WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/AG/W/104 
2 November 2012 
 (12-6045) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS 
 
Compilation of questions for the meeting on 14 November 2012
1 
 
 
 The present document compiles questions receive d by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
31 October 2012 as specified in WTO/AIR/4034.   
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
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/104 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
COMMITMENTS:  ARTICLE 18.6 ....................................................................................... 4  
A.  BRAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  ............................................................................ 4  
B.  BRAZIL 'S TRADE AND INDUSTRY POLICY  ................................................................................... 4  
C.  CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  ......................................................................... 5  
D.  COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  ........................................................... 5  
E.  THE EUROPEAN UNION 'S EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON SUGAR  ........................................................... 6  
F.  INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  .............................................................................................................................. ..... 6 
G.  THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 'S AUTONOMOUS TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR PORK ............................ 8  
H.  NORWAY 'S CHANGES TO BORDER PROTECTION  ......................................................................... 8  
I.  THAILAND 'S PADDY PLEDGING SCHEME  .................................................................................... 9  
J.  UKRAINE 'S EXPORT BAN ON WHEAT  ........................................................................................ 11  
II.  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH  INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .......... 12  
A.  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) ........................ 12  
1.  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/58) ............................................................................................. 12  
B.  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) ......................................... 12  
1.  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/97, G/AG/N/TPKM/98 and G/AG/N/TPKM/99) .......... 12  
C.  DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) ................................................................ 13  
1.  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) .................................................................................................. 13  
2.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) ........................................................................................................  13 
3.  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) ................................................... 14  
4.  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) .................................................................................................. 14  
5.  Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.1) ............................................................................................... 14  
6.  Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/4) .................................................................................................... 14  
7.  Nepal (G/AG/N/NPL/2 and G/AG/N/NPL/4) ........................................................................ 15  
8.  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) .................................................................................................... 15  
9.  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) ...................................................................................................... 16  
10.  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/26) .................................................................................................... 16  
11.  Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9 and G/AG/N/UKR/13) ................................................................ 16  
12.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/89) ............................................................................................ 20  
D.  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) ........................................ 21  
1.  Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/22) .................................................................................................. 21  
2.  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) ............................................................................................ 21  
3.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/86) ............................................................................................ 22  
4.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/91) ............................................................................................ 22  
E.  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) ..................................................... 23  
1.  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/87) .................................................................................................. 23  
2.  Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/28) ........................................................................................................  23 
3.  India (G/AG/N/IND/9) .......................................................................................................... .. 23 
4.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/88) ............................................................................................ 24   G/AG/W/104 
 Page 3 
 
 
  F.  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFE CTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON 
LEAST -DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
(TABLE  NF:1) ........................................................................................................................ .... 24 
1.  United States (G/AG/N/USA/90) ............................................................................................ 24  
III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 25  
1.  India – Domestic support notifications ................................................................................. 25  
ANNEX 1 ............................................................................................................................. ................... 26  
 G/AG/W/104 
Page 4  
 
  I. MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS:  
ARTICLE 18.6 
A. B
RAZIL 'S DOMESTIC SUPPORT PROGRAMMES  
(i) Questions by the United States 
1. In response to the United States' question2 in June 2012 regarding official data on the 
percentage of "Prêmio para Escoamento do Produt o (PEP)" rice and wheat transactions that were 
auctioned for the domestic market for 2005 through 2011, Brazil stated such figures were not available at the time.  Can Brazil provide the data requested at this time? 
2. The United States remains concerned about the accuracy of data on PEP and the other price 
equalization programmes, because of the long time lag Brazil identified in "Companhia Nacional de 
Abastecimento" (CONAB) recording and documenting auction/destination data.  According to the 
CONAB website, data on the auctions by state are ava ilable.  In addition, the aggregate data for total 
government expenditures often vary considerably  from Brazil's WTO notifications and the CONAB 
data are significantly revised over time.  The Unite d States understands that revisions of government 
data are not uncommon but these revisions are significan t.  For example, the data in Annex 1 for corn 
and cotton are taken from Brazil's last notificati on for 2008/09, and from the CONAB website at two 
different periods.  Some of the changes in the reported data are striking. 
3. Please advise on the accuracy of the CONAB data  and provide information relative to which 
data may be considered stable and wh ich data may undergo further updates. 
B. B
RAZIL 'S TRADE AND INDUSTRY POLICY  
(i) Questions by Canada 
4. Canada notes that in August 2011, Brazil launched its trade and industry policy for 
2011-2014, called the Plano Brasil Maior ("Greater Br azil Plan").  Canada notes that a second round 
of measures was announced in April 2012 and the number of beneficiary sectors was increased in 
September 2012.  Canada unde rstands that the plan covers invest ment and innovation, foreign trade, 
aid to Brazil's domestic industry, and includes measures such as payroll tax exemptions and 
reductions on energy tariffs.  The legislative basi s for the payroll tax exemption is found in the 
Greater Brazil Plan Act of 14 December 2011 (Lei No. 12.546) and the Greater Brazil Plan Amendment Act of 17 September 2012 (Lei No. 12.715).  According to the Amendment Act of 17 September 2012, this measure exempts employers from a 20 per cent payroll contribution to social 
security if 50 per cent or more of their gross in come is derived from exports.  The Amendment Act 
also extended this payroll tax exemp tion to the poultry and swine sectors. 
5. Could Brazil confirm if any other agricultu re sector benefits from this exemption? 
6. Could Brazil provide the estimated value of this benefit for Brazilian poultry and swine 
exporters and the number of entities th at would benefit from this measure? 
7. Could Brazil elaborate on what basis it is providi ng what appears to be an export subsidy to 
its agriculture sector? 
                                                      
