RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/94/Rev.1  
 
21 March 2013  
(13-1563)  Page: 1/46  
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 21 MARCH 20121 
Revision 
 The present document compiles the responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the 
questions raised in document G/AG/W/94 as well as follow-up comments made by Members during 
the Review Process.  
 The present revision reflects the inclusion of written responses submitted by Bahrain. It now comprehensively covers all the responses to questions raised in the March 2012 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture.  
                                               
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/94/Rev.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of Contents 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
 ARTICLE 18.6 ............................................................................................................... 4  
1.1   Obstruction of Market A ccess: Statement by  Argentina ................................................... 4  
1.2   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 4  
1.3   Egypt's Import  Ban on Cotton ..................................................................................... 5  
1.4   India's Export Ban on Cotton ....................................................................................... 6  
1.5   Switzerland's Complian ce with Articl e 9.1(c) .................................................................. 7  
1.6   Canada Ice Cream Promotion Init iative ......................................................................... 8  
1.7   Brazil's Domestic Programmes ..................................................................................... 9  
1.8   China's Cotton Reserv es Purchasing  System ................................................................. 10 
1.9   Ecuador's Import Licensing of Ce rtain Food and Agricu ltural Products ............................... 10 
1.10   India's Programme to Waive Agricult ural Debts ........................................................... 10 
1.11   Indonesia's Quantitative and Other Impo rt Restrictions on Ce rtain Food Products ............. 11 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 12  
2.1   Imports under Tariff and Othe r Quota Commitments (Table MA:2) ................................... 12 
2.1.1   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/174) ........................................................................................ 12 
2.1.2   Morocco (G/AG/N/MA R/35) ..................................................................................... 13 
2.1.3   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/63) ...................................................................................... 13 
2.2   Special Agricultural Safe guards (Tables MA :3 to MA:5) .................................................. 14 
2.2.1   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45) ........................................................................ 14 
2.2.2   Chinese Taipei  (G/AG/N/TP KM/92) ........................................................................... 15 
2.3   Domestic Support Co mmitments (Tab le DS:1) .............................................................. 16 
2.3.1   Albania (G/AG/N/AL B/6) ......................................................................................... 16 
2.3.2   Bahrain (G/AG/N/BH R/6) ........................................................................................ 16 
2.3.3   Barbados (G/AG/N/BR B/20) .................................................................................... 17 
2.3.4   Brazil (G /AG/N/BRA/27) ......................................................................................... 18 
2.3.5   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) ....................................................................................... 19 
2.3.6   China (G /AG/N/CH N/21) ......................................................................................... 22 
2.3.7   Colombia (G/AG/N/CO L/48) .................................................................................... 28 
2.3.8   India (G /AG/N/IN D/7) ............................................................................................ 29 
2.3.9   Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KO R/43/Corr.1) .............................................................. 34 
2.3.10   Nigeria (G/AG/N/NG A/15) ..................................................................................... 34 
2.3.11   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PR Y/19) ................................................................................... 35 
2.3.12   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/A G/N/VCT/2) ................................................... 35 
2.3.13   Togo (G /AG/N/TG O/2) .......................................................................................... 35 
2.3.14   Tonga (G/A G/N/TON/2/ Rev.1) ............................................................................... 36 
2.4   New or Modified Domestic Support Measures (Table DS:2) ............................................. 36 
2.4.1   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/33) ................................................................................... 36 
2.4.2   Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) ...................................................................................... 39 G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.5   Export Subsidy Notifi cations (Tables ES:1-ES:3) ........................................................... 39 
2.5.1   Costa Rica  (G/AG/N/ CRI/37) ................................................................................... 39 
3   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER AG ENDA ITEM I.B (II) ........................................................ 40  
3.1   Questions by Switzerland in relation to G/AG/N/C AN/89 ................................................. 40 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 41 
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... . 42 
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... . 43 
ANNEX 4 ....................................................................................................................... . 44 
ANNEX 5 ....................................................................................................................... . 45 
ANNEX 6 ....................................................................................................................... . 46 
 G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Obstruction of Market Access: Statement by Argentina 1.  The Argentine delegation would like to refe r back to the statement it made under this 
same agenda item at the 64
th regular meeting on 17 November 2011. As delegations 
may recall, the statement expressed concern ov er the growing use of import restrictions 
in the form of regulations that have no scie ntific or technical justification. Argentina 
appreciates all the support received at the last meeting and concludes that this is a 
relevant issue worthy of th e Committee's attention given it s effect on market access. 
The technical measures in question have a decisive impact on trade flows and are 
responsible for developing countries' integratio n, or non-integration, as exporters, into 
international trade, which for these countries is mainly agriculture-based. 
2.  Argentina believes that this  issue should be addressed in  a cooperative spirit, its aim 
being to resolve the problem, not simply di scuss it. With this in mind, Argentina once 
again urges Members to comply with the Agr eement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), 
as well as the standards of the Codex Alimen tarius Commission, th e World Organization 
for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. 
3.  Lastly, the non-application of the aforementioned Agreements and standards has a 
significant bearing not only on the present, but on the future, as the current situation 
would undermine, perhaps completely, the outc ome of the Doha Round negotiations on 
agricultural market access and the duty-f ree and quota-free access for agricultural 
products that is granted to least developed countries. 
Follow-up: The European Union expressed appreciation for Argentina's intent to raise the 
Committee's awareness on issues of concern to it. As a matter of principle, it was good to hear 
that Argentina was concerned by measures that restrict imports in a manner inconsistent with 
international obligations. The European Union shared Argentina's view regarding the importance of observing the provisions of all WTO agreements. In  this context, the European Union recalled that 
all Members had the right to apply TBT and SPS measures, provided that these were justified 
under the relevant WTO agreements. Both the European Union and the United States considered that ensuring good regulatory practice through transparency, inclusiveness and accountability was 
of utmost importance. The European Union sugges ted that topics of relevance to the work of 
specific WTO committees be discussed within the concerned committees in order to enable a useful 
and efficient dialogue between experts. The European Union was committed to actively participate in the work of the SPS and TBT Committees, which it considered relevant to discuss the issues 
raised by Argentina. Switzerland echoed the European Union remarks. 
1.2  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  4.  Questions by: 
(a) Canada: Canada appreciates the update s that Costa Rica has provided at 
past meetings of the Committee regard ing this issue. However, Canada 
reiterates the very serious concer ns expressed about Costa Rica's 
continuing violations of Article 3.2 of  the Agreement on Agriculture. What 
concrete steps has Costa Rica take n since the last meeting of the 
Committee to rapidly bring itself into compliance with the Agreement on Agriculture? 
(b) United States: The United States stro ngly urges Costa Rica to reduce its 
domestic rice support to be within its WTO commitment level. The United States and other Members have rais ed Costa Rica's breaching of its 
Aggregate Measurement of Suppor t (AMS) commitment on numerous 
occasions in the Committee on Agricult ure. Unfortunately, this breach of 
international rules has not only continued, but has increased. In early 2011, Costa Rica assured WTO Members that steps were being taken to 
reform its domestic rice policies with  the goals of (i) complying with its G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  WTO agricultural subsidy limits and (ii) providing targeted technical 
training and assistance in support of  the small-scale rice producers. In 
response to subsequently requested u pdates, Costa Rica has not provided 
any encouraging information. The Unit ed States requests Costa Rica to 
respond to the following questions: 
 Please provide details on concre te actions that Costa Rica has 
undertaken since the January 2011 proposed rice policy adjustment. 
 Please provide any factual information regarding intended and 
possible unintended consequences of the continued high subsidy rate for rice produc tion in Costa Rica. 
 The United States understands that a 2010 judicial ruling in Costa 
Rica mandated a minimum price (i .e., applied administered price) 
for rice of US$602 per tonne. Please provide details on any developments related to this judicial ruling since it was announced, 
and its impact on Costa Rica's ability to meet its obligations. 
With regard to Costa Rica's domestic support obligations, the process to correct AMS levels 
exceeding the maximum bound level has been delayed due to a judicial proceeding that set 
a price level of approximately US$600 per tonne, from the beginning of 2011, as a 
precautionary measure. Costa Rica is not in a position to give this Committee an estimate of when it will be able to bring its AMS levels into line with its commitments. 
Follow-up: The United States queried whether concrete changes had taken place since 
January 2011 to address the breach. Costa Rica co nfirmed that some actions had been taken but 
that no specific timelines could be indicated for the moment. As a major rice growing country, Pakistan expressed concerns about Costa Rica's increases in Current Total AMS. Pakistan sought 
clarification on the extent to which inflation was behind such increases and asked Costa Rica to 
share any views it might have on the applicability  of Article 18.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
in these circumstances. Pakistan further asked Costa Rica to supply details on producer prices as 
well as international prices at a later stage in order to enable the Committee to gain a better 
understanding of the situation at hand. In this regard, Australia, Japan and the United States endorsed the general thrust of Pakistan's follow-up comments. The United States underlined that some of the unintended consequences of Costa Rica's policies might be domestic while others 
might be international. 
1.3  Egypt's Import Ban on Cotton 5.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: the European Union has recently heard that the import 
ban on cotton has been removed. Could Egypt confirm that information and indicate whether such measures are going to be considered again in 
the future? In this respect, the European Union recalls the importance of 
compliance with WTO agreements.
2 
(b) United States: The United States woul d like to follow-up on the questions 
asked at the November 2011 meeting regarding Egypt's action to ban 
cotton imports for the 2011 season until the local crop is sold 
(2011 Ministerial Decree No. 1864). While recognizing the difficult 
situation of Egypt's domestic cotton market, the Decree appears to have 
provided virtually no benefit to Egypt's textile industry because the clause 
concerning importing for processing  and re-export has not appeared 
feasible to implement. The United States continues to have serious 
concerns about this ban and has the following questions: 
 What will be the end date of the import ban? 
                                               
2 The question contained in paragraph 5-6 of G/ AG/W/93 was modified by the European Union.  G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
   How is the ban consistent with Egypt's WTO commitments? 
On 25 October 2011, the Ministry of Indust ry and Foreign Trade and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Land Reclamation issued Decree No. 1864/2011 imposing a temporary import prohibition on cotton. This Decree was subsequently amended on 22 November 2011 
by virtue of Decree No. 652/2011 issued by the Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade and 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, setting up exceptions. Thus, the temporary import prohibition became a temporary restriction. 
The temporary import restriction on cotton maintained by Egypt was consistent with its WTO 
commitments, according to Article XI.2(c)(ii) of GATT 1994, which grants Members the right 
to adopt import restrictions on agricultural products that are necessary to remove a temporary surplus by making the surplus available to certain groups of domestic consumers 
free of charge or at a price below the current market level. The following reasons explain the 
grounds for the Egyptian decrees: 
 The decision to impose a temporary import restriction for cotton was determined 
for the 2011 harvest season, which started in October 2011 and will end at the 
end of April 2012. Thus, the measure is limited in time. 
 The Egyptian cotton crop doubled from 2.5 million quintals in 2010, to 
4 million quintals in 2011, not to mention the high stock levels remaining from the 
year 2010, which were estimated at 500,000 quintals. In addition, the demand for cotton in the local market fell by more than 60% from the previous season. 
 In order to remove the surplus, the quintal of cotton was sold at L.E. 850, whilst 
the international market value was L.E. 950 per quintal. 
Ministerial Decree No. 652 resulted in the admission of 800,000 quintals of cotton, in 
addition to 500,000 quintals that were imported before issuing Decree No. 1864, which 
resulted in total imports of 1.3 million quintals during the current cotton season, compared 
to 2 million quintals during the previous cotton season. Consequently, it is clear that the temporary import restriction did not affect the importation in full. 
In light of the analysis of Ministerial Decrees  No. 1864 and No. 652, it appears that they are 
not in violation of Article XI.2(c)(ii) of GATT 1994 that gives Members the right to impose import restrictions under certain conditions that Egypt has satisfied. Moreover, as per the information Egypt received from Cairo on 20 March 2012, Decree No. 1864 was cancelled by 
virtue of Decree No. 438 that was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture on 17 March 2012. 
Follow-up: The European Union and the United States welcomed Egypt's confirmation that the ban 
had already been removed. The United States observed that the effects of the measure could be 
potentially damaging on world markets. Furthermore, there were important considerations linked 
to transparency and predictability which were at the core of a rules-based organization such as the WTO. The European Union flagged its intentions to  follow-up on Egypt's specific references to 
Article XI of GATT 1994 at a later stage. 
1.4  India's Export Ban on Cotton 6.  Questions by: 
(a) E u r o p e a n  U n i o n :  A s  a  r e s u l t  o f  recent developments, the original 
questions were revised as follows:
3 
 Could India clarify the current state- of-play in relation to the ban on 
cotton exports? Has the ban been removed or suspended? 
 Could India provide information on the reasons behind this ban as 
well as explain its compliance with WTO agreements? 
                                               
3 The question contained in paragraph 8 of G/AG /W/93 was modified by the European Union.  G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  (b) United States: The United States notes that India has once again applied 
an export ban on cotton. 
 Please provide details on the application of the ban, including when 
the ban will be lifted. 
 Please describe the trade-related impact that the measure will have 
on the global cotton market, particularly in light of the disruption by India's previous ban. 
 Given the effects on the global cotton market, what opportunities 
did India provide Members to comment on the ban before it was implemented? 
A prohibition on the export of cotton was imposed through Notification 
No. 102 (RE-2010)/2009-14, dated 5 March 2012. Subsequently, Notification 
No. 106 (RE-2010)/ 2009-14 was issued on 12 March 2012 removing this prohibition. The prohibition is covered by Article XI of GATT 1994. 
Follow-up: The European Union and the United Stat es welcomed India's confirmation that the ban 
had been removed, reiterating the observations  made above concerning the importance of 
transparency, predictability as well as the potential impacts of such measures on international 
markets. The United States also took note of India's assertion that the prohibition was in line with 
WTO rules. 
1.5  Switzerland's Compliance with Article 9.1(c)  7.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: Following the replies provided by Switzerland to the 
questions by the European Union an d New Zealand at the September and 
November 2011 meetings of the Committee, the European Union still 
maintains its doubts on the compliance of the measure in question with 
Article 9 of the Agreement on Agricult ure. The compulsory contribution on 
milk is collected by a private organizati on but, as Switzerland states in its 
reply from the November 2011 meeting,  "… the Federal Council's decision 
… subjects non-members to measures decided upon by IP Lait". The European Union considers that this constitutes "governmental action, whether or not a charge on the public account is involved" in the sense of 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The European Union 
considers that the Swiss measure requ ires notification against export 
subsidy commitments. 
(b) New Zealand: At the September 2011 meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture, New Zealand expressed concerns about the Swiss compulsory levy on milk production to support  "relief on the butter market". New 
Zealand understands that the Swiss Go vernment will review  the levy order 
prior to its expiry on 30 April 2013. Notwithstanding Switzerland's reply 
on 17 November 2011
4, New Zealand is of the view that the levy order 
contravenes Switzerland's WTO commitments and would urge Switzerland 
to bring the review forward. 
The measure at issue is a private measure. The federal authorities do not receive any 
monies from this contribution of one centime per kilo of milk marketed to support relief 
measures on the milk-fat market, nor do they prescribe how it is to be used. Extension to 
non-members is simply a form of assistance to private regulation to avoid a private measure from being undermined by free-riders. It is  applicable until 30 April 2013. Switzerland 
considers itself to be in full compliance with its WTO obligations. 
                                               
