WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/103 
1 November 2012 
 (12-6041) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the Committee 
on Agriculture meeting on 20 September 20121 
 
 
 The present document compiles the responses recei ved in writing by the Secretariat to the 
questions raised in document G/AG/W/98 as well as follow-up comments made during the Review 
Process.  
 Outstanding responses will be circulated in a ddenda to this document as soon as they are 
provided by Members.  A comprehensive version of the present compilation will be issued thereafter.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/103 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 4  
A.  MARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  .............................................. 4  
B.  CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  ......................................................................... 4  
C.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ........................................................... 6  
D.  EUROPEAN UNION RECOURSE TO PROCEDURES ON POULTRY PRODUCTS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII  OF GATT 1994:   STATEMENT BY CHINA  ........................................................ 7  
E.  INDIA 'S WHEAT EXPORT POLICY  ................................................................................................ 8  
F.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ..... 8 
G.  SWITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) ............................................................... 12  
H.  UKRAINE – TARIFF -RELATED ISSUES  ........................................................................................ 13  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .......... 13  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) ........................ 13  
1.  Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/43) ..................................................................................................... 1 3 
2.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/85) ............................................................................................ 14  
B.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) ......................................... 15  
1.  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/177) ....................................................................................................... 15 
C.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) ................................................................ 15  
1.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  15 
2.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) ................................................... 16  
3.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1) ...................................................................................... 18  
4.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/40) ................................................................................................. 19  
5.  Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/ Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20) ............................ 20  
6.  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/32/Rev.1) ...................................................................................... 21  
7.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 22 
8.  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48) ........................................................................................................ .. 26 
9.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/75) ............................................................................................ 28  
10.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) .................................................................................................... 29  
11.  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) ...................................................................................................... 29  
12.  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/24) .................................................................................................... 31  
13.  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/55/Rev.1) ................................................................................... 32  
14.  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/72) .................................................................................................. 32  
15.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) ................................................................................. 33  
16.  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/47) ................................................................................................... 33  
17.  Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/6) ...................................................................................................... 34  
D.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 34  
1.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) ............................................................................................ 34  
E.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) ..................................................... 35  
1.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/92) .................................................................................................... 35  
2.  India (G/AG/N/IND/9) .......................................................................................................... .. 36  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 38  
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 41  
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... ....................... 44  
 G/AG/W/103 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. M
ARKET ACCESS OBSTRUCTIONS :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  
1. The Argentine delegation would like to refer ba ck to the statements it made under this 
same agenda item at the last three regular meetings of this Committee. 
2. In these statements, Argentina clearly exp ressed its general concern over the growing 
use of import restrictions in the form of regulations that have no scientific or technical justification, with a view to this concern being addressed in this Committee from the point of view of the effects of such restrictions on mark et access, without prejudice to the discussion of 
the intrinsic issues specific to these regulations  in the relevant Committees, notably those on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res and Technical Barriers to Trade. 
3. Argentina also said that it believed this issu e should be addressed in a cooperative spirit 
and has therefore repeatedly urged Members to  comply in full with the relevant WTO 
Agreements and the standards of the Codex Alim entarius Commission, the World Organisation 
for Animal Health and the International Plan t Protection Convention.  Non-compliance with 
these Agreements and standards has, and will conti nue to have, a direct impact on the efficiency 
of the multilateral trading system, given that it undermines the modest progress made in the Uruguay Round in the area of agricultural trade liberalization and could also undermine the outcome of the Doha Round negotiations on agricultural market access, thereby mainly 
affecting developing countries. 
4. Argentina showed its constructive spirit at the last meeting of this Committee when its 
delegation provided a synthesis of the academic  studies that have been conducted to measure 
the impact and consequences of non-tariff restrict ions on imports of agricultural products and 
foodstuffs. 
5. The Argentine delegation would like to take this opportunity to announce that it has 
requested consultations under the WTO Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes with respect to: 
(a) United States measures affecting the importation of animals, meat and other 
animal products from Argentina; 
(b) United States measures affecting the importation of fresh lemons from the 
North-West region of Argentina. 
6. These consultation procedures, which are conducted under the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding, are concrete examples of the co nsequences of restrictions on agricultural 
market access in the form of regulations that  are inconsistent with the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Meas ures and that impair benefits accruing to a 
Member under the WTO. 
Follow-up:  Cuba and China supported Argentina's statem ent.  China further stated that it would fully 
engage in any discussions on the matter.  Norway expressed readiness to engage in future meetings, 
either through discussions or identifying where it would be best to raise such concerns. 
B. CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
7. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand wishes to resubmit a question asked to 
Canada at the 64th Committee on Agriculture.  It is New Zealand's view that the response  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 5 
 
 
  received did not address the specific concerns rai sed and New Zealand asks Canada to please 
expand upon its earlier response. 
8. Canadian ice cream producers have benefite d from the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
since 2009.  New Zealand understands that this  is a subsidy programme which encourages 
ice-cream manufacturers to substitute domest ic dairy ingredients for imported dairy 
ingredients by offering discounted milk/cream as  an input for ice cream that contains 100 per 
cent Canadian dairy ingredients. 
9. New Zealand has sought further information about the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
at the 57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th Committee on Agriculture meetings.  In response, Canada 
has said that this is a purely commercial a rrangement between Dairy Farmers of Canada and 
ice cream producers.  However, Canada has also acknowledged that the Canadian Dairy 
Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calculates the pooling returns and sharing of promotion costs related to the programme.  Furthermore, the CDC's latest Annual Report 
2010-2011 (page 9) states:  "The CDC chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) and in this capacity, appr ises the committee on matters of interest or 
concern that require resolution and, when necessar y, proposes various solutions, alternatives or 
recommendations to enhance orderly and efficient ma rketing with an eye to avoiding deficit or 
surplus milk production.  The CDC performs a si milar role for the Eastern Canadian Milk Pool 
(P5) and the Western Milk Pool (WMP)." 
10. To date, Canada has not provided any transparency about this programme, citing 
concerns about a confidentiality agreement betw een the CDC and Canadian dairy producers.  
New Zealand continues to seek further details abou t the nature of this programme and the role 
of the CDC and provincial marketing boards in relation to it.  New Zealand considers it 
legitimate to request Canada provide greater transparency around this import replacement 
programme given both a Crown corporation a nd provincial marketing boards governed by 
federal and provincial legislation play important roles in its administration and decision-
making. 
11. Particular questions are: 
(a) What is the function of the Milk Pooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in 
relation to the Ice Cream Promotion Initia tive?  What is the function of the 
provincial marketing boards in relation to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
Canada cannot expand upon its ear lier response provided at the 65
th Committee on 
agriculture because the Canadian Governme nt has no involvement in the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative.  As already noted in Canada's response to the questions posed 
by New-Zealand at the 57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd, 64th and 65th Committee on Agriculture, 
the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a priv ate contractual agreement, between the 
Dairy Farmers of Canada, a non-governmental  organization, and individual ice cream 
processors. 
The Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) has no part in determining the terms and 
conditions of the Ice Cream Promotion Initiativ e.  As the secretariat of the Western 
Milk Pooling Agreement and the Agreement on the Eastern Canadian Milk Pooling, 
its sole role is to perform the pooling calculations each month. 
(b) What is the total value (CAN$) of the poo ling returns?  What is a break-down of 
the promotion costs since the initiative was launched? G/AG/W/103 
Page 6  
 
  The CDC does not receive a breakdown of the promotion initiative costs by ice cream 
manufacturer, it calculates the pooling retu rns and provincial sharing of promotion 
costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative which are included in the CDC's 
aggregate revenue and cost sharing component of the pools.  The CDC is unable to provide the requested data.  This informa tion is of a confidential commercial nature 
and is provided to the CDC on the understandi ng by the participants that it will not be 
shared. 
C. C
OSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
12. Questions by: 
(a) Canada:  Canada appreciates the transpa rency and the updates that Costa Rica 
has provided to this Committee regarding its domestic process for bringing its 
Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) into line with its WTO commitment on domestic support.  Could Costa Rica please provide an update as to the concrete actions it is ta king to bring itself into compliance with 
its WTO obligations? 
(b) United States:  Since September 2009, Co sta Rica has faced questions regarding 
a violation of its bound Total AMS limit.  The United States and a significant number of other WTO Members have continually questioned Costa Rica's breaking of WTO agricultural commitments at each of the twelve Committee meetings since that time.  During the March 2011 meeting, Costa Rica presented details of an alternative approach to address its domestic rice policies and bring 
its AMS back under its bound limit, a positive step warmly welcomed by 
Members.  Unfortunately, after March 2011 Costa Rica has not been able to 
express any positive indication of actions or other efforts by the government to correct this trade-distorting domestic policy.  Some interested Members invited Costa Rica to participate in an informal plurilateral session in advance of the 
20 September 2012 formal Committee meeting.  The United States encourages 
Costa Rica to provide information on concrete steps the government has taken 
or is planning to undertake to adjust th e domestic rice policies and bring its total 
AMS under their final bound Total AMS co mmitment.  Members will be looking 
forward to Costa Rica's report during the formal meeting.  The United States urges more positive responses than presen ted during the past several meetings. 
At the end of 2010, a group of rice producers from various parts of the country filed an 
administrative action against the State, seeking the repeal of Executive Decree 
No. 36247-MEIC of 27 October 2010, specifically  because this Decree lowered the minimum 
price that manufacturers must pay producers for a 73.6 kg bag of rice in the husk from US$0.24315 to US$0.20050 (approximately US $540 per metric tonne).  Moreover, the 
claimants sought damages and asked the Court to require the Executive to adopt certain 
parameters for setting the price and to adopt a specific support policy for producers.  In January 2011, the claimants obtained a precautionary  court order that tentatively set the price 
in question at US$0.2260441. 
The legal proceedings prevented the Costa Ri can Government from adjusting the producer 
purchase price and thus from correcting the applied AMS level. 
On 6 July 2012, the Court issued a ruling (No. 137-2012-VI of the Administrative Court, 
at 3.25 pm on 6 July 2012), declaring the challenged Decree absolutely null and void, ordering the State to pay damages to the clai mant producers and that the price established  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 7 
 
 
  under the precautionary order be maintained a nd adjusted to US$0.2313172 per 73.6 kg bag 
of dry and clean rice in the husk (approximate ly US$626 per metric tonne at the current 
exchange rate), as long as the ruling was upheld.  The Court rejected the claimants' request to 
order the Executive to implement a specific public policy on rice. 
The Costa Rican Government is conducting a lega l analysis of the ruling before determining 
how to proceed with respect to setting rice prices.   As a result, Costa Rica is not in a position 
to tell this Committee when or what steps it will take to comply in terms of the applied level 
of support. 
Follow-up:  Australia, Colombia, Chile, the Europe an Union, Norway, Peru and the United States 
appreciated the transparency and thanked Costa Rica for the detailed response and previous 
interaction with interested Members in a plurilat eral meeting.  Colombia, the European Union, 
Norway, Peru and Viet Nam expressed the systemic concerns associated with  the issue.  Norway 
recalled its own AMS-breaching experience to under line the consequences of non-compliance with 
WTO rules.  The United States noted that Curren t Total AMS had decreased in comparison with 
previous years, but pointed out that it would take twenty years of similar reductions for Costa Rica to 
be within its WTO commitments.  Australia, Chile , Malaysia, the United States and Viet Nam urged 
the Costa Rican Government to take the necessary steps to abide by its WTO obligations.  The United 
States also took note of the judicial decision highlighting that international obligations may not have been taken into account, leading to the increased  support.  Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines 
expressed interest in the topic and hoped that by the next Committee meeting concrete actions would 
have been taken.  Costa Rica reiterated its  commitment to keep the Committee informed.  
D. E
UROPEAN UNION RECOURSE TO PROCEDURES ON POULTRY PRODUCTS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII  OF GATT 1994:   STATEMENT BY CHINA  
13. China raises its concerns on the European Union's modifications of concessions with 
respect to relevant tariff lines of poultry products.  This is not a new issue, as it has been with the WTO for more than ten years.  The first si x years focused on a ban on Chinese poultry 
products for SPS reasons, which was lifted on 2 Se ptember 2008.  The past four years have seen 
China's efforts to obtain status as a party with substantial interest in poultry tariff quota negotiations with the European Union. 
14. China notes that it has raised its concerns b ilaterally on many occasions, in Beijing, 
Brussels and Geneva, and at all levels, including mi nisterial, with a view to finding satisfactory 
solutions.  As a major importer and exporter of poultry products, and a major supplier of these 
products to the European Union, China has subs tantial interests.  China's poultry industry and 
stakeholders are in a difficult situation where they cannot get access to the European Union 
market and are urging the Government to  take measures to address this issue. 
15. Given this situation, China raises the issue at the regular meeting of the Committee.  
China seeks the European Union's clarification and explanation of its specific concerns.  Three 
specific concerns raised by China are contained in paragraphs 5-7 of G/AG/W/100. 
16. Based on the above facts and arguments, Ch ina requests that the European Union enter 
into consultations with China as soon as  possible and address the concerns in a manner 
consistent with the WTO. 
The European Union takes good note of China's intervention.  This issue has already been 
raised by China bilaterally and the European Union has provided ample and clear responses to 
the Chinese Authorities, showing that the releva nt rules of the WTO for Article XXVIII of 
GATT 1994 negotiations have been scrupulously follo wed, in particular with respect to the G/AG/W/103 
Page 8  
 
