G/AG/W/184  
 
14 September 2018  
(18-5719) Page: 1/45 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 25-26 SEPTEMBER 20181 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
11 September as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/29.  
 
The following table lists questions raised during the Committee  on Agriculture  (CoA)  meeting s on 20 
February 2018  and 11 -12 June 2018 where the Secretariat has not received responses. The list 
reflects the situation regarding outstanding responses as of 13  September.  
 
 
_______________  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
3 United States answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  
4 India answered part of the question and will provide a full response at a later stage.  ID Answer by  Question by  Reference  Repeat 
question  
86005  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
86006  India Australia  I. Article 18.6   
860652 India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86066  India European Union  I. Article 18.6   
86074  India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86048  Indonesia  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86049  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
86106  Thailand  European Union  I. Article 18.6  85039  
86029  Turkey  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
860843 United States of 
America  Canada  I. Article 18.6   
86055  Iceland  United States of America  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86093  Iceland  Canada  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86044  Iceland  Thailand  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86013  Iceland  Australia  G/AG/N/ISL/41   
86078  Mali European Union  II. Deferred replies to 
questions on 
notifications  85001  
87079, 
87161 and 
87162  India4 Australia, Brazil, Thailand  I. Article 18.6   
87074  India Canada  I. Article 18.6   
87019  Indonesia  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
87094  Mongolia  Russian Federation  I. Article 18.6   
87041,  
87040  Tunisia  United States of America  G/AG/N/TUN/52   
87054  Indonesia  United States of America  Annual dedicated 
discussion  on export 
competition   G/AG/W/184  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.1   China's premium contributions for rice, corn and wheat seeds  ..............................  6 
1.1.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88102)  ................................ .........................  6 
1.2   EU's CAP reform  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
1.2.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88062)  ................................ .................  6 
1.3   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ .........................  6 
1.3.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88122) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88037)  . 6 
1.3.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88040)  ................................ .............  7 
1.3.3    Question by Un ited States of America (AG -IMS ID 88070)  ................................  7 
1.4   India's proposed domestic support programmes  ................................ .................  7 
1.4.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88041)  ................................ .............  7 
1.5   Republic of Korea's support for seaweed producers  ................................ .............  8 
1.5.1    Question by China (AG -IMS ID 88034)  ................................ ...........................  8 
1.6   Russian Federation's modification of excise taxes on  wine................................ .... 8 
1.6.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88031)  ................................ .............  8 
1.7   Thailand's import licensing for meat  ................................ ................................ .. 8 
1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88075)  ................................  8 
1.8   Turkey's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ................  9 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88059)  ................................ .............  9 
1.9   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ........................  9 
1.9.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88030)  ................................ .......................  9 
1.9.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88098)  ................................ .......................  10 
1.9.3    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88029)  ................................ ...........  11 
1.9.4    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88047)  ................................ ..........................  11 
1.9.5    Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88028)  ................................ .........................  12 
1.9.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88048)  ................................ ...............  12 
1.10   Zimbabwe's export incentive  ................................ ................................ ........  12 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88076)  ............................  12 
1.11   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ..............................  13 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88120) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88064)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  13 
1.11.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88121) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88065)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  13 
1.11.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88061)  ............................  13 
1.12   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ ............  13 
1.12.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88096)  ............................  13 
1.13   European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ .... 14 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88063)  ................................ ...................  14 
1.14   United Kingdom - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  .............  15 G/AG/W/184  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.14.1    Question by India (AG-IMS ID 88011)  ................................ ........................  15 
1.15   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ...................  15 
1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88039)  ................................ ...................  15 
1.15.2    Question by Austr alia (AG -IMS ID 88043)  ................................ ...................  15 
1.15.3    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88046)  ................................ ...................  16 
1.15.4    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88042)  ................................ ...................  16 
1.16   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ..................  17 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88060)  ................................ ...................  17 
1.16.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88092)  ................................ .....................  18 
1.16.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88095)  ................................ .....................  19 
1.16.4    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID  88109)  ................................ ..... 20 
1.16.5    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88066)  ............................  20 
1.17   India's Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  ................................ .. 21 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88123) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88038)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  21 
1.17.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88067)  ............................  21 
1.18   Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  ................................ .. 21 
1.18.1    Question by Japan  (AG-IMS ID 88036)  ................................ .......................  21 
1.19   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ... 21 
1.19.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88035)  ................................ .............  21 
1.19.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88071)  ............................  22 
1.20   Indonesia's soybean imports  ................................ ................................ ........  23 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID  88097)  ............................  23 
1.21   Republic of Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ .... 23 
1.21.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 88045)  ................................ ...................  23 
1.22   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ........................  23 
1.22.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88104)  ................................ ..... 23 
1.23   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ..............  24 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88033) and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 88124)  24 
1.24   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ . 24 
1.24.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88072)  ............................  24 
1.25   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ ................  25 
1.25.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88032)  ................................ ...................  25 
1.26   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ .............  25 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88073)  ............................  25 
1.27   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ .............  26 
1.27.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88074)  ............................  26 
1.28   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ .......................  26 
1.28.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 88002)  ................................ .....................  26 
2   POINTS RAISED IN  CONNECTION WITH IND IVIDUAL NOTIFICATION S ....... 26 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota  commitments (Table MA:1) ....................  26 G/AG/W/184  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  ................................ ................................ .........  26 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  .......................  27 
2.2.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ..........  27 
2.2.2    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/62, G/AG/N/GTM/63)  ................................ ............  27 
2.2.3    Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/42)  ................................ ................................ .........  27 
2.2.4    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/97)  ................................ ................................ ..........  28 
2.2.5    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/91)  ................................ ................................ .... 28 
2.3   Special agricultural safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ...... 28 
2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/228)  ................................ ................................ ............  28 
2.3.2    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  ................................ ................................ ....... 29 
2.4   Domestic support commitments (Table Ds:1)  ................................ ...................  29 
2.4.1    Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/29)  ................................ ................................ .........  29 
2.4.2    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ..............  29 
2.4.3    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  ................................ . 30 
2.4.4    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  ................................ ................................ .........  31 
2.4.5    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  .........................  31 
2.4.6    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ...............  32 
2.4.7    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  ................................ ................................ . 33 
2.4.8    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  ................................ ................................ . 33 
2.4.9    India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  ................................ ................................ ..............  34 
2.4.10    India ( G/AG/N/IND/13)  ................................ ................................ ............  34 
2.4.11    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  ................................ ..............................  39 
2.4.12    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/47)  ................................ ................................ ........  40 
2.4.13    Papua New Guinea (G/AG/N/PNG/1)  ................................ ...........................  40 
2.4.14    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/21)  ................................ ........................  40 
2.4.15    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121) ................................ ...............  41 
2.5   New or modified Domestic Support measures (Table DS:2)  ...............................  42 
2.5.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/45)  ................................ ................................ ..........  42 
2.6   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 ) ................................  42 
2.6.1    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/98)  ................................ ................................ ..........  42 
2.6.2    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ..........  42 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ ...........  42 
3.1.1    China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 42 
3.1.2    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43 
3.1.3    Ghana  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 43 
3.1.4    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  43 
3.1.5    Kenya  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 43 
3.1.6    Korea, Republic of ................................ ................................ ......................  43 
3.1.7    Morocco  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 
3.1.8    Pakistan ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 G/AG/W/184  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.1.9    Tanzania  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 
3.1.10    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 44 
4   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  44 
4.1.1    India ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  44 
4.1.2    Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 45 
4.1.3    Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 45 
4.1.4    Pakist an ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 
4.1.5    Paraguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 45 
 
 
  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1  China's premium contributions for rice, corn and wheat seeds  
1.1.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88102)  
Canada notes that the Ministry of Finance of the People 's Republic of China issued a notic e on 
31 July 2018 
(http://jrs.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/zhengcefabu/201808/t20180809_2984104.html ) regarding 
an expansion in the government premium contributions for  rice, corn, and wheat seeds.  
a. Could  China clarify if this new premium subsidy would apply to seed purchased by 
producers for sowing?  
b. The notice indicates that the crops (rice, corn or wheat) grown from these seeds would 
also be covered for loss of produc tion or quality by this insurance product. Could China 
elaborate if this new premium subsidy also covers the crop losses related to the production 
of seeds for rice, corn and wheat?  
c. Could China indicate which government department administers this insuran ce 
programme?  
d. Could China provide the government 's share of the premium for this insurance programme 
and the expenditures to date?  
1.2  EU's CAP reform  
1.2.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88062)  
New Zealand acknowledges the positive emphasis the European Union  is placing in reform of its 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving environmental outcomes, and refers to the European 
Commission proposal published on 1 June for the next CAP period from 2021 that would shift greater 
responsibility for agriculture policy from the European Union  to m ember States through the 
establishment of national "strategic plans ".  
a. How will the Commission ensure m ember States' compliance with WTO commitments in 
the implementation of their strategic plans after they have been appr oved?  
New Zealand is conc erned that under the proposal, m ember States will continue to be able to provide 
coupled support.  
b. What me chanism will the European Union establish to ensure such support does not distort 
markets?  
New Zealand is disappointed to see that public intervention is proposed to continue being available 
to member States to consider in their strategic plans. Following the experience of EU intervention in 
the skim milk powder market, and the continued years o f uncertainty this has caused in the market, 
why does this feature in the proposal and how would the European Union prevent market distortion 
and uncertainty under the next CAP period?  
1.3  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.3.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88122)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88037)  
New Zealand understands that the state government of Gujarat is implementing a provision of up 
to USD  44 million to support the Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation to export 60,000  tonnes of skim 
milk powder. Thi s funding will subsidise the export of Indian skim milk powder and significantly 
impact international trade of skim milk powder.  
a. What is the scope and nature of the state of Gujarat 's recently announced support skim 
milk powder export; including for examp le the eligibility for receiving payments, the 
criteria for making payments and how this scheme will be implemented?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 7 - 
 
  b. What is India 's position on how the state of Gujarat 's provision of skim milk powder export 
subsidies is consistent with the elimination o f export subsidies through the MC10 Export 
Competition Ministerial Decision?  
1.3.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88040)  
The Gujarat government announced in the month of July 2018 the equivalent of USD  43.5 million in 
export support for Gujarat Milk Mark eting Federation (A mul) to export 60,000 tonnes of s kim milk 
powder over the following six months to clear their 110,000 tonnes  of stocks. This subsidy 
(Rupee  50/kg) is equivalent to around USD 725/tonne (at the time of the announcement), or more 
than 35% of the value of the product (measured either in percen tage of world market price for s kim 
milk powder or internal Indian market prices for skim milk powder).   
a. Can India please confirm that this support has been decided on and granted by the Gujarat 
governm ent?  
b. Can India indicate how much of the intended 60,000 tonnes have been exported up to and 
including 31 August 2018?   
c. How does India intend to notify this export subsidy to WTO considering in particular that 
India has no scheduled entitlements for export  subsidies?   
d. How does India see this export subsidy to be in line with the Bali and Nairobi Ministeria l 
Decisions, which require WTO M embers to show the utmost restraint in applying export 
subsidies?  
1.3.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88070)  
India has reportedly approved a subsidy of 10% to the export price of dairy products, in particular 
skimmed milk powder (SMP). Noting that India does not have any scheduled export subsidy 
entitlements:  
a. Please explain how this measure is implemented and pro vide any eligibility criteria.  
b. In addition, please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for making this export subsidy 
available.  If not available now, when will these documents be made available?  
c. Please explain how this is consistent with India's c ommitments under Article  9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
In addition to the Indian government 's subsidy noted above, the Indian states of Gujarat and 
Maharas htra ( India's leading milk producers ) have also reportedly approved subsidies for the export 
of milk and milk powder to help address growing stocks.  
d. Please explain how these measures are implemented and provide any eligibility criteria.  
e. In addition, please provide the legislation and/or decision(s) for making these export 
subsidies  available. If not available now, when will these documents be made available?  
f. Please explain how this is consistent with India's commitments under Article  9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.4  India's proposed domestic support programmes  
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88041)  
In the draft National Agricultural Export Policy published by the Department of Commerce and 
Industry of the Government of India, it is stated that by 2022 there is "the vision to double farmer 's 
income " which "would require a series of intervent ions to improve production and productivity along 
with economizing the cost of production ". G/AG/W/184  
 