4 Paragraph 12 of G/AG/W/92 refers. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Follow-up: The European Union and New Zealand co nsidered that Switzerland's present response 
was similar to the one supplied on previous o ccasions. Both Members remained yet to be 
convinced about the conformity of such governme nt intervention with the provisions of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and were looking forward to continuing discussions on this matter.  
1.6  Canada Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
8.  Canadian ice cream producers have benefited from the Ice Cream Promotion 
Initiative since 2009. New Zealand understands  that this is a subsidy programme which 
encourages ice cream manufacturers to su bstitute domestic dairy ingredients for 
imported dairy ingredients by offering disco unted milk/cream as an input for ice cream 
that contains 100% of Canadian dairy in gredients. New Zealand has sought further 
information about the Ice Cream Promotion In itiative at the 57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 
64th meetings of the Committee on  Agriculture. In response, Canada has stated that this 
is a purely commercial arrangement between  Dairy Farmers of Canada and ice cream 
producers. However, Canada has also ac knowledged that the Canadian Dairy 
Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation, calc ulates the pooling returns and sharing of 
promotion costs related to the programme. Fu rthermore, page 9 of the CDC's latest 
Annual Report 2010-2011 states: 
"The CDC chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee 
(CMSMC) and in this capacity, apprises the committee on matters of interest or concern that require reso lution and, when necessary, proposes 
various solutions, alternatives or recommendations to enhance orderly 
and efficient marketing with an eye to  avoiding deficit or surplus milk 
production. The CDC performs a similar role for the Eastern Canadian Milk Pool (P5) and the Western Milk Pool (WMP)." 
9.  To date, Canada has not provided any transparency about this programme, citing 
concerns about a confidentiality agreem ent between the CDC and Canadian dairy 
producers. New Zealand continues to seek further details about the nature of this 
programme and the role of the CDC and provin cial marketing boards in relation to it. 
New Zealand considers it legitimate to requ est Canada to provide greater transparency 
around this import replacement programme given that both a Crown corporation and 
provincial marketing boards governed by federal and provincial legislation play 
important roles in its administration and de cision-making. Particular questions are: 
(a) What is the function of the Milk P ooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in 
relation to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
As already noted in Canada’s response to the questions posed by New-Zealand at 
the 57
th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd and 64th Committee on Agriculture, the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative is a private contractual agreement, between the Dairy Farmers 
of Canada, a non-governmental organization, and individual ice cream processors. 
The CDC has no part in determining the terms and conditions of the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative. As the secretariat of the WMP Agreement and the Agreement 
on the Eastern Canadian Milk Pooling, its sole role is to perform the pooling 
calculations each month. 
(b) What is the function of the provincial  marketing boards in relation to the 
Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
On 20 March 2009, the CMSMC adopted the following motion: "that marketing 
boards from the ten Canadian provinces ag ree to create a fund to share the costs 
associated with the administration of the ice cream initiative effective as of 
1 January 2009" . G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  (c) What is the total value (Can$) of the pooling returns? 
The CDC is unable to provide the requested data. This information is of a 
confidential commercial nature and is provided to the CDC on the understanding by the participants that it will not be shared. 
(d) What is a breakdown of the promotion costs since the initiative was 
launched? 
The CDC does not receive a breakdown of the promotion initiative costs by ice 
cream manufacturer. It calculates the pooling returns and provincial sharing of 
promotion costs related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative which are included in the CDC’s aggregate revenue and cost sharing component of the pools.  
Follow-up: New Zealand expressed some frustration at Canada's response which was the same as 
that supplied on previous occasions, despite ef forts by New Zealand to table more specific 
questions. 
1.7  Brazil's Domestic Programmes 
10.  The United States understands that Br azil's Prêmio Equalizador Pago ao Produtor 
(PEPRO), Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP), and Prêmio de Risco para Aquisição de Produto Agricola oriundo de Co ntrato Privado de Opaç ão de Venda (PROP) 
programmes generally provide support to co vered products by paying the difference 
between the minimum support price and actual prices for product as determined through public auction. The Unit ed States also understands that  all production in eligible 
States is eligible for sale through the pub lic auction, but not all States necessarily 
participate. Further, the United States under stands that the programmes have remained 
essentially unchanged since Brazil's no tification for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 
(G/AG/N/BRA/26). Based on ma ny reports regarding Brazil' s increasing levels of 
domestic support, including through these programmes and subsidised credit, the 
United States is concerned about whether Br azil has exceeded the de minimis limit for 
certain products subsequently to its no tification for 2005/2006. These concerns 
highlight the importance of Members maintaining up-to-date notifications to the 
Committee, which ensures appropriate transp arency of Members' domestic support 
levels. 
(a) The United States remains interested in the more recent years' accounting 
by Brazil and developed this question regarding the post-2005/2006 
years. This issue may be partially answ ered via Brazil's recent notification 
(G/AG/N/BRA/27) for three years. Nonetheless, the United States 
requests Brazil to provide meaningful explanations regarding just notified 
data, including elaborating on details  concerning budgetary expenditures 
for at least these three newly-notified years. 
The elaboration of notifications is a complex process. The programmes mentioned 
in this question operate in different ways . PEPRO is notified as "non-exempt direct 
payments", while PEP and PROP are notified as "other product specific support". Eligibility differs according to the structure of the programmes. 
Brazil considers that its most recent domestic support notification covering 
marketing years 2006 to 2009 clarifies many of the points raised by the United 
States. The Brazilian delegation invites the United States to carefully analyse this 
notification. In case the United States has further questions related to the most 
recent domestic support notification, Brazil will be more than willing to provide in-depth responses in the next meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  
(b) Please provide data on Brazil's budge tary expenditures on PEPRO, PEP, 
and PROP for 2009/2010, for which th e United States understands that 
data are equally available at this time. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  For 2009/2010 crop year, there are no budgetary expenditures on PROP. The 
budgetary expenditures on PEPRO and PEP are shown in Annex 1. 
1.8  China's Cotton Reserves Purchasing System 11.  The United States thanks China for the responses provided during the 
November 2011 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. The United States has some 
follow-up questions: 
(a) Please confirm what cotton is eligible  for purchase under this programme? 
When market prices are below the reserve prices, all national cotton that meets 
the quality requirements can be purchased. 
(b) Please explain how cotton purcha sed under the programme is sold? 
The Government entrusts the administration of the Cotton Reserve Authority to 
sell the cotton openly in markets when needed. 
1.9  Ecuador's Import Licensing of Ce rtain Food and Agricultural Products 
12.  The United States appreciates Ecuador' s response to questions from the November 
2011 meeting, though not all of the questions were answered. Please confirm the 
existence and enforcement of an official  governmental memorandum (Memorandum 
No. MAGAP-SFG-2011-1757-M, 19 October 2011) which effectively limits the importation 
of certain agricultural and food products in favour of similar products produced 
domestically in Ecuador. 
13.  The United States has questions rega rding Ecuador's Ministerial Decree No. 172, 
dated 27 April 2011. Article 1 of the Decree st ates: "To regulate the exceptional granting 
of licences and permits for the importation of milk and its by-products by the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fish eries." Please define  what is meant by 
"exceptional" in this context and what the specific criteria are for making such a 
determination. 
14.  Article 2 of the Decree notes that "Exc eptionally, the Under-Se cretariat of Technical 
Services of this Ministry may grant licenc es and permits to import these products, 
following a technical assessment report issu ed by the Under-Secretariat of Livestock 
Development at MAGAP. The Un der-Secretariat of Livestoc k Development to issue the 
technical report must set import qu otas for milk and its derivatives." 
(a) Please explain the specific information that is contained in the referenced 
"technical assessment report" and th e process that is employed in 
establishing the referenced import quotas. 
(b) Regarding the latter point, how are these established and maintained in a 
manner that is consistent with Ecuador's WTO obligations? 
Ecuador would like to reiterate its responses concerning the import licensing of certain food 
and agricultural products, as reflected in document G/AG/W/92.
5 
1.10  India's Programme to Waive Agricultural Debts 
15.  The United States understands that Indi a implemented the Agricultural Debt Waiver 
and Debt Relief Scheme (ADWDRS) in 2008. This programme has provided US$10 billion 
in debt forgiveness for farmers since 2008. Un der what classification of support does 
India plan to notify this programme? 
                                               
5 Paragraph 16 of G/AG/W/92 refers. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  This was a one-time programme which has been closed. It will be accounted for in the 
notification of the relevant period. 
1.11  Indonesia's Quantitative and Other Import  Restrictions on Certain Food Products  
16.  The United States understands that the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture 
periodically establishes import quantities  for beef and other livestock and dairy 
products, which is correspondingly managed vi a the issuance of required import permits 
for these products. In addition, there are selected poultry products for which the 
Ministry of Agriculture will not even is sue import permits. The United States 
understands that Indonesia's WTO scheduled commitments do not include such quantitative import restrictions. Furthermore, the United States is concerned that the Government of Indonesia may be planning management of fruit and vegetable product 
imports via a similar quantitative import permit system. The United States requests that 
the Government of Indonesia provide responses to the following questions: 
(a) Does the Government of Indonesia currently utilise an import permit 
system for beef and other livestock and dairy products? If so, please 
explain this system. 
The importation of beef and other livestock and dairy products is regulated by the 
Decree of the Ministry of Trade No. 24/201 1 on Import and Export of Animals and 
Animal Products that came into effect on 1 October 2011. The objective of the Decree is to fulfil the need for foodstuffs and to support food security objectives.  
Imports will be conducted if the domestic production and supply of the products 
have not been sufficient to meet public consumption at affordable prices. Animal 
and animal products that can be imported are listed in Annex I and II of the Decree. The import permits for the above-me ntioned products will be issued by the 
Ministry of Trade based on recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture. 
(b) Please clarify if certain products in the poultry category (HS 0207) are not 
eligible to obtain import permits, an d hence, certain poultry products are 
unable to be imported into Indonesia. 
The eligibility to import poultry products is based on the Decree of the Ministry of 
Agriculture No. 50/2011 dated 7 September 2011. Annex II of the Decree contains a list of products that can be imported, i.e. meat and edible offal of ducks and 
turkeys, fresh, or chilled and froz en (HS Codes 0207.11.00.00, 0207.12.00.00, 
0207.24.00.00 and 0207.25.00). 
(c) What are the criteria for the issuan ce of the above mentioned import 
permits (under (a) and (b)), and are these publicly available? 
The import permit for beef and other livestock, dairy and poultry products is issued 
by the Ministry of Trade based on a recomme ndation by the Ministry of Agriculture. 
As stipulated in the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 50/2011 
(recommendation for importing carcasses, meat and offal), Decree No. 51/2011 (recommendation for importing animal seed or breeding) and Decree No. 52/2011 (recommendation for importing livestock), the issuance of recommendations 
further depends on an assessment upon the completion of all administrative and 
technical requirements in countries of origin and business units.  
The import permit is publicly available online through the Indonesian National 
Single Window (INSW). In cases where importation takes place through points-of-
entry for which an import permit cannot be  obtained from the INSW, a copy of the 
import permit shall be manually delivered to the related institution. 
(d) Is the Government of Indonesia's issuance of the above noted import 
permits in any way limited beyond tr ansparent and objective criteria? For 
example, is issuance based on ce rtain quantitative assessments? G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  The issuance of import permits is based on analysis of domestic demand, 
particularly for beef. The annual analysis is conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and discussed by the relevant ministries. 
(e) Can the Government of Indonesia give assurances that fresh and 
processed fruit and vegetable products  will not be quantitatively limited 
or managed under an im port permit system? 
Decree No. 3/2012 of the Ministry of Agricult ure stipulates that eligibility to import 
fresh and processed fruit and vegetables is based on the analysis of national 
production, supply and demand, taking account of the objectives of food security, food safety, human and environmental health and harvest time. The Decree also regulates the administrative and technical requirements to obtain a 
recommendation to import horticulture products. 
Based on the study by the Ministry of Agri culture, over the last three years, the 
increased importation of agricultural products, the frequency of quarantine plant 
pests entering the Indonesian territory has increased. Consequently, the Ministry 
of Agriculture (through Decrees No. 88/2011, No. 89/2011, which are further amended by Decrees No. 15/2012 and No. 16/2012) placed more stringent 
technical requirements on plant origin for imported fresh and processed foods and 
limited the ports of entry for those products . The ports of entry (Seaport of Medan, 
Surabaya and Makassar and Airport of Jakarta) and the free ports in Free 
Economic Zones (Batam, Bintan and Karimun) will be open for the importation of 
fruit and vegetables into Indonesia on 19 June 2012. 
Follow-up: Australia, Canada and New Zealand shared the US concerns. Australia and 
New Zealand deemed Indonesia's measures as non-tariff barriers having adverse impacts on 
agricultural trade. New Zealand observed that its be ef trade reduced significantly as a result of the 
quantitative import restrictions applied on livestock products at the Indonesian border. Australia and New Zealand expressed worries that similar import regulations were also being contemplated 
in the horticultural area, which was of major interest to exporters. While agreeing with Indonesia 
that sanitary and food safety regulations should be followed, the United States sought further details on the list of products that were allowed to be imported, and those that were omitted and hence subject to a de facto quantitative restriction. The United States equally enquired about the 
tonnage capacity of the authorised ports-of-entry  and their ability to accommodate all imports. 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  Imports under Tariff and Othe r Quota Commitments (Table MA:2) 
2.1.1  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/174) 
17.  Question by New Zealand: New Zealand notes that, in 2010, Japan notified tariff 
quota underfill for a number of dairy products . This continues a trend over a number of 
years, as summarised in Annex 2. In respon se to previous questions on tariff quota 
underfill, most recently at the 23 Sept ember 2010 meeting of  the Committee on 
Agriculture, Japan has claimed that tariff quot a underfill is a result of market demand. If 
this is the case, would Japan consider movi ng these products to a tariff only regime? 
This would remove the need for tariff quota administration , which can distort normal 
market flows. 
As Japan has already mentioned in September 2010, under the tariff quota system, 
Members are committed to providing access opportunities for products, but they are not 
committed to fulfilling the tariff quotas. Although Japan has been providing current access opportunities every fiscal year, the tariff quotas cited in the question have remained 
unfilled because the total volume of applications from the private sector was less than the 
tariff quota volume.  G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Japan’s TRQ system for dairy products was introduced as part of the Uruguay Round 
agreements. Japan does not consider it necessary to change the current TRQ system just because these tariff quotas are underfilled. 
2.1.2  Morocco (G/AG/N/MAR/35) 
18.  Questions by the European Union: 
(a) What is the reason for a substantially higher utilization of the tariff quota 
for sheep meat in 2007 compared to earlier years? 
 The considerable increase in the use of the tariff quota for sheep meat 
in 2007 compared with previous years is due to the following reasons: 
 The import prices for sheep meat recorded in 2007, which were very low 
compared to those for 2006; and 
 Sheep meat imports which, on account of their very low price in 2007, 
partially replaced imports of bovine meat. 
(b) What is the reason for the increase in the in-quota imports of rice in 
2007? The tariff quota in that year wa s fully utilised, contrary to lower 
utilization rates in previous years. 
Regarding the reason for the increase in the import quota for rice in 2007 and the 
use of the entire tariff quota compared with a lower rate of use in previous years, 
it should be pointed out that: 
 In 2007, a year of drought in Morocco, the areas of land under rice 
cultivation showed a substantial decline, of the order of 32% compared 
with 2005 and 14% compared with 2006. In addition, the rice sector was 
also affected in 2007 by a persistent decline in domestic production, which fell from 43,000 tonnes in 2005 to 34,000 tonnes in 2006 and 
33,000 tonnes in 2007; and 
 In order to make up for the decline in domestic rice production, Morocco's 
total rice imports increased to 11,148 tonnes in 2007, compared with 
2,193 tonnes in 2006 and 2,848 tonnes in 2005. This increase was mainly 
reflected in higher imports of rice, principally from relatively low-cost sources. 
2.1.3  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/63) 
19.  Question by the European Union: From the information provided by Norway in 
response to questions posed by the European Union during the 63rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, it is obvious th at the Norwegian auctioning system for 
distributing tariff quotas result s in very high and variable levels of actual protection for 
some products such as beef and sheep meat (auctioning prices equivalent to average tariffs of 45-97% during 2008
6). However, other tariff quotas  are only utilised to a very 
small extent or not at all, resulting in very  low auctioning price le vels (typically 0.01 
NOK/kg). This is the case for the Norwegian tariff quotas covering meat of swine, meat of fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, meat of turkeys, red cabbage, butter and 
hens' eggs during 2010. Several of these tari ff quotas have been under-utilised for many 
years. Thus, it seems that the high in-quota tariffs are too high to allow for meaningful 
imports within the tariff quotas. The European  Union notes that in response to questions 
it posed during the 62nd meeting of the Commi ttee on Agriculture, Norway stated that: 
                                               
