WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
1 November 2012 
 (12-5989) 
Committee on Agriculture  
 
 
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the  
Committee on Agriculture meeting on 23 June 20111 
 
Revision 
   The present revision reflects the inclusion unde r paragraph 44 of the written response by the 
Kyrgyz Republic, submitted on 24 October 2012, to the questions c ontained in paragraph 64 of 
document G/AG/W/84.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 2 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 ............... 5  
A.  UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM  ......................................................... 5  
B.  UNITED STATES ' SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON – COMPLIANCE WITH RULING  ..................... 6  
C.  ARGENTINA 'S IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ...................................... 6  
D.  CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  ........................................................................................................ 7  
E.  STATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  
COMMITMENTS  ........................................................................................................................... 8  
F.  INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON COTTON  .............................................................................. 9  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS ............ 9  
A.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMIN ISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1)................................................................................................... 9  
1.  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/8 and G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.1) ......................................................... 9  
(a)  Allocation of licences to  importing entities ................................................................................ 9  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2)................................................................................................. 10  
1.  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/36) .........................................................................................................  10 
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 10  
2.  European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/67) ...................................................................................... 10  
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 10  
3.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/162) ....................................................................................................... 11 
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 11  
4.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/56) .................................................................................................... 11  
(a)  Allocation of licences to  importing entities .............................................................................. 11  
5.  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/75) ............................................................................................. 13  
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 13  
6.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/87) ..................................................................................... 13  
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 13  
C.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES  MA:3  TO 
MA:5) ......................................................................................................................... ............... 14  
1.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/163 ) ....................................................................................................... 14  
(a)  Other implementation issues ................................................................................................... .. 14 
2.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/86) ..................................................................................... 15  
(a)  Link with TRQ commitments ................................................................................................... 1 5 
D.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  DS:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 15  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1.  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/76) .................................................................................................. 15  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 15 
2.  Kingdom of Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/5)................................................................................. 19  
(a)  Article 6.2 – Investment subsidies ge nerally available to agriculture ...................................... 19  
3.  European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/68) ...................................................................................... 20  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments: payments under environm ental programmes ......... 20  
(b)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS .................................. 20  
4.  Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/30) ................................................................................. 21  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) – General Services :  extension and advisory services ........................... 21  
5.  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/47) ........................................................................................................ .. 21 
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Ge neral services: other ....................................................................... 21  
(b)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support ....................................................... 22  
6.  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (G/AG/N/SAU/4) ........................................................................ 22  
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS .................................. 22  
7.  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/21) ..................................................................................................... 22  
(a)  Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers .................. 22  
8.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/69) ............................................................................................ 23  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) – Gene ral services: research .................................................................. 23  
9.  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/40 and G/AG/N/TUN/40/Corr.1) ................................................... 24  
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support ....................................................... 24  
10.  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9) ...................................................................................................... 2 4 
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support ....................................................... 24  
11.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/77) ............................................................................................ 25  
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS ............................................. 25  
E.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS 
(TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  & ES:3) .................................................................................................... 26  
1.  European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/70) ...................................................................................... 26  
(a)  Export subsidies subject to reduction commi tments (Article 9.1) – Transparency 
issues ........................................................................................................................ ................. 26  
F.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 26 
1.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Ma cedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/13) .......................................... 26  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 26 
(b)  Importing Members' food security ............................................................................................ 2 7 
2.  Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/3) ....................................................................................... 27  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 27 
3.  Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/3/Add.1) ........................................................................................ 28  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 4 
 
 
  (a)  Transparency issues – Other ................................................................................................... .. 28 
4.  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.3) ........................................... 28  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 28 
G.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFE CTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON 
LEAST -DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
(TABLE  NF:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 30 
1.  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/80 and G/AG/N/AUS/81 ) .............................................................. 30  
(a)  Quantity and concessionality of food aid .................................................................................. 30  
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 31  
A.  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  ....................................................................................................... 31  
(a)  China:  Domestic support ...................................................................................................... .... 31 
(b)  Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies ........................................................................ 31  
(c)  India:  Domestic support and export subsidies ......................................................................... 31  
(d)  Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard ...................................................................... 31  
(e)  Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies ...................................................................... 32  
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 33  
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 36  
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 37  
ANNEX 4 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 38  
  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS 
UNDER THE REFORM PROGRAMME:  ARTICLE 18.6 
A. UNITED STATES ' DAIRY IMPORT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM  
1. Questions by Australia:  Australia expressed  concerns at the Committee on Agriculture 
meeting on 31 March 2011 regarding the treatm ent of imports under the US Dairy Import 
Assessment.  As these concerns were previously raised without notice, Australia would like to 
reiterate them again.  
(a) Can the United States explain how the method of assessment for imported 
products does not place a greater administrative burden on imported dairy 
products than it does on domestic milk producers? 
Administrative burdens for both domestic assessments and import assessments are 
minimal and of similar magnitude.  For domestic assessments, most of the 
administrative burden falls upon persons responsible for making payments to 
producers for their milk.  This includes keep ing track of producer deliveries of milk, 
withholding the assessments from producers, remitting the money to the Dairy Board, 
handling payments and credits for payments  to Qualified Programs, and maintaining 
books and records to verify that assessment provisions have been carried out correctly.  The administrative burden for importers includes declaring the milk solids 
to US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), ma intaining books and records to verify that 
assessment provisions have been carried out  correctly, and designating that a portion 
of the assessment be remitted to a Qualified Program, if so desired. 
(b) Can the United States explain how import ed dairy products receive comparable 
benefits from the promotion and research programme when the bulk of imported dairy proteins, such as caseins, are used as ingredients in foods that 
are not covered by this programme? 
USDA's research and promotion programm es benefit both domestic and imported 
products by increasing demand for dairy pr oducts.  While not all imported dairy 
products are promoted the same situation exists for domestic dairy production.  
Although all domestic milk marketed commercially pays the assessment, the Board 
does not specifically promote all dairy products.  Analyses show, nevertheless, that 
the National Program provides benefits relativ e to all dairy products, whether or not 
they are specifically promoted.  Prom oting any dairy product increases dairy 
consumption, and therefore the market for milk solids tightens.  As supplies tighten, 
prices can increase for the entire array of products that contain milk solids, both 
domestic and imported.  Additionally, c ontrary to the assertion in Australia's 
question, the current National Program does promote dairy ingredients by marketing 
dairy ingredient benefits to food and beve rage manufacturers and to help launch new 
or improved products.  In 2008, for example, the National Program spent 
approximately $4.9 million on ingred ient research and promotion. 
The authorizing legislation for the programme provides for the addition of two 
members to the National Dairy Board to represent importers.  In addition, a 
programme that promotes imported dairy products can be certified by USDA as a 
qualified dairy product promotion, research , or nutrition education programme, and 
thus receive the equivalent of up to 2.5 US cents of the 7.5 US cents per 
hundredweight of milk that importers are as sessed.  If importers choose to establish a 
Qualified Program, this will give them furt her opportunity to direct the use of their G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 6 
 
 
  assessment.  Together, these two provisions give importers of dairy products the 
ability to have a say in how th eir assessment dollars are used. 
2. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand would also like to reiterate the point it had 
raised at the 31 March 2011 meeting, which had remained unanswered.2  New Zealand would 
like to take this opportunity to comment on th e United States' recent extension of its Dairy 
Import Assessment or "Promotion Check-Off" po licy to imports.  The measure will impose a 
levy on all dairy-based imports, the proceeds of which will be used to build demand for 
domestic dairy consumption.  Since import barri ers such as tariff rate quotas and tariff levels 
limit the growth of dairy imports into the US market, the levy unfairly targets imports which 
will not necessarily be able to benefit from th e promotion, and any increased consumption, of 
dairy products in the market.  
Tariff rate quotas (TRQs) constrain dairy imports  in varying degrees.  TRQs do not seem to 
be a significant hindrance to the volume imported into the United States for many dairy 
products.  Significant quantities of imported dairy products are not subject to TRQs.  While some imports may receive greater direct benefits from the programme than others, analyses 
show that the National Program provides benef its relative to all dairy products.  Promoting 
any dairy product increases dairy consumption, and therefore the market for milk solids tightens.  As supplies tighten, prices can increase for the entire array of products that contain 
milk solids, both domestic and imported. 
3. Further, New Zealand anticipates that the levy will create additional regulatory and 
administrative costs for exporters.  New Zealan d, along with other dairy exporting countries, 
has conveyed its concerns about this measure to the United States government and is therefore 
disappointed that the United States has proceeded with the measure.  New Zealand is now assessing the measure in light of international rules and talking to industry about the likely 
impact of the measure.  New Zealand would like to receive comments from the United States.  
See the response in paragraph 1(a). 
B. U
NITED STATES ' SUBSIDIES ON UPLAND COTTON – COMPLIANCE WITH RULING  
4. Questions by India:  In the US-Upland Cotton  case, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel 
findings that certain subsidies provided by the United States were inconsistent with the 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture and other WTO Agreements.  The United States is 
requested to inform whether it has fully complie d with the WTO provisions.  If not, would the 
United States indicate the time-frame for br inging its measures into conformity with the 
Agreement on Agriculture so that the impact of  these subsidies on Members' cotton growers can 
be mitigated?  
With respect to the Cotton Dispute (WT/DS 267), the United States and Brazil are operating 
under a Framework for a Mutually Agreed Solu tion, until enactment of successor legislation 
to the US Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
C. ARGENTINA 'S IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
5. Comments by Israel:  Israel would like to express its systemic co ncern related to the 
requirements imposed by Argentina with respect to imports.  Argentina's measures lead to 
restricting or delaying imports of a long list of goods that compete with locally produced 
agricultural goods or foodstuffs.  According to  the concerns expressed  by Israeli exporters, 
                                                      
