G/AG/W/187  
 
7 November 2018  
(18-7002) Page: 1/85 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CO MMITTEE  ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 25-26 SEPTEMBER 20181 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/ 184 and G/AG/W/184/Corr.1  as well as follow -up comments made 
during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 6 November 2018:  
 
ID Answer by  Ques tion by  Section/  
Notification Reference  Repeat 
question  
88102  China  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
88039  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
88127  India Brazil  I. Article 18.6   
88034  Korea,  Republic  of China  I. Article 18.6   
88031  Russian  Federation  European Union  I. Article 18.6   
88075  Thailand  United  States  of America  I. Article 18.6   
88059  Turkey  European Union  I. Article 18.6   
88076  Zimbabwe  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
880462 India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
881292 India Brazil  I. Article 18.6   
88074  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
88027  Ecuador  European Union  G/AG/N/ECU/46   
88099  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/46   
88101  Bahrain, Kingdom of  United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88103  Bahrain, Kingdom of  United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88100  Bahrain,  Kingdom  of United States of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7,  
G/AG/N/BHR/10   
88106  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/47, 
G/AG/N/ECU/48, 
G/AG/N/ECU/49   
880203 Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
881072 India United States of America  G/AG/N/IND/13   
88113  Kyrgyz Republic  United States of America  G/AG/N/KGZ/4   
88013  Papua New Guinea  Australia  G/AG/N/PNG/1   
88012  Ecuador  Australia  G/AG/N/ECU/45   
88115  Panama  United States of America  G/AG/N/PAN/44   
88082  China  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88084  Ghana  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88086  Kenya  United States of America  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88007  Morocco  Australia  IV. Overdue Notifications   
88088  India United States of America  V. Other   
88089  Indonesia  United States of America  V. Other  87054  
_______________  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  
2 India provided partial response to the question.  
3 Egypt provided partial response to the question.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO  THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTI CLE 18.6  ... 6 
1.1   China's premium contributions for rice, corn and wheat seeds  ................................ ..........  6 
1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88102)  ................................ ................................ ..... 6 
1.2   EU'S CAP reform ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  6 
1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88062)  ................................ .............................  6 
1.3   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88122) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88037)  .............  7 
1.3.2    Questi on by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88040)  ................................ .........................  8 
1.3.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88070)  ................................ ............  8 
1.4   India's proposed domestic support programmes  ................................ .............................  9 
1.4.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88041)  ................................ .........................  9 
1.5   Republic of Korea's support for seaweed producers  ................................ .........................  9 
1.5.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 88034)  ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
1.6   Russia Federation's modification of excise tax es on wine  ................................ ...............  10 
1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88031)  ................................ .......................  10 
1.7   Thailand's import licensing for meat  ................................ ................................ ............  10 
1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88075)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.8   Turkey's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  11 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88059)  ................................ .......................  11 
1.9   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ .. 12 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88030)  ................................ ................................ . 12 
1.9.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88098)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.9.3    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88029)  ................................ .......................  15 
1.9.4    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88047)  ................................ ................................ ...... 15 
1.9.5    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88028)  ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
1.9.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88048)  ................................ ...........................  16 
1.10   Zimbabwe's export incentive  ................................ ................................ ....................  17 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88076)  ................................ ........  17 
1.11   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ..........  17 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88120) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88064)  .........  17 
1.11.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88121) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88065)  .........  17 
1.11.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88061)  ................................ ........  18 
1.12   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ........................  19 
1.12.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88096)  ................................ ........  19 
1.13   European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................  20 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88063)  ................................ ...............................  20 
1.14   United Kingdom - Modification of agricultural schedule of com mitments  .........................  21 
1.14.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88011)  ................................ ................................ .... 21 
1.15   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  21 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88039) and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88127)  ....................  21 
1.15.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88043) and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88128)  ....................  22 
1.15.3    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88046) and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88129)  ....................  23 
1.15.4    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88042) and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88130)  ....................  23 
1.16   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..............................  25 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88060)  ................................ ...............................  25 
1.16.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88092)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.16.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88095)  ................................ ................................ . 27 
1.16.4    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88109)  ................................ .................  29 
1.16.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88066)  ................................ ........  29 
1.17   India's Merchandise Expor ts from India Scheme (MEIS)  ................................ ..............  30 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88123) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88038)  .........  30 
1.17.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88067)  ................................ ........  30 
1.18   Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  ................................ ..............  31 
1.18.1    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88036)  ................................ ................................ ... 31 
1.19   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88035)  ................................ .........................  31 
1.19.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88071)  ................................ ........  32 
1.20   Indonesia's soybean imports  ................................ ................................ ....................  33 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  88097)  ................................ ........  33 
1.21   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................  34 
1.21.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 88045)  ................................ ...............................  34 
1.22   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .... 34 
1.22.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88104)  ................................ .................  34 
1.23   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ..........................  35 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88033), Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88125) and Guatemala 
(AG-IMS ID 88124)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  35 
1.24   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ .............  37 
1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88072)  ................................ ........  37 
1.25   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ ............................  38 
1.25.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88032)  ................................ ...............................  38 
1.26   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ .........................  38 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88073)  ................................ ........  38 
1.27   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ .........................  39 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  88074)  ................................ ........  39 
1.28   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ ... 40 
1.28.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 88002)  ................................ ................................ . 40 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CO NNECTION WITH INDIVI DUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ...................  40 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota  commitments (Table MA:1) ................................  40 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  ................................ ................................ .....................  40 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ ... 41 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ......................  41 
2.2.2    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/62, G/AG/N/GTM/63)  ................................ ........................  42 
2.2.3    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/42)  ................................ ................................ .....................  42 
2.2.4    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/97)  ................................ ................................ ......................  43 
2.2.5    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/91)  ................................ ................................ ................  43 
2.3   Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................ .. 45 
2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/228)  ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
2.3.2    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  ................................ ................................ ...................  46 
2.4   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ..............................  48 
2.4.1    Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/29)  ................................ ................................ .....................  48 
2.4.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ..........................  49 
2.4.3    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  ................................ .............  52 
2.4.4    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  ................................ ................................ .....................  53 
2.4.5    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ ..... 54 
2.4.6    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  55 
2.4.7    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  ................................ ................................ .............  56 
2.4.8    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  ................................ ................................ .............  57 
2.4.9    India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  60 
2.4.10    India (G/AG/N/IND/13)  ................................ ................................ ........................  60 
2.4.11    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  ................................ ................................ ..........  69 
2.4.12    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/47)  ................................ ................................ ....................  69 
2.4.13    Papua New Guinea (G/AG/N/PNG/1)  ................................ ................................ ....... 70 
2.4.14    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/21)  ................................ ................................ .... 71 
2.4.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121) ................................ ...........................  72 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  ................................ .........  73 
2.5.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/45)  ................................ ................................ ......................  73 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ . 73 
2.6.1    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/98)  ................................ ................................ ......................  73 
2.6.2    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ......................  74 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIO NS ................................ ................................ .......................  74 
3.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  74 
3.2   Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  75 
3.3   Ghana  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  75 
3.4   India ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  75 
3.5   Kenya  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  76 
3.6   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 76 
3.7   Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  76 
3.8   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  76 
3.9   Tanzania  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  77 
3.10   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  77 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  78 
4.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  78 
4.2   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  78 
4.3   Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  78 
4.4   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  79 
4.5   Paraguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  79 
4.6   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  80 
4.7   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  80 
ANNEX 1  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  81 
ANNEX 2  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  85 
 
 
 
  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  China's premium contributions for rice, corn and wheat seeds  
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88102)  
Canada notes that the Ministry of Finance of the People 's Republic of China issued a notice 
on 31 July 2018 
(http://jrs.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/zhengcefabu/201808/t20180809_2984104.html ) 
regarding an expansion in the government premium contributions for rice, corn, and 
wheat seeds.  
 
a. Could China clarify if this new premium subsidy would apply to seed purchased 
by producers for sowing?  
b. The notice indicates that the crops (rice, corn or wheat) grown from these seeds 
would also be covered for loss of production or quality by this insurance product. 
Could China elaborate if this new premium subsidy also covers the crop losses 
related to the production of seeds for rice, corn and wheat?  
c. Could China indicate which government department administers this insurance 
programme?  
d. Could China provide the government 's share of the premium for this insurance 
programme and the expenditures to date?  
Answer by China  
 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.2  EU'S CAP reform  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88062)  
New Z ealand acknowledges the positive emphasis the European Union is placing in reform 
of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving environmental outcomes, and refers 
to the European Commission proposal published on 1 June for the next CAP period from 
2021 that would shift greater responsibility for agriculture policy from the European Union  
to member States through the establishment of national "strategic plans ".  
  
a. How will the Commission ensure m ember States' compliance with 
WTO  commitments in the implementation of their strategic plans after they have 
been approved?  
New Zealand is conc erned that under the proposal, m ember States will continue to be able 
to provide coupled support.  
  
b. What mechanism will the European Union  establ ish to ensure such support does 
not distort markets?  
New Zealand is disappointed to see that public intervention is proposed to continue being 
available to m ember States to consider in their strategic plans. Following the experience 
of EU intervention in the skim milk powder market, and the continued years of uncertainty 
this has caused in the market, why does this feature in the proposal and how would the 
European Union prevent market distortion and uncertainty under the next CAP period?  
 
Answer by Europ ean Union  
 
Before answering the questions it should be underlined that these questions relate to a proposal 
(COM(2018) 392 final) which is currently under examination by the co -legislators – Council and 
European Parliament. The final legal text may be diff erent to the one proposed by the Commission.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 7 - 
 
   
The strategic plans will have to be approved by the Commission, and in its assessment of the 
proposed plan the Commission will ensure that EU commitments will be fully respected, notably as 
set out in Articles  10 and 99(e) and Annex II of the draft.  
 
Coupled support may only be granted in sectors with difficulties as set out in Article 29 of the draft 
Regulation. Coupled income support can only be granted subject to:  
• strict preconditions: Coupled Income Support  may only be granted to sectors/types of 
farmin g undergoing difficulties; the m ember States will have to justify the importance of 
the sectors/types of farming targeted and the needs for such support in their CAP plans.  
• strict limitations: budgetary limit of 10% + 2% of the financial envelope for direct 
payments.  
Control of the respect of these conditions will be ensured during the assessment and approval of the 
CAP plans by the Commission as well as through the performance reports and audits.  
 
Public intervention is maintained in the Common Market Organisation Regulation and will continue 
to be operated at EU level. It does not fall within m ember States ' strategic plans. The word 
"intervention" that appears at various places in that particular p roposal relates either to direct 
payments, to rural development measures or to sectoral interventions. The latter are largely based 
on producer organisations structuring themselves in order to face market challenges, which should 
ultimately result in a low er need for public intervention.  
 
Within the Commission proposal for the reform of the CAP, public intervention remains unchanged, 
as a safety net to deal with extreme situations. The Commission will continue to ensure that this 
instrument continues to be used proportionately and avoiding market distortion.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and New Zealand expressed interest in the EU's ongoing process of CAP reform 
and encouraged EU to continue the positive trend of policies towards less trade distorting support. 
New Zealand recognized EU's major progress in reforming its agriculture sector following the 
Uruguay round which had made EU the world's largest agricultural exporter. New Zealand also 
welcomed EU's efforts in tying its policies close to environmental and othe r objectives. New Zealand 
noted interest in understanding the following two aspects of the CAP: the large proportion of budget 
which was still devoted to direct payment s and the increasing share of Blue Box support including 
the changes to Blue Boxes crite ria under the omnibus regulation.  
1.3  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88122)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88037)  
New Zealand understands that the state government of Gujarat is implem enting a 
provision of up to USD  44 million to support the Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation to 
export 60,000 tonnes of skim milk powder. This funding will subsidise the export of Indian 
skim milk powder and significantly impact international trade of skim milk powder.  
  
a. What is the scope and nature of the state of Gujarat 's recently announced 
support skim milk powder export; including for example the eligibility for 
receiving payments, the criteria for making payments and how this scheme will 
be implemented?  
b. What is India 's position on ho w the state of Gujarat 's provision of skim milk 
powder export subsidies is consistent with the elimination of export subsidies 
through the MC10 Export Competition Ministerial Decision?  
Answer by India  
 
The state government in Gujarat has decided to provid e financial assistance to the state dairy 
cooperative federation up to a maximum of INR 50 per kg for a total quantity of 60,000 tonnes . The 
measure is an attempt by the state government to support the farmers in defraying the costs of 
marketing including handling, domestic and international freight which are allowed for developing 
countries under the WTO 's AoA.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 8 - 
 
   
Follow -up: Australia and New Zealand remained concerned about the consistency of India's 
measures with Article 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture a nd the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and 
looked forward to India's notification of these measures. Australia disagreed with India's view that 
its domestic  support  arrangements  did not affect global markets and export interests of others 
including developing  countries , particularly in the case of skim milk powder.  Australia asked  what 
reform India would  consider to avoid overproduction in the future.  
 
1.3.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88040)  
The Gujarat government announced in the month of July 2018 the equivalent of 
USD 43.5 million in export support for Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation (Amul) to export 
60,000 tonnes of  Skim milk powder over the following  six months to clear their 110,000 
tonnes  of stocks. This subsidy (Rupee  50/kg) is equivalent to around USD 725/tonne (at 
the time of the announcement), or more than 35% of the value of the product (measured 
either in percentage of world market price for Skim milk powder or internal Indian market 
prices for skim milk powder).   
 
a. Can India please confirm that this support has been decided on and granted by 
the Gujarat government?   
b. Can India indicate how much of the intended 60,000 tonnes have been exported 
up to and including 31 August 2018?   
c. How does India intend to notify this export subsidy to W TO considering in 
particular that India has no scheduled entitlements for export subsidies?   
d. How does India see this export subsidy to be in line with the Bali and Nairobi 
Ministerial Decisions, which require WTO Members to show the utmost restraint 
in app lying export subsidies?  
Answer by India  
 
The state government of Gujarat has decided to provide financial assistance to the state dairy 
cooperative federation up to a maximum of INR 50 per kg for a total quantity of 60,000 tonnes. 
About 800 tonnes have be en exported up  to 31 August 2018. The measure is an attempt by the 
State Government to support the farmers in defraying the costs of marketing including handling, 
domestic and international freight which are allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA. 
India will be submitting its Article 9.4 Export Subsidy notification in due course.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union looked forward to India's notification of these subsidies. Australia 
and the United States supported the question.  
1.3.3   Question by United  States of America (AG -IMS ID 88070)  
India has reportedly approved a subsidy of 10% to the export price of dairy products, in 
particular skimmed milk powder (SMP).  Noting that India does not have any scheduled 
export subsidy entitlements:  
a. Please explain ho w this measure is implemented and provide any eligibility 
criteria.  
b. In addition, please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for making this 
export subsidy available.  If not available now, when will these documents be 
made available?  
c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under Article 9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
In addition to the Indian government 's subsidy noted above, the Indian states of Gujarat 
and Maharashtra – India 's leading milk producers – have also reported ly approved 
subsidies for the export of milk and milk powder to help address growing stocks.  
 
d. Please explain how these measures are implemented and provide any eligibility 
criteria.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 9 - 
 
  e. In addition, please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for makin g this 
export subsidy  available.  If not available now, when will these documents be 
made available?  
f. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under Article 9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
a. b, and c . This support is given under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme  (MEIS). 
Inadequate infrastructure development for marketing, handling, upgrading, processing, 
transportation, etc. of agricultural exports lead to increased costs. MEIS support is 
provided to offset the cos ts including on account of infrastructure inefficiencies, associated 
costs for export and tax burden.  
d. e, and f. The Government of Gujarat and Maharashtra is providing financial assistance to 
farmers to defray the costs of marketing including handling, dome stic and international 
freight which are allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA. The measure is 
temporary in nature.  
 
Follow -up: Australia supported the question.  
1.4  India's proposed domestic support programmes  
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88041)  
In the draft National Agricultural Export Policy published by the Department of Commerce 
and Industry of the Government of India, it is stated that by 2022 there is "the vision to 
double farmer 's income " which "would require a series of interve ntions to improve 
production and productivity along with economizing the cost of production ". 
 
a. Can India explain whether this doubling concerns per average farm income?  
b. Can India explain more in detail which type of instruments will be used to reach 
this g oal, and how it will be ensured that these measures will not lead to increase 
in trade distorting support?  
c. Does India intend to use Green Box support to this end?  
Answer by India  
 
The draft National Agricultural Export Policy by the Department of Commerce  of the Government of 
India is not yet finalized. The Government intends to explore the av ailable policy options in a 
WTO compatible manner.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and the European Union noted interest in India's  National Agricultural Export 
Policy. Australia noted that it had made a submission to India's Department of Commerce in A pril in 
relation to the draft policy and it shared  the priority India place d in growing  rural ec onomy and 
fostering an economically strong and viable agricultural  sector.  Australia indicated willingness to 
continue engaging with India to develop its agricultural export polices with a view to  ensuring WTO 
consistency. Canada noted interest in India's potential government intervention which  would affect 
the production of vario us crops  given that India was an important export market for Canada . The 
United States flagged interest in this matter.  
1.5  Republic of Korea's support for seaweed producers  
1.5.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 88034)  
We note that the Korean government made tremendou s efforts in recent years to promote 
the development of the seaweed industry, including the support for production of 
seaweed and the purchase of processing facilities. These supports effectively enhanced 
the competitiveness and expanded the export of edib le seaweed. With strong interests in G/AG/W/187  
 
- 10 - 
 
  having better understanding about the seaweed industry of Korea and the lack of 
information on relevant support schemes, since the information is currently not available 
in the Domestic Support notification by Korea, we  would like to raise the questions as 
follow:  
 
a. We learn that an export fund has been set up for providing investment aid to 
newly established enterprises, as well as support for marketing and promotion. 
Can you please confirm whether there are such supports? If so, please provide 
the support program mes and the relevant expenditures.  
b. We also learned that export finance and export insurance are available for 
seaweed producers with a view to mitigate the adverse impact of various risks. 
If this is the case, could you please provide the amount of export finance or 
export insurance provided by export destination?  
c. It is reported that a plan of providing WON 133 billion  support for the "popular 
fishery products " and WON 21.7 billion support for purchasing processing 
facilities has been made. Can you clarify whether the supports are also available 
for seaweed producers?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
Korean government will consult with the government of China on related matters as soon as possible.  
 
1.6  Russia F ederation's modification of excise taxes on wine  
1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88031)  
The European Union welcomes the proposals from the Ministry of Finance on the 
modification of excise taxes on wine, as submitted for discussion to Duma whereby 
imported and locally produced wine will be subject to the same excise taxes.  
 
a. Could the Russia n Federation  update WTO Members on the state of play of this 
discussion and on the procedure for further proceedings?  
At the same time, an article in Izvestia (of 23 July 2018) states that the Ministry of 
Agriculture submitted to the First Deputy PM Siluanov a draft plan on introducing certain 
new fiscal measures and increasing subsidies to the wine sector.  
 
b. Could the Russian Federation  please give us some further details on this plan 
including a timeframe for its adoption?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Russian Federation undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union asked the Russian F ederation whether the proposal had been 
implemented. The Russian Federation responded that the issue was still under consideration.  
 
1.7  Thailand's import licensing for meat  
1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88075)  
Thailand imposes food safety inspection fees on all importers in the form of import permit 
fees on all shipments of uncooled meat, poultry and meat offal. These fees are 
significantly higher than the corresponding domestic slaughtering fees for the same 
products and appear disproportionate to the cost of services rendered.  
 
a. What services are covered by the import permit fees and how are these 
calculated?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. What services are covered by the domestic slaughtering fees and how are these 
calculated?   
c. Can Thailan d please provide an official response with a detailed cost breakdown, 
method of calculation, and list of services provided for both the import permit 
fees for food safety inspection as well as its domestic slaughtering fees?  
d. In the absence of information supporting the exact calculation of and the 
services associated with these fees, Thailand 's fee structure for import permit 
fees for food safety inspection and domestic slaughtering fees raises national 
treatment concerns including the pursuant to the prin ciple that prohibits 
discrimination between imported and domestically produced goods.  
e. What is Thailand 's justification for the discrepancy between import permit fees 
and domestic slaughtering fees?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
The relevant agencies are in the proce ss of gathering relevant information. Thailand will provide 
further information as soon as possible.  
 
1.8  Turkey's export subsidies  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88059)  
Following a decision by Money Credit Coordination Board in the Official Gazette No  30389 
on 12  April  2018, Turkey published a list of products receiving export subsidies and the 
'export return amount '. The products listed were poultry meat, eggs, honey, flowers, 
vegetables and dried vegetables.   
 
a. Can Turkey please detail the quantities that have received export subsidies for 
each product group up to and including 31 August 2018?   
b. Can Turkey please inform WTO Members about the amounts of Turkish Lira 
committed up to and included 31 August 2018?   
c. When and how does Turkey intend to notify these export subsidies to WTO 
considering in particular that, in accordance with the Nairobi decision on Export 
Competition, Turkey shall eliminate export subsidies by the end of 2018?   
d. Several concerned products (such as fruits or stoned fruits or sausage s) seem 
not to be covered by Turkey 's entitlements. How does Turkey envisage to notify 
these export subsidies?   
e. Can Turkey explain how it sees this measure to be in line with the Bali and Nairobi 
Ministerial Decisions, which require WTO Members to show the  utmost restraint 
in applying export subsidies?   
f. When does Turkey intend to forward its revised scheduled for implementing the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision which obliges developing countries to eliminate 
export subsidy commitments by the end of 2018?  
Answ er by Turkey  
 
Turkey undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: New Zealand  and Ukraine stressed the importance of implementing Bali and Nairobi 
Ministerial Decisions and meeting WTO commitments. New Zealand  encouraged  Turkey to respond  
to the annual questionnaire  on Export Competition . The United States noted interest in this question.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.9  U.S. proposed domestic support measures  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88030)  
With reference to the 24 July announcement by the United States of up to USD  12 billion 
in assistance to farmers impacted by trade retaliation measures, Australia would 
appreciate clarification from the United States as to:  
 
a. When it intends to notify these new programmes to the WTO?  
b. How each of the programmes (Market Facilit ation; Food Purchase and 
Distribution; and Agricultural Trade Program) will be classified under the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How the United States intends to ensure the package adheres to WTO limits for 
domestic support in agriculture? (US domestic su pport is capped at USD 19 
billion)?  
We note comments by US officials that the package is intended as a one -time, short -term 
assistance package to assist farmers affected by "unfair " treatment by the US' trading 
partners while the United States Administrati on works to secure better long -term trade 
deals . 
 
d. Given the assistance became available on 4 September, Australia is interested in 
how long the assistance will be available for i.e. is it time limited?  
Noting that USD 6 billion has initially been made ava ilable to farmers,  Australia would 
appreciate clarification as to:  
e. What triggers the USDA will consider for rolling out the second half of the 
assistance package (valued at USD 12 billion)?  
f. Whether it is envisaged the second tranche of assistance will be made available 
under the same programmes as the first tranche?  
g. Whether the increasing/decreasing tensions might result in incremental 
increases/decreases in assistance amounts?  
Under the Mar ket Facilitation Program, Australia understands payment rates for each 
commodity are based on the severity of trade disruption and that payments will be 
calculated by multiplying 50% of the producer's total 2018 actual production by the 
applicable rate . 
h. Australia is interested in how the USDA developed this formula?  
i. was consideration given to calculating average production and market rates over 
three years (for example) given production levels and market prices may 
fluctuate from year to year?  
j. What is the b asis for using historical data (2011, 2012, 2013) to establish dairy 
production figures?  
Australia would appreciate if the United States could explain how the United States will 
monitor/prevent payments being made in excess of the actual tariffs imposed un der the 
Market Facilitation Program Formula . 
k. For example, if actual additional tariffs on soybeans to China equal USD 3 billion 
and approximately USD 3.6 billion is paid to soybean producers for 50% of  their 
production, how does the United States  intend to  manage this and how would a 
further equal payment be justified under the purpose of the programme to offset 
the new tariffs?   G/AG/W/187  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Australia  notes the assistance package is in place in response to trade damage . 
 
l. Australia would appreciate if the United States can clarify the basis for payments 
where there is no impact on trade if product is redirected to other markets and 
no significant trade damage is incurred?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The program mes referenced in the U.S. Department of Agriculture 's 24 July  announcement 
will be notified, as appropriate, with other program mes associated with the 2018/19 
marketing/fiscal year.  
b. See response to Question a.  
c. See response to question a. Payments and purchases made under these program mes are 
well within U .S. WTO com mitments on domestic support. The United States  notes 
comments by U .S. officials that the package is intended as a one -time, short -term 
assistance package to assist farmers affected by "unfair" treatment by the U.S.  trading 
partners while the Un ited States Administration works to secure better long -term trade 
deals.  
d. The application period for MFP is 4 September 2018 to 15 January 2019. Payments will be 
made on a rolling basis as applicants provide documentation of actual 2018 production.  
e. No det ails have been finalized regarding any additional MFP payments.  
f. See response to question e above.  
g. See response to question e above.  
h. Details on the Market Facilitation Program are provided on USDA 's website at 
(https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2018/09/04/usda -launches -trade -
mitigation -programs ).  
i. See response to question h above.  
j. USDA will use historical production for a large share of da iry producers that is already 
available through the Margin Protection Program for Dairy. This will simplify administration 
and facilitate timely payments.  
k. See response to question h above.  
l. Trade diversion does not necessarily indicate that there is no tr ade damage.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil,  Canada,  the European Union  and Paraguay flagged interest in this question .  
 