6 Based on the average unit values of the imports taking place within the tariff quotas for each 
individual tariff line actually imported within the tariff quotas (according to Norwegian data provided in response to questions posed by the European Union during the 63
rd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture). G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  "Thirdly, to the contrary of what the European Union is indicating, the 
auctioning system does not add to pr ice variability in the domestic market, 
except, theoretically, through very sma ll indirect effects of increasing the 
marginal supply of the product in ques tion. These marginal effects would be 
there regardless of administration methods." 
20.  Hence, it would seem that lowering the Norwegian in-quota tariffs would not pose a 
significant threat to domestic producers. On the contrary, it would only result in very 
small indirect effects of increasing marginal  supply. It might also contribute to a more 
varied supply of the goods in question to the benefit of Norwegian consumers. Is Norway considering reducing or eliminating th e relatively high in-quota tariffs for the 
tariff quotas concerned to allow meaningful  market access within the tariff quotas? 
Norway remains committed to a successful conclusion of the DDA, in line with the Doha 
mandate. In light of proposed disciplines on in-quota tariffs in the latest negotiating texts, Norway would anticipate reductions to in-quota tariffs in a final DDA agreement on 
agriculture. Unilateral market access liberalisation beyond what is already applied is not 
imminent. 
2.2  Special Agricultural Safeguards (Tables MA:3 to MA:5) 
2.2.1  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/45) 
2.2.1.1  Transparency issues 21.  Question by Australia: Australia notes that the Republic of Korea has in some years 
applied a price-based special sa feguard against products such  as wheat starch at very 
low volumes (for example, 75 kg in 2009). Does  the Republic of Korea consider that this 
level of imports constitutes a surge in imports? 
The Republic of Korea has applied price-based special safeguards against some products 
such as wheat starch in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the 
Customs Act of the Republic of Korea. A pric e-based special safeguard becomes applicable 
once the import price of the product concer ned falls below a trigger price. A surge in 
imports is not required for taking such a measure.  
22.  Question by Australia: Australia requests  that the Republic of Korea provide data on 
the import prices, trigger prices, volumes, number of shipments and duties applied to 
show that the measure was in complianc e with Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
For the data concerning trigger prices and volumes, please refer to the relevant 
notifications by the Republic of Korea (G/AG/N/KOR/6, G/AG/N/KOR/45). The data on 
import prices, number of shipments, and duties applied are considered only when applying 
special safeguards and are not publicly available.  
23.  Question by the European Union: The Eu ropean Union appreciates this notification 
by the Republic of Korea. The European Union would like to ask the reason why 
Table MA:3 notifications of the volume-bas ed special safeguard for the products and 
years concerned were not provided? 
The MA:3 notification on the volume-based special safeguard measures for the period of 
2005-2007 has already been forwarded to the CRN. It will be circulated soon. 
2.2.1.2  Trigger calculations 24.  Question by Australia: Can the Republic of Korea confirm that the volume of imports 
was not declining, in light of the safeguard in the previous year being triggered on 175 
kg of imports? G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  The Republic of Korea confirms that the volume of imports for wheat starch was not 
declining at the time the safeguard was triggered in 2008. 
Follow-up: Australia reported that bilateral discussions had been held with the Republic of Korea 
on responses to these questions, and in respect of which further clarifications will be sought. 
2.2.2  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/92) 
2.2.2.1  Transparency issues 25.  Question by Australia: Australia notes th at Chinese Taipei's volume-based safeguard 
notification submitted on 18 November 2011 applied for the period of 25 October 2011 
to 31 December 2011. Australia further notes the requirement for notifications to be provided "as far as in advance as may be prac ticable and in any event within 10 days of 
the implementation of such action". Can Chin ese Taipei provide reassurance that it will 
abide by the specified notification timings, in seeking to ensure a robust transparency? 
Chinese Taipei confirms that it will continue to  strive to meet the notification requirements 
set out in the Agreement on Agriculture. Nevertheless, Chinese Taipei wishes to emphasise 
that its procedure for invocation of the SSG provisions is fully transparent. For instance, 
both the volume and the price triggers are pu blished by the end of the previous year on 
the Government’s website, aiming at providing importers with the necessary information 
which is timely for decision-making purposes. In addition, in terms of the volume-based 
SSG, the public is alerted through the Government’s website to the fact that imports have reached 90% of the trigger level. Chinese Taip ei is of the view that a transparent and 
timely regime is just as important as honouring the deadlines for notification. 
2.2.2.2  Trigger calculations 
26.  Question by Australia: During the September 2011 regular meeting of the 
Committee, in response to a question from  New Zealand regarding the data used to 
calculate its SSG trigger level, Chinese Ta ipei responded that 2010 data on actual 
imports were not available at the time of calc ulation. Chinese Taipei's  latest notification 
again uses 2007 to 2009 data to calculate it s SSG trigger level. Could Chinese Taipei 
inform the Committee as to when 2010 data w ill be available to calculate SSG trigger 
levels? 
Chinese Taipei would like to reiterate that it has provided answers to similar concerns 
raised by Members at the 45
th, 46th, 54th, 59th and 63rd regular meetings of this 
Committee. According to Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level 
should be calculated using the "average quantity of imports during the three preceding 
years for which data are available" . In Chinese Taipei's case, under the procedure 
described above, the trigger level for 2011 wa s calculated and published by the end of 
2010, which was some months before the offici al figure for total actual imports in 2010 
became available. The 2011 trigger level was therefore calculated using the average 
quantity of imports during the preceding thr ee years for which data was available, i.e. 
2007 to 2009. 
The official data for actual imports in 2010 was subsequently published by the relevant 
authorities in April 2011, and added to the 2008 and 2009 import data to provide the basis 
for calculating the SSG trigger level for 2012. 
Follow-up: With reference to the transparency requirement on the operation of the special 
safeguard in Article 5.7 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Australia reiterated their concern about 
the timeliness of notifying the information based on which Chinese Taipei calculated the trigger 
levels. Chinese Taipei was encouraged to devote continuous efforts to ensuring transparency in its notifications. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.3  Domestic Support Commitments (Table DS:1) 
2.3.1  Albania (G/AG/N/ALB/6) 2.3.1.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 27.  Question by Canada: Regarding payments  for relief from natural disasters, 2010 is 
the first year of its eleven notified year s that Albania reports such payments: Does 
Albania foresee providing a notification of "new or modified programmes" (referred to 
as Table DS:2 in G/AG/2) for these payments? 
Albania has already notified a mechanism for reimbursing farmers for relief from natural 
disasters. Albania is not notifying a new programme nor is it going to modify the existing mechanism already notified. This is, however, the first time that Albania uses the reimbursement mechanism. Albania will thus not provide a new Table DS:2 notification.  
2.3.1.2  Green Box 
2.3.1.2.1  Direct payments: payments  for relief under natural disasters 
28.  Question by Canada: How does Albania ensure that the payments meet each and 
every one of the criteria in paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
At the end of year 2010 and the beginning of 2011,  the North of Albania, in particular the 
district of Shkodra faced massive floods. The Albanian Government (through the 
Order 968, dated 1 December 2010 of the Coun cil of Ministers) declared the state of 
natural disaster in the communes and municipa l i t i e s  o f  t h e  d i s t r i c t  o f  S h k o d r a .  T h e  
agriculture and especially the livestock sectors in this area incurred huge losses in excess of 30% of production. For the livestock sector, the situation was critical because all animal 
feedstuff was destroyed. Given the high water levels in these areas, there was a need to 
evacuate all livestock in order to prevent it from drowning. Under these conditions, support to farmers was provided in the form of hay (fodder) and concentrate for livestock. This 
support is the only form of support received by farmers; they have not received payments 
from other support schemes. In conclusion, Albania fully complied with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
2.3.1.2.2  Direct payments: payments under regional assistance programmes 
29.  Questions by the European Union: Could Albania explain how the regional 
assistance programmes notified in Suppor ting Table DS:1 meet the criteria of 
paragraph 13 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? In particular, the European 
Union wonders how the measures described conv ey a benefit to agricultural producers. 
This programme consists in building new wholesale markets for agriculture products and 
slaughterhouses in less favoured areas of Albania, mainly mountain areas. The programme 
is not involving payment to the farmers but has the form of investments in the marketing 
chain of agriculture products. The Government of Albania invests in building up these new wholesale markets and slaughterhouses. Follow ing the completion of the building work 
these objects will pass unto the authority of local governments that will administer them 
on behalf of the local communities. The aim is to complete the marketing chain of agriculture products in these areas and to facilitate market access for farmers as well as to increase food and agriculture products security. 
Considering that no direct payments are made  to producers and that the support measure 
entails the creation of marketing infrastructure, Albania is open to consider classification of 
this programme under "General serv ices", in future notifications. 
2.3.2  Bahrain (G/AG/N/BHR/6) 
30.  The United States appreciates the opport unity to follow-up on an issue raised at a 
previous meeting with Bahrain. A subsidy specific to poultry would not appear to G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  conform to the criteria in Article 6, paragr aph 2 concerning investment subsidies which 
are generally available to agriculture. 
(a) Please provide additional information on exactly what is the investment 
subsidy to poultry notified in Supporting Table DS:2. 
The subsidy serves the objective of public health. The subsidy is directed towards: 
 monitoring and maintaining health and sanitary standards at poultry 
farms; 
 providing technical assistance through regular checks and laboratory 
analysis to determine the epidemiological situation of these farms, if any; 
 helping to control an epidemic disease if it spreads. 
(b) How is the subsidy programme implemented? 
The government support programme is carried out through the general projects 
initiated by Bahrain, such as sewage treatment, electric power supply, water supply, and other infrastructure projects ca rried out by the Ministry of Works. The 
subsidy programme for poultry sector is implemented through public health and 
sanitary projects and initiatives implemented by the respective government agencies. 
(c) How is the subsidy amount determined? 
The amount of the subsidy depends on overall health and sanitary related 
requirements and prevalent epidemiological situation in poultry farms. 
2.3.3   Barbados (G/AG/N/BRB/20) 
2.3.3.1  Green Box – General services: other 
31.  Question by the United States: The Unit ed States appreciates the significant update 
undertaken in this notification and recalls the tabled DS:2 notification from 
October 2011 outlining the scope of General Services, especially the "Other" category 
(G/AG/N/BRB/19). One of the la rger posts in the current set of notifications may not 
have been fully covered in that Table DS:2. Pl ease explain what is meant by "Out-of-crop 
activities of the Barbados Agricult ural Management Company Limited". 
The agricultural sector remains of importance to Barbados and continual efforts are 
pursued towards diversification, improving co mpetitiveness, and ensuring food security 
and livelihood security for the population. 
The agricultural sector in Barbados has evolved from a predominantly sugar-based sector 
to include both sugar and non-sugar agricultural activities. Given its historical role in the agricultural sector in Barbados, its current relationships and connections with many of the 
domestic agricultural producing areas and entities, the Barbados Agricultural Management 
Company Limited (BAMC) is integrally involved, along with the central Ministry of Agriculture, in the research and development activities of the agricultural sector in 
Barbados. The item in question has been included as the "out-of-crop activities of the 
BAMC" to differentiate from the BAMC's historic al involvement in the sugar industry and is 
merely a historical moniker included in the Government's Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue to account for this item. 
The out-of-crop activities of the BAMC includ e Research and Development activities such 
as variety testing, the diversification programme, and cotton development and, in conformity with Annex 2, paragraph 2, qualify for inclusion as General Services. Activities 
include research on various sugar cane varieties, cane testing, fertiliser trials and research 
into crop diversification and rotation. In addition to research conducted internally, the G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  BAMC collaborates with a number of public and research entities, including the Ministry of 
Agriculture, the Caribbean Research and Deve lopment Institute and the University of the 
West Indies. Trials are also conducted in conjunction with farmer organizations. 
The BAMC's out-of-crop activities also incl ude assisting the farming community on new 
techniques and methods and dissemination of the results from any individual or 
collaborative research – where such is permitted. 
2.3.3.2  Amber Box – De minimis 
32.  Question by Japan: Japan notes that  the product-specific AMS of sugar cane 
remained steady during the years 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 at 10% of value of production, which is the upper limit of de mi nimis, although the sh are of sugar cane AMS 
to its value of production fluctuated ev ery year until 2001/2002. Could Barbados kindly 
explain the reason? 
The value of AMS is calculated at not more than 10% of the value of the sugar cane crop 
for all of the years in question, which is the de minimis  limit for developing countries as 
provided under the Agreement on Agriculture. It  should be noted that there is a lag in the 
calculation of the value of the crop to take into account the actual canes reaped and delivered. Payments are therefore also on a la gged basis to ensure that they adequately 
capture the reality of production. The steady levels of payment reflect the steady acreage 
and average yield per year in question. The va lue of such payments is not more than 10% 
of the value of production in keeping with Barbados' de minimis  commitments under 
Article 6.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
2.3.4  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
2.3.4.1  Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 33.  Question by Canada: Canada appr eciates Brazil's disaggregation of debt 
rescheduling programmes
7 reported in Supporting Tables  DS:2 and DS:9. Would Brazil 
provide a similar disaggregation for the years 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009? 
The disaggregated amounts are presented in Annex 3. 
2.3.4.2  Green Box 
2.3.4.2.1  General services: research 34.  Questions by Canada: Canada notes th at the Agricultural Energy Development 
Programme was introduced in 2008. What is the nature of this programme? When does 
Brazil foresee being able to provide the re levant Table DS:2 notification (new or 
modified programmes)? 
Public research in agriculture is carried out in Brazil by the Brazilian Agricultural Research 
Corporation (EMBRAPA), under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply 
(MAPA). The spending notified is just an allocation of funds to research aimed at developing new technologies for improving the use of biofuels, rendering the notification as 
a new or modified programme unnecessary. 
2.3.4.2.2  Domestic food aid 35.  Question by Canada: Canada notes that  Brazil has notified in creasing amounts of 
domestic food aid. At the 13th meeting of  the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/R/13), 
Brazil indicated that its domestic food aid is  provided under the Emergency Distribution 
of Food Program or PRODEA. Could Brazil co nfirm that, in the absence of Table DS:2 
notifications to the contrary, the increasing amounts of domestic food aid reported in 
G/AG/N/BRA/27 continue to be provided only under PRODEA? 
                                               
