WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/96 
24 August 2012 
 (12-4589) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
 
Compilation of responses to questions raised during the Committee 
on Agriculture meeting on 20 June 20121 
   The present document compiles the responses recei ved in writing by the Secretariat to the 
questions raised in document G/AG/W/95 as well as follow-up comments made during the Review 
Process. 
 
 Outstanding responses will be circulated in a ddenda to this document as soon as they are 
provided by Members.  A comprehensive version of the present compilation will be issued thereafter.  
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/96 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 6  
A.  EFFECTS ON MARKET ACCESS OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS 
THAT HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION :  STATEMENT BY 
ARGENTINA  .............................................................................................................................. ... 6 
B.  BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  ............................................................................ 8  
C.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ......................................................... 11  
D.  TABLE  DS:2  NOTIFICATIONS BY INDIA  .................................................................................... 11  
E.  INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  ................................................................................................ 12  
F.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ... 13 
G.  MOROCCO 'S RECENT CROP INSURANCE PROGRAMME  ............................................................. 16  
H.  INDIA 'S WHEAT AND DAIRY POLICIES  ...................................................................................... 18  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .......... 18  
A.  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1) ................. 18  
1.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/84) ............................................................................................ 18  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 18 
B.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) ........................ 19  
1.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/89) .................................................................................................... 19  
(a)  Tariff quota fill ............................................................................................................. ............. 19  
2.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/38) ................................................................................................. 19  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 19 
3.  El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38) ............................................................................................... 20  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 20 
C.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) ......................................... 20  
1.  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/46) ................................................................................. 20  
(a)  Trigger calculations .......................................................................................................... ........ 20 
2.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/95 and G/AG/N/TPKM/96) ............................................ 21  
(a)  Link with TRQ commitments ................................................................................................... 2 1 
D.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) ................................................................ 21  
1.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  21 
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 21 
(i)  General services:  research ................................................................................................... ... 21 
(ii)  General services:  extension and advisory services .................................................................. 21  
(iii) General services:  infrastructural services ............................................................................... 22  
(iv)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 22  
(v)  Direct payments:  income insurance and  income safety-net programmes ............................... 22  
(b)  Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers .................. 23  
(c)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 23  
(i)  Market pri ce support........................................................................................................... ...... 23 
(ii)  Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 24  
(iii) Non-product-specific AMS ...................................................................................................... .. 25  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (d)  Classification of measures .................................................................................................... .... 26 
2.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) ................................................... 27  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 27 
(i)  Direct payments:  income insurance and  income safety-net programmes ............................... 27  
(ii)  Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes .............................................. 28  
(b)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 28  
(i)  General ....................................................................................................................... .............. 28  
(ii)  Market pri ce support........................................................................................................... ...... 28 
(iii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 28  
(iv)  Non-product-specific AMS ...................................................................................................... .. 30 
3.  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/37) .........................................................................................................  31 
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 31 
(i)  Direct payments:  payments for re lief from natural disasters .................................................. 31  
(b)  Article 6.2 – Investment subsidies ge nerally available to agriculture....................................... 31  
(c)  Classification of measures .................................................................................................... .... 32 
4.  China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) ....................................................................................................... 3 3 
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 33 
(i)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 33  
(ii)  Direct payments:  decoupled income support ........................................................................... 34  
(iii) Direct payments:  payments for re lief from natural disasters .................................................. 34  
(iv)  Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes .............................................. 35  
(b)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 35  
(i)  Negative suppor t amounts ...................................................................................................... ... 35 
(c)  Classification of measures .................................................................................................... .... 35 
5.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Re v.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/40) .................................................. 36  
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 36  
(i)  Scheduled commitment level .................................................................................................... . 36 
6.  Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1) ................................................................... 37  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 37 
(i)  General services:  marketing and promotion services .............................................................. 37  
7.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) ........................................................................................... 38  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 38 
(ii)  General services:  infrastructural services ............................................................................... 38  
(iii) General services:   other ...................................................................................................... ...... 38 
(iv)  Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes .............................................. 38  
(v)  Direct payments:  payments under regional assistance programmes ...................................... 39  
(vi)  Direct payments:  other ....................................................................................................... ..... 39 
(b)  Article 6.5 (Blue Box) – Payments based on fixed areas or yields ........................................... 39  
(c)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 40  
(i)  Market pri ce support........................................................................................................... ...... 40 
(ii)  Market price support: e ligible production ................................................................................ 40  
(iii) Non-product-specific AMS ...................................................................................................... .. 40 
(iv)  Negative suppor t amounts ...................................................................................................... ... 41 G/AG/W/96 
Page 4  
 
  (v)  De minimis .................................................................................................................... ............ 41  
8.  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) .......................................................................................................... .. 42 
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 42 
(i)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 42  
(ii)  Direct payments:  payments for re lief from natural disasters .................................................. 43  
(b)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 43  
(i)  Negative suppor t amounts ...................................................................................................... ... 43 
9.  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) .................................................................................................. 44  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 44 
(b)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 44 
(i)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 44  
(ii)  Domestic food aid ............................................................................................................. ........ 45 
(c)  Article 6.2– Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers ................... 46  
(d)  Classification of measures .................................................................................................... .... 47 
10.  Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/37) .................................................................................................. 47  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 47 
(b)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 47 
(i)  Domestic food aid ............................................................................................................. ........ 47 
(c)  Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low income or resource poor producers .................. 48  
(d) 
Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 48  
(i)  Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 48  
11.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) .................................................................................................... 49  
(a)  Current Total AMS (Amber Box) ............................................................................................. 49  
(i)  Scheduled commitment level .................................................................................................... . 49 
(ii)  Other product-specific AMS/EMS ............................................................................................. 50  
12.  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) .................................................................................................. 50  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 50 
(i)  General services:  pest  and disease control .............................................................................. 50  
(b)  Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers .................. 51  
13.  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/7) ....................................................................... 51  
(a)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 51 
(b)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 52 
(i)  Public stockholding for food security  purposes ........................................................................ 52  
E.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 52  
1.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/91 and G/AG/N/CAN/91/Corr.1) ................................................... 52  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 52 
2.  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/39) ................................................................................................. 54  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 54 
(i)  Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes .............................................. 54  
(ii)  Direct payments:  decoupled income support ........................................................................... 55  
3.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) ........................................................................................... 55  
(a)  Annex 2 (Green Box) ........................................................................................................... ..... 55 
(i)  Direct payments:  structural adjustment assi stance provided through investment aids ........... 55   G/AG/W/96 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b)  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) ............................................................................ 56  
F.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) ..................................................... 56  
1.  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/6) ........................................................................................... 56  
(a)  Export subsidies subject to reducti on commitments (Article 9.1) ............................................ 56  
(i)  Transparency issues ........................................................................................................... ....... 56 
(ii)  Scheduled commitments ......................................................................................................... ... 56 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QU ESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA .................................... 57  
ANNEX 1 .............................................................................................................................. .................. 59  
ANNEX 2 .............................................................................................................................. .................. 60  
ANNEX 3 .............................................................................................................................. .................. 62  
ANNEX 4 .............................................................................................................................. .................. 63  
 G/AG/W/96 
Page 6  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. E
FFECTS ON MARKET ACCESS OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS THAT HAVE 
NO SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION :  STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA  
1. At the two previous sessions of this Committee2, Argentina raised its general concern at the 
non-tariff restrictions on imports through regulations with no scientific or technical justification and 
urged that there be full compliance with the releva nt WTO Agreements.  It should be clear that the 
Argentine delegation is not raising intrinsic issues sp ecific to these regulations in this forum because 
these must be dealt with in the relevant  Committees, notably those on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). 
2. Nevertheless, Argentina considers that it is this Committee's responsibility to examine and 
evaluate the proliferation of these measures and their im pact on international trade.  As stated by this 
delegation in November 2011, this situation means th at a growing number of non-tariff restrictions on 
imports must be added to international agricultural trade, which continues to be protectionist as its 
reform is at a standstill. 
3. It is obvious that market access concessions bound for agricultural products only have 
positive effects for trade liberalization (substantia l decrease in protection) if no non-tariff import 
restrictions are imposed.  It was for this reas on that the Uruguay Round negotiators accepted two 
essential provisions: 
(a) Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  and 
(b) the Agreement on the Application of Sanita ry and Phytosanitary Measures, to which 
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade should be added because of its 
importance. 
4. In such a situation, characterized by a dispropor tionate concentration of non-tariff restrictions 
on imports of agricultural products and foodstuffs , the Argentine delegation wishes to provide a 
synthesis of the academic studies conducted on the impact of this type of regulations. 
5. This presentation is intended to be constructiv e and does not question Members' right to adopt 
adequate levels of protection or the measures and re gulations needed to achieve this.  Such measures 
and regulations, however, must be consistent with  the WTO Agreements, in particular with the 
principle of scientific proof. 
6. The declared objective of this type of regulati ons is to protect human, plant and animal life 
and health and the environment, and to pr ovide consumers with information on products' 
characteristics.  It is, however, a well-documented fact that they can also constitute barriers to trade, 
particularly for the exports of developing countries. 
7. This report presents a brief summary of some  recent studies which estimated the quantitative 
impact of SPS measures, and technical regulations, on agricultural trade.  They were chosen with a 
view to presenting a preliminary representative samp le of the type of approach most commonly 
followed, the sectors studied and the countri es examined, whether exporters or importers. 
                                                      
2 64th session held on 17 November 2011 and 65th session held on 21 March 2012.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 7 
 
 
  8. The main findings of this review are: 
(a) The application of SPS measures and techni cal regulations in a manner inconsistent 
with the WTO Agreements has an arbitrary and unjustified impact on trade in agricultural products. 
(b) The outcome depends on the product and the exporting country.  In general, the 
countries worst affected are developing and least developed countries. 
(c) The studies found that these measures may c onstitute barriers to market access.  
Nevertheless, those exporters which manage to overcome th ese barriers by complying 
with the sanitary and technical requirements ma y gain market share.  This is the case 
for those with the necessary resources and in frastructure, which would explain why in 
these studies developed countries' exporters are less affected by such measures. 
(d) The econometric studies reviewed do not diffe rentiate according to the size of the 
companies and do not provide information on the cost of complying with these requirements.  It may be that exports do not diminish because exporters invest 
ever-larger sums in meeting increasingly stringent requirements. 
(e) In general, the impact of various types of non-tariff measures has not been analysed 
but only the impact of a single measure or measures at aggregate level. 
(f) The econometric studies only analyse measures by governments and the impact of 
private standards has not been reviewed.  One reason for this is the lack of any 
database of such requirements suitable for conducting this type of study.  Only 
studies that follow the surveys and intervie ws and inventory approaches have been 
taken into account. 
(g) A more detailed analysis of the effects of these measures requires an assessment 
using complementary approaches that allo w the problems to be examined both in 
aggregate terms and by type of measu re, importing and expor ting country, product 
and size of the company. 
9. One additional point to be borne in mind is that  empirical work on the quantitative impact of 
such measures is both recent and scarce.  One explanation is the absence of consistent databases on the application of such measures providing sufficient detail to enable assessments to be made.  Some 
initiatives have recently been taken to improve the data on public and private SPS measures and 
technical regulations that affect agricultural trade.   This will enable the quantitative impact on trade in 
these products to be evaluated more precisely and w ill provide negotiators with information on the 
extent to which tariff reductions may be offset by  non-tariff measures that impede market access. An 
informal document containing further information on these academic studies and the bibliography was 
made available to delegations.  
10. In light of the foregoing, Argentina considers that import regulations that have no scientific 
justification have a negative impact on trade and,  consequently, on development inasmuch as they 
impair or annul the modest market access to the ma jority of developed countries, particularly for the 
exports of developing countries.  Argentina also considers that, together with compliance with the 
Doha Round's agricultural mandate, the trade impact  of SPS measures and technical regulations, with 
no scientific justification, constitutes one of th e main challenges to application of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Compliance with the ag reements on the application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures and on Technical Ba rriers to Trade is therefore vital. G/AG/W/96 
Page 8  
 
  Follow-up:  Brazil shared the concerns expressed by Argentina.  Cuba and Pakistan fully supported 
Argentina's statement as regards restrictions w ithout scientific justification (SPS and TBT measures).  
Pakistan also suggested an approach similar to th e one undertaken by the SPS Committee's Working 
Group on private standards and men tioned the opportunity for the SPS Chairperson to give an 
overview of the work done so far during the next Committee on Agri culture meeting.  Argentina 
reiterated the need to treat this issue in the Committee on Agriculture and its readiness to contribute 
in such a manner as the Chairperson might decide.  Argentina also emphasised the need for a more 
in-depth study of this issue whic h was raised by Argentina for the third time, possibly by the WTO 
Secretariat. Argentina invited countries affected by such measures to contribute to the research 
process. 
B. BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  
11. Questions by the United States: 
(a) Regarding Brazil's "Prêmio para Escoam ento do Produto" (PEP) programme, 
the United States notes that Brazil states this is a domestic support programme that provides a premium, offered through public auction, to buyers interested in 
the purchase of eligible products in a given region directly from a producer or 
cooperative, by buying at the minimum price set by the Government.  Further, Brazil, in response to the question posed by the European Union (G/AG/W/88, paragraph 1 refers) states the programme is designed as an "instrument to complement supply in deficient regions th rough private stocks".  However, in 
response to the question posed by the United States (G/AG/W/92, paragraph 
14(b) refers) Brazil states that the last year Brazil was able to confirm any 
product moving to supply deficient regio ns was in 2005/2006.  At that time, 
Brazil stated that final data for 2010/2011 would not be available until after February 2012.  Since then, the United States understands that in 2010/2011 most, if not all, rice auctioned under PE P was exported and little or none was 
supplied to deficient regions.  Furthermo re, Brazilian rice production increased 
significantly in 2010/2011 and resulted in record quantities of rice being auctioned through the PEP programme and then exported.  In addition, the United States has seen an increased number of exports of other products, some of which are typically major import pro ducts that have benefitted from the PEP 
programme.  These developments rai se strong concerns that the PEP 
programme for all intents and purposes serves as a vehicle for supporting 
exports. 
In its previous response to the United St ates (G/AG/W/92, paragraph 14(b) refers), 
Brazil did not indicate that 2005/2006 was the last year in which it was able to confirm any product moving to supply deficien t regions.  Brazil stressed that "[i]n 
2005/2006, 100 per cent of products acquired under the programme were 
commercialized in the internal market, since the programme was designed exclusively for the domestic market.  Data from 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 are not available because CONAB ("Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento") did not record this kind of information in that period.   In 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, the programme 
was not active."  Currently, the PEP programme also allows exporting the product, 
but the provision of support is not contingent upon export performance. 
(b) Based on official data from 2005 to 2011,  can Brazil demonstrate, on an annual 
basis, what percentage of PEP rice and wheat transactions were auctioned for 
domestic markets?  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Brazil does not have such figures available at the moment.  CONAB could not 
compile the information since this kind of data is not captured in an electronic format and has to be collected from the branches of  CONAB all over the country.  The tables 
in Annex  1 present the data for benefits  under the PEP programme, Brazilian 
production and exports for rice and wheat over th e last five crop years available.  The 
data show that there is no correlatio n between the PEP programme and Brazilian 
export performance. 
(c) The United States understands that through the Agricultural and Livestock Plan 
(ALP), Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) allocates a budget for all support programmes that is linked to the minimum 
prices.  From the ALP funding, MAPA then announces allocations of that 
funding for the price support of specific commodities, such as rice through the 
Federal Government Acquisition Progr amme (AGF), PEP, and "Prêmio de 
Equalização pago ao Produtor" (PEPRO).  It is then at the discretion of 
CONAB, which is a part of MAPA, to auction the MAPA specified products.  
Please explain in detail how the amount  of funding for each commodity is 
determined by MAPA. 
MAPA allocates the budget according to the actual needs and conditions of each 
commodity market after hearing other area s of the Government (e.g. Ministry of 
Finance).  This does not coincide with th e moment the ALP is released.  CONAB is 
only the operational body of the programmes. 
(d) Please provide some indication of the policy framework for the various market 
price support programmes, particularly as products disappear and then later 
reappear in Supporting Table DS:5. 
As mentioned above, after hearing other ar eas of the Government, MAPA allocates 
the budget according to the current needs a nd conditions of each commodity market.  
The possible use of different programmes is decided according to the available 
budget and specific condition of the market.  To activate any programme, at least two conditions must be met:  i) the market price should be markedly below the minimum price;  and ii) budget is available.  It is not unusual that the market price is below the 
minimum price in some part of the country, but no supporting programme is used. 
(e) Does the fact that some products appear and disappear in Supporting 
Tables DS:5 mean that programmes were simply not operational for some 
reason, or that the programmes were offi cially stopped, then re-launched or 
some other rationale? 
It means that no product was supported in that particular crop year. 
(f) The United States would like to follow up to the response provided by Brazil 
(G/AG/W/88, paragraph 3(b) refers) in which Brazil stated that the criteria used 
to decide which products would be elig ible for a programme each year were:  
a) the market price, b) availability of funds , and c) the level of stocks.  Are these 
criteria used by CONAB to determine, at its discretion, which products it will auction? 
These criteria are used by MAPA to determine, at its discretion, which products it 
will auction.  CONAB is only the operational body of the programmes. G/AG/W/96 
Page 10  
 