1.9.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88098)  
Market Facilitation Program  
  
Canada notes that on 24 July 2018, Press Release No. 0151.18 from the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) indicated that the USDA will authorize up to USD 12 billion in 
programmes to assist farmers. Further details were provided on the Trade Mitigation 
Programs in subsequent US DA press releases on 27 August  2018 (Press Release 
No. 0167.18) and most recently on 4 September  2018 (Press release No. 017218). Canada 
notes that the payments will be structured through the M arket Facilitation Program 
(USD  4,696 million), the Foo d and Di stribution Program (USD  1,239 million) and the 
Agricultur al Trade Promotion Program (USD  200 million). The estimated payments 
represent USD 6,135 million. The Market Facilitation Program will provide direct payments 
to producers of cotton, corn, fluid milk , pork, soybeans, sorghum and wheat.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 14 - 
 
  a. Has the United States assessed and estimated how these payment(s) would 
affect the level of production and prices for these products? If so, could the 
United States share details about those estimates?  
b. Does the Unite d States anticipate that additional products will be covered? If so, 
which ones?  
Canada notes that the product specific AMS for cotton, corn, fluid milk, pork (livestock), 
soybeans, sorghum and wheat notified in 2015 (G/AG/N/USA/121) totals USD 6.2 billio n.  
 
c. Could the United States confirm whether U.S. producers benefiting from this 
product specific support will also be eligible for payments under other risk 
management programmes including the Price Loss Coverage program me and 
Agricultural Risk Coverage program me?  
Canada notes that the "payment rate will be dependent upon the severity of the trade 
disruption and the period of adjustment to new trade patterns, based on each producer 's 
actual production ".  
 
d. Could the United States provide further details on the metrics of how the Initial 
Payment Rate was calculated for cotton, corn, fluid milk, pork, soybeans, 
sorghum and wheat?  
Agricultural Trade Promotion Program  
  
The Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program is intende d to help "U.S. agricultural 
exporters identify and access new markets and help to mitigate the adverse effects of 
other countries ' restrictions ".  
  
e. Could the United States elaborate on the "adverse effects of other countries ' 
restrictions " envisioned in the ATP Program?  
f. Could the United States confirm that this USD 200 million fund will not be used 
to subsidize the export of U.S. products to international markets?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. These one -time program mes provide assis tance to commodities already planted or 
produced when the program mes were announced and so would not be expected to have 
production effects.  
b. There are currently no plans to include additional commodities.  
c. U.S. producers benefiting from product specific s upport notified in G/AG/N/USA/121 may 
or may not be eligible for PLC and ARC program mes. PLC and ARC program mes have 
specific eligibility requirements that continue to be in effect.  
d. Details about MFP payment rate calculations can be found on USDA 's websit e at 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2018/09/04/usda -launches -trade -
mitigation -programs   
e. The ATP program me will help U.S. agricultural ex porters identify and develop new 
markets, which will help mitigate the adverse effects of the retaliatory tariffs imposed on 
U.S. agricultural products.  
f. The funds will not be used to subsidize the export of U.S. products.  
Follow -up: Brazil noted interest  in following the measure's impact on international markets.  
New Zealand flagged interested in the question.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.9.3   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88029)  
The US Department for Agriculture announced details on the proposed aid for farmers 
negatively impact ed by retaliatory tariffs.   
 
a. Can the US give more detail on its proposed new aid programme for farmers 
including the specific criteria how prices for purchasing surplus crops and 
support levels for crops were determined. Which criteria were used to determine 
the different crops/produc ts?  
b. What safeguards are taken to limit trade distorting impact on global markets?  
c. Can the US give an indication of when and how they intend to notify these 
measures including the relevant notification period or periods? Will a second 
"instalment ' be noti fied separately?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Details of the Market Facilitation Program, which provides payments to producers of nine 
commodities that have been negatively impacted by retaliatory tariffs on USDA 's website 
at ( https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2018/09/04/usda -launches -trade -
mitigation -programs ). Purchases of other commodities negatively impacted by retaliatory 
tariffs  will be made through the Food Purchase and Distribution Program. These purchases 
will be made through a request for bids from vendors at prevailing market prices. This 
purchase system is operated by USDA 's Agricultural Marketing Service.  
b. These program mes were designed to provide limited, short -term assistance to U.S. 
producers to meet some of the costs of disrupted markets due to retaliatory tariffs.  
c. These programmes will be notified as appropriate with other program mes associated with 
the 2018/19 market ing/fiscal year. No details have been finalized regarding any additional 
payments.  
Follow -up: Brazil and Canada  indicated interest in this  question.   
 
1.9.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88047)  
The United States has announced USD  12 billion package to help farme rs who are hit by 
retaliatory tariffs. It is claimed that this package will assist agricultural producers to meet 
the costs of disrupted markets. The United States is requested to provide the following 
information:  
 
a. What agricultural products would be cove red under this package?  
b. How does the USA intend to classify this expenditure under the domestic support 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. It is also reported that the USA will tap federal food purchase and distribution 
programmes to buy surplus c ommodities to help the farmers. What products 
would be covered under such public stockholding programmes?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Market Facilitation Program will provide payments to producers of soybeans, wheat, 
sorghum, corn, cotton, hogs, milk, sweet cherries, and almonds. The Food Purchase and 
Distribution program me will purchase 29 different commodities targeted by retaliatory 
tariffs that are appropriate for distribution to nutrition program me use, including meat, 
dairy, rice, and specialty crops.  
b. The United States  will determine the appropriate classification when the program mes are 
notified.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 16 - 
 
  c. The Food Purchase and Distribution Program is a program me to purchase commodities 
targeted by retaliatory tariffs for nutritional program mes, not a public stockholding 
program me. The commodities will be purchased through an open bid process at prevailing 
market prices. The commodities purchased will include meat, dairy, rice, and specialty 
crops and will be distributed to eligible nutrition p rogram mes.  
1.9.5   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88028)  
a. USDA announced an assistance programme for farmers impacted by unjustified 
retaliation on 27th August this year. Regarding Market Facilitation program me, 
USDA  announced that 50% of the producer's total produc tion will be covered for 
the payment. However, if the payment doesn't cover production loss caused by 
an inability to export but cover total production in the end, it might cause an 
excessive production support. Could United States confirm this program me is not 
aimed at covering production loss caused by an inability to export?  
b. Regarding "Food purchase and distribution program " in the assistance 
program me for farmers publicized by USDA on 27th August this year, it is 
announced to distribute commodities thr ough TEEAP (The Emergency Fo od 
Assistant Program) or Child Nutrition P rogram. Could United States provide 
further details available at this moment regarding how commodities are 
purchased and what the purchase price is?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The Market Facilitation Program will provide payments on harvested production 
irrespective of a producer 's marketing plans or activities.  
b. Commodities purchased through the Food Purchase and Distribution Program will be 
acquired through a request for bids from vendors at prevailing market prices. This 
purchase system is operated by USDA 's Agricultural Marketing Service.  
Follow -up: Japan  looked forward to receiving  further information regarding two of the three 
programmes for which detail ed information was currently  unavailable.  
 
1.9.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88048)  
New Zealand refers to the announcement made on 24 July 2018, by US Secretary of 
Agriculture Sonny Perdue, about the USD 12 billion farmer relief package comprising 
direct payments to offset  the impacts of retaliatory tariffs on markets and assistance for 
trade promotion activities as well as additional announcements made on 27  August, 
4 September.  
 
New Zealand is concerned about the quantum of the USD 12 billion announcement; and 
that it ri sks taking the United States close to it s AMS limit of USD 19.1 billion.  
 
a. Can the United States  confirm that this is a one -off payment and will not extend 
into future years?  
b. Can the United States  provide more detail about the compensation schemes, in 
particular the criteria and conditions attached to disbursement of funds?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. The announced program mes are a one -time response to reta liatory tariffs imposed on 
U.S. agricultural commodities.  
b. Payments under the Market Facilita tion Program (MFP) will assist producers with meeting 
the additional costs associated with disrupted markets for commodities targeted by 
retaliatory tariffs. MFP payments will be made on 2018 production of nine affected 
commodities —soybeans, sorghum, wheat , corn, cotton, hogs, milk, sweet cherries, and G/AG/W/187  
 
- 17 - 
 
  almonds. The program me is not intended to provide compensation. Further details can be 
found on USDA 's website at ( https://www.usda.gov/media/press -
releases/2018/09/04/usda -launches -trade -mitigation -programs ).  
Follow -up: New Zealand  flagged interest in questions rai sed by other Members on this  subject. 
New Zealand w elcome d the  temporary  nature of these programmes. In its view, given the large 
amount of support involved,  despite U.S. entitlement to increase domestic support spending up to 
its bound AMS limit, New Zealand considered that the Committee should review these programmes  
careful ly. China share d the concern of other WTO Members and would monitor closely the 
consistency of U.S. measures  with WTO rules.  
 
1.10  Zimbabwe's export incentive  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88076)  
The United States understands the government o f Zimbabwe 's Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe 
(which is the central bank ) is providing tobacco growers a performance export bonus as 
an incentive to grow the country 's production and increase exports. For the 2018 
marketing season, the central bank, has increased the export incentive from 5 % to 12 % 
and up to 17.5 % for top exporters.  
  
a. Please explain these agriculture support measures implemented by Zimbabwe 's 
central bank during the marketing periods 2017 and 2018.  
b. What is the legal basis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi 
Decision that allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  
Answer by Zimbabwe  
 
Zimbabwe undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.11  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88120)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88064)  
Australia would like to co -sponsor the following ques tion (AG -IMS ID 88064) from 
New Zealand:  
 
Canada's response to the  US question at the 87th Comm ittee on Agriculture 
(AG IMS 87065) stated that Ontario had not yet "notified any amendment to milk class 6 
through Regulation 753: Grades, Standards, Designations, Classes Packing and Marking 
of the Milk Act of 1990 ". Can Canada confirm that such an amendment to the Regulation 
has since been notified, in effect revoking Class 6?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
There is no update available.  
 
Follow -up: Australia asked if Canada could provide a more detailed explanation regarding the 
timeframes of such notification and ratification of class 6 . New Zealand  was disappointed that no 
reporting system  was in place following  Members' request for several years and Canada did not 
indicate when the new reporting system would be available. In its view, Canada did not demonstrate 
the expected level of transparency with regard to its dairy policies. New Zeala nd would revisit the 
matter in future Committees. The European Union echoed Australia and New Zealand's  concern .  
 
1.11.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88121)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88065)  
Australia would like to co -sponsor the following question (AG -IMS ID 88065) from New 
Zealand:  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 18 - 
 
  New Zealand notes Canada 's response at the 87th Committee on Agriculture 
(AG IMS 87064) with respect to the availability of data available as to the volumes of milk 
components produced and utilised under each milk class, includ ing Class  7. This 
information was removed from the Canadian Dairy Information Centre in August 2017 
because it was "not comparable to past data ". Canada has said an updated reporting 
system is being developed, but, despite a full year passing since New Zea land first raised 
this issue, has not been able to say when this will occur. Accordingly, we once again ask 
for this information. This would enhance transparency in re spect of the operation of 
Class  7.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not have a timeline to  provide for the release of any data related to milk class prices, 
utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy of the data are required. Once 
completed, information will be prov ided in a more relevant format.  
 
1.11.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88061)  
a. Please provide an update on the National Centralized Registration System and 
the Provincial Billing Mechanism Certification Program.  In AG -IMS ID 87015, 
Canada states that some outstanding elements are still being discussed by 
industry stakeholders which has prevented the implementation of the 
programmes.  
What outstanding elements are still being discussed?  Does Canada have a target 
timeline?  
b. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario?  If so, please provide a copy of the 
documentation or measure revoking Class 6.  If not, does Ontario have a timeline 
for revoking Class 6 now that Class 7 is being used across Canada?   
c. Please provide monthly milk  component (i.e., butterfat, proteins, other solids) 
prices and monthly volumes of milk components utilized (for Class 7, and also 
total utilization for all classes), specifically at the provincial levels.   
If this information is still not available, pleas e provide an update on when and 
where this information will become available.  
d. As the most recent study on Canadian dairy processor margins was conducted in 
2005, when does the Canadian Dairy Commission plan to update that research?  
e. Please explain the mecha nism used by provincial milk boards to develop the milk 
component prices in each of the milk price classes.  
f. Canada states in response to AG -IMS ID 86033: "As of 1 February 2017, the 
Canadian Dairy Commission no longer purchased skim milk powder under eithe r 
the Canadian Dairy Commission's domestic seasonality or the surplus removal 
program me."  
Please explain why the CDC ceased purchasing of skim milk powder under these 
programmes?   
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The purpose of the National Centralized Registration System (NCRS) is to register 
companies in order to utilize Class 7. This is necessary in order for auditors to coordinate 
usage audits, as is the case with other milk classes, and to encourage the harmon ization 
of audit procedures for dairy plants among provinces. The purpose of the Provincial Billing 
Mechanism Certification Program is to be able to review each province's audit procedures 
and billing mechanisms to ensure a uniform implementation of the na tional ingredient 
strategy. The National Centralized Registration System and the Provincial Billing G/AG/W/187  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Mechanism Certification Program will not be publicly  available due to commercial 
confidentiality reasons. The Certification Program has started and the impl ementation of 
the NCRS is scheduled for January 1, 2019.  
b. Canada notes that Ontario has not notified any changes to milk class 6 through 
Regulation  753: Grades, Standards, Designations, Classes, Packing and Marking of the 
Milk Act of 1990. That being said,  Canada understands that milk class 7 is being used 
across Canada.  
c. Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release of any data related to milk 
class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy of the data are 
require d. Once completed, information will be provided in a more relevant format.  
d. The Canadian Dairy Commission currently has no plans to update that research.  
e. Milk component prices are adjusted annually based on the evolution of the cost of 
production and the consumer price index.  
f. The Canadian Dairy Commission no longer buys skim milk powder because manufacturers 
have found markets for it.  
Follow -up: The European Union noted interest in the question.  
 
1.12  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.12.1   Question by United States of Am erica (AG -IMS ID 88096)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions p osed by the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 85012, AG -IMS ID 86034, and AG -IMS ID 87016. As such, the United States 
repeats its previous questions.  
  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines 
from Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that 
are continuously available, available to gro cers by moving them to the 
LCBO  Wines category" . 
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on th e Vintages Essential list 
allowed to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
need to move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential 
list) in order to be sold in grocery store s? 
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores 
without moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, 
but imported products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regula tion 232/16, how many restricted beer 
and wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been 
distributed to operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations 
have been dist ributed for a "wine boutique sales agent" (a single authorization 
that permits the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that 
operates a wine boutique inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call 
that Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price 
parameters and size parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the 
category of existing Ontario bag in box wine?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 20 - 
 
  (http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%2
0Box %20Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is l imited to 4 stock 
keeping units  (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 
40 SKUs? If confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between 
imported an d Ontario products.  
f. According to Canada 's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies 
mark -ups to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province differently 
than commercial wine that have been bottled outside the province.  Specifically,  
commercial wines that are bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark -up 
reduction of 20 percentage points (from140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation documents  
setting out mark -ups for commercial wines bottled in th e province and bottled 
outside the province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to 
qualify for this benefit, could Canada please explain how this policy ensures 
non-discrimination against foreign products?   
g. The Nova Scotia  Liquor Corporation maintains a preferential mark -up for 
Emerging Wine Regions (currently 43%).  How does a producer from an emerging 
wine region, as defined by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their emerging wine 
region status?  
Please provide a list of n on-Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines available for 
sale through the NLSC.  
Answer by Canada  
 
Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the view that it would be 
inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
 
Follow-up: The European Union and New Zealand shared  the U.S. concern . 
 
1.13  European Union's sugar policies  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88063)  
Australia welcomes the withdrawal of EU sugar production quotas a year ago. Removal of 
the quota should allow EU production to better adjust to global market price signals and 
global market demand. Although, the EU maintains ongoing substantial domestic support 
in the form of direct payments through the EU Volunta ry Coupled Support  (VCS) and 
EU Basic Payment System ( BPS).  
 
a. Can the European Union  explain how long the current levels of domestic support 
will continue following the removal of sugar production quotas?  
b. How is the European Union  ensuring its domestic support and subsequent 
overproduction does not negatively impact global sugar markets and trade?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU would recall that the change to EU sugar policy decided in 2008, including the abolition of 
sugar quotas, was partly due to the outcome of the WTO panel brought against the EU sugar qu ota 
system by Australia along with two other M embers. The EU notes with interest that Australia still 
has concerns about the logical consequence of the  abolition of EU sugar quotas, i.e. the possibility 
of an increase in EU production as sugar beet and sug ar producers respond to world market signals.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 21 - 
 
  The abolition of EU sugar quotas has led to a significant restructuring of the EU sugar industry and 
to a significant increase in the competiveness of the EU sugar production. The increase of production 
in 201 7 results from both an increase in the areas sown as well as from exceptional yields due to 
favourable weather conditions and has not been driven by domestic s upport. In fact, in those 
member  States using Voluntary Coupled Support, the area grown with suga r beet has gone down.  
 
The Basic Payment Scheme is a decoupled Green Box payment, and has no influence on the level of 
EU sugar production. Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) may only be granted by a m ember State to 
a sector or type of farming that is underg oing difficulties (e.g. risk of a decline or abandonment of 
production). Further, it is a 'production limiting scheme' in accordance with Blue Box criteria, and 
also subject to strict budgetary limits. Consequently, the domestic support has no negative imp act 
on intra - or extra -EU trade or on world markets.  
 
The 2013 CAP reform is applicable during the years 2014 -2020.  
 
Follow -up: As the world's  third largest sugar exporter, Australia voiced concern about the low global  
sugar  prices  which were hurting  its sugar industry . Australia welcome d the EU's ongoing reforms to 
its sugar industry but encourage d the EU to ensure that any over production would not spill  over into 
global market s. Australia noted that  the EU could make  important contribution s to help restore 
balance in the global sugar market and  looked forward to working further with EU in this regard.  As 
a member of the Global Sugar Alliance Canada hoped to see  more market -oriented  trade regimes 
for sugar. Brazil  and El Salvador noted interest in the issue , including the impact of Members' polices  
on sugar production . 
 
1.14  United Kingdom - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.14.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88011)  
India would like to reiterate Indonesia 's question AG-IMS ID 83069 from the 
83rd Committee on Agriculture meeting for the European Union:  
 
After United Kingdom 's decision to leave the European Union, it is understood that there 
will be a renegotiation on UK 's Schedule of Commitments (SOC).  
 
a. How would the Generalized Scheme of Preference (GSP) granting procedure be 
for developing countries?  
b. How would UK 's Customs Procedure, including the arrangement of Tariff Rate 
Quota (TRQ) Policy be for the agricultural products?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU cannot respond to a question which relates to future UK trade policy after it has ceased to 
be a member of the EU from 30 March 2019.  
 
Follow -up: India sought clarification  regarding  whether the United Kingdom would respond to the 
question. The European Union noted that the response given was the official reply from the European 
Union and all its member states. Canada noted interest in  the development of  UK's draft schedule  
in particu lar its tariff rate quotas for agricultural products. Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, New 
Zealand, the Russian Federation and the United States were interested  in this topic.   
 
1.15  India's sugar policies  
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88039)  and Brazil (AG-IMS ID 88127)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India durin g the June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87079) regarding the sugar measures implemented by India, Australia has a 
series of follow -up questions, noting that India has not answered all of Australia's 
previous questions.  
 
India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade Noti fication No.  57/2015 -2020 on 
28 March  2018 announced the Duty -Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme allowing G/AG/W/187  
 
- 22 - 
 
  import duties on future sugar imports to be waived until Septem ber 2021 for sugar millers 
that ex port sugar this crushing season  (2017/18).  
 
a. Can India provide data on the value and volume of exports of sugar under the 
DFIA scheme since it was announced on 28 March 2018?  
b. Given India does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements, can India 
explain the consistency of allowing future import duties on sugar to be waived 
contingent on exports of sugar this crushing season with India's commitments 
under Article 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.15.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88043)  and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88128)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India durin g the June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87079) regarding the sugar measures impl emented by India, Australia has a 
series of follow -up questions, noting that India has not answered all of Australia's 
previous questions.  
 
Australia notes media reports4 that the 'Minimum Indicative Export Quota ' (MIEQ) has 
been extended until December 20 18. The same media report states that Indian exporters 
have been able to export only 400,000 tonnes and in May and June 2018, mills would have 
had to lose Rs. 7 -8 a kg on export; this loss would now be Rs. 10.5 -11.5 a kg. Australia 
also notes that the USDA  Foreig n Agricultural Service report ( Sugar: World Markets and 
Trade ) May 2018 states that "India 's production is forecast to rise 1.4 million ton nes to a 
record 33.8 million….  Exports are forecast to triple to 6.0 million ton nes since it is 
expected that sugar mills will reduce record surplus ".  
 
a. Australia requests India confirm the volume of sugar that was exported under 
the MIEQ to date, and confirm whether the MIEQ can be been extended until the 
end of 2018.  
b. As part of India 's previous answers to Austra lia's questions in the June 2018 
meeting, India said 'the domestic price is almost 20 to 30% higher than the 
international price and therefore it is expected, that in the present 
circumstances, negligible exports will take place under the scheme ' 
i. does Indi a believe that 400,000 tonnes is negligible and had no impact on the 
world sugar market?  
ii. given the loss faced by mills to export sugar, why would the Government of 
India consider extending the MIEQ in the absence of financial incentives?  
c. Given the record production and surplus, and gap between domestic and 
international sugar prices, how is India going to make future sugar exports 
financially viable?  
Can India explain how the series of measures to address the overproduction and 
growing stockpile of sugar are economically and financially sustainable in the 
medium to long term?  
Answer by India  
 
No support has been given for export of sugar under the MIEQ scheme.  
 
                                                
4 https://www.business -standard.com/article/markets/after -lack-of-orders -govt-extends -sugar -export -
quota -date-to-december -end-118082301090_1.html  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 23 - 
 
  About 0.48 million tonnes have been exported so far during current sugar season under 
MIEQ  scheme. This is a negligible part of the total world sugar exports of about 60 million tonnes. 
MIEQ for sugar is valid till the end of 2018. In India, cane producers are mostly s mall and marginal 
farmers. The g overnment has taken a series of measures in or der to improve the condition of the 
farmers. Government has decided to allow diversion of B -Heavy molasses for production of ethanol 
for blending with petrol. Government has also announced incentives for increasing the ethanol 
production capacity and up -gradation of the plant for operating more number of working days. It is 
estimated that about one million tonne s of sugarcane stock will be utilized for production of ethanol 
which is expected to increase further in future.  
 
