G/AG/W/191  
 
18 December 2018  
(18-8017) Page: 1/58 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CO MMITTEE ON 
AGRICULTURE MEETING ON 26 -27 NOVEMBER 20181 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/ 190 and  G/AG/W/190/Corr.1 as well as follow -up comments made 
during the Review Process.  
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 13 December 2018 : 
 
ID Answer by  Question by  Section/Notification 
Reference  Repeat 
question  
89023  Ghana  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
89064  Sri Lanka  New Zealand  I. Article 18.6   
890262 India United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
89031  Suriname  United States of America  I. Article 18.6   
89033  Zimbabwe  United States of America  I. Article 18.6  88076  
89003  Chinese Taipei  Canada  G/AG/N/TPKM/165   
89072  Chinese Taipei  New Zealand  G/AG/N/TPKM/166   
89073  Chinese Taipei  Russian Federation  G/AG/N/TPKM/167   
89076  Egypt  Australia  G/AG/N/EGY/3   
89044  Zimbabwe  United States of America  G/AG/N/ZWE/10   
89034  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/46  88099  
89035  Bahrain,  Kingdom  of United  States  of America  G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10  88101  
89036  Ecuador  United States of America  G/AG/N/ECU/47, 
G/AG/N/ECU/48, 
G/AG/N/ECU/49  88106  
89040  Kyrgyz Republic  United States of America  G/AG/N/KGZ/4  88113  
89043  Panama  United States of America  G/AG/N/PAN/44  88115  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 India provided partial response to the question.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT  TO THE IMPLEMENTATI ON OF COMMITMENTS: A RTICLE 18.6  .... 5 
1.1   China's credit programme  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
1.1.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89022)  ................................ .............  5 
1.2   European Union's modification of agricultural schedule o f commitments  .............................  6 
1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89001)  ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
1.3   European Union's drought support to farmers  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.3.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 89056)  ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
1.4   Ghana's poultry imports  ................................ ................................ ...............................  7 
1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89023)  ................................ .............  7 
1.5   India's dairy Loans  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89027)  ................................ .............  7 
1.6   India's whey milk powder duty  ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
1.6.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89025)  ................................ .............  8 
1.7   Japan's export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
1.7.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89028)  ................................ .............  8 
1.8   Pakistan's import tariffs for dairy products  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89062)  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.9   Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  ................................ ................................ ........  9 
1.9.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89064)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.10   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ .............  9 
1.10.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89053)  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
1.10.2    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89055)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.10.3    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89020)  ................................ .......... 11 
1.11   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
1.11.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89054)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.11.2    Question by United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 89021)  ................................ .......... 13 
1.12   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89057)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.12.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89004)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.12.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89007)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.12.4    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89024)  ................................ .......... 17 
1.13   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .17 
1.13.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89058)  ................................ ....................... 17 
1.13.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 89090)  ................................ ................... 18 
1.14   India's Merchandise Exports from In dia Scheme (MEIS)  ................................ ................ 19 
1.14.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89059)  ................................ ........................... 19 
1.15   India's skim milk powder export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ...20 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89026)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.16   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..21 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89060)  ................................ ................................ .21 
1.16.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89029)  ................................ .......... 21 
1.17   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89061)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.17.2    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 89091)  ................................ ................... 22 
1.18   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ............... 23 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89030)  ................................ .......... 23 
1.19   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 
1.19.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89063)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.20   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89031)  ................................ .......... 24 
1.21   Thailand's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................ 24 
1.21.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89065)  ................................ ....................... 24 
1.22   Thailand's import licensing for meat  ................................ ................................ ............ 25 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89032)  ................................ .......... 25 
1.23   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....26 
1.23.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89005)  ................................ ................................ ...26 
1.23.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89006)  ................................ ................................ ...26 
1.24   U.S. proposed domestic support measures  ................................ ................................ ...28 
1.24.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 89047)  ................................ ................................ ......28 
1.24.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89066)  ................................ ................................ .28 
1.25   Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  ................................ ................................ .......... 30 
1.25.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89033)  ................................ .......... 30 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH I NDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATI ONS ....................  30 
2.1   Administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1) ................................ ..30 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 
2.1.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/165)  ................................ ................................ ........... 31 
2.1.3    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/122)  ................................ .............................. 32 
2.2   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....32 
2.2.1    China (G/AG/N/CHN/30, G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41)  ................ 32 
2.2.2    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37, G/AG/N/EU/40, G/AG/N/EU/48)  ................................ .33 
2.2.3    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/35, G/AG/N/PA N/40, G/AG/N/PAN/43, G/AG/N/PAN/46)  .............. 35 
2.3   Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ................................ .....36 
2.3.1    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/166)  ................................ ................................ ........... 36 
2.3.2    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/167)  ................................ ................................ ........... 36 
2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/47)  ................................ ................................ ............... 36 
2.4   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 37 
2.4.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 37 
2.4.2    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/67)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 
2.4.3    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ............................. 38 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.4.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.1)  ................................ ............ 39 
2.4.5    Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34, G/AG/N/IDN/52, G/AG/N/IDN/53, G/AG /N/IDN/54, 
G/AG/N/IDN/55, G/AG/N/IDN/56, G/AG/N/IDN/57)  ................................ ............................... 42 
2.4.6    Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4/CORR.1, G/AG/N/LKA/10, G/AG/N/LKA/11)  ........................... 45 
2.4.7    Switzerland -Liechtenstein  (G/AG/N/CHE/84, G/AG/N/CHE/87, G/AG/N/CHE/88)  .............. 45 
2.4.8    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123)  ................................ .............................. 47 
2.5   New or modified Domestic Support measures (DS:2)  ................................ ...................... 50 
2.5.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/121)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 
2.6   Export Subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ ............ 51 
2.6.1    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/10)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 51 
2.6.2    South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/92, G/AG/N/ZAF/93)  ................................ .......................... 51 
2.6.3    Zimbabwe (G/AG/N/ZWE/10)  ................................ ................................ .................... 52 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES  TO QUESTIONS ON NOT IFICATIONS  ................................ ..........  52 
3.1   Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  ................................ .....52 
3.1.1    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 52 
3.2   Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  ................................ ................................ 53 
3.2.1    Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  ................................ ............... 53 
3.2.2    Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  ................................ .......53 
3.2.3    Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  ................................ ................................ .............. 54 
3.3   Export Subsidy notifications (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and ES:3)  ................................ .............. 55 
3.3.1    Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 55 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICA TIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  55 
4.1   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 55 
4.2   Korea, Rep ublic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......55 
4.3   Malaysia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
4.4   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 
4.5   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 56 
4.6   Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  57 
5.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 57 
5.2   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 
 
 
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6  
1.1  China's credit p rogram me 
1.1.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89022)  
a. In June 2018,  the People 's Bank of China announced it would ease access to 
credit for small and green economy businesses, including agriculture.  
i. Please provide additional information on China 's provision of subsidized 
financial credit to agricultural producers through rural credit cooperatives.  
ii. Please explain eligibility requirements, interest rates, participant repayment 
details, and the total va lue of loans being made available.  
b. The United States understands that China has expanded machinery subsidies 
outlays for agricultural equipment nationwide and mechanization rates across 
China are rising rapi dly. For instance, since 2014, buyers of cotton h arvesters 
have been offered a 30% subsidy for each machine purchased.  
Please provide information on each machinery subsidies program me at the local, 
provincial, and national levels, including details regarding implementation and 
outlays over the past five years.  
c. China offers value added tax (VAT) cash rebates for agricultural material inputs 
and processed exports.  
Please confirm whether foreign producers of processed and export -oriented 
products are eligible to receive cash rebates for exported products con taining 
domestic and imported agricultural inputs.  We also request China to provide the 
announcement(s) or measure(s) that provide details of how the eligibility is 
determined. Additionally, please provide methods for calculating "input " VAT 
assessments an d the "cash refund " for exporter VAT assessments.  
Answer by China  
 
a. The People 's Bank of China announced to expa nd the  scope of collateral for Medium -term 
Lending F acility (MLF) in June 2018. The MLF is a policy tool for the People 's Bank of China 
to provide liquidity for financial institutions, with no specific requirement on the usages of 
the loans. Currently, the MLF is mainly for primary dealers, which does not include rural 
credit cooperatives. There is no connection between the  policies on the MLF and those on 
the loans made by the rural credit cooperatives.  
b. The amount of the subsidy for agricultural machinery has been reduced, from annual level 
of 23.8 billion RMB for 2014 -2016 to 16.8 billion RMB for 2017 and 2018 each yea r. At the 
same time, the coverage of the policy has also been reduced. The subsidy is capped for 
each type of machine with a uniform  limit, instead of 30% of the purchase price of each 
machine. Regarding the information on the program mes, please refer to t he Guidance on 
the Implementation of the Subsidy for Agricultural Machinery, jointly published by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Finance 
(http://www.moa.gov.cn/govpublic/CWS/201803/t20180301_6137657.htm ) as well as 
the implementation guidance issued by each provincial government accordingly, which are 
also publicly available on the internet.  
c. China does not provide VAT cash rebates for agri cultural material inputs and processed 
exports. VAT rebates are available to all eligible entities established by Chinese investors 
and foreign investors in China for the goods and services they export, in accordance with 
the Notice on VAT and Excise Duty Policy for Export -Oriented Goods and Services jointly 
issued by the Ministry of Finance and the General Bureau of Taxes of the State.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Follow -up: Canada and the European Union  flagged interest  in the question . The European Union  
noted that export credit s were one area of unfinished business in agricultural  negotiations.  
1.2  European Union's modification of agricultural schedule of commitments  
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89001)  
Canada notes that on 31 October 2018, the European Union's ambassadors have appro ved 
a "safety -net" regulation (Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the Apportionment of Tariff Rate Quotas Included in the WTO Schedule of the Union 
Following the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and Amending Council 
Regulation (EC) No 32/2000) that will allow the EU to unilaterally implement reduced 
agricultural products import quotas at the World Trade Organization. Canada is very 
concerned with this regulation and is of the view that the European Commission cannot 
make unilateral changes to its World Trade Organization scheduled commitments without 
first negotiating with Members.  
  
Given the very short timeline, and uncertainty, that the EU is imposing on WTO M embers 
regarding the negotiation of the modification of concessions o f all TRQs included in 
Schedule  CLXXV of the EU, and more recently on 19 October 2018, with a corrected version 
of its annexes (data); could the EU expand on how it plans to address nu merous concerns 
raised by many M embers regarding the TRQs a pportionment itself while, afterward, als o 
having to negotiate with all M embers that have reserved their rights to negotiate and/or 
consult with the EU?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU is using the procedure under Article XXVIII as the correct legal way  to apportion the EU's 
entire WTO bound Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs). On 24 July 2018, the EU 's formal notification was 
circulated to WTO Members (G/SECRET/42) In response to WTO Members' requests, the EU provided 
a revised dataset to accompany its first noti fication to the WTO (G/SECRET/42/Add.2, circulated on 
19/10).  The EU has made it clear that it would be ready to start negotiations and consultations as 
early as possible with those WTO Members having submitted valid claims.  
 
The draft Regulation progress ing through the Council and the European Parliament is part of the 
EU's "preparedness" work and provides the EU with the necessary legal basis in the absence of 
agreements under Article XXVIII of the GATT between the EU and a given WTO trading partner by 
the time the UK is no longer covered by the TRQs of the European Union.   
 
Follow -up: Australia,  Brazil and New Zealand  shared Canada's concern regarding the EU's unilateral  
implementation of  the TRQ changes  in the absence of  an agreement with other Members and without 
going through  the correct  process under  the WTO.  Australia and Brazil noted that the proposal as it 
stood would lead to economic loss es for exporters  by making some TRQ  allocations too small to be 
commercially viab le. Australia requested the EU to negotiate in good faith  and to ensure that the 
value  of the existing  market access would be  maintained . Australia looked forward to continuing 
engagement  with the EU to resolve  the concern  in advance of  any proposed change s by the EU . 
Brazil noted that the EU should consider adequate and necessary compensation that would be 
provided to  exporting Members . New Zealand noted that the agreement between t he EU and the UK 
on the ir post-Brexit TRQ allocation  was not legitimate  under the WTO rules and procedures and had 
been rejected by many  Members  at the recent  Market Access  Committee and the Council on Trade 
in Goods. New Zealand noted that it would be  open to creative negotiated  solutions but regretted 
that the EU had not engaged  with affected Members on other possibilities  of methodologies . New 
Zealand was in favour of the EU's activation of  Article 28 as the Article entailed  the process  where  a 
Member  would be  expected  to compensate  others  for changes they made  to their c ommitment s. 
New Zealand  was also of the view  that the EU should ensure  the full value of acce ss to the TRQs 
which  was currently available  to Members . For instance, New Zealand  pointed out that currently it 
was entitled to  export all its products under a TR Q to any individual EU member State with the full 
volum e, which they had  frequently do ne, and New Zealand viewed that flexibility as  an importan t 
feature of the access that they currently enjoy ed which  would become i ncreasingly important as 
currencies  and other supply factors play ed a role  under Brexit . New Zealand a lso shared some 
Members' concern s regarding  what could  happen in the event of a "n o deal " scenario. China, Chile, 
the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Thailand, the United States and Uruguay reg istered interest in G/AG/W/191  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the issue. China and Switzerland looked forward to engaging with the EU in a clear and transparent  
process to reach a n agreement  satisfactory to all Members concerned . Uruguay reiterated its concern 
that the process of EU's  TRQ apportio nment  would limit market access as it impacted the flexibility 
to re-channel exports. The European Union noted  that it had been closely following the rules  and 
procedures  of Article 28  in the negotiations of its schedules and looked forward to continuing 
discussions  with all interested Members.   
 
1.3  European Union's  drought support to farmers  
1.3.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 89056)  
These spring and summer the weather extreme drought in the European Union heavily 
influenced cereal and other agricultural sectors.  In response to the serious consequences, 
the EU has supported farmers that have been coping with the drought aftermath. Could 
the EU please inform on measures under the Common Agricultural Policy or any additional 
specific actions taken to help farmers, a nd how those measures and actions that fall under 
the domestic support provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture will be notified?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
From the EU budget no addi tional funds were released. EU m ember States were allowed to make an 
advance of part of the direct payments from 16 October 2018, which will be notified in 2018/19 
marketing year DS:1 notification.  
 
For any measures taken by  and financed solely by the EU m ember States, these will equall y be 
notified in the DS:1 covering the 2018/19 marketing year.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine noted that its farmers faced similar  problem s in some years and would like to 
study M ember s' experience of hand ling this issue at the state level under the WTO rules.  
 
1.4  Ghana's poultry imports  
1.4.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89023)  
The United States understands that Ghana has established new import requirements on 
poultry imports. These new measures appear to restrict the quantity of imports and limit 
time for which a permit is valid.   
 
a. Please explain which of Ghana 's laws, regulations, or other relevant policy 
directives have been added or modified to reflect these changes.  
b. Where are these documents published?  
c. Please describe how this new measure is being implemented.  
Answer by Ghana  
 
Ghana undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.5  India's d airy Loans  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89027)  
Based on the press release from India 's Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers ' Welfare 
(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=180765 ), the United States 
understands a "soft loan " (at an interest rate of 5 %) is being given to support the state 
cooperative dairy feder ations under a working capital scheme being managed by the 
National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). Please explain this measure.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by India  
 
Under the scheme a corpus of Rs.  300 crores  is to be kept with NDDB and used for providing soft 
loans to vari ous state cooperatives dairy federation for working capital.  
 
1.6  India's  whey milk powder duty  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89025)  
In March 2018, India increased its import duty protection for whey milk powder to 40% 
from 30%.  Reportedly, this is one of four policy measures to help Indian farmers 
overcome the ongoing milk oversupply in the state of Maharashtra.   
  
Please explain the domestic circumstances surrounding, and policy rationale for India 
raising the import duty of whey milk powde r.  
 
Answer by India  
 
This measure is based on domestic demand supply situation of milk and milk products. It is within 
the bound rate.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union  noted that  whey milk powder was among the list of products where 
India limit ed trade by increasing import duties.  In its view, although India claimed that the increased 
duties were within the bound duties, they harmed producers outside India . The European Union 
noted that this was an example of the unpredictability created  by water between bo und and applied 
tariffs, which  had been  discussed in the previous CoA special session.  
 
1.7  Japan's export subsidies  
1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89028)  
The United States understands the Japan 's budget FY  2018 budget sets aside 330.4  billio n 
yen for overall direct payments to rice farmers ( "Direct Payment for Full Rice Paddy 
Utilization "), of which  105.74 billion yen is earmarked for a program me called "Subsidies 
for the Creation of Production Areas. " The United States understands that under  this 
programme, a payment of 20,000 yen/10  ares is provided to farmers in cases where rice 
is planted for new market development, domestic, or overseas market.  
  
a. Please provide a more detailed explanation of this programme.  
b. Please provide all criteria required to receive payments, including how payment 
eligibility related to overseas markets are determined. In the event payments 
are made for rice that is exported, please explain whether the payment 
constitutes an export subsidy as described in Article 9  of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
Answer by Japan  
 
Grants for the Production Area is a program me that supports local initiatives for agricultural 
production. It is based on the plans established by local agricultural councils consisting of farmers 
and othe r stakeholders. The eligibility of products and the level of payment are determined by the 
local agricultural councils. The amounts paid as grants must be covered by the fund allocated by the 
national government through prefectural governments.  
 
The level of suppor t referred to in the question ( 20,000 yen per 10 ares ) is only one element that 
the national government takes into account when calculating the amount of funds to be allocated to 
prefectural governments. The program me does not require that local a gricultural councils use the 
allocated fund for payments to farmers based on new market developments.  
 
