G/AG/W/138  
 
5 February 2015  
(15-0813)  Page: 1/92  
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 13 NOVEMBER 20141 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/136 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Responses to the following questions were  not provided before 4 February 2015: 
 
AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
Questions under Article 18.6  
75035 Saint Lucia United States - 
75001, 75037 Turkey United States - 
Questions relating to individual notifications  
75077 Honduras Canada G/AG/N/HND/37 
75123, 75124 India Brazil G/AG/N/IND/10, 
G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1 
75125 United States Russian Federation G/AG/N/USA/93 
 
 
_______________ 
  
                                               
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 and obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPL EMENTATION OF CO MMITMENTS: ARTICLE 
18.6 .......................................................................................................................... ....... 5 
1.1   Brazil's tax cr edit programmes .................................................................................... 5  
1.1.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75002) ......................................................... 5  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 6  
1.2.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75023) ............................................ 6  
1.3   Canada's dairy policies ............................................................................................... 6  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75082) ............................................................. 6  
1.3.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75083) ............................................................. 7  
1.3.3   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75025) ............................................ 8  
1.4   Canada's proposed ch anges to tariff  schedule ................................................................ 9  
1.4.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 75024) ............................................ 9  
1.5   Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese ......................................................................... 11 
1.5.1   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID  75026 ) ........................................... 11 
1.6   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS commitments ........................................................... 11 
1.6.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 7505 9) ................................................................... 11 
1.6.2   Question by United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID  75031 ) ........................................... 11 
1.7   Egypt's domestic supp ort and export  subsidies ............................................................. 12 
1.7.1   Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75060) ........................................................ 12 
1.8   India's sugar export subsidies .................................................................................... 13 
1.8.1   Question by Au stralia (AG-IM S ID 75028) ................................................................. 13 
1.9   Jordan's inflation adjustments on  the fixed external  reference price ................................. 15 
1.9.1   Question by Ca nada (AG-IMS ID 7506 4) ................................................................... 15 
1.10   Russia's agricult ural support  for 2015 ........................................................................ 16 
1.10.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 75067) ...................................................... 16 
1.11   Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork ................................ 16 
1.11.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75035) .......................................... 16 
1.12   Thailand's paddy pledging scheme ............................................................................. 16 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75036) .......................................... 16 
1.13   Thailand's Rice Farm er Assistance  Programme ............................................................ 17 
1.13.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  75068) .................................................................. 17 
1.14   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 18 
1.14.1   Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75001 an d 75037 ) .......................... 18 
1.15   Turkey's agricultural cr edit and investme nt subsidies ................................................... 19 
1.15.1   Question by Canada (AG- IMS ID  75071) .................................................................. 19 
1.16   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 19 
1.16.1   Question by Europe an Union (AG- IMS ID 75069) ...................................................... 19 
1.17   Turkey's export subsidy programmes ......................................................................... 19 
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75027) ................................................................ 19 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 20  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 20 
2.1.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/79) ..................................................................................... 20 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 20 
2.2.1   Chile (G /AG/N/CH L/44) .......................................................................................... 20 
2.2.2   China (G /AG/N/CH N/26) ......................................................................................... 21 
2.2.3   Iceland (G/AG/N/ ISL/32, G/AG/N /ISL/36) ................................................................. 21 
2.2.4   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/196) ........................................................................................ 22 
2.2.5   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/25) ....................................................................................... 23 
2.2.6   Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/2) ...................................................................... 23 
2.2.7   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/32) ...................................................................................... 24 
2.2.8   Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/43) ................................................................................... 25 
2.2.9   South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/81) ................................................................................. 25 
2.2.10   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/78) .................................................................................... 26 
2.2.11   Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of (G/AG/N/VEN/28) .................................................. 26 
2.3   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) ..................................... 27 
2.3.1   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/195) ........................................................................................ 27 
2.3.2   Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/114) .......................................................................... 28 
2.4   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 28 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/89) ..................................................................................... 28 
2.4.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/98) ....................................................................................... 32 
2.4.3   Georgia (G/AG/N/GE O/13) ...................................................................................... 33 
2.4.4   Honduras (G/AG/N/HN D/37) ................................................................................... 36 
2.4.5   Iceland (G/AG/N/IS L/33) ........................................................................................ 36 
2.4.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) ....................................................... 37 
2.4.7   Indonesia (G/AG/N/ID N/34) .................................................................................... 57 
2.4.8   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MY S/32) ..................................................................................... 57 
2.4.9   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/31) ...................................................................................... 58 
2.4.10   Russian Federa tion (G/AG/ N/RUS/5) ....................................................................... 59 
2.4.11   Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LK A/3) .................................................................................... 60 
2.4.12   United States of  America (G/A G/N/USA/93) ............................................................. 61 
2.5   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 69 
2.5.1   Switzerlan d (G/AG/N/ CHE/68) ................................................................................. 69 
2.6   EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS  (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) .................................. 69 
2.6.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/101)  ..................................................................................... 69 
2.6.2   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/198) ........................................................................................ 70 
2.6.3   Mexico (G/AG/N/ME X/27) ....................................................................................... 71 
2.6.4   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/76) ...................................................................................... 72 
2.6.5   Thailand (G/AG/N/TH A/76) ..................................................................................... 73 
2.7   NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION  (TABLE NF:1) ....................... 74 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.7.1   G/ AG/N/U SA/97 .................................................................................................... 74 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 74  
3.1.1   China (I. Article 18.6) ............................................................................................. 74 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 76 
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... . 85 
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... . 92 
 
 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Brazil's tax credit programmes 1.1.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75002) According to media reports Brazil has recently taken action to support its sugar industry 
by stimulating exports of sugar and bioeth anol. These reports suggest that: under the 
REINTEGRA programme, in September, Brazil expanded tax credits to sugar and ethanol 
producers worth 0.3% of their exports; in October the rate was further increased to 3%; 
this subsidy costs Brazilian authorities ab out BRL 900 million (about USD 387 million ); 
and the subsidy is directly contingent upon export. In the light of this, could Brazil 
indicate:  
a. Whether these reports are accurate? 
b. The quantity of sugar and etha nol subject to this measure? 
c. The amount of duties and taxes borne by sugar and ethanol destined for 
consumption in Brazil and the degree of re mission of such duties or taxes for 
exported products in comparison with the duties and taxes which have accrued (within the meaning of footnote 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Duties)? 
d. Given that the definition of an ex port subsidy under the Agreement on 
Agriculture does not have a provision equivalent to footnote 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties, whether the measure is an 
export subsidy subject to reduction commitments under the Agreement on 
Agriculture? 
e. Whether the subsidy will be notified as an  export subsidy and how it relates to 
Brazil's scheduled export subsidy budge t outlay commitment for the product 
category sugar, including ethyl alcohol? 
f. Whether there are plans to re form or abolish this measur e, in particular in the 
light of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition? 
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. The REINTEGRA programme has been re-enacted by Medida Provisória No. 651, 
dated 9 July 2014. The Decree No 8304 of 30 September 2014 regulated it, thereby 
including the sugar and ethanol sectors under the scope of the programme. Finally, Portaria No 428 of the Minister of Finance was published on 1 October, defining the 
REINTEGRA restitution rate at 3%. It is important to note that REINTEGRA does not 
constitute an export-contingent subsidy. As regards the figures involved, please refer to 
the reply under item c below. 
b. Sugar and ethanol exported by companies that comply with the REINTEGRA rules are 
eligible under the programme. 
c. REINTEGRA is a voluntary programme designed to offset the costs to exporting 
companies arising from residual indirect taxes accumulated throughout the production 
chain which could not be reimbursed by the traditional methods. The 3% rate was 
defined respecting the maximum amount requir ed to prevent the restitution of residual 
indirect taxes exceeding the amount levied in respect of like products sold for domestic 
consumption. This assessment depends on a complex estimation of the costs of the 
residual indirect taxes, under a voluntar y programme, taking into consideration the 
different tax regimes that apply to each phase in the production chain. Those estimates 
are reviewed by the Fiscal Authorities on  a permanent basis, and the applicable 
restitution rate may vary accordingly. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 6 - 
 
  d. Given that no such equivalent provision exists in the Agreement of Agriculture, the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measur es fully applies to this particular case. 
e. Through REINTEGRA, indirect taxes refund ed for exported goods never exceed the 
amount levied in respect of like products sold for domestic consumption. Since it 
complies with footnote 1 of the SCM Agreement,  there is no subsidy involved. Hence, no 
notification of the programme is required. 
f. The REINTEGRA programme does not constitute an export-contingent subsidy and thus 
does not contradict any commitment on export competition undertaken at the last 
WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali. 
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 1.2.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75023) 
The United States appreciates Brazil's resp onses to questions on the Prêmio para 
Escoamento do Produto (PEP) and Prêmio de Equalização pago ao Produtor (PEPRO) in 
AG-IMS ID 74021. The United States has repeatedly requested information on the 
quantities of specific products shipped to sp ecific destinations, including both domestic 
and export destinations. In response to U.S.  question AG-IMS ID 74021, Brazil indicated 
that CONAB is working on improving its cont rol mechanism so as to be able to provide 
d a t a  c o v e r i n g  m o r e  r e c e n t  p e r i o d s .  T h e  U n i t ed States has been asking Brazil for this 
information since the June 2012 Committee meeting, and strongly urges Brazil to 
provide substantive responses to our questions as soon as possible.  
a. Please provide an update on this proce ss. By what date can the United States 
expect this data? 
b. In response to U.S. question AG-IMS ID 74021, Brazil stated that the 
PEP reassessment is still in progress. Please provide any updates on the 
reassessment and confirm the pr ogramme remains suspended. 
Answer by Brazil 
 
a. Brazil is still working on improving CONAB's control mechanism so as to be able to 
provide the quantities of product exported under PEPRO covering more recent periods. 
There is no deadline established to conclude the work.  
b. PEP remains suspended and the reassessment has not yet been concluded. 
Follow-up: The United States registered continued interest in receiving the data which they had 
requested at a number of Committee meetings. 
 
1.3  Canada's dairy policies 
1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75082) 
New Zealand remains concerned about the methods Canada uses to calculate the value 
and volume of its dairy exports that receive export subsidies. New Zealand is concerned 
that Canada does not include exports that bene fit from cheaper ingredients as a result of 
export subsidies delivered through the Special Milk Class Permit Program. 
 
Could Canada please explain why it consid ers exports of, or including, ingredients 
supplied at cheaper rates under the Special Milk Class Permit Program (other than 
Special Milk Class 5(d)), do not benefit from export subsidies as outlined under 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agricultur e, namely, "payments on the export of an 
agricultural product that are fi nanced by virtue of governme ntal action, whether or not a 
charge on the public account is involved…"? 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Could Canada provide the total value and volu me of any exports of dairy products that 
are not counted by Canada as benefiting from  export subsidies, and are not part of an 
Import for Re-Export Programme for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 years? Could Canada also provide a breakdown on an ex port market basis for any such exports? 
 
Answer by Canada  
As mentioned previously, under Class 5(a), (b) and (c) (Special Milk Class (SMC) Permit Program), 
among other domestic milk classes, milk is made available for use in dairy products and products containing dairy ingredients at prices which vary according to end use. These dairy products are used as ingredients for further processing for the domestic and export markets, hence are not 
contingent on export. Canada is of the view that except for SMC 5 (d), which was found to provide 
export subsidies under Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture, none of the SMC constitute export subsidies within the scope of the Agreemen t on Agriculture. Therefore, Canada does not 
include sales under SMC 5 (a), (b) and (c) in its calculation of total budgetary outlays and quantity 
limits for export subsidies reported to the Worl d Trade Organization. Regarding the provision of 
export subsidies, the use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and 
quantity is consistent with Canada's WTO rights and obligations. Canada remains committed to the 
Doha Round and, in conjunction with other WTO Members, to the elimination of export subsidies. The government of Canada is not privy to business decisions made by dairy ingredients and products manufacturers, and further food processors and therefore cannot speculate on volume 
and value of dairy exports outside Canada's subsid ized export class 5(d) and under the Import for 
Re-Export Program. The nature of the Harmonized  System nomenclature makes it impossible to 
determine the specific level of dairy exports as certain lines cover more than dairy products. 
 
Follow-up : New Zealand maintained the longstanding co ncern relating to how Canada calculated 
the value and volume of its dairy exports that had received export subsidies. The information 
requested on the milk classes and exports was deemed relevant and important to address New 
Zealand's concern and should be shared with the Committee. New Zealand indicated its intention to further communicate with Canada on this  issue. United States flagged interest. 
 
1.3.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 75083) 
New Zealand remains concerned about the ingr edients strategy drafted by the Canadian 
dairy producers for the Canadian dairy indu stry. Given that the Ingredients Strategy 
refers to the involvement of government in programmes that could potentially displace 
imports and create export subsidised prod uct not captured under Canada's current 
export subsidy commitments, New Zealand ag ain asks Canada to confirm whether the 
Canadian government: 
 
a. Has engaged with any industry bodies on  this new strategy, and particularly 
the suggestion that the Special Milk Class Permit Program be modified to create 
a new "ingredients" class of milk that  would introduce "competitive world 
pricing" of surplus solids-non-fat (SNF ) in order to replace imported dairy 
ingredients, implementing a new "end -use billing mechanism" to prevent 
"cannibalizing producer revenues from higher-priced milk classes"; and/or, 
b. Intends to implement any parts of the strategy requiring government 
involvement, for example the creation of  additional compositional standards for 
dairy products. If so, what parts, and how is this consistent with Canada's 
commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? 
Answer by Canada 
 
The Canadian government is aware of industry discussions to better position itself in preparation for the elimination of export subsidies. However, these discussions are industry-led and not part of 
a government strategy. As mentioned previously, the Canadian government cannot speculate on 
possible actions the dairy industry may undertake.  
Follow-up: New Zealand was disappointed at receiving the same response that was provided at the 
last CoA meeting, which it claimed did not address its questions. In its view, whether or not it was G/AG/W/138 
 
- 8 - 
 
  possible or appropriate for the government to comment on industry plans, it was not unreasonable 
for Canada to respond to New Zealand's questions on the role of the government, as these were two separate issues. New Zealand flagged continued concern and intended to follow up bilaterally with Canada.$ 
 
1.3.3  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75025) 
The United States is concerned at the prol iferation of Canada's special milk pricing 
classes, now reaching 39 different classes.  Domestic food and industry processors 
appear to receive a special m ilk class permit to purchase dairy inputs at a subsidized 
price, predicated on a declaration that a co mpetitive like-product has been imported into 
Canada. These special milk prices range from whey used in animal feed to cheese used 
in the manufacturing of further processed products, such as frozen pizzas. These 
products are produced using the heavily disc ounted dairy inputs and are then sold in 
domestic and foreign markets. 
 
a. Please provide an approximation of how much milk goes into special classes 
and ends up in products that are dest ined for export markets. For example, 
please advise how much milk is sold in  special classes and are destined for 
products categorized under the HS code 19053010 (Bread, Pastry, Cakes and Biscuits ad similar Bakes Products, an d Unprepared Puddings). Trade in this 
category is over 265,000 tonnes and valued  at USD 892 million. Is the milk that 
ends up in exported product notified under the export subsidy notifications? 
b. Whey: will the class 3(d) programme, which allows milk to be sold at 
discounted prices for cheese for fresh pizzas sold directly to consumers, be 
expanded to include additional cheese beyond mozzarella? 
c. Ice Cream: the trade impact of the Canada-wide ice cream promotion plan 
appears to be quite dramatic, with impo rts of butter oil and sugar blends under 
tariff code 2106909510 decreasing by 60% between 2008 and 2009. Please 
provide details on the 100% Canadi an ice-cream promotion programme, 
including details on how much fluid milk is being directed into this programme 
and the costs involved with this programme. 
d. Other: please inform the Committee whether the Canadian Dairy Commission 
will be administering a similar type of programme for any additional products 
and, if so, on what products. 
Answer by Canada 
 
a. Over the course of the 2013-2014 dairy year, 493.6 million litres of milk on a milk 
equivalent basis were made available for the manufacture of dairy products and 
ingredients used by further food processors through special milk classes (5 a, b and c) for the domestic and export market. The govern ment of Canada is not privy to business 
decisions made by further food processors in regards to their export activity. There are 
no specific requirements for Special Milk Class Permit Program applicants to provide 
information as to the market for which its products will be used since the dairy component prices for these products are the same whether the end product is destined 
for the domestic or export markets.  
b. The Canadian government is aware that industry is currently considering expanding 
class 3(d), however, the government will not speculate on possible actions the dairy 
industry may undertake. Decisions affecting the milk classification system are subject to 
approval by the Canadian Milk Su pply Management Committee (CMSMC). 
c. As noted in answers provided by Canada at previous meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative is a private contractual agreement 
between the Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC), a non-governmental organization, and 
individual ice cream processors. The Canadian government is not privy to business confidential information related to the Ice Cream Promotion Initiative.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 9 - 
 
  d. The government will not speculate on possible actions the dairy industry may undertake 
when it comes to private industry initiatives. 
Follow-up: The European Union indicated interest in Canada's dairy policies and its intention to 
follow up on this matter. New Zealand pointed out that the pricing system in question allowed 
Canadian dairy producers to purchase dairy inputs at subsidized prices and had a dual effect. It 
displaced imports of certain dairy inputs into Canada and it provided subsidies to Canadian dairy exporters. New Zealand was particularly interested in further analysis of the 100% Canadian 
icecream promotion programme and how much milk was directed into special classes and ended 
up in products destined for export markets. They further sought Canada's assurance that milk under special milk pricing classes other than 5(d)  did not end up in exported products. Canada 
referred to its response to AG-IMS ID 75082 to address this question. 
 
1.4  Canada's proposed changes to tariff schedule 
1.4.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75024) 
At the last meeting, Canada noted that the process of "tabling of a Notice of Ways and 
Means Motion is a standard parliamentary proc edure to give effect to domestic taxation 
changes prior to such time that formal le gislation can be brought forward" and that 
"[l]ongstanding parliamentary convention di ctates that taxation proposals will be 
deemed to have come into force as soon as the government tables a Notice of Ways and 
Means Motion (or on an alternate date specif ied therein), even though the government's 
taxation plans have not yet been form ally adopted by way of legislation". 
 
a. Has this parliamentary procedure ever been used in the past to amend 
Canadian law for the purpose of revers ing a Canadian tariff classification 
interpretation? If yes, please pr ovide the most recent example. 
b. Are all tariff classification changes in Canada treated as taxation proposals and 
subjected to this par liamentary procedure?  
c. I f  y e s ,  d o e s  t h i s  m e a n  t h a t  a l l  t a r i f f  classification changes would be deemed 
immediately effective upon tabling of a Notice of Ways and Means motion 
unless a later date were specified? If so, what percentage of the time is a later 
date specified and what is the average length of time between the tabling of 
the Notice of Ways and Means Motion and the effective date of the tariff 
classification change? 
Canada previously noted that "[a] decrea se in imports within 1601.00.90.90 would not 
be abnormal as the measure was specifica lly intended to address imports of goods 
packaged in a specific, deliberate manner…." The United States has previously noted the 
significant decrease in imports within that heading corresponding perfectly to the timing 
of Canada's measure. 
 
d. Please clarify whether Canada agrees th at the measure is responsible for at 
least most of the drop-off in imports under 1601.00.90.90. 
Despite the statement just noted, Canada al so stated that it would be "impossible" to 
isolate the trade impact of this measure because "various factors influence trade 
patterns and because multiple products ar e covered by tariff item 1601.00.90.90". 
 
e. Are the factors influencing trade patterns with respect to products under 
heading 1601.00.90.90 atypical in terms of number of factors or quality, and if 
so, how? Is the interaction between Ca nada's measure and the various factors 
influencing trade of such products atypic al, and if so, how? Does Canada take 
the position that no economic impact can be discerned where a measure affects 
only some of the products under a partic ular tariff code heading? If no, what 
differences exist between a scenario where an economic impact could be 
determined and the current scenario? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 10 - 
 
  The United States understands that "An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the 
Budget Tabled in Parliament on 11 February 2014 and Other Measures", enacted into law on 19 June 2014, amended Canada's Cust oms tariff by adding a supplementary note 
to Chapter 16 requiring that cheese components  of certain prepared food products be 
classified in Chapter 4. 
 
f. Will Canada submit a revised Schedule refl ecting this change to the WTO? If 
not, what plans does Canada have for notifying this change to the WTO? 
g. Are there any further proposals to change  the methods for determining dutiable 
value for any food preparations or other goods containing cheese or other dairy products, or to otherwise impact the ta riff treatment of agricultural or food 
products containing dairy in gredients? If the answer is yes, please identify and 
describe in detail those proposals.  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. In Canada, most domestic tariff changes are treated as taxation proposals and are first 
proposed in Parliament through a Notice of Ways and Means Motion (NWMM). Most 
recently, the government of Canada announced the elimination of certain tariffs in its 
2014 federal budget. These changes were outlined in a NWMM tabled alongside the federal budget on 11 February 2014 prior to being officially adopted by way of Budget implementation legislation on 19 June 2014.  
b. and c. The United States is correct in its understanding that measures introduced 
by NWMM are effective immediately unless a later date is specified in the motion. Since 2009, the government of Canada has introduced tariff changes through six NWMM, 
half of which were effective immediately upon tabling. On average, the six NWMM had 
an effective date that was 17 days after tabling. In this particular case, the measure was introduced on 22 November 2013 with an effective date of 29 November 2013. This 
limited gap was intended to discourage further circumvention of the law, while also 
ensuring that goods in transit were not impacted.  
d. and e. Canada does not dispute that this measure is likely responsible for a proportion of 
the drop-off in imports under 1601.00.90.90, given its intent of addressing imports of 
goods packaged in a specific, deliberate manner solely to circumvent Canada's tariff 
structure. Specifically, this measure stems from significant imports of a "pizza toppings" product containing 79% shredded mozzarella cheese and 21% sliced pepperoni, 
packaged together in a single plastic bag and separated by sheet of wax paper. The 
packaging allowed the good to qualify as a "f ood preparation" in Chapter 16, effectively 
exploiting note 2 to Chapter 16 in order to av oid Canada's tariff rate  quotas for cheese.  
f. Canada submits its applied tariff rates and import data annually to the World Trade 
Organization through the Integrated Database process, however, all applied rates of duty in Canada's Customs Tariff and associated bound rates remain unchanged as a result of this measure.  
g. No similar measures are being considered at this time. 
Follow-up: Regarding Canada's response to (d) and (e), the United States disagreed with Canada's 
interpretation that imports of goods packaged in a particular manner circumvented Canada's tariff 
structure and argued that most Members would classify those products as 1601.00.90.90. New 
Zealand shared the U.S. concern. In particul ar, New Zealand underlined its concern about the 
potential systemic implications of the process Canada had adopted to amend its tariff schedule and 
the potential for Canada to adopt a similar process on other food preparations and blended 
products in the future. In New Zealand's understanding, the fact that such changes in Canadian law, for the purpose of reversing the interpretation of Canadian tariff classifications, had immediate effect on any company exporting products to Canada and was disruptive to normal 
trading practices where more notice of potential changes was required. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.5  Canada's Tariff-Rate Quota for Cheese 
1.5.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75026) 
The United States notes announced change s to Canada's WTO Tariff-Rate Quota for 
cheese as part of the European Union-Ca nada Comprehensive Trade and Economic 
Agreement (CETA). Documentation on the webs ite of the Government of Canada states 
that "Canada shall reallocate, beginning in year [one], 800 tons of Canada's 
20,411,866 kilogram WTO Tariff-Rate Quota for cheese to the European Union". 
 
How does Canada envision implementation of  this provision for the European Union in 
conjunction with its WTO TRQ for cheese?  
Answer by Canada 
 Canada will continue to administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada's Export and Import 
Permits Act. The way this provision of the CETA will be implemented has not yet been determined. 
The adjustment will be made upon the entry into force of the CETA.  
Follow-up : New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the United  States and Uruguay registered interest 
in this issue. The United States stressed that Canada's TRQ commitments for WTO Members 
should not be changed without following regular procedures of the WTO. New Zealand was of the 
view that Canada was seeking to unilaterally redu ce the quantity of market access available to 
WTO Members, including from New Zealand, and requested an explanation from Canada of how 
this change would be consistent with Canada's WTO commitments. Therefore, New Zealand intended to follow up on this issue with Canada bilaterally and possibly in subsequent Committee 
meetings. Norway's interest in this stemmed both from a systemic and commercial point of view. 
The systemic issue was whether a Member was free to change its distribution of a global WTO quota as a component in a bilateral trade agre ement and in case this was done, whether the 
change in quota distribution was based on obje ctive trade data. The commercial issue was whether 
the increase of the European Union's proportion of Canada's WTO quota would reduce the share of the quota for other exporters. Norway reserved the right to follow up on this issue in the future. 
 
1.6  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments  
1.6.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75059) Canada appreciates Costa Rica's continued commitment to transparency and its 
engagement with Canada and other Members regarding its domestic process to modify 
its price support programme for rice and how it  will in the near future comply with its 
domestic support commitment. Costa Rica ha s informed the Committee that the price 
support programme for rice will be term inated on 1 March 2015 and that a new 
alternative mechanism will take its place. Co uld Costa Rica provide a progress report on 
the proposed alternative mechanism?  
Answer by Costa Rica 
 The work involved in coordinating and defining the alternative mechanism that will replace the 
price-setting mechanism for rice, as provided for in Decree No. 37699-MEIC (notified to this 
Committee in document G/AG/GEN/110 of 31 May 2013), is still under way. Costa Rica will be able to provide details regarding the alternative mechanism once it has been defined. It will inform the 
Committee in due course of any development in this matter, as it has done consistently in the 
past.  1.6.2  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75031) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its response in AG-IMS ID 74023 and requests 
an update. The United States also requests  responses to unanswered questions about 
Costa Rica's price support programme for ri ce (AG-IMS ID 74023, AG-IMS ID 73037, AG-
IMS ID 71030, and AG-IMS ID 72050). 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. Will producers be able to sell outside of the new system? If not, on what basis 
does CONARROZ have the authority to compel producers to participate in the new system? 
b. What is Costa Rica's timeline for publishing these new policies and for notifying 
them to the WTO? 
Answer by Costa Rica 
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 75059. 
 Follow-up: In the view that the new policy was expected to be implemented next March, the 
United States conveyed its hope that Costa Rica co uld be in a position to respond to its specific 
questions at the next Committee meeting. Canada echoed the U.S. comments. 
 1.7  Egypt's domestic support and export subsidies 
1.7.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75060) 
Egypt has not submitted domestic support  (DS:1) and export subsidy (ES:1) 
notifications to the Committee on Agricultur e since 1999. Could Egypt please indicate 
when it intends to submit these overdue notifications to the WTO? 
 Answer by Egypt  
At the outset, Egypt would like to reiterate its full support and commitment to the transparency 
objective under the Agreement on Agriculture. Egypt is aware of its obligations under the Agreement, in particular those under Article 18.2, and acknowledges the importance of Export 
Subsidies and Domestic Support notifications in terms of providing transparency and the general 
implementation of the Agreement.   
Several years ago, Egypt intended to start a nation -wide plan to restructure the agriculture sector, 
with an ultimate aim to facilitate data collection. This is a heavy exercise involving numerous government agencies and ministries such as the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and SMEs, and the Ministry of Finance. 
 