1.15.3   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88046)  and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88129)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India durin g the June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87079) regarding the sugar measures implemented by India, Australia has a 
series of follow -up questions, noting that India has no t answered all of Australia 's 
previous questions.  
 
a. Australia requests India confirm the volume of sugarcane that has received the 
financial assistance of Rs. 55/tonne of cane crushed since the announcement of 
the scheme for 'Assistance to sugar mills ' on 2 May 2018.  
b. Can India explain whether the eligibility criteria for the financial assistance, 
which includes mills needing to "have fully complied with all the orders/directive 
of the Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) to the sugar mills 
durin g 2017 -18 sugar season", requires sugar mills meet the prescribed 
quantities of sugar under the export quota in Annexure -A to the 'Minimum 
Indicative Export Quota '? 
c. Can India confirm whether financial assistance has been withheld from sugar 
mills for not e xporting the prescribed quantities under the MIEQ?  
Australia notes the Government of India announced on 6 June 2018 a further package of 
measures to support India's sugar indu stry worth Rs. 7,000 crore (USD  975 million). This 
include the creation of a buff er stock of 3 million tonnes of sugar, fixing a minimum selling 
price of white/refined sugar at Rs.29/kg, and soft loans to sugar mills to setup new 
distilleries and boilers to enhance ethanol production capacity.  
 
d. Can India explain how it intends to noti fy the valu e of the measures in future 
WTO  domestic support notifications, in particular the fixing of a minimum selling 
price of white/refined sugar?  
e. How does India intend to dispose of the 3 million tonne s buffer stock to ensure 
it does not impact the wo rld sugar market?  
f. How is India ensuring the suite of financial assistance and measures announced 
over the course of 2018 are within India 's domestic support entitlements (i.e. 
within de minimis  entitlements)?  
Answer by India  
 
a. b, c, and f. So far, no assistance has been provided to any sugar mill. The buffer stock is 
with the private industry and may be disposed off by them through open -market sales 
depending upon  the demand - supply situation.  
d. and e. Reply will be provided in due course.  
1.15.4   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88042)  and Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88130)  
Australia notes that India has been providing market price support (MPS) for sugarcane 
through the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP). The Government of India announced an 
increased in the  FRP for sugarcane for the 2018 -19 sugar season at Rs. 275/quintal at G/AG/W/187  
 
- 24 - 
 
  10% recovery, which is 2.45% higher than the FRP for current sugar season 2017 - 185. 
The MPS for sugarcane is a long running measure, which we note has been increasing and 
nearly doubled  since 2011/12 from Rs. 145/quintal.  
 
a. Can India explain how it reconciles increasing the FRP for sugarcane that 
encourages greater sugarcane production at a time when there are record sugar 
stocks and India is taking measures to dispose of the surplus?  
b. Can India explain why it notified an applied administered price and eligible 
production for sugarcane (w ith market price support of USD  184 million) in its 
domestic support notification for 1995/96 (G/AG/N/IND/1), but it has not 
notified any domestic support  for sugarcane in subsequent domestic support 
notifications?  
c. Can India explain why it has not notified the FRP as an applied administered price 
for market price support for sugarcane?  
d. Can India provide the value and volume of sugarcane production in each state in 
India that received the FRP?  
e. Has India considered that the high level of FRP and MPS may be leading to 
overproduction resulting in the need to provide financial assistance and 
measures incentivising sugar exports?  
f. Has India considered removing the  FRP and MPS for sugarcane and moving to 
less trade and production distorting forms of domestic support?  
Australia notes that in addition to the FRP, some Indian state governments announced a 
'State Advised Price ' (SAP). According to the 'Price Policy for Sugarcane – 2018 -19 Sugar 
Season6', the SAP is 'much higher than the FRP. This creates a distortion in the industry 
because SAP is neither linked to sugar recovery nor it takes into account domestic and 
global prices and other relevant parameters. In case,  where the state governments decide 
to continue with SAP the difference between SAP and FRP should be paid by the state 
government directly to farmers. ' 
 
g. Can India provide the details of the SAP for each state and provide the value and 
volume of sugarcane production in each state in India that received the SAP?  
h. Can India explain why it has not notified the SAP payments in its domestic 
support notifications, particularly given 'it creates a distortion in the industry '? 
Answer by India  
 
a. e., and f. Government of India announces changes in FRP taking into account various cost 
parameters. In India, cane producers are mostly marginal farmers having very small land 
holdings. In order to protect them from resort ing to distress sales, Central g overnmen t 
fixes Fair and Remunerative Price  (FRP) of cane which is an indicative price to be paid by 
the sugar mills against purchase of their cane for production of sugar.  
b. c. and  h. Sugarcane is not included in the DS notifications since the government has not 
procured sugarcane from the farmers.  
d. and g. Since  the sugar season 2017 -18 has not yet ended, data on the value of sugarcane 
production as per FRP and SAP is not available at this stage.  
Follow -up: Australia reiterated its concern that global sugar prices  were at 10 -year low. From 
Australia's perspective, export subsidies and domestic support provided  by India had  contributed to 
                                                
5 http://pib.nic.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1540860 . 
6 Issued by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers 
Welfare, Government of India – August 2017 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=41&KeyId=622  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 25 - 
 
  a growing gap in global  sugar  markets and Australia would examine the WTO consistency of these 
measures. Australia raised a follo w-up question which related to recent media reports : "Indian 
government is considering  transport s ubsidies to help  sugar mil ls in India export up to  five million  
tonnes of  sugar, raising financial assistance from 55 INR/tonne up to 138 INR/tone. Can India 
confirm whether  such measures are being considered and whether such decision  is imminent ." 
Australia disagreed, in the case of sugar,  with India's view that its domestic support arrangements  
did not affect global markets and export interests of others  including developing countries. Australia 
asked India what reforms  it would consider to ensure  overproduction would  not occur again in the 
future .  
 
Brazil echoed the data request associated  with opera tion of the programme and shared  the concern 
about the  consistency of  India's support measures with WTO rules, particularly in the field of  export 
subsidies . Brazil encouraged India to include  the relevant  programmes  in export subsidy notifications 
and advised India to opt for market -oriented policies  given the impact of its  current  policies on 
international markets . The European Union echoed  concern over India's support  measure s in 
particular those related to export subsidies. El Salvador, Guatemala and the United States flagged 
interest  in questions relating  to the sugar market   
 
1.16  India's pulses policies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88060)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India durin g the June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87072 and AG-IMS ID 87075) regarding the various measures relating to 
pulses implemented by India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions, noting that 
India has not answered all of Australia 's previous questions.  
 
Regarding  India 's quantitative restrictions (QR) of 100,000 tonnes of peas in  Notification 
No. 4/2015 -2020 of 25  April 2018 for a period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018):  
 
a. Australia requests India confirm the volume of peas that has been imported 
under the QR during the initial 3 -month period. Was the QR fully utilised by 
30 June 2018? If so, on what date w as the QR fully utilised?  
b. Australia notes that India extended the QR on 2 July 2018 in Notification 
No.15/2015 -2020 for a further three months until 30 September 2018.  
i. Can India confirm whether any additional volume was included as part of the 
extension of  the QR?  
ii. No additional volume was included as part of the extension of the QR, and the 
initial QR was fully utilised by 30 June: can India confirm that it has 
effectively implemented an import ban for peas from 1 July to 30 September?  
c. Is India intending t o extend the QR for a second time following 30 September? 
If so, will additional volume be included? How much advance notice is India 
intending to provide exporters and importers of the possible change in policy?  
In response to Australia 's previous questi ons in the June 2018 meeting, India said "it was 
noticed that mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was not sufficient in case of certain 
pulses. Therefore,  government imposed quantitative restrictions on pulses such as Tur 
(pigeon pea), Moong (beans o f species of Vigna radiate) and Urad (beans of the species 
of Vigna mungo) and dry peas in order to protect our small and marginal farmers. " 
 
d. Australia requests India confirm the status of the quantitative restrictions  (QRs) 
on Tur, Moong and Urad , includi ng the volume of each pulse imported under 
each  QRs.  
e. Australia notes that India stated that "increase in import tariffs of pulses was 
not sufficient in case of certain pulses. Therefore, government imposed 
quantitative restrictions ": G/AG/W/187  
 
- 26 - 
 
  i. Can India confirm whet her it first utilised WTO consistent measures such as 
increasing its applied tariffs on pulses to India 's WTO bound levels before 
implementing WTO in -consistent measures such as QRs?  
ii. If India did not consider this option, can India explain why?  
Despite I ndia reassuring WTO Members that the Quantitative Restric tions (QR) introduced 
in August  2017 were only 'temporary', India renewed the quantitative restriction on mung 
beans and black lentils on 4 May 2018 in Notification No. 6/2015 -2020.  
 
f. Given these QRs have been in force for over 12 months, does India still believe 
these measures are 'temporary '? What timeframe does India consider as 
'temporary ' for such measures? When does India intend to cancel these 
'temporary ' measures?  
As is well kn own to India, Australia and a number of WTO Members have raised concerns 
about the WTO -consistency of the quantitative restrictions in numerous WTO Committees, 
and Australia has raised concerns over the course of a series of bilateral representations. 
Rega rdless of all these efforts to understand the legal basis for the QRs, India has not 
engaged to provide such an explanation.  
 
g. While India has stated the QRs are temporary, Australia reques ts India explain 
the WTO  legal basis for such temporary measures .  
Are the measures maintained for the protection of human health or safety; 
animal or plant life or health; security, the environment, or some other basis?  
If India is relying on GATT Article XX (General Exceptions) for its quantitative 
restrictions, can Indi a explicitly state which paragraph in Article XX it is relying 
on for its quantitative restrictions?  
Answer by India  
 
a. QR has been fully utilized.  
b. No additional volume was included in the extension of QR as per the notification.  
c. There is no information at  this stage regarding extension of the QR beyond 
30 September  2018.  
d. For Tur-85469 tonnes, for Moong -80515 tonnes and for Urad- 26537 tonnes have been 
imported till 31 A ugust  2018.  
e.  Applied tariffs were increased up to bound level in some cases.  
f. These mea sures are temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be based on 
the domestic demand -supply situations. India is constantly reviewing these measures.  
g. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and will be answ ered 
in the relevant committees.  
Follow -up: Australia n oted that India's trade measure s had significantly  reduced  Australia's  exports  
to India, which had previously been Australia's largest market for pulses and imported 
AUD 1.4 billion in 2016 -17. As in the case of skim milk powder and sugar, Australia did not agree 
with India's view that its domestic support arrangements  did not affect global m arkets and export 
interests of others  including developing countries. Australia also raised concern regard ing the non -
temporary nature of the measure. Given  the measure's  significant  impact on pulse ex porter s 
including Australia , Australia  urged India to provide a legal basis for those quantitative restrictions 
and lift them as soon as possible . The European U nion echoed  Australia's concern and e ncourage d 
India to review its trade  policy to minimize impact  on other trading partner s.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 27 - 
 
  1.16.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88092)  
Canada would like to reiterate its question (AG -IMS ID 87074) raised during the 
87th Commit tee on Agriculture for India's previous notification (G/AG/N/IND/12) 
regarding the export and domestic sale of pulses (urad, moong, tur, masoor, channa) 
through e -auctions. Could India please indicate when it wil l provide an answer to 
question  AG-IMS ID 87 074?  
  
Canada notes that between December 2016 and May 2018, the Food Corporation of India 
(FCI) has posted on its website multiple contract notes for the sale of pulses (urad, 
moong, tar, masoor, channa) through e -auctions.  
  
Could India please elaborat e if there were successful bidders in each of these e -auctions 
and could India advise if these pulses were exported or released onto the domestic 
market? How does the FCI take into account commercial considerations so that these 
volumes of pulses do not di srupt commercial markets?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The FCI had offered pulses in the open market in order to stabilize domestic market prices and for 
stock management of pulses. The FCI has not exported pulses.  
 
1.16.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88095)  
The table below list procurement by India of pulses reported in the Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices annual reports between 2012 -13 to 2016 -17.  
Table.1 - Government Procurement (NAFED, FCI, SFAC) of Pulses in metric tonne, 
2012 -13 to 2016 -17  
Season  Pulse|Year  2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 
Kharif  Arhar/Tur  16,558  92,859  1,543   45,532  1,166,045  
Moong  322 243 0 0 219,848  
Urad 84,686  12,108  0 4,892  88,582  
Rabi Gram  3,555  40,238  364,207  24,193  56,291  
Masur/Lentil  1,770  0 0 1,018   8,556  
Total  Total  106,891  145,448  365,750  75,634  1,539,321  
Source:  Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices - Rabi Crops 2017 -2018 and Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices - Kharif Crops 2018 -2019.  
 
Canada noticed that the total amount purchased by the government of India in the 
Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices annual reports differs from the quantities 
reported in India domestic support notifications.  
  
a. Could India explain the difference  between the quantities notified and the 
quantities reported in the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices annual 
reports?  
b. Could India indicate at what price all quantities reported by the Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices annual reports were procured?  
c. Could India explain their methodology on including or excluding quantities 
procured by its different agencies?  
d. Are NAFED and FCI allowed to buy Pulses from every state in India?  
e. Could India please indicate if NAFED and FCI have pre -set li mit or other 
conditions on the amount of production that could be procured from farmers G/AG/W/187  
 
- 28 - 
 
  using the MSPs? If so, what are the pre -set limits or conditions on the volume of 
production that could be procured?  
On 29 August 2018, the India Director General of F oreign Trade issued a notification 
withdrawing the import restrictions on dry peas in effect until 30 September 2018. On 
30 August 2018, the Director General of Foreign Trade issued a new notification under the 
authority of the Ministry of Commerce and Ind ustry, indicating the import restriction on 
dry peas will continue until 30 September 2018.  
  
f. Could India indicate if the import restrictions on dry peas will expire after 
30 September?  
In its answers to Canada AG-IMS ID 87071, India indicated that " the decision for 
imposition of quota was based on the domestic demand and supp ly situation of pulses in 
India". It was also noted that " mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was not sufficient 
in ca se of certain pulses" and that " the wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses in the 
country has come down from 205.2 (December 2016) to 134.2 (December 2017) and 
further declined to 120.8 (April 2018) showing a sharp decline during this period ".  
  
g. Could India provide the wholesale price level index for pulses of the last months 
available after April 2018?  
h. Could India indicate if the import restriction on dry peas was successful at raising 
the domestic price for dry peas?  
i. Could India indicate if th e import restriction on tur (pigeon pea), moong (beans 
of species of vigna radiate) and urad (beans of the species of vigna mungo) were 
successful at raising the domestic price for each pulse variety?  
j. Does India have a target wholesale price index (WPI) w here there will not be a 
need for quantitative restriction on peas and others pulse varieties? If yes, what 
is that target?  
Answer by India  
 
a. b and c.  Government agencies are procuring pulses at the administered price and market 
price. India has notified t he product specific support for pulses based on the quantity 
procured at the administered price. The notified quantity was procured at the administered 
price through price support operations by govt. agencies. India 's DS notification for the 
relevant year may be referred to for the same.  
d. and e.  The government  agencies procure pulses from the farmers at the administered 
price (MSP) as well as market price depending upon the demand and supply of the pulses. 
Minimum support prices are intended to provide minim um remunerative prices to the 
farmers so that they do not have to resort to distress sales.  
f. As per the notification issued on 30  August 2018, the restriction will expire on 30 
September 2018 and the position is being continuously reviewed.   
g. The WPI for pu lses was at 119.8, 117.5, 120.8, 124.5 for May, June, July and August 
2018.  
h. i. and j. The domestic price of pulses is determined by the demand and supply of pulses 
and it is difficult to assess the impact of one single measure like import restriction on t he 
domestic price. There is no target for WPI for QRs however, the gov ernment  is constantly 
monitoring the situation.   
Follow -up: With regard  to India's response to question f, Canada asked if expiration of the restriction 
on 30 September  meant that the me asure would no longer be in effect after that date and would be 
lifted.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 29 - 
 
  1.16.4   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88109)  
In November 2017 the Government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas 
up to 50%. In addition to this measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a restriction on 
import of yellow peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of im port of 
yellow peas to the territory of India shall be 100,000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. 
After the expiry of this measure the quota has been extended till 30 September 2018. 
Could India clarify the following issues:  
  
a. On what basis the amount of qu ota was calculated?  
b. What was the reason for the extension of quota?  
c. What was the amount of yellow peas to be eligible to import within the quota 
after 2 July 2018?  
d. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported from 1 April till 25 April 
2018, f rom 1 April till 30 June 2018, and from 2 July till 31 August 2018?  
e. How are these measures  consistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture?   
f. How are these measures  justified under the WTO rules?  
Answer by India  
 
While this issue should be discussed with the relevant Committee, India would like to say that India 
is the largest producer as well as consumer of pulses. The decision for imposition of quota was based 
on the domestic demand and supply situation of pulses  in India. It is aimed at alleviating the distress 
caused to small and marginal farmers by the influx of cheap imported pulses and the consequent 
impact on their food and livelihood security. The objective of Indian agricultural policy is to balance 
the in terests of consumers and producers. Government of India is already concerned with the 
sensitive issue of farmers' suicides. It was noticed that mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was 
not sufficient in case of certain pulses. The whole sale price ind ex (WPI) for pulses in the country 
has come down from 205.2 (December 2016) to 134.2 (December 2017) and further declined to 
120.8 (April  2018) showing a sharp decline during this period. The latest estimates for the WPI are: 
119.8, 117.5, 120.8, 124.5 for  May, June, July and August 2018.This reflects the fact that the current 
prices of pulses in domestic markets are below the prices of the corresponding period of the previous 
year, indicating that the measures taken have been in the overall interests of bo th consumers and 
producers, as intended. Therefore, government imposed quantitative restrictions on pulses such as 
Tur (pigeon pea), Moong (beans of species of Vigna radiata) and Urad (beans of the species of Vigna 
mungo) and dry peas in order to protect o ur small and marginal farmers.  
 
Follow -up: The Russian Federation considered that quantitative restrictions were not permitted 
under the multilateral trading system.   
 
1.16.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88066)  
a. On 3 July , the Ministry of Comme rce and Industry (MOCI) announced it extended 
through 30  September the restriction on the quantity of pea imports that was 
previously was effective through 30 June. Please explain how the quantitative 
restriction complies with India 's WTO  obligations.  
b. The quantitative limit restricting imports of peas has harmed growers, 
processors, and exporters from several of India 's trading partner s, including the 
United States. Does India intend to renew the restriction on import of peas past 
the September 30 period?   
c. Has India notified the WTO of this new quantitative limit restricting imports of 
peas?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 30 - 
 
  d. Are the quantitative limits restricting imports of black matpe, mung beans, and 
pigeon peas still in place?  
e. Does India intend to place quantitative limits restricting im ports on any other 
products?  
Answer by India  
 
The said QR is imposed as part of temporary measures to deal with the domestic demand and supply 
situation and is under constant review. Any information on the prevailing QRs can be accessed from 
http://www.dgft.gov.in  and India 's notification to the relevant Committees of the WTO.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted concern about  India's  quantitative  export restriction measures 
on pulses. Canada, as a key exporter of pulses noted its strong interest in resolving this issue as its 
exports of pulses to India had been significantly affected by tariff increases and quantitative 
restrictions . Ukraine reiterated concern over the impact of  India' s pulse policies and encouraged 
India to provide complete responses to the questions raised.  
 
1.17  India's Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88123)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88038)  
New Zealand is concerned w ith the recent amendment to the Merchandise Exports from 
India Scheme (MEIS), in particular the increase in the subsidy of cheese and butter from 
seven to ten percent and the inclusion of skim milk powder in the scheme. How are these 
amendments WTO complia nt?  
 
Answer by India  
 
The objective of MEIS is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and ass ociated costs, as per 
Article  9 (d-e) of Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).  
 
Follow -up: Australia remained concerned about the WTO consistency of India's MEIS and  sought to 
understand how infrastructural  inefficiencies , particularly  in the case of cheese and butter, could 
justify the increase of subsidy and how they were  linked to Article 9 (d) and (e) of the AoA.  New 
Zealand and the European Union echoed Australia's question and asked India to elaborate the basis 
for this argument.    
 
1.17.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88067)  
 
India Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  
  
In response to AG  IMS ID 87017 India stated "the objective of MEIS is to offset 
infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs, as per Article 9 (d -e) of Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA) ". 
 
However, on India 's Foreign Trade Policy, 2015 -2020 Notification from the Ministry of 
Commerce, Chapter 3.03, up dated up to June 2015, page 59 says the "[o]bjective of 
Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies 
and associated costs involved in export of goods/products, which are 
produced/manufactured in India, especially  those having high export intensity, 
employment potential and thereby enhancing India 's export competitiveness ".  
  
Also, as amended on December 2017, page 51 it reads the "[o]bjective of the Merchandise 
Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) is to promote the m anufacture and export of notified 
goods/ products ".  
  
Nowhere on India 's Foreign Trade Policy directly makes specific reference that the 
programme is for marketing agricultural exports, handling, upgrading and other 
processing costs, and the costs of inte rnal or international transport and freight.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 31 - 
 
  a. Please provide additional details on how the MEIS is implemented, including the 
specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
b. Further, please indicate how "infrastructure inefficiencies and associated costs " 
directly relate to the criteria set out in article 9(d -e) of the AoA regarding 
marketing or transportation costs.  
Answer by India  
 
Inadequate infrastructure development for marketing, handling, upgrading, processing, 
transportation, etc. of agricultural exports lead to increased costs. MEIS support is provided to offset 
the costs including on account of infrastructure inefficiencies, associated costs for export and tax 
burden.  
 
Follow -up: The United States questioned how  India linked  infrastructure inefficiencies and associated 
costs to (1) costs of marketing exports or (2) internal transport and freight charges on export 
shipments un der Article 9 (d) and (e) of the AoA . Canada echoed the concern, noting  that its exports  
of chi ckpeas to India  were also affected by subsidies introduced  under the MEIS scheme.  
 
1.18  Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  
1.18.1   Question by Japan ( AG-IMS ID 88036)  
The Ministry of Agriculture, government of Indones ia, revised the regulation 
(No. 38/PERMENTAN/HR.060/11/2017) on 6th June this year regarding horticultural 
product import. The use of 'harvest period ' is eliminated when issuing the import license. 
Japan understands, however, that the revised regulation still imposes a restriction giving 
the Director General authority to consider domestic horticultural production when issuing 
the import licenses.  
 
Japan would like to ask for further clarifi cation on this issue:  
 
a. Could Indonesia provide some examples as to how the "domestic horticultural 
production " is considered?  
b. Could Indonesia make sure that a period in which no import is allowed is not set 
up any more?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia  understand s the questions raised are related to DSB recommendations on Indonesia's 
cases in the DSB. As follow up, Indonesia is in the internal process to bring measures related to the 
disputes into conformity with the DSB recommendations, including the p eriod of importation.  
 
Follow -up: Japan looked forward to the results of the consultation . The Republic of Korea encouraged 
Indonesia to lift the restrictions. The Philippines noted that its exports of horticultural products to 
Indonesia had been severely  affected by the imposition multiple  restrictive  import measures  
since 2013 and recommended that  Indonesia bring the measures into compliance with WTO rules.    
 