- 8 - 
 
  a. Can India explain whether this doubling concerns per average farm income?  
b. Can India explain more in detail which type of instruments will be used to reach this goal, 
and how it will be ensured that these measures will not lead to increase in trade distorting 
support?  
c. Does India intend to use Green Box support to this end?  
1.5  Repub lic of  Korea's  support for seaweed producers  
1.5.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 88034)  
China  notes that the Korean government made tremendous efforts in recent years to promote the 
development of the seaweed industry, including the support for production of seaw eed and the 
purchase of processing facilities. These supports effectively enhanced the competitiveness and 
expanded the export of edible seaweed. With strong interests in having better understanding about 
the seaweed industry of the Republic of Korea and t he lack of information on relevant support 
schemes, since the information is currently not available in the Domestic Support notification by the 
Republic of Korea, China  would like to raise the questions as follow:  
a. China  learn that an export fund has been  set up for providing investment aid to newly 
established enterprises, as well as support for marketing and promotion. Can you please 
confirm whether there are such supports? If so, please provide the support program mes 
and the relevant expenditures.  
b. China also learned that export finance and export insurance are available for seaweed 
producers with a view to mitigate the adverse impact of various risks. If this is the case, 
could you please provide the amount of export finance or export insurance provided  by 
export destination?  
c. It is reported that a pl an of providing WON 133 billion support for the "popular fishery 
products " and WON 21.7 billion support for purchasing processing facilities has been made. 
Can you clarify whether the supports are also avail able for seaweed producers?  
1.6  Russia n Federation's modification of excise taxes on wine  
1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88031)  
The European Union welcomes the proposals from the Ministry of Finance on the modification of 
excise taxes on wine, as submi tted for discussion to Duma whereby imported and locally produced 
wine will be subject to the same excise taxes.  
a. Could the Russia n Federation update WTO M embers on the state of play of this discussion 
and on the procedure for further proceedings?  
At the s ame time, an article in Izvestia (of 23 July 2018) states that the Ministry of Agriculture 
submitted to the First Deputy PM Siluanov a draft plan on introducing certain new fiscal measures 
and increasing subsidies to the wine sector.  
b. Could the Russia n Fed eration  please give us some further details on this plan including a 
timeframe for its adoption?  
1.7  Thailand's import licensing for meat  
1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88075)  
Thailand imposes food safety inspection fees on all importers in t he form of import permit fees on 
all shipments of uncooled meat, poultry and meat offal. These fees are significantly higher than the 
corresponding domestic slaughtering fees for the same products and appear disproportionate to the 
cost of services rendere d.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 9 - 
 
  a. What services are covered by the import permit fees and how are these calculated?  
b. What services are covered by the domestic slaughtering fees and how are these 
calculated?   
c. Can Thailand please provide an official response with a detailed cost breakdow n, method 
of calculation, and list of services provided for both the import permit fees for food safety 
inspection as well as its domestic slaughtering fees?  
d. In the absence of information supporting the exact calculation of and the services 
associated wit h these fees, Thailand 's fee structure for import permit fees for food safety 
inspection and domestic slaughtering fees raises national treatment concerns including the 
pursuant to the principle that prohibits discrimination between imported and domestical ly 
produced goods.  
e. What is Thailand 's justification for the discrepancy between import permit fees and 
domestic slaughtering fees?  
1.8  Turkey's export subsidies  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 88059)  
Following a decision by Money Credit Coordination B oard in the Official Gazette No  30389 on 
12 April 2018, Turkey published a list of products receiving export subsidies and the "export return 
amount ". The products listed were poultry meat, eggs, honey, flowers, vegetables and dried 
vegetables.   
a. Can Turkey  please detail the quantities that have received export subsidies for each 
product group up to and including 31 August 2018?   
b. Can Turkey please inform WTO M embers about the amounts of Turkish Lira committed up 
to and included 31 August 2018?   
c. When and how does Turkey intend to notify these export subsidies to WTO considering in 
particular that, in accordance with the Nairobi decision on Export Competition, Turkey shall 
eliminate export subsidies by the end of 2018?   
d. Several concerned products (such as fruit s or stoned fruits or sausages) seem not to be 
covered by Turkey 's entitlements. How does Turkey envisage to notify these export 
subsidies?   
e. Can Turkey explain how it sees this measure to be in line with the Bali and Nairobi 
Ministerial Decisions, which re quire WTO Members to show the utmost restraint in applying 
export subsidies?   
f. When does Turkey intend to forward its revised scheduled for implementing the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision which obliges developing countries to eliminate export subsidy 
commitme nts by the end of 2018?  
1.9  U.S. p roposed domestic support measures  
1.9.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88030)  
With reference to the 24 July announcement by the United States of up to USD  12 billion in 
assistance to farmers impacted by trade retaliation measure s, Australia would appreciate clarification 
from the United States as to:  
a. When it intends to notify these new programmes to the WTO?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. How each of the programmes (Market Facilitation; Food Purchase and Distribution; and 
Agricultural Trade Program) will be cl assified under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. How the United States intends to ensure the package adheres to WTO limits for domestic 
support in agriculture? (US domestic support is capped at USD 19 billion)?  
We note comments by US officials that the pac kage is intended as a one -time, short -term assistance 
package to assist farmers affected by "unfair " treatment by the US' tr ading partners while the 
United  States Administration works to secure better long -term trade deals . 
d. Given the assistance became avai lable on 4 September, Australia is interested in how long 
the assistance will be available for i.e. is it time limited?  
Noting that USD 6 billion has initially been made available to farmers,  Australia would appreciate 
clarification as to:  
e. What triggers t he USDA will consider for rolling out the second half of the assistance 
package (valued at USD 12 billion)?  
f. Whether it is envisaged the second tranche of assistance will be made available under the 
same programmes as the first tranche?  
g. Whether the increas ing/decreasing tensions might result in incremental 
increases/decreases in assistance amounts?  
Under the Market Facilitation Program, Australia understands payment rates for each commodity are 
based on the severity of trade disruption and that payments wil l be calculated by multiplying 50% 
of the producer's total 2018 actual production by the applicable rate . 
h. Australia is interested in how the USDA developed this formula?  
i. Was consideration given to calculating average production and market rates over three 
years (for example) given production levels and market prices may fluctuate from year to 
year?  
j. What is the basis for using historical data (2011, 2012, 2013) to establish dairy production 
figures?  
Australia would appreciate if the United States could expla in how the United States will 
monitor/prevent payments being made in excess of the actual tariffs imposed under the Market 
Facilitation Program Formula . 
k. For example, if actual additional tariffs on soybeans to China equal USD  3 billion and 
approximately USD 3.6 billion is paid to soybean producers for 50% of  their production, 
how does the United States  intend to manage this and how would a further equal payment 
be justified under the purpose of the programme to offset the new tariffs?   
Australia notes the  assistance package is in place in response to trade damage . 
l. Australia would appreciate if the United States can clarify the basis for payments where 
there is no impact on trade if product is redirected to other markets and no significant 
trade damage is i ncurred?  
1.9.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88098)  
Market Facilitation Program  
Canada notes that on 24 July 2018, Press Release No. 0151.18 from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) indicated that the USDA will authorize up to USD 12 billion in programmes  to 
assist farmers. Further details were provided on the Trade Mitigation Programs in subsequent USDA G/AG/W/184  
 
- 11 - 
 
  press releases on August 27, 2018 (Press Release No. 0167.18) and most recently on 
4 September  2018 (Press release No. 017218). Canada notes that the paym ents will be structured 
through the Market Facilitation Program (USD 4,696 million), the Food and Distribution Program 
(USD 1,239 million) and the Agricultural Trade Promotion Program (USD 200 million). The estimated 
payments represent USD 6,135 million. T he Market Facilitation Program will provide direct payments 
to producers of cotton, corn, fluid milk, pork, soybeans, sorghum and wheat.  
a. Has the United States assessed and estimated how these payment(s) would affect the 
level of production and prices for these products? If so, could the United States share 
details about those estimates?  
b. Does the United States anticipate that additional products will be covered? If so, which 
ones?  
Canada notes that the product specific AMS for cotton, corn, fluid milk, po rk (livestock), soybeans, 
sorghum and wheat notified in 2015 (G/AG/N/USA/121) totals USD 6.2 billion.  
c. Could the United States confirm whether U.S. producers benefiting from this product 
specific support will also be eligible for payments under other risk management 
programmes including the Price Loss Coverage program me and Agricultural Risk Coverage 
program me?  
Canada notes that the "payment rate will be dependent upon the severity of the trade disruption 
and the period of adjustment to new trade patterns,  based on each producer 's actual production ".  
d. Could the United States provide further details on the metrics of how the Initial Payment 
Rate was calculated for cotton, corn, fluid milk, pork, soybeans, sorghum and wheat?  
Agricultural Trade Promotion Prog ram  
The Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) Program is intended to help "U.S. agricultural exporters 
identify and access new markets and help to mitigate the adverse effects of other countries ' 
restrictions ".  
e. Could the United States elaborate on the "adverse effects of other countries ' restrictions " 
envisioned in the ATP Program?  
f. Could the United States confirm that this USD 200 million fund will not be used to subsidize 
the export of U.S. products to international markets?  
1.9.3   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 88029)  
The US Department for Agriculture announced details on the proposed aid for farmers negatively 
impacted by retaliatory tariffs.  
a. Can the US give more detail on its proposed new aid programme for farmers including the 
specific criteria how  prices for purchasing surplus crops and support levels for crops were 
determined. Which criteria were used to determine  the different crops/products?  
b. What safeguards are taken to limit trade distorting impact on global markets?  
c. Can the US give an indica tion of when and how they intend to notify these measures 
including the relevant notification period or periods? Will a second "instalment ' be notified 
separately?  
1.9.4   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88047)  
The United States has announced USD  12 billion package to help farmers who are hit by retaliatory 
tariffs. It is claimed that this package will assist agricultural producers to meet the costs of disrupted 
markets. The United States is requested to provide the following information:  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. What agricultural products would be covered under this package?  
b. How does the USA intend to classify this expenditure under the domestic support 
provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. It is also reported that the USA will tap federal food purchase and distribution programmes 
to buy surplus commodities to help the farmers. What products would be covered under 
such public stockholding programmes?  
1.9.5   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88028)  
a. USDA announced an assistance programme for farmers impacted by unjustified retaliation 
on 27th August  this year. Regarding Market Facilitation program me, USDA announced that 
50% of the producer's total production will be covered for the payment. However, if the 
payment doesn't cover production loss caused by an inability to export but cover total 
producti on in the end, it might cause an excessive production support. Could United States 
confirm this program me is not aimed at covering production loss caused by an inability to 
export?  
b. Regarding "Food purchase and distribution program me" in the assistance pro gramme for 
farmers publicized by USDA on 27th August this year, it is announced to distribute 
commodities through TEEAP (The Emergency Food Assistant Program) or Child nutrition 
program me. Could United States provide further details available at this momen t 
regarding how commodities are purchased and what the purchase price is?  
1.9.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88048)  
New Zealand refers to the announcement made on 24 July 2018, by US Secretary of Agriculture 
Sonny Perdue, about the USD 12 billion farmer r elief package comprising direct payments to offset 
the impacts of retaliatory tariffs on markets and assistance for trade promotion activities as well as 
additional announcements made on 27 August, 4 September.  
New Zealand is concerned about the quantum o f the USD 12 billion announcement; and that it risks 
taking the United States close to it s AMS limit of USD 19.1 billion.  
a. Can the United States  confirm that this is a one -off payment and will not extend into future 
years?  
b. Can the United States provide mor e detail about the compensation schemes, in particular 
the criteria and conditions attached to disbursement of funds?  
1.10  Zimbabwe's export incentive  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88076)  
The United States understands the government of Zimbab we's Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe ( which is 
the central bank ) is providing tobacco growers a performance export bonus as an incentive to grow 
the country 's production and increase exports.  For the 2018 marketing season, the central bank, 
has increased the expo rt incentive from 5 % to 12% and up to 17.5 % for top exporters.  
a. Please explain these agriculture support measures implemented by Zimbabwe 's central 
bank during the marketing periods 2017 and 2018.  
b. What is the legal basis under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Nairobi Decision that 
allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.11  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88120)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88064)  
Canada's response to the  US question at the 87th Committee on Ag riculture (AG IMS 87065) stated 
that Ontario had not yet "notified any amendment to milk class 6 through Regulation 753: Grades, 
Standards, Designations, Classes Packing and Marking of the Milk Act of 1990 ". Can Canada confirm 
that such an amendment to the  Regulation has since been notified, in effect revoking Class 6?  
1.11.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88121)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88065)  
New Zealand notes Canada 's response at the 87th Committee on Agriculture (AG IMS 87064) with 
respect to the availabi lity of data available as to the volumes of milk components produced and 
utilised under each milk class, including Class 7. This information was removed from the Canadian 
Dairy Information Centre in August 2017 because it was "not comparable to past data ". Canada has 
said an updated reporting system is being developed, but, despite a full year passing since New 
Zealand first raised this issue, has not been able to say when this will occur. Accordingly, we once 
again ask for this information. This would enha nce transparency in re spect of the operation of 
Class 7.  
1.11.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88061)  
a. Please provide an update on the National Centralized Registration System and the 
Provincial Billing M echanism Certification Program. In AG -IMS ID 87015, Canada states 
that some outstanding elements are still being discussed by industry stakeholders which 
has prevented the implementation of the programmes.  
What outstanding elements are still bein g discussed? Does Canada have a target timeline?  
b. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario?  If so, please provide a copy of the documentation 
or measure revoking Class 6.  If not, does Ontario have a timeline for revoking Class 6 now 
that Class  7 is being used across Canada?   
c. Please provide monthly milk compone nt (i.e., butterfat, proteins, other solids) prices and 
monthly volumes of milk c omponents utilized (for Class 7  and also total utilization for all 
classes), specifically at the provincial levels.   
If this information is still not available, please provide  an update on when and where this 
information will become available.  
d. As the most recent study on Canadian dairy processor margins was conducted in 2005, 
when does the Canadian Dairy Commission plan to update that research?  
e. Please explain the mechanism used  by provincial milk boards to develop the milk 
component prices in each of the milk price classes.  
f. Canada states in response to AG -IMS ID 86033: "As of 1 February 2017, the Canadian 
Dairy Commission no longer purchased skim milk powder under either the Canadian Dairy 
Commission's domestic seasonality or the surplus removal program me." 
Please explain why the CDC ceased purchasing of skim milk powder under these 
programmes?   
1.12  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88096)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by the United States in AG -IMS ID  85012, 
AG-IMS ID 86034, and AG -IMS ID 87016. As such, the United States repeats its previous questions.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 14 - 
 
