G/AG/W/178  
 
30 May 2018  
(18-3252) Page: 1/47 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 11-12 JUNE 20181 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
28 May 2018 a s specified in WTO/AIR/AG/27 . 
 
_______________  
 
  
                                                
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.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1   EU - Amendments to Income Stabilisation Tool  ................................ ...............................  5 
1.1.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 87080)  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
1.2   India's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.2.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87079)  ................................ ................................ .... 5 
1.2.2    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87002)  ................................ ..........................  7 
1.3   India's rice procurement  ................................ ................................ ...............................  7 
1.3.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87078)  ................................ ..........................  7 
1.4   Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  ................................ ...................  8 
1.4.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87020)  ................................ .............  8 
1.5   Moldova's draft regulation on amendments to Law on Internal Trade  ................................ . 8 
1.5.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87092)  ................................ ................................ ..... 8 
1.6   Norway's export subsidy for butter  ................................ ................................ ................  9 
1.6.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87096)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.7   Switzerland -Liechtenstein's new support policy  for dairy and cereals  ................................ .. 9 
1.7.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87091)  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.8   Switzerland's levies on imports of certain agricultural goods  ................................ .............  9 
1.8.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87102)  ................................ ..........................  9 
1.9   U.S. Commodity Credit Corporation funds  ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
1.9.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87104)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
1.10   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ........ 10 
1.10.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87014)  ................................ .......... 10 
1.10.2    Questio n by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87062)  ................................ ........................... 10 
1.11   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
1.11.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87160) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87063)  ........... 10 
1.11.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87159) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87064)  ........... 10 
1.11.3    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87065) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 87015)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 11 
1.12   Canada's wine sale policy  ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 
1.12.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87066) and United States  of America 
(AG-IMS ID 87016)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 
1.13   European Union's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ .................. 12 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87067)  ................................ ................................ .12 
1.14   EU intervention stocks of skim milk podwer  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.14.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87069)  ................................ ........................... 13 
1.15   India's minimum support prices for wheat  ................................ ................................ ....13 
1.15.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87068)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.16   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87070)  ................................ ................................ .14 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87072)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.16.3    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87075)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.16.4    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87076)  ................................ ................................ .15 
1.16.5    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87077)  ................................ ................................ .16 
1.16.6    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87074)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.16.7    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87071)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.16.8    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87073)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
1.16.9    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87001)  ................................ ....................... 16 
1.16.10    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 87087)  ................................ ................. 17 
1.16.11    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87088)  ................................ ................................ .17 
1.16.12    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87017)  ................................ ......... 17 
1.17   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ................. 19 
1.17.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87089)  ................................ ........................... 19 
1.17.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87018)  ................................ .......... 20 
1.18   Indonesia's soybean imports  ................................ ................................ ...................... 21 
1.18.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87019)  ................................ .......... 21 
1.19   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..21 
1.19.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 87090)  ................................ ................................ .21 
1.20   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ ......21 
1.20.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 87094)  ................................ ................... 21 
1.21   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 
1.21.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87081)  ................................ ................................ .22 
1.22   Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  ................................ ................................ ............... 23 
1.22.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87021)  ................................ .......... 23 
1.23   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 
1.23.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87082)  ................................ ................................ .23 
1.24   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ ........................... 23 
1.24.1    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87098)  ................................ ................................ ...23 
1.24.2    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87022)  ................................ .......... 23 
1.25   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 
1.25.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87023)  ................................ .......... 24 
1.26   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....25 
1.26.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87105)  ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.26.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87106)  ................................ ................................ ...25 
1.27   U.S. support to cotton sector ................................ ................................ ...................... 25 
1.27.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 87103) ................................ ................................ ......25 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  26 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 26 
2.1.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/116)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 26 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 27 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.2.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/120)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 
2.2.2    Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/46)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 
2.2.3    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/225)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 
2.2.4    Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/19)  ................................ ................................ ........ 28 
2.2.5    Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/161)  ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
2.2.6    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/120)  ................................ .............................. 28 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 29 
2.3.1    Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  ................................ ............................ 29 
2.3.2    Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/48)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 29 
2.3.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34, G/AG/N/EU/34/Corr.1)  ................................ .............. 30 
2.3.4    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  ................................ ................................ ............... 30 
2.3.5    Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/60)  ................................ ................................ ................... 32 
2.3.6    India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 
2.3.7    Lao People's Democratic Republic (G/AG/N/LAO/2)  ................................ ...................... 37 
2.3.8    Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/36)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 37 
2.3.9    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 
2.3.10    Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/48, G/AG/N/PHL/49, G/AG/N/PHL/50, G/AG/N/PHL/51, 
G/AG/N/PHL/52)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 38 
2.3.11    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/84)  ................................ ................................ ................. 39 
2.3.12    Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/52)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 40 
2.3.13    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121) ................................ ............................. 41 
2.4   EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ........ 44 
2.4.1    Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/118)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  44 
3.1   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 44 
3.2   India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................... 45 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  45 
4.1   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 
4.2   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 46 
4.3   Pakistan  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47 
4.4   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 
 
  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTIC LE 18.6 
1.1  EU - Amendments to Income Stabilisation Tool  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 87080)  
With regard to the EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), major improvements to the 
EU agriculture rules came into force on 1 January 2018 following the adoption by the Council of 
Agriculture Ministers and the European Parliament, of the agriculture and rural de velopment part 
of the so -called Omnibus regulation.  
 
One of the key points mentioned in these amendments relates to the Income Stabilisation Tool. 
Changes are made in the Rural Development Regulation to provide for a sector specific income 
stabilisation t ool which will give Member Sates the possibility to design a tool tailored for a specific 
sector. While the support linked to the general income stabilisation tool will continue to be 
triggered when the farmer's income drops by more than 30% of his/her ave rage annual income, 
the threshold for the new sector -specific tool will be 20%. Further, in order to promote the use of 
insurance by farmers, the threshold for drop in production applicable for insurance will be now 
20%, in place of 30% earlier.  
 
India no tes that the EU has notified expenditure on CAP as "enhancing public awareness of the 
Common Agricultural Policy " under Marketing and promotion services category of "Measures 
exempt from the reduction commitment "Green Box" " in its DS:1 supporting table in  
G/AG/N/EU/43 for marketing year 2014 -15.  
 
In order to categorize such an income safety programme under Green box, conditions laid down in 
paragraph 7 of Annex 2 of the AoA should be complied with. In this regard, India wants EU to 
answer the following:  
 
a. Can EU specify or give examples of the sectors for which the new sector -specific tools 
will be applicable?  
b. Since the new policy intends to reduce the threshold for drop in income to be eligible for 
support from 30% to 20%, how does EU see the compliance of  this measure with 
paragraph 7 (a) of Annex 2 of the AoA, given that the programme has earlier been 
notified under Green box?  
c. How is this new measure compatible with paragraph 7 (c) of Annex 2 of the AoA?  
1.2  India's sugar policies  
1.2.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87079)  
Export quota and financial assistance  
 
Australia notes extensive media reports about India's surging sugar production in 2017 -18 and 
calls for assistance from the Indian sugar industry for government intervention to support 
domestic prices. In response, the Indian Government announced a suite of measures since 
February, which have had a dampening effect on the world sugar market. On 28 March 2018, 
India's Department of Food & Public Distribution (DFPD) ann ounced in File No. 1(4)/2018 -SP-I a 
two million tonne (20 Lakh tonnes) export quota for all grades of sugar in  2017-18 under its 
Minimum Indicative Export Quotas (MIEQ). India also removed a 20% export duty on sugar in 
March 2018, increased the import tariff on sugar from 50 to 100% in February 2018, and imposed 
reserve stockholding limits on producers of sugar for the months of February and March 2018. 
According to the DFPD announcement, the MIEQ scheme was implemented "[i]n view of the 
inventory levels with the sugar industry and to facilitate achievement of financial liquidity" . The 
export quota has been prorated among sugar factories and allocated at Annexure -A to the MIEQ.  
  
a. Can India provide data on the value and volume of exports of sugar under the export 
quota since it was announced on 28 March 2018?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 6 - 
 
  b. Given the gap between world sugar prices and internal Indian sugar prices/cost of 
production, are there any export incentive s or subsidies provided as part of the export 
quota to make the exports commercially viable?  
c. Can India explain the meaning of paragraph 7 of DFPD File No. 1(4)/2018 -SP-I which 
states that sugar mills failing to undertake the export of sugar allocated to t hem shall be 
deemed to be violating the directives of the Government issued under clause 5 of Sugar 
(Control) Order, 1966?  
i. What penalties may a sugar mill face if it does not export its allocated quota volume?  
ii. Does paragraph 7 means the export quota is e ffectively a mandatory requirement?  
The announcement of an export quota was followed by an announcement of financial assistance to 
sugar mills for clearing cane dues of farmers by India 's Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs 
(CCEA) on 2 May 2018. This sc heme will pay sugar mills Rs. 55 pe r tonne of cane crushed in 
2017-18 and would help clear cane price d ues of farmers of more than Rs.  19,000 crore 
(approximately USD $2.8 billion).  
Further to the CCEA announcement, India 's DFPD issued a notification for t he Scheme for 
Assistance to Sugar Mills in No. 1(5)/2018 -S.P.-I on 9 May 2018. This provided the eligibility 
criteria for the financial assistance, including mills needing to "have fully complied with all the 
orders/directive of the Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) to the sugar mills 
during  2017-18 sugar season."  
d. Can India explain which orders/directive of the Department of Food and Public 
Distribution (DFPD) to the sugar mills during 2017 -18 sugar season?  
i. Does this include sugar mills me eting the prescribed quantities of sugar under the 
export quota in Annexure -A to the MIEQ?  
e. Recent media reporting indicates that a number of sugar mills will not be eligible for the 
financial assistance, since they did not meet the reserve stockholding li mits on producers 
of sugar for the months of February and March 2018  
i. Can India confirm whether a sugar mill needs to have met the reserve stockholding 
limits to be eligible for financial assistance?  
ii. Is India considering changing the announced eligibility  criteria to address this issue 
of reserve stockholding limits?  
f. Can India advise whether financial assistance will be withheld to sugar mills not 
exporting prescribed quantities of sugar at Annexure -A to the MIEQ?  
i. If so, given India does not have any sch eduled export subsidy entitlements, can 
India explain the consistency of making financial assistance contingent on fulfilling an 
export quota allocation consistent with India's commitments under Article 9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
g. Does India think it is sustainable to continue to addressing domestic overproduction in 
the medium to long term through export quotas and incentives?  
h. Is India considering changes to its domestic support programmes for the sugar industry, 
in particular the "Fair and Remune rative Price" to cane growers, to address the 
overproduction and avoid future cane arrears?  
i. Has India considered more market -oriented forms of domestic support, which allow 
prices signals to reach producers and is more sustainable and effective to support  the 
livelihood of farmers and avoid the accumulation of cane arrears in order of USD$2.8 
billion?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Deferral of future sugar import duties  
India's Directorate General of Foreign Trade Notification No. 57/2015 -2020 on 28 March 2018 
announced the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme allowing import duties on future 
sugar imports to be waived until September 2021 for sugar millers that export sugar this crushing 
season (2017/18).  
j. Can India provide data on the value and volume of exports of sugar unde r the 
DFIA scheme since it was announced on 28 March 2018?  
k. Given India does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements, can India explain 
the consistency of allowing future import duties on sugar to be waived contingent on 
exports of sugar this cr ushing season with India 's commitments under Article 9 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.2.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87002)  
a. Can India indicate the current support price for sugar for sugar cane growers in India 
(expressed in raw sugar or white su gar equivalent per metric tonne). If prices are 
different across states, can India please indicate the support in each state.  
b. Can India confirm that sugar mills have been obliged to export 2 million tonnes of sugar 
of the sugar production of this marketing year.  
c. Can India indicate whether the sugar mills or sugar cane producers will be compensated 
for any of the differences betw een the internal support price and the world market sales 
price for the sugar to be exported.  
1.3  India's rice procurement  
1.3.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87078)  
According to the data available on the Food Corporation of India 
(http://fci.gov.in/procurements.php?view=89 ) webpage, the minimum price support for paddy 
during the 2016/17 season was at least 1,470 rupees/quintal, i.e. 14,700 rupees/tonne.  The 
Indian fixed external reference price for rice in its schedule is 3,520 rupees/tonne. The currency in 
which the FERP is fixed is rupee.  
 
According to the FCI web -page 
(http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Procurement/Statewise%20Procurement%20of%20Rice(KM
S%202016 -17 )_44.pdf ) FCI procured 381.06 LMT of rice in the 2016/17 marketing year, i.e 38.1 
million tonnes of rice.  Total production of rice in India during the same perio d, according to the 
AMIS database 
(http://fci.gov.in/app/webroot/upload/Procurement/Statewise%20Procurement%20 of%20Rice(KM
S%202016 -17)_44.pdf) was 110.15  million tonnes.  Therefore, in total India procured around 
34,6% of the rice produced with a procuremen t price that means more than four times higher than 
the fixed external reference price in India's schedule of concessions.  
 