Consequently, the measure is not contingent on export performance and does not constitute an 
export subsidy as described in Article 9 of the Agreement on  Agriculture.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand noted interest in the full 
implementation of the Nairobi Decision and in ensuring that newly introduced programmes did not 
become a form of export subsid y.  
1.8  Pakistan's import tariffs for dairy products  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89062)  
The Pakistan Parliament when it approved the mini -budget also increased import tariffs 
for several products including dairy products such as whey, cheese powder products and 
curd. In t he case of cheese powder, the increase was a doubling of the tariffs from 20 % 
to 40%. Furthermore, for curd it was an immediate increase from zero to 15%. These 
sudden increases ha ve had very disruptive effects for commercial operators . 
 
Can Pakistan expla in more in detail the reason behind these increases in tariffs and the 
criteria for choosing these specific products?  
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
In Pakistan livestock and dairy farming are at a subsistence level and 70% to 80% rearing labour 
consist of women. T his measure was taken to address livelihood concerns. These specific changes 
are within Pakistan's tariff bindings. Pakistan is a net importer of dairy products and the demand of 
these products will continue to increase.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union expressed  concern  regarding the commercial effects of  the increased  
applied tariffs. New Zealand noted interest  in understan ding the underlying reasons for the increase 
and the impacts on markets. Ukraine, as an exporter of dairy products to Pakistan, and the United 
States register ed interest .  
 
1.9  Sri Lanka's tax on imported milk powder  
1.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89064)  
New Zealand notes that Sri Lanka is applying a Value Added Tax (VAT)  on imported milk 
powder while exempting domestic producers. Whi le New Zealand supports Sri Lanka 's 
ability to enact taxes in line with national objectives, t hey should also comply with 
Sri Lanka 's international obligations. Article III of the GATT 1947 clearly states that 
imported product will not be subject to taxes higher than those applied to like domestic 
product. Can Sri Lanka explain how its application of VAT on imported product and not on 
domestically produced goods complies with this Article?  
 
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
Sri Lanka undertook to provide a response at a  later stage.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union and the United States support ed New Zealand's question. Australia 
registered interest in examining  whether the measure implemented by Sri Lanka would meet the 
WTO national treatment obligations . 
 
1.10  Canada's New M ilk Ingredient Class  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89053)  
Australia notes that under the United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) 
Annex  3-B (Agricultural Trade between Canada and the United States), Canada will ensure 
that milk class  6 and milk cl ass 7, including their associated milk class prices, are 
eliminated six months after entry into force of the Agreement.  
 
Australia welcomes the agreement in the USMCA on elimination of Canada 's milk classes  6 
and 7 pricing, given Australia's concerns abou t the tr ade-distorting effects of Class  6 and G/AG/W/191  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7 pricing policies, which have resulted in a significant increase in Canadian exports of 
subsidised skim milk powder.  
 
a. Can Canada confirm if all elements of milk classes 6 and 7, and their associated 
pricing, will be eliminated entirely and uniformly for all Members, and not only 
in relation to trade between Canada and the United States?  
b. If not, which elements of milk classes 6 and 7 will remain, and will there be any 
differences in their application to the United States and to other Members?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. and b. The United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) has not yet been si gned, 
nor has it undergone each countries ' domestic ratification procedures for its entry into 
force. Under the USMCA, Canada agreed to ensure the elimination of milk class 6 (in 
Ontario) and 7, including their associated milk class prices, within six mont hs from the 
entry into force of the agreement. Milk classes in Canada are applied domestically. 
Processors of dairy products are billed at milk class prices by milk marketing boards, and 
with the exception of milk class 5(d), prices do not differ depending  on whether or not the 
good is destined for domestic use or exported to the United States, Mexico, or any other 
WTO Member.  
Follow -up: Australia  and New Zealand sought clarification regarding whether the milk classes would 
be applied on an MFN basis . Canada confirmed that there would be no difference to new N AFTA 
parties  and other parties  in the way milk classes were applied . The European Union flagged concern 
regarding milk class 7.   
1.10.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89055)  
New Zealand refers to the text  of the recently signed United  States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement  (USMCA), available on the US Trade Representative 's website 
https://ustr.gov/trade -agreements/free -trade-agreements/united -states -mexico -canada -
agreement/united -states -mexico . In Section C: Dairy Pricing and Exports, paragraphs 3 and 
4 read: "3. Canada shall ensure that milk class 6 and milk class 7, including their 
associated milk class prices, are eliminated six months after entry into force of this 
Agreement. 4. Six months after entry into force of this Agreement, Canada shall ensure 
that products and ingredients formerly classified under milk classes 6 and 7 shall be 
reclassified and that their associated milk class prices shall be established appropriately 
based on end use."  
  
While the elimination of these milk classes is welcomed the New Zealand dairy industry 
continues to experience the negative impacts of these  policies.  
  
a. How will Canada assure the Membership that it will not subsidise the exports of 
skim milk powder through the use of Class 6 and Class 7 until their elimination?  
b. Can Canada confirm that after milk classes 6 and 7 are eliminated, the 
appropria te end use of products and ingredients formerly classified under those 
milk classes will not be eligible for any form of trade distorting price support or 
incentive?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada has already agreed to eliminate the use of export subsidies by the end of 2020. 
The usage of milk class 7 is not contingent on export. Goods produced under milk class  7, 
or any milk class other than milk class 5(d), can be sold by any eligible proce ssor on the 
domestic or export markets, and do not require export permits. It is the business decision 
of the processor to either sell these products on the domestic market, or to export them.  
b. The United States -Mexico -Canada Agreement (USMCA) has not y et been signed, nor has 
it undergone each countries ' domestic ratification procedures for its entry into force. Under G/AG/W/191  
 
- 11 - 
 
  the USMCA, Canada agreed to ensure the elimination of milk class 6 (in Ontario) and 7, 
including their associated milk class prices, withi n six months from the entry into force of 
the agreement. Canada does not agree that milk class prices are a form of trade distorting 
price support under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Follow -up: The European Union repeat ed its concern  regarding Canada's mi lk classes.  New Zealand  
shared the concern about milk class system and pricing by end use where a cross subsidy may be 
involved particularly when it was designed for exports .  
 
1.10.3   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89020)  
a. In AG -IMS ID 88061, Cana da stated that it was in the process of verifying the 
accuracy of data related to milk class prices, utilization, and sales. Canada also 
stated that once completed, this information would be provided. Would Canada 
please provide monthly milk component (i.e ., butterfat, proteins, other solids) 
prices and monthly volumes of milk components utilized (for Class 7 and 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.  
b. In AG -IMS ID 83039, Canada states in regard to Class 7 that "A full list of the 
eligible products will be posted on the Canadian Dairy Commission website".  
i. Is this list available? If so, where?  
ii. Is thi s list identical to the list included in Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward 
Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -06, Nova Scotia Reg. 12/2017, and 
Saskatchewan Order No.  28/17 (below)?  
Class 7 - Eligible components, products and ingredients: (a) skim milk 
components in liquid and dry form, in any concentration, derived by any 
process, including MPC and MPI(1); (b) skim -milk powder; (c) whole milk 
powder(2); (d) edible casein and edible caseinate powders(3); (e) yogurt 
powders, sour cream powders, and partly -skimmed mi lk powder and blended 
milk powders with a maximum fat content of 4%; and (f) rennet casein (dry 
or curd) used in the manufacture of non -standardized final products in the 
processed cheese category(4).  
c. In AG -IMS 84107, Canada states that "prices under milk class 7 for butterfat, 
protein, and other solids are determined based on world prices, and the prices 
for skim milk powder in the United States, the European Union and Oceania are 
included in the definition of world prices. A processor margin is also deduc ted in 
the calculation of milk class".  
i. From 1 January 2017 to present, please provide processor margins for each 
product in each milk class.  
ii. Please provide formulas, methodologies, and data used to calculate processor 
margins, for each product in each mil k class.  
iii. How are processor margins used in the calculation of milk class prices?  
iv. Please provide responses to questions a through c by province if the 
information and documents differ by province.  
v. How often are processor margins changed and using what proce ss? 
vi. The United States understands processor margins are set to cover returns on 
investment for processors.  Is this true, and if so, how is it determined?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 12 - 
 
  d. Please provide export data (2015 -2017 and year -to-date 2018, by volume and 
value), with destination co untries broken out for Class 7 eligible components, 
products, and ingredients.  
e. Dairy Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 paragraph 6 
specifies: Class 7 Prices apply to: (a) milk components utilized in products 
classified in class 7 th at are sold as finished products; (b) milk components 
utilized in products sold as ingredients for use in the manufacture of non -dairy 
food products; (c) milk components utilized in the manufacture of animal feed; 
and (d) milk components utilized as ingred ients in dairy products classified in 
other classes by the Canadian Harmonized Milk Classification System, on a skim 
milk equivalent basis and within the limits imposed by HBR.   
i. In AG -IMS ID 84107, the United States asked if this is the case for all 
provin ces. Canada responded that it was not in a position to confirm this 
information, and that some provinces were still in the process of 
implementing milk class 7 through their respective regulatory 
processes.  Please confirm that Class 7 prices apply as speci fied in Dairy 
Farmers of Prince Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 para. 6, and 
that this is the case for all provinces.  
ii. What are "the limits imposed by HBR" referenced in Dairy Farmers of Prince 
Edward Island Board Order DFPEI 2017 -04 para. 6, and do  they apply for all 
provinces?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada does not have a timeline to provide for the release of any data related to milk 
class prices, utilization and sales. Several verifications to ensure accuracy of the data are 
required. Once complet ed, information will be provided in a more relevant format.  
b.  
i. Canada is not obliged to publish this type of information from the industry, and it does 
not have an update for its release.  
ii. Canada is not in a position to confirm this information from the industry (i.e., milk 
marketing boards).  
c.  
i. Canada re -iterates that a processor margin is deducted in the calculation of milk class 
7. Much like a "make allowance " in the United States, which is deducted from milk 
class prices, in Canada, a "processor margin " covers the cost of transforming milk into 
butter and skim milk powder, and the cost may include return on investment for the 
processors.  
ii. How processor margins are calculated is not publicly  available, although it is based on 
a third -party study co mmissioned by the Canadian Dairy Commission. The previous 
study was completed in 2005. The study is not publicly  available for commercial 
confidentiality reasons, due to the small number of processors in the Canadian market. 
Similarly, it is Canada underst anding that U.S. make allowances were determined on 
the basis of California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and Cornell Program 
on Dairy Markets and Policy (CPDMP) surveys of product manufacturing costs 
conducted in 2006/7.  
iii. See above.  
iv. Canada understands that processor margins do not differ by province.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 13 - 
 
  v. Process or margins are based on a third -party study commissioned by the Canadian 
Dairy Commission. The previous study was completed in 2005. The Canadian Dairy 
Commission, on behalf of th e industry, does not intend to update this study. Similarly, 
it is Canada understanding that U.S. make allowances wer e last updated in  2008, 
based on surveys conducted  in 2006/7.  
vi. Much like a "make allowance " in the United States, which is deducted from mi lk class 
prices, in Canada, a "processor margin " covers the cost of transforming milk into butter 
and skim milk powder and the cost may include return on investment for the 
processors.  
d. Canada does not have statistics on exports by milk classes (except for milk class 5(d)). 
Processors of dairy products are billed at milk class prices by milk marketing boards, and 
prices do not differ whether or not the dairy product is destined for domestic use or 
exported, with the exception of milk class 5(d).  
e.  
i. Canada understands that milk class 7 is being used across Canada, although 
implementing the regulations/measures for this class differ in each province.  
ii. Canada is not in a position to confirm this information from the industry (i.e., milk 
marketing boards).  
Follow -up: The European Union  and the United States  looked forward to Canada demonstrating  more 
transparency on this issue.  
 
1.11  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.11.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89054)  
New Zealand refers to the text of the recently signed United States -Mexico -Canada 
Agreement (USMCA), available on the US Trade Representative 's website 
https://ustr.gov/trade -agreements/free -trade-agreements/united -states -mexico -canada -
agreement/united -states -mexico . The US -Canada side letter on wine states that Canada will 
ensure British Colombia (BC) modifies the measures ide ntified in the US panel 
request WT/DS531/7 (May 29, 2018) New Zealand is a third party to this case. The side 
letter also states that BC will eliminate the measures that allow only BC wine to be sold 
on regular grocery shelves, while imported wine can only be sold through a "store wi thin 
a store ".  
  
a. Can Canada confirm how it will ensure the outcome of this side letter is 
implemented?  
b. Can Canada confirm whether the conditions to be applied to wine imported from 
the US agreed in the USMCA side letter will also be applied to wine impor ts from 
other countries?  
Answer by Canada  
 
In the context of USMCA, Canada and the United States have undertaken to take steps to resolve 
the WTO dispute DS531. As part of this understanding, the United States has agreed to take no 
further action at the WT O regarding this dispute and Canada shall ensure that BC revises its 
measures related to the sale of wine on grocery store shelves. Given that resolution of this matter 
is pending, Canada is of the view that it would be inappropriate to further comment at this time.  
 
1.11.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89021)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by  the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 85012, AG -IMS ID 86034, AG -IMS ID 87016, and AG -IMS ID 88096. As such, 
the United  States repeats its pr evious questions.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 14 - 
 
    
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines 
from Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that 
are continuously available, available to grocers by moving them to the LCBO 
Wines category."  
i. Are Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
allowed to be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list 
need to move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential 
list) in order to be sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores 
without moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, 
but imported products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer 
and wine authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been 
distributed to operators of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Onta rio 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 o ffered 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 f or the 
category of existing Ontario bag in box wine?  
(http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/ LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%2
0Box%20Tender.pdf ) 
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited 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 t hat 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 document s 
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 
Emerging Wine Regions (currently 43%).  How does a producer from an emerging 
wine region, as defined by the NSLC, apply for recognition of their  emerging wine 
region status?  
h. Please provide a list of non -Canadian Emerging Wine Region wines available for 
sale through the  NLSC.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
Given formal processes underway at the WTO and elsewhere, Canada is of the view that it would be 
inappropriate to further comment on this issue at this time.  
 
Follow -up: Noting that  the scope of the dispute was  different  from these questions, New Zealand 
and the United States sought Canada's responses . New Zealand looked  forward to  Canada providing 
further transparency including on  outcome when the new NAFTA would be come  available. The 
European Union  support ed New Zealand's and U.S. comments. Chile register ed its interest on this 
topic.  
 
1.12  India's pulses policies  
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89057)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to India during the September 2018 meeting 
(AG-IMS ID 88060) regarding the various measures relating to pulses implemented by 
India, Australia has a series of follow -up questions.  
 
Australia notes that India 's quant itative restriction (QR) of 100,000 tonnes of peas 
(including Yellow Peas, Green Peas, Dun Peas and Kaspa Peas) in Notification No. 4/2015 -
2020 of 25 April 2018 for a period of three months (1 April to 30 June 2018) has now been 
extended twice.  
 
Firstly, the QR was extended on 2 July 2018 in Notification No.15/2015 -2020 for a further 
three months until 30 September 2018. Following this, the QR was extended on 28 
September 2018 in Notification No. 37/2015 -2020 until 31 December 2018.  
 
India has previously r esponded to one of Australia 's questions (ID 88060) that the QR 
was fully utilised during the first three months (1 April to 30 June 2018).  
 
a. Australia requests India to advise whether any additional volume was included 
as part of the extension until 30 Sep tember 2018?  
b. Australia requests India to advise whether any additional volume was included 
as part of the extension until 31 December 2018?  
i. If no volume was added, can India confirm that there has been an effective 
import ban on peas for 6 months from July  to December 2018?  
c. Is India intending to extend the QR for a third time following 31 December?  
i. If India does extend the QR, will additional volume be included?  
ii. How much notice does India intend to provide exporters and importers should 
there be any further  extension of the QR?  
d. Can India provide an explanation for the WTO basis of the QRs?  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b) No additional volumes were included in the extension of QR as per the notifications. 
However, due to court orders, 466,000 metric tonnes  of peas  have been imported against 
a QR of 1 00,000 metric tonnes  in the current year up  to September  2018. Therefore, it is 
incorrect to say that there has been an import ban on peas.  
c. There is no information at this stage regarding  extensi on of the QR beyond 
31 December  2018.  
d. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and wi ll be answered 
in the relevant C ommittees.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia  remain ed concerned about the restrictions  on imports of pulses  by India. 
Australia noted that In dia's trade measures had significantly impacted its farmers and reduced 
Australia's exports to India, which had previously been Australia's largest market for pulses. 
Australia reiterated its view that India's domestic support arrangements for pulses affec ted global 
markets and the export interests of other Members including developing countries. Australia asked 
what reform India would consider avoiding  overproduction in the future. Australia urged India to 
provide detailed explanation including the legal b asis under the WTO for applying the QR and called 
all WTO Members to respect their obligations . The European Union  repeated its concern regarding  
the measure's  WTO legality and the effects on the market including reduced  pulse prices for  
producers in  both developing and developed  Members  including in the EU . The EU asked when  India 
intend ed to notify the QRs  in question . The EU was disappointed that India prolonged the de facto 
import ban for three  months the day after the CoA meeting in September while it had stated  at the 
meeting that it had no information  regarding  the extension of the QR beyond 31  December  2018. 
Canada  noted that its pulse exports to India had also been significantly affected by India's QR which 
operated as an import ban. As a producer o f high quality pulses, Canada reiterated its concern 
regarding  the WTO consistency of India's QR and encouraged India to adopt a more transparent 
regime regarding its policies on pulses. The United States registered interest in this question.  
 
1.12.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89004)  
On 28 September 2018, India released a notification which extends the import restriction 
on dry peas for a period of three months until 31 December 2018. Could India indicate if 
the quantitative restrictions on dry peas will expire  after 31 December 2018?  
 