1.19  Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88035)  
New Zealand refers to  its question asked at the 87th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS 
ID 87089) regarding Indonesia 's dairy import regime. New Zealand is pleased to note that 
Regulation 26/2106 has been amended by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture in the 
recently released  Regulations 30/2018 and 33/2018. W e note in particular 
Regulation  30/2018 Articles 23 and 24 have been reworded. However, the language is 
now very vague.  
  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 32 - 
 
  a. Can Indonesia clarify that importers do not need to have partnership plans 
anymore and are no long er obliged to own milk processing facilities?  
b. We are pleased to see that Article 34 (3) has been deleted. Can Indonesia confirm 
that, under the new regulations, importers who do not submit partnership plans 
will still receive the full volume they request when applying for import 
recommendations (RIPHs) from the Ministry of Agriculture, as long as they fulfil 
all other relevant obligations?  
c. Regulation 33/2018 deletes Article 44 which contained all of the penalties for 
violation of the regulation. Can Indon esia clarify how the regulations are 
enforced if this is the case?  
d. In response to question AG IMS 87089  in which Indonesia stated "Partnership 
agreement is one of factors to be considered by the Director General of Livestock 
and Animal Health in issuing i mport recommendations ", could Indonesia specify 
what other factors are being considered by Ministry of Agriculture officials when 
issuing import recommendations?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia  wishes to thank the delegation of New Zealand for their questi ons. Indonesia is  pleased 
to inform the C ommittee that the regulations at issue has been recently amended by Ministry 
Agriculture Regulations No. 30/2018 and 33/2018.  
 
a. Based on latest regulations, importers are no longer required to have partnership plans  
and own milk processing facilities.  
b. The importers will receive full volume of milk they request to import when applying for 
import recommendations (RIPHs) from the Ministry of Agriculture, provided the 
applications fulfil all other relevant requirements.   
c. Indonesia  would like to reiterate that the implementations of the partnership is voluntary 
in nature.  In issuing import recommendation, the Director General of Livestock and Animal 
Health will consider factors related to technical and administration requ irements.  
d. Technical requirements mean documents related to food safety and halal r equirements 
fulfilment. A dministration requirements mean importation documents such as certificate 
of company establishment, Tax Payer Identification Numbe r, Identity Import  Number, etc.   
Follow -up: The European Union, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States registered interest  
in this issue. New Zealand encouraged Indonesia to share more detailed information on the 
partnership requirement and to provide further clarit y on the behavioural changes to the industry 
that Indonesia was intending to achieve through this regulation as well as on the enforcement 
mechanism that would be used.  
 
1.19.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88071)  
In July 2017, Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) issued Regulation 
26/PERMENTAN/PK.450/7/2017 ( "MOA 26/2017 ") concerning Milk Supply and 
Circulation. Indonesia included updates to MOA 26/2017 through the publication of MOA 
30/2018 on 20 July 2018 and MOA 33/2018 on 30 July 2 018. 
  
The United States appreciates Indonesia 's continuing revisions to MOA 26/2017 in its 
efforts to address trade concerns raised with the original measure. The United States 
remains concerned that Indonesian importers and domestic processors are still being told 
to obtain dairy partnerships with domestic producers in order to receive dairy import 
recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture.  The United States questions how 
meaningful the amendments to MOA  26/2017 really are if the Ministry of Agricu lture is 
continuing to instruct importers and domestic processors to enter into partnerships. As G/AG/W/187  
 
- 33 - 
 
  no partnership requirements now exist in the text of the Regulations, these requirements 
should not be enforced.  
  
a. Can Indonesia please provide more direct ass urance that import license quotas 
will not be tied with local dairy partnerships?  
Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) has stated that they will continue to 
"encourage " dairy processors to form partnerships to buy local milk and invest in dairy 
produ ction. Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture reports that 88 dairy product importers 
and 30 domestic processors have already submitted partnership plans.   
  
b. Can Indonesia ensure that companies which did not submit partnership plans 
will not be impacted when Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture decides whether 
to issue import recommendations?  
c. Does Indonesia plan to enforce the statement that the Ministry of Agriculture 
would "encourage " dairy processors to purchase milk through local dairy 
partnerships?  
d. The Uni ted States further requests Indonesia refrain from issuing further 
regulations requiring any form of domestic partnerships, and instead engage 
with its dairy trading partners in capacity building discussions or program mes if 
necessary to attain Indonesia 's milk production objectives.   
e. The United States welcomes Indonesia 's willingness to participate in capacity 
building program mes and we request that Indonesia please inform the United 
States whether we can advance these program mes. The United States looks 
forward to the continued collaboration with Indonesia.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Based on second revision of this regulat ion, Indonesia wishes to inform the Committee that import 
license quotas will not be tied with local dairy partnerships. On the relationship  between the 
partnership plan and import recommendation, based on Article 34 Verse (3), Indonesia would like 
to ensure that partnership requirement will not be the consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture in 
issuing recommendations. Indonesia will not enforce partnership requirement any more. However, 
Indonesia encourages partnership between the smallholder farmers and dairy processors if they so 
wish. On the issue of capacity building, Indonesia appreciates the capacity building discussions and 
program mes offered by the US and will proceed this offer to the Ministry of Agriculture.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union flagged  interest in this question. Korea registered systemic concern 
with Indonesia's import system of dairy product s.  
 
1.20  Indonesia's soybean imports  
1.20.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88097)  
The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture is actively considering a draft regulation that would 
favor domestically produced soybeans and restrict imported product. The draft regulation 
would rest rict imports to when domestic supply is deemed insufficient, requires all 
imports be conducted by a state -owned enterprise, and prohibits import one month prior 
to and after the domestic harvest period.  In response to questions about this draft 
regulation by the United States at 87th COA, Indonesia said that "Currently the draft 
regulation is still under careful consideration by the relevant authorities in Jakarta. 
Consistency with WTO rules is one of the main considerations in this process. " (AG-IMS 
ID 87019). 
 
a. Please provide an update on the status of this draft regulation.  
b. Is the Ministry of Agriculture still considering this draft regulation or any part 
thereof?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 34 - 
 
  The United States also understands that Indonesia is considering raising tariffs on 
soybeans from its current applied rate and instituting a genetically engineered labelling 
requirement on bulk soybeans. Please provide an update on these potential changes as 
well.  
  
c. What steps is Indonesia taking to ensure that any regulation impacting imports 
of soybeans is consistent with its WTO commitments?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia would like to refer to its statement in the previous C ommittee meeting that the draft 
regulation is still currently under careful consideration by relevant authorities i n Jaka rta. Consistency 
with WTO  rules is one of the main considerations in this process . 
 
Follow -up: Canada , as an exporter of soybean to Indonesia, noted  interest  in this topic.   
 
1.21  Korea's rice imports  
1.21.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 88045)  
Please provide an update on the rectification and modification of Korea's Schedule for rice 
products and whether there has been progress with regard to Korea's consultations with 
concerned Members.  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
The Republic of Korea has held bi lateral meet ings with the five M embers which hold reservation with 
the rectification and modification of Korea's Schedule for rice since 2 015 and the process is still 
ongoing. The Republic of Korea will continue  consultation meeting s with the concerned Members in 
the coming month this year. The Republic of Korea and the capital of Thailand are discussing  
arrangement s of bilateral meeting in November or December.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and Thailand looked forward to further bilateral discussion s with the Republic 
of Korea.  
 
1.22  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.22.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88104)  
Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 87094:  
 
In 2013 Mongolia established a quota regime for importation of certain agricultural 
products, including wheat flour and m ilk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture 
and Light Industry of Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour. In May 
2018 Mongolia had put in place a quota for import of wheat flour for the rest of 2018 year. 
The Ministry of Food, Ag riculture and Light Industry of Mongolia published a notice for 
importers to submit the documents for allocation of quota volume only in July 2018. 
Despite of the fact that the close date for documents submission for importers was 
19 July 2018, at the moment the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia still has not allocated the quota volume among the importers of wheat flour. As 
a result, importers could not import within the quota volume; and, in fact, the import ban 
on wheat flour is still in force.  
  
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for delay in opening the quota for wheat 
flour?   
b. When Mongolia is going to allocate the quota volume among importers of wheat 
flour?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 35 - 
 
  c. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions,  both quotas and import 
prohibitions, are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Answer by Mongolia  
 
Since the previous meeting of the Committee on Agricultu re, the two sides continued exchange of 
neces sary information on the progress of the issue concerned. Mongolia  appreciate s Russia 's 
involvement in this exercise. Mongolia informed  Members earlier that certain import restrictions on 
agricultural products were introduced in 2016 in accordance with the Laws on Food and Food 
Security. Following the concern raised by the Russian Federation in February this year, the National 
Council on Food Security met on 23 April and made a recommendation to abolish import prohibitions 
on wheat flour and milk. The recomm endation of the Council and the decision of the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Light Industry to abolish import prohi bitions were communicated to Mongolia's  
Russian colleagues during the bilateral meeting held on 25 April in Mongolia. Based on bilateral  
consultations, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia introduced a quota 
system on the importation of wheat flour in May. Accordingly, the decision and the invitation for bids 
were publicly announced; the applications for the imp orts of wheat flour for the rest of the year were 
received in July. The quota was intended to be allocated for the 4th quarter of this year in accordance 
with respective rules and the bids submitted. Mongolia wishes to inform the Members that it 
continues working internally and externally with a view to finding a solution to the issue. Mongolia 
wishes to express the willingness to continue the bilateral discussions wit h the delegation of the 
Russian  Federation.  
 
Follow -up: The Russian Federation confirmed its involvement in resolving  this issue and noted that  
it was expected that  Mongolia's wheat  market would  be open to  Russia  earlier than  the fourth  quarter  
of this year . Australia  support ed the concern raised by the Russian Federation in relation to import  
quotas and  import  prohibitions  and r emind ed Members unjustified  quotas  were not legal under the 
WTO rules. Australia called on Members  to implement their trade policies in a transparent manner 
in line with WTO rules. Canada, as a significant  exporter  of wheat, expressed c ommercial interest  in 
measures restricting wheat trade and registered systemic interest in the issue of unjustified 
quantitative restrictions  which were not consistent with WTO  rules.  
 
1.23  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.23.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 88033) , Brazil (AG -IMS ID 88125) and 
Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 88124)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to Pakistan during t he June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87081) regarding the sugar freight support provided by Pakistan, Australia 
has a series  of follow -up questions:  
 
a. Australia requests Pakistan confirm that the freight support for the 2017/18 
crushing season has now ceased, and if so, what exact date did the freight 
support end?  
b. Australia requests Pakistan confirm the volume of sugar that rece ived the freight 
support, and provide a dollar amount for the freight support provided under the 
measure.  
c. Australia notes that the USDA Foreig n Agricultural Service report ( Sugar: World 
Markets and Trade ) May 2018 states that 'Exports are forecast at zero and stocks 
are projected to balloon to 4.7 million metric ton nes, as no export subsidies for 
2018/19 have been announced ' 
i. Can Pakistan explain what measures it may be considering to address the 
stockpile of sugar?  
ii. Is Pakistan considering reinstituting expo rt subsidies in the form of freight 
support as provided in 2017/18?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Australia notes that Pakistan at the provincial level provides market price support for 
sugar cane through minimum support prices (MPS) set by the provincial governments of 
Punjab (180 Rs.  per 40 kg in 2017/18), Sindh (182 Rs. per 40 kg in 2017/18), and Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) (180 Rs. per 40 kg in 2017/18). The MPS for sugarcane are long 
running measures, which we note have increased 200% during the period from 2007/08 
to 2015 -16. 
 
d. Can Pakistan explain why it has not notified any eligible production for sugar 
cane in its domestic support notifications from 1995/96 to 2011/12?  
e. Can Pakistan explain why it did not notify the applied administered price for 
sugar cane in 2000/01 and in subseq uent domestic support notifications?  
f. Can Pakistan provide the value and volume of sugar cane production in each 
province in Pakistan?  
g. Can Pakistan explain why the minimum support prices have i ncreased so 
significantly since  2007/08 (e.g. from 60 Rs. per 40  kg in 2007/08 to 180 Rs. per 
40 kg in 2017 -18 in the Province of Punjab)?  
h. Has Pakistan considered that the high level of MPS may be leading to 
overproduction resulting in the need to export subsidies in the form of freight 
support?  
i. Has Pakistan considered  removing the MPS for sugar cane and moving to less 
trade and production distorting forms of domestic support?  
Australia would be grateful if Pakistan could inform the Committee when it was planning 
to submit domestic support notifications for marketing ye ars 2012/13 and subsequent 
years, and whether the market price support for sugar cane will be included.  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
a. Freight support was available till July 2018  
b. Freight support was available on export of 2 MMT. So far USD  49.1 million has been 
disbursed on the said account.  
c. Presently, there is no proposal to grant freight support on export of sugar. However, sugar 
may be exported by the private sector in line with market prices  
d. to i. The minimum price is an indicative fair price announced for sug ar cane by the 
provincial governments only to protect livelihood concerns of the poor and small farmers 
in order to avoid the exploitation by the sugar cane millers. However, Government neither 
make any procurement nor intervene financially to offset sales  below the minimum price. 
This measure does not constitute "domestic support " for the reasons outlined above. 
Hence it is not required to be notified. The data for value and volume of sugar cane 
production in each province is being compiled and will be pro vided to the committee as 
and when received from the capital.  
Ministry of National Food Security and Research is preparing Domestic Support 
notifications in collaboration with the provinces, which involve a lot of coordination among 
all stakeholders and i s time consuming. The DS notifications will be submitted as and when 
received from the capital.  
 
Follow -up: Australia reiterated its deep concern regarding the  low global sugar prices . In Australia's 
view,  as in the case of  India, export subsidies  and dom estic support provided  by Pakistan had  
contribute d to low and declining  prices  in sugar . Australia would examine the consistency  of 
Pakistan 's measures with WTO obligations and  looked forward to Pakistan's notifications. Brazil  
stressed the importance of including the  relevant details of the programme in Pakistan's  notification  
and request ed Pakistan  to reflect on the impact of its current policies to the sugar market and G/AG/W/187  
 
- 37 - 
 
  changed the direction of the policies . El Salvador and the Europea n Union echoed the concern 
expressed by the Members raising the question. Canada, as a member of the Global Sugar Alliance, 
encouraged Members  to move towards market -oriented trade policies for sugar.  
 
1.24  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.24.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88072)  
In response to AG IMS ID 87021, Pakistan confirmed that the quantity of wheat exported 
under its export subsidy programme to date was 1.625 million tonnes out of 2.0 million 
metric tonnes authorized by the government of Pakistan at an export subsidy price of up 
to USD 159 per metric ton ne. Also, Pakistan responded that the support provided is "in 
full compliance of Article 9.4 read with 9.1  (d) & (e) of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) ", 
and copies of the legislation and/or  cabinet decision(s) for making this export subsidy 
available will be made available in course of time.  
 
a. Please provide an update on the quantity of wheat that has been exported under 
this scheme, and whether or not the programme has been extended for the next 
marketing year.  
b. Please provide additional details on the criteria for eligibility to receive the 
payment.  
c. Please explain how this subsidy was calculated g iven the constraints of 
Article  9.1 (d) and (e).  Please include estimates for handling, upgrading , internal 
and international transport, and any other relevant costs used to calculate the 
USD159/MT subsidy.  
d. As requested in June, please provide an update on the availability to this 
Committee of the legislation and/or cabinet decision(s) for this measure, as well 
as an update on the Pakistan 's export subsidy notifications, including Supporting 
Table DS:2.  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
a. Out of total allocated  quantity of 2 Million MT, 1.705 Million MT of wheat/wheat products 
have been exported. It was a temporary measure and presently, there is no proposal to 
grant freight support on export of wheat for the next marketing year.  
b. The eligibility criteria to rec eive the freight & marketing  support is as follows : 
i. 70% of the aforesaid  quantity (for each province) are  allowed to be exported through 
sea route with the freight & marketing support of US D 159/- per ton ne;  
ii. whereas remaining 30% export was allowed throu gh land route with the freight and  
marketing support of US D 120/- per ton ne;  
iii. The freight & marketing support was to be equally shared by the Federal Government 
and the respective Provincial Governments.  
iv. Wheat and wheat products were allowed to be exported  before 30 June 2018.  
c. The freight and marketing support was calculated keeping in view the marketing exports 
costs, and the associated costs of transport and infrastructural inefficiencies. Large 
distances between the farms and the ports and the associate d freight costs were also 
considered. The necessary processing and upgrading costs were also included.  
d. All documents are available on the website of the Ministry of National Food Security & 
Research. ( http://www.mn fsr.gov.pk/ ). 
 
Follow -up: The European Union noted concern with policies that could form potential export 
subsid ies. Australia echoed the concern and underlined the importance of ensuring consistency of G/AG/W/187  
 
- 38 - 
 
  export subsidies with the Agreement on Agriculture , particularly in the case of Article  9.4 subsidies. 
Canada as a significant exporter of wheat flagged interest  in this topic.  
 
1.25  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.25.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88032)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions  at the June 2018 CoA 
regarding the 30  June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General 
Council's waiver decision of 24  July 2014 (WT/L/932).  
 
Australia notes that a bill that amends the Agricultural Tariffication Act (aims to replace 
quantitative restriction on rice with tariffs), has been approved in the House of 
Representatives, but it is still pending in the Senate. President Duterte has certified as 
urgent the passage of the bill during his third State of the Nation Address on 23 July  2018. 
What is the expected timeline for the passage of this bill?  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 
In the previous Committee meeting, the Philippines informed WTO Members that its House of 
Representatives (or the Lower Chamber) already approved its version of the rice tariffication 
legislation.  In the Philippine Senate (or the Upper Chamber), its version of the tariffication bill is still 
being deliberated.   
 
The Philippines expects to complete the enactment of a rice tariffication law by the end of the year.  
 
1.26  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88073)  
Question 1  
 
In response to AG IMS ID 87022 the Russia n Federation  stated "The possibility of the 
extension the duration of this support will be conside red depending on the results of its 
efficiency and domestic market conditions ".  
  
a. Please indicate whether Decree No.1595 has been extended and provide an 
update on usage to date.  
The Russia n Federation  also stated that "Grain farmers are not specified by Decree № 
1595 as the recipients and (or) direct beneficiaries of this subsidy and that is mainly a 
systematic measure for the domestic agricultural market. Therefore, the implementation 
of this Decree does not have any substantial effect on the agricultura l production ".  
  
b. Please clarify and elaborate further as to how Decree No.1595 does not benefit 
grain farmers and traders when the text of the decree states that it is to "reduced 
grain transportation rates " (i.e., the eligible products for the subsidy ar e wheat, 
corn and barley?  
Question 2  
 
The United States would like to reiterate the following question, which has not been 
answered:   
  
c. Can the Russian Federation please explain how the Russia n Federation  monitors 
the international grains market to determi ne the trade distorting effects of this 
measure and whether it is displacing or impeding the exports of other Members?   
d. Please describe how the list of territories in Annex 2 of Decree 1595 was 
compiled and what characteristics they share beyond the presen ce of grain 
export facilities as final destination.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Federation  
 
The Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation is considering the possibility of extending the 
period for granting state support in accordance with Decree N°1595. The terms of the extension will 
be disclosed as the relevant decision is taking by the government of the Russian Federation. The 
amount of subsidies transferred to the Russian railways during the period January -June 2018 was 
equal to 1 billion 721 million roub les which respectively accounted for 86% of the total budget. To 
date the sum of funding allocated is less than 278 million roubles.  
 
The financial support provided under this Decree is not among the measures of industrial nature 
that directly affect volu mes of agricultural production in the territories of the selected subjects of 
the Russian Federation. The creation of any advantage is impossible due to the principle of unity in 
the national market of agriculture products, raw materials and food and the f ederal law on the 
development of agriculture ensures equal conditions for competition in this market. Hence this 
support is one of the systemic state measures which exists in certain regions for regulating the 
operation of market forces and competition to overcome the disparity between supply and demand 
in domestic grain market.  
 
Interregional price equalization is also carried out through distribution of the produced grain across 
the territory of the Russian Federation and through the withdrawal of surplu s grain by processing 
and selling it as part of a high value -added product. Accordingly, the presence of transport and 
logistic hubs on their territory and the availability of developed infrastructure for grain processing 
facility were considered when dete rmining the list of subjects as points of grain delivery by rail. With 
the coordinated operation of all modes of transport, the presence of warehouse, terminal 
infrastructure, cargo insurances system and the information support, a significant increase in 
liquidity of grain and its processed products within the territory of the Russian Federation is achieved.  
 
The Russian would like to emphasize that this support is not connected with export of agricultural 
products. In this regard the analysis of the inter national grain market in the context of Russian 
exports seems groundless for assessing state support.  At the same time the analysis of the situation 
on the domestic Russian grain market allows Members to note the positive effects of foreign trade. 
This als o applies to trade and production and processing of agriculture raw materials.  
 
Follow -up: Supported by the European Union,  Ukraine sought more detailed information regarding 
the objective of the policy and the conditions under which the policy was impl emented so as to 
determine whether export subsidies had been provided.  Ukraine also drew  the Russian Federation's  
attention to its questions raised at the 87th Committee meeting where no responses  had been 
provided . As a significant exporter of grain , Canada noted interest in potential distorting  effects of 
transport subsidies  on global wheat markets. Mongolia  registered interest in the development and 
resolution of this issue as the Russia n Federation  was the  largest importer following China of 
Mongo lia's agricultural products  including wheat, wheat flour, milk and milk products .  
 
1.27  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88074)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of poultry 
products in September 2017.  In June 2018, Suriname informed the WTO that it seeks to 
increase its bindings under Article XXIV  (6) to conform with the CARICOM CET. The new 
duty of 40% is twice the rate of Suriname 's 20% bound rate for poultry products.  The 
United States has asked Suriname to start Article XXVIII talks to discuss compensation 
for withdrawing a trade concession but Suriname has not responded to U.S. requests.  
 
a. Please explain how Suriname is in compliance with its WTO obligations by raising 
the tariff on imports of poultry products beyond its bound rate?  
b. Please explain if and when Suriname will initiate Article XXVIII negotiations to 
adjust its bound rate.  
c. Will Suriname consider refraining from applying the above -bound 40% duty rate 
until the A rticle  XXVIII process has concluded?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Answer by Suriname  
 
Suriname undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.28  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.28.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 88002)  
Ukraine notes that during the numerous Committee meetings in 2016 –2018 Members 
raised questions on Thailand 's import permits for feed wheat. It is obvious that this policy 
has had serious impact on international grain exporters. Thailand explained that its 
measures to limit imports of feed wheat were introduced t emporarily with the aim to 
stabilize the domestic price of maize. At the same time, Thailand informed that it 
conducted internal consultations to find a suitable solution to that issue.  
 
a. Could Thailand please provide information on the latest developments  in the 
above -mentioned internal consultations?  
b. Please, elaborate on outcomes of the import restrictive measures taken and 
future policy in the grain sector.  
Answer by Thailand  
 
The import permit for feed wheat is a temporary measure which was put in pla ce to relieve the 
situation of corn price depression in order to stabilize domestic price of corns.  
 
The relevant agencies are still in active consultations regarding the me asure, including considering 
review ing the possibility of applying appropriate and updated tariffs. Thailand will provide Members 
with further updates in the future.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and Ukraine looked forward to Thailand's confirmation that this 
measure had been removed.  
 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  
AG-IMS ID 88001: Question by Norway - Transparency issues  
In the June CoA meeting, Canada  informed the committe e about the enter into force of 
the reall ocation  of 800 tonnes of cheese to the European  Union, n egotiated as a part of 
the CETA  agreement.  
  
Can Canada  inform the Committee on Agriculture with regard to the imports of cheese 
from each of the t hirteen new member S tates in the European Union, in e ach of the three 
years 2014 -2016?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
The following table shows the imports of cheese from each of the t hirteen most recent new 
member  States of the European Union, in each of the three years 2014 –2016. Please note that these 
figures were not part of the considerations for the transfer of 800,000 kilograms of Canada's 
20,411,866  kilogram mes WTO TRQ for cheese to the European Union to maintain the relative shares 
of supply due to new EU m ember State accessions.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 41 - 
 
   Import of Cheese (KG)  
 2014  2015  2016  
Poland   61,411   84,910   115,293  
Lithuania   6,290   13,833   5 
Croatia   -  -  - 
Bulgaria   182,468   168,543   196,961  
Estonia   -  -  1 
Cyprus   19,300   38,600   48,250  
Czech Republic   -  -  - 
Hungary   -  -  - 
Latvia   -  -  - 
Malta   -  -  - 
Slovakia   -  -  - 
Slovenia   -  -  - 
Romania   -  -  - 
Total   269,469   305,886   360,510  
Source:  Statistics Canada . 
HS Codes:  040610; 040620; 040630; 040640; 040690 . 
  