  reference period of 2006-2008 corresponding to the 3-year period preceding the notification 
in 2009.  The European Union remains ava ilable to pursue the matter bilaterally. 
Follow-up:  As an important poultry exporter, Arge ntina shared China's concern as regards the 
European Union's negotiations on this issu e which started in 2009 under Article XXVIII 
of GATT 1994.  Argentina further expressed its objec tions with regard to the process undertaken in 
order to conclude the negotiations.  The United Stat es shared China's view of  being competitive in the 
European Union market and indicated concerns with an earlier process.  
E. INDIA 'S WHEAT EXPORT POLICY  
17. Questions by the United States:  During the June 2012 Committee meeting, the United 
States raised concerns about India reportedly co nsidering the use of subsidies for exports, 
including for wheat.  Press reports continue to indicate the Indian Government is considering 
supporting exports of government-owned wheat st ocks (old-crop) in order to free up storage 
area for the new wheat crop.  Additionally, the Indian Government is also reportedly 
considering a ban on private-sector wheat exports in order to facilitate exports of government-
owned stocks of old-crop wheat. 
(a) Please update the Committee with regard to  current trade-related policies for 
wheat. 
The export of wheat is under Open General License with effect from 
9 September 2011.  In addition, 2 million tonn es of wheat is to be exported from the 
Central Pool stocks of the Food Corporati on of India (FCI) through Central Public 
Sector Undertakings. 
(b) If government-owned stocks of wheat a re sold for export, under what conditions 
are such exports carried out and, in pa rticular, could wheat be sold at a loss 
(accounting for:  stock acquisition;  stock holding;  stock release;  transport for export;  export pricing)? 
The net gain or loss will depend on the realization from the exports. 
(c) To the degree the Indian Government is considering an export ban on private-
sector wheat exports, could an indication be provided as to the likely instruments used to achieve such an ex port ban (suspension of general licenses, 
export taxes, other)? 
There is no proposal under consideration to ban the export of wheat. 
Follow-up:  Canada shared the concerns expresse d by the United States regarding the reported 
possible use of export subsidies for certain products, including wheat.  The Un ited States appreciated 
India's response and looked forward to India keep ing Members informed on the wheat market 
situation.  
F. INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
18. Questions by: 
(a) New Zealand:  New Zealand would like to again raise concerns about 
Indonesia's Regulations 3 and 30 of 2012:  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (i) New Zealand has received no further communication from Indonesia 
about the implementation of these regulations which were delayed until 30 September 2012, or concerning an y amendments which may have 
been made over the period of delay. 
The implementation of the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 30/2012 was 
postponed by the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 38/2012 for the following 
reasons: 
Time is needed to disseminate informat ion regarding import of the applicable 
horticultural products that can be we ll understood by all stakeholders:  
government officials, importers, export ers, and traders of horticultural 
products.  The delay is intended to pr ovide sufficient time for importers to 
prepare the necessary infrastructure (e.g. cold storage, refrigerated 
warehouses and transport vehicles) in accordance with the characteristics of 
the product.  In addition, importers ma y also have more time to appoint 
distributors and for licensing requirements.  The Indonesian Government 
needs time to do the notification of the Permendag to the WTO. 
(ii) New Zealand is concerned about the impact of the regulations if they 
were to come into effect, which seem to set up a regime with trade restricting consequences. 
The objective of this policy is not to r estrict imports of horticultural products, 
but to vigilantly and prudently monitor and supervise the entry of these 
products to Indonesia.  With this in mind, the Ministry of Trade and the 
Ministry of Agriculture have been cooperating closely with various stakeholders, including New Zealand expor ters, in order to provide the best 
possible flexibility. 
(iii) New Zealand asks Indonesia to explain how these measures are 
consistent with its WTO obligations, specifically the prohibition on 
quantitative restrictions and import prohibitions in Article XI of GATT 1994 and the goal of simplifying fees and formalities associated with importation in Article VIII. 
These policies were made to ensure hor ticultural products entering Indonesia 
meet food safety requirements.  Consum er protection concerns increased in 
Indonesia as it was reported that horticultural products coming into Indonesia 
contained some Dangerous Quarantine Plant Organisms harming agricultural 
products.  Such serious concerns had not  been found in Indonesia before.  
Indonesia assures that the objective of this policy is not to restrict imports of horticultural products, but to vigilantly  and prudently monitor and supervise 
the entry of these products into Indonesia. 
(iv) New Zealand would also like to ask Indonesia for further information on 
how it considers its import licensing regime meets the requirements of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
Indonesia justified this import licenses policy as automatic under Article 2 of 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Based on Article 1 of the 
Agreement, Indonesia as a country has a right that the licenses are considered 
or issued only after the importer meets a number of requirements as long as G/AG/W/103 
Page 10  
 
  those are relevant to the principle of GATT 1994 and shall not be deemed to 
have trade-restricting effects;  the procedure involves two Ministries and the process takes only five working days;  th e process is transparent and open to 
all who can meet the legal requirement. 
(v) Further, New Zealand urges Indonesia to review the regulations in light 
of their WTO commitments. 
(b) United States:  Indonesia's responses to questions on quantitative restrictions at 
the March and June 2012 Committee on Agriculture meetings highlighted Indonesia's policy desire to foster g reater domestic food and agricultural 
production in two distinct types of it s agriculture, i.e., small farms and large 
commercial plantations.  Agricultural and trade policies allocating production 
factors, distributing and marketing goods face competing goals given Indonesia's strong export orientation on one hand and import dependence on another.  Policies based on quantitative restrictions  may appear to provide balance, but 
such policies raise significant questions  regarding Indonesia's compliance with 
its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Agriculture.  The 
United States continues to be concerned that Indonesia maintains a discretionary import permit quota sy stem for livestock products, and is 
concerned that Indonesia plans to implem ent a similar system for horticultural 
products on 28 September 2012.  The United States has numerous concerns about Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 3 and Ministry of Trade 
Regulation 30, which the United States have raised in multiple WTO forums 
including at the two preceding Committee on Agriculture meetings.  The United 
States urges Indonesia to delay the implementation of these regulations indefinitely until they can be brought into conformity with WTO rules. 
(i) Please explain how the Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Agriculture 
plan to proceed with implementation of Ministry of Trade Regulation 3 
and Ministry of Agriculture Regulati on 30 with regard to imports for 
fresh and processed fruit and vegetable products. 
The government must ensure fruit and vegetable products that enter 
Indonesia always meet food safety requirements in order to protect consumers.  The government, in this case the Ministry of Agriculture, set 
entrance port of imports of horticultural products in order to reduce the risk 
of entry and spread of Disturber Organisms Plant Quarantine.  The 
government will continue to improve port infrastructure, especially the quarantine facility, along with the traffic density of horticultural products into 
Indonesia.  The government will enforce provision on registered importer and 
producer importer, recommendation to  import, labeling and packaging 
requirement as well as import verification. 
(ii) Please explain in detail the objectiv e Regulation 3 has for not allowing 
direct imports of fruit and vegetable products by retailers. 
The reason for an importer or retailer of  horticultural products not to able to 
sell to consumers directly is to a void monopolistic practices and to allow 
each entity to focus on addressing areas of business in each chain of 
horticultural trade.  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (iii) The United States notes that Indonesia did not answer a question asked 
at both the March and June 2012 COA meetings:  "Can the Government of Indonesia give assurances that f resh and processed fruit and vegetable 
products will not be quantitatively limited or managed under an import permit system?"  Can Indonesia provide such assurances? 
Based on BPS data, imports of hor ticultural products have increased 
significantly over the past five years.  The import value of fruit and vegetables was US$787.86 million in 2007, US$881.62 million in 2008, 
US$1,054.2 million in 2009, US$1,254.62 million in 2010, and US$1,757.97 million in 2011. 
Since the beginning of 2012, the Indonesian Government has issued 
62 import licences.  The government does not wish to ban or restrict imports of horticultural products, but merely to shift the burden of Tanjung Priok port to another four ports of entry for horticultural products.  The transfer of importation load of horticultural products from Tanjung Priok does not 
discriminate or hinder trade, but is solely aimed to increase food security in 
the context of consumer protection (biosecurity and food safety). 
Indonesian import policies of horticultural products aim to administratively 
regulate importers more efficiently and effectively.  With the spirit of climbing-up the value chain, administrative measures on IT and IP were taken to give a more preferential treatme nt to those that have production and 
manufacturing activities in Indonesia. 
(iv) Indonesia's response to question 20 (G/AG/W/95) noted imported and 
domestically produced horticultural products shall be traded or transferred to consumers through distributors, which unfortunately 
leaves open some doubt regarding e qual treatment.  To ensure fullest 
understanding of the practical daily application regarding fresh and 
processed fruit and vegetable marketing in Indonesia, must all domestically produced horticultura l product pass through a distributor? 
Based on the evaluations of the import policy implementation, the Indonesian 
Government would like to show its good  will by reformulating the policy and 
shortly issuing an amendment of Re gulation Number 30/2012.  Principal 
changes shall include the eliminatio n of horticultural products imports 
allocation and restriction as previous ly referred in Article 2 and 4 of 
Regulation Number 30/2012.  The government is still in the process of formulating a Regulation to give e qual treatment between imported and 
domestic horticulture products. 
(v) In June, Indonesia responded that it was in the process of reviewing the 
Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011, and No. 52/2011 on importation on livestock and livestock products with a view to adapt this regulation to the needs of all stakeholders including importers.  What is the status of this review?  Are any changes to these laws expected in the near term? 
The Government of Indonesia has not finalized the review process yet. G/AG/W/103 
Page 12  
 
