G/AG/W/145  
 
31 July 2015  
(15-4000)  Page: 1/61  
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 4 JUNE 20151 
The present document compiles responses received in writing by the Secretariat to the questions 
raised in document G/AG/W/143 as well as foll ow-up comments made during the Review Process. 
 
Responses to the following questions were not provided before 31 July 2015: 
 
AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
77043 China European Union Art. 18.6 
77109 India United States of America Art. 18.6 
77035 India Australia Art. 18.6 
77044 India European Union Art. 18.6 
77007 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77012 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77051 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77027 China Japan G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77080 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77073 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77052 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77053 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77054 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77023 China Japan G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77075 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77074 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77055 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77076 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77024 China Japan G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77026 China Japan G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77078 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77011 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77056 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77025 China Japan G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77077 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77008 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 2 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID Answer By Question by Notification Reference 
77009 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77010 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77057 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77079 China United States of America G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77013 China Canada G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77058 China European Union G/AG/N/CHN/28 
77107 India Australia G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77083 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77110 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77111 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77112 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77113 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77114 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77084 India United States of America G/AG/N/IND/10 + Corr.1 
77090 Oman United States of America G/AG/N/OMN/7 + OMN/13 
77088 Oman United States of America G/AG/N/OMN/7 + OMN/13 
77101 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7 
77102 United Arab Emirates United States of America G/AG/N/ARE/7 
 
_______________ 
 G/AG/W/145 
 
- 3 - 
 
  CONTENTS 
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: 
ARTICLE 18.6 .................................................................................................................. . 5 
1.1   Argentina's domestic support notifications ..................................................................... 5  
1.1.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7704 2) ................................................... 5  
1.2   Brazil's domestic support programmes .......................................................................... 5  
1.2.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 77066) ....................................... 5  
1.3   Canada's tariff-ra te quota fo r cheese ............................................................................ 6  
1.3.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 77001) ............................................................. 6  
1.3.2   Question by Swit zerland (AG-IM S ID 77037) ............................................................... 6  
1.4   China's cotton policies ................................................................................................ 7 
1.4.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 77069) ....................................... 7  
1.5   China – TRQ underfill ................................................................................................. 8  
1.5.1   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 77068) ....................................... 8  
1.6   China's ma ize subsidies .............................................................................................. 8  
1.6.1   Question by the Europe an Union (AG-IM S ID 7704 3) ................................................... 8  
1.7   Costa Rica's complian ce with AMS co mmitments ............................................................ 9  
1.7.1   Question by Cana da (AG-IMS ID  77002)  .................................................................... 9  
1.7.2   Question by the United St ates of America (A G-IMS ID 77070) ....................................... 9  
1.8   Egypt's domestic support noti fications ......................................................................... 10 
1.8.1   Question by the Euro pean Union (AG- IMS ID 77045)  .................................................. 10 
1.9   India's Co tton Policies ............................................................................................... 10 
1.9.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  77109)  ...................................... 10 
1.10   India's sugar export subsidies ................................................................................... 11 
1.10.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) ................................................................ 11 
1.10.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77044) ................................................. 12 
1.11   Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat ............................................................. 12 
1.11.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77028) ................................................................ 12 
1.12   Pakistan's whea t export subsidies ............................................................................. 13 
1.12.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77029) ................................................................ 13 
1.13   Switzerland's ex port subsidy budget .......................................................................... 14 
1.13.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77030) ................................................................ 14 
1.13.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IM S ID 77006) .......................................................... 14 
1.14   Thailand's sugar policies .......................................................................................... 15 
1.14.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77031) ................................................................ 15 
1.14.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77046) ................................................. 15 
1.15   Turkey's domestic su pport and export subsidies .......................................................... 16 
1.15.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77047) ................................................. 16 
1.16   Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale ...................................................................... 17 
1.16.1   Question by the United St ates of America (AG-IMS ID  77071 ) .................................... 17 G/AG/W/145 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.17   Turkey's export subsidy programmes ......................................................................... 19 
1.17.1   Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77032) ................................................................ 19 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS .................... 19  
2.1   ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) ............... 19 
2.1.1   Switzerland (G /AG/N/CHE/13/ Add.17) ...................................................................... 19 
2.2   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHE R QUOTA COMMITMENTS  (TABLE MA:2) ..................... 20 
2.2.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/107)  ..................................................................................... 20 
2.2.2   Japan (G /AG/N/JP N/202) ........................................................................................ 21 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) ....................................................... 22 
2.3.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/97) ..................................................................................... 22 
2.3.2   Canada (G/AG/N/CA N/104)  ..................................................................................... 23 
2.3.3   China (G /AG/N/CH N/28) ......................................................................................... 24 
2.3.4   Costa Rica (G /AG/N/CRI/48/ Rev.1) .......................................................................... 33 
2.3.5   European Un ion (G/AG/N/ EU/20) ............................................................................. 34 
2.3.6   India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/Corr.1) ......................................................... 35 
2.3.7   Jordan (G/AG/N/JO R/17) ........................................................................................ 40 
2.3.8   New Zealan d (G/AG/N/ NZL/88) ............................................................................... 41 
2.3.9   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/78) ...................................................................................... 42 
2.3.10   Oman (G/AG/N/OM N/7, G/AG/N /OMN/13) ............................................................... 42 
2.3.11   Pakistan (G/AG/N/PA K/16) .................................................................................... 43 
2.3.12   Panama (G/AG/N/ PAN/31, G/AG/N /PAN/36) ............................................................ 48 
2.3.13   Paraguay (G/AG/N/ PRY/21, G/AG/N /PRY/23) ........................................................... 50 
2.3.14   Russian Federation (G/AG/ N/RUS/5, G/AG/N/R US/5/Corr.1) ...................................... 52 
2.3.15   South Africa  (G/AG/N/ ZAF/83) ............................................................................... 53 
2.3.16   United Arab Em irates (G/AG/ N/ARE/7) .................................................................... 54 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMEST IC SUPPORT MEASU RES (DS:2) .......................................... 55 
2.4.1   Australia (G/AG/N/AU S/96) ..................................................................................... 55 
2.4.2   Norway (G/AG/N/NO R/80) ...................................................................................... 55 
2.4.3   Panama (G/AG/N/PA N/33) ...................................................................................... 56 
2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (TABLES ES:1, ES :2 AND ES:3) ................................. 57 
2.5.1   Argentina (G/AG/N/AR G/33) ................................................................................... 57 
2.5.2   Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/6) ......................................................................... 58 
2.5.3   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/99) ............................................................... 58 
3   OVERDUE NO TIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 59  
3.1.1   Turkey ................................................................................................................ . 59 
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 60 
 G/AG/W/145 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE 18.6 
1.1  Argentina's domestic support notifications 1.1.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77042) The latest notification on domestic su pport from Argentina dates back to 2008. 
Can Argentina indicate when it intends to notify its domestic support for subsequent 
years? 
Answer by Argentina 
Firstly, it should be clarified that Argentina's most recent notification on domestic support 
corresponds to the marketing year 2008/2009, which covers the period December 2008 to November 2009. Secondly, please be advised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries is currently collecting all the information needed to meet the notification requirements 
from the various areas and decentralized bodies. 
Attention should be drawn to the fact that, as stated by the WTO Secretariat in its most recent 
Trade Policy Review Report on Argentina, domestic support for the Argentine agricultural sector is 
extremely limited. In accordance with the commitments undertaken, the amber box support 
granted by Argentina is restricted to approximately USD 75 million and the amounts corresponding to green box support are, proportionally, considerably lower and more marginal than those 
granted by many other Members. 
Follow-up : The European Union looked forward to Argentina's notifications and recognized that 
Argentina's expenditures were not of the same magnitude as that of other Members in the WTO.  
1.2  Brazil's domestic support programmes 
1.2.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77066) 
In previous responses by Brazil to questions from the United States, Brazil stated that 
the Prêmio para Escoamento do Produto (PEP) programme was suspended for 
a reassessment to address concerns regard ing its control mechanism, in order to 
prevent irregularities. Further, no dead line was set for the completion of this 
reassessment and as such, Brazil is unable to provide a date upon which it can provide 
the data requested by the United States. 
a. Please provide a detailed explanation of: 1) what entity requested the 
reassessment, 2) what entity is carry ing out the reassessment, 3) what the 
concerns with the control mechanism are, including a description of the cited 
irregularities, 4) what regulations, laws, or other guidance (official or 
unofficial) provide for this reassessment process.  
b. Have reassessments or other similar measures been carried out in the past for 
other programmes that provide precedence for how this reassessment is 
carried out? If so, please provide information. 
c. Is the data requested by the United  States (see AG-IMS ID 76039, 75023, 
74021, 66002) also being requested by the entity carrying out the 
reassessment? 
The United States notes that in response to AG-IMS ID 76039, Brazil appears to have 
responded primarily in relati on to the PEP programme and that the reassessment is 
a primary reason for not being able to prov ide a timeframe for or affirmation that the 
requested data will be made available. With regards to the Prêmio de Equalização pago 
ao Produtor (PEPRO) programme: 
 G/AG/W/145 
 
- 6 - 
 
  d. Please provide an update on the progress made in the compilation of the 
requested data. 
e. Please provide the deadline provided to CONAB to provide the data and if 
no deadline was given, please explain why. 
Answer by Brazil 
a. The reassessment of the PEP was requested by the Comptroller General of the Union 
(Controladoria-Geral da União - CGU), and has been carried out by the 
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, the Ministry of Finance and the 
Ministry of Planning, Budget and Administration. The concerns underlying the reassessment are related to the enforcement of  the Policy of Guaranteed Minimum Prices 
(Política de Garantia de Preços Mínimos, Decree-Law No. 79/1966) as regards the price 
paid by the processors/traders to the producers when they received the governmental 
subsidies (i.e. the "premium"). 
b. No. 
c. No. 
d. It is still in progress. The PEP and the PEPR O programs operate differently, therefore the 
reassessment PEP does not necessarily affect the process of revising CONAB's control 
mechanism of PEPRO. 
e. There is no deadline set for this due to the monitoring and revising process currently in 
place. 
Follow-up : The United States of America expressed its disappointment that the data promised to 
be supplied by Brazil was still in the process of being compiled, and hoped that the information 
would be ready soon.  
1.3  Canada's tariff-rate quota for cheese 
1.3.1  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 77001) 
New Zealand remains concerned about propos ed changes to Canada's WTO tariff quota 
for cheese as part of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 
between Canada and the European Union. The proposal is for 800 tonnes of 
Canada's 20,411,866 kilograms WTO Tariff Rate Quota to be reallocated to the 
European Union. Canada has stated that the size of the tariff quota for cheese will 
remain at 20,411,866 kilograms. 
a. Will this reallocation result in the quanti ty of market access available to other 
WTO Members being reduced? 
b. If yes, how is this consistent with Canada's WTO obligations, including 
fundamental MFN obligations? 
Answer by Canada Canada will continue to administer its WTO TRQ for cheese under Canada's Export and Imports 
Permits Act in conformity with its WTO obligations. The size of the WTO cheese TRQ will remain 
at 20,411,866 kg. 
1.3.2  Question by Switzerland (AG-IMS ID 77037) In the last two Committee meetings several Members raised their concerns regarding 
the proposed changes to Canada's tariff-ra te quota for cheese in the context of the 
Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the G/AG/W/145 
 
- 7 - 
 
  European Union. Switzerland shares the conc ern that the mentioned quota reallocation 
would result in the unilateral reduction of market access for other WTO members. 
Could Canada indicate the specific provisions  of WTO law which serve as a legal basis for 
such a unilateral quota reallocation?  
Answer by Canada 
See answer provided in AG-IMS ID 77001, above. Follow-up : New Zealand remained concern about the proposed changes to Canada's WTO TRQ for 
cheese which would be inconsistent with Canada's commitments under WTO. New Zealand 
welcomed Canada's assurance that it would continue to administer its TRQ for cheese in conformity with its WTO obligations. New Zealand requested Canada to provide more information on the reallocation of quota access from other countries to the European Union.  
Norway noted its interest on this issue, and stated  that it was the third meeting with questions to 
Canada about changes in its WTO TRQ schedule resulting from the CETA negotiations with the European Union. Norway had been in contact with  Canada, informally, to understand the systemic 
issue. Norway stated that Canada's explanation wa s that the correction of the quota took place to 
take into account the increase in the number of EU members from 15 to 28 of some years. 
Norway stated that there was no link between the historic export of cheese to Canada from 
13 new EU  member states and the increase of 800 tonnes given to the European Union. In fact, 
Norway stated that figures from Canada's import statistics for 2011-2013 showed an import from the 13 new members of roughly one third of the quantity of 800 tonnes.  Norway concluded by 
noting that multilateral commitments must be respected when negotiating bilateral or regional 
agreements. 
The United States noted its continuing interest on this issue. Canada noted its intention to have bilateral discussions with Norway regarding differences in the 
two countries' trade statistics. 
1.4  China's cotton policies 1.4.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77069) 
The United States thanks China for its respon se to AG-IMS ID 76051. The United States 
notes in China's response that it appears China has made the assertion that the cotton 
policies in the largest producing, consuming, and importing country of cotton do not affect the international market. However,  the International Cotton Advisory Committee 
(ICAC) indicates that China held stocks of 11.6 million metric tonnes at the end 
of 2013/14, a quantity equivalent to 149% of Chinese domestic mill use and 57% of 
global stocks. In 2013/14, China purchased co tton that contributed to those stocks at 
a price of 151 cents per pound and the 2013/ 14 market year was the third consecutive 
year of stock build-ups. The ICAC estimates that amounts to $5.8 billion and $5.1 billion 
in direct assistance in 2012/13 and 2013/14,  respectively. As noted by the ICAC, 
China's position in cotton markets permitted this build-up of stocks to distort not only 
domestic prices, but also international prices . In particular, China's stockpiling has led 
to an increase in use of polyester to th e detriment of all cotton producing countries. 
China has announced that it plans not to expand the TRQ for cotton in 2015 beyond its 
WTO obligation. Imports are likely to fa ll close to the TRQ in-quota quantity 
of 0.894 million tonnes (894,000 metric tonnes ) in 2015, a decrease from 5.1 million 
tonnes of imports in 2012. 
Please provide a detailed description of why these policies implemented by China are 
not having a distorting effect on world cotton markets. 
Answer by China 
China is a large country in terms of cotton production. Cotton farmers are usually concentrated in 
under-developed and minority areas. Cotton serves as their main source of income. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 8 - 
 
  In recent years, price fluctuations in the international markets have led to increasing imports 
subsidized cotton which negatively affected China's market. The Government has taken measures to safeguard the livelihood of small-scale farmers. 
China is a net importer of cotton. The cotton reserve is for domestic consumption. Since no cotton 
has been exported, China's reserve programme has not distorted the international market. 
In recent years, with the decline of international oil price and the improvement of polyester 
technologies, the textile industry has increasingly  used polyester in place of cotton. We do not 
think that China's cotton reserve has caused this shift towards use of polyester. At present, the 
textile processing industry in many countries, including China, is declining and the demand for cotton is decreasing. In the years 2014 and 2015, demand in the textile industry in China are much less than the demand of the last two years. 
In China demand and supply are balanced now an d the storage is also abandoned. With this 
background, China still abides by its cotton TRQ commitments made during its accession. 
Follow-up : The United States of America stated that it would review China's response, and noted 
that while China stated that demand for cotton was going down, production of cotton within China 
was going up. The United States of America stated that China was a big player in the world cotton market, and that its policies on domestic support, stocks and imports did have an impact on the 
world cotton market. 
Benin, on behalf of C-4, invited all stakeholders to provide as much up-to-date information on this 
matter either in notifications, or in responses to the Secretariat questionnaires as per the transparency mechanism agreed in Bali. 
1.5  China – TRQ underfill 
1.5.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77068) 
Despite high domestic prices and falling worl d prices, China continues to significantly 
under-fill the substantial tariff-rate quot as (TRQs) it established during its 
WTO accession for wheat, corn and rice. Starti ng in 2015, the United States understands 
that China has added a requirement that non- STE end users purchase domestic stocks in 
order to receive a TRQ allocation. 
a. Please confirm whether there is a new do mestic purchase requirement. If yes, 
please provide the timeframe and conditio ns when it applies to purchases, and 
which products by tariff code line are subject to this requirement.  
b. Also, if there is such a requirement, pl ease provide any further information on 
the implementation of this policy including where a copy of the policy is available to WTO Members and when  it was notified to the WTO. 
Answer by China 
Our delegation is not aware that domestic purcha se requirements are a precondition for receiving 
allocation of grain TRQs. 
Follow-up : Canada noted its interest on the questions from the United States of America on TRQ 
underfill, particularly as it related to wheat which was an important export product for Canada. 
Canada requested clarification from the delegati on from China on whether domestic purchase 
requirements existed. 
1.6  China's maize subsidies 
1.6.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77043) According to World Perspectives Inc. newsletter, on 20 April 2015, China sold 
38,700 tonnes of maize from state stocks. Further, the Heilongjiang Government G/AG/W/145 
 