Answer by India  
 
There is no information at this stage regarding the extension of QR beyond 31 December 2018  
 
Follow -up: The United States registered interest in this question.  
1.12.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89007)  
At the 88th Committee on Agriculture, I ndia mentioned (see question AG -IMS ID 88095) 
that its agencies are procuring pulses at the administered price and market price.  
  
a. Could India specify how its agencies decide if pulses will be procured at the 
administered price s or market prices?  
b. Could India provide the number of pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) procured by India at 
the applied administered price in the implemented year 2016 -2017?  
c. Could India provide the number of pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) procured by India at 
the market p rice in the implemented year 2016 -2017?  
d. Could India indicate if pigeon peas (Ahar/Tur) were procurement at 
administered prices in the first month of the marketing season for quantities 
reported in India's 2016 notification?  
Answer by India  
 
a. to d. The government agencies procure pulses from the farmers at the administered prices 
or market prices depending on the d emand a nd supply of the pulses. During  2016-17, the 
government has procured 1.15 million ton nes of pulses (Gram, Urad, Moong, Arhar & 
lentils) . 
Follow -up: Canada asked if India could  break  down the  volumes  that were procured  at administered 
prices and those that were acquired at  market prices  in line with its  question b ) and c ). The United 
States registered interest in this question.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 17 - 
 
  1.12.4   Question by  United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89024)  
The United States remains deeply concerned with India's quantitative restrictions on 
imports of select varieties of pulses, including peas.  Despite many Members raising 
concerns in several WTO  committee meetings over the past year, India continues to 
maintain the quantitative restrictions and, to date, has not explained how such measures 
are consistent with its WTO commitments.  
 
a. Does India intend to again extend the quantitative restriction for peas beyond 
the current extension period, which runs from 30 September to 31 December 
2018?  
b. When does India intend to end the restriction, or will it be applied indefinitely?  
c. Please provide justification for how India's quantitative restrictions for pulses, 
including peas , comply with its WTO commitments.  
d. India has previously agreed to provide a full explanation for the 
restrictions.  When will India provide such a full explanation?  
Answer by India  
 
a. There is no information at this stage regarding  the extension of the QR beyond 31  
December 2018.  
b. and d): India does not propose to extend these measures indefinitely. These measures 
are temporary and extension or removal of these QRs will be based on domestic demand -
supply situation. India is constantly reviewing these mea sures.  
c. This question refers to India 's notification to other WTO Committees and wi ll be answered 
in the relevant C ommittee.  
Follow -up: Ukraine echoed Members' concern regarding India's transparency with respect to its pulse 
policies. Ukraine noted that  India should  guarantee Members appropriate and predic table trade 
opportunities in India's pulses market . The Russian Federation  flagged  interest on the topic.   
1.13  India's sugar policies  
1.13.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89058)  
According to the Indian Sugar Mills Association, the government of India has extended 
the deadline for export under the Minimum Indicative Export Quota (MIEQ) to 
December  2018.  
  
a. Could India provide data on the volume and the value of exports of sugar und er 
the MIEQ scheme until now?  
b. How much subsidies in total have been given to sugar exports under the 
MIEQ  scheme and what has been the average subsidy per tonne?  
c. Can India provide the average level of export subsidies it has granted to sugar 
export per year for the years 2013 to 2017 (in Rupee/t)?  
India has announced a programme 'Assistance to sugar mills ' with a support level of 
55 Rupee/kg.  
 
d. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar cane or white sugar that will qualify for 
this subsidy?  
  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 18 - 
 
  In July 2018,  Prime Minister Modi announced that his government will increase the 
minimum price for sugarcane for 2018/19 to 275 Rs per quintal while the cost of 
production for sugar is 155 Rs per quintal of sugarcane.  
 
e. How does India ensure that this support is withi n the "de minimis " entitlement?  
f. The EU notes that the last Indian´s notification on export subsidies covers the 
marketing year 2009/10. Can India indicate when the missing ES:1 and ES:2 
notifications will be submitted to the WTO?  
Answer by India  
 
a. As per  available information, about 0.62 million tonnes of sugar has been exported under 
MIEQ with an estimated value of about USD 203 million.  
b. and c) India has not provided subsidy on export s of sugar under MIEQ.  
d. India would like to point out that the EU has used incorrect figure s in its question as the 
support is per tonne not per kg. This is the amount to be given to farmers ag ainst unpaid 
dues by sugarmills  to alleviate the distress of farmers.  
e. As no procurement of sugarcane is made by the governmen t, the product -specific support 
to sugarcane is zero.  
f. Export subsidy under Art icle 9.4 of AoA to sugarcane, if any, will be notified in due course.  
Follow -up: Brazil remained concerned with In dia's support polices for sugar which led to 
unfavourable  conditions to  the international market. Brazil  asked India to clari fy the way the 
programme worked  as in its view it appeared to be an  export subsidy . Brazil noted that India should 
notify its policies to the WTO as the subsidies would benefit producers although they were granted 
to processors . Colombia and Costa Rica expressed interest in the question.   
1.13.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 89090)  
The Russian Federation notes that India provides export subsidies to the sugar industry. 
The Government of India decreased sugar export duty from 20% to 0% in March 2018. At 
the same time,  it increased export quota on sugar up to 2 million ton nes. In 
Septe mber  2018 India announced an increase in sugar export subsidies  up to 1 billion US 
dollars for 5 million ton nes, including subsidies in the amount of 150 US dollars per ton ne 
of sugar, and an increase in subsidies for transportation of sugar from 13,8 to 4 1,3 US 
dollars per ton ne. 
 
a. Could India confirm the amount of export subsidies provided?  
b. Could India describe the criteria for producers to be eligible to receive the 
abovementioned export subsidies?  
c. Could India describe the criteria for producers to be el igible to receive subsidies 
for transportation of sugar?  
Answer by India  
 
a. and b) India is not providing any subsidy on exports of sugar.  
c. The government has announced providing assistance to sugar mills during 2018 -19 at 
Rs. 1000/tonne for the mills located within 100 km from the ports, Rs.  2500/tonne for the 
mills located beyond 100 km from the ports in the coastal states and Rs.  3000/tonne for 
mills located in other than coastal states or actual expenditure, whichever is lower. This 
measure is an at tempt by the government to support the sugar mills in defraying 
expenditure towards internal transport, freight, handling and other charges which are 
allowed for developing countries under the WTO 's AoA.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Follow -up: Australia reiterated its concern about the low global sugar prices which were impacting 
its sugar industry and looked forward to discussions on India's market price support measures to 
sugar cane in relation to the counter notifications they had submitted.  The European Union supported 
Australia's comments. Brazil repeated its concern with the measure's impact on international market 
and the consistency with the WTO rules. Canada, as a member of the Global Sugar Alliance, 
encouraged India to move towards mor e market -oriented  trade regimes for sugar. Colombia and 
Thailand echoed Members' concern on this issue.   
1.14  India's Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)  
1.14.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 89059)  
At the Committee on Agriculture in September 2018, Indi a noted the export subsidies of 
INR 50 per KG for 60,000 tonnes of SMP provided for skim milk producers in Gujarat were 
to assist with marketing and transport costs. India also announced the inclusion of milk 
powder in the Merchandise Export from India Sch eme (MEIS) with an ad valorem subsidy 
of 20%  
  
a. Did the costs of marketing and transport recently increase?  
b. What is the relationship between the costs of marketing and transport and the 
subsidies provided?  
c. What is the duration of the two programmes?  
d.  The Export Competition Ministerial Decision of December 2015 commits all 
Members not to raise export subsidies above the previous five year average on a 
product basis. India last notified export subsidies in 2012, for the marketing 
years 2004 -2005 to 2009 -2010 (G/AG/N/IND/9). Do India 's new export 
subsidies for skim milk producers in Gujarat and the inclusion of milk powder in 
the MEIS mean that export subsidies for these products now exceed the previous 
five-year average?  
e. India has not provided information on export subsidies to the annual 
examination process established by the Ministerial Decision since its adoption. 
When will India respond to the Secretariat questionnaire to provide information 
on these new programmes and any other programmes?  
Answer by In dia 
 
a. to c) In view of the inadequate infrastructural development and costs arising out of 
infrastructural inefficiencies, the state g overnment in Gujarat decided to provide financial 
assistance to the state dairy cooperative  federation up to a maximum o f Rs. 50 per kg to 
meet the marketing and transport costs. The duration of this programme is six months. 
The details regarding MEIS programme are available at the website 
http://www.dgft.nic.in/ . 
d. to e) India would update its Art 9.4 Export Subsidy notifications in due course. It is not 
mandatory for developing countries to reply to export comp etition questionnaire till  2020.  
Follow -up: The European Union underlined the importance for key market players to demonstrate 
transparency and encouraged India to reply to the Export Competition questionnaire  to provide more 
information on its policies. Canad a and New Zealand joined the  EU in inviting India to respond to 
the questionnaire. Australia repeate d its concern regarding the WTO  consistency of India's MEIS and 
looked forward to  India's  complete responses to the related questions. Australia was  particularly  
interested in the infrastructural inefficiencies associated costs and how these costs related to A rticle 
9.4 of the AoA. New Zealand echoed Australia 's comments noting that there had been a recent 
increase in the level of subsidy. New Zealand sought to  understand  whether the subsidy  was directly  
related to the costs or whether it was a  reimbursement  against those  costs. New Zealand also noted 
interest in examining the compliance of India's policies  with the Nairobi  Decision on  Export G/AG/W/191  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Competition which  required Members  not to raise export subsidies  beyond the average level of  the 
past five  years  on a product basis . 
1.15  India's skim milk powder export subsidies  
1.15.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89026)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88070, the United States notes that in September 2018, India 
announced another increase in export subsidies for dairy products to 20%, to further 
support the expor t price of dairy products, including skim milk powder.  This is double the 
level of 10% announced in in June 2018.   
  
a. Please provide a comprehensive list of the 28 milk -related products benefiting 
from the subsidy, including HS codes.  
b. Please provide the fo llowing budget outlay and quantity data for dairy products 
under the program me during th e months of June 2018 – October  2018, including 
data sources:  
i. total cost of the export subsidy measure;  
ii. total value of subsidized exports; and  
iii. total quantity of subsidi zed exports.  
 
c. Please explain if the specific eligibility criteria for payments to dairy exporters 
allows for the subsidy to be provided in conjunction with export subsidies 
provided by the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra.  
d. Please explain if dairy products  are eligible for, and if they have received, export 
financing under the "Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre- and Post-Shipment  
Rupee Export Credit" or any other export financing scheme maintained by 
governmental entities in India.  
Answer by India  
 
a. The comprehensive list of 28 milk related products may be accessed at 
http://dgft.gov.in/sites/default/files/PN -41-270918.pdf . 
b. and c). Reply will be provided in due course.  
d. Only Mi cro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) exporting dairy products are eligible 
for export financing under the "Interest Equalization Scheme on Pre- and Post-Shipment  
Rupee Export Credit ".  
Follow -up: In additio n to dairy products, the United  States noted that it was also interested in India's 
policies on other commodities s uch as rice. The United  States referred to a new subsidy which had 
reportedly been introduced by India to incentivize exports of non -basmati rice of 5%. The United 
States noted that expo rters reported that Indian rice rose in competitiveness in the world market 
due to the recent hike in minimum support price. The United States referred to the findings of its 
counter -notification submitted to the June Committee on India's rice and wheat ma rket price support 
which showed that India's level of trade -distorting support for rice appeared to be significant and 
exceeding the WTO commitment. The United States underlined its concern regarding India's 
introduction of export subsidy for rice given In dia had no export subsidy commitment in its schedule. 
Australia, the European Union and New  Zealand echoed U.S. concern regarding India's export 
subsidies on dairy products and rice and questioned the consistency of these measures with Article 
9 of the AoA  and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. Australia reiterated that it disagreed with India 
that its domestic support arrangements did not affect global markets and export interests of others 
including developing countries, particularly in the case of skim mi lk powder. Australia asked what 
reform India would take to avoid ov erproduction in the future. New  Zealand voiced concern G/AG/W/191  
 
- 21 - 
 
  regarding the large surplus stock  accumulated through domestic measures which could be exported 
under subsidies into global markets. N ew Zealand reminded Members that the Nairobi outcome 
required Members to make sure export subsidies would not distort markets or displace exports of 
other Members.   
 
1.16  Korea's rice imports  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89060)  
Australia is seeking an updat e from the Republic of Korea on its efforts to resolve 
outstanding issues relating to the rectification and modification of its schedule resulting 
from the tariffication of rice and rice products.  
 
Australia is also interested in whether the Republic of Korea has considered possible 
alternative solutions, including other possible changes to tariff quota administration for 
rice, as part of its consultation efforts to resolve issues with impacted parties.  
In an effort to better understand the application an d usage of new rice tariff quota 
arrangements, could the Republic of Korea:  
 
a. provide the value and volume of rice for processing use and rice for table use 
imported in cale ndar years 2015, 2016 and 2017?  
b. explain how, under existing arrangements, the propor tion of rice for processing 
and ri ce for table use is determined?  
c. explain how the ta riff quota volume is allocated?  and 
d. advise whether the exporter is able to establish a commercial relationship 
directly with the importer/end -user?  
e. Australia notes the Republic of Korea 's last MA:2 notification concerning imports 
under tariff quotas is from July 2016 (G/AG/N/KOR/57) and covered calendar 
years 2014 and 2015. Can the Republic of Korea provide an update to Members 
on its efforts to submit outstanding MA:2 n otifications, particularly in light of the 
implementation of tariff quotas for rice products?  
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
The Korean government consulted with the Aus tralian government on this matter on 22  November. 
The Republic of Korea will continue t o communicate with the Australian government if needed.  
 
1.16.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89029)  
a. The United States understands that the Republic of Korea has been administering 
a global quota for rice products of 408,700 MT, with an in -quota  tariff rate of 5% 
and an out -of-quota tariff rate of 513 %. The United  States notes that in light of 
objections to the out -of-quota rate, Korea 's proposal has not been formally 
certified.  Please provide an update on Korea's efforts to resolve issues regard ing 
the rectification and modification of Korea's schedule for rice products and 
Korea's ongoing consultations held with concerned Members.   
b. The United States notes that Korea 's imports of rice in CY2018 are well below its 
historical levels.  According to i ts WTO Minimum Market Access Agreement, the 
Republic of Korea has committed to import at least 408,700 MT of rice 
annually.  However, as of 18 October 2018, the Republic of Korea has only 
imported abo ut half of this amount (221,305  MT). Please provide an up date on 
Korea 's rice imports.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Answer by Korea , Republic of  
 
a. The Republic of Korea has been engaging in  the verification process with five  countries 
that raised objections and will be ho lding bilateral talks with all five  countries before the 
end of this  year.  
b. The total amount Korea purchased under TRQ until  the end of November is 
221,000  tonnes. The Republic of Korea will carry out the tendering process for the 
remainder by the end of this year.  
Follow -up: Thailand noted that it had been commercially impacted by Korea's measure and would 
closely monitor  this issue.   
1.17  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89061)  
Australia notes that Pakistan 's Economic Coordination Committee of Cabinet approved on 
2 October the proposal from the Commerce Division to export one million tonnes of 
surplus sugar. In order for the mills to be eligible to export their excess sugar, Pakistan 's 
central bank has stated that the mills must clear cane arrears and start crushing.  
 
a. Will Pakistan provi de any funding to assist the mills to clear cane arrears during 
this crushing season?  
b. Is Pakistan proposing to provide any freight or financial support to sugar 
exporters during this crushing season?  
Answer by Pakistan  
 
At present, there is no proposal to grant freight and marketing support on export of sugar.  
 
However, Pakistan believes that being a net food importing developing country it can provide freight 
and marketing support in terms of art 9.4, 9.1 (d &e) of AOA and the Nairobi decision of  2015.  
 
Follow-up: Australia welcomed Pakistan's confirmation that no freight assistance contingent on 
exports had been provided at this stage. Australia noted its interest in closely monitoring the global 
sugar market and reviewing Members' measures negatively aff ecting global sugar prices. Australia 
also noted that it may follow up on Pakistan's previous responses in relation to minimum support 
prices on sugar.  The European Union echoed Australia's concern and asked Members to respect the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decis ion. Brazil and Colombia noted concern as regards Members' support policies 
to sugar and their impact on the international sugar market. Costa Rica, Guatemala and Thailand 
flagged interest in the topic.   
1.17.2   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 89091)  
The Russian Federation notes that Pakistan has been applying export s ubsidies on sugar 
for the last four  years. In 2017 the Government of Pakistan announced an increase of 
export subsidies and export quotas. The volume of export quota for sugar grew 
significa ntly: from 500 thousand ton nes to 2 million ton nes. Pakistani exporters enjoy 
sugar subsidies of 97 US D per ton ne. Therefore, the total amount of subsidies could equal 
to 194 million US D in 2017.  
 
a. Could Pakistan specify the amount of export subsidies for s ugar it provided over 
the last four  years?  
b. Could Pakistan clarify the mechanism of choosing the destinations for export of 
sugar under this program me? 
c. Could Pakistan describe the criteria for producers to be eligible to receive the 
abovementioned export su bsidies?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 23 - 
 
  Answer by Pakistan  
 
a. Pakistan had provided freight and marketing support in the past under article 9.4, 9.1  d) 
and e) of the AoA and the Nairobi Decision of 2015 to sugar cane producers on a limited 
quantity. The main aim of this measure was to mitigate market failures and infrastructural 
inefficiencies to enable sugar millers to clear outstanding dues of cane farmers.  
Details of previous years' measures have already been provided in previous CoA  meetings 
and will be provided in Pakistan's final  reply.  
b. There was no binding on exporters for choosing the destinations for export of sugar.  
c. The criteria for freight and marketing support was the cut -off date for export which was 
the end of the crushing season.  
Follow -up: Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala and the United States registered interest in the question.  
 
