please also explain why import data on thes e products from the Ministry of Finance 
Japan's Trade Statistics differs from Japan Customs data.  
Answer by Japan 
According to paragraph 1(b) of Article 5 of th e Agreement on Agriculture, the trigger price 
is the average 1986 to 1988 reference price for the product concerned, and as is shown in 
the notification G/AG/N/JPN/182, Japan employs the weighted average price of the 3 years using the data from Ministry of Finance - "Japan's Trade Statistics". 
The unit price of a particular import shipment may substantially differ from the average 
unit price which is calculated using the data on total imports within a certain period of 
time. Therefore, even if the average unit price is higher than the trigger price for the price-
based special safeguard, it is possible that the unit price of a particular import shipment 
falls below the trigger price. The import price of individual shipments is not available to the 
public because such information is related to commercial activity of particular traders. 
"Japan's Trade Statistics" from Ministry of Finance is the aggregation of the data on 
declarations of individual shipments submitted to the Japan Customs. 
Follow-up : The United States of America sought clarity regarding the reason why this particular 
import shipment triggered the SSG. The safeguard had never been previously triggered according 
to the US record.  
2.3.2  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/100) 
AG-IMS ID 69014: Question by: Australia - Link with TRQ commitments 
Could Chinese Taipei explain why it invoke s a volume-based SSG for other liquid milks 
given that some of the tariff lines used to calculate the trigger are lines subject to a 
TRQ and thereby limited in access opportunities? 
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei again confirms that the calculation and action of SSG for other liquid milks 
is fully in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The SSG on other liquid milks was applied only to the out-quota imports. The current SSG 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture clea rly stipulate that the in-quota imports shall 
                                               
2 Paragraph 22 of G/AG/W/103 refers. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 20 - 
 
  be exempted from an additional  duty even when the SSG has been invoked. Therefore, the 
minimum market access opportunity as committed by Members can always be secured. 
AG-IMS ID 69015: Question by Australia - Trigger calculations Can Chinese Taipei explain why it does not used the most recently available data for 
the calculation of the trigger?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
According to Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level should be 
calculated using "average quantity of imports during the three preceding years for which 
data are available". Since the trigger level of  2012 was calculated and published by the end 
of 2011, and the data of actual imports of 2 011 was not available at that time, the trigger 
level was therefore calculated using the data of average imports from 2008 to 2010. 
Follow-up : Australia acknowledged the compliance of Chinese Taipei's action with Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. However, in Australia's view, the fact that some of the lines which 
Chinese Taipei used to calculate the trigger quantity were also subject to the TRQ was not within 
the spirit of providing market access to other Members. 
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.4.1  Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/31) 
AG-IMS ID 69049: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could Argentina kindly explain the backgro und for the existence of various product-
specific measures for tobacco while ther e are few such for the other products? 
Answer by Argentina 
Argentina would like to point out that there are not various "product ‑specific measures" for 
tobacco as the question suggests ‑ in fact, there is only one (Administered Minimum Price), 
intended to provide support for tobacco producers. This measure has been notified as an 
Amber Box measure since 1995. 
It should be noted that the Amber Box is devoted entirely to tobacco, since Argentina, 
unlike other WTO Members, has bound an annual ceiling of only 75 million 1992 pesos ‑ 
equivalent to US$75 million ‑ which means that this aid can only be directed to the tobacco 
sector, which has historically been extremely vulnerable. In other words, these subsidies 
represent a negligible share of the overall value of agricultural production in Argentina. We 
stress that tobacco production in Argentina is located in areas that require preferential 
action by the State, since their production units are small and use little in the way of technology, depending heavily on unskilled labour. By applying measures of this kind, the 
Argentine Government is seeking to offset these structural deficiencies affecting tobacco 
producers and to deal with the critical econom ic and social problems in the tobacco growing 
areas with the ultimate aim of stimulating growth in the areas concerned. 
AG-IMS ID 69046: Question by European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support 
a. In relation to the Agricultural Social  Programme notified under paragraph 6, 
could Argentina explain what constitute s a defined and fixed base period for 
this programme as mandated by paragraph 6(a)?  
b. Could Argentina please confirm that  the payments under the different 
measures of the Special Fund for Tobacco notified under paragraph 6 are 
granted no matter whether and what prod uction is undertaken by farmers?  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 21 - 
 
  c. The spending on the measure "Social welf are for producers in the provinces of 
Corrientes, Catamarca, Misiones and Salta" under the Special Fund for 
Tobacco increased from 1 to 24 million pesos in the period notified. What is the reason for this increase? What are the eligibility criteria for these 
payments?  
Answer by Argentina a. The Agricultural Social Programme was launched in 1993 under what is now the 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MAGyP). It was first notified by 
Argentina on 6 November 1997 (G/AG/N/ARG/4) for the 1995/1996 season, and has been notified on a yearly basis since then. In its almost 20 years of existence, the Agricultural Social Programme has been a national policy tool in improving the living 
conditions of historically neglected families in rural areas, involving work with the rural 
organizations, in their actual communities and in their territories. 
The Agricultural Social Programme addresses development problems in a 
comprehensive manner, working on issues such as natural resources, water, earth, 
health and education. It is present in 21 of Argentina's provinces, covering 131 geographical zones that differ considerably from each other. Working with 730 
specialists, the programme seeks to help small holders in dealing with these problems 
by providing technical assistance, training, and financial assistance. 
Thus, the Agricultural Social Programme fully meets the requirements in paragraph 6 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture given that, as can be seen from the 
description above, it has no distorting effects on either trade or production. The support 
is provided through a publically ‑funded government programme. Moreover, the 
producer income support is decoupled from the type or volume of production 
undertaken by the producer, as well as from domestic and international prices and factors of production. 
The Programme was created in 1993, and the benchmarks for its implementation were 
established at that time. The profile of producers eligible for benefits under the programme was established in the National Registry of Family Agriculture (RENAF) as defined jointly by the Argentine Government and the different organizations in the 
sector. It reflects the policy of support for family agriculture pursued over the past few 
years, under which small holders are considered to play a crucial role in ensuring national food security. 
b. The direct payments under the special fund for tobacco (FET) notified under paragraph 
6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are related neither to the type nor to the 
volume of production of tobacco or any other basic agricultural product. The direct 
payments specified under this paragraph are intended to cover the needs of producers 
and their families in the region as a whole, for example: medical, health, biochemical, dentistry and social welfare services, support for trade association activities and support for schooling. 
The reference to "Special Fund for Tobacco" in connection with each one of the direct 
payments notified under paragraph 6 of Annex 2 concerns only the origin and administration of the funds, and not their final destination. Eligibility for the direct payments in question is based on objective and non ‑discriminatory criteria. 
c. Argentina's economic growth has enabled the National Government to increase revenue 
collection which, in its turn, has enabled it to focus its attention to the needs of the 
small and more vulnerable producers that had hitherto been neglected, including those 
in the provinces of Catamarca, Misiones, Salta, Tucumán, Jujuy and Corrientes. It should also be stressed that these provinces were particularly affected by climatic 
vagaries during the notified period (droughts as well as floods, hail), so that the 
national government decided to provide th em with greater assistance in the form 
of measures to improve the living standards of their producers. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Regarding eligibility criteria for these payments, as Argentina mentioned in its previous 
reply, the right to receive the payments is based on objective and non ‑discriminatory 
criteria. 
AG-IMS ID 69050: Question by Japan - Di rect payments: decoupled income support 
d. Could Argentina kindly explain why the sum of "Special Fund for Tobacco" of 
Decoupled income support in the Suppo rting Table DS:1 has increased by 
about 5 times from 2006 to 2008?  
e. How do the programmes meet the criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2?  
Answer by Argentina a. The increase in the decoupled income support during the 2006/2007 season and 
the 2008/2009 season is essentially due to the increase in the social welfare 
programme for producers in the different provinces (Catamarca, Misiones, Salta, 
Tucumán, Jujuy and Corrientes). Argentina's economic growth has enabled the National 
Government to increase revenue collection which, in its turn, has enabled it to focus its 
attention to the needs of the small and more  vulnerable producers that had hitherto 
been neglected, including those in the provinces of Catamarca, Misiones, Salta, 
Tucumán, Jujuy and Corrientes. It should also be stressed that these provinces were 
particularly affected by climatic vagaries du ring the notified period (droughts as well as 
floods, hail), so that the national governme nt decided to provide them with greater 
assistance in the form of measures to impr ove the living standards of their producers. 
b. As mentioned earlier and as can be seen from the actual titles of the programmes, the 
measures notified by Argentina under paragraph 6 of Annex 2 are decoupled both from any specific type of production and from the volume produced, as well as from 
domestic or international prices and factors of production. 
AG-IMS ID 69047: Question by European Union - Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters 
c. The support for producers who suffered da mage from flooding, rainfall, hail 
and other adverse phenomena in the provinces of Corrientes, Catamarca, Tucuman, Misiones and La Rioja increased from 2 million to 76 million pesos over the notified period. This constitu tes an increase of almost 4,000%. What 
is the reason behind this increase in spending?  
d. In relation to the measure "support for producers who suffered damage from 
flooding, rainfall, hail and other ad verse phenomena in the provinces of 
Corrientes, Catamarca, Tucuman, Misiones and La Rioja",  
 Could Argentina provide more details  on how this scheme operates?  
 What kinds of losses are covered?  
 Please also provide relevant informat ion in relation to this measure's 
compliance with the criteria of paragraph 8. 
Answer by Argentina 
a. Direct payments to producers that suffered from natural disasters are by definition 
extremely variable because they depend exclusively on the occurrence of such 
disasters. Consequently, it would be misleading to try to discern a trend in these payments: given the fortuitous nature of the meteorological phenomena involved, 
payments will tend to be low when the ph enomena do not occur, and will increase 
substantially when they do occur. 
Thus, the Argentine notifications show two peaks in recourse to these programmes, in 
1998 and in 2009. The 2009 peak was due prim arily to an entry of 62 million 1992 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 23 - 
 