Egypt's agricultural sector is scattered in differe nt governorates, some of which are in remote 
areas still lacking stable means of communications, while taking into consideration that 90% of 
those working in the sector are micro and small enterprises. This is in addition to the fact that 50 
million people are working in agriculture or agriculture-related activities; a figure which constitutes more than 50% of the Egyptian population.  
 
Egypt's concerted efforts to restructure agriculture sector and to improve its system of notification 
has been hindered since early 2011 due to the inte rnal political situation. Since then, Egypt has 
witnessed several important changes, including a number of cabinet reshuffles and several 
elections, and more changes will take place as th e parliamentary elections are still due by the end 
of the year.  
These are only few obstacles facing the government in its plan of restructuring, given the complex 
nature of the agriculture sector in Egypt. It is worth noting that the administrative and procedural 
measures are also main factors behind the delay in submitting Egypt's DS:1 and ES:1 notifications 
to this Committee. 
 Finally, the Egyptian delegation has taken note of what has been expressed in this regard and will 
convey them to Cairo. Any further feedback received will be communicated to this Committee in 
due course. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.8  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.8.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75028) Australia acknowledges India's response to  Australia's questions at the June 2014 
Committee on Agriculture in relation to its su gar export subsidies. Australia remains of 
the view that these export subsidies, introduced under the Sugar Development Fund 
(Amendment) Rules 2014, are inconsistent with India's WTO obligations and are contrary to the spirit and letter of the Mi nisterial Declaration on Export Competition 
agreed at Bali by all Ministers in 2013. 
 
a. Can India provide a further update to the Committee on Agriculture on the 
Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014, in relation to published 
information about the value of export subsidy ("incentive") paid per tonne? 
b. Can India provide data on domestic raw sugar production volumes for the 
period since the subsidy was established in February 2014 and the 
corresponding period in 2013? 
c. Can India provide domestic raw suga r production data for the 2013-2014, 
2012-2013, 2011-2012 and 2010-2011 sugar seasons?  
d. Can India advise how many tonnes of ra w sugar and refined sugar have been 
exported: 
i. Since the introduction of the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 
2014? 
ii. Since the commencement of the 2013-2014 sugar season to date? 
iii. For the entire 2013-2014 sugar season? 
iv. For the entire 2011-2012 sugar season? 
e. Reporting reproduced on the Indian  Sugar Mills Association website: 
http://www.indiansugar.com/ NewsDetails.aspx?nid=3538  in August 2014 
states that 620,000 tonnes of exported raw sugar have been subsidised under 
the programme since the introduction of the export subsidy in February 2014. 
i. Can India now confirm that subsidy payments are underway? 
ii. Could India provide the total value of export subsidy budgetary outlays (in 
INR), as well as the volume and value (in INR) of raw and refined sugar 
exports that have been subject to incentive payments? 
iii. Could India also provide the number of applications received for payment of 
the export subsidy, including the number of applications received but yet to 
be paid? 
f. If no export subsidy payments have been made under the scheme, Australia 
seeks an update in relation to th e following questions asked in June: 
i. Can India advise if applications ha ve been received for the subsidy 
payment? 
ii. Can India advise when the first payments will be made? 
iii. If applications have been received, can India advise the total value of 
subsidy payments to be made against these applications? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 14 - 
 
  iv. If applications have been received, ca n India advise the total volume of raw 
and refined sugar exports subject to the applications? 
g. If no export subsidy payments have been made under the scheme, will India 
now consider the termination of the subsidy? 
Answer by India 
 The conclusions drawn by Australia in the chapeau to the questions are unwarranted. All actions by 
India are well within its WTO rights and obligations.  
 
a. The government on 12 February 2014 approved the incentive at the rate of 
INR 3,300 per tonne towards marketing and promotion services of raw sugar production 
for February-March 2014. Thereafter the government has notified incentive at the rate of 
INR 2,277 per MT, INR 3,300 per MT, INR 3,371 per MT for the bi-monthly period of April-May, June-July and August-September 2014, respectively. The scheme is now to be 
reviewed for the current sugar season 2014-2015. However, to date, no incentive 
payments have been made to sugar mills. 
b. The domestic raw sugar production during the period from 28 February 2014 and up to 
30 September 2014 is 0.61 million MT, compared to 0.035 million MT during the 
corresponding period in 2013. 
c. Quantity of raw sugar produced by the sugar mills during the year 2013-2014, 
2012-2013, 2011-2012, 2010-2011 sugar seasons are 1.678 million MT, 0.081 million 
MT, 1.382 million MT, 0.21 million MT, respectively. 
d.  
i. Since the introduction of the Sugar Development Fund (Amendment) Rules 2014 that 
is on or after 28 February 2014 and up to 30 September 2014, a total of about 
0.675 million MT of raw sugar has been delivered from the factory for export under Open General Licence (OGL). 
ii. and iii. During the 2013-2014 sugar season (1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014) 
about 1.267 million MT of raw sugar has been delivered from the factory for export. 
iv. During the sugar season 2011-2012, about 1.13 million MT of raw sugar was 
exported. 
e. No payment of incentives has been made so far. There is currently no budget provision 
or outlay. Furthermore export of white or refined sugar is not subject to incentive payments. 
f. Since no payment of incentives has been made so far, India has not compiled such 
information. 
g. The scheme applicable for exports made up to 30 September 2014 is subject to review 
from time to time. 
Follow-up: Given its long-standing interest in this issue, Australia indicated its likely intention to 
submit follow-up questions. Colombia, the European Union, Pakistan, and Thailand reiterated their 
interest. As a strong supporter of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on export subsidies, New Zealand 
expressed its concern of any action that could undermine this declaration. Furthermore, New 
Zealand voiced its strong opposition to all export subsidies on a principled basis given their market-distorting effects and damaging effects, especially on developing countries. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.9  Jordan's inflation adjustments on  the fixed external reference price 
1.9.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75064) Canada would like to reiterate once again it s appreciation for Jordan's commitment to 
transparency in providing both unadjusted an d adjusted numbers in its notification to 
the Committee and would like to follow-up on Jo rdan's responses. Canada is of the view 
that paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture requires the external 
reference price to be fixed and thus, does  not allow for any type of adjustment, 
including adjustments based on inflation. On e of the main objectives for calculating a 
Member's Current Total AMS using a fixed external reference price is to ensure that a Member's capacity to provide trade distorting  domestic support is effectively capped and 
cannot expand over time in absolute or relati ve terms. Furthermore, Canada is of the 
view that Article 18.4 does not provide a me thodology or a legal basis through which a 
Member's fixed external reference prices may be adjusted for inflation, and does not give any consideration for a methodology which would account for accumulated inflation 
after the reference period of the fixed extern al reference price(s). Rather, under Article 
18.4 it is Members (i.e. the Committee) that sh all give due consideration to the influence 
of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of  a Member to abide by its domestic support 
commitments. Canada notes that while Jord an's Total AMS commitment level is of 
JOD 1,333,973 in 2009 and 2010, its Current Total AMS amounts to JOD 1,979,742 in 2009, and JOD 3,585,308 in 2010. In light of questions asked by Canada and answers provided by Jordan at the January 2014 an d March 2014 meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture: 
 
a. Could Jordan elaborate further on the legal basis for its understanding that the 
intent of Article 18.4 or of paragr aph 8, Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture is to allow fixed external reference prices to be adjusted for accumulated inflation?  
b. Since Jordan's Current Total AMS for 2009 and 2010 are above Jordan's 
domestic support commitment, and as Jordan does not plan on changing its domestic support programmes to bring its Current Total AMS in compliance 
with its commitment (according to its March 2014 response), could Jordan 
inform this Committee of next steps or plan s it may consider to bring itself into 
compliance with its commitments?  
c. Could Jordan point to any other consider ation that this Committee should take 
into account in assessing Jordan's ability to abide by its domestic support 
commitments?  
Answer by Jordan 
 
a. Jordan provided both unadjusted and adjusted tables (which show the inflation rates) in 
its notification (G/AG/N/JOR/16) to the Commi ttee, therefore the adjusted tables can be 
taken into consideration by Members when reviewing the unadjusted tables in light of 
Article 18, paragraph 4 which clearly stipulates that Members shall give due 
consideration to the influence of excessive rates of inflation on the ability of any Member to abide by its domestic support commitments. 
b. Currently Jordan does not plan on changing its domestic support programmes which will 
affect its poor farmers. Jordan is committed to be in compliance with its domestic support commitments in line with the Agreement on Agriculture. Article 18, paragraph 4 
clearly stipulates that "Members shall give due consideration to the influence of 
excessive rates of inflation…". The fixed exte rnal reference price is based on the period 
1997-1999, therefore a huge gap exists between  the actual world market price and the 
fixed external reference price. The subsidy element is grossly overstated by comparing 
present day administered prices with a fi xed reference price, which is unrealistic. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Jordan's inflation rate was 3.60% per year on average, the use of inflation rate based on 
the average consumer price shall give a Member the ability to abide by its domestic support commitment. 
c. Jordan's commitment to the implementation of the WTO rules should be taken into 
account by the Committee together with the fact that Jordan is a recently acceded 
Member and that it is a net food-importing developing country Member. 
Follow-up: Canada reiterated its systemic interest in this issue. New Zealand encouraged Jordan to 
further elaborate on its methodology as requested by Canada and drew Jordan's attention to the 
paper G/AG/W/122 presented by a group of Members at the 73rd Committee on Agriculture 
meeting in March as an indication of what type of information would be useful.  
1.10  Russia's agricultural support for 2015 
1.10.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75067) According to media reports, the government of the Russian Federation has been 
discussing agricultural support for 2015. In pa rticular the Ministry of Agriculture intends 
to allocate an additional RUB 77 billion for the programme of state support to agriculture in 2015 on top of the RUB 170 billio n already allocated. Could Russia indicate 
the measures for which these funds will be us ed in 2015 and the products targeted by 
them?  Answer by Russian Federation 
 
The amount of additional funds for the development of agriculture in 2015 has not been determined. Anticipated funding will be channelled to support crop and livestock (dairy cattle) 
sub-sectors, including the creation and modernization of infrastructure for storage and logistics 
provision of markets with crop and livestock production, and the development of reclamation system. Part of the funds will be aimed at supporting agricultural lending. 
 
Follow-up : The European Union asked Russia whether it intended to submit a Table DS:2 
notification concerning the measure in question. Canada and the United States registered interest.  
 
1.11  Saint Lucia's domestic purchase  requirements for poultry and pork 
1.11.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75035) 
The United States repeats questions asked in the June meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 74044):  
 
a. Please explain how Saint Lucia's domest ic purchase requirements for poultry 
and pork are consistent with Saint Lucia's WTO obligations, including 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricu lture and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
b. Please explain how St. Lucia calculated the quantities for domestic purchase 
requirements for poultry and pork me ntioned in its response e. to AG-
IMS 72055 (25% for poultry and 40% for pork). 
Answer by Saint Lucia 
 
Saint Lucia undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
 1.12  Thailand's paddy pledging scheme 
1.12.1  Question by United Stat es of America (AG-IMS ID 75036) 
The United States thanks Thailand for its responses to questions posed in 
AG-IMS ID 74050 and has follow-up questions:  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 17 - 
 
  In June, Thailand was unable to provide answ ers to some of the U.S. questions because 
the accounts were not closed. The United States repeats these questions now.  The United States notes that the administer ed price under the Paddy Pledging Scheme 
was THB 14,400 per tonne for the main crop, but since the programme was discontinued 
market prices in Thailand have fallen dr amatically to approximately THB 7,000 per 
tonne. The United States understands that Th ailand procured 11.6 million metric tonnes 
at a cost of THB 190 billion (USD 5.8 million). 
 
a. Please confirm the quantity of paddy ri ce Thailand procured under the Paddy 
Pledging Scheme for the main crop of MY 2013/2014, and if reported figures 
are incorrect, please provide the correct figures. 
b. Please confirm whether the cost of the Main-Crop Rice Paddy Pledging Program 
is THB 190 billion (USD 5.8 billion) for MY 2013/2014. If this is not correct, 
please provide the correct cost. 
c. Please confirm whether the Soft Loan Me asure and Market Intervention are still 
in operation. 
Further, the United States of America notes that Thailand conducte d a tender of nearly 
213,000 metric tonnes and that bids from bo th exporters and domestic millers ranged 
from 17%-33% below market prices. Market prices were less than one-half of the 
administered price. In addition, the United States of America notes the dramatic decline 
in market prices in 2014. 
 
d. Please confirm whether any of  these bids were accepted. 
e. If so, were any tenders exported? 
Answer by Thailand 
 
As stated in the last Committee meeting, Thailand 's Paddy Pledging Scheme was terminated as of 
28 February 2014. The government procurement price was for rice with an average of 15% moisture content. However, Thai farmers often ple dged rice with higher moisture content, causing 
the actual purchasing price to be lower. Current ly, Thailand cannot confirm the quantity procured 
or the cost of the Pledging Scheme because the current government is now investigating the past 
operations in order to finalize the accounts. After concluding all the accounts, Thailand expects to update its notification for domestic support to the Members. 
 
At present, the Soft Loan Measure is available for eligible low-income farmers through the existing mechanism by the Bank for Agriculture and Agricult ural Cooperatives. The market intervention by 
the government, usually implemented under an emergency situation such as severe price 
fluctuation, is currently not in force.  Thailand would like to confirm that under the rule  and policy of the Minis try of Commerce, the 
Department of Foreign Trade is to conduct tenders to release the rice from the stock without any 
negative effect to the rice market. Any tenders with unreasonably lower than market prices will not be accepted by the government. 
 
Follow-up: The United States looked forward to re ceiving Thailand's domestic support notification. 
 
1.13  Thailand's Rice Farm er Assistance Programme 
1.13.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75068) During the 21 March 2014 and 5 and 6 June  2014 meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Thailand noted that the Paddy  Pledging Scheme ceased to operate on 
28 February 2014 and on 31 July 2014 for rice planted in the south. Canada understands 
that on 24 June 2014 funding for the new Rice Farmer Assistance Program in the 
amount of THB 4.7 billion (approximately US D 145 million) was approved for marketing G/AG/W/138 
 
- 18 - 
 
  year 2014/2015. This new programme reportedly will provide input subsidies for rice 
production and stabilize the price of rice.  
a. Could Thailand clarify which rice farmer s would be eligible for payments under 
the Rice Farmer Assistance Program? 
b. Could Thailand describe the mechanism to stabilize the price of rice and 
indicate what would be the target price?  
Answer by Thailand 
 
a. The programme Canada refers to is aimed at relieving the expense burden, including 
agricultural input costs, of low-income resource-poor rice farmers who account for more 
than 90% of the farmer population in Thailand. Under the programme, the government 
will provide eligible farmers a fixed amount of THB 1,000 per Rai (1 Rai = 0.4 acre; 1 acre = 2.5 Rais; 1 dollar = 32.85 Baht), not exceeding 15 Rais per household. This is 
equivalent to approximately USD 76 per acre and the cap will be at USD 450 or 
THB 15,000 per household per year. The average household consists of four members. This fund is paid as a one-off measure for the current marketing year of 2014/2015 
without any production requirement. 
b. At this stage, there is no government interv ention scheme to stabilize the price of rice, 
except encouraging rice farmers not to produce the second crop in the marketing year 2014/2015 and zoning the agricultural land to  grow different crops other than rice.  
1.14  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.14.1  Question by United States of America (AG-IMS ID 75001 and 75037) 
The United States appreciates responses that Turkey provided to U.S. questions during 
the January and March meetings. The United States raised some questions directly on 
the floor of the June meeting (AG-IMS 7500 1) and did not expect immediate answers. 
The United States repeats the questions for response in the November meeting: 
 
a. Please explain the TMO Sales Regulation (Code of Practice for Grain Sales after 
Export to Product Manufacturer-Exporters) that allows TMO to make sales to inward processing certificate holders at world prices. Please provide details on 
any other measures that operationalize the TMO. 
b. Public records indicate annual sales of TMO wheat sales to inward processing 
certificate holders over the past severa l years. Does Turkey confirm that TMO 
sells domestic wheat to Turkey flour mille rs that export flour and hold inward 
processing certificates? If so, please provide wheat purchase and wheat sales 
prices for these transactions for the last three years. 
c. Please describe any government control or verification requirements for inward 
processing of wheat flour. 
d. The United States appreciates Turkey's response on exported flour and 
imported wheat as shown in the table (Annex 2; AG-IMS ID 73042). Are all of 
the quantities listed imported and exported through the inward processing 
system? If not, please elaborate on th is table by stating how much of the 
imports and exports were through the inward processing system. 
e. In AG-IMS ID 73042, the United States requested data concerning both the 
quantity and quality of wheat imports an d flour exports under Turkey's inward 
processing system. In response, Turkey  provided data concerning only the 
quantity of such imports and exports. Please provide data for the last three 
years listing the quality of wheat imported and the quality of wheat flour exported under Turkey's inward processing system. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 19 - 
 
  f. Please confirm that the sale and tradin g of inward processing certificates 
received for exporting products occurs and is allowed under Turkey's regulations. Please also provide any me asures that regulate this process. 
Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
1.15  Turkey's agricultural credit and investment subsidies 
1.15.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 75071) 
In a document entitled "Structural Chan ges and Reforms on Turkish Agriculture 2003-
2013" published by the Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, there is 
mention that red meat production has in creased as a result of changes in how 
government support is provided to the sector . In addition, it states that "Agricultural 
credit periods were extended from 18 months to 24 months for operating credits and from 5 years to 7 years for investment credits". 
 
Could Turkey please provide information regard ing all of the sectors that have received 
these agricultural credit and investment su bsidies including the respective amounts?  
 
Answer by Turkey  Interest rate subsidies are provided for credits to assist farmers in addressing their financial needs 
for agricultural investment. Thus, the aim of the subsidy is to provide investment support to 
farmers who have breeding or farming potential but lack sufficient resources. This kind of supports falls within the scope of investment subsidies to farmers in developing countries under Article 6.2 
of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
 1.16  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies  
1.16.1  Question by European Union (AG-IMS ID 75069) 
Turkey has not submitted domestic support (Table DS.1) and export subsidy 
(Table ES.1) notifications to the Committee on Agriculture since 2001 (Table DS.1) and 
2000 (Table ES.1). In the March 2014 Committee on Agriculture, Turkey stated that its 
respective Ministries were working on these notifications.  
 
a. Could Turkey indicate when it intends to submit these overdue notifications to 
the WTO? 
b. As asked in question (AG-IMS ID 73056), could Turkey confirm that the 
budgetary outlays and eligible quantities  of subsidised exports, including for 
citrus fruits, have remained within its commitments since 2001?  
c. As asked in question (AG-IMS ID 73056),  could Turkey confirm that its AMS has 
remained below its de minimis  level since 2002? 
Answer by Turkey 
 
Turkey's relevant institutions are still working on this issue. Turkey will submit its notifications to the Secretariat as soon as the assessments are completed. 
 
1.17  Turkey's export subsidy programmes 
1.17.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 75027) 
Australia notes that Turkey has notified export subsidy programmes to the Committee 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (G/SCM/N/253/TUR). In that notification, 
Turkey has indicated the range of products  for which export subsidies have been G/AG/W/138 
 
- 20 - 
 
  provided for the years 2012 and 2013. The list of products does not include the full 
range of eligible products for which Turkey has export subsidy commitments.  
a. Could Turkey please clarify whether producers/exporters of the following 
products received export subsidies duri ng the reporting period, namely, wheat, 
wheat flour, semolina, dairy products (yog urt, cheese, butter), meat of bovine 
animals, sheep meat?  
b. If export subsidies have been paid, could Turkey please provide, for each of the 
products concerned, a list of export de stinations, the total amount of export 
subsidy applied; and the total volume of exports benefitting from export subsidies? 
Answer by Turkey 
 Only products specified in Turkey's notifica tion with reference number G/SCM/N/253/TUR are 
eligible to receive export subsidies for the years 2012 and 2013 in accordance with its WTO 
commitments.  
Follow-up: The United States expressed interest in all the questions addressed to Turkey and 
reminded Turkey of its notification obligations. 
 2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 
2.1.1  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/79) AG-IMS ID 75038: Question by United St ates of America - Other administration 
arrangements 
a. Does the Government of Thailand have any domestic purchase requirements as 
a condition for importers to receive permission to import under tariff-rate 
quotas for soybeans, soybean meal, fresh potatoes, and non-fat dry milk? If so, 
please describe how they function. 
b. Does the Government of Thailand sets  prices for these commodities on the 
domestic market. If so, please de scribe how that process works. 
Answer by Thailand 
 
a. Tariff quota administration of the products in question is carried out by the Department 
of Foreign Trade which issues rules and regulations for importers to receive import 
permits. The Department does not impose domestic purchase requirements as a condition for applying for an import permit. 
b. The government does not set domestic market prices for these commodities. 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 2.2.1  Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/44) AG-IMS ID 75003: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
Answer by Chile 
 Chile wishes to stress that it has always undertaken, and will continue to undertake, the 
commitments under the WTO Agreements, including the Ministerial Decision in respect of the 
"Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products, as Defined G/AG/W/138 
 
- 21 - 
 
  in Article 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture" , adopted by Members at the Ninth Ministerial 
Conference in Bali in 2013.  On this occasion, and solely for the purposes of internal organization, a decision was taken to wait 
for the new Table MA:2 notification format to be approved by the Committee on Agriculture at the 
meeting on 13 November 2014 before notifying the fill rates. Once the new format has been endorsed, the respective amendment to the 2013 Table MA:2 notification, including the tariff quota 
fill rate data, will be submitted. 
 Follow-up : Australia noted that they had raised this question on fill rates to Chile and several other 
Members because they considered it to be an important follow-up to the Bali Ministerial decisions.  
 
2.2.2  China (G/AG/N/CHN/26) 
AG-IMS ID 75039: Question by United States  of America - Alloca tion of licences to 
importing entities 
The United States appreciates China's respon ses to questions on its Table MA:2 from 
Canada (AG-IMS ID 74002). 
 
a. As a follow-up, how does the National  Development and Reform Commission 
allocate the public sector quotas? Does it allocate the full public quota each 
year for each commodity? 
b. When the public sector share is not fully used, what is the process for 
reallocating the TRQs to the pr ivate sector for possible use? 
Answer by China 
 
a. Since 2003, strictly abiding by China's accession commitments, the National 
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has allocated state-trading quotas for 
grain, cotton in accordance with "Interim Measures for the Administration of Import 
Tariff Quotas of Agricultural Products (Ord er of MOFCOM and NDRC, No.4, 2003)". The 
state-trading quotas for cotton and grain are fully allocated annually. 
b. In "Interim Measures for the Administration of Import Tariff Quotas of Agricultural 
Products", Article 22 stipulates that "where no contract is concluded before 15 August of 
the current year for the state-run trade quotas of agricultural products distributed to a final user, the final user may entrust a trade enterprise of any kind with the right of 
trade to import the products upon the ap proval of the MOFCOM or the NDRC in 
accordance with the division of administrati on as provided in article 7 of the present 
measures. A final user with the right of trade may also import the products directly". 
Article 23 stipulates that "where a final us er holding the Certificate of Import Tariff 
Quotas of Agricultural Products fails to conclude an import contract for all the quotas already drawn in the current year or fail to fulfil the contract already concluded, it shall return the unfinished quotas to the original Certificate issuing organ before 15 
September. If the final user holding state-trading quotas indicates that it does not use 
the quotas anymore and returns the quotas, these quotas will be reallocated to other enterprises." 
Follow-up: The United States reserved the right to follow up on this question. Canada indicated 
interest. 
 
2.2.3  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/32, G/AG/N/ISL/36) 
AG-IMS ID 75005: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates fo r each tariff line in G/AG/N/ISL/32 and 
G/AG/N/ISL/36, in line with the Bali decisi on on Tariff Rate Quota Administration. 
 
Answer by Iceland  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Iceland's MA:2 notifications including the tariff quota fill rates are provided in Annex 1 for the 
period 2012/2013 and in Annex 2 for 2013/2014. 
AG-IMS ID 75081: Question by  Peru - Tariff quota fill 
Regarding G/AG/N/ISL/36, Iceland has estab lished a tariff quota of 10,423.9 tonnes for 
tariff subheading 110423: "Cereal grains otherw ise worked", in respect of which Iceland 
reports that in the period June 2013 to July 2014 it imported only 1,152 tonnes, 
representing no more than 11% of the quota allocated. 
On the other hand, in 2013, Peru recorded exports under tariff subheading 
110423 amounting to USD 3.5 million. Although the United States is the main 
destination of Peruvian export s of cereal grains (70% in value terms and 64% in volume 
terms), shipments to Europe exhibit a posi tive trend (totalling USD 965,000 and 422 
tonnes in 2013). 
In view of the above, it is considered appr opriate to ask Iceland to explain why use of 
the quota has been limited. 
Answer by Iceland With reference to G/AG/N/ISL/1, attention is drawn to the fact that a number of products relevant 
to Iceland's current access commitments, are not subject to any quota system upon import, only applied rates of duty that are equal to, or lower th an, corresponding in-quota rates. This applies to 
products under the tariff heading 1104 and the use of  the quota is therefore exclusively subject to 
demand for these products. 
2.2.4  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/196) 
AG-IMS ID 75084: Question by Ne w Zealand - Transparency issues 
New Zealand notes that the figures for TRQ quantity for 2012 for skimmed milk powder 
for other purposes; evaporated milk; butter and oil; and rice and its worked and/or 
prepared products differ from Part 1 of the Schedule and from Japan's previous 
TRQ notifications.  
In tonnes
 
Product G/AG/N/JPN/196  
(2012) G/AG/N/JPN/184 
(2011) Scheduled 
commitments  
Skimmed milk powder for other purposes   74,973 85,878 85,878
Evaporated milk   1500 1585 1585
Butter and butter oil   581 1873 1873
Rice and its worked and/or prepared 
products 1006.10.010  682,200 758,000 758,000
 
Could Japan please explain the discrepancy and change in methodology between the 
tariff quota quantity figures for 20 12 and their scheduled commitments?  
 
