G/AG/W/118  
7 March 2014  
(14-1405)  Page: 1/40  
Committee on Agriculture   
 
  RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 29 JANUARY 20141 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/116 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
A comprehensive version of the present compilation will be issued once all outstanding responses 
are provided by Members.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                               
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/118 
- 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 United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72051) ............................................. 4  
1.2  Canada's proposed chan ges to tariff  schedule ................................................................. 4  
1.2.1  Question by United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72049) ............................................. 4  
1.3  China's Cotton Do mestic Support .................................................................................. 7  
1.3.1  Question by United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72052) ............................................. 7  
1.4  Costa Rica's complianc e with AMS commitments ............................................................. 7  
1.4.1  Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  72005)  ..................................................................... 7  
1.4.2  Question by United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72050) ............................................. 8  
1.5  Ecuador's import licensing of certain agricultur al products ................................................ 9  
1.5.1  Question by United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72053) ............................................. 9  
1.6  Egypt's export restriction on rice ................................................................................... 9  
1.6.1  Question by United States  of America (AG- IMS ID 72054) ............................................. 9  
1.7  European Union's levy on fruits and vegetables .............................................................. 10 
1.7.1  Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID 7200 7) .................................................................... 10 
1.8  European Union's sugar production levies ...................................................................... 12 
1.8.1  Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID 7200 6) .................................................................... 12 
1.9  India's ri ce exports .................................................................................................... 13 
1.9.1  Question by Paki stan (AG-IM S ID 72059) ................................................................... 13 
1.10  India's wheat st ocks and exports ............................................................................... 14 
1.10.1  Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72008) .................................................................. 14 
1.10.2  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72061) ........................................... 14 
1.11  Japan's new agricultural policy ................................................................................... 15 
1.11.1  Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72009) .................................................................. 15 
1.12  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for po ultry and pork ................................. 15 
1.12.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72055) ........................................... 15 
1.13  Thailand's paddy  pledging scheme ............................................................................. 16 
1.13.1  Question by Ca nada (AG-IM S ID 72010) .................................................................. 16 
1.13.2  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72056) ........................................... 16 
1.14  Turkey's destinatio n of wheat fl our sale ...................................................................... 17 
1.14.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72057) ........................................... 17 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WI TH INDIVIDUAL NO TIFICATIONS ..................... 18  
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) ...................... 18 
2.1.1  El Salvador (G/AG/ N/SLV/38, G/AG /N/SLV/41) ........................................................... 18 
2.1.2  European Unio n (G/AG/N/ EU/16) .............................................................................. 19 
2.1.3  Panama (G /AG/N/PA N/29) ....................................................................................... 19 
2.2  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (T ABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) ............................................................ 20 G/AG/W/118 
- 3 - 
  2.2.1  Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TP KM/108) .......................................................................... 20 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ........................................................ 20 
2.3.1  Georgia (G /AG/N/GE O/11) ....................................................................................... 20 
2.3.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/34) .................................................................................... 24 
2.3.3  India (G /AG/N/IND/7) ............................................................................................. 24 
2.3.4  Indonesia (G/AG/N/ IDN/30, G/AG/N /IDN/34) ............................................................. 25 
2.3.5  Jordan (G /AG/N/JO R/16) ......................................................................................... 26 
2.3.6  Lesotho (G /AG/N/LS O/4) ......................................................................................... 27 
2.3.7  Panama (G /AG/N/PA N/28) ....................................................................................... 28 
2.3.8  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CH E/63) .................................................................................. 28 
2.3.9  United States of America (G /AG/N/USA/89/REV.1,  G/AG/N/USA/93) .............................. 29 
2.3.10  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VN M/4) ..................................................................................... 30 
2.3.11  Zambia (G /AG/N/ZM B/8) ....................................................................................... 33 
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) ........................................... 34 
2.4.1  Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/31) .......................................................................................... 34 
2.4.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/35) .................................................................................... 34 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................... 35 
2.5.1  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/ VNM/3)....................................................................................... 35 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 36  
3.1  Turkey ................................................................................................................... .. 36 
3.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 72011) ......................................................... 36 
3.2  Viet Nam .................................................................................................................. 36 
3.2.1  Question by Aust ralia (AG-IM S ID 72031) .................................................................. 36 
ANNEX I ....................................................................................................................... .. 38 
 
