G/AG/W/172  
 
12 February 2018  
(18-0938) Page: 1/37 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS UNDER THE REVIE W PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUEST IONS FOR THE MEETING  ON 20 -21 FEBRUARY 20181 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
7 February 2018 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/24.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions  of Members or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE  18.6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
1.1   Argentina's export subsidies to pork meat  ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
1.1.1    Question by the European Union ( AG-IMS ID 86064)  ................................ ....................  5 
1.2   Egypt's domestic support for wheat  ................................ ................................ ...............  5 
1.2.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86060)  ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
1.3   Indonesia's soybean imports  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
1.3.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86048)  ................................ ........................  5 
1.4   Mongolia's quota regime for importation  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
1.4.1    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86001)  ................................ ................  5 
1.5   Suriname's poultry tariffs  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
1.5.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86049)  ................................ ........................  6 
1.6   U.S. support to cotton sector  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
1.6.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86069)  ................................ ....................  6 
1.7   Brazil's domestic support programmes  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
1.7.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86031)  ................................ ........................  6 
1.8   Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
1.8.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86002), New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86030) and 
the United States (AG -IMS ID 86033)  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
1.9   Canada's wine sale p olicy ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
1.9.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86034)  ................................ ........................  9 
1.10   EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
1.10.1    Questio n by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86003) and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86032)  ............  9 
1.11   India's pulses policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 
1.11.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86061)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.11.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86062)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.11.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86063)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.11.4    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86065)  ................................ ................................ ...10 
1.11.5    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86039)  ................................ ............. 10 
1.11.6    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86035)  ................................ ................................ ...11 
1.12   India's minimum support prices  ................................ ................................ .................. 11 
1.12.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86004)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.12.2    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86005)  ................................ ................................ .11 
1.12.3    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86074)  ................................ ................................ ...12 
1.12.4    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86066)  ................................ .................. 12 
1.13   India's quantitative restrictions  ................................ ................................ ................... 12 
1.13.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86006)  ................................ ................................ .12 
1.13.2    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86037)  ................................ ..................... 12 
1.14   Indonesia's dairy import system  ................................ ................................ ................. 13 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.14.1    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86046)  ................................ ..................... 13 
1.15   Korea's rice imports  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..13 
1.15.1    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 86036)  ................................ ................................ .13 
1.16   Pakistan's sugar policies  ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 
1.16.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86007)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.16.2    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 86009) ................................ ................................ ......14 
1.17   Philippines' rice waiver  ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 
1.17.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86008)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.18   Russian Federation's railway subsidy for exports  ................................ ........................... 14 
1.18.1    Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86010)  ................................ ................................ .14 
1.18.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86068)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.18.3    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86067)  ................................ .................. 15 
1.18.4    Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86038)  ................................ ................................ ...15 
1.18.5    Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86047)  ................................ ..................... 16 
1.19   Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  ................................ ................................ .....16 
1.19.1    Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86106)  ................................ .................. 16 
1.20   Turkey's IPR programme  ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 
1.20.1    Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86029)  ................................ ............. 16 
1.21   U.S. dairy policies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....16 
1.21.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86084)  ................................ ................................ ...16 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  18 
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND  OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  ............... 18 
2.1.1    El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/48)  ................................ ................................ .................... 18 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................... 18 
2.2.1    Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/62)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 18 
2.3   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDs (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ .......19 
2.3.1    Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/221)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ........................ 19 
2.4.1    Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51, G/AG/N/COL/51/CORR.1, G/AG/N/COL/54)  ......................... 19 
2.4.2    Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  ................................ ................................ ............................. 19 
2.4.3    European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  ................................ ................................ ............... 23 
2.4.4    Iceland (G/A G/N/ISL/41)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 
2.4.5    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 23 
2.4.6    Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19/Rev.1, G/AG/N/JOR/20/Rev.1)  ................................ ............... 26 
2.4.7    Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/7)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 
2.4.8    Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/11)  ................................ ................................ .....28 
2.4.9    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 
2.4.10    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 
2.4.11    United States (G/AG/N/USA/109)  ................................ ................................ ............ 32 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ ........ 33 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.5.1    Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/95)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 
2.5.2    Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/82)  ................................ ................................ ................... 33 
2.5.3    United States (G/AG/N/USA/118)  ................................ ................................ .............. 33 
3   DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  ................................ ..........  33 
3.1.1    India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 
3.1.2    Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 
4   OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S ................................ ................................ ........................  36 
4.1.1    Egypt  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 
4.1.2    Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 36 
4.1.3    Mauritius  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 36 
4.1.4    Nigeria ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 36 
4.1.5    Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 37 
4.1.6    Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37 
5   OTHER  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  37 
5.1   AG-IMS ID 86052: Question by China  ................................ ................................ ........... 37 
 
 
 
  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION O F COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
1.1  Argentina's export subsidies to pork meat  
1.1.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86064)  
Media reports state that Argentina aims at achieving an annual US$7billion meat exports and to 
that end Argentina has increased export refu nds for pig meat by 0.5 – 2.3 percentage points, 
depending on the product. For shoulders and legs (with bones) this represents a subsidy rate of 
around 5.8% of the market value. Could Argentina confirm the above information and if 
affirmative, explain how these measures comply with the Nairobi commitments on export 
subsidies?  
 
1.2  Egypt's domestic support for wheat  
1.2.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86060)  
Wheat Egypt – Wheat Sector Review, a 2015 report by the FAO provides information on Egypt 's 
domestic support fo r wheat. In that report, it is mentioned that "the main instrument used by the 
government to encourage domestic wheat production is setting high domestic procurement 
prices." Furthermore the report mentions that "the total volume of domestically produced w heat 
purchased by the government in 2014 was estimated to be around 4.25 million tonnes. This 
means that the government has spent about USD 357 million on subsidizing the price of domestic 
wheat this year. Along this chain, intermediaries who, according to  government sources, buy 
wheat from producers at a price 14 % lower than the government one, make a profit of about 
USD 55 per tonne."  
 
Could Egypt indicate why it hasn 't included any product specific support for wheat in 2014 or any 
other year in it last d omestic support notification (G/AG/N/EGY/3)?  
 
1.3  Indonesia's soybean imports  
1.3.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86048)  
a. The United States understands that the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture is actively 
considering a draft regulation that would favou r domestically produced soybeans  and 
restrict imported product.  The draft regulation would require an import recommendation 
from the Ministry of Agriculture, restrict imports to when domestic supply is deemed 
insufficient, require that all imports be condu cted by a state -owned enterprise, and 
prohibit imports one month prior to and after the domestic harvest period. Please 
provide an update on the implementation status of this draft regulation.  
b. The United States also understands that Indonesia is considerin g raising tariffs on 
soybeans from its current applied rate and instituting a genetically engineered (GE) 
labelling requirement on bulk soybeans. Please provide an update on thes e potential 
changes as well.  
c. What steps is Indonesia taking to ensure that any  regulation impacting imports of 
soybeans is consistent with its WTO commitments?  
1.4  Mongolia's quota regime for importation  
1.4.1   Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86001)  
In 2013 Mongolia established a quota regime for importation of certain agricultu ral products, 
including wheat flour and milk. According to Government Resolution No. 77 as of 2 March 2013 the 
responsible authority determines the volumes of corresponding quotas on an annual basis. The 
importation outside these quotas is prohibited. More over, in late 2016 the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Light Industry of Mongolia established an import prohibition on wheat flour which 
is still in force. The Russian Federation raised these issues through our bilateral contacts, but 
unfortunately has n ot received a comprehensive response. Please explain how Mongolia 's import G/AG/W/172  
 
- 6 - 
 
  restrictions, both quotas and import prohibitions, are consistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994 
and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
1.5  Suriname's poultry tariffs  
1.5.1   Ques tion by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86049)  
The United States notes that Suriname began applying a 40% tariff on imports of poultry products 
in September 2017. This duty is twice of the rate of Suriname 's 20% bound rate for poultry 
products.  
 
Please provide a reason for increasing tariffs on poultry imports from 20% to 40%.  
 
a. Please explain how a 40% tariff for poultry imports is in compliance with Suriname 's final 
bound rate of 20%.  
b. Please explain if and when Suriname will initiate Article XXVIII nego tiations to adjust its 
bound rate.  
c. Will Suriname consider refraining from applying the above -bound 40% duty rate until 
the Article XXVIII process has concluded?  
1.6  U.S. support to cotton sector  
1.6.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86069)  
The US Disaster  Bill amounting to $81 billion, proposed by the House in December 2017, includes 
a provision to amend the 2014 Farm Bill and designate seed cotton as a covered commodity. In 
relation to that, could the US clarify:  
 
a. How does the United States sees this init iative complying with the Panel's finding on 
dispute DS267 - US–Upland Cotton, that the effect of the U.S. subsidy programmes, 
including marketing loan programme payments, market loss assistance payments and 
counter -cyclical payments, is significant price suppression within the meaning of 
Art. 6.3(c) of the ASCM?  
b. How would this initiative affect product -specific Am ber Box support to U.S. cotton?  
1.7  Brazil's domestic support programmes  
1.7.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86031)  
a. The United States, along wit h several other Members, has expressed concern at previous 
meetings of the COA over the effects of PEP and PEPRO programmes as a potential 
export subsidy.  
In its response to AG -IMS ID 84073, Brazil indicated regarding PEP and PEPRO that 
"both programs allo w exports, but they  are not contingent on exports ". As noted in the 
question by the United States, 9.6.5 of the PEPRO regulations 
(http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1173&amp;t=2 ) re quires: "Quando o 
produto não se destinar ao mercado interno, a Nota Fiscal de Escoamento deverá ser 
acompanhada do respectivo Registro de Exportação (RE) Averbado e Declar ação de 
Despacho de Exportação."  "When the product is not destined to the domestic market, 
the Shipping Invoice shall be accompanied by the respective Registered Export Record 
(RE) and Export Dispatch Statement. " In other words, proof of export is required under 
the program for exported products.  
This was a relevant issue in the Appellat e Body 's conclusi on in DS 267 regarding the 
U.S. Step 2 programme for cotton.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Please clarify how PEP and PEPRO are not export contingent in light of the statement in 
the PEPRO Regulation.  
b. Publicly available Brazilian government data from the Companhia Nac ional de 
Abastecimento (CONAB) and the Ministry of Development, Industry and Commerce 
(MDIC) indicate that corn and wheat producers have benefited from PEP and PEPRO 
support intermittently since 2010, and particularly in 201 6 and 2017.  It appears that 
in 2017, through September, nearly 9 million tonnes of corn and 1 million ton nes of 
wheat were supported through the PEP and PEPRO programmes. The United States has 
requested several years of data and documentation – including invoices and product 
destinations  – from Brazil at various COA meetings, but has not yet been provided with 
detailed information with which to make a fully informed assessment of PEP/PEPRO 
usage.  
The United States again requests that Brazil provide data on these programmes, 
clarifying wha t funds are used to support domestic versus exported sales.  In addition, 
please identify the steps the Government of Brazil takes to ensure affected products do 
not end up on the export market.  
c. On 30 January 2017, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Liv estock and Supply (MAPA) 
announced it would hold PEP/PEPRO auctions for rice, with an authorized amount of up 
to $100 million reis. For more details please see: 
http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/governo -fara-leiloes -de-pep-e-pepro -para-arroz.  
i. Please explain why MAPA is now offering PEP/PEPRO support to rice.    
ii. Does MAPA have plans to expand PEP/PEPRO to include other agricultural products, 
in addition to corn, wheat, and rice?    
1.8  Canada's New Milk Ingredient Class  
1.8.1   Question by Australia ( AG-IMS ID 86002) , New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 86030)  and 
the United States (AG -IMS ID 86033)  
a. In Canada 's responses to AG -IMS ID 85011, Canada states "Some provinces are still in 
the process of implementing milk class 7 through their respective regulatory processes ". 
i. Please provide a list of provinces in which Class 7 is implemented.  
ii. For any provinces that have not fully implemented Class 7, please explain where 
they are at in each regulatory process.  
b. In previous response to U.S. questions, Canada has indicated that details of the National 
Ingredient Strategy related to billing ratios are  still under discussion.    
i. Is this still the case?  
ii. What are the billing ratios now?  
iii. Where are the billing ratios publicly available?  
iv. Please provide an update on Class 7 auditing, tracking, and reporting 
rules/guidelines, and further details relating to billing ratios.  
c. According to a BC Milk Marketing Board Notice to Industry published on 
1 February  2017: " On 7 July 2016, a negotiating committee consisting of producers and 
processors reached an agreement in principle on a National Ingredients Strategy. Th is 
agreement was developed over an 18 -month period and was approved by ten provinces 
at the P5 Supervisory Body (P5 SB)/Western Milk P ool Coordinating Committee 
(WMP  CC)/ Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC) on 29 July 2016 and 
by the Canadian  Dairy Commis sion (CDC) on 20 January 2017."  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 8 - 
 