7 G/AG/W/78 refers. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  The amounts of domestic food aid reported in G/AG/N/BRA/27 refer only to meals for 
children in public schools. PRODEA is not operational anymore. 
2.3.4.3  Amber Box 2.3.4.3.1  Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
36.  Question by Canada: Over the years, Brazil's notifications have referred to the 
product "grapes" as well as to "grapes (and by-products)". The 2006/2007 notification refers to both "grapes" (Supporting Table DS:4) and "grapes (wine)" (Supporting Table 
DS:7). In order to facilitate Canada's under standing of the relevant programmes, could 
Brazil please clarify? 
Brazil refers to the product "grapes (wine)" in Supporting Table DS:7 to underscore that 
the programme supported the product wine.  
In Supporting Table DS:4 and in the " De minimis  Clause Verification Table", Brazil refers to 
the product as "grapes" in order to highlight that Brazil calculated the de minimis  threshold 
by comparing the product-specific support on wine to the value of the total production of 
the basic product. 
2.3.4.3.2  De minimis 37.  Question by Canada: With regard to the ta bles of data on values of production in the 
notification, and referring to Brazil's answer to a Member's earlier question,
8 would 
Brazil be able to indicate the precise tables  from the IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de 
Geografia e Estatística) on which the notification relies, including the source table for the total value of production for all of agriculture? 
Please refer to Annex 4. 
2.3.5  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/86) 2.3.5.1  Amber Box – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
38.  Questions by the United States: The Pr ovince of Ontario recently established the 
Risk Management Program (RMP) for pork. The United States understands that this programme is designed to provide income  stabilization insurance for Canadian hog 
producers and guarantees producers' returns on  production at a level equivalent to 40% 
of the difference between market prices and the support price. The United States also 
understands that the RMP is designed to complement current programmes such as AgriStability and the RMP is an advance on th e Province's 40% share of the AgriStability 
payment. 
(a) Please explain in more detail how the RMP operates within the 
AgriStability programme and also if it operates within the same 
parameters as Quebec's Farm Inco me Stabilization Insurance programme. 
RMP payments have no bearing in the calculation of benefits under AgriStability 
and producers in Ontario are eligible for the same AgriStability support as 
producers in other provinces. RMP payments would not be considered as eligible 
income, nor would producer premiums be considered eligible expenses, in the calculation of AgriStability margins. In this regard, there would be no interaction between AgriStability and Ontario’s RMP from a federal perspective. The same also 
applies to Quebec’s Farm Income Stabilization Insurance programme ("Assurance 
stabilisation des revenus agricoles" (ASRA)) payments with respect to AgriStability. 
(b) In Canada's explanation, please confirm whether the RMP payment can 
exceed the payment amount determined by AgriStability. 
                                               
8 Question 25 of G/AG/W/78 refers. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  RMP payments are counted as an advance on  the provincial portion of AgriStability 
payments. An eligible producer receives the greater of either the RMP payment or the provincial portion (i.e., 40%) of the AgriStability payment. RMP has no impact 
on the payment amount determined by AgriStability. 
(c) Please confirm, if and how the RMP operates differently from the RMP 
programmes for other commodities in Ontario and the Farm Income Stabilization Insurance ("Assurance stabilisation des revenus agricoles" 
(ASRA)) programme in Quebec. Please  also explain how the support price 
is determined under the RMP for pork. 
The RMP and the Farm Income Stabilizati on Insurance ("Assurance stabilisation 
des revenus agricoles" (ASRA)) programmes both help producers offset losses 
caused by volatile commodity prices and production costs. Programme payments 
are made if the market prices for enrolled commodities fall below the support level based on a cost-of-production formula. 
The support price for hogs under the RMP is determined by the industry average 
cost of production. Cost of production data is taken from both industry records and Ontario’s Agricorp database. The highest cost producers (with production costs in 
the top 30%) on a per unit basis are removed from the data sample. The cost of 
production includes livestock purchase costs (e.g., early wean or feeder), feed costs (e.g., corn, soymeal, and premix) and yardage costs (e.g., all expenses claimed by a farmer for income tax purposes other than livestock purchases, feed 
purchases, family labour costs, inventory adjustments, and direct crop production 
costs), which includes a return to labour factor. 
The RMP for hogs operates in the same manner as for other commodities (except 
for horticulture) and ASRA. The concept of RMP and ASRA programmes take into 
consideration of costs of producing eligible commodities in establishing support level.  
Producers of edible horticulture are eligible for support under the Self-Directed Risk 
Management (SDRM) component of the RMP. Growers of edible horticulture (fruit, 
vegetables, herbs and spices, as well as honey and maple syrup) contribute a set percentage of their net sales into an account, and the Ontario government 
matches it. Growers can withdraw from the account when they need it. More 
information on RMP may be found at: 
http://www.agricorp.com/en-ca/Pro grams/RMP/Pages/ Overview.aspx  
39.  Questions by the United States: Regard ing Canada's response in paragraph 22 in 
G/AG/W/92 on activity under the 2001 Fede ral-Provincial Agreement for Chicken, 
Canada replied that price negotiations ta ke place between the provincial poultry 
producer boards and poultry processors: 
(a) What is the Canadian legal framework th at allows this negotiation to take 
place? 
Federal and provincial legislation enables provincial poultry producer boards to 
oversee the production and marketing of ch icken. At the federal level, the Farm 
Products Agencies Act provides for th e establishment of national marketing 
agencies and the establishment of the Farm Products Council of Canada to oversee 
the operations of these agencies. The Act also allows for the implementation of 
federal-provincial agreements, which set out the legal framework for the operation of supervisory and producer boards at the federal and provincial levels. At the 
provincial level, similar legislation exists to issue marketing orders and for a 
supervisory body to oversee the operations of provincial commodity boards. As defined in the Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken, price negotiation with primary poultry processors is the responsibility of provincial commodity boards. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  (b) Also, please describe the role Canada 's provincial and territorial (P&T) 
governments play in regulating an d overseeing the producer boards? 
Provincial and territorial governments set out enabling acts, marketing orders and 
supervisory boards to oversee provincial commodity boards. 
(c) For example, what role does the Ontario Farm Products Marketing 
Commission, which the United States understands is a part of Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Ru ral Affairs, play in regulating and 
overseeing the Chicken Farmers of Ontario producer board? 
Responsibilities may differ from one prov incial supervisory board to another. In 
general, each provincial supervisory bo dy is responsible for overseeing the 
operations of provincial commodity boards in the province. In Ontario, as per the 
Farm Products Marketing Act and the Milk Act, the Ontario Farm Products 
Marketing Commission is a supervisory body that is accountable for the conduct and impact of provincial marketing bo ards, including the Chicken Farmers of 
Ontario.  
2.3.5.2  Amber Box – De minimis 40.  Question by the United States: Regard ing Canada's response in paragraph 27 of 
G/AG/W/92 about the steps Canada takes to revise its domestic support notifications 
when considerable changes occur in its under lying statistics, the United States located 
the production, supply and distribution (P SD) tables, but could not find an annual 
compilation of Canada's monthly price surveys.  Please provide the specific citation for 
the sources containing the annual prices and production volumes for grains and oilseeds 
as well as the production values for animal  products and meats that were cited in the 
notification. 
The specific citation for the sources was indicated in Note (1) of Supporting Table DS:4 in 
the 2006 and 2007 notifications. The source for value of production for most products is Statistics Canada "Farm Cash Receipts – Agriculture Economic Statistics" , 
Catalogue 21-011-X, Vol. 10, No. 1, table "Farm Cash Receipts – Agricultural Economic 
Statistics" , May 2011. For certain grains and oilseeds (i.e., wheat and durum, barley, oats, 
corn, canola, and soybeans), the value of production is equal to production multiplied by price. The source for the year’s production is Statistics Canada "CANSIM Table 001-0010" , 
July 2011. The year’s price is based on the prices used in Statistics Canada Farm Cash 
Receipt prices. 
41.  Question by the United States: Regard ing Canada's response in paragraph 28 in 
G/AG/W/92 about calculations for value of  production, research using the site 
referenced in the notification
9 indicates that Canada includes government payments in 
value of production calculations. Please pr ovide the specific calculations made that 
demonstrate that Canada does not use gove rnment payments in these calculations. 
Canada does not include government payments in value of production calculations. While 
the Statistics Canada publication referenced by the United States is the source for value of production for most individual products, the correct issue of that publication is 
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011 -x/21-011-x2011 001-eng.pdf  (i.e., May, not November). 
The value of production is defined to equal total market receipts. To give an example using 
the May 2011 publication, the 2007 value of production for apples was Can$166.15 
million; potatoes was Can$865.75 million; cattle and calves was Can$6.34 billion; hogs 
was Can$3.28 billion; eggs was Can$598.62 million; etc. These are the values reported in column 5 in Supporting Table DS:4 of Canada’s 2007 notification. However, market 
receipts do not capture the value of inter-farm sales within a province or the value of crops 
fed on-farm. In order to capture these values, the value of production for certain grains and oilseeds (i.e., wheat and durum, barl ey, oats, corn, canola, and soybeans) is 
calculated using Statistics Canada’s data, without including government payments. 
                                               