 G/AG/W/118 
- 4 - 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.1.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72051) 
The United States of America appreciates Br azil's response to the question on Prêmio 
para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) from the September 2013 Committee on Agriculture 
meeting (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71028).  
a. What is the status of providing the re quested information on the quantities 
shipped to specific domestic destinatio ns as well as on the quantities by 
commodity exported under the programme? 
The United States of America recognizes  that a similar programme, Prêmio de 
Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO), was used extensively in recent years 
for corn. 
b. Please describe any difference in PEP an d PEPRO, specifically those differences 
related to policy framework, eligibilit y criteria, and auction procedures. 
c. Please provide a list of auction destinations for corn through the PEPRO 
programme. 
d. Please provide the quantities of corn through the PEPRO programme by 
destination and by commodity for the last 5 years. 
Answer by Brazil a. At this moment the information requested is still unavailable. 
b. The programmes are similar. The only difference regards the recipient of the payment. 
In PEP, the recipient of the payment is th e company that bought the product from the 
benefited producer, and in PEPRO the recipient of the payment is the benefited producer 
(who sold the product). 
c. See the list of auction destinations for corn in Annex I. 
d. The information is provided in the list of auctions for corn (see Annex I), except as 
regards the quantities by destination, which are still unavailable. 
Follow-up: Regarding question a, the United States of America sought clarification regarding the 
progress of the data compilation. Brazil explained the difficulties associated with the compilation: 
several mechanisms were not ready electronically  and many branches of CONAB were spread out 
in the country. Brazil would send the compilation to the United States of America as soon as the 
process was completed. The European Union registered its interest in this question. 
1.2  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.2.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72049) 
On 22 November 2013, Canada's lower house of parliament tabled a "Ways and Means 
motion" to amend Canada's Customs Tariff  Schedule to add a supplementary note 
affecting certain commercial "food preparations" that contain meat and cheese to Chapter 16 of its tariff schedule, to be effe ctive retroactively to 29 November 2013. The 
new supplementary note states: 
Where the components of food preparations of a type used commercially in 
the preparation of fresh food products for direct sale to a consumer include G/AG/W/118 
- 5 - 
  cheese, those components are to be classified separately, in their respective 
headings, regardless of their packaging. 
Following the change, certain products under tariff subheading 1601.00.90 that 
previously entered Canada at a zero-duty ra te would be subject, once the motion is 
made law, to a prohibitively high tariff. 
Since the proposed law is retroactive to  November 2013, the motion itself has 
effectively stopped U.S. exports of ce rtain products covered under the new 
supplementary note. In addition, on 2 Decemb er 2013, a Canadian importer received a 
notice from the Canada Border Services Agency stating that its 2006 Advance Ruling 
allowing its pizza topping product to be im ported under Chapter 16 had been revoked, 
effective immediately. The revocation referenc ed the motion, even though it has not yet 
been passed into law. 
a. Please explain the legal basis for the ch ange to Canada's tariff schedule and 
provide a list of all releva nt measures related to it. 
b. Please identify and explain the sp ecific commercial products that 
Supplementary Note 2 is intended to cover. 
c. Please provide information on historical imports of the product(s) affected by 
the referenced Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16, and what the impact of the 
Parliamentary motion has been on imports of these products. 
d. Did Canada consult with any of its trading partners prior to proposing 
Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 16? If yes, please describe the nature of 
those consultations. 
e. Please describe the process and time line, for amending Canada's tariff 
schedule, including its notification for and consultation process with trading 
partners. 
f. By using an effective date that is retr oactive, the United States of America 
believes the measure immediately impa cts trade negatively without any 
stakeholders' input. Is there a purpose fo r using a retroactive date? What is the 
intended effect of retroactive implementation? 
g. Is Canada currently enforcing Supplemen tary Note 2 to Chapter 16? If yes, 
please describe how it is being enforc ed, i.e., how is Canada verifying the 
separate classification of the componen ts of a food preparation in instances 
where the components are comingled or mixe d together. If it is not yet in force, 
please describe whether and how it inte nds to enforce Supplementary Note 2. 
h. In 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency revoked Tariff Classification 
Advance Ruling No. 218973 (an advanced ruling on a certain pizza topping 
product) citing Supplementary Note 2 to  Chapter 16. Please explain the legal 
basis and provide a list of all relevant me asures regarding the revocation of this 
advance ruling. The United States of America understands that Supplementary 
Note 2 was not effective at the time of the revocation of Advance Ruling No. 218973. Please explain the legal basis for revoking the advance ruling prior to the effective date of the Supplementary Note. 
i. Are importers now subject to increased tariffs as a result of Supplementary 
Note 2 to Chapter 16? Has any importer appealed or sought further review within Canada of the classification dete rmination that resulted in the higher 
tariffs? Please provide details on the application of the higher tariff rate on 
affected products, including the prod ucts covered and volume of trade 
concerned. G/AG/W/118 
- 6 - 
  j. Are there any further proposals to amend Canada's tariff schedule in a similar 
manner in the area of food preparations or other goods? If the answer is yes, 
please identify and describe in detail those proposals. Are there any proposals 
to amend the supplementary notes of an y other chapter of Canada's tariff 
schedule to target cheese and/or dairy products in a similar fashion? If the 
answer is yes, please identify an d describe in detail those proposals. 
k. The U.S. traders have raised concerns wi th the timing of the application of the 
measure. Would Canada consider revoking or delaying application of 
Supplementary Note 2? 
Answer by Canada On 22 November 2013, the Government of Ca nada tabled a Notice of Ways and Means 
Motion in Parliament to amend its Customs Tariff through the addition of a new 
Supplementary Note to Chapter 16. The Note cl arifies that the individual components of 
certain food preparations that include cheese are to be classified separately, regardless of 
their packaging. This clarification addresses a gap whereby certain imported goods were 
packaged in a specific manner to circumvent Canada's tariff structure (e.g. significant imports of a "pizza toppings" product containing 79% shredded mozzarella cheese and 21% 
sliced pepperoni, packaged together in a sing le plastic bag and separated by a sheet of wax 
paper to qualify as a "food preparation" in Chapter 16). All rates of duty in Canada's customs tariff remain unchanged. In order to address this gap quickly to discourage further circumvention of the law, Canada did not consult stakeholders in advance of this measure. 
However, to ensure goods in transit were no t affected, there was a limited gap between the 
tabling of the Notice of Ways and Means Motion on 22 November 2013, and its effective date of enforcement of 29 November 2013. The tabling of a Notice of Ways and Means Motion is a 
standard parliamentary procedure to give effect  to domestic tax and tariff changes prior to 
such time that formal legislation is brought forward. The Government intends to bring forward formal legislative amendments, retroactive to 29 November 2013, at the 
appropriate time. 
Follow-up: The United States of America praised the Secretariat's work on the AG-IMS and 
Members' submission of responses through the sy stem prior to the meeting. Regarding Canada's 
response, although the United States of Americ a disagreed with the word "circumvention", it 
agreed that traders sometimes could be creative when there were TRQs in protected markets. In 
its view, Canada's dairy policy was set up in such a way that consumers paid higher market prices than world prices to support the dairy production and this type of programme required border 
control such as that identified in the question. The United States of America believed that this 
situation could lead to quota rent, which signified inefficiency in the markets. Moreover, the United 
States of America expressed concerns about the timing of Canada's application of the measure. 
According to the United States of America, the process did not allow stakeholder input nor time to 
adjust for products in shipment. Furthermore, due to its retroactive nature, it did have the effect 
of immediately reducing the volume of trade on th e products involved. Finally, the United States of 
America indicated its intention to follow up on this issue bilaterally with Canada. New Zealand 
thanked the United States of America for the comp rehensive questions on Canada's latest actions 
to prevent what they also considered to be illegal imports of dairy products entering Canada. In addition to its long-running concern about the key motive of protection-driven measures that 
Canada implemented across its dairy sector, New Zealand was also concerned about the potential 
systemic implications of the process Canada had adopted to amend its tariff schedule. New Zealand was concerned about the potential of Canada to adopt a similar process on other food 
preparations and blended products. The European Union flagged interest and stated its likely 
intention to follow up on this matter at the next Committee. While thanking Members for their interventions, Canada reiterated that this measure was a standard parliamentary procedure and it was applied to avoid circumvention of Canada's customs tariff. G/AG/W/118 
- 7 - 
  1.3  China's Cotton Domestic Support 
1.3.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72052) 
The United States of America thanks China for its responses to questions regarding its 
cotton support programme from the September 2013 Committee meeting, and notes 
that China's last domestic support notification (from 13 October 2011 - 
G/AG/N/CHN/21) was through 2008. In that submission, China reported cotton-specific support (seeds, reserves, transportation) acco unting for RMB 2.8 billion or 2.5% of the 
value of cotton production in 2008. Since 2008, there has been increasing attention 
around the world on China's cotton policies, including substantial trade and other media. 
One theme is the growing and significant impact on the global cotton supply equation. China has yet to submit domestic support no tifications that include further information 
on the referenced price support programme. In this regard, the United States of America 
submits the following questions: 
a. China noted in its last response that it would be notifying domestic support 
shortly. Please provide an update on th e intended timeframe for China to notify 
domestic support notifications for recent  years, in particular for years when 
cotton price support was applied. 
b. Please provide the Committee with spec ific information from its official 
website(s) on various subsidy meas ures associated with price support, 
including the legal mechanisms by whic h they are implemented, as well as 
updated data on the accumulation, maintenance, and distribution of cotton stocks since the programme's inception? 
c. The United States of America requests that China provide the Committee with a 
brief summary of China's analysis on the economic impact and effects of 
China's management of its sizable dome stic cotton stocks on the world cotton 
market, taking into account the large role  China plays in both global supply and 
demand of cotton. 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
Follow-up: Noting China's non-notification of its policy, the United States of America requested 
China to provide a time frame regarding when it would be ready. Likewise, the European Union 
urged China to provide updated notifications. The European Union further stated its intention to 
continue monitoring the developments of the polic y and reserved the right to come back on this 
matter if necessary. 
1.4  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.4.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72005) 
Canada would like to reiterate its apprec iation of Costa Rica's commitment to 
transparency during the many discussions of  its domestic support in this Committee and 
its willingness to engage openly with Member s regarding the elimination of its market 
price support programme for rice. 
a. Could Costa Rica provide a status u pdate regarding the domestic process 
underway and provide further information regarding remaining steps in 
eliminating its price support mechanism for rice? 
b. Could Costa Rica say if it still plans on meeting the deadline of 1 March 2014 for 
complete elimination of the mechanis m ?  I f  n o t ,  w h a t  w o u l d  b e  t h e  n e w  
timeline? G/AG/W/118 
- 8 - 
  c. Considering Costa Rica's response to the questions raised by the United States 
of America at the 26 September 2013 m eeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
(AG IMS ID 71030), could Costa Rica elabor ate further on the functioning of the 
new marketing system for rice that w ill replace the price support mechanism? 
Answer by Costa Rica 
See below. 
1.4.2  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72050) 
The United States of America thanks Costa Ri ca for regularly updating this Committee on 
its rice policies over the past several years during which time Costa Rica has notified an 
Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) well beyond its agreed limit. In June 2013, 
Members learned that Costa Rica was changing  its policies with the previous mechanism 
set to be eliminated by 1 March 2014 and th at an alternative mechanism would go into 
effect on that date. As of the September meeting of this Committee, Costa Rica had not worked out the details of the alternative mech anism. The United States of America notes 
Costa Rican media has reported that the e limination of the current policy is being 
delayed. 
a. Is Costa Rica delaying the elimination of the price support mechanism that has 
resulted in Costa Rica exceeding its AMS limit? 
b. If there is a delay, when will the curre nt mechanism be eliminated? What are 
the reasons for the delay in eliminating the programme? 
With respect to the alternative mechanis m that the United States of America 
understands is to be introduced, the United  States of America repeats the specific 
questions asked in September (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71030) when Costa Rica was 
not yet ready to fully respond: 
c. Please provide the status/details of  the new policy including steps taken 
toward its implementation? 
d. Specifically, what will be the role of th e Government of Costa Rica, particularly 
in comparison to other organizations' ro le, in conducting the new rice policy? 
e. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? 
f. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying 
them to the WTO? 
Answer by Costa Rica 
As this Committee was informed on 22 January 2014, and as reported in document 
G/AG/GEN/116, the Government of Costa Rica had decided to postpone the date for the elimination of the price support mechanism for rice to 1 March 2015. The rice sector needs 
more time to finalize its definition of the alternative mechanism that will replace the current 
price-fixing mechanism for rice, provided fo r in Recital VI of Decree No. 37.699-MEIC and 
notified to this Committee in document G/AG/GEN/110 of 31 May 2013. Costa Rica was 
willing to respond to the specific question s raised by the United States of America 
and Canada in this connection, but some of the questions cannot be answered without knowing what alternative mechanism the sector intends to establish. 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada, the European Union, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United States of 
America and Uruguay appreciated Costa Rica's on-going commitments to transparency. In the 
view of the United States of America, Costa Rica  had set the standards of timely notifications for 
other Members. Australia, supported by Canada and the European Union, expressed regret over 
Costa Rica's announced delay of elimination of the price support mechanism for rice. Pakistan G/AG/W/118 
- 9 - 
  appreciated the plurilateral meeting held by Cost a Rica where in one session, Costa Rica had 
informed other Members that market price support had decreased rice productivity in Costa Rica and created a negative effect on small farmers. Pa kistan joined Australia in requesting Costa Rica 
to provide information on the alternative policie s that would replace the market price support 
mechanism. The United States of America commented that Costa Rica's policy had created higher 
prices on the staple food commodity for consumers in Costa Rica. All intervening Members voiced continued interest in monitoring Costa Rica's policy. 
1.5  Ecuador's import licensing of certain agricultural products 
1.5.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72053) 
In Ecuador's recent notification to the WTO Import Licensing Committee 
(G/LIC/Q/ECU/4) relating to Resolution 102 an d 299-A, Ecuador states that "there are 
times when factors external to national produc tion which have an influence on quality of 
products, such as enormous amounts of do mestic support for production and export 
subsidies, make it necessary to count import s outside national harvest periods for these 
producers". Given that most, if not all, of these references are related to agricultural 
products, could Ecuador please clarify what it means by this statement? 
Answer by Ecuador 
For Ecuador, ensuring the food security of its population is important. In this context, its 
policies and programmes seek to strengthen its agricultural production system, ensure food 
quality and protect the stability of domestic prices so as to facilitate its population's access to food. The objective set out in the notified resolutions - to adequately maintain internal food balances - is exclusively related to protecting internal food supply flows. These can be 
affected by numerous exogenous factors that influence both local production and domestic 
consumption levels. This is particularly the case for perishable products such as vegetables that have the cyclical and seasonal production. A balance must be maintained between 
national production and imports to ensure a permanent food supply by coordinating the 
country's resources with international market availability. The performance of international markets for certain agricultural products depends on their volatility. Such markets are 
influenced by a wide variety of exogenous factors that can affect not only local production 
and trade, but domestic consumption levels, food security conditions and local agricultural development. The references mentioned by Ecuador in its recent notification to the Committee on Import Licensing correspond to one of the external factors that influence the 
behaviour of certain agricultural markets, in the same way as natural, geographical and 
climatic conditions. 
Follow-up: The United States of America pointed ou t that the food security concern mentioned by 
Ecuador was shared by many other Members and there were various ways to address it. In this 
regard, the United States of America urged Ecuador to review its policy in light of its WTO commitments, particularly with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as well as 
Article III and XI of GATT 1994. Canada noted that it had been following this issue in the WTO 
Import Licensing Committee and would continue to monitor it. 
1.6  Egypt's export restriction on rice 
1.6.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72054) 
The United States of America notes trade an d press reports that Egypt implemented an 
export ban on rice in 2013. 
a. Please confirm whether Egypt implemented such an export restriction or ban. 
b. If Egypt implemented a restriction, plea se confirm via provision of relevant, 
recent trade data that Egypt is or is not a net-food exporter of this specific 
foodstuff. G/AG/W/118 
- 10 - 
  c. If confirmed as a net-food exporter for the relevant product, please indicate 
when Egypt intends to submit an export restriction notification. 
Answer by Egypt The ban on the Egyptian rice exports had been temporarily imposed in late November 2013 
in order to secure Egypt's domestic needs of this essential foodstuff. Rice constitutes a 
major food requirement for the poor population  covered under the ration card system. This 
temporary ban has been imposed in conformity with Article 11.2(a) of GATT 1994, while 
taking into account the fact that Egypt is a net food importing country. Furthermore, it 
should be noted that the temporary ban will be  lifted once the domestic needs are satisfied. 
According to the latest trade data for the years 2010 – 2012 Egypt rice imports exceed rice exports. There is neither a clear definition nor criteria for determining "a net food exporter of 
specific food stuff". 
Follow-up: Supported by the European Union, Korea and Switzerland, the United States of America 
considered that Egypt had raised a very important issue of the Committee. Further clarification 
was needed for the definition of net food exporter in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In 
this context, the European Union recalled the impo rtance of transparency in the application of 
export restrictions. As a significant food importer, Korea registered its interest in this issue and 
was committed to engage actively in future discussions. 
1.7  European Union's levy on  fruits and vegetables 
1.7.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72007) 
Canada understands that France imposes an ad -valorem levy on fruits and vegetables. 
Through a decree on 26 March 2013, this ad-valorem fee was extended. Canadian 
stakeholders have raised concerns  with this programme. (source: 
http://formulaires.agriculture.gouv.fr/3046-IN TERFEL-Accord-cotisation-ad). Could the 
European Union provide additional details on how this ad-valorem fee is applied? 
a. What products are subject to the levy ? (i.e. are all bananas and potatoes 
exempted, or only processed products?) 
b. Is the levy applied equally to fruits an d vegetables from all sources (domestic, 
EU member state, non-EU members)? 
c. How is the levy applied for non-EU and EU suppliers compared to French 
suppliers? 
d. What is the total amount collected under this levy? (Total for the programme as 
well as total amount by filler) 
e. The rate is identified as being levied at a maximum of 0.6%. Is the same rate 
applied at every level of the value chain? If not, what rate is applied at each 
level? 
f. Support funded through this programme is identified as 80% towards generic 
promotions and 20% towards quality cont rol. What level of the value chain 
receives this support, in particular the "quality control". (e.g. producers, 
transport, and wholesale level) 
g. Does the European Union notify this programme? If so, please identify where. 
(Canada recognizes that it may be a component of an aggregated measure) 
Answer by European Union 
Members and non-members of the fresh fruit and vegetables interbranch organization 
(INTERFEL) are liable for payment of the levy on sales of fresh fruit and vegetables G/AG/W/118 
- 11 - 
  (extended ad valorem levy or compulsory vol untary levy (CVO)), in order to help finance 
activities implemented by INTERFEL in the common interest of its members. The rules agreed on within this organization are binding, in accordance with the provisions of the common market organization (CMO) (Articles 125k ff. of Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007). 
a. The agreement applies to fresh or dried frui t and vegetables and aromatic plants for 
culinary use that have not undergone any processing to ensure long storage life, with 
the exception of bananas and potatoes. 
The extended interbranch agreement therefore excludes processed products, bananas 
and potatoes. INTERFEL's activities do not cover these products and hence the professionals concerned do not contribute to the financing of these activities. 
b. and c.  The amount of the levy is calculated  on the basis of the sales of the products 
concerned, as individually declared by the operators, regardless of the products' 
geographical origin or destination. 
The rate differs depending on the declared or igin of the products, so that the amounts 
levied inter alia  on imported products cover only that part of the activities for which 
these products are eligible. Sales of products of French origin pay the full levy. Sales of 
intra-Community products and products from third countries pay the levy towards 
marketing and generic promotion activities. This means that the amounts levied on imported products are lower than those collected on products of French origin. 
d. The total amount collected under the levy in 2013 was €10 million. As an illustration, an 
analysis carried out in July 2012 showed that the CVO collected is distributed as follows, 
by category of operator: 
Operators 
Production: 5% 
Cooperatives: 6.5% Carriers: 12% 
Wholesalers: 28.5% 
Central purchasing and medium and large supermarkets: 34% Retailers: 14% TOTAL: 100% 
e. Article II of the agreement specifies that "every operator in the branch, whether a 
natural or a legal person, beginning with the operator making the initial placement on the market, is liable for payment of the levy. This levy is based on the sales of these 
products, regardless of their geographical destination". 
f. The amount of the levy collected each year is around €10 million. The funds are used to 
finance the following activities, which have been made compulsory pursuant to Article 
125 terdecies  of the single CMO: 
Quality enhancement and control activities These activities represent a budget of around €2 million and aim to promote product 
quality enhancement and control throughout the production chain, in particular by 
facilitating interbranch dialogue and increasing knowledge of both production and the 
consumer market. G/AG/W/118 
- 12 - 
  Generic promotion and marketing activities 
These activities represent a budget of around €8 million. This finances generic promotion 
activities aimed at encouraging the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. The activities benefit all actors in the sector. The origin of the products is not specified in 
generic promotion and marketing activities. 
g. This type of measure meets the Green Box criteria. 
Follow-up : Indonesia intended to follow this issue closely and pose questions at the next 
Committee meeting. 
1.8  European Union's sugar production levies 
1.8.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72006) 
According to media reports, an EU Court of Justice ruling on 27 September 2012 in joint 
cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10, annulled in its entirety Commission 
Regulation (EC) No. 1193/2009 of 3 Novemb er 2009 that retroactively corrected the 
sugar production levies for the 2001-2006 marketing years. Following this ruling, 
Canada understands from media reports that  EU member states' experts have reached 
an agreement on the rules for fixing retroa ctively the sugar production levies for the 
2001-2006 marketing years; resulting in the reimbursement of nearly 350 million euros 
(including interest) to individual sugar pr oducers and beet growers across the European 
Union. Can the European Union provide background information on the programme: 
a. At what level were the production  levies set during this period? 
b. At what level should the levies have b een set (i.e. at what level did the EU 
member states' experts determine the levies should have been set)? 
c. What was the reason for the inaccuracy? Can the European Union provide 
additional details on the process going forward: 
i. What was the interest rate used to determine what compensatory interest 
was owed? 
ii. How many producers will receive the payment? 
iii. Which member states will be covered by the payment? 
iv. How does the European Union plan to ensure that the correct producers are 
receiving the payments (i.e. what eligibility criteria are used)? 
v. When will producers receive their payments? 
Answer by European Union 
a. The invalidated levies are set out in Regulations (EC) No 1837/2002, 1762/2003, 
1775/2004, 1686/2005 and 164/2007 for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years respectively. 
b. The correct levies are set out in Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013. 
c. The EU Court of Justice held that the Commission had used an incorrect method to 
calculate the sugar levy in question. One of the factors set out in the applicable EU 
legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 at the time) to calculate the levy was the 
amount of export refunds paid for the total tonnage of sugar exports. For these exports, refunds were to be paid by the Commission, but the amounts concerned were collected from sugar producers (so the principle was that the sugar producers would in practice be G/AG/W/118 
- 13 - 
  paying for the refunds). The Commission was found to have used an incorrect method 
for calculating the amount of refunds to be paid for exported sugar and was also found to have wrongly set the sugar levy to be paid by sugar producers and beet growers. In brief, the Commission used an "a priori" fixed amount of refunds to be paid for exporting 
the sugar, but the Court stated that the Commission should have used "actual" amounts 
(and not "a priori" estimates) of the refunds to be paid. As a consequence, the sugar levy to be paid by the sugar industry (beet growers and sugar producers) was too high. 
In case of C-113/10 and others, the Court set out the correct method to be used. This 
method was applied by Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013. 
i. The court decided that interest is to be paid in accordance with applicable national 
rules. Therefore the interest rate is not fixed at EU level. 
ii. All beet producers and sugar producers that delivered (quota) beet in the period 
2001- 2006, in so far as they can still be traced. 
iii. All EU member states where beet was produced between 2001 and 2006. 
iv. EU member states have to ensure the correct administrative procedures for 
repayment to the farmers and producers that delivered beet in the 2001-2006 period. The only eligibility criterion is therefore delivery of beet in that period. 
v. That will depend on each member state but in any case Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1360/2013 provides that by 30 September 2014 member states must declare to the European Union the amounts repaid to beet growers and sugar in order to finalise the exercise in the 2014 budget year. 
Follow-up: Canada reserved the right to follo w up on this matter in future meetings. 
1.9  India's rice exports 
1.9.1  Question by Pakistan (AG-IMS ID 72059) 
According to the information available on Indian Agricultural and Processed Food 
Products Export Development Authority (A PEDA) non-basmati rice constitutes 60-65% 
of Indian rice exports. India emerged as the biggest exporter of rice in financial year 
2012-2013 with rice exports of ap proximately 9-10 million tonnes. 
a. Could India please provide/verify the tota l figure of its exports of rice in the 
last two years? 
b. According to Food Corporation of India, a ll Grade A rice varieties are eligible for 
market price support, do all non-Basmati rice varieties qualify as grade A? 
Answer by India 
a. The export figures in respect of rice for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 are as 
follows: 
Table 1. Rice exports (million tonnes) 
Commodity 2011-12 2012-13 
Rice-Basmati 3.178 3.460 
Rice-other than Basmati 3.997 6.688 
 