  i. Please confirm that this information is correct regarding the approval by the 
Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) and the Canadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CMSMC).  
d. Has C lass 6 been revoked in Ontario?  Please provide a copy of the documentation or 
measures revoking Class 6.  
e. Please provide monthly volumes of milk components (i.e., butterfat, proteins, other 
solids) for which processors are paying Class 7 prices, as well as total utilization for all 
classes.  The United States notes that while Canada is no longer publishing this 
information on the Canadian Dairy Information Centre, according to the Dairy Farmers of 
Canada annual report for 2016 -2017, information on milk utilization and sales is 
available through "dashboards " designed for market analysis.  
f. Have the rules for whole milk powder utilization of Class 7 prices been determined? If so, 
please describe the rules under which processors can receive Class 7 prices for all milk 
components used in the processing  of whole milk powder.  
g. In Canada 's responses to AG -IMS ID 85011, Canada states, "[h]ow this processor 
margin for milk classes is calculated is not publically available ". 
i. Please describe which entities are responsible for calculating the processor margin.  
ii. What is the process for reviewing and/or changing the processor margin?  
h. Please provide an update on the CDC 's development of the National Registration System 
and the Provincial Billing M echanism Certification Program.  
i. The United States requests specific res ponses to the following questions the 
United  States asked in AG -IMS ID 85011.    
In the example provided in AGIMS 84107 question "j", where Class 2(a) has a 
within - class end -use price adjustment of "70% of Protein priced at Class 2(a) price 
and 30% of prot ein priced at Class 7 Price ", would a processor be eligible for any 
proteins at Class 7 prices if:  
i. 10% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were from imported 
ultrafiltered (UF) milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were 
Canadian -sourced proteins that ar e eligible for Class 7 pr ices. If so, what percentage 
of Canadian -sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
ii. 30% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were from imported 
UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were Canadian -sourced 
proteins that ar e eligible for Class 7 prices. If so, what percentage of Canadian -
sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?  
iii. 50% of proteins used to meet Canada 's cheese compositional requirements for a 
minimum percentage of casein content derived from fluid milk were from imported 
UF milk and the remaining proteins used in the product were Canadian -sourced 
proteins that are eligible for Class 7 prices. If so, wha t percentage of Canadian -
sourced proteins would be eligible for Class 7 prices?    
j. Has Class 4(m) been revoked in each Canadian province? If not, which provinces still 
operate Class 4(m)?  
k. Has the methodology changed for calculating the butter or skim milk p owder support  
price since 2015? If so, how?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 9 - 
 
  l. Will the Canadian Dairy Commission continue to buy and sell Canadian skim milk powder 
following the implementation of Class 7?  
m. Will Canada continue to have and/or use a support price for skim milk powder? If so,  
how will th e support price be calculated?  
n. Trade data indicates that year -to-date unit prices of Canadian SMP are well below year -
to-date unit prices for SMP exporters such as the EU, New Zealand, and the 
United  States.  How does Canada explain this persis tent price difference?  
1.9  Canada's wine sale policy  
1.9.1   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86034)  
Canada has not yet responded to the questions posed by the Uni ted States in 
AG-IMS ID 85012.  As such, the United States repeats these questions.  
 
a. In AG -IMS ID 84105, Canada states that " The LCBO will consider making wines from 
Vintages Essentials, a sub -category of Vintages comprising products that are 
continuously available, available to grocers by moving th em to the LCBO Wines 
category."  
i. Are Ontario and/or Ca nadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list allowed to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
ii. Would Ontario and/or Canadian wines that are on the Vintages Essential list need to 
move to the LCBO Wine category (and off of the Vintages Essential list) in order to 
be sold in grocery stores?  
iii. If Ontario and/or Canadian wines are allowed to be sold in grocery stores without 
moving off the Vintages Essential list to the LBCO Wines category, but imported 
products are not, what is the policy justification?  
b. In the imple mentation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many restricted beer and wine 
authorizations and other beer and wine authorizations have been distributed to operators 
of grocery stores in Ontario?  
c. In the implementation of Ontario Regulation 232/16, how many au thorizations have 
been distributed for a "wine boutique sales agent " (a single authorization that permits 
the operator of a grocery store to sell, as agent of a winery that operates a wine 
boutique inside the store, wine offered for sal e in the boutique)?    
New questions : 
d. What is the rationale for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) product call that 
Canada provided in AGIMS 82002 ( http://www.doingbusinesswithlcbo.com/tro/Forms -
Documents/LettersToTheTrade/Downloads/LCBO%20Wines%20Bag%20in%20Box%20T
ender.pdf ) specifying different retail price parameters and size parameters for imported 
bag in box wine than for the category of ex isting Ontario bag in box wine?  
e. Would Canada please confirm imported bag in box wine is limited to 4 stock keeping 
units (SKUs) in LCBO stores while Ontario bag in box wine is limited to 40 SKUs?  If 
confirmed, please explain the rationale  for this split between imported and Ontario 
products.  
1.10  EU intervention stocks of skim milk power  
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86003)  and New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 86032)  
New Zealand understands that the European Union has recently tendered 1,864 MT of Skim Milk 
Powder from its intervention stocks which now total 370,000 MT. New Zealand recognises the G/AG/W/172  
 
- 10 - 
 
  gradual release of these stocks onto the market. What steps is the Europe an Union taking to avoid 
the sale of this product impacting markets?  
 
1.11  India's pulses policies  
1.11.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86061)  
In light of the significant share of imported pulses in India 's total consumption of this staple food 
and projections that de mand for pulses will continue to exceed domestic supply, could India please 
explain how the recent tariff increases for certain pulses are compatible with its long -term food 
security objectives?  
 
1.11.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86062)  
Could India explain wh at types of circumstances led to recent increases in India 's applied tariffs for 
pulse commodities in November and December 2017?  
 
1.11.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86063)  
A September 2016, report from the Indian Ministry of Finance entitled "Incentivising Pu lses 
Production through Minimum Support Price (MSP) and Related Policies " promotes pulse production 
so that domestic supply can better meet demand. The report claims that by doing so, it would 
protect the purchasing power of consumers all over India and pr omote food security through 
access to cheap protein.  
 
a. Can India indicate how the recent increase in tariffs for peas (50%) and other pulses 
(30%) helps to protect the purchasing power of consumers all over India and promote 
food security through the  access of affordable protein?  
b. The report also mentions that the government should increase minimum price support 
for pulses to take into account positive externality from pulse production. Could India 
indicate how this proposition would help the purchasi ng power of consumers all over 
India and promote food security?  
1.11.4   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86065)  
India has built up a buffer stock of 20 Lahk MT for pulses and in November 2017, announced that 
Central Government Schemes could now draw from this stock,  in addition to disposal through open 
market sales and supply to States.  
 
a. Could India provide details as to the volumes of pulses that were disposed of through:  
i. Central Government Schemes  
ii. Open market sales  
iii. Supply to States  
b. What prices were used to dis pose of these pulses?  
1.11.5   Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86039)  
The Russian Federation has received signals from its trade business that new import duties on 
pulses established by India in late 2017 lead to substantial economic losses due to th e fact that 
there was no time for traders to get acquainted with the measure beforehand and to adapt to new 
circumstances. In fact, some of the shipments have already been in transit at the time the 
changes took place. The substantial increase of import du ties effectively restricts Russian export of 
pulses to India.  
 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Meanwhile, India increases domestic support for its own producers of pulses. The Russian 
Federation has learned from various media sources that India is going to increase its market price 
support for pulses in 2018.  
 
Could India provide the rationale for such trade policy?  
 
1.11.6   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86035)  
The India 's recent increase in import tariffs for peas of 50% and other pulses of 30% has 
influenced the Ukrainian market of pulses . As a result the supply of pulses from Ukraine to India 
will be significantly reduced this year. In this context, Ukraine looks forward to informative 
discussion on repercussions forced India to increase the applied tariffs for pulses and on the future 
policy in this sector.  
 
a. Can India please indicate how the applied import tariff to diverse pulses changed over 
the past 12 months (including as a percentage of the respective bound rate)?  
b. Could India inform on the primary policy objective, and clarify whet her the objective is 
primarily directed to assist consumer (food security) or agricultural producers (income 
support)?  
1.12  India's minimum support prices  
1.12.1   Question  by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86004)  
Australia notes that since 2010 -11, minimum support prices have increased 82% for Ahar (Tur or 
Pigeon Peas), 76% for Moong (Mung Beans), 86% for Urad ( "Black lentils "), 110% for Gram 
(Chickpeas), an d 89% for Masur (Red Lentils).  
 
The Government of India 's Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices notes in paragraph  2.8 of 
its Price Policy for Rabi Crops – the Marketing Season 2018 -19 that:  
 
"In order to incentivize pulses production and encourage farmers to grow pulses, [the] 
government significantly increased MSPs of both kharif and rabi pulses in 2016 -17. As a 
result of which there was a record increase in area and production of pulses in the country, 
which had an adverse impact on market prices (Chart 2.4). " 
 
Given that the policy of Pulse "Incentivization " has been noted by the Government of India to have 
led to a record increase in production and an adverse impact on market prices, will India now 
consider reducing its minimum support prices for pulses to help restore stability in the market?  
 