- 9 - 
 
  supported this sale with a subsidy to grains  processors participating in the state grain 
auction of 200 RMB/t (=32.6 $/t). This subsid y level would be the double of the subsidy 
of 100 RMB/t granted in 2013/14. 
a. Can China confirm that the Heilongjiang Government has granted this type of 
subsidy? Who were the bene ficiaries? For what quantity has this subsidy so far 
been granted in the current marketing year and the previous marketing year? 
b. Can China explain whether other local go vernments grant similar subsidies and 
if so what are the quantities concerned in 2013/14 and 2014/15? 
Answer by China As the question relates to the local government's policy, it will take more time to collect the 
necessary information. 
1.7  Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments 
1.7.1  Question by Canada (AG-IMS ID 77002) Canada thanks Costa Rica for its transparen cy and engagement with Members over the 
past few years regarding its Current Total AMS which since 2007 has been in excess of 
its WTO commitment. At the March 2015 meetin g of the Committee, Costa Rica indicated 
that after a period of domestic consultation s a new Executive Decree came into force on 
27 February 2015 and that the Costa Rica Mini stry of Agriculture was implementing new 
measures aimed at rice producers. Could Cost a Rica indicate when it expects to provide 
a notification to the Committee regarding the Executive Decree and details of the measures aimed at supporting its rice producers? 
Answer by Costa Rica 
Costa Rica advises that, pursuant to Executive Decree No. 38884-MEIC (notified to the 
WTO Committee on Agriculture on 26 May 2015 in document G/AG/GEN/126), the minimum 
purchase price payable by processors to domestic producers for rice in the husk was replaced by 
an indicative reference price for transactions between processors and producers. This reference price will enable both parties (producers and processors) to negotiate a transaction price in 
accordance with the grade (moisture and impuriti es levels) and place of delivery of the rice. 
Costa Rica considers that this change, which took effect on 27 February 2015, will enable it to meet its Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) obligations as of this year. 
1.7.2  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77070) 
The United States thanks Costa Rica for its continued transparency; however, the 
United States is increasingly concerned by  Costa Rica's continued lack of compliance 
with its WTO obligations. In particular, the Un ited States notes that support to the rice 
sector increased from US D 81.85 million to USD 86.1 4 million from 2012 to 2013. 
While the United States has expressed hope in  the past with regards to steps Costa Rica 
has indicated it would be taking to come into compliance, the United States notes the 
repeated delay of necessary reforms.  
a. Does Costa Rica intend to meet its AMS commitment? 
b. What specific steps is Costa Rica undertaking to bring its AMS into compliance 
with its commitments?  
Answer by Costa Rica See answer provided to question AG-IMS ID 77002, above. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Follow-up : The United States of America stated that Costa Rica had been notifying that they were 
out of compliance since 2007. The United States  of America hoped that the changes in policy 
described by Costa Rica would bring Costa Rica back within its commitments levels. 
Canada was pleased to hear that Costa Rica was now in compliance with its domestic support 
commitments and looked forward to Costa Rica's next notification. 
1.8  Egypt's domestic support notifications 1.8.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77045) 
The latest notification on domestic support  from Egypt dates back to 2001. Can Egypt 
indicate when it intends to notify its domestic support for subsequent years? 
Answer by Egypt During the Committee meeting last November, Egypt shared some information about Egypt's 
nation-wide plan to restructure the agriculture sector, with an ultimate aim to facilitate data 
collection. Agriculture is a key sector in the Egyptian economy, for several reasons, including: 
 It provides livelihood for 55% of the population,  
 It directly employs about 30% of the labour force,  
 Most of the farming activities are concentrated in rural areas, where almost all farms are 
small in size and capacity, and lacking stable means of communication. 
Several years ago, the Egyptian Government was about to formulate a new Sustainable Agriculture 
Development Strategy towards 2020 for the agricultur e sector. The strategy identifies the need to 
strengthen producer associations and make market information more freely available as one of the priorities. Unfortunately, Egypt's concerted e fforts to adopt this strategy and continue 
restructuring the agriculture sector in order to im prove its system of notification along with other 
developmental objectives was greatly hindered since early 2011 due to the internal political situation. Since then Egypt has witnessed several important changes, including a number 
of cabinet reshuffles and several elections. Parliamentary elections were again postponed until the 
last quarter of this year. These are only few obstacles facing Egypt's Government in its plan of restructuring given the complex nature of the agriculture sector in Egypt. Administrative and 
procedural measures also contribute to the delay in submitting Egypt's domestic support 
notifications to this committee. Finally, Egypt would like to reiterate Egypt's full support and commitment to the objective of transparency under  the Agreement on Agriculture. Egypt is aware 
of its obligations in the framework of the Agreem ent; in particular those under article 18.2, and 
acknowledges the importance of domestic support no tifications in terms of providing transparency 
and supporting the general implem entation of the Agreement. 
1.9  India's Cotton Policies 
1.9.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77109) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India resp onded to part a) that there are a number 
of factors involved in the setting of th e Minimum Support Price (MSP). However, 
the US question remains: 
a. Which of these factors were the bases for raising the MSP for cotton, in light of 
the fact that there was reduced import  demand in China, falling world cotton 
prices, and record or near record Indian production? 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 76053, India re sponded to part b) of the question by 
stating that India takes its commitments seriously and believes in fair market 
practices. The United States agrees fu lly in this response, for itself and 
all Members. However, India did not address the question asked. 
The United States repeats the question: G/AG/W/145 
 
- 11 - 
 
  c. Is India taking specific steps to ensure  that the release of its cotton stocks 
does not further distort international cotton markets, either due to direct export sales or market le akage? If yes, please sp ecify and explain the steps 
India is undertaking in this regard. Th e United States of America notes that 
similar market conditions occurred in 2008/2009 when India also procured 
significant quantities of cotton, estima ted at approximately 40% of production. 
According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee, India then provided 
USD 26 million in export subs idies to reduce its stocks. 
Answer by India India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. Follow-up : The United States of America stated that all of the questions were follow-up questions 
to responses that India had provided in March 201 5. The United States of America appreciated the 
efforts India had made to respond to the questions verbally in that meeting. The United States had 
been unable to submit follow-up questions by th e deadline set for the June meeting because the 
responses had not been available through the AG-IMS system in time. The United States 
of America noted that responses to questions in the Committee were due 30 days after they were submitted. The United States of America stated th at it would be useful if India could respond to 
these questions, by August, so that additional ques tions, if any, could by submitted in advance for 
the September meeting. 
Pakistan and Mali, on behalf of the C-4, noted their interest on the subject. Mali reiterated the 
need and importance of transparency noting that information and statistics must be made 
available through all the existing channels, so that the Membership would have a strong basis for 
the negotiations.  
1.10  India's sugar export subsidies 
1.10.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77035) 
Australia recalls the questions raised by  Australia (AG-IMS ID 76016) at the 
76
th Committee on Agriculture in relation to Indian sugar export subsidies. 
Australia has stated its concerns regarding the WTO-inconsistency of these measures on 
a number of occasions and urges India to end the programme.  
Australia understands that in February 2015, India officially increased the rate of its 
export subsidy for raw sugar from Indian  Rupees (INR) INR 3,371 to INR 4,000 per 
tonne, for a quantity of 1.4 million tonnes ov er the 2014-15 sugar season. At INR 4000, 
this level of subsidy represents over 20%  of the current world benchmark price. 
Can India: 
a. Confirm who is eligible to receive subsidy payments? 
b. Advise if the raw sugar export subsid y programme has been allocated funds 
through the Union budget with respect of either the 2013-14 or 2014-15 sugar 
seasons? 
c. Identify the budget amounts for 2013-14 and 2014-15 as may apply? 
d. Advise if subsidy payments are now underway? 
e. Provide an update with regard to any applications that have been lodged for 
subsidy provision, including the amount of applications received and the total 
amount of subsidy claimed? 
f. Confirm media reporting that the In dian state of Maharashtra has now 
announced a separate export subsidy programme for raw sugar, and confirm 
that this export subsidy will be INR 1,000 per tonne?  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 12 - 
 
  g. Advise whether Maharashtra farmers woul d be eligible for both the subsidy 
paid by the central government  and state of Maharashtra.  
Answer by India India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
1.10.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77044) 
After the introduction of the export subsidy of INR 4,000 per tonne of raw sugar by the 
Indian central government in February 2015, the website of "Business Standard" on 
13 April reported "The Maharashtra Govern ment on 14 April announced an export 
subsidy of INR 1,000 ($1=INR 62.31) pe r tonne for raw sugar to boost the 
cash-strapped sugar industry in the state, in  addition to the INR 4,000 already unveiled 
by the central government, according to the state's co-operative minister Chandrakant 
Patil". 
a. Could India confirm these figures of INR 4000 and INR 1000 and explain how 
these subsidies granted comply with  its WTO commitments on export 
subsidies?  
b. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar that has/will be able  to benefit from 
these subsidies?  
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. Follow-up : Australia noted that they had seen reports that in March 2015, India paid 
1.8 billion dollars in Indian rupee for 710,000 tons  of raw sugar that were exported during the 
2013/14 marketing year, a period when the international sugar price was already very low. 
Australia also stated that the subsidy rate in India was above 20% of the world price and that the Australian farmers found it difficult to compete in this environment. Australia noted that a large 
portion of India's raw sugar was exported to Tanzania, Somalia and Sudan, and noted that all of 
these Members produced sugar. Australia urged Indi a to remove this trade distorting practice as 
soon as possible. 
The European Union, Thailand and Colombia also indicated concerns. Brazil reminded India that it 
had also presented questions on previous meetings and that it looked forward to India's responses. Brazil noted its interest to discuss this matter bilaterally with the Indian delegation. 
1.11  Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat 
1.11.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77028) 
Australia thanks Indonesia for its responses to its questions in the previous 
Committee on  Agriculture in March regarding restrictions on the import of secondary 
beef cuts and offal except by state-ow ned enterprises in limited circumstances 
(Regulation of the Minister of Agri culture No. 139/Permentan/PD.410/12/2014 
concerning Importation of Carcass, Meat and/or Processed Meat Products into the 
Territory of the Republic of Indonesia, as  amended by Regulation of the Minister 
of Agriculture No. 02/Permentan/PD.410/01/2015). 
However, Australia remains concerned that th e measure effectively restricts the import 
of secondary beef cuts and offal, and is a ffecting Australian exports of boxed beef to 
Indonesia. Australia notes Indonesia's response  that the restrictions are intended to 
lower market prices for meat.  
a. Can Indonesia please explai n how restrictions on im ports of secondary beef 
cuts would assist in lowering market prices? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 13 - 
 
  b. Can Indonesia please explain how such a measure is consistent with the 
prohibition on quantitative restrictio ns in the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Australia also notes that the restrictions on imports of secondary beef cuts are 
in addition to existing trade- restrictive elements of Indonesi a's import permit system for 
agricultural goods. These include Indonesia's system of issuing import permits for cattle 
and beef on a quarterly basis, which effectiv ely acts as a quarterly quota on imports. 
c. Can Indonesia please explain how such a measure is consistent with the 
prohibition on quantitative restrictio ns in the Agreement on Agriculture? 
In addition, Australia understands that Indonesia has restricted the volume of 
horticultural imports in 2015 to each importer's cold storage capacity.  
d. Can Indonesia please provide further in formation about existing or planned 
restrictions on the importation of ho rticultural goods in 2015, and how such 
restrictions are consistent with Indonesia's obligations under the 
Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by Indonesia 
Under those regulations, Indonesia does not restrict the imports of meat. Indonesia would like to 
draw Australia's attention to the fact that the Dispute Settlement Body in the 20 May 2015 
meeting has agreed to establish panel for dispute cases number DS477 and DS478 concerning 
Indonesia's importation regulations (including the importation of meat) in which Australia has joined several other Members as third parties. Indonesia called on all Members to respect the proceedings of this issue under the DSU. In th is regard, Indonesia could not provide detailed 
answers through this system or in the regu lar meeting of the Committee of Agriculture. 
1.12  Pakistan's wheat export subsidies 1.12.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77029) 
Australia thanks Pakistan for its response  to Australia's questions raised at the 
76
th Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID 76020) in relation to Pakistan's wheat export 
subsidy programme. Can Pakistan: 
a. Confirm that the programme has now ended, given the termination dates 
(31 March and 15 April 2015) advised by Pakistan at the 76th Committee on 
Agriculture meeting? 
b. If applicable, advise the quantity an d value of wheat exports that were 
subsidised under the programme? 
c. If applicable, advise which markets re ceived subsidised wheat exports from 
Pakistan under the programme? 
Answer by Pakistan 
a. Pakistan noted that the programme has ended and it is no longer operational. 
b. The data on quantity and value of wheat exports was not yet available. 
c. Very few traders had utilized it. 
Follow-up : Australia, Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States of America welcomed 
Pakistan's announcement of the abolition of the programme.  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 14 - 
 
  1.13  Switzerland's export subsidy budget 
1.13.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77030) At the last Committee on Agriculture meet ing, Switzerland advised that there was 
a mooted proposal to increase the budget ary outlay for its export subsidies. 
Could Switzerland please provide an update on  these increasing export subsidies in light 
of the declaration of restraint on the use of  export subsidies made by Ministers at the 
9
th WTO Ministerial Conference (Bali 2013)? 
Answer by Switzerland 
Price developments in the markets and the sharp appreciation of the Swiss franc following the 
decision by the Swiss National Bank on 15 January 2015 to abandon the euro cap on the franc have contributed, in recent months, to a rise in the price differential, to the disadvantage of 
Swiss producers of processed agricultural products. The Federal Council decided, in April 2015, 
to request the Parliament to grant an additional appropriation of CHF 20 million in order to boost the budget for export contributions. The Parliame nt is responsible for the final decision on the 
budget increase, which will be made in mid-June 2015. 
Even with an additional appropriation of CHF 20 million, the total amount of export subsidies 
allocated by Switzerland will still fall below its WTO commitments. 
Since 2005 Switzerland has considerably reduced its export subsidies. In particular, it eliminated 
export subsidies for agricultural commodities in 2010. 
Switzerland remains determined to respect the export competition commitments that it made 
in Bali. The Swiss Government considers the proposed budget increase submitted to the 
Parliament as a one-off measure for 2015 that was prompted by special economic circumstances. 
1.13.2  Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 77006) New Zealand thanks Switzerland for its transp arency in the Committee on Agriculture on 
its proposal to increase export subsidies on processed agricultural products by up to 
CHF 20 million. New Zealand is concerned ab out these plans given the trade distorting 
effects of export subsidies and the Bali Declaration on export subsidies in which 
Ministers committed to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all 
forms of export subsidies. This includ ed Members' export subsidies remaining 
significantly below their export subsidy commitments. The proposal would be an increase of nearly 30% over Switzerlan d's current export subsidy outlay of 
CHF 70 million, with outlays then bein g close to 80% of its CHF 114.9 million 
commitment level. 
Please provide an update on the proposal to  exceptionally increase the export subsidy 
budget for processed agricultural products  for 2015 by a maximum of CHF 20 million.  
Answer by Switzerland See answer provided to question AG-IMS 77030, above. 
Follow-up : New Zealand echoed by Australia, Argentina, the European Union, Colombia, Chile, 
Costa Rica and the United States of America, expressed concerns regarding Switzerland's decision 
to increase its budget on export subsidies particularly in light of the Bali Ministerial Declaration on export subsidies. Members questioned whether cu rrency appreciation was a valid reason for using 
trade distorting measures like export subsidies and requested Switzerland to reconsider alternative 
policy options. Members welcomed Switzerlan d's transparency on the measure and asked 
Switzerland to continue to keep the Committee informed on this policy, in particular on any 
changes to the plan to limit this exceptional measure to a one-off budget increase limited to the 
year 2015. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.14  Thailand's sugar policies 
1.14.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77031) Australia thanks Thailand for its response to Australia's questions at the 76
th Committee 
on Agriculture in relation to Thai policies that relate to rice and sugar production. 
Could Thailand provide an update on the draft study referred to in their response to 
Australia (AG-IMS ID 76021), and provide details  of any specific policy initiatives that 
are currently planned to boost producti on in the cane and sugar industries? 
Answer by Thailand 
The draft study is still under review. There are no specific policy initiatives currently planned to 
boost production in the cane and sugar industries. As Thailand explained in the previous meeting, 
the purpose of the ongoing study includes an exam ination of whether agricultural production can 
be restructured to improve the efficiency of resource management and utilization in accordance 
with market mechanisms. It is anticipated that any initiatives resulting from the study will merely encourage farmers to grow appropriate crops efficiently in appropriate areas. Decisions of the 
farmers will be voluntary. 
1.14.2  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77046) Since no reply has been received to EU qu estion AG-IMS ID 76033, the European Union 
repeats its questions. 
The European Union thanks Thailand for thei r reply to its questions of November 2014 
(AG-IMS ID 75105). The European Union would seek further information on the operation and administration of Thailand's  sugar policy. Thailand states that the 
operation and administration of Thailand's  sugar industry are not controlled by the 
government. It is also stated that there is a ceiling price for Quota X for retail sale and that Quota Y is the quantity for export by  Thai Cane and Sugar Corporation Limited. 
In the light of this, could Thailand explain: 
a. Whether ceiling prices for Quota X and mi nimum farm gate prices of sugarcane 
are set by the government? 
b. What are the administrative prices for do mestic sugar in comparison to export 
prices during the most recent five ye ars for which the data is available? 
c. Whether administrative prices for domestic  sugar affect the quantities of sugar 
exported? 
d. Whether Thai Cane and Sugar Corporat ion Limited, which exports Quota Y 
sugar, has received any support from the government, including government 
financing, preferential access to capita l, underwriting of losses or write-offs 
of debts; and whether any special legisl ative privileges have  been granted to 
this company? 
e. If so, whether Thailand intends to notify it to the WTO pursuant to 
Article XVII:4(a) of the GATT? 
Answer by Thailand 
a. The ceiling prices for Quota X to be sold in the domestic market are set by the 
Ministry of Commerce, with a view to preven ting shortages of sugar supply by ensuring 
adequate availability of sugar in the dome stic market and preventing the smuggling 
of sugar out of the country. The minimum farm gate prices of sugarcane are determined by the Cane and Sugar Board, which is comprised of representatives of both 
sugar cane farmers and sugar producers, facilitated by representatives from the 
Ministry of Industry. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 16 - 
 