b. All paddy/rice except the scented varieties may be classified into two groups, namely, 
"Common" and "Grade A". Rice is classified on the basis of physical dimension i.e. length/breadth ratio. Varieties having length/b readth ratio below 2.5 will be classified as 
"Common" and those having length/breadth ratio of 2.5 and above will be classified as 
"Grade A". In order to overcome the difficulties due to changes in the length/breadth ratio caused by climatic factors or due to genetic factors over a period of few years, a G/AG/W/118 
- 14 - 
  tolerance limit will be allowed. Up to 40% of grains having length/breadth ratio up to 2.4 
could be accepted under the grade "A" group. 
Follow-up: Pakistan sought India's confirmation whether all non-basmati varieties were qualified as 
Grade A. India indicated that this was not the case. Australia, the European Union, the United 
States of America and Uruguay expressed particular interest concerning part b of the question. 
1.10  India's wheat stocks and exports 
1.10.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72008) 
As a wheat exporter Canada has a commercial interest in media reports that India will 
be exporting up to 20 lakh tonnes (2 millio n metric tonnes) of wheat due to surplus 
stocks from the Food Corporation of India. Th e reports indicate that the Government of 
India has lowered the floor price for this wheat to $260 per tonne from $300 per tonne 
which is lower than the price of the same  quality wheat from Canada (and other 
countries) sold in the range of $270 to $275 per tonne. 
a. Could India elaborate as to the volume of wheat stocks held by the Food 
Corporation of India? 
b. How does India determine the floor price for wheat exports? 
Answer by India The stocks of wheat in the Central Pool on 1 January 2014 were 28.047 million tonnes. The 
government in August 2013 approved export of 2.0 million tonnes of wheat during 2013-14 
through global tenders with the base price at US$300 per tonne. However, in keeping with the current market trends, the base price was lowered to US$260. Lowering of the base price does not put an obligation on the government to sell the product at this price and the 
tenders so far approved for export of wheat have fetched FOB price ranging from US$ 
279.52 to 289.90. 
Follow-up: Given India's growing role as a global wheat exporter, Canada deemed this matter as 
an increasing concern and would likely follow up specifically on the relation between the wheat 
stocks' base price and export price. Australia, European Union, Pakistan and the United States of America flagged interest. 
1.10.2  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72061) 
The United States of America is concerned th at India is exporting wheat at prices well 
below acquisition costs. For example, Indi a's Commission on Agricultural Costs and 
Prices in its discussion paper no.2 estimate d that the costs of storing, handling, and 
distributing wheat purchased by the govern ment's Food Corporation of India equals 
40% of the acquisition cost. For example, if  India procured wheat in 2013/14 at 13,500 
ruppes per tonne or $221 per tonne (US$1 = 61 ruppes), the United States of America 
calculates a cost to port of $310 per tonne. An export price of $260 per tonne is well 
below this cost to the India government. 
a. Please provide figures on the cost to th e Indian government of wheat at export 
ports named in export tender docume nts published by the State Trading 
Corporation of India Limited (STC), Minerals and Metals Trading Company 
(MMTC), Project and Equipment Corporatio n of India (PEC), and any other such 
entity; broken down by acquisition c ost, storage cost, transport cost, other 
cost. 
b. Please also provide the winning bids on  wheat export tenders for MMTC, STC 
and PEC via this port. G/AG/W/118 
- 15 - 
  Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
Follow-up: With reference to the example given by the United States of America in its question, 
India gave a preliminary comment that the estimated costs were not the actual costs incurred by 
the government. Canada and Pakistan shared the U.S. interest in this question. 
1.11  Japan's new agricultural policy 
1.11.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72009) 
At the 7 October 2013 Ministerial Meeting on International Food Prices, Japan indicated 
that it had a new policy on agriculture call ed Aggressive Agriculture, Forestry and 
Fisheries. Canada understands that this  policy aims to develop new markets for 
Japanese agricultural products, to establish value chains for farmers and to increase the 
size of agriculture holdings by consolidatin g farmland. Could Japan provide more details 
as to how existing small scale land holdings will be consolidated? 
Answer by Japan 
In order to promote agricultural structural reform and cost reduction through consolidation 
of farmland to motivated entities, the bill to establish a farmland re-distribution scheme was 
enacted on 5 December 2013. In this scheme,  intermediary instit utions will rent a 
considerable part of farmland in a region, including small plots of farmland, and lease the 
farmland to motivated entities, such as corporate farmers and large-scale family farmers. 
Follow-up: The United States of America remained interested in Japan's efforts to reform and 
revitalise its agriculture sector, specifically Japan's plan to encourage land consolidation. 
1.12  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase re quirements for poultry and pork 
1.12.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72055) 
The United States of America resubmits its questions to Saint-Lucia since no response 
has been received to date from questi ons posed at the September 2013 meeting 
(G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71032). The Unit ed States of America understands, as 
indicated by industry sources, that Saint-Lu cia's domestic purchase requirements for 
poultry increased on 29 October 2012 from 25 % to 33%. The United States of America 
also understands that there is a domestic purchase requirement set at approximately 
67% for pork. 
a. Please identify where these requirements are documented and published. 
b. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Sain t-Lucia's laws and regulations) for these 
domestic purchase requirements? 
c. What is the legal basis (i.e., citing Sain t-Lucia's laws and regulations) for the 
increased domestic purchase requirement for poultry that was notified by letter 
to poultry importers on 29 October 2012? 
d. Where was the domestic notification publicly published? 
e. Does Saint-Lucia intend to submit notifications to the WTO related to poultry or 
pork market arrangements, domestic pu rchase requirements and/or import 
licensing requirements? 
Answer by Saint Lucia Saint Lucia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/118 
- 16 - 
  1.13  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 72010) 
Canada appreciates Thailand's participation in informal consultations on this issue. 
However, Canada regrets that its questions to Thailand on its Paddy Pledging Scheme 
from the March 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/109, AG-IMS ID 69031), the June 2013 meeting 
(G/AG/W/111, AG IMS ID 70017) and the September 2013 meeting (G/AG/W/115, AG IMS ID 71018) remain unanswered. Could Th ailand please provide an estimate of 
government expenditures related to the pu rchase of rice under the Paddy Pledging 
Scheme? 
Answer by Thailand 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
1.13.2  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72056) 
The United States of America notes that Thai rice prices have declined dramatically in 
2013. Further, Thailand has gone from the highest-priced supplier to one of the lowest 
over the past two years. In AG-IMS-ID 710 33 Thailand indicated that it was taking 
measures to minimize the impact on markets of its release of government rice stocks. 
Press reports in Thailand have also indicated that Thailand has sold rice at below market 
prices. 
a. What factors have contributed to this dramatic decline in Thailand's export 
prices? 
b. Has Thailand evaluated whether it need s to take any additional steps to 
minimize the impact of its stock releas es on markets, including displacing 
exports of other countries due to its low prices? 
c. Press reports in Thailand note that even at these low prices, Thailand is finding 
it difficult to find buyers for its rice an d is simultaneously under pressure to sell 
stocks in order to fund its rice subsid y programme, which is currently late in 
making payments to its producers. Give n the current situation, what, if any, 
changes does Thailand plan to make to  its rice pledging scheme to address 
these concerns? 
d. Please provide an update on the following  aspects of Thailand's rice pledging 
scheme. 
i. How much rice has been procured by the government in the current crop 
year? 
ii. How much rice does Thailand curre ntly have in government stocks? 
iii. What is the current support price for rice in Thailand? 
iv. What is the support price for the upcoming rice crop year? 
e. Thailand last made a domestic suppo rt notification for the year 2007. 
Thailand's rice domestic support has und ergone several reforms since that time 
and is much different today than it was seven years ago. The United States of 
America notes this significant delay in no tifications. Given Thailand's major role 
in the global rice market, the United Stat es of America requests an update as to 
when Members can expect Thailand to come into compliance with its 
notifications requirements. G/AG/W/118 
- 17 - 
  Answer by Thailand 
Thailand undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
Follow-up: Noting the responses had been outstanding for several Committee meetings, Australia, 
supported by the European Union, urged Thailand  to provide an update on its rice policy in 
particular, its delayed domestic support notifications since 2007 for the sake of transparency. 
Australia asked Thailand to provide at the next Committee meeting a time-frame for submission of the notifications. The Philippines registered sustai ned interest in this topic. The European Union 
invited Thailand to confirm press reports stating that Thailand might sell rice stocks both 
domestically and offshore at 30% of the procured price. Pakistan, while acknowledging the information shared by Thailand in a plurilateral session, highlighted the fact that production subsidies provided by one country could have a damaging effect on the competitiveness and the 
poor farmers of other countries that were not subsidizing production due to resource constraints or 
policy reforms. 
1.14  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.14.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 72057) 
During the 26 September 2013 Committee on Agri culture, the United States of America 
requested that Turkey provide information on the destination, whether for export 
and/or for the domestic market, of the fl our made from Turkish Grain Board (TMO) 
wheat sales (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71034). In response, Turkey provided data on 
sales to export markets, but not domestic sales. To better understand the operational 
aspects of the TMO, which is understood to be  a state trading enterprise, please provide 
further information: 
a. Please confirm and explain TMO's legal au thority to trade, specifically with 
regard to imports into and exports from Turkey; 
b. Please confirm and explain TMO's lega l authority to buy and sell on the 
domestic market; 
c. Please elaborate on TMO' s ability to purchase und er inward processing 
schemes; 
d. Please provide information outlining the TMO's activity with regards to: 
i. Domestic sales of imported wheat 
ii. Domestic sales of flour made from imported wheat 
iii. Quality requirements/specifications for such purchasing wheat (from any 
source) 
iv. Quality requirements/specifications for domestic sales of such wheat/flour 
e. Please provide information regarding an y assistance Turkey provides for the 
financing of flour exports. 
Answer by Turkey a. and b.  The Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is an  economic enterprise, owned by the state. 
The legal basis of TMO is the Founding Statute, which entered into force upon publication 
in the Official Gazette No: 18602, dated 11 December 1984. 
As a legal entity autonomous in its activities, TMO determines purchase and sale prices 
of products within its area of activity through decisions taken by its Board of Directors 
since 2002. G/AG/W/118 
- 18 - 
  TMO is responsible for securing stability in the product markets falling within its area of 
activity. If deemed necessary, TMO may purchase products from foreign markets as well. 
c. TMO currently does not make wheat purchases as part of inward processing schemes. 
d.  
i. Turkey's wheat production is sold in the domestic market. TMO imports, when 
necessary, quality wheat in line with needs of the domestic market. 
ii. TMO is not engaged in any activity related to the sale in the domestic or foreign 
market of wheat flour made from its imported wheat. 
iii. TMO purchases wheat from the domestic market in line with the "Implementing 
Regulation on TMO's Purchase and Sale Pr inciples of Grain". This Implementing 
Regulation is in line with the EU legislation. The specifications of the wheat 
purchased by TMO are determined by TMO a ccording to quality requirements of the 
domestic market. 
iv. Wheat in the TMO stocks is categorized into quality standards, and sales in the 
domestic market are carried out in line with the needs of processers and the feed market. 
There are two main regulations concerning the inspection of agricultural products: 
 "Communiqué on Commercial Quality Inspection of Export and Import of 
Certain Agricultural Products (Product Safety and Inspection Communiqué 
No: 2014/21) 
 "Communiqué on the Inspection of Import of Products Subject to the 
Permission of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (Product Safety 
and Inspection Communiqué No: 2014/5)" 
e. TMO does not provide any financial assistance to wheat flour exports. Wheat flour is not 
among the products that Turkey can legally support in the context of its WTO 
commitments. 
Follow-up: In view of the number of markets the Turkish wheat flour captured around the world, 
with prices sometimes even below wheat prices, the United States of America registered sustained 
concern. Australia, the European Union, and the Philippines shared the U.S. concern. The 
Philippines informed the Committee of its preliminary investigation in connection to the antidumping case on Turkish wheat flour. Lauding Turkey's cooperation in the investigation, the 
Philippines planned to hold bilateral talks with Turkey. 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.1.1  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38, G/AG/N/SLV/41) 
AG-IMS ID 72012: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The commitments of El Salvador comprise eleven bound tariff quotas, while the 
notification for 2011 and 2012 includes only one of them. The European Union would like 
to request El Salvador to include all bound tariff quotas in the notifications as a matter of transparency. This request was also raised at the 66
th meeting of the Committee in 
June 2012 (paragraph 23 of G/AG/W/96 refers) and at the 71st meeting of the 
Committee in September 2013 (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS ID 71026).  G/AG/W/118 
- 19 - 
  Answer by El Salvador 
In accordance with its notification obligations and multilateral commitments, El Salvador 
notifies the quota that it has been opened, which is currently that for cheddar-type cheeses. 
2.1.2  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/16) 
AG-IMS ID 72013: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that a substantial number of the European Union's quotas were 
significantly under filled. Could the European  Union explain why these tariff quotas have 
had very low tariff fill rates over a number of years? 
 In particular, Australia notes from the Eu ropean Union's WTO notifications 2012 (and 
also 2011) that the European Union's annual quota for brown rice has not been filled. 
Indeed, in 2011 only 6% of this quota was filled and in 2012 there were no imports 
under this quota. Can the European Union please explain the specific reasons for 
underfill on this quota? 
 