1.12.2   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86005)  
Australia understands that the Indian Government is planning to launch a Market Assurance 
Scheme to provide minimum support price to farmers for crops not covered by the Minimum 
Support Price. In the 2017 -2018 Budget Speech (1 February 2018), Finance Minister Arun Jaitley 
announced that  all crops will realize one and a half times of the cost of their production.  
 
Can India provide the following information:  
 
a. the objectives of this policy ; 
b. the status of this policy proposal and intended launch date ; 
c. the crops covered under this scheme ; 
d. how this policy will be administered ; 
e. how prices will be set ; 
f. how States will dispose of these procured crops . G/AG/W/172  
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.12.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86074)  
In February 2018 India 's Minister of Finance presented the Union Budget, which includes a 
measure to expand minimum support prices to all crops and increase them to cost of production, 
plus 50%.   
 
a. To better assess the expected impact of increasing the minimum support price of all 
crops, could India provide most recent cost of production data for all crops under  India's 
domestic support commitment and all other crops that are expected to receive minimum 
price support.  
b. Could India indicate how much this measure will increase the applied administered prices 
for pulses, rice, wheat, coarse cereals, cot ton, groundnuts and sunflower?  
c. This new budget also introduced a 10% social welfare surcharge to finance education, 
health care and social programs. Could India indicate which agricultural imports would 
be covered by this new surcharge?  
1.12.4   Question by  the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86066)  
Press reports indicate that PM Modi has announced that his government will increase minimum 
prices for grains for farmers to 150% of cost of production.  
 
a. Could India indicate which types of grains that could become subject for this change? 
Will it include common wheat, rice, maize, pulses (and if so which ones), soya bean, 
rapeseed?  
b. Could India indicate the levels to which prices for common wheat, rice and maize would 
be increased compared to prices applicable for 2016 and 2 017 crop year for these 
products?  
1.13  India's quantitative restrictions  
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86006)  
At the WTO Committee on Agriculture meeting on 17 October 2017, Australia raised the 
announcement by India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 2 1 August 2017 of a quantitative 
restriction on beans of the species Vigna mungo Hepper or Vigna radiata Wilczek. In particular, 
Australia asked:  
 
a. What were the circumstances behind the imposition of the quantitative restriction and 
had India notified the q uantitative restriction to the WTO? If so, to which committee?  
b. Has India applied quantitative restrictions to any other agricultural commodities?  India 
replied that it would "submit the notification and relevant information to the appropriate 
Committee in  due course ". 
Australia would be grateful for an update on what information India has submitted to the WTO on 
this quantitative restriction since it provided the above response.  
 
1.13.2   Question by the United States (AG -IMS ID 86037)  
The United States understands  that in August 2017, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry 
notified quantitative restrictions (QRs) on imports of pigeon peas (07136000, 07139010 and 
07139090) and established an Indian fiscal year (April - March)  annual import quota of 
200,000  MT. Furthe r, later that month, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry notified QRs on 
imports of black matpae/mung beans (07133100) and established an Indian fiscal year (April - 
March) annual import quota of 300,000 MT.  
 
a. Are these QRs still in place?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. Please explain  how such quantitative restrictions are consistent with India 's WTO 
commitments.  
c. Does India have further plans to institute more QRs on imports of agricultural produ cts? 
If so, for which products?  
1.14  Indonesia's dairy import system  
1.14.1   Question by the United Stat es (AG -IMS ID 86046)  
a. In the October 2017 COA, Indonesia responded to questions about its Ministry of 
Agriculture (MOA) Regulation No. 26/2017 on Milk Supply and Distribution with 
statements regarding the regulation 's aim to ensure the availability and qual ity of fresh 
milk requir ed by the processing industry.  
Please clarify what history of availability and/or quality problems Indonesia has had with 
imported milk products.  
b. With regard to the same regulation, MOA Regulation No. 26/2017 on Milk Supply and 
Distribution:  
i. Please clarify whether Indonesia will allow dairy imports without the importer 
supporting Indonesia 's domestic dairy industry in some manner.  
ii. Please clarify whether businesses that do not own "milk processing units " within 
three years will be a llowed to import dairy products after the deadline is reached.  
iii. Please explain how the Directorate General for Livestock and Animal Health Services 
(DGLAHS) intends to administer its request to industry for formal partnership 
proposals under MOA Regulation 26/2017 (MOA 26/2017).  
iv. In light of the significance of milk powder as an ingredient for further processing due 
to shelf life and ease of transport, we question the down -chain impact of limiting the 
availability of imported milk powder.  For example, infant  formula manufacturers 
import powder not produced in Indonesia. Further, nearly all retail cheese in 
Indonesia is imported by traders.  In light of MOA Regulation 26/2017, how would 
these businesses be able to get their products / raw materials into Indones ia? 
c. The United States understands that the MOA is considering additional me asures affecting 
dairy imports.  Two examples of these are (1) MOA draft regulation on the Import and 
Export of Food Products of Animal Origin and (2) MOA draft regulation on Registr ation 
and Certification of Animal Products.    
Please provide an update on the status of the two measures provided as examples in this 
question.  
1.15  Korea's rice imports  
1.15.1   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 86036)  
Thailand thanks the Republic of Korea for t he respon se provided at the 78th CoA meeting in 
September 2015 regarding the Rectification and Modification of Schedules for Rice, and the 
subsequent consultations held with concerned Members. In this regard, could Korea please provide 
an update on its efforts to resolve issues regarding the rectification and modification of Kor ea's 
Schedule for rice products?  
 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.16  Pakistan's sugar policies  
1.16.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86007)  
Pakistan 's Ministry of Commerce on 14 September 2017 announced a 0.5 MMT sugar freight 
support subsidy to its sugar millers where the sugar was conditional on export. This quantity was 
subsequently increased to 1.5 MMT by Pakistan 's Ministry of Com merce and Textile on 
7 December  2017 (links below).  
 
Australia seeks to better understand the b asis for Pakistan 's domestic subsidies for sugar.  
 
Can Pakistan please provide the following information:  
a. How are these subsidies consistent with WTO agreements?  
b. How much of this subsidy has already been outlayed?  
c. What is the value of the amount that has  been outlayed?  
d. Who has received this support?  
e. When will this subsidy be removed?  
http://www.sbp.org.pk/epd/2017/FECL23.htm  (accessed 7 February 2018) . 
 
1.16.2   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 86009)  
Follow u p to question by Brazil AG -IMS ID 85069,  
 
Brazil appreciates and thanks Pakistan 's response regarding support for the export of sugar by 
Pakistan. In light of Pakistan 's responses Brazil notes several regulations and public notices 
regarding the export of sugar for the crop years of 2014 -2015 and 2016 -2017 that have not been 
notified by Pakistan, including a Public Notice on "Export & Import of Sugar ", issued  in 
February  2015 by the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of Pakistan under Memorandum 
No: 7(2)/2012 -E.III, that implements a cash support on sugar exports of 8.00 Rs per kg, for 
exports under the export quota of 650,000 metric tons of sugar, as well as an inland frei ght 
support of 2.00 Rs per kg.  
 
Given that there are no commitment levels concern ing sugar specified in Pakistan' s Schedule, and 
in light of the provisions of Articles 3.3, 8 and 9.1(a), (b) and (c) of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
please provide the methodologies and calculations for the cash support not related to inland freight 
support, particularly the support of 8.00 Rs per kg, for sugar exports under the export quota of 
650,000 metric tons of sugar. " 
 
1.17  Philippines' rice waiver  
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86008)  
Australia thanks the Philippines for its response to its questions  at the October 2017 CoA regarding 
the 30 June 2017 rice tariffication deadline provided by the WTO General Council 's waiver decision 
of 24 July 2014 (WT/L/932). Australia seeks an update on the Philippines'  tariffication efforts to 
date. 
 
1.18  Russian Federati on's railway subsidy for exports  
1.18.1   Question by Australia (AG -IMS ID 86010)  
Australia notes decree No. 1595 issued by the Russian Government on the rules for providing grain 
transportation subsidies on 20 December 2017. Australia further  notes reports that the 
Russian  Government has said that this measure was introduced in order to stimulate grain exports 
from a number of Russian regions.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 15 - 
 
   
Can Russia respond to the following questions:  
 
a. Can Russia confirm if the purpose of the measure is to stimulate grain exports?  
b. Could Russia explain how the measure is consistent with Article 9(e) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
c. What is the value of the amount that has been outlayed?  
d. Who h as received this support?  
e. When will this subsidy be removed?  
1.18.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86068)  
On 20 December  2017, the Russian Government issued decree No. 1595 "On Approval of the Rules 
for the Provision of Subsidies from the Federal Budget in 2017 an d 2018 to Open Joint Stock 
Company (OAO) "Russian Railways " for the Recovery of Revenue Losses Arising from the 
Establishing of Reduced Grain Transportation Rates. " The measure came into force on  
21 December 2017. It is reported that the amount allocated f rom the federal budget for these 
export subsidies is 2.99 billion rubles . The subsidies will apply to railway transportation of wheat, 
barley, and corn from 13 regions of the Central, Volga, Ural, and Siberia Federal Districts. The 
measure, in force throug h 30 June 2018, is expected to stimulate grain exports from the involved 
regions, stabilize domestic grain prices, and support profit margins of agricultural producers.   
 
Could the Russian Federation elaborate as to how the use of these export subsidies is  consistent 
with its WTO export subsidy commitment of "nil"?  
 
1.18.3   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86067)  
Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 85036  
 
a. Could Russia indicate the criteria for the products to be eligible for these subsidies?  
b. Could Russia specify if the measure in question is contingent in any way upon export 
performance, i.e. is the discount on railway tariffs applicable on exported grains only.  
c. Could Russia specify if preferential railway tariffs apply on transportation of grain to 
ports where the product is exported or on transportation to other destinations as well.  
1.18.4   Question by Ukraine (AG -IMS ID 86038)  
The Russian Federation 's adoption of decree 1595 on 20 December 2017 provides compensation 
for reduced grain transportation rates. As a  result, agriculture producers of grain are to benefit 
from lowered rail transportation rates for grain. Moreover, grain from designated regions could be 
more attractive to export.  
 