In light of the above could India validate the figures above and clarify:  
 
a. How does India intend to respect its product -specific de minimis  support limit for rice, in 
particular in a situation where price gap would be calculated on the basis of eligible 
production and not on the basis of procured production as ruled by the Korea beef 
case (DS161)?  
b. How would India define "excessive rate of inflation" as stipulated in Article  18:4 of 
the AoA? 
c. When does India intend to submit its outstanding domestic support notifications  (DS:1) 
providing all relevant details for the price gap calculations as operated by the FCI during 
the years concer ned? G/AG/W/178  
 
- 8 - 
 
  d. Since the calculation above shows that the product -specific de minimis  domestic support 
is above the 10% limit, is India considering triggering an interim mechanism for the 
public stockholding for food security purposes as laid down in the Bali Minist erial 
Decision of 7 December 2013?  
1.4  Indonesia's import restrictions on horticultural products  
1.4.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87020)  
Indonesia has expanded seasonal restrictions for 2018, including new restrictions on apples, 
oranges, clemen tines, lemons, and other products.  In the Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes 
WTO dispute, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body found that Indonesia 's seasonal restrictions on 
horticultural products are inconsistent with the WTO Agreements and issued a recomme ndation 
that Indonesia bring this measure —and 17 others —into compliance with its WTO obligations. 
Indonesia has stated that it intends to comply with the WTO recommendations and rulings in the 
dispute.  
 
a. Will Indonesia commit to not implement seasonal restr ictions for horticultural product 
imports for the remainder of 2018?   
b. The US understands that Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture held a public hearing on 
May 16, 2018 to discuss possible revisions to its regulatory requirements for imports of 
horticultura l products, including the elimination of seasonal restrictions. Will the revised 
measures being considered be in force in time to allow apple imports for the months of 
August -October and lemon imports for the mo nths of May -August and 
November -December?  
c. Will Indonesia publish the revised measure for comment by WTO members? Does 
Indonesia intend to notify these revisions to the WTO?  
d. What other changes is Indonesia recommending to its existing requirements?  
The US understands that during the first -half of 201 8, Indonesia 's Ministry of Trade  (MOT) issued 
horticultural product import permits nearly six weeks late.  
  
e. What was the cause of this delay?  
f. What measures have MOT taken to ensure that second half of 2018 import permits are 
issued on time?   
g. When will MOT issue these import permits?   
1.5  Moldova's draft regulation on amendments to Law on Internal Trade  
1.5.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87092)  
The Republic of Moldova is considering a draft regulation regarding the amendments to the Law on 
Internal Trade that would favour domestically produced products and restrict imported goods. The 
draft regulation says: "14) The merchant is obliged to purchas e and ensure the laying of food 
products from the short food chain on the shelf, in proportion not less than 50% of the linear 
length of the trading shelf. The list of food products that fall under these provisions is approved by 
the government and is upda ted annually " and "Short food chain – supply chain of food products 
produced and/or processed in the territory of the Republic of Moldova ".  
  
a. In this regards could Moldova please provide an update on the implementation status of 
this draft regulation?  
b. Which products could be included in the abovementioned list?  
c. What steps is Moldova taking to ensure that any regulation affecting imports of 
agricultural products is consistent with its WTO commitments?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.6  Norway 's export subsidy for butter  
1.6.1   Question by New Z ealand (AG -IMS ID 87096)  
New Zealand notes that contrary to the MC10 Export Competition Decision, Norway 's notified 
export subsidy outlays for butter in 2016 are 1154% of those in the previous five years. They are 
also 250% of outlays in 2015.  
  
a. Footnote 4 of the MC10 Export Competition Decision requires that there shall be no 
export subsidies applied to new markets and that product shall not be destined for least 
developed countries. Which markets did the export subsidised butter go to in 2015 and 
2016?  
b. What steps is Norway taking to bring its export subsidy outlays for butter back within the 
previous 5 year average required by paragraph 10 of the Decision?  
1.7  Switzerland -Liechtenstein's new support policy for dairy and cereals  
1.7.1   Question by European Union (A G-IMS ID 87091)  
In document G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.1 Switzerland -Liechtenstein mentions that its parliament has 
approved "accompanying measures, including new support for dairy and cereal products that is not 
linked to exports, and a simplified authorization  procedure for inward processing traffic in the basic 
dairy and cereal products that currently benefits from export contributions ". 
 
a. Could Switzerland -Liechtenstein explain the functioning of the new support measures for 
dairy and cereal products?  
b. Could Sw itzerland -Liechtenstein explain the changes made in respect of inward 
processing?  
1.8  Switzerland's levies on imports of certain agricultural goods  
1.8.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87102)  
The EU understands that Switzerland applies levies on imports of ce rtain agricultural goods that 
are subject to compulsory reserve stock requirements to finance these reserve stocks. These fees 
are applied to imports in addition to customs duties, while they are not applied to the domestically 
produced products. Could Swi tzerland please explain how thi s measure complies with 
Article  III GATT?  
 
1.9  U.S. Commodity Credit Corporation funds  
1.9.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87104)  
In the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Congress lifted certain restrictions on the Agriculture 
secretary's  authority to use Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds. Canada understands that 
the CCC can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department at any one time to stabilize 
farm income such as assisting farmers through loans, purchases, payments and other operations.  
 
a. Could the US please provide the reasoning for lifting restrictions on the USDA 's authority 
to use CCC funds, and name the programs that will be eligible for these new funds?  
b. Can the US use these funds to purchase domestically produced commodities? If so, 
would the USDA still use its Section 32 funding to purchase and remove the surplus of 
domestically produced agriculture commodities such as cheeses for domestic food aid 
purpo ses?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.10  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.10.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87014)  
a. The United States, along with several other Members, has expressed concern at previous 
meetings of the COA over the potentially trade -distorting effects of PE P and PEPRO 
programmes.   
Brazil stated in its response to AG -IMS ID 86031 that, "the information requested 
(destination) by the United States is not available, since there is no data for quantities of 
products shipped to specific destinations under the pro gramme. The government 
requires information regarding proof of outflow of the production, but no data is 
retrieved regarding final destinations. " 
If Brazil does not collect data on the final destinations of products shipped under the PEP 
and PEPRO programm es, how can Brazil say with certainty that many of the products 
shipped under the PEP and PEPRO programmes are not exported? How does Brazil verify 
eligibility of supported commodities for PEP and PEPRO?   
b. On 29 December 2017, the Brazilian Ministry of Agri culture, Livestock and 
Supply  (MAPA) announced it would hold PEP/PEPRO auctions for rice, with an authorized 
amount of up to $100 million reis. For more details please see: 
http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/governo -fara-leiloes -de-pep-e-pepro -para-arroz  
i. Please explain how long MAPA is planning to offer PEP/PEPRO support to rice.   
ii. In addition to rice, does MAPA have plans to use PEP/PEPRO for other agr icultural 
commodities in 2018?  
1.10.2   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87062)  
In its answer on 27 May 2017 (AG IMS ID 84073), Brazil indicated that under PEP and PEPRO they 
provide assistance to the 'outflow of products ' when prices in a particular region are b elow a 
legislated minimum, and that the programmes allow supported products to be exported. What 
measures is Brazil taking to ensure that these programmes do not circumvent the elimination of 
export subsidy commitments?  
 
1.11  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87160 ) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87063)  
New Zealand notes Canada 's response at the 86th Comm ittee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID  86030) 
with respect to trade data, and recalls that Canada's exports of SMP  increased 73% between 2015 
and 2016, and 203% between 2016 and 2017. While Canada claims to be a small world producer 
and exporter of SMP, this dramatic increase in Canadian exports is having a material impact on 
world dairy markets.  
  
New Zealand also a ppreciates that market conditions play a role in the volume and value of 
exports skim milk powder exports. However, since Class 7 was implemented Canadian SMP export 
prices have consistently undercut export prices from other major SMP exporters by a signif icant 
margin. Indeed, in the 12 months since Class 7 was introduced, the monthly unit price of Canadian 
SMP, in US Dollars, has been on average 20% lower than the unit price for New Zealand exports of 
SMP (and on average 24% lower than the unit price for E U28 (external trade) exports of SMP).  
  
Given the sharp increase in Canadian exports of SMP coupled with the consistently lower unit price 
for exports of SMP, how does Canada explain this persistent price difference?  
 
1.11.2   Question by  Australia (AG -IMS ID 871 59) and  New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87064)  
In responding to New Zealand and the United States ' questions at the 86th Committee on 
Agriculture, Canada avoided answering satisfactorily the question about providing monthly volume G/AG/W/178  
 
- 11 - 
 
  data, so New Zealand again asks: P lease provide monthly volumes of milk components 
(i.e. butterfat, proteins, and other solids) for which processors are paying Class 7 prices, as well as 
total utilisation for all classes.  
  
New Zealand notes that while Canada is no longer publishing this information on the Canadian 
Dairy Information Centre website, according to the Dairy Farmers of Canada annual report 
for 2016-2017 (refer https://www.dairyfarmers.ca/new s-centre/document -library/annual -report , 
page 23), information on milk utilisation and sales is available through "dashboards " designed for 
market analysis.  
  
New Zealand remains very concerned at the apparent lack of transparency in Canada 's 
implementation of its new national ingredients strategy, particularly in light of the significant trade 
impact of Class 7 (both in reducing Canadian dairy imports and increasing SMP exports).  
 
1.11.3   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 87065)  and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 87015)  
a. Related to responses Canada provided to AG -IMS ID 86033, under what authority do 
provinces set milk classes and milk class prices?  
b. Please provide an update on the National Centralized Registration System and the 
Provincial Bill ing Mechanism Certification Program.  In AG -IMS ID  86033, Canada states 
that there is no definitive timeline for their implementation.  Does Canada have a target 
timeline?  Will the National Centralized Registration System and the Provincial Billing 
Mechanism  Certification Program provide auditing, tracking, and reporting 
rules/guidelines, and details relating to billing ratios?  Will information regarding the 
National Centralized Registration System and the Provincial Billing Mechanism 
Certification Program be  publicly available?  
c. Has Class 6 been revoked in Ontario?  Please provide a copy of the documentation or 
measure revoking Class 6.  
d. Please provide monthly milk component (i.e., butterfat, proteins, other solids) prices and 
monthly volumes of milk components  utilized (for Class 7, and also total utilization for all 
classes.  If this information is still not available, please provide an update on when and 
where this information will become available.  
e. How frequently does the Canadian Dairy Commission commission  studies related to the 
processor margin?  How frequently is the processor margin changed?  Are studies related 
to processor margins publicly available?  
f. Canada states in response to AG -IMS ID 86033: "As of 1 February 2017, the Canadian 
Dairy Commission no lon ger purchased skim milk powder under either the Canadian 
Dairy Commission's domestic seasonality or the surplus removal program.  The remaining 
inventory of skim milk powder will be sold on the domestic market" . How will the 
Canadian Dairy Commission sell s kim milk powder on the Canadian market?  
g. According to the Canadian Dairy Commission 's 2016 -17 Annual Report, "Since 
1 February 2017, price changes in the industrial milk classes are based on a combination 
of annual changes in the cost of production and the consumer price index.  This formula 
was already used to determine changes in fluid milk prices" . If the Canadian Dairy 
Commission no longer purchases skim milk powder under either the Canadian Dairy 
Commission 's domestic seasonality or the surplus removal p rogram and support prices 
are not used to set industrial milk class prices, what function does support prices for 
skim milk powder serve?  
h. Canada states in response to AG -IMS ID 86033, "Canada 's exports of skim milk powder 
are determined by market condition s". What specific "market conditions" would 
determine, or affect, Canada 's skim milk powder exports, and how? From January 2017 
through January 2018, the annualized trend of Canada's SMP exports increased 
52,493  MT, an increase of 183%.  What specific marke t conditions caused this increase?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.12  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87066) and United States of America 
(AG-IMS ID 87016)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by  the United States in AG -IMS ID  85012 
and AG -IMS ID 86034. As such, the United States repeats its previous questions.  
  
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that "The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are 
continuously available, availa ble 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 categor y, 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 st ores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many authorizations have 
been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent " (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that ope rates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for sale in the boutique)?   
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AG -IMS ID 82002 
(http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) specifying different retail price p arameters and size parameters for imported 
bag in box wine than for the category of existing Ontario bag in box wine?  
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 wi ne is limited to 40 SKUs?  If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
1.13  European Union's sugar policies  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87067)  
Australia welcomes the withdrawal of EU sugar production quotas in 2017, but notes ongoing 
substantial domestic support provided under the EU Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) and Basic 
Payments Scheme (BPS).  
 
According to the European Commission, "EU sugar  production to increase significantly for 2017/18, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu -sugar -production -increase -significantly -2017-18_en , "EU sugar 
producti on is forecast to rise 23%  to 21 million tonnes in  2017/18.  
 
Further, the EC DG AGRI Dashboard: Sugar, https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/dashboards_en , 
states that sugar imports are forecast to  fall from 3.04  million tonnes in 2016/17 to 1.77  million 
tonnes in 2017/18. Sugar exports in the corresponding period however, are forecast to rise from 
2.93 million tonnes in 2016/17 to 4.85  million tonnes in 2017/18.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 13 - 
 
    
a. Can the EU explain whether the in creased EU sugar production and exports are 
sustainable in the medium to long term, or is the increased production driven by current 
and expected future levels of domestic support?  
b. Given the high levels of domestic support provided under the VCS and the B PS, what 
steps has the EU put in place to prevent subsidised domestic sugar production being 
exported and having a negative impact on the global sugar market?  
c. Given the elimination of export subsidies under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, can the 
EU pro vide reassurance its domestic support programmes are not circumventing the 
requirement to eliminate all export subsidies?  
d. Can the EU provide assurance that the domestic support provided to the EU sugar 
industry is not cross -subsidising EU sugar exports?  
1.14  EU intervention stocks of skim milk po dwer 
1.14.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87069)  
New Zealand appreciates the efforts by the European Commission to fulfil its legal obligations as 
regards the disposal of public intervention stocks, as advised in the Eur opean Union 's response to 
New Zealand's question at the 86th Committee on Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 86032). New Zealand 
notes two recent auctions of the EU 's Skim Milk Powder stocks:  
  
 In May in which the Commission sold 41,958 MT at 31% below the purchase p rice;  
 In April in which the Commission sold 39,066 MT at 38% below the purchase price;  
Based on Eurostat figures, it would appear that the amount sold in April alone exceeds the annual 
production of Portugal in 2016, while the total in May is greater than  Denmark 's 2016 production.  
  
a. Have any of the stocks sold at these auctions been exported, and if so how much?  
b. What practical steps has the EU taken to avoid the sale of this product impacting global 
markets?  
1.15  India's minimum support prices for wheat  
1.15.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87068)  
Australia notes that as of 21 May 2018, India had already procured 33  million tonnes of wheat 
under its market price support programme. This is already well in excess of the procurement 
target of 32  million tonnes set b y the Government of India for the 2018 -19 Marketing Season, and 
well beyond the 24  million tonnes of wheat allocated to the public distribution system (food aid 
programme) by the Food Corporation of India.  
  
a. Given India has now surpassed its targeted proc urement, will the Government of India 
discontinue its procurement activities of wheat?  
i. If not, when will the government suspend further procurement of wheat?  
b. Under India 's minimum support price and procurement scheme for wheat, does the 
Government of India accept all wheat delivered by farmers to FCI warehouses?  
c. Given wheat stocks are now well above required operational needs (as of April 2018, 
stocks were 13  million tonn es of wheat and Indian stocking norms require only 
4.4 million tonnes (based on the FCI website)), how does India intend to dispose of the 
excess stocks of wheat?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Australia further notes that in Ministry of Finance Notification No. 46/2018 -Customs on 
23 May 2018, India raised wheat tariffs from 20 to 30%.  
  
d. Can India explain the domestic circumstances and policy rationale for raising tariffs on 
wheat?  
e. How does India intend to manage the structural surplus of wheat that now appears to be 
present in the In dian market?  
f. Does India envisage further tariff increases in the short to medium term to address the 
structural surplus?  
1.16  India's pulses policies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87070)  
Quantitative restrictions  
 
In August 2017, India introduced quantitat ive restrictions on imports of mung beans, black lentils, 
and pigeon peas. As is well known to India, Australia and a number of WTO Members have raised 
concerns about the WTO -consistency of the quantitative restrictions in numerous 
WTO Committees, and Aust ralia has raised concerns over the course of a series of bilateral 
representations.  
 