  b. There are no administrative prices for sugar, only the ceiling prices for sugar sold in the 
domestic market, which have been fixed since 2008. The actual domestic market prices are determined by domestic market mechanisms, up to the limit of the ceiling price. Export prices are determined by the global market mechanisms and global prices. 
As such, there is no artificial relation betw een the domestic prices and export prices as 
both are determined by the respective market mechanisms.  
c. No, the ceiling prices for domestic sugar do not affect the quantities of sugar exported. 
Quota Z is the quota used mainly for exportation, and is the amount leftover from 
Quota X and Quota Y (Quota Z = Quantity produced – (Quota X+ Quota Y)). The domestic price does not have any bearin g on the quantity of sugar produced for 
domestic consumption as the quantity has already been fixed by Quota X. Thus, the 
quantity exported, mainly from Quota Z, has no relation to domestic price set by the 
Cane and Sugar Board. There is no stringent requirement to export Quota Z sugar. 
d. The Thai Cane and Sugar Corporation Limited is privately owned by sugar cane farmers 
and sugar producers, and has the overall responsibility for pricing and selling raw sugar 
under Quota Y for the purpose of calculating the revenue sharing between the cane farmers and the sugar producers. The compan y does not receive any special support or 
privileges from the government. 
e. See the response  to question d above.  
Follow-up : Brazil recalled that there were pending responses to questions raised by Brazil 
regarding Thailand's sugar policy raised on 4 March 2015, as reflected on G/AG/W/142. 
Brazil requested Thailand to provide the answers as soon as possible.  
1.15  Turkey's domestic support and export subsidies 1.15.1  Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 77047) 
Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 75069. 
The European Union would like to repeat the question asked at the Committee on 
Agriculture in March 2014 which has not yet been answered. 
Further, the US Department of Agriculture in its Citrus Report for the year 2013 
indicates (as in the 2011 report) that "the Turkish Government makes support payments to exporters and the rates vary each year. Th e Ministry of Finance is providing a subsidy 
to citrus exporters of 200 YTL/MT in 2013. There is also a minimum price requirement 
for this specific subsidy. The government makes payments to a special account, which 
the exporter can only use to make tax and so cial security payments as well as utilities 
such as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. In order to protect domestic 
producers, the government kept the customs duty rates at 2007 levels for orange juice 
and citrus imports, which are 54%". 
a. Could Turkey confirm that since 2001  its budgetary outlays and eligible 
quantity as regards export subsidies, notably for citrus fruits, have remained 
below its commitments? 
b. Could Turkey indicate the level of AM S support in absolute amounts since 2002 
per budget year? 
c. Does this level respect Turkey's de minimis  commitment? 
d. When will Turkey make its DS:1 no tifications for the years after 2002? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer by Turkey 
Our relevant institutions are working on this issue. Turkey's notifications will be submitted to the 
Secretariat as soon as the assessments are completed. 
Follow-up : The European Union noted that the same reply had been provided several times, even 
several years, and they looked forward to Tu rkey finalizing the work and forwarding the 
notifications to the Secretariat. 
Ukraine indicated its interest on the questions. 
1.16  Turkey's destination of wheat flour sale 
1.16.1  Question by the United Stat es of America (A G-IMS ID 77071) 
Turkey has not yet responded to questions from the March 2015 and November 2014 
meetings that were originally posed on the floor during the June 2014 meeting. 
The United States repeats them. 
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 in G/AG/W/106; 
AG-IMS ID 73042). Are all of the quantities listed imported and exported through the inward processing system? If not, please elaborate on this 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. 
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 
a. State and affiliated institutions are very clearly defined in the Public Financial 
Management and Control Law No: 5018. Turkish Grain Board (TMO) is not one of the 
affiliated institutions and is not within the scope of a general or private budget. 
b. As stated in TMO's Founding Statute, TMO is an incorporated company that operates 
according to commercial principles in the economic field. As an incorporated company, 
operating in line with the principles of pr ofitability and efficiency, TMO has to act as 
a prudential trader in its all acts and operations. All contracts and applications have to be G/AG/W/145 
 
- 18 - 
 
  made taking this into consideration. The highest decision making body of the TMO is the 
board of directors and policies are determined independently in accordance with the principles mentioned above. 
c. TMO is responsible for purchasing and selling grain, and it performs this duty in domestic 
and international markets. TMO sells grai n through bid auctions and any bids not 
deemed satisfactory by TMO are not accepted. The auctions are open to foreign buyers and Turkish buyers holding an inward processing certificate. Purchases of domestic 
wheat from TMO were already examined by the US authorities in various 
CVD proceedings. For example, in its pre liminary results of 2004 countervailing duty 
administrative review for certain pasta from Turkey, Department of Commerce (DoC) found that purchases of domestic wheat from TMO does not provide a countervailable 
benefit because the prices paid by companies were higher than world market prices, 
inclusive of delivery charges.
[1] Turkey kindly invites the US authorities to examine 
DoC's findings in previous CVD proceedings. 
d. As explained in Turkey's response to questi on above, the US authorities were already 
informed of TMO's wheat sales to inward processing certificate holders in various CVD proceedings conducted by DoC. 
e. Turkey has a system in place to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts are 
consumed in production of the exported products under the Inward Processing Regime (IPR). To be more precise, companies sh ould apply to Ministry of Economy (MoE) 
electronically with their e-signature to register the IPR System. After registration, some 
documents, such as Inward Processing Project Form, table of raw material, capacity 
report providing information about the producti on facilities, trade registration journal, 
signature circular, should be submitted via the system, correctly. 
f. MoE evaluates the HS code of imported goods and processed products (primary and 
auxiliary processed products), product definiti on, its quantity to be determined according 
to the rate of productivity, the term of ce rtificate/authorization and, either issues 
an IPR certificate or rejects the application. Decisions (acceptance or rejection) are 
based on whether a set of possible legal conditions and economic criteria are fulfilled. Companies are subject to heavy sanctions in case of noncompliance with the relevant IPR legislation. 
In fact, the United States of America is totally aware of the working mechanism of 
Turkish IPR and in several countervailing duty investigations and reviews, the competent US authorities identified that IPR does not confer countervailable benefits.
[2] 
The United States of America recently repeated its findings on Turkish IPR in 2013 
administrative review for circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey. In its decision memorandum for the preliminary results of countervailing duty 
administrative review: circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey, dated 
March 31, 2015
[3], DoC, similar to earlier findings, clearly found that "the GoT has 
a system in place to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported product, and that the system is reasonable for the purposes 
intended". The DoC also decided that "the exemption granted on certain methods 
of payments used in purchasing imported raw materials under this program does not constitute a subsidy because the tax exempted upon export does not exceed the amount 
of tax levied on like products wh en sold for domestic consumption". 
The US authorities scrutinized IPR with all its aspects in a certain number of CVD 
proceedings. In this regard, Turkey again kindly invites the US authorities to look at 
DoC's previous findings in countervailing duty administrative reviews.
[4] 
Having in mind the above-mentioned evaluati ons, Turkey, once again, would like to 
stipulate that it has a verification system, which was also examined by the United States of America, in place to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts are consumed in the 
production of the exported products under IPR. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 19 - 
 
  The vast majority of Turkish wheat imports and wheat flour exports were made 
under IPR. 
Turkish IPR mechanism is already described in our response to the above-mentioned 
questions. Turkey, once again, invites th e US authorities to examine the previous 
findings of DoC in the pertinent CVD proceedings. Statistics are collected and compiled 
on the basis of HS codes. No particular statistical data is available for the quality. 
No regulation that allows selling of IP certificates exists under Turkish IPR. 
[1] See Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 111 / Friday, June 9, 2006 and DoC's Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Re view for Certain Pasta From Turkey 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2006-06-09/html/E6-9007.htm   
[2] See Issues and Decision Memorandum: Final Results of  Administrative Review of  the Countervailing Duty 
Order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, July 25, 2006. http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/turkey/E6-12227-1.pdf   
[3] See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty (CVD) Administrative Review: 
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, March 31, 2015. http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/turkey/2015-08123-1.pdf   
[4] See Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 / Wedn esday, August 8, 2001 and DoC's Preliminary Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review for Certain Pasta From Turkey 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-08-08/html/01-19777.htm   
1.17  Turkey's export subsidy programmes 
1.17.1  Question by Australia (AG-IMS ID 77032) 
Australia thanks Turkey for its respon se to Australia's questions at the 
75th Committee on Agriculture (AG-IMS ID  75027). Nonetheless, Australia wishes to 
understand more about Turkey's agricultural export subsidy programme and 
accordingly, asks Turkey to advise the Comm ittee, for each agricultural product and for 
the most recent year available: 
a. The value of export subsidies which have been provided; 
b. The volume of subsidised exports; and 
c. The destinations of the subsidised exports. 
Answer by Turkey The questions by Australia are related to the export  subsidies provided by Turkey. The notifications 
of export subsidies are under preparation by Turkey's relevant institutions and they will be 
submitted to the Secretariat once they are ready. 
Follow-up : Australia stated that Turkey's last notification on this matter was 14 years ago, in 2001. 
Australia requested Turkey to bring its export subsidy notifications up to date as soon as possible, 
particularly when there were a range of Members who have concerns about export subsidies from 
Turkey. Ukraine indicated its interest on the questions. 
2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION  WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS 
2.1  ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:1) 2.1.1  Switzerland (G/AG/N/CHE/13/Add.17) AG-IMS ID 77033: Question by Australia - Allo cation of licences to  importing entities 
In the Table MA:1 notification (G/AG/N/CHE/ 13/Add.17), with regard to the allocation 
of import entitlements for "Animals for slaugh ter; meat mainly produced on the basis of 
coarse fodder", Switzerland has explained at 5 (b) that 50% of TQ shares in bovine and 
sheep meat and offal are distributed on the ba sis of a contribution to Swiss production, G/AG/W/145 
 
- 20 - 
 
  and further, 40% of shares in goat and hors e meat and offal are also distributed on the 
basis of a contribution to Swiss produc tion. Can Switzerland explain what does 
"contribution to Swiss production" mean in this context? 
Answer by Switzerland 
Forty percent of quota shares of goat and horse meat as well as offal are distributed on the basis 
of a contribution to Swiss production. Thus allocated quota shares are based on the number of slaughtered animals from Swiss origin. The person entitled to a share of quota in this case is the 
slaughterhouse which can nevertheless transfer his right to an animal keeper, a livestock dealer 
firm, a meat processing company or a meat trading company. 
Fifty percent of quota shares of bovine and sheep meat as well as offal are distributed on the basis 
of a contribution to Swiss production. Thus allocated quota shares are 40% based on the number 
of animals slaughtered as described above. The 10% remaining shares are allocated according to 
the number of animals bought at auction on monitored public markets. 
AG-IMS ID 77072: Question by the United Stat es of America - Alloca tion of licences to 
importing entities 
Switzerland has increased the share of beef  and sheep meat import quotas that are 
distributed based on the contribution to Sw iss production from 10% to 50%. Therefore, 
with this change, only 50% of import quot as will be distributed by tender compared 
to 90% previously. Awarding quota allocati ons based on domestic purchases can be 
trade restrictive and could be  in violation of WTO rules. Can Switzerland explain the 
reasoning behind this change?   
Answer by Switzerland 
The increase in the rate of allocation of quotas of beef and sheep meat distributed on the basis of 
a contribution to Swiss production was decided by the Swiss Parliament in March 2013. In the 
parliamentary debate, increased predictability for importers and easier access to the quota shares 
for small companies were identified. 
However, the change in the allocation system of  quota shares does not represent any restriction 
on imports within the quota. It is only the dist ribution of quota shares among importers that is 
affected by this change. The fill-rate for the tariff qu ota in question is traditionally high and will not 
be affected by the change. Consequently, Switzerl and considers this system to be in compliance 
with its WTO commitments. 
Follow-up : The European Union shared the concerns expr essed by Australia and the United States 
of America. 
2.2  IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2) 
2.2.1  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/107) 
AG-IMS ID 77036: Question by Switzerland - Tariff quota fill 
Switzerland notes that fill rates for several of Canada's tariff rate quotas for dairy 
products remain low. In particular, the fill rate for milk protein substances (MPS) for 
the quota year 2012/2013 fell to 56.3% from 68.4% in the previous quota year. Switzerland furthermore notes that the tariff quota administration for milk protein substances as indicated in G/AG/N/CAN/87/Rev.1 from 24 February 2012 is complex. 
Canada in response to Switzerland's prev ious inquiry on this issue stated that 
"Canada is committed to continuing to make its tariff rate quota fully available to 
Canadian importers of MPS". 
a. Could Canada explain in more detail in which way it intends to achieve the full 
availability of the tariff rate quota to importers? Specifically, how does Canada G/AG/W/145 
 
- 21 - 
 
  ensure that fill rates are not negatively  affected by the administration of the 
tariff quota? 
b. Does Canada envisage implementing change s to the administration of the tariff 
rate quota for MPS? If so, what change s are envisaged and in which way would 
they help achieve substantive increase s in quota fill rates in the future? 
Answer by Canada It is Canada's assessment that observed fill rates for the "other products of milk constituents" and 
"milk protein substances" (MPS) TRQs reflect overall market conditions. While imports under the 
MPS TRQ have decreased, total milk protein imports (under tariff items 0404.90, 3504.00.11, and 3504.00.12) increased by 3.7% from 2012 to 2013, largely due to imports of MPS from the United States of America, which increased from 7,995,945 kg in 2012 to 10,064,898 kg in 2013. 
The MPS TRQ is fully allocated at the beginning of each TRQ year. Allocation holders are free to 
use their allocation to import any product covered by the TRQ at any time during the year. In recent years, many have chosen to return portions of their allocation that they did not think 
they would use during the year. Returned quanti ties have been made available to interested 
importers on a first-come first-served basis, but due to market conditions, there has been little uptake. There are no plans to change the allocation policy which includes a number of mechanisms 
designed to maximize TRQ fill, including the return  and reallocation policy and the under-utilization 
penalty, as well as the practice of opening up the TRQ to first-come-first-served where TRQ fill remains low. 
Follow-up : The United States of America registered its continuous interest in the Canadian dairy 
market and on the policies implemented around that market.  
2.2.2  Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/202) AG-IMS ID 77049: Question by the Eu ropean Union - Tariff quota fill 
For a certain number of tariff lines the quot a utilization is relatively satisfactory. 
However, for several import quotas under-utiliz ation is observed, in particular in cases 
which can lead to shortages on the Japanese market, for instance butter 
(with restriction in the retail outlets). In the table below one can observe significant 
underutilization of the TRQs for several dairy products (despite the high import tariffs 
for these dairy products) as well as other pr oducts. Can Japan indicate the reasons for 
these under-utilizations of TRQs? 
Products  Quota 
(t) Quota imports 
(t) Fill rate 
(%) 
Skimmed milk powder for school lunch  7,264 1,952 27 
Skimmed milk powder for other purposes  74,973  22,988  31 
Whey and modified whey for feeding purposes  45,000  30,265  67 
Prepared whey for infant formula  25,000  6,975 28 
Butter and butter oil  581 119 20 
Mineral concentrated whey  14,000  6,653 48 
Dried leguminous vegetable  120,000  77,872  65 
Ground nuts  75,000  27,124  36 
 Answer by Japan 
Japan operates TRQs appropriately, consistent with  WTO Agreements and conducts it in a fair and 
transparent manner. Under-utilization of some TRQs is related to a decrease in domestic demand of those products. "Butter and butter oil" listed in the table is for consumption in the international airlines, international trade fairs and other specialized purposes, which is described in the 
Table MA:1 notification. As for butter, most of it is imported through state trading. 
The Government imports butter is over the WTO commitment level in case of shortage. 
Follow-up : The United States of America registered its continuous interest in the Japanese dairy 
market.  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 22 - 
 
  2.3  DOMESTIC SUPPORT CO MMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1) 
2.3.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/97) AG-IMS ID 77050: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The environmental schemes "Auction for Land scape Recovery in Australia", "Victorian 
Bush Tender auctions" and "EcoTender" are implemented in Australia (EcoTender in 
Victoria). Can Australia indicate how this and similar agri-environmental schemes are 
taken into account in the domestic support notification? 
Answer by Australia Auction for Landscape Recovery was a pilot projec t that was conducted in Western Australia from 
2003-2005. It received funding under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality – 
which has previously been notified to the WTO as exempt from reduction commitments 
(see Table DS:2 G/AG/N/AUS/42). The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality ended in the 2008-2009 financial year. 
Bush Tender is focused on improved environmental management on private agricultural land which 
in turn results in environmental benefits. Bush Te nder has been previously notified to the WTO as 
exempt from reduction commitments (see Table DS:2 G/AG/N/AUS/77). 
The EcoTender includes riverine health, salinity, carbon and water quality, through a water system 
which offers very little private benefit. The programme is not specific to agricultural producers, as it includes other landholders, and its main focus is on conservation outcomes. For this reason it has not been reported as domestic support in favour of agriculture. 
AG-IMS ID 77003: Question by Canada - Direct payments: structural adjustment 
assistance provided through pr oducer retirement programmes 
Under the heading "structural adjustment assistance through producer retirement 
programmes" the description for the programme funded by the Australian Government 
states that the grant is to assist primary producers to "exit farming, ensuring that there is sufficient financial support available to  enable re-establishment outside farming". 
Could Australia please provide details as to  how it determines "sufficient financial 
support"? 
Answer by Australia The Exceptional Circumstances (EC) Exit Grant was targeted at those who left farming with no, or 
a low level of, financial resources. The EC Exit Grant Package commenced on 25 September 2007 
and closed to new applications on 10 August 2011. 
The government of the day made the decision to provide additional financial resources to people 
with no, or a low level of, financial resources, to  help them relocate, find new employment and/or 
a new residence (not a farm). The EC Exit Gr ant amount was means tested and capped at 
AUD 150,000. The value of the EC Exit Grant vari ed depending on the financial position after 
settlement of the sale of the farm property. 
To receive the maximum amount payable, the applicant's total net assets, after the sale of the 
farm, could not exceed AUD 350,000. If the value of the applicant's total net assets, after the sale 
of the farm, was more than AUD 350,000, they may have been eligible for a reduced grant. 
For every AUD 3 in assets above the relevant threshold limit (AUD 350,000), the exit grant 
reduced by AUD 2. An applicant could not receive a grant of any amount if their net assets, after 
the sale of farm, were more than AUD 575,000. To have been eligible for the grant an applicant 
must have, prior to selling the farm: 
 been a farmer; G/AG/W/145 
 