Answer by European Union 
Low fill rate for certain quotas, including the brown rice quota mentioned by Australia, can 
be linked to market conditions such as sufficient supply of the products at competitive price 
on the internal market. 
2.1.3  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/29) 
AG-IMS ID 72015: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The European Union appreciates Panama's high degree of transparency in the MA:2 
notification and welcomes the information on  single tariff lines as well as on total 
imports during the period. However, it is no t clear what the letter "c" means in the two 
right columns. 
 
Answer by Panama 
The letter "c" adjacent to some of the amounts listed in the right-hand columns 
of Table MA:2 is meaningless for the purposes of the document's submission to the WTO. Indeed, the draft sent to Geneva by the Minist ry of Trade and Industry was returned by the 
Secretariat with questions and errors in the amounts listed in the document, whereupon the 
Ministry of Trade and Industry forwarded it to  the Ministry of Agricultural Development, 
where the corrections were made. The letter "c", meaning "change", was used to highlight the changes made and should have been deleted before the amended document was 
resubmitted to the WTO, as specified in the relevant correspondence. 
AG-IMS ID 72014: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that several quotas were sign ificantly under filled, particularly the quota 
for bean (0713.33.30). Panama has previously explained that even though the tender 
process was opened, there was no transaction du e to there being no seller, no buyer, or 
the transaction being void. Could Panama ex plain in more detail the reasons why the 
quota is under filled, especially given that there were significant out-of-quota imports? 
Does the out-of-quota trade occur under preferential trade agreements? 
 