  (g) Please describe in more detail how p revailing market prices are used to 
determine the eligible products each year and how that relates to the programme's objective of supplying deficient regions. 
MAPA allocates budget according to the current needs and conditions of each 
commodity market, not in advance.  The subvention is driven by the market price 
when compared to the minimum price.  If the market price is markedly below the 
minimum price, and there is  availability of budgetary f unds, a programme may be put 
in place.  According to the shape and dist ribution of production and trade in question, 
one or more of the programmes available may be chosen to be put in place. 
(h) The United States understands based on CONAB announcements from 
15 March and 29 March 2012 that there are two types of PEP auction notices 
pertaining to approved destinations for wheat.  Some notices allow for products 
auctioned to be commercialized in any region other than the actual production 
states providing the commodity for auct ion.  Other notices allow for only 
specified regions for the commercialization of wheat, similar to the rice notices.  
Please describe the basis for the differing  types of PEP auction notices for wheat. 
The basis for the differing types of PEP is the quality and the origin of the product 
auctioned.  The product auctioned to be co mmercialized in any region other than the 
actual production states is from Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná, Mato 
Grosso do Sul and São Paulo.  In this case,  the wheat could be from any quality grade 
(inclusive for feeding).  Other notices allo w the commercialization of the wheat in the 
North and Northeast regions, but only for "bread" or "enhancer" quality grades (the 
grades Brazil has a deficit in).  The reasons  for this kind of differentiation are the 
needs and conditions estimated by MAPA in respect of each commodity market. 
(i) Please explain in more detail how supply fo r deficient regions is determined for 
rice, wheat, and other products supported by the PEP programme. 
As the production of most commodities is con centrated in a particular region, MAPA 
can estimate the needs of each region by its ap parent deficit.  The auction is put in 
place to facilitate the movement of products and adjust supply. 
Follow-up:  The United States queried whether a pr oduct that was commercialized internally would 
only be used domestically.  Brazil clarified that if  products were destined for a particular region in 
Brazil that would be the end destination.  The United States referred to the apparent connection 
between increased rice production and exports which might point towards a de facto  export 
contingency of the PEP programme.  In contrast to  the use of PEP for wheat, the United States also 
noted that PEP did not seem to be used to ensure the availability of rice in the deficient regions. 
Highlighting the importance of the Review Proc ess and transparency, the United States considered 
that data availability on actual destination of beneficiary products would help understand the nature 
of the programme.  Brazil indicated that it would aim to provide the requested data regarding exports 
and domestic consumption.  Brazil reiterated that PEP was not contingent on export performance and 
that the data collection exercise was burdensome.  As  to whether some of the programmes were active 
in a particular year, Brazil explained that this was a policy decision dependent on market conditions 
and budget availability.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 11 
 
 
  C. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
12. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  The European Unio n appreciates the transparency provided 
by Costa Rica through submission of domestic support notifications.  The Committee on Agriculture has noted on ma ny occasions that Costa Rica remains 
in breach of its Total Aggregate Meas urement of Support (AMS) commitment.  
Please update the Committee on the action s undertaken to address this situation 
since the March 2012 meeting. 
(b) United States:  The United States notes that the current world price for rice is 
about half of Costa Rica's market price support.  What are the steps taken since 
the last Committee meeting to lower the current Total AMS to within its Final 
Bound Total AMS commitment? 
Costa Rica is not in a position to give this Committee an estimate of when it will be 
able to bring its Current Total AMS leve l (which exceeds th e maximum bound level) 
into line with its commitments. 
Follow-up:  The United States, supported by Australia, Canada, Colombia, Japan, Malaysia, 
Pakistan, Peru, and the Philippines, expressed serious and systemic concerns about Costa Rica's 
breach in commitments and the lack of additional information on the steps undertaken since the 
March 2012 meeting.  The United States pointed towards some of the possible, albeit unintended, consequences of the Costa Rican rice policies, su ch as the difficulties faced by some small resource-
poor rice farmers to market the produce in view of the overproduction stimulated through price 
support.  Pakistan was intrigued by the price diffe rential between the international and domestic 
support prices of rice quoted in the question by th e United States and queried the type of rice being 
produced and supported in Costa Rica.  Pakistan also  called to investigate the possible links between 
the rice support programme and inflation.  Costa Rica  took note of the questions and comments raised 
and reiterated its inability to provide more informati on or the expected date when it would be in line 
with its obligations, notwithstanding its commitm ent to maintain the Committee informed about 
progress. 
D. T
ABLE  DS:2  NOTIFICATIONS BY INDIA  
13. Question by the European Union:  The Eu ropean Union would like to refer to the 
question on Table DS:2 notifications posed to  India at the meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture of 29-30 September 2011 (G/AG/W/ 88/Rev.1, paragraph 33 refers) and the reply 
given.  Table DS:2 notifications are requi red under Article 18.3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and the Committee's G/AG/2.  Hence the question of when India would provide the 
missing Table DS:2 notifications is of relevan ce.  Table DS:2 notifications help Members 
understand the programmes notified as exem pt and are therefore a valuable input to 
transparency.  The European Union invites Indi a to provide the Table DS:2 notifications for 
review in the Committee.  Are such noti fications planned for the near future? 
As per Article 18.3 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, Members are required to notify, upon 
introduction of a new domestic support measure or modification of an existing measure for 
which an exemption from reduction is claimed.  This notification is in the form of a 
Table DS:2.  As informed in the Septembe r 2011 meeting of the Committee, India would 
assess the need for filing notifications, if required. G/AG/W/96 
Page 12  
 
  Follow-up:  Canada recalled the importance of th e Table DS:2 notification in supporting the 
Committee's transparency function and understandi ng Members' domestic support policies. 
E. INDIA 'S EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  
14. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) Could India please confirm that the expo rt bans for cotton, sugar, onions and 
casein have been lifted?  If yes, could I ndia please indicate the respective dates of 
actual lifting? 
 There is presently no prohibition on the e xports of cotton, sugar, onions and casein.  
The export prohibition on cotton was app lied on 5 March 2012 and was lifted on 
12 March 2012.  The export prohibition on onions was applied on 9 September 2011 
and was lifted on 20 September 2011.  The export prohibition on casein was applied 
on 18 February 2011 and was lifted on 1 May 2012.  No prohibition on the export of sugar has been in force since 2009. 
(b) Is there any plan to re-instate export restri ctions for the products in question in 
the foreseeable future? 
At present, there are no export restrictions on the four products in question.  Any 
decision on applying temporary export restri ctions, if required, would be as per the 
provisions of WTO Agreements. 
(c) Did India contemplate at all notifying the said export bans under Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture to the Comm ittee on Agriculture?  If not, how 
does India interpret provisions under Article 12 in terms of notification 
obligations, bearing in mind that India is  net-exporter of some of the concerned 
products? 
The concerns of the European Union have been noted. 
15. Questions by the United States:  India stated at the March 2012 meeting that the earlier 
prohibition of the export of cotton had been removed via Notification No. 106 (RE-2010)/2009-
14 as of 12 March 2012.  Subsequently, Member s learned that the above noted 12 March 2012 
action did not completely remove the export res trictions.  According to a press release dated 
30 April 2012 issued by the Government of Indi a's Ministry of Textiles, India may consider re-
imposing the ban in the future. 
(a) Please provide an update regarding any specific export restrictions the 
Government of India currently has in place for cotton. 
  At present, there is no export restriction on cotton. 
(b) Please describe India's cotton export policy and specifically address any key 
decision timeframes or criteria which may lead to re-imposition of export restrictions for India's cotton. 
Any decision on applying a temporary export restriction on cotton in India has been 
necessitated by critical shortages of this essential product. 
  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (c) Given the serious disruptions that export  restrictions cause to world markets, 
does India have any intention to notify any such future export restriction measures? 
India would be mindful of the require ments of Article XI of GATT 1994 while 
applying any temporary export restricti ons on cotton or any other essential product. 
Follow-up:  The United States noted its concerns regarding the disruptions (contract forfeitures, 
extreme changes in prices, etc.) c aused in international markets due to India entering and exiting the 
world cotton market.  In this context, it questi oned India's intentions to notify future export 
restrictions.  India reiterated that it would be mindf ul of the requirements of Article XI of GATT 1994 
while applying any temporary restriction on cotton or any other essential product.  India further 
stated that Article XI of GATT 1994 had no no tification requirements.  Japan expressed appreciation 
for the discussion on export restrictions which should lead to a better implementation of the 
provisions and follow-up in the Committee. 
F. INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
16. Questions by New Zealand:  New Zealand remains concerned about various Indonesian 
measures that restrict trade in agricultural goods.  These include licensing requirements, quantitative import restrictions for beef and b eef products, and preventing the importation of 
horticultural products at key ports including the Jakarta seaport (Tanjung Priok).  Further, 
two additional measures introduced but not yet entered in force, Regulations 3 and 30 of 2012, 
provide that domestic supply and demand can be taken into account in deciding whether to 
issue import permits for horticultural produc ts.  New Zealand has raised these concerns 
bilaterally, and in this Committee and in the SPS and Import Licensing Committees.  
New Zealand asks Indonesia to explain how these measures are consistent with its WTO 
obligations, and respond to the concerns ra ised about them in WTO Committees by 
New Zealand and other WTO Members.  In the meantime, New Zealand encourages Indonesia 
to postpone the implementation of proposed Regulations 3 and 30 of 2012, until they are 
scrutinised for conformity with WTO obligations  and Members' concerns addressed.  Finally, 
New Zealand encourages Indonesia to provide grea ter clarity about its trade measures through 
their timely notification under relevant WTO Agreements.
3 
Indonesia considers its commitment with regard to Articles II and XI of GATT 1994 and 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture in a broader context of development needs in the 
agricultural sector.  Therefore, in observance of the three articles in question, Indonesia treats 
all applicants uniformly and they are given e qual opportunities to import products subject to 
the fulfilment of the necessary legal and administrative requirements.  This includes requirements under Law No. 18/2009 and Law No. 13/2010.  The Government of Indonesia is in the process of reviewing the relevant decrees of the Ministry of Agriculture
4 on livestock 
and livestock products taking into considerati on the needs of all stakeholders, including 
importers. 
The Decrees of the Minister of Agriculture No. 37/2006, No. 18/2008, No. 89/2011, 
No. 90/2011, No. 15/2012 and No. 16/2012 concerning the importation of fresh fruit and vegetables have been revoked by the Decrees of  the Minister of Agriculture No. 42/2012 and 
                                                      
3 These questions were recorded in paragraphs 14-1 6 of G/AG/W/95, but not reflected in the convening 
airgram WTO/AIR/3953. 
4 No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011 and No. 52/2011. G/AG/W/96 
Page 14  
 
  No. 43/2012, effective as of 19 June 2012.  The Government of Indonesia intends to notify 
the two Decrees to the WTO.   
The Government of Indonesia has also decided to postpone the enactment of the Decree of the 
Minister of Trade No. 30/2012 and the Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 3/2012 until 
the end of September 2012. 
17. Questions by the United States:  Indonesia's responses to questions on quantitative 
restrictions at the March 2012 Committee on Agricu lture, highlighted Indonesia's policy desire 
to achieve greater domestic food and agricultu ral production.  Advances in farm production, 
distribution and marketing are important goals.  These goals may, however, be difficult to meet 
if farmers cannot function efficiently in the cont ext of competitive, diversified, and responsive 
markets.  Moreover, policies based on quantit ative restrictions raise significant questions 
regarding Indonesia's compliance with its obligations under GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
(a) Please explain how Indonesia's quantitative restrictions are consistent with 
Indonesia's WTO commitments, including under Articles III and XI of 
GATT 1994, and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The Decree of the Minister of Agriculture on recommendations regarding the 
importation of livestock and livestock products  is the implementation of the Law on 
Livestock and Animal Health No. 18/2009 as a Mandate given by the Parliament.  
Chapter IV Article 36(4) states that the importation of livestock and livestock 
products into Indonesian territory is co nducted when domestic production and supply 
of livestock and livestock products is not sufficient to meet consumer demand. 
Indonesia understands the importance of ma intaining the balance between supply and 
demand in order to avoid market distortions  and price destabilization in light of the 
need to promote and secure the development of the agricultural sector.  Accordingly, 
the determination of import volumes is  based on the demand and supply in 
Indonesia's market.  Data and informa tion on national demand of livestock and 
livestock products are made available upon request from the Directorate General of 
Livestock and Veterinary Health – Indonesian Minister of Agriculture. 
The national consumption volume of animal products is established periodically in a 
coordination meeting of the economic mi nistries based on national census data 
compiled by Indonesia's Central Agency of Statistics (BPS) and the Ministry of 
Agriculture based on a cattle slaughter surv ey.  The issuance of import permits is 
based on an analysis of domestic demand pa rticularly for beef, in line with national 
sufficiency targets for beef products.  The annual analysis is conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and discussed by relevant ministries. 
Indonesia considers its commitment with re gard to Articles III and XI of GATT 1994 
and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricultu re in a broader context of development 
needs in the agriculture sector.  Therefore,  in observance of the three articles in 
question, Indonesia treats all applicants e qually.  They are given equal opportunity to 
import products when they lodge and app lication and fulfil the necessary legal and 
administrative requirements.  This includes respecting Law No. 18/2009 and Law No. 13/2010.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 15 
 
 
  The Government of Indonesia is in the process of reviewing the Decrees of the 
Minister of Agriculture No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011, No. 52/2011 on importation on livestock and livestock products to adapt with  the needs of all stakeholders including 
importers. 
(b) Indonesia stated, "[i]mports will be co nducted if the domestic production and 
supply of the products have not been su fficient to meet public consumption at 
affordable price".  What is meant by "affordable price"?  If domestic consumption is satisfied by domestic pro duction at so-called affordable prices, 
does this mean the Government of Indo nesia will not allow issuance of import 
permits for the relevant products?  The United States believes that the use of 
such criteria to administer import permit s raises questions of consistency with 
Indonesia's WTO obligations. 
Affordable price meant remunerative price, that is, a price low enough to be 
affordable for consumers and high enough to provide incentives for farmers to 
produce. 
The Indonesian Government expects to a llow imports based on import permits for 
various agricultural products.  This is in light of the need to respect Indonesia's WTO 
commitments as well as the demand of the domestic market.  The issuance of these permits takes fully into account the devel opment needs of the Indonesian agriculture 
sector. 
(c) Indonesia noted that Annex II of Minist ry of Agriculture Regulation No. 50/2011 
contains a list of livestock products that can be imported.  The United States is 
concerned that some commonly traded products, such as poultry products within HS 0207.13 and 0207.14, are not listed in this annex.  Are import permits required for the import of these products?  If yes, are these products eligible to 
obtain import permits?  If eligible, ho w are import permits for these products 
obtained? 
Indonesia is developing its poultry industry in the context of improving its capacity to 
meet the protein requirements.  At the mo ment, it is not permitted to import products 
within HS 0207.13 and HS 0207.14.  The main reason is that the poultry industry involves millions of small scale subsistence farmers in rural areas. 
The Government of Indonesia is in the process of reviewing the Decrees of the 
Minister of Agriculture No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011 and No. 52/2011 to adapt to the 
needs of all stakeholders, including importers. 
(d) Since the March 2012 meeting, the United States understands that the Ministry 
of Trade has issued Regulation 30 which deals with the import permit process for fresh and processed fruit and vegetabl e products.  Please explain how this 
Regulation and the Ministry of Agriculture's Regulation 3 will work together to 
govern the import permit process for f resh and processed fruit and vegetable 
products.  In addition, please explain why these Regulations do not allow for direct imports of fruit and vegetable products by retailers. 
The Decree of the Minister of Trade No . 30/2012 is the implementing Regulation of 
the Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 3/2012. The Decree No. 3/2012 is the 
implementation of Horticulture Law No. 13/2010. G/AG/W/96 
Page 16  
 
  (e) Finally, the United States repeats its question from the March 2012 meeting:  
Can the Government of Indonesia give a ssurances that fresh and processed fruit 
and vegetable products will not be quan titatively limited or managed under an 
import permit system? 
Decree No. 30/2012 stipulates that only registered importers can import.  Once the 
status of "registered importer" is granted by the Government, the importers will not 
be allowed to sell the imported product directly to consumers. 
(f) The United States notes that, according to the legislation, imported horticultural 
products may only be traded and/or tran sferred to a distributor and may not be 
sold or transferred directly to the co nsumer or retailer.  Do domestically-
produced horticultural products fa ce the same distribution requirements? 
Imported and domestically-produced horticultu re products shall be traded or be 
transferred to consumers through distributors. 
Follow-up:  New Zealand, supported by the Unit ed States, welcomed the postponement of the 
implementation of Regulation No. 30/2012 concerning the importation of horticultural products.  This 
would allow Indonesian importers to better underst and the Regulation and allow its notification to 
other WTO Members.  In this context, New Zealand and the United States urged Indonesia to explain how the proposed Regulation woul d be consistent with WTO Agreements, including a) the way 
domestic supply and demand were taken into account when permission to import was either granted 
or withheld, b) the prohibition on importers selli ng products to retailers or retail consumers, and 
c) the specific packaging and technical tracing req uirements.  New Zealand encouraged the practice 
of notifying measures at draft stage in ord er to enable interested WT O Members to become 
acquainted with the proposed measure and to allo w time for a constructive discussion.  The United 
States queried whether import permits were required for certain poultry products in view of their 
absence from a list or whether this implied that th ose products could not get permits at all.  Canada 
noted on-going concerns with the new procedures th at would apply to livestock and livestock products 
which could jeopardise a mutually beneficial bilat eral cooperation in trade in this sector.  Canada 
stated that import procedures applying to livest ock and livestock products appeared to link the 
number of import licences issued with domestic pr oduction levels and prices, which may therefore be 
in violation of certain WTO rules.  In this context, Canada reiterated its request that Indonesia publish and notify these import licensing procedu res or any changes in existing procedures in 
accordance with WTO rules and obligations. Canada also urged Indonesia to respect the 
commitments it undertook as a G20 Member not to in troduce protectionist measures.  Indonesia took 
note of Members' comments and explained that the Regulation concerning livestock and livestock 
products was being prepared by the Ministry of  Agriculture and would be notified to the WTO 
thereafter.  
G. M
OROCCO 'S RECENT CROP INSURANCE PROGRAMME  
18. Questions by the United States:  The United States understands that in September 2011, 
Morocco implemented a new crop insurance progr amme for grain and pulse farmers to deal 
with risks associated with the impact of we ather conditions on production.  Through this 
programme, the Moroccan Government will subsid ize about 50-90 per cent of the farmers' 
insurance premium, depending on the size of the farm. 
(a) Please provide additional details regarding  this programme.  Specifically, please 
describe how Morocco intends to implement the programme.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 17 
 