  a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider maki ng wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are continuously 
available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO Wines category."  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list al lowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to be 
sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadia n wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restri cted beer and wine 
authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to operators 
of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have been 
distributed for a "wine boutique  sales agent" (a single authorization that permits the 
operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine boutique 
inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?  
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 specifying different retail price parameters and size 
parameters for imported bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag in 
box wine? ( http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada plea se confirm imported bag in box wine is l imited to 4 stock keeping units  
(SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs? If confirmed, 
please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario products.  
f. According to  Canada 's STE notification (G/STR/N/16/CAN), Nova Scotia applies mark -ups 
to commercial wines that have been bottled in the province differently than commercial 
wine that have been bottled outside the province.  Specifically, commercial wines that are 
bottled in Nova Scotia are afforded a mark -up reduction of 20 percentage points (from 
140% to 120%).  
i. Would Canada make available the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation documents  setting 
out mark -ups for commercial wines bottled in the province and bottled outside the 
province?  
ii. Given that only commercial wines bottled in Nova Scotia would appear to qualify for 
this benefit, could Canada please explain how this policy ensures non -discrimination 
against foreign products?  
g. The Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation maintains a  preferential mark -up for Emergin g Wine 
Regions (currently 43%). How does a producer from an emerging wine region, as defined 
by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their emerging wine region status?  
Please provide a list of non -Canadian Emerging Wine Regio n wines available for sale 
through the NLSC.  
1.13  European Union's sugar policies  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88063)  
Australia welcomes the withdrawal of EU sugar production quotas a year ago. Removal of the quota 
should allow EU production to better adju st to global market price signals and global market demand. 
Although, the EU maintains ongoing substantial domestic support in the form of direct payments 
through the EU Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) and EU Basic Payment System (BPS).  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 15 - 
 
  a. Can the European Un ion explain how long the current levels of domestic support will 
continue following the removal of sugar production quotas?  
b. How is the European Union  ensuring its domestic support and subsequent overproduction 
does not negatively impact global sugar market s and trade?  
1.14  United Kingdom - Modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.14.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 88011)  
India would like to reiterate Indonesia 's question AG-IMS ID 83069 from the 83rd Committee on 
Agriculture meeting for the European Union : 
After United Kingdom 's decision to leave the European Union, it is understood that there will be a 
renegotiation on UK 's Schedule of Commitments (SOC).  
a. How would the Generalized Scheme of Preference (GSP) granting procedure be for 
developing countries?  
b. How would UK 's Customs Procedure, including the arrangement of Tariff Rate Quota  (TRQ) 
Policy be for the agricultural products?  
1.15  India's sugar policies  
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88039)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India during the Ju ne 2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 87079) 
regarding the sugar measures implemented by India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions, 
noting that India has not answered all of Australia's previous questions.  
India's Directorate General of  Foreign Trade Notif ication No.  57/2015 -2020 on 28  March  2018 
announced the Duty-Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme allowing import duties on future 
sugar imports to be waived until September 2021 for sugar millers that export sugar thi s crushing 
season  (2017/18).  
a. Can In dia provide data on the value and volume of exports of sugar under the DFIA scheme 
since it was announced on 28 March 2018?  
b. Given India does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements, can India explain 
the consistency of allowing future import dut ies on sugar to be waived contingent on 
exports of sugar this crushing season with In dia's commitments under Article  9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.15.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88043)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India during the Ju ne 2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 87079) 
regarding the sugar measures implemented by India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions, 
noting that India has not answered all of Australia's previous questions.  
Australia notes media reports5 that the "Minimum I ndicative Export Quota " (MIEQ) has been 
extended until December 2018. The same media report states that Indian exporters have been able 
to export only 400,000 tonnes and in May and June 2018, mills would have had to lose Rs. 7 -8 a 
kilogram on exp ort; this loss would now be Rs.  10.5-11.5 a kilogram. Australia also notes that the 
USDA Foreig n Agricultural Service report ( Sugar: World Markets and Trade ) May 2018 states that 
"India's production is forecast to rise 1.4 million  tonnes to a record 33.8 m illion… Exports are forecast 
to triple to 6.0 million ton nes since it is expected that sugar mills will reduce record surplus ".  
                                                
5 https://www.business -standard.com/article/markets/after -lack-of-orders -govt-extends -sugar -export -
quota -date-to-december -end-118082301090_1.html . G/AG/W/184  
 
- 16 - 
 
  a. Australia requests India confirm the volume of sugar that was exported under the MIEQ 
to date, and confirm whether the MIEQ can  be been extended until the end of 2018.  
b. As part of India 's previous answers to Australia 's questions in the June 2018 meeting, 
India said "the domestic price is almost 20 % to 30% higher than the international price 
and therefore it is expected, that in th e present circumstances, negligible exports will take 
place under the scheme ": 
i. Does Indi a believe that 400,000 tonnes are  negligible and had no impact on the world 
sugar market?  
ii. given the loss faced by mills to export sugar, why would the Government of Ind ia 
consider extending the MIEQ in the absence of financial incentives?  
c. Given the record production and surplus, and gap between domestic and international 
sugar prices, how is India going to make future sugar exports financially viable?  
Can India explain how the series of measures to address the overproduction and growing 
stockpile of sugar are economically and financially sustainable in the medium to long term?  
1.15.3   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88046)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India duri ng the June 2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 87079) 
regarding the sugar measures implemented by India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions, 
noting that India has not answered all of Australia 's previous questions.  
a. Australia requests India confirm the volu me of sugarcane that has received the financial 
assistance of Rs.  55/tonne of cane crushed since the announcement of the scheme for 
"Assistance to sugar mills " on 2 May 2018.  
b. Can India explain whether the eligibility criteria for the financial assistance, which includes 
mills needing to "have fully complied with all the orders/directive of the Department of 
Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) to the sugar mills during 2017 -18 sugar season", 
requires sugar mills meet the prescribed quantities of sugar under the export quota in 
Annexure -A to the 'Minimum Indicative Export Quota '? 
c. Can India confirm whether financial assistance has been withheld from sugar mills for not 
exporting the prescribed quantities under the MIEQ?  
Australia notes the Government of India a nnounced on 6 June 2018 a further package of measures 
to support I ndia's sugar industry worth Rs.  7,000 crore (USD 975 million). This include the creation 
of a buffer stock of 3 million tonnes of sugar, fixing a minimum selling price of white/refined sugar  
at Rs.  29/kg, and soft loans to sugar mills to setup new distilleries and boilers to enhance ethanol 
production capacity.  
d. Can India explain how it intends to notify the valu e of the measures in future 
WTO domestic support notifications, in particular the  fixing of a minimum selling price of 
white/refined sugar?  
e. How does India intend to dispose of the three  million tonne s buffer stock to ensure it does 
not impact the world sugar market?  
f. How is India ensuring the suite of financial assistance and measures a nnounced over the 
course of 2018 are within India 's domestic support entitlements (i.e. within de minimis  
entitlements)?  
1.15.4   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88042)  
Australia notes that India has been providing market price support (MPS) for sugarcane through the 
Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP). The Government of India announced an increased in the FRP for 
sugarcane for the 2018 -19 sugar season at Rs.  275/quintal at 10% recovery, which is 2.45% higher G/AG/W/184  
 
- 17 - 
 
  than the FRP for current sugar season 2017 - 186. The MPS f or sugarcane is a long running measure, 
which we note has been increasing and nearly doubled since 2011/12 from Rs. 145/quintal.  
a. Can India explain how it reconciles increasing the FRP for sugarcane that encourages 
greater sugarcane production at a time wh en there are record sugar stocks and India is 
taking measures to dispose of the surplus?  
b. Can India explain why it notified an applied administered price and eligible production for 
sugarcane (w ith market price support of USD  184 million) in its domestic su pport 
notification for 1995/96 (G/AG/N/IND/1), but it has not notified any domestic support for 
sugarcane in subsequent domestic support notifications?  
c.  Can India explain why it has not notified the FRP as an applied administered price for 
market price sup port for sugarcane?  
d. Can India provide the value and volume of sugarcane production in each state in India 
that received the FRP?  
e. Has India considered that the high level of FRP and MPS may be leading to overproduction 
resulting in the need to provide fina ncial assistance and measures incentivising sugar 
exports?  
f. Has India considered removing the FRP and MPS for sugarcane and moving to less trade 
and production distorting forms of domestic support?  
Australia notes that in addition to the FRP, some Indian state governments announced a 'State 
Advised Price ' (SAP). According to the 'Price Policy for Sugarcane – 2018-19 Sugar Season7', the SAP 
is much higher than the FRP. This creates a distortion in the industry because SAP is neither linked 
to sugar recovery nor it takes into account domestic and global prices and other relevant parameters. 
In case, where the state governments decide to co ntinue with SAP the difference between SAP 
and FRP should be paid by the state government directly to farmers. ' 
g. Can India provide the details of the SAP for each state and provide the value and volume 
of sugarcane production in each state in India that rec eived the SAP?  
h. Can India explain why it has not notified the SAP payments in its domestic support 
notifications, particularly given 'it creates a distortion in the industry '? 
1.16  India's pulses policies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88060)  
Further to Austra lia's previous questions to India during the June 2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 87072 
and AG-IMS ID 87075) regarding the various measures relating to pulses implemented by India, 
Australia has a series of follow -up questions, noting that India has not answered a ll of Australia 's 
previous questions.  
Regarding  India's quantitative restrictions (QR) of 100,000 ton nes of peas in Notification 
No. 4/2015 -2020 of 25 April 2018 for a period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018):  
a. Australia requests India confirm the v olume of peas that has been imported under the  QR 
during the initial 3 -month period. Was the QR fully utilised by 30 June 2018? If so, on 
what date was the QR fully utilised?  
                                                
6 http://pib.nic.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1540860 . 
7 Issued by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers 
Welfare, Government of India – August 201 7 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare.aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=41&KeyId=622 . G/AG/W/184  
 
- 18 - 
 
  b. Australia notes that India extended the QR on 2 July 2018 in Notification No.15/2 015-
2020 for a further three months until 30 September 2018.  
i. Can India confirm whether any additional volume was included as part of the extension 
of the QR?  
ii. No additional volume was included as part of the exten sion of the QR, and the initial  QR 
was full y utilised by 30 June: can India confirm that it has effectively implemented an 
import ban for peas from 1 July to 30 September?  
c. Is India intending to extend the QR for a second time following 30 September? If so, will 
additional volume be included? How mu ch advance notice is India intending to provide 
exporters and importers of the possible change in policy?  
In response to Australia 's previous questions in the June 2018 meeting, India said 'it was noticed 
that mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was  not sufficient in cas e of certain pulses. Therefore, 
government imposed quantitative restrictions on pulses such as Tur (pigeon pea), Moong (beans of 
species of Vigna radiate) and Urad (beans of the species of Vigna mungo) and dry peas in order to 
protect  our small and marginal farmers. ' 
 