Russian Federation officials opined the media that these subsidies are no t agricultural export 
subsidies because "We are not subsidising exporters, we are subsidising producers ". In addition, 
Russian Federation replied to the European Union  in the 85th meeting that these subsidies in 
Russia's view are not export subsidies in th e context of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
a. Could the Russian Federation confirm that agriculture producer benefit from these 
subsides?  
b. Does the Russian Federation confirm that due to the benefit of these subsidies grain is 
exported?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 16 - 
 
  1.18.5   Question by the United States (AG-IMS ID 86047)  
The United States understands that the Russian Federation has issued two decrees - Decree 
No. 1595, which is specific for grains (wheat, barley and corn), and Decree No. 1104, which is for 
a number of food and agricultural p roducts. Both decrees grant internal transportation subsidies to 
compensate for the cost of transporting agricultural products by rail to ports where the product 
may be exported. Further,  the United States  understand that the explanatory note of Decree 159 5 
notes that it is necessary to take such measures for the stimulation of export of grain from the 
domestic market and to maintain the profitability of agricultural producers. Media reports quote 
Minister of Agriculture Alexander Tkachev as saying the Agri culture Ministry has proposed to offer 
state subsidies for grain supplies by rail to the exporting ports of Russia 's southern regions.  
 
a. Please explain the criteria and process for receiving these transportation subsidies 
and/or for receiving rail transport ation at reduced rates.  
b. Can the Russian Federation  confirm that these transportation subsidies are being offered 
to facilitate delivery to exporting ports in southern Russia, as suggested by the Minister 
of Agriculture?  
c. What is the reason for the Ministe r of Agriculture intent to facilitate shipments to 
Russia 's port territory other than to export those shipments?  
d. Why would subsidies be provided on shipments bound for Russia 's ports, other than to 
stimulate exports?  
e. Please explain how these subsidies co mport with Russia 's WTO commitments.  
1.19  Thailand's import permits for feed wheat  
1.19.1   Question by  the European Union (AG -IMS ID 86106 ) 
Follow -up to question AG -IMS ID 85039   
 
Can Thailand give an update on developments regarding import permits for feed wheat sinc e the 
last CoA meeting?  
 
1.20  Turkey's IPR programme  
1.20.1   Question by the Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 86029)  
Follow  up to question AG -IMS ID 84113  
 
The Russian Federation would like to repeat its questions originally posed at the Committee on  
Agriculture in June 2 017 which have not been answered yet:  
 
a. What amount of wheat has been imported under IPR since 2010?  
b. What amount of flour has been exported by Turkey under IPR since 2010?  
c. Under IPR what index is applied for an equivalent duty -free import of wheat when 
exporting one tonne of flour?  
1.21  U.S. dairy policies  
1.21.1   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 86084)  
Canada's follow -up questions to the United States (AG -IMS ID 85079)  
 
1. In response to Canada 's question on California milk class prices (AG -IMS ID 85079), the 
United States responded at the October 2017 Committee on Agriculture that what Canada 
was describing was an updated description of California 's milk classes.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 17 - 
 
   
a. Could the United States  please confirm that processors/manufacturers are able to pay a 
lower price for milk to make yogurt in California contingent on the export of that 
product?  
b. Could the United States  please explain why there are two different minimum prices that 
processors/manufacturers are required to pay for the production of the same product - 
one bei ng a lower price if the yogurt is exported, and the other a higher price if the 
product remains on the domestic market?  
2. The following questions are in response to the United States answers on the subject of 
federal milk marketing orders (FMMOs) (AG -IMS ID  85079):  
 
a. In regards to the end use milk classes in FMMOs:  
i. What is the milk class that milk handlers pay for the disposal of milk (i.e. waste, milk 
not used at processing/manufacturing plant)?  
ii. Alternatively, how do milk handlers pay producers for milk t hat they were not able to 
use due to spoilage or other reasons?  
iii. How are milk producers paid or compensated for milk that is dumped at the farm?  
b. In response to Canada, the United States has replied that "Liquid ultrafiltered milk would 
be classified accor ding to its end -use." What would be the milk class price that a milk 
handler would pay if the end -use is to produce ultrafiltered milk for export to 
manufacture a cheese in that export market?  
c. In follow -up to the U .S. response on the role of USDA market a dministrators:  
i. Do market administrators bill processors (who are required to be regulated) and 
manufacturers (who chose to be regulated) the end -use milk class for the purchases 
of milk from producers?  
ii. If not, who bills these milk processors and manufact urers (handlers)?  
iii. How does the billing for milk handlers work? How do handlers know what to pay into 
the pool? Do USDA Market Administrators bill or pay handlers from the producer 
settlement fund?  
iv. Do market administrators ever pay milk producers (i.e. se nd cheques at any point to 
producers)? Or do milk handlers pay producers based on mar ket administrator 
calculations?  
d. In a response, the U.S. mentioned that "FMMOs regulate plants according to where they 
have sales, not plant location. " 
i. How would milk handlers be regulated if they process and sell fluid milk (class I) 
solely for the export market? What about if they manufacture and sell dairy products 
(classes II -IV) solely for the export market?  
ii. How and where (under which FMMO) would mi lk handlers be regulated if a portion of 
either fluid milk or dairy products that they produce are exported?  
iii. For example, if a milk handler that chooses to pool is usually regulated in the 
Northeast FMMO (since most of their dairy products are currently s old there) and 
exports cheese that they manufactured, would they be regulated under the 
Northeast FMMO class III price for the cheese? Where (under which FMMO) would a 
handler be regulated if it produces fluid milk (class I) that is exported?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 18 - 
 
  e. For Canada 's question on the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, the United 
States  responded that "The programme allows regulated handlers to pay farmers in 
accordance with the terms of a forward contract instead of paying the applicable FMMO 
uniform price for pooled milk.  Handlers still account to the FMMO market wide pool for 
the classified use value of that milk. USDA does not calculate a "usage rate" among dairy 
producers for this programme. "  
i. Could the  United States  please explain the purpose of the Dairy Forward Prici ng 
Program? How does it benefit producers, and how does it benefit milk handlers?  
ii. Does the programme have an effect on the amount of the blend price paid to 
producers, or the blend price paid by milk handlers? If so, how, and by what 
amount?  
iii. Why do handl ers still account to the FMMO market wide pool if they are using the 
Dairy Forward Pricing Program?  
iv. As handlers still "account ' to the FMMO pool, there may be statistics or information 
available to the USDA on the usage rates of milk handlers for the Dair y Forward 
Pricing Program. If so, could the  United States  please provide them?  
2  POINTS RAISED IN CON NECTION WITH INDIVID UAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1)  
2.1.1   El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/48)  
AG-IMS ID 86072: Question by the European Union - Tariff quota fill  
The EU notes that in recent years, the fill rates for this tariff rate quota on cheddar cheese are less 
than 35%. Could El Salvador explain any reasons for these low fill rates? Notably, t he EU is 
concerned about any potential negative impact that TRQ management by auctioning could have in 
inhibiting a better use of this market access concession.  
 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.2.1   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/62)  
AG-IMS ID 86040: Question by Thailand - Transparency issues  
Under table MA:2 Year 2016, Costa Rica notified that numerous TRQ products were not opened.  
 
a. Please clarify why the TRQ wer e not opened for those products.   
b. Please provide information on how the TRQs for these products are administered.  
AG-IMS ID 86043: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill  
In its answer to Switzerland 's question at 79th CoA meeting (AG-IMS ID 79078) Costa Rica 
mentioned an amendment to its "General Regulations on the Distribution and Allocation of Import 
Tariff Quotas " with an aim to raising  its tariff quota fill rates. Switzer land noted however that for 
tariff item numbers 0401 (milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other 
sweetening matter) an d 0403 (buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yoghurt, kephir and other 
fermented or acidified milk and cream, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or 
other sweetening matter or flavoured or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa) the quota f ill rates 
have decreased. Can Costa Rica please give an update on the implementation of the amendment 
that they have announced and on its effectiveness in increasing the quota fill rates?  
 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 19 - 
 
  2.3  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARD s (TABLES MA:3  to MA:5)  
2.3.1   Japan (G/AG/N /JPN/221)  
AG-IMS ID 86073: Question by the European Union - Trigger calculations  
Japan indicates in its notification that the trigger price calculated was not based on a simple 
average. Could Japan explain how it calculated the trigger price in question?  
 
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
2.4.1   Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/51, G/AG/N/COL/51/CORR.1, G/AG/N/COL/54)  
AG-IMS ID 86051: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
a. It is noted that in both G/AG/N/COL/51 and G/AG/N/COL/54 there have been significant 
fluctuations in expenditures for various measures. In response to AG -IMS ID 81078 and 
81079 Colombia provided details with regard to the reasons for these changes, such as 
significantly increased budget allocations and instituti onal reforms.  
b. Does Colombia plan to submit any Table DS:2 notifications with regards to these 
changes to the various measures exempt from reduction commitments?  
AG-IMS ID 86086: Question by Canada - General services: inspection services  
In relation to G/AG /N/COL/54, Canada notes that Inspection services outlays were reduced to zero 
in 2015. Could Colombia elaborate on the specific policy changes that reduced spending f or 
inspection services to zero?  
 
AG-IMS ID 86085: Question by Canada - General services: m arketing and promotion 
services  
In relation to G/AG/N/COL/54, Canada notes that Marketing and promotion services outlays were 
significantly higher in 2014 (amounting to USD $274  millions) than in 2013 (USD $44  millions) 
and 2015 (USD $77  millions). Could C olombia explain why the outlays vary significan tly between 
these three years?  
 
AG-IMS ID 86050: Question by the United States - General services: marketing and 
promotion services  
In relation to G/AG/N/COL /51/Corr.1,  it is noted that Colombia 's notified val ues for marketing and 
promotions were corrected downwards si gnificantly for 2012 and 2013. What was the reason for 
this? 
 
2.4.2   Egypt (G/AG/N/EGY/3)  
AG-IMS ID 86017: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks Egypt for its DS:1 notification contained in G/AG/N/EGY/3 covering the years 
2005/2006 to 2016/ 2017. Australia asks the following questions:  
a. Does Egypt incur any Green Box expenditure other than the Pest Control Subsidy, for 
instance for Agricultural research, for t raining services, or for disaster relief?  
b. Australia notes that Egypt has not notified any market price support program mes in its 
notification. However in Egypt 's Trade Policy Review, the Secretariat report 
(WT/TPR/S/367) notes that the General Authority fo r Supply Commodities (GASC) "buys 
a share of the wheat crop at administered prices so as to guarantee a revenue to 
farmers and orient planting decisions, as well as to build up public stocks of basic 
foodstuff to be processed and sold to the general popula tion at subsidized prices. The G/AG/W/172  
 
- 20 - 
 
  State fixes the guaranteed price and purchases the crop from farmers before the 
planting date, so that the farmer can make a decision on whether or not to produce 
wheat. " 
Table 4.8 of the Secretariat report (reproduced below)  shows that Egypt 's GASC 
procured between 1.8 and 5.3 million tonnes of wheat over the period covered by 
Egypt 's notification. Australia asks that Egypt:  
i. Explain why it has not notified this program me as market price support in its DS:1 
notification?  
ii. Updat e its notification in G/AG/N/EGY/3 to incorporate the support provided through 
this market price support program, and to update Egypt 's calculation of its current 
Total Aggregate Measurement of Support.  
Table  1 Evolution of farm gate (guaranteed) and impo rt prices of wheat and quantities 
purchased from domestic farmers by the GASC, 2005 -2016 
Years  Farm gate price 
(LE/ton)  Import price  
(LE/ton)  Quantity purchased from 
farmers by the GASC  
(million tons)  
2005 1,120.0  941.0  2.8 
2006 1,126.7  954.1  1.8 
2007 1,153.3  1,493.4  2.3 
2008 2,553.3  2,822.6  2.5 
2009 1,613.3  2,159.5  3.2 
2010 1,813.3  1,264.6  2.1 
2011 2,346.7  1,946.9  2.6 
2012 2,520.0  3,292.0  3.7 
2013 2,586.7  2,328.8  2.7 
2014 2,740.0  2,816.3  3.7 
2015 2,760.0  2,160.5  5.3 
2016 2,773.3  2,080.2  4.9 
Source:  Information provided by the authorities.  
 