 
  With regard to the new "weather multi-risk" insurance product, it should be noted that 
climate change is a significant risk factor in the implementation of the Plan Maroc 
Vert (Green Morocco Plan), as it can lead to a reduction in yields and a fluctuation in 
agricultural production, in particular for crops in high rainfall areas. 
Morocco is aware of this problem and has given strategic thought to the introduction 
of an agricultural insurance system that  reduces small-scale farmers' vulnerability to 
weather hazards and secures and promotes ag ricultural investment in Morocco, where 
almost 86 per cent of farms have an utilised  agricultural area (UAA) of five hectares 
or less. 
In this context, the Government, in partnership with the Mutuelle Agricole Marocaine 
d'Assurances , decided to launch a "weather multi-risk" insurance product aimed 
primarily at small-scale farmers, which s eeks to secure cereal (durum wheat, common 
wheat, barley and corn) and pulse (broad b eans, lentils, peas, chickpeas and beans) 
crops against significant weather hazards such as drought, hail and frost. 
This insurance, which covers the entir e Kingdom, has been marketed since the 
2011/2012 crop year for an insured target ar ea of 300,000 hectares.  Farmers will be 
able to subscribe to the following guaran tee levels, in accordance with the area and 
type of crop insured. 
As far as the guarantee is concerned, for each type of crop, the reference yield per 
rural municipality is calculated on the basis of statistics issued by the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Marine Fisheries.  For each type of crop, this yield is 60 per cent of 
the arithmetical average of the yields obtai ned in the last ten years in the rural 
municipality where the plot of land is located. 
The bringing into play of the guarantee is subject to an official declaration of damage 
for the rural municipality concerned.  This  declaration takes the form of a joint 
decision by the Ministry of Agriculture and Marine Fisheries and the Minister of the 
Economy and Finance, based on reports prepared by the services of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Marine Fisheries.  These re ports must state that the average yield of 
the rural municipality concerned is lower than the reference yield. 
(b) How and when does Morocco plan to noti fy the programme to the Committee on 
Agriculture? 
Given that the "weather multi-risk" insurance product was not marketed until the 
2011/2012 crop year, Morocco will only be ab le to provide notification of this 
scheme when the relevant data becomes available. 
Follow up:  The United States looked forward to the inclusion of the pr ogramme in Morocco's 
domestic support notification for 2011. G/AG/W/96 
Page 18  
 
  H. I
NDIA 'S WHEAT AND DAIRY POLICIES5 
19. Question by the United States:  The United States has taken note of recent public trade 
reports, which indicate that the Government of India may have or may be considering 
providing support for certain product exports, in pa rticular for wheat or skim milk powder.  At 
this point we are not aware of any specific export  actions under such (new) policies.  In the case 
of wheat, there appears to be a strong interrelat ionship between the increased levels of actual 
domestic support being provided to these produ cers, the increased actions by the Government 
of India to purchase wheat and dairy products  (stockholding) and the current interest in 
specific policies to export these co mmodities.  The United States' interest is to ensure that India 
acknowledges and maintains its commitments no t to use any forms of export subsidies. 
India wished that the United States had give n a ten-day prior notice, as per the Committee's 
procedures, to raise this question.  Thus, at th is stage, India took note of the United States' 
concern. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:1) 
1. United States (G/AG/N/USA/84) 
(a) Transparency issues 
20. Question by Australia:  Australia  notes greater levels of United States sugar imports in 
recent years and in particular the decline in imports from Mexico over the past year and 
United States' production levels down.  Austra lia also notes recent calls from United States' 
domestic food processing industries for furt her increases in the TRQ amounts which were 
subsequently granted.6  Furthermore, Australia notes a number of industry groups have 
recently written to USTR Kirk stating (30 April 2012) "it is time for the Administration to re-examine its sugar trade policy as part of a br oader reaffirmation of an open trade agenda for 
the U.S.".  Can the United States indicate wh ether any further reforms are envisaged to the 
TRQ regime notified in its cu rrent table MA:1 notification? 
The United States Congress is currently workin g on a new Farm Bill that will replace the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill).  It is unclear what the final 
Farm Bill will contain so the United States is not able at this time to comment on possible changes to the sugar programme. 
The United States will continue to notify the WTO via Table MA:1 regarding all TRQ sugar 
allocations and reallocations.  The United St ates is working on an addendum to notify 
changes to G/AG/N/USA/84 that have occurred in this current TRQ year. 
Follow-up:  Australia appreciated the increased sugar imports under the TRQ which, in its view, were 
also due to the downturns in domestic sugar prod uction.  Australia called on the United States to 
reform the sugar sector in the context of the 2012 Farm  Bill. Australia also looked forward to further 
engagement with the United States on this issue. 
                                                      
5 See paragraph 2(a)(ii) of G/AG/R/67. 
6 http://www.sweetenerusers. org/SUA%20Press%20Release%20FINAL%204-11-12.pdf   G/AG/W/96 
 Page 19 
 
 
  B. IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/89) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
21. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  Canada notifies th e in-quota imports under the concerned 
tariff rate quota at 8,832 tonnes during the period 2010/2011 which corresponds 
to a tariff quota fill of 88.32 per cent.  Could Canada please give its overall assessment on imports under this tariff quota and notably explain why a higher 
rate of import was not recorded dur ing the period concerned by the 
notification?  Could the tariff rate quot a management in place be part of the 
explanation?  If this interpretation is not entirely excluded, would Canada 
consider modifying the way it admi nisters this tariff rate quota? 
(b) Switzerland:
7  Could Canada explain why their tariff quota fill rate is only 
88 per cent?  What is the relationship between the tariff quota administration as indicated in G/AG/N/CAN/87/Rev.1 from 24 February 2012 and the tariff quota 
fill rate? Has Canada already contemplated any changes in terms of 
administering the tariff quota so as to atta in a 100 per cent fill rate?  If so, what 
directions will these changes take?  What  non-tariff barriers might there be?  
And could they contribute to the current fill rate? 
The Government of Canada closely monitors ta riff rate quota fill rates.  Imports of milk 
protein substances (MPS) from the United Stat es, which may enter duty-free under the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have increased over the last two years.  These 
imports have displaced imports of MPS unde r the tariff-rate quota during the period 2010-
2011.  Canada's total imports  of MPS remain the same. 
 Canada is committed to continuing to make its tariff rate quota fully available to Canadian 
importers of MPS.  Canada's current administ ration of this tariff rate quota as outlined in 
Canada Table MA:1 notifications  of 24 February 2012 (G/AG/N/ 87/Rev.1) is consistent with 
its WTO obligations.  Currently, there are no plans to review the tariff rate quota administration on MPS. 
 Further information on the administration of this TRQ as well as Notices to Importers can be 
found at DFAIT/TICA site: 
 http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-cont roles/prod/agri/dairy-laitiers/notices-
avis/787.aspx?lang=eng&view=d  
2. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/38) 
(a) Transparency issues 
22. Question by the European Union:  Costa Rica's commitments comprise 27 bound tariff 
quotas.  However, the notification only includ es eight of them.  The European Union requests 
Costa Rica to include all bound tariff quotas in the notification as a matter of transparency. 
                                                      
7 G/AG/W/94, paragraph 82 refers. G/AG/W/96 
Page 20  
 
  Costa Rica would like to emphasize the note on th e first page of notification G/AG/N/CRI/38, 
which states that the notification does not include the tariff quotas that were not activated during the reporting period, as the products c oncerned enjoyed better access conditions than 
those established by Costa Rica for these tariff quotas in Section I-B of its schedule of 
commitments (Schedule LXXXV). 
Costa Rica thanks the European Union for the suggestion that all tariff quotas should be listed 
as a matter of transparency. 
3. El Salvador (G/AG/N/SLV/38) 
(a) Transparency issues 
23. Question by the European Union:  The comm itments of El Salvador comprise eleven 
bound tariff quotas, while the notification incl udes only one of them.  The European Union 
would like to request El Salvador to include a ll bound tariff quotas in the notification as a 
matter of transparency. 
El Salvador undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
C. SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/46) 
(a) Trigger calculations 
24. Questions by the United States:  A concern with regard to the safeguard penalty relates 
to page 5 of Korea's Table MA:3 notification a nd specifically to the commodity listed as "other 
worked grains".  Korea placed volume-based safeguards on "other worked grains" in 2006 and 
2007.  According to the calculations provided by  the Republic of Korea in this notification, 
import levels were the same as consum ption levels in ea ch year, 2002-2005. 
(a) Please confirm that domestic production of worked grains is zero. 
There was some domestic production of "other worked grains", even though the 
volume was very small. 
(b) If there is no domestic production, why does the Republic of Korea apply a 
safeguard penalty on imports of these worked grains? 
As mentioned above, there was some domestic  production.  In addition, according to 
Article 5 of the Agreement on Agricultu re, a volume-based special safeguard is 
applicable when the volume of imports exceeds a certain trigger level, regardless of the volume of domestic production. 
Korea has been adjusting the list of products  subject to special safeguards in light of 
the changes in consumption and importation pa tterns.  Accordingly, all of the eleven 
products, which belong to the category of "other worked grains", were removed from the list in 2010. 
Follow-up:  The United States expressed satisfacti on over the non-application of SSG on "other 
worked grains".  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 21 
 
 
  2. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/95 and G/AG/N/TPKM/96) 
(a) Link with TRQ commitments 
25. Question by Australia:  Australia notes from  Chinese Taipei's Table MA:3 notification 
that it has introduced a volume-based safeguard on dried shiitake mushrooms for the period 
March 2012 to December 2012 despite the fact that  it had not applied safeguards on this 
product for the previous fiscal year and lookin g at TRQ fill rates (of 51 per cent in the 2011 
calendar year).  Chinese Taipei has previously  explained that its TRQ underfills are due to 
changes in domestic supply and consumption pa tterns and, on occasion, SPS measures.  Can it 
explain how TRQ fill rates could be impacted upon by the imposition of safeguards such as the 
one placed on dried shiitake mushrooms on th is occasion and whether the relationship with 
TRQ fill rates are considered  before the implementation of a safeguard measure? 
Chinese Taipei confirms that the calculation and SSG action on dried shiitake mushrooms is 
fully in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The SSG on dried shiitake mushroom will be a pplied only to the out-of-quota imports.  The 
current SSG provisions of the Agreement on Ag riculture clearly stipulate that in-quota 
imports shall be exempted from an additional duty even when the SSG has been invoked.  
Therefore, the minimum market access opportuni ty as committed to by Members can always 
be secured. 
Follow-up:  Australia clarified that Chinese Taipei 's strict compliance with the requirements of 
Article 5 was not questioned.  The in-quota fill rat es of dried shiitake mushro oms over the last few 
years had been low (below 50 per cent); the applicati on of SSG based on these low in-quota volumes, 
might imply that there were other factors limiting trade. 
D. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) General services:  research 
26. Question by Australia:  Australia notes th at research and development expenditure 
more than doubled in the years 2007 to 2009.  Could Brazil provide more information on the "sustainability and competitiveness research programme" – a major component of this 
expenditure? 
This programme transfers funds to be used in infrastructure needed fo r agricultural research 
by public corporations.  Th e main expenditure is on infrastructure of research centres. 
(ii) General services:  extension and advisory services 
27. Question by Australia:  Australia notes th e increase in funding for extension and 
advisory services (fivefold increase between 2007 and 2009); could Brazil provide an outline of 
the major drivers for this increase in funding, and the significant variability in funding of 
sub-categories year-on-year? 
As can be seen from Brazil's notifications, the major increases were driven by expenditures in 
acquisition of equipment by municipalities for services in rural areas, support for projects of G/AG/W/96 
Page 22  
 
  agricultural development, and support for pr ojects and rural extension for agricultural 
families.  There are several explanations for the significant variability in funding of 
sub-categories year-on-year.  One of them is that the Central Government usually needs to 
resort to budget contingency, which can cause many distortions in the yearly public sector 
expenditures. 
(iii) General services:  infrastructural services 
28. Question by Australia:  The tenfold increase  in infrastructural services from 2007 to 
2008 is notable – does the significant increase in  investment in infrastructure relate to the 
development of new agricultural areas or the renewal of aging infrastructure?  Can Brazil 
confirm that spending on these services did no t include on-farm facilities other than for the 
reticulation of generally available public utilities? 
Investment in infrastructure relates both to th e development of new agricultural areas and the 
renewal of aging infrastructure.  These serv ices do not include on-farm facilities.  The 
programme includes projects such as storage construction and warehou se municipal facilities, 
exhibition fairs facilities, training facilities, municipal slaughterhouses, municipal markets, 
infrastructure of water distribution for irrigation,  infrastructure for energy distribution, etc. 
(iv) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
29. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) Could Brazil please explain whether Gov ernment food purchases and sales from 
food security stocks are made at market prices? 
The expenditure notified under Green Box s upport relates to a small portion of the 
stock procured from family farmers under ma rket price conditions, in addition to the 
administration of the programme and the ma intenance of Government stocks.  The 
main part of the accumulation is made under minimum price support (commercial farmers) and is notified as such in Suppor ting Table DS:5.  All Government sales are 
made at market prices. 
(b) How does Brazil define "family farming"? 
The definition was established by Law 113 26/2006 and its amendments.  The three 
criteria to define family farming (low-income or resource-poor producers) are:  i) limitation in the size of the land (four module size);  ii) most part of the family revenue must come from the agricultural activity;  and iii) the business is operated by the family with predominance of its own labour force. 
(v) Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net programmes 
30. Question by the European Union:  Could Brazil please explain under what criteria the 
insurance payments under the Warranty Crop Fund are granted? 
The measure complies with the criteria set out in  paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, as it provides relief from natural disasters.  The Ministry of Agrarian 
Development is in charge of the Warranty Crop Programme, which is a social programme 
granting a limit of R$700 (approximately US$ 3 50) per family farmer who applies to the 
programme (by paying a premium) in the even t that the Government's authorities formally 
recognize that a natural disaster has occurred.  In addition, incurred losses should be of at  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 23 
 
 
  least 50 per cent of the crop.  The programme does not cover all of the Brazilian territory, and 
is confined geographically to the Northeast re gion, the north of Minas Gerais and Espírito 
Santo States, areas with high drought incidence. 
(b) Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
31. Question by the European Union:  Could Br azil please explain how it defines "low-
income or resource-poor producers"? 
The definition is the same as the one used for "family farming" (paragraph 29 above refers). 
(c) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Market price support 
32. Question by Australia:  Australia understands  that applied administered prices are 
established by MAPA/CONAB for each year.  Can Brazil provide details on how applied 
administered prices are set and whether there is any differentiation in approach between products? 
As a general rule, the administered price is defined according to its variable cost.  Other 
issues such as international prices, public stocks and internal policies can also have an effect. 
33. Questions by the United States:  In Suppo rting Table DS:6 of G/AG/AGST/BRA for 
market price support commodities, Brazil notified to tal production as eligible production, yet in 
Supporting Table DS:5 of G/AG/N/BRA/27, Brazil has notified quantities that are considerably 
smaller than total production. 
(a) Please explain what quantities are represented in G/AG/N/BRA/27 in the column 
designated for eligible production. 
The quantities designated for eligible pr oduction are the quantities that actually 
benefited from the programme, not all Br azilian production.  For Public Option 
Contracts, the eligible quantity is the quan tity of contracts sold by the Government.  
For Minimum Price Support ("AGF"), the eligible quantity is the actual quantity purchased by the Government. 
(b) Please provide a rationale for the deviation from Brazil's original AGST 
notification and, to the extent a pplicable, from previous Table DS:1 
notifications. 
The nature of the Agricultural and Livest ock Plan during the base-period (1986-1988) 
was considerably different when compar ed to current programmes.  During the 
1980s, agriculture programmes did not have budge t constraints.  In addition, the only 
programme in place was the Minimum Price Support ("AGF").  Consequently, if the 
market price was below the minimum price, Government intervention was 
unrestricted, benefiting all production.  Fr om the 1990s onwards, Brazil has faced 
severe budget constraints.  Consequently, when the Government puts in place a programme, it is announced according to the budget limit, benefiting only part of the 
Brazilian production.  If Brazil did not have any budget constraints, there would have 
been no reason for creating PEP, PEPRO, PROP and Public Option Contracts after 1998.  Traditional minimum support prices ha ve been replaced by more modern 
mechanisms that are simultaneously more market oriented and targeted.  This G/AG/W/96 
Page 24  
 