  pesos (dollars) granted to wheat producers and cattle breeders affected by a severe 
drought during 2008. According to official data from the National Meteorological Service, the 2008 season was notoriously lacking in rainfall, and this had a severe negative impact on different agricultural activities. In certain parts of the country, the 
annual rainfall deficit reached 40% to 60%. Certain areas recorded the lowest rainfall 
in 47 years. The water balance maps for the region at that time show the intensity of a climatic anomaly that caused considerable losses for the producers. 
b.  During the notified period, agricultural emergencies in Argentina were  
  regulated by Law 22.913. 
This law establishes the National Agricultural Emergency Commission, made 
up of representatives of different national and provincial public authorities, as the body responsible for deciding whether the National Executive should 
declare an agricultural emergency or qualify a specific area as a disaster area 
when factors of climatic, telluric, biological or physical origin, of an unpredictable or inevitable nature, impact production or production capacity in a given region owing to their intensity or to their exceptional 
nature, seriously impeding agricultural activity and compliance with credit 
and tax obligations. The Commission also has the following additional functions: (i) to monitor the evolution of the agricultural emergency or disaster 
and the economic recovery of the farms affected; (ii) to participate in 
implementing the measures adopted under the aforementioned Law; (iii) to establish the criteria by which the provinces identify the farms concerned. 
An agricultural emergency or a disaster area must first be declared by the 
provinces concerned, which must then ask the National Agricultural Emergency Commission to adopt a corresponding decision at the national level. 
Benefits will be granted to the producers in the affected areas provided that: 
(i) at least 50% of the production or production capacity in the areas in which 
an agricultural emergency has been declar ed is affected; (ii) at least 80% of 
the production or production capacity in the disaster areas is affected. 
It should be noted that producers may not avail themselves of these benefits 
when the damage can be covered by insurance or when farms are located in areas considered to be ecologically unsuitable for agriculture. 
 Once the agricultural emergency or disaster area has been declared, the 
following measures may be adopted and implemented: 
With regard to credit: (i) postponement and rescheduling of outstanding 
obligations; (ii) loans to ensure the continuity of farms, the recovery of 
producers' savings and the maintenance of a stable workforce, at preferential 
interest rates 25% lower in the areas where an agricultural emergency has been declared and 50% lower in the disaster areas; (iii) unification 
of producers' debts in each of the banking institutions involved. 
With regard to taxes: (i) extension of the deadline for filing and for payment of 
existing and future taxes on wealth, capital and income for the farms 
concerned; (ii) full or partial exemption, by decision of the Executive, from 
capital and net wealth taxes on goods belonging to farms and on leased rural property; (iii) in cases of distress sales of cattle, sheep, goats or pigs, deduction from the taxable income balance of 100% of the profits made on 
such sales. 
With regard to rail, river, maritime and air transport: preferential treatment 
and discounts on transport of the production or cattle from or to the affected 
areas. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 24 - 
 
  With regard to public works: urgent measures will be taken to allocate funds 
for repairing and/or building the public works that have been affected or that are needed as a result of the factors that gave rise to the declaration of agricultural emergency or disaster area once all of the different needs have 
been studied and priorities establishe d for the use of the funds available. 
 The information provided, which describes the procedures to be followed in the 
case of an agricultural emergency within  the territory of Argentina, shows that 
the measure does comply with the criteria set forth in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture, since, among other factors: (a) eligibility for the payments arises only following a formal recognition by the government authorities that a natural or like disaster has occurred and has resulted in a 
production loss which exceeds 30%; (b) the payments apply only in respect 
of losses of income, livestock, land or other production factors; (c) the payments do not compensate for more than the total cost of replacing 
such losses. 
AG-IMS ID 69048: Question by European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
c. Could Argentina explain how the paymen ts per unit of tobacco notified in 
Supporting Table DS:8 work? What is th e role of the applied administered 
price in this measure?  
d. Could Argentina explain the calculation with which it arrives at the amount 
notified as the equivalent measurement of support for tobacco in Supporting 
Table DS:8?  
e. Considering that almost the entire Arge ntinean AMS is taken up by support for 
tobacco, what mechanisms are there in place in tobacco-related measures to 
ensure that the spending rema ins within the scheduled limit? 
Answer by Argentina a. For tobacco producers, there is a system of administered minimum prices financed by 
the Special Tobacco Fund (FET), created in 1972 under the National Tobacco Law. 
Article 12 of that law states that "the inco me received by the producer shall be made 
up of the following: (a) the procurement price paid by the purchaser for the product; (b) the amount paid by the FET". Thus, the producer is ensured a price premium in the 
form of a subsidy for producing tobacco of high quality. 
Later on, in Article 28, the Law states that : "the implementing body shall distribute 
80% of the funds raised under Article 23 and Article 25(a) of this Law among the tobacco ‑producing provinces. Depending on the production value, a percentage of the 
funds raised equivalent to the number of packets of bright ‑leaf cigarettes of two basic 
units sold in relation to total sales will be distributed among the bright ‑leaf 
tobacco ‑producing provinces, while a percentage corresponding to the number of 
packets of dark ‑tobacco cigarettes of two basic units sold in relation to total sales will 
be distributed among the dark tobacco ‑producing provinces. The provinces will also 
be allocated a percentage of funds raised equivalent to the quantity of packets of 
blended tobacco cigarettes of two basic units sold in relation to total sales. This 
percentage, in its turn, will be distributed between the bright ‑leaf tobacco ‑producing 
provinces and the dark tobacco ‑producing provinces in the proportion in which each 
one of the two types of tobacco is used in the blended ‑tobacco cigarettes". 
b. In order to calculate the amount paid by the FET to producers for the tobacco that they 
deliver to the collection points, the MAGyP considers a number of different elements 
that enable it to establish the price supplement for each type and grade of tobacco. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 25 - 
 
  It must be borne in mind that the final price received by the producer is made up of 
two parts: (a) the price received from the collection point for the tobacco sold (free market transaction based on supply and demand); (b) the price supplement received from the MAGyP under the National Law on Tobacco. 
Firstly, the FET makes an estimate of the re sources available during the year in order 
to determine the 80% amounts referred to in Article 28 of the above ‑mentioned Law; 
thus, the annual revenue is calculated on the basis of established mechanisms. 
Secondly, an estimate is made of the volume of tobacco that will be produced during 
the season, the other variable in determining the value of the price supplement set by MAGyP. Thus, at the beginning of the season, an estimate is made of the volume of 
tobacco to be paid for on the basis of: (1) the intentions of cooperatives and 
manufacturers with regard to the purchase of tobacco from producers; (2) production estimates of provincial agencies such as producers' associations, chambers, etc; 
(3) estimates by MAGyP specialists on the spot. 
The volume data are estimated for each type and grade of tobacco, so that a distinction 
is made between the different qualities of the same variety of tobacco. These data are 
adjusted on a monthly basis according to the progress of the harvest actually collected, 
through sworn statements. 
A number of other parameters are also taken into account in calculating the amounts to 
be paid. One of them is the production costs of the different kinds of tobacco, as well 
as the prices paid on the international market and certain reference markets, and the 
prices that were initially paid at the collection points in a given season. 
One final and fundamental variable that is taken into account in establishing the FET 
price is the Amber Box ceiling of US$75 million that Argentina bound as the Total AMS. 
That amount, coming from 80% of the funds raised by the Special Fund for Tobacco, is distributed among the provinces according to their share in the production of tobacco. 
Taking these parameters (cost and price), an estimate is made of what the producer 
will receive from the collection points upon delivery of their tobacco (procurement price), and the final calculation is made of what the producer can receive as the total price for his tobacco (procurement price plus FET price) in order to establish how much 
the FET will pay for each type and grade of tobacco, within the limit of Argentina's 
bound subsidies. 
c. The Final Act embodying the results of th e Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade 
Negotiations, the Ministerial Decisions, Declarations and Understandings and the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization was approved by Argentina through Law 24.425. 
Under Articles 3 and 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which was incorporated 
in Argentina's domestic legislation by that Law, domestic support measures (AMS) specified in Schedule LXIV, Part IV, Section I, constitute a limit on subsidies, and support in favour of domestic producer s may not be provided in excess of the 
commitment levels specified in that Schedule ‑ in the case of Argentina, 75.021.292 in 
1992 pesos, which is equivalent to the US dollar value for that year. 
This is taken into account every year in each administrative act approving the 
budgetary outlays, which are distributed, as explained in detail in the reply to the preceding question, according to each prov ince's share based on the value of its 
production. All of this is regulated by the above ‑mentioned National Law on Tobacco. 
The administrative acts for the 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons are, respectively, 
Resolutions 8/2007 and 30/2008 of the Minist ry of the Economy and Production, and 
Resolution 156/2009 of the Ministry of Production. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Thus, the minimum administered price (FET price) that the MAGyP establishes will be 
applied proportionately among the provinces, bearing in mind from the outset Argentina's bound AMS limit. 
Follow-up : Japan appreciated Argentina's comprehensive responses, especially the clarification of 
the wider objectives of the "Special Fund for Tobacco" programme. The European Union was also 
grateful for the details and would follow up at a later time.  
2.4.2  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) 
AG-IMS ID 69051: Question by the United St ates of America - Non-product-specific 
AMS 
The United States of America takes note that in G/AG/N/ARM/16/Rev.1 for 2007 there 
are two programmes (i.e., "Assistance to land users of up to 7 acres" and "Assistance 
for acquisition of nitrogen fertilizers") in Supporting Table DS:9. In Supporting Tables 
DS:9 of G/AG/N/ARM/20 for 2008 and 2009, Armenia notified "State support to the 
agricultural land users" and in 2011, Armeni a notified "State support to agricultural 
land users in the framework of grain crops production, seed-breeding, and seed production development programmes". Is  there any relation between these 
programmes? Please elaborate on how these programmes operate.  
The United States of America notes that from 2008 through 2011, Armenia notified 
"Supplying farmers with livestock on the condition of postponed payments, in the 
framework of the Cattle Husbandry Development Programme". Please provide further 
explanation of the terms of repayment fo r participating farmers, including any 
eligibility requirements, how lo ng farmers have to repay the loan, and the subsidized 
interest rate.  
2.4.3  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
AG-IMS ID 69052: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
a. The United States of America thanks Br azil for its response in paragraph 38 of 
G/AG/W/106 (Committee on Agriculture, November 2012) and understands 
from Brazil's response that there was no  policy change in the "Emprestimo do 
Governo Federal" (EGF) between 2003/04 and 2004/05 that prompted the 
change in notification methodolog y. Is this understanding correct? 
b. The United States of America notes that Brazil also stated in its response that 
"traditional minimum support pr ices have been replaced…":  
 Please clarify the policy change to  which Brazil refers by the term 
"replaced".  
 Please explain how this policy change s how EGF programmes are operated 
and how payments are determined. 
Answer by Brazil 
a. Yes. There was no policy change in the EG F between 2003/04 and 2004/5. As stated in 
the Brazilian response in paragraph 38 of G/AG/W/106, the budgetary provisions 
applicable to the EGF have never been product-specific. 
b.  The term "replaced" refers to the fact that traditional minimal support prices 
  have  b e e n de c re as ing  in imp ortanc e  i n Braz il  as  c omp are d  to more  marke t-
  oriented mechanisms such as the PEP, which is not applied through purchases 
  by the government.  
 There has been no change in the manner  in which the EGF is operated. There 
is no payment involved in the EGF, because it is a credit mechanism with a fixed interest rate. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.4.4  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10, G/AG/N/EU/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 69024: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Could the European Union provide furthe r details on the sizeable exceptional 
support measures introduced for dairy in 2009 in Supporting Table DS:6? 
b. What, if any, policy adjustments have been made/taken since these measures 
were used?  
Answer by European Union 
a. An exceptional market support measure was launched in EU budget year 2010 on the 
basis of Article 186 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 in order to support dairy farmers who were severely affected by the collapse of market prices. World market prices for dairy products collapsed notably due to a drop in demand in 
connection with the financial and economic crisis. The amount notified in Supporting 
Table DS:6 reflects EU budgetary outlays an d member States' spending related to the 
milk crisis. 
b. No policy adjustments were made. 
AG-IMS ID 69054: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could the European Union kindly explain the outline of "de minimis regulation" 
mentioned in the explanations of many programmes in Supporting Table DS:1? Why 
have these explanations been added to this notification? 
Answer by European Union 
The European Union recognizes that the mention of 'de minimis' in this context may be 
confusing for WTO Members. The European Union will amend the description in the 
comments column in the next notification to refer to regulation numbers only. The two regulations are mentioned to provide more complete information on the legislative bases 
for the spending notified. 
For general information of Members, measures co-financed with national EU member 
States funds are considered state aids and fo llow general rules on approval and reporting. 
Some measures under the rural development programmes of the member States can be 
implemented under the so-called 'de minimis' rules when the respective aid amount per 
beneficiary does not exceed certain thresh olds in the given period. The regulations 
mentioned (Regulation 1998/2006 and 1535/2007) provide the relevant legislative base. 
AG-IMS ID 69016: Question by Australia - General services: other 
Can the European Union provide details on  why "other farm services (viii)" under 
Annex 2(a) General Services increased by  approximately 500 m illion Euros compared 
with the last notification pe riod (G/AG/N/EU/7 refers)? 
Answer by European Union 
This increase in spending is mainly due to increased expenditure for the measures within 
the rural development programmes of the European Union's member States which are 
targeted at providing services to rural communities and implementing local development strategies. These are measures within the so-called Axis 3 and the Leader axis of the rural development policy for the period 2007-2013 which relate to 'Improving quality of life in 
rural areas and diversification of the rural economy'. The relative importance of these 
measures in the national rural development programmes of the new EU member States is significant. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 69055: Question by Japan - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
c. With regard to the Environmental Prog rammes and the Regional Assistance 
Programmes in Supporting Table DS:1, could the European Union kindly 
explain why these programmes have in creased from the marketing year 
2008/2009, while the Environmental Programmes fell down in 2008/2009 from 2007/2008 which "marked the beginning of a new programming period 
in Rural Development (2007/2013) when expenditure typically tends to 
increase after passage from one programmi ng period to another" according to 
the European Union's reply in the regular session in June 2012 (paragraph 64, G/AG/W/96). Is it because of the additional and expanding programmes 
notified in Table DS:2 (G/AG/N/EU/10), the increasing unit price of payment 
or the increasing applied area?  
d. Does the European Union estimate that these programmes will increase in the 
future through the modulation from dire ct payments to rural development?  
Answer by European Union a. Japan will note that spending on rural development measures in the European Union 
takes place within the 7-year programming framework on the basis of national rural 
development programmes prepared by the European Union member States. Within this period there are variations in the level of spending from one marketing year to another. This, however, is not related to elements suggested by Japan such as increase of unit 
price or increase of applied area. Rather it is related to the rhythm of implementation 
and financial execution of the national rural development programmes in the member States.  
The payments addressed in Japan's question are based on extra costs or loss of income 
involved in complying with the environmental programmes (notified under paragraph 12) or in undertaking production in the prescribed area (regional assistance 
programmes notified under paragraph 13). 
b. Yes, such increase is possible. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No.73/2009, the 
amounts resulting from the reductions of Direct Payments made through modulation are transferred to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to 
enhance rural development programmes, in particular to tackle challenges such as 
climate change, renewable energies, water management, biodiversity, innovation and accompanying measures in the dairy sector (the new priorities listed in Article 16(a) of 
Regulation (EC) No.1698/2005 as amended by Regulation (EC) No.74/2009). 
AG-IMS ID 69017: Question by Australia - Market price support Could the European Union provides details on  the changes to public intervention for 
barley, rye, maize and durum wheat which a ccount for the "zero" eligible production 
figure in Supporting Table DS:5. With the quanti tative limit effectively set at zero when 
does intervention occur and at what price? What happens with the stocks that might be 
purchased through these interventions?  
Answer by European Union 
The current European Union's notification under  review includes changes resulting from the 
decisions of the Health Check of the CAP which was agreed in 2008 and implemented since 
the 2010 EU budget year. The Health Check sets limits of buying into public intervention at 
'zero' for durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and paddy rice as provided for in Article 13.1(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007. As a result, public intervention is not 
automatically available for these products. 
A reply to the second question is that there have been no purchases of these products into 
public intervention since these changes were introduced.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 29 - 
 