2 Paragraph 11 of G/AG/W/96 refers.  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 5 
 
 
  C. CANADA 'S ICE CREAM PROMOTION INITIATIVE  
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
8. New Zealand has sought further information a bout Canada's Ice Cream Promotion Initiative 
at the 57th, 60th, 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th and 67th Committee on Agriculture meetings.  New Zealand is 
concerned that the responses provided have not addr essed the specific concerns raised and therefore 
asks Canada to please expand upon its earlier responses. 
9. In previous responses Canada has said the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a purely 
commercial arrangement between Dairy Farmers of  Canada and ice cream producers.  However, 
Canada has also acknowledged that the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown Corporation, 
calculates the pooling returns and sharing of promotio n costs related to the programme.  Furthermore, 
the CDC's latest Annual Report 2010-2011 (page 9) states:  "through its many roles and central 
facilitating function in the dairy industry, the CDC ensures Canadian dairy farmers receive sufficient 
revenues from the marketplace to ach ieve decent living standards and invest in their businesses […] it 
supports the dairy industry in the development a nd implementation of major programmes.  On the 
industry's behalf, the CDC administers the Special Milk Class Permit Program, the Domestic Dairy 
Product Innovation Program, the Da iry Marketing Program as well as the pooling systems […] the 
CDC chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management  Committee and in this capacity apprises the 
committee on matters of interest or concern that  require resolution 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."  Given the important roles played both a Crown 
Corporation and provincial marketing boards that are governed by federal and provincial legislation, 
New Zealand considers it important for greater transpar ency to be provided on what is effectively an 
import replacement programme. 
10. Specific questions are: 
(a) Given the CDC is a Crown Corporation, why does Canada allow the CDC to play a 
key role in administrating a scheme which is effectively aimed at displacing imports 
occurring in accordance with Canada's WTO commitments? 
(b) What steps has Canada taken to ensure that the actions of the CDC are consistent with 
Canada's international obligations. 
(c) What is the function of the Milk Pooling Agreement Supervisory bodies in relation to 
the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative? 
(d) What is the function of the provincial marketing boards in relation to the Ice Cream 
Promotion Initiative? 
D. COSTA RICA'S COMPLIANCE WITH AMS  COMMITMENTS  
(i) Questions by Canada 
11. Canada appreciates the updates that Costa Rica h as provided to this Committee with regard to 
its domestic process for bringing its Current Total AMS into line with its domestic support 
commitment.  Costa Rica indicated in September that it was constrained by a judicial ruling and was 
reviewing the implications of a domestic judicial ruling with regards to support to rice producers. 
Canada asks Costa Rica to provi de an update and to indicate when  it can bring its domestic support 
levels into compliance with its international obligations. G/AG/W/104 
Page 6  
 
  (ii) Questions by the United States 
12. The United States appreciated Costa Rica's upda ted status, particularly regarding recent 
judicial outcomes, at the September 2012 Committ ee meeting and would like to follow-up with 
additional questions. 
13. Please explain what steps the Government of Costa Rica has undertaken to reduce its trade-
distorting domestic support to levels within its  commitments since the July 2012 court ruling. 
14. Please explain the objectives of the Government  of Costa Rica's current rice policies 
(including mandated changes per the judicial outcome). 
(a) Please provide the intended goals the current policies strive to obtain, for example, is 
there a policy design to improve income fo r rice growers;  if so, does the policy 
design target certain segments of Costa Rica's rice producers more than other 
segments? 
(b) Given the Government of Costa Rica's elevat ed rice prices have been in effect for 
several years, what evidence does the Governme nt of Costa Rica's have as to whether 
the policy goals have been met?  If the goals  have not been met, what specific goals 
remain to be accomplished? 
(c) Noting the specific policy goals outlined in  the Government of Costa Rica's early 
2011 proposed alternative rice policy, how do the results currently being realized via the guaranteed, elevated rice prices compare with expectations under the alternative 
proposed policy? 
E. T
HE EUROPEAN UNION 'S EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON SUGAR  
(i) Question by Australia 
15. Australia will make a statement and ask qu estions about the European Union's export 
subsidies on sugar.  The European Union's subsid ised sugar exports in the 2011/2012 marketing year 
appear to have exceeded its WTO commitment le vels.  Australia seeks advice from the European 
Union on its actual level of physical exports of sugar during marketing year 2011/2012.  Australia 
seeks advice from the European Union on how this leve l of physical exports is consistent with its 
WTO commitments. 
(ii) Statement by Brazil 
16. Brazil will raise its concerns regarding the Eur opean Union's export subsidies on sugar in the 
marketing year 2011/2012. 
F. INDONESIA 'S QUANTITATIVE AND OTHER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOOD 
PRODUCTS  
(i) Questions by New Zealand 
17. New Zealand thanks Indonesia for the res ponse to its questions on Regulation 60/2012 
Ministry of Trade and 60/2012 Ministry of Agriculture in Committee on Agriculture dated 
20 September 2012.  New Zealand notes that the objectiv e of the Regulations is to ensure horticulture 
products entering Indonesia meet food safety requirements.  New Zealand looks forward to Indonesia 
notifying this Regulation to the WTO SPS Committee.  New Zealand has some outstanding concerns  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 7 
 
 
  about Regulations 60/2012 Trade and 60/2012 Agricu lture and would appreciate further clarification 
from Indonesia on the following questions: 
(a) Why does Regulation 60/2012 (3/2012) Agricu lture maintain refe rence to imports 
being determined dependent on domest ic supply and demand (removed from 
Regulation 60/2012 Trade)? 
(b) How will the new Regulation meet Indonesia's WTO commitments, specifically the 
commitment not to "maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures […] including quantitative import restrictions" as provided for by Article 4.2 of the WTO Agriculture Agreement and Article XI of the GATT of 1994? 
(c) Would Indonesia explain how the import licen sing regime is "transparent and open to 
all who can meet the legal requirement", wh en New Zealand's interpretation of these 
regulations suggests a pivotal aspect of "the legal requirement" is to first obtain a "Recommendation to Import Horticulture  Products" (RIPH)?  New Zealand's 
understanding of 60/2012 Ministry of Agriculture suggests that the grant of an RIPH is not automatic, is premised on the discre tion of the Minister of Agriculture, who 
may consider criteria not "relevant to the principles of the GATT of 1994". 
(d) Could Indonesia please explain why, and how, import licensing measures are being 
implemented to address SPS issues? 
18. New Zealand would also like to ask Indonesia about the Food Law 2012: 
(a) What is the objective of the Food Law 2012?  
(b) How will the Food Law meet Indonesia's WTO commitments, specifically the 
commitment not to "maintain, resort to, or revert to any measures […] including 
quantitative import restrictions" as provided for by Article 4.2 of the WTO Agriculture Agreement and Article XI of the GATT of 1994? 
(c) Has Indonesia considered how the Food La w 2012 will impact on the import of food 
products into Indonesia?  If so, what impact does Indonesia envisage that there might 
be as a result of Food Law 2012?  
(ii) Questions by the United States 
19. The United States appreciates Indonesia's responses to questions submitted for the 
September 2012 Committee on Agriculture meeting and has some follow-up questions: 
(a) Regarding Indonesia's response in paragr aph 18(b)(ii) in G/AG/W/103, how does 
restricting trading rights by reducing th e number of importers prevent monopolistic 
practices?  Wouldn't limiting the number of importers, in fact, decrease the number of 
potential distributors of a product in the Indonesian market?  Does Indonesia restrict retailers from purchasing domestically-pro duced fresh and processed horticultural 
products directly from producers or factories? 
(b) Regarding Indonesia's response to in paragraph 18(b)(iv) in G/AG/W/103, how has 
the regulation been reformulated to give  equal treatment to domestic and imported 
products?  Does the Government of Indonesi a intend to change the regulations to 
allow any distributor, including retailers, to import products?  Additionally, although 
the Ministry of Trade (MOT) eliminated references to quantitative import restrictions G/AG/W/104 
Page 8  
 