9 See http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-011-x/21-011-x2011002-eng.pdf . G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Notifications for earlier years were revised to incorporate this method. The value of 
production in column 5, row "Non Product Specific AMS", in Supporting Table DS:4 is the sum of the individual value of production entries. 
2.3.6  China (G/AG/N/CHN/21) 
2.3.6.1  Green Box 
2.3.6.1.1  General services: other 42.  Question by the European Union: Followi ng up on the reply provided to question 31 
of G/AG/W/92, could China explain in detail how the changes in expenditure 
classification led to the significant increa se of spending under the "other general 
services" category? 
The primary reason for the increase is that new categories were developed under "other 
general services" after the changes in expenditure classification in 2007. Thus the statistics 
for general services are increasingly comprehensive. 
2.3.6.1.2  Public stockholding for food security purposes 
43.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: The European Union appreciates the replies that China 
has provided in relation to the review  of the domestic support notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/21 and would like to seek further clarifications. With 
reference to replies provided to qu estions 32 and 33 in G/AG/W/92:  
 Please explain how the "financial transparency" in the sense of 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is ensured 
in the process of stock accumulation and disposal. 
 Please confirm that the sales and purchases are made at "no less 
than the current domestic market prices" in the sense of paragraph 
3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
(b) United States: Regarding previous questions as per paragraph 32 and 33 
of G/AG/W/92, in order for support to  meet the criteria for "stockholding 
for food security purposes", there must  be a clearly defined food security 
objective or practice and pre-determin ed targets for specific products. The 
notification for all products, except cotton, does not appear to meet these criteria: the United States remains co ncerned with its understanding that 
Chinese Government entities are making purchases for public 
stockholding at support prices for th e various commodities . Please explain 
how this meets the exemption criteria of Annex 2 paragraph 1(b) "support 
in question shall not have the effe ct of providing price supports to 
producers"  – and Annex 2 paragraph (3) "… food purchases by the 
Government shall be made at current market prices and sales from food 
security stocks shall be made at no less than the current domestic market 
price …" ? 
China guarantees that all reserved grains ar e purchased and sold according to the market 
price at domestic markets. 
The following measures in existing laws and regulations relate to food security purposes: 
 classified grain reserve systems for central and local governments; 
 establishing and improving grain market risk funds; G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
   setting up the minimum procurement price for important grains of shortage in 
the main producing areas; 
 taking price intervention measures upon significant (or potential) increase of 
grain price; 
 establishing a food emergency response system. 
Since 2008, China has implemented the policy of temporary purchasing and storage. The 
temporary purchasing prices of various grains under the policy are set at the market price 
of the year, not the supporting price. In addition, public reserved grain is sold at the 
current market price. 
44.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: The European Union appreciates the replies that China 
has provided in relation to the review  of the domestic support notification 
G/AG/N/CHN/21 and would like to seek further clarifications. With reference to replies provided to questions 32 and 33 in G/AG/W/92: 
Please explain how the "targets related solely to food security"  in the 
sense of paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture are established. Are they included in legislation? 
(b) United States: Regarding previous questions as per paragraph 32 and 33 
of G/AG/W/92, in order for support to  meet the criteria for "stockholding 
for food security purposes", there must  be a clearly defined food security 
objective or practice and pre-determin ed targets for specific products. The 
notification for all products, except cotton, does not appear to meet these 
criteria: Please identify for all co mmodities, except cotton, the defined 
food security objectives or practice s and the pre-determined targets for 
specific crops. 
China’s guiding ideology and main goals of food security are depicted in "The Outline of the 
National Programme for Long-term and Medium-term Food Security (2008-2020)", which 
can be found online. 
The goals of food security are as follows: first, food consumption per capita would be no 
less than 389 kilograms by 2010 and 395 kilogram s by 2020. Second, to stabilise the grain 
sown area, China’s arable land will not shrink  to less than 1.8 billion mu by 2020; and to 
keep the quantity of basic farmland and to increase the quality, the national cereals sown 
area will be maintained at more than 1.26 bi llion mu, of which the land for rice will be 
maintained around 450 million mu. To guarante e food production, China will strive to 
regain the sown area of oil crops, such as rapeseed and peanuts, to around 
180 million mu. Third, to ensure the basic su pply of important food like grains, and to 
maintain a food self-sufficiency rate of 95%, the overall grain production capacity would be 
brought to over 500 billion kilograms by 2010, and will be more than 540 billion kilograms 
by 2020, of which rice and wheat are grains for which China will continue to be self-
sufficient, while for corn China will be basically self-sufficient. Fourth, to maintain a reasonable level of grain reserve and to optimise the reserve layout and the structure of 
varieties; the proportion of wheat and rice in the reserve will be no less than 70%. Fifth, to 
establish a sound system of "Four Bulks" grain logistics that features bulk loading, bulk unloading, bulk storage and bulk transportati on; and to accelerate the development of a 
modern grain logistics system. The proportion of "Four Bulks" to national grain logistics 
would reach 30% by 2010 and 55% by 2020. 
2.3.6.1.3  Direct payments: decoupled income support 
45.  Questions by the European Union: Fo llowing up on the replies provided to 
questions 34-37 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) How is the direct payment per hectare calculated? G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  It is calculated according to the size of the contracted farm land. 
(b) Could China provide an update to the Committee on the problem of double 
counting in the state revenue and ex penditures? Has it been solved? 
China will solve this problem in its next notification. 
46.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: How is compliance with paragraph 6 of Annex 2 
provisions ensured if, according to China's reply to question 35 in 
G/AG/W/92, "criteria for payments vary between different provinces and 
there are no universal national criteria" ? 
(b) United States: With reference to pa ragraphs 34 to 37 of G/AG/W/92, 
please explain further about exactl y how local governments increased 
payments. What is the mechanism for payments and does it differ by 
location (i.e., province)? 
Eligibility for such payments in China is determined by ownership of contracted land. No 
specific product is required to be produced by the receiver of this payment. As China is 
vast in territory, and production conditions in different provinces differ from each other, direct subsidies for producers are implemented by provincial governments. The criteria for 
subsidies by unit area are different but all of them are in accordance with the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
47.  Questions by the European Union: Fo llowing up on the replies provided to 
question 37 in G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The European Union understands that since the base period for 
determining acreage for contracted land  is set at the time when the land 
contract is signed, the result is that  there may be different base periods 
for each parcel of contracted land. Could China confirm this 
understanding? 
Please refer to the Chinese Rural Land Contract Law. 
(b) In this context, could China explain co mpliance of its direct payments with 
the provisions of paragraph 6(a) in relation to "a defined and fixed base 
period" ? 
China’s agricultural land is under collective ownership, and each producer signs a 
contract with the collective organization. The contract remains valid for 30 years. 
The amount of mu determined by the contract shall be viewed as the base period, and each land has only one base period, which is in conformity with the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
2.3.6.1.4  Direct payments: payments  for relief from natural disasters 
48.  Question by Canada: In paragraph 39( b) of G/AG/W/92, Canada had posed the 
following question: "The amounts entered as 'payments for relief from natural disasters' 
have increased consistently and considerably  since 2002. The name and description of 
the measure are the same as in China's base period, with the addition of the element 'financial assistance to their post-disaster livings'. What mechanisms does China apply 
to ensure that these increasingly large paym ents continue to meet all the criteria of 
paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?" China's answer was: "China 
believes that these payments are in accord ance with related rules of Agreement of 
Agriculture." Could China elaborate and provid e additional information as to how these 
payments meet all the criteria  of paragraph 8 of Annex 2? G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Since 2003, China has experienced the frequent occurrence of natural disasters. Although 
the payments for relief from natural disasters increased, they only compensated a little of 
the producers' loss. The payment is definitely non trade-distorting and is in conformity with the Agreement on Agriculture. 
49.  Questions by the United States: The United States wishes to thank China for 
responses to questions at the November 20 11 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
The United States has some follow-up question s, specifically with respect to the Green 
Box payments as noted in paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please provide more detailed inform ation on exactly how the programmes 
for natural disasters and environment are implemented? 
China’s notification of "relief from natural disasters" includes all kinds of measures 
taken by the central and local governments for disaster prevention, disaster 
reduction, and post-disaster restoration of production.  
(b) What are the specific criteria on which payments are made? 
(c) If there are multiple programmes, pl ease provide information for each 
programme. 
China is not able to provide detailed inform ation for each programme, but can guarantee 
that the relevant criteria are in accordance with the Agreement on Agriculture. 
50.  Questions by: 
(a) European Union: Following up on the reply to question 38 in G/AG/W/92, 
the European Union understands that agricultural insurance operated in 
China is notified as relief from na tural disasters under paragraph 8. 
However, certain elements such as "insurance premium subsidy to 
farmers who are policy-holders"  seem to relate rather to income 
insurance and income safety-net programmes under paragraph 7 of 
Annex 2. Could China explain the re asons for its notification of the 
agricultural insurance under paragraph 8? 
(b) United States: 
 With respect to questions and responses in paragraphs 38 to 41 of 
G/AG/W/92, please provide addition al information on the criteria 
by which the insurance premiums are subsidised to ensure the 
payments are consistent with the criteria for "relief from natural 
disasters". 
 China was unable to provide additional information on specific 
programmes for natural disasters. Since Members are to show the 
criteria used for notifying pr ogrammes under Annex 2: How did 
China evaluate the programmes to know that they fit the Annex 2 
criteria and how does China ensure that the programmes meet the 
relevant criteria? Please provide additional information about the 
programmes so that Members can evaluate the programmes and their implementation. 
At present, China’s agricultural insurance mainly compensates losses caused by natural 
disasters or diseases for producers in the farm ing and breeding industry. Its main aim is to 
restore production after disasters. The insu rance amount, basically, is the cost of 
agricultural production. The government provides certain subsidies to insured farmers as 
part of the insurance premium. This is in conformity with the  criteria of paragraph 8 of Annex 2. The income insurance under paragraph 7 of Annex 2 insures all the income loss 
derived from agriculture, while the Chinese agriculture insurance only covers natural G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  disaster losses. That is why the agricultural insurance in China’s notification is classified 
under "relief from natural disasters" and not under "income insurance". 
51.  Question by the European Union: Following up on the reply to question 38 in 
G/AG/W/92, could China inform whether pub lic funding is provided to operators of 
insurance programmes? 
Public funding is provided to farmers. 
2.3.6.1.5  Direct payments: paymen ts under environmental programmes 
52.  Question by the United States: China's response to questions on environmental 
programmes in paragraph 42 of G/AG/W/92 do es not provide sufficient information to 
evaluate the programmes and how they ar e implemented. Please provide further 
explanation of the implementation criteria. 
The reason for the significant increase of  payments under environmental programmes 
during 2005-2008 was that the Chinese Government paid more attention to sustainable economic and social development as well as environmental protection. China’s notification 
of the payments under environmental programmes includes all kinds of ecological 
environmental protection measures applied to forests, grassland, etc. that are conducted by central and local governments. China is not able to provide specific information. 
2.3.6.2  Amber Box 
2.3.6.2.1  Market price support 53.  Questions by the United States: On th e issue of "negative AMS" in paragraphs 
47 to 52 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) The United States supports the position  of Japan. The United States has 
concerns about the appropriate meth odology for dealing with negative 
support levels. Please explain in deta il from previous reports and rules of 
the Secretariat on what basis China determined its methodology and that 
of other Members cited as appropriate. 
Different Members have different calculatio n methods on this topic. Nevertheless, 
China’s Current Total AMS is zero no matter which method is used. 
(b) The United States has seen data that confirm that the applied 
administered prices are on a paddy  (rough) basis, whereas the fixed 
external reference price appears to be  on a milled basis. Therefore, the 
United States remains concerned th at the calculations are not on a 
comparable basis. Please provide data that supports China's response. 
The production of Chinese farmers is small scaled, which is very different from that 
of the developed countries. Farmers sell  paddy instead of rice. Therefore the 
applied administered prices in Supporting Table DS:5 are on a paddy basis, not on 
a rough rice basis. As to whether the fixed external reference price is on a milled 
basis, China thinks it is a very good question which allows China to study other 
Members’ methods of collecting data. 
2.3.6.2.2  Market price support: eligible production 54.  Questions by the United States: The Unit ed States continues to have concerns about 
the appropriate measure of "eligible producti on" in the response provided in paragraph 
63 of G/AG/W/92 and requests the following: How specifically does China justify using the actual amount of procured products under the minimum procurement price scheme 
as "eligible production" rather than the total amount of domestic pr oduction? Please cite 
specific references for this justification. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  According to China’s policy on the minimum purchasing price, after grains are harvested, if 
the market price falls below the minimum purcha sing price, the state will purchase grains 
at the minimum purchasing price when producer s sell their grains to the state. Producers 
can also sell their grains to other corporations. Only grains sold to the state at the 
minimum purchasing price are entitled to the applied administrative price. Chinese farmers 
usually save part of the grain produced for family consumption. Furthermore, the minimum purchasing price policy functions only in the main grain producing provinces, not in the 
overall state. Therefore, in Supporting Ta ble DS:5, China uses the actual purchased 
quantity of grain at the minimum purchasing  price to calculate market price support 
amounts.  
2.3.6.2.3  Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
55.  Questions by the United States: In follow-up to some of Japan's questions on 
product-specific support to cotton no ted in paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92: 
(a) Please identify how the state purchases the cotton in the National Cotton 
Reserve? In addition, can China please  explain this programme in relation 
to cotton purchases outlined by the United States' question regarding 
China's Cotton Reserve Purchasing System in paragraph 11 above? 
The state publicizes the reserve prices and the specialised reserve administration is 
responsible for collecting and reserving cotton when market prices are below the reserve prices. 
(b) Please clarify the meaning in the four th sentence of the response supplied 
in paragraph 54 of G/AG/W/92 of 16 Ja nuary 2012 by explaining what is 
meant by "… the money to collect stor age and store is covered by 
CNCRC …" . The United States understands this to mean the CNCRC (China 
National Cotton Reserves Corporation) provides the money to the 
purchase of cotton for storage and subsidizes the cost of storage. 
The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is in charge of 
the policy-making of the Cotton Reserve. The money for purchasing cotton, for 
storage, and for subsidizing the cost of storage are provided by the state finance, not the NDRC. 
2.3.6.2.4  Non-product-specific AMS 
56.  Questions by Canada: In paragraph 55( c) of G/AG/W/92, Canada had asked the 
following question: "In Supporting Table DS:9 , 'input subsidies', which have increased 
from Y 1.6 billion in 2004 to Y 78.7 billion in 2008, are explained to be 'price subsidies 
for means of production'. In reply to som e Members' questions in the meeting of 23 
September 2010, China clarified that the mean s of production are mainly agricultural 
machines, fertilizers, agricultural diesel o il and feeds. Could China provide a breakdown 
of the amount of subsidies provided for each of these inputs in the years 2005 to 2008? 
Have subsidies been introduced for any addition al inputs during this period, compared to 
2004?" Part of China's answer was "China is not able to provide the list for individual products, as this subsidy was calculated in an overall manner." Given the large and rapid 
increase in this support, it is important to understand the specifics of the measures 
applied. 
(a) Canada therefore now asks what step s China is taking to be able to 
provide the disaggregated information requested. 
The primary reason for the increase is that in 2007, due to the sharp rise of prices 
of the means of production, comprehensive agricultural subsidies came into use. 
(b) Canada also asks for confirmation of its understanding, from China's 
answer, that no subsidies were in troduced for other inputs than G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  agricultural machines, fertilizers, agri cultural diesel oil and feeds in the 
years 2005 to 2008. 
The subsidies are directly given to farmers to buy the means of production. 
Producers decide what inputs to buy according to their needs. The main categories 
are agricultural machines, fertilizers, agricultural diesel oil and feeds. 
2.3.6.2.5  De minimis 57.  Questions by the United States: On the issue of value of production in paragraph 46 
of G/AG/W/92, China's response refers to th e footnote in the respective notification 
which states: 
"Since the categorization of agricultural products of China is different 
from that of the WTO, China claims th at the total agricultural production 
values here are only for reference in  this notification and shall not be 
referred to in the DDA negotiations." 
(a) Please provide more substantive inform ation for the Committee relative to 
the differences in the value of pr oduction calculations and how the 
Committee can understand the values  for each claimed product. 
(b) Does China use the WTO definition of agricultural products to measure the 
value of production? 
(c) Can China identify the discrepancies be tween its definition and that of the 
WTO? Further, can China also state whether the value to be referenced in the DDA negotiations, as noted in foot note 1 referred to above, matches 
the WTO definition or not, and why that value differs from the one used in 
this notification. 
The WTO has no clear definition for the calculation of agricultural production. As far as 
China understands, different Members have different ways of calculating agricultural 
production. When China added this footnote, China meant that "if there turns out to be a unified definition of calculation in the Doha Round, China will modify its calculation 
according to the unified method". China’s present calculation is in accordance with the 
WTO’s definition. Members sometimes may find different figures, and this is due to the inclusion of fishery output. 
Follow-up: The European Union sought clarity as to whether China would correct the problem of 
double counting in the state revenue and expendit ures in G/AG/N/CHN/21. Echoed by Australia, 
the United States pointed out that the practice is to issue an addendum or corrigendum of the 
original notification. However, China confirmed that  it would only modify the calculation method in 
its future notifications. Having found some of th e questions raised by intervening delegations of 
interest as a general issue for the Committee, Japan reserved its rights to follow up on China's responses. 
2.3.7  Colombia (G/AG/N/COL/48) 
58.  Questions by Australia: Australia would like to request Colombia to provide more 
information on the "Infrastructure services" programme notified in the Green Box. Does 
the "Analysis, design, construction, rehab ilitation and modernization of irrigation 
infrastructure" relate to off-farm infrastructure? 
This is a rural development programme established for the purpose of financing activities 
required for land improvement, including construction of infrastructure works for the 
promotion of irrigation infrastructure, drainage or protection against flooding or to improve 
existing infrastructure. 
In order to develop the programme, the Government, through the Colombian Institute of 
Rural Development (INCODER), supports and ad vises regional entities in the process of G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  identifying, preparing and implementing projects  relating to physical, social and productive 
infrastructure, basic services and land improv ement, guaranteeing the sustainable use of 
natural resources in the context of programmes carried forward in the areas of agricultural and rural development. 
In addition, INCODER is responsible for su pervising the implementation of projects 
concerned with the design and construction of irrigation districts; establishing the amount 
of government investment in the construction, rehabilitation or extension of land 
improvement districts; and administering, op erating and maintaining small, medium and 
large-scale irrigation districts under its ownership. 
In accordance with the foregoing, this programme meets the criteria defined in Article 6.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture, inasmuch as it is a programme to encourage rural 
development at the national level The programme is applied generally for the promotion of 
different agricultural activities and for rural development, and thus to improve the living 
conditions of the Colombian population in the rural areas of the country. 
2.3.8  India (G/AG/N/IND/7) 
2.3.8.1  Green Box – Direct payments: pa yments for relief from natural disasters 
59.  Questions by Canada: In paragraph 25( a) of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, Canada had asked 
the following question: "The 'Crop insurance scheme' has increased rapidly. What does 
the monetary value reported here represent, e. g., is it the indemnities paid to producers, 
the government subsidy of premiums, a budget ary item for the operation of the scheme, 
or some other measurement? How does India ensure that the scheme meets each and 
every one of the criteria of paragraph 8 of  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
This includes (but is not limited to) ensuring that eligibility for payment is determined by a production loss that exceeds 30% as pe r paragraph 8." India's response indicated: 
"The details of the crop insurance sc heme may be seen at web address: 
http://www.aicofindia.com /AICEng/Pages/Product_Pr ofile/Present_NAIS.aspx   
Liability in case of agriculture insurance sche mes arises only in the event of notified 
crops in the notified areas suffering on account of specified natural disasters or 
calamities. Therefore, government support in the form of bearing loss in excess of 
premium is covered under paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture."  
(a) The National Agricultural Insuranc e Scheme (NAIS) website provides 
some additional information on the cr op insurance scheme and it notes 
that the premium subsidy to some farmers is to be reviewed and could be phased out over a period of 3 to 5 ye ars. Could India provide an update on 
the status of this review and the potential phasing out of the subsidy? 
(b) The NAIS website, however, does not provide information regarding 
whether the payments claimed und er paragraph 8 of Annex 2 are 
determined by a production loss that exceeds 30%. How does India 
ensure that the crop insurance scheme  meets the criteria of paragraph 8 
of Annex 2? 
A modified version of NAIS is presently being implemented (from Rabi 2010-2011 season) 
on a pilot basis which is likely to be eval uated in the last quarter of 2012-2013 financial 
year for starting full-fledged scheme. 
The threshold yield for a crop is an insurance unit, which is the moving average based on 
past 3 years’ average yield in case of rice an d wheat and 5 years’ average yield in case of 
other crops, multiplied by the level of indemn ity. On an average, the threshold yield which 
is the basis for the calculation of indemnity payments is not more than 70% of the actual 
yield. The premium paid by farmers constitutes more than 30% of the total indemnity 
payment. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  60.  Questions by the United States: The United States wishes to thank India for 
responses to questions at the September 2011  meeting of the Committee on Agriculture. 
The United States has some follow-up questions. 
(a) With respect to India's response on crop insurance, the United States 
appreciates the information on the website to better understand the 
operation of the crop insurance prog ramme. The United States remains 
unclear, however, as to what data India has notified. It appears from 
India's response that the data no tified are government indemnity 
payments that exceed producer prem iums. Please clarify more precisely 
the nature, source and application of the data cited in the response in paragraph 25 of G/AG/W/88. 
The data source is the budget document of the Government of India. 
(b) In addition, the website does not make clear whether producers have 
sustained at least a 30% loss to qualify for an indemnity. The United 
States notes that actual yields must be below the threshold yield, but it 
appears that any level of actual yield lower than the threshold yield qualifies for an indemnity. Please cl arify the numbers and threshold levels 
that India has employed in this notification. 
Please refer to India's response  in paragraph 59.  (b) above. 
2.3.8.2  Development programmes – Input subsidies 61.  Questions by: 
(a) Canada: With reference to the questions posed in paragraphs 28(b) and 
30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1, India's response in paragraph 25(a) refers to the table at http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/at_a_glance-2007/ch-
12/table%2012.1(a).xls . That table does not provide the requested 
information on how each of the measures qualifies as "generally 
available" to the target group. In fact , it seems to indicate the amount of 
fertilizer and other subsidies given to "marginal farmers" only. India also 
explains10 that "marginal" landholdings are only one out of five categories 
of landholdings, specifically those below 1 hectare.  
In the interest of clarifying the data in its notification, could India 
elaborate on how to interpret the appare nt different uses of "marginal" in 
the data sources to which India refers, and the basis for labelling as low-income or resource-poor all producers with marginal, small, semi-medium, 
and medium landholdings, as well as some producers with large holdings? 
Moreover, Canada looks forward to India's response to its question in paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 regarding the reporting of the 1.03% 
of all support that is not reported in Supporting Table DS:2 (of the order 
of US$ 90 million in 2003-2004). 
Input subsidies are in-built in their cost and are available to all farmers. Since 
more than 98% of landholdings are less than 10 hectares, input subsidies are 
considered to be generally available to low income or resource poor producers. 
Landholdings of more than 10 hectares are un-irrigated dry lands covered under land ceiling laws, whose productivity is much lower and therefore they also fall in 
the category of low income or resource poor farmers. 
The term "marginal" is a category of landholding of less than 1 hectare as per 
India’s Agriculture Census. Farmers in India are generally low income or resource 
poor. A majority of the population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, 
with an average landholding of about 1. 22 hectares, which is on the decline. 
                                               