  As to the third element of Australia's question, products which are in public intervention 
stocks are in general either re-sold to the ma rket when market conditions improve or made 
available to designated organisations in order to  enable food to be distributed to the most 
deprived persons in the EU. In the recent past, the second of these possibilities has been 
the main use for released intervention stocks. 
AG-IMS ID 69053: Question by Canada - Ma rket price support: Eligible production 
The European Union's Supporting Table DS: 5 reported no eligible production for the 
following products: durum wheat, barley, ma ize, sorghum and rice. As a result, the 
European Union did not provide any market pr ice support for these products, which is a 
significant change from previous marketin g years. Could the European Union please 
elaborate on the reasons behind the decrease in eligible production? Is this the result 
of a change in policy? 
Answer by European Union 
The current EU notification under review includes changes resulting from the decisions of 
the Health Check of the CAP which was agr eed in 2008 and implemented since the 2010 EU 
budget year. The Health Check sets limits of buying into public intervention at 'zero' for durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and paddy rice as provided for in Article 13.1(a) of 
Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007. As a result, public intervention is not automatically 
available for these products. 
AG-IMS ID 69056: Question by Japa n - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Regarding milk in Supporting Table DS:6, co uld the European Union kindly explain the 
background of the necessity for "Exceptional  support measures" for milk, in spite of 
the existence of market price support programmes for skimmed milk powder and 
butter ? 
Answer by European Union 
An exceptional market support measure was launched in EU budget year 2010 on the basis 
of Article 186 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 in order to support dairy 
farmers who were severely affected by the collapse of market prices. World market prices 
for dairy products collapsed notably due to a drop in demand in connection with the financial and economic crisis. Public intervention in the CAP provides a genuine safety net. However, farm gate prices were strongly affected during this severe milk crisis and in order 
to allow a sustainable recovery this exceptional aid was granted. 
2.4.5  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/10) AG-IMS ID 69057: Question by European Union - General services: extension and 
advisory services 
Could Georgia please provide more details  about the "Vineyard renewal measures" 
programme notified under General Services? 
Answer by Georgia 
Within the framework of the programme, a grap e variety "Vakirula" has been rooted out in 
Kaheti district. This will support the practical implementation of the requirements of Law on "Vine and Wine" as well as improve the quality of raw materials of wines, increase the trust 
and cooperation between the farmers and wine  companies and develop the viticulture and 
wine-making sector in the future. 
Because of its hybrid variety, using the abovemen tioned type of grape is prohibited in wine 
production. There is no demand for this grape variety on the market. Thus, the farmers, 
who held the Vakirula variety vineyards (basically small farmers), found themselves in difficult social conditions. Therefore, it was necessary to take care of the vineyards, but the 
low income farmers were unable to manage renewal process themselves. Thus the G/AG/W/109 
 
- 30 - 
 
  programme was planned; the vineyards were rooted out and the farmers received 
compensation in order to produce highly demanded varieties. 
AG-IMS ID 69018: Question by: Australia - General services: infrastructural services 
a. Could Georgia please explain how the "Support of Agrarian Machinery" 
Presidential National Programme for 2007 complies with paragraph 2(g) of 
Annex 2?  
b. Could Georgia provide more informat ion on its 2010 and 2011 "Rural 
Development Programme Regions" prog ramme and what they entailed in 
terms of infrastructural services consiste nt with paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2?  
Answer by Georgia a. According to the Law on State Budget 2007, Presidential National Program Support of 
Agricultural Machinery was approved which authorized the Ministry of Agriculture of 
Georgia to purchase different types of agricultural machinery. This machinery was delivered to the legal entities under the commercial competition rule in the form of 7-
year leasing-redemption method. 
b. Within the framework of the programme, reco nstruction of collecting, processing and 
storing centers of the grain were financed in some regions of Georgia. Also, under this 
programme agricultural service and mechanization centres were established.  
AG-IMS ID 69060: Question by Japan - Domestic food aid 
c. With regard to Supporting Table DS:1, co uld Georgia kindly explain why "Flour 
Provision to Residents of Municipalit y Settlements" (Domestic food aid) 
increased substantially in 2007?  
d. How did the Government of Georgia procure the flour for the programme?  
Answer by Georgia 
a. Georgia is a wheat importing country and depends heavily on the world wheat market. 
Local production satisfies only 20-25% of the country's whole demand. Processing of imported wheat is realized by local wheat-milling factories. Before 2007 Georgia has 
not launched any programme related to provis ion of flour to the municipalities and in 
2007 the main aim of the programme was th e provision of food security by the 
Government.  
b. Assistance has been provided to the households living in the villages, which belonged 
to the vulnerable target groups. Each hous ehold received 50kg flour during the winter 
period to feed themselves.  
AG-IMS ID 69058: Question by European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support 
There are measures for grape and wine notified under the decoupled income support 
paragraph in different years of the no tification. Could Georgia provide more 
information about these measures? 
Answer by Georgia 
Farmers in Georgia mainly hold small and fragmented parcels (in average, 1.25 ha or less 
agricultural land). In some regions of Georgi a Viticulture is one of the main sources of 
livelihood for the small farmers. Programme "Harvest Support Measures" was implemented 
in the different years. Due to the provision me asures for food security in these regions, 
Government has decided to support the vine-growing small farmers. Thus, the following 
activities were planned: Farmers who could not sell grapes on the market and had to sell to G/AG/W/109 
 