d. Australia requests India confirm the status of the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on tur, 
moong and urad, including the volume of each pulse imported under each QRs.  
e. Australia notes that India stated that 'increase in im port tariffs of pulses was not sufficient 
in case of certain pulses. Therefore, government imposed quantitative restrictions ' 
i. Can India confirm whether it first utilised WTO consistent measures such as increasing 
its applied tariffs on pulses to India 's WTO bound levels before implementin g WTO 
in-consistent measures such as QRs?  
ii. If India did not consider this option, can India explain why?  
Despite India reassuring WTO Members that the Quantitative Restric tions (QR) introduced in 
August  2017 were only 'tem porary', India renewed the quantitative restriction on mung beans and 
black lentils on  4 May 2018 in Notification No.  6/2015 -2020.  
f. Given these QRs have been in force for over 12 months, does India still believe these 
measures are 'temporary '? What timefram e does India consider as 'temporary ' for such 
measures? When does India intend to cancel these 'temporary ' measures?  
As is well known to India, Australia and a number of WTO Members have raised concerns about the 
WTO-consistency of the quantitative restri ctions in numerous WTO Committees, and Australia has 
raised concerns over the course of a series of bilateral representations. Regardless of all these efforts 
to understand the legal basis for the QRs, India has not engaged to provide such an explanation.  
g. While India has stated the QRs are temporary, Australia  requests India explain the 
WTO legal basis for such temporary measures . 
Are the measures maintained for the protection of human health or safety; animal or plant 
life or health; security, the environment, or some other basis?  
If India is relying on GATT Article XX (General Exceptions) for its quantitative restrictions, 
can India explicitly state which paragraph in Article XX it is relying on for its quantitative 
restrictions?  
1.16.2   Question by Canada  (AG-IMS ID 88092)   
Canada would like to reiterate its question (AG -IMS ID 87074) raised during the 87th Committee on 
Agriculture for India's previous notification (G/AG/N/IND/12) regarding the export and domestic sale 
of pulses (urad, moong, tur, masoor, channa) through e -auctions. Could India please indicate when 
it will provide an answer to question AG -IMS ID 87074?  
  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Canada notes that between December 2016 and May 2018, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) has 
posted on its website multiple contract not es for the sale of pulses (urad, moong, tar, masoor, 
channa) through e -auctions.   
Could India please elaborate if there were successful bidders in each of these e -auctions and could 
India advise if these pulses were exported or released onto the domestic m arket? How does the FCI 
take into account commercial considerations so that these volumes of pulses do not disrupt 
commercial markets?  
1.16.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 88095)  
The table below list procurement by India of pulses reported in the Commission for Agricultural Costs 
and Prices annual reports between 2012 -13 to 2016 -17.  
Table.1  - Government Procurement (NAFED, FCI, SFAC) of Pulses in metric tonne, 
2012 -13 to 2016 -17  
Season  Pulse |Year  2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 2015 -16 2016 -17 
Kharif  Arhar/Tur  16,558 92,859  1,543   45,532  1,166,045  
Moong  322 243 0 0 219,848  
Urad 84,686  12,108  0 4,892  88,582  
Rabi Gram  3,555  40,238  364,207  24,193  56,291  
Masur/Lentil  1,770  0 0 1,018   8,556  
Total Total 106,891  145,448  365,750  75,634  1,539,321  
Source : Commission for Agricultural Costs and  Prices - Rabi Crops 2017 -2018 and  Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Prices - Kharif Crops 2018 -2019.  
  
Canada noticed that the total amount purchased by the government of India in the Commission for 
Agricultural Costs and Pri ces annual reports differs from the quantities reported in India domestic 
support notifications.  
  
a. Could India explain the difference between the quantities notified and the quantities 
reported in the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices annual reports?  
b. Could India indicate at what price all quantities reported by the Commission for Agricultura l 
Costs and Prices annual reports were procured?  
c. Could India explain their methodology on including or excluding quantities procured by its 
different agencies?  
d. Are NAFED and FCI allowed to buy Pulses from every state in India?  
e. Could India please indicat e if NAFED and FCI have pre -set limit or other conditions on the 
amount of production that could be procured from farmers using the MSPs? If so, what 
are the pre -set limits or conditions on the volume of production that could be procured?  
On 29 August  2018, the India Director General of Foreign Trade issued a notification withdrawing 
the import restrictions on dry peas in effect until 30 September 2018. On 30 August 2018, the 
Director General of Foreign Trade issued a new notification under the authority o f the Ministry of 
Commerce and Industry, indicating the import restriction on dry peas will continue until 
30 September 2018.  
  
f. Could India indicate if the import restrictions on dry peas will expire after September 30?  
In its answers to Canada AG-IMS ID 87071, Indi a indicated that " the decision for imposition of quota 
was based on the domestic demand and supply situation of pulses in India ". It was also noted that 
"mere increase in import tariffs of pulses was not sufficient in case of certain pulses " and that " the 
wholesale price index (WPI) for pulses in the country has come down from 205.2 (December 2016) G/AG/W/184  
 
- 20 - 
 
  to 134.2 (December 2017) and further declined to 120.8 (April 2018) showing a s harp decline during 
this period" .  
  
g. Could India provide the wholesale  price level index for pulses of the last months available 
after April 2018?  
h. Could India indicate if the import restriction on dry peas was successful at raising the 
domestic price for dry peas?  
i. Could India indicate if the import restriction on tur (pige on pea), moong (beans of species 
of vigna radiate) and urad (beans of the species of vigna mungo) were successful at raising 
the domestic price for each pulse variety?  
j. Does India have a target wholesale price index (WPI) where there will not be a need for  
quantitative restriction on peas and others pulse varieties? If yes, what is that target?  
1.16.4   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88109)  
In November 2017 the Government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this  measure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a restriction on import of yellow peas. 
According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the territory of India 
shall be 100,000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. After the expiry of  this measure the quota has 
been extended till 30 September 2018. Could India clarify the following issues:  
a. On what basis the amount of quota was calculated?  
b. What was the reason for the extension of quota?  
c. What was the amount of yellow peas to be eligib le to impor t within the quota after 
2 July 2018?  
d. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported from 1 April till 25 April 2018, 
from 1 April till 30 June 2018, and from 2 July till 31 August 2018?  
e. How are these measures  consistent with Article X I:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?   
f. How are these measures  justified under the WTO rules?  
1.16.5   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88066)  
a. On 3 July, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MOCI) a nnounced it extended through 
30 September the restriction on the quantity of pea imports that was previously was 
effective through 30 June. Please explain how the quantitative restriction complies with 
India's WTO  obligations.  
b. The quantitative limit restricting imports of peas  has harmed growers, processors, and 
exporters from several of India 's trading partners, including the United States.  Does India 
intend to renew the restriction on import of peas past the September 30 period?   
c. Has India notified the WTO of this new quantitative limit restricting imports of peas?  
d. Are the quantitative limits restricting imports of black matpe, mung beans, and pigeon 
peas still in place?  
e. Does India intend to place quantitative limits restricting imports on any other products?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.17  India's Me rchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88123)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 88038)  
New Zealand is concerned with the recent amendment to the Merchandise Exports from India 
Scheme (MEIS), in particular the increase in the subsidy of cheese and butter from 7% to 10% and 
the inclusion of skim milk powder in the schem e. How are these amendments WTO  compliant?  
1.17.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88067)  
India Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  
In response  to AG -IMS ID 87017 India stated  "the objective of MEIS is to offset infrastructural 
inefficiencies and associated costs, as per Article 9 (d -e) of Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) ". 
However, on India 's Foreign Trade Policy, 2015 -2020 Notification from the M inistry of Commerce, 
Chapter 3.03, updated up to June 2015, page 59 says the "[o]bjective of Merchandise Exports from 
India Scheme (MEIS) is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs involved in export 
of goods/products, which are produ ced/manufactured in India, especially those having high export 
intensity, employment potential and thereby enhancing India 's export competitiveness ".  
Also, as amended on December 2017, page 51 it reads the "[o]bjective of the Merchandise Exports 
from Indi a Scheme (MEIS) is to promote the manufacture and export of notified goods/ products. "  
Nowhere on India 's Foreign Trade Policy directly makes specific reference that the programme is for 
marketing agricultural exports, handling, upgrading and other proces sing costs, and the costs of 
internal or international transport and freight.  
a. Please provide additional details on how the MEIS is implemented, including the specific 
eligibility criteria for payments.   
b. Further, please indicate how "infrastructure ineffici encies and associated costs " directly 
relate to the criteria set out in article 9(d -e) of the AoA regarding marketing or 
transportation costs.  
1.18  Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  
1.18.1   Question by Japan (AG -IMS ID 88036)  
The Ministry of Agr iculture, government of Indones ia, revised the regulation 
(No. 38/PERMENTAN/HR.060/11/2017) on 6th June this year regarding horticultural product import. 
The use of 'harvest period ' is eliminated when issuing the import license. Japan understands, 
however,  that the revised regulation still imposes a restriction giving the Director General authority 
to consider domestic horticultural production when issuing the import licenses.  
Japan would like to ask for further clarification on this issue:  
a. Could Indonesi a provide some examples as to how the "domestic horticultural production " 
is considered?  
b. Could Indonesia make sure that a period in which no import is allowed is not set up any 
more?  
1.19  Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.19.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 8803 5) 
New Zealand refers to its question asked at the 87th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 87089) 
regarding Indonesia 's dairy import regime. New Zealand is pleased to note that Regulation  26/2106 
has been amended by the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture in the recently released G/AG/W/184  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Regulations  30/2018 and 33/2018. We note in particular Regulation 30/2018 Articles 23 and  24 
have been reworded. However, the language is now very vague.  
a. Can Indonesia clarify that importers do not need to have partnership plans anymore and 
are no longer obliged to own milk processing facilities?  
b. We are pleased to see that Article 34 (3) has been deleted. Can Indonesia confirm that, 
under the new regulatio ns, importers who do not submit partnership plans will still receive 
the full volume they request when applying for import recommendations (RIPHs) from the 
Ministry of Agriculture, as long as they fulfil all other relevant obligations?  
c. Regulation 33/2018 deletes Article 44 which contained all of the penalties for violation of 
the regulation. Can Indonesia clarify how the regulations are enforced if this is the case?  
d. In response to question AG IMS ID 87089  in which Indonesia stated "Partnership 
agreement i s one of factors to be considered by the Director General of Livestock and 
Animal Health in issuing import recommendations ", could Indonesia specify what other 
factors are being considered by Ministry of Agriculture officials when issuing import 
recommenda tions?  
1.19.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88071)  
In July 2017, Indonesia 's Ministry of Agri culture (MOA) issued 
Regulation  26/PERMENTAN/PK.450/7/2017 ( "MOA 26/2017 ") concerning Milk Supply and 
Circulation. Indonesia included updates to MOA 26/2017 through the publication of MOA 30/2018 
on 20 July 2018 and MOA 33/2018 on 30 July 2018.  
The United States appreciates Indonesia 's continuing revisions to MOA 26/2017 in its  efforts to 
address trade concerns raised with the original measure. The United States remains concerned that 
Indonesian importers and domestic processors are still being told to obtain dairy partnerships with 
domestic producers in order to receive dairy i mport recommendations from the Ministry of 
Agriculture.  The United States questions how meaningful the amendments to MOA 26/2017 really 
are if the Ministry of Agriculture is continuing to instruct importers and domestic processors to enter 
into partnership s. As no partnership requirements now exist in the text of the Regulations, these 
requirements should not be enforced.  
a. Can Indonesia please provide more direct assurance that import license quotas will not be 
tied with local dairy partnerships?  
Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) has stated that they will continue to "encourage " dairy 
processors to form partnerships to buy local milk and invest in dairy production. Indonesia 's Ministry 
of Agriculture reports that 88 dairy product importers and 30 dom estic processors have already 
submitted partnership plans.   
b. Can Indonesia ensure that companies which did not submit partnership plans will not be 
impacted when Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture decides whether to issue import 
recommendations?  
c. Does Indon esia plan to enforce the statement that the Ministry of Agriculture would 
"encourage " dairy processors to purchase milk through local dairy partnerships?  
d. The United States further requests Indonesia refrain from issuing further regulations 
requiring any fo rm of domestic partnerships, and instead engage with its dairy trading 
partners in capacity building discussions or program mes if necessary to attain Indonesia 's 
milk production objectives.   
e. The United States welcomes Indonesia 's willingness to participate  in capacity building 
program mes and we request that Indonesia please inform the United States whether we 
can advance these program mes. The United States looks forward to the continued 
collaboration with Indonesia.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.20  Indonesia's soybean imports  
1.20.1   Question by  United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88097)  
The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture is actively considering a draft regulation that would favour  
domestically produced soybeans and restrict imported product. The draft regulation would restrict 
imports to whe n domestic supply is deemed insufficient, requires all imports be conducted by a 
state-owned enterprise, and prohibits import one month prior to and after the domestic harvest 
period. In response to questions about this draft regulation by the United State s at 87th COA, 
Indonesia said that "Currently the draft regulation is still under careful consideration by the relevant 
authorities in Jakarta. Consistency with WTO  rules is one of the main considerations in this process" . 
(AG-IMS ID: 87019)  
a. Please provide  an update on the status of this draft regulation.  
b. Is the Ministry of Agriculture still considering this draft regulation or any part thereof?  
The United States also understands that Indonesia is considering raising tariffs on soybeans from its 
current app lied rate and instituting a genetically engineered labelling requirement on bulk soybeans. 
Please provide an update on these potential changes as well.  
c. What steps is Indonesia taking to ensure that any regulation impacting imports of 
soybeans is consistent  with its WTO commitments?  
1.21  Republic of Korea's rice imports  
1.21.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 88045)  
Please provide an update on the rectification and modification of Korea's Schedule for rice products 
and whether there has been progress with regard to  Korea's consultations with concerned Members.  
1.22  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.22.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 88104)  
Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 87094:  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quota regime for importation of certain agricultu ral products, 
including wheat flour and milk. In late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour. In May 2018 Mongolia had put in place a 
quota for import of wheat flour for the re st of 2018 year. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light 
Industry of Mongolia published a notice for importers to submit the documents for allocation of quota 
volume only in July 2018. Despite of the fact that the close date for documents submission fo r 
importers was 19 July 2018, at the moment the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light Industry of 
Mongolia still has not allocated the quota volume among the importers of wheat flour. As a result, 
importers could not import within the quota volume; and, in fact, the import ban on wheat flour is 
still in force.  
a. Could Mongolia explain the reasons for delay in opening the quota for wheat flour?   
b. When Mongolia is going to allocate the quota volume among importers of wheat flour?  
c. Please explain how Mongolia 's import restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, 
are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.23  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 88033)  and Guatemala (AG -IMS ID 88124)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to Pakistan during t he June 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 87081) regarding the sugar freight support provided by Pakistan, Australia has a series 
of follow -up questions:  
a. Australia requests Pakistan confirm that the freigh t support for the 2017/18 crushing 
season has now ceased, and if so, what exact date did the freight support end?  
b. Australia requests Pakistan confirm the volume of sugar that received the freight support, 
and provide a dollar amount for the freight support  provided under the measure.  
c. Australia notes that the USDA Foreig n Agricultural Service report ( Sugar: World Markets 
and Trade ) May 2018 states that "Exports are forecast at zero and stocks are projected to 
balloon to 4.7 million metric ton nes, as no expor t subsidies for 2018/19 have been 
announced ". 
i. Can Pakistan explain what measures it may be considering to address the stockpile of 
sugar?  
ii. Is Pakistan considering reinstituting export subsidies in the form of freight support as 
provided in 2017/18?  
Australia notes that Pakistan at the provincial level provides market price support for sugar cane 
through minimum support prices (MPS) set by the provincial governments of Punjab (180 Rs. per 
40 kg in 2017/18), Sindh (182 Rs. per 40 kg in 2017/18), and Kh yber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) 
(180 Rs. per 40 kg in 2017/18). The MPS for sugarcane are long running measures, which we note 
have increased 200% during the period from 2007/08 to 2015 -16. 
d. Can Pakistan explain why it has not notified any eligible production for su gar cane in its 
domestic support notifications from 1995/96 to 2011/12?  
e. Can Pakistan explain why it did not notify the applied admin istered price for sugar cane 
in 2000/01 and in subsequent domestic support notifications?  
f. Can Pakistan provide the value and  volume of sugar cane production in each province in 
Pakistan?  
g. Can Pakistan explain why the minimum support prices have i ncreased so significantly 
since 2007/08 (e.g. from 60 Rs. per 40 kg in 2007/08 to 180 Rs. per 40 kg in 2017 -18 in 
the Province of Punja b)? 
h. Has Pakistan considered that the high level of MPS may be leading to overproduction 
resulting in the need to export subsidies in the form of freight support?  
i. Has Pakistan considered removing the MPS for sugar cane and moving to less trade and 
production distorting forms of domestic support?  
Australia would be grateful if Pakistan could inform the Committee when it was planning to submit 
domestic support notifications for marketing years 2012/13 and subsequent years, and whether the 
market price  support for sugar cane will be included.  
1.24  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.24.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88072)  
In response to AG IMS ID 87021, Pakistan confirmed that the quantity of wheat exported under its 
export subsidy programme to date was 1.625 million tonnes out of 2.0 million metric tonnes G/AG/W/184  
 