Answer by Panama 
In the specific case of beans (0713.33.30), Panama undertook a commitment in the WTO for 
a quota of 250 to 500 metric tonnes (ten years after its accession) with a preferential tariff not exceeding 15%. The tariff in effect at the time of accession was 80% and was lowered to 
70% five years later. The quota was opened in the initial years following Panama's 
accession, when the applicable tariff was abov e the preferential tariff commitment (15%). 
The reason for the underfill is the one indicated by Australia. Panama subsequently decided G/AG/W/118 
- 20 - 
  to change the applicable tariff to 15% and then to its current rate of 0%. The quota is not 
used because the preference is equivalent to that granted to any other import. 
AG-IMS ID 72060: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill 
Switzerland has noted that some of Panama's tariff quotas have fairly low fill rates for 
2012. Could Panama please explai n the reasons for these low fill rates, in particular for 
certain milk products (e.g. 0401.10)?  
Answer by Panama 
Panama assumes that the low quota fill rates,  especially for certain dairy products of 
heading 0401.10, occur because the interests of  Panamanian buyers do not match those of 
the sellers (suppliers from other countries), since the TRQ opening and tender process is the 
same for all products. It is a transparent process that provides sufficient time for all 
interested parties to take part, as stipulated in the commitments undertaken in the WTO. Panama imports dairy products mainly in the form of powdered milk and curd, and liquid 
milk, albeit in lesser quantities as Panama has a fairly good domestic supply in terms of 
volume and price. 
2.2  SPECIAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) 
2.2.1  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/108) 
AG-IMS ID 72034: Question by United St ates of America - Trigger calculations 
The United States of America notes that in this safeguard notification 2012 import and 
consumption data was excluded in the trigger level calculations on poultry offal. Could 
Chinese Taipei provide a detailed rationale for this omission? 
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei confirms that the trigger level calculation and action of SSG for poultry offal 
concerned is fully in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level should be calculated using 
"average quantity of imports during the three preceding years for which data are available". 
Since the trigger level of 2013 was calculated  and published by the end of 2012 and the 
data of actual imports and consumption of 2012 was not available at that time, the trigger 
level was therefore calculated using the data of average imports from 2009 to 2011. 
2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMI TMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/11) 
AG-IMS ID 72016: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Australia notes that a number of Geor gia's domestic support programmes 
appear to be new. These include: 
 Paragraph 2(d): "Intensification of Agri cultural Production", "Promotion of 
Modern technologies" and "Development of Viticulture" programmes" 
 Paragraph 2(f): "Measures for Promotio n of Georgian Agriculture Products, 
Wine and Kitchen" 
 Paragraph 2(g): "Agricultural Support  Program" and "Rehabilitation of 
Amelioration System" 
 Paragraph 6: "Support of Agricultural Land Utilization in Regions" G/AG/W/118 
- 21 - 
  Georgia does not appear to have provided  the required Table DS:2 notifications 
for these programmes. Could Georgia advise  when it is planning to do this? 
b. Similarly, could Georgia clarify whet her its previously notified "Rural 
development programme in regions" still ex ists, and if so, whether it should be 
included in this notification? 
c. Could Georgia clarify whether the prog ramme notified under paragraph 2(b) 
"Epizootic Reliability" is a new name for the previously notified "Anti-Epizootic 
Measures", or a new programme? Simila rly, is the programme notified under 
paragraph 2(e) "State Control of Food Safety" a new name for the previously 
notified "Food Stuff Laboratory Testing", or a new programme? 
Answer by Georgia 
a. The old domestic support programmes are gradually replaced by new ones based on the 
needs of the country. Accordingly, the following programmes "Intensification of Agricultural Production", "Promotion of Modern technologies" and "Development of 
Viticulture" appeared in the Green Box and are explained below. 
 Program "Intensification of Agricultural production" – 2012 
Based on the programme, demonstration plots were created in order to provide 
maximum information about the new production technologies to the local farmers, future agronomists, potential investors and other interested stakeholders. 
 Program "Promotion of Modern Technologies" – 2012 
This programme contributed to the improvement of farmers' knowledge on modern skills 
and facilitated the introduction of new technologies in Georgian agrarian sector. 
Under the programme and through the extension centers, farmers received the 
information on new technologies aiming at  the improvement of their knowledge and 
preparing the basis for the widespread introduction of new technologies in Georgian 
agriculture. 
 Program "Development of Viticulture" – 2012 
Based on this programme, plots and terraces were prepared in some regions for vine 
planting, aiming at the popularization of traditional Georgian grape varieties and 
arrangement of demonstration plots. 
 Program "Measures for promotion of Georgian Agricultural products, wine and kitchen" 
– 2012 
The domestic support programme "Measures for promotion of Georgian Agricultural 
products, wine and kitchen" – 2012 was elaborated to support the popularization of 
Georgian agro-food production, wine and cuisine at the world market. The programme 
was intended to encourage the organization and participation in exhibitions/tastings. 
In 2012 Georgia participated in 7 exhibition/tastings/fairs, which were held in Italy, 
Great Britain and Hong Kong, where the Georgian wine was presented among world 
wines and was awarded with golden and silver medals. 
 Agricultural Support Program 
The Agriculture Support Program mainly supported the implementation of the following 
activities: extension stations/research centers were established and, correspondingly, famers' agricultural skills were improved; machinery was procured in order to G/AG/W/118 
- 22 - 
  rehabilitate the existing irrigation system; greenhouse farming was developed 
throughout the building of new and reconstruction of old greenhouses; programme supported the management of 9 vegetable demonstration plots throughout the country. 
 Program "Rehabilitation of Amelioration System" – 2012 
Due to the technical conditions of the existing amelioration systems, the access of the 
rural population to the water supply was limited. Therefore, the aim of the programme 
was the gradual renewal/rehabilitation/maintenance of amelioration infrastructure, 
primary, secondary and tertiary channels an d the improvement of their overall technical 
condition. 
 Program "Support of Agriculture Land Utilization in Regions" – 2012 
Within the implementation of the programme, social conditions of rural poor are 
improved; quantitative and qualitative indicators of cultivated land areas are increased; 
poor rural population was given the vouchers amounted to 30 Lari ( ≈18 USD) for the 
cultivation of their private agricultural land plots and for the improvement of spring agricultural activities. 
b. The Rural Development Program has not been implemented in 2012 and thus, it was not 
included in notification 2012. 
c. The programme notified under the paragraph 2( b) "Epizootic Reliability" is the new name 
for the previous notified "Anti-Epizootic Measures". Similarly, the programme notified 
under the paragraph 2(e) "State Control of  Food Safety" is the new name for the 
previously notified "Food Stuff Laboratory Testing". 
AG-IMS ID 72017: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In 2012, Georgia's expenditures under "Measures exempt from the reduction 
commitment – Green Box" (Supporting Table DS:1) have increased considerably when c o m p a r e d  t o  p r e v i o u s  y e a r s .  A  m a j o r i t y  o f  expenditures and most of the increase in 
spending are attributable to measures relate d to the "Intensification of Agricultural 
production" and "Renewal of Agrarian Machin ery" under paragraph 2 of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. A significant amount of decoupled in come support was also provided when 
compared to previous years. Could Georgia provide more details as to the nature of the measures listed in Support ing Table DS:1, their consistency with 
Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, paragraphs 2 and 6, and the reason 
for the significant increase in spending? 
b. Canada notes that "Intensification of Ag ricultural production", "Promotion of 
Modern technologies", and "Development  o f  V i t i c u l t u r e "  a p p e a r  t o  b e  n e w  
programmes notified under Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, however 
there is no information to explain these programmes and how they meet the criteria of Annex 2. Could Georgia indicate  when it plans to submit a Table DS:2 
notification for these measures as well as those from previous notifications? 
Answer by Georgia Agriculture is one of the most important economic sectors of Georgia in terms of 
employment and poverty reduction. The financial resources allocated to this sector by the 
state have increased and will have the tendency  to grow even more in the coming years. 
At the same time, the obligations, which have been recognized by Georgia upon joining the 
World Trade Organization and by signing the Agre ement on Agriculture, are and will be fully 
respected in future. G/AG/W/118 
- 23 - 
  Based on the abovementioned, below is a brief description of the programmes notified in 
Table DS:1. 
 Program "Intensification of Agricultural production" – 2012 
Based on the programme, demonstration plots were created in order to provide maximum 
information about the new production technologies to the local farmers, future agronomists, 
potential investors and other interested stakeholders. 
 
 Program "Renewal of Agrarian Machinery" -2012 
In 2012, a number of mechanization centers were created to support farmers' access to the 
machinery. As a result of the implementation of the programme, new agrarian machinery was purchased during the year to build the capacity of newly established mechanization 
centers. The cultivated land area was increased in comparison with previous years. 
 
 Program "Promotion of Modern Technologies" – 2012 
This programme contributed to the improvemen t of farmers' knowledge on modern skills 
and facilitated the introduction of new technologies in Georgian agrarian sector. 
 
Under the programme and through the extension centers, farmers received the information 
on new technologies aiming at the improvemen t of their knowledge and preparing the basis 
for the widespread introduction of new technologies in Georgian agriculture. 
 
 Program "Development of Viticulture" – 2012 
Based on this programme, plots and terraces were prepared in some regions for vine 
planting, aiming at the popularization of traditional Georgian grape varieties and 
arrangement of demonstration plots. 
 Follow-up: The United States of America queried whether Georgia would plan to submit a Table 
DS:2 notification. Georgia did not confirm this but would consult with its capital. 
AG-IMS ID 72018: Question by European Unio n - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
a. Could Georgia please explain the reasons behind the considerable increase in 
its Green Box expenditure from 2011 to 2012? 
b. Is the Green Box expenditure financed only through the national budget? If 
not, could Georgia please provide separa te figures for the measures financed 
through the national budget and the ones financed through different sources? 
Answer by Georgia a. Agriculture is one of the most important economic sectors of Georgia in terms of 
employment and poverty reduction. Therefor e, the government of Georgia tries to 
increase the productivity in this sector through the enhancement of knowledge of farmers about modern technologies and provision of general infrastructure. 
At the same time, all these expenditures are in the scope of the obligations, which have 
been recognized by Georgia upon joining th e World Trade Organization and by signing 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
b. The Green Box expenditure in 2012 is financed only by the state budget of Georgia. G/AG/W/118 
- 24 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72020: Question by European Union - General services: extension and 
advisory services 
Could Georgia please provide more details about the programme called "Intensification 
of Agricultural production" notified under Ge neral Services (paragraph 2(d) of Annex 2 
to the Agreement on Agriculture)? 
 
Answer by Georgia 
Based on the programme "Intensification of Agricultural Production" - 2012, demonstration 
plots were created in order to provide maximum information about the new production technologies to the local farmers, future agronomists, potential investors and other interested stakeholders. 
AG-IMS ID 72001: Question by New Zealand - General services: infrastructural services 
In G/AG/N/GEO/11 Georgia notified Dome stic Support commitment of GEL13,850,000 
for "Rehabilitation of Amelioration System ". Could Georgia please clarify what 
constitutes "rehabilitation of amelioration system"? 
 
Answer by Georgia 
Due to the technical conditions of the existing amelioration systems, access of the rural 
population to the water supply was limited. Th erefore, the aim of the programme was the 
gradual renewal/rehabilitation/maintenance of amelioration infrastructure, primary, secondary and tertiary channels and the improvement of their overall technical condition. 
AG-IMS ID 72019: Question by European Un ion - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support 
In the absence of a Table DS:2 notification , could Georgia please provide more details 
about the programme called "Support of Agricu lture Land Utilization in Regions" notified 
under decoupled income support (paragra ph 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture)? 
 
Answer by Georgia 
Within the implementation of the programme "Support of Agriculture Land Utilization in 
Regions" – 2012 the social conditions of the rural poor are improved; quantitative and 
qualitative indicators of cultivated land areas are increased; the poor rural population was 
given vouchers amounted to 30 Lari ( ≈18 USD) for the cultivation of their private 
agricultural land plots and for the improvement of spring agricultural activities. 
2.3.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/34) 
AG-IMS ID 72021: Question by European Unio n - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
Honduras' Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2  are almost identical for the two years 
2009/10 and 2010/11. Could Honduras please confirm that the figures are correct for 
both years?  
Answer by Honduras 
Honduras undertook to provide a response at a later stage 
2.3.3  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
AG-IMS ID 72004: Question by Paki stan - Non-product-specific AMS 
India's notifications from 1995 to 2003 indi cate that non-product-specific AMS which 
was reported only in 1995 has now been repo rted under Article 6.2. When will India 
report its non-product-specific AMS for 1996 -2003? Is India planning to revise its G/AG/W/118 
- 25 - 
  notification for these years to indicate non- product-specific AMS (10% of total value of 
production/de minimis) in the relevant suppo rting table (Supporting Table DS:9) as it 
was notified in 1995?  
Answer by India 
The agricultural input subsidies form part of the Developmental Programmes under Article 
6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and th e notified subsidies are available to all 
low-income or resource-poor producers. The suppo rt therefore is not required to be notified 
under non-product-specific AMS and has been notified in the appropriate format; i.e. Supporting Table DS: 2. 
Follow-up: The European Union and the United States of America sought similar information for 
2003 onwards. India replied that the notifications for those years were under peparation. 
 2.3.4  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30, G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 72035: Question by United Stat es of America - General services: other 
In response to AG-IMS ID 70025 and AG-IMS ID 71039, Indonesia noted that in 2012 
the government spent IDR 601 billion in su bsidizing loans. Please indicate how 
Indonesia accounts for this support in  previous years' notifications. 
 