  methodology has been in place since the first domestic support notification submitted 
by Brazil. 
34. The United States notes that the average Thai milled, 100 per cent, Grade B price for 
rice in 1986-1988 was about $252 per metric ton, considerably above Brazil's fixed external reference price of $174.13 per metric ton in G/AG/AGST/BRA.  Are the notified applied 
administered and fixed external reference prices for Brazil's domestic support of rice on a 
paddy (rough) or milled basis? 
The notified applied administered and fixed ex ternal reference prices for Brazil's domestic 
support of rice are on a paddy (rough) basis. 
(ii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
35. Question by Australia:  Australia understands  the Premium for the Flow of Products 
Programme (PEP) objective is to limit the difference between the minimum price and the market price.  As part of this programme, agents pay the price for the product and internal 
transportation costs which are presumably incl uded in the costs of transaction between the 
agent and the buyer.  However, the buyer then is compensated by the Government.  Australia 
notes under previous questions (November 2011)  Members asked what percentage of the 
programme was directed at internal and overseas markets for rice.  PEP has been used in the 
2008/2009 period on edible beans, grapes (wine), maize and milk.  How many of these products 
which were supported under PEP were  destined for overseas markets? 
The figures are not available at the moment.  CONAB cannot compile all the numbers since 
this kind of data does not exist in an electronic format and has to be collected individually 
from CONAB branches across the country. 
36. Questions by the United States: 
(a) The United States understands that repor ted data for "Prêmio de Equalização 
pago ao Produtor" (PEPRO) can be affected by definitions of marketing years and lags in reporting.  But the United States has difficulties reconciling the 
reported data with data found on official Brazilian websites, such as that 
maintained by CONAB.  For example,  publicly available data from CONAB 
show significant support for cotton under the PEPRO programme for 2007, 2008, and 2009.
8  The OECD PSE/CSE database also shows outlays for PEPRO 
for cotton between 2007 and 2009.  Brazil, however, did not notify any support for cotton under PEPRO in 2008/2009.  Pl ease clarify how Brazil reconciles these 
conflicting data observations. 
There are two reasons for these conflicting da ta observations.  Firstly, data available 
in the CONAB and MAPA websites corr espond to the quantities announced by the 
Government, not the actual production supp orted (and notified).  Secondly, the 
support under PEPRO for cotton was given only in  July and September of 2009.  For 
the purpose of notifications, this period is considered as the 2009/2010 crop-year.  
During the 2008/2009 crop-year, no payment under PEPRO was made for cotton.  
                                                      
8 See, USDA FAS:  
"http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publica tions/Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Brasilia_B
razil_3-30-2012.pdf ", page 9;  USDA ERS:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CWS/2011/06Jun/CWS11D01/CWS11D01.pdf , page 17.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Therefore, the figures for 2009 will appear during the 2009/2010 crop-year 
notification. 
(b) The United States also understands that the PEP programme has been used 
extensively for wheat in recent years, beyond the use notified in Supporting Table DS:7 for the 2008/2009 notification and that Brazil's wheat exports have 
increased as well.  Please confirm if Braz ilian wheat exports have also benefited 
from the PEP programme and the degree of support if provided. 
PEP also allows exporting the product,  but is not contingent upon export 
performance.  For the 2009/2010 crop-year of wheat, the numbers from PEP (US$ 
12,661,998) are much smaller than for 2008/2009 (US$ 263,441,597).  The figures 
for the following crop-years are not available at the moment.  The table in Annex 1 
presents the data of PEP, and Brazilian produc tion and exports of wheat for the last 
five crop-years.  It can be seen from the data that there is no correlation between PEP and Brazilian export performance. 
(iii) Non-product-specific AMS 
37. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  The European Union would like to ask a follow-up from the 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in March 2011 (G/AG/W/83, paragraph 23 refers) which at that time referred to Brazilian notification G/AG/N/BRA/26.  Would Brazil be in a position to share with the Members the results of its evaluation of the possibility of using other benchmark rates instead 
of SELIC? 
(b) United States:  In response to the United  States question at an earlier Committee 
on Agriculture (G/AG/W/83, paragraph 22(a) refers), Brazil indicated it would evaluate whether other benchmark rates such as actual lending rates for individuals and corporations to be so urced from the Central Bank of Brazil 
constitute better benchmarks than SELIC interest rates or not.  The United 
States notes that Brazil has not indicated any change in how the interest rate subsidies are calculated in its most rec ent notification.  Please explain what 
Brazil found out in its evaluation of benchmark rates. 
Although the situation of the Brazilian ec onomy has improved markedly, the credit 
system in Brazil ("free market interest")  still does not operate properly.  The SELIC 
rate is thus still considered  an adequate benchmark. 
38. Questions by the European Union:  In relation to the measure "Risk Minimizing 
Agribusiness Programme", the European Union would like to ask the following questions: 
(a) Please explain how this measure operates. 
The programme makes a governmental subsid y for crop insurance for farmers, based 
on the farmer's level of production, available (the Government pays for a part of the 
premium).  In order to be eligible, pro ducers should follow the Agricultural Zoning 
per Climate Risk aiming to minimize the risk of losses caused by adverse climate events during sensitive stages of production. G/AG/W/96 
Page 26  
 
  (b) Please explain reasons for notificati on under non-product specific AMS. 
As the programme is available to produ cers in general with no exceptions, Brazil 
understands it can be considered as non-product specific AMS. 
39. Question by the United States:  Please explai n what, if any, changes Brazil has made in 
terms of how Brazil notifies its non-product-s pecific production and marketing credits since 
Brazil's last domestic support notification. 
Until the 2003/2004 notification, product-speci fic market and production credit subsidies 
were calculated for products in which a minimu m (or administrative) price was established, 
although the budget for this kind of credit has never been allocated by product.  Brazil opted to adopt a more conservative approach and c onsidered it product-specific since farmers might 
have felt induced to produce such products in the past.  Nevertheless, from the 2004/2005 
crop-year onwards, Brazil has been notifying all of its production and marketing credit as 
non-product-specific domestic support.  With the consolidation of trade liberalization that 
took place in Brazil during the 1990s, price s upport mechanisms are increasingly losing 
importance.  Traditional minimum support prices are being replaced by more modern 
mechanisms that are simultaneously more market oriented and targeted. 
(d) Classification of measures 
40. Questions by the United States:  Regarding previous questions to Brazil (G/AG/W/94, 
paragraph 10 refers) and Supporting Table DS :7 of G/AG/N/BRA/27, the United States 
understands that Brazil's "Prêmio para Escoamen to do Produto" (PEP) and "Prêmio de Risco 
para Aquisição de Produto Agricola oriundo  de Contrato Privado de Opação de Venda" 
(PROP) programmes are notified as "other product specific support" by Brazil.  
The United States understands that both PEP an d PROP generally provide support to covered 
products by paying the difference between the minimum support price and actual prices for product as determined through public auction. 
(a) Since the premise of the programme appears to be to ensure that producers 
receive at least the minimum support pri ce, as announced by the Government, 
why does Brazil not notify these programmes as market price support (Supporting Table DS:5)? 
According to paragraph 10 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, "non-
exempt direct payments which are dependent on a price gap shall be calculated either 
using the gap between the fixed reference price and the applied administered price 
multiplied by the quantity of pro duction eligible to receive the administered price, or 
using budgetary outlays".  Since PEP a nd PROP are non-exempt direct payments, 
Brazil chooses notifying budgetary outlays. 
(b) Where does Brazil notify support under the "Empréstimo do Governo Federal" 
(EGF) programme? 
 It is notified as "Non-product-specific production and marketing credit" (Supporting 
Table DS:9).  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 27 
 
 
  (c) It appears that support under the EGF programme is based on a minimum 
announced support price.  CONAB data  show support under this programme 
specific to cotton.9  The OECD PSE/CSE database also shows EGF outlays as 
support to specific products.  Should EGF outlays be allocated to specific commodities? 
 EGF is notified as a non-product-specific marketing credit, as all agricultural 
products are eligible for this kind of suppor t, without any product allocation.  There 
are different limits for each product, according to its minimum price in order to establish a reference for the loan. 
2. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Direct payments:  income insurance and income safety-net programmes 
41. Question by Japan:  Could Canada kindly explain any particular reason why 
"e) income insurance and income safety-net programmes" substantially decreased from 2007 to 
2008, if any, other than price increases in the international agricultural markets? 
Canada's CAIS/AgriStability Income Disa ster Component, notified under the "income 
insurance and income safety-net programmes" of Annex 2 paragraph 7 (G/AG/N/CAN/64;  
G/AG/N/CAN/91 and Corr.1), operates on a whol e-farm margin in which payments are 
triggered when a producer's margin in the cl aim year declines by more than 30 per cent 
compared to the average margin of the preced ing five years, excluding the highest and the 
lowest years (i.e., the Olympic average).  The ma rgin is calculated as the total eligible sales 
and other revenues, minus expenses directly re lated to production.  The programme amount 
could vary from year to year depending on factors such as total number of eligible claims and magnitude of margin decline relative to th e reference period (i.e., exceeding 30 per cent). 
Much of the decrease in payments during this period was related to higher prices for 
commodities in international markets and thus hi gher returns to producers.  A portion of the 
decrease is attributable to changes in progra mme calculations from the CAIS programme to 
the AgriStability programme wh ereby AgriStability no longer provides compensation for the 
portion of margin declines less than 15 per cent. 
42. Question by the United States:  With resp ect to the Income Disaster Component of 
AgriStability Programme, notified in G/AG/N/CAN /90 and 91 as "income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes" in Supporting Table DS:1, the programme is based on a margin 
calculated as the difference between total eligible sales and other revenues and eligible expenses.  
Do eligible sales and expenses c over sales and expenses from the supply-managed dairy, poultry, 
and egg sectors? 
Canada's AgriStability Income Disaster Component covers the supply-managed sectors for 
margin declines exceeding 30 per cent. 
                                                      
9 See, USDA FAS: 
"http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publica tions/Cotton%20and%20Products%20Annual_Brasilia_B
razil_3-30-2012.pdf ", page 9;  USDA ERS:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CWS/2011/06Jun/CWS11D01/CWS11D01.pdf , page 17. G/AG/W/96 
Page 28  
 
  (ii) Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
43. Question by Japan:  Could Canada kindly explain the reason why "j) Environmental 
programmes (federal, federal/provincial)" substantially decreased from 2007 to 2008? 
The environmental programmes under the prev ious Agricultural Policy Framework (i.e., 
National Farm Stewardship Programme notif ied in G/AG/N/CAN/64) were winding down 
during this time period. 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) General 
44. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  In the notification  for 2008 and 2009 presented for review at 
this meeting, the European Union notes a significant increase of Current Total 
AMS as compared to the previous Ca nadian notification G/AG/N/CAN/86.  
Could Canada please explain th e reasons for this increase? 
(b) Japan:  Could Canada kindly explain th e reason for substantial increases in the 
product-specific AMS of beef and pork from 2007 to 2008? 
The increase was due to provincial ad hoc  assistance provided under the Ontario Cattle, Hog 
and Horticulture Payment (OCHHP) and the Alberta Farm Recovery Plan (AFRP), as well as the one-time federal Tobacco Transition Progra mme to help producers transition out of the 
tobacco industry. 
(ii) Market price support 
45. Questions by Australia:  Current AMS as a pe rcentage of value for milk has increased 
to being above 10 per cent for the last three years notified:  10.2 per cent in 2007, 12.9 per cent 
in 2008, and 10.1 per cent in 2009.  This is primar ily due to increases in the administered prices 
despite overall eligible production levels dec lining between 2008 and 2009 levels.  Can Canada 
explain why according to the Canadian Dairy Commission
10, applied administered prices 
continue to rise despite overall dairy prices increasing and prospects for continued robust 
demand? 
Each year, the Canadian Dairy Commission (C DC), in collaboration with the provinces, 
undertakes a national study of the cost of produc ing milk at the farm.  CDC Commissioners 
make a decision on support prices taking into consid eration the results of the study on the cost 
of producing milk in Canada, comments receiv ed from industry stakeholders during pricing 
consultations, and other economic indicators such  as demand, inflation, etc.  Support prices 
for butter and skim milk powder were increased  by 1 per cent, 3 per cent and 1 per cent in 
2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively.  During the same period, the cost of production of milk increased by approximately 6 per cent. 
(iii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
46. Question by Australia:  The non-exempt di rect payments made for Pork "Assurance 
stabilisation des revenus agricoles" (ASRA) has increased from Can$143.9 million in 2007 to 
                                                      
10 http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?link=115   G/AG/W/96 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Can$238 million in 2008 and stands at Can$201.0 million in 2009.  In a time of historically high 
commodity prices why have payments increased from the level in 2007? 
For the 2007, 2008, and 2009 years, the averag e prices Quebec producers received were very 
consistent.  These average prices were: 
 Can$132.00 / 100 kg in 2007; 
 Can$134.00 / 100 kg in 2008; 
 Can$131.00 / 100 kg in 2009. 
Payments under ASRA could vary depending on the average prices relative to the cost of 
production.  In those years, feed costs in particular increased by 21 per cent in 2008 and 
declined by 3 per cent in 2009 and feed costs can represent up to 60 per cent of total cost of 
production in the sector. 
47. Questions by: 
(a) European Union:  Could Canada pr ovide more details on the "Tobacco 
Transition Programme" which seems to have caused the substantial increase in 
support to tobacco in the 2009 notification? 
(b) Japan:  Could Canada kindly explain the details of the "Tobacco Transition 
Programme" in 2009? 
Tobacco was a provincially managed commodity  in Ontario where production and sales were 
regulated by quota systems.  The Tobacco Tr ansition Programme was a federal initiative to 
remove the quota system, help quota holders to transition out of the industry and improve the 
viability of remaining and future tobacco producers who now operate in a free-market 
environment.  The one-time funding of a pproximately Can$286 m illion provided Can$1.05 
per pound of Basic Production Quota to participating quota holders. 
 The programme's assistance did not impact the supp ly, the demand or the prices of tobacco as 
the programme was designed to avoid assistance flowing back to tobacco production.  Two 
key conditions of the programme included co mmitment from the Province of Ontario to 
replace the quota system with a licensing system to monitor tobacco production and a commitment from participating quota holders not to grow or market their own tobacco in Canada.  By doing so, producers who chose to stay in the sector did not receive funding and 
programme participants cannot obtain a license to produce tobacco.  Programme participants 
are now producing other crops or have sought off-farm income, including renting their land 
and equipment to other farmers or by becoming a farm employee.  Should they rent their land 
and equipment to tobacco producers, they have  to do so at fair market value to avoid 
programme assistance flowing back to tobacco  producers.  Audits of those business 
arrangements were conducted. 
48. Questions by the United States:  The United States notes that Canada paid out Can$22.2 
million to cull swine in 2008 in G/AG/N/CAN/ 90, as well as reported an estimated 
Can$72 million in additional outlays under the Hog Farm Transition Programme for 2009 and 2010 in G/AG/N/CAN/91, while at the same time reporting an AMS for the hog sector of Can$402.5 million in 2008 and Can$247.5 in 2009 in G/AG/N/CAN/90. G/AG/W/96 
Page 30  
 