- 23 - 
 
   had a farm located in an Exceptional Circumstances declared area; 
 owned or had a right or interest in the farm for at least 5 years immediately prior to 
exiting farming; 
 contributed a significant part of their labour and capital to the farm enterprise; 
 derived a significant part of income from the farm. 
AG-IMS ID 77004: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notices an inconsistency in the f ootnote of Supporting Table DS:7 between 
2011-12 and 2012-13. In 2011-12, the footnote provides the "total value of production 
of live animal exports". In 2012-13 however, th e footnote refers to the "total value of 
production of live cattle exports". Could Au stralia please explain this inconsistency? 
Answer by Australia 
As Canada notes, there is a minor inconsistency with the terminology in the footnotes, but in this 
case "live animal exports" means the same as "live cattle exports". 
AG-IMS ID 77005: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
In Supporting Table DS:7 for 2012-13, the figure under column 10 (Total AMS) for 
Live Cattle Exports is reported as "0.000". Given that the number in column 10 should be the result of adding columns 7 (Total othe r product-specific support), 8 (Market price 
support) and 9 (Non-exempt direct payments) should the figure not be 0.733? 
Answer by Australia The sum is 0.733 but the total is in effect zero because the amount is within Australia's 
de minimis . Australia has indicated the amount is de minimis  by footnoting it as such. Australia 
would be pleased to take the advice of the WTO Secretariat to ensure a consistent approach to this 
type of situation in the future across all Members' reports. 
2.3.2  Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/104) 
AG-IMS ID 77108: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
The European Union understands that an  East-Central Saskatchewan scheme 
"Assiniboine River Watershed (ARW)" is im plemented in Canada, whereby farmers or 
land-owners get grants based on delivery of  environmental services referring to the 
values of public goods. 
a. Is this scheme included in Canada's notification under the environmental 
payments heading of Supporting Table DS:1? 
b. How is it ensured that payment levels in this scheme are strictly based on 
"costs incurred and income forgone"? 
Answer by Canada 
As stated on the following website ( http://www.assiniboinewatersh ed.com/who-we-are/about-us ), 
the Assiniboine Watershed Stewardship Associat ion (AWSA) is an independent, non-profit 
organization that is dedicated to protecting an d enhancing source water in the Assiniboine River 
Watershed. The various projects and initiatives provided through this Association are aimed at having healthy source waters throughout the Assiniboine River Watershed. The Assiniboine Watershed Stewardship Association (AWSA), in partnership with Environment Canada, Ducks 
Unlimited and the Saskatchewan Watershed authority, completed the Reverse Wetland Auction G/AG/W/145 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Restoration pilot program in December 2009. Funding for this program covered the cost to build 
"ditch plugs" to restore wetlands in that watershed. The prairies have lost an estimated 70% of their wetlands since the early 1800's, with approximately 85% of the total loss coming from agricultural drainage. Saskatchewan's Ministry of Agriculture provides support to Ducks Unlimited, 
one of the contributors, and this support is included under the environmental payments heading 
of Supporting Table DS:1. 
2.3.3  China (G/AG/N/CHN/28) 
AG-IMS ID 77007: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Historically, China has notified product-spec ific support for six products: wheat, rice, 
corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed and pigs (start ing in 2007). Potato was added to the list 
in 2009 and highland barley and peanuts were added in 2010. Could China please 
elaborate on the criteria for payments to th ese newly included products and the duration 
of these measures?  
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77012: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
China claims exemption for outlays for public  stockholding of vegetable oils and sugar 
but does not report any market price support  for these products. Does this imply that 
China does not use administered prices to acqu ire the public stocks of vegetable oils and 
sugar? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77051: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
a. Can China indicate whether the aid given to State Trading Enterprises either as 
direct or indirect support in the form of  aid from the Industrialisation Funds or 
similar support instruments (which also includes agricultural and agro-food 
sectors) has been included in the notification and with which amounts? 
Supporting Table DS:1 
b. The footnote to the Supporting Table DS:1 states that the data includes both 
the outlays of the national and subnat ional governments. Could China explain 
the national and subnational shares of the Green Box spending notified? 
c. Can China indicate in which heading of th e current notification the Agricultural 
Insurance Programme has been included (CNY 116.9 billion in 2009, according 
to the annual budget for National People's Congress)? 
d. Can China elaborate on the reasons for the continued increase of the food 
security stocks (+33%) while at the same time production continue to 
increase? 
e. What types of farmers receive direct ai des and which sectors are eligible, and 
which criteria must farmers fulfil to be  eligible for this type of payments? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Supporting Table DS:4 
f. Can China give further details to the ca lculation of the Value of Production, 
including the sources for this calculation in DS:4? 
g. Can China give more details on the di fferences in definition of products 
categories as indicated in the foot note to Table DS:4? 
Supporting Table DS:5 
h. Could China provide information on tota l wheat and rice production in the 
notified years 2009 and 2010? 
i. Can China give more details on the reasons for the very significant differences 
in the production numbers in this noti fication and the figures given by the 
national administration in "Report on grain development in China – 2013". 
According to the latter the buying-in of  wheat in China by State Enterprises 
in 2009 reached a total of 69.339 million tonnes, whereas this notification only indicates 39 million tonnes. Can China plea se explain this difference in detail? 
The difference for rice is even bigger.  How have the quantities for this 
notification been calculated? 
j. What are the reasons not to include maize in this notification, when to 
EU knowledge, there exists a system of guaranteed prices for maize (minimum 
procurement price scheme). 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77027: Question by Japan - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
a. When will China submit the notifica tion of 2011 and the years after? 
b. Please indicate the amount and the price of rice, wheat, and cotton the 
government purchased in each year from 2011 to 2014. 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77080: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States notes that the Chinese Government did not include market price 
support calculations for corn, soybeans, an d rapeseed in 2009, despite the fact that 
an applied administered price was anno unced for these commodities under the 
temporary reserve price support progra mme. The temporary reserve programme 
operates as a price support programme and in a very similar manner to the Minimum 
Price Procurement programme that was notifi ed by China. The Government offers to 
purchase commodities at a spec ified price if the market pr ice falls below that price. 
The government holds the commodities in re serve and re-sells them in future years 
when market prices are higher. During years of falling prices, like 2009, the government 
buys large volumes to prevent prices from  falling. In 2009, for example, China set 
a target price for corn at CNY 1500 per metric tonne, soybeans at CNY 3700 per metric tonne, and rapeseed at CNY 3700 per metric tonne. 
According to the 2010 China Grain Industry Development Report edited by 
Nie Zhenbang, Director of the National Grai n Bureau (p. 14), "to stabilize grain market 
prices, protect returns to grain-planting fa rmers, in 2009 the government implemented 
minimum procurement price programmes for rice and wheat, and temporary reserve G/AG/W/145 
 
- 26 - 
 
  purchases for corn, soybeans and Xinjiang wheat". The report said that the 
government's grain reserves were at a record-high level as a result of these market stabilization programmes (p. 29). 
Further, Xinhua News  Service in 2010 (see http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2010-
01/11/content_12791971.htm ) cited the government's increase in minimum 
procurement prices for rice and wheat an d temporary reserve pr ocurement of rice, 
wheat, corn, soybeans and central reserves of oils from soybeans and rapeseed as 
measures that prevented prices from falling during 2009. 
The Xinhua article reported that purchase s by the State to intervene in markets 
prompted an increase in market prices and effectively increased the income of farmers 
by CNY 40 billion (USD 5.9 billion) duri ng 2009, "… effectively protecting the 
enthusiasm of farmers to plant grain". China clearly implements the "temporary 
reserve" programme in a manner that is inte nded to manipulate producer incentives and 
prevent market forces of supply and dema nd from determining prices. This was 
acknowledged by Chinese authorities during 2014 when "temporary reserve" 
programmes were ended for cotton and soybeans. 
a. Please revise the notification to include all relevant commodities for which 
an applied administered price was es tablished under this or any other 
programme. If China does not consider these pre-determined prices to be administered prices for these commodit ies, please explain the rationale. 
b. If the rationale is that the pre-determin ed prices are based on market prices, 
please clarify whether, in cases where th e market prices decline after the date 
the administered price is set, the admi nistered price does not automatically 
adjust (in other words it remains cons tant throughout the period for which 
it is set). 
c. If so, please indicate the reason for fixi ng the price rather than allowing market 
prices to move freely throughout the year. 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77073: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
China notified that outlays for agricultural infrastructure services  include a number of 
programmes. 
a. Please identify all major programmes a ccounted for in the notified value and 
the respective value of outlays in 2009 and 2010. 
b. Please provide additional details with regards to what the Agricultural 
Comprehensive Development Programs are and how they are implemented.  
c. Please provide additional details on how "small scale watering facilities on 
farmland" are implemented and how they meet the requirements of paragraph 2(g) of Annex 2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture, in particular 
that it excludes expenditur es for on-farm facilities. 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 27 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77052: Question by the European Union - Public stockholding for food 
security purposes 
a. Can China indicate the products, quantity and the average buying-in price of 
each product for the years 2009 and 2010? Can China indicate how the 
buying-in price was fixed and the level fo r the different products in question? 
b. A continued upward trend in China's spending on public stockholding for food 
security purposes is seen in Supporting  Table DS:1. Could China indicate what 
type of expenditure is included in the notified amount? 
c. Could China confirm that food purchase s by the government under the public 
stockholding for food security purposes are made at current market prices as 
required by paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture? 
d. Could China indicate the food security  related pre-determined targets which 
guide the volume and accumulation of st ocks under the public stockholding for 
food security purposes as requir ed by paragraph 3 of Annex 2? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77053: Question by the European Union - Domestic food aid 
Amounts notified under domestic food aid vary annually during the notified years 
2005-2010. There is a substantial variation betw een 2009 and 2010 in particular in the 
current notification. Could China explain wh y the amount notified for 2010 decreased so 
substantially compared to the previous year s? Is this related to a policy change?  
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77054: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: decoupled income 
support  
The European Union notes a decrease in th e amount notified under decoupled income 
support compared to the previous notifica tion G/AG/N/CHN/21. Could China explain 
why this spending is decreasing? Is  this related to a policy change? 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77023: Question by Japan - Di rect payments: decoupled income support 
In the previous notification, China explaine d that decoupled payment is made based on 
the farmland contracted by farmers. 
a. Could China provide the requirements of decoupled payment? 
b. P l ea s e ma k e s ur e t he ba s e a rea  i n t hi s  s c heme i s  f i x ed i n t erms  o f  t he yea r,  
following the requirement of th e Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. If so, please indicate the year  used to calculate base area. 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 28 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77075: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
China's "payments for relief from natural disa sters" have increased substantially since 
2005, reaching CNY 583.84 hundred million in  2010. Per paragraph 8(a) of Annex 2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture "… paymen ts shall arise only following a formal 
recognition by government au thorities that a natural or like disaster has occurred". 
a. Please provide a list of all relevant form al recognitions by either the central 
government or local governments that  provided eligibility for payments 
in 2010. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China noted that notified payments under this 
subheading include "disaster prevention ". Please clarify how this meets the 
criteria of paragraph 8. Pl ease provide additional details as to what "disaster 
prevention" is. 
c. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, China st ated that it was not in a position to 
provide any specific resources related to other specific policy and implementing 
guidance regarding the notified progra mmes. Is China now in a position to 
do so? If not, what resources are avai lable to help Members better understand 
programmes notified under this subheading? 
d. In response to AG-IMS ID 66050, Chin a indicated that total payments only 
compensated for a small part of farmers' losses. Please provide an indication of 
the level of compensation provided to farmers compared to losses of income. 
e. Please provide a list of the indivi dual programmes included under this 
subheading. 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77074: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments under environmental programmes 
The United States notes that China's notification of environment programme 
expenditures has increased over time. China, in response to AG-IMS ID 59032, stated 
that it was impossible to determine wh ether the payments under the various 
programmes notified under these programmes are dependent on the fulfilment of 
specific criteria, a requirement outlined in paragraph 12(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. Further, China stated that all the support at the time was used solely for compensation to the farming households affe cted by the afforestation and reforestation 
programme. 
a. Is this notification still accurate in th at all support is still for afforestation and 
reforestation programmes? 
b. Is China now able to provide the details of such criteria? In particular, what 
exactly are the payments compensati ng farmers for with regards to 
afforestation and reforestation? 
c. If China is still unable to provide the spec ific criteria, on what basis is China 
able to notify this prog ramme under paragraph 12? 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 29 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77055: Question by the European Union - Direct payments: payments under 
regional assistance programmes 
Could China provide more details on the ai d provided to disadvantaged regions under 
regional assistance programmes? What are the criteria for disadvantaged regions? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77076: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments under regional assistance programmes 
China's regional assistance programme incl udes "outlays on aid and assistance to 
disadvantaged regions". 
a. How does China define "disadvantaged re gions" and what are those regions in 
China? 
b. Please provide additional details with regards to how this programme operates. 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77024: Question by Japan - Market price support Despite that Chinese Government purchases cotton at administered prices, the 
notification does not include cotton in Supporting Table DS:5. 
a. Could China provide the reason for this? 
b. Please indicate the prices and the amount of cotton Chinese government 
purchased in 2009 and 2010, respectively. 
c. Please indicate the external reference price of cotton calculated in the same 
manner of the external reference price for rice and wheat (i.e. the average price of 96-98) 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77026: Question by Japan - Market price support 
Regarding market price support for rice and wh eat, Japan is of the view that negative 
values derived from calculation of the market  price support should be regarded as zero 
since administered price lower than the exte rnal reference price does not impose any 
burden on farmers, unlike associated fees or  levies. Could China explain what burden 
farmers are bearing under the market price support scheme? 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77078: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
a. The United States notes that China's calc ulation of market price support for rice 
is incorrect. The calculation uses a price for unmilled paddy rice as the 
administered price. However, the fixed ex ternal reference price for rice is for G/AG/W/145 
 