- 31 - 
 
  the processing factories would receive the compensation of 0.15 GEL per kilogram of 
"Rkatsiteli" grape variety and 0.25 GEL of "Saperavi" grape variety. With this support, social conditions of the farmers engaged in th e field of viticulture have been improved.  
AG-IMS ID 69059: Question by European Union - Classification of measures 
Could Georgia explain why they consider the measure "Mineral fertiliser (ammonium 
saltpetre) provision to residents of muni cipality settlements" as  falling under the 
decoupled income support paragraph? The measure, to our understanding, seems to 
concern provision of inputs rather th an direct payments to producers? 
Answer by Georgia 
According to the eligibility criteria for decoupled income support set out in Paragraph 6(a) 
of Annex 2,"eligibility for such payments shall be determined by clearly-defined criteria 
such as income, status as a producer or land owner, factor use or production level in a 
defined and fixed base period." The aim of the programme was to support the small farmers for food security provision. Each household received supporting measure for 
mineral fertilizerto conduct spring activities in order to improve its social conditions and 
income. These measures will ensure the qualit y of tending processes of agricultural crops 
carried out by the small farmers, which will result to increase the yield of crops.  
Follow-up : The United States of America raised a number of follow-up questions/comments for 
the next meeting: (a) why the machinery support had only been notified every other year?; (b) 
some of the support notified seemed to fit more the definition of input subsidies; (c) the eligibility 
requirement for the beneficiaries of a number of exempt support programmes including "Harvest 
Support Measures", "Grape Harvest Support", "Measure for Wine-Making Development", and 
"Mineral Fertilizer Provision to Residents of Municipality Settlements" appeared to be changes to 
the existing criteria or new criteria. In this connection, the United States of America felt that a 
Table DS:2 notification might be helpful in understanding the programmes.  
2.4.6  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48/REV.1) 
AG-IMS ID 69061: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
The United States of America notes that Is rael's notification for Water Cuts Payment 
was revised from $19.2 million to $0 for 2010.  
a. What was the reason for this change in notification?  
b. If no payments were made because water cuts were no longer applied, please 
confirm the date upon which this occurred?  
c. Please indicate whether this programme  has been terminated or temporarily 
suspended.  
Answer by Israel 
a. In notification G/AG/N/48 the amount of $19.2 million was incorrectly placed both in 
the Green Box (Supporting Table DS: 1) and in Supporting Table DS:9. After revising t h i s  n o t i f i c a t i o n  t h e  a m o u n t  w a s  d e l e t e d  f r o m  D S : 1  a n d  l e f t  o n l y  i n  D S : 9  a s  n o w  
appears in G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.1. 
b. Israel does no longer provide support for income losses due to water cuts since 2010. 
c. The above mentioned programme has been terminated in 2010. However, the amount 
reported in Supporting Table DS:9 is provid ed to farmers to cover the gap between the 
average cost of production and the amo unt paid by them. These payments are 
gradually reduced since 2000 and expected to be abolished in 2015.  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.4.7  Republic of Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/4) 
AG-IMS ID 69062: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates Mo ldova's first domestic support notification 
since acceding to the WTO in 2001 for th e 2001-04 period. The United States of 
America looks forward to continuing to le arn more about Moldova's domestic support 
agricultural policies. The United States of America notes that domestic support 
measures generally were notified either for a single year or over  only a few years.  
a. Is it correct that Moldova's programme s notified here are not permanent, 
long-term legislation? If not, plea se provide a brief overview of the 
agricultural policy structure in Moldova.  
b. When will Moldova be notifyin g for more recent years?  
AG-IMS ID 69063: Question by the United St ates of America - Direct payments: other 
The United States of America notes "Sup port and credit stimulation fund for 
agricultural producers" outlays were firs t notified by Moldova in 2002. Was this 
programme first implemented in 2002? Please provide additional information on the operation of this programme. 
AG-IMS ID 69064: Question by the United States of America- Market price support 
The State Reserve for wheat was notified by Moldova for only 2001.  
c. What is the objective of the state reserve?  
d. Does Moldova still maintain state reserves for wheat even though no 
purchases were made in 2002-04?  
AG-IMS ID 69065: Question by the United St ates of America - Non-product-specific 
AMS 
Moldova notified "Control on selection and reproduction in zoo techniques" in 2004. 
Please provide further details regarding wh at this programme entails and what is 
meant by "zoo techniques". 
 
2.4.8  Nicaragua (G/AG/N/NIC/32) 
AG-IMS ID 69066: Question by the United St ates of America - General services: pest 
and disease control 
Budgetary outlays for "programme for the pr evention of exotic diseases" more than 
doubled in 2011. What is the reason for this significant increase in outlays? 
Answer by Nicaragua 
The objective of the programme is to maintain the national territory free from exotic 
diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, Af rican swine fever, avian influenza and bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).  
The increase in disbursements from US$112,200 in 2010 to US$265,800 in 2011 was due 
to the government counterpart funding for settlements and salary payments for veterinary doctors and technicians working on the epidemiological surveillance circuit throughout the national territory to provide technical assistance in managing the diseases affecting 
animals. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 33 - 
 
  The source of financing for this programme is the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), which provides 80%, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (MAGFOR) of the Government of Nicaragua, which provides 20%. 
AG-IMS ID 69067: Question by the United States of America - Domestic food aid 
The Food Production Programme (PPA), am ong other objectives, aims to increase 
"production and the consumption of protein f oods". The United States of America notes 
that the PPA only covers the period of 2007-2011.  
a. Please explain how the objective of incr easing production and consumption of 
protein foods is to be achieved under the programme.  
b. Since the programme is now complete, can Nicaragua provide any evaluation 
of the effectiveness of the programme in meeting the stated objectives? 
Answer by: Nicaragua 
a. The Government's general objective is to continue to eradicate hunger, chronic 
malnutrition, extreme poverty and unemployment in poor rural households through a 
quantitative and qualitative increase in pr oduction and consumption of protein foods. 
The programme targets households suffering from poverty, with the initial aim of 
enabling families to produce their own food and to sell the surplus. The main tool for 
the PPA is the Food Production Vouchers, which are intended to serve as a means of 
helping poor farming families with organization, capitalization, training and technical assistance. 
The PPA was designed to provide 75,000 poor rural households with vouchers for a 
period of five years. The target population was selected on the basis of an analysis of 
all families with ten manzanas of land without cattle, as determined by the National Agricultural Census (CENAGRO 2001). Th rough these vouchers, the government 
supplies, among other things, a selection of different species of animals such as dairy 
cattle, beef cattle, poultry, etc.; materials for the housing of different species; seeds, plants and plant materials, both for animal and human consumption; and training and 
technical assistance in various areas such as gender, species management, animal 
feed, cooperative associations, en vironment, marketing and credit. 
The Productive Voucher items, although intended to contribute to the welfare of the 
entire family, are supplied to the women in order to ensure the sustainability of the 
scheme, since it has been shown that women, rather than men, tend to be responsible 
for maintaining agricultural production and protein resources. In that sense, the voucher is also an instrument for the development of a gender approach. 
Each Food Production Voucher comes with a "technology" package, which includes all 
that is needed to ensure production and to provide the necessary shelter. New producers are also provided training and technical assistance and given help in 
organizing themselves, creating a revolving fund and managing it properly; and 
trainers are trained to follow up and provide technical assistance once the project has been completed. 
Products covered: 
 In 2011, 15,587 poor rural women were provided with capital goods to produce 
food for their families. 
 The 15,587 new producers are organized in 311 clusters of 50 women each. 
 The 15,587 beneficiaries of the PPA co ntributed 20% of the value of their 
voucher to the revolving fund of the cluster to which they belonged. 
 Milk production reached at least 427,464 litres during the year. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 34 - 
 
   The total herd under the PPA increased by at least 10,266 head of cattle. 
 The new producers are producing at least 7,158,850,000 units. 
 15,587 gardens were created, growing pipián, pumpkins and bananas. 
 51,332 fruit trees were planted including citrus fruits, avocados and mangos. 
 100% of the PPA beneficiary rural family production units were provided with 
individual or group technical assistance. 
b. The programme is not yet complete: It is currently in a second phase, 2012-2016. Its 
evaluation is under way, and the results are expected at the end of June 2013. 
Expected results: 
 Increase and improvement in the productive capacity of 15,587 rural farmers in 
extreme poverty, ethnic communities and indigenous peoples; 
 guarantee of proper support through the implementation of a technical and 
organizational training plan; 
 legal transformation of the clusters, as the organizational basis of the scheme, 
into cooperatives. 
2.4.9  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69) AG-IMS ID 69070: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Can Norway please confirm the accuracy of  Norway's Current Total AMS for 2011. The 
figure provided (NKr 9,648.5 million) is the same as in Norway's 2010 domestic 
support notification. The correct figure for 2011 would appear to be NKr 9,859.9 million 
from Supporting Table DS:4 provid ed in the 2011 notification.  
Answer by Norway 
Norway apologises for the error and the confusion this may have caused. The correct figure 
was that of Supporting Table DS:4. However, Norway has recently submitted a revised 
notification (G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1). This is due to minor changes in the figures for 
transport subsidies for meat and the total production value. The latter has no implications for the Current Total AMS, as non-product specific support is still de minimis. The correct 
figure for total AMS is now NKr 9 842,5 million.  
 
AG-IMS ID 69073: Question by European Unio n - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
In Table DS:1, Norway notifies Current Total AMS for 2011 as NKr 9,648.5 million, 
whilst in Supporting Table DS:4 the Curren t Total AMS is NKr 9,859.9 million. Which 
figure is correct? 
Answer by Norway – See above 
AG-IMS ID 69071: Question by Australia - Direct payments: other Australia notes that the vacation and replac ement scheme continues to be amongst the 
largest Annex 2 programmes notified. Could Norway please provide details on the 
eligibility criteria for this scheme? Ho w is the payment per farm determined? 
Answer by Norway G/AG/W/109 
 
- 35 - 
 
  The scheme is a part of the general welfare system in Norway. Operations with animal 
husbandry are eligible to receive the vacation refunds. Also operations with greenhouse production can receive refunds it can be veri fied that they have all-year production 
The maximum amount that can be refunded in 2013 is NKr 69,000 per operation. The 
payments are only made if the farmer can document actual expenses for hiring help during 
his/her vacation. In other words, the payments do not increase the farmers' income. 
AG-IMS ID 69068: Question by Canada - Direct payments: other 
In 2011, Norway provided NKr 1.3 billion fo r the "Vacation and Replacement Scheme", 
reported under "Other". The measure involves a refund for additional farm operating expenses during holidays and to alleviate financial difficulties due to illness. Could 
Norway please provide information as to whic h types of farming operations are eligible 
for the vacation part of the programme sc heme and on the maximum amount that can 
be refunded? 
Answer by Norway – See above 
Follow-up : Australia was surprised by the huge maximum amount of NKr 69,000 Norwegian 
farmers could receive under the "Vacation and Re placement Scheme". Clarification was sought 
regarding whether the period during which farmers could claim refund was limited to 6 weeks per 
year. Canada agreed with Australia and questioned Norway as regards how Norway ensured the 
measure did not affect income. Norway clarified that the scheme was not intended to compensate farmers' spending during their holidays, but rather , to refund farmers' expenses for hiring help 
during the period when they are away. Norway fu rther pointed out that wages are high in Norway 
and this compensation is part of the general welfare scheme and by no means can it increase 
farmers' income beyond other labours. As to Australia's question, Norway was not able to provide an immediate response.  
AG-IMS ID 69069: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Current Market Price Support for pork has increased by 14% between 2008 and 2011. 
This is mainly due to increases in the a pplied administered prices despite eligible 
production slightly declining between 200 8 and 2011. Can Norway explain why applied 
administered prices have increase d for pork during that period? 
Answer by Norway 
The levels of the administered prices are results of the annual negotiations between the 
government and the farmers' organisations. The price levels negotiated are based on market analysis with an aim of covering increased production costs for farmers.  
AG-IMS ID 69072: Question by Austra lia - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could Norway please provide further details on the fees and levies associated with the 
"farm feed adjustment" in Supporting Table DS:7 which reduces overall Current Total 
AMS for milk by approximately NKr 600 million. 
Answer by Norway 
The farm feed adjustment, as accounted for in the Norwegian consituent data, is a 
correction in order to avoid that the administered prices for grains are included twice in the 
Current Total AMS. The administered prices for meat and milk reflect the production costs, including feed costs, in animal husbandry. If not corrected, the product-specific AMS for meat and milk would also include the higher feed costs resulting from the administered 
prices on grains.  
AG-IMS ID 69074: Question by European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
a. From Norway's answer to the question raised by the European Union during 
the 68th meeting of the Committee on  Agriculture in November 2012 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 36 - 
 