1.18  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89030)  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 88072:  
  
The United States understands that Pakistan announced a subs idy for wheat exports 
earlier this year and that the current programme expired on 30  June  2018 , the conclusion 
of the 2017/18 fiscal year. Please provide an update on the wheat export subsidy 
programme, including the quantity of wheat exported under this p rogramme during 
2018.  Does Pakistan plan to provide more subsidies to support wheat exports?  If so, 
please provide additional information, including the expected tenure of the programme.   
 
Answer by Pakistan  
 
Pakistan had provided freight and marketing sup port for export of 2.1 million MT of wheat to mitigate 
the livelihood concerns and financial constraints of resource poor farmers.  
 
Pakistan believes that being a net food importing developing country it can provide freight and 
marketing support in terms of Article 9.4, 9.1 d ) and e) of the AOA and the Nairobi Decision, 
whenever deemed necessary.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union underlined the importance of respecting the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on elimination of export subsidies, including paragraphs 9  and 10 of the Decision, which 
asked Members not to apply export subsidies in a manner that circumvents the requirement to 
reduce and eliminate export subsidies and not to raise export subsidies beyond  the average level of 
the past five  years on a product basis. Canada, as an exporter of wheat, flagged interest in the issue, 
particularly the use of export subsidies for wheat.   
 
1.19  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.19.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89063)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions  at the September 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).  
 
The Philippines stated that it expects to complete the enactment of a rice tariffication l aw 
by the end of the year.  
 
a. Does the Philippines have an update on the enactment of the rice tariffication 
law?  
b. Is enactment by the end of the year still likely?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Answer by Philippines  
 
a. The Philippine Congress already reconciled the different  and discordant provisions of the 
Rice Tariffication bills between the version of the House of Representative and the one of 
the House of Senate during the Bicameral Committee session on 22 Nov ember 2018. T he 
unified version of the legislation is awaiting the President 's approval.  
b. Yes, the Philippines still expects the enactment of a Rice Tariffication Law within this year, 
unless the President vetoes the unified legislation approved by the Philippine Congress last 
week.  
Follow -up: Canada, the European Union and the United States registered systemic interest in the 
rice tariffication issue.   
1.20  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.20.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89031)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of pou ltry 
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 Common 
External Tariff (CET). The new duty of 40% is twice the rate of Suriname's 20% bound 
rate for poultry products.  The United States looks forward to negotiating with Suriname 
under Article XXVIII to discuss compensation for withdrawing a trade concession.   
 
a. Please explain how Suriname is in compliance with its WTO obligations by raising 
the t ariff on imports of poultry products beyond its bound rate.  
b. The United States asks Suriname to refrain from applying the above -bound 40% 
rate until the Article XXVIII process has concluded. Will Suriname agree to do 
so? 
Answer by Suriname  
 
Suriname undert ook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
1.21  Thailand's sugar policies  
1.21.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 89065)  
On 15 January 2018, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) invoked its special 
power under Section 44 of the Interim Constitution to revoke the sugar quota system and 
float the local sugar price. The quota system will be phased out once the floating price is 
effective, but the government has to reserve a buffer stock for one month to serve and 
secure sugar supply for domestic consump tion.  
 
a. Can Thailand give more details about the timing of the introduction of the floating 
price?  
b. Can Thailand indicate the price levels in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for quota A, B and 
C? 
c. Can Thailand explain how it is planned to buy -in sugar to the buffer stoc ks and 
what will be the procedure for its release. How will the buying -in and selling 
price be determined?  
d. Has Thailand taken any decisions to create buffer stocks, and have any quantities 
been bought up to now or is it planned for 2018 and 2019?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
 
Since 15 January 2018, the sugar quota system was eliminated and the reserve stock system was 
established to ensure sufficient supply of sugar for domestic consumption. Moreover, under this new 
regime, buyers and sellers decide the pric e according to the regular market mechanism. As a result, 
the average ex -factory prices of domestic white sugar and refined sugar in 2018 show a decline 
compared to the ex -factory prices under the previous system.  
 
In September 2018, the ex -factory sugar price was THB 16.62 per kilogram and THB 17.96 per 
kilogram respectively, compared to the prices of THB 19 per kilogram for white sugar and THB 20 
per kilogram for refined sugar in the previous year. In addition, the resolution of the Cane and Sugar 
Board on 26 February 2018 determined the reserve stock in the production year of 2017/18 to be 
216, 900 tonnes per month, which is equal to the monthly average domestic sugar consumption of 
the previous year. The purpose of the reserve stock is to ensure suffici ent supply of sugar for 
domestic consumption. The sugar in excess of the reserve stock could be sold domestically or 
exported by sugar mills as they so wish following market prices. Importantly the reserve stock does 
not involve purchases by the government . Therefore, there is no buy -in prices or selling prices 
determined by the government.  
 
Follow -up: Brazil and Pakistan registered interest in the question.   
1.22  Thailand's import licensing for meat  
1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89032)  
Thailan d has not yet responded to the questions posed  by the United States in AG -IMS ID 
88075. As such, the United States repeats its previous questions:  
  
The fees are levied on all importers in the form of import permit fees on all shipments of 
uncooked meat, p oultry and meat offal. The United States has concerns that these fees 
are significantly higher than the corresponding domestic slaughtering fees for the same 
products and appear disproportionate to the cost of services rendered.  
  
a. What services are covered  by the import permit fees and how are these 
calculated?  
b. What services are covered by the domestic slaughtering fees and how are these 
calculated?  
c. Please provide an official response with a detailed cost breakdown, method of 
calculation, and list of services provided for both the import permit fees for food 
safety inspection as well as its domestic slaughtering fees.  
d. In the absence of information supporting the exact calculation of and the 
services associated with these fees, Thailand 's fee structure for import permit 
fees for food safety inspection and domestic slaughtering fees raises national 
treatment concerns including pursuant to the principle that prohibits 
discrimination between imported and domestically produced goods.  
e.  What is Thailand 's just ification for the discrepancy between import permit fees 
and domestic slaughtering fees?  
Answer by Thailand  
 
In order to protect human and animal health, the import inspection fees for both animal products 
and live animals of all species are collected at t he rate defined in the Ministerial regulation under the 
Animal Epidemic Act. These fees cover operational expenses, the costs of food safety and veterinary 
inspection services necessary to ensure that the products are free from microbiological and chemical  
hazards, as well as animal pathogens without granting special or differential treatment to any 
individual trading partners.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Unlike imported animal products the inspection service fees for domestic production are charged to 
domestic business operators in  each step along the food production chain to ensure that the products 
comply with the national legislation and are safe for consumers. For import inspection fees the 
expenses include shipment fees, laboratory charges, including chemical residues and micro -biology 
tests, and operational costs such as travelling expenses, labour costs and expenses for disposable 
materials. The average expenses per kilogram of imports of animal products are THB 6.98. The 
domestic producers need to pay in order to comply with national standards for the entire livestock 
production chain from feed mill, to farm, to slaughter house, to the retail sale of animal products. 
These national standards include TNP standards for feed mill, TAP standards for farms, GMP -HACCP 
standards for slaughter house quality control of after -products and traceability. The domestic 
producers pay around THB 7.2 per kilogram.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the European Union signalled interest in the subject.   
1.23  U.S. dairy policies  
1.23.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 89005)  
Follow up from June Meeting (87th Committee on Agriculture):  
  
At the 87th Committee on Agriculture, on 11 June 2018, the Unite States confirmed in their 
answer to question AG -IMS ID 87106 that the "Dairy Revenue Protection " insurance 
programme wil l be funded in the same manner as other crop insurance products. 
According to the American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, this product has been 
available nationwide since 9 October 2018.  
  
Could the Unite States indicate the what percentage of the premiu ms are subsidized under 
the Dairy Revenue Protection insurance programme and what outlay has been allocated 
to this program me to cover premium subsidy costs?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Premium subsidies for the Dairy Revenue Protection insurance programme depend on the coverage 
level chosen, but range from 44 % - 59% of the premium. The USDA Risk Management Agency 
(RMA) does not project or allocate outlays; year -to-date premium subsidy costs are currently just 
over $4 million.  
 
1.23.2   Question by Canada ( AG-IMS ID 89006)  
a. On 14 August 2018, the USDA announced plans to purchase $50 million worth of 
fluid milk (whole, 2 %, 1%, and skim) for distribution to The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. The USDA noted that the purpose of the purchases is "to 
encourage the continued domestic consumption of these products by diverting 
them from the normal channels of trade and commerce ". Canada understands 
that it is the first time the USDA has purchased fluid milk using its authority 
under Sec tion 32 of the Act of 24  August 1935. Furthermore, on 
22 October  2018, the USDA announced plans to purchase fresh fluid milk, 
targeting certain orders for milk in half -gallons that were not fulfilled under 
contracts that were awarded on 26 September 2018. Canada is of the 
understandi ng that the contract type for these purchases is anticipated to be 
firm-fixed price.  
i. Could the United States explain what circumstances have prompted the 
purchase of fluid milk? Does the United States foresee the purchase of fluid 
milk on a regular basis in the future?  
ii. Has the United States assessed and estimated how these fluid milk purchases 
would affect the level of production and prices? If so, could the United States 
share details of these estimates?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 27 - 
 
  iii. Could the United States. clarify what type of pri cing mechanism was used and 
will be used for the purchases of fluid milk announced in August and October?  
iv. If a firm -fixed price was used or will be used, could the U.S. indicate what is 
this fixed price and how the fixed price differs from domestic prices ?  
b. In October 2018, the USDA announced the awarding of purchase contract awards 
for a total of 81,703,200 pounds of natural American cheese for delivery 
throughout 2019 under the USDA domestic food distribution program mes. The 
USDA also announced the purch ase under the Food Purchase and Distribution 
Program of 4,118,400 pounds of process American cheese (contract value of 
$7,649,692.83), the purchase of 604,800 pounds of yellow cheddar chunks 
(contract value of 1,474,135.74) and the purchase of 601,662 poun ds of high -
protein yogurt (contract value of $725,019).  
i. The 81,703,200 pounds of natural American cheese purchased for delivery in 
2019 is significantly higher than the quan tity purchased in FY2017 
(71.25  million pounds) and in FY2018 YTD (70.66 million p ounds). Could the 
United States clarify what changed in the market place resulting in this 
increased quantity needed under the USDA domestic food distribution 
program mes?  
ii. Could the United States confirm the amount and quantity for each category 
of dairy p roducts that have been purchased, so far, under the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program.  
iii. Could the United States indicate what other dairy product(s) the USDA 
intends to purchase under the remaining portion of the $84.9 million 
allocated to dairy produc ts under the Food Purchase and Distribution 
Program?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a.  
i. U.S. food aid organizations have improved their capacity to store and distribute fluid 
milk to those in need. The Agricultural Marketing Service and the Food and Nutrition 
Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regularly consult on purchase 
planning and scheduling for nutritious foods, such as fluid milk, and any future 
purchases would be determined through this process.  
ii. No, the United States has not assessed the effect of these purchases on the level of 
production and prices. These purchases are made to provide nutritious foods to 
program mes serving low -income Americans.  
iii. Suppliers of fluid milk submit firm -fixed offers specifying the available product , 
volume, delivery location, and delivery window.  Purchase awards are based on the 
lowest overall cost to the g overnment based on those prices submitted by potential 
suppliers.  
iv. The firm -fixed price was determined by suppliers when they placed their offer a nd 
includes transportation to the various destinations and delivery windows on the 
solicitation.  Each supplier may have used a different methodology to arrive at their 
offered price.  Therefore, the difference between the firm -fixed prices and domestic 
prices will vary.  
b.  
i. This procurement was based solely on demand from USDA dom estic food distribution 
programme recipients and was not based on changes in the market place.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 28 - 
 
  ii. The USDA announced the purchase of 4,118,400 pounds of processed American cheese 
(contract value of $7,649,692.83) and the purchase of 604,800 pounds of yellow 
cheddar chunks (contract value of $1,474,135.74) under the Food Purchase and 
Distribution Program.  
iii. Information on dairy products to be purchased under the Food Purchase and 
Distribu tion Program can be found at https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/pre -
solicitation -announcement -trade -mitigation -purchase -dairy-products . 
1.24  U.S. proposed domestic support measures  
1.24.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 89047)  
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 me et 
the costs of disrupted markets. In response to Question AG -IMS ID 88047, the United 
States stated that The Market Facilitation Program will provide payments to producers of 
soybeans, wheat, sorghum, corn, cotton, hogs, milk, sweet cherries, and almonds.  It is 
requested to provide the following information:  
 
a. What is the eligibility criterion for producers to receive aid under the "The Market 
Facilitation Program "? 
b. How the quantum of aid under "Market Facilitation Program " for specific crops 
like wheat, so ybeans, wheat, cotton and milk would be calculated? If there are 
any guidelines for this programme in public domain, it is requested to share the 
link. 
c. In response to question AG -IMS ID 88047, the United States replied that the 
Food Purchase and Distributi on program me will purchase 29 different 
commodities targeted by retaliatory tariffs that are appropriate for distribution 
to nutrition program me use. Please list out the 29 commodities covered under 
this programme.  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Eligibility criteria for the Market Facilitation Program are established in Title 7 CFR Part 
1409.4, which can be found at this link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8c3bf772cc93509b7bb9795493b48cf6&mc=true&n=pt7.10.
1409&r=PART&ty=HTML#se7.10.1409_13 . 
b. The methodology to calculate Market Facilitation Program payments is established in Titl e 
7 CFR Part 1409.5, which can be found at this link: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID =8c3bf772cc93509b7bb9795493b48cf6&mc=true&n=pt7.10.
1409&r=PART&ty=HTML#se7.10.1409_15  
c. The commodities are apples, apricots, beef, blueberries, cranberries, dairy, figs, 
grapefruit, grapes, hazelnuts, kidney beans, lemons/limes, lentils, macadamia nuts, navy 
beans, fresh oranges, orange juice, peanut butter, pears, peas, pecans, pistachios, 
plums/prunes, pork, potatoes, rice, strawbe rries, sweet corn, and walnuts.  
1.24.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 89066)  
Australia thanks the United States for its response to Australia 's questions at the 
September 2018 CoA regarding the USD  6 billion trade assistance package for farmers 
impacted by trade retaliation. Australia is seeking an update from the United States on 
the implementation of the package.  
  
a. Noting that the application process for assistance to farmers impacted by trade 
retaliation under the Market Facilitation Program opened on 4 September 2018, 
Australia would appreciate information from the United States as to:  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 29 - 
 
  i. the amount of assistance paid to date;  
ii. the total number of individual farmers that have received assistance; and  
iii. by commodity, the number of farmers that have received assistance.  
b. Under the Food Purchase and Distribution Program, what products will the 
United States purchase in this program me's first quarter (commenced 1 October 
2018) and what products does the United States expect to purchase under this 
program me next quarter?  
c. Based on the current take -up rates and number of applications, does the United 
States envisage exhausting the entire USD6  billion budget for the first tranche 
of assistance?  
d. Australia would appreciate information from the United States on how and when 
it plans to move forward with the second tranche of assistance:  
i. will the United States wait until the funding for the first t ranche of assistance 
is exhausted before announcing the second tranche?  
ii. will the rate of payment be adjusted for specific commodities?  
iii. is it expected that the method used to calculate the rate of assistance will 
change?  
iv. will new tariff levels and other mar ket conditions be taken into account and 
if so, how will this be done?  
e. In the US Department of Agriculture 's report, "Trade Damage Estimation for the 
Market Facilitation Program and Food Purchase and Distribution Program " 
(published September  2018), it ide ntifies "regional basis effects " as an "other 
factor " which "may have mitigated some of the trade damages calculated ". Can 
the United States please clarify what it meant by "regional basis effects "? 
f. Can the United States confirm there will be no Market Fac ilitation Program 
assistance for 2019 production, even if the current budget allocation has not 
been fully exhausted?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. Market Facilitation Program payments depend on completion of the harvest, which is still 
ongoing fo r many commodities.  Final data on payments under the program me will not be 
available until after sign -up for the program me has ended in January 2019.  As of mid -
November, approximately $840 million had been paid.  
b. To date, the Agricultural Marketing Servi ce of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has 
issued pre -solicitation announcements for the following products under the Food Purchase 
and Distribution Program: frozen corn, dry peas, rice products, dairy products, peanut 
products, potato products, dry lent il products, dark red kidney beans, dry navy bean 
products, beef products, pork products, walnut products, strawberry products, plum (fresh 
and dried) products, pistachio products, pecan products, fresh pear products, fresh orange 
products, orange juice pr oducts, fresh lemon products, hazelnut products, fresh grapefruit 
products, grape (dried and fresh) products, fig products, cranberry products, apple 
products, and blueberry products. These pre -solicitation announcements contain 
information on the solicita tion dates and delivery timeframe, which differ by commodity. 
The announcements can be found at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food/purchase -
announcements . Pre-solicitation ann ouncements notify potential vendors of upcoming 
opportunities to submit bids.  When the official solicitations are opened, they are invitations 
to submit bids. The amount actually purchased will depend on the number of bids and 
other factors.  
c. See respon se to question a . G/AG/W/191  
 
- 30 - 
 
  d. The second payment rate the Market Facilitation Program is expected to be announced in 
December 2018.   
e. "Regional basis effects " refers to the concept of basis, which is the difference between a 
local cash price and a nearby futures price. Factors that affect basis include transportation 
costs, storage costs, local conditions, and other factors. These factors can differ by region.  
f. The Market Facilitation Program as announced on Augus t 27, 2018 is in effect for 
the 2018/19 crop year. 
Follow -up: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India and Uruguay flagged interest 
in the programme and its potential impacts to international trade. Paraguay was particularly 
interested in U.S. reply to question f by Australia and a sked when the United States would notify 
these measures. Paraguay noted that, in light of the significant level of support and the United States 
as one of the largest players in the world market, these measures would have significant implications 
on intern ational prices and level of agricultural production of other Members, particularly developing 
countries and LDCs. Australia encouraged Members to take measures which were decoupled from 
production instead of trade distorting support.   
 