- 30 - 
 
  milled rice. These prices are not comparab le. The administered price should be 
adjusted to make it comparable to the price for milled rice. Please revise your 
notification. 
b. In AG-IMS ID 65049, China states that  the minimum purchasing price policy 
functions in the main grain produc ing provinces, not in the overall 
state. The United States notes that Chin a often cites ensuring the livelihood of 
its poorest producers as a rationale for its domestic support policies. 
i. Please explain the basis for providing minimum support prices only to the 
producers in the main grain producin g regions where the greatest grain 
surpluses are located.  
ii. Even if only small surpluses were availa ble to sell in other regions, wouldn't 
providing a market price support to th ose smaller producers still provide the 
same important benefit as it does to  producers with larger surpluses as 
China claims?  
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77011: Question by Canada - Ma rket price support: Eligible production 
Canada notices a significant increase in eligib le production for rice in 2009 and a zero 
amount in eligible production in 2010. Co uld China please explain these significant 
changes? In 2010, would the zero amount in e ligible production indicate that no rice 
was procured through the Mini mum Procurement Price Scheme? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77056: Question by the European  Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
Could China explain why the eligible producti on for rice in 2010 in Supporting Table DS:5 
is indicated at 0? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77025: Question by Japan - Ma rket price support: Eligible production 
The Agreement on Agriculture defines eligible production as "the quantity of production 
eligible to receive the app lied administered price". Therefore, unless the amount 
of procurement is determined in advance, to tal production is regarded as "eligible to 
receive the applied administered price". Coul d China explain why the notification does 
not adopt total production as the eligible pr oduction in the calcul ation of market price 
support for rice and wheat? 
Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 31 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77077: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production 
With regards to the notified market price support programme for wheat and rice in 
Supporting Table DS:5, the United States already understands that according to China 
"only the grains sold to the state at the mi nimum purchasing price are entitled to the 
applied administered price" as noted in AG -IMS ID 65049. Howe ver, the methodology 
for market price support in para graph 8, Annex 3, is clear that  the quantity of production 
eligible to receive the applied administered pr ice must be used. Eligible production is not 
the same as what was actually purchased,  unless a predetermined limit was announced 
in conjunction to the support price. 
a. Please cite documentation that establishe s the level of production eligible to 
receive the applied administered price. 
b. If pre-determined targets are not set by the government, please indicate 
whether there are any statutory limits on  the quantities of product that are 
eligible to receive the applied administered price. 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77008: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notes that payments to rapeseed producers relative to rapeseed value 
of production has increased significantly since China's previous domestic support 
notification for years 2005 to 2008 (G/AG/N/CHN/21). Could China elaborate on the 
reasons for this increase?  
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77009: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notes that payments to pig producers dropped considerably from 
CNY 630 million in 2009 to CNY 213 million in  2010. Could China elaborate on this 
change in support to pig producers? 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77010: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
China indicated in a response to a previous question (AG-IMS ID 64056) from Canada 
that China increased the subsidy to breeding productive sows to Y 100 per animal. Could China indicate if there has been any change in the subsidy rate to breeding 
productive sows, and if so what is the new subsidy rate? 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77057: Question by the European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Can China explain in detail the reason for the sizeable variations for cotton between the 
years 2009 and 2010 in Supporting Table DS:7. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77079: Question by the United St ates of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
As has been previously noted by multiple Me mbers, China's inclusio n of negative market 
price support in the summation of product- specific AMS in Supporting Table DS:7 is 
a serious concern and should be reported as a zero for purposes of summation. 
The United States would note that the in tent of negative support in the AMS is 
to account for "specific agricultural levies or  fees paid by producers" per Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
a. Please state the intended obje ctive of China's price support 
programmes. Please clarify how these ob jectives are in line with providing 
a negative level of support as purp orted by China in its notification. 
b. China has previously indicated that it refers to the "rules of the 
WTO Secretariat" as a basis for notifying in this way. Please provide the 
relevant Secretariat documentation an d specific rules that China believes 
permits this. 
The United States appreciates the transparency  provided by China in noting the various 
programmes notified in Supporting Table DS:7 . The United States suggests China notify 
these programmes on a disaggregated basis. 
c. Please provide a breakdown of the produc t-specific programmes notified in the 
footnotes with their respec tive outlays by commodity. 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77013: Question by Canada - Non-product-specific AMS 
Canada notes that outlays on input subsid ies (Supporting Table DS:9), which rose 
dramatically in 2007, continued to increa se by 10% in 2008 and then by 10% again 
in 2010, reaching more than Y 95 billion or  about USD 14 billion. This single large 
amount prompts Canada to repeat the unanswered question from the 65
th Committee on 
Agriculture meeting (AG-IMS 65051) about the steps China is taking to be able to 
provide the information disaggregated by agri cultural machines, fertilizers, agricultural 
diesel oil, and feeds. 
Answer by China China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77058: Question by the Euro pean Union - Non-product-specific AMS 
a. Input subsidies: Can China elaborate on the functioning of the system aid for 
mechanisation which is given to the dist ributors of agricultural machinery for 
certain types of material which has to be  produced for at least half in China? 
How can non-China based producer participate is this scheme? 
b. Is the aid given as tax rebates (for instan ce in the horticultural sector) included 
in this table? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer by China 
China undertook to provide a response at a later stage. Follow-up : Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States of America noted their 
interest in the responses to the questions posed, and stated that they looked forward to having 
them in written form.  
2.3.4  Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/48/Rev.1) AG-IMS ID 77082: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76052, Costa Rica  indicates that it has set of goal of 
increasing rice production growth by 40% by 2018. 
a. Is this an indication that Costa Rica will continue to regulate prices for 
producers through at least 2018 in order to incentivize producers to increase 
production, in addition the actions out lined in the National Development Plan 
2015-2018? 
b. When will the National Development Plan  2015-2018 be implemen ted? If it has 
already been implemented: 
i. please specify the specific programme s that have been implemented to 
achieve the 40% increase in rice production. 
ii. when can WTO Members expect to rece ive notifications for any programmes 
exempt from reduction commitments (e.g . when will a DS:2 notification be 
provided)? 
Answer by Costa Rica 
The objective of enhancing the competitiveness of sensitive products, established in the National 
Development Plan 2015-2018, will not be pursued in the case of rice through the minimum 
producer price-setting scheme, which, as previously mentioned, was replaced by a reference price 
mechanism that will enable producers and processors to negotiate a transaction price in accordance with the grade and place of delivery of  the product. With regard to the implementation 
of the National Development Plan 2015-2018 for the agricultural and rural development sector, 
the respective action plans are still being develo ped. Their implementation is expected to be 
funded from the budget for the Ministry of Agri culture and Livestock (MAG) agricultural extension 
programmes and the National Institute for Agricultural Innovation and Technology Transfer (INTA) 
research programmes, which have already been no tified to the Committee on Agriculture in Costa 
Rica's regular agricultural domestic support notifications. For reference purposes, the document setting out agriculture and livestock sector policies is available for consultation in Spanish at 
http://www.infoagro.go.cr . 
AG-IMS ID 77081: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
The United States appreciates Costa Rica's revised submissi on of its notification on 
domestic support commitments for 2013. The description for the programme for the development of agricultural pr oduction, involving irrigation and drainage works, listed 
under infrastructural services on page 5,  indicates that this programme provides 
support for the operation and maintenance of hy dro-agricultural facilities. In a previous 
response to the United States concerning th is programme, Costa Ri ca indicated that the 
rates under this programme cover four ty pes of fees, including an operating and 
maintenance fee and an investment fee. It is unclear if the be neficiaries of this 
programme cover the full the cost of these f ees or if the programme covers some or all 
of these fees. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 34 - 
 
  Please clarify the nature of support provided under this programme with respect to the 
operation and maintenance of hy dro-agricultural facilities. 
Answer by Costa Rica With regard to the programme for the development of agricultural production, involving irrigation 
and drainage works, implemented by the National  Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service 
(SENARA), Costa Rica wishes to clarify that the fees – duly approved by the Public Services 
Regulatory Authority (ARESEP) – are entirely cove red by programme participants. The objective of 
enhancing the competitiveness of sensitive products, established in the National Development Plan 
2015-2018, will not be pursued in the case of rice through the minimum producer price-setting 
scheme, which, as previously mentioned, was replaced by a reference price mechanism that will enable producers and processors to negotiate a transaction price in accordance with the grade and 
place of delivery of the product. With regard to  the implementation of the National Development 
Plan 2015-2018 for the agricultural and rural development sector, the respective action plans are still being developed. Their implementation is ex pected to be funded from the budget for the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) agricultural extension programmes and the National 
Institute for Agricultural Innovation and Technology Transfer (INTA) research programmes, which have already been notified to the Committee on Ag riculture in Costa Rica's regular agricultural 
domestic support notifications. For reference pu rposes, the document setting out agriculture and 
livestock sector policies is available for consultation in Spanish at http://www.infoagro.go.cr . 
2.3.5  European Union (G/AG/N/EU/20) 
AG-IMS ID 77104: Question by India - Tran sparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In the Supporting Tables Relating to Commitments on Agricultural Products in Part IV 
of the Schedules (G/AG/AGST/EEC) the External Reference Price for many products - common wheat, durum wheat, barley, maize, oats, etc. - has been calculated on the 
basis of f.o.b./c.i.f. "reduced by handling costs plus commercial margin". In respect 
of these agricultural products could th e European Union provide details of the 
f.o.b./c.i.f. price, handling costs and comm ercial margin? Could the European Union 
explain how the method of determining ERP fo r these products is in conformity with 
paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer by the European Union The external reference prices indicated in European Union's AGST Tables (G/AG/AGST/EEC) are 
the fixed external reference prices in the sense of paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The source of data for each external reference price is included in AGST Tables in the column 'Comments' of the market price support data. The sources of that data as indicated in 
the Annex to Supporting Table 6 are: "OECD, as used for PSE calculations or International Dairy 
Arrangement". 
AG-IMS ID 77105: Question by India - Di rect payments: decoupled income support 
a. In its Domestic Support Notification G/AG/N/EU/20, the European Union has 
categorized support under the Single Payment Scheme as Decoupled Income Support. Could the European Union clearl y specify the defined and fixed base 
period for determining eligibility for such payments? 
b. Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No . 73/2009 specifies that support under 
the Single Payment Scheme shall be available to farmers if they hold 
entitlements which they obtained in accordance with Regulation 
(EC) No. 1782/2003. Article 33 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 
specifies 3 separate criteria for farmers to have eligibility to Single Payment 
Scheme. One of the criteria specified is  that "they have received a payment 
entitlement from the national reserve or by transfer". Article 42.3 of the 
Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 gives fl exibility to Member States to use 
national reserve to grant "reference amount to farmers who commence their 
agriculture activity after 31 December  2002". How does the European Union G/AG/W/145 
 
- 35 - 
 
  justify such payment under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as the 
eligibility criteria for receiving paym ent appears to be  dependent upon 
agriculture activity after the de fined and fixed base period?  
c. Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009 specifies that in respect 
of "deferred integration" the parcels shall not be eligible if used for production 
of fruits and vegetables, ware potato es and nurseries. It appears that the 
Single Payment Scheme is related to th e type of production undertaken by the 
producer in a year after the base period . It may not meet the criteria of being 
classified as Decoupled Income Support  under paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In the light of this, could the European Union provide reasons why the Single Payment Sc heme should be classified under the 
Green Box? 
Answer by the European Union 
a. The European Union refers India to EU's Tabl e DS:2 notification on the 2003 CAP reform, 
which introduced the Single Payment Scheme - see G/AG/N/EEC/58. 
b. Article 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 does not require farmers to 
produce in order to receive a payment under the Single Payment Scheme. 
The Single Payment Scheme complies with the criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
c. Where a Member State decided to make use of the option provided for in the second 
subparagraph of Article 51 of Regulation (E C) No. 1782/2003 (referred to as 'deferred 
integration'), the parcels in the regions concerned by the decision were not eligible 
if used for: the production of fruit and vegetables; the production of ware potatoes; or nurseries. This provision was aimed at ensuring that no double payments would take 
place. The provision could be applied until 31 December 2010, as specified in Article 38 
of Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009.  
The European Union's Table DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/69 explains the fruit and 
vegetables reform and the subsequent integrat ion of the fruit and vegetables sector into 
the Single Payment Scheme. In line with information in that notification the reform was progressively introduced across products and member States, and by the 2014 budget year at the latest the budgetary provision was to be fully integrated in the ceiling of the 
Single Payment Scheme. No production is required in order to receive this payment. 
The Single Payment Scheme complies with the criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
2.3.6  India (G/AG/N/IND/10, G/AG/N/IND/10/Corr.1) 
AG-IMS ID 77107: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Australia wishes to repeat its questions p osed at the Committee on Agriculture meeting 
in March 2015: 
a. AG-IMS ID 76018 
Australia thanks India for its answers to the questions raised by Australia at 
the 75
th Committee of Agriculture, in relation to India's notification 
(G/AG/IND/10). Australia acknowledges Indi a's answer to Australia's question 
(AG-IMS ID 75017) on the use of Un ited States Dollars (USD) instead 
of Indian Rupees (INR) in India's recent notifications. Australia notes, 
however, that India's AGST requires that INR be used, and indeed INR was 
used by India prior to its last notification. 
i. Can India explain why it is no longer using INR in its notifications, and why 
it considers it more important "to pr ovide comparable estimates" than to 
follow India's AGST? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 36 - 
 
  ii. Can India also explain why it considers USD as being more reflective of the 
real impact of Indian domestic support  when domestic support is actually 
delivered in INR and not USD? 
b. AG-IMS ID 76019 
With respect to the question from Au stralia (AG-IMS ID 75021) on input 
subsidies, India states that "about 99% of farm holdings have less than ten hectares of land which is not consider ed to be adequate to generate enough 
income to maintain a minimum standard  of living". India states that the 
situation has deteriorated further ov er the period 2001-2002 to 2010-2011. 
This is despite the fact that Indian input subsidies to these farms have increased by almost 300% in the notifi cation period and that market price 
support has also been available for a range of agricultural commodities. 
i. Can India explain why concessional fa rm inputs and market price support 
have not made any significant change to the economic circumstances of the 
recipient farmers?  
ii. Can India also explain why rice prod uction and wheat production have 
accelerated significantly in the period  under notification, along with the 
value of agricultural output, yet acco rding to India's response, the number 
of farmers deemed to be living with out a sufficient income has increased 
over the same period? 
c. Does India consider these input subsidies and market price support 
programmes to have been effective desp ite almost all Indian farmers having 
insufficient income even in times of acce lerated production in staples such as 
rice and wheat? 
Could India please provide answers in writin g to the questions that Australia asked at 
the last Committee on Agriculture meeting as  Australia still has not received answers 
in writing?  
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77083: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States notes that India's exte rnal reference price for wheat in 1986/87, 
1987/88, and 1988/89 in G/AG/AGST/IND is INR 3,540 per metric tonne for each year. India's AGST document states these pric es are the c.i.f. average unit price for 
RITC No. 0413002 (1986-87) and HS No. 1001.9002 (1987-88 and 1988-89) derived 
from Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade in  India. In G/AG/N/IND/10, India converted 
this to USD 264 per metric tonne. This price a ppears to be quite high compared to other 
WTO Members who scheduled fixed external re ference prices (FERP) for wheat in their 
AGST documents. For example, the EU FERP is approximately USD 97 per metric tonne, 
the Turkish FERP is approximately USD 98.50  per metric tonne, and the Japanese FERP 
is approximately USD 160 per metric tonne when each is converted to US dollars. 
Further, various measures of world prices also show the world price of wheat to be 
much lower than that notified by India. For example, the US No. 2 Gulf soft red winter is USD 126 per metric tonne and the US Gulf hard red winter was USD 135 per metric 
tonne. This would appear to indicate that fo r India's FERP, on a c.i.f. basis, to make 
sense shipping costs per tonne would have alm ost equalled the price of the wheat itself. 
For further comparison, even during the 2006-2008 period, the Russian Federation only 
scheduled a FERP of USD 211 per metric tonne. 
a. Please provide the source data for establishing India's FERP. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 37 - 
 
  b. Please provide an explanation for the va riance between India's FERP and other 
relevant prices discussed above. 
c. Please confirm that the external refere nce price was indeed the same for each 
year at INR 3,540 per metric tonne. 
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77110: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76018 and othe r responses to various Members questions, 
India has repeatedly stated the basis for notifying in US dollars is to provide 
a comparable estimate since 1995. However, this is not comparable to the commitments 
India undertook in its AGST document. Further, in response to AG-IMS ID 76066, the 
United States of America notes that upon  the request for India's notification in 
Indian rupees that India states "support ha s already been notified and the conversion 
rates from INR to USD have already been provided". 
At India's suggestion, the United States of America has used the information provided in 
India's notification to calculate the level of support India notifies in Indian rupees for 
comparison. The United States of America notes India's Market Price Support, using 
India's current methodology for calculatin g support at Rs.362.5 million for wheat and 
Rs. 335.7 million for rice. 
Please confirm whether the US  calculations are correct.  
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. AG-IMS ID 77111: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76067, India responded that State governments do not 
provide any funding for the support of agricult ure and that all funds are provided by the 
Central government. State governments expe nd Central government funds "per the 
modalities defined by the Government of India". 
Please explain what these modalitie s are and how they are implemented.  
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77112: Question by the United St ates of America - Public stockholding for 
food security purposes 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part b) and c) , India provided data on the quantities of 
wheat exported through competitive global te nders. This data varies from the data 
noted by the United States on the Food Corporation of India website.  
a. Please provide the source of the data pr ovided by India and what accounts for 
the discrepancy between the two sources. 
b. Please provide the weighted averages on an annual basis. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 38 - 
 
  c. In response to AG-IMS ID 76068 part  e-g), the United States appreciates 
India's commitment to the WTO and notifying in a manner it considers consistent with the WTO. However, the United States repeats the questions in 
hopes of understanding how India notifies: 
d. Please confirm the US estimates of stat e bonuses and provide total state level 
funding expenditures for the notified period, including, but not limited to, 
state-bonuses per part e) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
e. Please confirm whether the state bonus or  other state-level funding is included 
in the notification by India under pub lic stockholding for food security per 
part d) of question AG-IMS ID 75048. 
f. Please explain any other expenditure notified under this sub-heading and 
include relevant values for the notified period. 
Answer by India India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77113: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids 
The United States thanks India for providing a copy of the legislation in response to 
AG-IMS ID 76070. However, the United States re-asks the unanswered question: 
a. The United States of America would a ppreciate a better understanding of the 
basis for implementing this debt program as described.  
b. Other than landholding size, what factors contributed to India's assessment 
that two hectares was an appropriat e basis for determining which farmers 
received debt waivers versus debt relief. 
In response to AG-IMS ID 76070, India states there is no pooling of landholdings 
by India farmers. However, pe r the link provided by India 
https://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_Ci rcularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4190  the law states the 
following: "In the case of borrowing by more than one farmer by pooling their 
landholdings, the size of the largest landholding in the pool shall be the basis for the 
purpose of classification of all farmers in th at pool as 'marginal farmer' or 'small farmer' 
or 'other farmer'." 
c. Please explain. 
d. The United States repeats the previous qu estion noting the pooling described in 
the legislation provided by India: Ca n India provide relevant data on the 
pooling of landholdings by Indian farm ers? For example, the percentage of 
landholdings that are pooled; the average size of the combined pooled 
landholdings; the number of farmers involv ed in a single landholding "pool" on 
average, etc. 
e. In response to AG-IMS ID 75052, Indi a stated it would be providing the 
appropriate Table DS:2 notification in du e course. The notification has still not 
been provided despite being a progra m introduced a number of years ago. 
f. When will India submit this overdue notification? 
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 39 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77114: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India notes in part c) that Government is purchasing 
at MSP only the surplus produce which the farmer wants to sell. Based on India's 
response, it is in fact the US understanding th at it is the choice of farmers not to sell to 
the Government at the MSP and that there is no limitation on the quantity of products, 
including rice or wheat that the Government is willing to purchase from Indian farmers. 
a. Please confirm this is correct. 
b. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, India did not directly answer the question. 
The United States of America would like to confirm that India's decision to 
abandon its notification methodology reflected in the AGST document and 
India's first notification for 1995/1996 is  because of the reason provided and 
not due to any policy change between 1995/1996 and 1996/1997. 
c. Please confirm. 
d. The United States of America also notes that India, in response to various 
questions asked by Members, has based its choice of notifying in US dollars on 
the fact that it did so in its first notifi cation for comparable levels of support. 
If no domestic change in policy occurred, as India was asked to confirm, this 
logic seems to be inconsistent within India's notification.  
e. Please provide the level of total prod uction for all years since 1995/96 for 
commodities notified under Supporting Table DS:5 so that Members may have a basis of comparing current level of su pport with that notified in India's 
commitments and its first notification, with respect to eligible production. 
f. In response to AG-IMS ID 75062 part d) and e), India states its notification is 
compliant with WTO rules. The United St ates of America notes that India has 
notified that all rice and wheat farmer s in India received the same applied 
administered price. However, the United  States of America notes that this 
appears to be inaccurate, and according to official state agencies and media 
reports state bonuses in addition to the applied administered price were 
provided in a number of states. For example, the state of Madya Pradesh 
procured 3.538 million metric tonnes of wheat in 2010/11. Wheat procured in 
Madya Predesh was not purchased at the a pplied administered price notified by 
India, but rather at rate of Rs. 100 per me tric quintal higher than the notified 
administered price. In total, trillions of  rupees are expended each year paying 
state bonuses for the procuremen t of wheat and rice alone. 
g. Please update Supporting Table DS:5 to reflect the actual applied administered 
prices. 
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77084: Question by the United States of America - Market price support: 
Eligible production  
In response to AG-IMS ID 75062, the United States understands that India only notified 
the procured quantity of production as the "eligible production" for purposes of 
Supporting Table DS:5 because "India procur es the marketable surplus which farmers 
want to sell keeping aside their own consumption requirements and seed requirements 
for the next crop year." The United States appreciates this response regarding what the 
amount actually procured is. However, the question remains: "what is the reasoning 
behind India's decision to adopt a new und erstanding of eligible production and 
abandon its previous position of notifying all price supports as reflected in its AGST 
document". G/AG/W/145 
 