  regarding Norway's use of price comp ensation payments (internal price 
rebates), the European Union underst ands that Norway applies price 
compensation payments (internal price rebates) for beef, potatoes, poultry, 
dairy products, pork and lamb meat when  used in the production of processed 
agricultural products. Does this support to the processing industry only apply 
to the use of beef, potatoes, poultry, dairy products, pork and lamb meat of 
Norwegian origin or is the support granted for the use of imported beef, 
potatoes, poultry, dairy products, pork and lamb meat as well?  
b. I s  i t  c o r r e c t  t h a t  N o r w a y  d o e s  n o t apply price compensation payments 
(internal price rebates) for eggs and egg products?  
Answer by Norway 
a. The intention of Protocol 3 to the EEA agreement is to establish a level playing field for 
processed agricultural products with regard to agricultural raw material costs for Norwegian producers and EU producers. To fulfil this intention, price compensation 
payments in favour of agricultural producers are necessary for Norwegian raw 
materials.  
b. Some egg products receive price compensation payments. 
2.4.10  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/26/REV.1) 
AG-IMS ID 69075: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes the "N ational Emergency Plan" is a new programme 
notified under Supporting Table DS:1. Pursuant to G/AG/2, all Members are required to 
provide a Table DS:2 for any new or modifi ed domestic support measure exempt from 
r e d u c t i o n .  W h e n  d o e s  P a n a m a  p l a n  t o  p r o v i d e  s u c h  a  n o t i f i c a t i o n  f o r  t h i s  n e w  
programme? 
Answer by Panama 
This measure was taken following the Declaration of a State of Emergency under Cabinet 
Resolution No. 214 of 10 December 2010 in response to the floods that occurred 
on 7 and 8 December 2010, and involved the allocation of funds to compensate the losses suffered by producers and others as a result of the floods. According to the information gathered, approximately 36% of the total area under crops was affected, and the main 
beneficiaries of the programme were the rice producers. (See Cabinet Resolution No. 214 
of 10 December 2010
3. Annex II contains the Supporting Table DS:2, Domestic Support, 
reporting period 2011). 
AG-IMS ID 69076: Question by the United  States of America - General services 
The United States of America notes that th e descriptions of "Subsistence farming and 
sustainable agriculture programmes, includ ing crop promotion, use of accessible 
technology and environmental protection" and "Farming promotion and technological 
development programmes" differ between G/AG/N/PAN/27 (2008 and 2009), G/AG/N/PAN/24 (2010), and G/AG/N/PAN/26/Rev.1 (2011). In addition, budgetary outlays for both programmes have increase d significantly from 2008 through 2011.  
a. Do the changes in the measure descriptio ns relate to a change in legislation 
and/or to the implementation of the programme?  
b. What is the reason for the incr ease in budgetary outlays?  
                                               
3 Available at http://www.asamblea.gob.pa/APPS /LEGISPAN/PDF_GACETAS/2010/2010/26677-
A_2010.PDF  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Answer by Panama 
In the case of the "Subsistence farming and sustainable agriculture programmes, including 
crop promotion, use of accessible technology  and environmental protection", the main 
change involves the programme for the transfer of opportunities in the rural areas and 
reflects the intention of the Government of Panama to strengthen and expand that 
programme. 
AG-IMS ID 69077: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
The United States of America appreciates the additional information on the Agricultural 
Competitiveness Programme provided by Panama in G/AG/W/103.  
a. The United States of America understan ds from Panama's response that the 
government will contribute, within an  established time-frame, 50% towards 
producers' agricultural insurance polic y invoices. Please indicate what the 
established time-frame for this programme is.  
b. Government participation in partia lly-funding producers' agricultural 
insurance appears to be more accurately  described as a "government financial 
participation in income insurance" (or "payments made by way of government 
financial participation in crop insu rance schemes for relief from natural 
disasters") pursuant to paragraph 7 (o r 8) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Please explain the re asons behind notifying government 
participation in crop insurance as "Str uctural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids".  
Answer by Panama a. The time period for support under the producers' insurance programmes ran from 
7 September 2007 to 19 September 2012. 
b. The programme was not designed for eligibility for payments to be determined by an 
income loss as described in paragraph 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
nor was it designed so that eligibility for payments would arise only following a formal 
recognition by government authorities that a natural or like disaster has occurred as described in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The programme was classified under paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture because 
it was designed for the purpose of convincing producers of the benefit of including 
agricultural insurance in their financial structure and the benefit of using agricultural insurance, and to facilitate the use of priv ate agricultural insurance for agricultural 
activities. 
AG-IMS ID 69078: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
Panama details a credit and loan programme available to small-scale producers with an 
annual income not exceeding US$100,000. The United States of America notes from the Panama General Agricultural Census of 2011  that the annual farmer income for small 
farms is US$3,298.88 and US$4,840.16 for larg e farms. In addition, the Agricultural 
Census states that out of the 245,105 produc ers, only 52,026 rely on only on-farm 
income for their living. The remainder have off-farm income to support their total incomes. How does Panama reconcile thes e statistics about its producers with 
availability of credit and loans for "sma ll scale producers with annual incomes not 
exceeding US$100,000"?  
The United States of America would like to kn ow if Panama is in a position to respond 
to the following question raised at th e September 2012 Committee on Agriculture 
meeting (G/AG/W/103): "Beyond this specific  credit and loan programme with its 
defined income limit, does Panama have a working definition for "small-scale" G/AG/W/109 
 
- 38 - 
 
  producers, and if so could this be provided?"  Please also explain any differences in this 
response with the data noted above in the Agricultural Census.  
Answer by Panama 
The FECI (Special Interest Compensation Fund) regime does not grant subsidies according 
to the size of the producer. The information provided in Table DS:2 is the amount that 
Panama reimburses as an interest rate discount granted in accordance with Law 4 of 1994: 
"Article 1[4]: Local loans to the agricultural sector and the agro-industrial sector exporting 
non-traditional products shall be eligible for a discount on the interest rate agreed with the 
bank or financial lending institution and shall be repaid by applying the deductions made by the banks or institutions by way of measures provided for under the Law. 
Entitlement to such a discount requires loans to satisfy the following conditions: 
1. Maximum amount per production cycle per line of business; 
two hundred thousand balboas (B.200,000. 00), with the exception of loans  
to agricultural production associations. 
If the nature of the production cycle of qualified agricultural sector activities 
is impossible to define it shall be understood to be the year-end. 
2. Beneficiaries: natural and legal persons with agricultural producer status. 
3. Activities and objectives: as set forth in Article 6 of Law No. 4 of 1994. 
4. Number of operations: one loan per production cycle per line of business per natural 
or legal person. 
5. Penalties: non-compliance with the conditions set out herein shall incur the penalties 
established in Article 7 of Law No. 4 of 1994. 
Loans granted by banks and financial institutions to the Agricultural Development Bank are eligible for the interest rate discount established by this Article." 
Small-scale producers  are "producers whose family income derives mainly from 
agricultural activities, who employ the family  as a labour force and little in the way of 
external labour, work an area of 0.5 to 5 he ctares of land, produce for self-consumption, 
use a certain amount of technology which enables them to produce a surplus in areas in 
which they have experience (e.g. grain, vegetables, roots and tubers, raising and fattening of cattle, swine and poultry); who have little access to state agricultural credit because they lack the necessary guarantees, and who depend on technical assistance and training 
provided by agricultural sector institutions". 
2.4.11  Senegal (G/AG/N/SEN/1) AG-IMS ID 69079: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could Senegal confirm that there have been  no support measures from 1995 to 2011? 
Is there any measure, for example, base d on "La loi sénégalaise d'orientation 
agro-sylvo-pastorale" which was enacted in 2004? 
2.4.12  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/77) 
AG-IMS ID 69081: Question by Europe an Union - General services: other 
What works are financed in the framework of the measure "Erection of waterworks"? 
Are there any on-farm works financed within this measure? In relation to the measure 
"Erection of waterworks", could South Afri ca share its assessment of how these works 
have contributed to the more effective utilisation of the land by producers?  
In relation to the measure "Auxiliary and asso ciated services", what type of transport 
services are supplied by the South African Government? 
                                               
[4] Amended by Article 30 of Law 25 of 26 August 1994; by Article 19 of Law 28 of 20 June 1995. 
Amended by Article 36 of Law 49 of 17 September 2009. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 39 - 
 
  Answer by South Africa 
The “erection of waterworks” is mainly focused in the communal and subsistence farming 
areas to achieve a better distribution of watering points for cattle. The objective of this measure is to prevent over grazing in certain areas. It further includes the provision of 
irrigation services in communal, subsistence and some commercial farming areas. On-farm 
works are not financed in commercial farming areas. According to our assessment, these 
measures have resulted in a more effective utilisation of farm land, contributed towards 
improved yields and contributed to improved  household food security in rural areas. 
The Government transport services relate to transport costs associated with public works 
programmes that include building of structures to prevent soil erosion and the removal of alien and invader plans from certain areas. Th ese are job creation projects carried out by 
Government to alleviate poverty in certain areas. These transport costs do not relate to 
commercial agricultural production. 
AG-IMS ID 69082: Question by Japan - Domestic food aid 
Could South Africa kindly explain why "National School Nutrition Programme" 
(domestic food aid) in Supporting Table DS:1  increased substantially in 2 consecutive 
years (about doubled from 2008) and ou tline how the programme is operated? 
Answer by South Africa 
In 2009, the programme was expanded to include public secondary schools which were 
previously not part of the programme. This expansion of the programme resulted in the 
increase in expenditure. 
The programme is operated on a ranking system that takes into account socio-economic 
circumstances of learners and the community in which the school is based. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) co-ordinates and oversees the programme, ensuring 
adherence to relevant legislation. The Programme is implemented by Provincial 
Departments of Education. 
AG-IMS ID 69080: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
The amount of Development Aid under Regi onal assistance programmes provided to 
"assist producers in underdeveloped and di sadvantaged areas with development aid to 
encourage agricultural and ru ral development as an integr al part of the development 
programme" has increased. Could South Africa provide more details as to the nature of 
the measure, specifically, consistency with Annex 2, paragraph 13 and the reason for 
the increase? Could South Africa elaborate on th e criteria for an area to be considered a 
disadvantaged region? 
Answer by South Africa 
The programmes are implemented by the Prov incial Departments of Agriculture. These 
programmes are implemented in underdeveloped and disadvantaged areas and the criteria 
for eligibility is that farmers must be from previously disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged areas include communal farming areas, subsistence farming areas and areas with degraded agricultural land. Poverty,  unemployment and the lack of food security 
are the major criteria for designating an area as disadvantaged. Only limited commercial 
production takes place in these areas and these programmes are essentially development programmes for food security and poverty allevi ation. Support is not linked to production 
quantities and prices. The reason for the increase is related to recent increases in 
unemployment and improvements in administrative abilities of Provincial Governments. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 40 - 
 