On 12 April 2018, India 's notification to the WTO Committee on Import Licensing Committee 
(G/LIC/N/3/IND/17) stated that import restrictions were  "maintained only on grou nds of protection 
of human health or safety; animal or plant life or health; security and the environment." 
Regrettably, we still have not received a fulsome explanation as to the legal basis of India 's 
quantitative restrictions.  
  
a. Can India explicitly st ate which of the four grounds outlined in India 's import licensing 
notification is the basis for maintaining quantitative restrictions on a range of pulses?  
b. If India is relying on GATT Article XX (General Exceptions) for its quantitative 
restrictions, can  India explicitly state which paragraph in Article XX it is relying on for its 
quantitative restrictions?  
1.16.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87072)  
Quantitative restrictions  
 
India introduced a new quantitative restriction on yellow peas in Notification No.  4/2015 -2020 
of 25 April 2018 for a period of three months. Subsequently, India later clarified on 16  May 2018 
in Trade Notice No.10/2018 -19 that all peas under HS  071310 are covered by the new quantitative 
restriction.  
  
a. Can India explain the domestic po licy rationale for needing to introduce the new 
quantitative restriction?  
b. Can India explain why there was not advance warning about the imposition of the QR, 
and why there was a delay in issuing the Notification and applying the QR retrospectively 
from 1 April 2018?  
c. Can India explain why its initial notification on 25 April explicitly only mentioned "yellow 
peas" in both the policy condition and the effect of the notification, but then 
subsequently applied the QR to all peas?  
i. What domestic circumstances changed between 25 April to 16 May to warrant such a 
retrospective policy change?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 15 - 
 
  ii. Did India consider the impact on traders from such an unexpected change to the 
scope of coverage and uncertainty it creates in global market?  
1.16.3   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87075)  
Quantitative restrictions  
 
Despite reassuring WTO Members that the Quantitative Restrictions  (QR) introduced in 
August  2017 were only 'temporary ', India renewed the quantitative restriction on mung beans and 
black lent ils on 4 May 2018 in the Government of India 's Directorate General of  Foreign Trade 
Notification No.  6/2015 -2020. Australia notes that not only was the QR renewed, its scope was 
broadened and it was made more restrictive.  
  
a. Can India explain the domestic circumstances that have warranted the renewal of the 
quantitative restriction?  
b. Can India explain why it expanded the scope of the QR to cover additional tariff lines 
(HS 0713.90.10 and HS 0713.90.90? Does India believe these tariff lines also cover 
mung b eans and black lentils?  
c. Can India explain why it has now restricted the quantity to 1.5  lakh MT each for both 
mung beans and black lentil, when the previous QR allowed the import of a combined 
3 lakh MT of mung beans and black lentil?  
d. Can India confirm w hether the quantitative restriction on pigeon peas for 2 lakh MT 
remains in force and has been renewed for fiscal year 2018 -19?  
1.16.4   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87076)  
Quantitative restrictions  
 
Australia notes that India issued modalities for import of p igeon peas, mung beans and black 
lentils for fiscal year 2018 -19 in Directorate General of Foreign Trade Notice No. 6/2018 -19, 
published on 11 May 2018. While Australia appreciates India responding to Australia 's requests for 
information about how the quan titative restrictions (QRs) would be administered, we are 
concerned about the highly restrictive nature of the requirements.  
  
a. Can India explain why applicants needed to have refining/processing capacity and had to 
provide a self -declaration of that capac ity either on a monthly or annual basis to be 
eligible to apply for access to the QR?  
b. Can India explain why the relevant information for applications was only published on 
11 May, a full 41 days after the Indian Fiscal year commenced on April 1, noting th at the 
Bali Decision on Tariff Quota administration requires members to publish relevant 
information 90 days in advance of the opening of the quota period.  
c. Can India explain why applicants were only provided one day notice before the opening 
of the quota period, noting that the Bali Decision on Tariff Quota Administration requires 
minimum advance notice of the opening of applications of 90 days.  
d. Can India explain why applicants only had 14 days to apply for an allocation of 
the QR (12-25 May)?  
e. Can India explain why successful applicants need to complete their imports by 
31 August  2018, given the QRs are for fiscal year 2018 -19?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.16.5   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87077)  
Export incentive - MEIS 
 
India's Department of Commerce announced a 7% incentive on 'Bengal-gram' pulse exports under 
HS 0713.20.00 under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in Public 
Notice  66/2015 -2020 of 21 March 2018.  
  
a. Can India provide an explanation of how its Merchandise Exports from India Scheme 
(MEIS ) operates, particularly in the context of agricultural products like pulses?  
b. Can India explain why it has needed to introduce an export incentive for Bengal -gram 
pulse exports?  
c. Can India provide data on the volume of exports of Bengal -Gram which have be en 
subsidised under the MEIS since 21 March 2018?  
d. Can India provide data on the value of the subsidy offered to Bengal -Gram exports 
under the MEIS since 21 March 2018?  
e. Given India does not have any scheduled export subsidy entitlements, Can India explain  
the consistency of the export incentive for "Bengal -gram" with India 's commitments 
under Article 9 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
1.16.6   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87074)  
Canada notes that between December 2016 and May 2018, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) 
has posted on its website multiple contract notes for the sale of pulses (urad, moong, tar, masoor, 
channa) through e -auctions.  
  
Could India please elaborate if there were successful bidders in each of these e -auctions and could 
India advise if thes e pulses were exported or released onto the domestic market? How does the 
FCI take into account commercial considerations so that these volumes of pulses do not disrupt 
commercial markets?  
 
1.16.7   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87071)  
India's Ministry of Commerce  and Industry announced a quantitative restriction on 25  April 2018, 
of 100,000 MT peas. ( http://dgft.gov.in/Exim/2000/NOT/NOT18/04%20eng.pdf )  
  
a. Could India please elaborate on the circumstances behind the imposition of the 
quantitative restriction on peas?  
b. Could India please indicate to which WTO committee it has notified this new quantitative 
restriction?  
1.16.8   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87073)  
The government of India is reported to have announced a 7% export incentive for Bengal Gram 
(chana) under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) for a period of three months 
until 20 June 2018. Under this MEIS for pulses, 7% of the realized Free On Board (FOB) value of 
covered exports is covered by a MEIS duty credit scrip. Could India please clarify how this export 
related incentive is consistent with its export subsidy commitments?  
 
1.16.9   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 87001)  
Press reports sugges t that India intends to offer an export incentive for chickpeas in the form of a 
"Merchandise Export from India Scheme" which implies "duty credit scrip" at 7% of realized FOB 
value of covered exports.  
  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 17 - 
 
  How would India see this initiative complying with paragraphs 1 and 10 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition which state, respectively, that Members should exercise utmost 
restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies and that Members should 
seek not to raise th eir export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a 
product basis.  
 
1.16.10   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 87087)  
In November 2017 the government of India increased the import tariffs on yellow peas up to 50%. 
In addition to this m easure on 25 April 2018 India introduced a restriction on import of yellow 
peas. According to this new restriction the allowed amount of import of yellow peas to the territory 
of India shall be 100 000 MT from 1 April to 30 June 2018. Could India clarify t he following issues:  
  
a. What is the rationale behind the introduction of this quota?  
b. On what basis the amount of quota was calculated?  
c. How this measure is consistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT and Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
d. How this measure is justified under the WTO rules?  
e. Could India provide the amount of yellow peas imported from 1 April to 25 April 2018?  
1.16.11   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87088)  
According to the Notification № 04/2015 -2020 dated 25 April 2018 the government  of India 
introduced an amendment in import policy of peas under Chapter 7 of the ITC (HS) 2017. As a 
result, import policy of yellow peas under Exim Code 0713 1000 is revised from "free" to 
"restricted " from 1 April to 30 June stipulating the total quanti ty of yellow pea importation during 
the period at one lakh MT which is subject to license. This import policy was introduced in addition 
to a 50% tariff to p ea imports arranged in November  2017.  
 
a. Could India please explain what was the reason to impose th e additional restrictions?  
b. Please clarify how such quantitative restrictions are consistent with XI.1, XIX of GATT 
1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures?  
c. Could India giv e specific clarification regarding scope of product covered as only yellow 
peas are mentioned, but green split peas also fall under the designated HS code 
07131000? Are green split peas excluded from the restrictions?  
d. Does India plan further restrictions in this sphere?  
1.16.12   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87017)  
a. The United States notes that India has undertaken a number of trade distorting policies 
in relation to various pulses over the past year.  This has included a significant increase 
in the support prices, multiple increases in tariff rates, the introduction of quantitative 
import restrictions, lifting of an export ban, the introduction of export subsidies, and 
import -limiting licensing arrangements.  
i. In addition to the quantitative restrict ions on certain pulses introduced in 2017 as 
noted in the U.S. question AG -IMS ID 86037, the Indian Ministry and Commerce and 
Industry published Notification No. 04/2015 -2020 on 25 April 2018.  This measure 
introduced a quantitative restriction on the impor t of peas to no more than 100,000 
metric tonnes between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2018.   
Please explain the basis for the introduction of this measure and how it complies with 
India's WTO commitments.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 18 - 
 
  ii. Reportedly on 22 March 2018, India introduced a 7% (of t he FOB value of the 
product) export subsidy on chickpeas under the Merchandise Exports from India 
Scheme (MEIS) for a three month period.  
Please explain the basis for the introduction of this measure and how it complies with 
India's WTO commitments.  
b. The U nited States resubmits AG -IMS ID 86037:  
The United States understands that in August 2017, the Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry notified quantitative restrictions (QRs) on imports of pigeon peas 
(HS 07136000, HS 07139010 and HS 07139090) and established an Indian fiscal year 
(April - March) annual import quota of 200,000 MT.  Further, later that month, the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry notified QRs on imports of black matpae/mung beans 
(HS 07133100) and established an Indian fiscal year (April - March)  annual import quota 
of 300,000 MT.  
i. Are these QRs still in place?  
ii. Please explain how such QRs are consistent with India 's WTO commitments.  
iii. Does India have further plans to institute more QRs on imports of agricultural 
products? If so, for which products?  
c. The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 86108, which remains unanswered and is now 
also relevant to India 's most recent notification G/AG/N/IND/12 as well:  
i. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 and G/AG/N/IND/12 that India notified market price 
support for the Tur, Moong, Urad, Gram, and Lentil pulses for all years notified with 
the exception of 2011/12 and 2015/16; however, India announced a Minimum 
Support Price for each commodity for each of the years notified, including 2011/12 
and 2015/16.  
 Please confirm whether  India procured any of these commodities in 2011/12 
and 2015/16.   
 Please also confirm whether India would have procured the commodities in those 
years if market prices had fallen below the administered (announced) Minimum 
Support Prices.  
 If India did not p rocure these commodities in 2011/12 or 2015/16, please explain 
how the programme was implemented differently in 2012/13 through 2014/15, 
when market price support was also notified, as compared to 2011/12 and 
2015/16 when no market price support was notifi ed. Please include citations to 
any government decrees, regulations, or other communications that explain this 
difference.  
ii. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India aggregated gram, arhar, urad, moong, and 
lentils as "pulses " in Supporting Table DS:5 as a si ngle market price support 
measure.  However, it is also noted that India announced distinct Minimum Support 
Prices (applied administered prices) for each of the separate pulses  and are 
disaggregated in India 's AGST.  For example, in 2012/13, India announced the 
following distinct Minimum Support Prices:  Tur: INR  38,500/tonne; Moong: 
INR 44,000/tonne; Urad: INR: 43,000/tonne; Gram: INR 28,000/tonne; and Lentil: 
INR 28,000/tonne.  However, the Minimum Support Price /applied administered price 
notified is approxi mately INR 36,900/tonne (converted to INR using the notified 
exchange rate for 2012/13).  
 Please explain the reason for aggregating these pulses despite announcing 
distinct applied administered prices for each.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 19 - 
 
   Please provide market price support calculatio ns for each commodity that 
separately receives a distinct announced applied administered price for each year 
covered by G/AG/N/IND/11 and G/AG/N/IND/12.  
d. The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 86109:  
The United States resubmits question AG -IMS ID 85021 for response:  
i. "In G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies market price supports for several commodities; 
however, the list of commodities for each year differs. Further, certain commodities 
have been aggregated into larger categories compared to previous notifications a nd 
India's AGST.  
 Please explain the basis for aggregating these commodities despite separate 
applied administered prices being announced.  
 For each year covered by this notification, please provide a list of all announced 
minimum support prices (e.g., appli ed administered prices) for each commodity 
announced, whether procurement occurred or not.  
ii. The United States notes that India used the same methodology to calculate market 
price support as in its previous notifications, including the use of procurement as 
eligible production. As noted in previous questions (AG -IMS ID 75062) to India in 
this Committee, this differs from India 's AGST where total production of a given 
commodity was used as eligible production. In response to AG -IMS ID 65061, India 
explains its  reason for why it considers procurement to be the appropriate measure 
of eligible production, but did not confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on 
the amount of production that may be procured from farmers. While India notes in 
response to AG -IMS ID 75062 that India procures marketable surplus and, it did not 
clarify any pre -established limit.  
i. Please confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on the amount of 
production that may be procured from farmers.  
ii. Please clarify the basis for chan ging the notification methodology related to 
eligible production between India 's AGST and subsequent notifications, 
including any specific changes to Indian policy that contributed to this change.  
e. The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 86110:  
The United St ates again resubmits AG -IMS ID 84071 (and AG -IMS ID 85029) as no 
written response has been provided: "In response to AG -IMS ID 83009, India states that 
'the government does not procure in all states, and hence entire production is not 
covered. ' Please prov ide the details of the specific legislation, regulations or other 
measures that limit the eligibility of procurement of eligible product from all states. " 
1.17   Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.17.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 87089)  
New Zealand refers to the questions asked by the United States at the 86th Committee on 
Agriculture (AG -IMS ID 86046) and at the Committee on Import Licensing, and registers  New 
Zealand's  own similar concerns. New Zealand  is particularly interested in understanding the link 
between  the requirements in Articles 23 and 30 that importers are obligated to establish 
partnerships with local farmers, farm groups, or co -operatives to utilise and/or promote fresh milk, 
provide production facilities, production, and/or funding or financing, a nd Article 34.3 which states 
that these partnership agreements shall be considered by the Director General of Livestock and 
Animal Health when issuing import recommendations.  
 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 20 - 
 