- 40 - 
 
  a. Please explain. 
b. Further, please explain wh ether there has been any policy change in how the 
administered price is operated during the period under review in India's most recent notification as compared to during the period covered by 
G/AG/AGST/IND. In particular, India no tes in its AGST document that the 
"administered price shown in column 3 pertain to the following marketing 
years in which production shown under co lumn 5 becomes eligible for the said 
administer price." In other words, India claimed, and as such made 
commitments under the WTO, that its admi nistered prices were eligible to be 
received by all production. 
Answer by India 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
2.3.7  Jordan (G/AG/N/JOR/17) AG-IMS ID 77085: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
The United States notes that Jordan provides  market price support for wheat and barley, 
and it appears that Jordan has notified the actual quantities of wheat and barley procured at the administered price. 
Please provide additional details regardin g the operation of Jordan's market price 
support programme, including whether there ar e any legislative or regulatory limits on 
the quantity of each product that may be purchased by the government at the administered price. 
Answer by Jordan 
Jordan's market price support is highly affect ed by world market prices. The external fixed 
reference price depends on the interval period (97-99), therefore a huge gap exists between actual 
world market price and external fixed price. The subsidy element is grossly overstated by 
comparing present day administered prices with fixed reference price period which is unrealistic. 
The quantity purchased by government must meet  special standard and requirements, such as 
purity and injury percentage. Not all the quan tity produced is purchased by government. 
AG-IMS ID 77014: Question by Canada  - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
Canada notes that the support provided to  "government feed sales" for livestock 
increased significantly from JD 26,652,598  in 2011 to JD 38,832,064 in 2012. 
Could Jordan elaborate if this large increase wa s due to increased feed costs or is it also 
related to increased number of livestock? 
Answer by Jordan 
The increase in support provided to government fe ed sales for livestock in 2012 is related to feed 
cost and the increase in livestock numbers. 
AG-IMS ID 77086: Question by the United St ates of America - Other product-specific 
AMS/EMS 
The United States notes that Jordan notifi es subsidized feed sales for livestock. 
Please provide details on how this programm e is implemented, including what types of 
feed are sold and if there are any limitations on the types of livestock eligible to receive 
the subsidized feed. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 41 - 
 
  Answer by Jordan 
The government purchased only feed barley an d bran from farmer. Administrated prices are 
influenced by world market prices. There is no limitation on the type of livestock eligible to receive the subsidized feed. 
2.3.8  New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/88) 
AG-IMS ID 77034: Question by Aust ralia - General services: research 
New Zealand has reported (G/AG/N/NZL/88)  expenditure for a Sustainable Farming 
Fund (under General Services) in its DS:1 . The Sustainable Farming Fund provides 
funding to "communities of interest". 
a. How is a "community of interest" determ ined and what criteria are used to 
determine the allocation of funds to  such "communities of interest"? 
b. Is on-farm infrastructure or on-far m pasture improvement part of this 
programme? 
c. Exactly what sort of programme expendit ure is involved for "communities of 
interest"? 
Answer by New Zealand 
a. The immediate "Community of Interest" is a gr oup of stakeholders who come together to 
tackle a shared problem or develop a new opportunity. The group generally includes 
a range of expertise and interest groups but must be led by farmers, growers and/or foresters. The Sustainable Farming Fund applications are assessed against the following criteria: contribution to sustainability, significance of problem or opportunity, community 
of interest commitment, ability to deliver, ad option and extension, value for money, and 
innovation. 
b. Individual projects must not benefit an individual or single business or include capital 
expenditure. Projects that are eligible include applied research projects, field trials, 
demonstration sites; technology transfer and extension projects. Pasture improvement may be funded if it is part of a field trial or demonstration site. 
c. Programme expenditure covered by the fund can range from NZ$15,000 to NZ$600,000 
per project. The Sustainable Farming Fund has a minimum requirement of 20% co-funding by the Community of Interest. Many projects are co-supported to over 50% of the project's value. Programme expenditure can include: 
• Applied research  
• Communication plans  
• Data collection and analysis  
• Database updates/establishment  
• Demonstration days and field days  
• Field Trial Establishment  
• Financial management  
• Leasing fees  
• Literature reviews  
• Pilot programmes  
• Project management and planning  
• Scientific experiment  
• Surveys  
• Tech Transfer  
• Website development  
• Workshops G/AG/W/145 
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.3.9  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/78) 
AG-IMS ID 77059: Question by the European Union - Market price support Norway notifies a sharp decrease in mark et price support for sheep meat in 2013 
compared to previous years. Could Norway please provide more detailed information on 
the reason for this decrease and wh ether a policy shift influenced this? 
Answer by Norway Norway confirms that the decrease in MPS for sheep meat in 2013 compared to the preceding 
years is due to reform. 
In spring 2013 the Parliament decided unanimously to eliminate the administered target price for 
sheep meat as of 1 July 2013. As a consequence market prices for sheep meat are no longer supported by a target price. Measures such as ex port subsidies and storage of surplus sheep meat 
have been discontinued. 
As a consequence of the reform MPS is calculated only for the first half of 2013, while non-exempt 
budgetary payments are reported for the second half of 2013. 
Norway also confirms that the egg sector was subject to reform from the same date, which 
explains the decrease in MPS for eggs in 2013. 
2.3.10  Oman (G/AG/N/OMN/7, G/AG/N/OMN/13) 
AG-IMS ID 77090: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
In November 2012 (AG-IMS ID 68029) and September 2012 (AG-IMS ID 67038) the 
United States asked a question regarding Oman's notification G/AG/N/OMN/7 and the 
notification of new programmes. Oman stat ed it would respond at a later stage. 
The United States resubmits its question:  
The United States asked questions in  2009 regarding Oman's notification 
G/AG/N/OMN/7. The United States notes that  a number of those programmes appear in 
the most recent notification (G/AG/N/OMN/11). In 2009, Oman provided helpful responses to the US questions and indicated a Table DS:2 notification regarding those 
programmes would be submitted. Please confirm if Oman submitted a Table DS:2 
notification. If not, when will Oman be making its notification?  
Answer by Oman Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77087: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, Oman has notified "D evelopment of natural pastures" under 
General service – infrastructu re in Supporting Table DS:1. 
a. Can Oman provide further details on th e programme to develop and maintain 
natural pastures on government land?  
b. Are the natural pastures used for animal grazing? If so, do individual producers 
benefit from the improvements made to the pasture land? 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, Oman has notified "E stablishment of fodder production company 
in Najd" and "Establishment and developm ent of agricultural and veterinarian G/AG/W/145 
 
- 43 - 
 
  quarantine" as exempt measures under Suppor ting Table DS:1. It is noted that these 
establishment costs have co ntinued for several years. 
c. Please provide more details on the rea son for these continuing payments and 
whether they extend beyond the init ial establishment of the designated 
facilities (e.g. are payments made to defer costs, such as maintenance of 
facilities, etc. that would otherwise be passed on to customers in the form of higher prices). 
d. Previously in G/AG/N/OMN/12, Oman no ted that the "Establishment of fodder 
production company in Najd" was support for a consultancy study. Is this still the purpose of these payments? What type  of entities are the beneficiaries of 
these payments? 
Answer by Oman 
The establishment of the fodder production compan y in the "Najd" project is concerned with the 
consultation study carried out by the government within the framework of the infrastructure 
requirements in the farm, which includes security fencing and electricity-powered distribution, 
internal roads, and the irrigation system needed  for the establishment of the farm for the joint 
stock company and with the shareholders. More clarification of that will be submitted in written 
form within two weeks. 
AG-IMS ID 77088: Question by the United St ates of America - Article 18.6 (Development 
Programmes): Other 
In G/AG/N/OMN/13, budgetary expenditures  under "National project for date palm 
development" increased substantially in 2013. Please describe how this programme 
operates and the reason for the large change in expenditures in the most recent notification. 
Answer by Oman 
Oman undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 2.3.11  Pakistan (G/AG/N/PAK/16) 
AG-IMS ID 77038: Question by Australia - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Can Pakistan please explain why its notifi cation (G/AG/N/PAK/16) uses US Dollars 
instead of the local currency, Pakistan rupe es, as currency in Pakistan's DS:1 and 
Supporting Tables for the marketing years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012? 
Answer by Pakistan 
It is consistent with past notifications. AG-IMS ID 77015: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
Pakistan's underlying AGST document G/ AG/AGST/PAK uses Rs (Rupees) as its 
currency but its most recent and historical notifications are provided in US dollars. 
This practice deviates from the requ irement in Article 1(h)(ii) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture to calculate the leve l of support actually provided during any 
year "with the constituent data and method ology used in the tables of supporting 
material incorporated by reference in Part IV" of Pakistan's Schedule, i.e. 
G/AG/AGST/PAK. Could Pakistan please ex plain why its notifications do not use 
Pakistani rupees as per its constituent data and methodology? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Answer by Pakistan 
It is consistent with past notifications. AG-IMS ID 77020: Question by Canada - Tr ansparency issues (including Table DS:2) 
In the interest of increasing transparency, it would be help ful if Pakistan could include 
the value of production for each product for which support is provided as this data is 
already included as a footnote in Supporting Table DS:5. In addition, it would be useful 
to include the total agriculture value of prod uction in Supporting Table DS:4 in future 
domestic support notifications. 
Answer by Pakistan Wheat is the only product that is procured from poor farmers through a targeted program as part 
of food security policy. There is no other crop th at is part of the procurement program. We have 
taken note of Canada's advice regarding VoP. 
AG-IMS ID 77064: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
Can Pakistan explain the exchange rate used to calculate the annual total value 
of production (in the footnote to Supporting Table DS:9). Is this the same as in Column 3 of Supporting Table DS:5? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Yes, the exchange rate used to calculate the tota l value of agriculture production (in footnote to 
Supporting Table DS:9) and to calculate procurement price in US$/tonne in Column 3 & 4 of Supporting Table DS:5 (mentioned in Column 4 to the footnote of Supporting Table DS:5) is the 
same. 
AG-IMS ID 77094: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
The United States appreciates Pakistan's  efforts to bring its domestic support 
notifications up to date and encourages Pakistan to continue to notify in a timely manner going forward. 
The United States notes that Pakistan notifies  in US dollars despite the constituent data 
and methodology provisions of Article 1(a )(ii), which require Pakistan to calculate 
Current Total AMS in rupees. 
a. On what basis has Pakistan decided to no tify in a currency other than that it 
made commitments in? 
b. Please provide a revised DS:1 notifi cation in the same currency as its 
commitments were made. 
Answer by Pakistan 
This practice is consistent with past notifications and with reporting practices to other international 
organisations. The exchange rates of each ye ar fluctuate and indicate appreciation and 
depreciation determined by market reality. The US dollar is a more stable currency therefore it is 
used for reporting. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 45 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77016: Question by Canada - General services: research  
Canada notes a substantive increase under "G eneral services on research" from 2006-07 
to 2007-08 which went from USD 8.6 millio n to USD 154.97 million. Could Pakistan 
please provide details on this significant incr ease? Is this the result of a new initiative? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Pakistan as an NFIDC encourages expenditure on research to increase productivity and disease 
control. The nature of these programmes remains the same.  
AG-IMS ID 77017: Question by Canada - Ge neral services: infrastructural services 
There seems to be a new addition under infrastructure services starting in 2007-08 
entitled "Electricity Reticulation" which av eraged USD 18.24 million in the 2007-08 to 
2011-12 period. 
a. Could Pakistan provide details on this ne w measure, specifical ly, how does this 
initiative benefit the agriculture sector?  
b. When does Pakistan intend to submit a DS:2 notification for this programme? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Electricity reticulation includes expenditure made either on repair or replacement of public 
transformers and other equipment due to natural calamities.  
AG-IMS ID 77091: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
infrastructural services 
"Irrigation system rehabilitation" expenditures notified varied significantly from year to 
year in Pakistan's most recent notification. 
a. Please explain the reason for the large changes from year to year. 
"Electricity reticulation" appears to be  a newly notified measure by Pakistan. 
b. Does Pakistan plan on submitting a DS :2 notification for this programme? 
Answer by Pakistan 
The irrigation system is maintained by the provincial governments. At the federal level all data is 
reconciled and tabulated in the notification format. Provincial governments set their priority and 
needs according to their requirements. Some of the rehabilitation programs are intended to 
address the damage caused by the unprecedented floods. 
AG-IMS ID 77018: Question by Canada - Domestic food aid Canada noticed that significant amounts have  been reported under Government Storage 
and Food Aid from 2007-08 to 2011-12 (avera ge spending of USD 93.9 million) where 
no amounts were reported in the previous 5 years. Also, under the name and description 
of the measure, the programme now claims to satisfy the policy specific criteria 
of Annex 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. 
a. Could Pakistan advise if this is a new programme? If so, how long will this 
programme be in place?  
b. Could Pakistan provide details on this measure including how it meets the 
policy specific criteria of both paragraphs 3 and 4 under Annex 2? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 46 - 
 
  c. Does Pakistan intend to submit a DS :2 notification for this measure?  
Answer by Pakistan Pakistan takes this opportunity to clarify that storage expenditure is related to procurement under 
paragraph 3. Domestic food aid expenditure is under paragraph 4. The objective of the programme 
is to provide food to the most vulnerable and malnourished as well as the low income families of 
food deficit areas. These programmes were started du e to high food prices and increasing poverty. 
AG-IMS ID 77019: Question by Canada - Market price support 
Over the reporting period Canada notices that the product-specific AMS support for 
wheat has been creeping closer to the 10% de minimis  threshold, starting at 4.8% of 
wheat value of production in 2007-2008 to 9.2% of wheat value of production in 2011-2012. Canada understands from Pakistan's  recent Trade Policy Review that many 
responsibilities in agricultural policy ma king have shifted to the provinces. 
Could Pakistan elaborate as to what mechanis ms are in place to ensure that Pakistan's 
future spending remain within its WTO commitments? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Pakistan takes its WTO commitments very seriously. Data is collected at the federal level and 
notified through Pakistan's Mission to the WTO.  Wheat is procured from poor farmers through 
a targeted procurement program after verification of land record as part of poverty alleviation 
program. 
AG-IMS ID 77021: Question by Canada - Market price support In Supporting Table DS:5, Canada notes that  the applied administered price for wheat 
has increased starting in 2007-08 from its historical amounts. Co uld Pakistan please 
explain this increase? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Price increases reflect market reality and high production costs. 
AG-IMS ID 77093: Question by the United States of America - Market price support 
The United States thanks Pakistan for the ad ditional transparency provided with regards 
to the footnotes provided in relation to its market price support notification. 
The United States does not agree with Paki stan's statement that "strictly speaking, 
support prices are not the administered prices". 
The United States notes that Pakistan lists seed cotton, basmati rice, coarse rice, and 
sugar cane in Supporting Table DS:5, but does not list an administered price. 
a. Please confirm whether no administer ed price was announced or if the 
administered price was not announced  because no procurement occurred. 
The United States notes that Pakistan stat es "Actual procurement by public sector 
agencies on pre-determined targets from re source poor farmers defined in article 6.2". 
b. How does Pakistan define  resource poor farmers? 
c. Does Pakistan set a pre-determined target quantity limit on the amount of 
product it will purchase at the admini stered price? If so, what were the 
announced quantities for each year covered by this notification? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 47 - 
 