  (vi) At the June 2012 Committee on Ag riculture meeting, Indonesia 
confirmed that poultry products in HS 0207.13 and HS 0207.14 are currently banned and stated that "the main reason is that the poultry industry involves millions of small sca le subsistence farmers in rural 
areas".  The United States is sensitive to Indonesia's complex and at 
times contradictory set of agricultural policy objectives.  The United 
States encourages Indonesia to elaborate how alternative policies short of outright poultry import bans have been unable to address the policy concerns, including where additional  international cooperation could 
assist in meeting defined objectives. 
The importation policy is to support th e development of millions of small-
scale farmers.  The need for poultry products has been met by domestic production. 
Follow-up:  Indonesia stated it had sent the inputs  received during a plurilateral meeting held on 
19 September to Jakarta for further advice.  Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, South Africa 
and the United States thanked Indonesia for participating in the plurilateral meeting, reiterating and 
supporting the concerns raised by other Members as  regards Indonesia's import licensing regime for 
certain agricultural products.  Canada, the Eur opean Union and South Africa echoed the United 
States' requests for status updates and the outcom es of the review process taking place.  Canada 
reiterated concerns raised previously regardi ng the discretionary import permit quota system for 
livestock and livestock products which could jeopardi se a beneficial trading relationship.  South 
Africa supported the concerns raised and sought cl arifications on whether Regulations 3 and 30 were 
in compliance with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Finally, the United States and New 
Zealand called upon Indonesia to delay or indefinitely postpone the implementation of the said Regulations in order to allow Members to refl ect upon impacts on WTO obligations and ensure that 
industry has enough time to bring products in  compliance with the revised Regulations. 
G. S
WITZERLAND 'S COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 9.1( C) 
19. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand would again like to express its concern 
regarding Switzerland's compulsory levy on milk pr oduction, to support the export of milk fat.  
Switzerland has previously responded that as IP Milk is a private organization, this levy cannot be considered an export subsidy under Article 9. 1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  This 
answer notwithstanding, New Zealand seeks furth er explanation from Switzerland.  Namely, 
New Zealand asks Switzerland to please explain how this levy is provided in accordance with 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Article 9.1(c) explicitly includes under the 
definition of an export subsidy:  "payments on the export of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of governmental action, whether or not a charge on the public account is involved, including payments that are financed from the proceeds of a levy imposed on the 
agricultural product concerned or on an agricultu ral product from which the export product is 
derived".  New Zealand also seeks confirmation by Switzerland that this levy will not be renewed when it expires on 30 April 2013. 
Switzerland refers to its last response to New Zealand regarding this matter.  The Federal 
Council's decision merely subjects non-members – who account for only five per cent of Swiss milk producers – to measures decided upon by IP Lait.  Contributions from IP Lait 
members and non-members are collected by IP Lait and thus by a private association. 
The Swiss milk market is in a restructuring ph ase towards a more liberal market after decades 
of State regulation.  The private measure by IP Lait therefore serves as a transitional flanking measure during the initial period of liberalization in order to stabilize the Swiss milk market.   G/AG/W/103 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Extension to non-members – an instrument  that is well known and respected by 
WTO Members – is simply a form of assistance to private regulation to avoid a private measure from being undermined by free-riders. 
At this time, IP Lait has not requested an ex tension of the measure beyond 30 April 2013 and 
Switzerland is assuming that it will be possible to stabilize the milk market during the period 
for which the instrument was established. 
Follow-up:  The European Union deemed the non-extension of the measure after April 2013 as 
positive news.  However, it expressed doubts as regards the compliance of the measure with Article 9 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and considered that  it should be notified against Switzerland's export 
subsidy commitment.  
H. UKRAINE – TARIFF -RELATED ISSUES  
20. Question by the United States:  The United St ates is aware that Ukraine has indicated its 
interest in modifying its tariff schedule pursuant to the provisions and procedures of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.  As noted during the meeting of the Committee on Market Access held on 17 September 2012, this proposed  action raises serious concerns and questions 
not the least of which is how Ukraine intends to ensure that the modifications undertaken under 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 "maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions not less favourable to tr ade".  The United States is particularly 
concerned because of the broad scope of this proposed action, which covers multiple sectors, 
including agriculture, automobiles, machin ery and chemicals, among others.  While 
appreciating the information provided in document G/SECRET/34 dated 12 September 2012, 
the United States notes that the document did not include the intended modifications that 
Ukraine is seeking to make.  The United Stat es cannot be expected to enter into discussions 
about compensation without knowing the pr oposed new rates and notes that relevant 
procedures require circulation of that and oth er information as soon as possible after the 
notification.  Since the Committee on Market Access meeting of 17 September, the United States 
has clarified that the 90 day procedural clock in fact does not start until Members receive from 
Ukraine a specific set of information as outlined in the relevant procedures. 
The action is legal and under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994.  The Ukraine is not in a position 
to discuss the matter at the multilateral level;  it is, however, willing to discuss the issue bilaterally. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. I
MPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Tunisia (G/AG/N/TUN/43) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Tariff quota fill 
21. Question by Canada:  Canada notes that the fill rate for the beef TRQ in 2011 is about 
16 per cent.  Could Tunisia please explain why there is such a low fill rate? 
Tunisia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/103 
Page 14  
 
  2. United States (G/AG/N/USA/85) 
(a) Tariff and other quotas – Tariff quota fill 
22. Questions by: 
(a) Colombia:  Could the United States plea se explain why imports of beef, butter, 
cheese, ice cream, chocolate crumb, to bacco and cotton for the years 2010 
and 2011 were lower than the tariff quo ta commitment levels undertaken in 
the WTO? 
As per the most recent data in th e Members' transparency toolkit2, the United States 
has a total of 54 separate tariff quotas.  The toolkit data includes the subject 
notification referenced by Colombia (G/AG/ N/USA/85).  In some cases, the broad 
scope of the question covers multiple sepa rate TRQs where a single generic product 
is mentioned.  In the interest of transpar ency, this response provides a wider range of 
information (see Annex 1).  If certain elements need further elaboration, the United States will be pleased to continue such di alogue with Colombia (or other interested 
Members).  The responses aim to provide an  explanation of TRQ fill rates based on 
some common economic and trade indicators. 
(b) European Union:  What are the reasons for the permanently low utilisation level 
of tobacco TRQs? 
In 2004, the United States Government e nded its federal toba cco programme and 
USDA stopped collecting data on production and consumption of tobacco and 
tobacco products.  The United States demand fo r tobacco leaf seems to have declined 
over time as world cigarette production relocated to be closer to growing markets in Eastern Europe and Asia. 
Follow-up:  In its verbal response, the United States sought to highlight some substantive and 
systemic aspects.  Firstly, TRQ fill-rate data in Annex 1 is available online from the Members' 
Transparency Toolkit;  in this context, the United States lauded the work of the WTO Secretariat in 
maintaining an up-to-date single point of informa tion on Members' notifications.  Second, the United 
States' response set out what the Committee may c onsider to be some elements of appropriate 
economic and trade data to address Members' commercial interest in an underutilised TRQ, 
including:  prices (either generally or, if appropriat e, specific to the TRQ product, explaining the 
relationship between domestic and in ternational prices);  consumption (provision of relative supply 
and demand domestically or glob ally impacting the attractiveness to filling the TRQ quantity);  
administration (key aspects notified to the Committ ee and other relevant issues).  The substantive 
effort of this particular response should be seen  within the context of the limited time between 
receiving the questions and formulating the responses.  Further, the United States stated that the 
Committee does not have guidance as to what Memb ers deem more or less meaningful to address 
concerns with TRQ underfill.  The United States' delegation would be pleased to engage with the 
European Union or Colombia in order to prov ide more details based on specific commercial 
concerns.  Finally, to the degree that the Committe e should wish to engage in a discussion regarding 
what may be useful in such a TRQ fill response, th e United States would be pleased to contribute.  
Colombia, India, New Zealand and Switzerland thanked  the United States for its detailed response.  
Colombia and India recorded their intention of fo llowing up at a later stage with comments and India 
flagged its interest in the tobacco TRQ. 
                                                      
2 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/a gric_e/transparency_toolkit_e.htm    G/AG/W/103 
 Page 15 
 
 
  B. SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/177) 
(a) SSG – Trigger calculations 
23. Questions by the United States:  Japan's notification for the volume-based special 
safeguard for tariff item numbers 0401.40.190, 0401.50.119, 0401.50.129 states that 18 tonnes 
were imported during the current period. 
(a) What is the twelve-month period used and data source for the "current period"? 
The "current period" is from 1 April 20 12 to 31 March 2013 (fiscal year 2012) and 
the data source is "Trade Statistics of Japan".  The volume based special safeguard for the same tariff item numbers was invoke d from November 2011 till March 2012 (the 
end of fiscal year 2011) according to para graph 4 of Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  However, the amount which had been en route  on the basis of a contract 
settled before the additional duty was impo sed was exempted from the additional 
duty, and was counted in the volume of imports of the product during the following year according to paragraph 3 of Article  5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Therefore, the volume of imports in the "current year" is the sum of the volume of 
imports which were en route  (17.3 tonnes) and the volume of imports for April 2012 
(0.5 tonne). 
(b) Import data from the preceding three years is  used to calculate the trigger level.  
Please clarify the reported twelve-month periods used in this calculation, including the actual data. 
Import data from the three preceding years reported in the notification 
G/AG/N/JPN/177 is based on the twelve-month  period from January to December 
(i.e., calendar year): 
Reporting period 2009 2010 2011 Average 
From 1 January to 31 December 80 2 kg 3,270 kg 28,133 kg 10,735 kg
 
Japan has used data for the three most recent calendar years (i.e., 2009-2011 calendar 
years) to calculate the trigger level for the new fiscal year (i.e., 2012 fiscal year) because the data for the most recent fiscal year (i.e., 2011 fiscal year) is not available 
before the new fiscal year begins.  If Japan would have used fiscal year data, it would 
have had to use data for previous y ears (i.e., 2008-2010 fiscal years), which would 
not reflect the most recent trade situation. 
C. D
OMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
24. Questions by the European Union:  Followi ng up on Brazil's reply to question 29 in 
G/AG/W/96, Brazil uses three criteria to define "fam ily farming".  One of them is limitation in 
the size of the land namely "four module size": G/AG/W/103 
Page 16  
 
  (a) What criteria define "a module"?  Is "a module" of the same size all over the 
Brazilian territory? 
The module size is defined for each city depending on its production conditions, 
which include:  market dynamics, availabl e infrastructure and technology and natural 
resources, such as soil and water.  The more productive a certain region, the smaller 
the size of the area required to achieve profitability.  Municipalities in the state of São 
Paulo, for instance, have roads, access to ports, electricity, research centres and they 
are usually close to dynamic markets.  On the other hand, some cities in the Northeast 
region of Brazil are more isolated, distant from markets and with less access to technology.  Therefore, a module in cities of the Northeast region will normally be 
bigger than a module in the state of São Paulo.  The module varies from 5 to 
110 hectares across the country.  The size is the same for all farms within the same 
municipality. 
(b) Are commercial farmers who, as the Eu ropean Union understands, benefit from 
the minimum price support, also family farmers? 
In Brazil, some programmes are targeted ex clusively at low income or resource poor 
farmers and notified under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Programmes 
that use the minimum price as a reference, among others, such as budget availability, 
are available for all producers. 
(c) What is the percentage of family farmer s/low-income or resource poor farmers 
in Brazilian agriculture? 
According to the Agricultural Census 2006 (Brazilian Institute for Geography and 
Statistics – IBGE), the value of production from family farmers represents 37.8 per cent of the total, and from farmers eligible  for the "Programme to Strengthen Family 
Farming" (PRONAF), who are considered low-income or resource poor farmers, 22.9 per cent of the total. 
2. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
25. Questions by the United States:  The United States notes Canada's responses during the 
June 2012 Committee meeting (paragraphs 44 an d 48 G/AG/W/96) regarding measures applied 
to the Canadian hog sector. 
(a) Please provide further policy background to the simultaneous payments, which 
on the one hand indirectly support the expansion of the hog sector (i.e., Amber Box programmes) and on the other hand are aimed to limit and/or reduce the 
size of the hog sector (i.e., Cull Breeding Swine Programme and the Hog Farm Transition Programme). 
Business risk management in Canada is primarily based on the whole-farm approach 
to help producers mitigate financial ri sks related to their business operations 
regardless of the commodity produced (incl uding hogs);  thereby not masking market 
signals, nor distorting production decisions.  The Cull Breeding Swine Programme 
and the Hog Farm Transition Programme were time-limited and provided assistance 
to hog producers who wished to exit th e industry in response to exceptional 
circumstances that significantly and ne gatively affected the sector.  These  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 17 
 
 
  programmes were designed to fully meet the "Green Box" criteria of Annex 2, 
paragraph 10 (i.e., Structural adjustme nt assistance provided through resource 
retirement programmes), which caused at most minimal or no trade – or production –distorting effects.  Agriculture is under th e shared and concurrent jurisdiction of 
federal and provincial governm ents in Canada.  Therefore, provinces can implement 
their own programmes outside of national pr ogramming to meet their own priorities. 
(b) Within provincial risk management programmes such as Quebec's Farm Income 
Stabilization Insurance (ASRA) and Ontario's Risk Management Programme (mentioned in G/AG/N/CAN/90), what mechanisms exist to ensure that the level of support associated with those prog rammes does not cau se Canada to exceed 
its total final bound AMS commitment level? 
Both provinces (Ontario and Québec) put a budget cap on their programme that keeps 
the level of expenditures well below Ca nada's annual total AMS commitment.  
Moreover, Agriculture and Agri-Food Ca nada (AAFC) maintains communications 
with provincial counterparts and monitors  Canada's agricultural domestic support 
level (i.e., both federal and provincial) to  ensure programmes are consistent with 
international trade obligations. 
(c) Equally, within the Federal-Provincial- Territorial process for formulating 
Canada's agri-food programmes, how is  the amount of non-exempt direct 
payments by each provincial or territorial government determined in a fashion such that the total amount of such p ayments does not breach Canada's final 
bound Total AMS commitment level? 
AAFC monitors the amount of non-exempt dir ect payments to ensure that any such 
support can be accommodated within Canada 's annual total AMS commitment level. 
(d) In its calculation of current AMS (G/AG/N/CAN/90), Canada indicates that the 
value of production for grains and oilseeds is calculated by multiplying the 
quantity of production time's price.  Could Canada please document in greater 
detail how this calculation is perfor med using recent canola crops as an 
example? 
Canada's revised methodology for most grai ns and oilseeds provides a better estimate 
of the actual value of production, as the Fa rm Cash Receipts data from Statistics 
Canada does not account for the value of in ter-farm sales within a province or value 
of crops fed on-farm.  As an example using canola, its 2009 value of production 
notified in column 5 of Supporting Table DS:4 of G/AG/N/CAN/90 was US$5,124.7 million. 
The calculation was based on Statistics Cana da's data:  (i) The canola production was 
12,889,200 metric tonnes
3;  (ii) The total farm cash receipt for canola was 
US$4,815 million4;  (iii) The total marketing's of canola was 12,110,301 metric 
tonnes.5 
To obtain the imputed price of canola, the total farm cash receipt (ii) was divided by 
the total marketing's (iii).  The price was US$397.59 per metric tonnes.  This price 
                                                      