AG-IMS ID 86087: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Egypt made important methodological changes to its recent domestic support 
notification; namely, Egypt has changed from calendar year to marketing years and from notifying 
in US dollars to the Egyptian pound.   
a. Could Egypt explain why it changed from notifying in EGP (G/AG/N/EGY/1) to US dollars 
in G/AG/N/EGY/3?  
b. Could Egypt explain why it changed from notifyin g in calendar years (G/AG/N/EGY/1) to 
marketing years in G/AG/N/EGY/3?  
AG-IMS ID 86088: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada recognizes the efforts undertaken by Egypt to prepare and submit its annual domestic 
support notification for the years 2005/2006 to 2016/2017. Canada notes that Egypt 's previous 
domestic support notification was submitted to the Committee on 7 May 1999 and covered the 
years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. While Canada appreciates the opportunity to review Egypt 's 
most recent notification, Canada  does wonder about the missing years. Could Egypt provide an 
update on the status of these notifications?  
AG-IMS ID 86089: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada notes that Egy pt's notification no longer includes measures related to "General Services ", 
and "Relief from irrigation difficulties ". According to the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Land Reclamation (MALR), its activities include the Central Laboratory for A gricultural Expert G/AG/W/172  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Systems which provides extension/training services to farmers in Egypt. Canada would consider 
this type of activity as falling under the category of "General Services " Could Egypt explain where 
these expenditures are reported in its noti fication?  
AG-IMS ID 86090: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
The FAO Farming Systems indicates that irrigation is common in Egypt. Could Egypt confirm that 
domestic support related to irrigation is no longer provided?  
AG-IMS ID 86075: Question by the European Union - Trans parency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The EU thanks Egypt for its notification covering the years 2005 to 2016.  
Having examined the upcoming secretariat report on Egypt's Trade Policy Review, it seems that 
Egypt may have other forms for subsidy than those notified in the notification G/AG/N/EGY/3, such 
as support for wheat through guaranteed farm gate price (point 4.19 and table 4.8 of the 
secretariat TPR report).  
Does Egypt intend to present an addendum wi th this subsidy and others mentioned in the 
secretariat TPR report?  
AG-IMS ID 86041: Question by Ukraine - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Ukraine first wishes to thank Egypt for the effort to provide the recent Table DS:1 n otification. At 
the s ame time Ukraine  notes that certain discrepancies appear between the agricultural policy 
information provide in the forthcoming Egypt's Trade Policy Review (see para 5.8 of the Report by 
Egypt (WT/TPR/G/367), para 4.19 and para 4.27 of the Secretariat Repo rt (WT/TPR/S/367)) and 
the limited information in Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/EGY/3). Could Egypt plea se clarify 
these discrepancies?  
AG-IMS ID 86012: Question by Australia - General services: pest and disease control  
Egypt lists a Pest Control Subsidy  as a measure exempt from the reduction commitment – "Green 
Box". Could Egypt provide further detail on the eligibility criteria to receive such subsidy; how the 
subsidy level per producer is calculated; and how payments under this subsidy are made to 
producers?    
AG-IMS ID 86053: Question by the United States - General services: pest and disease 
control  
It is noted that expenditures on the Pest Control Subsidy have trended downwards from 2005 
through 2016 with some fluctuations.  
a. What is the reason for thi s downward trend?  
b. What is the impact of the trend currently and expected to be going forward?  
c. Since 1995, has Egypt modified the Pest Control Subsidy in any manner? If so, will Egypt 
notify such modifications in a Table DS:2 notification?  
AG-IMS ID 86011: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia notes that Egypt has notified investment subsidies under Supporting Table 2 – measures 
exempt from the reduction commitment – "Development Programmes ". Cou ld Egypt please 
provide details on the eligibility criteria for producers to access this subsidy, the amount of subsidy 
on offer to individual producers, and any further information regarding how the subsidy is allocated 
and delivered to producers?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 22 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86091: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Canada noted that Egypt no longer reports any support in fertilizer and seeds subsidies. Could 
Egypt confirm that these two measures, reported in G/AG/N/EGY/1 , no longer exist?  
AG-IMS ID 86092: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Could Egypt provide information on the type of investments that are permitted under its new 
investment subsidies to low -income produ cers program me? Are investments in fertilizer and seeds 
allowed under that program me? Could Egypt elaborate as to how it defines "low-income 
producers "?  
AG-IMS ID 86076: Question by the European Union - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
a. Could Egypt explain in more detail the types of subsidi es included in Supporting 
Table  DS:2?  
b. Could Egypt explain whether any subsidy to fertilizer , diesel/electricity or irrigation is 
included is these amounts in Supp orting Table DS:2?  
AG-IMS ID 86054: Question by the United States - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
Supporting Table DS:2  
a. The United States understands the Egyptian Agricultural Bank (EAB), formerly known as 
the Principal Bank for Developme nt and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC), has provided funds 
worth EGP 5.5 billion for about 800,000 custome rs working in plant production 
(Jan - Dec 2016). These loans were offered at a subsidized yield rate of 5% per year, 
with the aim of supporting Egyptian farmers.   
i. Please confirm if this is accurate.  
ii. Is this the measure notified under Supporting Table DS:2: "investment subsidies to 
low-income producers (Agricultural credit and loan schemes) "? 
iii. If so, please explain the discrepancy in the value notified by E gypt under this 
measure and the funds noted above.  
iv. If not, please explain how these funds are notified or why they are not notified.  
b. In November 2016, the parliament passed a law replacing the Principal Bank for 
Development and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC),  which was founded in the 1930s, with the 
new Egyptian Agricultural Bank (EAB) to be under the supervision of the Central Bank 
rather than the Ministry of Agriculture.]  
i. Please explain how this legal change affects support provided to agricultural 
producers . 
ii. Please explain how this legal change affects the general operation of the EAB, 
including how the bank received funding or its involvement in financing trade now or 
in the future?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.4.3   European Union (G/AG/N/EU/34)  
AG-IMS ID 86025: Question by India - De mini mis 
Could the European Union provide the value of production (VoP) data for Skimmed Milk Powder 
and Butter listed in Supporting Table DS: 4 for 2005 to 2013?  
2.4.4   Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/41)  
AG-IMS ID 86055: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (incl uding Table 
DS:2)  
Supporting Table DS:4  
The United States notes notified product -specific AMS for sheep meat as 1,761 million ISK and 
notified product -specific AMS for horticulture as 277 million ISK in 2016 (both values unadjusted 
for inflation). Iceland 's 2016 Financial Statement of the State Treasury (Ríkisreikningur 2016) lists 
support for sheep production as 4.9 billion ISK and support fo r vegetable production as 
626.6  million ISK. The data source in both documents is listed as Statistics Iceland.  
Please explain the differences in the data for both commodities, including any differences in 
categorization in both documents.  
AG-IMS ID 86093: Question by Canada - Scheduled commitment level  
Canada notes that the current total AMS of Iceland has increased significantly over the past years 
to reach 98% of its total AMS commitment level in 2016. Since the Current Total AMS is very close 
to Iceland 's domestic support commitment, could Iceland elaborate on its actions or plan to remain 
within its annual limit?  
AG-IMS ID 86044: Question by Thailand - Market price support  
In Supporting Table DS:5, Iceland indicates that Market Price Support was applicable to several 
products such as Beef Sheepmeat and Eggs, however, it was also listed as "Not Applicable " under 
column 4 (administered price) of the table. Could Iceland please clarify whether Market Price 
Support was used f or all products listed under ST/ DS:5 and if so, please provide the relevant 
values.  
AG-IMS ID 86013: Question by Australia - Market price  support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks Iceland for its Domestic Support notification for 2016 contained in 
G/AG/N/ISL/41.  
Australia notes that in Supporting Table DS:5, Iceland lists eligible production for Milk of 
134,884  tonnes, referencing "Statistics Iceland ' as the Data Source. Given Statistics Iceland 
(www.statice.is  accessed 29 January) lists total milk production for Iceland of 150,322 tonnes in 
2016, could Iceland please explain how eligible production  for Milk has been  calculated in 
Supporting Table  DS:5?  
2.4.5   India (G/AG/N/IND/11)  
AG-IMS ID 86019: Question by Australia - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Follow up questions from 85th CoA 
Australia would like to thank India for providing Value of P roduction data in response to questions 
from Australia, the United States, Canada and the European Union (AG -IMS IDs 85102; 85020; G/AG/W/172  
 
- 24 - 
 
  85093; 85043). Could India provide information on the value of production of each of the pulse 
products listed in G/AG/N/IND/ 11 – Gram; Urad; Moong; Arhar and Lentils?  
AG-IMS ID 86015: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
In Supporting Table DS: 5 India lists the external reference price fo r pulses as 345.66 USD/tonne 
in 2012-2013 an d 2013 -2014. Australia notes that under India 's Agriculture Supporting Tables 
(AGST), India lists external reference prices for Arhar, Moong, Urad and Gram as follows:  
 