  1.17.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87018)  
In July 2017, Indonesia 's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) issued 
Regulation  26/PERMENTAN/PK.450/7/2017 ( "MOA 26/2017 ") concerning Milk Supply and 
Circulation.  
  
a. In the United States meeting with Indonesian delegates to the Import Licensing 
Committee in April 2018, Indonesian delegates reported that MOA 26/2017 was notified 
to the WTO as an SPS measure.  
i. Can Indonesia provide the exact WTO notification for MOA 26/2 017? 
ii. If Indonesia has not notified the WTO of MOA 26/2017, can Indonesia explain why it 
has not notified to date and when it intends to notify?  
iii. If Indonesia has not notified MOA 26/2017 to the WTO, can it commit to notify 
immediately, allow trading partner s the opportunity to comment, and take such 
comments into consideration prior to enforcing MOA 26/2017?  
b. The United States would like to emphasize the importance of transparency due to the 
lack of information available surrounding Indonesia 's enforcement pl ans for the measure.  
i. Can Indonesia please provide an update on enforcement of this measure and will 
Indonesia enforce this measure in the issuance of 2019 import permits?  
ii. Does Indonesia plan to publish its enforcement plans, including quantifiable levels of 
partnership businesses must comply with to avoid administrative sanctions as 
outlined in Article 44, allowing a reasonable period of time prior to enforcement for 
trading partners to raise questions with Indonesia, if necessary?  
c. In its response to AG -IMS ID 86046, Indonesia stated, "It is the interests of the 
Government of Indonesia to ensure that the high quality of milk is available for 
consumers at all time. For that purpose, the provision of high quality of milk for 
consumers will be fulfilled from domestic productions as well as from importation. " Did 
Indonesia consider alternative methods for ensuring the quality and availability of milk 
for its consumers prior to developing MOA 26/2017?  
d. In its response to AG -IMS ID 86046, Indonesia states, "The Mi nister of Agriculture's 
Regulation No.26/2017 does not regulate the importation of milk. The importations of 
powder milk are still allowed as long as they meet requirements stipulated in the current 
regulation (Minister Trade regulation [No. 59/2016]). " If Indonesia has clarified that 
processed dairy products like milk powder are not subject to the requirements of MOA 
26/2017, why are importers of processed dairy products nevertheless being asked to 
submit partnership proposals and conduct milk promotion ac tivities, as outlined in the 
measure?   
e. The United States appreciates Indonesia 's response to AG -IMS ID 86046 regarding 
whether MOA 26/2017 will regulate foreign trade, stating "The Minister of Agriculture 's 
Regulation does not aim at regulating foreign tra de activities, including the importation 
of milk from foreign suppliers. " However, U.S. dairy exporters have reported incidences 
of import requirements placed on importers of United States dairy products in Indonesia 
apparently related to the enforcement o f MOA 26/217, such as providing the Ministry of 
Agriculture with video and photos of milk promotion events,.  As such, although the 
measure may not "aim at regulating foreign trade activities, " the United States is 
concerned that it is, in fact, doing so.   
The United States understands that Indonesia is considering additional measures 
affecting dairy imports including (1) MOA draft regulation on the Import and Export of 
Food Products of Animal Origin; (2) MOA draft regulation on Registration and 
Certificatio n of Animal Products; and (3) Ministry of Industry (MOI) draft regulation on 
Dairy Partnerships.  The United States understands that these measures were still in draft G/AG/W/178  
 
- 21 - 
 
  form and that Indonesia was further considering them.  The United States has yet to 
receiv e a response on the comments it submitted to the WTO notification on MOA draft 
regulation on the Import and Export of food Products of Animal 
Origin  (G/SPS/N/IDN/121).    
f. Please provide an update on the status of the three measures provided as examples in 
this question.  
g. Please inform the United States whether we can expect to receive a response to our 
comments submitted to the WTO notification.  
1.18  Indonesia's soybean imports  
1.18.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87019)  
a. The Indonesian Ministry of Agr iculture is actively considering a draft regulation that 
would restrict imports except when domestic supply is deemed insufficient, require that 
all imports be conducted by a state -owned enterprise, and prohibit imports one month 
prior to and after the dom estic harvest period. In response to AG -IMS ID  86048, 
Indonesia stated "this issue is still in a very preliminary discussion in Jakarta and will not 
mean to restrict trade. In this respect, at this juncture [the Indonesian] delegation is not 
in a better po sition to give complete response to the questions posed by the 
US delegation ".  
Please provide an update on the status of this draft regulation.  
b. The United States also understands that Indonesia is considering raising tariffs on 
soybeans from its current applied rate and instituting a genetically engineered labelling 
requirement on bulk soybeans.  
Please provide an update on these potential changes as well.  
c. What steps is Indonesia taking to ensure that any regulation impacting imports of 
soybeans is consist ent with its WTO commitments?  
1.19  Korea's rice imports  
1.19.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 87090)  
Could Korea please provide an update on its efforts to resolve issues regarding the rectification 
and modification of Korea 's Schedule for rice products and its ongo ing consultatio ns held with 
concerned Members.  
 
1.20  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.20.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 87094)  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 86001.  
 
The Russian Federation would like to repeat its question originally posed at t he Committee on 
Agriculture in February 2018 which has not been answered yet: In 2013 Mongolia established a 
quota regime for importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour and milk. 
Moreover, in late 2016 the Ministry of Food, Agricul ture and Light Industry of Mongolia established 
an import prohibition on wheat flour which is still in force. Please explain how Mongolia 's import 
restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 
and Articl e 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 22 - 
 
  1.21  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.21.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87081)  
Further to Australia's previous questions to Pakistan on sugar during the February  2018 
meeting  (AG-IMS ID  86007), Australia has reviewed Pakistan's p revious answers and further 
analysed Pakistan's sugar freight support, and has a number of follow -up questions.  
 
Based on Pakistan Government circulars, "a cash freight support of Rs  10.7/kg may be given to 
the sugar millers on export of sugar subject to the condition that the said amount of freight 
support will be given on a sliding scale between the international price of USD $376/MT (as on 
08.09.2017) and $499/MT (the international sugar price which equals the cost of production as 
calculated by the  MoIP)".  
  
a. Why has Pakistan based its freight support for sugar on a sliding scale between the 
international price and the cost of sugar production in Pakistan?  
b. Why does the subsidy amount provided for freight appear to vary in accordance with the 
internatio nal price for sugar?  
c. Can Pakistan confirm that the freight support is designed to bridge the gap between the 
world price and the cost of production in Pakistan?  
d. If this is not the case, can Pakistan please clarify how the freight support is calculated?  
Australia notes that Pakistan has previously justified the sugar export subsidies as freight support 
under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the application of Article 9.4 was 
extended under the Nairobi Decision. While Australia does no t dispute the extension of the 
application of Article 9.4 under the Nairobi Decision, the export subsidies need to meet the 
requirements of Article 9.1 (d) and (e).  
 
e. Can Pakistan explain how the cash freight support of up to RS 10.7/kg (determined on a 
sliding scaling) is linked to the cost of marketing exports of agricultural products, the 
costs of international transport and freight, and internal transport and freigh t charges as 
outlined in Article 9.1 (d) and (e)?  
f. Can Pakistan explain how subsidies which vary due to changes in the international sugar 
price can be categorised as freight support under Article 9.1 (d) and (e)?  
In Pakistan 's reply to Australia's previo us question, it stated that the freight support will be 
stopped after the 2017/18 crushing season, but Australia notes that forecasts predict an ongoing 
structural surplus of sugar in Pakistan in future years. Australia also notes there has been media 
reports in March 2018 that Pakistan's Cabinet agreed to amend its domestic sugar subsidy 
programme.  
 
g. Can Pakistan confirm media reports that reforms are planned to its domestic sugar 
subsidy programme? If so, can Pakistan provide more details?  
h. In the absence  of domestic reforms that remove the incentive to overproduce and 
eliminate the structural sugar surplus, how does Pakistan intend to dispose of the 
surpluses in the future without export subsidies?  
Australia understands that at least over half of the two  million tonnes of Pakistani sugar eligible for 
freight support has been exported.  
 
i.  Can Pakistan confirm the volume of sugar that has been exported with freight support, 
and provide a dollar amount of how much freight support has been provided to date?  
j. Can Pakistan confirm the date when the freight support shall official cease?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 23 - 
 
  1.22  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies  
1.22.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87021)  
The United States understands the government of Pakistan (GOP) has authorized an export 
subsidy of up to $159 per metric tonne to facilitate exports of up to 2.0 million metric tonnes of 
wheat that will be in effect through 30 June 2018. The United States calculates the result in public 
expenditures will be up to $320 million if the full amoun t is exported at the full subsidy. Further, 
the United States notes that Pakistan 's domestic wheat prices are significantly higher than 
prevailing international prices.  
a. Please provide an update to this Committee on the quantity of wheat exports that have 
been exported under this scheme.  
b. Noting that Pakistan has not notified any export subsidies in its most recent export 
subsidy notifications (which covers only up through 2006/07), please explain the reason 
Pakistan has apparently increased its use of expo rt subsidies despite the standstill and 
phase -out commitments undertaken by all WTO Members in Nairobi.  
c. Please provide the legislation and/or cabinet decision for making this export subsidy 
available.  
1.23  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.23.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 87082)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions at the February 2018 CoA 
regarding the 30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General Council's 
waiver decision of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932). Australia seeks  an update on the Philippines' 
tariffication efforts to date.  
 
1.24  Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  
1.24.1   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 87098)  
In response to the a number of concerns expressed by some interested Members at the 85th and 
86th CoA mee tings regarding the Russian Federation 's grain transportation subsidies implementing 
according to the Government Resolution No.1595, the Russian Federation stated that these 
measures are not export subsidies.  
 
a. Please inform how these measures will be noti fied to the WTO? In case of attributing 
them to domestic support as the Russian Federation answered to some Members ' 
question at the 86th CoA meeting, please, specify how will the information be presented 
in a Table DS:1 notification?  
b. Could the Russian Federation please provide the relevant data regarding the amount of 
shipped grain particularly wheat, barley and corn, and their final destination (to which 
ports)?  
c. Does the Russian Federation have intentions to continue such policy in future?  
1.24.2   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87022)  
On Decree No. 1595 for internal transportation and freight subsidy shipments for grains, the 
United States notes from rec ent news sources that the Russian government increased quotas for 
subsidized rail shipments of grain from Omsk and Novosibirsk regions under resolution No. 502 of 
25 April 2018.  
  
a. Can the Russian Federation please provide an update on the revised levels of  quantity 
and outlaid amounts?  How much has been used through the present day?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 24 - 
 
  b. What percentage of grain covered by this transportation subsidy has been exported?  
c. Can the Russian Federation please explain how Russia monitors the international grains 
market to determine the trade distorting effects of this measure and whether it is 
displacing or impeding the exports of other Members?  
d. Is the Russian Federation planning to use this transportation and freight subsidy subsidy 
for the 2018/19 marketing year?  
e. Can t he Russian Federation please explain how the existing subsidy policy is influencing 
the planting decisions of Russian grain farmers for the 2018/19 marketing year?  
The Russian Federation has issued Decree No. 1104 granting internal transportation and freig ht 
subsidies to compensate for part of the costs of transporting various food and agricultural products 
(including grain) by land.  The United States notes that the Decree No. 1104 lists one Mongolian 
and two Russian border crossings towards the People's Re public of China with destinations to 
Dalian Port (the largest multi -purpose port in Northeast China serving the seaports North Asia, 
East Asia and the Pacific Rim) and Sichuan Province (Central China), and from there to anywhere 
in the world. In addition, under the established regulations the Russian Export Center was named 
as the agent of the Government of the Russian Federation for granting these subsidies.  
  
f. Can the Russian Federation please confirm that these transportation subsidies are being 
offered t o facilitate delivery to border crossings and/or export ports, whether in the 
People 's Republic of China or elsewhere?  
g. What is the value of the amount that has been outlaid?   
h. Please provide more details on the implementation of Decree No. 1104, including any 
specific requirements that must be met to receive the subsidy.  
i. Can the Russian Federation please explain its theory, if any, for why Decree 1104 is 
consistent with the Nairobi Decision and with Russia 's WTO accession commitment not to 
maintain any expo rt subsidies?  
1.25  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.25.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87023)  
Suriname appears to have begun applying a 40% tariff on imports of poultry products in 
September 2017. This duty is twice of the rate of Suriname 's 20% bound r ate for poultry products. 
Recent press reporting in Suriname has quoted Trade Minister Tsang as stating that rates will rise 
to 100% on these imports.  
  
a. Please provide a reason for increasing tariffs on poultry imports from 20% to 40%.  
b. Please explain how  a 40% tariff for poultry imports is in compliance with Suriname 's 
bound rate of 20 percent.  
c. Please explain if and when Suriname plans to raise its tariffs on poultry to 100% as 
suggested in the press.  
d. Please explain if and when Suriname plans to initiat e Article XXVIII negotiations to 
adjust its bound rate.  
e. Will Suriname consider refraining from applying rates above its bound rate until the 
Article XXVIII process has concluded?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.26  U.S. dairy policies  
1.26.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87105)  
In the draft versi on of the 2018 Farm Bill in the House of Representatives, the United States 
planned to modify the formula to calculate the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) Class 1 skim 
milk price per hundredweight.  
  
