RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/111  
 
5 August 2013  
(13-4190)  Page: 1/37  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 13 JUNE 20131 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/110 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 pr esent 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/111 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 4 
1.1   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 4  
1.1.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 70007) ....................................... 4  
1.2   Brazil's trade an d industry policy ................................................................................. 4  
1.2.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  70016)  .................................................................... 4  
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 5  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70002) ............................................................. 5  
1.4   Statement by Costa Rica (AG-IMS ID 70080) ................................................................. 7  
1.5   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 7  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 70008) ....................................... 7  
1.6   Indonesia's quantitative and other import restrictions on certain food products ................... 7  
1.6.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 70009) ....................................... 7  
1.7   Philippines' continuous use of re ference prices applied to imports ..................................... 8  
1.7.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 70010) ....................................... 8  
1.8   Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings ..................................... 9  
1.8.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70006) ............................................................. 9  
1.9   Thailand's pa ddy pledging scheme .............................................................................. 10 
1.9.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 7001 7) ................................................................... 10 
1.9.2   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  70011)  ...................................... 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/TH A/73) ..................................................................................... 11 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 12 
2.2.1   Israel (G/AG/N/IS R/49) .......................................................................................... 12 
2.2.2   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/184) ........................................................................................ 13 
2.2.3   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/48) ........................................................................ 14 
2.2.4   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/74) ..................................................................................... 15 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 15 
2.3.1   Armenia (G/AG/N/AR M/20) ..................................................................................... 15 
2.3.2   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/30) ......................................................................................... 15 
2.3.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/96) ....................................................................................... 19 
2.3.4   Cuba (G /AG/N/CU B/45) .......................................................................................... 20 
2.3.5   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/10) ............................................................................. 20 
2.3.6   Georgia (G/AG/N/GE O/10) ...................................................................................... 21 
2.3.7   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/30/Rev.1, G/AG /N/IDN/ 34) ................................................... 22 
2.3.8   Malawi (G/AG/N/MW I/4) ......................................................................................... 29 
2.3.9   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/2) .............................................................................................. 29 G/AG/W/111 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.10   Norway (G/A G/N/NOR/69 /Rev.1) ........................................................................... 29 
2.3.11   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PR Y/21) ................................................................................... 30 
2.3.12   Philippine s (G/AG/N/ PHL/42) ................................................................................. 30 
2.3.13   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/61) ............................................................................... 35 
2.3.14   Ukraine (G/AG/N/ UKR/9, G/AG/N /UKR/13) .............................................................. 35 
2.3.15   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/89) ............................................................. 36 
2.3.16   Uruguay (G/AG/N/ URY/9)...................................................................................... 36 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 37  
3.1   Turkey's delayed notifications ..................................................................................... 37 
3.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 70075) ........................................................ 37 
 G/AG/W/111 
 
- 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 70007) 
The United States of America thanks Brazil for the informal table provided separately 
with generic destinations of PEP auctio ns by commodity (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 
69027). As a follow up to that information, the United States of America specifically 
requests the quantity auctioned and negotiat ed by actual destination and tonnage and 
by commodity for each of the "Aviso" numbers provided. According to CONAB's 
guidelines for PEP
2,CONAB collects all of this data. Sp ecifically, the guidelines stipulate 
in Article 9 ("Da Comprovação de Coloca ção do Produto na Região de Destino"— 
Validation of the Product Delivery to the Dest ination) that the documentation required 
for every PEP Auction include: auctions dest ined for the domestic market require the 
market destination (Article 9.8.1.4) and ca rgo manifests (Article 9.8.1.7); auctions 
destined for the international market require the extract of the dispatch declaration, or 
export receipt (Article 9.8.2.1) and the bi ll of lading (Article 9.8.2.2). Therefore, 
according to the programme guidelines precis e information on the market destination is 
available.  
a. For each domestic auction the United St ates of America requests the tonnage 
and the Brazilian state that was the actual destination. 
b. For exports, the United States of Amer ica requests the tonnage auctioned by 
commodity for each of the "Aviso" numbers, but does not request the foreign 
destination specified. 
Answer by Brazil Brazil would like to confirm that the figures contained in the table sent during the last 
Committee on Agriculture meeting are to be considered official. In previous answers to 
similar questions from the United States of America, CONAB's electronic control mechanism did not provide information on the destination of products under the PEP. The documents 
mentioned in the guidelines are required only to prove that products are marketed according 
to the provisions of their respective "Avisos" (r egion or state of origin of the product and the 
destination allowed). Therefore at this moment Brazil cannot provide the information requested. Nonetheless, CONAB has been developing its control mechanism so as to be able 
to provide this kind of information in the future. 
Follow-up:  The United States of America sought an indication of when Brazil would be able to 
provide the requested information. Brazil responded that it would try to gather the information as 
soon as possible.  
1.2  Brazil's trade and industry policy 1.2.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 70016) 
At the March 2013 meeting of the Committee on  Agriculture, Brazil provided responses 
to Canada's follow-up questions regarding its trade and industry policy for 2011-2014, 
called the Plano Brasil Maior ("Greater Brazil Plan"). 
Canada understands that one of the Plan 's elements is a temporary payroll tax 
exemption, where the 20% mandatory employ er's social security contribution on 
payrolls (contribution to the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social or "INSS") is substituted for a flat rate ranging between  1% and 2% on gross earnings, excluding 
gross revenue from exports.  
Brazil announced in early April that it woul d extend payroll tax exemptions to more 
agriculture sectors. Canada understands th at, beyond the sectors already benefiting 
from the measure (pork, poultry, preparatio ns of meat and fish and preparations of 
                                               
2 http://www.conab.gov.br/OlalaCMS/uploads /arquivos/03d5f5cc69ed07435cba2a3798bb39fc.pdf . G/AG/W/111 
 
- 5 - 
 
  cereals, flour starch), fruits (pulp and juices ), beef, coffee, wine, animal feed and dairy 
cattle will also be eligible for payroll tax exemptions. 
a. Could Brazil provide more detailed information as to how the extension of 
coverage to a wider range of agricultural  sectors (such as fruits, beef and wine) 
of the payroll tax exemption will benefit these new sectors and when it expects 
the extension of coverage to take effect? 
b. Further to the response provided by Br azil at the last Commi ttee on Agriculture 
regarding Law 12.715, could Brazil provide more details of the policy objectives 
it seeks to achieve with the implemen tation of the payroll tax exemption? 
c. Considering that Brazil asserts th at the new methodology applies 
independently of the export performa nce of the sectors covered by the 
measure: 
i. Could Brazil confirm that no portion of revenues derived from exports are 
currently being excluded in the calculat ion of the employer's contribution to 
the INSS? 
ii. Could Brazil explain why product coverage  relies on a list of HS codes if 
revenues derived from exports do not receive a different treatment than 
other sources of revenue? 
iii. In light of the provisions of Annex 1, paragraph (e) of the Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures Agreement, and Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the inclusion of "reve nue foregone" as a form of provision 
of a subsidy, could Brazil elaborate on  its assessment that tax breaks such 
as the payroll tax exemption do not involve subsidies? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. There is no tax exemption in the programme. The social security contribution continues 
to apply to the covered sectors. As stated by Brazil in its reply to a similar question during the last session of the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 
69026), "Plano Brasil Maior" merely changes the calculation methodology for that 
contribution. The product coverage is effective since 1 January 2013. 
b. The change of methodology has been introd u c e d  i n  o r d e r  t o  s i m p l i f y  b u r e a u c r a t i c  
procedures and ease the administrative burden related to the collection of the social 
security contribution. 
c. Responses 
i. Brazil reiterates that no export performance requirements apply in the 
new methodology for social security contribution. 
ii. The product coverage relies on a list of HS codes merely for reference purposes, so 
as to make the identification of products easier. 
iii. In Brazil's view, it is wrong to describe the measure as a tax exemption, since the 
social security contribution continues to apply to the covered sectors. 
1.3  Canada's dairy policies 1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70002) 
a. In responses to questions during the 69
th Committee on Agriculture, Canada 
explained that it was necessary to im plement a new milk class for mozzarella 
cheese for fresh pizzas due to an "evolving market demand". G/AG/W/111 
 