- 25 - 
 
  authorized by the government of Pakistan at an  export subsidy price of up to USD  159 per metric 
tonne. Also, Pakistan responded that the support provided is "in full complian ce of Article 9.4 r ead 
with 9.1  (d) & (e) of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) ", and copies of the legislation and/or cabinet 
decision(s) for making this export subsidy available will be made available in course of time.  
a. Please provide an update on the quantity of wheat that ha s been exported under this 
scheme, and whether or not the programme has been extended for the next marketing 
year. 
b. Please provide additional details on the criteria for eligibility to receive the payment.  
c. Please explain how this subsidy was calculated give n the con straints of Article 9.1  (d) 
and (e). Please include estimates for handling, upgrading, internal and international 
transport, and any other relevant costs used to calculate the USD159/MT subsidy.  
d. As requested in June, please provide an update on t he availability to this Committee of 
the legislation and/or cabinet decision(s) for this measure, as well as an update on the 
Pakistan 's export subsidy notifications, including Supporting Table DS:2.  
1.25  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.25.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS I D 88032)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions at the June 2018 CoA regarding the 
30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General Council's waiver decision of 
24 July 2014 (WT/L/932).  
Australia notes that a bill that amends the Agricultural Tariffication Act (aims to replace quantitative 
restriction on rice with tariffs), has been approved in the House of Representatives, but it is still 
pending in the Senate. President Duterte has certified as urgent the p assage of the bill during his 
third State of the Nation Address on 23 July 2018.  What is the expected timeline for the passage of 
this bill?  
1.26  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
1.26.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88073)  
Question 1  
In response to AG IMS ID 87022 the Russia n Federation  stated "The possibility of the extension the 
duration of this support will be considered depending on the results of its efficiency and domestic 
market conditions. "  
a. Please indicate whether Decree No.1 595 has been extended and provide an update on 
usage to date.  
The Russia n Federation  also stated that "Grain farmers are not specified by Decree № 1595 as the 
recipients and (or) direct beneficiaries of this subsidy and that is mainly a systematic measure for 
the domestic agricultural market. Therefore, the implementation of this Decree does not have any 
substantial effect on the agricultural production ". 
b. Please clarify and elaborate further as to how Decree No.1595 does not benefit grain 
farmers and trader s when the text of the decree states that it is to "reduced grain 
transportation rates " (i.e., the eligible products for the subsidy are wheat, corn and barley?  
Question 2  
The United States would like to reiterate the following question, which has not been  answered:   G/AG/W/184  
 
- 26 - 
 
  c. Can the Russian Federation please explain how the Russia n Federation  monitors the 
international grains market to determine the trade distorting effects of this measure and 
whether it is displacing or impeding the exports of other Members?   
d. Please describe how the list of territories in Annex 2 of Decree 1595 was compiled and 
what characteristics they share beyond the presence of grain export facilities as final 
destination.  
1.27  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.27.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88074)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of poultry products 
in September 2017.  In June 2018, Suriname informed the WTO that it seeks to increase its bindings 
under Article XXIV  (6) to conform with the CARICOM  CET. The new duty of 40% is twice the rate of 
Suriname 's 20% bound rate for poultry products.  The United States has asked Suriname to start 
Article XXVIII talks to discuss compensation for withdrawing a trade concession but Suriname has 
not responded to U .S. requests.  
a. Please explain how Suriname is in compliance with its WTO obligations by raising the tariff 
on imports of poultry products beyond its bound rate?  
b. Please explain if and when Suriname will initiate Article XXVIII negotiations to adjust its 
bound rate.  
c. Will Suriname consider refraining from applying the above -bound 40% duty rate until the 
Article XXVIII process has concluded?  
1.28  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.28.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 88002)  
Ukraine notes that during the numerous C ommittee meetings in 2016 –2018 Members raised 
questions on Thailand 's import permits for feed wheat. It is obvious that this policy has had serious 
impact on international grain exporters. Thailand explained that its measures to limit imports of feed 
wheat  were introduced temporarily with the aim to stabilize the domestic price of maize. At the same 
time, Thailand informed that it conducted internal consultations to find a suitable solution to that 
issue.  
a. Could Thailand please provide information on the la test developments in the above -
mentioned internal consultations?  
b. Please, elaborate on outcomes of the import restrictive measures taken and future policy 
in the grain sector.  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1)  
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  
AG-IMS ID 88001: Question by Norway - Transparency issues  
In the June CoA meeting, Canada  informed the committee about the enter into force of  the 
reallocation of 800 tonnes of cheese to the  European Union, n egotiated as a part of the 
CETA agreement.  
  
Can Canada  inform the Committee on Agriculture with regard to the imports of cheese from e ach of 
the thirteen new member S tates in the European Union, in each of the three years 2014 - 2016? 
 G/AG/W/184  
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 88027: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
In its notification, Ecuador indicates that no imports occurred under its 14 tariff -rate quotas on the 
basis that the applied MFN rate was below the bound in -quota rate or that imports occurred under 
preferential agreements or that no imports were recorded  at all without specifying any quotas in 
particular.   
a. Could Ecuador clarify if these quotas effectively have been opened in each of the years 
reported?   
b. Could Ecuador also clarify:  
i. for which quotas the applied rate was lowe r than the quota in -quota rate;  
ii. which quotas were subject to bilateral agreement;  
iii. for which quotas no import was recorded.  
c. The EU also notes that the most recent notification on quota manage ment dates back from 
year 2000. Could Ecuador confirm that no changes have occurred since in the management 
of Ecuador's quotas?  
AG-IMS ID 88099: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Ecuador registers no imports coming under TRQ commitments. The United States is the holder of 
first-negotiator rights for these quotas and requests  that Ecuador implement a fair and transparent 
mechanism to adjudicate these quotas retroactively, at least back to 2014.  
Why has Ecuador not implemented a quota administration system to allocate quotas to interested 
parties?  
2.2.2   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/62, G/A G/N/GTM/63)  
AG-IMS ID 88026: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
Guatemala indicates that most tariff -rate quotas are not opened because of better market access 
offered. Still, the number of TRQs opened in a given year varies from year to year .  
Could Guatemala explain what conditions in market access trigger the opening or not of a quota or 
which is the mechanism for opening a quota?  
2.2.3   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/42)  
AG-IMS ID 88025: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Malaysi a's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for 
Calendar Year 2016.  
a. Can Malaysia explain the reasons for the significant under fill for some tariff quotas opened 
during the 2016 Calendar year?  
i. for each product, can Malaysia explain  whether the under fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
b. Given that six of the nine tariff quotas opened in 2016 did not reach a fill rate of two per 
cent, did Malay sia give consider moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 28 - 
 
  c. Can Malaysia explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.2.4   Norway (G/A G/N/NOR/97)  
AG-IMS ID 88057: Question by New Zealand - Tariff quota fill  
a. Can Norway explain the reasons for the sudden drop in the quota fill rate, from  98% 
in 2015 and 91% in 2016 to 14% in 2017, for its sheep and goat meat quota NORQ009?  
b. Can Norway explain the decline in its quota fill rate over the past three years (2015 : 91%; 
2016: 80%; 2017:  63%) for its sheep and goat meat quota NORQ225?  
c. Can Norway explain the reasons for the consistently large  under fill of its butter 
quota  (NORQ229) over the pa st three years (2015 : 59%; 2016 : 63%; 2017 : 45%)?  
2.2.5   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/91)  
AG-IMS ID 88024: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes South Africa's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) 
for Calendar Year 2016, in particular the full utilisation of a sizable number of tariff quotas.   
a. Can South Africa explain the reasons for the under fill for some tariff quotas notified for 
calendar year 2016?  
i. for each product, can South Africa explain whether the under fil l was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the products, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
Australia  would be particularly interested in understanding the less than 10% fill rates 
listed for Milk Powder, Butter, Cheese, Eggs, Potatoes, Dried Fruit, Barley and Malt 
Extracts.  
b. Can South Africa explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under filled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.3  Special agricultural safeguard s (Tables MA:3  to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/228)  
AG-IMS ID 88023: Question by Australia - Other implementation issues  
Australia welcomes Japan's notification under Article 5 of the Agreement concerning a volume -based 
safeguard on milk and cream, not  concentrated.  
a. Australia notes Japan may have followed the requirements under Article 5 to trigger the 
safeguard, but would like to ask Japan if it believes it is credible and within the spirit of an 
open and rules based system to be triggering a safeguard  that will be applicable for nine 
months based on only 28 tonnes of imports?  
b. While the special safeguard under Article 5 allows for automatic triggering, based on the 
agreed methodology, has Japan considered if it is genuinely necessary to trigger a 
safeg uard, taking into account eco nomic and market circumstances?  and  
c. Does Japan ever review or reconsider whether it needs to apply the safeguard for such a 
lengthy period?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 29 - 
 