a. Whether or not this modification is finalized and approved within a new Farm Bill, 
Canada is of the understanding that these types of FMMO modifications typically go 
through a formal rulemaking process and producer referendum. Could the U.S. explain 
why a formal rulemaking process and producer referendum did not take place for this 
amendment?  
b. Without prejudice to whether or not this Class 1 modification is finalized and approved 
within a new Farm Bill, could the US please answer the following questions on the 
purpose and expected impact of such a modification:  
i. What is the purpose for the modification of the Class 1 skim milk price?  
ii. What is the expected impact on producer revenues for this modification?  
iii. What is the expected impact on exports of end use pro ducts under Class 1?  
iv. What about other milk classes?  
1.26.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 87106)  
According to a news article by the Ohio Farm Bureau, (available online here: 
https://ofbf.org/2018/05/07/farm -bureau -offer-dairy-revenue -protection -insurance/ ), the 
American Farm Bureau, in cooperation with American Farm Bureau Insurance Services, has 
developed a new risk management insurance product for dairy farmers cal led "Dairy Revenue 
Protection " insurance. It was approved by the Agriculture Department 's Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation, and will provide dairy farmers the opportunity to manage risk by focusing on revenue 
from milk sales. It will possibly be availabl e to dairy farmers in late summer 2018.  
  
a. Could the US please explain if this is a private sector insurance programme, or if the 
operation of the insurance will require government funding?  
b. If the latter, will payments made under this insurance programme b e reported as 
product specific aggregate measures of support in the U.S. domestic support notific ation 
for the respective year?  
1.27  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.27.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 87103)  
On 9 February 2018, the United States President signed into  law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 
(H.R. 1892), which, among other provisions, amended the Agricultural Act of 2014 by including 
seed cotton as a "covered commodity ", eligible to the "Price Loss Coverage (PLC) " and "Agriculture 
Risk Coverage " (ARC) pro grammes.  
  
a. Previously to the 2014 Farm Bill, the target price for upland cotton under the 
"Counter -Cyclical Payments " (CCP) programme was of 71.25 cents/lb. Please confirm 
Brazil 's understanding that the target price for cotton plume under the PLC and 
ARC programmes, as defined by the H.R. 1892 Bill approved on February 2018, will be 
88.08  cents/lb – calculated by multiplying the current target price for seed cotton 
(36.7  cents/lb) by 2.4, in accordance with the methodology established by the H.R. 1892 
Bill, which means the new reference price will be higher than under the previous 
programme.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 26 - 
 
  b. Please indicate how much has been paid to upland cotton producers under the Marketing 
Loan Program for upland cotton since 2015.  
c. Please indicate how much has been pa id to upland cotton producers under the Crop 
Insurance Program (CIP) for upland cotton since 2015.  
d. Please indicate how much has been paid to upland cotton producers under other 
domestic support programmes for upland cotton since 2015.  
e.  Please indicate ho w much the United States government expects to spend on 
ARC/PLC  programme payments to (upland) cotton producers in the next four years.  
f. Does the United States expect to maintain in the upcoming Farm Bill both the Marketing 
Loan Program and the ARC/PLC pro grams for upland cotton?  
g. Does the United States collect data on the final destinations of products shipped under 
its domestic support programmes, in particular those currently provided to upland 
cotton?  
h. If not, how can the United States ensure that many o f the products shipped under such 
programs are not exported? How does the United States verify the eligibility of 
supported commodities for them?  
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 87107: Question by New Zealand - Country -specific allocation  
New Zealand has previously asked Canada in the Committee on Agriculture about its intention to 
reallocate 800 MT of the WTO cheese TRQ t o the EU on implementation of the Canada -EU 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Canada submitted its MA:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/116) in March 2018.  
 
a. Why has Canada chosen to allocate part of a WTO MFN quota to the EU instead of 
establish ing a new and separate quota like Canada and the EU have for other products?  
b. What is the legal basis for this allocation of MFN quota to a specific Member?  
c. How is this allocation consistent  with GATT Article I and XIII?  
AG-IMS ID 87108: Question by Norw ay - Country -specific allocation  
As a component in the CETA between Canada and the European Union, Canada has increased the 
EU portion of the WTO quota for cheese by 800 tonnes, and consequently reduced the non 
EU portion by 800 tonnes. In addition to the information given in the MA:1 notification from 
Canada, Norway would like to pose the following questions:  
 
d. When did the amended distribution of the import quota enter into force?  
e. Is the increase of 800 tonnes consistent with historic imports from members entering the 
European Union from 2004 onwards?  
f. If not, how does this increase of 800 tons comply with the provisions of GATT, 
Article  XXIV:5(b)?  
AG-IMS ID 87109: Question by Switzerland - Country -specific allocation  
Switzerland thanks Canada for its respon se at the 83rd regular Committee on Agriculture 
regarding the reallocation of its cheese tariff -rate quota. In the meantime, we took note of the G/AG/W/178  
 
- 27 - 
 
  submission MA:1 of 14 March 2018 announced by Canada in its last response. According to this 
notification, mark et access for cheese available to non -EU WTO Members is reduced to a quota 
share of 30.1%. This represents a reduction by 800 tons per year or by 11.5% of the previously 
notified quota share. Switzerland is concerned that the reallocation of the quota shar e results in 
reduced market access for non -EU WTO Members. Therefore,  Switzerland asks Canada to reply the 
following questions:   
 
g. How is this reallocation consistent with Canada 's WTO obligations, specifically with GATT 
Article I and XIII?   
h. How does Canada  ensure that the market access rights of non -EU WTO Members for 
cheese are preserved?  
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/120)  
AG-IMS ID 87083: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Canad a's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for 
marketing year 2015/2016, quota year 2015/2016, and calendar year 2016.  
  
a. Could Canada explain the reasons for the underfills [below 65%] in its notified tariff 
quotas,  particularly for dairy products, wheat and barley?  
i. could Canada explain whether the underfill is due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration; 
and  
ii. provide the relevant details for each product.  
b. Could Canada explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, 
as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.2.2   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/46)  
AG-IMS ID 8711 0: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
Could Chile please provide explanations to why under Table MA:2, there were no importation of 
Sugar (HS Code: 1701.99.10 , 1701.99.20 and 1701.99.90).  
 
2.2.3   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/225)  
AG-IMS ID 87111: Question by Austral ia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes Japan 's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for the 
fiscal year from 01 -04-2016 to 31 -03-2017.  
  
a. Could Japan explain the reasons for the underfills [below 65%] in its notified tariff 
quotas, particularly for dairy products and barley?  
i. Could Japan explain whether the underfill is due to market circumstances, the 
existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration; 
and  
ii. Provide the  relevant details for e ach product.  
b. Could Japan explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, as 
per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.2.4   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/19)  
AG-IMS ID 87085: Question by Austral ia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the Russian Federation 's notification concerning imports under tariff quotas 
(Table MA:2) for calendar year 2017.  
  
a. Could the Russian Federation explain the reasons for the underfills [below 65%] in its 
notified t ariff quotas, particularly for beef and whey?  
i. Could the Russian Federation explain whether the underfill is due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration; and  
ii. Provide the relevant d etails for each product.  
b. Could the Russian Federation explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled 
tariff quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on 
TRQ Administration?  
2.2.5   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/161)  
AG-IMS ID  87084: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the notification of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu concerning imports under tariff quotas (Table MA:2) for calendar year 2017.  
  
a. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu explain the 
reasons for the underfills [below 65%] in its notified tariff quotas, particularly for 
pineapples and mangoes?  
i. Could the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kin men and Matsu explain 
whether the underfill is due to market circumstances, the existence of SPS measures 
for the product, or restrictive tariff quota administration; and  
ii. Provide the relevant details for each product.  
b. Could the Separate Customs Territory  of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu explain 
what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff quotas, as per the objective of 
the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  
2.2.6   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/120)  
AG-IMS ID 87086: Q uestion by Australia - Tariff quota fill  
Australia welcomes the United States of America's notification concerning imports under tariff 
quotas (Table MA:2) for calendar year 2015.  
  
a. Could the United States explain the reasons for the underfills [below 65% ] in its notified 
tariff quotas, particularly for dairy products and cotton?  
i. Could the United States explain whether the underfill is due to market 
circumstances, the existence of SPS measures for the product, or restrictive tariff 
quota administration; a nd  
ii. Provide the relevant details for each product.  
b. Could the United States explain what it is doing to increase utilisation of underfilled tariff 
quotas, as per the objective of the review of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 29 - 
 
  2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMM ITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/99, G/AG/N/AUS/109)  
AG-IMS ID 87112: Question by India - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In its domestic support notifications for the year 2013/14 and 2014/15, Australia has notified 
"Develop market op portunities for a range of agricultural products " under the Marketing and 
Promotion services head of the Green Box measures.  
a. Can Australia elaborate as to how it develops such opportunities and for what type of 
products? The operation of the system may ki ndly be elaborated.  
b. Kindly provide the detailed expenditure on various components of the schemes for the 
year 2013/14 and 2014/15.  
2.3.2   Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/48)  
AG-IMS ID 87120: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Under Brazil's noti fication for Domestic support for year 2015/2016,  Thailand notes that Production 
Credit and Debt Rescheduling Programmes appears in both table DS:2 and DS:9. Could Brazil 
please clarify the differences between the said programmes in Supporting Table DS:2 a nd DS:9?  
 
AG-IMS ID 87025: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Brazil has notified a significant increase in outlays for extension and advisory services – an 
increase of more than 400% – largely as the result of increases in the measures "extension 
services on agricultural production " and "support for projects of agric ultural development. " Please 
explain the reason for the significant increase in outlays due to each measure, including whether 
there was any change in the implementation of the measure that would require a 
DS:2 notification.  
AG-IMS ID 87113: Question by Ca nada - General services: extension and advisory 
services  
a. In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the expenditures for support for projects of 
agricultural development notified under extension and advisory services has increased 
substantially in 2015/16  going from USD 7.1 million in 2014/15 to USD 126.7 million in 
2015/16.  
i. Could Brazil please provide details on this significant increase in spending including 
the types of projects that benefit from this funding?  
ii. Could Brazil please explain what sort of agricultural development is targeted?  
iii. Could Brazil please outline the criteria, conditions or rules required to receive the 
support?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the expenditures for extension services on 
agriculture production notified under extension and advisory services has increased 
substantially in 2015/16, going from USD 4.5 million in 2014/15 to USD 107.8 million in 
2015/16.  
i. Could Braz il please provide details on this significant increase in spending including 
the types of projects that benefit from this funding?  
ii. Could Brazil please explain what sorts of services are provided?  
iii. Could Brazil please outline the criteria, conditions or ru les required to receive these 
types of services (i.e. support)?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 30 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87115: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
c. In Supporting Table DS:4 Canada notes that that the support for wheat has increased 
significantly from zero in 2014/2015 t o USD 54.4 million in 2015/16. Could Brazil please 
provide details on the conditions that led to this significant increase in product -specific 
support for wheat?  
d. In Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that Brazil has not reported any support for 
maize in 2015/16, however, the support for maize in 2013/14 and 2014/15 represented 
USD 196.2 million and USD 68.1 million respectively. Could Brazil please elaborate on 
the reasons why there is no product -specific support for maize in 2015/16?  
AG-IMS ID 87119: Qu estion by European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes a sharp increase in reported Non -Product -Specific AMS in the form of 
Insurance Programmes between 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (from approximately 56 million USD 
in 2014/2015 to approx imately 437 million USD in 2015/2016). Could Brazil explain the reasons 
behind the increased support in the form of Insurance Programmes in 2015/2016?  
AG-IMS ID 87026: Question by United States of America - Non-product -specific AMS  
Brazil has notified a su bstantial increase of more than 650% in outlays for the measure "insurance 
programmes. " The United States notes that for 2015/16, Brazil now includes the Agricultural 
Livestock Guarantee Program (PROAGRO) under this line, in addition to the programme of Su pport 
to Rural Insurance Premiums (PSR).  
  
e. Please explain the reason for the significant increase in outlays for the measure 
"insurance programmes"?  
f. Please provide the level of outlays associated with each program (PROAGRO and PSR) 
for 2015/16.  
2.3.3   European U nion (G/AG/N/EU/34 , G/AG/N/EU/34 /Corr.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 87027: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
The EU has submitted a corrigendum for 2013/14 Supporting Table DS:1. Notably, outlays for 
infrastructural services increased from EUR 1,943.9 million to EUR 2,929.9 million and outlays for 
environmental programs increased from EUR 6,515.5 million to EUR 7,882.3 million. Please explain 
the reasons for the increased expenditures of approximately EUR 1 billion on each of the 
measures.  
 
2.3.4   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/43)  
AG-IMS ID 87099: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes the significant historical AMS support provided by the EU on skimmed milk powder. 
In its recent domestic support notification (G/AG/N/EU/43), the EU product -specific AMS spending 
of EUR  1.476 billion in marketing year 2014/2015. Australia n otes recent auctions of the EU's skim 
milk powder stocks: in May, in which the Commission sold 41,958 MT at 31% below the purchase 
price; and in April, in which the Commission sold 39,066 MT at 38% below the purchase price.  
  
a. Have any of these stocks sold  at these auctions been exported, and if so, how much?  
b. Could the EU explain what steps the EU has taken to avoid the sale of this product 
impacting markets?  
c. Over what timeframe does the EU intend to dispose of its remaining stocks of skimmed 
milk powder?   
d. Does the EU envisage an ongoing structural surplus in skimmed milk powder, and if so, 
what reforms has the EU considered to address this issue?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87125: Question by New Zealand - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
New Zealand notes an ov erall increase from MY 2013/2014 to MY 2014/2015 in the EU 's current 
total AMS spending, as well as a decrease over this period in spending on measures classified 
under "Green Box ". Could the EU explain how this respective increase and decrease in spending  is 
consistent with its overarching commitment to pursue a gre ener spending profile 
under  CAP 2014-2020?  
 