  in Articles 2 and 4 of the MOT Regula tion 30/2012 (now MOT Regulation 60), 
quantitative restrictions remain in Artic le 7 ((a) through (e)) of Ministry of 
Agriculture (MOA) Regulation 60 (previously Regulation 3).  When does Indonesia plan to remove the quantitative restrictions from the MOA Regulation 60? 
(c) The United States is concerned that the G overnment of Indonesi a has been limiting 
the amount of livestock imports through a quota system for years, despite the fact that 
Indonesia's WTO commitments do not allow for quotas of livestock products.  In the June and September 2012 Committee meetings , the Government of Indonesia stated 
that it would review Decree of the Minister of Agriculture No. 50/2011, No. 51/2011, and No. 52/2011 (paragraph 16(b)(v) in  G/AG/W/103 refers).  When will the 
Government of Indonesia complete that  review, and what changes are being 
considered to bring it into compliance with WTO obligations?  
(d) The United States notes that since the Se ptember 2012 Committee meeting, Indonesia 
has replaced MOA Regulation 3 and MOT Regulation 30 with MOA Regulation 60 
and MOT Regulation 60, but did not offer explanations to importers or trading 
partners until October 10 and 15, well afte r the September 28 implementation date.  
This caused even more confusion and lost trade.  The revised version of the MOA 
Regulation still contains quantitative restric tions and both revised regulations contain 
various trade restrictive measures that a ppear incompatible with Indonesia's WTO 
obligations.  How and when does Indonesia plan  to bring the measures in line with its 
WTO obligations? 
G. T
HE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 'S AUTONOMOUS TARIFF RATE QUOTA FOR PORK 
(i) Question by Canada 
20. Canada understands that the Republic of Ko rea has created an autonomous TRQ for pork 
which has been allocated to importer associations by the Republic of Korea's Ministry of Agriculture 
and Forestry and Fishery.  Canada understands that since July 2012 none of the quota volumes have 
been utilized.  Could the Republic of Korea ela borate as to the reasons why the quota volumes were 
not utilized?  In addition, does the Republic of Korea anticipate establishing autonomous TRQs for 
pork in the future?  If so, what is the mechanism wh ereby this information is provided to importers or 
other interested parties? 
H. NORWAY 'S CHANGES TO BORDER PROTECTION  
(i) Questions by Australia 
21. Australia understands that Norway's Ministry of Agriculture and Food has announced 
changes to Norway's border protection for selected agricultural products.  This has been framed as 
increased border protection being essential to Norwegia n food production.  Australia requests further 
clarification from Norway on the background to this change, in particular its rationale for increasing 
trade protection.  Can Norway please advise the ad valorem equivalent rate  of protection of the 
specific duties it currently applies to these selected agricultural products?  Will Norway apply its new 
ad valorem tariffs at the maximum bound rate? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
22. Norway has dual tariff bindings for many products  (i.e. a bound rate that is the higher of the 
specific duty and the ad valorem rate).  Cheese is one of the product categories for which Norway 
uses such dual bindings.  At present, Norway app lies specific tariffs for cheese at the bound level  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 9 
 
 
  expressed in "NOK/kg" (between 24.68 and 28 .24 NOK/kg depending on the type of cheese).  
However, the Norwegian Government has suggested switching the tariffs for certain types of hard 
cheese (as well as for "beef steaks and fillets" a nd "carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb") to ad 
valorem  tariffs by 1 January 2013.  Such a move implies an increase in the actual tariff protection of 
the affected varieties of cheese (the applied tari ff will be at the bound ad valorem level of 277 per 
cent).  Trade statistics from Statistics Norway3 indicate that Norway has b een a net exporter of hard 
cheese at least since 2001 (the year when the presen t Norwegian tariff nomenclature for hard cheese 
was introduced).  In 2011 Norway exported 12,645 tonnes of hard cheese and imported 2,337 tonnes.  Considering that Norway is a substantial net expor ter of hard cheese, could Norway please explain the 
reasons behind the proposal for this in crease of tariff protection for hard cheese? 
I. T
HAILAND 'S PADDY PLEDGING SCHEME  
(i) Question by Canada 
23. Canada has been closely monitoring Tha iland's dramatic increase in government rice 
purchases under the "Paddy Pledging Scheme".  Thailand's last domestic support notification (G/AG/N/THA/72) occurred in October 2010, covering the period up until 2007.  In light of these 
recent developments, Canada urges Thailand to pr ovide more recent domestic support notifications. 
(ii) Questions by the United States 
24. Interested Members are inviting Thailand to par ticipate in an informal plurilateral session in 
advance of the 14 November 2012 formal Committee m eeting to discuss recent developments in its 
domestic rice policies. 
25. Since Thailand's policy returned in Octobe r 2011 to a paddy pledging scheme and set 
intervention prices well above market prices (by some estimates as much as 40 per cent higher), 
Thailand's budgetary outlays for the rice support a ppear to have increased significantly.  Given 
Thailand's traditional role as a major rice exporter, these developments have raised serious concerns 
among Members, including the United States.  These concerns are further underscored by the intense 
debate regarding the paddy pledgi ng programme in Thailand's media.  Thailand's last notification to 
the WTO Committee on Agriculture for domestic s upport was marketing year 2007.  Moreover, it 
appears that the Thai Board of Trade has disconti nued publishing daily data re lated to the pledging 
scheme, encumbering transparency.  Previously, the daily data provided a transparent mechanism for 
following developments in the Thai rice market. 
(a) When does Thailand expect to provide updated Table DS:1 and Table DS:2 
notifications to the WTO that include information regarding the paddy pledging 
scheme? 
(b) Will the Thai Board of Trade renew publishing daily data? 
26. The United States notes that the Thai Commerc e Minister was recently quoted as saying 
Thailand had no intention of dumping rice in the world market.
4  Nevertheless, the United States 
remains concerned that with government procurem ent of rice at rates as much as 40 per cent above 
world market prices it will be difficult for the Gove rnment of Thailand to export any procured rice 
without incurring a loss. 
                                                      
3 See http://www.ssb.no/   
4 See http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/US-fear-over-Thai-rice-dumping-is-groundless-
30192701.html G/AG/W/104 
Page 10  
 