2 G/AG/W/81/Rev.1, paragraph 3, page 6.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  various types of border measures are being impo sed on importers.  In Israel's view, the 
unpredictability, lack of transparency and th e discriminatory treatment of imports in the 
implementation of such measures create a de facto  disruption of trade flows and adversely affect 
Israeli exporters' interests.  
6. Questions by the United States:  The United States and other Members have raised on 
several occasions concerns about Argentina's treatm ent of imports in this Committee and other 
WTO Committees.  Based on recent feedback from  US exporters, the import access problems 
appear to be worsening.  What steps is Argent ina taking to ensure that imports do not face 
unjustified and arbitrary non-tariff barriers, su ch as requiring importers to prove to the 
officials of the Government of Argentina that they are exporting more than importing in order 
to receive the necessary import documentation?  
The questions above lack the kind of factual pr ecision that would enable Argentina to provide 
an answer.  The questions are no mo re than unsubstantiated opinions. 
Moreover, the Ministry of Agriculture reports that it has not adopted any measure that could 
restrict or delay imports of agricultural products  either from the United States or from Israel. 
D. CANADA 'S DAIRY POLICIES  
7. Questions by New Zealand:  
(a) At the 59th meeting of the Committee of Agriculture, Canada confirmed that the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calculates the 
pooling returns and sharing of promotion costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative on behalf of Dair y Farmers of Canada (DFC).  Given the 
role of this Crown Corporation in administering the DFC programme, can 
Canada provide details on the amount of CDC resources that are allocated to 
supporting this initiative, e.g. full time equivalents (FTE) or budget allocation? 
The Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private and confidential contractual 
agreement, between the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental organization, 
and individual ice cream processors.  The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) 
calculates the pooling returns and sharing of promotion costs related to the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative on behalf of provincial boards and agencies;  however it does not 
administer the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative.  The modifications to the pooling 
calculations were integrated to the revenue sharing calculations at the start of the Ice 
Cream Promotion Initiative.  These calcula tions are now automatically made on a 
monthly basis.  There are no FTE equivalents or budget allocated to this initiative by 
the CDC. 
(b) New Zealand and other Members have at previous Committee meetings raised 
concerns about Canada's approach of off ering reduced prices under Milk Class 
4(m) to stimulate demand from Canadian  dairy processors to buy domestic milk 
protein concentrates (MPCs) rather than imported MPCs.  This measure 
effectively displaces and undercuts dema nd for MPC imports.  Can Canada 
provide WTO Members with material to s ubstantiate their response made at the 
59
th Committee of Agriculture meeting that the modifications to Class 4(m) has 
not/will not have a negative impact on the overall imports of MPCs? 
The modifications to Class 4(m) seek to grow the market by stimulating demand for 
milk protein concentrates (MPCs) by Canadian dairy processors and further G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 8 
 
 
  processors.  There is no evidence that the modifications to Class 4(m) had any 
significant impact on the overall imports of m ilk proteins in Canada.  In 2010, overall 
Canadian imports of MPCs increased, from 5,266 tonnes in 2009 to 5,325 tonnes in 2010. 
E. S
TATE -OF-PLAY OF COSTA RICA'S REFORM POLICIES TO ADDRESS BREACH IN AMS  
COMMITMENTS  
8. Questions by the United States:  In the March 2011 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Costa Rica described the actions it planned to take to ensure that its Aggregate 
Measurement of Support (AMS) drops below its bound ceiling.  The United States welcomed 
those pronouncements.  Unfortunately, it appe ars that Costa Rica may not have taken any 
concrete actions to reduce its AMS since the Ma rch 2011 announcement, which, if true, allows 
this breach of WTO commitments to continue una bated.  Can Costa Rica report positively on 
concrete steps taken to address this breach, and provide detail on any policies implemented with 
respect to these steps?  
Costa Rica welcomes this opportunity to explain what has been done towards adjusting the 
level of domestic support bound at  the level of $15.9 million. 
As mentioned in March 2011, the Government of Costa Rica has prepared a draft National 
Rice Policy.  This draft was submitted to the National Rice Corporation (CONARROZ) on 
12 January, and since then, it has been under c onsultation with the national rice sector.  The 
policy aims to improve the competitiveness of the small and medium rice producers.  This involves abandoning the price support mechanism fo r rice, which is ultimately the instrument 
that causes Costa Rica to exceed the maximum level of permitted domestic support for 
agriculture.  Predictably, the elimination of the price support mechanism, which had been used for more than 20 years, met with the opposition from producers, who considered their 
profitability threatened by the removal of a s upport instrument that favoured a transfer from 
the consumers to the rice producers and other actors in the agri-food chain. 
Price support for rice is really the focal poi nt of the rice policy discussions between the 
government and the producers, and at the same ti me, it is the crucial factor that needs to be 
corrected.  Discussions have been so difficult that producers have, in fact, initiated court 
proceedings against the government on this issue in particular. 
On 24 May 2011, following consultations with  producers in the country's different 
rice-growing areas, the Government of Cost a Rica provided CONARROZ with a revised rice 
policy document.  This document expands the target population to include all rice producers 
and incorporates topics such as water resour ces management and the improvement of 
producers' organizations at the regional leve l.  As Costa Rica informed the Committee in 
March 2011, the National Rice Policy takes account of the possible effect of the elimination 
of price support on small and medium rice pr oducers and seeks to attenuate the impact 
through three support programmes that are adap ted to the Green Box criteria, respect the 
monetary limit of $15.9 million for Total AMS, or comply with the de minimis  level and so 
incur no breach of the rules laid down in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
With reference to the commitment to notify domestic support provided during the previous 
calendar year, on 31 May 2011, Costa Rica submitted its domestic support notification 
for 2010.  The Total AMS for 2010 was $109.6 million, up by $18 million from 2009.  
Since 2007, this ceiling has been exceeded, and every year the support has increased 
substantially.  According to these data, the in crease in AMS in percentage terms over the  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  previous year was 19.5 per cent, and in absolute terms it exceeded the maximum limit of 
$15.9 million. 
Costa Rica attaches the utmost importance to th e fulfilment of its WTO commitments and to 
respect for the principle of transparency as one  of the pillars of this Organization.  The 
National Rice Policy described above is the subject  of internal consultations, and it is one of 
the Costa Rican Government's priorities to ensure that it improves competitiveness levels in 
the rice sector and adjusts the level of suppor t within the limits established for the country. 
In spite of this, the Government of Costa Rica is still not in a position to say when it will be 
introducing a national rice policy that eliminat es the violations of its WTO commitments on 
domestic support to agriculture. 
F. INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON COTTON  
9. Question by the United States:  India has en acted a number of cotton export restrictions 
since 2009.  Although Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture is specific only to foodstuffs, 
these export restrictions have had a significant eff ect in distorting international cotton trade.  
The United States assume that India has implemented these restrictions on a temporary basis.  
When does India plan to end these disruptive export restrictions?  
The current export restrictions on cotton are fully covered under Article XI of GATT 1994.  
The issue falls outside the purview of the Committee on Agriculture. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE ADMIN ISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA 
COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1) 
1. Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/8 and G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.1) 
(a) Allocation of licences to importing entities 
10. Questions by Colombia:  According to notifications G/AG/N/UKR/8 and 
G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.1, an import licence issued by  the Ministry of Economic Development and 
Trade of Ukraine is required for the allocation of  the sugar tariff quota.  Applicants must also 
receive prior approvals from the State Agency  on Material Reserve and the Ministry of 
Agrarian Policy and Food.  In light of the ab ove, Colombia would ask the Government of 
Ukraine to list each one of the formalities and requirements laid down by the State Agency on 
Material Reserve and by the Ministry of Agrari an Policy and Food to enable importers seeking 
import licences issued by the Ministry of Econ omic Development and Trade to obtain approval.  
The procedure for allocation of TRQ for im porting raw cane sugar to Ukraine and the 
procedure of issuing licences are approved by the Resolution 1002 of the Cabinet of Ministers 
of Ukraine of 12 November 2008 (amended by the Resolution 204 of the Cabinet of Ministers 
of Ukraine of 28 February 2011) and the Or der number 15 of the Ministry of Economy of 
Ukraine of 20 January 2009.  These legal docum ents foresee that the licences for importing 
raw cane sugar to Ukraine within the tariff quota are issued to the subjects of economic 
activity by the Ministry of Economic Devel opment and Trade on the approval of the State 
Agency on Material Reserve and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food.  The approvals of 
both authorities should be received by the app licants before applying for licence.  The 
detailed application procedures are contained in Annex 1. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 10 
 