 External Reference price/ RS/tonne  If converted to USD/Tonne  
– for reference only* 
ARHAR  5243 391.26  
MOONG  4782 356.86  
URAD  4385 327.23  
GRAM  4128 308.05  
* Converted at 1986 -89 exchange rate 1USD = 13.4 INRs, as per G/AG/N/11  
Could India please provide answers to the following:  
a. Please describe in detail how India calculated an external reference price of 
345.66  USD/tonne for "Pulses " in G/AG/N/11  
b. What External Reference Price does India use to account for support for "Lentils ", given 
this product is not included in India 's AGST, nor referenced in India 's first DS:1 
notification (G/AG/N/I ND/1)?  
c. Australia notes that in India 's notification for 1995 -96, the external reference price for 
"Pulses " – covering Gram, Urad, Moong and Arhar - was 345.66 USD/tonne. In 2004 -
2005 and 2005 -2006 the reference price for "pulses " – now covering Gram, Urad,  
Moong, Arhar and Lentils – fell to 307.85 USD/tonne; and in 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014 
the reference price for "pulses " – covering all the same products as in 2004 -2005 and 
2005-2006 – returned to 345.66 USD/tonne.  
Could India explain why it has used different reference prices for pulses in each of these 
three notifications, and how these reference prices were calculated?  
AG-IMS ID 86095: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST)  
Canada notes that  the methodology used to establish the applied administered price and the fixed 
external reference price for pulse in India 's DS:1 notification is different than the methodology 
used in its agriculture supporting tables (AGST) relating to commitments on ag ricultural products 
in Part IV of its Schedule. The AGST list the applied administered prices and fixed external 
reference prices by pulse varieties, while India 's annual domestic support notification uses an 
aggregate applied administered price and fixed external reference price for pulses. Furthermore, 
lentil was introduced in the aggregate pulse category in India 's notification DS (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
without the appro priate supporting methodology.  
a. Could India provide the methodology used to establish the app lied administered price 
and the fixed external reference price for the aggregated pulse c ategory in Supporting 
Table DS: 5 of India 's latest DS:1  notification (G/AG/N/IND/11)?  
b. Canada 's analysis shows that the applied administered price for India 's latest notification 
was estimated using the simple average prices of the pulses in the aggregate category of 
pulses, including lentils, while the fixed external reference price is the simple average 
price of the pulses listed in the AGST relating to commitments o n agricultural products in 
Part IV of the schedule, which exclude lentils. Since the price for lentils is significantly 
less than the four others pulses in this broad category, this had the effect of reducing 
the applied administrated price for the categor y, while keeping the fixed external 
reference price relatively higher.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 25 - 
 
  i. Could India explain why market price support for lentils was not reported separately, 
given that the external reference price methodology for Pulses does not take in to 
account this type  of pulse?  
ii. Why does India report market price support for pulses as an aggregate rather than 
by individual type of pulses?  
AG-IMS ID 86016: Question by Australia - Market price support  
a. Supporting Table DS:5 in G/AG/N/IND/11 for 2012 -13 calculates market price support 
as 31.93 USD million. Using the figures India supplies for the applied administered price 
(678.31); External Reference Price (345.66) and Eligible Production (0.10), the MPS 
should actually be USD 33.265 million. Could India please check its calculations?  
b. In G/AG/N/IND/11 India lists eligible production for pulses of 0.1 million tonnes in 
2012-2013 and 0.05 million tonnes in 2013 -14. Can India provide details on how it has 
calculated eligible production for pulses? Can India provide a breakdow n of pulses 
procurement by product type – ie. Gram, Urad, Moong, Arhar, and Lentils?  
AG-IMS ID 86014: Question by Australia - Market price support  
Australia notes that India has reported market price support for Pulses in 2012 -2013 and 
2013-2014. Could Ind ia please provide a response to the following questions:  
a. Australia notes that India maintains separate and distinct Minimum Support Prices 
(MSPs) for Gram, Arhar, Urad, Moong & Lentils. Can India explain why it has combined 
these products into one category  "Pulses " for the purposes of calculating Market Price 
Support?  
b. Australia notes that the actual Minimum Support Price (MSP) for pulse pro ducts in 
2013-2014 was as follows:  
 MSP 2013/14  
(INR/quintal)  MSP 2013/14 
(INR/tonne)  USD/Tonne* 
ARHAR  4300 43,000  710.74  
MOONG  4500 45,000  743.80  
URAD  4300 43,000  710.74  
GRAM  3100 31,000  512.39  
MASUR  2950 29,500  487.60  
 
c. In Supporting Table DS.5 India lists the administered price for "pulses " as 678.31 USD/ 
tonne in 2012 -2013 and 633.06 USD/tonne in 2013 -2014. Could India explain in detail 
how it calculated these two figures?  
AG-IMS ID 86108: Question by the United States - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
a. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India notified market price support for the Tur, 
Moong, Urad, Gram, and Lentil pulses for all years notified with the exception of 
2011/ 2012; however, India announced a Minimum Support Price for each commodity for 
each of the years notified, including 2011/ 2012. 
i. Please confirm whether India procured any of these comm odities in 2011/ 2012.   
ii. Please also confirm whether India would have procured the commodities that year if 
market prices had fallen below the administered (announced) Minimum Support 
Prices.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 26 - 
 
  iii. If India did not procure these commodities in 2011/ 2012, please explain how the 
programme was implemented differently in 2012/ 2013 and 2013/ 2014, when market 
price support was also notified, as compared to 2011/ 2012 when no market price 
support was notified.  Please include citations to any government decrees, 
regulatio ns, or other communications that explain this difference.  
b. It is noted in G/AG/N/IND/11 that India aggregated gram, arha r, urad, moong, and 
lentils as " pulses " in Supporting Table DS:5 as a single  market price support 
measure.  However, it is also noted that India announced distinct Minimum Support 
Prices (applied administered prices) for each of the separate pulses and are 
disaggregated in India's AGST.  For example, in 2012/ 2013, India announced the 
following distinct Minimum Su pport Prices: Tur: INR 38,500/tonne; Moong: INR 
44,000/tonne; Urad: INR: 43,000/tonne; Gram: INR 28,000/tonne; and Lentil: INR 
28,000/tonne.  However, the Minimum Support Price /applied administered price notified 
is approximately INR 36,900/tonne (converte d to INR using the notified exchange rate 
for 2012/ 2013). 
i. Please explain the reason for aggregating these pulses despite announcing distinct 
applied  administered prices for each.  
ii. Please provide market price support calculations for each commodity that sepa rately 
receives a distinct announced applied administered price for each year covered by 
G/AG/N/IND/11.  
AG-IMS ID 86094: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
Canada notes that in its first domestic support notification (G/AG/N/IN D/1), India used total 
production as eligible production to calculate market price support for pulses (ST /DS:5) but 
switched to using the volume acquired under government procurement for subsequent 
notifications.  
a. Could India provide information on the cha nge in policy that supported this change from 
total production to procured quantities and the details of the specific legislation or 
regulations that limits the volume of production eligible to be procured by the 
government?  
b. How does India ensure that the  minimum support price for pulses does not generate 
market distortions by affecting the price of sales of pulses that are not under the 
government's procurement?  
2.4.6   Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/19/R ev.1, G/AG/N/JOR/20/R ev.1) 
AG-IMS ID 86096: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid  
Canada noticed that the description of the food aid measure in the supporting table DS:1 changed 
from "budgetary expenditures on bread, sugar, rice and powdered milk " to "Budgetary 
expenditures on bread " only.  
a. Could Jordan confirm that t his program is now only applicable for bread and indicate 
what the reason for this change is?  
b. Could Jordan indicate if a new measure will be brought in related to sugar, rice and 
powdered milk?  
AG-IMS ID 86022: Question by Australia - Excessive rates of inflation  
Australia thanks Jordan for its improved transparency in G/AG/N/JOR/20/R ev.1 and 
G/AG/N/JOR/19/R ev.1, where Jordan has included AMS calculations without adjustment for 
inflation.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Australia would like to request further information from Jordan exp laining why it is claiming 
excessive rates of inflation, and to help members better assess Jordan 's claim that excessive rates 
of inflation have impeded Jordan 's ability to abide by its domestic support commitments.  
a. Can Jordan provide the annual inflation rates for the years covered by the notifications – 
2013 to 2014?  
b. Jordan claims that the inflation rate in 2013 and 2014 was 77% based on average 
consumer prices from 1997 -2013/2014. Can Jordan provide the annual inflation rate for 
those years (i.e. 1997 -2013, and 1997 -2014)?  
c. Can Jordan explain why it has adjusted the external reference price for inflation for 
Wheat but not for Barley in its DS notifications for 2013 and 2014?  
AG-IMS ID 86097: Question by Canada - Excessive rates of inflation  
Canada appreciat es Jordan's commitment to transparency in providing both unadjusted and 
adjusted numbers in its domestic support notification. Canada has noted in previous meetings that 
paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires the "fixed external re ference 
price" to be fixed or unchanging and thus, does not allow for any type of adjustment, including 
adjustments based on inflation. Canada notes that Footnote 1 in ST/DS:5 in G/AG/N/JOR/19/Rev.1 
and G/AG/N/JOR/20/Rev.1 references a cumulative inflation rate of "77% based on average 
consumer price from 1997 – 2013" and "77% based on average consumer price from 
1997 - 2014", respectively. Could Jordan provide the annual infla tion rate for 2013 and 2014?  
AG-IMS ID 86077: Question by the European Union - Excessive rates of inflation  
In relation to G/AG/N/JOR/19/R ev.1, Jordan explains in its Supporting Table DS:5 for Calendar 
year 2013 that the inflation rate in 2013 was 77% based on average consumer price from 
1997-2013. The EU understands that this is an aggregated inflation in the period 1997 -2013. The 
average annual inflation during these 17 years would then be 4.52%. According to the World Bank 
data, the average world inf lation during the same period was 4.26%. In the light of this, could 
Jordan specify:  
a. How would Jordan define "excessive rate of inflation" in paragraph 18:4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
b. Why does Jordan consider an inflation rate in Jordan which is very  close to the world 
average as being "excessive?"  
2.4.7   Mauritius (G/AG/N/MUS/7)  
AG-IMS ID 86021: Question by Australia - Classification of measures  
Australia thanks Mauritius for its Domestic Support notification contained in G/AG/N/MUS/7.  
Australia notes that  the following programmes have been  listed in Supporting Table DS: 9 as non -
product specific AMS in 2015 -2016 and 2016 -2017: Fruit Growers (Bat net); Cattle Breeders 
Scheme (Mauritius); Goat Multiplier Farms Scheme; Reproduction Farm Cattle/Goat including 
Rodrigues; Heifer Productivity Scheme; Tea Support Scheme.  
Could Mauritius please explain why they have included these programmes as non -product -specific 
AMS given they appear to be support provided to specific product sectors?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.4.8   Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/ MDA/11)  
AG-IMS ID 86056: Question by the United States - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
The United States notes that in Moldova 's first domestic support notification, Moldova included the 
exchange rates for the local currency to SDR s. However, in Moldova' s recent notifications, no 
exchange rates were provided. The United States  does appreciate  the reporting of these exchange 
rates in response to AG -IMS ID 83092.  
a. Please provide the annual exchange rate used to notify support in G/AG/N/MDA/11.  
b. Would Moldova consider including the exchange rates in its future notifications for 
transparency purposes?  
Table DS:2  
c. In response to AG -IMS ID 83092, Moldova said in March 2017 that a Table DS:2 
notification would be submitted within a short period; however, no notification has been 
submitted in nearly a year. Please provide an update on when the appropriate 
notifications will be made.  
AG-IMS ID 86057: Question by the United States - Classification of measures  
Supporting Table DS:1  
In AG -IMS ID 83092 Moldova e xplained that the measure notified and related to the "payment for 
relief from natural disasters " met the criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2 as the embargo on export 
imposed by the Russian Federation was deemed an emergency disaster situation. However, an 
export ban does not appear to be in line with a "natural or like disaster " as explained in 
paragraph  8(a). Please provide additional details with regards to how payments to producers are 
made.  
2.4.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/94)  
AG-IMS ID 86042: Question by Ukraine - Payments based on 85 % or less of the base 
level of production  
As of calendar year 2014 Norway introduced a new Blue Box measure "Quality Incentive Support 
Programme for Beef ". The monetary value increased from NOK 135.9 million i n 2014 to 
NOK 191.5  million in 2016. This represents a very noticeable and possibly lucrative Blue Box 
producer support on the order of a 40% increase in just three years. Ukraine  recall s that Blue Box 
measures must demonstrate production limiting policy and that Norway has n ot had the 
opportunity to respond to Blue Box questions (according to AG -IMS) since 1999.  
Could Norway give useful policy background and understanding on their new measure introduced 
in CY 2014 and how significantly increased spending correlated to Norway 's Blue box policy 
objective of limiting production?  
AG-IMS ID 86018: Question by Australia - Market price support: Eligible production  
Australia thanks Norway for its recent DS:1 notificat ion for 2016 in G/AG/N/NOR/94.  Australia 
notes that in Supporting  Table DS:5, Norway lists a range of eligible production figures that do not 
match with official statistics from Statisti cs Norway of total production.  
 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 29 - 
 