- 6 - 
 
  i. Could Canada please elaborate on th e nature of this evolving demand? 
ii. Could Canada further explain how the programme will address this evolving 
market demand, and how this is expe cted to affect imported products? 
b. New Zealand thanks Canada for the ad vice that the Ice Cream Promotion 
Initiative is a private contractual agr eement between Dairy Farmers of Canada 
(DFC) and ice cream processors. New Zealand would be grateful for an 
explanation as to why the Canadian Da iry Commission performs the service of 
calculating pooling returns for milk cl asses on behalf of a non-government 
organisation (DFC) if it has no in fluence in determin ing the terms and 
conditions of their various initiatives? Is there a contract in place for the provision of these services, and if so, is payment received by the Canadian 
Dairy Commission (CDC)? If there is no contract, under what authority does the 
CDC perform this service? 
Answer by Canada 
a. The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) has announced the creation of a milk class for 
mozzarella cheese to be used on fresh pizzas. The new 3(d) class was adopted by the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee and has taken effect on 1 June 2013. The 
new milk class 3(d) for mozzarella cheese for restaurants making fresh pizza addresses 
a longstanding request from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, in the context of increased competition from dome stic frozen pizzas on the market which, 
are eligible to class 5(a) pricing. It is not expected that this new class will affect 
imported products.  
b. 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 (DFC), a non-governmental organization, and 
individual ice cream processors. As mentioned at the 64th Committee on Agriculture meeting, the CDC’s role as secretariat of the Western Milk Pooling Agreement and the 
Agreement on the Eastern Canadian Milk Poolin g is to perform pooling calculations each 
month. The CDC has no part in determining the terms and conditions of the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative. Its sole role is to calculate the pooling returns and provincial sharing of the promotion costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative, since it has 
the infrastructure already in place to perform monthly pooling calculations. The CDC 
does not incur additional costs for the pooling calculation of this initiative on behalf of the DFC.  
Follow-up:  New Zealand remained concerned about the mandate of the CDC, which was a 
government agent in its view, in implementing a su ite of measures that appeared to be designed 
to exclude imported diary ingredients. New Zealand stated that their concerns arose due to 
Canada's system of controlled prices which allowed Canada to subsidize certain products through 
the rents captured from the internal market for dairy. In some cases these subsidies appeared to be directed towards products which were traded. The CDC played a role, but according to New Zealand, it was unclear under what authority this work was carried out. New Zealand believed that 
such a system must ensure, for instance, that cheaper mozzarella intended for pizza toppings did 
not make its way onto the wider market or get incorporated into other products. In New Zealand's opinion, this type of tight control might provid e the assurance that trade would not be affected. 
The United States of America appreciated Canada's mention that imported products would not be 
affected by the new milk class given that various products it exported to Canada might link to the new class. The European Union reregistered its on -going concern over the special milk classes and 
their possible effects on imports. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.4  Statement by Costa Rica (AG-IMS ID 70080) 
As mentioned at previous Committee meetings, following ruling No. 137-2012-VI of the 
Administrative Court, issued on 6 July 2012, the Government of Costa Rica began an analysis, in particular of the price support mechanism for rice, as it related to Costa Rica's AMS level. 
Following this analysis, the Government of Costa Rica decided to eliminate the price support 
mechanism for rice, as of 1 March 2014, pursuant to Executive Decree No. 37699-MEIC, published in Official Journal La Gaceta on 20 May 2013.  
The Committee on Agriculture was no t i f i e d  o f  t h i s  d e c i s i o n  o n  3 1  M a y  t h i s  y e a r  i n  d o c u m e n t  
G/AG/GEN/110. The text of the decree was attached to this document. 
1.5  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70008) 
The United States of America continues to be seriously concerned with Costa Rica's 
continued provision of domestic support in ex cess of its bound commitments. In the five 
notified years since first breaking its WTO binding commitment, Costa Rica has provided 
over US$384 million of cumula tive excess support. In 2012 alone the high market price 
support to Costa Rica's farmers represented more than four times Costa Rica's annual 
total AMS commitment of about US$16 millio n. The United States of America is 
encouraged by press reports that Costa Rica  has initiated some steps in recent months 
that may help address this situation. The United States of America looks forward to 
engaging with Costa Rica in an informal pl urilateral gathering in advance of the June 
2013 Committee meeting in order to better understand Costa Rica's planned actions 
with respect to its domestic support and total AMS commitments. 
Answer by Costa Rica – See above 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan and the United 
States of America praised Costa Rica's commitmen t to transparency and its efforts in reforming 
the programme. Canada, supported by Norway, considered Costa Rica's contribution to be a positive example of how the Committee could function effectively. Australia noted the lack of 
means to notify a Member's significant policy change to the Committee other than submission of a 
GEN document. Norway cited the studies shown by Costa Rica in the plurilateral meeting. The 
studies indicated that Costa Rica was moving towards a policy which was in fact better for producers and consumers. Norway referred to the policy as a win-win for the Committee and Costa 
Rica. Pakistan was pleased to see that academic studies were taken seriously by Costa Rica and 
that policy changes were made despite political pressure. The United States noted an interest in the implementation details when available. Fina lly, the Philippines congratulated Costa Rica for 
bringing its measure in conformity with WTO rules.  
 1.6  Indonesia's quantitative and other impo rt restrictions on certain food products 
1.6.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70009) 
The following questions regard Indonesia's revised Food Act No. 18/2012 Food Security 
and Trade (replacing the previous Food Act No. 7 of 1996 Food Law). 
a. Article 14 states: (1) The source of th e food supply shall originate from 
domestic food production and national food reserve. (2) If the food supply 
sources as intended in paragraph (1) is  not sufficient, food can be fulfilled 
through food import according to necessity. 
And Article 36, (1) and (2) states: Food  import can only be implemented if 
domestic food production is not su fficient and/or the product cannot be 
produced domestically and staple food  import can only be implemented if 
domestic food production and national  food reserves are not sufficient.  
i. Do these articles mean that Indonesi a will stop imports of food products 
whenever the government determines that domestic food sources are "sufficient"? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 8 - 
 
  ii. On what basis will Indonesia restrict imports under Article 36 of the Food 
Law?  
iii. Please explain how Indonesia's import  restrictions are consistent with 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricult ure, which states that countries will 
not resort to measures of any kind (suc h as quantitative import restrictions, 
discretionary import licensing, etc.) ot her than ordinary customs duties.  
b. Article 36 (3) states that: sufficiency of  domestic staple food production and 
government food reserve is determined by minister or government institution 
with the task of executing governmental  orders in the food sector. Please 
explain which ministry or institution w ill determine when domestic production 
of a staple/basic food is sufficient and what method will be used to make this 
determination. 
c. Article 28, paragraph 1 states: The definition  of "certain staple food" is the food 
produced and consumed by most people of Indonesia, and when the availability 
and price of the food is disturbed, it may affect the economic and social 
stability of the community. Please provid e a list of foods that are considered 
"staple food". Is this a definitive list or will this list change? If the list may 
change, then under what cond itions is this possible? 
d. The law calls for the implementing regulati on to be in place within five years. 
Will the Government of Indonesia public ly notify any related implementing 
regulations that might alter trading rights  or rules in advance of adoption, so 
that trading partners can ha ve the chance to comment? 
Answer by Indonesia a. Responses 
i. No, Indonesia does not foresee stopping imports of food products. 
ii. As stated in the Constitution, the Indonesian Government makes assessment on the 
state of food to design food security poli cy. Considering the current state of food as 
well as future production and consumption trends, imports will have a significant role 
in the Indonesian food security policy. 
iii. To reduce over-dependence on the world food market, the domestic food production 
will be the backbone policy to achieve national food security. Nevertheless, imports 
still play a very crucial role in the effort to attain food security. Therefore, the 
commitment to implement the Agreement on Agriculture should be put in the context of the whole efforts to achieve food security objectives. 
b. The Ministry for Economic Affairs, in cooperation with related ministries, determines 
when domestic production of a st aple basic food is sufficient. 
c. Indonesia's main "staple food" is rice. Some areas consume local food such as sago, 
corn, sweet potato, and cassava.  
d. Indonesia will notify any related implementing regulations in a timely manner. 
1.7  Philippines' continuous use of reference prices applied to imports 1.7.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70010) 
The United States of America understands th at the Philippines uses reference prices to 
determine duties to apply to pork and poultry imports.  
a. Please explain the rationale and objective of using reference prices to establish 
applied import duties on pork and poultry imports.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. Please explain how the Philippines' use of reference prices complies with the 
Philippines' WTO customs valuation obligations.  
Answer by Philippines As the questions involve customs valuation, the Philippines firmly believes that these are 
outside the purview of Article 18.6 of the Agr eement on Agriculture and the competence of 
the Committee. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Philippines is providing the following information:  
 The Bureau of Customs (BOC) of the Phili ppines does not use "reference prices" on 
imported pork and poultry from the United States of America. 
 It adheres to the transaction value method as provided for in Article 1 of the WTO 
Customs Valuation Agreement (CVA). The BOC uses the transaction value declared by 
the importer as the default basis/method in the calculation, application and collection 
of import duties. 
 That said, it will be noted that Articles 2-7 of the CVA permit the Philippines to use 
alternative methods in determining appropriate import valuation methods other than 
the transaction value when there is reasonable doubt that the value declared by the importer is too low or questionable. 
 In observing the above alternative methods, the BOC may seek technical inputs from 
other government agencies and sources to determine the reasonable and appropriate value of the imported pork and poultry from the United States of America. However, these technical inputs are recommendations and the final decision rests on the BOC. 
1.8  Sri Lanka's milk powder tariff and compliance with WTO bindings 
1.8.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 70006) New Zealand thanks Sri Lanka for their advi ce in the last Commitee on Agriculture 
meeting that their tariff for milk powders wa s exceeding the bound tariff and further, 
that advice would be sought from Capital on  steps to address this. New Zealand thanks 
Sri Lanka for its comments received in late  May. New Zealand would be grateful for 
confirmation that Sri Lanka will ensure adherence to its WTO commitments in the 
revision of its tariffs which New Zealand under stands will be completed before or as part 
of the budget process in November. 
Answer by Sri Lanka 
Following the initial discussions held during the 69
th Regular Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture on this matter, Sri Lanka delegation has been in constant touch with the capital and kept the New Zealand Mission informed of any developments. 
As per the additional information gathered from Colombo, the November 2012 tariff revision 
on milk powder products has been introduced in anticipation of a considerable increase in the import prices, taking into account the gradually depreciating rupee value against the US 
dollar. 
If the exchange rates had continued to follow the anticipated trend, the applied MFN rates of 
the particular tariff lines could have remained well below the bound rates. However, the external value of the Sri Lanka currency, whic h began to appreciate since December 2012, 
has pushed the applied MFN rates of milk powder tariffs above their bound rates by a few 
percentage points. 
Nevertheless, the capital has informed the Sri Lanka delegation that every possible effort 
would be made to address the concerns raised by New Zealand at the next tariff revision 
and the delegation has already conveyed this to the New Zealand delegation. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Sri Lanka looked forward to working with the New Zealand delegation in finding an early 
solution to this issue. 
Follow-up: New Zealand confirmed that they had been in close contact with Sri Lanka and looked 
forward to continuing the constructive dialogue with Sri Lanka. 
 