  2.3.2   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/53)  
AG-IMS ID 88022: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Can the Philippines provide more detail around its domestic policy settings that led to 17 price -based 
special safeguard measures being invoked and notified in April 2018?  
2.4  Domestic support commitments (Table Ds:1)  
2.4.1   Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/29)  
AG-IMS ID 88003: Question by Ukraine - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Ukraine notes both significant textual and budget changes in Armenia 's notified marketing and 
promotion services in G/AG/N/ARM/29. Compared to the previous Table DS:1 notificat ions, one can 
observe:  
• 2012: 408.4 AMD Million - Co-financing of the community agricultural resource management 
and competitiveness project carried out with World Bank support;  
• 2013: 316.3 AMD Million - Co-financing of the community agricultural resource  management 
and competitiveness project carried out with World Bank support;  
• 2014: 2,077.4 AMD Million  - Marketing and promotion services, including market information, 
advice and promotion relating to particular products but excluding expenditure for uns pecified 
purposes that could be used by sellers to reduce their selling price or confer a direct economic 
benefit to buyers: Community agricultural resource management and competitiveness project.  
The budgetary change represents a near 473% increase over the average of the two previous years. 
The range or intensity of marketing and promotion programmes is not identified in detail. At the 
same time, Ukraine observes rather large increases in Armenian  exports from approximately 
400 Mill USD to about 630 Mill  USD between 2013 and 2017. Ukraine kindly request Armenia to 
update the Committee in more details with regard to specific implemented marketing and promotion 
programmes, including allocation of individual budgetary support.  
2.4.2   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG /N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 88052: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per G/AG/N/AUS/99 document containing DS notification for the year 2013/14, Australia has 
introduced a new programme called the "Emergency Water Infrastructure R ebate" under Supporting 
Table DS:9. India notes that this programme has not been notified in DS notification document 
G/AG/N/AUS/109 for the year 2014/15. Australia is requested to clarify if the programme has been 
discontinued?  
AG-IMS ID 88050: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
As per Australia 's document G/AG/N/AUS/109, Supporting Table DS:6 (Product -Specific Aggregate 
Measurements of Support: Non -Exempt Direct Payments)  shows that total support of A 0.273  million 
has been provided for L ive cattle exports. Can Australia clarify the nature of this support in addition 
to the explanation in the footnote to the table (Assistance through concessional loans and financial 
advice grants to pastoralists and service businesses which were affected b y the temporary 
suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia)? Is this support available only for live cattle exports 
or for all cattle businesses?  
AG-IMS ID 88049: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
Australia 's DS notification for 2014/15 docu ment G/AG/N/AUS/109 in Supporting Table DS:9 notified 
two new support programmes namely, "Drought Concessional Loans Scheme " and "Drought 
Recovery Concessional Loans Scheme ". The footnote to the table notes that "eligible farm 
businesses " are entitled to a vail such loans. In this regard,  
a. What is the criteria for farm businesses to be "eligible " for availing concessional loans 
under these programmes?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 30 - 
 
  b. What was concessional rate offered under the measures during the year 2014 -15 and what 
was the comparable com mercial interest rate?  
AG-IMS ID 88051: Question by India - Classification of measures  
Australia's Domestic Support Notifications for recent years in Supporting Table DS:9 contain a 
programme called the "Murray -Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversificati on Programme ". As per 
the information available on the website http://rdafarwestnsw.org.au/murray -darling -basin -
regional -economic -diversification -program/ , the programme intends to fund a range of industries 
and products such as cheese -making and grain processing which makes this measure product -
specific in nature. How is this programme compatible to be notified as non -product specific support 
as per Article 6.4 (a) (ii) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
2.4.3   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  
AG-IMS ID 88101: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 Bahrain notified "plant protection " as a pest and disease 
control m easure under Annex 2. No pest and disease control measure was notified for 2013 
in G/AG/N/BHR/7, but Bahrain did notify "Land preparation, crop pr otection, veterinary services " as 
a general services measure for that year as well as in 2011 and previous years.  In 2015, 2016  
and 2017, Bahrain notified "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil " 
as a pest and disease control measure.   
a. It is unclear whether the intermittent use of some of these measures (e.g., "plant 
protection " and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services ") indicates whether 
the same programme received funding in o nly certain years or if a new programme was 
introduced with the same name.  Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supporting Table DS:1 by Bahrain in G/AG/N/BHR/10, please 
provide a short description of how the measure is implemented.  
c. Please confirm when a Table DS:2 notification for each new exempt measure (e.g., "plant 
protection " and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control of red palm weevil ") 
will be submitted to this Committee.  
AG-IMS ID 88103: Question by United States of America - Article 6.2 (Special and 
Differential Treatment / Development Programmes)  
In Supporting Table DS:2 in G/AG/N/BHR/10, Bahrain notified "Infrastructure for plant production " 
including for 2012 and 2014, while in G/AG/N/BHR/7 Bahrain notified "Infrastructure projects " 
for 2013.  
a. Please confirm whether these are the same or different measures.  
b. Please provide a short description of how the measure or measures are implemented.  
AG-IMS ID 88100: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The United States notes no response has been provided for AG IMS ID 74038 regarding 
G/AG/N/BHR/7.  Bahrain has notified input subsidies for crops and animal products inputs generally 
available to low -income or resource -poor producers.  
a. How does Bahrain define "low -income or resource -poor"?  
b. What percent of Bahraini agricultural producers meets this definition?  
c. Please describe what inputs are eligible to receive a subsidy, how the support measure 
implemented, and how the subsi dy is calculated.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2.4.4   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  
AG-IMS ID 88105: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
There appears to be several discrepancies in the calculations in descriptions relating to the Current 
Total AMS in Supporting Table DS:4 including:  
• the description appears to include values transferred over from Canada 's previous 
notification;  
• the Total Product -Specific AMS value appears to be inaccurate and resulting in an 
inaccurate Current Total AMS.  
Please confirm whether the only product -specific AMS contributing to the Current Total AMS is that 
for milk at C$576 million.  
AG-IMS ID 88053: Question by India - Market price support  
Canada 's Domestic Support notification document G/AG/N/CAN/122 for the year 2014 in Sup porting 
Table DS:5 shows that product specific domestic support provided to butter and skim milk powder 
is worth $432.592 million and $143.382 million respectively. The footnote to the table defines 
"Eligible Production" with respect to skim milk powder as  the following:  "total production (80,984  t), 
less product sales for further processing and animal feed under Speci al Classes 5 a, b and c 
(12,684  t) and 4m (29,541 t), less total exports (12,602 t), plus that portion of exports that had 
received the suppo rt price (0 t) ". 
  
a. India would like to know the rationale for deduction of the following from total production 
of skim milk powder: (a) sales for further processing (b) animal feed (c) exports.  
b. Whether the domestic producers who export skim milk powder and butter are entitled to 
price support?  
2.4.5   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 88106: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
The United States thanks Ecuador for its most recent Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifications and the 
notification of several Green Box measures.  However, the United States understands that Ecuador 's 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and F isheries, according to its website, subsidized a 
share of the cost of inputs, such as urea and potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies for 
farmers of several commodities including corn and rice. Since 2014, preferential attention has been 
paid to b ananas and pasture crops for livestock. However, beneficiaries also include sugar cane, 
cocoa, cereals, vegetables, potatoes, and other commodities. Farmers receive preferential prices, 
below cost, for inputs.   
a. Please provide additional details with regard  to how the input subsidies measure is 
implemented and the time period under which the subsidy was available to producers.  
b. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador 's current domestic support notifications?   
c. If so, please explain how they reportedly me et the green box criteria under which they are 
notified.   
d. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether Ecuador will notify 
these measures for past years.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Question 2  
e. According to the Ministry 's website, input packages or "kits" purchased by producers also 
included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
f. Please provide additional details with regard to how the agricultural insurance programme 
was implemented, including what losses are covered and what years the measure was 
availa ble. 
g. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as t he support notified for 2011 
in G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
Question 3  
h. The United States notes that in 2015 it was reported that a diesel subsidy provided by the 
government had been eliminated, which resulted i n higher diesel cost for producers.  
i. 7. Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether Ecuador has 
notified this measure and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
2.4.6   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 88020: Question by Australia - Gener al services: pest and disease control  
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 87th Committee on Agriculture, 
AG-IMS ID 87095 regarding pest and disease control.   
Egypt listed a Pest Control Subsidy as "Green Box ", noting the measure was directed for pest control 
for cotton; the subsidy was calculated as a fixed amount per acre for all cotton producers who are 
small farmers; and pest control is provided in cash to farmers at the end of each season.  
a. Can Egypt explain how the sub sidy was tied with actual pest control, given the subsidies 
were provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
b. Can Egypt explain what are the requirements to be classified as a 'small farmer'?  
AG-IMS ID 88021: Questi on by Australia - Market price support  
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 87th Committee on Agriculture, 
AG-IMS ID 87093 regarding market price support for wheat.  
In its answer to AG-IMS ID 87097, Egypt stated that it does not provide market price support for 
wheat, but then explains that the government "declares a price for the marketing of wheat… related 
to the cost of production per feddan ". Egypt also stated "the General Authority for Sup ply 
Commodities (GASC) buys local wheat from the farmers ". 
In order to properly assess the levels of support being provided by Egypt for wheat, could Egypt 
please provide the following details:  
a. The price "declared by the government for the marketing of whe at" over the 
period  2005/2006 to 2016/2017?  
b. How Egypt sets this price, including if necessary, details of the assessed "cost of production 
per feddan "? 
c. The value of production of wheat in Egypt over 2005/2016 to 2016/2017?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.4.7   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  
AG-IMS ID 88055: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per European Union 's DS notification G/AG/N/EU/43 for the year 2014/15, measures like "Single 
Payment Scheme (SPS); Separate Sugar Payment; Separate Fruit and Vegetables Payment; 
Decoupled Com plementary National Direct Payments and Transitional National Aid" have been 
notified under Decoupled Income Support.  
Please provide details of the aforementioned programmes and explain how these payments fulfil the 
criteria of Annex 2 of AoA as these sch emes specify payments for particular products such as sugar 
and vegetables among others?  
2.4.8   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 88079: Question by Canada - General services: marketing and promotion 
services  
Supporting Table DS:1, Canada understands that under the two extraordinary support measures 
packages announced on 7 September 2015 ( http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -15-
5599_en.htm ), and 14 March 2016 ( http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-806_en.htm ), that 
a portion of the support would be allocated to provide funds for promotional activities.  
a. Could the European Union confirm if the funds for promotion al activities are included in 
the amount reported under "Marketing and promotion services "?  
b. Could the European Union provide the amounts dispersed?  
AG-IMS ID 88044: Question by Thailand - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Please provide further information regarding the objectives and procedures of the Decoupled Income 
Support programmes, the criteria for product eligibility, and criteria for farmers to be eligible for the 
support.  
AG-IMS ID 88077: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments u nder 
environmental programmes  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the Environmental Programmes ' expenditures 
increased from EUR 5,885 million in 2014/2015 to EUR 8,121 million in 2015/2016, which represents 
an increase of 38%.  
a. Could the European Union please provide details on the conditions that led to this 
significant increase in expenditures?  
b. Canada notes that expenditures include: "support and protection of organic production by 
creating conditions of fair competition ".  
i. Could the European Union  elaborate on how the support provided to organic production 
meets the policy specific criteria of paragraph 12, Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
ii. Could the European Union  elaborate on the types of extra costs that are eligi ble for 
support under the measure related to organic production?  
iii. Could the European Union provide the amount of this expenditure that went to organic 
production?  
AG-IMS ID 88019: Question by Australia - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
Australia welcomes the Europ ean Union's Domestic Support Notification for marketing year 2015/16. 
Notably, from 2014/15 to 2015/16 payment measures under "blue box " (Table DS:3) increased from 
EUR 2,878.8 million (G/AG/N/EU/43) to EUR 4,331.1 million, which represents an increase of 50%.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 34 - 
 
  a. Could the European Union please provide details on the reasons that led to this significant 
increase in expenditure?  
b. What steps has the EU taken to ensure production in supported commodities is limited and 
are in fact "blue box "?  
AG-IMS ID 88078: Q uestion by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:6, Canada notes that several products: milk, beef, sheep, pig, other livestock 
and fruits and vegetables received support through the Extraordinary support measures which total 
EUR 1 .1 billion.  
  
a. Could the European Union elaborate if the payments reported here are part of the 
Extraordinary support measures packages announced on 7 September 2015, and 
14 March 2016?  
b. Could the European Union elaborate as to the eligibility criteria for  these payments?  
AG-IMS ID 88118: Question by Japan - De minimis  
EU's Table DS:1 notification  for 2015 was made available on 23 August. A significant increase of 
de minimis  usage is identified on milk, pig meat and beef. Could European Unio n elaborate mor e on 
the reason?  
2.4.9   India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  
AG-IMS ID 88080: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada would like to remind India that an answer is still pending on part a. iii. of question 
AG-IMS ID 87139 raised during the 87th Committee on Agriculture for India's previous notification 
(G/AG/N/IND/12). Could India please indicate when it will provide an answer to the following 
question: iii. Canada notes that the Department of Consumer Affairs published on its website 
(https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Procurement_of_Pulses_08Sep2017.p
df) that, as of 08.09.2017, 50,422.53 MT of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2 015-16) were procured domestically 
for the Buffer Stock under Price Stabilization Fund. Could India please indicate when this 
procurement of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2015 -16) will be notified?   
2.4.10   India (G/AG/N/IND/13)  
AG-IMS ID 88068: Question by Canada - Transpar ency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In Supporting Table DS:4 and DS:5, Canada notes that India 's product -specific AMS for pulses 
increased from USD 14.37 million in 2013 -2014 to USD 92.25 million in 2014 -2015 and dropped to 
zero in 2015 -2016 and again incre ased to USD 397.97 million in 2016 -2017. The eligible production 
of pulses reported in the notification also increased from zero in 20 15-16 to 1.15 million tonnes 
in 2016-17.  
a. Could India provide further details on the conditions that led to this significa nt increase in 
spending from 2013 -2014 to 2016 -2017?   
b. Could India indicate for 2016 -17 the quantity of pulses procured by each Indian agency 
and by type of pulse?  
Canada would like to thank India for providing the product -specific value of production data  for years 
2014 and 2015. At the 87th Committee on Agriculture, India indicated that product -specific value of 
production data would be included in its future domestic support notifications. However, in 
Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that product -specific value of production data has not been 
included. The inclusion of value of production data greatly improves the transparency of Supporting 
Table DS:4.  
c. Could India provide the value of production for all produc ts reported in Supporting 
Table  DS:4 for 2 016-2017?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 35 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 88014: Question by European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Supporting table DS:4 , 
a. Can India explain, for each product, how big a share of the MPS calculated is the result of 
state subsidies above the part from the Federal Government?  
b. Can India indicate which states have supplementary top -ups for which products and which 
are the amounts  per tonne for the different products?  
c. Can India please indicate the value of production for the prod ucts in question (as it did 
for 2014/15 and 2015/16 in question ID 87138).  
AG-IMS ID 88119: Question by Japan - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India's Table  DS:1 notification  for 2016 was made available on 20 July. A significant increase of 
Insurance Premium Subsidy is identified. Could India elaborate more on the reason?  
AG-IMS ID 88056: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Ta ble DS:2)  
Could India please provide further information on the objectives, eligibility criteria, and procedures 
for providing Input subsidies, including whether certain products have been allocated substantially 
more input subsidies than others.  
AG-IMS I D 88107: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
In 2007, the Indian National Development Council launched  Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), 
which supports the agricultural sector in a number of ways  including: crop development, horticulture, 
agricultural mechanization, natural resource management, marketing and post -harvest 
management, animal husbandry, dairy development, extension, etc. The RKVY appears to provide 
funding for a broad array of policy  measures that appear to may be Green Box or Amber Box.   
a. The RKVY appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy measures that appear to 
range from Green Box or Amber Box.  Please provide additional details on how the RKVY 
and related measures funde d by the RKVY are implemented.  
b. Please indicate how and where the RKVY is notified in India 's domestic support notification, 
including in G/AG/N/IND/13.  
Question 2  
It is noted that in 2017 the RKVY as continued for three years as the RKVY Remunerative Appro aches 
for Agriculture and Allied sector Rejuvenation (RKVY -RAFTAAR) with 70 % of outlays to be allocated 
for activities related to infrastructure and assets and production growth.  In additional 20 % of 
RKVY -RAFTAAR funding is made available for other sub -schemes that related to national priorities, 
while the remaining funding is for innovation and agri -entrepreneur development.  
 