AG-IMS ID 87101: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia welcomes the European Union's Domestic Support Noti fication for marketing 
year 2014/15 (G/AG/N/EU/43). Australia notes that the European Union has included 
EUR 11.9 million under Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes in Supporting Table DS:1.  
  
e. Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks 
shall correspond to pre -determined targets related solely to food security." For each of 
the periods covered by the notification, could the EU provide:  
i. the pre -determined targets, when these were established, and under whic h 
legislation or programmes; and  
ii. an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a sole 
focus on food security.  
f. The Agreement on Agriculture Paragraph 3, Annex 2 further states, "Food purchases by 
government shall be made at  current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be 
made at no less than the current domestic market price for the product and quality in 
question. " Could the EU provide:  
i. a breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spending, including valu es and 
volumes;  
ii. the prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold; and  
iii. confirmation of the food purchases were made at current prices and sales were made 
at no less than current domestic market prices?  
AG-IMS ID 87031: Question  by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes  
In 2014/15, the EU notified EUR 11.9 million in spending on public stockholding for food security 
purposes, representing an EUR 11 million increase from 2013/14 levels. The EU al so notified 
increased market price support for skimmed milk powder in 2014/15, reaching 
EUR 1,476.4  million.  The United States notes that the EU, in recent years, has increased its 
intervention stocks for skimmed milk powder, which are currently at around 375,000  tonnes.  
  
g. Please explain the reason for the EUR 11 million increase in public stockholding for food 
security spending.  
h. Please explain the relationship, if any, between the increased levels of support beginning 
in 2014/15 and the increase in government stocks of skimmed milk powder to current 
levels.  
AG-IMS ID 87112: Question by Australia - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 (i) of (G/AG/N/EU/43), the  European Union has 
notified EURO 5.5 billion of spending under Structural Adjustment Assistance provided through 
Investment Aids. Paragraph 11, Annex 2 of the AoA states that eligibility for structural adjustment 
programmes shall be determined by referenc e to clearly defined criteria in government 
programmes designed to assist the financial or physical restructuring of a producer 's operations in 
response to objectively demonstrated structural disadvantages.  
 
For each of the measures covered by the notifie d spending, could the European Union please:  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 32 - 
 
  i. provide the names of each programme and the spending under each programme;  
j. outline the structural disadvantages European farmers are facing and the defined criteria 
to address these disadvantages; and  
k. confirm  the notified spending is limited to the amount required to compensate for the 
structural disadvantages outlined (as per paragraph 11(f) of Annex 2).  
AG-IMS ID 87126: Question by New Zealand - Article 6.5 (Blue Box)  
l. In its most recent notification, the EU  reports a total of EUR 2,878 billion in payments 
under Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Agreement allows for such 
payments that are "production limiting" in nature. What steps has the EU taken to 
ensure production in supported commodities is limited?  
m. Under Article 68 of Regulation 73/2009, EUR 1,089 billion is provided to livestock 
headage. For member States implementing this programme, what proportion of livestock 
in relevant regions are eligible to receive this support? Has the number of  supported 
animals increased in any Member State in the current Multiannual Financial Framework 
(MFF), compared to the previous one?  
AG-IMS ID 87122: Question by Canada - Livestock payments made on a fixed number of 
head  
Under Supporting Table DS:3, Canad a notes that the measure payments in virtue of Article 68 of 
regulation 73/2009, in Livestock payments made on a fixed number of head, has increased 
significantly from EUR 801 million in 2013/14 to EUR 1.1 billion in 2014/15, which represents an 
increase o f 36%. Could the European Union please provide details on the conditions that led to this 
significant increase in expenditures?  
AG-IMS ID 87123: Question by Canada - Market price support  
Under Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that support for ski m milk  powder has increased by 
EUR 341.5 million, which represents an increase of 30% from 2013/14. Could the European Union 
please provide details on the conditions that led to this significant increase in expenditures?  
AG-IMS ID 87127: Question by New Zealand  - Market price support  
With regard to the EU 's market price support for beef, the applied administered price increased 
from EUR 1560.00/tonne (relative to external reference price of EUR 1729.80/tonne) in MY 
2012/2013 and MY 2013/2014 to EUR 2224.00/tonne  (external reference price remained the 
same) for MY 2014/2015. Could the EU explain this increase in applied administered price for 
beef?  
AG-IMS ID 87030: Question by United States of America - Market price support  
In 2014/15, the EU notified a beef appl ied administered price of EUR 2,224 per tonne with an 
eligible production of zero.  This compares to a much lower applied ad ministered price in 2013/14 
of EUR  1,560 per tonne and an eligible production of nearly 7.5 million tonnes.  
 
Please explain the reason for the increase in the applied administered price with the simultaneous 
decrease in eligible production.  
 
2.3.5   Guatemala (G/AG/N/GTM/60)  
AG-IMS ID 87128: Question by Canada - General services: infrastructural services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that support for the development of alternative 
agriculture in Infrastructure Services has been reported with expenditures that totaled 
$6.9 million. Guatemala has not reported any expenditure in Infrastructure Services in its 
notifications for 2015 and 2016. Could Guatemala please indicate the eligibility criteria, and the 
types of projects that have been funded?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 33 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87129: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In Supporting Table DS:2, Canada notes that the expenditures for (b) Agricultural input subsidies 
to low income or resource poor producers have increased significantly, from $12.5 million in 2016 
to $32.5 million in 2017. Could Guatemala please provide the conditions that led to this sign ificant 
increase in expenditures?  
 
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/12)  
AG-IMS ID 87140: Question by European Union - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
In previous notification India has indicated payment for disaster relief and environmental 
payments. No amoun ts are included in this notification for either 2014 or 2015. Has India 
terminated these programmes or have they been included under other programmes in this 
notification?  
AG-IMS ID 87158: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2 ) 
New Zealand  notes that market price support makes up a significant proportion of India 's total 
support to farmers. Compared to other income support programmes, market price support is 
difficult to target and the benefits often make their way into the han ds of larger players, or other 
parts of the agricultural supply chain. Has India considered alternative policy measures to support 
small farmers?  
AG-IMS ID 87137: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that India 's spending in inspection services decreased 
from USD 2.55 million to zero in 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016. Could India please explain the policy 
change that has resulted in outlays being reduced to zero in that category?  
AG-IMS ID 87116: Quest ion by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/12, India has notified spending on 
public stockholding for food security purposes of USD 17.17 billion in 2014 -15 and 
USD 15.64  billion in 2015 -16.  
  
a. Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA states, "The volume and accumulation of such stocks 
shall correspond to pre -determined targets related solely to food security. " For each of 
the periods covered by the notification, could India provide:  
i. the pre -determined targets, when these were established, and under which 
legislation or programmes; and  
ii. an explanation of how these targets are in compliance with the requirement of a sole 
focus on food security.  
b. Paragraph 3, Annex 2 of the AoA further states, "Food purchases by government shall be 
made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be made at no less than 
the current domestic market price for the product and quality in question. " For each of 
the periods covered by the notif ication, could India provide:  
i. a breakdown of commodities covered by the notified spending, including values and 
volumes;  
ii. the prices and volumes of the commodities when they were purchased and sold; and  
iii. confirmation the food purchases were made at curren t prices and sales were made at 
no less than current domestic market prices?  
c. As outlined in footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the AoA , can India confirm whether any aspects 
of the notified spending covers foodstuffs that were acquired and released at 
administered prices, requiring the market price support to be notified as AMS?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 34 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87136: Question by Canada - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
In Supporting Table DS:1 Canada notes that the support for public stockholding for food security 
purposes has increased by 14% in 2014 -15 to USD 17,175 million from USD 14,792 million 
in 2013-2014.  
 
d. Could India please provide de tails on the conditions that led to this significant increase in 
expenditures?  
e. Could India provide a list of products by volume and value acquired under public 
stockholding ‎for food security purposes in 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016?  
AG-IMS ID 87156: Question  by Japan - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
Annex 2, paragraph 3 in the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that "the volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to predetermined targets related solely to food 
security. " 
  
f. Please  indicate the predetermined targets of the notified years （the marketing years 
2014-2015 to 2015 -2016）. 
g. If those targets were published before the procurement in each year, where could we 
find the publication?  
AG-IMS ID 87117: Question by Australia - Input  subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:2 of G/AG/N/IND/12, India has notified spending on 
agricultural input subsidies of USD 24.84 billion in 2014 -15 and USD 23.55 billion in 2015 -16 to 
low income or resource poor producers under Special and Differential Treatment "Development 
Programmes. " Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the AoA states, "… input subsidies generally available to 
low-income or resource -poor producer in developing country Members sh all be exempt from 
domestic support reduction commitments… "  
  
h. Can India please provide a breakdown of the types of input subsidies covered by the 
notified spending, including values and volumes?  
i. Can India indicate whether their input subsidy programmes s olely benefit low income or 
resource poor producers?  
i. If so, can India provide details of the eligibility criteria for the programmes to ensure 
the input subsidies are provided solely to low income or resource poor producers?  
ii. Can India indicate how the pr ogrammes are structured to avoid their benefits flowing 
to other agricultural producers?  
AG-IMS ID 87028: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
The footnote for Supporting Table DS:2 stat es "as per the agricultural census for 2010 -2011, 
99.297% of farm holdings are of low -income or resource poor farmers " noting that India 's 
reported average land holding size is on the decline as outlined in response to AG -IMS ID 
75021.  The United States re submits AG -IMS ID 85019 and 86111 in hopes for a more direct 
response to the United States ' inquiry into how the decline in farm size has occurred despite the 
large increases not only in production, but also surplus production – leading to India 's status as a 
major agricultural exporter.  
  
j. Noting responses to AG -IMS IDs 86111/85019: India's notification now notes that 
99.297% of farmers are low -income or resource poor. In response to AG -IMS ID 75021, 
India stated the prevailing trend is for the a verage size of farms, by landholding, to 
decrease in each Census, and that 99% of farms have inadequate resources to generate 
enough income to maintain a minimum standard of living. Concurrently, India has 
increased agricultural production and exports, and  marketed surplus of major G/AG/W/178  
 
- 35 - 
 
  commodities. India is now one of the world's largest agricultural producers and exporters 
of a number of major and minor commodities.  
i. How does India explain this?  Please provide additional information beyond that 
provided in prev ious CoA responses to help Members understand this dichotomy.  
ii. Please include statistical information with regards to the size, ownership structure, 
and per farm output of those farms that do not have inadequate resources to 
generate enough income to mainta in a minimum standard of living of the farms that 
contribute to the sizeable marketed surplus.   
k. Please explain what mechanisms exist in India 's domestic support measures to ensure 
that the programmes benefit low -income or resource -poor farmers only.  
l. Does India have any statistical information or other relevant information it can share 
with Members to better understand the level of input subsidies provided to producers by 
size of operation and income level?  
AG-IMS ID 87155: Question by Japan - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
With respect to the currency to express AMS, while Indian Rupee was used in the AGST, India has 
changed it to U.S. Dollar since the notification of 95/96. India has explained this modification as 
"to provide comparable estimates ." Japan would like India to submit the notification in India Rupee 
as an original statistic in pursuant to its AGST, in addition to the submitted one in US Dollar as 
comparable estimates.  
AG-IMS ID 87114: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Austr alia thanks India for its Domestic Support Notifications for marketing years 2014 -15 and 
2015-16 (G/AG/N/IND/12). Further to Australia's question from February 2018 ( AG-
IMS ID 86014), India has again calculated a combined market price support for pulses. A ustralia is 
disappointed by India's previous response to this question.  
  
m. Australia notes that India maintains separate and distinct Minimum Support Prices 
(MSPs) for Gram, Arhar, Urad, Moong and Lentils. Can India explain in more detail why it 
has combin ed these products into one category "Pulses " for the purposes of calculating 
Market price Support?  
Australia noted that the actual Minimum Support Price (MSP) for Indian pulse products in  2014-15 
was as follows:  
 
 MSP 2014/15  
(INR/quintal)  MSP 2014/15  
(INR/tonne)  USD/Tonne* 
ARHAR  4,350  43,500  711.42  
MOONG  4,600  46,000  752.32  
URAD  4,350  43,500  711.42  
GRAM  3,175  31,750  519.27  
MASUR  2,950  29,500  482.47  
* Converted at 2014 -15 exchange rate 1USD = 61.144INRs, as per G/AG/N/IND/12  
  
n. In supporting table DS:5, India lists the administered price for "pulses " as 
639.52  USD/tonne in 2014 -15. Could India explain in more detail how it calculated this 
figure and why it has not simply used the specific MSP contained in the table above, 
given t his is how the support is administer in India?  
o. Australia notes that market price support for pulses is absent from the 2015 -16 period in 
Supporting Table DS:5. The Government of India did however provide minimum support 
prices for pulses in 2015/16 as per  the below. Given India did offer minimum support 
prices for pulse products in 2015 -16, could India please provide the calculated market G/AG/W/178  
 
- 36 - 
 
  price support for pulses in 2015 -16 as per the requirements in paragraph 8, Annex 3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 MSP 2015/16  
(INR/quintal)  
ARHAR  4,625  
MOONG  4,850  
URAD  4,625  
GRAM  3,500  
MASUR  3,400  
AG-IMS ID 87139: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
p. In Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:5 Canada notes that India has reported a product -
specific AMS of US$92.25 million in 2014 -15 for pulses but in 2015 -16, support for 
pulses is zero.  
i. Could India please indicate whether any volume of pulses was procured in 2015 -16? 
ii. If so, could India indica te the quantity procured in million tonnes, including domestic 
and imported, and whether such procurements were done with a minimum price 
support?  
iii. Canada notes that the Department of Consumer Affairs published on its website 
(https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Procurement_of_Pulses_
08Sep2017.pdf ) that, as of 08.09.2017, 50,422.53 MT of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2015 -
16) were pro cured domestically for the Buffer Stock under Price Stabilization Fund. 
Could India please indicate when this procurement of Kharif Pulses (KMS 2015 -16) 
will be notified?  
q. In Supporting Table DS:5 for 2014 -15, Canada notes that India has reported a Total 
Market Price Support for pulses.  
i. Could India please confirm that the Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) on Gram, Urad, 
Moong, Lentil and Arhar set at the federal level are available to all Indian States that 
would like to procure these pulse varieties?  
ii. Could I ndia please indicate if there is a pre -set limit or other conditions on the 
amount of production that could be procured from farmers using the MSPs? If so, 
what are the pre -set limits or conditions on the volume of production that could be 
procured?  
AG-IMS ID 87138: Question by Canada - De minimis  
In Supporting Table DS:4 for 2014 -15 and 2015 -16, Canada notes that India does not include 
product -specific value of production data. The inclusion of value of production data greatly 
improves the transparency of  Supporting Table DS:4. Could India please provide the value of 
production for all products reported in Supporting Table DS:4 for 2014 -15 and 2015 -16?  
 