Answer by Indonesia 
Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 72036: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
The United States of America appreciates Indonesia's response (G/AG/W/115, AG-IMS 
ID 71031) to the United States of America' s questions, and repeats the questions since 
Indonesia has not notified Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5, nor submitted a revision to 
its notification for admini stered prices during 2001-2004.  Could Indonesia please 
explain and provide further clarity regarding these policies, notification information and 
responses in the Committee in light of the following points:  
a. The United States of America notes th at Indonesia states that stocks are 
procured at administered prices, whic h take market prices into account 
(G/AG/W/111, AG-IMS ID 70026). 
b. The United States of America also no tes that Indonesia has not provided a 
Supporting Table DS:4 nor Supporting Ta ble DS:5 to account for the use of 
administered prices per footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
c. Further, the United States of America und erstands Indonesia's response to part 
(b) of AG-IMS ID 70031 to state that no  administered price was reported after 
2001 due to Indonesia's procurement being for buffer stock operations. This appears to be inconsistent with the aforementioned footnote 5. 
Answer by Indonesia 
Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/118 
- 26 - 
  2.3.5  Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/16) 
AG-IMS ID 72037: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America is intere sted to understand how Jordan defines 
"low-income or resource-poor producers"  with regards to its input subsidies 
programme.  
a. Does Jordan have a specific standing de finition used to provide the associated 
support benefits to some agriculture producers and not to others? 
b. If so, how long has this definition been employed? 
c. Also if such a definition is used, could Jordan kindly share a reference to where 
this can be found and further reviewed? 
d. Could Jordan provide a general sense of  what percentage of agricultural 
producers meet the existing policy as a pplied in Jordan and any recent trends 
in the change of the percentage of  agricultural producers benefiting? 
Answer by Jordan a. Low-income support represents the value of interest rate subsidy on operational loans 
for less than 1,000 JD according to the Agriculture Credit Corporation. 
b. The definition has been employed since Jordan became a Member in WTO, in the year 
2000. 
c. It can be found under paragraph 2, Article 6, Part IV of Agreement reviewed by 
Agriculture Credit Corporation. 
d. Less than 5% of agriculture producers benefit from the explained criteria. 
AG-IMS ID 72027: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation 
Australia notes that Jordan's notification - without adjustment for inflation - results in 
an AMS in excess of Jordan's domestic su pport commitment levels. Australia welcomes 
Jordan's efforts to comply with its notificati on obligations, as well as its commitment to 
transparency in making this notification. Australia acknowledges the requirements of 
Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agricultur e, however, Australia also reiterates its 
concerns about unilateral adjustment of figu res. Australia sees no basis for this in 
Article 18.4 and is of the view that this is  not necessary for Article 18.4 to be utilised. 
Australia requests further background information on Jordan's market price support 
programme and in particular, the method ology used in calculating the applied 
administered price. Australia also seeks to  understand Jordan's views about excessive 
inflation. Australia anticipates that this will help inform broa der discussions about 
Article 18.4.  
Answer by Jordan 
Regarding the methodology used in calculating the applied administrated price, it depends 
on several factors, fuel price, production inpu t price, world market price, quantity purchased 
by government subjected to specific quality st andard (purity, injury percentage), which may 
not be met by all production. 
Article 18, paragraph 4 stipulated clearly that "Members shall give due consideration to the 
influence of excessive rate of inflation…". Th e external fixed reference price depends on the 
interval period (1994-1996). Therefore a huge gap existed between actual world market 
price and external fixed price. The use of in flation rate and average consumer price shall 
give a Member the ability to abide by its domestic support commitments. G/AG/W/118 
- 27 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72028: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada appreciates Jordan's commitment to transparency in providing both unadjusted 
and adjusted numbers in its notification to the Committee for its review and consideration of the influence of excessive ra tes of inflation on the ability of Jordan to 
abide by its domestic support commitmen ts. The basis of the Committee's due 
consideration of the application of Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture is a Member's annual domestic support notificati on, thus it stands to reason that the 
Committee considers the rate of excessive inflation for the year of the notification. 
 Canada notes that the footnote in Supporting Table DS:5 for 2009 says, "The inflation rate in 2009 was 68% based on average consumer price from 1997 – 2009 (Jordan 
Central Bank, Statistics Department)", and the footnote in Supporting Table DS:5 for 
2010 says, "The inflation rate in 2010 was 67.3% based on average consumer price from 1997 to 2010 (Jordan Central Bank, Statistics Department)". 
 
a. Could Jordan elaborate on the reasons why it believes inflation adjustments 
could be based on an accumulation of inflation from 1997 to 2009 and 1997 to 
2010 and not on a year-to-year basis? 
b. According to World Bank data, over the 1997 to 2010 period, Jordan's inflation 
rate was of 3.60% per year on averag e. Could Jordan provide additional 
information, including information on major macroeconomic factors or shocks 
that might have led to excessive infl ation (e.g., financial crisis, monetary 
policies implemented, volatile exchange  rates), annualized consumer price 
index data covering the period (1997-2010) and other similar considerations, 
to allow the Committee to better understand its particular circumstances with 
regards to excessive inflation for the years 2009 and 2010? 
c. Could Jordan give further information which would explain the decrease in 
administered prices for wheat and barley in and 2009 and 2010 when compared 
to 2008 prices, while it is claiming excessive inflation? 
Answer by Jordan a. External fixed reference price depends on the interval period (1994-1996). Therefore a 
huge gap existed between actual world market price and external fixed price. The use of 
inflation rate and average consumer price shall give a Member the ability to abide by its domestic support commitments. 
b. Jordan is totally dependent on imported fuel. In 2009 and 2010 a sharp increase 
occurred in world fuel prices which led to a high increase in world market prices of food, including cereal. Cereal domestic production doesn’t cover more than 5% of 
consumption; therefore, Jordan relies on imports to meet its national demand. 
c. Administered prices decreased only 6%. In 2008, Jordan suffered a dry season that 
greatly affected production. The quantity purchased by the government was 151 tonnes of wheat and 302 tonnes of barley. 
2.3.6  Lesotho (G/AG/N/LSO/4) 
AG-IMS ID 72038: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
The United States of America greatly apprec iates Lesotho's timely notification of its 
domestic support.  
a. Does Lesotho have a specific standing de finition used to provide the associated 
support benefits to some agriculture producers and not to others? 
b. If so, how long has this definition been employed? G/AG/W/118 
- 28 - 
  c. Also if such a definition is used, coul d Lesotho kindly share a reference to 
where this can be found and further reviewed? 
d. Could Lesotho provide a general sense of  what percentage of agricultural 
producers meet the existing policy as a pplied in Lesotho and any recent trends 
in the change of the percentage of agri cultural producers benefiting from the 
policy. 
Answer by Lesotho 
Lesotho undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.3.7  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 72039: Question by United States  of America - General services: training 
services 
The United States of America notes that, as with previous notifications highlighted in 
AG-IMS ID 69076, the description of "Subsi stence farming and sustainable agriculture 
programmes, including crop promotion, use of accessible technology and environmental 
protection" and "Farming promotion and technological development programmes" 
differs in G/AG/N/PAN/28.  
a. It is the U.S.' understanding from Pana ma's response in AG-IMS ID 69076 that 
there was a legislative change. Please confirm this is also the case for the 
current notification compared to the previous year. 
b. If so, please indicate when Panama w ill submit a Table DS:2 notification to 
explain these changes. 
Answer by Panama In relation to the 2011 notification, the 2012 notification is based on the same rationale as 
that contained in Panama's replies in AG-IMS ID 69076. The changes in the descriptions of 
the measures concern modifications in the implementation of the programmes in order to strengthen and extend the latter and do not refer to the fact that there was a legislative 
change. 
Follow-up: As regards the U.S. query on the subm ission of a Table DS:2 notification, Panama 
reported that its capital had yet provided a response. 
 
2.3.8  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/63) 
AG-IMS ID 72002: Question by New Zeal and - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes 
In G/AG/N/CHE/63 Switzerland notified Domestic Support commitment of CHF 
352 million for payments for herding animals under difficult conditions. Could Switzerland explain what animals this support  relates to and what constitutes difficult 
conditions for herding animals? 
 
Answer by Switzerland 
Payments are allocated per livestock unit; thus, they concern all roughage-consuming 
animals of any type (bovine, equine, ovine or caprine). 
The purpose of these contributions is to offset  the additional costs incurred by breeders in 
the hilly and mountainous regions where production conditions are particularly difficult and 
to support sustainable agricultural production in these areas. The zones concerned are 
clearly defined by Swiss law (Ordinance on Agricultural Zones: http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classifi ed-compilation/19983417/index.html ). G/AG/W/118 
- 29 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72029: Question by European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Could Switzerland please explain how the bu dget for "guarantee stocks - concentrated 
fruit juice" (included in Supporting Table DS:7 for cider apples and cider pears) is spent? 
Is it the cost for maintaining the stocks? 
 
Answer by Switzerland 
Payments are allocated for the warehousing and capital interest costs ensuing from storage 
of the quantity of concentrated juice of pip fruit exceeding the standard supply of a cider 
plant. A cider plant's standard supply is equiva lent to 110% of its average sales of apple and 
pear products over the preceding two years. The quantity eligible for payments may not 
exceed 40% of the standard supply. 
2.3.9  United States of America (G/AG/ N/USA/89/REV.1, G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 72025: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Regarding the programme "Supplemental Re venue Assistance Payments (SURE)" in 
Supporting Table DS:9: 
 
a. Under notifications G/AG/N/USA/89.Re v.1 the United States of America 
revised its notified support under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance 
Payments (SURE) upwards from US$3 95.017 million to US$524.633 million. 
Can the United States of America provide additional details on why the notified 
support increased? 
b. Notified support under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) 
grew significantly between 2010 an d 2011 to US$1,442.390 million – a 175% 
increase. Could the United States of Am erica provide additional details on why 
the notified support increased to such an extent? 
Answer by United States of America a. The increase in SURE programme payments reported in the revised 2010 domestic 
support notification reflects a structural delay in the operation of that programme. 
Payments under the SURE programme are based on a revenue calculation that depends on the average market year price for commodi ties produced on farms suffering losses. 
Those prices are published after the end of the statutory marketing year for each crop. 
Revenue loss calculations for producers applying for assistance under SURE for 2010 
losses could not begin until fall 2011 and paymen ts for eligible losses were not final until 
fall 2012. Thus, 2010 SURE payments were not yet complete when the original 2010 
domestic support notification was filed. The increase in payments reported in the revised 
2010 domestic support notification reflects additional SURE payments made after the previous notification was filed. 
b. The increase in SURE programme payments between 2010 and 2011 reflects the impact 
of widespread weather disasters during 2011, including wet weather during planting in the Midwest and Northern Plains, drought in the Central and Southern Plains, and 
excessive summer heat in many parts of the country. 
AG-IMS ID 72026: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
The Rural Energy for America Programme (formerly Renewable Energy Programme) is 
now more correctly classified as non-pr oduct specific support and outlays have 
increased by almost 40% from US$60 m illion in 2010 to US$83 million in 2011. Could 
the United States of America explain the increase in outlays for this programme? 
 
Answer by United States of America 
Applications for loans and grants under the Rural Energy for America Program have regularly 
exceeded the funding authorized by Congress. As a result, Congress has been increasing the 
programme's budget. G/AG/W/118 
- 30 - 
  2.3.10  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/4) 
AG-IMS ID 72041: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates Vi etnam submitting its first domestic support 
notification for 2007 and 2008 and looks forward to reviewing subsequent notifications. 
 
a. In the case of sugar, did the Governme nt of Vietnam subsidize the losses of 
sugar mills in 2007 and 2008 (whether government-owned or controlled or 
private mills)? 
b. If so, at what value? 
c. Did the Government of Vietnam provide lo ans at below-market interest rates to 
sugar mills? 
d. If so, at what value? 
e. Did the Government of Vietnam incl ude these support programmes into 
G/AG/N/VNM/4? 
Answer by Viet Nam The government of Viet Nam does not subsidize the losses of sugar mills nor provide loans 
at below-market interest rates to sugar mills. The government of Viet Nam provided support 
to farmers through extension activities (training good cultural practice to get higher yield, provide good, improved new varieties) and control of pest and diseases. Viet Nam included these support programmes in G/AG/N/VNM/4. 
AG-IMS ID 72042: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Many of the subsidy programmes notified by  Vietnam in Supporting Tables DS:1, DS:2, 
and DS:9 have data sources at both the nati onal and provincial level. Some Members, 
which have involvement of provincial govern ments in providing domestic support, notify 
separate values (i.e., national and pr ovincial) for each notified programme. 
 