1.25  Zimbabwe's tobacco export incentive  
1.25.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89033)  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88076, the United States would like to reiterate the following 
question, for which Zimbabwe has not provided a written answer:  
  
The United States understan ds the government of Zimbabwe 's central bank, the Reserve 
Bank of Zimbabwe, is providing tobacco growers a performance export bonus as an 
incentive to grow the country 's production and increase exports.  For the 2018 marketing 
season, the central bank, has increased the export inc entive 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 Agree ment on Agriculture and the Nairobi 
Decision that allows for this kind of agriculture support measure?  
Answer by Zimbabwe  
 
Zimbabwe undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union reiterated the importance of all Members r especting the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on Export competition.   
 
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 89009: Question by Norway - Transparency issues  
In the COA meeting in September 2018, Canada answe red that the import figures 
for 2014 -2016 from each of the thirteen most recent members of the European Union were 
not part of the considerations for the transfer of 800 tonnes of Canada´s  WTO TRQ for 
cheese to the European Union to maintain the relative  shares of supply due to new 
EU member S tate accessions.  
 
What other import figures were part of the conside rations for the transfer of 800  tonnes? 
Please specify import figures per new member State of the European Union.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
The import figures that were part of the consideration for the transfer of 800,000 kilograms of 
Canada 's 20,411,866 kilogram s WTO TRQ for cheese to the Eur opean Union to maintain the relative 
shares of supply due to new EU m ember State accessions were retrieved from Statistic Canada. For 
the countries that joined the European Union in 2004, 2007 and 2013, the import figures that were 
considered were those pr ior to each respecti vely becoming a European Union m ember State.  
 
The specific import figures per new member State of the European Union can be found on the website 
of Statistics Canada.  
 
Follow -up: Norway noted that country allocation of TRQ was  permitted as per GATT A rticle 13.2 (d) 
based on actual  imports of a representative period and  according to GATT Article 24.5 ( b) such 
country allocation must not take place to detriment other trading partners outside the Free Trade 
Agreement . In Norway's view, in this case, Canada , by increasing  the EU share of  the import quota 
by 800 tonnes  despite its prev ious imports from the 13 new EU  members  were an average of 300 
tonnes, decreased  other Members ' market access for cheese  in Canada . Norway  noted that its 
concern on this issue was twofold: commercially as it  presently  export ed 1,500 tonnes to  Canada  
within the WTO quota , and systemically as Canada  may have violated  WTO rules. New Zealand and 
Switzerland flagged concern with Canada's approach  and shared Norway's views.   
 
2.1.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/165)  
AG-IMS ID 89003: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
Canada notes that in Table MA:1, for the TQ ID CHTQ008 (red bean), in item (b) (iv) the 
Allocation of licences of access to quotas to i mporters, the period for the validity of tariff 
quota certificates changed from 1 January – 1 September to 1 April - 1 December. Canada 
understands that because of the Chinese New Year holiday and the purchase of red beans 
for cakes or other bakery product s, the highest demand for red beans is in January and 
February in the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  
  
This changed tariff quota administration will significantly limit availability of access of 
imports of Canadian red beans. Canada 's harvest season is from September/October and 
shipments normally arrive in January. Imports from Canada represented around 60% of 
yearly total imports of red beans in 2016 and 2017 in the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and this volume represents around 12% of domestic 
consumption. These numbers show that Canadian high quality red beans are desired by 
Taiwanese consumers; however, with the change in the period for the validity of tariff 
quota certificates, cons umers would be directly impacted as the price might increase due 
to a potentially short supply.  
  
Canada notes that the harvest season for one of the other key exporters is in May and for 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu it is in January. 
Therefore, this change will unfairly benefit the other key exporter and domestic growers 
of red beans.  
  
a. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
provide further details as the reason why the period for the  validity of tariff quota 
certificates has changed?  
b. Has the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
assessed the impact on the price? If so, could it be shared?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Chinese Taipei undertook to provide a respon se at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.1.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/122)  
AG-IMS ID 89067: Question by European Union - Transparency issues  
In the annex to the MA:1 notification of the United States (G/AG/N/USA/122) there 
seems to be a numerical error in the table presenting country allocations of tariff quotas. 
The sum of the different allocations for refined sugar does not sum up to the total amount 
of 192,000 tonnes. The global allocation corresponds to 22,000 tonnes according to the 
information in the actual tab le, but in footnote 4 to the table it is stated that the global 
allocation is 7,090 tonnes. Could the United States please clarify which number is correct?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Please refer to  footnote 4. The "Specialty sugar " figure includ es 1,656 MTs that are also included in 
the "Global " Refined sugar figure. Simply adding these figures together would double -count the 
1,656 MTs reserved for specialty sugar that is part of the U.S. Uruguay Round commitments. Also, 
note that the allocations  for Canada and Mexico are included in the "Global " Refined sugar figure.  
 
2.2  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
2.2.1   China (G/AG/N/CHN/30, G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41)  
AG-IMS ID 89089: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
The Russian Federation notes that the previous notification concerning imports under 
tariff quotas G/AG/N/CHN/30 covering the period 2013 -2014 was submitted in 2016. The 
latest notifications G/AG/N/CHN/39, G/AG/N/CHN/40, G/AG/N/CHN/41 c overing the 
period 2015 -2017 were circulated in November 2018.  
  
a. Could China provide the reasons for such a delay?  
The Russian Federation takes note of the improved market access opportunities due to 
the increase of imports under TRQ for wheat from 31,2% in 2015 to 45,9% in 2017. 
However, fill -in rate remains relatively low.  
  
b. Could China please indicate the reasons for the underfill of this tariff rate quota?  
c. What measures could be undertaken to improve this situation?  
The Russian Federation also notices  substantial decrease in imports under TRQ for corn 
from 65,7% in 2015 to 39,3% in 2017.  
  
d. Could China please provide reasons for such a decline?  
e. What measures could be undertaken to improve this situation?  
Answer by China  
 
a. The notification on imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2) was 
delayed due to the case of DS 517.  
b. and c) The reasons for the underfill of TRQ for wheat have been provided in the process 
of the dispute DS517. It will be submitted to this Committee once  the final report of the 
panel is circulated.  
d. and e ) The decrease in imports of corn is the result of the reform on the support policies 
for corn. In 2016, the Temporary Procurement and Stock -holding Policy for corn was 
terminated , and the price of corn since then has been de termined  by the market. The fill 
rates in 2016 and 2017 reflected the market supply and demand.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89052: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes China 's notifications concerning im ports under tariff quotas 
(Table  MA:2) for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017.  
 
a. Can China explain the reasons for the under -fills for tariff quotas for wheat, corn 
and rice opened during 2015, 2016 and 2017?  
i. for each product, can China explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive 
tariff quota administration?  
b. Can China 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 o n 
TRQ Administration?  
Answer by China  
 
a. Please refer to China's reply to question AG -IMS ID 89089.  
b. China is undertaking the market -oriented reform on the support policies for agriculture, 
and will continue deepening the reform, with the aim to strengthen the role of market in 
determining the allocation of resources.  
2.2.2   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/37, G/AG/N/EU/40, G/AG/N/EU/48)  
AG-IMS ID 89008: Question by Canada - Transparency issues  
a. Canada notes that based on the European U nion (EU)'s MA:2 Notifications of the 
past recent years, many of the tariff rate quotas (TRQs) 's fill rates are 
consistently very low, including for wheat, meat of swine and meat of bovine. 
Considering the United Kingdom (UK) upcoming withdrawal from the E U:  
i. could the EU inform Members on what steps will be put forward to ensure 
that TRQs fill rates will not be impacted?  
ii. has the EU considered taking this opportunity to simplify its quota procedures 
and administration?  
b. Given that the UK will be leaving th e EU during 2019 (at the end of March), could 
the EU expand on how the volume that is available to be imported over the 2019 
year for each EU TRQ will be impacted?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a.  
i. The EU does not envisage any changes to TRQ administration me thods that could 
impact on fill rates as a result of Brexit.  
ii. Many TRQs are already managed on a FCFS basis, including those for meat and cereals. 
Other TRQs are managed by licences that are delivered on request. However where a 
TRQ is oversubscribed, simul taneous examination of operators ' requests is performed 
to guarantee fair treatment for all applicants and licences are issued pro rata for the 
quantities available. Low fill rates are explained by economic reasons only.  
b. This issue is covered by an Article XXVIII GATT process (document G /SECRET/42 of 24  July 
2018).  
It is important to note that any effects would only apply from when current 
EU commitments would cease to apply to the UK.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89068: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Austra lia welcomes the European Union's notification concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table  MA:2) for marketing year 2017/18 (G/AG/N/EU/48).  
 
a. Can the EU explain the reasons for the significant under -fill for some tariff quotas 
opened during the 2017/18 marketing year?  
b. For each product, can the EU explain whether the under -fill was due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration?  
c. Given that 50%  of the quotas opened in 2017/18MY did no t reach a  fill rate 
of 5%, has the EU considered moving to a tariff -only regime for those products?  
d. Can the EU explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of its under -filled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ Administration?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. In the EU, any underfill of WTO TRQs is for economic reasons only. Thanks to continuous 
reforms, EU internal prices have converged toward w orld prices therefore making 
EU products more competitive against impor ts in many agricultural sectors. The EU has 
also concluded many bilateral trade agreements liberalising further its agricultural sector. 
Economic operators and consumers have therefore more choices that influence the 
attractiveness of WTO bound TRQs.  
b. It is normally linked to market circumstances.  
Concerning any SPS impact, it should be stressed that it is temporary until the reason for 
the measure is terminated, e.g. avian flu. Concerning the 2017/18 marketing year, no SPS 
measures on bound WTO TRQs in the beef and swine sectors were in place. Poultry around 
the globe is frequently subject to avian flu. The EU, like so many countries, has therefore 
rules to deal with such outbreaks. Also in the EU, fresh poultry meat cannot be treated 
with chlorine or pe roxyacetic acid.  
The concept of restrictive administration is rather vague. Nevertheless, the EU does not 
consider that its administration methods lead to underfill.  
The EU would recall that the EU 's TRQs management system is based on two main 
methods: FCF S and licensing. Many WTO TRQs are managed on a FCFS basis. Such system 
does not necessarily lead economic agents to import. Other TRQs are managed by licences 
that are delivered on request. However,  where the TRQ is oversubscribed, simultaneous 
examinatio n of operators ' requests is performed to guarantee fair treatment to all 
applicants and licenses are issued pro rata for the quantities available.  
c. No.  
d. The EU has already transferred many TRQs managed by licences to the FCFS management 
system. As men tioned above, it is not a guarantee that economic agents will make a better 
use of the TRQs.   
Follow -up: Paraguay  expressed concern regarding the low fill rates , which , in some cases  were less 
than 10 %. Paraguay asked the EU to clarify to what extent the low fill rates  were due to 
SPS measures . Australia noted that EU's explanation  of TRQ underfill were good examples  of 
discussions that could be  useful for  the Committee's review of the Bali TRQ Decision. New Zealand 
supported Australia and Canada's questio ns.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 35 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 89069: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff quota fill  
The Russian Federation welcomes detailed notific ation submitted by the European  Union. 
According to the notification G/AG/N/EU/48, 30% of TRQs have zero fill rates, 18% - 
from 0% to 5 %, and 10% - from 5% to 10%. Summing up, 58% of TRQs have fill rates 
lower than 10%.  
  
a. Could the EU indicate reasons for such low (or zero) fill rates?  
b. How does the EU intend to address such low levels of imports under TRQs?  
The Russian Federation notes  that the EU significantly under fills (below 2%) some of its 
quotas for several products, including meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry eggs for 
consumption, in shell, skimmed milk powder, and butter.  
  
c. Could the EU indicate the reasons for such lo w fill rates?  
d. How does the EU intend to address low levels of imports of these products?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. In the EU, any underfill of WTO TRQs is for economic reasons only. Thanks to continuous 
reforms, EU internal prices have converged toward w orld prices therefore making 
EU products more competitive against imports in many agricultural sectors. The EU has 
also concluded many bilateral trade agreements liberalising further its agricultural sector. 
Economic operators and consumers have th erefore more choices that influence the 
attractiveness of WTO bound TRQs.  
b. The EU keeps the management methods for TRQs under review. However, management 
methods for TRQs are not the cause of underfill.  
c. See reply to a.  
d. See reply to b. However, movi ng to FCFS is not a guarantee that economic operators will 
make a better use of a TRQ: see reply to a.  
Follow -up: The United States expressed interest in all questions on EU's TRQ fill rates.   
AG-IMS ID 89070: Question by Thailand - Tariff quota fill  
Could  the EU please clarify the term "effective imports" in footnote "*" i.e.  for 
HS 02031955 , 02032955 1704 20096190 20096911 20096919 20096951 and 20096990, 
and whether there are relations/specific reasons between this footnote and the zero or 
low fill rates for tariff lines with "*" since it is the case for most lines with" *".  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
"Effective imports" for TRQs managed by licences is an equivalent concept to "entry into free 
circulation" for TRQs managed on FCFS basis.  
 
It represents the quantities of the licences issued that have been effectively imported. For the 
licences issued, operators lodge a security aiming to ensure import takes place. This security is 
released upon proof of effective importation. Moreover, unused quantities u nder licences are notified 
to the Commission by the National Authorities and further reallocated till the end of the quota period.  
 
2.2.3   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/35, G/AG/N/PAN/40, G/AG/N/PAN/43, 
G/AG/N/PAN/46)  
AG-IMS ID 89071: Question by Russian Federation - Tariff  quota fill  
Russian Federation takes note that TRQ for chicken meat is regularly underfilled 
(below  3%) over the recent four years (2014 -2017). Could Panama please explain why G/AG/W/191  
 
- 36 - 
 
  the fill rate for this tariff rate quota remains such low? What measures Panama is going 
to undertake to provide better utilization of underfilled TRQ?  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
Generally speaking, the fill rate for the quota for chicken meat is a direct result of market forces, 
i.e. of the conditions in the Panamanian market in which the d omestic or foreign products are 
presented, including: price, quality, ease of purchase (cash/credit payment), distribution channels, 
consumer habits and tastes, etc.  
 
For instance, in terms of habits and tastes, Panamanian consumers have a strong preference for 
fresh chicken meat (animals slaughtered only a few days before).  
 
Regarding quotas, Panama complies with what has been agreed at the WTO and will continue its 
efforts to ensure that the market determines the types of products to be consumed,  without 
distinction of origin.  
 
2.3  Special safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/166)  
AG-IMS ID 89072: Question by New Zealand - Link with TRQ commitments  
For the purpose of enhanced transparency, and recognizing Chinese Tai pei's right  to 
invoke the  SSG in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture, can Chinese 
Taipei confirm when a MA:2 notification will be submitted for Members to assess the tariff 
quota fill rate before the SSG was invoked.  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Chinese Taipei undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/167)  
AG-IMS ID 89073: Question by Russian Federation - Transparency issues  
Russian Federation welcomes the notification of the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwa n, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu concerning special safeguards. Paragraph 7 of Article 
5 of the Agreement on Agriculture states that Members give notification "…as far in 
advance as may be practicable and in any event within 10 days of the implementation of 
such action". Chinese Taipei 's notification was issued on 25 October 2018 while the period 
of application of the measure started 21 September 2018. Could please Chinese Taipei 
provide reasons for such a delay?  
 
Answer by Chinese Taipei  
 
Chinese Taipei underto ok to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
2.3.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/47)  
AG-IMS ID 89074: Question by Australia - Transparency issues  
Australia welcomes the European Union 's notification concerning special safeguard action 
taken (Table MA:5) for marketing  year 2017/18. Can the EU provide the following 
information for all the products for which safeguard action was taken based on price?  
 
a. Volume of imports affected;  
b. Extent to which the import price was below the trigger price; and  
c. Additional duty levied.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
The principle governing the application of the SSG in the EU is subject to the conditions as laid down 
in the Agreement on Agriculture, unless the imports are unlikely to disturb the EU market or where 
the effects would be disprop ortionate to the intended objective. Therefore, it is not automatic that 
when a trigger is reached, the SSG is applied by t he EU. The EU applied the price -based SSG only 
on few products. The list of products decreased considerably in the years - now it is only applied on 
a few poultry meat and egg products.  
 
a. The trade Statistics EU does not monitor these volumes.  
b. The EU does not record such detailed information.  
c. The EU statistics does not monitor the  additional duty levied solely.  
2.4  Domestic Support  commitments (Table DS:1)  
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/122)  
AG-IMS ID 89075: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
As pointed out by India during the 88th meeting of the Committee o n Agriculture 
(AG-IMS ID 88053), Canada excludes sa les of butter and skimmed milk powder for further 
processing, total exports of butter and skimmed milk powder as well as sales of skimmed 
milk powder for animal feed from the eligible production when calculating market price 
support. It is the European Uni on's understanding that Canada does not restrict the 
amount of butter and skimmed milk powder that could be procured at administered prices. 
Hence, it would seem that the entire Canadian production of butter and skimmed milk 
powder is eligible to receive t he support price. The fact that some of the production 
eventually is sold for further processing or animal feed or is exported and does not receive 
the administered price does not seem to alter this conclusion.  
 