Follow -up: Norway noted that the import statistics provided by Canada were not surprising as it had 
known previously  from Statistics Canada that Canada imported an average of 250 -300 tonn es of 
cheese each year from the 13 new EU member states joined  after 2004 . Norway  reiterated its 
concern regarding the 800 tonnes that woul d be reallocated which was significantly higher than the 
average imports. Canada clarified that the data from t he years  for which Norway  had requested 
were not part of consideration for the transfer of 800 tonnes. Switzerland  flagged  interest in the 
subject. New Zealand noted  its general  interest  in the subject of how a WTO TRQ had  been 
reallocated further  to an agreement reached under preferential terms.  
 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments  (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 8 8027: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
In its notification, Ecuador indicates that no imports occurred under its 14 tariff -rate 
quotas on the basis that the applied MFN rate was below the bound in -quota rate or that 
imports occurred under p referential agreements or that no imports were recorded at all 
without specifying any quotas in particular.   
 
a. Could Ecuador clarify if these quotas effectively have been opened in each of the 
years reported?   
b. Could Ecuador also clarify:  
i. for which quotas t he applied rate was lower than the quota in -quota rate ;  
ii. which quotas were  subject to bilateral agreement;   
iii. for which quotas no import was recorded.  
The EU also notes that the most recent notification on quota manage ment dates back from 
year 2000. Could Ecuador confirm that no changes have occurred since in the 
management of Ecuador's quotas?  
 
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: Australia supported the question  and noted transparency issues like this one needed to 
be considered  in this Committee  to ensure that TRQs were  utilized . The Bali TRQ  underfil l mechanism 
and reallocation could  be considered.   G/AG/W/187  
 
- 42 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 88099: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Ecuador registers no imports coming under TRQ commitments. The United States is the 
holder of first -negotiator rights for these quotas and requests that Ecuador implement a 
fair and transparent mechanism to adjudicate these quotas retroactively, at least back 
to 2014.  
  
Why h as Ecuador not implemented a quota administration system to allocate quotas to 
interested parties?  
 
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provi de a response at a later stage.  
 
2.2.2   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/62, G/AG/N/GTM/63)  
AG-IMS ID 88026: Question by European  Union - Transparency issues  
Guatemala indicates that most tariff -rate quotas are not opened because of better market 
access offered. Still, the number of TRQs opened in a given year varies from year to year.   
 
Could Guatemala explain what conditions in ma rket access trigger the opening or not of 
a quota or which is the mechanism for opening a quota?  
 
Answer by Guatemala  
 
Guatemala  believe s that one of the reasons for the lack of demand for opening a quota is the free 
trade agreements. The bilateral tariff quotas and tariff preferences under Article XXIV of the GATT 
1994 provide better treatment for imports than the treatment they would rece ive under the 
WTO Agreements. Given the small size of the Guatemalan market, it is possible that imports under 
bilateral preferential agreements are able to meet the demand, which would account for the lack of 
requests for the opening of WTO quotas.  
 
The m echanism for triggering a tariff quota in Guatemala is as follows:  
 
The interested party must apply to the Ministry of the Economy for the opening of a tariff quota. A 
Ministerial Decision is drawn up and published on an annual basis to validate the Resolu tion of the 
Council of Ministers for Economic Integration (COMIECO) on quotas for each year.  
 
2.2.3   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/42)  
AG-IMS ID 88025: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Malaysia's notification concerning imports under tariff quo tas (Table 
MA:2) for Calendar Year 2016.  
  
a. Can Malaysia explain the reasons for the significant under fill for some tariff 
quotas opened during the 2016 Calendar year?  
i. For each product, can Malaysia explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  
b. Given that six of the nine tariff quotas opened in 2016 did not reach a fill rate of 
two per cent, did Malaysia give consider moving to a tariff -only regime for those 
products?  
c. Can Malaysia explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled 
tariff quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ 
Administration?  
Answer by Malaysia  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 43 - 
 
   
a. The in -quota quantities reflect t he domestic demand for the respective products and the 
decision to import remains entirely on business decisions. In addition, separate quotas are 
also offered under bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements which Malaysia has 
signed with partner co untry (ies).  
b. At present, Malaysia is not considering to phase out the tariff quotas for these products.  
c. Malaysia is currently examining the matter to consider the way forward to increase the 
utilization of the under filled tariff quotas.  
2.2.4   Norway (G/AG/N/ NOR/97)  
AG-IMS ID 88057: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
a. Can Norway explain the reasons for the sudden dr op in the quota fill rate, 
from  98% in 2015 and 91% in 2016 to 14% in 2017, for its sheep and goat meat 
quota NORQ009?  
b. Can Norway explain the decline in its quota fill rate over the past three years 
(2015 : 91%; 2016 : 80%; 2017 : 63%) for its sheep and goat meat quota 
NORQ225?  
c. Can Norway explain the reasons for the consistently large under fill of its butter 
quota (NORQ229) over the past three  years (2015 : 59%; 2016 : 63%; 
2017:  45%)?  
Answer by Norway  
 
a. In general, the quota fill rates depend on fluctuations in consumer demand, domestic 
prices and production. The past three years, Norway has had a difficult situation 
concerning the market balanc e for sheep meat. Since 2015 the production of sheep meat 
in Norway has increased sharply and today we have a surplus of more than 10 %. As a 
result,  the domestic prices have decreased. Surplus in the production and lower prises has 
resulted in the drop in the quota fill rate from 2015 to 2017.  
b. The reason for the decline in the quota fill rate for quota NORQ225 of sheep and goat meat 
is the same as for quota NORQ009 as explained under question 1.  
c. The milk market in Norway has also been under pressure the pas t years. The imports of 
cheese are increasing and Norway has to phase out its use of exports subsidies by the end 
of 2020. As a result, Norway has  more milk for domestic consumption and production of 
butter in Norway. Based on the price level and preferenc es from Norwegian consumers, 
there has been limited interest among importers for importing butter.  
2.2.5   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/91)  
AG-IMS ID 88024: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes South Africa's notification concerning imports und er tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) for Calendar Year 2016, in particular the full utilisation of a sizable number 
of tariff quotas.  
  
a. Can South Africa explain the reasons for the under fill for some tariff quotas 
notified for calendar year 2016?  
i. For each product, can South Africa explain whether the under fill was due to 
market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the products, or 
restrictive tariff quota administration?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Australia  would be particularly interested in understanding the less than 10% 
fill rates listed for Milk Powder, Butter, Cheese, Eggs, Potatoes, Dried Fruit, 
Barley and Malt Extracts.  
b. Can South Africa explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled 
tariff quotas, as per the objective of the rev iew of the Bal i Decision on 
TRQ Administration?  
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa thanks Australia for the interest in the South African market access commitments and 
would like to respond as follows:  
  
a. The reason for the under fill of some of the TRQs relate to mark et conditions and the 
prevailing tariffs. SPS measures or tariff rate quota administration methods do not play a 
role. In accordance with South Africa 's commitments, the in -quota tariff rate for all the 
TRQs is fixed at 20% of the bound rate, in many cases , this is at, or above the MFN tariff 
and importers opt to not make use of the permits that have been issued.  
b. Information per product will be provided as requested:  
Milk Powder  
  
The MFN tariff for milk powder (HS 0402) is 450c/kg. This MFN tariff remained  unchanged since the 
late 1990s and prices, in South African Rand, have increased consistently. In accordance with  South 
Africa's calculations, the in -quota tariff rate is at, or above, the MFN tariff and importers have not 
made use of the permits that hav e been issued. Imports, however, do take place. The administration 
of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant import permits.  
  
Butter  
 
The MFN tariff for butter (HS 0405) is 500c/kg with a maximum of 79% and, for dairy spreads with 
a fat content between 39% and 75%, the maximum MFN tariff is 37%. This is due to a difference in 
the bound rate of the mentioned dairy spreads. This MFN tariff remained unchanged since the late 
1990s and prices for these products, in South African Rand, have  increased consistently. In 
accordance with our calculations, the in -quota tariff rate is at, or above, the MFN tariff and importers 
have not made use of the permits that have been issued. Imports, however, do take place. The 
administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant import permits. These 
permits are issued on a half yearly basis to provide for a better utilization.  
  
Cheese  
 
The MFN tariff for cheese (HS 0406) is 500c/kg with a maximum of 95%. This MFN tariff  remained 
unchanged since the late 1990s and prices for cheese, in South African Rand, have increased 
consistently. In accordance with  South Africa's  calculations, the in -quota tariff rate is at, or above, 
the MFN tariff and importers have not made use of the permits  that have been issued. Imports, 
however, do take place. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of 
relevant import permits. These permits are issued on a half yearly basis to provide for a better 
utilization.  
  
Eggs 
 
This TR Q is applied across two HS codes at the 4 -digit level, HS 0407 and HS 0408. For HS 0407, 
the MFN tariff is at zero and no permits for TRQ imports are issued. Some imports do take place. 
For HS 0408, permits are issued at a quarterly basis. The MFN tariff f or the product under HS 0408 
is at 19% and imports do take place. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the 
utilization of relevant import permits.  
  
Potatoes  
 
The MFN tariff for potatoes (HS 0701) is 0.44c/kg. The in -quota tariff rate is above the MFN tariff  by 
some distance and permits are not issued. Imports, however, do take place.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 45 - 
 
    
Dried Fruit  
 
The MFN rate for products under this heading (HS 0813) is 10%. The in -quota tariff varies slightly 
in accordance with the product, however, it  is close or just below the MFN tariff. Permits are issued 
on a half yearly basis. The administration of TRQs is not a limiting factor in the utilization of relevant 
import permits.  
  
Barley  
 
The MFN tariff for barley (HS 1003) is zero. Permits are not issued and some imports do take place.  
  
Malt Extracts  
 
Products under this TRQ fall under the HS code 1901. With one exception, the MFN tariff for the 
products under the 1901 is at 20%. The in -quota tariff for is  either at  or just below the MFN tariff. 
Products for with the TRQ permits are utilized fall within tariff heading 1901.10. Permits are issued 
on a quarterly basis and are not the reason for the low utilization. Imports do take place.  
  
To improve its quota utilization rate, South Africa moved towa rds issuing permits on a more regular 
basis to ensure un -used permits can be reallocated. This has improved the utilization rate for some 
products. Mostly, South African tariffs are fairly low and importers elect to not make use of the 
market access permit s if the margin of preference is low.  
Follow -up: Australia and the European Union commended the efforts  made by South Africa to explain 
the TRQ underfill and  encourage d other Members to take the same approach.   
 
2.3  Special Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/228)  
AG-IMS ID 88023: Question by Australia - Other implementation issues  
Australia welcomes Japan's notification under Article 5 of the Agreement concerning a 
volume -based safeguard on milk and cream, not concentrated.  
 
a. Australia notes J apan may have followed the requirements under Article 5 to 
trigger the safeguard, but would like to ask Japan if it believes it is credible and 
within the spirit of an open and rules based system to be triggering a safeguard 
that will be applicable for nin e months based on only 28 tonnes of imports?  
b. While the special safeguard under Article 5 allows for automatic triggering, 
based on the agreed methodology, has Japan considered if it is genuinely 
necessary to trigger a safeguard, taking into account econom ic and market 
circumstances?  and  
c. Does Japan ever review or reconsider whether it needs to apply the safeguard 
for such a lengthy period?  
Answer by Japan  
 
In accordance with the Agreement on Agriculture, Japan has triggered volume -based SSG on milk 
and cre am, not concentrated, for stabilizing domestic milk  supply and demand. Japan consider s the 
imported goods concerned as competitive in the domestic market in terms of price and quality. 
Volume -based SSG on milk and cream, not concentrated, has been triggere d eight times in the pa st 
(excluding this time), and Japan  consider s these measures have worked properly in alleviating  surge 
of imports. Japan expects to see the same effect this time as was produced by this action in the 
past. 
 
Follow -up: New Zealand and  the European Union shared the concern expressed by Australia . Japan 
noted that the volume of the trigger did  indicate that there could be potential impact on its domestic 
market  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 46 - 
 
   
2.3.2   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  
AG-IMS ID 88126: Question by Indonesia - Transparency issues  
"Through document G/AG/N/PHL/53, the Philippines n otified the invocation of 
Price -based Special Safeguard (SSG) on several SSG -Eligible Agricultural Products inte r-
alia, Coffee Products under 6 -digit HS Codes 2101.11.10, 2101.11.90, 210 1.12.10, 
2101.12.90. Indonesia would like to seek further clarifications from the Philippines 
regarding this matter:  
 
a. Would the Philippines provide clarification on the differences between the 
HS Codes stated in its Schedule of Concession (Schedule LXXV), up -front 
notification (G/AG/N/PHL/27) and ad -hoc notification?  
b. Why there is no reference price as for the year of 1987 and 1988?  
c. According to Art. 5.7 AoA, "Members undertake, as far as practica ble, not to take 
recourse to the provisions of subparagraph 1(b) where the volume of imports of 
the p roducts concerned are declining ". Have the Philippines consider the imports 
volume of the above -mentioned products before undertook this measure? It will 
be appreciated if the Philippines could provide us with t he imports volume for 
the past three  years.  
d. Indonesia would also like to have more informations on the TRQ administration 
applied to these products. Having substantial interests in supplying these 
agriculture product categories, Indonesia would like to express its deep regret 
on the imposition of t his measure by the Philippines".  
Answer by Philippines  
 
a. The discrepancies in the tariff nomenclatures are directly attributable to the changes and 
updates o f the tariff nomenclatures of the subject products undertaken by/in the WTO 
since the Uruguay Round.  For clarity, the following compatibility and congruence table is 
provided:  
 
b. There was neither any commercial importation in 1987 nor in 1998 of the concerned 
products; hence, the mathematical calculation for arriv ing at the trigger price of 
PhP 203.74 for these products only covered  the import and price data in 1986.   
In addition, the Special Safeguard Provisions (SSG) under Article 5.1(b) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture does not provide for any alternative reference period for calculating trigger 
prices of the subject products other  than the period 1986 -1988.  
Moreover, it will be noted that the trigger price of PhP  203.74 was notified to the WTO 
dated 23 September 2002 under G/AG/N/PHL/27, and the Philippines did not receive any HS 1996 
(2001 
version)  AHTN 2012  DESCRIPTION (AHTN 2012)  AHTN 2017  
2101.11 20  2101.11.10B  Instant coffee (out -quota)  2101.11.10B  
2101.11 20  2101.11.90B  Other extracts, essences and concentrates of coffee 
(out-quota)  2101.11.90B  
2101.12 20  2101.12.10B  Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or 
concentrates or with a basis o f coffee, mixtures in paste 
form with a basis of ground roasted coffee, containing 
vegetable fats (out -quota)  2101.12.10B  
2101.12 20  2101.12.90B  Other preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or 
concentrates or with a basis of coffee (out -quota)  2101.12.91B  
2101.12 20  2101.12.90B  Other preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or 
concentrates or with a basis of coffee (out -quota)  2101.12.92B  
2101.12 20  2101.12.90B  Other preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or 
concentrates or with a basis of coffee (out -quota)  2101.12.99B  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 47 - 
 
  comments from the Indonesian Delegation. Further, the P hilippines subjected the trigger 
prices of all its SSG products covered in G/AG/N/PHL/27 to the required public notices and 
public hearings/consultations under the relevant Philippine law prior to our 
WTO notification and implementation of the SSG.  
c. Notwith standing the WT O provision above to consider the volume of imports is not a 
mandatory  obligation , the Philippines undertook due diligence by factoring in the very 
significant increased imports of coffee products in the last 3 -4 years (2014 -2017).  Please 
see figures and charts of the import trends hereunder:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
d. The current  tariff-rate quota for coffee products is 37 metric tonnes , with an in -quota rate 
of 30% and an out-quota rate of 45%.  Relevant to this, Indonesia as part of the ASEAN 
Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) is entitled to zero (0%)  import duty.  
AG-IMS ID 88022: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Can the Philippines provide more detail around its domestic policy settings that led to 17 
price -based special safeguard m easures being invoked and notified in April 2018?  
 
Answer by Philippines  
 22426282102
2014 2015 2016 2017Million kgsInstant Coffee (2101.11.10)
350400450500550600
2015 2016 2017Thousand KgsOther coffee extracts (2101.11.90)
5060708090100110
2014 2015 2016 2017Million kgsCoffee preparations (2101.12.00)G/AG/W/187  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Under the 'Safeguards Act of the Philippines ' (Republic Act No. 8800 of 2000), the country 's right to 
apply the Special Safeguard Provisions (SSG) under Article 5 of the Agreement on  Agriculture is not 
automatically invoked by the country 's Bureau of Customs even if there is a breach of either a price 
trigger of  an SSG product for the purpose of applying a price -based SSG remedy or a volume trigger 
for the purpose of applying a volume -based SSG duty.  The Philippine Department of Agriculture is 
mandated  to initiate first an internal assessment of the implications of an eminent SSG application  
before the country can invoke and apply the measure . Thus, the 17 price -based SSG measures are 
merely invocation s of the Philippines' right to use the  remedy but are not necessarily actual 
applications of the measures.  In addition, o nly the shipments that have breached their price triggers 
would be subject to  applicable SSG duty/ies.  
 
2.4  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/29)  
AG-IMS ID 88003: Question by Ukraine - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Ukraine notes both significant textual and budget changes in Armenia 's notified marketing 
and promot ion services in G/AG/N/ARM/29. Compared to the previous Table DS:1 
notifications, one can observe:   
• 2012: 408.4 AMD Million: Co -financing of the community agricultural resource 
management and competitiveness project carried out with World Bank support;  
• 2013: 316.3 AMD Million: Co -financing of the community agricultural resource 
management and competitiveness project carried out with World Bank support;  
• 2014: 2,077.4 AMD Million: Marketing and promotion services, including market 
information, advice and pr omotion relating to particular products but excluding 
expenditure for unspecified purposes that could be used by sellers to reduce their 
selling price or confer a direct economic benefit to buyers: Community agricultural 
resource management and competitive ness project.  
  
The budgetary change represents a near 473% increase over the average of the two 
previous years. The range or intensity of marketing and promotion programmes is not 
identified in detail. At the same time, Ukraine observes rather large incr eases in Armenian 
exports from approximately 400 Mill USD to about 630 Mill USD between 2013 and 2017. 
Ukraine kindly request Armenia to update the Committee in more details with regard to 
specific implemented marketing and promotion programmes, including allocation of 
individual budgetary support.  
 
Answer by Armenia  
 
DS:1 notification of Community Agricultural Resource Management and Competitiveness Project with 
the support of the World Bank includes loans, grants an d co-financing measures of the g overnment 
of Armenia. In notifications  of 2012 and 2013 , it is indicated that the RA  Government co -financing 
amount  was 408.4 and 316.3 million AMD respectively. And 2077.4  million AMD indicated for 2014 
was the total amount of loans, grants and co -financi ng within the framework of the program me 
included in the RA state budget, from which the RA Government co -financing amount  was 390,0 
million AMD. No marketing and promotional state support program mes were implemented for the 
increase of export volumes of A rmenia's agricultural pro ducts in  2013-2017. State support 
program mes in agriculture are aimed at the development of the sector, increase in volume of 
agricultural production, introduction of modern technologies, increase of food security level, as a 
result of which export volumes were increased. At the same time, it is worth to mention that 
simplification of documentary arrangement procedures for agricultural products export also 
contributed to the increase in export of agricultural products.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 49 - 
 
  2.4.2   Australia ( G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 88052: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per G/AG/N/AUS/99 document containing DS notification for the year 2013/14, 
Australia has introduced a new programme called the "Emergency Wat er Infrastructure 
Rebate" under Supporting Table DS:9. India notes that this programme has not been 
notified in DS notification document G/AG/N/AUS/109 for the year 2014/15. Australia is 
requested to clarify if the programme has been discontinued?  
 
Answer  by Australia  
 
The New South Wales and Queensland governments introduced the Emergency Water Infrastructure 
Rebate (EWIR) in 2013 -14. The rebate provided assistance to primary producers in drought affected 
areas with the establishment of water infrastructu re to supply water for emergency animal welfare 
needs. The rebate was not intended as a property development or property management incentive; 
rather, it is intended to assist primary producers in providing urgently needed water for the welfare 
of their an imals. The rebate included financial contributions from the New South Wales, Queensland 
and Commonwealth Governments.  The programme was discontinue d at the conclusion of the 
2014-15 financial year. In DS notification document G/AG/N/AUS/109, the EWIR is in cluded under 
the measure type 'Assistance for water infrastructure and pest management in drought affected 
areas '. In addition to EWIR, this measure also included assistance to farm businesses managing the 
impacts of pest animal and weed manage ment in drought -affected areas.  
AG-IMS ID 88050: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
As per Australia 's document G/AG/N/AUS/109, Supporting Table DS:6 (Product -Specific 
Aggregate Measurements of Support: Non -Exempt Direct Payments ) shows that total 
support of AUD  0.273 million has been provided for Live cattle exports. Can Australia 
clarify the nature of this support in addition to the explanation in the footnote to the table 
(Assistance through concessional loans and financial advice grants to pasto ralists and 
service businesses which were affected by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports 
to Indonesia)? Is this support available only for live cattle exports or for all cattle 
businesses?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
On 10 August 2011, the Australia n Government made short -term assistance in the form of Financial 
Advice Grants available to primary producers directly affected by the temporary suspension of live 
cattle exports to Indonesia. The purpose of the grants was to provid e vouchers of up to $5,5 00 
(GST inclusive) to primary producers directly involved in the live export cattle trade to Indonesia to 
obtain professional financial advice from financial advisers or accountants to help make decisions on 
costs relating to their business. Applications o pened on 10 August 2011 and were available 
until 31 December 2011.  
 
Eligibility : 
 
To be eligible for the Financial Advice Grant, a person had to:  
 
• be a farmer involved in the export of live cattle to Indonesia; and  
• have been granted a Live Export Business Assistance Payment (BAP).  
Eligibility for the BAP included:  
 
• having a registered Australian Business Number (ABN) on or before 7 June 2011;  
 
• having an annual business turnover of less than $10  million per annum deriving more 
than 50% of its busin ess turnover from the live cattle export trade to Indonesia in any one 
of the three financial years  2008‑09, 2009 -10 and 2010 -11; and  
 
• having verifiable evidence that it:  
 
- was involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 2010 -11 financial year, or  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 50 - 
 
  - was to be involved in the live cattle export trade to Indonesia during 2011 -12 financial 
year. 
 
The support was eligible only for those primary producers involved in the live cattle export trade to 
Indonesia dur ing the 2011 -12 financial year.  
AG-IMS ID 88049: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia 's DS notification for 2014/15 document G/A G/N/AUS/109 in Supporting 
Table  DS:9 notified two new support programmes namely, "Drought Concessional Loans 
Scheme " and "Drought Recovery Conces sional Loans Scheme ". The footnote to the table 
notes that "eligible farm businesses " are entitled to avail such loans. In this regard,  
 
a. What is the criteria for farm businesses to be "eligible " for availing concessional 
loans under these programmes?  
b. What was concessional rate offered under the measures during the year 2014 -
15 and what was the comparable commercial interest rate?  
Answer by Australia  
 
Eligibility : 
 
In 2014 –15, farm businesses in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmani a, 
Western Australia and the Northern Territory were eligible to apply for the Drought Concessional 
Loans Scheme.  
 