  Answer by Pakistan 
a. Administered prices were not announced. These products are not removed from the 
notification as it indicates the reforms already undertaken by Pakistan. 
b. Farmers having less than ten hectors of land. 
c. Procurement price is calculated on the basis of  market price and production cost for that 
year. These are announced according to the procurement cycle to ensure good governance in the procurement process. Farmer s are free to sell in the market or to the 
government procurement agency. Procurement is always made on the basis of 
predetermined target and these are indicated in each year's notification. 
AG-IMS ID 77022: Question by Canada - Ma rket price support: Eligible production 
In Pakistan's most recent DS:1 notification , eligible production for wheat has decreased 
substantially going from 23,294.7 thousand tonnes in 2006-07 to 3,525 thousand tonnes 
in 2007-08. Could Pakistan please explain this  significant drop in eligible production? 
Answer by Pakistan 
Pakistan has a very targeted procurement policy. The farmers are selected and after verification 
of land record, bags are distributed for purchase. No other farmer is eligible to sell except those who have received the bags. The objective of the policy is to address market failures caused by 
lack of infrastructure. 
AG-IMS ID 77063: Question by the European  Union - Market price support: Eligible 
production  
a. Can Pakistan confirm that all wheat produc ed in Pakistan is eligible to be sold 
to the procurement agency duri ng the post-harvest season? 
b. Can Pakistan indicate the total produc tion of wheat produced per marketing 
year in all the years covered by this notification, i.e. 2007/08, 2008/09, 
2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. 
Answer by Pakistan 
a. All wheat produced in Pakistan is not eligible for procurement because the procurement 
policy is based on pre-determined targets. Bags are distributed for procurement to poor 
farmers after verification of land record and only those farmers who have received bags are eligible to sell. 
b. Total production is given below  
2007-2008 2008-2009  2009-2010  2010-2011  2011-2012 
20.9 MT 24.0 MT 23.3 MT 25.2 MT 23.4 MT 
 
AG-IMS ID 77092: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
Pakistan notifies "On-farm-w ater management" under paragr aph 2(c) of Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. As Pakistan has previously noted in AG-IMS ID 51012, 
the programme, in the past, was categorized under paragraph 2(c) because more than 
50% of spending is on training rather  than infrastructure related support. 
a. Is this still accurate? 
If so, the United States would suggest the two parts of the measure be separated for 
improved transparency. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 48 - 
 
  b. What percent of expenditures were dete rmined to be categorized under 2(g) 
for each year of this notification? 
c. If support is still provided for measures  categorized under 2(g), as in past 
notifications, please provide the basis for providing "on-farm-water 
management" despite the requirement that such measures "shall exclude the 
subsidized provision of on-farm facilities other than for reticulation of generally 
available public facilities". 
Answer by Pakistan 
a. That is correct. A substantial amount was spent on training. 
b. This programme "on-farm water management" has now finished and is no longer 
operational therefore it is not possible to access data now. 
c. The programme is no longer implemented. 
2.3.12  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/31, G/AG/N/PAN/36) AG-IMS ID 77095: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
Panama indicated in response to AG-IMS ID  75065 that "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 corres ponding year". The United States also notes 
that press releases ( http://www.mida.gob.pa/noticias_id_2793.html ) indicate that 
in 2014 corn producers began receiving government payments "corresponding to 
compensation incentives to production, as a commitment to increase crop and totalling 
more than $200,000. Similarly, 60 industrial  tomato producers received more than 
$136,000 …". Has Panama notified the stated  support in its notification for 2014? 
If so, please indicate where. 
Answer by Panama 
Panama did not notify the stated support in its notification for 2014 (G/A G/N/PAN/36), with the 
exception of support for industrial tomatoes, which is detailed in Supporting Tables DS:4 and DS:6 
on pages 7 and 8 of that document. 
AG-IMS ID 77096: Question by the United Stat es of America - General services: training 
services 
The United States thanks Panama for it s responses to AG-IMS ID 69076 and 72039. 
The United States notes that Panama states  no legislative change to its programme 
occurred between 2011 and 2012, but the manner in which the programme was implemented was modified resulting in both the modification of how the programme is 
notified and the level of expenditures provided under the programme. 
a. For purposes of transparency and th e intent of the Article 18.3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, the United States believes it is appropriate for 
Panama to submit a Table DS:2 notifi cation that explains these changes. 
Panama's previous response (AG-IMS ID 690 76) states that the change in budgetary 
expenditures and notification are indicative of the government intent to strengthen and 
expand the programme. 
b. The level of expenditures  were substantially reduced from 2012 to 2013 and 
then increased again in 2014. Please ex plain the cause of this fluctuation in 
budgetary expenditures from year to year. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 49 - 
 
  Answer by Panama 
a. Panama is considering the suggestion made by the United States of America. If it 
decides to accept this suggestion, it w ill submit the corresponding Table DS:2 
notification. 
b. The fluctuation (increase) in budgetary expenditure for the item "Subsistence farming 
and sustainable agriculture programmes, including crop promotion, use of accessible technology and environmental protection" is due to the inclusion in 2014 of the rural 
productivity programme. 
Subsistence farming and sustai nable agriculture programmes, 
including crop promotion, use of accessible technology and 
environmental protection 2013 2014 
Transfer of opportunities in rural areas 2,006,078.00 965,098.00 
United Families - agro-ecological orchards 450,400.00 450,376.00 
Rural productivity  3,678,635.00 
Cultivation for the development of rural indigenous communities 248,584.00 191,547.00 
Development of rural communities th rough agro-tourism 375,881.00 257,154.00 
Participatory development and rural modernization 914,880.00 609,234.00 
 3,995,823.00 6,152,044.00 
 
Follow-up: 
 AG-IMS ID 77039: Question by Australia - In vestment subsidies generally available to 
agriculture 
Panama has notified investment subsidie s generally available to agriculture in 
Supporting Table DS:2  (G/AG/N/PAN/36). 
a. Can Panama explain how the system of subsidies and loans under the 
Agricultural credit and loan progra mme works in practice and how the 
investment subsidies are calculated?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria  for these investment loans? 
c. Can Panama also explain the system by which the government provides funds 
to the banking system for concessional loans to agriculture and how the banks use these funds? 
Answer by Panama 
a. The agriculture and livestock sector support programme was set up pursuant to 
Law No. 4 of 17 May 1994 "establishing the preferential interest rate scheme for the 
agriculture and livestock sector and adopting other measures", regulated by Executive 
Decree No. 29 of 8 August 1996. The management of the scheme established under Law No. 4 of 1994 is overseen by the Special Interest Compensation Fund (FECI). 
The FECI, which is under the management of the Banking Supervisory Authority, has the 
necessary technical and administrative staff to ensure that its functions are performed 
efficiently. The implementation of Law No. 4 of 1994 is mandated to a commission made 
up of the Minister of the Economy and Financ e, the Minister of Agricultural Development 
and the Head of the Banking Supervisor y Authority or his or her designated 
representative. 
Local loans to the agriculture and livestock sector and the agro-industrial sector 
exporting non-traditional products are eligible for a discount on the interest rate agreed 
with the bank or financial lending institution. This discount is reimbursed subject to any 
withholding requirements to be met by banks and finance companies under the Law. 
The discount stands at 4.00% for loans relating to production of the following: rice; 
maize (corn); sorghum; beans; industrial tomatoes; meat (poultry, swine and bovine); G/AG/W/145 
 
- 50 - 
 
  plantains; fresh milk; coffee; pineapples; cucurbits; radishes; cabbages; spring onions; 
lettuce; celery; table tomatoes; peppers; pota toes; onions; other vegetables and tubers; 
sugar cane; melons; watermelons; pumpkins; bananas; citrus fruit; and sheep, goats 
and small livestock. Loans to the agriculture and livestock sector and the agro-industrial 
sector exporting non-traditional products for the production of goods not listed above are 
eligible for a 3.50% discount on the in terest rate agreed with the bank. 
b. In order to be eligible for such discounts, loans must fulfil the following conditions: 
1. Maximum amount per production cycle per line of business: five hundred thousand 
balboas (PAB 500,000.00), with the exception of loans to agricultural production associations. If the nature of an eligible agriculture and livestock sector activity means that it does not have a defined production cycle, the cycle is understood to be 
a calendar year. 
2. Beneficiaries: natural and legal persons with agricultural producer status. 
3. Eligible activities: Agriculture; Livestock breeding (cattle farming – raising, fattening 
and milk production - and pig, sheep and goat farming); Poultry farming; 
Fish farming; Forestry; Apiculture; Salt production; Agro-industry exporting non-traditional products; and Small-scale fishing. 
4. Objectives: Purchase of inputs (capital goods, labour, raw materials, etc.); 
Sowing and farm work; Farm improvements; Purchase of animals; and Acquisition of land intended solely for the above-mentioned activities and management of land used for such activities. 
5. Number of operations: one loan per production cycle per line of business per natural 
or legal person. 
c. Pursuant to Law No. 4 of 1994, a one percent annual (1%) surcharge on the total loan 
amount will be added to the interest rates on local personal and commercial loans 
greater than five thousand balboas (PAB 5,000.00) granted by banks and finance companies and will be withheld by the said banks and finance companies. The same 
surcharge applies to recourse factoring contracts, under which the one percent (1%) 
withheld applies to the total amount of the invoice transferred by the assignor to the financial institution. 
Twenty percent (20%) of the amount collected is remitted to the FECI to reimburse the 
banks for the interest rate discount applied to loans to the agriculture and livestock 
sector and the agro-industrial sector exporting non-traditional products. 
2.3.13  Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/21, G/AG/N/PRY/23) 
AG-IMS ID 77099: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
I n  r e s p o n s e  t o  A G - I M S  I D  7 0 0 4 9 ,  P a r a g u a y  i n f o r m e d  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  t h a t  i t  w a s  
addressing the matter of the su bmission of a DS:2 notificati on for new measures notified 
in G/AG/N/PRY/21. Paraguay still has not made  any DS:2 notifications. When can it be 
expected that Paraguay will notify its ne w programmes exempt under Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by Paraguay 
Paraguay has been improving its notification exercise. In that sense, in the notification 
G/AG/N/PRY/21, Paraguay included already existing programmes that are financed by external 
loans. Paraguay has previously notified mainly programmes financed by the national treasury. Since they are not new programmes, Paraguay understood that it was not required to submit 
a notification for new measures. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 51 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77098: Question by the United  States of America - General services: 
extension and advisory services 
In G/AG/N/PRY/23, under General Services—A gricultural extension services, Paraguay 
notifies a number of programmes. Please prov ide further details on the content of each 
of the following programmes and whether th ey are limited to providing technical 
assistance to producers: 
 "National Livestock Development Programme"; 
 "Promotion of food production through family farming"; 
 "Agricultural diversification"; 
 "Sustainable development of the western region"; 
 "Agricultural development of the eastern region – 2KR"; 
 "National Biofuels Programme"; 
 "Sustainable rural development project (PRODERS)". 
Answer by Paraguay 
 National Livestock Development Programme 
Contributes to food security and the generation of income for small and medium-sized producers 
and increases production and productivity in the farming of cattle (milk, meat, buffalo) and small livestock (pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, ra bbits) and in fish farming and apiculture. 
Provides technical assistance and training for livestock producers, and livestock products for the 
implementation of production projects. 
Legal basis: Decree No. 2385 of 3 June 2009 establishing the National Livestock Development 
Programme (PRONAFOPE). 
 Agricultural development of  the eastern region - 2KR 
Supports resource-poor family farmers in implemen ting territorially focused economic development 
projects with a view to the introduction of environmentally-friendly innovative technology suitable 
for family farming. 
Legal basis: Law No. 3953/2005 of 22 May supporting the agreement reached through 
an exchange of correspondence between the Gove rnment of the Republic of Paraguay and the 
Government of Japan relating to the establishment of the new Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 
 Sustainable rural development project (PRODERS) 
Improves quality of life for small producers and indigenous communities in a sustainable manner 
through support measures to strengthen community organization, self-management, and market 
and value chain integration. 
Legal basis: Decree No. 12292 approving the te rms and conditions of Loan Agreement 
No. 7503-PA PRODERS, and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) 
Loan Agreement No. 8316 approved by the World Bank on 8 December 2013. 
 National Biofuels Programme 
Contributes to the diversification of the energy matrix, offers cost-effective production alternatives 
for small and medium-sized producers and reduces the polluting effects of petroleum-based fuels 
and their impact and influence on the national economy. 
Legal basis: Law No. 2.748/05, "Law promoting the use of biofuels". G/AG/W/145 
 
- 52 - 
 
   National Programme in Support of Family Farming (PRONAF) 
Enhances the market competitiveness of agricult ural and forestry production with a view to 
satisfying domestic and external consumption, and promotes other forms of non-agricultural rural production that generate revenue and create employment at local level. 
Legal basis: Decree No. 1558 of 23 February 2009. 
 Agricultural diversification 
Increases income level and stability for participants in the fruit and vegetable chain by 
strengthening private marketing service centres for fruit and vegetable producers and promoting 
fruit and vegetable production that meets the requirements of the various markets. 
 Sustainable development of the western region (no information) 
AG-IMS ID 77100: Question by the United St ates of America - Input subsidies available 
to low-income or resource-poor producers 
How does Paraguay define "low-inc ome or resource-poor producers"? 
Answer by Paraguay Different types of family farming are identified based on income: 
SUBSISTENCE: Income equal to or below the extreme poverty line value for rural areas, as 
received by the average rural household dete rmined by the Permanent Household Survey. 
IN TRANSITION: Income above the extreme poverty line value for rural areas, as received by the 
average rural household determined by the Permanent Household Survey. 
CONSOLIDATED: Income above the extreme poverty line value for rural areas, as received by the 
average rural household determined by the Pe rmanent Household Survey, the estimated value 
of which is 50% higher than the average monthly in come of families in the "in transition" category. 
Definition of family farming: "Rural productive  activity using mainly family labour for farm 
production, which involves the hiring of no mo re than 20 salaried temporary workers per year, 
during specific periods of the production process, who live on the farm and/or in nearby communities, and which does not involve the use of, under any circumstances, whether through 
ownership, rental or any other arrangement, more than 50 hectares of land in the eastern region 
or 500 hectares in the western region, regardless of the production sector". 
2.3.14  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/5, G/AG/N/RUS/5/Corr.1) 
AG-IMS ID 77065: Question by the European Union - Other product-specific AMS/EMS 
a. Can the Russian Federation please explai n what kinds of meat are included in 
the product-specific AMS for "meat"? 
b. Can the Russian Federation please info rm whether the notification of each 
product specific AMS for reindeer, horse, pig, poultry, sheep and goat, refers to 
live animals or to meat of these animals? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
a. In Supporting Table DS:4 the item "meat" refl ects the level of state agriculture support 
in the production of meat and meat produc ts of cattle, sheep, goats, horse, swine, 
poultry of the agricultural home-made raw materials.  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 53 - 
 
  b. With regards to the second question we'd lik e to inform the Committee Members that in 
the above mentioned notification cattle, sheep and goats, deer, horses, swine, poultry refer to live animals. 
2.3.15  South Africa (G/AG/N/ZAF/83) 
AG-IMS ID 77106: Question by the European  Union - Transparency issues (including 
Table DS:2) 
a. It seems that some programmes under th e Department of Rural Development 
and Land Reform (DRDLR), such as the programme for restitution of land 
property as well as the programme for re distribution of land property are not 
included in this notification. The tabl e below shows the budget outlay according 
to DRDLR. Can South Africa inform on how these instruments have been 
included in the notification? 
Million ZAR  2011/2012  2012/2013  2013/2014  
Restitution  2,376.3  2,865.7  2,836.7  
Land Reform  3,317.8  3,326.5  2,863.2  
Total Rural Development and Land Reform  5,694.10  6,192.20  5,699.90  
 
b. Can South Africa indicate how the support for the R ecapitalisation and 
Development Programme  has been taken into account in this notification? 
The table below shows the budget Outlay according to Agricultural Land 
Holding Account . 
Million ZAR  2011/2012  2012/2013  2013/2014  
Budget Agricultural Land Holding Account  2,435,784  2,298,335  1,697,119  
Number of farms recapitalised  257 200 442 
Number of Hectares concerned  392,850  157,556  153,586  
 
c. Through the heading of food security and land reform South Africa is granting 
support for fertiliser, seeds and equipment through Food Security and Agrarian Reform, Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) or Fetsa Tlala (zero hunger). How have these programmes been included in this notification? 
Million ZAR  2011/2012  2012/2013  2013/2014  
Budget Food Security and Agrarian Reform  1,251.6  1,405.2  1,590.1  
 Answer by South Africa 
a. The funds under the Restitution and Land Reform Programmes are for land purchases to 
redistribute it to landless individuals who do not own it due to policies of the previous government. Some of the money is used to  compensate communities that have been 
dispossessed of their land in the past and it is now impossible for them to return to that 
land. The funds are mainly for resettlement of communities to the land and are not linked to agricultural production activities hence they have been omitted notifications. 
b. The Agricultural Land Holding Account was established in terms of the Provision of Land 
and Assistance Act, No. 126 of 1993 Section 10(1)(a), and gives legal effect to the 
proactive acquisition of land, where the Minister may, from money appropriated by Parliament for this purpose, acquire land for the purposes of this Act. Therefore 
the State will proactively target land and match this with the demand or need for land. 
These funds are not regarded as agricultural support and are not included in South Africa's domestic support notifications. 
c. CASP and Fetsa Tlala are programmes of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and 
Fisheries and have been included in South Africa's domestic support notifications under the tittle Development Aid. These programmes are in essence poverty alleviation programmes to encourage agricultural and rural development. These programmes are 
not linked to product prices or production quantities. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 54 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 77040: Question by Australia - Direct payments: payments under regional 
assistance programmes 
South Africa has notified (G /AG/N/ZAF/83) in its DS:1 re gional assistance programmes 
for development aid. How are underdevelope d and disadvantaged areas determined for 
the purpose of funding under the regional assistance programmes? 
Answer by South Africa 
Areas referred to as underdeveloped and disadvantaged are farms that are operated by farmers 
from previously disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged areas include communal farming 
areas, subsistence farming areas and areas with degraded agricultural land. Poverty, unemployment and the lack of food security are pr evalent in these areas. Only limited commercial 
production takes place in these areas and these programmes are essentially development 
programmes for food security and poverty alleviation. Support is not linked to production 
quantities or prices. 
2.3.16  United Arab Emirates (G/AG/N/ARE/7) 
AG-IMS ID 77101: Question by the United States of America - Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2) 
a. Under sub-headings "pest and diseas e control" and "extension advisory 
services" the United Arab Emirates notifi ed the values of support for each year; 
however, it is unclear from the notifi cation what the difference between the 
two values is. Please explain what each value represents. 
b. It is noted that compared to G/AG/N/ARE/5 for the years 2000 and 2001, the 
United Arab Emirates introduced in 2002 a number of new programmes that are 
considered exempt under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, 
the United Arab Emirates introduced one new programme in 2003 under 
subheading "Inspection". When does the United Arab Emirates plan on 
submitting its DS:2 notifications for these new programmes? 
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide a response at a later stage. 
AG-IMS ID 77102: Question by the United St ates of America - Input subsidies available 
to low-income or resource-poor producers 
a. It is noted that all measures notified under the criteria of Article 6.2 were 
eliminated in 2006. What was the basis for the elimination of these measures 
and did the United Arab Emirates introduc e any other measures as part of this 
reform? If so, what?  
b. How did the United Arab Emirates define low-income or resource-poor 
producers at the time these measures were operational? 
Answer by the United Arab Emirates 
The United Arab Emirates undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 55 - 
 