Answer by Japan  
In respect of the three dairy products, figures for quota quantities in Section 1-B of Part I of the 
Japanese tariff schedule includes those available for the products for consumption on international maritime vessels and international airlines and for outward processing trade, which is described in 
the Notes to the Section 1-B. It should be noted, however, that tariff quota systems are not 
applied to the products for those usages, since they are introduced into Japan under the Hozei area system but do not go through customs clearance. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 23 - 
 
  In accordance with the situation above, quantities reserved for products for consumption on 
international maritime vessels and international airlines and for outward processing trade are deducted from the figures for "tariff quota quantity" in the notification for FY2012, while figures for "tariff quota quantity" in the previous notifications include above mentioned quantities, to which 
tariff quota systems are not applied. 
Regarding rice, neither scheduled commitments nor tariff quota quantity in the notification for 
FY 2011 is 758,000 tonnes. Japan ceased to apply the special treatment described in Annex 5 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture since FY1999 and since FY2000, the quantity of 682,200 tonnes has become Japan's scheduled commitments, which has also been notified as "tariff quota quantity" 
since then. 
Follow-up : New Zealand clarified that its main concern was the change in Japan's reporting 
methodology in its most recent notification as compared to the previous ones and the reported 
lack of data which would allow notification of tariff quota fill.  
AG-IMS ID 75006: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
Answer by Japan 
 Quota fill rates for each product in FY2012 are, 27% for "Skimmed milk powder for school lunch", 34% for "Skimmed milk powder for other purposes", 97% for "Evaporated milk", 70% for "Whey 
and modified whey for feeding purposes", 26% for "Prepared whey for infant formula", 29% for 
"Butter and butter oil", 43% for "Mineral concentrated whey", 90% for "Prepared edible fat", 100% for "Other dairy products for general use", 117% for "Designated dairy products for general 
use", 69% for "Dried leguminous vegetables", 112% for "Wheat, meslin, triticale and their 
processed products", 95% for "Barley and its processed products", 99% for "Rice and its worked and/or prepared products", 94% for "Starches, inulin and preparation of starches", 34% for 
"Ground nuts", 49% for "Tubers of konnyaku" and 79% for "Silk-worm cocoons and raw silk." 
 2.2.5  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/25) 
AG-IMS ID 75007: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration. 
 Answer by Mexico 
 
The notification submitted by Mexico refers to the years preceding the undertaking agreed in the 
Bali decision on tariff quotas. Mexico therefore considers that this undertaking does not apply 
retroactively. It is understood that the notifications for the year 2013 onwards are to include this 
percentage, regardless of the time at which they are made.  2.2.6  Moldova, Republic of (G/AG/N/MDA/2) 
AG-IMS ID 75009: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration.  
Answer by Republic of Moldova 
 The notification covers Moldovan imports under tariff quotas in a period which preceded the date 
of adoption of the Bali decision on TRQ administ ration. In this light, the Republic of Moldova 
believes that notifications concerning imports under tariff quotas before December 2013 are not bound by the Bali decision on TRQ administration. Nevertheless, in future notifications, Moldova will include the required data in accordance with the agreed format. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 24 - 
 
   
2.2.7  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/32) 
AG-IMS ID 75029: Question by Canada - Transparency issues 
Canada notes that the in-quota fill for many  products listed in Panama's recent MA:2 
notification for 2012 are, in many cases, no n-existent or "None" due to a variety of 
factors, this, despite the fact that impo rts were reported for those same lines. 
 
a. Could Panama provide details on the applied tariffs for these products for which 
imports were reported outside of the quota? 
b. Are these rates equal, higher or lower than the in-quota rates? 
Answer by Panama 
 
For the most part, the quotas negotiated by Pana ma in the framework of the WTO were defined as 
an overall amount for a set of tariff lines, an d interested companies may, in keeping with the 
procedures, choose to import the particular product under the tariff line of their preference. 
For example, in the case of the tariff line for me at of swine, the overall quantity negotiated was 
880 metric tonnes, which can be imported under 25 tariff lines, or under one single tariff line if the importer in question so requests. This means that for one or several tariff lines, the in-quota 
imports can be zero. 
 
a. Please refer to Annex 3. 
b. The out-of-quota tariff rates are all higher th an the in-quota rates, with the exception of 
beans, for which the out-of-quota rate is 0%. 
AG-IMS ID 75070: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
This notification covers 2013 imports for the various tariff lines included in the bound 
tariff quotas. However, the bound tariff quot a on maize (HS 1005.90.90, HS 1104.23.20, 
HS 1104.23.90 of 150,000 metric tonnes) is not included. Could Panama explain the 
reasons for this and whether it intends to make  a notification covering this tariff quota? 
 Answer by Panama  
The notifications do not include the quota on maize (150,000 metric tonnes) because Panama 
asked the WTO to withdraw that concession. 
AG-IMS ID 75008: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration. 
 
Answer by Panama  
For the most part, the quotas negotiated by Pana ma in the framework of the WTO were defined as 
an overall amount for a set of tariff lines, an d interested companies may, in keeping with the 
procedures, choose to import the particular product under the tariff line of their preference among those included in the corresponding quota. Cons equently, the notification specifies the overall 
amount for each quota, and then places each one of the imports in that quota under its specific 
tariff line.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 25 - 
 
  2.2.8  Philippines (G/AG/N/PHL/43) 
AG-IMS ID 75010: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australian notes that the MFN applied tariff rates are at or below the in-quota tariff 
rates for many of the Philippines' tariff rate  quotas, making these quotas, in effect, 
non-operational. Can the Philippines please indicate which tariff rate quotas are 
non-operational for these reasons? For the remaining operational tariff rate quotas, can 
the Philippines indicate the fill rate?  
Answer by Philippines 
 The tariff rate quota (TRQ) commitments of the Philippines in the WTO consist of 14 product groups of live animals, meats, pota toes, sugar, coffee, corn and rice. 
 
The country's TRQs have remained operational an d are available for utilization by the private 
sector/importers on annual basis. 
 
The poultry TRQs, despite their in-quota and out-quota tariffs being at the same rates, have been regularly accessed by importers considering that out-quota importations may be subjected to the 
"Special Agricultural Safeguards" or Special Safeguard Provisions (SSG) under Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (AOA).  While beef is still covered under the country's TRQ system, its TRQ can be considered 
"non-operational" since its applied tariff has been lower than the in-quota bound rate in the WTO 
since 1998. However, any importation of beef was reported as TRQ utilization, whether or not a 
TRQ license was secured and issued, since Philippine's WTO commitment is to allow importations 
within the bound in-quota tariff and volume. 
 With respect to the TRQ import volumes in 2005-2012 reported in the 
MA:2 notification G/AG/N/PHL/43, it is important to note that these levels do not provide a 
complete picture of the total imports in 2005-2012 considering that these do not, and must not, 
capture/include out-of-quota imports. It should be noted that, in the case of rice, its TRQ has been consistently utilized 100%, and its total imports since 2005 have been three to six times of the 
annual rice TRQ commitment. Potatoes are another example of this case. 
 With respect to the inclusion of the "fill rate" of each TRQ in the MA2 notification, the Philippines 
shall abide by its WTO commitment to provide this information in the notifications for importations 
from 2014 as prescribed in paragraph 6 of the Bali Decision on Understanding on TRQ Administration Provisions of Agricultural Products, as defined in Article 2 of the AOA 
under WT/MIN(13)/39 and WT/L/914 of 11 December 2013. 
 2.2.9  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/81) 
AG-IMS ID 75014: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration. 
 Answer by South Africa 
 
The notifications are for the periods before the Bali Decision on the administration of tariff rate quotas was taken. In addition, the Committee has not yet adopted a modified Table MA:2 template 
wherein the fill rates are to be notified. South Africa's future notifications will include the 
percentage fill rates as per the Bali Decision using the modified Table MA:2 template.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 26 - 
 
  2.2.10  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/78) 
AG-IMS ID 75012: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Australia notes that Thailand has not yet an swered Australia's question in respect of 
G/AG/N/THA/74 (AG-IMS 69044 refers). Australia repeats the question for the current notification: Can Thailand please account for the significant underfill in its tariff rate 
quota for maize (for feedstuff) and rice (including paddy, broken) for the years 2011 
to 2013?  
Answer by Thailand 
 During 2011-2013, Thailand imported maize for feedstuff on average around 191,528 metric tonnes per year, much above the tariff quota quantity. However, the request for importation has 
been submitted mostly under preferential tr ade agreements with the WTO Members who are 
currently Thailand's main suppliers for maize. As for rice, because Thailand's domestic production is sufficient for domestic consumption, Thailand does not need to import rice. 
 
Follow-up : Regarding the last point of Thailand's reply that no importation was needed when there 
was sufficient domestic supply, the Philippines questioned whether this was due to a regulation 
maintained by Thailand. Thailand clarified that no  regulation was in place and supply and demand 
were purely market-oriented.  2.2.11  Venezuela, Bolivarian Re public of (G/AG/N/VEN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 75032: Question by Canada - Transparency issues Canada notices that Venezuela has not provid ed an MA:2 notification for 2009, 2010, 
2011 and 2012. Could Venezuela please advi se when it expects to provide these 
notifications? 
 
Answer by Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is awar e of its notification commitments under the 
WTO Agreements. A number of internal processe s have, however, delayed compliance regarding 
the submission of certain notifications. Venezuela intends to bring itself up-to-date in this area as soon as possible. 
AG-IMS ID 75033: Question by Canada - Transparency issues 
Venezuela's latest MA:2 notification for 2013 provides the quota fill for only one 
product: sugar. In its previous MA:2 no tification (G/AG/N/VEN/25) a total of 61 
products were covered. Could Venezuela pl ease explain why so many products are no 
longer included in its MA:2 notification? 
 
Answer by Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  Notification G/AG/N/VEN/28 does indeed provide the quota fill for only one product, namely, 
sugar. 
 It should be noted that, although the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has tariff quota 
commitments for a total of 61 products, historically it has opened tariff quotas for 17 products, as 
reflected, for example, in notification G/AG/N/VEN/25. The draft notification for the 16 remaining products for the period December 2012 to January 2013 was received too late for this Committee 
meeting; it is being carefully reviewed and will be  forwarded to the Secretariat within the next few 
days. 
AG-IMS ID 75015: Question by Australia - Tariff quota fill 
Please provide the tariff quota fill rates for ea ch tariff line, in line with the Bali decision 
on Tariff Rate Quota Administration. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 27 - 
 
   
Answer by Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  In document G/AG/N/VEN/28, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela notified in-quota sugar cane 
imports for the period December 2012 to November 2013 in the context of its tariff quota 
commitments.  
The Decision in respect of tariff rate quota administration adopted at the Ninth Ministerial 
Conference in Bali in December 2013 does not ha ve retroactive effect and should not therefore 
affect notifications for prior periods.  
Furthermore, as of the date of the 75
th session of the Committee on Agriculture, Members have 
not approved a revised Table MA:2 notification format that incorporates a method for reporting fill rates. Only a draft format prepared by the WTO Secretariat is available, which has yet to be 
agreed upon by Members at this session. Venezu ela understands that some Members have already 
reported fill rates in their Table MA:2 notifications, but they have done so on a voluntary basis and as a best practice. 
AG-IMS ID 75034: Question by Canada - Tariff quota fill 
The tariff quota fill for sugar in 2013 is four times the amount of the tariff quota. Could 
Venezuela please explain why actual imports of cane suga r significantly exceeded the 
tariff quota quantities?  Answer by Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
 
This question was forwarded to the technical au thorities responsible for the issue, who have 
undertaken to respond at the earliest possible conv e n i e n c e .  A s  s o o n  a s  B o l i v a r i a n  R e p u b l i c  o f  
Venezuela receives this response, it will be made known to the Canadian delegation. However, in 
order to have more information on which to base the response, it would be interesting to learn the difficulties that exist in relation to quota overf ill, given that questions are more often asked about 
quota underfill. 
 Follow-up : Canada took the opportunity to express its appreciation for the question from Australia 
in relation to fill rates to Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela and a number of other Members. 
Supported by Australia, Canada welcomed some of the responses in which Members supplied fill 
rates and where commitments were made to provide that information in future notifications.   
2.3  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARDS (TABLES MA:3 TO MA:5) 
2.3.1  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/195) AG-IMS ID 75030: Question by Canada - Trigger calculations 
Canada notes that in G/AG/N/JPN/195, and also in other recent MA:4 notifications, 
including G/AG/N/JPN/189, G/AG/N/JPN/187, G/AG/N/JPN/179 and G/AG/N/JPN/154, Japan has used a differe nt trigger calculation methodology than 
the one prescribed in Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 
a. Could Japan elaborate on the reasons why it regularly uses an alternate 
methodology to calculate its price-based SSG trigger?  
b. Given that there often seems to be issues  with the availability of information 
regarding imports in the reference peri od, could Japan provide details on the 
considerations or factors that lead it to conclude in those instances that a 
price-based SSG is both necessary and in compliance with Article 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Japan 
 
Paragraph 1(b) of Article 5 of the Agreement on Ag riculture provides that a trigger price shall be 
the average of the c.i.f. import prices during the reference period from 1986 to 1988, or G/AG/W/138 
 
- 28 - 
 
  "otherwise shall be an appropriate price in term s of the quality of the product and its stage of 
processing". In respect of the items concerned, beca use of the lack of import  records and the c.i.f. 
import prices available in the reference period, Japan sets a trigger price of those items at a price calculated as appropriate in terms of their quality and other criteria, in compliance with the 
footnote of paragraph 1(b) of Articl e 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 In respect of barley flour (G/AG/N/JPN/154), since there was no import during the reference 
period, the trigger price was estimated by multiply ing the import price of barley by the change 
rate in Japan's list of commitment, also taking into account the processing cost.  In respect of cereals and other worked grains (G/AG/JPN/179, G/AG/N/JPN/189), since there was 
no import during the reference period, the trigger price was estimated by multiplying the import 
price of wheat flour by the change rate in Japan's list of commitments, also taking into account the processing cost. 
 
In respect of other fats and oils derived from milk  (G/AG/N/JPN/187), there was only one tariff line 
in the reference period and later it was subdivided into two tariff lines, namely more than 85% of 
fat content and less than 85%. Therefore, the trigger price was estimated by using the c.i.f. import 
price during the reference period by adjusting it with the price after subdividing.  In respect of other cow peas (G/AG/JPN/195), the c.i.f. import price in 1988 was used as an 
average price of the reference period, because there was no tariff line in 1986 and 1987, and the 
tariff line in question was newly created in 1988.  
2.3.2  Chinese Taipei (G/AG/N/TPKM/114) 
AG-IMS ID 75011: Question by Australia - Trigger calculations 
Chinese Taipei estimated the trigger level fo r betel nuts using the volume of imports and 
consumption for 2010, 2011 and 2012. However, Chinese Taipei provided 2013 in-quota 
imports in G/AG/N/TPKM/112. Can Chinese Taipei explain why they have not used 2013 imports in G/AG/N/TPKM/114?  
Answer by Chinese Taipei 
 Chinese Taipei confirms that the trigger level calculation and action of SSG for betel nuts 
concerned is fully in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Article 
5.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the SSG trigger level should be calculated using "average quantity of imports during the three preceding ye ars for which data are available". Chinese Taipei 
calculated and published the SSG trigger level of 2014 by the end of 2013. However, the data of 
actual imports and consumption in 2013 was not available at that time. Chinese Taipei therefore followed the Article 5.4 of the Agreement on Agri culture, and calculated the trigger level of 2014 
using the data of average imports from 2010 to 2012. 
 
2.4  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.4.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/89) 
AG-IMS ID 75042: Question by India - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
a. Could Australia confirm whether the payments made under On-Farm Irrigation 
Efficiency Program that are exempt fr om reduction commitment pursuant to 
Annex 2, Paragraph 2 (g) pertain to capital works only and excludes the 
subsidized provision of on-farm fac ilities? If yes, India seeks further 
information on monetary value of eligib le activities for funding mentioned in 
the SEWPAC Report, Round Four, Funding Guidelines, July, 2013 (page 6), as 
reproduced below: 
"Activities eligible for funding Activities eligible for project/sub-proj ect funding generating water savings for 
the Australian Government will be infras tructure based, occur on an existing 
irrigated farm, and may include the following: G/AG/W/138 
 
- 29 - 
 
   installing new or upgrading existing irri gation infrastructu re or technology, 
including automated water management systems and sensing equipment intended to improve decision-making about irrigation which will improve 
irrigation efficiency; 
 improving irrigated area layout or design for the purpose of improving 
on‑farm irrigation efficiency (e.g. laser grading, decommissioning old 
irrigation infrastructure as part of enhancing the overall efficiency of the 
system); 
 ancillary equipment necessary for new or upgraded irrigation systems to 
function (e.g. computer equipment); 
 training, where this is important to the success of the project. However, 
training on how to use new irrigation infrastructure equipment should normally be provided by the supplier as part of the installation costs; 
 pre-construction activities including:  building/ environmental approvals, 
cultural heritage approvals, engineer ing design and environmental impact 
statements (provided these do not co mmence/ conclude prior to Stage One 
(in-principle) approval). Program fund ing will be directed to irrigation 
applied to primary production. This in cludes irrigated crops, pasture for 
stock (e.g. dairy) and commercial horticulture." 
b. Monetary value of payments notified under On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency 
Program increased from AUD 60.33 million in 2013 to AUD 158 million in 2014. 
What are the reasons for this increase? 
c. Could Australia confirm if the paymen t made under NSW Private Irrigation 
Infrastructure Operations Program that are exempt from reduction 
commitment pursuant to Annex 2, Paragr aph 2(g) pertains to capital works 
only and excludes the subsidized provis ion of on-farm facilities? If so India 
seeks further information on the monetary value of funding that improves the 
efficiency of irrigation systems and on-farm water use, accessed at SEWPAC, 
reproduced below:  
"Nine projects have been approved to date for funding of around 
AUD 642 million that improve the efficiency  of irrigation systems and on-farm 
water use, through measures such as modernising irrigation channels, installing pumped pipeline systems and co nstructing secure stock and domestic 
water delivery systems." 
d. Could Australia provide information as regards to infrastructure projects 
undertaken at Tasmania and Western Austra lia during the period of notification 
and forms of support/assistance?  
Answer by Australia 
 
a. The "On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program"  is exempt from reduction commitments as 
its aim is to return water savings to the environment in the Lachlan and southern 
connected system of the Murray-Darling Basin. The programme provides grants to catchment management authorities and natural resource management boards, who 
subsequently carry out the relevant capital works. The programme does not involve 
direct payments to producers or processors and the programme's application requirements specifically preclude individual producers from applying for funding. 
The programme's objectives are environmental. It provides funding for a number of 
projects which include the provision of ca pital works and training with the aim of 
returning water savings to the environment. It meets the fundamental requirement for Green Box measures. The support is provided through a publicly-funded government G/AG/W/138 
 
- 30 - 
 
  programme, is non- or minimally trade distorting, and does not have the effect of 
providing price support to producers or increasing production. 
In the 2010-2011 financial year the programme expended AUD 60.33 million towards 
projects to improve the efficiency of water use and management in the southern-
connected Murray Darling Basin. 
b. The programme commenced in 2009-2010. No programme funds were expended during 
that financial year, with grant recipients receiving funding under the first round of the 
programme in 2010-2011. The increases and decreases in programme funds between 
successive financial years are not directly the result of deliberate government decisions. Rather, they reflect the expenditure that was committed to grant recipients as the programme was implemented. Applications for funding under Round one were called in 
2009-2010 with expenditure on the round commencing in 2010-2011. Similarly, 
applications for funding under Round two were called in 2010-2011 with expenditure on the round commencing in 2011-2012, and so on. Funds committed in any round must be 
concluded within three years. 
c. This programme was reported as non-product specific AMS in its entirety. Although some 
of the projects funded under it involve capita l works as well as off-farm projects, which 
would be considered exempt from reduction commitments pursuant to Annex 2, it is not 
possible to disaggregate information for these programmes; hence the entire measure was counted towards Australia's AMS. 
d. Infrastructure projects in Tasmania took the form of assistance in the provision of rural 
infrastructure and associated services to ensure continued development of efficient and 
sustainable agriculture. The funds were applied to the infrastructure associated with Tasmania's irrigation schemes including dam and water pipe construction under the 
Water Infrastructure Fund. Infrastructure projects in Western Australia were capital 
works for government support services. Expenditure in this category was in relation to "Caring for our Country - Natural Heritage Trust" where state funds are matched with 
Commonwealth funds and which provide grants to regional Natural Resource 
Management (NRM) groups as well as state agencies to deliver on a myriad of NRM projects across the state of Western Australia. The other major programme was carried out under the Rural Business Development Council. 
AG-IMS ID 75043: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Could Australia provide information regardin g current methodology of payments made 
under Farm Management Deposit Scheme fo r estimating revenue foregone and its 
compliance with Annex 2, paragraph 7 criteria?  
 
Answer by Australia 
 The Farm Management Deposit Scheme (FMDS) allows individual farmers to manage income volatility by setting aside pre-tax income in good years for use in low-income years. This enables 
the individual farmer to defer the income tax on taxable primary production income from the 
income year in which the deposit is made until the income year in which the deposit is withdrawn. As Australia operates a progressive income ta xation system, farmers can only benefit from 
the FMDS when they withdraw the deposit in a low income year (that is, a year when their 
marginal tax rate is low).  
The estimates of the foregone revenue from FMDs  are worked out using the methodology below: 
 (1) Primary producers who make FMDs must report their net deposits or repayments in their tax 
return each year. Net FMDs are calculated as the difference between farm management 
deposits and farm management withdrawals. 
 (2) The revenue foregone is calculated as the difference between the tax that taxpayers pay using 
FMDs and the tax they would have paid without the FMD provisions. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Note that the 2010-2011 income year figure of AUD 30 million represents the difference between 
tax raised from primary producers with FMD transaction(s) during 2009-2010 and the tax that could have been collected from them in that year if the FMD provisions were not available. FMD transactions in the 2009-2010 income year are reported when taxpayers lodge their tax 
returns for that year, which typically occur in the 2010-2011 income year. 
AG-IMS ID 75046: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
Could Australia provide information rega rding forms of support provided under 
Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payments, as no  information is available at the notified 
data source? What are exceptional circumst ances and does the measure notified under 
Annex 2, paragraph 8 meet the criteria of th is paragraph including the production loss 
exceeds 30% of the average of production in the preceding three-year period or a 
three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry?  
 
Answer by Australia  
The Australian government's "exceptional circumstances" (EC) programmes are policy 
arrangements that aim to help farmers who are viable in the long-term cope with rare and severe events that are outside those that a farmer could normally be expected to manage using responsible farm management strategies. EC is declared by the Australian government when a 
defined geographical area has been experiencing a rare and severe drought (occurring on average 
once every 20 to 25 years) resulting in severe down turn in farm income over a period greater than 
twelve months. Due to the nature of the severity  of drought required for EC to be declared, 
production losses are likely to be greater than those described in Annex 2, paragraph 8.  
 The Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP) is a welfare payment paid under strict 
eligibility criteria, equivalent to the same welf are payment administered by Centrelink (such as 
unemployment benefits), to assist farm families to put food on the table and is not at a level that would support any on-farm activities. There are strict income and assets tests in accordance with the welfare nature of this payment. 
AG-IMS ID 75044: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes 
Could Australia provide information regardin g projects undertaken through Caring for 
our Country-National Heritage Trust and forms of support provided, as no information is 
available at the notified data source?  
Answer by Australia 
 Caring for Our Country aims to achieve a healthier, better protected, well-managed and resilient environment in a changing climate. The Caring for Our Country Initiative seeks to address six key 
environmental priority areas: 
  The National Reserve System (conserving examples of Australia's natural landscapes and 
native plants and animals for future generations); 
 Biodiversity and natural icons (e.g. reducing the impact of feral animals on conservation 
areas); 
 Coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats; 
 Sustainable farm practices (e.g. improving the knowledge, skills and management of land 
managers and farmers in natural resource management); 
 Natural resource management in northern and remote Australia (e.g. improving skills in 
sustainable land use management and reducing the impact of feral animals on the landscape 
in this region); G/AG/W/138 
 
- 32 - 
 
   Community skills, knowledge and training (e .g. improving access to knowledge, including 
traditional ecological knowledge, and skills in both rural and urban areas, for the purpose of sustainable and bio-diverse conservation). 
In 2011 funding under the Caring for our Country Initiative provided resources for mentoring, 
information development, disseminating new information and products, establishing demonstration 
sites, and piloting innovative practices that increased the capacity of land managers to adopt sustainable practices. For example, one project in  Western Australia involved a strategic regional 
approach with workshops for growers and grower groups, soil sampling and analysis, provision of 
information for calculating lime sand application, and development of acidity management plans. A guide for managing soil acidity was also developed. This was a common example of the type of work undertaken under this programme. A full lis t of all 385 recipients of funding under the 
programme can be provided on request. 
 2.4.2  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/98) 
AG-IMS ID 75054: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could Canada clarify whether there is an ov erlap in payments made under AgriInvest, 
AgriRecovery Framework and AgriInsuranc e for the producer's total loss under 
paragraphs 7 and 8 of Annex 2? 
 Answer by Canada  
As indicated in older responses, payments under  AgriInvest, AgriInsurance, and AgriRecovery 
Framework are notified as non-product specific support in Supporting Table DS:9. There is no 
overlap in payments under paragraphs 7 and 8 of Annex 2. 
AG-IMS ID 75050: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
a. Could Canada provide information on the AgriInvest programme including a 
brief description of eligibility criter ia and the current methodology for 
determining the amount of payments?  
b. Could Canada clarify whethe r any direct payments have been made under this 
programme?  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. AgriInvest is part of the Business Risk Management suite under Canada's Growing 
Forward (GF) Policy Framework. Individual s who derive income from the primary 
production of eligible agricultural commodities can participate in AgriInvest. Producers can deposit up to 1.5% of their Allowable Net Sales (or ANS) each year into an 
AgriInvest account and receive a matching contribution from federal and provincial 
governments. ANS is calculated on the basis of gross sales of allowable commodities, subtracted by purchases of allowable commodities (e.g., seeds, plants, livestock purchases). ANS is limited to CAD 1.5 million per eligible participants. Producers can 
withdraw the funds at any time for risk mitigation or other investments. The annual total 
government matching contribution is reported as non-product specific support in Supporting Table DS:9.  
b. Direct payments to producers have been made under AgriInsurance and the programme 
is self-sustained by premium contributions from producers, as well as federal and provincial governments. The portion of total annual government contributions is reported 
as non-product specific support in Supporting Table DS:9.  
AG-IMS ID 75051: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
a. Could Canada explain in detail the Ag ri-Insurance scheme and specify the 
difference from its predecessor pr ogramme (Production Insurance)? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 33 - 
 
  b. How is the premia distributed between federal and provincial government? Do 
the producers or farmers pay any premia? If so how much and methodology for calculating costs?  
c. Could Canada further explain the complia nce of AgriInsurance programme with 
Annex 2 Paragraph 7 criteria including methodology for payments and revenue 
foregone?  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. AgriInsurance is a federal-provincial-producer cost-shared programme that stabilizes a 
producer's income by minimizing the econom ic effects of production losses caused by 
natural hazards. The Farm Income Protection Act requires that insurance programmes 
must be self-sustaining. Also, the Canada Pr oduction Insurance Regulations require that 
the setting of premium rates be established in an actuarially sound manner. As a result, premium rates for crops under AgriInsurance are updated periodically on a crop and 
risk-zone basis and are determined by factor s such as the long-term average yield, the 
selected coverage level, the insured price, and the producer's experience discount or surcharge. AgriInsurance provides the same benefits previously under the Production 
Insurance and the name was changed to align with other Business Risk Management 
programmes. It is available to almost al l commercially grown commodities (more than 
one hundred) across Canada. Any producer in Canada can participate in the programme for eligible agricultural products.  
b. AgriInsurance is a provincial delivered pr ogramme to which the federal government 
contributes a portion of total premiums. Premiums for low risk crops are cost-shared with 40% paid by producers, 36% paid by the government of Canada, and 24% paid by 
the provincial governments. Producers ma y pay more than 40% of the premium for 
increases in risk and coverage levels. The portion of annual total government contributions is reported as non-product specific support in Supporting Table DS:9.  
c. Payments under both AgriInsurance and AgriRecovery Framework are reported as non-
product specific support in Supporting Ta ble DS:9. Although these payments are 
designed for relief from natural disasters, the eligibility is not specifically based on the production-loss trigger stipulated under Annex 2 paragraph 8(a). As a result, Canada did 
not claim these payments for exemption under Annex 2 (i.e., Green Box). 
AG-IMS ID 75053: Question by India - Direct  payments: payments for relief from natural 
disasters 
Could Canada provide information regarding th e eligibility criteria fo r farmers to receive 
payment under AgriRecovery Framework? Does  the AgriRecovery Framework notified 
under Annex 2, paragraph 8 meet the criteria of this paragraph including the production 
loss exceeding 30% of the average of production  in the preceding three-year period or a 
three-year average based on the preceding five-year period, excluding the highest and the lowest entry?   
Answer by Canada 
 Payments under AgriRecovery Framework are notified as non-product specific support in 
Supporting Table DS:9. Although these payments  are for relief from natural disasters, the 
eligibility is not specifically based on the production-loss trigger stipulated under Annex 2 paragraph 8(a). As a result, Canada did not claim these payments for exemption under Annex 2 
(i.e., Green Box). 
 2.4.3  Georgia (G/AG/N/GEO/13) 
AG-IMS ID 75072: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that several new programmes are included in Georgia's most recent 
DS:1 notification for 2013 for which no DS:2 notifications have been submitted. These 
include: G/AG/W/138 
 
- 34 - 
 
   
 Paragraph 2 (b): 
 Food Safety, Plant Protecti on and Epizootic Safety; 
 Diagnosis of food production, animal and plant diseases; 
 Food Safety, Plant Protection an d Epizootic reliability programme 
management and administration; 
 Paragraph 2 (c): Support Measures for Agricultural cooperatives. 
Could Georgia please advise when it expects to submit a DS:2 notification for these new 
measures?   Answer by Georgia 
 
The issue regarding the submission of DS: 2 noti fication by Georgia is still under thorough 
consideration in Tbilisi. Georgia will submit information in due course upon receiving it from the 
capital.  
AG-IMS ID 75074: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
Support for several existing programmes ha s increased substantially from Georgia's 
previous DS:1 notification: 
 
a. Support for the Agricultural Support Program increased substantially 
between 2012 and 2013 going from GEL 3,432,754 to GEL 191,588,966 
respectively; 
b. Support to the "Development of Viticu lture and Winemaking" also increased 
going from GEL 1,504,164 in 2012 to GEL 35,672,610 in 2013; 
c. Support to the "Rehabilitation of Amelio ration System" more than quadrupled 
between 2012 and 2013 going from GEL 13,850,000 to GEL 61,477,236. 
Could Georgia provide an explanation for these dramatic increases in support?  
 