  (a) Were these programmes directed at different provinces, which might account 
for this anomalous situation? 
All eligible Canadian producers meeting the programme criteria of the Cull Breeding 
Swine Programme and the Hog Farm Tran sition Programme would be able to 
participate.  These were national programmes and were not directed at any particular 
province. 
(b) Please explain how the Ontario Cattl e, Hog, and Horticulture Payment 
programme works. 
The Ontario Cattle, Hog, and Horticulture Payment (OCHHP) was a one-time 
provincial programme with funding of Can$150 million to help Ontario cattle, hog, 
and horticulture producers manage the effe cts of lower financial returns.  The 
OCHHP provided eligible producers with  a payment based on their historical 
allowable net sales (ANS) between 2000 and 2004.  To be eligible, producers would 
need to have received a federal Cost of Production (COP) payment and/or an Ontario 
Cost Recognition Top-up (OCRT) payment.  Also, producers would need at least half 
of their total commodity sales from any combination of cattle, hogs, or horticulture 
reported to the Canada Revenue Agency in 2005 and/or 2006 for income tax 
purposes.  The payment rate for cattle and hog producers (with at least 50 per cent of 
sales from cattle and/or hogs) was set at 12 per cent of their historical ANS as calculated from their COP statements.  The payment rate for horticulture producers 
(with at least 50 per cent of sales from edible  and non-edible hor ticulture) was 2 per 
cent.  For producers who had a combination of cattle/hogs and horticulture meeting 
the 50 per cent requirement, the payment rate would be based on the weighted proportion of their sales in each eligib le commodity.  The total payment per 
individual producer was capped at Can$3.0 million. 
(iv) Non-product-specific AMS 
49. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) Could Canada explain how payments under the Advance Payments Programme 
are calculated? 
A number of producer organizations across Canada are delivering cash advances 
under the Advance Payments Programme (APP).  Individual producers are eligible for cash advances up to Can$400,000 with th e first Can$100,000 interest free.  The 
support provided under APP is measured as the interest payments made by the federal 
government to financial institutions (suc h as banks) on behalf of the producer 
organizations. 
(b) In relation to the change in Canada's notification from notification of the 
Advance Payments Programme in product-s pecific AMS to non-product-specific 
AMS, could Canada please list products which are currently eligible for these 
payments? 
The products eligible under the current A dvance Payments Programme are:  crops, 
livestock (cattle, hogs, sheep, and bison), othe r animals (lamb and goats), grains and 
oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, fur pe lt, honey, maple syrup, and tobacco.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (c) Please explain what measures are notified under the Growing Forward 
Framework Initiatives in Supporting Table DS:9? 
The Growing Forward Framework initiatives notified in Supporting Table DS:9 were 
mainly direct payments to producers for the implementation of food safety, biosecurity, and traceability systems. 
3. Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/37) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
50. Questions by the European Union:  Th e amount notified under "disaster relief 
payments" in Supporting Table DS:1 is much higher than in the previous years. 
(a) Could Chile please explain the reason behind this increase? 
This increase in payments is a result of the February 2010 earthquake, which 
damaged a large proportion of the country's agricultural infrastructure and prompted the implementation of special relief programmes for the sector. 
(b) Under which criteria are the "disaster relief payments" granted? 
The Chilean Ministry of Agriculture h as a public procedure for declaring an 
agricultural emergency. 
Furthermore, the Ministry of Agriculture budget includes an item covering 
agricultural emergencies.  The purpose of such funds is to "address unforeseen situations or expenditure triggered by clim atic events and/or natural disasters and/or 
emergency situations or production losses that  adversely affect agricultural producers 
and rural inhabitants (as defined by the Ministry of Agriculture in a reasoned decision, with a copy to the Budget Directorate), without committing the resources of subsequent years". 
Once an agricultural emergenc y has been declared, 80 per cent of the available funds 
are generally allocated to the Agricultu ral Development Institute, which keeps a 
register of smallholder farmers requiring assistance.  The remaining 20 per cent is earmarked for special initia tives and projects under the Ag riculture and Livestock 
Service and the National Irrigation Commission. 
(b) Article 6.2 – Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture 
51. Question by Canada:  Chile notifies an "Inv estment incentive" as "Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture".  Could Chile provide more detail on this measure and 
explain how Chile ensures that this scheme meets the criteria of Article 6.2, including "generally 
available"? 
The overall objective of the Investment Develo pment Programme (PDI) is to co-finance the 
implementation of investment projects aimed at modernizing the production processes of 
small producer enterprises to make them mo re competitive on the domestic market and 
sustainable over time.  The programme provides r esources, in the form of incentives or grants, 
to Agricultural Development Institute (INDAP) fa rmers that wish to carry out investment G/AG/W/96 
Page 32  
 
  projects on their farms.  Interested parties are required to submit an investment project in the 
fields of agriculture, livestock or agribusin ess.  These resources are allocated through a 
competitive process. 
The criteria set out in Article 6.2 are met, gi ven that these resources are made available to 
INDAP farmers.  They take the form of an i nvestment subsidy that is designed to modernize 
the production processes of small producer enterprise s and that is generally available since it 
is granted independently of the specific type of pr oduction, provided that this is in the fields 
of agriculture, livestock or agribusiness.  In order to access INDAP benefits, farmers must 
meet the following requirements: 
 Cultivate a maximum of twel ve basic irrigation hectares (area with a productive 
potential equivalent to twelve hectares of  irrigated land), regardless of the tenure 
system applicable; 
 possess assets or goods of a value not exceeding 3,500 UF (Chilean inflation-indexed 
monetary units); 
 derive their main source of income  from agricultural activities;  and 
 work the land directly, regardless of the applicable tenure system. 
(c) Classification of measures 
52. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) Could Chile please explain the reasons behind notifying agricultural insurance 
under paragraph 5 of Annex 2? 
The European Union asked the very same qu estion in 2010.  On that occasion Chile 
replied it had notified "agricultural insura nce" under paragraph 5 of Annex 2 because 
it was a form of support provided by the State to cover part of the amount paid by farmers for insurance premiums.  This m easure enables farmers to insure their 
production against adverse climatic events and to recover their working capital if 
their crops are damaged by a climatic event.   It also seeks to encourage farmers to 
improve their risk management by transf erring risks to the in surance market and 
thereby limit production losses by recovering part  of the working capital so that they 
can continue their work. 
Chile considers agricultural insurance to be  consistent with the considerations in 
paragraph 5 of Annex 2, in particular the cr iteria set forth in paragraph 6(b) to (e), 
and the general criteria in paragraph 1. 
The agricultural insurance web page at http://www.seguroagricola.gob.cl  provides 
more information. 
(b) Under what criteria are the insurance payments granted? 
Within the framework of economic and state modernization policies, the 
Ministry of Agriculture decided to promot e the development of a Chilean agricultural 
insurance market to allow farmers to ava il themselves of a compensation instrument 
in the event of losses caused by adverse climatic events.  To this end and with a view 
to enabling farmers – irrespective of gender, acreage, type of production (fruit or  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 33 
 
 
  other crops), geographic location and la nd tenure system – to be covered by 
agricultural insurance, the St ate, in the context of one of its mandates, established a 
subsidy covering part of the cost of the in surance premiums of farmers who take out 
agricultural insurance (see also deta iled information presented in Annex 2). 
(c) Could Chile explain why Irrigation Law No. 18.450 is included in the 
notification both under General servi ces and under non-product specific AMS? 
In an endeavour to lend greater transparency  to the information submitted by Chile to 
the Committee on Agriculture, a decision was taken to adjust the figures reported in 
respect of Irrigation Law No. 18.450.  This Law has two components:  cooperative irrigation projects and individual irrigation projects.  Cooperative irrigation projects 
normally correspond to major irrigation works that meet the criteria set out in 
paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 a nd resources for this type of work are therefore notified 
under Infrastructure services.  Individual irrigation projects are not consistent with paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 and these resour ces were therefore notified in Supporting 
Table DS:9 on Non-Product-Specific AMS. 
Follow-up:  The United States followed-up on Canada's question (paragraph 51 above) and requested 
the definition of small and medium sized farms.   
4. China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
53. Questions by the United States:  In order to better understand China's agricultural 
policies and the alignment of these policies wi th WTO rules, further clarification and 
information is requested based on responses in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94. 
(a) Please provide the internet link to "The Outline of the National Programme for 
Long-term and Medium-term Food Security (2008-2010)".  Also, if subsequent 
documents exist for one or more periods after 2010, please provide these links as 
well. 
The web link is:  http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2008-11/13/content_1148414.htm . 
(b) Please provide the internet links to any available price information (or 
publications) regarding the purchasing and selling of commodities in China's public stockholdings. 
The purchase and sale of public stockholding grains is fulfilled at the market price by 
enterprises which undertake the stockholding  tasks.  The enterprises offer prices at 
their purchasing points and farmers make their own decisions whether to sell or not to 
sell and to which enterprise to sell their products.  The purchasing price is neither 
pre-set nor published by the Government but follows the market.  The selling of 
stockholding grains is done through p ublic auction in wholesale markets. 
(c) China's response in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94 was the following:  "Fourth, to 
maintain a reasonable level of grain reserve and to optimize the reserve layout and the structure of varieties;  the proportion of wheat and rice in the reserve will 
be no less than 70 per cent.  Fifth, to establish a sound system of "Four Bulks" G/AG/W/96 
Page 34  
 
  grain logistics that features bulk loading, bulk unloading, bulk storage and bulk 
transportation;  and to accelerate the development of a modern grain logistics system.  The proportion of "Four Bulks" to na tional grain logistics would reach 
30 per cent by 2010 and 55 per cent by 2020. "  Please explain in further detail 
what is meant by the above highlighted portions  of the fourth and fifth goals of 
China's guaranteeing food security. 
Wheat and rice are China's primary staple food.  The requirement on the proportion of 
wheat and rice aims to ensure their secure s upply and relatively stable market price in 
the event of natural disasters or other emergencies.  The number of 70 per cent is worked out based on the production and cons umption situation of wheat and rice in 
China. 
Compared with that in developed countries, China's grains logistics lags behind.  In 
China, most grains are still loaded, transpor ted, unloaded and stored in packages.  It 
would be more efficient and less costly if  all these logistics procedures could be done 
in bulk.  Therefore the Government set the goal to gradually increase the proportion 
of "Four Bulks". 
(ii) Direct payments:  decoupled income support 
54. Question by the United States:  Regarding the response in paragraph 43 of G/AG/W/94, 
the United States notes that China's response indi cates that "no specific product is required to 
be produced".  Please confirm whether farmers re main eligible to receive these payments even 
when the farmer produces nothing at all. 
This direct payment is based on farmers' land contracts only.  It does not depend on whether 
they produce or not. 
(iii) Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
55. Questions by the United States:  Regarding China's responses in paragraph 48 of 
G/AG/W/94, the United States can appreciate that a large number of diverse programmes may 
be involved and that subsequently a large amou nt of space might be potentially utilized to 
respond in detail.  Nonetheless, the United States continues having a strong interest in 
understanding the policy framework and in particular the policy implementation for these programmes. 
(a) Could China select at least one or two examples of how programmes for natural 
disasters and the environment are impl emented?  How do these examples 
illustrate the basic policy and regulatory framework? 
The payments for relief from natural disaster s in China's notification include disaster 
prevention, disaster reduction and post-disaster restoration of production measures implemented by both the Central Government and local governments. 
(b) Please provide where interested Members could review (internet locations, other 
documents) other specific policy and im plementing guidance more generally for 
these programmes for natural disasters and environment? 
China is not in a position to provide the internet locations or other documents 
concerning programmes and standards at this moment.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 35 
 
 
  (c) How does China ensure that relevant criteria of these programmes are 
considered as part of the overarching agricultural policy framework in China, and are implemented in accordance with  the WTO Agreement on Agriculture? 
Due to frequent natural disasters in 2007 and 2008, the total payments increased but 
could only compensate a small part of farmers' loss.  These measures do not fall 
under the AMS and are consistent w ith the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(iv) Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
56. Question by the United States:  Responses to previous questions (G/AG/W/92, 
paragraph 42 and G/AG/W/93, paragraph 66 ref er) unfortunately leave room for a better 
understanding of the various programmes.  Moreover, payments for environmental 
programmes have increased dramatically betw een 2005 and 2008.  Please provide a more 
detailed description of the programmes including a description of the operational and administrative aspects of these programmes. 
Payments under environmental programmes incr eased significantly from 2005 through 2008, 
as the Government paid more attention to th e sustainable development of the economy and 
society and attached more importance to environmental protection.  These programmes cover 
a variety of measures implemented by both the Central Government and local governments to 
protect the ecological environment of forests and grassland, etc.  These measures do not fall under the AMS and are consistent w ith the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Negative support amounts 
57. Question by the European Union:  The European Union joins other Members in 
expressing concerns over China's methodology applie d to calculations involving negative AMS.  
As a follow-up to China's reply from the Ma rch 2012 meeting (G/AG/W/94, paragraph 52 
refers).  Please explain why China considers this methodology is correct.  Would China consider revising the methodology it uses? 
Please refer to China's previous answer (G/A G/W/92, paragraph 52 refers), which explains 
why China considers this methodology correct.  China has no intention of revising it now. 
(c) Classification of measures 
58. Questions by Canada: 
(a) According to China's recent Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/264, page 104, 
paragraph 24) from the Secretariat, Chin a introduced a pilot insurance scheme 
in 2007 wherein central and local governme nts subsidize insurance premiums.  
Can China please indicate where it has reported this scheme in its Table DS:1 
notifications and indicate the amounts reported under this programme?  If the scheme has not been reported, can China please explain why this is the case? 
The expenditures on insurance premiums are included in "f) Payments for relief from 
natural disasters in Table DS: 1". 
(b) According to China's recent Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/264, page 105, 
paragraph 25) from the Secretariat, "The Comprehensive Subsidy on G/AG/W/96 
Page 36  
 
  Agricultural Inputs" was established in 2006 to compensate grain producers for 
increases in the price of inputs.  The report indicates that the authorities consider these inputs as direct payments b ecause they are not contingent on the 
use of inputs but on the basis of taxable arable land.  Where does China notify this support in its Table DS:1 notifications? 
The Comprehensive Subsidies on Agricultural Inputs are included in the non-product-
specific AMS and accounted for as de minimis . 
(c) Could China explain which grain producers are currently eligible for such 
payments? 
Similar to the decoupled income support, the payment is calculated according to the 
size of contracted farm land and does not depend on production.  
(d) Could China explain the significant increase from 2006 to 2010 (reported in the 
Secretariat report) and provide paym ent amounts by grain product? 
The subsidies aim to compensate to some ex tent farmers' additional expenditures due 
to the rise of input prices.  Since th e price of agricultural inputs increased 
dramatically in recent years, the subsidies went up accordingly. 
5. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1 and G/AG/N/CRI/40) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Scheduled commitment level 
59. Questions by:  
(a) Australia:  Costa Rica's Current Total AM S for 2011 is over six and a half (6.5) 
times more than its level of AMS commitment and is entirely due to its price 
support for rice (see Annex  3).  Costa Rica has indicated that a process had 
commenced to review the current suite of policies.  Could Costa Rica provide an 
update on its policy deliberation processes and when it intends to bring its AMS 
spending back into line with its commitments? 
(b) Canada:  Canada notes Costa Rica's continued violation of Article 3.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture by providing  support in excess of its commitment 
level.  Supporting Table DS:5 reports a s light decline in the applied administered 
price for rice.  However, the eligible pr oduction has increased from the previous 
year.  At the March 2012 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Costa Rica 
reported that the process to bring itself into compliance with the Agreement was 
delayed due to a domestic process.  Coul d Costa Rica provide an update on this 
process and indicate what concrete steps it is taking to bring itself into 
compliance with its commitment? 
(c) Japan:  Japan appreciates the effort by  Costa Rica in reducing the applied 
administered price of rice in 2011.  However, the Curren t Total AMS still 
substantially exceeds its commitment level (about 6.5 times as big as the commitment level).  Could Costa Rica explain any progress in its rice policy reform since the last regular session this March, as well as the future prospect of the reform?  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Costa Rica refers to the reply given in paragraph 12 above. 
6. Dominican Republic (G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) General services:  marketing and promotion services 
60. Questions by the United States:  In G/AG/N/DOM/18/Rev.1, the Dominican Republic 
notified the Rice production and marketing pr ogramme in Supporting Table DS:1 as General 
services support for marketing and promotion ser vices.  The United States understands that the 
Government of the Dominican Republic (GoDR) pr ovides significant support to the rice sector 
through a variety of programmes that do not appe ar to fall under paragraph 2(f) of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  The United States understands the GoDR predetermines the 
purchase price of harvested rice, which has histor ically been well above world prices for rice.  
In addition, the United States understands th at the rice sector receives two forms of 
Government subsidies collectively known as th e "pignoración" programme.  The first pays 
millers a storage fee for warehousing the seaso n's harvest throughout the year.  The second 
subsidizes interest rates on money loaned to mille rs for their operating expenses, which, in turn, 
includes millers' payments to rice producers. 
This notification covers expenditures incurre d under the Annual Budget of the Ministry of 
Agriculture. 
(a) Please provide an explanation of how the Rice production and marketing 
programme operates and how in whole or in part this programme as notified 
meets the criteria of paragraph 2(f) of A nnex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The Dominican Republic considers the notifi cation of this measure to be justified 
under Annex 2, paragraph (f), as part of  domestic support exempt from reduction 
commitments, as the measure does not distort the market.  Furthermore, in accordance with Green Box support criteria this is a publicly funded Government 
programme with no direct influence on the price received by producers.  
(b) Please confirm whether the Dominican Republic includes the price support 
scheme and "pignoración" programme in the notified Rice production and marketing programme. 
The Rice Production and Marketing Progra mme does not include the "pignoración" 
programme, as this programme forms part of the various agricultural production 
promotion programmes aimed at small and medium-sized producers.  These 
producers account for more than 50 per cent of national rice production. 
(c) Also, please provide further informat ion regarding the Dominican Republic's 
rice price support scheme and "pignoración" programme. 
The "pignoración" programme is not related to the rice price support scheme.  
"Pignoración" is essentially focused on ensuri ng that rice producer profitability is 
maintained. G/AG/W/96 
Page 38  
 