  (a) What steps is the Government of Thailand taking to ensure rice procured by the 
government under the programme is not be ing sold for export at prices below 
acquisition cost? 
(b) Please provide a detailed explanation of  the process and cite any relevant 
legislation/regulations by which the Govern ment of Thailand sells stocks procured 
under the paddy pledging scheme, including any specific information on stocks sold 
for export. 
(c) How much rice procured under the current  scheme has been sold from government 
stocks to date? 
(d) Are these government stocks being sold to private companies?   
(e) What, if any stipulations exist regarding how the rice must be disposed of – that is, 
for domestic use or export only? 
(f) Has the Government of Thailand exported an y rice directly?  If yes, how much has 
been exported to which destinations and at what price? 
27. In the same media article, as mentioned above, the Thai Commerce Minist er also noted that 
Thailand wants to push up rice prices to boost farmers' incomes.
5  The United States acknowledges 
Members' sovereign right to set their own dom estic policy objectives as long as all relevant 
international commitments and obligations are maintained. 
(a) Please elaborate on the objectives of income-enhancing programmes for rice and 
what criteria the Government of Thailand uses to ensure those objectives are being 
met. 
(b) What, if any, eligibility requirements exist in order for agricultural producers to 
participate in the rice scheme (e.g., must farmers register to participate)? 
(c) How are rice intervention prices determin ed (e.g., on what basis are these 
formulated)? 
28. The United States understands that under the sch eme, the Government of Thailand purchases 
rice from farmers, the farmers deliver rice to mill ers, and the millers deliver rice to government 
warehouses. 
(a) Are farmers paid directly by Bank for Ag riculture and Agricultural Cooperatives 
(BAAC)? 
(b) What price does the miller receive? 
29. The United States understands that the preferre d type of rice consumed domestically in 
Thailand is a high quality, low yield variety.  Has the rice scheme had any effect on the planting of 
higher yielding varieties or on Thai rice production overall (e.g., total production levels, number of 
crops annually)? 
30. Current estimates put government rice stocks at 14-15 million metric tonnes: 
                                                      
5 See http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/US-fear-over-Thai-rice-dumping-is-groundless-
30192701.html   G/AG/W/104 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (a) How much rice does Thailand currently have in government stocks?  
(b) How much of the rice in government stoc ks was procured under the current scheme? 
(c) Does the Government of Thailand track the destinations of all stock sales? 
31. The United States' understanding is that th e Thai government finances rice purchases by 
obtaining liquidity from BAAC and other specializ ed financial institutions.  The government then 
uses the sales of procured rice to repay the loans.  Please confirm or correct this United States'.  
understanding regarding the Thai government's financial arrangements under the rice programme. 
32. The United States understands that some opera tional costs for the paddy pledging scheme 
(e.g., milling fee, rent) are sometimes reimbursed from the fiscal budget. 
(a) What costs are included in the "operational cost" of the programme? 
(b) Does the government track these disaggregated costs? 
(c) Are these costs similar to what Thailand h as previously notified to the WTO for the 
old paddy pledging scheme? 
(d) Does the "operational cost" include any losses sustained due to the selling of rice at a 
price below the purchase price? 
(e) How would the cost of selling below the ac quisition cost be accounted for, both in 
terms of domestic budget and WTO notifications? 
J. UKRAINE 'S EXPORT BAN ON WHEAT  
(i) Question by Australia  
33. Australia plans to make a statement and ask questions about Ukraine' s reported wheat export 
ban to be applied from 15 November 2012.  Aust ralia notes media reports of the increase in the 
international wheat price as a result of the announc ement, and seeks further information on the level 
of wheat stocks in Ukraine.  Further, Austra lia seeks confirmation that Ukraine has met their 
commitments contained in Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. 
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
34. The European Union notes that on 24 October the Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food of 
Ukraine confirmed that a ban on wheat expor ts would be imposed as from 15 November. 
(a) Would Ukraine provide explanations of the reasons behind introducing this measure?  
(b) How is this measure compliant w ith Article XI GATT of 1994?  
(c) The European Union recalls Ukraine's obliga tions under Article 12 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, whereby the export prohibition or restriction shall be notified to the 
Committee as far in advance as practicable. G/AG/W/104 
Page 12  
 
  (iii) Question by Japan 
35. There have been media reports that the Gove rnment of Ukraine will introduce an export ban 
on wheat beginning on 15 November 2012.  Japan would appreciate if Ukraine clarifies the information and share with the Committee the la test situation concerning supply and demand on 
wheat and any policy measures, including its co mpliance with the notification requirement in 
accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
II. POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
A. I
MPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE  MA:2) 
1. Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/58) 
(a) Tariff quota fill 
(i) Question by Canada 
36. Could Switzerland explain why their tariff quota fill rate for live bovine animals is just 2 per 
cent?  
B. SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES  MA:3  TO MA:5) 
1. Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/97, G/AG/N/TPKM/98 and G/AG/N/TPKM/99) 
(a) Transparency issues 
(i) Questions by Canada 
37. In G/AG/N/TPKM/97, Canada notes that the volume of imports in 2010 for those tariff lines 
classified under Livestock Offal and identified in the notification is a fraction of the volume of 
imports in the previous two years.  Could Chinese Taipei please clarify the reasons for this anomaly? 
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
38. According to the Table MA:3 notification (G/AG/N/TPKM/97), Chinese Taipei applies the 
volume-based SSG for livestock offal between 28 August and 31 December 2012.  The statistics 
provided by Chinese Taipei to calculate the trigger le vel indicates that imports decreased in the three 
years reference period.  Notably, imports as percen tage of consumption have decreased sharply.  
According to the information given in the notif ication, imports as percentage of consumption 
decreased from 17 per cent in 2009 to less than 1 per cent in 2010.  Could Chinese Taipei please 
explain why under these circumstances it  is necessary to apply the SSG? 
39. Please provide details of how the SSG is made ope rational and applied to the individual tariff 
lines within the aggregates of tariff lin es used in Chinese Taipei notifications? 
(b) Trigger calculations 
(i) Question by the European Union 
40. Could Chinese Taipei explain the rationale for calculating the trigger level based on 
aggregated tariff lines and not per individual tariff line?   G/AG/W/104 
 Page 13 
 
 
  C. DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE  DS:1) 
1. Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/20) 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
41. In Armenia's notification, there is informa tion about Green Box domestic support for various 
programmes (such as a programme for counteracting av ian influenza) carried out with support from 
various foreign/international donors (the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural 
Development, the Japanese Government , the Kingdom of Denmark and OPEC). 
(a) Do the monetary values presented in Supporting Table DS:1 include 
foreign/international support or do they onl y reflect the amount of cofinancing by the 
Armenian government? 
(b) If foreign/international support is include d in the values presented, could Armenia 
please specify which proportions of the various support measures are financed by the Armenian government? 
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
42. In 2008 and 2009 Armenia notified non-product-sp ecific Amber Box support in the form of 
"state support to agricultural land users" (a per hect are payment for land parcels of a size up to seven 
hectares).  In 2010 and 2011 no such support is no tified.  Could Armenia please confirm that Amber 
Box support in the form of "state support to agri cultural land users" has been terminated after 2009? 
(c) Classification of measures 
43. Armenia notified a measure described as "s upplying farmers with livestock on the condition 
of postponed payments, in the framework of th e Cattle Husbandry Development Programme" as non-
product-specific AMS in 2008–2010.  In 2011 Armeni a notified a measure described as "state support 
to agricultural land users in the framework of  grain crops production, seed breeding, and seed 
production development programmes" as non-product specific AMS.  Could Armenia please explain 
the reasoning why these measures are cl assified as non-product-specific? 
2. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/27) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Question by the United States 
44. The United States appreciates Brazil's previous answer on how it notifies support under the 
Empréstimo do Governo Federal (EGF ) programme.  The United States notes that prior to 2004/2005, 
Brazil notified support under the EGF as product-speci fic support.  Since then, Brazil has notified the 
EGF as non-product specific support.  Please describe th e reasons for the change.  For example, was 
there a policy change that prompted the change in the notification?   G/AG/W/104 
Page 14  
 