Answer by Georgia  
a. Since the change of the government of Georgia in October 2012, the Agricultural 
Development Strategy of Georgia is totally oriented to enhancement of rural 
development and promotion of economic diversification and complies with agricultural development policy of the European Union. Compatibility to the agricultural development 
policy of the European Union means the following: Agriculture development Strategy is 
aligned with the requirements of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement (DCFTA) between the European Unio n and Georgia that stipulates measures 
for approximation to international standards and norms and improvement of quality of 
production.  
The government of Georgia has developed an Action Plan (2014–2017) for the 
implementation of DCFTA. In the Action Plan specific measures are defined to be carried 
out for the fulfilment of requirements of  DCFTA - drafting/reviewing and adopting 
secondary legislation; setting up the approximation list of the EU sanitary and phytosanitary measures, animal welfare measures, and other legislative measures that 
Georgia will approximate, divided into priority  areas; reviewing Food Safety Strategy and 
Approximation Programme, with a view to implement the approximation list of the EU sanitary and phytosanitary measures, animal welfare measures and other legislative 
measures; conducting awareness campaigns regarding efficient implementation of newly 
adopted or revised legislation; etc.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 35 - 
 
  The Georgian Strategy for development of the food safety system and legal 
approximation to standards is already well defined by the MoA and these standards are consistent with EU legislation. The inadequate legislative basis existing in previous years, the lack of human and technical resources, and insufficient programmatic budgetary 
financing resulted in lack of effectiveness of state control over food safety. The process 
of upgrading the legal framework has been underway since 2012. Namely, the code for food/animal feed, veterinary, and plant protection alongside other legislative acts was 
adopted. The risk assessment service was established in the LEPL Scientific-Research 
Center, which will ensure risk assessment on scientifically identified data and supply recommendations to entities responsible for control and risk management.  
In 2014, as a result of the MoA initiative, the budgetary financing of this sphere 
quadrupled. The National Food Agency was staffed with the relevant quality and quantity 
cadre and with necessary technical equipment. Within the framework of approximation to the EU legislation, the mechanisms for state control over food safety, including 
simplified control, will be established. The collaboration and information sharing 
mechanisms between institutions involved in risk analysis (NFA, Revenue Service, and the Risk Assessment Service of the Scientific-Research Center) will be further improved. 
The sustainable and flexible system will be  created for the purpose of streamlining the 
registration procedures for businesses. The NFA will be enabled to have direct access to the database of business operators in order to precisely determine their number and activities. The risk-based state control w ill be maintained through the relevant 
mechanisms and frequency. Based on risk assessment and priorities, all the business 
operators will be examined at production, processing, and distribution stages, which will lead to attainment of highest food safety standards and considerable reduction of food-
borne diseases. State control over food of animal origin, food blocks of education and 
health providers, and primary production enterprises will be regarded as a priority. The effective system for food safety management and traceability at production, processing 
and distribution stages will be created based on legislation. In accordance with the 
Georgian legislation, it will become necessary for business operators to undertake food safety procedures in compliance with risk and hazard analysis and critical points (HAACP) system. The food safety laboratorial research capacities will be upgraded and 
international research methods introduced. On an annual basis, the number of samples 
t o  b e  t a k e n ,  f o o d  p r o d u c t s  t o  b e  a n a l y s e d  a n d  r e l e v a n t  r e s e a r c h  p a r a m e t e r s  w i l l  b e  identified. This will support protection of co nsumer markets and increase in exports. The 
comprehensive food safety strategy and the process of harmonization with EU 
requirements stipulate for approximation of the national veterinary legislation in the areas of animal identification/registration, testing of health conditions of live animals, 
veterinary certification of live animals and animal products, animal feed hygiene, its 
uses, market placement, etc. Improved livest ock identification and registration systems 
will be created, in order to ensure protec tion of cattle and population health, manage 
epidemiological situation, provide consumers with reliable information about origin and 
safety of animal products, supply information on animal movement within country, 
implement veterinary control on exports and imports, ensure labelling, transparency and traceability in meat trade, and improve breeding.  
In 2013 Georgia became a member of the FAO EUFM Commission. The strategic plans 
against foot-and-mouth disease, rabbis, and brucellosis are being created in collaboration with experts of this organization. Serological monitoring of non-structural 
proteins (NSP) for the purposes of selection of appropriate vaccine and vaccination 
campaign against foot-and-mouth disease are being conducted in collaboration with international organizations. The results of serological monitoring of structural proteins (SP) will serve as a foundation for assessment of effectiveness of the vaccination.  
It is possible that by 2020 based on the results of measures undertaken and serological 
monitoring, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) will grant Georgia the status of a foot-and-mouth disease free zone. This will remove barriers to export of live animals 
and non-food products of animal origin to EU countries. Adherence to phytosanitary 
requirements is an important mechanism for achievement of phytosanitary reliability and food safety in the country. This will support  Georgian exports to the European Union.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 36 - 
 
  The laboratory network of Ministry of Agriculture consisting of 11 laboratories was 
renovated and upgraded by the Biological Threat Reduction Program during the period of 2005-2009 under the agreement between the governments of Georgia and the United States. After 2012, as the agricultural sector in general and, animal/plant health and 
food safety sectors in particular, became the top priority areas, new era in development 
of the Laboratory of Ministry of Agricultur e has started. Since the beginning of 2014, 
fundamental changes have occurred at LMA;  among them: receiving the international 
accreditation according to ISO 17025 and implementing the ISO 9001 compliant Quality 
Management System by the head laborato ry; significantly expanding the scope of 
microbiological and biochemical tests for food and water quality; replacing the old Soviet "ГОСТ " based testing methods with the modern  ones- according to the international 
standards (ISO). In order to comply with EU requirements for food/feed testing new 
laboratory equipment will be procured and installed, applicable testing methods implemented and accredited; personnel will be engaged in training programmes; new 
methods will be validated and methodologies shared with the private and government 
laboratories working in the field of food safety.  
b. Increase of budget in 2013 for the Develo pment of Viticulture and Winemaking was 
related to several factors. The main reason is the fact that Development of Viticulture 
and Winemaking consists of different components and sub-programmes. For instance, in 2013 LEPL National Wine Agency of Geor gia, subordinate body of Ministry of 
Agriculture, in addition to the programme traditionally related to the replacement of 
hybrid variety by new varieties, requested important funds for the construction of its 
administrative office (about 4,000 square meters including Enoteca, Museum space, Education Center, Administrative office, etc). Also, LEPL National Wine Agency of Georgia 
requested additional rent funds for the three different spaces: rent for temporary 
administrative office, rent of additional space for degustation committee and storage space. At the same time, due to the importan t increase of wine exports in the Russian 
market, the agency was obliged to increase expenses linked with a wider number of 
quality control inspections, carried out for each lot of wine exports in about 100 wineries existing in Georgia. LEPL National Wine Agency of Georgia continued its traditional programme of replacement of hybrid varieties by new varieties. This programme was 
still necessary to renew vineyards by giving compensation to the volunteers.  
c. The medium-term programme of amelioration infrastructure development envisages 
total rehabilitation of irrigation schemes of 190,000 hectares and drainage schemes of 
80,000 hectares. Besides state funding, international donor organizations and various 
financial institutions will be involved in the implementation of the programme.  
2.4.4  Honduras (G/AG/N/HND/37) 
AG-IMS ID 75077: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012, Honduras' Green Box support 
decreased significantly, from USD 18.7 mill ion to USD 7.4 million, while support to 
development programmes just about double d from USD 5.6 million to USD 11 million. 
Could Honduras explain the significant decrea se in Green Box support and the apparent 
parallel increase in support to development programmes in 2011-2012?  
Answer by Honduras 
 Honduras undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
 
2.4.5  Iceland (G/AG/N/ISL/33) 
AG-IMS ID 75079: Question by Cana da - Excessive rates of inflation 
Canada notes that, for the years covered by the notification (i.e. 2004 – 2012), Iceland 
provides amounts that are both adjusted and unadjusted for inflation. However, its 
unadjusted Current Total AMS for these year s is within Iceland's Final Bound Total 
AMS commitment. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 37 - 
 
  a. Is Iceland claiming that excessive inflat ion has had an influence on its ability to 
abide by its domestic support commitments?  
b. Could Iceland explain why it is providin g amounts adjusted for inflation for all 
the years covered by the notification?  
Answer by Iceland 
 Iceland is not claiming that excessive inflation has had a decisive influence on the ability to abide 
domestic support commitments. Iceland has submitted a dual DS notification over the years, with 
and without inflation adjustment. This is done for all the years in question in order to maintain consistency and increase transparency.   
In reality, the adjustment revolves less around inflation than currency devaluation. The reason for 
the adjustment is a minor mistake in the AGST tables, where Iceland's external reference prices were expressed in Icelandic Krona (ISK) rather than Special Drawing Rights (SDR) as had been the 
intention.  
 The calculation of market price support stipulated by notification requirements is in effect simple. 
The world market price per unit of a product is de ducted from the domestic price and the outcome 
is multiplied with domestic production. The mistake in the AGST tables is that the world market price was converted from SDR into ISK at the base  period exchange rate. Without adjustment, the 
market price support is calculated using the exte rnal reference price found in the AGST tables, 
which is presented in a more valuable Krona than it is today. The adjustment consists in 
converting the base year Krona into a Krona today (or a Krona in a given year), in order to use comparable amounts. The simple conversion of the current total AMS in Krona into SDR does not 
address this imbalance in the market price suppo rt calculations. Therefore, given the currency 
development since the base year period, leaving the reference price unadjusted distorts the market price calculations and renders them more or less meaningless. It is this imbalance in the 
calculations that have been sought to redress by issuing a dual notification, presenting both the 
adjusted and unadjusted scenarios. Iceland understan ds that there may be different opinions with 
respect to how this particular problem should be dealt with. For this reason, Iceland submits a dual DS notification. 
 
Follow-up: Canada appreciated the transparency pr ovided by Iceland and registered its systemic 
interest in this area. 
 
2.4.6  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/CORR.1) 
AG-IMS ID 75016: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
The Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agricult ure and Cooperation, 
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Indi a, provides information on minimum support 
prices for agricultural commodities for th e period 2004-2013 in India (see further: 
http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/MSP.htm ). According to the government of India, India has 
had minimum support prices for 25 crops for the period 2004-2013 including: rice, 
wheat, cotton, soyabean, sugarcane, bajra, ma ize, ragi, arhar (Tur),  moong, urad, nuts, 
sunflower seeds, sesamum, nigerseed, ba rley, gram, masur (lentil), rape seed, 
safflower, toria, copra, and jute. 
 India's notification (G/AG/N/IND/10) do es not list 25 commodities as receiving 
minimum price support. Twelve commodities ar e listed for the year 2004-2005 and three 
commodities are listed for the year 2010-2011.  
a. Could India explain, on a commodity ba sis, the apparent discrepancy between 
the information provided by the gove rnment of India on minimum support 
prices and G/AG/N/IND/10? 
b. Can India explain why all the commodit ies receiving minimum support prices 
within India for the period 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 have not been included in 
the notification G/AG/N/IND/10? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 38 - 
 
  c. Can India explain why sugarcane, which,  pursuant to the Sugarcane (Control) 
Order 1966 had a statutory minimum pric e for sugar cane for the period prior 
to 2009-2010, is not included in G/AG/N/IND/10? 
d. Can India explain why cotton is not listed in G/AG/N/IND/10 when the Cotton 
Corporation of India ( http://cotcorp.gov.in/procurement.aspx ) states that it 
has purchased cotton at minimum suppo rt prices every year during the 
period 2004-2005 to 2010-2011?  
Answer by India 
 
a. and b. The minimum support price is fixed to protect farmers from distress sales of their 
produce. The crops which have actually received domestic prices support and are 
procured by the government are notified in G/AG/N/IND/10. 
c. Sugarcane is not included in the notification G/AG/N/IND/10 since the government does 
not procure sugarcane.  
d. Cotton is listed in the notifications for the years 2004-2005, when it received support. 
In 2010-2011 only 152 bales of 170 kg each were  procured by the Cotton Corporation of 
India. The quantity when converted into the notified unit [(170*152 /1000)/1000000] 
and rounded up to two decimal points works out to 0.00 million tonnes. 
AG-IMS ID 75020: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Could India provide information on its expo rts of wheat and rice for the period 2010-
2011 including: 
 
a. The volume and value of rice and wheat exports in 2010-2011; 
b. The export destinations for rice and wheat in 2010-2011; and 
c. Whether there were any exports, direct or indirect, from government held 
stocks of wheat and rice in 2010-2011, and if so, the volume, value and destination of such exports? 
Answer by India 
 The export data is available on the Depa rtment of Commerce website. The address 
is: http://commerce.nic.in/eidb/ . There was no export from government held stocks in 2010-2011.  
AG-IMS ID 75021: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia notes that in the period 2004-2005  to 2010-2011, India's Annex 2 "Green Box" 
commitments for infrastructural services and crop insurance increased by a multiple of 
ten. Buffer stock operations and "other inpu t subsidies" (such as fertiliser, irrigation, 
electricity and seeds) almost tripled in value.  
a. Can India account for these large increases? 
b. Can India clarify what percentage of  farmers moved out of low-income 
resource poor farmers as a result of these favourable programmes? 
Answer by India 
 
a. The increase in agricultural support reflects  the requirements of the agriculture sector, 
which is not remunerative in India. 
b. About 99% of farm holdings have less than ten hectares of land which is not considered 
to be adequate to generate enough income to maintain a minimum standard of living. Furthermore there is continuous fragmentation of land holdings. For example, the 
average size of land holdings of Indian farmers was as low as 1.33 hectares in 2001-G/AG/W/138 
 
- 39 - 
 
  2002. This declined to 1.23 hectares in 2005-2006, and further to 1.15 hectares in 
2010-2011. This underscores the fact that a bu lk of the peasantry subsist on marginal 
uneconomical holdings.  
AG-IMS ID 75092: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Canada notes that pulses are no longer incl uded in Supporting Table DS: 4 starting in 
2006-07. Could India please provide information as to the reason for this change, i.e. product-specific support is no longer provided for pulses?  
 
Answer by India  The crops which have received domestic price support in the year have been included in the 
notification. Crops for which minimum support pric e is announced but no domestic price support 
has been given have not been included in the notification. 
AG-IMS ID 75073: Question by European Unio n - Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2) 
a. Could India indicate the total annual production per marketing year 
(2004/2005 to 2010/2011) for: 
 rice (both paddy and milled), 
 wheat, and 
 sugar (raw and white)? 
b. The European Union notes that this notification is made in US dollars. Could 
India indicate the exchange rate used fo r each year covered by the notification? 
Could India explain these choices?  
c. There are measures in Supporting Tables DS:1 and DS:2 which are notified for 
the first time. Could India indicate  whether it will be submitting a 
DS:2 notification for these measures?  
d. For the following products a minimum price exists in India: groundnuts in shell, 
sunflower seed, soybean, sesamum, Niger seed, safflower, copra and 
sugarcane. However, no amount is notified.  
i. Could India explain the reasons why these support schemes are not being 
applied or used by Indian farmers or any other reason why no amount is 
notified? 
ii. Could India indicate the average market price for these products in the 
2010-2011 marketing year, including the data source and the market used 
for the calculations? 
Answer by India 
 
a. As majority of farmers are subsistence farmers, the entire production does not reach 
market. To protect the farmers from having to make distress sales of their marketable surplus, a minimum support price is fixed for a few crops. The crops which have received domestic support price are notified. The figures for rice, wheat and sugar production 
from the year 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 are as follows: G/AG/W/138 
 
- 40 - 
 
  In million tonnes 
Year Rice Wheat Sugar 
1 2 3 4 
2004-05 83.13 68.64 13.67 
2005-06 91.79 69.35 19.32 
2006-07 93.35 75.81 28.2 
2007-08 96.69 78.57 26.3 
2008-09 99.18 80.68 14.68 
2009-10 89.09 80.80 18.80 
2010-11 95.98 86.87 24.35 
Sources: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance and Directorate of Sugar. 
 
b. The exchange rate used for each year in the notification has been mentioned at the 
bottom of Supporting Table DS:1. They have been sourced from RBA Publication which is 
available on its website. The web address will be made available in India's written response. 
c. A Table DS:2 notification will be filed in due course. 
d. The crops for which no market support was provided to the farmers by the government 
in the year have not been notified. However, the monthly market domestic prices for primary agri-commodities are available on the website http://www.agmarknet.nic.in . 
AG-IMS ID 75117: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
With respect to the currency to express AMS, while Indian Rupee was used in the AGST, 
India has changed it to U.S. Dollar sinc e the notification of 1995/1996. Could India 
explain why it changed the currency in the notifications from Indian Rupee to 
U.S. Dollar?  
Answer by India 
 The exchange rate between Indian Rupee and U.S. Do llar is determined by market forces. In order 
to provide comparable estimates, India has been notifying its domestic support in U.S. Dollar 
since 1995-1996. India has followed a consistent approach in currency use while notifying its 
domestic support notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 75058: Question by Paraguay - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Does India guarantee minimum prices for products other than those detailed in 
the notification? Official websites appear to indicate that minimum prices are announced for 25 products that are not in cluded in the notification. What would 
be their impact in terms of India's commitments?  
b. India has become a major exporter of va rious agricultural products. It shows 
the highest rates of growth in agricultural trade and is among the leading exporters of various agricultural produc ts. To what extent do these exports 
benefit from domestic support policies, since as much as 99.15% of producers 
are eligible for the Article 6.2 exemption; and various products are covered by the guaranteed minimum price scheme? 
Answer by India 
 
a. The crops which have received domestic price support in the year have been included in 
the notifications. Crops for which minimum support price is announced but no domestic 
price support has been given, have not been included in the notifications. All commodities where there was public procurement have been included in the notifications. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 41 - 
 
  b. The minimum support price (administered price) is fixed to protect farmers from having 
to make distress sale of their produce. Indian farmers are primarily subsistence farmers with an average land holding of 1.15 hectares. The stated support measures are not aimed at promoting export but at ensuring f ood security to all. Minimum support price 
operations are carried out only in the event of market prices falling below the 
administered prices. Further, the domestic support policies aim at compensating farmers who suffer from various structural disadvantages arising out of small and fragmented 
landholdings, depletion in soil quality, lack of irrigation facilities, lack of access to 
markets and technology, low level of productivity and income, etc. 
AG-IMS ID 75045: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States notes that state governme nts in India provide significant levels of 
funding for activities in support of agricultur e in their respective states, and that this 
state government funding is distinct  from central government support.  
 
a. Does India's notification reflect the state-level funding in support of 
agriculture? If yes, please identify where state-level support is notified.  
The United States notes that India's notification is in U.S. dollars, but as outlined in its 
AGST document, India made its commitments in Indian Rupees. The United States also notes that India has stated that it has consis tently notified its domestic support only in 
U.S. dollars. 
 
b. Is it India's position that it can notify in any currency it chooses without 
respect to the currency in which its commitments were made as reflected in 
its AGST (G/AG/AGST/IND)? 
Answer by India 
 
a. Agriculture is a state subject in India, and all support provided by the government is 
implemented at the state level.  
b. The exchange rate between Indian rupee an d U.S. Dollar is determined by market 
forces. In order to provide comparable estimates, India has been notifying its domestic 
support in US dollars since 1995-1996. India has followed a consistent approach in 
currency used while notifying its domestic support notifications.  
AG-IMS ID 75047: Question by United Stat es of America - General services: other 
India notifies several types of General services support. 
 
a. Does India's notification of General se rvices support reflect any state-level 
support under this heading?  
b. Does India provide any state-level support  that would be classified as General 
services? 
c. If yes, please provide the amount of state-level support provided under each 
sub-heading for each of the notified years.  
Answer by India 
 
Agriculture is a state subject in India, and all support provided by the government is implemented 
at the state level. 
AG-IMS ID 75085: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
The criteria in paragraph 3, Annex 2, Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
states that the "…volume and accumulation  of such stocks shall correspond to pre-
determined targets and relate solely to food  security". Could India please provide the G/AG/W/138 
 
- 42 - 
 
  pre-determined target volumes for the crop(s) acquired for public stockholding for each 
of the reporting years?   Answer by India 
 
India's public stockholding programme is covered under Annex 2 footnote 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The quantities to be procured are based on estimates prepared by the state 
governments. 
AG-IMS ID 75080: Question by European Unio n - Public stockholding for food security 
purposes 
Could India confirm that the stocks bought for "Buffer Stock Operations" (point (b) in 
supporting table DS:1) have not been export ed and explain what measures have been 
taken to ensure this?   
Answer by India 
 For the notified period, there have been no exports from government stocks. 
AG-IMS ID 75118: Question by Japan - Public  stockholding for food security purposes 
Based on the Public Distribution System (PDS ), the government of India has constantly 
purchased and stored much more quantity of  grains than required for domestic food 
security. As a result, the stock might have been distributed to other countries at low 
price, undermining food security in impo rting countries. In addition, the PDS is 
suspected to be inefficient as a food securi ty measure due to rotting grains caused by 
improper management. 
 
a. Japan would like India to explain why the government outlay for public 
stockholding has rapidly ex panded and on what activities the budget has been 
spent. 
b. Some articles report that grains in the public stockholding in India have been 
released to other countries, including developing ones, at low prices. Could 
India indicate, in each year: 
 the quantity of grains distributed to Indian nationals under the PDS; 
 the quantity sold to domestic retaile rs or processors besides the PDS; 
 the quantity sold to foreign governments or companies; and 
 the quantity disposed due to decay or damage by pests? 
c. Annex 2, paragraph 3 in the Agreement on Agriculture stipulates that "the 
volume and accumulation of such stoc ks shall correspond to predetermined 
targets related solely to food security". Does the government of India 
determine targets in any plan for the volume of the buffer stock and procurement in advance? If so, is it announced in public? Are such predetermined volumes appropriate in view of ensuring domestic food 
security? 
d. Some articles report that food purchase d in excess of the capacity of the Food 
Corporation of India (FCI) is lying in  the open exposed to heat and rains 
resulting in a large amount of disposal. According to the website of the FCI, its 
facilities including private ones are ca pable to store around 40 million tonnes of 
grains in total. How are the grains purchased in excess of that amount 
managed? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 43 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 
a. The government outlay for public stockholding has increased to ensure food security for 
its poor population. 
b. India has no comments on any article published. There have been no exports from public 
stocks during the notified period. Regarding the PDS, all details are available on the Department of Food and Public Distribution website.  
c. India's public stockholding programme is cons istent with footnote 5 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
d. The articles may reflect the views of the writers and as such it will not be possible to 
explain the same.  
AG-IMS ID 75116: Question by Thailand - Pub lic stockholding for food security purposes 
India notified the programme "buffer stock operations (food grain)" in its Supporting 
Table DS:1: Measures exempt from the reduction commitment – "Green Box" with the 
monetary values of the measure each year.  
 
a. Are those amounts included in the amount of support appeared in Supporting 
DS:4 and Supporting Table DS:5 or Supporting Table DS:7? 
b. Could India explain how it takes into a ccount its public stockholding for food 
security purposes in the AMS calculatio n according to footnote 5 of Annex 2 
under the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by India 
 
a. These amounts are in Supporting Table DS:1 as they are consistent with footnote 5 
and 6 and paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
b. India has notified the Supporting Table DS:5. 
AG-IMS ID 75048: Question by United States of America - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
India regularly releases food grains from public  stocks at subsidized prices in the Indian 
market to control domestic prices. India has also exported grains from public stocks at 
apparently subsidized prices. Table DS:1 re flects a significant increase in funding 
since 2006/2007. 
 
a. Please provide the quantities of grain exported on the international market 
from public stocks on an  annual basis since 2006/2007. 
b. Please explain India's objectives for incr easing funding under this activity line 
since 2006/2007. 
The public stockholding expenditures are cite d as from Ministry of Agriculture sources, 
but the Ministry of Agriculture figures publis hed in reports of the Reserve Bank of India 
do not appear to include the subsidy paid to farmers by the Food Corporation of India (reported by that body as INR 428.7 billion in 2009-2010). 
 
c. Does India's notification include expendit ures by the Food Corporation of India, 
and if so, where are they included?  
The United States understands that several Indian state governments provide their own 
food-grain subsidy schemes for consumers in addition to the central government's programme. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 44 - 
 
  d. Does India's notification reflect the stat e-level support under this heading? If 
yes, please identify where state-level support is notified. 
e. Please provide the amount of state- level support under this heading. 
Answer by India 
 
a. No export of rice and wheat from public stocks has been made between 2006-2007 
and 2010-2011.  
b. The increased funding is to ensure food security for the poor.  
c. There is no subsidy paid by the Food Corporation of India to the farmers. The Food 
Corporation of India is responsible for the procurement of the produce at the minimum support price. 
d. and e. Agriculture is a state subject in India, and all support provided by the government 
is implemented at the state level.  
AG-IMS ID 75049: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
for relief from natural disasters 
a. Does India's notification reflect state- level payments under this heading? If 
yes, please identify where state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state- level payments under this heading. 
c. Please provide the reasons for increasing the funding under this heading 
in 2010/2011. 
Answer by India 
 
Payments for relief from natural disasters are covered under the National Crop Insurance scheme. Funds are spent through the states as they are im plementing agencies. The notification includes 
expenditure through the states. There is no deliberat e increase in the funding, but the increase is 
due to the increased natural calamities like floods, droughts, etc. 
AG-IMS ID 75086: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
G/AG/N/IND/10 shows for the first time an entry for the "Provision of loan at 
concessional rates and debt waiver" under "S tructural adjustment assistance provided 
through investment aids" in General services  (Green Box). Could India please provide a 
description of this newly notified measure in cluding the eligibility cr iteria for receiving 
payments and how it meets the crit eria of paragraph 11, Annex 2? 
 