3 Source:   Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 001-0010, November 2011 
4 Source:   Farm Income and Prices Sectio n, Statistics Canada, November 2011 
5 Source:   Farm Income and Prices Sectio n, Statistics Canada, November 2011 G/AG/W/103 
Page 18  
 
  was then multiplied by the canola production (i) to get the value of production for 
canola. 
3. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
26. Question by the United States:  The United States notes in Supporting Table DS:1 that 
Costa Rica states under the "Animal health programme" that the programme preserves, 
protects, and enhances the health status of th e country's livestock through improved domestic 
production and other factors.  Please provide an elaboration as to how Costa Rica improves 
domestic production under this programme and how it preserves, protects, and enhances 
livestock health. 
Costa Rica would like to clarify that the "A nimal health programme" is included in the 
National Animal Health Service's (SENASA) budget for controlling, inspecting and fighting 
both general and product-specific diseases.  This  is how SENASA helps to preserve, protect 
and enhance the health status of the country 's livestock and thus contributes to improving 
domestic production, animal health, veterinary public health and environmental protection. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  infrastructural services 
27. Question by the United States:  The United States notes in Supporting Table DS:1 that 
Costa Rica provides several infrastructure serv ice programmes related to water management 
and irrigation, but does not appear to subsidize water rates for farmers.   Please confirm that 
farmers/producers do not receive any direct subsid ization for water or indirectly benefit from 
subsidization under or due to these programmes. 
With respect to irrigation and drainage infr astructure services, Costa Rica would like to 
explain that the water provided through the i rrigation and drainage infrastructure services 
programme is paid for by the beneficiaries.  The applied rates comply with Irrigation Services 
Regulations and do not favour a specific crop.  The rates are approved by the Public Services 
Regulatory Authority ( Autoridad  Reguladora  de Servicios  Públicos  - ARESEP) and comprise 
four types of fees:  (i) Operating and Maintenance Fee (COM):  to cover operating and 
maintenance costs;  (ii) Investment Fee (CRI):  to cover investments;  (iii) Supplementary Fee 
(CC):  to cover the difference between the est imated consumption of the standard crop and 
other crops (which has not been applied to date);   (iv) Pumping fee:  to cover the costs of 
pumps users;  it is based on the volume extracted by gravity pumps. 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
28. Questions by the United States:  Costa Rica  provided a decoupled income support that 
provides a "temporary unemployment subsidy" to small agricultural producers affected by 
"national emergency situations".  The United  States understands from G/AG/N/CRI/39 that 
this is a one-time programme that  related to a specific national emergency declared in Executive 
Decree No. 26252.  However, the United States not es that the programme is notified again in 
G/G/N/CRI/40 and the title of th e programme refers to "national emergency situations" in the 
plural form. 
(a) Please clarify whether this programme remains available for future similar 
"national emergency situations" or if this was a one-time programme for a 
"national emergency situation" in 2010.  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 19 
 
 
  (b) The United States is interested to understand why this is a decoupled income 
support programme rather than a payment for relief from natural disasters.  
Please provide a link to the official decree noted so that the purpose and implementation criteria of the programme can be better understood. 
Costa Rica would like to clarify that the temporary unemployment subsidy programme for 
small agricultural producers adversely affected  by national emergency situations only applied 
to producers affected by the national emer gency situation in 2010.  As notified in 
G/AG/N/CRI/39, it was a temporary programme that was implemented for three months, 
beginning in November 2010 and ending in January 2011.  The programme fell under the 
programmes set out in paragra ph 6 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture regarding 
decoupled income support given that it is grante d in accordance with clearly defined criteria, 
such as income (minimum wage of an agricultu ral worker) and status as a producer (small 
producers).  Furthermore, the amount of the paymen ts is not related to the type or volume of 
production undertaken by the producer in any subse quent year.  Neither is it related to, or 
based on, the prices, domestic or internationa l, applying to any produc tion undertaken in any 
subsequent year, and no production is require d in order to receive such payments. 
The programme is not in line with the classifica tion set out in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture on "Payments (made either directly or by way of a government financial participation in crop insurance schem es) for relief from natural disasters", as it does 
not conform with the provisions established in  subparagraph (a):  "Eligibility for such 
payments shall arise only following a formal recognition by government authorities that a 
natural or like disaster (including disease outbreaks, pest infestations, nuclear accidents, and 
war on the territory of the Member concerned) has occurred or is occurring;  and shall be 
determined by a production loss which exceeds 30 pe r cent of the average of production in the 
preceding three-year period or a three-year av erage based on the preceding five-year period, 
excluding the highest and lowest entry." 
4. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/40) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
29. Questions by the United States:  The Unit ed States notes in footnote 1 of Supporting 
Table DS:5 that the applied administered pric e is specified as the "average annual price". 
(a) Did the applied administered price change during the 2011 reporting period, 
and if so, what was the basis for the ch ange, including specific details for the 
calculation? 
(b) Please confirm and explain any distinction between the current applied 
administered price and the "average annual price". 
Costa Rica would like to clarify that the footnote of Supporting Table DS:5, referring to the 
average annual price, is an error.  In 2011, there was only one applied administered price of 
22,604.41 colons per 73.6 kg bag of dry and cl ean rice in the husk (equivalent to US$600.25 
per tonne).  As stated on page  1 of notification G/AG/N/CRI/40, Costa Rica will subsequently 
submit a revision of the notification, which will include some figures that are missing.  Costa 
Rica would like to thank the United States for dr awing its attention to this point, which will 
be corrected when the aforementioned revision is circulated. 
Follow-up:  Australia and the United States appreciat ed reviewing details relating to the methodology 
used to calculate Total AMS.  Au stralia further sought a clarifica tion with respect to a Green Box G/AG/W/103 
Page 20  
 
  programme (decoupled income support payments fo r national emergency situations) described as 
being consistent with paragraph 6 of Annex 2, including regarding the defined base period.  
Costa Rica clarified that a response was already gi ven in the previous Committee meeting (document 
G/AG/W/96 refers). 
 
5. Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  marketing and promotion services 
30. Questions by the United States: 
(a) The United States notes from G/AG /N/DOM/18/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/DOM/20 
that the Dominican Republic notified the rice production and marketing 
programme in Supporting Table DS:1 as marketing and promotion services.  
The United States also notes that the Dominican Republic's response to the United States' question in June 2012 that this measure does not distort the 
market and has no influence on the pri ce received by producers.  Please provide 
a detailed explanation of the programme's objective and how the programme is 
implemented.  If the notified programme covers multiple programmes, please 
list all programmes. 
The Dominican Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
(b) The United States also notes that budgetary outlays for the rice production and 
marketing programme fluctuated signif icantly from 2008 to 2011, ranging from 
RD$243 million to RD$600 million.  Please explain what causes the significant 
fluctuation in programme expe nditures from year to year. 
The Dominican Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
(c) The United States understands that the Dominican Republic's rice production 
and marketing programme is aimed at small and medium-sized producers, 
which account for more than 50 per cent of national rice production 
(paragraph 60(b) of G/AG/W/96 refers).  Please confirm whether the benefits of 
the programme are generally available to a ll rice producers or only to "small 
and medium-sized" producers. 
The Dominican Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
(d) In addition, the United States understa nds from the Dominican Republic that 
the "pignoración" is not notified as pa rt of the rice production and marketing 
programme.  The Dominican Republic indicated that the "pignoración" 
programme's objective is to ensure ri ce producer profitability (paragraph 60(c) 
of G/AG/W/96 refers). 
(i) If the "pignoración" is not notified as part of the Rice production and 
marketing programme, where does the Dominican Republic notify the 
programme? 
(ii) Please confirm that the programme op erates by allowing rice producers 
to obtain an interest-free loan equivalent to 70 per cent of the value of that deposited in specified warehouses.  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 21 
 
 
  (iii) The United States also understands that the government pays the storage 
costs, including insurance and requests the Dominican Republic to indicate if, and where, government outlays for storage costs and insurance are possibly otherwise notified in the Dominican Republic's domestic support notifications. 
(iv) Please identify any other aspects to the "pignoración" programme 
requiring government outlays beyond those for storage costs and insurance. 
(v) Please provide annual government outlays for the "pignoración" during 
the period covered by notifications G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1 and 
G/AG/N/DOM/20 (2008 to 2011). 
The Dominican Republic undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
6. Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/32/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General service s:  extension and advisory services 
31. Questions by: 
(a) Canada:  Honduras has revised  its Table DS:1 notification so that the measure 
"Agribusiness development programme for small and medium sized African 
palm producers" is now classified und er "Extension and advisory services".  
This programme was previously classified under "Marketing and promotion services".  In response to questions raised at the 65
th Committee on Agriculture, 
Honduras indicated that the project provides for the sowing of 7,206 hectares of 
African Palm, of which 2,882 hectares (40 per cent of the project) will be for the renewal of plantations and 4,324 hectares for extending the cultivated area (60 per cent of the project).  Could Honduras please explain how this programme meets the criteria outlined in paragraph 2(d) "Extension and 
advisory services" or 2(f) "Marketing and promotion services" in Annex 2? 
(b) United States:  The United States appreciates Honduras' explanation of how its 
programmes are categorized.  Based on Honduras' explanation of the agribusiness development programme for sm all and medium-sized African palm 
producers, it appears the programme may be categorized incorrectly.  Honduras 
explains that the programme will sow 7,206 hectares of African Palm and that 
the programme will also introduce techni cal and financial assistance systems to 
contribute to the development of the sector.  This does not appear to meet the criteria of paragraph 2(d) "extension and advisory services, including the provision of means to facilitate the tran sfer of information and the results of 
research to producers and consumers". 
(i) Please provide further detail on how this programme is implemented, 
specifically what benefits are tran sferred to producers, how they are 
transferred, and what costs, if any, the producer assumes. 
(ii) Please provide further clarification as to how this programme is an 
extension and advisory service given the benefits transferred to producers is not information/research ty pically associated with extension 
and advisory services. G/AG/W/103 
Page 22  
 
  Honduras reviewed the "Agribusiness de velopment programme for small and 
medium sized African palm producers" a nd concluded that it was not correctly 
classified and should be included in Anne x 2, paragraph 2(d):  "extension and 
advisory services, including the provision of  means to facilitate the transfer of 
information and the results of research to producers and consumers".  This is because 
the purpose of the programme is to sow 7,206 hectares of African palm, of which 
2,882 hectares (40 per cent of the programme) is for the renewal of plantations and 4,324 hectares for expanding the cultivated area, in other words 60 per cent of the programme. 
The programme also provides for the development of nurseries in which 
700,000 seedlings are being produced for the cultivation of 5,000 hectares of African 
palm with new genetic materials that will produce higher yields in the plantations of 
the project area, using sound farming and fertilization practices.  At the same time, the programme provides for the introduction of a technical and financial assistance system to contribute to the development of the palm sector. 
For additional information please refer to G/AG/W/94, paragraph 78(d) (page 44). 
7. India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
32. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) In relation to India's reply of the Committee on Agriculture of June 2012 
(G/AG/W/96, paragraph 74(c) refers), coul d India provide some quarterly data 
on the past stocks to be maintained "as established by the government" even if it 
is acknowledged that the prescriptions as to the "predetermined targets" stipulated in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are not laid down in national legislation?   Is there a website where these targets 
established by the government are accessible? 
Buffer stock operations for the purposes of  public stockholding for food security 
purposes are detailed in G/AG/AGST/IND.  The minimum buffer norms form part of the total Buffer Stock Operations.  The da ta related to this is available in the 
"Foodgrains Bulletin" of the Department of Food and Public Distribution website.
6 
(b) When will India provide the requisite Table DS:2 notifications in relation to the 
buffer stock operations which will facilitate the broader understanding of the 
exempted measures? 
Buffer stocking is not a new or modified ex empt domestic support measure.  It has 
consistently been included in India's Ta ble DS:1 notifications under the Green Box 
and is included in India's Supporting Table G/AG/AGST/IND.  
(c) From India's reply of the Committee on Agriculture of June 2012 (G/AG/W/96, 
paragraph 74(b) refers) and India's reply of the Committee meeting of September 2011 (G/AG/W/88, paragraph 22(c) refers), the European Union understands that the difference between the purchase price under the buffer stock operations and India's External Reference Prices is accounted for in 
                                                      