  3. Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/90 and G/AG/N/CAN/90/Corr.1) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Scheduled commitment level 
(i) Question by the United States 
45. The United States appreciates Canada's responses to its questions in paragraphs 25(b) and 
23(c) in G/AG/W/103.  The United States seeks to better understand how Members with large non-
federal expenditures on domestic support coordinate between provin cial/state/territorial governments 
and the federal government to ensure compliance with WTO commitments.  What steps does Canada 
have in place to ensure it can remain within its  annual total AMS commitment level if it appears a 
provincial/territorial or federal gove rnment non-exempt direct programme is likely to result in Canada 
exceeding the commitment level? 
4. Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/30) 
(a) Article 6.2 – Investment subsidies generally available to agriculture 
(i) Question by Canada 
46. In the 20 June 2012 Committee meeting, Ca nada asked Indonesia questions regarding 
significant increases in Article 6.2 (Development Programmes) support (from Rp 2.2 thousand billion 
in 2002 to Rp 19 thousand billion in 2008).  Canada asked Indonesia to indicate if this type of support 
is expected to increase, and Indonesia opted to prov ide a response at a later date (paragraph 84 of 
G/AG/W/96 refers).  Could Indonesia please provide an  update as to whether this type of support has 
continued to increase since 2008 and if it is  projected to increase further in the future? 
5. Israel (G/AG/N/ISR/48/Rev.1) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
(i) Comments by the European Union 
47. The European Union understands that this notifi cation is a revision of the notification which 
was under review at the September 2012 meeting of the Committee.  The European Union would like 
to recall that at that meeting Israel undertook to prov ide replies to several questions at a later stage.  
The European Union is looking forward to analys ing these replies and may then come back with 
further questions on this revised notification. 
48. The European Union appreciates the practice followed by many Members whereby the cover 
page of a revised notification informs of the specifi c changes which were undertaken in the revision.  
It greatly facilitates the analysis.  The European  Union encourages Israel to follow this review-
friendly practice in its revisions of notifications. 
6. Moldova (G/AG/N/MOL/4) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
49. Moldova notifies market price support for wheat under Supporting Table DS:5 for 2001.  
However, there does not seem to be a market price support measure included in Moldova's accession 
commitments as per document WT/ACC/SPEC/MOL/1/Rev.8.  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 15 
 
 
  (a) In this context, how does Moldova justify the notification of the market price support 
for wheat in Supporting Table DS:5? 
(b) Would Moldova explain how the external re ference price in Supporting Table DS:5 is 
obtained, bearing in mind the provisi ons of Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
(b) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – De minimis  
(i) Question by the European Union 
50. The European Union appreciates Moldova's effo rt to present its delayed notifications.  The 
European Union noticed that in Supporting Table DS :4, Moldova does not include a calculation of the 
de minimis .  Could Moldova please explain why? 
7. Nepal (G/AG/N/NPL/2 and G/AG/N/NPL/4) 
(a) Classification of measures 
(i) Question by Canada 
51. Canada notes that for the years 2005, 2007, and 2009 (G/AG/N/NPL/2 refers) that Nepal 
reported support under a number of measures in S upporting Table DS:2 ("Measures exempt from the 
reduction commitment–Special and Differential Treatment–Development Programmes") as 
investment subsidies.  In G/AG/N/NPL/4 for th e reporting year 2010, however, these measures are 
now reported as "General Services" under Annex 2 or Green Box.  Could Nepal please elaborate on 
the changes to each of these measures such that they now meet the criteria of paragraph 2, Annex 2? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
52. The previous notification of Nepal (G/AG/N/ NPL/2) contained spending classified in 
Supporting Table DS:1 "General services" and Supporting Table DS:2 "Special and Differential Treatment/Development Programmes".  The curren t notification (G/AG/N/NPL/4) contains only 
"General services" spending, which also seems to  include measures which were previously notified 
under "Development Programmes".  Could Nepal please e xplain this change in notification approach? 
8. Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/64) 
(a) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by the European Union 
53. From Norway's answers to questions rai sed by the European Union during the 66th meeting of 
the Committee on Agriculture in June 2012, the Euro pean Union understands th at Norway has applied 
price support (internal price rebates) for beef in pr ocessed agricultural products for several years prior 
to 1 July 2009, but that it was not notified separat ely as Norway claimed that the support was part of 
the price difference between the administered target  price and the world market reference price.  
During the 67th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture in September 2012, Norway confirmed that 
price support (internal price rebates) was applied to potatoes and poultry as well before the domestic 
support regimes for those products underwent refo rm in 2002 and 2007 respectively.  This price 
support was not notified separately either, as the s upport was part of the price difference between the 
administered target price and the world market refe rence price.  At present, is there any other product 
(besides beef, potatoes and poultry) for which Norway applies price support of this kind? G/AG/W/104 
Page 16  
 