Answer by India 
 The agricultural debt waiver and debt relief pr ogramme covered agricultural loans extended to 
Indian farmers whose loans either had become ov erdue or were nonperforming assets. Details of 
the scheme are available at: http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190 . The 
scheme is consistent with paragraph 11 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 75052: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: structural 
adjustment assistance provid ed through investment aids 
a. Does India's notification reflect stat e-level payments under the heading: 
Structural adjustment assistance provid ed through investment aids? If yes, 
please identify where state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state- level payments under this heading. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 45 - 
 
  c. Is the concessional loans and debt wa iver programme effectively implemented 
for all agriculture loans and as a result ge nerally available to all agriculture? If 
not, what proportion of agriculture loan s is eligible for assistance under the 
concessional loans and debt waiver programme?  
d. Since the programme is a newly notified measure introduced during the report 
period, please indicate when India w ill submit a Table DS.2 notification. 
Answer by India 
 
a. b. and c. All agriculture programmes, including credit support, are implemented through 
the states. The credit support programmes are implemented through the public sector banks to compensate farmers who suffer from various structural disadvantages arising 
out of small and fragmented landholdings, depletion in soil quality, lack of irrigation 
facilities, lack of access to market and technology, low level of productivity and income, etc. The agricultural debt waiver and debt relief programme covered agricultural loans 
extended to Indian farmers whose loans had either become overdue or were 
nonperforming assets. Details of the scheme are available at: http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_Circ ularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190 . 
d. The Table DS:2 notification will be submitted in due course. 
AG-IMS ID 75055: Question by United States  of America - Direct payments: payments 
under environmental programmes 
a. Does India's notification reflect stat e-level payments under the heading: 
Payments under environmental programm es? If yes, please identify where 
state-level support is notified. 
b. Please provide the amount of state- level payments under this heading. 
c. Since the "integrated watershed manageme nt programme" is a newly notified 
measure introduced during the report period, please indicate when India will 
submit a Table DS.2 notification. 
Answer by India 
 In India, agriculture is a state subject and a ll agricultural programmes are implemented through 
the states. The funds for the assistance within th ese programmes are budgeted by the centre and 
expended through the state governments as per the modalities defined by the centre.  
AG-IMS ID 75087: Question by Canada - In vestment subsidies ge nerally available to 
agriculture 
There was a noticeable increase in suppo rt for the "Government programmes on 
livestock and poultry improvement/breeding"  under "Investment subsidies generally 
available to agriculture" in 2007-2008. Coul d India please explain this increase in 
spending and demonstrate how this programme meets the criteria of Article 6.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?   Answer by India 
 
The programme meets Article 6.2 criteria because in India the low-income and resource-poor farmers practice backyard poultry production as an additional source of income.  
 
AG-IMS ID 75056: Question by United St ates of America - Investment subsidies 
generally available to agriculture 
India's notification mentions only livesto ck/poultry assistance and loans under tea 
development. The United States understands that India provides significant funding for 
various field crops, horticultural crops, planta tion crops, and other related activities, as 
well as loan programmes, but these do not appear in India's notification. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 46 - 
 
  a. Has India provided a complete listing of  all agricultural development and loan 
programmes? 
b. Does India's notification reflect state-le vel support under this? If yes, please 
identify where state-level support is notified. 
c. Please provide the amount of state- level support under this heading. 
Answer by India 
 
The notification includes expenditure on all agriculture schemes. Agriculture is a state subject and 
all agriculture programmes including the credit support are implemented through the states.  
AG-IMS ID 75022: Question by Australia - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Australia notes the increase in spending under "other input subsidies" listed in 
G/AG/N/IND/10.  
a. Could India provide specific information on  the spending for all of the individual 
items under "other input subsidies"? 
b. Could India also account for how these subsidies were delivered in each of the 
years notified? 
c. Could India advise if these "other input subsidies" are comprised of separate 
programmes? 
d. If so, could India provide information on the purpose and design of each 
programme? 
e. Can India explain why these programme s are not notified as individual 
programmes in their 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 notifications?  
Answer by India 
 The footnote in the Supporting Table DS:2 provid es various items of the support provided. The 
break-up of the subsidies notified is as follows: 
 
Input 
subsidies 
(US 
$million) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
Fertilizer 3,534.16 4,169.87 6,206.39 8,074.06 16,656.45 12,919.44 12,066.73 
Power 4,001.11 4,389.20 4,669.59 8,291.00 8,565.12 9,434.42 9,789.07 
Irrigation 2,739.82 3,264.98 4,023.05 4,803.91 4,757.85 5,875.98 7,207.77 
Other  0.32 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.2 0.40 
 
These subsidies were delivered by the concerned implementing agencies at the state level. 
 India's notification is as per document G/AG/2 and the Agreement on Agriculture.  
AG-IMS ID 75088: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Support for "Grant-in-aid given for production  of planning material of cardamom (both 
small and large)" is no longer listed under "A gricultural input subsidies to low income or 
resource poor producers" starting in 2007-200 8. Could India please confirm whether or 
not this measure has been terminated?  
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 47 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 The notification includes all support under Arti cle 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
measure has been included under the programme of replanting of senile and uneconomic 
cardamom gardens from the year 2007-08 onwards. 
AG-IMS ID 75089: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
The amounts reported as "other input su bsidies" has increased each year and 
constitutes most of the support reported  in Supporting Table DS:2. The footnote 
indicates that this support is provided to "fer tilizers, irrigation, electricity, seeds, etc.", 
but this does not provide sufficient information to review progress in the 
implementation of commitments. Could India please provide a breakdown of the support 
for the 2004-05 to 2010-2011 years?   
Answer by India 
 The footnote in the Supporting Table DS:2 provid es various items of the support provided. The 
break-up of the subsidies notified is as follows: 
 
Input 
subsidies 
(US 
$million) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
Fertilizer 3,534.16 4,169.87 6,206.39 8,074.06 16,656.45 12,919.44 12,066.73 
Power 4,001.11 4,389.20 4,669.59 8,291.00 8,565.12 9,434.42 9,789.07 
Irrigation 2,739.82 3,264.98 4,023.05 4,803.91 4,757.85 5,875.98 7,207.77 
Other  0.32 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.2 0.40 
 
These subsidies were delivered by the concerned implementing agencies at the state level. 
AG-IMS ID 75078: Question by European Union - Input subsidies available to low-
income or resource-poor producers 
a. Could India subdivide the amounts of the input subsidy mentioned in point (b) 
of Table DS:2 – "Article 6.2 support " for all the years covered by the 
notification into amounts for: (a) fert ilisers; (b) irrigation ; (c) electricity; 
(d) seeds; and (e) other? 
b. Could India explain the criteria that have been used to classify farmers as "low 
income or resource poor farmers"? Could India indicate the proportion of total Indian agricultural production produced by these farmers?  
Answer by India 
 
a. The footnote in the Supporting Table DS:2  provides various items of the support 
provided. The break-up of the subsidies notified is as follows: 
Input 
subsidies 
(US 
$million) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
Fertilizer 3,534.16 4,169.87 6,206.39 8,074.06 16,656.45 12,919.44 12,066.73 
Power 4,001.11 4,389.20 4,669.59 8,291.00 8,565.12 9,434.42 9,789.07 
Irrigation 2,739.82 3,264.98 4,023.05 4,803.91 4,757.85 5,875.98 7,207.77 
Other  0.32 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.2 0.40 
 
These subsidies were delivered by the conc erned implementing agencies at the state 
level. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 48 - 
 
  b. The low income or resource poor farmers are those farmers who possess less than 
10 hectares of land. This definition  covers 99% of India's farmers. 
AG-IMS ID 75119: Question by Japan - Inpu t subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Agricultural input subsidies to low income  or resource poor producers along with 
Article 6.2 have rapidly increased in recent years, and are equivalent to around 13% of 
total agricultural output in 2010. By classi fying farmers with less than 10 hectares of 
land as "low income or resource poor pr oducers", India has excluded all the input 
subsidies from the calculation of AMS.  
a. According to the Agriculture Census in India, while the percentage of 
households owning more than 10 hectares of farmland is 0.8%, the area 
operated by such large-scale farmers count s for 12% of all farm area in India, 
and 7% of chemicals is consumed by them. Please indicate average amounts 
the scheme paid to a holding by each group size: 
 marginal (less than 1 hectare), 
 small (1 to 2 hectares), 
 semi-medium (2 to 4 hectares), 
 medium(4 to 10 hectares), 
 large (more than 10 hectares). 
b. The average size of farmland in India is 1.2 hectares, and more than 80% of 
holdings own less than 2 hectares. Nevert heless, India classifies farmers with 
less than 10 hectares of land as "low  income or resource poor producers". 
Please explain why India includes farmer s with relatively large farm land in 
"low income or resource poor producers". 
c. Does India have any requirement for farm ers to receive the subsidy in light of 
reducing trade distorting effect  and supporting poor farmers? 
Answer by India 
 
a. India does not compile such information. 
b. and c. India has defined in the AGST low income or resource poor farmers as those 
having less than 10 hectares of land. More than 99% of India's farmers possess less 
than 10 hectares of land. Input assistance is available to all such farmers. 
AG-IMS ID 75057: Question by United States  of America - Input subsidies available to 
low-income or resource-poor producers 
a. Please provide a detailed breakdown for all the particular input subsidies, 
grants, and aid under the heading of "Agriculture input subsidies for low 
income or resource poor farm ers: Other input subsidies". 
b. What are the reasons for the significant increase in spending from 2005/2006 
through 2008/2009? 
c. Does India's notification reflect state-le vel support under this heading? If yes, 
please identify where state-level support is notified. 
d. Please provide the amount of state- level support under this heading. 
Article 6.2's exemption of agricultural inpu t subsidies from certain domestic support 
reduction commitments is limited to such su bsidies that are "generally available to G/AG/W/138 
 
- 49 - 
 
  low-income or resource-poor producers in  developing country Members". As India 
explained in previous responses (AG-IMS ID 67026 and 74051), notified agricultural 
input subsidies are generally availa ble to all Indian producers.  
 
e. What proportion of India's producers do es it consider to be "low-income or 
resource poor" within the meaning of Article 6.2? 
f. How does India determine which producer s are "low-income or resource poor" 
within the meaning of Article 6.2? 
Further, as the United States noted in AG-I MS ID 74051, based on a number of Indian 
agricultural policies and their stated objectiv es, a subset of Indian producers ("marginal 
and small producers") are targeted for purp oses similar to those of Article 6.2.  
 
g. What is the relevance of qualification as  a "marginal" or "small" producer to 
the determination of whether a producer is low-income or resource poor for the 
purposes of Article 6.2? 
The United States also notes that landholdin g size is a primary measure of classifying 
Indian producers, including for WTO purposes,  and that the average landholding size is 
declining due to an increase in the number of  landholdings and populations in line with 
existing Indian hereditary laws. This woul d indicate that the average size of India 
landholdings will continue to decline as the population continues to grow. 
 
h. What measures other than landholding size , if any, does India use to determine 
whether a producer qualifies for a clas sification of producers, such as 
"marginal and small producers", entitled  to targeted support under India's 
agricultural support programmes? For example, is a farmer with 10 hectares of 
a high return crop like mangoes the sa me as a wheat or corn farmer with 
10 hectares? 
India's notification lists only programmes sp ecific to the spice board as part of the 
measure grant-in-aid for production. The Unit ed States understands that there are also 
other commodity specific programmes—includ ing, but not limited to—cotton, jute, 
rubber, and horticultural products. 
 
i. Please clarify if India's notification includes these other commodity specific 
programmes, and, if yes, where. 
j. Please provide a listing of all grants an d assistance for production agricultural 
commodities and related support levels. 
k. Does India's notification reflect state-le vel support under this heading? If yes, 
please identify where state-level support is notified. 
l. Please provide the amount of state- level support under this heading. 
Answer by India 
 
a. The footnote in the Supporting Table DS:2  provides various items of the support 
provided. The break-up of the subsidies notified is as follows: G/AG/W/138 
 
- 50 - 
 
  Input 
subsidies 
(US 
$million) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
Fertilizer 3,534.16 4,169.87 6,206.39 8,074.06 16,656.45 12,919.44 12,066.73 
Power 4,001.11 4,389.20 4,669.59 8,291.00 8,565.12 9,434.42 9,789.07 
Irrigation 2,739.82 3,264.98 4,023.05 4,803.91 4,757.85 5,875.98 7,207.77 
Other  0.32 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.2 0.40 
 
These subsidies were delivered by the conc erned implementing agencies at the state 
level. 
b. The main reason is: to ensure sustained livelihood to poor farmers because of 
fragmentation of land. The increase can also be attributed to the increase in input costs 
due to inflation.  
c. and d. India's notification includes  all support by the government.  
e. More than 99% of Indian farmers are low-income or resource-poor.  
f. Farmers with less than 10 hectares of land are classified as low-income or resource poor 
farmers. 
g. and h. India's determination of low-income or resource-poor farmer is as per its AGST. 
i. j, k, and l. India's notification covers the programmes receiving government support.  
AG-IMS ID 75017: Question by Australia - Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
a. Article 1(h)(ii) of the Agreement on Ag riculture provides that the level of 
support actually provided should be "calculated in accordance with the 
provisions of this Agreement, including Article 6, and with the constituent data and methodology used in the tables of  supporting material incorporated by 
reference in Part IV of the Member's Schedule". 
India's constituent data and methodology used in the tables of supporting 
material incorporated by reference in Part IV of the Member's Schedule is 
India's AGST (G/AG/AGST/IND). India's AGST sets out all domestic support 
measures, including AMS, minimum support  prices, external reference prices 
and total market price support, in Indian rupees (INR).  
India's notification (G/AG/N/IND/10) is in  US dollars (USD) rather than Indian 
rupees (INR). The choice of currency can lead to marked differences in some 
indicators. For example, the applied ad ministered price (2010-2011) for rice 
appears to be 125% higher than the external reference price (1986-1989) for 
rice when using USD, but 426% higher when using INR.
2 
Can India explain why it has used US D instead of INR in G/AG/N/IND/10? 
b. Can India explain why it uses the years 1986-1989 for the base period to 
determine the external reference prices  instead of 1986-1988 as set out in 
Annex 3, paragraph 9 of the Agreement on  Agriculture? Australia notes that the 
base period 1986-1989 is used in India's AGST as well as the recent notifications. 
                                               
2 Price 15,000 INR/tonne minus external reference price of 3,520 INR/tonne. The administered price of 
15,000 INR/tonne includes the coefficient of 1.5 as set out in India's AGST. Source for price is http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/MSP.htm  (includes conversion fr om paddy to milled). G/AG/W/138 
 
- 51 - 
 
  c. In India's AGST and subsequent notifi cations a coefficient of 1.5 has been 
applied to the administered price for rice . According to the DS:5 notifications, 
this coefficient is applied because the administered price is the procurement 
price for common paddy and a conversion to an equivalent rice price is used for 
the purpose of calculating de minimis . 
i. Could India explain on what basis the coefficient was derived, and 
specifically, how the coefficient of 1.5 was determined? 
ii. Could India explain why a coefficient is necessary since the administered 
price is for paddy rice; statistics on production volume and procurement for 
paddy rice are available; and the total value of production for paddy rice is 
available from the "Statewise estimates of value of output from agriculture 
and allied activities 2013", Central Stat istics Office India, Table Itemwise 
Value of Output From Agricultur e and Allied Sectors, p. 300? 
Answer by India 
 
a. The exchange rate between Indian Rupee an d U.S. Dollar is determined by market 
forces. 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 notification.  
b. The notifications are as per the AGST base period.  
c. As 1.5 kg of paddy yield 1 kg of rice, the co efficient of 1.5 was used for calculation of 
domestic support in Supporting Table DS:5. Though the administered price is for paddy, 
the external reference price is only available for rice which is traded internationally and not for paddy. 
AG-IMS ID 75093: Question by Canada - Constituent data and methodology (AGST) 
Canada notes that in Supporting Table DS:5, India indicates that the external reference 
price is "generally from AGST/…". G/AG/A GST/IND, incorporated by reference in 
India's Schedule, uses the currency "RT/T" while, G/AG/N/IND/10 uses U.S. dollars to 
calculate market price support to a number of  products. Could India please explain this 
discrepancy?   
Answer by India 
 The exchange rate between Indian Rupee and U.S. do llar is determined by market forces. In order 
to provide comparable estimates, India has been notifying its domestic support in U.S. dollars 
since 1995-96. India has followed a consistent approach in currency used while notifying its domestic support notifications. 
AG-IMS ID 75120: Question by Japan - Market price support 
While aimed at assisting poor farmers in India, the minimum support price policy could 
be in favour of large scale farmers compar ed to small ones. Furthermore, it might 
incentivize farmers to produce more. 
 
a. By stimulating production, the price suppo rt policy in India has led to increased 
output and export of grains in recent years. The grain trade expanded by the 
policy might hinder agricultural activi ties, lower food self-sufficiency, and 
undermine food security in importing co untries. Please indicate the names of 
countries importing grains from India' s public stockholding and the price. 
b. Since support prices benefit farmers in pr oportion to the amount of production 
which each farmer sells to a governme nt, such a scheme gives advantage to 
large scale farmers and vice versa. Does  India have any requirement for the 
policy in light of supporting poor farmers? 
Answer by India G/AG/W/138 
 
- 52 - 
 
   
The price support policy followed by India does not aim at stimulating production. The minimum 
support price is fixed to protect farmers from dist ress sale of their crops. The prime objective of 
minimum price support is to prevent exploitation  of farmers and not to incentivize production. 
There has been no export of wheat and rice from  public stocks during the notified period.  
AG-IMS ID 75013: Question by Switzerland - Market price support In the notification Switzerland observes si gnificantly increasing applied administered 
prices. Switzerland would like to ask India to  explain to what extent this development 
reflects increasing world market commodity pr ices and whether it has affected producer 
price support.  
Answer by India 
 There has been no significant increase in the administered prices vis-à-vis the inflation in the 
country. Besides, the administered prices are below the global prices.  
AG-IMS ID 75115: Question by Thailand - Market price support In Supporting Table DS:5, India provides the applied administered prices for rice for 
each marketing year, please explain how Indi a derived those numbers. Are the prices in 
the table for a certain type of rice? If so, whic h type of rice? Or does India calculate such 
number from the prices of different types of rice?  
Answer by India 
 The administered prices are fixed by the government  taking various factors into consideration. The 
calculations in Supporting Table DS:5 reflect th e minimum support price for paddy converted into 
rice by application of a coefficient of 1.5. An explanation regarding the coefficient and currency rates are provided in the footnote of the Supporting Table DS:5. 
AG-IMS ID 75062: Question by United St ates of America - Market price support 
a. The United States notes that India's no tification lists only a few commodities 
where the government has notified an  applied minimum support price (MSP) 
and has actually procured crops. Pl ease provide the applied MSP for all 
commodities in the years covered by this notification. 
b. The United States notes that, despite th e few commodities that India notified 
as procured at an applied MSP, India announced an MSP for approximately 25 
crops for which the government guar antees to purchase all domestic 
production (up to the total volume of production) of the crops that producers 
wish to sell the government at the anno unced MSP. India notified such policies 
in its AGST document, which India has noted previously (AG-IMS ID 67028). 
India explained in AG-IMS 65061 that it s notification position changed, and 
that it now only notifies MSP for commodities where procurement occurs. 
What was the reasoning behind India's decision to adopt a new understanding 
of eligible production and abandon its pr evious position of notifying all price 
supports as reflected in its AGST document? 
c. According to a Government of India Repo rt ("Price Policy for Rabi Crops: The 
Marketing Season 2013-14"
3), state-level support can be quite significant and 
can lead to state take-over of cert ain commodity markets. One example 
highlighted by the report notes that the introduction of a state bonus (of 
INR 100/100kg) on the minimum support price in 2007/2008 resulted in a 
dramatic increase in state government  procurement levels. State procurement 
increased from 0.8% of wheat produced in 2006/2007 to 85% in 2011/2012. The result, according to the report, was a crowding out of the private sector 
and the government becoming "virtually  a monopsonist" in the wheat market, 
                                               
3 CACP, "Price Policy for Rabi Crops: The Marketing Season 2013-14", pg. 22. 
http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/ViewQuestionare. aspx?Input=2&DocId=1&PageId=40&KeyId=471. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 53 - 
 
  which is "not healthy for long term effici ency in procurement operations as well 
as for farmers." 
Several state governments maintain addi tional bonuses above and beyond the 
MSP for crops produced and market ed in their respective states. 
Does India's notification include the tota l market support extended by all of the 
state governments including additional bonuses, waivers for taxes and levies, 
etc.? If not, please provide these figures.  
Answer by India 
 
a. Procurement is made only of a very few cr ops, which have been provided in India's 
notification. The details about the minimum support price are available on the 
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation website. 
b. India procures the marketable surplus which the farmers want to sell keeping aside their 
own consumption requirements and seed requirements for the next crop year.  
c. The notification covers the support by the government.  
AG-IMS ID 75018: Question by Australia - Ma rket price support: Eligible production  
Could India explain why total production was no t used for eligible production for each of 
the relevant commodities in each year in the period 2004-2005 to 2010-2011? Australia 
understands that G/AG/N/IND/10 contains elig ible production figures that are less than 
total production. For instance, Agricultural St atistics at a Glance 2011 produced by the 
Directorate of Economics and Statistics, De partment of Agriculture and Cooperation, 
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of In dia states that total production of rice 
in 2010-2011 was 95.33 million tonnes (See further: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/latest_20011.htm ). What has been notified in 
G/AG/N/IND/10 is 34.2 million tonnes. Austra lia notes that the Food Corporation of 
India doesn't establish any quantitative li mits on what it will purchase. The Food 
Corporation of India website sets out its purc hasing policy on its website, which states: 
"Whatever stocks which are brought to the Purchase centres falling within the 
government of India's specifications ar e purchased at the fixed support price" 
(http://fciweb.nic.in/procurements/view/20 ). 
 
a. Could India confirm that there are no quantitative limits on the volume of rice 
and wheat that the Food Corporation of India will purchase? 
b. Could India advise what the figures listed under "eligible production" in 
Table DS:5 for each of the commodities and for each of the years in the 
period 2004-2005 to 2010-2011 represent? 
c. In India's AGST for rice for the period 1986-1987 to 1988-1989, eligible 
production volume and total production volume (milled) were the same. In the 
recent set of notifications provided by India, eligible production for rice was a 
portion of total production (milled). Co uld India account for the discrepancy 
between the way eligible production wa s calculated in India's AGST and the 
most recent notifications? 
d. Could India explain why total production was not used for eligible production 
for each of the relevant commodities in each year in the period 2004-2005 
to 2010-2011? 
Answer by India 
 
The Food Corporation of India procures the marketable surplus which the farmers want to sell. It 
may be noted that small or resource-poor farmers keep major portion of their produce for self-consumption and seed for the next crop year. Hence eligible production is the quantity which is actually procured.  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 54 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 75123: Question by Brazil - Mark et price support: Eligible production  
As indicated in Supporting Table DS:5, the noti fied measures of market support price did 
not consider as eligible production the entire  Indian production of rice, wheat, coarse 
cereals, cotton and other products. Could Indi a explain how it can be assured that the 
remaining production is not affect ed by this measure of support? 
 Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 75076: Question by European Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Could India confirm that the quantity (eligib le production) taken into account for the 
total market support in table DS:5 for rice and wheat concerns only the quantities bought in to the food grain distribution scheme? 
 
Answer by India  
The eligible production only relates to the procur ement of rice and wheat made by the government 
agencies for food security purposes.  
AG-IMS ID 75121: Question by Japan - Mark et price support: Eligible production  
With respect to the eligible production to ca lculate AMS, India adopted total production 
in AGST and the first notification (1995/1996) and changed it to the procured quantity 
(from 1996/1997 onwards). Please explain why In dia changed the eligible production in 
its notifications from total production to procured quantity. 
 
Answer by India  
The Food Corporation of India procured the marketable surplus which farmers want to sell. It may 
be noted that the small or resource-poor farmers keep major portion of their produce for self-consumption and for seed for the next crop year. Hence eligible production is the quantity which is actually procured.  
AG-IMS ID 75114: Question by Thailand - Ma rket price support: Eligible production  
In the Supporting Table DS:5 of MY2004-05 to MY2010-11, India provides the numbers 
for "eligible production". Please confirm th at the "eligible productions" which India 
indicates for each crop in all marketing year s are the production that the government of 
India supported, i.e. purchased from the farmers.   
Answer by India 
 The public procurement of a particular crop in all the marketing years has been taken as eligible production for the purpose of DS notification.  
AG-IMS ID 75019: Question by Australia - De minimis  
In G/AG/N/IND/10 India has not notified tota l value of production (VOP) for any of the 
commodities in any of the years. The exte nt to which a WTO Member is within its de 
minimis  entitlements can only be assessed if  the Member provides information on 
its VOP.  
a. Can India explain why VOP was not incl uded for commodities claimed to be 
subject to de minimis  entitlements? 
b. Could India supply that information for ea ch year in the period covered by the 
recent set of notifications (2004-2005 to 2010-2011)? 
c. As the VOP figure is required for the calculation of de minimis  entitlements, 
could India advise how India has calculated its de minimis  and AMS 
in G/AG/N/IND/10 in the absence of VOP figures?  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 55 - 
 
  Answer by India 
 India's notifications are as per the format prescribed in G/AG/2 and the Agreement on Agriculture. The Value of Production with respect of rice and wheat for the notified period are as follow: 
In US$ million 
Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
Rice 15,541.78 17,727.68 19,170.96 26,838.32 29,113.5 28,181.15 31,600.09 
Wheat 9,777.343 10,965.67 14,229.58 19,515.65 18,946.38 18,743.15 22,067.19 
 
AG-IMS ID 75090: Question by Canada - De minimis  
Could India please provide for each product its value of production (VOP) data which 
was used to calculate each product's de minimis  threshold in Supporting Table DS:4?  
 Answer by India 
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 75019. 
AG-IMS ID 75091: Question by Canada - De minimis  
Would India consider routinely including values of production in its notifications in order 
both to facilitate the review process of th e Committee on Agriculture and to increase 
transparency regarding its non-exempt support  measures? Canada notes in this regard 
that other Members over the years have st arted to routinely include the values of 
production in their notifications.  
 Answer by India 
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 75019. 
AG-IMS ID 75075: Question by European Union - De minimis  
For the years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 could India indicate the value of production 
(VoP) for wheat and rice used in table DS:4 to qualify this support as being within the 
"de minimis " limits? 
 