 
  B. NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS 
(TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/36) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
11. Question by Australia:  Chile has notified th at there were no imports within its tariff 
quota for "cane or beet sugar and chemically pur e sucrose, in solid form" in 2010.  Could Chile 
provide an explanation for why no imports were received?  
There were indeed no requests for the tariff quot a for sugar in 2010 because of the increase in 
the international price of sugar.  The effect of  this price increase was that the price band for 
this product resulted in a tariff reduction of such magnitude that the applied tariff fell to zero.  
Hence there was no economic incentive fo r importers to use the tariff quota. 
2. European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/67) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
12. Questions by Canada  
(a) The European Union has a tariff rate quota of 11,500 tonnes in place for 
"high-quality meat of bovine animals, fresh, chilled or frozen", which is shared 
by Canada and the United States as supplying countries.  Could the European Union confirm that imports under this ta riff quota are notified under the tariff 
quota identified as "meat of bovine animals, fresh, chilled, frozen and edible 
offal", with a tariff quota quantity of 37,950 tonnes (page 2 of G/AG/N/EEC/67)?  If this is the case, could the European Union provide specific information on the 
fill rate for the 11,500 tonnes of the ta riff quota reserved for Canada and the 
United States? 
The EU confirms that the quantity of 11,500 tonnes shared by Canada and the United 
States is included in the tariff quota quantit y of 37,950 tonnes.  As a matter of 
principle, the EU provides information as requi red by the format of the notification.  
However, the EU will provide a reply to th is specific question by Canada.  The tariff 
quota amount allocated within the 11,500 tonnes allocation for Canada and the United States was 6,641 tonnes in the marketing year 2008-2009. 
(b) The European Union created a duty-f ree tariff quota of 20,000 tonnes for 
hormone-free high-quality beef on 13 July 2009 as outlined in Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009.  Will the European Union be providing details on 
the fill rate for this tariff quota in  future market access notifications? 
The tariff quota referred to in the question is  an autonomous tariff quota.  Therefore, it 
does not fall in the scope of WTO notification obligations.  The EU suggests that 
Canada pursues this question in the bilateral context.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  3. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/162) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
13. Questions by Australia:  Australia notes that  Japan significantly under-filled its tariff 
quotas for several products, including skimmed m ilk powder;  whey and modified whey for 
feeding purposes;  prepared whey for infant fo rmula;  butter and butter oil;  mineral and 
concentrated whey;  dried leguminous vegeta bles;  and ground nuts.  Can Japan provide 
reasons for why these tariff quotas were not filled?  
Under the TRQ system, Members are not committed to fulfilling the tariff quotas but rather to 
providing access opportunities.  The tariff quotas on the products in question were underfilled 
because the total volume requested in the applications was less than the tariff quota volumes.  
Japan publicly announces, in bulletins on TR Q Administration, all tariff quotas to be 
allocated, and the tariff quotas are allocated to a ll eligible applicants within the total tariff 
quota volume. 
14. Questions by New Zealand:  Some dair y product tariff quotas are significantly 
under-filled (e.g. Skim milk powder 29 per cent fill;  butter and butter oil 13 per cent fill, 
mineral concentrated whey 21 per cent fill).  If market forces were the reason behind the under 
fill why does Japan consider it still needs tariff quotas on these products?  
Under the TRQ system, Members are not committed to fulfilling the tariff quotas but rather to 
providing access opportunities.  The fact that currently there is tariff quota underfill cannot be 
a reason for Japan to abolish the tariff quota concerned. 
15. Questions by the United States:  The United  States notes several cases in which a tariff 
quota was less than half filled in fiscal year 20 09 but over-quota imports occurred at very high 
tariffs.  The over-quota imports seem to indicate demand within Japan that could have been satisfied by the tariff quotas.  Why does Japan no t allow all imports to enter within these tariff 
quotas?  
Japan publicly announces all tariff quotas to be allocated in the bulletins of 
TRQ Administration, and the tariff quotas are alloca ted to all eligible applicants within the 
total tariff quota volume.  Importers are free to choose between importing under the TRQ or 
out-of-quota;  and the tariff quotas are not allocated unless importers apply. 
4. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/56)  
(a) Allocation of licences to importing entities 
16. Questions by the European Union:  Recalling the response3 by Norway during the 
61st meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, the EU further notes that for some products, the 
auctioning prices can be fairly high resulting in  a reduction of the value of the market access 
concession made by Norway.  Also the fact th at the auctioning prices can vary considerably 
creates uncertainties and a lack of predictabilit y for market actors, esp ecially for small and 
medium-sized companies.  Against this backgr ound the European Union would like to raise the 
following questions:  
(a) Could Norway elaborate on the justification for the use of a TRQ auctioning 
system and its relation to the use of do mestic products when there is a large 
                                                      
3 Paragraph 18 of G/AG/W/83 refers. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 12 
 
 
  enough supply to satisfy the market?  Does the use of an auctioning system not 
add to the price variability in the domestic market? 
Initially, Norway would like to note a slight  disagreement with the statement made in 
the introductory part of the question, relating to a " reduction of the value of the 
market access concessions made by Norway ".  Norway's market access commitments 
are made to the Members of the WTO, not to private importers.  As elaborated below, 
the auctioning system has effects on the distribution of quota rents, not on market 
access itself.  Norway therefore disputes the above mentioned statement about reduction of the value of market access comm itments.  It is also noteworthy that the 
fill rate for these two tariff quotas is 90 pe r cent or higher in both 2008 and 2009. 
Firstly, auctioning is widely lauded in economic literature as a market-based 
administration system contributing to an effective tariff quota distribution between 
interested importers while limiting the ine fficiencies of quota-rent effects.  The 
auctioning system has advantages both in terms of limiting underf ill and in removing 
bias towards inefficient suppliers compared with other administration methods.  
Secondly, Norway does not in any way adjust the auctioning regime depending on 
domestic price or supply variations.  The onl y variable is the bidders' willingness to 
pay, which is left to their own commercial c onsiderations.  Thirdly, to the contrary of 
what the European Union is indicating, the auctioning system does not add to price 
variability in the domestic market, except, theoretically, through very small indirect 
effects of increasing the marginal supply of the product in question.  These marginal 
effects would be there regardless of administration methods.  With minimum access 
TRQs, it will be the added supply, not the import unit price, that influences the domestic price.  This is one of the f undamental differences between a tariff-only 
regime and a TRQ regime.  With a tariff quot a, a profit-maximizing importer is likely 
to charge market value for the importe d goods, which is defined by the domestic 
price, since the quantity available through th e TRQ is naturally and inherently limited. 
(b) How does Norway consider the admitted pri ce variability also resulting from the 
auctioning system to be in accordance with predictability and transparency of 
trade flows? 
Norway does not consider price variab ility "admitted", as elaborated above in 
paragraph 16(a).  Predictability and transp arency of trade flows are secured through 
the auction system. 
On predictability, bidders will not place bids higher than a level that they consider 
will provide them with sufficient opportunities for profits.  As any winning bid 
confers a benefit to the bidder by providing an opportunity for profit, there is a clear 
incentive, therefore, to import the allocate d quantity, thereby ensuring predictability 
of trade flows.  With no import, the au ction fee is a net loss for the importer. 
As regards transparency, information on th e tariff quotas and the auctions is made 
available on the Norwegian Agriculture Author ity web site at least two months before 
the auctions take place.  The auction plan is continuously updated as the auction dates 
and times are set.  Historical information on auctioning, a list of allocations, including 
firms, quantities and prices, is made availabl e as soon as the auction is finished at the 
same web address. 
Furthermore, each year the tariff quota fill and auction prices are published in an 
annual proposition from the Ministry of Finance to the Norwegian Parliament.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  5. South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/75) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
17. Questions by the European Union  
(a) The European Union notes a tariff quota f ill of only 1 per cent for skimmed milk 
powder, 19 per cent for butter and 36 per cent for cheese.  Could South Africa 
explain the reason for these low fill rates?  
Import permits for the full tariff quota quantities were issued to prospective importers 
of the products in question i.e., milk powder, butter and cheese.  The MFN tariffs for 
both butter and cheese are specific tariffs  and, depending on prices and market 
conditions, the ad valorem  in-quota tariffs could be higher.  This was the case in the 
years 2007 and 2008.  Because the applied MFN tariff was lower that the in-quota 
tariff, importers did not fully u tilize their tariff quota allocations. 
(b) A number of tariff rate quotas show a 100 per cent fill rate.  In case of such a full 
utilization of tariff quotas, for out-of-quo ta imports, does South Africa also 
apply the in-quota rates, the MFN bound rates or any other rate? 
South Africa would like to refer the EU to the WTO IDB where all of South Africa's 
applied tariffs can be found. 
6. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/87) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
18. Questions by Australia:  Australia notes that  Chinese Taipei significantly under-filled its 
tariff quotas for several products, including bana nas, liquid milk, garlic bulbs, pineapples, and 
mangoes.  Can Chinese Taipei provide reasons  for why these tariff quotas were not filled?  
Chinese Taipei's TRQ mechanisms have resulte d from the negotiations during its accession to 
the WTO.  All administrative procedures for th ese TRQs are in accordance with the principles 
of transparency, predictability and equity, and are based on the market situation.   
Regarding the nil or low tariff quota fill rat es for bananas, liquid milk, garlic bulbs, 
pineapples and mangoes, possible reasons are as follows: 
 The under-filled tariff quotas for some products may be caused by domestic market 
factors, including over-supply and reduced consumption. 
 The nil fill rates for some products, such as bananas and mangoes, may be due to the 
main exporting countries not meeting the SPS requirements. 
19. Questions by the European Union:  Chinese Taipei notifies that "bound tariff quotas not 
shown in the attached table are those that were no t activated during the reporting period."  The 
notification contains 16 different tariff quotas of which the following three are not utilized:  
bananas, mangoes and shaddock.  Have these pro ducts been imported at applied tariffs lower 
than in-quota rates?  For the sake of transp arency, the European Union would appreciate that 
non-operated TRQs nevertheless be included in the list TRQs notified in the context of the 
annual Table MA:2 notification.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 14 
 