Could Canada please elaborate further on wh y Canada considers that butter and skimmed 
milk powder that is exported or sold for further processing should not be counted as 
eligible production in the calculation of market price support?  
  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Sales of butter and skim milk powder for fu rther processing, total exports and skim milk powder for 
animal feed are not counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price support since 
sales of these products for these uses are not eligible to receive the support price. All productio n of 
butter and skim milk powder that is eligible to receive the support price (not that which is purchased) 
is counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price support. This is consistent with 
both Annex 3, paragraph 8, of the Agreement o n Agriculture concerning the calculation of market 
price support and the jurisprudence on this issue. Korea -Beef found that "production eligible to 
receive the applied administered price " means "production that is 'fit or entitled ' to be purchased 
rather t han production that was actually purchased (Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef, para. 120.) As noted, all production of butter and skim milk powder that is eligible 
to receive the support price is counted as eligible production in the calculation of market price 
support.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and the United states supported the question. Australia noted that eligible 
production should include all butter and skim milk powder eligible to re ceive the administered price 
and the actual quantity of purchase was not relevant in the calculation of market price support.   
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.4.2   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/67)  
AG-IMS ID 89010: Question by Canada - General services: pest and disease control  
In its Supporting Table DS:1, Costa Rica describes under the General Services heading 
"2(b) Pest and disease control " its Animal health programme as "General programmes to 
preserve, protect and enhance the health status of the country's livestock through 
improved domestic production... "  
 
a. Could Costa Rica explain how this programme improves domestic livestock 
production?  
b. Could Costa Rica explain how improving domestic livestock production 
contributes "to preserve, protect and enhance the health status of t he country 's 
livestock "?  
Answer by Costa Rica  
 
a. The notified animal health programme consists of sanitary controls on products of animal 
origin that are carried out by the National Animal Health Service (SENASA) to preserve 
the country's health status ( http://www.senasa.go.cr/ ). 
SENASA, under its own law (Law No.  8495), administers, plans, oversees and implements 
relevant measures throughout the country with a view to meeting the objectives set out 
in that law. It  does this by developing programmes and campaigns for the prevention, 
control and eradication of animal pests and diseases. It also seeks to control and ensure 
the health of domestic, aquatic and wild animals, and other animals of various species, 
and the safety of products, by -products and derivatives for human or animal consumption. 
SENASA establishes sanitary controls in all abattoirs and processing plants handling these 
products.  
SENASA is also responsible for establishing and implementing necessary 
measures  concerning the production, use, release and marketing of genetically modified 
organisms – whether animals, animal products, by -products of animal origin, biological 
control agents or others – that pose any form of unacceptable risk to the environment  or 
to human or biological health.  
b. The activities conducted under this programme and within SENASA's institutional 
framework contribute to improving domestic livestock production and preserving, 
protecting and improving the country's animal health status.  
Follow -up: The United States expressed interest in the question.   
 
2.4.3   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 89076: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease control  
Australia would like to follow up on its question to Egypt at the 88th Commi ttee on 
Agriculture, AG-IMS ID 88020 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.   
 
Can Egypt explain how the subsidy was tied with actual pest control, given the subsidies 
were provided at a fixed rate per acre and even pest -free crops could receive the subsidy?  
 
Answer by Egypt  
 
Egypt undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.4.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/46, G/AG/N/EU/46/CORR.1)  
AG-IMS ID 89077: Question by New Zealand - Transparency  issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The evolution of the EU CAP has seen a shift from some of the most distorting forms of 
support, including direct payments, towards less distorting 'Green Box' support. However, 
over the previous three reporting periods (from 2013 to 2016) there has been an  overall 
increase in the EU's notified AMS and production -limiting support, and an overall decrease 
in Green Box measures which includes a decrease in EU research spending from 1,204.7 
million EUR to 999.4 million EUR. Furthermore, the proposed CAP reform would include a 
devolution of its administration from the EU to its member States. We ask that the EU 
elaborate on this and how the current CAP reform is expected to affect future outlays, in 
particular:  
  
a. What are the reasons for these trends?  
b. Will the current CAP reforms see a reduction in Amber Box outlays from 2020, 
including direct payments?  
c. How will research be provided for in the future CAP?  
d. How will the EU ensure that the devolution of the CAP to member States will not 
result in an increase in d istortionary outlays?  
Spending totals (million Euro)  
  2013/14  2014/15  2015/16  
Total spending  77,333.10  74,777.90  72,261.40  
Total AMS  5,971.70  6,642.30  7,101.80  
Total Blue Box  2,663.60  2,878.80  4,331.10  
Total Green Box  68,697.80  65,256.80  60,828.50  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
a. For Amber Box support, 95% rel ates to Market Price Support. Therefore,  when 
EU production of common wheat , butter and SMP increases,  EU reported MPS increases , 
even with unchanged policies and when world market prices is well above EU support 
prices. The increase in Blue Box expenditure is due to the introduction of Voluntary 
Coupled support, which partly replaced some support granted in in Green Box for periods 
up to and including the 2014/15 DS:1 notification. The reduction i n Green Box expenditure 
is partly explained by the change  to VCS, and partly because EU m ember States pay less 
in Green Box support to their farmers.  
b. The CAP post -2020 has not yet been adopted by the EU legislature, so it is premature to 
speculate.  
c. The CAP post -2020 has not yet been adopted by the EU legislature, so it is premature to 
speculate.   
d. The CAP post -2020 has not yet been adopted by the EU legislature, so it is premature to 
speculate. In any event, the European Commission will ensure adeq uate legal tools are in 
place to f ormally scrutinise and approve m ember State programmes, including to ensure 
respect of the EU 's WTO commitments.  
Follow -up: New Zealand welcomed EU's reform process since the Uruguay round and encouraged 
the EU to graduall y reduce trade -distorting sp ending. New Zealand sought EU's  clarification  
regarding the  role of its individual member S tates in making  decisions regarding how they would 
implement the proposed CAP reform . The European Union replied that the proposal includ ed a 
possibility for member S tates to have a stronger role in determining which measures they would 
implement. The European  Union noted that the amount available for different  measures  would 
decrease in the proposal. This included  the e nvelope foreseen  for the measures  currently covered 
by the voluntary support and the overall agricultural budget  on direct payments . The European  Union G/AG/W/191  
 
- 40 - 
 
  underlined that , since the Uruguay Round it had implemented the largest  reform s of all 
WTO Members  in terms of reducing trade distorting measures. The European Union noted its interest 
in further reduction s in this area, as reflected in its joint proposal with Brazil prior to the Buenos 
Aries Ministerial conference, and regretted that not many Members were supportive of this idea. 
Paraguay, as a developing country  highly  dependent  on exports  of food,  noted concern regarding  
EU's trade -distorting  domestic support to farmers. Paraguay was particularly interested in reviewing 
EU's responses to question a a nd b. Australia, Canada, and China flagged interest  in EU's ongoing 
CAP reform process.  
AG-IMS ID 89037: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes  
The United States notes that, despite an overall decli ne in  Green Box expenditures 
between  2014/15 and 2015/16, there was an increase for the 'Environmental 
Programmes ' measure under General Services from 5,885.2 million euros in 2014/15 to 
8,121.5 million euros in 2015/16. Please explain the reason(s) for th e increased 
expenditures. Was this a result of any changes to the programmes being administered? If 
so, please explain.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The 2015/16 notification ( as explained during the September 2018 CoA meeting ) was the first year 
in which th e 2013 CAP Reform was fully implemented and  therefore shows up in the 
DS:1 notification. W hilst spending on environmental programmes increased, spending on other 
Green Box support measures decreased, such as direct pay ments and general services. EU  member 
States in implementing the 20 13 CAP Reform chose to prioritiz e environmental measures compared 
to previous CAP programming periods.  
AG-IMS ID 89050: Question by India - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base level 
of production  
EU has notified Voluntary Coupled support for Cereals, Flax and Hemp, Fruit and 
vegetables, Hops, Nuts, Olive Oils, Protein crops, Rice, Silkworms, Sugar beet, Beef, Sheep 
and goat meat and Dairy under Article 6.5 of AoA in the DS Notification of 2015/16. Please 
provide r elevant details of the programme. Please also elaborate how the support fulfils 
the criteria of Article 6.5 of Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The system of voluntary coupled support is fully described in the EU DS:2 no tification G/AG/ N/EU/35 
on page 6.  
AG-IMS ID 89038: Question by United States of America - Payments based on 85 % or less 
of the base level of production  
The United States notes a 50% increase in Blue Box expenditu res from 2,879 million euros 
in 2014/15 to 4,331 million eu ros in 2015/16. It appears that the increase occurred under 
the 'Voluntary Coupled Support ' measures under both 'Payments based on fixed area and 
yields ' and 'Payments based on 85% or less of the base level of production ', but it is not 
quite clear since t his measure is not indicated in the 2014/15 notification.  
 
a. Please confirm whether the 'Payments in  virtue of Art 68 of Regulation  73/2009 ' 
measure for 2014/15 is the same as the 'Voluntary Coupled Support ' measure in 
the 2015/16 notification.  
b. If they are not the same measure, please elaborate on how they are different 
and whether a Table DS:2 will be provided on the 'Voluntary Coupled Support ' 
measure.  
c. If they are the same measure, please explain the reason(s) behind the increased 
expenditures for 'Volunta ry Coupled Support '. G/AG/W/191  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
a. Voluntary Coupled Support is not identical to payments  under Article 68 of Regulation  (EC) 
No 73/2009.  
b. The system of voluntary coupled support is fully described in the EU DS:2  notification 
G/AG/N/EU/35  on page  6. 
c. The 2013 CAP reform increased the amounts a vailable for Blue Box payments entirely by 
reducing the amount available for decoupled direct payments. Overall there was a 
reduction of the total annual budgetary envelope for direct payments (deco upled and 
coupled) for the 2014 -2020 period compared to the previous period 2007 -2013.  
AG-IMS ID 89051: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. The EU has given National aid and Private storage aid for Private Storage Butter, 
Pig meat, Olive oil  and Ethyl alcoho l of agricultural origin during  2015/16 as 
notified in Supporting Table DS:8. This type of support has not been notified 
previously under Supporting Table DS:8. Is it a new programme? India would 
like to have more details of the programme viz., how the programme operates, 
what are the parameters for providing the aid etc.?  
b. EU has notified support under measures such as National aid, Production aid, 
Extraordinary support measures, Restructuring, Specific aid, Green harvesting 
and non -harvest ing and Market withdrawal by Producer Organisations in 
Supporting Table DS:6 of 2015/16 DS:1 Notification. India would like to know if 
these are some new measures by EU. What is the coverage and eligibility criteria?  
Answer by European Union  
 
a. Ethyl alcohol has been notified every year in the EU DS:1 notification.  
Private Storage Aid has existed in EU legislation since the very start of the CAP in the 
1960s '. However, this instrument is not used every year, and therefore only appears in 
the DS:1 notif ication for the years when it has been used. This occurred in the 2015/16 
marketing year. Under Private Storage Aid rules, the EU partly compensates market 
operators for the costs of storing a given product for a certain period, to ensure that the 
product will not be put on the market during that period. The current legal base can be 
found in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 in Articles 8 to 10.  
b. Green and non -harvesting as well as market withdrawals by producer organisations in the 
fruit and vegetables secto r has occurred from the very beginning of the market 
organisation for fruit and vegetables and has been duly notified.  
The extraordinary support measures, were implemented by the EU as a consequence of 
the dairy crisis in 2015 and 2016, and which was cove red by answers from the EU to 
question AG-IMS ID 82027, AG-IMS ID 82028 and AG-IMS ID 81058.  
Production aid for hops, is a specific support program me that has been applied since the 
latest reform of the support for the EU hops sector.  
AG-IMS ID 89039: Que stion by United States of A merica - Other product -specific  
AMS/EMS  
The United States notes a 225% increase for 'milk' support in DS6 between 2014/15 (183 
million euros) and 2015/16 (594 million euros), stemming from the 'extraordinary 
support measures ' programme, a programme which was not included in the 2014/15 DS1 
notification. Please explain what the 'extraordinary support measures ' programme is, 
under what conditions it operates and how payments are determined and if it is expected 
to be used in subsequ ent years.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Answer by European Union  
 
The extraordinary support measures, were implemented by the EU as a consequence of the dairy 
crisis in 2015 and 2016, and which was covered by answers from the EU to question 
AG-IMS ID 82027, AG -IMS ID  82028 and AG-IMS ID 81058. Some residual payments from these 
measures may appear in the DS:1 notification covering 2016/17.  
AG-IMS ID 89049: Question by India - Non-product -specific AMS  
In the Supporting Table DS:9 of DS:1 notification of 2015/16, EU notified "Horizonta l 
support in the Fruit and Vegetables sector". This support was mentioned in the previous 
notifications but the amount of support under this category was not mentioned. Can the 
EU provide more details about the support programme, including its various comp onents?  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
In column 3 of Supporting T able 9 an amount of EUR  2.0 million  is indicated for this measure, which 
is included in the total amount of EUR  14.6 million for Horizontal support in the fruit and vegetable 
sector. This measur e is a minor programme given in a non -product specific manner to reduce 
production in the fruit and vegetable sector.  
 
2.4.5   Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34, G/AG/N/IDN/52,  G/AG/N/IDN/53,  
G/AG/N/IDN/54, G/AG/N/IDN/55 , G/AG/N/IDN/56, G/AG/N/IDN/57)  
AG-IMS ID 89012: Que stion by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that under Infrastructure services, that Indonesia 
has reported expenditures under a new measure called "Construction of irrigation, barns 
and rice field expansion ". a. The policy  specific criteria in paragraph  2(g), Annex 2 
indicates that expenditures should be directed to the provision or construction of capital 
works only, and excludes the subsidization of on -farm facilities other than for the 
reticulati on of generally available public utilities. Could Indonesia provide further details 
on how the "construction of barns and rice field expansion " meet the policy criteria of 
paragraph 2(g)?  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia wishes to inform the Canadian  delegation that the Indonesia's policy including  barns and 
rice field expansion under infrastructural services, as stated in its  notifications,  meets the criteria 
provided in paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2. Those facilities can be used by all farmers, who live  in areas 
where these facilities are available.  
 
Follow -up: The United States register ed interest in the question. Canada noted that it may follow up 
with additional questions on the construction of farms which appeared to be outside  of paragraph 
2(g) of Annex 2 where on -farm facilities  were not covered.  
AG-IMS ID 89013: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
a. In supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that under Public stockholding for food 
security purposes, the description of th e measure changed from "Reserve stock 
for emergency and price stabilization purposes " in the previous notification 
(G/AG/N/IDN/34) to "Reserve stock for emergency ".  
i. Could Indonesia provide further information on the changes to this 
programme whereby price  stabilization purposes is no longer one of the 
objectives?  
ii. Could Indonesia indicate if there is another measure that provides price 
stabilization?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the expenditures for Public 
stockholding for food security pur poses have de creased significantly, from 
IDR 2,160.10 billion in 2011 (G/AG/N/IDN /34) to IDR 76,021 million 
(IDR  0,076 billion) in 2017. Could Indonesia provide further details on the G/AG/W/191  
 
- 43 - 
 
  conditions that led to this significant decrease in expenditures? b. Cou ld 
Indonesia please confirm if changes occurred in the measures? If so, could 
Indonesia explain those changes?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
a. Concerning Canada 's question on the issue of reserve stock for emergency and price 
stabilization, Indonesia  would like to inform that  the two measures remain in place. 
However, in Indonesia's latest notifications, it classified the "price stabilization purposes " 
program me as Market Price Support in ST/ DS:5.  
b. With regard to the decrease of expenditures for fo od security purposes, Indonesia  would 
like to inform that apart from  budge t reduction, it is also due to g overnment 's decision 
that "price stabilization purposes " program me was classified as  Market Price Support in 
Supporting Table DS:5. Therefore, Indones ia confirm s that no change to the  measures are 
made.  
Follow -up: The European Union flagged interest in the question.  
AG-IMS ID 89011: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that compared to Indonesia 's previous annual 
domestic support notification (G/AG/N/IDN/34) that Indonesia 's recently submitted 
notifications no longer include the item "Payments for relief from natural disasters ". Could 
Indonesia confirm that no payment ha s been made to farmers to cover losses from natural 
disasters?  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
In Indonesia's  previous notification (G/AG/N/IDN/34), "payments for relief from natural disasters " 
actually means "international food aid " and it is given in form of rice, instead of payments. Related 
to this, Indonesia has  made correction by putting this program me under category of "food aid " in its 
Export Subsidies notifications.  
 
Follow -up: Canada noted that Indonesia did not respond to the question  concerning whether  
payments  have been made  to farmers to cover losses in the reporting period.  
AG-IMS ID 89014: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
a. In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the expenditures related to 
investment subsidies and input subsidies have in creased significantly, from 
IDR 18,100,062 million in 2012 to IDR 41,423,977 million in 2017. Could 
Indonesia please provide details on the conditions that led to this significant 
increase in expenditures?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:2, for 2012 (G/AG/N/IDN/52), Canada notes that a new 
measure is reported under Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture, namely Facilities and infrastructure to encourage agricultural and 
rural d evelopment, however very limited information regarding the 
program me(s) itself is provided. Could Indonesia please provide further details 
about this program me(s): what types of facilities and infrastructure projects are 
eligible?  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
With respect to the increased expenditures for investment and input subsidies, the government has 
expanded the areas covered by the program me. The assistances for low -income and resource -poor 
farmers, which were previously concentrated in Java island, current ly are also extended to other 
areas with the objective to encourage agriculture and rural development. This program me consists 
of projects related to the provision of agricultural facilities as well as infrastructure development 
(e.g., slaughterhouse and r ice milling unit) aimed at facilitating agriculture and rural development, G/AG/W/191  
 
- 44 - 
 
  particularly in disadvantaged areas. Thus, projects that are eligible to be included in this program me 
are the projects, which encourage agri culture and rural development.  
 