Answer by India 
 See response to AG-IMS ID 75019. 
AG-IMS ID 75113: Question by Thailand - De minimis  
In the Supporting Table DS:4 of MY2004-05 to MY2010-11, India indicates that the 
support for each crop is not above the " de minimis " level. Thailand would appreciate it if 
India can provide data of value of production  for each crop that India indicates as " de 
minimis " in the table.  
 Answer by India 
 
See response to AG-IMS ID 75019. 
AG-IMS ID 75061: Question by United States of America - De minimis  
Please provide the total value of agricultural production relative to the notified support.  
 Answer by India  
See response to AG-IMS ID 75019. 
AG-IMS ID 75124: Question by Braz il - Classification of measures 
S o  a s  n o t  t o  b e  i n c l u d e d  i n  a  d e v e l o p i n g  country Member's calcul ation of its Current 
Total AMS, Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture requires that subsidies be G/AG/W/138 
 
- 56 - 
 
  generally available to agriculture or set to encourage diversification from growing illicit 
narcotic crops.  Nonetheless, some programmes notified at  Supporting Table DS:2 appear to be 
product-specific (livestock and poultry, te a, cardmom and spices) and not directed to 
encourage diversification from growing illicit narcotic crops. How could India justify its 
decision to notify such programmes under  Article 6.2 and not as product-specific 
programmes? 
 Answer by India  
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
 Follow-up : 
 
Considering that some of the issues would probably be better understood with future notifications and the corresponding review process, Australia encouraged India to continue notifying. Australia 
welcomed some of the specific assurances provided  by India, for example, the assurance that no 
stocks publicly held for food security purposes were exported. But on some other issues Australia 
felt that India could have provided more information. For instance, regarding India's choice of currency, Australia pointed out that its concern wa s not simply the consistency of notifying in the 
same currency each year, but rather the impact of the choice on the scale of support.  
 Canada echoed Australia's concern. In relation to the "comparable estimates" mentioned by India 
in several of its replies as a justification for the use of US dollars, Canada invited India to elaborate 
specifically on what comparison India was referring  to. In its view, India's decision to notify in 
US dollars in its current notification, as opposed to some of its past notifications and AGST, 
actually reduced comparability. With respect to products on which minimum support prices were 
announced but no procurements were made, Canada sought India's confirmation as regards its declaration that procurement was only made in the event that market prices fell beneath minimum support prices. Canada's understanding was that the announcement of minimum support price 
could create expectations for producers at the begi nning of a planting season that they could sell 
those products or the marketable surplus at minimum support prices in the event that the market prices were to be lower. Canada further questioned, if India's reply to the previous question were 
positive, whether there were any limitations on the procurement that would be made by the Indian 
government under those circumstances or the gove rnment would simply procure everything that 
producers were willing to sell.   
 
The European Union supported Canada's comments. Echoed by the United States, the European Union requested India to provide more informatio n on question b of AG-IMS ID 75078, given the 
second part of its question was about the propor tion of total Indian agricultural production 
produced by low-income and resource-poor farmers. In addition, the European Union looked 
forward to India's DS:2 notification.   
Regarding its questions about state support, the Unit ed States sought India's confirmation that no 
additional support from the states was provided other than what was notified. With respect to part b) of AG-IMS ID 75058, a question raised by Paraguay, the United States cited some statistics 
showing increases of India's exports of wheat and rice, products which benefited from both policies 
mentioned in the question. Paraguay, also by quoting some figures, drew Members' attention to India's high growth rates in agriculture trade in recent years and its increasing role as a major agriculture exporter. A third point raised by the United States was India's methodology of 
calculating market price support. With an alternative methodology, i.e. using the AGST reference 
price in Rupees instead of US dollars and using the quantity of production eligible to receive 
support rather than the procured quantity, the United States claimed that the resulting market 
price support for rice was 60% of the value of production and 69% for wheat. The United States in 
addition appreciated India's willingness to supply data on value of production as it was seen as a best practice in this Committee. It further took the opportunity, together with New Zealand, to call 
for Members' submissions of outstanding notifications. 
 Paraguay and Pakistan shared all concerns raised  by previous speakers. Specifically, Paraguay 
voiced two of its main concerns: (1) the distortive effect of the announced minimum support price 
as pointed out by Canada; and (2) the fact that India's support under Article 6.2 benefited most of G/AG/W/138 
 
- 57 - 
 
  its producers who were also exporters. Pakistan highlighted four points: (1) some issues needed 
further clarification from India, especially issues relating to food security such as market price 
support and eligible production; (2) support under Article 6.2 shall be carefully reviewed. In relation to the food security objective mentione d by India, Pakistan was uncertain whether India 
was referring to the urban population or the poor  farmers. From India's reply Pakistan understood 
that 99% of Indian farmers who were qualified as low income and resource poor had received support under Article 6.2 and had kept the majority  portion of the production for themselves; (3) 
the announcement of minimum support price was distortive as it gave farmers advance signal to 
opt for crops on which prices would be guaranteed and not to diversify crops; and (4) there was a lack of transparency regarding India's claim that private sectors were responsible for exports and government was not involved in that process. 
 
New Zealand and Uruguay indicated interest.  
2.4.7  Indonesia (G/AG/N/IDN/34) 
AG-IMS ID 75063: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Indonesia indicated that "[t]he administered  price is set by taking into account the 
market price as well as c ost of production by farmers", (AG-AMS ID 74043). 
 
a. How is the cost of production by farm ers used in setting the administered 
price? 
b. Are there any factors other than market price and the cost of production of 
farmers used in setting the administered price? 
The United States notes that Indonesia ha s not provided a Supporting Table DS.4 or 
Supporting Table DS.5 to account for the use of administered prices per footnote 5 of 
paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Indonesia previously indicated 
(AG-AMS ID 74043) that "it is still collectin g the necessary data across ministries to 
prepare notification of Supporting Table DS.4  and DS.5. Indonesia expects to notify the 
documents as soon as they are finalized".  
c. Please provide an update for when In donesia expects these documents to be 
finalized and when Indonesia expects to  notify Supporting Table DS.4 and 
Supporting Table DS.5. 
Answer by Indonesia 
 
a. The administered price is determined by cost  of production and profit margin. Cost of 
production is calculated based on cost of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, labor, and rental 
cost of agricultural tools/machinery.  
b. Other factors considered in setting the administered price are: international market 
price, inflation, fuel price, and purchasing power of consumers.  
c. As regards to Supporting Table DS:4 and DS:5, Indonesia is still preparing the two 
tables. The notifications of Supporting Table DS:5 which cover 5-year period will be submitted shortly. 
2.4.8  Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/32) 
AG-IMS ID 75094: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. Canada notes that in Malaysia's most recent DS: 1 notification, the Price 
Subsidy and Guaranteed Mi nimum Price programme is no longer listed in 
Supporting Table DS: 1. The Price Stab ilization and Guaranteed Minimum Price 
programme seems to have replaced it. Co uld Malaysia please indicate whether 
the Price Stabilization and Guaranteed Minimum Price programme is new or a G/AG/W/138 
 
- 58 - 
 
  modification of the previously notified  Price Subsidy and Guaranteed Minimum 
Price program? 
b. The information provided for the Pric e Stabilization and Guaranteed Minimum 
Price income support programme suggests that the payments would fall under 
AMS type of support. Could Malaysia provide details to show how this measure 
meets the relevant policy-specific crit eria of paragraph 6, Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Malaysia 
 
a. They are the same programme. The change in the name is to better reflect how the 
measure is implemented. 
b. As previously explained, Malaysia's paddy rice farmers are among the poorest of the 
poor in the country. Therefore, this programme is an instrument to provide income support for resource-poor farmers to ensure they receive reasonable income. The 
eligibility of the payment is determined by a clearly defined criteria based on the status 
of the recipient as low-income and resource-poor paddy farmers. Malaysia would also like to highlight that it is a net-importer of rice.  
2.4.9  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/31) 
AG-IMS ID 75095: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
At the 68th Committee on Agriculture meet ing on 14 November of 2012, Canada asked 
Panama to explain how the "National Em ergency Plan" meets the criteria of 
paragraph 8, Annex 2, particularly criterio n 8(a) that the payments must only cover 
losses greater than 30%. Panama's response was that a Table DS: 2 notification would 
be circulated "soon".
4 
 
a. To date, Canada has not been able to fi nd a Table DS:2 describing this measure 
on the WTO document distribution fa cility. Could Panama  please provide 
information as to when a Table DS: 2 notification describing the National 
Emergency Plan will be available?  
b. Canada re-iterates its previous ques tion to Panama regarding how the 
"National Emergency Plan" meets the polic y specific criteria of paragraph 8, 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  e.g., that the payments cover losses 
greater than 30%.  
c. Support for the National Emergency Pl an programme increased substantially 
from 2012 to 2013 going from 367,305. 60 balboas to 2,714,179.05 balboas 
respectively. Could Panama please provid e an explanation for this noticeable 
increase?  
Answer by Panama 
 
a. For 2011, 2012 and 2013, Panama notified the "National Emergency Plan" in Table DS:1. 
The measure was notified in conformity with paragraph 8 of Annex 2. It should be noted 
that this support began in 2011, and Panama intends to submit the corresponding 
notification (for 2011) as a new domestic support measure. For 2012 and 2013 the support refers to the same measure. 
b. Until 2013, Panama's notification referred to  support in the framework of the declared 
"National State of Emergency" following the heavy rains of December 2010 (Cabinet Resolution No. 214-Official Gazette 26677-A). 
The support provided under the "National Emergency Plan" is consistent with all of the 
subparagraphs of paragraph 8, except that Panama's requirements for support did not 
                                               
4 Paragraph 42 on page 24-25 of G/AG/W/106 refers. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 59 - 
 
  provide for any restriction to producers whose losses exceed 30%. In practice, however, 
though no statistical data was taken from the preceding three-year period, support was for the most part provided only to the producers whose losses were greater than 30% of the estimated production for the previous year. Thus, the support was provided only to: 
the Province of Darién (comarca of Emberá  Wounaan); the Province de Panama: District 
of Chepo (comarca of Madugandi), the districts of Capira and San Carlos; and the Province of Colón (Costa Arriba and Costa Abajo). It covered headings such as rice, 
maize, bananas, yam, yucca, coffee, dasheen, beans, fruit trees, pasture and 
vegetables. 
c. The support of 367,305.60 balboas that Panama provided its producers in 2012 and 
the 2,714.179.05 balboas provided in 2013 was indeed granted to those producers in 
the years in question, but for events that occurred in 2010, when the floods caused by 
excess rains caused direct and collateral da mage to crops and livestock farms. The 
justification for the increase in support in 2013 as compared to 2012 is that the national 
government operated within its administrative and budgetary constraints in each of 
those two years. The support was provided only to certain areas, such as parts of the Province of Darién, the Province of Colón, and the districts of Chepo, Capira 
and San Carlos in the Province of Panama. 
AG-IMS ID 75065: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States understands that the gove rnment announced that it would pay corn 
producers USD 1.25 per quintal and rice producers USD 22.50 per quintal in 2013. In 
addition, eligible corn and sorghum producer s received production incentive payments. 
 
a. Please provide an explanation of an y government programmes related to 
payments made to corn and rice producers in Panama. 
b. How does Panama reflect these programmes in its notification? 
Answer by Panama 
 No form of payment was made to corn producers in 2013. Sales price compensation of 2.25 balboas per quintal sold will be provided , but has not been paid to date. This will be 
notified in due course. 
 Rice producers did not receive support in 2013. Th e figure of 22.5 balboas represents the sales 
price per quintal paid to producers by the mills. In 2014 support will be paid to producers per 
quintal of damp and dirty rice sold. Panama will reflect these programmes in the respective notification for the corresponding year. 
 
2.4.10  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/5) 
AG-IMS ID 75096: Question by Canada - Publ ic stockholding for food security purposes 
Regarding the Payment to stockholding for food security purposes reported under 
Supporting Table DS: 1, could Russia please  elaborate on the process for determining 
the food security targets?   
a. At what frequency are the targets established and/or reviewed?  
b. How long are these stocks typically  held before being released?  
c. What is the mechanism to release these stocks?  
Answer by Russian Federation 
 The underlying aim of food security is to ensure th e population is provided with secure agricultural 
products, including fish and other aquatic bioresourc es. One of the guarantees of food security is 
the reserves and stocks, which are supported by fe deral and regional funds. For the formation of G/AG/W/138 
 
- 60 - 
 
  the federal and regional funds of agricultural pr oducts, raw materials and food, the government of 
the Russian Federation and the bodies of execut ive power of the constituent territories of the 
Russian Federation determine the volume of purcha ses and deliveries by the types of agricultural 
products, raw materials and food for the next five years, with annual clarification not later than six 
months before the beginning of the year and bring them to the public customers who report 
producers purchase volumes (supplies), not later than three months before the beginning of the year. The federal fund is used to meet the needs in agricultural products, raw materials and food 
of the far north and similar areas, environmentally contaminated areas, defence forces and public 
security and similar special consumers, regardless of their location, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Regional funds are created to meet  the needs of the constituent territories of the 
Russian Federation in agricultural products, raw materials and food. Food security of the Russian 
Federation is one of the main directions of the national security of the country.  
AG-IMS ID 75097: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through investment aids 
Under structural adjustment assistance pr ovided through investment aids reported 
under the Green Box, there is an item entitled  "Compensation of the registration costs".  
 
a. Could Russia please explain why there ar e no amounts listed under the federal 
component but there are two identical measures (with different amounts) listed under the sub-federal component?  
b. Could Russia provide a clarification as to what "compensation for the 
registration costs" encompasses?  
Answer by Russian Federation 
 
Due to a technical error there was a shift of table rows in the notification. In reality programmes in 
this area are funded from the federal budget an d the budgets of the federal subjects. The error 
was corrected in G/AG/N/RUS/5/Corr.1 which was circulated on 12 December 2014. 
AG-IMS ID 75098: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
In Russia's Supporting Table DS: 4, there is  an item entitled "Meat". Could Russia 
provide details as to what products  are included under this listing?  
 
Answer by Russian Federation 
 In Supporting Table DS:4 the item "meat" reflects  the level of state agriculture support in the 
production of meat and meat products (cattle, goats, sheep, horses, pigs, poultry) of the 
agricultural home-made raw materials.  
2.4.11  Sri Lanka (G/AG/N/LKA/3) 
AG-IMS ID 75099: Question by Canada - In put subsidies available to low-income or 
resource-poor producers 
Canada notes that between 2007 and 20 08 support for fertiliz er subsidy under 
Article 6.2 increased dramatically going from LKR 15,639 to LKR 44,282 million. Could 
Sri Lanka elaborate on this significant increase in support?   
Answer by Sri Lanka 
 The increase reported in the fertiliser subsidy from 2007 to 2008 primarily relates to the sharp 
increase witnessed in the extent of paddy cultivation in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, following 
the peaceful and stable conditions, after the defe at of LTTE terrorism in  that region in 2006. 
 There were two provinces that were predominantly under the control of terrorists for nearly three 
decades. They were the Northern Province an d the Eastern Province. The armed forces were 
successful in defeating the LTTE in the Eastern Pr ovince in 2006, while they had to keep fighting 
until mid-2009 to eradicate LTTE from the Northern Province. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 61 - 
 
  The eastern province is a region which has a vast  area of paddy fields, but the farmers could not 
cultivate most of those fields for a very long period due to the unsafe conditions that prevailed at the time. However, with the defeat of LTTE in 2006, the eastern province farmers have begun to 
make good use of these fields once again for pa ddy cultivation and other agricultural purposes. 
This situation has led to the increase of fertilizer subsides from 2007 onward. 
 In addition, the amount the government has to spend for fertilizer depends on a few other factors 
such as the import prices of fertilizer, seasonal paddy cultivation extent and fertilizer 
recommendation for paddy cultivation.  2.4.12  United States of  America (G/AG/N/USA/93) 
AG-IMS ID 75109: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Omission of the Common Crop Insurance Po licy from the U.S. notification for the 
marketing year 2011 results in non- notification of the said policy. 
 
a. Could the United States clarify why the Common Crop Insurance Scheme, as 
contained in 7 CFR 457 (§457.8), has not been mentioned in the notification?  
b. In as much as various sections of th e Common Crop Insurance Scheme make 
provisions for specific crops, eg.- §457. 101 which excludes revenue protection 
for small grain crops (flax, oats, buckwh eat, rye) other than wheat and barley, 
could the United States clarify whether this scheme does not fall under the 
product specific support within the Amber Box?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. The 7 C.F.R. 457.8 refers to the Common Cr op Insurance Policy Basic Provisions, which 
are the underlying basic policy provisions of the Federal crop insurance programme. More specific policies have been developed under these basic provisions. 
See http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/combo.html . The U.S. notification provides all 
relevant information regarding U.S. crop insurance.  
b. See response to question a above.  
AG-IMS ID 75110: Question by India - Dire ct payments: decoupled income support  
The United States has enumerated an ou tlay of USD 4,745 million for Farm Service 
Agency Direct Payments, as specified in the 2002 Farm Act and reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Act (PL 110-246), within green box. 
 
a. Could the United States elucidate what payments under the 2008 Farm 
Act (PL110-246) it has classified as decoupled income support under the Green 
Box?  
b. Could the United States clarify which specific provisions in the 2008 Farm 
Act (PL110-246) related exclusively to decoupled income support?  
c. Could the United States clarify how th e diverse means of establishing base 
acres for different crops, as per §1001( 2) of the 2008 Farm Act, justify the 
direct payments made on this basi s to fall within the Green Box?  
d. §1001(4) defines "covered commodity" to the exclusion of certain crops, as a 
result thereof other provisions related to  direct payments under Subtitle A of 
the 2008 Farm Act which rely on this de finition fall outside the ambit of Green 
Box. Could the United States then clarif y how it is justified to notify direct 
payments made on this basis within Green Box?  
e. Could the United States clarify whethe r §1102(b)(2)(B), whereby the Secretary 
uses his discretion to establish a nation al average yield under §1102, has ever G/AG/W/138 
 
- 62 - 
 
  been used? If so, then what are the parameters used by the Secretary to 
establish the same?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. The United States has notified two Green Box decoupled income support payment 
programmes. The first programme, Farm Service Agency Direct Payments, is authorized by the 2008 Farm Act. The second programme , the tobacco quota buyout payments, is 
authorized by Public Law 108-357, American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Title II, Fair and 
Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (22 October 2004).  
b. Section 1103 and Section 1303 of the 2008 Farm Act relate exclusively to decoupled 
income support. Specifically, these sections reauthorize the Direct Payments 
programme.  
c. The 2008 Farm Act does not establish base acres nor provide for any systematic 
updating of base acres to take into account changes in a farm's production. The 
adjustments in base acres per §1001(2) of the 2008 Farm Act are limited to changes in 
several conservation programmes and the inclusion of pulses and other oilseeds as covered commodities (in both cases base acre adjustments are made in the same 
manner as under the 2002 Farm Act). It should be noted that the addition of base acres 
for pulse crops under the 2008 Farm Act was only for the countercyclical payment programme, not for the direct payment programme. The countercyclical payment programme is reported as non-product specific AMS.  
d. Direct payments meet the fundamental requirement of Annex 2 of having no, or at most 
minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production because eligibility for the payments is clearly defined and the payments  are decoupled from production, prices and 
factors of production. In addition, no production is required to receive direct payments.  
e. The Secretary used the discretion to establish national payment yields for large and 
small chickpeas under the provisions of Sec. 1102(b)(2)(B), since for large and small 
chickpeas, no national average data were available for the 1998-2001 or the 
1981-1985 periods, the two periods required for establishing national payment yields under Sec. 1102(b)(2)(A). Only the combined yield (All Chickpea) data were available for the 1998-2001 period. No chickpea yield data were available for the 1981-1985 
period. USDA used the relationship between the small and large chickpea yields relative 
to the all chickpea yield for the 2004-2008 crops to establish the 1998-2001 small and large chickpea yields relative to the all chickpea yield. To establish the national average 
small and large chickpea yield for the 1981-1985 period, USDA, as required by 
Sec. 1102(b)(4), multiplied the national average yields for small and large chickpeas established for the 1998-2001 period by 0.89, the ratio of the dry pea yield relationships 
between the 1981-85 and 1998-2001 period.  
National average yield data were available for both the 1998-2001 and 1981-1985 
periods for dry peas and lentils, the other pulse crops eligible for counter-cyclical programme payments for the 2008-2012 crops under the 2008 Farm Bill.  
AG-IMS ID 75107: Question by India - Dire ct payments: income insurance and income 
safety-net programmes 
Federal crop insurance is the primary ongoin g crop loss assistance programme in the 
United States. It is permanently authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (the Act), 
as amended (7 U.S.C. Ch. 36), and is ad ministered by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Risk Management Agency (R MA). Federal crop insurance policies are 
marketed and serviced by private insuranc e companies. In purchasing a policy, a 
producer growing an insurable crop may select  a level of crop yield and price coverage 
and pay a portion of the premium, which in creases as the levels of yield and price 
coverage rise. The remainder of the premiu m is covered by the federal government.  
 
a. For the marketing year 2011, the United  States has notified an outlay of 
USD 1,383 million for administrative an d operating expenses to insurers G/AG/W/138 
 
- 63 - 
 
  delivering Federal Crop Insurance under the Green Box. In as much as the 
reimbursements of USD 1,383 million for administrative and operating 
expenses to insurers relieves the burden of premium to be paid for Additional 
Coverage contained in §1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 
could the United States clarify how this  overall subsidization of premium falls 
under Green Box?  
b. By virtue of segregation of administ rative and operation expenses and the 
same being paid by the U.S. government , could the United States clarify how 
this does not amount to underestimati on of premium subs idies mentioned in 
the Amber Box?  
c. Could the United States elucidate th e amount of premium in terms of 
administrative and operating expenses  paid by the farmers under various 
insurance plans?  
d. Could the United States elucidate the am ount of administrative and operating 
expenses included in the premium to be paid by farmers under various 
insurance plans, but the payment for which is made by the Corporation?  
e. Could the United States clarify whet her the administrative and operating 
expenses to insurers as mentioned in  the notification are covered by the 
premium amount marked for administ rative and operating expenses in 
§1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Crop Insu rance Act? If so, what is the extent 
of this coverage?  
f. Could the United States clarify the apportionment of reimbursements for 
administrative and operating expenses to insurers made as a part of the 
reinsurance agreement vis a vis the premium payments being made for 
Additional Coverage by the Corporation under §1508(d)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act? 
Does any other ad hoc disaster assist ance programme cover the same subject 
matter as the insurance plans under the aegis of the Act?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. Outlays under the category "administrative and operating reimbursements to insurers" 
meet the general criteria of Annex 2, paragraph 1 (support is provided through a 
publicly-funded government programme and does not involve transfers from consumers, 
and there is no price support to producers; additionally, there are no trade-distorting 
effects or effects on production). In addition, the outlays meet the general criteria in 
paragraph 2 (expenditures (or revenue fore gone) in relation to programmes which 
provide services or benefits to agricultur e or the rural community and are not direct 
payments to producers or processors). The United States notes that expenditures 
notified under paragraph 2 are not limited to those specifically enumerated in sub-
paragraphs a) – g).  
The amount of administrative and operating reimbursements are calculated based on the 
value of premiums for all coverage beyond basic catastrophic risk protection CAT 
(50% of yield). However, the payment is not part of the premium; it is paid by Federal 
Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) in exchange for delivery services provided to FCIC and can be withheld or repayment can be required by FCIC if the company fails to 
provide delivery services as outlined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.  
b. Under the U.S. crop insurance programme, crop insurance policies are delivered by 
private companies, rather than by a government entity. Similar to how the United States 
notifies budgetary outlays for government agencies that deliver services to agricultural 
producers, the United States has notified the budgetary outlays associated with the delivery of crop insurance policies. Premium rates are set by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA). Companies must use these rates in selling crop insurance policies. 
Companies are prohibited from providing additional subsidies to producers through 
actions like rebating. The reinsurance provided to insurance companies, along with G/AG/W/138 
 
- 64 - 
 
  administrative and operating expenses supp ort, are provided directly to insurance 
companies through the Standard Reinsurance Agreement. 
c. Farmers do not pay any premium in terms of administrative and operating expenses 
under the U.S. crop insurance programme. See response to question b for further detail. 
d. See responses to questions a) – c). 
e. The administrative and operating (A&O) reimbursements notified in the Green Box are 
the A&O expenses mentioned in the Federal Crop Insurance Act; however, they are not 
part of the premium. The premium value is the basis for setting the A&O reimbursement. 
See responses to questions a) – c). 
f. See responses to questions a) and e). The United States has not implemented ad hoc 
disaster assistance programmes since crop year 2009. Standing disaster assistance 
programmes under the 2008 Farm Act required producers to purchase Risk Management 
Agency (RMA) insurance policies or enroll in  the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance 
Program (NAP) to be eligible to receive payments under the Livestock Forage 
Program (LFP), Emergency Livestock Assistan ce Program (ELAP)(except for farm-raised 
fish and honeybee colonies where coverage is not available), the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), or the former Supplemental Revenue Insurance Program (SURE). 
Producers covered by contracts that provide private insurance are not eligible for 
payments under the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). Producers are not eligible to receive payments from multiple programmes that would cover more than 100% of losses. 
AG-IMS ID 75111: Question by India - Direct payments: payments under environmental 
programmes 
The United States has notified an amount  of USD 1,795 million for the purpose of 
conservation reserve programme under enviro nmental payments of the Green Box. India 
seeks clarifications regarding the following questions:  
a. Could the United States please clarify the agricultural commodity breakup of 
cropland taken under the Cons ervation Reserve Program?  
b. If the CRP is notified under Paragraph 12,  then could the United States please 
clarify whether as per the requiremen ts of Paragraph 12, Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, the cost share payment (§1410.21) and the annual 
rental payment (§1410.42) does not exceed the limit as laid down in Paragraph 12(b), Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), administered by the Farm Service 
Agency (FSA), enrols land under long-term (10-15 year) contracts to remove 
environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. General CRP sign-up is competitive, and 
offers are ranked against each other on a national level. FSA assigns each offer an 
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) depending on the environmental sensitivity of the 
land and the type(s) of conservation practices proposed for it. Examples of factors contributing to the EBI include benefits to wildlife habitat, benefits to water quality, 
benefits to the farm itself from reduced erosion, and benefits to air quality. Commodity 
data is not used in awarding of contracts. Thus, data on commodities produced on CRP land prior to enrolment is not available.  
b. In return for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers, FSA provides annual 
rental payments to CRP participants. FSA bases rental rates on the relative productivity of the soils within each county and the averag e dryland cash rent using data provided by 
the National Agricultural Statistical Service or cash-rent equivalent as guidelines. The 
maximum CRP rental rate for each offer is calculated in advance of enrolment. Producers 
may offer land at that rate or  offer a lower rental rate to increase the likelihood that G/AG/W/138 
 