   2016 Production  
("000 tonnes/million litres)  
  Statistics Norway  G/AG/N/NOR/94  
Wheat  286 287 
Barley  574 598 
Oats 330 343 
Goat Milk  21.4 20.4 
Milk 1526.2  1,522.80  
Pork 137.7  127.9  
 
Could Norway explain the discrepancy betwe en these two numbers, including:  
 
a. Why has Norway not counted production as reported by Statistics Norway in its 
calculation of eligible production?  
b. Does Norway maintain any quantitative limits on the volume of stock that it will offer 
market price support to?  
c. What is the basis for Norway 's calculation of eligible production for the above products in 
G/AG/N/NOR/94?  
AG-IMS ID 86098: Question by Canada - Market price support: Eligible production  
In Norway 's Supporting Table DS: 5, there is noticeable decrease in the amount of eligible 
production reported for wheat in calendar year 2016. As a result, market price support  for wheat 
decreased from  NOK 851.1 million  in 2015 to NOK 600.5 million in 2016. Could Norway please 
explain this decrease in eligible production for wheat in 2016?  
2.4.10   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  
AG-IMS ID 86099: Question by Canada - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates Thailand submitting recent DS:1 notification which cover the 2014, 2015 and 
2016 calendar years. However, Thailand 's previous Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/THA/75) 
covered the 2008 calendar year. In the interveni ng years there were a number of changes to the 
support provided to Thailand 's rice sector which would have been reflected in these missing 
notifications. Could Thailand please inform the Committee on when they expect to provide 
notifications for the years,  namely, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013?  
AG-IMS ID 86100: Question by Canada - Direct payments: payments for relief from 
natural disasters  
In the 2014 DS: 1 notification, Thailand reports a new programme called "Government financial 
participation in crop insurance schemes " under Payments for relief from natural disasters.  
a. Given the lack of information for the preceding years, could Thailand indicate when this 
programme was introduced?  
b. Could Thailand provide additional information on this programme and el aborate on how 
it complies with the requirements of paragraph 8 under Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture specifically what is the reference period and what is the minimum percentage 
of the production loss eligible to be covered?  
c. Could Thailand indica te when it will provide a DS: 2 notification for this new  measure ?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 30 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86023: Question by Australia - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
Australia thanks Thailand for its Domestic Support notification for 2014 -2016 con tained in 
G/AG/N/THA/85.  
Australia notes that Thailand 's listed expenditure on Article 6.2 support changes considerably over 
the three year period – 39,522 million baht in 2014; 0.42 million baht in 2015 and a high of 
64,712 million baht in 2016. Could Tha iland please explain:  
a. Why did payments under Article 6.2 expand so significantly in 2016?  
b. What specific subsidies were available to low income and resource poor farmers in each 
of the three years, given that Article 6.2 support is referred to differently i n each year 
(i.e. as "subsidy to low income farmers " in 2014; "Subsidy Agricultural Machinery to 
producer " in 2015; and "provide inputs or financial assistance to obtain inputs to 
farmers " in 2016)?  
c. How does Thailand ensure that the Article 6.2 subsidies are provided only to "low-income 
and resource poor producers ", as required by Article 6.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
AG-IMS ID 86101: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income  or 
resource -poor producers  
In 2014, Thailand notified an input subsidy under Supporting Table DS: 2 called "Subsidy to low 
income farmers " in the amount of $39,552.82 million Baht. This measure is not included in 
subsequent years (i.e. 2015 and 2016).  
a. Could Thailand indicate how long this programme has been in place prior to 2014?  
b. Since this measure is not included in the 2015 and 2016 years, could Thailand indicate if 
this programme is still operational or if it has been terminated?  
c. Could Thailand elab orate as to how it defines "low income farmers "?  
d. Could Thailand elaborate on the types of inputs covered under this input subsidy?  
AG-IMS ID 86102: Question by Canada - Input subsidies available to low -income or 
resource -poor producers  
In 2016 under Supp orting Table DS:2, Thailand reports what seems to be a new programme 
entitled "Provide inputs or financial assistance to obtain inputs to farmers ".  
a. Could Thailand elaborate on the eligibility criteria to receive this funding?  
b. What types of inputs are covered under this programme?  
AG-IMS ID 86058: Question by the United States - Input subsidies available to low -
income or resource -poor producers  
The United States would like to thank Thailand for its most recent domestic support notification for 
2014-2016. This notification is most welcome by Members seeking information and transparency 
on Thailand 's agricultural policies since its last notification for 2008.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Supporting Table DS:2  
The United States notes various input subsidy measures for each of the three notified years: "input 
subsidies"  (2014), "subsidy for agricultural machinery to producer ' (2015), and "inputs or financial 
assistance to obtain inputs to farmers ' (2016).  
a. Please provide additional details on how each measure is implemented.  
b. Please describe how each measure meets the criteria of Article 6.2.  
AG-IMS ID 86103: Question by Canada - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Canada notices the addition of loans for production, pa yments for stockholding and loans for 
stockholding for rice under Supporting Table DS:7 starting in 2014.  
a. Are all three of these measures part of the same programme or are they separate 
initiatives?  
b. Could Thailand provide details on the eligibility crite ria to receive support under the 
above mentioned loans?  
c. Could Thailand elaborate on the types of activities eligible to receive support under 
"Payment for stockholding "? 
AG-IMS ID 86071: Question by the European Union - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
a. Can Thailand explain in more detail how its On -Farm Rice Pledging Program has been 
taken into account in this notification, and give more detailed calculations?  
b. Can Thailand explain in more detail the calculation for the following rice subsidies: loans 
for pro duction, loans for stockholding and payment for stock holding? What quantities of 
rice are concerned and what aid rates apply for these schemes?  
c. Can Thailand explain in more detail the calculati on for the cereal subsidies in Supporting 
Table DS:7: what cer eals, what quantities and what aid rates for the schemes apply?  
AG-IMS ID 86059: Question by the United States - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Supporting Table DS:7  
a. The United States notes various measures for rice, including "loans for production" , 
"loans for stockholding" , and "payment for stockholding" . In addition, Thailand notified 
"expenditure for stockh olding of agricultural products"  measure for cereals.  
i. Please describe how each of these measures is implemented and if there is any 
relationship between the three measures.  
ii. For "expenditure for stockh olding of agricultural products"  for cereals, please explain 
specifically what commodities are covered, including whether rice is covered.  If rice 
is covered, please explain how this differs from the "payment for stockholding " 
notified for rice.  
iii. For the measures related to stockholding, please describe how commodities are 
purchased for stocks, including whether purchases are done at market prices or 
administered prices.   
b. The United States notes a budgetary outlay for "loans for production"  for rice for all 
three notified years. In September 2017, the Thai cabinet approved a budget for the 
MY2017/18 On -Farm Paddy Pledging Program to include all main -crop rice varieties from  
1 November  2017 – 28 February 2018 in which farmers will receive a subsidy on storage G/AG/W/172  
 
- 32 - 
 
  costs as well as a direct payment for certain harvest and postharvest handling costs 
during 1 September 2017 – 31 July 2018.  
Given that there are intervention prices and  targeted quantities for the On -Farm Paddy 
Pledging Program, please explain how this measure does not meet the criteria for being 
notified as market price support in Supporting Table DS:5.  
c. The United States notes a government subsidy of 450 million baht fo r sugarcane for all 
three notified years. It is our understanding that the government of Thailand was 
seeking public comment on the draft amendment of the Cane and Sugar Act B.E. 2527 
(1984), which aims to deregulate the domestic sugar market in MY2017/18,  and that if 
the current draft is implemented, starting on 1 December 2017, domestic price subsidies 
and direct payments to cane growers will end.  
i. What is the status of this amendment?  
ii. Please provide additional details as to how the "government subsidy " for sugar was 
implemented in the years covered by this notification.  
iii. Would the proposed amendment noted above result in the end of this measure as 
well? 
2.4.11   United States (G/AG/N/USA/109)  
AG-IMS ID 86028: Question by India - Direct payments: structural adjustme nt 
assistance provided through investment aids  
The United States spent US$58 million on farm credit programms under structural adjustment 
through investment aides of Green Box. These programmes include short -term loans made at 
preferential interest rates. The support is derived as the difference between FSA farm loans and 
commercial interest rates times the value of loans made during the years. Short terms loans at 
subsidies interest rate can be treated as input subsidies to the farmers. Could the United St ates 
explain how the credit subsid y for short -terms loan qualify  under Gre en Box ? 
AG-IMS ID 86027: Question by India - Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
Under the 2014 Farm Act, historical cotton base acres were designated "generic base acres " and 
producers are eligible for payments under the PLC or the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). How 
much cotton area is declared as "generic base acres " under the Farm Act, 2014?  
AG-IMS ID 86026: Question by India - Classification of measures  
As per domesti c support notification for year 2014, The United States  spent US$773 million on 
covered commodities under Price Loss Coverage Programme. For each covered commodity on a 
farm, PLC payments are made on historical base area when current market price falls bel ow the 
reference price. The reference price under the PLC programme varies across covered commodities 
and payments under PLC are based on current prices of covered commodity. Therefore, PLC 
payments are product specific trade distorting support rather than  non-product specific support as 
notified by the United States . It resulted into underreporting of product specific support across 
covered commodities.  
a. Could the United States describe why PLC payments qualify for non -product specific 
support instead of pr oduct specific support under Amber box?  
b. Could the United States provide commodity wise PLC payments for the marketing year 
2014?  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY notifications (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.5.1   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/95)  
AG-IMS ID 86079: Question by  the European Union - Transparency issues  
The European Union notes that Norway has significantly increased the use of export subsidies for 
swine meat and butter between 2015 and 2016. Does Norway consider this increased use of 
export subsidies for swine meat a nd butter to be in line with the commitment, pursuant to the 
2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, to "exercise utmost restraint with regard 
to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect "? 
According to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition "members 
shall seek not to raise their export subsidies beyond the average level of the past five years on a 
product basis ". According to the information notified, Norway  has failed to achieve this objective 
for butter in 2016. What are the reasons behind the increased use of export subsidies for butter?  
 