  2.4.13  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/13, G/AG/N/UKR/13/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 69019: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation At the 14 November 2012 meeting of the Co mmittee, Australia supported a question 
asking Ukraine to explain which provision or provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture would allow or enable such an adjustment to the fixed external reference 
price in relation to "sugar produced from sugar beets". Australia acknowledges 
Ukraine's initial response at the Committ ee on Agriculture meeting, and formally 
requests Ukraine provide a revised no tification without the indexation.  
Answer by Ukraine 
In the calculation of the market price support for sugar produced from sugar beets, the 
fixed external reference price for 2004-2006 (US $340 dollars x 5.13 = 1747.3 UAH/tonne) 
was adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index in each year after the base 
period. Thus, Ukraine has informed the Committee that excessive inflation had an impact on Ukraine's implementation of its obligations under domestic support and asked Members 
to give due consideration to the impact of the excessive inflation in accordance with 
Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
In 2007-2010 the growth rate in consumer prices (inflation) in Ukraine were rather 
excessive (2007 - 16.6% 2008 - 22.3% 2009 - 12.3% 2010 - 9.1% 2011 - 4, 6%)
5. The 
excessive inflation and the corresponding increased cost of inputs for sugar production lead to the annual increases in applied administered  price. Therefore application of external 
reference price in local currency (1,747.3 UAH/ tonne), without adjustment for inflation, will 
be incorrect and will not reflect the actual level of product support. 
AG-IMS ID 69083: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada thanks Ukraine for providing a detaile d response to its question regarding the 
calculation of market price support for sugar produced from sugar be ets. Canada's view 
is that the appropriate methodology for calcul ating market price support is described in 
paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture. If during a review of a 
Member's domestic support notification th e Committee is advised that inflation has 
affected that Member's ability to abide by its domestic support commitment, then the 
Committee would refer to Article 18.4 and a ccord "due consideration". Article 18.4 
does not allow a Member to self-adjust the methodology for calculating any element of 
its Current Total AMS. Could Ukraine please  indicate when it will provide revised 
notifications which would include the accurate fixed external reference price? (G/AG/N/UKR/9 and G/AG/N/UKR/13 refer).  
Answer by Ukraine – See above 
Follow-up : Australia reiterated its request for Ukraine to provide the market price calculation 
without inflation adjustment. In relation to Ukraine's reference to Article 18.4, Australia 
commented that it was the Committee rather than individual Members that should decide 
whether due consideration should be given to "the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the 
ability of any Member to abide by its domestic su pport commitments". As stated by Australia, the 
requested information would enable the Committee to assess whether Ukraine's situation was 
applicable under Article 18. Australia cited the ca se of Iceland as an example of a Member who 
had provided the Committee with this type of in formation. Canada, the European Union, Japan, 
Norway and the United States of America ec hoed Australia's view. Japan highlighted the 
importance of the issue of inflation to the Committee.  
                                               
5 Source: Section "Statistic information/Prices /Consumer price indices in 1992 – 2011" on 
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 41 - 
 
  2.4.14  The United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/89) 
AG-IMS ID 69084: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
In response to Canada's question regarding the length of the reference period that was 
used under the Non-insured Crop Disaster A ssistance Program, the United States of 
America indicated that the approved yield is an average of a producer's actual 
production history (APH) for a minimum of four to a maximum of ten crop years, 
depending on the crop and producer histor y. The criteria under Annex 2, paragraph 
8(a) states that eligibility for such paymen ts shall be determined  by a production loss 
which exceeds 30% of the average of production in the preceding three-year period or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest 
and lowest entry. Given that the reference pe riod does not meet the criteria specified 
under Annex 2, Canada requests that the United States of America either take 
measures to bring the programme into confor mity with the clearly defined criteria, or 
to report this programme as domestic support subject to reduction commitments under 
Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Answer by the United States of America 
The United States of America thanks Canada for its comments. The United States of 
America considers the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) to meet the objective of Annex 2, paragraphs 1 and 8(a). The NAP loss threshold is 50 percent, more stringent than the 30 percent threshold set out in paragraph 8(a), and the NAP reference 
period of 4-10 years of actual crop yield is more stringent than the 3-year or 5-year 
Olympic average required under paragraph 8(a). 
Follow-up : Canada stated its appreciation to the United States of America for applying more 
stringent criteria than required in the agreement and indicated its likely intention to follow-up on 
this matter. 
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.5.1  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/22) AG-IMS ID 69020: Question by Aust ralia - General services: research 
Could Armenia please explain how the Whea t and Barley Seed Farming Development 
Programme complies with the requirements of Annex 2? 
2.5.2  Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/33) 
AG-IMS ID 69021: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could Ecuador please clarify which paragraph of  Annex 2 it is referring to in notifying 
this as a Green Box measure? 
Answer by: Ecuador 
The AGROSEGURO programme meets the criteria established in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture by being a social  programme that provides relief in the event 
of natural disasters that affect the crops of small and medium ‑sized producers. 
Payments are only made to producers once the extent of the loss has been officially 
verified. 
The products subject to this scheme originate in  rural areas where there is a high risk of 
natural disaster, and are therefore specified for identification purposes, although the 
insurance may be available on a general basis. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 42 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 69085: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
With regard to the notification G/AG/N/ECU /33, could Ecuador kindly indicate the 
article in Annex 2 that is relevant to the programme? Can Ecuador clarify how the 
programme meets each of the relevant crit eria under the section titled "Detailed 
description of the measure with reference to criteria" in the notification format? 
Answer by: Ecuador 
The AGROSEGURO programme is a relief programme for natural disasters and therefore 
covered by paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. It was launched by 
the Ecuadorian Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture 
and Fisheries, to insure crops grown by small and medium ‑sized producers. By registering 
with the programme, producers are entitled to receive payment for officially verified or 
recognized losses, which must exceed 30% of total production. 
The programme does not cover the entire country, and priority has been given to crops 
that have historically been significantly affected by climatic events such as drought and 
floods. Small producers can lose entire crops in such circumstances. 
These well ‑known climatic events occur on a yearly basis and affect only those products 
covered by the AGROSEGURO programme. 
(AGROSEGURO) operates. Please include details regarding how the programme 
complies with Annex 2 paragraph 8(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Answer by: Ecuador 
The AGROSEGURO programme is a relief programme for natural disasters and therefore 
covered by paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. It was launched by 
the Ecuadorian Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture 
and Fisheries, to insure crops grown by small and medium ‑sized producers. By registering 
with the programme, producers are entitled to receive payment for officially verified or 
recognized losses, which must exceed 30% of total production. 
The programme does not cover the entire country, and priority has been given to crops 
that have historically been significantly affected by climatic events such as drought and 
floods. Small producers can lose entire crops in such circumstances. 
These well ‑known climatic events occur on a yearly basis and affect only those products 
covered by the AGROSEGURO programme. 
2.5.3  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) 
AG-IMS ID 69091: Question by: Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
Canada thanks the European Union for respon ding to its questions regarding Reform of 
the Common Market Organisation in the wine sector (G/AG/N/EU/8) and after a 
review of the responses has the ensuing follow-up questions:  
a. G/AG/N/EU/8 notes that a sub-set of measures, including support for 
"tangible or intangible investments in pr ocessing facilities, infrastructure and 
marketing which improve the overall pe rformance of the en terprises". Could 
the European Union please provide some examples of "tangible investments" 
that could be eligible for support?  
b. Could the European Union please indi cate if the investment measures 
component of the Common Market Orga nisation in the wine sector will 
continue beyond the year 2012?  
Answer by: European Union G/AG/W/109 
 
- 43 - 
 
  a. The eligible expenditure under this measure includes construction, acquisition or 
improvement of immovable property, and purc hase of new machinery or equipment.  
b. A reply to this question will be possible once relevant legislation for the CAP post 2013 
is adopted by the Council and the European Parliament.  
2.5.4  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/11) 
AG-IMS ID 69087: Question by: Canada - Di rect payments: decoupled income support 
Article 132, Council Regulation (EC) No 73 /2009, provides for the continuation of 
augmented direct payments by new member St ates provided that prior to the date of 
accession that a "CAP-like national sche me" was in operation in the new member 
State. Could the European Union please clar ify what is a "CAP-like national scheme"? 
Could the European Union please elaborate as to the methodologies employed to 
assess whether the measures in the new member States were "CAP-like"? 
Answer by: European Union 
Article 132 of Council Regulation 73/2009 provid es that a "CAP-like national scheme" is 
"any national direct payment scheme applicable prior to the date of accession of the new 
Member States under which the support was granted to farmers in respect of production covered by one of the direct payments". This  provision was used to enable granting of 
complementary national direct payments (CNDPs) only to those sectors which had already 
been supported in the new member States before their accession to the European Union and which were also covered by EU direct payments after their accession. 
AG-IMS ID 69090: Question by the United States of America - - Direct payments: 
decoupled income support 
The European Union's notification regarding its Single Payment Scheme states: 
"Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 gives Member St ates the opportunity to review their 
initial choice. Member States which chose th e historical model are allowed to review 
the value of payment entitlements with a view to approximating their unit value, and also to change over to a regional applicatio n of the SPS. In particular, member States 
may adjust the territorial distribution of  direct support by effecting a gradual 
redistribution between region s. Moreover, member States which chose the regional 
model are also allowed to review their deci sions with the aim of approximating the 
value of payment entitlements."  
a. What are the guidelines for making these changes?  
b. For those member States opting to move  from the historical model, will unit 
value determinations be based on values  holding during the historical base 
period?  
c. For those member States moving to the historical model, will value of 
payment entitlements be based on the sa me historical base period as in the 
original legislation?  
Answer by: European Union a. The European Union invites the United States of America to consult Council Regulation 
(EC) 73/2009 which provides relevant guidelines. In particular, the regulation sets a 
deadline for the decisions to be taken by the member States if they were to opt for a 
review of their initial choice for the application of the Single Payment Scheme. 
b. Under the Single Payment Scheme direct payments under both the regional and the 
historical models result from the decoupling of support in the 2003 reform of the CAP. 
At the moment of the Health Check reform, member States were given the opportunity to decide to review these decoupled payments  in order to improve the distribution of G/AG/W/109 
 