- 65 - 
 
  their offer will be accepted. Thus, the payment or rental rate is based on the loss of 
income or opportunity cost of not renting the land. In addition, FSA provides cost-share assistance to participants who establish approved cover on eligible cropland. The cost-share assistance can be an amount not more than 50% of the participants' costs in 
establishing approved practices.  
AG-IMS ID 75108: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
Premium Subsidies to Produc ers (USD 7,460.674 million) and Supplemental Crop 
Revenue Assurance (USD  1,442.390 million) are mentioned in Non-Product Specific AMS 
within the Amber Box.  
a. Eligibility for crop loss assistance und er §1531(b) utilizes the criterion that 
"the actual production on the farm for at  least 1 crop of economic significance 
shall be reduced by at least 10% due to disaster, adverse weather, or disaster-
related conditions". Could the United St ates please clarify the parameters for 
identifying a crop of "economic signif icance", which is supposed to have a 
uniform meaning as given by the Secretary?  
b. Could the United States clarify from whose point of view is the "economic 
significance" evaluated for the purposes of §1531(b)?  
c. The GRP Scheme in 7 CFR §407.9 outlines a Common Policy for insurance. 
However, there are product specific part s to this policy for crops like barley, 
corn, cotton, forage, peanuts, sorghum, soybean, wheat as contained in 7 CFR 
§407.10 -7 CFR §407.17. These crop spec ific sections give a tailor-made 
criterion for "crop insured" for each of  these crops. Could the United States 
clarify how such crop specific provisions catering only to certain crops does not 
make the GRP Scheme product specific in  nature? Could the United States also 
clarify why the support to specific cr ops in the GRP Scheme, as mentioned 
above, should not be added to the prod uct specific support being provided to 
these crops?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. Under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance  Program (SURE), a crop of economic 
significance is one that contributes at least 5% of the expected revenue for a producer's 
farm. More information can be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?a rea=newsroom&subject =landing&topic=pf
s&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail& item=pf_20091224_distr_en_sure09.html . 
b. See response to question a. 
c. The United States has in the past notified its crop insurance programme as non-product 
specific in light of the programme's parameters. 
AG-IMS ID 75112: Question by India - Non-product-specific AMS 
In its notification G/AG/N/USA/93, the Un ited States has specified an amount of 
USD 188.725 million as non-product specific subsidy for Irrigation Bureau Reclamation 
Projects. 
 
a. Could the United States provide details of how obligations of irrigators for 
repayment of costs of construction  water projects are calculated?  
b. Could the United States provide details of the amounts of financial assistance 
provided to irrigators by shifting the repayment of part or all of their 
obligations to other beneficiaries of wate r projects ("irrigation assistance")?  
c. Could the United States provide details of financial assistance provided as a 
"charge off" that relieves irrigators of portions of their repayment obligations by enacting specific legislations?  G/AG/W/138 
 
- 66 - 
 
  d. Could the United States provide details of  irrigation assistance and charge offs 
on repayment of costs allocated to irriga tion for all the eligible projects as 
of 2011 or the latest year for wh ich the details are available?  
e. Could the United States provide details of the percentage of  irrigation costs 
repaid by irrigation assistance and relie ved by charge offs for 2011 or the latest 
year for which the details are available?  
f. Could the United States provide justification for not including the financial 
assistance provided as an "irrigation  assistance" and "charge off" in its 
Non-Product-Specific AMS?  
g. Could the United States clarify whethe r the amount of non-product specific 
support under Bureau of Reclamation in cludes the financial assistance that 
irrigators receive under the Small Reclam ation Project Act and the Distribution 
System Loans Act? Could the United States provide details and amounts of financial assistance provided to irriga tors under these two acts as of 2011 or 
the latest year for which the details are available?  
h. Could the United States provide details  of the per unit rate charged for 
electricity used to transport irrigation  water and the power rates charged for 
industrial, agricultural and residential us ers of electricity? If the rate charged 
for electricity used to transport irrigati on water is lower than that charged for 
other users of electricity, how does the United States justify exclusion of this 
subsidy from calculation of non-product specific AMS?  
i. Could the United States provide the following details in respect of water 
supplied to farms in the Wetlands Water District: (a) price charged to farms in 
Wetlands for each acre-foot of water; (b ) quantity of water supplied annually to 
farms in Wetlands Water District during  2005-2011; and (c) price charged to 
other users for the water supplied?  
Answer by United States of America 
 
a. Reclamation projects often serve multiple purposes, meaning that Congress has 
authorized them to provide water and/or faci lities for more than one type of use. The 
typical project purposes are irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply, 
hydropower, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and flood control. The basic 
objective of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (B oR) repayment policies is the recovery of 
project construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs. For a 
multipurpose project, this is accomplished by first allocating these costs among project 
purposes and then securing contracts with actual beneficiaries for repayment of the reimbursable costs. 
A variety of methods have been used to determine the costs associated with a particular 
project purpose. The most common method, over the past 50 years, is to determine: (1) the specific costs of features serving a single project purpose ( e.g., a canal serving 
irrigation water users only), and (2) then allocate (distribute) to each project purpose 
the costs serving more than one project purpose ( e.g., a dam serving irrigation, M&I, 
flood control, etc.) based on the remaining be nefits of each purpose after that purpose's 
specific costs have been deducted from its total benefits. A project purpose's total cost is 
the sum of the specific and allocated costs. Generally, the net result is that project 
purposes with higher economic benefits, such as M&I uses, are allocated a greater share of the costs on a per acre-foot basis than a project purpose with lower economic 
benefits. 
The most widely used cost allocation method is the "separable costs/remaining benefits" 
method (SCRB or "scrub" method), which allo ws all project purposes to share equitably 
in the advantages of multipurpose construction, and prevents any purpose from being 
justified based on the benefits of another purpose. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 67 - 
 
  What follows is a simplified version of the SCRB method. In its most basic terms, the 
method determines what portion of a project's total cost is separable to one purpose by estimating what the project would cost without that purpose, and subtracting that number from the total cost. The costs that can be subtracted in this way are that 
purpose's separable costs. The method's other basic category is remaining joint costs, 
which consist of those costs remaining after the separable costs for all purposes have been subtracted from total costs. Joint cost s are those which serve more than one, and 
often several, purposes or objectives, fo r example, a dam which provides storage 
capacity for multiple purposes. 
These remaining joint costs are then allocated proportionately to each project purpose 
based on its share of the total national economic development benefits estimated for the 
project, to the extent that the resulting su m of separable costs and allocated remaining 
joint costs are within that purpose's capitalize d benefits; thus, if a purpose's benefits are 
sufficient to cover only its own separable costs, then no remaining joint costs are 
allocated to it. This keeps allocated costs commensurate with a purpose's project-
generated benefits. For agriculture, benefits may include the value of reductions in production costs and in associated costs; reduction in damage costs from floods, erosion, 
sedimentation, inadequate drainage, or inadequate water supply; the value of increased 
production of crops; and the economic efficien cy of increasing the production of crops in 
the project area. Other project purposes for which benefits are calculated may include municipal and industrial water supply, urban flood damage reduction, hydropower, 
transportation (inland and deep draft naviga tion), recreation, and commercial fishing. 
Further detail on cost allocation methods can be found in Reclamation Manual Directive 
and Standard PEC 02-01, "Cost Al locations", on BoR's internet 
site: http://www.usbr.gov/recman . 
b. BoR estimates the total value of scheduled irrigation assistance at about USD 3 billion. 
However, BoR has determined that the value of irrigation assistance has long been built 
into the value of farmland served by these projects. Any benefit provided by irrigation 
assistance was realized by the original land owners as the value of that benefit was capitalized when these lands were sold. Most BoR project lands have changed ownership since their initial development, and the current landowners have paid the capitalized 
value for the land, which has already captured and eliminated the assistance provided to 
original project landowners.  
c. The total value of "charge offs" provided to irrigators by Congress is estimated at 
USD 255 million. However, the change in repa yment assessment provided by charge offs 
has generally been in response to a change in the benefits provided to irrigation from those originally projected when the reclamat ion project repayment allocations were set. 
(See response to question a above for an explanation of the methods for allocating 
repayment obligations.) Reduction in benefits may occur for a variety of reasons. For example, some land within the project ma y prove to be impossible to irrigate or 
anticipated irrigation use of constructed projects may not have materialized.  
d. See responses to questions b and c above. 
e. See responses to questions b and c above. 
f. See responses to questions b and c above. 
g. Water projects funded by the Distribution System Loans Act (DSLA) and the Small 
Reclamation Project Act (SRPA) operate in the same way as other BoR water projects. Thus, the only assistance related to these programmes would be the value of interest 
foregone on repayment obligations. There are currently no loans outstanding 
under DSLA. Only some of the loans under SR PA provide for interest-free repayment. In 
2014 the outstanding balance for interest-free loans under SRPA would yield interest foregone of USD 100,269.22. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 68 - 
 
  h. BoR project power use rates are "cost-based", which means that they are set to repay 
the associated operation and maintenance costs plus replacements and any associated capital investment without interest. 
i. BoR charges to individual water districts are set to cover all operating and 
maintenance (O&M) and capital costs. BoR does not set water rates within water 
districts. Water district rates generally include additional charges to cover costs of district O&M and capital costs for district delivery infrastructure. Differences in water 
rates between agricultural and municipal and industrial users reflect differences in the 
cost of water delivery. Factors such as water quality, timing and reliability of deliveries, and size/location of deliveries may enter into actual costs, resulting in different rates for different types of users. 
Water rates and annual water supplies in the Westlands Water District can be found at 
http://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/waterrates20140415.pdf  and 
http://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Water-Supply-Charts.pdf . 
Water rates and annual deliveries by BoR to the Westlands Water District for 2005-2011 
were: 
Westlands Water District - Agricultural Water rates (per ac/ft) and deliveries 
 Water Year (Mar 1 to Feb 28)     
 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Water rates 31.63 34.07 35.22 34.93 34.82 36.05 39.68 
Deliveries 670,856 46,657 709,896 275,944 21,675 257,367 693,629 
All deliveries were for San Luis canal only. 
 
Rates charged by the BoR Central Valley Proj ect for water deliveries to the Westlands 
Water District and all water districts under contract area are available at: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwate rrates/ratebooks/index.html . (See schedules A-1 
and B-2.) 
AG-IMS ID 75125: Question by Russian Fe deration - Classifica tion of measures 
a. On page 4 of the notification, "Risk Management Agency" is classified as 
"General Services" in accordance with paragraph 2 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In Russia's view, these expenditures could be classified as "Government financial pa rticipation in income insurance and 
income safety-net programmes", in acco rdance with paragraph 7 (b) of the 
Annex "compensate for less than 70% of the producer's income loss". Could the United Stated please explain why these expenditures are classified as 
General services? 
b. On page 7 of the notification "Farm Service Agency" is classified as "Structural 
adjustment assistance provided through investment aids" (paragraph 11 of the 
Annex).  
In the description of the programme it  is also mentioned that "Farm Service 
Agency" provides loans to producers that  cannot obtain credit elsewhere. In 
this case it appears that the basis fo r the loan does not correspond to the 
eligibility criteria. Could the Un ited States please explain? 
Answer by United States of America 
The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 69 - 
 
  2.5  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.5.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/68) AG-IMS ID 75122: Question by Canada - Di rect payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
Switzerland informs the Committee of a new programme entitled "Payments for farming 
in difficult conditions". Would Switzerland plea se expand on the criteria of eligibility for 
compensation and specify the methodology used to determine producers' loss of 
income? 
 Answer by Switzerland  
The new programme is designed to compensate producers in mountainous and hilly areas for their 
lower yield capacity compared with farming in lo wland areas. As a result, the payments mentioned 
are provided only to farmers in these areas. 
 
The criteria of eligibility for compensation include the length of the growing season and the configuration of the land, including in particular its slope. 
 
The payments are made by hectare and the amounts are allocated by zone. Account is also taken of the fact that producers' loss of income is greater in the case of land with a shorter growing season or with a topography particularly ill-suited to farming. 
 
With regard to the amounts paid, the allocation by  zone is explained by heightened needs in terms 
of working hours and degree of mechanization in the most disadvantaged areas. In some cases 
(particularly on steeply sloping land) special machines have to be used for farming, and this 
generates additional costs.  
Follow-up : The United States raised a follow-up question regarding whether farmers would be 
eligible to receive payments under both programme s that were mentioned by Switzerland, namely, 
payments for farming in difficult conditions and payments for holding a livestock under difficult conditions.  
 
2.6  EXPORT SUBSIDY COMMITMENTS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.6.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/101) 
AG-IMS ID 75101: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
The total amount of export subsidies grante d by Canada has remained stable and there 
is no significant downward trend of subsidies granted over the years. In light of this and 
the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Comp etition, could Canada indicate whether it 
has undertaken reforms in the field of export competition, and if not, whether it has any 
plans to do so?  
Answer by Canada 
 The elimination of export subsidies remains a high priority for Canada and is one of Canada's 
negotiating objectives in all Canada's trade negotiations. The use of export subsidies have in fact 
been eliminated for nearly all of Canada's bilate ral trade agreements. The total amount of export 
subsidies that have been reported are within Canada's commitments and no new export subsidies 
have been introduced in recent years. Canada fully supports and is committed to the Bali Package 
and will continue to work to develop the post-Bali work programme to address the export competition pillar with a view to achieving "further concrete progress". 
AG-IMS ID 75040: Question by United States  of America - Product coverage/scheduled 
commitments 
a. Is the tonnage of cheese reported under subsidized exports made up wholly of 
milk priced at class 5(D) pricing? Plea se provide data on pricing for milk sold 
under class 5(D), as well as the quantities  of milk going into class 5(D) uses? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 70 - 
 
  b. Please explain what the difference is  between what the Canadian Dairy 
Commission terms "planned exports" and "other exports" within milk class 5(D)? In addition, please explai n how pricing for planned exports and 
other exports approved by the Ca nadian Milk Supply Management 
Committee (CSMC) are determined.  
Answer by Canada 
 
a. Volumes and budgetary outlays for subsidized  cheese exports though Canada's export 
subsidy notifications are based on actual sales of subsidized dairy components used in the manufacturing of these products. Over the course of the 2013-2014 dairy year, 429.5 Million litres of milk on a milk eq uivalent basis (CAD 41.25 on a standard 
hectolitre basis) was sold to dairy ingredients and products manufacturers through the 
export subsidized milk class 5(d).  
b. The "planned exports" activity is conducted with a specific volume of milk added to the 
milk necessary to satisfy domestic requirements. This additional milk added to the milk 
quota is approved by CMSMC annually specifically for the manufacture of cheese destined for niche markets. The "other exports"  activities deal mainly with the exports of 
surplus solids non-fat in the form of skim mi lk powder or blends containing skim milk 
solids and occasional surplus butter resulting from domestic requirement quota milk. The pricing for the "planned exports" is determined through a tender process providing bids from exporters and the "other exports" pricing is negotiated on individual contract basis 
with Canadian exporters competing on the worl d market. All these activities are declared 
under the export subsidized milk class 5(d). 
AG-IMS ID 75100: Question by Australia - Quantity of total exports 
Can Canada please advise why the amo unt of subsidised skim milk powder 
exports (9,277 tonnes) notified in Table ES:1 , exceeds the total exports of skim milk 
powder (8,319 tonnes) notified in Table ES:2?  
 
Answer by Canada  The use of export subsidies for dairy products in terms of budgetary outlays and quantity is 
consistent with Canada's WTO rights and obligations. Discrepancies between Canada's export 
subsidy notifications and trade statistics notified in Table ES: 1 can be explained by the use of different data sources. Volumes of subsidized exports are reported by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission, whereas total exports are reported by Statistics Canada. Timing of transactions can 
explain the discrepancies between the figures notified in Table ES: 1.  
Follow-up : New Zealand and the United States indicated interest in all the three questions 
addressed to Canada. In particular, New Zealand was interested in AG-IMS ID 75101 which 
demonstrated the case for reforms of Canada's export subsidies. Despite the fact that the total amount of export subsidies granted by Canada had remained stable, New Zealand remained 
concerned that a number of export subsidy initiatives introduced by Canada had increased and 
Canada was at or near 100% of annual commitmen t levels for some of these products including 
skim milk powder, cheese, other milk products and incorporated milk products. Therefore New 
Zealand was interested in what steps Canada would take subsequent to Minister's commitments to 
exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies at the Bali Ministerial Conference. 
 
2.6.2  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/198) 
AG-IMS ID 75102: Question by European Union - International food aid 
According to document G/AG/W/125/Add. 3 Japan gives cash contributions for 
purchasing food aid. However, Japan runs a counterpart funds system where recipient 
countries obtain funds by selling products provided by Japan. In light of this could Japan 
indicate: 
 
a. The extent to which the food aid amounts notified for 2010-12 were provided 
in-kind or were monetised? G/AG/W/138 
 
- 71 - 
 
  b. In light of this information and the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, could Japan indicate whet her it has undertaken reforms in the 
field of export competition, and if no t, whether it has any plans to do so? 
Answer by Japan 
 
a. In accordance with Article 5 of Food Assistance Convention, Japan makes an annual 
commitment of food assistance and provides funds for purchasing products. Japan does 
not provide food assistance in-kind. Japan established the counterpart funds5 system in 
accordance with Article 2 of Food Assistance Convention, and food assistance provided in 2010-2012 is being monetised by recipient countries. 
b. At the moment, the government of Japan does not have a plan to undertake reforms 
regarding "Food Assistance". 
2.6.3  Mexico (G/AG/N/MEX/27) AG-IMS ID 75004: Question by Australia - Transparency issues 
a. Australia thanks Mexico for its recent ES  notifications. Mexico has advised that 
only wheat exports were subsidised in  2012. Can Mexico therefore please 
explain why beans, maize, sorghum and sugar are listed under the heading 
"Quantity of subsidized exports (thous ands of tonnes)" in the 2012 Mexican 
Table ES:2 notification? Can Mexico clar ify if the volumes disclosed in that 
notification are subsidised export volumes, or total export volumes for the products in question? 
b. Can Mexico please provide a full ES:1 notification for the years 2008, 2009, 
2010, 2011 and 2012? 
Answer by Mexico 
 
The figures submitted by Mexico in Table ES:2 notification G/AG/N/MEX/27 correspond to total 
exports for each product. The column header "Total exports" was erroneously translated in the 
English-language version, reporting the figures in this column as subsidized exports. Please note 
that this translation error was corrected in Corrigendum G/AG/N/MEX/27/Corr.1.  The subsidies granted by Mexico during the period 2008-2012 appear in Supporting Table ES:2. As 
for the other products subject to reduction commit ments included in Schedule LXXVII, Mexico did 
not receive any export subsidies. This was stated on  the first page of the notification in question, 
as has been done in the past and has also been done by other Members that notified not having 
granted any subsidies, including Australia. 
AG-IMS ID 75103: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
This notification shows a significant reduct ion in Mexico's use of export subsidies 
in 2012, as compared to the rest of the no tification period (2008–2011). The European 
Union welcomes this reduction. Could Mexico indicate any policy reforms leading to this 
positive development?  
Answer by Mexico 
 This is the outcome of the programmatic and stra tegic restructuring of SAGARPA's public policy, 
which President Enrique Peña Nieto's current Administration has implemented since he came into 
office. As a result, the export subsidy component, which had long been in the operating rules, was removed as of 2013. 
AG-IMS ID 75041: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
a. When does Mexico plan to submit Tabl e ES:1 for each of the years notified? 
                                               
5 Counterpart funds: Recipient countries obtain a su rplus through selling products provided by Japan. 
The surplus, which must be deposited in their domestic currencies, is called "The Counterpart Funds" that shall be utilized by the recipient countries for their own economic and social development. G/AG/W/138 
 
- 72 - 
 
  b. In the Supporting Table ES:2, Mexico includes tables for each year from 2008 
through 2012 entitled, in relevant pa rt, "Developing Country Members using 
Article 9.1(d) and/or (e) Export Subsidies". The United States notes that these are the same provisions relevant to the lim ited flexibility afforded to developing 
Members during the implementation period  under Article 9.4. Does Mexico take 
the position that Article 9.4 is relevant  to the data listed in the Supporting 
Tables ES: 2 tables for the years 2008-2012? 
Answer by Mexico 
 Article 1(f) of the Agreement on Agriculture specifies that "implementation period" means the six-year period commencing in the year 1995, except that, for the purposes of Article 13, it means 
the nine-year period commencing in 1995. 
 Furthermore, Article 20 stipulates that "[r]ecognizing that the long-term objective of substantial 
progressive reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform is an ongoing 
process, Members agree that negotiations for continuing the process will be initiated one year before the end of the implementation period, taki ng into account ..." in subparagraph (d) what 
further commitments are necessary to achieve the above mentioned long-term objectives. 
 Accordingly, Mexico's interpretation is that to the extent that further reduction commitments are undertaken, Members may continue to apply their commitments in accordance with the provisions 
of the Agreement on Agriculture. A reservation su bject to the provisions of Article 9.4 is also 
allowed for developing country Members under Article 3.3.  
This interpretation is confirmed in notifications,  made by a number of developing country Members 
including Mexico, of export subsidies under Article 9.4 for years subsequent to 2004 and notifications by Members under Article 8 subsequent to the year 2000, including the European 
Union (G/AG/N/EEC/70). 
 According to the preamble of the Agreement on Ag riculture, "special and differential treatment for 
developing countries is an integral element of the negotiations", and therefore commitments by 
developing country Members may not be lower than those established for the rest of the 
Membership. At the end of the implementation period, Members have continued to use export subsidies, included those listed in paragraphs (d) and (e), in accordance with their Schedules of 
commitments. If the developing country Members had to limit their use of the provisions of 
Article 9.4, this would undermine the fundamental principle of special and differential treatment for such countries. 
 
Furthermore, the above understanding has been reflected by Members in the Doha negotiations and is taken up in paragraph 164 of the Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4), according to wh ich developing country Members would continue 
to benefit from the provisions of Article 9.4 for five years after the end-date for elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies.  
Follow-up: The United States stated that it had a more direct understanding of the 
"implementation period" as described in various Articles mentioned by Mexico and would review 
those Articles. In addition, the United States noted that Doha negotiations had not been concluded 
and thus Rev.4 should not be counted as if it were approved by the Membership. The European 
Union signalled its interest in this question.  2.6.4  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/76) 
AG-IMS ID 75104: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
According to this notification, Norway's expo rt subsidy outlays for swine meat increased 
by almost 40 % between 2012 and 2013, and in 2013 reached the highest level 
since 1999. In light of this information and the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, could Norway indicate whether it has undertaken reforms in the field of 
export competition, and if not, whether it has any plans to do so? 
 
Answer by Norway G/AG/W/138 
 
- 73 - 
 
   
Norway has undertaken reforms in the field of expo rt competition, and the use of export subsidies 
for poultry and beef has been discontinued since 2007 and 2010 respectively. The latest reform discontinues the use of export subsidies for lamb meat, eggs and egg products from 2014 
onwards.  
 For other products like cheese, pork and processed agricultural products there are no policy 
changes. For pork the level of exports may vary from one year to the other, this explains the 
fluctuation in total export subsidy. Preliminary export figures for pork shows a decline in subsidised exports so far in 2014.  
Norway remains fully committed to the outcome of the Bali Ministerial. 
 Follow-up : While welcoming the export competition reforms Norway had undertaken, New Zealand 
stressed its concern in the increase of the export  subsidy outlays as highlighted by the European 
Union.   
2.6.5  Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/76) 
AG-IMS ID 75105: Question by Euro pean Union - Transparency issues 
Thailand states that it did not provide any export subsidies subject to reduction 
commitments in the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. According to the 
International Sugar Organisation Outlook (MECAS(11)17), Thailand's policy on the 
export of sugar is based on quotas design ated for domestic requirements and export 
commitments. More specifically, the C Quota co vers the exportable surplus of sugar for 
which sugar cane growers are paid a minimum pr ice (which is at least equal to the sales 
value of B Quota sugar). In light of this in formation, for each of the years 2009-2013, 
could Thailand, as a follow-up to the reply to question (AG-IMS ID 74032), indicate: 
 
a. The method of allocation of A, B and C quotas and the amounts of these 
quotas? 
b. Whether there is an obligation to export sugar from any of these quotas? 
c. The administered prices paid to sugar cane growers for cane which used to 
produce A, B and C quota sugar? 
d. The administered prices for A, B and C quota sugar ex-works, at wholesale and 
at consumer level? 
e. The market prices for A, B and C quota sugar and for the cane used to produce 
the sugar for each quota? 
f. The total cost of production of the suga r cane which is used to produce sugar? 
g. The total cost of production of the sugar which is exported? 
Answer by Thailand 
 
Thailand confirms that it did not provide any export subsidies subject to reduction commitments. 
In any case, Thailand thanks the European Union for their interest in Thailand's sugar system.  
Thailand would like to reiterate that the operation and administration of Thailand's sugar industry 
are not controlled by the government. Committees comprising representatives of sugarcane farmers and sugar producers negotiate the allocation of sales and revenues, with government 
officers merely facilitating these operations. No government budget is allocated to support sugar 
production.  To avoid confusion with other system, Thailand will refer to the allocations as X, Y, and Z. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 74 - 
 
  The allocation of sugar production between X, Y and Z quotas is determined by an agreement 
between sugarcane farmers and sugar producers ea ch year based on several different factors, 
such as domestic and global production of suga rcane, domestic consumption, and the world sugar 
trade situation, including world market prices and the fluctuations of currency exchange rates. 
 
In brief, Quota X is the quantity estimated for domestic consumption. Quota Y is the quantity for export by Thai Cane and Sugar Corporation Limite d. Export prices made by the company will be 
used in the calculation of revenue sharing system between sugarcane farmers and sugar 
producers. Quota Z is the remaining quantity of actual production less Quotas X and Y for export. The allocation of quotas is the mechanism to guarantee sufficient quantity of sugar for domestic consumption and for fair allocation of revenues among farmers and producers. 
 
There is a ceiling price for Quota X for retail sale, aiming for sufficient supply for domestic consumption. Prices of Quotas Y and Z are not administered or fixed. The prices in selling Quota Y 
are mutually agreed by sugarcane farmers and suga r producers. Prices of Quota Z are decided by 
individual exporters, which in turn are normal ly determined by the world market. As noted, 
revenues are allocated between producers and farmers by agreement among them. 
 