2.5.2   Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/82)  
AG-IMS ID 86080: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues  
The EU notes that Swi tzerland is in breach of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition by 
granting export subsidies to cattle for breeding and horses in 2016. The EU also notes that 
Switzerland is in breach of Article 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture by granting export sub sidies 
to certain ingredients of processed agricultural products, such as eggs, flour, oils/fats and sugar 
which cannot benefit from any export subsidies in the primary form.  
 
The EU nevertheless also notes that the Swiss authorities have recently adopted a proposal on the 
abolition of agricultural export subsidies by 2019. The proposal refers to certain compensatory 
measures taken by the private sector and subject to private law, i.e. without direct participation of 
the authorities. Could Switzerland clari fy if such private law measures imply any support to 
exported products financed by virtue of government action, such as a mandatory levy on 
agricultural products from which the exported products would be derived?  
 
2.5.3   United States (G/AG/N/USA/118)  
AG-IMS ID 8 6081: Question by the European Union - International food aid  
The European Union notes that the Unites States has significantly increased the quantities of 
wheat, coarse grains an d rice notified as food aid in T able ES:1 in 2015.  
a. What are the reasons behin d this increased use of in -kind food aid in 2015?  
b. When comparing the quantities of in -kind food aid notified in Table ES:1 and the 
quantities of in -kind food aid notified in the corresponding NF:1 notification of the 
United  States (G/AG/N/USA/119), it appe ars that more than half of the vegetable oil, 
almost half of the rice and substantial share of the coarse grains donated are in fact 
donated to countries that are not classified as least -developed or net food -importing 
developing countries. Could the Unite d States elaborate on the reasons for the 
distribution of the in -kind food aid in question?  
3  DEFERRED REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON NOTIFIC ATIONS  
3.1.1   India (G/AG/N/IND/11 ) 
AG-IMS ID 86020: Question by Australia - Public stockholding for food security purposes  
As directed by India in its response to Question AG-IMS ID 85097, Australia has reviewed 
information contained at http://dfpd.nic.in/  in relation to questions Australia posed on India 's 
notification for public stockholdi ng for food security purposes in G/AG/N/IND/11. Australia has 
been unable to locate the information requested in ID 85097 and  therefore restates that question:  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/IND/11 notifies over US$14 billion per annum in public 
stockhold ing for food security purposes support as "Green Box " measures exempt from reduction 
commitments.  
a. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 states, "The volume and 
accumulation of such stocks shall correspond to pre -determined targets related solely to 
food security ". For each of the years and commodities covered by the notification, could 
India provide:  
i. The pre -determined targets and when these were established;  
ii. An explanation of how these targets were established in compliance with the 
requirement of a sole focus on food security.  
b. The Agreement on Agriculture Annex 2 Paragraph 3 further states, "Food purchases by 
government shall be made at current prices and sales from food security stocks shall be 
made at no less than the current domestic  market price for the product and quality in 
question. " For each of the years and commodities covered by the notification, could India 
provide:  
i. The price at which the commodity was purchased;  
ii. The market price for each commodity at the time of purchase;  
iii. The price at which sales from food security stocks were made;  
iv. The domestic market price for the commodities sold from food security sto cks at the 
time of their sale?  
AG-IMS ID 86111: Question by the United States - Input subsidies available to low -
income  or resource -poor producers  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 85019 for more d etail due to the insufficient response 
provided as follows:  "As per agricultural census 2010 -11, 99.29% Indian farmers have landholding 
of less than 10 hectare. India's agricultural input subsidies are consist ent with Article 6.2 of the 
AoA":   
 
a. "India's notification now notes that 99.15% of farmers are low -income or resource poor. 
In response to AG -IMS ID 75021, India stated there is a trend that the average size of 
farms, by landholding, decrease in each subsequent Census, and that 99% of farms 
have inadequate resources to generate enough income to maintain a minimum standard 
of living. Concurrently, India has increased agricultural production in India, exports, and 
marketed surplus of major commodities. India is now one of the world 's largest 
agricultural producers and exporters of a number of major and minor commodities.  
i. Please provide additional information beyond that provided in previous CoA 
responses, including rele vant statistics, to help Members understand this dichotomy.  
ii. Please include any available statistical information with regards to the size and 
ownership structure of the farms that contribute to the sizeable marketed surplus.  
b. Please explain what mechanisms exist in India 's domestic support measures to ensure 
that the programmes benefit low -income or resource poor farmers only. Given the 
sizeable market surplus of commodities in India, does India have any statistical 
information or other relevant information it can share with Members to better 
understand the level of input subsidies provided to producers by size of operation and 
income level? " G/AG/W/172  
 
- 35 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 86109: Question by the United States - Market price support  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
The United States resubmi ts question AG -IMS ID 85021 for response:  
 
a. "In G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies market price supports for several commodities; 
however, the list of commodities for each year differs. Further, certain commodities have 
been aggregated into larger categories compared to previous notifications and India 's 
AGST.  
i. Please explain the basis for aggregating these commodities despite separate applied 
administered prices being announced.  
ii. For each year covered by this notification, please provide a list of all announced  
minimum support prices (e.g., applied administered prices) for each commodity 
announced, whether procurement occurred or not.  
b. The United States notes that India used the same methodology to calculate market price 
support as in its previous notifications, including the use of procurement as eligible 
production. As noted in previous questions (AG -IMS ID 75062) to India in this 
Committee, this differs from India 's AGST where total production of a given commodity 
was used as eligible production. In response to  AG-IMS ID 65061, India explains its 
reason for why it considers procurement to be the appropriate measure of eligible 
production, but did not confirm that India doesn 't place any preset limit on the amount 
of production that may be procured from farmers. While India notes in response to AG -
IMS ID 75062 that India procures marketable surplus and, it did not clarify any pre -
established limit.  
i. Please confirm that India does not place any preset limit on the amount of 
production that may be procured from farme rs. 
ii. Please clarify the basis for changing the notification methodology related to el igible 
production between India' s AGST and subsequent notifications, including any specific 
changes to Indian policy t hat contributed to this change."  
AG-IMS ID 86110: Question by the United States - Market price support : Eligible 
production  
Supporting Table DS:5  
 
The United States again resubmits AG -IMS ID 84071 (and 85029) as no writte n response has been 
provided: " In response to AG -IMS ID 83009, Indi a states that "the government does not procure 
in all states, and hence entire production is not covered. " Please provide the details of the specific 
legislation, regulations or other measures that limit the eligibility of procurement of el igible 
product f rom all states."  
 
AG-IMS ID 86112: Question by the United States - Non-product -specific AMS  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 85022 for response:  
"The United States notes that in G/AG/N/IND/11, India notifies a new  non-product specific 
measure: " insurance premium subsidy."  
 
a. Please provide an overview of how this measure is implemented . 
b. Please explain how the budgetary outlays are calculated.  G/AG/W/172  
 
- 36 - 
 
  3.1.2   Mali (G/AG/N/MLI/8)  
AG-IMS ID 86078: Question by the European Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
Since no reply has been received the EU repeats its question AG -IMS ID 85001.  
Mali notifies that in 2016 it granted subsidies for agricultural inputs in compliance with the criteria 
set out in Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to the latest version of the 
Director General's Evolving Table on Cotton Development A ssistance (WT/CFMC/6/Rev.22) Mali 
has been indicated as a beneficiary country of several programmes/projects/activities targeting the 
cotton sector. For example several programmes have been implemented in Mali with the aim of 
improvement of productivity an d sustainability of cotton areas, fostering agricultural productivity in 
Mali etc.  
Are these programmes covered by the notification by Mali for 2016 and for what amount?  
4  OVERDUE NOTIFICATION S 
4.1.1   Egypt  
AG-IMS ID 86024: Question by Australia  
Australia notes that Egypt does not appear to have lodged an annual export subsidy notification to 
the WTO since G/AG/N/EGY/2 of 7 May 1999. Australia encourages Egypt to bring itself into 
compliance with its export subsidy notification obligations  
 
AG-IMS ID 86060: Question by the United States  
The United States appreciates the efforts undertaken by Egypt to bring its domestic support 
notifications up to date with its latest notification covering the period 2005 -2016. However, it is 
noted that Egypt 's prior domestic support notification covered the period of 1995 -1998.  
 
Please provide an update on when Members can expect to receive Egypt 's overdue notifications for 
the period 1999 -2004.  
 
4.1.2   Indonesia  
AG-IMS ID 86082: Question by the European Union  
Could In donesia explain what progress has been made on the notifications for years after 2011 
compared to the reply to question AG -IMS ID 83032, given in  the Committee meeting in 
March  2017.  
 
4.1.3   Mauritius  
AG-IMS ID 86107 : Question by  the European Union  
The EU thanks Mauritius for its export subsidy notification (G/AG/N/MUS/8) covering financial year 
2016-2017. The EU notes that Mauritius appears not to have submitted ES notifications covering 
years 2014 and 2015 and would underline that these notifications are also essential in order to 
verify compliance with the Bali and Nairobi commitments on export subsidies. The EU thus 
encourages Mauritius to submit all pending notifications in due course.  
 
4.1.4   Nigeria  
AG-IMS ID 86083: Question by the European Union  
Since no reply has been given EU repeats question AG -IMS ID 85037.  
 G/AG/W/172  
 
- 37 - 
 
  The latest DS:1 notification from Nigeria dates from 2012 covering 2011. Since then Nigeria has 
implemented the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and the Agricultural Promotion Pol icy 
(2016 -2020).  
 
Will Nigeria submit a DS:1 notification for  years after 2011 including Green Box support as well as 
Article 6:2 support?  
 
4.1.5   Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 86105: Question by the United States  
The United States would like to thank Thailand for its mo st recent domestic support notification for 
2014-2016. This notification is most welcome by Members seeking information and transparency 
on Thailand 's agricultural policies since its last notification for 2008.  
 
Please provide an update on when Members can  expect to receive Thailand 's overdue notifications 
for the period 2009 -2013.  
 
4.1.6   Turkey  
AG-IMS ID 86070: Question by the European Union  
The EU appreciates that Turkish has submitted DS:1 notifications for the years 2002 to 2004. As 
expressed in previous me etings in our views this is far too late. Will Turkey forward the remaining 
missing notifications and when?  
 
5  OTHER  
5.1  AG-IMS ID 86052: Question by China   
China thanks Japan for the reply to the question AG -IMS ID 84123. Regarding the food aid 
provided by Jap an, China would like to raise some follow -up questions as below:  
 
a. Since the food aid is provided in cash, please explain the necessity for re -monetization.  
b. Is there any additional requirement for using the fund donated by Japan, such as 
purchasing commod ities from Japan? If that is not the case, please clarify how the 
statistics of the quantity of food provided by Japan to each recipient country is made?  
 
__________