 
  Chinese Taipei confirms that there were no impor ts of mango, banana and shaddock under the 
TRQ systems in 2010.  The Table MA:2 notifi cation submitted by Chinese Taipei is in 
accordance with the Agreement on Ag riculture and document G/AG/2. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SPECIAL SAFEGUARD (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/163 ) 
(a) Other implementation issues 
20. Questions by Australia  
(a) Australia is concerned by Japan's use of the SSG.  Firstly, in the period 
1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011, Japan invoked the volume-based SSG on "milk and cream, not concentrated nor containi ng added sugar or other sweetening 
matter" on a quantity of 1.31 tonnes and on "yogurt;  frozen, preserved or 
containing added sugar or other sweete ning matter, flavouring, fruits, or nuts 
(excluding frozen yogurt)" on a quantity of 2.75 tonnes.  It also invoked the SSG 
for maize (corn) starch, where imports represented approximately 0.03 per cent 
of the three-year average domestic co nsumption.  Does Japan believe these 
actions to be in the spirit of the safegu ard, namely to provide domestic producers 
with protection against a surge of imports as a result of trade liberalization?  
The volume-based SSG measure in question was applied, just as stipulated in 
Agreement on Agriculture, when the import vo lume exceeded the trigger level, which 
is calculated in accordance with Article 5. 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Under 
the Japanese legislation, the implementati on is automatic once the trigger level is 
exceeded. 
(b) In addition to the volume-based actions, Japan has also used the price-based 
SSG, including six applications to the tariff line 1901.90.179 (food preparations 
of flour, meal, or starch, containing groats, meal, pellets or starch of rice, wheat, 
triticale, barley, which total weight is more than 85 per cent of the articles) in the twelve-month period between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011.  Can Japan 
confirm that the volume of imports was not declining during these invocations? 
The price-based SSG measure in question w as applied, just as stipulated in the 
Agreement on Agriculture, when the import pr ice fell below the trigger price, which 
is calculated in accordance with Article 5.1( b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The 
price-based SSG is applied to each shipme nt concerned.  Such a one-time measure 
would not have any effect on the entire flow of imports.  The quantity of imports of 
HS 1901.90.179 has not been declining in recent years. 
(c) Japan indicates that it applied the SS G to 11 products between 1 April 2010 and 
31 March 2011, yet it appears that Japan has only submitted notifications for 
three of these products:  milk and cream;   yoghurt;  and maize (corn) starch.  
Can Japan explain how this represents compliance with the requirement in 
Article 5, paragraph 7, that Members give notice to the Committee on 
Agriculture in writing within 10 days of the implementation of a SSG remedy?  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
  According to the notification requirements defined by the Committee on Agriculture 
(document G/AG/2), Members have to submit a notification before each invocation of 
a volume-based SSG and before the firs t invocation of a price-based SSG on a 
product. 
Japan has submitted notifications to the Committee according to these requirements.  
SSG actions on four products  subject to a volume-based action (including the three 
products in question) were notified based on each invocation.  For the seven products 
subject to a price-based action, a notification of trigger prices had already been submitted when SSG was invoked for the first time.  Japan reports all volume-based 
and price-based SSG actions in its annual Table MA:5 notification to the Committee. 
Japan's notifications have been in complia nce with the requirements of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
2. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/86) 
(a) Link with TRQ commitments 
21. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand no tes that there was a significant tariff quota 
under-fill for liquid milk for calendar year 2010 (11,369 tonnes imported versus a quantity of 
21,298 tonnes, see G/AG/N/TPKM/87).  Given the under-fill, New Zealand would like to know why a volume-based safeguard action was taken on liquid milk from 28 July 2010 to 
31 December 2010.  
Chinese Taipei confirms that the calculation and application of SSG for each product are fully 
in accordance with its accession commitments a nd Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Chinese Taipei, further, confirms that the SSG  on liquid milk will be applied to out-of-quota 
imports only.  The current SSG provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture clearly stipulate 
that the in-quota imports shall be exempted from an additional duty even when the SSG has 
been invoked.  Therefore, the minimum mark et access opportunity as committed by Members 
can always be secured.  Under these principles,  importers can make their own decisions as 
whether or not they wish their imports to be subject to the out-of-quota tariff rate. 
D. N
OTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/76) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) General services:  extension and advisory services 
22. Question by India:  Can Australia specify  the type of financial counselling service 
provided under the AAA - Rural Financial Coun selling Services to the primary producers, 
fishing enterprises and small rural businesses in rural areas as mentioned on page 6 of the 
notification? 
The purpose of the Rural Financial Counselling Service (RFCS) Program is to provide free 
support to primary producers, fishers and small rural businesses (the target client group) who 
are suffering financial hardship, and who have no alternative sources of impartial assistance, 
to manage the challenges of change and adjustment. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 16 
 
 
  The objectives of the RFCS Program are to (1 ) provide clients with access to financial 
information, options, decision support and refe rrals to other sources of industry, professional 
and government assistance;  (2) empower clients to make their own decisions on how to most effectively manage change and adjustment issu es;  and (3) deliver effective, flexible and 
responsive services to tho se in need of assistance. 
The RFCS Program operates as a partnership between the Australian and state governments 
and non-government, not-for-profit organizations that employ rural financial counsellors. 
Rural financial counsellors aim to: 
 help clients understand their fi nancial and business position; 
 help clients understand their financial and business options; 
 improve clients' abilities to plan operations, achieve realistic goals and identify risks; 
 help clients complete action plans to addr ess industry adjustment and climate change 
pressures; 
 connect clients to information about government and industry assistance; 
 refer clients to accountants, agricultural a dvisers and other relevant professionals, as 
required; 
 refer clients to professionals for successi on planning, family support and personal 
(social and emotional) counselling, as required; 
 assist clients to identify their advice and training needs;  and 
 apply a case management approach to provi de clients with an holistic outcome. 
(ii) General services:  inspection services 
23. Question by India:  Can Australia explain th e justification for partial cost recovery of 
inspection of Australian Quarantine and Insp ection Service (AQIS) fees and charges as 
mentioned on page 7 of the notification?   
The Australian Government will move to full cost  recovery of inspection fees by 1 July 2011.  
This is in line with the recommendations of  the independent review of quarantine and 
bio-security arrangements, " One bio-security:  a working partnership " (the Beale Review).   
(iii) Direct payments:  decoupled income support 
24. Question by India:  As mentioned on page 14 of the notification, Australia provides 
decoupled income to low-income farmers experi encing financial hardship and for those who 
cannot borrow further against their assets.  What  are the criteria to identify low-income 
farmers?  
The "AAA – Farm Help (Income Support)" Prog ram (FHIS) ended in 2008/09.  Although 
applications for income support closed on 30 Ju ne 2008, some farmers may still have received 
payments until 30 June 2009.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Farm Help, which was part of the government 's Agriculture Advancing Australia package, 
was aimed at assisting farm families in serious financial difficulty to improve their long-term 
financial prospects, obtain off-farm income or  re-establish outside farming.  The income 
support component of this programme was intende d to provide short-term  financial support to 
farm families who were experiencing severe fi nancial difficulties meeting living expenses. 
The eligibility criteria for the FHIS were as follows.  The applicant must, for a continuous 
period of at least two years immediately before applying for the programme, have been a 
farmer;  and: 
 have derived more than 50 per cent of gr oss income from the farm enterprise; 
 have contributed more than 50 per cent of capital and working hours to the farm 
enterprise; 
 be unable to borrow against their assets; 
 be at least 18 years of age, an Australian resident living in Australia; 
 not, in any way, have lost management c ontrol of their farm (for example, through 
bankruptcy); 
 satisfy the Farm Help income test (same as for Newstart Allowance4) and assets test 
(same as for Newstart Allowance in respect of non-farm assets). 
FHIS was paid at the same rate as the standa rd social security payment (Newstart Allowance) 
for up to 12 months.  As such, the amount recei ved started to decline once total (farm and 
non-farm) income exceeded $A 62 per fortnight.  Thus, low-income farmers were "identified" 
by their eligibility for receipt of ordinary soci al security payments that are contingent on 
demonstrated low income. 
(iv) Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net programmes  
25. Question by India:  Can Australia indicate the basis for determining low income year 
under Farm Management Deposit Scheme (FMDS) as  mentioned on page 14 of the notification?  
As FMDS is a tax-linked scheme could Australia clarify how it is ensured that the tax benefit is extended only to situations of income loss as  provided in 7 (a) of Annex 2 of Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
The FMDS allows individual farmers to mana ge income volatility by setting aside pre-tax 
income in good years for use in low-income year s.  This enables the individual farmer to 
defer the income tax on taxable primary production income from the income year in which 
the deposit is made until the income year in wh ich the deposit is withdrawn.  As Australia 
operates a progressive income taxation system, farmers can only benefit from the FMDS 
when they withdraw the deposit in a low income y ear (i.e., a year when their marginal tax rate 
is low).  Farm Management Deposits (FMDs) provide tax benefits if kept for at least 
12 months.  Eligible farmers in exceptional ci rcumstances-declared areas may be able to 
access their FMDs within 12 months while re taining the tax benefits of the scheme. 
                                                      
4 Newstart Allowance is the generally available social security payment. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 18 
 
 
  (v) Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
26. Question by India:  Can Australia provide details of relevant domestic regulation that 
define what the exceptional circumstances are for relief payments entitlement as mentioned on page 14 of the notification?  How is it ensured  that payments under these schemes compensate 
for not more than the actual losses?  How is the interest rate subsidy calculated?  
The Australian Government's "exceptional circumstances" (EC) programmes are policy 
arrangements that aim to help farmers who are viable in the long-term cope with rare and 
severe events that are outside those that a farm er could normally be expected to manage using 
responsible farm management strategies.  EC assistance involves short-term, targeted 
assistance, including income support for households  and interest rate subsidies for business 
debt, for eligible farmers and small businesses in EC declared areas. 
In March 1999, Australian state and territory agricu lture ministers agreed to a set of criteria to 
be used when assessing areas for an EC declarati on.  Under these criteria, to be classified as 
an EC event, the event must be rare and severe, that is it must not have occurred more than once on average in every 20 to 25 years and must be of a significant scale;  must result in a 
rare and severe downturn in farm income over a prolonged period of time (e.g. greater than 
12 months);  and must not be predictable or part of a process of structural adjustment. 
State and territory governments are responsible  for compiling and submitting EC applications 
to the Australian Government.  Once an appli cation is received, the Australian Government 
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry  may refer it to the National Rural Advisory 
Council (NRAC) for assessment.  NRAC is a sk ills-based independent advisory council to the 
Minister, and conducts a comprehensive assessment of the application against the agreed 
EC criteria, which may include an on-ground inspection. 
On completion of its assessment, NRAC presen ts its recommendations to the Minister, who 
has responsibility, after consulting with the Aust ralian Government, for declaring whether or 
not a particular area is experiencing EC.  If a full EC declaration is announced, EC assistance, 
including EC interest rate subsidies and EC re lief payments, are available to eligible farmers 
and small business operators for up to two years. 
Income support is provided as the exceptional circ umstances relief payment and is paid at the 
same rates as the Newstart Allowance (general so cial security).  Income support is to assist 
eligible farm and small business families to meet their day-to-day living expenses.   
Interest Rate Subsidies are provided at 50 per cent of the interest payable on new and existing 
loans for the first year of an EC declarati on and at 80 per cent in the second and subsequent 
years, up to a maximum of $A 100,000 in any 12-month period and $A 500,000 over five years. 
Further information is available on the Departme nt of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's 
website:  http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/ec/ . 
(vi) Direct payments:  other 
27. Question by India:  How does the measure "Sugar Industry Reform Program – 
regional/community projects" as mentioned on page  18 of the notification work? Does it involve 
direct payments to sugar industry as part of the reform programme?   G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
  The objective of the Regional and Community Projects Program was to stimulate medium to 
long-term restructuring of the sugar industry by providing grants for projects at a regional 
level.  Funding of up to $A 75 million w as provided for the programme, which was 
completed in 2009. 
Individuals or financially viable business entitie s within the sugar industry could apply for 
project funding under the programme.  Applican ts were required to submit project proposals 
outlining how their project would contribute to  the reform and restructure of the sugar 
industry and the value it would bring to the region.  Project proposals were required to comply with one or more of the reform aims, including promoting cross-sectoral partnerships 
and adoption of whole-of-system solutions;  e nhancing revenue and cost efficiency;  and 
facilitating environmental and social su stainability across the industry chain. 
Proposals were assessed on a co mpetitive basis and were conditional upon the applicant 
providing at least 50 per cent of total project cost s, which could include cash or value-in-kind.  
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was responsible for approving project 
proposals, based on advice provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and 
Forestry.  Successful applicants were required to enter into funding agreements with the 
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Fo restry which oversaw reporting and auditing 
requirements, and project milestones.   
The programme provided funding for projects th at pursued options for diversification and 
alternative uses for sugarcane, such as etha nol and biofuel production, co-generation and 
bio-plastics. 
2. Kingdom of Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/5) 
(a) Article 6.2 – Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture  
28. Questions by the United States  
(a) Please describe the purpose of the subsidy identified as "poultry sector" 
classified under "investment subsidies generally available to agriculture", and 
how the payments are implemented. 
The purpose of the subsidy is to support low-income, resource-poor breeders, to 
improve production for this staple product.  The subsidy is provided to the sector in 
the form of: 
- installation of electricity, water and drainage facilities; - veterinary services, including vaccination; 
- laboratory facilities; 
- training programmes both internally and externally for the breeders. 
This subsidy is not meant to protect or safeguard the local production of poultry, as 
poultry imports are open for investors. G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 20 
 