6 http://dfpd.nic.in/?q=node/1058   G/AG/W/103 
 Page 23 
 
 
  India's AMS, in accordance with footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Could India explain how th ese amounts are taken into account in 
its AMS notifications?  Which domestic  support supporting tables contain these 
amounts? 
Government agencies procure foodgrains at Minimum Support Prices (Applied 
Administered Price in India) announced by  the government.  The AMS calculations 
are contained in Supporting Table DS:5 of  India's Domestic Support notifications.  
The AMS is calculated using the difference between the Minimum Support Prices i.e., the Applied Administrative Prices and the External Reference Prices taken 
from India's Supporting Tables G/AG/AGST/IND.  
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
33. Questions by the United States:  The Un ited States appreciates India's response to 
questions 58(b) and 59(b) from the March 2012 Committee meeting (G/AG/W/94 refers). 
(a) To ensure correct understanding of the resp onses, please confirm that India's 
measures do not contain specific language in crop insurance legislation to ensure 
that losses of less than 30 per cent are covered, as required by paragraph 8(a) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) To facilitate an accurate understandi ng, please provide data showing the 
average production loss for paymen ts made under the crop insurance 
programme for years covered by Indi a's domestic support notification. 
The National Agriculture Insurance Scheme has b een formulated taking into consideration the 
special needs of India's farming sector.  The scheme does not make any such specific 
mention.  The amount of insurance in most cases is limited to the cost of production which is 
60-65 per cent of the value of production.  Thus even in the event of 100 per cent crop loss, the compensation paid is only around 65 per cent of the value of production. 
(c) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential treatmen t / Development Programmes) – Input subsidies 
available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
34. Questions by the United States:  The United States notes India's request to only use 
official Government of India data and notifications material (paragraph 60 of G/AG/W/94 refers).  Unfortunately, various questions rema in based on information currently extracted 
from what the United States underst ands to constitute official so urces.  The United States is 
interested in a clear understanding of India's policies, documentation of relevant measures and 
supporting data.  Robust and detailed responses to the following questions will lead to a better 
understanding of India's official perspective of certain measures in support of agriculture producers. 
(a) Please provide the value of input subsidi es (aggregate and by grouping) provided 
to various farm size categories, such as those defined by the Agricultural Census. 
(b) Please explain why landholding size rather than value of output per land unit is 
a better measure for determining "low income, resource-poor". 
(c) Please confirm if Members correctly und erstand based on India's response to 
question 60(a) and 60(b) in G/AG/W/94 th at India categorises ALL farmers as 
"low-income, resource poor". G/AG/W/103 
Page 24  
 
  Subsidies on inputs such as fer tilizers, electricity and irrigati on are available to all farmers 
irrespective of land holding size.  The data is  available on the website of Department of 
Agriculture and Cooperation under th e heading Statistics at a Glance.
7  India's Agriculture 
Census is based on farm size cate gories rather than output per unit land.  Therefore, data on 
output per unit is not available for determ ining low income, resource poor farmers. 
Landholding laws have been framed by St ate Governments and therefore ceilings on 
individual landholding size vary from State to State.  Overall, a farmer is not allowed to have 
more than 10 hectares of irrigated land.  Only 1 per cent holdings are of size more than 10 hectares.  The productivity of dry un-irrigate d land is generally much lower, around 40 per 
cent of the productivity of irrigated land.  This can  also be seen from input use.  Effectively, 
land holdings of more than 10 hectares size (average 17 hectares) are equivalent to less than 
10 hectares irrigated lands. 
35. India cited (question 18 of G/AG/W/88 refers) the lack of irrigation and land ceiling 
laws as reasons why large farms are to be co nsidered as "low income, resource-poor".  Please 
provide further explanation to support this. 
Please refer to paragraph 34 above. 
36. The United States appreciates India's further responses regarding input subsidies 
(paragraph 62 of G/AG/W/94 refers), but absent more precise data responses and/or reference to publically available budget documents the thru st of the question remains open (discrepancy 
between referenced document and notification).  Please clarify the noted discrepancy in the data 
and provide any further details or reference a dditional documentation which can facilitate a 
better understanding of India's policies with regar d to input subsidies (specific measures, scope 
of usage for each input for agricultural producers)? 
It is unclear what data discrepancy is being referred to.  However, as has been explained on 
earlier occasions including the response referred  to in paragraph 62 of G/AG/W/94, there is 
no data discrepancy.  
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
37. Questions by the United States: 
(a) In G/AG/W/94 India responded in paragraph 64 that it was collecting relevant 
information with respect to calculating a conversion factor for seed cotton to 
cotton lint and would report back to the Co mmittee.  Assuming India is now in a 
position to respond, the United States repeats the question. 
India will revert with information.  
(b) Regarding the United States' request for documentation and information on 
external reference prices, the Unit ed States was seeking more detailed 
information than that provided in India's response because of the large gap between the applied administered price and the external reference prices 
notified in Supporting Table DS:5.  For e xample, the external reference price for 
cotton is approximately three times as larg e as the applied administered price.  
The United States would like to confirm, among other things, that the prices 
                                                      
7 http://agricoop.nic.in /Agristatistics.htm 
  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 25 
 
 
  have been measured at the same stage  of production (seed cotton or milled 
cotton).  Repeating the question from September 2011, please provide documentation (source, grade, location, transport adjustments, quality adjustments) for the external reference prices for each commodity included in 
Supporting Table DS:5. 
The external reference prices have b een sourced from India's Supporting Table 
G/AG/AGST/IND and are the average c.i.f./f.o.b.  prices of the product in question during the 1986-1988 period. 
(c) Regarding India's response in paragraph 65 of G/AG/W/94 on India's public 
stockholding programme, the United States would appreciate further clarity.  
How the minimum support price for wheat and rice is determined using the 
Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices'  assessment of cost of production?  
Specifically, are other factors taken into a ccount or is the support price set equal 
to the cost of production assessment? 
Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are announced by the Government following the 
recommendations of the Commission for Agri cultural Costs and Prices (CACP).  The 
CACP takes into account various factors in cluding the cost of cultivation/production, 
changes in input prices, input/output price parity, inter-crop price parity, effect on the cost of living, effect on general price leve l,  parity between prices paid and prices 
received by farmers etc.
8 
(e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support:  Eligible production 
38. Questions by the United States:  Regarding India's response in paragraph 67 
of G/AG/W/94, it is of interest to better understa nd India's policies and in particular details or 
explanation regarding the clear policy change with respect to the quantities "all production" 
used in preparing its first domestic support no tification (G/AG/N/IND/1) and the significantly 
smaller quantities used in subsequent notifications.   
(a) Did India have a particular change in policy that supported this switch in the 
production parameter utilized in the notifications? 
(b) How does India ensure that the benefit of prices arising from the market price 
support measures are not accruing to tho se producers not benefiting from direct 
(or indirect) sales under the govern ment's procurement ("purchased 
production")? 
Farmers bring their produce for procurement by  government agencies only in the event of the 
market price falling below the Minimum Support Price announced by the government.  Thus, only those farmers are benefited whose produce is pr ocured by government agencies.  It is for 
this reason that the quantity procured by government agencies at Minimum Support Prices is taken as the eligible production. 
Follow-up:  In order to gain a better understanding of India's support programmes, the United States 
reserved the right to request additio nal clarifications regarding the status of all farmers in India as 
being considered low-income and resource-poor. 
                                                      
8 Details may be seen at http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in. 
  G/AG/W/103 
Page 26  
 
  8. Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
39. Question by the European Union:  What food stuffs are eligible for public stockholding? 
The foodstuffs eligible for public stockholding  are wheat for human consumption and feed 
grains. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct paym ents:  decoupled income support 
40. Question by the European Union:  The Europe an Union notes that payments to meat of 
poultry producers in the Galilee area show a co nsiderable variability based on the notifications 
presented by Israel, especially since 2004.  Could Israel explain why this spending varies a lot 
between years? 
Payments to meat of poultry producers in the Ga lilee area vary because payments to eligible 
producers are based on certain percentage of th e total production costs.  These costs vary 
depending on factors such as the actual price of feed grains, which is subject to world price fluctuations as well as other variable costs. 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
41. Question by Australia:  Could Israel provide specific details of how payments provided 
to milk producers notified in Supporting Tabl e DS:1 (environmental payments) meet the 
criteria under Annex 2 paragraph 12(a) and (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
The environmental reform in the dairy sector  started in 1999 and was on-going until 2008.  
The dairy sector has been rec ognized as having a significant environmental impact especially 
on Israel's limited water aquifers and underground water reservoir. 
Most of dairy waste and manure are treated in tr eatment plants built in several regions across 
the country producing biogas as a by-product.  More than 95 per cent of the dairy farms in Israel are now operating under a separate model known as "bubble dairy farm", through which no dairy waste or manure is spilled into th e environment.  The dairy manure is used to 
produce biogas. 
The total government expenditure expected for th is reform (in the form of grants) amounts to 
717 million NIS, out of which, 545 million NIS have already been allocated. 
This programme meets the criteria set forth unde r Annex 2, paragraph 12, since the eligibility 
requirements to qualify for such payments is determined through a clearly defined 
government environmental progra mme.  This particular programme was carried out in close 
cooperation and supervision of the Israe li Ministry of Environmental Protection.
9  Payments 
were made out to dairy farm producers in or der to partially compensate them for the 
investments required to comply with the e nvironmental requirements set forth under this 
programme. 
                                                      
9 Further information can be obtained from:  http://www.environment.gov.il/   G/AG/W/103 
 Page 27 
 
 
  (d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
42. Question by Australia:  Israel's Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support 
(AMS) has increased from just over 60 per cent in 2005 to now being over 93 per cent of it final bound Total AMS, with the principal sector rece iving support being the dairy sector.  Could 
Israel provide an update on the status of implementation of dairy industry reform?  Australia 
notes various Israeli Government inquiries into  cost of living pressures.  Australia understands 
a recent report made a number of recommendations for further dairy reform, including reducing price support.  Further, Australia und erstands this report also found amongst other 
things that Israeli food prices are 10 to 20 per cent higher than those of other OECD countries.  Australia welcomes Israel's approach to addressi ng barriers to trade as a means of reducing 
food prices for its consumers. 
Israel is now considering a change in its m ilk production policy.  This is a lengthy and 
complicated process.  Israel appreciates Austra lia's concerns regarding the latest public 
publications;  however, Israel's experience shows that food prices are not always related to 
trade barriers. 
(e) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
43. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) The understanding of the European Union is that the poultry production quota 
was set up in the Galilee Law areas.  Cons idering that no "eligible production" 
of poultry appears in Supporting Table DS :5 in the current as well as previous 
notifications, the European Union would like to ask for clarification whether the 
production quota for poultry still exists. 
Since the establishment of the payment programme in 1998 and as notified in 
document G/AG/N/ISR/17, there is no effective production quota for poultry. 
(b) Also, what is the relation between the poultry production quota and the direct 
payment notified in Supporting Table DS:6 under "Galilee Law"? 
After reviewing the matter, it seems that  the payments indicated in Supporting 
Table DS:6 under "Galilee Law" were incorr ectly submitted.  The payment to poultry 
producers is correctly indicated under Supporting Table DS:1.  Israel thanks the European Union for asking this question and noticing this error;  Israel will submit a 
corrigendum to this notification as soon as possible. 
(f) Classification of measures 
44. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) The Table DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/IS R/17) explains the operation of the 
"water cuts payments" in relation to the crop year 1999-2000.  Could Israel provide an update of how the payment is applied currently? 
Support for water to agriculture has decre ased since 2000.  Water tariffs are still 
cross-subsidized but according to a 2006 agreement between the farmers and the 
Government, water tariffs are to cover th e average cost of production by 2015. G/AG/W/103 
Page 28  
 