To have been eligible for a Drought Recovery Concessional Loan, an Applicant must have 
demonstrated that:  
 
a. their Farm Business had existing Eligible Debt and their Farm Business had not already 
borrowed up to 50 % of its total Eligible Debt ; and  
b. their Farm Business was experiencing a Significant Financial Impact, causing a financial 
need for a Drought Recovery Concessional Loan; and  
c. their Farm  Business had experienced a rainfall deficiency equivalent to, or worse than, 
either a 1  in 50 year or 1  in 100 year rainfall event; and  
d. their Farm Business had taken reasonable steps to prepare for the effects of drought, 
including the provision of an acc eptable Drought Management Plan; and  
e. they had owned and operated the Farm Business for at least the past three consecutive 
years and their Farm Business:  
i. operated as a sole trader, trust, partnership or private company; and  
ii. was involved within the agricult ural, horticultural, pastoral, apicultural or aquacultural 
industries; and  
iii. was wholly located in Australia; and  
iv. was registered for tax purposes in Australia with an Australian Business Number (ABN) 
and was registered for GST; and  
v. was not a public company u nder the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); and  
vi. at least one Member of the Farm Business was a Farmer who, under normal 
circumstances, contributed at least 75 % of his or her labour and derived at least 50 % 
of his or her income from the Farm Busine ss; and  
vii. at least one Member of the Farm Business was an Australian permanent resident; and  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 51 - 
 
  viii. their Farm Business could secure the support of its commercial lender to the 
proposed arrangements for the Drought Recovery Concessional Loan; and  
ix. their Farm Busines s was not under External Administration or bankruptcy; and  
x. their Farm Business had not received a Drought Recovery Concessional Loan in any 
jurisdiction.  
In Queensland, farm businesses could also apply for a Drought Recovery Concessional Loan if their 
Farm Business had:  
 
• experienced a rainfall deficiency equivale nt to, or worse than, either an one  in 50 year or 
one in 100 year rainfall event; or  
• experienced a rainfall deficiency equivalent to, or worse than a 1 in 10 year or 1 in 20 year  
rainfall event an d the Farm Business was involved in the direct consignment of live cattle 
to the export trade to Indonesia in at least two of the three financial years prior to 
1 July 2011.  
Concessional interest rates : 
 
Australia 's DS notification included footnotes stati ng the concessional interest rates of 3.05 % for the 
Drought Concessional Loans Scheme and 2.74 % for the Drought Recovery Concessional Loans 
Scheme as at 1 February 2016. However, during the 2014 –15 financial year the concessional interest 
rates for the Dro ught Concessional Loans Scheme were 4 % on 1 August  2014 and 3.84 % on 
1 February 2015. Likewise, for the Drought Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme, the opening 
interest rate as at 1  February 2015 was 3.21 %. 
 
The commercial interest rate used to calculate t he WTO domestic support figures was 4.99 % and 
based on the Canstar average  interest rate as at July 2015.  
 
AG-IMS ID 88051: Question by India - Classification of measures  
 
Australia's Domestic Support Notifications for recent years in Supporting Table DS:9  
contain a programme called the "Murray -Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversification 
Programme ". As per the information available on the website 
http://rdafarwestnsw.org.au/murray -darling -basin -regional -economic -diversification -
program/ ,the programme intends to fund a range of industries and products such as 
cheese -making and grain processing which makes this measure product -specific in 
nature. How  is this programme compatible to be notified as non -product specific support 
as per Article 6.4 (a) (ii) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
The Murray -Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) is a coordinated approach to water management in Australia 's 
largest river -basin, the Murray -Darling.  The Plan determines the amount of water that can be 
extracted or taken annually from the Basin.  The Plan includes required water reduction by 
agricultural producers in the Basin to ensure the long -term sustainabil ity and environmental health 
of the Murray -Darling river system.  
 
Under the Murray -Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversification Programme (MDBRED), the State 
Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia select projects for 
funding on a case -by-case basis and in consultation with the Australian Government.  The purpose 
of the MDBRED and the projects funded through the Programme include, inter alia:  
 
a. "Deliver economic development projects and diversification initiatives that bro aden and 
support the economic base of regional communities likely to be affected by the 
implementation of the Murray -Darling Basin Plan "; 
b. "Encourage sustainable regional economic development, promote economic 
diversification, and increase the economic outp ut of local and regional economies "  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Given the abovementioned purpose of the MDBRED and that applications were considered on a case -
by-case basis, there is no product specific requirement for projects funded under the 
Programme.  For context, the webpage no ted by India included only a small selection of examples of 
projects funded by the MDBRED. The programme has funded projects with a wide variety of 
economic diversification objectives, including for example, development of tourism infrastructure on 
the Mur ray river in Victoria; or develop businesses online presence and e -commerce capabilities via 
the New South Wales Government 's 'Energise Enterprise Fund '. 
 
2.4.3   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  
AG-IMS ID 88101: Question by United States of Ameri ca - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 Bahrain notified "plant protection " as a pest 
and disease control measure under Annex 2.  No pest and disease control measure was 
notified for 2013 in G/AG/N/BHR/7, b ut Bahrain did notify "Land preparation, crop 
protection, veterinary services " as a general services measure for that year as well as in 
2011 and previous years.  In 2015, 2016, and 2017 Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, 
national campaign for the control of red palm weevil " as a pest and disease control 
measure.   
 
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection " and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services ") 
indicates whether the same programme r eceived funding in only certain years or 
if a new programme was introduced with the same name.  Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by Bahrain in 
G/AG/N/BHR/10, please provide a short description of how the measure is 
implemented.  
c. Please confirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure 
(e.g., "plant protection " and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control 
of red palm weevil ") will be submitted to this Committee.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom o f 
 
Kingdom of  Bahrain undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 88103: Question by United States of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment/Development Programmes)  
In Supporting Table DS:2 in G/AG/N/BHR/10, Bahrain notified "Infrastructure for plant 
production " including for 2012 and 2014, while in G/AG/N/BHR/7 Bahrain notified 
"Infrastructure projects " for 2013.  
 
a. Please confirm whether these are the same or differen t measures.  
b. Please provide a short description of how the measure or measures are 
implemented.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom of  
 
Kingdom of  Bahrain undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
AG-IMS ID 88100: Question by United States of America - Inpu t subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States notes no response has been provided for AG IMS ID 74038 regarding 
G/AG/N/BHR/7.  Bahrain has notified input subsidies for crops and animal products 
inputs generally available t o low -income or resource -poor producers.  
 
a. How does Bahrain define "low -income or resource -poor"?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 53 - 
 
  b. What percent of Bahraini agricultural producers meets this definition?  
c. Please describe what inputs are eligible to receive a subsidy, how the support 
measure i mplemented, and how the subsidy is calculated.  
Answer by Bahrain, Kingdom of  
 
Kingdom of  Bahrain undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.4   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  
AG-IMS ID 88105: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(includ ing Table DS:2)  
There appears to be several discrepancies in the calculations in descriptions relating to 
the Current Total AMS in Supporting Table DS:4 including:  
 
• The description appears to include values transferred over from Canada 's 
previous notification.   
• The Total Product -Specific AMS value appears to be inaccurate and resulting in 
an inaccurate Current Total AMS.  
Please confirm whether the only product -specific AMS contributing to the Current Total 
AMS is that for milk at C AD 576 million.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Regarding the numbers in the description for the calculation of the Current Total AMS, these numbers 
are related to the previous notification. Regarding the Total Product -Specific AMS, there was a small 
calculation error. The total should  amount to $750.177 million or $750.2 million after rounding. 
Consequently, the Current Total AMS should be $591.0 million rather than $590.9 million. Two 
products were over the 5% product specific de minimis  threshold, milk at $576.0 million and sheep 
at $15 million. The resulting Current Total AMS should be $591.0 million. Canada will make these 
modifications and submit a revised notification.  
 
AG-IMS ID 88053: Question by India - Market price support  
 
Cana da's Domestic Support notification document G/AG/N/CAN/122 for the year 2014 in 
Supporting Table DS:5 shows that product specific domestic support provided to butter 
and skim milk powder is worth $432.592 million and $143.382 million respectively. The 
footnote to the table defines "Eligible Production" with respect to skim milk powder as 
the following:  "total production (80,984 t), less product sales for further processing and 
animal feed under Special Classes 5 a, b and c (12,684  t) and 4m (29,541 t), less  total 
exports (12,602 t), plus that portion of exports that had received the support price (0 t) ". 
  
a. India would like to know the rationale for deduction of the following from total 
production of skim milk powder: (a) sales for further processing , (b) ani mal feed , 
(c) exports.  
b. Whether the domestic producers who export skim milk powder and butter are 
entitled to price support?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Regarding Canada 's 2014 domestic support notification(G/AG/N/CAN/122), sales of butter 
and skim milk powder for further processing, total exports and skim milk powder for animal 
feed are not counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price support since 
sales of these products for these uses are not eligible to receive the support price. All 
product ions of butter and skim milk powder that is eligible to receive the support price 
(not that which is purchased) is counted as eligible production in the calculation of market G/AG/W/187  
 
- 54 - 
 
  price support. This is consistent with both Annex  3, paragraph  8, of the Agreemen t 
concerning the calculation of market price support and the jurisprudence on this issue. 
Korea -Beef found that "production eligible to receive the applied administered price " 
means "production that is 'fit or entitled ' to be purchased rather than producti on that was 
actually purchased (Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 120.) 
As noted, all production of butter and skim milk powder that is eligible to receive the 
support price is counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price support.  
b. Regarding Canada 's 2014 domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CAN/122), as noted in 
Footnote 1 and 2 in Supporting Table DS:5, exports of butter and skim milk powder are 
not eligible to receive the support price.  
2.4.5   Ecuador (G/AG/N/E CU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 88106: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
 
The United States thanks Ecuador for its most recent Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications 
and the notification of several Green Box measures.  However, the United States 
understands that Ecuador 's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries, 
according to its website, subsidized a share of the cost of inputs, such as urea and 
potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies for farmers of several commodities 
including corn and rice. Since 2014, preferential attention has been paid to bananas and 
pasture crops for livestock. However, beneficiaries also include sugar cane, cocoa, cereals, 
vegetables, p otatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential prices, below 
cost, for inputs.   
 
a. Please provide additional details with regard to how the input subsidies measure 
is implemented and the time period under which the subsidy was available to 
producers.  
b. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador 's current domestic support 
notifications?   
c. If so, please explain how they reportedly meet the green box criteria under which 
they are notified.   
d. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying the m, including whether Ecuador 
will notify these measures for past years.  
Question 2  
 
e. According to the Ministry 's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by 
producers also included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
f. Please provide additional details  with regard to how the agricultural insurance 
programme was implemented, including what losses are covered and what years 
the measure was available.  
g. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as the support notified for 
2011 in G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
Quest ion 3  
 
h. The United States notes that in 2015 it was reported that a diesel subsidy 
provided by the government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher diesel 
cost for producers.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 55 - 
 
  i. Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether  
Ecuador has notified this measure and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.6   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 88020: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease cont rol 
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 87th Committee on 
Agriculture, AG-IMS ID 87095 rega rding pest and disease control.  
 
Egypt listed a Pest Control Subsidy as "Green Box ", noting the measure was directed for 
pest control f or cotton; the subsidy was calculated as a fixed amount per acre for all cotton 
producers who are small farmers; and pest control is provided in cash to farmers at the 
end of each season.  
 
a. Can Egypt explain how the subsidy was tied with actual pest control , given the 
subsidies were provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could 
receive the subsidy?  
b. Can Egypt explain what are the requirements to be classified as a 'small farmer'?  
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt is still within the process of preparing the response to this question. The requirement to be 
classified as a small farmer is to have possession of agricult ural land that does not exceed one  acre. 
AG-IMS ID 88021: Question by Australia - Market price  support  
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 87th Committee on 
Agriculture, AG-IMS ID 87093 regarding market price support for wheat.  
 
In its answer to AG-IMS ID 87097, Egypt stated that it does not provide market price 
suppor t for wheat, but then explains that the government "declares a price for the 
marketing of wheat… related to the cost of production per feddan ". Egypt also stated,  
"the General Authority for Supply Commodities (GASC) buys local wheat from the 
farmers ". 
 
In order to properly assess the levels of support being provided by Egypt for wheat, could 
Egypt please provide the following details:  
 
a. The price "declared by the government for the marketing of wheat " over the 
period 2005/2006 to 2016/2017?  
b. How Egypt sets th is price, including if necessary, details of the assessed "cost of 
production per feddan "? 
c. The value of production of wheat in Egypt over 2005/2016 to 2016/2017?  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 56 - 
 
  Answer by Egypt  
 
a.  
Year Farm gate price  
(LE/tonne)  
2005 1,120 
2006 1,126.7  
2007 1,153.3  
2008 2,553.3  
2009 1,613.3  
2010 1,813.3  
2011 2,346.7  
2012 2,520 
2013 2,586.7  
2014 2,740 
2015 2,760 
2016 2,773.3  
 
b. The prices declared by the government for the marketing of wheat is determined based 
on the cost of production per feddan (acre), in addition to the cost of transportation and 
storage without referencing international prices.  
c.  
Year Wheat  
(thousand tonnes)  
2005 8,141 
2006 8,246 
2007 7,379 
2008 7,977 
2009 8,523 
2010 7,177 
2011 8,407 
2012 8,795 
2013 9,460 
2014 9,280 
2015 9,608 
2016 9,343 
 
2.4.7   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  
AG-IMS ID 88055: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per European  Union 's DS notification G/AG/N/EU/43 for the year 2014/15, measures 
like "Single Payment Scheme (SPS); Separate Sugar Payment; Separate Fruit and 
Vegetables Payment; Decoupled Complementary National Direct Payments and 
Transitional National Aid" have been  notified under Decoupled Income Support.  
  
Please provide details of the aforementioned programmes and explain how these 
payments fulfil the criteria of Annex 2 of AoA as these schemes specify payments for 
particular products such as sugar and vegetables  among others.?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The measures referred to in the question were all set out in the following DS:2 notifications from EU 
which explain how they fit into the Green Box:  
• SPS – Single payment Scheme – document G/AG/N/EEC/58 ; 
• Separate  Sugar payment – document G/AG/N/EEC/65 ; 
• Fruit and Vegetables payment – document G/AG/N/EEC/69 ; 
• Decoupled Complementary National Direct Payments – document G/AG/N/EU/11 ;  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 57 - 
 
  • Trans National Aid – G/AG/N/EU/35 . 
2.4.8   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 88079: Que stion by Canada - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Supporting Table DS:1, Canada understands that under the two extraordinary support 
measures packages announced on September 7, 2015 ( http://europa.eu/rapid/press -
release_IP -15-5599_en.htm ), and March 14, 2016 ( http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-
806_en.htm ), that a portion of the support would be allocated to provide funds for 
promotional activities.  
  
a. Could the European Union confirm if the funds for promotional activities are 
included in the amount reported under "Marketing and promotion services "?  
b. Could the European Union provide the amounts dispersed?  
Answer by European Union  
 
While the decision to go ahead with these promotion actions were decided in 2016, however no 
amount was paid out during budget year 2016 from these actions and therefore not hing is included 
in the notification for 2015/16 –G/AG/N/EU/46.  
AG-IMS ID 88044: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Please provide further information regarding the objectives and procedures of the 
Decoupled Income Support pr ogrammes, the criteria for product eligibility, and criteria 
for farmers to be eligible for the support.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU understands the question from Thailand covering point d) of supporting table 1. These 
support measures were described  in the EU DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/35 p. 2 -4. 
AG-IMS ID 88077: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the Environmental Programmes ' 
expenditures increased from EUR 5,885  million in 2014/2015 to EUR 8,121 million 
in 2015/2016, which represents an increase of 38%.  
  
a. Could the European Union please provide details on the conditions that led to this 
significant increase in expenditures?  
b. Canada notes that expenditures include: "support and protection of organic 
production by creating conditions of fair competition ".  
i. Could the European Union  elaborate on how the support provided to organic 
production meets the policy specific criteria of p aragraph 12, Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
ii. Could the European Union  elaborate on the types of extra costs that are 
eligible for support under the measure related to organic production?  
iii. Could the European Union provide the amount of this expend iture that went 
to organic production?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. The increase in environmental programmes expenditure is a consequence of the gradual 
implementation of the 2013 CAP reform which became only fully visible in the budget 
execution during the 2016 budget year in case of Rural Development programmes.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 58 - 
 
  b.  
i. The support provided to organic production shall be granted, to farmers or groups of 
farmers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to convert to or maintain organic farming 
practices and methods as  established in Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic 
production. Support shall only be granted for commitments going beyond the relevant 
mandatory standards, i.e.  1). the relevant Cross -Compliance requirements stipulated 
in Reg. 1306/2013,  2). the relevant criteria and minimum activities established in 
Article 4(1) of Reg. 1307/2013,  3). the minimum requirements for fertilisers and plant 
protection products,  4). other relevant requirements established at national level.  
Payments shall be granted annually an d shall compensate beneficiaries for all or part 
of the additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitments made.  
ii. As regards the type of extra costs that are eligible, examples of eligible costs can be 
found in each Rural Development Progra mmes, for example:  
• the extra costs of purchasing organic fertilisers and/or organic pesticides, usually 
more expensive; the loss of income due to the decreased production; in the first 
years, during the conversion period,  
• the loss of income due to the pro hibition to sell the production as organic; the 
prohibition of using chemical herbicides, which may imply the extra costs of using 
mechanical machineries and/or soil cover and income forgone due to a lower 
effectiveness;  
• the extra costs due to increased h uman labour;  
• the extra costs and income forgone due to rotations established to e.g. 
keep/improve fertility of the soils, preventive actions vs. pests or diseases.  
The above show why EU has notified this support under point 12 of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture since it reflects the extra costs or loss of income involved in 
complying with a clearly -defined government environmental or conservation 
programme.  
iii. For the budget year 2016 in total EUR  1.27 billion was paid out to organic production.  
Follow-up: Canada noted that some of the EU's replies left  questions  regarding  how all aspects of 
these programmes met  the criteria set out in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 88019: Question by Australia - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
Australia welcomes the European Union's Domestic Support Notification for marketing 
year 2015/16. Notably, from 2014/15 to 2015/16 payment measures under "blue box " 
(Table DS:3) increased from EUR 2,878.8 million (G/AG/N/EU/43) to EUR 4,331.1 million, 
whic h represents an increase o f 50%:  
 
a. Could the European Union please provide details on the reasons that led to this 
significant increase in expenditure?  
b. What steps has the EU taken to ensure production in supported commodities is 
limited and are in fact "blue box "?  
Answer by European Union  
 
Budget year 2016 is the first year in which the 2013 CAP reform is fully reflected in the payment 
execution of direct payments. The increase in Blue Box spending from 2015 to 2016 budget year is 
entirely due to the int roduction of Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) in the 2013 CAP reform. 
Voluntary Coupled Support replaced the old "Article 68 " coupled support.  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Voluntary Coupled Support can only be granted to sectors or regions where specific types of farming 
or agricultu ral sectors that are particular important for economic, social or environmental reasons 
undergo certain difficulties. Further, Voluntary Coupled Support take the form of an annual payment 
granted within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number 
of animals. The sector is determined in Chapter 1 of title IV of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.  
 
In its approval of these programmes the Commission has ensured tha t the programme implemented 
by member States respects these c riteria, which are themselves fulfil the requirements in Article  6(5) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 88078: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:6, Canada notes that several products: milk, beef, sheep, pi g, 
other livestock and fruits and vegetables received support through the Extraordinary 
support measures which total EUR 1.1 billion.  
  
a. Could the European Union elaborate if the payments reported here are part of 
the Extraordinary support measures package s announced on 7 September 2015, 
and 14 March  2016?  
b. Could the European Union elaborate as to the eligibility criteria for these 
payments?  
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU can confirm that the amounts mentioned in supporting Table DS:6  related the extraor dinary 
support measures mentioned in the question.  
  
Fruit and Vegetables:  The ban introduced by the Russia n Federation  in summer 2014 generated 
serious market difficulties for fruit and vegetables producers who used to export part their production 
to the Russia n Federation . The EU adopted temporary exceptional measures to support these 
producers, considering that the Russia n Federation  has maintained its ban. These measures have 
facilitated the withdrawal of products from the EU market (mainly as charitable donations), and 
supply regulation (by non - and green - harvesting) by providing more flexibility in terms of respect 
of legal obliga tions and by supporting financially the producers. Eligibility criteria can be found in 
Delegated Regulation (EU) No  1031/2014, as amended.  
 
Milk, beef, sheep, pig and livestock: The eligibility criteria can be found in Article 1 of Commission 
Delegated Re gulation 2015/1853:   
 
"Member States shall use the amounts available to them as set out in the Annex for measures taken 
on the basis of objective and non -discriminatory criteria, provided that the resulting payments do 
not cause distortion of competition. The measures taken by the member States shall aim at 
alleviating the economic consequences resulting from the market disturbances on farmers in the 
livestock sectors. " 
AG-IMS ID 88118: Question by Japan - De minimis  
EU's Table DS:1 notification  for 2015 was made available on 23 August. A significant 
increase of de minimis  usage is identified on milk, pig meat and beef. Could European 
Union elaborate more on the reason?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The increase in expenditure for these measures is entirely linked to the extraordinary market 
measures that were introduced during 2015 and 2016, partly due to the Russian  Federation  import 
ban. See also answer to question AG-IMS ID 88078.  
 
Follow -up: Japan questioned whether  beef was covered by the prog ramme in addition to pig meat 
and milk. The European Union noted that member States entitled to the extraordinary market 
measures were allowed, within the envelope available for them, to  choose between milk, pig meat 
and beef .  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 60 - 
 
  2.4.9   India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  
AG-IMS ID 88080: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada would like to remind India that an answer is still pending on part a. iii. of question 
AG-IMS ID 87139 raised during the 87th Committee  on Agriculture for India's previous 
notification (G/AG/N/IND/12). Could India please indicate when it will provide an 
answer to the following question: iii. Canada notes that the Department of Consumer 
Affairs published on its website 
(https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Procurement_of_Pulses_
08Sep2017.pdf ) that, as of 08.09.2017, 50,422.53 MT of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2015 -16) 
were procured domestically for the Buffer Stock under Price Stabilization Fund. Could 
India please indicate when this procurement of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2015 -16) will be 
notified?  
 
Answer by India  
 
India did not procure pulses at administered price under the Price St abilization Fund during the 
KMS 2015-16. The pulses were procured at the market price.  
 
2.4.10   India (G/AG/N/IND/13)  
AG-IMS ID 88068: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:4 and DS:5, Canada notes that India 's product -specific AMS for 
pulses increased from USD 14.37 million in 2013 -2014 to USD 92.25 million in 2014 -2015 
and dropped to zero in 2015 -2016 and again increased to USD 397.97 million i n 
2016 -2017. The eligible production of pulses reported in the notification also increased 
from  zero in 20 15-16 to 1.15 million tonnes in  2016 -17.  
 
a. Could India provide further details on the conditions that led to this significant 
increase in spending from 2013 -2014 to 2016 -2017?   
b. Could India indicate for 2016 -17 the quantity of pulses procured by each Indian 
agency and by type of pulse?  
Canada would like to thank India for providing the product -specific value of production 
data for years 2014 and 2015. At the 87th Committee on Agriculture, India indicated that 
product -specific value of production data would be included in its future domestic support 
notifications. However, in Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that product -specific 
value of production data has not been included. The inclusion of value of production data 
greatly improves the transp arency of Supporting Table DS:4.  
  
c. Could India provide the value of production for all products reported in 
Supporting Table DS:4 for 2016 -2017?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Increase in the MSP and procurement of pulses by the government agencies led to increase 
in product specific support during 2013 -14 to 2016 -17. It is to be noted that 1.15 million 
tonnes of pulses were procured by different government agencies during 2016 -17. 
b. Following is the VoP for the crops notified in Supporting table DS:4 for India 's 
DS notification for 2016 -17:  
Crop  Value of Production in US D 
million during 2016 -17 (approx.)  
Rice 37,855  
Wheat  24,646  
Pulses  23,834  
Coarse grains  10,991  
Groundnut  5,481  
Sunflower  117 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 61 - 
 
   
Follow -up: Australia e xpress ed interest in  India's VoP data for Supporting Table DS:4  and 
encouraged India to provide that information in future DS  notifications. The United States noted 
interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 88014: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Supporting table DS:4 , 
 
a. Can India explain, for each product, how big a share of the MPS calculated is the 
result of state subsidies above the part from the Federal Government?  
b. Can India indicate which states have supplementary top -ups for which products 
and which are the amounts per tonne for the different products?  
c. Can India please indicate the value of production for the products in question (as 
it did for 2014/15 and 2015/16 in question AG-IMS ID  ID 87138).  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b. Market price support for each product is calculated based on the administered price 
announced by th e government  including the bonus. In India, procurement of agricultural 
products is mainly done at minimum support price.  
b. Refer to Ques tion AG-IMS ID 88068 for VoP data.  
Follow -up: The European  Union  support ed other questions raised on this notification .  
AG-IMS ID 88119: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
 India's Table  DS:1 notification  for 2016 was made available on 20 July. A significant 
increase of Insurance Prem ium Subsidy is identified. Could India elaborate more on the 
reason?  
 