  9. Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/11) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
(i) Question by the United States 
54. In paragraph 49 in G/AG/W/103, Oman stated it would respond to the question raised by the 
United States at a later stage.  The United States resubmits its question. 
55. The United States asked questions in 2009 rega rding Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7.  
The United States notes that a number of those prog rammes appear in the most recent notification 
(G/AG/N/OMN/11 refers).  In 2009, Oman provided helpful responses to the United States' questions 
and indicated a Table DS:2 notification regardi ng those programmes would be submitted.  Please 
confirm if Oman submitted a Table DS:2 notifi cation.  If not, when will Oman be making its 
notification? 
10. Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/26) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
(i) Questions by Canada 
56. Canada notes that Panama has in Supporting Tabl e DS:1 identified the relevant paragraphs of 
Annex 2 under which support is claimed.  Canada  appreciates this contribution to facilitating the 
review of its notification.  Could Panama provide  Table DS:2 notifications for the newly introduced 
"National emergency plan"?  Fu rther, could Panama please explain how this measure meets the 
criteria of paragraph 8, Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, e.g. that the payments cover losses 
greater than 30 per cent? 
(b) Classification of measures 
(i) Question by Japan 
57. Could Panama kindly explain why it has changed the classification of "irrigation 
programmes" on Supporting Table DS:1 from "In frastructural services" into "Marketing and 
promotion services"? 
11. Ukraine (G/AG/N/UKR/9 and G/AG/N/UKR/13) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
(i) Question by the European Union 
58. The overall value of production has increased subs tantially (by 25 per cent) between 2009 and 
2010 according to the Table DS:1 notifications G/AG/N/UKR/13 and G/AG/N/UKR/9.  An increase 
in value of production is also noted for almost all products in Supporting Table DS:4, and in particular 
for milk (60 per cent), sugar beet (59 per cent), hone y (34 per cent), wool (23 per cent), grapes (23 per 
cent), fruit and berries (19 per cent), and poultry (14 per cent).  Would Ukraine please elaborate on 
this significant annual increase of the overall agricu ltural value of production, as well as the increases 
for specific products?  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  research 
(i) Question by the European Union 
59. The notification shows some noticeable changes in separate Green Box measures spending 
compared to the previous Table DS:1 notificati on covering 2009 (G/AG/N/ UKR/9 refers):  Could 
Ukraine elaborate on the decrease in spending on "General research and development and product 
specific research programmes" (from Hrv 441 million to Hrv 139 million)? 
(c) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  inspection services 
(i) Question by Canada 
60. Canada notes that in 2010 (G/AG/N/UKR/13 refers) that Ukraine provided 
Hrv 1,202.6 million under "General inspection and specific product inspection services for purposes 
of health care, safety, grading or standard ization", which is a significant increase from 
2009 (G/AG/N/UKR/9 refers) when Ukraine notifie d Hrv 11.7 million in support for this general 
service.  Could Ukraine please explain this signifi cant increase in expenditures over this one year 
period? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
61. The notification shows some noticeable changes in separate Green Box measures spending 
compared to the previous Table DS:1 notificati on covering 2009 (G/AG/N/ UKR/9 refers):  Could 
Ukraine elaborate on the substantial increase in sp ending on General inspection and  specific product 
inspection services for purposes of health care, sa fety, grading of standardization (from Hrv 12 
million to Hrv 1,203 million)? 
(iii) Question by Japan 
62. Could Ukraine kindly explain why "General inspection and specific product inspection 
services for purposes of health care, safety, grading or standardization" on  Supporting Table DS:1 
increased so much from the previous year?  
(d) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Public stockholding for food security purposes  
(i) Question by the European Union 
63. The notification shows some noticeable changes in separate Green Box measures spending 
compared to the previous Table DS:1 notificati on covering 2009 (G/AG/N/ UKR/9 refers):  Could 
Ukraine elaborate on the increase in spendi ng on public stockholding (from Hrv 109 million to 
Hrv 199 million)? 
(e) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Question by the European Union 
64. The notification shows some noticeable changes in separate Green Box measures spending 
compared to the previous Table DS:1 notificati on covering 2009 (G/AG/N/ UKR/9 refers):  Could 
Ukraine elaborate on the increase in spending on environmental programmes (from Hrv 16 million to Hrv 175 million)? G/AG/W/104 
Page 18  
 
  (f) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Market price support 
(i) Question by Canada 
65. Regarding the calculation of market price support for sugar produced from sugar beets in 
Supporting Table DS:5, Canada understands fro m WT/ACC/SPEC/UKR/1/Rev.12 that Ukraine's 
fixed external reference price for 2004–2006 is Hrv 1,747.33 per tonne.  Given that paragraph 8, 
Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires the external reference price to be fixed, Ukraine's 
indexing of the reference price in Supporting Tabl e DS:5 does not seem to follow the rules of the 
Agreement.  Canada raised a similar question, as did Japan, during the June 2011 meeting of the 
Committee (paragraphs 38 and 39 in G/AG/W/86 re fer) and notes that Ukraine's response cited 
Article 18.4 as providing accommodation for its met hodology.  Canada observes that Ukraine has 
again indexed the reference price for sugar produced  from sugar beets.  Canada notes the appropriate 
methodology for calculating market price support is  described in paragraph 8, Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture after which due consid eration may be considered as described in 
Article 18.4.  Could Ukraine please indicate when it will provide revised notifications which would 
include the accurate fixed external reference price of Hrv 1,747.33 per tonne for sugar produced from 
sugar beets?   
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
66. In G/AG/N/UKR/13, Ukraine cal culates market price support for sugar in Supporting 
Table DS:5.  According to paragraph 8 of Annex 3, the parameters needed for this calculation are:  
(i) an internal applied administered price;  (ii) a fixed external reference price;  and (iii) a volume of 
production eligible to receive the administered pri ce.  The external reference price for Ukraine is 
based on the average of 2004-2006 and it is fixed in its accession documents at Hrv 1,747. per tonne.  
According to the notification for 2009 (G/AG/N/ UKR/9 refers) the external reference price was 
Hrv 2,798.1 per tonne, and in the current notif ication for 2010 it is Hrv 3,052.8 per tonne. 
(a) What justifies the change in the Ukrain ian external reference price for sugar? 
(b) Please explain the composition of the consumer  price index used in the calculations. 
(c) Please provide an official website where the Ukrainian consumer prices index can be 
consulted. 
67. The G/AG/N/UKR/13 notification shows a large increase in Current Total AMS compared to 
the previous Table DS:1 notification, from 37 per cent to 72 per cent of the Bound Total AMS commitment.  It seems to be primarily related to  the significant increase in the market price support 
for sugar.  Could Ukraine explain the policy reasons  for this increase?  Could Ukraine also provide a 
comment on developments of support to s ugar produced from sugar beets after 2010? 
(iii) Question by Norway 
68. Ukraine refers in column 9 of its Supporting Ta ble DS:5 to the fixed external reference price 
of Hrv 1,747.3 per tonne for "sugar produced from s ugar beets".  However, in column 5 of the same 
Supporting Table, the external reference price used in the calculation of the actual market price 
support is set at Hrv 3,052.8 per tonne.  According to the footnote to column 5, this is due to the fact 
that the "Consumer Price Index for 2007-2010 is taken into account at calculation".  Norway notes that the Market Price Support calculation appears to result in a Current Total AMS higher than 
Ukraine's Total AMS Commitment if based on the unadjusted fixed external reference price.  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 19 
 