  Water tariffs vary according to the type of  water supplied to farms (i.e., fresh or 
treated water) and the amount used.  Ta riffs charged by the National Water Company 
(Mekorot) are NIS 1.792 per cubic metre (for consumption less than 50 per cent of quota), NIS 2.05 per cubic metre (for consum ption between 50 and 80 per cent of 
quota);  and NIS 2.56 per cubic metre (for  consumption between 80 and 100 per cent 
of quota).  The tariff is NIS 2.85 pe r cubic metre for urban consumption.  
Israel's Trade Policy Review includes the following paragraph: "Israel is well-known for its highly-deve loped desert agriculture and irrigation 
technologies.  It is at the forefront of promoting water conser vation and efficient 
irrigation techniques (e.g. drip irrigation), wa ter reclamation for agricultural use, rain 
enhancement, and the development of salt- tolerant crop varieties (e.g. desert sweet 
tomatoes).  Nonetheless, chronic water shortage is a serious environmental and economic problem, and a binding constraint on agricultural production.  About 55 per 
cent of the arable land is irrigated.  Ag riculture receives a 45 per cent share of the 
national fresh water quota, with individua l water quotas being tied to land.  Water 
tariffs are still cross-subsidized but according to a 2006 agreement between the 
farmers and the Government, water tariffs ar e to cover the average cost of production 
by 2015.  The Government also provides assistance for on-farm irrigation facilities, 
and payments to compensate  income losses resulting from wa ter cuts.  The reduction 
of the agricultural fresh water quota fro m 530 million cubic metres in 2007 to 
450 million cubic metres in 2015 is compensated financially to the extent that farmers 
provide evidence that they have invested  in water-saving technologies and practices." 
(b) Considering the "water cuts payments" have been in place in Israel for many 
years, and the European Union's impression is that they have become a structural payment rather than a one-off payment related to a natural disaster, 
has Israel considered changing the way of notifying these payments?  (see 
Israel's reply to a question from Au stralia in G/AG/R/32, page 30) 
Israel no longer provides support for income loses due to water cuts.  The payments 
included in Supporting Table DS:9 are being made according to the above mentioned 
information.  The 2010 Table DS:1 notification was corrected accordingly and these payments are now deleted from Supporting Ta ble DS:1 (Green Box) and appear only 
in Supporting Table DS:9. 
9. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/75) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
45. Question by Japan:  Could New Zealand kindly explain why Green Box payments, 
especially for Pest and disease control,  have substantially increased in 2011? 
New Zealand thanked Japan for this question wh ich highlighted a typographical error in the 
notification.  This error led to the double coun ting of New Zealand's biosecurity expenditure 
in 2011.  Notification G/AG/N/NZL/75/Rev.1 corrects this by removing $NZ139 million of 
double counted expenditure for pests and diseases.  After adjusting for this change, there is a 
small increase in expenditure on pest and disease co ntrol compared to previous years.  This 
increase was mainly caused by additional expe nditure to respond to the kiwifruit disease 
Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae (Psa).  As notified, the New Zealand Government spent 
$NZ 21.5 million in response to Psa.  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 29 
 
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
46. Question by the European Union:  Could New Zealand please explain how the "Rural 
Assistance Payments" support meets the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2?  In particular, how are the minimal living needs determined in li ght of the requirement for the payments to 
compensate for not more than the total cost of replacing losses? 
Rural Assistance Payments are made availabl e to farming families in regions where the 
New Zealand Government has formally declared an  adverse climatic event to have occurred.  
Adverse climatic events are assessed based on th e impact at the wider community or regional 
level, rather than at the individual farm level.  In the event that a rare climatic event occurs on 
a scale that will seriously impact the regional and/or national economy, central government 
may provide additional support to local comm unity and regional organisations under the 
adverse event response framework.  The calcula tion of the scale of a disaster takes into 
account both historical and expected future produc tion for the season.  In no case is a disaster 
recognised where the production loss does not exceed 30 per cent of the production in the preceding three year period.  Farming families must apply to receive the Rural Assistance 
Payment and are only eligible when they have  no other significant income from the farm 
business as a result of the adverse climatic even t.  The level of the payment provides for 
essential living expenses only. 
10. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
47. Questions by the European Union:  Th e European Union understands that Norway 
applied price support for beef in processed agric ultural products for se veral years prior to 
1 July 2009, but that it was not notified separ ately since the support was part of the price 
difference between the administered target price and the world market reference price. 
(a) Were there other products for which such practice was followed? 
Yes.  Poultry underwent reform in 2007, while potatoes were subject to reform 
in 2002. 
(b) If the target price for beef was removed as of 1 July 2009, what is the "price 
support" measure Norway notifies in Supporting Table DS:8? 
As previously stated in this Committee, the EMS measure for beef reported in 
Supporting Table DS:8, is budgetary payments for beef used in processed products.  
This measure is notified as EMS as the target  price was abolished from the same date 
referred to in the question.  The scheme a llows for equal competition as regards input 
raw material costs for Norwegian producer s and European Union producers, for 
processed agricultural products subject to reci procal free trade under Protocol 3 to the 
European Economic Area agreement between Norway, Iceland and the European 
Union. 
11. Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
48. Question by the United States:  The Unit ed States asked questions in 2009 regarding 
Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7.  The United States notes that a number of those G/AG/W/103 
Page 30  
 
  programmes appear in the most recent notifi cation (G/AG/N/OMN/11 refers).  In 2009, Oman 
provided helpful responses to the United States' questions and indicated a Table DS:2 notification regarding those programmes would be submitted.  Please confirm if Oman 
submitted a Table DS:2 notification, as it seems to be unavailable on the WTO website. 
Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / Development Programmes) 
49. Questions by Canada:  Under "Investment su bsidies generally available to agriculture", 
Oman has notified a "National project for date palm development". 
(a) Given that the measure appears to be provided only to palm producers, could 
Oman please explain how the measure meets the criteria of being "generally 
available to agriculture" as described in Article 6.2 (Special and Differential 
Treatment / Development Programmes)? 
The measure "National project for date palm development" is classified under 
Article 6.2 and associated with direct government assistance (agricultural input 
subsidies) offered to low income and r esource poor date palm producers which meets 
the criteria of Article 6.2 and it does not belong to investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture. 
(b) Could Oman explain why the measure "P rotection of agriculture lands from 
sweeping away" is classified under Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatment / Development Programmes)? 
The measure "Protection of agriculture la nds from sweeping away" is classified under 
Article 6.2 and associated with indirect government assistance to encourage 
agricultural producers and rural development as an integral part of the development 
programmes of developing countries which meet s the criteria of Article 6.2.  On the 
other hand, this measure can be classified also under paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 as 
infrastructural services associated with environmental programmes. 
(c) Could Oman explain why it has listed the two measures "National project for 
date palm development" and "Protectio n of agriculture lands from sweeping 
away" as "other" under the column "measure type"? 
In order to categorise the measures with reference to criteria in Article 6.2 and 
separate them into two categories:  (i) I nvestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture, and (ii) according to Article 6.2 criteria:  the measure "national project for 
date palm development" described as an agricultural input subsidies (direct 
government assistance) generally available to low income and resource poor producers;  the measure "protection of agriculture lands from sweeping away project" described as indirect government assistan ce to encourage agricultural producers and 
rural development as an integral part of  the development programmes of developing 
countries. 
50. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) Could Oman please explain who the beneficiaries of the "National project for 
date palm development" notified in Supporting Table DS:2 as a special and differential treatment development programme are?  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (b) Could Oman elaborate on the reasoning for including this measure under 
Special and Differential Treatment? 
Please refer to paragraph 49 above. 
Follow-up:  The European Union and the United States reserved the right to follow up with additional 
questions at a later stage. 
 
12. Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/24) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  stru ctural adjustment assistance provided through 
investment aids 
51. Questions by the United States:  The United  States notes that Panama's Agricultural 
Competitiveness Programme in Supporting Table DS:1 is notified as structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aid.  Amon g the benefits of the programme notified is 
direct support of risk management through insurance for productive hectares and other vulnerabilities. 
(a) Please provide more detail on how this  programme works, especially with 
regards to insurance. 
The Competitiveness Programme Trust Fund supports agricultural producers with 
non-reimbursable financial assistance of 50 per cent of the policy invoice value. 
(b) Please describe how the programme meets the requirements of paragraph 11 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
In recent years, the Panamanian agricultural sector has suffered the negative effects of 
harsh, adverse climatic events that resulted  in significant losses for parts of the sector, 
thus affecting a large number of producers,  who then asked the National Government 
for support to offset the damage caused by the adverse weather.  The National 
Government analysed the situation and reac hed the conclusion that one of the main 
problems behind these claims was the producer s' failure to take out agricultural 
insurance.  It therefore decided to introdu ce agricultural insurance within the financial 
structure of agricultural producers.  As a result, the National Government decided to 
contribute, within an established time-frame,  50 per cent of policy invoice value in an 
effort to convince producers of the benefit of  including agricultura l insurance in their 
financial structure, and also to facilitate the use of private agri cultural insurance to 
insure agricultural activities. 
(b) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatme nt / Development Programmes) – Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture 
52. Questions by the United States:  In Support ing Table DS:2, Panama details a credit and 
loan programme available to small-scale pr oducers with an annual income not exceeding 
US$ 100,000. 
(a) Does the income threshold apply only to income from agriculture or is this a 
total income from all sources? 
Panama provides the "Monetary value of me asure in year in question", which is 
simply the subsidy that reimburses banks fo r loans to the eligib le agricultural sector. G/AG/W/103 
Page 32  
 
  (b) Beyond this specific credit and loan programme with its defined income limit, 
does Panama have a working definition for "small-scale" producers, and if so 
could this be provided? 
Panama undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
13. Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/55/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes 
53. Questions by Australia:  Aust ralia has previously asked questions regarding Supporting 
Table DS:1 on the category (b) public stockhold ing for food security purposes, which Australia 
understands from previous responses is for storage of concentrated juice. 
(a) Could Switzerland please provide further details on the predetermined levels of 
stocks required in order to meet the food security objective? 
(b) Could Switzerland also provide details of the specific food security programme 
identified in national legislation, under which such a storage plan is justified? 
The amount of stocks stored by a company, in accordance with the measure, on a voluntary 
basis, must not exceed 40 per cent of the normal supply.  The normal supply equals 110 per 
cent of the average amount disposed of in the last three years.  The legal basis for this 
measure is the Ordinance on measures in favour of the fruit and vegetable market 
(RS 916.131.11) and Article 58 of the Fe deral Law on Agriculture (RS 910.1). 
14. Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/72) 
(a) Transparency issues 
54. Question by Australia:  Australia notes th e United States had previously raised 
questions regarding Thailand's Rice Procurement Policies (G/AG/W/92/Rev.1 refers).  Thailand's last domestic support notificati on (G/AG/N/THA/72) occurred in October 2010, 
covering the period up until 2007.  Australia  would appreciate Thailand providing updated 
domestic support notifications, given that as  the world's largest rice exporter, Thailand's 
policies have a significant impact on the internat ional marketplace.  These updated notifications 
would provide welcome advice on changes in AMS levels with the reintroduction of the rice pledging scheme in 2011.  Australia would also welcome advice on external reporting of proposed changes to the pledging scheme and how this might affect future notifications. 
Thailand is preparing the notification con cerning domestic support for calendar years 2008, 
2009 and 2010.  These will be notified at the ear liest opportunity.  The rice pledging scheme 
has been re-introduced in October 2011.  The im plementation of the scheme is similar to that 
of the previous schemes with some modifications  to better reflect farmers' living costs.  As 
the implementation process is not yet completed it is impossible to submit a notification at this time.  Thailand will submit the new notifi cation as soon as all relevant information is 
available. 
Follow-up:  Australia and the Ph ilippines welcomed the news that Thailand was working on the 
notifications.  Australia's interest and call for trans parency was due to the reintroduction of the rice 
pledging scheme and associated information re garding considerably higher pricing arrangements 
under the new scheme.  This could have an impact on domestic levels of production and thus in the 
international market price, given Thailand's status as  a significant exporter of rice.  The United States  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 33 
 
 
  reiterated its concern about the operation of the Thai rice stock policies, their effects on global rice 
markets, beyond simple short-term price effects and possible changes to Thailand's AMS levels, given 
the general lack of clarity offered to the Comm ittee on these programmes.  In addition, a number of 
press articles expressed concern regarding Thailand's  consistency with its WTO commitments.  The 
United States, supported by the Philippines, looked  forward to notifications clearly addressing these 
concerns.  Pakistan registered their interest on th is issue, which could have an impact on their rice 
exporters. 
 