The costs of sugar cane and sugar production are also determined by normal market situations without any correlation to the allocation of quotas.  
2.7  NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF  THE NFIDC DECISION (TABLE NF:1) 
2.7.1  G/AG/N/USA/97 AG-IMS ID 75106: Question by European Union - Export credits, export credit 
guarantees, insurance programmes 
This notification gives a figure for U.S. export credit guarantee programmes covering 
WTO developing countries, least-developed co untries and net food-importing developing 
countries of USD 4,123,288,076 in the 2011 fiscal year. This amount exceeds the total 
value of exports of agricultural products  covered by the GSM-102 programme in the 
2011 fiscal year notified in the background document by the WTO Secretariat on Export 
Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or  Insurance Programmes (G/AG/W/125/Add.2, 
dated 21 May 2014), which is USD 4,060,624,195.  Could the United States explain the 
reasons behind this discrepancy?  
Answer by United States of America 
 The figure in the 2011 U.S. NF notification is based on guarantees issued as of 
30 September 2011. As the issuance of guarantees is prospective, cancellations do occur, which 
causes that number to decline over time. The figure submitted for the background document 
accounts for such cancellations.  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  China (I. Article 18.6) AG-IMS ID 75066: Question by United St ates of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In AG-IMS ID 73035, China indicated that it was working on its notification for domestic 
support. Please provide an update on the intended timeframe for China to notify 
domestic support notifications for recent years. 
 Answer by China  
Now China is preparing the notification of domestic support for recent years. Due to the large 
amount of data, the coordination among different ministries and the complexity of the work, more time is needed. China will speed up the working process and will submit the notification upon its 
completion. 
 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 75 - 
 
  Follow-up : The United States welcomed China's reply that it stated that it would speed up the 
working process and looked forward to receiving China's notification. Supported by the European 
Union, the United States urged all Members that had outstanding notifications to comply with notification obligations.  
  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 76 - ANNEX 1 
ICELAND'S TABLE MA:2 NOTIFICATION INCLUDING TRQ FILL RATE FOR THE PERIOD 2012/2013 (AG-IMS ID 75005) 
Table MA:2 
MARKET ACCESS: ICELAND 
REPORTING PERIOD: 1 JULY 2012 TO 30 JUNE 2013 
Lists relating to tariff and other quota commitments 
Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Section I-B Minimum Access        
Meat and edible offal of bovine animals 0201 0206     
0202 0210  95.0 187.1 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of swine 0203 0209     
 0206 0210  64.0 364.1 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of sheep 0204 0210     
 0206 1502  345.0 2.2 0.0 
Meat and edible offal of poultry 0207 0210  59.0 655.1 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of horses 0205 2309  30.0 0.0 0.0 
Processed meat and edible offal 1602   86.0 175.0 100.0 
Eggs 0407 0408  76.0 124.0 100.0 
Butter 0405   53.0 0.2 0.0 
Cheese 0406   119.0 188.8 100.0 
Section I-B Current Access.        
Bones and horn-cores, unworked 0506.9000   11.0 0.0 0.0 
Bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, crowns 
and rhizomes, dormant, in growth, or in flower 0601.2002 0601.2009  66.1 11.0 16.6  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 77 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Other live plants (incl. their roots), cuttings 
and slips; mushroom spawn unrooted cuttings and slips 0602.1000 0602.3000 0602.9100
    
0602.2000 0602.4000 0602.9900  192.5 275.4 100.0 
Cut flowers and flower buds of a kind suitable 
for bouquets or for ornamental purposes 0603.1000 0603.9000  41.9 37.6 89.7 
      
Foilage, branches and other parts of plants, 
without flowerbuds, and grasses, mosses and lichens 0604.1000 0604.9109  299.7 295.6 98.6 
0604.9101 0604.9900     
Potatoes, fresh or chilled 0701.1000 0701.9000  1,575.0 2,061.9 100.0 
Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 0702.0000   205.6 639.7 100.0 
Onions, shallots, garlic, leek and other 
alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled 0703.9001 0703.9009  55.8 283.0 100.0 
      
Cabbages, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale and 
similar edible 
brassicas, fresh or chilled 0704.1000 0704.2000 0704.9000  1,116.4 1,002.4 925 89.8 
  
    
Lettuce ( Lactuca satuva ) and chicory 
(Cichorium spp .) fresh or chilled 0705.1100 0705.2100  153.8 1,435.9 100.0 
0705.1900 0705.2900     
Carrots, turnips salad beetroot, salsify, 
celeriac, radishes and similar edible roots, fresh or chilled 0706.1000 0706.9000  467.0 837.9 100.0 
      
Cucumbers and gherkins, fresh or chilled 0707.0000   158.1 25.4 16.1 
Other vegetables, fresh or chilled 0709.3000 0709.6001 0709.9009  279.5 2,013.3 100.0 
 0709.4000 0709.6009     
 0709.5100 0709.9001     
Vegetables (uncooked or cooked by steaming 
or boiling in water), frozen 0710.1000 0710.8000  530.3 1,729.2 100.0 
0710.4000 0710.9000      
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 78 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Vegetables provisio nally preserved but 
unsuitable in that state for immediate 
consumption 0711.4000 0711.9009  0.7 0.6 85.7 
      
Dried vegetables, whole, cut, sliced, broken 
or in powder, but not further prepared 0712.1000 0712.9001  34.8 62.2 100.0 
0712.3000 0712.9009     
Wheat and meslin 1001.1000 1001.9000  7,143.8 36,250.2 100.0 
Rye 1002.0000   401.0 34.8 8.7 
Barley 1003.0000   519.9 8,535.6 100.0 
Oats 1004.0000   198.5 198.2 99.8 
Maize 1005.1000 1005.9000  1,689.6 13,652.8 100.0 
Rice 1006.1001 1006.2009 1006.4001  503.4 1,357.2 100.0 
 1006.1009 1006.3001 1006.4009     
 1006.2001 1006.3009     
Buckwheat, millet and canary seed; other 
cereals 1008.1000 1008.2000 1008.9000  1.7 1.0 58.8 
Wheat or meslin flour 1101.0001 1101.0009  9,088.5 4,663.3 51.3 
Cereal flours, other than of wheat or meslin 1102.1001 1102.3001 1102.9009     
 1102.1009 1102.3009     
 1102.2000 1102.9001  793.0 260.8 32.9  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 79 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Cereal groats, meal and pellets groats and meal 1103.1100 1103.1309 1103.2100
 
   
 1103.1200 1103.1400 1103.2900     
 1103.1301 1103.1900  12,203.7 84.1 0.7 
Cereal grains otherwise worked (e.g., hulled, 
rolled flaked, pearled, sliced or kibbled), except rice of heading No. 1006; germ of cereals, whole, rolled, flaked or ground 1104.1100 1104.2100 1104.2900
    
1104.1201 1104.2201 1104.3000     
1104.1209 1104.2209     
1104.1900 1104.2300  10,423.9 1,531.1 14.7 
Flour, flake, granules and pellets 1105.1001 1105.2001     
 1105.1009 1105.2009  67.5 153.1 100.0 
Flour and meal of the dried leguminous 
vegetables of heading No. 0713; of sago or of roots or tubers of heading No. 0714; flour, meal and powder of the products of Chapter 8 1106.1000 1106.2009 1106.3000
 0.1 61.4 100.0 
Starches; inulin 1108.1109 1108.1301 1108.2001     
 1108.1201 1108.1309     
 1108.1209 1108.1909  982.8 176.2 17.9 
Soya beans, whether or not broken 1201.0000   191.4 4.7 2.5 
Ground-nuts, not roasted or otherwise 
cooked, whether or not shelled or broken 1202.1000 1202.2000 
 22.5 0.0 0.0 
Linseed, whether or not broken 1204.0000   15.6 28.6 100.0 
Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken 1206.0000   21.6 82.2 100.0 
Other oil seeds and oleaginous fruits, 
whether or not broken 1207.4000 1207.9100     
1207.5000 1207.9900  85.9 137.1 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 80 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Flours and meals of oil seeds or oleaginous fruits, other than those of mustard 1208.1000 1208.9000  0.7 1,481.9 100.0 
Locust beans, seawee ds and other algae, 
sugar beet and sugar cane, fresh or dried, used primarily for human consumption 1212.2009 1212.9900  0.4 1,097.9 100.0 
Lard; other than pig fat and poultry fat, 
rendered, whether or not pressed or solvent-extracted 1501.0009   10.0 0.0 0.0 
Fats of bovine animals,  sheep or goats, raw 
or rendered whether or not pressed or solvent-extracted 1502.0009   6.6 0.0 0.0 
Wool grease and fatty substances derived 
therefrom (including lanolin) 1505.1000 1505.9000  1.6 3.2 100.0 
Other animal fats and oi ls and their fractions, 
whether or not refined,  but not chemically 
modified 1506.0009   148.1 0.0 0.0 
Soya-bean oil and its fractions, whether or 
not refined but not chemically modified 1507.1000 1507.9000  1,153.3 3,074.3 100.0 
Ground-nut oil and its fractions, whether or 
not refined but not chemically modified 1508.1000 1508.9000  27.8 20.6 74.1 
Olive oil and its fractions, whether or not 
refined, but not chemically modified 1509.1000 1509.9000  16.4 320.3 100.0 
other oils and their fractions, obtained solely 
from olives etc. 1510.0000  
 0.4 6.1 100.0 
Palm oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified 1511.9000   1.0 94.6 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 81 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Sunflower-seed, safflower or cotton-seed oil and fractions thereof 1512.1100 1512.1900 1512.2900
 156.9 443.0 100.0 
Coconut (cobra) palm kernel or babassu oil 
and fractions thereof whether or not refined, but not chemically modified 1513.1100 1513.2100     
1513.1900 1513.2900  337.6 349.2 100.0 
Rape, colza or mustard oil and fraction 
thereof, whether or not refined, but not 
chemically modified 1514.1000 1514.9000  571.7 1,588.5 36.0 
Other fixed vegetable fats  and oils (including 
jojoba oil) and their fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified 1515.1100 1515.2900 1515.9000
    
1515.1900 1515.3000     
1515.2100 1515.5000  66.5 60.2 90.5 
Animal or vegetable fa ts and oils  and their 
fractions, partly or wholly hydrogenated 1516.1002 1516.2001 1516.2009     
1516.1009 1516.2003  852.3 664.3 77.9 
Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of 
animal vegetable fats or oils 1517.1000 1517.9003 1517.9009     
1517.9001 1517.9004  33.7 543.0 100.0 
Animal or vegetable fa ts and oils  and their 
fractions, boiled, oxidised, dehydrated, sulphurised, blown ect. ex.  1518.0000  16.3 22.4 100.0 
      
Industrial monocarboxyl ic fatty acids; acid 
oils from refining; industrial fatty alcohols 1519.1100 1519.1900     
1519.1200 1519.3000  30.6 0.0 0.0 
Glycerol (glycerine), whether or not pure; 
glycerol waters an d glycerol lyes 1520.1000 1520.9000  21.7 5.3 24.4 
      
Vegetable waxes, beeswax,other insect 
waxes and spermaceti 1521.1000 1521.9000  0.6 6.0 100.0 
       
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 82 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure 
sucrose in solid form 1701.1100 1701.9105 1701.9903     
1701.1200 1701.9106 1701.9904     
 1701.9101 1701.9107 1701.9905     
 1701.9102 1701.9109 1701.9906     
 1701.9103 1701.9901 1701.9907     
 1701.9104 1701.9902 1701.9909  11,815.7 13,204.4 100.0 
Other sugars, incl. chem ically pure lactose, 
maltose, glucose and fru ctose, in solid form; 
sugar syrups not cont. added flavouring or 
colouring matter; artificial honey, whether or not mixed with natural honey; caramel 1702.1000 1702.4001 1702.9002
    
1702.2000 1702.4002 1702.9003     
1702.3001 1702.5000 1702.9004     
1702.3002 1702.6000 1702.9009     
 1702.3009 1702.9001  402.7 831.6 100.0 
Molasses resulting fro m the extraction or 
refining of sugar 1703.1009 1703.9009 
 10.6 24.7 100.0 
Chocolate and other food preparations 
containing cocoa 1806.2002 ex.1806.2009 1806.9007  4.8 1,008.6 100.0 
Pasta, whether or not c ooked or stuffed (with 
meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared 1902.2009   9.9 88.1  100.0 
      
Prepared foods obtained by the swelling or 
roasting of cereals or cereal products ex.  1904.9000  5.0 34.0 100.0 
      
Vegetables, fruit , nuts and other edible parts 
of plants, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid 2001.1000 2001.9009  162.2 463.0 100.0 
      
Tomatoes prepared or preserved otherwise 
than by vinegar or acetic acid 2002.1000 2002.9001 2002.9009  203.1 1,175.0 100.0 
      
Mushrooms and truffles 2003.1000   0.9 73.7 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 83 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Other vegetables prepared or preserved ex.  2004.9000  228.3 304.5 100.0 
Other vegetables prepared or preserved 2005.1000 2005.8000 2005.9000  191.0 1,858.1 100.0 
Yeasts (active or inactive); other single-cell micro-organisms, dead; prepared baking powders 2102.2001 2102.2009  45.5 96.5 100.0 
2102.2002 2102.3000     
Sauces and preparations therefor; mixed 
condiments and mixed seasonings ex.  2103.9009  20.0 1,776.9 100.0 
      
Soups and broths and preparations therefor; 
homogenised composite food preparations 2104.1004 2104.1009 2104.2001  243.1 352.6 100.0 
      
Food preparations not elsewhere specified or 
included 2106.9029 2106.9032 
 163.5 2,530.8  100.0 
Waters, incl. mineral waters and aerated 
waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, and other 
non-alcoholic beverages 2202.9001 2202.9009  38.5 875.5 100.0 
2202.9002      
      
Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat 
offal, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates 2301.2023   0.1 0.0 0.0 
      
Bran, sharps and other residues, whether or 
not in the form of pellets 2302.1000 2302.3000 2302.4000  9,079.0 2,209.9 24.3 
      
Oil-cake and other solid  residues, whether or 
not ground or in the form of pellets 2304.0000   1,686.1 14,187.3 100.0 
      
Oil-cake and other solid  residues, whether or 
not ground or in the fo rm of pell ets, other 
than those of heading No. 2304 or 2305 2306.9000   16.8 0.0 0.0 
      
       
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 84 - Description of products Tariff item number(s) encompassed 
in product description Tariff quota quantity for 
period in question 
(Metric tons) In-quota imports during 
period 
(Metric tons) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding 2309.1000 2309.9004   9,235.6 100.0 
 2309.9003 2309.9009  8,727.8   
Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives; casein glues 3501.9000  
 13.1 11.8 90.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 85 - ANNEX 2 
ICELAND'S TABLE MA:2 NOTIFICATION INCLUDING TRQ FILL RATE FOR THE PERIOD 2013/2014 (AG-IMS ID 75005) 
Table MA:2 
MARKET ACCESS: ICELAND 
REPORTING PERIOD: 1 JULY 2013 TO 30 JUNE 2014 
Lists relating to tariff and other quota commitments 
Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Section I-B Minimum Access.     
Meat and edible offal of bovine animals 0201 
0202 0206 
0210  95.0 742.7 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of swine 0203 
0206 0209 
0210  64.0 456.3 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of sheep 0204 
0206 0210 
1502  345.0 0.0 0.0 
Meat and edible offal of poultry 0207 0210  59.0 982.8 100.0 
Meat and edible offal of horses 0205 2309  30.0 0.0 0.0 
Processed meat and edible offal 1602 86.4 174.7 100.0 
Eggs 0407 0408  76.0 240.9 100.0 
Butter 0405 53.0 88.9 100.0 
Cheese 0406   119.0 232.8 100.0 
Section I-B Current Access       
Bones and horn cores, unworked 0506.9000   11.0 0.0 0.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 86 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Bulbs, tubers, tuberous r oots, corms, crowns and 
rhizomes, dormant, in growth, or in flower 0601.2002 0601.2009  66.1 11.0 16.6 
Other live plants (incl. th eir roots), cuttings and 
slips; mushroom spawn unrooted cuttings and slips 0602.1000 
0602.2000  0602.3000 
0602.4000 0602.9100 
0602.9900 192.5 254.1 100.0 
Cut flowers and flower buds of a kind suitable for 
bouquets or for ornamental purposes 0603.1000 0603.9000  41.9 43.2 100.0 
Foliage, branches and other parts of plants, 
without flowerbuds, and grasses, mosses and lichens 0604.1000 
0604.9101  0604.9109 
0604.9900  299.7 220.6 73.6 
Potatoes, fresh or chilled 0701.1000  0701.9000  1,575.0 4,134.3 100.0 
Tomatoes, fresh or chilled 0702.0000   205.6 836.3 100.0 
Onions, shallots, garlic, leek and other alliaceous 
vegetables, fresh or chilled 0703.9001  0703.9009  55.8 300.3 100.0 
Cabbages, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale and similar 
edible brassicas, fresh or chilled 0704.1000  0704.2000 0704.9000 1,116.4 1,335.4 100.0 
Lettuce ( Lactuca satuva ) and chicory ( Cichorium 
spp.) fresh or chilled 0705.1100 
0705.1900  0705.2100 
0705.2900  153.8 1,402.8 100.0 
Carrots, turnips salad beet root, salsify, celeriac, 
radishes and similar edible  roots, fresh or chilled 0706.1000  0706.9000  467.0 1,354.6 100.0 
Cucumbers and gherkins, fresh or chilled 0707.0000   158.1 29.7 18.8 
Other vegetables, fresh or chilled 0709.3000 
0709.4000 0709.5100  0709.6001 
0709.6009 0709.9001 0709.9009 279.5 2,204.2 100.0 
Vegetables (uncooked or cooked by steaming or 
boiling in water), frozen 0710.1000 
0710.4000  0710.8000 
0710.9000  530.3 1,615.7 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 87 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Vegetables provisionally preserved but unsuitable 
in that state for immediate consumption 0711.4000 0711.9009  0.7 0.5 71.4 
Dried vegetables, whole, cut, sliced, broken or in 
powder, but not further prepared 0712.1000 
0712.3000 0712.9001 
0712.9009  34.8 61.2 100.0 
Wheat and meslin 1001.1000 1001.9000  7,143.8 39,899.8 100.0 
Rye 1002.0000   401.0 343.3 85.6 
Barley 1003.0000   519.9 11,818.4 100.0 
Oats 1004.0000   198.5 149.2 75.2 
Maize 1005.1000 1005.9000  1,689.6 17,491.5 100.0 
Rice 1006.1001 
1006.1009 
1006.2001  1006.2009 
1006.3001 1006.3009 1006.4001 
1006.4009 503.4 1,458.1 100.0 
Buckwheat, millet and canary seed; other cereals 1008.1000  1008.2000 1008.9000 1.7 2.0 100.0 
Wheat or meslin flour 1101.0001  1101.0009  9,088.5 4,701.4 51.7 
Cereal flours, other than of wheat or meslin 1102.1001 
1102.1009 1102.2000  1102.3001 
1102.3009 1102.9001 1102.9009 973.0 476.3 49.0 
Cereal groats, meal and pellets groats and meal 1103.1100 
1103.1200 1103.1301  1103.1309 
1103.1400 1103.1900 1103.2100 
1103.2900 12,203.7 1,996.9 16.4 
Cereal grains otherwise worked (e.g., hulled, 
rolled flaked, pearled, sliced or kibbled), except rice of heading No. 1006; germ of cereals, whole, rolled, flaked or ground 1104.1100 
1104.1201 1104.1209 1104.1900  1104.2100 
1104.2201 1104.2209 1104.2300 1104.2900 
1104.3000 10,423.9 1,152.0 11.1 
Flour, flake, granules and pellets 1105.1001 
1105.1009  1105.2001 
1105.2009  67.5 129.0 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 88 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Flour and meal of the dried leguminous vegetables of heading No. 0713; of sago or of 
roots or tubers of heading No. 0714; flour, meal 
and powder of the products of Chapter 8 1106.1000  1106.2009 1106.3000 0.1 61.0 100.0 
Starches; inulin 1108.1109 
1108.1201 1108.1209  1108.1301 
1108.1309 1108.1909 1108.2001 982.8 158.8 16.2 
Soya beans, whether or not broken 1201.0000   191.4 7.7 4.0 
Ground nuts, not roasted or otherwise cooked, 
whether or not shelled or broken 1202.1000  1202.2000  22.5 0.0 0.0 
Linseed, whether or not broken 1204.0000   15.6 57.4 100.0 
Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken 1206.0000   21.6 120.2 100.0 
Other oil seeds and oleagi nous fruits, whether or 
not broken 1207.4000 
1207.5000  1207.9100 
1207.9900  85.9 191.9 100.0 
Flours and meals of oil seeds or oleaginous fruits, 
other than those of mustard 1208.1000  1208.9000  0.7 1,455.7 100.0 
Locust beans, seaweeds and other algae, sugar 
beet and sugar cane, fresh or dried, used primarily for human consumption 1212.2009  1212.9900  0.4 850.9 100.0 
Lard; other than pig fat and poultry fat, 
rendered, whether or not pressed or solvent-extracted 1501.0009   10.0 0.4 4.0 
Fats of bovine animals, sheep or goats, raw or 
rendered whether or no t pressed or solvent-
extracted 1502.0009   6.6 0.0 0.0 
Wool grease and fatty substances derived 
therefrom (including lanolin) 1505.1000  1505.9000  1.6 3.8 100.0 
Other animal fats and oi ls and their fractions, 
whether or not refined,  but not chemically 
modified 1506.0009   148.1 0.2 0.1  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 89 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Soya bean oil and its fractions, whether or not refined but not chemically modified 1507.1000 1507.9000  1,153.3 2,614.3 100.0 
Ground nut oil and its fractions, whether or not 
refined but not chemically modified 1508.1000  1508.9000  27.8 10.7 38.5 
Olive oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, 
but not chemically modified 1509.1000 1509.9000  16.4 389.5 100.0 
Other oils and their fract ions, obtained solely 
from olives etc. 1510.0000   0.4 10.4 100.0 
Palm oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, 
but not chemically modified 1511.9000   1.0 207.8 100.0 
Sunflower seed, safflower or cotton seed oil and 
fractions thereof 1512.1100  1512.1900 1512.2900 156.9 530.1 100.0 
Coconut (cobra) palm kernel or babassu oil and 
fractions thereof whether or not refined, but not chemically modified 1513.1100 
1513.1900  1513.2100 
1513.2900  337.6 287.0 85.0 
Rape, colza or mustard oi l and fraction thereof, 
whether or not refined,  but not chemically 
modified 1514.1000  1514.9000  571.7 2,497.6 100.0 
Other fixed vegetable fats  and oils (including 
jojoba oil) and their fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified 1515.1100 
1515.9000 1515.1900 1515.2100  1515.2900 
1515.3000 1515.5000  66.5 40.1 60.0 
Animal or vegetable fa ts and oils  and their 
fractions, partly or wholly hydrogenated 1516.1002 
1516.2009 1516.1009  1516.2001 
1516.2003  852.3 617.4 72.4 
Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of 
animal vegetable fats or oils 1517.1000 
1517.9001  1517.9003 
1517.9004 1517.9009 33.7 584.2 100.0 
Animal or vegetable fa ts and oils  and their 
fractions, boiled, oxidised, dehydrated, sulphurised, blown etc. ex. 1518.0000  16.3 23.8 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 90 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids; acid oils 
from refining; industrial fatty alcohols 1519.1100 
1519.1200  1519.1900 
1519.3000  30.6 0.0 0.0 
Glycerol (glycerine), whether or not pure; 
glycerol waters an d glycerol lyes 1520.1000 1520.9000  21.7 7.8 35.9 
Vegetable waxes, beeswax, other insect waxes 
and spermaceti 1521.1000  1521.9000  0.6 6.8 100.0 
Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose 
in solid form 1701.1100 
1701.1200 1701.9101 1701.9102 1701.9103 1701.9104  1701.9105 
1701.9106 1701.9107 1701.9109 1701.9901 1701.9902 1701.9903 
1701.9904 1701.9905 1701.9906 1701.9907 1701.9909 11,815.7 8,525.0 72.1 
Other sugars, incl. chem ically pure lactose, 
maltose, glucose and fru ctose, in solid form; 
sugar syrups not cont. added flavouring or colouring matter; artificial honey, whether or not mixed with natural honey; caramel 1702.1000 
1702.2000 1702.3001 1702.3002 1702.3009  1702.4001 
1702.4002 1702.5000 1702.6000 1702.9001 1702.9002 
1702.9003 1702.9004 1702.9009 402.7 686.7 100.0 
Molasses resulting from the extraction or refining 
of sugar 1703.1009  1703.9009  10.6 20.7 100.0 
Chocolate and other food preparations containing 
cocoa 1806.2002  ex.1806.2009 1806.9007 4.8 1,896.8 100.0 
Pasta, whether or not c ooked or stuffed (with 
meat or other substances) or otherwise prepared 1902.2009   9.9 91.2 100.0 
Prepared foods obtained by the swelling or 
roasting of cereals or cereal products ex. 
1904.9000   5.0 78.9 100.0 
Vegetables, fruit, nuts and other edible parts of 
plants, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid 2001.1000  2001.9009  162.2 584.4 100.0 
Tomatoes prepared or preserved otherwise than 
by vinegar or acetic acid 2002.1000  2002.9001 2002.9009 203.1 1,067.3 100.0 
Mushrooms and truffles 2003.1000   0.9 54.3 100.0  
  G/AG/W/138  
 
- 91 - Description of Products Tariff item number(s) encompassed in 
product description Tariff quota 
quantity for period 
in question 
(Metric tonnes) In-quota imports 
during period 
(Metric tonnes) Fill rate 
(%) 
1 2 3 4 5 
((4/3)*100) 
Other vegetables prepared or preserved ex.2004.9000  228.3 376.3 100.0 
Other vegetables prepared or preserved 2005.1000  2005.8000 2005.9000 191.0 2,044.4 100.0 
Yeasts (active or inactive); other single cell micro-organisms, dead; prepared baking powders 2102.2001 
2102.2002  2102.2009 
2102.3000  45.5 68.5 100.0 
Sauces and preparations therefor; mixed 
condiments and mixed seasonings ex. 2103.9009 20.0 2,282.4 100.0 
Soups and broths and preparations therefor; 
homogenised composite food preparations 2104.1004  2104.1009 2104.2001 243.1 404.0 100.0 
Food preparations not elsewhere specified or 
included 2106.9029  2106.9032  163.5 2,819.2 100.0 
Waters, incl. mineral wate rs and aerated waters, 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured, and other non-alcoholic beverages 2202.9001 
2202.9002 2202.9009  38.5 948.4 100.0 
Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal, 
of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates 2301.2023  0.1 0.0 0.0 
Bran, sharps and other residues, whether or not 
in the form of pellets 2302.1000  2302.3000 2302.4000 9,079.0 2,427.4 26.7 
Oil cake and other solid residues, whether or not 
ground or in the form of pellets 2304.0000 1,686.1 13,538.3 100.0 
Oil cake and other solid residues, whether or not 
ground or in the form of pellets, othe r than those 
of heading No. 2304 or 2305 2306.9000 16.8 914.1 100.0 
Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding 2309.1000 
2309.9003  2309.9004 
2309.9009  8,727.8 10,171.1 100.0 
Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives; 
casein glues 3501.9000 13.1 3.0 22.9 G/AG/W/138 
 
- 92 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
PANAMA'S APPLIED TARIFFS (OUT-OF-QUOTA) FOR THE TARIFF LINES 
CORRESPONDING TO THE QUOTAS (AG-IMS ID 75029) 
Tariff line Tariff (%) Tariff line Tariff (%) Tariff line Tariff (%) 
0203.11.10 60 0401.10.00 60 0403.90.90 120 
0203.11.20 60   0404.90.10 120 
0203.12.10 70 0401.20.10 60 0404.90.99 120 
0203.12.90 70 0404.90.92 60   
0203.19.10 70   0406.10.90 30 
0203.19.20 70 0401.20.90 60   
0203.19.90 70   0406.30.00 30 
0203.21.10 70 0402.10.91 30   
0203.21.20 70 0402.10.92 30 0701.90.00 81 
0203.22.10 70 0402.10.93 50   
0203.22.90 70 0402.10.99 30 2002.90.11 50 
0203.29.10 70 0403.90.22 50 2002.90.12 50 
0203.29.20 70   2002.90.13 10 
0203.29.90 70 0402.21.91 20 2002.90.14 10 
0210.11.19 70 0402.21.92 50 2002.90.15 30 
0210.11.90 70 0402.21.99 20   
0210.19.10 70 0402.29.91 20 2002.90.19 50 
0210.19.29 70 0402.29.92 50   
0210.19.90 70 0402.29.99 20 0713.33.30 0 
1602.41.11 40 0403.90.23 50   
1602.41.19 40   1006.10.90 90 
1602.42.10 40 0402.91.91 110 1006.20.00 90 
1602.42.90 70 0402.91.92 110 1006.30.00 90 
1602.49.13 70 0402.91.99 166 1006.40.00 90 
1602.49.19 70     
  0402.99.91 110   
0207.13.13 260 0402.99.92 110   
0207.13.14 260 0402.99.93 30   
0207.13.19 260 0402.99.99 166   
0207.14.13 260     
0207.14.14 260 0403.90.13 30   
0207.14.19 260 0406.90.11 30   
  
__________