  2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTI C SUPPORT MEASURES (DS:2) 
2.4.1  Australia (G/AG/N/AUS/96) AG-IMS ID 77103: Question by the United Stat es of America - Classi fication of measures 
Concerning the DS:2 notification for the Grea t Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative 
Phase 3 (p. 12), Australia indicates that the measure is exempt from reduction 
commitments consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 2(g) in relation to "off-farm" infrastructure and also exempt from reduct ion commitments consistent with Annex 2, 
paragraph 12 in relation to "on-farm" infrastructure that meets paragraph 12 criteria for 
direct payments under environmental programmes. 
a. Could Australia explain how this programme meets both Annex 2, 
paragraph 2(g) and Annex 2, paragraph 12 criteria? 
b. What is the distinction between "off- farm" infrastructure and "on-farm" 
infrastructure under this programme? Ca n Australia provide specific examples 
and how this relates to the Annex 2 criteria? 
c. The United States notes that Australia  has notified this programme under 
Annex 2, paragraph 2(g) in its DS:1 no tification (G/AG/N/AUS/97) and not as 
a payment under environmental programmes (paragraph 12). So it is unclear 
why the DS:2 notification for this measure references both provisions. 
Answer by Australia The Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative provides for capping of uncontrolled bores and 
piping open bore drains to reduce system water loss and recover groundwater pressure, 
maintenance of critical infrastructure and other activities to support the sustainable management 
and use of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia's biggest aquifer. Existing infrastructure was not sufficient to prevent the uncontrolled flow and wast e of water. Capping and piping prevents this, 
improving the overall sustainable management of  water for basin communities, the environment 
and enterprises (not just agricultural). 
The objectives of the programme are environmenta l and are not designed to deliver price support 
nor productivity enhancements to agricultural producers. The intention and effect of the 
programme is not to increase the amount of water available to agricultural producers (the initiative in fact removes surface water from the environment) nor is it specifically to assist farmers. In practice, its impact is not to enhance water volume to landholders and livestock but to control 
it. The capping and piping infrastructure ensu res proper environmental flows and protection 
of water resources from the Basin. 
The initiative was previously reported in its entirety as exempt from reduction commitments 
consistent with Annex 2, paragraph 2 (g) (General  Services - infrastructural services. However, 
Australia also considers it to be exempt from reduction commitments pursuant to Annex 2, paragraph 12 (environmental programmes). It is not practical to disaggregate the total value 
of this measure to specific projects. G/AG/N/AUS/ 97 only referred to the first of these exemption 
criteria in order to avoid double counting. But in future notifications Australia will seek to draw attention to programmes exempt under more than one criteria by referencing this in footnotes. 
2.4.2  Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/80) 
AG-IMS ID 77041: Question by Australia - Pa yments based on 85 percent or less of the 
base level of production 
Norway has notified a DS:2 (G/AG/N/NO R/80) for the "Quality incentive support 
programme for beef". 
a. Can Norway inform Members whether payment under this programme has any 
conditions attached in terms of how the recipient may spend the payment? G/AG/W/145 
 
- 56 - 
 
  b. Do beef producers have to use the payment received under this scheme solely 
for the purpose of improving the quality of the beef herd to enhance beef quality specification? 
c. Alternatively, can recipients use payments received under this programme for 
any type of farm expenditure? 
Answer by Norway The programme is in accordance with the criteria  for Blue Box payments. Furthermore, the farmers 
will only receive the payments when the quality requirements are met. It is left to the discretion 
of the individual farmer to decide the type of measures that are the most effective in order to 
achieve the aim of improved quality. 
AG-IMS ID 77062: Question by the European  Union - Payments based on 85 percent or 
less of the base level of production 
Could Norway please explain how the level of payments in the new Blue Box support 
measure for beef (quality incentive suppo rt programme for beef) was determined? 
Answer by Norway 
The level of payments is based on the estimated level of support required to improve the quality 
in line with the objective for this programme. 
2.4.3  Panama (G/AG/N/PAN/33) 
AG-IMS ID 77097: Question by the United  States of America - Direct payments: 
payments for relief from natural disasters 
The United States thanks Panama for its notification G/AG/N/PAN/33 in response 
to AG-IMS ID 69075. In Panama's respon se, it noted that funds were allocated 
"to compensate for losses suffered by produc ers and others as a result of the floods" 
that occurred on 7 and 8 December 2010. Pa nama notified in the description of the 
programme that payments for this natural di saster are being paid out over seven years 
terminating in 2017. 
a. Please provide additional detail on how compensation levels were determined 
for each producer or other entity. 
b. Please explain the reasoning that comp ensation is dispersed over the seven 
years. 
Answer by Panama 
The compensation levels for each producer were determined as follows: 
Agricultural sector: The Ministry of Agricultural Development prepared the damage 
assessment report on the basis of: 
a. production costs by line of business; 
b. the report on losses by affected area and by producer; and 
c. percentage (%) losses in affected areas. 
The amount of economic support granted to producers is calculated on the basis of the 
above-mentioned three elements. Added to this economic support are amounts corresponding to 
the assessment of lost equipment, valued at 75%, and infrastructure, valued at 50%. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 57 - 
 
  Livestock sector: Cattle losses are recognized at only PAB 300.00 per unit lost (equivalent to 
the price of a calf on the local market). 
Poultry sector: 100% of costs, as established in the producer loss assessment report, are 
recognized. 
2.5  EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3) 
2.5.1  Argentina (G/AG/N/ARG/33) AG-IMS ID 77061: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
According to the report of the chairperson on the issue of reviewing the list of significant 
exporters (G/AG/W/123), Argentina has been  listed in Annex 1 among Members having 
a share exceeding 5% in total world expo rts for a number of product categories. 
The same document states in point 3.1 that "the designated significant exporters would 
include in annual Table ES:2 notifications the total quantity of exports of the relevant 
products or product groups". 
Could Argentina explain why it decided not to submit this data in its ES:2 notification? 
Answer by Argentina 
With regard to the most recent notifications on export subsidies, please be advised that Argentina 
submitted the data corresponding to Table ES:2 in accordance with the current notification 
requirements adopted by the Committee on Agriculture (documents G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1). 
As the European Union states, the report by the CoA Chair dated March 2014 (document 
G/AG/W/123) includes in Annex 1 - with a view to facilitating consultations among Members without prejudice to their positions in relation to  the discussions on the list of significant exporters 
- a list of all Members which, on the basis of FA O statistics, have a share exceeding 5% in total 
world exports of the products or product groups agreed in 1995. On the basis of this new list, Argentina has been considered a significant expo rter in four new categories, namely wheat and 
wheat flour, other milk products, bovine meat, and wine. It is, however, important to point out 
that, as the Chair's document states, while important progress has been made on certain aspects of the review of the list of significant exporters, the Committee has unfortunately failed to achieve 
the necessary consensus to conclude work on this i ssue and, as a result, to update the notification 
requirements. Accordingly, Argentina submitted its Table ES:2 data in accordance with the current 
requirements set out in document G/AG/2/Add.1. 
Furthermore, as stated in the CoA Chair report circulated in March 2014, in the context of the 
discussions held by Members on the list of signific ant exporters, approaches to the disaggregation 
of the originally agreed product categories were also considered. Annex 3 to the Chair's report provides guidance on the proposed product definitions and disaggregation. As in the 
above-mentioned case, in its Table ES:2 notificati on Argentina has submitted export volume data 
by category, without disaggregation, given that di scussions on this issue are ongoing and have not 
been concluded to date and the adoption of new notification requirements has yet to be agreed. 
Without prejudice to the above and for informatio n purposes only, Argentina hereby provides the 
following data (see Annex I to this document): 
Quantity of total exports (corresponding to the marketing years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014) for 
the new product categories in respect of which, pursuant to the list in Annex 1 to document 
G/AG/W/123, Argentina would be considered a significant exporter. 
Disaggregation of export data (corresponding to the marketing years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014), 
in accordance with the guidance in Annex 3 to document G/AG/W/123, both for the categories 
in which Argentina was originally included and for the categories in which Argentina has recently 
been considered to be a significant exporter. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 58 - 
 
  Follow-up : The United States of America noted that Argentina's decision not to go by the Chair's 
suggestions for enhance transparency was disappointing. Argentina noted that it had a different 
opinion with regards to the rules in force, and to the chair's report on this matter. Pakistan stated 
that the work done to enhance transparency for Members exceeding 5% share in total world 
exports was useful, and urged Members to provide their data even though it was not mandated 
since it was important to maintain transparency in the review process. India noted that in previous 
exercises there had been no consensus on this i ssue, and thus no decision was adopted by the 
Committee. India stated that this issue would continue to remain as a best endeavour effort and 
left to the Member to decide whether it wanted to provide the information. 
2.5.2  Russian Federation (G/AG/N/RUS/6) AG-IMS ID 77048: Question by the Europe an Union - Quantity of total exports 
According to the report of the chairperson on the issue of reviewing the list of significant 
exporters (G/AG/W/123), the Russian Federa tion has been listed in Annex 1 among 
Members having a share exceeding 5% in tota l world exports for wheat and wheat flour. 
Does the Russian Federation intend to sepa rately submit ES:2 notification for 2014 
concerning the total quantity of exports of wheat and wheat flour? 
Answer by the Russian Federation 
The Russian Federation takes note of the European Union question and of the fact that there was 
no agreement reached on the issue of reviewing th e list of significant exporters as stated in the 
mentioned above report of the chairperson. Data on export volumes of wheat and wheat flour in the Russian Federation in 2014: 
Wheat and wheat flour, export volume (thousand tonnes) 
Russian Federation  2014 
Wheat 22,139.263 
Wheat flour 125.373 
Total 22,264.636 
 
Follow-up : The European Union, the United States, Pakistan and Canada welcomed Russia's 
information and praised its willingness to provide extra transparency. 
2.5.3  United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/99) AG-IMS ID 77060: Question by the European Union - International food aid The European Union notices that the United  States continues to notify significant 
amounts of in-kind food aid in Table ES:1  for 2011 and 2012. Have the United States 
undertaken any reforms regarding its food aid policy in recent years in order to reduce the amount of food aid provided in physical form and replace it with assistance in the 
form of cash contributions to international agencies? If not, are there any plans to do so 
in the future? 
Answer by the United States of America 
The United States of America has significantly in creased the amount of emergency food provided 
as vouchers, cash transfers, and in-kind throug h local and regional procurement over the past 
five years. Prior to 2010, all US food assistance  was tied to US in-kind commodities. However, new 
funding streams and changes in the Agricultural Act of 2014 diversified the modalities available for 
the provision of emergency food assistance. Additionally, the Administration has sought food aid 
reform since 2013 to further expand the United States' flexibility with respect to the provision of food assistance. The changes proposed by th e Administration require Congressional approval. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 59 - 
 
  3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1.1  Turkey AG-IMS ID 77089: Question by the United States of America Turkey has not yet responded to the question AG-IMS ID 76013 by the United States. 
The United States re-asks the question and notes that Turkey has not made a domestic 
support notification since 2001. This lack of  transparency for 14 years is of particular 
concern because Turkey ranks as the 7
th largest agricultural producer in the world and 
has undergone a number of changes in domest ic agricultural policy over that time. 
Turkey remains seriously overdue in notifying its domestic support and export subsidies. 
When does Turkey plan to submit its domest ic support and export subsidy notifications? 
Answer by Turkey 
Our relevant institutions are working on this issue. Turkey's notifications will be submitted to the 
Secretariat as soon as the assessments are completed. 
Follow-up : The United States of America, New Zealand, Australia, the European Union and Canada 
expressed their concern regarding Turkey's outstand ing notifications, and highlighted that Turkey 
was among the Members with the most number of pe nding notifications, a fact that resulted in 
lack of transparency. Members noted the import ance of transparency for the work of the 
Committee and for meaningful discussions in the negotiations, and called for those Members with 
outstanding notifications to bring them up to date.  G/AG/W/145 
 
- 60 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Table 1 Total Argentine exports, disaggregated  in accordance with Annex 3 to document 
G/AG/W/123 – Marketing year 2012-2013 
Description of products Quantity of total exports 
(tonnes) 
Wheat and wheat flour  1,010,427 
1001 Wheat 929,263 
1101 Wheat flour 81,163 
   
Coarse grains  26,954,652 
1003 Barley 3,597,070 
1005 Maize (corn) 20,883,698 
1002 Rye 676 
1004 Oats 1,500 
1008 Millet 6,580 
1007 Sorghum 2,465,127 
   
Oil-seeds  8,040,150 
1201 Soya beans  7,743,030 
1202 Groundnuts  193,828 
1206 Sunflower seeds 78,765 
1205 Rape or colza seeds 2,504 
1207  Other oil-seeds 12,025 
1204 Linseed 3,902 
1208 Flours and meals of oil-seeds  6,096 
   
Vegetable oils  4,813,414 
1515 Other vegetable oils  20,753 
1507 Soya bean oil 4,254,902 
1508 Groundnut oil 44,091 
1511 Palm oil 0.4 
1509 Olive oil  21,752 
1512 Sunflower seed, safflower seed or cotton seed oil 464,284 
1514 Colza oil 7,632 
   
Oil-cake  22,495,388 
2304 Soya bean cake 21,986,509 
2305 Groundnut cake  13,916 
2306 Other oil-cake 494,964 
   
Other milk products  947,017 
0401 Milk and cream, fresh 3,011 
0402.21 Whole milk powder 785,752 
0403  6,280 
0404  151,975 
   
Bovine meat  1,011,600 
0201  664,647 
0202  346,952 
   
Wine  885,099 
2204  884,218 
2205  881 
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Li vestock and Fisheries (MAGyP), based on data provided by the National 
Statistics and Census Institute (INDEC). 
(*) Year ending 30 November 2013. G/AG/W/145 
 
- 61 - 
 
  Table 2 Total Argentine exports, disaggregated  in accordance with Annex 3 to document 
G/AG/W/123 – Marketing year 2013-2014 
Description of products Quantity of total exports  
(tonnes) 
Wheat and wheat flour  639,810 
1001 Wheat 519,419 
1101 Wheat flour 120,391 
   
Coarse grains  19,261,262 
1003 Barley 2,890,072 
1005 Maize (corn) 15,213,794 
1002 Rye 320 
1004 Oats 1,880 
1008 Millet 667 
1007 Sorghum 1,154,530 
   
Oil-seeds   7,689,621 
1201 Soya beans  7,404,497 
1202 Groundnuts  160,548.1 
1206 Sunflower seeds 71,057 
1205 Rape or colza seeds 1,833 
1207 Other oil-seeds 19,308.3 
1204 Linseed 5,730 
1208 Flours and meals of oil-seeds  26,647 
   
Vegetable oils  4,502,901 
1507 Soya bean oil 4,036,735 
1508 Groundnut oil 74,788 
1513 Copra oil 0.004 
1509 Olive oil 13,423 
1512 Sunflower seed, safflower seed or cotton seed oil 342,511 
1514 Colza oil 7,001.1 
1515 Other vegetable oils  28,443.2 
   
Oil-cake  24,646,396 
2304 Soya bean cake 24,299,463 
2305 Groundnut cake  19,626 
2306 Other oil-cake 327,307 
   
Other milk products  937,223 
0401 Milk and cream, fresh 3,088 
0402.21 Whole milk powder 784,813 
0403  4,618 
0404  144,704 
   
Bovine meat  1,013,742 
0201  658,114 
0202  355,628 
   
Wine  849,155 
2204  848,568 
2205  588 
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Li vestock and Fisheries (MAGyP), based on data provided by the National 
Statistics and Census Institute (INDEC). 
(*) Year ending 30 November 2014. 
 
__________