15. United States (G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net 
programmes 
55. Question by Japan:  With regard to Crop and revenue insurance in Green Box 
(G/AG/N/USA/77/Rev.1), the United States commented at the 63rd regular meeting in September 
2011 (G/AG/W/88/Rev.1) that "the United States w ill submit a Table DS:2 as soon as possible" 
(in response to the policy change in the 2008 Farm  Act).  When would the United States submit 
the Table DS:2 notification? 
The United States submitted the Table DS:2 notification (document G/AG/N/USA/86 refers) 
to the WTO Secretariat on 5 September 2012. 
16. Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/47) 
(a) Article 6.2 (Special and Differential Treatme nt / Development Programmes) – Investment 
subsidies generally available to agriculture 
56. Questions by: 
(a) Canada:  Under "Investment subsidi es generally available to agriculture", 
Uruguay has notified US$ 1.3 million dollars in support.  The notification does 
not include any name or description of the measure with reference to the criteria 
in Article 6.2.  Could Uruguay please provide more details regarding these investment subsidies? 
(b) European Union:  Could Uruguay please provide a description of its 
"Investment subsidies generally availa ble for agriculture" as notified in 
Supporting Table DS:2? 
This measure referred to the Rural Uruguay Pr oject, was a development agriculture policy 
allocated to reduce rural poverty improving incomes and quality of life of poor rural 
households, prioritizing actions and activities in th e areas of highest concentration of poverty.  
Its application finished in 2011.  It included:   (i) Supporting smallholder organizations to 
provide services to its members;  (ii) Infrastru cture improvements;  and (iii) Development of 
basic services. 
57. Question by the United States:  The United States takes note that Uruguay notifies 
external funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) as part of 
its "Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture" in footnote 1 in Supporting 
Table DS:2.  The United States welcomes this  transparent delineation regarding external 
funding in support of agriculture producers and seeks further amplification regarding 
Uruguay's views as to when and why such support should be notified to the WTO. G/AG/W/103 
Page 34  
 
  This measure was financed by a loan agreement between the Uruguayan Government and the 
International Fund for Agricultural De velopment (IFAD).  Uruguay reported it for 
transparency and to make clear that this measu re meets the requirements to help poor farmers, 
demanded by the international body. 
17. Zambia (G/AG/N/ZMB/6) 
(a) Transparency issues 
58. Question by the United States:  Recent announcements by Zambia's Minister of 
Agriculture indicate some domestic agricultural  policies appear to possibly provide support in 
favour of agricultural producers.  Zambia's mo st recent Table DS:1 notification shows no 
support is provided for the six notified, alternating years starting in 2000.  In the interest of 
more fully understanding Zambia's relevant agric ultural policies, the United States looks 
forward to further dialogue to clarify the nature of certain domestic programmes and if, after some reflection, these might satisfy various cri teria in the Agreement on Agriculture for 
notification in a Table DS:1.  Beyond domest ic support measures, the announcement also 
invoked some possible measures by the Govern ment of Zambia, which could additionally 
qualify for notification under Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture (agricultural export 
restrictions). 
The notification regarding domestic support measu res for 2000, 2002, 20 04, 2006, 2008, and 
2010 was erroneously circulated.  A correct s ubmission will be made once the process of 
compiling the necessary information is completed.  As regards possible measures that could 
qualify for notification under Article 12, Zambia  is examining that and will be guided by 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Follow-up:  The United States expressed the view that  Zambia may be a net-food exporter of some of 
the products in question. 
 
D. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  Pest and disease control 
59. Question by Canada:  Could New Zeala nd please confirm whether the programme 
"Response to combat the kiwifruit disease Pseudo monas syringae pv. actinidiae (Psa)" provides 
direct payments to producers or processors?  Wo uld the affected kiwi growers be compensated 
for loss of income under the programme? 
As part of the response to combat the ki wifruit disease Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae 
(Psa), payments were made to compensate growers for the loss of income.  The New Zealand Government provided funding of $NZ 21.5 millio n for the financial year ending 2011 to 
minimise the damage of the disease and help rec overy.  Government funding was matched by 
an equal contribution from the kiwifruit industry.  A total of $NZ 17.4 million of the joint government/industry expenditure was paid to co mpensate growers for losses of their kiwifruit 
crops after they became infected with Psa.  Co mpensation was paid to growers to ensure that 
all infected material was removed and destroye d promptly and to recompense individuals for  
losses incurred in the interest of the broader i ndustry.  These payments were consistent with 
the criteria laid out in Annex 2,  paragraph 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Payments were 
made only in relation to losses caused to grow ers by Psa and did not exceed actual losses.  
Other parts of the funding are used to assist the industry to respond, including by identifying  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 35 
 
 
  disease tolerant / resistant strains and funding associated research.  This component of the 
funding did not go directly to producers or processors and met the criteria of Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
E. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/92) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitmen ts (Article 9.1) – Transparency issues 
60. Questions by Australia:  Australia notes the outlays on skim milk powder, other milk 
products and incorporated pro ducts in years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 remain at 100 per cent of 
Canada's annual outlay commitment levels.  Coul d Canada provide information on why export 
subsidy levels remain high for these particular pr oducts noting Canada's problems with higher 
internal milk prices?  Could Canada outline what  reforms it intends to introduce to its supply 
managed dairy regime to ensure that it is well placed to meet the Doha Round commitments of 
eliminating export subsidies in 2013? 
The use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and quantity is 
consistent with Canada's WTO rights and oblig ations.  In 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, Canada 
used 100 per cent of its annual outlay commitment levels for skim milk powder, other milk 
products and incorporated products, while it wa s not fully utilized for cheese and butter.  
Canada remains committed to the Doha Round a nd in conjunction with other WTO Members, 
to the elimination of export subsidies. 
61. Questions by Pakistan: 
(a) Please provide the HS code of the products receiving export subsidy as 
"Incorporated Products". 
The list of HS codes of the products re ceiving export subsidies as "Incorporated 
Products" is as follows:  1101.00 Flour Mix containing milk solids;  1806.20 Chocolate and other food preparati on containing cocoa;  1806.90 Chocolate 
ice cream mix or ice cream milk mix);  1901.90 Food preparation containing milk 
solids;  2101.12 Preparations with basis of extracts, essences or concentrates or with a 
basis of coffee);  2106.90 Edible preparations containing milk solids;  and 2202.90 Beverage containing milk solids. 
(b) Please indicate the first five or those receiving 80 per cent of the budgetary 
outlay under this category. 
In 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 HS 1901.90 (food preparations containing milk solids) 
accounted for all of the budgetary outlay under this category. 
(c) Is there any change in the nature of products from year to year or do they 
remain the same? 
The products in this category remain the same from year to year.  The budgetary 
outlays for each product may fluctuate from y ear to year based on market factors. G/AG/W/103 
Page 36  
 
  (b) Circumvention of commitments – International food aid 
62. Question by the United States:  In its no tification of export subsidy commitments, 
Canada indicates that it exports about 20,000 to 30,000 tonnes of vegetables as food aid.  While 
products such as vegetables constitute only a v ery tiny portion of overa ll global food, there may 
be interesting nutritional or other reasons for exploring in certain situations such alternative 
food groups.  What vegetables (tariff lines) are being reported under this notification and what 
were the quantities of each type of vegetable exported as food aid? 
As per Annex 1, Section II:  Export Subsidi es:  Budgetary Outlay and Quantity Reduction 
Commitments of Canada's WTO goods schedul e, the tariff lines being reported under the 
category "vegetables" are as follows:  0708.10 Leguminous vegetables – peas;  
0708.20 Leguminous vegetables – beans;  0708.90 Other leguminous vegetables;  
0713.10 Dried leguminous vegetables – peas;  0713. 20 Dried leguminous vegetables – beans;  
0713.30 Dried leguminous vegetables – other b eans;  0713.40 Dried leguminous vegetables – 
lentils;  0713.50 Dried leguminous vegetables – Broad beans and horse beans;  and, 
1106.10 Flour and meal of the dried legumi nous vegetables of heading No. 0713.  The 
quantities of each type of vegetable exported as food aid can be found in  A NNEX  2 of this 
document. 
Follow-up:  Australia expressed its interest in expor t subsidy spending trends.  In particular, over the 
past six years, the concentration in Canada's spendi ng continued to be in the dairy sector.  It was 
therefore noteworthy that in responding to Pakistan's  questions, many of th e incorporated products 
referred to were also related to dairy products .  In the context of the Doha Round it would be 
interesting to see whether the elimination of expor t subsidies would take place after 2013.  Pakistan 
mentioned that in spite of the reduced use of expor t subsidies by other Members, this trend could not 
be appreciated in the case of Canada. 
 
2. India (G/AG/N/IND/9) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitments  (Article 9.1) – Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4) 
63. Questions by Australia:  Noting that Ar ticle 9.4 makes clear that "during the 
implementation period, developing country Members shall not be required to undertake 
commitments in respect of the export subsid ies listed in subparagraphs (d) and (e) of 
paragraph 1" and that the extension of this Ar ticle was contingent on an outcome on export 
subsidies as stated in the 2005 Ministerial Declaration: 
(a) Could India outline its justification for the continued use of export subsidies on 
agricultural products? 
Various provisions of the Agreement on Ag riculture read in conjunction with the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration make it cl ear that developing countries continue 
to be exempt from reduction commitments on export subsidies listed in subparagraphs (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 of Article 9 of Agreement on Agriculture.  
This interpretation is shared by sever al other Members as evidenced by the 
notifications of export subsidies under Artic le 9.4 of Agreement on Agriculture, by a 
number of developing country Members, fo r the years subsequent to 2004 as well as 
the explanations provided by some of them during the review process in the 
Committee.  This understanding has been reflected by Members in the Doha 
negotiations, specifically in paragraph 164 of the Revised Draft Modalities for  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Agriculture10, according to which developing coun try Members would continue to 
benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 of Agreement on Agriculture for five years after the end-date for elimination of  all forms of export subsidies. 
(b) Could India please provide details of th e HS codes covered under each of the 
product descriptions, noting that "tea" seems to be at the HS 4 digit level? 
The notifications are in the prescribed format which as India understands does not 
require disaggregation on the basis of HS codes. 
(c) Could India provide further details of wh at is covered by the category "animal 
products", which has increased almost  six times between 2008/2009 and 
2009/2010? 
Animal products include  Sheep Casings, Hatching Eggs (including SPF eggs), Table 
Eggs, Eggs not in Shell (dried/cooked)/ Whole, Egg Powder, Egg Yolk Dried/ Egg Yolk Powder, Frozen Poultry Meat a nd Processed Poultry Products, Frozen 
(boneless) Buffalo meat and Dairy products  i.e., Milk powder (whole and skimmed), 
Cheese (in all forms) including in reefer containers, UHT milk and Ice-creams 
(including frozen desserts). 
(d) Noting the recent media reports of wheat exports from India's Government 
stocks
11, could India provide details on the types of support provided for these 
exports, noting that wheat is not currently  in the list of products for which India 
provides export subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e)? 
It is presumptive at this stage to say that support has been provided for the exports.  
Only after the realization from the export s and when the contr act has been fully 
executed the details can be known. 
64. Questions by the European Union:  The Eu ropean Union observes that the notification 
presented by India shows not only increased use of export subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e), 
but also a growing list of products receiving such support.  In this respect the European Union 
would like to raise the following questions: 
(a) India notifies the use of export subsidies that are exempted from reduction 
commitments for developing country Me mbers pursuant to Article 9.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  According to Article 9.4, such export subsidies were 
exempt from reduction commitments for developing country Members during the implementation period for those Memb ers.  Since the implementation period 
for developing country Members ran between 1995 and 2004, this exemption 
was no longer available for the years 2005 to  2010.  However, according to its 
notification, India continues to notify ex port subsidies of the type Article 9.4 
after the end of the implementation period .  What is India's interpretation of 
"implementation period" in this context? 
Please refer to paragraph 63(a) above. 
(b) What is in India's view a valid WTO legal base on the basis of which India keeps 
adding new products eligible for export  subsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e), 
                                                      