1.9  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.9.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 70017) 
Canada notes that during the 26 March 2013  meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
Thailand indicated responses to the questions on its "Paddy Pledging  Scheme" were still 
being prepared. Without further delay, could Thailand please provide responses to the 
following questions previously posed by Canada:  
Canada has come across some information regarding a new mark eting year 2012/2013 
Off-Season Paddy Pledging Program. This ne w programme, though not yet finalized, is 
said to cost approximately US$6 billion for a pledging target of about 11 million metric 
tons of paddy rice. 
a. Could Thailand please provide additional  details on this proposed programme?  
b. How will Thailand manage its domestic support commitments while providing 
what Canada assumes to be signific ant amounts of domestic support to 
producers of rice? 
1.9.2  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 70011) 
The United States of America regrets the no n-response regarding questions posed at the 
March 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031 and 
69032).  
The United States of America resubmits th e questions and looks forward to holding a 
plurilateral meeting in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture in order to explore 
this issue more substantively.  
a. When does Thailand expect to provide updated Table DS:1 and DS:2 
notifications that include information re garding the paddy pledging scheme to 
the WTO?  
b. Thailand previously stated that official  information on rice pledging scheme 
could be found on the website of the Depa rtment of Internal Trade, Ministry of 
Commerce. The United States of America notes, however, that the Department 
of Internal Trade has, since 8 October 2012, discontinued the online publication 
of rice exports. The Government of Th ailand also discontinued publishing the 
rice pledging programme progress report  online. Please indicate when this 
function will be restored.  
The United States of America notes that the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural 
Cooperatives (BAAC) reported revenue of 72 b illion baht during 2012 from the Ministry 
of Commerce through sales of government-o wned rice stocks. This revenue figure 
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 not, what other factor s resulted in the increased revenue? 
b. Please confirm whether the Government of  Thailand places any requirements or 
preferences on stocks that are released fo r either export or do mestic use. If so, 
when and how does the Government of Thailand determine if sales are for 
export or the domestic market? What laws or regulations oversee/implement 
government practices in this area? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Regarding Thailand's response about it s rice intervention price (G/AG/W/106, 
paragraph 18): 
a. Please provide more details on how th e intervention price is determined, 
including information explaining the meaning of an "appropriate profit 
reflecting farmer living cost". 
b. In 2012, what were the total expenditures on benefits to millers?  
The United States of America appreciates Thailand's detailed response regarding the 
areas that are cultivated and harvested (G/AG/W/106, paragraph 20). The United 
States of America understands th at 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 describe further the trend in th e number of crops per year farmers are 
harvesting and the types/qualit y of rice being planted.  
b. Please provide the quantities of rice pr ocured by variety for crop years 2011 
and 2012.  
Follow-up: While appreciating Thailand's willingness to discuss with Members its rice policy in the 
plurilateral meeting one day prior to the Committee, Canada, the European Union, and the United 
States of America looked forward to receivin g responses to the questions. Japan and the 
Philippines registered interest in this issue. In view of the effect on global rice prices, the 
Philippines asked Thailand to explain how the rice stocks would be released in the global market. As a rice exporter, Pakistan also indicated inte rest in this information. The Philippines further 
urged speedy completion of Thailand's notifications.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  Administration of tariff and ot her quota commitments (table MA:1) 
2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/73) AG-IMS ID 70076: Question by Switzerland – A llocation of licences to  importing entities 
Would Thailand please provide more detail on the allocation method to obtain licenses 
for the import of coffee (under HS 0 901 and 2101)? Are licenses for coffee under 
HS 0901 allocated based on historical im port performance or other additional 
requirements? 
Answer by Thailand 
Thailand provides an annual quota of coffee beans (HS 0901) of 5.25 tonnes per year under 
the WTO Agreement. The quota is allocated as re quested by importers. In an event that the 
total quantity requested exceeds the quota, th e quota will be allocated proportionately to 
the amount requested by each importer.  
Thailand provides an annual quota of inst ant coffee (HS 2101) of 134 tonnes per year under 
the WTO Agreement. The quota is allocated as follows: 
 80% or not more than 107.20 tonnes will go to importers who have history of 
importation during three years prior to the allocation year.  
 20% or not more than 26.80 tonnes will go to general importers whether they have 
imported instant coffee or not.  
Both types of quota will be allocated as reques ted by importers. In an event that the total 
quantity requested exceeds the quota, the qu ota will be allocated proportionately to the 
amount requested by each importer. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 12 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70013: Question by the United Stat es of America – Allocation of licences to 
importing entities 
The United States of America regrets the no n-response regarding questions posed at the 
March 2013 Committee on Agriculture meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69033 and 
69034).  
The United States of America resubmits th e questions and looks forward to holding a 
plurilateral meeting in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture in order to explore 
this issue more substantively. 
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 th e administrating agency for three 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 three 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 ex portable surplus of palm oil. Garlic is 
widely consumed in Thailand. These facts pr ovide some basis to expect trade to occur, 
at least in some years. The questions below pe rtain to the administra tion of the TRQs by 
the PWO and the absence of in-quota imports.  
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 pric es to prices for maize for feed, palm 
oil, and garlic available through foreign tr ade? If so, please provide the internal 
prices for 2009 and 2010. If not, please explain what is the PWO's role in TRQ 
administration.  
Answer by Thailand The Public Warehouse Organization (PWO) is a state enterprise under the authority of 
Ministry of Commerce. The objective of the organization was "to carry out all activities 
related to rice, agricultural and other products  to ensure that their quantity, quality, and 
price are appropriate to the public", as agreed by the government. 
Follow-up: The United States of America explained that their questions were prompted by noticing 
the different organizations that administered Thailand's various TRQs. Some of these organizations 
appeared to manage the TRQ fills more efficiently than the others. In that view, the United States 
of America intended to discuss further with Th ailand the TRQ administration method used by 
different organizations. Switzerland recorded its intention of following up at a later stage with 
questions.  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/49) AG-IMS ID 70051: Question by the Europe an Communities – Autonomous tariff quota 
access 
The European Union would like to revert to Is rael's reply to the question raised by the 
European Union at the Committee meeting of March 2013 (G/AG/W/109, 
AG-IMS ID 69039). 
a. According to Israel's reply, the European  Union understands that Israel applied 
autonomous duties for some products subject to imports under TRQs at a level lower or equal than the in-quota rate foreseen for these TRQs. Consequently G/AG/W/111 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Israel does not monitor whether imports are done within or outside the TRQ 
regime or not. Could Israel confirm this understanding? 
b. If it is correct, could Israel indicate for which products it applied a duty lower 
than the in-quota rate and at which rate the duty was applied? 
c. It would be useful for transparency rea sons if Israel could indicate in future 
notifications when products are subject to these types of lower duties. 
Answer by Israel 
An answer to the EU question can be found in Israel's recent TPR review (WT/TPR/S/272). 
However, Israel can confirm the following: 
Israel applies duties lower than the in-quota rates for the following products: 
Product  HS CODE  In–Quota rate  MFN 
rate 
Walnuts  0802.31  
0802.32  18%-20%  12% 
Bovine: live, meat and meat products   50%- 120%  0-50%  
Wheat and meslin  1001   0-50%  
Sheep and goats, fresh  0204  100%  50% 
 
Please note that the TRQ fill rates for thes e products are normally higher than the TRQ 
commitment levels. 
2.2.2  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/184) 
AG-IMS ID 70068: Question by New Ze aland – Product/tariff line coverage 
Following on from New Zealand’s question in the March 2013 meeting of the Committee 
on Agriculture, could Japan provide further clarification on the imports under the TRQ 
for "other dairy products for general use" and "designated dairy products for general 
use"? New Zealand notes that the tariff it em numbers encompassed in the product 
descriptions for these two TRQs include both whey and butter.  
Could Japan please provide the tariff item number(s) to the 6 digit level (including 
quantities of each) for all of the product( s) that were imported during the period 
notified under the above two mentioned TRQs? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Answer by Japan 
The tariff item number(s) to the 6 digit level (including quantities of each) for all of the 
product(s) that were imported during 2011 notified under "other dairy products for general use" and "designated dairy products for general use" quotas are as follows: 
Other dairy products for general use 
HS-Code Quantity (kg) 
0404.90 4,544,031 
1901.90 6,450,877 
2106.90 6,706,777 
 
Designated dairy products for general use 
HS-Code Quantity (kg) 
0404.10 6,074,643 
0405.10 13,583,515 
0405.20 1,894,300 
0405.90 349,165 
 
Follow-up: New Zealand clarified that the question was raised in connection with a question it had 
addressed to Japan at the previous meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69004) in order to have a 
better understanding of the demand for some dairy products. 
 2.2.3  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/48) 
AG-IMS ID 70014: Question by United States of America – Tariff quota fill 
The TRQ for chicken eggs, not in shell, fr esh, frozen, or cooked (0408.99.1000) is 
reported to have no in-quota imports in 2011,  yet trade data indicate imports of 186 kg 
in 2011. Please explain why the indicated im ports were not brought in within the TRQ, 
but rather were imported outside the TRQ. 
Answer by Korea, Republic of Some Korean companies imported a very smal l amount of chicken eggs, 186kg, in 2011 for 
the purpose of testing the feasibility of importation in response to a potential supply 
shortage during an outbreak of Avian Influenza (AI). The reason why they did not apply for the TRQ is that the difference between in-quota and out-quota imports was so small that they did not find sufficient need in applying for the TRQ. There has been no importation of 
chicken eggs to Korea because domestic supply and demand have become normalized since 
Korea’s declaration of AI-free status in September 2011. 
Follow-up: The United States of America informed the Committee of its discussions with Korea 
prior to the Committee meeting and expressed appreciation for that opportunity.  
 G/AG/W/111 
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.2.4  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/74) 
AG-IMS ID 70077: Question by Switzerland – Tariff quota fill Please explain the reasons for the fill rates below 50% for the TRQs for coffee 
(under HS 0901 and 2101). 
Answer by Thailand 
Thailand mostly imported coffee from ASEAN countries under the ASEAN Free Trade 
Agreement (AFTA). There was less demand for imports from other countries under the TRQ 
system. 
Follow-up: Switzerland was surprised that the fill rate was far below 50% while the trade data 
showed imports were larger than in-quota imports.  In this regard, Switzerland reserved the right 
to come back on the questions at a later stage. Thailand reiterated that most of the imports of 
coffee came from ASEAN members under the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA). 
 2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) 
AG-IMS ID 70012: Question by United Stat es of America – Non-product-specific AMS 
The United States of America regrets the no n-response regarding questions posed at the 
March 2013 Committee on Agriculture meet ing (G/AG/W/109, Ag-IMS ID 69051).  
a. The United States of America notes th at 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 agricult ural land users" and in 2011, Armenia 
notified "state support to agricultural  land users in the framework of grain 
crops production, seed-breeding, and seed production development 
programmes". Is there any relation between these programmes? Please elaborate on how these programmes operate. 
b. The United States of America notes that from 2008 through 2011, Armenia 
notified "supplying farmers with lives tock on the condition of postponed 
payments, in the framework of the Cattle Husbandry Development Programme". Please provide further information regarding the terms of 
repayment for participating farmers, in cluding any eligibility requirements, how 
long farmers have to repay the loan, and the subsidized interest rate.  
2.3.2  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/30) 
AG-IMS ID 70052: Question by European Union – General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
What expenditure is covered in the framewor k of "building and maintenance of central 
market facilities"? Could Brazil explain why it considers this spending falls under 
paragraph 2(f) marketing and promotion services? 
Answer by Brazil The expenditure covers support for domestic agricultural fairs and exhibitions. Brazil 
considers this kind of spending can develop the marketing system and improve market 
information services for agricultural products. As a result, Brazil understands that it falls under paragraph 2(f). G/AG/W/111 
 