10 Paragraph 30 of G/AG/W/88/Rev.1 refers. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Moreover, more than 60% of agriculture lands do not have any assured irrigation 
and are dependent on rain. 
(b) United States: the United States seeks to better understand India's 
definition of low income, resource p oor farmers which, from responses, 
seems to be based on landholdings (see paragraphs 30 to 33 in 
G/AG/W/88). An average landholding would not seem to be an appropriate basis for making that dete rmination, because the value of the 
output per unit of land could vary dramatically, depending on what is 
produced. The United States notes that in reviewing the data for the 2000-2001 census on the website to which India referred, the share of landholdings accounted for by the large group (> 10 hectares) was 13.2% 
(21,072,000 hectares divided by 159,4 36,000 total hectares). These data 
suggest that India's use of 98.97% of farm holdings as low income, resource poor may be overstated, ev en using a landholding definition. 
Moreover, several recent studies appe ar to contradict India's assertion 
that the benefits of input subsid ies mostly accrue to low income, 
resource-poor farmers. For example, in a recent paper by the 
International Food Policy Research In stitute (IFPRI), the authors note 
that "state and cooperative supply of subsidized tube wells, credit, 
fertilizer, and seed are heavily biased toward medium and large farmers in 
the study areas discussed" . Another report says that the agricultural input 
subsidies "benefit large-scale farmers more than smallholders …" . In 
addition, the authors provide data that  shows a large share of the benefits 
of the electricity subsidy go to larger  farmers in the two States analysed.
11 
Likewise, the data for fertilizer use is not as heavily skewed towards the 
larger landholdings, but even using India's definition of "greater than 
10 hectares" , about 9% of the benefits went to the large landholdings. 
 Please provide the data and source showing that 99% of India's 
farms are low-income, resource poor. 
 Please provide the calculations and source for how much of the 
input subsidies go to low-income, resource poor farms. 
India would urge that reliance be placed on Members' notifications and official data 
sources. See also India's response in paragraph 61.  (a) above.  
62.  Question by the United States: Alth ough the United States appreciates India 
providing a website for data associated with input subsidies (paragraphs 28 and 29 in 
G/AG/W/88), a website with a spreadsheet di d not respond to the United States and 
other Members' questions, especially since the data do not correspond to India's 
notification. Please provide a further expl anation of how India has accounted for the 
budgetary outlays in this notification. 
Notified inputs subsidies are the same as given in the data sheet. The only difference is 
that the figures given in the data sheet are in Indian Rupees whereas the notification is in 
U.S. dollars, into which was converted based on the rate of the relevant period. 
63.  Questions by the United States: With resp ect to outlays for input subsidies, as noted 
above, the data supplied by India do not correspond to India's notification: 
(a) What exactly do the notified outlays cover? 
The "other input subsidies" include the total subsidy on fertilizer, electricity, 
irrigation and other input subsidies in the form of seeds, etc. The data sources for 
the subsidies are budget documents. 
                                               