a. Please specify if and how provincial go vernments are involved in the funding, 
implementation and monitoring of dome stic support programmes in Vietnam. 
b. Has Vietnam considered providing separate  value data, especially if provincial 
governments do in fact monitor and implement their own programmes? 
Answer by Viet Nam The government of Viet Nam approves programmes that are prepared by certain 
government agency/ministry, on the basis of the needs of provinces. Once a programme is 
approved, by schedule and based on the progress  of the implementation of the programme, 
funding is channelled directly from the State Treasury to provincial Treasury. The 
programme Extension Yearly Plan is an example of a programme conducted by extension 
network that includes provincial centres and district level extension workers. The concerned Ministries (Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) are responsible for monitorig expenditure and eval uating the effectiveness of the programme. 
Domestic support for provinces is an integral part of the government support, therefore the 
government notifies overall domestic support, which includes the support for activities that provinces carry out. G/AG/W/118 
- 31 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72043: Question by United States  of America - General services: pest and 
disease control 
Vietnam notifies the "provision of vaccines " under "Pest and disease control". Please 
specify how the provision of vaccines occurs and how it meets the criteria of paragraph 
2 (b) in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
Vaccines provided by the government of Viet Nam in 2007 and 2008 mostly aim to control 
Avian Influenza (H5N1) to prevent possible pa ndemic to humans and a small part is to 
control Foot and Mouth Disease. The Department of Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, with close cooperation from provincial animal health divisions, prepared the plan 
(including how much vaccine to purchase, when and where to vaccinate, and targeted 
poultry varieties etc.). 
The targets of the vaccination campaign show  that the campaign meets the criteria of 
paragraph 2(b) in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 72030: Question by Australia - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
Australia acknowledges Vietnam as the ne west member of the Cairns Group and 
welcomes Vietnam's domestic support notifica tion to the Committee on Agriculture. Can 
Vietnam please provide advice about whethe r or not its purchases for stockholding 
programmes are made at current market prices?  
Answer by Viet Nam 
The delegation of Viet Nam thanks Cairn Gr oup members for their support for Viet Nam t 
become a full member of the group. 
The government of Viet Nam purchases stocks for strategic stockholding at current market 
price. The stocks (including paddy rice, rice, corn and other important crops seeds) are only released to respond to natural calamities. 
AG-IMS ID 72024: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
a. Canada notes that expenditures for pu blic stockholding for food security 
purposes increased four-fold from VN D 414.40 billion in 2007 to VND 
1,681.60 billion in 2008. Could Vietnam elaborate on the conditions that 
resulted in the increased purchase of rice for public stockholding? 
b. Could Vietnam provide additional informat ion as to the volumes of food stocks 
purchased for public stockholding and how these compare to pre-determined 
targets? 
c. Could Vietnam provide information as to whether these food stocks acquired in 
2007 and in 2008 have been released? And if so, in which year(s) were the 
stocks released, what volume wa s released and at what price? 
Answer by Viet Nam The expenditure for public stockholding for food security increased four-fold in 2008 
compared to previous years because price increased to the highest levels ever in 2008 
(domestically and internationally). 
Stock holding by the government of Viet Nam is strategic and often provides free food to 
people affected by natural calamities – caused  by, for example, typhoons, flooding, drought 
etc. G/AG/W/118 
- 32 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72044: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
Please provide more specific details as to  what Vietnam's "Environmental programmes" 
are and how they are implemented, including how they meet the criteria of paragraph 
12 in Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
The delegation of Viet Nam will provide information on Program 661-Decision 
No.661/QD-TTg, a programme that aims to plant 5 million hectares of forest. 
The government of Viet Nam provides 5% of the capital investment for forest management 
and protection (allowances for officials responsible for communal forestry, organized forces 
in forest protection, forest fire protection etc.). 100,000 dong per hectare for special-use 
forest protection was provided each year, in areas with high risk threats, but local people do not benefit from the forest. 
AG-IMS ID 72045: Question by United Stat es of America - Direct payments: other 
Vietnam notifies "Program 134 (policies to  support production land, etc…)". Please 
provide more detail with regards to how this programme is implemented. 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
Program 134 aims to assist ethnic minorities living in remote areas where it is difficult to 
develop production to improve their lives. It is a poverty reduction programme based on the 
Decision by Prime Minister No. 134 / 2004/QD-TTg. 
The production level minimum allocation per household is 0.5 ha upland for rice or other 
crop production or 0.25 ha paddy rice. 
The level of minimum residential land area is about 200 square meters for each minority 
household, including households who still carry out slash and burn practice. 
AG-IMS ID 72032: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Canada notes that the explanatory note in Supporting Tables DS:2 includes a reference 
to freight subsidies for the transport of "p olicy commodities and production inputs" to 
mountainous and remote regions. Could Vi etnam provide information as to which 
commodities and types of production in puts are covered under this measure? 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
Viet Nam undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 72046: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
Vietnam notifies both short term soft lo ans and budget allocations under "input 
subsidies generally available to low-inco me and resource-poor producers". Please 
provide a breakdown of the monetary value for the soft loans and for the budget allocations. 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
Viet Nam undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/118 
- 33 - 
  AG-IMS ID 72033: Question by Canada - Su pport to encourage diversification from 
growing illicit narcotic crops 
Regarding measures to "encourage diversificat ion from growing illicit narcotic crops" in 
Supporting Table DS:2, could Vietnam provid e additional information as to which 
alternate crops are being planted in these regions? 
 
Answer by Viet Nam 
The programme was the continuation of the succe ssful project funded by UNDP in the late 
1990s. In the mountainous areas, as an alternative to narcotic crops, ethnic minority farmers planted fruit trees like plum, litchi, orange and medicine trees. Besides planting alternative plants, the government of Viet Nam supported poor farmers in these 
mountainous areas to develop animal husbandry by providing training and soft loan to buy 
cattle and pig breeds. 
AG-IMS ID 72047: Question by United Stat es of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
The United States of America understands that the goal of the Vietnamese Food 
Association (VFA), under the direction of the Prime Minister, is to boost national rice 
production. The VFA establishes a guaranteed  purchase price for paddy rice, which was 
VND 3,500 per kilogram in MY 2008 and has ri sen since then. Further the Vietnam State 
Bank pays the interest, for 3 months, to commercial banks that give loans to VFA's 
members who participate in the programme. It  is noted that Vietnam notifies support 
prices for rice seeds, but not for paddy rice. 
 
a. Please explain how paddy rice price su pports are accounted for in Vietnam's 
notification. 
b. Does the "Preferential interest rates to purchase agricultural products" 
represent the interest paid by the Vietnam State Bank? 
Answer by Viet Nam 
In peak rice harvesting season, to ensure stable income for farmers, if the farm gate price 
decreases to the threshold level then the government of Viet Nam provides interest differences for three months to encourage VFA members to buy paddy rice from farmers. 
The purchase price depends on quality of the paddy. Enterprises (VFA members) are 
responsible for stockholding, and they can freely decide when and how to release stocks, as well as the release price. 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada, Pakistan, the Philippines, and the United State of America welcomed 
Viet Nam's first domestic support notification. Australia supported part b of Canada's question 
AG-IMS ID 72024, requesting Viet Nam to provide information regarding the pre-determined 
targets of the stock purchases. Pakistan and Phili ppines recorded concern over Viet Nam's rice 
policy.  2.3.11  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/8) 
AG-IMS ID 72040: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States of America appreciates Zambia submitting its domestic support 
notification. According to the U.S. understandi ng of the current agricultural notification 
guidelines least-developed Memb ers should submit Supporting Tables DS1: to DS3 every 
two years. However, all Members should prov ide an annual Summary  Table DS:1 as well 
as the Supporting Tables DS:1 to DS:3 when  notifications do occur every two years for 
least developing.  The United States of America recognizes th at this understanding may not be widely 
practiced. However, available and consistent da ta for all years, including the "off-years", G/AG/W/118 
- 34 - 
  appears to be important for domestic polic y decision-makers as well as international 
observers.  
a. To this end the United States of America requests that Zambia provide the 
Summary Table DS:1 and the Supporting Tables DS:1 to DS:3 for the years not 
yet covered in this notification(2005, 2007, 2009, 2011). 
b. The United States of America also notes that Zambia has not notified support 
from 1999-2003. Would Zambia be in a position to notify for these years as 
well? 
Answer by Zambia With regard to outstanding notifications, Zambia is fully aware of the outstanding 
notifications for the years 2000 and 2002 and is working on these. 
Regarding the request for a summary table DS:1 and the supporting tables for the years 
2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011, which are not covered in the notification, Zambia would like to 
highlight that the preparation of the notificati ons contained in G/AG/N/ZMB/8 was guided by 
document G/AG/2, which spells out the notification requirements and formats. On page 11 of that document, it is specified that least developed countries should submit Supporting 
Tables DS:1 to DS 3 every two years. This is the understanding that has guided Zambia's 
approach to these notifications. 
Follow-up: In the U.S. understanding, this was rather a general issue for the Committee to 
consider and might necessitate some discussions to seek clarity. The United States of America 
believed that the information for the missing years would be useful for domestic policy decision 
makers and the Membership.  
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/31) 
AG-IMS ID 72003: Question by Pakistan - Domestic food aid 
Pakistan appreciates Brazil's efforts for increasing transparency and information 
sharing. Could Brazil inform about the mode of  acquisition of products at current market 
prices from family farms?  Is it through tender? 
 
Answer by Brazil 
The acquisition of products from family farmers is not made through tenders, but rather 
directly by the federal, state or local government from farms or farmer's organizations. The 
prices shall be compatible with current market prices, and they are calculated according to 
the methodology defined in Resolution SESAN/MDS Nº 39, dated 26 January 2010, which varies according to the product type and can be based on the state average price received 
by producers (grains); average prices in the wh olesale market (horticulture); average prices 
prevailing in the wholesale market place or, in  their absence, the regional wholesale market 
(processed products). When data is not availa ble, prices will be defined through documented 
research on prices paid to farmers by three local retailers. 
2.4.2  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/35) 
AG-IMS ID 72022: Question by Australia - General services: marketing and promotion 
services 
Australia appreciates the opportunity prov ided by Honduras' notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture to learn further about its Poverty Reduction Strategy through engagement in the rural and farm sector. Au stralia welcomes in particular Honduras' 
emphasis on non-production and trade dist orting Green box measures to increase 
agricultural production and productivity  including through support for small and 
medium-scale farming enterprises. To further Australia's understanding of this G/AG/W/118 
- 35 - 
  programme Australia requests Honduras prov ide more information about the specific 
elements of its PYMERURAL in creating  jobs and income in rural areas. 
 
Answer by Honduras 
Honduras undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 72058: Question by European Union - General services: marketing and 
promotion services 
Could Honduras please provide more deta ils about the programme called PYMERURAL 
notified under General Services in paragr aph 2(f) of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture)? How is the programme implemented?  
Answer by Honduras 
Implementation of the programme involves systematic intervention at macroeconomic level 
in order to manage the competitive development of the horticultural, beekeeping, bovine 
and cacao chains, and technical assistance to enhance the production capacity, cooperation 
and participation of all actors in the producti on chains, in the framework of the committees 
set up within the Central Unit of the Honduran Ministry of Agriculture's National Agricultural 
Development Programme. 
AG-IMS ID 72023: Question by European Union - Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture 
Could Honduras please provide more deta ils about the programme called "Productive 
Solidarity Voucher" notified under Article 6. 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? How is 
the programme implemented?  
Answer by Honduras 
The Solidarity Voucher Programme is implemented under a common strategy for all 
beneficiary families, which involves providing small producers with high-quality genetic 
material and fertilizer for sowing one manzana (0.7 hectares) to staple grains, and to build 
up technical capacities for small-scale production of seed for future sowing. It also aims to encourage family farming by integrating small producers in the staple grain production chains by means of surplus production. The stra tegy is implemented by the Special Projects 
Unit of the Agricultural Science and Technology Directorate in the Honduran Ministry of 
Agriculture. 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.5.1  Viet Nam (G/AG/N/VNM/3) 
AG-IMS ID 72048: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
The United States of America appreciates Vi etnam submitting its first export subsidy 
notification. According to this notification, Vietnam "provided no export subsidies to the 
agricultural products during the calendar years 2007 to 2012". The United States of 
America understands that Vietnam operat es at least one programme aimed at 
facilitating rice exports under the rice price support programme. 
 