 
  (b) It appears that this programme may not meet the criteria of Article 6.2 as an 
"investment subsidy generally available to agriculture", since it is only available 
to producers in one agricultural sector.  Are the broiler farms it supports considered low-income or resource-poor farms? 
No direct payments are made to the breeder s;  only services are provided.  Income of 
breeders is below the average in Bahrain. 
3. European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/68) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments : payments under envi ronmental programmes 
29. Questions by the United States:  Does the European Union make payments to farmers 
on a one-time basis, only at the time of conv ersion from non-organic to organic production, or 
are payments made to farmers who adopt organic methods on an on-going basis?  
Payments for organic production are made dur ing conversion from non-organic to organic 
production. 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
30. Questions by the United States  
(a) It is United States' understanding that  the primary measure providing support 
for fruit and vegetables for which the AMS was calculated as a product-specific equivalent measure of support, prior to  the 2007 reforms, was the entry-price 
system which is still in place.  Can th e European Union confirm whether this 
understanding is correct?  Since this system was not replaced by the new 
measures, but rather the new types of s upport are provided in addition to the 
entry price system, why wouldn't the correct calculation of AMS be the sum of 
support as previously calculated for th e existing measures, and the additional 
support provided under the new mechanisms? 
The primary measure providing support for fruit and vegetables prior to the 2007 
reform was not the entry price system (EPS).  The EPS is a form of border protection 
in the realm of the market access pillar.  It was not the existence of the EPS as such 
that implied the calculation of a price gap for the fruit and vegetables sector.  Rather, 
this price gap calculation resulted from the ex istence of an, albeit rudimentary, price 
support instrument in which the entry prices only served as a proxy for the applied 
administered price, as per paragraph 2 of  Annex 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
This price support instrument was abandoned in the 2007 reform. 
(b) In addition, the European Union's expl anation of its new support measures for 
fruit and vegetables indicates that the new system came into effect only on 1 January 2008.  Why is support that was provided to the sector during the first 
half of the reporting period (1 July 2007 - 31 December 2007) not reported 
according to the previous methodology? 
The EU notification of domestic support for the 2007-2008 marketing year 
corresponds to spending in the budget year 2008.  Spending for budget year 2007 was 
therefore covered in the domestic suppor t notification for the 2006-2007 marketing 
year.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
  4. Hong Kong, China (G/AG/N/HKG/30) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General Servic es:  extension and advisory services 
31. Questions by New Zealand:  Can Hong Ko ng, China provide details on the support 
provided for promoting organic farming?  Is payment associated with production?  
Hong Kong, China provides extension services and on-farm technical advice to organic 
farmers and helps them solve technical problem s that they may encounter in production.  
Hong Kong, China also conducts adaptive studi es in government experimental station to 
improve growing methods;  prevent diseases and pe sts;  and to select suitable plant varieties 
for organic production.  These technologies and practices are then regularly extended to 
farmers through seminars, workshops  and on-farm visits.  Some of the subjects covered by 
recent studies and seminars/workshops include:  good agriculture practices, soil and nutrient 
management, plant pest and disease management , organic production of sweet bell pepper, 
introduction of new varieties of water melon fo r organic production.  These technical supports 
and services do not involve payments to producers. 
More information on Hong Kong, China's Or ganic Farming support can be found from the 
website of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department at: 
http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/agricu lture/agr_orgfarm/agr_orgfarm.html . 
5. Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/47) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: other 
32. Question by New Zealand:  Would Israel pr ovide additional detail on the nature of 
support included in the category "Investment in  Agriculture" listed under Services Provided 
for Farmers in the Green Box?  
The support under the category "Investment in Ag riculture" is given mainly to farmers in 
development areas (particularly the Negev a nd the Galilee), where the government provides 
several programmes in order to attract farmers and increase the population of farmers in rural 
areas.  This category includes investment in agriculture infrastructure provided for farmers 
such as new agriculture infrastructure, intr oduction of new plants and new technology, 
activities to improve the sanitary and environmenta l conditions of certain animals, etc.  Other 
programmes such as the following are also included: 
 assistance in the development of machinery and equipment for field crops; 
 citrus plantings; 
 net houses for citrus; 
 labour saving devices; 
 packing and cooling houses for flowers; 
 classification and cooling houses for spices;  and 
 development of agricultural tourism (wineries, olive presses and milk products 
production plants). G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 22 
 
 
  (b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
33. Questions by the United States:  In prev ious responses to questions raised in the 
Committee on Agriculture, Israel had indicated that  poultry meat production could be as high 
as 270,000 tonnes.  Could Israel explain why no pr oduction is indicated for poultry meat in its 
Supporting Table DS:5?  
Israel has introduced a new programme in 2000.  A Table DS:2 notification5 was circulated to 
the Committee.  In general, Israel has provi ded production subsidies to poultry producers in 
the Galilee region.  In the year 2000 this po licy was changed completely, thus changing the 
situation once and for all.  Since 2000 the support measure is indeed decoupled from 
production.  This measure is also included in the current Table DS:  1 notification under the 
Green Box category. 
6. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (G/AG/N/SAU/4) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
34. Questions by the United States:  The United States notes an increase in the reported 
total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS ) between 2007 and 2008, mostly due to the 
more than tripling of support for livestock and poul try.  The United States also notes that Saudi 
Arabia approached its AMS limit in 2008.  Please explain what steps the Government of Saudi Arabia takes to ensure that Saudi Arabia  does not exceed its WTO AMS commitments?  
The increase in the Current Total AMS betw een 2007 and 2008 was due to the increasing 
quantities of imported animal feed products, ma inly barley, corn and soybeans.  These 
products were subsidized by the Government  for livestock and poultry projects to mitigate 
increasing costs of production (among actions taken by the Government to deal with the food 
crises of 2008) and to face the harsh local w eather conditions, especially low rainfall seasons. 
Despite that, the Current Total AMS in 2008 was still below Saudi Arabia's Annual Bound 
Commitment Level. 
Saudi Arabia is taking all the necessary step s not to exceed its Annual Bound Commitment 
Levels.  In this regard, at the end of 2008 a Ministerial decision was taken to terminate Saudi 
Arabia's production support policy for wheat within eight years, i.e., making it dependent on wheat imports for meeting all local needs by 2016. 
7. Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/21) 
(a) Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
35. Questions by the United States:  Based on Mexico's answer to the question regarding the 
criteria used in the agricultural diesel program me, can Mexico confirm that the programme 
does not distinguish low-income or resource-poor producers from other producers?  
Mexico considers that the agricultural diesel progr amme fits the criteria of Article 6(b) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture because the group of  beneficiaries of the support consists 
essentially of the producers with the smallest fa rms.  Indeed, 86 per cent of the beneficiaries 
of the programme are farmers with small la nd, which is the most important input in 
agricultural production.  The first category or group is made up of 305,811 producers with 
                                                      