- 44 - 
 
  support. The payments under the Single Payment Scheme are compliant with the 
criteria of Paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The European Union would like to inform the United States of America that within the 
deadline set out in the regulation no EU member State decided to change the model 
chosen at the outset of the application of the Single Payment Scheme or undertook to 
approximate the values under the regional or the historical model as a result of the Heath Check reform. 
c. The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 did not foresee a possibility to move 
from the regional to the historical model. 
AG-IMS ID 69088: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
In the notification, restructuring support is  described as a "transitional measure that 
has been added in order to support agricu ltural holdings undergoing restructuring, 
including diversification to activities outside agriculture, due to a reform of the single 
Common Market Organisation". Could the European Union please explain what 
structural disadvantages are included in th is measure? How does the European Union 
determine whether there is an objectively de monstrated structural disadvantage? What 
are the criteria used? Further, please desc ribe how the measure conforms to each of 
the criteria set out in Annex 2, paragraph 8. 
Answer by: European Union 
This measure complies with the criteria of paragraph 11 of Annex 2. It foresees a 
transitional and digressive support for agricult ural holdings undergoing restructuring due to 
a reform of a common market organisation. Such support is provided via the rural development programmes in order to assist the farmers concerned in adapting to the 
changed conditions by restructuring their econ omic activities. The granting of support is 
conditional on the establishment of an investment plan which determines the structural disadvantage the farmer faces in his/her specific situation. 
AG-IMS ID 69022: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
d. In relation to "3.2 Restructuring support in the cotton sector" can the 
European Union please clarify how it en sures payments under its cotton sector 
restructuring support are limited to the amount required to compensate for 
the structural disadvantage? 
e. I n  r e l a t i o n  t o  " 3 . 2  S e t t i n g  u p  o f  y o u n g  f a r m e r s "  c a n  t h e  E u r o p e a n  U n i o n  
please explain what structural disa dvantage is being compensated for? 
Answer by: European Union a. Cotton producing member States submit to  the Commission restructuring programmes 
containing measures in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 637/2008 aimed at 
restructuring the cotton sector with a view to improve its market orientation. These programmes contain a detailed description of the measures proposed as well as their quantifiable objectives, together with an assessment of expenditure to be incurred. 
Article 6.1 of Council Regulation (EC) 637/2008 specifies the 'General rules concerning 
the financing of the restructuring programmes' and lays down in particular that "Community support shall only relate to eligible expenditure incurred after the 
submission of the relevant restructuring programme…". As regards in particular aid for 
dismantling of the ginning facilities and aid to machinery contractors, member States are required to decide the aid to be granted on the basis of objective and non-
discriminatory criteria, however, a maximum aid at EU level has been established in 
order to avoid overcompensation. The restructuring programmes are under the responsibility of the member States who need to ensure the necessary controls and penalties in case of non-compliance. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 45 - 
 
  b. This measure has the objective of facilitating young farmers' initial establishment. In 
order to benefit from this support, they must possess adequate occupational skills and competence and submit an investment plan for the development of their farming activities. The measure provides for a flexible response to an individual situation of a 
young farmer which is documented in the investment plan. In general, the structural 
disadvantages are linked to cash-flow problems at the moment of setting up as well as to access to land and/or capital.  
AG-IMS ID 69089: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
The European Union provides support for "set ting up of young farmers". The support is 
said to compensate for an objectively demo nstrated structural disadvantage contained 
in an investment plan. This type of suppo rt increased from EUR 50,000 to EUR 70,000. 
Could the European Union elaborate as to the type of structural di sadvantage faced by 
young farmers? Could the European Union pl ease indicate as to at what age it 
considers a "young farmer"? Could the European Union please explain how this type of 
support compensates for a structural disadvantage? Further, what are the estimated costs associated with this measure? 
Answer by: European Union 
This measure has the objective of facilitating young farmers' initial establishment. Support 
is granted to persons who are less than 40 years of age and are setting up for the first time o n  a n  a g r i c u l t u r a l  h o l d i n g  a s  h e a d  o f  t h e  h o l d i n g .  T h e y  m u s t  p o s s e s s  a d e q u a t e  
occupational skills and competence and subm it a business plan for the development of 
their farming activities. The measure provides for a flexible response to an individual situation of a young farmer which is documented in the investment plan. The maximum 
support for this measure increased from EUR 55,000 to EUR 70,000. 
The part of the EU budget spent on this measure in 2010 was EUR 360 million. 
AG-IMS ID 69023: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Could the EU please clarify how it ensure s "Natura 2000 agri-environmental payments" 
are limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the 
government programme?  
Answer by: European Union 
Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 establishes that support provided for 
Natura 2000 payments is granted in order to compensate for costs incurred and income 
foregone resulting from disadvantages encountered by farmers in the nature protection 
areas established under the Natura 2000 framework.  
2.5.5  The United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/91) 
AG-IMS ID 69025: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
a. Can the United States of America pl ease clarify what environmental or 
conservation objectives are acheived by the Voluntary Public Access and 
Habitat Incentive Pr ogram (VPA-HIP)? 
b. Australia notes that one objective of the programme is to maximize 
participation by land owners – can the United States of America confirm that 
payments made are limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in 
complying with the government programme and explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure these payments are limited in this way?  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 46 - 
 
  c. Regarding the Conservation Loan Program,  could the United States of America 
explain what the 'clearly defined gove rnment environmental or conservation 
programmes' are that the programme rela tes to, and the legislative measures 
in place to ensure compliance?  
Answer by the United States of America 
a. The VPA-HIP provides grants to states and tribal governments, which establish their 
own programmes and set the specific environmental and conservation objectives to be 
achieved. However, all applicants must demonstrate how the project will maintain and 
improve wildlife habitat on land benefitted by  the program, and funding priority is given 
to proposals that provide incentives to strengthen wildlife habitat on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. 
b. The VPA-HIP provides grants to applicants to cover reimbursable costs. Any programme 
funds not used for programme purposes must be returned to the government. Further, 
any income generated by the programme will be deducted from the total reimbursable 
costs. Specific benefit levels are determined by state and tribal governments operating 
funded programmes. Further, applicants' bu dgets are reviewed to determine whether 
and to what extent additional resources were committed by Federal, State, or tribal 
governments or private resources to complete the programme, and additional 
resources reduce the amount provided to applicants to ensure that only reimbursable costs are covered. 
c. Conservation Loan funds can only be used to implement conservation practices that are 
defined by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as approved 
conservation plans. The NRCS-approved conser vation plan provides a written record of 
the land user's decisions and supporting information, for treatment of a land unit or 
water as a result of the planning process, meeting NRCS Field Office Technical Guide 
(FOTG) quality criteria for each natural resource (soil, water, air, plants, and animals) and taking into account economic and social considerations. The conservation plan 
describes the schedule of operations and activities needed to solve identified natural 
resource problems and takes advantage of opportunities at a conservation management system level.  
Permitted activities under an approved conservation plan include reducing soil erosion, 
improving water quality, and promoting sustai nable and organic agricultural practices. 
Specific conservation practices include installation of conservation structures, establishment of forest cover, installation of water conservation measures, 
establishment or improvement of perman ent pastures, transitioning to organic 
production manure management, including manure digestion systems, and adaptation of other emerging or existing conservation practices, techniques or technologies.  
Under federal regulation to ensure compliance, lenders are required to ensure that 
borrowers do not use loan funds for unauthorized purposes. The lender's responsibilities for borrower supervision include periodic inspections to ensure that all development is properly completed as proposed in the loan application.  
2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.6.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/59, G/AG/N/CHE/62) AG-IMS ID 69092: Question by European Union - Product coverage/scheduled 
commitments 
The column "description of products" in Table ES:1 of G/AG/N/CHE/59 and 
G/AG/N/CHE/62 contains the following tariff  codes for milk and dairy produce under 
the definition of incorporated products : ex 0401.10, ex 0405. 10, ex 0402.90, ex 
0405.90. These codes do not seem to be included  in the respective product definition in 
the Swiss Schedule of Concessions. Could Switzerland please explain?  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 47 - 
 
  Answer by: Switzerland 
As announced at the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in September 2012 and 
indicated in footnote 2 of Table ES:1 in no tifications G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62, 
tariff line ex0401.10 has been partially eligib le for export drawback s. When implementing 
its obligations concerning export subsidies, Switzerland mistakenly included this tariff line, 
which does not appear in Schedule of Concessions LIX Switzerland ‑Liechtenstein, in its 
national legislation. This inconsistency was not apparent since there was little trade for the 
tariff line in question during the period of implementation of those obligations and there was no impact on the total amount. Switzerland has amended its national legislation, which no longer contains this tariff line. Since 1 December 2012 the tariff line in question has 
therefore no longer been eligible for export drawbacks. 
The fact that tariff lines 0405.10 and 0405.90 are eligible for export drawbacks is explained 
by a change of classification in the Harmon ized System. These two tariff lines correspond 
to the same product 0405.00 in Switzerland's original Schedule of Concessions under the 
Uruguay Round. 
During preparation of the ES notification for 2009, tariff line ex0402.90 was erroneously 
included in Table ES:1. It is in fact line ex0405.90 which was eligible for export drawbacks 
and which should appear ‑ instead of ex0402.90 ‑ in Switzerland's notification for 2009. 
Switzerland will correct this error in G/AG/N/CHE/59 in the coming weeks. 
AG-IMS ID 69093: Question by European Union - International food aid 
Why does Switzerland notify food aid in the form of milk powder and cheese in Table 
ES:3 rather than in Table ES:1, consider ing that Switzerland has export subsidy 
reduction commitments for dairy products? 
Answer by: Switzerland 
Switzerland thanks the European Union for this question. Switzerland had intended to 
include in Table ES:1 a reference to Table ES:3, as it had done in previous notifications, for 
example in its notifications for 2009 and 2010 (G/AG/N/CHE/59). However, it seems that in 
the notification in question (G/AG/N/CHE/62) this reference was omitted. A corrigendum (G/AG/N/CHE/62/Corr.1) was circulated on 2 May to reflect the reference. 
AG-IMS ID 69094: Question by European Un ion - Other measures with circumvention 
potential 
According to documents G/AG/N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62, Switzerland has 
maintained export subsidies for incorporated products as of 2011. According to Article 
11 of the Agreement on Agriculture "in no case may the per-unit subsidy paid on an 
incorporated agricultural pr imary product exceed the per-unit export subsidy that 
would be payable on exports of the primary pr oduct as such." This issue was raised at 
the 57th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture held on 19 November 2009, where 
the European Union questioned Switzerland' s use of export subsidies for processed 
products in light of Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture. At that time, 
Switzerland did not agree with an interpreta tion of Article 11 that would necessitate 
the elimination of export subsidies on processed products in case those were 
eliminated for corresponding raw agricultural  products. In the light of Swiss use of 
export subsidies as per documents G/AG /N/CHE/59 and G/AG/N/CHE/62, how does 
Switzerland interpret Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture? G/AG/W/109 
 