 
  69. Could Ukraine please explain which provision or provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture would allow or enable  such an adjustment to the fi xed external reference price? 
(g) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by Canada 
70. Canada notes that product-specific support prov ided to Hops under a measure which provides 
"compensation of costs of production" in 2009 amo unted to 119 per cent of that product's value of 
production and in 2010 support amounted to 95 per cent of value of production.  Could Ukraine provide more information on this measure, e.g. how  are payments per hectare determined?  What is 
the payment rate per hectare?  Wh at are the eligible costs?  Is there a limit on the amount of payment 
to a producer? 
(ii) Question by the European Union 
71. Could Ukraine provide more detailed informa tion on subsidies for producing grape products 
included in Supporting Table DS:6 in G/AG/N/UKR/13? 
(h) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Non-product-specific AMS 
(i) Questions by Canada 
72. In Supporting Table DS:9, by far the largest non- product specific AMS expenditure in 2010 is 
for "Total support of producers by introducing special value-added tax regimes" at Hrv 7,099.3 million out of a total NPS amount of Hrv 8,229.5 million.  In 2009, Ukraine notified 
Hrv 2,824.7 million for the programme "Accumul ation of VAT for purchasing of inputs for 
agricultural production".  Could Ukraine please confirm if these are the same measure or two different 
measures?  If they are indeed the same measure, please indicate what amendments were made that 
would account for the substantial increase?  What are the eligibility criteria and how is this support 
calculated? 
73. In Supporting Table DS:9, Ukraine provided "P artial reimbursement of price of agricultural 
machinery and equipment" in the amount of Hr v 2.6 million in 2009, however, in 2010 the 
programme was changed to "Partial reimbursement of price of domestically produced agricultural 
machinery and equipment" and Hrv 30 million in support was provided.  Could Ukraine elaborate on 
the rationale for limiting the reimbursement to "domestically produced agricultural machinery and 
equipment"?  
(ii) Questions by the European Union 
74. Could Ukraine provide details on what the "fin ancial support to individual farmers" notified 
in Supporting Table DS:9 constitutes of in G/AG/N/UKR/13? 
75. Could Ukraine provide more information on the measure of "partial re imbursement of price 
of domestically produced agricultural machinery and equipment" notified in Supporting Table DS:9 in 
G/AG/N/UKR/13? G/AG/W/104 
Page 20  
 
  12. United States (G/AG/N/USA/89) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services 
(i) Questions by Australia 
76. Australia notes that there has been increased expenditure u nder the "Rural Energy for 
America Program".  In this context, Australia return s to a question that it has previously asked about 
this programme.  Can the United States explain how this programme complies with the general 
prohibition on direct payments to producers for programmes notified unde r Annex 2 as General 
Services?  Australia notes that paragraph 2(g) of An nex 2 explicitly excludes subsidized provision of 
on-farm facilities and paragraph 5 extends di rect payments to "payments in kind". 
77. Can the United States advise how it calculates th e value of outlays on "State Programmes for 
Agriculture"?  Australia notes that the outla y on these programmes does not seem to change. 
(b) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  payments for relief from natural disasters 
(i) Question by Canada 
78. Would the United States indicate the length of  the reference period that was used in 
determining the 50 per cent loss for the indi vidual farm under the Non-insured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program?  Were losses in comparison to a 10-year average?  Or a 5-year average? 
(c) Current Total AMS (Amber Box) – Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
(i) Question by Canada 
79. The United States reports support to the livestock sector on an aggregate basis (not by cattle, 
hogs, sheep, poultry, other livestock).  Does the Un ited States have data for the various livestock 
programmes reported in Supporting Table DS:6 on a disaggregated basis?  If not, would the United 
States consider pro-rating data so that an estimat ed level of support for the individual commodities 
would be reflected? 
(d) Classification of measures 
(i) Questions by Australia 
80. Australia seeks to return to the issue on "R isk Management Agency" notified under "General 
Services".  Australia appreciates that it was discu ssed in detail at the time of the United States' 
previous notification.  In particular: 
(a) Can the United States provide any further advice to explain the rationale for its 
notification of funding provided by the Risk Management Agency in support of the administration and provision of crop insurance? 
(b) Can the United States explain why these paym ents are not a cross subsidy on crop 
insurance otherwise notified as an Amber Box measure? 
(ii) Questions by Canada 
81. As of 2008 the "Rural Energy for American Program" is being notified as Green Box under 
General Services.  The United States indicates that  it provides "direct loans, loan guarantees and  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 21 
 
 
  grants to farmers, ranchers and small rural business to purchase renewable energy systems and make 
energy efficiency improvements".  The previous programme (i.e., Renewable Energy Program) was 
notified as an environmental progr amme under paragraph 12.  Would the United States explain the 
reason for the change in classification; indicate unde r which sub-paragraph of General Services it is 
being notified; and explain how it meets the criteria, particularly those in th e chapeau that payments 
do not involve direct payments to producers or processors? 
82. Credit programmes are usually considered as Amber Box support unless provided by 
developing countries under Article 6.2.  Under "Farm Credit Programs", in the category of "Structural 
adjustment through investment aids", the Unite d States notifies support to producers that cannot 
obtain credit elsewhere as a "structural disadvantag e" and thus exempt from reduction commitments 
under paragraph 11.  Would the United States explain how this is a "structural disadvantage" and why 
such support should be exempt from the United States' reduction commitments? 
(iii) Questions by the European Union 
83. The insurance premium subsidies to producers are notified in Supporting Table DS:9 of the 
notification.  Would the United States consider that  there could be a risk of double counting of some 
of this spending in the underwriting gain s/losses entry under "General Services"? 
84. Underwriting gains to insurers of US$ 2.44 million are notified under "General Services".  
How will the United States treat underwriting losses in the notification? 
D. NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE  DS:2) 
1. Armenia (G/AG/N/ARM/22) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) –General services 
(i) Question by Canada 
85. The "Wheat and Barley Seed Farming Deve lopment Programme" is described as providing 
the entities involved in seed farming with high quali ty imported seeds.  Canada notes that Armenia 
has reported this measure as a "General Services" under Annex 2.  Could Armenia please elaborate as 
to how the provision of seed (a product) meet s the criteria of a "General Services"?  
2. New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/76) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – General services:  pest and disease control 
(i) Questions by Canada 
86. New Zealand stated in the cover page of  its revised domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/NZL/75/Rev.1 refers) that "Border Biosec urity Risk Management ($NZ 80.7 million)" and 
"Domestic Biosecurity Risk Management ($NZ 58.9  million)" were deleted du e to double-counting.  
Could New Zealand explain where these measur es were double-counted in the original 
notification (G/AG/N/NZL/75 refers)? 
87. New Zealand also provided a respon se to Canada's question at the 67th Committee on 
Agriculture meeting, that $NZ 17.4 million was pa id to compensate growers for losses of their 
kiwifruit crops and those payments were consistent  with Annex 2 paragraph 8.  Could New Zealand 
indicate where such payments have been notif ied?  Would New Zealand also submit a new G/AG/W/104 
Page 22  
 