AG-IMS ID 89041: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
The United States thanks Indonesia for bringing its domestic support notifications up to 
date.   
  
a. Please explain how the External Reference Price (ERP) was calculated, including 
any supp orting data or information.  For rice, please indicate whether the ERP is 
on a milled basis or a paddy basis.  
b. The United States notes that BULOG set a procurement target of 2.7 million 
metric ton nes (MMTs) of milled rice equivalent for MY 2017/18. Further 
procurement as of June 2018 was approximately 0.9 MMTs of milled rice 
equivalent, a decrease from 1.3 MMTs in MY 2016/17.  The United States also 
notes procurement quantities of 1.97 MMT i n MY 2014/15 and 2.96 MMT in 
MY 2015/16.  It is also noted that BULOG has a procurement target of 3.7 MMTs 
of milled rice equivalent in MY 2016/17.  
i. Supporting Tables DS:5 in Indonesia 's notifications are notified on a calendar 
year basis rather than marketing year.  Please confirm the dates for which the 
applied administered price is applicable.  
ii. Compared to the procured levels noted by the United States on a milled 
equivalent basis, Indonesia has notified eligible production quantities of 303 
metric ton nes in calendar year 2016 and 58 metric tonnes in calendar year 
2017.  Pleas e explain how eligible production quantities notified were 
determined.  
iii. Please explain whether BULOG is authorized to purchase quantities of rice in 
excess of the procurement target quantity or whether there are any limits on 
the quantity of rice that may b e procured.  If so, please provide a copy of the 
law, regulation or other document that substantiates this.  
iv. Please explain how the procurement target quantity is determined and when.  
v. Please confirm whether the applied price and the eligible production notif ied 
are on a milled basis or paddy basis.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Concerning the basis for External Reference Price calculation, Indonesia is using the average of 1986 
to 1988 c.i.f . unit value for rice and on milled basis.  
 
Concerning the date of applied ad ministered price application, it is in accordance with the applicable 
regulation. With respect to the determination of eligible pr oduction, the quantities that Indonesia  
provide s in its  notifications were the procured quantities used for market operations for price 
stabilization. Regarding the quantity  of rice that BULOG may procure, it is limited to the amount 
stipulated in BULOG 's annual budget. This budget is also reflected in the State Budget.  
AG-IMS ID 89078: Question by European Union - Market price support  
Indonesia in supporting table DS:5 lists its market price support for rice and indicates 
eligible production for this scheme as 58,000  tonnes for 2017 and 45,387  tonnes in  2016.  
 
a. Can Indonesia indicate its total ri ce production in 2016 and 2017.  
b. Can Indonesia indicate which quantity of the above total rice production would 
be of a quality that would qualify it for this scheme.  
c. EU has the impression that this price support scheme is a programme for 
distribution as food aid.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 45 - 
 
  d. Can Indonesia indicate  the quantity distributed in 2016 and 2017 and how many 
people benefitted from this programme in the two years in question.  
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Firstly, Indonesia  wishes to make correction on EU 's observation of Indonesia 's eligible production 
of rice in  2016, it should be 303,042 ton nes, not 45,387 ton nes. Indonesia 's total rice production in 
2016 was around 45,351,382 ton nes and in 2017 was around 46,509,813 ton nes. As stated in its 
ST/DS:5, in 2016 there were 303,042 to nnes of rice qualified for the mar ket price support scheme, 
while in 2017 the number was 58,102 ton nes of rice. On EU 's impression that this price support 
scheme is a programme for distribution as food aid, Indonesia does not share such impression. Food 
aid program me has been notified unde r domestic food aid category in Supporting  Table DS: 1.  
 
Follow -up: The United States expressed interest in the question. Australia  welcome d the large 
number of notifications submitted by Indonesia and encourage d other Members  to do the same.  
 
2.4.6   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/4/CORR.1, G/AG/N/LKA/10, G/AG/N/LKA/11)  
AG-IMS ID 89015: Question by Canada - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the expenditures under Investment subsidies 
generally available to  plantation crops and agricultural crops have in creased significantly, 
from LKR  999.10 million in 2013 (G/ AG/N/LKA/4/Corr.1) to LKR  8,478  million in 2015 
(G/AG/N/LKA/10), but decreased to LKR 2,241 (million) in 2016. Could Sri Lanka please 
provide details on the conditions that led to this significant increase, and followed by a 
sharp decrease in 2016, in expenditures?  
 
Answer by Sri Lanka  
 
The question was submitted to the capital and Sri Lanka is waiting responses. The preliminary 
response is as follows:  
 
Coconut and paddy rice are Sri Lanka's main agricultural crops. More than 80% of agricultural 
production are small and medium scale and are at household level targeting domestic needs. Paddy 
rice, tea and many agricultural crops that Sri Lankan farmers g row are vulnerable to climate change 
especially droughts and heavy rain falls. Therefore, it is required that the government provides 
assistance to farmers who are affected by severe climate conditions which requires re -cultivation 
and extra efforts on mai ntaining the existing crops. Accordingly, the support provided by the 
government to farmers is subject to fluctuations depending on the weather conditions that these 
farmers undergo.  
 
2.4.7   Switzerland -Liechtenstein  (G/AG/N/CHE/84, G/AG/N/CHE/87,  G/AG/N/CHE/88)  
AG-IMS ID 89079: Question by Australia - Direct payments: decoupled income support  
Australia welcomes Switzerland's notification concerning domestic support (Table DS:1) 
for the calendar year 2016 (G/AG/N/CHE/88). Under the category of Decoupled Income 
Support, Australia notes that Switzerland has included "supplement to market earnings".  
  
a. Can Switzerland please state how much of the total 165.5 million CHF decoupled 
income support was directed to "supplement to market earnings"?  
b. Can Switzerland provide  the eligibility criteria for producers to receive a 
supplement to market earnings?  
c. Can Switzerland provide details of what commodities are eligible for a 
supplement to market earnings?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Answer by Switzerland  
 
As the measure under consideration is implement ed only in Liechtenstein, the following answer is 
delivered by Liechtenstein:  
 
a. Decoupled income support in Liechtenstein amounts to CHF 3.3 million (and not to 
165.5  million as referred to in the question). The "supplement to market earnings" 
accounts for a very small portion (2 %) of this support. Cf. question c)  
b. The amounts are paid on the basis of the Government Ordinance on Agricultural Income 
Contribution ( https://www.gesetze.li/konso/2010 067000 ) (text available in German only) 
The general eligibility requirements are set out in Article 4 and special eligibility 
requirements are set out in the other articles. The most important criteria are that the 
farm is recognised under the Agriculture Act and that the entire farm is managed according 
to ecological criteria.  
c. The majority of the payments are not linked to specific agricultural products 
(commodities). These payments are based on the management of agricultural land, animal 
husbandry, ma nagement of land in mountain areas or the summer grazing of animals in 
alpine pastures. A small part, totalling  CHF 65,000 (2.0 % of CHF 3.3 million), concerns 
the additional contribution for selected arable crops. This contribution is paid per hectare 
and amounts to between CHF 700 and CHF 1800 per hectare. The arable crops are: 1. 
rape, sunflowers, oil pumpkins, oil flax, poppies and safflower; 2. seeds of potatoes, maize, 
feed grasses and feed vegetables; 3. soya; 4. field beans, peas and lupins; and 5. sugar 
beet for the manufacture of sugar;  
Follow -up: Paraguay asked  what commodities  could  receive the supplement to market earning s in 
relation to question c ).  
AG-IMS ID 89016: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
In 2014, 2015 and 2016, Switzerland classified programmes described as payments for 
pasture -based milk and meat production and payments for the extensive farming of 
cereals, sunflowers, high -protein peas, field beans and colza as environmental 
programmes.  
 
a. Can Switzerland explain how these two programmes function, particularly with 
respect to their eligibility criteria and the level of payments made by the Swiss 
government?  
b. Are these new programmes? If so, can Switzerland indicate when it expects to 
submit  a DS:2 notification to the Committee?  
c. Can Switzerland explain the rationale behind classifying these two programmes 
as environmental programmes?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
a. Participation in the two programmes mentioned is open -ended. The programmes are 
accessible to farmers who meet the proof of ecological performance (PEP) requirement, 
i.e. those who meet the basic requirements concerning environmental cross -compliance. 
Farmers who choose to participate in pasture -based milk and meat production must 
provide  a yearly feed balance showing that the requirements attached to the payments 
have been met for all the animals on their farms that consume coarse fodder. The payment 
amount is CHF 400 per hectare of pastureland. Average participation is around 78% of 
pastureland and 66% of farms. With regard to payments for extensive farming, farmers 
must determine, before sowing, the crops to which they will apply the requirements for 
these payments. If a farmer specifies a certain crop, then all the plots of land used fo r this 
crop must be farmed in accordance with these requirements. The payment amount is 
CHF 200 per hectare of the crop concerned.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 47 - 
 
  b. Payments for the extensive farming of cereals have existed since the mid -1990s. The 
payments were extended to certain oilseed and protein crops under the 2014 -2017 
agricultural policy (PA 14/17). The programme on pasture -based milk and meat production 
was introduced with the 2014 -2017 agricultural policy (PA 14/17). Switzerland included 
these programmes in notification DS :2, circulated to Members on 4  September  2014 
(G/AG/N/CHE/68), which describes all the new measures introduced under the 2014 -2017 
agricultural policy.  
c. Both programmes are linked to specific criteria, and guarantee financial compensation to 
farmers for additional costs and declines in yields. They therefore fulfil the conditions set 
out in paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. As indicated in notification 
DS:2, milk production involving a low amount of concentrated feed and a high use of 
fodder from meadows and pastures obtains, for most ecological indicators, better results 
per kilo of milk than feed systems that involve a large amount of concentrated feed. 
Payments for pasture -based milk and meat production therefore encourage the use  of 
grass -based ruminant feed that is well -suited to the production site. Payments for the 
extensive farming of cereals, sunflowers, high -protein peas, field beans and colza 
encourage crop production without the use of growth regulators, fungicides, insect icides 
and synthetic chemical natural defence stimulators. Agriculture's negative impact on the 
environment is therefore reduced.  
Follow -up: Paraguay sought further details of the  programme, particularly  on market prices support 
for beef.  
AG-IMS ID 89019:  Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Table DS:7 for the reference years 2015 and 2016, Switzerland notified 
measures described as market price support for bovine meat, eggs and milk and milk 
products.  
 
a. For each of the products  mentioned above, can Switzerland provide further 
details on the programmes included under the measure type described as market 
price support?  
b. Can Switzerland explain how these measures differ from the price support 
policies notified in Supporting Table DS :5 of Switzerland's domestic support 
notification for 2013 (G/AG/N/CHE/72)?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
a. The notified support for bovine meat constitutes Switzerland's contribution to storage costs 
and to offsetting depreciation resulting from the freezing of  veal. The support for eggs 
consists of surplus valorization measures. As indicated in the notification, the support for 
milk and milk products comprises supplements for milk converted into cheese and a 
payment for non -silage feed.  
b. The notified payments  reflect the agricultural policy measures introduced in 2014. The 
content of these measures has not changed in any significant way.  
2.4.8   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/123)  
AG-IMS ID 89017: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, under the heading "General Services " the United States notified 
a significant increase under a programme called "Underwriting gains to insurers " (from 
USD 659 million in 2015 to USD  1,833 mil lion in 2016). Could the United  States o f America 
provide a more detailed explanation of these "underwriting gains to insurers " and indicate 
the reasons for this significant increase?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
Under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement that governs the roles of the Fed eral Risk Management 
Agency (RMA) and private insurers participating in the Federal crop insurance system, RMA shares G/AG/W/191  
 
- 48 - 
 
  both underwriting losses and gains with insurance providers. Underwriting gains or losses to insurers 
are the companies ' share of the diff erence between premium income and indemnity payments during 
the insurance year. In most recent years, premium income has been above indemnities, providing 
underwriting gains to the companies. However, the amount of those gains can vary widely from year 
to year, depending on the level of losses s ustained by insured producers.  
AG-IMS ID 89080: Question by Australia - Domestic food aid  
Australia notes that in Supporting table DS:1 in G/AG/N/USA/123,  the United States has 
notified USD 102.2 billion in domestic  food aid for marketing year 2016. Australia notes 
that the US domestic food aid spending has steadily increased since 2008 -09 at the time 
of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and has been consistently over USD 100 billion since 
2011. Although the GFC is now over, US spending on food aid has not decreased. In 2000, 
the United States  notified that its spending on domestic food aid was USD 32.34 billion; 
in 2009, it was USD 78.80 billion; and in 2014, it was USD 102.84 billion.  
  
a. Can the United States  explain the background for the steady increase in domestic 
food aid spending that has remained above USD 100 billion in recent years?  
b. Has the United States  been reviewing domestic food aid programmes with a view 
to ensuring the suppo rt is still required at such high levels?  
c. Paragraph 4, Annex 2 of the AoA declares that "food purchases by the 
government shall be made at current market prices and the financing and 
administration of the aid shall be transparent". To that end, could the United 
States please explain:  
i. what processes are in place to ensure that food purchases are at market 
prices;  
ii. whether it procures food from international sources, or only from domestic 
sources; and  
iii. what proportion of the food aid is in the form of direc t provision of food versus 
the provision of means to buy food?  
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. U.S. domestic food aid has actually been slowly declining since it peaked at $109.6 billion 
in 2012.  The temporary expansion in eligibility and payments under the USDA 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program me associated with recession 
ended in 2013, and expenditures on domestic food aid have fallen every year since then, 
with 2016 expenditures at $102.8 billion. The decline in total domes tic food aid has been 
slowed by delayed recovery in employment and wages, and by continuing increases in 
expenditures on Child Nutrition Programs, particularly the National School Lunch Program.   
b. The U.S. Congress determines eligibility and payment leve ls for domestic food aid 
program mes. Any changes to nutrition program mes will be determined as part of the Farm 
Bill process, which occurs roughly every five years and is currently being considered by 
the U.S. Congress.  
c.  
i. and ii. The bulk of U.S. domestic food aid is provided through the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  Food purchases through that program me are 
made directly by consumers at retail food outlets; consumers using SNAP benefits 
purchase the same food products as other consumers, which may be domestically 
produced or imported. Food procured for distribution by domestic food aid program mes 
is purchased through a competitive and open bidding process, from domestic sources, 
though internationally owned firms can be vendors.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 49 - 
 
  iii. Direct provision of food made up just over 2 % of the cost of U.S. domestic food aid in 
2016.  
AG-IMS ID 89081: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia welcomes the United States of America's Domestic Support Notification for 
marketing year 2 016 (G/AG/N/USA/123). Australia notes that sugar is the only product 
for which market price support is provided (as per Supporting Table DS:5), and the 
product -specific AMS for sugar is nearly 65%, which is considerably higher than other 
agricultural produ cts notified by the United States. This figure is notably higher than the 
approximately 51% product -specific AMS notified in mar keting year 1995, meaning 
the US has actually gone backwards in terms of possible reforms to the US sugar industry. 
The US's adm inistered price is higher and the eligible production has increased in the last 
20 years.  
 
 Given the sustained high levels of protectionism and do mestic support over the last 
20 years and the current costs on consumers and users, will the United States e ngage in 
genuine reform to the US sugar sector?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
U.S. sugar policy is determined by the U.S. Congress. Any changes to that policy will be determined 
as part of the Farm Bill process, which occurs every approximately ever y five years and is currently 
being considered by the U.S. Congress.  
 
Follow -up: Australia and Brazil repeated their  concern  regarding  the low global sugar prices and the 
excessive support granted to the sector. Australia noted that historically the United  States had 
heavily subsidized  its sugar industry and called on the United States  to undertake  reform s. The 
European Union offered to share its experience in reforming the sugar sector.  
AG-IMS ID 89018: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Sup porting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/USA/123, the United States notified non -product 
specific support of US D 3.777 billion under ARC -CO and US$ 3.272 b illion under PLC 
compared to USD  5.933 billion and US D 1.943 billion under the respective program me for 
2015 (G/AG/N/USA/121). Could the United States explain what caused the significant 
increase in ARC -CO notified support and the significant decrease in PLC notified support 
between 2015 and 2016?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States believes Canada meant to ask "what caused the significant decrease in 
ARC-CO…and t he significant increase in PLC… ". and is answering the question accordingly. The ARC -
CO and PLC program mes operate differently and as such, provide different levels of income  support 
to producers with historical base, depending on the difference between the program me guarantees 
and current conditions. The ARC -CO guarantee is based on average revenue over the preceding five 
years. As prices for some historically -covered commodi ties have decreased over time, the average 
revenue used to calculate the guarantee has declined, leading to smaller income payments on 
historical base enrolled in ARC -CO. The PLC guarantee is a fixed target price, so as prices for some 
historically -covered  commodities have fallen, this has led to larger income payments on historical 
base enrolled in PLC.  
 
Follow -up: The European Union flagged interest in the question . Brazil indicated interest  with respect  
to the increased ARC support a nd the non-product sp ecific nature of the support where they were 
not convinced.  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 50 - 
 
  2.5  New or modified Domestic Support measures (DS:2)  
2.5.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/121)  
AG-IMS ID 89048: Question by India - Direct payments: income insurance and income 
safety -net programmes  
To be eligible to participate in AgriStability, producers must have filed an income tax 
return, have been actively farming for at least six consecutive months, and have 
completed one production cycle during the programme year. AgriStability operates on a 
whole -farm margin b asis, i.e., based on the margin of all commodities on the farm. 
Payments are triggered when a producer's programme margin in the current year drops 
more than 30% below their historical reference margin. A producer's programme margin 
is the difference betwe en their allowable income minus expenses directly related to 
production (e.g., commodity purchases, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and veterinary 
expenses). Adjustments are made for changes in receivables, payables and inventory. A 
producer's reference margi n is the average programme margin of the preceding five 
years, excluding the highest year and the lowest year. Starting in the 2013 programme 
year, the reference margin may be subject to a limit. This limit is the lower of a producer's 
historical reference  margin or the average of allowable expenses reported in previous 
years.  
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue -agency /services/tax/businesses/farmers -fishers/agristability -
agriinvest -programs -farmers.html . 
 