5 G/AG/N/ISR/17.  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
  less than 50 hectares of land for cultivation.  It is in this group that most of the low-income 
and resource-poor producers are concentrated.  In effect, the agricultural diesel programme 
essentially supports the most economically disadvantaged segments. 
A table providing the details of the programme  beneficiaries is included in Annex 2. 
8. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/69) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services: research 
36. Questions by Chile:  Under "Research", the figures of $NZ 65.765 million 
(July 2008-June 2009) and $NZ 67.135 million (J uly 2009-June 2010) relate to "Funds provided 
by the Foundation for Research, Science and Tec hnology (FRST) for rese arch directly related 
to agricultural production including forage, anim al and dairy industries, horticulture, arable 
and other food and beverage industries".  Accord ing to information published on the website of 
the FRST6 in November 2009, the Ministry of Resea rch, Science and Technology announced a 
$NZ 35.7 million seven-year joint financing prog ramme (FRST, Plant and Food Research and 
ZESPRI) to develop new kiwifruit varieties.  
(a) Could New Zealand confirm whether the government contribution to this 
programme is part of the FRST allocati ons notified regularly in the framework 
of its domestic support commitments? 
Before responding to the specific questions  by Chile, New Zealand would note that 
science funding in New Zealand has recently been restructured and now Government 
investment to research such as the Kiwifruit breeding programme and other 
agricultural research is made through the Mi nistry of Science and Innovation (MSI).  
Previously, the funding was through the Foundation for Research, Science and 
Technology (FRST), as reflected in this notification. 
All Government research funding directed toward the agricultural sectors is reported 
in New Zealand's domestic support notification.  The specific kiwifruit research 
programme referred to in the question is cons istent with Annex 2, paragraph 2(a) of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and is notif ied accordingly in Supporting Table DS:1 
(Green Box) in the domestic support notifi cation for the year ending June 2010. 
The total payment made by the Founda tion for Research Science and Technology 
in 2009/2010 to the seven year long programme to develop new kiwifruit varieties 
was $NZ 1.511 million out of a total of $N Z 67.135 million allocated to agricultural 
research. 
(b) Could New Zealand provide details concerning the programme, in particular:  
the amounts allocated by the government , the allocation method used, and a 
description of the beneficiaries? 
The total contribution of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (now 
Ministry for Science and Innovation) to the programme will be $NZ 15.2 million over 
seven years. 
                                                      
6 http://www.frst.govt.nz/ news/kiwifruit-research G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 24 
 
 
  This contribution will be used in a join t government and industry programme.  When 
other non-government contributions are included, the net total value of the 
programme becomes $NZ 35.7 million over seven years. 
This programme will include research into  cultivars and developing cultivar breeding, 
screening and evaluation technologies.  There are possible long-term benefits of the 
development of a new variety of kiwifruit differentiated by appearance, sensory or 
health attributes. 
The main beneficiaries, if the research is  successful, will be kiwifruit growers.   
9. Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/40 and G/AG/N/TUN/40/Corr.1) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
37. Questions by the United States  
(a) The United States understands that production figures estimated by the Ministry 
of Agriculture are substantially higher than the figures listed.  Could Tunisia 
explain why the figures for eligible produc tion for wheat, barley and milk are so 
low in its Supporting Table DS:5? 
The quantities shown in the Supporting Ta ble DS:5 correspond to the quantities 
eligible for market price support.  This eligibility applies to all of the production 
collected, which does not always correspond exactly to total production. 
The difference between the quantities show n and total production for the products 
under consideration stems from the fact th at only the quantities that represent "fair 
market value" are collected by the in tervention agencies and benefit from price 
support according to a price scale, while the rest is not marketed. 
A part of the production is not marketed e ither because it is consumed by the farming 
families themselves or because the quality of the product is not up to standard and it is 
used for animal feed. 
(b) In its Supporting Tables DS:5, Tunisia indicates that it has adjusted reference 
prices to take account of inflation and exchange rate movements.  The United 
States' understanding of the calculation guidelines in Annex 3 of the Agreement is that the reference price should be fixed at the 1986-88 level.  What is the basis 
in the Agreement on Agricultu re for making these adjustments? 
The basis for the adjustment in question is Article 18.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
10. Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
38. Questions by Canada:  Supporting Table DS:5, calculation of market price support for 
sugar produced from sugar beets:  Canada understands from WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR/1/Rev.12 
that Ukraine's fixed external reference price fo r 2004-06 is UAH 1,747.33/tonne.  This was used 
in calculating Ukraine's Total AMS commitment le vel, which in Ukraine's Schedule is expressed 
in UAH.  Ukraine's fixed external reference price of UAH 1,747.33/tonne was derived from  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
  export price observations that averaged $340 /to nne in 2004-06.  Given that paragraph 8 of 
Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires the external reference price to be fixed, 
Ukraine's indexing of the reference price in Supporting Table DS:5 does not seem to follow the 
rules of the Agreement.  It results in raising the reference price to Hrv 2,798.1/tonne in 2009 
(presuming that the Hrv in Ukraine's notification  is intended to be the same as the currency 
unit UAH in Ukraine's Schedule and Supporting Tables).  A calculation that properly uses the 
fixed external reference price of UAH 1,747.33/t onne, and which also uses Ukraine's notified 
eligible production of 1,26 7.0 thousand tonnes, results in market price support of UAH 
1,745.5 million instead of the notified UAH (o r Hrv) 414.1 million.  Could Ukraine indicate 
when they intend to provide a revised Table DS :1 notification for 2009 which would include the 
accurate fixed external reference price of UA H 1,747.33/tonne for sugar produced from sugar 
beets?  
39. Questions by Japan:  Japan would request Ukraine to explain the method of calculating 
the external reference price of sugar in Support ing Table DS:5 and would like to know whether 
the external reference price in Hrv woul d change in every annual notification.  
The domestic support calculations for 2009 are b ased on factual data on financing and overall 
production of agricultural products.  The Cu rrent Total AMS for 2009 was calculated as 
1,113.4 million UAH which does not exceed the Total AMS commitment level of 
3,043.4 million UAH.  Hence Ukraine does not violate its commitments regarding domestic 
support in agriculture. 
Concerning the Supporting Table DS:5 for calculating market price support for sugar, the 
fixed external reference price for 2004-2006 (UAH 1,747.33/tonne) was used.  Ukraine's 
fixed external reference price of UAH 1, 747.33/tonne was derived from export price 
observations that averaged $340/tonne in 2004-2006.   In addition, the consumer price indexes 
for 2007-2009 (16.6 per cent in 2007, 22.3 per cent in 2008 and 12.3 per cent in 2009 
respectively) are considered in the adjustment of  the external reference price.  Consideration 
of consumer price index in the calculation of  the external reference price for 2007-2009 
allows to minimise the negative influence of the world financial crisis and to consider 
changes in the exchange rate (UAH to US dollar) due to inflation. 
Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture provides that in the review process Members 
shall give due consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of 
any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments. 
11. United States (G/AG/N/USA/77) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
40. Questions by the European Union:  In response to the questions asked during the 
60th and 61st meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, the United States explained that "State 
Credit Programs" were no longer notified as non-product-specific AMS, since the series of 
surveys used to collect the data on the pr ogrammes in question was discontinued in 1994.  
Moreover, the Unites States informed that the 1994 data had been used to report State Credit 
Programs each year through 2007 and that reporting  was discontinued because of the length of 
time since the last new data were collected.  Fi nally, the United States explained that the surveys 
were discontinued because they were originally established in response to the farm financial 
crisis of the 1980's and by 1994 that crisis was resolved.  
(a) Can the United States clarify whether th ese "State Credit Programs" are still in 
use? G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 26 
 
 
  (b) If the "State Credit Programs" are still in use:  where are the current 
programmes to be found in the notification and what sources of information are 
used to quantify the level of support? 
(c) Will the United States reintroduce surveys needed to collect the data on these 
programmes? 
The United States do provide estimates in the notifications of state programmes based 
on the 1994 surveys.  No national level collection of data on state credit programmes 
has been undertaken since 1994.  The Unite d States are continuing to search actively 
for data sources that will enable an accurat e tracking of state-level expenditures such 
as these. 
E. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES  ES:1,  ES:2  
& ES:3) 
1. European Union (G/AG/N/EEC/70) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitmen ts (Article 9.1) – Transparency issues 
41. Questions by the United States:  The European Union indicates that during the 
2008-2009 reporting period it exported 950,000 tonnes of sugar with subsidies, but that there 
were no export subsidy outlays involved beca use these exports did not "attract any export 
refunds".  Could the European Union explain what subsidies were applied to these exports?  
The notification was made in respect of the EU's export subsidy commitments, having regard 
to the relevant findings of the panel and th e Appellate Body in the dispute "EC – Export 
subsidies on sugar" as to the requirements for a demonstration of the absence of a "payment 
on exports by virtue of governmental action" in the sense of Article 9.1 (c) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
Based on the world market conditions that prev ailed during the marketing year 2008-2009, it 
is the understanding of the EU that, in the light of the above panel and Appellate Body 
findings, a demonstration of the absence of cross- subsidization could not be made.  Therefore, 
the out-of-quota sugar volume that was exporte d during this marketing year had to be 
notified. 
F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 
(TABLE  ER:1) 
1. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/AG/N/MKD/13) 
(a) Transparency issues 
42. Questions by the European Union:  
(a) The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia notifies the introduction of an 
export ban for wheat flour (HS 1101.00).  The submission is dated 15 April 2011 
and the ban was introduced on 8 April 2011.  Article 12, paragraph 1(b) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture states that "b efore any Member institutes an export 
prohibition or restriction, it shall give notice in writing, as far in advance as 
practicable, to the Committee of Agri culture".  Could the Former Yugoslav  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Republic of Macedonia elaborate on the reasons behind the late notification of 
the export ban? 
The Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has introduced the 
temporary export ban for wheat flour as an urgent measure by amending the decision 
on restriction of wheat export to avoid further complication of the situation in the 
supply on the domestic market of wheat and wheat flour.  The institution of export 
restriction on wheat flour is in addition to the previous export restriction on wheat 
(G/AG/N/MKD/12). 
(b) Could the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia elaborate on the critical 
shortages of wheat and wheat flour which prompted the introduction of the 
measure? 
The reason for expanding the scope of the restriction on wheat flour was significantly 
increased exports of wheat flour in a short pe riod of time.  Due to the critical situation 
in the supply of wheat and wheat flour in the domestic market, the export was monitored on a daily basis.  According to th e available customs data in the period 16 
February to 29 March 2011, high export of wheat flour was noticed to the 
neighbouring countries (Kosovo and Monteneg ro) in the quantity of about 1,300 
tonnes.  The exported quantities of wheat flour  during this one and a half month were 
significantly higher than the average annual export in the period of 2007-2010, which 
amounted to about 58 tonnes.  Such increased export quantities could have provoked further deficit in the domestic market and adversely affected the food security of the 
country. 
(b) Importing Members' food security 
43. Question by the European Union:  Did th e Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
give due consideration to the effects of such a restriction on importing Members' food security?  
From the annual export data of wheat flour in the period 2007-2010 (only about 58 tonnes) it 
can be noticed that the Former Yugoslav  Republic of Macedonia is not a net-food exporter of 
wheat flour and that the institution of the measure will not have effects on importing Members' food security (Article 12.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture refers). 
2. Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/3) 
(a) Transparency issues 
44. Questions by the United States  
(a) In its Table ER:1 notification, the Kyrgyz Republic states that export restrictions 
in the form of export taxes for cert ain agricultural products have been 
introduced due to shortages in the domest ic market and the low level of income 
of the population.  Can the Kyrgyz Re public confirm that the measure expired 
on 5 May 2011? 
The measures expired on 5 May 2011. 
(b) The United States would like to repeat the question it raised at the March 2011 
meeting of the Committee on Agricultu re:  for each product (HS codes 1005, 
1213, 1214, 2301, 2302, 2304, 2306, and 2308) please provide the volume of G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 28 
 