AG-IMS ID 87141: Question by European Union - De minimis  
India states that the AMS for the products listed in this table is below de minimis . Can India 
provide written information to the WTO members for all the products listed in this table on the 
value of production for 2014 and 2015 respectively?  
 
AG-IMS ID 87 157: Question by Japan - De minimis  
Could India provide the statistics of VOP of each product in order to make sure the value of 
support is under de minimis  threshold?  
 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 37 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87142: Question by European Union - Classification of measures  
In a note to Supporting Table 4 for marketing years 2014 -2015 and 2015 -2016, India states that 
the Non -Product -Specific AMS listed in the Table (Insurance Premium Subsidy) is an input subsidy 
and that it "also qualifies under Article 6.2 of the AoA ".  
 
r. Could India explain why the Insurance Premium Subsidy is listed in Supporting Tables 
DS:4 and DS:9 if it qualifies under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
s. Could India explain in what way the Insurance Premium Subsidy qualifies as an input 
subsidy u nder article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 87029: Question by United States of America - Classification of measures  
The footnote for this table in reference to non -product -specific AMS states "Insurance Premium 
Subsidy. It is an input subs idy and also qualifies under Article 6.2 of the AoA. "  
Please explain the reason for the footnote qualifying crop insurance premium subsidies as exempt 
under Article 6.2 support when they are being notified as non -product -specific AMS in ST/DS:9.  
 
2.3.7   Lao Peop le's Democratic Republic (G/AG/N/LAO/2)  
AG-IMS ID 87032: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
The United States would like to thank Laos for its first domestic support notification to the CoA: 
Laos' notification  for FY2016. The United States looks forward to future notifications to learn more 
about Laos ' domestic support measures.  
In Supporting Table DS:5, the eligible production quantity notified for rice is 36,157  tonnes; 
however, Laos ' AGST tables (WT/ACC/SPE C/LAO/1/Rev.1) report an eligible production for rice of 
just under 1.5 MMT between 2001 -2003.  
a. Please explain how Laos determined the notified quantity of eligible production in its first 
domestic support notification. b. Does this notified value differ i n terms of definition from 
the values reported for 2001 -2003? If so, please explain what changes have been 
implemented with regards to Laos ' market price support for rice that permit for such a 
change.  
b. Please provide any additional information regarding an y limitations placed on the 
quantity of production that is eligible to receive the applied administered price.  
2.3.8   Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/36)  
AG-IMS ID 87154: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. Canada notes that Mexico 's Current Total AMS for 2016 has decreased significantly, 
falling from 1.8 billion pesos in 2015 to 174.5 million pesos in 2016. Notably, Canada 
notes that in Supporting Table DS:4, the product -specific support for maize has 
decreased from 1,023.16 million  pesos in 2015 to 462.19 million pesos in 2016, mainly 
because of a decrease under other product -specific budgetary outlays.  
i. Could Mexico please provide more details on the conditions that led to this significant 
decrease of the total AMS?  
ii. Could Mexico p lease indicate which program(s) has been impacted by this significant 
decrease of the total AMS? Are there programmes that have been removed or that 
are now included in other budgetary outlays?  
b. In Supporting Table DS:9, Canada notes that Mexico does not r eport any support for 
Production Restructuring Programme for 2016 and the support for this programme was 
at 228.8 million pesos in 2015, 319.1 million pesos in 2014, and 391.2 million pesos 
in 2013.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 38 - 
 
  i. Could Mexico please provide more details on the condition s that led to this removal?  
ii. Could Mexico confirm whether these expenditures have been moved to another 
programme? If so, could Mexico indicate which one(s)?  
AG-IMS ID 87153: Question by Thailand - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Could Mexico please provide details regarding the implementation of Agriculture Insurance 
Programme in Supporting Table DS:2 under heading "Investment Subsidies"?  
 
2.3.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  
AG-IMS ID 87152: Question by European Union - Market price support: E ligible 
production  
In light of the question asked by Canada during the 86th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
(Ag-IMS 86098), has Norway considered to include also wheat not fulfilling the criteria for human 
consumption in its eligible production wh en calculating market price support for wheat?  
2.3.10   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/48, G/AG/N/PHL/49, G/AG/N/PHL/50 , 
G/AG/N/PHL/51,  G/AG/N/PHL/52 ) 
AG-IMS ID 87033: Question by United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
a. The United States wou ld like to thank the Philippines for the level of detail provided 
regarding the large number of measures notified.  It appears from the "supporting table 
to Supporting Table DS:1 " that there are a number of research measures and extension 
and advisory servi ce measures that are newly notified by the Philippines for 
2011.  Additionally, a number of other measures are no longer notified.  Further, 
substantial changes in outlays have occurred – for example, outlays for extension and 
advisory service measures nearl y doubled from 2010 levels.  
Noting the large number of changes with regards to measures exempt from reduction 
commitments, please indicate if there was a major change in policy between 2010 and 
2011 regarding these types of measures.  If so, please describe  and indicate whether the 
Philippines will be providing a DS:2 notification.  If not, please explain.  
b. The United States notes what appears to be a number of measures with the same name 
in "supporting table to Supporting Table DS:1 ": for example, "Coordinati on of 
agricultural research " and "development of fisheries and aquatic resources ". 
Please explain why there are multiple measures with the same name.  
c. The United States notes there are several measures listed in "supporting table to 
Supporting Table DS:1 " that possibly indicate funding is provided by a foreign or private 
entity rather than the Philippine national or sub -national government.  For example, the 
"Japan Increased Food Production Program. " 
Please confirm no support notified is provided via fundin g from a foreign or private 
entity.  
d. With regard to "Japan Increased Food Production Program, " please provide additional 
details with regard to how this measure is implemented and confirm whether assistance 
is provided in the form of farm inputs such as fer tilizers.  
AG-IMS ID 87034: Question by United States of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource -poor producers  
Regarding AG -IMS ID 70047, the United States understands the Philippines response to indicate 
that the provision of input s ubsidies for seeds and fertilizers, as notified for 2010, was terminated 
except for the purposes of assisting farmers in times of natural disasters, and limited G/AG/W/178  
 
- 39 - 
 
  circumstances.  However, the United States notes that outlays under  "input subsidies generally 
available to low -income resource -poor producers " is nearly five times larger in 2015 than 
in 2010.  Further the description of the measure appears to be unchanged as well.   
e. Please explain the reason for the large increase in outlays for these input subsidies . 
f. Please provide an update on how these measures are implanted, taking note of the 
Philippines response to AG -IMS ID 70047.  
g. Please provide a breakdown of expenditures for each year (2011 -15) for each type of 
input subsidy (e.g., fertilizer, planting materi als, seed, and animal stocks.  
AG-IMS ID 87035 : Question by United States of America - Market price support  
h. The Philippines guarantees farmers a sale price of "Palay" (paddy) rice. However, the 
Philippines notes in a footnote that for its table it has conve rted paddy rice into milled 
rice terms. The Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 3 paragraph 7 states "The AMS shall be 
calculated as close as practicable to the point of first sale of the basic agricultural 
product concerned." What is the basis for reporting s upport on a milled rice basis rather 
than paddy rice (palay)?  
i. Are there any limitations either in quantity or budgetary outlays that limit the quantity of 
the covered commodities that may be procured at the applied administered price in any 
given year?  
AG-IMS ID 87151: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Concerning G/AG/N/PHL/48 , 
j. Could the Philippines kindly explain more in detail the eligibility criteria for the buying -in 
for both rice and maize?  
k. Could the Philippines  kindly explain more in details why it has not used total production 
of rice and maize in Supporting Table DS:5 – following the judgement in the Korea beef 
case?  
AG-IMS ID 87118: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its Domestic Support notifications from calendar years 2011 -15 
(G/AG/N/PHL/48 - 52). Australia notes that the Philippines has only included stock procured in its 
calculation for Market Price Support in Supporting Table DS:5 of it s notification.  
l. Could the Philippines please explain why it has not calculated market price support 
based on the requirements under Paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the AoA, so as to calculate 
market price support on the entire quantity of production eligible to r eceive the 
administered price?  
m. Does the Philippines set quantitative limits on the amount of stock that it procures at the 
administered price?  
n. Are any such quantitative limits published and notified to producers prior to the planting 
season?  
2.3.11   Switzerland  (G/AG/N/CHE/84)  
AG-IMS ID 87038: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: decoupled 
income support  
Switzerland provided 307 million CHF in decoupled income support including under the category 
"supplement to market earning. "   G/AG/W/178  
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Please explain the requirements for a producer to receive a supplement to market 
earning.    
b. Is this supplement based on the price received for a particular commodity?  
AG-IMS ID 87036: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjus tment assistance provided through investment aids  
In Switzerland 's notification under the category "structural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids, " 34 million CHF is provided as assistance to improve livestock 
breeding.  Swiss breed asso ciations discriminate against non -Swiss genetics by charging much 
higher fees for registering foreign bulls than for registering Swiss bulls.   
c. Please explain precisely what these funds are used for and if funds are provided to the 
SwissGenetics organizatio n and to Swiss breed associations?   
d. Please explain the support given by the Swiss government to these Swiss breed 
associations.  
AG-IMS ID 87037: Question by United States of America - Direct payments: payments 
under regional assistance programmes  
Under "regional assistance programs, " 107 million CHF was provided for farming on sloping land, 
140 million for maintaining open spaces, 101 million for mountain pasturing, and 160 million for 
farming in difficult conditions.  Please explain what constitutes "difficult conditions. " and if 
Switzerland plans to help farms move away from producing under difficult conditions.  
AG-IMS ID 87039: Question by United States of America - Other product -specific 
AMS/EMS  
e. Supporting table DS:4 indicates that Switzerland provides pr oduct -specific support for 
milk and milk products equal to 26% of the value of production.  What steps is 
Switzerland taking to reduce the dependence of milk producers on government support?  
f. In Switzerland 's 2013 DS:1 notification, support to pork producers  equated to 56% of 
the value of production.  Support for bovine meat was 66% of the value of 
production.  For the 2014 notification, pork and beef are listed under the 
de minimis . Please confirm that support to pork and beef producers dropped from above 
50% to below 5% of the VOP and explain what factors let to this decrease.  
g. In G/AG/N/CHE/72 for 2013, Switzerland notified market price supports for 13 product 
categories in Supporting Table DS:5.  However, in G/AG/N/CHE/84 for 2014, Switzerland 
notified only on e market price support (for tobacco) under Supporting Table DS:5; while 
four other products have budgetary outlays notified under the measure market price 
support in Supporting Table DS:7.  
i. Please explain the reason for this change between notifications.  
ii. Please explain why the market price supports for milk and milk products, bovine 
meat, eggs, and wool are notified as budgetary outlays.  
2.3.12   Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/52)  
AG-IMS ID 87041: Question by United States of America - Market price support: Eligible 
productio n  
It is the United States understanding that Tunisia produced 840,000 MT of durum, 150,000 MT of 
common wheat, 390,000 MT of barley and over 900,000 MT of milk in 2016.  
a. Please explain the reasons for using eligible production of 5,300 MT for durum, 500  MT 
for common wheat, 1,100 MT of barley and 865,000 MT of milk in 2016.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. Please provide any regulations, laws, or other implementing legislation that shows that a 
limit is placed on the quantity of production of each of these commodities that can 
receive the  announced applied administered price.  
AG-IMS ID 87040: Question by United States of America - Excessive rates of inflation  
For the reporting period of 2016, Tunisia has adjusted the fixed external reference prices for 
durum wheat, common wheat, barley and  milk to take account of inflation and exchange rate 
movements. The same was done for products notified for 2014 in G/AG/N/TUN/47, at which time, 
in response to AG -IMS ID 62036, Tunisia stated that it considered the rate of inflation between 
1998-2014 to b e excessive, which justifies an adjustment of the FERP. In the U.S. view, as stated 
previously, a Member cannot unilaterally determine that it has excessive rates of inflation and then 
make adjustments as reflected in their notifications.  
c.  Please provide additional information, including data that substantiates Tunisia's claims 
that its rates of inflation are "excessive," noting that Tunisia's inflation rates are well 
within the range of most other Members' rates.  
d. To help Members take into consideration Tunisia 's claims regarding inflation, please 
provide information and data that shows all calculations regarding inflation in Tunisia 's 
most recent notification(G/AG/N/TUN/52).  
e. Will Tunisia consider submitting a revised notification and for future notificat ions that 
show unadjusted information as well, so that Members have a transparent understanding 
of Tunisia 's domestic policies, as well as their notification methodology.  
2.3.13   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/121)  
AG-IMS ID 87148: Question by Canada - Trans parency issues (including Table DS:2)  
a. In Supporting Table DS:1, (a) General services, Canada notes that state governments 
provided $2.7 billion for State programmes for agriculture for "…a number of generally 
available services. " This is an 8.5% increase f rom 2014. Could the U.S. please describe 
how it ensures that state governments ' use of these funds meet the policy criteria of 
general services, paragraph 2, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. In Supporting Table DS: 4, as reported in the notificati on for 2014, Canada notes a 
discrepancy in the total Value of Production (VoP) figures in the U.S. notification for 
2015. The total VoP is reported as USD 372,714.642 million but the sum of all product -
specific VoP totals USD 504,469.82 million. Could the US please explain this 
discrepancy?  
c. Canada would like to reiterate question AG -IMS ID 85058 to the U.S. at the 85th 
meeting of the CoA about a discrepancy in the total Value of Production (VoP) figures. 
The total VoP is reported as USD 405,646.295 million  but the sum of all product -specific 
VoP totals USD 550,264.95 million. Could the U.S. please explain this discrepancy?  
d. Canada notes that county -based Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss 
Coverage (PLC) programmes are reported under Supporting T able DS:6 and Supporting 
Table DS:9. Canada is of the understanding that the 2014 Farm Bill allowed farmers the 
opportunity to update their base yields and reallocate their base acres. Landowners had 
a one -time opportunity to update their current payment y ields established under the 
2008 Farm Bill to 90% of their 2008 -2012 average yields. Canada is also of the 
understanding that the Farm Bill does not allow the total base acreage to be increased, 
however, it allows the landowners to re -allocate the proporti on of their acreage on the 
basis of their products (e.g. corn and soybeans), and maximize an anticipatory payment 
based on those specific products. Therefore, Canada is of the understanding that the 
payments under ARC and PLC programmes can be allocated on  the basis of a re -
allocation of products acreage, and thus, payment would be different depending how the 
products are re -allocated by the landowners.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 42 - 
 