c. It is noted that India has never submitted any DS:2 notification for any new or modified 
exempt measures. Please indicate whether In dia will be providing a DS:2 notification for 
the introduction of the RKVY in 2007, the modification of RKVY to RKVY -RAFTAAR in 2017, 
or for any other new or modified exempt measure introduced whether related to RKVY or 
not. 
Question 3  
In 2011, India intro duced the National Dairy Plan Phase I (NDP I) for the period 2011/12 through 
2018/19 and implemented by the National Dairy Development Board.  NDP I is aimed at activities 
such as improving productivity and improving market/value chain infrastructure.   G/AG/W/184  
 
- 36 - 
 
  d. NDP I appears to provide funding for a broad array of policy measures that appear that 
likely include Green Box measures. Please provide additional details on how NDP I is 
implemented.  
e. Please indicate how and where the NDP I is notified in India 's domestic  support notification, 
including in G/AG/N/IND/13.  
f. Is India planning to submit a Table DS:2 notification for the introduction of NDP I in 
2011/12?  
Question 4   
In G/AG/N/IND/13 and in responses to questions by other Members, including most recently to 
Austr alia in AG -IMS ID 87117, India no longer notifies seed subsidies as part of its input subsidies 
notified under Article 6.2.  The provision of seed subsidies is not identified anywhere else in India 's 
notification.  However, the United States notes that under  the National Food Security Mission, India 
provides seed subsidies to farmers of various commodities in various states, including but not limited 
to rice, wheat, arhar, moong, urd, gram lentil, maize and barley.  
g. Please confirm whether India provides any o ther seed subsidies and whether those 
identified in the National Food Security Mission, or elsewhere, are included in India 's 
domestic support notification and if so, where.  
Question 5  
Loan waiver schemes appear to have continued since the Agricultural Deb t Waiver and Debt Relief 
Scheme in 2008.  For example, in 2016 the state of Tamil Nadu announced a waiver of agricultural 
loans totaling approximately US D 900 million (Rs. 60 billion).  
h. Please indicate how much farm debt/loans were waived in MY 2016/17, unde r any loan 
waiver program me operated within India.  
i. How is this financial support to the agricultural sector notified in G/AG/N/IND/13?  
Question 6  
The United States understands India to provide farmers with subsidized interest rates for short term 
credit un der the Interest Subvention Scheme that has been implemented since 2006/07. Under the 
scheme, farmers are offered short -term crop loans at a subsidized rate of interest.  
j. Please provide additional details with regards to how this measure is implemented, 
including the effective interest rate subsidy rate and the value of loans covered by the 
measure in 2016/17.  
k. Please confirm whether this measure is notified by India in its domestic support notification 
and if so, where?  If not, on what basis?  
Question 7  
In response to AG IMS ID 85018 from October 2017, India stated an "answer will be submitted 
shortly " in relation to the part (f) of the question regarding measures  that were also not notified 
in G/AG/N/IND/12 or G/AG/N/IND/13:  
"It is noted that a number of G reen Box measures including, "dry land farming/rain -fed 
farming, " "provision of loans at concession rate s and debt waiver ", "soil conservation in 
catchment areas of river valley projects ", and "integrated watershed management " are 
no longer notified by Ind ia. It is the U.S. understanding that all of these measures may 
not have been terminated after MY 2010/11. For example, it appears that India has 
continued to implement the "integrated watershed management " program me according 
to documentation in India 's Union Budget and a 2015 India Cabinet Committee on G/AG/W/184  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Economic Affairs approval of the consolidation of the program me into a larger 
program me". 
l. Please indicate if and whether any or all of these  measures of have been replaced by other 
measures and if so, where these are notified in India 's notification.  
m. If not, please verify that all of these measures have been terminated.  
AG-IMS ID 88017: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food secu rity purposes  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/13, India has notified spending on 
public stockholding for food security purposes of USD 16.3 billion in 2016 -17. 
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation  of such stocks shall 
correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food security ". For each of the periods covered 
by the notification, could India provide:  
  
a. the pre -determined targets, when these were established, and under which legislation or  
programmes; and  
b. an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a sole focus 
on food security.  
Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA further states, "Food purchases by government shall be made at 
current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic 
market price for the product and quality in question" . For each of the periods covered by the 
notification, could India provide:  
  
c. a breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spendin g, including values and 
volumes;  
d. the prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold; and  
e. confirmation the food purchases were made at current prices and sales were made at no 
less than current domestic market prices?  
As outlined in  footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the AoA, can India confirm whether any aspects of the notified 
spending cover foodstuffs that were acquired and released at administered prices, requiring the 
market price support to be notified as AMS?  
AG-IMS ID 88018: Question b y Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:2 of G/AG/N/IND/13, India has notified spending on 
agricultural input subsidies of USD 22.8 billion in 2016 -17 to low income or res ource poor producers 
under Special and Differential Treatment "Development Programmes."  
Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the AoA states, "… input subsidies generally available to low -income or 
resource -poor producer in developing country Members shall be exempt from domestic support 
reduction commitments…" . 
a. Can India please provide a breakdown of the types of input subsidies covered by the 
notified spending, including values and volumes?  
b. Can India explain how it ensures its input subsidy programmes notified as ex empt from 
domestic reduction commitments are 'generally available ' to low income or resource -poor 
producers?  
i. Can India provide details of the eligibility criteria for the programmes to ensure the 
input subsidies are only provided to low income or resource poor producers?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 38 - 
 
  ii. Can India indicate how the programmes are structured to avoid their benefits flowing 
to other agricultural producers?  
c. Australia notes India 's reply to Australia regarding agricultural input subsidies at the June 
2018 meeting (AG -IMS ID 8711 7) that '99.29% of Indian farmers are low -income or 
resource -poor. Therefore, it is correct to say that benefit of input subsidies is flowing 
mostly to low income or resource poor farmers. ' 
i. Does this mean that India does not have any eligibility criteria f or its agricultural input 
subsidies?  
ii. Is India relying on the high percentage of Indian farmers (99.29%) being low -income 
or resource poor (based on agricultural census data from 2010 -11) to avoid needing 
eligibility criteria or targeting the subsidies to s pecific producers?  
d. Does India believe that Article 6.2 of the AoA allows developing country Members to 
provide agricultural input subsidies to 'any producers ' and still be exempt from reduction 
commitments?  
AG-IMS ID 88015: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
In Supporting Table DS:2, it is stated that 99.297% of farm holdings are of low -income and resource 
poor farmers.   
a. Can India explain what mechanisms are in place to ensure that domestic suppo rt measures 
are specifically targeted to support resource -poor farmers or low -income farmers 
exclusively?  
b. Can India please indicate the percentage of total agricultural area farmed by farmers with 
less than 1  ha and less than 5  ha respectively?  
AG-IMS ID 88108: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
Members have repeatedly requested India to provide a breakdown its input subsidies by type and 
most recently in AG -IMS ID 87117.   
a. Please provid e a breakdown of expenditures by the various types for 2016/17.  
b. For each type, please identify the specific program mes or measures that contribute to the 
notified value.  
In addition, please clarify whether the Prime Minister 's Agricultural Irrigation Schem e (PMKSY), as 
well as key components of the PMKSY, are included as part of the value reported as irrigation in 
response to AG -IMS ID 87117. If not, where is this scheme notified in G/AG/N/IND/13?  
c. For each type, please explain whether the value is a budgeta ry expenditure and/or a 
calculated subsidy value.  
i. If a budgetary expenditure, please identify where this information is available, 
including specific website link, if appropriate.  
ii. If a subsidy value, please explain how the value is calculated and the sourc e of the 
data that contributes to the calculation.  
d. Please confirm whether India 's Central government solely provides funding for these 
various input subsidies or if there is a cost -share between the Central and state 
governments.   G/AG/W/184  
 
- 39 - 
 
  If the later, please conf irm what share is provided by the Central government and whether 
this is the value notified by India in G/AG/N/IND/13 and previous notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 88112: Question by United States of America - Constituent data and 
methodology (AGST)  
In response to  AG-IMS ID 86015, India stated the "pulses " external reference price is the simple 
average for arhar, moong, urad, and gram.  India did not respond to the Australia 's question 
regarding what the external reference price for lentils is that was used. The sim ple average of the 
external reference prices for arhar, moong, urad, and gram i s Rs. 4,634.50 per tonne (or USD  345.63 
using the exchange rate notified by India). However, the a verage notified by India is Rs.  4,634.95 
per tonne in India 's local currency (U SD 345.66).  Assuming a simple average methodology, this 
indicates India 's external reference price for lent ils is Rs. 4,636.80 per ton (USD  345.80).   
Please confirm this is correct.  If not, please identify what the external reference price is for lentils 
and how it is accounted for in India 's recent notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 88111: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
For 2016/17, India notified that bajra, jowar, maize, and barley all received the same applied 
administered pric e conve rted to U.S. dollars of 217.37 per tonne. India also notified that gram, 
arhar, urad, and moong all received the same  applied administered price of USD  692.54 per tonne.  
Please specify the announced MSP for each of these commodities.  
AG-IMS ID 88069: Quest ion by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9, Canada notes that India 's Insurance Premium Subsidy expenditure 
drastically increased, from zero in 2015 -16 to USD 2,652.52 million in 2016 -2017.  
a. Could India provide information on the lev el of government subsidy for the insurance 
premiums and further details on the conditions that led to this increase?  
b. Could India provide information on the insurance schemes for which this premium subsidy 
applies?  
AG-IMS ID 88016: Question by European Un ion - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes that Indian Non -Product -Specific support in the form of insurance 
premium subsidies has increased almost eightfold between 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, from almost 
334 million USD in 2015/2016 to almost 2,653 million USD in 2016/2017 ( Supporting Table DS:9).  
Can India explain more in details the reasons behind this increase in support and which type of 
insurance premiums are supported?  
AG-IMS ID 88110: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
For 2016/17, please provide the va lue of production for each commodity notified in Supporting 
Table  DS:4 including rice, wheat, bajra, jowar, maize, barley, gram, arhar, urad, moong, lentils, 
groundnut, and sunflower, as well as the total value of India agricultural production.  
2.4.11   Kyrgyz Repu blic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  
AG-IMS ID 88113: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Question 1  
Since Kyrgyz Republic 's last notification for 2012, it appears several new exempt measures have 
been introduced including "extension and advisory serv ices to the agricultural sector ".  
a. Please explain when this new measure was introduced and how it is implemented.  
b. Does Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this measure, as well as 
overdue DS:1 notificatio ns for 1999 -2011 as noted in response to AG IMS ID 85047 and 
for the years 2013 -2014?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Question 2  
It is noted that Kyrgyz Republic undertook commitments i n its domestic currency. While the 
transparency of the notification of the exchange rate used for U.S. dollars is appreciated, we request 
Kyrgyz Republic to please notify in its domestic currency.  
c. Does Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit future notifications in its local currency?  
2.4.12   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/47)  
AG-IMS ID 88114: Question by United States of America - Scheduled commitment level  
For 2017, Panama has notified product specific rice support of PAB 41.7 million, equivalent to more 
than 24 % of the value of production, resulting in Panama exceeding its de minimis  level and in turn 
its WTO commitments on levels  of permitted domestic support. The increase appears to be 
associated with a significant increase in the eligible production, as the price su pport of PAB  7.50 
per quintal remained unchanged.  In response to AG -IMS ID 80090 Panama stated that under the 
price-differential direct payment, "the volume of price support is based on the volume purchased by 
the enterprises from the producers ". 
a. Please explain the reason why the eligible production increased significantly in 2017.  
b. Please explain what steps are being take n to come back into compliance with Panama 's 
domestic support commitments for 2018 and prevent such occurrences from happening 
again.  
c. Please provide additional details with regards to how the programme is implemented, 
including eligibility to receive the p ayment.  
d. Please indicate, for each of the years 2013 through 2017, what percent of domestic rice, 
milk, and corn production benefits from the price differential direct payment.  
2.4.13   Papua New Guinea (G/AG/N/PNG/1)  
AG-IMS ID 88013: Question by Australia - Transpa rency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Papua New Guinea for its first Domestic Support notifications as part of  this 
Committee on Agriculture. Australia notes the notifications are for domestic support provided during 
Calendar Years 2013 -2017 excluding 2015 (G/AG/N/PNG/1).  
  