 
  production in 2010 compared to 2008 and 2009, and how many metric tonnes of 
each product were expected to be consumed domestically in 2010 compared to 
2008 and 2009? 
Please refer to Annex 3. 
3. Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/3/Add.1) 
(a) Transparency issues – Other 
45. Questions by the European Union:  The European Union welcomes the decision of 
Moldova to repeal the export restrictions on whea t.  Could Moldova elaborate on its intentions 
in relation to export restrictions for the near future?  
Pursuant to Article XI:2(a) of GATT 1994 an d in accordance with Article 12.1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, the Republic of Moldova introduced a temporary export ban on 
wheat in order to prevent a critical shortage  in the domestic market resulting from a poor 
harvest of wheat in 2010 and to eliminate a significant imbalance in the domestic grain 
market that was essential for the fo od security of the entire country. 
The export ban was a temporary measure.  In vi ew of the current balance of wheat and its 
derivatives on the domestic market and forecasts of export/import up to the harvest time, the 
Government decided to repeal the Government Decision No. 52 regarding the restriction on export of wheat through the Government Decision No. 320 of 4 May 2011.  As a result, the 
Republic of Moldova does not impose any export re strictions at the moment and there are no 
proposals for applying new restrictions on export in the near future. 
At the same time, pursuant to Article XI:2 of GATT 1994, the Republic of Moldova reserves 
the right to apply appropriate quantitative restri ctions if it ascertains a critical shortage of 
foodstuffs or other essentials that could lead to food insecurity and instability. 
4. Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.3) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Provision of informati on justifying the measure 
46. Questions by Australia:  Ukraine explains that, after taking into account domestic 
consumption and retained stocks, its export capab ilities of grain cultures in the current market 
year amount to 13.6 million tonnes, of which 7. 8 million tonnes have already been exported.  
This leaves 5.8 million tonnes available for expo rt during April – June 2011.  Ukraine has 
indicated its intention to export half of this quantity, 2.9 million tonnes, through quotas and its 
FTAs.  With the recent and commendable decision  to exclude corn from quantitative export 
restrictions, can Ukraine provide a revised figure for its likely exports during April – June2011 ?  
As per the estimation of the Ministry of Agri culture of Ukraine, the production of crops in 
2011 is expected at 45.2 million tonnes.  Acco rding to balance sheet calculations, export of 
grains in the marketing year 2011/2012 sh all constitute about 18.5-20 million tonnes. 
47. Questions by the United States:  In the March 2011 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Ukraine indicated that despite th e implementation of the export quota system, 
domestic prices for domestic consumers have in creased by 50 per cent.  Can Ukraine provide  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 29 
 
 
  updated data on offer prices at the over-the-coun ter (spot) market for wheat, corn, barley, rye 
and buckwheat for March 2011 and beyond?  
In relation to the situation on prices in the domestic market, it should be mentioned that 
domestic prices of crops in Ukraine for domestic consumers have increased by 50 per cent on 
an average.  At the same time, the level of prices remains one of the lowest among the grain 
producers.  It should also be noted that since March 2011, prices for certain types of crops 
have remained stable.   
Data on offer prices at the over-the-counter  market is contained in Annex 4. 
(ii) Other 
48. Questions by the European Union:  Could Ukraine report on the latest state-of-play 
concerning the imposition of export restrictio n on cereals, and the policy to be followed during 
the rest of 2011?  
49. Questions by the United States:  In G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2, Ukraine stated that the 
licensing and distribution of export quotas on  wheat, corn, barley, rye and buckwheat is 
extended until 30 June 2011.  However, the United States understands that Resolution of the 
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 566 of 25 M ay 2011 cancelled export quotas on wheat and 
barley.  Can Ukraine confirm that the export quota s on wheat and barley have been lifted?  Can 
Ukraine confirm that the export quotas on  rye and buckwheat will not extend beyond 
June 2011?  
50. In G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.3, Ukraine stated that, pursuant to Resolution of the Cabinet of 
Ministers of Ukraine No. 463 of 27 April 2011, corn (HS code 1005 90 00 00) will no longer be 
subject to quantitative export restrictions outlined under No. 938 of 4 October 2010.  The 
United States commends Ukraine for lifting the export restriction.  
Temporary export quotas for certain agricultu ral products were introduced in Ukraine 
pursuant to the provisions of Article XI:2(a) of GATT 1994 in order to prevent and relieve 
critical shortages of foodstuffs, and to eliminate imbalance in the domestic grain market.  This 
was essential for the food security and the stability of the grain market.   
Showing an understanding to Members' concerns  regarding the introduction of export quotas 
for certain agricultural products, the responsible Ukrainian authorities studied the latest data 
on grain supply and demand, import and export vol umes and carry-in and ending stocks.  The 
Government of Ukraine decided to exclude co rn from the list of agricultural products under 
quantitative export restriction (G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add. 3).  Furthermore, the Resolution No. 566 
of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 25 May 2011 amends the Resolution No. 938 of the 
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 4 October 2010 in the form of the exclusion of wheat and blend of wheat and rye (meslin), spelt (HS 1001 10 00 90 and 1001 90 99 00) and barley 
(HS 1003 00 90 00) from the application of quantitative export restrictions. 
At present there is no official decision by the Government to prolong the term of export 
restrictions for rye and buckwheat.  The relevant  competent authorities will analyze the latest 
data on these products and will take a decisi on according to the current situation in the 
market. 
With the purpose of adjusting the situation in the Ukrainian grain market, in particular to 
prevent a rise in prices of socially significan t foodstuffs, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted 
the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Ta x Code of Ukraine and adoption of export G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 30 
 
 
  duties rates on certain grain products" on 19 June 2011 which establishes temporary rates of 
export duties for certain grains (from 1 July 2011 until 1 January 2012):   
 wheat and blend of wheat and rye (meslin), spelt (HS 1001 10 00 90 and 
1001 90 99 00) - 9 per cent but not less than 17 euros per tonne;  
 barley (HS 1003 00 90 00) - 14 per cent but not less than 23 euros per tonne; 
 corn (HS 1005 90 00 00) - 12 per cent, but not less than 20 euros per tonne. 
Ukraine believes that it has a right to use the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, in 
particular Article 12 of the Agreement on Agri culture.  Further, Ukraine will give preference 
to measures provided in the WTO Agreements and which contribute to the development of 
international trade relations, based on pr edictable and transparent market access. 
G. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE E FFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON 
LEAST -DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (TABLE  NF:1) 
1. Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/80 and G/AG/N/AUS/81 ) 
(a) Quantity and concessionality of food aid 
51. Questions by India:  India would like to know whether food aid by Australia to the 
LDCs and NFIDCs has fallen after 2005, i.e., after Australia untied its food aid.  If so, India 
would like to know the reasons.  
Australia untied its food aid in 2005 and has not provided physical food aid since then.  
Instead Australia provides food assistance in th e form of cash contributions to relevant 
agencies to purchase food on behalf of Australia. 
The bulk of Australia's food aid is provi ded through the United Nations World Food 
Programme (WFP).  Food aid, through WFP, is provided in cash and the purchase of 
commodities is made through WFP's world-wide tender system.  Australian funding to WFP 
is primarily directed towards LDCs and NFIDCs , as is Australia's humanitarian assistance 
more broadly, given the more pressing humanitarian needs in these countries.  Australia has 
provided the following funding to WFP in recent years: 
2004-2005 $A 85,300,270 2005-2006 $A 77,627,862 
2006-2007 $A 46,553,300 
2007-2008 $A 91,440,180 2008-2009 $A 92,766,180 
2009-2010 $A 102,386,273 
2010-2011 (as at 20/06/2011) $A 101,650,000  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 31 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
A. QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA  
(a) China:  Domestic support 
52. Australia notes that domestic support no tifications for the period 2005-2010 are still 
outstanding.  Could China explain the cause for the delay and indicate when it intends to submit 
these outstanding notifications?  Australia woul d be grateful if China could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing.  
China already notified its domestic support for 2002-2004 to the WTO and now has finished 
the preliminary data collection work for the notification for the years 2005-2008.  China will 
notify the WTO after the completion of final domestic procedures, such as the approval by the 
State Council. 
(b) Egypt:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
53. Australia notes that Egypt has outstanding  domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications for the period 1999-2010 (Egypt's la st notification was submitted in May 1999).  
Could Egypt explain the cause for the long delay and indicate when it intends to submit these 
outstanding notifications?  Australia would be grateful if Egypt could observe "best practice" 
and provide its response in writing.   
As indicated in the previous statements, th ere is an on-going process involving all Egyptian 
entities concerned to prepare these notifications.  Egypt wishes to reiterate its commitment to 
finalize this process in order to be ab le to notify the Committee on Agriculture. 
However, the attention of the Committee is dr awn to the political developments in Egypt, 
which had implications on this process.  Some asp ects of this internal coordination are put on 
hold.  Egypt believes that as soon as the situa tion in Egypt heads towards the stability and 
normalcy, this process will be on-going again,  and Egypt will be notifying the Committee as 
soon as possible. 
(c) India:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
54. Could India update Members on progress in gathering information to prepare its WTO 
agriculture notifications?  Could India provide an indicative time when it intends to submit its 
outstanding notifications particularly in the area  of domestic support and export subsidies?  
Australia would be grateful if India could observe "best practice" and provide its response in 
writing.  
India has recently filed its Domestic Support notifications for the years 1998-99 to 2003-04.  
The remaining notifications are being processed for an early submission.  India thanks 
Australia for its commitment to improving compliance with WTO obligations and assures 
Australia that India shares the same objectives.  In  this regard, India may draw attention to the 
document G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.6 where some of its notifications are shown as pending.  Thus, 
India is already on the job. 
(d) Korea:  Domestic support and special safeguard 
55. Australia notes that Korea has outstanding  domestic support and special safeguard 
notifications for calendar years 2005-2010.  Could Korea indicate when it intends to submit G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 32 
 