11 See Annex 5. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  (b) Additionally, the United States notes that for electricity, the website 
specifically says it covers more than agriculture. How did India account for agriculture's share? 
As has been noted by the United States , in the data associated with input 
subsidies, the figures do not give a breakdown for electricity subsidies for the 
agriculture sector. This is due to the fact that such a breakup is not available. 
2.3.8.3  Amber Box 
2.3.8.3.1  Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
64.  Question by the United States: The United States is concerned with India's 
responses to questions regarding currency co nversion. Since Members raised concerns 
about India's conversion practice in its 1995/1996 notification, India should provide a 
response beyond simply stating what it did in  that notification. With respect to the U.S. 
question about the consistency of converting  the applicable administered rupee price 
into U.S. dollars, the United States would lik e to further amplify its concerns by noting 
that India's support prices in rupees have in creased at a much faster rate than support 
prices denominated in U.S. dollars. For ex ample, the United States estimates 25% 
growth using rupees versus 15% for paddy rice using U.S. dollars; 15% versus 5% for 
wheat; 20% versus 8% for cotton. Moreover, India explains in a reply to Canada that 
the support prices are based on costs of prod uction, all of which would be rupee-based. 
It follows that decisions to adjust the suppo rt prices for specific commodities would be 
based on data in rupees, not dollars. In sum,  the United States' concern is that the use 
of dollar-based prices is not accurately capt uring the level of market price support for 
the relevant commodities. Please provide a clea r rationale based on the provisions in the 
Agreement on Agriculture for converting from rupee-based base period tables 
(G/AG/AGST/IND) to a U.S. dollar-based equivalent in India's notifications. 
The external reference price for various commodities for the base period 1986-1988 has 
been fixed in U.S. dollar terms. The exchange  rate between the Indian Rupee and the U.S. 
dollar is determined by market forces and in order to provide comparable estimates, India 
has been notifying its domestic support in U.S. dollars since 1995-1996. 
India has followed a consistent approach in currency used while notifying its domestic 
support notifications.  
2.3.8.3.2  Market price support 
65.  Question by the United States: Regard ing the U.S. request for documentation and 
information on external reference prices, th e United States was seeking more detailed 
information than that provided in India's re sponse because of the large gap between the 
applied administered price and the external reference prices notified in Supporting Table 
DS:5. For example, the external reference pr ice for cotton is appr oximately three times 
as large as the applied administered price.  The United States would like to confirm, 
among other things, that the prices have  been measured at the same stage of 
production (seed cotton or milled cotton). Re peating the question from September 2011, 
please provide documentation (source, grade,  location, transport adjustments, quality 
adjustments) for the external reference prices for each commodity included in 
Supporting Table DS:5. 
As regards the calculation of AMS for cotton, India is collecting relevant information for 
arriving at a conversion factor for seed cotton to cotton lint and will report back to the 
Committee as soon as the exercise is completed. 
The external reference prices are the averages of the c.i.f./f.o.b. prices of the product in 
question during the 1986-1988 period. The details are listed in G/AG/AGST/IND. 
66.  Question by the United States: With re spect to responses to Members' questions on 
public stockholding (paragraphs 20 to 24 in G/AG/W/88), the United States fails to see G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  how India has "accounted for the AMS" as re quired by Annex 2, paragraph 3. India 
references the supporting tables in G/AG /AGST/IND, which Members have noted are 
expressed in rupees. India has notified that it does not have an AMS for wheat and rice, 
the main products of interest here. The United  States notes again that India has done its 
calculations in U.S. dollars. These dollar figures are not contained in the 
G/AG/AGST/IND, so the United States does no t understand India's reference to the data 
in this document. Moreover, by suggesting that G/AG/AGST/IND be examined, India's 
answer supports the argument that its AMS calculations should be done in rupees. 
Additionally, with respect to prices for pr ocuring and releasing stocks, India's answer 
confirms that purchases are being made at minimum support prices, and sales are being 
made at less than market prices. Since Indi a has provided no information as to whether 
the minimum support prices can be construed as market prices, the presumption is that 
they are government-administered prices and are therefore, by definition, not market 
prices. The United States repeats its concer n that India is not operating its public 
stockholding programme in conformity with Annex 2, paragraph 3 because India is not 
properly accounting for the AMS for the produc ts at issue. Given these points, please 
explain fully the consistency of India's AMS calculations for wheat and rice with the 
requirements of Annex 2, paragraph 3. 
The minimum support price is based on the price that a farmer should get to cover the 
cost of production as assessed by the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). 
India’s public stockholding programme is in co nformity with paragraph 3 and footnote 5 of 
Annex 2. It may be seen that this footnote covers both the acquisition and the release of 
foodstuffs at administered prices. As requir ed, India notifies the difference between the 
acquisition price and the external reference price as AMS. 
India does not agree with the United States' assertion. India has accounted for its stock 
holding programme in its AMS calculation for wheat and rice. The entire procurement of wheat and rice done by designated Central Agencies at the minimum support price is 
reflected in AMS calculations for wheat and rice. The difference between the cost of 
procurement and the issue price is accounted fo r separately in the Supporting Table DS:1 
under "public stockholding for food security purposes". 
67.  Question by the United States: India responded that all perishables not covered 
under the Minimum Support Price Scheme were  covered under the Market Intervention 
Scheme (MIS). When will India submit a noti fication for those prod ucts that benefited 
from the MIS? 
There have been very few interventions under MIS due to operational difficulties. 
Quantities procured and amount spent thereon have been insignificant. However, India has noted the United States' concern. 
2.3.8.3.3  Market price support: eligible production 
68.  Questions by the United States: With resp ect to eligible production in paragraphs 39 
to 42 in G/AG/W/88, the United States kindly  request India's response to the following: 
(a) Why did India switch in the definition  from "all production" used in its 
first notification (G/AG/N/IND/1) to "purchased production" in 
subsequent notifications? 
(b) Why has India not reported a market pr ice support calculation for each of 
the 24 crops for the appropriate period? 
Except for the year 1995-1996, India has consistently filed its domestic support 
notification taking actual quantities procured under MSP operations as eligible production. 
India considers that only production which is procured by designated agencies at the 
minimum support price is the production receiving market support. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  India has reported market price support calculations for all the crops that were procured 
by designated agencies at minimum support prices. 
69.  Questions by the United States: With respect to the U.S. question as to whether all 
production is eligible to receive India' s minimum price support, the United States 
understands India's response to mean that as along as market prices are below the 
minimum support prices, there is no limit on the amount of production that farmers may 
approach the government for procurement. Th erefore, all production is eligible for 
procurement, though not all production is procured. Please confirm whether the U.S. 
understanding is correct. If India does not agree with the above statement regarding all 
production, please explain. 
India uses the quantity of purchased production as "eligible production" for calculating the 
market price support. Therefore, the "eligible pr oduction" is defined as the quantity of the 
production procured by designated government agencies at the Minimum Support Price (MSP).  
2.3.8.3.4  Negative support amounts 
70.  Question by the United States: Wit h respect to the use of a negative AMS 
(paragraphs 34 in G/AG/W/88, the United St ates supports the position of Canada. If 
India plans to continue notifying negative support, please explain fully the consistency 
of India's support calculations with Article 1(a) and any other relevant articles of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
The negative figures reflect the results of the methodology for calculating product-specific 
or non-product-specific AMS since G/AG/AGST/IND. 
2.3.9  Korea, Republic of (G/AG/N/KOR/43/Corr.1) 71.  Question by Australia: Australia would lik e to request from the Republic of Korea an 
explanation for the amendment to its noti fication showing a reduction in support 
provided to rice production. 
It was just to correct a simple error in data calculation. 
Follow-up: Australia appreciated the opportunity of having discussed bilaterally with the Republic 
of Korea, particularly of having obtained more details. Australia suggested that the Republic of 
Korea shares their information with all other delegations. 
2.3.10  Nigeria (G/AG/N/NGA/15) 
72.  Question by Australia: Australia underst ands that Nigeria has in place a domestic 
fertiliser programme in favour of Nigerian fa rmers. Could Nigeria provide details on this 
programme and advice about its classifica tion under the Agreement on Agriculture 
(i.e. Article 6.2 for input and inve stment subsidies, for example)? 
The Government of Nigeria has designed the Growth Enhancement Support (GES) scheme 
as a vital component of the Agricultural Tr ansformation Agenda (ATA), which seeks to 
achieve food security for the farmer at the mi cro-level and national security for the country 
at the macro-level. The new scheme represen ts a policy and pragmatic shift within the 
fertilizer subsector, putting the resource constrained farmer at its centre through the provision of a series of incentives to encourage the critical actors in the fertilizer value 
chain to work together in order to improv e productivity, household food security and 
farmers' income. 
Furthermore, during the 2012 season, a total of 500,000 metric tonnes of assorted 
fertilizers, namely urea and NPKs, valued at N 55 billion, will be provided to farmers via 
the e-wallet platform using mobile phones. The Federal and State Governments are to contribute 25% each to make up 50% support on fertilizers to farmers, which translate 
into N 27.5 billion. Each farmer will be suppo rted with N 5,500 in order to purchase two G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  bags of fertilizer (50 kg each), which will be increased to four bags in subsequent seasons. 
A total of five million smallholder farmers are targeted to benefit from the GES scheme each year for four years starting in 2012. 
Follow-up: Nigeria proposed a bilateral consultation with Australia on this matter. Whilst 
welcoming this initiative, Australia commented on the discrepancies between the information in 
Nigeria's recently issued notification and that  already available on the Nigerian Government 
website. 
2.3.11  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/19) 
The European Union withdrew the questions contained in paragraph 96 of G/AG/W/93. 
2.3.12  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/AG/N/VCT/2) 2.3.12.1  Green Box – General services: research 
73.  Question by the United States: Saint Vi ncent and the Grenadines notified domestic 
support commitments for the years 1995-2009. It reports that agricultural research over the full period notified is a programme aime d at providing valid technologies aimed at 
improving the production of agricultural prod uce. Please provide details on what "valid 
technologies" include. 
"Valid technologies" can be explained as the creation of new lines of agricultural 
commodities to improve the characteristics of plants enabling them to be disease resistant 
through the process of "plant biotechnology". 
2.3.12.2  Green Box – Direct payments: pa yments for relief from natural disasters 
74.  Question by the European Union: The Eu ropean Union appreciates this notification 
provided by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines . Please explain how "payments to farmers 
(direct in kind) affected by the Moko diseas e" notified under payments for relief from 
natural disasters in the reporting period 2 007 comply with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The payments that were made to farmers who suffered losses of the Musa spp. due to the 
outbreak of the Ralstonia solanacearum  (Moko disease) is in conformity with 
paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2, which states that "such payment shall arise only following a 
formal recognition by Government authorities that a natural or like disaster (including disease outbreaks has occurred and shall be determined by a production loss which exceeds 30% of the average production in the preceding three year average of production 
excluding the highest and lowest average" . 
In 2007, the compensation provided was base d on the fact that losses exceeded the 30% 
threshold that is stated in paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2, since crops in affected farms are 
mandatorily destroyed, which results in 100% losses of production in that year. The level 
of production (marketable yield) was calcul ated based on verifiable sales from the 
preceding three years. Furthermore, due to the prevalence of the disease, the Ministry of 
Agriculture has established a mandatory restriction of cultivation on those affected farms 
for a further three years in order to contain the spread of the disease.  
2.3.13  Togo (G/AG/N/TGO/2) 75.  Question by the European Union: The European Union would like to ask Togo to 
explain how "disaster relief", notified under payments for relief from natural disasters, 
complies with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Since 2007, Togo has been affected by the sharp lift in the Intertropical Front (ITF), 
leading to heavy rainfall between August and September. The situation was particularly 
serious in 2010 in the Southern part of the country, where the Haho, Yoto and Mono Rivers G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  and other watercourses burst their banks, destroying habitats and crops, and even causing 
loss of human life. 
According to a study carried out by the Ministry responsible for agriculture, the damage to 
the 2010-2011 agricultural season caused by th e flooding, relates primarily to three areas 
of activity, namely food production, cotton production and livestock production, giving a 
total loss for the entire country of CFAF 3.14 billion (approximately €4.8 million). In food 
production, 5,093 hectares sown to maize were destroyed, accounting for 65% of the area 
flooded (cost: CFAF 3.1 billion). The damage to the cotton crop was less extensive. The 
flooding affected a total of 46 hectares of cotton (cost: CFAF 14.6 million). In livestock production, most of the animal losses caused by the flooding involved poultry. 2,682 head of poultry were lost, as against 646 head of small ruminants and 392 head of pigs (cost: 
CFAF 18.5 million). 
The study carried out by the Government, through the Ministry responsible for agriculture, 
is available. The victims of this natural disaster are small farmers with low and unstable 
incomes for three consecutive years. The government relief granted is intended specifically 
for farmers who have sustained losses exceedin g 30% of their average production in the 
preceding three-year period, as compensation for their losses. These payments, totalling 
CFAF 625.7 million and representing only 20% of the losses recorded, were used to 
purchase seeds and fertilizer. 
In conclusion, the relief granted by the Govern ment and notified under payments for relief 
from natural disasters complies with paragraph 8 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
2.3.14  Tonga (G/AG/N/TON/2/Rev.1) 
76.  The European Union would like to thank the Delegation of Tonga for a revision of 
their notification which now provides details on external financing. 
2.4  New or Modified Domestic Support Measures (Table DS:2) 
2.4.1  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/33) 
2.4.1.1  Green Box – General services : marketing and promotion services 
77.  Questions by Canada:  
(a) Honduras introduced a new measure called the Agribusiness Development 
Programme for Small and Medium-sized African Palm Producers which will 
increase African palm production by  replanting and expanding African 
palm crops. The measure is meant to support small and medium sized 
palm producers. Could Honduras expl ain why it claims this measure as 
exempt under paragraph 2(f) Annex 2,  marketing and promotion services, 
and how the measure conforms to the cr iteria in that paragraph as well as 
in the chapeau of paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
Honduras' conclusion was that this programme was not correctly classified and 
should be included in Annex 2, paragrap h 2(d): extension and advisory services, 
including the provision of means to facilitate the transfer of information and the 
results of research to producers and consum ers. This is because the purpose of the 
programme is to sow 7,206 hectares of African palm, of which 2,882 hectares (40% of the programme) is for the renewal of plantations and 4,324 hectares for 
expanding the cultivated area, in other words 60% of the programme. 
The programme also provides for the development of nurseries in which 
700,000 seedlings are being produced for the cultivation of 5,000 hectares of 
African palm with new genetic materials that will produce higher yields in the 
plantations of the project area, using sound farming and fertilization practices. At G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  the same time, the programme provides for the introduction of a technical and 
financial assistance system to contribute to the development of the palm sector.  
(b) Honduras introduced a new measure called the Small and Medium-sized 
Rural Enterprise Programme (PYMERUR AL) which seeks to contribute to 
job and income creation for men and women in rural areas in the context 
of rural micro, small and medium-siz ed enterprises, with a focus on 
stimulating economic growth to  ensure sustainability and the 
development of food and non-food agribusiness chains, combining the 
value chain approach with a territori al economic development approach. 
Could Honduras explain why it clai ms this measure as exempt under 
paragraph 2(f) marketing and promot ion services, and how the measure 
conforms to the criteria in that paragraph as well as in the chapeau of 
paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
This programme aims to facilitate regional, national and local public-private 
interaction for the competitive development of rural micro, small and 
medium-sized enterprises combining two complementary approaches (value chains and local territorial economic development) aligned with the country's relevant 
public policies, seeking to harmonise with  other partners and promoting capacity 
building of the different actors according to their role with a view to promoting collective ownership of visions and actions for inclusive economic development.  
2.4.1.2  Development programmes – Investment subsidies 
78.  Questions by Canada:  
(a) In notification G/AG/N/HND/32, Honduras reports the introduction of the 
Technology Voucher Project in  2008-2009, claimed as exempt 
"Investment subsidies generally availabl e to agriculture" under Article 6.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. It shows a monetary value of some US$244 million, which is very large in relation to the size of the 
agriculture sector (value  of production of about US$ 1.4 billion in 2007 
according to the Banco Central de Honduras). This gives rise to questions about the conformity of the measure with the Article 6.2 criteria, which Canada poses in relation to this Table DS:2 notification. Canada recognizes 
the positive step that Honduras has taken by submitting Table DS:2 
notifications in line with the notificati on requirements for new or modified 
measures. 
Regarding the Technology Voucher Project in 2008-2009, the amount for the 
period between June 2008 and May 2009 needs to be corrected - the value of the investment for that period is estimated at L 214.2 million which, in U.S. dollars, 
amounts to US$ 11.4 million. 
(b) Regarding the Technology Voucher Proj ect, could Honduras explain how it 
ensures that subsidies under the programme are generally available to agriculture in Honduras? This arises particularly because the project seeks 
to increase staple grain production by small producers, which excludes, 
for example, livestock and horticultu re producers as well as large and 
medium-sized producers. Additionally, would Honduras be able to provide 
information on how the Technology Vo ucher Project is administered and 
what technologies are supported? 
As regards the technologies supported by this project, they involve the 
introduction to the use of improved seeds and fertilizers. The Technology Voucher 
Project (BTP) consists of providing small producers with improved seeds and fertilizers for sowing one manzana (0.7 hectares) of crops - either maize, beans, rice or sorghum, as well as technical assistance services and training, and 
measures designed to increase produc tion, yield, income, knowledge and the 
efficient utilization of resources. The BTP provides for the use of improved seeds by G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  small producers in order to ensure greater yield per area cultivated, contributing to 
the food safety of the population, particularly in the rural areas, and to relieve pressure on the agricultural frontier, on  the forests and on the protected areas. 
The producers receive the vouchers through the existing local Facilitating 
Organizations (FO), which undertake to provide technical assistance to the 
beneficiaries and organizational support  for the development of alternative 
financing mechanisms. 
The general objective is to contribute to the food security of the population in 
general and to increase the yield of staple grains through the use of appropriate technologies. The beneficiaries are subsistence farmers with less than five manzanas (3.5 hectares); located in hillside and fringe areas and essentially grow 
staple grains, generally for their own consumption, using family labour, and having 
limited access to credit and capitalization problems. These farmers do not receive technical assistance services and many of them do not have enough land to feed 
their families.  
Annex 6 provides a graph showing the Technology Voucher Project Cycle. 
2.4.1.3  Classification of measures 
79.  Questions by the United States: It a ppears that Honduras may have categorized 
some programmes incorrectly as general se rvice programmes instead of investment 
subsidies. Please explain what portion of  the monetary value corresponding to the 
following activities involves investment subsid ies or input subsidies? To what extent is 
each programme generally available to agricu lture versus specific types of producers? 
(a) Honduras rural competitiveness project 
The COMRURAL project is geared towards improving competitiveness in the rural 
sector. The project focusses on operationalizing processes and mechanisms to 
facilitate rural productive alliances in which a rural producers' organization positions itself in the market with a business plan on a competitive basis. The 
project helps with organization, training, information, technical studies and 
support, infrastructure and productive investment so as to encourage the participation of organized producers in the value chains. 
(b) Rural business promotion programme (Pronegocios Rurales) 
The main objective is to boost the income of rural households suffering from 
poverty and extreme poverty by co-finan cing Sustainable Business Plans (PNS) 
linked to market-oriented agricultural and non-agricultural production chains and 
developed according to a format established by the Programme. The specific 
objectives include: (i) strengthening the rural business service providers (PSER); (ii) co-financing productive agricultural and non-agricultural rural business projects 
linked to production chains; (iii) supporting complementary policies and 
programmes. 
The programme consists of:  
 identifying, prioritising and developing production projects;  
 financing business plans: (a) linked to production chains; (b) rural 
micro-business; 
 Improving the coordination of public in vestment in the agricultural sector. 
(c) Food security and extension project G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  Food security extension project (EXTENSA): The objectives are to increase the 
availability and access to food by promot ing increased production and agricultural 
diversification of subsistence farmers, including staple grains. 
(d) Agribusiness development programme small and medium-sized African 
palm producers 
Agribusiness development programme for small and medium-sized African palm 
producers: The project provides for the so wing of 7,206 hectares of African Palm, 
of which 2,882 hectares (40% of the projec t) will be for the renewal of plantations 
and 4,324 hectares for extending the cultiv ated area, in other words 60% of the 
project. The project also provides for the development of nurseries in which 
700,000 seedlings are being produced for the cultivation of 5,000 hectares of 
African palm with new genetic materials that will produce higher yields in the 
plantations of the project area, using sound farming and fertilization practices. At the same time, the project provides for the introduction of a technical and financial 
assistance system to contribute to the development of the palm sector. 
2.4.2  Uruguay (G/AG/N/URY/45) 2.4.2.1  Green Box – Environmental programmes 
80.  Question by the European Union: Pl ease explain how the measure "Responsible 
Production Project – Integrated Natural Resou rce and Biodiversity Management Project" 
complies with the provisions of paragraph 12 (b) of Annex 2 which state: "The amount 
of payment shall be limited to the extra cost s or loss of income involved in complying 
with the government programme." 
The proposals funded by the Responsible Production Programme (PPR) cover only the 
incremental costs incurred by the producer for natural resource and biodiversity 
conservation investments and management. The baseline consists of conventional 
production practices. The PPR was extended by mutual agreement between the Government and the World Bank until 31 August 2012. In 2011, the PPR paid US$5.66 
million in direct financial support to producers and expects to pay US$4.87 million in the 
first eight months of 2012. By the end of its implementation, it is estimated that some 
5,500 producers will have received direct financial support from the project. Products to benefit from the project include all agricultural goods produced using environmentally 
clean and friendly processes, and products deriving from small-scale fishing activities. 
Other products to benefit are those deriving from conservationist biodiversity management, and indigenous flora and fauna managed according to conservationist 
principles. 
2.4.2.2  Transparency issues (delayed notification) 81.  Question by Japan: Japan understan ds that the domestic support measures 
described in G/AG/N/URY/45 have already terminated. Could Uruguay kindly explain 
the reason why the notification was delayed even though Table DS:1 notifications for 2007 until 2010 had already been submitted? 
Uruguay had omitted to submit Table DS:1 for these measures, and decided to submit it 
late after receiving an enquiry about the measures. 
2.5  Export Subsidy Notifications (Tables ES:1-ES:3) 2.5.1  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/37) 
82.  Questions by the United States: The Unit ed States would like to request Costa Rica 
to explain how the export subs idy scheme for fruit operates. Is this programme different 
from the Tax Credit Certificate that Costa Rica notified prior to 2000 and that it reported 
to Members that it was eliminating in 1999? G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  As Costa Rica explained in notification G/ AG/N/CRI/35 concerning Table ES:1, in 2011 it 
granted no export subsidies for agricultural products or for fruit in particular. The Tax 
Credit Certificate programme referred to by the U.S. delegation expired in 2000. Notification G/AG/N/CRI/37 concerning Table ES:2, which shows Costa Rica's total exports 
of fruit, meets the country's obligation to notify this information in accordance with the List 
of "significant exporters" for the purposes of  the notification requirements in respect of 
export subsidy commitments, contained in document G/AG/2/Add.1 of 16 October 1995. 
Costa Rica would like to take this opportunity to request that the list of "significant 
exporters" be updated as soon as possible so as to reflect the current situation as regards trade in agricultural products. 
3  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER AGENDA ITEM I.B (II)
12 
3.1  Questions by Switzerland in relation to G/AG/N/CAN/89 
83.  Could Canada explain why their tariff quota fill rate is only 88%? 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 attain a 100% 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? 
_______________ 
  