- 16 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70057: Question by European Unio n – Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
Brazil notified significant increase of spen ding for "the programme of acquisition of 
agricultural products from fa mily farming" as compared to  the previous notification.  
a. What caused this increase in spen ding from US$46 million in 2008/09 to 
US$386 million and 2009/10? 
b. Could Brazil provide recent data on th e share of family farmers/low-income 
resource poor farmers in Brazilian agri culture? (please s ee Brazil's reply to 
question Ag-IMS ID 67015 provided at the 67th Committee on Agriculture meeting of September 2012) 
c. Does the expenditure notified as "m anagement of public stockholding 
programme" also concern the "programme  of acquisition of agricultural 
products from family farming"? If no t, what spending is notified under 
"management of public stockholding programme"?  
Answer by Brazil 
a. The disbursements under the programme of acquisition of agricultural products from 
family farming (PAA) are made by the Minist ries of Agrarian Development and Social 
Development. The incorporation of data of the Ministry of Social Development increased 
the amount of expenditures notified in 2009/2010. 
b. The value of production from family farm ers currently represents 33% of Brazilian 
agricultural GDP. Family farmers account for 84.4% of all rural 
establishments (4.3 million production units) and employ 74.4% of the sector's 
workforce. 
c. The expenditures are related to the maintenance of all government stocks, whether they 
concern family farming or not. The bulk of the stocks results from market price support 
programmes. 
AG-IMS ID 70001: Question by New Zealand – Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
New Zealand notes that the payments under "p rogramme of acquisition of agricultural 
products from family farming" have increased from US$46 million for 2008/2009 to 
US$385 million for 2009/2010. 
a. Can Brazil provide further informat ion to explain this increase? 
b. Can Brazil also outline how "family farmin g" is defined under this programme? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. The disbursements under the programme of acquisition of agricultural products from 
family farming (PAA) are made by the Ministries of Agrarian Development and Social Development. The incorporation of data of the Ministry of Social Development increased 
the amount of expenditures notified in 2009/2010. 
b. The current definition was established by Law Nr. 11,326/2006 and its amendments. 
Family farmers are farmers that (i) do not own an area larger than four fiscal modules (the fiscal module is defined as the number of hectares necessary for the established 
income potential level, which can vary from 5 to 110 hectares across the country); 
(ii) make predominant use of family labor in the economic activities carried out in their farms ; (iii) derive their family income predominantly from the economic activities 
carried out in their farms; and (iv) run their farms only with their families. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 17 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70053: Question by Australia – Domestic food aid 
a. Brazil's expenditure under its domestic food aid programme has increased to 
US$ 1.7 billion in 2009/2010, up from ju st over US$ 1 billion in 2008/2009. Can 
Brazil please explain the re ason behind the increase? 
b. Further, can Brazil please confirm if al l inputs for its school lunch programme 
are supplied by domestic production only. If so, is there a legal requirement for 
this. Can Brazil also confirm that purcha ses for this programme are at market 
prices. 
Answer by Brazil a. The increase in that programme's expenditures derives from the enactment of Law 
11,947 of 16 June 2009, which has expanded the provision of school meals to receivers 
of public basic education. This law requires that at least 30% of the programme's 
transfers must be destined to the acquis ition of products from family farmers. 
b. The purchase of products for the school meals programme is carried out by each school 
through bidding procedures (at market prices). The only legal requirement is that the 
recipients must buy at least 30% of the products from family farmers, also under market conditions. 
AG-IMS ID 70019: Question by Canada – In vestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
Canada notes that the amount of support re ported as "investment credit" has increased 
from US$705,096 reported in 2008/2009 to US$1,443,091.1 in 2009/2010.  
a. Could Brazil please provide additional  information on the reasons for this 
significant increase in support? 
b. What types of activities would be in cluded to "improve rural structure"? 
c. Could Brazil elaborate on the relative pr oportion of government funds versus 
private funds in the amount notified? 
d. With respect to the "acquisition of mach ines", what types of farms or farm 
organizations would be eligible for funds to acquire farm machinery? 
Answer by Brazil a. The main reason is the increase in the funding available for this programme. 
Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that  the amount of support reported in 2007/2008 
(US$727,272.2) was higher than in 2008/2009 (a crop year significantly affected by the 
2008 financial crisis). Another factor contributing to that result was the sharp increase in the value of production from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010 (24.6%). 
b. The main activities covered are related to irri gation, storage facilities, soil conservation, 
processing facilities (for agricultural cooperatives) and the recovery of mandatory conservation areas. 
c. According to the records of the Central Bank in 2010, 93.3% of the agricultural 
investment credit was provided by government funds or by private funds under controlled interest rates. That figure may in fact be lower than the one presented as credit taken under market conditions is no t mandatorily recorded at the Central Bank. 
d. Only farms and agricultural cooperatives are eligible for the agricultural investment 
credit programmes. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 18 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70060: Question by European Union – Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture 
According to the notification the "funds for agricultural investments" are "government 
and private funds, directed to improve ru ral structure, acquisition of machines, 
equipment, vehicles and animal services". Spending on these measures significantly 
increased compared to the previous notifica tion. Could Brazil provide more details on 
what is included in the category "animal services"? 
Answer by Brazil 
"Animal services" refers to the acquisition of animals such as milking cows, laying hens, 
breeding animals, and animals for trac tion of equipments and implements 
AG-IMS ID 70062: Question by European Union – Market price support 
a. What is the share of production of co ffee and maize which is subject to price 
support in the total domestic production? 
b. Could Brazil explain what spending is included in the "associated fees/levies" 
column of the Supporting Table DS:5 in the case of coffee, maize and rice? 
c. Could Brazil explain why the "associated fees/levies" are deducted from the 
price gap calculation for the three products? 
Answer by Brazil 
a. 4.1% of the production of coffee was subj ect to domestic support. Through federal 
government acquisitions (AGF) and public option contracts, 120,300 MT of coffee received support, whereas the production of coffee reached 2,907,265 MT. 
23.3% of the production of maize benefited from domestic support programmes. Through 
federal government acquisitions (AGF), public option contracts, PEPRO and PEP, 12,905,457 MT of maize received support, whereas the production of maize reached 
55,364,271 MT. 
b. Under the "public option contracts", the Government offers option contracts to producers 
and cooperatives through public auctions. By paying a fee, winning bidders acquire the 
right to sell their products to the Government at a future date, for an established price 
(minimum price plus storage and financial costs). This fee is notified as "associated fees/levies". 
c. These fees are deducted because they constitute the amount paid by producers and 
cooperatives in order to have the right to sell their products to the Government. That fee 
is defined through public auctions, once the eligible production for the programme is defined. 
AG-IMS ID 70054: Question by Austra lia – Classification of measures 
a. Can Brazil please provide advice on wh ether the Warranty-Crop Fund in the 
Supporting Table DS:1 is a measure under  paragraph 7 or paragraph 8 of Annex 
2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
b. If the payments are made under para graph 8, could Brazil please provide 
background advice on the natural disast ers that gave rise to the significant 
increase in expenditure under the Warra nty-Crop Fund and further details on 
how the measure complies with sub-para graphs (a) – (e) of paragraph 8. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Answer by Brazil 
a. The measure complies with the criteria set out in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, as it provides relief from natural disasters. 
b. The Ministry of Agrarian Development is in charge of the Warranty Crop Programme, a 
social programme which grants R$760 (approximately US$380) per family farmer 
applying for the programme (the payment of a premium is required for the application), in the event that the Government formally recognizes that a natural disaster has 
occurred. Family farmers can benefit from the programme whenever their losses reach 
at least 50% of their expected production. In addition, incurred losses should be at least 50% of the crop. The programme does not cover the entire Brazilian territory, as it is confined geographically to the Northeast region and the north of Minas Gerais and 
Espírito Santo States, areas with high drought incidence. The harvest year of 2009/2010 
was marked by drought and floods in several st ates of Brazil, and in this period 97% of 
insured farmers applied for the programme. 
Follow-up: Noting that the increase of payments from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010 under the 
programme in AG-IMS ID 70001 was due to additional agency expenditure, New Zealand sought 
clarification as to whether this agency spending had existed prior to 2009/2010 and if so, whether 
a corrected notification would be issued. Brazil replied that the notification would be rectified if 
necessary. As a follow-up question, Australia requested Brazil to justify the compliance of the programme (AG-IMS ID 70054) with paragraph 8(b) and 8(c) in Annex 2 of Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
2.3.3  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/96) 
AG-IMS ID 70061: Question by Australia – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Please provide advice on the status of the Ontario Risk Management Programme for 
hogs. This programme does not appear to be  included in Canada's notification even 
though the publicly available information in dicates that this programme does in fact 
cover hogs. Can Canada provide advice on  what component of this programme is 
contributed through direct government fund ing? Can Canada please confirm its view 
that this programme is "c ompletely countervailable"? 
Answer by Canada 
In the 2011 provincial budget of Ontario, support under the Ontario Risk Management 
Program (RMP) was extended to cover eligible livestock including hogs. RMP for livestock was not reported in Canada's 2010 domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CAN/96), but will 
be in the 2011 domestic support notification. The RMP programme is similar to an insurance 
programme and its premiums are cost-shared between the Ontario government and industry. Producers contribute 30% to a premium in order to participate. Whether a subsidy 
that is provided by a Member is ultimately “countervailable” is based on the facts at the time 
of investigation under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
AG-IMS ID 70063: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The Current Total AMS has decreased substantially compared to the previous year 
notified. What were the reasons for this decrease? 
Answer by Canada 
For 2009, Canada’s Current Total AMS was notified at CAN$1,395.1 million. For 2010, 
Canada’s Current Total AMS was CAN$492.2 million. The main reason was due to the termination of the Tobacco Transition Program, as well as the decrease in support to beef 
and pork which resulted in the Current Total AMS for those products being de minimis . G/AG/W/111 
 