- 48 - 
 
  Answer by: Switzerland 
Switzerland recalls its position stated at the 56th, 57th and 60th m e e t i n g s  o f  t h e  
Committee on Agriculture, according to which it considers that Article 11 cannot be interpreted as preventing Members from eliminating export subsidies for primary products 
without also eliminating subsidies for corresponding processed products. If that 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  w e r e  t o  b e  g i v e n ,  M e m b e r s  w o u l d  b e  f o r c e d  t o  p r o v i d e ,  o r  r e i n t r o d u c e ,  export subsidies for primary products so as to be able to grant export drawbacks for 
processed products, which would run counter to the spirit of the reduction commitment 
undertaken in the Uruguay Round. Switzerland does not intend to reintroduce export subsidies for primary products. G/AG/W/109 
 
- 49 - 
 
  ANNEX I 
ECUADORIAN IMPORTS IN 2011 
 
POULTRY MEAT  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS  
0207120000 (MEAT OF FOWLS OF 
THE SPECIES GALLUS 
DOMESTICUS ) NOT 
CUT IN PIECES, 
FROZEN UNITED STATES 0.43  6.02 6.64 0.27  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 1  0.43 6.02 6.64 0.27 
0207250000 (MEAT OF TURKEYS) 
NOT CUT IN PIECES, 
FROZEN PERU 409.59  994.77  1,034.21 44.29  
    UNITED STATES 347.02  803.76  874.10 35.79  
    CANADA 19.86  45.38  48.92 2.03  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 3  776.45  1,843.90  1,957.23  82.10  
0207270000 CUTS AND OFFAL (OF 
TURKEYS), FROZEN PERU 98.74  390.69  400.84 17.40  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 1  98.74  390.69  402.80  17.40  
0207360000 OTHER, FROZEN UNITED STATES 0.91  5.52 5.89 0.25  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 1  0.91 5.52 6.29 0.25 
 
POWDERED MILK  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL  
FOB ‑ DOLLARS  
0402109000 OTHER COLOMBIA 50.00  238.75  246.08 5.50  
    GERMANY 0.01  0.16 0.20 0.01  
    ITALY 0.01  0.00 0.01 0.00  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 3  50.02  238.91  246.27  5.51 
 
GLUCOSE 
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION COUNTRY TONNES FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS 
1702309000 OTHER BRAZIL 26.22  48.86  54.27 82.93  
    BELGIUM 5.25  4.24 5.85 7.20  
    COSTA RICA 1.00  2.90 3.81 4.93  
    PANAMA 1.00  2.90 3.98 4.93  
    GERMANY 0.00  0.03 0.03 0.04  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 5  33.47  58.92  67.92  100.00  
1702401000 GLUCOSE CHINA 48.10  29.49  32.50 79.35  
    GERMANY 1.20  7.35 7.75 19.78  
    UNITED STATES 0.01  0.33 0.40 0.88  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 3  49.31  37.17  40.64  100.00  
1702402000 GLUCOSE SYRUP ITALY 1.22  1.23 1.64 100.00  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 1  1.22 1.23 1.64 100.00  
 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 50 - 
 
  MAIZE (CORN)  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS  
1005901100 YELLOW UNITED STATES 215,670.10  60,388.81  68,113.93 40.12  
    ARGENTINA 197,302.74  52,227.80  60,684.11 34.70  
    BRAZIL 56,603.70  15,468.72  18,004.53 10.28  
    URUGUAY 32,999.14  9,208.41  10,550.49 6.12  
    BELGIUM 28,818.00  6,449.76  7,418.90 4.29  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
5 531,393.67  143,743.49  164,771.94  95.49  
1005901200 WHITE PERU 2,406.58  2,317.56  2,352.71 1.54  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
1 2,406.58  2,317.56  2,517.48  1.54 
1005902000 POPCORN (ZEA MAYS 
CONVAR. 
MICROSPERMA OR ZEA 
MAYS VAR. EVERTA) ARGENTINA 7,390.68  3,795.51  4,246.75 2.53  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
1 7,390.68  3,795.51  4,249.27  2.53 
1005903000 GIANT WHITE (ZEA 
MAYS AMILACEA CV. 
GIGANTE) PERU 5.34  8.13 8.59 0.01  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
1 5.34 8.13 12.84  0.01 
1005904000 PURPLE (ZEA MAYS 
AMILACEA CV. 
MORADO) PERU 258.50  196.98  200.72 0.14  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
1 258.50  196.98  200.73  0.14 
1005909000 OTHER PERU 389.83  474.19  484.76 0.32  
GRAND TOTAL:      541,844.59  150,535.84  172,065.44  100.00  
 
GRAIN SORGHUM  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS  
1007009000 OTHER ARGENTINA 26,250.00  6,411.57  7,341.31 100.00  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
1 26,250.00  6,411.57  7,341.31  100.00  
 
MAIZE (CORN) STARCH  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS  
1108120000 MAIZE (CORN) STARCH COLOMBIA 3,945.79  2,900.65  2,957.66 64.33  
    PERU 1,554.20  1,275.17  1,312.66 28.28  
    UNITED STATES 529.86  304.00  333.53 6.75  
    CHINA 58.85  29.34  31.97 0.66  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
4 6,088.69  4,509.16  4,635.81  100.00  
 
 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 51 - 
 
  SOYABEAN OIL ‑CAKE  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL FOB 
‑ DOLLARS  
2304000000 OIL ‑CAKE AND OTHER 
SOLID RESIDUES 
RESULTING FROM THE 
EXTRACTION OF 
SOYABEAN OIL UNITED STATES 252,823.68  98,087.16  106,864.06 42.55  
    ARGENTINA 213,027.93  79,578.41  88,066.46 34.52  
    CHILE 67,000.00  24,073.51  26,279.10 10.45  
    BRAZIL 52,317.27  20,446.96  22,814.09 8.87  
    PERU 15,500.00  5,526.20  5,956.83 2.40  
    UNITED KINGDOM 5,101.50  2,037.49  2,258.46 0.89  
    CHINA 1,251.60  739.62  827.06 0.33  
    BOLIVIA 200.00  56.00  82.10 0.03  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
8 607,221.97  230,545.32  253,148.14  100.00  
 
WHEAT  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL 
FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  
1001109000 OTHER CANADA 413,293.71  150,020.79 164,933.01 74.97  
    UNITED STATES 37,251.22  13,873.04 15,366.83 6.94  
    RUSSIA 10,250.00  3,267.25 3,701.92 1.64  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
3 460,794.93  167,161.07  184,001.74  83.53  
1001902000 OTHER WHEAT UNITED STATES 63,972.44  21,549.71 23,532.00 10.77  
    CANADA 35,995.02  9,548.42 11,104.85 4.78  
    ARGENTINA 4,760.75  1,865.25 2,159.49 0.94  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
3 104,728.21  32,963.37  36,980.33  16.48  
 
BARLEY 
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  
  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL 
FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  
1003009000 OTHER ARGENTINA 20,475.00  5,777.35 6,876.37 65.50  
    CANADA 5,150.00  1,610.48 1,978.63 18.26  
    AUSTRALIA 4,500.00  1,433.25 1,654.66 16.25  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
3 30,125.00  8,821.07  10,509.66  100.00  
 
MALT, NOT ROASTED  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL 
FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  
1107100000 NOT ROASTED CANADA 10,827.65  5,829.57 6,558.23 95.39  
    ARGENTINA 310.05  163.26 225.59 2.68  
    UNITED STATES 136.43  106.99 129.87 1.76  
    GERMANY 11.00  7.68 10.24 0.13  
    UNITED KINGDOM 5.00  4.06 4.96 0.07  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
5 11,290.13  6,111.54  6,928.87  100.00  
 G/AG/W/109 
 
- 52 - 
 
  WHEAT STARCH  
NANDINA 
SUBHEADING  NANDINA 
DESCRIPTION  COUNTRY  TONNES  FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  CIF ‑ 
DOLLARS  % / TOTAL 
FOB ‑ 
DOLLARS  
1108110000 WHEAT STARCH ARGENTINA 1,197.10  655.51 742.43 62.39  
    NETHERLANDS 216.10  164.82 183.96 15.69  
    CHINA 185.00  127.53 144.24 12.14  
    LITHUANIA 120.00  76.98 87.15 7.33  
    AUSTRALIA 19.50  13.29 16.60 1.27  
    BELGIUM 17.50  12.58 14.12 1.20  
    GERMANY 0.01  0.01 0.02 0.01  
TOTAL FOR 
SUBHEADING:    No. of countries: 
7 1,755.21  1,050.69  1,188.50  100.00  
Source: Central Bank of Ecuador  
Prepared by the Marketing Department of the Ministry of  Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP).  G/AG/W/109 
 
- 53 - 
 
  ANNEX II 
NATIONAL DIRECTORATE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL 
TRADE AGREEMENTS AND TRADE PROTECTION  
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY  
ANALYSIS OF 2011  NOTIFICATION  
 
Regarding the reply to question Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/26/REV.1) - AG-IMS ID 69076: Question 
by the United States of America - General services: 
 
In the case of the "Subsistence farming and sustainable agriculture programmes, including crop 
promotion, use of accessible technology and enviro nmental protection", the main change involves 
the programme for the transfer of opportunities in the rural areas and reflects the intention of the 
Government of Panama to strengthen and expand that programme. 
Programme: Subsistence Farming and sustainable  
agriculture programmes, including crop promotion, use  
of accessible technology and environmental protection 2010 2011 
Transfer of opportunities in the rural areas  287,349.00 9,339,475.00  
Rural development through agro-tourism   398,958.00  
Ecological Gardens. United Families 586,323.00 934,358.00  
Development, participation and rural modernization  1,929,613.00  
   
Rural productivity 3,773,631.00  
Cultivation for the development of rural indigenous 
communities 348,210.00  
Rural development through agro-tourism 275,632.00  
Development, participation and rural modernization 787,365.00  
 6,058,510.00  12,602,404.00  
For the promotion and technological development programme, the increases are due to the 
inclusion of goats in the livestock programme an d the reclassification of certain programmes. 
 
 
__________