a. Noting Papua New Guinea's advice that no information was available for Calenda r 
Year 2015, but information was available for the years before and after 2015, can Papua 
New Guinea explain in more detail if:  
i. no measures wer e funded in Calendar Year 2015?  or  
ii. if information for 2015 is not available due to other records 
management/recordkeeping issues?  
b. Does Papua New Guinea plan on issuing  Table DS:2s for t he measures listed in the 
Table  DS:1s for Calendar Years 2013 -2017 exc luding 2015?  
2.4.14   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/21)  
AG-IMS ID 88004: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its new and full notification pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/284/RUS) the Russian Federation 
indicated Support of Agriculture Machinery Modernization, Innovative Development within the State 
Programme "Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Products, Raw Materials a nd 
Foodmarkets for 2013 -2020". Assistance is provided to manufacturers of agricultural machinery in 
the form of direct funding from the federal budget for compensation of costs. Nevertheless, the G/AG/W/184  
 
- 41 - 
 
  policy objective is to improve "the efficiency and competiti veness of agricultural producers through 
technical and technological modernization of production ".  
  
a. Could the Russian Federation please confirm the policy objective of supporting the 
competitiveness of agricultural producers?  
b. Could the Russian Federatio n please clarify if they consider this support to fall or not fall 
under the scope of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
c. Will the Russian Federation notify this measure as part  of a revised and updated 
Table  DS:1 notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 88117: Question by Un ited States of America - Market price support  
Question 1  
For 2016, the Russia n Federation  reported a wheat applied administered price of US D 148.48 per 
tonne or RUB 9,933.31 per tonne using the notified exchange rate in G/AG/N/RUS/21. The 
Russia n Federatio n published three intervention prices for the 2016 wheat cr op based on quality: 
RUB 10,900  per tonne for class 3 , RUB 10,400 per ton ne for class 4, and RUB 8,800 per tonne for 
class 5 (feed).   
a. Please clarify how the notified applied administered price was determined.  
Question 2  
In 2016, the Russia n Federation  did not notify a market price support for rye, which had been notified 
in previous years including 2014 and 2015, as well as 2012.  The United States notes that the 
Russia n Federation  regularly publishe s intervention prices for wheat, barl ey, rye, and corn, including 
in 2016.  The United States notes that the published applied administered prices for wheat and barley 
were lower in 2016 than in 2015.  
b. Please confirm the published intervention price for rye in 2016 were discontinued in 2016 
and whether there is any plan to reintroduce rye price supports in the future.  
c. Please explain whether a rye price support would have been notified in 2016 had prices 
fallen significantly below the published intervention pr ice, similar to what happened 
in 2015 for rye or 2016 for wheat and barley.   
d. Please provide the reason for the decrease in the applied administered prices for wheat 
and barley.  
2.4.15   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121)  
AG-IMS ID 88058: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per a recent notification of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/121), it has spent USD  1.9 billion 
under the Price Loss Coverage programme and it was notified under the non -product specific support 
category. PLC programme payments are issued when the effective price of a covered commodity is 
less than the respective reference price for that commodity. The effective price equals the higher of 
the market year average price (MYA) or the national average loan rate for the covered commod ity. 
In other words, these payments are based on current prices, therefore provide incentives to the 
farmers. According to the Environmental Working Group subsidy database, the  United States gave 
a total of USD  948 million to rice producers in 2015 and 201 6. By not notifying PLC payments as 
product specific support, the United States seems to be underestimating the product specific support 
to various products.  
 
In this regard,  
a. It is requested that the United States may kindly provide product -wise spending  under 
the PLC programme during the years 2015 and 2016.  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 42 - 
 
  b. What is the rationale for notifying PLC as non -product specific support in DS notification?  
2.5  New or modified Domestic Support measures  (Table DS:2)  
2.5.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/45)  
AG-IMS ID 88012: Question by  Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Ecuador for its Table DS:2 (G/AG/ECU/45) explaining new or modified domestic 
support measures exempt from reduction.  
  
Regarding the School Meals Programme (PAE), Ecuador notes the PA E entered into force in 2014. 
Australia understands that the PAE has been implemented since 1989 (referring to UNECLAC 
information https://plataformacelac.org/programa/41 ).  
  
Can Ecuador explain if t he PAE was implemented in the years prior to 2014 and if so, why it is being 
reported as a new Measure?  
 
2.6  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3 ) 
2.6.1   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/98)  
AG-IMS ID 88010: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union welcomes the continuous reduction of Norwegian export subsidies for cheese 
since 2013. However, reduced export subsidies for cheese could result in a reduced demand for milk 
produced in Norway.  
 
a. How does Norway plan to handle this possible loss in demand for milk produced in Norway?  
b. Can Norway explain whether this reduction in export subsidies follows a reduction in the 
quantity of cheese exported? If this is the case, to which of other dairy products was the 
corresponding milk quantities di verted?  
AG-IMS ID 88054: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Can Norway provide more detail about its notified producer finance subsidies?  
2.6.2   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 88115: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
The United States notes that in G/AG/N/PAN/44 Panama notifies that no export subsidies were 
provided from 2004 through 2017. However, the measure Certificados de Fomento a la 
Agroexportación (CEFA), in accordance to Panamanian law (An nex 1 law No. 82 31 December 2009), 
was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural producers with an export subsidy for 
marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, packaging and inland and ocean freight costs.  
Please explain the basis for not notifying this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
3.1.1   China  
AG-IMS ID 88009: Quest ion by Australia   
Australia notes China's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CHN/29) covers the reporting 
period 2009 -2010.  
Can China please inform Members on its efforts to provide updated domestic support notifications 
from 2011 onwards?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 88082: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that China has never notified Table ES:3 (showing the total volume of f ood 
aid provided). According to press reports from Xinhua, China in prior years provid ed bilateral in -kind 
food aid ( in particular rice and wheat, among other commodities ) in response to emergency appeals, 
which is consistent with China's Nairobi commitmen ts. Does China plan to submit a Table ES:3 for 
relevant years? If not, please explain.   
3.1.2   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 88083: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Egypt 's last notification (G/AG/N/EGY/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitment s (Table ES:1) is for the year 1998 and has not yet responded to the export competition 
questionnaire.   
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, including Supporting Table ES:2, and respond 
to the export competition questionnaire.  
3.1.3   Ghana  
AG-IMS ID 88084: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Ghana's last notification (G/AG/N/GHA/2) concerning export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 2000 and has not yet responded to the export competition 
questionnaire .  
Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 notifications, and respond to the export competition 
questionnaire.  
3.1.4   India  
AG-IMS ID 88085: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that India is overdue in providing the Committee on Agricultu re with its 
notification (Table ES:1) or response to the export competition questionnaire for any year following 
marketing year 2009/10, including any export subsidy measures th at meet the criteria of 
Article  9(d-e) in Supporting Table ES:2 notifications. Also, according to news sources, India in prior 
years has provid ed bilateral in -kind food aid ( in particular rice and wheat ) in response to emergency 
appeals, which is consistent with India's Nairobi commitments.   
a. Please provide all overdue Table ES:1 noti fications, including Supporting Table ES:2.   
b. Please notify Table ES:3 for relevant years.  If not, please explain.  
3.1.5   Kenya  
AG-IMS ID 88086: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Kenya's last notification (G/AG/N/KEN/1) concerning  export subsidy 
commitments (Table ES:1) is for the year 1995 and has not yet responded to the export competition 
questionnaire. Please provide all overdue export subsidy notifications, Table ES:1.  
3.1.6   Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID  88008: Question by Australia  
Australia notes the Republic of Korea's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/KOR/53) covers 
the reporting period 2009 -2011. 
Can the Republic of Korea please inform Members on its efforts to provide updated domestic support 
notifications from 2012 onwards?  G/AG/W/184  
 
- 44 - 
 
  3.1.7   Morocco  
AG-IMS ID  88007: Question by Australia  
Australia notes Morocco's last submission of domestic support notifications was in March 2012 and 
related to the period 2003 -2007 (G/AG/N/MAR/37).  
a. Can Morocco provide an update on its progress to s ubmit outstanding domestic support 
notifications?  
3.1.8   Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 88087: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Pakistan is overdue in providing the Committee on Agriculture with its 
notifications (Table ES:1 and ES:2) or re sponse to the export competition questionnaire for any year 
following marketing year 2012/2013, including any export subsidy measures that meet the criteria 
of Article 9  (d-e) in Supporting Table ES:2 notifications. Also, according to news sources, Pakista n 
in prior years has provid ed bilateral in -kind food aid ( in particular rice and wheat ) in response to 
emergency appeals, which is consistent with Pakistan's Nairobi commitments.  
Please provide all overdue notifications, including Table ES:1, includi ng Sup porting Table ES:2, 
Table  ES:2, and Table ES:3.  
3.1.9   Tanzania  
AG-IMS ID 88081: Question by United States of America   
The United States notes that Tanzania has never notified its ex port subsidy commitments 
(Table  ES:1) and has not yet responded to the export competition questionnaire. Please provide all 
overdue export subsidy notifications, Table ES:1.  
3.1.10   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID  88006: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (85062) at CoA 85th meeting  regard ing Turk ey's outstanding 
notifications: Could Turkey provide an update on its progress to submit outstanding domestic 
support and export subsidy notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 8800 5: Question by European Union  
When will Turkey forward the missing notifications on export subsidies and Domestic Support?  
4  OTHER  
4.1.1   India  
AG-IMS ID 88088: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.1 and Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2   
The United States notes that government of India through the R eserve Bank of India (RBI), 
since 2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre and Post Shipment 
Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters for agricultural products.  The rate of interest equalization 
is 3% and the scheme is availa ble to certain exports, including 24 HS4 digit agricultural and food 
products.  
a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural products while providing at the same time 
interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, including the 
specific eligibility criteria for payments.   G/AG/W/184  
 
- 45 - 
 
  c. Please explain how this measure complies with India 's WTO commitments, and if directly 
lending is providing by RBI, why  this export financing support activity has not been 
reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
4.1.2   Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 88089: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 87054:   
Please provide responses to the export credit competition quest ionnaire (ECQ) with regards to any 
export financing support programmes being operated by the Indonesian government -owned entities 
Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia EximBank) a nd PT Asuransi Ekspor 
Indonesia  (ASEI)) , which are reported in Indo nesia's Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/278/Rev.1). 
According to Indonesia EximBank's annual reports financing for agriculture was USD 764.6 million 
in 2015 and USD 818.7 million in 2016.  
4.1.3   Japan  
AG-IMS ID 88090: Questio n by United States of America  
Export C redit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
Japan noted in response to questions posed by the United States in June that average annual 
repayment term, average premium rates and program me use by year are "unavailable because the 
IT system is not built to extract such d ata."What steps is Japan taking to collect the required 
information?  
4.1.4   Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 88091: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
The United States notes that on 11 June 2015 Pakistan incorporated the EXIM Bank of  Pakistan as 
public limited entity and would provide export credit, supplier's credit, export credit insurance and 
export credit guarantees.  The United States also notes that the State Bank of Pakistan provides re -
financing support to banks on their financ ing to exporters under the Export Finance Scheme (EFS) 
and the Islamic Export Refinance Scheme (IERS) for eligible commodities.  
Please explain the basis for not reporting the export financing activities of EXIM Bank of Pakistan 
and the State Bank of Pakist an. 
4.1.5   Paraguay  
AG-IMS ID 88093: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
Paraguay 's National Development Bank (Banco Nacional de Fomento) and the Livestock Fund (Fondo 
Ganadero), which are discussed in Paraguay's Trade Po licy Review (WT/TPR/M/245/Rev.1), appear 
to fall within the definition of Article 1.1(a)1 of the SCM.   
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition  is not limited to 
agricultural -specific programmes, please explain why the Nation al Development Bank and the 
Livestock Fund export financing support activities have not been reported by Paraguay in response 
to the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
 
__________