  Table DS:2 to justify those payments meet Annex 2 paragraph 8 (a)-(e), particularly meeting the loss-
trigger reference stipulated in paragraph 8(a)? 
3. United States (G/AG/N/USA/86) 
(a) Transparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
(i) Question by the European Union 
88. Could the United States explain more in deta il the rules of the Standard Reinsurance 
Agreement on the basis of which it is decided whic h part of the underwriting gains/losses goes to the 
State and which part goes to the insurers? 
4. United States (G/AG/N/USA/91) 
(a) Annex 2 (Green Box) – Direct payments:  Payments under environmental programmes 
(i) Questions by Australia 
89. With regards to "Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP)":  
(a) Are all the specific conditions, on whic h payment is dependent, related to 
environmental or conservation objectives?  How does providing public access to 
wild-life dependent recreation, such as huntin g and fishing, further environmental or 
conservation objectives? 
(b) Can the United States provide further inform ation on the amount of grant funding that 
will be provided to individua l land owners, and how it will ensure that payments are 
limited to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the 
government programme, consistent with A nnex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
paragraph 12? 
90. Regarding "Conservation Loan Program", the cr iteria for determining which farmer gets 
access to the credit and for what project seem somewh at open-ended.  What arrangements are in place 
to ensure that direct loans and loan guarantees  are provided only for genuine environmental and 
conservation measures?  And how will the United States ensure that payments (interest rate subsidy) 
are limited to the extra costs or loss of inco me involved in complying with the government 
programme, consistent with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, paragraph 12? 
(ii) Question by Japan 
91. Could the United States kindly explain which measure in G/AG/N/USA/89 corresponds to 
"Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Prog ram (VPA-HIP)"?  "Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program" which has a name similar to VPA- HIP, seems to have existed since 2010.  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 23 
 
 
  E. EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES  ES:1  TO ES:3) 
1. Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/87) 
(a) Circumvention of commitments – International food aid 
(i) Comments by the European Union 
92. Australia explains that it has not provided physical food aid, and therefore entries for 
Table ES:3 for 2009, 2010 and 2011 are zero.  Howe ver, international organisations like World Food 
Programme (WFP) express the amounts of distributed food aid in physical equivalent also when the 
donor country provided food aid in the form of cash contributions.  For the sake of transparency, it could be useful if also Members who donate cash based food assistance only could notify their total 
volume of food aid, in physical equivalent. 
2. Brazil (G/AG/N/BRA/28) 
(a) Circumvention of commitments – International food aid 
(i) Question by the European Union 
93. Why does Brazil notify food aid for products wh ich are subject to export subsidy reduction 
commitments, like sugar for example, under Table ES:3 while according to the notification 
requirements these products shall be notified under Table ES:1? 
(b) Circumvention of commitments – Quantity of total exports 
(i) Question by the European Union 
94. Could Brazil explain the reasons behind the dram atic drop in exports of undenatured ethyl 
alcohol from 2008 to 2010 (2008:  4,054,588 tonnes;  2009:  2,646,444 tonnes;  2010:  207 tonnes)? 
3. India (G/AG/N/IND/9) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitments  (Article 9.1) – Special and differential 
treatment (Article 9.4) 
(i) Questions by Canada 
95. In relation to India's reply to Australia at the September 2012 Meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (paragraph 64(d) in G/AG/W/103 refers):  India at the time indicated that as the export 
sale(s) had not yet been completed it was not in a position to provide details as to the support provided 
for the export of wheat.  Presumably, some of these export contracts have now been realized, therefore could India provide information on the support for wheat exports? 
96. In relation to India's reply to Australia and the European Union at the September 2012 
Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (paragraphs  64(a) and 65(a) in G/AG/W/103 refer) that the 
Agreement on Agriculture be read in conjunction w ith paragraph 164 of the Revised Draft Modalities 
for Agriculture:  Canada notes that WT/MIN(05) /DEC ("Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration") and 
TN/AG/W/Rev.4 (Revised Draft Modalities for Agri culture) reflect a process and dynamic that is 
distinct from the implementation of the Urugua y Round Agreement on Agriculture.  Canada's 
observation is that documents associated with th e Committee on Agriculture in Special Session are 
"conditional in the deepest sense" as noted in th e preamble to the Revised Draft Modalities for G/AG/W/104 
Page 24  
 
  Agriculture.  Could India share its view on what b asis it is able to provide export subsidies under the 
Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture? 
97. In relation to India's reply to the European Union at the September 2012 Meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture (paragraph 65(b) in G/AG/W/103 refers):  Could India elaborate on its response that it has reserved the right to use export s ubsidies under Article 9.1(d) and (e) in Part IV, 
Section II of its WTO schedule? 
4. United States (G/AG/N/USA/88) 
(a) Export subsidies subject to reduction commitmen ts (Article 9.1) – Transparency issues 
(i) Question by Australia 
98. Australia would appreciate the United States' ela boration on its domestic policy regarding its 
existing export subsidies.  In particular, Australia  requests advice on what plan, if any, the United 
States has to eliminate export subsidies by 2013, consistent with the 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
(b) Circumvention of commitments – International food aid 
(i) Question by the European Union 
99. Why is the Table ES:3 notification missing?  Does it mean that the United States did not grant 
food aid for products without export subsidy commitments in 2010?  
F. NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE DECISION ON MEASURES 
CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFE CTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST -
DEVELOPED AND NET -FOOD IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (TABLE  NF:1) 
1. United States (G/AG/N/USA/90) 
(a) Quantity and concessionality of food aid 
(i) Questions by the European Union 
100. The United States notifies that 2,435,640 tonnes of food aid was provided to Least-Developed 
and Net Food-importing Developing Countries dur ing 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010.  
156,770 tonnes were provided through the Food fo r Progress Programme and 97,020 tonnes were 
provided through the Food for Education Programme.  Food aid under those programmes was provided in fully grant form.  Additionally, 2,181, 850 tonnes of food aid was provided through either 
Title I or Title II of the Food for Peace Act (P.L. 480).  Food assistance under Title II of the Food for Peace Act is according to the notifica tion provided in fully grant form. 
(a) Could the United States please provide information about the volume of food aid 
provided through Title I of the Food for Peace Act? 
(b) Could the Unites States please provide information about which concessional terms 
apply to food aid provi ded through Title I of the Food for Peace Act?  G/AG/W/104 
 Page 25 
 
 
  III. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
1. India – Domestic support notifications 
(i) Question by Canada 
101. At the 20 September 2012 meeting of the Comm ittee, India indicated that it was in the 
process of collecting data for its outstanding a nnual domestic support notif ications.  Could India 
provide an update as when it expects to submit its  annual domestic support notifications for the years 
2004-2005 through to 2010-2011? G/AG/W/104 
Page 26  
 
   
A
NNEX 1 
Question by the United States, (paragraph 2) 
 
Comparison of data from Brazil's notificati on and data from CONAB website for 2008/09 
 
Item PEP PROP PEPRO 
$US million 
Corn    
  Notification 21 110 3 
  CONAB 13/07/20111 176 0 52 
  CONAB 12/08/20121 176 40 52 
Cotton    
  Notification 0 0 0 
  CONAB 13/07/20111 0 0 301 
  CONAB 12/08/20121 105 0 301 
 
Source :  http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=538 &t=2&Pagina_objcmsconte udos=1#A_objcmsconteudos 
 
 
__________  
                                                      
1 Data reported on the CONAB website on this date, converted from reals to US dollars using an 
average exchange rate for 2008 and 2009.