- 20 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70066: Question by European Union – Market price support 
Why were the quantities of butter and skimme d milk powder for further processing and 
for exports were not taken into account in the calculations? 
Answer by Canada 
Those quantities of butter and skimmed milk po wder are not eligible to benefit from the 
applied administered prices under the system  and therefore are excluded from the total 
production. The calculations are consistent with paragraph 8 in Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 70065: Question by European Union – Non-product-specific AMS Spending on the AgriRecovery Framewor k has increased from CAN$21 million to 
CAN$416 million between 2009 and 2010. What is the reason behind this increase? 
Answer by Canada 
The reason for the increase was due to the financial assistance provided to producers in 
Canada's prairie region for the relief of natura l disasters. For example, the extended periods 
of excessive moisture in 2010 resulted in sign ificant amounts of unseeded land and flooding 
made previously seeded crops non-viable. The financial assistance was to help producers mitigate the impacts and to ensure they could resume business operations. 
Follow-up: Australia sought clarification on whether the Ontario risk management programme for 
hogs would be notified in Canada's 2011 domestic support notification. 
2.3.4  Cuba (G/AG/N/CUB/45) 
AG-IMS ID 70067: Question by European Union – Domestic food aid Does the retail price subsidy also concern imported goods? 
Answer by Cuba 
Cuba does not subsidise imported goods. The retail price subsidy only applies to certain 
products that are distributed to the population as part of the basic food basket, for reasons 
related to domestic exchange rates. No export , import or production subsidies are involved. 
2.3.5  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/10) 
AG-IMS ID 70015: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America notes that the European Union's notification indicates that 
it provides product-specific, tr ade-distorting support for olive oil, fruits and vegetables, 
and other products. The United States of America also understands that EU member 
States are permitted certain percentages of their CAP funds to be targeted at coupled 
policies, including for olive oil. However, it is not clear from the European Union's 
notification how such support has been captured.  
a. In order to help Members better underst and the application of this policy, 
please explain how exactly coupled olive oil support is implemented in each of 
the major olive oil-producing member St ates (e.g., Italy, Spain, Greece), 
including any differences in how such support is implemented in each.  
b. Please indicate all member States th at provide coupled olive oil support.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Answer by European Union 
Direct payments to the olive oil sector have been decoupled since 1 January 2006, following 
the decisions of the 2003 reform of the CAP wh ich introduced the decoupled income support 
scheme (the Single Payment Scheme). 
EU member States indeed had the possibility to allocate part of their national envelope to 
make additional payments to olive groves of environmental or social value in order to ensure olive tree maintenance, and thus avoid degradation of land cover and landscape or negative 
social consequences. Supporting Table DS:3 of notification G/AG/N/EU/10 contains spending 
under the measure "aid to olive groves" based on fixed areas and yields. Since the payment was granted to farmers as a contribution to the maintenance of olive groves of environmental and social value, it was available for the EU members States' producers of 
olive oil. Only one EU member State decided to grant it. This coupled direct payment for 
olive groves was abolished as a result of th e Health Check reform of 2008 and the European 
Union's notification for the marketing year 2009/2010 constitutes the last year when this 
measure is in place.  
As far as Supporting Table DS:8 of the Euro pean Union's notification G/AG/N/EU/10 is 
concerned, it presents support for the following products: potatoes for processing into 
starch, wine, pigmeat, ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin and olive oil. As for olive oil, the 
measure notified under supporting Table DS:8 is  private storage aid with the amount of EUR 
8 million of budgetary spending in the marketing year 2009/2010. 
Follow-up: The European Union found the question unclear and provided an answer based on its 
own interpretation of the question. The United St ates of America thanked the European Union and 
said that it would review its re sponse and follow up if necessary. 
2.3.6  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/10) 
AG-IMS ID 70079: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Many of these exempt programmes appear to be new programmes. Georgia has not, 
however, submitted DS:2 notifications to explain these programmes and how they meet the exemption criteria. When does Georgia plan to submit its DS:2 notifications? 
Answer by Georgia 
The strategy of the Georgian agriculture de velopment is under elaboration, therefore a 
Table DS:2 notification will be presented after the new programme is planned.  
AG-IMS ID 70018: Question by United St ates of America – General services: 
infrastructural services 
Please provide an explanation as to why mach inery support is only notified every other 
year. 
Answer by Georgia 
The above mentioned programme was implemented in 2007, 2009 and 2011 under different 
names, but with identical content. Therefore, notifications were due every other year.  
Follow-up: The United States of America suggested considering allocating half of the expenditure 
of the support to other years so that support would be reported on an annual basis. 
 G/AG/W/111 
 
- 22 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70078: Question by United States  of America – Direct payments: decoupled 
income support 
What are the eligibility requirements fo r beneficiaries under various exempt 
programmes notified including the "2007, 2008 and 2009 harvest support measures", 
"2011 grape harvest support", "measures for wine-making development", and "mineral 
fertilizer provisions"?  
Answer by Georgia 
 Programme "harvest support measures"; or "grape harvest support" 
Farmers in Georgia mainly hold small and fragmented agricultural lands (on average, 
1.25 ha or less). In some regions of Georgia, viticulture is one of the main sources of livelihood for small farmers. The Programme "harvest support measures" was implemented 
in different years. The Government has decided to support vine-growing small farmers 
through measures targeting food security. Thus, the following activities were planned: farmers who could not sell grapes in the market and had to sell to the processing factories 
would receive a compensation of 0.15 GEL per kilogram for "Rkatsiteli" grape variety and 
0.25 GEL per kilogram for "Saperavi" grape variety. With this support, social conditions of the farmers engaged in the field of viticulture have been improved.  
 Programme "provision of mineral fertilizers (ammonium saltpeter) for the residents of 
municipality settlements"  
According to paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2 in the Agreement on Agriculture, eligibility for 
decoupled income support "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 small farmers’ income to enhance food security. 
Each household received support for mineral fertilizer to conduct spring activities in order to 
improve their social conditions and income. These measures will improve the cultivation practices of small farmers and thus result in increase of crop yield. 
 "Measures for wine-making development" 
The Programme "developing winemaking promot ion events" incorporates the following: 
(1) preparing events for strategic directions and execution strategies for the development of winemaking; (2) marketing research and foreign markets research for Georgian product 
export.  
2.3.7  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30/Rev.1, G/AG/N/IDN/34) AG-IMS ID 70055: Question by Australia – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia welcomes Indonesia's attempt to brin g its domestic support notification up to 
date. Will any further information be provided  for support programmes that may have 
been in force during the relevant periods given the absence of a number of Supporting 
Tables and a DS:1 table? 
Answer by Indonesia Indonesia will consider providing the updates on its domestic support notification at later 
stage. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 23 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70024: Question by Canada – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada would like to note the importance and value of Table DS:2 notifications (new or 
modified domestic support measures exempt  f r o m  r e d u c t i o n )  t o  t h e  w o r k  o f  t h e  
Committee. These notifications provide tr ansparency and help Members to better 
understand how support measures fit within th e three categories that are exempt from 
domestic support reduction commitments. As  Indonesia has to date not submitted any 
Table DS:2 notifications, Canada would urge  Indonesia to submit a notification which 
provides more detailed information on its Green Box programmes and how those 
programmes comply with criter ia set out in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by Indonesia Indonesia takes note of the view from Canada. 
AG-IMS ID 70056: Question by Australia – General services: extension and advisory 
services 
With regard to the notifications as tabled, Australia seeks background information on 
Indonesia's programme on the development of f ood self-sufficiency village, in particular 
to better understand how this progra mme works and its policy objective. 
Answer by Indonesia 
The programme aims to increase the role of p oor people in rural areas in optimizing the 
utilization of resources to achieve food self -sufficiency. It covers 33 provinces and 399 
districts (2006-2011). It is implemented through twin track strategies intended to develop the economy based on agriculture and rural development to provide employment and 
income, and fulfill the demand of food for poor people in food insecure areas.  
AG-IMS ID 70023: Question by Canada – General services: inspection services 
For "inspection services", Indonesia originally notified Rp 13.89 billion of support in 
2008 (G/AG/N/IDN/30) and the revision sh ows an amount of Rp 1.39 billion that 
represents a significant decrease in support . Could Indonesia please confirm that this 
represents a corrected decimal place error? 
Answer by Indonesia 
It should read Rp 13.89 billion (Rp 13,894,820 thousand). 
AG-IMS ID 70058: Question by Australia – General services: marketing and promotion 
services 
Indonesia's expenditure on marketing and pr omotion services increased markedly from 
2010 to 2011, from Rp 8.97 billion to Rp 4 6 22.4 billion. Can Indonesia please explain 
what programmes have been implemen ted to generate this increase? 
Answer by Indonesia 
Several programmes include agricultural product promotion in national and international 
exhibitions, trade fair, festivals and road shows. 
AG-IMS ID 70070: Question by European Union – General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
Spending notified under marketing and promot ion services increased from Rp 9 billion in 
2010 to Rp 4,622 billion in 2011. What were the reasons for this increase? Could 
Indonesia provide some examples of meas ures notified under this paragraph? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Answer by Indonesia 
The increase is due to the increasing numbers of programmes for marketing and 
promotional services. Several programmes include agricultural products promotion in national exhibitions (Pekan Raya Tani Nasional, Local Product Campaign, Pekan Raya Pasar 
Tani) and international exhibitions (Floriade, Royal Flora, Green Campaign, Tea and Coffee 
Regional Exhibition) 
AG-IMS ID 70027: Question by United States  of America – General services: marketing 
and promotion services 
Marketing and promotion expenditures (i n Supporting Table DS:1, under general 
services) peaked in 2004 (G/AG/N/IDN/30) and 2011 (G/AG/N/IDN/34). How were the funds used in these years? 
Answer by Indonesia 
The funds are used to finance the promotion events for agriculture products. Several 
programmes include agricultural products promotion in national exhibitions (Pekan Raya 
Tani Nasional, Local Product Campaign, Pekan Ra ya Pasar Tani) and international exhibitions 
(Floriade, Royal Flora, Tea and Coffee Regional Exhibition) 
AG-IMS ID 70025: Question by United Stat es of America – General services: other 
In the years covered by both notifica tions, what programmes has Indonesia 
administered that subsidize loans taken out by  farm producers (for instance, the Kredit 
Ketahanan Pangan—Food Security Credit)?  
a. What was the amount of government spending to subsidize the loans? How 
many farmers received the loans?  
b. Have any of the loans been forgiven?  
c. Please indicate how such measures ar e accounted for in Indonesia's recent 
notifications. 
AG-IMS ID 70020: Question by Canada – Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
In notification year 2004, Indonesia orig inally reported (G/AG/N/IND/30) that 
Rp 2,422 billion was provided for public st ockholding for food security purposes 
(Reserve stock for emergency and price st abilization purposes) but in the revised 
notification, that amount has gone down to  zero. Could Indonesia please explain this 
change to its notification? 
Answer by Indonesia 
Currently, Indonesia is recalculating the amount provided for public stockholding. There 
were miscalculations due to the changes in the programme on public stockholding as well as 
the restructuring of government institutions. 
AG-IMS ID 70026: Question by Canada – Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
In Supporting Table DS:1, Indonesia notifi es significant increases in support for 
measures classified as "public stockholding  for food security purposes". Support has 
more than tripled from 2008 (Rp 697.83 billion) to 2011 (Rp 2,160.10 billion) and 
shown considerable variability year on year.  
a. Could Indonesia provide more information as to how this measure meets the all 
of the criteria of paragraph 3 of Anne x 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 25 - 
 