In the above context India would like to seek the following information/clarifications:  
 
a. What is the methodology for calculation of "average historic margin " for payment 
to the beneficiaries in the AgriStability programme notified by Canada in May 
2018?  
b. It has been stated in Canada 's DS:2 Notification that the cost of support will 
fluctuate depending on decline in the income of agricultural producers.  In this 
connection:  
i. What is the budget allotment for the programme?  
ii. What are the allowable margins referred to in the programme?  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
a. The average historical margin  (reference margin) is the Olympic average of allowable 
program me margin of the preceding five years. The calc ulation steps are as follows: 
Canada  takes the preceding five years, Canada  exclude s the year with the highest margin 
and the year with the lowest margin, Canada  sums the remaining three years and divide 
it by t hree. For participants who did not farm for the preceding five years, the reference 
margin is the average of the most recent three reference years. For producers who did not 
farm in the last three years, we use industry average margins to create any missin g years 
until three years of reference history is available.  
b.  
i. There is no budget allotment for the program me. The program me is demand driven. 
For example, in the fiscal year 2016 -2017, The actual spending (authorities used) for 
AgriStability are $346,9 00,856 dollars . For additional details, please refer to th e 
Departmental Results Report ( Table on Performance information dollars ) AgriStability 
program me.  
ii. The allowable margin (Production margin) for a given year is calculated as the 
difference between a llowable income and allowable expenses in that fiscal year. The 
allowable income generally includes all commodity sales and certain program me G/AG/W/191  
 
- 51 - 
 
  payments (e.g. Crop Insurance). The allowable expenses are those that capture input 
costs directly related to the production of commodities in a given year (examples: fuel, 
fertilizer, seed, feed, arm 's length salaries). Non-allowable  expenses include capital 
costs such as land or equipment. Accrual adjustments are applied to the allowable 
income and expenses to inclu de prepaid inputs, accounts payable and receivable, and 
deferred income. Section 4.3 of AgriStability program me Guidelines provide full details 
on the what is included in the allowable income and expenses.  
2.6  Export Subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 and  ES:3)  
2.6.1   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/10)  
AG-IMS ID 89002: Question by Canada - Special and differential treatment (Article 9.4)  
In Supporting Table ES:2 of G/AG/N/MUS/10, Canada notes that Mauritius reported 
export subsidies under Article 9.4. Could Mauritius plea se expand on how it plans to 
implement the Nairobi decision regarding Article 9.4 for least developed countries and net 
food-importing by the end of 2030?  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
 
The Export subsidy being provided by Mauritius is WTO compatible though time -bound. 
Consultations will be held in due course as provided in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration with 
relevant stakeholders to take stock of the situation and on how the support could be phased out.  
 
Follow -up: Canada welcomed Mauritius' response that it would explore possibilities to phase out the 
export subsidies.  
AG-IMS ID 89042: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
Mauritius notifies a freight rebate scheme;  does this subsidy relate  to the Freight Subsidy 
Scheme to Africa, specifically targeting exports to certain ports in Mozambique, Comoros, 
Seychelles, Angola, Cameroon, Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Côte d'Ivoire , Kenya, 
Madagascar, Morocco, Mayotte, Nigeria , Réunion, and Senegal?  
  
According to the Ministry of Finance 's budget, Mauritius spent 20,000,000 Mauritius 
Rupees on the Freight Subsidy Scheme in FY 2017/18 and plans to maintain this level of 
expenditure for the next two years (see page 1 of the budge t document for further 
information: http://mof.govmu.org/English/Documents/2017/Budget2017 -
2018/Estimates17 -18/V_27_012017_18CMI.pdf ). Please e xplain why this notification 
only shows an expenditure of 5,000,000 Mauritius Rupees instead of 20,000,000  Mauritius 
Rupees.  
 
Answer by Mauritius  
 
The subsidy of Rs 5 million under Freight Rebate Scheme (FRS) applies for agricultural exports 
(fruits, veget ables and flowers) to all countries and exports to the above -mentioned  ports are also 
eligible to benefit under the FRS.   
 
This is a new scheme which is different from the notified FRS and target exports to Africa in view of 
the high freight cost due to poor connectivity.  
  
2.6.2   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/92, G/AG/N/ZAF/93)  
AG-IMS ID 89082: Question by Ukraine - Quantity of total exports  
Ukraine notes that South Africadid not provide export subsidies for agricultural products 
in 2015 and 2016 according to G/AG/N /ZAF/92 and G/AG/N/ZAF/93. At the same time, 
there were significant increases in South Africa 's exports of certain goods, including sheep 
meat (by 84 times), deciduous fruits (by 67%), vegetable oils (by 39%), beer (by  36%), 
flour, meal and pellet of fish (by 35%), maize and maize products (by 22%) and others. 
Could South Africa please provide information on circumstances that led to such 
significant increases in exports of the above -mentioned products?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 52 - 
 
  Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa would like to th ank the Ukraine for the interest in its notification. Indeed, when South 
Africa reviewed its notification in reaction to the questions from the Ukraine, South Africa  discovered 
some discrepancies that will be corrected. One of the products that were errone ously reported in 
2016, was, in fact, sheep meat. The correct figure for 2016 was substantially lower indicating a 
decline in exports from 2015. This is one of the corrections we have submitted to the secretariat. 
South Africa would like to thank the Ukrai ne, for pointing this out. The other statistics, mentioned 
by the Ukraine, have been reported correctly.  
  
In addition, South Africa would like to point out that agriculture in Southern Africa is in general very 
volatile due to the prevailing weather, prod uct price fluctuations and exchange rate movements. In 
2016, in certain regions of the country, we had the worst drought in human memory. This impacted 
on production and exports, sometimes differently on different products. Also, South Africa reports 
the e xport statistics on a calendar year basis, this sometimes masks the impact of production 
fluctuations in the growing season of the relevant product.  
  
Further, over both reported calendar years, the South African Rand has been very volatile, 
contributing t o large changes in exported quantities.  
 
South Africa would like to underline, however, that no export subsidies have been provided in the 
period under review. Product prices, including export prices, are determined by market forces.  
 
Follow -up: Ukraine un derlined the i mportance of respecting  the Nairobi Ministerial Decision . 
 
2.6.3   Zimbabwe (G/AG/N/ZWE/10)  
AG-IMS ID 89044: Question by United States of America -  
Did Zimbabwe support or incentivize exports for any tobacco farmers under the Command 
Agricultural Program in 2017? If so, please describe how this programme operates, including outlays, 
and if Zimbabwe intends to notify this programme.  
 
Answer by Zimbabw e 
 
Zimbabwe undertook to prov ide a response at a later stage  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  Imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2)  
3.1.1   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/46)  
AG-IMS ID 89034: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues  
Ecuador has not yet responded to the questions posed by  the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 88099.  The United States reposes the questions with the following 
modifications:  
 
a. Ecuador registers no imports coming under TRQ commitments. The Unit ed States 
is the holder of first -negotiator rights for these quotas. Please explain how do 
Ecuador's TRQ in -quota tariff rates compare to the MFN current applied rates to 
these products that would otherwise be eligible under Ecuador's TRQs?  
b. Please explain why Ecuador has not opened or allocated quotas to interested 
parties.  
c. The United States also notes that Ecuador's import permit system is complex and 
obscure, and therefore, difficult for exporters to comply with.  Please explain your 
process for issuing im port licenses for foods.  Please describe the specific steps, 
including those relating to sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, necessary 
to obtain an import license.  Please explain if the process varies depending on the G/AG/W/191  
 
- 53 - 
 
  product.  That is, are there addit ional steps required for some products and not 
others?  If so, please explain.  
Answer by Ecuador  
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
3.2  Domestic Support commitments (Table DS:1)  
3.2.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/BHR/7, G/AG/N/BHR/10)  
AG-IMS ID 89035: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 88101, for which the Kingdom of Bahrain has not 
responded:  
  
In Supporting Table DS:1 for 2012 and 2014 , the Kingdom of Bahrai n notified "plant 
protection" as a pest and disease control measure under Annex 2. No pest and disease 
control measure was notified for 2013 in  G/AG/N/BHR/7, but the Kingdom of Bahrain did 
notify "Land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services" as a general services 
meas ure for that year as well as in  2011 and previous years. In 2015, 2016 and  2017, the 
Kingdom of 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 o f some of these measures (e.g.,  "plant 
protection" and "land preparation, crop protection, veterinary services") 
indicates whether the same programme received funding in only certain years or 
if a new programme was int roduced with the same name.  Please clarify.  
b. For each measure notified in Supp orting Table DS:1 by the Kingdom of 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 f or each new exempt measure 
(e.g., "plant protection" and "Plant Protection, national campaign for the control 
of red palm weevil") will be submitted to this Committee.  
Answer by Bahrain , Kingdom of  
 
The Kingdom of Bahrain undertook to provide a response at  a later stage.  
 
3.2.2   Ecuador (G/AG/N/ECU/47, G/AG/N/ECU/48, G/AG/N/ECU/49)  
AG-IMS ID 89036: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 88106, for which Ecuador has not yet provided a 
written response:  
 
a. 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, 
Aquacu lture and Fisheries, according to its website, subsidized a share of the 
cost of inputs, such as urea and potassium fertilizer, seeds, and other supplies 
for farmers of several commodities including corn and rice. Since 2014, 
preferential attention has bee n paid to bananas 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.   G/AG/W/191  
 
- 54 - 
 
  i. 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.  
ii. Are these input subsidies notified in Ecuador's current domestic support 
notifications?   
iii. If so, please explain how they re portedly meet the green box criteria under 
which they are notified.   
iv. If not, please explain the basis for not notifying them, including whether 
Ecuador will notify these measures for past years.  
b. According to the Ministry's website, input packages or "kits"  purchased by 
producers also included agricultural insurance covering losses.  
i. 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. 
ii. Was the insurance included in these kits the same as the support notified for 
2011 in  G/AG/N/ECU/11?  
c. The United States notes that in 2015 it was reported that a diesel subsidy 
provided by the government had been eliminated, which resulted in higher di esel 
cost for producers.  
Please confirm that this diesel subsidy was eliminated and clarify whether 
Ecuador has notified this measure and if not, the basis for not notifying.  
Answer by Ecuador  
 
Ecuador undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3.2.3   Kyrgyz Republic (G/AG/N/KGZ/4)  
AG-IMS ID 89040: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The United States resubmits A G-IMS ID 88113, for which the Kyrgyz Republic has not yet 
provided a written response:  
  
a. Since the Kyrgyz Republic's last notification for 2012, it appears several new 
exempt measures have been introduced including "extension and advisory 
services to the agricultural sector."  
i. Please explain when this new measure was introduced and how it is 
implemented.  
ii. Does the Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit a Table DS:2 notification for this 
measure, as well as overdue DS:1 notifications for 1999 -2011 as noted in 
response to AG -IMS ID 85047 and for the years 2013 -2014?  
b. It is noted that the Kyrgyz Republic undertook commitments in its domestic 
currency. While the transparency of the notification of the exchange rate used 
for U.S. dollars is appreciated, the United States request the Kyrgyz Republic to 
please notify in its  domestic currency.  
Does the Kyrgyz Republic plan to submit future notifications in its local currency?  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Answer by the Kyrgyz Republic  
 
The Kyrgyz Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
3.3  Export Subsidy notifications  (Tables ES:1, ES:2 a nd ES:3 ) 
3.3.1   Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/44)  
AG-IMS ID 89043: Question by United States of America - Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4)  
Panama has not provided a written response to the questions posed by the United States 
in AG IMG ID 88115. Thus, the U nited States repeats them here:  
  
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 Pan amanian law (Annex 1 law No.  82, 
31 December  2009), was started in calendar year 2010, and provides agricultural 
producers with an export subsidy for marketing costs incurred in concepts of handling, 
packaging and inland and ocean freight costs. Please expla in the basis for not notifying 
this measure in Supporting Table ES:2.  
 
Answer by Panama  
 
Panama undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  China  
AG-IMS ID  89083: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (8800 9) at CoA meeting 88, Australia notes China 's latest 
domestic support notification (G/AG/N/CHN/29) c overs the reporting period  2009 -2010.  
 
 Can China please inform Members on its efforts to submit outstanding domestic support 
notifications from 2011 onwards?  
 
Answer by China  
 
The technical work related to the notifications on domestic support for the year 2011 -2016 has been 
concluded. The notifications w ill be submitted upon approval.3 
 
Follow -up: Canada, the European Union and the United States registered interest in the upcoming 
notification.   
 
4.2  Korea, Republic of  
AG-IMS ID  89084: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia 's question (88008) at CoA meeting 88, Australia notes the Republic 
of Kor ea'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 submit outstanding 
domestic support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
 
                                                
3 China's Domestic Support notifications covering the period of 2011 -2016 were circulated on 14 
December 2018.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 56 - 
 
  Answer by Korea , Repub lic of 
 
The Republic of Korea is  currently compiling da ta for the notification. Once the Republic of Korea  
completes  collecting all the required information it will notify  to the WTO.  
4.3  Malaysia  
AG-IMS ID  89085: Question by Australia  
Australia notes Malays ia's latest domestic support notification (G/AG/N/MYS/32) covers 
the reporting period 2008 -2011. Can Malaysia please inform Members on its efforts to 
provide updated domestic support notifications from 2012 onwards?  
 
Answer by Malaysia  
 
Malaysia is finaliz ing its domestic notification and will submit it once it is finalized.  
 
4.4  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 8908 6: Question by European Union  
The EU notes that the last Thailand´s notification on export subsid ies covers the 
year 2013. Can Thailand indicate when the missing notifications will be submitted?  
 
Answer by Thailand  
 
The relevant agency is in the process of gathering information for export subsidy notifications for 
the period of 2014 -2017. Thailand will notify to the WTO in due course.  
 
4.5  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID  89087: Question by Australia  
Further to Australia's questions, (AG -IMS ID 85062 and AG -IMS ID 88006) at 85th and 
88th CoA meetings, regarding Turkey's outstanding notifications:  
 
Could Turkey provide an update on its progress to submit outstanding domest ic support 
and export subsidy notifications?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
The data gathering, calculation and formulization related to the notifications process in Turkey has 
been ongoing throughout the related se ctions of the Ministries . Turkey would like to announ ce that 
DS notifications for 2005 -2009 have been submitted to the Secretariat. Turkey will continue to 
answer questions in the next Committee in line with transparency obligations under the WTO. Once 
again Turkey would like to thank Members for the patienc e and corporation.  
 
Follow -up: Australia, Canada and the European Union welcomed Turkey's recent DS notifications 
and encouraged Turkey to continue the efforts in updating its notification .  
 
4.6  Ukraine  
AG-IMS ID 8908 8: Question by European Union  
In the lat est years, Ukraine has significantly increased its support to the agricultural 
sector. However the latest DS:1 notification from Ukraine covers the year 2012. Can 
Ukraine indicate any timeline for when the membership can expect to see the outstanding 
DS:1 notifications.  
 
Answer by Ukraine  
 
Ukraine thanks the European Union for its question and informs that DS:1 notifications for the period 
2013-2015 are currently being prepared by the relevant authorities.  G/AG/W/191  
 
- 57 - 
 
  These notifications will cover total domestic suppo rt for agriculture, including Green Box and Amber 
Box measures, and, in particular, MPS for sugar and the special VAT treatment regime for agricultural 
producers (accumulation of VAT amounts in special accounts).  
 
Given the difficulties in obtaining archival information on domestic support measures, preparation 
of notifications for the period 2013 -2015 is expected to be completed in early 2019, and notifications 
are planned to be submitted prior to the June 2019 CoA meeting.  
 
Ukraine notes that in 201 7 the special VAT regime for agricultural producers was completely repealed 
so that the agricultural sector operates on general VAT terms. Also, on 4 September 2018 Law 
number 2518 was adopted, which abolished the market price support for sugar in Ukraine.  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 89045: Question by United States of Amer ica  
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.1 and Export Credit - 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
India has not provided a response to the questions posed  by the United States in 
AG-IMS ID 88088.  Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
  
The United States notes that government of India th rough the Reserve Bank of 
India  (RBI), since  2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre- and Post-Shipment  Rupee Export Credit for el igible exporters for agricultural 
products.  The rate of interest equalization is 3% and the scheme is available to certain 
exports, including certain agricultural and food products.  
 
a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural products while providing at the same 
time interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, 
including the specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
c. Please explain how this measure complies with India's WTO commitments, and 
if direct l ending is provided by RBI, why  this export financing support activity 
has not been reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
Answer by India  
 
The lending to the agricultural exporters under the scheme which provide  interest equalisation 
support at 3% on pre- and post-shipment  rupee export credit is done by the Banks. The Scheme is 
available to all MSME exporters and exporters under 416 specified tariff lines (list at 
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=10159 ) but excludes merchant 
exporters. This scheme is in the nature of working capital support, which is WTO compatible. 
Regarding second part of part (c) of the question plea se ref er to India's  response to 
question  AG-IMS ID 89059 (e).   
 
5.2  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 89046: Questio n by United States of America  
Turkey has not provided a response to the question p osed by the United States 
in AG-IMS ID 88116.   
  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid. What 
is the basis for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?  
 G/AG/W/191  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey  
 
There is no specific reason for not including Turkey's food aid in ES:3 notifications. Turkey will make 
this notifi cation together with other export subsidy notifications which are being prepared by its 
authorities.  
 
__________