10 TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 refers. 
11 http://www.indianexpress.com/new s/govt-clears-food-ministry-proposal-to-export-wheat/970034  G/AG/W/103 
Page 38  
 
  while none of these products are bound under the export competition part of 
India's Schedule? 
In its Schedule, India has reserved the right to use the subsidies under Article 9.1(d) 
and (e) of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(c) Could India share with the Committee its economic assessment on the basis of 
which products in notified Supporting Tables ES:2 are granted export 
subsidies? 
The European Union seems to be suggesting that Members have to provide economic 
assessments for the provision of export subsidies on agricultural products.  It is not clear which provision of the Agreement on Agriculture is the basis of such an enquiry 
by the European Union. 
(d) India notifies a sharp increase of export  subsidies for sugar between 2006-2007 
and 2009-2010.  These subsidies mainly take the form of internal transport subsidies for sugar.  Could India please explain the reasons for this significant increase in export subsidies for su gar between 2006-200 7 and 2009-2010? 
Export subsidy in the form of internal freight assistance on exports of sugar was 
allowed for the periods 21 June 2002 to 20 June 2004 and 19 April 2007 to 30 September 2008.  Except for these periods , subsidy on exports of sugar has not 
been paid or is payable.  The amount s hown in respect of financial years 2006-2007 
to 2009-2010 represents the amount which h as been paid on settlement of claims 
pertaining to export of sugar allowed during those periods. 
Follow-up:  Australia clarified that it was not questi oning the continuation of certain provisions in the 
context of the Doha Round or w hat was specified in the Hong Kong Declaration.  However, the Hong 
Kong Declaration stipulated that such continuation was contingent on the successful conclusion of the 
Doha Round.  In view of the current situation,  and in the absence of a new agreement or a new 
outcome, Article 9.1(d) and (e) s ubsidies should not be used.  In relation to the potential export 
subsidies on wheat exports, Australia relied on th e official advice by India and thus welcomed 
additional details and transparency.  Canada, suppor ted by the United States, shared Australia's 
concerns that Doha negotiating texts were being in appropriately cited;  the implementation period 
specified in Article 9.4 expired in 2004 and had not been legally extended.  Pakistan expressed 
concerns regarding India's subsidies to sugar and poultry and looked forward to discussing these 
bilaterally.  The European Union clarified that its  question in paragraph 64(c) sought to have a more 
detailed understanding of the situation. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
65. Question  by Australia:  Egypt has not submitted export subsidy or domestic support 
notifications to the Committee since 1999.  Can E gypt indicate when these overdue notifications 
will be submitted to the Committee on Agriculture? 
Egypt reiterates its full support and commitment to the objective of transparency under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  The Egyptian dele gation has clarified that delays in submitting 
notifications were caused by administrative and procedural reasons.  Notwithstanding a 
process of inter-agency coordination set up to carry  out the relevant work, a number of factors 
have contributed to the instability of this process.  Among these factors is a major one which is the frequent changes in the Egyptian cabinet  as well as within the departments of the 
different ministries.  The Egyptian delegation hop es that its trade partners will understand the  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 39 
 
 
  current situation in which the Egyptian Governme nt is functioning.  Egypt has taken note of 
the concerns expressed and will convey them to Cairo for further reaction and reply. 
Follow-up:  Australia understood the difficulties that  coordination entails and was willing to offer 
technical advice or assistance if required. 
 
66. Question by Canada:  Canada notes that India has not submitted domestic support 
(Table DS:1) notifications for the years 2004-2005 through to 2010-2011.  Could India please indicate when it will submit its notifications for these years? 
India is in the process of compiling data for its domestic support notifications from 
2004-2005 onwards. 
67. Questions  by: 
(a) Australia:  Indonesia's domestic support notifications for the years 2001-2003 
have not been made available to Members although Australia welcomes the notification and the ensuing discussion on notifications covering the period 2004 to 2008 at the June Committee meeting.  Can Indonesia provide details on when 
these notifications might be made available? 
(b) Canada:  At the June 2012 meeting of the Committee, Indonesia indicated that 
with regard to its annual domestic suppo rt notifications for the years 2001, 2002 
and 2003 it was in process of collectin g data for the preparation of these 
outstanding notifications.  Could Indonesia please provide an update as to when it expects to submit these notifications to the Committee? 
As requested during the past Committee on Ag riculture meeting, Indonesia finished the 
calculations concerning its domestic support and orally submitted these to its representative in 
Geneva.  These will soon be forwarded to the WTO Secretariat and circulated among Members. 
68. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  The current notifica tion under review presents Panama's 
domestic support for 2010.  It seems that notifications covering 2008 and 2009 
are missing.  When will these notifications be available? 
(b) Japan:  Japan appreciates that Panama submitted the domestic support 
notification of the year 2010, but at the sa me time notes that the notifications of 
the years 2008 and 2009 have not been submitted yet.  When would Panama 
submit 2008 and 2009 domestic  support notifications? 
The outstanding notifications will be circ ulated shortly (G/AG/N/PAN/27 refers). 
69. Question by Australia:  According to the latest  status of notifications document, Turkey 
has not submitted export subsidy notification s since 2001 and domestic support notifications 
since 2002.  Australia would welcome further clarific ation on levels of support, noting that the 
OECD 2011 Agriculture Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Report noted that Producer 
Support Estimates (PSE) have risen over the past 20 years and remain higher than the OECD average.  While Australia appreciates that the PSE  calculations are different to the WTO AMS 
measures without notifications it is difficult to  develop a further appreciation of agriculture G/AG/W/103 
Page 40  
 
  policy developments in Turkey and their impact on  trade.  Can Turkey please indicate when the 
Committee can expect to receive these notifications? 
Turkey aims to submit its outstanding notifications in 2012. 
Follow-up:  Australia stated it was forced to l ook at the OECD's PSE in the absence of WTO 
notifications in order to gauge Turkey's situation in terms of level of support.  In that context it looked 
forward to receiving the notifications from Turkey as soon as possible.   G/AG/W/103 
 Page 41 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Tariff rate quotas:  Tariff quota IDs covering one generic product 
Response by the United States (paragraph 22) 
 
Product Tariff Quota ID 
Beef USAQ001 
Butter USAQ004 
Cheese USAQ016, USAQ017, USAQ018, USAQ019, USAQ020, USAQ021, 
USAQ022, USAQ023, USAQ024 
Tobacco USAQ047 
Cotton USAQ0049, USAQ0050, USAQ0051, USAQ0052, USAQ0053, 
USAQ0054 
 (a) Beef – USAQ001 
1. The United States filled the majority of the United States beef TRQ over the period 
through 2011, though TRQ fill rates declined in  2010-2011.  There were several factors that 
contributed to the lower TRQ fill, including pri ces, consumption, and other suppliers, which are 
outlined below. 
2. Prices:  Due to tight global supplies, global prices for beef were high in 2010 and 2011.  
Droughts in Australia and New Zealand contributed to high beef prices which reduced United States 
imports of beef and led to lower TRQ fill rates. 
3. Consumption:  United States Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA) data1, indicate that overall 
United States beef consumption has dec lined since its peak in 2006 and 2007. 
4. Imports through FTAs:  Outside of the WTO TRQ, the United States imports significant 
quantities of beef from Mexico and Canada unde r the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
5. Administration:  The United States beef TRQ is administered on a first come, first serve basis.  
The United States does have country-specific quotas for certain Members in its schedule. 
(b) Dairy TRQs Introduction 
6. Generally, for the United States, production a nd exports of dairy pr oducts trended upward 
over the last few years.  For some dairy products , the trends in imports (downward) and exports 
(upward) have been dramatic.  Gi ven the overall market situation TRQ fills have declined.  Also, the 
burgeoning demand for dairy products in Asia, which has diverted a significant share of dairy products from exporters that traditionally, exported  large amounts of dairy products to the United 
States. 
                                                      
1 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/liv estock-meat-domestic-data.aspx#26091 or 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/ psdonline/psdQuery.aspx G/AG/W/103 
Page 42  
 
  (c) Butter – USAQ004 
7. The United States fills its butter TRQ in most year s.  However, in 2010 and 2011, due to high 
global prices and strong demand, the TRQ fill was less than 100 per cent. 
8. Prices:  World prices for dairy products were high in 2010 and surged in 2011 due to strong 
global import demand outpacing supplies.  While but ter prices averaged around US$2,000 per tonne 
from 2000 to 2009, in 2011, they soar ed to highs of US$5,000 to US$6,000 per tonne because of tight 
global supply. 
9. Consumption:  Official USDA estimates2 show United States butter consumption on an 
increasing trend. 
10. Administration:  Butter imports under the WTO TRQ require import licenses in accordance 
with the United States' WTO scheduled commitm ents, the terms and conditions provided in 
regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture , subject to the approval of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR).  The regulations provide  for the automatic reallocation among supplying 
countries or areas of unfilled quantities, subject to U STR approval.  The regulations provide for the 
automatic reallocation among supplying countries or areas of unfilled quantities every September, so 
that the TRQ can be filled during the calendar year.3 
(d) Cheese – USAQ016-24 
11. The United States generally fills most or all of its blue mold cheese, Cheddar, Edam and 
Gouda, Italian-type, and Swiss or Emmentaler cheese.  All cheese TR Qs filled at lower rates in 2010 
and 2011 due to tight world supplies, high pri ces and a decline in New Zealand cheese production. 
12. Prices:  Dairy prices were high in 2010 and surged in 2011 due to strong global import 
demand outpacing supplies. 
13. Consumption:  Official USDA estimates4 indicate United States cheese consumption is on the 
increase. 
14. Administration:  Cheese imports under the WTO TRQ require import licenses and are 
administered under the same system as the butter TRQ described above. 
(e) Tobacco – USAQ047 
15. Prices:  Tobacco prices have been trending up wards over the last decade.  From 2000 to 2004 
the unit price of tobacco imported by the United States remained steady averaging US$2,618 per 
tonne.  Since 2005, the price demonstrates an increasing trend, reaching highs of US$4,500 to US$5,000 in recent years. 
16. Consumption:  In 2004, the United States Gove rnment ended its federal tobacco programme 
and USDA stopped collecting data on production and c onsumption of tobacco and tobacco products.  
United States demand for tobacco leaf was severely  reduced as world cigarette production relocated to 
be closer to growing markets in Eastern Europe and Asia. 
                                                      
2 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/da ta-products/dairy-data.aspx 
3 Information on USDA dairy import licensing can be found here:  
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/imports/usdairy.asp 
4 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data.aspx or 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/ psdonline/psdQuery.aspx  G/AG/W/103 
 Page 43 
 
 
  17. Administration:  No special administrative procedures are required for tobacco imports under 
the WTO TRQ.  The United States h as country-specific quotas for tobacco. 
(f) Cotton – USAQ049, 51, 52, 53, 54 
18. United States imports of cotton were low in 2010 and only slightly increased in 2011 because 
of short world supplies. 
19. Prices:  United States cotton prices are closely lin ked to world prices.  For instance, as world 
prices increase, United States cotton price increases. 
20. Consumption:  United States consumption has been falling as the United States textile 
production moves to other countries.  United States cotton imports tend to be for niche products with special qualities, such as Egyptian cotton ELS (extra-long staple). 
21. Administration:  Other than country-specific quotas, no special administrative procedures are 
required for cotton imports under the WTO TRQ. G/AG/W/103 
Page 44  
 
  ANNEX 2 
Export subsidies commitments:  Quantities exported as food aid 
Response by Canada (paragraph 62) 
 
HS Code 2009-2010 
(MT) 2010-2011 
(MT) 
0708.10   
0708.20   
0708.90   
0713.10 6,763 10,683 
0713.20 18,585 8,773 
0713.30a 3,283 2,911 
0713.40 65 200 
0713.50   
1106.10   
   
__________  
                                                      
a Some of Canada's food aid exports are simply reported as "pulses", a term which encompasses all of 
the products included in HS 0713.  For the purpose of responding to this question, and in the absence of more detailed information, this portion of Canada's food aid exports have been classified under HS 0713.30 "Dried 
leguminous vegetables – other beans".