  b. Is it correct to assume that stocks acquired for this programme were procured 
at market prices, given that there is no reported accounting for the difference 
between the acquisition price and the ex ternal reference price in the AMS? 
Answer by Indonesia 
a. PERUM BULOG has been assigned as a State Trading Enterprises to conduct the 
governmental stockholding programmes based on the INPRES No.3/2012 which regulates public stockholding and domestic food aid. 
The government rice reserve is frequently utilized for price stabilization during 
off-harvest season. Meanwhile for the purposes of social assistance and emergency relief, the government rice reserve is utilized from time to time, particularly whenever there is a man-made or natural disaster. 
The domestic food aid programme is provided every year and the quantity provided is in 
accordance with the government budget. The number of beneficiaries is based on the survey by the National Statistics Agency. 
A significant increase in public stockholding  for food security purposes in the period 
2008 – 2011 is due to the fact that there is an increase in total reserve stock from 177.764 tonnes (2008) to 460.357 tonnes (2011) as well as price increase in domestic 
market. 
The government rice reserve started in 2005 after the tsunami disaster. The size of the 
reserve tends to increase as a response to anticipated increased numbers of disasters in 
the region. 
b. The stocks are procured at administered price taking into account the market price. 
AG-IMS ID 70003: Question by Japan – Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
Could Indonesia explain why the figures for the public stockholding between 2009 and 
2011 were substantially higher than those before 2007? 
Answer by Indonesia A significant increase in public stockholding for food security purposes in the period 
2008-2011 is due to the fact that there is an increase in total reserve stock from 
177.764 tonnes (2008) to 460.357 tonnes (2011). In addition, there is also an increase in government purchased price. 
AG-IMS ID 70031: Question by United States of America – Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
a. Indonesia notified Rp 2,422 billion in pub lic stockholding for food security in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30 for 2004, but that amount was reduced to zero in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30/Rev.1. Please explain th is change in notified expenditures. 
b. Indonesia's notified food security policie s varied significantly both in terms of 
expenditures and apparent methodology across notifications since 2000. Please 
explain the changes in Indonesia's food security policies across these 
notifications that warranted the changes in how support was notified. Specifically, please address the notification  of an administered price in only one 
year and whether Indonesia had any public stockholding policy in 2001-04. 
c. What is Indonesia's process to es tablish the pre-determined targets 
(published) for reserve stocks for emergency situations and where are these targets published? 
How do these compare to actual stocks? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 26 - 
 
  d. Please clarify for the notified years what  percentage of stocks are procured for 
emergency situation compared to  price stabilizing objectives. 
Answer by Indonesia a. The revised notification was made to adjust the data source and to conform with the 
WTO notification format.  
b. In the period 2001-2004, public stockholding was under the programme of buffer stock 
operation. 
c. The level of stock for a given year is determined by considering the distribution 
requirement and buffer stock. The level of stock is set for each year and announced at the beginning of the year. The target is based on the previous demand and budget allocated for reserve stocks. 
In reality, the actual stock is usually lower than the pre-determined target. Such 
approach is taken due to the characteristics of Indonesia as a disaster prone country. 
d. There are no exact percentages. It is conditional upon the emergency situation. 
AG-IMS ID 70028: Question by Canada – Domestic food aid 
The RASKIN (rice for the poor) programme ha s grown in terms of monetary support by 
more than 25% from 2009 to 2011.  
a. Could Indonesia please explain what a ccounts for this increase, and whether 
this upward trend will continue?  
b. Could Indonesia confirm that, as outlin ed in Paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, food purchase s related to this measure were made 
at market prices?  
Answer by Indonesia a. This increase is primarily caused by the increase in domestic market price of rice and 
government commitment to provide rice at an affordable and stable price for the poor 
(most vulnerable groups). 
b. The purchase is made at administered price taking into consideration market price.  
AG-IMS ID 70004: Question by Japan – Domestic food aid 
Could Indonesia kindly explain why the figu res for the domestic food aid between 2009 
and 2011 were substantially higher than those before 2007? 
Answer by Indonesia 
A significant increase in public stockholding for food security purposes in the period 
2008 - 2011 is due to the fact that there is an increase in total reserve stock from 177.764 tonnes (2008) to 460.357 tonnes (2011). In addition there is also an increase in 
the price associated with government purchases. 
AG-IMS ID 70022: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
The 2007 figure for "payments for relief from natural disasters" is more than 50% 
higher than the figure reported in th e original notification (G/AG/N/IDN/30) 
[Rp 136.61 billion compared to Rp 89.79 billion]. Could Indonesia please explain the cause of this major discrepancy?  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Answer by Indonesia 
There is an increase in allocation of rice reserve for each region as well as the increase in 
domestic market price. 
AG-IMS ID 70029: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Regarding the measures classified as paym ents for relief from natural disasters:  
a. Could Indonesia provide more information as to how the programme operates? 
More specifically, are payments made directly or by way of government 
financial participation in crop insurance schemes?  
b. Are payments made on a monetary basis or by a provision of rice? 
c. As there has been a notified monetary value of support for this measure for 
every year from 2002-2011, could Indonesi a explain what conditions must be 
met for payments for relief from na tural disasters to be dispersed? 
Answer by Indonesia 
a. It is in the form of direct in-kind payment. 
b. Payments are made by provision of rice 
c. PERMENKO KESRA No. 3/2011 on government rice reserve and PERMENSOS 20/2012 
procedure and mechanism on the distribution of rice reserve for emergency purposes: 
There are no specific conditions for the payment. Local government and/or central government disburse payments. Payments are based on critical condition officially identified by local and/or central government that would adversely impact the livelihood 
of people residing in  the affected areas. 
AG-IMS ID 70071: Question by European Union – Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters 
Could Indonesia provide further details co ncerning the measure "rice for relief to 
support people who suffered from natural ca lamities and internally displaced people" 
notified under "payments for re lief from natural disasters"? 
Answer by Indonesia 
Rice is the main staple food in Indonesia. 
AG-IMS ID 70059: Question by Australia – Input subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Australia notes that Indonesia's expenditure on its fertilizer subs idy and seed subsidy 
under the heading "input subsidies generally available to low-income or resource-poor 
producers" increased markedly from 2004 to 2010, and decreased in 2011. Could 
Indonesia provide advice on the increase and subsequent decrease in expenditure levels 
on these programmes? 
Answer by Indonesia 
Indonesia will consider providing updates on its domestic support notification. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70021: Question by Canada – In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
In the revised notification "input subsid ies generally available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers" are 15% to 43% lo wer than in the original notification 
(G/AG/N/IDN/30). Could Indone sia please explain what accounted for a downward 
revision of Supporting Table DS:2 totals for each year?  
Answer by Indonesia 
In the previous notification (G/AG/N/IDN/30), input subsidies include all agriculture 
subsidies including food subsidy. In the revised notification, the data source is from audited data (LKPP) and input subsidies only include fertilizer subsidy and seed subsidy. 
AG-IMS ID 70069: Question by European  Union – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The European Union notes that this revision of notification G/AG/N/IDN/30, apart from 
revised numbers, also contains a different pres entation of the "input subsidies generally 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers" in Supporting Table DS:2. This 
spending has been broken down to a "fertiliz er subsidy" and a "seed subsidy" instead of 
previous notification under "farming inpu t assistance programme". More detail in 
presentation of spending in notifi cations is always appreciated.  
Following this change, the European Union would be interested to understand whether 
the fertiliser and seed subsidie s are still granted in the form of short-term loans as was 
explained under the "farming input a ssistance programme" in notification 
G/AG/N/IDN/30? 
AG-IMS ID 70035: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of Americ a appreciates Indonesia's breakout of fertilizer and seed 
subsidies under its Farming Input Assistance  Program. The United States of America 
notes that the notified levels of expenditures  are considerably less than those notified in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30. The United States of America also notes the description in 
G/AG/N/IDN/30 includes "….the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, and facilities". What was 
the cause for this decrease in notified expend itures and is this reduction related to the 
exclusion of facilities subsidies?  
Answer by Indonesia 
In the previous notification (G/AG/N/IDN/30), input subsidies include all agriculture 
subsidies including food subsidy. In the revised notification, the input subsidy covers only 
fertilizer subsidy and seed subsidy. 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada, the European Union and the United States of America expressed 
appreciation for Indonesia's updated notification s and looked forward to receiving the detailed 
responses.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 29 - 
 