 
  these outstanding notifications?  Australia wo uld be grateful if Korea could observe "best 
practice" and provide its response in writing.   
Korea is exercising its best efforts to subm it the outstanding notifications including on 
domestic support and special safeguard as soon as possible.  Korea is currently reviewing the 
related data so that it can circulate the out standing notifications within this year.   
(e) Turkey:  Domestic support and export subsidies 
56. Australia notes that Turkey has outstandi ng domestic support and export subsidy 
notifications (Turkey's last notification was su bmitted in May 2002).  Could Turkey explain the 
cause for the long delay and indicate when it in tends to submit its outstanding notifications?  
Australia would be grateful if Turkey could ob serve "best practice" and provide its response in 
writing.  
Turkey is working on the delayed notifications .  The notifications will be presented to the 
Committee as soon as compilation and verification of  all required data are completed.  Turkey 
is aware of its notification obligation and will comply with all of its commitments under the 
Agreement of Agriculture. 
  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 33 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Response by Ukraine - G/AG/N/UKR/8/Rev.1 (paragraph 10) 
Application procedure to obtain import licence 
A. Procedure to obtain a licence in the Ministry  of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine 
1. The applicant, subject of foreign economic activity, shall submit the following documents: 
(a) A letter of application to formalize the licen ce with a guarantee to pay the state duty 
for its issuance; 
(b) An application form approved by the Order of the Ministry of Economy of 20 January 
2009 No. 15, with amendments (see the unofficial translation of the Order on the 
website1); 
(c) A copy of the foreign economic agreement (contract) with annexes and specifications 
thereto; 
(d) A copy of the state registration certificate of the subject of foreign economic activity. 
2. Applications shall be considered on a first-come, first-served basis.  The decision to issue or 
refuse the licence should be taken not later than 30 da ys from the time of registration of application. 
3. The decision to refuse the licence may be taken in the following cases:   
(a) The submitted documents do not comply with the legislation;  
(b) The established tariff quota has been exhausted;  
(c) A special sanction has been applied to the subject of foreign economic activity or to 
its foreign counter-agent in the form of  temporarily suspending foreign economic 
activity in accordance with Article 37 of the "Law of Ukraine on Foreign Economic 
Activity";  
(d) The subject of foreign economic activity of  Ukraine or its foreign counter-agent 
violates the legislation of Ukraine in the field of foreign economic activity; 
(e) The absence of approval by the State Agency  on Material Reserve of Ukraine or by 
the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine. 
4. The decision to refuse the licence shall be conveye d to the applicant in writing.  The decision 
of the Ministry of Economy to refuse the licen ce may be challenged by the subject of foreign 
economic activity in accordance with the procedure established by law.   
5. The approval process is established exclusively with the administrative aim to monitor the 
situation on the raw cane sugar market and to cr eate equal conditions fo r government procurement 
from producers that process sugar beet and raw cane sugar imported within the tariff quota. 
                                                      
1 http://www.nepu.com.ua/en/publication/content/718.htm G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 34 
 
 
  B. Procedure to get the approval of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine 
1. The applicant, subject of foreign economic activ ity (company) should apply to the Ministry: 
24 Khreschatik Street 01001 Kiev 
Ukraine 
Tel:  +38 044-278-35-74 or +38 044-279-80-56 
2. The following documents should be attach ed to the letter of application:   
(a) A copy of the state registration certificate of the subject of foreign economic activity; 
(b) A copy of the foreign economic agreement (contract) with annexes and specifications 
thereto;  
(c) A copy of the agreement with the pre-pr ocessors of raw cane sugar processing.  The 
agreement should contain technical economic da ta as to the extent of sugar extraction 
at raw cane sugar processing.  Those appli cants, who process raw cane sugar at their 
own enterprises, should provide a certificate, containing technical economic data as to the extent of sugar extraction at raw cane sugar processing. 
3. Copies of the above-mentioned documents s hould be attested in accordance with the 
established procedure. 
4. The applications will be considered within  10 days from the date of application. 
5. The Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine approves only the ability of each 
subject of foreign economic activity to import and process raw cane sugar, simplifying the procedure of receiving the licence.  As of 4 April 2011, the Ministry has considered and approved six requests 
from five subjects of foreign economic activity  to import raw cane sugar to Ukraine.   
6. The detailed information on the procedure of the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of 
Ukraine is available in Ukrainian at  http://www.minagro. gov.ua/page/?11736. 
C. Procedure to get the approval of the St ate Agency on Material Reserve of Ukraine 
1. The applicant, subject of foreign economic activity (company) should apply to the Agency: 
28 Pushkins'ka Street 
01001 Kiev Ukraine 
Tel:  + 38 044-234 63-47 or + 38 044-226-21-14 
2. The following documents should be attach ed to the letter of application:   
(a) A copy of the state registration certificate of the subject of foreign economic activity;  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 35 
 
 
  (b) A copy of the foreign economic agreement (contract) with annexes and specifications 
thereto;  
(c) A copy of the agreement with the pre-pr ocessors of raw cane sugar processing.  The 
agreement should contain technical-economic da ta as to the extent of sugar extraction 
at raw cane sugar processing.  Those appli cants, who process raw cane sugar at their 
own enterprises, should provide a certificate,  containing technical- economic data as to 
the extent of sugar extraction at raw cane sugar processing. 
3. Copies of the above-mentioned documents s hould be attested in accordance with the 
established procedure. 
4. The applications will be considered within ten days from the date of application. 
5. The detailed information on the procedure of the State Agency on Material Reserve of 
Ukraine is available in Ukrainian at:  http://www.kmu.gov.ua/reserv/control/uk/publish/ G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 36 
 
 
  ANNEX 2  
Response by Mexico - G/AG/N/MEX/21 (paragraph 35) 
Distribution of support under th e agricultural diesel programme 
by category of producers 
Category Beneficiaries 
(number) Beneficiaries 
(per cent) 
0-50 ha 305,811 86 
50-100 ha 29,657 8 
100-150 ha 9,530 3 
150-200 ha 3,930 1 
200-250 ha 2,388 1 
250-1,000 ha 4,097 1 
+ 1,000 ha 989 < 1 
TOTAL 356,402 100 
 
Source :  Agricultural Marketing Support and Services (ASE RCA), Directorate General of Means of Payment. 
  G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
 Page 37 
 
 
  ANNEX 3 
Response by Kyrgyz Republic - G/AG/N/KGZ/3 (paragraph 44) 
Table 1:  Production of single crops 
 2008 2009 2010 
Quantity 
(in tonnes) Value (in 
'000 soms) Quantity 
(in tonnes) Value (in 
'000 soms) Quantity 
(in tonnes) Value (in 
'000 soms) 
Oats 2,695.8 15,662.3 3,867.9 19,915.6 2,876.6 14,811.5 
Maize 462,080.2 5,481,521.0 486,636. 6 4,647,286.2 440,878.3 4,210,303.2 
Straw of grain crops 977,906.9 919,442.1 1,37 1,246.6 2,032,124.4 1,069,245.4 1,584,572.5 
Fodder crops (fodder, 
hay, melons, 
individual herbs, 
sugar beet for animal 
feed plant roots)  2,929,926.9 5,462,297.3 4,239,178.9 7,061,260.2 3,098,103.2 5,160,554.2 
 
 
Table 2:  Production of flour and bran 
 2008 2009 2010 
(tonnes) 
Flour from grain and vegetable:  mixture of 
them fine-ground 489,565.0 513,138.8 355,716.3 
Bran, wheat, other 95,838.4 138,617.6 126,711.0 
 
 
Table 3:  Production and consumption of single crops, flour and bran 
 2008 2009 2010 
Production Consumption Production Consumption Production Consumption 
(tonnes) 
Oats 2,695.8 2,695.8 3,867.9 3,867.9 2,876.6 2,876.6 
Maize 462,080.2 758,680.2 486,636.6 969,800 440,878.3 440,878.3 
Straw of grain crops 977,906.9 977,906.9 1,37 1,246.6 1,371,246.6 1,069,245.4 1,069,245.4 
Fodder 
crops(fodder, hay, 
melons, individual 
herbs, sugar beet for 
animal feed plant 
roots) 2,929,926.9 2,929,926.9 4,239,178.9 4,239,178.9 3,098,103.2 3,098,103.2 
Flour from grain 
and vegetable: fine-
ground mixtures 
thereof 489,565.0 473,000 513,138.8 477,200 355,716.3 482,000 
Bran, wheat, 
siftings, other  95,838.4 95,838.4 138,617.6 138,617.6 126,711.0 126,711.0 
 G/AG/W/86/Rev.3 
Page 38 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
Response by Ukraine - G/AG/N/UKR/5/Add.2 and Add.3 (paragraph 47) 
Average offer prices at the over-the-counter market 
(franco-elevator, UAH per tonne) 
 Food wheat Feed wheat Feed  rye Feed corn Barley 
10 June 2011 2,185 1,890 1,850 2,030 1,950
3 June 2011 2,180 1,890 1,850 1,990 1,950
27 May 2011 2,235 1,890 1,850 1,980 1,950
29 April 2011 2,235 1,890 1,850 1,900 1,950
25 March 2011 2,250 1,890 1,850 1,900 1,950
 
 
__________