Answer by India  
 
Increase in the insurance premium subsidy for crop insurance for natural disasters, adverse weather 
conditions, pest and diseases, etc. in 2016 -17 domestic support noti fication is due to implementation 
of a new insurance programme called the "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana " (PMFBY). The increase 
in the notified amount is because of increase in sum insured, farmers and area.  
AG-IMS ID 88056: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Could India please provide further information on the objectives, eligibility criteria, and 
procedures for providing Input subsidies, including whether certain products have been 
allocated substantially more input sub sidies than others.  
 
Answer by India  
 
In India, 99.29% (Agriculture Census, 2010 -11) of Indian farmers have landholding less than 
10 hectares and are thus, low -income or resource -poor. Input subsidies are provided on non -product 
specific basis.  
AG-IMS ID  88107: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
 
In 2007, the Indian National Development Council launched  Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana 
(RKVY), which supports the agricultural sector in a number of ways  including: crop 
development, horticulture, agricultural mechanization, natural resource management, 
marketing and post -harvest management, animal husbandry, dairy development, 
extension, etc. The RKVY appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy  measures 
that appear to may be Green Box or Amber Box.   G/AG/W/187  
 
- 62 - 
 
   
a. The RKVY appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy measures that 
appear to range from Green Box or Amber Box.  Please provide additional details 
on how the RKVY and related measures fund ed by the RKVY are implemented.  
b. Please indicate how and where the RKVY is notified in India 's domestic support 
notification, including in G/AG/N/IND/13.  
Question 2  
 
It is noted that in 2017 the RKVY as continued for three years as the RKVY Remunerative 
Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sector  Rejuvenation (RKVY -RAFTAAR) with 70 % of 
outlays to be allocated for activities related to infrastructure and assets and production 
growth.  In additional 20 % of RKVY -RAFTAAR funding is made available for other sub -
schemes that related to national priorities, while the remaining funding is for innovation 
and agri -entrepreneur development.  
 
c. It is noted that India has never submitted any DS:2 notification for any new or 
modified exempt measures. Please indicate whether India will be providing a 
DS:2 notification for the introduction of the RKVY in 2007, the modification of 
RKVY to RKVY -RAFTAAR in 2017, or for any other new or modified exempt 
measure introduced whether related to RKVY or not.  
Question 3  
 
In 2011, India in troduced the National Dairy Plan Phase I (NDP I)  for the period 2011/12 
through  2018/19 and implemented by the National Dairy Development Board.  NDP I is 
aimed at activities such as improving productivity and improving market/value chain 
infrastructure.   
 
d. NDP I appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy measures that 
appear that likely include Green Box measures. Please provide additional details 
on how NDP I is implemented.  
e. Please indicate how and where the NDP I is notified in India 's domestic  support 
notification, including in G/AG/N/IND/13.  
f. Is India planning to submit a Table DS:2 notification for the introduction of NDP 
I in 2011/12?  
Question 4  
  
In G/AG/N/IND/13 and in responses to questions by other Members, including most 
recently to Aust ralia in AG -IMS ID 87117, India no longer notifies seed subsidies as part 
of its input subsidies notified under Article 6.2.  The provision of seed subsidies is not 
identified anywhere else in India 's notification.  However, the United States notes that 
unde r the National Food Security Mission, India provides seed subsidies to farmers of 
various commodities in various states, including but not limited to rice, wheat, arhar, 
moong, urd, gram lentil, maize and barley.  
 
g. Please confirm whether India provides any  other seed subsidies and whether 
those identified in the National Food Security Mission, or elsewhere, are included 
in India 's domestic support notification and if so, where.  
Question 5  
 
Loan waiver schemes appear to have continued since the Agricultural Debt Waiver and 
Debt Relief Scheme in 2008.  For example, in 2016 the state of Tamil Nadu announced a 
waiver of agricultural loans totalling  approximately US D 900 million (Rs. 60 billion).  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 63 - 
 
  h. Please indicate how much farm debt/loans were waived in MY 2016/17,  under 
any loan waiver program me operated within India.  
i. How is this financial support to the agricultural sector notified in 
G/AG/N/IND/13?  
Question 6  
 
The United States understands India to provide farmers with subsidized interest rates for 
short term cre dit under the Interest Subvention Scheme that has been implemented since 
2006/07. Under the scheme, farmers are offered short -term crop loans at a subsidized 
rate of interest.  
 
j. Please provide additional details with regards to how this measure is 
implemen ted, including the effective interest rate subsidy rate and the value of 
loans covered by the measure in 2016/17.  
k. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support 
notification and if so, where?  If not, on what basis?  
Questio n 7 
 
In response to AG IMS ID 85018 from October 2017, India stated an "answer will be 
submitted shortly " in relation to the part (f) of the question regarding measures that were 
also not notified in G/AG/N/IND/12 or G/AG/N/IND/13:  
  
"It is noted that a n umber of Green Box measures including, "dry land 
farming/rain -fed farming, " "provision of loans at concession rates and debt 
waiver, " "soil conservation in catchment areas of river valley projects, " and 
"integrated watershed management " are no longer notif ied by India. It is the 
U.S. understanding that all of these measures may not have been terminated 
after MY 2010/11. For example, it appears that India has continued to 
implement the "integrated watershed management " program me according to 
documentation in  India 's Union Budget and a 2015 India Cabinet Committee 
on Economic Affairs approval of the consolidation of the program me into a 
larger program me." 
l. Please indicate if and whether any or all of these measures of have been replaced 
by other measures and if  so, where these are notified in India 's notification.  
m. If not, please verify that all of these measures have been terminated.  
Answer by India  
 
Question 1 
 
a. and b. RKVY scheme was initiated in 2007 as an umbrella scheme for ensuring holistic 
development of a griculture and allied sectors by allowing states to choose their own 
agriculture and allied sector development activities as per the district/state agriculture 
plan. Since 2015 -16, the funding pattern of the scheme has been altered in the ratio of 
60:40 be tween Centre and States (90:10 for North Eastern States and Himalayan States). 
For Union Territories the funding pattern is 100 % central grant. RKVY scheme incentivizes 
States to increase public investment in Agriculture & allied sectors. The scheme is no tified 
under Green box measures.  
Question 2  
 
c. India will notify its DS: 2 notification in due course.  
Question 3 
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 64 - 
 
  d. e and f.  NDP I provides financial assistance for strengthening or creation of infrastructure 
for animal breeding and nutrition etc. for productivity enhancement and milk collection 
facilities.  This measure is notified as a Green B ox measure in the notifications.  
Question 4  
 
g. Under the NF SM, the main focus of the government is plant protection and extension 
services, cluster demonstration, seed distribution, etc. This is notified under the Green 
box.  
Question 5 and 6  
 
h.  i., j. and k.  The response to this question wi ll be submitted in due course.  
Follow -up: The United States raised a follow -up qu estion : What steps is India taking to ensure  that 
both funds provided by the central government as well as the state governments comply with India's 
WTO commitments and that relevan t data is  being collected for purposes  of WTO domestic support 
notifications? Regarding seed subsidies  in question 4, Australia sought India's further clarification 
concerning the reason why India no longer classified the subsidies as input subsidie s. 
AG-IMS ID 88017: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/13, India has notified 
spending on public stockholding for food security purpo ses of USD 16.3 billion in 2016 -17. 
 
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks 
shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security." For each of the 
periods covered by the notification, could India provide:  
  
a. the pre -determined targets, when these were established, and under which 
legislation or programmes; and  
b. an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a 
sole focus on food security.  
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA further states, "Foo d purchases by government shall be 
made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than 
the current domestic market price for the product and quality in question." For each of 
the periods covered by the notification, cou ld India provide:  
  
c. a breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spending, including values 
and volumes;  
d. the prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold; 
and 
e. confirmation the food purchases were made at current prices and sales were 
made at no less than current domestic market prices?  
As outlined in footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the AoA, can India confirm whether any aspects of 
the notified spending cover foodstuffs that were acquired and released at administered 
prices, requiring the market price support to be notified as AMS?  
 
Answer by India  
 
MSP (administered price) is fixed to protect farmers from distress sale of their crops and to prevent 
their exploitation. MSP operations are carried out only in the event of market  prices falling below 
the administered prices subject to availability as per prescribed specifications, budgetary allocations 
and applicable targets. Farmers are free to sell their produce in open market at prevailing rates or 
administrative prices whichev er is remunerative and convenient. The quantity of wheat and rice 
procured during the last several years can be accessed at http://fci.gov.in/ .  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia  noted that India' s response  which related to MSP did not answer its questions . 
Australia sought  India's clarification regarding how India's support of USD 16.3 billion notified as 
public stockholding for food security purposes  was in accordance with Paragraph 3 in Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Can ada, the European Union and the United States supported Australia's 
intervention.  
AG-IMS ID 88018: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:2 of G/AG/N/IND/13, I ndia has notified 
spending on agricultural input subsidies of USD 22.8 billion in 2016 -17 to low income or 
resource poor producers under Special and Differential Treatment "Development 
Programmes."  
 
Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the AoA states, "… input subsi dies generally available to low -
income or resource -poor producer in developing country Members shall be exempt from 
domestic support reduction commitments…" . 
 
a. Can India please provide a breakdown of the types of input subsidies covered by 
the notified spen ding, including values and volumes?  
b. Can India explain how it ensures its input subsidy programmes notified as 
exempt from domestic reduction commitments are 'generally available ' to low 
income or resource -poor producers?  
i. Can India provide details of the el igibility criteria for the programmes to 
ensure the input subsidies are only provided to low income or resource poor 
producers?  
ii. Can India indicate how the programmes are structured to avoid their benefits 
flowing to other agricultural producers?  
c. Australia notes India 's reply to Australia regarding agricultu ral input subsidies 
at the June  2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 87117) that "99.29% of Indian farmers 
are low -income or resource -poor. Therefore, it is correct to say that benefit of 
input subsidies is flowing mo stly to low income or resource poor farmers ". 
i. Does this mean that India does not have any eligibility criteria for its 
agricultural input subsidies?  
ii. Is India relying on the high percentage of Indian farmers (99.29%) being 
low-income or resource poor (based  on agricultural census data from 2010 -
11) to avoid needing eligibility criteria or targeting the subsidies to specific 
producers?  
d. Does India believe that Article 6.2 of the AoA allows developing country Members 
to provide agricultural input subsidies to 'any producers ' and still be exempt from 
reduction commitments?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Following is the breakup of Article 6.2 subsidies:  
  Fertiliser  Electricity  Irrigation  
Year Figures in million USD  
2016 -17 10,451.37  8,388.20  3,991.70  
 
b. to d. 99.29% of Indian farmers are low -income or resource -poor. Therefore, it is correct 
to say that benefit of input subsidies is flowing mostly to low income or resource poor 
farmers. India's agricultural input subsidies are consistent with Article 6.2 of the AoA. India  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 66 - 
 
  further notes that there is no obligation under Article 6.2 of the AoA which mandates that 
input subsidies be available solely to low income or resource poor farmers.  
Follow -up: Further to India's response " there is no obligation under Article 6.2 of the AoA which 
mandates that input subsidies be available solely to low income or resource poor farmers", Australia 
reiterated its concern  that there was no eligibility criteria for the programme  and that all prod ucers 
in India could be entitled to this support. The European Union supported the concern expressed by 
Australia.   
AG-IMS ID 88015: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
In Supporting Table DS:2, i t is stated that 99.297% of farm holdings are of low -income 
and resource poor farmers.   
 
a. Can India explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure that domestic support 
measures are specifically targeted to support resource -poor farmers or low -
income farmer s exclusively?  
b. Can India please indicate the percentage of total agricultural area farmed by 
farmers with less than 1  ha and less than 5  ha respectively?  
Answer by India  
 
a. Refer to answer to Ques tion AG-IMS ID 88018.  
b. Please refer to Agriculture Census (2010 -11) at http://www.agricoop.nic.in/ .  
AG-IMS ID 88108: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
Members  have repeatedly requested India to provide a breakdown its input subsidies by 
type and most recently in AG -IMS ID 87117.   
a. Please provide a breakdown of expenditures by the various types for 2016/17.  
b. For each type, please identify the specific program mes or measures that 
contribute to the notified value.  
In addition, please clarify whether the Prime Minister 's Agricultural Irrigation 
Scheme  (PMKSY), as well as key components of the PMKSY, are included as part of the 
value reported as irrigation in response  to AG -IMS ID 87117.  If not, where is this scheme 
notified in G/AG/N/IND/13?  
c. For each type, please explain whether the value is a budgetary expenditure 
and/or a calculated subsidy value.  
i. If a budgetary expenditure, please identify where this information is  
available, including specific website link, if appropriate.  
ii. If a subsidy value, please explain how the value is calculated and the source 
of the data that contributes to the calculation.  
d. Please confirm whether India 's Central government solely provides fu nding for 
these various input subsidies or if there is a cost -share between the Central and 
state governments.   
If the later, please confirm what share is provided by the Central government 
and whether this is the value notified by India in G/AG/N/IND/13 a nd previous 
notifications.  
Answer by India  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 67 - 
 
   
a. Following is the breakdown of expenditure by input types during 2016 -17: 
 Fertiliser  Electricity  Irrigation  
Year Figures in million USD  
2016 -17 10,451.37  8,388.20  3,991.70  
  
b. Expenditure under Prime Minister 's Agricultural Irrigation Scheme (PMKS Y) is notified 
under the Green B ox. Total irrigation subsidy is notified under Article 6.2 of the AoA.  
c. The information is obtained from various departments and ministries referred to in India 's 
DS notifications.  
d. Budgeta ry allocations are made through both Centre and State governments for providing 
various input subsidies.  
Follow -up: The United States noted that Members had repeatedly reque sted India to provide 
information on expenditures by type to better understand the  substantial sum of support aggregated 
under input subsidies.  In the U.S.' view, by providing additional details by measure type rather than 
a single value for an entire clarification of support, India's notification would be more informative 
and questions  like this one in the Committee could be avoided. Canada echoed U.S. intervention and 
suggested India to include more details in the notifications.   
AG-IMS ID 88112: Question by United States of America - Constituent data and 
methodology (AGST)  
In response  to AG -IMS ID 86015, India stated the "pulses " external reference price is the 
simple average for arhar, moong, urad, and gram.  India did not respond to the Australia 's 
question regarding what the external reference price for lentils is that was used.  The 
simple average of the external reference prices for arhar, moong, urad, and gram is Rs. 
4,634.50 per tonne (or US D 345.63 using the exchange rate notified by India). However, 
the average notified by India is Rs. 4,634.95 per tonne in India 's local currency  
(USD 345.66).  Assuming a simple average methodology, this indicates India 's external 
reference price for lentils is Rs. 4,636.80 per ton (US D 345.80).   
  
Please confirm this is correct.  If not, please identify what the external reference price is 
for lent ils and how it is accounted for in India 's recent notifications.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Lentils do not feature in India 's AGST notification. However, support to lentils is being notified in 
India's  DS notifications within pulses. The ERP for pulses is calculated by taking the simple average 
of the ERP for arhar, moong, urad, and gram.  
 
Follow -up: The United States noted that India introduced minimum support price for lentils in 2000 
and India had n ever specifically identified the corresponding external reference price since it was 
not in India's AGST document. The United States considered  that the external reference  price for 
lentils , although  not in India's  AGST document, should continue to be base d on 1986 -1988 FOB or 
CIF price. The United States sought clarification  as regards the value of external reference price for 
lentils  as well as the data and source used to calculate that value.   
AG-IMS ID 88111: Question by United States of America - Marke t price support  
For 2016/17, India notified that bajra, jowar, maize, and barley all received the same 
applied administered pric e converted to U.S. dollars of 217.37 per tonne. India also 
notified that gram, arhar, urad, and moong all received the same  applied administered 
price of USD  692.54 per tonne.  Please specify the announced MSP for each of these 
commodities.  
 
Answer by India  
 
MSP of various crops can be accessed at http://agricoop.nic.in/ . G/AG/W/187  
 
- 68 - 
 
   
Follow -up: The United States noted that each year India announced  individual , often different,  
minimum support prices (MSP) for 25 commodities including bajra,  jowar, maize, barley , gram, 
arhar, urad, moong and lentils , and India did  not publish MSP for coarse grains n or pulses. F urther , 
the MSP  was recommended and adopted based on criteria and policy decision s that were  often 
specific to a commodity. For purposes of transparency and understanding of India's  policies,  the 
United States repeated its request  that India shou ld notify applied administered prices for all 25 
commodities. The European Union supported U.S. comments . 
AG-IMS ID 88069: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9, Canada notes that India 's Insurance Premium Subsidy 
expenditu re drastically increased, from zero in 2015 -16 to USD  2,652.52 million 
in 2016 -2017.  
 
a. Could India provide information on the level of government subsidy for the 
insurance premiums and further details on the conditions that led to this 
increase?  
b. Could Ind ia provide information on the insurance schemes for which this 
premium subsidy applies?  
Answer by India  
 
Refer to reply to q uestion AG-IMS ID 88119 which is reproduced below.  
 
Increase in the insurance premium subsidy for crop insurance for natural disasters, adverse weather 
conditions, pest and diseases, etc. in 2016 -17 domestic support notification is due to implementation 
of a new insurance programme called the "Pradhan Mantr i Fasal Bima Yojana " (PMFBY). The increase 
in the notified amount is because of increase in  sum insured, farmers and area.  
AG-IMS ID 88016: Question by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes that Indian Non -Product -Specific support in the form of 
insurance premium subsidies has increased almost eightfold between 2015/2016 and 
2016/2017, from almost 334 million USD in 2015/2016 to almost 2,653 million USD in 
2016/2017 ( Supporting Table DS:9).  
 
Can India explain more in details the reasons behind this increase in support and which 
type of insurance premiums are supported?  
 
Answer by India  
 
Increase in the insurance premium subsidy for crop insurance for natural disasters , adverse weather 
conditions, pest and diseases, etc. in 2016 -17 domestic support notification is due to implementation 
of a new insurance programme called the "Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana " (PMFBY). The increase 
in the notified amount is because of in crease in sum insured, farmers and area.  
AG-IMS ID 88110: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
For 2016/17, please provide the value of production for each commodity notified in 
Supporting Table DS:4 including rice, wheat, bajra, jowar, maize,  barley, gram, arhar, 
urad, moong, lentils, groundnut, and sunflower, as well as the total value of India 
agricultural production.  
 
Answer by India  
 
Refer to reply to  question  AG-IMS ID 88068 (reproduced below).  
 
a. Increase in the MSP and procurement of puls es by the government agencies led to increase 
in product specific support during 2013 -14 to 2016 -17. It is to be noted that 1.15 million 
tonnes of pulses were  procured by different government agencies during 2016 -17. 
b. Following is the VoP for the crops noti fied in Supporting table DS:4 for India 's 
DS notification for 2016 -17:  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 69 - 
 
  Crop  Value of Production  
in USD  million  during 2016 -17 (approx.)  
Rice 37,855  
Wheat  24,646  
Pulses  23,834  
Coarse grains  10,991  
Groundnut  5,481  
Sunflower  117 
 
2.4.11   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  
AG-IMS ID 88113: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
 
Since Kyrgyz Republic 's last notification for 2012, it appears several new exempt 
measures have been introduced including "extensi on and advisory services to the 
agricultural sect or".  
 
a. Please explain when this new measure was introduced and how it is 
implemented.  
b. Does Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this measure, 
as well as overdue DS:1 notifications for  1999 -2011 as noted in response to AG 
IMS ID 85047 and for the years 2013 -2014?  
Question 2  
 
It is noted that Kyrgyz Republic undertook commitments in its domestic currency.  While 
the transparency of the notification of the exchange rate used for U.S. dolla rs is 
appreciated, we request Kyrgyz Republic to please notify in its domestic currency.  
 
c. Does Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit future notifications in its local currency?  
Answer by Kyrgyz Republic  
 
Kyrgyz Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.4.12   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 88114: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
For 2017, Panama has notified product sp ecific rice support of PAB  41.7 million, 
equivalent to more than 24 of the value of production, resulting in Panama exceeding its 
de minimis  level and in turn its WTO commitments on levels of permitted domestic 
support.  The increase appears to be associated with a significant increase in  the eligible 
production, as the price support of PAB 7.50 per quintal remained unchanged.  In response 
to AG -IMS ID 80090 Panama stated that under the price -differential direct payment, "The 
volume of price support is based on the volume purchased by the e nterprises from the 
producers. " 
 
a. Please explain the reason why the eligible producti on increased significantly 
in 2017.  
b. Please explain what steps are being taken to come back into compliance with 
Panama 's domestic support commitments for 2018 and prevent s uch 
occurrences from happening again.  
c. Please provide additional details with regards to how the programme is 
implemented, including eligibility to receive the payment.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 70 - 
 
  d. Please indicate, for each of the years 2013 through 2017, what percent of 
domestic rice,  milk, and corn production benefits from the price differential direct 
payment.  
Answer by Panama  
 
a. The reasons include the following:  
• The programme is recent (August  2015), and at the outset it was not generally 
well known  enough for it to be effective;  
• The support for the payment of rice production for a crop year is not necessarily 
received  during the corresponding calendar year: sometimes it is shifted  to the 
following year;  
• For budgetary reasons it is not possible  to cover the totality of the disburse ments 
in the corresponding year;   
• Panama  consider s that by 2017  the programme had become stabilized.  
b. Article 4 of Law 17 of 22  February  2018 declaring rice as a national food security crop 
stipulates that the state shall adopt the following measures to guarantee rice production: 
1. It shall establish  support for rice produced in the national territory at 7.50 balboas per 
hundredweight  of paddy rice, dirty or wet. This amount shall be reviewed every three 
years.  
c. The programme is currently being implemented on the basis of the Resolution 
No. OAL-114-ADM7 (Panama 14  August  2018), in particular Article 3 there of. As can be 
seen from the Resolution, eligibility is defined for paddy rice production that is sold.  
d. For more information, see the reference table s in Annex 2 . 
Follow -up: The United States noted that  Panama violated WTO  commitment s despite its  high degre e 
of transparenc y with domestic support notifications.  The United States  looked forward  to engaging  
with Panama to bring its measures into WTO compliance.  
 
2.4.13   Papua New Guinea (G/AG/N/PNG/1)  
AG-IMS ID 88013: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Papua New Guinea for its first Domestic Support notifications as part of 
this Committee on Agriculture.  Australia notes the notifications are for domestic support 
provided during Calendar Years 2013 -2017 excluding 20 15 (G/AG/N/PNG/1).  
  
a. Noting Papua New Guinea's advice that no information was available for 
Calendar Year 2015, but information was available for the years before and after 
2015, can Papua New Guinea explain in more detail if:  
i. no measures were funded in C alendar Year 2015? or  
ii. if information for 2015 is not available due to other records 
management/recordkeeping issues?  
b. Does Papua New Guinea plan on issuing  Table DS:2s for the measures listed in 
the Table DS:1s for Calendar Years 2013 -2017 excluding 2015?  
Answer by Papua New Guinea  
 
Papua New Guinea undertook to provi de a response at a later stage.  
 