  2.3.8  Malawi (G/AG/N/MWI/4) 
AG-IMS ID 70039: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America greatly apprec iates Malawi updating its domestic support 
notifications.  
a. Please provide separate breakouts for fertilizer and seed subsidies which are 
reported in aggregate in the notification.  
b. Please provide guidance as to how Malawi's policy defines "low-income or 
resource-poor producers". 
2.3.9  Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/2) AG-IMS ID 70030: Question by Canada  – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes 
Canada would like to thank Mali for submitting its first domestic support notification to 
the Committee on Agriculture. Canada notes that there was a substantial increase in 
environmental programme payments from 2006 to 2007 where the amounts went from 
CFAF 10,465,500,000 to CFAF 76,483,950, 000. Could Mali please provide more 
information on this increase in payments?  
2.3.10  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1) 
AG-IMS ID 70032: Question by Canada  – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Notification G/AG/N/NOR/69/Rev.1 amends prod uct-specific support in respect of beef, 
sheep and pork and accordingly includes a modified Current Total AMS amount in the 
Table DS:1. For beef, the product specific  equivalent measurement of support was 
reported as NKr 95.4 million in G/AG/N/NOR/ 69 but was revised to NKr 111.9 million in 
the revised notification. Under Supporting Tabl e DS:8 the notification indicates that the 
amount reported under the transport su bsidy changed from NKr 49.2 million to 
NKr 64.7 million. Could Norway please expl ain what accounted for the increase in 
transport subsidies reported for beef?  
Answer by Norway 
The transport subsidies for meat were revised and the support levels were increased 
in 2011. Simultaneously, the report system for the actual spending of support was revised. 
Due to some difficulties with the transformation  of the report system it turned out that the 
reported levels of transport subsidies were incorrect. The difficulties are now sorted out and 
the figures included in the revised notification are the correct ones.  
This is the reason why transport subsidies reported changed from NOK 48.2 million 
(not NOK 49.2 million as stated in the question) to NOK 64.74 million.  
AG-IMS ID 70072: Question by European Union – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
The revised notification includes some chan ges concerning the figures for transport 
subsidies for meat. What are the reasons behi nd the modified support figures in respect 
of beef, sheep and pork in Support ing Tables DS:4, DS:7 and DS:8? 
Answer by Norway 
The transport subsidies for meat were revised and the support levels were increased 
in 2011. Simultaneously, the report system for the actual spending of support was revised. 
Due to some difficulties with the transformation  of the report system it turned out that the 
reported levels of transport subsidies were incorrect. The difficulties are now sorted out and 
the figures included in the revised notification are the correct ones.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.3.11  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/21) 
AG-IMS ID 70049: Question by United St ates of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In previous notifications for Supporting Tabl e DS:1, Paraguay usually noted the type of 
currency used.  
a. Please explain the type of currenc y noted in Supporting Table DS:1. 
b. There were a total of 7 programmes in 2010, totalling approximately 
US$52 million. In 2011, there were 20 programmes reported, valued at 
approximately US$93 million.  
i. If the Supporting Table DS:1 table is  reported in US$, could Paraguay 
explain the large difference in total value of the programmes from 2010 to 
2011?  
ii. When does Paraguay plan to submit a DS:2 notification to explain its new 
measures, specifically environmen tal programmes or other programmes 
added to existing measures? 
iii. When does Paraguay plan to publish its Table DS:1 showing the Current 
Total AMS? 
Answer by Paraguay 
a. The type of exchange rate used in the notifications is the annual average guaraní-dollar 
exchange rate according to the Central Bank of Paraguay (BCP). 
b. Responses 
i. The difference in the reported value is due to the inclusion of programmes and 
projects financed by loans and donations from sources that do not derive from Paraguay's real resources. 
ii. Internal discussions are currently taking place to address this matter. 
iii. Regarding the AMS, Paraguay does not have any reduction commitments, nor does it 
have any amber box programmes, so that there are no notifications to submit. 
Follow-up: The United States of America proposed the addition of a page in the notification to 
reflect the zero Current Total AMS. 
2.3.12  Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/42) 
AG-IMS ID 70034: Question by Canada – Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada appreciates the Philippines including a description of all the measures that fall 
under the various measure types, as well as the amounts provided in the years reported 
as an attachment to their DS:1 notificati on. However, the Philippines has not provided 
any DS:2 notifications that provide Member s with information necessary to understand 
how the measures comply with the criteria in  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Such information includes the eligibility criter ia of these programmes and details of how 
these measures meet the criteria in Annex 2,  and the period of application. In future, 
could the Philippines please provide DS:2 noti fications explaining the measures notified? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Answer by Philippines 
The Philippines notes Canada's suggestion for additional notifications through Table DS:2 
based on Article 18.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture. However, the Philippines believes that the programmes and expenditures reported under the Supporting Table DS:1 for the 
period 2005-2010 were not new or modified measures; hence, these do not require 
Table DS:2 notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 70033: Question by Canada – Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
a. Could the Philippines please explain why there was a substantial increase in 
spending under the measure "production and market infrastructure, including 
construction, rehabilitation and repair of irrigation and drainage systems, 
slaughterhouses, solar dryers and food terminals"?  
b. This support increased from ₱5,644 million in 2005 to ₱18,138 million in 2010. 
Much of this support seems to be attribut ed to increases in irrigation projects. 
Could the Philippines please provide mo re information on these initiatives 
including what types of projects were supported and what were the eligibility 
criteria for project funding? 
Answer by Philippines 
a. In line with the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) of 2004–2010, 
infrastructure development was identified as one of the priority areas. Farm spending under this measure was raised to enable the Department of Agriculture (DA) to raise productivity and profitability as well as fast-track job generation in farming and 
agribusiness. 
The jump in expenditures is mostly attributable to infrastructure spending – irrigation 
development/rehab/restoration. This spending is intended to further improve rice 
production for food security as well as to improve physical access of farmers to markets 
by providing rural roads. 
b. While much of this support was allocated to irrigation projects, a portion of the funds 
were provided for the repair, rehabilitation, and construction of farm-to-market roads, 
construction of slaughterhouses with cold storage facilities, and upgrading and rehabilitation of fishing port complexes. These projects were funded based on the significant benefits to the agriculture and fish sector as they link production areas to 
markets and stimulate economic activities in the communities. 
AG-IMS ID 70005: Question by Japan – Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
With regard to the public stockholding in the Supporting Table DS:1, why has the figure 
for the programme in 2010 substantially increa sed in recent years (the figure in 2010 is 
17 times as high as that of 2004)?  
Answer by Philippines 
The budget is determined accord ing to congressional priorities on an annual basis. Potential 
factors that may be considered by Congress are population growth, potential climate change damages, and overall increase in prices due to inflation. 
AG-IMS ID 70046: Question by United States of America – Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America appreciates the attachments to Supporting Tables DS:1, 
which provide details on the Green Box expend itures by the Philippines. Such additional 
information greatly improves the transparency  of domestic support notifications. The 
United States of America acknowledges the engagement on this topic since January 
2013 and will appreciate a deeper understandin g of the Philippine notification in this G/AG/W/111 
 
- 32 - 
 
  broader context. To this extent the Unit ed States of America looks forward to a 
plurilateral gathering in advance of the June Committee on Agriculture to explore the questions on the details of the Philippines'  Domestic Support tables, including the 
questions outlined below. 
The United States of America notes that the notified values for public stockholding for 
food security purposes increased significantly after 2007.  
a. For purposes of greater transparency an d understanding the Philippines public 
stockholding policies, please provide an  explanation of what expenditures are 
included in the aggregated notified values. 
b. Please provide a breakdown by year of these (sub-category) expenditures for 
the notified period. 
c. Please explain the reason for the significant increase in expenditures, 
especially if the increase relates prim arily to a specific sub-category of 
expenditure.  
Answer by Philippines 
a. The public stockholding expenditures reported under Support Table DS:1 for the period 
2005-2010 covered expenditures incurred in th e procurements of paddy and corn by the 
National Food Authority (NFA). For the paddy, less than 3% of the total productions 
annually was sourced from local farmers in 2005-2010. 
The expenditures were based on the 2005-10 budgets as determined by Congress. 
Potential factors that may be considered by Congress are population growth, potential 
climate change damages, and overall increase in prices due to inflation. 
b.  
c. Expenditure is used in relation to the accumulation and holding of stocks of products 
which form an integral part of food security programme identified in national legislation. 
This programme may include government private storage of products.  
AG-IMS ID 70064: Question by Australia – Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Australia commends the Philippines for its effort s in seeking to bring its notifications up 
to date, covering the years 2005 to 2010. Australia sees this as an important contribution to greater transparency in Committee on Agriculture. 
Australia requests that the Philippines conf irm the basis on which its crop insurance 
programme is notified in under the Green Box. In particular: 
a. Can the Philippines indicate whether this  programme is product specific and 
whether or not it includes direct payments to producers?  
b. What natural disasters were declared to trigger these payments? 
c. Can the Philippines provide details to confirm there was a production loss of 
30% of the average production for the three preceding years. 
d. Can the Philippines confirm that the payment in question was no more than the 
total cost of replacing losses and was no t conditional on a specific type or 
quantity of future production? G/AG/W/111 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer by Philippines 
a. The Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC) implements product specific 
agricultural insurance programmes, which are as follows:  
 Rice Crop Insurance 
 Corn Crop Insurance 
 High-Value Commercial Crop Insurance 
 Livestock Insurance 
 Non-Crop Agricultural Asset Insurance 
 Fisheries Insurance 
 Term Life Insurance 
 