  7. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
61. Comment by the United States:  The United States wishes to acknowledge 
the European Union's additional notations in Supporting Table DS:1.  The additional column 5 
"Comments" provides a simple and potentially u seful reference to the legislative basis for the 
measures.  The provision of such detailed name or legislative references in Members' notifications is very much welcomed and can assist Members seeking a deeper understanding of 
the measures. 
The European Union thanks the United States ' for the comment and appreciates that the 
additional information is helpful. 
(i) General services:  infrastructural services 
62. Question by Australia:  Expenditure on in frastructural services has increased from 
EUR 1,238.1 million in 2007/2008 to EUR 1,79 4.1 million in 2008/2009.  Could the 
European Union provide further information on reasons for the increase in support?  Can the 
European Union confirm that this increase in co nsistent with Annex 2, paragraph 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture i.e. the European Unio n has excluded the subsidized provision of on-
farm facilities other than for the reticulat ion of generally available public utilities? 
The European Union confirms that this suppor t excludes the subsidized provision of on-farm 
facilities and is consistent with  paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  As 
to the increase of the spending, Australia will not e that spending under this measure has been 
on an increase already in previous notifications.  It is related to the accession of twelve new 
member States to the European Union, whic h increased the need for infrastructural 
improvements. 
(ii) General services:  other 
63. Question by the United States:  The United  States notes under "Other farm services 
(viii)" and amongst the member States' measures the European Union notifies "farm relief".  
Please explain in more detail what "farm relief" is and in which member States this type of 
support is given. 
Farmers in the European Union member States  make use of different services under "farm 
relief".  These can include some general farm wo rk services or specific technical tasks on the 
farm.  In some member States these also include sickness schemes which aim to help farmers 
in the smooth running of their operations. 
(iii) Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
64. Question by Japan:  Could the European Union kindly explain the reason for the 
reduction in "j) Environmental Programmes"? 
The previous notification covering the marketi ng year 2007/2008 marked the beginning of a 
new programming period in Rural Developmen t (2007-2013) when expenditure typically 
tends to increase after passage from one programmi ng period to another.  The reduction in the 
current notification for 2008/2009 is rather a reflection of approaching a balance of average spending during a programming period.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Please note that spending on environmental pr ogrammes under the notification for 2006/2007 
was very similar to the currently notified EUR 5.693 million. 
(iv) Direct payments:  payments under regional assistance programmes 
65. Question by Japan:  Could the European Union kindly explain the reason for the 
reduction in "k) Regional Assistance Programmes"? 
See response supplied in paragraph 64 above. 
Please note that spending on regional programme s under the notification for 2006/2007 was 
very similar to the currently notified EUR 3.720 million. 
(v) Direct payments:  other 
66. Questions by: 
(a) Japan:  Could the European Union kindly explain why "Single Area Payment 
Scheme (SAPS)" is classified as "l) Other" in Supporting Table DS:1, instead of as "d) Decoupled Income Support"?  The amount of SAPS in 2008 was more than twice of that in 2005.  It was reported that SAPS, including national top-ups, has been gradually introduced, from 55 per cent of the full rate in 2005 to 
80 per cent in 2008:  that would make the payment in 2008 about 1.45 times that 
in 2005.  Could the European Union kindly explain the reason for the increase of more than 200 per cent, as well as the contents of the payment in detail 
(including its distribution to member States)? 
(b) United States:  The United States notes that under "Other", the Single Area 
Payment Scheme increased significantly compared to the previous year.  Please 
explain the reasoning or provide addition al background for this large increase in 
support. 
The European Union would like to refer to notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 
24 February 2009 which explains the no tification of the Single Area Payment 
Scheme (SAPS).  The budgetary outlays fo r SAPS increase on an annual basis in line 
with the phasing-in of the payment in th e new member States concerned.  The two 
new member States which joined the European  Union in 2007 are also part of this 
scheme.  Some separate payments maintain ed in new member States are outlined in 
detail in the annex to notification G/AG/N/EEC/58. 
(b) Article 6.5 (Blue Box) – Payments based on fixed areas or yields 
67. Question by Japan:  With regard to the paymen t accompanied by the reform of the fruit 
and vegetables sector, could the European Union kindly explain the reason why the Blue Box 
payment (Transitional fruit and vegetable payment) was introduced, instead of integrating that support immediately into the decoupled direct payment (the Single Payment Scheme)?  Also, 
could the European Union please explain the relationship between the Transitional payment and Single Farm Payment, including a) the paym ent per unit area for both payments, b) the 
level of set-aside required to be eligible for th e transition payment, and c) differences in the 
operation above, if any, among Member countries? G/AG/W/96 
Page 40  
 
  The European Union would like to refer Japan to notification G/AG/N/EEC/69 of 
24 January 2011 presenting the reform of the fru it and vegetables sector.  The transitional 
fruit and vegetables payments are provided durin g the phase-in of decoupling of support for 
certain fruit and vegetables for processing.  There is no direct link between the set-aside requirement and the fruit and ve getables transitional payments. 
(c) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Market price support 
68. Question by Australia: Market price support (MPS) levels have dropped dramatically 
over the past five years due to the reclassificati on of certain products, in particular fruit and 
vegetables.  At the June 2011 Committee on Ag riculture meeting in a response to a question 
from the United States, the European Union des cribed its previous notification method (price 
support instrument in which the entry pri ces only served as a proxy for the applied 
administered price support).  Can the European Union provide details on what other elements of the price support instrument there were and how the relationship has changed with the 
introduction of the new programmes which would warrant a change in reporting on the MPS? 
The support notified for the fruit and vegetables sector before the 2007 reform was included 
in the European Union's AMS as the Equivalent Measurement of Support (EMS) and not Market Price Support (Supporting Table DS:5). As indicated during the review of notification G/AG/N/EEC/68 at the meetings of the Committ ee in March and June 2011, the notification 
of support to the fruit and vegetables sector as of the marketing year 2007/2008, reflects 
changes introduced in the 2007 reform, which warrant a move from a notification based on a 
price gap calculation to a notification of budgetary  outlays, to the extent that no price support 
of any type exists any longer after the reform. 
(ii) Market price support: eligible production 
69. Question by Australia: The quantity of eligib le production for a number of commodities 
(common wheat, durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum, butter) has increased from 2007/2008 to 
2008/2009.  Could the European Union provide information on how it calculates eligible 
production and the reasons for the recent increases? 
The European Union has applied a consistent approach in the price gap calculation and has 
used the entire European Union production of the products for which the intervention is open.  
The increases of production referred to in the ques tion reflect natural variations due to market 
and weather developments.  As far as cer eals are concerned, the 2007/2008 production was 
particularly low because of climatic conditions. 
(iii) Non-product-specific AMS 
70. Question by Canada:  Could the European Union please provide outlay data for the 
individual fruit and vegetable crops for which producers enjoy support under "green 
harvesting and non-harvesting"?  Furthermore, wh at is the meaning of the measure providing 
"horizontal" support? 
Horizontal support in the fruit and vegetables sector is non-product sp ecific support available 
for products of this sector.  Outlay data pe r product for the measure "green harvesting and 
non-harvesting" is not available.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 41 
 
 
  71. Questions by the United States: Please describe in more detail the following 
programmes: 
"Green-harvesting and non-harvesting": Green harvesting means the total harvesting of 
unripe non-marketable products on a given area.  The products concerned shall not have been 
damaged prior to the green harvesting, whet her due to climatic reasons or disease or 
otherwise.  Non-harvesting means the termin ation of the current production cycle from the 
area concerned where the product is well devel oped and is of sound, fair and marketable 
quality.  Destruction of products due to a clima tic event or disease shall not be considered as 
non-harvesting. Green harvesti ng and non-harvesting shall be additional to, and different 
from, normal cultivation practices and when carryin g them out it shall be ensured that neither 
negative impact on the environment nor any ne gative phytosanitary consequences result from 
the implementation of the measures. 
"Harvest insurance", including how and if  this relates to insurance subsidies: Harvest 
insurance actions are managed by a producer organisation aimed at contributing to safeguarding producers' inco mes and covering market losses incurred by the producer 
organisation and/or its members where they are affected by natural disasters, climatic events 
and, where appropriate, diseases or pest infestati ons.  Support is granted to cover part of the 
insurance premiums against losses as a result of natural disasters, climatic events and, where 
appropriate, diseases or pest infestations.  
"Other", including what programmes this consists of: The category "other" among 
national support measures in  Supporting Table DS:9 includes fertiliser and agricultural 
machinery subsidies. 
(iv) Negative support amounts 
72. Question by the United States:  In Supportin g Table DS:4 for "Potatoes for processing 
into starch" the European Union appears to add the negative EMS valued at EUR -258.6 million to the positive AMS valued at EUR 152.3 million.  This results in a 
combined AMS+EMS value of zero.  Please provide the rationale for the negative value of EMS 
in this potato processing support scheme. 
The support is related to the existence of a mini mum price for potato starch delivered within a 
quota to the processing industry in the European Union, whereby the price gap calculation is 
undertaken with reference to the intervention price for maize.  The calculation results in 
negative EMS.  The same methodology has been  followed in a consistent manner since the 
start of the implementation of the 2003 reform. 
(v) De minimis 
73. Question by the United States:  In Supporting Table DS:4 the European Union provides 
in column 5 the Production Value of the agricul tural product, a best practice endorsed by the 
Committee.  The United States notes, however, th at for several products the value of production 
is "n.a." (not available).  It appears that the European Union has simply defined that if no value 
of production is available for an individual prod uct, that the total value of the AMS+EMS is 
included without question.  Please confirm that this is the practice. 
 Yes, the European Union confirms that this is the practice. G/AG/W/96 
Page 42  
 
  Follow-up:  Japan questioned how the "transitio nal fruit and vegetables payment" qualified as a 
Blue Box payment, especially in view of the EU's stated reply "there is no direct link between the set-
aside requirement and the fruit and vegetables transiti onal payments."  Australia sought more details 
regarding the changes that had taken place and that no longer required the entry price system to be 
considered as MPS.  The entry price system was s till in existence in Article 34 of its Regulation even 
after the reform.  In this context, Au stralia also compared the EU's response11 to the questions from 
Australia at the March 2011 meeting with the reply12 that the European Union provided to the United  
States at the June 2011 meeting.  The European Uni on offered to discuss these issues bilaterally with 
the two delegations and undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
8. India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
74. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) What does the expenditure notified under "Buffer stock operations (food 
grain)" consist of? 
The expenditure on "Buffer stock operations  (food grain)" is the difference between 
the cost of procurement and the sale of f ood grains by the designated Government 
agency. 
(b) With reference to India's reply (G/AG/W88, paragraphs 22 and 23 refer) at the 
meeting of 29-30 September 2011, does the expenditure notified under "Buffer 
stock operations (food grain)" also include the cost or part of the cost of 
procuring food, or is this rather included in India's AMS calculation? 
The cost of procuring food grains is included in India's AMS calculation.  
(c) In relation to India's reply of the Committee on Agriculture 
29-30 September 2011 (G/AG/W88, paragr aphs 22 refers), could India provide 
some quarterly data on the "stocks to be maintained as per buffer norms"?  
This would help Members to get an idea of the magnitude of the "predetermined targets" required under paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Do those "predetermined target s" figure in any legislation?  If yes, 
where precisely? 
India's Government stockholding is covered by  footnote 5 of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Buffer norms are established by the Government, 
based on an assessment of all relevant factors and do not form part of any legislation. 
(d) In its reply during the Committee on Agriculture meeting of 
29-30 September 2011 (G/AG/W88, paragraph 23 refers) India refers to a "wide 
gap, [between MSP and Central Issue Prices] in turn resulting in an increase in 
the subsidy amount in recent years".  Is India in a position to provide some 
further information on the development of  the MSP in "recent years", i.e. after 
                                                      
11 Paragraph 47 of G/AG/W/83/Rev.2 refers. 
12 Paragraph 31(a) of G/AG/W/86/Rev.2 refers.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 43 
 
 
  2003/2004, pending the respective Table DS:1  notifications (see also for reference 
the TPR India of September 2011, WT/TPR/S/249, paragraph 38, p. 135)? 
India would provide relevant informati on on its MSP after 2003-2004, in its domestic 
support notifications.  It may be noted th at full MSP details are available on the 
website of the Department of Agriculture  and Cooperation, Government of India. 
(ii) Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
75. Questions by the European Union:  In rel ation to India's reply to Canada at the 
March 2012 meeting of the Committee on Ag riculture (G/AG/W/94, paragraph 58 refers): 
(a) India's reply does not provide informat ion necessary to assess compliance with 
criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2.  Pl ease provide detailed information on how 
the payments under "crop insurance scheme"  comply with criteria (a) to (e) of 
paragraph 8. 
The details relating to the National Agricu ltural Insurance Scheme are available on 
the website of the organisation that impl ements the scheme, i.e. the Agriculture 
Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., and has already been provided (G/AG/W/94, 
paragraph 58 refers).  India believes that Government support in the form of bearing 
the loss in excess of the premium as in th e National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is 
covered by paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
(b) The reply India provided seems to indicate  that the insurance covers for losses of 
yield.  Please confirm if this understanding is correct. 
India confirms that this understanding is correct.  
(c) What mechanisms in the scheme ensure that "Payments shall compensate for 
not more than the total cost of replaci ng such losses and shall not require or 
specify the type or quantity of future production"? 
The indemnity is calculated as follows:  
(Shortfall in yield / Threshold yield) * Sum insured for the farmer. 
where shortfall in yield = Threshold yield – Actual yield. 
Thus, the Scheme does not require or specify the type or quantity of future 
production. 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Negative support amounts 
76. Question by the European Union:  Does Indi a's reply to question 34 at the Committee on 
Agriculture of 29-30 September 2011 imply that re gardless of the practice of notifying negative 
AMS (generated by MPS calculations) India woul d in any case not off-set positive AMS with 
negative AMS? 
The negative figures reflect the result of the me thodology for calculating product-specific or 
non-product-specific AMS since G/AG/AGST/IND. G/AG/W/96 
Page 44  
 
  India is also aware that some Members offset positive AMS amounts with negative AMS in 
their calculations of product-specific as well as non-product-specific AMS. 
9. Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) 
(a) Transparency issues 
77. Questions by: 
(a) Australia:  Indonesia's domestic support notification is missing a Table DS:1.  
Can Indonesia please amend its notification to include this Table? 
(b) United States:  The United States notes that Indonesia has not provided a 
Table DS:1 for the years concerned in its most recent notification 
G/AG/N/IDN/30 as required.  The United States requests Indonesia to include 
Table DS:1 as a corrigendum to G/AG/N/I DN/30.  When does Indonesia plan to 
notify domestic support for 2001 to 2003? 
With regard to Table DS:1 notification fo r the years 2004-2008 (G/AG/N/IDN/30), Indonesia 
would like to clarify that all support measure s during those reporting years fell within the 
"exempt" category, i.e. Green Box and Article  6.2 Development Programmes.  The necessary 
information was included in Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2.  In the absence of support 
measures falling within the non-exempt Ambe r Box (AMS) category, and being a Member 
with no Total AMS commitment in the Schedule, Indonesia does not consider it necessary to 
include an empty summary Table DS:1 in the notification. 
78. Question by Canada:  Canada is unable to fi nd Indonesia's notification (Table DS:1) for 
the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.  When will Indo nesia submit notifications for these years? 
As regards the outstanding Table DS:1 notifica tions for the period 2001-2003, Indonesia is in 
the process of collecting and analysing data in  order to fulfil the no tification obligation. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
79. Question by Australia:  Australia notes that under Supporting Table DS:1, for the 
"Public stockholding for food security purposes" the description of the measure notes this is for 
"price stabilization purposes".  Can Indonesia please describe the manner in which this 
programme is used to "stabilise prices" and ho w this is in accordance with the objectives 
established in paragraph 1 and procurement req uirements established under paragraph 3 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
80. Questions by Canada:  In Supporting Tabl e DS:1 "b) Public stockholding for food 
security purposes", Indonesia notes that support  was provided for "reserve stock for emergency 
and price stabilization purposes": 
(a) Could Indonesia please clarify how "pri ce stabilization purposes" contributes to 
food security?  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 45 
 