                                                
7 See Annex 1 to this document.  The Resolution is in Spanish only.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 71 - 
 
  2.4.14   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/21)  
AG-IMS ID 88004: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its new and full notification pursuant t o Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/284/RUS) the 
Russian Federation indicated Support of Agriculture Machinery Modernization, Innovative 
Development within the State Programme "Development of Agriculture and Regulation of 
Agricultural Products, Raw Materials and Foodmarkets for 2013 -2020 ". Assistance is 
provided to manufacturers of agricultural machinery in the form of direct funding from 
the federal budget for compensation of co sts. Nevertheless, the policy objective is to 
improve "the efficiency and competitiveness of agricultural producers through technical 
and technological modernization of production ".  
 
a. Could the Russian Federation please confirm the policy objective of supp orting 
the competitiveness of agricultural producers?  
b. Could the Russian Federation please clarify if they consider this support to fall or 
not fall under the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Will the Russian Federation notify this measure as part o f a revised and updated 
Table DS:1 notifications?  
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Information on government support to domestic agricultural producers is provided in accordance 
with the rules for providing subsidies to agriculture machinery manufacturers as  approved by the 
Russian Federation Government Decision N°1432 of 27 December 2012. Notification of Russia's 
fulfilment of international obligations in the field of agriculture as per the Agreement on Agriculture 
will not be changed as a result of updated notification forms.  
AG-IMS ID 88117: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
Question 1  
 
For 2016, the Russia n Federation  reported a wheat applied administered price of 
USD 148.48 per tonne or RUB  9,933.31 per tonne using the notified exchange rate in 
G/AG/N/RUS/21.  The Russia n Federation  published three intervention prices for the 
2016 wheat crop based on quality:  RUB 10,900 per tonne for class  3, RUB  10,400 per 
tonne  for class 4, and RUB 8,800 per tonne for class 5 (feed).  
 
a. Please cla rify how the notified applied administered price was determined.  
  
Question 2  
 
In 2016, the Russia n Federation  did not notify a market price support for rye, which had 
been notified in previous years including 2014 and 2015, as well as 2012.  The United 
States notes that the Russia n Federation  regularly publishes intervention prices for 
wheat, barley, rye, and corn, including in 2016.  The United States notes that the published 
applied administered prices for wheat and barley were lower in 2016 than in 2015.  
 
b. Please confirm the published intervention price for rye in 2016 were discontinued 
in 2016 and whether there is any plan to reintroduce rye price supports in the 
future.  
c. Please explain whether a rye price support would have been notified in 2016 had 
prices  fallen significantly below the published intervention price, similar to what 
happened in 2015 for rye or 2016 for wheat and barley.   
d. Please provide the reason for the decrease in the applied administered prices for 
wheat and barley.  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Answer by Russian Fede ration  
 
Question 1  
 
The Russian Federation calculated the ceiling level of minimum prices for procurement on the bases 
of minimum monthly average producer price for the corresponding type of grain established during 
the period July -October in the previous year, taking into account costs associated with 
transportation, grain processing, drying, loading unloading of grain as well as costs of processing of 
documents. The level of inflation for the corresponding year is established on a regular basis by the 
federal law on the federal budget.  
 
Question 2  
 
Purchasing interventions for each grain type are conducted at minimum prices fixed by Russia's 
Ministry of Agriculture. The lack of data on rye in Russia's notification for 2016 is because no 
procurement  interventions have been conducted for rye. The minimum price for rye was established 
by the Ministry of Agricult ure including for the period of  2019. The Russia n Federation did not include 
rye from the list of grains with respect to which procurement  was carried out . The minimum prices 
for wheat and barley fixed by Russia's Ministry of Agriculture  in 2016 for the purposes of procurement  
has not decreased compared to the  levels in 2015. On the contrary, minimum prices for barley for 
2016 was increased from 7,500 Rubles  to 8,000 Rubles  per tonne. The reasons for this increase is 
that not only the part of barley  crops that relate to the grain  but the entire barley crops are taken 
into account.  
 
Follow -up: The United States disagreed with  Russia's explanation  concerning why no support was 
notified for rye  in 2016 . In U.S. view, w hether procurement interventions were undertaken or not, 
the publication of intervention  prices by the government sent clear signals to producers  to potentially 
shift their production . For example,  it was reported that the Russian Federation announced 
intervention  prices for class 1 and class  2 wheat in 2017,  both types of wheat typically not procured  
in the Russia n Federation , in order to stimulate  production of high quality  wheat  domestically.  The 
United States looked forward to future responses  from the Russian  Federation  on this topic. The 
European Union  shared U.S view as regards how to notify market price support .  
 
2.4.15   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121)  
AG-IMS ID 88058: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per a recent notification of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/121), it has spen t 
USD 1.9 billion under the Price Loss Coverage programme and it was notified under the 
non-product specific support category. PLC  programme payments are issued when the 
effective price of a covered commodity is less than the respective reference price for that 
commodity. The effective price equals the higher of the market year average price (MYA) 
or the national average loan rate fo r the covered commodity. In other words, these 
payments are based on current prices, therefore provide incentives to the farmers. 
According to the Environmental Working Group subsidy database, the  United States gave 
a total of USD  948 million to rice produ cers in 2015 and 2016. By not notifying PLC 
payments as product specific support, the United States seems to be underestimating the 
product specific support to various products. In this regard,  
a. It is requested that the United States may kindly provide pro duct-wise spending 
under the PLC programme during the years 2015 and 2016.  
b. What is the rationale for notifying PLC as non -prod uct specific support in 
DS notification?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Payments under the PLC program me are made on historic al base acres, not on current 
production and do not require production of specific commodities or any commodity.  
b. While payment rates are calculated for each historically produced commodity according to 
the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, payments cannot  be associated with any particular G/AG/W/187  
 
- 73 - 
 
  commodity because producers need not plant the historically produced commodity to 
receive payments.  
Follow -up: Brazil, Canada and the European Union reiterated their concern on this topic . 
 
2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2)  
2.5.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/45)  
AG-IMS ID 88012: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Ecuador for its Table DS:2 (G/AG/ECU/45) explaining new or modified 
domestic support measures exempt from r eduction.  
  
Regarding the School Meals Programme (PAE), Ecuador notes the PAE entered into force 
in 2014. Australia understands that the PAE has been implemented since 1989 (referring 
to UNECLAC information https://plataformacelac.org/programa/41 ).  
  
a. Can Ecuador explain if the PAE was implemented in the years prior to 2014 and 
if so, why it is being reported as a new Measure?  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a later stage.   
 
2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.6.1   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/98)  
AG-IMS ID 88010: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union welcomes the continuous reduction of Norwegian export subsidies 
for cheese since 2013. However, reduced export subsidies for cheese could result in a 
reduced demand for milk produced in Norway.  
 
a. How does Norway plan to handle this possi ble loss in demand for milk produced 
in Norway?  
b. Can Norway explain whether this reduction in export subsidies follows a 
reduction in the quantity of cheese exported? If this is the case, to which of other 
dairy products was the corresponding milk quantitie s diverted?  
Answer by Norway  
 
a. The milk quota system serves to regulate the milk production according to the market 
situation and it will be used to avoid a situation of oversupply also in the coming years. 
Norway has two mechanisms that can be used to limi t domestic production.  
Firstly, each year the basic milk production quotas are multiplied with a factor to find the 
actual production possibilities for the quota year. This factor can be below 1.  Taking the 
quota year starting 1 Janua ry 2018 and ending December 31  2018 as an example, the 
basic quotas were originally set to be multiplied by a factor of 0.98 to reduce the 
production.  
Secondly, Norway has  a system for buying and selling quotas. Farmers selling cow milk 
quotas are allowed to sell 80% of thei r quota, at a free price, directly to other producers 
within a production region. Minimum 20% must be sold to the government at a fixed price. 
The government has the possibility to hold back this quota for reducing the total level of 
the milk production.  
b. A decision has been made to phase out all export subsidies for cheese from 1 July 2020. 
So far, the export subsidies have mainly been reduced in monetary terms. Rates for export G/AG/W/187  
 
- 74 - 
 
  subsidies for cheese have been reduced by 50%. The industry has so far decided to export 
approximately the same volume as the last years, but with less subsidies pr kg. So far this 
has not led to a fundamental change in dairy production in Norway.  
AG-IMS ID 88054: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Can Norway provide more detail about its notified producer finance subsidies?  
 
Answer by Norway  
 
The Marketing Act (Omsetningsloven) of 10 July 1936 regulates the domestic market for beef, 
mutton, pork, poultry, milk, butter, cheese, cereals and oilseeds; potatoes, vegetables, f ruit and 
berries and fur skins. Further to the Marketing Act, the Norwegian Agricultural Marketing Board 
(NAMB/Omsetningsrådet) attempts to balance supply and demand for key Norwegian agricultural 
products. Day -to-day market regulation is performed by the producer cooperatives.  
 
The market regulators collect a fee on the products delivered by the farmers to finance promotional 
activities and possible actions required to balance markets.  The fees are established by the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Food upon recommendations from the Norwegian Agricultural Marketing Board, 
normally for each calendar year, and held in separate accounts for each commodity subject to market 
regulation. For meat, the most common measures are temporary storage or early slaughter. Th ese 
fees are also used to finance the subsidised export of pork, and they are referred to as "producer 
financed subsidies" in Norway's notification.  
 
In the dairy sector, one of the market balancing measures is a price equalization scheme that 
guarantees the dairy farmer the same price irrespective of his/her location and the end use of the 
raw milk. In practice, liquid milk and liquid cream have a fee, while goods such as butter, cheese, 
and milk powder are subsidized. The scheme, which is entirely financ ed through equalization levies 
paid by the dairy industry, is also used to support transportation of milk from the farm to the dairy, 
the distribution of milk in northern Norway, and delivery of milk free of charge to schools throughout 
Norway. Export subs idies for hard cheeses, principally Jarlsberg, are also financed through this 
scheme. These levies are also referred to as "producer financed subsidies" in our notification.  
 
2.6.2   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 88115: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/PAN/44 Panama notifies that no export subsidies 
were provided from 2004 through 2017. However, the measure Certificados de Fomento 
a la Agroexportación (CEFA), in accor dance to Panamanian law (Annex 1 law No. 82 
31 December  2009), was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural 
producers with an export subsidy for marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, 
packaging and inland and ocean freight costs.   
  
Please explain the basis for not notifying this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
Panama undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
3.1  China  
AG-IMS ID  88009: Question by Australia  
Australia notes China' s latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CHN/29) covers the 
reporting period 2009 -2010.  
 
Can China please inform Members on its efforts to provide updated domestic support 
notifications from 2011 onwards?  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 75 - 
 
  Answer by China  
 
The relevant agencies in China are still in process of preparing updated domestic support notifications 
from the year 2011 onwards. The notifications will be submitted once they are ready.  
Follow -up: Australia noted that it had received comments regarding  China's missing  notificat ions 
when it presented data to M embers in the special session of the Committee  on Agriculture . Noting 
China's notifications were among the most important outstanding notifications  of this Committee,  
Australia  encouraged China to submit them soon, so as to facilitate transparency and agriculture 
negotiations facilitate . The United States  echoed Australia's  comments.  
AG-IMS ID 88082: Questi on by United States of America   
The United States notes that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the total 
volume of food aid provided).  According to press reports from Xinhua, China in prior years 
provid ed bilateral in -kind food aid ( in particular rice and wheat, among other 
commodities ) in response to emergency appeals, which is consistent with China's Nairob i 
commitments. Does China plan to submit a Table ES:3 for relevant years? If not, please 
explain.   
 
Answer by China  
 
China undertook to provid e a response at a later stage.  
 
3.2  Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 88083: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Egypt 's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export 
subsidy commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998 and has not yet responded to the 
export competition questionnaire.   
  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including  Supporting Table ES:2, and 
respond to the export competition questionnaire.  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
On export subsidy notification obligations, the concerned authorities in the capital are currently 
undertaking the necessary measures to update notifications and  to submit them to the Committee.  
 
3.3  Ghana  
AG-IMS ID 88084: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Ghana's last notification (G/AG/N/GHA/2) concerning 
export subsidy commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 2000 and has not yet re sponded 
to the export competition questionnaire.   
  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, and respond to the export competition 
questionnaire.  
 
Answer by Ghana  
 
Ghana undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3.4  India  
AG-IMS ID 88085: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that India is overdue in providing the Committee on Agriculture 
with its notification (Table ES:1) or response to the export competition questionnaire for 
any year following marketing yea r 2009/10, including any export subsidy measures th at 
meet the criteria of Article  9(d-e) in Supporting Table ES:2 notifications. Also, according 
to news sources, India in prior years has provided bilateral in -kind food aid – in particular G/AG/W/187  
 
- 76 - 
 
  rice and wheat - in response to emergency appeals, which is consistent with India's 
Nairobi commitments.   
  
a. Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including Supporting Table 
ES:2.   
b. Please notify Table ES:3 for relevant years.  If not, please explain.   
Answer by India  
 
India will notify its relevant ES notifications in due course.  
 
Follow -up: Given the issues raised in this C ommittee  covering various commodities , Australia and 
the European Union expressed interest  in reviewing these notifications including the  reporting of 
Article 9.4 subsidies.  
 
3.5  Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 88086: Question by United States of America  
The United States notes that Kenya's last notification (G/AG/N/KEN/1) concerning export 
subsidy commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1995 and has not ye t responded to the 
export competition questionnaire. Please provide all overdue export subsidy notifications, 
Table ES:1.  
 
Answer by Kenya  
 
Kenya undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3.6  Korea , Republic of  
AG-IMS ID  88008: Question by Australia   
Australia notes the Republic of Korea's latest domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers the reporting period 2009 -2011 . 
 
a. Can the Republic of Korea please inform Members on its efforts to provide 
updated domestic support notifications from 201 2 onwards?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
Korea is currently on the phase of finalizing and confirming its domestic support notifications . 
 
3.7  Morocco  
AG-IMS I D 88007: Question by Australia   
Australia notes Morocco's last submission of domestic support notifications was in March 
2012 and related to the period 2003 -2007 (G/AG/N/MAR/37).  
 
a. Can Morocco provide an update on its progress to submit outstanding domestic 
support notifications?  
Answer by Morocco  
 
Morocco undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3.8  Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 88087: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Pakistan is overdue in providing the Committee on 
Agriculture with its notifications (Tabl e ES:1 and ES:2) or response to the export G/AG/W/187  
 
- 77 - 
 
  competition questionnaire for any year following marketing year 2012/2013, including 
any export subsidy measures that meet the criteria of Article 9(d -e) in Supporting Table 
ES:2 notifications. Also, according to news sources, Pakistan in prior years has provided 
bilateral in -kind food aid – in particular rice and wheat - in response to emergency 
appeals, which is consistent with Pakistan's Nairobi commitments.   
  
Please provide all overdue notifications, including  Table E S:1, including Supporting 
Table  ES:2, Table ES:2, and Table ES:3.   
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Federal g overnment in consultation with the provincial g overnments are working  to finalize the 
remaining notifications and they will be submitted to the WTO Sec retariat shortly.  
 
Follow -up: Australia looked forward to reviewing the notifications  in light of  the issues raised in the 
Committee on various commodities. The European Union hoped to see the inclusion of Article  9.4 
subsidy  in the notification .  
 
3.9  Tanzan ia  
AG-IMS ID 88081: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Tanzania has never notified its ex port subsidy commitments 
(Table  ES:1) and has not yet responded to the export competition questionnaire. Please 
provide all overdue export subsidy notifications, Table ES:1.  
 
Answer by Tanzania  
 
Tanzania will submit the notifications once it gets the response from the capital.  
 
3.10  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID  88006: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (85062) at CoA meeting 85 regarding Turkey's outstanding 
notifications:  
 
a. Could Turkey provide an update on its progress to submit outstanding domestic 
support and export subsidy notifications?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey has been able to successfully notify 2002, 2003 2004 domestic su pport numbers due to the 
data gathering and calculation process that has been going on intensely within the Ministry. The 
administrative structure of the Ministry has changed which has delayed the notification process. In 
this regard Turkey would like to a sk for more patience from Members in order to organize itself for 
its next notification tables. However, the awareness of WTO issues has been raised at the different 
branches of the Ministry thanks to the efforts of the WTO Secretariat and some Members, in cluding 
through conferences and information sharing activities. In this regard, Turkey would like to express 
appreciation for the support provided which has been crucial in this process.  
AG-IMS ID 8800 5: Question by European Union  
When will Turkey forward  the missing notifications on export subsidies and Domestic 
Support?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
See response above.  
 
Follow -up: Australia noted that Turkey,  as a major economy, a major agricultural  producer , importer  
and exporter, its n otifications  were important for transparency and agriculture  negotiations.  Further 
to its previous submission a year ago which covered 20 02-2004, Australia e ncourage d Turkey to 
speed up the notification preparation process.  The European Union and the United States supported G/AG/W/187  
 
- 78 - 
 
  Australia 's intervention. Indonesia  inform ed the C ommittee  that it had  submitted a number of 
notifications which concerning Domestic Support  (2012-2017), Market Access (2012 -2017),  Export 
Subsidies (2016 -2017) and follow up to NFIDC decisions (2013 -2016).  Indonesia  noted that those 
submissions reflect ed how Indonesia attached to the importance of transparency obligations as one 
of the important pillars in the WTO.   
 
4  OTHER  
4.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 88088: Questi on by United States of America   
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.1 and Export Credit - 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that government of India th rough the Reserve Bank of 
India  (RBI), since 2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre- and Post Shipment Rup ee Export Credit for eligible exporters for agricultural 
products.  The rate of interest equalization is 3 % and the scheme is available to certain 
exports, including 24 HS4 digit agricultural and food products.  
  
a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural  products while providing at the same 
time interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, 
including the specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
c. Please explain how this measure complies with India 's WTO  commitments, and 
if directly lending is providing by RBI, why  this export financing support activity 
has not been reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
4.2  Indonesi a  
AG-IMS ID 88089: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 87054:  
  
Please provide responses to the export credit competition questionnaire (ECQ) with 
regards to any export financing support programmes being operated by the Indonesian 
government -owned entities Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia 
EximBank) and PT Asuransi Ekspor Indonesia (ASEI)) , which are reported in Indonesia's 
Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/278/ Rev.1). According to Indonesia EximBank's annual 
reports financing for agriculture was USD  764.6 million in 2015 and USD  818.7 million in 
2016.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia would like to inform the Committee that the Ministry of Trade in coordination wi th 
EximBank and ASEI is still working on this matter. Indonesia  would like to update this committee 
with required information once the work in Jakarta has been completed.  
 
4.3  Japan  
AG-IMS ID 88090: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
 G/AG/W/187  
 
- 79 - 
 
  Japan noted in response to questions posed by the United States in June that average 
annual repayment term, average premium rates and program me use by year are 
"unavailable because the IT  system is not built to extract such data. " What steps is Japan 
taking to collect the required information?  
 
Answer by Japan  
 
The date of the average premium rates and annual average repayment period by program me is not 
available because the IT system is not built to extract such data. A re -modelling  of the system is not 
planned.  
 
Follow -up: The United States regretted  that Japan's  response remained unchanged from last year 
and looked forward to follow up on this matter.  
 
4.4  Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 88091: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that on 11 June 2015 Pakistan incorporated the EXIM Bank of 
Pakistan as public limited entity and would provide export credit, supplier's credit, export 
credit insurance and export credit guarantees.  The Uni ted States also notes that the Sta te 
Bank of Pakistan provides re -financing support to banks on their financing to exporters 
under the Export Finance Scheme  (EFS) and the Islamic Export Refinance Scheme (IERS) 
for eligible commodities.  
 
Please explain the basis for not reporting the export financing activities of EXIM Bank of 
Pakistan and the State Bank of Pakistan.  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
The EXIM bank has not yet started its operations. Pakistan is currently preparing its SCM notifications 
in consultation wi th relevant stakeholders and the same will be notified shortly.  
 
4.5  Paraguay  
AG-IMS ID 88093: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
 
Paraguay 's National Development Bank (Banco Nacional de Fomento ) and the Livestock 
Fund (Fondo  Ganadero), which are discussed in Paraguay's Trade Policy Review 
(WT/TPR/M/245/Rev.1), appear to fall within the defin ition of Article 1.1(a)1 of 
the SCM.   
 
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
agricultural -specific programmes, please explain why the National Development Bank and 
the Livestock Fund export financing support activities have not been reported by Paraguay 
in response to the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
 
Answer by Paraguay  
 
The United States points out  that Paraguay has not reported  its export financing support activities 
for agricultural products in the Committee on Agriculture's Export Competition Q uestionnaire 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2) intended  for that purpose.  
 
The United States' question arises from the Secretariat report in Paraguay's trade policy review 
(WT/TPR/S/245/Rev.1), in which the Secretariat refers to the National Development Bank and the 
Livestock Fund in the section "Measures Directly Affecting E xports".  
 
The United States also notes  that the measures fall within the definition of subsidy in 
Article  1.1(a) (1) of the SCM Agreement, namely that a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if "there is G/AG/W/187  
 
- 80 - 
 
  a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the te rritory of a Member (referred 
to in this Agreement as 'government')  …". However, Article 3  (Part II - Prohibited Subsidies) , making 
an exception for  the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture , prohibits subsidies con tingent upon 
export performance  or upon the use of domestic over imported goods.  
 
In the case of the programmes offered by the institutions mentioned in the question, if they were 
subsidies, they would fall within the scope of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, since the time-limits  
for the r epayment of loans  (12 months) are shorter than the maximum established in the Ministerial 
Decision (18 months).  
 
It should also be noted that a number of the measures and programmes mentioned in the Trade 
Policy Review of Paraguay are currently being revie wed and updated because they have fallen into 
disuse. These include some of the programmes offered both by the Livestock  Fund and the National 
Development Bank.  
 
In the light of its commitment to transparency within the WTO, Paraguay is currently in the pr ocess 
of identifying pending notifications and questionnaires, and in so doing has requested the assistance 
of the Secretariat. Once this process has been completed, if the measures mentioned in the question 
are deemed to constitute subsidies and are still  being offered, they will  be reported  in the 
corresponding questionnaire.  
 
4.6  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 88094: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 87058 Thailand stated that "The Export Cred it and Export Credit 
Guarantee P rograms of the Export - Import Bank of Thailand are Self -financing and 
interest rates and conditions are determined by market mechanisms, in line with the 
Nairobi Decisions. " 
  
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Ex port Competition does not exclude 
export financing support that a Member considers to be "Self-financing, " that it is not 
limited to just agricultural -specific programmes, and that there is no reference to being 
exempt from the commitments because of "inte rest rates and conditions are determined 
by market mechanisms, "  
  
On what specific basis does Thailand consider that the Nairobi Decision excludes the 
Export - Import Bank of Thailand 's export financing support activities?   
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The export  financing supports provided by the EXIM Bank are consistent with the terms and 
conditions under the Nairobi decision, which are self -financing and able to cover long -term operation 
and losses, charge risk -based premiums, and interest rates base d on market  mechanism.  
 
4.7  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 88116: Questio n by United States of America  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid. What 
is the basis for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?   
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
Turkey is pla nning to submit all ES notifications as a package together.  
 
 
_______________  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 81 - 
 
  ANNEX  11 
 
                                                
1 In Spanish only.  
G/AG/W/187  
 
- 82 - 
 
   
G/AG/W/187  
 
- 83 - 
 
   
G/AG/W/187  
 
- 84 - 
 
   
 
  G/AG/W/187  
 
- 85 - ANNEX 2  
Annual average prices received by the producer – Years 2014 -2015  
Product  Unit of measurement  (Farm gate price, in balboas)  (Market price, in balboas)  
2014 2015 2014 2015 
Premium paddy rice  Quintal  20.42  20.79  23.17  24.88  
Dried maize (corn) grain  Quintal  21.45  21.87  24.37  27.38  
Fresh cow's milk  Bottle  0.44 … 0.49 0.75 
… Information not available       
Source:  Office of the Comptroller -General of the Republic (Table 351 01 Year 2015) . 
 
Production and support: Rice, maize (corn) and milk  
Year Milk Maize (corn)  Rice 
Total 
production 
(litres )* Supported 
production 
(litres)**  Percentage  Total 
production 
(kg)* Supported 
production 
(kg)**  Percentage  Total 
production 
(kg)* Supported 
production 
(kg)** Percentage  
2013 199,856,288  0 0 118,049,400  0 0 249,493,608  0 0 
2014 208,948,902  0 0 132,115,536  0 0 288,684,648  0 0 
2015 205,072,150  2,024,281  1 141,028,776  34,261,162  24 256,424,616  46,008,765  18 
2016 199,769,005  58,250,500  29 103,039,776  78,285,403  76 283,268,664  62,657,973  22 
2017 n/a 28,652,610  n/a 128,259,936  19,589,503  15 322,813,512  225,387,031  70 
* Source: Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Panama.  
** Source: MIDA OGACO.  
 
 
__________