In case of loss, PCIC pays/indemnifies dire ctly the insured producers. If the insured 
obtained a loan from a lender and assigns the proceeds of the claim, PCIC remits the proceeds of the indemnity to the lender as assignee of the insured. 
 
b. PCIC covers losses arising from natural di sasters such as: typhoon, flood, drought, 
earthquake, volcanic eruptions; plant/animal diseases and pest infestation; and other 
perils insured against. 
c. Based on PCIC’s records, the following are its losses experienced for rice and corn crop 
insurance programmes for the three preceding years: 
d. The insurance amount of coverage is based on the cost of production inputs (CPI) of the 
insured crops and not the market value of the yield/harvest of the insured crops.  
AG-IMS ID 70074: Question by European Union – Direct payments: payments for relief 
from natural disasters 
Could the Philippines explain how the crop  insurance premium subsidy operates? 
Answer by Philippines 
The support of the National Government for the programme is through the allocation of a 
yearly budget to the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation which is called Government 
Premium Subsidy (GPS). The Philippine Agricultural Insurance Program calls for subsidizing 
or providing for matching grants, referred to as GPS, to cover the premium cost of agricultural insurance for subsistence farmers. The premium cost is co-shared by the national government, lending institutions (if applicable) and the insured farmers. 
For more information, please visit the PCID official website: http://www.pcic.gov.ph/ . Agricultural Insurance 
/Crop Year 
 
 Amount of 
Coverage 
 
(₱ million) Loss Experience 
Claims Paid 
(₱ million) Damage 
Rate (%) 
Rice Crop Insurance 
2010  
2,998.308  
213.076  
7.11 
2011 3,461.227 375.404 10.85 
2012 3,897.721 185.857 4.77 
Corn Crop Insurance 
2010  
255.031  
27.192  
10.66 
2011 365.143 18.598 5.09 
2012 467.516 27.393 5.86 G/AG/W/111 
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 70036: Question by Canada – In vestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
In 2005, payments under soft-loans and gran ts for agricultural investment equalled 
₱1,357 million; this amount climbed to a high of ₱6,958 million in 2009 and then fell 
again to ₱4,081 million. These payments include the provisions of loans and grants for 
irrigation and farm infrastructure support. 
a. Which agricultural sectors have bene fited from this type of support?  
b. How much of these payments under soft loans were allocated to grants for 
irrigation? 
Answer by Philippines a. The entire crop sector benefited from this support, e.g., rice, corn, and high value 
commercial crops such as fruits and vegetables. 
b. About 10% and 5% out of this support was allocated to grants for small-scale irrigation 
systems in 2009 and 2010, respectively. This support was provided in the form of small 
water impounding projects (SWIPs), small diversion dams (SDDs), small farmer 
reservoir (SFR) and shallow tube wells (STWs) which are intended for many small farming communities not reached or serviced by national irrigation systems. 
AG-IMS ID 70037: Question by Canada – In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Could the Philippines please explain the large increase in payments under the "Provision 
of access to farm inputs"? The highest reported amount was ₱7,736 million in 2009, up 
from ₱1,232 million in 2005. In 2010 payments remained high at ₱3,238 million. 
Answer by Philippines 
The large increase in payments under this measure in 2009 was attributed to the DA’s 
implementation of the "Quick Recovery Progra m" to repair the damages due to tropical 
storm Ondoy, typhoon Pepeng and typhoon Santi. The programme was implemented to commence agricultural production activities immediately in affected areas.  
AG-IMS ID 70047: Question by United States  of America – Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America notes the Ph ilippines provides input subsidies to low-
income resource-poor producer s for seeds, planting materials, fertilizers, and animal 
stocks. 
a. Please provide data on input subsidies by  type (i.e., seeds, fertilizers, planting 
materials, etc…). 
b. How are these input subsidies implemented? 
Answer by Philippines a. Under its rice program for the dry annual cropping season, the Department of 
Agriculture (DA) distributed hybrid and certified seeds amounting to ₱3, 504, 272, 600 in 
2009. Under its fertilizer assistance program, the DA provided fertilizer subsidies in the 
form of discounts benefiting 130,516 farmers.  
b. The provision of agricultural inputs under the Rice Program for the dry cropping season 
was implemented through a "clustering approach". Hybrid and certified rice seeds were 
distributed in all provinces to individual farmers who were organized into clusters. This approach enabled the DA to improve activi ties, ensure correct management, and apply 
clear mechanisms that will help achieve the outcomes of the activities. G/AG/W/111 
 
- 35 - 
 
  The fertilizer assistance programme for rice areas with no chance of recovery caused by 
tropical storm Ondoy and typhoon Pepeng was implemented based on guidelines targeting the Luzon rice areas affected by the two weather disturbances. The assistance is provided to farmer beneficiaries using the "fertilizer reimbursement mode", where 
reimbursement to farmer-beneficiaries is based on the actual cost as reflected in the 
official receipt issued to the farmer. This amount however shall not exceed the allowed reimbursable ceiling set by the Department of Agriculture. 
As a matter of policy, the Philippines has termin ated seed and fertilizer subsidies already 
except for purposes of assisting farmers in time of natural disasters and calamities or as part of assistance package for rebel returnees under the peace and development programmes of government.  
AG-IMS ID 70048: Question by United St ates of America – Market price support 
The United States of America notes the Philippi nes notifies market price support for both 
rice and corn.  
a. How is the eligible production (the quan tity procured according to the footnote) 
determined?  
b. How does the procured quantity compare to the total quantity of production? 
Answer by Philippines 
a. Procured quantities constituted eligible production in the calculation of market price 
support under the Supporting Table DS:5 notifications for the period 2005-2010. As the fixed external reference price is based on rice (milled paddy) while the National Food 
Authority’s local procurement is in paddy form, the eligible production reported was 
converted into rice using the 65% milling recovery rate.  
b. Procured quantity is less than total quantity of production. 
2.3.13  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/61) 
AG-IMS ID 70050: Question by United St ates of America – Market price support 
The distinction between a "guaranteed pric e" and "price support" in Switzerland’s 
recent notification is not clear. In or der to help Members better understand the 
application of this policy, please clarify what the two terms mean in the context of 
Supporting Table DS:5. 
Answer by Switzerland 
Indeed, looking at the nomenclature in the Su pporting Table DS:5, there does seem to be 
an inconsistency for wheat. Switzerland will correct this inconsistency in order to provide a 
clearer presentation of the measures concerned. Regardless of this inconsistency, when it 
comes to the Supporting Table DS:5 calculations, Switzerland is in line with the objectives of the Agreement on Agriculture, particularly Annex 3, paragraph 7. 
2.3.14  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9, G/AG/N/UKR/13) 
AG-IMS ID 70038: Question by Canada – Market price support 
Canada would like to reiterate its concern that the methodology used by Ukraine to 
calculate market price support does not conform to the methodology described in 
paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on Ag riculture. It is necessary that Ukraine 
provide calculations that conform to those st ipulated in the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Only then, will it be possible for Members to  give due consideration to the impact of 
inflation in determining the ac tual level of product support. Canada reiterates its request G/AG/W/111 
 
- 36 - 
 
  that Ukraine provide revised notifications which include the accurate fixed external 
reference price.  
2.3.15  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/89) 
AG-IMS ID 70040: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
Canada thanks the United States of Americ a for its response to Canada's question 
relating to the reference period used under  the non-insured crop disaster assistance 
Program (G/AG/W/10, AG-IMS ID 69084). While Canada notes that the United States of America has made efforts to introduce more "stringent criteria", the reference period 
does not meet the criteria clearly set out in Annex 2. Canada again respectfully requests 
that the United States of America bring the programme into conformity with the clearly 
defined criteria, or to report the programm e 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 follow-up comment, including noting 
the United States of America's efforts to use "more stringent" criteria in its application of 
paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2. Paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 establishes production loss levels 
that must be exceeded before payments qualify under this paragraph as "green box", and therefore uses representative time periods to exclude payments that would result from 
applying disproportionate weight to events that occur in an unrepresentative year or years. 
The language of Paragraph 8(a) – particularly the word "exceeds" – reflects the general usage in the pre-Uruguay Round period of thresh olds tied to time periods for programs that 
were deemed minimally distorting to trade. Th e time periods and thresholds were seen, as 
they should be, to discourage Members from us ing shorter, less-representative time periods 
or lower, more generous loss thresholds. It was not seen and there is no reason to consider, that the minimum criteria limit or prohibit a Me mber from electing to apply "more stringent" 
criteria. 
2.3.16  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/9) 
AG-IMS ID 70042: Question by Canada – Di rect payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters 
In 2012, the "Development and climate change  adaptation programme" was introduced. 
US$ 2 million was provided under this environmental programme.  
a. Could Uruguay please provide more information on this programme, such as a 
detailed description of the measur e and the eligibility criteria?  
b. Could Uruguay provide a Table DS:2 notifica tion that includes this information?  
Answer by Uruguay 
a. This programme aims to support farmers to develop sustainable use of natural resources 
leading to greater adaptation to variability and climate change. The programme 
promotes a modernization of management of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and 
Fisheries in the area of information and services related to climate and natural resources. The measure was reported under Domestic Support Measures exempt from reduction commitments (Green Box) classified as payments under environmental 
programmes (Paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture) as they met the 
criteria (a) and (b) for eligibility.  
b. Uruguay's Table DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/UR Y/52) provides more detailed information.  G/AG/W/111 
 
- 37 - 
 
  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Turkey's delayed notifications  3.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 70075) Could Turkey please inform the Committee when it intends to present its delayed 
notifications for review? 
Answer by Turkey 
Turkey has received a letter from the capital in dicating that they are working on the issue. 
Turkey will inform the Committee as soon as it receives information regarding the result of 
the work. 
Follow-up: The European Union pointed out that Tu rkey's delayed notifications had been on the 
Committee's agenda on several occasions when . In  this respect Turkey was requested to provide 
information regarding its progress on notifications. 
__________