 
  (b) Could Indonesia please provide informatio n on how the prices were determined 
for the purchase of the reserve stocks? 
 Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
81. Questions by the United States:  The United States notes that Indonesia maintains 
"reserve stock for emergency and price stabilizatio n purposes" and that it ranged significantly 
in monetary value during the years notified. 
(a) Please explain how the reserve stock programme operates and what products 
are covered. 
 Article 1 of the Decree of the Minister of Trade No. 4/2012 states that the reserve 
stock will be used under the Government 's instruction for certain emergency 
circumstances, such as food scarcity in th e aftermath of natural disasters and price 
volatility, and for the purpose of intern ational cooperation on food stocks.  The 
product covered is rice.  The rice reserve is built and maintained through 
Government's purchases of domestic production during the harvest season and importation during the off-harvest season. 
(b) Please identify how the price stabilization component of the stock programme 
meets the requirements of Annex 2 paragraph 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture, including specifically "s tocks shall correspond to predetermined 
targets related solely to food security" and "food purchases by the Government shall be made at current market prices and sales from the food security stocks 
shall be made at no less than the current domestic market price". 
 The price stabilization component of th e Indonesian rice reserve stock programme 
meets the requirements of Annex 2 paragr aph 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
The rice stock is established in accordance w ith a predetermined decision of targets, 
financed through the State budget and its distribution is directed towards guaranteeing rice availability and affordability for consum ers at large and particularly for low-
income population.  
(c) Please provide references to documents where Indonesia's measure can be 
located for further understanding. 
 Please refer to the Decree of the Minister of Trade No. 4/2012 concerning the use of 
Government reserve stock for price st abilization and Presidential Instruction 
(INPRES) No. 3/2012 concerning rice procurement policy and rice distribution by the 
Government.  
(ii) Domestic food aid 
82. Question by Australia:  There has been a significant rise in Domestic Food Aid 
payments over the period 2004-2008.  Can Indo nesia please provide further details on the 
RASKIN programme and how this operates bearing in mind the criteria established in 
paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
The Government of Indonesia's RASKIN ("Rice for the Poor") programme distributes rice to 
the needy and poor families nationwide through BULOG ("National Logistic Agency").  The 
programme is state-financed by the Governme nt of Indonesia with an allocation of 
USD 4,000 billion per year (Rp 4 Trillion per year).  The RASKIN programme distributes 15 G/AG/W/96 
Page 46  
 
  to 20 kilogrammes of rice per household mont hly to a total of 10.83 million households 
classified as eligible.  This real food support ai ms to ensure food security in poor households. 
(c) Article 6.2– Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
83. Question by Australia:  Australia notes the increasing trend on input subsidies over the 
period 2004-2008.  Can Indonesia please provide  further details on these programmes to 
improve inputs, including inputs covered and the overall number of farmers eligible under these 
programmes? 
Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
84. Questions by Canada:  In Supporting Table DS:2, Indonesia reports increasing use of 
domestic support measures classified under Ar ticle 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(development programmes).  Support levels incre ased from Rp 2.2 thousand billion in 2004 to 
Rp 8.3 thousand billion in 2007 and then more than doubled to Rp 19 thousand billion in 2008. 
(a) Could Indonesia please explain what facto rs have contributed to these increasing 
support levels, and in particular the large increase from 2007 to 2008? 
The Farming Input Assistance Programme pr ovides input subsidies (i.e. fertilizers, 
seed and credit facilities) to low-income or poor farmers.  During the period 2006-
2008 there were significant increases in: 
- The volume of subsidized seed (non -hybrid rice, composite corn and 
soybean) and the price of seed (particularly non-hybrid rice and composite corn); 
- The Government Purchase Price for s ubsidized fertilizers (Urea, SP-36, ZA, 
dan NPK); 
- Bank interest rates; - Organic fertilizer (included in the calculation of subsidies); and - The implementation of additional types of subsidies for credit facilities 
programmes. 
(b) Does Indonesia expect support levels to co ntinue to increase at a significant rate? 
  Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
85. Questions by the United States:  The Farming Input Assistance Programme, Indonesia's 
Government support for inputs to agricul ture, is unclear in the notification. 
(a) Is this a loan interest subsidy sometimes referred to as Food Security Credit 
("Kredit Ketahanan Pangan")? 
(b) What were the funds paid to fertilizer manufacturers under the fertilizer 
subsidy scheme that supported the Highest Retail Price (HET) programme?  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 47 
 
 
  (c) What were the subsidies paid to help farmers purchase or obtain seed, 
specifically, the Direct Superior Seed Aid (BLBU) programme, which provides free hybrid and certified seeds to farmers? 
(d) How does Indonesia define low-inco me or resource-poor producers? 
 Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
(d) Classification of measures 
86. Questions by the United States:  The Unit ed States understands that Indonesia has a 
Government purchase price ("Harga Pembelian Pemerintah") (HPP) for rice that is set each year and used to control the market price of  rice.  As the United States understands the 
programme, the HPP operates as minimum price s upport programme and should be notified in 
Supporting Table DS:5. 
(a) Please explain how the HPP is accounted  for in Indonesia's notification. 
(b) Please confirm that beyond the rice price noted above, Indonesia's agricultural 
policies provide no other administered agricultural price.  Specifically, please provide this confirmation for two separate periods:  a) the periods in this 
notification (2004-2008) and b) the yet-to-be notified periods 2001-2003. 
(c) If Indonesia considers this part of it s "reserve stock for emergency and price 
stabilization purposes," then please explai n how this meets the requirements of 
paragraph 3 footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
10. Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/37) 
(a) Transparency issues 
87. Question by the European Union:  Could Morocco please confirm that in the years 
covered by the notification no market price support existed for any product? 
On the subject of agricultural market price support, Morocco granted no such support for any 
agricultural product during the period from 2003 to 2007.  In fact, since the deregulation of 
the commodities subsectors (cereal, sugar and oil seeds) in 1996, Morocco has not granted any 
price support. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Domestic food aid 
88. Question by the European Union:  Domestic food aid more than doubled from 2003 to 
2007.  Could Morocco please explain how this pr ogramme works, which products are covered 
and who can benefit from it? 
Regarding domestic food aid, Morocco gran ts consumer subsidies on commodities, 
i.e. domestic common wheat flour and sugar, for the disadvantaged populations.  This subsidy 
reflects the difference between the cost pr ice and the subsidized consumer price. G/AG/W/96 
Page 48  
 
  The substantial increase in the amount of this  subsidy from 2003 to 2007 was due mainly to 
the surge in world wheat prices in 2007 following climatic vagaries, low output in the main 
exporting countries, and the decrease in world wheat stocks. 
(c) Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low income or resource poor producers 
89. Question by Canada:  In Supporting Table DS:2 , Morocco reports increasing levels of 
support to low-income or  resource-poor fruit farmers in the fo rm of price subsidies for selected 
seeds and seedlings.  Could Morocco please explain how it distinguishes between low-income or 
resource-poor fruit farmers and other fruit farmer s in the administration of this support 
measure? 
With regard to input subsidies generally availa ble to low-income or resource-poor producers, 
it should be noted that in Morocco, the majority  of farmers have small agricultural plots and 
are therefore resource-poor.  In fact, almost 86 per cent of farms have a utilized agricultural area (UAA) of no more than five hectares, and almost 13 per cent of farmers have a UAA of between 5 and 20 hectares. 
The input subsidies generally available to low- income or resource-poor producers consist of 
aid for the use of selected cereal seeds and for fruit -farming.  This State aid is granted within 
the framework of the Agricultural Development Fund (FDA). 
Subsidies allocated for the use of certified cereal seed (common wheat, durum wheat and 
barley) are paid by the FDA to accredited seed companies.  They involve State payment of 
costs relating to the transport and storage of cer eal seed, with a view to ensuring the regular 
supply of selected seed to farmers. 
Aid for fruit-farming consists of subsidies for purchasing plants and is only granted in 
recognized fruit-growing areas and for certain sp ecies (olive trees, almond trees, etc.) suited 
to the conditions in disadvantaged regions, with a view to improving the incomes of small-scale farmers. 
Around 80 per cent of the subsidy allocated fo r purchasing plants is granted to small-scale 
farmers with very fragmented farms.  At the beginning of each crop year, these farmers 
submit their plant requirements to the external  services of the Department of Agriculture;  
each farmer receives a certain number of plants depending on the number of farmers registered and plant availability, which vary from year to year. 
90. Question by the European Union:  Could Mo rocco please explain how "low income or 
resource-poor producers" are defined, in particular for the fruit-farming sector? 
Morocco undertook to provide a response to this question at a later stage. 
(d) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
91. Questions by: 
(a) the European Union:  Could Morocco pl ease explain how the storage subsidy for 
cereals notified in Supporting Table DS:7 works?  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 49 
 
 
  (b) the United States:  The recent notifica tions are very much appreciated.  
Unfortunately, very little is currently understood about the operation of the two 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7. 
- Please provide additional details regarding the storage subsidies for 
cereals and the production subsidies for sunflowers. 
- Please include how Morocco im plements these programmes. 
- It would be helpful if Morocco could indicate the value of production for 
these two commodities (cereals and sunflowers) in each of the respectively notified years. 
 Concerning the operation and implementation of  the storage subsidies programme for cereals 
during the period from 2003 to 2007, only the storage organizations (grain traders and 
cooperatives) that are registered with the Na tional Interprofessional Cereals and Pulses Board 
(ONICL) are eligible for the storage premium of 2DH per quintal every two weeks on the quantities of domestically produced common wheat  procured and declared to the ONICL.  
However, the quantities in open air storage have  not been eligible for the storage premium 
since the 2005 harvest. 
 The producer price value for cereal production (not including rice) is estimated as per Table 1 
in Annex 4 . Regarding the operation and implem entation of the production subsidy 
programme for sunflowers during the period fro m 2003 to 2007, the producer price value for 
sunflower production is estimated as per Table 2 in Annex 4 . 
 A deficiency payment is provided for the pr oduction of sunflower seeds for crushing.  The 
payment is made to the Moroccan Agricultu ral Products Marketing Company, which is 
responsible for collecting the sunflower seed  and paying the farmers, applying a profit 
margin. 
 This deficiency payment applies only to the quantities collected between July and November 
of each year and actually delivered to the crushers. 
11. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) 
(i) Scheduled commitment level 
92. Questions by Australia:  Norway's AMS suppo rt (see Table DS:1) is again on the rise 
(10,232 NKr in 2012 compared with 9,648.5 NKr in 2009).  Norway breached its AMS 
commitments in 2008 and made subsequent chang es to its support to beef, removing the target 
price.  Australia understands there have been de liberate policy decision s to increase target 
prices for a number of products includi ng milk, pork, and sheep and eggs.13  What other 
reforms are envisaged to ensure that overall AMS levels are maintained at a level to ensure that it does not risk another breach of commitments? 
The situation that occurred in 2008 was unfort unate, but was promptly rectified as changes 
were made to the support system for beef.  Norw ay would like to emphasise that it respects its 
                                                      
13 See "Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2011:  OECD Countries and Emerging 
Economies" http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_2649_37401_48625184_1_1_1_37401,00.html . G/AG/W/96 
Page 50  
 
  WTO obligations, and that it monitors the level of AMS support carefully.  Possible future 
reforms are under consideration, and will  be implemented as and when needed. 
(ii) Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
93. Questions by the European Union:  The Eu ropean Union understands that market price 
support for beef as notified in Supporting Table DS :5 does not exist anymore since 1 July 2009.   
(a) Is the understanding of the European Un ion correct that since then the new 
support for beef has been created and notified in Supporting Table DS:8? 
 Price support for beef used in processed ag ricultural products (PAPs) has existed for 
several years.  It was not previously notified separately, as the support was a part of the price difference between the administer ed target price and the world market 
reference price.  Until 1 July 2009, it was notified as Amber Box support in 
Supporting Table DS:5.  Since 1 July 2009, it is notified as price support in Supporting Table DS:8. 
(b) Could Norway please explain the functioning of the price support for beef, 
poultry and potatoes notified in Supporting Table DS:8? 
 The scheme allows for equal competition as regards input raw material costs for 
Norwegian producers and European Union producers, for processed agricultural 
products subject to reciprocal free trade under Protocol 3 to the Agreement on the 
European Economic Area (EEA) between Norw ay, Iceland and the European Union. 
 Poultry underwent a reform in 2007, while potatoes were subject to reform in 2002. 
Follow-up:  Australia welcomed the possibility of future reforms in Norway and looked forward to 
receiving details on when such reforms would take pl ace.  The European Union reserved the right to 
come back on the questions at a later stage. 
12. Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) General services:  pest and disease control 
94. Question by the European Union:  Why di d spending on "pest and disease control" 
increase significantly in 2009 and 2 010 compared to earlier years? 
Spending on "pest and disease control" incr eased significantly in 2009 and 2010 due to a 
significant growth in Paraguayan agricultural pr oduction, which was reflected in an increase 
of the sanitary service budget. 
The services responsible for pests and diseases went  through a reform process in 2005.  The 
role played by the Ministry of Agriculture wa s decentralized to two other different entities, 
one for seed services and another for animal he alth and quality.  These entities went through a 
period of consolidation for several years, during which they better defined their work, goals and commitments and also consolidated its sy stems of revenues and expenses.  Since 2009 
much of the revenue generated by these institutions  came to be reinvested in the fight against 
pest and diseases, in different forms, including:  opening of regional offices, staffing, training, 
purchase of supplies, and so on.  This additiona l reinvestment, is meeting the decentralization  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 51 
 
 
  objectives, to achieve greater territorial cove rage and meet the growth in agricultural 
production and livestock.  Part of the increase also  reflects the adequacy of the records in the 
public accounts of the entities. 
Paraguay emphasises its efforts to fulfil its comm itments timely, especially given its status as 
a developing economy, with characteristics su ch as low levels of human resources. 
(b) Article 6.2 – Input subsidies available to low-income or resource-poor producers 
95. Question by the European Union:  Could Paraguay please provide details on the 
measure "food security support for family fa rming" notified under "investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture"?  What type  of support was provided under this measure?  
The European Union understands this me asure was no longer applied in 2010. 
There is a national food and nutrition security programme which has multiple components.  
The objectives of the national Government plan were established at the beginning of the 
current presidential term (2008).  Some of the programmes that are part of the plan can be 
renamed and/or receive lower budgets from year to  year.  They are also subject to variation 
according to their performance and revenues, so they can be rescheduled  throughout the year. 
The general aim is not to lose sight of the ob jectives of the national Government plan, the 
implementation of its components and, depending  on the political situation, being able to 
adjust the budgets. 
The national Government plan has three pillars:  a) availability of technology, infrastructure 
and land suitable for crop development, b) access to employment, markets and marketing, and 
c) food quality and safety, use and consumption of healthy products.  In order to achieve these 
objectives, cultural aspects (e.g. community and family), education and human capital 
development, political institutions and stability of resources (e.g. legal stability, weather 
information, soil care) are all taken into consideration. 
In particular, the Food Safety Plan and Family Farming of 2009 included among its 
components:  a) estimates of expenditures for training and assistance in the commercialization 
of products in local markets in order to strengthen community organizations, b) access to 
financial resources, c) assistive technology (sel ection of varieties and species, recovery of 
soil, production planning), and d) the regularization of property titles. 
13. Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/AG/N/SAU/7) 
(a) Transparency issues 
96. Question by the European Union:  For the sake of transparency, the European Union 
would request Saudi Arabia to consider incl uding values of production used for the de minimis  
calculation in Supporting Table DS:4. 
Values of production used for the de minimis  calculation in Supporting Table DS:4 have been 
indicated clearly in Annex 3, page 13 of document G/AG/N/SAU/7. G/AG/W/96 
Page 52  
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Public stockholding for food security purposes 
97. Questions by the European Union:  In rel ation to footnote 2 in Table DS:1, the 
understanding of the European Union is that the stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes 
are acquired and released at administered prices. 
(a) Could Saudi Arabia please confirm that the difference between the acquisition 
price and the external reference price is accounted for in AMS in Supporting Table DS:5? 
 The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia confirms th at the difference between the acquisition 
price and the external reference price is accounted for in the calculation of AMS in 
Supporting Table DS:5 for stocks of foodstuffs for food security purposes. 
(b) Which grains are eligible for public st ockholding notified under paragraph 3 of 
Annex 2? 
 Wheat is the only grain crop nowadays elig ible for public stockholding notified under 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2. 
E. N
EW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/91 and G/AG/N/CAN/91/Corr.1) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
98. Questions by Australia: 
(a) Cull Breeding Swine Programme:  The objective of this programme is to 
restructure the industry "by assisting producers to exit the industry or to 
permanently downsize their operations" which is consistent with paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  However, the key components of the programme refers to "emptying at le ast one barn and to not restock for a 
three-year period".  How is this latter point consistent with the objective of 
having producers exit the industry if there is a possibility that they might restock 
after benefiting from the payments und er this programme.  What has been the 
result of this programme (noting that it commenced in 2007) in terms of overall swine numbers? 
 According to the Canadian Pork Coun cil – Cull Breeding Swine Programme Annual 
Report (31 March 2010), the programme was successful in assisting producers to exit 
the industry.  The programme resulted in a reduction of 8.4 per cent in the national 
breeding swine herd or 128,175 head.  Ther e was no evidence of these facilities being 
restocked after producers participated in the programme.  The Hog Statistics report 
(26 April 2012) from Statistics Canada repor ts that in April 2012 there were 6,780 
hog farms with a breeding inventory of 1.31  million head, as compared to 9,230 hog 
farms with a breeding inventory of 1.47 million head in April 2008. 
(b) Hog Farm Transition Programme:  Ca n Canada please explain how this 
programme meets the requirements of paragraph 1(b) of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement of Agriculture?  How is a nati onal auction or tendering system that  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 53 
 
 
  allows producers to propose the minimum amount of assistance they are willing 
to accept to cease future production not in effect price support to producers? 
 The Hog Farm Transition Programme pr ovided several tendering opportunities over 
the course of the programme.  This approach  was used to allow an orderly disposition 
of hogs to minimize the impact on the market during a difficult period for the sector.  
All eligible producers submitted bids for the minimum amount of assistance they 
would be prepared to remove all future  hog production from facilities for at least 
three years, following the complete emptying of all barns.  Payments were awarded to 
lowest bids first, followed by successively hi gher bids until all funds were exhausted. 
§ The competitive bidding process allowed each  producer to self-estimate the support 
needed to cease production and to keep all their barns empty for a minimum of three 
years.  This was not price support provided to producers as it was not a set amount per animal but was the total amount each winning bidder estimated that they needed 
to cease production and keep all their barns empty for a minimum period of three years.  The programme did not set a payment per animal.  It was not based on the 
marketing of hogs (per animal or kilogram) that remained in their barns or future 
production.  The programme therefore meet s the criteria under paragraph 1(b) of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
99. Questions by the European Union: 
(a) In the Canadian notification, several meas ures are notified as compliant with 
more than one paragraph of Annex 2.  How does Canada notify spending under 
these measures in Table DS:1? Are amounts divided between different 
paragraphs? 
 In Canada's Table DS:2 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/91 and Corr.1), the Growing 
Forward Policy Framework outlines three national policy outcomes:  (i) A Competitive and Innovative Sector;  (ii) A Sector that Contributes to Society's 
Priorities;  and (iii) A Sector Proactive in Managing Risks.  Each policy outcome is 
sub-divided into "thematic" categories set out  in the Framework Agreement.  In some 
instances, individual initiatives may fall under the same "thematic" category but meet the criteria of different paragraphs unde r Annex 2;  for example training and 
extension and advisory services may fall under the same "theme" in Growing Forward but would be reported under differe nt paragraphs in Annex 2.  Canada 
reports expenditures of these initiatives accordi ng to their proper classifications in the 
Table DS:1 notification (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and Corr.1). 
(b) In relation to the measure "Support for National Organisations (and Business 
Development)", could Canada please expl ain what the "specific sectors in 
transition" referred to under (iv) are? 
There are a number of sectors in transition a nd facing significant pressure to adjust to 
negative economic circumstances and for which a province or territory would wish to provide special provisions under the Business Development programme (e.g. additional benefits, different cost-sharing a rrangements, etc.).  Business Development 
helps farmers to access advisory services, training, skills, knowledge and other tools to help them make more well-informed management decisions and to succeed in 
farming. G/AG/W/96 
Page 54  
 