a. Please provide information about the pr ogramme that offers interest-free, 
three-month loans to Vietnam Food A ssociation (VFA) members who purchase 
rice at the price support level. 
b. Can millers who participate in this loan programme sell the rice domestically or 
are they obligated to export the procured rice? 
c. The United States of America understands  that Vietnam provides a value added 
tax (VAT) refund to some agricultural products under the condition that these G/AG/W/118 
- 36 - 
  products are exported. Please provid e information about this programme 
including the legal framework, a list of eligible products for VAT refund, and 
procedures for receiving the VAT refund. 
Answer by Viet Nam 
While waiting for official responses from the capital, the delegation of Viet Nam would like to 
confirm that the government has not provided export subsidies since becoming a WTO Member (January 2007). 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Turkey 
3.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 72011) 
As already raised at the 70th meeting of the Committee in June 2013, the European 
Union would like to know when Turkey intends to present its overdue notifications to 
the WTO.  
Answer by Turkey 
Although relevant Turkish institutions, mainly the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of 
Food, Agriculture and Livestock have started the work on Turkey's overdue notifications, the 
process has not been completed. Therefore, Turk ey will be able to submit the notifications 
only after the work is finalized. 
Follow-up: Australia observed that Turkey had been  questioned about its outstanding notifications, 
especially on export subsidies, practically at every Committee meeting in the last 3.5 years, and 
Turkey provided similar responses. In light of the significant role Turkey played in some issues and 
Members' continuous interest, Australia, supported by the European Union, urged Turkey to ensure 
the submission of notifications in a timely manne r. The European Union underlined its particular 
interest in understanding the mechanism of Turkey's  support to the citrus fruit sector. The United 
States of America suggested Turkey to take Viet Nam's approach, i.e. submitting notifications for earlier years, if that would help Turkey to advance. With respect to overdue notifications in 
general, citing its own recent experience as an example, the United States of America thanked the 
Secretariat for continuous efforts in assisting Members with their notifications. The United States of America further emphasized the usefulness of  t h e  n e w  s y s t e m  A G - I M S  i n  m a k i n g  f u t u r e  
references to the questions. In relation to the document of compliance with notification obligation 
(G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.16) referenced by the Chair, the United States of America noted the alarming 
increase in overdue notifications in 2013. It hi ghlighted the figure of over 1,800 outstanding 
notifications with a significant percentage fallin g in the areas of domestic support and export 
subsidies. The United States of America was conc erned that figure 4 showed exponential growth 
on this particular issue. Given the decisions made in Bali, the United States of America recognized 
the growing importance of the Committee's work, and therefore encouraged all Members to get 
their notifications up-to–date so that the Committee's work could carry on as efficiently as 
possible.  3.2  Viet Nam 
3.2.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 72031) 
Australia acknowledges Vietnam as the ne west member of the Cairns Group and 
welcomes Vietnam's domestic support notifica tion to the Committee on Agriculture. Can 
Vietnam please provide advice on its plan s to provide further updated notifications 
consistent with its reporting requirements?  
Answer by Viet Nam 
The delegation of Viet Nam welcomed the ques tion raised by Australia. Viet Nam expressed 
appreciation to WTO Secretariat for their valuable support to enable Viet Nam to complete G/AG/W/118 
- 37 - 
  its first notification. For the period 2009–2012, Viet Nam learned that the collection of 
related information is ongoing. However, due to resources and experience constraints, Viet Nam needed support from the Secretariat as well as cooperation from Members. 
Follow-up: Australia regarded notification as an essential aspect in terms of gaining transparency 
in the Committee. In this respect Viet Nam's effort s were appreciated. Australia further pointed out 
that the Cairns group also provided guidance to its members who might undergo difficulties in preparing notifications. 
 
_______________ 
   
  G/AG/W/118  
- 38 - ANNEX I 
Table 2. List of Auction Destinations  for Corn through the PEPRO Programme 
Aviso 
Nr Commodity Month Year Origin (State or Region) Destination Quantity 
auctioned Quantity 
benefited 
56 Maize (kg) 03 - March 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 20,000,000 19,116,000 
63 Maize (kg) 04 - April 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 20,000,000 20,000,000 
84 Maize (kg) 04 - April 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
90 Maize (kg) 04 - April 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
101 Maize (kg) 04 - April 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 19,100,000 
108 Maize (kg) 05 - May 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 20,000,000 20,000,000 
116 Maize (kg) 05 - May 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
132 Maize (kg) 05 - May 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
133 Edible beans (kg) 05 - May 2009 DF/MG/GO/MT/PR/RS/SC Any destination, except DF, MG, GO, MT, PR, 
RS and SC 12,500,000 7,190,500 
152 Maize (kg) 05 - May 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
153 Edible beans (kg) 05 - May 2009 DF/MG/GO/MT/PR/RS/SC Any destination, except DF, MG, GO, MT, PR, 
RS, SC and BA 12,500,000 3,995,900 
158 Edible beans (kg) 06 - June 2009 DF/MG/GO/MT/PR/RS/SC Any destination, except DF, MG, GO, MT, PR, 
RS, SC and BA 12,500,000 9,542,500 
160 Maize (kg) 06 - June 2009 BA Regions N and NE, and ES and North of MG 25,000,000 25,000,000 
211 Cotton (kg) 07 - July 2009 BA/GO/MA/MT/MS/MG/PR/PI/
SP/TO Any destination, if carded  or further processed, 
and except the State of origin, if raw 266,371,908 266,371,908 
212 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2009 GO/DF/MT/MS Any destination, except DF, BA, GO, MA, MT, 
MS, PI and TO 500,000,000 48,980,000 
227 Cotton (kg) 07 - July 2009 BA/GO/MA/MT/MS/MG/PR/PI/
SP/TO Any destination, if carded  or further processed, 
and except the State of origin, if raw 266,371,908 266,371,908 
237 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2009 GO/DF/MT/MS/PR Any destination, except DF, BA, GO, MA, MT, 
MS, PA, PI, RO and TO 760,000,000 616,291,500 
287 Cotton (kg) 09 - Sept. 2009 BA/GO/MA/MT/MS/MG/PR/PI/
SP/TO Any destination, if carded  or further processed, 
and except the State of origin, if raw 259,444,168 259,444,168 
396 Maize (kg) 12 - Dec. 2009 MT Any destination, except Regions S, SW and SE 500,000,000 497,429,801 
397 Maize (kg) 12 - Dec. 2009 MT Region N, and ES and North of MG 20,000,000 20,000,000 
112 Maize (kg) 06 - June 2010 BA Regions N and NE, except MA, PI, RO, SE, TO 
and West of BA, and ES and North of MG 140,000,000 120,000,000 
117 Maize (kg) 06 - June 2010 BA Regions N and NE, except MA, PI, RO, TO and 
West of BA, and ES and North of MG 140,000,000 104,110,000 
153 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2010 BA/MA/PI Any de stination, except Regions S, SW and SE, 
and MA, PI, RO, TO and West of BA  140,000,000 98,540,000   
  G/AG/W/118  
- 39 - Aviso 
Nr Commodity Month Year Origin (State or Region) Destination Quantity 
auctioned Quantity 
benefited 
164 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2010 BA/MA/PI Any destination, except Regions S, SW and SE, 
and MA, PA, PI, RO, TO and West of BA  140,000,000 35,070,000 
171 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2010 BA/MA/PI Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
SP, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, West of BA and South 
of MG 140,000,000 86,658,400 
181 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2010 BA/MA/PI Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
SP, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, West of BA and South 
of MG 80,000,000 65,365,000 
195 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2010 BA/MA/PI Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
SP, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, West of BA and South of MG 90,000,000 81,026,000 
196 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2010 DF/GO/MT Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
SP, BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO and South of MG 300,000,000 284,328,000 
274 Rice (kg) 07 - July 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 25,000,000 11,906,000 
306 Rice (kg) 07 - July 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 25,000,000 20,000,000 
328 Rice (kg) 08 - Aug. 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 25,000,000 6,760,000 
347 Rice (kg) 09 - Sept. 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 25,000,000 8,891,000 
374 Rice (kg) 09 - Sept. 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 25,000,000 8,500,000 
393 Rice (kg) 09 - Sept. 2011 RS/SC Any destination, except Regions S, SE, CW, NE 
and RO, TO, PA, Mercosur and Suriname 7,000,000 - 
417 Rice (kg) 10 - Oct. 2011 RS/SC Any destination 150,000,000 - 
460 Wheat (kg) 11 - Nov. 2011 PR/RS/SC Any destination 35,000,000 15,000,000 
483 Wheat (kg) 11 - Nov. 2011 PR/RS/SC Any destination 35,000,000 14,920,000 
495 Wheat (kg) 11 - Nov. 2011 PR/RS/SC Any destination 35,000,000 22,807,000 
16 Wheat (kg) 01 - Jan. 2012 PR/RS/SP Any destination 30,000,000 27,560,000 
26 Wheat (kg) 01 - Jan. 2012 PR/RS/SP Any destination 35,000,000 30,210,000 
41 Wheat (kg) 02 - Feb. 2012 PR/RS/SP Any destination 35,000,000 11,000,000 
51 Wheat (kg) 02 - Feb. 2012 PR/RS/SC/SP Any destination 35,000,000 7,350,000 
61 Wheat (kg) 03 - March 2012 PR/RS/SC/SP Any destination 35,000,000 3,500,000 
75 Wheat (kg) 03 - March 2012 PR/RS/SC/SP Any destination 35,000,000 6,600,000 
90 Wheat (kg) 03 - March 2012 PR/RS/SC/SP Any destination 35,000,000 500,000 
361 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 09 - Sept. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 4,500,000 1,046,068 
377 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 10 - Oct. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 4,200,000 1,217,057 
392 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 10 - Oct. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 4,200,000 2,442,583   
  G/AG/W/118  
- 40 - Aviso 
Nr Commodity Month Year Origin (State or Region) Destination Quantity 
auctioned Quantity 
benefited 
401 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 10 - Oct. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 1,050,000 867,163 
407 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 11 - Nov. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 2,050,000 2,025,000 
419 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 11 - Nov. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 2,010,000 2,030,800 
420 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 11 - Nov. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 250,000 52,000 
435 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 11 - Nov. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 3,100,000 2,926,845 
441 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 11 - Nov. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 4,100,000 4,025,000 
446 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 12 - Dec. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 6,100,000 5,941,076 
464 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 12 - Dec. 2012 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 8,100,000 3,211,100 
16 Orange (box of 40.8 kg) 01 - Jan. 2013 SP/MG Any destination (processing plant) 6,100,000 4,457,585 
114 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2013 MT Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 1,000,000,000 936,961,780 
117 Maize (kg) 07 - July 2013 MT Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 
135 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2013 GO/MT/MS Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 1,500,000,000 1,411,260,000 
140 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2013 GO/MT/MS Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 1,500,000,000 1,490,069,000 
144 Maize (kg) 08 - Aug. 2013 GO/MT/MS Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 1,500,000,000 1,471,378,211 
157 Maize (kg) 09 - Sept. 2013 MT Any destination, except Region CW, and BA, 
MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 550,000,000 453,083,663 
162 Maize (kg) 10 - Oct. 2013 MT/RO Any destination, except  Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 600,000,000 452,722,869 
183 Maize (kg) 10 - Oct. 2013 MT Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO, SP and South of MG 800,000,000 599,616,941 
197 Grapes (kg) and destiled of 
wine (l) 11 - Nov. 2013 RS for grapes and any for 
destiled Any for grapes and RS for destiled 10,000,000 - 
201 Maize (kg) 11 - Nov. 2013 MT Any destination, except Regions S and SW, and 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO and South of MG 700,000,000 644,108,470 
204 Maize (kg) 11 - Nov. 2013 MT Any destination, except Region SW, and PR, 
BA, MA, PA, PI, RO, TO and South of MG 800,000,000 402,471,832 
214 Grapes (kg) and destiled of 
wine (l) 11 - Nov. 2013 RS for grapes and any for 
destiled (only family farmers) Any for grapes and except Regions S, SE and 
SW for destiled 23,000,000 16,498,080 
215 Grapes (kg) and destiled of 
wine (l) 11 - Nov. 2013 RS for grapes and any for 
destiled (only family farmers) Any destination 9,000,000 6,271,200 
232 Grapes (kg) and destiled of 
wine (l) 12 - Dec. 2013 RS for grapes and any for 
destiled Any for grapes and except Regions S, SE and 
SW for destiled 12,060,000 2,637,120 
233 Grapes (kg) and destiled of 
wine (l) 12 - Dec. 2013 RS for grapes and any for 
destiled (only family farmers) Any for grapes and except Regions S, SE and 
SW for destiled 12,500,000 - 
__________