  i. Could the US please explain why ARC and PLC programs are reported under both 
Supporting Table DS:6 and S upporting Table DS:9?  
ii. Could the US please indicate the proportion of landowners (producers) that have re -
allocated their acreage following the 2014 Farm Bill?  
iii. Could the US please indicate the total value of suppor t (payments) for the 
re-allocated acreage s following the 2014 Farm Bill and provide a breakdown of these 
payments by commodity?  
AG-IMS ID 87124: Question by Australia - Domestic food aid  
Australia notes that in Supporting table DS:1 in G/AG/N/USA/121,  the United States has notified 
USD 104.7 bil lion in domestic food aid for marketing year 2015. 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. Alth ough 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.  
e. Can the Unite d States  explain the background for the steady increase in domestic food 
aid spending that has remained above USD 100 billion in recent years?  
f. Has the United States  been reviewing domestic food aid programmes with a view to 
ensuring the support is still r equired at such high levels?  
g. 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 direct provision of food versus the 
provision of means to buy food?  
AG-IMS ID 87147: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
h. In Supporting Table DS:1, Canada notes that the expenditures for the Child Nutrition 
Programs under (c) Domestic food aid increase by $1.5 billion. Could the U.S. please 
provide details on the conditions that l ed to this significant increase in expenditures?  
i. Canada also notes that according to the Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) website, 
purchases for USDA Feeding Programs (Section 32) are aimed at supporting "American 
agriculture by providing an outlet for  surplus products and encouraging consumption of 
domestically -produced foods ". Specific commodities are targeted by USDA for specific 
purchase initiatives. For examples, USDA announced, on 2 April 2015 its plan to 
purchase poultry products for the National  School Lunch programme and other Federal 
food nutritional assistance programs 
(https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/4 -2-15%20poultry.pdf), and on 
30 April 2015, USDA announced plans to purchase fresh apples and processed apple 
products for surplus removal (https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling -food/purchase -
announcements).  
Could the US please expand on the criteria considered by USDA when specific products  
are targeted for purchase initiatives, and if so, what are the criteria for selecting specific 
sectors (products)? Are there any specific commercial criteria considered, if so, which 
one(s)?  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 43 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87121: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia welcomes the United States of America's Domestic Support Notification for marketing 
year 2015 (G/AG/N/USA/121). Australia notes that sugar is the only product for which market 
price support is provided (as per Supporting Table DS:5), and the produ ct-specific AMS for sugar 
is nearly 60%, which is considerably higher than other agricultural products notified by the United 
States. This figure is notably higher than the approximately 51% product -specific AMS notified in 
marketing year 1995, meaning the  US has actually gone backwards in terms of possible reforms to 
the US sugar industry. The US's administered price is higher and the eligible production has 
increased in the last 20 years.  
 
Australia also notes recent media reporting that as part of the F arm Bill debate in Congress, North 
Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx claimed she had the votes to pass an amendment that 
would eliminate production limits, repeal a sugar -to-ethanol programme, and give the US 
Administration greater flexibility to lower tariffs on imported sugar. The reporting also mentions a 
2017 analysis by the American Enterprise Institute that estimates that consumers and users may 
spend up to USD 4 billion annually in extra costs due to higher commodity expenses 
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018 -05-15/sugar -policy -revamp -may-be-gop-s-
price-of-passing -u-s-farm-bill).  
 
Given the sustained high l evels of protectionism and domestic support over the last 20 years and 
the current costs on consumers and users, will the United States use the 2018 Farm Bill process to 
engage in genuine reform to the US sugar sector?  
AG-IMS ID 87146: Question by Europea n Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
According to the figures presented in Supporting Table DS:4, there has also been a sharp increase 
in product specific support for soybeans between 2014 and 2015 (from approximately 146 million 
USD to approximately 1  392 million USD). This increase seems to be caused by a large rise in crop 
insurance premium subsidies for soybeans. Could the United States kindly explain the reasons 
behind the large increase in product specific support for Soybeans in 2015?  
AG-IMS ID 8 7150: Question by Canada - Non-product -specific AMS  
In Supporting Table DS:9, Canada notes that the non -product specific budgetary outlays for price 
Loss Coverage (PLC) have increased significantly from U SD 773.8 million in 2014 to USD  1.9 
billion in 2015,  which represent a 151% increase.  
j. Could the US please provide details on the conditions that led to this significant increase 
in expenditures?  
k. Could the US please provide a breakdown of the value of the support by commodity?  
AG-IMS ID 87145: Question by  European Union - Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes a substantially increased support in the form of county -based 
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC -CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) in 2015 as compared to 2014 
in Supporting Table DS:9. Could t he United States kindly explain the reasons behind the increased 
support in the form of Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC -CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) 
in 2015?  
AG-IMS ID 87149: Question by Canada - De minimis  
In Supporting Table DS:4, Canada notes that the use of the de minimis  exemption increased 36% 
from the previous year (USD 9.8 billion to USD 13.3 billion). This increase includes significant 
growth in support for particular products, including: beef cattle  (86 % increase from 2014); chick 
peas (950 % increase from 2014); dry peas (60 % increase from 2014); rye (58 % increase from 
2014); soybeans (854 % increase from 2014); strawberries (3492 % increase from 2014). In 
addition, the U.S. non -produ ct specific AMS increased by 48 % from 2014 (USD  5.5 billion to 
USD 8.2 billion). Could the US please provide details on the conditions that led to these significant 
increases?  
 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 44 - 
 
  2.4  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications  (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3 ) 
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/118)  
AG-IMS ID 87143: Question by New Zealand - Transparency issues  
Canada submitted its ES:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/118) in March 2018. In the table "Export 
Subsidies: Budgetary Outlays and Quantity Reduction Commitments " and accompanying footnote 
4, Canada states that: "Canada 's Uruguay Round export subsidy commitment for dairy products 
are reported on a dairy year basis which runs from 1 August to 31 July.  
  
Under the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition (WT/MIN/(15)45 and WT/L/908), the 
new export subsidy volume limits took effect from 1 January 2016. Therefore there is an overlap 
between the dairy year and the calendar year so that a portion of Canada 's 2015 -2016 dairy year 
fell under the Uruguay Round commitment (from 1 August 2015 to 31 December 2015), and a 
portion under the new Nairobi commitment (from 1 January 2016 to 31 July 2016). Canada 
calculated a Partial Nairobi cap to cover the first 7 months of the 2016 calendar year. "  
  
a.   How has Canada calculated its "Partial Nairobi cap " for the  7 months of the 2016 calendar 
year?  
 
b.   Can Canada please explain how the outlays (i.e. value of subsidised exports) and quantity are 
calculated?  
 
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1  Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 87097: Question by Australi a - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia notes that Egypt has not provided any responses to questions posed to it at the 
86th Committee on Agriculture. Australia therefore restates question  AG-IMS ID 86017.  
  
Australia thanks Egypt for its  DS:1 notification contained in G/AG/N/EGY/3 covering the years 
2005/2006 to 2016/17. Australia asks the following questions:  
  
a. Does Egypt incur any Green Box expenditure other than the Pest Control Subsidy, for 
instance for Agricultural research, for tra ining services, or for disaster relief?  
b. Australia notes that Egypt has not notified any market price support programs in its 
notification. However in Egypt 's Trade Policy Review, the Secretariat report 
(WT/TPR/S/367) notes that the General Authority for S upply Commodities (GASC) "buys 
a share of the wheat crop at administered prices so as to guarantee a revenue to 
farmers and orient planting decisions, as well as to build up public stocks of basic 
foodstuff to be processed and sold to the general populatio n at subsidized prices. The 
State fixes the guaranteed price and purchases the crop from farmers before the 
planting date, so that the farmer can make a decision on whether or not to produce 
wheat. " Table 4.8 of the Secretariat report shows that Egypt 's GASC procured between 
1.8 and 5.3 million tonnes of wheat over the period covered by Egypt 's notification. 
Australia asks that Egypt:  
i. Explain why it has not notified this programme as market price support in its 
Table  DS:1 notification?  
ii.  Update its notification in G/AG/N/EGY/3 to incorporate the support provided through 
this market price support programme, and to update Egypt 's calculation of its current 
Total Aggregate Measurement of Support.  
AG-IMS ID 87095: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease control  
Australia notes that Egypt has not provided any responses to questions posed to it at the 
86th Committee on Agriculture. Australia therefore restates question AG-IMS ID  86012.  
   G/AG/W/178  
 
- 45 - 
 
  Egypt lists a Pest Control Subsidy as  a measure exempt from the reduction commitment – "Green 
Box". Could Egypt provide further detail on the eligibility criteria to receive such subsidy; how the 
subsidy level per producer is calculated; and how payments under this subsidy are made to 
produce rs?  
AG-IMS ID 87093: Question by Australia - Investment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture  
Australia notes that Egypt has not provided any responses to questions posed to it at the 86th 
Committee on Agriculture. Australia therefore restates ques tion AG-IMS ID 86011 . 
   
Australia notes that Egypt has notified investment subsidies under Supporting Table DS:2 – 
measures exempt from the reduction commitment – "Development Programmes ". Could Egypt 
please provide details on the eligibility criteria for  producers to access this subsidy, the amount of 
subsidy on offer to individual producers, and any further information regarding how the subsidy is 
allocated and delivered to producers?  
 
3.2  India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 87131: Question by Canada - Transpar ency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada would like to reiterate its question (AMS AG -IMS ID 85089) raised during the 85th 
Committee on Agriculture for India 's previous notification (G/AG/N/IND/11) on the addition of an 
"Insurance Premium Subsidy" under I ndia's non -product -specific. Could India please indicate when 
question AG -IMS ID 85089 will be answered?  
AG-IMS ID 87132: Question by Canada - Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / 
Development Programmes)  
Canada would like to reiterate its que stion (AG -IMS ID 85098) raised during the 85th Committee 
on Agriculture for India 's previous notification (G/AG/N/IND/11) regarding several measures 
previously notified under Supporting Table DS:2, (Special and Differential Treatment) that are no 
longer in cluded in India's previous DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/IND/11) and also not included in 
India's most recent DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/IND/12). Could India please indicate when question 
AG-IMS ID 85098 will be answered?  
AG-IMS ID 87130: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
Canada would like to reiterate its question (AG -IMS ID 86095) raised during the 86th Committee 
on Agriculture for India 's previous notification (G/AG/N/IND/11) on the methodology used to 
establish the applied administered price and the fixed external reference price for pulses in 
India's  DS:1 notification and the methodology used in its agriculture supporting tables (AGST) 
relating to commitments on agricultural products in Part IV of its Schedule. Could India please 
indicate when it will provide an answer to question AG -IMS ID 86095?  
 
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1  India  
AG-IMS ID 87024: Questio n by United States of America  
Please provide to Members the name, citation, and publication location, for all Indian legal 
instruments related to market price support for wheat and rice for any period from 2010 to the 
present.  Please include both those issued by the national gov ernment and those issued by 
sub-national units of government.  
  
Inclusion of State Level Bonuses in Ap plied Administered Price  
  
a. State -level bonuses for rice and wheat appear to have been provided by certain Indian 
states, including bonuses provided by Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, 
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh, for the years covered by this counter 
notification.   
i. Please indicate whether any bonuses or incentives were provided for rice or wheat by 
any other sub -federal government during any year from 2010 to the present.  G/AG/W/178  
 
- 46 - 
 
  ii. Noting India 's previous responses to the Committee, please explain and clarify 
India's rationale for not notifying these bonuses.  
Eligible Production  
 
b. In both its first notification (G/AG/N/IND/1) and in its domestic support commitments 
(G/AG/AGST/IND), India identified as eligible production all rice and w heat produced in 
India.  India, however, no longer does so, and instead notifies only quantities actually 
purchased by the GoI.   
i. Please explain the specific basis for switching from total production to procured 
quantity.  
ii. Please provide to Members the name a nd location of all measures, laws or 
regulations regarding market price support measures during the issuance of 
G/AG/AGST/IND, G/AG/N/IND/1, G/AG/N/IND/11, and G/AG/N/IND/12.   
Rice Conversions  
  
c. Paragraph 7 of Annex 3 states:  "The AMS shall be calculated a s close as practicable to 
the point of first sale of the basic agricultural product concerned. " Please explain India 's 
rational for notifying support on a milled rice basis rather than a paddy rice basis  
Currency  
  
d. In response to various questions asked by  Members, including AG -IMS ID 76018, India 
has repeatedly stated the basis for notifying in U.S. dollars is that it provides a 
comparable estimate for all of its notifications since G/AG/N/IND/1 for MY 1995/96.   
Noting India 's previous incomplete responses  to the Committee, please specifically 
explain the basis for switching from Indian rupees to U.S. dollars in G/AG/N/IND/1 given 
that Members ' notified support levels are calculated for the primary purpose of 
comparison against their commitments, which in I ndia's case are calculated in Indian 
rupees as referenced in its Agricultural Supporting Tables (G/AG/AGST/IND).  
Value of Production  
  
e. Could India please provide a detailed explanation of the calculation methodology for the 
VoP figures for wheat and rice p rovided in India 's response to AG -IMS ID 75061?  In 
particular, please explain why the VoPs figures provided  by India in its response to 
AG-IMS ID 75061 differ from the figures put out by India 's National Account of Statistics.  
f. Will India provide value of production data in future domestic support notifications to 
ensure transparency and to be consistent with other Member (both developed and 
developing) notifications that include this data as a best practice to easily determine 
whether support is within the  de minimis  limit. 
4.2  Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 8713 3: Question by European Union  
Follow -up question to  AG-IMS ID 86082  
 
Could Indonesia please indicate a possible timeline for when it intends to submit its DS:1 
notifications covering the years after 2011 ?  
 G/AG/W/178  
 
- 47 - 
 
  4.3  Pakistan  
AG-IMS ID 87042: Questio n by United States of America  
The United States notes that Pakistan has not submitted an export subsidy notification 
(Table  ES:1) or response to the export competition questionnaire for any year following marketing 
year 2006/07. Please indicate when Members can expect to receive Pakistan 's overdue notification.  
 
4.4  Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 8713 4: Question by European Union  
Could Turkey please inform Members on the expected timeline for forwarding the missing 
notifications (Domestic Support and ES:1)?  
 
 
__________