  (c) In relation to the measure "Income Disaster Component of AgriStability 
Programme", does Canada include public support in the calculation of the producer's margin? 
The AgriStability programme together with  AgriInsurance (production insurance) 
helps producers manage business risk.  To be allowable in AgriStability's margin 
calculation, income and expenses must be di rectly related to the primary production 
of agricultural commodities.  Payments fro m AgriInsurance are included as part of 
allowable income and premiums are included as part of the allowable expenses in the 
calculation of the producer's margins for both the claim year and the reference years.  
The programme takes paragraph 7(d) of Anne x 2 into consideration so that there are 
no duplicate payments for the producer's  total loss under paragraphs 7 and 8 of 
Annex 2. 
(d) In relation to the measure "Income Disaster Component of AgriStability 
Programme" notified under paragraph 7 of Annex 2, how does Canada define 
and treat "payments from the same or similar scheme" in the margin 
calculation? 
In general, payments received from programmes other than AgriInsurance 
(production insurance) are considered  non-allowable income for programme 
purposes.  However, certain programme payments (e.g. AgriRecovery) may be considered allowable in the claim year but  not allowable in the reference years if 
these payments compensate for a loss that  is covered by AgriStability.  Such 
payments would be considered as "from th e same or similar scheme", and therefore 
are excluded in the reference margin calcu lation stipulated by paragraph 7(a) of 
Annex 2. 
2. Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/39) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
100. Question by Canada: Regarding the organic  production programme for small and 
medium producers ("Reconocimiento de Benefici os Ambientales para la producción Orgánica 
(RBAO) para los micro, pequeños y medianos pr oductores orgánicos") could Costa Rica please 
explain how it ensures compliance with paragrap h 12 of Annex 2?  Specifically, what methods 
are used to ensure that the amount of payment is no greater than a producer's loss of income 
involved in complying with the programme? 
 The programme seeks to cover the supplementary costs incurred by micro, small and 
medium-sized producers participating in the or ganic agriculture programme; therefore, the 
payment calculation formula does not provide for a loss of income component. 
 The payment is calculated on the basis of a fixed component of US$100 and a variable 
component according to the certified area, the value of the environmental service and the relative value of the effort not to contaminat e.  The relative value of the environmental 
service and the relative value of the effort not to contaminate ar e established by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and linked to the use of land. 
 The total of the budgeted funding comes from 0.1 per cent of the annual revenue from the 
single tax on fuel, as provided for in Article 38 of Law No. 8591.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 55 
 
 
  (ii) Direct payments:  decoupled income support 
101. Question by the European Union:  In  relation to the measure "Temporary 
unemployment subsidy programme for small agr icultural producers adversely affected by 
national emergency situations", could Costa Rica  please indicate "the defined and fixed base 
period" as required by paragraph 6(a) of Annex 2? 
For the purposes of this programme, the refere nce for granting income support was the basic 
wage decreed by the Ministry of Labour  during the base period July-December 2010. 
3. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/8) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) 
(i) Direct payments:  structural adjustment a ssistance provided through investment aids 
102. Questions by Canada:  Under the new measure "Reform of the Common Market 
Organisation in the wine sector" support may be gr anted in exchange for grubbing-up of vines.  
This support is notified under Annex 2, paragr aph 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture and is 
reported in the European Union's recent Table DS:2  notification.  The Table DS:2 notification 
does not provide sufficient details to show how the "grubbing up of vines" measure meets the 
criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 11.  Please provide , in detail, how the measure is implemented: 
(a) What are the clearly defined criteria for receiving these payments? 
  Details of this measure can be found in Council Regulation 479/2008 referred to in 
notification G/AG/N/EU/8. 
  This support is given in response to objec tively demonstrated structural disadvantages 
and is intended as a temporary accompanying measure aimed at creating a wine 
sector which is attuned to market conditions.  We invite Canada to consult recital 68 
of the above mentioned Regulation, which reads: 
  "As a further accompanying measure aimed at creating a wine sector which is 
attuned to market conditions, a grubbing- up scheme should be introduced.  Where 
producers consider that the conditions in certain areas are not conducive to viable 
production, they should be given the option of cutting their costs and permanently withdrawing these areas from wine produc tion and should be enabled either to 
pursue alternative activities on the relevant area or to retire from agricultural 
production altogether." 
(b) What are the objectively demonstrated structural disadvantages that define a 
producer's eligibility for such payments? 
  Clearly-defined criteria for receiving the payments are contained in Article 100 of the 
above mentioned Regulation which prov ides for "Conditions of eligibility". 
(c) How are the payments calculated? Are th ey related to the type or volume of 
production? 
  The amount of the grubbing-up premium is not related to type or volume of 
production undertaken by the producer, nor is  it related to prices.  The payment is 
calculated on the basis of a historical performance of the area. G/AG/W/96 
Page 56  
 
  (d) What is the overall policy objective of the measure? 
  The grubbing-up premium is only granted for the period necessary for the realisation 
of the investment and is limited to th e amount required to compensate for the 
structural disadvantage. 
(e) Please explain in detail how the "grubbi ng up" scheme meets each and every 
criteria outlined in Annex 2, paragraph 11. 
  This measure does not mandate or designate  in any way the agricultural products to 
be produced.  Areas can be permanently withdrawn from wine production, and it is 
up to producers to decide whether to pursu e alternative activities on that land or to 
retire from agricultural production. 
(b) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
103. Question by the United States:  The United  States notes that the European Union's 
Table DS:2 covers measures back to 2008.  Please explain why the notification was not 
submitted prior to this time. 
 The publication of annual European Union notif ications is accompanied by the relevant 
Table DS:2 notifications for new and modified Green and Blue Box measures as contained in 
the Table DS:1 notification for the marketing y ear in question.  Table DS:2 notifications  
provide full documentation of the on-going refo rms reflected in the European Union's annual 
notifications.  The Table DS:1 and DS:2 notifi cations presented for review at this meeting 
cover spending under the 2009 European Union budget. 
F. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) 
1. European Union (G/AG/N/EU/6) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitments (Article 9.1) 
(i) Transparency issues 
104. Questions by Australia:  Can the European Union confirm that its reporting of sugar 
"subsidized exports" in Supporting Table ES:1 is  calculated on the basis of licences issued 
rather than physical exports?  If so, is this only  the case for sugar or is this for all products 
which have export subsidy commitments? 
 The European Union confirms that quantities of  sugar under subsidized exports in Supporting 
Table ES:1 were calculated on the basis of li cences issued.  Quantities of subsidized exports 
have been calculated on the basis of licences issu ed for all products included in Table ES:1. 
(ii) Scheduled commitments 
105. Question by Australia: Australia notes that according to the European Union's sugar 
balance sheet14 physical exports for the same period (2009/2010) reached 2,115 ('000 tonnes) – 
which is higher than the European Union's annua l export subsidies commitment of 1,374.4 ('000 
tonnes).  It would appear that the European Union's procedure of issuing licences towards the 
end of the marketing year can result in varia tions in physical exports which do not match 
                                                      
14 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sugar/ balance-sheets/balance-sheet_en.pdf   G/AG/W/96 
 Page 57 
 
 
  licences issued and a lumpiness in trade which a ffects other sugar exporters.  Can the European 
Union confirm when licences were issued for th e 2,115 ('000 tonnes) of physical exports in 
2009/2010? 
 During the marketing year 2009/2010, licences for exports of sugar were issued as of 
1 October 2009 (Commission Regulation 274/ 2009 refers), as of 8 November 2009 
(Commission Regulation 1044/2009 refers), and as of 7 February 2010 (Commission 
Regulation 94/2010 refers). 
106. Question by the United States:  The United States is aware that the European Union has 
undertaken in recent years rather significant reforms in the sugar market and that certain supply and demand issues have also been faced.  Pl ease explain footnote 11 in Table ES:1 with 
respect to export subsidies for sugar. 
 Footnote 11 (" These exports did not attract any export refunds ") clarifies that the quantities of 
sugar notified under subsidized exports and under food aid did not benefit from any direct 
export refunds.  The quantity of sugar notif ied under subsidized exports reflects the 
European Union's commitment on exports of out-of-quota sugar, following the findings of the 
Appellate Body in the dispute "EC – Export s ubsidies on sugar".  For further details, please 
refer to the report of the meeting of June 2011, where the United States asked a similar 
question (G/AG/W/86, question 41 refers). 
Follow-up: Australia, supported by Brazil, reitera ted its continuous con cerns regarding the European 
Union's sugar subsidy notification: export licences coul d be issued in a particular year, but actual 
exports could take place later while overlapping with  exports in subsequent marketing years.  The 
situation led to a fair degree of "lumpiness" in  trade with potential significance on international 
sugar prices.  The Australian Government did not  necessarily agree with the notification practice on 
the basis of licences issued; rath er, Australia would welcome notifica tions based on actual exports.  
Brazil mentioned that it had raised the issue during the November 2011 General Council, highlighting high sugar exports in a particular  year depending on the administration of licences.  European Union 
sugar exports were at least 5 per cent greater than their WTO bound limit in 2009/2010.  The 
European Union took note of the issues raised. 
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS:  QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA 
107. Egypt has not submitted export subsidy or  domestic support notifications to the 
Committee on Agriculture since 1999.  Can Egypt i ndicate when these overdue notifications will 
be submitted to the Committee on Agriculture? 
 Egypt reiterates its full support and commitment to the objective of transparency under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Egypt is aware of  its obligations in the framework of the 
Agreement, in particular those under Article 18.2, and acknowledges the importance of export 
subsidies and domestic support notifications in  terms of providing transparency and the 
general implementation of the Agreement. 
 Due to administrative and procedural reasons , Egypt has witnessed a delay in submitting its 
notifications.  In the meantime, the Eg yptian Delegation would like to express the 
commitment of the competent Egyptian Author ities to update its Table DS:1 and Table ES:1 
notifications as soon as possible. 
 Egypt confirms that it is making concerted effo rts to improve its system of notification not 
only at the Committee on Agriculture but also in other WTO committees.  Egypt has taken 
notice of the concerns expressed and will convey these to Cairo for further reaction and reply. G/AG/W/96 
Page 58  
 
  108. Indonesia's domestic support notification s for the years 2001 to 2003 have not been 
made available to Members although Australia not es the notification covering the period 2004 
to 2008 were submitted in March 2012.  Can Indonesia provide details on when these 
notifications might be made available? 
 Indonesia is in the process of analysing data  in order to fulfil its obligation and notify 
domestic support for the period 2001 to 2003. 
109. According to the latest status of notifi cations document, Turkey has not submitted 
export subsidy notifications since 2001 and domestic support notifications since 2002.  Can Turkey please indicate when the Committee on  Agriculture can expect to receive these 
notifications? 
 Turkey aims to submit its notifications in 2012, starting with the 2001-2002 tables. 
Follow-up:  Australia, supported by Canada and th e United States, emphasised that transparency 
considerations and Members' notifications were esse ntial for the Review Process to monitor the 
progress of agricultural trade policy reforms.  Canada underlined that the Committee on Agriculture 
had seen a reinvigoration, with Members paying more attention to outstanding notifications. 
_______________  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 59 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Responses by Brazil, (paragraphs 11 b) and 36 b)) 
 
Table 1 - Rice 
Crop year Benefits under PEP Brazilian production Brazilian exports 
1,000 tons US$ 1,000 1,000 tons US$ 1,000 1,000 tons US$ 1,000 
2006/2007 114 5,504 11,316 2,348,230 248 54,025 
2007/2008 30 1,876 12,074  3,816,473 285 108,473 
2008/2009 0 0 12,603 3,541,383 650 372,324 
2009/2010 0 0 11,661  3,535,943 513 214,937 
2010/20111 114 5,204 13,613 N.A. 619 264,214 
1 Provisional 
 
Table 2 - Wheat 
Crop year Benefits under PEP Brazilian production Brazilian exports 
1,000 tons US$ 1,000 1,000 tons US$ 1,000 1,000 tons US$ 1,000 
2006/2007 0 0 4,114 994,443 480 141,541 
2007/2008 610 45,410 6,027 1,473,516 373 107,540 
2008/2009 3,769 263,442 5,056 1,015,071 647 103,972 
2009/2010 376 12,662 6,171 1,414,687 1,795 408,430 
2010/20111 N.A. N.A. 5,800 N.A. 1,568 476,004 
1 Provisional 
 G/AG/W/96 
Page 60  
 
  A
NNEX 2 
Response by Chile (paragraph 52) 
Eligibility requirements for insurance payments 
Beneficiaries  
1. Agricultural producers who meet the following re quirements are eligible for the subsidy: 
(a) Producers who have registered their business with the Internal Revenue Service and 
are subject to value-added tax (VAT). 
(b) Producers who, although they do not meet the requirements of point 1 above, are 
credit clients of any of the following in stitutions:  the Agricultural Development 
Institute (INDAP), the State Bank of Chile and its subsidiaries;  other banks and 
financial institutions subject to the contro l of the Supervisory Authority for Banks 
and Financial Institutions;  savings and lo an cooperatives;  and institutions that 
manage the financial instruments of th e Economic Development Agency (CORFO) 
and/or other State bodies.  Amounts insured under this point may not exceed UF 250 per crop year. 
(c) Producers who take out an agricultural in surance policy that meets the operating 
requirements applicable to the insuran ce companies and insurance policies, as 
indicated hereunder. 
(d) Producers who pay the insurance company the non-subsidized part of the net 
premium as well as all VAT. 
Insurers  
2. In order to participate in the subsidy pr ogramme, insurance companies must meet the 
following requirements: 
(a) Be entered in the general insurance compan y register of the Supervisory Authority 
for Stock Corporations and Insurance Companies (SVS). 
(b) Sign a contract with COMSA
15 to participate in the programme and receive 
authorization to issue insura nce policies that, in compliance with the conditions set 
forth in the regulations, enable fa rmers to benefit from the subsidy. 
Insurance  policies  
3. Insurance policies must be taken out directly w ith the insurance compan ies and must meet the 
following requirements: 
(a) The general policy conditions must be registered with the Supervisory Authority for 
Stock Corporations and Insurance Companies (SVS) and approved by COMSA. 
                                                      
15 The Agricultural Insurance Committee (COMSA) was created by the CORFO Council in 2000 to 
promote agricultural insurance and manage the State subsidization of  the corresponding premiums.  The 
subsidies and Committee operating costs are financed from the Ministry of Agriculture budget and the necessary 
resources are transferred to CORFO on an annual basis by means of a fund  transfer agreement.  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 61 
 
 
  (b) The specific policy conditions, applicable to the type of crop (fruit or other) and 
area, must comply with the underwriting rules.  These COMSA-approved rules are a set of technical and economic underwriting pa rameters defined for each crop year in 
respect of planting and harvesting schedules,  yield, irrigation conditions, prices and 
rates. 
(c) Policies must be issued in unidades de fomento (UF, Chilean inflation-indexed 
monetary units).  Policies covering fruit trees may be issued in either UF or US dollars. 
Subsidy conditions 
4. The general subsidy will cover 50 per cent of the net premium, plus a fixed amount of 
UF 1.50 per policy up to a ceiling of UF 80 per farmer per crop year. 
(a) Until 30 June 2012, a special subsidy will be granted for cereal crops (rice, oats, 
barley, rye, maize and wheat), equivalent to 75 per cent of the net premium, plus a 
fixed amount of UF 0.60 per policy up to th e same ceiling of UF 80 per farmer per 
crop year. 
(b) Insurance companies undertake to issue th e respective invoices and credit notes in 
the policyholder's name for the full premium, including the subsidized part thereof. 
(c) The agricultural insurance web page at  http://www.seguroagricola.gob.cl provides 
more information. G/AG/W/96 
Page 62  
 
  A
NNEX 3 
Question by Australia (paragraph 59) 
 
Notification Year Current Total 
AMS ('000'US$) Primary contributing 
product Final Bound Total 
AMS('000'US$) 
G/AG/N/CRI/34/Rev.1 2011 104,485.86 
Rice 15,945.00 2010 109,676.32 
G/AG/N/CRI/30/Rev.1 2009 91,743.86 
2008 62,477.56 
  G/AG/W/96 
 Page 63 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
Response by Morocco (paragraph 91) 
 
 
Table 1 – Value of production of cereals 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
 (millions DH) 17,524.54 18,640.28 10,239.68 19,170.88 6,583.58 
 
 
Table 2 – Value of sunflower production 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
 (millions DH) 350.66 202.00 76.90 112.49 131.22 
 
 
__________