                                               
12 This item relates to notifications subject to review  in respect of which no qu estions have been raised 
in advance of the issuance of the co nvening airgram. In accordance with  the Committee's Working Procedures, 
these will be automatically inscribed in the agenda of the next meeting. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
RESPONSE BY BRAZIL TO QUESTION POSED BY THE UNITED STATES (PARAGRAPH 10.  (B)) 
Budgetary expenditures on PEPRO (Prêmi o Equalizador Pago ao Produtor) and 
PEP (Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto) 
 
 Product Agricultural year beginning  PEP PEPRO 
US$1,000 
Cotton July 2009 - 269,018.9 
Maize July 2009 172,260.1 38,241.3 
Sisal July 2009 2,431.6 - 
Wheat March 2010 12,662.0  - G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
QUESTION BY NEW ZEALAND (PARAGRAPH 17.  ) 
Tariff quotas imports (tons) and fill rates (per cent) by Japan 
  Tariff 
quota 
volume 
(tons) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
SMP for school 
lunch 7,264 2,643 2,907 2,767 2,653 2,696 2,227 2,028 2,109 1,879 
36% 40% 38% 37% 37% 31% 28% 29% 26% 
SMP for other 
purposes 85,878 35,525 35,418 30,994 30,759 25,197 31,078 24,913 24,674 23,040 
41% 41% 36% 36% 29% 36% 29% 29% 27% 
Evaporated 
milk 1,585 1,498 1,461 1,329 1,505 1,498 1,499 1,482 1,500 1,500 
95% 92% 84% 95% 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 
Whey and 
modified whey 
for feeding 45,000 22,895 22,774 31,384 32,749 33,788 37,000 31,217 30,985 31,620 
51% 51% 70% 73% 75% 82% 69% 69% 70% 
Prepared whey 
for infant 25,000 11,880 10,471 9,580 8,975 8,645 9,245 8,222 8,624 8,966 
48% 42% 38% 36% 35% 37% 33% 34% 36% 
Butter and 
butter oil 1,873 199 225 242 173 250 235 241 249 199 
11% 12% 13% 9% 13% 13% 13% 13% 11% 
Mineral 
concentrated 
whey 14,000 4,504 3,730 3,566 3,589 4,347 4,035 2,872 2,992 2,574 
32% 27% 25% 26% 31% 29% 21% 21% 18% 
PEF 18,977 18,887 18,909 18,549 18,317 18,816 16,299 15,309 13,676 13,333 
100% 100% 98% 97% 99% 86% 81% 72% 70% 
Other dairy 
products for 
general use 133,940 132,24
5 132,04
0 132,36
2 128,30
3 130,70
3 129,60
1 131,95
8 133,06
7 125,71
5 
99% 99% 99% 96% 98% 97% 99% 99% 94% 
Designated 
dairy products 
for general use 137,202 130,06
5 126,25
8 134,01
2 132,31
2 136,15
6 135,86
2 196,59
9 131,67
4 136,25
2 
95% 92% 98% 96% 99% 99% 143% 96% 99% 
Source: Notifications by Japan to the WTO. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
RESPONSE BY BRAZIL TO QUESTION POSED BY CANADA (PARAGRAPH 33) 
Disaggregation of debt rescheduling programmes  
Supporting Table DS:2 (Development programmes) – Values in US$1,000 
Programme 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 
PROCERA  
(Special Credit for Agrarian Reform Programme) 14,101.5 16,441.2 14,840.5 
PRONAF 
(National Programme for the Strengthening of Family 
Farming) 13,599.1 15,855.4 14,311.7 
 
Supporting Table DS:9 (Non-product-spe cific AMS) – Values in US$1,000 
Programme 2006/2007  2007/2008 2008/2009  
Rural Debt Securitization Programme 783,356.8 913,332.6 824,408.4 
Pesa (Financial Assets Rehabilitation Programme) 164,818.2 192,165.1 173,455.5 
FCO (Center-West Region Fund) 53,010.1 61,805.6 55,788.1 
FNE (Northeast Region Fund) 37,210.6 43,384.6 39,160.6 
FNO (North Region Fund) 35,605.6 41,513.3 37,471.5 
Other programmes 81,463.9 94,980.5 85,733.0 G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  ANNEX 4 
RESPONSE BY BRAZIL TO QUESTION POSED BY CANADA (PARAGRAPH 37) 
Table of IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geogra fia e Estatística) web links to information 
on value of production  
Value of 
production Link Other comments 
Crops "http://www.sidra.ib ge.gov.br/bda/agric
/default.asp?t=3&z=t&o=11&u1=1&u2=
1&u3=1&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1 "  If the link does not work, please visit 
http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/ . On the left hand 
side column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), 
click on the link "Agricultura" (agriculture). Click on the worksheet titled "Valor" (value). Scroll down to the two tables related to the value of production of specific products (one for annual crops and the other for perennial crops). 
 
Livestock 
products "http://www.sidra.ib ge.gov.br/bda/pecu
a/default.asp?t=5&z=t&o=24&u1=1&u2
=1&u3=1&u4=1&u5=1&u6=1&u7=1 "  If the link does not work, please visit 
http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/ . On the left hand 
side column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), 
click on the link "Pecuária" (livestock). Click on 
the worksheet titled "Produtos" (products). Scroll 
to the tables presenting the value of livestock 
products ("Valor dos produtos de origem animal"). 
 
Total 
agricultural 
production "http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabel
a/listabl.asp?z=t&o=15&i=P&c=1846 "  If the link does not work, please visit 
http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/.  On the left hand 
side column, under the heading "Temas" (topics), 
click on the link "Contas nacionais" (national accounts). Open the folder titled value of current prices ("Valor a preços correntes") at the top of the page. Clicking on the link with the same name right above will lead to a search page by quarter 
of year. 
 
Note: All web pages are in Portuguese and the figures are shown in thousand or million Reais. G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  ANNEX 5 
QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES (PARAGRAPH 61(B)) 
Distribution of electricity and fertilizer subsidies in India 
Table 8.4 – Distribution of electricity subsidy by farm size in Andhra Pradesh, 
2003/2004 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare  (Rs) Subsidy per  holding  (Rs) Percentage of total 
electricity subsidy 
Marginal (<1 ha) 2,370  1,517  0.9 
Small (1-2 ha) 2,771  4,020  4.2 
Medium (2-4 ha) 3,937  10,677  21.9 
Large (4-10 ha) 4,390  25,406  46.9 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,947  60,774  26.1 
All groups 4,039  16,696  100.0  
Source:  Vashishtha, P.S. (2006a). Input subsidy in Andhra Pradesh agriculture . Unpublished manuscript. 
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
 
Table 8.5 – Distribution of electricity subsidy by farm size in Punjab, 2003/2004 
Farm size Subsidy per hectare  (Rs) Subsidy per  holding  (Rs) Percentage of total 
electricity subsidy 
Marginal (<1 ha) 3,844 2,671  1.9 
Small (1–2 ha) 4,615 4,764  4.4 
Medium (2–4 ha) 3,967 9,223  19.9 
Large (4–10 ha) 3,804 20,434  45.4 
Very large (>10 ha) 3,361 47,843  28.4 
All groups 3,725 15,142  100.0 
Source:  Vashishtha, P.S. (2006b). Input  subsidy in Punjab agriculture , unpublished manuscript. International 
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), New Delhi. 
 
Table 4.3 – Use of fertilizers by  size of landholdings, 2000–2001 
Farm size 
(ha) Gross 
cropped area 
(thousand 
ha) Area treated 
with 
fertilizers 
(thousand 
ha) Total consumption nutrients (tons) 
Nitrogen  Phosphorus  Potassium Total  
Marginal (<1 
ha) 29,081 18,632 1,885,435  804,736  329,865 3,020,036  
Small  
(1–2 ha) 29,168 18,281 1,455,338  693,675  260,179 2,409,192  
Medium  
(2–4 ha) 35,974 21,870 682,515  797,976  228,691 1,709,183  
Large  
(4–10 ha) 38,454 22,086 690,978  779,747  149,193 1,619,918  
Large  
(>10 ha) 20,298 9,139 692,622  313,414  32,179 1,038,215  
All groups 152,976 90,008 7,406,888  3,389,548  1,000,107 11,796,543  
Source: Ministry of Agriculture,  Government of India (2008). Agricultural statistics at a glance 2008; 
http//dacnet.nic.in/eands/At_Glance_2008.htm, accessed 23 April 2010. 
 G/AG/W/94/Rev.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  ANNEX 6 
RESPONSE BY HONDURAS TO QUESTION POSED BY CANADA (PARAGRAPH 78(B)) 
Technology Voucher Project Cycle 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
     Necessary      Critical       Indispensable  
 
 
 
__________  Launch  Cooperation  
agreements  Section of 
producers  
Supply of lists 
Voucher 
distribution/FO  FO/producer  
meetings  Repayment  
commitment  Withdrawal  of 
inputs 
Sowing 
Refresher  
workshops  
Social 
component  
DICTA 
Purchase of 
inputs 
Technical  assistance
Monitoring  and follow‐up
Evaluation
Governmen t  SAG/DICTA   Facilitation  Offices ProducerTransfers  Allocation  
of 
Resources  Promotion 
workshops